On July 3, 2012 I rode the entire LA light rail system.  My day started at the Airport Blvd. station on the Green Line.  I rode the Green Line first to its western terminus, then to its eastern terminus, then backtracked to its interchange with the Blue Line. 

 

The Green Line opened in 1995 and is completely grade separated.  It is very, very fast in its expressway section, and moderately fast on its western elevated section.  Ridership is fairly light as it appears to act mostly as a bus feeder.  There are plans to extend its western terminus further and to create a new interchange with the Crenshaw Line at Aviation Blvd.  This will give Green Line riders an all-rail trip to LAX.  At present they switch to a shuttle bus. 

 

According to Wikipedia the line is 20 miles long, has 14 stations, and 45,000 daily riders. 

 

Aviation Blvd. Station...turnout to future Crenshaw and LAX connection:

 

This station marks the point where the line transitions from running in an expressway median to its elevated section:

 

 

 

Good view of the elevated construction.  This is how all of the line looks west of Aviation Blvd.:

 

 

 

Western terminus:

 

End of the line:

 

 

Now backtracking eastbound:

 

 

Freight railroad under elevated light rail:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traveling back over Aviation Blvd.:

 

Transitioning to I-105 median:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eastern terminus:

 

Eastern terminus:

 

View of the Blue Line from the Rosa Parks station:

 

Here you see the single track that forms the link between the Green and Blue Lines:

 

Blue Line train:

 

Walking down to the Blue Line:

 

 

 

 

Every time I use rail/see photos of rail transit in other cities, I can't help but think how much Cincinnatians/Ohioans would appreciate it if only they could experience it.

On July 3, 2012 I rode every light rail line in Los Angeles from end to end.  I switched from the Green Line to the Blue Line, rode it south to Long Beach, then backtracked up to Downtown Los Angeles. 

 

The Blue Line opened in 1990, is 22 miles long, and carries 90,000 passengers daily.  It appears to mostly parallel a freight railroad, but has street running in Downtown Long Beach and in its approach to Downtown Los Angeles.  It travels underground in a subway to a terminal station in DT LA where one can transfer to the Red Line Subway.  This light rail subway is currently planned to be extended to meet the Gold Line at Union Station.  Also, the Expo Line now shares this subway approach and a few blocks of street running. 

 

Walking down from the Green Line to the Blue Line:

 

Under the I-105:

 

DT Long Beach:

 

DT Long Beach:

 

The line travels in a single-track loop around DT Long Beach:

 

 

 

 

 

 

New infill in DT Long Beach:

 

 

 

Heading back north toward Compton:

 

A typical grade crossing, at least 10 of these along the line:

 

 

Junction of the Blue and Expo Lines:

 

 

Shared Blue/Expo lines:

 

Another view of the junction:

 

 

Shared trackage:

 

Line is close enough to the Staples Center:

 

Blue Line/Expo Line tracks enter subway, terminal station is a few blocks from this point.  The subway station is pretty nondescript and I didn't take any photos of it. 

On July 3 I rode every light rail line in LA end to end.  I rode the Green line, then the Blue line, then the Expo line, then the Gold Line.  The Expo line just opened in summer 2012. 

 

The Expo Line begins here, on shared trackage in a subway with the Blue Line.  This stretch was opened in 1990, and is showing some age.  The shared trackage continues for about a mile. 

 

 

 

Blue Line diverts to the left, Expo straight ahead:

 

Brand new Expo Line tracks:

 

Looking back at DT LA:

 

Expo Line in the street:

 

 

Passing over this hellish scene:

 

 

 

 

View of DT LA from elevated station:

 

View of Century City from elevated station...future Wilshire Blvd. subway extension will serve this area:

 

Elevated station:

 

 

Park & Ride garage:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extension to Santa Monica under construction:

 

 

Excellent!  I rode the Expo line a couple weeks ago.  The slow surface level zone along Flower is kind of annoying, but once it hits those separated / elevated portions it really flies.  You gotta have a pic of where the track just ends up in the air.  It screams action scene.

Love the pictures.  I used to ride the Blue Line every-so-often when I lived in LA.  Haven't ridden the Expo Line yet, but I probably will next month when I visit LA for a few days.

Will probably ride the Expo Line next month on my LA trip to go hang out with a friend who lives in Culver City.

Nice pictures.  It's been a long while since I rode the Green Line...1997.

The Gold Line has two branches, the older north branch to Pasadena which opened in 2003 and the new southern branch which opened in 2009.  The first branch appears to travel mostly on an abandoned rail ROW, then it transitions to expressway median running, with extensions planned further east in the I-210 median.  The East LA branch is mostly street running, except for a subway section with two underground stations. 

 

The Gold Line's central feature is its Union Station station, where riders switch to the Red Line subway or less often commuter rail.  A new light rail subway connection is planned which will link the Gold Line with the Blue and Expo lines. 

 

We begin at Union Station, where a fleet of commuter trains await their afternoon trips:

 

 

Commuter and Amtrak tracks:

 

 

 

Huge TOD:

 

Crossing expressway on freight railroad bridge: 

 

 

 

A subway needs to happen through whatever town this was.  The speed was way too slow for a line planned to extend 20+ miles from this point:

 

 

Current terminus of the line at this huge park & ride garage:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heading back toward LA:

 

 

 

 

Now south of Union Station on the East LA branch:

 

 

 

Crossing the LA river again:

 

 

 

 

TOD:

 

Terminal station:

 

Terminal station:

 

Great pics! Thanks.

Glad to see the TOD, but I still see way too many used car lots, gas stations or other anti-TOD land uses around stations. Like this scene you caught.....

 

Busiest light-rail line in the United States. Perhaps the world?

 

BTW, this is a fun line to follow in Google Streetview. It follows the same route of the old Pacific Electric, and the intermediate sections look just like a high-quality interurban.

It is very fast.

Awesome.

The Pasadena stations are great.

Great stuff.

Yeah, probably the fastest light rail line in the country.  Too bad it connects nowhere to nowhere.  It appears the entire reason it was built was because it was relatively inexpensive to do so when the interstate was rebuilt.  Also, Proposition C allocates LA County sales tax specifically to HOV and rail-in-median projects, so there is some tendency for transit planners to get lines out to interstates where they can be built in medians so that they can tap into this funding.  The Gold Line is like this -- once they got out to the freeway, then they actually had way more money available to extend the line.

That station is currently the terminal station and has only been open for a few years.  Some of the stations closer to DT LA have much more development around them. 

 

I can't overstate how annoying the very slow running in whatever that town is.  It easily adds 5 minutes to the ride.  It'll be offset somewhat by the downtown light rail tunnel, which will get more people to their destinations without transfering to the red line, but nevertheless you have to hope that that slow-running mile will be rebuilt underground at some point.

The stations and overall appearance of the line are quite dated from that horrible late-80s/early-90s shopping mall era.  I hope that it's all scrubbed clean at some point. 

 

Also, they probably need to add more grade separation as the line is frustratingly slow at several spots, especially its approach to DT LA, where it creeps along in traffic before dipping into its short subway. 

There was also a large cluser of defense/aerospace employers near the western end of the line up until the 90's. When the Cold War ended, so did those jobs and the ridership they brought.

 

At the eastern end, the Green Line apparently stops only a couple miles short of a busy Metrolink commuter rail station. If they'd extend it to that station, the line would become much more useful.

For a rail line that goes from nowhere to nowhere, 45,000 trips a day is VERY good. It's more than the light rail SYSTEMS in 12 cities including Buffalo, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Phoenix, etc.

The line strikes me as the sort that would be built well after the spokes of a traditional hub-and-spoke network was built out.  Instead it's a bit of a cart ahead of the horse situation. 

 

As for ridership, the whole LA basin is packed with stuff so really you could build such a line from any random point to another and get fairly high ridership as compared to most lines of the same length in the Midwest. It appeared to me that the stations in the interstate median section of the line were in low income areas and so hadn't succeeded in attracting much development, but it was pretty hard to see what exactly we were traveling past since the line is not elevated above the expressway. 

I think that slow moving section is South Pasadena.  I love taking the Gold Line out to Pasadena, and the Del Mar station is brilliantly designed, despite being a watered down version of what was originally proposed there.  Thanks for the photo tour!

^Agreed.  I've only been on the Blue Line a couple of times, because driving is usually much more convenient for trips to Long Beach, but it does have a huge ridership, mostly consisting of people who don't really have a choice besides transit, however there hasn't been nearly as much TOD around it as compared to the Gold or Red/Purple lines.  Probably due to demographics of South LA/North Long Beach, I'm guessing.

The Expo Line is a great addition to the LA rail network.  I just wish it opened when it was originally scheduled to, so I could have used it to get to USC!

Digging those shots approaching Downtown!  Have to point out the buffered bike lane in LB: I'm sure that's very effective in keeping cars from veering or parking in the bike lane and notice that *gasp* it's a one-way street. You'd think that was impossible with so many cities unwilling to make concessions on one-way downtown streets even though there's still plenty of room. Clueless pedestrians are probably a bigger problem on a road like that for cyclists though.

Despite the perfect weather and flatness you don't see many more people biking in LA than in the midwest.  I think the problem is that the distances people have to travel are simply ridiculous.  The key to having a pleasant life living in LA appears to prioritize living close to your workplace and hopefully where you live is somewhere "real" and not nebulous. 

 

Downtown Long Beach is a little sleepy but has some investment and is healthier than most midwestern downtowns of the same size.  The only one I can think of that really dusts it is Ann Arbor.  But it would be a lot more attractive if the Blue Line was a lot faster.  It's about 20 miles so an express light rail line train would make that trip in about 30 minutes.  Instead the Blue Line takes about an hour.

Residents living near Expo Line stations reduce car use, study shows

By Laura J. Nelson

December 16, 2013

 

 

The Metro Expo Line was already under construction when Ryan Vincent started house-hunting. His goal: to live within walking distance of a light-rail station.

 

"Every house I looked at, I was doing the mental calculus," Vincent, 39, said. "Would I be willing to walk from that address to the train?"

 

He settled with his girlfriend and his dog in a Spanish-style home in West Adams, two blocks from the Farmdale Station. Since then, his Honda Civic hybrid has mostly sat unused.

 

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-expo-study-20131216,0,6863796.story#axzz2neGeAFGf

Posted January 21, 2014 by Steve Hymon

And so it begins: ground is broken for 8.5-mile Crenshaw/LAX Line

 

The groundbreaking is being held this morning. We’ll be posting plenty of photos and video later today, as well as posting pics to our Twitter and Instagram feeds during the event.

 

Here is Metro’s news release:

 

Construction began Tuesday morning on the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project, an 8.5-mile, $2.058-billion light-rail line that will run between the Metro Expo and Green lines and is expected to open in 2019. The project will also bring Metro Rail closer to Los Angeles International Airport.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://thesource.metro.net/2014/01/21/and-so-it-begins-ground-is-broken-for-8-5-mile-crenshawlax-line/

 

Posted January 21, 2014 by Steve Hymon

And so it begins: ground is broken for 8.5-mile Crenshaw/LAX Line

 

The groundbreaking is being held this morning. Well be posting plenty of photos and video later today, as well as posting pics to our Twitter and Instagram feeds during the event.

 

Here is Metros news release:

 

Construction began Tuesday morning on the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project, an 8.5-mile, $2.058-billion light-rail line that will run between the Metro Expo and Green lines and is expected to open in 2019. The project will also bring Metro Rail closer to Los Angeles International Airport.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://thesource.metro.net/2014/01/21/and-so-it-begins-ground-is-broken-for-8-5-mile-crenshawlax-line/

 

 

I recently had the 1st opportunity to ride LA Metro (both HRT and LRT -- Gold & Expo lines).  LRT is well built and well adapted to LA's sprawling light and moderate density neighborhoods.  It’s very fast, except for the Blue/Expo trunk line downtown where there's substantial street running and stopping at traffic lights, before dropping into the Flower Street subway (for several blocks) to its temporary terminal at the 7th Street Metro Center...

 

The Crenshaw line will be a big help getting to-from the airport which is currently a mess.  It’s pegged to be a short distance from the air terminals near the corner of Century and Aviation Blvd’s from where, I’m assuming, an airport shuttle rail will connect Metro riders to the airport, parking lots and/or car rentals… Also an LA Times article I saw (if I find it, I'll post it) had a map showing the Crenshaw Line terminating at the Expo/Crenshaw station at the Expo Line, while yours (and others I've seen) have it continuing into downtown and along the soon-to-be-built Regional Connector, then out the Gold Line (north) ending at Chinatown... Obviously, I think your configuration makes much more sense.

 

I rode the entire LA transit system on a day out there in 2012.  The distances are so far that these lines need an express track like the NYC lines, however the LRT lines have a bit too much street running for that to make any sense in the current configuration.  My thought is that what's being built in LA now is the "local" for a few future "express" lines that will placed in bored tunnels with very few stations.  So for example an express subway tunnel with just two stations between DT LA and Santa Monica, presumably at a transfer station on the Wilshire subway and the contemplated W. Hollywood metro line and at Century City. 

LA has been blowing up lately for development. Despite a still tough job market, lots of kids are moving to the urban neighborhoods (Downtown just gets better and better), and TOD is through the roof (more than I'm seeing in San Francisco). Overall, the city is heading in the right direction. Too many historic buildings were lost during freeway construction and the suburban sprawl era, but most new construction is taking out a lot of the crappy low-rise strip malls and apartment buildings from the 50's through 80's. There is lots of infill on surface lots too.

 

In a decade, I think LA will be one of America's best urban cities. It's already a pretty nice city with some decent pockets of dense urbanity, but it suffers from disconnection. That is changing as the transit corridors get built up. I don't think they're ready to start tearing out any of their notorious freeways, but the aggressive push for expanded transit has been nothing short of shocking compared to how slow things are moving in other American cities. Look at how far LA has come in just the last 20 years...

 

That's Right, Los Angeles Is Giving Up Car Lanes for Pedestrians

ERIC JAFFEJUL 05, 201333 COMMENTS

 

Los Angeles has a great deal of walkability despite its car-centric reputation, but much of it remains hidden to the public. In the city's historic Broadway corridor, at least, that secret is about to come out. The city council recently voted to fund an initial redevelopment of Broadway into a legitimate pedestrian plaza — reducing six lanes of road down to three in the process.

 

The plan to "bring back" Broadway has been going on for about five years, but it really started to take shape in late 2009 with the public release of a street redesign. The first phase of this "Broadway Streetscape Master Plan" [PDF] is a makeshift and very cost-effective ($1.8 million) conversion modeled on the pedestrian parcels implemented in New York City. The second phase, yet to be funded, is where the heavy transformations would occur.

 

As that image shows, the proposed changes will alter Broadway to its core. Instead of five travel lanes plus a "ghost" sixth lane for buses, the street will devote just three lanes to traffic and extend sidewalks and curbs for walking. Transit will be enhanced, too, with improvements to bus service and groundwork for a streetcar line the city hopes to bring to the corridor.

 

CONTINUED

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/07/s-right-los-angeles-giving-car-lanes-pedestrians/6116/

Definitive Evidence That L.A.'s New Light Rail Line Reduces Driving

ERIC JAFFEDEC 20, 201355 COMMENT

 

Los Angeles, in case you haven't heard, is doing everything in its power to shed its reputation as a car-first (or, in some minds, car-only) city. Part of that effort involves a massive expansion to the city's rail system — with six new lines slated to open between 2012 and 2020. One of these, the Expo light rail line, which runs more than 8 miles west of downtown Los Angeles toward Culver City, opened in June 2012 and is now carrying nearly 28,000 people each weekday.

 

The success of L.A.'s rail program will take years to determine, but an early analysis released this week suggests it's on the right track (so to speak). A research team led by Marlon Boarnet of the University of Southern California reports that the Expo Line led to significant changes in travel behavior — mostly in the desired direction. Boarnet and company found major reductions in driving and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as increases in rail ridership and physical activity.

 

CONTINUED

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/12/definitive-evidence-ls-new-light-rail-line-reduces-driving/7936/

Despite the perfect weather and flatness you don't see many more people biking in LA than in the midwest.  I think the problem is that the distances people have to travel are simply ridiculous.  The key to having a pleasant life living in LA appears to prioritize living close to your workplace and hopefully where you live is somewhere "real" and not nebulous. 

 

Yes, you want to live by work. The exceptions would be if you live on the Red Line. That's an excellent heavy rail subway. And the expanded Purple Line under Wilshire will give a lot more options. You want to minimize your driving in LA.

 

If I lived in LA, I'd pay a lot more money to live by a Red Line station...and I think that is already the case. From places I've seen, rents are higher near Red Line stations.

The Crenshaw line will be a big help getting to-from the airport which is currently a mess.  It’s pegged to be a short distance from the air terminals near the corner of Century and Aviation Blvd’s from where, I’m assuming, an airport shuttle rail will connect Metro riders to the airport, parking lots and/or car rentals…

 

My understanding is that they will build a people mover similar to what's under construction at Oakland International right now.

 

This is a much-needed development for LA. The drive to LAX is never fun.

It doesn't feel like you're in LA when you're on the Red Line.  The trains are all chrome and it almost looks communist.  There's something just not right about being in one of the few places in the world with perfect weather and being stuck in the basement. 

 

That said, the Wilshire subway will be a big, big, big deal.  I rode the express bus from DT LA to Santa Monica, and it's not slow but it's not fast enough.  The new subway will be significantly faster.  But again, the distances in LA are so goddamn vast that it's impossible to imagine life there really being revolutionized without a web of subway lines with express tracks like New York.  Like 5 miles between stations. 

The thing about LA transit is that it's actually faster and more reliable than SF transit. Sections of it work better than anything else on the West Coast. Once that Wilshire subway is built, it's arguable if San Francisco can still claim to have the best transit in the state. LA will have two heavy rail subways while we only have one. LA is bucking the trend big time by building a new heavy rail subway in a built-up section of a city.

 

Sure, those distances are huge since LA is the second largest city in the country and covers more land area than New York, but the transit they have works pretty well. And TOD is appearing along the heavy and light rail lines just as anticipated. I don't think DTLA would be where it's at right now if it weren't for all the transit projects of the last 20 years. Sure, some 50,000 people live there now (and I think the office population is around 150,000, so still less than half San Francisco), but its renewed vitality also comes from people outside of downtown who have rediscovered its urban strengths. It is totally possible in a large number of neighborhoods to take transit to downtown. Another big deal is that their transit runs pretty late, so bar crowds can use it.

 

*Call me crazy, but I believe LA is the model for most American cities. The reason I say this is because it heavily suffered from what most other established American cities went through- rampant freeway construction chopping up neighborhoods and leveling historic buildings, rampant suburban sprawl leading to intense traffic congestion and poor pedestrian environments, long commutes, smog as a result of all that commuting, deindustrialization, a rocky post-2008 economy, etc., etc. If LA can fix itself and become functionally urban again, then other cities have no excuses. It helps that LA has high population density in most of its neighborhoods, but it's all chopped up and lots of gaps exist like in other American cities. Most of America is built like LA, not like New York, San Francisco, or Chicago.

*Call me crazy, but I believe LA is the model for most American cities. The reason I say this is because it heavily suffered from what most other established American cities went through- rampant freeway construction chopping up neighborhoods and leveling historic buildings, rampant suburban sprawl leading to intense traffic congestion and poor pedestrian environments, long commutes, smog as a result of all that commuting, deindustrialization, a rocky post-2008 economy, etc., etc. If LA can fix itself and become functionally urban again, then other cities have no excuses. It helps that LA has high population density in most of its neighborhoods, but it's all chopped up and lots of gaps exist like in other American cities. Most of America is built like LA, not like New York, San Francisco, or Chicago.

 

As I've mentioned before I was there last summer, and LA in a lot of ways is like the vision of American suburbia on steroids taken to its most intensely broken ultimate conclusion.  Its a very weird place that in the sheer intensity of how it was developed makes it a lot different than most sprawly areas I've been to, I kind of felt like I was in this absolutely massive galactic entity with many suns (dense urban areas) all scattered throughout its orbit.  If all of those dense areas were combined into one core it would be a lot like NYC or Chicago. Given the seismic shifts in transit culture going on there I think its eventual outcome will be more like an East Asian city, many dense nodes interconnected by a massive transit network. 

 

Its a pretty exciting place to watch develop, even if I have major reservations with its culture which kind of disregards good taste (though at its best it does allow for innovation) but the whole place just struck me as tacky.  Nonetheless downtown is fantastic particularly if they fill in some of the gargantuan parking lots.  I guess in short at its current state LA is weirdly fascinating to me and with this winter the prospect of actually having a warm weather city in this country with a good urban culture is really appealing to me right now in spite of its trashiness.

 

Oh and the subways are insanely fast, I was amazed at how quickly I could get to Hollywood, or Koreatown I'm too used to the ancient infrastructure in Chicago - the subway under Wilshire cannot come fast enough, and I wish they would immediately get it all the way to Santa Monica.  The buses were great too, even the Flyaway bus was a really awesome alternative for not having a direct rail airport connection, 9$ will take you to either Westwood or DTLA on a regular basis (like every hour for Westwood and every half hour for DTLA).  If your in town take advantage of that service.

The thing about LA transit is that it's actually faster and more reliable than SF transit. Sections of it work better than anything else on the West Coast. Once that Wilshire subway is built, it's arguable if San Francisco can still claim to have the best transit in the state. LA will have two heavy rail subways while we only have one. LA is bucking the trend big time by building a new heavy rail subway in a built-up section of a city.

 

Sure, those distances are huge since LA is the second largest city in the country and covers more land area than New York, but the transit they have works pretty well. And TOD is appearing along the heavy and light rail lines just as anticipated. I don't think DTLA would be where it's at right now if it weren't for all the transit projects of the last 20 years. Sure, some 50,000 people live there now (and I think the office population is around 150,000, so still less than half San Francisco), but its renewed vitality also comes from people outside of downtown who have rediscovered its urban strengths. It is totally possible in a large number of neighborhoods to take transit to downtown. Another big deal is that their transit runs pretty late, so bar crowds can use it.

 

*Call me crazy, but I believe LA is the model for most American cities. The reason I say this is because it heavily suffered from what most other established American cities went through- rampant freeway construction chopping up neighborhoods and leveling historic buildings, rampant suburban sprawl leading to intense traffic congestion and poor pedestrian environments, long commutes, smog as a result of all that commuting, deindustrialization, a rocky post-2008 economy, etc., etc. If LA can fix itself and become functionally urban again, then other cities have no excuses. It helps that LA has high population density in most of its neighborhoods, but it's all chopped up and lots of gaps exist like in other American cities. Most of America is built like LA, not like New York, San Francisco, or Chicago.

 

I disagree as LA was built as a highway city!  It was built out as a sprawling metropolis, with the highway connecting it all.

I disagree as LA was built as a highway city!  It was built out as a sprawling metropolis, with the highway connecting it all.

 

What about the Red Cars? They preceded the freeways.

^^Well, technically no.  Los Angeles was a classic streetcar city before the highway.  The highway certainly made Southern California boom but the streetcar went all the way down to Newport Beach before I-405 did.

I disagree as LA was built as a highway city!  It was built out as a sprawling metropolis, with the highway connecting it all.

 

What about the Red Cars? They preceded the freeways.

 

The old parts of LA were and are very dense, denser on a much larger scale than are the remaining dense areas of the Great Lakes (excepting Chicago) cities, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and St. Louis.  Wilshire, Sunset, Hollywood Blvd, these are all more densely built than High St. in Columbus between DT and OSU, and they go on for 10+ miles each at that density.  The spaces between them are very densely built and very active.  LA had a population of maybe 2 million when the car started taking over and it's all the areas built-out since -- Orange County, Inland Empire, San Fernando Valley, Compton, Inglewood, Long Beach, etc. that are lower density. 

 

So if the LA area is about 15 million, about 2-3 million of those people live in relatively dense and walkable areas, which is much more than any city in the Midwest sans Chicago.  That's why LA's subway is the only one in the US that stays completely below ground (and so will the Wilshire extension), because it's very dense. 

 

It's all the outlying areas I already mentioned that are the problem -- they are 15 miles from DTLA and are not themselves very walkable. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^^Well, technically no.  Los Angeles was a classic streetcar city before the highway.  The highway certainly made Southern California boom but the streetcar went all the way down to Newport Beach before I-405 did.

Technically true, but I think you get the jist of what I am saying.

^^Well, technically no.  Los Angeles was a classic streetcar city before the highway.  The highway certainly made Southern California boom but the streetcar went all the way down to Newport Beach before I-405 did.

 

Do a Google Earth view of LA between downtown and Santa Monica and check out the housing density. BTW, when my dad went to UCLA in the late 40s, he walked all the way from downtown LA to Santa Monica and said it was a great walking experience with all of the stores, pedestrians, activity etc. He said the street energy was just great. After a long day, he rode the Pacific Electric back to his apartment near UCLA.

 

This was the Pacific Electric Railway system in 1925 (PE Rwy lines are red and motor coach [bus] lines are blue). The cost to restore much of this has been huge. That's why it's better to mothball rail infrastructure rather than dismantle it. But making it prohibitively expensive to restore the rail network is exactly what the buyers of the PE wanted....

 

^^Well, technically no.  Los Angeles was a classic streetcar city before the highway.  The highway certainly made Southern California boom but the streetcar went all the way down to Newport Beach before I-405 did.

 

Do a Google Earth view of LA between downtown and Santa Monica and check out the housing density. BTW, when my dad went to UCLA in the late 40s, he walked all the way from downtown LA to Santa Monica and said it was a great walking experience with all of the stores, pedestrians, activity etc. He said the street energy was just great. After a long day, he rode the Pacific Electric back to his apartment near UCLA.

 

This was the Pacific Electric Railway system in 1925 (PE Rwy lines are red and motor coach [bus] lines are blue). The cost to restore much of this has been huge. That's why it's better to mothball rail infrastructure rather than dismantle it. But making it prohibitively expensive to restore the rail network is exactly what the buyers of the PE wanted....

 

 

HE WALKED FROM DT LA TO SANTA MONICA?  DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THAT IS?!

HE WALKED FROM DT LA TO SANTA MONICA?  DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THAT IS?!

 

Yes. It's about 15 miles. He said it took him all day.

^Today's Metro Red, Blue and Gold lines seem to generally follow those old PE routes.

HE WALKED FROM DT LA TO SANTA MONICA?  DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THAT IS?!

 

Yes. It's about 15 miles. He said it took him all day.

 

OMG.  I've tried to run from my house to Santa Monica (via Wilshire or Santa Monica) and thats a lil over 4 miles.  I can't imagine walking as LA is so brown and ugly.

Does anyone know why DT Los Angeles is where it is?  It seems like a very arbitrary spot, and I've googled it before and been unable to find an answer. 

 

From what I understand, Spanish Missions were the central part of early LA (i.e. Olvera Street)...then came the grid from that...then came what is now "downtown."