4 ms·

> Looks like the TLDR is that LA only has subways in downtown This is not really true. The rail system extends out to other areas but those areas are typicall

> Looks like the TLDR is that LA only has subways in downtown This is not really true. The rail system extends out to other areas but those areas are typically served by a single line. While the rail system benefits many people, I also wonder whether it has led to more people moving here, increased rents, and ultimately more traffic as people realize they need the expense of a car to fully get around.

mike50 6y ago
The same argument applies to highways or any other type of transportation infrastructure improvements.
BurningFrog 6y ago
> I also wonder whether it has led to more people moving here, increased rents, and ultimately more traffic This argument applies to anything that improves a city.
- bestnameever 6y ago
  By that logic, any movement to decrease rents will degrade a city.
  - summerlight 6y ago
    This inverse statement is not equivalent to the parent comment. The logically equivalent contrapositive is "something to degrade a city will decrease rents". Though, this might be an intentional confusion.
pcr910303 6y ago
> ultimately more traffic as people realize they need the expense of a car to fully get around. Well, IMO that’s an indicator of a misdesigned rail system. In a properly designed rail system, one should prefer using the subways instead of cars, and use them most of the time. They should not use the car most of the time, for example commute.
mturmon 6y ago
For what it’s worth, I’ve been in LA 25 years, and the perennial traffic jam around downtown (say, the 110 west of DTLA, and the 10 west of DTLA) was getting bad long before the light rail system was built out. It’s the cars.
- bestnameever 6y ago
  I've been in L.A longer than 25 years. I'm a bit confused by your comment as the the light rail system has been around for more than 25 years. Additionally, traffic today is very different than what it was in 1995 and I would shocked if you disagreed. We also have another million people.

mike50 6y ago

The same argument applies to highways or any other type of transportation infrastructure improvements.

BurningFrog 6y ago

> I also wonder whether it has led to more people moving here, increased rents, and ultimately more traffic This argument applies to anything that improves a city.

bestnameever 6y ago
By that logic, any movement to decrease rents will degrade a city.
- summerlight 6y ago
  This inverse statement is not equivalent to the parent comment. The logically equivalent contrapositive is "something to degrade a city will decrease rents". Though, this might be an intentional confusion.

pcr910303 6y ago

> ultimately more traffic as people realize they need the expense of a car to fully get around. Well, IMO that’s an indicator of a misdesigned rail system. In a properly designed rail system, one should prefer using the subways instead of cars, and use them most of the time. They should not use the car most of the time, for example commute.

mturmon 6y ago

For what it’s worth, I’ve been in LA 25 years, and the perennial traffic jam around downtown (say, the 110 west of DTLA, and the 10 west of DTLA) was getting bad long before the light rail system was built out. It’s the cars.

bestnameever 6y ago
I've been in L.A longer than 25 years. I'm a bit confused by your comment as the the light rail system has been around for more than 25 years. Additionally, traffic today is very different than what it was in 1995 and I would shocked if you disagreed. We also have another million people.