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.
Earthquakes? Come on, that dosent stop places like Tokyo and Seoul from having the best subway system, so what's your logic here? Subways can withstand earthquakes along with other modes of transportation.
Exactly. Anyone remember Loma Prieta when BART basically became the savior of the Bay Area?
Earthquakes? Come on, that dosent stop places like Tokyo and Seoul from having the best subway system, so what's your logic here? Subways can withstand earthquakes along with other modes of transportation.
I agree with that. I lived in Taipei which is also on the Ring of Fire and it has a fantastic public transportation system. However, there's still a bit of unease shared by some and the fact is it'll be more costly. It's one among many factors so far listed that has made mass transit, especially with heavy rail, so contentious in the area.
Others that haven't been mentioned (the big ones about sprawl, large physical size, difficult terrain and decentralization have already been addressed) would be the desire in some communities to keep out undesirables, an already large degree of car ownership and a corresponding car culture in the city, the poor reputation of mass transit in general, and a perennially impoverished city, county and state government. None of these are insurmountable (just like the fear of earthquakes and the additional costs of earthquake engineering aren't), but they add up.
I agree with that. I lived in Taipei which is also on the Ring of Fire and it has a fantastic public transportation system. However, there's still a bit of unease shared by some and the fact is it'll be more costly. It's one among many factors so far listed that has made mass transit, especially with heavy rail, so contentious in the area.
Others that haven't been mentioned (the big ones about sprawl, large physical size, difficult terrain and decentralization have already been addressed) would be the desire in some communities to keep out undesirables, an already large degree of car ownership and a corresponding car culture in the city, the poor reputation of mass transit in general, and a perennially impoverished city, county and state government. None of these are insurmountable (just like the fear of earthquakes and the additional costs of earthquake engineering aren't), but they add up.
Things are changing in LA with regards to public transit IMO. The passage of Measure R, which needed 2/3's of the vote, was huge in ensuring some big ticket projects like the Subway-to-the-Sea have funding. Mayor Tony V is trying get in built in 10 years rather than 30 now.
Also now that BEVERLY HILLS is clamoring for a subway stop I feel that the attitudes towards transit have really begun to change in LA. Who would have thought 15 years ago that folks in Beverly Hills and all over the Westside would be supporting this subway as much as they are now. Also that councilman/representaive that pretty much stopped the Red Line dead in its tracks back in the 90's has pulled a 180 on the issue and was part of the reason that the subway even has a chance now.
Also I'm not sure what "difficult" terrain you are referring to. LA is mostly flat a, especially where rail lines are proposed.
Also now that BEVERLY HILLS is clamoring for a subway stop I feel that the attitudes towards transit have really begun to change in LA. Who would have thought 15 years ago that folks in Beverly Hills and all over the Westside would be supporting this subway as much as they are now. Also that councilman/representaive that pretty much stopped the Red Line dead in its tracks back in the 90's has pulled a 180 on the issue and was part of the reason that the subway even has a chance now.
The changing attitudes have a lot to do with the fact that traffic in LA has gone from bad to almost unbearable in the last 10 years. I think people are finally starting to realize that LA will never able to build enough freeways or widen enough roads to solve its traffic problem. Of course, there are some communities that still have very, shall we say 90’s-ish attitudes towards mass transit (**Looking at you Cheviot Hills and Hancock Park**), but they’ve become the exception rather than the rule. Of course, those who still want to find pure car-and-no-other-options culture can always move to Orange County, which is just hopeless IMO.
Things are changing in LA with regards to public transit IMO. The passage of Measure R, which needed 2/3's of the vote, was huge in ensuring some big ticket projects like the Subway-to-the-Sea have funding. Mayor Tony V is trying get in built in 10 years rather than 30 now.
Also now that BEVERLY HILLS is clamoring for a subway stop I feel that the attitudes towards transit have really begun to change in LA. Who would have thought 15 years ago that folks in Beverly Hills and all over the Westside would be supporting this subway as much as they are now. Also that councilman/representaive that pretty much stopped the Red Line dead in its tracks back in the 90's has pulled a 180 on the issue and was part of the reason that the subway even has a chance now.
Also I'm not sure what "difficult" terrain you are referring to. LA is mostly flat a, especially where rail lines are proposed.
I grew up in various parts of LA (as a gradeschooler I attended the maiden voyage for the Metrolink and I've used the Metro, Foothill Transit, and OCTA since high school). I understand there's been a change and the future's looking a lot better--however, this is a "better" coming from a pretty low bar compared to the major cities in the East Coast, the West Coast, and East Asia (places where I've spent some significant periods of time). As far as difficult terrain goes, aside from the problems of subsidence due to the fault lines, there's also the hills to the north and the east/northeast of downtown with much of the metro being cut into basins. Again, this isn't the primary factor, but it's one among many.
I grew up in various parts of LA (as a gradeschooler I attended the maiden voyage for the Metrolink and I've used the Metro, Foothill Transit, and OCTA since high school). I understand there's been a change and the future's looking a lot better--however, this is a "better" coming from a pretty low bar compared to the major cities in the East Coast, the West Coast, and East Asia (places where I've spent some significant periods of time). As far as difficult terrain goes, aside from the problems of subsidence due to the fault lines, there's also the hills to the north and the east/northeast of downtown with much of the metro being cut into basins. Again, this isn't the primary factor, but it's one among many.
Aside from Portland and the Bay Area, what other West coast metros have embraced transit anymore than LA? And the terrain issues are no more difficult than the Bay Area and probably less of a factor considering the Bay Area has more hills, less flatland, and more water to work with.
Aside from Portland and the Bay Area, what other West coast metros have embraced transit anymore than LA? And the terrain issues are no more difficult than the Bay Area and probably less of a factor considering the Bay Area has more hills, less flatland, and more water to work with.
I'm referring to Portland and the Bay Area. Sacramento also has a good public transportation system using a good mix of modes. There aren't that many large metros on the West Coast (the only notable ones we're missing are San Diego and the Seattle area).
The Bay Area definitely has the same issues in terms of earthquakes and terrain, and on a greater scale. This is why I said these issues aren't insurmountable because many major cities in the Pacific Rim have already dealt with them. However, these are still reasons among many others that mass transit hasn't quite taken off in LA.
I'm referring to Portland and the Bay Area. Sacramento also has a good public transportation system using a good mix of modes. There aren't that many large metros on the West Coast (the only notable ones we're missing are San Diego and the Seattle area).
Even though Seattle has gotten a much later start than LA (they just opened their first light rail this year), I could see them catching up rather quickly. A transit-friendly Seattle wouldn't require nearly as much rail as a transit-friendly LA given Seattle's [relative] compact nature and more traditional city layout with their downtown being the true focal point of the region.
Seattle had the highest number of transit users per capita of any major US city without rail before its light rail system opened. One third of Seattlites either take transit, bike, or walk to work.
Why is DC not one of the poll options? We have the second highest ridership of any US subway (Metro), and are in the process of building a cohesive streetcar network. Sheesh.
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.
