Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Riding the D in Los Angeles: city hopes new subway stations will be game changer

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: Riding the D in Los Angeles: city hopes new subway stations will be game changer

#41

Post by rcbdev »

rayiner wrote: post #37
bradchris wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of this was covered in the article, but it’s not actually Los Angeles’ leadership’s fault (rare praise for a city I love and call home), it was shovel-ready and funded to be built in the 80s. Then there was a ballot measure due to ongoing construction problems of a separate line in the 80s that banned tunneling in Los Angeles. This wasn’t overturned until 2007! Then Beverly Hills (which is also not part of Los A…

In Spain and France, once the legislature approves a transit project, it preempts all other laws and is very difficult to litigate out of existence. Lawsuits cripple our ability to build infrastructure.

Yes, it is this way in most European countries where public transit infrastructure works.

Re: Riding the D in Los Angeles: city hopes new subway stations will be game changer

#42

Post by the_real_cher »

bradchris wrote: post #5
ETlol wrote: post #3

God it's frustrating how slow making these rail transits has been. The D line was literally planned out back in the 1960s and it took this long? I understand the plethora of problems the engineers faced when completing this. But I find it funny that once the World Cup was planned to be in LA, that's when LA leadership expedited all the legal and corporate hurdles in order to make sure we don't have another carmagetto…

Some of this was covered in the article, but it’s not actually Los Angeles’ leadership’s fault (rare praise for a city I love and call home), it was shovel-ready and funded to be built in the 80s. Then there was a ballot measure due to ongoing construction problems of a separate line in the 80s that banned tunneling in Los Angeles. This wasn’t overturned until 2007! Then Beverly Hills (which is also not part of Los A…

Thanks for this awesome explanation!

Re: Riding the D in Los Angeles: city hopes new subway stations will be game changer

#43

Post by testfrequency »

danielhep wrote: post #24
vinckr wrote: post #21

Coming from Germany I found it funny how tiny the subway lines are in major cities in the US compared to medium-sized cities here. I always thought Germany was a country centered a lot around cars but it was so much more extreme in the states; seemed not possible to live in a city(!) without a car.

Depends on the city. In LA, yes it’s very hard to live without a car. I live in Seattle and I live car free as well as many of my friends. It’s not that we can’t afford it, we’ve just built our lives around transit and biking and the city is pretty good for it. Then of course there’s NYC, which is likely better than most European cities for transit. But you’re right that the average here is far far worse when it come…

Seattle was the worst city I’ve ever lived in and not owned a vehicle. It actually made me appreciate Portlands transit even more given the size of the region. LA has even more reliable transit than both, despite how prevalent and necessary most times a vehicle is in SoCal. In LA I was able to get around quickly and further with no drama. Seattle transit I know has been improving, but your routes, frequency, and speeds made me want to pull my hair out. This is also as someone who lived in Capitol Hill which is apparently the transit heaven of Seattle.

Re: Riding the D in Los Angeles: city hopes new subway stations will be game changer

#44

Post by testfrequency »

jhbadger wrote: post #39
danielhep wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the city. In LA, yes it’s very hard to live without a car. I live in Seattle and I live car free as well as many of my friends. It’s not that we can’t afford it, we’ve just built our lives around transit and biking and the city is pretty good for it. Then of course there’s NYC, which is likely better than most European cities for transit. But you’re right that the average here is far far worse when it come…

Even in LA it's quite possible to live without a car if you live in the right neigbhorhoods like K-Town or any other centrally located one where both the Metro and buses are plentiful. LA's a huge place with varying amounts of density.

This. I’ve lived in both Seattle and LA. LA was significantly faster and easier to get to destinations than it ever was in Seattle. Unless you actually live in LA and use the transit, a lot of outsiders will always default to “LA transit bad” which is far from the reality.

Re: Riding the D in Los Angeles: city hopes new subway stations will be game changer

#45

Post by testfrequency »

percentcer wrote: post #16

Los Angeles just needs buses that come through frequently enough to obviate the need to check the schedule. Also dynamic bus routing, which would reduce the total number of buses required for this.

Like most cities around the world it really varies by what route and time of day. There’s plenty of sub every 5m routes during peak hours.

Re: Riding the D in Los Angeles: city hopes new subway stations will be game changer

#46

Post by danielhep »

testfrequency wrote: post #43
danielhep wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the city. In LA, yes it’s very hard to live without a car. I live in Seattle and I live car free as well as many of my friends. It’s not that we can’t afford it, we’ve just built our lives around transit and biking and the city is pretty good for it. Then of course there’s NYC, which is likely better than most European cities for transit. But you’re right that the average here is far far worse when it come…

Seattle was the worst city I’ve ever lived in and not owned a vehicle. It actually made me appreciate Portlands transit even more given the size of the region. LA has even more reliable transit than both, despite how prevalent and necessary most times a vehicle is in SoCal. In LA I was able to get around quickly and further with no drama. Seattle transit I know has been improving, but your routes, frequency, and spee…

Interesting! How long ago was that? Seattle has higher transit ridership than both those cities and is rapidly expanding its transit system. I believe we are still leading the pack in transit ridership growth yoy. Maybe you were here before it got good? I’ve only lived here 5 years.

Re: Riding the D in Los Angeles: city hopes new subway stations will be game changer

#47

Post by testfrequency »

danielhep wrote: post #46
testfrequency wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle was the worst city I’ve ever lived in and not owned a vehicle. It actually made me appreciate Portlands transit even more given the size of the region. LA has even more reliable transit than both, despite how prevalent and necessary most times a vehicle is in SoCal. In LA I was able to get around quickly and further with no drama. Seattle transit I know has been improving, but your routes, frequency, and spee…

Interesting! How long ago was that? Seattle has higher transit ridership than both those cities and is rapidly expanding its transit system. I believe we are still leading the pack in transit ridership growth yoy. Maybe you were here before it got good? I’ve only lived here 5 years.

Pre pandemic. Seattle has more riders than Los Angeles? That’s…not right? I recall needing to rent a car to get nearly anywhere around Seattle, like if I wanted to get from home in Capitol Hill to Golden Gardens, that’s nearly an hour to go 8mi with multiple transfers. The issue with Seattle is it’s a small city with a giant body of the water in the middle of it, with not many bus lanes or hard rail.

Conversely, you can get from downtown LA to Santa Monica in the same amount of time, which is nearly twice the distance, direct. This was not to cherry pick a route either, just a popular dense neighborhood to somewhere scenic.

Re: Riding the D in Los Angeles: city hopes new subway stations will be game changer

#49

Post by [deleted] »

rcbdev wrote: post #41
rayiner wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Spain and France, once the legislature approves a transit project, it preempts all other laws and is very difficult to litigate out of existence. Lawsuits cripple our ability to build infrastructure.

Yes, it is this way in most European countries where public transit infrastructure works.

[deleted]

Re: Riding the D in Los Angeles: city hopes new subway stations will be game changer

#50

Post by yieldcrv »

rayiner wrote: post #37
bradchris wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of this was covered in the article, but it’s not actually Los Angeles’ leadership’s fault (rare praise for a city I love and call home), it was shovel-ready and funded to be built in the 80s. Then there was a ballot measure due to ongoing construction problems of a separate line in the 80s that banned tunneling in Los Angeles. This wasn’t overturned until 2007! Then Beverly Hills (which is also not part of Los A…

In Spain and France, once the legislature approves a transit project, it preempts all other laws and is very difficult to litigate out of existence. Lawsuits cripple our ability to build infrastructure.

The US constitution’s supremacy clause allows for this too

But because higher governments derive their existence from the support of the lower governments, laws are frequently written to allow opt in by lower governments

California very commonly inverts the supremacy relationship

Municipal level governments don’t practice the county’s laws unless they opt in, and don’t practice many of the states laws unless they opt in

Exceptions apply

Post reply on HN