Some of you may have read the column in the LA Times last week about how the freeway system is reaching its maximum capacity. If I'm not mistaken, the author said in another five years it will come to a complete halt in total paralysis due to increased usage it cannot handle.

First, I want to know if you, as Angelenos, believe that the doom's day scenerio is that close in time? Is capacity about to be reached?

The author of the article was also opposed to a red line extension to Santa Monica due to expense and time....it offers too little and it comes along too late to reall help; it also impedes business enormously while being built. His suggestion: relatively inexpensive monorails blanketing the area.

Do you agree with his observation or do you think that the red line expansion to the westside is essential?

Last...and maybe most important:

Your city has made more than admirable moves away from your dependence on cars. In fact, you very well may have become the most proactive city int he nation in this regard.

Yet something serioius remains that may not be subject to being fixed:

Your metropolitan area so grew with the car that it created job opporunities in such a decentralized way that it is possible that no form of mass transit can truly service a city and region compared to cities with more traditonal core and without all of your wide spread real estate.

Do you believe that the "facts on the ground"....basically the layout of current LA and metro LA can allow for a sensible and affordable mass transit system as your region grapples with the fact that the car cannot be the main means of future transportation?

i'm not an expert. But I do think that LA's freeways will meet maximum capacity soon. Maybe not in five years, but soon enough. I agree with Bradbury (the author of the column-- and Fahrenheit 451) that the red line extension is WAY too expensive and uneccessary. In some places a monorail would not work, like in East LA and other places with small historic lots and narrow streets. In these places we should have subways. But on Wilshire?? I think a monorail would look quite nice going down the center of that wide boulevard. I think that in general monorails could cover quite a large area quickly efficiently and cheaply, and be integrated into the landscape with little destruction of neighborhoods. again, I am not an expert in any way. Just my thoughts.
Also, I disagree completely about your statement about "Layout." Much of LA was developed with the car, but quite a large portion was developed in concert with the development of the nation's largest rail network. In LA, the red cars were used to develop the suburbs, conversely to the implementation of rail transit in other cities.. And it worked fine then. We have average density levels similar to if not higher than those days, and I think hundreds of rail lines could do the trick.

i'm not an expert. But I do think that LA's freeways will meet maximum capacity soon. Maybe not in five years, but soon enough. I agree with Bradbury (the author of the column-- and Fahrenheit 451) that the red line extension is WAY too expensive and uneccessary. In some places a monorail would not work, like in East LA and other places with small historic lots and narrow streets. In these places we should have subways. But on Wilshire?? I think a monorail would look quite nice going down the center of that wide boulevard. I think that in general monorails could cover quite a large area quickly efficiently and cheaply, and be integrated into the landscape with little destruction of neighborhoods. again, I am not an expert in any way. Just my thoughts.
Also, I disagree completely about your statement about "Layout." Much of LA was developed with the car, but quite a large portion was developed in concert with the development of the nation's largest rail network. In LA, the red cars were used to develop the suburbs, conversely to the implementation of rail transit in other cities.. And it worked fine then. We have average density levels similar to if not higher than those days, and I think hundreds of rail lines could do the trick.

dweebo, a couple of observations on what you said: I agree a monorail line on Wilshire could look great. The nice thing for you folks in LA is you don't have to go to Seattle to see how a monorail can look on the urban landscape...a short trip to Anaheim can show you how effective it can be.

I don't disagree with you that much of LA was laid out in the pre-automotive era. I'm well aware of the nation's most extensive street car system that you once had. However, that system has long since been dispatched and, let's face it, much of LA's growth has been car-generated (as has much of suburban growth throughout America, and growth in Sun Belt cities, as well).

But i don't see it as an issue insofar as whether the initial growth was in separate, unattached villages in the LA basin, SF Valley, and beyond that started to grow with an influx of midwesterners int he late 19th century to the planning and execution of the freeway system, you still have a metro area today that unusually well geared for automotive transportation, but poorly designed for effective mass transit.

As I said, that is no criticism of modern LA where looking for the future and effectively typing together far flung places has not only received much attention....but much progress. Your efforts have been as admirable as any city.

But my main point remains: do you Angelenos believe another "layers", an overlay if you will, can be placed over city, county, and region, that will allow for effective mass transit, including rapid transit, in a region where....let's face.....getting from Point A to Point B conceivably could describe the commute of only one person?

Dunno..

Downtown is growing, centralizing.. The most people in the metro area (who drive) work somewhere between the 10 and the 101 freeways, between the beach and DT, and this area will continue to regain importance in the area.
If we can establish rail networks from the surrounding communities into this area and throughout it, we can then at least centralize more jobs in this area.

Inter-suburb travel is the most pressing issue, however. Because many people commute from one suburb to another, building effective transportation systems to deal with these infinite networks is next to impossible.
I think that we cannot make a truly effective public transportation system that meets all these needs. What we do need is county-wide regulations imposing affordable housing requirements in EVERY community area. This will force each region to support and house its own employee base. We can then establish individual transit networks within these smaller city-areas, making jobs in these areas accesible to the people who live in those areas.

I think we will see the beaches, the mountains, the canyons, etc.="the specialty communities" become less favorable because of their low proximity to work. LA will become a large network of even-less-permeable neighborhoods and city centers. People will HAVE to live where they work, and not go to many other areas that often.

Downtown is growing, centralizing..

Not in terms of office space though. It frustrates me how the city isn't doing much in terms of attracting buisnesses to move downtown, and then seeing all kinds of new office buildings spring up in Santa Clarita. What's worse is that office buildings that are currently in use are being converted to housing downtown.

Some of you may have read the column in the LA Times last week about how the freeway system is reaching its maximum capacity. If I'm not mistaken, the author said in another five years it will come to a complete halt in total paralysis due to increased usage it cannot handle.

First, I want to know if you, as Angelenos, believe that the doom's day scenerio is that close in time? Is capacity about to be reached?

The author of the article was also opposed to a red line extension to Santa Monica due to expense and time....it offers too little and it comes along too late to reall help; it also impedes business enormously while being built. His suggestion: relatively inexpensive monorails blanketing the area.

Do you agree with his observation or do you think that the red line expansion to the westside is essential?

Last...and maybe most important:

Your city has made more than admirable moves away from your dependence on cars. In fact, you very well may have become the most proactive city int he nation in this regard.

Yet something serioius remains that may not be subject to being fixed:

Your metropolitan area so grew with the car that it created job opporunities in such a decentralized way that it is possible that no form of mass transit can truly service a city and region compared to cities with more traditonal core and without all of your wide spread real estate.

Do you believe that the "facts on the ground"....basically the layout of current LA and metro LA can allow for a sensible and affordable mass transit system as your region grapples with the fact that the car cannot be the main means of future transportation?

Dude, can you at least try to hide your Chicago inferiority complex a little better? I don't see forum members from LA or NY constantly starting negative threads about your city...

Wait, here's a thread title for you... "Chicago - was there ever a dream? Or was the city always a cheap cut-rate version of NY for provincialites and red staters who couldn't handle the real thing?"

Not in terms of office space though. It frustrates me how the city isn't doing much in terms of attracting buisnesses to move downtown, and then seeing all kinds of new office buildings spring up in Santa Clarita. What's worse is that office buildings that are currently in use are being converted to housing downtown.

I would have to agree w/ Yaku on this matter. At the rate the housing is booming Downtown, I will not be surprise to see the Library Tower go condo in a near future.

Library Tower going condo? That will be interesting. But what do they use the Library Tower for anyways?

Library Tower going condo? That will be interesting. But what do they use the Library Tower for anyways?

Office building, non housing.

As to your queston of whether LA could develop an efficient mass transit system, I think the answer is yes. Its a question of money and concensus building. For the most part the old red line right of ways are still there, disguised at boulevards with planted medians. I think the key is to develop back bone very rapid subway routes along Wilshire, down to the airport, east from downtown to the OC, and then some north south routes to the harbor, south bay, and up to Santa Clarita. Shorter bus line could connect to the rapid heavy rail lines. There are right of ways along freeways as well.

LA has some unique problems of governance, the need to serve 150+ small cities and the fact that County Districts split the city in parts, but given the need, I think you will be surprised at what the city will look like in 20 years.

[QUOTE=edsg25]Some of you may have read the column in the LA Times last week about how the freeway system is reaching its maximum capacity. If I'm not mistaken, the author said in another five years it will come to a complete halt in total paralysis due to increased usage it cannot handle.

First, I want to know if you, as Angelenos, believe that the doom's day scenerio is that close in time? Is capacity about to be reached?



Oh shit was happening in LA, I will not be able to drive my SUV in LA. :gaah: :gaah: :gaah: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!

^Hey, more transit the better. Whats the problem?

^Hey, more transit the better. Whats the problem?

You say Transit (%#*&@) maybe later when I'm retired or something!!!!

I would have to agree with "dweeb"s and "svs"s comments. Couldn't have said it better. What we will be seeing in the present and near future is a re-shifting of the city. In fact, it is happening right in front of our eyes. TOD's are going to be the solution along with the building of more rail and rapid transit of ANY sort. We are also going to have to tough love ourselves away from single family residences and although I would like to see some remain as a uniquely charming aspect of LA, many are going to have to be replaced by consent or eminant(?) domain by the city. We have examples in neighborhoods such as Hollywood and Koreatown that at one time surprisingly had many a single family residence but have been continually replaced by multifamily dwelling places. As the century rolls on suburbs in my opinion are going to become increasingly challenging places for practical living. We might even see a reverse de facto segregation as the poor are left further out and disconnected and the ones that can afford it move in closer for the accessibility factors and vibrant life that only an urban center can serve up.
Their is an old mentality in LA that doesn't yet fully comprehend that they are in the middle of a movement of mass densification of the city.
The only challenge that I see opposing this smooth transition are the zoning laws that particularly "Westsiders" fight visciously to defend. Hence, why most of the Westside is truly becoming a parking lot.
And btw "dweeb" what should we call that very dense area of people, jobs and activities that stretch from south of the 101, west of downtown while including it, and north of the 10? Whether this area stretches beyond the 405 heading west is up for debate. This would be LA's Manhattan, for lack of a better example.

We might even see a reverse de facto segregation as the poor are left further out and disconnected and the ones that can afford it move in closer for the accessibility factors and vibrant life that only an urban center can serve up.

we are already seeing this..
Look at NY. Or anywhere in Europe.

Interestingly enough, I'm actually writing a thesis on the "New American Urban Dream" and what it will consist of, how it will be different from other urbanities, and how it's exclusionary ideals and constructions will work in the same ways that suburban developments, especially gated communities, have.

Just go to Downtown Pasadena and tell me you don't feel like you're at an upright gated community convention..
There's a reason more and more "new urbanist" developments are being made by gated community developers. Many of the same profitability and exclusivity factors are at play in these new developments.

I'm not saying the urban ideal doesn't appeal to me (it should, since I'm a well-educated 20 something with the potential to make a lot of money), but more and more it just becomes so tarnished with chic-chic tack and LA Live crap. And it's f-ing expensive!!!!!!!
The only people I know who are able to live a cool, true, inexpensive "artist-like" life (what lofts were for originally, for those of you who may just know them as glorified yuppie-bins) live in a pink ranch house in Lawndale with a cactus garden. I honestly just don't think I'll be able to afford to live "urban" in LA once I graduate, unless Koreatown magically somehow does not become CityWest West.

I'll keep you updated on what I learn.

Also, hopefully AV can help keep urban LA vibrant and multi-class by forcing affordable housing promises TO STAY KEPT!!!
LA's property tax laws have kept the home market robust and, at one time, affordable, maybe similar rent controls on apartments would help?

And about your question of what LA's manhattan should be called, I always just call it "LA LA," but that's confusing..

blah... traffic is no biggy yet, i can go from burbank to santa monica to downtown to silver lake in an hour. that is pritty good! you just have to know were not to go and why, hov lane use does not hurt ither, yah some places suck but the vast majority of la highways are smooth sailin... its those damn surface streets that are laggin behind.

You coudln't be righter! The press for affordable housing is going to move to crisis stage if things are not headed off. My friends who contemplate moving to LA annualy around this time of year from NYC are always surprised that the rent in here is not far off from NYC's infamous rent prices. And when you factor in the cost of maintaining, upkeep and purchase of a car, it might come out a hedge more. They all thought it would be enormously less expensive to live here. But alas, they are wrong again.

Just did a drive by on Craigslist and compared rent of the two "sister cities" of Silverlake and Williamsburg. They both are overpriced but on average Williamsburg for a 2 bedroom averages $2100-$2500 or so. Some much more some less. Silverlake is surprisingly at $1700-$2100 more or less. Factor in the extra expense of a car w/ repair, payments, insurance and registration, 'bout the same if not more.