5 ms·

Los Angeles is the prime example of it. So what are we doing now? We are having to build it back up! Unfortunately, the current construction is a far cry from

Los Angeles is the prime example of it. So what are we doing now? We are having to build it back up! Unfortunately, the current construction is a far cry from what the old red car network was and doesn't really touch the San Fernando valley in a meaningful way. I am excited about the Expo line phase 2 though...

phamilton 11y ago
I actually think LA is very different case. The 101 is the backbone of California for a reason - it's been there since the Spanish built the California missions. Los Angeles grew up around the highway, rather than the other way around. So instead of a beltway being built around a city, you've got a city stretched out along the highway. That said, there are plenty of micro examples of defaulting to pavement over rail for public trans in LA. The so-called "black and blue" line in the San Fernando valley is a pretty amusing example. (Rather than put in light rail, they built roads that only buses could go on. This caused a lot of confusion and there were a lot of accidents in the first 6 months, thus earning it the nickname "black and blue") It was sort of a clever solution. The city knew how to build roads and so it stuck to what it was good at.
- jowiar 11y ago
  There's a reasonable argument for busways over light rail -- the non-disaster failure mode of buses is a lot more reasonable than the non-disaster failure mode of rail. If a bus has mechanical issues, it doesn't stop the entire bus system. With rail -- a bit of engine trouble breaks the whole system. I've seen them work reasonably well in Pittsburgh, along with the Bus lane going opposite traffic on the one-way streets (as opposed to say, Philadelphia, where everyone drives in the bus lane).
  - sologoub 11y ago
    I haven't seen them work out too well in San Fernando Valley. They seem to be less used than I would have guessed.
    - mixmastamyk 11y ago
      The Orange line is packed at rush hour, not sure what you're expecting?
  - m_mueller 11y ago
    The problem with buses IMO is the planning - most of the time planners take the cheap way out and just let them use the same road resources as cars. IMO a good local transport is completely separate from the roads used by cars, such that congestion on the car road network doesn't affect the second system - i.e. you always get a real alternative. Having one lane for buses, taxis and ambulances would be a pretty good solution, but that's usually not how it works out. Also, you have to look at the whole system in terms of how much surface space it needs - in any reasonably dense city you soon start to need to go either underground or stilted. Railways have a much narrower footprint due to their efficiency - so if you can make them reliable (which is clearly doable, see Japan and Switzerland as examples), it's just a more space saving solution, thus you need to tunnel / stilt less.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    With rail -- a bit of engine trouble breaks the whole system. That depends on how you engineer the system. With reasonably frequent crossings, you can route around stalled vehicles. If you've got dedicated rights-of-way (rather than mixed-mode auto-and-LRV routes) then wrong-side operations isn't so critical. With sidings or triple-tracking, you can offer only modestly degraded service, though at markedly higher initial cost and land use. Still far better than highway / surface-street designs. Or you can "bounce" vehicles to either side of an outage, running service to the problem location and running truncated shuttle service on either side. It's largely a matter of political will, costs, and frequency of outages. Which, generally, even on less-reliable system aren't exceptionally prevalent. The other issue is that busses tend to fail (for various reasons) more frequently than rail.
- sologoub 11y ago
  101 would have still been there, as he 405 and most of others. Check out this map of the old system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric#/media/File:Los_Angeles_Pacific_Electric_Railways_(Red_Cars).svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric#/media/File:Lo... With enough patience, one could have travelled from Woodland Hills to Redlands or Corona. Unfortunately, I do not know the time it would have taken, but the current bus system makes it nearly impossible. If the freeway system was built in the same way that I see BART being incorporated into say the 580 in the Bay Area (right down the middle of the highway), it would have been a great setup. Want to drive the car? No problem! Want to avoid driving a car? We have you covered as well! The routes 101, 405, 5, 10, 110, etc. cover are great. There are many intersections allowing for "hubs" and so on. Unfortunately, only choices are either cars or buses that have little advantage because they sit in traffic all the same. Busways may be a middle ground, but I have not seen them work out very well in San Fernando Valley. I'm guessing because there is still insufficient density and poor bus coverage of perpendicular routes to the busway itself. Just a guess though...
m_mueller 11y ago
Check my other comment where I compared L.A. to Tokyo [1]. I kind of expected it already, but the outcome still blows my mind a bit.. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9562430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9562430

phamilton 11y ago

I actually think LA is very different case. The 101 is the backbone of California for a reason - it's been there since the Spanish built the California missions. Los Angeles grew up around the highway, rather than the other way around. So instead of a beltway being built around a city, you've got a city stretched out along the highway. That said, there are plenty of micro examples of defaulting to pavement over rail for public trans in LA. The so-called "black and blue" line in the San Fernando valley is a pretty amusing example. (Rather than put in light rail, they built roads that only buses could go on. This caused a lot of confusion and there were a lot of accidents in the first 6 months, thus earning it the nickname "black and blue") It was sort of a clever solution. The city knew how to build roads and so it stuck to what it was good at.

jowiar 11y ago
There's a reasonable argument for busways over light rail -- the non-disaster failure mode of buses is a lot more reasonable than the non-disaster failure mode of rail. If a bus has mechanical issues, it doesn't stop the entire bus system. With rail -- a bit of engine trouble breaks the whole system. I've seen them work reasonably well in Pittsburgh, along with the Bus lane going opposite traffic on the one-way streets (as opposed to say, Philadelphia, where everyone drives in the bus lane).
- sologoub 11y ago
  I haven't seen them work out too well in San Fernando Valley. They seem to be less used than I would have guessed.
  - mixmastamyk 11y ago
    The Orange line is packed at rush hour, not sure what you're expecting?
- m_mueller 11y ago
  The problem with buses IMO is the planning - most of the time planners take the cheap way out and just let them use the same road resources as cars. IMO a good local transport is completely separate from the roads used by cars, such that congestion on the car road network doesn't affect the second system - i.e. you always get a real alternative. Having one lane for buses, taxis and ambulances would be a pretty good solution, but that's usually not how it works out. Also, you have to look at the whole system in terms of how much surface space it needs - in any reasonably dense city you soon start to need to go either underground or stilted. Railways have a much narrower footprint due to their efficiency - so if you can make them reliable (which is clearly doable, see Japan and Switzerland as examples), it's just a more space saving solution, thus you need to tunnel / stilt less.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  With rail -- a bit of engine trouble breaks the whole system. That depends on how you engineer the system. With reasonably frequent crossings, you can route around stalled vehicles. If you've got dedicated rights-of-way (rather than mixed-mode auto-and-LRV routes) then wrong-side operations isn't so critical. With sidings or triple-tracking, you can offer only modestly degraded service, though at markedly higher initial cost and land use. Still far better than highway / surface-street designs. Or you can "bounce" vehicles to either side of an outage, running service to the problem location and running truncated shuttle service on either side. It's largely a matter of political will, costs, and frequency of outages. Which, generally, even on less-reliable system aren't exceptionally prevalent. The other issue is that busses tend to fail (for various reasons) more frequently than rail.
sologoub 11y ago
101 would have still been there, as he 405 and most of others. Check out this map of the old system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric#/media/File:Los_Angeles_Pacific_Electric_Railways_(Red_Cars).svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric#/media/File:Lo... With enough patience, one could have travelled from Woodland Hills to Redlands or Corona. Unfortunately, I do not know the time it would have taken, but the current bus system makes it nearly impossible. If the freeway system was built in the same way that I see BART being incorporated into say the 580 in the Bay Area (right down the middle of the highway), it would have been a great setup. Want to drive the car? No problem! Want to avoid driving a car? We have you covered as well! The routes 101, 405, 5, 10, 110, etc. cover are great. There are many intersections allowing for "hubs" and so on. Unfortunately, only choices are either cars or buses that have little advantage because they sit in traffic all the same. Busways may be a middle ground, but I have not seen them work out very well in San Fernando Valley. I'm guessing because there is still insufficient density and poor bus coverage of perpendicular routes to the busway itself. Just a guess though...

m_mueller 11y ago

Check my other comment where I compared L.A. to Tokyo [1]. I kind of expected it already, but the outcome still blows my mind a bit.. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9562430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9562430