"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Hub and spoke has disadvantages. A perfectly efficient transit system has two-way flow all day long: otherwise parts of the system are being overused or underused.
Jarrett Walker over at humantransit has written extensively about this.
Taxis and other ride shares are easier to electrify than literally every car on the planet.
Everyone using a taxi cuts on traffic more than everyone driving a car.
Fewer places need to be space wasted with ugly, hot pavement.
Taxis service a need that are not realistically handled by large mode transportation loops.
People who say we need to go car free also acknowledge reality and don’t absolutely need to take things to the extreme to make slippery slope argumentative muddy water.
Why “car free” and not something more in tune with the actual idea? Why “serverless”? Why “lock free data structures”? PATRIOT act? “Truth” social? I mean. The list of obviously ridiculous names that are not true their reality goes on and on and on and on.
I don't know in which world busses can "easily" "replace" taxis. They are almost two completely different things serving different people with different purposes/priorities.
Taxis could solve last mile problems fairly efficiently. Or maybe tuktuks, but there is a role for them, not the way they are used now though. They also make it easier to live without a car, so you use mass transit most of the time and have a flex to use personal transport when needed. As opposed to the sunk cost of a private car with parking.
In China in 1999, I would take a tuktuk to the subway stop and then often from the subway stop on the other side of my trip. Later on when I lived there from 2007, I didn’t feel like I needed a car since we had subways and taxis, why bother?
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.
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.
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.
There is a book "La Centrale" by Elisabeth Filhol that describes the nuclear industry in France, it was a horrifying read. It is indeed not a fun industry to work in.
EDIT: seems it is available in French, German, Italian, Spanish and Swedish but can't find it in english. That is kind of sad.
Yep. And at the end of it you die of some weird cancer while your heirs get a settlement with the DOE for some reason. But the commute really stands out.
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.
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?)?
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
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.
Go ahead and let the MSM brainwash you into thinking "decent people" should behave like cattle, to be herded into factory-farm cities and given no means of locomotion other than by their own power or that owned by the state.
As much as 1984 is often brought up here, Animal Farm should also be mentioned as a cautionary tale.
Paris is one of the most desirable places to live in the world. I assure you the people who fight tooth and nail to live there don't need to be "herded" there by the government.
> no means of locomotion other than by their own power or that owned by the state
wow, so much edge, what a juicy take! let's analyze it
what exactly is wrong by making short trips that can readily be made on foot or bike on foot or bike? why would it instead be desirable to walk to a parked car, drive through one of the densest, most congested urban spaces on the planet (probably taking longer than just walking or riding a bike), polluting and endangering yourself and others, and then have to look and pay for a park at your destination? (parking has never been easy to find in central Paris) like, I'm just at loss, is it the fact that it's healthier and you hate being healthy? that it keeps the air clean and doesn't endanger people, and you prefer everyone pollute and endanger each other instead? have you never taken a walk or breathed fresh air? most people like doing that. is it that it's free and you hate poor people and want to contain them to specific areas they can't exist outside of if they can't afford to drive? enlighten us?
but ok, let's say you travel by car. you then have to be in state databases, subject yourself and your vehicle to fitness requirements, and you will be subject to far more laws and regulations while transporting yourself, including but not limited to speed cameras, breath tests, having appropriate insurance, police stops etc etc. you will also be traveling on state owned roads. is it that you like this degree of state interference in your life, you think it's desirable for the state to invade every aspect of something as simple as how you get around every day?
Of course wood isnt eco friendly, do you think that stuff grows on trees? Its better to take that wood, process it into a pulp, add some industrial solvents, and then turn it into cardboard.
>Of course wood isnt eco friendly, do you think that stuff grows on trees? Its better to take that wood, process it into a pulp, add some industrial solvents, and then turn it into cardboard.
Have you think that they maybe are smart and the good wood is made into planks and the bad parts of the wood and the remains is recycled like that ? Maybe I am wrong and you have information that the people that made the furniture for France are stupid, then show me a credible source.
people like you and the others chiming in to agree with you need to get a grip
trust fools to pile in and go "well akshully the olympics are not environmentally friendly because they fly people in from all over the world" bla bla ok
like no one is dumb enough to think the olympics are environmentally friendly
the point is can the host location inspire and serve as not only a vision but actual demonstrated, already existing, already implemented and smooth running proof that cities can function better and be more environmentally friendly for the actual inhabitants who already live and will continue to live there after the olympics
the Paris olympics were very successful on any metric, including how well they showcased the ability to move hundreds of thousands of people through urban spaces where cars have been relegated to undesired intruder status
Paris has made extremely impressive progress especially for people on foot and bike in a very short amount of time (and they're permanent, not just temporary for the olympics)
this should be well deservedly recognized and celebrated
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
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.
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.
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.
Also those expensive and big opening and closing ceremonies. Why not just do it all with generative AI. Soon no one would even notice difference, just imagine the savings.
Paris and LA were the only two cities who bid for the Olympics in 2017. They got the 2024 and 2028 Olympics respectively. I'm not sure any other city in the US wants to host the Olympics.
I'm not sure there's many cities in the entire world that want to host it at this point...
I mean look at Paris. The city’s residents emptied out.
This is still ok in Europe, especially France, which have a culture of weeks long summer vacations, so it wasn’t as much of a disruption as timing the vacation right.
I’m not sure how well it will work for the residents of LA when US residents have no such limitation.
OTOH, LA is large and broken up enough enough that it may not be very noticeable for the residents as long as they remain in their residential areas.
> I mean look at Paris. The city’s residents emptied out
Some of them did, but lots remained at least for some parts. The venues, fan zones, streets and cafés/bars/restaurants were full with people dressed in French colours.
People in Brazil were convicted for money laundering related to buying votes for Rio 2016. The US refused to submit a bid for the 2020 games because the IOC was demanding more money. Tokyo, which had the strongest 2016 bid according to the IOC grading process, took 2 runoffs to win the bid for 2020 with some pretty shady voting patterns.
So yeah, it’s no surprise that hardly any city wants to bother with the IOC.
Steve Ovett must've been lying or had Covid when he collapsed while running in 1984. And Haile Gebrselassie and Justine Henin withdrawal shows they were just cowards in Beijing 2008?
I was working there off and on in the early 80's - everyone was moaning about it, claiming to have "smog withdrawal" whwn they went off to the San Gabriel mountains at the weekend. Coming from London though, little to complain about here (at least on the air quality side of things).
I can’t believe LA was picked as the spot to showcase on an international level.
LA is the only host in Olympics history to have been selected by default, a feat it has accomplished every single time it has "won" the Olympics. (for the 1932, 1984, and 2028 Olympics, LA was the only bidder).
LA is, paradoxically, the reason that cities/countries go crazy spending money on the Olympics: despite being an undesired host, LA is the only city in Olympics history to have made a profit every time it has hosted. (The profits from the 1984 games are still funding youth sports programs in the LA area today.) This is because LA has such a large athletics scene that only two or three venues needed to be built for the 1932 and 1984 Olympics, and all of these venues remained in use after the Olympics. Almost all of these venues are still around today (except for the 1984 velodrome).
June gloom is not smog.
CA has some of the strictest emission controls since the 90s at least. Electric cars are plentiful. It’s not the 70s any longer.
Now a fire can and does happen occasionally but that is far from a given at any particular time.
> International visitors will be greatly disappointed at how terrible this country’s public transportation infrastructure
The 2026 World Cup will be the first hit. People from all around the world will have to go to stadia in the middle of nowhere in seas of parking lots, without any or any good transit options for getting there. Combine with the very expensive prices of everything, local cultural expectations that will not sit well with everyone (tipping iPads for self-servicing yourself), and I personally think a lot of people will absolutely hate it, which will also cloud the Olympics' perception before they even start.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I can understand how it could have been a good idea at the time. Car ownership had only recently become mainstream and was rapidly growing as the dominant form of transport. Redesigning cities that have historically catered to pedestrians and horses to be ready for the transport of the future was quite forward-thinking, however poorly it turned out.
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.
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.
I was enthusiastically biking 5 miles to work in ski pants and parka and gloves down to about 5 degrees.
I hated driving to work. It was actually colder, because the car is cold, doesn't heat up much, and it's cold walking from car to work.
20 miles would be a bit rough in the extremes... On a regular bike. But an e-bike? E-Bikes basically triple or more your functional range.
But on a bike I was bundled up to a greater degree, and is bike right to the door of my work. I'd be a bit toasty even with the minor amount of exercise.
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.)
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
People don't want to ride public transit in Los Angeles, its not safe. Los Angles wants to anything but crack down on crime and the homeless. A major problem with the LA light rail system is the homeless taking over trains and harassing passengers.
Two months ago, LAPD began doing its job again and patrolling the stations and trains. Early estimates are that property crimes and violent crimes dropped by over 75% in August. It only took a few murders and LA Metro revoking[2] the security contract[1] for LAPD to start doing its job.
Because LAPD and LA Sheriff almost exclusively assigned officers who had already hit their 8/40 for the day/week, almost all of the time on the LA Metro contract was billed at overtime hours. With its own internal police force, LA Metro can actuall field a security force almost 50% larger for the same amount it was paying LAPD/LAS.
[1] In the 1990s, in order to increase the size of the police force, the LA City Council shut down the LA Metro police force and forced LA Metro to contract security out to LAPD and LA Sheriff. Security in the system started worsening immediately, reaching rock bottom earlier this year. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-06-26/editorial-w...
How exactly? On a bus you’re surrounded by people who (more or less) have no way of really hurting you. On a highway the opposite is true, a small mistake by a well meaning fellow driver could mean death. While the incidences of crime sit atop our mind they are drastically infrequent (daily public transit taker here) which is what warrants the wall-to-wall news coverage. Meanwhile “guy on TikTok on the highway, wipes out whole family” barely makes the print edition.
Feels like one of those vibes issues, you feel safe but aren’t safe (statistically)
It's surprising that a city like LA, comparing it to Madrid, has roughly the same number of buses. Specially because Madrid has an incredible subway and commuting train network supporting all this trips.
From what I see, the LA Metro Rail sees 60 million travelers a year, but Madrid subway is over 600 million... [0]
I think people are misinterpreting car free. Car free likely just means more of a park and ride type situation. You hop on a designated bus that will be available at various locations, and that bus will take you to the venue.
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?
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?
111 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 186 ms ] thread>For people who know Los Angeles, this seems overly optimistic
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jarrett Walker over at humantransit has written extensively about this.
https://humantransit.org/2010/02/the-power-and-pleasure-of-g...
And on LA in particular: https://humantransit.org/2010/03/los-angeles-the-transit-met...
Everyone using a taxi cuts on traffic more than everyone driving a car.
Fewer places need to be space wasted with ugly, hot pavement.
Taxis service a need that are not realistically handled by large mode transportation loops.
People who say we need to go car free also acknowledge reality and don’t absolutely need to take things to the extreme to make slippery slope argumentative muddy water.
Why “car free” and not something more in tune with the actual idea? Why “serverless”? Why “lock free data structures”? PATRIOT act? “Truth” social? I mean. The list of obviously ridiculous names that are not true their reality goes on and on and on and on.
In China in 1999, I would take a tuktuk to the subway stop and then often from the subway stop on the other side of my trip. Later on when I lived there from 2007, I didn’t feel like I needed a car since we had subways and taxis, why bother?
Absolutely insane.
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.
EDIT: seems it is available in French, German, Italian, Spanish and Swedish but can't find it in english. That is kind of sad.
Any improvement is welcome, hopefully it won’t regress after Olympics, but wouldn’t be surprised.
thanks for being transparent about not being serious
As much as 1984 is often brought up here, Animal Farm should also be mentioned as a cautionary tale.
> no means of locomotion other than by their own power or that owned by the state
wow, so much edge, what a juicy take! let's analyze it
what exactly is wrong by making short trips that can readily be made on foot or bike on foot or bike? why would it instead be desirable to walk to a parked car, drive through one of the densest, most congested urban spaces on the planet (probably taking longer than just walking or riding a bike), polluting and endangering yourself and others, and then have to look and pay for a park at your destination? (parking has never been easy to find in central Paris) like, I'm just at loss, is it the fact that it's healthier and you hate being healthy? that it keeps the air clean and doesn't endanger people, and you prefer everyone pollute and endanger each other instead? have you never taken a walk or breathed fresh air? most people like doing that. is it that it's free and you hate poor people and want to contain them to specific areas they can't exist outside of if they can't afford to drive? enlighten us?
but ok, let's say you travel by car. you then have to be in state databases, subject yourself and your vehicle to fitness requirements, and you will be subject to far more laws and regulations while transporting yourself, including but not limited to speed cameras, breath tests, having appropriate insurance, police stops etc etc. you will also be traveling on state owned roads. is it that you like this degree of state interference in your life, you think it's desirable for the state to invade every aspect of something as simple as how you get around every day?
Have you think that they maybe are smart and the good wood is made into planks and the bad parts of the wood and the remains is recycled like that ? Maybe I am wrong and you have information that the people that made the furniture for France are stupid, then show me a credible source.
trust fools to pile in and go "well akshully the olympics are not environmentally friendly because they fly people in from all over the world" bla bla ok
like no one is dumb enough to think the olympics are environmentally friendly
the point is can the host location inspire and serve as not only a vision but actual demonstrated, already existing, already implemented and smooth running proof that cities can function better and be more environmentally friendly for the actual inhabitants who already live and will continue to live there after the olympics
the Paris olympics were very successful on any metric, including how well they showcased the ability to move hundreds of thousands of people through urban spaces where cars have been relegated to undesired intruder status
Paris has made extremely impressive progress especially for people on foot and bike in a very short amount of time (and they're permanent, not just temporary for the olympics)
this should be well deservedly recognized and celebrated
Tbh considering the heat waves the lack of a/c can be considered a health hazard...
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
All this would save lot on very many things, both in emissions and in costs.
It’s because they’ve done it relatively recently and efficiently, and no other city wants the hassle.
They have the 2028 slot because Boston pulled out, after half the city’s politicians revolted against the idea
I'm not sure there's many cities in the entire world that want to host it at this point...
This is still ok in Europe, especially France, which have a culture of weeks long summer vacations, so it wasn’t as much of a disruption as timing the vacation right.
I’m not sure how well it will work for the residents of LA when US residents have no such limitation.
OTOH, LA is large and broken up enough enough that it may not be very noticeable for the residents as long as they remain in their residential areas.
Some of them did, but lots remained at least for some parts. The venues, fan zones, streets and cafés/bars/restaurants were full with people dressed in French colours.
So yeah, it’s no surprise that hardly any city wants to bother with the IOC.
That was the concern in 1984. I believe the air quality in 1984 generally was far worse, and the Olympics did fine.
LA is the only host in Olympics history to have been selected by default, a feat it has accomplished every single time it has "won" the Olympics. (for the 1932, 1984, and 2028 Olympics, LA was the only bidder).
LA is, paradoxically, the reason that cities/countries go crazy spending money on the Olympics: despite being an undesired host, LA is the only city in Olympics history to have made a profit every time it has hosted. (The profits from the 1984 games are still funding youth sports programs in the LA area today.) This is because LA has such a large athletics scene that only two or three venues needed to be built for the 1932 and 1984 Olympics, and all of these venues remained in use after the Olympics. Almost all of these venues are still around today (except for the 1984 velodrome).
June gloom is not smog. CA has some of the strictest emission controls since the 90s at least. Electric cars are plentiful. It’s not the 70s any longer.
Now a fire can and does happen occasionally but that is far from a given at any particular time.
The 2026 World Cup will be the first hit. People from all around the world will have to go to stadia in the middle of nowhere in seas of parking lots, without any or any good transit options for getting there. Combine with the very expensive prices of everything, local cultural expectations that will not sit well with everyone (tipping iPads for self-servicing yourself), and I personally think a lot of people will absolutely hate it, which will also cloud the Olympics' perception before they even start.
What killed the streetcars (car-company conspiracy, or simple economics) is disputed, but makes for good reading.
The only people who think that's okay are those who haven't experienced what a proper bus system looks like.
Cars would be far less of a problem if that was still the case.
It's called "Metropol-Region Hamburg" (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolregion_Hamburg), it's not just the city itself.
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.
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.
I was enthusiastically biking 5 miles to work in ski pants and parka and gloves down to about 5 degrees.
I hated driving to work. It was actually colder, because the car is cold, doesn't heat up much, and it's cold walking from car to work.
20 miles would be a bit rough in the extremes... On a regular bike. But an e-bike? E-Bikes basically triple or more your functional range.
But on a bike I was bundled up to a greater degree, and is bike right to the door of my work. I'd be a bit toasty even with the minor amount of exercise.
Incidentally Oulu, Finland is cold and has great winter cycling
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-...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2024-05-28/old...
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.
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/a-timeline-of-violen...
Because LAPD and LA Sheriff almost exclusively assigned officers who had already hit their 8/40 for the day/week, almost all of the time on the LA Metro contract was billed at overtime hours. With its own internal police force, LA Metro can actuall field a security force almost 50% larger for the same amount it was paying LAPD/LAS.
[1] In the 1990s, in order to increase the size of the police force, the LA City Council shut down the LA Metro police force and forced LA Metro to contract security out to LAPD and LA Sheriff. Security in the system started worsening immediately, reaching rock bottom earlier this year. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-06-26/editorial-w...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-27/metro-ok...
looks like cars aren't safe either in LA, and that's not counting accidents
Feels like one of those vibes issues, you feel safe but aren’t safe (statistically)
From what I see, the LA Metro Rail sees 60 million travelers a year, but Madrid subway is over 600 million... [0]
(Half jokingly: people can't use public transport if there isn't any...)
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.
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-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?