The new trains and stuff are nice. Some of the other aspects of this "Mobility Plan" are really annoying. The main one I dislike is how some already incredibly busy streets have had a whole lane sliced out for a bike lane. It's usually empty, and not that safe, because of people turning right across it.
I get that everyone having a car in LA is not a way to allow greater density, but, it's reality for now and making everyone in that reality suffer isn't a great way to get re-elected. More light rail lines, awesome, making driving a car more miserable than it is, not so much.
The opposite of that, addressing current concerns, is what created the mess of LA to begin with. Here's some examples:
In the 1920s, to alleviate traffic on a specific downtown to miracle mile commute, macarthur park was split in half and wilshire was cut through the middle of the park. The park remains split in 2016 due to this 1920s era problem.
In the 1950s, due to a lack of downtown parking, pershing square was gutted to be a multi-level underground parking structure with a poorly accessible park on top. Now in 2016, when we want a walkable city, many lament that our one central park is really just a multi-level parking lot.
The central problem here is that when city policy crafts a solution with 80 years of consequences to alleviate a 3 year problem, the urban landscape becomes disjointed and short-sighted.
Instead, this concept, which includes things like bike lanes, high density dwellings, and trains, are people trying to come up with 80 year solutions that are forward thinking.
There's been a problem getting all the right funding and public support on board but it's far easier today then what it took to get that first train to long beach open in 1990. The newer high density housing is still not pedestrian accessible, but that is changing in the buildings that are being planned right now and will be complete in a few years.
I think LA is attracting the right people and fostering the right attitude for a workable city that will blossom with sustainability, creativity, and livability in the upcoming generation.
> In the 1950s, due to a lack of downtown parking, pershing square was gutted to be a multi-level underground parking structure with a poorly accessible park on top. Now in 2016, when we want a walkable city, many lament that our one central park is really just a multi-level parking lot.
I think [Grand Park] might be the New Central Park™. But it is, to your point, divided into three sections by streets cutting through the middle of it. =(
The upper two levels have been parks and plaza space since 1966 when it was called El Paseo de Los Pobladores de Los Angeles or just Civic Center Mall. Prior to that the lower level had been a parking lot and there was a road that cut through the center, leading to city hall. They cut the lower parking lot into the park in the 2010 project you talk about.
So yes, grand park has been gradually growing in size for about 50 years. It certainly now has a more memorable name. It's going in a good direction...
Cars make surpassing a certain level of urban density really difficult. As parts of LA are getting there, people are finding out they really can't do it and at the same time allocate enough space for everyone to have their own car. The divorce of the 60s onward happend as a physical necessity. I think LA is growing past such reactionary urban planning. I hope so
Very true. I also hope all of this finds some sort of equitable way to de-sprawl somewhat. Transit in LA does have such an interesting history of missteps. Can you imagine what things might be like if they never got rid of the red car system?!
The red car was a loss leader for real estate development. It was hastily and cheaply constructed for short term profit, not carefully planned for long term growth and utility.
Almost all crossings were at-grade and rail was being converted to bus as early as 1925.
Trains were being pulled up after the property was sold and many lines averaged under 13 mph as the density and car traffic increased.
The rail lines themselves were cheap material. Many lines were closed when they became too costly to repair.
The anarchy of free market competition is a poor substitute for thoughtful urban planning.
Biking is a way more efficient way of getting around a downtown core. It makes more sense to ban cars downtown (except freight and emergency) than to effectively ban bikes by not having bike lanes.
Not sure how many people bike there, but if they make driving even worse, and people notice an empty bike lane, maybe it will encourage them to try hoping on a bike instead, whenever possible?
Pretty much with bike lanes it's a "build it and they'll come" situation. If you don't have protected bike lanes and biking is unsafe, you don't get a lot of cyclists. The bike lanes may look empty now, but you have to build some degree of a complete network for the whole thing to work and for bicycling to become an appealing alternative to driving a car.
Looking at it another way, how many people would drive from A to B if the road narrowed to a single lane and became a pothole filled dirt road? It probably wouldn't be an appealing commute.
>Pretty much with bike lanes it's a "build it and they'll come" situation
not just with bike lanes - this works for most transportation infrastructure, and in both directions. If you take away a car lane, less people choose to drive. If you add a car lane, you don't get less congestion, you get more people driving. People choose the optimal route, and there's a lot more people going places than the current road network can accommodate. you can keep widening roads for a long time without having much impact on congestion. If you want to actually fix the roads, you need to improve the more efficient means of transportation, like bicycle lanes and mass transit.
I would say the main deterrent to riding a bike in LA is the fact the city is not dense, not the lack of bike lanes. Very few folks can afford to live anywhere close to where they work in LA. I don't know how one would solve that fairly, but, I don't think making bike lanes where they have little use (e.g. where it is a bedroom community) helps.
I wonder how many people are actually in the situation that they commute some unpleasant distance to work, wishing they could live nearer, while meanwhile someone occupying a pleasant apartment near there work is doing the reverse every morning?
Actually, yeah. They added them on Foothill Blvd in Tujunga a while back. I seriously have never seen anyone ride a bike in one, and I drive around there at least weekly. Vineland between Lankershim and the 101 is also a good example, but that's a bit denser. The lane is just huge though.
Quite a few people bike here in my anecdotal experience. However, LA suffers from the same problems as SF. Certain areas are becoming impossible to afford, so if you work in or near those areas you have to live very far out and commute a distance that's not realistically bikeable. (And also some people have disabilities that make biking unrealistic.) People in my office are commuting from over 30 miles away. In fact, some are commuting from Orange County up to LA's west side.
Unprotected bike lanes are scary. I avoid them whenever possible for the reason you mentioned.
Long Beach has the right idea when it comes to bike lanes. They are protected by raised pavement so distracted or aggressive drivers can't just merge into them.
In the case of the trial DTLA Broadway road diet, auto lanes were removed for a bike lane, yes, but also to allow for wider sidewalks. This space is being used (e.g.) for sidewalk tables outside of the Grand Central Market.
> I get that everyone having a car in LA is not a way to allow greater density, but, it's reality for now and making everyone in that reality suffer isn't a great way to get re-elected.
Got any great advice for changing the status quo? ;)
