4 ms·

It's not about population but rather density. LA's big public transit problem (outside of the driving first culture lobbied for by American car companies) is ac

It's not about population but rather density. LA's big public transit problem (outside of the driving first culture lobbied for by American car companies) is actually one of zoning and building.

robomartin 7y ago
> outside of the driving first culture lobbied for by American car companies Sorry, this is false. Los Angeles simply didn't evolve to favor public transportation in the way a lot of European cities have. A simple example of this is the ridiculous concentration of tech and aerospace companies inside of a zone that requires almost everyone to use the 405 freeway. I know people who would rather have their fingernails removed without anesthesia than do drive the 405 in rush-hour traffic. I might include myself in that group. Who gives out building and business permits? Car companies? No. The city, the county, the State. Why do they allow such concentration? OK, maybe concentration makes sense at some level. Why, then, do they allow concentration where they do? One look at the map --particularly if armed with traffic pattern familiarity-- instantly tells you it isn't a good idea to pile-up so many businesses in these areas. So, no, car companies have nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's about urban planning and design. We could use public transportation but it would take me somewhere in the range of two to three hours longer per day to go almost anywhere and come back. Sorry, my time is far more valuable than that. And, to complete the picture, this means spending somewhere in the range of six hours per day coming and going from the aforementioned tech centers. And then you have to work 8 to 10, if not 12, hours per day.
- cmendel 7y ago
  This isn't true though. There used to be light rail in LA, it was bought up and then shuttered by Ford and the like.
  - robomartin 7y ago
    I said a lot of things there, which part isn't true, that it would take me six hours to take public transport to some parts of Los Angeles from where I am? With regards to the myth of car companies driving or forcing urban development in a place like Los Angeles (really, think about that for a moment), here's the most complete research on Los Angeles mass transport I have ever found: https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/images/presentation_crenshawlax_2014-09.pdf https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/images/pre... There are an array of interconnected competing interests that drive the evolution of a city or region. For example, good union jobs building highways, suburban home developments and driving buses (one train = one conductor; 100 buses = 100 union jobs), etc. No, car companies are not that powerful. Los Angeles did this to itself over a very long period of time and for a number of reasons not having much to do with this fable of a car company promoted car culture. The simplest explanation is: It just happened. This isn't unlike the internet, which just exploded at one point and it is what it is. If we had to design it from scratch today with the benefit of hindsight we would likely change quite a few things. Same with cities. You get what you get, unless someone early enough had enough vision or was naturally restricted in some way to take a more favorable path. EDIT: I stand corrected. I just checked with Google Maps. There is NO way to take public transport of any kind. Well, at least Google can't solve the routing problem. I think there might be a way if I took something like three buses to get close to where I might be able to reach light rail. Plain and simple, Los Angeles didn't evolve to favor mass transportation.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    That’s false. The LA street car was already failing by the time GM bought it. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/06/be-careful-how-you-refer-so-called-great-american-streetcar-scandal/5771/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/06/be-careful-ho... > A case study can be made of Los Angeles, where Snell focused a good deal of his attack. But contemporary accounts suggest that a transformation from streetcars to buses was underway long before GM and its affiliates entered the scene circa 1940. As early as 1923, the Pacific Electric rail line was buying buses to replace some of its routes. The city's board of public utilities encouraged this trend — calling the use of motor buses "a foregone conclusion" — and by 1930 the city's big bus conglomerate carried 29 million riders a year. > The scholar Sy Adler once wrote, plain and simple, that everything Snell suggested about transit in Los Angeles "was wrong."
- adjkant 7y ago
  > A simple example of this is the ridiculous concentration of tech and aerospace companies inside of a zone that requires almost everyone to use the 405 freeway. That's a reason why mass transit in LA doesn't work now, not how it came to be that way. You seemed to have stopped reading before I literally said the current problem was zoning and building (aka urban planning). I lived in LA myself and have felt the length of a trip taking the expo line all the way in/out and how it isn't a viable commute. The sprawl of LA renders the bus system nearly useless as well. > Sorry, this is false. Los Angeles simply didn't evolve to favor public transportation in the way a lot of European cities have. > So, no, car companies have nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's about urban planning and design. Urban planning doesn't exist in isolation, it is shaped by those in power at the time, in every city. The motor industry absolutely was a power player that had a vested interest in pushing urban planning towards a vision of a city that meant cars coming in from suburbs instead of dense urban areas where public transit would actually be effective. LA is not alone in this within the US. Of course they weren't the only factor, a good example being white flight hitting cities pretty hard as well. But to say the car industry was not involved is 100% false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... > Between 1938 and 1950, National City Lines and its subsidiaries, American City Lines and Pacific City Lines—with investment from GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California (through a subsidiary), Federal Engineering, Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks—gained control of additional transit systems in about 25 cities.[3] Systems included St. Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Oakland.
  - robomartin 7y ago
    > You seemed to have stopped reading before I literally said the current problem was zoning and building (aka urban planning). You are absolutely correct. Sorry. That was dumb. Yeah, not sure who comes up with the idea of tossing everything within the same 5 square miles (or whatever) and expecting life to be great. Check out this document I found on LA transportation history, interesting. https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/images/presentation_crenshawlax_2014-09.pdf https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/images/pre...
    - 7y ago

It's not about population but rather density. LA's big public transit problem (outside of the driving first culture lobbied for by American car companies) is actually one of zoning and building.

robomartin 7y ago

> outside of the driving first culture lobbied for by American car companies Sorry, this is false. Los Angeles simply didn't evolve to favor public transportation in the way a lot of European cities have. A simple example of this is the ridiculous concentration of tech and aerospace companies inside of a zone that requires almost everyone to use the 405 freeway. I know people who would rather have their fingernails removed without anesthesia than do drive the 405 in rush-hour traffic. I might include myself in that group. Who gives out building and business permits? Car companies? No. The city, the county, the State. Why do they allow such concentration? OK, maybe concentration makes sense at some level. Why, then, do they allow concentration where they do? One look at the map --particularly if armed with traffic pattern familiarity-- instantly tells you it isn't a good idea to pile-up so many businesses in these areas. So, no, car companies have nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's about urban planning and design. We could use public transportation but it would take me somewhere in the range of two to three hours longer per day to go almost anywhere and come back. Sorry, my time is far more valuable than that. And, to complete the picture, this means spending somewhere in the range of six hours per day coming and going from the aforementioned tech centers. And then you have to work 8 to 10, if not 12, hours per day.

cmendel 7y ago
This isn't true though. There used to be light rail in LA, it was bought up and then shuttered by Ford and the like.
- robomartin 7y ago
  I said a lot of things there, which part isn't true, that it would take me six hours to take public transport to some parts of Los Angeles from where I am? With regards to the myth of car companies driving or forcing urban development in a place like Los Angeles (really, think about that for a moment), here's the most complete research on Los Angeles mass transport I have ever found: https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/images/presentation_crenshawlax_2014-09.pdf https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/images/pre... There are an array of interconnected competing interests that drive the evolution of a city or region. For example, good union jobs building highways, suburban home developments and driving buses (one train = one conductor; 100 buses = 100 union jobs), etc. No, car companies are not that powerful. Los Angeles did this to itself over a very long period of time and for a number of reasons not having much to do with this fable of a car company promoted car culture. The simplest explanation is: It just happened. This isn't unlike the internet, which just exploded at one point and it is what it is. If we had to design it from scratch today with the benefit of hindsight we would likely change quite a few things. Same with cities. You get what you get, unless someone early enough had enough vision or was naturally restricted in some way to take a more favorable path. EDIT: I stand corrected. I just checked with Google Maps. There is NO way to take public transport of any kind. Well, at least Google can't solve the routing problem. I think there might be a way if I took something like three buses to get close to where I might be able to reach light rail. Plain and simple, Los Angeles didn't evolve to favor mass transportation.
- rayiner 7y ago
  That’s false. The LA street car was already failing by the time GM bought it. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/06/be-careful-how-you-refer-so-called-great-american-streetcar-scandal/5771/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/06/be-careful-ho... > A case study can be made of Los Angeles, where Snell focused a good deal of his attack. But contemporary accounts suggest that a transformation from streetcars to buses was underway long before GM and its affiliates entered the scene circa 1940. As early as 1923, the Pacific Electric rail line was buying buses to replace some of its routes. The city's board of public utilities encouraged this trend — calling the use of motor buses "a foregone conclusion" — and by 1930 the city's big bus conglomerate carried 29 million riders a year. > The scholar Sy Adler once wrote, plain and simple, that everything Snell suggested about transit in Los Angeles "was wrong."
adjkant 7y ago
> A simple example of this is the ridiculous concentration of tech and aerospace companies inside of a zone that requires almost everyone to use the 405 freeway. That's a reason why mass transit in LA doesn't work now, not how it came to be that way. You seemed to have stopped reading before I literally said the current problem was zoning and building (aka urban planning). I lived in LA myself and have felt the length of a trip taking the expo line all the way in/out and how it isn't a viable commute. The sprawl of LA renders the bus system nearly useless as well. > Sorry, this is false. Los Angeles simply didn't evolve to favor public transportation in the way a lot of European cities have. > So, no, car companies have nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's about urban planning and design. Urban planning doesn't exist in isolation, it is shaped by those in power at the time, in every city. The motor industry absolutely was a power player that had a vested interest in pushing urban planning towards a vision of a city that meant cars coming in from suburbs instead of dense urban areas where public transit would actually be effective. LA is not alone in this within the US. Of course they weren't the only factor, a good example being white flight hitting cities pretty hard as well. But to say the car industry was not involved is 100% false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... > Between 1938 and 1950, National City Lines and its subsidiaries, American City Lines and Pacific City Lines—with investment from GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California (through a subsidiary), Federal Engineering, Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks—gained control of additional transit systems in about 25 cities.[3] Systems included St. Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Oakland.
- robomartin 7y ago
  > You seemed to have stopped reading before I literally said the current problem was zoning and building (aka urban planning). You are absolutely correct. Sorry. That was dumb. Yeah, not sure who comes up with the idea of tossing everything within the same 5 square miles (or whatever) and expecting life to be great. Check out this document I found on LA transportation history, interesting. https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/images/presentation_crenshawlax_2014-09.pdf https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/images/pre...
  - 7y ago