CommentsPLATKIN ON PLANNING-Yes, traffic congestion in Los Angeles is bad and getting worse. In fact, Los Angeles has the worst traffic congestion of any US city. A recent study from the Washington State based Inryx institute concluded that Angelinos are, on average, stuck in traffic 104 hours per year, and that Los Angeles has the planet’s worst traffic congestion.
So, LA’s power brokers can boast that at least in one category Los Angeles is now a true global city. Of course, I don’t doubt there are those perpetual cynics who want to rain on this wonderful parade, and argue that Los Angeles – despite Beijing and Mexico City -- should instead claim world recognition for its poor air quality. They do have a case, too, since the only US cities with worse air than Los Angeles are Bakersfield and Fresno.
Given LA’s notorious traffic congestion and poor air quality, we should not be surprised at the long list of fake solutions to the city’s gridlock. While these phony fixes allow contractors to build freeways and investors to pursue lucrative but short-sighted real estate deals, we get nothing but hems and haws about what could truly reduce traffic congestion: spending serious money, such as Measure M and much more, on alternative transportation modes, especially transit, biking, and walking.
The major fake solutions?
Freeway widening: The $1.6 billion spent on widening the still gridlocked I-405 could have been devoted to re-engineering many miles of local boulevards to lure drivers and passengers out of their cars and into alternative transportation modes. What is now happening through the My Figueroa project between downtown Los Angeles and USC could have appeared throughout much of Los Angeles. At $5,000,000 per mile, 320 miles of major Los Angeles area arteries could have had a new, well maintained tree canopy, grade separated bike lanes, enhanced street lighting, legal ADA curb cuts, and repaired and widened sidewalks. If combined with improved bus service built on rider comfort, lower fares, and more frequent service, this array of carrots would have achieved far more than resuscitating a dinosaur, adding two more lanes to the still busiest freeway in the entire United States.
Encourage high-density residential buildings in neighborhoods “near” mass transit hubs, stations, and corridors.
This approach to link transportation and land use planning is usually called Transit Oriented Districts, although both Los Angele City Planning and METRO defer to the alternative term Transit Oriented Communities. In theory, these areas should be substantially improved through My Figueroa-type public improvements for walking, bicycling, and access to public transit.
But, as made clear by both agencies, their joint version of Transit Oriented Communities is really Transit Oriented Development. Their actual program is not major local public improvements for alternative transportation modes, but broad incentives to private investors for the construction of new market rate apartment buildings. In an amazing developer-friendly approach City Planning’s proposed guidelines have some startling features:
1) The incentive areas will radiate out in a half-mile radius from major bus stops, Bus Rapid Transit stops, Metrolink Rail stops, and Metro Rail stops. As a result, except for the San Fernando Valley, most of Los Angeles will become a vast TOC incentive area.
2) In these incentive areas, residential projects with more than five units can increase the number of rental units between 50 to 80 percent, while the building’s mass (FAR) can reach a ratio between 2.5 to 4.0.
3) Other incentives include reductions in required parking, yards and setbacks, open space, lot coverage, lot width, density, height, and transitional height.
In effect, this ordinance will completely undercut the existing zoning code’s residential requirements in much of Los Angeles, as well as some of re:code LA. It will also sidestep the City’s current efforts to update LA’s General Plan in several dangerous ways:
1) There is no monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of these incentivized residential projects. Are the new affordable units actually there? Are they reducing homelessness and overcrowding? Were their occupants subjects to an income verification review? Do any of the residents in these new buildings regularly use transit? We have no way to answer these basic questions because there will be no monitoring to determine the TOC ordinance’s effectiveness, and there will be no on-site inspections of the supposed affordable units. None of this is new, of course, since the lack of monitoring or on-site affordable housing inspections is already standard practice in LA. The only difference is that will now be much more speculative real estate to sweep under the carpet.
2) If these new residential projects actually increase local populations, there is no concern over the additional public services and infrastructure required to service these residents, even though this approach should be the essence of Transit Oriented Districts. Improved bicycle infrastructure and sidewalks? Tree canopies? Undergrounding utility wires? Park ‘n ride and Kiss ‘n Ride for mass transit stations? Street and parking capacity? Electricity, water, and telecommunications? Schools, parks, and libraries? Emergency services, especially to deal with special events, floods, fires, and earthquakes? Their status will continue to be, to quote Donald Rumsfeld, unknown unknowns.
Stop high-density buildings so Los Angeles will not become another New York City.
The grass roots campaigns against bad planning in Los Angeles are clearly moving in the right direction. But in some cases they have seen a few trees, but missed the forest with anti-density slogans like Not Yet New York and Manhattanwood. These well-intention community activists see the high-rise buildings of New York City, especially Manhattan, but forget that its high density is far more than high-rise buildings. New York City also has one of the planet’s best mass transit systems, as well as a dense network of public amenities. These include wide, well-maintained sidewalks, with ADA curb cuts and a tree canopy. It includes a vast network of small neighborhood parks and playgrounds, as well as local schools, libraries, and fire stations. Furthermore, in NYC, there are hardly any overhead utility lines or the visual pollution of super-graphics and billboards, except in Times Square.
In other words, in NYC density refers to both private and public spheres, while LA’s density hawks, as well some as their opponents, only imagine that density refers to private real estate projects, not the entire built environment.
Reduce the amount of required parking, while increasing its cost.
This is a great bargain for real estate developers because it reduces their construction costs, without paying for any public improvements to make non-car alternatives more appealing. This stick only forces habituated car drivers to spend more time driving in circles looking for a place to park. The real solution is the carrot of changing the built environment – most of which is public space – to make alternatives to driving cars appealing in their own right.
As for the real solutions, they are either ignored or left poorly funded so they cannot be put to the test.
There is no evidence that building more market rate apartments within a half-mile of bus stops and mass transit stations increases ridership or reduces homelessness. So far, it is just an empty claim that also turns the relationship between mass transit and land use on its head. The purpose of housing should be put a roof over people’s heads, not fill up busses and subway cars. This is why the Los Angeles proponents of “Transit Oriented Communities” never bother to verify their claims that affluent tenants will switch to transit if it is “close” to their condo or apartment. As a result neither of their twin goals will be met: reducing traffic congestion and reducing homelessness and overcrowding.
The real purpose of most of these fake solutions to traffic congestion is to put a fig leaf over real estate speculation, and this is why it is not the serious planning that could result from a systematic update of LA’s legally required General Plan. If City Hall really wanted an authentic connection between housing and transit, they would only build affordable housing near transit, and they would extensively upgrade neighborhoods on transit corridors to make alternatives to cars more appealing. As written above, this means wider, smoother sidewalks, ADA curb cuts, pedestrian safety improved streetlights, tree canopies, undergrounding utility lines, playgrounds, safe bike lanes. Certainly not cheap, but at least not a waste of money, like freeway widening.
The idea of making the entire built environment supportive of transit, walking, and bicycling is hardly a new insight. What would be new, however, is forcing our elected official to look at the TOC folly they are about to unleash. While it might result in more market rate apartments, it will not reduce traffic congestion and freeway gridlock in Los Angeles.
Remember you read it here. This fake solution will make LA’s traffic situation worse, not better.
(Dick Platkin is a former Los Angeles city planner who reports on local planning issues for City Watch. Please send any comments or corrections to [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
-cw
Los Angeles Still Suffering from Fake Traffic Solutions
