In my opinion, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Right now, so many people take individual cars (or perhaps car pool if they're a good Samaritan or something) that there isn't demand to have tightly clustered city centers.  People can drive themselves to the outskirts if need be.

So now the 'experts' say that cities are spread too wide to make it worth civilians' while to travel by public transit. But if more people started using public transit, city planners would accomodate the demand for more convenient office buildings/residential areas/public transportation-central living.

Build it and they will come? Especially in LA? According to Jon Morgan of Seattle (@jonsm99) Rail transit catalyzes density, not other way. Road tolls, gas taxes, urban growth boundaries help. LA can do rail.

What do you think? Anyone likes LA's rapid bus transit line, the Orange Line?

Los Angelenos are definitely riding the Orange Line which is a good and bad thing.

Pro's: The Orange Line has a high ridership. Con's: Transit roads are being worn done much quicker then expected due to bus traffic. Engineers are thinking the Orange Line will reach its traffic capacity -- to add more buses increases road congestion.

For all the talk about LA looking into subways -- it'll take major legislation for even the government to consider it:The MTA is currently prohibited by law from converting it to any form of rail other than a deep-bore subway, and also prohibited from spending its sales-tax funding on deep-bore subways (Wikipedia).

Speaking of the Orange Line, are those folks into torture, by chance?

Isn't it to the advantage of the city of LA that they make their public transporation -bearable?-

That being said, I couldn't believe this opinion piece I saw in the Post a few weeks ago: "Dr. Gridlock" shared his biggest LA transit beef, which was "Unairconditioned Orange Line cars! It was unbearable coming back from the Billy Joel Concert! It didn't matter how many people were in the car there was no air circulation until the doors opened and let some in."

In a place like LA, you HAVE to have AC. Yeesh. Even Seattle has AC!

So what's the difference between subway and light rail? I think they're both the same and equal in their greatness. Bus takes 3 times as long as subway, and isn't reliable. Even though I support riding the bus, I seldomn do because it wastes too much of my time. Development follows light rail, which ads to neighborhood centers and sustainable development. Busses still support a car society.

Of course a good system needs both.

Obviously there are infrastructure and logistic problems with all of these choices, and a mix of them would be the most obvious solution.  Subway is great but it takes a lot of time and capital outlay.  Then there is the maintenance issue as the system ages.

@ that's_what_she in re: Seattle buses during that tremendous heat wave I posted this fun factoid: Only 30 percent of Metro buses have air conditioning. Did I fail to mention that Seattle posted it's hottest temp on record, 102 just last week? Subways are the bigger payoff investment wise -- just look at how the city development booms where they develop (Metro - NY, BART - SF) and light rail (Chicago's L Train). It was a pain to build but once they did it became a part of the civic pride.

Hey @gatorbaiter

How many American cities have subways? NYC, SF, Philly...does DC have a real subway?

Yup, DCers call it the Metro, which runs above ground and underground. As far as convenience goes, the DC transit system is pretty awesome - you can easily get to most parts of the city and surrounding areas by train or bus - which is important in a city where many employees commute to work from Maryland, Virginia and even Delaware. The trains are well-maintained and pretty clean. However, there's been some mismanagement at the top in recent years, and now WMATA (Wash. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) is dealing with the backlash of the horrific train collision last month, largely due to system failure that could have been prevented.  

According to WMATA's website, "the entire 1,500 Metrobus fleet is eco-friendly" and runs on Compressed Natural Gas, low-sulfur diesel, advanced tech diesel, or are diesel/electric hybrid. One interesting feature are Code Red Days - when air quality is expected to be unhealthy in the Washington area - people can ride many of the bus routes for free.

I live in baltimore, where the subway, commuter rails, and busses (usually) are great. Our light rail system is slow and inefficient. very few people use it even though it covers more ground than the subway. (subway= 50,000 daily riders, light rail= 30,000) right now the state is investing billions in new light rail lines using portland as a model... unfortunate and illogical considering we have nearly double the transit ridership of portland's light-rail-centric system. subways are the way to go.