"But any proposal to ease congestion runs up against the gangrenous environmentalists who view gridlock positively, as a means of reducing car ridership and “saving” the environment...The city was built for the automobile, but the liberals who run things have been trying to change that. They talk about putting highways “on a diet,” but they’ve only succeeded in worsening the traffic problem...In a one-party town, failure has no consequences. Los Angeles mostly just throws more money at the problem."
What comes immediately before that:
Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti offers a host of plans to alleviate the problem: Vision Zero, Great Streets, Complete Streets, Streets for People, and the optimistically named Mobility Plan 2035. But....
I know of at least some of those plans, and I'm cynical about the rest. "Complete Streets" usually means reducing general traffic lanes to make at least one Safe Space for bicycles, among other measures that ultimately reduce capacity. It's one of those "road diets" mentioned above. "Vision Zero" plans seem to imply that a motor vehicle is always at fault whe a pedestrian dies (the "zero" is an idea of zero traffic deaths), and therefore the plans seek to choke the streets accordingly. I don't expect much difference from "Streets for People," the underlying idea of which is probably that drivers aren't people, or "Mobility Plan 2035," which probably looks like a major Chinese city from years ago with the commoners all on bikes.
I grew up in Long Beach, attended and lived at USC, and then voted with my feet and left LA County permanently for OC and RivCo. I now avoid LA whenever possible. If SC and the Dodgers will just move to Riverside, I’m set.