German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseFreeways versus Rivers
The LA Times ran an article today about extending the super-congested 57 freeway over the Santa Ana riverbed from the 5 to the 405.
Pardon my editorializing, but this is the kind of transit planning that makes me spit nails.
The Santa Ana River is the largest river in Southern California–larger than the LA and San Gabriel Rivers combined. Rivers (and all water bodies) are an extremely scarce resource in this region. And what do we do with our natural heritage? We encase it in concrete. We’ve already paved it on three sides, and now we want to pave over the top too.
Similar proposals have been voiced for the LA River, but so far they have been shot down.
Who the f@ck thinks it’s a good idea to take a unique, irreplaceable resource and turn it into a freeway? Maybe it’s the same people that think it’s wise to build mansions on eroding coastal bluffs or major housing developments in floodplains below a levee.
We have talked a bit about the financial subsidies given to cars. But here we are sacrificing major natural capital.
If OC had built its Center Line, we could be talking about restoring the river instead of entombing it.
This picture of the Santa Ana River was taken in Fairview Park in Costa Mesa. It’s a bit south of the proposed 57 extension, so it wouldn’t be directly affected. I don’t have a pic of the region, but it happens to run right by my office!
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
OC planning…you got to love it.
On the bright side, they did say that this was not part of the Measure M sales tax, so its likely to see the fruit of day. Hopefully, if anything were to happen, we’d get an uproar like the South County toll road proposal a month ago. The report calls for a 6 lane highway, you think their wouldn’t be future expansions??
$2 billion for an 8 mile highway v. 1 billion for Centerline…what’s a better choice? Thank g** i left the Orange Curtain.
You might have left the Orange Curtain, but it’s still your river, your traffic, your problem, etc.
I don’t think the lower Santa Ana river will rile up the environmental community like the toll road has, but it does seem like there is significant opposition on many levels.
I love the quote from the Army Corps saying how they must ensure that this project must be environmentally sound. In my opinion, it’s like demanding that the death penalty be humane.
If OC had built its Center Line, we could be talking about restoring the river instead of entombing it.
Transit math. Had OC proceeded with Centerline the claimed increased economic activity generated would have accelerated the need for more freeways.
Still, you are correct that rivers should be left to run free for all the reasons mentioned and many more.
2 billion bones? is it right to assume that the bulk of this money would be coming from state funding and not from just OC’s pocket? i can come up with at least one better way to invest that 2 billion dollars rather destroy another scarce natural resource in LA.
To be honest, I’m not sure it makes a difference if the Center Line had decreased congestion and/or increased economic activity. Some people see a river and think “Boy, I’d surely like to pave that”. Relieving traffic-congestion sounds more like a pretext than a purpose.
Wouldn’t wanna drive down THERE when it rains!
OC’s Centerline is, or rather, was, a joke. It’s not even a half-assed attempt at light rail…more like…a one-eighth-assed attempt…naw, a one-sixteenth-assed attempt! OC doesn’t deserve an urban transit system, which is actually good since People in Los Angeles who are opposed to transit can simply move across the county line and everyone will be happy.
Militant, you are right about CenterLine being a dog, and it rightly was aborted.
As for Orange County not deserving an urban transit system, the bus ridership tells a different story. OCTA has led the country in ridership growth. Its 2006 ridership was over 200,000 weekday boardings. In 1996, it was 140,000.
OCTA will need urban levels of service. There was the Straight-Lining fiasco of 2000, when riders forced OCTA to cancel its route restructuring. The infrequent tails of routes were broken away from the frequent trunks. Riders did not want to transfer, but the trade-off is that they must deal with unreliable service.
L.A. can get away with a grid system because the buses are frequent. OCTA cannot. There are some major transit centers, but most transfers are still on 30-60 minute frequency buses along the grid. This makes trips unnecessarily long, and OCTA has no limited-stop service.
That’s a pretty provincial attitude, Millitant. I can only assume you meant it in jest.
It’s not like OC keeps its congestion on one side of the county line, and LA is free to become a transit paradise. The poor coordination between these two counties causes horrendous problems, for both transit riders and personal vehicles.
Nobody “deserves” this traffic nightmare. OC’s problem is LA’s problem, and vice-versa. You can’t escape these issues by living on one side of the border.
Funy because La is currently bitching about OC improving the I-5 up to the border and LA is complaining that this “dumps” congestion on the LA side.
Rob: You make Raphael’s point. The OC is “improving” the 5 to make a point, and in doing so will create an area ripe for frequent accidents in the morning rush. That’s quite the expensive point they’re making, I hope nobody is injured or killed. we share these problems and we ought to share the solution rather than this idiotic infighting. For more on idiotic bickering, see how OCTA doesn’t connect with the Blue Line or other LA transit - if not for shortsightedness, I’d be able to take the bus to visit my family rather than have to get picked up at Long Beach.
River bed: What a horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Phoenix does this; I tried googling for a few minutes, I could’ve sworn that I-10 ran through the Salt River bed for a bit, but couldn’t find any information - my father worked on the Salt River Project for a time as a contractor, I’ll ask him. We live in a desert, and we need to learn not to try and tame the land around us so harshly - river beds stay river beds even when the water isn’t flowing, and flash flooding will kill people, it does every time it rains in Phoenix. Ignoring the effect on congestion, it’s not safe.
OCTA does have a line that connects to the Blue Line at the Long Beach Transit Mall (line 60), but it’s a local bus, and if you’re going very far into the OC, it can take quite a while (if you’re going far into the OC at any time other than rush hour, the only reasonably quick way is by Metrolink).
As to the idea of running over a river, for many of the reasons above, I hate the idea, and can’t believe a large enough group of people thought it was a good idea.
People are injured/killed every day on these freeways. Just listen to the morning traffic report! You have to listen carefully, because they toss that info out very casually: “There was an injury accident on the Sepulveda Pass, backing traffic up to…”
This is why I get so irked that every Blue Line/car or bus/car accident makes it to the papers. It makes people think these things are dangerous (or, that they are more dangerous than our freeways).
exactly right. shit is so amazingly annoying.
“this terrible thing and this and this and this and…… happened on our wonderfully perfect freeway system but THIS HAPPENED TO THE ORANGE LINE CAN YOU BELIEVE WUT METRO IS DOING, THEY’RE MURDERING IS WUT THEY’RE DOING!!!
—57 Freeway extension vs. Purple line to the sea:—
CONSTRUCTION
Cost of 6 mile freeway: $ 2B or $330 M per mile.
Cost of 13 mile subway: $ 4.5B or $350M per mile.
CAR USAGE COSTS
Single trip
6mi x $.52/mi (2007 AAA avg. driving cost*) =$3.12
Monthly Commute (1 round trip for 4 weeks at 5 days/week)
240mi x $.52 = $124.8
*note: this figure assumes fuel at $2.256 per gallon
SUBWAY RIDING COSTS (Wilshire/Western to Santa Monica)
Daily Subsidy = $2.599B Metro resources (incl. fed. and state grants) less fare revenue / 365 days/yr / 9.948M LA County residents = $.72 per person
Single Trip
$.72 daily subsidy + $1.50 fare (2009) = $2.20 ($.16/mi)
Monthly Commute
$14.32 (subsidy for 20 days) + $75 monthly pass = $89.32 ($.17/mi)
Choose which one you like best.
I know I’m late to the party here, but a couple of remarks in the comments caught my eye.
I-10 crosses the Salt River near Sky Harbor airport (and there’ve been some problems with the supports of that freeway bridge being undermined by the river), but it doesn’t run in the river bed itself.
No, we don’t. That’s a popular cliché. frequently repeated in the pages of the LA Times, but it’s simply not true.
The LA area is a moderate mesothermal climate with considerable marine influence - a climate type known as “Mediterranean”.
The local desert is north of the San Gabriels - the Mojave, around Palmdale and Lancaster.
The LA metropolitan area is nothing like a desert, no matter how many times people claim that it is. It gets about three times as much rain on average as a true desert at this latitude would get.
No, it’s not a desert. It’s a “mediterranean” climate, as you note–too wet to be desert. More specifically, we live in “Southern California coastal chapparal and oak wooldands” ecoregion. You can still see it if you go hiking in Griffith Park or Kenneth Hahn State Park
But it is nonetheless an extremely arid environment, and water resources should be managed properly–not paved.