8 ms·

Los Angeles is in a 4-year sprint to deliver a car-free 2028 Olympics

72 points by rntn 2y ago

tonetheman 2y ago
[dead]
zh3 2y ago
Not been to LA in years, but as the article says (or have things really changed?):- >For people who know Los Angeles, this seems overly optimistic
- throwup238 2y ago
  "Overly optimistic" is an overly optimistic statement. As an LA native I laughed out loud when I read that. LA is the kind of place a small town of under 25k blocks a critical freeway extension for over 40 years until the state gives up. There is no way it's happening.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    While thats true its still a place thats increasingly favoring transit or biking investment. Ballot initiatives are popular. More rail is being built here as we speak than anywhere else in the US with a few concurrent projects in varying states of planning or construction. Say what you will about south pasadena and the 710, theres a metro rail stop in their downtown and new bike lanes going up.
  - playingalong 2y ago
    They can and I bet they will declare victory on this by moving the goal posts. Like measuring only during the Olympics and for a subset of area or subset of travels, etc.
throwaway22032 2y ago
The term "car-free" seems designed to create engagement via rage bait rather than being any sort of assessment of reality. Obviously people are going to use cars to get to the Olympics. They'll park around the block and get taxis in, or they'll park near a metro station, or they'll drive from say, Vegas to LA, etc. I guess that saying that they'll put on more public transport and not have actual car parks at the venues doesn't sound as shiny.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Why do these "car free" utopias always include Taxis? Shouldn't they be first to go... As they are easily replaced by busses.
  - rcdemski 2y ago
    I think they’re a nice half step where it keeps me from driving and taking up parking space at the destination. Bus routes help but don’t service original/destination as specifically as a taxi. Accordingly, the taxi costs significantly more than a bus. I’ll happily take a bus or rail for commuting where I know what to expect for service reliability and connection times. If I’m doing a one off trip it’ll be a hired car.
    - withinboredom 2y ago
      lol. I used to think the same when I lived in the US. Now, I walk 5 mins to a bus to the train station, another 5 mins to my train, wait 5 minutes, then enjoy the half-hour ride (while reading a book) to the next train station, and finally hop on a bus that takes me 5 minutes from work. Total commute time: 45 + 15 minutes walk. By car: 70-90 minutes. Why? The train goes 180 km/h while cars only go 120, and there is usually a traffic jam during rush hour. If you put bus stops where people actually live and work, you can get pretty good coverage.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - fjsjaia 2y ago
        I basically have the same commute here in LA as you. ~50 mins between walking, waiting, and taking transit to get to work. However its simply faster to drive straight there. I can do it in 35 mins, but I opt for the transit to read a book and not pay to park at work (free parking you pay in time looking for it). Most peoples car commute in LA is only about 30 mins because of how polycentric the job network is in LA county (which makes it hard to create extremely in demand transit routes if everyone is going everywhere all the time vs a centralized hub and spoke city).
tomcam 2y ago
The 1984 Olympics there were expected to be a traffic disaster. Turned out that everyone stayed away because it was expected to be a traffic disaster. I had a 65 mile commute into Los Angeles at that time and it was a doddle.
- xyst 2y ago
  Only in America would people think a “65 mile commute” is a “doddle”. Absolutely insane.
  - tomcam 2y ago
    I hear you! But it went from bumper to bumper traffic before the Olympics to a breezy 80mph drive during.
    - undersuit 2y ago
      Ahh yes, breezily moving at a speed where I will destroy anything stationary 200 feet in front of me without a choice. I'm going to drive home today from my vacation at 75mph because if I go any slower the people having breezy drives stack up dangerously behind me.
      - tomcam 2y ago
        You might not know traffic laws out there. In Southern California you can get ticketed for not going with the flow of traffic, even if the posted speed is 65 but everyone is driving 80.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    My dad had those for most of his career. He worked at nuclear plants but lived in the nearest kind of big town, which was always at least 60 miles away from the plant. I can’t imagine what that did to his mental health, the nuclear power industry isn’t something I recommend anyone getting into.
    - 2y ago
godelski 2y ago
I don't think they'll achieve it and I think that's okay. LA has some of the infrastructure but momentum is the big part. If the Olympics are the catalyst to get the ball moving on this, then I don't care if they only achieve 20-30% of the goal, because I think if you get some momentum and some success it can be used to drive more. It's something everyone wants in LA, but so many things are "sticky". I hope this can help get them unstuck.
- bfung 2y ago
  ^^^ this. LA is such a sprawl, public transit barely covers all the places people want to go to. Any improvement is welcome, hopefully it won’t regress after Olympics, but wouldn’t be surprised.
nottorp 2y ago
They're trying to be as eco as the Paris olympics that had athletes complaining about the heat (A/C is not eco), food (i suppose decent food wasn't eco) and the uncomfortable cardboard beds (wood isn't eco now?)?
- userbinator 2y ago
  Virtue-signaling at its finest.
  - bedobi 2y ago
    yeah never mind that they (permanently, not just temporarily for the olympics) outright repurposed what used to be urban highways through the center of the city (including along the seine!) and implemented any number of huge environmental improvements
    - userbinator 2y ago
      Neither me, nor a significant number of the population, would call those "environmental improvements".
      - bedobi 2y ago
        right, replacing millions of trips by car through the center of the city with on foot or bike or transit instead is not an environmental improvement thanks for being transparent about not being serious
        userbinator 2y ago
        It's not an improvement to those who don't want to be treated like cattle.
        bedobi 2y ago
        Traveling through a city on foot, bike and transit is “being treated like cattle”? You prefer sitting in gridlocked traffic in a personal automobile instead, because that’s less like “cattle”? Ok. But decent people have the right to their freedom of transporting themselves on foot and by bike and transit, and to be free from the danger and pollution caused by entitled people making unnecessary trips in personal automobiles. Facts, and the rights of everyone else, do not end where your feelings and opinions begin.
xyst 2y ago
I visited LA a couple of years ago. The smog in that region was awful. Out of all of the cities to represent the United States. I can’t believe LA was picked as the spot to showcase on an international level. A “4-year sprint” to make it “car free” is nothing more than a Potemkin Village in my opinion. International visitors will be greatly disappointed at how terrible this country’s public transportation infrastructure
- playingalong 2y ago
  Car free or not. There will be tons of public transportation extraordinary options running during the Olympics. There is simply no other option to move all these people around - athletes and their crew, service people for the venues, journalists, etc. etc. Not to mention the spectators.
  - dmurray 2y ago
    That's not public transportation."Mass transportation", maybe. Shuttling athletes and their minders from the Olympic village to the venues is a different set of challenges from delivering a city's residents to their places of work, school and recreation day in, day out.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    I have been thinking. Should we actually move towards reducing people involved? Like ban all spectators, just stream televise them. Journalist can get their interviews over Teams meetings. No need for dignitaries to be present either. Basically you need only athletes, maybe coaches and support staff. For catering, well develop some efficient meals that don't need heating and produce them off-site. All this would save lot on very many things, both in emissions and in costs.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Some events already take place at distant locations. I think they are planning on hosting the softball events out in oklahoma for this olympics.
    - 2y ago
candiddevmike 2y ago
It'll be car free but take 2 hours to get anywhere (my experience with LA traffic/transit)
- CalRobert 2y ago
  You can bike a long ways in two hours! With an e bike 40-50 km:
  - globular-toast 2y ago
    I can do that on a regular road bike. Could be even more if there were no cars.
hilux 2y ago
Los Angeles used to have a good streetcar system, a century ago. What killed the streetcars (car-company conspiracy, or simple economics) is disputed, but makes for good reading.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  The current bus network alone is more comprehensive and far reaching, with better frequency on many lines. However most people aren’t aware of this as the bulk of la metro riders are working class and therefore invisible in mass media.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    LA buses are a joke. Bus stops are often a bench (if even that) and a tiny sign put on a lamp post with a line number. No maps, schedules or anything of the like. Going out of a subway stop to find the connected bus stop is a challenge due to lack of way finding, even on very touristy routes (the bus to go up to Griffith's Observatory). The only people who think that's okay are those who haven't experienced what a proper bus system looks like.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Its not so bad with a smartphone
Aldipower 2y ago
City and traffic planers of Hamburg and Hannover visited LA in the 50ties and 60ties to bring the "car centric principles" over to German big cities. For example in Hamburg a fully develop tram network was removed to make more space for the car. Neighbourhoods were divided to bring streets with 6 lanes through it. Wider streets is not necessarily less traffic jam.. We know this now. But until today we deal with those decisions, but it is getting better and we already reverted some things to make the city more friendly for people instead of cars.
- bluescrn 2y ago
  World population was 2.5bil in 1950. Cars would be far less of a problem if that was still the case.
  - Aldipower 2y ago
    So what, population in Hamburg in the 50ties was 1.7mil now it is 1.8mil. I am talking about cities, not the country side.
    - nosianu 2y ago
      Interesting, but to me that raises the next question - even if the city itself did not grow, how about the surrounding communities? I think most of the time traffic still increased significantly, because of much more traffic across the (unchanged) city borders into the surrounding communities. It's called "Metropol-Region Hamburg" (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolregion_Hamburg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolregion_Hamburg), it's not just the city itself.
      - Aldipower 2y ago
        That is is true, the complete "Metropol-Region Hamburg" has a total population of around 3mil. Not sure how it was in the 50ties. There are also a lot of commuters coming from the suburbs to the city center every day. Mostly by train and also car of course. IMHO the train must be even more expanded and improved. But of course not everybody is commuting. There is also a lot of work in the suburbs itself available. Those are mostly smaller cities with its very own life.
CalRobert 2y ago
I used to live in Santa Monica and work in El Segundo. My commute by bike was 55 minutes and joyous, mostly. By car it was 50 minutes and horrible. The funny thing is that the only reason I took the car for a few months was because of injuries from getting hit by a car while biking. It’s not like cars have exactly been working well for LA. They’re slower than biking for a lot of trips. With a bike and the bus or train I often beat traffic during rush hour. Fortunately, LA has wide roads with many lanes and can repurpose them for other uses, if they want to. If you’re ever in the city for critical mass or CicLAvia I can’t recommend it enough. Best way to see the city.
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  E-Bikes and escooters are even more convenient. Sustained speed, easy acceleration, wind and hills have almost no impact, not as sweaty. The only way la pulls this off is with a gigantic conversion of streets to zero cars and e-bikes only. The other aspect that speeds up bike Transit in cities is that you can park far closer, typically and far more quickly than with a car. The sad fact is that in a city if you bike it isn't "if" you get hit by a car it's when. The only way to practically reduce that likelihood are totally separate dedicated pathways for bikes. I wonder if elevated lanes for biking is feasible, since you simply don't have to hold as much weight. Do we really need concrete and steel? Can we do it with Kevlar? In Minneapolis there are two major rail to bike path conversions and they boost the bike ability of the city by an order of magnitude over bike lanes adjacent to car lanes. The paths by the Mississippi River are equally effective. Cities simply don't have the willpower for such projects if rail or other park systems don't provide most of the work. I'm hopeful that the sodium ion battery revolution might result in near zero cost Urban personal transportation within large city limits, car Transit limited to fixed entry points. At some point I predict that a small e-scooter for a single person with a 50 mile range will cost under $50. That will probably require sodium sulfur technologies and maybe some solid state technologies. That scooter will be collapsible and easily carried to an inside point to be recharged.
  - altruios 2y ago
    a 20 mile commute in cold 5:30am weather sounds not that great on an e-bike...
mentalgear 2y ago
I'm wondering whether there's also going to be a large-scale operation a few months ahead of the games of deporting homeless people from the city as we have seen in Paris. (also, I heard they have already quite rolled back on that "car-free" goal. Don't have the source available, but google is your friend.)
- tom_ 2y ago
  Why not google it and post the link? This will ensure that we don't get some other result that you're not thinking of.
- sillystuff 2y ago
  > I'm wondering whether there's also going to be a large-scale operation a few months ahead of the games of deporting homeless people Yes. Already beginning in cities all across the US since the Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v Johnson. Prior to this decision, a locality without sufficient shelter beds could not just sweep through an encampment arresting/fining/evicting the residents while seizing and destroying their possessions like sleeping bags, blankets and tents, or fine/arrest and impound vehicles of people sleeping in vehicles (yes, all the above happened in spite of the law, but it did result in some restraint on the part of the authorities). Now, homeless hate can be unleashed without restraint. Hate it is. In one memorable letter to the editor of a local paper, a woman wrote, "Homeless are like cockroaches and I wish I had a giant can of Raid." (for non Americans, Raid is a brand of insecticide-- maybe obvious from context). People who were in foster care as children make up 50% of the homeless population in the US [1]. Homeless demographics have changed recently, people becoming homeless for the first time after the age of 50 is now the second largest single group in California at 41% [2]. The US is a brutal society that is failing its most vulnerable. [1] https://cbexpress.acf.hhs.gov/article/2022/october/reducing-homelessness-among-young-people-transitioning-from-foster-care/c8c74b071b5d51109e7ba97ae54bcb57 https://cbexpress.acf.hhs.gov/article/2022/october/reducing-... [2] https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2024-05-28/older-adults-homelessness-study-essential-california https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2024-05-28/old...
whartung 2y ago
The key here to see if they can pull this off is the addition of 3000 buses. LA Metro currently only runs 2000 buses, and that’s for the entire service area, I’m guessing the new buses are going to be concentrated in the Olympic areas. I used to rely on the bus back in college. It was not convenient. The bus schedule controlled your schedule. My bus to school ran every hour. If I wanted to travel from the San Gabriel valley to downtown LA, it was over two hours. An early job I had, 20 mile commute, combined riding and walking (job was a mile from the bus stop) meant a 5:30am bus trip to get there by 8. It’s functional but hardly convenient. It’s a far cry from a 10m wait for a subway train. One mistake in the chain, and it was quite punishing. One year, the last bus from campus (at 8:05pm, which i really hated — just too early for a college student) was late. It was caught in LA traffic because of the World Series at Dodger Stadium. Which was 30 miles away. And the riders that night were trapped. Last bus, had to sit and wait for it. Couldn’t pop back into the library and come back in an hour for the next one. Hour and a half late. LA is huge. As busy as downtown is, it’s busy everywhere. Buses are the most scalable and flexible solution. All you need for a new bus route is a bus and a sign. But as a user, all I can say is they beat walking, but just barely.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  The city has been making changes to the bus system recently. They are implementing the next gen bus plan with a goal of having 80% of the ridership get 10 min or better frequency. Of course that might not include some distant san gabriel valley stop if its seldom used compared to somewhere pretty heavily trafficked with high ridership busses like in east hollywood. Not sure of your commute if you were using foothill transit busses, but the next gen plan is for la metro busses at least.
- drunner 2y ago
  Adding 3000 buses won't do anything if they don't also add bus priority lanes and lights. Otherwise they just sit in traffic and at red lights like everyone else.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    They have been building out more bus lanes and increasing their priority where they can. What makes it a little tricky is a bus will never just get straight priority/preemption because they cross other bus lines going a perpendicular direction all the time, and these will naturally conflict.
yutredsie 2y ago
This is a silly political statement doomed to fail. Do I think that LA could go “car-free” for the Olympics? Maybe, but I’m doubtful the political powers that be could pull it off. I’ve yet to see any concrete plans or budgets proposed to pull this off. Just a dubious suggestion of “bike lanes” and “3000” new buses. I think if they are serious about a car free Olympics they should commit to free public transport. Even if only for just those 17 days. But, I fear that the quiet part of this goal is actually: “How can we further monetize this event?” “Well, 16 million people times $1.75 per bus ticket per ride is a lot of money!!1!” “Ooo, good idea, let’s force visitors to use our ineffectual public transportation. We’ll pitch it as environmental, we can call it ‘car-free’” I’ll be amazed if these politicians have enough restraint to avoid raising public transport prices to pay for these “car-free” plans.
serf 2y ago
olympics considered harmful. when will the world realize that these 'olympic sprints' to meet goofy expectations for the IOC are ridiculous and damaging on the long term? seriously. almost every visited city is worse-off for years after the games; it's only ever accommodated because of the accompanying rockstar status and the money injection for the in-seat politicians, almost none of which actually sticks around to provide improvements for the city or its' people. it's a gross abuse, it results in gross abuses towards the people, and it fucks up a city for years . Example : What did Rio's new anti-poverty highway walls enable for locals? How did the promised lagoon clean-up go? (hint: https://apnews.com/article/brazil-rio-de-janeiro-lake-recovery-environment-0b70ba202f8c0263d9e29c9170342fa1 https://apnews.com/article/brazil-rio-de-janeiro-lake-recove... ) the walking city thing is a nice concept for LA -- how many homeless encampments are getting torn down to accommodate this? How much worse does traffic get in the interim for those living here? Who's going to care enough to listen to complaints during the olympic-cash-season?
- mixmastamyk 2y ago
  LA is not one of those cities. It already has the sports venues and dormitories. As a resident, accelerating Metro projects is helpful.
antiquark 2y ago
Sorry, cars are here to stay.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

72 points by rntn 2y ago

[dead]

zh3 2y ago

Not been to LA in years, but as the article says (or have things really changed?):- >For people who know Los Angeles, this seems overly optimistic

throwup238 2y ago
"Overly optimistic" is an overly optimistic statement. As an LA native I laughed out loud when I read that. LA is the kind of place a small town of under 25k blocks a critical freeway extension for over 40 years until the state gives up. There is no way it's happening.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  While thats true its still a place thats increasingly favoring transit or biking investment. Ballot initiatives are popular. More rail is being built here as we speak than anywhere else in the US with a few concurrent projects in varying states of planning or construction. Say what you will about south pasadena and the 710, theres a metro rail stop in their downtown and new bike lanes going up.
- playingalong 2y ago
  They can and I bet they will declare victory on this by moving the goal posts. Like measuring only during the Olympics and for a subset of area or subset of travels, etc.

throwaway22032 2y ago

The term "car-free" seems designed to create engagement via rage bait rather than being any sort of assessment of reality. Obviously people are going to use cars to get to the Olympics. They'll park around the block and get taxis in, or they'll park near a metro station, or they'll drive from say, Vegas to LA, etc. I guess that saying that they'll put on more public transport and not have actual car parks at the venues doesn't sound as shiny.

Ekaros 2y ago
Why do these "car free" utopias always include Taxis? Shouldn't they be first to go... As they are easily replaced by busses.
- rcdemski 2y ago
  I think they’re a nice half step where it keeps me from driving and taking up parking space at the destination. Bus routes help but don’t service original/destination as specifically as a taxi. Accordingly, the taxi costs significantly more than a bus. I’ll happily take a bus or rail for commuting where I know what to expect for service reliability and connection times. If I’m doing a one off trip it’ll be a hired car.
  - withinboredom 2y ago
    lol. I used to think the same when I lived in the US. Now, I walk 5 mins to a bus to the train station, another 5 mins to my train, wait 5 minutes, then enjoy the half-hour ride (while reading a book) to the next train station, and finally hop on a bus that takes me 5 minutes from work. Total commute time: 45 + 15 minutes walk. By car: 70-90 minutes. Why? The train goes 180 km/h while cars only go 120, and there is usually a traffic jam during rush hour. If you put bus stops where people actually live and work, you can get pretty good coverage.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - fjsjaia 2y ago
      I basically have the same commute here in LA as you. ~50 mins between walking, waiting, and taking transit to get to work. However its simply faster to drive straight there. I can do it in 35 mins, but I opt for the transit to read a book and not pay to park at work (free parking you pay in time looking for it). Most peoples car commute in LA is only about 30 mins because of how polycentric the job network is in LA county (which makes it hard to create extremely in demand transit routes if everyone is going everywhere all the time vs a centralized hub and spoke city).

tomcam 2y ago

The 1984 Olympics there were expected to be a traffic disaster. Turned out that everyone stayed away because it was expected to be a traffic disaster. I had a 65 mile commute into Los Angeles at that time and it was a doddle.

xyst 2y ago
Only in America would people think a “65 mile commute” is a “doddle”. Absolutely insane.
- tomcam 2y ago
  I hear you! But it went from bumper to bumper traffic before the Olympics to a breezy 80mph drive during.
  - undersuit 2y ago
    Ahh yes, breezily moving at a speed where I will destroy anything stationary 200 feet in front of me without a choice. I'm going to drive home today from my vacation at 75mph because if I go any slower the people having breezy drives stack up dangerously behind me.
    - tomcam 2y ago
      You might not know traffic laws out there. In Southern California you can get ticketed for not going with the flow of traffic, even if the posted speed is 65 but everyone is driving 80.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  My dad had those for most of his career. He worked at nuclear plants but lived in the nearest kind of big town, which was always at least 60 miles away from the plant. I can’t imagine what that did to his mental health, the nuclear power industry isn’t something I recommend anyone getting into.
  - 2y ago

godelski 2y ago

I don't think they'll achieve it and I think that's okay. LA has some of the infrastructure but momentum is the big part. If the Olympics are the catalyst to get the ball moving on this, then I don't care if they only achieve 20-30% of the goal, because I think if you get some momentum and some success it can be used to drive more. It's something everyone wants in LA, but so many things are "sticky". I hope this can help get them unstuck.

bfung 2y ago
^^^ this. LA is such a sprawl, public transit barely covers all the places people want to go to. Any improvement is welcome, hopefully it won’t regress after Olympics, but wouldn’t be surprised.

nottorp 2y ago

They're trying to be as eco as the Paris olympics that had athletes complaining about the heat (A/C is not eco), food (i suppose decent food wasn't eco) and the uncomfortable cardboard beds (wood isn't eco now?)?

userbinator 2y ago
Virtue-signaling at its finest.
- bedobi 2y ago
  yeah never mind that they (permanently, not just temporarily for the olympics) outright repurposed what used to be urban highways through the center of the city (including along the seine!) and implemented any number of huge environmental improvements
  - userbinator 2y ago
    Neither me, nor a significant number of the population, would call those "environmental improvements".
    - bedobi 2y ago
      right, replacing millions of trips by car through the center of the city with on foot or bike or transit instead is not an environmental improvement thanks for being transparent about not being serious
      - userbinator 2y ago
        It's not an improvement to those who don't want to be treated like cattle.
        bedobi 2y ago
        Traveling through a city on foot, bike and transit is “being treated like cattle”? You prefer sitting in gridlocked traffic in a personal automobile instead, because that’s less like “cattle”? Ok. But decent people have the right to their freedom of transporting themselves on foot and by bike and transit, and to be free from the danger and pollution caused by entitled people making unnecessary trips in personal automobiles. Facts, and the rights of everyone else, do not end where your feelings and opinions begin.

xyst 2y ago

I visited LA a couple of years ago. The smog in that region was awful. Out of all of the cities to represent the United States. I can’t believe LA was picked as the spot to showcase on an international level. A “4-year sprint” to make it “car free” is nothing more than a Potemkin Village in my opinion. International visitors will be greatly disappointed at how terrible this country’s public transportation infrastructure

playingalong 2y ago
Car free or not. There will be tons of public transportation extraordinary options running during the Olympics. There is simply no other option to move all these people around - athletes and their crew, service people for the venues, journalists, etc. etc. Not to mention the spectators.
- dmurray 2y ago
  That's not public transportation."Mass transportation", maybe. Shuttling athletes and their minders from the Olympic village to the venues is a different set of challenges from delivering a city's residents to their places of work, school and recreation day in, day out.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  I have been thinking. Should we actually move towards reducing people involved? Like ban all spectators, just stream televise them. Journalist can get their interviews over Teams meetings. No need for dignitaries to be present either. Basically you need only athletes, maybe coaches and support staff. For catering, well develop some efficient meals that don't need heating and produce them off-site. All this would save lot on very many things, both in emissions and in costs.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Some events already take place at distant locations. I think they are planning on hosting the softball events out in oklahoma for this olympics.
  - 2y ago

candiddevmike 2y ago

It'll be car free but take 2 hours to get anywhere (my experience with LA traffic/transit)

CalRobert 2y ago
You can bike a long ways in two hours! With an e bike 40-50 km:
- globular-toast 2y ago
  I can do that on a regular road bike. Could be even more if there were no cars.

hilux 2y ago

Los Angeles used to have a good streetcar system, a century ago. What killed the streetcars (car-company conspiracy, or simple economics) is disputed, but makes for good reading.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
The current bus network alone is more comprehensive and far reaching, with better frequency on many lines. However most people aren’t aware of this as the bulk of la metro riders are working class and therefore invisible in mass media.
- sofixa 2y ago
  LA buses are a joke. Bus stops are often a bench (if even that) and a tiny sign put on a lamp post with a line number. No maps, schedules or anything of the like. Going out of a subway stop to find the connected bus stop is a challenge due to lack of way finding, even on very touristy routes (the bus to go up to Griffith's Observatory). The only people who think that's okay are those who haven't experienced what a proper bus system looks like.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Its not so bad with a smartphone

Aldipower 2y ago

City and traffic planers of Hamburg and Hannover visited LA in the 50ties and 60ties to bring the "car centric principles" over to German big cities. For example in Hamburg a fully develop tram network was removed to make more space for the car. Neighbourhoods were divided to bring streets with 6 lanes through it. Wider streets is not necessarily less traffic jam.. We know this now. But until today we deal with those decisions, but it is getting better and we already reverted some things to make the city more friendly for people instead of cars.

bluescrn 2y ago
World population was 2.5bil in 1950. Cars would be far less of a problem if that was still the case.
- Aldipower 2y ago
  So what, population in Hamburg in the 50ties was 1.7mil now it is 1.8mil. I am talking about cities, not the country side.
  - nosianu 2y ago
    Interesting, but to me that raises the next question - even if the city itself did not grow, how about the surrounding communities? I think most of the time traffic still increased significantly, because of much more traffic across the (unchanged) city borders into the surrounding communities. It's called "Metropol-Region Hamburg" (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolregion_Hamburg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolregion_Hamburg), it's not just the city itself.
    - Aldipower 2y ago
      That is is true, the complete "Metropol-Region Hamburg" has a total population of around 3mil. Not sure how it was in the 50ties. There are also a lot of commuters coming from the suburbs to the city center every day. Mostly by train and also car of course. IMHO the train must be even more expanded and improved. But of course not everybody is commuting. There is also a lot of work in the suburbs itself available. Those are mostly smaller cities with its very own life.

CalRobert 2y ago

I used to live in Santa Monica and work in El Segundo. My commute by bike was 55 minutes and joyous, mostly. By car it was 50 minutes and horrible. The funny thing is that the only reason I took the car for a few months was because of injuries from getting hit by a car while biking. It’s not like cars have exactly been working well for LA. They’re slower than biking for a lot of trips. With a bike and the bus or train I often beat traffic during rush hour. Fortunately, LA has wide roads with many lanes and can repurpose them for other uses, if they want to. If you’re ever in the city for critical mass or CicLAvia I can’t recommend it enough. Best way to see the city.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago
E-Bikes and escooters are even more convenient. Sustained speed, easy acceleration, wind and hills have almost no impact, not as sweaty. The only way la pulls this off is with a gigantic conversion of streets to zero cars and e-bikes only. The other aspect that speeds up bike Transit in cities is that you can park far closer, typically and far more quickly than with a car. The sad fact is that in a city if you bike it isn't "if" you get hit by a car it's when. The only way to practically reduce that likelihood are totally separate dedicated pathways for bikes. I wonder if elevated lanes for biking is feasible, since you simply don't have to hold as much weight. Do we really need concrete and steel? Can we do it with Kevlar? In Minneapolis there are two major rail to bike path conversions and they boost the bike ability of the city by an order of magnitude over bike lanes adjacent to car lanes. The paths by the Mississippi River are equally effective. Cities simply don't have the willpower for such projects if rail or other park systems don't provide most of the work. I'm hopeful that the sodium ion battery revolution might result in near zero cost Urban personal transportation within large city limits, car Transit limited to fixed entry points. At some point I predict that a small e-scooter for a single person with a 50 mile range will cost under $50. That will probably require sodium sulfur technologies and maybe some solid state technologies. That scooter will be collapsible and easily carried to an inside point to be recharged.
- altruios 2y ago
  a 20 mile commute in cold 5:30am weather sounds not that great on an e-bike...

mentalgear 2y ago

I'm wondering whether there's also going to be a large-scale operation a few months ahead of the games of deporting homeless people from the city as we have seen in Paris. (also, I heard they have already quite rolled back on that "car-free" goal. Don't have the source available, but google is your friend.)

tom_ 2y ago
Why not google it and post the link? This will ensure that we don't get some other result that you're not thinking of.
sillystuff 2y ago
> I'm wondering whether there's also going to be a large-scale operation a few months ahead of the games of deporting homeless people Yes. Already beginning in cities all across the US since the Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v Johnson. Prior to this decision, a locality without sufficient shelter beds could not just sweep through an encampment arresting/fining/evicting the residents while seizing and destroying their possessions like sleeping bags, blankets and tents, or fine/arrest and impound vehicles of people sleeping in vehicles (yes, all the above happened in spite of the law, but it did result in some restraint on the part of the authorities). Now, homeless hate can be unleashed without restraint. Hate it is. In one memorable letter to the editor of a local paper, a woman wrote, "Homeless are like cockroaches and I wish I had a giant can of Raid." (for non Americans, Raid is a brand of insecticide-- maybe obvious from context). People who were in foster care as children make up 50% of the homeless population in the US [1]. Homeless demographics have changed recently, people becoming homeless for the first time after the age of 50 is now the second largest single group in California at 41% [2]. The US is a brutal society that is failing its most vulnerable. [1] https://cbexpress.acf.hhs.gov/article/2022/october/reducing-homelessness-among-young-people-transitioning-from-foster-care/c8c74b071b5d51109e7ba97ae54bcb57 https://cbexpress.acf.hhs.gov/article/2022/october/reducing-... [2] https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2024-05-28/older-adults-homelessness-study-essential-california https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2024-05-28/old...

whartung 2y ago

The key here to see if they can pull this off is the addition of 3000 buses. LA Metro currently only runs 2000 buses, and that’s for the entire service area, I’m guessing the new buses are going to be concentrated in the Olympic areas. I used to rely on the bus back in college. It was not convenient. The bus schedule controlled your schedule. My bus to school ran every hour. If I wanted to travel from the San Gabriel valley to downtown LA, it was over two hours. An early job I had, 20 mile commute, combined riding and walking (job was a mile from the bus stop) meant a 5:30am bus trip to get there by 8. It’s functional but hardly convenient. It’s a far cry from a 10m wait for a subway train. One mistake in the chain, and it was quite punishing. One year, the last bus from campus (at 8:05pm, which i really hated — just too early for a college student) was late. It was caught in LA traffic because of the World Series at Dodger Stadium. Which was 30 miles away. And the riders that night were trapped. Last bus, had to sit and wait for it. Couldn’t pop back into the library and come back in an hour for the next one. Hour and a half late. LA is huge. As busy as downtown is, it’s busy everywhere. Buses are the most scalable and flexible solution. All you need for a new bus route is a bus and a sign. But as a user, all I can say is they beat walking, but just barely.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
The city has been making changes to the bus system recently. They are implementing the next gen bus plan with a goal of having 80% of the ridership get 10 min or better frequency. Of course that might not include some distant san gabriel valley stop if its seldom used compared to somewhere pretty heavily trafficked with high ridership busses like in east hollywood. Not sure of your commute if you were using foothill transit busses, but the next gen plan is for la metro busses at least.
drunner 2y ago
Adding 3000 buses won't do anything if they don't also add bus priority lanes and lights. Otherwise they just sit in traffic and at red lights like everyone else.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  They have been building out more bus lanes and increasing their priority where they can. What makes it a little tricky is a bus will never just get straight priority/preemption because they cross other bus lines going a perpendicular direction all the time, and these will naturally conflict.

yutredsie 2y ago

This is a silly political statement doomed to fail. Do I think that LA could go “car-free” for the Olympics? Maybe, but I’m doubtful the political powers that be could pull it off. I’ve yet to see any concrete plans or budgets proposed to pull this off. Just a dubious suggestion of “bike lanes” and “3000” new buses. I think if they are serious about a car free Olympics they should commit to free public transport. Even if only for just those 17 days. But, I fear that the quiet part of this goal is actually: “How can we further monetize this event?” “Well, 16 million people times $1.75 per bus ticket per ride is a lot of money!!1!” “Ooo, good idea, let’s force visitors to use our ineffectual public transportation. We’ll pitch it as environmental, we can call it ‘car-free’” I’ll be amazed if these politicians have enough restraint to avoid raising public transport prices to pay for these “car-free” plans.

serf 2y ago

olympics considered harmful. when will the world realize that these 'olympic sprints' to meet goofy expectations for the IOC are ridiculous and damaging on the long term? seriously. almost every visited city is worse-off for years after the games; it's only ever accommodated because of the accompanying rockstar status and the money injection for the in-seat politicians, almost none of which actually sticks around to provide improvements for the city or its' people. it's a gross abuse, it results in gross abuses towards the people, and it fucks up a city for years . Example : What did Rio's new anti-poverty highway walls enable for locals? How did the promised lagoon clean-up go? (hint: https://apnews.com/article/brazil-rio-de-janeiro-lake-recovery-environment-0b70ba202f8c0263d9e29c9170342fa1 https://apnews.com/article/brazil-rio-de-janeiro-lake-recove... ) the walking city thing is a nice concept for LA -- how many homeless encampments are getting torn down to accommodate this? How much worse does traffic get in the interim for those living here? Who's going to care enough to listen to complaints during the olympic-cash-season?

mixmastamyk 2y ago
LA is not one of those cities. It already has the sports venues and dormitories. As a resident, accelerating Metro projects is helpful.

antiquark 2y ago

Sorry, cars are here to stay.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]