SLIDE 1
AN EVIL SYSTEM? TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ON THE 105 CENTURY - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
AN EVIL SYSTEM? TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ON THE 105 CENTURY - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
AN EVIL SYSTEM? TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ON THE 105 CENTURY FREEWAY Gilbert Estrada, Ph.D. University of Southern California November 17, 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OF AIRPORTS, SEAPORTS, AND FREEWAYS, 1959-2010 LEARNING OBJECTIVES
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Transportation Planning Process- Freeway WHO? WHAT? WHY? What are the different agencies involved in Freeway Planning? How do these agencies reach a “decision” on what type of freeway, alternatives, and/or solutions should be built? Additional Points Interagency cooperation is often contentious- significant disagreement on what will fix traffic and air quality- ye yet FREEWAYS SO SOLUTI TIONS a NS are mo e moved ed f for
- rward
Significant Environmental Considerations/Implementations – largely occur after planning agencies respond to community groups, their elected officials, and agencies demanding increases in public/environmental health- as early in the process as possible
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
SLIDE 4
Additional Points Urban Planning - at its basic principle- DEMOCRATIC PROCESS OF ELECTED OFFICIALS VOTING, i.e. 3 out of 5 votes, 4 out of 7 EIR/EIS PROCESS – no guarantee comments/corrections will ever be implemented Additionally With 52,000 Lane Miles of Freeways, Highways, and Streets in Southern California, who wants to add more automotive lanes? Who wants transportation alternatives? How do we (as a society) make transportation decisions? With 50-94% Southern California air pollution/carciogenic risk link to mobile sources from 1945 to the present, why do “they” want to build more freeways in lieu of significantly more transit, bike lanes, maglev, and other alternatives?
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
SLIDE 5
1901-1961 – PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY
SLIDE 6
LOS ANGELES FREEWAYS
SLIDE 7
Demand by business interest L.A. Political and Business elite- heavily invested in construction, concrete, tries, rubber, and other auto/ freeway related industries Improve Traffic Save time and $$$ - due to less traffic on freeways Increased Safety – “more likely to die utilizing roadways than state of the art” freeways Federal government paying up to 90% on Interstate Freeways State & Federal Subsidies – invest $7 to $1 ratio for auto infrastructure
WHY FREEWAYS?
SLIDE 8
WHY FREEWAYS?
SLIDE 9
L.A. COUNTY FREEWAY MASTER PLAN, 1947
SLIDE 10
1958 MASTER PLAN OF FREEWAYS
SLIDE 11
Demand by business interest L.A. Political and Business elite- heavily invested in construction, concrete, tries, rubber, and other auto/ freeway related industries Improve Traffic Save time and $$$ - due to less traffic on freeways Increased Safety – “more likely to die utilizing roadways than state of the art” freeways Federal government paying up to 90% on Interstate Freeways State & Federal Subsidies – invest $7 to $1 ratio for auto infrastructure Allowing more automobiles on more lanes of freeways will clean the air
Why Freeways? Contemporary
SLIDE 12
THE 105 CENTURY FREEWAY
SLIDE 13
Political - Decision Makers Business Interest Other State/ Regional Agencies Community Members Planning Departments Federal, St State, County, City, Regional Other Political Offices
Freeway Planning Process
SLIDE 14
Freeway Planning Process
Political Decision Makers
Federal, St State, and Local Officials
Business Interest
Walmart, Costco, Target,
Port/ Goods Movement
POLA, POLB, China Shipping,
“Special Interest”
Environmental Groups, Health Groups, Labor, Education
Planning Departments
US DOT, Caltrans, COLA, LA Co., SCAG, LAX, POLA/POLB, Auto Club
Federal, State, County, City, Regional Other Political Offices
CA Governor, CA Assembly, City officials
Other State/ Regional Offices
AQMD, ARB, EPA
Community Members
SLIDE 15
710 FREEWAY EXPANSION PLANNING PROCESS (BEFORE EIR PROCESS)
Caltrans-Lead Agency MTA SCAG US DOT (Federal Oversight) 7 Partners during 710 Corridor EIR/EIS Gateway Cities Council of Government Port of Long Beach Port of Los Angeles I-5 Joint Powers Authority AQMD ARB Technical Advisor Committee Oversight Policy Committee Sp Spec ecial I Inter erest Gr est Groups: s: School Districts – Montebello Unified School District East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice Communities for a Better Environment Coalition for Clean Air Physicians for Social Responsibility-LA Coalition for Environmental Health and Justice NRDC Labor Unions
15 C Cities a and I Incorporated Ar Areas East Los Angeles City of Vernon City of Commerce City of Maywood Huntington Park Bell Gardens South Gate Downey Lynwood Compton Paramount Bellflower Lakewood Signal Hill City of Long Beach Wilmington
SLIDE 16
Traced back to 1940s – more clearly 1958 Master Plan of Freeways Designed as the major east-west corridor to LAX (NEVER REACHES LAX) DESIGN PLAN – alleviate traffic in the South L.A. area Early price tag of $75,667,000 up to $2.2 Billion
105 CENTURY FREEWAY
SLIDE 17
SLIDE 18
CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act EIR/EIS – core of these policy
CEQA AND NEPA ENTERS FREEWAY PLANNING
SLIDE 19
After years of route selection, Caltrans obtaining 25 of 27 agreements necessary to begin construction – lawsuit filed Community members and team of legal and social justice groups (Center for Law in the Public Interest, NAACP, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club) 1972 – Lawsuit – claimed Caltrans failed to comply with NEPA CEQA 5 other statues, including the 5th & 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution One of the first lawsuits to force significant improvement in freeway planning Regarded as one of first environmental and civil rights lawsuits in California
1972 LAWSUIT
SLIDE 20
Enforced idea that planners “must comply with all laws,” including the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees these rights herein Reinforced idea – LAWSUITS – are part of the planning process and method to Forced Caltrans to STOP constructing Freeway Could not purchase properties under planners complied with NEPA, CEQA, The Federal-Aid Highway Act, and Furthered revolutionary REPLACEMENT HOUSING PROGRAM- because area was classified as an “economically depressed area.”
1972 LAWSUIT, Keith V. Volpe et. Al.
SLIDE 21
EIS - 5 years and $4.5 million BENEFIT = “the project would serve the public by accommodating an estimated 150,000 vehicles per day when opened, providing relief by diverting almost equal mounts of traffic from local streets and other segments of the freeway.” By 2000 - expected 45-55 MPH during peak hours- 215,000 daily vehicles 2000 - actual counts - 304,000 (Watts-Willbrook) The expected 215,000 daily vehicles on freeway would show a “substantial improvement in air quality.”
1972 LAWSUIT, Keith V. Volpe et. Al.
SLIDE 22
INCREASED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE WATTS-WILLOWBROOK
SLIDE 23
TRANSPORTATION VICTORIES
- By school district, community members
– by CA Gov. Brown, community members, planning agencies, Multiple agencies pushed for transit – part of carpool & bus alternatives by Gov. Brown part of carpool & bus alternatives by Gov. Brown Caltrans implemented after years of community backlash
- by community lawsuit
SLIDE 24
105 FREEWAY WON’T WORK
California Air Resources Board Deputy Executive Officer Caltrans Director, Adriana Gianturoco both believe 105 Freeway would not significantly alleviate traffic or air quality
SLIDE 25
Embarcadero Freeway
SLIDE 26
Embarcadero
SLIDE 27
CHEONGGYE FREEWAY - SEOUL
SLIDE 28
CHEONGGYE FREEWAY - SEOUL
SLIDE 29
ONLY BUILD APPROXIMATELY 61% OF FREEWAY PLAN (2001)
SLIDE 30
SLIDE 31
Induced Traffic, Does Adding More lanes of Freeway Work
SLIDE 32
SLIDE 33