View Full Version : Tunnels: The Solution to So Cal's Traffic Woes?


Vidiot
September 19th, 2005, 01:02 PM
With Traffic at a Crawl, Planners Talk of Tunnels By Dan Weikel, Jeffrey L. Rabin and Daryl Kelley Times Staff Writers



For decades, underground highways in Southern California were a frustrated commuter's fantasy — too costly, too hard to build and, given the wealth of land, not necessary.

But Los Angeles is in its 18th year as the nation's most congested metropolis, freeways have little or no space for new lanes and traffic experts are running out of time-shaving options.

So civic leaders are joining engineers to consider burrowing the longest highway tunnels in America.

"Tunnels," said Wolfgang Roth, a geotechnical engineer working on one possible project in the Antelope Valley, "may finally have their day."

Three massive projects are under study in Southern California, each dwarfing any of the nation's 337 underground roadways, including the 2.6-mile tunnel in Boston's infamous "Big Dig," the most costly public works project in U.S. history:

• Congress recently approved $2.4 million to study a five-mile, $2-billion tunnel that would help link the Long Beach and Foothill freeways in Pasadena and South Pasadena, and keep 100,000 cars a day off city streets.

• For Orange and Riverside counties, Congress set aside $16 million to study a 12-mile tunnel that would connect fast-growing commuter towns in the Inland Empire to jobs on the coastal plain. Buried beneath Cleveland National Forest and projected to cost from $3.5 billion to $5 billion, it would be the second-longest in the world — after a 15.2-mile project in Norway.

• A complex of tunnels and surface highways under study by the city of Palmdale would slice 23 miles directly though the San Gabriel Mountains from the Antelope Valley to Glendale, cutting the commute in half. It could cost $3.1 billion or more.

While some policy makers remain skeptical, others say engineering breakthroughs in Europe and Japan have made tunnels faster to build and more affordable — especially where real estate prices have pushed the cost of new freeways skyward.

"The technology has evolved, so tunnels are becoming truly competitive alternatives," said Mark Pisano, executive director of the Southern California Assn. of Governments.

Giant tunnel-boring machines can drill quickly through the earth, cutting holes 45 feet in diameter. "If the hard rock stands up nice, the boring machine eats right through," said Roth. "Even with the fractured hard rock, as the machine advances, you stabilize the tunnel walls with rock bolts or 'shotcrete,' " he said, using the futuristic term for sprayed concrete.

Another benefit of tunnels is that they seem to generate less political dust than surface roads.

"There's a new interest in the invisible highway — getting them out of sight," said engineer Harry Capers, tunnels committee chairman for the American Assn. of State Highway and Transportation Officials, citing projects in New Jersey, Maryland and New England. "It's been catching on."

Nothing makes tunnels more attractive, however, than dire traffic projections.

With Southern California's population projected to grow from 18 million to 23 million by 2030 — and with three of four motorists still traveling alone — the average speed on most area freeways during the peak morning commute is expected to drop from 34 mph to 20 mph or less.

Long tunnels, however, are not simple to build. Even the 31-mile English Channel train tunnel, an engineering wonder, took much longer than anticipated and cost double the original estimate.

Southern California, with its mountainous terrain, underground aquifers and seismic vulnerabilities, may prove the ultimate testing ground for subterranean highways.

The San Gabriel Mountains, through which the Antelope Valley connector would run, are "fault-infested," said Leon Silver, a retired Caltech professor, citing two known faults the proposed tunnels would cross.

"One has to be extraordinarily careful," he said. "There are more faults in the San Gabriels that we don't know about than we do."

Another consideration is groundwater, which can make tunnels cumbersome to construct and vulnerable to damage. Dig too deep in Cleveland National Forest, for instance, and pressure from groundwater could crack the tunnel lining. Planners say they can go no farther down than 750 feet, and may need to place some of the roadway above ground.

Roadway tunnels carry their own dangers as well. With narrow confines and limited ability to vent smoke, they've seen serious accidents.

In one 1999 crash, oil from a damaged truck caught fire inside the seven-mile Mont Blanc tunnel between France and Italy. Nearly 40 people died.

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to highway tunnels is cost, especially given the fierce competition for funds to expand rail, bus and highway systems across the state. An underground passageway can easily cost two to three times as much per mile as a freeway. The most obvious funding solutions are onerous: steep gas taxes or tolls.

"There is still resistance to tolls," acknowledged Robert W. Poole Jr., a transportation analyst and tollway advocate. Even so, he said, motorists make about 38,000 trips a day on Riverside Freeway toll lanes in Orange County, paying up to $7.75 one way.

"You cannot think of tunnels — like the Palmdale-Glendale link — as an ordinary highway route," Poole said. "They provide a premium shortcut."

Hanging over any big tunnel project these days is the specter of a Big Dig-like debacle.

The series of tunnels through central Boston has cost nearly $15 billion over 14 years, far more than forecast. For all that, Fred Salvucci, considered to be the project's father, conceded recently that it might not relieve congestion as anticipated. Tunnel trips have already reached levels expected in 2010 — in part because the Big Dig soaked up money that might have been used to expand public transit.

Indeed, tunnels alone don't have the capacity to end congestion; they must be part of a larger strategy. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, for one, wants limited transportation money spent on projects such as light rail and subways. "I think our focus needs to be on getting people out of their single-passenger automobile," he said.

Commuters are not necessarily seizing on the tunnel as their salvation, at least not in the short term. "It could take them years to make up their minds, let alone build a tunnel," said Howard Monise, a mechanic from Corona who commutes two hours a day to Santa Ana. "With all these people and homes being built, they are never going to catch up. I just hope it doesn't become unbearable."

Though tunnels are relatively common in Europe, Australia and Japan, their popularity has ebbed and flowed in the U.S.

Many of America's largest were built on the East Coast during the Depression or after World War II, when labor was cheap. More recently, large road tunnels have been constructed in Alaska, Colorado, Kentucky, Hawaii, Maryland and Massachusetts.

California has 25 highway tunnels, most built at least half a century ago, all a mile or shorter. Of the three projects proposed in Los Angeles and Orange counties, the most promising would not cross an inconvenient mountain or bay. Rather, it would bore through a political impasse.

Constructing a double-decker roadway 100 to 200 feet beneath South Pasadena and Pasadena would end a 50-year feud over completion of the Long Beach Freeway.

South Pasadena residents have blocked freeway construction to save hundreds of homes, while Alhambra residents have fought for it so 100,000 cars a day would not be dumped onto their streets. But both sides now guardedly support the five-mile tunnel, along with a one-mile surface road, to link the Foothill and Long Beach freeways.

It finally makes financial sense. Soaring real estate prices and cheaper construction methods have made the cost of putting the road below ground not much more than building it above, Caltrans officials say.

"The demand there is beyond question, and the only way to finish that project is a tunnel," Pisano said.

Tunneling through urban politics is one thing. Boring through the rugged hillsides of esteemed national forests is quite another.

Bill Vardoulis thinks it's the only option. For close to five years, Vardoulis, a 66-year-old mechanical engineer and former Irvine mayor, has championed the idea of a subterranean roadway through the Cleveland National Forest.

Traffic on the Riverside Freeway, that oft-cursed bottleneck funneling Riverside County commuters to their jobs in Orange County, is expected to nearly double to 400,000 trips a day by 2030. Even now, trips can take 90 minutes one way.

Widening the freeway won't be enough, Vardoulis said. And the only alternative route, Ortega Highway in south Orange County, is a dangerous two-lane road too constrained by narrow canyons to expand.

"Everything is developed in the flatlands," Vardoulis said. "It makes no sense to start tearing out homes to make way for [new] freeways."

The 12-mile tunnel, which would start at Interstate 15 and Cajalco Road in Riverside County and emerge east of Irvine, is one of four congestion-easing proposals under study by elected officials. They hope to select one or more by December.

But environmentalists are determined to block any project, above ground or below, that they believe would degrade the forest, home to mountain lions and threatened species such as the arroyo toad and the steelhead trout.

The Sierra Club wants to see other options tried first: creating more public transit, locating job centers closer to housing and improving existing roads. It fears that groundwater concerns would force at least part of the road above the surface.

Others also say a tunnel could threaten the forest's watersheds, centuries-old stands of oak and pine, and more than 20 threatened or endangered plants and animals.

Engineers say the tunnel would need elaborate filtering systems and ducts to keep exhaust fumes out of the forest — and the project's length makes that much harder.

In addition, the politically influential Irvine Co., the largest land developer in Orange County, has been skeptical of proposed routes through the forest, especially a tunnel, in part because company officials fear they would have to pay for road improvements.

Some public officials are equally wary.

"It's a simplistic answer," Riverside County Supervisor Bob Buster said. "The more I see of it — beware."

If the Cleveland National Forest is risky tunnel territory, the formidable San Gabriel range is much more so. Indeed, the tunnel and highway link through the mountains between the Los Angeles Basin and the Antelope Valley, the fastest-growing part of Los Angeles County, is the most ambitious — some would say farfetched — of the Southland projects.

Stretching for 23 miles through the San Gabriels, it would take at least six years to build. Its two tunnel segments — one of 4.5 miles, the other five — would be the longest and widest in the U.S. for automobiles.

"The [earthquake] faulting can be pretty daunting," said Roth, "but it's not insurmountable."

At the foothill level, the rock is likely to be crumbly and unstable — a possible risk in a serious earthquake, according to a 2003 Greek study. Indeed, parts of a tunnel on Turkey's Istanbul-Ankara highway collapsed after two 7.2-magnitude quakes in 1999.

Even if the project can be done, critics say, that doesn't mean it should be. Geologist Silver, who has studied the San Gabriels for 50 years, said it could be "prohibitively expensive and prohibitively dangerous."

Overall, the project would cost $3.1 billion, including $1.9 billion, or about $200 million a mile, for the tunnels alone, according to a preliminary study by URS Corp. Other experts said that figure could be low.

Whatever the cost, the project would not end traffic worries: The Antelope Valley corridor could handle just 60,500 trips a day — less than half of the Antelope Valley Freeway's expected volume in 2030, the study said. And tunnel use would drop nearly in half with high tolls.

Still, the relentless growth in the Antelope Valley might one day force the issue, several public officials said.

"This corridor," said Palmdale Public Works Director Leon Swain, "is an expensive proposition. But there will come a time when it will have to be seriously considered."

Vidiot
September 19th, 2005, 10:30 PM
some of these projected numbers of cars on LA freeways in the near future is quite frightening..

PotatoGuy
September 20th, 2005, 12:37 AM
sounds like a good idea, and it's not like we have a choice because sumtin definetly has to be done, especially on the 91, the 91 is horrible everyday at jst about any hour

CarsonCaliBrotha
September 20th, 2005, 06:14 AM
Thank God for the Metro. F*ck that, I'm saving up for yearly bus passes when I get older!

Vidiot
September 20th, 2005, 10:21 AM
sounds like a good idea, and it's not like we have a choice because sumtin definetly has to be done, especially on the 91, the 91 is horrible everyday at jst about any hour

i agree.. the 91 seems incurable without adding a double deck or tunneling underneath the Cleveland National Forest.

saiholmes
September 21st, 2005, 04:40 AM
The subway?

CarsonCaliBrotha
September 21st, 2005, 07:14 AM
The subway?
Yes, the Metro.

spicytimothy
September 21st, 2005, 08:02 AM
More subways and more skyscrapers! duh!

squeemu
September 23rd, 2005, 11:35 PM
Tunneled freeways sound like a bad idea to me. Too many problems might occur, and I wouldn't feel safe driving in an underground freeway for so many miles.

VansTripp
September 29th, 2005, 06:49 AM
No way... I hate toll roads/freeways. :sleepy:

LosAngelesBeauty
September 30th, 2005, 09:42 PM
Tunneling may be the only option in the future, but I would be severely disappointed if rail was not included in the tunneling project. I think a three lane highway going each way (a total of 6 lanes) should be built as well as two tunnels built for heavy rail.

It sounds totally incredible in America, but in other countries, they do it "all the time."

PotatoGuy
October 1st, 2005, 12:41 AM
^^ haha i know! other countries have new buildings and transportation options all the time, for us an announcement of something new is something like austading

Wilko
October 4th, 2005, 05:19 AM
The only option for LA is mass public transport.

polako
October 4th, 2005, 05:31 AM
Just keep on expanding the mass transit. Which was the most congested metro before LA?

rj2uman
October 4th, 2005, 08:05 AM
I would be terrified of taking any super long tunnels in California. I was there for Northrigde quake scary stuff.

LosAngelesSportsFan
October 4th, 2005, 09:44 AM
well, the subway tunnels did fine in the earthquake and anything built in LA has to be up to code so dont worry. I personally dont like the idea of spending all this money on freeway tunnels (except to close the gap between the 710 and the 210, because they shouldnt ruin all those communities and cities between in the gap) when it should be spent on expanding the rail system even further. First priority in LA should be the Red line extension to UCLA and then a line parallel the 405 from LAX, connecting to the green line at the south, Santa Monica and the future Expo line, the red line in westwood and then off to the valley.

lammius
October 4th, 2005, 09:58 AM
I agree that transit must be a component of any project like this. Tunnels for passenger cars only would be a horrible and VERY expensive folly! I grew up in a metro area in Virginia with only 1.6 million people and 6 major underwater tunnels. As the area grew the tunnels became huge bottlenecks (unexpandable as they are). Once you build tunnels you're stuck with them. You cannot easily add lane capacity onto them. And with the lesson Americans have learned during the 20th century (the more lanes you build the more cars will come), making such a huge investment in roads that will be clogged in 5 years seems foolish. Go transit!

squeemu
October 4th, 2005, 07:59 PM
Yeah, I thought that the freeway system will be completed once the 210 makes it out to the 215. There are only a few freeway projects that I think should take place after that (such as widening the 5 where it is only 3 lanes), but from now on we should be focusing on other forms of transportation. The freeway system is done, now let's look to rail.

CarsonCaliBrotha
October 4th, 2005, 08:22 PM
But no matter what, rich people will NOT ride rail lines. Hell, even on Mind of Mencia, he did a test and went to Beverly Hills and asked people that since now the gas costs so much would they think of taking public transportation. One lady was like "Oh, wait you mean like a taxi?". And another guy was like "The gas prices would have to be VERY high for me to take the bus."

lochinvar
October 4th, 2005, 09:17 PM
"But no matter what, rich people will NOT ride rail lines. Hell, even on Mind of Mencia, he did a test and went to Beverly Hills and asked people that since now the gas costs so much would they think of taking public transportation. One lady was like "Oh, wait you mean like a taxi?". And another guy was like "The gas prices would have to be VERY high for me to take the bus.""

Percentagewise, the rich aren't that many. The bulk of the population consists of the poor and the middle class. New York's subway proved that the middle class will ride the subway instead of using their cars to go to work. It's also equally true in Chicago's case.

PotatoGuy
October 5th, 2005, 12:45 AM
^^ true, but the difference here is that the middle class is used to using cars, its hard to let go

lochinvar
October 5th, 2005, 01:01 AM
A $5.00 or $6.00 a gallon gasoline will leverage their attitude. They will then use the car when it is only necessary. Europeans pay about this much anyway.

PotatoGuy
October 5th, 2005, 01:34 AM
A $5.00 or $6.00 a gallon gasoline will leverage their attitude. They will then use the car when it is only necessary. Europeans pay about this much anyway.

true, but it'll be a while til its that high

LosAngelesSportsFan
October 5th, 2005, 01:38 AM
as pointed our earlier, the rich are statistically very minimal, and from personal experience i know most middle class folks would use transit if it was available and it went where people wanted to go to. thats one of the reasons why i want to move DT.

PotatoGuy
October 5th, 2005, 01:51 AM
^^ i agree. like down here if you wanna go anywhere at all you need a car, the bus system is great but nobody wants to take the bus, and you have to take two busses to get almost anywhere you go. The only people that take the bus are students (me included sometimes) people who dont own cars

Wilko
October 5th, 2005, 04:29 AM
Any thought been given in Los Angeles to Light Rail (Modern Trams etc), With photos I have seen of LA, you have the wide streets for them. It is amazing how a good light rail system will work, 1 tram can take 300'000 cars off the road each year. In Melbourne we have hundred's of them. Surely LA would have the space to add them on existing roads. What you's think? It's cheaper than building more and more wast of space roads and underground freeway and they are more desirable to catch than say trains or busses.

PotatoGuy
October 5th, 2005, 05:35 AM
i know!! wat is wrong the MTA and OCTA and such, they should be focusing on rail and mass transit projects. Like, i was really dissapointed earlier this year when the OCTA decided to stall the CenterLine project, this is from octa.net:


Due in part to the absence of federal funding this year for the CenterLine light-rail project, the OCTA Board of Directors voted unanimously to pause work on CenterLine and begin exploring alternatives for other rapid-transit projects. OCTA has approximately $340 million in Measure M funds set aside for "high-technology advanced rail transit" which could be used on substitute projects. During the coming months, OCTA staff will begin studying a variety of alternatives to CenterLine, including:

Launching a new bus rapid transit (BRT) system in a dedicated lane on all or part of the existing CenterLine route starting on Bristol Street in Santa Ana, extending as far as John Wayne Airport
Accelerating planned expansion of Metrolink commuter-rail service to provide service every 30 minutes, seven days a week
Widening Bristol Street in Santa Ana between Civic Center Drive and Warner Avenue; the center median could be reserved for future transit use
Implementing a new street-running BRT system that would use existing traffic lanes with buses operating on a comprehensive network, serving key destinations in Orange and Los Angeles counties, including several Metrolink stations
Exploring other rapid-transit options, including a light-rail system on the former Pacific Electric right of way in west Orange County, a people mover in Irvine and/or a magnetic-levitation (Maglev) train between Anaheim and Las Vegas
Reallocating Measure M funds to approved freeway and/or local street projects, which would require voter approval

Skyblade
October 5th, 2005, 06:18 AM
Thank God for the Metro.
...and for Metrolink. :D Otherwise I'd be isolated in the other side of the San Gabriels and have to rely on Greyhound to get down below. :bash:

LosAngelesBeauty
October 5th, 2005, 06:46 AM
I agree with pretty much everyone who has posted in support of expanding our limited rail system. But expanding rail should be done strategically. To just spend a finite amount of money on any rail project would be foolish. For example, LRT is probably not going to be used as heavily in an area like the extension of the Gold Line to Montclair.

However, a line from LAX up the 405 connecting to the future Expo Line would bring possibly tens of thousands more. Same is said for the future Red Line extension to Westwood. That line specifically could be one of the most busy lines in America if it is built. I truly believe that even the semi-rich who live in Beverly Hills would take the Red Line since it will connect them to places they want to go to such as LACMA and the soon-to-be chic and sophisticated Downtown LA!

Anyway, my point is that LA could totally have a decent rail system if we spent the money on rail instead of freeways, and correctly expanded the right lines through the most dense and conducive areas.

PotatoGuy
October 6th, 2005, 06:00 AM
why havent they expanded the metro to reach LAX??

Skyblade
October 6th, 2005, 06:45 AM
why havent they expanded the metro to reach LAX??
Opposition by taxi cab companies and parking garage owners. The former feared that the $3 all day pass in the Metro would take a sizeable share of passengers (as compared to paying much more to get to your destination via cab...I believe this also applies to why the Las Vegas Monorail doesn't extend to McCarran) while latter was also opposed to extending the Green Line to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink station due to the fear that it may grab a share of passengers bound from Orange County and the Inland Empire instead of having them drive to LAX and have them park in their garages and pay 10+ bucks per day.

PotatoGuy
October 6th, 2005, 06:49 AM
what a stupid reason, greedy people

lochinvar
October 6th, 2005, 12:40 PM
After having existed for decades, Chicago subway system was only connected to O'Hare in the middle of 1980's. JFK was just connected this year to the subway via the AirTrain. It seems like when Transportation Authorities are planning the subways, airport connection is the last thing on their minds. Is this also true with BART? How about Dulles?

squeemu
October 6th, 2005, 08:25 PM
I, for one, don't want gas to go up to $5 a gallon, because there are still MANY places I can't go to without a car, and a car is usually twice as fast as the train anyway. I want a faster, more comprehensive train system before gas goes up that high. Whether or not that is a possibility I don't know, but I sure hope it won't get that high before the trains are much, MUCH better.

CarsonCaliBrotha
October 7th, 2005, 12:11 AM
I, for one, don't want gas to go up to $5 a gallon, because there are still MANY places I can't go to without a car, and a car is usually twice as fast as the train anyway. I want a faster, more comprehensive train system before gas goes up that high. Whether or not that is a possibility I don't know, but I sure hope it won't get that high before the trains are much, MUCH better.
What do you mean a faster train? I think the trains go as fast as they safely can right now. And besides, be happy they come every 5-10 minutes. Some bus systems(like the Carson Circuit) only come every 40 minutes! and the OCTA only comes like every hour.

PotatoGuy
October 7th, 2005, 01:03 AM
What do you mean a faster train? I think the trains go as fast as they safely can right now. And besides, be happy they come every 5-10 minutes. Some bus systems(like the Carson Circuit) only come every 40 minutes! and the OCTA only comes like every hour.

about octa:

it depends on where the station is.. if its a station in south orange county, or a residential area, then yes an hour or sometimes longer. but if the station is in like santa ana or south coast, or a busy area like that buses come around every 30 mins, or less. at the station i use to come from school the bus arrives every 50 minutes

PotatoGuy
October 7th, 2005, 01:07 AM
this one time, i was going to south coast plaza, so i had to take two busses. i took one bus running down beach blvd. and i had to take another on talbert, which was in like hungtington beach, the bus came every like hour and 15 minutes, it was hell having to wait, luckily there was a wienerschnitzel nearby :)

squeemu
October 7th, 2005, 04:18 AM
What do you mean a faster train? I think the trains go as fast as they safely can right now. And besides, be happy they come every 5-10 minutes. Some bus systems(like the Carson Circuit) only come every 40 minutes! and the OCTA only comes like every hour.

I'm talking about the Goldline specifically. Some trains most of the other trains are much faster. There are portions of the Goldline that go as slow as 20 mph. Also, there needs to be better ways of getting around, I.E. not every line should go directly to union station. There needs to be a Pasadena to the San Fernando Valley line, a Long Beach to West L.A. line, a Century city to the Valley line, etc. There is not great mobility...it shouldn't take an hour (two transfers) to go from Pasadena to Staples Center, which is only 13 miles away.

CarsonCaliBrotha
October 7th, 2005, 07:15 AM
I'm talking about the Goldline specifically. Some trains most of the other trains are much faster. There are portions of the Goldline that go as slow as 20 mph. Also, there needs to be better ways of getting around, I.E. not every line should go directly to union station. There needs to be a Pasadena to the San Fernando Valley line, a Long Beach to West L.A. line, a Century city to the Valley line, etc. There is not great mobility...it shouldn't take an hour (two transfers) to go from Pasadena to Staples Center, which is only 13 miles away.Try driving that route. You wouldn't be complaining if you did that, traffic backed up for miles and everything.

squeemu
October 7th, 2005, 07:45 AM
Surprisingly, I can get from Pasadena to Los Angeles during rush hour in about 35 minutes. I love the train, and I take it often, I just wish that there were some improvements.

CarsonCaliBrotha
October 7th, 2005, 03:34 PM
Surprisingly, I can get from Pasadena to Los Angeles during rush hour in about 35 minutes. I love the train, and I take it often, I just wish that there were some improvements.
Wow, it only takes me an hour to get to the Staples Center. Just hop on the Carson Circuit and get to the Del Amo station, then head to the Pico. AND it only costs 75 cents, because Agency to Agency transfers cost only 25 cents on top of the 50 cent fare. One day I wanna ride the Gold Line.

squeemu
October 7th, 2005, 07:19 PM
Yeah, the Goldline was great idea, poor execution. It is because of all of the NIMBYs forcing it to slow down like it does. If it wasn't for them, I would be the train could get to Los Angeles in less than 25 minutes. Then, with the downtown connector, there wouldn't be two transfers, only one. I would probably be able to get to Staples Center in about 30 to 35 minutes. That would be awesome!

CarsonCaliBrotha
October 8th, 2005, 09:23 AM
Yeah, the Goldline was great idea, poor execution. It is because of all of the NIMBYs forcing it to slow down like it does. If it wasn't for them, I would be the train could get to Los Angeles in less than 25 minutes. Then, with the downtown connector, there wouldn't be two transfers, only one. I would probably be able to get to Staples Center in about 30 to 35 minutes. That would be awesome!
Yeah but you gotta think about the people living right next to the Gold Line. All they hear as that train noise each and every day.

richardsonhomebuyers
October 15th, 2005, 05:06 AM
Maybe you guys should try giving up your cars and try something called public transportation. Seems to work well in real big cities such as New York and Chicago. To bad LA is built like one big blob of suburban spawl. It would take forever to get around even with a great subway system, which LA lacks. I just don't get how such a large city and a city people for some reason like to call a world class city can have just crappy public transportation.

CarsonCaliBrotha
October 15th, 2005, 08:00 AM
Maybe you guys should try giving up your cars and try something called public transportation. Seems to work well in real big cities such as New York and Chicago. To bad LA is built like one big blob of suburban spawl. It would take forever to get around even with a great subway system, which LA lacks. I just don't get how such a large city and a city people for some reason like to call a world class city can have just crappy public transportation.
Thats something somebody from Chicago couldn't understand. Chicago has suburbs that go on forever, but some of LA's suburbs could function perfect on their own. Theres something called taxes that should pay for it, but they stopped that years ago.

lochinvar
October 15th, 2005, 04:15 PM
Metrolink has expanded to several lines. Still they operate mostly on rush hours only and follow the flow of the people, i.e. trains get to downtown in the morning and out of downtown in the afternoon. Hence people who work on second shift like me cannot avail of the Metrolink service. I am forced to drive and I don't enjoy it. I wish there is a subway alternative that operate 24 hours.

PotatoGuy
October 15th, 2005, 06:48 PM
Thats something somebody from Chicago couldn't understand. Chicago has suburbs that go on forever, but some of LA's suburbs could function perfect on their own. Theres something called taxes that should pay for it, but they stopped that years ago.

yup yup, as ive said many times b4, i may live in an LA suburb but i never go to LA, no need to i go to school here, my parents work here in orange, everything is here no need to go to LA. Same ting w/ friends i have that live in riverside or the sfv, they stay in their area and work in their area they only go to LA when it is needed but its not normally necesary. i think that as long as the areathe around basin and connections between inland and the basin are made itll be fine

VansTripp
October 15th, 2005, 07:13 PM
Maybe you guys should try giving up your cars and try something called public transportation. Seems to work well in real big cities such as New York and Chicago. To bad LA is built like one big blob of suburban spawl. It would take forever to get around even with a great subway system, which LA lacks. I just don't get how such a large city and a city people for some reason like to call a world class city can have just crappy public transportation.

Who cares with crappy public transportation? You don't understand what culture in LA is... I have no problem with driving car in around LA but traffic is getting bad in certain time. LA have plenty to find parking easily but you have hard time to find parking in NYC and Chicago. I have said that driving car is more control and options than public transportation. We got nicer subway station and relatively new light rail since 1990 but most subway station in Chicago seems depression and old. I believe that LA will suprass Chicago for more point from GaWc (world class) soon.

Again, I don't need buy condo from you. :sleepy:

danparker276
October 15th, 2005, 07:47 PM
I agree to more subways, but they should just build double decker freeways. No need to tunnel. They already have parts of a double decker on I-5 in OC.

samsonyuen
October 15th, 2005, 09:56 PM
One tunnel I'm wholeheartedly supportive of for certain is under Wilshire Blvd. for the Red Line.

LANative
October 19th, 2005, 09:27 AM
I see people here on this site left and right from another city always judging L.A.'s transit system. Judge by what you know; not by what you see or hear. If you have been to L.A. and experienced our transit system first hand then you can judge how bad or how good it is. but until then, shut the hell up! I tired of out of state forumers talking about how bad our transit system is and they haven't never even stepped foot in L.A. Our transit system is not good as yours yet because ours is new and is not more than a century old like New York Or Chicago's. Our transit system is average. and were improving better.

squeemu
October 19th, 2005, 06:32 PM
Metrolink has expanded to several lines. Still they operate mostly on rush hours only and follow the flow of the people, i.e. trains get to downtown in the morning and out of downtown in the afternoon. Hence people who work on second shift like me cannot avail of the Metrolink service. I am forced to drive and I don't enjoy it. I wish there is a subway alternative that operate 24 hours.

I wish there was some way to have Metrolink and the regular metro system merge. Then the metrolink lines would run as often, and as late, as the regular metro system. That would be so cool.

PotatoGuy
October 20th, 2005, 12:52 AM
that would be cool, we'd have a big system and it would connect all of southern california, that would rock

Skyblade
October 20th, 2005, 07:10 PM
I wish there was some way to have Metrolink and the regular metro system merge. Then the metrolink lines would run as often, and as late, as the regular metro system. That would be so cool.
And for heaven's sakes have (even if it's limited) Sunday service! One MAJOR drawback for me on spending a weekend in LA is that I can only take Metrolink one way and take Greyhound or the Amtrak Thruway bus on my way back to Palmdale.

that would be cool, we'd have a big system and it would connect all of southern california, that would rock

I could imagine the possibilities... :D

PotatoGuy
October 21st, 2005, 01:05 AM
we need to like complain to the southen california rail authority or w/e its called, they're doing a crappy job

Danish_guy
October 30th, 2005, 12:06 PM
all this about a tunnel freeway reminds me of irobot :)