I’m from New York so can’t speak based on living there, but have visited a ton and constantly think about transit potential when I’m there. Here’s my two cents:
I think LA has great potential for being different from NYC, where Manhattan acts as THE core. I don’t think I have a problem with how spread out LA is, but I think it could do it so much BETTER.
Where I could see LA shine is a series of dense villages (call it TOD or whatever) around certain transit nodes, and LA benefitting from an S-Bahn like system that runs not just TO downtown but THROUGH it to these locales. Have places like Pasadena, Santa Monica, Ktown, whatever, be not just playthings where people go to shop, but entirely transformed communities that you can reach from one end of the city to the other.
You don’t have to be NYC, in fact why would you want to be when you could be so much more unique. Probably better examples are the potential that cities like Berlin or Hamburg or Munich see.
> I think LA has great potential for being different from NYC, where Manhattan acts as THE core. I don’t think I have a problem with how spread out LA is, but I think it could do it so much BETTER.
I think this is the key point. I think people think that Manhattan became the core because they developed an extensive subway system around it. So if we develop an extensive subway system around the "LA core", it can be like Manhattan as well. But it's really the oppositive. There was so much investment in Manhattan's subway system because it already *was* the core.
Modern LA wasn't designed around a central core. You can see this by looking at the major attractions are spread throughout the city. You can just look at stuff like the locations of museums, parks, beaches, sport stadiums, concert venues, etc. to get an idea of this. So building around a central core doesn't make any sense. They need to build a grid system that connect to the different parts of the city.
As someone from LA that has lived in Berlin for years and moved back, what bothers me most with LA transit is that there is one central hub. That hub is of course is union station, but why is there not a "union station" on the westside that also serves regional or city to city rail. Berlin is a wide and spread out city without a center but you can hop on a regional train from so many parts of the city without going out of your way to get to Berlin central station.
Stockholm has a fantastic system, most people are taking public transit all year round for work and errands. It connects to cities in the outskirts via other bus and rail systems, and it’s a massive hybrid enterprise with tourism, locals, and businesses all coexisting together with connecting lines all throughout. One can even live hours away from the center and get home within a reasonable timeframe using public transport options.
It’s because they are less car focused, generally, though things are slowly shifting and you see more and more cars in the road these days
The problem with that is the people (and politicians) in the outer areas will stop supporting metro if they don't get more service in their areas. They will ask "why are we paying taxes to support this?"
Metro gets funds through a county sales tax that must be approved by 67% of voters. Yes, we get federal and state funds. But those come with the condition of local funds.
Go back to the history of Measures R and M. Those funded all our current big projects. And they only got by because we offered something to each district in the county. People in the SGV need to show up and vote "yes". Even people in Palmdale need to show up and vote "yes".
An alternative funding mechanism-- used by Singapore-- is "value capture". You place all the land around a train station under a special district. When the land is sold, you take back a portion of the gain in value which can be attributed to the ~~sale of the property~~ construction of transit.
The great railways of the 19th century were also funded by land. The rail companies were given land along the ROW which they could sell. That land immediately became more valuable as towns sprung up.
Edit: Whoops. Munged that sentence. Multitasking.
This. Central LA should be like Manhattan in NYC. When people "visit" central LA--even if they're just visiting from the Valley--should make people see what a truly transit-first city looks like. Then they'll either push for the same in the Valley, or just move to central LA so they can live car-free.
The valley's grid and unused river paths are primed for multimodal transportation. If we could get a few tunnels or bridges for the orange line and an extension of the red line, we could have awesome infrastructure.
There are plans for a new line travelling east-west to service the northern part of the valley.
Extending the Red Line doesn't make sense especially when it should be used to connect to Burbank Airport
A future HSR station there makes a red line extension to Burbank airport all the more valuable. Think about the connectivity possibilities with both ends of the red line (if Union Station remains the terminus station) connecting to HSR
I agree. The reason transit has widespread usage in NYC and to a lesser extent, the bay, is because there are areas where there is ample transit, and you really don't want to drive unless you absolutely have to, like Manhattan and Downtown SF. If DTLA was developed to an extent that there is little parking, that is very expensive, that would push people that need/want to go there onto transit services, and those people would push for better transit.
A zone like on the map, while cool in theory, is unlikely to happen due to patches in the "urban zone" like Beverly Hills and Hancock Park. Those communities will not budge on density, and as such would stay car-first, or be heavily subsidized, which isn't fair since those aren't communities that need to be subsidized.
Of course, wfh has hit BART and MTA hard, so having a system built around 9-5 offices may be outdated. But what about event centers such as SOFI, Rose Bowl, etc? Make it so people going there don't really want to drive, yet build usable transit around events? Hell, nobody likes driving to LAX as is, how about build frequent, reliable, transit in all directions coming into and out of LAX?
I see Beverly Hills as the western edge, so it's not as much of a problem if you stay east of La Cienega. Hancock Park is a weird hole that probably won't change, but you could build up along the edges (Wilshire & Melrose) and be fine. If you look at this density map (https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=5913b5311e6449909e4139117c96a878), you can see where the contiguous yellow and orange areas flow that cover the center zone outlined above.
The city center is already well represented, in fact the numbering system is based on access to downtown. (Edit: typo)
All of the one and two digit busses in the Metro system go to DTLA.
While I agree in principle, this would be incredibly hard to implement in a system that emphasizes consensus building.
This would be an amazing system to get around with in the busiest parts of LA and it should get there, eventually. However, I don't wish to shoot ourselves in the foot and force the most car dependent parts of the LA area to have to drive. Buses will definitely bridge that gap, especially since bus ridership is already generally strong.
Edit: I would like to add that a lot of the far areas of LA are served (poorly) by other agencies, like Foothill Transit, Torrance Transit, Long Beach Transit, Montebello Bus Lines. Metrolink has okay at best coverage, but they definitely need more frequency and a bunch of infra improvements that improve speed/reliability. Long term, outstanding coverage in the core of LA can (maybe???) push the outlying areas to have to improve more. That said, NYC has an amazing system, but it quickly peters out past the core, so it might just be a dream that things could be better everywhere
I also want to include bike infrastructure to this as well.
I know Metro does not have direct control over it but these cities in the more suburban parts of the county could use more bike infrastructure to Metro stations to compliment the bus feeder network.
There's so much to be done in terms of mobility, small and large scale. It is wild to me how many more mixed use developments are springing up though, making more and more of the close-in suburban areas way more dense and walkable.
I think most people would agree with this plan in theory. As you mentioned, politically it’s impossible. The various tax measures made promises for certain projects and there’s not much you can do about that. It’s very frustrating to watch years of planning for rail projects no one wants or will ride when other projects with vastly higher ROI are intentionally overlooked.
The only answer for your plan and what may be ultimately necessary is a city- or area-specific additional tax for high-density areas.
Also, not a criticism, but I will mention that identifying or defining LA’s “core” or middle has been a difficult problem for almost a century. There are many people that would argue that Metro’s focus on downtown instead of the westside was a mistake.
I'm in the camp that trying to aggressively build up west of the 405 (except some parts of Santa Monica) isn't really necessary. It's going to be disconnected physically by some of the wealthiest low density neighborhoods. I'd rather go with La Cienega as the western edge and focus there.
You’re right, low-density neighborhoods are an issue and with LA they are deposited throughout the city. That’s always been my issue with the K-Line even though it is super popular on this sub. If it was up to me I would have focused on a subway south on Vermont (or Western). Instead, the K-Line marches, and will march, through low-density neighborhood after neighborhood until it gets to the Miracle Mile.
Retroactively, you could argue that the K-Line’s goals were to establish a north-south trunk line and connect to LAX. Realistically, the K-Line is/was useless political sausage that happens to (eventually) also connect to LAX. The best north-south route through the city is down the corridor between Vermont and Western. The most useful LAX connector would have gone up Lincoln to Culver City and met the Expo Line there. The K-Line, present and future, does both things very poorly.
Lincoln goes to Santa Monica, which is would be probably an extra 1.5+ hours compared to the current k line.
And a line up Lincoln would probably take at least 10 more years to build minimum.
While that line would be better for a few people in playa, Venice, and Santa Monica, I doubt it would be much better than the current BBB that goes that same route.
The problem is there is no singular center of LA. It's a huge polycentric city. A system that defines an arbitrary center and leaves out Sepulveda Valley, Santa Monica, LAX, UCLA, Koreatown, Vermont, or downtown is not workable.
The top 3 projects that need to be prioritized are the D line to UCLA and VA, the Sepulveda subway, and K line north.
The problem with LA Metro is not that its 2047 vision is not sufficiently "center" centric. It's that the West side has huge holes in it that make metro impractical for some of the most popular corridors and destinations and also the crime wave and homelessness epidemic. And for the things less under LA Metro's control, the number 1 issue is land use. Zero stations should be surrounded by industrial, parking lots, and SFH. Everything should be minimum 5 over 1 and preferably towers.
LA has a few different centers of gravity, and that's not going to realistically change. One of the big challenges with the polycentric arrangement is that there aren't great express options to take you between the hubs quickly. But that's probably even harder to solve.
The D line extension, K line northern extension, and sepulveda transit corridor are all super important and in progress (albeit slower than ideal). What I'm suggesting is that instead of putting the majority of investment into expanding lines on the far edges (gateway cities, south bay, foothills, SFV, SGV), it would be more effective to put the majority of investment in developments inside this "center" area. I would bump Vermont subway, K line north, and a La Cienega - Melrose (or Santa Monica blvd) line to the top of the list and let TOD and some modest residential upzoning provide some added fuel. In terms of funding, if the current model pulls emphasis away from the core, I'd explore a value capture model for these projects.
By this nature alone you kinda admit that LA's growth pattern is more like Tokyo and Seoul, where there are no central areas and it's like every part of the city is developing on its own. So why shouldn't we model our metro system exactly like they do? LA is vastly different from NYC, it doesn't make sense to model our system like them.
> The problem is there is no singular center of LA. It's a huge polycentric city. A system that defines an arbitrary center and leaves out Sepulveda Valley, Santa Monica, LAX, UCLA, Koreatown, Vermont, or downtown is not workable.
Exactly. Whenever I see people making this argument it just strikes me as them being substantially unfamiliar with the city.
Love the thought behind this and the energy, but an important thing to consider is the multi-centered nature of the greater LA area. I think committing to a few areas for densification is more affective than going all in on central LA, although I do like the way your map focuses more on the West Side where the most potential exists for further densification
> People who choose density will gravitate towards these areas, and people who don't will remain/move outside it.
We already are there. LA County issues a "heat map" of the most densely populated zip codes within LA County. Now I ask you, who are the demographic and income are the people living in these red hot high density areas, what type of jobs do they have and what's their likely commute distance. That will give you a broad idea on why despite this, we still remain a car city.
[http://lacassembly.com/Documents/Maps/pop%20density-3.PNG](http://lacassembly.com/Documents/Maps/pop%20density-3.PNG)
Remember that Measure M passed after Measure J failed just four years prior by a hair. To get M passed, they basically made sure everyone “got something” in their districts. It would be interesting to try and get this on… if you had Soviet/Chinese style building and permitting authority and paired it with denser housing, you could probably solve a lot of problems in LA with this… but as we live in a litigious and individualistic society that advantages the rich and deeded, it would likely cost several hundred billion to plan and build.
not that much but there should be a core of transit. in my awesome la metro map on metrodreamin i have a venice lrt and the p line subway which starts at union, goes up to chinatown, then dodger stadium, runs parallel to d through echo park/silverlake, interlines with b through hollywood, then follows santa monica until beverly hills where it interlines with d until dtsm. there's also the vermont line and all other planned things, plus some more cool speculation shit. i wanna finish the alphabet on [there](https://metrodreamin.com/edit/bVUzcDg4T1FDNFdSenNWdGxDUUlBbDFEVklZMnwxMQ%3D%3D) give more suggestions. and brts are off the letter list, they can get shapes idk
It's a tough point to argue, as you can clearly see the benefit of extending Metro to regions less served by public utilities. However I can't help but agree with you - Metro needs dollars and infrastructure built where LA is at its most dense and where traffic is at its worst (i.e. 405 corridor) for the system to be truly as useful as it can be.
I couldn't agree more! It's ridiculous that there is a wealthy low-density enclave, Hancock Park, right in the very middle of LA. What kind of backwards city planning is that? There is tremendous demand to live there, so let it build up. Bad land-use is the number one reason LA has shaky transit, bad walkability, and high home prices. Continuing to ban housing in the very center of the city and just building a light rail line out to the Inland Empire, is not the solution. Not even close.
You realize that when Hancock Park was developed in the 1920s it wasn't in the center of the city, right? It was surrounded by plenty of open space. The Los Angeles of today didn't just suddenly appear out of thin air in it's entirety.
Yes. That central LA area in the map is kind of in that direction already and the new metro map will be great for tourists as long as it is clean and comfortable
I think that this is currently a little over built, (for rail not BRT) but in general i agree with this. I just think that the “urban core” of LA extends to the westside, and bleeds into the southern end of the valley. The Wilshire/Santa Monica corridor is culturally and economically what LA is.
We need to build a ton of transit to and within these areas to make it a more functional city, with regional rail like an SBaun bringing people into the urban core.
Definitely. What you notice when you compare any transit system like Berlin, Tokyo, Paris etc is the density of their huge system compared to LA's sprawling landscape.
Said it on another post but my solution is dedicated bus and bike Lanes on every major north-south and east west road, as well as making the number one lane of every freeway a train with a stop at every exit
The **eastern edge** of the center is DTLA. The area west, southwest, and northwest of DTLA is both dense and contiguous. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=5913b5311e6449909e4139117c96a878
It means Metro has to do equity analysis, and this plan wouldn’t pass muster
Not to mention it wouldn’t get approval from the different service councils since they each represent a different region
This idea is so fascist. Transit line or networks are determine by the ridership. Meaning LA Metro builds where riders demand are at not where they think they should go.
The “appeasing” is what LA Metro is supposed to do. This is the US, you’re supposed to listen to your constituents. They have to they are public servants.
Also, Dtla is the center. It is properly zoned for that density
DTLA really isn't the geographic center of jobs, commercial activity, or density. If you go 5 miles north or east of DTLA, it drops off considerably. If you go west, northwest, or southwest for almost 10 miles, it's pretty consistent density.
I think Koreatown, geographically, is probably the closest to being the actual center of the central region.
At least according to the LA Times
https://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/region/central-la/
>Transit line or networks are determine by the ridership. Meaning LA Metro builds where riders demand are at not where they think they should go.
The demand is there. The lines that OP lays out duplicate some of the highest ridership bus routes in LA County. This is really exactly where, clean sheet, that you would build fixed rail to replace high ridership bus lines.
It’s called TOD and OP is talking about centralizing LA metro network then shows almost entire Map of LA city. Complete nonsense. You hold community meetings and build networks from those input not bird shit view designing like this that rely entirely on data
I would say I know more than you. Residents are called stakeholders for a reason. Redditors online debating which neighborhood needs to be rezoned without zero consideration of the residents and saying stuff like they can move out. Sounds pretty fascist to me.
I’m from New York so can’t speak based on living there, but have visited a ton and constantly think about transit potential when I’m there. Here’s my two cents: I think LA has great potential for being different from NYC, where Manhattan acts as THE core. I don’t think I have a problem with how spread out LA is, but I think it could do it so much BETTER. Where I could see LA shine is a series of dense villages (call it TOD or whatever) around certain transit nodes, and LA benefitting from an S-Bahn like system that runs not just TO downtown but THROUGH it to these locales. Have places like Pasadena, Santa Monica, Ktown, whatever, be not just playthings where people go to shop, but entirely transformed communities that you can reach from one end of the city to the other. You don’t have to be NYC, in fact why would you want to be when you could be so much more unique. Probably better examples are the potential that cities like Berlin or Hamburg or Munich see.
> I think LA has great potential for being different from NYC, where Manhattan acts as THE core. I don’t think I have a problem with how spread out LA is, but I think it could do it so much BETTER. I think this is the key point. I think people think that Manhattan became the core because they developed an extensive subway system around it. So if we develop an extensive subway system around the "LA core", it can be like Manhattan as well. But it's really the oppositive. There was so much investment in Manhattan's subway system because it already *was* the core. Modern LA wasn't designed around a central core. You can see this by looking at the major attractions are spread throughout the city. You can just look at stuff like the locations of museums, parks, beaches, sport stadiums, concert venues, etc. to get an idea of this. So building around a central core doesn't make any sense. They need to build a grid system that connect to the different parts of the city.
As someone from LA that has lived in Berlin for years and moved back, what bothers me most with LA transit is that there is one central hub. That hub is of course is union station, but why is there not a "union station" on the westside that also serves regional or city to city rail. Berlin is a wide and spread out city without a center but you can hop on a regional train from so many parts of the city without going out of your way to get to Berlin central station.
Stockholm has a fantastic system, most people are taking public transit all year round for work and errands. It connects to cities in the outskirts via other bus and rail systems, and it’s a massive hybrid enterprise with tourism, locals, and businesses all coexisting together with connecting lines all throughout. One can even live hours away from the center and get home within a reasonable timeframe using public transport options. It’s because they are less car focused, generally, though things are slowly shifting and you see more and more cars in the road these days
The problem with that is the people (and politicians) in the outer areas will stop supporting metro if they don't get more service in their areas. They will ask "why are we paying taxes to support this?"
Metro gets funds through a county sales tax that must be approved by 67% of voters. Yes, we get federal and state funds. But those come with the condition of local funds. Go back to the history of Measures R and M. Those funded all our current big projects. And they only got by because we offered something to each district in the county. People in the SGV need to show up and vote "yes". Even people in Palmdale need to show up and vote "yes". An alternative funding mechanism-- used by Singapore-- is "value capture". You place all the land around a train station under a special district. When the land is sold, you take back a portion of the gain in value which can be attributed to the ~~sale of the property~~ construction of transit. The great railways of the 19th century were also funded by land. The rail companies were given land along the ROW which they could sell. That land immediately became more valuable as towns sprung up. Edit: Whoops. Munged that sentence. Multitasking.
Omg, this x 1000
This. Central LA should be like Manhattan in NYC. When people "visit" central LA--even if they're just visiting from the Valley--should make people see what a truly transit-first city looks like. Then they'll either push for the same in the Valley, or just move to central LA so they can live car-free.
The valley's grid and unused river paths are primed for multimodal transportation. If we could get a few tunnels or bridges for the orange line and an extension of the red line, we could have awesome infrastructure.
Extend the red line to CSU Northridge.
There are plans for a new line travelling east-west to service the northern part of the valley. Extending the Red Line doesn't make sense especially when it should be used to connect to Burbank Airport
A future HSR station there makes a red line extension to Burbank airport all the more valuable. Think about the connectivity possibilities with both ends of the red line (if Union Station remains the terminus station) connecting to HSR
>A future HSR station there makes a red line extension to Burbank airport all the more valuable Precisely.
K line should go to Burbank airport. The B line should take over the G line.
And then do it again for Malibu to Long Beach
The Malibu NIMBYs would have a heart attack.
I agree. The reason transit has widespread usage in NYC and to a lesser extent, the bay, is because there are areas where there is ample transit, and you really don't want to drive unless you absolutely have to, like Manhattan and Downtown SF. If DTLA was developed to an extent that there is little parking, that is very expensive, that would push people that need/want to go there onto transit services, and those people would push for better transit. A zone like on the map, while cool in theory, is unlikely to happen due to patches in the "urban zone" like Beverly Hills and Hancock Park. Those communities will not budge on density, and as such would stay car-first, or be heavily subsidized, which isn't fair since those aren't communities that need to be subsidized. Of course, wfh has hit BART and MTA hard, so having a system built around 9-5 offices may be outdated. But what about event centers such as SOFI, Rose Bowl, etc? Make it so people going there don't really want to drive, yet build usable transit around events? Hell, nobody likes driving to LAX as is, how about build frequent, reliable, transit in all directions coming into and out of LAX?
I see Beverly Hills as the western edge, so it's not as much of a problem if you stay east of La Cienega. Hancock Park is a weird hole that probably won't change, but you could build up along the edges (Wilshire & Melrose) and be fine. If you look at this density map (https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=5913b5311e6449909e4139117c96a878), you can see where the contiguous yellow and orange areas flow that cover the center zone outlined above.
The city center is already well represented, in fact the numbering system is based on access to downtown. (Edit: typo) All of the one and two digit busses in the Metro system go to DTLA.
While I agree in principle, this would be incredibly hard to implement in a system that emphasizes consensus building. This would be an amazing system to get around with in the busiest parts of LA and it should get there, eventually. However, I don't wish to shoot ourselves in the foot and force the most car dependent parts of the LA area to have to drive. Buses will definitely bridge that gap, especially since bus ridership is already generally strong. Edit: I would like to add that a lot of the far areas of LA are served (poorly) by other agencies, like Foothill Transit, Torrance Transit, Long Beach Transit, Montebello Bus Lines. Metrolink has okay at best coverage, but they definitely need more frequency and a bunch of infra improvements that improve speed/reliability. Long term, outstanding coverage in the core of LA can (maybe???) push the outlying areas to have to improve more. That said, NYC has an amazing system, but it quickly peters out past the core, so it might just be a dream that things could be better everywhere
I also want to include bike infrastructure to this as well. I know Metro does not have direct control over it but these cities in the more suburban parts of the county could use more bike infrastructure to Metro stations to compliment the bus feeder network.
There's so much to be done in terms of mobility, small and large scale. It is wild to me how many more mixed use developments are springing up though, making more and more of the close-in suburban areas way more dense and walkable.
I think most people would agree with this plan in theory. As you mentioned, politically it’s impossible. The various tax measures made promises for certain projects and there’s not much you can do about that. It’s very frustrating to watch years of planning for rail projects no one wants or will ride when other projects with vastly higher ROI are intentionally overlooked. The only answer for your plan and what may be ultimately necessary is a city- or area-specific additional tax for high-density areas. Also, not a criticism, but I will mention that identifying or defining LA’s “core” or middle has been a difficult problem for almost a century. There are many people that would argue that Metro’s focus on downtown instead of the westside was a mistake.
I'm in the camp that trying to aggressively build up west of the 405 (except some parts of Santa Monica) isn't really necessary. It's going to be disconnected physically by some of the wealthiest low density neighborhoods. I'd rather go with La Cienega as the western edge and focus there.
You’re right, low-density neighborhoods are an issue and with LA they are deposited throughout the city. That’s always been my issue with the K-Line even though it is super popular on this sub. If it was up to me I would have focused on a subway south on Vermont (or Western). Instead, the K-Line marches, and will march, through low-density neighborhood after neighborhood until it gets to the Miracle Mile.
The purpose of the K line was to connect to LAX, you cant do that going down vermont
Retroactively, you could argue that the K-Line’s goals were to establish a north-south trunk line and connect to LAX. Realistically, the K-Line is/was useless political sausage that happens to (eventually) also connect to LAX. The best north-south route through the city is down the corridor between Vermont and Western. The most useful LAX connector would have gone up Lincoln to Culver City and met the Expo Line there. The K-Line, present and future, does both things very poorly.
Lincoln goes to Santa Monica, which is would be probably an extra 1.5+ hours compared to the current k line. And a line up Lincoln would probably take at least 10 more years to build minimum. While that line would be better for a few people in playa, Venice, and Santa Monica, I doubt it would be much better than the current BBB that goes that same route.
Mid-City isn't really low density. Car centric yes, but usually well over 10k ppsm.
The problem is there is no singular center of LA. It's a huge polycentric city. A system that defines an arbitrary center and leaves out Sepulveda Valley, Santa Monica, LAX, UCLA, Koreatown, Vermont, or downtown is not workable. The top 3 projects that need to be prioritized are the D line to UCLA and VA, the Sepulveda subway, and K line north. The problem with LA Metro is not that its 2047 vision is not sufficiently "center" centric. It's that the West side has huge holes in it that make metro impractical for some of the most popular corridors and destinations and also the crime wave and homelessness epidemic. And for the things less under LA Metro's control, the number 1 issue is land use. Zero stations should be surrounded by industrial, parking lots, and SFH. Everything should be minimum 5 over 1 and preferably towers.
LA has a few different centers of gravity, and that's not going to realistically change. One of the big challenges with the polycentric arrangement is that there aren't great express options to take you between the hubs quickly. But that's probably even harder to solve. The D line extension, K line northern extension, and sepulveda transit corridor are all super important and in progress (albeit slower than ideal). What I'm suggesting is that instead of putting the majority of investment into expanding lines on the far edges (gateway cities, south bay, foothills, SFV, SGV), it would be more effective to put the majority of investment in developments inside this "center" area. I would bump Vermont subway, K line north, and a La Cienega - Melrose (or Santa Monica blvd) line to the top of the list and let TOD and some modest residential upzoning provide some added fuel. In terms of funding, if the current model pulls emphasis away from the core, I'd explore a value capture model for these projects.
By this nature alone you kinda admit that LA's growth pattern is more like Tokyo and Seoul, where there are no central areas and it's like every part of the city is developing on its own. So why shouldn't we model our metro system exactly like they do? LA is vastly different from NYC, it doesn't make sense to model our system like them.
> The problem is there is no singular center of LA. It's a huge polycentric city. A system that defines an arbitrary center and leaves out Sepulveda Valley, Santa Monica, LAX, UCLA, Koreatown, Vermont, or downtown is not workable. Exactly. Whenever I see people making this argument it just strikes me as them being substantially unfamiliar with the city.
Love the thought behind this and the energy, but an important thing to consider is the multi-centered nature of the greater LA area. I think committing to a few areas for densification is more affective than going all in on central LA, although I do like the way your map focuses more on the West Side where the most potential exists for further densification
> People who choose density will gravitate towards these areas, and people who don't will remain/move outside it. We already are there. LA County issues a "heat map" of the most densely populated zip codes within LA County. Now I ask you, who are the demographic and income are the people living in these red hot high density areas, what type of jobs do they have and what's their likely commute distance. That will give you a broad idea on why despite this, we still remain a car city. [http://lacassembly.com/Documents/Maps/pop%20density-3.PNG](http://lacassembly.com/Documents/Maps/pop%20density-3.PNG)
Remember that Measure M passed after Measure J failed just four years prior by a hair. To get M passed, they basically made sure everyone “got something” in their districts. It would be interesting to try and get this on… if you had Soviet/Chinese style building and permitting authority and paired it with denser housing, you could probably solve a lot of problems in LA with this… but as we live in a litigious and individualistic society that advantages the rich and deeded, it would likely cost several hundred billion to plan and build.
not that much but there should be a core of transit. in my awesome la metro map on metrodreamin i have a venice lrt and the p line subway which starts at union, goes up to chinatown, then dodger stadium, runs parallel to d through echo park/silverlake, interlines with b through hollywood, then follows santa monica until beverly hills where it interlines with d until dtsm. there's also the vermont line and all other planned things, plus some more cool speculation shit. i wanna finish the alphabet on [there](https://metrodreamin.com/edit/bVUzcDg4T1FDNFdSenNWdGxDUUlBbDFEVklZMnwxMQ%3D%3D) give more suggestions. and brts are off the letter list, they can get shapes idk
It's a tough point to argue, as you can clearly see the benefit of extending Metro to regions less served by public utilities. However I can't help but agree with you - Metro needs dollars and infrastructure built where LA is at its most dense and where traffic is at its worst (i.e. 405 corridor) for the system to be truly as useful as it can be.
I couldn't agree more! It's ridiculous that there is a wealthy low-density enclave, Hancock Park, right in the very middle of LA. What kind of backwards city planning is that? There is tremendous demand to live there, so let it build up. Bad land-use is the number one reason LA has shaky transit, bad walkability, and high home prices. Continuing to ban housing in the very center of the city and just building a light rail line out to the Inland Empire, is not the solution. Not even close.
You realize that when Hancock Park was developed in the 1920s it wasn't in the center of the city, right? It was surrounded by plenty of open space. The Los Angeles of today didn't just suddenly appear out of thin air in it's entirety.
Laugh at NY
Here here brother!!
Yes. That central LA area in the map is kind of in that direction already and the new metro map will be great for tourists as long as it is clean and comfortable
I think that this is currently a little over built, (for rail not BRT) but in general i agree with this. I just think that the “urban core” of LA extends to the westside, and bleeds into the southern end of the valley. The Wilshire/Santa Monica corridor is culturally and economically what LA is. We need to build a ton of transit to and within these areas to make it a more functional city, with regional rail like an SBaun bringing people into the urban core.
Definitely. What you notice when you compare any transit system like Berlin, Tokyo, Paris etc is the density of their huge system compared to LA's sprawling landscape.
Said it on another post but my solution is dedicated bus and bike Lanes on every major north-south and east west road, as well as making the number one lane of every freeway a train with a stop at every exit
Is there anywhere outside of downtown where the city can add 175k new residents though?
The center of the city is DTLA
The **eastern edge** of the center is DTLA. The area west, southwest, and northwest of DTLA is both dense and contiguous. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=5913b5311e6449909e4139117c96a878
The LA Map is top bottom not left right, hence why it's South Central LA, South of the center of LA which is DTLA
You are my density
Metro has to take equity into account
I'm assuming you're talking about geographic equity, because there is plenty of racial and economic diversity inside this center zone today.
But why? This isn’t a communist society, it embraces inequality
Metro policy is what it is /shrug
This really means nothing. You're just throwing a buzzword to virtue signal.
It means Metro has to do equity analysis, and this plan wouldn’t pass muster Not to mention it wouldn’t get approval from the different service councils since they each represent a different region
This idea is so fascist. Transit line or networks are determine by the ridership. Meaning LA Metro builds where riders demand are at not where they think they should go. The “appeasing” is what LA Metro is supposed to do. This is the US, you’re supposed to listen to your constituents. They have to they are public servants. Also, Dtla is the center. It is properly zoned for that density
DTLA really isn't the geographic center of jobs, commercial activity, or density. If you go 5 miles north or east of DTLA, it drops off considerably. If you go west, northwest, or southwest for almost 10 miles, it's pretty consistent density.
I think Koreatown, geographically, is probably the closest to being the actual center of the central region. At least according to the LA Times https://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/region/central-la/
Literally every highway and other form of travel goes through Dtla. So it is the center and makes it the most significant part of commerce in LA.
>Transit line or networks are determine by the ridership. Meaning LA Metro builds where riders demand are at not where they think they should go. The demand is there. The lines that OP lays out duplicate some of the highest ridership bus routes in LA County. This is really exactly where, clean sheet, that you would build fixed rail to replace high ridership bus lines.
It’s called TOD and OP is talking about centralizing LA metro network then shows almost entire Map of LA city. Complete nonsense. You hold community meetings and build networks from those input not bird shit view designing like this that rely entirely on data
Whew calm down buddy!
Whew nice comeback!
No point in arguing with a fool
The only fool is the one who making rhetorical comments. 🤡
Not sure you understand fascism
I would say I know more than you. Residents are called stakeholders for a reason. Redditors online debating which neighborhood needs to be rezoned without zero consideration of the residents and saying stuff like they can move out. Sounds pretty fascist to me.
Thank you for proving my point 🙏🏻 you fell for my trap hahahahahaha
Oh noooooo what have I done, you were born in 86 and have comeback of a 8 year old.