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 05-22-2008, 06:48 PM
 
81 posts, read 311,793 times
Reputation: 42

Advertisements

Well, I certainly understand this is earthquake country, but it obviously doesn't stop them from building tall buildings, bridges, etc. I mean, if earthquakes were always the main concern with everything, we would build nothing and just sleep on the grass! In the meantime we have a transportation problem in this city, at least on the westside.

With the current mayor at the helm, we can forget any projects going on the westside because we aren't the ones who voted for him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2008, 10:03 PM
 
Location: SoCal - Sherman Oaks & Woodland Hills
12,977 posts, read 30,331,630 times
Reputation: 10491
Quote:
Originally Posted by xyzxyz View Post
I simply don't understand Los Angeles city officials. The westside of the city is really the "pulse" of the city now yet there are no subways or monorails, and to my knowledge, there are no plans for it.
We really need a better public transit system here. However, the westside really is not the "pulse" of the city as you put it. Because LA is so huge there is no "main" place or "primary" area. The problem with either extending the subway or establishing a light rail/train system involves the cost of obtaining the land (even with imminent domain) is prohibitive. Figure a 8600 square foot lot would itself cost $800,000 - $1,000,000 there is no way without private industry financing that it could be done. You'll need several MILES of land to build something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Hot Springs, AR
5,612 posts, read 13,807,406 times
Reputation: 3759
There are no plans or slow plans because the people on the westside don't really want a public transportation system, especialy if it will be as poorly run as it is now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 10:51 AM
 
Location: SoCal - Sherman Oaks & Woodland Hills
12,977 posts, read 30,331,630 times
Reputation: 10491
Quote:
Originally Posted by CESpeed View Post
There are no plans or slow plans because the people on the westside don't really want a public transportation system, especialy if it will be as poorly run as it is now.
You are 100% correct. People who own property on the westside probably dont want public transportation. Most people drive their own cars anyway and it is not a huge place for employment.

The only people who are clamoring for public trans are those who are transplants from other parts of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Windermere, FL
269 posts, read 818,150 times
Reputation: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt345 View Post
Exactly. Let's think back to 1989 and the earthquake that occurred in the Bay Area. Where did most of the fatalities occur? On freeways that collapsed. The subway system up there reminded perfectly intact during the quake. During a major earthquake, I would much rather be in a subway than sitting in gridlocked traffic on top of one of those interchanges. The whole "who wants a subway in earthquake country" argument shows just how uneducated Angelenos are about transit and how it's working quite well in the rest of the world.
Matt, the real problem is bracing everything above the subway so that the infrustructure can handle an earthquake. I believe quotes I saw a couple of years ago stated three billion a mile?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 11:06 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,736 posts, read 26,289,394 times
Reputation: 9179
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBeez View Post
You are 100% correct. People who own property on the westside probably dont want public transportation. Most people drive their own cars anyway and it is not a huge place for employment.

The only people who are clamoring for public trans are those who are transplants from other parts of the country.
That is wrong. Many people on the Westside want this subway b/c the congestion is unmanageable now. the MAYOR OF BEVERLY HILLS wants a subway stop in his city now, despite being against it not that long ago. Even Zev Yarkolsky (don't know how to spell his name), the supervisor that essentially stopped the subway in it's tracks from extending is now all for it.

MANY people who were originally opposed to this subway are now for it. I think the fact that you can't rely on just one mode of transportation, the private auto, in a city of 4+ million is finally getting through to people.

The Westside is a HUGE place of employment, are you kidding me? Westwood, Century City, Santa Monica, etc.... you are telling me no one works in those high rises?

Basically the biggest thing preventing this subway from getting built is MONEY. It's going to be $5+ billion dollars and if they had the money it would be getting built right now.

The Wilshire Corridor is the #1 corridor in the country that needs a subway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 11:10 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,736 posts, read 26,289,394 times
Reputation: 9179
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBeez View Post
We really need a better public transit system here. However, the westside really is not the "pulse" of the city as you put it. Because LA is so huge there is no "main" place or "primary" area. The problem with either extending the subway or establishing a light rail/train system involves the cost of obtaining the land (even with imminent domain) is prohibitive. Figure a 8600 square foot lot would itself cost $800,000 - $1,000,000 there is no way without private industry financing that it could be done. You'll need several MILES of land to build something.

ummm, Subways are underground and you don't have to buy the land above it.

A monorail is not going to get built b/c it makes no sense to switch modes in the middle of a line. And the fact that there are no successful monorail transit systems in a major city. Las Vegas was a huge failure.

The Westside is where a lot of money and business is in LA. It is on of the the main areas of the city and metro area. With all the jobs and wealth, how can you argue it's not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 01:26 PM
 
Location: CITY OF ANGELS AND CONSTANT DANGER
5,409 posts, read 11,547,111 times
Reputation: 2251
tho the westside is where a lot of people work it is not the "pulse" and it is not where a lot of people live (compared to other more densely populated areas of LA county like south central, east los and the south east cities).
the reality of it is that public transportation and specifically rail, should be in areas where PT it is already in heavy use, such as south central, east los and the south east cities that border these areas. people in those parts of town are already public trans dependant, more so than on the west side. ridership numbers on the MTA site show this and the influx of "rapid" bus lines prove it.
a subway or rail on the west side would be a novelty. kind of like the pasadena line that was built years before the east LA line. does that make much sense? putting a rail line in an area, where strong opposition exists and where ridership is low? it was nothing but a novelty for bourgie subarbanites to feel more "urban". no offense intended, but the need for a line in east los was very clear, except for some reason pasadena came sooner. it would be the same with a west side line. there are other corridors that already move plenty of people on buses that need rail.

it would be NICE to have a train to the beach, but i and many other people in the most neglected areas of LA county need a train to work first.

wilshire is one of the areas that i feel needs to be looked at. an extension of the line that ends in k town makes sense. but thats as far as i will go on the west side. otherwise we need an east west one on slauson. a north south one on vermont or western maybe even crenshaw as is being proposed. and other others, but def in the more densely populated Public transit dependant areas of LA. the key phrase here is public trans dependant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 01:55 PM
 
1,542 posts, read 5,394,444 times
Reputation: 1681
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
A monorail is not going to get built b/c it makes no sense to switch modes in the middle of a line. And the fact that there are no successful monorail transit systems in a major city. Las Vegas was a huge failure.
exactly. a lot of people don't know this, but a train can't just switch from heavy rail tracks to light rail to a monorail. they're all different types of infrastructure with different trains needed to run on them.

besides, who in their right mind would want a monorail in this day and age? not only are they about as expensive to build as light rail, but they're actually more expensive to maintain. and they move super slowly compared with other modes of rail transit. it just makes no sense.

to be fair, when the earlier poster first mentioned the monorail, i believe he/she was using the term as a generic catch-all word for trains, rather than as a reference to that specific type of train.

and speaking of monorail systems around the country -
i don't know if you've ever flown into newark airport in northern nj, but they built a monorail to connect the terminals with a nearby suburban commuter rail line as well as the long term parking lots. despite going only about 1 mile, the monorail takes twenty minutes one-way. it's excruciatingly slow and frustrating. not to mention, you have to switch trains to get anywhere else, such as nyc or other points in nj.

what really gets me is that they could've just extended the PATH train (nj/nyc's version of the bay area's BART line) down past newark penn station to newark airport, so as to create a fast, one-seat ride from manhattan, hoboken, jersey city, and downtown newark to the airport. but instead the airport is saddled with this dinky little pseudo-train that actually costs more to maintain than other types of trains. (i think the higher maintenance costs are due to the fact that the parts and equipment for monorails aren't as common anymore, since hardly anyone builds monorails in the u.s. these days).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2008, 02:05 PM
 
1,542 posts, read 5,394,444 times
Reputation: 1681
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt345 View Post
Exactly. Let's think back to 1989 and the earthquake that occurred in the Bay Area. Where did most of the fatalities occur? On freeways that collapsed. The subway system up there reminded perfectly intact during the quake. During a major earthquake, I would much rather be in a subway than sitting in gridlocked traffic on top of one of those interchanges. The whole "who wants a subway in earthquake country" argument shows just how uneducated Angelenos are about transit and how it's working quite well in the rest of the world.
you're 100% right. i always tell this to friends who are adamantly opposed to subways in LA, as well as the fact that tokyo has one of the best and most extensive subway lines in the world despite being a very earthquake-prone area.

i read somewhere that when an earthquake hits, the energy released is at its peak at ground level, meaning that elevated structures such as freeway overpasses are much more susceptible to collapsing than a subway tunnel because their concrete ground supports are at risk of giving out. i realize that a lot of people in LA are anti-mass transit, but come on - they're afraid of being in a train underground but they have no problem sitting in their car on the 405 off-ramp, 50 feet above the ground? i'd be much more afraid of the latter scenario.

bottom line is, earthquakes aren't an impediment toward building a subway in LA (or at least expanding the existing rail infrastructure). financing and coordination btwn the transit agencies, the city/county, and the public are the main hurdles.
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
Similar Threads
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