It’s always surprising when you see our city’s name in HN...
Looks like the TLDR is that LA only has subways in downtown (I can’t understand the reason... why would people use subways then?), they should fix them. Looks like it strongly correlates with the car-centric culture of the US...
No, it’s because LA’s subway system is relatively new and, since subways are so expensive to build in the US, not very extensively built out. To be honest, it’s a miracle that LA has a subway system at all, given how irrelevant it is to most people in the city.
Philadelphia hasn't really expanded its subway system since the 1950s as far as I can tell. Only a few renovations of certain stretches of track (much of which is actually elevated, not underground). Even then, its not a very extensive system; just a north<->south line and a northeast<->west line.
The Blue line opened 30 years ago in 1990 and the most recent line ,the Gold Line opened 17 years ago. The four other lines opened between those years. It's only new relative to say New York's subway or London's but it's not really new to Angelinos at this point.
but construction hasn’t stopped. the expo line for instance opened in 2012 and was extended to santa monica in 2016. the purple line extension and the crenshaw line, to name a couple more, are highly anticipated and ongoing as well.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
The thing is that your average city council voting LA resident doesn't want to use trains. They were sold on a "vision" of lifestyle where they have a personal plot, personal vehicle for themselves, and use that everywhere. They see the congestion of LA and think the city needs more roads, not more transit.
This also inspires the pandemic of NIMBYism that keeps zoning so ostentatious. Residents of most cities don't want to live in a proper 21st century city - they want it all, a personal separated residence, the ability to go anywhere they want whenever they want via personal car, but also immediate and local access to arts, entertainment, and workplaces while not actually living near any of those because they don't want the people around them.
Its generally just not going to go away until the current populations of these cities age out of them. Its a cultural identifier hallmark now that you can't try to displace with facts and data.
> The thing is that your average city council voting LA resident doesn't want to use trains. They were sold on a "vision" of lifestyle where they have a personal plot, personal vehicle for themselves, and use that everywhere.
Yeah, hence the mention of the car centric culture of US. I personally can’t understand why one would like to use a car if the subway is faster, more predictive, cheaper, and less tiring, but looks like a cultural difference.
> Residents of most cities don't want to live in a proper 21st century city - they want it all, a personal separated residence, the ability to go anywhere they want whenever they want via personal car, but also immediate and local access to arts, entertainment, and workplaces while not actually living near any of those because they don't want the people around them.
Well, isn’t this the problem that subways are designed to mitigate? Like... if you want to go to a art center, go to the subway station, ride the subways to the desired station, and see the arts!
Reducing our dependency on cars also has many other benefits: fewer traffic accidents; reduced parking requirements means more space for people in cities; less sound pollution, which is better for our bodies and for our ecosystems in and around cities; lessen the cost of living by no longer requiring a $15,000 machine as a prerequisite to having a job; increased density means increased foot traffic to small businesses, encouraging healthy competition; increased density can (has the potential to) mean a stronger, more connected community, less segregated by wealth etc. etc. etc.
But that is not the question. The question is whether California must cut down on vehicle travel in order to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and stave off climate change?
The hyperlink in the section you're quoting points to a Vox article that aims to address that very question. It explains that passenger vehicles are responsible for a major portion of California's emissions and the switch to EVs is not happening anywhere near fast enough to meet the desired reduction targets.
The emission levels of an electric vehicle curently are 70% of a normal vehicle so yes. Electric cars are only as clean as their energy input which is still overwhelmingly carbon-based and will be for the foreseeable future.
Also the resources needed for the battery creation and lots of the parts effectively wreak havoc on the environment in the third world. There's a rush on minerals including practises such as strip mining which is hugely ecologically damaging.
Having every individual carry two tons of steel around whenever they go grocery shopping will probably make our ancestors look at the us the same way we look at people in caves to be honest
> The emission levels of an electric vehicle curently are 70% of a normal vehicle so yes. Electric cars are only as clean as their energy input which is still overwhelmingly carbon-based and will be for the foreseeable future.
So you change their energy input instead. So no, there are other options.
well, we're not living in sim city and nobody can snip with their fingers to change the energy mix. Over the last 30 years the global energy mix has fallen from being 91% carbon based to a whopping... 88%. Projections for 2040 range from 5-20% renewables if we're realistic. Meanwhile, the total number of cars globally is going to more than double to 2 billion in the same time, in particular in the developing world. (where the energy transition is even more difficult).
So under realistic assumptions this isn't really a solution. In particular in the US people seem to love the idea of buying themselves out of the dog house by purchasing an expensive car, but to be effective there needs to be a systemic transition away from this waste of resources.
i'm just gonna repeat my little mantra that all residential parcels should be at least 4+1 (fourplex + granny unit) by right and all commercial parcels should be highly, highly encouraged to be mixed-use.
i love LA, but it would be even better if everyone didn't feel the need to use a car to get everywhere. i've been to both seoul (too long ago to remember much) and tokyo, and it's fantastic to get around by subway and foot everywhere.
Very agree. Four floors and corner stores wherever residential can be built and not just on arterials. We neatly avoid a huge swath of the gentrification and massive upswings in property cost if we don't artificially restrict where walkable, moderately-dense neighborhoods can be built.
Yeah, having spent time in both Chicago and New York, as well as several European cities, trains/subways are definitely the way to live. We have those pesky tectonic instabilities here, but then why have any of the underground trains that we do?
Stop building cities around cars. Create pedestrian only zones.
Another thought: I've always seen public transport as lagging behind the people's needs in the west, as opposed to how it is in China, Korea, Taiwan, HK, etc. (Japan is one extreme)
Both YIMBYs (who argue for affordable housing) and PHIMBYs (who argue for public housing) make an excellent case for high-density housing. This is a prerequisite for modern cities.
I've lived in LA. I've also lived in Seoul. I miss living in LA. I do not miss living in Seoul.
Seoul is a concrete jungle where the vast majority of people live in tiny concrete apartments. (Literally concrete, I destroyed a lot of masonry drill bits trying to hang pictures on the concrete walls of our apartment.) Sure the subway network in Seoul is extensive but it's still not exactly a fast way to travel.
Speaking from experience the fastest way to get around Seoul is on a scooter. That's because scooters routinely jump red lights, go the wrong way down one-way streets and take shortcuts on sidewalks with impunity. Lots of fun when you're young with no kids, as I was at the time, but it doesn't scale and would never be allowed in LA.
The easiest way to cut down on vehicle traffic is to stop forcing people commuting to workplaces where they sit down at an internet connected computer that they could just as easily do at home. As the current pandemic has forced so many of us to do, which is one big upside.
* Seoul has less than half the number of road fatalities per 100,000 people.
The point about "not a fast way to travel" is interesting but it's also worth recognizing that with double the population density there are twice as many destinations to visit, so that can be deceptive when you look at trip length. If there are 5 grocery stores within 5km vs. 5 grocery stores within 10km, it doesn't matter at all if it takes twice as long to travel 5km in the former case, it's equivalent. (And it's more likely you can do it on foot, which is healthier in terms of lower pollution, more exercise, and fewer road fatalities.)
I tend to agree; if the author wants to look at any Asian capitals as a model, Tokyo and Singapore would seem like better choices.
Both feel substantially less claustrophobic than Seoul or Hong Kong, and I think Singapore fits especially well with its emphasis on quality of life factors.
Instead of maximizing land utilization, for example, most residential buildings make allowance for amenities like gardens and pools. The government encourages (and in some cases, subsidizes) mixed-use development and has aggressive targets for increasing the already considerable amount of green space in the city.
Frankly, at street level, there are a lot of places where you'd have a difficult time telling the difference between Singapore and LA or Miami.
What? Most of these scooter riders are trying to deliver something: they aren't the usual method of transport for most people in Seoul.
Seoul also has extensive road system, including two freeways cutting through it from end to end (one on either side of the Han River), and one highway that goes around the city in a full circle. They are pretty heavily used.
A lot of people still take subways because it's the most convenient for many destinations. Without subways, these highways will grind to a traffic hell.
> Speaking from experience the fastest way to get around Seoul is on a scooter.
This is a pretty bold claim and I don't think you can get agreements from the majority of Seoul citizens. I lived in Seoul over 30 years and I usually could access most of the "downtown" within half an hour by a combination of bus and subway. It's been a while after me leaving there, so I guess the situation should be further improved. I don't know why you're even mentioning scooters as it's meant for delivery in the context of Seoul, not for a typical mode of transportation.
How is this feasible? Redeveloping land in SoCal would be cost prohibitive. Even in the area of Long Beach they were using as an illustration, the average house price is at least $500,000. It's part of the reason the last major freeway to be built, the 105 had to be scaled back from going to from LAX to Riverside (Like 60-70 miles) to ending in Norwalk, (less than 20 miles). And that was in the late 60's to early 70's when that was being planned.
Should LA urbanize? I find the lack of density to be a benefit, not a problem. The problem is rather the lack of public transport + lack of self-driving, green vehicles + lack of widespread remote work. Making LA as dense as Seoul or NYC would kill the unique vibe it has IMO.
There are many cities in the world which manage to have effective public transport and not be ultra-dense. Warsaw, in Poland, is a good example and probably one more useful in a comparison to LA, as both cities are mostly flat, sprawl for miles/kms and have large road systems that can’t easily be removed and replaced. Berlin is another good example, although it’s more dense than Warsaw.
LA's high housing price is one of the top social issues that people who live there face, due to low supply. I think a little bit more urban character in exchange for lower rents is a fair price to pay. I lived in the LA area for five years and found that the more urban areas were the more lively and interesting, but there were a lot of dead sprawling areas too. LA stands to gain a lot from having more of the former and less of the latter. I suppose I agree that becoming Seoul is not necessary; but the lack of density isn't ideal.
I agree that building more housing is good, however: better public transit, self-driving cars, and remote work are a far more viable path for LA than turning it into a super-dense city.
Yes you can and LA actually already had quite an extensive public transport called the Pacific Electric network. The last of it was dismantled around 1961-63. They were replaced with diesel buses. These are some maps. The ehra.org site has some good timeline and some cost figures as well.
I agree. Today’s “urbanists” are so very opinionated and unable to process or accept that not everyone wants to live in their version of the world. Cities with lesser density have many quality of life benefits and cultural differences that denser cities cannot replicate. The correct question is indeed “should LA urbanize” and my answer is “no”. I suspect most Angelenos would agree.
Here in Seattle, most long time Seattleites also don’t want it to urbanize further and turn into another SF. The urbanists, however, are quite vocal and will likely continue to push for their monoculture, a one size fits all recipe on how everyone everywhere should live. I really wish they would accept that different people and different locales have different ways of doing things, and that this is a good thing.
I feel this is a narrow perspective because it focuses on a subset of problems and doesn’t recognize all the other problems of benefits that are in the balance. Low density living is great for many of us - the open spaces and air gives the city a certain aesthetic, and it does create a certain culture and sense of community that has been disappearing as the city has changed in the last several years. I would like to see us retain those things.
This person meant from the perspective of the original SF inhabitants. 50-60 years ago, before the tech industry moved in, SF was sort of a weird, sleepy counter-cultural city where hippies and Beats hung out.
Sort of like: a crowd of people moves into your house, making it uncomfortably overcrowded. You refuse to build an extension to the house in order to give everyone more space, as it would destroy the architectural reasons that made you wanted to live there in the first place.
Who’s at fault? Tough question. It’s unclear if urbanization trends made this inevitable or if there are/were better ways to deal with gentrification.
> The problem is rather the lack of public transport + lack of self-driving, green vehicles + lack of widespread remote work.
It's basically about the infrastructure cost and higher density actually helps a lot to reduce this cost and make the system more sustainable. Yes, theoretically you can have good infra without high density, but it will cost much more. There's a good reason why the most dense cities in the world (Beijing, Shanghai, Seoul and Tokyo) have the most advanced public transportation system. Even in the US, cities with an acceptable mass transit tend to have decent levels of density.
The biggest stupidity in LA is that the train does not reach LAX, but ends a couple miles short of it. This alone would greatly reduce LA traffic. What city planners didn't see that?
it’s even dumber, given the hub-and-spoke model, that one of the first lines wasn’t directly between downtown and LAX. lobbying by LAWA (the org that runs LAX) to protect parking revenue and the taxi industry is apparently to blame.
64 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] threadIt’s always surprising when you see our city’s name in HN...
Looks like the TLDR is that LA only has subways in downtown (I can’t understand the reason... why would people use subways then?), they should fix them. Looks like it strongly correlates with the car-centric culture of the US...
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.
This argument applies to anything that improves a city.
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.
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.
This also inspires the pandemic of NIMBYism that keeps zoning so ostentatious. Residents of most cities don't want to live in a proper 21st century city - they want it all, a personal separated residence, the ability to go anywhere they want whenever they want via personal car, but also immediate and local access to arts, entertainment, and workplaces while not actually living near any of those because they don't want the people around them.
Its generally just not going to go away until the current populations of these cities age out of them. Its a cultural identifier hallmark now that you can't try to displace with facts and data.
Yeah, hence the mention of the car centric culture of US. I personally can’t understand why one would like to use a car if the subway is faster, more predictive, cheaper, and less tiring, but looks like a cultural difference.
> Residents of most cities don't want to live in a proper 21st century city - they want it all, a personal separated residence, the ability to go anywhere they want whenever they want via personal car, but also immediate and local access to arts, entertainment, and workplaces while not actually living near any of those because they don't want the people around them.
Well, isn’t this the problem that subways are designed to mitigate? Like... if you want to go to a art center, go to the subway station, ride the subways to the desired station, and see the arts!
That's a big problem in the bay area as well, there is no reliable and fast public transport if you want to commute.
Is this statement really true if car manufacturers continue to migrate towards electric vehicles?
Reducing our dependency on cars also has many other benefits: fewer traffic accidents; reduced parking requirements means more space for people in cities; less sound pollution, which is better for our bodies and for our ecosystems in and around cities; lessen the cost of living by no longer requiring a $15,000 machine as a prerequisite to having a job; increased density means increased foot traffic to small businesses, encouraging healthy competition; increased density can (has the potential to) mean a stronger, more connected community, less segregated by wealth etc. etc. etc.
But that is not the question. The question is whether California must cut down on vehicle travel in order to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and stave off climate change?
Also the resources needed for the battery creation and lots of the parts effectively wreak havoc on the environment in the third world. There's a rush on minerals including practises such as strip mining which is hugely ecologically damaging.
Also cars will always be a colossal space waste: https://imgur.com/gallery/sCvRIEd
Having every individual carry two tons of steel around whenever they go grocery shopping will probably make our ancestors look at the us the same way we look at people in caves to be honest
So you change their energy input instead. So no, there are other options.
So under realistic assumptions this isn't really a solution. In particular in the US people seem to love the idea of buying themselves out of the dog house by purchasing an expensive car, but to be effective there needs to be a systemic transition away from this waste of resources.
i love LA, but it would be even better if everyone didn't feel the need to use a car to get everywhere. i've been to both seoul (too long ago to remember much) and tokyo, and it's fantastic to get around by subway and foot everywhere.
Another thought: I've always seen public transport as lagging behind the people's needs in the west, as opposed to how it is in China, Korea, Taiwan, HK, etc. (Japan is one extreme)
Also: cars ruin cities.
Seoul is a concrete jungle where the vast majority of people live in tiny concrete apartments. (Literally concrete, I destroyed a lot of masonry drill bits trying to hang pictures on the concrete walls of our apartment.) Sure the subway network in Seoul is extensive but it's still not exactly a fast way to travel.
Speaking from experience the fastest way to get around Seoul is on a scooter. That's because scooters routinely jump red lights, go the wrong way down one-way streets and take shortcuts on sidewalks with impunity. Lots of fun when you're young with no kids, as I was at the time, but it doesn't scale and would never be allowed in LA.
The easiest way to cut down on vehicle traffic is to stop forcing people commuting to workplaces where they sit down at an internet connected computer that they could just as easily do at home. As the current pandemic has forced so many of us to do, which is one big upside.
* Seoul has twice the population density of LA.
* Seoul has less than half the number of road fatalities per 100,000 people.
The point about "not a fast way to travel" is interesting but it's also worth recognizing that with double the population density there are twice as many destinations to visit, so that can be deceptive when you look at trip length. If there are 5 grocery stores within 5km vs. 5 grocery stores within 10km, it doesn't matter at all if it takes twice as long to travel 5km in the former case, it's equivalent. (And it's more likely you can do it on foot, which is healthier in terms of lower pollution, more exercise, and fewer road fatalities.)
Both feel substantially less claustrophobic than Seoul or Hong Kong, and I think Singapore fits especially well with its emphasis on quality of life factors.
Instead of maximizing land utilization, for example, most residential buildings make allowance for amenities like gardens and pools. The government encourages (and in some cases, subsidizes) mixed-use development and has aggressive targets for increasing the already considerable amount of green space in the city.
Frankly, at street level, there are a lot of places where you'd have a difficult time telling the difference between Singapore and LA or Miami.
Seoul also has extensive road system, including two freeways cutting through it from end to end (one on either side of the Han River), and one highway that goes around the city in a full circle. They are pretty heavily used.
A lot of people still take subways because it's the most convenient for many destinations. Without subways, these highways will grind to a traffic hell.
This is a pretty bold claim and I don't think you can get agreements from the majority of Seoul citizens. I lived in Seoul over 30 years and I usually could access most of the "downtown" within half an hour by a combination of bus and subway. It's been a while after me leaving there, so I guess the situation should be further improved. I don't know why you're even mentioning scooters as it's meant for delivery in the context of Seoul, not for a typical mode of transportation.
From the link, that's a 480 sqft studio with no parking, which is essentially illegal to build in any "normal" LA neighborhood.
There are many cities in the world which manage to have effective public transport and not be ultra-dense. Warsaw, in Poland, is a good example and probably one more useful in a comparison to LA, as both cities are mostly flat, sprawl for miles/kms and have large road systems that can’t easily be removed and replaced. Berlin is another good example, although it’s more dense than Warsaw.
https://www.transitmap.net/pacific-electric-1925/
http://www.erha.org/pesystem.htm
And here is a link to LA Times article some details about what actually happened:
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-re...
Here in Seattle, most long time Seattleites also don’t want it to urbanize further and turn into another SF. The urbanists, however, are quite vocal and will likely continue to push for their monoculture, a one size fits all recipe on how everyone everywhere should live. I really wish they would accept that different people and different locales have different ways of doing things, and that this is a good thing.
Sort of like: a crowd of people moves into your house, making it uncomfortably overcrowded. You refuse to build an extension to the house in order to give everyone more space, as it would destroy the architectural reasons that made you wanted to live there in the first place.
Who’s at fault? Tough question. It’s unclear if urbanization trends made this inevitable or if there are/were better ways to deal with gentrification.
It's basically about the infrastructure cost and higher density actually helps a lot to reduce this cost and make the system more sustainable. Yes, theoretically you can have good infra without high density, but it will cost much more. There's a good reason why the most dense cities in the world (Beijing, Shanghai, Seoul and Tokyo) have the most advanced public transportation system. Even in the US, cities with an acceptable mass transit tend to have decent levels of density.