What could have been in LA (and still may).
Just reading this post over at metroriderla.com made us realize what could have been in LA, had public rail developed continued to develop here like it did in other cities, such as New York (or even the Bay Area). The post links to an amazing looking map of a proposed LA rail system by the year 2030, by transit planner Steve Boland.
Given our recent post on the proposed California high speed rail system, which Boland also has a map of, as well as our common theme and interest in mass transit, we found this map fascinating. However, as exciting as it is to think of the prospect of living in a city like LA, where easy and clean train rides would replace excruciatingly slow and dirty traffic jams, we are still pessimistic. Everyone agrees that there is a problem, but without leadership that can direct the population’s dissatisfaction towards a common goal, there is unlikely to be a comprehensive solution. Things work just well enough here that an alternative is only highly desired, instead of absolutely necessary. Until, and unless, there is no other choice, effective leadership will be our only hope.
- Similar Posts:
- Now, more than ever, is the time to approve CA high speed rail: Yes on Prop 1A
- Clinton’s mass transit strategy…
- San Diego sees decrease in freeway traffic
Comments
2 Comments on What could have been in LA (and still may).
-
Fred Camino on
Thu, 27th Mar 2008 9:36 am
-
Jacob on
Thu, 27th Mar 2008 9:51 am
“Just reading this post over at metroriderla.com made us realize what could have been in LA, had public rail developed here like it did in other cities, such as New York (or even the Bay Area).”
Actually Jacob, LA had one of the most extensive urban rail systems in the world in the early 20th century. Check out this map from 1928. LA had over 1,100 miles of rail (it’s actually the reason LA sprawls over such a large geographical area) and the system was very popular. It wasn’t until the Great Depression, when the US Government decided that automobiles would be the de-facto mode of transportation in this country and began subsidizing autoroads and autosprawl to an unbelievable degree did LA lose its glorious mass transit system. You see, urban rail in LA was a private industry and it could not compete in an unfair market with heavily subsidized automobile transporation. By 1958 there was no more urban rail in Los Angeles, and it would not return in any form for 32 years. Now, 50 years later, instead of 1,100 miles of privately owned mass transit we have 73.1 miles of heavily subsidized rail transit. If you look at Boland’s map for 2030 you realize it’s very similar to the 1928 map. Sad.
[Reply]
Fred, you are right. That is the real tragedy of the current transportation situation in LA. From things I have read, I believe LA once had the biggest public railway system out of any city in the world. My language in the post was too loose– what I should have said is “what could have been in LA, had public rail continued to develop, like it did in cities like NY.” Although I guess technically what happened was that it UN-developed. What a shame. I know wikipedia has some really cool info on the old Pacific Electric Railway that is also really interesting to browse through and think about what “could have been,” or more accurately: “what we had and then lost.”
[Reply]
Please contribute to the discussion. No need to agree with the post or other commenters, but please be constructive and respectful.
-
Private Leaders
