U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-01-2015, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
2,931 posts, read 3,650,604 times
Reputation: 2144

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
1. The only bus lines being axed in LA are circuitous, roundabout lines with low head ways and redundancies.
If only that were true. I think that the big picture is more complicated than that. You probably recall that for several years LACMTA was operating under a judicial Consent Decree due to a lawsuit filed by the Bus Riders Union many years ago. It was at least partly in response to that Decree that LACMTA bought a ton of new buses and started the Rapid (and other) bus routes. They were required to do that. When the Consent Decree ended LACMTA started axing many of the bus routes that had been implemented. Many of them rightly so, but it made it worse for bus riders nonetheless. The number of Rapid routes are significantly reduced from what they were just a few years ago and many other Rapid routes have reduced frequency and/or more limited hours. There are also many regular routes that were axed or cut back as well. That's why you see overall bus ridership continuing to shrink, but crowding is going up again. LACMTA has been cutting all over, but rarely adding anything lately.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2015, 11:40 AM
 
410 posts, read 390,937 times
Reputation: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Something funny about that list; the Lincoln Tunnel and Holland Tunnel in NYC don't seem to be on it (though some of the approaches are). And they're in the same class as the George Washington Bridge.

Looks like I-270 in MD isn't on it (though the Beltway where it joins is); maybe widening that sucker from 3 lanes each way to a billion helped.
I do wonder exactly how they come up with their rankings. Of the 219 worst corridors in America, there isn't a corridor in Detroit that makes the list. Honolulu's worst corridor is I-1 ranked 52nd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2015, 11:46 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,120,818 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by impala096 View Post
I do wonder exactly how they come up with their rankings. Of the 219 worst corridors in America, there isn't a corridor in Detroit that makes the list. Honolulu's worst corridor is I-1 ranked 52nd.
Is there anything surprising about either?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2015, 01:13 PM
 
410 posts, read 390,937 times
Reputation: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Is there anything surprising about either?
Honolulu has the worst traffic congestion in the country yet its worst corridor is only ranked 52nd. The Detroit Urban Area is the 11th most populous in the US yet its worst corridor doesn't even crack the top 219.

Yeah, it is a bit surprising. It isn't to you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2015, 04:41 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,274,492 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post

Excellent observation, the resemblance between Central LA and Irvine is uncanny:

http://skylinescenes.com/gallery/alb...e_071_4207.jpg


Central LA is similar to Irvine which is little more than a big office park. No one goes there except office workers
from the surrounding suburbs driving to their office jobs. After business hours and on weekends they are a virtual ghost town.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2015, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
2,931 posts, read 3,650,604 times
Reputation: 2144
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
Central LA is similar to Irvine which is little more than a big office park. No one goes there except office workers
from the surrounding suburbs driving to their office jobs. After business hours and on weekends they are a virtual ghost town.
What in the world are you on about?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 01:47 AM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,962,845 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I don't know enough about Orange County to really respond. But at this point we're talking past each other due to different definitions of sprawl. It might better if people used to a word that's more specific and clearly defined. I guess there are two ideas of sprawl:

1) Large-lot sprawl. Houses scattered on 1/2+ often 1 acre lots and mixed in with woods. Common in New England the Hudson Valley among other places. While there are old, walkable town centers, often they're very small and many areas don't have them. Built onto a rural road network often lacking sidewalks and in any case, most don't live in walking distance of anything besides a few other houses.

2) Sunbelt sprawl. Lot sizes are often small, gridded network of recently-built big arterials rather than old country roads. More monotonous and few if anything downtown-like. But land-use per capita is much lower than large-lot sprawl
NY has both - but then so does LA. There are a couple of things I'm talking about. NY has more of #1 but then NY is also a larger metro in a part of the country with ample water and good farmland that's been relatively densely settled for centuries so that's what you should expect to find. Perth Amboy, South Orange, Piscataway, etc . . . all of these towns were founded in the 1600s and grew independently for centuries before becoming suburbs of NYC. As NYC has grown it has pulled these places into its orbit. As LA grew the satellites had to be created.

That said, Edison (which incorporates Piscataway) is slightly less dense than Irvine but not in the way that some dude from Irvine is going to wind up in Edison and say "your yard is massive, bro". And when you include the donut hole Borough of Metuchen - which is surrounded by Edison - Irvine loses its density edge. This pattern gets repeated over and over in the NY suburbs. It's not that the density of most development in NY is much different from acre to acre when compared to LA - it's that it's more variable from town to town, it's interrupted more often by farmland preservation, preserved woodlands, protected watersheds, and undevelopable wetlands, and the urbanized area reflects that.

As for which place is more dense - at no point of drawing a circle around downtown LA and Midtown Manhattan, then expanding those circles from 5 to 10, to 20, to 40, to 60, to 100 miles - at no point is LA more dense than NY.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,147,147 times
Reputation: 3985
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy View Post
What in the world are you on about?
Seriously. It's one thing to say that LA's core is pedestrian-hostile, has backwards parking and land-use policies, has below average modern architecture, has a largely low-income populace, etc. - in other words, intelligent, fact based observations. But to say it is identical to Irvine (with absolutely no proof or examples given) is just...

I mean even downtown Pasadena has little in common with Irvine from a urban design standpoint, and it is 1/10 the urban core that Los Angeles has.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,147,147 times
Reputation: 3985
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
NY has both - but then so does LA. There are a couple of things I'm talking about. NY has more of #1 but then NY is also a larger metro in a part of the country with ample water and good farmland that's been relatively densely settled for centuries so that's what you should expect to find. Perth Amboy, South Orange, Piscataway, etc . . . all of these towns were founded in the 1600s and grew independently for centuries before becoming suburbs of NYC. As NYC has grown it has pulled these places into its orbit. As LA grew the satellites had to be created.
The towns around LA are not as old as the towns around Los Angeles, but in fact many of them were "pulled into LA's orbit" just as you say they were in NYC. Pasadena, Pomona, San Bernardino, San Fernando, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Anaheim - these and many more cities developed independently of Los Angeles before being sucked into the wave of development that moved in all directions from Central LA. That is why they all have downtown areas of varying sizes and importance - the vast majority of the time these "cores" developed around train stations. What you are speaking of sounds more like Texas' satellite cities, which are essentially continuations of the major city's suburbs. For example, look at the huge differences between Pasadena, CA and Pasadena, TX.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
That said, Edison (which incorporates Piscataway) is slightly less dense than Irvine but not in the way that some dude from Irvine is going to wind up in Edison and say "your yard is massive, bro". And when you include the donut hole Borough of Metuchen - which is surrounded by Edison - Irvine loses its density edge. This pattern gets repeated over and over in the NY suburbs. It's not that the density of most development in NY is much different from acre to acre when compared to LA - it's that it's more variable from town to town, it's interrupted more often by farmland preservation, preserved woodlands, protected watersheds, and undevelopable wetlands, and the urbanized area reflects that.

As for which place is more dense - at no point of drawing a circle around downtown LA and Midtown Manhattan, then expanding those circles from 5 to 10, to 20, to 40, to 60, to 100 miles - at no point is LA more dense than NY.
Irvine is not really a good example of a typical Los Angeles area suburb. It is located in the foothills to the south of the LA Basin (which most of LA and OC are located in) and has more of a modern-suburb design to it - i.e. the vast N/S oriented grid that stretches from the Santa Monica Mountains down to Santa Ana essentially disappears, there are a lot more cul-de-sacs, and residential streets that never connect to the main arteries. In other words, Irvine is the most suburban place in already very suburban Orange County. The other place in the LA area that has similar development patterns is adjacent Mission Viejo, and to the north the Santa Clarita Valley and the Conejo Valley (Thousand Oaks). To use Irvine as typical example of Los Angeles suburbs is erroneous in my opinion.

And even then when I look at Google Street View, I see pretty large difference in development patterns and homes' lot size. By census tract, Irvine has a handful of 10k+ ppsm tracts (52522, 52521, 52515, 52505, 62626 [University of Irvine housing, most likely]) and a dozen or so 5k+ tracts. Meanwhile, the highest tract in the Edison area is around 7.5k ppsm and is surrounded by a couple of 5-6k ppsm tracts. Part of the reason Irvine falls to about 3k ppsm overall density is (like Los Angeles), a significant portion of its land mass is completely empty (the site of the future "Great Park" [tract 52404 - 60 ppsm] and some mountainous state parks [tract 6263 - 980 ppsm). These are vast open spaces with people only living on the peripheries of the tract and they significantly weigh down the density.

Some people on here are saying we should be using weighted density - if we used it in this case it would be clear that the average Irvinite (?) lives at a higher density than the average Edisonian (?). I would guess Edison's weighted density is around 3.9k ppsm while Irvine's would be closer to 5k or even 6k.

Of course, you could say that is difference in density is because in Edison the development is leapfrogging over swamps and farms and empty land while Irvine packs it in tight and never - but then again that is many people's very definition of sprawl and something that Southern cities are criticized endlessly for, so I don't see why suddenly its not sprawl when it happens in the Northeast. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Irvine an urban place by any means, just that it has some semi-dense areas and is certainly a more densely packed and slightly less sprawling place than Edison. And like I said, Irvine is not really a prime example of LA suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2015, 11:43 AM
 
3,976 posts, read 3,513,429 times
Reputation: 6405
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
There's been significant out-migration from metro Detroit since the 1970s but because births+inmigration have exceeded the number of people leaving you get annual growth in the 0.05% to .15% range but since 2000 the metro population has been in real decline losing about .35% per year
So according to estimates the metro Detroit area started to show tiny gains again since 2011. What I've never fully understood is the math for migration patterns, were you factoring in these to your numbers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top