That fantasy subway map for Los Angeles — put together by a guy called Damien Goodmon — now has something like a movement behind it, called Get LA Moving. GLAM!
And tomorrow, GLAM’s presenting its subway plan to anyone who wants to see it:
When: Saturday, May 12, 2007, 2:15 pm
Where: Southern California Transit Advocates monthly meeting, Angelus Plaza, 4th fl., 255 S. Hill St, Downtown Los Angeles.
The LA Times recently covered LA transit fantasy maps, and featured some stats about rail. For ex, if the Red Line didn’t run, we’d have about 2,700 more buses (assuming 50 passengers per bus) on the road on a given weekday. And rail’s more expensive to build, but cheaper to operate, than buses.
Whenever I post anything about rail, the comment stream tends to devolve into a “rail sucks bus is better” “no rail!” “no bus!” sort of thing. I’m of the opinion that both are necessary, and that the two are complimentary parts of an integrated public transport system.
Given the size of Los Angeles and the surrounding area, we need to have a mixed bus/rail system.
Rail is much better for moving people long distances. Traveling 30 miles by bus is impractical in most cases.
Buses are better for short distances. While the Paris Metro can get you to within a few blocks of anything, there’s no way we can afford to build rail so densely in an area as big as LA. So buses are essential to getting people to/from rail stations.
Sure, we have some long distance buses. But they should be phased out over time as rail lines replace them. Rail is faster, cheaper, cleaner, and probably safer in the long run.
Comment by Tim Buchheim — May 11, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
One size does not fit all, and one mode of transportation will not meet all the needs of those of us who want to use public transportation as much as we can. A mix of rail and bus will be much more productive than one or the other.
Comment by Kate — May 12, 2007 @ 9:46 am
There is no way the buses will ever be replaced by rail completely or removed completely.
Even when Los Angeles had 1500 miles of streetcars and interurban trains (approx. 1910-1940) there were still buses going to places that rail didn’t. Look it up.
But we do need to build way more rail. Right now we have about 72 miles in the Metrorail system. I’d be happy with double that. Damien Goodman’s map shows about a 400-500 mile system, roughly equivalent to the New York subway system. I’d be overjoyed with 150 miles…and first on the block should be a connection to LAX.
Comment by Scott Mercer — May 15, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
I’ve always looked at bus and rail as car analogs. The Rail systems is similiar conceptually to freeways, whereas the Buses are similar to surface streets. Gotta have both.
MTA knows it, but I also wonder what someone’s been spiking the MTA Koolaid with — THEY need a 40% increase in revenue to stay afloat, but where are the RIDERS supposed to get 40% more income to cover it?
Public transit is crucial, all this wrangling is A VAST sink of energy.
Comment by Dee — May 23, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
I applaud to Damian Goodman for his efforts, and I totally support him, as well as all other pro-rail folks.
Let’s use common sense: not a single mass transit system in the world (including Los Angeles) could exist without rail.
Buses in Los Angeles have proven to be inefficient, clumsy, slow, unreliable, and overall - unattractive to most riders. But building more rail lines (including Purple Line to Santa Monica) would give a great boost to our mass transit system.
For short distances buses may somewhat be better (though only somewhat!), but for moderated distances nothing can replace trains! - that’s for sure.
So, let’s hope for more Metro-Rail lines in Los Angeles!
Alek
Comment by Alek F — May 26, 2007 @ 2:42 pm