Traffic, Trains and Trade-Offs

Summary

Boiling Point: Traffic, Trains and Trade-Offs

Episode Release Date: April 17, 2025
Host: Sammy Roth, Climate Columnist for the Los Angeles Times
Guest: Carter Rubin, Director of State Transportation Advocacy, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

---

Introduction: California’s Transportation and Climate Challenges

In the episode titled "Traffic, Trains and Trade-Offs," host Sammy Roth delves into California's intricate relationship between transportation infrastructure and climate change. Despite California's reputation as a climate-friendly state, persistent issues such as congested freeways, gasoline-dependent vehicles, and sprawling suburbs continue to exacerbate the state’s carbon footprint. Roth emphasizes the urgent need to reimagine urban landscapes like Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area by enhancing public transit, increasing housing density near transit hubs, expanding electric vehicle infrastructure, and reducing traffic congestion on major highways like the 405.

Permitting Reform: Shovel Ready vs. Shovel Worthy

Roth introduces Carter Rubin from the NRDC to discuss the state's legislative focus on permitting reform—a process aimed at easing construction approvals for projects like wind farms, housing developments, and transit systems. Rubin clarifies the distinction between "shovel ready" and "shovel worthy" projects:

Carter Rubin [04:24]: "We certainly would not support streamlining highway expansion or sprawl development that impacts ecosystems. It's really important that the legislature focuses on shovel worthy projects, not just shovel ready projects."

Rubin explains that while accelerating construction can address immediate climate and housing needs, it must not come at the expense of environmental degradation or community disruption. The challenge lies in ensuring that permitting reforms prioritize projects that align with California's climate and clean air goals, avoiding the perpetuation of outdated infrastructure priorities like fossil fuel highways.

The Iron Law of Traffic Congestion: Interstate 80 Case Study

A significant portion of the discussion centers on the ongoing expansion of Interstate 80 (I-80) near Sacramento and Davis. Rubin critiques the planned widening of the Yolo Causeway section from six to eight lanes, arguing that it will ultimately lead to increased traffic congestion rather than alleviating it. He cites the "iron law of traffic congestion," which posits that adding lanes temporarily eases traffic but ultimately attracts more drivers, returning congestion to its original state or worse.

Carter Rubin [11:17]: "What we know happens is in the short term, people see that traffic's flowing a little bit better... until we just end up back where we started."

Rubin highlights NRDC's legal challenge against Caltrans' flawed environmental analysis for the I-80 expansion, pointing out inadequate mitigation efforts for the additional traffic and the lack of exploration of alternative solutions that promote public transit and reduce car dependency.

Investing in Public Transit: Capital Corridor and Future Prospects

Rubin contrasts the detrimental effects of highway expansions with the benefits of investing in public transit. He lauds existing projects like the Capital Corridor commuter rail service, which, despite operating with polluting diesel locomotives, exemplifies the potential for effective transit solutions when prioritized correctly.

Carter Rubin [13:06]: "If Caltrans had its priorities right, it would have thought through... electrify our rail system so that the trains are cleaner and they can travel faster."

He envisions a future where electrified, high-capacity rail systems replace congested freeways, offering reliable and environmentally friendly alternatives for both passengers and freight. Rubin underscores the importance of robust transit infrastructure in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving quality of life by decreasing reliance on personal vehicles.

Wilshire Subway Extension: A Catalyst for Change

Roth and Rubin discuss the Wilshire subway extension, a crucial urban transit project set to connect Koreatown to Westwood. Rubin praises the project as potentially transformative for Los Angeles, facilitating rapid transit between major hubs and fostering a shift in the city’s mobility paradigm.

Carter Rubin [26:18]: "The Wilshire is the one project that I think people are like underestimating... It is going to remap what people think about mobility in the region."

Despite decades of delays due to technical, financial, and political challenges, the Wilshire extension represents a major step toward a transit-oriented future. Rubin asserts that completing this project will demonstrate Los Angeles's commitment to sustainable transportation and set a precedent for future infrastructure endeavors.

Housing and Transit: Fostering Sustainable Communities

Addressing the intersection of housing and transportation, Rubin emphasizes the importance of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) in combating California's housing crisis while promoting sustainable living. Programs like Los Angeles' Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) incentivize the construction of higher-density, affordable housing near transit stations, creating a synergistic relationship between increased housing availability and enhanced public transit usage.

Carter Rubin [32:55]: "If we all work together and if we're in a kind of zero sum thinking where, well, I don't want to contribute to the solution because I don't think my neighboring city is going to do it, that's when we get stuck."

Rubin advocates for expanding such programs, highlighting voter support for transit and housing initiatives as evidence that communities are receptive to these sustainable development models.

Overcoming NIMBYism: Community Support and Electoral Backing

Contrary to the common perception of widespread NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) opposition, Rubin points to strong electoral support for transit and housing projects in California. He cites multiple instances where voters have approved significant tax measures and infrastructure projects, demonstrating community backing for sustainable development.

Carter Rubin [33:34]: "Voters in LA county have approved taxing ourselves four times to build public transit... That's right. And in LA City, voters recently approved the Healthy Streets LA measure..."

Rubin explains that while individual projects may face localized opposition, the broader electorate tends to favor investments in public transit and housing, indicating a collective willingness to embrace change for the greater environmental and social good.

Environmental Justice: Repairing Past Harms and Building Equitable Infrastructure

The conversation also touches on the importance of addressing historical environmental injustices, such as the construction of freeways through marginalized communities. Rubin underscores the need to prioritize infrastructure projects that not only advance climate goals but also rectify past harms by enhancing community well-being and reducing pollution exposure.

Carter Rubin [22:39]: "One of the things that I would prioritize in terms of our transportation investments going forward is repairing the harms of the past."

Initiatives like the Reconnecting Communities program exemplify efforts to reinvest in neighborhoods affected by highway construction, focusing on improving air quality, expanding green spaces, and ensuring that new developments support the health and prosperity of existing residents.

Conclusion: A Path Forward for California’s Climate and Transportation Goals

In wrapping up the discussion, Roth and Rubin highlight the critical need for California to accelerate the transition to sustainable transportation systems. By prioritizing public transit, implementing thoughtful permitting reforms, and fostering Transit-Oriented Development, California can significantly reduce its transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and enhance the quality of life for its residents.

Rubin remains optimistic about the state’s progress, noting that collaborative efforts between government, communities, and advocacy groups are paving the way for a more sustainable and equitable transportation future.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Carter Rubin [04:24]: "We have to make sure it's the kinds of projects that are helping get Californians get around more affordably... without the impacts on ecosystems and neighborhoods."

• Carter Rubin [11:17]: "The iron law of traffic congestion since the 1960s... people adjust their driving behavior until the road is back at full capacity."

• Carter Rubin [26:18]: "The Wilshire is the one project that I think people are like underestimating... It is going to remap what people think about mobility in the region."

• Carter Rubin [33:34]: "Voters in LA county have approved taxing ourselves four times to build public transit... they really like this stuff, they vote for housing bonds, they vote for transit infrastructure."

---

This episode of Boiling Point provides a comprehensive exploration of the complex interplay between transportation infrastructure, housing, and climate change in California. Through insightful dialogue with Carter Rubin, listeners gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities in creating a sustainable and equitable transportation system that meets the state's climate goals.

Transcript

[Carter Rubin]

This is an LA Times Studios podcast.

[Sami Roth]

My name is Sami Roth and I'm the climate columnist for the Los Angeles Times. This is Boiling Point. Despite its reputation as America's most climate friendly state, California has a lot of traffic, clogged freeways and cars that run on gasoline, and sprawling suburbs that force people to drive their gas guzzling cars very, very long distances to get from their houses to their jobs and back. To be fair, most of those freeways were built before we fully understood the dangers of global warming. And there are more electric vehicles per capita in California than in any other state. And our politicians, they're doing a lot of good work to enable the construction of solar and wind farms to power our electric vehicles. But nobody is pretending that any of it is enough to confront the climate crisis. California needs to look a lot different in the future than it did in the past. We especially need to reimagine Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area. We need a lot more public transit, a lot more apartment buildings near public transit, a a lot more electric vehicle chargers fueled by clean energy, and a lot less time sitting in Traffic on the 405. If you live here, that might all sound impossible, but it's gotta start somewhere. And that's why some state lawmakers are talking this year about permitting reform. If you haven't heard that term before, it basically means making it easier to build stuff, which you might think would be a political no brainer until you realize that permitting reform can mean limiting environmental reviews for construction projects and possibly limiting opportunities for public comment. The easier it is to build a wind farm or a housing development or a train, the more likely it is that a group of people in the path of construction or an endangered species might see their lives change dramatically. And sometimes, maybe that's okay. Sometimes it's definitely not okay. If you've been listening to this podcast for a while or reading my columns, you've probably heard me say that fighting climate change is full of trade offs. But regardless, there are definitely opportunities, if we do this carefully, to make life better opportunities to build healthier, happier, more vibrant cities while minimizing damage to the environment or public health. This week I'll be talking about some of those opportunities with Carter Rubin. He serves as Director of State Transportation Advocacy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, or nrdc. Like me, he grew up in West LA and has spent way too much time sitting in traffic on the 10, a lot of it going to Dodger Stadium. He's got an important perspective on how housing and transit play into dealing with climate change and on the permitting reform bills being debated in Sacramento. Carter, thanks very much for being with us on the Boiling Point podcast for.

[Carter Rubin]

It'S great to be with you.

[Sami Roth]

So you and I have talked before. It's been a little while, but definitely follow the work you do at NRDC and enjoy reading your tweets or Blue sky posts now. I guess I read this quote from you recently in a story about permitting reform. There's this package of bills in the legislature that would make reforms to state law, to the California Environmental Quality act in particular to try to make it easier to build a lot of stuff in California, housing, electric, vehicle chargers, clean energy facilities, a whole laundry list of things. You had this quote that really jumped out at me in this story. You said we certainly would not support streamlining highway expansion or sprawl development that impacts ecosystems. It's really important that the legislature focuses on shovel worthy projects, not just shovel ready projects. And I thought that was such an interesting and cool formulation because people are always talking about shovel ready projects. You know, you've got it. You know, if something is ready to go, you've got government's got to make it as easy as possible to build this thing. But then you added in this twist of it doesn't it's not just something that's shovel ready, it's got to be shovel worthy. Expand on that a little bit.

[Carter Rubin]

I think what it reflects is the fact that we're at this pivotal moment where we really feel like we need to step on the gas and build a lot more of the kinds of beneficial projects that are going to help with our environment or housing affordability. But we've done things a certain way for a century. We've built out fossil fuel infrastructure, we've built out highway expansion infrastructure. And so a lot of what is in the pipeline that could be accelerated because it's been studied or it's been planned, it's been funded are projects that reflect priorities from last century. And so simply speeding up everything that's already ready to build is going to push through a lot of projects that are going to harm the environment and harm communities. And so when we get into the legislative process discussing how do we streamline or accelerate the build out of the good kinds of projects that we all want to see. We have to contend with both what's already in the pipeline and make sure we're not pushing through faster projects that are going to work against our climate goals, our clean air goals, but also we need to contend with interests that are supportive of the kinds of infrastructure that we have concerns about. So people who want to build suburban sprawl out into the urban wildland interface.

[Sami Roth]

Which is bad for wildfires and creates more vehicle miles traveled, more driving, threatens sensitive habitat for endangered species, stuff that maybe is not so good.

[Carter Rubin]

Exactly. It's not where we want to be building more housing. We need a lot more housing, but not in places where the people who live there are going to be at risk or it's going to put more traffic on our roads. But the proponents of that kind of development, suburban sprawl building industry is going to be showing up in the legislature saying, oh, but actually we need this too. And so that's where we try to put guardrails around what is shovel worthy, meaning, yes, we need to build things more quickly. I think we all agree about that, but we need to make sure it's the kinds of projects that are, you know, helping get Californians get around more affordably. Housing near jobs and schools, green infrastructure, but without the impacts on ecosystems and neighborhoods and the places we need to protect.

[Sami Roth]

Why is it so hard to separate, you know, permitting reform to make it easier to build good stuff and permitting reform that also makes it easier to build stuff that we don't want from a climate perspective, bad stuff.

[Carter Rubin]

When you start to open up a conversation about changing state laws that protect the environment, you invite a lot of players to come in and try to make the case for what kinds of projects they think are, you know, shovel worthy. Everyone thinks the projects that they support are shovel worthy. And as environmentalists, you know, that has a definition for us. But, you know, there are other people who have real cachet in the capitol who, you know, think we should be building, you know, more fossil fuel pipelines and different projects that, you know, are going to have environmental impacts. And so we know that when that conversation gets open, we need to not just be elucidating what are the changes that would enable the good stuff, but being ready to defend people crowding into that conversation saying, oh, yeah, but you know, we do need this one more natural gas power plant. So, Right. You know, it's hard. We're trying to hold the line. I think one example of where we've seen this starting to work out is in California. The state has prioritized clean transportation projects within existing cities, on existing city streets, and basically said, if we're building dedicated bike lanes or light rail in the middle of a city street, those are projects that we know are intrinsically good for the environment, they're going to clean Our air, they're going to reduce the burdens of traffic on communities. Those are things we need to build quickly and efficiently. And so the legislature has already in California passed laws that exempt a lot of those kinds of projects from the strictest reviews. But we really need to ensure we're not applying the same kind of logic to a major highway expansion project where adding lanes to freeways like we saw with the widening of the sepulveda pass. Now 10 years ago, it was full of car traffic the day it opened. And a study from USC found that traffic was actually worse than before construction started. So I think we have a chance in California to start moving in the right direction. And a report from some of our allies at SPUR in San Francisco found that over 90 projects have been accelerated. These are bike and pedestrian oriented projects, transit projects that are in existing communities, on city streets that are moving quickly. And we're able to make the investments, help people get around without having to get in their cars.

[Sami Roth]

And the problem that you're describing that these freeway widening projects take tend to just lead to more congestion. You add more lanes. This has been known historically for a really long time. You add more lanes, it just leads to more traffic. Congestion eases, and then it just adds to more people driving these routes, and then congestion gets worse. Again, it doesn't really solve any problems. This is happening right now at a really heavily trafficked corridor, the i80 corridor between Sacramento and Davis outside of the California Capitol. Talk about what's been going on there, because nrdc, as I understand it, is involved in a lawsuit related to that that goes to trial pret soon. Talk about what's happening on Interstate 80.

[Carter Rubin]

Yeah, so this is a major corridor between the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento. And over the last decades, Caltrans has been widening various stretches of this corridor, and they are now coming to this part of i80 that is called the Yolo Causeway. And it's a long bridge structure that goes over the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Refuge. And they're planning to widen the freeway from six lanes in total to eight lanes by adding one lane in each direction. And they're actually right now out there strengthening and widening the shoulders of the freeway to accommodate the new lanes. We are advocating that Caltrans should be prioritizing different kinds of investments to solve the core problem, which is that people are getting stuck in traffic, goods are getting stuck in traffic. We need to provide different ways for people and goods to move so that we're not getting stuck in traffic. We don't think adding One more lane in each direction is going to accomplish.

[Sami Roth]

That because ultimately there's just going to be more traffic and you're going to have the same problem all over again. Three, four, seven years down the road or something like that.

[Carter Rubin]

Yeah. And they've called it the iron law of traffic congestion since the 1960s. What we know happens is in the short term, people see that traffic's flowing a little bit better and they say, okay, well, I was planning to go to a different location, but now that I can go on i80 because it's got one more lane, I'm going to go in that direction and I'm going to take my car and I'm going to drive by myself. And I'm actually going to drive at rush hour, even though previously I would have tried to avoid it. I would have gone in the middle of the day. So people adjust the time of day, the mode, the direction, until the, the road is back at full capacity. It reaches this equilibrium where, where it was previously, because we know that when the road is congested as it is now, that is discouraging people from driving during the congested times. So you add a little more space. And then the people who used to be discouraged, I say, okay, well, now I'm going to drive more at rush hour. And they also drive instead of walking or biking or taking transit. So that all happens in the short term, like zero to five years after the project opens. And then in the long run they might say, well, my commute's a little bit faster, so maybe I'll move a little bit further away from where I work. So people make these longer term decisions about where they work, where firms are located, until we just end up back where we started. And I think this corridor is really illustrative of the problem of priorities that Caltrans has, where directly parallel to it is the Capital Corridor commuter rail service that runs from Auburn down to Sacramento to Davis Martinez down to Oakland. And this is a busy rail quarter. The last time I rode it, I was riding from Oakland up to Sacramento and I shared a table with someone who works for bart, someone who works.

[Sami Roth]

Bay Area Rapid transit for those who don't live in the Bay Area or haven't spent a lot of time there.

[Carter Rubin]

Yeah, yeah, the transit system. Also at our table was a special ed teacher and someone who works for the Alameda county courts. And we had this like crack up conversation just over happy hour beers on the train, on our commute back for them back to home. And for them they were commuting into The Bay Area from Susan City, Martinez, and these suburbs of the Bay Area and the Capitol Corridor is, like, pretty good as far as transit goes in California. But if you're not commuting during rush hour, there might only be a train every two hours. It runs on polluting diesel locomotives that the state has said we need to retire because they had put carbon pollution in the air and particulate matter in communities. This train corridor runs directly next to i80 on a separate bridge within a stone's throw of the corridor that they're widening. If Caltrans had its priorities right, it would have thought through, okay, we could make the transit rail connection from Sacramento to Oakland in the Bay Area as good as a transit connection in the northeast of the US or in Europe. We need to electrify our rail system so that the trains are cleaner and they can travel faster. We need to double track various sections so there's two tracks so trains don't have to wait for each other if they get to a choke point. All of these things would dramatically improve the lives of the people who are riding the rail system and would make it so compelling and such a good service that drivers would want to opt out of congestion and take the train for when that's a viable option. And growing up on the west side of Los Angeles, I lived in a part of LA where to go anywhere you had to cross the 405 or the 10 freeway, and every street that crosses those freeways is jammed.

[Sami Roth]

And we both, by the way, still live in parts of LA where you have to do that.

[Carter Rubin]

That's true. I haven't moved far from home. And the one thing that has made a difference is the E Line, or what I'll. I'll probably always call it the Expo Line because that's what it was when it first opened.

[Sami Roth]

It's just like the crypto.com arena will always be the Staples Center.

[Carter Rubin]

Exactly. And for my dad, it'll always be the Hollywood Freeway and the Santa Monica freeway, not the 101 and the 10. So the E line is just the one thing that can zip by traffic. And so I think that's the model we advocate Caltrans is looking for. And so when they tried to proceed with this expansion of i80, which is going to pile a lot more cars onto the freeway and into communities, we challenged them in court, saying that their analysis under the California Environmental Quality act was flawed. We raised a bunch of reasons why. And two of the most important for us was the fact that they weren't mitigating the impacts of all this additional driving. They're supposed to. The law requires it. Their guidelines tell them how to do it. But they're only mitigating less than half of the additional driving through investments in some bus service and transit incentives. But they said, well, we didn't budge enough money, so we can't afford to do any more mitigation. Then the other concern is that they didn't study all these different alternatives that would have given Californians ways to opt out of traffic rather than just adding more lanes.

[Sami Roth]

So, two things, a bunch of things I want to follow up on, but two for now. One, you said the rail line is within a stone's throw of the I80 freeway. And anytime I hear anyone use the expression stone's throw, I want to test that out. So next time I'm up there. My in laws live in Davis, so I actually do spend quite a bit of time stuck in the traffic jam created by the construction going along in this corridor that you're suing over. So next time I'm there, maybe I'll get a stone and see if it's actually close enough to test out your turn of phrase.

[Carter Rubin]

Yeah, I mean, to be fair, maybe I'm thinking like Mookie Betts throwing a stone.

[Sami Roth]

Okay. Yeah, I don't quite have his arm strength. I mean, if he were in right field, I'd love to see him make some great throws to third base. I'm not sure how I feel about the shortstop experiment, but that's for another podcast, just for context, because we haven't said this yet. I mean, transportation is in California and nationally the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions of climate change pollution in California, I think it's 40% or close to 40% of emissions. Most people, I think, who associate transportation and climate change are thinking mostly about electric cars are the solution to that. Just big picture, why is public transit and bike infrastructure for biking and buses, why is that so important? Why is it not enough to just say, oh, well, electrify all the cars and keep doing things exactly the way it's been done? Why? Why does transit and also housing, I mean, housing is a climate issue. And thinking about how we design our cities around transit and around changing the way we get around, why is that important? Why is it not enough to just take everything we have now and turn it electric?

[Carter Rubin]

I think there are really three things. One is affordability, one is quality of life, and one is climate change. And I think you can elevate the urgency of each of those in any given moment. On the affordability side, the cost of car ownership is increasing across the board.

[Sami Roth]

And tariffs will help with that though, right?

[Carter Rubin]

Tariffs will put cars even further out of reach. And, you know, we're having challenges in the insurance market and car insurance is getting more expensive. And in terms of quality of life, you know, some of the most desirable places to live in our region, across our state, are places where people can walk to amenities and walk, you know, walk to their, their kids to school. We don't build a lot of places like that. And the places we do have that are walkable or bikable are sometimes unaffordable. And so building more walkable communities centered around public transit investments helps with affordability, helps with the quality of life. Just like not having to get into a car just increases everyone's happiness points, you know, by a lot.

[Sami Roth]

I've never been unhappy sitting in traffic. I don't know what you're talking about. Never happened.

[Carter Rubin]

I spent so much of my life in Southern California in traffic and I got my driver's license at 16 and I think it just scarred me forever. And so now I do whatever I can to not sit in traffic. And last, as you mentioned, climate change. So we need, yes, and electric cars and all these options that help people drive less. Just the sort of sheer carbon math shows that a feasible phasing down of gas powered vehicles, you know, an ambitious phase out with our, you know, no new gas vehicles sold by 2035. State policy is still going to also require us to help people get around outside of their car, you know, using zero carbon tennis shoes and bicycles and all electric clean buses.

[Sami Roth]

Yeah, I know we were joking about sitting in traffic and how fun actually horrible that is. But it is interesting to think about the history of the freeways here and in places like New York and across the country. I mean, those were built at a time, a lot of them in like the 50s and 60s when you could really just build something with impunity. And it was so much easier and that was bad. I mean, and I think that's clearly why there's, you know, we have laws like CEQA and the National Environmental Policy act today to force government agencies to really go in and study things and give the public opportunities for input. I guess. How do you think about that balance between wanting to make sure that sort of the sins of the past aren't repeated and a lot of the environmental justice, environmental injustice, I should say that was done where freeways were bulldozing through communities of color and low income neighborhoods, especially here in Los Angeles and the sort of pollution impacts that live on with that today versus knowing that a lot of the legacy of that is sort of creating impediments for building things that are needed and important and can ideally be done in a way that help people. It's a hard conversation, but I'm just curious how you think about it.

[Carter Rubin]

Well, I'm going to answer your question with a question, please. Is the 105 Freeway a stone's throw away from where we're sitting?

[Sami Roth]

That's a good question. We are here at the LA Times office in El Segundo and I think Mookie Betts might be able to throw a baseball at it from the roof of this building if he was recovered from his norovirus or whatever he lost 20 pounds from. I don't know how he's feeling today. But we're very close to the 105 Freeway. Yes.

[Carter Rubin]

And that's like the poster child for what you were just describing, which is why I wanted to bring it up. That was a freeway proposed that was getting underway in the 1970s, and it was going to require displacing thousands of residents of South LA who are disproportionately black, Latino, non white residents of the region. And it went through a 20 year process that included a federal civil rights consent decree because of the violation of the rights of the residents that they were being singled out for demolition of their homes to route this freeway while more affluent, whiter communities were spared freeway construction. And I think one of the things that I would prioritize in terms of our transportation investments going forward is repairing the harms of the past. Yeah, we've had programs under the bipartisan infrastructure law called Reconnecting Communities.

[Sami Roth]

Yep, that was Biden's first big climate and clean energy investment law before the Inflation Reduction Act.

[Carter Rubin]

That's right. And California's advanced similar projects where instead of thinking, how do we add one more lane to this freeway, what if we had Caltrans engineers come out to the communities that have freeways through them right now and let's try to walk to school, let's try to walk to the grocery store. Getting across this huge freeway infrastructure with cars zooming on and off on ramps and you feel like you're taking your life into your own hands trying to cross the street. And there's so much more we could do to make the places next to freeways where people were not just displaced, but now people who live there are breathing worse air. We know that if you live within 1,000ft of a freeway, you have greater increased likelihood of asthma or heart disease. How can we repair the communities that are being bisected by huge freeway structures to invest in parks and wider sidewalks and crosswalks and bus shelters and shade trees and the whole suite of things I think we're starting to get there. As I said, reconnecting communities is pushing some great projects forward. And the 710 corridor down to Long beach was another project that was long in the works to widen the 710 from downtown LA, kind of east of downtown LA, past all the warehouses, down to the Port of Los Angeles. And it was going to put hundreds, if not thousands of more diesel trucks on the freeway along this corridor in the communities that are already breathing poor air. That project was stopped in part because of the US EPA saying, there's no way you can do this and not be violating the Clean Air Act? That sent Caltrans and LA Metro, the project partners, back to the drawing board. And I think it led to somewhere really productive, which is they engage with community groups to kind of answer these questions that I was raising. What are the kinds of mobility investments you need in your community? How can we make investments that reduce the impacts of the freeway in your community? So as a result, instead of getting billions invested in more concrete, we're getting billions invested in, you know, capturing stormwater on city streets so it's not going into, you know, storm drain channels and out to the ocean and more shade trees and crosswalks and truck chargers so that the trucks that are on the corridor can be electric and have places to charge. So I think there's a path forward. We know what we need to do. And like I was saying, there's just a lot of projects that we know are harmful that are still in the pipeline, and they will only get out of the pipeline if we choose to take them out of the pipeline. And with our advocacy against i80, we are trying to get Caltrans in this case to say, you need to take this widening out of the pipeline and put in the pipeline something better, something that's going to help people get around without putting more cars on the road.

[Sami Roth]

Let's talk about LA for a minute. There is a lot of public transit expansion happening in Los Angeles right now. A lot of rail development or Metro development. And in theory, some of it's supposed to happen before the 2028 Olympics. We'll see how much happens before the 2028 Olympics. I'm fine. If it happens by 2029, too. I'll still be here and still excited to take the train. You sent me an email the other day when we were preparing for this. You called the Wilshire subway extension, which is going to go from Koreatown to Westwood. You called it the most important urban transit project in the country. And I just got so excited when I saw you call it that. Tell me why that's the case. What's so cool about that project?

[Carter Rubin]

I just pinch myself every time I think about this because it is such an important project and LA has done a remarkable thing. It has been rebuilding its rail infrastructure for 34 years and it has not yet managed to build the most important line in the entire system.

[Sami Roth]

This is going to go from West LA to downtown, basically.

[Carter Rubin]

Exactly.

[Sami Roth]

I grew up in west la. I'd love to be able to take the train downtown and back.

[Carter Rubin]

It's going to just unlock everything about the transit system we already have. You will be able to, you know, walk down from Westwood, hop on the subway at Wilshire and Westwood and zoom to Union station in like 25 minutes or to Langer's Deli in 18 minutes or to Koreatown in 15 minutes. Like the, the speed at which you will be able to move is just better than any other way you can get around. Like only at 2 in the morning, going illegally fast on the 10 freeway could you do better than this. And that's just going to remap what people think about mobility in the region. If you are a student at UCLA or you work at a hotel in Westwood, you will be closer living in Koreatown than you would be if you lived in student housing in Palms. In terms of the travel time from where you live to where you need to go, you know, it's going to be like 15 minutes from Koreatown or a 25 minute bus ride from Palms.

[Sami Roth]

So I live in Palms now and that's crazy to me.

[Carter Rubin]

Yeah. And so the Wilshire is the one project that I think people are like underestimating. Even though everyone knows it's going to be great. I think we're underestimating how much it's going to change. Sort of Angelino's self perception and our identity of, you know, we can really be a transit city where transit is not just an option that's there in case your car's in the shop or you can't afford a car. It is a preferred option no matter what your mobility choices are available to you. And I think the only project that I would say maybe surpasses that is when we build rail under this Boveda Pass. I think the Two of those things are just going to link these real choke points in our region where you cannot cram any more cars through this part of the region. And so we need high capacity electric rail that's gonna move 1,000 people per train.

[Sami Roth]

Question, though, if we've been working on this transit expansion for 34 years in the city of LA and so much of it is just now coming to fruition in the next few years. I mean, I know I keep using this phrase permitting reform, but why did it take so long? Was it government bureaucracy reviewing stuff? Was it opposition from homeowners along the route? Was there funding needed? Agencies that didn't have? I mean, what was the holdup?

[Carter Rubin]

I think it's just a feature of. There was a lot to do and we know it's just going to take a lot of time. It took us like 100 years to get to where we are and hopefully we can rebuild a better infrastructure network around transit in half that time.

[Sami Roth]

Hopefully, though, that's the problem. It's like it can't be hopefully. I mean, we've got to go real, real fast on climate change. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know. You do this for a living, but it's like we don't have, hopefully time. Yeah, we can't afford to spend 30 years rebuilding stuff.

[Carter Rubin]

Yeah, I think it's a lot of things. There's a great book on this called Railtown by Ethan Elkind. And he gets into the case of the Wilshire subway. There was a methane gas explosion from a naturally occurring pocket of methane kind of near the Libreria tar pits that exploded and damaged a Ross dress for less. And that was something onto which a lot of people projected their anxiety about public transit. And it led to this backlash where the federal government banned tunneling under Wilshire Boulevard. And then you fast forward 30 years and traffic only got worse. Tunneling technology improved and so we got the law repealed that banned the tunneling under Wilshire. And so that corridor is just ripe for transit. It's got all of the, the jobs and homes along the entire stretch between downtown and the west side. So that was a project that hit a snag because of geology. Other times it's funding. And sometimes you'll have a federal administration that is a real constructive partner and sometimes you have one that's trying to claw back money that they've already contractually obligated to the transit agency.

[Sami Roth]

We'll be back after a quick break. How does housing intersect with your work on transportation and what, if anything, do you think California could or should be doing to get more housing built in places that are closer to where they work or served by transit, rather than just sprawling out into the hinterlands where folks are just going to drive more. What's the status there?

[Carter Rubin]

You know, we're in a big hole in terms of housing production at all levels of affordability, and so there's a lot to do. I think the thing that most directly intersects with my work on transportation is that in the last several years, the state legislature, many cities have identified that areas near public transit stops are the areas they want to grow. And so they are changing the housing laws in the city to allow taller buildings with more units, often connected to incentives for providing dedicated, affordable units on land that is within walking distance of a transit station. Usually it's a half mile or something. Along those lines, you could look at the Transit Oriented Communities program in Los Angeles, which lets you build taller, and the taller you build, the more affordable units you have to provide. And there's an incentive and a nexus between what you're building and the benefits of the community. And that's been a really well utilized program because there is value in it for the organization building the housing. They get faster approvals, they get to build more units, and in exchange, they're also setting aside affordable units. And to me, that says, well, if we know that works, then then one of the ways we can expand the reach of that kind of program is to bring more transit online. So we have this sort of double dip of we open up a transit stop or a frequent bus line, and then at the same time, we're enabling more housing to be incentivized to go up around that area.

[Sami Roth]

Do you think there are ways to keep expanding? I mean, I like the idea of those two things working in tandem. I mean, it's like a virtuous cycle, right? More transit, more housing, more housing, more transit. I mean, one of the roadblocks there, I assume, is that, you know, kind of a NIMBY backlash, which is probably one of the problems with any type of building more of anything. You get people who don't want more residents in their neighborhood and people who don't want more transit. I mean, how much does that come up in the work that you do? Folks who just want things to sort of stay exactly as they are. Is that a real problem that you encounter a lot or is that more of a sort of a strawman caricature that gets thrown around or somewhere in the middle?

[Carter Rubin]

I think the thing that helps me maintain perspective is looking at the outcomes of our elections. So voters in LA county have approved taxing ourselves four times to build public transit in 1980, 1990, 2008 and 2016 by 2/3 majorities for the last two votes.

[Sami Roth]

Because you need 2/3 to pass a tax measure in LA County.

[Carter Rubin]

That's right. And in LA City, voters recently approved the Healthy Streets LA measure that would.

[Sami Roth]

Measure HLA just in the most recent election cycle, right?

[Carter Rubin]

Yeah, that's right. And that is there to ensure the city is installing the transit and bike and pedestrian projects that are in their plans every time they're repaving the street. And that passed with over 60% of the vote. And so when you take the temperature of the electorate, they really like this stuff, they vote for it, they vote for housing bonds, they vote for transit infrastructure. And then on a project by project basis, if you say we're going to host a community meeting at an inconvenient time and come out and tell us what you think, that's kind of a structure for community engagement where you're going to get the people who have the most anxiety to come because they are the ones. It's that sort of anxiety response is like a very motivating response to go come out and express concerns. And we've done a lot of community meetings like that in the planning profession for a very long time. And I think it can kind of give you this unrepresentative perception of what the public thinks. And so that's why I think, you know, look at the outcomes of this election, people really support these types of investments. They're willing to embrace some change in their community. People want to be able to see their kids grow up and stay in the community. And you know, if every city and every part of each city committed and said, okay, we'll allow hundreds of units here, hundreds of units there, that adds up. If we all work together and if we're in a kind of zero sum thinking where, well, I don't want to contribute to the solution because I don't think my neighboring city is going to do it, that's when we get stuck.

[Sami Roth]

By the way, for those who are listening to this and thinking maybe, maybe you're a hypocrite. I did drive to get to the LA Times office today, but you told me that took the bus here from Santa Monica.

[Carter Rubin]

I did. You know, it was partly a matter of necessity, but it also reflects the abundance of transportation choices I have in Santa Monica. My mother in law's in town and she's borrowing our car. So I hopped on the number three bus, which goes down Lincoln Boulevard from Santa Monica all the way to El Segundo to the airport. And it's just such an interesting scan kind of through the A walk of life of Los Angeles. Lots of high school students and service workers and travelers kind of cruising up and down this corridor. Lincoln is like an iconically kind of grim streetscape, just like scarcely a tree in sight. It is, perhaps tellingly, a street that Caltrans owns.

[Sami Roth]

I didn't know that.

[Carter Rubin]

Yeah, It's State Route 1, south of Santa Monica, so. But, you know, to their credit, just in my inbox this morning, I got a message saying that they're exploring adding dedicated bus lanes on Lincoln Boulevard. And I think that'd be fantastic because if you could have, as my friend Bryn Monchelsi, who works for Climate Resolve, has said, if we could have a buffet of transportation options, then I think everyone would be a lot happier. And, you know, if there were bus lanes on Lincoln Boulevard, I probably would have got down here in, like, 45 minutes instead of an hour, and I would have been able to scarf down my lunch a little bit more slowly before we jumped in the conversation.

[Sami Roth]

Well, there you go. And with apologies for the unfortunate implication I might have just made that if you drive, you're a hypocrite. Didn't mean to say that. See my previous articles where I've explained why that's not the case. But, Carter, thank you very much for being with us on the Boiling Point podcast.

[Carter Rubin]

It's my pleasure, Sammy. Thank you.

[Sami Roth]

By the way, after we stopped recording, Carter checked the distance between Interstate 80, that freeway outside of Sacramento, and the Amtrak rail corridor that runs parallel to the freeway, 138ft. For the record, I have no idea how far I can throw a baseball. Thank you for listening to Boiling Point. I'm your host, Sammy Roth. My producers are Mary Knoff and Jonathan Shiflett. Sound design and original music by Jonathan Shiflett. Elijah Wolfson is our editor. Denise Callahan is our studio manager. Ben Church is our production manager. Nick Norton is our engineer. Special thanks to LA Times Studio President, Anna Magzanian. President and Chief Operating Officer of the Los Angeles Times, Chris Argentieri, and executive Editor of the Los Angeles Times, Terry Tang. Boiling Point is executive produced by Darius Derekshawn and created by me, Sammy Roth.