3 ms·
It's a good thought, but until public transportation is a 1st party citizen in LA, this will just cause more problems in the long run. Busses are still seen as
by jjcm 7y ago
It's a good thought, but until public transportation is a 1st party citizen in LA, this will just cause more problems in the long run. Busses are still seen as a method of transport for impoverished people, not for the masses. Trains and light rail simply aren't a priority for either the city nor the population. For comparison, Sydney is similar to LA in terms of density and affluence, but has 7.7 times as many people riding their rail transport[1]. LA should be focusing on creating a positive draw to public transport by increasing service, availability, and quality, rather than creating a negative pressure by decreasing parking availability.
[1] 359m annual ridership in Sydney with a 4.6m population, vs 108m annual ridership in LA with a 10.1m population.
- harmmonica 7y agoYour numbers may be apples to apples if that Sydney number is the greater metro, but just a note that the City of Los Angeles is "only" 4M or so.
- gamblor956 7y agoHowever, the city of LA entirely includes several other cities within its borders, and the LA Metro area population is roughly 10-12 million... Also with respect to the rail comparisons, most of LA Metro's ridership is on the bus system, which absolutely dwarfs Sydney's total public transit ridership, even after huge drops in ridership.
- andys627 7y agoThis is not a silver bullet, but a small step in the right direction. I think it causes problems in the short run, but helps strengthen public transit in the long run.
- mixmastamyk 7y ago> rather than creating a negative pressure by decreasing parking availability. Backwards, they are talking about ending a subsidy, not reducing parking directly.