The link below also has the proposed map as well.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/14046763p-14878181c.html

Bullet train left at station in governor's strategic plan
By Jim Sanders -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PST Saturday, January 7, 2006
Story appeared on Page A3 of The Bee
Construction of a bullet train to zip commuters from Sacramento to San Diego at speeds up to 220 mph would be derailed indefinitely under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's new strategic growth plan.
The governor's plan jeopardizes a project that has consumed an estimated $30 million in public funds, but one whose soaring price tag has raised questions about its viability.

The stage is set for a fight in the Legislature over high-speed rail, which was projected to cost up to $37 billion, break ground in 2007 and begin serving passengers 10 to 12 years later.

"We're going to have to haggle it out with the governor," said Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter. "We've never given up the fight."

Schwarzenegger's $222 billion package of transportation, education, flood control, public safety and other planned improvements over the next 10 years gives no money to high-speed rail.

State Finance Director Mike Genest said construction of the 700-mile line simply does not seem practical in the near future.

Schwarzenegger also is asking the Legislature to pull from the November ballot a $10 billion bond measure to begin bullet-train construction.

"Under our calculations, we could not afford this entire package of infrastructure if we also did the $10 billion for high-speed rail - and we don't see that being affordable in this 10-year cycle," Genest said.

Schwarzenegger proposes to maintain an office, staff and governing board for high-speed rail, but not to commit construction funds.

"There is still hope for high-speed rail," Genest said. "There may be other ways to finance it. There may be other routes they can pursue. We do think it's a visionary idea, maybe kind of far in the future."

But Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the High-Speed Rail Authority, said the project will die if the state won't help pay for it.

Asked if alternative funds were available, Morshed said, "Not that I know of - even if there was federal money, it would require a state match, and there's no state match.

"There's really no good reason to keep things going if the state's not putting any money into it."

Bullet trains, which operate in Japan and Europe, were envisioned as a way to reduce traffic congestion by zooming commuters from Sacramento to San Jose in 50 minutes, for example, or from San Francisco to Los Angeles in an estimated 2 hours, 35 minutes.

Proponents said the system also would bolster the state's economy by creating hundreds of thousands of jobs - from construction work to restaurant staff and retail clerks along the 30-station route.

The system was scheduled to be built in phases, with the first stretch extending from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

Critics said the system would burden taxpayers for decades to come. Cost estimates have risen from $25 billion to about $37 billion in recent years.

"We always felt it was a boondoggle from start to finish," said Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

"If it has died, its death could not be a more blessed event, as far as we're concerned," Coupal said.

As an alternative to Schwarzenegger's growth plan, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata has proposed a smaller-scale, $10.27 billion bond proposal that would include $1 billion for high-speed rail.

"He sees (high-speed rail) as something in the state's long-term interest," said Alicia Dlugosh, Perata's spokeswoman.

Under Perata's plan, the money would be spent for right-of-way acquisition, bridges, tracks and grade separations that could be used for commuter or freight trains regardless of whether the bullet train system is built.

Perata supports taking the $10 billion bullet-train bond measure off November's ballot. He wants Schwarzenegger and lawmakers to agree instead on a compromise package of bonds that includes seed money for high-speed rail, Dlugosh said.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, like Perata, also has proposed an alternative to Schwarzenegger's $222 billion strategic growth plan that includes $68 billion of general obligation bonds.

Núñez's plan, currently skeletal in form, does not identify high-speed rail as among priority projects for funding.

"We want to see it happen sooner rather than later, but not this year," said Steve Maviglio, Núñez's spokesman.

Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, D-Newark, said delaying high-speed rail indefinitely could send costs soaring "geometrically" - to $60 billion or $100 billion.

"Then, it's probably never going to happen," he said. "And that's sad. It's just shortsighted, to be honest with you, because it's something we need."

Torrico vowed to join the fight to forge a compromise with Schwarzenegger.

But Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, said high-speed rail never should be funded through general obligation bonds, which are repaid from the state's general fund.

"It's a textbook example of how not to borrow money," he said. "High-speed rail will get you from Los Angeles to San Francisco for about the same price as an airline ticket and take you two hours longer. You tell me where the market is."


About the writer:
The Bee's Jim Sanders can be reached at (916) 326-5538 or jsanders@sacbee.com.


- Get the whole story every day -


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It's a textbook example of how not to borrow money," he said. "High-speed rail will get you from Los Angeles to San Francisco for about the same price as an airline ticket and take you two hours longer. You tell me where the market is."


If your against it because you don't like the idea of rail or something, then just say youre against it, retard. I HATE it when politicians give bullshit excuses, because now youre going to have an army of assholes echoing him.

Last time I checked, if you're taking a 45 minute flight from San Francisco to LA, and you have to arrive at least an hour before the flight, and you have to wait about 25 minutes to get your bag, and you have to take time between the airport and the city...

...wait, when Its all added up, the flight makes more sense, because a train would be two hours longer, exactly as he said. Oops, I just shit my pants.

I don't think it is as important to build a high speed train than to have cheaper more effective light rails. But ifdoes get build, at least it's something.

Damn, Arnold need to grow up... no more freeway, enough enough enough for that. I want high speed rail so badly, no more freeway, we do have enough freeway.

that is so stupid, wtf is up w/ arnold? rail would much more than more freeways, more freeways will give way to eventually more traffic

RAIL! RAIL! RAIL! RAIL! RAIL!

STOP THE STRESSFUL FREEWAYS NOW!!!!

We need protest against on freeway.

BTUs / Passenger Mile (1995 data)

Airline 4,234
Automobile 3,467
Commuter Rail 2,780
Amtrak 2,341

Source : USDOT, USDOE & NTD

Tom McClintock my ass. From the efficiency seen above, one expects the train ticket to be by far the cheapest. Why isn't this happening, and in fact the freakin' opposite!? Because the damn gov't subsidies are going to all the damn airlines and freeways (aka the WRONG places) via lobbyists in DC.

STOP THE TREE-KILLING GAS-GUZZLING NOW !!!!!!

Arnold need to fix what we have now. So I say he needs to add more carpools lanes on these frickin freeways!!!!

now that you are talking about freeways, are there any plans to fix the interchange of the 5 and 134? i want to go east then north maybe even south then west!!!!

[QUOTE=godblessbotox]now that you are talking about freeways, are there any plans to fix the interchange of the 5 and 134?

No time soon, don't hold your breath on that one.

No more expand new freeway in most part of CA execpt for expand new freeway in between San Fernando Valley and Ventura County, also in Inland Empire. Central Valley need expand new freeway to serves more 18 wheeler trucks to prevent congestion with bunch of trucks.

We need repave on old LA freeway to make smooth and nice fully black first then Arnold can pay off for new high speed rail depends on new technology but we don't want similiar technology that what liked in Japan, just more speed. We need to solve the bad traffic issue and change gasoline to make smog goes away, air will be clean again as long ago. It's very important to cut the traffic jam on LA freeway and road first before Arnold send $$$$ on new high speed rail.

Damn, will they ever stop putting freeways in L.A.? We have more than enough freeways. If anything, we need more rail.

Even if they wanted to build new freeways in LA. The question will be where? No one wants a freeway built by their home. So double decker freeways is the only logical answer I can think of.

Yeah L.A. is maxed out. Thats a good question, If L.A. actually gets a new freeeway (which I hope not) where in the hell where they put it?

Villaraigosa has come out publicly against any new freeways. Besides earthquakes and double decker freeways don't mix. Remember SF 1989. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_2491000/2491211.stm
Note: This has never happened to a subway system.

You guys are probably going to crucify me for saying this but I don't mind putting the hi-speed rail on hold. What the state needs to do is improve and expand rail within its cities especially LA.

I love the idea of a bullet train speeding up and down California but inter-city travel isn't a big problem yet. The highway areas between the major cities (particularly the 5) are actually traffic free. Has anyone who drove from LA to San Fran or LA to San Diego experienced bad traffic in the central Valley or Camp Pendleton? I don't think so.

So that being said, the state should make inner city public transport, particularly subways, their first priority. When LA's, San Diego's, and the Bay Area's public transports are expanded, then the bullet train would be a sensible investment to the state's infrastructure.

Villaraigosa has come out publicly against any new freeways. Besides earthquakes and double decker freeways don't mix. Remember SF 1989. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_2491000/2491211.stm
Note: This has never happened to a subway system.

Yeah, I'm boycotting to drive on double decker freeway for dangerous reason.

You guys are probably going to crucify me for saying this but I don't mind putting the hi-speed rail on hold. What the state needs to do is improve and expand rail within its cities especially LA.

I love the idea of a bullet train speeding up and down California but inter-city travel isn't a big problem yet. The highway areas between the major cities (particularly the 5) are actually traffic free. Has anyone who drove from LA to San Fran or LA to San Diego experienced bad traffic in the central Valley or Camp Pendleton? I don't think so.

So that being said, the state should make inner city public transport, particularly subways, their first priority. When LA's, San Diego's, and the Bay Area's public transports are expanded, then the bullet train would be a sensible investment to the state's infrastructure.

Point well taken.

I’m NEW, so don’t bash me..

Maybe I’m an idiot, but I can’t wrap my head around this whole issue. I’ve read on many sites that LA has the least freeway miles per capita of any MSA in America. Originally the plan was to have freeways 4 miles apart crisscrossing the whole city. But then NIMBY bs got in the way, and we have our unacceptable congestion as a result.

I am and always have been a big supporter of LA public transit, taking it whenever it makes any sense at all (which is all of maybe 20 times, ever) to DT, an internship in N. Hollywood, and to Pine ave. in Long Beach. But each time, I knew that if I had just taken the exactly right combo of freeways and surface streets in my car I could have shaved an hour off my commute. Light rail is fun, and allows me to do things I can’t do in my car…
Like be drunk.

But seriously, folks, it doesn’t make sense as THE solution to LA’s congestion problems. From where I live in Manhattan Beach, I can get to DT via carpool lane in less than half an hour. I can get most places, with the exceptional exception of westwood, Bh, west Hollywood, century city, all that crazy Mercedes-cluttered deadzone, and the valley, pretty much just as easily.

I love driving. I know it’s bad for the environment… shucks I can’t say anything more than that. It’s my favorite hobby, I love the freedom, I love the soundtrack, I love the interactive game quality. Driving is here to stay, just not in parts of LA. Which is awesome. I also love ditching my car quite often and riding my bike to Venice or Palos verdes, or walking around the many pseudo-burban areas of LA like the beach cities or silverlake/echo park. (not to mention the truly urban areas)

I guess all I’m saying is, another freeway or two wouldn’t hurt, or maybe just make the 405 like all carpool except one lane. They have double deckers in Tokyo, and they have earthquakes, so..

LA needs more transit options NORTH OF THE TEN and SOUTH OF THE VENTURA FWY!! IN THE CITY PARTS OF LA!!
BUT
From my analysis, everywhere else it’s still cheaper, easier, and more accurate and enjoyable to drive (unless you live far enough out that commuter rail makes sense)

Prove me wrong if you know more about this, and sorry for the long post

Has anyone who drove from LA to San Fran or LA to San Diego experienced bad traffic in the central Valley or Camp Pendleton? I don't think so.

actually, yes, i have sat in god awful traffic between LA an SD on multiple occasions. That is an awful commute on the weekends. As for the drive north to SF, its not too bad once you get past the grapevine, but then youre dealing with all the semis.

As for high speed rail though, i'd probably never take it to SD from LA, but if you read about the pricing structure to SF from LA, it beats the hell out of flying by cost and total trip time. its too bad they took out the branch to LAX from LAUS.

its too bad they took out the branch to LAX from LAUS.

:wtf: Dude, what are you talking about???

well said

I’m NEW, so don’t bash me..

Maybe I’m an idiot, but I can’t wrap my head around this whole issue. I’ve read on many sites that LA has the least freeway miles per capita of any MSA in America. Originally the plan was to have freeways 4 miles apart crisscrossing the whole city. But then NIMBY bs got in the way, and we have our unacceptable congestion as a result.

I am and always have been a big supporter of LA public transit, taking it whenever it makes any sense at all (which is all of maybe 20 times, ever) to DT, an internship in N. Hollywood, and to Pine ave. in Long Beach. But each time, I knew that if I had just taken the exactly right combo of freeways and surface streets in my car I could have shaved an hour off my commute. Light rail is fun, and allows me to do things I can’t do in my car…
Like be drunk.

But seriously, folks, it doesn’t make sense as THE solution to LA’s congestion problems. From where I live in Manhattan Beach, I can get to DT via carpool lane in less than half an hour. I can get most places, with the exceptional exception of westwood, Bh, west Hollywood, century city, all that crazy Mercedes-cluttered deadzone, and the valley, pretty much just as easily.

I love driving. I know it’s bad for the environment… shucks I can’t say anything more than that. It’s my favorite hobby, I love the freedom, I love the soundtrack, I love the interactive game quality. Driving is here to stay, just not in parts of LA. Which is awesome. I also love ditching my car quite often and riding my bike to Venice or Palos verdes, or walking around the many pseudo-burban areas of LA like the beach cities or silverlake/echo park. (not to mention the truly urban areas)

I guess all I’m saying is, another freeway or two wouldn’t hurt, or maybe just make the 405 like all carpool except one lane. They have double deckers in Tokyo, and they have earthquakes, so..

LA needs more transit options NORTH OF THE TEN and SOUTH OF THE VENTURA FWY!! IN THE CITY PARTS OF LA!!
BUT
From my analysis, everywhere else it’s still cheaper, easier, and more accurate and enjoyable to drive (unless you live far enough out that commuter rail makes sense)

Prove me wrong if you know more about this, and sorry for the long post

Tokyo may have double-decker freeways but they also have an amazing subway/rapid rail system not to mention the dynamic commuter rail system! If you want to continue to drive your car everywhere so be it. But offer me some options, like Tokyo. This kind of self-centered thinking is why LA is in the shape it is today.
Car, car, car. Me, Me, Me. Are you willing to sacrifice your house and neighborhood for yet another soon to be congested right after you build it freeway?? I got it! Everyone who wants more freeways, gets to sacrifice their home to the city's eminant domain policy. Then we'll put tolls on the "free"ways and tax your gas! Another tax for fucking up the environment. Another tax to cover the hundreds of thousands of people killed every year by automobile collisions. One more tax on space, because cars take up 7 times the space of people. Along with federal matching funds and that should be enough to get the Red Line at least to Westwood!

Let's face it. It's time for LA to grow the fuck up. We can keep our identity and perspective on life that makes LA a fun and unique place. But if you want to be a major city, you've got to get your friggin infrastructure together! It's a shame that a city this big, this important and this influential does not have a much better transit system not to mention greenspace. Drive your car half a block if you want. But you are part of the problem!
And if it took you an extra hour to get to Long Beach with the Blue Line running trains at peak hours every 5 minutes, you must've been drunk.

actually most of the problum is people not carpooling at all, take a look at the freeways next time you drive and count the number of people alone in there cars. there is not just one solution the the traffic problum here, some people like to be in control of were there going and how they get there, some people like to just relax and arrive at there location. freeways are not the scapegoat for all the problums of the modern world...

why can't we have both, Double decker for us car lovin freaks, and more transit for those who rather not drive. It's a win, win situation for all.

As far as the Hi-Speed Rail, I'm all for it. Maybe I want to go to my cousins house in SD and be back home before dinner. That would be soooooooooo cool. :eat:

ha!

oh yah and in regards to the two front war on traffic... that would cost a pritty penny and most people dont want to give up there hard earned cash for city wide improvments in all areas. from what i see here they would rather pay for there bmw's

klam point taken about Tokyo, but I think you're misinterpreting my post. I guess all I was trying to say is that our FREEWAY system is also horribly inadequate. We cannot depend on a future of freeways, obviously. We NEED good rail transit. But if I have to get to the mountains or to some of the exclusive parts of LA up in windy canyons, etc, I'm gonna need to drive, and I don't want it to take hours just to get out of the city like in Bangkok. Like I said, we especially need good transit in the already established urban westside. DRIVING THERE IS HELL!!!

In other words, I hope that the city of Los Angeles, along with all those other municipalities north of the ten and south of the ventura fwy can quickly and effectively implement rapid public transit rail lines and subways FIRST AND FOREMOST. Then make it issue number one to get affordable housing in there so that we can start having a truly transit-dependent city center.
BUT
Every other american city has way more spread out suburbs, and they have more freeways, even NY. A LOT of people drive in the New York Metro area. We cannot expect our suburbs to be completely different, especially when there are multiple economic centers. The current postfordist Southern California economy DEPENDS to a great extent on the fluid possibilities afforded by personal automobiles. I'd like to see this change with a more extensive rail network, but taxpayers, NIMBYS, won't stand for it when driving is still more time effective throughout much of the region (>NOT IN LA CITY<)

also, did you know that the Blue line is the most heavily used light rail line in THE COUNTRY!!
Public transit in LA is definitely viable. I'd like to see the old red car lines up again so I could take public transit to Santa Monica. Won't happen, though..

I think public transit is our future (I just wanted ONE more freeway...)
London and Tokyo are probably the best examples for us to look to.
I've never been to Tokyo, but spent half a year in london and it reminded me a lot of LA in a bright future (only without sun!!!)

yeah, botox is right..
I guess one more freeway is actually a lot to ask for.
Also our density in our suburbs should actually help make public transport more viable there.
It's possible that LA could become the most transit-dependent metropolis in America before many people in the rest of the country even knew we have a subway.

as for the train to San Francisco, that sucks it won't happen.
I think a train to San Diego would be easier and make more sense. I'm going down there tomorrow to film all those "new urbanist" yuppie developments downtown for a thesis project.
I am not looking forward to the three hour slug.

film. prduction or supervision?

grr... prOduction or supervision

actually just a video I'm doing that's an accompaniment to a paper I'm writing. like 45 minutes.

I've never been to Tokyo, but spent half a year in london and it reminded me a lot of LA in a bright future (only without sun!!!)

I've always thought that London would be the direction that LA would eventually have to go. London at over 600 sq miles has an extensive rail system and is much larger in pop and area than LA at 465.


I agree. A mix of autotransit and publictransit is what we are both aiming for though. But since we have I think 7 freeways crisscrossing through LA proper, it might be time to put an official moratorium on freeway building and concentrate the next few decades on subways, light rails and commuter trains. I'm with you "dweeb". LA has the potential overnight to become the second most transit dependant city in the US. It has the population and density. Once all of these first generation TOD's go up and you learn that your is living in a condo atop the Red Line station and has a swimming pool on the roof with cool parties and it takes him 15 minutes to get to work downtown.......It's going to make your little 1/2 million 900 sq ft isolated home out in Lancaster look pretty grey.

Most in this city don't realize what is really happening. As of 2005 no freeways were planned or started. In contrast their are 2 rail lines being planned and 1 worked on. Not enough, but still twice as many freeways.

My only question for additional freeway lovers. Whose neighborhood is going to be the next to be bulldozed for a new freeway?

[I]

My only question for additional freeway lovers. Whose neighborhood is going to be the next to be bulldozed for a new freeway?

Is not necessary to bulldozed anyones community. We should work with what we have, so lets widen some parts of the freeways and double deck other parts. As far as having earthquakes that's something we cannot control. For the meantime we have people and things and places to go. So we need an effective master plan for this grand city. That would benefits both car drivers as well as transit riders.

Yeah it will be better if L.A. focuses on both rather than just rail. But we should not build no more freeways, instead fix the ones we have so we can reduce traffic on freeways. But rail will be good also.

we should no longer build anymore more freeways yes.....but b4 that, we really need to extend the 710 freeway to the 210.....go over, under or through S. pasadena i dont care but its really dumb that a few NIMBYs stopped a project for the greater good of the region......i really do want to see a more transit dependent LA.....but this project shouldve been completed years ago

EDIT: oh and id rather have the money that would go towards a hispeed train, come to local projects.....ie red line extension, gold line etc

We can ignore to dumb NIMBY then they will get over it after project is done.

go over, under or through S. pasadena i dont care but its really dumb that a few NIMBYs stopped a project for the greater good of the region.....


and that's the reason why the Red Line doesn't go to Westwood or even out to Whittier as previously planned. LA county might have to break apart in the near future to actually survive. The MTA known as LACMTA or Los Angeles County MTA has to take into account of all of the county's needs, meaning Pomona, Azusa, Lancaster, Bell Gardens and beyond all in theory have an equal voice. This is too big and varied a job for one agency. Unless some serious political power re-structuring goes on, the county is never going to agree on forward thinking urbanization therefore holding LA the city captive to what all the other little civic entities have to say because it is all one unified county. I think LA the city should secede!!!!

Man, I don't even where to start. OK here goes, the word secede left a bitter taste in the mouth of all Angelinos not so long ago. If we where to bring this matter to the ballot, most people would be speechless and may i say confused. But say we would secede from Los Angeles County, how would this benefit the City of LA? Although we cut the ties to the County, we would still have incorporate cities in between the non LA County LA City. Most of LA City is connected and some are just to spread out Westchester for example. By going solo we would not get financing back up from Wash DC or Sacram. They would not take LA City serious anymore. LA County is most likely to get more funding. I'm not to experienced on transportation funding, but what I read LA City benefits because of all LA County as a whole (Population wise). On a more delightful note, we do have Tony V. and he is going to make sure we get more Light Rail in the City of LA. Remember he has 4 years to show us we he got under the hood. If he turns out to be a kick ass Mayor. We will make sure he gets re-elected for 4 more. By then Expo and Red Line would be almost complete or the tunneling has been going on for a couple of years. Who knows by then The Yellow & Silver are approved and being worked on. Then we would be waiting for the:
Aqua Line
Purple Line
Pink Line
Baige Line
White Line
Brown Line
to be proposed and approved!!!!!

Remember all those incorporated cities could bitch all they want. Deep inside they know The City of LA always gets what they want and nothing they say or do is going to stop the Big City of Los Angeles. I also thing all this smaller cities are going to be adopted by LA City in the future. Remember they only shine because of us anyway!!!!!!

OK here goes, the word secede left a bitter taste in the mouth

Ferney I'm glad the word secede left a bitter taste in your mouth, I don't particularly like the idea either but what else is their to do? Why is their an extension being planned out to Duarte for the Gold Line which should be taken care of by Metrolink. Because the SGV cities want to be connected. And do you know what their lethal weapon is?? "We pay county taxes so we should be getting something out of this too!" Then we have the "westside" who desperatley needed rapid transit 30 years ago still saying" Not In My Backyard". GRRR!!! Where is the strong arm to say "fuck all yawl! This is what the county needs and where it is needed." Just makes you want to give up on Los Angemess sometimes.......Los Angeles the city trust me will still be considered important by the feds after a secession. It has one of the busiest airports in the world, a developing nations economy, and the most important port in the country. The surrounding cities should be doing all they can do to make sure that their host city stays strong and competitive.

OK here goes, the word secede left a bitter taste in the mouth

Ferney I'm glad the word secede left a bitter taste in your mouth, I don't particularly like the idea either but what else is their to do? Why is their an extension being planned out to Duarte for the Gold Line which should be taken care of by Metrolink. Because the SGV cities want to be connected. And do you know what their lethal weapon is?? "We pay county taxes so we should be getting something out of this too!" Then we have the "westside" who desperatley needed rapid transit 30 years ago still saying" Not In My Backyard". GRRR!!! Where is the strong arm to say "fuck all yawl! This is what the county needs and where it is needed." Just makes you want to give up on Los Angemess sometimes.......Los Angeles the city trust me will still be considered important by the feds after a secession. It has one of the busiest airports in the world, a developing nations economy, and the most important port in the country. The surrounding cities should be doing all they can do to make sure that their host city stays strong and competitive.

Good point K, guess this is a good time to say. Life's a bitch, then you marry one situation..... I know we all want quick actions for MTA to built more rail in LA City. As far as The Gold Line extending to Duarte and what not, so what for the simple fact that rail is being taking serious. We just started to get the ball rolling and it's only time before we have multiple lines around LA. The Westside communities are going to give in, and the Red Line will be built. You mentioned that BH and We Ho were in favor of the Subway. So I don't see what the problem is. A hand full of WS Residence are going to bitch, but the majority are for Subway in the WS. So keep your pants on, and I cannot believe you said you are giving up on LA.

I don't secession from LA County will make much difference.

L.A. can really care less about the surrounding cities, L.A. cares about L.A.

Just a thought, wouldnt any new highway development be bankrupt after giving the people whos homes lie along the development route with the current value of homes here?

I cannot believe you said you are giving up on LA.

Of course I'm not. Just had to vent.

Just a thought, wouldnt any new highway development be bankrupt after giving the people whos homes lie along the development route with the current value of homes here?

Good point.

The west side cities of LA are full of ritch people who would never use transist, or any kind of thing built. LA needs to focus on cities that could prosper a lot from a light rail line. I mean, come on, there's cities in the west side that need it just as bad as and Santa Monica need the 10. If those cities like BH keep on saying "not on my back yard", the hell they won't get one. But there's going to be a time, when traffic is going to get so bad, that they're going to start giving a crap about a subway or light rail. And that could be the time when the city says they got more important projects on the line, and that they refused to get a light rail when they could, so now they got to suffeer the consequences. I want to rich people to pay for backing up projects that are vital to the city.

Maybe you should print that out and put it on all the mb's and bmw's parked there, perhaps then we would all move forward rather then ranting about how nothing will ever get done

If the rich people don't want subways in their communities, so be it.

The future is now. BH and others are all for the subway now. When the Red line does finally make it to the westside it will be talked about nationally and will be a thing that is in vogue. Many of the well to do will ride it. But who cares if they don't! Public transit is really for the common man and woman. Besides even in transit supportive cities like New York the very well to do take cabs or have cars to come pick them up. In all my years of watching the Apprentice, I have yet to see Donald, Carolyn or George on the subway.