Boston92
Topic Author
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:55 am

Is the traffic in the Southland a really BIG problem that needs a fix?

I fly about once a week. I estimate 75% from SBA, 15% from SMX, and the other 10% from LAX. On my last journey down to LAX, a 100 mile trip, took a little less than SIX hours. I did not stop once (other than the stopping done on the 405). My flight from LAX departed at 7:50p. On the way down, United called me three times delaying it to 8:50p. Good thing because I got to the airport landside at 8:15p, and was in the secure area by 8:25p.

Traffic started in Santa Barbara, CA and was pretty much off and on for the 4 hours down to the 405. Once on the 405, the 16 mile drive to LAX took 2 hours.

This was the worst time I have ever made. I have made it in 2 before, but mostly between 2 and 3.

Does something need to be done about Los Angeles' traffic problem or do we Californians just have to live with it and leave the house 7 hours before our flight leaves?
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:18 am

Traffic is quite bad in LA, but I dont think it's the worst in the nation. However, yes traffic does get quite bad in LA, specifically the 405 close to LAX, the 10 and 60 just east of Downtown LA, not to mention the other freeways that get clogged. I really hate driving in Metropolitan LA, but out here in the Inland Empire near San Bernardino, not too much traffic to worry about.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
Frontiercpt
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:47 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:18 am

Honestly, what can be done to clear up a huge metropolis? Besides building multilevel freeways and offering high speed rail service up and down the coast, we're left with either paying $400 for a round trip ticket from a CA city to LA, or dealing with the 7 hours of traffic.

My grandmother is going to Torrance tomorrow (I'm in San Diego), and we looked into taking the Surfliner, but the nearest station to Torrance that wouldn't involve backtracking, is Fullerton, which is about 30 miles away. For $24 plus tax, that's a pretty good deal, and it only takes 2:30. By car to Torrance, you would theoretically only need about the same time, but add in tourists, traffic, and more tourists (the 3 T's), it could take much longer, not to mention it would involve driving lol. It looked like I was going to have to drive her up, and I was really unhappy about having to potentially deal with LA traffic (San Diego traffic gets bad but I can't complain in relation to LA lol).

So basically, we are left with a handful of extremely lame options (driving/traffic, expensive airline tickets, etc), meaning that yes, we hafta suck it up and add the extra 7 hours of commute time  Yeah sure

Unless of course someone creates a 10 tier freeway, but knowing us, we would clog that up just as much Big grin

Sean
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:20 am

Quoting Boston92 (Thread starter):
Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Question asked and answered.  Wink

Quoting Boston92 (Thread starter):
Does something need to be done about Los Angeles' traffic problem or do we Californians just have to live with it and leave the house 7 hours before our flight leaves?

You've made your bed now go sleep in it.  Wink

My wife didn't believe me that it could take 90 minutes to go the 30 some odd miles from Anaheim to Hollywood a couple of weeks ago. Once we left the "Wall of Orange" it was bumper to bumper the entire way at slow enough speeds to get carjacked on the I-5 going through South Central.  Wink
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:32 am

I prefer to marvel at how fast those long narrow parking lots move.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
lgbga
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:10 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:47 am

By the Texas Transportation Institute's reckoning, the cities having the worst traffic problems are:

1. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Calif.

2. San Francisco, Oakland, Calif.

3. Washington, D.C.

4. Atlanta

5. Houston

6. Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Tex.

7. Chicago.

8. Detroit

9. Riverside, San Bernardino, Calif.

9. Orlando, Fla.

11. San Jose, Calif.

12. San Diego

California has a decided edge in winning the award for the worst traffic, since five of its cities (or city regions) make the top 12 list. Several of the cities mentioned are well known as trucking, rail, air and sometimes sea hubs for logistics. The convergence of services taxes the infrastructure.

http://www.forbes.com/logistics/2006...-nightmares-cx_rm_0207traffic.html

This article mentions it and one thing I noticed when driving in LA traffic, is that the traffic is constant, whereas in ATL there are rush hours and times when traffic clears up. I guess the traffic is the swap out for your perfect So Cal weather.
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:57 am

Quoting Frontiercpt (Reply 2):
offering high speed rail service up and down the coast,

There lies the problem, the lack of Public Transportation. If you compare it with NYC, LA is a much bigger area, but if I remember that even with so much Public Transport in NY, traffic is still a big mess in NY. If they started making public transportation more accessible, then the traffic problem could be cleared to a certain extent.

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 3):
low enough speeds to get carjacked on the I-5 going through South Central. Wink

LOL, have there been any instances when ppl have actually been carjacked on the Freeway traveling at low speeds?
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
therock401
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:36 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:21 am

Last March, I was in Southern California to see The Price is Right and to go to a couple of events in different parts of the basin. I had a seperate car from the other people I was there with.

Anyway, on Friday night after being at Knott's Berry Farm all day, we drove from our previous hotel near Knott's in Buena Park to our new hotel in Valencia near Six Flags Magic Mountain. The other guys drove right through downtown on the I-5, and I ducked onto east 91 to north 57, past San Dimas to the 210, then west through Pasadena and Burbank to meet up with the I-5 at the head of the San Fernando Valley. To make a long story short, I pulled into the hotel just behind the other guys, despite taking a route that was 26 miles further. I was actually clicking along at 70-78 mph the whole time. The only reason they beat me to the hotel was that I missed the Magic Mountain Parkway exit, and had to go up to the next one and double back. Damn CalTrans deciding to not have another lane at that exit and that exit only...  Angry

What amazed me about that drive (and my day of roaming around on Saturday) was just how damn big the LA basin is, and how it goes on for miles and miles with the same densities, types of houses, etc.

At least SoCal drivers are predictable. By that I mean they are usually pretty good at sorting themselves out by lane speed when cars get bunched up. Sometimes I think drivers here in Seattle don't know what way is forward.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:24 pm

I think, in some ways, the probalem cannot be fixed, just curbed. No one wants to spend their tax money on improving the flow of traffic. Note that, the flow of traffic doesn't care for how many new cars enter the roads due to non-resident, new residents or current residents buying new cars. I've read some people would like those moving here to go away -- yeah that helps maintain the current problem, doesn't fix anything.  Yeah sure

Others have mentioned public transportation, but it for the most part is expensive and don't go everywhere. Well wouldn't that be chicken-egg then? Currently, here in San Diego, it gets more expensive (which reduces the riders, which makes the fares go up -- see trend) and some routes close out while those popular ones expand. Drivers need a compelling enough reason to ditch their car (with their own AC and nobody to bother them) for a ride on a bus which may start out expensive but if enough got on the fare woudl drop. Would you do invest in this? If not, then it is also why people continue to drive and insist on not carpooling - hence traffic.

I don't agree with widening the freeways a single lane on both sides every couple of years. I'm more inclined that a double deck freeways be installed for those planning on longer trips, increase flow without using more land or making new freeway lines through a neighborhood or a forest. Noise reduction fences can be added on the sides to prevent neighboring communities from bitching about the supposed increase in noise.  Yeah sure

For distances out to LA or farther, I vote on trains, specifically a faster one. I think part of san diego's future airport "problems" can be negated with better-faster (and with future technology assuming a significant number of people choose train over bumper-to-bumper)-cheaper rides. But this line has to be elevated, for safety and allowing higher velocities, without going through crosses all the time.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7071
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:01 pm

Orlando is a mess at 5PM. Never been to LAX nor do I hope to experience it there. Is it worse than NY?

Hunter
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
57AZ
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:27 pm

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 6):
There lies the problem, the lack of Public Transportation.

Well, back seventy years ago, LA and the Inland Empire HAD high speed transit provided by the Pacific Electric lines. Sadly, the morons in charge of the state's transportation department at the time allowed it to be eliminated piece by piece, replacing it in areas with a "free" way. What irony. LA made it's bed and can lay in it for all I care. Too bad for the later generations that have to suffer due to their ancestors and their bad choices. As for San Francisco, it could be worse. At least their citizens woke up and put a stop to City Hall's insanity when they tried to pull the plug on San Francisco Municipal Railway's cable cars. They realized that they had a transportation treasure that made the city unique and refused to let a few idiots ruin things for the city. As one San Franciscan said, "Without the cable cars, we're just an LA with hills."
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:51 pm

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 12):
Well, back seventy years ago, LA and the Inland Empire HAD high speed transit provided by the Pacific Electric lines. Sadly, the morons in charge of the state's transportation department at the time allowed it to be eliminated piece by piece, replacing it in areas with a "free" way. What irony. LA made it's bed and can lay in it for all I care. Too bad for the later generations that have to suffer due to their ancestors and their bad choices. As for San Francisco, it could be worse. At least their citizens woke up and put a stop to City Hall's insanity when they tried to pull the plug on San Francisco Municipal Railway's cable cars. They realized that they had a transportation treasure that made the city unique and refused to let a few idiots ruin things for the city. As one San Franciscan said, "Without the cable cars, we're just an LA with hills."

I'have a feeling that somone is trying to restrict the existence of high-speed and easily accessible public transport.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
Frontiercpt
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:47 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Aug 25, 2007 3:18 pm

Quoting LAXspotter (Reply 6):
There lies the problem, the lack of Public Transportation.

Exactly! LA has 6 metro lines- the Red, Orange, Gold, Green, Blue, and Purple (ah the gay rainbow), whereas New York City has....well...I'm not even going to count them because there are too many. LA has enough people to warrant a tangled spaghetti style subway system ala NYC, but only has a modified T-shape route system. Even San Diego only has three Trolley lines, the Green, Blue, and Orange. They work pretty well and cover the commuters from most parts of the city, but there are still vast parts of San Diego left untouched by a rapid-commute system. The Coaster covers the beach cities, but people in northern San Diego are miles from anything besides a bus route.

And if people had the option of sitting on a cramped commuter train between four people while trying to draft the next document to save the world, OR relaxing behind the wheel of their brand new BMW (though sitting stuck in traffic)....I don't think many people would be willing to give up their superfluous luxuries...

~Sean
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:47 am

Quoting Frontiercpt (Reply 14):
Exactly! LA has 6 metro lines- the Red, Orange, Gold, Green, Blue, and Purple (ah the gay rainbow), whereas New York City has....well...I'm not even going to count them because there are too many. LA has enough people to warrant a tangled spaghetti style subway system ala NYC, but only has a modified T-shape route system.

Well believe it or not, they are in the final stages of beginning a line to run from Wilshire & Western --> WEST and right through Beverly Hills (which I don't know how they're gonna pull that off - NIMBY-wise) continuing west all the way to Santa Monica. This will undisputedly be the most popular route ever! What the City needs to build is a North/South line running from Westwood/West LA to LAX on to Long Beach station..that would suck off so much 405 traffic it would practically end discussion of ever building another freeway. Just for the hell of it I took the Hollywood/Vine subway to Downtown LA (it actually starts in the Valley) - just to try it out (and believe me..earthquake was on my mind the entire time I was underground)- but I was amazed at how clean and efficient it was...no reason on the planet not to expand it!

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
mham001
Posts: 4348
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sun Aug 26, 2007 1:03 am

Quoting Lgbga (Reply 5):
By the Texas Transportation Institute's reckoning, the cities having the worst traffic problems are:

1. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Calif.

2. San Francisco, Oakland, Calif.

3. Washington, D.C.

4. Atlanta

5. Houston

6. Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Tex.

7. Chicago.

8. Detroit

9. Riverside, San Bernardino, Calif.

9. Orlando, Fla.

11. San Jose, Calif.

12. San Diego

I have to strongly question the veracity of this report. Seattle is not even on the list and is easily worse than San Jose, mainly due to its idiot drivers.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sun Aug 26, 2007 1:31 am

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 16):
Seattle is not even on the list and is easily worse than San Jose, mainly due to its idiot drivers.

I had to question my wisdom when I moved to Seattle a few years ago. The first sign of "civilization" as I came down off Snoqualmie Pass was a sign that said:

PLEASE DRIVE WRECKS
TO SIDE OF ROAD

Seemed like a bad omen!

Taking that as a warning I ended up with a quarter mile drive to work.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Frontiercpt
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:47 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:04 am

Quoting BN747 (Reply 15):
that would suck off so much 405 traffic

Lord knows that would save the world and halt the apocalypse!  angel 
 
747srule
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:42 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:16 am

A lot of problems. First off, too many on and off ramps. Ever heard of limited access freeways? It seems like there is an off ramp every half mile.Come on!! Next thing, too many people( I refuse to call them drivers)not knowing where they are going.Moving over three lanes to exit.ABSOLUTELY NOTHING pisses me off as much as this. Multi-tasking while behind the wheel is trouble waiting to happen. Rubber necking is also a major problem.This happened to me yesterday on I-10 in Montclair. Cost me 20 minutes.My solution is to install something like a blackbox or CVR in EVERY car. If you cause an on purpose(there is no such thing as an accident) you are liable for ALL financial restitution. This means all the police and emergency vehicles,damages to other cars,and any other incidentals. Also, you lose your license immediately forever. Public transportation will be your best friend. Imagine the embarrassment when you explain that you were at fault in a wreck and you can't drive anymore. I suspect once people get wind of this,conditions will surely improve.
Jesus is the way,the truth,and the life
 
Boston92
Topic Author
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:22 am

On my way from LAX a few weeks ago, we hit about 1 hour of bumber to bumper on the 101. Want to know why? A CHP was sitting on the side of the highway. No accident, no nothing. A simple cop slowed traffic down for MILES. These are the types of things that can be easily fixed.

Also, when any highway is three or more lanes, Trucks and other vehicles with trailers need to be FORBIDDEN from the left lane.

Cops also need to enforce the "Slower Traffic Keep Right" rule. Blocking traffic is more dangerous than speeding.

Something BIG needs to be done to improve the problems. Small improvements such as the Orange Line, cost way too much money for a result that does barely nothing.
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
 
57AZ
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:47 am

The vast problem lies in funding the construction of such a subway. LA has the added problem of seismic activity, which requires that the tunnels be resistant to damage resulting from seismic activity below the minimum threshold. You also have to relocate utilities along the proposed routes. As for comfort, many commuter trains are fairly comfortable-it all depends on the style of seat that the agency decides to go with. To replace the network that the Pacific Electric and Los Angeles Street Railway had with a comprehensive modern subway network will cost billions of dollars.

As for the New York subway, bear in mind that with the exception of the IND (Independant Subway Company-owned by the City of New York), the rest of the network was privately built and operated until the 1940s. The majority of the current system is former IRT (Interborough Rapid Transit) and BMT (Brooklyn Metropolitan Transit) lines that were originally built and operated as fierce competitors. Speed, safety and convienence were the main concerns. Rather than use expensive tunnel boring (except for under the rivers), the companies used the more efficient "cut and cover" methods. The lines were bought out by NYC in the late 1920s. Thus the city got a network that was constructed with the efficiency and economy of private operation at a fraction of what it would have cost the city to build itself.
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
 
DL777LAX
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:45 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:09 am

The key to getting around LA is the side street. Best invention ever. (you know what i mean by that, right?) Anyway, the key to driving in Los Angeles is know the side streets, learn them, love them. If the 405 is jammed, and your going to Valencia, no problem, there are quite a number of passes over the mountains, Sepulveda Pass isn't the only connector between the westside and the valley. Going between Santa Monica and Downtown? is the 10 clogged? no worries, Ocean Park moves, Pico has tons of parallel side streets to take you downtown. you just have to stake an alternative to the freeway to live here.
Blindly following anything is bad, unless of course your blind and your following a guide dog.
 
Charles79
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:15 am

The LA traffic problem has been a problem for far too long, yet it seems that progress is made at snail-pace. Who's to blame? Way too long a list to even bother. The reasons for this problem have already been outlined here:
- too many people using a freeway system designed for fewer residents
- not enough public transportation to make it a viable option
- cars are still cheap enough, and gas still cheap enough to keep folks in their cars
- the suburban nature of the city, and everybody chasing the "american dream" of a house with a white picket fence
- seismic area makes subways expensive and double decker highways not attractive
- Resident groups that oppose highway expansions and rail lines near their residences
- and did I say too many people?

To fix it our officials will have to look at other major metro areas (NYC, Tokyo, London, etc) and look at other countries (like Germany), copy what can be done in LA, and implement it. Ultimately, the inadequate infrastructure will be the driver of an exodus from LA, cause I can't imagine many people accepting this for too long (I know I'm outta here once my current contract is over). The LA traffic is here to stay (much like in NYC, Tokyo, and London); what we can do is provide the alternatives so that future generations can ditch the car and catch a bus/train/rail etc to whatever they're going. It must be done.
 
Boston92
Topic Author
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:31 pm

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 23):
Who's to blame?

I don't know, but the Mayor needs to stop sleeping with Telemundo reporters, and start doing something productive. Since he has been mayor, has he really done anything productive?
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:38 pm

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 24):
I don't know, but the Mayor needs to stop sleeping with Telemundo reporters, and start doing something productive. Since he has been mayor, has he really done anything productive?

I dont know, but the media really doesnt focus on what the mayor is achieving.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
57AZ
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:38 am

LA can certainly improve their lot, but they will never be able to achieve the results of London or New York. London's underground was started in the 1860s and grew with the city-that's the first subway in the world incidentally. Likewise, NYC built their subways while the city was still in it's initial growth phase.
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Tue Aug 28, 2007 11:23 am

I've been lucky the last few times I drove through LA. Sure there was traffic but not the usual congestion. I'm driving through LA this weekend...knock on wood.

US 101


I-405


I-5
Ain't I a stinker?
 
Charles79
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:40 pm

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 25):
knock on wood.

Wish you good luck...by the way, I bet that you took those pics in Georgia and added the LA freeway signs, right? I'm just kidding, it's just so unreal to see those freeways so empty in broad daylight!!

Hope you have fun in LA...and a good book to read on the 405!

Cheers!

Charles
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:16 am

Hope you have fun in LA...

Just passing through...going to San Diego.
Ain't I a stinker?
 
travelin man
Posts: 3203
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:31 am

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 20):
The key to getting around LA is the side street. Best invention ever. (you know what i mean by that, right?) Anyway, the key to driving in Los Angeles is know the side streets, learn them, love them. If the 405 is jammed, and your going to Valencia, no problem, there are quite a number of passes over the mountains, Sepulveda Pass isn't the only connector between the westside and the valley. Going between Santa Monica and Downtown? is the 10 clogged? no worries, Ocean Park moves, Pico has tons of parallel side streets to take you downtown. you just have to stake an alternative to the freeway to live here.

I have to totally concur with this statement. In general the folks that complain about LA traffic are the people that try to take the 405 through the Sepulveda Pass during rush hour, or try taking the 10 on the Westside at 4pm on a Friday, or hit the 101 through Hollywood at 5pm.

There are just freeways you simply avoid. The 101, 405, and 10 are some of those freeways. But, the good thing about LA, is that in general there is almost always an alternate route available. The problem is that for tourists or visitors, that is not really helpful, because in general those folks stick to the (congested) main freeways.

The 210 to the 2 is a decent alternate to the 5. The 118 can get you around the mess that is the 101. Fountain is a great alternative to Santa Monica Blvd. or Sunset. The 605 to the 91 can cut a lot of time off the 5 through Norwalk.

It's just something you learn. I sympathize with the original poster, because yes, traffic does suck. For him I'd also suggest taking PCH (highway 1) from Oxnard directly into LAX to avoid the 101-405 cluster#$#$. It's a very scenic drive and tends to move well.
 
Boston92
Topic Author
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:40 am

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 28):

Or when coming from the north, to take Malibu. That would have shaved 3 hours off my trip to LAX that I mentioned at the start.
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:03 am

Quoting Boston92 (Thread starter):
Is the traffic in the Southland a really BIG problem that needs a fix?

Of course it is.

Quoting Boston92 (Thread starter):
On my last journey down to LAX, a 100 mile trip, took a little less than SIX hours. I did not stop once (other than the stopping done on the 405).

Why in the world didn't you use PCH? Also, it shouldn't have taken you 6 hours, even in bad traffic.

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 9):
Is it worse than NY?

It is different.

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 10):

Well, back seventy years ago, LA and the Inland Empire HAD high speed transit provided by the Pacific Electric lines. Sadly, the morons in charge of the state's transportation department at the time allowed it to be eliminated piece by piece, replacing it in areas with a "free" way.

Actually, the sad thing was what National City Lines (AKA GM, Firestone, Standard Oil and Phillips Oil) did to the network. They got their wish. L.A. has what is likely the most extensive bus network in the world.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 13):
WEST and right through Beverly Hills (which I don't know how they're gonna pull that off - NIMBY-wise)

Beverly Hills is on board for the Wilshire Blvd. Subway.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 13):

Well believe it or not, they are in the final stages of beginning a line to run from Wilshire & Western

Unfortunately, that one line really isn't enough.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 18):

Also, when any highway is three or more lanes, Trucks and other vehicles with trailers need to be FORBIDDEN from the left lane.

They are.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 18):

Cops also need to enforce the "Slower Traffic Keep Right" rule.

Unfortunately, they don't

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 19):
LA has the added problem of seismic activity, which requires that the tunnels be resistant to damage resulting from seismic activity below the minimum threshold.

If the Transbay Tube could be build to withstand the Loma Prieta quake better than any other part of the San Francisco infrastructure, they can tunnel under Los Angeles.

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 19):
You also have to relocate utilities along the proposed routes.

Or you can go deep under them, like in London.

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 19):
To replace the network that the Pacific Electric and Los Angeles Street Railway had with a comprehensive modern subway network will cost billions of dollars.

So what? It will save billions more in lost time and productivity.

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 19):
Rather than use expensive tunnel boring (except for under the rivers), the companies used the more efficient "cut and cover" methods.

Tunnel boring need not be expensive and cut and cover creates massive problems of its own, not to mention that L.A. is so built up that cut and cover would be rather impossible.

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 19):
The vast problem lies in funding the construction of such a subway.

This would not be an issue if there was not a ban on spending the MTA rail tax on tunneling.

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 20):
The key to getting around LA is the side street. Best invention ever. (you know what i mean by that, right?)

Absolutely.

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 20):
Sepulveda Pass isn't the only connector between the westside and the valley.

Hey, I travel the Pass everyday, I just usually end up using Sepulveda Blvd. as opposed to going upstairs to the 405

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 21):

To fix it our officials will have to look at other major metro areas (NYC, Tokyo, London, etc) and look at other countries (like Germany), copy what can be done in LA, and implement it.

Actually, the best place to copy would be Berlin, as it is a similarly built and spread out city.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 21):
Ultimately, the inadequate infrastructure will be the driver of an exodus from LA, cause I can't imagine many people accepting this for too long

Does that explain why the area keeps on growing? L.A. has far too many good points to drive some sort of exodus.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 22):

I don't know, but the Mayor needs to stop sleeping with Telemundo reporters, and start doing something productive. Since he has been mayor, has he really done anything productive?

Mayor Villaraigosa has been one of the most pro-active figures in the L.A. transport debate and has been the driving force behind getting the Wilshire Blvd. subway restarted.

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 24):
LA can certainly improve their lot, but they will never be able to achieve the results of London or New York.

I completely disagree. With L.A., you already know where everything has to go and have a handy grid to work from.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 29):

Or when coming from the north, to take Malibu. That would have shaved 3 hours off my trip to LAX that I mentioned at the start.

Absolutely. Why didn't you take PCH?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Charles79
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:23 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Actually, the best place to copy would be Berlin, as it is a similarly built and spread out city.

I have visited Berlin and agree with you. I have used the public transport system in other European cities (Koln, London, Strasbourg) but Berlin was by far the most comprehensive network. Plus that new main station (Hauptbahnhof) is a stunning piece of engineering!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Does that explain why the area keeps on growing? L.A. has far too many good points to drive some sort of exodus.

True, the area keeps growing, but there's a noticeable exodus of professionals and other highly educated folks. I work in the Aerospace enclave in El Segundo and know first hand of at least 30 people that have left LA cause they got tired of the deplorable living conditions. The industry lost hundreds of years of experience in satellites, rockets, aircraft, etc, to less dense areas.

It's not all bad news though: recently the LA Times reported that for the first time in three decades there were more multi-family housing units (i.e. condos) being built in LA County that single family units. City officials have finally realized that vertical living is the most efficient way to house thousands in the city close to their workplaces and rail/bus lines, thus reducing the traffic footprint. Only time will tell if this idea pays off.
 
Boston92
Topic Author
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:00 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Also, it shouldn't have taken you 6 hours, even in bad traffic.

Took 4 hours from Santa Barbara to the 405, and then 2 hours to LAX. It was pretty ridiculous.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
They are.

You are back east a lot, and they have the signs that clearly say so back there. Out here, there is nothing. Give me a link to the specific CA code.

Also, the motorcycle thing in traffic is pretty stupid. That is not even legal in New Hampshire (the only US state that does NOT require drivers or passengers to wear seatbelts).
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1620
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:04 am

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 14):
I have to strongly question the veracity of this report. Seattle is not even on the list and is easily worse than San Jose, mainly due to its idiot drivers

I agree (with you and Therock401) that there are a lot of idiot drivers here in Seattle, but...

Quoting Lgbga (Reply 5):
This article mentions it and one thing I noticed when driving in LA traffic, is that the traffic is constant, whereas in ATL there are rush hours and times when traffic clears up.

... I think the same could be said of Seattle.

I've been unfortunate enough to live in San Jose, in Los Angeles County and in Seattle (fortunate there). Seattle has the least significant traffic in my opinion. It just never seems like it's really that bad to me. Well... unless it snows and people freak out.
 
DL777LAX
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:45 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:32 pm

I forgot about this. What a better place to post this then this thread?

"GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA DRIVER'S LICENSE APPLICATION:

Name:______________ Stage name: ________________
Agent:______________ Attorney:__________________

Sex: ___male ___female ___formerly male ___formerly female ___both

If female, indicate breast implant size: ____
Will the size of your implants hinder your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle in any way? Yes___ No ___

Please list brand of cell phone: ________.
If you don't own a cell phone, please explain:________________________

Please check hair color:
Females: [ ] Blonde [ ] Platinum Blonde
Teenagers: [ ] Purple [ ] Blue [ ] Skinhead

Please check activities you perform while driving: (Check all that
apply)
[ ] Eating
[ ] Applying make-up
[ ] Talking on the phone
[ ] Slapping kids in the back-seat
[ ] Applying cellulite treatment to thighs
[ ] Tanning
[x] Snorting cocaine (already checked for ease of application)
[ ] Watching TV
[ ] Reading Variety
[ ] Surfing the net via laptop

Please indicate how many times:
a) you expect to shoot at other drivers ____
b) how many times you expect to be shot at while driving ____

If you are the victim of a car jacking, you should immediately:
a) Call the police to report the crime
b) Call Channel 4 News to report the crime, then watch your car on the news in a high-speed chase
c) Call your attorney and discuss lawsuit against cellular phone company for 911 call not going through
d) Call your therapist
e) None of the above (South Central residents only)

In the event of an earthquake, should you:
a) stop your car
b) keep driving and hope for the best
c) immediately use your cell phone to call all loved ones
d) pull out your video camera and obtain footage for Channel 4

In the instance of rain, you should:
a) decelerate by 5 mph
b) drive twice as fast as usual
c) you're not sure what "rain" is

Please indicate number of therapy sessions per week: ____.
Are you presently taking any of the following medications?
a) Prozac
b) Zovirax
c) Lithium
d) Zanax
e) Valium
f) Zoloft
If none, please explain: __________________.

Length of daily commute:
a) 1 hour
b) 2 hours
c) 3 hours
d) 4 hours or more

When stopped by police, should you:
a) pull over and have your driver's license and insurance form ready
b) try to outrun them by driving the wrong way on the 405 Freeway
c) have your video camera ready and provoke them to attack, thus ensuring yourself of a hefty lawsuit."
Blindly following anything is bad, unless of course your blind and your following a guide dog.
 
57AZ
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:13 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Actually, the sad thing was what National City Lines (AKA GM, Firestone, Standard Oil and Phillips Oil) did to the network. They got their wish. L.A. has what is likely the most extensive bus network in the world.

However, therein lies some of the false arguments that were made to support the substitution of buses. They are item for item more expensive to operate than streetcars, have a very limited economical lifespan-on average 12 years, produce more noise and pollution locally than a streetcar amongst other considerations. Also they do not provide the economic benefits that follow the installation of a streetcar or subway route. Finally, the fault of the National City Lines debacle falls squarely upon the public officials who should have excercised some foresight and limited the action of the private parties to areas where street railways required genuine replacement due to real operational and financial concerns.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Or you can go deep under them, like in London.

Of course, you have to bear in mind that when much of the London Tubes were dug, there were few underground utilities to be contended with-they are the world's first public subway after all. In the construction of a subway, you're obviously going to have to have access to the surface at stations and access to the tunnels at various points for public safety and maintenance reasons. In the City of Los Angeles, there are literally thousands of miles of public utilities that lie just beneath the surface. Station design is a major consideration here-stations close to the surface can be accessed by stair and elevator for ADA compliance. Stations that are deeper will require moving stairs and elevators. Also, in earthquake prone California it is possible that a minority of the population might have objections to using a subway that is deep underground.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
This would not be an issue if there was not a ban on spending the MTA rail tax on tunneling.

Well, there is a ban in place. Is there any possibilitie that supporters of the subway might be able to get it removed? Another option would be to build an elevated rail system such as that in the downtown areas in Chicago. It isn't physically attractive but it gets the job done without the hassle of tunneling.

Any way you look at it, LA's overall traffic problems are nowhere near ending. Even if the restrictions were lifted tomorrow and full funding given, it would be maybe five years to open another short segment. Studies along the proposed route would take a lot of time-soil samples and other mitigation and impact studies would be at least a year in coming. Construction time would depend on the length of the project.
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
 
Boston92
Topic Author
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:29 am

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 34):
e) None of the above (South Central residents only)

 laughing 

The United States (not just Los Angeles) needs to a new source of transportation. High speed, efficiant, and cheap. Not any source of transportation has all three. Monorail meets jet engine.
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
 
LAXspotter
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:16 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:40 am

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 36):

The United States (not just Los Angeles) needs to a new source of transportation. High speed, efficiant, and cheap.

Bingo, when compared to most European cities, or Tokyo/Seoul, the transportation infrastructure of hte US is in decay. However, there is one thing that will lead to increasing demand for Public Transport, and that is high gas prices, really high. One of the problems with the US is that even workers who are making close to minimum wage can afford to drive a car, most other developed working those jobs usually take public transport. Our freeways are going to keep on feeling the effects of gridlock, until we find and implement a solution. Until then you LA folks can suffer in that traffic, while I in the Inland Empire only have to suffer from the unbearable heat, thats all, no freeway worries for me, the roads here are empty.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
 
md90fan
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 11:15 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:21 am

I still think this proposal would be awesome!

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d136/dev323/subwayexpansion.gif
http://www.devanwells.blogspot.com/
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:44 am

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 31):
they got tired of the deplorable living conditions.

LMAO. Deplorable? Hardly.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 31):
City officials have finally realized that vertical living is the most efficient way to house thousands in the city close to their workplaces and rail/bus lines, thus reducing the traffic footprint.

I think the main reasons for that are 2 fold. First, the city is finally getting to full build out and has to build up. Second, single family homes have gotten too expensive and alternatives must be offered.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 32):

Took 4 hours from Santa Barbara to the 405, and then 2 hours to LAX. It was pretty ridiculous.

It shouldn't have happened.

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 35):

However, therein lies some of the false arguments that were made to support the substitution of buses. They are item for item more expensive to operate than streetcars, have a very limited economical lifespan-on average 12 years, produce more noise and pollution locally than a streetcar amongst other considerations. Also they do not provide the economic benefits that follow the installation of a streetcar or subway route

Of course they were false arguments, that doesn't mean National City Lines didn't do it.

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 35):
Finally, the fault of the National City Lines debacle falls squarely upon the public officials who should have excercised some foresight and limited the action of the private parties to areas where street railways required genuine replacement due to real operational and financial concerns.

Well, this is the country where we supposedly strive for less government regulation. Unfortunately, that lack of regulation led to something bad for all of us. Perhaps the laissez-faire attitude needs to be looked at again.

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 35):

Of course, you have to bear in mind that when much of the London Tubes were dug, there were few underground utilities to be contended with-they are the world's first public subway after all.

The deep underground tubes in London run way under where public utilities will lie.

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 35):
Also, in earthquake prone California it is possible that a minority of the population might have objections to using a subway that is deep underground.

Again, look at the Transbay Tube, which is not only in an even more seismicly active area, but is also underwater.

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 35):

Well, there is a ban in place. Is there any possibilitie that supporters of the subway might be able to get it removed?

Henry Waxman is already pushing through a repeal of the "methane zone" tunneling ban, which will allow the Wilshire Blvd. subway to recommence. The ban on funding, however, is trickier, as Zev Yaroslovsky will never admit he is wrong. What he has done, now that subway construction is popular with the public, is modify his words to say that the only thing the half cent tax can't be used for is direct tunneling costs.

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 35):
Another option would be to build an elevated rail system such as that in the downtown areas in Chicago. It isn't physically attractive but it gets the job done without the hassle of tunneling.

I think that an El can be attractive if done right, but I think that may end up more quake prone than a subway.

Quoting MD90fan (Reply 38):

That is a great map actually.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:58 am

It's almost 2 PM, in about an hour I will be driving down to San Diego from the Bay Area. I still can't decide which freeway to take in LA-- 5, 405 or 170/101. Decisions, decisions...wish me luck.
Ain't I a stinker?
 
Boston92
Topic Author
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:10 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
It shouldn't have happened.

I know it shouldn't have happened, but it did. Like I said, the drive is usually under three hours long. I am not really sure where you are going with "It shouldn't have happened", that is the second time you have said that.  Confused  Yeah sure
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:16 am

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 40):
It's almost 2 PM, in about an hour I will be driving down to San Diego from the Bay Area. I still can't decide which freeway to take in LA-- 5, 405 or 170/101.

Actually, you should be going counter traffic almost the whole way. I would do 5 all the way and then cut over to 101 in Central CA.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Southern California Traffic: Big Problem?

Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:53 am

I would do 5 all the way and then cut over to 101 in Central CA.

Okay, I'll take your word. I'll know whom to blame if I get caught in traffic.  Wink

Off I go...
Ain't I a stinker?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Spyhunter and 15 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos