4 ms·

'Getting around the city' culture is just different here in LA. There's folks in NYC who make half million a year and take the subway several times a day. In L

by kkhire 7y ago

'Getting around the city' culture is just different here in LA. There's folks in NYC who make half million a year and take the subway several times a day. In LA, someone making 35K a year is thinking no way I'm not taking public transport, I'm driving!

twblalock 7y ago
Unlike the LA system, the New York subway can get riders to most parts of the city. The LA system is only useful for a very limited set of routes.
garmaine 7y ago
Public transit is supposed to be cheaper than a car...
- Forgivenessizer 7y ago
  Public transportation's only certain benefit is that people who simply cannot drive are able to get from A to B.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    That is one benefit. People who can't drive are stuck with whatever you give them, and will figure out whatever convoluted system required. They all dream of the time/day they can drive. This one is also mandated by law (US ADA) - if you provide any form of public transit you must provide for the disabled. If we ignore the legally required para transit (most expensive) service for those who cannot drive is the cheapest you can get. There are other benefits that transit can buy. However they are less certain. When you try to attract someone who could drive you have the hard problem of providing service where and when people are to where and when they want to be.
    - Forgivenessizer 7y ago
      Why do you think I got flagged? You seem to agree with me. But why flagged? It makes no sense!!!
deaddodo 7y ago
You're going for the wrong side of the chicken/egg. People don't use buses because they're seen as for they poor. They're seen that way because you'd have to be desperate to use them. You'd have to be desperate because they don't get anywhere or, if they do, never in a timely manner. The transit system is unreliable, slow and has low coverage. The only way to fix that is more dedicated Point-to-Point (the orange line)/more rapid lines + higher light rail coverage. Most people I know would rather ride the train. Sit down and browse your phone / read / watch videos rather than sit in traffic irritated. The inconvenience factor of planning around it and the time added just leaves the desperate to utilize it (or the lucky few with commute coverage).
- naravara 7y ago
  >People don't use buses because they're seen as for they poor. They're seen that way because you'd have to be desperate to use them. You'd have to be desperate because they don't get anywhere or, if they do, never in a timely manner. Very true. There was an aphorism from (I think) the Mayor of Bogota who said something like "I'll consider the city prosperous not when everyone has their own car, but one where even the rich will happily take the train."
- Seenso 7y ago
  > The transit system is unreliable, slow and has low coverage. The only way to fix that is more dedicated Point-to-Point (the orange line)/more rapid lines + higher light rail coverage. And the fix will have to be done in a very forward thinking way without the pre-existing usage to easily justify it. If buses or mass transit in general have a bad reputation, it's going to take a long period of sustained good & convenient service for people to start to change their attitudes and habits. > Most people I know would rather ride the train. One of the nice things about trains is that they're more regular and predictable than many other forms of mass transit. The large, fixed infrastructure investment discourages too much disruptive change once it's built.
  - twblalock 7y ago
    > One of the nice things about trains is that they're more regular and predictable than many other forms of mass transit. The large, fixed infrastructure investment discourages too much disruptive change once it's built. Plus they don't get stuck in car traffic like buses do.
rolltiide 7y ago
tolls alleviate this, not an endorsement, but it isn't inaccurate that they help curb that mentality
ng12 7y ago
That's because the trade-offs are worth it. Taxis are usually slower than the subway except for late night and early mornings.
toast0 7y ago
Getting around the city is a totally different problem in LA than NYC. Wikipedia says NYC is 303 square miles (784 square km), and just the city of LA is 469 square miles (1214 square km); but getting around LA doesn't usually mean getting around the incorporated city of LA, it means getting around the whole greater Los Angeles area, which is 33,954 square miles (87,940 square km). That's immense and fixed route transit is just not going to cover very many trips. That said, the LA MTA trains do seem to get pretty significant ridership, and voter support, so it makes sense to me to keep building them. Some people are able to make it work for them, and I'd guess more people over time will be able to find housing and jobs near enough to the lines that it makes a difference for them. I doubt it's going to make a significant dent in congestion, but it might bend the curve a bit. If you increase transit capacity, and you don't limit population growth, congestion is going to get worse over time. The LA area in general doesn't have the same general resistance to high density residential as the bay area, and there's also always a lot of single family housing going up on the edges, and of course, nothing stopping people from having more people in a single unit, so population growth seems to be a given.

by kkhire 7y ago

twblalock 7y ago

Unlike the LA system, the New York subway can get riders to most parts of the city. The LA system is only useful for a very limited set of routes.

garmaine 7y ago

Public transit is supposed to be cheaper than a car...

Forgivenessizer 7y ago
Public transportation's only certain benefit is that people who simply cannot drive are able to get from A to B.
- bluGill 7y ago
  That is one benefit. People who can't drive are stuck with whatever you give them, and will figure out whatever convoluted system required. They all dream of the time/day they can drive. This one is also mandated by law (US ADA) - if you provide any form of public transit you must provide for the disabled. If we ignore the legally required para transit (most expensive) service for those who cannot drive is the cheapest you can get. There are other benefits that transit can buy. However they are less certain. When you try to attract someone who could drive you have the hard problem of providing service where and when people are to where and when they want to be.
  - Forgivenessizer 7y ago
    Why do you think I got flagged? You seem to agree with me. But why flagged? It makes no sense!!!

deaddodo 7y ago

You're going for the wrong side of the chicken/egg. People don't use buses because they're seen as for they poor. They're seen that way because you'd have to be desperate to use them. You'd have to be desperate because they don't get anywhere or, if they do, never in a timely manner. The transit system is unreliable, slow and has low coverage. The only way to fix that is more dedicated Point-to-Point (the orange line)/more rapid lines + higher light rail coverage. Most people I know would rather ride the train. Sit down and browse your phone / read / watch videos rather than sit in traffic irritated. The inconvenience factor of planning around it and the time added just leaves the desperate to utilize it (or the lucky few with commute coverage).

naravara 7y ago
>People don't use buses because they're seen as for they poor. They're seen that way because you'd have to be desperate to use them. You'd have to be desperate because they don't get anywhere or, if they do, never in a timely manner. Very true. There was an aphorism from (I think) the Mayor of Bogota who said something like "I'll consider the city prosperous not when everyone has their own car, but one where even the rich will happily take the train."
Seenso 7y ago
> The transit system is unreliable, slow and has low coverage. The only way to fix that is more dedicated Point-to-Point (the orange line)/more rapid lines + higher light rail coverage. And the fix will have to be done in a very forward thinking way without the pre-existing usage to easily justify it. If buses or mass transit in general have a bad reputation, it's going to take a long period of sustained good & convenient service for people to start to change their attitudes and habits. > Most people I know would rather ride the train. One of the nice things about trains is that they're more regular and predictable than many other forms of mass transit. The large, fixed infrastructure investment discourages too much disruptive change once it's built.
- twblalock 7y ago
  > One of the nice things about trains is that they're more regular and predictable than many other forms of mass transit. The large, fixed infrastructure investment discourages too much disruptive change once it's built. Plus they don't get stuck in car traffic like buses do.

rolltiide 7y ago

tolls alleviate this, not an endorsement, but it isn't inaccurate that they help curb that mentality

ng12 7y ago

That's because the trade-offs are worth it. Taxis are usually slower than the subway except for late night and early mornings.

toast0 7y ago

Getting around the city is a totally different problem in LA than NYC. Wikipedia says NYC is 303 square miles (784 square km), and just the city of LA is 469 square miles (1214 square km); but getting around LA doesn't usually mean getting around the incorporated city of LA, it means getting around the whole greater Los Angeles area, which is 33,954 square miles (87,940 square km). That's immense and fixed route transit is just not going to cover very many trips. That said, the LA MTA trains do seem to get pretty significant ridership, and voter support, so it makes sense to me to keep building them. Some people are able to make it work for them, and I'd guess more people over time will be able to find housing and jobs near enough to the lines that it makes a difference for them. I doubt it's going to make a significant dent in congestion, but it might bend the curve a bit. If you increase transit capacity, and you don't limit population growth, congestion is going to get worse over time. The LA area in general doesn't have the same general resistance to high density residential as the bay area, and there's also always a lot of single family housing going up on the edges, and of course, nothing stopping people from having more people in a single unit, so population growth seems to be a given.