[rebootthesystem]

The argument for public transportation in Los Angeles is a continuing theme...and it is also one that is nonsensical in the context of this city.

The city of Los Angeles, and by that I mean the sprawling megalopolis it really is, simply isn't built for public transportation. A fundamental shift in urban design of massive proportions would have to occur for mass transportation to make dent here.

In order to affect this massive re-modelling of the city one would have to use eminent domain laws to force millions of people to sell their properties and move. You would literally have to displace millions of people in order to build the required roadways and infrastructure that would allow a shift towards mass transit. This, of course isn't only unthinkable, it's impossible.

Take the "simplest" (in quotes because I am being sarcastic about the actual simplicity) of all problems: Where do you park your car?

Mass transit isn't going to reach into every suburban neighborhood. And, no, people are not going to ride bicycles. If we want an Amsterdam-like bicycle culture we would have to displace even more people. And then you'd have to build massive bike parking lots like the one next to Centraal station in Amsterdam.

People would need to drive a cars to a parking lot somewhere. Millions of people. There is no space to build these parking lots and the required rail in/out pathways without destroying whole neighborhood en-masse.

Once you get to work you'd have to be able to get from the station to your workplace. Once again, if we want this to be within walking or biking distance of most businesses we would have to tear-up whole neighborhoods in order to enable the tentacles of a mass transit infrastructure to get close enough.

And then there's the cost. I won't even bother trying to estimate it. What's the cost of buying-up, I don't know, 100,000 homes? Include both the real estate and legal costs ('cause there would be tens of thousands of lawsuits). And, once all homes are acquired and millions displaced, what's the cost of construction.

Nah, LA isn't suitable for mass transit in the spirit of many European cities. The comparison is futile.

What we could do is try to encourage --over time-- a spreading out of centers of employment. This can be done NY style by offering no taxes for ten years for the relocation or startup of businesses in designated areas. There's a huge focal point of businesses in the Downtown LA to Santa Monica corridor that creates massive traffic flows from as far away as 50 miles in every direction. That's the problem.

Most of those businesses don't need to be there. Why some flock to that corridor is somewhat incomprehensible to me other than there might be lack of space availability or zoning issues much outside that region.

It's a tough problem. Not sure tunneling is the solution either.

[galdosdi]

Baloney. Just add a bunch of buses, with exclusive bus lanes covering their whole route. Choose the initial routes so they'll at least break even.

Bam, you have a good public transit system that is much faster than private cars due to being immune to traffic, and you didn't have to confiscate any property, build anything expensive, or do anything else exciting or risky.

Everyone's obsessed with rail, and rail is nice, but if you already have roads rapid bus transit makes more sense in the short run

[rebootthesystem]

How did you know my name is Baloney Bam?

You must not live in Los Angeles. If you took a lane away on every freeway the mayhem you'd create would be indescribably. In some places you can't due to the topology of the roads.

Besides, buses will guarantee that it will take three hours to move a handful of miles because they would have to get on and off the freeways at regular intervals and brave street level congestion while then making stops at non-existing parking lots (they don't exist now) to pick-up and drop off people.

There are no good mass transit solutions in Los Angeles. I've lived here long enough to see and analyze what is happening from multiple vantage points. We lived by the beach, desert, inland and in a couple of valleys. It's a mess. This megalopolis did not evolve to be mass transit friendly.

I say this with sadness because there's nothing I'd like more than not to own a car. I am simply being a realist on this one.

[galdosdi]

> If you took a lane away on every freeway the mayhem you'd create would be indescribably.

Really? Because all those lanes that have been added over the years don't appear to have made a big difference.

Also, the lane would be replaced with something amazing angelinos have never seen before -- a transport mode way faster than any other. With all the people choosing to use that bus, there'll be less car traffic. Saving half an hour has a way of turning excuses like "the bus is crowded" into jelly.

(Also, if it turns out you're right, lane rules and hours can be adjusted immediately with just a little paint or a sign. This is not risky.)

> Besides, buses will guarantee that it will take three hours to move a handful of miles because they would have to get on and off the freeways at regular intervals and brave street level congestion while then making stops

Um, don't use the freeway then, except where it's genuinely more direct. Then you don't have to take lanes away anyway.

> at non-existing parking lots (they don't exist now) to pick-up and drop off people.

Are you kidding? There's so much space in wasted parking lots for individual businesses, or even street space on these huge wide roads, any of which could be reclaimed.

> You must not live in Los Angeles.

Correct! If I did, I'd be afflicted by the same sad disease as you, lack of imagination.

Fact is, we make it work here in metro NYC, which is as big and sprawled out as LA -- probably more actually. If we can do it, so can you. (Note that by metro NYC I don't mean manhattan and the like, I mean to emphasize the outer parts, the 4 boroughs and 3 detached counties (Westchester, Bergen, Hudson) surrounding manhattan.

I invite you to come tour outer NYC, and see what you think

[rebootthesystem]

> I'd be afflicted by the same sad disease as you, lack of imagination.

And the conversation stops here. Thanks.

[zip1234]

They don't even need to say no taxes in certain areas. All that has to be done is allow other uses in residential areas. An area that previously just had loads of houses could then have a commercial building. Businesses would do it because it is much cheaper than building in zoned commercial or leasing in a skyscraper. Just alter zoning laws and it would be much better.