4 ms·

Based on discussion with my cousin who lives in L.A. (I do not), it's a bit deceptive - public transit is great for few popular (touristy) spots; but it doesn't

Based on discussion with my cousin who lives in L.A. (I do not), it's a bit deceptive - public transit is great for few popular (touristy) spots; but it doesn't have a comprehensive enough grid to be that useful for locals living in distributed / random locations, going to places of work :| I live in Toronto where the subway is extremely limited in terms number of lines/paths, but at least they go to mostly the right places. Public transit is definitely a second-class-citizen, but subways going downtown are full, every day. The go-train also does a semi-passable job of enabling longer commutes... but we still have a LONG way to go. Unfortunately, each successive mayor has a completely different vision,and fights with the province to overturn the previous plan. At this point, had we picked any one option twenty years ago, even if sub-optimal, we would've had something. Ottawa seemed to do a better job with their LRT even though they had to make it through more layers of government (municipal, provincial, and national), but it's just been a lot quieter job. In Toronto, it's each mayor's main campaigning platform so it has to be a sensational proposal of "change" :-/

benj111 7y ago
Talk of a grid seems to misunderstand how its usually done. Its normally a hub and spoke model. It could well be that the city is set up to require a grid type network, but that type of network may well be more expensive and may be the reason why there isn't good transit.
- apendleton 7y ago
  Both kinds of layouts exist. Hub and spoke systems seem to be best suited to moving commuters from residential areas to commercial/employment areas and back, but aren't as good for city dwellers who want to get from one part of the city to another. Washington, DC has this problem in a pretty serious way: the Metro was built for suburban commuters, and lots of common origin/destination pairs within the city that are pretty inconvenient by metro because they involve circuitously passing through downtown. The system just wasn't designed with this use in mind. Contrast with Manhattan, which has multiple north/south and east/west lines and could reasonably be described as a grid. This is a system that's designed for people who will mostly get around by transit, rather than just doing so at rush hour when their car would get stuck in traffic.
  - benj111 7y ago
    I suspect there's somewhat of a chicken and egg situation going on. If your city grew up around the car, there was never a need to centralise, so now you need a grid to service that. Manhattan may well be a special case where the density and numbers would allow anything to work, if you were designing from scratch for mass transit I don't think grid would be the way to go though.
    - apendleton 7y ago
      Neither DC nor Manhattan grew up around the car. What was different was the role of the car at the time the transit system was built; DC's was built later, during a period when the car had become dominant and the assumption was that it would remain that way, and now as that role of the car is being questioned, the transit system we have is poorly suited to the transit modeshares we'd like to see.
- Spellman 7y ago
  LA is definitely hub and spoke, except that there's only one hub (downtown LA) and on the spokes far enough out there aren't any ways to get North-South conveniently. LA is so spread out it really needs a grid.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    I'm going to suggest (without living in LA - I might be wrong) that LA needs a mix. A grid on the neighborhood level going to many distributed hubs with express lines to other hubs. Go to the local store or school - the grid works well. Getting across town the grid isn't so nice because there are too many stops.
gamblor956 7y ago
LA Metro's Expo, Red, and Purple lines are packed for the morning and evening commutes, both ways. These 3 lines also see heavy usage during the day, and the Expo line can be packed going West all day during the summer. (The Expo line in particular is more than 10 years ahead of ridership expectations and Metro is already begun planning for expanding capacity.) Bus lines going to/from major job centers like K-town, Century City, DTLA, Hollywood, Culver City, and Long Beach are also packed during the commute.

benj111 7y ago

Talk of a grid seems to misunderstand how its usually done. Its normally a hub and spoke model. It could well be that the city is set up to require a grid type network, but that type of network may well be more expensive and may be the reason why there isn't good transit.

apendleton 7y ago
Both kinds of layouts exist. Hub and spoke systems seem to be best suited to moving commuters from residential areas to commercial/employment areas and back, but aren't as good for city dwellers who want to get from one part of the city to another. Washington, DC has this problem in a pretty serious way: the Metro was built for suburban commuters, and lots of common origin/destination pairs within the city that are pretty inconvenient by metro because they involve circuitously passing through downtown. The system just wasn't designed with this use in mind. Contrast with Manhattan, which has multiple north/south and east/west lines and could reasonably be described as a grid. This is a system that's designed for people who will mostly get around by transit, rather than just doing so at rush hour when their car would get stuck in traffic.
- benj111 7y ago
  I suspect there's somewhat of a chicken and egg situation going on. If your city grew up around the car, there was never a need to centralise, so now you need a grid to service that. Manhattan may well be a special case where the density and numbers would allow anything to work, if you were designing from scratch for mass transit I don't think grid would be the way to go though.
  - apendleton 7y ago
    Neither DC nor Manhattan grew up around the car. What was different was the role of the car at the time the transit system was built; DC's was built later, during a period when the car had become dominant and the assumption was that it would remain that way, and now as that role of the car is being questioned, the transit system we have is poorly suited to the transit modeshares we'd like to see.
Spellman 7y ago
LA is definitely hub and spoke, except that there's only one hub (downtown LA) and on the spokes far enough out there aren't any ways to get North-South conveniently. LA is so spread out it really needs a grid.
- bluGill 7y ago
  I'm going to suggest (without living in LA - I might be wrong) that LA needs a mix. A grid on the neighborhood level going to many distributed hubs with express lines to other hubs. Go to the local store or school - the grid works well. Getting across town the grid isn't so nice because there are too many stops.

gamblor956 7y ago

LA Metro's Expo, Red, and Purple lines are packed for the morning and evening commutes, both ways. These 3 lines also see heavy usage during the day, and the Expo line can be packed going West all day during the summer. (The Expo line in particular is more than 10 years ahead of ridership expectations and Metro is already begun planning for expanding capacity.) Bus lines going to/from major job centers like K-town, Century City, DTLA, Hollywood, Culver City, and Long Beach are also packed during the commute.