America's TRULY densest metros: Pop-weighted density

[MolsonExport]

Finally a relevant and interesting measure of city-ness that isn't CSA.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No one is arguing against the simple math used to calculate density; we are talking about the on-the-ground environment. Weighted density shows how people actually live.

And LA does not have comparable urban environment to Chicago or Philly, nor does Orange County have comparable suburban environment to older suburbs in the East.

Strict density calculation is just people per mile, and is not at all concerned with the built environment or the distribution of people within the environment, which is why Santa Ana, while dense, is still pretty sprawly and auto oriented. Just because you put more Mexicans in a suburban home doesn't mean you get urbanity.

Most of this is irrelevant - - I thought the discussion was on population density? On that metric, LA's core is every bit as dense as Chicago's and Philly's. Those are just facts.

Something else that needs to be cleared up. The NYC UA comes in at 3400+ sq miles, literally twice the size of LA's UA. Even if you include the eastern edge of the Inland Empire, you're only looking at around 2400 SQ miles for LA. New York is much larger in size, and the majority of it is very suburban. This is why I'm not sold on weighted density. 31,000 ppsm for the entire UA? That doesn't sound like the reality on the ground at all, it sounds like New York City (61k ppsm weighted density) is propping up the Tri-State Area's density as a whole.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Most of this is irrelevant - - I thought the discussion was on population density? On that metric, LA's core is every bit as dense as Chicago's and Philly's. Those are just facts.

True, if you only care about population density, and ignore peak densities, then this is true.

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

That doesn't sound like the reality on the ground at all, it sounds like New York City (61k ppsm weighted density) is propping up the Tri-State Area's density as a whole.

That would be fairly obvious. It's weighted density. That's how it works, it's where people actually live.

In the NYC area, people live in dense areas, but the land overall encompassing the metro area doesn't have high density overall, so you will get high weighted density. Generally speaking, those dense areas where people actually live are NYC and adjacent core counties.

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

TXs HSR is apparently fully funded by private investment. Why the eff cant we do that?

CAHSR will be approximately 1/3 funded by private investment. And it's actually under construction right now, and has 12 billion plus in funding already ready to go. Plus with the yearly cap and trade funding it has a steady, additional funding stream.

As for TX HSR, that's vapor ware until construction actually starts. They've been talking about it for decades with no visible progress. Plus, the engineering involved in that is much less.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by spoonman

Kind of depends where you are going. Takes about 2 hours to go from Anaheim to DT-SD on the train. Often about the same as driving. But obviously the bullet train would be faster (LA-SD), even if indirect.

Personally I would much rather see a handful of new rail lines in each city than rail connecting SF-LA-SD. Others may disagree.

I was talking about LA to San Diego, not Orange County to San Diego. Downtown LA to downtown San Diego takes 3 hours by train; I've done it before. Driving from Irvine to downtown San Diego can take as little as an hour.

Even driving from my home in South Pasadena to the La Jolla Village Drive exit on the 5, takes about 90 minutes.

A high-speed train would be a great alternative to driving.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Eightball

CAHSR will be approximately 1/3 funded by private investment.

Yes, that's what they've been promising for nearly 6 years but unsurprisingly, no private funding sources have been identified.

And also unsurprisingly, proponents are increasingly hysterical about how this **MUST** be built no matter how much it costs, regardless as to whether or not any of the parameters of Prop 1A are fulfilled in accordance with what voters actually voted for.

Speaking of voters:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/calif...ca-voters.html

And 70% want a revote. That's because what's being delivered to us is not what we voted for.

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I was talking about LA to San Diego, not Orange County to San Diego. Downtown LA to downtown San Diego takes 3 hours by train; I've done it before. Driving from Irvine to downtown San Diego can take as little as an hour.

Even driving from my home in South Pasadena to the La Jolla Village Drive exit on the 5, takes about 90 minutes.

A high-speed train would be a great alternative to driving.

Pasadena to UTC in 90 minutes?!? Must be at 3am going 80mph the entire way. That trip is 117 miles at the shortest route.

Also it is 80 miles from Irvine to DTSD. Not happening in an hour unless it is 3am. Sorry.

I agree high speed rail would be a great alternative to driving.

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Yes, that's what they've been promising for nearly 6 years but unsurprisingly, no private funding sources have been identified.

And also unsurprisingly, proponents are increasingly hysterical about how this **MUST** be built no matter how much it costs, regardless as to whether or not any of the parameters of Prop 1A are fulfilled in accordance with what voters actually voted for.

Speaking of voters:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/calif...ca-voters.html

And 70% want a revote. That's because what's being delivered to us is not what we voted for.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Private investors warming to California bullet train
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci....html?page=all

Private investors are starting to express interest in funding part of California’s planned bullet train, giving a boost to the $68 billion project.
Nine companies, mostly large construction, engineering and infrastructure firms that have worked on high-speed rail elsewhere, have written letters saying they are interested in financing part of what would be the state’s largest-ever infrastructure project.
“We would be very interested in participating in the competition for the construction and financing of California high-speed rail projects,” reads part of a letter from AECOM, a major engineering firm.

Majority of Californians Support High Speed Rail Project
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2014/03/maj...-rail-project/

Today, when read a description of the system and its $68 billion price tag, 53 percent favor it and 42 percent oppose it.

I normally agree with ya bruh, but you are dead wrong here.

[dimondpark]

Haha yeah I quote the LA Times and you quote a pro- boondoggle think tank. Just stop. And until a check is cut from those 'interested' private investors, its just as fantastical as your opinion of TXs plan, which they claim will be 100% privately funded.

Furthermore, how come supporters NEVER address the fact that we are not getting what we voted for?

It seems some of us have fallen out of touch with reality.

[Eightball]

If you actually read what I posted it was a poll by the Public Policy Institute. And the results are very similar to what you posted, just slightly different. And now you apparently know more than large conglomerates about what they are going to do, lol.

[dimondpark]

Yawns.

So why is it okay for voters to get duped and then be forced to pay an amount we never agreed to?

[Leo the Dog]

So if a private investor cuts a check to CAHSR, aren't they doing this to have a tax write off? Meaning, there's no real funding coming from these private entities?

Also, Sopas, while the train might be faster getting from point A to B (DTLA-DTSD) one still must make connections at the train terminal, whether it's taxi, bus, trolley, rent-a-car to reach their final destination.

Nobody is going to save much time at all and will triple the cost of the trip.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

So if a private investor cuts a check to CAHSR, aren't they doing this to have a tax write off? Meaning, there's no real funding coming from these private entities?

Also, Sopas, while the train might be faster getting from point A to B (DTLA-DTSD) one still must make connections at the train terminal, whether it's taxi, bus, trolley, rent-a-car to reach their final destination.

Nobody is going to save much time at all and will triple the cost of the trip.

Its about predictability and ease of use. The price is pretty much the same once you consider the cost of gas and maintenance on the car...in fact, the train + uber combo might be cheaper. I have taken the train to SD on several occasions even though it takes 2:15 and its a little bit longer (if we pretend there was no traffic) but i use that time to read, play games, nap, surf the net, work, etc etc... Much better than sitting in traffic at the OC border or between oceanside and La Jolla. Now imagine if that time was cut in half. The SF / LA leg of CASHR is only the start. This isnt being built just for today, its long term infrastructure and SD will eventually get connected

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Also, Sopas, while the train might be faster getting from point A to B (DTLA-DTSD) one still must make connections at the train terminal, whether it's taxi, bus, trolley, rent-a-car to reach their final destination.

Nobody is going to save much time at all and will triple the cost of the trip.

As LASportsFan said, it's all about ease and predictability. And he beat me to it by saying it in his post, but yes, when you factor in the cost of gas and the wear-and-tear/maintenance on your car, the price would probably even out, if not be lower. And you have to look at the big picture; if high speed rail did make it to San Diego, people from other parts of the state, not just LA, would have another option to get there. Even how it is now, downtown San Diego is very pedestrian and transit handy; I could take the (not so fast) train from downtown LA to downtown San Diego, get off at the Santa Fe Train Depot, and easily go to the Convention Center, or the Civic Center, or the Gaslamp, or PETCO Park, and not have to worry about driving and finding parking.

Originally Posted by spoonman

Pasadena to UTC in 90 minutes?!? Must be at 3am going 80mph the entire way. That trip is 117 miles at the shortest route.

Also it is 80 miles from Irvine to DTSD. Not happening in an hour unless it is 3am. Sorry.

I agree high speed rail would be a great alternative to driving.

I don't know how fast or slow you drive, but when the freeways are wide open, I generally average 75-80mph. A hundred-mile trip usually does take me about 90 minutes, give or take 5 minutes, with free-flowing traffic, of course. I can make it from South Pasadena to Santa Barbara in 90 minutes (if I leave at the right time; the 101 through the San Fernando Valley can be stop-and-go during the work week), and South Pasadena to the La Jolla Village Drive exit in 90 minutes, easily. I've never encountered really heavy traffic in San Diego. San Diego locals may say they get heavy traffic, but I think a San Diegan's idea of heavy traffic is nothing compared to what we get in LA; I've never encountered stop-and-go traffic on the freeways in San Diego, at least not on weekends. It's been crowded, but not to the extent that it gets in LA or even OC, and the traffic still moves.

I used to visit a friend who went to school at, and lived adjacent to, UC Irvine. I found myself going with her down to San Diego (funny because she lives there now), and it really only took an hour, an hour and 15 minutes at the most.

[Leo the Dog]

Surfliner fare from SD to LA is $38 each way, or $76 r/t per person. If I take a friend this now becomes $152 round trip, this doesn't take into account all of the other fares I'll have to spend to get around LA.
(HSR will be much more expensive.)

My car gets about 38mpg and can seat 5 passengers.
The distance between SD/LA is ~ 120 miles, or 240 r/t
240miles/38mpg = 6.32gallons of fuel

6.32gallons*$3.75 per gallon = $23.70 round Trip (up to five passengers).

Let's just say I drive 100 extra miles while in LA, now my expense is $33.55 for the entire trip. If I have a passenger then it comes to $16.77 per person, round trip. If I have 5 passengers now it's $6.71 per person, round trip.

[fflint]

This thread has gotten way, way off topic.

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

As LASportsFan said, it's all about ease and predictability. And he beat me to it by saying it in his post, but yes, when you factor in the cost of gas and the wear-and-tear/maintenance on your car, the price would probably even out, if not be lower. And you have to look at the big picture; if high speed rail did make it to San Diego, people from other parts of the state, not just LA, would have another option to get there. Even how it is now, downtown San Diego is very pedestrian and transit handy; I could take the (not so fast) train from downtown LA to downtown San Diego, get off at the Santa Fe Train Depot, and easily go to the Convention Center, or the Civic Center, or the Gaslamp, or PETCO Park, and not have to worry about driving and finding parking.




I don't know how fast or slow you drive, but when the freeways are wide open, I generally average 75-80mph. A hundred-mile trip usually does take me about 90 minutes, give or take 5 minutes, with free-flowing traffic, of course. I can make it from South Pasadena to Santa Barbara in 90 minutes (if I leave at the right time; the 101 through the San Fernando Valley can be stop-and-go during the work week), and South Pasadena to the La Jolla Village Drive exit in 90 minutes, easily. I've never encountered really heavy traffic in San Diego. San Diego locals may say they get heavy traffic, but I think a San Diegan's idea of heavy traffic is nothing compared to what we get in LA; I've never encountered stop-and-go traffic on the freeways in San Diego, at least not on weekends. It's been crowded, but not to the extent that it gets in LA or even OC, and the traffic still moves.

I used to visit a friend who went to school at, and lived adjacent to, UC Irvine. I found myself going with her down to San Diego (funny because she lives there now), and it really only took an hour, an hour and 15 minutes at the most.

I usually drive 75-80 also (when I can) and have never gone from Irvine to DTSD in anything less than 90 minus. Yes, the traffic in SD is bad. It is bad on the weekends and worse during the week. I would think you would have encountered this more. You may have avoided some of it driving the 5 on a weekend (as opposed to really bad freeways during the week like 805, 8, 15, 94, 78), but the 5 often gets terrible (stop and go for miles) from Oceanside to the 805. This is why Caltrans is spending $2Billion to add 4 new lanes. LA's traffic is even worse (particularly on the westside), but I would say you have been lucky

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by fflint

This thread has gotten way, way off topic.

I think it's because the original topic has been exhausted. There's only so much you can say about "America's TRULY densest metros."

[EMArg]

On the NYC subway:


• Video Link

[Shawn]

I am not surprised to see Honolulu at the top of this list. That place punches way above it's weight in urban feel. It's far more of a big city than a bunch of mainland metros in the 1-2 million person range.

It's been said before, but Honolulu has almost more of a Japanese (specifically Okinawan) or South American feel to the built environment than American. And this goes beyond the obvious density, Japanese street signs in Waikiki, or incredible amount of residential buildings in the ~400 foot range. Geography plays a part too: the city just ends at sharp mountain slopes, essentially in three out of four cardinal directions. Parts of Honolulu feel really similar to Kobe or Kyoto in this regard.

Check it out in Google Earth.