Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
^^ I would die of joy.
|
This is huge! Why was it not in the UT (do I need to ask)? ...or did I just miss it?
http://la.streetsblog.org/2012/12/04...ouse-gas-laws/ |
Quote:
Trying to make socal mass transit based is as stupid as making New York or London car based. |
Quote:
Second, you can't have population density without decent transit because the amount of parking required to accommodate automobiles will prevent this. Similarly, without transit, the political opposition to auto congestion will prohobit any significant density. Finally, the notion that once you get to LA, you'll be stuck without a car is completely absurd. Other than Pasadena, USC, Long Beach, Anaheim Stadium and Disneyland, LAX, Hollywood, Irvine, Century City, the Whilsire corridor, and Burbank, nope, you can't get around at all by rail in California. LA is investing billions in its subway and light rail network and has something like four subway and light rail projects under construction currently (http://www.metro.net/projects/measurer/). Yes, some of San Diego County is undoubtly too low-density for rail transit (although the Sprinter and Coaster commuter rail has seemed to work pretty well so far) but bus rapid transit could work in these areas, as it has in city after city around the world. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I know its Wikipedia, but its based on official census data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density So you're wrong. I think you're confusing density with tall buildings. LA might have only a fraction of New York's high-rises, but there are plenty of high-density areas in LA that make it the second most crowded metro in the U.S. While LA is a sprawling monster, its a dense sprawling monster, which is why they have been investing in mass transit so much. LA knows it can't keep building freeways, its impractical. As for San Diego, we should be doing the same as LA. Freeway expansion will only lead to more problems. People need to get out of their cars on onto mass transit. |
Quote:
The fact is LA epitomizes sprawl and the city occupies such a large area that delivering the kind of point to point service you can get in Stockholm or New York or Madrid requires a level of transit density that simply couldn't be supported. The metro in Madrid is extremely convenient and highly used because stations are seldem further than 500m from where you are. Cities like this have millions of people in areas only 10 or 15km across, so its quite easy to cover large populations with relatively small transit systems. While there are PARTS of LA that have high density, any real transit system needs stations not just close to this area, but close to everywhere people might go. Covering LA with the transit density that would actually attract real ridership would be impossible, and doing anything other than that is spending exorbitant amounts of money serving a small subset of the population. As far as the surfliner, you just highlight my point. Amtrak claim 7,000 rider per day for the entire segment spanning San Diego to San Luis Obispo. So SD to LA is certainly less than 7,000, while I5 covering the same route carries over 700,000 vehicles a day. It may be the "busiest line in the country," as you would like to spin it, but the reality is that it's market share is just under 1%. Quote:
Seriously, the REALISTIC option to curb pollution in socal is to push for cleaner cars, not push transit that no one will use. Quote:
Look at this route, lets say a friend visiting another friend. 2 hrs by beloved transit,. Or a 15 minute drive. Guess which one average people are going to choose https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=C...m&z=12&start=0 Yes, you can probably give me a few pre-selected routes on which I could travel efficiently using only transit. But even with the 4 new projects completed, getting me from a home in ______ to a point of interest in _________ (not a major tourist attraction, or a metro station, but somewhere normal residents go often) will still take hours. The way forward for the environment is to switch to cars running on anything but fossil fuels (TLSA anyone?), and the way forward for congestion is to get creative, but to recognize that the car is going to be the major component. Some cities in Europe have "off days" where cars with registration beginning with certain numbers/letters don't drive on certain days, typically 1 or two weekdays. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
aerogt3:
Quote:
Out West, a Paradox: Densely Packed Sprawl http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081002110.html What Density Doesn't Tell Us About Sprawl http://www.uctc.net/access/37/access37_sprawl.shtml This doesn't mean that high-frequency subways should cover every last inch of LA County (or San Diego). There are some areas in the center cities and the densest corridors where heavy rail might make sense but you match your transportation investments with the built environment and geography. Elsewhere, bus rapid transit, light rail and commuter rail have proven very successful. There are at least 1.2 million daily bus boardings in LA County and over 360,000 daily rail passengers (light rail and subways). In response to your question, 'who would ever take' transit, it looks like plenty of people do. Ridership Statistics http://www.metro.net/news/ridership-statistics/ |
Quote:
My major point is that I-5 between LA and SD is never going to be a major transit corridor (which I think is the most contentious point of SANDAG's plan). It is ridiculous to refuse to expand a freeway that sees 700,000 cars a day for a projected increase to 1,000,000, and instead demand that rail be expanded, when rail currently carries less than 7,000. This is a blind ideological push to "kill the car" without any touch of reality, especially considering that cars will be environmentally friendly well before any socal transit system will be able to fight them. I am quite pro-environment, but technology is going to solve the vehicle pollution problem way before transit will. Quote:
Quote:
Of course for MTA I am sure it feels better to count "number of boardings" rather than "number of riders,"or better yet, ridership miles, but it's disingenuous. |
What LA needs to do is be strategic about their public transportation. As stated, it makes little sense to try to implement a rail system that reaches everywhere. For one it will not be financially viable, nor will it actually work, the distances are too vast. Walking to ride would still not work everyone, or even most places. The total area of the region is simply too big.
BUT, what they should do is create a very dense network of rail for LA's "Manhattan" that would make it so that if you lived/worked in this area, you could go carless. The area I am assuming everyone is familiar with, Santa Monica to Downtown LA, Hollywood Hills to as South as Culver City. You could fill that area with a very nice and dense transit system that would work extremely well. Every other place could have fingers of service, like the long beach rail connector, connector to LAX, but really, the idea would be to drive to the "island" (the area i mentioned) park and then ride for outsiders. Or if you lived on the "island" live carless. That would be ideal, and would actually work. San Diego can do something similar. Decide which areas are strategic for dense living/working. Provide a dense network of transportation, and the rest, provide fingers of service, and park and ride options. |
Quote:
|
seriously we're debating whether LA is more dense than NY....on an SD city forum. The market can't be THAT bad.
|
Quote:
|
While I sympathize with those of you who are terribly distraught over the lack of SD emphasis (in the last 10 posts of 7,436), if you read the argument at hand you should be able to note that it stems from a discussion over whether SD should further its freeway-first plans, or adopt a more transit-oriented future for transportation development.
Maybe contributing to that discussion instead of lamenting the loss of focus would be more productive? Here, I'll do it. I believe San Diego should adopt more mass transit in conjunction with urban planning and development rather then build 10 lane freeways. There. :rolleyes: |
^^ Pretty much.
If there's nothing SD related to talk about then talk about whatever. |
News:
Ariva Apartments by Sunroad office tower https://media.utsandiego.com/img/pho...053cbc530c46a8 |
And BRT planned for El Cajon Boulevard, probably pre-cursor to a trolley extension.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/...alization-reg/ https://media.utsandiego.com/img/pho...053cbc530c46a8 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 6:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.