Change gears on transportation solution

By: PHIL STRICKLAND - For The Californian | Friday, December 14, 2007 9:53 PM PST

Concrete serves two important functions in Southwest Riverside County.

It is the medium we use to cover all that growing stuff with highways that immediately fill to capacity and it provides an almost impermeable substance in which to bury any ideas that might undercut the notion that its first use is the only way to resolve the agony of our commutes.

Even as we suffer under the burden of a weakened housing market, projections are that growth here will continue and will require some sort of accommodation to, if not free up our highways, at least keep the arteries from clogging completely.

If our highway system were a patient, it would be in triage, but we all know that government is the mother of all overflowing waiting rooms.

So now officials representing Riverside County -- its cities, consultants, nervous builders and the transportation commission -- are trying to figure out a way to alleviate the problem.

Actually, according to them, the solution is clear: Pour more concrete.

The real problem, they say, is how to pay for it. More specifically, the real problem is which way they'll pick our pockets to come up with the estimated $13.8 billion they figure will be necessary just to keep our clogged state from worsening as our population grows.

One of the obvious ways is adding yet another fee to the cost of new housing.

The argument in favor of building yet another fee into the price of a new house in Riverside County is based on the reality that by adding to our problems we are serving as a safety valve for the economic engine driving Long Beach and Los Angeles and to a lesser degree San Diego.

If you subscribe to that notion, then the question becomes, why should we pay for the solution to their problem?

Good question.

The answer, according to advocates -- read: homebuilders -- of spreading the pain among existing homeowners, is that adding the fee to new homes might drive the cost out of reach of first-time homebuyers.

The other solution they see is to raise the taxes on everything in sight.

It is surprising that they haven't come up with a tax on taxes. Don't laugh, that is not an unheard of thing. They call it a surtax and it has been used elsewhere to pilfer money when officials don't want to be accused of raising taxes.

The pitiful part of this whole argument is that, once again, government has overlooked what could be a major component of the solution. That being rail -- light, mono, maglev or some combination thereof.

In our auto-addicted world, the idea of giving up our cars and using public transportation is heresy. Off with their heads.

You have to wonder how people in New York, Chicago, Montreal, Washington, D.C., and Toronto, to name a few, survive reading, chatting, putting on makeup or even having a drinkee-poo or two (on the way home, of course) as they ride the rails to and fro.

Rail, for all its advantages -- in fact, it is hard to find a real downside -- is but a part of the solution.

To complete the equation we must start charging tolls for some lanes, or even whole highways, and expand the use of car-pool lanes.

If, for example, we had a four-lane highway in each direction, one lane could be set aside for toll use, another for carpoolers and the other two for use as they are now.

Add a rail line and you are much closer to easing our transportation problem than by pouring another lane each way.

Of course, if the various components of commerce could be spread more evenly about the region that would help too. But the location of private enterprise is just that, a private decision.

The manner in which we deal with traffic isn't, but until we insist that public officials think beyond the concrete vault in which they've buried themselves, we need to come to grips with the idea that traffic will only get worse. As will the taxes and fees necessary to keep pouring concrete and promulgating the problem.

You really do get it coming and going.

Oh, there is one other use for concrete in Southern California. It fills the space between the ears of too many public servants when it comes to transportation issues.

Phil Strickland is a resident of Temecula and a regular columnist for The Californian. E-mail: philipestrickland@yahoo.com.

Bookmark and Share

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

Howiek wrote on Dec 15, 2007 5:56 AM:Phil, you say “You have to wonder how people in New York, Chicago, Montreal, Washington, D.C., and Toronto, to name a few, survive reading, chatting, putting on makeup or even having a drinkee-poo or two (on the way home, of course) as they ride the rails to and fro.” That is a true statement, but you are leaving something out of the equation. Those cities you site are fashioned after older east coast and European models that are far more conducive to mass transit—they are built from the city out to the suburbs, not the sprawl so prevalent to almost all cities west of the Mississippi. Too really put in an effective mass transit in most of the sprawled out western cities you really only have two choices—underground or elevated. I’m talking about hi-speed rail not something like the “puttering” San Diego Trolley that really doesn’t get the job done. In other words, if you want a hi-speed rail line from Temecula to San Diego the only choice will be elevated tracks following the existing freeways or Temecula to Long Beach—same idea!

Walt wrote on Dec 15, 2007 6:53 AM:Where did I ever hear journalists were supposed to base articles upon facts? And they are just a few miles west in Orange County and south in San Diego. #1, Nearly 3 million San Diego people have rejected the rail "solution" after 20 years pouring about one third of total transportation funds into rail to find less than 2% of travelers use it. The previously built 16 mile line to the Mexican border still carries more than the entire expansion, now 50 miles. Thus confirming what Howiek above says about demographics and mass transit use. #2,The SR-91 toll road has had to be bailed out by Orange County. A "profit guarantee" clause in the toll company contract was blocking expansion for those who wouldn't use the toll road. It's throughput now is at least 10% lower than the same number of general purpose lanes. Ditto the I-15 toll road north of San Diego. GP lane expansion nearly eliminated net income and SANDAG provided a grant to keep ineffective mass transit it was supporting running. Both toll facilities are increaseing congestion in their freeways.Unfortunately San Diego is expanding this concept to Escondido at great expense. Let's stop pouring funds into these proven mistakes, and instead pour concrete over rail lines for cars to use.

Floyd wrote on Dec 15, 2007 7:13 AM:I'd like to know more about this train in Temecula that the author so obviously enjoys while he reads, chats, and enjoys a drinkie-poo. Where does it go, where are the stations, when does it run, what does it cost, and does it pick you up where you are and take you where you want to go?

Derek wrote on Dec 15, 2007 7:36 PM:Walt, your "10% lower" throughput for a toll road in comparison to an equal number of general-purpose lanes is meaningless if the goal is to move around as many people, not cars, as possible.

George wrote on Dec 15, 2007 11:13 PM:Since the people are in the cars, moving more cars will move more people. Throughput is best measured by vehicles per hour.

Walt wrote on Dec 16, 2007 9:02 AM:Derek. The 10% is a conservative number of freeway total PEOPLE throughput. Proof from LA/Orange Co. extensive HOV installations on freeways. This despite a commendable increase in carpooling that ocurrs. HOV/HOT promoters unfortunatly stop after the correct statement that HOV/HOT lans carry more, (about 40% more), people than GP lanes. They ignore the impact of HOV/HOT lanes underutilized VEHICLE flow on the rest of the freeway which more than cancels this gain due to added congestion.

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos