End to gridlock? Maybe in 2057

The relief promised by Measure M’s transit investments is far down the road.

The MTA says Measure M on the Nov. 8 ballot will reduce time in traffic by 15%. The reality is more complicated.

As cars and trucks crawl along a congested Southern California freeway, a darkhaired driver rests her head on her hand in frustration.

The narrator’s voice breaks in with a tantalizing suggestion: If Los Angeles County voters approve a tax increase for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority on Nov. 8, they will reduce their time stuck in traffic by 15% a day.

What the advertisement doesn’t mention is that Measure M’s promised traffic relief would not arrive until 2057. By then, voters in their 20s and 30s would be old enough to retire.

The analysis that the ad cites did not conclude that traffic will flow faster in 2057 than it does today, nor that traffic will noticeably improve over the next few years. Barring a recession or a major increase in the cost to drive and park, experts say, congestion in Los Angeles will continue to get worse.

“We think our ads are very clear about the fact that Measure M will reduce traffic, and the alternative will not,” said Yusef Robb, a spokesman for the Yes on M campaign, which funded several ads running in English and Spanish on cable and local channels.

Officials at Metro, who are barred from advocating for the measure, offered a series of lukewarm assessments about the ad’s claims that an estimated $120 billion in transportation investments over four decades “will reduce the time you’re stuck in traffic by 15% a day.”

“It’s not exactly right,” said David Yale, a senior executive officer, “but it’s not a big leap of faith to dumb it down, if you will, like that.”

Said Metro spokeswoman Pauletta Tonilas: “There’s a whole lot more behind it. It doesn’t get into minutiae.”

This year, Metro hired Cambridge Systematics to examine what effect 10 high-