4 ms·

The issue with LA is the low density sprawl. It would simply be cost prohibitive to build and run a public transport infrastructure that would cover such a larg

The issue with LA is the low density sprawl. It would simply be cost prohibitive to build and run a public transport infrastructure that would cover such a large area and transport you around quickly. At least with today's technologies and costs. If you look at all the major cities of the world with good public transport infrastructure, they will all be densely populated. I don't think that is a coincidence.

vkou 7y ago
Isn't it just as cost-prohibitive to build and run a private transport infrastructure? Consider the cost of all the overbuilt roads, the cars on those roads, the human life wasted in traffic... Yet, LA has obviously done so. Relatedly: Is it actually cost-prohibitive to run bus lines?
- mgolawala 7y ago
  Agreed. I don't think the current situation is better. Angelinos are paying the price for it in their time, their health and with their wallets. However, I think moving LA towards higher density development (similar to a New York, London, Tokyo, Berlin) is the correct approach. Why are people spending 2 hours in traffic and commuting 50 miles each way, every day? It is because housing is un-affordable closer to the jobs. Even run down houses in crime ridden neighborhoods are ridiculously priced.
  - deaddodo 7y ago
    > However, I think moving LA towards higher density development (similar to a New York, London, Tokyo, Berlin) is the correct approach. And how do you suppose LA does that? LA isn't a centralized city. Relatively little of it's business and traffic is going to DTLA specifically. People are going to Pasadena, Santa Monica, Culver City, Encino, Sherman Oaks, West Hollywood, etc and they're all coming from various places (SGV, South LA, the Valley). All higher density development would do is exacerbate the issue, we need the public infrastructure to catch up so it can handle higher densities.
    - bluGill 7y ago
      If you look at an actual density map, LA is actually a lot denser than you give it credit for. There is no technical reason transit cannot get 40% of the population to work in a reasonable amount of time compared to driving. However in order to get there LA needs to invest in a lot more buses in dedicated lanes, and trains - both of which are not cheap. Don't forget to account for the overhead. In the long run it would be cheaper for everybody in LA if that investment was made, but in the short run a large investment is needed. It doesn't help that transit costs 4x-7x as much to build in the US vs Spain. It also doesn't help that nobody cares about good investments - republicans hate transit and won't invest in anything if they can avoid it. Democrats love the idea of transit and waste a lot of money on slow, expensive lines to nowhere that nobody rides thus proving the republicans right that transit is a bad investment.
    - alistairSH 7y ago
      Wholistic zoning changes might help... Prioritize dense, mixed-use development within ~.5 miles of transit hubs. Every new subway/light-rail station should include rezoning with a focus on a livable mix of commercial, residential, and retail. Remove parking minimums. Let the market determine how much parking is available and how much it costs. Plentiful, free parking is not a right. Remove single-family zoning (allow accessory dwelling units and duplexes in existing SFH zones). None of this will work overnight. It will take years. But, the basic goal is to make living near work achievable and desirable.
- giantrobot 7y ago
  Buses don't do well on suburban roads, they can't make the corners and clearance isn't always there. There's also little room for stops on many two-lane streets. So buses are limited to main multi-lane avenues. For most cities in Southern California in order to just get on a bus is a long walk from inside a big housing tract. Once in LA itself the buses have the same problem of not being able to really drive on the smaller side streets so they're limited to the big avenues. That makes them slightly better than LA's trains but still a pain for a majority of riders. LA doesn't have the space in most places for dedicated bus lanes with above-grade platforms. Note that LA has lots of bus lines but commuting on them is tedious and slow. Getting where you need to go usually requires several transfers then travel on foot to your actual destination. For most commutes it takes at least as long as driving.
  - vkou 7y ago
    > Buses don't do well on suburban roads, they can't make the corners and clearance isn't always there. Shuttle buses (24-28 occupants) do quite well on twisty suburban roads. Those same roads often have curbside parking, and delimiting a 30-foot stretch of road as a bus stop is not going to seriously hamper that.
    - bluGill 7y ago
      It costs about $100/hour to run a bus. A small bus only saves a small amount from that cost. If there is any possibly of filling the small bus you should always run the larger bus. If money is not infinite you will prefer to run a larger bus less often (though the more often you run the bus the better up to 5 minute headway)
      - vkou 7y ago
        Those are retail prices for me renting a shuttle bus, not wholesale fleet-wide ones. In Vancouver, the cost to operate regular buses, per revenue-hour (time the bus is carrying passengers) is ~$120/hour. The cost of operating shuttle buses is ~$70/hour. [1] This is because smaller buses use less gas, are cheaper to maintain, and have better labour utilization (Time the driver spends on the clock driving passengers, versus time the driver spends on the clock waiting around, switching routes, etc.) And this is operational costs. Capital costs are another huge factor, that's not accounted for in the operational numbers. It costs a lot more to order an 80-passenger bus (And even more so for a trolley), then it does a 24-passenger one. Also, this is only anecdotal, from being a rider, but I'm pretty sure that shuttle-buses both perform better in congested environments, and cause less traffic congestion (As they have a much better power-to-weight ratio, better acceleration and breaking, a smaller turning radius...) [1] https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/about_translink/governance_and_board/commissioner_archive/efficiency_review_march_2012.pdf https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/about_translink/g...
mason55 7y ago
> It would simply be cost prohibitive to build and run a public transport infrastructure that would cover such a large area and transport you around quickly. At least with today's technologies and costs. Bus Rapid Transit is super cheap and you can have the lines run anywhere. You just have to be willing to give up lanes of traffic.
kijeda 7y ago
I don't think it is so simple. I live in LA and can't practically use public transport to commute, but I've lived in less dense cities that have far more effective public transport because the routes are designed better. LA's bus routes feel almost randomly placed, I'm used to having bus routes deliberately serving as feeders to train routes, and timing the schedules so that buses arrive for a swift transfer and you are never waiting. On my commute to work I see buses from half a dozen different agencies, the fact that every individual city in the metro area seems to run its own bus service is probably another piece of the problem.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  > LA's bus routes feel almost randomly placed They're usually placed due to politics, not maximal utility.

vkou 7y ago

Isn't it just as cost-prohibitive to build and run a private transport infrastructure? Consider the cost of all the overbuilt roads, the cars on those roads, the human life wasted in traffic... Yet, LA has obviously done so. Relatedly: Is it actually cost-prohibitive to run bus lines?

mgolawala 7y ago
Agreed. I don't think the current situation is better. Angelinos are paying the price for it in their time, their health and with their wallets. However, I think moving LA towards higher density development (similar to a New York, London, Tokyo, Berlin) is the correct approach. Why are people spending 2 hours in traffic and commuting 50 miles each way, every day? It is because housing is un-affordable closer to the jobs. Even run down houses in crime ridden neighborhoods are ridiculously priced.
- deaddodo 7y ago
  > However, I think moving LA towards higher density development (similar to a New York, London, Tokyo, Berlin) is the correct approach. And how do you suppose LA does that? LA isn't a centralized city. Relatively little of it's business and traffic is going to DTLA specifically. People are going to Pasadena, Santa Monica, Culver City, Encino, Sherman Oaks, West Hollywood, etc and they're all coming from various places (SGV, South LA, the Valley). All higher density development would do is exacerbate the issue, we need the public infrastructure to catch up so it can handle higher densities.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    If you look at an actual density map, LA is actually a lot denser than you give it credit for. There is no technical reason transit cannot get 40% of the population to work in a reasonable amount of time compared to driving. However in order to get there LA needs to invest in a lot more buses in dedicated lanes, and trains - both of which are not cheap. Don't forget to account for the overhead. In the long run it would be cheaper for everybody in LA if that investment was made, but in the short run a large investment is needed. It doesn't help that transit costs 4x-7x as much to build in the US vs Spain. It also doesn't help that nobody cares about good investments - republicans hate transit and won't invest in anything if they can avoid it. Democrats love the idea of transit and waste a lot of money on slow, expensive lines to nowhere that nobody rides thus proving the republicans right that transit is a bad investment.
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    Wholistic zoning changes might help... Prioritize dense, mixed-use development within ~.5 miles of transit hubs. Every new subway/light-rail station should include rezoning with a focus on a livable mix of commercial, residential, and retail. Remove parking minimums. Let the market determine how much parking is available and how much it costs. Plentiful, free parking is not a right. Remove single-family zoning (allow accessory dwelling units and duplexes in existing SFH zones). None of this will work overnight. It will take years. But, the basic goal is to make living near work achievable and desirable.
giantrobot 7y ago
Buses don't do well on suburban roads, they can't make the corners and clearance isn't always there. There's also little room for stops on many two-lane streets. So buses are limited to main multi-lane avenues. For most cities in Southern California in order to just get on a bus is a long walk from inside a big housing tract. Once in LA itself the buses have the same problem of not being able to really drive on the smaller side streets so they're limited to the big avenues. That makes them slightly better than LA's trains but still a pain for a majority of riders. LA doesn't have the space in most places for dedicated bus lanes with above-grade platforms. Note that LA has lots of bus lines but commuting on them is tedious and slow. Getting where you need to go usually requires several transfers then travel on foot to your actual destination. For most commutes it takes at least as long as driving.
- vkou 7y ago
  > Buses don't do well on suburban roads, they can't make the corners and clearance isn't always there. Shuttle buses (24-28 occupants) do quite well on twisty suburban roads. Those same roads often have curbside parking, and delimiting a 30-foot stretch of road as a bus stop is not going to seriously hamper that.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    It costs about $100/hour to run a bus. A small bus only saves a small amount from that cost. If there is any possibly of filling the small bus you should always run the larger bus. If money is not infinite you will prefer to run a larger bus less often (though the more often you run the bus the better up to 5 minute headway)
    - vkou 7y ago
      Those are retail prices for me renting a shuttle bus, not wholesale fleet-wide ones. In Vancouver, the cost to operate regular buses, per revenue-hour (time the bus is carrying passengers) is ~$120/hour. The cost of operating shuttle buses is ~$70/hour. [1] This is because smaller buses use less gas, are cheaper to maintain, and have better labour utilization (Time the driver spends on the clock driving passengers, versus time the driver spends on the clock waiting around, switching routes, etc.) And this is operational costs. Capital costs are another huge factor, that's not accounted for in the operational numbers. It costs a lot more to order an 80-passenger bus (And even more so for a trolley), then it does a 24-passenger one. Also, this is only anecdotal, from being a rider, but I'm pretty sure that shuttle-buses both perform better in congested environments, and cause less traffic congestion (As they have a much better power-to-weight ratio, better acceleration and breaking, a smaller turning radius...) [1] https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/about_translink/governance_and_board/commissioner_archive/efficiency_review_march_2012.pdf https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/about_translink/g...

mason55 7y ago

> It would simply be cost prohibitive to build and run a public transport infrastructure that would cover such a large area and transport you around quickly. At least with today's technologies and costs. Bus Rapid Transit is super cheap and you can have the lines run anywhere. You just have to be willing to give up lanes of traffic.

kijeda 7y ago

I don't think it is so simple. I live in LA and can't practically use public transport to commute, but I've lived in less dense cities that have far more effective public transport because the routes are designed better. LA's bus routes feel almost randomly placed, I'm used to having bus routes deliberately serving as feeders to train routes, and timing the schedules so that buses arrive for a swift transfer and you are never waiting. On my commute to work I see buses from half a dozen different agencies, the fact that every individual city in the metro area seems to run its own bus service is probably another piece of the problem.

WalterBright 7y ago
> LA's bus routes feel almost randomly placed They're usually placed due to politics, not maximal utility.