Videos here undergo a 5-year community engagement process before work begins. Completed drafts are then vetted with a team of highly paid consultants and shelved until a local council member expresses support for publishing.
400 years ago, Tokugawa Ieyasu created a small Edo in the wilderness, and since then, as it continued to grow, it was constantly remodeled little by little to become the Tokyo of today. When it was decided to hold the Olympics 70 years ago, the people of Tokyo wanted a huge highway like Los Angeles. However, since it was filled with small houses and there was no land, they destroyed the charming canals and forcibly built narrow elevated roads in a short period of time. Since the roads are poor compared to the population, the most rational way to move around is by railways built throughout Tokyo by private companies that make profits from real estate. That is Tokyo. It was not planned by an omnipotent God, it just happened to be in the shape it is now. I think that a city that was planned to create an ideal city ended up being a hellish environment than an unplanned city. It's ironic.
Yes - “we’re building up the scraps today”. Our current transit build out, like the D line extension, was originally supposed to happen much earlier (as part of the 70s plan and prior transit plans by LA county)
Well, if the majority of LA ever quickly burned to the ground, then they’d have a marked opportunity to build it back again with an actual design plan.
Did you know that LA has the best transit in the world? You could go from LA to New York for 10 cents until standard oil, Firestone, Ford, GMC, and several others bought city and county officials then paid them to sell the transit system which they then dismantled, forcibly moved people out of their homes, split neighborhoods by race so poor and people people of color would be separated by freeways from wealthy communities and forced to buy cars to commute to jobs that would benefit corporations by selling them gas, maintaining their cars, etc. Clarence Darrow tried to fight for the poor and working people but only too late did he realize the judge had been given a house, and a job with standard oil after the verdict that paid 5 times what he received as a judge....
I came here to say the same thing! LA did have the best transit in the world. My Grandpa remembers the Yellow Cats from his childhood, and insists on traveling by train nowadays. Amtrak isn't quite what he wants, but it's what we have now.
@@Greenteabook people around the world went to LA to study the transit system including people from Tokyo, Toronto, New York, Paris, London, Hong Kong, Shanghai, etc.
@@mtanyctrainatlantamartatra7164 it's not mine. At the time, the la transit was efficient, on time, less expensive to run and maintain, had much more advanced systems in place, had developed mechanical safety devices, etc. and more cost effective. Look up the engineering details and finances.
That's a nonsense argument since most people commute daily within a couple of miles from their houses for jobs, school, etc. Rarely do they ever need to go from like LA to New York or Seattle. Highways in the cities only means taking away people's choices and economic unsustainibilty.
@@sandrajones8245 This would be very bad. Outward sprawl = Increased traffic, socioeconomic stratification, pollution, and increased O&M infrastructure costs per capita. “Lots of space for every individual” is not a reasonable policy objective.
@gibb1991 Oh, the people in this generation! Outward sprawl isn't necessarily bad, it's when a city has poor travel choices and a lack of commercial buildings, which the usa has both, bar NYC, then it's a problem. See, in mega cities like Tokyo, New Delhi, Shanghai, Sao Paulo, even Mexico City, where the population exceeds 20m, there are people that have lived in said city all their life, yet have no need to take drive cross town or to the city centre, because everything they require is within a liveable distance. Yes some things are unavoidable, like family events, sporting events, concerts, etc, but those aren't daily. On a day to day basis people live, work, shop, and everything else in their area. The usa does extremely poorly on both travel and it's building use. 1. Travel is mainly by car, in every city if you don't have car, consider yourself finished before you start. In other urban areas, they have many forms of transportation; motorbikes, scooters, bicycles, buses, tram, train, metro and cars. 2. building zones are horrible, having a residential zone, a commercial zone, an industrial zone, doesn't work, especially when mixed with a singular mode of transport. Long commute times, rush hour (which is actually 3 hours in the morning and 3 in the evening), accidents, restricted parking, etc. If they had a mix of commercial with residential and then placed industrial on the outskirts, this would work far better. Anyway, cities in most of the US and Canada, Canada also has a sprawl and a car problem, I haven't heard too much about zoning in Canada, but cities all over North America don't use their space efficiently, only because they have loads of it.
I'm from Europe, I'm pretty conservative, but man...some of America's conservative politicians are so stupid...how can you fight against urbanization of a city such as LA? It's a fucking dystopian hellhole. If you add bike lanes and change zoning laws and start building up, and if you start investing into public transportation and changing main spots in the city to be more walkable it is going to improve the life of literally everyone in the city....you work out more, you socialize more, you get easier access to different places, rent will get cheaper since you can build waay more units into the skies than if you build single family homes, even businesses make more when people spend more time in the center instead of just driving around....are these people stupid or what?
Tokyo has had sewage problems for years now, combined with an overpopulation problem and that city smells like the bay they dump shit in. Also Japanese culture accepts pedophilia, and most people there are passively but blatantly racist
the d line extension will start to get us there, a lot of our centers will be along the metro so they can expand vertically and be like those station areas, la cienega/jefferson is a great example of this having already happened and the buildings are already there for the upcoming stations
Tokyo land area: 847.14 square miles, population 14,000,000, density 16,512 people/sq. mi Los Angeles land area: 469 square miles, population 3,800,000, density 8,102 people/sq. mi Mass transit is economical in Tokyo because population density is double Los Angeles'. Tokyo also welcomes variety while Los Angeles is obsessed with Zoning to appease the feelings of the P&Z Commission. Tokyo has a single culture, L.A. has diversity. Tokyo can agree, L.A. is a fight among hostile tribes.
very true - LA can eventually change I think if city council get serious about upzoning and densifying areas. Cultural differences exist but growing numbers want good urbanism.
This is so dumb. LA absolutely has the density to build mass transit. In fact, LA was literally built along transit corridors. Just because Tokyo has more density, doesn't mean LA can't have transit as well. Besides, the whole point of this video is that LA can get to the density levels of Tokyo by changing the rules. Just because LA has lower density today, doesn't mean it has to stay that way in the future.
@@peterwelbyDo you ever think that we have a homeless problem because we restrict housing so much that prices are much higher than they need to be? That maybe if we changed zoning and built more housing that prices would go down, allowing more people to have homes and stop living on the streets? If we stopped building everything around the car, more people can afford to participate in society without being bogged down by one of the most expensive machines you can own (a car).
yea ive used the system tons of times and very much enjoy it, tho the last time i was on someone pulled out a crack pipe and smoked it as we went down to long beach…. so now i just take my car…. but im still hopefully that la extends the metro system for the greater good
This is a great vision for LA. RIght now I just wish the metro would run faster than every 8 minutes at peak times, but we could absolutely make LA like Tokyo.
4 lanes for cars, instead u can make it 2 lanes for cars and the other 2 can transform into protected curbs and divide 1 for bikes, scoots, 1 for pedestrians
Wow! I grew up Malibu 50's early 60's and my family of surfers moved to Hawai'i 1963 ... so I never knew of all of these INSANE plans! Thank you so much for posting this astonishing info.
Kinda ironic to consider that the first mode of transportation along this coastline was a train. But it was tossed out in favor of our obsession with independence of vehicles. Too bad no one ever believed that Malibu would ever become so crazy over populated.
Reason for low commuter rail ridership in LA is two things 1) cultural differences that make people tend to use the car first (yes, LEJ, it's ok that our culture is different from Europe). It's not really car centric; you can get around in California without a car. But a lot of people don't, and that's ok. (especially since we're moving rapidly to electric cars in California.) 2) post covid, people don't go into the office five days a week anymore. Office workers are the main user of commuter trains (hence the name). btw wouldn't Santa Clararita be served by the Newhall Metrolink station, which gets you to downtown LA in an hour?
hmm, well, there's an apartment complex right across the street, and the LA Philharmonic is also right across the street, which is definitely a "destination" and "a reason for going to this station", in addition to "the broad" museum which is also across the street, and you admit in the video that somebody wants to build a residential building right behind it. Have to say, LEJ, I don't really see the problem. You're offended by cars? You know that California, the other blue states, and the other G7 nations all require any new car sold to be zero emission, starting in 2035, yes? You do realize that all the world's greatest cities have both the world class transit system AND lots of car traffic, yes? Paris, London, Milan, Rome, New York, San Francisco Bay Area (my area...specifically Silicon Valley), and YES, Los Angeles, all have great transit systems AND car users. Don't get me wrong, I get around with public transit, myself. I don't know how to drive. But I still don't really see your objection to this station. As far as not many users, well, we already knew that; public transit has fallen off a cliff because most white collar people work from home at least two days per week, now. Hence the "fiscal cliff".
Most importantly don’t expect transit agencies to solve homelessness and drug abuse. This is the job of the responsible agencies of the city, not the transit authority. Transit authorities should have zero tolerance for homelessness, drug abuse, mental illness etc on their systems. Transit is for transporting people to places they want to go, in decently comfortable conditions. The humanist/anarchist/commies that want everything to be allowed and free transit are parasites and their ‘solutions’ will not fix anything. They are already in the comments, saying it’s not an issue or pulling the race card.
