4 ms·

Well, in fairness it is the "New Yorker". Looking at the current LA Metro map (http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/system_map_2016-0520.pdf http://

Well, in fairness it is the "New Yorker". Looking at the current LA Metro map (http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/system_map_2016-0520.pdf http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/system_map_2...), rail service is still pretty sparse.

_delirium 10y ago
Most transit users in L.A. take the bus rather than rail, and there's a lot denser bus network. Weekday ridership numbers are about 1m for Metro Bus, 300k for Metro Rail (subway / light rail), and 40k for Metrolink (commuter rail).
mturmon 10y ago
Yes, you are right, rail service is (still) sparse in LA -- despite the new lines. But that's not my point. My point is: Why do I have to read anecdotes about New Yorkers transplanting to LA when I'm reading an article supposedly about the new LA Metro line? It's lazy on the part of the author.
- dalke 10y ago
  It's the New Yorker. They write for their audience, which is people who read a magazine which famously had "View of the World from 9th Avenue" on their front cover in 1976. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Avenue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Ave... > "The work is sometimes referred to as A Parochial New Yorker's View of the World or A New Yorker's View of the World because it depicts a map of the world as seen by self-absorbed New Yorkers." They have a market of potentially millions of potential readers who are interested in the parochial New York world view. Why produce articles for a more general national or international market where there is more competition and less ability to distinguish oneself?
  - mturmon 10y ago
    One would hope that their cosmopolitan and well-educated audience would tire of repeated regional stereotypes. I have apparently overestimated the aim of their editors. That's why I subscribe to NY Review -- which can be parochial, but is more adventurous.
    - dalke 10y ago
      I can assure you there's a large audience of cosmopolitan and well-educated people who also want regional flavor. Nearly everyone wants to feel special, and many do not want the homogeneous world you seem to desire. I used to subscribe to the "Santa Fean", which is "an art, culture, dining, history and lifestyle magazine in Santa Fe, New Mexico." If a city of 60K inhabitants can have its own city-centered publication, then a city of millions can certainly have its own. I now live in Sweden, which has a smaller population that the NYC area. When Swedes cover international news, they often describe it with a Swedish viewpoint, or how it affects Swedes. Do you think Swedes are using "repeated regional stereotypes"? Or that Swedes are not a "cosmopolitan and well-educated audience"?
  - pvg 10y ago
    It seems a little silly to equate a tongue-in-cheek New Yorker cover with the audience of the New Yorker. The vast bulk of the New Yorker is not written by, or intended for 'people interested in the parochial New York View'.
    - dalke 10y ago
      Well, yes. My answer was also meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
api 10y ago
LA is just huge. It'll take a long time to wire it with rail.
- wwweston 10y ago
  Would have taken less time if we hadn't torn out what was already built.
- ikawe 10y ago
  And in some cases it really doesn't make that much sense. I think there is definitely some urban vanity at play with the huge investment in train spending. Would personally love to see more bus rapid transit lines. Here's a peak at what Metro might be up to the next 40 years: http://la.curbed.com/2016/3/18/11265444/metro-los-angeles-ballot-measure-future-map http://la.curbed.com/2016/3/18/11265444/metro-los-angeles-ba...
  - electricEmu 10y ago
    Commuter from Seattle here. BRT is an improvement here (I'm on it now) but vastly inferior to rail. Downtown to UW is 10 minutes on rail. My similar distanced BRT commute is 25-60 minutes. Grade separated rail makes a gigantic difference and moves leagues more humans faster than BRT could dream of. Unless BRT gets dedicated lanes it's no better than any other bus, except it stops is fewer places more often.
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      I thought, and wikipedia agrees, that BRT implies dedicated lanes, for at least the majority of the route. There's lots of little improvements that could be made to bus transport, for similar money to trains, I think a big part of it is just wanting to be responsible for big construction, whether to get kickbacks or to just a more straightforward ego boost.
- zachrose 10y ago
  To wire it _back_ with rail, you mean. What is now the Expo line from Downtown to Santa Monica was, in 1875, the Los Angeles and Independence Railroad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_and_Independence_Railroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_and_Independence_R...

_delirium 10y ago

Most transit users in L.A. take the bus rather than rail, and there's a lot denser bus network. Weekday ridership numbers are about 1m for Metro Bus, 300k for Metro Rail (subway / light rail), and 40k for Metrolink (commuter rail).

mturmon 10y ago

Yes, you are right, rail service is (still) sparse in LA -- despite the new lines. But that's not my point. My point is: Why do I have to read anecdotes about New Yorkers transplanting to LA when I'm reading an article supposedly about the new LA Metro line? It's lazy on the part of the author.

dalke 10y ago
It's the New Yorker. They write for their audience, which is people who read a magazine which famously had "View of the World from 9th Avenue" on their front cover in 1976. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Avenue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Ave... > "The work is sometimes referred to as A Parochial New Yorker's View of the World or A New Yorker's View of the World because it depicts a map of the world as seen by self-absorbed New Yorkers." They have a market of potentially millions of potential readers who are interested in the parochial New York world view. Why produce articles for a more general national or international market where there is more competition and less ability to distinguish oneself?
- mturmon 10y ago
  One would hope that their cosmopolitan and well-educated audience would tire of repeated regional stereotypes. I have apparently overestimated the aim of their editors. That's why I subscribe to NY Review -- which can be parochial, but is more adventurous.
  - dalke 10y ago
    I can assure you there's a large audience of cosmopolitan and well-educated people who also want regional flavor. Nearly everyone wants to feel special, and many do not want the homogeneous world you seem to desire. I used to subscribe to the "Santa Fean", which is "an art, culture, dining, history and lifestyle magazine in Santa Fe, New Mexico." If a city of 60K inhabitants can have its own city-centered publication, then a city of millions can certainly have its own. I now live in Sweden, which has a smaller population that the NYC area. When Swedes cover international news, they often describe it with a Swedish viewpoint, or how it affects Swedes. Do you think Swedes are using "repeated regional stereotypes"? Or that Swedes are not a "cosmopolitan and well-educated audience"?
- pvg 10y ago
  It seems a little silly to equate a tongue-in-cheek New Yorker cover with the audience of the New Yorker. The vast bulk of the New Yorker is not written by, or intended for 'people interested in the parochial New York View'.
  - dalke 10y ago
    Well, yes. My answer was also meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

api 10y ago

LA is just huge. It'll take a long time to wire it with rail.

wwweston 10y ago
Would have taken less time if we hadn't torn out what was already built.
ikawe 10y ago
And in some cases it really doesn't make that much sense. I think there is definitely some urban vanity at play with the huge investment in train spending. Would personally love to see more bus rapid transit lines. Here's a peak at what Metro might be up to the next 40 years: http://la.curbed.com/2016/3/18/11265444/metro-los-angeles-ballot-measure-future-map http://la.curbed.com/2016/3/18/11265444/metro-los-angeles-ba...
- electricEmu 10y ago
  Commuter from Seattle here. BRT is an improvement here (I'm on it now) but vastly inferior to rail. Downtown to UW is 10 minutes on rail. My similar distanced BRT commute is 25-60 minutes. Grade separated rail makes a gigantic difference and moves leagues more humans faster than BRT could dream of. Unless BRT gets dedicated lanes it's no better than any other bus, except it stops is fewer places more often.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    I thought, and wikipedia agrees, that BRT implies dedicated lanes, for at least the majority of the route. There's lots of little improvements that could be made to bus transport, for similar money to trains, I think a big part of it is just wanting to be responsible for big construction, whether to get kickbacks or to just a more straightforward ego boost.
zachrose 10y ago
To wire it _back_ with rail, you mean. What is now the Expo line from Downtown to Santa Monica was, in 1875, the Los Angeles and Independence Railroad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_and_Independence_Railroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_and_Independence_R...