Los Angeles | Pedestrians Fill The Streets Once Again!

[edluva]

Originally Posted by dktshb

I am not cheerleading and you're selling the city awfully short by refusing to acknowledge that a substantial number of people that live in this city get around without a car. ...

Your bubble is the one that needs to burst. I tend to agree with a lot of things you say but you also tend to go way overboard never acknowledging certain aspects of reality here.

you're not going to get away with calling my realism a bubble.

the difference between you and i is in our levels of perspective. To you, a "substantial" number of transit patrons exist because you see them in your subjective (and in my opinion, myopic) daily experience. To you, the subjective experience of seeing 45 people unload off the 720 at western is "factual proof" that pedestrian lifestyles are "thriving"

To me, i see a region of 10 million plus with at best ten percent transit penetration as not "substantial" when the majority of patrons are poor and powerless to shape the economy and built environment. when they do not even come close to representing the mainstream. when if there is as you claim, a "substantial" culture of pedestrianism there is not a likewise "substantial" culture of development and zoning, retail, housing, etc catered to reflect your "substantial" lifestyle.

Substantial occurs when it is a norm - a way of life for the average wage earning angeleno. You, being a relatively educated (i'm assuming) urbanist with nerd-level interest in public transit policy, who chooses the train over the car, does so at least as much out of novelty as out of necessity, whether you acknowledge it or not. you are a fringe outlier. you are abnormal, figuratively speaking.

And if you read closely, I don't make direct comparisons to jacksonville or houston as you claim, and I never said transit usage is "non-existent" as you claim - I'm discrediting the flawed notion that somehow your personal anecdote is some sort of evidence to reflect upon some supposedly broader mainstream movement towards mass transit.

when you, an educated, (well-paid?) new yorker takes the subway in manhattan, you are just another manhattanite. when you, an educated, (well-paid?) non-salvadorian angeleno, chooses to forgo the car in los angeles, you are "noble". huge difference you're refusing to acknowledge, in spite of your referenced "substantiality". in other words, the fact that you are painfully aware of your choice makes it painfully clear that people like you are not as you claim, "substantial".

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by edluva

you're not going to get away with calling my realism a bubble.

the difference between you and i is in our levels of perspective. To you, a "substantial" number of transit patrons exist because you see them in your subjective (and in my opinion, myopic) daily experience. To you, the subjective experience of seeing 45 people unload off the 720 at western is "factual proof" that pedestrian lifestyles are "thriving"

To me, i see a region of 10 million plus with at best ten percent transit penetration as not "substantial" when the majority of patrons are poor and powerless to shape the economy and built environment. when they do not even come close to representing the mainstream. when if there is as you claim, a "substantial" culture of pedestrianism there is not a likewise "substantial" culture of development and zoning, retail, housing, etc catered to reflect your "substantial" lifestyle.

Substantial occurs when it is a norm - a way of life for the average wage earning angeleno. You, being a relatively educated (i'm assuming) urbanist with nerd-level interest in public transit policy, who chooses the train over the car, does so at least as much out of novelty as out of necessity, whether you acknowledge it or not. you are a fringe outlier. you are abnormal, figuratively speaking.

And if you read closely, I don't make direct comparisons to jacksonville or houston as you claim, and I never said transit usage is "non-existent" as you claim - I'm discrediting the flawed notion that somehow your personal anecdote is some sort of evidence to reflect upon some supposedly broader mainstream movement towards mass transit.

when you, an educated, (well-paid?) new yorker takes the subway in manhattan, you are just another manhattanite. when you, an educated, (well-paid?) non-salvadorian angeleno, chooses to forgo the car in los angeles, you are "noble". huge difference you're refusing to acknowledge, in spite of your referenced "substantiality". in other words, the fact that you are painfully aware of your choice makes it painfully clear that people like you are not as you claim, "substantial".

Like the other study indicates, people in LA's dense urban neighborhoods drive 1/4 as much as other urban neighborhoods throughout the country and 1/12 as much as typical suburban communities. I am sure for LA's sake many of those trips don't even involve using transit. I live in a zip code that has a density of just over 29 thousand people per square mile and I believe as that study indicated that people here are 25 to 88% less likely to drive in most instances. The difference may be that a large majority of those who walk still own cars, and although walk the majority of the time, have the option to use the car if they so choose. This is probably another poignant difference as to what separates LA from the other dense urban cities. Hollywood like many other dense neighborhoods here might cater to the automobile but the traffic and parking issues make it much easier for people who actually live in Hollywood to walk. The same most likely holds true for many communities in Los Angeles from Downtown to Santa Monica and most all the beach communities.

I'm not trying to kid myself and compare LA to NY or Chicago or SF when it comes to rail oriented transit and the area of coverage... although isn't Metrolink one of the largest in the country as far as coverage??? Anyway, again, we do have the dense neighborhoods where people are just as likely to walk as they are in neighborhoods in the aforementioned cities regardless of their income and I would bet about 1M of those 1.4M weekday boardings comes from within the city of Los Angeles. I also don't care what "types" of people commute by utilizing transit... I never pay much attention but I am pretty sure I have seen lots of "professionals" getting on and off the subway at 7th/Metro and Civic Center.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by dktshb

although isn't Metrolink one of the largest in the country as far as coverage???

Coverage is meaningless when you can't convince people to ditch their cars for mass transit.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Coverage is meaningless when you can't convince people to ditch their cars for mass transit.

...and people aren't really willing to do that in large numbers unless the environment practically requires them to do so - i.e. Manhattan. Public transit overall is less convenient and more time consuming, and L.A. is no different than 99% of the rest of the nation.

[edluva]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Coverage is meaningless when you can't convince people to ditch their cars for mass transit.

yeah, look at metrolink's ridership - for a 500 mile system to cover a pop of 18 million what is it, 40,000? what a joke.

Dkthsb, do you intentionally omit metrolink's embarrassing ridership to suggest that coverage alone is an adequate reflection of transit culture. dkthsb - you kid yourself again. you cannot pick and choose your data points as you see fit.

your "study" doesn't establish anything. your study cites a potential range of 25-88 percent transit usage in la's core. do you seriously expect that range to mean anything?
and you honestly think 1m of the 1.4m mta patrons reside in los angeles? on what basis? here you are again, overselling numbers like you did in previous replies.

fact is, los angeles' built env't is known for being relatively homogenous like its suburbs. overall density drop-off is relatively small compared with traditional hub-spoke cities. ridership patterns shouldn't be any different, so that 1.4m should be less biased towards los angeles than you'd hope. and even then, we're talking about total boardings, remember? pretty pathetic numbers any way you slice them.

it's plainly evident you're trying to stretch the truth, since it's clear the only thing you're proving is your penchant for extrapolating numbers to fit a preferred version of reality. optimism should never come at the expense of reality. sorry to bust your overinflated bubble, angelenos.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Coverage is meaningless when you can't convince people to ditch their cars for mass transit.

Can't say I don't agree with that.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by edluva

yeah, look at metrolink's ridership - for a 500 mile system to cover a pop of 18 million what is it, 40,000? what a joke.

Dkthsb, do you intentionally omit metrolink's embarrassing ridership to suggest that coverage alone is an adequate reflection of transit culture. dkthsb - you kid yourself again. you cannot pick and choose your data points as you see fit.

your "study" doesn't establish anything. your study cites a potential range of 25-88 percent transit usage in la's core. do you seriously expect that range to mean anything?
and you honestly think 1m of the 1.4m mta patrons reside in los angeles? on what basis? here you are again, overselling numbers like you did in previous replies.

fact is, los angeles' built env't is known for being relatively homogenous like its suburbs. overall density drop-off is relatively small compared with traditional hub-spoke cities. ridership patterns shouldn't be any different, so that 1.4m should be less biased towards los angeles than you'd hope. and even then, we're talking about total boardings, remember? pretty pathetic numbers any way you slice them.

it's plainly evident you're trying to stretch the truth, since it's clear the only thing you're proving is your penchant for extrapolating numbers to fit a preferred version of reality. optimism should never come at the expense of reality. sorry to bust your overinflated bubble, angelenos.

That study is not my study and sorry it rattles your cage but facts are facts. If you have a problem with it because it doesn't fit your idea a link was provided so you can contact the furnishers of the information. At least I am not making up my own facts to under represent and/or exaggerate my point of view:

edluva
Truth is, 96% of these pedestrians in your video will end up walking to a dtla parking lot one their way home.

Talk about pathetic...

I am also aware of the region's built environment. Yes, density rates drop off at a relatively low rate compared to most metro areas but Santa Clarita and Porter Ranch is not like Koreatown or Westlake and you’re kidding only yourself if you think ridership patterns are similar in these 2 very different parts of the county.
My whole point of the post was that the residents in LA’s many dense neighborhoods get around as pedestrians. They do exist and there is evidence out there that supports that fact so I posted it. Apparently those who live in the densest neighborhoods are 25 to 88% more likely to walk. I am sure those who come to these dense neighborhoods from elsewhere are most likely driving.

[edluva]

and my point wasn't to disprove the empirical validity of your data, it was to question your obviously biased interpretation of data with questionable utility.

btw, i bet you prefer the 88% side of the spectrum but of course not, no, you're not biased at all. you weigh and consider equally all aspects of the data that you furnish

well, i have data proving that you're between 4 and 96 percent more likely to extrapolate data to prove a biased point (as you did with metro ridership figures). and 96 percent is a lot, lol

[mello]

Isn't the City of Los Angeles soon to be bankrupt? Where are they getting the money to do all of these light rail expansions? I read an article recently stating that 33% of the City of LA's general fund goes to paying former city workers pension and health care costs... This was up from 8% just 5 or 6 years ago.

How can they afford to be extending and adding all of those lines. And the forumer claiming "LA is seeing the light at the end of the tunnel of this curse like recession". How laughable is that. The jobs are not coming back to Southern California. We are in for more of the same for years to come.

I don't see droves of hipsters being able to afford those trendy lofts of "West Central" lol. Unless they like sharing bedrooms...

[RAlossi]

Originally Posted by mello

Isn't the City of Los Angeles soon to be bankrupt? Where are they getting the money to do all of these light rail expansions? I read an article recently stating that 33% of the City of LA's general fund goes to paying former city workers pension and health care costs... This was up from 8% just 5 or 6 years ago.

How can they afford to be extending and adding all of those lines. And the forumer claiming "LA is seeing the light at the end of the tunnel of this curse like recession". How laughable is that. The jobs are not coming back to Southern California. We are in for more of the same for years to come.

I don't see droves of hipsters being able to afford those trendy lofts of "West Central" lol. Unless they like sharing bedrooms...

As much as you appear to be hoping for, what, Armageddon? Resident Evil? Grapes of Wrath: LA Edition? -- things aren't as dire as you think. LA is facing a number of issues including high unemployment (~13% now) but remains home to a vast and varied number of industries, most of which appear to be picking up once again (read: hiring), including real estate, construction, international trade, finance, entertainment, law, healthcare, venture capital, transportation and technology.

Also, 68% of LA County (not city; county) voters approved a half-cent tax increase in 2008, which is providing a steady income stream for transit projects. That's supposed to provide $36 billion over the next 30 years for transit and highway projects (down $4 billion due to the recession).

We've faced a lot of problems, just like the whole nation and especially large cities have faced problems with jobs offshoring and industries like aerospace dropping off here in the '90s, the collapse and subsequent rebirth of the auto industry in the midwest, collapse of big steel in the east, collapse of textiles in the south. They've just been replaced by other forms of industry, no different than any other region of the country. Even with all those issues, I wouldn't bet against Southern California.

[JDRCRASH]

As many people know, a lot of LA County's, if not Southern California's, economic strength lies not in the Entertainment business, but at the ports of LA and Long Beach. 60% of the nation's cargo comes through the harbor.
If China and India continue to grow, I think we'll be somewhat okay.

Originally Posted by RAlossi

We've faced a lot of problems, just like the whole nation and especially large cities have faced problems with jobs offshoring and industries like aerospace dropping off here in the '90s, the collapse and subsequent rebirth of the auto industry in the midwest, collapse of big steel in the east, collapse of textiles in the south. They've just been replaced by other forms of industry, no different than any other region of the country. Even with all those issues, I wouldn't bet against Southern California.

It's funny you mention the decline of aerospace. With Obama trying to privatize the space industry, I would think that might help Southern California, especially in the High Desert, which has been soaked with foreclosure activity during the recession.

[amor de cosmos]

Los Angeles City Council Unanimously Approves Plan for 1,680 Miles of Bikeways
by Evelyn Lee, 03/03/11

Fans of human powered bi-peds in the City of Angels rejoice! The Los Angeles City Council just approved a plan calling for 1,680 miles of interconnected bikeways. The new undertaking will call for more than 200 miles of new bicycle routes added every five years, making it easier – and more importantly, safer – to peddle two wheels around a city that is infamously known for its automobile grid lock.

http://inhabitat.com/plan-for-1680-m...ncil-approval/

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by amor de cosmos

http://inhabitat.com/plan-for-1680-m...ncil-approval/

This will forever alter the mechanics of a drive-by...

[M II A II R II K]

A New Model Streets Manual to Rewrite Los Angeles’ “DNA”


March 25th, 2011



Read More: http://www.pps.org/blog/a-new-model-...s-angeles-dna/

http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/03/16...ffic-handbook/

L.A. County has begun to rewrite the “DNA” of its streets with a new Model Streets Manual that will set guidelines to support improved safety, livability and active transportation options. This effort was supported through a grant from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, through its RENEW initiative. RENEW stands for “Renewing Environments for Nutrition, Exercise and Wellness.” It’s inspiring to see a health-focused organization embrace a leadership role in Placemaking by broadening the scope of its concern to include planning for the built environment. There is a growing understanding that streets configured to support an active lifestyle can lead to positive community health outcomes.

- As Streetsblog reports, team lead Ryan Snyder of Ryan Snyder Associates has said the manual is like “the DNA of our streets, and it defines everything from where to place bike lanes to how wide a roundabout should be.” Our Gary Toth and Pippa Brashear joined a team of local and national experts to contribute to this a new Model Streets Manual and each led a chapter in the manual, in addition to contributing to other chapters. While the guide is primarily targeted to the 88 cities that comprise L.A. County, the team hopes the information about making streets for people will reach as many communities as possible: in Snyder’s words, cities can “use it, adopt it, steal it, and plagiarize it.”

12 Chapters

Street Network Design: In terms of safety and livability, networks with numerous short blocks in a grid achieve much better outcomes than street networks with long blocks and numerous cul-de-sacs.

Traveled Way and Intersection Design: Bike lanes and narrower car lanes can improve safety and “modern roundabouts” improve the comfort of intersections. Streets should be physically designed for slower speeds.

Universal Pedestrian Access: Without precise design guidelines, obstacles to mobility, like utility boxes, start to crop up. A four-zone system — representing the curb zone, furniture zone, pedestrian zone, and frontage zone — can ensure that there’s always a passable sidewalk.

Pedestrian Crossings: Simply put, pedestrians must have the ability to safely cross the street. Real and perceived safety is important and is not well reflected by crash data, i.e. “maybe no body gets killed here, because no one feels safe enough to cross.” Planners should use treatments that are proven to reduce crashes. Transit stops should always have good crossings, because trips typically begin and end on opposite sides of the street. Above all, evaluate the success of new crossings using performance measures.

Bikeway Design: All streets are bicycle streets, and so all should be safe for bicyclists. Existing manuals tell us how to design roads for cars; this one will accommodate all users.

Traffic Calming: “Design streets that self-enforce the behaviors that you’re looking to enforce.” Some of the physical measures that can achieve “self-enforcement” include: lane reductions, medians, refuges for pedestrians, bulbouts, curbless flush streets, flush medians, streets trees, lateral shifts, shared spaces, bike lanes, textured surfaces, back-in angled parking, valley gutters, roundabouts, mini-roundabouts, impellers, chicanes, medians, yield streets, pinch points, raised intersections, raised pedestrian crossing, and speed humps.

Transit Accommodations: Planners should think beyond the station as merely being a portal to the service. Rather, transit should be integrated further into the community, using stops to anchor local activity. Use street treatments to enhance access to transit vehicles and provide accommodations for everyone arriving at stations. When it comes to travel lanes, think beyond the car to bus lanes, BRT, and streetcars.

Streetscape Ecosystem: Utilize street features to help irrigate landscaping. Make irrigation equipment highly visible to educate everyone about the relationships between all the parts of the ecosystem.

Re-placing Streets: Streets should be more than just a conduit for goods and people. Designs should “support activities and destinations in the streets” with design elements built at the human scale; provide a feeling of safety; invite activities on both sides of the street; and reward slow movement by lowering speeds.

Land Use & Urban Design: Land use is “the great definer of street character and influences travel patterns.” Key design elements should focus on things like setbacks and ways that land uses can complete the public space — ground floor uses.

Retrofitting Suburbia: The goal of retrofitting suburbia is to “suggest ways that existing cities can think about getting ready for a different economic and demographic future.” In neighborhoods with poor connectivity, break open sound walls and cul-de-sacs so that pedestrians can move more freely. Break through long blocks with additional and safe crosswalks. Above all, “high quality economic development comes to high quality streets.”

Getting It Built: First, the public engagement process should become an authentic two-way process, in which the public are experts.

Grand Avenue in L.A.: the new Model Street Manual aims to make streets more welcoming for people

[pesto]

Some of those suggestions are good and some are just silliness. But the strongest point is the last one: "Getting It Built: First, the public engagement process should become an authentic two-way process, in which the public are experts."

I think if you consult the public in general, they are going to say: fix the pot-holes, fix the sidewalks and give us back the rest of the money. Then we can vote locally as to whether we want better streetscape, other uses for the money or lower taxes.

[M II A II R II K]

Ban Cars In L.A.'s Downtown? An Idea That Just Might Work


May 9, 2011

Read More: http://www.good.is/post/ban-cars-in-...st-might-work/

As Los Angeles's downtown continues its steady trajectory towards becoming a vibrant, livable community (heck, they're even getting a Target!), more companies are looking to relocate there to take advantage of its uniquely dense environment. One such company is Gensler, one of the largest architecture firms in the world, who will move from Santa Monica to City National Plaza later this year. And they've already got some ideas for how to make their new neighborhood better.

- Their ideas for transforming the city's most vertical community were mostly motivated by a pretty overwhelming fact: A baffling 36 percent of downtown's land is parking lots or parking structures. By replacing this poorly-used space with cultural institutions, education, or housing, the area will automatically become more energized.

- After surveying the history of driving and public transportation in L.A.'s downtown, the students present ideas like making downtown a car-free zone by pushing all parking to the perimeter, and then building a series of gondolas and skyways to get people from building to building.

.....

Video Link

[pesto]

Another vision of Hell in the form of making things better. The idea of living, sleeping, working and playing in the same place strikes me as very unpleasant. Whether you take car, transit or cab I would like to get to some other parts of the city more than once a week or so. When I worked in Hollywood, you could get to the valley for lunch or 9-holes of golf in no-time.

The Alameda Corridor shouldn't go to agriculture; but narrowing it in DT makes some sense since that area through Jtown and the Arts District is rapidly populating and getting nightlife. Given how much food is raised in the Central Valley, Coachella, IE, etc., the need to shorten shipping distances doesn't strike me as huge. But small farms or gardens are great who people who like the connection to nature and the accomplilshment of growing (and sometimes smoking) your own.

Overhead transit is another proposal that comes up all the time and doesn't seem to go very far. In LA it is sometimes associated with elitism (keep the homeless on the streets).

[Minato Ku]

Transforming the Alameda corridor into an agricultural land ! What do they smoke ?

Originally Posted by pesto

Another vision of Hell in the form of making things better. The idea of living, sleeping, working and playing in the same place strikes me as very unpleasant. Whether you take car, transit or cab I would like to get to some other parts of the city more than once a week or so. When I worked in Hollywood, you could get to the valley for lunch or 9-holes of golf in no-time.

I agree, we need mobility. I wouldn't like to live in a city made of little ghetto where you only see the same people because they all work, shop and live at the same place.
Downtown LA needs to be transformed in a real living bustling downtown that attract people from all over Los Angeles metropolitan area (as Manhattan do) not in a segregated village.

The only way to reduce the number of car is by creating mass public transportation and developing the city around these transports.

[M II A II R II K]

Photographer Diane Meyer discusses her photo essay from the May/June 2011 issue of Orion about Angelenos, who not only survive, but often thrive in the City of Angels without automobiles. Includes additional portraits from her “Without a Car” project.

Video Link

[dimondpark]

Well, I love the Lisa Lisa song playing in the vid.

Also, SF always gets dumped on for how people dress but er, the folks in that vid are well, Tenderloinesque(I dont mean that in a good way). LOL.