New LA mobility plan increases congestion

Long gone are the days of Los Angeles being seen as a haven for comfortable living. Instead, the city is accurately portrayed as a place in which traffic congestion and the tireless procedures within the public transportation system are constant. The busyness of Los Angeles traffic often detracts potential workers and families from visiting or purchasing property for a permanent place of residence. If residents across Los Angeles were forced to choose between riding a bicycle or driving a vehicle everyday, it is likely they would choose the latter due to convenience.

In an effort to combat decades of complaints from city workers, residents and visitors, the Los Angeles City Council, in conjunction with Mayor Eric Garcetti, have worked to create and implement the Los Angeles Mobility 2035 plan. The plan — commonly referred to as MP2035 — will execute a complete redesign of the streets across L.A. neighborhoods by manipulating traffic speed and by adding hundreds of miles in bus and bike-only lanes. But rather than adequately addressing concerns for traffic congestion and mobility, the plan worsens traffic congestion by increasing new measures for safety protocol by adding bike and bus lanes.

The plan details an added 300 miles of protected bike lanes, 117 miles of bus-only lanes and an additional 120 miles of bus lanes that will be created for rush-hour-only use, according to the Los Angeles Times. According to figures printed by the Times, Angelenos will be expected to increase their walking by 38 percent, transit use by 56 percent and bicycling by 170 percent if the plan is completed by 2035.

The plan is at best a failed attempt to combat three of the most difficult transportation issues in Los Angeles: traffic congestion, air pollution and immobility due to vehicle operation speed. The motives behind the plan are not to increase the amount of cars on the road, but to increase the amount of transportation alternatives such as walking and cycling. As any good plan should include alternatives, MP2035 fails to offer viable ones. Though I commend the city’s efforts toward creating a new plan to combat regional transportation issues, it doesn’t do the city and its residents justice. For those who already take public mass transit to and from work, the proposal will be beneficial. But for the other majority of residents and workers who commute from far distances, accessibility becomes a major issue.

For instance, USC student workers who make the daily commute from campus to Hollywood to work will experience extreme traffic and greater obstacles in accessing their workplace. This creates the unnecessary burden that makes it increasingly difficult for students to balance both a work and academic life. As Los Angeles employs over 4.2 million workers, we cannot expect all to use mass transit for work. Thus, greater wait times and decreased per capita delay while waiting in traffic are inevitable. This plan, a feat for the environment and a stride toward a vehicle-free city is ambitious, but inconsiderate and, most of all, impractical.

Rather than its marketed purpose — to decrease traffic waiting times — the plan increases traffic, intensifies congestion and promotes faster vehicle operating times. Sam Schwartz, a contributor to the Los Angeles Times and former New York City traffic commissioner and the N.Y. City Department Transportation’s chief engineer, explained a 2012 University of Michigan study in conjunction with the University of Washington to identify whether increased speed or increased proximity heightened accessibility. The study proved that proximity is 10 times more important than increased speed.

Last month, the Los Angeles City Council approved the plan by marketing it as a tactic to improve city life conditions. In opposition to the proposal, a nonprofit group named, “Fix the City,” filed a suit in court last Wednesday, explaining that the plan only promotes the spread of city-wide air pollution and will undoubtedly lead to more traffic congestion. In the city’s draft Environmental Report, it detailed the downfalls of the plan which included slower response times for emergency vehicles, heavier congestion and more noise from buses.

Proponents of the plan are in favor of MP2035 because of its increase in safety measures as it follows Mayor Garcetti’s “Vision Zero,” a personal and communal mission to reach zero traffic-related deaths in Los Angeles by 2035. Don’t get me wrong: MP2035 is the start of a brighter and more environmentally friendly future, which is a feat for our city to say the least. By 2035, the plan is also geared toward greater bike-sharing programs. But if we’re talking accessibility and convenience for Angelenos, this plan has got it all wrong.

Sarah Dhanaphatana is a junior majoring in political science.  She is also deputy features editor of the Daily Trojan. Her column, “Dhanapolitics,” runs Fridays.