The Hump Closes Down After Being Caught Serving Endangered Whale Meat
Welcome, Spring! Cherry Blossoms Blooming at Lake Balboa
Eye Nosh: The Lazy Ox Canteen
LA Times Book Prize Nominees - Fictionally First
-thumb-110x110-490376.jpg)
Movie Review: Neil Young Trunk Show - Scenes From A Concert
LAist Rants are strictly the opinions of the author in question. They are even in first person! We keep them on Sundays because even the hive mind needs a rest.
Traffic, everybody hates it. We are all tired of sitting on the freeways and streets burning gas and going nowhere. Everybody knows what a drag it is taking 45 minutes to go 12 miles. It stinks. Let's take into account that there is only one freeway from the valley to the westside. So, ok lets use public transportation. Do you know how long it takes to catch a bus from the Valley to Westwood??? Like an hour and a half! Are you kidding!? It's either get up at the crack of dawn to catch a bus and get to the westside by 8am or if you decide to drive and are unlucky enough to get on the 405 south after 6:45am, you are stuck in a 45 minute brake-light-a-thon to travel roughly 12-15 miles of freeway.
It's not just the freeways, though, it is the surface streets too. Have you seen how effective the "alternate" route Sepulveda boulevard is getting back to the valley from West LA in the afternoon? Yeah right.
But few people have offered a solid idea for at least reducing the amount of traffic on the LA streets. Well I have a solution. Upgrading the MTA rail system. The rail system that we have here in LA is a joke. That's right a joke. The routes that are offered do nothing to reduce the amount of traffic we have here. Hollywood to Downtown LA? Uh... ok that's nice. The 405 freeway is one of the busiest in Los Angeles. A rail route running alongside it wouldn't help reduce the traffic? You sure? LAX, one of the largest and busiest airports in the world has no direct railway access to it? Really? How is that possible?
Other major cities have MUCH better train systems than LA and that is a crime. If there is a city that needed top notch public transport it is Los Angeles. If we are going to get any improvement over the horrible travel conditions in the city, this is a major step in the right direction.
It is simple, two more rail routes need to be built. One line that runs along the 405 from the Santa Clarita Valley to the OC. Then, another line that runs along the 10 from the beach to San Bernardino. Bam. That's it. Traffic problem solved. So if we want to alleviate traffic (everybody loves that) while helping to clean the air (sounds good to me), lets improve the public transportation system. C'mon, this is Los Angeles - lots of people are trying to get to lots of differerent places. If I want to get to where I need to go without the headache and stress, what would be better than taking a train ride?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes!
Here's what is now in the pipeline for rail:
1) Extend Gold Line to East L.A. (complete 2009)
2) Extend other end of Gold Line to Irwindale (2010 if we're lucky -- then on to Montclair)
3) Expo Line (Purple?) Downtown to Culver City
What's needed:
1) Extend Green line to LAX (on hold until we figure out how or if LAX will be reconstructed)
2) Extend other end of Green line to Metrolink station in Norwalk (about 2-3 miles)
3) Extend Red Line in north to Burbank (with stop at Burbank Airport) and to San Fernando
4) Complete Red Line (needs a different color) down Wilshire to Santa Monica
5) Construct subway down Vermont Avenue to Century Blvd.
6) Construct subway underneath 405 from Mission Hills to LAX
7) Light rail from LAX along Lincoln Blvd. to Santa Monica
8) Construct subway down LaBrea Avenue from Hollywood to Inglewood
9) Replace Orange Line buses with trains
10) Construct subway down Ventura Boulevard from Universal City to Warner Center
11)Light rail along former PE alignment to Santa Ana
Plus some other assorted ones, but those are the big ones.
Another problem for first-time subway riders is if they start their trip at one of the "bookends," they can be waiting up to 15 minutes until the train starts moving again. That's a tease and a half.
A trip to Pasadena from Noho can include an additional 30 minutes (15 minute each home station) if you are unlucky enough to catch a train at the home station right as it arrives. This is no way to gain new customers.
http://mayorsam.blogspot.com/2005/11/traffic.html
Scale. One thing we need to keep in mind is how much larger L.A. is compared to other cities. I'm a recent transplant from Boston (with a pretty decent public transport system) and had the same complaints about L.A. traffic. But doing a bit of research, the city of Boston is something along the lines of 48 square miles wide, while L.A. is about 460 square miles. That's just about 10 times larger! I'm in complete agreement about what improvements need to made, but it helps to keep in mind that this city is simply vast.
LA is a 20th century city, which means most of its development occurred in the automobile age. LA doesn't really have a strong central business district either, which is where the large share of many transit trips in transit-heavy cities like NY and SF go to. In LA work trips are on a many-to-many basis since origins and destinations are so far spread apart and not agglomerated. In light of that, perhaps LA is suited better for more flexible modes of transit instead of fixed rail, which requires many times at least two transfers - one to get to the rail station from home, and another to get to work from the rail station.
When they were going to build the green line through the airport, they ran into an interesting problem:
The overhead power lines that make the trains run cause a *lot* of interference to the radar and radio frequencies used by the planes and ground crews to communicate.
At least that's what I heard from my source(s) at the MTA.
"Scale. One thing we need to keep in mind is how much larger L.A. is compared to other cities. I'm a recent transplant from Boston (with a pretty decent public transport system) and had the same complaints about L.A. traffic. But doing a bit of research, the city of Boston is something along the lines of 48 square miles wide, while L.A. is about 460 square miles. That's just about 10 times larger! I'm in complete agreement about what improvements need to made, but it helps to keep in mind that this city is simply vast."
Yes, but IN THE PLACES WHERE THE SUBWAY WOULD RUN, that is, along Wilshire Boulevard specifically, Los Angeles is MUCH MORE DENSE than Boston. In fact, those areas are more densely populated than ANY OTHER PART OF ANY OTHER CITY IN THE UNITED STATES except for central Chicago and Manhattan.
There's portions of New York City that aren't as densely populated either, like, say Staten Island, which is less densely populated than, I don't know, Santa Clarita, for heaven's sake.
Bottom line: get it out of your head: LA is not all spread out. It may be vast, but only parts of it are too thinly populated to support heavy rail or light rail transit. There are many portions of LA that need trains and need them desparately. Just get on any bus on Wilshire Blvd during rush hour and you'll see I'm right.
"When they were going to build the green line through the airport, they ran into an interesting problem: The overhead power lines that make the trains run cause a *lot* of interference to the radar and radio frequencies used by the planes and ground crews to communicate. At least that's what I heard from my source(s) at the MTA."
This problem could easily be changed by placing the green line underground at or near the airport, with extra thick concrete in the tunnels. If they're going to be reconstructing the airport anyway, they should do this. That'll keep the train out of the hair of all the cars, buses, taxis and vans on the surface anyway, so all the car drivers should appreciate that aspect of it.
LA isn't all that vast! At 465 sq miles it is still smaller than sprawling London (over 700 sq miles) that has an excellent and far-reaching transport system. Their are 3 reasons why LA doesn't have an adequate rapid transport system: 1)It's adolescent growth spurt unfortunately during the Federal Highway Building phase, 2) Class issues, i.e. Hankock Park and the like not wanting those people having easy access to their neighborhoods, 3)Race issues, i.e. Hankock Park and the like not wanting those people having easy access to their neighborhoods. Like Scott stated, you wouldn't put trains in sparsley populated areas(no subway goes to Staten Island)and at the moment LA is now neck and neck with the likes of Boston as far track miles!! The train system that is in place IS NOT A JOKE, it's a spine, the beginnings of hopefully a great transit network. In places like NYC, you go where the trains go, and if the trains don't go there, you may have to walk, cab it or bus it to your final destination. LA is too spoiled (because of car dependancy)to be hardcore urbanists like that! Did you know that the length of Manhattan 13 miles is similar to the lenght of Downtown to Santa Moninca at 15 miles?? When was the last time you biked it? Culver City is not LA. Neither is Hawthorne or Long Beach or San Bernadino. Just like Yonkers, Hoboken or Jersey City, though close, will never be NYC! You take commuter trains (not urban rail) to get to those far-reaching places. Our equivalent here, METROLINK, so don't get it twisted. Hollywood, SilverLake, Los Feliz, Koreatown, Pico-Union, Midcity, Weho, Mid-Wilshire are all WALKABLE neighborhoods with very decent transportation. Cluster yourselves around transit lines like in all other major cities. Take a bus or train instead of driving. Use Flexcar or a taxi. Some routes are obviously not available just yet. So organize and start speaking out about the need for rapid transit in LA to improve our quality of life and mobility NOW! Grow up LA!!
A) Los Angeles is spread out and has no "core" because most development took place before proper anti-earthquake measures were instituded (before the office towers on Bunker Hill downtown were raised there was a 13-storey limit for the county). The system of freeways compounded this and moved populations to the geographical limits of the area (more or less the 3000 ft plus mountains). Building trains will reverse this trend and begin to re-centralize the metropolis as developers find that land values are high enough to support more dense (i.e. taller) development.
B) Unlike many other cities in the country, ours has a beautiful coastline. An above ground train with express service needs to run near the sand to open up these areas to the masses who hat sitting in traffic on the 10 or 405. I think Malibu to Newport Beach should do it (but cutting through Willmingto to avoid the ports).
C) In order to silence the anti-rail Bus Riders Union, trains should be built through the poorest reaches of LA County (think Crenshaw, Inglewood, & Sunland). Many of these residents do not have full access to cars and cannot always afford gasoline. Lifting them out of their ghettos will help to intigrate the city.
D) Metrolink needs serious restructuring in order to attract more riders. While the system of running more trains in "peak" directions is simply good business sense, virtually no trains run counter to this. Plenty of people work in Orange County and could use Metrolink to get there, if a train were scheduled in that direction. Despite having a station across the street from Angels Stadium and the Arrowhead Pond, Metrolink does not provide service to sports fans despite the fact that only a pair of long trains would be needed before and after the game. By focusing on Downtown commuter traffic, virtualy all others are cut out of the deal.
With all due respect "The Real Zajac", I don't think that the density level warrants an extension of our "urban" trains running between Malibu and Newport Beach. If anything, that sounds like a job for Metrolink, then I still don't think that particular corridor warrants that. Further, it's true that LA doesn't have a traditional core like the Eastern cities, it is a centrifugal city, which is still cool. Similarly in NYC their is Lower Manhattan and Midtown. Here their is downtown and Century City.