How the Metro Could Effect Los Angeles
During our urban lab today, we traveled to Union Station. I have been to Union Station many times, but never during work hours on a weekday. As a person who typically drives everywhere, I often times do not use the metro as a means of transportation, however, while riding this morning, a new light of how practical the metro is was shed upon me. As a result of this realization, questions about Los Angeles as a whole and the population's transportation through it were brought to my attention.
Regardless of where you live, do you often take the metro? If you had the choice wether to take the metro or drive everyday to your daily destination, which one would you choose and why? What are some benefits and disadvantages of taking the metro? Why do you believe that driving is more prevalent in Los Angeles than taking the metro? And finally do you believe LA will ever reach New York's level of efficiency in terms of its metro transportation?
Regardless of where you live, do you often take the metro? If you had the choice wether to take the metro or drive everyday to your daily destination, which one would you choose and why? What are some benefits and disadvantages of taking the metro? Why do you believe that driving is more prevalent in Los Angeles than taking the metro? And finally do you believe LA will ever reach New York's level of efficiency in terms of its metro transportation?
People in New York literally use the subway to go everywhere. I am always shocked at the variety in people: from those on their way to work in full suits to those on their way to school to those with suitcases on their way to a hotel. I do not know if LA can change from seemingly everyone being on roads to being in public transportation...although I think it would prove beneficial. I primarily take the subway when I am going somewhere Downtown. I'll admit, I usually do this to avoid parking. The fact is most of the places I am traveling on a daily basis do not have stops near them. Let alone nearby my own house! I have to drive to a station anyway because there isn't one close enough to my house! I definitely think that if there were more Metro stops that I would use it more often and that more people in LA would use it more often. If it were to become more accessible, I think the benefits of taking the Metro outweigh the disadvantages. Like I have said, I believe the biggest disadvantage would be that there are not enough stops. But benefits include not being stuck in traffic, not having to find parking, not using as much gas, saving the environment! Driving is more prevalent right now because people in LA live somewhere but work an hour away from there. For my family this is not the case because we all live within 20 minutes of school/work...my dad bikes to work! But for majority of LA getting on the freeway every morning to get to work is the norm. If there was a Metro stop walking distance from someones house and walking distance from their work, then maybe they would take the Metro. But LA is so spread out that this development does not seem possible. I think the reason why it works well in New York is because everything is so compact..LA is not compact. I would hope that people can find ways to make public transportation a means of travel but I am not optimistic about majority of people in LA making that change.
ReplyDeleteThe train system is a really great from of of quick, mostly cheap public transportation in Los Angeles. Although, it is wildly underdeveloped, especially when compared to a system as complex and perfected as New York's. LA's expansiveness is one of the key contributing factors to this. It is incredibly expensive to build a train line across Los Angeles, no matter which way it is configured. With the train lines where they are now, there is miles of space between different lines being underutilized by public transportation (buses exempt). Additionally, public funds could be used in much better ways than developing the metro system throughout LA. It is important to have a way to get people who can't afford a car from A to B, but it is also important that we develop our schools or our roads so those people who can barely afford a car are able to keep it in using condition.
ReplyDeleteAs we saw this morning, the train can be a very busy place in the mornings and during commuting hours. It is integral to the infrastructure and anatomy of Los Angeles. It is the veins that run through the body of Los Angeles. To continue the analogy, the cars are the capillaries, taking people to individual and specific places around the city. Both are important and neither should be valued more than the other, but, to a certain extent, the current state of the metro is okay. Although it isn't as expansive as the New York subway are any of its equals, it is able to give a cheap transportation option the the Angelenos who really need it.
I think that there are trade-offs for both public transportation and driving. The Los Angeles metro system has some of the lowest fares for transportation in all of the country, making it very accessible for all groups of people to take it. The Metro is also better for the environment, as emissions are less than if each of us were driving. The downside to taking the metro is the time and lack of privacy. Los Angeles Public transit usually takes longer than driving, but this time allows for work, socializing, or other things to be done. While traveling. I take the metro about 6 out of the 7 days of the week, but I would prefer to drive because I do not like waking up at 5:30 every morning to get to school. I think that LA will never reach New York's transit system because the first New York subway line has been open since 1904. In Los Angeles, we had the Red Cars early in the 1900s as well, but we lacked the commitment that New York City had. In 1960, the last Red Car line was shut down. If we continued to grow the transit system beyond the red cars, we might have had a similar trajectory like New York City. I think that once LA lost that momentum, people instinctively turned to cars to commute, and we haven't turned back... UNTIL NOW.
ReplyDeleteI will admit that I do not take the metro as often as I would like to. Taking a car almost always seems like the easier option, because I can reach countless destinations without having to walk or expend much energy. And although I do not agree with this, I do find that there is a bit of a stigma around taking the metro in Los Angeles in that many think it is not particularly safe. However, I would probably still choose to drive to my daily destination over taking the metro simply because it gives me the freedom to decide the route I will take home (and partly out of habit). If there was an easier way of getting to more places in LA, I would definitely take the metro. I think currently, the benefits of taking the metro include avoiding traffic and parking in crowded places like Downtown LA and reducing air pollution by not driving another car on the freeway; the disadvantages include not being able to reach very many places in LA outside of the main routes without having to walk quite far, crowdedness on the metro because everyone wants to get to the same place, and a complicated tap card/fare system. I believe driving is more prevalent in Los Angeles because people doubt that the Metro can get them where they need to go quickly enough or they do not know what cities/neighborhoods are accessible because there is so little advertising about the Metro. While I hope LA will reach New York’s level of efficiency at some point, I (like Jeilani) am doubtful that this will happen because the city is so spread out; it would take a lot of work and effort to reorganize streets and establish routes for the metro to stop in every bigger city, but I do think it is possible.
ReplyDeleteL.A. is not a typical city. Mike Davis reiterates a common sentiment that L.A. lacks "urbanity." For me, it's hard to imagine that L.A. would ever be like New York. I think driving is prevalent because L.A. is essentially made up of suburbs. The metro is great because it generates less pollution (I also like the mix of people on the train), but downsides include longer transportation time and inaccessibility. My friend waited by his house for 30 minutes for the bus only to watch it pass. There's clearly something wrong if the rest of the city is inaccessible to him, largely due to the mishaps of public transportation. I also wonder who public transportation is being revamped for. People have been using it for years but L.A. hasn't cared to fix it until recently. Is there a certain demographic shift that the government is responding to?
ReplyDeleteI haven't used the metro consistently since middle school. Since then, it has only been practical to get home from play rehearsals near a redline stop that my parents thought was too far away. If I had a drivers license then, I would not have taken the metro. I have the chance to take the metro, but I don't use it because I don't think it is practical in Los Angeles. The county is large, and I barely find myself going to a place near a metro stop. Granted, I enjoy my time on the metro when I take it. I am free to just sit, think, listen to music, mingle, and just look at people around me. There is something pleasant about that experience that I don't get in my car. But, the amount of time my metro trips take vastly outweigh the aforementioned benefits of the metro. I don't always have two hours to go somewhere forty five minutes away by car. I think that is the main reason most people drive in Los Angeles. The city's size and insufficient metro system lends to a lot of time saved if you are driving a long distance or anywhere not close to a metro stop. Sadly, I think the cities incompatibility with the metro is unavoidable. Cities like New York are tiny compared to Los Angeles. Manhattan is about 22 square miles. Including other burros, it is about 300 square miles. Most people associate metro transportation with Manhattan, which creates a structural incentive to use the their metro system. Driving is not practical because the city is overflowing with cars. There have been times while I was in New York where I literally got out of a cab to take the metro because traffic was so bad. Of course, Los Angeles also has traffic. But, as explained above, structural barriers make the proliferation of train stops like that seen in Manhattan unlikely. In addition, even New York has its limits. As you go further and further away from Manhattan the metro becomes less relevant. The roads widen, traffic eases, and its roads become very reminiscent of Los Angeles's. That is because as New York becomes less concentrated, its metro system becomes less practical. Los Angeles's metro system being concentrated around its densest areas is no coincidence. The same trend is in nearly all cities. But, Los Angeles differs from New York because it giant. At 500 square miles with far less concentrated metropolitan areas, it is highly unlikely Los Angeles gets close to how efficient New York is.
ReplyDeleteI remember the first time I used the metro it was to go to Little Tokyo. I was definitely the born and raised Pasadenian geeking out to the excitement of taking public transportation. As I got older and often wanted to get out of the Pasadena bubble, I easily hopped on the train at Fillmore. But when I turned 16, my grandmother gave me her old car and I fell in love with driving. Cars become peoples' mobile homes and can mean a lot to them than just another form of transportation. The metro can easily become a mere form of transportation; it is quick and lacks the opportunity for privacy and quiet that car-time can provide. But at the same time, the metro still can provide an intimate setting for strangers to quietly or consciously connect with one another. It is not so much a hassle to use the train, but living in Pasadena doesn't really require the need for public transportation. Unlike New York, Los Angeles is variously spread out and sometimes highways can be faster than a metro ride. Everything in NYC is very fast paced, but mostly close together. I do not believe Los Angeles will ever reach the level of New York's efficiency because of the drastically different attitudes/ vibes.
ReplyDeleteI use the metro quite frequently. To get around LA and go different places. If I could choose it would be to drive. Personally I like the individuality and personal space of taking a car. I can play my music as loud as I want and not give a damn about it. However, with car crashes being the 9th leading cause of death, I actually feel safer riding the Metro as crazy as it sounds. Yeah there are times where I'm creeped out by the dude in the corner, and I get on edge when a clearly demented person walks the subway passage, but on the whole I feel safer because I'm not hurtling down a road in a metal box going 60 (possibly more) mph surrounded by other like-speeded (and not so liked speeded) individuals with varying levels of attention and care for the world. People are stupid, and ignorant when it comes to driving. Train crashes (more specifically metro) are rarer and when they do happen, often involve a car driven before the before mentioned idiot driver. I admit its a trade off, comfort and personal control for mostly automated and community experience. I still value that individual comfort over the safety I feel when I ride the metro.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think LA can achieve nearly the same level of magnificence that NY has with its metro. NY's metro is built of a need to shuttle thousands of people around in a very (relatively) small confined area. LA has the beauty of being spread out. But looking towards the future (imagining that the human race keeps growing population wise) things are gonna get crowded everywhere. I think LA is going to eventually experience that due to it being a known and wanted place. With that, I think creating a better Metro system is necessary, as I think that for LA, and for a crowded utopian society (NY in this instance) public transportation is the way of the future.
Los Angeles is a city in which the metro is of little to no use. People need to travel long distances to get to their destinations and the metro is incapable of being specific enough to each of every Angeleno's needs. Therefore the expectation that a city of Los Angeles's stature should have an amazing public transportation system is simply ignorant. Through this lens we must look at how Los Angeles compares layout wise to the rest of the United States. Our city is far too vast for public transportation to be an actual good use of money. In my experience I only use the metro to go to festivals at USC and occasionally to go to Santa Monica when I am too lazy to drive. In general, the metro is fine. It is cheap and functional. Other than that I do not see how even the investment in public transportation is wise considering how attached angelenos are to their cars. Cars are also a necessity now more than ever in that the majority of Los Angeles is going to be forced farther and farther from their jobs due to gentrification. I do agree however that Los Angeles has to find a way to keep our city healthy in terms of climate change. People will likely never stop coming to this city meaning more and more cars. There has to be an alternative but it is hard to see one being successful.
ReplyDeleteThe temptation to copy and paste what I wrote from the previous blog post was…temping. However, I would much rather take the metro because I am constantly, literally always in a car and the metro is something that I don’t consider that often. I believe that an advantage of taking the metro rather than driving your car would be the low cost of taking the metro. Nevertheless, that can also be a disadvantage because you have to tap that card (unless you’re a legit criminal and don’t which I’ve…nvm). I have never been to New York so I don’t know how it would be there but I do know that more people use the Subway system more than driving.
ReplyDeleteI do not take the metro because for the large majority of places in los angeles, it is more convenient to take a car to get there. However, there are cost benefits to taking the metro(car, maintenance, gas, etc.In some occasions these concerns may outweigh the potential efficiency bonus granted by taking a car instead. additionally, it would reduce the overall emissions of los angeles drastically.
ReplyDeleteIn my time in new york, I took the subway all the time. It was the easiest way to get from places. It was faster than a cab because traffic substantially slowed travel times. the only way the metro in la would be better than driving is if we created some incentive to do so that makes taking the metro preferential to driving.
increased population density would likely lead to this solution since at a certain tipping point, people get too tired of long commute times which makes the construction of more metro lines economically sensible.