Unpopular opinions involving cities

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by The North One

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7506...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lo...4d-118.2436849

They're exactly the same in built form and geography, there are miles upon miles of this flat suburban land in LA, it is certainly the majority. Other than weather these people aren't living any differently and the people in LA are paying much more.

So you found 2 google images that look similar to each other and this is your evidence that LA neighborhoods are similar to Chicago suburbs?

Again, very few people would try to make this claim, therefore your opinion is unpopular (and inaccurate). I guarantee you that Angelenos live quite a different lifestyle than suburban Chicago.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

So you found 2 google images that look similar to each other and this is your evidence that LA neighborhoods are similar to Chicago suburbs?

Again, very few people would try to make this claim, therefore your opinion is unpopular (and inaccurate). I guarantee you that Angelenos live quite a different lifestyle than suburban Chicago.

lol okay, daily life essentially everywhere in auto-centric suburban America is exactly the same apart from a few different aspects. I could find a million more google street views to prove it but that would be a pointless waste of time and all you really have to do is look at an aerial of all the residential flat land in LA to get the picture. Suburban Angelenos can go drive out to a mountain every other month and go hiking (if they ever care for that), wow so life changing and incredible, a total 180 in lifestyle! But you seem to be determined to think living in a detached bungalow in LA is something special...

[niwell]

Yeah, they seem very similar to me. The gridded areas of suburban LA and Chicago are pretty much the same in built form. One has a more central downtown, which is the big difference. Dunno how much that affects the average lifestyle. Probably not much.

[Doady]

Suburbs are called "cookie-cutter" for a reason. It's all the same, not much variation.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Doady

Suburbs are called "cookie-cutter" for a reason. It's all the same, not much variation.

Jeezez. And here sat I, thinking to myself it was all about being able to shape custom cities. Shape them in the form of Stars and Bells or gingerbread men. Go figure.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by niwell

Yeah, they seem very similar to me. The gridded areas of suburban LA and Chicago are pretty much the same in built form. One has a more central downtown, which is the big difference. Dunno how much that affects the average lifestyle. Probably not much.

You realize anybody could take a google maps image of Toronto and find the exact same scene in Mississippi and then say, look, there's no difference other than the weather. I just did it with inner city Detroit and Jackson, MS. It took about 2 mins.

Detroit
Jackson, MS


Again, LA neighborhoods are not similar to Chicago suburbs.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by The North One

lol okay, daily life essentially everywhere in auto-centric suburban America is exactly the same apart from a few different aspects. I could find a million more google street views to prove it but that would be a pointless waste of time and all you really have to do is look at an aerial of all the residential flat land in LA to get the picture. Suburban Angelenos can go drive out to a mountain every other month and go hiking (if they ever care for that), wow so life changing and incredible, a total 180 in lifestyle! But you seem to be determined to think living in a detached bungalow in LA is something special...

toronto (and montreal) have plenty of areas that look exactly like the ugliest suburban bits of LA and Chicago.

(I recently drove through Laval and speak from experience)

[niwell]

^To be fair, Laval may be the ugliest suburb in Canada. Vaughan isn't much better.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Again, LA neighborhoods are not similar to Chicago suburbs.

The actual suburbs, yeah for sure. Just pointing out that in built form, Chicago's bungalow belt is very similar to the gridded street portions of the LA basin and San Fernando Valley. That would be the areas built up immediately post-war to the 60 or so. The further out suburbs don't have that much resemblance. LA's are much denser, for one.

And as I said, Chicago has a much stronger downtown which would affect people's commuting patterns. Their day to day life outside work probably not too much.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

toronto (and montreal) have plenty of areas that look exactly like the ugliest suburban bits of LA and Chicago.

(I recently drove through Laval and speak from experience)

It's true, but there is more than superficial similarity between Toronto and LA:

Toronto: Los Angeles of the North

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

You realize anybody could take a google maps image of Toronto and find the exact same scene in Mississippi and then say, look, there's no difference other than the weather. I just did it with inner city Detroit and Jackson, MS. It took about 2 mins.

Detroit
Jackson, MS


Again, LA neighborhoods are not similar to Chicago suburbs.

I concur, they are not.

Like I mentioned in my previous post, I've been to the Chicago suburbs, and they feel somehow more rural than LA suburbs. And flatter.

This does not look like the Chicago suburbs. Lakewood, which he depicted earlier, is outlined in red, at the center bottom.


And I live in South Pasadena, which definitely does not feel like a Chicago suburb. Way too hilly in comparison.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

If you're at the point where you can't increase bus frequency to satisfy demand then its time to start thinking about grade separated rail.

I'm not saying Toronto's streetcars are a failure, but they are an outdated technology in the sense that I wouldn't recommend any city to build something similar. But they're fine as legacies since they're already there.

Exactly. There's nothing light rail can do that buses can't. If a bus can't do it anymore, then grade separation is inherently a viable alternative. Put a bus into dedicated lanes, and even add little "stations" à la Portland's streetcar and you have a system that does just about everything a light rail line can, at a fraction of the cost.

And as you say, in terms of capacity, there's no need for a middle ground between buses and RRT. In Vancouver, Broadway has buses carrying almost 80,000 people a day—55,000 people on the express bus (similar to the Metro Rapid in LA, not BRT) and 23,000 on the local bus. I don't mean to imply this is adequate; a subway line has been badly needed for years along the corridor. But my point is that buses are capable of much more than they're given credit for, and when they reach their limit (as Broadway has in Vancouver), it's clear that a step straight to grade-separated rapid transit is viable.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

And as you say, in terms of capacity, there's no need for a middle ground between buses and RRT. In Vancouver, Broadway has buses carrying almost 80,000 people a day—55,000 people on the express bus (similar to the Metro Rapid in LA, not BRT) and 23,000 on the local bus. I don't mean to imply this is adequate; a subway line has been badly needed for years along the corridor. But my point is that buses are capable of much more than they're given credit for, and when they reach their limit (as Broadway has in Vancouver), it's clear that a step straight to grade-separated rapid transit is viable.

A Broadway LRT would be able to carry double that many people comfortably. A Broadway Subway would be able to carry quadruple that many people comfortably. Best choice depends on what the ultimate ridership will be.

The Spadina streetcar carry as much people per km and does so comfortably (43,804 riders per day, 6.2km).

Do you really believe Kitchener-Waterloo should be building subway instead of LRT? Mississauga should build subway instead of LRT? Calgary should have built subway instead of LRT?

I don't see the point of dismissing entire modes of transit, whether it be bus, light rail, or subway. That's the problem with a lot of light rail projects in the US. They are based on anti-bus ideology. Then the bus system gets neglected and light rail has bad ridership too. Or in Toronto, the pro-light rail people are anti-subway, so the lack of subway expansion to alleviate overcrowding will hamper ridership growth on the new light rail lines. To be pro-subway and anti-light rail is just as bad. It's just as myopic.

[dc_denizen]

Nice, France has a streetcar...read up about it. it's not grade separated, but it's far nicer than the bus and really completes the downtown.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Doady

A Broadway LRT would be able to carry double that many people comfortably. A Broadway Subway would be able to carry quadruple that many people comfortably. Best choice depends on what the ultimate ridership will be.

The Spadina streetcar carry as much people per km and does so comfortably (43,804 riders per day, 6.2km).

Do you really believe Kitchener-Waterloo should be building subway instead of LRT? Mississauga should build subway instead of LRT? Calgary should have built subway instead of LRT?

I don't see the point of dismissing entire modes of transit, whether it be bus, light rail, or subway. That's the problem with a lot of light rail projects in the US. They are based on anti-bus ideology. Then the bus system gets neglected and light rail has bad ridership too. Or in Toronto, the pro-light rail people are anti-subway, so the lack of subway expansion to alleviate overcrowding will hamper ridership growth on the new light rail lines. To be pro-subway and anti-light rail is just as bad. It's just as myopic.

No, I believe that Kitchener-Waterloo and Mississauga should just keep with buses until a subway is a logical step. I don't believe in the thinking that certain routes or places demand different technologies based on their demand levels. I actually think that's the short-sighted view. Once upon a time, a light rail line up Yonge Street was the logical choice—it just wasn't big enough for a subway. But of course now it it would be unthinkable. By building LRT, you are actively constraining transit speed, capacity and growth along the corridor because you are basically saying this is as good as it's gonna get. By maintaining bus service longer, you are keeping the option of grade-separated rapid transit alive, while providing the same speed of LRT at a fraction of the cost. Building LRT is short-sighted, because it's done to fulfill an appetite for rail whether or not it's needed.

I agree that having such hard views on anything usually isn't helpful. Being open-minded is important. But I've given this a lot of thought, and I just don't see the need for LRT. As I've argued, my main points are:

• LRT runs at the same speed as buses
• Buses can provide an adequate level of capacity that lead directly into RRT capacity levels
• Aesthetics are not worth a billion dollars
• The premium price of LRT that does not improve the principle characteristics of transit service of speed, frequency and capacity thus hurts the city's overall transit system by taking money that could be spent on a more comprehensive service improvement to a variety of corridors, which does not preclude (bus) rapid transit to be implemented on the original corridor with the same speed and capacity that the LRT would have had.

To me, this combines to make LRT just about always a bad idea. It is nothing more than an express bus on rails, but at a much higher price tag. RRT may be even more expensive, but at least it comes with substantial service improvements.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Nice, France has a streetcar...read up about it. it's not grade separated, but it's far nicer than the bus and really completes the downtown.

This is a position I strongly disagree with. I reject the use of transit as an urban design tool. As a transit rider, all I care about is how fast I can get places via transit. "Niceness" and aesthetics are simply not worth the cost, especially when that money could be spent more effectively elsewhere. Transit money is hard to find as it is. When it exists, it should be spent on improving service, not niceness.

Jarrett Walker shares many of my points (not that I assume he agrees with me overall). One statement sums up my own thoughts very well:

"Streetcars that replace bus lines are not a mobility or access improvement. If you replace a bus with a streetcar on the same route, and make no other improvements, nobody will be able to get anywhere any faster than they could before. Likewise, if you build a streetcar instead of a good bus line, that money you spend above the cost of the bus line is not helping anyone get anywhere any faster...Where a streetcar is faster or more reliable than a bus route doing the same thing, this is because other improvements were made with the streetcar — improvements that could just as well have been made for the bus route."
http://humantransit.org/2009/07/stre...ent-truth.html

"Streetcars" and "bus lines" can be substituted with "LRT" and "express buses" and the point stands.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

toronto (and montreal) have plenty of areas that look exactly like the ugliest suburban bits of LA and Chicago.

(I recently drove through Laval and speak from experience)

Yes, I vouch your disapproval of Laval and much of our suburbia. Also, it ain't San Andreas' fault that we have so many cracks and potholes in our midst.

[dc_denizen]

one thing those maps reveal about LA is the stunning lack of parkland, in preference for golf courses.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Doady

It's true, but there is more than superficial similarity between Toronto and LA:

Toronto: Los Angeles of the North

there are some similarities, I remember driving around the suburbs of toronto and thinking this...the similarity is due to the built environment of houses on small lots, on a grid, fences facing the road, rather than the more forested, large lot cul de sac suburbs of post-1960 DC or Atlanta. one is reminded of the edge cities of San Diego or LA or Orange County (or maybe Minneapolis) more than anything on the east coast. however DC suburbs are more similar to toronto than LA in the sense that there are more suburban high rise nodes, which are less of a factor in LA or Minneapolis suburbs.

[softee]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

however DC suburbs are more similar to toronto than LA in the sense that there are more suburban high rise nodes, which are less of a factor in LA or Minneapolis suburbs.

Yes, according to new data from the 2016 census, the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area has a far higher % dwellings in mid or hi-rise buildings than you would find in LA.

% of Dwellings that are Apartments in a building that has five or more storeys:

Toronto CMA: 29.4%

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...016005-eng.cfm

In the city of Toronto proper 44.3% of all dwellings are in buildings with five or more storeys.

[niwell]

Streetcars are wayyyy more comfortable for riding than buses. It's prob not worth replacing existing bus routes but damn I'm glad Toronto has streetcars still. When I can't bike I'm glad it's a streetcar instead of a bus.