Primary Central Business Districts (CBDs)
a. Downtown
b. Hollywood
c. Westwood
Directly connected to all 3 CBDs
a. Santa Monica/Venice/West L.A.
b. Beverly Hills/West Hollywood
c. Los Feliz/Silverlake/Echo Park
d. Miracle Mile/Hancock Park/Koreatown
e. Baldwin Hills
f. USC/University Park
g. Westchester/LAX
Directly connected to 2 CBDs
a. Pasadena
b. Culver City
c. Sherman Oaks
Directly connected to 1 CBD
a. Encino
b. Studio City
c. Universal City
d. North Hollywood
e. Burbank
f. Glendale
g. Eagle Rock
h. Boyle Heights/East L.A.
i. Southgate/Lynwood
j. Morningside Park
k. Inglewood
My LA subway plan is based upon latent but unrealized relationships that organize Los Angeles. The core of the system is built upon two parallel corridors (the Red and the Purple Lines) connecting three central business districts (Downtown, Hollywood, and Westwood/Century City). As the only line connecting all three CBDs, the Red line serves as the backbone of the system. The Purple line acts as a secondary parallel corridor and the backbone of the Wilshire District as it radiates outward from downtown towards the “new downtown” of Century City.
The area served by these two lines is Los Angeles’ equivalent of Manhattan. This is the heart of the metropolis, where the region’s cultural and commercial energy is primarily concentrated. The spacial relationships between the three CBDs similarly mirror those of Manhattan: the original downtown office district (Downtown LA/Lower Manhattan) followed by a second central business district (Hollywood & Mid-Wilshire/Mid-town Manhattan). Los Angeles adds a third emerging CBD with Century City and Westwood.
If the central corridor represents LA’s equivalent of Manhattan, the San Fernando Valley, The San Bernadino Valley, and South Los Angeles all represent LA’s equivalent of the outer boroughs. As such the Orange, Gold, Blue, Yellow, and Pink lines act as feeder routes providing service from the progressively less dense residential regions into the center city. The Yellow line also serves as a cross-town route connecting Hollywood and Wilshire, while the Orange and the Expo lines serves as “side corridors” linking the closer in centers (Orange: Pasadena, Glendale, Universal City, Studio City, Sherman Oaks, & Encino; Expo: Culver City, Baldwin Hills, & USC/University Park).
This subway system will serve two roles. Most immediately, it will relieve the congestion that is choking our metropolitan area and draining it of its resources (time, money, fuel, environment). But perhaps more importantly, it creates a framework upon which we can most effectively and sustainably direct further growth and development. The space in all three CBDs currently remains ineffectively and under-utilized. At the same time, new development continues to expand the edges of our metropolis further outward. Our first priority should be directing new commercial, business, and residential development away from the peripheral areas and back towards the cores, where infrastructure is most concentrated and of greatest practical use. Neither the region nor the world can afford to continue squandering our resources on increasing sprawl. It's time to invest in what we have.
7 comments:
I like a lot of your ideas, but what's with all the New York references ? There also seems to be an over-emphasis on the Westside. The Eastside seems to be in New Jersey !
I'm assuming you must be from NYC. It would explain the Westside focus and the references. Using NYC as an example does not mean much to us native Angelenos.
While the top trip generators (job centers) in the region are Downtown L.A., the Westside and South Coast Metro (Orange County), most transit riders live on the Eastside. The lines need to connect the dots, not try to mimic New York geography.
Thanks for the feedback!
Not from NY myself (DC actually). I knew the NY analogy would be a tenuous one, which is why I dropped it in later posts. LA is a different animal. Mainly I just wanted to highlight certain precedents (multiple CBDs, linear arrangement, etc). It was more of a conceptual trick than a direct analogy, and it does not really fit.
I disagree though that the plan should merely connect the dots. My proposal is not for LA as it currently exists but for how it should be reshaped around transit, namely recentralizing development around existing hubs and making the best use of the existing urban fabric. A successful transit system in LA will need to establish hierarchical relationships among the different areas its serves and somehow tie them together into a coherent whole. This is my attempt to do just that.
The reason for the emphasis on the Westside is because it is so notoriously gridlocked and lacking in public transit. For the system to work, the first thing we need to do is get Westsiders out of their cars. Also, this system only encompasses job centers within municipal reach. Asking it to reach down into Orange County would be asking too much of such a system and would be ineffective in discouraging further sprawl.
Points well taken, but you can't just leave the rest of the city and county out of the "urban fabric." Most of the urban population lives outside the Westside. Your "network" ignores this fact.
Westsiders are a minority who are the least likely to use transit due to demographics (high income). Eastsiders are likely to ride transit and need to get to the Westside and other locations throughout the city.
I'm kind of perplexed by your comments. No LA transit system is going to serve the entire metropolitan region, nor should one, at least as the region exists today. Such use of transit funds would be wasteful and counter-productive. We shouldn't be directing valuable infrastructure outward towards low density peripheries but rather concentrating it inward towards the core, where densities (residential, commercial, office) are highest and best able to sustain mass transit. Additionally, the core remains terribly underutilized and is capable of absorbing greater development, development that would further utilize transit infrastructure, making it increasingly viable and attractive. The Westside is the most logical place for intense concentration of transit infrastructure.
Furthermore, LA must distinguish between local and regional transit service (think SF's Muni and BART systems). An effective subway system should reinforce and recentralize the core. Serving low-density peripheries undermines the purpose of mass transit. Regional service must be a parallel but separate objective.
Finally, I'm taken aback by your dismissal of Westsiders as a demographic minority that would never take transit. A couple months ago, citizens of West Hollywood came out in force and unanimously in favor of having the Red line come through here en route to Santa Monica. And coming from DC, I've witnessed firsthand how an effective transit system attracts ridership from the demographic groups I suspect you are referring to. However, such a system needs to actually take people where they want to go. And frankly, the Westside is where people (Eastsiders and Westsiders) want to go. And once they get here, they'll need to be able to get around effectively if they are expected to forego their cars.
Certainly my proposal has room for expansion outward (but again, only to a degree). But I'm really focused on what is doable and what is the wisest use of transit investment.
East L.A. low density ? Maybe you should take a trip across the 405 sometime.
I am not advocating building subways out to low-density areas (like they do in the Bay Area and DC). What I am advocating is a system that serves the high-density, working-class areas outside of the Westside.
Your map completely ignores everything north, east and south of Downtown, except for existing lines. There are also way too many duplictive lines shown on the Westside.
None of your lines will ever be built anyway. Ink is Cheap :-)
I've been to East L.A. and know how dense it is, which is why I think its great they're extending the Gold Line out there. However, I don't show that on the map because (1) I don't know where future alignments will or should go and (2) they are not as strategically important as the core of the system which will be the basis for the larger transit network. Priority must be given to the core if the transit system is to be of any use. Arbitrarily laying out track serves no one's purpose. The working class neighborhoods you cite would be better served with access to a logical, centralized working transit network than it would by random lines serving random points within the sprawling metropolis.
My map ignores the periphery out of necessity. LA needs to get serious about its extension of Metro. A plan that builds upon the existing system and lays out a coherent roadmap (no pun intended) to a more transit-oriented future just might be enough galvanize the region and spur it into action. Most of the lines here are either already built, under construction, or being studied, so clearly Metro is looking towards the future. The question is, what is shaping their vision?
And while I'm sympathetic to class and economic issues, what about pollution, dependence upon foreign oil, and land use patterns that are draining Southern California's resources? And not just gasoline, but water (think of all those green lawns, backyard swimming pools, car washes, etc), money, and time.
Finally, I must admit that your arguments seem to reflect more antipathy towards the Westside than sympathy with the working-class Eastside.
I am simply looking at your maps that show just about everything east of the L.A. River "blank." Crazy. You are missing a huge part of the city !
The Westside is farther out on the "periphery" than the areas your map ignores. Almost suburban in many ways. Calling the rest of the city "periphery" shows a Westside bias.
I am a strong supporter of extending transit to the Westside. There is no reason for the subway to dead-end at Western. I support transit improvements citywide, not just west of downtown.
Post a Comment