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 07-01-2012, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Fairfax County, VA
3,719 posts, read 4,937,246 times
Reputation: 1464

Advertisements

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-01-2012, 12:51 PM
 
Location: RSM
5,113 posts, read 17,786,034 times
Reputation: 1893
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2012, 01:54 PM
 
583 posts, read 777,793 times
Reputation: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joke Insurance View Post
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2012, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
1,045 posts, read 1,679,844 times
Reputation: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregHenry View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2012, 10:22 PM
 
Location: Mt Washington: NELA
1,162 posts, read 2,965,036 times
Reputation: 637
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2012, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
9,197 posts, read 14,474,592 times
Reputation: 6333
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickdahammer View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2012, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Hollywood, CA
397 posts, read 824,400 times
Reputation: 330
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!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2012, 12:08 AM
 
928 posts, read 851,705 times
Reputation: 665
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2012, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
139 posts, read 181,183 times
Reputation: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhcompy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2012, 12:29 PM
 
Location: RSM
5,113 posts, read 17,786,034 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forrest Of Deen View Post
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
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top