“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 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 orward 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 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?
1901-1961 – PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY
LOS ANGELES FREEWAYS
WHY FREEWAYS? 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 $$$ - due to less traffic on freeways Increased Safety – “ more likely to die utilizing roadways than state of the art ” freeways Federal government paying up to 90% on Interstate Freeways State & Federal Subsidies – invest $7 to $1 ratio for auto infrastructure
WHY FREEWAYS?
L.A. COUNTY FREEWAY MASTER PLAN, 1947
1958 MASTER PLAN OF FREEWAYS
Why Freeways? Contemporary Demand by business interest L.A. Political and Business elite- heavily invested in construction, concrete, tries, rubber, and other auto/ freeway related industries Improve Traffic Save time and $$$ - 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
THE 105 CENTURY FREEWAY
Freeway Planning Process Political - Decision Makers Federal, St State, Planning Other Political County, City, Departments Offices Regional Other State/ Business Regional Interest Agencies Community Members
Freeway Planning Process Political Decision Makers Federal, St State, and Local Officials Federal, State, Planning County, City, Other Political Departments Offices Regional US DOT, Caltrans, COLA, LA Co., SCAG, LAX, POLA/POLB, CA Governor, CA Auto Club Assembly, City officials Other State/ Regional Offices AQMD, ARB, EPA Community Business Port/ Goods “Special Members Movement Interest” Interest POLA, POLB, Walmart, Costco, Target, Environmental Groups, Health Groups, China Shipping, Labor, Education
710 FREEWAY EXPANSION PLANNING PROCESS (BEFORE EIR PROCESS) Caltrans-Lead Agency 15 C Cities a and I Incorporated Ar Areas MTA East Los Angeles SCAG US DOT (Federal Oversight) City of Vernon 7 Partners during 710 Corridor City of Commerce EIR/EIS City of Maywood Gateway Cities Council of Government Port of Long Beach Huntington Park Port of Los Angeles Bell Gardens I-5 Joint Powers Authority AQMD South Gate ARB Downey Technical Advisor Committee Oversight Policy Committee Lynwood Sp Spec ecial I Inter erest Gr est Groups: s: Compton School Districts – Montebello Unified School District Paramount East Yard Communities for Environmental Bellflower Justice Communities for a Better Environment Lakewood Coalition for Clean Air Signal Hill Physicians for Social Responsibility-LA Coalition for Environmental Health and Justice City of Long Beach NRDC Wilmington Labor Unions
105 CENTURY FREEWAY 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
CEQA AND NEPA ENTERS FREEWAY PLANNING CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act EIR/EIS – core of these policy
1972 LAWSUIT 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 5 th & 14 th 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, Keith V. Volpe et. Al. 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. 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. ”
INCREASED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE WATTS-WILLOWBROOK
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
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
Embarcadero Freeway
Embarcadero
CHEONGGYE FREEWAY - SEOUL
CHEONGGYE FREEWAY - SEOUL
ONLY BUILD APPROXIMATELY 61% OF FREEWAY PLAN (2001)
Induced Traffic, Does Adding More lanes of Freeway Work
REVIEW Urban Planning is a part of American Democracy Elected Officials hire Planners to assist in MOBILITY “Planners” take the lead in incorporating multiple planning partners (political offices, special interest groups, planning agencies, business interests) Lawsuits part of planning process EIR/EIS part of planning process EIR/EIS PROCESS – no guarantee comments/corrections will ever be implemented PROCESS – has changed to incorporate more participants, Freeways have been leading SOLUTION with some modifications
Recommend
More recommend
