An article in the L.A. Times this morning tells us that Southern California is expected to grow from 19.5 million people in 2000 to 31.6 million in 2050. The article speaks to native South Landers fixation with traffic congestion. People here in SoCal believe that building more roads and widening or decking existing ones will “solve” the traffic problems. They are wrong. More roads = more cars = more traffic. Even building more mass transit (commuter rail, bus rapid transit, light rail, subways) won’t even begin to make a dent.

I would argue that dealing with traffic, at least initially, has nothing to do with transportation. In fact, give the narrow-minded transportation planners the chance (narrow-minded in that their singular goal is not to build great cities, but rather to simply move cars around), and we’ll make matters worse. It’s the land use pattern, stupid. The first step is to change the way we build. So much of Southern California was built upon the premise that everyone should have their 1/4-acre of paradise (complete with detached house, 2 cars and a pool), even if the state had to subsidize the infrastructure and negative impacts (to our health and the environment) to realize that goal.

An untested theory of segregating land use — in the name of “modernization” — was put into practice. So, we created separate zones for sleeping, for working, for making things, for playing, for shopping, etc. If you think about it, it’s a ridiculous theory. Obviously, if every individual has to drive from place to place, for free no less (and assuming they have the means to afford personal transportation), to do everything they need to do throughout the day, obviously the theory of unlimited mobility will quickly turn into the reality of immobility (congestion). And so it is today in Southern California. Indeed, Southern California has the dubious honor of being home to some of the most congested freeways in the U.S.

The first step is clear — throw away the failed theory that land uses should be segregated. To do so, we must first abandon the myth that cities are static things that never change. When people talk of “protecting” their neighborhood, they mean freezing it in time. Impossible. Cities are in constant flux, responding to social, economic and political forces. People needn’t fear change. Change isn’t bad if it brings better outcomes for everyone.

Contrary to popular belief, most traffic is actually generated by convenience trips, not work trips. Why should I have to drive to get a quart of milk? To drop off the kids? To pick up my dry-cleaning? To go for a walk in the park? And so on. So, the first thing we need to do is allow (but not mandate) mixes of uses in all development. Developers aren’t suicidal — they aren’t going to put in retail uses where there is no demand for it. It is a fallacy to think that good neighborhoods are made up of only single family detached houses.

Good neighborhoods have conveniences — corner stores, restaurants, coffee shops, banks, grocery stores, parks, libraries, etc. It ain’t convenient if you have to drive for such conveniences. Changing land use patterns to allow for good neighborhoods (as opposed to land-segregated neighborhoods) will require an attitude adjustment to be sure. People must recognize and reverse the racism and class-ism that currently motivates their efforts to deny lower- and middle-income people a right to housing (which is what happens when you prohibit multi-family housing across most of the landscape). Good neighborhoods have a range of housing options, from single family detached houses, townhouses, 5-to-6 story apartment buildings alike.

It all starts with housing. Affluent Southern Californians must acknowledge the massive housing shortage that is caused by the desire to “protect” their neighborhoods from multi-family housing. When housing is in such short supply, competition for the few units that are available becomes fierce. Prices soar. People then must seek lower-cost alternatives further away (and they are lower-cost because the public policy is to subsidize that form of development). And traffic problems accelerate. Taxpayers need to demand better return on investment — why should we pay for all the infrastructure (roads, sewers, schools, light standards, etc) for 4 households per acre when the same infrastructure could supply 80 households per acre? Is it any wonder that California municipalities are, by and large, bankrupt?

So what happens when you allow more compact, more mixed-use development? Initially, traffic gets worse before it gets better, because it takes time for all those conveniences to infill to the point where it is more convenient to walk to a corner store than to drive to the mini-mall. But as neighborhoods become rich mixes of uses, with a range of housing options for everyone, convenience trips decrease. And the conversation shifts from simply moving people around the city, to the things that really matter — how to improve our schools, keep our streets safe, make better communities. And with a 60% increase in population expected over the next 40 years or so, it’s time that Southern Californians change their thinking. If they don’t, they will suffer the consequences. And they will have no one to blame but themselves.