The Impact of Transportation
Today as a class we visited Union Station, one of the country's most used train stations. Union station has been a major transportation hub for Angelenos for many years. As we explored the station and saw the various people passing through as a part of their journey to wherever they were going, the importance of transportation in Southern California became more apparent to me and my group than ever before. With that in mind, traffic in California has constantly increased every year, resulting in more and more pollution.
What has your experience with transportation been like in Los Angeles, and how has that experience changed as you have grown up? In what ways could the Metro and government make taking the Metro a more appealing option than driving? With the Metro making an effort to making all areas of Los Angeles more accessible by increasing its span across LA, what are its effects on the community that the stops are located? In what ways do you believe transportation in Los Angeles will change as time goes on, or do you not believe it will change in any way? Finally, if there is no significant change, what impacts do you believe such transportation would have on the climate of Los Angeles and the world in general?
What has your experience with transportation been like in Los Angeles, and how has that experience changed as you have grown up? In what ways could the Metro and government make taking the Metro a more appealing option than driving? With the Metro making an effort to making all areas of Los Angeles more accessible by increasing its span across LA, what are its effects on the community that the stops are located? In what ways do you believe transportation in Los Angeles will change as time goes on, or do you not believe it will change in any way? Finally, if there is no significant change, what impacts do you believe such transportation would have on the climate of Los Angeles and the world in general?
Transportation in Los Angeles in imperative. Everyone knows that. Los Angeles, unlike most cities when it comes to public transportation, is incredibly spread out. Downtown Los Angeles is in no means the center of Los Angeles and I do not think anyone in Los Angeles believes that Downtown is the center. In this respect the metro is simply not useful to most Angelenos in that Downtown is not where all the jobs are. Right now the metro only reaches the cities of Pasadena, Highland Park, Downtown, Boyle Heights, Hollywood, North Hollywood, Studio City, Culver City, Long Beach and Santa Monica. This may seem like a lot of Los Angeles, however, it leaves out Glendale, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, UCLA, Westwood, and Burbank. Unfortunately, it will take the Metro deciding to invest in public transportation and spread to these areas. I also believe public transportation is not that popular in Los Angeles because of the accessibility of free ways and how popular they are. In my experience, I used to take the metro much more often before I got my license. I would sometimes take the metro from the Vermont/Sunset stop two miles away from my house and take it all the way to Fillmore and then walk or uber to school. Although I should be thankful for the very fact that there are metro stops somewhat near my house and my school, the fact that they are at least a half an hour walk away from both my house and my school make the metro an inefficient option. My entire family lives in New York and there are subway stops literally a block away from their house and their school. While I am certain that Los Angeles will not build hundreds of new stops, I do find it ridiculous that our city thinks that one line running through downtown is enough. If we want to help our environment, we must think of new ways to decrease the amount of people driving in cars. The only answer is through complete investment in our public transportation.
ReplyDeleteLos Angeles is different from many other metropolitan areas in the sense that many of its features are not in the Downtown district. Personally, the only times I go to Downtown Los Angeles are for sporting events (Dodgers, USC football/basketball) and visiting my dad's office. Because Los Angeles is very spread out, driving is extremely important in the city. While the metro system has become more efficient and has been extended to more cities, I don't think it will ever have a major impact on the number of people who drive in Los Angeles. I believe that people with the ability to drive will end up doing so more often than not. Driving is faster, gets you to an exact location and in many cases it is easier.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned above, the metro has expanded into many cities and has caused a change in those communities. Today, as we were riding to and from Union Station, I noticed that around the metro stops there were nice apartments that had recently been built. While I do not think that new apartment complexes have a major impact on communities (Lincoln Park was the one I noticed), it is something that I noticed.
Transportation in Los Angeles is most definitely a prevalent issue. The word “traffic” is automatically associated with Los Angeles because it is a constant struggle that the residents face daily. I think there is so much traffic in LA not only because of the population size of the people who live there, but because of the amount of people traveling to, from, and through LA for their jobs as well as tourists. There are so many different places to go in LA in neighborhoods that are so spread apart that it’s so unrealistic not to have a steady means of transportation to use everyday. I am in Los Angeles a lot of the time and my experience with transportation is that driving is probably the last thing to do if you want to get somewhere on time. Every freeway that goes into LA whether it’s Westwood, Inglewood, or Downtown, they are always backed up on a regular Tuesday for example, but especially on days when there are big events happening in those areas. Sometimes I have to set aside an hour just to get through traffic when planning on when I need to leave to get somewhere. I think the Metro is definitely a faster and more efficient way of getting around LA because it can take a large amount of people, to different areas in a shorter amount of time. I think the reason why people prefer driving is because they can control where they want to go at whatever time and they also don’t have to pay for every ride. I think the government can make Metro more appealing than driving to people of Los Angeles by lowering their prices to ride or even demonstrating the long term advantages of using public transportation by paying less money the end because gas is much more expensive or opening up the variety of places the Metro hits. As time goes on, unless the government implements more Metro stations in more neighborhoods, I think that traffic will stay the same if not get much worse because the population will continue to grow and more and more people will want to rely on themselves rather than others because then that limits the amount of freedom in the individual.
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. I think as time goes on, there will be/ should be more easily accessible stops and possibly faster pace of motion. Unlike New York, Public Transportation or transportation of any sort is essential to Los Angeles. As much as I love driving, I love our environment. To reduce the amount of pollution resulting from the amount of LA drivers could be a huge benefit to our environment. As said above, to get everyone on board with regularly using the Metro, the government would need to completely invest in public transportation and I think that would be critical and healthy for the future of Los Angeles.
ReplyDeleteMy family and I have primarily used the roads as our transport, driving everywhere. The places we were traveling did not have a lot of traffic because work and school were close to our homes or on a freeway going against rush hour traffic. Up until my dad started biking around places a year ago I did not realize that I, too, could easily find other ways of getting around. I started taking the Metro to go Downtown and to places close that do not require getting in a car. Less driving and gas usage, not having to deal with traffic and parking, saving the environment: taking the Metro seems like a perfect option. But I have noticed that it is not as popular a form of transportation as it should be. In places like New York and Beijing, China it is the norm to take public transportation. I think that if the Metro had more stops that there would be a greater population of people using it. I am not sure if the transportation in LA can be changed quickly...people don't often accept drastic change easily. But overtime if people utilize public transport more and it becomes accessible to a greater number of people, it could change LA transportation for the better. Again, I truly think if there are subway stops in a more places that there would be more people using them. In addition, from an environmental perspective, a greater number of people taking public transportation would limit the fuel emission problem that is growing with more cars on the road.
ReplyDeleteWhenever I hear of people traveling through Los Angeles, or even just visiting, the number one complaint that anyone has is the surplus of drivers on the road and the dearth of parking. Transportation is absolutely essential to Los Angeles, because there is no real central location, but the effects that it has on the climate and health of the inhabitants is opposite of what the city tries to achieve. Honestly, I'm not sure if the metro could be more appealing. As it is right now, people enjoy taking it and suffer from far less financial deficits.
ReplyDeleteI see no real endgame for transportation in Los Angeles, there is no real solution to the problem that we face. The metro cannot be improved to the extent that people can ditch their cars and rely solely on the train. The pollution problem is so bad all around the world, but in LA specifically, the cars are packed in so densely. The natural basin that La resides in traps the polluted air and forces it to sit stagnant for long periods of time. For many commuters though, the metro is an extremely viable option. Personally, I love to take the metro to downtown. It is much easier, and, in some cases, faster to get around than by car. The only issue, which is a big one, is that the metro system simply lacks depth. It only goes to a handful of places, and the distance between the different lines is generally pretty large. LA's natural geography limits the amount of reasonable expansion in the metro just because it is so incredibly spread out. The resources are better used in a way that could positively affect the people of Los Angeles.
Growing up, I never used the Metro. I have been going to Poly since 2nd grade and, until sophomore year, I drove to school in a carpool every day. Once everyone in my carpool graduated or moved to Pasadena and I procrastinated on getting my driver's license, I started to take the metro to school everyday. I started using it to go to the South Pasadena skateboard park from school, and then realized that I may be able to take it to school from my house. Since then, I take the subway and the train to school every morning and still don't have my license. I have become so comfortable with the transit system that I take it nearly seven days a week to travel all over Los Angeles. It has led me to explore places now that I am older, but the places are limited by where the metro goes. Last November, the city passed Measure M, an investment that each of us citizens will contribute our money to, in order for the Metro to expand the system. Currently, the Purple line (the subway line I take everyday) all the way to UCLA. As we have talked about in class numerous times, as the city grows and takes up more land, the metro also has to expand to accommodate the space we take up. In the end, Los Angeles must make the system more accommodating for LA's inhabitants.
ReplyDeleteLike Banham said, “freedom of movement” is the "prime symbolic attribute” of Los Angeles. Because this sprawling city extends in almost every direction, we HAVE to be able to move to get around in L.A., whether that be by car, foot, metro, bus, train, or uber. My experience with transportation in Los Angeles has always been very minimal; the places my family visits every day are either in close enough proximity to my house that taking public transportation would be pointless or it just seemed easier to drive our own car wherever we went. However, in the past few years, I have often taken the metro with friends to explore downtown or reach different neighborhoods without having to burden my parents with driving me places. We also often take the bus home from the airport after traveling, and both experiences have become more frequent recently. I think I would be more inclined to take the Metro if I could reach more places by using it, so I am very excited that they plan to make all areas of LA accessible. I also think that the government could make more of an effort promoting the different forms of public transportation to the people and could develop a more effective, efficient system than the tap cards—if it was less complicated to use public transportation and it was promoted to the people of LA, I think a much larger number of angelenos would use the metro/buses. I do think that the communities around Metro stops have grown a little, becoming target areas for coffee shops and little restaurants to pop up. I think this will continue to happen as the Metro expands—and in response to the last two questions, I really think Los Angeles needs to enforce change to alter its terrible traffic situation: we need to expand and encourage usage of public transportation so as to reduce traffic and decrease the number of cars polluting the environment every day, and we need to make these public transportation options affordable and green as well.
ReplyDeleteI have driven around L.A. for most of my life. The only times I take the metro are with a big group of friends to specific metro stops like Downtown and Expo Park. I have always loved taking the metro and public transportation in general, but it simply doesn't make sense for some places I want to go (Glendale, Sherman Oaks, Santa Monica, etc.). I don't see myself opting for a 2hr metro ride versus a 1 hr drive. So, I probably will keep using both depending on the destination.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how the Metro stops impact the communities around it (other than providing transportation), but I'd be interested to learn. I already see Metro expanding-- so I do think transportation is shifting. On the corner of Orange Grove and Walnut there's a Metro bike stop. I never really see anybody there, though. I also don't understand the location or how it works or who it is there for. There are a couple of apartment complexes but not many homes.
For me, transportation in Los Angeles has always centered around cars. I used to use the metro a lot, but it always felt like a novelty. In middle school I would travel to Chinatown all the time using the train, but only so I could buy knives, a stun gun, and cheap egg rolls. It was never for practical reasons, as the train always seemed too far away from wherever I wanted to go to warrant not traveling by car. For that reason, I think that if Los Angeles wants to make its metro system more appealing it needs to massively expand it. Los Angeles is too big for the system as it stands, and even new extensions seem to be lacking in their practicality. For example, I was very excited when the Blue Line was extended to Santa Monica. The first week it was open I took the train to Santa Monica. But, that experience revealed a strange tradeoff in Los Angeles's metro system. The Gold Line is lacking because it isn't long enough. It doesn't cover enough ground, and if you want to travel somewhere far away you need to transfer (repaying as you enter a new train line) at least once, in addition to having to take a bus if your destination is far away from the stop (it probably is). Alternatively, The Blue Line had the opposite problem. It covered too much land, making it so that you passed many important locations in between stops. All these pitfalls make driving much more appealing. The metro being convenient for your travel is a matter of being lucky enough that your destination is next to a stop. Most of the time it is much easier to just drive to where you need to go.
ReplyDeleteWith that, I don't think Los Angeles will ever making a meaningful transition away from transportation with cars. As a result there will be smog and carbon emissions. The rise of electric cars will quell pollution locally, but I don't think Los Angeles's (or the country's) transition will have a meaningful impact on the environment. Developing nations will pick up where we left off, as countries like India are, making up for our efficiencies by turning to cheap energy sources to deal with their rapid development.
I take the metro quite often. Whether its going home from school, from my house to Pasadena, or going to Santa Monica, the Metro is exceedingly helpful and useful for me. Like Ethan I've also procrastinated hard on getting my driver's license( part of the reason being my parents don't want to pay for insurance, the other being I have no car to drive ). As such, I've relied more and more on the Metro for getting around, along with Lyft and Ubers. I think using a combination of the too, its not necessary to need a car in LA anymore.
ReplyDeleteGoing on advice towards improving the metro, the only thing I can think of is more lines. You can get anywhere in LA using the metro yeah, but is it quick? Not really. While its hard to think of a time in the near-future where the metro would be quicker than a car for most people, I do think its possible. As LA become's more and more crowded and the free ways become worse and worse, there is going to be a push for either better freeways and roads, or better public transport. I think eventually public transport will win out. Freeways like the 210 one( I forget what its actually called but you know the one that ends really abruptly outside that weird school) have been stuck in development hell for ages now.
I don't have direct solution to the problem of transportation right now, I do think that the Metro should play a role in tackling that dilemma however.
Considering the fact that I was never really allowed to take the metro (based on my mother's wishes) it has probably not had the same effect on me as it may have with my other classmates. The metro a whole is better than driving in my opinion because of less CO2 gas emissions. I feel like the way transportation will evolve will have the metro connect to more places in LA. And like I said in my previous sentence I believe that the metro could help the environment because if it were to evolve and develop into something more “appealing”, then people would use it more which would cut down climate change (in you don’t believe in climate change then….nvm)
ReplyDeleteTransportation infrastructure in Los Angeles has been outpaced by the rapid spread of development and urban sprawl causing horizontal expansion. Because developers find it cheaper to expand outward and build new utilities(extending power lines and plumbing is not that expensive when done in bulk) means that the area of land Los Angeles occupies continues to grow. Instead of having more condensed two-three story or even skyrises increases the distance required for people to reach their place of employment, restaurants, etc. longer because we aren't using the space as effectively. In other metropolitan cities such as philadelphia, new york, hong kong, and london, buildings tend to be overall taller which results in a more compacted population.
ReplyDeleteIt's then easier to plan routes and create transportation infrastructure between spots since there is physically less land to cover when the average building height is larger. a true transportation revolution would require large scale remodelling of the los angeles architecture and landscape