Problems with the proposal

TRAFFIC, GRIDLOCK, AND INCREASED COMMUTE TIMES. 

Increase of traffic and congestion across all surface streets.  Main roads like Lincoln, Jefferson, Sepulveda, Centinela, Slauson, etc would become even more overwhelmed with cars, resulting in increased traffic through smaller neighborhood cut-through streets (the Waze effect).  This is both a nuisance and a danger to our children, pets, etc.  Commute times across the southern westside would be drastically increased as the thousands of cars that use SR-90 daily (at highway speeds) would be forced to use already over-taxed roads.  Also, we’d lose 2 main exits to the 405 and 2 main entrances to the 405, meaning the 405 traffic problems would get worse (who even thought that was possible?)

i. Increase of traffic on freeways (405/10)

ii. Increase of traffic on main surface streets (Culver, Inglewood, Slauson, Jefferson, Lincoln, Centinela, Sepulveda)

iii. Increase of cut through traffic on small residential streets (the Waze effect)

iv. Increased cars on the road due to 4000+ new units.  Although the plan.  

v. negation of previous traffic impact reports (playa vista, marina developments, etc) which reference 90 as a way that the 

i’d also add that the 90 has been referenced for traffic mitigation in every traffic impact report for major new developments (in Marina del Rey, Del Rey, Playa Vista, etc)

getting rid of it basically negates all the traffic gridlock failsafes that were previously promised to residents.

LOSS OF EVACUATION ROUTES. 

Marina del Rey, Venice, and Playa del Rey are in a tsunami hazard zone.  The 90 freeway is a large, relatively congestion-free highway that runs from these low-lying hazard zones to safe higher ground.  Elimination of this route would prevent evacuation for residents in case of a tsunami, and also prevent emergency help from coming in.  In fact, the loss of SR-90 would leave just a single 2-lane southern evacuation route for over 50,000 residents (in the area bounded by Venice Blvd, Centinela, Ballona Creek, and the Pacific ocean).  This would be the 2 lanes of Lincoln Blvd that cross over the Ballona Creek.  These lanes are borderline impassable during rush hour — imagine them during a mass evacuation.

REDUCED ACCESS TO EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES. 

The construction of the new expanded Cedars Sinai hospital and Emergency Room — which is literally at the end of the 90 freeway —  is expected to be completed by 2026.  With the closure of the 90 freeway, ambulances and citizens all across the westside would lose a fast (and potentially lifesaving route) to reach what will be one of the premiere ERs and medical centers in Southern California.

LOSS OF EASY ACCESS TO THE COASTLINE FOR MANY. 

For residents of areas like Culver City, Ladera Heights, Inglewood, and View Park/Heights, the 90 freeway makes the coastline (beach, Marina, Venice, Santa Monica, Playa del Rey) an accessible trip.  What is now a 10-20 minute drive to these areas would likely become a 45-60 minute trip.

RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS POLUTANTS AND DAMAGE TO BALLONA WETLANDS. 

Demolition of a large structure like the 90 fwy, which runs through multiple residential areas, has the potential to release a massive amount of dangerous particulate into the air.

REFUTATIONS OF ALLEGED BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATIONS OF THE “Streets for All” PLAN

Next let’s look at the purported “benefits” of the proposal and look at why they are misrepresented, at best.

  1. One of the purported benefits of the plain is to reduce "noise and air pollution".   An admirable goal, to be sure. However the proposal admits this would be 10+ years off, optimistically.  Electric vehicles virtually eliminate the problems of noise and air pollution, and by the the time the deconstruction of the 90 would occur, California will well be on its way to EV-dominant transportation system.  In fact, “a measure approved by the California Air Resources Board in August 2022 requires all new cars, SUVs and pickup trucks sold in the state to generate zero tailpipe emissions by 2035.”  This means that any arguments about noise and air pollution would likely be moot shortly after the completion of the project.

  2. The proposal says that SR-90 serves as an “extended on and off ramp for the 405”.  It’s unclear why they think this is a point in their favor.  This extended on and off ramp happens to slow and distribute the massive flow on and off of the oft-congested 405.  They claim on their site that “motorists will have the option to use Jefferson, Culver, and Washington to reach the 405."   If anyone has tried to use those roads during rush hour, you’ll understand that this solution is clearly comical.  Imagine adding 1000,000 cars.

  3. They claim that the freeway is underused - FALSE.

  4. They imply that the freeway is not needed - FALSE.

  5. They advertise that purpose of the proposal is a park - FALSE. They have buried the lede here.

  6. They beleive that cars should be elimianted from our city. It’s true that one day we may all be getting around via self-driving cars and drones. Or perhaps we’ll build a world class mass transit system. but that day is not here yet, and for the moment the elimination of functional roads does not benefit the people of our But they are a way of life here, and for the foreseeable future, we need them. 

  7. They are saying that they will make 4000 units of affordable housing … in 15 years

  8. “one of the largest parks in LA county”. Of all the absurd statemetns of this plan. The park proposed on the site would be 68 acres. It wouldnt even come close to being one of the largest parks, In fact, it’s not even in the top 20 — by a long shot. To give you ad idea, #20 on the list if 460 acres — over seven times larger than the proposed Marina Central Park