Gridlock and Proposition 111

Your editorial “A Gas Tax or Gr-r-r-ridlock” (March 19) has it all wrong. It implies that building new freeways will free us from gridlock; it could not be more mistaken.

The demand for automobile and truck trips invariably rises to meet the supply of space on our roads. Building new freeways will not relieve congestion, it will increase it. It will also increase air pollution, global warming, acid rain, the balance of payments, the Exxon Valdez syndrome and several other nasty environmental, economic and societal effects.

To “build-out” of our congestion mess, even at present projections, would cost the Los Angeles area $110 billion or $30,000 per household. Assuming we were willing (and/or able) to afford that incredible sum, the construction of new freeways only makes the problem much worse; they would simply ensure that trip demand would rise much faster than our present projections.

Our automobile/truck/highway sector is in violation of the law--the law of supply and demand. The use of freeways, parking and other services is a “free good”; the demand for that good behaves in accordance with the rules we learned in freshman economics; it goes through the roof.

Congestion and fuel are the only costs the motorist now perceives in the marketplace of urban travel. Providing more freeways only further reduces trip cost. Trip demand, therefore, goes up.

The community is struggling with congestion and air pollution. In the face of these problems Prop. 111’s proposal to build new freeways is an absurdity. We like much of Prop. 111; increasing the gas tax is long overdue, funds for transit, lifting the Gann limit and several other nice things tempt us. But the construction of new freeways makes Prop. 111 too costly; at its recent meeting, the Sierra Club has voted to be neutral.

STANLEY HART

Chairman

Transportation Committee

Sierra Club-L.A. Chapter