🚀 go-pugleaf

rob@xyzoom.info.com (Rob Lingelbach) objects to my criticism of his comment,
" I believe "if you build it, they will come": build another freeway,
" and the traffic will fill it.  To capacity.  And we don't need more
" traffic.

The freeway master plan in 1964 called for more than 800 miles of freeways
in Los Angeles County (NOT including Orange, etc.) by 1984.  In fact today,
there are slightly more than 400 miles.  To assert that, if those 800 miles
had been built, they would be just as crowded as the present 400 miles is
to assert that the total number of cars being operated would have to nearly
double.  Who would be driving those additional cars?  Would the population
have doubled?  That is, (I didn't look up these numbers) in addition to
the actual 1m population increase from 2m in 1964 to 3m in 1984, would the
total population in Los Angeles County in 1984 have been 6m, a 20-year
increase of 4m?  Not very likely.

Note that, even in LA, *most* people live less than 10 miles from their
job.  Most freeway trips are similarly short.  Sure, there are many who
drive further, but the bulk of freeway traffic is relatively local.

In 1964, I studied the Caltrans traffic counts at the LA 4-level interchange
(the heart of downtown).  The counts had been dropping for several years.
It was possible to correlate drops with the opening of new freeways.

So long as we nickel and dime freeway building, it may appear that each
new freeway is immediately filled.  One must study the total traffic pattern,
including surface streets, to see if there is actually any traffic increase,
or if traffic is just choosing the more efficient route.

Rob also objects to my use of the word "efficient".
" ...the automobile as we know it here in L.A.--one person to a car,
" internal combustion engine burning petroleum--is not an efficient
" means of transportation.  Ask any physicist anywhere.

I'll agree that the internal combustion engine is not especially efficient as
a power source on an absolute scale.  On a relative scale...  compared to
what?  Buses also use internal combustion.  The question is not, is the power
source efficient, but is the *system* efficient.  The best physicist is not
automatically qualified to speak to that question, any more than the best
actor is automatically qualified to recommend a political candidate.

I don't like being stuck in gridlock any more than anyone else.  This
discussion is not about how gridlock causes a deterioration in the quality
of life; it's about how to reverse that process.  There is no question in
my mind that the freeway system has moved more people more distance at
lower *total* cost than any other transportation system in history.  And
I'm not ignoring the economic externalities which have required public
response, like smog.

In fact, economics has a lot to offer the general freeway question.  Not
just in understanding things, but also in fixing them.  The price mechanism
may be the ultimate salvation of the freeway network, but not if
"government planners" are given authority to set the prices!

I hasten to assure everyone that my disagreement with Rob is over ideas and
is not personal.  I have not chosen to pick on Rob venally.  It's just that
he has been among the best at expressing the viewpoints which I oppose.
I'd always rather have an articulate opponent.

If this is beginning to bore you, please feel free to respond by email.
Addresses below are preferred, and are faster too.

 Dave Close - Compata - Stockton, California - +1 209 467 8255 ("209-install")
  dave@compata.attmail.com | compata@mcimail.com | dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu