Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   If you didn't want a monorail in Los Angeles, then you should have written a song like that guy   (latimes.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Rail transport, San Fernando Valley, Public transport, monorail line, Metro's predecessor agency, Amtrak, Los Angeles, Airport  
•       •       •

2014 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2021 at 12:17 AM (5 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



52 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
6 days ago  
Maybe turn the road into one of those grocery store conveyer belts.
 
6 days ago  

Pinnacle Point: Maybe turn the road into one of those grocery store conveyer belts.


The Roads Must Roll
 
6 days ago  
I remain astonished that a huge place like LA has not grown a huge subway network.
 
5 days ago  

edmo: I remain astonished that a huge place like LA has not grown a huge subway network.


North Haverbrook has one.
 
5 days ago  
i.imgur.comView Full Size

Maybe it is just what they need to put LA on the map.
 
5 days ago  
Fark has taught me that there is never any economic value to any kind of monorail, in any conditions. Just like high-speed railways in America.
 
5 days ago  
Well, it is really more of a Shelbyville idea.
 
5 days ago  
Regional anthem song gets kind of psychedelic in the second half
Pico & Sepulveda
Youtube A_YPFvC-C_E
 
5 days ago  
I read in Edge City, if you can't get the population density of Hong Kong, no light rail program will pay for itself. I've watched so many empty cars blocking my way on light rail projects. Monorails are just that but in the air.

Disperse your buildings. Once you get above 5 stories, half the floor plan is engineering resources.
 
5 days ago  
This is likely to be the biggest, most impactful transit project on the horizon for Los Angeles.

Biggest? Probably. Impactful? if you mean f'ing up people's commutes for years with very little to show for it, yes.
 
5 days ago  
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine, bona fide
Electrified, six-car monorail
What'd I say?
Monorail
What's it called?
Monorail
That's right! Monorail
Monorail
Monorail
Monorail

I hear those things are awfully loud
It glides as softly as a cloud

Is there a chance the track could bend?
Not on your life, my Hindu friend

What about us brain-dead slobs?
You'll be given cushy jobs

Were you sent here by the Devil?
No, good sir, I'm on the level

The ring came off my pudding can
Take my pen knife, my good man

I swear it's LA's only choice
Throw up your hands and raise your voice
Monorail
What's it called?
Monorail
Once again
Monorail

But Main Street's still all cracked and broken
Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken
Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!
 
5 days ago  
I'll do em 1 better.......I'll just stay the FARK outta LA.......!!!!!
 
5 days ago  

0z79: Fark has taught me that there is never any economic value to any kind of monorail, in any conditions. Just like high-speed railways in America.


The Tiny Monorails That Once Carried James Bond
Youtube Irv3KJR6B80
 
5 days ago  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
5 days ago  
giantbomb1.cbsistatic.comView Full Size
"NOT IN MY TOWN, EDDIE!"
 
5 days ago  
Literally the whole country should be connected with transit, and all of our large cities (*cough*LA*cough*) should have comprehensive transit. The government and car companies decided the best way to make a big capitalist, consumer economy was if all of us had to buy cars, and damn the consequences.

They sold us a car payment and ironically decreased mobility with the theme of "freedom" and "individuality".

The article says "just build real rail". That's farking obvious.
 
5 days ago  

adamatari: Literally the whole country should be connected with transit, and all of our large cities (*cough*LA*cough*) should have comprehensive transit. The government and car companies decided the best way to make a big capitalist, consumer economy was if all of us had to buy cars, and damn the consequences.

They sold us a car payment and ironically decreased mobility with the theme of "freedom" and "individuality".

The article says "just build real rail". That's farking obvious.


People who say this shiat aren't paying attention.

LA has a massive transit system comprised of light rail, commuter rail, subway, and buses.  It's just that there's not a sane way of connecting all of the housing with all of the business that's mostly not already done or in progress.  It has the busiest light rail system in the US and second longest in miles that's backed up by one of the largest commuter rail systems, a subway in the urban core, and the combination of a ton of bus agencies that have over 1 million daily riders combined(only behind NYC in the US).  The light rail system is also undergoing major expansion with a new line entering service this year, another new line expected before the 2028 Olympics, and significant expansions of some existing lines already under construction
 
5 days ago  
They talk about ten billion dollar projects.  Melbourne AU is doing a train version of Boston's big dig and isn't likely to get out of it for less than 15 billion.  Doing anything in LA is going to cost far, far more.

Disney came up with a way to put monorail pylons in through the nature reserve part of their park without a ground crew.  That idea might have dated back to when Walt was still alive.  Many of the problems of building a Disney style monorail are easy today with CNC forms and advances in preformed structure.  What hasn't seem to gone very far is how you do emergency exits with the things but then again real world fires in trains in tunnels isn't good for the passengers either.
 
5 days ago  
sepulveda boulevard

/Tiny Toon Adventures
 
5 days ago  
Obscure?

Simpsons - Monorail Song
Youtube ZDOI0cq6GZM
 
5 days ago  
It Never Trains in Southern California.
 
5 days ago  
Los Angeles does have a subway under the mountains father east (the B line is what they're calling it now), but it's much narrower there - only 2 miles between stations on either side.

A new one underneath the Sepulveda Pass looks like it would be 6 miles of absolutely nothing. I wonder if that factors into their consideration of an above-ground option.
 
5 days ago  

0z79: Fark has taught me that there is never any economic value to any kind of monorail, in any conditions.


You mean for once Fark wasn't wrong about something?

There's a reason monorails only exist in very niche applications - and it's not because everyone is stupid.
 
5 days ago  

edmo: I remain astonished that a huge place like LA has not grown a huge subway network.


Current system (including Metro heavy rail subway, light rail, and busways, and Metrolink/Amtrak commuter rail):

media.metro.netView Full Size


There are four active projects on the above map, in very light gray.  The LAX/Crenshaw line and downtown regional connector should open very soon (both are behind schedule and should really already be open by now).  The Purple Line subway extension and the far eastern extension of what is currently the Gold Line will take several more years to open (although the Purple Line is actually ahead of schedule).

The goal is to get those projects plus hopefully a few more open by the 2028 Olympics.
 
5 days ago  
It's programed to take you pathetic bunch of work a day losers to your jobs and back, nothing more.
FFS do I have to think of everything? by the way, thanks for the billion dollars.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
5 days ago  

edmo: I remain astonished that a huge place like LA has not grown a huge subway network.


When I went to California a couple of years ago I kept looking online thinking why can't I find it. It's because it doesn't exist.
 
5 days ago  

bhcompy: adamatari: Literally the whole country should be connected with transit, and all of our large cities (*cough*LA*cough*) should have comprehensive transit. The government and car companies decided the best way to make a big capitalist, consumer economy was if all of us had to buy cars, and damn the consequences.

They sold us a car payment and ironically decreased mobility with the theme of "freedom" and "individuality".

The article says "just build real rail". That's farking obvious.

People who say this shiat aren't paying attention.

LA has a massive transit system comprised of light rail, commuter rail, subway, and buses.  It's just that there's not a sane way of connecting all of the housing with all of the business that's mostly not already done or in progress.  It has the busiest light rail system in the US and second longest in miles that's backed up by one of the largest commuter rail systems, a subway in the urban core, and the combination of a ton of bus agencies that have over 1 million daily riders combined(only behind NYC in the US).  The light rail system is also undergoing major expansion with a new line entering service this year, another new line expected before the 2028 Olympics, and significant expansions of some existing lines already under construction


We're so far from what it used to be though.  It's getting better, but so much of our other infrastructure is built around cars (grocery, pharmacy, shopping).  We just have too many service deserts right now.

cdn.vox-cdn.comView Full Size
 
5 days ago  
What makes monorail so expensive?

If think that if they could standardize the construction parts and made them like Lego to where they are made in a factory and just bolted together on site and just keep adding cars for capacity, that it would be quite affordable and easy to build.
 
5 days ago  
You're proposing the building of a second mass transit rail system that is utterly incompatible to the currently existing subway and light rail system?

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
 
5 days ago  

SirEattonHogg: You're proposing the building of a second mass transit rail system that is utterly incompatible to the currently existing subway and light rail system?

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


Welcome to Fark "Our opinions are smarter than real life".com...

Everyone forgot about the High Speed Rail Money Sewer "with turbo cash sucking option!"  Calf spent  Billion dollars at the beginning of the project thinking about how to plan a system when they got around to actually starting the project.  A billion!  And they never did figure out how to buy new land for wider right of ways... (think getting past Palo Alto or Atherton at 1 million a foot or so), nor the environmental lawsuits, nor the opposition from the airlines, etc...

But you can travel at normal speeds from Bakersfield to Fresno/Modesto if you want...  Arriving there without your car to continue your trip!

Sorry Charlie, you ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer...  Oh, let's talk Earthquakes next!
 
5 days ago  

rfenster: Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine, bona fide
Electrified, six-car monorail
What'd I say?
Monorail
What's it called?
Monorail
That's right! Monorail
Monorail
Monorail
Monorail

I hear those things are awfully loud
It glides as softly as a cloud

Is there a chance the track could bend?
Not on your life, my Hindu friend

What about us brain-dead slobs?
You'll be given cushy jobs

Were you sent here by the Devil?
No, good sir, I'm on the level

The ring came off my pudding can
Take my pen knife, my good man

I swear it's LA's only choice
Throw up your hands and raise your voice
Monorail
What's it called?
Monorail
Once again
Monorail

But Main Street's still all cracked and broken
Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken
Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!


Mono--- D'OH!
 
5 days ago  

ShavedOrangutan: bhcompy: adamatari: Literally the whole country should be connected with transit, and all of our large cities (*cough*LA*cough*) should have comprehensive transit. The government and car companies decided the best way to make a big capitalist, consumer economy was if all of us had to buy cars, and damn the consequences.

They sold us a car payment and ironically decreased mobility with the theme of "freedom" and "individuality".

The article says "just build real rail". That's farking obvious.

People who say this shiat aren't paying attention.

LA has a massive transit system comprised of light rail, commuter rail, subway, and buses.  It's just that there's not a sane way of connecting all of the housing with all of the business that's mostly not already done or in progress.  It has the busiest light rail system in the US and second longest in miles that's backed up by one of the largest commuter rail systems, a subway in the urban core, and the combination of a ton of bus agencies that have over 1 million daily riders combined(only behind NYC in the US).  The light rail system is also undergoing major expansion with a new line entering service this year, another new line expected before the 2028 Olympics, and significant expansions of some existing lines already under construction

We're so far from what it used to be though.  It's getting better, but so much of our other infrastructure is built around cars (grocery, pharmacy, shopping).  We just have too many service deserts right now.

[cdn.vox-cdn.com image 602x800]


Keep in mind that the trolley cars of yesteryear would be considered inferior to buses (slower, worse ride quality, can't be rerouted easily, high operating costs per passenger).  And obviously there are city buses throughout Southern California.  There's a reason they were replaced by city buses in the 1950's, and it wasn't some grand conspiracy-they were simply inferior and obsolete as a practical transit system (as opposed to a tourist attraction).

Obviously, a modern subway, light rail, or commuter rail is superior to both, and there was an opportunity lost to directly upgrade the old system to something modern.  But this is yet another case of the good old days not actually being all that good.
 
5 days ago  

Geotpf: ShavedOrangutan: bhcompy: adamatari: Literally the whole country should be connected with transit, and all of our large cities (*cough*LA*cough*) should have comprehensive transit. The government and car companies decided the best way to make a big capitalist, consumer economy was if all of us had to buy cars, and damn the consequences.

They sold us a car payment and ironically decreased mobility with the theme of "freedom" and "individuality".

The article says "just build real rail". That's farking obvious.

People who say this shiat aren't paying attention.

LA has a massive transit system comprised of light rail, commuter rail, subway, and buses.  It's just that there's not a sane way of connecting all of the housing with all of the business that's mostly not already done or in progress.  It has the busiest light rail system in the US and second longest in miles that's backed up by one of the largest commuter rail systems, a subway in the urban core, and the combination of a ton of bus agencies that have over 1 million daily riders combined(only behind NYC in the US).  The light rail system is also undergoing major expansion with a new line entering service this year, another new line expected before the 2028 Olympics, and significant expansions of some existing lines already under construction

We're so far from what it used to be though.  It's getting better, but so much of our other infrastructure is built around cars (grocery, pharmacy, shopping).  We just have too many service deserts right now.

[cdn.vox-cdn.com image 602x800]

Keep in mind that the trolley cars of yesteryear would be considered inferior to buses (slower, worse ride quality, can't be rerouted easily, high operating costs per passenger).  And obviously there are city buses throughout Southern California.  There's a reason they were replaced by city buses in the 1950's, and it wasn't some grand conspiracy-they were simply inferior and obsolete as a practical transit system (as opposed to a ...


Well, I mean, that's what New York, London, Chicago, Madrid, Budapest, Glasgow, Paris, Mass Bay, Berlin, Athens, SEPTA, Hamburg, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Osaka, Moscow, Stockholm, Toronto, Rome, St Petersburg, Cleveland, and all the rest did.  As soon as the cars were obsolete, they just stopped their transit systems and switched over to cars.  That's why they don't have viable mass transit either.
 
5 days ago  

SirEattonHogg: You're proposing the building of a second mass transit rail system that is utterly incompatible to the currently existing subway and light rail system?

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


The MTA has had a series of proposals for this route for awhile.  I think it makes the most sense to simply continue to the Purple Line subway northwards, but they have always had a series of choices, one of which is a monorail, possibly due to the hilly nature of the route, which would result in very high costs for a subway.  I also think the hilly nature (and potential high usage level) makes the light rail cars they currently use elsewhere impractical.

It looks like it comes down to costs, as mentioned in the farking article.  Monorail would cost $6.8 billion; heavy rail subway would cost $9.4 to $13.8 billion (the farking article states a $10.8 billion figure, but links to another article with the range).

Basically, by building it as a subway instead of a monorail, something else somewhere else doesn't get built.  At all.  So, the question is, is sacrificing a light rail line somewhere else in LA worth spending up to $7 million more for the subway versus monorail?  One could make an argument either way, but it's not as obvious a choice as it seems at first glance.

ca-times.brightspotcdn.comView Full Size
(this is from the older article linked by the actual farking article; monorail routing is on the far right)
 
5 days ago  

ShavedOrangutan: Well, I mean, that's what New York, London, Chicago, Madrid, Budapest, Glasgow, Paris, Mass Bay, Berlin, Athens, SEPTA, Hamburg, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Osaka, Moscow, Stockholm, Toronto, Rome, St Petersburg, Cleveland, and all the rest did.  As soon as the cars were obsolete, they just stopped their transit systems and switched over to cars.  That's why they don't have viable mass transit either.


Most of those cities always had heavy rail of some sort (mostly subways, some elevated), not the lighter, inferior, at grade, trolley cars that Southern California had.
 
5 days ago  
I mean, look at the thing we are talking about:

i.pinimg.comView Full Size


It's small, rough riding, in the middle of the street getting caught in traffic jams.

Now, NYC at the time had this:

s3.amazonaws.comView Full Size


See why one system was kept and the other was replaced by buses?  Buses were simply superior to the Los Angeles system.
 
5 days ago  

Geotpf: ShavedOrangutan: Well, I mean, that's what New York, London, Chicago, Madrid, Budapest, Glasgow, Paris, Mass Bay, Berlin, Athens, SEPTA, Hamburg, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Osaka, Moscow, Stockholm, Toronto, Rome, St Petersburg, Cleveland, and all the rest did.  As soon as the cars were obsolete, they just stopped their transit systems and switched over to cars.  That's why they don't have viable mass transit either.

Most of those cities always had heavy rail of some sort (mostly subways, some elevated), not the lighter, inferior, at grade, trolley cars that Southern California had.


That's just not true though.  Even if it were, there are multiple cities who have light rail at grade (Amsterdam, Boston, London, Calgary, SLC).  And even then, one of the biggest challenges LA is facing right now are the rights of way, which infrastructure investment would be able to solve: cut and cover, L's like Chicago, or NYC.
 
5 days ago  

ShavedOrangutan: Geotpf: ShavedOrangutan: Well, I mean, that's what New York, London, Chicago, Madrid, Budapest, Glasgow, Paris, Mass Bay, Berlin, Athens, SEPTA, Hamburg, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Osaka, Moscow, Stockholm, Toronto, Rome, St Petersburg, Cleveland, and all the rest did.  As soon as the cars were obsolete, they just stopped their transit systems and switched over to cars.  That's why they don't have viable mass transit either.

Most of those cities always had heavy rail of some sort (mostly subways, some elevated), not the lighter, inferior, at grade, trolley cars that Southern California had.

That's just not true though.  Even if it were, there are multiple cities who have light rail at grade (Amsterdam, Boston, London, Calgary, SLC).  And even then, one of the biggest challenges LA is facing right now are the rights of way, which infrastructure investment would be able to solve: cut and cover, L's like Chicago, or NYC.


There's still quite a difference between modern light rail and the historic trolley versions.  Pretty much the first modern light rail system was San Diego's (installed in 1984).  In some cases, old trolley systems were basically upgraded to the modern version of light rail.

In general, I don't mind at grade light rail if it's separated from car traffic.

It's worth noting that three of Los Angeles' current four light rail lines have some in street sections, getting stuck in car traffic for part of the route.  The only one that doesn't, the Green Line, currently doesn't really go anywhere significant, although it will be interlined with the upcoming LAX line (although that section has at street sections).
 
5 days ago  

ShavedOrangutan: bhcompy: adamatari: Literally the whole country should be connected with transit, and all of our large cities (*cough*LA*cough*) should have comprehensive transit. The government and car companies decided the best way to make a big capitalist, consumer economy was if all of us had to buy cars, and damn the consequences.

They sold us a car payment and ironically decreased mobility with the theme of "freedom" and "individuality".

The article says "just build real rail". That's farking obvious.

People who say this shiat aren't paying attention.

LA has a massive transit system comprised of light rail, commuter rail, subway, and buses.  It's just that there's not a sane way of connecting all of the housing with all of the business that's mostly not already done or in progress.  It has the busiest light rail system in the US and second longest in miles that's backed up by one of the largest commuter rail systems, a subway in the urban core, and the combination of a ton of bus agencies that have over 1 million daily riders combined(only behind NYC in the US).  The light rail system is also undergoing major expansion with a new line entering service this year, another new line expected before the 2028 Olympics, and significant expansions of some existing lines already under construction

We're so far from what it used to be though.  It's getting better, but so much of our other infrastructure is built around cars (grocery, pharmacy, shopping).  We just have too many service deserts right now.

[cdn.vox-cdn.com image 602x800]


Mmm, service desserts...

But really, though, many of those old Pacific Electric corridors still exist. A few have been bought back by Metro and rebuilt into the existing light rail lines, but much more can be done (and some well be used in the forthcoming lines).

The problem is funding. It's only in the last 15 years that the county has been successful in raising sales taxes in order to get shiat done, and even more recent that Metro has solicited public-private partnerships to get in on some of that sweet, sweet corporate cash.
 
5 days ago  

Geotpf: ShavedOrangutan: Geotpf: ShavedOrangutan: Well, I mean, that's what New York, London, Chicago, Madrid, Budapest, Glasgow, Paris, Mass Bay, Berlin, Athens, SEPTA, Hamburg, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Osaka, Moscow, Stockholm, Toronto, Rome, St Petersburg, Cleveland, and all the rest did.  As soon as the cars were obsolete, they just stopped their transit systems and switched over to cars.  That's why they don't have viable mass transit either.

Most of those cities always had heavy rail of some sort (mostly subways, some elevated), not the lighter, inferior, at grade, trolley cars that Southern California had.

That's just not true though.  Even if it were, there are multiple cities who have light rail at grade (Amsterdam, Boston, London, Calgary, SLC).  And even then, one of the biggest challenges LA is facing right now are the rights of way, which infrastructure investment would be able to solve: cut and cover, L's like Chicago, or NYC.

There's still quite a difference between modern light rail and the historic trolley versions.  Pretty much the first modern light rail system was San Diego's (installed in 1984).  In some cases, old trolley systems were basically upgraded to the modern version of light rail.

In general, I don't mind at grade light rail if it's separated from car traffic.

It's worth noting that three of Los Angeles' current four light rail lines have some in street sections, getting stuck in car traffic for part of the route.  The only one that doesn't, the Green Line, currently doesn't really go anywhere significant, although it will be interlined with the upcoming LAX line (although that section has at street sections).


Again, that's just not true.  Other cities have had similar issues and solved them.  LA has chosen not to.  Why don't we have true high speed rail in the northeast corridor or through California?  Because we have chosen not to.  There is no challenge that you point out that another municipality, group of municipalities, country, or group of countries hasn't solved.
 
5 days ago  
Also, a few of the old Pacific Electric lines were built to populate new real estate developments (the owner, Henry Huntington didn't make his fortune from the railroad industry). The routes aren't all worth redeveloping - like the one in northern Santa Monica, which is surrounded by mostly low-density, single-family homes of the filthy rich.

The population has grown differently around others, too. The old line between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica used to head straight east from USC, but that part of downtown is now just low density housing and light industry. The challenge is to build these new ones where there's demand, and I think that might one of the reasons they take too long with their "study" processes during planning.
 
5 days ago  

ShavedOrangutan: Geotpf: ShavedOrangutan: Geotpf: ShavedOrangutan: Well, I mean, that's what New York, London, Chicago, Madrid, Budapest, Glasgow, Paris, Mass Bay, Berlin, Athens, SEPTA, Hamburg, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Osaka, Moscow, Stockholm, Toronto, Rome, St Petersburg, Cleveland, and all the rest did.  As soon as the cars were obsolete, they just stopped their transit systems and switched over to cars.  That's why they don't have viable mass transit either.

Most of those cities always had heavy rail of some sort (mostly subways, some elevated), not the lighter, inferior, at grade, trolley cars that Southern California had.

That's just not true though.  Even if it were, there are multiple cities who have light rail at grade (Amsterdam, Boston, London, Calgary, SLC).  And even then, one of the biggest challenges LA is facing right now are the rights of way, which infrastructure investment would be able to solve: cut and cover, L's like Chicago, or NYC.

There's still quite a difference between modern light rail and the historic trolley versions.  Pretty much the first modern light rail system was San Diego's (installed in 1984).  In some cases, old trolley systems were basically upgraded to the modern version of light rail.

In general, I don't mind at grade light rail if it's separated from car traffic.

It's worth noting that three of Los Angeles' current four light rail lines have some in street sections, getting stuck in car traffic for part of the route.  The only one that doesn't, the Green Line, currently doesn't really go anywhere significant, although it will be interlined with the upcoming LAX line (although that section has at street sections).

Again, that's just not true.  Other cities have had similar issues and solved them.  LA has chosen not to.  Why don't we have true high speed rail in the northeast corridor or through California?  Because we have chosen not to.  There is no challenge that you point out that another municipality, group of municipaliti ...


We do have high speed rail in the Northeast corridor, which is the only place in the US to really support such without subsidies.  We are working on it in California, but it is costing a farking farkton, and, frankly, California isn't quite dense enough tosupport it without massive subsidies (compare the population densities of Japan and California-Japan is slightly smaller than California, but has more than three times the population).

But high speed rail is a completely different proposition from public transit.  LA's problem is that it started with zero rail in 1990.  Since then, it has built the most miles of rail, by far, of any city in the US (doubly so if you count Metrolink).
 
5 days ago  

Geotpf: ShavedOrangutan: Geotpf: ShavedOrangutan: Geotpf: ShavedOrangutan: Well, I mean, that's what New York, London, Chicago, Madrid, Budapest, Glasgow, Paris, Mass Bay, Berlin, Athens, SEPTA, Hamburg, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Osaka, Moscow, Stockholm, Toronto, Rome, St Petersburg, Cleveland, and all the rest did.  As soon as the cars were obsolete, they just stopped their transit systems and switched over to cars.  That's why they don't have viable mass transit either.

Most of those cities always had heavy rail of some sort (mostly subways, some elevated), not the lighter, inferior, at grade, trolley cars that Southern California had.

That's just not true though.  Even if it were, there are multiple cities who have light rail at grade (Amsterdam, Boston, London, Calgary, SLC).  And even then, one of the biggest challenges LA is facing right now are the rights of way, which infrastructure investment would be able to solve: cut and cover, L's like Chicago, or NYC.

There's still quite a difference between modern light rail and the historic trolley versions.  Pretty much the first modern light rail system was San Diego's (installed in 1984).  In some cases, old trolley systems were basically upgraded to the modern version of light rail.

In general, I don't mind at grade light rail if it's separated from car traffic.

It's worth noting that three of Los Angeles' current four light rail lines have some in street sections, getting stuck in car traffic for part of the route.  The only one that doesn't, the Green Line, currently doesn't really go anywhere significant, although it will be interlined with the upcoming LAX line (although that section has at street sections).

Again, that's just not true.  Other cities have had similar issues and solved them.  LA has chosen not to.  Why don't we have true high speed rail in the northeast corridor or through California?  Because we have chosen not to.  There is no challenge that you point out that another municipality, grou ...

We do have high speed rail in the Northeast corridor, which is the only place in the US to really support such without subsidies. We are working on it in California, but it is costing a farking farkton, and, frankly, California isn't quite dense enough tosupport it without massive subsidies (compare the population densities of Japan and California-Japan is slightly smaller than California, but has more than three times the population).

But high speed rail is a completely different proposition from public transit. LA's problem is that it started with zero rail in 1990. Since then, it has built the most miles of rail, by far, of any city in the US (doubly so if you count Metrolink).


And, really, Southern California doesn't need high speed rail like that.  We're better off with a high speed water taxi to get from major cities than a high speed rail.  The billions it would take to replace the Surfliner with a highspeed line to improve marginally on what is a two hour trip between LA and San Diego or LA and Santa Barbara isn't really worth it.  And getting to Sacramento or the Bay Area is cheaper and quicker by airplane.

With the amount of money the state is burning on high speed rail, we'd be much better off with some very targeted investments in rail designed to provide alternatives that don't exist today for heavily traveled car commuter routes, like connecting the Norwalk Metrolink Station to the Green Line, looping the Green Line extension to Torrance through the South Bay to the Blue Line in Long Beach, running a rail line down the 405 from Long Beach to the Irvine Metrolink station, connecting the 15/215 corridor from the Riverside Amtrak/Metrolink station to the Escondido Sprinter station(and ultimately to the San Diego Trolley system, perhaps at the stadium in Mission Valley), tunneling through the Santa Ana Mountains to provide a commuter rail connecting Southwest Riverside County to Orange County, etc.

High speed rail is a money sink that just sucks from the potential for projects that could actually make a difference for daily commuters in California.
 
5 days ago  

Geotpf: LA's problem is that it started with zero rail in 1990.


Well, unless you count their most useless railway:

upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
jvl [BareFark]
5 days ago  

bhcompy: High speed rail is a money sink that just sucks from the potential for projects that could actually make a difference for daily commuters in California


I really wish they had focused on building a useful section first from San Jose Diridion to Merced. That would be useful simply as a commute route to affordable housing.

The route as a whole is pretty silly. Thanks to having actual mountains that must be avoided, the route is twice the distance a plane flies. And they promised absurd fares in the initial proposition: that it would be cheaper to go via high speed rail from SF to LA than the existing fare on traditional rail on the much shorter SJ to Sacto route.
 
5 days ago  

cyberspacedout: Geotpf: LA's problem is that it started with zero rail in 1990.

Well, unless you count their most useless railway:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 768x1024]


Angel's Flight was shut down and in storage between 1969 and 1996, so even it doesn't count.
 
5 days ago  

jvl: bhcompy: High speed rail is a money sink that just sucks from the potential for projects that could actually make a difference for daily commuters in California

I really wish they had focused on building a useful section first from San Jose Diridion to Merced. That would be useful simply as a commute route to affordable housing.

The route as a whole is pretty silly. Thanks to having actual mountains that must be avoided, the route is twice the distance a plane flies. And they promised absurd fares in the initial proposition: that it would be cheaper to go via high speed rail from SF to LA than the existing fare on traditional rail on the much shorter SJ to Sacto route.


Well, it has to be priced to compete with the airplanes on the SF to LA route, which (at least pre-pandemic) flew extremely often for extremely cheap.

In fact, all mentions of transit are assuming a post-pandemic world.  Transit use is still down 70%+ in many areas, as people either work at home or drive alone (anything to avoid being in a metal tube for up to two hours or more a day with several dozen strangers who may or may not have the virus and may or may not be wearing masks and may or may not be having a coughing fit right this second).
 
5 days ago  

jvl: bhcompy: High speed rail is a money sink that just sucks from the potential for projects that could actually make a difference for daily commuters in California

I really wish they had focused on building a useful section first from San Jose Diridion to Merced. That would be useful simply as a commute route to affordable housing.

The route as a whole is pretty silly. Thanks to having actual mountains that must be avoided, the route is twice the distance a plane flies. And they promised absurd fares in the initial proposition: that it would be cheaper to go via high speed rail from SF to LA than the existing fare on traditional rail on the much shorter SJ to Sacto route.


The route is less than ideal if your only goal is to connect SF and LA, but I think the planners have a longer-term goal of facilitating growth in the central valley and connecting the entire state as a mega-region. After all, it's not like LA, SF, SD, and the OC have much of anywhere left to grow.
 
5 days ago  

Enigmamf: jvl: bhcompy: High speed rail is a money sink that just sucks from the potential for projects that could actually make a difference for daily commuters in California

I really wish they had focused on building a useful section first from San Jose Diridion to Merced. That would be useful simply as a commute route to affordable housing.

The route as a whole is pretty silly. Thanks to having actual mountains that must be avoided, the route is twice the distance a plane flies. And they promised absurd fares in the initial proposition: that it would be cheaper to go via high speed rail from SF to LA than the existing fare on traditional rail on the much shorter SJ to Sacto route.

The route is less than ideal if your only goal is to connect SF and LA, but I think the planners have a longer-term goal of facilitating growth in the central valley and connecting the entire state as a mega-region. After all, it's not like LA, SF, SD, and the OC have much of anywhere left to grow.


Yup.  In theory, the train might make it so it is reasonable to live somewhere in the Central Valley and commute daily to SF/Oakland/San Jose/Silicon Valley or LA/OC/IE, opening up a lot of land for less expensive housing.  Travel time for such will probably be in the 30-45 minute range (under an hour to be sure), easily within most people's tolerance level.  It will also ease business connections between such areas.
 
4 days ago  

ShavedOrangutan: Geotpf: ShavedOrangutan: Geotpf: ShavedOrangutan: Well, I mean, that's what New York, London, Chicago, Madrid, Budapest, Glasgow, Paris, Mass Bay, Berlin, Athens, SEPTA, Hamburg, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Osaka, Moscow, Stockholm, Toronto, Rome, St Petersburg, Cleveland, and all the rest did.  As soon as the cars were obsolete, they just stopped their transit systems and switched over to cars.  That's why they don't have viable mass transit either.

Most of those cities always had heavy rail of some sort (mostly subways, some elevated), not the lighter, inferior, at grade, trolley cars that Southern California had.

That's just not true though.  Even if it were, there are multiple cities who have light rail at grade (Amsterdam, Boston, London, Calgary, SLC).  And even then, one of the biggest challenges LA is facing right now are the rights of way, which infrastructure investment would be able to solve: cut and cover, L's like Chicago, or NYC.

There's still quite a difference between modern light rail and the historic trolley versions.  Pretty much the first modern light rail system was San Diego's (installed in 1984).  In some cases, old trolley systems were basically upgraded to the modern version of light rail.

In general, I don't mind at grade light rail if it's separated from car traffic.

It's worth noting that three of Los Angeles' current four light rail lines have some in street sections, getting stuck in car traffic for part of the route.  The only one that doesn't, the Green Line, currently doesn't really go anywhere significant, although it will be interlined with the upcoming LAX line (although that section has at street sections).

Again, that's just not true.  Other cities have had similar issues and solved them.  LA has chosen not to.  Why don't we have true high speed rail in the northeast corridor or through California?  Because we have chosen not to.  There is no challenge that you point out that another municipality, group of municipaliti ...


What? We've chosen not to have HSR in California? WTF are you talking about? The state has burned nearly $60B building a (supposedly HSR) system from nowhere to nowhere.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.