if you could rebuild LA's subway/light rail system from scratch (Los Angeles: to live in, bus)

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by Island_OnThe_Land

Here's my understanding of it: the Green Line is the "train to nowhere" as why would anyone build a train to Norwalk? No offense to Norwalk.

Bottom line is that when the 105 Freeway was being built the thought was gee we are building from scratch so we have a chance to build a light rail line along this new freeway. And it was only then that the So. Bay officials (e.g., Mayors from Redondo, Torrance, etc) were like, "Hey if you are gonna build that line we'd like to have it come towards us rather than go to LAX."

The MTA Board that oversees the agency is comprised of local elected officials from around the county (at least it was back in the 80's and 90's). So they could twist arms and negotiate for compromises that were NOT necessarily good for the region but were good for local politics. They could say, "Hey I got the Green Line to come to our city."

It would no longer be a "train to nowhere" if there was an extension to the Norwalk Metrolink Station and/or civic center area.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by Island_OnThe_Land

Here's my understanding of it: the Green Line is the "train to nowhere" as why would anyone build a train to Norwalk? No offense to Norwalk.

Even better, the Green Line should extend into OC

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by Charles

If there was no traffic on any streets or freeways and gas was $1/gallon, would you still advocate more mass transit?

That would never happen so its a moot point. There is NO MORE ROOM to continually build freeways.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by Charles

Public transportation always seems to take a lot longer to go anywhere, it is a lot less flexible, it's difficult to do dynamic routing, and it isn't very private. It's so much easier to drive to places on the spur of the moment and it is more comfortable to be in your own car.

Personally, folks who think such as you are short-sighted and it is good that you live in Alabama versus LA. Only someone so far removed from LA's congestion would ever advocate for less mass transit.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by yamota

if Metro could assure riders that they could still escape from underground even after an 8 magnitude earthquake or stronger I think there'd be more riders

Most of LA rail is above ground.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Chatteress

That would never happen so its a moot point. There is NO MORE ROOM to continually build freeways.

I agree, the era of $1.50 gas is long gone.

Originally Posted by Chatteress

Most of LA rail is above ground.

Not only that, but I believe our subways have escape paths along the walls of them.

[DarkWolf]

you'll see during the next Earthquake , most of the Freeways will have damage , yet the Majority of the Transitways will be fine and working properly. That will be due to the fact that there maintained more and designed to handle alot more stress.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

you'll see during the next Earthquake , most of the Freeways will have damage , yet the Majority of the Transitways will be fine and working properly. That will be due to the fact that there maintained more and designed to handle alot more stress.

As a transit rider, that is reassuring.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by Chatteress

As a transit rider, that is reassuring.

Look at the recent Quake in Chile , there Metro and other Transitways sustained minor damages , compared to there Highways and roads.....The Concrete ties and structures help with preventing major damage to the lines. Many lines are built to handle up to a 7.0 like a bridge , and tunnels are the safest place to be in an Earthquake.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Chatteress

#1 - It connects the Southbay with the Blue Line.

Yes, I thought about that. That may well be the reason as a lot of SB people may work downtown.