Los Angeles Tries to Prove That It Doesn’t Necessarily Need the Car
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
As for the complaints of old trains and scuffed up seats - the train isn't new. I've ridden it downtown occasionally for the last 3 years or so. What's new is the part from Culver City to Santa Monica. It didn't used to go out that far.
It's like the author didn't bother to check the actual facts or history of the project. This was a stupid article.
I took the train on the first day and everyone in my group was commenting "I can't believe there is graffiti already!! Hooligans" them we remembered that the trains have been running from downtown to Culver city for years and this is just a line extension.
Sigh. Yet, some truisms sprinkled among the retreads.
Author's about page: A New Yorker at heart (and by area code), I’m currently based in Los Angeles.
Looking at the current LA Metro map (http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/system_map_2...), rail service is still pretty sparse.
But that's not my point. My point is: Why do I have to read anecdotes about New Yorkers transplanting to LA when I'm reading an article supposedly about the new LA Metro line? It's lazy on the part of the author.
> "The work is sometimes referred to as A Parochial New Yorker's View of the World or A New Yorker's View of the World because it depicts a map of the world as seen by self-absorbed New Yorkers."
They have a market of potentially millions of potential readers who are interested in the parochial New York world view. Why produce articles for a more general national or international market where there is more competition and less ability to distinguish oneself?
That's why I subscribe to NY Review -- which can be parochial, but is more adventurous.
I used to subscribe to the "Santa Fean", which is "an art, culture, dining, history and lifestyle magazine in Santa Fe, New Mexico." If a city of 60K inhabitants can have its own city-centered publication, then a city of millions can certainly have its own.
I now live in Sweden, which has a smaller population that the NYC area. When Swedes cover international news, they often describe it with a Swedish viewpoint, or how it affects Swedes. Do you think Swedes are using "repeated regional stereotypes"? Or that Swedes are not a "cosmopolitan and well-educated audience"?
Here's a peak at what Metro might be up to the next 40 years: http://la.curbed.com/2016/3/18/11265444/metro-los-angeles-ba...
Grade separated rail makes a gigantic difference and moves leagues more humans faster than BRT could dream of.
Unless BRT gets dedicated lanes it's no better than any other bus, except it stops is fewer places more often.
There's lots of little improvements that could be made to bus transport, for similar money to trains, I think a big part of it is just wanting to be responsible for big construction, whether to get kickbacks or to just a more straightforward ego boost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_and_Independence_R...
Can you please elaborate where in LA you don't need a car? Beverly Hills on Shabbat? :)
source: I have lived in East Hollywood / Silverlake / Echo Park for the last 8 years, never with a car. I bike, walk, bus, train, lyft/uber (in that order).
when people visit LA they spend hours driving across town over and over, for absolutely no reason. you don't have to do that.
LA residents avoid doing that at all costs.
By the same token, if you move to the Westside from pretty much anywhere else in LA, you'll get tons of shit from your friends who now have to go over the river and through the woods to see you.
The ocean breeze is hard to leave and friends will come visit you all the time if you have adequate parking, live near the beach, and have decent space to hang out.
I rarely visit my buddy because he only has 1 of those things in Venice and I have friends drive upwards of an hour almost every weekend to hang out at my place.
Sure, you can choose one neighborhood - except your friends chose another one, your employer a third, culture happens elsewhere, and your doctor is always at the other side of the moon. You can make a no-car household work, but you're much more restrained in what you can do, compared to a city with even semi-decent public transport, like Chicago.
Yes, you can take public transport. Pre-expo-line, the 8 miles from my home to work were a 120-150 minute ride. One way. Now, with the expo line, I can do 8 miles in an hour. Whee.
LA residents unfortunately need a car for many instances, because that's the only way to get anywhere without spending a day.
So probably not a viable solution :)
But continue rooting. Not that boundless enthusiasm without any plan does anything to change reality, but it's such an L.A. mindset, it's endearing.
I went carless in Pasadena and I could get around town, to downtown LA and to places on the northeast side OK using the Gold Line (5 minute walk from my apartment). Unfortunately many of the Pasadena stations are in less-than walkable areas. Making it to social events outside of the Gold Line's coverage area was hard (connecting through DTLA sucks, will be improved when the regional connector is built). I'm sure things would have been better with a bike and had Uber been around when I was doing that.
I had no car for about 2 years in Pasadena.
Anywhere with a Ducati?
I've been taking the Expo lately and it's already standing-only crowded during rush hour and heavily used off-peak.
One complaint, tho, is that the cars don't have decent accommodations for bicyclists, which is really annoying. You basically have to stand/sit w/ your bike all the way.
Also, you still mostly take it in the bum on travel time in the transfers and many bald-spots of decent coverage. I found that to get from Santa Monica to Silverlake, for example, was more convenient on the 704 bus, because there's a spot for your bike, you can sit and work on your computer the whole way, and it's a closer fit for minimizing your talking time/distance, and it's a more direct route.
The train alternative is to find and descend into a red line station, transfer through the greater depths of Union station to the expo line, and then babysit your bicycle all the way to Santa Monica, which is the bulk of the transit time.
Gotta give Santa Monica props tho for the treatment they gave that Santa Monica train station and the surrounding area. I really like it.
Overall, nice stopgap improvement, and when the world improves and human-driven cars are outlawed, it could be paved over and made a thoroughfare that allows only self-driving electric cars to use it, and they could tap into the electric mains for a recharge along the way. :)
Also, I <3 the 704. It's kept me from having to move to the west side. I don't imagine there will be a better route than that unless the purple line actually gets finished some day.
Digging only slightly deeper, it was evident that if you took the massive rise in NYC public transportation out, public transportation in the rest of the US, including LA, actually dropped, despite the money being spent on it.
The reason while not established, appears to be because instead of making existing systems more reliable, and better connected, the money has been spent on vanity projects. An isolated light rail here, and a Park and Ride which doesn't connect to anything there.
So thanks for posting this.
I don't live in the SGV, but the impact of the Gold Line on the Chinatown-Highland Park-Pasadena corridor [which it reached years ago, before the recently-completed extension] has been very significant, including lots of denser housing within Pasadena and sharp increases in house prices along Figueroa parallel to the Gold Line. I expect the extension to have an even greater impact over time.
So, I hope Los Angeles will continue to extend it.
Angelenos are massively in favor of transit investment. Now their motive can be ambiguous, maybe they just want other people off the streets to alleviate their traffic. But still, they support massive investments.
1. 2 wheeled vehicles driven/ridden/pedaled by a person
2. ridesharing cars, shuttles, & vans driven by a computer
Looking at it another way, how many people would drive from A to B if the road narrowed to a single lane and became a pothole filled dirt road? It probably wouldn't be an appealing commute.
not just with bike lanes - this works for most transportation infrastructure, and in both directions. If you take away a car lane, less people choose to drive. If you add a car lane, you don't get less congestion, you get more people driving. People choose the optimal route, and there's a lot more people going places than the current road network can accommodate. you can keep widening roads for a long time without having much impact on congestion. If you want to actually fix the roads, you need to improve the more efficient means of transportation, like bicycle lanes and mass transit.
Or is this all just conjecture?
Long Beach has the right idea when it comes to bike lanes. They are protected by raised pavement so distracted or aggressive drivers can't just merge into them.
> I get that everyone having a car in LA is not a way to allow greater density, but, it's reality for now and making everyone in that reality suffer isn't a great way to get re-elected.
Got any great advice for changing the status quo? ;)
In the 1920s, to alleviate traffic on a specific downtown to miracle mile commute, macarthur park was split in half and wilshire was cut through the middle of the park. The park remains split in 2016 due to this 1920s era problem.
In the 1950s, due to a lack of downtown parking, pershing square was gutted to be a multi-level underground parking structure with a poorly accessible park on top. Now in 2016, when we want a walkable city, many lament that our one central park is really just a multi-level parking lot.
The central problem here is that when city policy crafts a solution with 80 years of consequences to alleviate a 3 year problem, the urban landscape becomes disjointed and short-sighted.
Instead, this concept, which includes things like bike lanes, high density dwellings, and trains, are people trying to come up with 80 year solutions that are forward thinking.
There's been a problem getting all the right funding and public support on board but it's far easier today then what it took to get that first train to long beach open in 1990. The newer high density housing is still not pedestrian accessible, but that is changing in the buildings that are being planned right now and will be complete in a few years.
I think LA is attracting the right people and fostering the right attitude for a workable city that will blossom with sustainability, creativity, and livability in the upcoming generation.
I think [Grand Park] might be the New Central Park™. But it is, to your point, divided into three sections by streets cutting through the middle of it. =(
[Grand Park] https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0535849,-118.2459343,16.35z
So yes, grand park has been gradually growing in size for about 50 years. It certainly now has a more memorable name. It's going in a good direction...
Cars make surpassing a certain level of urban density really difficult. As parts of LA are getting there, people are finding out they really can't do it and at the same time allocate enough space for everyone to have their own car. The divorce of the 60s onward happend as a physical necessity. I think LA is growing past such reactionary urban planning. I hope so
Almost all crossings were at-grade and rail was being converted to bus as early as 1925.
Trains were being pulled up after the property was sold and many lines averaged under 13 mph as the density and car traffic increased.
The rail lines themselves were cheap material. Many lines were closed when they became too costly to repair.
The anarchy of free market competition is a poor substitute for thoughtful urban planning.