
L.A.'s Lost Transit - jseliger
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/17/las-lost-transit
======
stuart78
Rose-tinted Red Car nostalgia is common in the post Roger Rabbit era. It was a
poor private solution to what would later be a big public problem, and you can
read a more neutral take on its demise at 99% Invisible [0].

I lived in LA for quite a few years and they opened the expo line through my
neighborhood (Culver City) towards the end of my time there. It was
transformational. It wasn't the fastest way to get downtown (assuming no
traffic), but it meant you could have a drink without worrying about getting
home. You could have a nice afternoon walking around without searching for
parking. You could see an event at Staples Center and easily get home when it
was over. Now the line goes all the way to Santa Monica, bringing more and
more people into the fold.

I get that it is not as extensive as other systems, and parts of it share
passage with cars, but it would have never gotten done as an underground
system [1], and it works quite well as a complement to local bus lines.

Basically, LA Metro is actually building the infrastructure people imagine Red
Car to have been. It takes decades because it is a big project and we are not
good at building infrastructure quickly anymore [2], but it is a long-term
investment in helping the city grow.

[0] [https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-70-the-
great-...](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-70-the-great-red-
car-conspiracy/) [1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway)
[2] [https://patrickcollison.com/fast](https://patrickcollison.com/fast)

~~~
smcnally
> (assuming no traffic)

Heh. I’ve lived in your old neighborhood (Culver City) the last two years. The
% of times there’s been light traffic going east to DTLA or west to Santa
Monica is <10\. Expo line trains run frequently and are consistently ~30
minutes to either destination. In a car, it’s between 20 and 90 minutes.

I’m from NY and spoiled with train options. The Expo line and LA Metro in
general has allowed us to live here with one car and for me to mostly avoid
driving altogether. Just like in NY, more cross-town train options are
welcomed, and the airport extension to LAX will save time and stomach lining.

------
axiomdata316
This article reminds me of stories my grandfather had told me about how
amazing the red car system was in Los Angeles and how buses replaced and
ruined the system. The red car originally went from Los Angeles and ended all
the way down to the end of the Peninsula in Newport Beach Orange County. Today
if you go to the Pavilion in Newport Beach California you can see the end of
the line portion that would rotate the red car. At the time I thought my
grandfather was just talking about the good old days but this article gave me
some good context on a good system ruined.

~~~
capableweb
I didn't know what "Red Car" refered to, quick search shows it's a nickname
for "LA Pacific Electric", basically trams that were in the greater LA area.

Found this nice interactive map over the lines, in case someone else is also
curious
[https://sharemap.org/public/Los_Angeles_Pacific_Electric_Rai...](https://sharemap.org/public/Los_Angeles_Pacific_Electric_Railways_\(Red_Cars\)#!webgl)

~~~
sroussey
I just get a blank screen with an ad. :/ iOS 13

------
blackrock
To be bluntly honest, the public transit system of Los Angeles is a failure!

They tell people to use public transit, but fail to recognize that it takes 2
to 3 hours to get anywhere useful with it.

They built light rail that nobody can use, because it doesn’t go to where
people need to go. They squandered a huge opportunity to do it right, to dig
subways and put the rail on a grade-separated medium. Instead they opt for
light-rail that shares the same surface roads as cars, thereby ensuring that
the system is a failure.

And to add insult, to even use the light rail, you must drive to the nearest
light rail station!

They don’t have an express system to go from one major location to another,
which means that you must stop at every location, which means the rails cannot
go as fast, thus adding to the commute time.

They don’t even have rail service to connect the 4 major airports in the area!
Absolutely none!

Quite frankly, the whole system is run by idiots. Their only success is in
deflecting and making excuses. Billions squandered, and 50 years later, they
have nothing to show for it.

~~~
atrettel
> They tell people to use public transit, but fail to recognize that it takes
> 2 to 3 hours to get anywhere useful with it.

I used to live in Los Angeles (Westside) and I found this to be true. The bus
system has excellent coverage but that often meant that buses stop frequently.
A relatively short 7 mile trip could take 35 minutes or more at times. That's
5 minutes per mile, which is a good running pace but a rather poor pace if you
must travel a longer distance.

I used the light rail occasionally (the Expo Line) and I too found it
underwhelming. The headways were long, often 15 or 30 minutes. The trains had
only 2 cars and were often crowded. Heavy rail moves a lot more people much
more quickly, with its own right-of-way too. I would have preferred LA going
the heavy rail option, but they appear to be mostly investing in light rail
(with the exception of the much needed Purple line extension).

~~~
rsynnott
Light rail can work; many European tram systems are very effective. Needs
proper planning, tho. I was amazed by the article saying that a station is
under 1k passengers per day. Dublin doesn’t exactly have a well-regarded
transport system, but I don’t think any of our tram stops do that few.

------
krn
This reminded me of the documentary of the last Red Car journey from Downtown
to Long Beach in April 1961[1].

[1]
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=ebboO52In1w](https://youtube.com/watch?v=ebboO52In1w)

------
asdff
The redcars inspire a lot of whimsy, but they were a private company that
could never turn a profit, cut service to the point where one train went from
LA to santa monica a day, and folded in the face of poor service and traffic
due to sharing the road with cars.

The bus network today is far more expansive, faster, and with far lower
headways than the old redcar network that it replaced. The articulated buses
used on busy corridors are probably about as long as a street car. Later this
year LA Metro will implement a bus plan where 83% of the population will be in
walking distance to a bus line with a 5-10 minute headway.

~~~
RangerScience
AFAIK, the car companies bought up the transit lines and deliberately ran them
into the ground.

~~~
selectodude
The car companies bought the already failed transit lines, sold them for
scrap, and then sold new busses. The city was already transitioning to busses
and the trams needed replacement regardless. One could say that the auto
companies hastened their demise, but it wasn't by very long.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
They failed because the car companies worked with (i.e. paid) local town
councils to restrict track placement, restrict time-of-day allowed for transit
traffic, and generally strangle their service model. Tightened the noose until
they failed.

So yes, it was car companies that killed them.

~~~
selectodude
That's a myth. Streetcars were never profitable, and were built as a way to
get to new development that the streetcar owners were building. Once there was
no land left to develop in Southern California, the streetcars became a cost
center. Once the interstate highway system was built with taxpayer money and
the great depression ended giving everybody enough money to buy their own
cars, it was simply a matter of time.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
They were convicted of collusion and fined?

Some research shows they (GM etc) were convicted of conspiracy to fix prices
in the bus-transit industry. The streetcar conspiracy was tried and
dismissed(?)

So, no smoking gun I guess.

~~~
selectodude
I'm not saying that GM wasn't up to some sketchy shit, they almost certainly
were. However it's not as if there would be a comprehensive red car system in
2020 if not for GM. The government did more to kill public transportation in
the US than GM could have ever dreamed of.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The government did more to kill public transportation in the US than GM
> could have ever dreamed of.

And who was lobbying the government for that?

~~~
rayiner
Nobody had to lobby. I don’t think transit advocates realize how amazing car
travel was back in the day. When I first moved to DC in 1989, there was no
traffic. You could zip from Vienna to Foggy Bottom in 25 minutes. Even if you
live in one of the apartments by the Vienna metro, it was almost an hour by
Metro. If you had to take a bus, it was well over an hour.

Super fast, point to point trips are amazing. It’s still that way in much of
the country.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Nobody had to lobby.

The idea that transport policy wasn't shaped by any lobbying is ludicrous.

> I don’t think transit advocates realize how amazing car travel was back in
> the day.

That doesn't mean the shape of policy that leveraged that popularity wasn't
shaped by lobbying by those with a concentrated interest that the legislation
would advance leveraging the general popularity of car travel. In fact, having
something naturally popular (whether it's “car travel” or “not dying in a
terrorist attack”) to leverage as a basis increases, rather thank reduces, the
intensity of lobbying to gain private benefit by exploiting that sentiment.

------
mgh2
Is ok, by 2028 it will be the 2nd city after NY with the best metro system,
fueled by the Olympics.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21578990](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21578990)

~~~
ThePowerOfFuet
Second best in North America, perhaps.

Barcelona's public transport system would blow the mind of anyone in North
America with the possible exception of someone who's spent time in Manhattan
(but BCN's is reliable).

~~~
bostonvaulter2
Or someone who's spent time in Tokyo

~~~
L_Rahman
As a New Yorker, I had really high expectations for the Tokyo subway system
when I was there for three weeks but I was entirely underwhelmed.

Japanese public transit is actually completely broken in ways that are
appalling:

1\. Line transfers are user hostile within network

Even if you stay inside the same operator, like Tokyo Metro, making like
transfers is an ordeal in distance, steps and most importantly cost. It costs
1.5x as much to go 2+3 stops than to go 5 stops on the same line.

2\. Line transfers across networks are actively discouraged.

Even if the most convenient mode is for you to take two trains from two
different companies (say Keihan and JR) they’ll charge full price rides for
each.

To make it worse every company intentionally makes way finding to a competitor
line hard. Get off the JR line in Osaka station and try to transfer to the
Keihan line. It’s impossible.

3\. Peak hour service is the single worst public transit experience in the
world with the possible exception of the BRT in Colombia.

This was the real test of the system for me. I used to live along the L, which
post CBTC has become one of the best performing subway lines in the system.
It’s really bad at rush hour. People are jammed in.

It absolutely pales in comparison to a Japanese rush hour train which in my
opinion is actively dangerous.

All of the “Japanese discipline and order” doesn’t buy them better headway
either. It really does feel like 2 min headway on rush hour heavy rail is the
max and neither Tokyo nor New York can do anything about it.

4\. Station distances are far apart and last mile is terrible

Unless you’re really lucky and happen to do things right by a metro station,
everything will be a 10-15 walk even within the core areas. Compare this to NY
where we average a stop every 10 blocks even in the outer boroughs and can go
as low as every 4 in midtown and downtown.

5\. Entering and exiting the subway is a chore.

Either you have to deal with the terrible compromise that Japan made in
privatizing its rail - giant maze like shopping malls that you have to walk
through to get to the subways, or if you’re lucky a long underground
passageway from a side street. There’s no cardinality, no orientation after
you exit, the city is just a blob with buildings splattered across it.

I used to think Tokyo was the pinnacle of urban design - high functioning
rail, zoning that allows for affordability - I am sad to say it fails on a
number of key dimensions.

It is the most energetically “dead” big city I have spent time in and without
a radical change in the norms of Japanese society it will remain that way.

For $2.75 I can ride all the way from Van Cortlandt park to the Far Rockaways,
I can take as many trains as I want. I can connect with the vibrancy of the
culture of our city. Will the train break down? Maybe. Will rats scurry across
the tracks? Without doubt. Does the system smell like pee? Most of the time.
But it is alive and thrumming. I will take that every day.

And if our dear leader Byford can get his way, it’ll run really well too.

An aside: the system that I think New York should actually be envious off are
Hong Kong and Taipei who have both built excellent, reliable systems in cities
that are vibrant and welcoming.

HN needs to tone down its Japan weeb levels.

------
CodeWriter23
So we transform the parking lots around work into apartments? So where do we
work again? Because nobody will want to live adjacent to a polluting facility
like Grumman. And what about those who are further afield from the station?

The real problem I see in LA is the last 5 miles problem. When it takes nearly
as long to get to the metro station in an Uber, then wait for the train, as it
does to drive downtown, and the parking cost is similar to the to/from the
metro, I’ll be driving. And don’t even get me started on paying $1.75 for the
metro, then $3.50 to ride a metro bike one way.

The apartment near the metro line is really a lifestyle choice. It’s not an
overall solution for all society in LA or even The Bay Area as we will never
match the rail density of a city like New York. Earthquakes limit how high we
can build.

~~~
mtalantikite
Is the Northrop Grumman facility a particularly polluting facility? Because
yeah, I would think living walking distance from work would be a perk.

I think one of the main points of the article is that for public transit to be
worthwhile, a city must also work on zoning to increase density. Your point
about the last “5 mile” problem is totally accurate for LA though, which as a
New Yorker is always kind of funny — if I were to travel 5 miles from my
apartment I’d practically be out of the city! I was just in LA earlier this
month and every time I go the concept of not being able to walk to go about my
daily business is pretty depressing.

LA doesn’t need to be as dense as New York or Paris, but if transit is to
work, density needs to come with it. Otherwise it’ll always just be a massive
suburban sprawl built for cars and not humans.

~~~
clairity
many parts of LA are less multi-modal, often by choice, like much of the
westside, beverly hills, etc.

but many parts are quite multi-modal, like santa monica, westwood,
palms/culver city/mar vista, downtown/arts district, boyle heights/east LA,
hollywood, east hollywood, koreatown, westlake, los feliz, university park,
chinatown, highland park, pasadena, south park/south central, long beach,
studio city, north hollywood, etc.

so don't fall for the "suburban sprawl" cliché. frankly, a lot of the less
multi-modal areas are uninteresting, so it's a good (if imperfect) barometer
of such things.

~~~
mtalantikite
I was staying in Santa Monica this last time and it always has felt very
suburban to me. Same the times I’ve stayed in silverlake, los feliz, or echo
park. When I’ve visited friends from Baldwin heights that definitely felt more
sprawling than, say, Santa Monica for sure, so I get what you mean.

I’ve spent a lot of time in Venice and it’s a bit better, you can kinda exist
without a car there. My favorite is downtown, it actually feels like a city in
that area.

Maybe my frame of reference is more east coast when I say suburban, where
there is a downtown area that’s walkable, but you still have to drive most
places.

I’ve never had a license, so I’m generally happiest in dense cities. I
appreciate that many Americans prefer car life for whatever reason and LA is
great if that’s your vibe. I just wish there were more cities like NYC in this
country.

~~~
clairity
in NYC terms, LA is maybe 20% manhattan and 200% of the other boroughs, plus a
whole lot of long island mixed together. the multi-modal areas are mainly
medium density (~3-8 story buildings) so LA walkability is more queens and
brooklyn rather than manhattan. the trains connect many of these
neighborhoods, but with the great year-round weather, bikes or scooters work
well for anything within a few miles.

cities like houston, atlanta, and phoenix have overtaken LA as exemplars of
suburban sprawl.

------
joshuaheard
Most people don't know that the grassy medians of most LA streets were the
location of the red car tracks.

[http://www.city-data.com/picfilesc/picc32653.php](http://www.city-
data.com/picfilesc/picc32653.php)

~~~
sroussey
San Vicente!

In WeHo, most the median was reused to make the sidewalks wider for
pedestrians and restaurants.

------
gok
That map comparison is kind of deceptive, as it excludes the current commuter
rail system.

("But Metrolink runs really infrequently!" So did the Red Cars on the inter
urban routes.)

