U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-17-2017, 08:08 PM
 
756 posts, read 640,363 times
Reputation: 1046

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevedore View Post
Los Angeles was originally never setup for rapid transit by rail, automobile industry you can thank for that. East coast completely different......what they've done in L.A. is essentially spend millions on a band aid. If you're going to do it, do it right; not half ass. The above poster is correct; have 3 or 4 major lines that run along the fwy's.
Completely untrue. Greater LA developed along the Red Car Lines all over even out to OC and IE. People that say LA developed with the car should read their history more.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2017, 08:57 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
4,217 posts, read 2,281,724 times
Reputation: 5092
Quote:
Originally Posted by BGS91762 View Post
Completely untrue. Greater LA developed along the Red Car Lines all over even out to OC and IE. People that say LA developed with the car should read their history more.
+1. That is right.

The initial dispersion of settlement patterns beyond the downtown core was precisely due to the inter-urban street car system which at its peak had over 1,000 miles of track. Lines were mostly privately financed and built as a scheme to promote real estate/land sales.

The rise of automobile ownership (which came later) certainly accelerated the trend but the "sprawl" of LA really began with the inter-urban rail system.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2017, 01:03 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
4,217 posts, read 2,281,724 times
Reputation: 5092
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
Increase in rail? The numbers show a decline in rail and a decline in bus. Both have declined over the years. I read one article that people who normally would take the bus now take the rail. Seems to me that the rail took passengers from the bus. But you are saying that is not the case.
Look at the numbers you posted! There was an increase in rail ridership in 2017 over last year.

As I mentioned before, we had rail openings/expansions later in the year in 2016 which is why the March 2017 numbers are up year over year. But the facts are the facts...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
Average Metro ridership during the month of March on weekdays:

2017: Rail 360,779 Bus 937,352 Total 1,298,131

2016: Rail 339,094 Bus 993,103 Total 1,332,197

2015: Rail 338,614 Bus 1,105,521 Total 1,444,615

2014: Rail 344,283 Bus 1,174,160 Total 1,518,443

2013: Rail 359,855 Bus 1,153,849 Total 1,513,704

2012: Rail 323,871 Bus 1,176,249 Total 1,500,120

2011: Rail 294,801 Bus 1,168,350 Total 1,463,151

2010: Rail 304,459 Bus 1,184,224 Total 1,488,683

2009: Rail 293,537 Bus 1,226,262 Total 1,519,799

.
I am sure some rail lines have cut into some amount of bus ridership but in the overall picture not by a huge amount. Bus ridership is down even in cities that are not expanding rail like NYC or DC. So correlation is not causation.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2017, 11:30 AM
 
2,236 posts, read 1,043,028 times
Reputation: 1749
I am curious whether Methane gas is the major reason we don't have a better road and transportation system in LA. It appears they keep saying that its too dangerous to dig or tunnel under Los Angeles for fear of explosions. Though does this impact above ground structures as well. Otherwise why not build viaducts or elevated structures to get around the Methane pockets?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2017, 09:18 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
4,217 posts, read 2,281,724 times
Reputation: 5092
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizensadvocate View Post
I am curious whether Methane gas is the major reason we don't have a better road and transportation system in LA. It appears they keep saying that its too dangerous to dig or tunnel under Los Angeles for fear of explosions. Though does this impact above ground structures as well. Otherwise why not build viaducts or elevated structures to get around the Methane pockets?
Methane gas in the soil in the Fairfax/Mid-Wilshire area was the "official excuse" former LA Congressman Henry Waxman used in the 1980's to get the Red Line subway diverted from the Fairfax/WeHo area to Hollywood and the Valley via Vermont Ave.

There was an explosion under the Ross Dress for Less in the Fairfax District in 1985 which hospitalized 23 people. People were rightly concerned; however, I recall speaking to a civil engineer who used to teach at Cal Poly and was familiar with the Red Line project. He said the soil in Hollywood had its share of methane and it was not a deterrent. Also, modern boring machines and construction methods make it even less of an issue as the MTA is currently extending the Purple Line through Mid-Wilshire right now.

https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/t...s-subway-plans

Why don't we have elevated rail? Probably mostly due to the fact it is a political non-starter, at least though existing neighborhoods.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2017, 12:23 AM
 
2,236 posts, read 1,043,028 times
Reputation: 1749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks View Post
Methane gas in the soil in the Fairfax/Mid-Wilshire area was the "official excuse" former LA Congressman Henry Waxman used in the 1980's to get the Red Line subway diverted from the Fairfax/WeHo area to Hollywood and the Valley via Vermont Ave.

There was an explosion under the Ross Dress for Less in the Fairfax District in 1985 which hospitalized 23 people. People were rightly concerned; however, I recall speaking to a civil engineer who used to teach at Cal Poly and was familiar with the Red Line project. He said the soil in Hollywood had its share of methane and it was not a deterrent. Also, modern boring machines and construction methods make it even less of an issue as the MTA is currently extending the Purple Line through Mid-Wilshire right now.

https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/t...s-subway-plans

Why don't we have elevated rail? Probably mostly due to the fact it is a political non-starter, at least though existing neighborhoods.
Interesting they only stopped subway construction even though the ROSS incident proved that it can happen any time even without subway construction. Perhaps those neighborhoods are just too dangerous to live in with or without subways due to the constant possibility of undetectable methane release.

Though the 1960s Freeway revolters who blocked above around structures are one major issue that causes such traffic nightmare these days. I guess they also blocked elevated rail as well. Most other cities such as in NYC and SF subways become elevated rail in different segments.

Though LA could do wonders with traffic if they were just to build one Asian style east west high capacity metro line just like the planned Wilshire purple line extension but extend it all the way to downtown Santa Monica and east of Union Station toward Baldwin park using the existing i10 metrolink rail corridor but with stops in all the interchanges along the way, and a north south Asian Style high capacity metro line somewhere between downtown and Santa Monica as indicated in the 40 year plan. As well as a inconspicuous north south and east west viaduct/underground expressway to close the gap left by the freeway revolt.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2017, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
6,878 posts, read 8,576,255 times
Reputation: 8650
I had my meeting with the three members of the state assembly, and presented my case, along with videos, and interviews I had done over the past year.
I think it safe to say, not only did they show concern for my effort, but left me with the feeling this is not going to be swept under the carpet as it was a few years ago, when I presented it before.

They had questions, and I did my best to enlighten them concerning the issues.

It was agreed that further study concerning cost of the project, and updated information on traffic conditions in select areas of the state would be most helpful in determining if the proposal goes forward.
That alone made me feel it has merit.
If they were willing to look into the issues concerning traffic in our bigger cities, that gives me hope.

Unlike the last time I brought this up, they seemed genuinely interested in what I had to say.
The last time, the meeting lasted all of ten minutes.
This time it was close to an hour.

I think they felt an ever increasing need for something to be done about traffic, and assured me they would
call on the states resources to look into the matter.

The best that happened is, they didn't say no.

Bob.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2017, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Southern California
4,453 posts, read 5,839,467 times
Reputation: 2221
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
I had my meeting with the three members of the state assembly, and presented my case, along with videos, and interviews I had done over the past year.
I think it safe to say, not only did they show concern for my effort, but left me with the feeling this is not going to be swept under the carpet as it was a few years ago, when I presented it before.

They had questions, and I did my best to enlighten them concerning the issues.

It was agreed that further study concerning cost of the project, and updated information on traffic conditions in select areas of the state would be most helpful in determining if the proposal goes forward.
That alone made me feel it has merit.
If they were willing to look into the issues concerning traffic in our bigger cities, that gives me hope.

Unlike the last time I brought this up, they seemed genuinely interested in what I had to say.
The last time, the meeting lasted all of ten minutes.
This time it was close to an hour.

I think they felt an ever increasing need for something to be done about traffic, and assured me they would
call on the states resources to look into the matter.

The best that happened is, they didn't say no.

Bob.
Bob,
What do you think will be the fiscal impact to the state? Less car, less gas tax, increase gas tax or will the increase in ridership offset the loss?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2017, 08:57 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
6,878 posts, read 8,576,255 times
Reputation: 8650
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelopez2 View Post
Bob,
What do you think will be the fiscal impact to the state? Less car, less gas tax, increase gas tax or will the increase in ridership offset the loss?
I believe the impact on the state financially will be minimal, as I suggested alternate ways in which funds for the bill could be paid out of the general fund,or one other proposal was, the bullet train funds.
It was a waste of taxpayer money, and funds for this new bill could come from monies set aside from that.
I was told the bullet train is on very shaky ground, and may well die in the senate shortly.

Further down the road,(3 or four years) the state will have a much clearer picture of the cost to maintain the bill.

We discussed public transportation, and agreed it will face much needed improvement if this bill goes into effect.
They were impressed when I told them this proposal would take millions of vehicles off the roads, and freeways each and every day.

As for less vehicles, that will happen.
Less gas tax, increase in gas tax, I believe that will not happen either way.
Increase in ridership will happen if the state pours money into better public transportation systems.

I mentioned this as it pertains to new road construction, and freeway lanes being built.
That needs to stop, and the monies diverted into public transportation.

I made it a point to further the argument for less freeway construction, stating more lanes are an enticement for drivers to use the freeway system more, thus clogging them to the point they become huge parking lots, instead of the thruways they were designed to be.

All and all, I think it was an extremely constructive discussion, and I am confident this will be a matter of discussion in the coming months within the legislature.

Bob.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2017, 09:05 PM
 
Location: Southern California
4,453 posts, read 5,839,467 times
Reputation: 2221
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
I believe the impact on the state financially will be minimal, as I suggested alternate ways in which funds for the bill could be paid out of the general fund,or one other proposal was, the bullet train funds.
It was a waste of taxpayer money, and funds for this new bill could come from monies set aside from that.
I was told the bullet train is on very shaky ground, and may well die in the senate shortly.

Further down the road,(3 or four years) the state will have a much clearer picture of the cost to maintain the bill.

We discussed public transportation, and agreed it will face much needed improvement if this bill goes into effect.
They were impressed when I told them this proposal would take millions of vehicles off the roads, and freeways each and every day.

As for less vehicles, that will happen.
Less gas tax, increase in gas tax, I believe that will not happen either way.
Increase in ridership will happen if the state pours money into better public transportation systems.

I mentioned this as it pertains to new road construction, and freeway lanes being built.
That needs to stop, and the monies diverted into public transportation.

I made it a point to further the argument for less freeway construction, stating more lanes are an enticement for drivers to use the freeway system more, thus clogging them to the point they become huge parking lots, instead of the thruways they were designed to be.

All and all, I think it was an extremely constructive discussion, and I am confident this will be a matter of discussion in the coming months within the legislature.

Bob.
Honestly I feel people drive far/long/alot due to schools, improve the schools and neighborhoods near the business/employers, there will be much less driving, but they would also have to allow an increase in housing units to make it affordable and NIMBYs don't want that more people around them.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:52 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top