Comments on: What could have been in LA (and still may). http://forcechange.com/2008/03/27/what-could-have-been-in-la-and-still-may/ Environmental news, policy and analysis. Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:01:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Jacob http://forcechange.com/2008/03/27/what-could-have-been-in-la-and-still-may/comment-page-1/#comment-96 Jacob Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:51:30 +0000 http://forcechange.com/2008/03/27/what-could-have-been-in-la-and-still-may/#comment-96 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 <strong>continued </strong> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric_Railway" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Pacific Electric Railway</a> that is also really interesting to browse through and think about what "could have been," or more accurately: "what we had and then lost." 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.”

]]> By: Fred Camino http://forcechange.com/2008/03/27/what-could-have-been-in-la-and-still-may/comment-page-1/#comment-95 Fred Camino Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:36:46 +0000 http://forcechange.com/2008/03/27/what-could-have-been-in-la-and-still-may/#comment-95 <i>"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)."</i> Actually Jacob, LA had one of the most extensive urban rail systems in the world in the early 20th century. Check out <a href="http://historyz.com/ebay/13002w.jpg" rel="nofollow">this map from 1928</a>. 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. “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.

]]>