Yep, Los Angeles has the world's worst traffic congestion — again

[ocman]

The issue with LA traffic is that it’s not really the worst. But what pushes it to the top is that people are driving 25, 50 miles to work, and don’t blink an eye sitting in traffic for 2 hours to make the trip. Commute distance combined with traffic has got to be the worst in LA.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

For 100 miles of lines, 360k is a pretty low number.

There are other factors to be weighed.

You also need to look at the quality of service (frequency, grade separation, etc.), how well the system is designed (connectivity, station spacing, line runs in the middle of a freeway, etc.), and the type of areas being served (urban, suburban, combination of both, etc.).

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by giallo

I'd definitely recommend visiting LA. I love that place.

But staying downtown? I don't know. DTLA after 8pm is a bit of a shit show. I stayed by Pershing Square, and it gets pretty ugly around that time. There are just too many mentally unstable people walking around. I felt ok, but my wife wasn't feeling all that secure. She didn't really want to go out by herself once it got dark. I'm sure DTLA's bark is far worse than its bite, but it didn't come off as all that tourist-friendly. Not many couples walking around there at night.

That said, the amount of development in DTLA is staggering, and it'll definitely be a place to stay and hangout soon, I imagine. It just needs a bit more time.

As recently as a little over a year ago I would agree but so much has changed in the last year coupled with the opening of the InterContinental Hotel, NoMad, Hotel Indigo and Freehand in the last year to join many other amazing hotels already Downtown I cannot imagine a better place to stay.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

For 100 miles of lines, 360k is a pretty low number.

That isn't the heavy rail system. LA has maybe 20 miles of heavy rail, with maybe half that ridership. The rest is light rail.

LA also has a fairly large commuter rail for American standards (by route length, not stations), but only 35k-40k weekday passengers.

[muppet]

I think the worst traffic can also be calculated by the ratio of road available to the number of cars. I've heard Bangkok was the 'winner' there, but that was a few years ago, before the big infrastructure drive in the city.

[muppet]

To keep traffic moving get everyone on a moped. No lights or policemen needed (much).

• Video Link

They reckon this is what the future with self driving cars will look like^

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That isn't the heavy rail system. LA has maybe 20 miles of heavy rail, with maybe half that ridership. The rest is light rail.

LA also has a fairly large commuter rail for American standards (by route length, not stations), but only 35k-40k weekday passengers.

Even for a light-rail.
Calgary light-rail carries 300k with only 37 miles.
Calgary is a very downtown centric city, not LA.

Los Angeles transit doesn't correspond to the reality of the city. Very multipolar and spread out.
LA is an extremely hard city to serve correctly with transit. It needs a long and fast heavy rail network with plenty many connections outside Downtown.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

Even for a light-rail.
Calgary light-rail carries 300k with only 37 miles.
Calgary is a very downtown centric city, not LA.

Los Angeles transit doesn't correspond to the reality of the city. Very multipolar and spread out.
LA is an extremely hard city to serve correctly with transit. It needs a long and fast heavy rail network with plenty many connections outside Downtown.

Well, yeah. LA and Calgary couldn't be more different re. relative centralization.

And Canadian cities, all things equal, have higher transit orientation, owing to lower incomes, higher housing and auto costs, fewer freeways, more immigrants, and less stigma to transit.

It goes against SSP groupthink, but I don't think LA will ever have high transit numbers. Too decentralized. You already have 19 million people, a huge number of poor immigrants who would be ideal for transit, yet the numbers are quite small. It's clearly a niche market among the non-poor.

And it's pretty easy to get around LA by car. Traffic is always heavy, but car is still faster and more comfortable than a bus or train. Your destination almost always has parking. I've always rented a car in LA, and never had a problem getting around. It's actually easier than getting around NYC, London or Paris.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Rail ridership has held pretty steady up to this point, hanging around the 360K mark. The Expo Line is proof that rail can work in LA if you bring it to the places where people need/want to go (i.e. the Westside). Expo trains only became jam-packed once the line was extended to Santa Monica. After the peak service was increased to 6-minute headways, ridership surged and met the projected 2030 ridership figure... 13 years ahead of schedule.

Lines running through wealthier, whiter neighborhoods are (go figure) responsible for offsetting declining ridership on the Blue/Green Lines. I actually find this really encouraging; it points to a positive trend.

And anecdotally, being that I live near and take the Gold Line (mostly on weekends and Friday evenings to go and do something fun, not to go to work... and my partner commutes to work by it), ever since the extension to Azusa opened, more and more people are riding it, even on weekends. Even some years ago when the Gold Line extension to the Eastside opened, ridership increased. It used to be the case that they would mostly run two-car trains (even one-car trains during off-peak times), but now it's common to see 3-car trains on the Gold Line. People aren't necessarily taking the Gold Line from the east SGV to downtown LA, either. Many are taking it to Pasadena, being that Pasadena is also a big job center and entertainment area too.

If more rail were built, I really think people would take it. Also, I think bus service should be made better. The Rapid Bus lines run more regularly/frequently, but I think even the local buses should run more frequently. It's often the case that they only arrive once every half hour or even just once an hour. I always feel bad when I see an elderly person obviously trying to run and catch a bus, but then the driver pulls away... the poor old person has to wait another half hour or possibly one hour... or more, if the bus isn't delayed. I understand that the bus driver has to stick to his/her schedule, otherwise these little delays like waiting for an old person to hurry up and catch the bus, adds up over time along the whole route.

[Labtec]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

I don’t believe it, and I’ve heard from many former Angelenos who say Atlanta traffic is worst. I can also say from first hand experience, the NY Metro is much worse than LA.

I live in Atlanta and have been to LA a lot of times (even lived there briefly for 6 months). The traffic in LA is worse.

[chris08876]

Good to see LA beat NY in traffic. Doesn't make me feel that bad... at least I don't have it that bad.

I deal with major utility clients such as Con Edison, MTA, LIRR, and PSEG (Long Island) and the traffic in NY is ridiculous. Love the place, but driving every other day in it, it really opens your eyes to how poor the system is. How the system (highways) are over capacity.

Take the BQE, which is a nightmare. Outside of rush hour, its a shit show. Long Island Expressway the same thing. The surface streets in Brooklyn are probally the worst in the city. Say what you want about Manhattan, but I can tell you that its quicker to drive on the island than it is in Brooklyn. At least in my experience.

So in any given 10 hour work day (what I work), when I'm in the city the whole day, a good 6 out of those 10 hours is traffic. Sometimes it takes me 1 hour to go 6 miles. Other times it takes me 3 hours to go from Flushing Queens to NJ.

Those gridlock-alert days are very real. Anytime you see the billboards in NY state that, prepare for a teeth grinding experience.

I think the tolls on the GWB, and Holland Tunnel need to go. EZ pass is a must, speed it up. The cash only lanes or ones that accept cash/EZ pass slow everyone down. Both on the Upper/Lower levels of the GWB.

Also, designated truck lanes need to be enforced. The BQE sucks because of all the truck traffic which is shared with the cars.

There was a proposal somewhere to create a tunnel only for freight. Sounds better every single day.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Did LA follow the sun belt model of expanding light rail at the expense of the bus system?

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Declining mass transit numbers is timed with the arrival of an alternative to public transportation -- ride share cos. Uber and Lyft.

Consumers are making the choice to spend just a little more money to save a lot of time and to have a safe and spacious trip to wherever it is that they're going. Mass transit cannot compete when it comes down to this.

There's Uber in Canada as well, but no decline in Canadian transit ridership, rail or bus, as far as I know.

The real reason for ridership decline is cutting service, especially bus service. Maybe LA's transit strategy, focusing LRT construction on white neighbourhoods, and leaving buses for non-white neighbourhoods, and constantly cutting that bus service, might be the reason for its low transit ridership. It is at least the reason for the existence of the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union.

Further reading:
Why Don't White People in L.A. Take the Bus?

[dc_denizen]

white guy here...I took the bus in LA, from Venice to the rail stop. I think we went along slausson avenue. then I took it from Hollywood back to Santa Monica. LA's buses were great--clean, red, and decently frequent. at least compared to the noisy monsters, constantly stopped in traffic, that we have in New York.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by muppet

To keep traffic moving get everyone on a moped. No lights or policemen needed (much).

• Video Link

They reckon this is what the future with self driving cars will look like^

Vietnam must have a real shortage of personal injury lawyers.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Doady

There's Uber in Canada as well, but no decline in Canadian transit ridership, rail or bus, as far as I know.

The TTC is expericing a decline in subway and bus ridership. It looks like Canadian systems, like American systems, generally have ridership declines:

http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...rship-APTA.pdf

Originally Posted by Doady

The real reason for ridership decline is cutting service, especially bus service.

This makes no sense. LA has declining rail ridership numbers too, despite megabillions spent on new lines and service.

Originally Posted by Doady

Maybe LA's transit strategy, focusing LRT construction on white neighbourhoods, and leaving buses for non-white neighbourhoods,

LA County is like 25% white. I don't think it would be possible to construct a regional rail system by focusing on white areas. And, looking at their system, I don't see any lines in predominately white areas.

I don't even understand the premise. What does race have to do with transit usage? Toronto has very strong transit usage, but its main subway route traverses the richest, whitest, WASPiest corridor in town.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by JManc

Vietnam must have a real shortage of personal injury lawyers.

Nah, that's why God gave humans spare arms and legs.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Doady

The real reason for ridership decline is cutting service, especially bus service. Maybe LA's transit strategy, focusing LRT construction on white neighbourhoods, and leaving buses for non-white neighbourhoods, and constantly cutting that bus service, might be the reason for its low transit ridership. It is at least the reason for the existence of the

So those bus people just stopped going to work, stopped leaving their home to run errands and to be entertained? Or did they choose another mode of transportation?

Btw, the first LRT constructed in greater L.A. was the blue line. It's entire length goes through primarily all non-white neighborhoods.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Btw, the first LRT constructed in greater L.A. was the blue line. It's entire length goes through primarily all non-white neighborhoods.

They basically all do.

Looking at light rail, the Blue, Green and Silver Lines goes through almost 100% nonwhite areas their entire length (mostly Hispanic and Black, I think). The Gold Line is overwhelmingly nonwhite too, but probably more Hispanic and Asian. Blue Line goes through some white areas, but not the majority.

And looking at heavy rail Red/Purple lines are basically always in majority nonwhite areas. I don't think anyone would consider Koreatown or Wilshire near downtown or the eastern half of Hollywood to be "white areas". I mean, outside of the Westside (where there's no rail except for a bit on the southern fringe) there aren't that many whites in LA. And many classified as "white" are Persian or Armenian.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

white guy here...I took the bus in LA, from Venice to the rail stop. I think we went along slausson avenue. then I took it from Hollywood back to Santa Monica. LA's buses were great--clean, red, and decently frequent. at least compared to the noisy monsters, constantly stopped in traffic, that we have in New York.

If you rode the red Metro buses, then yes, those are the Rapid Buses. They generally do run more frequently and their stops are spaced more or less a mile apart, as opposed to the Local Buses, where literally there are stops like every other block or something.

And supposedly, the Rapid Buses have transponders on them where the driver is able to make a green light stay green longer so that they can get through an intersection; at many Rapid Bus routes, you can see some kind of sensor thingy on the mast arm of the traffic light; I assume it's for that reason.

Regarding the Bus Riders Union in LA, they used to annoy me, back when they were (or seemed) anti-rail. I remember when the first leg of the Gold Line was being built, how they felt it was going through "suburban wealthy areas," because it was going through South Pas and Pasadena, even though it also goes through Highland Park, Lincoln Heights, Cypress Park and Chinatown. Anyway, because of their consent decree that they brought on the LA MTA (Metro), bus service was actually pretty decent; Metro was required to purchase more buses, and provide more frequent service. The consent decree was in effect for 10 years I think like from 1996-2006. The idea for the Rapid Buses came about during this period. Though they annoyed back in the 90s, in retrospect, I think the Bus Riders Union actually helped with bus service back then because of that consent decree---I really think that it's no coincidence that bus service started to suck after the consent decree expired; that's when Metro started cutting bus service, shortening some lines, and even getting rid of some lines, supposedly due to redundancy (and in the case of some rail lines opening, that made sense to me).

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

They basically all do.

Looking at light rail, the Blue, Green and Silver Lines goes through almost 100% nonwhite areas their entire length (mostly Hispanic and Black, I think). The Gold Line is overwhelmingly nonwhite too, but probably more Hispanic and Asian. Blue Line goes through some white areas, but not the majority.

And looking at heavy rail Red/Purple lines are basically always in majority nonwhite areas. I don't think anyone would consider Koreatown or Wilshire near downtown or the eastern half of Hollywood to be "white areas". I mean, outside of the Westside (where there's no rail except for a bit on the southern fringe) there aren't that many whites in LA. And many classified as "white" are Persian or Armenian.

You're right. And the areas with the most opposition would be Beverly Hills subway construction.

Look at the race distribution map of L.A. County and if anyone has some skills (I don't) you could overlay a Metrorail map on top of the racial map.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...n_3819252.html