Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch
means we better be prepared for delayed gratification.
|
Again, no one here believes we'll get a new line in the next 20 years, aside from a few extensions and possibly the downtown connector.
Quote:
|
LA actually had one of the most extensive rail systems a loong time ago, yet its existence didn't prevent the slow decline of DT, beginning around the 1940s onward. And there's the possibility that if we had a decent transit system today, even more ppl would choose to live farther away from LA----or have an easier time in doing so. I still remember some urbanist a long time ago theorizing that SF's BART system, by providing another option of travel in the bay area, made it that much more convenient for ppl to move to the burbs.
|
the Metro =/= the pacific electric
The pacific electric acclerated suburban sprawl because it had lines going out to Brea, Whittier, and Newport Beach. A large glut of proposed lines for the metro would be intercity only, and should largely focus on the area between downtown and the 405 north of the 10 and south Hollywood Blvd, with spurs going out to the valley, south LA and the eastside. luckily the valley goldline extension to ontario was put on hold because that would be antithetical to that pursuit. also the PE cars were old, slow, clunky and inconvinient. the metro by comparison is sleek and fast (that is of course if it is appropriately grade separated) The BART by comparison is really just a glorified commuter only acting as municipal line for a few statinos once in SF city limits. we have metrolink for that purpose. you really cant compare to LA's situation pre-40s to its current 21st century form.
Threaded Mode