dmurphy04

Interesting idea -- I'll look into it. If anyone else has suggestions along these lines, feel free to share them, too. Thanks!

Thanks for your question from across the pond. We have a LOT to learn from our British friends on transport issues, I have to say.

Believe me, my heart goes out to all the toursits who rightfully expect that a major city like LA would have a fast, functional way to get around by transit -- but we don't!, as you found out!

I've seen the rankings mentioned by some of the other posters below that give LA high marks for its transit reach, but these rankings miss the point. In other cities -- like, say London, NYC or DC -- rail transit exists and provides a faster way to get around than driving, so tons of people take it. In LA, while it's true we have an extensive (and much needed) bus system, even the so-called Metro "Rapid" buses get stuck in LA's crippling road gridlock, so they're often not a fast or dependable way to get around for people who have a choice. (Some routes work well, and if they do, I encourage people to ride the bus -- I have, but the point is, rail can zoom under (or over) gridlock, and we just don't have an extensive enough rail system here).

We got a bit of a late start. LA's first Metro stations opened 20 years ago; meanwhile, London is celebrating the 150th anniversary of the London Underground. (Speaking of which, The London Transport Museum makes a fascinating, and inspiring visit.) That just means we have to hurry up and do more to catch up, because we're so far behind.

In terms of proposing credible plans for a fully built-out rail transit system, that's what we want to do with our proposed LA2050 project, if we get the funding. (I'd appreciate your vote in the Goldhirsh Foundation's challenge, as they're weighing votes as part of the decision into whom to give $100,000 grants to.) Some people have designed transit fantasy maps for LA, which are cool, but we want to make sure when we develop and release our vision, that it's seen as credible by the insiders, policymakers, and politicos in LA. LA has a way of thinking to small on these issues, so we'd actually like to try to bring over some folks from, say, the UK (perhaps the Mayor of London, or the head of Transport for London) to remind us that what we're looking at has already been done in other cities around the world, to inspire us that we can do it, too. (But this is all contingent upon getting that funding....)

As for the Red Car / Roger Rabbit conspiracy conspiracy, there was an interesting piece on the local NPR station the other day. It's a bit of a long listen, but it's well done: http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2013/03/29/31101/the-great-red-car-conspiracy-of-los-angeles

EDIT -- on the question of which cities I think do it best, I'll weigh in a little later. I have a slide I'd like to upload and link to when I have the time, after tackling some more questions first.

EDIT 2 -- here's the slide show: http://www.slideshare.net/dmurphy04/la-vs-the-rest-of-the-world-la2050-challenge

Hey gang, I've come back this afternoon to answer questions. I'm diving in now. Looking forward to a fun discussion on LA's least fun issue!

Sorry if you were frustrated with the wait. I had only promised in my intro to come back in the afternoon to answer questions as I had to handle some offline stuff (including helping a family member recover from food poisoning/vomiting -- one of the few things in LA that's even less fun than sitting in traffic!) Thanks for your enthusiasm and interest, though -- enjoying the great number of awesome questions. Keep 'em coming!

Cirrus42 already said it all: Tokyo is the gold standard.

I was in Tokyo for a friend's wedding, and it broke my heart to leave and come back to smoggy, gridlocked LA.

Here's an interesting list of Metro rail systems by ridership around the world, on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_systems_by_annual_passenger_rides

You have to scroll pretty far down there to find LA. Ah yes, just after that bustling metropolis of Rennes....

Granted, this is because the ranking only counts heavy rail (subways, not light rail), but I do think LA relies far to much on slower light rail trains (which aren't always grade separated (that is, they sometimes don't have their own dedicated route and get held up at intersections)) and busways to fill out its so-called Metro rail map: http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/rail_map.gif

Well, it will be good to have more HOV lanes, but Streetsblog has been plenty critical of the validity of the current 405 widening project. Regardless, I'd say the ultimate need is for a subway under the Sepulveda Pass (that connects to major points in the Valley, goes to Westwood, and then connects to LAX, say). I mean, it's nuts we don't have it already. We've got the third busiest freeway in the country, and no subway (or even light rail) line as an alternative?

Yes, I do believe LA will get as transit to match SF (if not better). Perhaps New York City -- Manhattan particularly, is its own animal, owning to the intense density. But the fact is that parts of LA are actually quite dense, too, and well deserving of far more rail lines than we have now.

Glad to hear you're a bike fan. I am too -- I'm a huge advocate of making things safer for bikers (I've been hit by cars and had my bike totalled twice in Beverly Hills alone. Luckily I got only healable injuries.) Metro gets credit for launching a bike safety campaign, with ads on the back of buses, on billboards, and more: http://thesource.metro.net/2013/03/18/metro-press-release-on-its-new-bike-safety-campaign-cyclists-have-legal-right-to-take-a-full-lane/). In terms of infrastructure: I think within LA County, Santa Monica and Long Beach provide examples for other cities to copy, from bike lanes to amenities (SM Bike Center, Bikestation Long Beach), and more. Streetsblog LA and the LACBC are good places to read more.