The reign of the diesel automobile needs to end. To push through problems such as rising global emission levels, increased traffic congestion and an ever-growing urban population, cities have to adopt new approaches to their urban planning. I covered the general topic of a ‘transport dictatorship’ in an earlier article, https://fourfacades.com/addressing-our-urban-transport-dictatorship/, but here I want to delve deeper into a specific example which has been surrounded by controversy. The repurposing of roads in the Playa del Rey and Mar Vista area of Los Angeles has divided much of the community around the success of the project.
The term ‘road diet’ is a trending phrase in the realm of urban planning which refers to the reduction in the public space allotted to cars. This often takes the form of removing lanes on freeways completely, or changing their intended user from drivers to cyclists. The theory behind these modifications is that they reduce traffic incidents as well as lowering the city’s emission levels. Less lanes mean less lane changes, an action that contributes to a significant number of road accidents each year in the US, and so with fewer lanes there is the hope that commuters are deterred from using cars. Ultimately, the goal is to popularise a turn to cleaner alternatives amongst L.A. residents.
Whilst I am an advocate for a more democratic and holistic approach to urban design, the implementation of Los Angeles’ so called road diet has been a failure. This is not a problem with the idea or theory as cities such as Freiburg and Copenhagen have successfully reduced car usage and urban traffic congestion. The problem with L.A.’s system lies in the execution of the ideas – in essence, the city departments pushed through plans with little public consultation, minimal existing infrastructure and no real foresight into how to manage the inevitable problems. It is easy to look at European cities and copy the methods that have worked across these urban areas, but there are fundamental differences in the way US and European cultures exist. To expect the forceful execution of this road diet to work in a city with a metro population of around 13 million people and annual yearly traffic delays of 119 hours per driver is incredibly naïve. Cities need tailored approaches that take on board the input of the residents living there – L.A. seems to have missed out this crucial stage. For cities with successful urban planning the population scarcely exceeds a million and so for L.A. to truly address their congestion problems some intermediate steps are seriously required before any form of road diet can begin to come to fruition.
By considerably reducing the feasibility of using cars in an urban area, it is pivotal that city planning departments have an existing network of extensive, reliable and easily accessible transport alternatives. Whether that be in the form of an operational metro system or a series of cycling only routes, there needs to be infrastructure in place to mitigate the effects of halting car usage. Much of the outrage in the Los Angeles communities can be attributed to the complete lack of options being presented by these new urban plans. Taken from an article written by the Los Angeles Times in 2019, the graph below highlights the truly subpar service much of L.A.’s public transport provides. In addition to the existing Orange Line, there are proposals for more bus rapid transit systems which will each have platforms and dedicated rights of way. With carbon emissions being such a hot topic recently it is understandable why the L.A. planning departments are attempting to crack down on the excessive car use in the city, however I feel their success would be greater if proposals such as the bus rapid transit had been enacted before the road diet.
Nevertheless, the residents and commuters are not free from responsibility and blame in regard to the disappointing results of the road diet. For many of the residents complaining, often a restrictive mindset is present in which driving is the be all and end all. I understand the typical American city is vast and sprawling, L.A. clearly exemplifies this, and so it just isn’t realistic to assume residents are able cycle everywhere. But a lack of open-mindedness from communities hinders any slither of progression the planning departments make. The key to mitigating a lot of congestion is investing in cheaper public transport – if a cheap, reliable system can be offered to L.A. residents they may be swayed. A reallocation of budgets and funding is critical in solving an unacceptable urban network that has favoured cars, highways and unsustainable travel for too long. Over the past century, many American cities have seen their transport options become privatised as corporations attempted to monopolise transportation contracts. The US government has frequently been accused of colluding with the American automotive industry in a way that solely benefits the sales and profits of large car companies. In a 2018 article published by Mike Spector in the Wall Street Journal,
“The Environmental Protection Agency has tentatively concluded that future vehicle emissions standards should be eased, a decision long lobbied for by car companies that argued looming regulations are too stringent and need revision. The EPA has drafted a so-called final determination that outlines arguments for relaxing standards requiring auto makers to cut emissions enough, so vehicles sold average more than 50 miles a gallon by 2025.”
Until the governing bodies stop favouring these environmentally inefficient modes of transport, cities like L.A. are always going to be fighting traffic, pollution and progression. Returning back to the core theme of this article, road diets, I am of the opinion that L.A. is trying to reverse its image too quickly with little foresight. Unlike New York or Copenhagen – cities built around walking or cycling – Los Angeles was built around the car, and as such it would be naïve to remove the automobile completely from future urban plans. But for me, I want to know what form of car the new L.A. going to include in its plans. If it continues to favour diesel cars then nothing will change, but if the city focuses on electric cars with charging points, people can still have the automotive amenities with less environmental impact.
In addition to a more sustainable car scene, improved public transport, pedestrianised zones and designated cycling routes would all work together in managing L.A.’s congestion. When these reliable systems of buses, metro trains and cycle routes are implemented (financed by money that would normally be used for highway maintenance and creation) then I have no doubt a road diet will reduce traffic numbers. But until then, the concept will remain a divisive one for the city.