16 ms·

L.A.'s Lost Transit

114 points by jseliger 7y ago

mgh2 7y ago
Is ok, by 2028 it will be the 2nd city after NY with the best metro system, fueled by the Olympics. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21578990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21578990
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  I don't believe them.
  - pfranz 7y ago
    "2nd best" is rather ambitious, but I lived in LA for about a dozen years and I did see serious, sustained improvements to public transit. I'm pessimistic about any public transit project completing, let alone at the scale it was pitched at, but I think LA has some momentum.
  - asdff 7y ago
    LA is actively building three rail projects right now, with more set to be expedited once these current projects are completed and the limited labor pool is freed.
- ThePowerOfFuet 7y ago
  Second best in North America, perhaps. Barcelona's public transport system would blow the mind of anyone in North America with the possible exception of someone who's spent time in Manhattan (but BCN's is reliable).
  - bostonvaulter2 7y ago
    Or someone who's spent time in Tokyo
    - L_Rahman 7y ago
      As a New Yorker, I had really high expectations for the Tokyo subway system when I was there for three weeks but I was entirely underwhelmed. Japanese public transit is actually completely broken in ways that are appalling: 1. Line transfers are user hostile within network Even if you stay inside the same operator, like Tokyo Metro, making like transfers is an ordeal in distance, steps and most importantly cost. It costs 1.5x as much to go 2+3 stops than to go 5 stops on the same line. 2. Line transfers across networks are actively discouraged. Even if the most convenient mode is for you to take two trains from two different companies (say Keihan and JR) they’ll charge full price rides for each. To make it worse every company intentionally makes way finding to a competitor line hard. Get off the JR line in Osaka station and try to transfer to the Keihan line. It’s impossible. 3. Peak hour service is the single worst public transit experience in the world with the possible exception of the BRT in Colombia. This was the real test of the system for me. I used to live along the L, which post CBTC has become one of the best performing subway lines in the system. It’s really bad at rush hour. People are jammed in. It absolutely pales in comparison to a Japanese rush hour train which in my opinion is actively dangerous. All of the “Japanese discipline and order” doesn’t buy them better headway either. It really does feel like 2 min headway on rush hour heavy rail is the max and neither Tokyo nor New York can do anything about it. 4. Station distances are far apart and last mile is terrible Unless you’re really lucky and happen to do things right by a metro station, everything will be a 10-15 walk even within the core areas. Compare this to NY where we average a stop every 10 blocks even in the outer boroughs and can go as low as every 4 in midtown and downtown. 5. Entering and exiting the subway is a chore. Either you have to deal with the terrible compromise that Japan made in privatizing its rail - giant maze like shopping malls that you have to walk through to get to the subways, or if you’re lucky a long underground passageway from a side street. There’s no cardinality, no orientation after you exit, the city is just a blob with buildings splattered across it. I used to think Tokyo was the pinnacle of urban design - high functioning rail, zoning that allows for affordability - I am sad to say it fails on a number of key dimensions. It is the most energetically “dead” big city I have spent time in and without a radical change in the norms of Japanese society it will remain that way. For $2.75 I can ride all the way from Van Cortlandt park to the Far Rockaways, I can take as many trains as I want. I can connect with the vibrancy of the culture of our city. Will the train break down? Maybe. Will rats scurry across the tracks? Without doubt. Does the system smell like pee? Most of the time. But it is alive and thrumming. I will take that every day. And if our dear leader Byford can get his way, it’ll run really well too. An aside: the system that I think New York should actually be envious off are Hong Kong and Taipei who have both built excellent, reliable systems in cities that are vibrant and welcoming. HN needs to tone down its Japan weeb levels.
  - wayoutthere 7y ago
    Or any of the 10 biggest cities in China.
axiomdata316 7y ago
This article reminds me of stories my grandfather had told me about how amazing the red car system was in Los Angeles and how buses replaced and ruined the system. The red car originally went from Los Angeles and ended all the way down to the end of the Peninsula in Newport Beach Orange County. Today if you go to the Pavilion in Newport Beach California you can see the end of the line portion that would rotate the red car. At the time I thought my grandfather was just talking about the good old days but this article gave me some good context on a good system ruined.
- chrisbrandow 7y ago
  My dad used to take the red car from pasadena to Newport. Every boomer male that I know who grew up in LA perks up at the mention of the red car.
- capableweb 7y ago
  I didn't know what "Red Car" refered to, quick search shows it's a nickname for "LA Pacific Electric", basically trams that were in the greater LA area. Found this nice interactive map over the lines, in case someone else is also curious https://sharemap.org/public/Los_Angeles_Pacific_Electric_Railways_(Red_Cars)#!webgl https://sharemap.org/public/Los_Angeles_Pacific_Electric_Rai...
  - sroussey 7y ago
    I just get a blank screen with an ad. :/ iOS 13
- mrpippy 7y ago
  Seal Beach still has an original red car set up as a museum right next to Main St.
krn 7y ago
This reminded me of the documentary of the last Red Car journey from Downtown to Long Beach in April 1961[1]. [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=ebboO52In1w https://youtube.com/watch?v=ebboO52In1w
asdff 7y ago
The redcars inspire a lot of whimsy, but they were a private company that could never turn a profit, cut service to the point where one train went from LA to santa monica a day, and folded in the face of poor service and traffic due to sharing the road with cars. The bus network today is far more expansive, faster, and with far lower headways than the old redcar network that it replaced. The articulated buses used on busy corridors are probably about as long as a street car. Later this year LA Metro will implement a bus plan where 83% of the population will be in walking distance to a bus line with a 5-10 minute headway.
- RangerScience 7y ago
  AFAIK, the car companies bought up the transit lines and deliberately ran them into the ground.
  - selectodude 7y ago
    The car companies bought the already failed transit lines, sold them for scrap, and then sold new busses. The city was already transitioning to busses and the trams needed replacement regardless. One could say that the auto companies hastened their demise, but it wasn't by very long.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      They failed because the car companies worked with (i.e. paid) local town councils to restrict track placement, restrict time-of-day allowed for transit traffic, and generally strangle their service model. Tightened the noose until they failed. So yes, it was car companies that killed them.
      - selectodude 7y ago
        That's a myth. Streetcars were never profitable, and were built as a way to get to new development that the streetcar owners were building. Once there was no land left to develop in Southern California, the streetcars became a cost center. Once the interstate highway system was built with taxpayer money and the great depression ended giving everybody enough money to buy their own cars, it was simply a matter of time.
blackrock 7y ago
To be bluntly honest, the public transit system of Los Angeles is a failure! They tell people to use public transit, but fail to recognize that it takes 2 to 3 hours to get anywhere useful with it. They built light rail that nobody can use, because it doesn’t go to where people need to go. They squandered a huge opportunity to do it right, to dig subways and put the rail on a grade-separated medium. Instead they opt for light-rail that shares the same surface roads as cars, thereby ensuring that the system is a failure. And to add insult, to even use the light rail, you must drive to the nearest light rail station! They don’t have an express system to go from one major location to another, which means that you must stop at every location, which means the rails cannot go as fast, thus adding to the commute time. They don’t even have rail service to connect the 4 major airports in the area! Absolutely none! Quite frankly, the whole system is run by idiots. Their only success is in deflecting and making excuses. Billions squandered, and 50 years later, they have nothing to show for it.
- beowulfey 7y ago
  It’s too many compromises. Metro refuses to build subway stations by anything other than cut-and-cover, which means we end up with this massive stations with 20’ ceilings that cost way too much. There’s also too much backlash from the population for any kind of transit. The local zeitgeist still hasn’t accepted the need. I agree that Metro has been making lots of mistakes. But I also am grateful that they are at least TRYING despite the incredible opposition they face. And while right now the train lines are still kind of useless, they also recognize the need to improve the last mile infrastructure; Metro is generally favorable of scooters and bike docks for example, and they are revamping the bus lines. Who knows, maybe it was a lost cause. I hope they can figure it out!
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > Metro refuses to build subway stations by anything other than cut-and-cover, which means we end up with this massive stations with 20’ ceilings that cost way too much. Isn't this the cheapest way to build stations?
    - 7y ago
stuart78 7y ago
Rose-tinted Red Car nostalgia is common in the post Roger Rabbit era. It was a poor private solution to what would later be a big public problem, and you can read a more neutral take on its demise at 99% Invisible [0]. I lived in LA for quite a few years and they opened the expo line through my neighborhood (Culver City) towards the end of my time there. It was transformational. It wasn't the fastest way to get downtown (assuming no traffic), but it meant you could have a drink without worrying about getting home. You could have a nice afternoon walking around without searching for parking. You could see an event at Staples Center and easily get home when it was over. Now the line goes all the way to Santa Monica, bringing more and more people into the fold. I get that it is not as extensive as other systems, and parts of it share passage with cars, but it would have never gotten done as an underground system [1], and it works quite well as a complement to local bus lines. Basically, LA Metro is actually building the infrastructure people imagine Red Car to have been. It takes decades because it is a big project and we are not good at building infrastructure quickly anymore [2], but it is a long-term investment in helping the city grow. [0] https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-70-the-great-red-car-conspiracy/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-70-the-great-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway [2] https://patrickcollison.com/fast https://patrickcollison.com/fast
- Aloha 7y ago
  I'd also note, freeways parallel basically every former red car route - for a reason. The sprawly nature of LA was decided by the development papers created by the PE, the freeways just followed and reinforced those patterns.
- axiomdata316 7y ago
  I doubt however that LA Metro will ever have the same range of the original Red Car. I never see the system going deep into Balboa Newport Beach in Orange County.
- smcnally 7y ago
  > (assuming no traffic) Heh. I’ve lived in your old neighborhood (Culver City) the last two years. The % of times there’s been light traffic going east to DTLA or west to Santa Monica is <10. Expo line trains run frequently and are consistently ~30 minutes to either destination. In a car, it’s between 20 and 90 minutes. I’m from NY and spoiled with train options. The Expo line and LA Metro in general has allowed us to live here with one car and for me to mostly avoid driving altogether. Just like in NY, more cross-town train options are welcomed, and the airport extension to LAX will save time and stomach lining.
gok 7y ago
That map comparison is kind of deceptive, as it excludes the current commuter rail system. ("But Metrolink runs really infrequently!" So did the Red Cars on the inter urban routes.)
CodeWriter23 7y ago
So we transform the parking lots around work into apartments? So where do we work again? Because nobody will want to live adjacent to a polluting facility like Grumman. And what about those who are further afield from the station? The real problem I see in LA is the last 5 miles problem. When it takes nearly as long to get to the metro station in an Uber, then wait for the train, as it does to drive downtown, and the parking cost is similar to the to/from the metro, I’ll be driving. And don’t even get me started on paying $1.75 for the metro, then $3.50 to ride a metro bike one way. The apartment near the metro line is really a lifestyle choice. It’s not an overall solution for all society in LA or even The Bay Area as we will never match the rail density of a city like New York. Earthquakes limit how high we can build.
- sroussey 7y ago
  Earthquakes don’t limit anything. Just look to Japan, which has larger and more frequent earthquakes, and people are moved down to subways for their protection.
  - CodeWriter23 7y ago
    Building codes and costs to make a building Earthquake-ready do. LA’s newest tallest building set a record for the largest concrete pour ever. That’s because the footings of any building we build here needs to be sufficient mass that the building won’t topple in an Earthquake. Filed under things that don’t scale. Also, taller than any of Japan’s but about 2/3 the height of NYC’s Skyscrapers.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mtalantikite 7y ago
  Is the Northrop Grumman facility a particularly polluting facility? Because yeah, I would think living walking distance from work would be a perk. I think one of the main points of the article is that for public transit to be worthwhile, a city must also work on zoning to increase density. Your point about the last “5 mile” problem is totally accurate for LA though, which as a New Yorker is always kind of funny — if I were to travel 5 miles from my apartment I’d practically be out of the city! I was just in LA earlier this month and every time I go the concept of not being able to walk to go about my daily business is pretty depressing. LA doesn’t need to be as dense as New York or Paris, but if transit is to work, density needs to come with it. Otherwise it’ll always just be a massive suburban sprawl built for cars and not humans.
joshuaheard 7y ago
Most people don't know that the grassy medians of most LA streets were the location of the red car tracks. http://www.city-data.com/picfilesc/picc32653.php http://www.city-data.com/picfilesc/picc32653.php
- sroussey 7y ago
  San Vicente! In WeHo, most the median was reused to make the sidewalks wider for pedestrians and restaurants.
- enjoyyourlife 7y ago
  That's in Beverly Hills. It's never going to happen there...

114 points by jseliger 7y ago

mgh2 7y ago

Is ok, by 2028 it will be the 2nd city after NY with the best metro system, fueled by the Olympics. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21578990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21578990

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
I don't believe them.
- pfranz 7y ago
  "2nd best" is rather ambitious, but I lived in LA for about a dozen years and I did see serious, sustained improvements to public transit. I'm pessimistic about any public transit project completing, let alone at the scale it was pitched at, but I think LA has some momentum.
- asdff 7y ago
  LA is actively building three rail projects right now, with more set to be expedited once these current projects are completed and the limited labor pool is freed.
ThePowerOfFuet 7y ago
Second best in North America, perhaps. Barcelona's public transport system would blow the mind of anyone in North America with the possible exception of someone who's spent time in Manhattan (but BCN's is reliable).
- bostonvaulter2 7y ago
  Or someone who's spent time in Tokyo
  - L_Rahman 7y ago
    As a New Yorker, I had really high expectations for the Tokyo subway system when I was there for three weeks but I was entirely underwhelmed. Japanese public transit is actually completely broken in ways that are appalling: 1. Line transfers are user hostile within network Even if you stay inside the same operator, like Tokyo Metro, making like transfers is an ordeal in distance, steps and most importantly cost. It costs 1.5x as much to go 2+3 stops than to go 5 stops on the same line. 2. Line transfers across networks are actively discouraged. Even if the most convenient mode is for you to take two trains from two different companies (say Keihan and JR) they’ll charge full price rides for each. To make it worse every company intentionally makes way finding to a competitor line hard. Get off the JR line in Osaka station and try to transfer to the Keihan line. It’s impossible. 3. Peak hour service is the single worst public transit experience in the world with the possible exception of the BRT in Colombia. This was the real test of the system for me. I used to live along the L, which post CBTC has become one of the best performing subway lines in the system. It’s really bad at rush hour. People are jammed in. It absolutely pales in comparison to a Japanese rush hour train which in my opinion is actively dangerous. All of the “Japanese discipline and order” doesn’t buy them better headway either. It really does feel like 2 min headway on rush hour heavy rail is the max and neither Tokyo nor New York can do anything about it. 4. Station distances are far apart and last mile is terrible Unless you’re really lucky and happen to do things right by a metro station, everything will be a 10-15 walk even within the core areas. Compare this to NY where we average a stop every 10 blocks even in the outer boroughs and can go as low as every 4 in midtown and downtown. 5. Entering and exiting the subway is a chore. Either you have to deal with the terrible compromise that Japan made in privatizing its rail - giant maze like shopping malls that you have to walk through to get to the subways, or if you’re lucky a long underground passageway from a side street. There’s no cardinality, no orientation after you exit, the city is just a blob with buildings splattered across it. I used to think Tokyo was the pinnacle of urban design - high functioning rail, zoning that allows for affordability - I am sad to say it fails on a number of key dimensions. It is the most energetically “dead” big city I have spent time in and without a radical change in the norms of Japanese society it will remain that way. For $2.75 I can ride all the way from Van Cortlandt park to the Far Rockaways, I can take as many trains as I want. I can connect with the vibrancy of the culture of our city. Will the train break down? Maybe. Will rats scurry across the tracks? Without doubt. Does the system smell like pee? Most of the time. But it is alive and thrumming. I will take that every day. And if our dear leader Byford can get his way, it’ll run really well too. An aside: the system that I think New York should actually be envious off are Hong Kong and Taipei who have both built excellent, reliable systems in cities that are vibrant and welcoming. HN needs to tone down its Japan weeb levels.
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  Or any of the 10 biggest cities in China.

axiomdata316 7y ago

This article reminds me of stories my grandfather had told me about how amazing the red car system was in Los Angeles and how buses replaced and ruined the system. The red car originally went from Los Angeles and ended all the way down to the end of the Peninsula in Newport Beach Orange County. Today if you go to the Pavilion in Newport Beach California you can see the end of the line portion that would rotate the red car. At the time I thought my grandfather was just talking about the good old days but this article gave me some good context on a good system ruined.

chrisbrandow 7y ago
My dad used to take the red car from pasadena to Newport. Every boomer male that I know who grew up in LA perks up at the mention of the red car.
capableweb 7y ago
I didn't know what "Red Car" refered to, quick search shows it's a nickname for "LA Pacific Electric", basically trams that were in the greater LA area. Found this nice interactive map over the lines, in case someone else is also curious https://sharemap.org/public/Los_Angeles_Pacific_Electric_Railways_(Red_Cars)#!webgl https://sharemap.org/public/Los_Angeles_Pacific_Electric_Rai...
- sroussey 7y ago
  I just get a blank screen with an ad. :/ iOS 13
mrpippy 7y ago
Seal Beach still has an original red car set up as a museum right next to Main St.

krn 7y ago

This reminded me of the documentary of the last Red Car journey from Downtown to Long Beach in April 1961[1]. [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=ebboO52In1w https://youtube.com/watch?v=ebboO52In1w

asdff 7y ago

The redcars inspire a lot of whimsy, but they were a private company that could never turn a profit, cut service to the point where one train went from LA to santa monica a day, and folded in the face of poor service and traffic due to sharing the road with cars. The bus network today is far more expansive, faster, and with far lower headways than the old redcar network that it replaced. The articulated buses used on busy corridors are probably about as long as a street car. Later this year LA Metro will implement a bus plan where 83% of the population will be in walking distance to a bus line with a 5-10 minute headway.

RangerScience 7y ago
AFAIK, the car companies bought up the transit lines and deliberately ran them into the ground.
- selectodude 7y ago
  The car companies bought the already failed transit lines, sold them for scrap, and then sold new busses. The city was already transitioning to busses and the trams needed replacement regardless. One could say that the auto companies hastened their demise, but it wasn't by very long.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    They failed because the car companies worked with (i.e. paid) local town councils to restrict track placement, restrict time-of-day allowed for transit traffic, and generally strangle their service model. Tightened the noose until they failed. So yes, it was car companies that killed them.
    - selectodude 7y ago
      That's a myth. Streetcars were never profitable, and were built as a way to get to new development that the streetcar owners were building. Once there was no land left to develop in Southern California, the streetcars became a cost center. Once the interstate highway system was built with taxpayer money and the great depression ended giving everybody enough money to buy their own cars, it was simply a matter of time.

blackrock 7y ago

To be bluntly honest, the public transit system of Los Angeles is a failure! They tell people to use public transit, but fail to recognize that it takes 2 to 3 hours to get anywhere useful with it. They built light rail that nobody can use, because it doesn’t go to where people need to go. They squandered a huge opportunity to do it right, to dig subways and put the rail on a grade-separated medium. Instead they opt for light-rail that shares the same surface roads as cars, thereby ensuring that the system is a failure. And to add insult, to even use the light rail, you must drive to the nearest light rail station! They don’t have an express system to go from one major location to another, which means that you must stop at every location, which means the rails cannot go as fast, thus adding to the commute time. They don’t even have rail service to connect the 4 major airports in the area! Absolutely none! Quite frankly, the whole system is run by idiots. Their only success is in deflecting and making excuses. Billions squandered, and 50 years later, they have nothing to show for it.

beowulfey 7y ago
It’s too many compromises. Metro refuses to build subway stations by anything other than cut-and-cover, which means we end up with this massive stations with 20’ ceilings that cost way too much. There’s also too much backlash from the population for any kind of transit. The local zeitgeist still hasn’t accepted the need. I agree that Metro has been making lots of mistakes. But I also am grateful that they are at least TRYING despite the incredible opposition they face. And while right now the train lines are still kind of useless, they also recognize the need to improve the last mile infrastructure; Metro is generally favorable of scooters and bike docks for example, and they are revamping the bus lines. Who knows, maybe it was a lost cause. I hope they can figure it out!
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > Metro refuses to build subway stations by anything other than cut-and-cover, which means we end up with this massive stations with 20’ ceilings that cost way too much. Isn't this the cheapest way to build stations?
  - 7y ago

stuart78 7y ago

Rose-tinted Red Car nostalgia is common in the post Roger Rabbit era. It was a poor private solution to what would later be a big public problem, and you can read a more neutral take on its demise at 99% Invisible [0]. I lived in LA for quite a few years and they opened the expo line through my neighborhood (Culver City) towards the end of my time there. It was transformational. It wasn't the fastest way to get downtown (assuming no traffic), but it meant you could have a drink without worrying about getting home. You could have a nice afternoon walking around without searching for parking. You could see an event at Staples Center and easily get home when it was over. Now the line goes all the way to Santa Monica, bringing more and more people into the fold. I get that it is not as extensive as other systems, and parts of it share passage with cars, but it would have never gotten done as an underground system [1], and it works quite well as a complement to local bus lines. Basically, LA Metro is actually building the infrastructure people imagine Red Car to have been. It takes decades because it is a big project and we are not good at building infrastructure quickly anymore [2], but it is a long-term investment in helping the city grow. [0] https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-70-the-great-red-car-conspiracy/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-70-the-great-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway [2] https://patrickcollison.com/fast https://patrickcollison.com/fast

Aloha 7y ago
I'd also note, freeways parallel basically every former red car route - for a reason. The sprawly nature of LA was decided by the development papers created by the PE, the freeways just followed and reinforced those patterns.
axiomdata316 7y ago
I doubt however that LA Metro will ever have the same range of the original Red Car. I never see the system going deep into Balboa Newport Beach in Orange County.
smcnally 7y ago
> (assuming no traffic) Heh. I’ve lived in your old neighborhood (Culver City) the last two years. The % of times there’s been light traffic going east to DTLA or west to Santa Monica is <10. Expo line trains run frequently and are consistently ~30 minutes to either destination. In a car, it’s between 20 and 90 minutes. I’m from NY and spoiled with train options. The Expo line and LA Metro in general has allowed us to live here with one car and for me to mostly avoid driving altogether. Just like in NY, more cross-town train options are welcomed, and the airport extension to LAX will save time and stomach lining.

gok 7y ago

That map comparison is kind of deceptive, as it excludes the current commuter rail system. ("But Metrolink runs really infrequently!" So did the Red Cars on the inter urban routes.)

CodeWriter23 7y ago

So we transform the parking lots around work into apartments? So where do we work again? Because nobody will want to live adjacent to a polluting facility like Grumman. And what about those who are further afield from the station? The real problem I see in LA is the last 5 miles problem. When it takes nearly as long to get to the metro station in an Uber, then wait for the train, as it does to drive downtown, and the parking cost is similar to the to/from the metro, I’ll be driving. And don’t even get me started on paying $1.75 for the metro, then $3.50 to ride a metro bike one way. The apartment near the metro line is really a lifestyle choice. It’s not an overall solution for all society in LA or even The Bay Area as we will never match the rail density of a city like New York. Earthquakes limit how high we can build.

sroussey 7y ago
Earthquakes don’t limit anything. Just look to Japan, which has larger and more frequent earthquakes, and people are moved down to subways for their protection.
- CodeWriter23 7y ago
  Building codes and costs to make a building Earthquake-ready do. LA’s newest tallest building set a record for the largest concrete pour ever. That’s because the footings of any building we build here needs to be sufficient mass that the building won’t topple in an Earthquake. Filed under things that don’t scale. Also, taller than any of Japan’s but about 2/3 the height of NYC’s Skyscrapers.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mtalantikite 7y ago
Is the Northrop Grumman facility a particularly polluting facility? Because yeah, I would think living walking distance from work would be a perk. I think one of the main points of the article is that for public transit to be worthwhile, a city must also work on zoning to increase density. Your point about the last “5 mile” problem is totally accurate for LA though, which as a New Yorker is always kind of funny — if I were to travel 5 miles from my apartment I’d practically be out of the city! I was just in LA earlier this month and every time I go the concept of not being able to walk to go about my daily business is pretty depressing. LA doesn’t need to be as dense as New York or Paris, but if transit is to work, density needs to come with it. Otherwise it’ll always just be a massive suburban sprawl built for cars and not humans.

joshuaheard 7y ago

Most people don't know that the grassy medians of most LA streets were the location of the red car tracks. http://www.city-data.com/picfilesc/picc32653.php http://www.city-data.com/picfilesc/picc32653.php

sroussey 7y ago
San Vicente! In WeHo, most the median was reused to make the sidewalks wider for pedestrians and restaurants.
enjoyyourlife 7y ago
That's in Beverly Hills. It's never going to happen there...