IF WE HAD TRAINS...
Thread started by
Roadblock at 03.18.09 - 12:56 pm
we'd be home by now!
Thought I would post up
this link to a story about my friend who just started a rail activist web site. We've gone on Freeway blogging missions together against the war and now he is freeblogging at the poor souls on the freeway about trains and bikes check out the back of their sign...
by the way some of you might know the man as the lead guitar player (Angus) from JC/DC who performed at the Heavy Metal Ride I and II...
http://www.gottrain.org/
reply
LOL only if they are on schedule....
Roadblock03.18.09 - 1:42 pm
reply
i am visiting San Francisco right now and i have to say the train and trolly and bus system with the electric is amazing - will be very envious when i roll back to LA - would be so nice if they would realize the positives and help the city evolve. ahhh.. would be nice.
bondink03.18.09 - 1:47 pm
reply
Is that Robert Corsini? That looks like his work.
sexy03.18.09 - 1:55 pm
reply
a rail along the 405 would be nice :)
66603.18.09 - 2:37 pm
reply
A train from North Hollywood to Crankmob park
rayrayray03.18.09 - 2:50 pm
reply
that's what I'm saying.... why the EFF cant we just plop trains down in the middle of the freeways or underneath them?
Roadblock03.18.09 - 3:03 pm
reply
Becuase they won't make as much money as gas does?
I don't know.
rayrayray03.18.09 - 3:05 pm
reply
A simple Metrolink going from Victorville down to Union Station would be an uplift to this area.
As it sits, we've literally turned from small, 30,000 person town, to a 150,000 person bedroom community due to cheap houses and shit jobs making almost everyone drive "down the hill".
I heard from some sources that LACMTA wanted to put one on the existing BNSF/UPRR lines, but those guys decided to be jackasses and said, "third line or no roll".
Apparently, as opposed they are to this "holding up" their freight trains, the Sunset Limited doesn't seem to draw as much static from them.
Oh yeah, it only runs once a fuckin' day!!!!
bentstrider03.18.09 - 4:36 pm
reply
@ roadblock. So agreed!
I've always thought monorails built alongside or on top of the existing freeways would be so much better than subways. The right of way is already established, the freeways already give a pretty good guide of where transportation is needed and currently used. Plus, there's the whole psychological aspect of drivers seeing trains whizz by while they sit in bumper to bumper in their cars. Good reinforcement to get peeps out of their cars and into the trains.
0gravity03.18.09 - 4:41 pm
reply
totally. I'm for either above ground or underground rails on freeways... not really caring about which to choose.... the 105 fwy greenline is an excellent working model....
Roadblock03.18.09 - 4:45 pm
reply
Yeah, there doesn't need to be expensive lines built and right of ways negotiated. The line can be built on the freeways that already have right of ways. Take the lane furthest to the left and use that lane for the trains. But this will never happen with gas prices below $2 a gallon. Once gas gets up to $10 a gallon, then you'll see alot of people getting on board this public train idea.
User103.18.09 - 4:47 pm
reply
there is just SO MUCH that would need to happen to get a proper gas tax and funding for ttransit.... any tiny peep out of any politician for such a thing and the corp backed media will fry the motherfucker. fuuuuuck this country is trash.
Roadblock03.18.09 - 4:56 pm
reply
I have sat for hours wondering why no legitimate attempt at building a train/railway/subway system out to the west side has ever been planned and carried out.
It's ridiculous. Especially, considering how congested the 405 is.
These are the people we vote into office... maybe we have to let them know we're not too happy with current conditions and construction propositions.
GodLovesUgly03.18.09 - 5:33 pm
reply
there was a train planned to go to the west side in the 80's. the purpleline... that line that goes 2 stops to western from vermont - should have gone all the way down wilshire save for a certain MORON named HENRY WAXMAN who actually had the gall to push through a federal law prohibiting the subway from being built!!! if you want to speak to this complete dumbfuck I would urge you to email the man himself about it and remind him how much of an idiot he is.
http://www.house.gov/waxman/
In Washington, D.C.
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-3976 (phone)
(202) 225-4099 (fax)
In Los Angeles
8436 West Third Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90048
(323) 651-1040 (phone)
(818) 878-7400 (phone)
(310) 652-3095 (phone)
(323) 655-0502 (fax)
Roadblock03.18.09 - 5:39 pm
reply
I never approved of Waxman holding up federal funds for the red line down Wilshire.
Waxman did what his constituents wanted at the time.
sexy03.18.09 - 7:44 pm
reply
you mean the NIMBY (although being a subway it should be NUMBY) rich fucks in Beverly hills who were worried "those people" might be able to move around the city?
FUCK RACIST POLICY MAKERS
FUCK RICH PEOPLE WHO ONLY THINK FOR THEMSELVES -actually FUCK PEOPLE WHO ONLY THINK FOR THEMSELVES
FUCK CARS AND THE CULTURE THEY RODE IN ON
BUILD SOME FUCKING TRAINS ALREADY!
oh, and p.s.
That photo of waxman needs captioning
FuzzBeast03.18.09 - 7:50 pm
reply
with all the california debt and failing schools and what not, i'd imagine that this isn't a priority, and for good reason.
also, i find it weird that people go on celebrating LA for how expansive it is and then complain about how the cross town public transportation isn't all that. take LA for what it is. or pay more taxes and help kids in school or something.
and another thing, public transportation really isn't as speedy as you might think. in boston where public transportation is the norm, door to door, it takes me between 30 and 45 minutes to travel 4.5-5 miles on the subway in the morning and after work, which translates into about the time it takes to get from LA to the valley on the freeway in really really shitty rush hour traffic. consider the number of stops a train would need to make in order for it to be effective. yeah, youre not getting anywhere fast.
azn invazn03.18.09 - 8:25 pm
reply
I don't know about that one.
Factor in the amount of insurance, registration, repair, and overall money that goes into a car during the year, and bicycle+public trans is the best bet.
I'm still angry whenever people, what little friends and family I have up here, consistently hound me into getting a car.
Apparently, they're forgetting the little incident where the sheriff's department was called after the last car I owned had a transmission malfunction.
To me, car-ownership equals a higher chance of getting thrown in jail/having a heart-attack.
That's why I rent.
bentstrider03.18.09 - 8:37 pm
reply
Panhandledan here, the guy who organized this thing.
I agree, the Green Line on the 105 is a good model. Despite not connecting to LAX and Metrolink (it's known as the "rail from nowhere to nowhere"), it is *still* popular. One line of light rail like this can carry EIGHT fwy lanes worth of traffic - or more. The one in Manila carries 20 lanes worth. Cost for 17 miles of Green Line: $950 Million.
On the other hand, expanding freeway lanes does nothing except increase congestion, trash the environment, and burn money. Cost for 10 miles of HOV lane expansion one-way 405 North:
$950 Million.
Which is the better deal?
A 405 line could run from LAX to Van Nuys, connecting the Green Line to the Orange Line. It would hit major business and residential districts, with stations every 1.5 - 2 miles or so. From Sunset to the 101 would be a straight shot. Stations could be offset from the freeway if possible, to make them more desirable.
I agree with 0grav and roadblock: the right of way is already there, and that's the biggest obstacle to rail.
Regarding the cost of gas, I've seen estimates that the true cost, including oil subsidies, health, military protection, etc. is around $15 a gallon. And the cost of traffic jams alone is $80 billion a year. This is an environmental AND economic disaster, a true tragedy of the commons.
Regarding accepting L.A. for what it is, fuck that defeatism. L.A. in the 1920s thru 1940s had the most rail in the world: 1100 miles. And it was fast, not slow trolleys but fast interurban rail. You could get from Manhattan Beach downtown in 20 minutes. That was before we rolled over and let the oil companies destroy it all.
It is time to stop accepting things as they are.
Measure R was voted in - 68% - when gas was cheap. People are starting to wake up. We just need to push that awareness over the top.
Who's ready to make some noise and wake people up???
panhandledan03.19.09 - 3:51 pm
reply
I would LOVE to see PanhandleDan and his crew coordinate with CRIMANIMALZ. when is the next RIDE?
Roadblock03.19.09 - 4:01 pm
reply
that's not defeatism, it's being realistic and acknowledging the changes that mightve taken place over the...oh, last 80 years. also, i'm generally against the use of signs that say shit like "we'd be home by now" which is such a cheap populism tactic. too bad you can't use the "gas is expensive" excuse now, huh? though granted i guess it's an effective (yet really fking misleading) way of getting people's attention to your cause. so ya, i resent that but bravo.
and sure, LA had great public transit like 80 years ago. apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Car#Decline_of_the_Red_Cars) the guy was also into real estate development, handily assisting in the decline of his own red cars. according to the ever reliable wikipedia, he sold his own business to contribute to the urban sprawl that is LA. damn, bummer. some other source attributes lack of public funds to keep up the railway. sound familiar? so ya, the urban sprawl of LA makes a railway cost prohibitive. it's like people are gonna have to walk or take a bus for 3 miles to get to their actual destination. that may be a problem.
i'm all for railways and legit tactics to raise awareness. i haven't relied on a car in 5 years and i think something along the 405 would be fkin awesome. my main point is that people can't go around bitching about the urgency of building railways and subways (
especially by saying shit like "oh, sf has it, why can't la" and "we'd be home by now") when, in my opinion, there are lots of other priorities and when THERE'S NO MONEY TO SPEND. so railway advocacy all the way, i'm all for it, but i think it should be on the back burner for now unless people want pay lots more taxes (not happening) to support a profit-losing enterprise and volunteer to help expedite the resolution of other more immediate and important issues.
azn invazn03.19.09 - 5:17 pm
reply
azn this is an urgent matter.... all the way from stress levels, to smog, to the economic liability of not being able to get across town in any reason-able time.....
if not now, when? when do people start raising a stink? what do you think is more important than transpo?
also, who were you saying owned the old redline? I was of the understanding that Pacific Electric owned it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric_Railway
Roadblock03.19.09 - 5:58 pm
reply
Let's face it, a train going down the 405 would advertise itself. on a typical 1 hr. rush hour ride down the 405 from Roscoe to Pico, with trains going by every 5-10 minutes, you would be passed by 6-12 trains on an average commute. and you'd feel dumb.
since so few middle-class people take public transportation, it sucks. if more middle-class people used multi-modal (different kinds of) transportation, there would be more revenue and support for projects like trains. and then, if you could take a train or bus and expect to get somewhere within a reliable amount of time, more people would see it as a viable alternative.
but if we did have it, we'd all save money and be better able and willing to reinvest in our communities. sure, fares may go up, but you will be able to actually get where you want to go! sure, we may be subsidizing transit with our taxes, but we'll be able to put off repaving the 405 just a little bit longer, saving money in the long run.
there is a cost every time an SUV compresses a mile of asphalt while burning 1/10th of a gallon of gas, contributing that much more to a kid in Van Nuys with asthma. more than anything, it's about quality of life, and that's something that got left out of our political dialogue a long time ago.
tortuga_veloce03.19.09 - 6:49 pm
reply
yeah and a good point that dan pointed out was that the *actual* cost of fuel is more like $15 a gallon when you factor in all the unseen subsidies we pay for it through wars, health military finance etc.
Roadblock03.19.09 - 6:51 pm
reply
I say we tax the shit out of the bruh's that buy every goddamned, performance upgrade for their S-10!!!
$8,000 truck usually amounts to like, $20,000+ in shitty upgrades anyway.
And most of the time, these just add more bark to an otherwise, ordinary vehicle.
Not to mention extra-wide tires= more wear'n'tear on both the road, the engine and also added noise-pollution as well.
Then you thought the pollution was already bad, with the engine consistently straining to push those monoliths of tires, you get more fuel burned and combusted as well.
bentstrider03.19.09 - 6:58 pm
reply
azn invazn,
The rarity and adversarial nature of your opinion makes it all the more valuable to me, as a way to refine my own point of view. I would only ask that you tone down the invective, in order to increase the quality of information flowing back and forth. Here's my response.
1. "such a cheap populism tactic....[though] i'm all for railways and legit tactics to raise awareness."
In the eyes of the law, and the thousands of people honking and giving thumbs up, this was legit free speech in a public space.
2. "too bad you can't use the "gas is expensive" excuse now, huh?"
Actually I do use this argument, because gas (via automobile transport) *is* expensive. It's $10 or more a gallon in real quantifiable costs. People may not see it at the gas pump, but they see the health impacts, the tax impacts of roads, and the urban blight. People may not have all the facts, but they are starting to wake up.
We could hand out gas for free (we almost do this now), and it would still cost us dearly.
I think we *should* increase the gas tax to be closer to Europe's tax - i.e. around $6-8 a gallon. It has to be increased very slowly, over a decade or more, in order for the economy to adjust. But this would encourage a far more rational use of the stuff, in keeping with its real cost.
Yes, I agree a gas tax is an extremely difficult sell. But it's worth advocating, and someday maybe we'll become educated enough to increase it. For starters, the $35 billion we hand out to the oil companies in special subsideies should be *gone*. That would increase gas by about a buck right there.
There was a glimmer of hope in the 2008 Pres. campaign. McCain and Clinton were floating the idea of a "gas tax holiday," while Obama was not. Obama won that argument.
http://www.progress.org/gasoline.htm
3. "so ya, the urban sprawl of LA makes a railway cost prohibitive. it's like people are gonna have to walk or take a bus for 3 miles to get to their actual destination."
L.A. does have a lot of sprawl, especially in the suburbs. But we are not talking about the suburbs here, we are talking about the 405 north of LAX, specifically areas within a one mile walk (or more for cycle/transit commuters). There are large swaths right next to the 405 which have a residential density of 15K+/ square mile. There are 35,000 students at UCLA alone, plus staff and researchers. There are tons of high density apartment complexes and hotels next to the 405, and many high density business districts, including Westwood Village, Hughes Promenade, Fox Hills, etc. and of course LAX.
Moreover, building, maintaining, and expanding freeways is far more expensive than rail, transports fewer people, costs more to our health, and consumes more valuable land. Knocking out a lane and laying rail would be cheap as dirt.
Remember, ALL transportation is subsidized - roads, planes, trains. It is a rare accident for any transportation to be a profit center, roads least of all. The reason societies publicly support transportation at all is because the economic benefits are *macro* - not readily recouped by any one private entity, but still essential to the economic functioning of the whole.
http://www.livableplaces.org/news/images/clip_image002_007.jpg
4. "something along the 405 would be fkin awesome... [but] there are lots of other priorities and THERE'S NO MONEY TO SPEND"
First of all, there's a lot of transit stimulus money coming in, Prop 1A, and the wildly popular Measure R. Funding is there, the question is are we going to siphon it off to more roads, or spend in on something that will make life better?
Second, it's not a zero sum game. Better, cleaner, cheaper transportation would free up economic bottlenecks, generate more tax revenue, reduce health costs, allow people without cars to get around and contribute to the economy more. It directly affects poverty amelioration, health, and the economy as a whole.
This is part of a balanced diet to better our city.
panhandledan03.19.09 - 7:03 pm
reply
omg roadblock addressed me directly...i think i'm gonna faint
la is congested, polluted, stress-inducing, etc. does that mean that railways are going to be viable? no. i love the idea of a railway going down the 405, but how many people actually work right along the 405? you'd have to take another bus 4 or 5 miles in another direction to get where you ultimately have to go. sure, for bike riders it may not be a big deal (if the train has the capacity for that)...but for others it's an understandable pain. so railway advocacy based on the premise of "getting somewhere on time" is a crappy one, but it appears to be the primary one.
maybe if we lots of money to spend it'd be easier. so i really admire the activism, but how about instead, or at the same time, you encourage people to get jobs and pay taxes so we can pay for this whole thing without being subject to such tight budgetary constraints?
and economic liability? LA's crappy schools are the ultimate economic liability.
if you read further down the wikipedia article that you referenced, you'll see a section titled "decline of red cars" which is where i got the info about huntington contributing to the red cars decline, effectively selling the red cars business to fund his real estate development ventures. though i have heard elsewhere that ford or something bought the railways...so honestly i'm not sure what's true.
azn invazn03.19.09 - 7:04 pm
reply
Boston and New York subways are slower because the systems are older. The Red Line trains are 15 years old, newer, faster and more energy efficient.
The Red Line distance from Union Station to the North Hollywood station is 17.5 miles. The train ride is 29 minutes from Union to Noho, including stops. The travel time by car during rush hour is longer, more stressful and far more costly in fuel, pollution, wear and tear on the roadway and the vehicle.
If the Purple line ran from Union through Koreatown all the way to Santa Monica (like it was suppose to) it would take 25-30 minutes as well. The same trip by car on the 10 fwy during rush hour would take nearly double that time and cost more in fuel, pollution, etc.
This isn't just about pollution, fuel-efficiency and quality of life....it is about economics. If we could move more people quicker and efficiently through the city, it would save millions on roadway infrastructure. Businesses would not need to provide large parking lots for their employees along the subway lines. It would save them money, and they could use that money to hire more people.
Subway stations create more pedestrian traffic, this has proven to create economic opportunities since those pedestrians buy coffee, food, scarves, jewelry and other items that would not be accessible to them if they were passing by in a car.
skd03.19.09 - 7:17 pm
reply
if we had a train going down the 405, it would justify more busses linking up with the train. i used to drive 3 hrs/day to get from San Fernando to Beverly Hills. For a week, my car broke down, and I had to transfer from bus to bus to bus to get to the 761, only to crawl with everyone else down the 405.
here's my point:
if we had a train going from van nuys to westwood, there would be more people wanting to ride it. then there would be more busses going from San Fernando to link up with the train, and more busses going from the train down streets like pico and wilshire.
take the green line for example: the train from nowhere to nowhere. i used to take it all the time to visit friends in south central. like the freeway, it was the fastest way across town without a car. even if i had to take a little more time to wait for a bus to get to my destination, it was worth it every time.
oodlesofpoodles03.19.09 - 7:21 pm
reply
azn invazn:
1. "how many people actually work right along the 405 [who also live near the 405]? sure, for bike riders it may not be a big deal (if the train has the capacity for that)...but for others it's an understandable pain."
True, this is an issue at the beginning of most rail projects. At first, it will not be optimal. (However, I would wager that with the horrible jams on the 405, you *will* immediately have a lot of takers who will make do with rides to the station from friends/family, bike, whatever it takes to escape the daily carmageddon).
But over time people move, and get new jobs. Working and living within 1/2 mile of the 405 or one of the other lines is going to start looking better and better, so over time the city will organically adjust. You'll have even bigger business and residential high-rises near stations. This is how rail transportation corridors are formed - over time, not instantaneously. Sprawl will be beaten back.
The good thing about this is high-density living and working is better for the environment - and the economy - than sprawl.
And you better believe we will all be advocating forcefully for bike lockers and rail car space for bikes. Check this out:
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/02/12/transit-and-bikes-meant-for-each-other/
2. "but how about instead, or at the same time, you encourage people to get jobs and pay taxes so we can pay for this whole thing without being subject to such tight budgetary constraints"
Well, jobs are pretty scarce right now. A lot of people are trying to get them. How about this for jobs: designing, building, and operating rail lines?
3. "and economic liability? LA's crappy schools are the ultimate economic liability. "
I agree, more money for schools too.
What could we cut? Well, we could legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs, and probably cut our police force and courts and prisons system in half. Tax those drugs, and collect the windfall.
And stop expanding roads and freeways.
There are lots of ideas. But the bottom line is California is pretty much in a Depression right now, and almost all economists except for the way-out wingnuts agree we're going to have to run a deficit until we get out of it. We have to just eat it, and make a better infrastructure so when we climb out, we can pay it off and then some.
Debt is forgivable. Running deficits during good times is not, but that's another story.
panhandledan03.19.09 - 7:39 pm
reply
@everyone: what is with the severe oversimplification of railway timetables? reliability issues abound.
okay...this whole gas argument, which i something i don't oppose and it'd be great if the facts were all there...where is the data FROM A LEGIT IMPARTIAL SOURCE, IE NOT AN ACTIVIST GROUP that supports this?
@panhandledan
i did not say that your tactics were illegal. i said that they were misleading and illegitimate. i also said they were probably effective and you confirmed this.
you response about the cost of gas going beyond its immediate cost seems well-taken. see above.
instead of profit-loss enterprise, i should have said losing enterprise, i.e., not being able to gain the traction or critical mass necessary for it to actually take off based on severe budgetary constraints. a railway along the 405 would be awesome to relieve freeway congestion etc., but would its use reach that critical mass? i don't know, but i'm leaning towards no.
transit stimulus money? funding is where?
@skd
the subways are old, but i'd contend that they have stops every 1/2 - 1 mile and it takes a while for people to get on and off. additionally, there's often subway traffic, which can add about 2 or 3 minutes between each stop.
in the end, i think what youre doing is great and i appreciate the work. business do seem to build themselves along railway stops. still, i don't think it's viable for LA given how businesses and residents have established themselves. changing it? sure. and certain arguments used are misleading and unsubstantiated and are thus irritating. if there's ever a new railway i'll be sure to be a frequent patron.
azn invazn03.19.09 - 8:16 pm
reply
Independent and impartial research organization?
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Look how many times their research is quoted in wikipedia for example. This would be an excellent link in the links department of MR if I do say so myself.
User103.19.09 - 9:47 pm
reply
azn invazn:
1. ".this whole gas argument....where is the data FROM A LEGIT IMPARTIAL SOURCE, IE NOT AN ACTIVIST GROUP"
Obviously I am an activist. But I try to reference peer-reviewed scientific studies as much as possible, and even take the low estimates in some cases. Website work-in-progress:
http://gottrain.org/learn.html
$15 a gallon may be on the high side, or it may be right on. Remember, there are the costs of roads, freeways, repairs, accidents - all of which is cheaper with rail. Plus military guarding oil routes, billions in direct giveaways to oil companies, and huge quantifiable health costs due to pollution and traffic stress. Plus time lost in traffic jams - about $80 billion a year right there. Much of this is measurable, and comes from boring places like govt stats, not activist sites. It adds up.
Research it yourself if you disagree, tell us what you come up with.
One thing we know is pretty much every other developed nation besides the USA taxes their gas at several bucks a gallon. Do you think it is more likely that every other advanced culture in the world is batshit crazy and taxes gas for no reason, or that the U.S. have a cultural quirk wherein we heavily subsidize the external costs of gas and cars because of our love affair with cars and suburbs?
It seems to me most developed nations have figured out some of the macroeconomic costs of gas/driving, and tax accordingly.
2. "a railway along the 405 would be awesome to relieve freeway congestion etc., but would its use reach that critical mass?"
Well, we have the Green Line on the 105, and stimulus money hopefully to extend it 1.5 miles to LAX, and perhaps another 2.5 miles to Metrolink. The Expo Line paralleling the 10 is being built right now.
The Green Line currently doesn't even go anywhere important, and it already carries its weight, i.e. it has achieved critical mass, all on its own, even with a very poor selection of destinations. It's full during rush hour (just rode it), and carries over 40,000 a day, more than a lane of highway can realistically carry. It cost less than $1 billion, much less than the cost of creating a new freeway lane that length, and that doesn't count the cost of all the equiv automobiles.
The Green and Expo lines are unconnected. And every day 300,000+ people attempt to slog their way between them in traffic jams on the 405. So are you saying we should just leave these lines isolated because... we won't achieve critical mass?
And you are so absolutely sure you are right, that it's not even worth an experiment? Even a very cheap one of fencing off a lane and putting two pieces of metal down it?
When the Green Line has already been a success, and it doesn't go anywhere, and the 405 line would go to all those important high density destinations, hotels, etc.?
Everything in life is a gamble, but this one seems to have very high odds of success, a huge payoff, and a low buy in.
My bet is a 405 rail would carry 50,000 a day in the first month, and within a few years 200,000 a day. 20,000 an hour is the norm for rail in most cities. Expansion? Easy: just add more railcars and more frequent service. The 405 freeway would be drivable again. You could then go to most important destinations in the city on rail from LAX. Bicyclists could go *anywhere*. The economy would boom. The air would be a little bit better.
panhandledan03.19.09 - 10:23 pm
reply
"Independent and impartial research organization?
Victoria Transport Policy Institute "
linked
Roadblock03.19.09 - 11:03 pm
reply
azn your trizzippin, everyone is dieing to take a train to places. don't trizzzzzip!!
Roadblock03.19.09 - 11:07 pm
reply
Aside from all the other shit, another issue I 100% back Roadblock on!!!
That and my stepdad bombarded me with train-related topics since I was born.
bentstrider03.19.09 - 11:30 pm
reply
wow.... someone got a free ticket to Blown out T. Waters.
Roadblock03.20.09 - 12:26 am
reply
Or even to keep the hardline freeway nuts happy, it's not that difficult to place columns down the divider and elevate a train track slightly, similar to parts of the gold line, or the way parts of the two major busways (harbor transitway and el monte busway work), true, more expensive than just laying track on a freeway lane, but could keep a line below, and still use existing R.O.W.
FuzzBeast03.20.09 - 2:05 am
reply
looking at the redcar map is alway great inspiration to get sad and angry about the hijacking of our transportation system.
trickmilla03.20.09 - 8:58 am
reply
that map is insane... yet I dont really see a west side line either?
Blownout T. Waters is playing tonight at Staples...
Roadblock03.20.09 - 12:20 pm
reply
Damn, there was an end stop heading north that ended at Alpine Tavern! How cool was that?!?!?!?!?
User103.20.09 - 4:57 pm
reply
what a system it appears to have been.....
Roadblock03.20.09 - 5:03 pm
reply
my momma grew up in venice and said she used to take the street car to her granny's house in west hollywood. maybe those thiin lines are street car lines as well.
trickmilla03.20.09 - 5:26 pm
reply
yeah come to think of it, I bet a rail went right down venice blvd right?
Roadblock03.20.09 - 5:56 pm
reply
Well there's this map taken from wikipedia. I think it's a pretty good representation of what we had.
map
User103.20.09 - 6:01 pm
reply
One night I was doin some 4:20am internet surfing and I ran across that railm map and got tears in my eye. Sad and angry and nostalgic for something I never knew.
Then I had a crazy vision for an All County Ride that would converge on DTLA with Ridazz from all over the southland riding the red car routes ... sort of redrawing them with our bodies.
Some day ...
trickmilla03.20.09 - 6:17 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
