"LA's Worst Transit Decision" (Orange, Bradbury: real estate, insurance, homes)

[Joke Insurance]

LA's Worst Transit Decision

Did any of you ever know about this? If built, do you think it would have been successful and eventually expanded? How do you think LA would be like today if it was built with eventually expansions?

[bhcompy]

I don't know anything about this, but I do wonder why we insist on building underground when elevated is much cheaper.. I hope it's simply not NIMBYs, since the NIMBYs in LA are of the kind that are wont to clamor for public transit if the first place. It makes me wonder about the freeways as well. They're talking about ripping out a bunch of homes and businesses in OC to expand the 405 through HB to add two lanes, yet they don't speak of doing anything like what they did along the 110 in to downtown with the elevated freeway lanes.

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by Joke Insurance

LA's Worst Transit Decision

Did any of you ever know about this? If built, do you think it would have been successful and eventually expanded? How do you think LA would be like today if it was built with eventually expansions?

L.A. used to have a light rail system similar to the electric commuter lines of Chicago and New York. General Motors bought it and killed it.

General Motors' Destruction of California Transit Systems

[SalParadise]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

L.A. used to have a light rail system similar to the electric commuter lines of Chicago and New York. General Motors bought it and killed it.

General Motors' Destruction of California Transit Systems

It figures that Archie Bunker would like a conspiracy theory. But the history of this issue is not as simple as you mistakenly believe.

The red cars peaked in popularity in the 1920's and began declining by the 1930's. GM played only a small part in the overall decline of the red car system.

[nickdahammer]

I disagree with the 'worst' tag. In my opinion, the worst transit decision was in the 20's when the Times set out to disparage the elevated concept (not unlike what Chicago uses), and a subway down Broadway, among other things. I don't think the monorail went up for a vote like the 20's proposal. And yes, Bradbury couldn't believe why we didn't design transit to take advantage of the great weather and vistas, versus the subway option. Something to be said for that.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by nickdahammer

And yes, Bradbury couldn't believe why we didn't design transit to take advantage of the great weather and vistas, versus the subway option. Something to be said for that.

Somebody probably didn't want their vista interrupted by a train. So they got a freeway in their backyard instead.

[Senshi]

I've always read that a Monorail isn't safe in an Earthquake? Misinformation?

The biggest mistake, aside from destroying the Red Cars, is Henry Waxman and Zev Yaroslavsky destroy the subway for decades. The biggest crime? THEY ARE STILL IN OFFICE!!!!!

[Those Who Squirm]

I'd say rapid transit of any kind was a hard sell in early 1960s L.A. The local bus agency was called the Southern California Rapid Transit District, and supposedly had this back-burner goal of implementing rapid transit. We all thought the name was some sort of joke because there was never anything at all "rapid" about their service. Politically, ethnically, and geographically we were a lot like Orange County back then, and the downtown area was about to be eviscerated and depopulated.

Personally, I think a monorail system today would be the bee's knees; we could have a lot more miles of available rapid transit without having spent more money than we have to this point, but even today any kind of elevated rail line is a very tough sell politically. Our existing rail lines, other than the subway, are elevated in places; like where they cross major intersections or other obstacles. But even so they usually run at ground level, even where they have their own right of way.

[Forrest Of Deen]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

I don't know anything about this, but I do wonder why we insist on building underground when elevated is much cheaper..

Putting lines underground doesn't take up valuable real estate as aboveground. Underground transit also increases the walkability factor as having above ground lines are physical and psychological impediments to neighbourhood development, much like freeways are.

[bhcompy]

Originally Posted by Forrest Of Deen

Putting lines underground doesn't take up valuable real estate as aboveground. Underground transit also increases the walkability factor as having above ground lines are physical and psychological impediments to neighbourhood development, much like freeways are.

Well, like I said, elevated. Not really taking up real estate, just building over currently utilized real estate