Why couldn't we have this?
Why did we allow the car and tire companies to fuck shit up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Thoughts?
Why does the US, and California in particular have such shitty public transport?
is it american greed and capitalism?
>>848667
>Why couldn't we have this?
We did have it, then it was scrapped.
>Why does the US, and California in particular have such shitty public transport? is it american greed and capitalism?
Because right now in California Jerry Brown and his cronies are more concerned with building grandiose legacy projects and giving each other kickbacks via the CAHSR project than they are interested in building practical, nonsexy solutions to metropolitan and regional transportation problems. The solution is $200 billion for local and regional transit solutions that will benefit most residents of the state on a daily basis and actually encourage people to take public transit, not $200 billion for a white elephant line from SF to LA that most Californians will ride maybe once or twice in their lives for the wow factor and then go back to driving everywhere.
>>848667Pacific Electric died because the Southern Pacific did not want to maintain passenger service,trains or trolley. LA Motor Coach was the only ATL owned company and the trolleys were gone when the MTA took over.
>let the old girl get scrapped, we'll have that shiny new monorail in 5 years anyway
>>848669
>being this butthurt
both UP and BNSF are pro HSR dipshit. At the very least, the capital upgades to the rail will keep California's ports competitive
Because city planners know that LA is too fargone and beyond saving.
>>848669
You're fucking retarded. There are several large mass transit projects occurring on the regional level in California. BART expansion/modernization, SMART train, and Caltrain midernization/extension in the Bay Area. Metro expansion in LA. Light rail expansion in San Diego. Light rail expansion in Sacramento.
>>848790
all joking aside, you're right in a sense. LA's politics are so repugnant that it's driving businesses away. It's a sad state of affairs.
>>848824
Yeah, and maybe they would already be closer to completion and there would be more lines if 200 billion was earmarked for desperately needed mass transit rather than the HSR? Most people here will agree HSR works best when mass transit/regional rail systems are in place already. You build local/commuter before HSR.
>>848833
That and, you know, they're in a desert and don't have enough water to sustain their population.
>>849043
LA has 20x the water it needs now since the BLM effectively shut down all the farms in the state. Urban water was never, EVER, an issue in California. Of course, PG&E and Edison keep their rates high as they now have an excuse to gouge everyone to pay for necessary upgrades in their infrastructure.
The real issue when it comes to the Drought is that the interior of the state (the Central Valley, Imperial Co etc) are all now in economic freefall. This means less revenues to the state government, which forces austerity. But with more austerity, you get less schools and police causing taxpayers and gentrified types to move out.
>>849037
They don't even come from the same funding sources. And nearly all of the mentioned projects are going to be finished well before HSR starts running. Get your shit straight.
>>849054
It doesn't even move the needle. Even if there was no agriculture occurring anywhere in the state, which is obviously not the case, GDP would only drop 2%.
>>849054
>the BLM effectively shut down all the farms in the state
That's bullshit and you know it. More new orchards are being planted everyday and Brown has stated he won't impose any new restrictions on farmers at the state level. You realize that the feds don't control all of the water entering the Central Valley, right? Most of their water is from the State Water project.
>The real issue when it comes to the Drought is that the interior of the state (the Central Valley, Imperial Co etc) are all now in economic freefall. This means less revenues to the state government, which forces austerity.
You mean $20 billion out of a $2 trillion state economy is being lost from the drought's effects on big AG in the Central Valley? Oh no, what are we going to do?
>>849063
>That's bullshit and you know it.
The BLM shut off their tap. All the farms from Bakersfield to Redding are fallow right now. I've seen it myself.
>Most of their water is from the State Water project.
You can only pump out so much baywater though, and the BLM are fucking up the Delta Tunnel project and are poised to kill it if Brown's plan isn't good enough for them.
>You mean $20 billion out of a $2 trillion state economy is being lost from the drought's effects on big AG in the Central Valley?
It's not just lost revenues, it's also the fact that now all those people who once worked shitty jobs down there all require welfare now. Revenues fall as taxes rise. Cities that were based on agriculture aren't self-sustaining now.
>>849067
>The BLM shut off their tap. All the farms from Bakersfield to Redding are fallow right now. I've seen it myself.
You saw all that from 5 or 99? That's funny, I was just on both those routes through most of the state in the last month and it looked as green as its ever been. Also noticed brand new orchards being planted all along the highways that were not there even back in March. Are they being irrigated with groundwater? Maybe. Are large amounts of farmland laying fallow right now? Absolutely not, at least judging from what you can see along the highways. Which is exactly what you saw, since I seriously doubt you were conducting a research trip along the Central Valley's backroads.
>>849070
Bullshit. I've been up through 5 and it was dead as shit. Modesto itself was caked in dust because of it.
>>849072
You saw Modesto from 5? lel, okay bud.
Caked in dust? You're taking the "Congress Made Dust Bowl" a little too seriously there.
Yes, when it's windy during the summer dust blows all over the place in the Central Valley. Happens every year whether the land is being cultivated or not. That's the kind of environment the Central Valley is, considering it was a desert 100 years ago before irrigation, and its still a desert now.
>>849072
Those farmers purposefully don't irrigate the fields adjacent to the highway. Why go through this effort? Because they don't get enough cheap water to irrigate all their land and near the highway is less desirable.
There's also the fact that they get to make a political statement to everyone driving through there. The land is dry the same reason they put the signs up. Google maps and you will see green just a bit further out.
>>849080
>be farmer
>have to rely on fleets of trucks to move produce to processor
>irrigate the farms furthest away from the freeways to cause a political statement even though it causes gas prices to eat at your profits
>Google maps and you will see green just a bit further out.
it looks brown m8
Because they want you to spend 4 hours getting across town on an average day.
>>849087
"across town" is subjective, but for me to go from East Long Beach to, like, WeHo would take
>~1-2.5 hours driving
>3.5~4.5 hours via public transit.
it's shameful
>>848824
Every metro project turns into a flop, they extend it or add new lines for like 5 miles and then drop.
Metro is shit, and will always be shit.
Including their bus line.
>>849166
hilariously, up in norcal during commute hour a drive from San Jose to Oakland can easily take 90-120 minutes, but a train ride is just over an hour. Same for Oakland-Sacramento which can be 2-3 hours but only a 90 minute train trip. Even the Peninsula is only about an hour by train.
>>850100
LA Metrorail or are you talking about the bay area lines? Because in the bay area the projects are much larger. BART will service another midsize city, and SMART will connect four midsize cities to the ferry system. Caltrain itself has seen ridership triple since it's founding, and it's only being extend about 2.5 miles into the new Salesforce SF terminal. Hence why they're going to quad rails and electrificaiton. ACE will consolidate with A/C and connect the entire tri-valley to both the bay area and Sacramento.
>>850100
You obviously have no fucking idea about all the projects currently under construction and in design/approval.
>>850109
> BART will service another midsize city
Tell me you're not referring to San Jose as a midsize city. It's the 10th biggest in the US.
>>850112
No, I'm talking about the Antioch extension. But you are right that it's being extended into SJ as well. I only bring up Antioch because it's currently only serviced by Amtrak, and a BART connection would make commuting to the bay area proper much easier.
>>850115
It's more of a spur line at this point though because they went with DMUs so they could get the track and service up and running sooner. They made it convertible to third rail, which I hope they do sooner rather than later. Because once the service starts, the trains are only going to run between Antioch to Pittsburg.
>>849086
Actually, farmers are smarter to focus on the land nearest the highway entrances/exits. This is similar to how the NJ turnpike is useless for any farms along it, since frequently the on-ramps are 20 miles apart.
>is it american greed and capitalism?
Yes
Dont forget though that was all street operating streetcars. You couldn't operate LA today on just that.
To meet todays needs you'd need a decent metro and also commuters to and through the suburbs
So that means trains on railways
>>848667
>>848667
>is it american greed and capitalism?
American greed and capitalism created those streetcar lines to begin with, so I'm not sure what you're point is. How do you think those suburbs were built in the first place? Streetcar companies promoted new suburbs with the presence of their streetcar lines (most of these companies were involved in real estate and electric power, so extending a line to new homeowners and power users was a win-win-win for them).
Did the streetcar companies and their suburban planning policies plant the seeds of their own destruction once the automobile became a major force in American society? Maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that they were always a for-profit enterprise (unless these lines were later bought up by local municipalities).
>>850107
thats fucking ridiculous
California needs to get it together
>>850350
>To meet todays needs you'd need a decent metro and also commuters to and through the suburbs
being an LA resident my whole life; are there any cities/major cities that have good public transport to/from the city?
like any one in a suburb can get to/from the city in a reasonable timespan?
>>852350
California had it's suburbs expand rapidly from 1950-2000 then had it all contract from 2010- while the major cities suddenly had to rebuild all their transit systems to cope.
Also, CA is the land of cars. Before 2008, most people would easily go their entire lives without stepping foot on a train or bus ever. This only changed because the housing market is so volatile and everyone wants to rent.
As a result though our trains are pretty good all things considered. While most commute hours ones are filled to capacity now, it just werks and isn't as painful as commuting on a packed ten lane freeway.
At this point I imagine LA city planners have their fingers crossed in hopes that a devastating earthquake levels the whole city and they can start over.
>>852352
Pretty much every sensibly run city and suburbia outside Merika
I live in Melbourne, we have a suburban commuter network radiating out through most of the burbs from the city centre. A single subway tunnel loops around the centre.
High frequency every few minutes morning and evening peak times, less so afternoon late night. Supply and demand afterall.
The radiating networks a good layout, just not managed very well
And also trams in the city centre and surrounding urban area
Demonstrating that trams and commuter network can be perfectly fine in cities much of a need for a metro
>>850374
>hurr
>>852386
Great refutation of the points raised in the post you responded to.
>>852387
bullshit muh suburbs muh technology muh progress arguments don't need me to waste my time
>>852392
It's a better, more coherent argument than the "muh American greed" or "muh capitalism" argument that OP brought up. No need to get so butthurt over facts.
>>852352
San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and Sacramento for starters. Of course most of the suburbs there are re-gentrified urban CBDs surrounded by mansions.
inb4 norcal/socal shitposting, norcal cities continued to have mass transit because there's a huge bay and mountain ranges/hills that cause huge bottlenecks on freeways.
We even have a new train in the north bay now that connects into the ferry system, so in theory you could take the Surfliner to San Jose, transfer to Caltrain, then transfer to BART at Milbrae, then transfer to a ferry and then take a train up to Santa Rosa or Cloverdale.
For the most part is just werks. ACE connects to Tracy and Stockton as well.
>>852360
>wants to rent
you mean has to rent because housing prices are some of the most fucked in the country.
>>852429
the chinks are about to have the Great Depression: PRC Edition so all the cash buyers are about to evaporate
california real estate is about to become attainable to the merely wealthy now, as opposed to only the most rarified plutocrats
>>848667
Public Transport = Communism/Socialism
>>848667
>Thread about LA transportation
>Everyone is talking about NorCal instead
Thread derailed faster than Amtrak.
Shut it down.
>>852467
It's hardly derailed at all. Norcal is what LA would have looked like if it was less shit. Both San Jose and Sacramento, cities very identical in structure to LA (namely, old urban core + new tract suburbs) both have good light rail and rail connections.
>>848667
money
>/thread
>>852467
well, to be fair; people can't exactly talk about LA/so Cal transportation if they haven't been here or lived here.
whenever i get on a bus or a metro train i wish it was like like New york city, but LA is not all "city", everything is so spread out here, and if you dont have a car people think something is wrong with you.
Frankly, unless I'm in the city of LA proper, I generally bicycle, because I can ride faster than the bus if it's less than 10 miles.
and taking the bus in the suburbs is just inefficient, I mean, I go to a community college thats 5.5 miles away.
from my home it's
>10-15 minutes drive; maybe 20 if it's heavy traffic
>25-45 minute bike ride, depending on speed and traffic
>1.5- 2 HOUR BUS RIDE (walk to stop thats about 1.5 miles away; then get on a bus that goes about half way, then you have to get off; and wait for a different bus that goes the rest of the way)
so idk
hmm
http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/metro-looking-at-how-to-re-start-angels-flight/article_701758aa-31a3-11e5-9531-cb14c0c2fc10.html
>>852477
That looks fucking retarded
Either use proper trains made of multiple carriages that have real capacity
Or put some trams/streetcars/lightrail on the road and save on needless infrastructure
>>852519
Plenty of money for roads and bailing out banks trillion dollar military budget
>>854694
There are 2 carriages on that train, which is pretty typical for off-peak hours of just about any light rail system.
>>854695
Military spending is 1/2 of what it was in the 80s as a % of GDP. Way to have no basic understanding of the simplest fiscal principles.
>>852797
>10 minute walk to suburban railway station in my suburban neighbourhood :^)
>off peak trains run every 20 minutes off peak
>every 5-10 minutes peak times
>30 minutes to get into city if stopping all stations
>peak time trains can be semi-express
>>854696
>coupling self contained carriages
>coupling lightrail 'carriages'
Dumb
>>854699
Military budget is over a trillion a year. It has not gone down since the end of the Cold War, it has gone up.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175361/tomgram%3A_chris_hellman,_$1.2_trillion_for_national_security/
>>854706
No, it's not even close to $1 trillion per year.
And I'm not talking about total spending you illiterate fucking nigger. I'm talking about the military budget as a % of GDP, which is a far more relevant measure.
>>854706
> 2011 article
> thinking national security spending is all military spending
Jesus Christ, I'm embarrassed for you.
>>854710
>didn't read the link
Read it
They hide the budget through creative accounting, black budget, department of energy paying for nuclear weapons, NASA doing military R&D, etc
Its a trillion dude
>>854711
You think its gone down since then? Lol
>>854712
No it isn't you motherfucking retarded cockstain. And they did the EXACTLY FUCKING SAME THING in the 1980s and throughout the Cold War.
It's an objective fact that military spending is proportionally much lower no than during the 80s and none of your disingenuous faggotry will change that mathematical fact.
>>854713
> I don't understand how percentages work.
That's you. Congratulations on being exceptionally terrible at basic math.
>>854713
Yes, it has.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
> 2010: 4.7%
> 2011: 4.6%
> 2012: 4.2%
> 2013: 3.8%
> 2014: 3.5%
>>854713
You're not addressing the point of the post you quoted. You are claiming (implicitly at the very least) that all national security spending is military spending, which is patently false.
>>854717
>official government figures that have already been shown to be grossly fudged
>>854715
How can the percentages work when they're not being honest about how much they spend
>>854718
>funding the CIA to overthrow governments is different to funding the military to invade countries
>>854706
What the fuck leads you to believe that the black budget wasn't absolutely massive (even larger than today, relatively speaking) during the Cold War?
>>854722
>>854724
So you're now claiming that the military budget during the Cold War was all-inclusive, honest, and transparent?
Even if you assume the same proportional amount of black budget today compared to the Cold War (when in actuality the proportion during the Cold War was much higher), then the claim that the overall military budget has proportionally decreased is still totally true.
>>854706
that helps US railroads though, as the DoD moves hazardous goods and bulk goods by train
things like tanks, sattilites, electric generators, artillery guns, canned beans, oversized trucks, construction equipment etc all moves by rail because it's faster and most larger military bases have rail connections
We have reached maximum koolaid in this thread
One person questions military spending and you all sperg out
>>854867
More like one person made a verifiably false claim and one with really obvious logical inconsistencies and got chewed out.
>implying LA would be any less shitty today if those streetcars were still there
>>848669
>$200 billion for a white elephant line from SF to LA that most Californians will ride maybe once or twice in their lives for the wow factor and then go back to driving everywhere.
Youre an idiot.
>>858657
Disprove that statement then.
>>858658
I've been to Northern California twice this year three times last year on average I go twice per year. Depending on the cost of a ticket I would take the train and possibly go more often.
>>858658
You made an unbacked hypothetical claim dipshit...
>>858658
I take Amtrak from Emeryville to LA 2-3 times a week for business. HSR makes my life better.
>>858630
you'd be able to get in and out of the suburbs easier; thats worth something
>>858672
Work at Pixar?
>>858672
You deal with taking an Amtrak bus between Bakersfield and LA 2-3 times a week? Or do you take the Coast route?
>>848667
But we have HSR now so who cares :^)
>>848667
>most Californians will ride maybe once or twice in their lives for the wow factor and then go back to driving everywhere
Stop just stop.
>tfw born too late for the red cars and born too early for the next best thing
jdimsa
>>866744
There is no next best thing, you were just born too late.
maybe if california ever gets that massive earthquake maybe they'll rebuilt with better infrastructure
>>871287
Yesss
The red cars are romanticized as hell and not much better than regular local buses. They were effectively the same thing (at grade, no signal priority, 1-car), except they couldn't turn into the next lane if a car broke down in front of them. They were bumpy, not air conditioned, and not really that fast.
The Pacific Electric collapsed because the city government refused to subsidize it while pouring massive subsidies into the highway system. It got bought up, converted to buses, and eventually dismantled- no conspiracy here.
The current metro is superior (still lame) because it has actual trains on dedicated ROWs as well as very widespread bus service.
I'm not sure that the LA metro will ever attain first-world status due to the lack of political will/population density, but between the current expansions and what's proposed it might become half decent.
>>871854
PE ran multiple cars usually on their long interurban routes. The Southern Pacific ran Pacific Electric and wanted to get out of the passenger business. There were subway tunnels in downtown LA.
It is the fault of republicans. Republican states got shitty public transport. Look at Vermont, with senator Sanders, it has the best public transport (and bike infrastructure) of the US of A.
>>871860
>Vermont
>Best public transport
What public transport?
>>871854
>at grade
only in downtown LA, afterwards they had ROW, one of them was 4-tracked
>no signal priority
on the ROW they did have priority
>1-car
3-car
congrats, you're officially fucktarded.
>>854898
>a verifiably false claim
You mean, a falsifiable claim?
They should have built the current metro with heavy rail instead of light rail from the very start. Other than that, it is just an unfinished system. It only needs twice as many lines and a few extensions, and it'll be on par with other mass transit systems aroun the world.
>>871871
There are two heavy rail lines in LA.
>>871871
>>871854
i feel like the biggest problem is that "L.A." is so large, the problem is not the transportation in DTLA, but the transportation OUTSIDE of DTLA, and getting to "other parts of the city" like WeHo, or Hollywood, or suburbs (like out in the valley) or even the other nearby suburb cities like Compton, Carson, Long Beach, and north orange county
there need to be more trains, probably real rail, or high speed trains going in and out of downtown to get around to other parts of the city. if everything funneled in better it wouldn't be so bad
that and the fact that the metro rail stops running just after midnight
it really ought to go all night, or at least until 2 or 3 am
more people would ride public transport in socal if it made sense and was a better alternative to driving their car
>>873884
>all night rail
Unless you have a rail network specifically designed with spare track so you can only partially shut it down for maintenance (hi NYC!) then that isn't going to work.
>>872068
Yeah, what I meant is that they should have used heavy rail exclusively instead of just building two lines of that.
>>848667
>Why does the US, and California in particular have such shitty public transport?
Lack of investment. But that's fortunately changed. Statewide Prop 1A means HSR and passenger rail modernization. LA itself has Measure R. Caltrain has electrification/downtown extension and BART might try for a Geary/19th Ave extension.
Things are looking up.
>>848772
Hilariously enough, that's what happened in SF with BART. What's even more hilarious is that BART was a huge failure early on as it was aircraft engineers attempting to build a railroad system. But it obviously had the kinks worked out, and now BART is finally (FINALLY) focusing on being a good subway/metro system instead of regional rail. The new cars are a part of this, as (hopefully) the Geary/19th Ave extension they're supposedly studying. Only issue is getting rid of all their fucking suburban parking lots and building proper high-density units. Of course, this is only happening due to the shitfest that is the Antioch extension, and that high-quality regional rail is now happening because of Prop 1A.
>>873884
It's the same issue San Jose has. The result is a multi-pronged approach, aided greatly by the fact that there's no more space for tract housing. From the state level you get a ban on tract housing, at the local level the city allows for mixed-use development and high-density development around light rail, subway and commuter rail stations. This ties into a larger bus network which interfaces these "urban pockets" with the surrounding suburbs until they're built up too.
>>873929
The issue with that is cost, light rail is cheaper as it can run on existing roads (either separated from traffic or not). Subway systems are hugely expensive, meanwhile the light rail can expand quicker to replace heavily used bus routes while the subway offers more "core" service. The Blue Line and LAX extensions are helping things move along.
The real issue is what ado about Metrolink. It's starved for cash while Measure R gives Metrorail money. Ideally, LA would pass a bond for them to go to triple or quad tracks so passenger trains and freight trains can get their own lines.
However, over time the focus on LA should be to concentrate as much development as possible around rail stations. That will give them more riders, and thus more revenues. This isn't too difficult, as it's mostly just rezoning everything within a mile of each station.
>>871287
It could certainly happen. A lot of factors, especially ones outside California's control, mean the end of it's highway-dominated system.
First of all, there's the borderline anarchists in DC who surprisingly support the transit-oriented Grow America Act which would redo how transportation planning is done. Why do they support such a thing? Because it means they could be allowed to gut the Federal Highway Administration entirely (they've bailed it out twice since 2000) and more importantly would allow states to easily toll or privatize freeways.
Mind you, California's highway system was mostly built/funded by the federal government in the 1950s and 60s with a 50-60 year lifespan. This is why so many are shitty to drive on now, because they're rapidly aging and need extensive refurbishing. Given the immense cost of this, especially as federal money for it dries up, and the fact that the state can't afford to fix all it's roads right now, you're looking at a mass freeway genocide in the next 10-30 years as cities are forced to choose between rebuilding them or removing them. Since cities are gentrifying and suburbs are urbanizing, the shift will continue to work against the freeways. The ones that survive will be tolled so they can pay for themselves, like transit agencies do with fares. Already the Embarcedero Freeway was torn down in 1992, expect 980, West Oakland 880 and southeastern SF 101 to go next. I-5 over in Sacramento could be torn out as well.
Now if a massive quake were to happen, it's more likely that freeways would break apart than railroads. BART was running trains 12 hours after Loma Prieta hit as was SP and Amtrak. In 1990 Oakland replaced the collapsed Cypress Freeway with the Nimitz Freeway, that won't happen again especially when Phase II of CAHSR starts around 2025 and Oakland will have to fix it's downtown rail mess.
>>876284
> southeastern SF 101
*southwestern SF 280
As in, the part of 280 that goes from 101 to mission creek. With the Caltrain DTX likely to happen in 2017-19, Caltrain will be moving their maintenance yard to a combined facility in Bayshore. This means that the entire area could be redeveloped, especially if the freeway were gone.
>>848667
Because freedom.
>>878906
dont be pedantic
Truthfully I dont want this.
>>878999
>tfw finally by the time L.A. gets a passable public transport system you would have already fled or been killed by the Mexican gangs
Feels bad mang
>>879501
Good. It means less NMBYs and more transit supporting latinos.
>>879504
>transit supporting latinos.
:^)
![4978d1250735321-dialysis-immigrants-drive-hospital-into-debt-passenger-train...mexican-style[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/NRR0GuZ.jpg "4978d1250735321-dialysis-immigrants-drive-hospital-into-debt-passenger-train...mexican-style[1].jpg")
>>879504
Because Latin America is so well known for their high-quality passenger rail networks.
>>879507
>no bicycles in that picture
Triggered, tbh. Why do cagers have to ruin everything?
>>848780
>ports
>HSR
So you're suggesting to carry freight on a HSR line? You're obviously talking out your ass, almost all HSRs ever are passenger-exclusive.
>>879527
I've never seen any documentation or proof for the claim that CAHSR's ROW will carry anything but CAHSR trains. He's full of shit and clearly doesn't understand how HSR works in the rest of the world.
>>879504
>implying Mexicans actually support transit, and that they don't just use it out of necessity if they're too poor to afford a car
>>879529
This tbh. Even poor people hate shitty buses and poorly maintained, overcrowded mass transit and would overwhelmingly prefer to drive places in their own car, if they could afford it.
>>878999
that looks cool, although i feel like there are still many areas that trains aren't serving
that orange line extension into the OC is based af though
>>879527
In Germany, HSR lines are used for freight trains during night.
>>880574
Does it put a lot of extra wear the on the track? What's the average operating speed of ICE trains?
>>880765
Usually ICE trains run at about 250 km/h and faster. Freight trains are much slower. I cannot say anything about the wear but I would assume it's way less than of the ICE trains. It makes sense to use the HSR tracks in the night for freight as the HSR routes are mostly straight and therefore likely the shortest way.
>>880932
The weight of the train matters a lot more than speed for track wear.
>>848667
>is it american greed and capitalism?
is it were capitalism this wouldnt have happened.
it was farce democracy not working and politicians beeing bought out.
>>849043
>by ocean
>need water
>build RO plants
>now you have water
it's about that easy. except you have california environmental
>>878999
i dont get it; do you take a bus to these stations if you live in one of those suburbs?
>>883039
>implying Los Angeles isnt one giant suburb.
That map covers most of LA's "suburbs". Those that arent are covered by commuter rail.
>>883068
>a sprawling metropolis of millions of people can make do with a few dinky little lightfail
>>883071
"Lightfail" is putting in work. Hasnt reduced traffic, but thats because people wont stop moving here. In fact "lightfail"attracts more people, who eventually decide they want to drive.
>thread gets me curious
>a half hour drive to work turns into 3+ hrs by bus/train
>>848667
California (southern californi technically) used to have a vasst well maintained system known as the Pacific Electric red car system. Unfortunately for reasons I can't remember it was all torn up. And now metro rail struggles to rebuild once we once had
>>883071
>lightfail
ebin shitpost
But seriously though LA hit max gridlock and is at the point where even fencesitters are pro mass transit. There's just no more space for cars anymore. Measure R is greatly expanding Metrorail's reach and LA will expand it farther.
Only issue is what ado about Metrolink. Their new south korean cars are rapidly turning out to be shit and they won't get F125s until 2017 so now they have to rent locos from BNSF. CAHSR won't get to them until 2019 at the earliest, and modernization won't happen until Phase II in 2024ish after SF-LA HSR is operative. Though, by 2020 Caltrain will have modernized first and will be using fancy new EMUs so LA can buy all their bombardier cars.
Regardless, either way by 2030 LA will have a modern and for the most part reliable light rail, subway, and commuter rail system. LA will also be about 15% larger than it is currently.
>>883147
>Metrorail
>struggle
mate Measure R poured money into them it's Metrolink that has the funding and reliability issues.
>>883167
>Regardless, either way by 2030 LA will have a modern and for the most part reliable light rail, subway, and commuter rail system. LA will also be about 15% larger than it is currently.
And anybody with any sense has already left.
>>883338
of course, LA and CA in general went to shit sometime in the mid 80s just like NJ did in the 40s
>>883376
Los Angeles (San Bernadino included) and San Francisco specifcally suck the rest of the state is okay;San Bernadino/Riverside is probably the worst part of the state.
>>879504
I remeber The "A Day Without A Mexican Protests" there was literally 50% less traffic in LA. My attitude has changed since then but the effect of a mass exodus of Hispanics from LA would be very good.
From the McCone Commission report issued following the Watts Riots in LA in 1965:
>Our investigation has brought into clear focus the fact that the inadequate and costly public transportation currently existing throughout the Los Angeles area seriously restricts the residents of the disadvantaged areas such as south central Los Angeles. This lack of adequate transportation handicaps them in seeking and holding jobs, attending schools, shopping, and in fulfilling other needs. It has had a major influence in creating a sense of isolation, with its resultant frustrations, among the residents of south central Los Angeles, particularly the Watts area. Moreover, the lack of adequate east-west or north-south service through Los Angeles hampers not only the residents of the area under consideration here but also of all the city.
>A resident of Watts may have to ride on several separate bus systems to reach certain destinations in the immediate area. These transportation systems are uncoordinated, do not provide for free transfers between systems (except in the instance of parent and subsidiary), and have been forced to cut back service and increase fares over the years because of increased capital and operating expenses.
>We believe that adequate and economical public bus transportation is essential to our community and that it should not be ignored because of the debate over mass rapid transit... Public transportation is particularly essential to the poor and disadvantaged who are unable to own and operate private automobiles.
http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/cityinstress/mccone/part8.html
So why weren't these issues fixed in the decades that followed?
>>886245
County politics probably. The way the legal framework is set-up in California favours county-centric spending rather than regional spending leaving LA and SF with a web of different bus operators.
>>886251
The price of freedom.
>>886251
The legal framework all across the US favors county-centric planning rather than more centralized planning, cross-county transit districts requires both counties and the state to agree on making a special transit district which requires more voter approval. This is the block BART (which replaced the Key System) ran into in the 60s, half the counties proposed to be a part of the system voted against it.
>>886259
>half the counties proposed to be a part of the system voted against it.
Nothing wrong with that tbh. All though it is a little hypocritical for some of those same counties to now be clamoring for BART service since the traffic gridlock currently extends all the way to the Central Valley.
>>886260
of course there isn't anything wrong with it, but it also makes designing a large system a huge pain. Caltrain and ACE both have enough issues spanning just three counties each
also, the SF peninsula is still against BART. Though that's probably a good thing, recently Santa Clara County cockblocked having BART build a station in Santa Clara city because they want the money put into Caltrian modernization
tbh I really, honestly wish that BART would just ask the state for twenty billion dollars to regauge to standard gauge, it can easily be done (ie laying an inner rail between the two larger ones) without interrupting service and it would potentially, *potentially* allow for BART to usurp Caltrain. Of course, that couldn't happen until 2021 at the earliest as BART already bought new indian gauge cars
>>886276
>tbh I really, honestly wish that BART would just ask the state for twenty billion dollars to regauge to standard gauge, it can easily be done (ie laying an inner rail between the two larger ones) without interrupting service and it would potentially, *potentially* allow for BART to usurp Caltrain.
BART does not use the regular North American loading gauge. Caltrain would need to buy new rolling stock if the systems were integrated together.
LA native here.
You have to own a car to live here. Thats it. If you cant afford to own a car or motorcycle, you shouldnt be living in LA.
>>886345
Ideally that would be the case. What I'm suggesting would take decades in the unlikely even it were to happen. Ideally you'd somehow get BART using larger more "commuter train" sized cars (ala Metro-North) as a compromise. Such a solution would fit the agency's original plan as "one unified bay area commuter rail system". But again, it would require triple tracking all existing track to standard gauge, redoing every station platform, possibly widening the original transbay tube (if such a thing is even possible) and installing third rail along Caltrain's corridor (which would, at least, require complete grade separation).
Again I'm not suggesting that this is likely or even possible, but it would probably be (from a technical angle) feasible. My biggest gripe with BART is that right next to most of their tracks in the east bay is regular track (though at a different grade). I realize why this was done, and the benefits of doing so, but regardless the end result is that the ROW is split between two different and incompatible systems. Ideally (and again, I'm aware that this is fantasy) the state would pony up money to fix past mistakes. This way, you could get a single bay area commuter transit system with Amtrak for express/intercity service.
Again, it's worth restating that BART and CA has no plans to do any of this. The former is focusing on getting their new cars and the latter is focusing on modernizing Caltrain, ACE and doing HSR.
>>886260
They literally opted out because they didn't want the ghetto niggers in Oakland to be able to ride into their counties on the system.
>>886486
So? Do you want ghettoized people of any race riding with you and following you home? If you're trying to make them look irrational that's not very convincing.
>>886520
I live in a cozy, rich white suburb just south of a rust belt ghetto town. We have been mingling on the train for 30 years now with little-to-no issue.
>>886521
>claims to linve in a "cozy, rich white suburb"
>uses public transportation
Youre not fooling anyone. pal.
>>886524
Not him, but are you from like Texas or some shit place like that? Commuter trains and white suburbs are pretty common in non-militarized parts of the country.
>>886524
It's been here for over 100 years.
It's used by a bunch of white collar businessmen whose fathers and grandfathers took it to work.
Do you not live in the old eastern part of the country?
>>886486
that's a load of shit and one NIMBYers always resort to, there is nothing stopping a nigger from getting on a greyhound or just driving into the city as is
san mateo didn't want it because they're all cheap bastards and at the time SP was still running commuter service
>>886524
Chances are good he lives around DC or Chicago.
>>848667
>Why does the US, and California in particular have such shitty public transport?
>implying America didn't pioneer the electric streetcar
>>888806
Inventing means nothing a hundred years after the fact
>>879513
>right of way
>pick up and drop off wherever you please
>open air instead of closed stale gas chamber
10/10, would ride
>>883167
The entire point of replacing the bombardiers with rotems was to up the safety of the trains in case of a cash. Metrolink has their old "retired" bombardier cars sitting in various sidings throughout their system. They don't need to buy more. I don't see them buying Caltrain's cars simply because they made such a big fuss about the safety of the rotems, and backtracking and reinstating the older cars would make Metrolink look like a PR disaster, more so than they already are. On a side note, I have no idea of the new CEO of Metrolink is still going to try and implement the stupid idea of having a separate RFID system instead of simply going with TAP like the rest of the agencies in the area.
>>888806
>>889733
>tfw the world's first streetcar network was bustituted and scrapped in the 1940s
Everyone has a right to own a car in the United States, but public transportation for business and commuter purposes needs to be strengthened to reduce the amount of traffic on highways during commute hours. The conflict between private ownership of automobiles and the existence of taxpayer-funded mass transit is a false dichotomy. The two can, and should, exist simultaneously. I think everyone can agree that a world of just cars or just mass transit is undesirable.
>>878999
>Running a metro through Torrance to El Segundo
Won't happen.
>>890705
wont=/=should
torrance really needs some rail, as does the rest of long beach that the blue line doesnt cover
>>890668
The autos are privately owned, but the roads aren't. Cagers are gigantic welfare queens.
>>892093
>roads paid with gas taxes aren't owned by autos
what a story mark
>>890705
Probably will not happen within then next 10 years.
>>892135
>paid for by gas taxes
Are you serious? First of all, gas has no sales tax. Gas tax is just sales tax that's earmarked for road construction. Gas taxes are mostly diverted to freeways, and they don't nearly pay for the constructor or even the wear and tear cars put on roads. The majority of funding for road construction and maintenance comes from property taxes.
>>892170
Fun fact: the vast majority of roadway wear & tear is caused by heavy-ass commercial trucks.
Ponce.
>>892195
Fun fact: bikes don't pay road tax
>>895319
Neither do cars
>>892195
Yout 36 (short?) ton trucks are cute. We are destroying our roads with 72t ones.
>>895331
How does this weird ass system even work?
I think gato institute had some populist comparison that showed that only about 30-40% road tax was used for roads.
>>895573
Congress tops it up from the general fund
>>895319
I live in an area with a lot of bike use and I find a lot of the bike riders to be rude shitty people who flaunt common sense and road rules
So I feel that bikes should be licensed and registered
The revenue from this can be used for bike lanes and bike paths
And ad campaigns educating car drivers and bike riders on their rights and responsibilities
And I can report the next motherfucker who ignores a red light and almost runs me down
