With the rail plans I am proposing here, I'm looking address not just existing transit problems but also the underlying land use and development strategies that have brought us to this point. An effective transit plan needs to be part of a broader growth strategy and provide a framework for the region's future development patterns.
This is what makes our current transit/development crisis such a watershed moment. LA's present development strategy of sprawling, low-density, decentralized development was premised upon abundant land and resources and cheap gasoline. But those fundamental underpinnings are now gone and LA must now radically reverse that previous strategy. Instead of uncontrolled outward expansion, employment, housing, and transit infrastructure should be funneled inward into a hierarchy of existing, currently underutilized urban cores. The hierarchy of urban cores is as follows:
Primary Central Business District:
There is no greater symbol of Southern California's deep seated anti-urbanism than LA’s notoriously degraded and neglected downtown. If the LA region intends to survive and compete in the 21st century, it must overcome this antipathy and make full use one of its most valuable assets. Speaking solely in terms of location, Downtown is the most centralized CBD in Southern California. Strengthening Downtown’s centrality and optimizing its accessibility must be the cornerstone of LA county’s growth and transit strategies.
- Downtown
Secondary Central Business/Transit Districts:
After Downtown, the LA region’s economic center of gravity pulls decidedly westward as well as northward towards the inner reaches of the San Fernando Valley. Every day, thousands of commuters jam the streets and freeways to get to jobs in these areas. A series of secondary hubs would (a) form a transit web to carry commuters to their jobs in these areas which in turn would (b) allow higher residential densities and higher intensity land-use, enabling commuters to live closer to their jobs.
- Westwood
- North Hollywood
- Hollywood
- Wilshire
- West Adams
Tertiary Hubs:
Due to their geographic distances and/or their off-center locations, tertiary hubs generally lack the geographic reach and connectivity of primary and secondary hubs. Basically, fewer lines converge on these hubs, reducing their regional accessibility. Tertiary hubs fall into two categories:
(a) Satellite employment centers. Off-center employment centers are less directly accessible from the larger region and therefore may require additional transfers. As a result, commuters may find it easier to live closer to their jobs here than they would if they worked in a primary or secondary hub. However, tertiary hubs bookend many transit lines, encouraging reverse commutes and bi-directional usage along these routes. Increased centralization around tertiary hubs could house workers and anchor local bus service.
- Santa Monica/Culver City (Nearest Hub(s): Westwood & Downtown; Local Bus: BBB, Culver City Bus, MTA)
- LAX (West Adams; MTA, BBB, Culver City Bus) NOTE: LAX could be developed into a secondary hub, but only after the current proposed network is firmly established
- Burbank/Sherman Oaks/Warner Center (North Hollywood; MTA, Burbank Bus)
- Glendale/Pasadena (Downtown & North Hollywood; MTA, Glendale Beeline)
- West Covina (Downtown; Foothill Transit)
- Long Beach (Downtown; Long Beach Transit, Torrance Transit, MTA)
(b) Residential reservoirs and suburban collection points. With their lower densities and peripheral locations, tertiary residential communities can't support extensive fixed rail networks. Instead, rail would connect these communities to the primary and secondary (or tertiary in the case of the outer SGV) CBDs, while beefed-up bus service would provide connectivity and internal circulation. At the same time, rail stations provide anchors for local commercial districts, which would become secondary downtowns for the surrounding communities.
- Alhambra/Temple City (Downtown; MTA)
- El Monte (Downtown; MTA & Foothill Transit)
- Azusa/Glendora/Covina/La Puente/Industry/Hacienda Heights (West Covina; Foothill Transit)
- Chatsworth/Canoga Park/Reseda/San Fernando/Pacoima/Panorama City (North Hollywood; MTA)
- Huntington Park/Watts (Downtown; MTA)
- Torrance (West Adams; Torrance Transit, Beach Cities Transit, MTA)
8 comments:
You have Huntington Park/Watts there twice.
I would include Century City as a secondary hub in its own right, but it is fully accessed in your wonderful model.
By which enumerable criteria are you calling transit a sustainable mode? Step back for a second. Sustainable is supposed to show better results in measurable areas. We don't need the shopping list of why transit needs to be a component of a viable urbanscape. just tell me in which ways it is more sustainable.
So you're saying a non-viable urbanscape is sustainable?
No, i'm just saying that there is nothing special about transit that makes it any more sustainable than what we are doing now. It doesn't save time or money or energy in particular. Transit has advantages surely but those are not considered sustainable aspects.
To me what makes transit more sustainable than what we’re doing now is its ability to more or less permanently solve the mobility problems of the region. Instead of a vicious cycle of adding lanes to freeways which then get filled necessitating the addition of more lanes which will eventually also eventually get filled, we can improve transit to the point where it’s adequate for most trips and people needing to use roads can do so without the congestion problems that currently plague the city. Not to say that transit won’t need to be expanded to keep pace with growth too, but for what it’s worth a crowded subway car will take the same amount of time to get across town as an empty one, unlike the freeway, and if properly designed the addition of cars and frequency to trains is WAY easier than adding another couple lanes to an entire freeway.
Not sure if that’s what John had in mind but it’s my answer.
Andy that's fairly reasonable except that it ignores the cost. Some 78-87% of the MTA budget goes to transit services/infrastructure serving 2.7% of the passenger trips and a smaller segment of total trips. Sustainable doesn't mean quadrupling transit expenditures of public money just to get to double digits of a fraction of all transport. Riders pay some one quarter of the operating costs of their transportation consumption. That's neither sustainable nor scalable. I just don't see sustainability in a system that shuts down completely within hours of subsidies being removed.
This is not an anti-transit screed. I am merely questioning what criteria can be used when measuring sustainability.
Post a Comment