Subways For Everyone Or None At All!

[klamedia]

Tunnel vision
Rosendahl's subway plan leaves most of L.A. County behind




Westside City Councilman Bill Rosendahl has a swell idea to inflict on Los Angeles County: We all pay higher sales taxes, and his district gets a new subway that its residents fought against for years.
What a deal!

So while the San Fernando Valley and other transit-starved parts of the region make do with inadequate bus lines, the tony Westside would get the Cadillac of public transportation in a Wilshire Corridor subway to the beach. A half-percent sales-tax hike throughout L.A. County - which already has the highest sales taxes in the state - would help pay for the operation.

Not that Rosendahl pushes the idea in exactly those terms. He packages the proposed tax as a way to fund all sort of projects. He just happened to call for the tax hike immediately after the council rubber-stamped a report that would permit construction of a Westside subway.

And if, like the half-percent public-safety tax hike that voters rejected in 2004, this tax would generate $560 million a year that wouldn't leave much for anything else after building the subway, at an initial estimated cost of $5 billion.

What's funny is that Westsiders could have had a subway 20 years ago, but rejected it for fear of Eastside riffraff coming into their community. Likewise, Westside NIMBYism previously blocked


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement


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



additional freeways from coming into the region. Now that the community is gridlocked, its leaders want the rest of the county to bail it out, at the highest price possible.

Without a doubt, the Westside has tremendous needs that must be addressed. So does the rest of L.A. County. Rather than going to the top of the list and getting the best kind of transit imaginable, the Westside's needs must be responsibly worked out, while balanced with those of other communities.

Before committing to any high-priced project, let alone raising taxes to pay for it, local leaders should come up with a comprehensive growth and transportation plan for all of the county - one that ensures that no communities unfairly benefit at the expense of others.

The truth of the matter is that county voters have made themselves clear by passing a law forbidding use of local tax dollars for subways. Let's talk dollars and sense when it comes to solutions to traffic congestion.

The county might just be too big to ever agree on a sensible direction. And perhaps the Valley should have seceeded.

[godblessbotox]

...

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

jesus christ, what an idiot. Ya, it really makes sense to put a subway where the bus line is, becasue you know, the great densities and demographics and transit oriented developments are right there waiting for a subway so they can be taken advantage of. I fucking hate the Daily News. what a rag. i wouldnt even wipe my ass with it. So what does that fuckhead propose? what do we do with wilshire? more than half the nimbys in this city read that retarded newspaper called the dialy news and get their Bullshit from their brilliant writers, yet this guy.....AHHHHH my head is about to explode. i hate these backwards thinking assholes. They ahve ruined the city for too long.

[LANative]

What the fuck? What really pissed me off is when they said the Westsiders said they did not a subway because Eastsiders will start "trouble" onto their community? Yeah whatever.

[Robert Stark]

What the fuck? What really pissed me off is when they said the Westsiders said they did not a subway because Eastsiders will start "trouble" onto their community? Yeah whatever.

The only concerne I have about a Subway to The sea, is that it might bring inner-city Crime to The WestSide, and Make it easier for homeless Downtown to get to SM.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

are you kidding!?! hahaha so sad. these misconceptions are why the subway never got off the ground.

[CarsonCaliBrotha]

The only concerne I have about a Subway to The sea, is that it might bring inner-city Crime to The WestSide, and Make it easier for homeless Downtown to get to SM.
How would it? Its not like people are gonna ride up there JUST to fight. Crime happens everywhere. And you guys expect us to pay a half-cent just so you can have a subway, but you really don't want us going there? Man, screw that.

[Yakumoto]

The only concerne I have about a Subway to The sea, is that it might bring inner-city Crime to The WestSide, and Make it easier for homeless Downtown to get to SM.

Couldn't they ride the bus just as easily?

[Yakumoto]

And you guys expect us to pay a half-cent just so you can have a subway, but you really don't want us going there? Man, screw that.

I hadn't heard that the subway was planned to go through Carson...

[LANative]

are you kidding!?! hahaha so sad. these misconceptions are why the subway never got off the ground.
Exactly. like everyone from the eastside are criminals.

[klamedia]

The only concerne I have about a Subway to The sea, is that it might bring inner-city Crime to The WestSide, and Make it easier for homeless Downtown to get to SM.

I think "Robert Stark" is just playing devil's advocate. Their's no way that he's serious.

[CarsonCaliBrotha]

I hadn't heard that the subway was planned to go through Carson...
Not a chance in hell that'd happen. If anything, Carson would just get a light rail line. Theres nowhere near enough density to even think about having a subway go through here. Not to mention Carson's history of Heavy Industrial buildings.

[LANative]

I think "Robert Stark" is just playing devil's advocate. Their's no way that he's serious.

Yeah because he started a thread about L.A.'s future subway system.

[FROM LOS ANGELES]

The thing is that Westsiders are people who have maids, and that pay 1800 for a 2 bedroom apartment. These people are stupid classyfing us as people who commit crime. and that are going to mess up the Westside. They're killing the city, come on, somebody brain wash them.

[LANative]

L.A. is not a united city, classism is one of the things separating our city in half and thats why theres no subway on the westside because the ignorant upper class people there assume everyone on that lives on the eastside of L.A. are just going to come to westside by subway to start trouble which is bullshit.

[klamedia]

L.A. is not a united city, classism is one of the things separating our city in half and thats why theres no subway on the westside because the ignorant upper class people there assume everyone on that lives on the eastside of L.A. are just going to come to westside by subway to start trouble which is bullshit.

It's really hard to believe that transportation and class/race are mentioned in the same sentence. Not that I don't believe that their is a strong relationship, it's just that most people outside of forums like these don't have a clue into the underworkings of just getting one fucking underground train across the city! They think their are no subways because their aren't any. But we are the future of this city and literally the present, we don't have to accept and go along with LA's "plantation mentality".

[Robert Stark]

I think "Robert Stark" is just playing devil's advocate. Their's no way that he's serious.

I Supose your right. I am interested in seeing more expansion, but I have herd a lot of those complaints.

[LANative]

I think what some people mean when they say L.A's transportation system is poor is that it doesn't come often enough which is somewhat true. Because some areas in L.A. you have to wait 30 minutes for a bus! Things like that, L.A. has to change. Im not trying to put down the city Im just listing the problems that needs to be fixed to make L.A. a better city.

[Fern~Fern*]

[QUOTE=LANative]I think what some people mean when they say L.A's transportation system is poor is that it doesn't come often enough which is somewhat true. Because some areas in L.A. you have to wait 30 minutes for a bus!

So you have to wait 30 minutes during rush hour as well?

[LANative]

I wasn't talking about driving I was talking about public transportation.

[klamedia]

I think what some people mean when they say L.A's transportation system is poor is that it doesn't come often enough which is somewhat true. Because some areas in L.A. you have to wait 30 minutes for a bus! Things like that, L.A. has to change. Im not trying to put down the city Im just listing the problems that needs to be fixed to make L.A. a better city.

Well, I've waited 30 minutes for a bus and train in the heart of NYC. And people in LA will go visit NYC and wait for a bus for 30 minutes as well, all the while marveling and infinetly repeating "what a great place NYC is". The issue of mass transit in LA is MUCH MUCH deeper than a 30 minute wait on a bus. The Blue Line comes EVERY 5 MINUTES during rush, but yet you hear the average driver still complaining about transit. The Gold has express service now, will people still find something wrong with it? You bet! The issues are deeper than frequency.

[LANative]

If look you that way youre right. I think it is much deeper than frequency.

[Fern~Fern*]

I wasn't talking about driving I was talking about public transportation.

I was talking about people catching the bus/train during morning/evening rush hour. So the question was do they also have to wait 30 minutes. I was not talking about driving!!!

[LANative]

I was talking about people catching the bus/train during morning/evening rush hour. So the question was do they also have to wait 30 minutes. I was not talking about driving!!!
And if you re-read my post I said SOME areas in L.A. you do, not all areas! And not a train im talking about bus.

[Yakumoto]

...
If it takes 30 minutes by both bus and car, most people are going to choose to take a car.

[klamedia]

yes but when it comes to trains people tend to give it a chance. I'm with them. Trains just seem to hold some kind of mystique and assumed reliability.

[Yakumoto]

yes but when it comes to trains people tend to give it a chance. I'm with them. Trains just seem to hold some kind of mystique and assumed reliability.

Well, that and the fact that they're faster in most cases, as they wouldn't get stuck in traffic like a bus.

My point though was that most places in LA people wouldn't take public transportation to because when you arrive, they aren't really designed for pedestrians.

[klamedia]

It's tough to respond to that statement because I am being convinced more and more each day that it is just a matter of perception. Do you have an example of an areas in Los Angeles that you would consider completely not pedestrian friendly? I'm not implying that they don't exist, but I think people make a bigger deal about this topic than need be. Ok, I'll start. Westchester and Playa Del Rey do not seem to be pedestrian friendly to me. Is that perception or the truth?

[Fern~Fern*]

:mad: Westchester is very pedestrian-friendly!!!!

[klamedia]

:mad: Westchester is very pedestrian-friendly!!!!

And there you have it. "Ferney" feels that Westchester IS pedestrian friendly and I'm making this assumption of only passing through the place in my car. But the area just didn't seem to encourage you to walk or take transit, or park in a structure down the street and walk like in Santa Monica.

[Yakumoto]

It's tough to respond to that statement because I am being convinced more and more each day that it is just a matter of perception. Do you have an example of an areas in Los Angeles that you would consider completely not pedestrian friendly? I'm not implying that they don't exist, but I think people make a bigger deal about this topic than need be. Ok, I'll start. Westchester and Playa Del Rey do not seem to be pedestrian friendly to me. Is that perception or the truth?

I'm making the comparison to other cities in which more people use public transportation, where the majority of the city is pedestrian friendly.

I can't give examples for all areas in the city that are or aren't pedestrian friendly, but they are mostly limited to (say the Miracle Mile area) small commercial corridors such as parts of Wilshire, part of larchmont, a portion of farfax, while major roads such as LaBrea, 3rd, Beverly, olympic, are all completely pedestrian unfriendly.

The retail along major roads is extremly spread out in comparison to most cities.

[LANative]

Santa Monica is very pedestrian-friendly. Actually, the industrial cities tend to be less pedestrian friendly; thats how I see it.

[Yakumoto]

Santa Monica is very pedestrian-friendly. Actually, the industrial cities tend to be less pedestrian friendly; thats how I see it.

To counter such an argument I would ask why, if these cities are so pedestrian friendly, do so few people walk or take transit? Why does the vast majority of the population drive?

[LANative]

To counter such an argument I would ask why, if these cities are so pedestrian friendly, do so few people walk or take transit? Why does the vast majority of the population drive?
Well the city is sprawled; thats one reason. Second reason everyone knows transit needs to improve in L.A. before more of the city starts taking transit. Third reason, they don't call L.A. "car culture" for nothing, people love to drive here whether or not transit here is good or bad.

[Yakumoto]

Third reason, they don't call L.A. "car culture" for nothing, people love to drive here whether or not transit here is good or bad.

I don't believe that. No matter where you are, people are generally going to do whatever is most convenient. I doubt people in LA love to drive so much more than people in other big cities, its just that driving is the most convenient way to get around most places in LA.

However Angelinos in places like Westlake, Koreatown, Miracle Mile, these people don’t drive cars nearly as much, even though it is still within LA’s “car culture.”

[godblessbotox]

I love my car, I love driving... but not to work. Driving to work is a shitty shitty experience that usually makes me very irritable at work. If there were options that did not take more time for me to get to work <ie bus> I would take them, and I would believe that most people like me would do the same. No one whats to be freaking out in the morning because the highway is to jammed. No mater how much they love driving.

[mad_nick]

The thing is that Westsiders are people who have maids, and that pay 1800 for a 2 bedroom apartment. These people are stupid classyfing us as people who commit crime. and that are going to mess up the Westside. They're killing the city, come on, somebody brain wash them.
People with $1800 / month apartments have maids? (btw, $1800 for a 2 bedroom is relatively cheap)
The only concerne I have about a Subway to The sea, is that it might bring inner-city Crime to The WestSide, and Make it easier for homeless Downtown to get to SM.
The Upper East Side is on the same subway line as the South Bronx, I guess it must be infested with crime.
Well, I've waited 30 minutes for a bus and train in the heart of NYC. And people in LA will go visit NYC and wait for a bus for 30 minutes as well, all the while marveling and infinetly repeating "what a great place NYC is". The issue of mass transit in LA is MUCH MUCH deeper than a 30 minute wait on a bus. The Blue Line comes EVERY 5 MINUTES during rush, but yet you hear the average driver still complaining about transit. The Gold has express service now, will people still find something wrong with it? You bet! The issues are deeper than frequency.
The bus is believable, but for you to have waited 30 minutes for a train in New York, it would have to be for one of the following reasons:
1. You were waiting for the train in the middle of the night, when frequencies are 20 minutes and construction work often cause delays.
2. There was something seriously wrong with the subway, ie. huge delays.
3. You were waiting for an off-peak commuter train, not a subway train.

In any of those cases, it's not really comparable to the Blue line rush hour frequencies.

[Fern~Fern*]

To counter such an argument I would ask why, if these cities are so pedestrian friendly, do so few people walk or take transit? Why does the vast majority of the population drive?

For the simple fact that you are what you drive in LA. Also who really wants to wait in a bus stop with strangers. I sure don't, that's why I rather drive or carpool! :tyty:

[Yakumoto]

For the simple fact that you are what you drive in LA. Also who really wants to wait in a bus stop with strangers. I sure don't, that's why I rather drive or carpool! :tyty:

That is a really poorly thought out statement.

[Fern~Fern*]

That is a really poorly thought out statement.

No, not really!!!

[klamedia]

I don't believe that. No matter where you are, people are generally going to do whatever is most convenient. I doubt people in LA love to drive so much more than people in other big cities, its just that driving is the most convenient way to get around most places in LA.

However Angelinos in places like Westlake, Koreatown, Miracle Mile, these people don’t drive cars nearly as much, even though it is still within LA’s “car culture.”

No it is not always the most convenient way of getting around town. During rush the Red Line will beat a car from Union Station to North Hollywood everytime. And the Metrolink coming from San Bernadino passes up stalled cars on the 10 every morning and evening.

I can't give examples for all areas in the city that are or aren't pedestrian friendly, but they are mostly limited to (say the Miracle Mile area) small commercial corridors such as parts of Wilshire, part of larchmont, a portion of farfax, while major roads such as LaBrea, 3rd, Beverly, olympic, are all completely pedestrian unfriendly.

Santa Monica, Venice, Hollywood, Los Feliz, Silver Lake, Echo Park, Koreatown, Mac Arthur Park area, Pico-Union, Downtown, Pasadena......These are all walkable neighborhoods and pedestrian friendly. We know this because usually their commercial district have stores that are turned to the street and can be accessed from the sidewalk with no need to cross a parking lot or wall to enter. In fact Pasadena has zoning against any drive thrus in the Old Town section, no car dealerships and no auto parts stores.

To counter such an argument I would ask why, if these cities are so pedestrian friendly, do so few people walk or take transit? Why does the vast majority of the population drive?

I'm sure you know this answer. The vast majority of people are not going to do something that's convenient if it is deemed socially unacceptable or if their is a stigma placed on it. Let's face it. People in this city feel like it's the underclass who take transit. If you are not them, or don't want to be associated with them you drive. When I tell people that I take the bus they look at me very oddly. They want to know if I'm employed. Or if my car is broke.

[klamedia]

For the simple fact that you are what you drive in LA. Also who really wants to wait in a bus stop with strangers. I sure don't, that's why I rather drive or carpool! :tyty:

What would you do as a tourist visiting another big city that was pro-transit and you would happen to have to take a bus?

[klamedia]

People with $1800 / month apartments have maids? (btw, $1800 for a 2 bedroom is relatively cheap)

The Upper East Side is on the same subway line as the South Bronx, I guess it must be infested with crime.

The bus is believable, but for you to have waited 30 minutes for a train in New York, it would have to be for one of the following reasons:
1. You were waiting for the train in the middle of the night, when frequencies are 20 minutes and construction work often cause delays.
2. There was something seriously wrong with the subway, ie. huge delays.
3. You were waiting for an off-peak commuter train, not a subway train.

In any of those cases, it's not really comparable to the Blue line rush hour frequencies.


Of course it was late at night. So what's your point?
Eventhough I thought about it, I still didn't buy a car. I started to spend my money on cabs for really late night outings. Of course LA is a different city and people are more accustomed to using the car instead of transit. I mean it's so easy to use a car in most of the city with parking all over the place. Hell, even I have a car! But,ITS THE MENTALITY!! It doesn't matter how many lines are built, if people are AFRAID to wait at a stop with strangers or think it's weird, or still hold on to the belief that they are making better time driving from Ontario to downtown AS A METROLINK TRAIN WHOOSHES PAST THEM so be it! But #'s are up. People are taking transit more and more every year, so perhaps this will all just come to pass.

If you feel comfortable walking your dog, go for a jog safely or stroll, have adequate lighting, most likely you are in a pedestrian friendly zone. There's not too many areas in the heart of this city that you can't do that.

[lochinvar]

"I fucking hate the Daily News. what a rag. i wouldnt even wipe my ass with it."

Lucky duck. Here in the Inland Empire, I would hate to use the cactus.

[klamedia]

"I fucking hate the Daily News. what a rag. i wouldnt even wipe my ass with it."

Lucky duck. Here in the Inland Empire, I would hate to use the cactus.

I created this post to discuss what everyone thought about "the valley" feeling chided by "the westside"? From what I can understand the valley doesn't want to pay for something that the westside opposed for years. But didn't they oppose the Red Line as well, and that's why they got a bus that acts like a train but is still a bus and will always be a bus until it starts to run on tracks? Is the valley going to mess it up for all of us again? First they say they are not being treated fairly because they are considered Los Angeles' "New Jersey" and then their media go and foment what really is "seperatist" talk. What gives?

[Yakumoto]

No it is not always the most convenient way of getting around town. During rush the Red Line will beat a car from Union Station to North Hollywood everytime. And the Metrolink coming from San Bernadino passes up stalled cars on the 10 every morning and evening.

Remember, there is more to "convenience" then simply the time it takes to get somewhere. And I never said driving was always the easiest everywhere, just in most places in the LA metro region.

Santa Monica, Venice, Hollywood, Los Feliz, Silver Lake, Echo Park, Koreatown, Mac Arthur Park area, Pico-Union, Downtown, Pasadena......These are all walkable neighborhoods and pedestrian friendly. We know this because usually their commercial district have stores that are turned to the street and can be accessed from the sidewalk with no need to cross a parking lot or wall to enter. In fact Pasadena has zoning against any drive thrus in the Old Town section, no car dealerships and no auto parts stores.


I don't think you understand my point. Santa Monica's downtown may be pedestrian friendly, but much of the city is not. Yes there are pedestrian friendly commercial areas, but can you argue that the majority of Pasadina is?


I'm sure you know this answer. The vast majority of people are not going to do something that's convenient if it is deemed socially unacceptable or if their is a stigma placed on it. Let's face it. People in this city feel like it's the underclass who take transit. If you are not them, or don't want to be associated with them you drive. When I tell people that I take the bus they look at me very oddly. They want to know if I'm employed. Or if my car is broke.

Missed my point again. By the way, the majority of "People in this city" ARE underclass.

What I'm saying is, the way LA is built is not meant to be pedestrian friendly. People I know in Santa Cruz would never take the bus to work, however they walk to the store. There is more than simply car vs. bus. I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that most of LA lacks neighborhood retail.

Klamedia, I think we see it as sort of "the chicken or the egg" problem, where either the mentality is leading to the design, or the design is leading to the mentality.

[solongfullerton]

whoever is denying that LA is car culture is dead wrong. of course there are a few of us out there who would chose public transit if it was more convenient, but i know way too many people who choose to drive because they like to do so, and have stated that no matter how great places like NYC and major cities in europe are to visit, they would rather drive (thus conceiding that they don't mind traffic). i also know people who still use the worn out cliche, "nobody walks in LA." isnt that an old blondie song from the 80s or something? lastly, i talk to people in my office every now and then and tell them how it takes me 45 minutes to go 10 miles to work on a bad day and i wish there was an easy bus i could take. more often times than not, i get a reaction that is hard to describe, something between "lets change the topic" and "are you kidding me?"

anyways, i live in playa del rey (which in fact is a pedestrian friendly neighborhood just no one chooses to walk) and work in century city. i worked far from here before changing jobs to century city, but if i could do it all over again, i would move somewhere on the westside or possibly even WeHo where I could take the bus to work without even thinking about it twice. for now though, i love the beach and its going to be tough to leave.

back to the subways though, i can only hope that one day the green line will be extended north to santa monica and i can hop on at the playa vista or westchester station, take it up to the red line and be in century city in probably about 25 minutes. god that would great! my future kids will probably be my age (24) before that ever happens though.

[dweebo2220]

yeah it really kinda sucks because the time frame of things like this is so long that the economy could collapse because of the sun supernova-ing and LA could revert to tribal warfare before it works (and more importantly LOOKS) like a pedestrian city.

It's hard to get excited about things that are so far in the future. I might be bound to my Rascal personal mobility machine by the time this all really makes sense.. I mean obviously London and other places of "similar" size and sprawl had so much more time to develop they're transportation systems, but they also had more time to build their populations as well..
I mean , we should still push for all of this, and start living along transit lines, and dream about the the future,
but I also know that it'll be a long time before I can easily and quickly take public transportation to all the things I love about LA (which I can actually reasonably get to now in my car, which won't last)

[klamedia]

Washington DC-169km w/ 89 stations in 25 years as of 2001.

San Francisco-152km Project started in 1964. First train running 1972. Total 34 years.

Seoul, Korea- In 1990 alone added an additional 160 km of track.

Los Angeles-As of 2003 had 117km of track w/ over 60 stations. First train 1990. total of 16 years.

These things will take as long as we sit around complaining about them and not getting involved to get these projects moving. As seen above, LA is not really doing that bad, in fact it is doing well at the rate of adding rail and by the end of the decade close to 20 more miles will be added. But all the cities above our beloved have much more significant transit riders. If you don't get out of your car at least occasionaly to patronize the system, you have no one to blame but yourself for an under-utilized but adequate system. Perhaps moving in closer to the rail system or a more efficient bus line will help you fulfill your dreams of living a less car centered existence.

http://thetransitcoalition.us/index.htm

[klamedia]

And to "Yakumoto" above, we can't discuss Santa Cruz or any other suburban area because now you are unfairly grouping that much different area with LA which commences the automatic babbling of something about how big LA is. (Is Santa Cruz even in LA county?) You would never include Yonkers with NYC and then complain about how the transit system isn't adequate because the A train doesn't go to Yonkers. Or how people don't take the bus in Yonkers and how that is somehow a reflection on NYC. We cannot discuss what isn't LA when discussing LA! If you want to talk LA, let's discuss Hollywood, Downtown, West LA.......But don't come at me with places with low density, suburban by design and nature and try to convince me that's why people don't ride the bus in LA. And if I'm missing your point again, sorry. Maybe you need to be more clear.

I've been agreeing with your posts as of late but I don't know what point you are trying to make with these previous ones.

And "underclass" is relative.

[LANative]

Honestly, 117m of track thats not bad its better than nothing. I think 5-10 years from now, it should be even better; im confident.

[Facial]

either the mentality is leading to the design, or the design is leading to the mentality.

I assure you, it is very much the latter to my regret. AV is trying to reverse this right now, and I hope he succeeds.

[lochinvar]

"Los Angeles-As of 2003 had 117km of track w/ over 60 stations. First train 1990. total of 16 years.

These things will take as long as we sit around complaining about them and not getting involved to get these projects moving. As seen above, LA is not really doing that bad, in fact it is doing well at the rate of adding rail and by the end of the decade close to 20 more miles will be added. "

I can compare this to a well furnished laboratory and a library. Unfortunately, most of the apparatus and books are locked to prevent their faster rate of depreciation.

Yeah, we have installed hundreds of miles of railways. However, these railways belong to Metrolink. As I said Metrolink's service sucks. The trains run only certain hours of the day. They don't have night service too. They stink. Wonderful. We have nicely laid rail tracks. But they are not being used to the utmost. Grrrr.

[WANCH]

I'm in favor for a subway or metro servicing the west part of LA :)

[klamedia]

"Los Angeles-As of 2003 had 117km of track w/ over 60 stations. First train 1990. total of 16 years.

These things will take as long as we sit around complaining about them and not getting involved to get these projects moving. As seen above, LA is not really doing that bad, in fact it is doing well at the rate of adding rail and by the end of the decade close to 20 more miles will be added. "

I can compare this to a well furnished laboratory and a library. Unfortunately, most of the apparatus and books are locked to prevent their faster rate of depreciation.

Yeah, we have installed hundreds of miles of railways. However, these railways belong to Metrolink. As I said Metrolink's service sucks. The trains run only certain hours of the day. They don't have night service too. They stink. Wonderful. We have nicely laid rail tracks. But they are not being used to the utmost. Grrrr.


No "lochinvar"! The 117km of track are the Blue, Red, Gold and Green combined! But after doing my own math, the system will be 134km including E. Gold as well as Expo by the end of this decade!! This is excluding Metrolink.
We are already nearing a system the size of San Fran's ballyhooed BART, with more stations. Next decade, my prediction, LA will really catch the rail bug and want to see the Red put through, Green to LAX, an east-west gold or orange extension and perhaps even a 405 line.
My sources were:

http://www.mta.net/default.asp
and
http://www.urbanrail.net/am/lsan/los-angeles.htm

[dweebo2220]

I guess I’m comparing LA to cities like London, Tokyo, and Mexico city. Big sprawling places with multiple hubs.

In these cities, the rail lines connect ALL the important places.

Here ours connects Downtown, Hollywood, North Hollywood, Koreatown, Pasadena, and Long Beach. Those are almost all of the important places, except for the one place that really defines LA for our national popular culture: The Westside.
Until we have completed the red line and extended a green line or other color line from the west end of the orange line down through San pedro to the Blue, LA won’t be “seen” as a transit place, and thus people won’t think about using it.

I am originally from Manhattan Beach, but will most likely be moving soon to Silverlake/echo park after I come back from graduating college. When I was living in Manhattan Beach, I took the metro quite a few times (compared to everyone I knew) to downtown and to Long Beach. No one, including my parents, knew this was possible. I think that once WeHo, BH, Santa Monica, etc. have trains and everyone sees them on tv, and tourists can take them to the beach and then to the airport, people will suddenly wake up to it. Then it will be like “oh, we have trains to other places also?? I never knew..”

I guess I’m also pessimistic and maybe ignorant, because it seems to me like redevelopment is happening much faster and places are changing so much quicker than transit is being built, so that instead of the trains going where people are, people will get fed up with the west side and move to where the trains are. I think this is great, because the East Side is so much more interesting in my opinion, BUT the BEACHES ARE A DEFINING FEATURE OF LA!! I almost feel like expo and the gold line extension should be put on hold while we just focus on getting that red line extended..

[godblessbotox]

of course development is happening faster then the transit is being built, all the development is by privet companies that need to get the job done as soon as they can. transit is a government system and therefor, in or democratic world, has to be passed and then budgeted and then voted it just take alot more time. i dont understand how you could compare local development to transit development...

[klamedia]

I guess I’m comparing LA to cities like London, Tokyo, and Mexico city. Big sprawling places with multiple hubs.

THANK YOU for speaking the truth! The idea of sprawl does not mean you can't have adequate transit. Oh, LA is too big and spread out. Liars!! London and Mexico City(don't know much about Tokyo) ARE sprawling cities just the same with an extensive subway and rail system. LA just doesn't have its shit together.

[godblessbotox]

this is stupid... all most of you people do is bitch and moan about subways in LA. why dont you all get together and go downtown and have a sit in...

[Yakumoto]

I guess I’m comparing LA to cities like London, Tokyo, and Mexico city. Big sprawling places with multiple hubs.

THANK YOU for speaking the truth! The idea of sprawl does not mean you can't have adequate transit. Oh, LA is too big and spread out. Liars!! London and Mexico City(don't know much about Tokyo) ARE sprawling cities just the same with an extensive subway and rail system. LA just doesn't have its shit together.

London and Mexico cities aren't the same type of sprawl as LA. They have pedestrian oriented sprawl as opposed to auto oriented sprawl.

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=34.06204~-118.323357&style=o&lvl=1&scene=3604302

This sort of scene is common in LA, you have density, but where are you going to walk to? There's absolutely no retail.

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=40.684844~-73.868679&style=o&lvl=1&scene=2000699

Here's a scene that is nowhere near central New York (an extrememly sprawling city), yet there is little need for to use a car for retail shopping (what the majority of trips are).

[LANative]

I guess I’m comparing LA to cities like London, Tokyo, and Mexico city. Big sprawling places with multiple hubs.
And those cities are twice the size of L.A.

[dweebo2220]

about the whole auto-dependent density issue..

Do you think we can revamp our neighborhoods to accept local retail??
I think that would be great.

[dweebo2220]

1 Tokyo-Yokohama Japan 33,190,000
2 New York United States 21,362,000
3 Seoul-Inchon South Korea 19,920,000
4 Mexico City Mexico 19,620,000
5 Sao Paulo Brazil 17,720,000
6 Mumbai (Bombay) India 17,580,000
7 Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto Japan 16,930,000
8 Los Angeles United States 16,374,000
9 Manila Phillipines 14,140,000
10 Cairo Egypt 14,000,000

we're not that far off... still top ten and all.

[dweebo2220]

also Godbless botox, I wasn't "comparing" private redevelopment and public transportation development, I was simply saying that private redevelopment is so much stronger that, rather than our transit lines going where the city is, the city will go where the transit lines are..
In other words, our city is going to be completely different in a few decades, I think, with the cultural centers in places they aren't right now.

I guess that's normal for cities.. but I'm gonna miss the LA of now..

[LANative]

1 Tokyo-Yokohama Japan 33,190,000
2 New York United States 21,362,000
3 Seoul-Inchon South Korea 19,920,000
4 Mexico City Mexico 19,620,000
5 Sao Paulo Brazil 17,720,000
6 Mumbai (Bombay) India 17,580,000
7 Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto Japan 16,930,000
8 Los Angeles United States 16,374,000
9 Manila Phillipines 14,140,000
10 Cairo Egypt 14,000,000

we're not that far off... still top ten and all.

Thats cool. L.A. is still up there I see. L.A. has the 8th largest metro in the world.

[klamedia]

London and Mexico cities aren't the same type of sprawl as LA. They have pedestrian oriented sprawl as opposed to auto oriented sprawl.

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=34.06204~-118.323357&style=o&lvl=1&scene=3604302

This sort of scene is common in LA, you have density, but where are you going to walk to? There's absolutely no retail.

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=40.684844~-73.868679&style=o&lvl=1&scene=2000699

Here's a scene that is nowhere near central New York (an extrememly sprawling city), yet there is little need for to use a car for retail shopping (what the majority of trips are).



So it's hard for me to understand why people who love the pedestrian lifestyle would move to places that looked like the ones in your link. Believe me, parts of Queens look like that as well, but I wouldn't have ever moved there because it doesn't promote pedestrianism. And Mexico City has the same ugly sprawl.