$42 Billion Needed to Avoid Future Gridlock, Report Says

Even with severe restrictions on future driving, it will take massive spending on new freeways and transit to prevent the daily traffic catastrophe that many fear will define life in metropolitan Southern California by 2010, a new report obtained by The Times says.

At best, the report says that more than $42 billion in construction is needed just to keep the freeways running close to today’s average speeds, already among the worst in the nation. If planners cannot alter where population growth and new jobs occur, and if drivers are not forced to change their habits, the cost could soar over $110 billion, the report concludes.

The report, due to be released later this week by the Southern California Assn. of Governments, is the first comprehensive analysis of steps that might be taken to ease the transportation crisis that is widely anticipated as the region’s population swells.

Olympic Tactics Challenged

In projecting that vast amounts of money will be needed for freeways and transit, the report challenges the idea that the answer to future traffic problems can be found in the menu of tactics used to keep the freeways clear during the 1984 Olympic Games.

During the Games, officials used ramp meters to discourage freeway use and negotiated with truckers to stay off the roads at peak traffic hours. Many companies shifted their work hours to reduce rush-hour commuting. The package of tactics worked so well that the freeways ran more smoothly than in decades though the number of vehicles on the road actually increased.

But after the Olympics, the special effort to ease traffic congestion collapsed and the freeways returned to normal. By 2010, however, the population of the metropolitan region will have swollen from 12.4 million people today to 18.3 million and traffic congestion will be playing havoc with the local economy, the planning agency forecast in a 1986 study.

Average Speed to Fall

Last year, planners looking more closely at the expected growth calculated it would lead to 3 million new trips to work each day, and the average speed that motorists travel--about 31 miles per hour today--would fall to 11 miles per hour if nothing is done. About half of all driving would be spent in some kind traffic snarl, the 1987 report concluded.

The growth is expected to add 1.8 million people to Los Angeles County and more than double the population of the Inland Empire area of San Bernardino and Riverside counties. The rest would be spread among Orange, Ventura and Imperial counties (San Diego County is not included in the metropolitan region).

Traffic congestion would increase not just because of the volume of new drivers and cars, although the numbers themselves are daunting. The problem will be worse than it might be because many of the new residents will be moving into areas where there is plenty of housing but not enough jobs, especially in the Inland Empire area.

For most, in choosing to live there, they are also opting for long commutes to work on freeways with little or no available space at rush hour.

Planners contend that rush-hour traffic can be significantly reduced if thousands of these long-distance commuters are taken off the freeway. This can be done by shifting their work hours and inducing them to use transit or car pools, or by reversing the historical pattern of development here that encourages people to live far from where they work.

The study offers three scenarios for averting the traffic crisis. Under the least costly, freeway and transit construction could be held to $42 billion through an unprecedented and mandatory use of tactics to reduce demand for driving, including mandatory ride sharing in 66 employment-rich areas and compulsory staggering of work weeks.

This scenario assumes that planners will be successful at persuading businesses to shift 360,000 new jobs from the more desirable areas, mostly in Los Angeles and Orange counties, to areas that are short of jobs. The plan also requires that growth be manipulated so that 350,000 new residents move into areas where there are close-by jobs.

Reluctance to Stop Growth

But planners in Southern California have never been able to manage growth that expertly, for political and practical reasons. Until recently, county boards of supervisors and city officials were reluctant to shun a developer’s wish to build a new subdivision just because there were no jobs nearby. The emerging slow-growth tendency in suburban areas has changed that somewhat, but in most cities local officials are still unwilling to reject a developer then watch him take new jobs or housing to a neighboring city.

However, the new SCAG report urges that local officials--more than 160 jurisdictions are responsible for land use and traffic planning in the region--put aside parochial concerns and take a regional view of the traffic problem.

Even though it is the cheapest, this scenario still calls for 16 mass transit rail lines crisscrossing the Los Angeles Basin and the opening of two commuter rail services along existing tracks. It would also require the building of three new freeways now on the drawing board in Orange County and the Route 30 Freeway across San Bernardino County plus the closing of several freeway gaps.

A second, more costly scenario would involve the same degree of manipulating growth but bump spending on new construction, mostly freeways, up to $84 billion. Less effort and money would go toward ride sharing, freeway ramp meters and other efforts to squeeze more use out of existing highways.

Most Costly Scenario

The most costly scenario is what SCAG officials call the “business as usual” approach of trying to solve the future traffic problems mainly by construction. It would devote $110 billion to a system of 12 new freeways and 18 mass-transit lines and spend little time on the other steps that some believe could improve traffic.

Although SCAG is sometimes criticized for producing reports with little tie to reality, the report on future traffic could have a major effect on where and when new freeways and transit projects are built.

After several months of discussion, the group’s directors--made up of local officials from six counties--are supposed to decide later this year on a preferred strategy. Their choice of priorities must be followed by state transportation officials to allocate highway and transit funds.

The group’s decision is also expected to influence plans by the South Coast Air Quality Management District to impose rules on driving--and possibly regulate new growth--in order to clean up the region’s air.

No matter what approach is adopted, a major shift in the way new construction projects are financed will be needed, the report suggests.

Even for the least expensive strategy, the construction costs are $29 billion more than government is planning to spend now on freeway and transit projects. The difference is more than $96 billion for the most expensive approach.