LA Public Transport Nightmare

[secretasianman]

As someone who grew up in LA and has a distinctly negative and biased view of LA's "car culture" and "suburban sprawl"...I'm just curious about a few things...

Is there any plan whatsoever to connect the area near "The Grove" in West Hollywood, Sunset Boulevard, the Beverly Center, Westwood Village, and 3rd Street Promenada (Santa Monica) with a conhesive public transportation system?

I just find it so ridiculous that you have a subway that stops in the middle of the city, not connecting any of West Los Angeles.

How AMAZING would it be if the 'hot spots' of LA (e.g. West Hollywood, Sunset, Beverly Center, Westwood Village, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica Beach) could all be hooked into one conherent subway a la New York?

Sigh. The city has so much potential, but it's pissed away in gridlock and limitless mind numbing sprawl.

[savvysearch]

As someone who grew up in LA and has a distinctly negative and biased view of LA's "car culture" and "suburban sprawl"...I'm just curious about a few things...

Is there any plan whatsoever to connect the area near "The Grove" in West Hollywood, Sunset Boulevard, the Beverly Center, Westwood Village, and 3rd Street Promenada (Santa Monica) with a conhesive public transportation system?

I just find it so ridiculous that you have a subway that stops in the middle of the city, not connecting any of West Los Angeles.

How AMAZING would it be if the 'hot spots' of LA (e.g. West Hollywood, Sunset, Beverly Center, Westwood Village, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica Beach) could all be hooked into one conherent subway a la New York?

Sigh. The city has so much potential, but it's pissed away in gridlock and limitless mind numbing sprawl.


Actually yes! They are already preparing to build it. Added, it will also connect to the airport and downtown as well and will cost around 9 billion. But it is a rail system which is much better, not a subway.

[Imperfect Ending]

thats not fun

[secretasianman]

Actually yes! They are already preparing to build it. Added, it will also connect to the airport and downtown as well and will cost around 9 billion. But it is a rail system which is much better, not a subway.

Is this the Expo Light Rail System they've been talking about?

Now that looks like a project that could be cool - going from downtown LA with stops at USC, Culver City, Westwood (I hope), Santa Monica, all the way to the beach.

But I heard it's not going to be ready until AT LEAST 2012. :sleepy:

Also, I don't think Sunset Blvd., Beverly Hills, The Grove, or the Beverly Center will be hooked to it at all.

[savvysearch]

You think waiting until the next Olympics is long?! Anyway, why would you want it to connect to Beverly Center and The Grove? Those are just basically shopping malls. Rail should connect to places that have potential to be an active streetscape. The Grove and Beverly Center want nothing to do with the street. They are projects that turn people away from experiencing the city, and I wouldn't mind in LA metro pretended those places didn't exist.

[SChristopher]

Yeah I am totally in agree ment with you...I lived in LA at one time with no car and it was impossible to LIVE! You couldnt get anywahere with public transport! La itself is a big gourgeous city but over - run by constant glorification of its "freeway". They need more transport and I think it will become more and more important as the times go on...especially if they expect to accomodate all the hispanic immigrants...they prolly cant afford cars as much as a starving artist...we all deserve the righ tto get around and in that respect LA is a city built on the person that can afford a car and thats how they segregate certain neighborhoods as well....

[SChristopher]

That is another thing WTF is a beach city with no public transport to its beach aside from shitty dirty metro buses and big blue buses which require transfer BOOO I SAY!! BOOO!!! And in 2012...we will all be a god damned 8 years older....which may not be much for some but in 8 years I dont want to be seen at a beach .. I will be in hiding...and prolly have a car...LOL...

[secretasianman]

To be honest, I've given up hope on LA. Even the EXPO to the beach is not guaranteed. Forget about connecting anything beyond Santa Monica as well. All the beach communities south of Santa Monica will be off the grid.

I still love our subway that stops in the middle of Wilshire though. That's classic LA urban design. Do something with potential, then cripple it so badly that it's hardly usable at all.

I once took a drive out to the fringes of suburban development, and it was a sight as apocalyptic as any I've ever seen. Houses upon houses of the same design being built next to strip malls with the exact same stores, sprawling out as far as the eye can see.

[savvysearch]

I think you guys are a little dramatic and being a little self centered. 8 years is nothing. It just speaks of these times of entitlement that we want something done immediately and think that 8 years is too long. Not to mention new projects are alway popping up and construction is already on a few of the existing projects. To most people, that's reasonable. If you think that LA is just resting on its laurels and doing nothing about public transit, that's wrong. It might not be fast enough for you, but its pretty fast for a city.

As far as surburban sprawl, I think every city is going to look like that. And contrary to popular belief, it's actually worse in "city" areas like Metropolitan tri-state area. Only LA will turn out to have the better deal because of its multicenteredness, so it balances private spaces with public spaces. But the truth is that someone's apocolypse is another's paradise. Most people would rather live in a public-space deficient suburb and consider living in a private space-deficient city hell.

Just curious, do you think high towers and towers of of the same concrete building reaching up to the sky immersed in light pollution 24/7 is beautiful with people living on top of one another? When I see a new tower, I think its a disgusting phallic symbol of American power stripping away any type of human individuality. There are many versions of the Apocalypse, but LA represents more individual freedom, than those old notions of what a city is supposed to look like.

This is not a criticism, but I think we are so warped by the media and movies about what is the proper way a city should be, but truth is, people in the surburbs are happier than those who live in an urban area. Once you hit 30, its seems everyone runs away to the suburbs.

[secretasianman]

Well you're entitled to your opinion, but I would strongly disagree that people are happier in suburbs than cities. Recently, there was a medical report released citing the devastating and staggering health costs of "suburban living." Let's face it. People who live in the suburbs and commute to work DO NOT walk as much as people living in concentrated urban environments where public transport is regularly used. I don't want to get into an argument about American obesity, but I think it's obvious that this is a health problem of epidemic proportions.

Second, multi-centered design is fine. However, not connecting those multi-centered areas (and even worse, re-creating the same suburban nightmare that I see across the Southland) through an efficient public transport system that works is just stupid. But keep in mind, I hate the "car culture" of Los Angeles and actually "enjoy" strolling to work/school/etc in cities such as Barcelona, Madrid, and Paris. Some people prefer to jump in their cars and stay on the highway for 2 hours a day listening to the radio. A matter of preferences I guess.

Finally, I'm actually not a big fan of huge skyscrapers. But I do like a lot of the cities of Europe and find them beautiful, a joy to live in, and just "better" (for me) than the U.S. Again, I agree with you. My "apocalyptic" vision of the U.S. / Southland may be another man's paradise.

[savvysearch]

I just want to add that the study has its detractors. THere are other studies that show its healthier to live in the suburban areas where there is less stress and better air. There is very good reason why cities have a reputation as being full of rude people. It's not that they are actually rude in life, but the city does that to people who are unhappy.

Just some of my musings, the criticisms that's always being made about los angeles transportation I always find to be jumping the gun. The rail system in Los Angeles is brand new and the idea that there should immediately be a complete rail system within a couple years is just an impossible notion that is just not based in reality. It's just not taking into account that the whole rail system of Los Angeles is less than 10 years old and still expanding.

The truth is that as immigration continues and demographics change, more centers are always establishing itself. And the rail system has to evolve to meet these new multicenters rather than build one complete extension system and realise that some of the lines are not being used. The LA rail system is not seen in perspective as it should be, which is that the rail is a brand new concept that is a work in progress.




.

[GetOnDaTrain]

I just want to add that the study has its detractors. THere are other studies that show its healthier to live in the suburban areas where there is less stress and better air. There is very good reason why cities have a reputation as being full of rude people. It's not that they are actually rude in life, but the city does that to people who are unhappy. .

How are you going to have less stress if suburbian 9 to 5 ers just do nothing both jump in their cars for commuting 20 hours a week? That is not less stress. The damn gridlock causes more stress from honking horns to stop and go nonstop. Studies show that even suburbian car commuters can be rude. Those who suffer traffic stress are more likely to have a negative day at work, talk bad about each others co-workers and come home pissed off at their spouse and kids for no apparent reason. They also do run errands an average of 10 got-damn times a day, like they need the same househould stuff that runs the f--k out all the time.

Shit I'd rather live closer to the city core and take transit, drive or walk to work and be a more healthier person doing all three.

[secretasianman]

I'm with ya brother. :)

[savvysearch]

Well, first of all, you can live in the suburbs and take public transit. In fact, most people who take public transit are from the suburbs and NOT from the city core. Public transit is not exclusive to urbanites. Too bad it doesn't work the other way around. Most people who live in a busy city do not own cars for lack of parking. Second of all, the average commute time in California for suburbanites is 28 minutes by car. That's hardly spending 20 hours each week on the road, that's driving from Camp Pendelton to LA, which there are not many people who would live and travel to that extent.

Househould errands? I'm pretty sure even those who live in your average cramped city closet do have to buy toilet paper. Except driving to the supermarket is a lot less time consuming than talking public transit. Not to mention that when you do go to the supermarket with a car, you have the luxury of buying in bulk, whereas an urbanite would make sure to buy only a couple bags full that he could literally carry by hand, if they DO cook. Usually, it is impractically for them and that's why you see them always doing the horrible human habit of eating out. As far as kids, suburbanites have the luxury of having kids as many urbanites would find it crazy to raise their kids in the city.

There is a reason why the trend is that when you get older, you move from the city to the suburbs . It is unheard of the other way around that someone over 30 would move from the suburbs to the city.

[secretasianman]

Well I've lived in LA for 20+ years and commute on average 2 hours per day (1 hour in the morning; 1 hour in the evening). I know plenty of people who do double that easily and they *hate* it.

And where exactly "in the city" do you expect suburbanites to move to in Los Angeles? Downtown LA? Now that's a big joke. The reason suburbanites don't live in the city is because "the city" of Los Angeles is a dump for pedestrians! I know, because I grew up down there.

You can defend suburbs to your last dying breath, but for a lot of people, it epitomizes the soulless sterile existence that so many Americans wish they could flee from.

If hopping into your car, driving *everywhere*, and having a blockbuster night while living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath home with the nice lawn is your idea of paradise, then by all means enjoy it! For me, it's everything that I found *wrong* with Southern California. MY OPINION.

[savvysearch]

Well you can believe what you want, but I'm confident that MOST of the US would disagree would you. Having a big house and backyard is so easily the most coveted experience that it's even a cliche called "the American Dream." A prison cell 20 stories in the air is never included in that. Otherwise, every single state would have a dense urban center if people really wanted it. You are right in that currently, downtown LA is not a place where most people want to go. That proves my point. Downtown LA was actually a happening place in the 40s. And what happened? THEY LEFT. Where did they go? THE SUBURBS.

[secretasianman]

Then I'm glad I'm not like most Americans. I consider that a GOOD thing! :)

Enjoy life in the burbs mate!

[Imperial Teen]

Well, first of all, you can live in the suburbs and take public transit. In fact, most people who take public transit are from the suburbs and NOT from the city core. Public transit is not exclusive to urbanites. Too bad it doesn't work the other way around. Most people who live in a busy city do not own cars for lack of parking. Second of all, the average commute time in California for suburbanites is 28 minutes by car. That's hardly spending 20 hours each week on the road, that's driving from Camp Pendelton to LA, which there are not many people who would live and travel to that extent.

Househould errands? I'm pretty sure even those who live in your average cramped city closet do have to buy toilet paper. Except driving to the supermarket is a lot less time consuming than talking public transit. Not to mention that when you do go to the supermarket with a car, you have the luxury of buying in bulk, whereas an urbanite would make sure to buy only a couple bags full that he could literally carry by hand, if they DO cook. Usually, it is impractically for them and that's why you see them always doing the horrible human habit of eating out. As far as kids, suburbanites have the luxury of having kids as many urbanites would find it crazy to raise their kids in the city.

There is a reason why the trend is that when you get older, you move from the city to the suburbs . It is unheard of the other way around that someone over 30 would move from the suburbs to the city.


Unheard of? You gotta be from suburban so cal. So many "empty nesters" move back into the city to live in a "prison" 20 floors off the ground, because quality of life is so much superior in the city than the suburbs. Yuppie people typically have kids around 30 and there is this self-perpetuating pervasive belief that kids have to be raised in the suburbs amongst a certain socio-economic segment of society. But once the kids are gone, the parents are dying to get out of that boring subdivision. You so have to be born in so cal, therefore, you have probably never seen or conceived of a cornerstore. In any decent residential downtown or urban neighborhood, you shouldn't have to walk more than 10 minutes to get to a mid-sized grocery store. Some skyscrapers have grocery stores in them. Where I lived in Chicago there were 5 markets within 5 minutes (including one full-sized grocery store). And you don't need to carry everything by hand, there are carts for that, baskets on wheels. Plus in most extremely dense areas the grocery stores deliver.

Having lived in a skyscraper in a hustling and bustling downtown, there are infinitely more things readily available than in a suburb. To me suburbs are depressing and oppressive. And some people with the option to live in the suburbs or the city do raise their kids in the city or in the skyscrapers.

Plus even in what you probably consider as "ultra-urban", Los Angeles, I have so many friends and aquaintances who raise their kids in LA. In fact, I don't even have a friend over 30 who lives in the suburbs and I have plenty of 30+aged friends, in SF, NY, Chicago, and LA.

[SChristopher]

I grew up in a suburb 'Calabasas' for 'good schools' which is just a myth. Suburbs are surreal and disconnected in many cases, mind numbing, and sad, and polluting, and draining. There are many houses with inner cities that are acceptable even if you dont wish to live in an apartment buildings....but people with horns up their ass want to get as far away as possible like Ventura County, to be among wasps like themselves.

[savvysearch]

I hope you are not saying that public schools in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles are better than schools in surburban counties in say, Orange County and New Jersey. That is false. It's true at the University level, because young kids want see what living in a big city is like.
With any city across the country, it is a general rule that the suburbs around the urban city always have the better schools.

[savvysearch]

Unheard of? You gotta be from suburban so cal. So many "empty nesters" move back into the city to live in a "prison" 20 floors off the ground, because quality of life is so much superior in the city than the suburbs. Yuppie people typically have kids around 30 and there is this self-perpetuating pervasive belief that kids have to be raised in the suburbs amongst a certain socio-economic segment of society. But once the kids are gone, the parents are dying to get out of that boring subdivision. You so have to be born in so cal, therefore, you have probably never seen or conceived of a cornerstore. In any decent residential downtown or urban neighborhood, you shouldn't have to walk more than 10 minutes to get to a mid-sized grocery store. Some skyscrapers have grocery stores in them. Where I lived in Chicago there were 5 markets within 5 minutes (including one full-sized grocery store). And you don't need to carry everything by hand, there are carts for that, baskets on wheels. Plus in most extremely dense areas the grocery stores deliver.

Having lived in a skyscraper in a hustling and bustling downtown, there are infinitely more things readily available than in a suburb. To me suburbs are depressing and oppressive. And some people with the option to live in the suburbs or the city do raise their kids in the city or in the skyscrapers.

Plus even in what you probably consider as "ultra-urban", Los Angeles, I have so many friends and aquaintances who raise their kids in LA. In fact, I don't even have a friend over 30 who lives in the suburbs and I have plenty of 30+aged friends, in SF, NY, Chicago, and LA.

I lived in San Francisco, and believe me, it took longer than 10 minutes to get to the grocery store and you can't afford to keep getting things delivered. Yes, there are carts and they are limiting and small in order for the carts to be flexible when you aren't at the grocery store (if you plan to walk around the city with a cart). So most people don't carry a cart on hand as its inconvienent. You don't have any friends over 30 in the suburbs. I don't know why you said that. Are you saying there are more 30+ year olds living in the city than in the suburbs? No. Of course there are 30+ year olds living in the city. Is that the generally rule that after their spawn leaves the nest, the parents move back to the city? No. They stay in the suburbs.

The truth is that no matter know many cafes, restaurants and bookstores are in a city, the city becomes an empty lifestyle when people decide to grow up and figure out that there are more important things in their lives then being around a trendy store and crowds that look like they are all members of The Strokes. The city is actually perfect for young adults for that reason, though. It has the clubs, bars, restaurants, trendy stores and advertisements coming at you at every corner 24 hours. And it basically becomes an restless urban malaise nightmare when you eventually grow out of it an realize how empty that is.

[SChristopher]

I lived in San Francisco, and believe me, it took longer than 10 minutes to get to the grocery store and you can't afford to keep getting things delivered. Yes, there are carts and they are limiting and small in order for the carts to be flexible when you aren't at the grocery store (if you plan to walk around the city with a cart). So most people don't carry a cart on hand as its inconvienent. You don't have any friends over 30 in the suburbs. I don't know why you said that. Are you saying there are more 30+ year olds living in the city than in the suburbs? No. Of course there are 30+ year olds living in the city. Is that the generally rule that after their spawn leaves the nest, the parents move back to the city? No. They stay in the suburbs.

The truth is that no matter know many cafes, restaurants and bookstores are in a city, the city becomes an empty lifestyle when people decide to grow up and figure out that there are more important things in their lives then being around a trendy store and crowds that look like they are all members of The Strokes. The city is actually perfect for young adults for that reason, though. It has the clubs, bars, restaurants, trendy stores and advertisements coming at you at every corner 24 hours. And it basically becomes an restless urban malaise nightmare when you eventually grow out of it an realize how empty that is.


LOL that fake trendy bs for cities mostly pertains to LA sadly. Alot of cities like Seattle are simalar. But people in new york chicago hell even new orleans miami indianapolis etc etc are mostly normal people. Everyone is not the same though some people like mowing a lawn, next to a lawn that looks just like it, next to a house kinda like yours but maybe flipped at a 90 degree angle. it all depends on which suburb what your life is like and where you go. I think it would be a restless empty existance if I lived in Calabasas like my dad and had to drive downtown everyday in stopped madness of wavy hot air meeting 1000's of cars exhausts traffic. Only to get off work and do it again...and on the weekend not having spare time because I have to mow my lawn, and perhaps wash all the pollution dust off my car BLEH...I could go on but to each their own.

[Imperial Teen]

I guess we will just have to chalk it up to different perspectives and different values. To me what you state is blatantly false and I can't seem to get you to agree with me.
No big deal

[Imperial Teen]

I hope you are not saying that public schools in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles are better than schools in surburban counties in say, Orange County and New Jersey. That is false. It's true at the University level, because young kids want see what living in a big city is like.
With any city across the country, it is a general rule that the suburbs around the urban city always have the better schools.


I bet if you normalized it for socioeconomics city schools are as good or better (due to the rich and diverse environment).

[savvysearch]

No, sadly it's not exclusive to LA. Have you been to NYC? If you've been there you'd think differently. If you ever go, you'll notice walking in Manhattan, atleast 1 out of every 5 kids emulates "The Strokes." They have the Adidas track jacket, purposefully unkempt hair and Diesel denim with the Puma sneakers. With the women, its Louis Vuitton handbags and the ubiquitous Monolos. Otherwise, It wouldnt be the shopping capital of the US. It's hipster trendy trying-not-to-look-trendy wannabe. Don't even get me started on the Hamptons crowd.

In Miami, it is different. It's skimpy clothes, tube tops. Anything that's revealing. But luckily for south Floridians, downtown Miami is very small. Not to say everyone shouldn't want to dress well. But the trend following in urbanized cities is ubiquitous.

[savvysearch]

With Chicago, they are actually not so fashion conscious from what I know of. It being the midwest. so not having exactly the best shopping. It's more of a 1 hour airport stop for me flying being LA and New York so not too aware of that place.

[qwerty1324]

Downtown LA is about equal to downtown Kansas City in residential construction.

[SChristopher]

With Chicago, they are actually not so fashion conscious from what I know of. It being the midwest. so not having exactly the best shopping. It's more of a 1 hour airport stop for me flying being LA and New York so not too aware of that place.

Are you joking me...I suggest you take a look at the loop's shopping dude. But the people arent as chauvanistic...and for every trendy person in NYC there is someone that is pushing the edge or someone who just doesnt care or is in some bland IRS suit. And your attitude that you just expressed in "It's more of a 1 hour airport stop for me flying being LA and New York so not too aware of that place." is exactly the attitude of many LA-ers...LA and NY is america and thats that. On top of that you say that you dont like the trendyness and then downgrade Chicago for its shopping you say it doesnt have which it most certainly does.

[Imperial Teen]

With Chicago, they are actually not so fashion conscious from what I know of. It being the midwest. so not having exactly the best shopping. It's more of a 1 hour airport stop for me flying being LA and New York so not too aware of that place.


It has more shops than you could ever want and is virtually identical to NY and LA in terms of high-end shopping. Please name five stores you frequent that are in NY and LA that aren't in Chicago. However, even if your shopping is taken care of in the suburbs of LA, you should at least stop by Chicago to see some of the finest architecture, museums and music in the country. And if you had any sense at all you would just fly non-stop to NY and not be so stupid as to have lay-overs when they are not at all necessary.

[savvysearch]

Non stop flight? Really? Why, who such things existed?!! :|
Believe me, when its AVAILABLE and convienent at the day and time I want, I always take the non-stop flight.

[SChristopher]

Non stop flight? Really? Why, who such things existed?!! :|
Believe me, when its AVAILABLE and convienent at the day and time I want, I always take the non-stop flight.

Yeah you probably do, you just wanted to make a trite stab at Chicago by calling it just another layover in the middle of america.

[Rivernorth]

With Chicago, they are actually not so fashion conscious from what I know of. It being the midwest. so not having exactly the best shopping. It's more of a 1 hour airport stop for me flying being LA and New York so not too aware of that place.

North Michigan Avenue is the wealthiest commercial shopping district in the US outside New York City. It is behind only 5th Avenue, East 57th Street, and Madison Avenue in New York. Rodeo Drive in LA, is 6th (behind Union Sq in SF). East Oak Street, in Chicago, also comes in at 7th. No other street in LA comes in the top 10.


SOURCE: http://www.globest.com/news/56_56/newyork/123722-1.html
or if not a suscriber, the article is posted at skyscraperpage.com here:
http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=46464&highlight=retail+rent+costs+Michigan+Avenue+Chicago

Not to mention State Street, a pioneer in classic department store shopping. I seriously suggest you step off your high horse here. Chicago has been larger than LA for over 150 years before the 1970s. Thirty years of being 3rd isnt going to reduce Chicago to the Inland Empire ;)

[savvysearch]

North Michigan Avenue is the wealthiest commercial shopping district in the US outside New York City. It is behind only 5th Avenue, East 57th Street, and Madison Avenue in New York. Rodeo Drive in LA, is 6th (behind Union Sq in SF). East Oak Street, in Chicago, also comes in at 7th. No other street in LA comes in the top 10.


SOURCE: http://www.globest.com/news/56_56/newyork/123722-1.html
or if not a suscriber, the article is posted at skyscraperpage.com here:
http://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=46464&highlight=retail+rent+costs+Michigan+Avenue+Chicago

Not to mention State Street, a pioneer in classic department store shopping. I seriously suggest you step off your high horse here. Chicago has been larger than LA for over 150 years before the 1970s. Thirty years of being 3rd isnt going to reduce Chicago to the Inland Empire ;)


What are you talking about? That ranking is by rental space. Not exclusivity of shops. If we are getting into high end shopping, I suggest you go to a magazine rack one day and open up a Vanity Fair, Vogue, GQ or other fashion magazine. You'll notice that Chicago is rarely mentioned under a high fashion ad's location. Actually, I think Las Vegas and San Francisco get mentioned the same if not more than Chicago.

[qwerty1324]

How can downtown LA have good shopping when downtown residential construction, as I pointed out before, is on par with downtown Kansas City?

[SChristopher]

LOL well if we counted the whole population of Illinois itd prolly be on par with your land area and population =)

[savvysearch]

How can downtown LA have good shopping when downtown residential construction, as I pointed out before, is on par with downtown Kansas City?

In LA, high end shopping is in the west side past Hollywood, not in downtown which is east side.

[qwerty1324]

^Fair enough.

[ChrisLA]

Downtown LA still have quite a bit of shopping, yes its true that people still flock there on Saturdays to shop. Ever heard of the Fashion District, Broadway Avenue, 7th Street still has Macy's Plaza, and 7th & Fig where is geared towards more middle-class shoppers. But mostly the Fashion District and Broadway draws 10's of thousands on a Saturday, its quite vibrant.

[findo102000]

With Chicago, they are actually not so fashion conscious from what I know of. It being the midwest. so not having exactly the best shopping. It's more of a 1 hour airport stop for me flying being LA and New York so not too aware of that place.


ha! we do have good shopping. walmart!!

[SChristopher]

the fashion district and broadway is not 'retail' it is wholesale there is a difference and it is comaparble to a peddlers mall of a 3rd world country, but yet it is unique which makes it cool. But You wouldnt catch me buying things there...as I have been many times in states of boredom downtown and it is alot of fabric and fake louis vouitton and while vibrant it is mainly comprised of people that make their own clothes or that can only afford the pawnshop qualities of the cheap electronics stores on Broadway.

[ChrisLA]

^
Well I wouldn't go that far and say Broadway is 3rd world, but no its not Rodeo Drive either.

I would agree that the alley in the Fashion District is rather tackly with all of its fake name brands. I normally don't buy anything from the alley, but I did purchased a belt for $5 a 3-4 years ago. Its still holding up rather well, not bad for such a cheap price.

So you wouldn't even purchase a suit down on Los Angeles street? I've purchased an Italian suit in the Fashion District before and looked at several others. Yes it was cheaper than a nice suit at a department store, but it wasn't pawnshop prices either. Usually the $199 special at Macy's isn't my taste (they look too cheap) and I can't afford a $1200 suit I like. Personally I can find something down on Los Angeles street where a lot of the decent quality formal men's clothing stores are for about $350-400 range.

[SChristopher]

Super :)

[LtBk]

A little OT but how did Southern California "car" culture got so popular in first place? And why is LA metro area nothing but huge, endless suburbs with numerous look like houses and strip malls? I heard LA is birthplace of strip mall.

[Wellington]

A little OT but how did Southern California "car" culture got so popular in first place? And why is LA metro area nothing but huge, endless suburbs with numerous look like houses and strip malls? I heard LA is birthplace of strip mall.

If you look at the old Pacific Electric maps, you see everything is in place. The sprawl started with the trains, which were private and generally unprofitable (especially the ones going out to the suburbs, the red cars), linked to land development along the rail line, which was profitable. After they made the money on the land development, the trains were left to slowly decay and the city did not step in to make them public. This happened in a lot of cities around the US too.

As for the strip malls, LA claims to be the birthplace of a lot of things, many of which, including the strip mall, I am not sure is readily verifiable. But there are a lot of strip malls here.

[secretasianman]

Strip malls have to be the ugliest things this side of the Rockies. I actually attempted to use the bus system the other day and it was a piece of garbage. Took me 1 hour to travel to somewhere that would have taken me 1 hour to walk to. Ridiculous. There were a group of Europeans on the bus who couldn't believe how bad the public transport was.
:eek2:

[goonsta]

Hahahaha. I'm mad as hell they consider a look played out by the Hip Hop Generation in the 80's as "The Strokes" look. Damn.

And far as Hip Hop fashions, LA falls behind. Black people should not still be sporting Jheri Curls.

Chicago has the flossy Pimp market. You can buy suits in as many colors as skittles on State Street.

Don't start with this American dream bullshit. Half the reason suburbs exist is because of racism. Fuck it, as long as downtown has a TJ Maxx, I'm good.

[savvysearch]

Don't start with this American dream bullshit. Half the reason suburbs exist is because of racism. Fuck it, as long as downtown has a TJ Maxx, I'm good.

:weird:

[Wellington]

Strip malls have to be the ugliest things this side of the Rockies. I actually attempted to use the bus system the other day and it was a piece of garbage. Took me 1 hour to travel to somewhere that would have taken me 1 hour to walk to. Ridiculous. There were a group of Europeans on the bus who couldn't believe how bad the public transport was.
:eek2:

Where do you live? People walk between 3-4 mph, 4mph being a "brisk" pace.

[GetOnDaTrain]

And far as Hip Hop fashions, LA falls behind. Black people should not still be sporting Jheri Curls.

Chicago has the flossy Pimp market. You can buy suits in as many colors as skittles on State Street.

Yes, they should still wear Jheri Curls any way they want. :bleh: If not, they can just cut their hair all off ala Dr. Dre. I suppose the fashion status should be updated instead of the same damn NWA shirts and pants.

Next time I go to Chi-Town, I am going to buy me a pimpin' suit and add it to my wardrobe collection. Makes me wonder where R Kelly probably bought his red suit for one music video for steppin. :rant:

[texasboy]

Does anybody have pics of L.A.'s rail system?

[goonsta]

Here's some I took

Imperial/Rosa Parks Station

http://www.pbase.com/image/28913425.jpg

Near DT Long Beach, my fav part of the LA area. It runs in a median strip in a ROW.

http://www.pbase.com/image/28913443.jpg

Its not as bad as everyone says, its just a lot of major attractions and streets are only served by buses, which still have to contend with traffic. The most notable being the amount of locations of interest off Wilshire Blvd.

[Skyblade]

Here's a few shots of Metrolink, the commuter train system that serves Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernadino and parts of Ventura and San Diego Counties. Since my mom is afraid of driving "down below" to LA and its traffic, we usually take Metrolink to LA and connect at Union Station to wherever we're going.

http://www.thevine.net/~mapmaker/railroads/217n_palmdale_jct.jpg

http://www.metrosilverline.com/Metrolink.jpg

http://www.chaffeeyiu.com/labus/metrolink-800.jpg

Metro Blue Line

http://www.chaffeeyiu.com/labus/mta-100-blue.jpg

Metro Green Line

http://www.chaffeeyiu.com/labus/mta-green.jpg

Most of the photos were done byChaffee Yiu (http://chaffeeyiu.com). :)

[savvysearch]

Does anybody have pics of L.A.'s rail system?

Subway Metro

http://photos2.worldisround.com/photos/0/575/233.jpg

http://photos2.worldisround.com/photos/0/575/243.jpg

http://photos2.worldisround.com/photos/0/575/247.jpg

[GetOnDaTrain]

What are the new future Metro Rapid buses, with 100 passenger capacity, supposed to look like as opposed to the current 40 foot buses?

[SChristopher]

LOL where do you live goonsta...just wondering because your TJ maxx comment...I noticed alot of cities have them ala Cincy, Indy, Minneapolis (I think) etc.

[goonsta]

Every city has them.

I live in Evanston, IL

LA (or NY) can front like its this mecca of fashion all they want to, pimping and primping clothes in magazines to show them off to the rest of the working class world. This "fuck you fashion" has always amazed me as to how its so talked about, so sought over, but seen as much as Stevie Wonder at an art gallery.

Meanwhile, LA's true fashion consists of Chuck Taylors, plaid buttonups and LA Lakers Jerseys. Tell me I'm lying!

Matter of fact, I think downtown LA's shopping compares to Chicago as I can buy a six pack of imitation Wilson Socks for a dollar! Vogue that!

[goonsta]

Di Di Di Di Duh Duh TJ Maxx

[Palal]

Well...LA's Red line is AWESOME! The stations are really beautiful, perhaps the most beautiful in the US. The trains are average.

http://metro.net/riding_metro/metro_rail/images/rail_map.gif

The newly-opened Gold Line (Downtown - Pasadena) and the Green Line (Redondo Beach - Norwalk with an LAX connection) have really nice Sacramento-built Siemens cars.

The Blue line has good cars, but their blue interiors are really depressing. Also, the Blue line passes through some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the US. Last time I was there (in March) I took the train from LAX (shuttle to Aviation Blvd. Sta. to Green Line) then transferred to the Blue line at Wilmington/Imperial (see goonsta's pic below). Well, as I was coming down the stairs pictured in that picture, I saw a whole bunch of LA Sheriffs walking around. Turns out someone's been shot. This shut the line down for half an hour. Apparently it's not too uncommon for this to happen as one of the sheriffs has told me later.

I have a few pics from that trip (including what I talked about above). I'll post 'em if anyone's interested. Overall, however, my experience with LA's system was pretty good.




The original plan was to construct 10 subway lines to go everywhere. However, all of that money was "spent" (who knows whose pockets it ended up in) on the one subway line that is currently in operation.

LA also has Metrolink, a suburbain train, which serves many cities all around the area.



BTW. What's the total population, including the inland empire? It has to be more than 12 mil.

[SChristopher]

Di Di Di Di Duh Duh TJ Maxx

Damn, I always thought it was TEE TA TA TEE TA TA TJ MAXX

[Wu-Gambino]

Is LA ever going to extend the system into Orange County, like the METRA system in Chicago?

Also, how about a Dodger Stadium stop?

[SChristopher]

it doesnt do the airport either does it?

[ChrisLA]

Is LA ever going to extend the system into Orange County, like the METRA system in Chicago?

Also, how about a Dodger Stadium stop?

LA already serves Orange County like the METRA, its called the METROLINK commuter rail. One has to realize that the MTA light rail and subway primarily service the city and a few edge cities and suburban communities. Metrolink is the commuter rail and is much more costly and covers many suburban cities in the metro. All but one of the route terminate in downtown LA. There is one line that runs from one suburban community (Inland Empire-Orange County) to another.

[klaus]

More L.A. subways?


Councilman wants to reopen doors in transit debate



By Lisa Mascaro
Staff Writer



With the population booming and freeway gridlock at a "crisis stage," one Los Angeles politician says the time has come for Los Angeles County residents to reconsider the ban on building new subways, and some others agree with him.

City Councilman Tom LaBonge wants to ask voters to overturn the county law they passed overwhelmingly in 1998 -- during the $4.5 billion spending fiasco over the Red Line subway -- that prohibits the use of sales tax revenue to build subways.

After a study released this month found that Southern California motorists spend 93 hours a year stuck in traffic, LaBonge says transportation planners need every available tool to bring relief.

"I truly believe it is in a crisis stage and we have to remove any hurdles," said LaBonge, who also serves on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board.

"I think it is horrible in the past that others abused whatever challenges were there in building this system. But still the people are sitting on that freeway. Every hurdle should be removed so we can have a clear discussion."

But LaBonge faces an uphill battle in persuading colleagues and constituents to overlook the spending and construction problems that plagued the Red Line project a decade ago. A measure would have to be placed on a countywide ballot, and it would have to be approved by a majority of voters.

Additionally, a federal law remains in place preventing a subway from being built to the Westside under Wilshire Boulevard, where it initially was planned, because of concerns over methane gas trapped beneath the surface.

MTA Chairman Frank Roberts said overturning the restrictions is certainly an idea the MTA should consider -- but may not be one whose time has yet come.

"While I agree with Tom LaBonge we should consider all things, that one may be a little premature," said Roberts, who is also the Lancaster mayor. "His motion is something that certainly needs to be considered."

County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, an MTA board member and longtime subway critic, said the proposal is nothing short of a Trojan horse that would divert scarce transportation dollars from higher-priority projects.

But Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke said it's an issue worth debating.

"It provides an excellent first step," said the supervisor, also an MTA board member who has pushed for finishing the Red Line under Wilshire Boulevard.

"You've got to plan ahead. More and more people will start to recognize we need to start doing something."

LaBonge sits on the council's Transportation Committee, which earlier this month passed a motion saying the city would support efforts to overturn the 1998 proposition and rescind the 1985 Wilshire tunneling ban.

The motion will be considered by the full City Council before going before the MTA board.

Southern California's sprawl of homes and jobs makes mass transit difficult to plan and build because, unlike in New York City or Chicago, the downtown area isn't the primary employment magnet.

Still, voters supported building mass transit, approving half-percent sales tax increases in 1980 and 1990 to fund the system.

Then a methane gas explosion a few blocks away from the Wilshire Boulevard route prompted Congress to ban any further tunneling in that area.

By 1998, voters were outraged over the spending and construction problems on the Red Line, and Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky found overwhelming voter support for his ballot measure that prevents any more sales tax revenue from being used to build subways.

Yaroslavsky says it's too early to overturn the restriction.

"I think the people, the taxpayers, are gun-shy -- and rightly so -- about allowing this option."

He said there just isn't money or time to build all the wished-for subways across sprawling Los Angeles, and funds should be spent on light rail or busways that can be built for a fraction of the cost.

"I love the subway," he said. "I was a supporter of the subway for many years. I use the subway. But it took 17 years to go 18 miles."

"If you give the MTA the option to spend the money on subways, they'll use it on subways and it won't go very far and it'll suck up every dollar. If you don't, it forces the MTA to use its head to be functional, as we're trying to be now."

Subways cost on average $300 million a mile -- which is almost the entire price tag of the new 14-mile Orange Line busway being built across the San Fernando Valley. By comparison, the 13-mile Gold Line light-rail project cost $900 million.

Nationally, light rail has replaced subways as the transit mode of choice, accounting for most of the 26 projects now being built and in line for federal funds on Capitol Hill this year.

But subways can go much faster than light rail, supporters argue, and would attract more riders than above-ground trains.

Extending the Wilshire subway through the Miracle Mile area remains part of the region's official long-term plan.

For LaBonge, fixing L.A.'s transportation problems is on par with great civic feats of days past -- bringing water down the Los Angeles aqueduct or hosting the 1984 Olympics.

He envisions routes that could crisscross the city.

"As an elected official, my time at the plate is short," he said, alluding to the eight-year limit on council terms.

"We're always going to have challenges, but I want to remove obstacles so we can discuss this," he said.

"It could take 18 years. In 18 years, (traffic's) only going to get worse."

Lisa Mascaro, (818) 713-3761 lisa.mascaro@dailynews.com

[savvysearch]

Thanks for the article. They should reverse the ban, but I think that the future is light rail. By the way, news is that an Expo line from downtown LA to Santa Monica is getting funded. It's a light rail system which should be among the most popular of the lines that are being built.

[glickel]

LA will be a great test case for the all this new investment in transit in the US. I am eager to see how the population and development companies respond. If the people start to take it, that will mean transit can work even in car crazy LA. Maybe it would get more attention at the National level.

Personnally I am all for subways. Faster, safer, higher capactiy, and it would definitly increase LA's bid to be a world class city.

[Palal]

Thanks for the article. They should reverse the ban, but I think that the future is light rail. By the way, news is that an Expo line from downtown LA to Santa Monica is getting funded. It's a light rail system which should be among the most popular of the lines that are being built.

If it wasn't for the gas pocket under Wilshire, they should've continued the subway out to the ocean. I still think it's possible, and that they should do it.

[glickel]

Possible futute LA Transit map.

E:\Transit stuff\concept1.jpe

[14k]

The biggest problem is when they keep building more freeways, it's a squirrel wheel eitherway.

The subway is one of the solutions for traffic but it's very difficult to build a useful one in a city like L.A which is very spread out. An extension to Burbank and Santa Monica would be a good start.

[Imperial Teen]

Here's my "nightmare" story. We were out in a bar in Echo Park, when they called "last call" at 130 as everything shuts down soooooo early in LA. I went with some friends to a loft kinda in downtown. After an hour I had had enough of that scene so I called a cab company at 230 am as LA isn't dense enough to warrant roving cabs. I waited outside for 30 minutes and no cab came. So I called three other companies and waited another 30 minutes and still no cabs. It is now 330 am, the alochol is starting to wear off, so I decide to start walking, hoping to find a bus to take me to my bed in Santa Monica. I don't know exactly where it was but it is desolate. There are a lot of lofts in the area but absolutely no life in the night. No corner stores, no bars (which of course would be close by now), no nothing, except an ocassional shifty character acting like they had a little too much speed. I come across numerous bus stops but they don't have 24 hour service, and then I finally find one. I don't know where the bus is going, but I get on and ask the driver to help me out. He tells me where to get off and what bus to get on. I finally make it back on Wilshire and after another walk I finally make it home at 538 am.

That is 3 hours and 8 minutes to get home.

[nimbyhater]

miami has somewhat of the same problem as la, traffic (though not nearly comparable) warranting a need for a massive pubic transportation need but downtown isnt the big jobs draw that it is in chicago and new york, and its just crazy spread out...

but help is on the way... theyres a massive plan for an elevated train system that would cover much of the county, funded mostly by a half penny sales tax hike... a map of the proposed system http://www.miamidade.gov/trafficrelief/RailMap.htm

but since miami is next to everglades national park... theres a urban development limit, that can't not be changed... suburban development has recently reached this limit, and has already eaten up most of the land north and south... so now vertical development is starting to take off... i think this give us an advantage over los angeles... wevre run out of room for spread... and with this new system being built, a need for a car might soon be eliminated...

that would be a great idea for la... urban development limit, stop sprawl, encourage vertical develpment along mass transit lines (dade county offers massice incentives, and plans to partner with private developers when buying land for the new system, for development near transit lanes)

also, you guys gotta get rid of that ban on using that money for new subways.. light rail is the long way to go... cheap alternative, but not effective

[14k]

Then again I'm glad L.A and Miami are not like NY or Chitown. Sure it would be great to have something else but offices in downtown like shopping and clubs, but like said L.A and Miami are very spread out.

[GetOnDaTrain]

It would be good for Miami to have some more Metrorail lines. Metrorail is 20 years old and the K-line never had another line added? Why is that? I don't even understand it being a K-line. I've also seen that proposal on all the different future lines, with some people having to wait another 30 years for a rail line to come thru. What a joke. The timeframe. Too bad this is the only all-heavy rail system to have ONE rail line.
Nimbyhater, I agree about Miami-Dade County building upward. I'm glad that Everglades is there to discourage any more spread out urbanizing or else they'll be living on swamps with a bunch of extinct animals. Miami and the SF Bay Area are typically the only two metros to have natural sprawl limitations. Miami has Atlantic Ocean and the Everglades on both sides, while Bay Area has the Bay, the Ocean and numerous mountains and hills. Now if only housing was affordable along the lines of terrain.

[savvysearch]

miami has somewhat of the same problem as la, traffic (though not nearly comparable) warranting a need for a massive pubic transportation need but downtown isnt the big jobs draw that it is in chicago and new york, and its just crazy spread out...

but help is on the way... theyres a massive plan for an elevated train system that would cover much of the county, funded mostly by a half penny sales tax hike... a map of the proposed system http://www.miamidade.gov/trafficrelief/RailMap.htm

but since miami is next to everglades national park... theres a urban development limit, that can't not be changed... suburban development has recently reached this limit, and has already eaten up most of the land north and south... so now vertical development is starting to take off... i think this give us an advantage over los angeles... wevre run out of room for spread... and with this new system being built, a need for a car might soon be eliminated...

that would be a great idea for la... urban development limit, stop sprawl, encourage vertical develpment along mass transit lines (dade county offers massice incentives, and plans to partner with private developers when buying land for the new system, for development near transit lanes)

also, you guys gotta get rid of that ban on using that money for new subways.. light rail is the long way to go... cheap alternative, but not effective

Actually I think it's very effective. It's not as fast as subway, but is infinitely a more enjoyable experience. It doesnt have to be light rail. It could be heavy rail. Miami is probably a better candidate for rail than Los Angeles is. When you travel, you want to be able to see where you are going. And there is no better experience than to be on the surface of the city, actually seeing the city.

[Thinkahead]

"Actually I think it's very effective. It's not as fast as subway, but is infinitely a more enjoyable experience. It doesnt have to be light rail. It could be heavy rail. Miami is probably a better candidate for rail than Los Angeles is. When you travel, you want to be able to see where you are going. And there is no better experience than to be on the surface of the city, actually seeing the city."

In the 70's when the big money subways were under consideration, Miami originally wanted an underground subway. But when geological/soil studies were done much of the route would have been under a low water table which requires elevated Construction.

But I do agree that elevated Rail provides a better view of the city if only they can design aesthetically elegant Concrete and Steel L's that don't look like bad highway construction. Then the Wilshire route and many others throughout LA and in other cities can be built.

[007Kid]

I think you guys are a little dramatic and being a little self centered. 8 years is nothing. It just speaks of these times of entitlement that we want something done immediately and think that 8 years is too long. Not to mention new projects are alway popping up and construction is already on a few of the existing projects. To most people, that's reasonable. If you think that LA is just resting on its laurels and doing nothing about public transit, that's wrong. It might not be fast enough for you, but its pretty fast for a city.

As far as surburban sprawl, I think every city is going to look like that. And contrary to popular belief, it's actually worse in "city" areas like Metropolitan tri-state area. Only LA will turn out to have the better deal because of its multicenteredness, so it balances private spaces with public spaces. But the truth is that someone's apocolypse is another's paradise. Most people would rather live in a public-space deficient suburb and consider living in a private space-deficient city hell.

Just curious, do you think high towers and towers of of the same concrete building reaching up to the sky immersed in light pollution 24/7 is beautiful with people living on top of one another? When I see a new tower, I think its a disgusting phallic symbol of American power stripping away any type of human individuality. There are many versions of the Apocalypse, but LA represents more individual freedom, than those old notions of what a city is supposed to look like.

This is not a criticism, but I think we are so warped by the media and movies about what is the proper way a city should be, but truth is, people in the surburbs are happier than those who live in an urban area. Once you hit 30, its seems everyone runs away to the suburbs.

Well said :)

[Jasonhouse]

LA should jack its gas taxes straight to the moon and use the funds to build more transit.

of course, to ever get that done, LA would first have to be taken over by an oppressive dictator, because residents will never make the tough choices needed to make the city and their quality of living move forward.

[KGB]

I don't think anything will work until LA's decentralization is fixed. And I don't think enough people are even interested in doing that. I think people simply expect...maybe even embrace this as part of the lifestyle. I don't see a time where the "in" thing to do in LA is to hop on a subway, or walk, or even take a taxi where you're going. You not only need the built form for this...you need a certain attitude.






KGB