And why are all of the east/west avenues so capricious in their paths to Santa Monica, and why is there not even a single dominant north/south avenue?

Can't help you there!

HE WALKED FROM DT LA TO SANTA MONICA?  DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THAT IS?!

 

Yes. It's about 15 miles. He said it took him all day.

 

OMG.  I've tried to run from my house to Santa Monica (via Wilshire or Santa Monica) and thats a lil over 4 miles.  I can't imagine walking as LA is so brown and ugly.

 

Brown and ugly? You must live in a different neighborhood than me, cause my surroundings are beautiful.  I'm right by Hanock Park and it couldn't be more gorgeous.

 

To answer another question about the placing of downtown LA, it does seem strange (I always thought downtown LA should be where Long Beach is), however it's true that the downtown built up around the Spanish Missions that founded the city.

Brown and ugly? You must live in a different neighborhood than me, cause my surroundings are beautiful.  I'm right by Hanock Park and it couldn't be more gorgeous.

 

When I was there I felt LA was gaudy and tacky (lots of neon, and often tasteless loud design though sometimes innovative - lots of Cheesecake Factory type design - no surprise given that its from S. California). Also many more than in other cities pre 1930s buildings had their detailing removed, so very little felt historic - there is a really great before and after photo thread on SSP's forums that shows a ton of examples where this happened.  LA's main basin is quite dense, but its been chopped up quite a bit by the mid-century (though its very easy to fix), it particularly surprised me how dense Beverly Hills commercial district was considering how much of a deterrent to subway development that town has been and the general selfish vain attitude that that place is just drenched in.

HE WALKED FROM DT LA TO SANTA MONICA?  DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THAT IS?!

 

Yes. It's about 15 miles. He said it took him all day.

 

OMG.  I've tried to run from my house to Santa Monica (via Wilshire or Santa Monica) and thats a lil over 4 miles.  I can't imagine walking as LA is so brown and ugly.

 

Brown and ugly? You must live in a different neighborhood than me, cause my surroundings are beautiful.  I'm right by Hanock Park and it couldn't be more gorgeous.

 

To answer another question about the placing of downtown LA, it does seem strange (I always thought downtown LA should be where Long Beach is), however it's true that the downtown built up around the Spanish Missions that founded the city.

 

My home is in Westwood, however, many areas of Los Angeles is brown and flat.  Especially when you get toward mid city and Hancock Park its flat 3/4 story buildings and beige.  I don't know the borders of Hancock Park, which I like, but I pretty sure you're east of the La Brea, south of Melrose and north of 3rd? 

 

The area around MacAurthur Park, Drive down Pico, San Vicente.  Visit Compton, Waats, Hawthorne, South LA or whatever they call it now.  The East side is even worse. In my opinion LA is unattractive and beige. 

Despite the perfect weather and flatness you don't see many more people biking in LA than in the midwest.  I think the problem is that the distances people have to travel are simply ridiculous.  The key to having a pleasant life living in LA appears to prioritize living close to your workplace and hopefully where you live is somewhere "real" and not nebulous. 

 

Yes, you want to live by work. The exceptions would be if you live on the Red Line. That's an excellent heavy rail subway. And the expanded Purple Line under Wilshire will give a lot more options. You want to minimize your driving in LA.

 

If I lived in LA, I'd pay a lot more money to live by a Red Line station...and I think that is already the case. From places I've seen, rents are higher near Red Line stations.

 

When I moved in to a real neighborhood after college (away from the usc campus bubble), I chose to live in Los Feliz largely because there was a Red Line station at Vermont/Sunset.  I worked downtown, and it literally took 10 minutes from station to station.  On days when I had a meeting in the middle of the day I would have to drive and it would easily take 30 mins on the 101, or slightly less if I took surface streets. 

Also, I wrote this post last year.  Could possibly be of interest to some of you here:

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2013/10/guest-editorial-cincinnati-could-learn-from-las-regional-high-growth-mentality/

Despite the perfect weather and flatness you don't see many more people biking in LA than in the midwest.  I think the problem is that the distances people have to travel are simply ridiculous.  The key to having a pleasant life living in LA appears to prioritize living close to your workplace and hopefully where you live is somewhere "real" and not nebulous. 

 

Yes, you want to live by work. The exceptions would be if you live on the Red Line. That's an excellent heavy rail subway. And the expanded Purple Line under Wilshire will give a lot more options. You want to minimize your driving in LA.

 

If I lived in LA, I'd pay a lot more money to live by a Red Line station...and I think that is already the case. From places I've seen, rents are higher near Red Line stations.

 

When I moved in to a real neighborhood after college (away from the usc campus bubble), I chose to live in Los Feliz largely because there was a Red Line station at Vermont/Sunset.  I worked downtown, and it literally took 10 minutes from station to station.  On days when I had a meeting in the middle of the day I would have to drive and it would easily take 30 mins on the 101, or slightly less if I took surface streets. 

 

I hate the Red Line.  It smells.

And why are all of the east/west avenues so capricious in their paths to Santa Monica, and why is there not even a single dominant north/south avenue?

 

There are some dominant north/south avenues, it's just LA has always been more oriented east/west, so those avenues are longer and more prominent. Figueroa, Vermont, Western, Robertson are all pretty prominent north/south streets. 

 

I tend to think of LA's version of Manhattan as being bounded like this: DTLA is the eastern terminus, Santa Monica/Venice is the western terminus, south of the mountains, north of the 10 freeway.  This is where the vast majority of the activity and traditionally urban neighborhoods are found.  If you think of LA this way, it's easier to see why the east/west streets are more dominant.  They cover more ground just like the Avenues in NY.

Brown and ugly? You must live in a different neighborhood than me, cause my surroundings are beautiful.  I'm right by Hanock Park and it couldn't be more gorgeous.

 

When I was there I felt LA was gaudy and tacky (lots of neon, and often tasteless loud design though sometimes innovative - lots of Cheesecake Factory type design - no surprise given that its from S. California). Also many more than in other cities pre 1930s buildings had their detailing removed, so very little felt historic - there is a really great before and after photo thread on SSP's forums that shows a ton of examples where this happened.  LA's main basin is quite dense, but its been chopped up quite a bit by the mid-century (though its very easy to fix), it particularly surprised me how dense Beverly Hills commercial district was considering how much of a deterrent to subway development that town has been and the general selfish vain attitude that that place is just drenched in.

 

It's not just Beverly Hills. There are many people who live in Cheviot, the Palms, West LA & Century City that do not want it.  I wouldn't mind having the subway as taking the bus to Hollywood, is over an hour from my house.

Despite the perfect weather and flatness you don't see many more people biking in LA than in the midwest.  I think the problem is that the distances people have to travel are simply ridiculous.  The key to having a pleasant life living in LA appears to prioritize living close to your workplace and hopefully where you live is somewhere "real" and not nebulous. 

 

Yes, you want to live by work. The exceptions would be if you live on the Red Line. That's an excellent heavy rail subway. And the expanded Purple Line under Wilshire will give a lot more options. You want to minimize your driving in LA.

 

If I lived in LA, I'd pay a lot more money to live by a Red Line station...and I think that is already the case. From places I've seen, rents are higher near Red Line stations.

 

When I moved in to a real neighborhood after college (away from the usc campus bubble), I chose to live in Los Feliz largely because there was a Red Line station at Vermont/Sunset.  I worked downtown, and it literally took 10 minutes from station to station.  On days when I had a meeting in the middle of the day I would have to drive and it would easily take 30 mins on the 101, or slightly less if I took surface streets. 

 

I hate the Red Line.  It smells.

 

Because the Subways of NYC always smell like roses ...  :roll:

 

I hate the Red Line.  It smells.

 

Because the Subways of NYC always smell like roses ...  ::)

 

OH. NO. YOU. DIDNT!  The Red Line smells to me.  I'm in no way saying that other transit systems don't have issues.  I feel that the Red Line has a distinct odor that does not agree with me.  I've ridden many domestic systems.  I think the CTA, RTA, BART, MARTA, DC Metro, SEPTA Subway and Regional Rail all have odors.  SEPTA Broad St. being the worse, with LA, Miami People Mover and MARTA right behind!

LA's Red Line smells like urine in sections, I agree, but it's no worse than the smells of, say, the G Line in New York or the Brown Line in Chicago.

LA's Red Line is no worse than BART when it comes to smells, and it seems better than most Muni lines. The stations are very well-done too. I have really high hopes for the expanded Purple Line and have no doubts it will be a top-notch project that will redefine LA as we know it. You're probably going to see a lot of people along Wilshire give up their cars or drastically cut back on driving...I bet it beats ridership projections right off the bat. There seems to be way more pent-up demand for transit in LA than people realize. Most of my friends there want more of it and LA has some strong urban leadership that is beating out the well-heeled California NIMBY influences that are holding back a lot of places up here in the Bay Area. Hell, just look at how many transit agencies we have up here (LA at least is more streamlined). Or look at the fact we have no late-night trains and still don't have a BART pass. LA transit is somewhat underrated. It's not as far off San Francisco as most people assume...

 

It's important to remember that LA was already a very big city by the time of the Great Depression (1.2 million people). It overtook San Francisco in 1920 (though with a much larger land area and it never had the urban core of SF), and most of what existed then was dense and urban with a huge streetcar network. It was somewhat disconnected (lots of vacant land in the city limits, with geographic barriers between a few neighborhoods), but its downtown was big and beautiful while being much more well-connected to adjacent neighborhoods. Freeway construction killed the core of LA for a long time (transit is fixing it). The inner highway ring in LA reminds me a lot of what the inner highway ring did to the urban core of Columbus.

 

The real sprawl and urban planning disasters took place in the post-WW2 era, which is similar to how things played out in established Midwestern cities. And since LA had constantly growing population, it's expected it will have pound-for-pound more suburbia than some stagnant metro areas in the Rust Belt.

 

But things are changing. Most new development in the LA area is infill. It has one of the highest rates of it in America (LA, NY, SF, and San Jose are national leaders in infill). A similar thing is happening up in San Jose (San Jose is becoming more pro-urban and TOD), but LA always had denser, more urban neighborhoods than San Jose (SJ has nothing like DTLA, Hollywood, or Wilshire). LA to me is mostly a mix of San Jose and Oakland...with a few sections of other West Coast cities.

 

http://www.ecobuildingpulse.com/infill/epa-study-infill-represents-21-percent-of-new-home-construction.aspx

 

I think Downtown, Hollywood, Mid-Wilshire, Koreatown, and a few other areas are totally livable urban neighborhoods. Coming from San Francisco, some of these hoods feel safer and cleaner than their counterparts up north...though I admit we're talking worlds of cultural difference (NorCal versus SoCal is one of the biggest cultural divides you find in any state- maybe up to the level of divide seen in Ohio). There are things I like more about LA (art, music, girls, weather) and there are things I like more about San Francisco (urban core, parks, bridges, food). They're both standout cities in their own way.

 

*And I don't know, I met one of my dream girls on the Red Line. Girl sat right next to me and had amazing game. That has happened exactly zero times on BART (though I have picked up on Muni). I can never hate on that train!

The Brown Line, lol.

 

LACMTA is looking like a pleasant surprise. I never thought much of LA transit, but the 30/10 plan/Measure R gets me really excited and one of my friends from there (Van Nuys) says Metro is very convenient. The Regional Connector and Purple Line extension look like they could transform the central part of the region.

 

Oh well, Pittsburgh and Cleveland still beat LA in my mind when it comes to transit and urban fabric, regardless ;)

LA's Red Line smells like urine in sections, I agree, but it's no worse than the smells of, say, the G Line in New York or the Brown Line in Chicago.

 

I thought the stations in LA were remarkable for their lack of smell, since there is no groundwater and therefore no mildewy/moldy smell. 

Yeah, but some of those trains smell like somebody thought it was the bathroom in a Times Square cineplex.

Posted February 20, 2014 by Steve Hymon

Federal government approves $669-million grant and $160-million loan for Regional Connector

 

Officials from Metro and the Federal Transit Administration signed a pair of agreements Thursday that will provide a $669-million federal grant and a $160-million federally-backed loan for the Regional Connector light rail project. The total budget of the project is $1.36 billion.

 

A media event with public officials is being held at 10 a.m. next to the Gold Line’s Little Tokyo station. We’ll post photos and video later today.

 

In practical terms, the agreements clear the way for construction to begin later this year on the 1.9-mile underground light rail line in downtown L.A. that will tie together the existing Blue Line, Expo Line and Gold Line with tracks between 7th/Metro Center and Little Tokyo. When the project is complete — forecast for 2020 — passengers on those lines will be able to travel through downtown without having to transfer to another line.

 

READ MORE AND SEE MAP AT:

http://thesource.metro.net/2014/02/20/federal-government-approves-669-million-grant-and-160-million-loan-for-regional-connector/

Yeah, but some of those trains smell like somebody thought it was the bathroom in a Times Square cineplex.

 

Pre or post Disney?

Posted February 20, 2014 by Steve Hymon

Federal government approves $669-million grant and $160-million loan for Regional Connector

 

Officials from Metro and the Federal Transit Administration signed a pair of agreements Thursday that will provide a $669-million federal grant and a $160-million federally-backed loan for the Regional Connector light rail project. The total budget of the project is $1.36 billion.

 

A media event with public officials is being held at 10 a.m. next to the Gold Lines Little Tokyo station. Well post photos and video later today.

 

In practical terms, the agreements clear the way for construction to begin later this year on the 1.9-mile underground light rail line in downtown L.A. that will tie together the existing Blue Line, Expo Line and Gold Line with tracks between 7th/Metro Center and Little Tokyo. When the project is complete forecast for 2020 passengers on those lines will be able to travel through downtown without having to transfer to another line.

 

READ MORE AND SEE MAP AT:

http://thesource.metro.net/2014/02/20/federal-government-approves-669-million-grant-and-160-million-loan-for-regional-connector/

 

Great to see a very long-term plan finally come together.  The Blue Line opened several years before the Red Line, meaning people had to hoof it or switch to buses to reach other parts of downtown. 

 

People are erroneously predicting one-seat rides across the metro.  There will be very few of those.  The significance of this is are the good station locations in the downtown area, and not having to switch trains to get into the downtown.  This will prevent train overcrowding on the Red/Purple Line after the Wilshire line is extended. 

 

Pre or post Disney?

 

Heh, both.

From the map it appears that, once the regional connector is completed, the Blue Line will run from Long Beach to Pasadena, replacing the leg of the Gold Line that now goes to Pasadena, and the Gold Line will run from Santa Monica to East LA, incorporating a part of the current Gold Line and the entire Expo Line. Is that correct?

 

From the map it appears that, once the regional corrector is completed, the Blue Line will run from Long Beach to Pasadena, replacing the leg of the Gold Line that now goes to Pasadena, and the Gold Line will run from Santa Monica to East LA, incorporating a part of the current Gold Line and the entire Expo Line. Is that correct?

 

 

Yes, correct.  This has been the plan for like 30 years, that's why it's amazing to see this link finally being made.  Again, as much as the blue line sucks now, it sucked completely when it first opened, and only sucked marginally less after the Red Line opened.  This will upgrade it to still sucks BUT you don't have to transfer when you get downtown to get to downtown or Union Station.

 

Still, the blue line totally sucks for its circuitous street-level operation just south of downtown, then its sucky stations in the middle of nowhere en route to Long Beach.  At least it travels into downtown Long Beach (unlike downtown LA, for a few more years), albeit on a slow surface-running loop. 

 

 

 

Yes, correct.  This has been the plan for like 30 years, that's why it's amazing to see this link finally being made.  Again, as much as the blue line sucks now, it sucked completely when it first opened, and only sucked marginally less after the Red Line opened.  This will upgrade it to still sucks BUT you don't have to transfer when you get downtown to get to downtown or Union Station.

 

Still, the blue line totally sucks for its circuitous street-level operation just south of downtown, then its sucky stations in the middle of nowhere en route to Long Beach.  At least it travels into downtown Long Beach (unlike downtown LA, for a few more years), albeit on a slow surface-running loop. 

 

 

Yep it sucks so much that it's the single most heavily used LRT line in the USA.... :-P

From the map it appears that, once the regional corrector is completed, the Blue Line will run from Long Beach to Pasadena, replacing the leg of the Gold Line that now goes to Pasadena, and the Gold Line will run from Santa Monica to East LA, incorporating a part of the current Gold Line and the entire Expo Line. Is that correct?

 

 

Yes, correct.  This has been the plan for like 30 years, that's why it's amazing to see this link finally being made.  Again, as much as the blue line sucks now, it sucked completely when it first opened, and only sucked marginally less after the Red Line opened.  This will upgrade it to still sucks BUT you don't have to transfer when you get downtown to get to downtown or Union Station.

 

Still, the blue line totally sucks for its circuitous street-level operation just south of downtown, then its sucky stations in the middle of nowhere en route to Long Beach.  At least it travels into downtown Long Beach (unlike downtown LA, for a few more years), albeit on a slow surface-running loop. 

 

 

 

 

The Blue Line currently ends at 7th St/Metro Center. Right in the heart of DTLA...

Laura J. Nelson ‏@laura_nelson  11m

FYI: Tomorrow at 10 am Eastern, LA and DC officials will announce $1.25B in federal funding for Phase 1 of @metrolosangeles @PurpleLineExt.

^Now there's something you don't see everyday in the USA, a substantial HRT full-subway extension. 

Los Angeles officials laud $1.25 billion federal grant for Purple Line

By Rick Orlov, Los Angeles Daily News

 

 

 

A major federal grant of $1.25 billion to extend the “Subway to the Sea” was received by local officials Wednesday as part of an overall $2.1 billion package made possible by voter approval of the half-cent sales tax in Measure R.

 

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx made the presentation at a Washington, D.C., news conference with Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, Mayor Eric Garcetti, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and the local congressional delegation.

 

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20140521/los-angeles-officials-laud-125-billion-federal-grant-for-purple-line

"This morning, we boldly go where no transit agency has gone before," said @GeorgeTakei on LA's new vital subway: http://t.co/vEb6kxwflo

"This morning, we boldly go where no transit agency has gone before," said @GeorgeTakei on LA's new vital subway: http://t.co/vEb6kxwflo

 

This is a really exciting project, albeit 20+ years overdue.  This article (and others) fail to mention that sure -- it'll enable one-seat rides -- but it more importantly opens up a lot more of DT LA to high quality transit service.

This is a really exciting project, albeit 20+ years overdue.  This article (and others) fail to mention that sure -- it'll enable one-seat rides -- but it more importantly opens up a lot more of DT LA to high quality transit service.

 

Agreed. It may result in the Manhattanization of downtown LA, much the way BART did for downtown San Fran. For the second-largest city, LA's downtown skyline always struck me as lacking.

This is a really exciting project, albeit 20+ years overdue.  This article (and others) fail to mention that sure -- it'll enable one-seat rides -- but it more importantly opens up a lot more of DT LA to high quality transit service.

 

Agreed. It may result in the Manhattanization of downtown LA, much the way BART did for downtown San Fran. For the second-largest city, LA's downtown skyline always struck me as lacking.

 

Perhaps in the past. There has been a lot built in the past 5 years and now I can see the crane for the Korean Air building which will be the tallest on the West Coast. Another benefit, ironically, of the subway is the reconstructing and repaving of Wilshire Blvd between Fairfax and Western. I live right off Wilshire and for years it was the worst road in LA. It destroyed your tires. Now, after the digging, reinforced concrete outer bus lanes have been built and the whole street was grated and resurfaced. It's a great ride and looks great too. I hope all of Wilshire from downtown gets this treatment.

This is a really exciting project, albeit 20+ years overdue.  This article (and others) fail to mention that sure -- it'll enable one-seat rides -- but it more importantly opens up a lot more of DT LA to high quality transit service.

 

Agreed. It may result in the Manhattanization of downtown LA, much the way BART did for downtown San Fran. For the second-largest city, LA's downtown skyline always struck me as lacking.

 

I don't see downtown LA every being "Manhattanized". 

This is a really exciting project, albeit 20+ years overdue.  This article (and others) fail to mention that sure -- it'll enable one-seat rides -- but it more importantly opens up a lot more of DT LA to high quality transit service.

 

Agreed. It may result in the Manhattanization of downtown LA, much the way BART did for downtown San Fran. For the second-largest city, LA's downtown skyline always struck me as lacking.

 

I don't see downtown LA every being "Manhattanized". 

 

Last time I was there (last winter) I literally saw entire blocks of midrises being built and a few high rises under construction - I can see it becoming Manhattanized.  Ditto for Hollywood which has been for many years been getting denser.

 

Also in regards to LAs skyline, IMO Downtown is not the most impressive skyline of the region, LA is a multi-nodal region to the extreme - if every skyline in the whole of the LA basin were smooshed together into one giant one downtown it would be competitive with Chicago and New York IMO.

 

The most impressive skyline in LA is actually West LA's which is Century City combined with Westwood, feels more appropriate for the size of the city (this pic also includes traditional downtown): https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8189/8378970129_9e3c4d02a0.jpg

 

 

I don't see downtown LA every being "Manhattanized". 

 

I do -- especially the Little Tokyo-Arts District area.

^-Its literally happening now. 

^Yes, I was pleasantly surprised by LA when I was there last winter; my first trip there since '96.  I always commented, when I used to fly out there regularly for work in the 90s: LA's downtown was really no better than Cleveland's.  Well that's no longer true, no disrespect to my vastly improving hometown, but LA's office and multi-unit residential density has mushroomed to fill out its downtown to look and feel more like that of a city of 3+ million.  I then commented to my friends: downtown LA feels like Manhattan.  Mixed us mid and high rises all over, lots of walkable areas with street-level shops – sure, those classic (and infamous) LA scrubby/ugly looking strip shopping areas still persist in many outer areas – they won’t disappear anytime soon – but they’re being joined with a lot of dense TOD around rail stations… And yes, even Hollywood was very easily navigable on foot from the (HRT) Red Line stop at Hollywood & Vine.  The sidewalk-level buzz made Hollywood seem like Lincoln Park or Greenwich Village – only with slightly different architecture… and palm trees, of course…

 

Back downtown, that whole LA Live area around the Staples Center and Nokia Theatre was also quite amazing and bustling with foot, more so than auto, traffic.  And there were crowds of people using the LRT and HRT rail lines and subways downtown.  And Union Station, which is connected by both the Red/Purple Line and Gold Line, was buzzing like a typical East Coast rail hub: think Grand Central or Union Station or 30th Street.  Lots of transferring between the transit lines and the Metro Link commuter rail network which spans the breadth of LA's sprawling metro area... It is quite impressive.

 

As an American, I’m proud of LA.  If the ugliest of American cities, in terms of freeways and  low-density sprawl can learn from its mistakes and recast itself as a place of comprehensive mass transit and smart-growth, there’s hope for everywhere else (except for Ohio, perhaps, with our pro-highway, pro-sprawl, stuck-in-the-1950s mentality)

 

I don't see downtown LA every being "Manhattanized". 

 

I do -- especially the Little Tokyo-Arts District area.

 

A new subway stop is currently being built smack in the middle of Little Tokyo which will help with growth. George Takei officiated the ribbon cutting the other day. He gets around.

^Not surprising, Takei's a cool guy; very civic minded -- and funny as hell... As an appointed member to the old Southern Cal Rapid Transit District, he was famously called away from the set of Star Trek I (the movie) to cast the tie-breaking vote to build the Red Line subway.  Not bad.

Metro Los Angeles ‏@metrolosangeles  1h1 hour ago

The Board gave OK to Metro staff to pursue federal grant + loan to help fund second phase of @PurpleLineExt to Century City.

San Francisco said it would never Manhattanize, and even with all the NIMBY's, dozens of big skyscrapers and hundreds of high-rises got built in San Francisco's downtown by those BART stations. LA's NIMBY's are politically weak compared to San Francisco's, so I believe it will Manhattanize even stronger than San Francisco did. Not to mention the population explosion downtown...Downtown is over 50,000 residents now (and over 150,000 workers). What was the residential population 20 years ago? Homeless dudes in Skid Row?

 

LA's sheer size and the big urban push of Gen Y to the core makes increased density and Manhattanization a reality. There are a lot of skyscrapers under construction right now downtown, and Wilshire Grand will be the tallest in the city (and possibly the West Coast depending how you measure it compared to San Francisco's Salesforce Tower). The pieces are in place for a continued skyscraper boom that spans a generation. I think it will go through what San Francisco went through in the 70's and 80's. Keep in mind SF had few skyscrapers before BART was built. It was BART which allowed the downtown to explode by bringing in hundreds of thousands of commuters from the East Bay. Heavy rail can bring in those kind of numbers (see the downtowns of Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, San Francisco, etc.). The Wilshire subway will run through a large area of dense population, quite a bit denser than any BART stations outside of cores of San Francisco and Oakland.

 

LA's mass transit will change the city. It may still pale in comparison to the cores of San Francisco and Chicago today, but it give it ten years...

BART isn't just a heavy rail subway, it is a 4-track subway for three miles in DT San Francisco.  BART and MUNI use the same tunnel on two different levels.  Manhattan wouldn't be Manhattan without the four-track subway lines.  Sure BART/Muni work different than NYC's local/express lines, but it nevertheless concentrated all of the big-time public transportation for the region under just one street. 

BART isn't just a heavy rail subway, it is a 4-track subway for three miles in DT San Francisco.  BART and MUNI use the same tunnel on two different levels.  Manhattan wouldn't be Manhattan without the four-track subway lines.  Sure BART/Muni work different than NYC's local/express lines, but it nevertheless concentrated all of the big-time public transportation for the region under just one street. 

 

Ditto with Chicago, though its an elevated line on the north side (Red / Brown / Purple lines - though the Purple could be waaay better than it currently is).

 

Philly's red line is a 4 track subway but isn't nearly as effective, though that city has way underutilized infrastructure like a giant electric commuter rail system that could be used for way more.

BART isn't just a heavy rail subway, it is a 4-track subway for three miles in DT San Francisco.  BART and MUNI use the same tunnel on two different levels.  Manhattan wouldn't be Manhattan without the four-track subway lines.  Sure BART/Muni work different than NYC's local/express lines, but it nevertheless concentrated all of the big-time public transportation for the region under just one street. 

 

Ditto with Chicago, though its an elevated line on the north side (Red / Brown / Purple lines - though the Purple could be waaay better than it currently is).

 

Philly's red line is a 4 track subway but isn't nearly as effective, though that city has way underutilized infrastructure like a giant electric commuter rail system that could be used for way more.

 

Red line?  None of Philly's subways are four tracked with the exception of a short part of the northern ORANGE line.

http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/SEPTA_Broad_Street_Subway

 

Apparently this Philadelphia line does have four tracks and runs an express train, but I have not ridden it so I don't know how it compares to NYC.  The world over New York is still, by far, the site of the most 3 and 4-track rapid transit lines.  Even in China and Japan they're nearly non-existent. 

 

According to this, the 8th Ave. line has the system's longest express run -- 3.5 miles -- between Columbus Circle and 125th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125th_Street_%28IND_Eighth_Avenue_Line%29

The Market-Frankford Subway runs parallel west of City Hall with the subway-surface trolleys that go to the west side. That's four tracks (and drifting off-topic!).

 

The Market-Frankford Subway runs parallel west of City Hall with the subway-surface trolleys that go to the west side. That's four tracks (and drifting off-topic!).

 

 

KJP, not the same thing.

But similar capacity and, moreso for purposes of our discussion, a similar result in terms of spin-off development. City Center Philadelphia is most like Manhattan and the rail capacity is the reason why.

But similar capacity and, moreso for purposes of our discussion, a similar result in terms of spin-off development. City Center Philadelphia is most like Manhattan and the rail capacity is the reason why.

 

Well Center City does have the third largest downtown residential population in the country and yes the Broad & Market Subways help tremendously!  Not to mention they have a VERY robust regional rail system with three stations in the heart of the city!

Yeah I meant the Orange line, and it was very similar to NYCs system though the trains were less modern, I don't think Philly's transit has as much funding as NYC does.  I seriously wish that the intracity commuter rail would have higher frequencies though, as the infrastructure is on par with Europe or Japan if it gets a bit of TLC.

 

Getting back on topic, check out the recently updated streetviews of downtown LA, parts of it are feeling like the Chicago Loop or a mini Manhattan, (though the scale, architecture and size makes me think of a much nicer version of downtown Detroit by way of San Francisco) the growth has just been nothing short of phenomenal, and when the regional connector goes on line, its going to be even more game changing :)