Should there be any doubt that LA belongs among the big 6 urban US cities?

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

St. Louis, for example, was able to build subway stations in an existing old freight railroad tunnel. But most of their light rail network has crap station locations. Like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6298187,...570INbn7G3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

To be fair to the other stations in St. Louis proper, Grand is the worst one in my opinion. Grand Blvd becomes elevated as it goes over the rail lines below, so, if they were going to build a station for Grand, that meant building it below the overpass next to the still-in-use freight line. There's some other overpass stations, but you don't have the freight line next to you.

Originally Posted by meh

Here's a nice map from a reddit user showing current STL Metrolink lines and in-the-works extensions:

https://i.postimg.cc/Fsg44bmS/not-really...-see-what-the-metro-v0-mff5bnr39hla1.jpg
Image Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis/comments/11gortk/comment/japujrt/

The extension from Shiloh Scott AFB to MidAmerica Airport (more cornfield miles on the far right) is fully funded by Illinois and under construction. The City North-South extension (yellow line) is in the environmental review stage and should begin construction in 2-3 years.

But, yeah, about 1/3+ of the system is currently wasted on IL cornfields and IL/MO low-density suburbs because politics.

I'd need to double check the numbers, but I think the Metro East side of the MetroLink might be closer to 40%+.

St. Clair County's & Illinois' contributions to the MetroLink at least created something of a commuter rail system for St. Clair County. I just wish Missouri these days would be even a quarter as willing to fund MetroLink as Illinois has been.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

I'd need to double check the numbers, but I think the Metro East side of the MetroLink might be closer to 40%+.

As noted earlier in the thread, 22 of metrolink's 46 track miles are in IL, along with 11 of its 37 stations.

So that's 48% by track miles, 30% by stations.

[mrnyc]

there has been a fairly recent call to realign cleveland’s red line downtown to make three subway stations. there is even some existing old tunneling for two of the stations on prospect, although no doubt that wouldn’t be much help for today’s standards. the 1980s dual hub subway down euclid avenue plan would have been much better, but who knows, maybe this limited underground plan can happen someday.


RED LINE REALIGNMENT: A NEW SUBWAY PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN CLEVELAND
June 7, 2021

https://www.centerforcleveland.org/blog/...a-new-subway-plan-for-downtown-cleveland

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

It really needs to be more of a network, but it's clear that LA isn't the kind of city where a subway is the cost-effective choice to move people around. It's also not a city where you can take advantage of freight railway corridors and highway medians to build a grade-separated rapid transit system quickly (like the other 70s Metro systems), nor does it have the greenfield or even brownfield sites for easy TOD.

Disagree that subway isn’t the most cost-effective choice. Or at least grade-separation (i.e. elevated) is necessary. We’re spending billions of dollars on light rail projects that are mostly being planned/built because of the way LACMTA is politically structured, but they won’t produce significant ridership gains.

Building subways in core LA will generate ridership north of 10,000 per mile. The Crenshaw North project, for example, is projected to have ridership density similar to Boston’s T.

Also, the Wilshire subway is a big deal and worth every penny. It’s will be LA’s signature rail line, even more so once it reaches Wilshire/4th in Santa Monica and potentially points farther east.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

LA is far more polycentric. DTLA has certainly risen in stature of the past 20 year. But, it isn't the undisputed core of the region and competes with several other discrete nodes.

Actually it is. It’s situated at the geographic center of the county; it’s where the major freeways converge; it’s where urban rail, commuter rail, inter-city rail, and eventually high-speed rail will all converge; it’s where the city’s convention center, primary sports arena, primary public library branch, main government buildings, and law/finance jobs are located.

No other free-standing geographic entity is “complete” the way DTLA is.

[jd3189]

Yeah, DTLA is the undisputed center of the city, as it always was. Yeah, Hollywood, Mid-Wilshire, and other secondary nodes can stand on their own, but Downtown is still bigger and has all the amenities. It just that it has not been fully utilized/gentrified, from my perspective.

Pretty much the western half (where the skyscrapers, convention center, Staple Center/ Crypto Arena, and old downtown are) is really popping with activity. Some of that extends to Little Tokyo and the Arts District towards the east, but then you immediately hit Skid Row and a large warehousing district.

If the city government eventually gets its shit together and allow mixed development and gentrification to really expand in those eastern areas, DTLA would be more complete and in the same level as other classical American downtowns. It has the bones and probably was once more bustling, but it can feel at times underutilized and shady.

[nito]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The tracks have been replaced. The stations have not, but I didn't think that's what we were talking about. NYC will probably never replace the stations since they consider them to be de facto historical landmarks.

I think the issue is more around the age of the elevated and other structures that the tracks sit on/in, complex interlining and lack of digital signalling, all of which reduce speeds relative to other international systems. As to prove an unfortunate point, the New York Subway has suffered two derailments in the first ten days of the 2024.


Coming back to the first post, Los Angeles is a large city with a sprawling façade. An urban environment is one where it is easy to get around without needing a car, and unfortunately Los Angeles offers poor public transit options and active travel provision compared to the older cities on the east coast of the US.

Talking about massive under-utilisation, the subsidies going into Metrolink must be astronomical; 17,000 weekday riders for a network of 878km across the metro of 18.5mn people.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by nito

Coming back to the first post, Los Angeles is a large city with a sprawling façade. An urban environment is one where it is easy to get around without needing a car, and unfortunately Los Angeles offers poor public transit options and active travel provision compared to the older cities on the east coast of the US.

Talking about massive under-utilisation, the subsidies going into Metrolink must be astronomical; 17,000 weekday riders for a network of 878km across the metro of 18.5mn people.

For what it's worth, according to the latest figures, total weekend ridership for Metrolink is 208,977: https://metrolinktrains.com/globalassets/about/agency/facts-and-numbers/fact_sheet_q1_fy24.pdf

This lines up with LA County's Metro Rail system, where average weekend ridership is actually higher than weekday ridership.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nito

I think the issue is more around the age of the elevated and other structures that the tracks sit on/in, complex interlining and lack of digital signalling, all of which reduce speeds relative to other international systems. As to prove an unfortunate point, the New York Subway has suffered two derailments in the first ten days of the 2024.

The first derailment was operator error and had nothing to do with he quality of the infrastructure. The cause of the second is still unknown.

[Xelebes]

As to the original question, why would LA be included with the five boroughs?

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by nito

Coming back to the first post, Los Angeles is a large city with a sprawling façade. An urban environment is one where it is easy to get around without needing a car, and unfortunately Los Angeles offers poor public transit options and active travel provision compared to the older cities on the east coast of the US.

I really don't see how car = not urban.

As has been pointed out, the cities of Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, and DC all have car ownership rates of 67-75%. If it's easy to get around without a car, then why do so many people in those cities elect to own cars and pay for car insurance?

If somebody living in SF's Sunset District commutes by car to their biotech job in South San Francisco and drives to the Costco in Daly City to buy household necessities, then what does that say about the "urban" experience of living in SF? Why would residents have to even leave the city to make a living or purchase basic goods, and why would they have to drive instead of taking public transit?

I think the fact that Chicago, Philly, Boston, and DC's heavy and commuter rail systems have ridership that's 50-60% pre-pandemic levels (NYC is much higher) illustrates how much a car is/isn't needed, as non-work-related transport use is a good indicator of transit viability and culture.

And this is before even examining the actual built environment of non-core-adjacent neighborhoods, where the fabric is human scale but not completely unwelcoming to cars either.

[Quixote]

"Urban" in the U.S. seems to mean a city that meets the following criteria:

1) Walkable, vibrant, and gentrified core with lots of office buildings, cultural amenities, and eating/drinking/shopping options that a visitor would find appealing
2) Adjacent core neighborhoods that are wealthy (e.g. Nob Hill, Beacon Hill, Dupont Circle, Rittenhouse Square, Lincoln Park)
3) Less desirable but intact and livable neighborhoods that are middle, borderline upper middle class; can be native/ethnic or transplant-friendly
4) A heavy rail system that serves the core, some desirable neighborhoods, many points of interest, and maybe an airport
5) Cities that are viscerally thought of as "urban" and not "spread out" by the layperson

[craigs]

Originally Posted by nito

An urban environment is one where it is easy to get around without needing a car

I think there's more to urbanity than just that. Going by your incomplete definition, small towns with everything on a two-block Main Street would be characterized as "urban"--and perhaps the most urban--environments.

Originally Posted by Quixote

"Urban" in the U.S. seems to mean a city that meets the following criteria:

1) Walkable, vibrant, and gentrified core with lots of office buildings, cultural amenities, and eating/drinking/shopping options that a visitor would find appealing
2) Adjacent core neighborhoods that are wealthy (e.g. Nob Hill, Beacon Hill, Dupont Circle, Rittenhouse Square, Lincoln Park)
3) Less desirable but intact and livable neighborhoods that are middle, borderline upper middle class; can be native/ethnic or transplant-friendly
4) A heavy rail system that serves the core, some desirable neighborhoods, many points of interest, and maybe an airport
5) Cities that are viscerally thought of as "urban" and not "spread out" by the layperson

The "only five cities" crowd on this forum also requires 'urban' cities to be hundreds of years old, and feature extensive brick residential vernacular.

[edale]

Urbanity is like pornography...you know it when you see it!

I say that jokingly, but there is some truth to it too. I've had friends from NYC and DC visit me in LA who've made comments about not really 'getting' Los Angeles, and wondering if we were in the city or the suburbs as I took them around town. I took one visiting friend down to the rooftop bar at the Ace (RIP), and when we got downtown, she said something like finally an area that feels like a city and makes sense. LA's predominant style of dense suburban development doesn't read as urban to someone familiar with cities that are designed around pedestrians and transit. You have little urban nodes scattered about, but the connective tissue is a weird hybrid that's pretty unlike anywhere else. Driving down say, Western or Vermont, you don't get the sense that you're in the city, even though almost every square inch is developed and paved, there are people walking around, etc. There are urban characteristics, but it doesn't feel like you're in 'the city' as it would if you're familiar with DC, NYC, SF, Chicago, etc.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I really don't see how car = not urban.

As has been pointed out, the cities of Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, and DC all have car ownership rates of 67-75%. If it's easy to get around without a car, then why do so many people in those cities elect to own cars and pay for car insurance?

If somebody living in SF's Sunset District commutes by car to their biotech job in South San Francisco and drives to the Costco in Daly City to buy household necessities, then what does that say about the "urban" experience of living in SF? Why would residents have to even leave the city to make a living or purchase basic goods, and why would they have to drive instead of taking public transit?

I think the fact that Chicago, Philly, Boston, and DC's heavy and commuter rail systems have ridership that's 50-60% pre-pandemic levels (NYC is much higher) illustrates how much a car is/isn't needed, as non-work-related transport use is a good indicator of transit viability and culture.

And this is before even examining the actual built environment of non-core-adjacent neighborhoods, where the fabric is human scale but not completely unwelcoming to cars either.

Its why places in Chicago dont seem as busy as they could be, yes, Streeterville. Theres massive parking garages and those people are clearly using them. Alot.
Theres few few cities like NYC or SF.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

For what it's worth, according to the latest figures, total weekend ridership for Metrolink is 208,977: https://metrolinktrains.com/globalassets/about/agency/facts-and-numbers/fact_sheet_q1_fy24.pdf

This lines up with LA County's Metro Rail system, where average weekend ridership is actually higher than weekday ridership.

Yea, Metrolink is pretty popular on the weekends. It almost feels like something back east.

[Segun]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Theres few few cities like NYC or SF.

The average busy street in SF is indistinguishable from DC, Boston, Chicago, and Philly.

The crowds in NYC are larger by an order of magnitude.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Segun

The average busy street in SF is indistinguishable from DC, Boston, Chicago, and Philly.

The crowds in NYC are larger by an order of magnitude.

Sure but dtwn SF has a better consistency for pedestrians from what I saw. There are quiet parts of downtown chicago, where SF seemed to have people all over the place. It was the closest thing to NYC in my experience. Michigan Ave beats any downtown sf street, but outside of that...

[Segun]

^ Have you walked Market Street from downtown to the Castro? It's a dramatic dropoff. Also the further SE you go from Market the quieter it becomes.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by Segun

^ Have you walked Market Street from downtown to the Castro? It's a dramatic dropoff. Also the further SE you go from Market the quieter it becomes.

You can’t go SE on Market. It’s either SW or NE.