What if Los Angeles became the largest city in the US?

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Hmm?

Los Angeles' first modern rail transit line (Metro Blue Line) opened in 1990; Dallas' first rail transit line opened in 1996. By 1996, LA already had the Blue, Green and Red Lines. And Greater LA already had commuter rail beginning in 1993... not sure when Dallas' commuter rail line opened.

And, per Wikipedia (not sure of the accuracy):

Dallas' DART system (bus and rail): 185,753 daily ridership

Los Angeles Metro/LACMTA system (bus and rail): 1,259,017 daily ridership

That's not what I meant.

1990 LA MSA was about 11 million, and didn't have one single rail line to service that population.

Dallas, a much smaller city [current pop 6.4 million], has a much more expansive rail system already in place than a much larger Los Angeles did as recently as 1990.

[LA21st]

But what was the bus ridership to service those 11 million? I bet it was close to a million, even back then.

And you still don't get LA wasn't a NIMBY city until the mid 1980s, with a population far larger than current Dallas and Houston.

It's foolish to think those cities won't starting have backlash as traffic increases like it did for LA.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Which is the type of future growth that LA, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, and other Sunbelt cities will have to accomplish in order to reach higher populations. If this type of growth occurred in the 70s, 80s, and 90s concurrently with the rise of low density sprawl in the outskirts, many more of these cities probably would have closed the gap between NYC and the other Northern cities.

Which is what's happening. Houston for example is intensifying in the Loop area but is also still building way out in the exurbs but at least a lot of low-density development in the city itself is being replaced with high density development. These cities are getting expensive hence the rapid densification but also the demand for sprawl

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by LA21st

But what was the bus ridership to service those 11 million? I bet it was close to a million, even back then.

And you still don't get LA wasn't a NIMBY city until the mid 1980s, with a population far larger than current Dallas and Houston.

It's foolish to think those cities won't starting have backlash as traffic increases like it did for LA.

Yes, I remember the NIMBY period of LA in the 1980s. There were a number of "slow-growth" groups, and even Westwood (my assumption is they were reacting to the high-rises that started popping up on Wilshire) had a group called NYNY, which stood for "Not Yet New York." Their argument was that high-rises would just contribute to more traffic. I see that point, but it's a short-sighted one; it's as if they never thought of rail transit along Wilshire.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

That's not what I meant.

1990 LA MSA was about 11 million, and didn't have one single rail line to service that population.

Dallas, a much smaller city [current pop 6.4 million], has a much more expansive rail system already in place than a much larger Los Angeles did as recently as 1990.

Ah OK.

But to add, going along the lines that LA21st is saying, LA voters finally approved a sales tax increase to fund rapid transit in 1980, after traffic started becoming more and more heavy, and I'm sure the gas crisis of 1979 also contributed to that (remember the odd/even gas days? haha!). LA voters turned down sales taxes to fund rapid transit in 1968 and 1974 (that was the era when BART was created up in the Bay Area), but by 1980, LA took a turn. The 80s was when HRT subway construction was started, and like I mentioned previously, the Blue Line light rail opened between downtown LA and downtown Long Beach in 1990.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by JManc

Which is what's happening. Houston for example is intensifying in the Loop area but is also still building way out in the exurbs but at least a lot of low-density development in the city itself is being replaced with high density development. These cities are getting expensive hence the rapid densification but also the demand for sprawl

So much opportunity for increased density along Allen Parkway, Midtown and the Washington Corridor over the next decade. Hope the city gets it right.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by JManc

Which is what's happening. Houston for example is intensifying in the Loop area but is also still building way out in the exurbs but at least a lot of low-density development in the city itself is being replaced with high density development. These cities are getting expensive hence the rapid densification but also the demand for sprawl

And that is why Texas cities will continue to grow. They can infill, Dallas can better utilize their rail system, Houston can continue to expand theirs and will be in a better situation than 11 million person 1990 Los Angeles was.

Like you said, as the core becomes more expensive, it'll continue to densify along with suburban/exurban sprawl.

LA is contained by mountains, sea and deserts. The few areas that are sprawling outwards will continue to grow, but that is largely contained in Riverside County to the east.

[LA21st]

Yea, I don't see them being in a better position, at al. A couple rail lines isn't gonna be enough.

And LA metro was around 15 million in 1990.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by LA21st

And LA metro was around 15 million in 1990.

I'm going off of MSA numbers, not CSA.

1990: 11,273,720
2018: 13,291,486

[LA21st]

edit

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Yea, I don't see them being in a better position, at al. A couple rail lines isn't gonna be enough.

Denial: it ain't just a river in Egypt.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Someone should show LA's bus coverage on the MTA map. It's incredibly extensive. No other Sun Belt city (and even cities like DC) don't have anything like that.

Basically every large surface street has it's own bus route, even in the SFV and in many suburbs. The busier routes have Rapid, which helps alot too.

Chicago has a great bus system as well (as I'm sure NYC does). I'm guessing LA is 2 or 3 there.

But isn't bus ridership declining?

L.A. is hemorrhaging bus riders — worsening traffic and hurting climate goals
By LAURA J. NELSONSTAFF WRITER
JUNE 27, 2019 3 AM
...

Metropolitan Transportation Authority buses, which carry most of the county’s bus riders, have lost nearly 95 million trips over a decade, according to federal data. The 25% drop is the steepest among the busiest transit systems in the United States and accounted for the majority of California’s transit ridership decline.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Denial: it ain't just a river in Egypt.

West Chicago, Illinois. It ain't a part of Chicago city limits.

Source: A FRIGGIN' MAP. An ancient tool the "informed" must not use.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by homebucket

But isn't bus ridership declining?

I didn't mention ridership. I mentioned the number of routes, which I'm guessing only NYC has more of. Bus routes are infrastucture and the ridership sure as hell beats Dallas or Houston train ridershuip, in 1990 or now.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Both of those cities are in danger of running out of water soon. Growing populations will only exacerbate that.

Mexico City yes. São Paulo definitely not. It gets 1,500 of rainfall every year. Brazil is the country with the largest freshwater resevoirs in the world, more than the next two countries combined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ater_resources

If São Paulo is at risk, what to say about New York and Los Angeles? That's really a non issue. São Paulo is slowing down because TFR is falling, but it's been a soft landing. As 2017, there are still nearly 3x more births in São Paulo metro area than deaths: 310k and 130k. 16 years ago, it was almost the same: 331k and 109k.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The IE is already in LA's CSA. LA has 4 million fewer residents than NY by CSA, and that's after the Census removed nearly a million people from NY's CSA.


There’s nothing remotely "arbitrary" about the Census classifications. They may be silly or nonsensical, but they're the opposite of "arbitrary".

I’m talking about MSA. Regarding MSA or CSA, there’s aways justification for any boundary. But you can justify putting that boundary in a lot of other LA locations as well, because of soCal's centerless, sprawling nature and because boundaries are less defined in southern California than east coast cities. That’s the arbitrariness (or better said, artfulness) I’m talking about in comparing different MSAs. In other words, if IE were, will be, or had been part of LA’s MSA, that could easily be justified as well, depending on the administration drawing the lines. Just as they decide to subtract a million from NY, like you said.


If we’re talking about CSA as is, then 4 million people is not a huge difference over massive population areas. The difference between 18M and 22M can’t be tangibly pondered or imagined. It’s basically 20M, in essence. Numerically, LA already gained on the difference by nearly half a million people over 8 years. We very well may see LA technically matching NYC in our lifetime, especially as California is suddenly getting serious about the housing crisis and if Newsom walks the talk on his pledge to add 3.5 million houses in CA in 6 years. But even when that happens, there won’t be any added substance than there is right now in talking about the meaning of those population differences.

[Yuri]

New York and Los Angeles CSAs are very representative of both metropolitan areas, specially after Allentown MSA was expelled from the NY CSA. Maybe New Haven County wouldn't be a "metro area", but Ventura County might not be as well.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

If São Paulo is at risk, what to say about New York and Los Angeles? .

L.A. has issues for sure. New York does not.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by ocman

Numerically, LA already gained on the difference by nearly half a million people over 8 years. We very well may see LA technically matching NYC in our lifetime, especially as California is suddenly getting serious about the housing crisis and if Newsom walks the talk on his pledge to add 3.5 million houses in CA in 6 years. But even when that happens, there won’t be any added substance than there is right now in talking about the meaning of those population differences.

It’s possible, but I don’t think it’s likely. You’re talking about tacking on another IE (population 4.6 million) essentially just to match NYC, assuming continued growth on its part. For perspective, the five-county CSA has only added about 3.8 million since the 1990 census.

And with Millennials and young Gen Xers having fewer children and at later ages (mid-to-late 30s), the high cost of living, and inadequate public infrastructure, it’s just a far from realistic expectation.

[jd3189]

I think it’s fair to say that there is a low likelihood now that LA could ever be the most populous metro in the country in the future. However, the original OP only considered the implications that could have occurred if LA did reach expected projections in the 80s and became the largest in the early 2000s. I am wanting to hear some visionary stuff with this topic, a sort of alternative timeline or history.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Quixote

It’s possible, but I don’t think it’s likely. You’re talking about tacking on another IE (population 4.6 million) essentially just to match NYC, assuming continued growth on its part. For perspective, the five-county CSA has only added about 3.8 million since the 1990 census.

And with Millennials and young Gen Xers having fewer children and at later ages (mid-to-late 30s), the high cost of living, and inadequate public infrastructure, it’s just a far from realistic expectation.

It's not a bad thing for LA to remain number 2 to NYC metro for the next several decades and beyond
I'm more interested in seeing Hollywood, Koreatown, Wilshire, Downtown etc becoming more vertical/urbanizing anyway. The world will see a very different LA by 2028 for the Olympics.