We May Have to Destroy the Freeway in Order to Save It
As the 710 freeway project lurches towards what will probably be yet another check on its stumble towards completion, it is time to consider what would be a far better way to "improve" it (oh, dangerous verb when used by highway planners!) than any previously suggested in its nearly five-decade history so far--certainly better than digging a massive tunnel, and far superior to steamrolling thousands of businesses and many thousands of homes in some of the few livable neighborhoods left in that part of Los Angeles.
If we really want to improve traffic flow between Long Beach and the San Gabriel Valley, we should tear down the entire 710 freeway, because it is inherently inadequate to the task.
Before you shout, "Unprecedented!," let me point out that there is in fact considerable precedent for tearing down freeways:
- In 1974, Portland, OR, not only dismantled a freeway but cancelled plans to build five more that would have effectively dissected the city. Instead, they put the money into an integrated bus, light rail, and streetcar system and a reconfiguration of streets to facilitate bicycle transit. The result today? A vigorous, lively downtown, diverse and and pleasurable neighborhoods, a booming economy, and a rating as the most livable city in the US.
- In 1989, San Francisco took the lemon presented by a massive earthquake that knocked down the Embarcadero Freeway, and, instead of rebuilding it, made very sweet lemonade indeed, carting away the rubble and demolishing what was left standing by the shaker. The revived Embarcadero is a centerpiece of San Francisco's civic life and its economy.
- New York tore down a freeway in the 1970s and is preparing to tear down the Sheridan Expressway in the Bronx.
- Seattle and Cleveland are both planning to tear down freeways by 2012, and Milwaukee unburdened itself of one in 2002--and, notes then-mayor John Norquist, congestion didn't jump. Instead, traffic dispersed around city streets and business got better.
"The basic problem with urban/suburban freeways is that they take up so much space for the capacity they deliver. At 1500 cars per lane per hour, a six lane freeway's maximum capacity is about 11,000 people per hour...within a 300 foot right of way. Urban rail systems can deliver as much or more capacity in 100 foot or less of [right of way]. ...Heavy rail systems like the Washington Metrorail have five times the capacity of a six lane freeway in about one third the space and cost about the same per mile as the Century Freeway in Los Angeles."It's worth specifying that only Interstate highways pay more than half their cost through what you would call "farebox return" in transit systems, that is, the fees charged to users. In the case of roads that comes through vehicle registration fees and fuel taxes. Urban freeways pay about half, and local roads and highways less than half, often as little as 16%--and that's just of the cost of building and maintaining roads, and doesn't count normally externalized costs such as police patrol, emergency response, mitigation of air and water pollution and flooding caused by extensive paving of watershed, or property values lowered by the adjacency of busy freeways and interchanges. Nor does it count the loss of property taxes incurred when homes and businesses are paved over for cars and trucks.
Freeways impose public health costs too, as two separate surveys that life expectancies are lower, and cancer rates higher, along the 710 freeway corridor. From the National Resources Defense Council:
"There are numerous schools and day care facilities less than one-quarter of a mile from the I-710. The 1.6 million residents along the I-710 Corridor are disproportionately impacted by local sources of pollution and as a result have higher coronary heart disease, emphysema and diabetes mortality rates compared to LA County. Mothers who live close to freeway traffic during pregnancy have more premature and low birth weight babies than the general population."In other words, freeways depress economies and lower tax receipts, while costing heaps of money--which makes freeway fanatic Wendell Cox's plan for Atlanta, which would result in a kind of hell, doubly puzzling. To quote the conservative analysts Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind:
"Cox believes it would be realistic to create a grid of arterial roads six to eight lanes wide, no more than one mile apart, throughout metro Atlanta. He also says there should be another grid of freeways crisscrossing the region. . . He calls for building freeways underground in double-decked tunnels and double-decking other above-ground freeways. He advocates adding another deck exclusively for trucks. . . In essence, Cox is suggesting that between now and 2025, we should raze Atlanta as we know it and replace it with Los Angeles--on steroids."How much would that cost? Even more than the various proposals for the 710 extension, some estimates for which exceed $20 billion. Better to tear it down than to throw good money after bad.
But what about freight, the real reason for the 710? (Despite some proponents' bland assertions that trucks would be banned from the extension.)
The solution is simple: heavy rail for freight, to complement light rail for people. Build another Alameda Corridor trench along the 710's route, run light rail on spans above the trench for passengers, add a bicycle freeway alongside, and throw in a two-lane road for local travel. You could even electrify the freight route, lessening its impact even farther, and run shuttle trains (operated by the city or a contractor) between the harbors and the big main freight yards in Colton, or the proposed "inland ports."
After all, even diesel trains use one-quarter the fuel that trucks do per ton-mile of freight, and are more efficient than cars (by far!) or buses for moving people. Electrified trains, even when using fossil-fuel generated power, are more efficient still.
Instead of crushing neighborhoods with noise, pollution, and induced traffic on feeder roads, or walling them off with highways an eighth of a mile wide, you would increase the freight and passenger capacity of the corridor, reduce pollution and noise, lessen congestion, and free up precious land for tax-paying homes and businesses, schools and civic facilities, and parks, and even urban farms.
Radical? Maybe.... Sensible, responsible, and profitable: you bet!
Originally published in the Los Angeles Business Journal
