Los Angeles is Forcing the Addition of Bus and Bicycle Lanes That Nobody Uses to Combat Another Made-up Crisis
Policies crafted in support of “safetyism” prove once again to ignore trade-offs in the pursuit of unrealistic goals of safety for everyone. So L.A.
Empty road space and congested traffic. It’s a brave new world of “protected” bus and bike lanes. Hope you’re in no hurry to get where you’re going.
Huzzah! The city of Los Angeles will now require the addition of nearly six hundred miles of bike lanes as well as two hundred additional miles of dedicated bus lanes and traffic signal prioritization for public transit. Exactly the opposite to how transportation has been trending in L.A. for over fifty years.
Backers of Measure HLA insist that the proposal to radically restructure L.A. roads to accommodate bicycles and buses is “urgently needed” to reduce the number of pedestrian deaths on L.A. streets. “We have to address this as a ‘public health crisis’” claims the head of a “transit advocacy group.”
We’ve heard a lot about measures being put into place for the sake of a nebulous “crisis” of public health which leads to more spending, more rules, and less freedom of movement. We’ve just recently come out of the pandemic restrictions and mandates that are proving themselves to be either wrong or horribly wrong but were implemented anyway because of a “PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS!”
Do you know what constitutes a “public health crisis” in metropolitan Los Angeles, population 12.6 million? 337 traffic fatalities in 2023, around 170 of them pedestrians. Every death is tragic but claiming yet another “crisis” to justify yet another bad idea is absurd.
Returning to the 19th century
The words “public health crisis” are being used generously to justify pouring more taxpayer dollars into a transit system that utilizes 19th century thinking to deliver mobility solutions that…create traffic headaches, slows first response, and does not solve the true reason behind pedestrian deaths in the streets of L.A, which is people walking in the street at night.
Much of this bus and bike lane advocacy also leans on so-called “quality of life” and “climate change” dogma, in which trade-offs are ignored entirely in favor of demonizing “car-dependency” as something people should be ashamed of. Never mind that the automobile has brought incalculable freedom and human value to individuals who previously needed to live in city centers where most of the jobs were. Automotive mobility allowed families to live in suburbs where “quality of life” was better, crime was lower, cost of living was within reach, and choices were abundant. This entire “greater good” overreach has resulted in a few loud voices claiming moral superiority over everyone else, and if you don’t agree then you’re the problem.
Do I hate bicycles and buses? Of course not. But I have learned over time to treat so-called “solutions” to transportation matters with much skepticism particularly when they are positioned as for the “greater good,” as this usually means benefits for a select few and inconveniences for everyone else.
There’s no excuse for anyone who drives to hit a pedestrian at any time of the day, but if people are determined to walk or ride a bike in traffic at night, chances are higher that they’ll be hit by a car. No amount of legislation is going to change that.
Parked cars are safer than those that move…duh!
It is true that slowing traffic will reduce deaths on the street. In fact, you can slow it down to zero and eliminate all pedestrian deaths, which is what Measure HLA will do during daytime commuter hours. At night, when most people are at home and the streets are nearly empty, drivers have the roads to themselves and pedestrians are at the highest risk of danger. No number of bus and bike lanes are going to eliminate that danger – at some point a pedestrian or cyclist is going to take a risk, calculated or not, to cross a dark stretch of road that might have a vehicle coming their way. Short of taking vehicles off the road altogether, there is nothing that will prevent ALL pedestrian and bicycle injuries and deaths.
But that is what dumb maneuvers such as Measure HLA intend to do. Again, this is 19th century thinking, that we can return to walking, bicycling, and mass transit solutions “for the greater good.” You know, like we did in 1886.
Is having delayed emergency response time “for the greater good?” Is increased traffic congestion “for the greater good?” Is putting more people on bicycles and scooters “for the greater good?”
How is driving a car damaging one’s health or quality of life, or anyone else’s for that matter? This is what advocates are claiming without any proof whatsoever in support of their hardened viewpoints.
What is “Safetyism?”
In recent years, a belief system known as “safetyism” has been established in which safety has become a sacred value. Those of this belief system are unwilling to consider the trade-offs that are inevitable when demanding 100 percent safety at all times for everyone. Used initially for speech control on college campuses (because words are “harmful”), this culture is easily transferrable to public sectors such as transportation as we are seeing in Measure HLA. In attempting to prevent all harm to pedestrians and bicyclists, everyone else must be prevented from having adequate access to roads for their cars.
And maybe that’s the intention – to get people out of their cars and onto scooters and bicycles, and into buses. What are the trade-offs here?
For starters, people who would otherwise drive into L.A. from outside the city will simply go somewhere else, taking their business potential with them. If L.A. wishes to do business only with people that don’t drive, that wish will be granted.
Also, by limiting traffic flow by mandating bus and bike lanes, emergency response will be delayed or eliminated altogether. A fire that would otherwise be dealt with quickly will likely consume an entire building for lack of firefighting resources. An ambulance will waste precious time combatting traffic that cannot pull over due to “protected” bus and bike lanes.
It is unclear if first responders can have emergency access to these bus and bike lanes, which the “safetyism” crowd is probably not considering due to an unwillingness to recognize trade-offs within the belief system.
You really can’t blame the anti-car zealots running L.A. They’re quite clear on their values and intentions, and they keep getting put into office.
Time and time again, the people of Los Angeles get what they vote for. And they get it good and hard.