Skip to main content

View Diary: The Economist on oil (III) - slamming the energy bill (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Doesn't LA (none)
    still have a bus system, and a short light rail line?
    •  Yep (none)
      But they also have a huge traffic problem.  Even though they have bus and rail, people don't live along the routes.

      Suburbanization and exurbanization, created by cheap oil, are quick to spring up, but slow to change.

      It takes years longer to dislodge someone from their house than it does to put up a new suburb.

    •  LA has a huge bus system... (none)
      ...three light rail lines (one is being expanded currently), a heavy rail subway, and an extensive commuter rail network with seven overlapping lines.

      The light rail lines and subways aren't nearly enough to support the entire city and greater metro area, however.

      •  There IS Transit in So Cal! (none)
        The MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) operates 2,000 buses during peak hours, and 73 miles of rail lines, including light rail transit (LRT) on three lines, plus the heavy rail Red Line subway.  Link:

        In addition, Metrolink operates 512 miles of commuter rail lines in five counties in southern California:

        I grew up in LA until 1978, and this is not the town I grew up in.  Yes, it's catch-up, but there IS TRANSIT in southern California.  Underinformed folks from elsewhere should get some facts, please.  ;-)>

        •  can be expanded (none)
          Also note that part of the argument for busses in the first place was that they were very flexible and could be deployed as needed. If there were demand for more bus service, it would be pretty easy to expand the system. This applies everywhere in the country. There used to be bus service to every single dumpy little rural town in the US, and it could easily be restarted.

          Problem: Lack of demand due to cheap gas.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site