| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/26 |
| 2009/3/31-4/6 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:52778 Activity:moderate |
3/31 More proof that LA sux:
http://laist.com/2007/06/12/la_wins_5_of_th.php
http://laist.com/2009/03/27/emergency_weekend_closure_of_405_co.php
\_ LA has the worst traffic jams in the nation, but also one of the most
extensive public transit systems, very high usage, and is also
\_ LA has the worst traffic jams in the nation, but also one of the
most extensive public transit systems, very high usage, and is also
one of the most dense urban areas in the US. -ERIC MORRIS
\_ LA itself might be okay, but anytime you leave it, you're
pretty much screwed. Public transit in the greater LA area is
hardly extensive, but nor could you really expect it to be,
cost-effectively anyway, for such a large area. Go sprawl.
\_ LA is much less sprawling than most other urban areas.
If you consider the Bay Area as a whole, the two are
comparable. I have an insane coworker who was commuting
from Vacaville to San Jose for about 3 years, and finally
moved last month.
\_ How far is it from Encino to Redlands? LA is not less
sprawling than other urban areas.
\_ I didn't realize Redlands was part of LA. I think
the point the guy is making is that LA has some
very, very densely developed areas of the type that
do not exist in many American cities outside of NYC
and it will continue to get more dense as the
population swells. LA is very big but it is also
very dense if you look at the "urban area" versus
just the city proper. In fact, it is the most
dense urban area according to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas
(I read it is the #3 most dense behind NYC and SF
according to another study, but the point is it is
*MUCH* more dense than typical for a large US city.)
population swells. LA is the 3rd most dense city
in the nation (behind NYC and SF) and has areas
more dense than SF (and just as dense as Manhattan).
So I would agree that LA is much less sprawling
than most other urban areas since it is ranked
#3. LA is very big but it is also denser than
cities like Dallas, Phoenix, Boston, Washington DC,
Atlanta, Philadelphia, and even Chicago when you look
at the "urban area" versus just the city proper.
Travel just outside the city limits of most cities
(including NYC) and the density really drops off
quickly even though a significant portion of the
population lives there. Not true in LA, which is
fairly densely developed throughout the county
and even into other counties. BTW, I fail to see how
taking the 9 million people not living in LA
and even into other counties. I fail to see how
taking the 11 million people not living in LA
proper and cramming them into LA proper "to make
it more dense" would improve the quality of life.
\_ Redlands is as much a "part of LA" as Vacaville
is a "part of San Francsisco." Reducing people's
commutes would improve their quality of life, but
obviously this could only work if there was enough
transit to move them around. Because not everyone
can drive a car everywhere in a dense urban area,
as Hong Kong and NYC already know and LA is
starting to find out.
\_ Redlands is at least as much a part of the LA
metro area as Vacaville is part of the Bay Area.
The idea that the Inland Empire is a seperate
metropolis is a joke and this is coming from a guy\
who was born in Riverside and still has family
metropolis is a joke and this is coming from a guy
who was born in Riverside and still has family
there.
\_ Calling Vacaville a part of the Bay Area is
is a joke.
|_
http://csua.org/u/nx8 aka
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/los-angeles-transportation-facts-and-fiction-driving-and-delay |
| 11/26 |
|
| laist.com/2007/06/12/la_wins_5_of_th.php according to Forbes Magazine, somehow, this city still runs. It must be due to the fact that Los Angeles is economically successful: that is, if we go by the theory of economist Anthony Downs who said in the Washington Post that more economic activity equals more cars and more driving. He continues to say that "congestion will remain a fact of life for most Americans." Unfortunately, Forbes does not mention a lick about public transportation or even question it. Mary E Peters: " The National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network supports leaders with the wisdom and courage to develop plans that will cut traffic now, not years from now." Has Los Angeles' representatives done anything significant to help it right now? And we're talking about action said today, done tomorrow (not the 3 years of construction brand of "now"). Little things have been done seemingly quite fast: like Wendy Greuel's ban on street construction during rush hour or the Mayor's Tiger Gridlock Team. Eli Broad who should donate his money to traffic problems instead of the arts -- after all, traffic is one of the many reasons many people do not engage in arts patronage. Whatever the outcome of our standstill will be, with comments like "expect things to get worse before they get better" and "America's heart of traffic pain" in regards to LA, Forbes seems to think our town is hell. Find LA's 4 bottlenecks, including the complete list after the jump... link to Forbes photo essay): 1 US-101 and I-405 Interchange The king of traffic traps costs 27 million plus hours of delay each year. The interchange finished worst in a 2004 study, as well as in 1999 and 2002. The good news: major construction work being done to help, with a hopeful completion date in 2008. The bad news: The work will improve matters, not fix them, and will compound the problem in the meantime. Now undergoing car pool lane construction, expect things to get worse before they get better. A conjunction of roads that includes I-710 is overtaxed by trucks serving the nation's busiest ports. they're too busy on their cell phone, sending emails on their blackberry, and not letting you into the lane. people complain about traffic, but most people want their own car so they can go where they want when they want. read about how the train systems in LA were shut by General Motors so that they could sell more cars, trucks, busses, and tires. In the United States, I seriously believe that LA has better drivers than all other major cities. The multitude of setting and conditions you have to drive in (excluding adverse weather) train people to be good drivers, however much they might not be courteous. One thing I'll say is that LA people have a hard ass time when bad weather comes through ... as would be expected, though, since we barely ever get any! |
| laist.com/2009/03/27/emergency_weekend_closure_of_405_co.php LAist Featured Photos on Flickr There's a big closure for one of the nation's most congested freeway interchanges. Early this morning, a pavement crack located on the shoulder and into the number four lane (far right) was noticed on the connector approach bridge slab above Ventura Boulevard in Sherman Oaks. Caltrans will close the northbound connectors to the 101 freeway in both directions for emergency pavement repairs beginning tonight at midnight through 5 am on Monday. comment from Andre Hi Andre, Instead of the 405 to the 101, take the 110 north to the 101. Or, a slightly longer route is to take the 605/710 north to the 5, then change over to the 101. comment from hltla I don't know why, but I just can't wrap my head around this: Caltrans will close the northbound connectors to the 101 freeway in both directions Does this mean I can't get from the 405 to the 101, or I can't get to the NB405 via the 101? I need to get from NoHo to UCLA tomorrow, and I'm not sure if this is going to make me change my route. comment from lovedog I think my strategy will involve staying NB on the 405, then flipping a bitch and going Southbound. Exiting before the mall is tempting, but I'm guessing it'll be pretty congested around there. |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas US Census Bureau ordered according to their 2000 Census populations. In the table, UA refers to "urbanized area" (urban areas with population over 50,000) and UC refers to "urban cluster" (urban areas with population less than 50,000). The list includes urban areas with a population of at least 40,000. |
| csua.org/u/nx8 -> freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/los-angeles-transportation-facts-and-fiction-driving-and-delay/ freakonomics&posall=Bar1,TopAd,Position1,Position1B,Top5,SponLink,S ponLink2,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,Bottom3,Right5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Mid dle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9,Inv1,Inv2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,CcolumnSS,Middl e4,Left1B,Frame6A,Left2,Left3,Left4,Left5,Left6,Left7,Left8,Left9,JMNow 1,JMNow2,JMNow3,JMNow4,JMNow5,JMNow6,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=Middle1C&query= qstring&keywords=? Thanks to the great distances between far-flung destinations, and perhaps Angelenos' famed "love affair" with the car, Angelenos drive considerably more miles than most Americans. Los Angeles Transportation: Facts and Fiction, Introduction Answer: False. According to the Federal Highway Administration, Angelenos drive 23 miles per resident per day. This ranks the Los Angeles metro area 21st highest among the largest 37 cities. The champions (or losers) are probably Houston, followed by Jacksonville and Orlando, all of which are over 30 miles per day. New Yorkers drive the fewest miles (17 VMT per resident per day), thanks in large part to relatively high transit ridership and lots of walking trips. Despite our reputation, we Angelenos don't exhibit any particularly great predilection for freeway travel either. Los Angeles ranks 14th out of the 37 largest metro areas in terms of highway miles driven per resident per day. To be sure, this is above the median, but it hardly points to the sort of unique freeway fetish Angelenos are accused of harboring. This leaves the answer you've all been waiting for: Angelenos spend more time stuck in traffic than any other drivers in the nation. Texas Transportation Institute's 2005 Mobility Report, Angelenos who traveled in the peak periods suffered 72 annual hours of delay. The TTI's methodology has some issues, but it is probably safe to say they got this right. I have studied Los Angeles traffic conditions for an 18-year period. My conclusion, to put it in formal transportation terminology, is that Los Angeles traffic really, really sucks. Not that this eases our pain much, but San Francisco and New York, cities that supposedly show Los Angeles how transportation and urbanization should be done, are tied for second and 15th respectively in most hours of congestion delay. Moreover, New York's situation may be even worse than this implies. Instead of driving, many New Yorkers are riding transit, which is generally considerably slower than travel by private vehicle. By the commute-time criterion, New York's transportation system could be considered more dysfunctional than ours. But pointing fingers at others does nothing to change our grim reality. at rush hour or experienced the frustration of trying to lead police on a high-speed freeway chase during peak travel hours can tell you, Los Angeles's traffic jams do indeed live up to the legend. However, the reasons for Los Angeles's problems are murkier than they may seem. In fact, it's quite possible to make a plausible case that Los Angeles's traffic woes stem from the fact that it doesn't sprawl enough and has overinvested in costly rail transit at the expense of developing its undersized freeway network. Congrats to those of you who guessed correctly that Los Angeles is a traffic nightmare. Now if you really want to prove your acumen, have a technologically feasible, politically palatable, fiscally responsible solution on my desk by the morning. And for those of you who have stuck with the quiz, I have a special treat: a bonus myth, which will bite the dust in the next post. Link Now if only LA would stop insisting on building car pool lanes that don't have any effect on people's commuting habits and instead just clog up the left lanes with minivans going 40mph we could start maximizing the bandwidth of existing freeways by increasing the speed of traffic. oh, and getting rid of speed limits wouldn't hurt either. Link I've read all of your posts and agree with most of them - however, I'm not biting on your numbers here. Traffic here is horrible compared to those cities -- and its not even close -- especially if you're traveling West. On weekends, the beach (I live in Venice) is horrible and getting out or getting in is ultra-frustrating. Parking lots are overflowing, side streets are littered with lost tourists and the streets leading to the freeways are jammed. Your precious data may hint that we don't drive "more" -- but the drive here in So Cal is definitely "more" frustrating and longer. Don't judge by miles driven, judge by time in the car -- 'cause that's what matters to most. You can easily travel 50 miles in an hour in Jax -- that metric is impossible to achieve here on any road at any time of day. This is the worst city to drive in -- next to Tucson no question. my commute is almost exactly that of the average New Yorker. Except when the trains are experiencing hiccups and not coming when they're supposed to, like today. Still, I walk 20 minutes and ride the subway for 15 each day. Except on the worst days of winter and summer that's a trade-off I'd gladly make over sitting in a car. Plus I get the benefit of feeling like a do-gooder who is helping the environment. Link "Highway miles driven per resident per day" isn't the statistic I want to know. I'd like to know the average number of miles driven per resident per day among those who *actually drive,* or even among those who own cars. Link Why is public transit generally considered slower than private? I take the metro (around DC) and the train (up to BWI airport or New York) frequently and always the public transport is faster than driving even with little traffic. I do agree that the bus I used to take to work from Virginia to DC (stopped way to frequently) was much much slower than a car trip. Instead of a subway, there's a busway that is remarkably effective in the San Fernando valley. A busway is just a street spanning multiple neighborhoods that only allows bus traffic. At intersections, the lights are co-ordinated to give the bus the right of way. LA could save billions by extending busways instead of building a subway in the seismically challenged region. The author picks statistics that debunk the myth that LA is a transportation nightmare, but then the comments quickly point out that the author is using bad measurements. Link I work in transportation demand management and this is the first time I have ever heard someone advocate for more highways as a way to reduce traffic. Common understanding in my field is that if you build more highways you fail to reduce traffic. Link I'm tired of reading these articles comparing LA to the rest of the US and saying it's not that bad. While I don't agree with all of it- much of this is true. LA isn't that much worse than the rest of the US, and plenty of things are exaggerated about LA. The problem is that comparing LA's traffic and public transportation infrastructure to other American cities isn't really what we should be looking at. We should compare LA to the cities in the world with the best transportation, the best public infrastructure, the most efficient population centers, and ask ourselves "How can American cities, like LA, be better?" While the public transportation in Boston and NYC is reasonable, and comparing LA to those two is an almost fair comparison, none of those three cities have the quality of transportation found in other places as a whole (parts of Boston and NYC have great public transport) -- Kevin 14. The more highways you build the more cars will clog them. The Long Island Expressway had debilitating traffic jams before it was even completed in the 1950's. People will move farther out of town as long as the commute is less than 1 1/2 hours. A few major interstates feeding cars into old country roads that got consumed by suburban sprawl. It's worse for out-of-towners because the highway signs are very misleading or missing entirely so you always miss your exits with no easy way to backtrack. Maybe if would be cheaper for highway departments to give everybody a GPS instead of maintaining road signs. Link LA has two major problems to overcome 1 the huge influx of 1st and 2nd generation drivers who are not well practiced in driving. until they figu... |
| freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/los-angeles-transportation-facts-and-fiction-driving-and-delay freakonomics&posall=Bar1,TopAd,Position1,Position1B,Top5,SponLink,S ponLink2,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,Bottom3,Right5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Mid dle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9,Inv1,Inv2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,CcolumnSS,Middl e4,Left1B,Frame6A,Left2,Left3,Left4,Left5,Left6,Left7,Left8,Left9,JMNow 1,JMNow2,JMNow3,JMNow4,JMNow5,JMNow6,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=Middle1C&query= qstring&keywords=? Thanks to the great distances between far-flung destinations, and perhaps Angelenos' famed "love affair" with the car, Angelenos drive considerably more miles than most Americans. Los Angeles Transportation: Facts and Fiction, Introduction Answer: False. According to the Federal Highway Administration, Angelenos drive 23 miles per resident per day. This ranks the Los Angeles metro area 21st highest among the largest 37 cities. The champions (or losers) are probably Houston, followed by Jacksonville and Orlando, all of which are over 30 miles per day. New Yorkers drive the fewest miles (17 VMT per resident per day), thanks in large part to relatively high transit ridership and lots of walking trips. Despite our reputation, we Angelenos don't exhibit any particularly great predilection for freeway travel either. Los Angeles ranks 14th out of the 37 largest metro areas in terms of highway miles driven per resident per day. To be sure, this is above the median, but it hardly points to the sort of unique freeway fetish Angelenos are accused of harboring. This leaves the answer you've all been waiting for: Angelenos spend more time stuck in traffic than any other drivers in the nation. Texas Transportation Institute's 2005 Mobility Report, Angelenos who traveled in the peak periods suffered 72 annual hours of delay. The TTI's methodology has some issues, but it is probably safe to say they got this right. I have studied Los Angeles traffic conditions for an 18-year period. My conclusion, to put it in formal transportation terminology, is that Los Angeles traffic really, really sucks. Not that this eases our pain much, but San Francisco and New York, cities that supposedly show Los Angeles how transportation and urbanization should be done, are tied for second and 15th respectively in most hours of congestion delay. Moreover, New York's situation may be even worse than this implies. Instead of driving, many New Yorkers are riding transit, which is generally considerably slower than travel by private vehicle. By the commute-time criterion, New York's transportation system could be considered more dysfunctional than ours. But pointing fingers at others does nothing to change our grim reality. at rush hour or experienced the frustration of trying to lead police on a high-speed freeway chase during peak travel hours can tell you, Los Angeles's traffic jams do indeed live up to the legend. However, the reasons for Los Angeles's problems are murkier than they may seem. In fact, it's quite possible to make a plausible case that Los Angeles's traffic woes stem from the fact that it doesn't sprawl enough and has overinvested in costly rail transit at the expense of developing its undersized freeway network. Congrats to those of you who guessed correctly that Los Angeles is a traffic nightmare. Now if you really want to prove your acumen, have a technologically feasible, politically palatable, fiscally responsible solution on my desk by the morning. And for those of you who have stuck with the quiz, I have a special treat: a bonus myth, which will bite the dust in the next post. Link Now if only LA would stop insisting on building car pool lanes that don't have any effect on people's commuting habits and instead just clog up the left lanes with minivans going 40mph we could start maximizing the bandwidth of existing freeways by increasing the speed of traffic. oh, and getting rid of speed limits wouldn't hurt either. Link I've read all of your posts and agree with most of them - however, I'm not biting on your numbers here. Traffic here is horrible compared to those cities -- and its not even close -- especially if you're traveling West. On weekends, the beach (I live in Venice) is horrible and getting out or getting in is ultra-frustrating. Parking lots are overflowing, side streets are littered with lost tourists and the streets leading to the freeways are jammed. Your precious data may hint that we don't drive "more" -- but the drive here in So Cal is definitely "more" frustrating and longer. Don't judge by miles driven, judge by time in the car -- 'cause that's what matters to most. You can easily travel 50 miles in an hour in Jax -- that metric is impossible to achieve here on any road at any time of day. This is the worst city to drive in -- next to Tucson no question. my commute is almost exactly that of the average New Yorker. Except when the trains are experiencing hiccups and not coming when they're supposed to, like today. Still, I walk 20 minutes and ride the subway for 15 each day. Except on the worst days of winter and summer that's a trade-off I'd gladly make over sitting in a car. Plus I get the benefit of feeling like a do-gooder who is helping the environment. Link "Highway miles driven per resident per day" isn't the statistic I want to know. I'd like to know the average number of miles driven per resident per day among those who *actually drive,* or even among those who own cars. Link Why is public transit generally considered slower than private? I take the metro (around DC) and the train (up to BWI airport or New York) frequently and always the public transport is faster than driving even with little traffic. I do agree that the bus I used to take to work from Virginia to DC (stopped way to frequently) was much much slower than a car trip. Instead of a subway, there's a busway that is remarkably effective in the San Fernando valley. A busway is just a street spanning multiple neighborhoods that only allows bus traffic. At intersections, the lights are co-ordinated to give the bus the right of way. LA could save billions by extending busways instead of building a subway in the seismically challenged region. The author picks statistics that debunk the myth that LA is a transportation nightmare, but then the comments quickly point out that the author is using bad measurements. Link I work in transportation demand management and this is the first time I have ever heard someone advocate for more highways as a way to reduce traffic. Common understanding in my field is that if you build more highways you fail to reduce traffic. Link I'm tired of reading these articles comparing LA to the rest of the US and saying it's not that bad. While I don't agree with all of it- much of this is true. LA isn't that much worse than the rest of the US, and plenty of things are exaggerated about LA. The problem is that comparing LA's traffic and public transportation infrastructure to other American cities isn't really what we should be looking at. We should compare LA to the cities in the world with the best transportation, the best public infrastructure, the most efficient population centers, and ask ourselves "How can American cities, like LA, be better?" While the public transportation in Boston and NYC is reasonable, and comparing LA to those two is an almost fair comparison, none of those three cities have the quality of transportation found in other places as a whole (parts of Boston and NYC have great public transport) -- Kevin 14. The more highways you build the more cars will clog them. The Long Island Expressway had debilitating traffic jams before it was even completed in the 1950's. People will move farther out of town as long as the commute is less than 1 1/2 hours. A few major interstates feeding cars into old country roads that got consumed by suburban sprawl. It's worse for out-of-towners because the highway signs are very misleading or missing entirely so you always miss your exits with no easy way to backtrack. Maybe if would be cheaper for highway departments to give everybody a GPS instead of maintaining road signs. Link LA has two major problems to overcome 1 the huge influx of 1st and 2nd generation drivers who are not well practiced in driving. until they figu... |