🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2024

[cahwyguy]

Might have been like this if not for the car industry. At one point LA (particularly the valley) had a cable car system similar to SF. If you've ever wondered why Sherman Way is as wide as it is, it's because the trolleys used to run down the center. There used to be trolleys and gondolas that would take you up to Mt. Wilson.

@Quillz  is incorrect. In addition to being a roadgeek, I'm interested in the history of rail in Los Angeles. I've been a member out at Orange Empire Rwy Museum (now SCRM, https://socalrailway.org/) since 1985.

Yes, there were cable cars in Los Angeles. Never were they in the San Fernando Valley; they were concentrated in downtown LA, and only for a few years. THey were not financially successful.

I don't recall PE ever running to Mt. Wilson. The Mt. Lowe line did run to the trailhead (see https://www.erha.org/penml.htm ) PE never ran gondolas. The Mt. Lowe line consisted of a conventional trolley line, a funicular, and a narrow gague line to the tavern at the top.

The density of PE and rail in the valley was extremely poor -- perhaps about as good as Metro's rail system might eventually be: There was the line that ran to North Hollywood through the pass, and the line that ran along Sherman Way (now Chandler), N. Sherman Way (now Van Nuys), and Sherman Way (now, uh, Sherman Way) to Owensmouth (now Canoga Park). There was a branch that continued up N Sherman Way to Parthenia, curved, across to Sepulveda, up to Brand, curved, and into San Fernando. That was it for much of the valley, although there were more lines to Burbank and Glendale. The Brand branch was gone by the 1930s, at least for passengers (it still served freight); the SFV line by the early 1950s.

What killed the rail? Not the cars or any conspiracy, but money. The PUC refused to allow rate increases for the rail lines, and without rate increases, PE couldn't improve vehicles. Many cars running in the 1950s were coaches from the 1910s. The PCC cars helped on some lines, but no cars had air conditioning or good suspension. Don't believe me? You can still ride them out at OERM/SCRM. Further, the streets were getting crowded, any many lines still ran shared with street traffic. There were a few private RoWs -- Sherman Way, Santa Monica, San Vicente, Glendale, Huntington. PE increasingly fought back by shutting down lines and moving to buses (although in the LATL and first MTA eras, the PUC didn't allow any rail line closures, although their weren't many left then).

One might argue that what killed the PE was that it was never designed as a transit line -- that wasn't its purpose. It was designed to sell real estate (1st), move local freight (2nd), and perhaps transport workers (3rd). Getting cars off the street wasn't its goal. The density of the city it helped create didn't support that. The road network and cars stitched together the multiple suburbs and communities in the LA basin into a rough conglomerate, and the legal decisions regarding water made it all one city (you wanted the water, you had to join the city). As always, no history is clean.

Los Angeles doesn't have the density to support traditional rail transit, and just like with cybersecurity (my professional specialty), attempting to retrofit is doesn't work. Adding subways and rail at this point is far too expensive, and will always be too little to late. One answer, which is slowly happening despite the NIMBYs, is to increase density along existing corridors, and improve those corridors.

So, folks like @Plutonic Panda will argue that widening and increasing roads will be the answer, and more freeways (such as the unbuilt ones) will solve things. That's not true either, as new freeways are as expensive as new rail lines, and often impact more people at the surface (really bad PR). Widening only improves things temporarily; I don't think anyone can point to a widening of a road in an urban area that has improved throughput after 5-6 years. There is concern about increased greenhouse gases (and increasing traffic doesn't help that -- even moving to electric doesn't help depending on where the power is sourced). The current approach seems to be pushing people to do more locally (less VMT), but is fighting against an existing infrastructure that encourages road use simply by where we place businesses and commerce.

There is no good or easy solution. Well, perhaps there is: Electric flying cars. Didn't they promise us those? But lacking that, on the ground, none of our answers will work. As such, many of our debates here are just pissing into the wind (but be careful lest the wind change direction).

The answers we are going to have are going to be incremental: An AUX lane here, a new rail lane there (cough, East SF Valley), some new bus infrastructure (cough, the new lanes on Sepulveda), new bike lines in flatlands, reworked areas for active transportation where there are loads of pedestrians, moving the personal vehicles to side streets and having only transit in those areas (and making that transit more frictionless in terms of ease of use) (cough, Hollywood); having more rail between the ports and logistic/transfer hubs, reducing truck traffic; and, yes, perhaps even congestion pricing, although that hurts some segments of the community disproportionally.

Daniel

[Plutonic Panda]

Perhaps I should clarify. I don't believe I've ever said that widening freeways will solve things nor should they be the only answer. But adding lanes does help manage traffic, especially during off-peak hours it could prevent the ridiculous back ups during midday and the weekend. Now you're not ever going to build the road or a highway big enough to deal with peak hour traffic, Beach traffic on PCH, etc.

I believe you also said you were a bit of a preservationist, but then your answer is for higher density building which wouldn't necessitate the destruction of older buildings?

And I'm against building higher density developments for the sake of developing a rapid metro system.

Though at times I may go on rants, which I need to work on that may make me less credible. I can understand the frustration of NIMBYs. The 241 extension being a prime example. I would've used that road and I know a lot of other people would have as well. It's also a connection you would look at on a map and think why the hell was not built. Now I think those who live in Pasadena and South Pasadena can say somewhat of the same thing, but they can be persuaded with people who can show their arguments that the TBM machines were going to damage historic buildings. We're just malarkey.

Those next to the 241 Extensions actually have good points to make about road noise and they're being some issues of more Car infrastructure putting off toxic fumes around the high school, which is where the interchange at the 5 was going to be. But frankly, I think it still should've been built.

Those are projects I'm advocating for. Am I seriously pushing for the construction of the Beverly Hills Freeway? Absolutely not. What I like to see it built, but I know it's not happening. I just use that as an example because someone here said I don't care about what's built so as long as it's not in my community and that's a bunch of bullshit.

But for one thing, you've already basically answered your own question about one of the big issues with transit in Los Angeles. And that is safety. I ride Metro all the time and I rarely see someone who isn't hurt or doing something completely obscene like masturbating. The state of the system is trash. It needs better cleaning. It needs better security. Preferably there would be plain clothes officers to assist with the situation. Then you need the prosecutor to actually prosecute and not just drop cases left and right.

I have been using Metro less than less because of this very problem. A lot of people asked me is it worth it to take Metro and I always tell them no rent a car do not take the metro system at all in LA. The only two lines I would ever suggest someone as a tourist to take would be midday, And either the B from Universal Studios to downtown, Or the E line From downtown to Santa Monica. Again in all depends on where they're staying at and if they're really trying to experience LA train system.

But the answer is not to fuck up LA traffic flow to try and force drivers on to a transit system especially one that is extremely inefficient.

IMHO, the Answer with a campaign to improve its network in reliability, which will include some converted car lanes to bus lanes where it makes sense.

The other answer will lie to improve safety and reliability on the existing system on its rail network.

MetroLink will also need the step up which they claim they plan to operate more lines and later hours. There's been plenty of times I've wanted to use MetroLink and I was unable to because when I needed to return, they weren't running trains after 10 or 11.

To get serious regional and statewide mobility going this place needs to get off its ass and make the goddamn high-speed rail system happen.

But glorified street rail projects like the one happening on Van Nuys Blvd. is nothing but a money pit. Building a brand new light rail line like the K line and then shutting it down at Centinella so they can construct a grade separated bridge when they should've done that to begin with is not the answer.

Part of it is also going to be better competency on Metro part when it comes to building new lines and planning better. You sit here and tell us we're not adding any new lanes to freeways because it's going to adversely affect nearby communities and it's only gonna add to nearby traffic but don't worry just wait 30 to 40 years from now.

The high desert corridor freeway needs to be built. 605 and 710 Freeways need to be expanded. Other roads like the 405 and the 10 one need to have Xpress lanes added to them at least two in each direction whether they be elevated or place below ground. See I-635 how this can happen. Several interchange need to be completely rebuilt in modernized like the 101 and the 405, I-5/710 and I-605/I-5, express lanes extension from DTLA to the current ones and then east to SB County line. The 710 tunnel needs to be built. Several missing connections at existing interchanges need to be added. And roads like the 126 need to be upgraded.

And yes, expensive subways are absolutely going to have to be part of the solution on the west side, especially.

These may not be popular and not cheap but we are talking about a mega Opolis of 21 million people in the greater Southern California metro area and that's just the amount of people that live here. That does not include the daytime population, which is higher given the amount of tourist and business we conducted here.

A lot of what I said, probably will never happen and looking down in the future, some assholes gonna come along and invent the teleporter making this all obsolete, but until that time comes things like addressing I-10 between the 405 and downtown need to be done.

Yes, there will be some pissed off people living nearby but you know what not everybody's gonna be happy with the situation in the outcome. A hell of a lot more people will use the highway than those that will be against it.

And asked for expensive subways they will absolutely be worth it. Just wait until the purple line opens up.

PS is anybody having more and more issues with their speech to text function on their phone? I use that a lot, but I'm gonna start using my computer again because I'm getting frustrated with mobile. I've just noticed it getting worse. It'll either write something different from what I said or it'll text something exactly as I said it and then just decide to delete it.

[Plutonic Panda]

And just summarize my statement as best as I can in my opinion, the two solutions to what is a serious problem in Southern California regarding its mobility issues are this.

It's gonna be very expensive to fix.

Not everybody's gonna like it(that also includes me).

[Plutonic Panda]

I also want to add there is a much cheaper way to do subway tunnels, which aren't costing about $1.8 billion per mile like the current purple line extension is between Beverly Hills and the Westwood VA.

It's not always feasible or possible, but when it is, it should be utilized more. It's also more disruptive, but good things are worth the wait.

It's called cut and cover.

My friend in New York City told me that's how the bulk of the New York City Subway was constructed. I also hear that's how they plan to extend the Avenue subway.

[Quillz]

Might have been like this if not for the car industry. At one point LA (particularly the valley) had a cable car system similar to SF. If you've ever wondered why Sherman Way is as wide as it is, it's because the trolleys used to run down the center. There used to be trolleys and gondolas that would take you up to Mt. Wilson.

@Quillz  is incorrect. In addition to being a roadgeek, I'm interested in the history of rail in Los Angeles. I've been a member out at Orange Empire Rwy Museum (now SCRM, https://socalrailway.org/) since 1985.

Yes, there were cable cars in Los Angeles. Never were they in the San Fernando Valley; they were concentrated in downtown LA, and only for a few years. THey were not financially successful.

I don't recall PE ever running to Mt. Wilson. The Mt. Lowe line did run to the trailhead (see https://www.erha.org/penml.htm ) PE never ran gondolas. The Mt. Lowe line consisted of a conventional trolley line, a funicular, and a narrow gague line to the tavern at the top.

The density of PE and rail in the valley was extremely poor -- perhaps about as good as Metro's rail system might eventually be: There was the line that ran to North Hollywood through the pass, and the line that ran along Sherman Way (now Chandler), N. Sherman Way (now Van Nuys), and Sherman Way (now, uh, Sherman Way) to Owensmouth (now Canoga Park). There was a branch that continued up N Sherman Way to Parthenia, curved, across to Sepulveda, up to Brand, curved, and into San Fernando. That was it for much of the valley, although there were more lines to Burbank and Glendale. The Brand branch was gone by the 1930s, at least for passengers (it still served freight); the SFV line by the early 1950s.

What killed the rail? Not the cars or any conspiracy, but money. The PUC refused to allow rate increases for the rail lines, and without rate increases, PE couldn't improve vehicles. Many cars running in the 1950s were coaches from the 1910s. The PCC cars helped on some lines, but no cars had air conditioning or good suspension. Don't believe me? You can still ride them out at OERM/SCRM. Further, the streets were getting crowded, any many lines still ran shared with street traffic. There were a few private RoWs -- Sherman Way, Santa Monica, San Vicente, Glendale, Huntington. PE increasingly fought back by shutting down lines and moving to buses (although in the LATL and first MTA eras, the PUC didn't allow any rail line closures, although their weren't many left then).

One might argue that what killed the PE was that it was never designed as a transit line -- that wasn't its purpose. It was designed to sell real estate (1st), move local freight (2nd), and perhaps transport workers (3rd). Getting cars off the street wasn't its goal. The density of the city it helped create didn't support that. The road network and cars stitched together the multiple suburbs and communities in the LA basin into a rough conglomerate, and the legal decisions regarding water made it all one city (you wanted the water, you had to join the city). As always, no history is clean.

Los Angeles doesn't have the density to support traditional rail transit, and just like with cybersecurity (my professional specialty), attempting to retrofit is doesn't work. Adding subways and rail at this point is far too expensive, and will always be too little to late. One answer, which is slowly happening despite the NIMBYs, is to increase density along existing corridors, and improve those corridors.

So, folks like @Plutonic Panda will argue that widening and increasing roads will be the answer, and more freeways (such as the unbuilt ones) will solve things. That's not true either, as new freeways are as expensive as new rail lines, and often impact more people at the surface (really bad PR). Widening only improves things temporarily; I don't think anyone can point to a widening of a road in an urban area that has improved throughput after 5-6 years. There is concern about increased greenhouse gases (and increasing traffic doesn't help that -- even moving to electric doesn't help depending on where the power is sourced). The current approach seems to be pushing people to do more locally (less VMT), but is fighting against an existing infrastructure that encourages road use simply by where we place businesses and commerce.

There is no good or easy solution. Well, perhaps there is: Electric flying cars. Didn't they promise us those? But lacking that, on the ground, none of our answers will work. As such, many of our debates here are just pissing into the wind (but be careful lest the wind change direction).

The answers we are going to have are going to be incremental: An AUX lane here, a new rail lane there (cough, East SF Valley), some new bus infrastructure (cough, the new lanes on Sepulveda), new bike lines in flatlands, reworked areas for active transportation where there are loads of pedestrians, moving the personal vehicles to side streets and having only transit in those areas (and making that transit more frictionless in terms of ease of use) (cough, Hollywood); having more rail between the ports and logistic/transfer hubs, reducing truck traffic; and, yes, perhaps even congestion pricing, although that hurts some segments of the community disproportionally.

Daniel

Thanks for clarifying some of those points about the SF Valley. I haven't studied it in some time, there was a college course I did about transportation and there was a presentation on the early mass transit of the LA Area.