LAs public transportation (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Orange: home, neighborhoods, live)

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you're accurately accessing Los Angeles; our "suburbs" are actually pretty dense, contributing to Los Angeles being the most dense urbanized area in the nation. Our core areas are less dense than NYC's dense areas, but our suburbs are, overall, more tightly packed. I'm not sure what the numbers are now, but as of a few years ago the LA area's density (by people/square mile) was 25% higher than the NYC area. Like New York, LA sprawls for a long way (although LA is also hemmed in by natural features), but it's "dense sprawl."

Well i can beleave that , your region is smaller then ours.....and compressed more. Your City's layout is different.....idk...i think the roads of LA make it appear less dense then it is.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by dweebo2220

I guess if you're counting school buses and senior shuttles and whatever it would get pretty high, but no way can you get to 15 million out of a metro of 21 million. There are only 10 million jobs after all.

Also, those "14.5 million users" are double/triple/etc. counted

After looking at the numbers again College Bus systems , and Students using Transit is factored in there and that accounts for 1-1.5 million users.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by Charles

Rail is less desirable than a car. Given the choice of taking a train, dealing with the lack of privacy, the lack of flexibility, the lack of comfort, 95% of people would prefer the experience of going from point A to point B using a car. In fact, the overwhelming majority (95%??) do.

In a car, you can turn the stereo up as loud as you want, you can make side trips, you go from your garage to within 50 feet of your destination, you can turn the AC or heat to whatever you want.

Then maybe everyone who is currently using mass transit should just get their own personal vehicles then ... Let's see how bad traffic can get then.

[Senshi]

Originally Posted by Charles

Rail is less desirable than a car. Given the choice of taking a train, dealing with the lack of privacy, the lack of flexibility, the lack of comfort, 95% of people would prefer the experience of going from point A to point B using a car. In fact, the overwhelming majority (95%??) do.

In a car, you can turn the stereo up as loud as you want, you can make side trips, you go from your garage to within 50 feet of your destination, you can turn the AC or heat to whatever you want.

Obviously someone from Orange County would be against public transit.

However, I'd argue, that rail is more desirable than a car for many people.

1. Not needing to deal with parking.

Believe it or not, some of us like urban living. We don't want the stupid suburban lifestyle. But, when you live in a big city, space is at a premium. Parking in Hollywood IS an issue for us locals. It's an extra cost and a huge hassle.

2. They invented things called ipods and headphones. You can turn those up as loud as you want as well!

3. Trains have AC and heat

If you rode the train you would realize this.

4. Not dying in a car accident (or being seriously injured)

Goes without saying.

5. Not dealing with traffic

Also goes without saying.

6. Not having to deal with the extra expense of car payments, gas, insurance, maintenance, traffic tickets and so on.

There is a reason why most urban places, throughout the world, have usable great public transit systems. Europe, Asia and of course New York. The great Los Angeles car experiment has proven to be a failure. The city CANNOT survive without an extensive public transit system. It's an absolute embarrassment you can't just hop on the train at our airports and arrive downtown, the beach, Hollywood or ANYWHERE!

I am also doing my part to decrease pollution and staying in better shape.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by Senshi

Obviously someone from Orange County would be against public transit.

However, I'd argue, that rail is more desirable than a car for many people.

1. Not needing to deal with parking.

Believe it or not, some of us like urban living. We don't want the stupid suburban lifestyle. But, when you live in a big city, space is at a premium. Parking in Hollywood IS an issue for us locals. It's an extra cost and a huge hassle.

2. They invented things called ipods and headphones. You can turn those up as loud as you want as well!

3. Trains have AC and heat

If you rode the train you would realize this.

4. Not dying in a car accident (or being seriously injured)

Goes without saying.

5. Not dealing with traffic

Also goes without saying.

6. Not having to deal with the extra expense of car payments, gas, insurance, maintenance, traffic tickets and so on.

There is a reason why most urban places, throughout the world, have usable great public transit systems. Europe, Asia and of course New York. The great Los Angeles car experiment has proven to be a failure. The city CANNOT survive without an extensive public transit system. It's an absolute embarrassment you can't just hop on the train at our airports and arrive downtown, the beach, Hollywood or ANYWHERE!

I am also doing my part to decrease pollution and staying in better shape.

Excellent points. Unfortunately, there are too many folks in Southern California that are stuck on their vehicles rather than support public transit.

Here is a link to a post Charles made with a nice photo that illustrates one of the strongest benefits of our car culture society.

https://www.city-data.com/forum/19340013-post5.html

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Senshi

Obviously someone from Orange County would be against public transit.

However, I'd argue, that rail is more desirable than a car for many people.

1. Not needing to deal with parking. (That's your problem for living in a dense area.)



6. Not having to deal with the extra expense of car payments, gas, insurance, maintenance, traffic tickets and so on. (I'd bet 80% of those people who do take public transportation own a car as well so the do have insurance, car payment, and maintenance.)

Depends how many "many" is. 1% of Southern California's commuting public? 3%, 5%?


Actually you can hop on a train and get from LAX to downtown: Green Line to Blue Line.

In most public transportation, train and bus centric cities, the majority of people do not use trains and buses to get to work. I don't have the numbers but I'd bet in all the world's metropolitan areas combined (we're not just talking inner urban cores), less than 15% use public transportation.

The majority of new york metro commutes by car.
The majority of the bay area commutes by car.

I'd take trains and buses if they would get me to where I need to get within 125% of my current duration if I could save 80% on expenses. But, in most cases, it would take me 300% as long and cost me about the same.

(By the way, I vanpool which is the most efficient form of commuting.)

Vanpools most cost effective intercity transit mode | Washington Policy Center

Hey, if you can build a train system for Southern California for less than the combined cost of the Apollo Lunar expeditions + the cost of WWII that gets people to work as fast as they do now, go for it.

[Montalvo1510]

Originally Posted by Charles

1) In most public transportation, train and bus centric cities, the majority of people do not use trains and buses to get to work. I don't have the numbers but I'd bet in all the world's metropolitan areas combined (we're not just talking inner urban cores), less than 15% use public transportation.

2) The majority of new york metro commutes by car.
The majority of the bay area commutes by car.

I'd take trains and buses if they would get me to where I need to get within 125% of my current duration if I could save 80% on expenses. But, in most cases, it would take me 300% as long and cost me about the same.

3) (By the way, I vanpool which is the most efficient form of commuting.)

Vanpools most cost effective intercity transit mode | Washington Policy Center

4) Hey, if you can build a train system for Southern California for less than the combined cost of the Apollo Lunar expeditions + the cost of WWII that gets people to work as fast as they do now, go for it.

I don't think there are any silver bullet solutions to our congestion problems but I also think ALL methods/modes should be on the table as a means to improve the situation.

This Brookings study from 2009/2010 summarized current commuting trends. The study found that PUBLIC TRANSIT actually INCREASED its share of the daily commute from 2000 to 2008. The FIRST TIME in 40 years. Granted, the "drive alone to work" mode is the DOMINANT mode.

See chapter on "Commuting" in The State of Metropolitan America (BROOKINGS INSTITUTION)

http://www.brookings.edu/metro/StateOfMetroAmerica.aspx


1 & 2. You are right; HOWEVER, in the New York Metro Area, 30% of commuters use the train or bus to get to work. Imagine the hell that would break loose if there was no public transit! And WITHIN New York City, the number is MORE than 50% of residents use public transit to get to work.

3. Vanpools are effective and increasingly important in places like So.Calif. and even Honolulu. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also buid more rail.

4. The U.S. spends about $700 billion PER YEAR on Defense. The cost to build the "subway to the sea" under Wilshire Blvd would cost about $6 billion. While no panacea this line would give the biggest bang for the buck for LA transit. That will be a good use of public dollars.

[the city]

They should have expanded the subway to Santa Monica area a long time ago and not expanded so much, so that the freeways were backed up. Getting rid of the street cars were dumb too. LA's transportation system is just horrible. The subway and metrolink system is the only system that works. The orange line and buses don't work that well. I was using the metro system down there while visiting family and they had no direct way to the Van Nuys Metrolink. Had to take subway to orange line and then and a bus to the train station. Los Angeles was poorly planned. San Francisco is more well planned out. But at least LA's economy is better compared to other places. And that current mayor is not doing much help.

Another idea. Why don't we limit cities to 2 million people? The larger the city, the harder to control it. Cities aren't necessarily bad, but they are troublesome.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by the city

Why don't we limit cities to 2 million people? The larger the city, the harder to control it. Cities aren't necessarily bad, but they are troublesome.

Why an aribitray number such as two million? Wouldn't a density be more significant as the area of the city makes a difference?

Are LA and SD the only cities in Southern California with more than two million people?

Many communities and regions do have some sort of growth limitations such as SOAR in Ventura County.

[the city]

Originally Posted by Charles

Why an aribitray number such as two million? Wouldn't a density be more significant as the area of the city makes a difference?

Are LA and SD the only cities in Southern California with more than two million people?

Many communities and regions do have some sort of growth limitations such as SOAR in Ventura County.

Capping land mass would be another way to limit city's growth. Capping population helps limit how much a city can grow. I think after 2 million most cities I know can get crazy.