I'm not crazy about Arnold's bond but it could work. It's like taking a home equity loan to consolidate your credit cards. It works if you don't run up the credit cards again.
I am concerned that there's no plan for the freeway system:
California has doubled its automotive travel in the last two decades, but the carrying capacity of its roadway network has fallen far behind the pace, leading to ever-increasing traffic congestion. Meanwhile, as the state adds 600,000 people to its population every year, it also adds a half-million more cars -- about 1,300 a day -- so traffic jams are getting bigger and lasting longer.
The state desperately needs a new transportation policy, the money to implement it, and an overhaul of the Department of Transportation. The department is beset by shaky finances, running feuds over privatization, and testy relationships with local and regional transportation agencies.
Posted by Justene Adamec at November 30, 2003 11:42 AM | TrackBackWhich is why i'm concerned about the continued reassignment of proposition 42 funds as 'loans' to the general fund.
Posted by: aphrael at November 30, 2003 12:50 PM (Permalink)The system has also invested much of its infrastructure money in carpool lanes, which may be useful in some ares, but are often of dubious utility. Adding carpool interchange ramps is particularly expensive.
One idea that hasn't been tried enough in Southern California are through-route surface streets wih limited crossing points. Removing many signals on WiIshire, for example, and making some cross streets separated (over or under) with no access to WIlshire might be a better use of funds.
The "expressways" in SIlicon Valley were intened to be this type of road, but the effect was negated by adding too many intersections, all with 4-way signals.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at November 30, 2003 08:36 PM (Permalink)Kevin, fewer signals might be a good idea, but turning Wilshire into an expressway would be a horrible thing. It would be too fast and it would detract from what is (re)emerging as a mixed-use residential/commercial pedestrian environment in certain areas. The over-under idea might be functional, but would have the effect of isolating the surrounding residential neighborhoods from the commercial corridor. This just makes people more automobile dependent and therefore makes the roads more congested.
-The Red Line needs to go through to Beverly Hills whether they want it or not.
-Perhaps limited removal of some traffic signals.
- Truck lanes on the 60 Freeway even if it means using imminent domain to get the right of way needed.
- Increase the number of people living (and working) downtown by about 10,000 like Oakland did.
Posted by: Patrick at December 1, 2003 10:14 AM (Permalink)We need a state wide, integrated, high speed passenger train system. Something that we are not likely to see in my lifetime. When I commuted from Orange County to downtown LA, I tried the Metrolink to the Red Line. Despite being too slow, the Metrolink to Red Line worked and was packed. On rainy days it worked MUCH better than commuting by car. There just were not enough trains and they did not run late enough. I say start with a fresh route from downtown SD to downtown LA to downtown SF and LA to Las Vegas immeidately. Put in a stop at Camp Pendelton for a new SD/OC international airport. Expand from there. It's about time that we caught up with France for train travel.
Posted by: Breaker at December 1, 2003 12:39 PM (Permalink)