Still waiting for that subway
Discuss round two of this week's Dust-Up.
Comments will close after two weeks.
From the Los Angeles Times
| Advertisement |
|
|
The Latest | news as it happens
- Parents of 'balloon boy' to plead guilty - L.A. Times - Entertainment News 11/12/2009, 2:14 p.m.
- Parents of 'balloon boy' to plead guilty - L.A. Times - National News 11/12/2009, 2:14 p.m.
- Paul V. Coates – Confidential File, Nov. 12, 1959 - The Daily Mirror 11/12/2009, 2:00 p.m.
- Buraka Som Sistema tonight at the Mayan - Pop & Hiss 11/12/2009, 1:59 p.m.
- Agents seize 1,300 pounds of marijuana at Ontario home - L.A. Now 11/12/2009, 1:58 p.m.
Save more than
The problem is that LA's subway network is not extensive enough. The Red Line alone is not going to increase passenger numbers. The network might suffer from low numbers at this stage but once an extensive network is operating numbers will increase. You need to be able to get to to eg West LA as there is no point to board a train if it terminates halfway through my journey. Just look at London's tube network, where appox. 4 million people board the trains every day but that's because they have an extensive tube network that takes you anywhere in London without any problems.
Rob @ 12:38 AM PDT, May 9, 2008
You certainly noticed the traffic from the Transit Strike on the 101, 110, and 10 from having the buses and trains stop, I see Peter and the Reason Foundation finally mobilized their meager forces with such pathetic responses. Meanwhitle this fringe want to charge you for the carpool lanes. No carpool lanes, no transit, this is what this fringe calls choice?
BOB2 @ 7:09 AM PDT, May 4, 2008
What Peter Gordon refuses to factor in is the reason why ridership is so low, is that it goes nowhere. Am I supposed to ride a bus from Bundy & Wilshire to Western, and then ride the train downtown? Or take the bus from Bundy to Western, and then head up to Hollywood or Universal city? If I did, what happens when I need to head home in the evening. Heaven forbid I go to a late movie or dinner. I'm gonig to have to take the taxi home. Give us a train system that runs regularlyfor 20 hours a day, and can take us where we need to go. Riders will be there.
Jim M @ 5:39 PM PDT, May 2, 2008
Peter: What choices do we have if not more mass transit? Haven't we squeezed as much as we can out of our roads? If you really hate the subway, then don't use it. The traffic will always be there, subway or not, but the commute will gradually favor the transit user, not the driver.
Ken Alpern @ 5:30 PM PDT, May 2, 2008
Peter: You state that "L.A. County taxpayers spent about $4.7 billion to build" the Red Line subway. This is factually wrong. Much of the funds were federal funds, which were paid by taxpayers from all over the United States. Taxpayers from Nebraska, New York and Florida (among others) ultimately helped to pay. Some of them will even use the line if they come to Los Angeles on vacation. The tax burden on L.A. County taxpayers was much lower than you indicate.
Scott Mercer @ 4:00 AM PDT, May 2, 2008
Well isn't it interesting: Peter can find every single thing wrong with the Red Line, but he can't do the same thing with roads. Not only that, but he offers no practical alternative. We have no space for freeways. Fred Camino at metroriderla recently figured that Los Angeles would require 70% of our land be dedicated solely to car infrastructure (roads and parking) if everyone in LA were to drive in 2050. Doesn't seem like the practical solution does it. Bart Reed is actually offering a solution, Peter Gordon is just another person in the way of progress.
Tony Fernandez @ 3:04 PM PDT, May 1, 2008
Peter, you provide one-sided view of your story, thinking ONLY in terms of money, not Quality. Yes, subways are expensive, but they provide OPTIONS for commuters. Subways are a worthwhile investment, guaranteeing mobility for many generations to come. True, subway will not replace traffic jams, but it will provide RELIABLE OPTIONS for commuters. Any large city would not be able to exist without subway, including Los Angeles. Peter, you are opposed to the subway expansion because you just love spending hours in gridlocks and inhaling the exhaust fumes from polluting cars? Or maybe you love traveling by buses, which can take hours to travel
Alek F @ 7:40 PM PDT, Apr 30, 2008
Subways are not built for todays ridership counts. They are built to serve the population of the city 40, 60 and 100 years out. The UK system was built in the 1860s and is built to last 200+ years. The projected population growth is going to be primarily on the Eastside and the job growth is going to be on the Westside. The Subway is a must, and amortized over 200 years is not that costly. It should be built with room for express and local trains and even freight trains, of course that will increase initial costs and save money in the future.
Harold L. Katz @ 6:37 PM PDT, Apr 30, 2008
I know, What gives, LA Times? The fact that you still support argumentation over this boggles my mind. The Red/Purple Lines aren't failures, but the fact that no rail goes west is a huge failure on our city government's part. The more places a system can reach, the more riders. So for the small number of people going from Point A to Point B that happen to be connected by the Red/Purple Lines, it makes sense. For the rest of Los Angeles County--it doesn't! I'm one of the lucky few who gets to take it every day. It's made my life and perception of LA dramatically better.
Matthew @ 5:43 PM PDT, Apr 30, 2008
Why do people always compare traffic to mass transit? No, a subway line will not alleviate traffic. It never happens. Go to London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, etc...It NEVER happens. Mass transit allows a city to build dense. The density means those people who don't live near transit lines will still drive, but there will be people who live along transit lines taking trains to destiations. We should never compare traffic to new transit. LA needs to "grow up" and that's the Red Line allows us to do.
laofanaheim @ 12:33 PM PDT, Apr 30, 2008
Next