Would a Los Angeles-San Diego megalopolis ever be possible?

[UrbanImpact]

Miami - Fort Lauderdale - West Palm Beach are connected by local transit 73 miles of commuter rail as well as buses as well as private highspeed rail.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

Miami - Fort Lauderdale - West Palm Beach are connected by local transit 73 miles of commuter rail as well as buses as well as private highspeed rail.

They're part of the same MSA.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I think Tracy is right at the border. I don't know the exact numbers but I believe there is a decent number of residents from Tracy that commute into the inner Bay Area for work. There is commuter rail called ACE (Altamont Corridor Express) that connects Tracy to San Jose, so even though Tracy itself is mostly agricultural, it still contributes directly to the Bay Area economy via employment. The Altamont Pass is basically like a mini Grapevine. I imagine there's also a decent amount of people commuting daily over the Grapevine into LA and is probably the stimulus for the Tejon Ranch community. Are there also a lot of commuters from Lancaster/Palmdale?

Anecdotally, when I worked in Hollywood many years ago, I knew a handful of people who commuted to work who lived in the Antelope Valley (3 from Lancaster, one from Palmdale, and one from Acton, if Acton is considered part of the AV).

I'm not sure when this data was collected, but I thought this was interesting; it's an animated map of LA County residents, showing where they commute to work, and their commute back home. The dots are color-coded by what county they commute to work to: http://bigbytes.mobyus.com/commute.aspx

Just click on the link, use the drop-downs for "California" and "Los Angeles County," and you can see the commute patterns. It looks like a significant amount of people actually commute to Palmdale/Lancaster, I assume, which I thought was interesting... Edwards Air Force Base and military-related jobs, maybe?

And, if you look at San Diego County residents, some of them do commute all the way to LA County. Interesting...

And it looks like half of San Joaquin County residents do commute to the Bay Area...

A smaller number of Sacramento County residents commute to the Bay Area than do San Joquin County residents...

All very fascinating. Now I have something to look at while bored at work.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

More generalizing.

You don't live in SoCal, so you don't know the dynamics that go on here. To say the "blue" in SoCal is due strictly to "Chicanos" (is that term even used anymore?) is pretty ignorant; the Latino community is pretty diverse, and there are even Republicans among them. And to say that the "blue" in SoCal is a "working-class" thing is also pretty classist. There are plenty of Leftists, true ones at that, in SoCal, of all socio-economic levels and ethnicities/races.

I grew up in Socal in both OC and the Westside (been a resident of over 40 yrs), so I am pretty familiar (perhaps a lot more familiar than yourself?) with the politics and demographics of the region.

Let me ask you: can you back up your claim that the SoCal democratic electorate, through their elected representatives, is concerned about environmental issues to the degree of the Bay Area electorate?

I've listed about a half-dozen statewide bills and provided the author of each bill to back it up. You mustered a single one. Where's the long list of pro-transit and anti-sprawl bills that originate from SoCal counterparts? Weiner, Ting, Huffman, Steinberg, Erskine, Levine, I can go on and on. Where's the counterpart list for SoCal? It isn't enough just to say the sun goes around the earth - you have to give factual support for your claim, or else its worthless.

Originally Posted by sopas ej

And please, we are pretty environmentally-conscious in SoCal. We've had/have wetlands preservation movements, we're into coastal preservation, riverbed restoration... and definitely air quality. The whole California Smog Check thing was started in SoCal, SB 33, initiated specifically from a southern California State Senator (Robert Presley-D) from the 36th State Senate District.

I think it's great that LA has initiatives like FOLAR and the Bolsa Chica conservancy, and of course "environmental justice" type actions taken in response to LAs horrible air pollution. While deserving credit, these local responses exist in full servitude to the convenience of the electorate, or in the latter case, in servitude to necessity.

On the contrary, I think my argument is based on there being a much more consistent stream of PIVOTAL green and active-transportation laws authored almost exclusively by Norcal reps, laws that require actual SACRIFICE by the electorate who self-imposes it. These are not "tinker around the edges" kind of laws that Socal politicos tend to pay lip-service to when they think their electorate will tolerate the minimal inconvenience such laws pose.

The Greenbelt initiative, for example, is an immensely successful sprawl containment coalition (nonexistent in Socal, and not on their radar either) which called upon every municipality and district in the Bay Area to limit the rubber-stamping of development that is rampant in Socal. The SMNRR is long overdue, but more an attempt to save what remains of the coastal range than a more secular, widespread effort to limit urban sprawl.

That's why it takes a Camp Pendleton to stop LA and SD gobbling up any and every single sq mile of buildable land that exists.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Well said sopas ej. I guess he never spent time in the populous and vast liberal districts of affluent west L.A., Silver Lake etc. Almost as blue as San Francisco. I was there in the 1970s/early 80s when the environmental activists on the westside stopped the freeway expansion (at one time a freeway through Laurel Canyon was planned-we stopped that), saved the Santa Monica Mountains from tract housing with the state parks and National Rec. Area, got the subway rolling, etc. I was side by side with Councilman Braude and Mayor Bradley. Unfortunately, in many cases, the supervisors don't always mirror these attitudes. If Tejon Ranch were put to a vote of the people, it would probably be defeated 60/40. 5 supervisors are not enough for such a populous county. Bikemike is right about that. We can do better.

You're doing the equivalent of citing the most liberal half of Houston, and claiming that the mere existence of green-issue voters puts Houston on equal footing with Portland, where the electorate is dripping green to the bone. Faulty logic.

The entire 8 county Bay Area votes green. The same can definitely not be said of LA metro - much less LA county. Try to float a referendum to the SGV, Valley, Gateway Cities, and South Bay on a Greenbelt inititaive, and get back to me on voter participation of individual regions, and overall outcome.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

I grew up in Socal in both OC and the Westside (been a resident of over 40 yrs), so I am pretty familiar (perhaps a lot more familiar than yourself?) with the politics and demographics of the region.

Let me ask you: can you back up your claim that the SoCal democratic electorate, through their elected representatives, is concerned about environmental issues to the degree of the Bay Area electorate?

I've listed about a half-dozen statewide bills and provided the author of each bill to back it up. You mustered a single one. Where's the long list of pro-transit and anti-sprawl bills that originate from SoCal counterparts? Weiner, Ting, Huffman, Steinberg, Erskine, Levine, I can go on and on. Where's the counterpart list for SoCal? It isn't enough just to say the sun goes around the earth - you have to give factual support for your claim, or else its worthless.



I think it's great that LA has initiatives like FOLAR and the Bolsa Chica conservancy, and of course "environmental justice" type actions taken in response to LAs horrible air pollution. While deserving credit, these local responses exist in full servitude to the convenience of the electorate, or in the latter case, in servitude to necessity.

On the contrary, I think my argument is based on there being a much more consistent stream of PIVOTAL green and active-transportation laws authored almost exclusively by Norcal reps, laws that require actual SACRIFICE by the electorate who self-imposes it. These are not "tinker around the edges" kind of laws that Socal politicos tend to pay lip-service to when they think their electorate will tolerate the minimal inconvenience such laws pose.

The Greenbelt initiative, for example, is an immensely successful sprawl containment coalition (nonexistent in Socal, and not on their radar either) which called upon every municipality and district in the Bay Area to limit the rubber-stamping of development that is rampant in Socal. The SMNRR is long overdue, but more an attempt to save what remains of the coastal range than a more secular, widespread effort to limit urban sprawl.

That's why it takes a Camp Pendleton to stop LA and SD gobbling up any and every single sq mile of buildable land that exists.

Well, in 2016 LA County voted in a super-majority (72% !) to massively fund transit. It's building more rail than just about any other city in the country right now, and aggressively building TOD around existing transit corridors like the recently built Expo Line. The city of LA's density bonus program for areas served by transit has been well utilized and is more aggressive than most of the statewide proposals that get floated every few years. Keep in mind, LA City is 4 million people...not much smaller than the entire SF MSA. So the policies at the city level carry a lot more weight than whatever SF City does, as that city is only 800,000 people.

And we all know that the Bay Area is famous for its Green movement. That is hardly the only measure of how liberal an area is. I actually get the sense that much of the environmental movement up in the Bay is actually NIMBYism and elitism cloaked in environmental protection. A city and region that refuses to build enough housing to accommodate its lower/middle income residents, thus causing an exodus of Black and Brown people from the area hardly reeks of progressive values to me.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

The Greenbelt initiative, for example, is an immensely successful sprawl containment coalition (nonexistent in Socal, and not on their radar either)

There is already a very effective, occasionally charred, natural greenbelt here in SoCal. It's the reason why LA is the most densely populated urban area in the country.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

I grew up in Socal in both OC and the Westside (been a resident of over 40 yrs), so I am pretty familiar (perhaps a lot more familiar than yourself?) with the politics and demographics of the region.

Let me ask you: can you back up your claim that the SoCal democratic electorate, through their elected representatives, is concerned about environmental issues to the degree of the Bay Area electorate?

I've listed about a half-dozen statewide bills and provided the author of each bill to back it up. You mustered a single one. Where's the long list of pro-transit and anti-sprawl bills that originate from SoCal counterparts? Weiner, Ting, Huffman, Steinberg, Erskine, Levine, I can go on and on. Where's the counterpart list for SoCal? It isn't enough just to say the sun goes around the earth - you have to give factual support for your claim, or else its worthless.



I think it's great that LA has initiatives like FOLAR and the Bolsa Chica conservancy, and of course "environmental justice" type actions taken in response to LAs horrible air pollution. While deserving credit, these local responses exist in full servitude to the convenience of the electorate, or in the latter case, in servitude to necessity.

On the contrary, I think my argument is based on there being a much more consistent stream of PIVOTAL green and active-transportation laws authored almost exclusively by Norcal reps, laws that require actual SACRIFICE by the electorate who self-imposes it. These are not "tinker around the edges" kind of laws that Socal politicos tend to pay lip-service to when they think their electorate will tolerate the minimal inconvenience such laws pose.

The Greenbelt initiative, for example, is an immensely successful sprawl containment coalition (nonexistent in Socal, and not on their radar either) which called upon every municipality and district in the Bay Area to limit the rubber-stamping of development that is rampant in Socal. The SMNRR is long overdue, but more an attempt to save what remains of the coastal range than a more secular, widespread effort to limit urban sprawl.

That's why it takes a Camp Pendleton to stop LA and SD gobbling up any and every single sq mile of buildable land that exists.

Well, I'm 50 years old, and have been a resident of Los Angeles County for nearly all that time. Lived in LA proper before moving with the family to SELAC when I was 7, and have seen the demographic changes over the decades in both the city of LA and SELAC. I've been living in the SGV since my late 20s and have also seen the demographic changes here too, even within the last 20-something years.

I don't know why this is a pissing contest, but I don't have time to look up initiatives brought up by SoCal politicians related to the environment. I'm at work right now. You have internet access, you can easily look it up yourself. I don't doubt that some of our politicians here have come up with some bills that were for the environment.

After a quick search, here are a few I found:

SB 100 Clean Energy bill - Kevin de Leon, Los Angeles
AB 1775 No Offshore Drilling - Muratsachi, LA County South Bay
SB 606 Efficient Water Use - Hertzberg, Van Nuys
AB 88 Ban Plastic Microbeads - Bloom, Santa Monica

But hey, if you want to keep thinking that NorCal folk are more environmentally-conscious than SoCal folk, then sige na po!

Regarding Tejon Ranch, according to Wikipedia, the Tejon Ranch Company is one of the largest private landowners in California. The company now owns over 270,000 acres in the southern San Joaquin Valley, Tehachapi Mountains, and Antelope Valley, the largest contiguous piece of private property in the state. Call it capitalism, but I can see why the Tejon Ranch Company wants to develop some of its property, because it wants more money. I guess the argument is they want to create a new town called Centennial (who came up with that name?) that would somehow be self-sustaining, in that people who live there could also work there. I don't buy it, personally. I guess the Tejon Ranch Company made some concessions by agreeing to some preservation of open space, blah blah blah, but it's in a fire zone and it's basically in the middle of nowhere. I personally think that more housing should be built in already-established population centers, but hey, Tejon Ranch, they have the money I guess. If you think that they can buy politicians, I don't doubt that either.

[edale]

The thing I don't get about Tejon Ranch is that it's totally in the middle of nowhere, but decently close to Bakersfield. There is plenty of land for Bakersfield to grow/sprawl into, not to mention the city could try to urbanize, given that it's mostly a suburban mess. Why create a new city instead of adding to the existing nearby city that already has the infrastructure? I can't see many people commuting through the Grapevine to LA from there, though maybe some would commute to Santa Clarita. Developing a new city out there just seems like the worst of both worlds to me.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by edale

The thing I don't get about Tejon Ranch is that it's totally in the middle of nowhere, but decently close to Bakersfield. There is plenty of land for Bakersfield to grow/sprawl into, not to mention the city could try to urbanize, given that it's mostly a suburban mess. Why create a new city instead of adding to the existing nearby city that already has the infrastructure? I can't see many people commuting through the Grapevine to LA from there, though maybe some would commute to Santa Clarita. Developing a new city out there just seems like the worst of both worlds to me.

Developing Tejon ranch is an atrocious idea for many many reasons. I sincerely hope that the lawsuits shut it down

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by edale

Well, in 2016 LA County voted in a super-majority (72% !) to massively fund transit. It's building more rail than just about any other city in the country right now, and aggressively building TOD around existing transit corridors like the recently built Expo Line. The city of LA's density bonus program for areas served by transit has been well utilized and is more aggressive than most of the statewide proposals that get floated every few years. Keep in mind, LA City is 4 million people...not much smaller than the entire SF MSA. So the policies at the city level carry a lot more weight than whatever SF City does, as that city is only 800,000 people.

And we all know that the Bay Area is famous for its Green movement. That is hardly the only measure of how liberal an area is. I actually get the sense that much of the environmental movement up in the Bay is actually NIMBYism and elitism cloaked in environmental protection. A city and region that refuses to build enough housing to accommodate its lower/middle income residents, thus causing an exodus of Black and Brown people from the area hardly reeks of progressive values to me.

Good points. Developmental restrictions, elitism and "NIMBYism" do go hand in hand. For years Marin County has used development restrictions to block affordable high density housing for working people, including people of color. As a result, liberal Marin is affluent and mostly lily white. True progressives should embrace affordable housing, which can also be done in an environmentally friendly way near transit in dense clusters. Low impact to the environment if done in already developed areas, not open lands. Of course the same NIMBYism also exists in affluent parts of L.A., but the hypocrisy on this issue seems a bit higher up north. Maybe I'm generalizing. Bikemike, where do you stand on the issue of more high density and affordable housing in the outrageously expensive Bay area? Some of this affordable housing should be in Marin County, don't you agree? And yes, affluent west L.A. too.

[badrunner]

Also, let's not forget that bay area elitism led to the worst environmental crime in California history - the damming of the Hetchy Hetchy valley. SF could have easily drawn fresh water from nearby sources but the urban snobs in "The City" didn't want to drink the same water as the dirty farmers in the central valley. I'm sure that even back then they were patting themselves on the back for their environmental wokeness, as they enjoyed their pristine mountain water.

[Obadno]

Other than artificial breaks with a Military base its pretty much already there.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Developing Tejon ranch is an atrocious idea for many many reasons. I sincerely hope that the lawsuits shut it down

While we're on the topic of new cities, I remember when my uncle was alive and living in LA during the 80s/90s and the big thing as far as created/master planned communities was concerned was Lancaster/Palmdale. Before they commenced to building out there, was there a similar reaction to the Tejon Ranch project?

[Dylan Dude]

Looking at Google Earth there's a shit load of mountains in the way that would prevent that from ever happening

[LA21st]

Its a marine base. It's the only thing and developers would've developed decades ago if they could.
LA and SD are the same area.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Also, let's not forget that bay area elitism led to the worst environmental crime in California history - the damming of the Hetchy Hetchy valley. SF could have easily drawn fresh water from nearby sources but the urban snobs in "The City" didn't want to drink the same water as the dirty farmers in the central valley. I'm sure that even back then they were patting themselves on the back for their environmental wokeness, as they enjoyed their pristine mountain water.

Hetch Hetchy probably killed John Muir, or knocked 5-10 years off his life. His last years were filled with sadness and rage over this environmental crime, in a NATIONAL PARK. Everybody talks about L.A. stealing water from the Owens Valley, and they did, but you rarely hear about Hetch Hetchy. Muir said that Hetch Hetchy Valley was at least the equal of Yosemite Valley in beauty, and the flooding of it literally led to an early death from grief and anger.

[badrunner]

We're not "stealing" Owens valley water, we're liberating it

Seriously though, that water doesn't go anywhere. Owens valley being an endorheic basin, all of it ends up evaporating in a parched lake bed, so you might as well make use of it. It's use it or lose it.

Every drop of water that falls on land longs to return to the sea...

[Kenneth]

These two metro areas would already be connected if it was ever going to happen. With growth in the region slowing, it'll never happen at this point, unless for some goofy reason a bunch of tech and manufacturing companies filled into the gap

[Kenneth]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

I already consider them pretty much to already be combined, not sure what's hard to imagine about this. Even if Camp Pendleton stays forever untouched (it should, in my opinion)- the area is already solidly developed.

A similar weird one that people ask about is the DC-Baltimore region. This is already totally intertwined but people still seem to not accept that for whatever reason. A few miles of sparse development between the two places does not mean they are different regions.

DC and Baltimore appear to be connected on Google maps, when you drive along 95 or the 295 and US-1, there is very little undeveloped land in between the two, and currently growing, mainly from the DC metro north, the cities themselves are only 45 miles apart, but on paper, the census says there separate metros.
Another example is Chicago-Milwaukee, on Google maps, it is only 2 miles of what appears to be undeveloped land from Milwaukee's southers suburban reach and Chicago's northern suburban reach, but that census seperates them