[fjp]

Or you could just run the subways in LA more often/not full. Then the experience would be enjoyable and living near the lines would become more desirable, and the more people take the transit and then oh look spread starts to contract a bit and your long term plan is starting to materialize!

It would be idiotic to create an LA train system designed to handle only the amount of people that will busing it within the first year.

[AnthonyMouse]

Operating mass transit when it isn't full serves no purpose. The entire point of mass transit is that it's more efficient than cars when it's full -- when it's not full it's less efficient. A bus carrying the same number of people as a car takes up more space and uses more fuel, and requires a driver which makes it dramatically more expensive when amortized over that number of people.

> It would be idiotic to create an LA train system designed to handle only the amount of people that will busing it within the first year.

Of course you do. Trains replace buses in the places with enough density to justify them. You don't build a train in a place that would only see it half full, you just run a bus there which holds half as many people.

The problem is most of these places can't even fill a bus every ten minutes because everything is so spread out. You need more taller buildings first.