LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Oh but wait a second, you asked me if I knew about BART. Of course I did, but the arguement started about LRT with "pretty laughable ridership statistics". Now that you brought BART into the equation.....it looks like LA's HRT smokes BART out of the water!! And our system is less than 20 years old compared to SF with a system that started in the '60s.

Very true. SF BART is heavy rail but plays the role of a commuter line mostly.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Originally Posted by kalifese

dude i lived in new york all my life and live in l.a. county/pasadena for 8 years so i've been to sgv many times to eat chinese there, obviously. there are more chinese people in the greater new york area compared to l.a. there are many mom and pop type places but there are also many high-end chinese restaurants in ny which is the trend nowadays.

Where is your source that there are more Chinese people living in greater NY? By how much?

This chart shows there are more Asians (and Hispanics) in general in LA than NY, but doesn't go into detail about specific groups. AND that fact hasn't changed apparently since 1990.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by edluva

$4.15 billion is really not much money - all of that could easily be spent on just the subway extension. pasadena-azusa is concessionary money down the toilet. i see all of these slow as hell, semi-useful LRT projects as childs play until our subway extension opens.

As someone who commutes on this route often, believe me, if bus ridership on Foothill Blvd is any indication, the ridership on the Gold Line is gonna soar once it's extended to Citrus College and beyond.

they'll all have pretty laughable ridership stats for the next couple decades regardless of what special connector is built

How would you know this? What example is there around the nation that shows that connectors don't help ridership?

LRT in current iteration is slow as fuck no matter how you want to slice it.

Maybe so. But this is where grade-separation comes into play, as it will help promote higher speeds.

LA is going to suck for a lot longer than you think.

How would you know?

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by edluva

building a LRT line to parallel the 210 will not get people to abandon the 210. likewise with the 10, the 105, and the 60. it won't even attract much future traffic growth - who in the hell is going to take the gold line to commute from the inland empire to pasadena or long beach? don't kid yourselves. the expo is a move in the right direction, but still too slow to be of much impact for most people along the route.

The Regional Connector was NEVER about transporting people from one end of the line to the other. That is unreasonable. It was about transporting people from the numerous points in between.

And in defense of our rail network, many los angeles forumers will note how x years ago, los angeles had "virtually no rail network" as though shining a spotlight on that consolation fact somehow changes the quality of our pathetic rail network. how sad indeed are we?

So it would've been better if we didn't make progress at all? Seriously, what do you expect? This analogy is unreasonable because it was politically impossible to build our current network and all of Measure R's projects 25 years ago.

as far as i'm concerned there are no moral victories when it comes to reality - and the reality of it is, our transit network will suck ass into the forseable decades when compared with most first-world (and increasingly, third-world) standards. "but we did good for having nothing 25 years ago" -

Bullshit, that is not reality. That is irrational pessimism that is debbie-downing all the progress we've made.

Decades? as in 2030? By then, LA might actually have the largest LRT network in the world, and we just might even have HRT on Vermont Blvd (probably as an elevated corridor) and Whittier Blvd.

who gives a sht.

The majority of us that appreciate the increasing number of baby steps we're taking.

it still sucks.

And it's rapidly getting better; our first rail line to the Westside will open by next year.

If LA's mass transit movement is going too slow for you, then do us all a favor and tell everyone you know (so they can tell everyone they know) to tell Obama to stop being a weenie, make mass transit his highest priorities on the time he has left in the White House, and halt this clusterfuck Tea Party movement so we can finally get back to investing in this country's rail infrastructure instead of the same old cacamamie ideas that favor roads, highways, and bridges.

[edluva]

LAof Anaheim -

oh sorry i meant 500k ridership for boston. big whopping difference my point still stands, which you're missing completely.

LA's metro rail network is a joke - it serves a region of 10 million, yet makes virtually no discernable impact on the metropolitan area it serves. how many people does it reach? impact? how much does it change our urban design as a whole? none.

Ridership stats show this - you cite our 2nd place standing in LRT as though it were something to brag about - let me put some perspective on what you're comparing: 2nd place with 100k fewer riders on over 3 lines and over twice as much route mileage, with 1st place being a single 26 mile LRT line in a city which sees LRT as a relative afterthought to begin with.

so to spell it out for you (in case you've missed my point) basically you're bragging about being second place in the equivalent of the special olympics for transit. how idiotic do you sound?

I'm happy to see you can piss on miami's and baltimore's metro. way to go los angeles, you're a true global city now.

and there you go again, explaining why things suck, as though an explanation made them suck less. i could care less about your moral victories. being positive about the shitty cards we inherited doesn't make los angeles any more livable. it doesn't make a trip on the world's largest trolley network any faster and more relevant to the average angeleno. it does make you sound idiotic though.

to say i can never be happy with our system just demonstrates your blissful ignorance. if we would embark on a HRT system anywhere resembling what was planned before the waxman and zev bills i could be happy, but as it is, that's not even being planned for the next 30 years (or our 30/10 for that matter). at the fastest things are going, it'll be at least a decade before we can even get to westwood. give us another decade on top of that least until development starts to adapt, and lifestyles are measurably impacted on parts of the westside.

yeah, urbanism in los angeles will go from abysmal to subpar in about 2 decades. stay positive folks!


brigham - there are indeed more people of chinese descent in the ny/nj metro according to estimates of the previous census community survey. what's your point anyhow?

[edluva]

Originally Posted by BrighamYen

Very true. SF BART is heavy rail but plays the role of a commuter line mostly.

very true, BART is analogous to an HRT version of our LRT network. it parallels suburban highway corridors over long distances, like our LRT network. Unlike our LRT system however, it travels at highway speeds.

and i might add that on top of LAofAnaheim's comically prideful ranking of LA's LRT ridership, it's also funny that he's comparing our regional LRT system to dense urban systems such as SF's muni and boston's green line which are built to serve local transit demand. that anyone would even attempt such an apples to oranges comparison is laughable. i don't think he realizes that muni and green line are actually local streetcars

[fflint]

double post

[fflint]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

HRT LA - 155,500 / 17.4 miles = 8,936/mile
HRT Boston - 496,200 / 38 miles = 13,058/mile (I thought you said Boston has 600,000 daily ridership outside of LRT..re-read your comment)
HRT SF - 347,700 / 104 miles = 3,343/mile

Oh but wait a second, you asked me if I knew about BART. Of course I did, but the argument started about LRT with "pretty laughable ridership statistics". Now that you brought BART into the equation.....it looks like LA's HRT smokes BART out of the water!! And our system is less than 20 years old compared to SF with a system that started in the '60s. I wish you lived in SF so you would laugh in the face of every SF'er who is proud of their BART which is no match for our LA Metro Red and Purple Lines!!

BART blows LA heavy rail out of the water in terms of ridership. Just look at the numbers--225% more HR riders in a region with 1/3 the population of LA. And SF city light rail (forget about VTA light rail) carries as many riders as the LA region's light rail system.

As for riders per square mile, how many BART riders are there, per mile, under San Francisco Bay? Under the East Bay hills? If LA's Red Line extended to the edge of the metro in a couple directions like BART does, the Red Line would likely have fewer riders per square mile, too--and maybe as many riders as BART. Maybe.

[bricky]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Bullshit, that is not reality. That is irrational pessimism that is debbie-downing all the progress we've made.

Edluva's downerism actually has it's place. People like him *might* in their own way raise standards and goals for the transit activists, regional planners, and politicians who make a difference. I didn't study the economics of transit in LA, but there must be a realistic way to create a real public transportation network in one of the world's largest global cities. In a timeframe shorter than 50 years.

[bricky]

And I wonder if not having a real transit system hasn't been at least instrumental in the relative decline of LA over the past 20 years. Of course there were the riots and corporate mergers and cutbacks in defence and what not that had big roles to play. But as the world has gotten more global over the past 20 years, and as NY has fixed some of it's own problems (crime and livability), I wonder if some of the Germans and Japanese and Brits who were so used to places where you didn't have to get into a car for any little thing, steered some investment to say NY, that just might have, in a different world, gone to LA. I certainly know that the Europeans, Japanese, and Koreans that I've met, while not movers and shakers, chose NY for the ease of transport and sense of excitement.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by bricky

the relative decline of LA over the past 20 years

That is a very arguable statement.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Outside of the Green Line, which has the infamously coined "nowhere to nowhere" train......but what other train goes "nowhere".

As mentioned to edluva above...Green Line was due to a consent decree between the people in the Imperial corridor and Caltrans. Metro was not even involved in the lawsuit, but had to come in and figure out a solution. This was a legal settlement, not a well planned line (think Farmdale situation and how sucky that will be).

I know the talking point of saying our trains "go nowhere" sounds great!...but it's factually wrong.

Destinations located on Metrorail (within a quarter mile..as that's what most people will walk) - Union Station, Koreatown, Olvera Street, Financial District, Civic Center, Pershing Square, East Hollywood District, Los Feliz village, Hollywood, Mann's Chinese Theater, Hollywood/Vine, Boyle Heights, Mariachi Plaza, Old Town Pasadena, South Pasadena, Chinatown, Little Tokyo, East LA, downtown Long Beach/Pine Avenue, Staples Center/LA Live!, and Los Angeles City College.

Thos are some pretty good destinations so far. But LA is a big place. In 2012, we'll be connected to USC, Expo Park and Culver City. Our trains do go "somewhere", let's stop harping on the same old tired slogan for the Green Line and applying it to all of Los Angeles.

Actually, the Foothill and Crenshaw Lines are my favorite lines to nowhere, but we don't need to go through that again unless you really want to. Blue, Purple, Red, Expo and Gold to Pasadena I have no issue with.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by pesto

Actually, the Foothill and Crenshaw Lines are my favorite lines to nowhere, but we don't need to go through that again unless you really want to. Blue, Purple, Red, Expo and Gold to Pasadena I have no issue with.

Good. So don't apply LA's "trains to nowhere" slogan to the entire system as you implied, let's put it where it applies.

Green Line - legal settlement (not an MTA project, a forced project)
Foothill Gold Line - not truly supported by Metro, but a significantly well-mobilized San Gabriel Valley with ALL politicians supporting this (something we need in West LA, South LA), etc..

Whereas projects supported by Metro actually do go somewhere as you duly noted.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by bricky

And I wonder if not having a real transit system hasn't been at least instrumental in the relative decline of LA over the past 20 years. Of course there were the riots and corporate mergers and cutbacks in defence and what not that had big roles to play. But as the world has gotten more global over the past 20 years, and as NY has fixed some of it's own problems (crime and livability), I wonder if some of the Germans and Japanese and Brits who were so used to places where you didn't have to get into a car for any little thing, steered some investment to say NY, that just might have, in a different world, gone to LA. I certainly know that the Europeans, Japanese, and Koreans that I've met, while not movers and shakers, chose NY for the ease of transport and sense of excitement.

20 years ago
downtown LA - was a 9 - 5 area, but really rundown at night with the homeless encampment far west as Spring street. South Park was full of parking lots. No Staples Center/LA Live!, Old Bank District, 7th street restaurant row

Old Town Pasadena was relatively young, if even in existence

Santa Monica 3rd street promenade opened in 1991

Venice was considered "South Central" still at this time; not a place you wanted to be after 6 pm

Hollywood was really sketchy

Culver City downtown was pitiful

Today
Downtown LA has established neighborhoods with nighttime entertainment. Visit 7th street or Spring street today, and they've become nightlife destinations. Skid Row has been pushed east to Los Angeles street, and the Artwalk attracts over 20,000 people a month. Staples Center/LA Live! have revamped downtown LA as the sports entertainment capital of LA

Old Town Pasadena/3rd Street Promenade Santa Moncia are two of the most liveliest family friendly districts in Los Angeles county. People feel safe here (not for the single 20s crowd) and restaurants are happening all night.

Hollywood has cleaned up significantly over last 20 years. The clubs are popping, but you also have the family friendly area of Hollywood/Highland, Disney's Cafe, tourists that stay well into the night (didn't happen 20 years ago)

Culver City downtown - fantastic little area in Culver City.

Venice beach has become the "new Amsterdam"/hippie area of Los Angeles; no longer considered "South Central".

Leimart Park - people celebrate the culture of black history in LA, not fear of racial riots

Koreatown - popping with all the Korean karaoke bars

Long Beach - boy, remember downtown Long Beach/Pine Avenue 20 years ago? It was scary as heck! Now, it's become a true nightlife destination and hosts many great events (Red Bull, drag racing); and a cycling paradise

So, to give a blanket statement that "relative decline of LA over the past 20 years"...I'd like for you to show me what you truly mean as a decline. I don't remember LA being this fun 20 years ago. There was no monthly artwalk in downtown LA, Venice Beach first friday, cicLAvia, Pillow Fight day, Santa bar crawl, etc...

[bricky]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

20 years ago
downtown LA - was a 9 - 5 area, but really rundown at night with the homeless encampment far west as Spring street. South Park was full of parking lots. No Staples Center/LA Live!, Old Bank District, 7th street restaurant row

Old Town Pasadena was relatively young, if even in existence

Santa Monica 3rd street promenade opened in 1991

Venice was considered "South Central" still at this time; not a place you wanted to be after 6 pm

Hollywood was really sketchy

Culver City downtown was pitiful

Today
Downtown LA has established neighborhoods with nighttime entertainment. Visit 7th street or Spring street today, and they've become nightlife destinations. Skid Row has been pushed east to Los Angeles street, and the Artwalk attracts over 20,000 people a month. Staples Center/LA Live! have revamped downtown LA as the sports entertainment capital of LA

Old Town Pasadena/3rd Street Promenade Santa Moncia are two of the most liveliest family friendly districts in Los Angeles county. People feel safe here (not for the single 20s crowd) and restaurants are happening all night.

Hollywood has cleaned up significantly over last 20 years. The clubs are popping, but you also have the family friendly area of Hollywood/Highland, Disney's Cafe, tourists that stay well into the night (didn't happen 20 years ago)

Culver City downtown - fantastic little area in Culver City.

Venice beach has become the "new Amsterdam"/hippie area of Los Angeles; no longer considered "South Central".

Leimart Park - people celebrate the culture of black history in LA, not fear of racial riots

Koreatown - popping with all the Korean karaoke bars

Long Beach - boy, remember downtown Long Beach/Pine Avenue 20 years ago? It was scary as heck! Now, it's become a true nightlife destination and hosts many great events (Red Bull, drag racing); and a cycling paradise

So, to give a blanket statement that "relative decline of LA over the past 20 years"...I'd like for you to show me what you truly mean as a decline. I don't remember LA being this fun 20 years ago. There was no monthly artwalk in downtown LA, Venice Beach first friday, cicLAvia, Pillow Fight day, Santa bar crawl, etc...

I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Of course "urban" LA didn't go through any absolute decline in the past 20 years. As you explained, there is a lot more (really semi) urban stuff now than 20 years ago. I'm talking about LA's place in the world in general. I'll state right now that I didn't write a thesis on this, and can just go on anecdotal stuff that I've read and heard. I'm in my early 30s, and started to read and follow the economic news in the late 80s and early 90s. Plus I've seen old films etc. And I have the impression that LA was a much bigger deal in the 70s and 80s than it is now. In the 70s, lots of people were sure it would overtake NY in the not-so-distant future. In the 80s, it was the emergent co-capital of the Pacific Rim, along with Tokyo. And remember, NY's (or for that matter, London's) place as an undisputed top-three world city was not nearly as established back then, as it is now.

Sure, urban LA made progress, but with world class urbanity, we're talking about something like going from 10 to 20, on a scale of 100. The numbers are just an example, but I hope you understand what I mean. Meanwhile NY really cleaned itself up, and has a lock on finance, and the explosion of money that have come with it over the past 30 years. London went from the capital of a declining old colonial power, frumpy, relatively homogeneous, likely to be overtaken by Frankfurt anytime, into the undisputed financial capital of Europe, as well as a huge center for global immigration, Russian and Indian billionaires, etc. Meanwhile, nobody talks about LA as the capital of the Pacific Rim anymore, as the most diverse city on earth, as the place to glimpse the future of America... Sure your urbanism went from non-existent to just weak, but a lot of other relative advantages were lost over the same period.

I really do wish LA the best, but unless the people in power understand the current (changed) situation, they can't really improve their city and state.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by bricky

I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Of course "urban" LA didn't go through any absolute decline in the past 20 years. As you explained, there is a lot more (really semi) urban stuff now than 20 years ago. I'm talking about LA's place in the world in general. I'll state right now that I didn't write a thesis on this, and can just go on anecdotal stuff that I've read and heard. I'm in my early 30s, and started to read and follow the economic news in the late 80s and early 90s. Plus I've seen old films etc. And I have the impression that LA was a much bigger deal in the 70s and 80s than it is now. In the 70s, lots of people were sure it would overtake NY in the not-so-distant future. In the 80s, it was the emergent co-capital of the Pacific Rim, along with Tokyo. And remember, NY's (or for that matter, London's) place as an undisputed top-three world city was not nearly as established back then, as it is now.

Sure, urban LA made progress, but with world class urbanity, we're talking about something like going from 10 to 20, on a scale of 100. The numbers are just an example, but I hope you understand what I mean. Meanwhile NY really cleaned itself up, and has a lock on finance, and the explosion of money that have come with it over the past 30 years. London went from the capital of a declining old colonial power, frumpy, relatively homogeneous, likely to be overtaken by Frankfurt anytime, into the undisputed financial capital of Europe, as well as a huge center for global immigration, Russian and Indian billionaires, etc. Meanwhile, nobody talks about LA as the capital of the Pacific Rim anymore, as the most diverse city on earth, as the place to glimpse the future of America... Sure your urbanism went from non-existent to just weak, but a lot of other relative advantages were lost over the same period.

I really do wish LA the best, but unless the people in power understand the current (changed) situation, they can't really improve their city and state.

Yes, I think your point about global decline can be attributed to the entire United States, not just to Los Angeles. The USA is in fear of being eclipsed by China soon. 20 years ago, India, China and Japan were not in the strength as it is today. The world has gotten more flat over last 20 years.

Shanghai is probably creeping closer to a world financial power to New York today. Moscow is much financially stronger today than it was 20 years ago when the Cold War ended.

I think your argument can be applied to the United States as a whole...and it's not fair to single out Los Angeles. LA is still home of entertainment (all those entertainment companies you hear about at the Grammys/Oscars, LA is their headquarters). The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach still import 65% of America's goods from the Far East. Tourism is still strong, if not stronger now that LA has a safer image than it did 20 years ago when the LA riots happened.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by bricky

Sure your urbanism went from non-existent to just weak

Nice cheap shot. Sounds like we have another edluva here....

[bricky]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Yes, I think your point about global decline can be attributed to the entire United States, not just to Los Angeles. The USA is in fear of being eclipsed by China soon. 20 years ago, India, China and Japan were not in the strength as it is today. The world has gotten more flat over last 20 years.

Shanghai is probably creeping closer to a world financial power to New York today. Moscow is much financially stronger today than it was 20 years ago when the Cold War ended.

I think your argument can be applied to the United States as a whole...and it's not fair to single out Los Angeles. LA is still home of entertainment (all those entertainment companies you hear about at the Grammys/Oscars, LA is their headquarters). The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach still import 65% of America's goods from the Far East. Tourism is still strong, if not stronger now that LA has a safer image than it did 20 years ago when the LA riots happened.

Sure LA didn't disappear off the face of the earth. It still has the entertainment industry. It still has the port of Los Angeles. But I do think it's position vis-a-vis NY, the Bay Area, even the likes of Texas, Chicago, Atlanta, has declined. Maybe people here are a little too young to remember just how big LA used to be, and was expected to become, beyond just Hollywood or the port.

You're right that the Federal government could do a lot to improve not just LA's lot, but the country's as a whole. Immigration/visa reform (the legal sort, I personally don't much care about illegal immigration either way), some other stuff too. But if it were just about America's relative decline, that wouldn't explain relative performances within the US.

[bricky]

Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim

Nice cheap shot. Sounds like we have another edluva here....

Are you saying that LA's urbanism is not weak compared to any other developed world metropolis with over 10 million people? Outside of the American context, "weak" is a kind term for urban LA.

[LAofAnaheim]

Originally Posted by bricky

Are you saying that LA's urbanism is not weak compared to any other developed world metropolis with over 10 million people? Outside of the American context, "weak" is a kind term for urban LA.

I've lived in London and the Bay Area. There truly is no city that has the amount of entertainment options Los Angeles has relative to a city of this size. Nearly every weekend, there's always something big happening. This weekend - the Red Bull Soapbox car race.

San Francisco - you only have the City of San Francisco to enjoy. It's great.......for a while. But you can get tired and have to find other places to enjoy, which is hard.

London - there's only so much drinking at the pubs you want to do. And its an over 18 year-old nightlife there..I don't like partying with 18 year olds. The theaters are cool, but that's no different than Los Angeles (only New York, Paris and Las Vegas I would put with the best theaters in the world)

In LA, you have the beaches (any other city over 10,000,000 in the USA have that luxury?), nightlife in Hollywood and downtown LA, family friendly atmosphere of Santa Monica 3rd street and Old Town Pasadena, and sports entertainment with Staples Center and Dodger Stadium. Those other cities have great big events, nightlife, theaters, family friendly, sports, etc... but not in the volume as Los Angeles does. You seem to have a narrow view of LA, there's so much to see and do in this city. It's not confined to a small 7 x 7 mile island like New York and SF (note: edluva those are not stats, just approx distance I used for example purpose).