4 ms·

> Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad? You should try Los Angeles. Btw, decades ago, Los Angeles had a perfectly good commuter line system (aka

by dba7dba 12y ago

> Why is San Francisco public transportation so bad? You should try Los Angeles. Btw, decades ago, Los Angeles had a perfectly good commuter line system (aka Red Cars which was electric trolley car) that went EVERYWHERE including right on the beach. The bike lane on the famous Venice beach was actually where the rail used to be. One pic I saw showed the rail didn't run to the beach at a perpendicular angle. The rail ran parallel to the beach for some distance. Check this article: http://www.travelmatters.org/about/los-angeles http://www.travelmatters.org/about/los-angeles In 1920s, Los Angeles had the most extensive interurban railway system in the world, comprising 1,164 directional miles of track which, at its height, moved over 100 million passengers a year. In 1920s. The rails however went into decline. No, not just decline. The rails were purposefully ripped up, mostly at the behest of the tire/auto/oil lobby. And the land that could've been kept around for possible use again as public transportation was paved over and forgotten. Now it costs a billion just to build a few miles of subway that goes no where. Buying land is expensive due to real estate cost. Tunneling underground is expensive because of earthquake fears. And of course because it's so expensive, the 'rails' don't actually get to go where they need to. They are talking about building a rail extension to LAX (main airport at LA) but the rails probably will stop a few miles from airport and passengers will have to switch from rail to shuttle bus. Part of reason is building cost (not cheap real estate and soft underground soil near LAX) and another reason is taxi/shuttle lobbies. And don't forget there's not much rail in LA anyways. It's a madness. Update: I know everybody hates LA but really nobody can beat LA. Who rips up 1000+ miles of perfectly good commuter rail line for no good reason? Nobody can beat LA in the field of short-sightedness.

armandososa 12y ago
Hah! you should all come to Mexico some day.
- dba7dba 12y ago
  No. At least you guys didn't have 1000+ miles of rail 9 decades ago that got ripped up for no good reason.
- protomyth 12y ago
  Well, the Twin Cities when I lived there built a light rail that didn't really follow the commuters and killed a couple of people every year because they removed roads to build the tracks but didn't ensure that people wouldn't turn onto the tracks.
melling 12y ago
Yep, pay now or really pay later. That's why the HSR in CA is going to cost a large fortune, and be a suboptimal solution. Sure, it could have been started before man landed on the moon but Americans don't take trains.
jbermudes 12y ago
> No, not just decline. The rails were purposefully ripped up, mostly at the behest of the tire/auto/oil lobby. This is a popular explanation of the fate of the Pacific Electric system, but like anything in history, it seems there were a number of factors that led to it happening. The original system was designed as a loss-leader by Henry Huntington for his business venture of real estate sales and land development (e.g. electrification). Access to downtown LA from these new suburban developments in a pre-automobile world made them attractive to new buyers. As automobiles became common, three things happened: 1. The need for such a system began to decline as more people could afford their own personal transportation. This led to a decline in ridership, and hence revenue. 2. Because much of the system was at-grade (street-level), the increase in automobile traffic directly impacted service of the streetcars, as they had to share the road with the new influx of cars. This made the system less attractive, further decreasing revenue. 3. This declining revenue stream led to the system being sold to the local government, who inherited the problems above. At the same time, the freeway system was being planned (which at one point envisioned train tracks running down the middle of the freeways!), and this proposed system plus promises of more flexible (and cheaper) service via automobile busses made the system even less attractive to maintain. So yes, while the system was eventually sold to a group with ties to the oil/auto/tire industries, the local authorities were all too happy to get rid of the system. While today the debate continues over busses (cheaper) vs trains, the real issue IMO is control of the right of ways. IIRC, MTA held on to a few ROWs and was able to use them in the new system's Expo line, among others. EDIT: LA's MTA still faces this issue of at-grade tracks being impacted by traffic. Because it is cheaper, it is used substantially in both the Blue and Expo lines, and I've heard some arguments that the Expo line isn't much faster than driving because it has to deal with traffic+lights. From a purely financial point of view, some have argued that you get the most bang for your buck with lines like the Orange line: busses on private roadways, so you get the fleet cost of busses but the time benefits of traditional train tracks separated from traffic.
qwerta 12y ago
Same thing happened to Athens. In 1920 there was metro but it god abandoned. They finally build decent metro and trams for olympic games in 2006
fancyketchup 12y ago
Actually, as a car-free resident of LA for close to a decade (grad school then work), I'd say LA's public transit system is pretty good, and the major obstacles to making it better are rampant NIMBYism and the Bus Riders' Union (aka the Bus Drivers' Union). The bus system is a well though-out grid (though you do often need to use buses from multiple agencies for historical reasons), with both local and express service on heavily used routes. There are extensive connections between bus and rail service, and connections between rail lines are also generally well-timed, so there isn't much waiting on the platform. There's also a contactless payment system (TAP) that works on almost all transit agencies in LA County. Frankly, the at-grade Red Line system wouldn't fare any better than buses in today's LA traffic. LACMTA has been expaning rail and "bus rapid transit" (Orange and Silver lines), but is hamstrung by neighborhood groups who bring frivolous lawsuits that only make the rail service less useful and more expensive. Some recent examples: 1) Residents near Dorsey High School sued LACMTA to stop the Expo Line (some social justice nonsense about how rail transit is for the 1%), which resulted only in millions of extra taxpayer costs and Expo Line trains having to stop before crossing Farmdale Ave (adding several minutes to every trip). 2) Beverly Hills has an enormous traffic problem on Wilshire Blvd., but has tried to stop all of the following: a freeway; signal priority for buses on Wilshire; bus lanes on Wilshire; and a subway extension under Wilshire (some law-and-order nonsense about how rail transit is for the 99%). 3) South San Fernando Valley residents wanted a subway instead of surface rail on what is now the Orange Line, and they lobbied the state legislature to make it illegal to build a surface rail line on the right of way... so they got Bus Rapid Transit, which uses extra-long buses. The infrastructure cost is about half that of rail, but the operating costs are three times as high (because the line is at capacity, and each bus holds 1/3rd as many passengers as a train). Land acquisition is actually an insignificant cost in building LA rail transit lines because LACMTA already purchased the rights of way they need years ago for peanuts. The Expo Line and Orange Line rights of way were purchased directly from railroads that didn't want them anymore. The proposed Crenshaw Corridor and Gold Line Foothill Extension would mostly use old Southern Pacific rights of way (that LACMTA already owns). Tunneling is expensive in any city, but how else are you going to fix traffic? There isn't room to expand surface streets, and if you thought it was difficult and expensive to get a light rail or subway built... whoa boy, you don't want to even think about a new freeway. As for the airport connection: There's already a free shuttle from the Green Line (Aviation Station, I believe) that loops through all the terminals, just like the parking lot shuttles. LACMTA also runs "Flyaway" tour-style buses from LAX and Burbank to a bunch of places around the city, where they connect with other transit lines. The reason the train doesn't stop in the terminals is that the LA airport authority has been saying (for the last 30 years) that they're going to demolish and rebuild the terminals in a year or two.
beachstartup 12y ago
LA's public transit system (subway, light rail, express buses) has actually improved significantly in the past 10 years (since 2004 - not that long ago), and will be significantly improving in the next 10 years. for example, the exposition line is now halfway open and will fully connect downtown SM (the beach) to downtown LA in 2015. this is actually kind of a big deal. lots of people are looking forward to it, especially sports fans (all of LA's teams play downtown). and, if they manage to extend the purple line to the west (this is the 10 year horizon), the situation will be very different in LA. it will have basically 50% of a train system built. nowhere near complete, but totally useable especially with services like Uber and Lyft. http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/project_map.pdf http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/proj...

by dba7dba 12y ago

armandososa 12y ago

Hah! you should all come to Mexico some day.

dba7dba 12y ago
No. At least you guys didn't have 1000+ miles of rail 9 decades ago that got ripped up for no good reason.
protomyth 12y ago
Well, the Twin Cities when I lived there built a light rail that didn't really follow the commuters and killed a couple of people every year because they removed roads to build the tracks but didn't ensure that people wouldn't turn onto the tracks.

melling 12y ago

Yep, pay now or really pay later. That's why the HSR in CA is going to cost a large fortune, and be a suboptimal solution. Sure, it could have been started before man landed on the moon but Americans don't take trains.

jbermudes 12y ago

> No, not just decline. The rails were purposefully ripped up, mostly at the behest of the tire/auto/oil lobby. This is a popular explanation of the fate of the Pacific Electric system, but like anything in history, it seems there were a number of factors that led to it happening. The original system was designed as a loss-leader by Henry Huntington for his business venture of real estate sales and land development (e.g. electrification). Access to downtown LA from these new suburban developments in a pre-automobile world made them attractive to new buyers. As automobiles became common, three things happened: 1. The need for such a system began to decline as more people could afford their own personal transportation. This led to a decline in ridership, and hence revenue. 2. Because much of the system was at-grade (street-level), the increase in automobile traffic directly impacted service of the streetcars, as they had to share the road with the new influx of cars. This made the system less attractive, further decreasing revenue. 3. This declining revenue stream led to the system being sold to the local government, who inherited the problems above. At the same time, the freeway system was being planned (which at one point envisioned train tracks running down the middle of the freeways!), and this proposed system plus promises of more flexible (and cheaper) service via automobile busses made the system even less attractive to maintain. So yes, while the system was eventually sold to a group with ties to the oil/auto/tire industries, the local authorities were all too happy to get rid of the system. While today the debate continues over busses (cheaper) vs trains, the real issue IMO is control of the right of ways. IIRC, MTA held on to a few ROWs and was able to use them in the new system's Expo line, among others. EDIT: LA's MTA still faces this issue of at-grade tracks being impacted by traffic. Because it is cheaper, it is used substantially in both the Blue and Expo lines, and I've heard some arguments that the Expo line isn't much faster than driving because it has to deal with traffic+lights. From a purely financial point of view, some have argued that you get the most bang for your buck with lines like the Orange line: busses on private roadways, so you get the fleet cost of busses but the time benefits of traditional train tracks separated from traffic.

qwerta 12y ago

Same thing happened to Athens. In 1920 there was metro but it god abandoned. They finally build decent metro and trams for olympic games in 2006

fancyketchup 12y ago

Actually, as a car-free resident of LA for close to a decade (grad school then work), I'd say LA's public transit system is pretty good, and the major obstacles to making it better are rampant NIMBYism and the Bus Riders' Union (aka the Bus Drivers' Union). The bus system is a well though-out grid (though you do often need to use buses from multiple agencies for historical reasons), with both local and express service on heavily used routes. There are extensive connections between bus and rail service, and connections between rail lines are also generally well-timed, so there isn't much waiting on the platform. There's also a contactless payment system (TAP) that works on almost all transit agencies in LA County. Frankly, the at-grade Red Line system wouldn't fare any better than buses in today's LA traffic. LACMTA has been expaning rail and "bus rapid transit" (Orange and Silver lines), but is hamstrung by neighborhood groups who bring frivolous lawsuits that only make the rail service less useful and more expensive. Some recent examples: 1) Residents near Dorsey High School sued LACMTA to stop the Expo Line (some social justice nonsense about how rail transit is for the 1%), which resulted only in millions of extra taxpayer costs and Expo Line trains having to stop before crossing Farmdale Ave (adding several minutes to every trip). 2) Beverly Hills has an enormous traffic problem on Wilshire Blvd., but has tried to stop all of the following: a freeway; signal priority for buses on Wilshire; bus lanes on Wilshire; and a subway extension under Wilshire (some law-and-order nonsense about how rail transit is for the 99%). 3) South San Fernando Valley residents wanted a subway instead of surface rail on what is now the Orange Line, and they lobbied the state legislature to make it illegal to build a surface rail line on the right of way... so they got Bus Rapid Transit, which uses extra-long buses. The infrastructure cost is about half that of rail, but the operating costs are three times as high (because the line is at capacity, and each bus holds 1/3rd as many passengers as a train). Land acquisition is actually an insignificant cost in building LA rail transit lines because LACMTA already purchased the rights of way they need years ago for peanuts. The Expo Line and Orange Line rights of way were purchased directly from railroads that didn't want them anymore. The proposed Crenshaw Corridor and Gold Line Foothill Extension would mostly use old Southern Pacific rights of way (that LACMTA already owns). Tunneling is expensive in any city, but how else are you going to fix traffic? There isn't room to expand surface streets, and if you thought it was difficult and expensive to get a light rail or subway built... whoa boy, you don't want to even think about a new freeway. As for the airport connection: There's already a free shuttle from the Green Line (Aviation Station, I believe) that loops through all the terminals, just like the parking lot shuttles. LACMTA also runs "Flyaway" tour-style buses from LAX and Burbank to a bunch of places around the city, where they connect with other transit lines. The reason the train doesn't stop in the terminals is that the LA airport authority has been saying (for the last 30 years) that they're going to demolish and rebuild the terminals in a year or two.

beachstartup 12y ago

LA's public transit system (subway, light rail, express buses) has actually improved significantly in the past 10 years (since 2004 - not that long ago), and will be significantly improving in the next 10 years. for example, the exposition line is now halfway open and will fully connect downtown SM (the beach) to downtown LA in 2015. this is actually kind of a big deal. lots of people are looking forward to it, especially sports fans (all of LA's teams play downtown). and, if they manage to extend the purple line to the west (this is the 10 year horizon), the situation will be very different in LA. it will have basically 50% of a train system built. nowhere near complete, but totally useable especially with services like Uber and Lyft. http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/project_map.pdf http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/proj...