Killing the car not so easy even among mass transit fans

[not4u13]

By John O'Dell, Senior Editor
Edmunds.com

There are a lot of people trying to get us to give up on the ides of independent, personal transportation - i.e., the private automobile.

But I've come away from a two-day "Meeting of the Minds" program in Portland, Ore., with a new example of just how difficult it will be to kill the spirit of independence that has made ownership and use of private vehicles in the U.S. as sacrosanct as the right to vote.

The upshot of the program, convened to examine ways of making our cities more sustainable, was that we are rapidly approaching the point of no return - some pessimists believe we stepped over the threshold years ago.

For the rest of the article, visit the web page below.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradviso ... -fans.html

... so ... what do you folks think about this??

[4B's]

I don't know of anyone who desires to eliminate cars, or "independent, personal transportation". A world-class transit system is all that's needed to reduce the vast number of vehicles on our clogged roads. All you need to do is spend a day or two in NY, SF, DC, Paris, London, etc. and you'll know that you can get from Point A to Point B easily, relatively cheaply with little headaches along the way.

[not4u13]

I don't know of anyone who desires to eliminate cars, or "independent, personal transportation". A world-class transit system is all that's needed to reduce the vast number of vehicles on our clogged roads. All you need to do is spend a day or two in NY, SF, DC, Paris, London, etc. and you'll know that you can get from Point A to Point B easily, relatively cheaply with little headaches along the way.

I have not been to all of those cities you listed but I have been to NY, SF and DC. Those cities created a mass transit system very early in their development and public transportation has become a part of the cities culture, much like the car is a part of the LA culture. I think the point of the article isn't really about the elimination of personal transportation as much is it a commentary on the failure of those designing/building public transportation systems to understand the real needs and benefits to the target community.

I really think that the So Cal area could really benefit from a regional transporation system made up of a combination of high-speed rail, light rail and bus. Users of the system would use the high-speed rail between transporation hubs located in each major city area, light rail to move in and out of the suburban areas and bus for inside the metropolitan area. Designing such a system is prohibitively expensive. Commuters would be required to pay higher taxes to fund the construction and high fares to pay for it all.

In other words, it will never happen.

[4B's]

I have not been to all of those cities you listed but I have been to NY, SF and DC. Those cities created a mass transit system very early in their development and public transportation has become a part of the cities culture, much like the car is a part of the LA culture. I think the point of the article isn't really about the elimination of personal transportation as much is it a commentary on the failure of those designing/building public transportation systems to understand the real needs and benefits to the target community.

I really think that the So Cal area could really benefit from a regional transporation system made up of a combination of high-speed rail, light rail and bus. Users of the system would use the high-speed rail between transporation hubs located in each major city area, light rail to move in and out of the suburban areas and bus for inside the metropolitan area. Designing such a system is prohibitively expensive. Commuters would be required to pay higher taxes to fund the construction and high fares to pay for it all.

In other words, it will never happen.

But it is happening, albeit slowly. There are far too many variables involved in building a subway/light rail system from the ground up; mostly it is enormously expensive. There is a growing rail system in the metro LA area, with new lines due to open within a year that service from downtown to Culver City, downtown to East LA, expansion of the rail line along the 210 Fwy in the SG Valley and a huge push to extend the Red line subway from Hollywood to Santa Monica, which would encompass heavily populated areas in the westside, as well as the vast business districts of Westwood & Century City.

I do not know that buses are the answer. Our infrastructure is not designed to accomodate the amount of traffic we currently have and added buses will, in my opinion, be as much of a problem as a solution. Their presence is a major factor in gridlock.

The biggest problem, however is NIMBYism. Everyone fears a rail system will destroy commerce, disrupt their lifestyle and destroy their community. None of these are true. For example, along the blue line and gold line light rail, businesses along the routes have seen an increase in business, crime has not increased and the stations are cohesive to the neighborhood and even add to it. Especially in some of the poorer neighborhoods along the way.

[GOODave]

I have not been to all of those cities you listed but I have been to NY, SF and DC. Those cities created a mass transit system very early in their development and public transportation has become a part of the cities culture, much like the car is a part of the LA culture. I think the point of the article isn't really about the elimination of personal transportation as much is it a commentary on the failure of those designing/building public transportation systems to understand the real needs and benefits to the target community.

I really think that the So Cal area could really benefit from a regional transporation system made up of a combination of high-speed rail, light rail and bus. Users of the system would use the high-speed rail between transporation hubs located in each major city area, light rail to move in and out of the suburban areas and bus for inside the metropolitan area. Designing such a system is prohibitively expensive. Commuters would be required to pay higher taxes to fund the construction and high fares to pay for it all.

In other words, it will never happen.

But it is happening, albeit slowly. There are far too many variables involved in building a subway/light rail system from the ground up;

You're right, B, with all of it ... but the biggest issue with Southern California is that we got started too late (and I say "we" because I was out there when it "suddenly" became important). IF we'd started back in the 20's or even the 50's, the infrastructure would not be being REPAIRED instead of CREATED. So those brain trusts are stuck with trying to dig massive holes UNDER Los Angeles streets and pretend no one notices when the street above caves into a mammoth sink hole.

Once you (notice my detachment now) get it up and running (IF you ever get it up and running), something is going to have to be done about Southern Californians' love of their own personal autoMO'bile.

I will grant you, you're a lot further along than when I lived out there ... but it is going to take a major paradigm shift to make it and make it work.

[not4u13]

But it is happening, albeit slowly.
...
The biggest problem, however is NIMBYism. Everyone fears a rail system will destroy commerce, disrupt their lifestyle and destroy their community. None of these are true. For example, along the blue line and gold line light rail, businesses along the routes have seen an increase in business, crime has not increased and the stations are cohesive to the neighborhood and even add to it. Especially in some of the poorer neighborhoods along the way.

What is happening in LA is fine for what it is and I do hope it to grow. Perhaps people will start to move back into the city from the 'burbs surrounding LA if the transit system can ever be finished. Until they do, they will have to find some way to get from their homes to this transit system and that is where, IMHO, the whole system starts to fail.

When I wrote "it will never happen" I was referring to a regional transportation system, not one limited to the city/county of LA. Of course, I hope I am wrong and maybe it could happen eventually but not likely in my lifetime ... and I hope to grow to be very old.

As for NIMBYism ... this is a natural opposition to change but it is also a reflection of what people see in the movies or on TV (often their only reference of the outside world beyond their little sphere). How many times do we see good things happen on trains, subways, buses, etc. in the movies? Who wants to live next to the noisy "L"? A business on a busy intersection worries that if they don't get picked for a subway station then where will their business come from? Some of these are legitimate concerns and some are just FUD. To counter this attitude there needs to be a healthy information campaign.

[GOODave]

Well, you guys DO have a "regional" transportation authority: It's called the Southern California Rapid Transit District.

Unfortunately, it really only covers Los Angeles (the city) and a few outlying cities. It is, of course, a giant cluster ______ that oversees the busses and Metro.

A couple years back, I was asked to consider a promotion and relocation back to So. Cal.. The Relo package would include some gross-up between the Illinois COL and the So Cal COL but, even so, the closest I could get to the office in Irvine was Lake Elsinore.

Naturally, I looked into public transportation because I didn't want to face 3-hours on Hwy 74 twice a day.

I found that to get to Irvine on the Metro from Lake Elsinore, I would have to travel all the way into L.A. and, then, back down to Irvine....AND I'd have to keep a car at the Irvine station to drive back and forth to the office. That and the cost of living were the two deal breakers for me.

dave

[4B's]

What is happening in LA is fine for what it is and I do hope it to grow. Perhaps people will start to move back into the city from the 'burbs surrounding LA if the transit system can ever be finished. Until they do, they will have to find some way to get from their homes to this transit system and that is where, IMHO, the whole system starts to fail.

When I wrote "it will never happen" I was referring to a regional transportation system, not one limited to the city/county of LA. Of course, I hope I am wrong and maybe it could happen eventually but not likely in my lifetime ... and I hope to grow to be very old.

As for NIMBYism ... this is a natural opposition to change but it is also a reflection of what people see in the movies or on TV (often their only reference of the outside world beyond their little sphere). How many times do we see good things happen on trains, subways, buses, etc. in the movies? Who wants to live next to the noisy "L"? A business on a busy intersection worries that if they don't get picked for a subway station then where will their business come from? Some of these are legitimate concerns and some are just FUD. To counter this attitude there needs to be a healthy information campaign.

You are correct; where the system cracks is in the outlying areas, or suburbs. Within the city itself, the up and coming rail system is and will work beautifully. But for anyone who lives outside of LA County, even Los Angeles proper, it requires driving to a hub, which can be miles away, and commuting in.

Much of the growth and building in downtown LA is that people are finally getting tired of 3 hour commutes - 1 way! There are countless new condo and loft towers being built and even more old industrial warehouses being converted to lofts. I don't know if you spend any time in downtown, but there are building cranes all over the place. One of the soon to be started buildings will be a 79 and 45 story condo towers. It will be the tallest residential building west of Chicago.

Untill outlying areas such as OC, SB & Riv Counties are willing to invest in linking up to the Metro system in LA, it will only work FOR residents of Los Angeles.

[John Q. Public]

I found that to get to Irvine on the Metro from Lake Elsinore, I would have to travel all the way into L.A. and, then, back down to Irvine....AND I'd have to keep a car at the Irvine station to drive back and forth to the office. That and the cost of living were the two deal breakers for me.

dave

I heard it was about the same trying to get from the Valley to Irvine. Something like a 3 hour train ride. The trouble is that the place just wasn't designed around mass transit. The places where mass transit works well were built around bus and train lines rather than freeways. If we'd done that we wouldn't have 2-mile hikes - even in "master planned" communities - to the nearest bus stop.

And then there's Amtrak. A friend took the train from SJC to Pismo once and it took so long with all the stops in every blinkin' neighborhood between here and there she could have driven there and back in the same time.

[GOODave]

I found that to get to Irvine on the Metro from Lake Elsinore, I would have to travel all the way into L.A. and, then, back down to Irvine....AND I'd have to keep a car at the Irvine station to drive back and forth to the office. That and the cost of living were the two deal breakers for me.

dave

I heard it was about the same trying to get from the Valley to Irvine. Something like a 3 hour train ride. The trouble is that the place just wasn't designed around mass transit. The places where mass transit works well were built around bus and train lines rather than freeways. If we'd done that we wouldn't have 2-mile hikes - even in "master planned" communities - to the nearest bus stop.

And then there's Amtrak. A friend took the train from SJC to Pismo once and it took so long with all the stops in every blinkin' neighborhood between here and there she could have driven there and back in the same time.

My daughter took Amtrak from St. Louis to Bloomington, IL, just this past weekend.

Normally a 3-hour drive if you stop for junk food in Carlinville, the train took 3 1/2 hours. I just filed it under "what the heck is the point?"

You're spot on about So cal not being built to support mass transit. "Forward thinking" was not a specialty in the not-so-distant past. What's really curious is, all of the LA founding fathers (so to speak) came from big cities where they WERE ramping up for rapid transit ... go figure.

dave

[4B's]

I heard it was about the same trying to get from the Valley to Irvine. Something like a 3 hour train ride. The trouble is that the place just wasn't designed around mass transit. The places where mass transit works well were built around bus and train lines rather than freeways. If we'd done that we wouldn't have 2-mile hikes - even in "master planned" communities - to the nearest bus stop.

And then there's Amtrak. A friend took the train from SJC to Pismo once and it took so long with all the stops in every blinkin' neighborhood between here and there she could have driven there and back in the same time.

I've never taken that route, so I have experience with it. However, I have taken the train from downtown LA to Solana Beach. The only stops were at train stations and it only took a bit more than an hour.

[4B's]

...You're spot on about So cal not being built to support mass transit. "Forward thinking" was not a specialty in the not-so-distant past. What's really curious is, all of the LA founding fathers (so to speak) came from big cities where they WERE ramping up for rapid transit ... go figure.

dave

Once upon a time LA had the largest transit system in the nation with the RED CAR. If you really look you can still see that was once here, but most of the route/tracks have been torn up and paved over.

I don't know that the 'design' of our region is unable to support a train system. Most of our major thoroughfares could easily support an overhead 'L' type track, or even a track down the median, such as the Blue Line through most of its route. Also tracks down the center of our freeways would work, like the Green Line on the 105 or the Gold Line along the 210. Unfortunately not all areas are condusive to an underground subway because of the shallow underground water table through much of the area (much of our land is a natural swamp) and a good earthquake shaker could potentially flood the tunnels.

[GOODave]

...You're spot on about So cal not being built to support mass transit. "Forward thinking" was not a specialty in the not-so-distant past. What's really curious is, all of the LA founding fathers (so to speak) came from big cities where they WERE ramping up for rapid transit ... go figure.

dave

Once upon a time LA had the largest transit system in the nation with the RED CAR. If you really look you can still see that was once here, but most of the route/tracks have been torn up and paved over.

I don't know that the 'design' of our region is unable to support a train system. Most of our major thoroughfares could easily support an overhead 'L' type track, or even a track down the median, such as the Blue Line through most of its route. Also tracks down the center of our freeways would work, like the Green Line on the 105 or the Gold Line along the 210. Unfortunately not all areas are condusive to an underground subway because of the shallow underground water table through much of the area (much of our land is a natural swamp) and a good earthquake shaker could potentially flood the tunnels.

I remember hearing about the Pacific Electric Railway system. You're right about it's size, but I was talking more about the City of Los Angeles.

One has to wonder, since PER already had all the tracks and lines laid, why some enterprising transportation Guru didn't just buy them up and put new cars on them. I do recall reading that, shortly after WWII, PER evaluated whether it would be less expensive to upgrade their electric cars or just put buses out there. The latter won because they closed the electric cable cars to passengers shortly thereafter (long about, I guess, '50 or '51).

[not4u13]

Once upon a time LA had the largest transit system in the nation with the RED CAR. If you really look you can still see that was once here, but most of the route/tracks have been torn up and paved over.

I don't know that the 'design' of our region is unable to support a train system. Most of our major thoroughfares could easily support an overhead 'L' type track, or even a track down the median, such as the Blue Line through most of its route. Also tracks down the center of our freeways would work, like the Green Line on the 105 or the Gold Line along the 210. Unfortunately not all areas are condusive to an underground subway because of the shallow underground water table through much of the area (much of our land is a natural swamp) and a good earthquake shaker could potentially flood the tunnels.

What I recall about the evolution of the transportation system in the greater LA area is that the planners believed that the freeway system linking people to the big city from the 'burbs was considered to be a superior system. It was thought to be a competitive advantage. The advent of this freeway system is part of what killed the red line. The urban sprawl was possible in Southern California because of the available land to the East, which was Orange County ... and the growth eventually spread to include the Inland Empire. In other words, the "planners" really thought that they were looking at the future in building the freeway system.

Look at Irvine for example. A "planned" community that didn't "plan" any mass transit system. The whole idea was to create sprawl and very wide roadways with the express purpose of preventing congestion, at least within the city.

We are not finding much wisdom in that approach any longer and now we have this culture of independance with regard to transportation and it is all built around the automobile. Heck, I can't even find a particularly safe route to bike to work. I do it occasionally (used to do it more) but I feel like I am playing a game of human frogger on a bicycle.

[GOODave]

Once upon a time LA had the largest transit system in the nation with the RED CAR. If you really look you can still see that was once here, but most of the route/tracks have been torn up and paved over.

I don't know that the 'design' of our region is unable to support a train system. Most of our major thoroughfares could easily support an overhead 'L' type track, or even a track down the median, such as the Blue Line through most of its route. Also tracks down the center of our freeways would work, like the Green Line on the 105 or the Gold Line along the 210. Unfortunately not all areas are condusive to an underground subway because of the shallow underground water table through much of the area (much of our land is a natural swamp) and a good earthquake shaker could potentially flood the tunnels.

What I recall about the evolution of the transportation system in the greater LA area is that the planners believed that the freeway system linking people to the big city from the 'burbs was considered to be a superior system. It was thought to be a competitive advantage. The advent of this freeway system is part of what killed the red line. The urban sprawl was possible in Southern California because of the available land to the East, which was Orange County ... and the growth eventually spread to include the Inland Empire. In other words, the "planners" really thought that they were looking at the future in building the freeway system.

Look at Irvine for example. A "planned" community that didn't "plan" any mass transit system. The whole idea was to create sprawl and very wide roadways with the express purpose of preventing congestion, at least within the city.

We are not finding much wisdom in that approach any longer and now we have this culture of independance with regard to transportation and it is all built around the automobile. Heck, I can't even find a particularly safe route to bike to work. I do it occasionally (used to do it more) but I feel like I am playing a game of human frogger on a bicycle.

I'm tellin you guys...

The MIDWEST is the place you wanna be (...so they loaded up the truck and they moved to ..uh .. tennessee?)

We have bike trails/hiking trails intertwined between the two cities. Some of them never cross main roads, some of them have bridges over roadways or under roadways ... Nothing motorized allowed and you can get to almost any point in town from any other point in town.

dave

[4B's]

Look at Irvine for example. A "planned" community that didn't "plan" any mass transit system. The whole idea was to create sprawl and very wide roadways with the express purpose of preventing congestion, at least within the city.

We are not finding much wisdom in that approach any longer and now we have this culture of independance with regard to transportation and it is all built around the automobile. Heck, I can't even find a particularly safe route to bike to work. I do it occasionally (used to do it more) but I feel like I am playing a game of human frogger on a bicycle.

I'm tellin you guys...

The MIDWEST is the place you wanna be (...so they loaded up the truck and they moved to ..uh .. tennessee?)

We have bike trails/hiking trails intertwined between the two cities. Some of them never cross main roads, some of them have bridges over roadways or under roadways ... Nothing motorized allowed and you can get to almost any point in town from any other point in town.

Yes, we are now paying the price for the way our region was designed. Does that mean we should abandon all hope of ever changing? If we do that, we will effectively choke ourselves to death, even beyond what we now choke on. Not to mention lose our advantage as the leader of the Pacific Rim, seeing commerce, jobs and influence move to another area.

As for bike routes, they are plentiful, but not necessarily along routes that we use for daily purposes; they are mostly leisure, along our rivers, drainage ditches, beaches, etc. There are a few cities in LA County that are considering allowing bike riders to use sidewalks so they aren't a bullseye on the roads. Although that will cause another headache with pedestrians.

[not4u13]

Yes, we are now paying the price for the way our region was designed. Does that mean we should abandon all hope of ever changing? If we do that, we will effectively choke ourselves to death, even beyond what we now choke on. Not to mention lose our advantage as the leader of the Pacific Rim, seeing commerce, jobs and influence move to another area.

As for bike routes, they are plentiful, but not necessarily along routes that we use for daily purposes; they are mostly leisure, along our rivers, drainage ditches, beaches, etc. There are a few cities in LA County that are considering allowing bike riders to use sidewalks so they aren't a bullseye on the roads. Although that will cause another headache with pedestrians.

I ride plenty of miles on the leisure trails throughout OC and some in LA County. I have ridden the length of the Santa Ana River trail and the San Gabriel River Trail many times. I really enjoy Newport Back Bay. There are many bike lanes on public roadways but they mysteriously disappear and re-appear as you ride from city to city. There is one street I ride regularly where the bike lane just disappears without warning because when they set up the road they put the center line too close to one side so the Eastbound has a very wide shoulder and the Westbound has a shoulder of about 6 inches. There must have been some sort of reason for it but I am telling you they really don't care about the bicycle when they do that stuff. Not to mention intersections. They are designed for vehicle traffic and don't give a thought to bicycle safety.

As for riding on sidewalks. Crazy idea. Very dangerous for a bicycle rider and for pedestrians too. Of course you can safely ride 5 MPH on a sidewalk but not much more than that. I can walk 3 MPH for miles. Why ride a bike then?

As for the notion of "giving up" ... not my style ... I just don't see it ever happening. The first thing that needs to be done is change the tax structure for transportation. They money is floating in too many different directions and with too many restrictions on spending it. Everyone wants to fight over who is responsible for funding a regional system and no city/county wants to give up any tax money for the purpose. I am not much in favor of government control on things but when it comes to our infrastructure, that is what our government and our tax money ought to be spent on. Not entitlement programs.

[4B's]

As for riding on sidewalks. Crazy idea. Very dangerous for a bicycle rider and for pedestrians too. Of course you can safely ride 5 MPH on a sidewalk but not much more than that. I can walk 3 MPH for miles. Why ride a bike then?

As for the notion of "giving up" ... not my style ... I just don't see it ever happening. The first thing that needs to be done is change the tax structure for transportation. They money is floating in too many different directions and with too many restrictions on spending it. Everyone wants to fight over who is responsible for funding a regional system and no city/county wants to give up any tax money for the purpose. I am not much in favor of government control on things but when it comes to our infrastructure, that is what our government and our tax money ought to be spent on. Not entitlement programs.

Being a rather frequent bike rider myself (road bike) for leisure I completely understand what you are saying. To be honest, there are no where near enough people who ride a bike for transportation to warrant cities to cater to us...them. But then again, every single sidwalk is fitted for the handicapped (wheelchairs), so....

In my vast experience of biking on streets with vehicles, I find that the overwhelming majority of vehicles are aware of you. Where the danger tends to come in is with the bike riders themselves. They do not...DO NOT...pay attention to the rules of the road. For whatever reason they assume they are a pedestrian and should be treated as such. Just the opposite. They are on a vehicle, therefore they are bound by the same rules as other vehicles (cars).

The first thing I would do is outlaw bike riders from wearing iPod's or other devices with headphones. You cannot hear traffic well enough to respond immediately, nor is your attention on the road. I tell you, I would rather ride on a busy highway at peak rush hour than on a beach path or river trail with other bike riders and pedestrians. I have had more close calls riding along the beach paths than on PCH.

[not4u13]

In my vast experience of biking on streets with vehicles, I find that the overwhelming majority of vehicles are aware of you. Where the danger tends to come in is with the bike riders themselves. They do not...DO NOT...pay attention to the rules of the road. For whatever reason they assume they are a pedestrian and should be treated as such. Just the opposite. They are on a vehicle, therefore they are bound by the same rules as other vehicles (cars).

The first thing I would do is outlaw bike riders from wearing iPod's or other devices with headphones. You cannot hear traffic well enough to respond immediately, nor is your attention on the road. I tell you, I would rather ride on a busy highway at peak rush hour than on a beach path or river trail with other bike riders and pedestrians. I have had more close calls riding along the beach paths than on PCH.

I have got to agree with you there. I ride the OCW Amtrak Century every year and I am totally amazed there are not more problems than there are. You get 1000 riders all going to the same place with many first time group riders and they blow through red lights, stop signs, block cars from entering traffic lanes, etc. They don't pay any attention to their fellow riders either.

It is already illegal to wear an iPod in both ears on a bike, just like it is in a car. Whenever I have the chance to actually have a conversation with one of those riders I ask them about doing it. Don't they think it is dangerous? No is almost always they answer. They claim they don't have the music turned up loud enough to prevent them from hearing things. It is just amazing the ignorance.