UGH! Los Angeles traffic is ridiculous!!! (Santa Monica, Fairfax: cost, dangerous, bus)

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

Public transit ridership has been falling in most major cities in the past few years including D.C., Chicago and NYC. The reasons are multifaceted but to name a few:

-Declining oil prices and cheap(er) gas!
-Improving economy (more people buying cars)
-Uber/Lyft, etc.

Why Public Transit Ridership Is Down In Most U.S. Cities | Here & Now

Rome wasn't built in a day. Short-term thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place. LA ripped out its public investment in rail circa 1950 to 1965. Myopic thinking we are still paying for.

The increase in rail in 2017 was due to the extension of existing rail lines, not stealing from bus lines.

Increase in rail? The numbers show a decline in rail and a decline in bus. Both have declined over the years. I read one article that people who normally would take the bus now take the rail. Seems to me that the rail took passengers from the bus. But you are saying that is not the case.

[matzoman]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

It's a mentality that will eventually change. The point is the have it all ready for when it does. Decades ago people were riding rail everywhere in L.A.


Then we stupidly decided to only cater to the automobile and scrap rail for decades which created this mentality.

It's better to have an alternative to cars than to just stick to cars and wonder why traffic is so bad.
We made cars too much of symbol of class.

This is true. In other cities, Paris, NYC, London, SF, Mexico City, Tokyo everyone uses public transportation. From rich to poor and everyone in between. LA needs to grow up and get over its class insecurity.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Increase in rail? The numbers show a decline in rail and a decline in bus. Both have declined over the years. I read one article that people who normally would take the bus now take the rail. Seems to me that the rail took passengers from the bus. But you are saying that is not the case.

The numbers you posted show an increase in rail ridership, although a decline in bus ridership.

Rail is definitely attracting people who did not ride the bus before. I'm on the trains daily, which is probably not true for you.

Astral Weeks is right.

Expo Line doesn't have enough rail cars for its surging ridership - LA Times

Metro Expo Line to Santa Monica Sees Increase in Ridership | Hollywood Reporter

[majoun]

Originally Posted by matzoman

This is true. In other cities, Paris, NYC, London, SF, Mexico City, Tokyo everyone uses public transportation. From rich to poor and everyone in between. LA needs to grow up and get over its class insecurity.

It's already happening, but it could happen more. I'm sure it will as driving has become very dangerous and very expensive.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Joewy

Sure it was. But then people found out that the trains and buses suck. So they abandoned them. We developed a rip roaring economy which relied in efficient transportation of goods and workers and the state and local governments at that time did not posses the power to just tax people for it. So Cars and freedom won for a time.
Anyhow. There will never be a realistic rapid transport system in Losangeles.

And cars worked for a long time. The rip roaring economy existed for a long time.
Eventually, though, they stopped working, and the car ceased to be associated with freedom and instead associated with addiction and dependence. The roads became dangerous.
Eventually the economy stopped roaring and became permanently moribund. Aside from an unsustainable real estate bubble L.A. is still a poor city

[majoun]

https://www.theamericanconservative....rks-cars-dont/

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

By the way why is LA building so much high density residential commercial projects when they would not be able to expand roads and parking particularly in the western half of the city.

Because City Planners won't live there so they don't really care. City Planners are public sector employees who will receive full pensions & health care upon retirement and, well, pretty much cannot be fired for merely doing a bad job.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

None of the mass transit systems (subway & light rail) in the United States operate at a profit. As in, zero

NYC MTA, for example, has outrageous salaries. The average employee makes nearly $100K per year.

SeeThroughNY :: Payrolls

The reason public mass transit systems run in the red is entitled public sector employees with gold-plated pensions & Cadillac health care.

[citizensadvocate]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Because City Planners won't live there so they don't really care. City Planners are public sector employees who will receive full pensions & health care upon retirement and, well, pretty much cannot be fired for merely doing a bad job.

I am very surprised city planners don't live in LA.
Though the issue was actually caused by "liberal Progressives'" anti freeway revolt back in the 1960s. Which banned a lot of projects meant to complete the system west of downtown. They thought they could make the car problems go way by banning high capacity routes and reducing parking requirements but it ended up backfiring as people in all parts of Los Angeles keep and use as many personel vehicles as those in the outer suburbs do. At the same time GM lobbied for buses to replace rails causing the demise of rail transportation as well. Nowadays the massive freeway system often 12 lanes each dumps its high density traffic unto city streets where the former revolts had abruptly stopped them.


Nowadays LA could build elevated viaducts like what many other cities in the world do to close out the gaps but make them underground roads through the NIMBYist areas such as Beverly Hills/Westwood. This will keep the costs down compared to building underground all the way but would greatly aleviate street traffic. We may just need one north south such route and one east west corridor to do wonders these days.

Developing city blocks with a number of parking spots based on how many rooms, residential units, office space, and retail space, is also a good idea. Instead of requiring parking per property in high density areas make it parking per city block available to all who use those facilities residents, visitors, employees, customers etc. Downtown is built to handle traffic parking and transit therefore its good for high density residential, commercial, retail mixed use development. The same planning can be brought to other dense centers of the city. And West Hollywood have pioneered automated parking facilties that can greatly resolve parking woes without using too much land or funding.

[BGS91762]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Increase in rail? The numbers show a decline in rail and a decline in bus. Both have declined over the years. I read one article that people who normally would take the bus now take the rail. Seems to me that the rail took passengers from the bus. But you are saying that is not the case.

Decline in rail ridershp?? Definitely not in my experience. As a daily rider, the rail lines are packed, especially sinethe Expo and Gold lines were extended last year. I don't know how Metro gets their ridership numbers but it's definitely increasing in rail ridership.