“Right now, our transit system reflects an old design,” DuPage County Board Chair Deb Conroy testified in Naperville. “One that saw commuting as merely bedroom communities serving downtown workplaces.”
“All suburban residents deserve the same level and access to and from Naperville to Rosemont or from Oak Park to the Morton Arboretum in Lisle.”
College of DuPage student Rowan Julian experienced that disconnect trying to get from Wheaton to Batavia to see a friend, a 20-minute car trip. She wanted to use public transit but found it could take up to one hour and 40 minutes.
“For me I felt like I had no choice … so I chose to take my car,” she said.
Even in deep-blue states, a bipartisan coalition keeps the highway funding spigot open, said Amy Lee, a postdoc at the University of California, Los Angeles who wrote her dissertation about California’s failure to constrain highway growth. “The construction-materials companies tend to be very big on the right, and organized labor tends to be very powerful on the left,” she said, and these forces form a pro-highway juggernaut. In January, a coalition of construction companies and labor groups sent a letter to California’s top elected leaders defending “funding for infrastructure projects that may potentially increase vehicle miles traveled”—i.e., highway expansions. (The Laborers’ International Union of North America did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article.) As with electric vehicles, highway construction seems to be a topic in which environmental and union interests diverge.
Transportation departments don’t want to hear no on highways. In 2022 Oklahoma’s department of transportation preemptively bought 23 web domains, like oklahomansagainstturnpikes.com and stoptheeasternloop.com, that could theoretically be used to rally opposition to the state’s $5 billion highway plan. Speaking up against pavement within a department can be difficult and risky. Last year, Jeanie Ward-Waller, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology–trained engineer who served as the deputy director of planning and modal programs for California’s Caltrans, was demoted after questioning her agency’s plans to widen I-80 between Sacramento and Davis. In an editorial published in the San Francisco Chronicle, Ward-Waller wrote, “My concerns were repeatedly brushed off by my bosses, who seemed more concerned about getting the next widening project underway than following the law.”
At the federal level, even asking questions about the collective climate impact of highway building appears verboten. In 2022 Stephanie Pollack, the acting head of the Federal Highway Administration, called on state DOTs to measure the carbon emissions attributable to their highway systems. Republicans were incensed; 21 states filed a suit, and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell advised governors to simply ignore her.
Democrats have supported highway expansions too. The White House called the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law “a critical step towards reaching President Biden’s goal of a net-zero emissions economy by 2050,” but subsequent analysis by Transportation for America found that state DOTs used nearly a quarter of the $270 billion they received through the law to expand highways, a move sure to increase emissions. (After the infrastructure bill was passed, the head of Louisiana’s transportation department said that “some of the winners I think from this project funding will be things like the Inter-City Connector,” referring to the Shreveport project.)
With so many forces pushing for roadway expansions, opposing them requires political bravery.
As noted above, this system requires resources. And both major political parties tend to support it. They might fight particular projects (also highlighted in the article) but they generally find the money needed for fixing roads and creating new ones.
To reverse course then requires a major political change. Resources could be funneled elsewhere. The topic could become a regular campaign issue. It could join with popular support. How might it be pitched? Here are two areas where I could guess these political appeals might work:
The individual costs of driving are high. Paying for gas, insurance, maintenance, storing a vehicle, and more add up. Are all people interested in paying this year after year after year?
A desire among some (not all) for denser living areas that can support less driving. Even American cities can be sprawling but it seems there is some interest for communities that are more walkable and accessible by other means.
There are other arguments to make, of course. The two I listed get at different opportunities people might want. Pivoting from a transportation method that tends to privilege individual choices to travel wherever they want whenever they want might require providing different opportunities.
One of the proposals would forbid Washington’s local government from banning right turns at red lights. Another would do away with the automated traffic-enforcement cameras that ticket D.C. drivers for speeding, blowing stop signs and other violations.
The provisions are not just a case of earnest traffic-engineering wonkery sneaking into Congressional oversight. They represent a culture-war cause just as real as D.C.’s needle-exchange efforts or mask mandates, two other targets of current GOP riders. At the core of it is the politically revealing question of cars versus other ways of getting around.
In blue cities across the country, local road policy in the past decade has been tweaked in the name of making things safer and more enticing for non-drivers — often by making things slower and more annoying for motorists…
In a polarized country, it was inevitable that this would become more than just a disagreement over traffic circulation and moving violations. After all, the 21st century push to promote alternative modes of transportation cites a Democratic-coded cause (climate change) to promote ways of getting around (by foot, bike, bus, or subway) that are a lot more convenient in dense blue cities.
On the right, for more than a decade, there’s been a refrain about the “war on cars” right alongside the war on Christmas. “There is a loud constituency that does not want you to drive your car,” said Jay Beeber, executive director for policy at the National Motorists Association, which has championed the measures dictating Washington policy. “A lot of this is virtue signaling.”
Four thoughts:
Is it “inevitable” that this would become a culture war issue? I am sure there is an interesting history in here. Does this go back to seat belt laws? Speed limits on highways set in the 1970s?
It is relatively easy to break this down into cities versus other areas. What about groups or political discussions in between such as suburbs promoting more walkability and bicycling, small towns and rural areas trying to lessen dependence on cars, and regions emphasizing different transportation policies? Are there Republicans for different road policies and Democrats for more driving?
The interplay between federal and local policies is worth paying attention to. Americans tend to like local government oversight of local issues. Do Americans tend to think the federal government does too much regarding traffic policies or not enough?
Where does this issue rank in the range of culture war issues? Is this more like a proxy war or the big issue? Americans like driving so this could get at core concerns about American ways of life.
Doubling down on something she discussed with The Times in April, Bass told reporters at the 2024 Paris Olympics that she envisions expanding public transportation to a point where fans can take trains and buses to dozens of sports venues, from Crypto.com Arena downtown to SoFi Stadium in Inglewood to the beaches of Santa Monica.
“That’s a feat in Los Angeles — we’ve always been in love with our cars,” she said at a news conference Saturday, adding that people “will have to take public transportation to get to all the venues.”
The LA28 organizing committee — a private group charged with staging the Games — prefers to say it is planning a “public-transit-first” Games. Some venues will have ample parking, others will not. Organizers say no one will be told they cannot drive to a competition, but public transportation might be an easier option.
This is a bold vision in a city and region famous for driving, highways, and sprawl. The realism is okay too; trying to do this all in 4 years is a tall task.
But why stop at the Olympics and that several week window? Why not imagine a Los Angeles in ten or twenty years that relies much less on cars? Why not pursue some of the same strategies – working from home, staggered work schedules, more buses – with additional strategies – more mass transit options that do not involve roads, ban planning that does not just keep adding lanes, etc.?
Even if these efforts require the long view and a large amount of resources, the time to start is now. Developing needed infrastructure is costly but pays off down the road. What if the lasting legacy of the Olympics in Los Angeles was not property or stadiums that people do not know what to do with (a common issue in recent Olympic cities) but a new approach to the streetscape and getting around?
URB has released conceptual designs for a 64-kilometer-long highway that would see Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed Road, one of the city’s main traffic belts, transformed into a “Green Spine,” complete with autonomous, solar-powered trams and smart traffic management…
The autonomous solar-powered tram is just one aspect of the proposed highway’s transport system: above the tram line, a network of green areas, parks and overpasses would increase connectivity and walkability of the city, which is currently tough to navigate on foot.
The highway would also integrate smart technology, such as “internet of things” (IoT) sensors, to manage traffic and optimize energy use.
Bagherian’s designs allow for 300-megawatt solar panels and a storage system to be embedded in the tracks, that would power the tram line, as well as generate clean energy for an estimated 130,000 homes.
And the green spaces — including parks and community gardens — would provide space for one million trees, which would also help cool the city and improve air quality.
Does making driving greener and roads less invasive in communities make driving more palatable to critics? A number of critics want to reduce driving all together for a variety of reasons including reliance on fossil fuels and changing the scale of communities from human oriented to moving heavy boxes quickly and efficiently.
Perhaps this sort of approach is pragmatic. It might be very difficult to get rid of cars and vehicles. Transitioning to alternative fuels will take time. Cars have some advantages compared to other transportation options. Reducing the impact of vehicles could be the way to go: the vehicles keep moving but they are less visible and less disruptive.
I would not be surprised if driving continues at similar volumes in the future and roadways are transformed in ways that mean they do not just serve the vehicles traveling on them.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is running radio ads that tell people to follow the speed limit in order to increase safety on roads. From their website:
For more than two decades, speeding has been involved in approximately one-third of all motor vehicle fatalities. In 2022, speeding was a contributing factor in 29% of all traffic fatalities.
Speed also affects your safety even when you are driving at the speed limit but too fast for road conditions, such as during bad weather, when a road is under repair, or in an area at night that isn’t well lit.
Speeding endangers not only the life of the speeder, but all of the people on the road around them, including law enforcement officers. It is a problem we all need to help solve.
Traveling at higher speeds mean it is harder to control a vehicle and those vehicles that do hit other things sustain more damage.
But speed limits can also serve other goals. Perhaps they are also about traffic and the number of vehicles on the roads. Having fewer vehicles means it is possible to go faster, having more vehicles means going at a slower speed makes more sense. Hence, more variable speed limits on highways as speed limits adjust to traffic and conditions.
The National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) was a provision of the federal government of the United States 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that effectively prohibited speed limits higher than 55 miles per hour (89 km/h). The limit was increased to 65 miles per hour (105 km/h) in 1987…
The law was widely disregarded by motorists nationwide, and some states opposed the law,[3][4] but many jurisdictions discovered it to be a major source of revenue. Actions ranged from proposing deals for an exemption to de-emphasizing speed limit enforcement. The NMSL was modified in 1987 and 1988 to allow up to 65 mph (105 km/h) limits on certain limited-access rural roads. Congress repealed the NMSL in 1995, fully returning speed limit-setting authority to the individual states.
Montana, once known for its wild, limitless roads, did not want to be left behind as other Western states increase their speed limits. Idaho, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah and others have set 80 mile per hour speed limits on at least some sections of road.
Tunnels allow more hybridization of ground-level activities, he said. Pedestrians on the earth’s surface can more easily walk without car infrastructure.
Menard added that residents can look to Singapore, a country that has heavily invested in tunneling, as an example.
On the ground, the country has developed a strong recreational economy with expansive pedestrian walkways.
Underground, citizens can easily transport from one area of the country to another.
For those who would like cities to be less oriented around cars, could this be a solution? Moving cars and trucks underground would open up space, move the noise and traffic out of sight, and make the surface safer.
From an infrastructure standpoint, in how many cities would this be possible? Can tunnels underground work in every city given conditions underground and what may already be down there? (And then there is the potential cost to get it all up and running – I assume this is a large cost.)
Finally, how would drivers react to moving mostly underground? This can be done now in some places but it is certainly a different environment to drive in. (Experiencing Lower Wacker Drive in Chicago is instructive.) Imagine underground traffic. Or being down there for half an hour or more before emerging to daylight.
Planning in the United States tends to emphasize driving. This shows up in many ways over many decades and in many places.
Perhaps the store and the apartment are part of separate developments constructed at separate times. Building them at the same time may have presented an opportunity to provide a linking walkway.
Could it be a question of who would pay for the walkway and who would pay to maintain it?
Has there been local public support for a walkway? Debate at local government meetings? Has the question been raised repeatedly?
Americans tend to at the official levels and in individual choices promote driving. Many developments in the United States, particularly in suburbia, rely on driving. It can require working against the grain to promote other modes of transportation, including walking.
It is rare to find drivers on major roads that will only go as fast as the speed limit. If anything, the speed limit seems like an anchor at the bottom end of possible speeds so that people do not just drive at whatever speed they want. If the speed limit is 45, few will go only 42 or 44 but the speed limit might keep them from going 75 because that is far away from 45. Future technology might change this: if cars have speed limiters, where will the line be set?
One way to address this is to have no speed limit. Only a few places do this.
Why not try a speed range? Imagine Chicago highways that have a speed limit of 50-70. Some people might feel more comfortable at the lower end, some at the higher end.
Is the real issue that drivers will not follow any limit unless there is enforcement? Technology could lead to automatically fining drivers (speed cameras, GPS, toll devices, etc.). Or, is it about current conditions (less traffic can lead to higher speeds, more congestion slows speeds)? Some roadways now have variable speeds where digital signs change the speed limits for the given conditions.
All this to say, a speed limit seems more like a number that most American drivers treat as a recommendation and not an imperative. This has big implications for the driving experience, how Americans regard driving, and safety.
The proposal is part of a broader look at transit funding, as the region’s public transit agencies face a combined $730 million budget hole once federal COVID-19 relief funding starts running out, which could be as soon as 2025. Transit agencies have warned failure to plug the financial hole could lead to catastrophic service cuts and fare increases, and the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning was tasked by the Illinois General Assembly with developing recommendations to overhaul transit, which were delivered to lawmakers in December.
The decision to introduce legislation is a signal of how some lawmakers and civic organizations want to proceed. Already, the transit agencies have sought more state funding, while the civic organizations and lawmakers say funding must be linked to changes to the way transit is overseen. But debate about consolidating the transit agencies and funding could prove thorny in Springfield.
Still, merging the transit agencies has garnered some support. The Civic Federation, a business-backed Chicago watchdog group, recently endorsed the idea, and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle also previously expressed her support for the concept…
The proposal set to be introduced this week in Springfield is expected to replace the Regional Transportation Authority, which coordinates financing for the agencies, with a new Metropolitan Mobility Authority. The new agency would oversee the operation of buses, trains and paratransit, rather than having the CTA, Metra and Pace each operate their own services.
The proposal would revamp the number of board members on the new agency and who appoints them. The current system is complex and layered, regional planners have pointed out, with 47 board members across the agencies appointed by 21 elected officials. That has given nearly two dozen state, suburban and city officials varying levels of influence on the transit boards.
There is a lot to be worked out. No one community can address this issue. Even if the big city in a region has a great system, that city does not stand alone as people and business moves throughout the region. Indeed, in many regions, many of the jobs and much of the activity takes place in the suburbs where driving is even more prominent. Thus, I am in favor of this if it can improve transit options, create budget efficiencies, and help the region plan for the future.
One outcome is consistent in postwar era in the United States: we tend to get more roads and increasing traffic. In many regions, there are multiple competing interests regarding transportation. Do suburbanites want mass transit lines? What infrastructure already exists? Who controls the budgets? What political processes do ideas and plans need to work through? In a country devoted to driving, it can be hard to promote alternative options.
Legally Sociable 