this is how we roll? wired on la’s transit problem
According to Alexander Lew on Wired, Los Angeles’ population will grow by 2.4 million by 2030, resulting in a total of 7 million cars on the roads each day.
Lew observes in his article that only 7 percent of commuters use public transportation in L.A. County, far lower than in other major American cities–30 percent of San Francisco residents use transit, 25 percent within Chicago, and 54 percent in New York City. With the region’s growing population, the city won’t be able to support itself without future investments in transportation.
Among other things, Lew faults L.A.’s poor urban planning for our predicament:
Low-density sprawl makes it difficult to provide rapid transit service to every part of the city. In addition, because areas are so spread out, riders are sometimes required to drive to a kiss-and-ride lot to take the train; many, however, once in the car, just decide to continue driving. Finally, there are only 446,000 jobs in downtown Los Angeles, meaning that the other 4.4 million employed in the county work in other areas outside this so called “central business area.”
Some solutions are in the works, courtesy of L.A.’s Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), which has drafted a Long Range Transportation Plan for the county.
Aside from the planned development of a 450-mile system of Metro Rapid bus lines, MTA’s proposal also includes a major investment to expand the current 464 miles of carpool lanes to 626 miles. New interchanges will allow carpool lane users to use a separate connector between highways. Carpoolers will no longer need to merge back into mixed traffic and cross several lanes to exit.
Question is, will all this be enough? And if not, what else can be done?
-Los Angeles’ Future in Mobility: Many Goals But Many Obstacles
-MTA’s Long Range Transportation Plan
19 comments
Congestion pricing = more MTA $$ = a rainbow of rail lines
I just hope the new plan is focused more on public transit improvements than road building. MTA needs the political will to push public transit over private automobile transportation…and the land use policies need to coincide with that change.
I wrote a comment alraedy on this very page.
half a million jobs and growing in an effective 2.5 mile radius IS VERY CENTRAL. If the rest of LA had that concentration there would be 100 million jobs in LA alone. That goes to show you how concentrated that is.
Also, DTSF has maybe 650,000 jobs compared to the 6.2 million person bay area.
2.5 square miles I meant. NOT RADIUS
Then again they are probably including downtown-adjacent areas, so maybe it is radius?!
Also, the largest local newspaper in circulation (The LA Times) needs to have at least 1 report about the Metro’s LRTP.
I’m sure the percentage of public transit users per city correlates to the amount of “rail” public transit available. Build more “rail” public transportation and the percentage of public transit users goes up.
Hi JEremy R: In response to your question– I looked it up, and 446K was the projected number of jobs for the Central/Downtown/USC area in 2007, according to an LAEDC rerport. That’s a teeny bump up from last year.
The all-time high was back in the mid-nineties, with a whopping 624,000 jobs in the area.
I think what’s really frustrating about using the rail is just getting to a station. Many of them don’t have parking lots. Once you reach your stop you have to find a way to get to your final destination. LA is just isn’t a public transportation-friendly city, but if other big cities can do it so can we. However, I remain hopeful. If more of my tax dollars can go towards developing public transportation then that is money well spent.
“I think what’s really frustrating about using the rail is just getting to a station. Many of them don’t have parking lots. Once you reach your stop you have to find a way to get to your final destination. LA is just isn’t a public transportation-friendly city, but if other big cities can do it so can we. However, I remain hopeful. If more of my tax dollars can go towards developing public transportation then that is money well spent.”
That’s the whole point of centralization, so you don’t have to drive to transit (kind of counterproductive) and the stop is your final destination. Placing random rail lines around the county won’t fix anything, it has to be done in conjunction with reorienting the region to create destinations (live, work, play) around the transit system.
People in the bay area drive to BART’s dublin, oakland, berkeley, and concord stations all the time. It is common to have 33% of your stations be situated for park and ride. Only extreme cities like NYC and Paris do people NEVER use a car.
To think that LA can centralize like “traditional” cities is wishful thinking IMHO. I think LA can form 5-10 main clusters(It already has them), and those clusters can all be served by an intricate web of buses, bikeways, and railways, but I don’t think those clusters will turn into 1-2 massive central districts. More over, these clusters can strive to become dense, walkable, mixed used areas that support LA’s continued growth without being land limited and driving costs through the roof. Kinda like a supercharged version of new urbanism, west coast style.
Instead of all rail lines brining people into one main central area, our rail will bring people from one cluster to the next, while transportation within the cluster can be done by DASH, buses, bikeways, flex cars, or walkways. People who live outside one of the main clusters will have to drive or take metrolink somehow. That is the penalty for living in a non-transit area. You cant serve everyone.
Not all clusters are created equal. Major clusters, like downtown or santa monica, will have a convergence of 3+ rail lines while miner clusters, like pasadena might only have one (although ideally every cluster should have two). That shows that LA is somewhat central, but not completely central. It is the best of both worlds. Because downtown can support tremendous density, it will be the grand daddy of all clusters. Santa Monica is a main cluster simlpy because the elite of LA have always been on the west side.
The disadvantage of clusterting is you have to build twice as much rail to cover the area sufficiently, which is why LA uses light rail so heavily. The huge advantage of it is that many areas can be live/work/play areas, unlike most cities. The hollywoods, santa monica, culver city, and pasadena all have respectable amounts of live/work/play qualities. Each cluster would be price/ammenity competitive so that they could win the next big museum, restaurant, office tower, or signature residence. Sure, being more centralized is more efficient, but LA has its own unique advantages that should be used. NYC isnt the only way to build a city or a transit system. I think LA should follow Toronto and London, and just forget about NYC AND Houston when considering urban planning.
I am tired of people saying what LA can’t do, or what LA isnt. I think it is time for us to think about LA CAN be if the public will, political leadership, and money were there. Its an uphill fight, but I am hopefull of the future of transit AND its implications on downtown.
There’s a part of me that agrees that LA needs more public transportation, but also, there is a part of that doesn’t. I think the figures speak for themselves. If people in LA really wanted to take public transportation the city would work vigorously in that direction. As we all know, LA (and OC) invests heavily in its highway network (the preferred network). This might not be what some of you want to hear, but the reality is that 93% of Angelino’s don’t take public transportation and probably don’t want to. As far as congestion pricing I don’t think that’s a solution for the southland. Being from LA and now living in NY I have learned to appreciate public transportation, however, I didn’t learn from my own free will. I learned because traffic is horrid, the bridges are 5 dollars each way, plus gas, plus parking of at LEAST 30 dollars and sky high insurance rates (and after all that I still own a car-remember, I’m from LA). I don’t have a problem with it though; but that’s because I’m in NY. Public transportation is NY Culture and guess what? Cars are a big part of LA Culture. The problem isn’t that LA doesn’t and can’t have a good public transportation system, it’s that Angelino’s don’t want to take it. LA is the American Dream. It’s houses (not apartments), it’s yards, and it’s cars. Don’t agree with me? Look around you. I think it’s important to see the reality of what LA is and how it was built and then try to find solutions. In case anybody doubts the mind set of Angelino’s think twenty. TWENTY YEARS it took for the LACMTA to come up with a long range plan. We needed this NOW and we probably won’t see it in our entire lives. Isn’t this saying anything to you guys? Are you guys from mars or something? Anyhow, I think LA’s solution is a mixed use of both public transportation and personal vehicles. I also think high speed commuter rail is ideal for a sprawling metropolis such as Los Angeles. We also need to think of the southland as a whole and not just downtown Los Angeles or the West Side. As a previous resident of the SGV I highly doubt I’ll pay to use the Pomona Freeway (Congestion Pricing) so that someone from DT or the West Side can hop on a train. You can’t expect people to jump out of the comfort of their car anymore than they should expect you to get in one and commute daily to the Inland Empire or the High Desert. You have to see both sides for the sake of reality. That’s where the solution is.
Jermy R.. you nailed it.
Hi RuFFy– I understand what you’re saying about many Angelenos not wanting to take public transportation. MTA seems to be very conscious of this mindset too; in the LRTP, they talk about developing effective Demand Management strategies to encourage people into carpools and public transit, and change people’s ideas about where they live and work. That’s going to take a TON of work, but I’m glad they’re at least mindful of the issue.
MTA’s draft plan seems to cover most of the major solutions: an expanded bus fleet, LRT projects, more carpool lanes and carpool connectors, bicycle projects, and 400 miles of Metro Rapid Service. It even takes into account goods movement (those double-trailer semis on the freeways). There are also a number of unfunded strategies listed in the plan that are worth looking into.
Jeremy R and Ruffy you both have valid and interesting points regarding LA’s public transportation situation.
It is about “want” and “need”.
I believe that we should focus on our “needs” rather than our “wants”.
Just this morning I took a relative to downtown LA for breakfast (he picked me up and we went in his pick-up truck)- we were hoping to hit Pete’s on main and 4th but I wasn’t aware that they don’t open until 1130am weekdays, it was going to be my first time there.
It was almost 9am and I mentioned the Pantry on 9th but he was afraid to walk the several blocks. This from a straight, masculine tough looking guy. He told me he has never liked downtown with the urban grit and homeless element.
I pointed to an early 30′s looking white female with a baby in a stroller crossing the street. He said- So? and that he didn’t care.
We ended up at the Grand Central Market on Broadway and 3rd street and had some chinese food at the counter of the China Cafe.
We then walked over by Pershing Square and down Broadway.
As we walked he asked me, “so people actually live in some of these buildings?, and i said yes. Thenwe headed back to 4th street and I introduced him to Lost Souls Cafe.
He was pleasantly surprised(hidden and kind of cool) and we had some drinks and stayed for about 30 minutes.
He is a home in the suburbs with a backyard type of guy and I am an urban- city,sky scrapers type of guy.
My point is some people are stubborn and are set in their ways.
But now as gasoline is at $4.00 a gallon, it is hurting people and they are starting to think about alternatives for transportation especially when going to work.
I stopped driving in 2004, sure i sometimes carpool or get rides from family and friends.
And its not as easy as when I drove. And I found that it interferes with one’s ability to be spontaneous and I have to plan ahead more.
But i sure don’t miss the car maintenance, insurance,gas and traffic.
And i was one that would drive to Santa Barbara and San Diego and every point in between. Now i just sit back and relax by reading or listening to music on my way to work , to play or to shop.
I’m all for congestion pricing, sure because since i don’t drive it wouldn’t affect my wallet.
The same way they tax cigarettes.
And MTA’s priority should be public transport first and not so much the roads and highways.
That way people are forced to choose, try and consider public transportation.
I know life isn’t fair
Jeremy:
I think almost those engaged in serious transit planning in Los Angeles (going back for decades) realize that L.A. cannot be planned like a “centralized” city and should be treated as a series of “centers.”
Fortunately, once we build a few more rail projects, we’ll have a lot of the “centers” covered, including Hollywood, North Hollywood, Pasadena, Long Beach, Downtown, Culver City, Santa Monica, East L.A. Beverly Hills and Century City. The most significant “centers” left out of this are Warner Center, Van Nuys (both covered by Orange Line, but that’s a bus, not rail), Glendale, Burbank, and West Hollywood/Sunset Strip.
That’s a good way toward covering many areas, once we build the Downtown Connector, Purple Line extension, and Crenshaw corridor. These are all within striking distance, once the Gold Line extension and Expo line are finished.
Let’s start by figuring out where we are: of all the megacities (over ten million urbanized area population) in the world, Los Angeles has the BEST local transportation.
Why? Because of all the megacities in the world, LA is the MOST decentralized. Our “downtown” is a tiny fraction of the size of any other.
In “planner” terms, this means we have a great home-jobs balance, which reduces commuting distance (although greater LA is huge, the average commute trip length is LOWER here than the U.S. average for metropolitan areas over 500,000 population).
What goes along with this is that, since transit works best for home-to-work trips to the central business district, and since we don’t have much of a CBD, well, transit use is smaller in LA than in any other Megacity, by far — and that’s our greatest strength.
Consider the average home-to-work commute times in greater LA and NYC for auto (including carpool) and transit: LA, 27.1 and 46.3 minutes; NYC, 27.8 and 50.7 minutes. Not a whole lot of difference in these statistics (the longer NYC transit time is primarily because of the higher use of rail in NYC, which has longer travel times due to longer station access times and longer trip lengths), BUT, overall, in LA, it is 27.9 minutes vs. 32.8 in NYC — NYC is 18% longer. The reason is, in LA, 6.3% of the work force say they use transit, while in NYC, it is 30.8%, and the higher percentage that use transit drives the NYC overall average up (All stats, Census Bureau American Community Survey 2006).
So, if you want to have shorter travel times, decentralize and drive; it beats all hell out of centralizing and taking transit.
The performance of Greater LA in this regard is even more amazing when you find out that, of the 69 U.S. urbanized areas with 500,000 or more in population, LA is second to last in both centerline freeway miles per capita and in road miles per capita (Federal Highway Administration, “Highway Statistics 2005,” Table HM-72). It is only our decentralization that allows up to do as well as we do.
This may not sit real well with some of you, but, in this regard, sprawl is our friend.
By the way, transit also trails auto’s in energy use and greenhouse emissions per passenger-mile, for those that are interested.
RuFFy said “TWENTY YEARS it took for the LACMTA to come up with a long range plan. ”
That’s not true. The MTA has done several long range plans over the years, usually about 5 years apart. The earlier ones were ignored by the press and most people because back then, nobody really did care about transit. What has changed is that now this has become big news. LA has changed.
It’s not true that people WON’T ride transit anymore. It’s mostly that people CAN’T ride transit, and the long range plan gives people hope that someday soon they will be able to do so. The increased interest in transit growth in LA is encouraging to me. When gas is $8 a gallon in 3 years, it’ll be even more popular.
Ruel.. This subject has been covered SO many times before : [ .. but I’ve got to hand it to you because it engaged the readers well and we all had a chance to express our opinions about the matter. And everyone else, great information to know and I’m glad you guys chose to share it.