People who won't go to dinner more than two miles from home or who give up on vast swaths of the city for long stretches of every week. Those are among the traffic horror stories in Steve Lopez's latest Los Angeles Times columns.
The cause is a disconnect between urban development and transportation infrastructure. Jobs are downtown or on the Westside and workers who can't afford to live there are forced to jam the highways. Unless Cascadia cities build housing where people work they're likely bound to the same fate. For the latest example, consider that Vancouver-area police officers can't afford to live in the city they serve.
It sounds to me like the traffic in LA is encouraging exactly the kind of behaviour changes we need to see more of. It shouldn't be normal to drive 20 miles to dinner on a regular basis. In fact, people staying local is exactly what will encourage the mixed development we want.
Posted by: brian | January 16, 2007 at 11:21
That's backward. Traffic in Bangkok keeps people local by eliminating choices. Smart development and variable tolls should encourage behavior before we get to that point.
Posted by: brad | January 17, 2007 at 10:17
Actually, real city planning should encourage density which in effect make most desired trips shorter. When I google map driving directions from my house in Greenlake to just about any other address in Seattle, the trip distance is usually less than 3 miles. The fact that I drive 99% of the time tells you how lazy I am.
Posted by: vincent | January 26, 2007 at 04:54
That's my point. You should be encouraged to stay local but have the option of going farther. We're getting to a point where you don't have the choice.
Posted by: brad | January 26, 2007 at 10:21