German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseT.O.D.: Transit Overrated Development?
[tags]transit oriented development, l.a. times, t.o.d., los angeles, development[/tags]
Note: Article edited for content. Names changed to protect the innocent. -Fred Camino 07/17/07 11:38 AM
This past Saturday, the Los Angeles Times had an article casting doubt on the much touted concept that is currently changing the face of Los Angeles: Transit Oriented Development or T.O.D.
If you’re a MetroRider, or are even remotely aware of the development happenings in Los Angeles, then there’s no doubt you’ve heard of and maybe seen T.O.D. It’s popping up everywhere… from a revitalized Downtown (Ralphs, downtown’s first grocery in decades, opens on July 20) to a new Hollywood, it seems like every time you exit a Metro Rail station, something new is being built. In fact, there are very few stations along the Red and Gold lines that don’t seem to have any “transit villages” being constructed around them. I even rode to the very end of the Gold Line this past weekend, to the Sierra Madre Village station, smack in the middle 0f the 210 Freeway and adjacent to ultra-suburban East Pasadena (less than a quarter of a mile from the station you’ll find a big box parking lot mall with a Best Buy, Bed Bath & Beyond, Old Navy, and much more) only to find that multi-unit housing is being built right next to the station. Transit Oriented Development is everywhere!
So why is the L.A. Times so down on these exciting a transit accessible developments that are literally transforming Los Angeles?
Simply put: just because Angelenos live next to transit doesn’t mean they use transit.
The sad truth is that there’s very little that I can do to disagree with the L.A. Times assessment. As much as I love public transit and support the idea of transit oriented development (for a user of public transit of course it makes sense) there’s simply no denying the fact that for the majority of Angelenos with the choice, as much as they bitch and moan about traffic, driving is always preferable to public transit. Angelenos will cite any number of reasons (I call them excuses) of why they’d rather drive than take a bus or train to get where they are going, most I’d consider bullshit (I could give you 100 reasons why I’d rather take public transit than drive), but that doesn’t change the fact Angelenos have fully ingested the car culture Kool Aid.
The Times claims that T.O.D. doesn’t work in Los Angeles because of L.A.’s “large geographic footprint” (we’ve already addressed this, London, home of “the Tube’ and congestion pricing, is over 100 sq. miles larger than Los Angeles) and its “limited public transit system” (also known as the third largest public transit system in the United States). I claim it doesn’t work for different reasons. The first and foremost is culture.
The car culture has a vice grip on the collective balls of Angelenos (and Americans in general) and has no intention of letting go. Let’s look at one Angeleno who’s balls, like millions of others just like him, are firmly in the grip of the car culture: the South Pasadena resident who was profiled in the L.A. Times story. According to the article, this Angeleno bought a townhouse in the lovely Mission Meridian at the Mission Gold Line station in South Pasadena. A nicer place to live I couldn’t imagine, this place is idyllic, if you haven’t been there before I suggest you check it out, especially in the fall when somehow the leaves actually change to hues of orange and red and you can’t even imagine that Downtown L.A. is a 14 minute train ride away. Well here’s the kicker: his workplace is directly adjacent to the Vermont Sunset Red Line station. A more ideal public transit system could not be asked for. Yeah I guess he could be flown to the hospital in a gold-plated private jet while a harem of virgins serviced his gilded gonads, but c’mon, this guy’s got it made in the shade! No bus, gets to ride on the cleanest bit of public transit in our city (the Gold Line), gets to ride on the fastest bit of public transit in our city (the Red Line) and gets to do it literally door-to-door. But guess what, he drives to work. Why? It’s 15 minutes faster and “more convenient”. To channel Penn & Teller: who the fuck does this asshole think he is?!?
I’ll tell you who he is: a car culture clown. I would bet this guy has a real sweet ride, maybe even some nice enviro-friendly rig so he can drive around with a hard-on for himself. 15 more minutes on a train is 15 less minutes he has to polish that massive erection. According to the article, the Mr. Mission Meridian “likes” the Gold Line - as eye candy - apparently it reminds him of a train station where he used to live in New York. I bet this bozo drives to the Trader Joes in South Pasadena, a 0.3 mile walk from his Mission Meridan town-home. I’d gladly bet my life that he doesn’t hop on the Gold Line up to Sierra Madre Villa when he wants to go to Best Buy or Bed Bath & Beyond.
The L.A. Times article says public transit in Los Angeles isn’t convenient enough, “Either it takes too long to get places or, more important, doesn’t take people where they want to go.” Although as we can see in the case of our South Pasadena friend, it goes exactly where he needs to go and only takes marginally longer. There’s plenty of other cases where it is just as convenient, if not more, to take public transit, yet Angelenos refuse. More convenient? Why is time the only factor when it comes to convenience? I think it’s convenient to not have to worry about driving a two ton machine at high speeds when I’ve just woke up or just finished a long day at the office. I think it’s convenient to read a book while someone drives me around. I think it’s convenient to not pay for gas, auto insurance, parking, etc. I’d gladly trade 15 minutes for all that convenience.
But there’s a larger issue at hand when it comes to T.O.D. Why do people, who don’t use transit, live in transit oriented developments?
Because they can.
If you look at most transit oriented developments being constructed, you quickly realize that other than being next to a train station, there’s not much to truly “orient” some towards public transit. More specifically, these developments make it very easy to have a car. Let’s look at some examples. Hollywood & Vine is being turned into a transit oriented mixed-use development. Along with 375 apartments, a 305 room hotel, and 61,500 sq. feet of ground floor retail there will be a 3-level subterranean parking garage - just in case you’re not quite ready to orient yourself fully to transit. How about The Roosevelt, conveniently located right above the 7th Street Metro Center Red Line station in the heart of Downtown Los Angeles? Well just in-case you or your guests are still a little “iffy” about orienting yourselves towards transit, The Roosevelt offers “extensive on-site parking, with spaces for both residents and guests. With the added ease of a full-service 24-hour valet, every resident can have their car waiting within minutes. An interior porte-cochere provides a secure and convenient drop-off and pick-up area, making arriving home a welcoming experience.” Well shit, that sounds better than the gilded jet with virgins I mentioned earlier! Like I’d ever even set foot on a Red Line after dealing with a “porte-cochere” (I don’t know what it is and I don’t care to find out). What about the Archstone Del Mar in lovely Old Town Pasadena, located smack dab over the Gold Line station? Well along with 346 apartments and 20,000 sq. feet of retail, those who are still “transit curious” can find refuge in one of the 1,200 parking spaces located in the subterranean parking garage under the development (600 of which are earmarked for residents - which comes out to almost 2 cars per transit oriented resident!). How about Wilshire Vermont Station (yes the development is named station, and has a subway themed web site)? From the copy on the web site: “With a world of possibilities just a train ride away, you can explore the best of Los Angeles anytime without ever getting behind the wheel of a car.” Sounds great, and it’s true, so why provide 600 underground parking spaces?
You get the idea.
It’s bullshit through and through. These Transit Oriented Developments are anything but. In fact, they are more auto oriented than many existing developments. One of the main reasons I got rid of my car was because my original apartment in East Hollywood provide only 20 parking spaces for 50+ units, so I was forced to park my car on the street which quickly became a living hell I would not soon forget. Luckily, I was a 7-minute walk from the Hollywood Western Red Line station, had ample and frequent bus service near by, access to walking distance grocery stores, restaurants, and nightlife… hell 1720 Taft Avenue is the real Transit Oriented Development. Providing ample parking for vehicles orients people away from transit. But the developers don’t care because they know they won’t be able to sell their units at a ridiculously high price without providing ample parking for residents and their guests. Essentially they are saying fuck transit.
So Transit Oriented Developments in Los Angeles, as they stand now, are indeed bullshit and do not help reduce traffic, pollution, congestion or incease transit usage. The L.A. Times is right about that. But that’s because they aren’t Transit Oriented Developments at all, they are luxury developments built for auto-centric rich people who don’t want to commute all the way from the exurbs. They are a sham. People tired of their hour long drive from distant exurbs can now have a 30 minute drive by living in the heart of the city. When these developments provide what is essentially a two-car garage with every unit, what suburban commando isn’t going to jump at the opportunity? It’s like waving free crack in front of a crack head.
But the solution isn’t sprawl, as the L.A. Times seems to think, the solution is to create true Transit Oriented Developments. Growth is inevitable, so leaving two bungalows instead of a 300-unit apartment isn’t going to reduce congestion, there’s just going to be 228 new bungalows built out along a larger geographical area. But, if you replace those bungalows with a 300-unit apartment adjacent to transit and don’t provide parking… well suddenly you’re going to have 300 people living in apartment complex without cars. That is of course if Angelenos can get their collective heads out of their collective asses and realize that convenience isn’t always measured in minutes (NYC commuters have the longest commute times in the nation yet they also seem to be happiest with their commutes) and that Los Angeles does have a comprehensive public transit system that can take you virtually any place you need to go.
But until then, if you don’t ride public transit, don’t move into a Transit Oriented Development - no matter how many free parking spaces they provide.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
haven’t checked in for a while myself cuz of this and that, however, on my first read in some time, what a glorious article to welcome me back. great job fredcamino and everyone else!
wuts cool about the kool-aid thing is that theres also TOD kool-aid. passing these villages i always get so happy cuz i think things are moving in the right direction, but deep down i know its all bs cuz like you said, for every person theres 2 parking spots. i had my first hopes for change when i noticed an assload of construction at the noho station. it brings together the red and orange lines making it a perfect spot for a brand new grocery story and 2 huge “loft” stlye housing complexes. of course, with those lofts are also huge signs making sure people know, “not to worry, i know we’re a TOD, but you’ll have as many parking spots as you want.” jackasses.
I actually really liked the LA Times article because it brought up a widely-ignored point that most transit planning isn’t based on what people actually need.
Transit still can’t get most people from home to work (I’m sorry, Fred, but I don’t agree that we have a transit system that can take you “virtually any place you need to go,” at least not in a reasonable time).
People seem to treat the subway like it’s an apartment’s pool or gym–something that persuades them to move in, but they end up never using.
It’s sad–the City encourages TOD for a few thousand households, of which a small percentage end up on transit. Meanwhile, all the counties pile new commuters (tens of thousands a year?) on our roads with their sprawl-oriented development.
And we in the urban core act as if each new subdivision in Temecula or Santa Clarita doesn’t affect us!
This article really frustrated me too. Talking about car-culture Kool-Aid, in the same article there was that college student that after a few months when he tried riding the Red Line and taking the bus a total of THREE times he gave up and brought his TWO cars from the Midwest. Okay, I can understand that you try living without a car for a while and you break down and get a car, but TWO cars!? What on Earth for?
Most of the time, the vast parking garages are required either by zoning laws or by the banks who cut the developers’ checks. Cities and banks are starting to lighten up on these requirements, but not nearly fast enough. In the meantime, though, the transit-oriented developments are bringing shops, services, and workplaces closer to transit, which also benefit transit riders who don’t get to live above the station.
raphaelmazor sed:
It depends on where you live and work. Like anywhere. Just because NYC has the largest rail transit system in the world doesn’t mean that travel is instantaneous. Getting from Long Beach to Downtown Los Angeles is a 25-mile trip! That’s like going from Summit, NJ to Manhattan. Both train rides are about 50 minutes. NYC is unique in that it is so densely developed on such a relatively small area, but if we include the entire metropolitan area of NYC, then we get a better comparison to LA, and see that transit times over LA distances are similar and just as “inconvenient”. Even short distances in NYC on the subway aren’t lightning fast… I used the MTA (NYC) Trip Planner to calculate the trip from NYU to Central Park (a distance of 3.4 miles)… it’s a 17 minute subway ride! Just for comparison, the trip from 7th Metro Center to Hollywood Highland via the Red Line takes 16 minutes for a distance of 8 miles. But of course in NYC no one would THINK of driving from NYU to Central Park (maybe take a cab) because it’s simply not part of the culture, nor does Central Park have ample subterranean parking for all potential visitors. But I’m sure MANY of my neighbors here in Downtown would just as soon hop in their cars to get to Hollywood as they would jump on the subway.
Another example… NYU to La Guardia Airport… 11 miles away (I keep using NYU because it’s pretty central in Manhattan and easy to type into trip planners). It’ll take you at least 50 minutes on a train and a bus to get there. Union Station to LAX is 20 miles, and it will take 25-45 min. via a single FlyAway bus - or 1hr 20 via 3 trains and a shuttle (obviously FlyAway is the way to go)… but regardless, transit times over similar distances are similar. It’s just that here in LA the car culture tells us that 30 minutes in a car is time better spent than 40 minutes in a bus or train.
Of course, what T.O.D. attempts to do (when done right) is to shorten those distances and create a denser more “Manhattan” environment. But perhaps if parking was ample and available in Manhattan and a car culture ruled supreme we’d have a lot more New Yorkers driving to Central Park, Times Square, and every other destination.
Too bad these transit-oriented developments aren’t catering to the transit-dependents. I’ve heard of rents upwards of $1.5k or more. Specifically in the San Fernando Valley, most can only afford the apartments in the Panorama City/Van Nuys area served by Metro Rapid 761 and 734 rather than anything near higher speed Red and Orange Line service. I know someone who lives in that 15 story tower in NoHo that has to drive to Burbank to work.
Fred:
Yeah, I guess I’m griping from persona experience.
Home (Long Beach) to work (Costa Mesa) is also about 25 miles. It’s 2 busses and a 1/2 mile on foot. It takes a bit under 2 hours.
I don’t think that is a reasonable alternative to a 40 minute drive.
Personally, I think this has to do with transit planners working at a county, not regional level.
Tony’s comment is good–why do they target the luxury class who won’t be caught dead in a compact car (let alone a bus!)?
BTW, in Fred Camino’s comment #5, he is right in how our car culture mindset is at. Most people end up driving because they are used to the 1 mile per minute they get on freeways (average speed 60MPH). NYC transit it not very fast, the subways average 15MPH (slower than our Orange Line busway which is 20MPH average end to end speed), and their Metro-North commuter train is 30MPH. To compare to LA transit, our Red Line averages 30MPH (twice as fast as NYC’s subways), the Blue Line is the slowest rail here at 24MPH, the Gold Line is around 25 - 29 MPH, the Green Line is actually much faster at around 35MPH because of the lack of stops and fully grade separated ROW. For Metro Rapids, early morning run on the 761 between Woodman and Orange Line is 15MPH but drops to 10MPH or less for the afternoon rush. Wilshire’s 720 does a paltry 9MPH or so.
I’ve done a drivetime test using Mapquest for NYC and it does indeed show it’s faster to drive; but such times are misleading as it’s just point to point and not accounting for the need to pull out of a lot, congestion, especially at tolls, and finding a parking spot. Hench, people easily migrate to transit, not to mention a nice comprehensive system. With Metro in talks of congestion pricing for our “freeways”, I just hope that it would make some switch over to public transit.
Tony sed:
No kidding. It gives insight into the true intentions. I don’t think they necessarily all be priced or marketed to the “transit-dependent”, but at the same time by making these condos and apartments so “luxury” they price out everyone but those who would never even think of giving up their luxury cars. The kind of people who get excited over a “porte-cochere”.
Ha! Fred, you live in the same apartment building I lived in about 17 years ago when I first moved to L.A.! Small world.
(Since then, I moved to Melrose, Los Feliz, Sherman Oaks, back to Hollywood and now Downtown.)
By the way, I’m sick of this gripe about public transit (and Metrorail specifically), that “it doesn’t go where I want to go.”
At least that’s honest, I’ve heard people say the much more insulting “but it doesn’t go ANYWHERE!” No, if you consider Hollywood, Pasadena, Long Beach, Highland Park, Downtown, Chinatown, Koreatown, Los Feliz, etc. etc. etc. to be non-existent, then yes, it goes nowhere.
Look, do what I did. Move somewhere else where the public transit is better. Yes, I actually moved from Sherman Oaks to Hollywood so I could use the Red Line on a regular basis (among other reasons, but that was a big one). I think that gives me some authority to speak on this topic.
ScottMercer sed:
Ha, that’s funny Scott. Definitely a small world. I don’t live there any more (I’ve been in Downtown for about a year now, specifically because I wanted to move to what I consider the “transit hub” of Los Angeles), but for my first 3 years in LA, from 2003 to 2006 East Hollywood was my car-free home, and it was great! What’s more, I think you can really credit the Red Line for some of the exciting changes happening in that area… it’s a great neighborhood.
I think a lot of people when they say that are talking about THE WESTSIDE. And yes, we don’t have TRAIN service to/in the Westside yet. But that’s mostly the Westside’s NIMBY fault… if you look at our subway you see it sort of start going West and then abruptly stops. Hmmm. But either way, to bring back the NYC comparison… Downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica is a 14 mile trip. That’s like going from Manhattan to Yonkers in New York. Manhattan to Yonkers will take you 32 minutes on a commuter train, at $15 round trip. Downtown LA to Santa Monica on the Big Blue Bus 10 takes 45-50 minutes at a cost of $3.50 round trip. Slower yes, but because of the distance they are both not “instant” trips.
Exactly. In NYC some people choose to live in Yonkers or Summit NJ. Other’s choose to live in Manhattan. Others choose to live in the surrounding boroughs, some of which have better transit access than others. If you live in Queens, you’re probably going to spend much of your time in Queens. If you work in Manhattan but want to live in Yonkers, be prepared for the 32 minute train ride. Same applies to Los Angeles. If you work in Downtown but want to live by the beach, just know that you’ll have an extended bus ride. That’s what happens when you live 14 miles away from where you work. Sure we’re spoiled by suburban car-culture living to to think that going 14 miles should take 10 minutes, but it’s time to erase that thought from your head when you’re living in a big city. If you work Downtown and don’t want to ride a bus for 50 minutes, move Downtown! If you work in Santa Monica, live there! There’s great bus service in Santa Monica. Just don’t expect that going 14 miles on a bus is going to be a 10 minute trip, it’s not like that even in the best transit cities.
Here’s a fairly snarky response I left to this absurd post on the Bottleneck Blog:
Hey genius. You know what else New York has? 8 million people. Congestion is inevitable with 8 million people, but at least 75% of them don’t have to deal with the terrible automobile traffic because of all the other options you listed.
Hey genius. Guess what? Los Angeles has 3.8 million people. Whether they are in single family houses or 500 unit condos, there’s still 3.8 million people. The thing is, if they are spread out in single family houses in far flung suburbs and exurbs and nothing is walkable and public transit is absurd to those 3.8 million people that means you also have a minimum of 3.8 million cars. Now imagine if LA was more dense like New York and people didn’t need cars… they could walk, or use public transit… In New York City 75% of people don’t own cars… let’s apply that to LA’s 3.8 million people. Instead of 3.8 million cars on the streets we’d have…. 950,000 cars! That’s a lot less automobile congestion genius. To put it another way… if New York City wasn’t walkable, people didn’t use public transit, and everyone had a car, in other words, if New York City was like Los Angeles… there would be 8 million cars on the streets instead of 2 million cars. That’s 6 million more cars if you’re not good at math.
Hey genius. You live in the second most populous city in the United States. There’s going to be congestion. There’s going to be growth. You can grow in a way that leads to 8 million cars on the street, or you can grow in way that leads to a lot less. I choose the latter. It’s still going to be crowded as hell though regardless, because it’s a lot of fucking people. If that doesn’t work with you, it’s time to move to a small town.
Maybe Los Angeles would be a better place to live if it weren’t for the people here.
Think about this. Over 10 million people in the county. Los Angeles has pleasant weather, sidewalks everywhere, and most people who drive have no medical condition preventing them from walking. And yet they still drive. Quite many are guilty about it, yet have a genuine inability to reconcile the cognitive dissonance.
It’s marvelous and tragic at the same time to see a civilization, as big and complex as Southern California’s, manage to somehow function and perpetuate while Darwin would have added a ton of chlorine to the gene pool of any other species.
LA has a chicken/egg problem… it’s not quite dense enough for the transit to be desirable to most people, but it’s almost there… but when it gets that dense, traffic will be truly unbearable (not like it’s pleasant right now). Me, I’m all about development. The more high-rise apartments and retail we get, the more people will live in the major corridors, and sure, for the next few years they may have their cars in their two parking spaces downstairs, but pretty soon congestion will skyrocket again and more transit will come, transit usage will go up, public support for transit will follow, and things will improve still. We can already see that snowball picking up speed by way of the Gold Line extensions and the Expo line.
Quite frankly, I came out here and found a city that’s perched on the edge of a cliff, and at the bottom of the cliff is a massive mattress with the word “Manhattan” written on it. ;p It’s just going to take a good healthy shove to take us over that cliff and really get things going. That shove will come in the form of higher density and worse traffic The fact that Koreatown (formerly Wilshire Ctr for historic purposes), Downtown, and Hollywood are now trendy again isn’t some mistake or happenstance.
It’s going to take a bit more of a shove, but we’ll get there, and I’m all about the traffic nightmares that TOD will cause.
By the way, I lived at NYU for awhile. The trip to LGA was a nightmare. You either had to take the Broadway trains to Queens at a miserable elevated platform to pick up a crowded Queens bus, or any number of trains up to Harlem-125th street for ANOTHER crowded bus. It took longer to get from NYU to LGA than it takes to go from Koreatown to LAX via the FlyAway. And the M60 ain’t no FlyAway. The only luggage service you got on the M60 was the risk of it being “served” by a pickpocket. We’re closer to a “real” transit system than the bad days will leave you to think.
I did pretty much the same trip to LGA when I was in NYC last year Aaron. Afte the long ass subway ride the switch to the bus in Queens was a nightmare. There was a from the street to the subway station of people waiting for the bus, and once we boarded the bus we found out it was definitely no FlyAway… it was the most local of any local bus I ever rode… literally stopping at every block!
In the end, as mockable as TODs r when u throw the pricing of some and the 2 parking spot options, it must still b recognized as good for progress to public transit living. Even if the housing part is somehwat of a joke the retail and grocery stores and restuarants that all become easily accessible are worth it even if the tennants don’t use the trains below/next to them. I know I, and I’m sure other transit dependent would much rather take their groceries on a train than ona bus anyday. The ralphs at western’s TOD has served me for years and I’m sure the new one dt, the ktown one, and other grocers at noho and elsewhere will continue to ease many into public transit.
As for nyc, la does pwn when it comes to getting to and from manhattan and LGA or JFK. The flyaway is much better than any of the nonsense u’ve described above so I’ve taken expensive cabs on most of my trips there. However, now I say eff both those airports. From now on fly into newark, nj. A thousand times better cuz the train takes u from the airport directly into penn station.
I think LA has a media-generated problem where we think car culture is an intractable fact of life. A lot of people talk about public transit as if it’s an impossibility in a city like LA.
Oh, and the airports in NYC are pretty miserable. LA is pretty good actually. But when it comes to getting in and out of airports, the Bay Area whips them all into a frothy brown foam. Both Oakland and SFO (never flown into San Jose, so I don’t know). I’ve never found another airport where transit was so easy.
I really enjoyed your article and found it to generally be well written. However, your use of vulgarity should be discouraged. Little old ladies from Pasadena (like your grandmother) would not approve! And remember, she rode the original “red line” of Roger Rabbit fame in the 1930’s.
It’s the 90’s dad. I learned all my vulgarities from mom who learned all her vulgarities from that little old lady from Pasadena. She knew then, as I know now, that vulgarities can really get a point across.
I agree with comment#18 from raphaelmazor. I love the transportation system in Bay Area. I flew into SFO took the Air Train to the Bart and the Bart to my hotel in downtown San Francisco. My stop was within 4 blocks from the station.
I was amazed at the efficiency, transit time and low cost.
You really should look at TOD as more of a neighborhood oriented development instead of as a magic traffic reliever. It is supposed to give people the OPTION of walking around, or taking the bus or train, or biking. It’s not going to force a change in behavior. As it stands right now, people need to be close to higher speed transit. It doesn’t have to be faster than the car, but it should have a reasonable travel time and be comparable in price (Metrolink fails that test).
I actually disagree, though, that Los Angeles needs to be the center of the employment universe. We need more jobs out in the Inland Empire, in the Antelope Valley, and in the High Desert. It’s a shame that folks have to come in from Lancaster to the San Fernando Valley, not because they want to live there, but because they can’t find work that fits their needs there. One of the selling points of the University of La Verne law school is that the Inland Empire is one of the more underserved markets for lawyers in the country. Why aren’t there more lawyers, engineers, graphic design artists, etc. in Riverside and San Bernardino? We need to agree that the metro area is polycentric and start concentrating stuff in the Riversides and Palmdales of the world, to build up those centers, so that someone who wants to work at a professional job doesn’t have to go to the Westside or to Costa Mesa office park hell.
Calwatch,
I have no problem with “Neighborhood Oriented Development”, just call it that instead of “Transit Oriented Development”. The problem with calling it (and SELLING it as) “Transit Oriented Development” but giving people the option of walking, biking, public transit, or driving, is (as the LA Times article and casual observation reveal) that when given the choice people will continue to drive their cars. So what we get is increased auto congestion in the inner city to the detriment of virtually everyone (slower auto traffic for commuters in the city and from the ‘burbs, slower bus traffic, increased pollution, increased road rage, etc.).
To me “Transit Oriented Development” should ENCOURAGE public transit use and DISCOURAGE automobile use. The current TOD’s being constructed in Los Angeles I don’t think deliver upon that because 1) they make it easier to own a car (or two) than anywhere else in the inner city, and 2) they are priced and marketed to people of an income level that is unlikely to give up their cars. Sure, it’s great that current public transit users will now have shops and restaurants around the stations, but that does very little to bring on new riders. After all, people can just as easily drive to those shops and restaurants. It reminds me of the new “green” philosophy that petroleum companies like BP are using as marketing tools with slogans like “A Little Better”. How quaint. We are being told traffic is a nightmare and only getting worse, global warming is going to melt us away, and yet the best we can do is “a little better”. Nice.
Just to clarify, I’m not saying that developers should be forced to make true Transit Oriented Developments (the libertarian in me would never allow that), but that they can’t be allowed to falsely advertise and market something as a transit oriented development when it clearly is not. Call it Neighborhood Oriented Development, call it Mixed Used Development, call it Transit Adjacent Development, just don’t call it Transit Oriented when there’s 1,200 free parking spaces.
Fred-
The subject of public transportation featured in the Times article and your blog is an important one. I agree with you that the car culture is particularly strong here and that public transportation should be encouraged - by making it widely accessible, quick and affordable. There are some things in your postings that are a bit odd however and others that make you seem absent of credibility.
On the one hand you claim to be a libertarian that would never force certain rules on others (for example forcing developers to build a true TOD). Yet you feel free to maliciously attack individuals who at least on the surface of it make personal decisions that may be unpalatable to you — even though you factually know next to nothing about them.
You also seem to be hung up on the name of a development and if it represents false advertising (Neighborhood Oriented is OK with you but TOD is not). I agree false advertising should not be allowed (mine is actually Mixed Use) but what the formal name is doesn’t change people’s patterns, doesn’t influence their decision to live there and doesn’t help solve the problem of congestion that should be the main issue. It is having more lines, more stops and more frequent rides that will help with this as will better public education on the benefits of mass transit. Then people will choose on their own, to the approval of true libertarians, to use it more frequently.
Lastly, your need to be so vulgar distracts from your otherwise worthy issue. It exposes an obvious immaturity and a curious phallic obsession. Perhaps even worse, unlike the Times reporters, you write at such a level without having made any effort towards fact finding. Not that I have to justify myself to you but had you bothered, you may have discovered that, though irregularly, I actually try to use the Gold Line 1 - 2 times/week (conveniently omitted from the Times article). Also, my line of work comes with erratic, long hours that don’t lend themselves well to the fixed schedule of the train. Finally, a 15 - 25 minute difference (depending on traffic) on the way to a hospital is significant in my opinion and I think most people who have been patients would agree with this. It also shows that for my particular driving route I don’t encounter the gridlock that ails most freeways in LA.
Being passionate about an issue, especially a noble one that affects peoples’ everyday lives is a great thing. Unfortunately your blog is ultimately detrimental to the very cause you purportedly hold to heart. Insulting people whose priorities perhaps differ from yours will actually earn you a much smaller following than otherwise. Though you wrongly believe that vulgarities will get your point across better (maybe true for people who lack the ability to otherwise articulate a reasonable argument) as you grow up you may come to learn that it actually strips your credibility. You may also come to learn that before slandering someone, especially in a public forum, it would be best if you knew the facts surrounding the individual you are referring to. Perhaps the question asked by Penn and Teller is one that you should also ask yourself.
Harry,
My article is meant to illustrate the issue of T.O.D. in Los Angeles being a fallacy that does not encourage transit use but instead encourages auto use. You were an example, taken from the article (I never claimed to know you or to have any other information other than what the LA Times provided, and thus what followed were clearly my opinions, which I stand by). You live in a what has been referred to as Transit Oriented Development (although you claim Mixed Use) and don’t take transit. It’s as simple as that. T.O.D. fails right at that moment, and the LA Times thesis is easily proven. Ample parking and a car culture make T.O.D. nothing more than a scam. And I believe that if our T.O.D.’s, even by their loose adherence to what I consider a T.O.D., fill up with people who don’t use the transit options that T.O.D. makes accessible to them, the opportunity is lost to those who might actually care to make the “sacrifice” and attempt to live a public transit lifestyle, even with our “limited” system.
Clearly my writing style is hyperbolic and inflamed - to get my point across. I use vulgarity for both shock value and humor. Whether this meshes well with you, or anyone for that matter, is irrelevant. My “cause” is a personal one as are my blog postings. I do not work for the LA Times, I’m not a professional journalist, and I don’t get compensated for my work on this blog.
My article was obviously an opinion piece (as it clearly states below the headline), and I feel I made no pretense of actually knowing you. “Dr. Cosmatos”, albiet a real person, was used in the article as an archetype that I personally feel is very common in Los Angeles. I emphasize personally because this is my opinion, others may feel completely different.
All this being said, I do extend my apologies to you for using your name and the information gleaned from the Times article as the “archetype”. When I speak of Dr. Cosmatos the “asshole” and the “bozo” I’m referring to the archetype and not the man I do not personally know. I hope that is clear, but I certainly understand your shock at seeing your name in such a forum.
As for the Penn and Teller question, who do I (Fred Camino the asshole, not the archetype) think I am?
Clearly a man with an opinion. But like the old saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everyone’s got one. Or perhaps in my case, is one.
No matter the case of who’s an ass and who’s not, 15 to 25 (I assume the timing of catching and missing the transfer is y its so different) minutes more to ride the two best lines in LA and leave your car at home is so obviously worth it, it makes the rest of yor point moot, harry. I see that yes, if u work weird ass shifts and don’t get off in time to catch the red AND the gold its of course acceptable (not saying u need my approval), but if that’s not the case its just as the archetype is described. You live in a TOD that is not in fact that. But instead, just an expensive place to live for those who like the idea of public transit as novelty and not necessity.
I think there’s too much focus on the individual commuter.
Ok, there are definitely plenty of car-culture-besotten folks who will live in TOD’s for the atmosphere, and still drive.
But I don’t really buy the cultural explanation for low transit usage in the US (outside of NYC).
There are plenty of people who would like to use transit but
- Their work isn’t near it (rather than saying transit doesn’t go where people need to go, we should demand that stuff we need to get to be built near transit).
- They can’t afford a luxury condo in a TOD–or at least, aren’t *so* committed to transit that they’ll pay more $$ for a small place by a station than it costs for a big one in a car-dependent burb. Fair enough.
Regardng the first problem: there really are no incentives for employers to set up shop in transit-accessible locations. Some should be put in place, because right now there are a lot of *disincentives*, such as real estate costs in urban cores, etc.
Regarding the second: I think the best solution is just to build lots and lots more TOD, or rather, to just loosen zonig restrictions and *allow* it to be built. We don’t just need luxury condos directly by stations, we need enough stuff to be built that something 2-3 blocks away will be reasonably priced.
By all means, TOD’s should not be required to be built with parking, but neither should they be forced to lack it. You have a right to take transit and still own a car. And I think if barriers to transit use are removed, plenty of people will opt to, even without being coerced into it by denying them a parking place.
I agree with much of what you say Nick, but at the same time I think you underestimate the draw of the car. You say “you have the right to take transit and still own a car”, which I agree with, but I disagree with your assertion that TOD’s should not be forced to lack parking. People, at least in Los Angeles at the current time, do not understand that transit does not have to be as fast as a car to be better than a car. People will still count minutes, and if it’s 10 minutes quicker via car, the car will win, regardless of adjacent transit. Very rarely is transit extremely fast, as noted in my NYC examples, due to the fact that even if it’s not sitting in traffic, it’s making stops that you normally wouldn’t make in your car. The car culture has equated driving to freedom, and while a lie for the most part, many Angelenos do not want to give up that freedom. Like I said, it took an extremely nightmarish parking situation to convince me (someone who has never cared to drive) to give up my car, and obviously without a car my transit use has skyrocketed.
You may be interested in reading an article I wrote earlier this year, The Downtown Transit Letdown, wherein I scold dwellers in Downtown Los Angeles (the undisputed transit hub of the city) for their abysmal transit usage and outrageously high automobile usage. And Downtown is marketed as a place to live an “alternative” lifestyle, where walking and transit use will set you apart from the “suburbanites”. The fact remains, even with jobs, residents, and transit all conglomerated downtown, it’s still simply to easy to get away with not using transit because having a car remains a highly viable option.
Like I said, I don’t want to take away anyone’s RIGHT to own a car, you can do whatever the hell you want, own 30 cars, it doesn’t matter to me because I’m walking, biking, taking the bus or train. But, I stand by my opinion that if something is marketed as transit oriented, full knowing that given the option most people will opt to drive, then it should not be allowed to offer ample parking because I feel that orients people away from transit.
If car ownership was easier in NYC, don’t you think more people would drive? But when it costs $225,000 to get a parking space in NYC, you better believe people are going to take public transit!
Hi your post is delightful. I will definitely read your blog.. bye