| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/15 |
| 2008/2/15-18 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49151 Activity:high |
2/14 It took me over 2.5 hours to drive from Santa Monica to Arcadia,
a distance of 38miles, or 15MPH. What the hell is wrong with
Los Angeles and why do people actually want to live in LA? God
I can't wait to get out of this shithole the time comes.
\_ Maybe for the H07 CH1X?
\_ Dude, take the 405N to the 118 and it won't take 2.5 hours.
\_ You DUMB FUCK I will still need to get to 210 which will
FUCK IT UP as badly as I-10/I-60. FUCK YOU DUMB FUCK.
\- motd road rage!
\_ There is no traffic eastbound on the 210 between the
118 and 134. After that you are almost there and can even
take the street if you want. And if you are taking the 10
or the 60 from SM to Arcadia at any time other than the middle
of the night you are obviously the dumbfuck. You proved
it with your ridiculous 2.5 hour commute.
\_ No. 210 going through Pasadena towards Azusa is a
total suicide. You obviously haven't driven that part
in the past 5 years where there were plenty of new
homes sprawling in Azusa/Glendora making the commute
a total nightmare. !op
\_ So don't take that part of the 210 and get off in
Pasadena and take the street to Arcadia. Up until
that point (where 210 and 134 meet) there is no
eastbound traffic on the 210.
\_ Are you proposing taking big streets like
Huntington (slow slow) or side streets with
a bunch of stop signs? 15MPH on 210 is actually
faster than Huntington at stop+go @25MPH, and
faster than small streets at stop+go @15MPH.
\_ You aren't going to get to Arcadia without
doing one of either:
1) Taking the 210
2) Taking sidestreets
However, it's a small part of the overall commute.
Personally, I would take Walnut to Foothill.
\_ Why not take the 105 -> 605 and into
Arcadia the back way? Ten years ago this
would have been the fastest way, but I have
not driven in LA in a long time.
\_ This can work depending on time of day.
605 can get traffic. 118 literally
never has traffic ever that I have seen.
\_ Getting onto 118 from 405 is DUMB.
The 405/101 junction fucks everyone
one. In short, LA is one of the WORST
\_ Yes, but you aren't on it long.
Of course you know best because
your way took you 2.5 hours.
planned cities I've ever seen and
I hope it gets nuked so that we can
rebuild it from scratch. FUCK LA.
\_ You are seriously proposing turing the 33 mile trip
into a 57 mile one? Why not take the 134 East through
the Valley?
\_ Traffic. The fastest distance between two points is
not necessarily a straight line. 57 miles at 70 mph
is a lot faster than 38 miles at 15 mph.
\_ Taking your road rage to the motd?
\_ Obviously what's wrong with the LA metro area is it's got
a lot of sprawl and has crappy mass transit.
\_ All traffic problems come down to too many people in too small
an area with insufficient means of transit (all means) to get
from any arbitrary A to any B.
\_ nice tautology. so what is the implication of rail
being able to deliver five times the carrying capacity per
land unit? -tom
\_ 5x the capacity is only useful if there are 5x the number
of commuters who share a similar route and schedule.
You need to solve the real world problem and not a
theoretical one based on non-existent distributions of
commuters. A train from Pasadena to Santa Monica will
be nice, but :
1. It will make so many stops along the way it that won't
be as fast as it seems.
2. Lots of people still need a way to get from the
terminal to their jobs. What we see a lot of in LA
is people buying *TWO* cars and leaving one at each
end of the station. This creates other problems
like parking and gridlock near the stations.
\_ You're being disingenuous; cities all over the world
(including some in the U.S.) have effective rail
infrastructures that reduce congestion. -tom
\_ Rail can reduce a certain amount and most major
cities/regions have some sort of rail system. But
it is not and can not be the primary method of travel
for the majority of people no matter how much you
scream "rail! ride bike!" on the motd.
\_ Do you need me to list the counterexamples? -tom
\_ Sure, go ahead if it makes you feel better, but
no one is going to rebuild our entire country
to fit your sardine fantasy lifestyle. We are
spread out because a) most people want space
and b) life is more than living in an apartment
next to bart so I can get to work. You can't
build a rail system that allows me to get
everywhere in a reasonable time. Please
proceed by posting list of EU cities with
rail systems and insanely high density rates.
\_ Cities all over the world were not built around
the automobile. Given that much of the Western
US was what do you propose other than forcibly
relocating people to create your own utopia? At
this very moment rail does not make sense in
most of this country given the existing situation
and if you build it they may not come for
decades during which you run your rail at a
tremendous loss.
\_ I mostly agree, but if we wait for $10/gallon
gasoline first and then start building an alternate
transportation infrastructure, we are going to
be in a world of hurt. It is not a bad idea to
at least imagine what a post-auto world would
look like. Then again, maybe by then everyone
be driving electric smart cars and we can have
our suburbs and clean air to boot. But I don't
think we should count on that happening.
gasoline first and then start building an
alternate transportation infrastructure, we
are going to be in a world of hurt. It is not
a bad idea to at least imagine what a post-auto
world would look like. Then again, maybe by then
everyone be driving electric smart cars and we
can have our suburbs and clean air to boot. But
I don't think we should count on that happening.
\_ We can always drive smaller cars. Even tiny
motorcycle-like trikes or whatever I think
would be more popular than trains. The freedom
of cars is not something I think people are
going to just give up. We could regulate a
small auto weight/size for use within urban
zones. I would have no problem using tiny
vehicles as long as the safety was there.
\_ I agree. I would have a hard time
giving up the freedom of my vehicle.
I'd rather ride a motorcycle than sit
on a train with smelly people.
\_ Freeways run at a tremendous loss, too. It
would not be significantly more difficult to
put in a rail system than it is to do freeway
expansion; it certainly would be easier to do
a train crossing than the new Bay Bridge for
example. (And the new Bay Bridge won't even
increase capacity!) If we put in real
high-speed rail on the *existing* rail
right-of-ways in the Bay Area, and coordinated
it all under one agency instead of the mishmash
we have now, we'd have a fine system. It's
ridiculous to suggest that it's technically
or financially infeasible; the only problem is
politics. -tom
\_ It's financially unfeasible and I've told
you why, but you keep choosing to ignore me:
You have to keep operating the freeways at
the same time you build out the other
infrastructure and you will probably
always have to operate a major highway
system in addition to mass transit (e.g.
Autobahn in Germany). Where is the cost
savings in this? What you get is a savings
in time in exchange for the increased cost.
If that's the situation then toll roads
are a better solution because only those
whose time is most valuable are contributing.
Besides, I don't think SF is really the issue.
It's small and BART works fine for what it is
(getting people to<->from downtown). I want to
know what you do in Orange County or Ventura
where most people are not commuting to<->from a
downtown.
\_ It's not financially infeasible; it's been
done all over the world. Per
passenger-mile, trains are less expensive
than roads, so any investment you make in
trains instead of roads reduces your
overall costs. Oh and by the
\_ You are missing my point. You want
to add rail to the existing roads
infrastructure. This is a net expense.
Whether it has been done elsewhere
is irrelevant. Your suggestion will
cost taxpayers more money. I am not
debating whether it will be
beneficial or not. However, it will
be expensive because you cannot
make investments in trains
instead of roads. You will have to
make investment in trains IN
ADDITION TO roads and trains are not
cheap. How much they cost relative
to roads is not relevant because you
still need the roads.
\_ Here's a hint: A huge amount of
money will be spent on NEW ROAD
CONSTRUCTION in the Bay Area in
the next 30 years. That money
could be spent on rail instead
and provide MORE CAPACITY for the
same amount of money. -tom
\_ How much new road construction
can there be? It's pretty much
all built out. Is it enough
money to build and maintain a
rail system? How many people
will the rail serve versus the
highway? Capacity is not really
an issue.
\_ What planet are you living on?
There are lanes being added
all over the Bay Area and
they're digging a new bore
of the Caldecott. -tom
\_ Is it enough to build
and maintain a rail system?
How many people will be
served versus the highway?
\_ Yes, and more. At least,
that's true everywhere
else in the world and
there's no reason to
expect the Bay Area would
be different. -tom
\_ I challenge your
claim that more
people would be
served by spending
road expansion
funds on rail than
on roads, but if
it's true I support
your position. I
just highly doubt it.
\_ Rail serves more
passenger-miles
per dollar, more
passenger-miles per
land unit, more
passenger-miles per
energy input and
carbon output.
What other measure
would you use for
serving people? -tom
\_ Because roads are more useful than
trains. The invisible hand has
chosen freedom over socialist
utopia.
\_ Well, no, actually the U.S.
government has heavily
subsidized auto travel, while
requiring the train system
to pay for itself. If
it hadn't been for government
regulation and intervention,
U.S. cities would still have
decent rail systems. The hand
was the hand of self-interested
auto-makers, not the market.
And everywhere the government
hasn't heavily subsidized roads,
people choose trains. Not for
100% of their trips, but for
more than enough to pay off
on the investment. -tom
\_ BART doesn't pay for itself.
And when rail is installed
people don't use it if
they can avoid it. Most
people prefer to drive
if given a choice. If
rail was a good idea
then it would be able to
pay for itself. I have
no doubt that roads could pay
for themselves. In fact,
the toll roads in OC do
pay for themselves.
Maybe some day in the
future there will be so
much traffic that more
people will turn to rail
but we're not even close
to that day yet so why
bother with it? Should
we install infrastructure
for flying cars now, too?
\_ Actually, where decent
rail is installed people
do use it; do you have
evidence that they don't?
-tom
\_ Gold Line. It takes an
hour by rail to
get where it takes
20 minutes by car.
Of course you used
"decent" as a
weasel word,
because any rail
that people don't
take is clearly
not decent.
\_ Is it high speed?
No. -tom
\_ You aren't
going to have a
bullet train
serve closely
spaced stations,
are you? Your
list of
requirements is
growing.
\_ Once again
with the
strawman. -tom
way, the Bay Area was built out on rail
infrastructure. My house was built in
1916, and it's a block from what used to
be a train station. Trains went all the
way through the east bay flatlands and
through a tunnel (now closed) to the
further East Bay. Almost all of SF,
Oakland and Berkeley were built before
the advent of the single-occupant auto.
The trains are gone due to a combination
of perverse incentives and criminal
conspiracy, but it's absurd to suggest
that it's impossible to have rail transit
in the Bay Area. -tom
\_ Not impossible, but unnecessary and
expensive. And most existing development
in the Bay Area was not done based on
rail. I mean, LA was built on rail
also (Henry Huntington) but let's be
realistic about then vs. now in
terms of existing distribution of
housing, jobs, and retail. Most of
that came post-WW II and was based
on the auto.
\_ Are you interested in the facts at
all? San Francisco, Oakland, and
Berkeley all hit their population
peaks in 1950, at a time with
relatively low car ownership.
The outlying suburbs would be
much better served by high speed
rail than by, say, driving on 80
through Berkeley. -tom
\_ Served to do what exactly? Your
trains are intended for universal
transport without requiring any
auto transport for the general
population?
\_ Why do you keep coming back to
this straw man? Oh, right,
because you have no facts and
no argument. -tom
\_ LA needs more freeways!
\_ L.A. people check traffic first, then drive: http://sigalert.com
\_ We also know to stay the hell off of certain freeways at
certain times (and some all of the time) if we can help it.
My girlfriend used to manage runners for the film industry
and they rarely even took the freeways - even during the middle
of the day.
\_ Like I said it's a mystery why people fucking love to
live in LA. Smog, rude drivers, traffic. What a shithole.
\_ Because weather is overrated.
\_ I guess it depends on what's important to you. People
from small towns would say the same about SF or any
other city and people from cities scoff at people who
live in rural areas. Both have advantages, but cities
represent more opportunity. LA has a lot more going
for it than most cities in many ways. Traffic and parking
are issues, same as they are in SF and NYC. I really like
SF but to me it's very provincial compared to LA and
the weather *does* matter a lot to me.
\_ Great cities of the U.S.:
New York City, Los Angeles ... and that's about it.
\_ NYC >> SF > Chicago >> LA
\_ San Jose
\_ SF is a footnote of a city. Chicago is a great
city, but the weather is terrible. Not that the
weather in NYC is great either, but if you have
to choose then NYC has the edge.
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/ken
Who is the Global City here?
\_ No idea what that means, but on your
same web page you will see Chicago
scored 10 points and SF scored 9. In
reality that's too high, too, but I'm sure they
are lumping "Northern California" together
into "San Francisco".
\_ I totally agree. I absolutely hated LA/UCLA and couldn't
wait to move back up here.
\_ What you hated was your own situation, not the city.
\_ Actually there is some truth to this b/c I totally
did not like UCLA. But the fact that LA was always
congested, the drivers were rude and the smog did
little to help. I just can't imagine why anyone
would want to live in LA. The Bay Area is a much
nicer place to live (even Fremont).
\_ The drivers here are not rude and stupid? I want
to know where you're driving so I can drive there
too.
\_ I'm in Cupertino/SJ but I live like 2 miles
so I only take local roads during off hours
and never see anyone on the streets.
from work so I only take local roads during
off hours and never see anyone on the streets.
When I was driving to Menlo Park via 85-101,
I used to have flashbacks to the 405. Still,
I much prefer the bay area, at least the
traffic moves most of the time.
\_ You prefer the yucky fart of Prius loving hippies?
\_ To the smog and congestion of LA, yes.
\_ If you hate it so much why don't you move now? |
| 7/15 |
|
| www.csua.org/u/ken -> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city#GaWC_Leading_World_Cities.2C_2004 and ranked cities based on provision of "advanced producer services" such as accountancy, advertising, finance and law, by international corporations. The GaWC inventory identifies three levels of world cities and several sub-ranks. Note that this roster generally denotes cities in which there are offices of certain multinational companies providing financial and consulting services rather than other cultural, political, and economic centres. This program is designed to introduce students to the common issues faced by global cities and to engage them in research projects in a range of transnational issues of relevance to globalized cities and countries, such as migration, integration, environmental degradation, global culture and national identity. Students are integrated into a program consisting of ten or so students from each institution and spend the whole year as part of this group, sharing culture, learning and conducting research in the three countries. The program begins at Northwestern in the Fall quarter, continues at Panamericana in the Winter quarter, and ends at Sciences Po in the Spring quarter. This program offers a new perspective on international student exchanges, focusing on contemporary issues and multiculturalism. |
| sigalert.com -> www.sigalert.com View LIVE Traffic For: Los Angeles Orange County San Bernardino Riverside San Diego San Francisco Sacramento Get Personalized Traffic Reports! All rights reserved. |