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.
currently, a new light rail line is being constructed to culver city. phase 2 of this project should bring the line to santa monica, but that is not what i was referring to. there is currently a subway in la that runs from union station to wilshire/western in koreatown. the mta is trying to have this line extended under wilshire (or thereabouts) all the way to downtown santa monica.
hopefully the purple line (subway to the sea) can get done within 15 years, but i'm not holding my breath.
what i'd really like to see is once the subway makes it to santa monica, to turn south and pass through venice, marina del rey, etc on toward LAX. now THAT would be a super-useful train line.
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.
Over ONE MILLION people live on the westside! How is that not "a lot" of people? The "pulse" of LA is more on the Westside than it is in South Central, East La, and SE cities. The Westide drives the economy of LA more so than any other area, especially the poorer ones. Just look at a demographics maps of where all the good jobs are.
Give me a break with that "bourgie subarbanites" crap. Have you ever been out of LA? Go on BART in the Bay ARea. Go on Metro in DC. Go on the NYC Subway. Go on the El in Chicago. Go on Metra, Metro North, PATH, etc... and you will see tons of well to do people who could drive to work but take transit. It's that backwards LA mentality some people have here thinking only poor people use transit and that a rail line wont work in middle class areas despite many SUCCESSFUL examples of exactly that all over this country. I grew up in a white upper middle class suburbs and many people there took the train to work, which helped take cars off the roads.
ALso what's going to do more to help traffic in LA: Getting middle class commuters who normally drive the option of taking the train OR building a rail line for people that already don't have cars, don't drive, and already take transit? Building a rail line through the Westside will do so much more for commuters and relieve congestion, or at least give an alternative, than putting one in a poorer area. Also think about who subsidized transit the most. Poor people don't pay much if anything in taxes, THE MIDDLE AND UPPER CLASSES do. They are the ones who subsidize transportation more so than anyone else. They are the one's paying for transit they don't use b/c it's inefficient for them.
"Neglected" areas? look at where almost all of the rail lines are now and where the ones being built are going to be: in POOR AREAS! The gold line is the one exception, but even then it goes through poorer areas. So are we only suppose to focus on the poor and screw the middle class? They need to get to work just as much as anyone else too.
You seriously don't seem to know how transit works outside of LA. Also realize LA has some of the worst transportation problems in the country so maybe you should go look at other cities and see what they do b/c obviously what LA has been doing is not working.
You seriously don't seem to know how transit works outside of LA.
I've noticed that many Angelenos base their opinions solely off of their experiences here and seem to have never experienced any other city other than LA.
ive been to DC, loved its system. Rode Marta in the ATL. loved it also. NYC, even. AND i actually lived in SF and enjoyed both BART and MUNI for a long time. but comparing SF to LA is ridiculous.
I have often stated in other posts that what i liked about PT in frisco was that everyone used it. poor people, business people, young, old. etc. and at all hours of the night. i would often take the bus home after a club/bar. i have experienced a good transit system. and i have also experienced a transit system that serves the people. so i do know something about PT.
and lets get somehting clear. when i talk about PT dependant communities i refer to areas that have a higher number of people taking PT. that dont mean that every one takes it. these areas are still more dense than the west side and still have MANY MANY Drivers, like myself (not for long with these gas prices). they have more people period. you dont beleive me look at census data by zip code (wiki can help).
also i think you missed my point about those bourgie folks. my point is that to them its a novelty. plenty of people use the gold line in pasadena, but the ridership is not what they projected. while people use it to get to work in LA, its really just somehting that is "nice", something that helps them connect to "urban" areas. they dont need it(compared to other areas). its just another option for them when they dont want to drive.
and if traffic is the problemn to address, then i still think that you should begin by erecting a system that originates in the core of LA, which is downtown and moves outward, into the surrounding, densely populated areas. such as wilshire, south central, east los, etc. as for those people who live in far flung communities, the solution would be park and ride lots at the the outter terminals. kinda like tha bay area. you drive to the station and take the train in to the city. that would keep people of the freeways as well.
my point all along is that rails should be in areas where people depend on PT to move around. once a solid base is built, you progress outward. and please dont make any assupmtions about people in neglected areas. when i use the word neglected i dont mean poor i mean those over looked places. me and my neighbors pay taxes like anyone else. those who have more money, well let them pay more and let them ride the bus like everyone esle...ifthey dare. but for those in dense areas, give them rail. and i never said put them in POOR areas, i said put them in dense areas.
I have many ideas about public transportation. Working on putting together a website, but its slow going due to my lack of code ability..
Any train/rail system has to be planned and executed all at once. None this 5 mile extention every 10 years. That a political game and waste of time & money.
Taking a picture of the valley and west la: Trains to run along "the side" of the 405 & 10 frwys generally along the no-mans land just outside the barrier is the cheapest option. This section of land is generally unused all along the 405 even down through brentwood and south. There is always a good 30-40 feet of landspacing that can serve as the bed/footing for rail lines. If there isnt at some spots..sorry should have known when you bought that real estate next to the big concrete thing with cars.
Key stations would provide parking and access to other rails that can run along the major streets.. for example: Sherman Way, Victory Blvd, Ventura Blvd, Wilshire Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd, Olympic, Pico, Etc. I'm leaving out the No/So. lines. The trains, would run on the same rails but have different destinations. For example a southbound to downtown LA or a southbound to Santa monica. More trains during rush hours. slower trains with more stops depending on the need.
And the biggest thing of all.... Los Angelenos will have to get up off their bums and walk a few blocks to work.
Thats why I fully support a $15.00 per gallon gas tax on non-commercial vehicles, and cigarette tax to make it happen. I realize contractors, tradesman & truckers, & service related individuals will always need their own vehicle, so through lisencing, they should be designated as cmml vehicles with strict monitoring and/or plates and be taxed at a lower %.
And when I say this.. I think of the guy who stood at the grand opening of the Pasadena Goldline and said to a reporter while looking at his watch: "I'm going to try it out today. If its one minute slower than my car commute, I won't use the train"
Maybe comparing the CITY of SF to the CITY of LA is not fair. But I was referring to the entire Bay Area b/c I was thinking of BART and not really Muni. BART is a suburban commuter rail system and services the SPRAWLING suburbs of the Bay Area. The density and land use patterns are no different in the suburban areas of the Bay Area than they are in the LA Metro area. Los Angeles is the DENSEST metropolitan area in the entire nation. Denser than both the NYC Tri-state region and the Bay Area. If BART can work in the Bay Area then it can work here. If MARTA can work in city often compared to LA for it's sprawl and traffic, then why can't it work here?
Quote:
also i think you missed my point about those bourgie folks. my point is that to them its a novelty. plenty of people use the gold line in pasadena, but the ridership is not what they projected. while people use it to get to work in LA, its really just somehting that is "nice", something that helps them connect to "urban" areas. they dont need it(compared to other areas). its just another option for them when they dont want to drive.
How is it a novelty? Are all those middle and upper middle class people using BART, Metro in DC, MARTA, etc..just using it for the "novelty" monday thru friday 9-5? Look at the ridership on the Orange Line, that should have been rail all along. Why do you think LA is so different that you think people don't want to use transit to get to work? People are using the Gold Line b/c they don't want to drive and sit in traffic, which is why people use it in the Bay Area, Atlanta, DC, NYC, etc.....Getting to work is not a "novelty". You are just making a bunch of assumptions based on nothing more than personal opinion.
And "OPTION" is definitely what it is. A successful transportation network requires several OPTIONS and ALTERNATIVES rather than relying on just ONE mode. When traffic on the Bay Bridge is gridlocked, people take BART. When traffic on the 405 is gridlocked, you sit and wait. Do you honestly think it's a good thing for the majority of people to rely ONE mode of transportation? The freeways are beyond capacity and gas prices will never stop rising, so please explain how it makes any sort of sense to force people to continue driving and give them no alternative? You cannot rely on one mode of transportation to move people in a metro area of 15+ million, you NEED OPTIONS.
Quote:
and if traffic is the problemn to address, then i still think that you should begin by erecting a system that originates in the core of LA, which is downtown and moves outward, into the surrounding, densely populated areas. such as wilshire, south central, east los, etc. as for those people who live in far flung communities, the solution would be park and ride lots at the the outter terminals. kinda like tha bay area. you drive to the station and take the train in to the city. that would keep people of the freeways as well.
Where do most of the rail lines converge now? DOWNTOWN LA. The green line is the only exception. And I don't count the orange line b/c that should basically be an extension of the Red Line. The whole Metro system is already centered in Downtown LA so what are you talking about? The Purple Line starts to go down Wilshire. The Blue Line already goes by South Central. And the new Gold Line extension will connect East LA. So what are you talking about? LA already has a BASIC, small system set up that is centered in Downtown LA already and that is trying to reach out farther, like you want.
Quote:
my point all along is that rails should be in areas where people depend on PT to move around. once a solid base is built, you progress outward. and please dont make any assupmtions about people in neglected areas. when i use the word neglected i dont mean poor i mean those over looked places. me and my neighbors pay taxes like anyone else. those who have more money, well let them pay more and let them ride the bus like everyone esle...ifthey dare. but for those in dense areas, give them rail. and i never said put them in POOR areas, i said put them in dense areas.
How is the Westside not a "neglected" area when it comes to transit? They have absolutely no rail. South Central does, East LA will, area around Exposition will. But the Westside won't, that sounds like neglect to me. You can't just build a rail system focusing on only trying to get people off buses and onto trains. Considering the gridlock LA has, you need to get people off of the freeways and roads just as much if not more. Gridlock is literally choking LA and costing billions of dollars in economic losses each year.
Quote:
the key word here is dense
get it.
And the Los Angeles Basin is the densest metropolitan area in the entire United States, so what is your point?
that is one helluva map. i'd love to see this happen in its entirety, but of course funding and coordination btwn the government, citizens, and the transit agency are always going to be tricky.
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.
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.
