Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am very pleased that Huge Foodie 215 is bringing awareness to Los Angeles' supremacy when it comes to urban area population density.
Quote:
Recently released data from the U.S. Census Bureau from 2010 reveals that the 41 major urban areas nationwide accounted for 80 percent of the total U.S. population. Analysis by New Geography showed that Los Angeles had the highest population density, housing nearly 7,000 people per square mile.
The highest-density urban areas with populations greater than 1 million included, in order:
1. Los Angeles (6,999 per square mile)
2. San Francisco (6,266)
3. San Jose (5.820)
4. New York (5,319)
5. Las Vegas (4,525)
The average density amongst all 41 major urban areas was 3,245 people per square mile. In total, urbanization covered 106,000 square miles, or 3 percent of the entire U.S. land mass.
BRT is pretty novel, and it does work in some circumstances. I believe Curitiba, Brazil's PT system is predicated on BRT lines, mostly because of budget constraints and the layout of the city.
Would be interesting to see how it works out in LA though.
I do wish there was more heavy rail in LA though. That would really increase its urban look.
Unless its EL (never gonna happen in LA), it wouldn't change the look of the city much at all.
BRT works ok in LA - I had no problem with the Orange Line's speed (coming from a regular B line rider in Boston ) but it was packed to the brim after the second stop heading west.
I think they are about the same. The Bay's might be slightly better.
No, I mean, since LA has the densest urban area, that density must certainly translate into the best public transit system in the United States and an active pedestrian life that's unmatched.
Unless its EL (never gonna happen in LA), it wouldn't change the look of the city much at all.
BRT works ok in LA - I had no problem with the Orange Line's speed (coming from a regular B line rider in Boston ) but it was packed to the brim after the second stop heading west.
Well, it would encourage more people to walk around. Given that heavy rail has a MUCH higher capacity than light rail or BRT, more people would be inclined to take PT.
BRT works well if a whole system was designed around BRT. In LA, it seems that BRT was a solution simply because the right of way for light rail was there, but not enough money to fit it into light rail. I've seen pictures of North Hollywood station and wonder why one has to walk from the Orange Line to the Red Line instead of just having a connecting station underground?
And given that people aren't used to BRT being around, there also must be a huge incidence of people crashing into it.
Quote:
I am very pleased that Huge Foodie 215 is bringing awareness to Los Angeles' supremacy when it comes to urban area population density.
Yes, its more dense than SF. You are correct. More people, more dense, larger area.
It's almost as if SF's existence in this world is totally unnecessary. Not only does LA:
1) Have more people
2) Have more density
3) Has more people and density over a larger area
4) More to do. In fact, you can do everything in LA that you can in SF
5) Has a much more agreeable climate
Why does any city exist besides the fact that people want to live there or it was at a favorable location for trade or economic reasons...
Yes, at a certain point, SF was a favorable location for
1) Trade to the Pacific
2) Main center in California for Western migrants in the mid 1800s due to the port
Both of those things can be done in LA due to modern technology, rendering SF's importance a memory in the ash heap of history, much like those Gold Rush towns SF once served.
Now back to the thread topic of urbanity, while Los Angeles does still lag behind the Great Eastern cities in terms of infrastructure, I think its making great strides to finally catch up.
I think its interesting how the city of LA itself has multiple skylines, one in Century City, one in DTLA, one in Glendale, and many more I'm probably missing. Is there any possibility that all of these could connect at some point?
Well, it would encourage more people to walk around. Given that heavy rail has a MUCH higher capacity than light rail or BRT, more people would be inclined to take PT.
BRT works well if a whole system was designed around BRT. In LA, it seems that BRT was a solution simply because the right of way for light rail was there, but not enough money to fit it into light rail. I've seen pictures of North Hollywood station and wonder why one has to walk from the Orange Line to the Red Line instead of just having a connecting station underground?
It is BRT because the Valley passed a law making above ground rail illegal (they were shooting for a subway ). There was not enough money to build a subway (and maybe not the ridership to justify it).
A tunnel is in the works between the Orange Line and Red Line. It is dumb that you have to cross the street.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215
And given that people aren't used to BRT being around, there also must be a huge incidence of people crashing into it.
Yes happened a lot when it first opened. It's been around for a while so people are more used to it. A second spur began testing yesterday and is set to open this summer connecting the Warner Center to the Chatsworth Metrolink Station.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) but it was packed to the brim after the second stop heading west.
). There was not enough money to build a subway (and maybe not the ridership to justify it). 
