Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket
|
That's beautiful. It add buildings around. I don't like wide boulevards and not even those sterile parks as they don't allow bigger trees in any case. It's better when the urban fabric is restored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale
Tell me you don't know anything about LA without telling me you don't know anything about LA
FYI I-10 goes from the Pacific (Santa Monica) to the Atlantic (Jacksonville, FL). It's not some small stub of a freeway. Also, the 10 is probably the freeway LA can least afford to remove. There already is rail that goes between Santa Monica and Downtown-- the Expo Line. And soon, we will have another rail line under Wilshire out to the West Side, stopping just short of SM. The 10 is a pretty necessary piece of Southern California's transportation network.
|
I imagine drivers love it. From an urbanism point of view, a railway would be way better. About the current rail, is it heavy? I hear Los Angeles have a massive problem with its long headways. It should have be much higher frequencies to make the system attractive.
About I-10, instead of going from Santa Monica to Jacksonville, it can goes from (East) Los Angeles to Jacksonville. It would still be a Pacific-Atlantic highway. It's not like it must end in the water. In Jacksonville, for instance, it starts far away from the beach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
Right, I was thinking the same thing.
That's up there with "let's remove the Yamanote loop in Tokyo, given it wastes all this valuable land with an ugly elevated rail line". How about nope?
|
Let's not compare a rail line that carries millions of passengers daily to a city full of freeways and virtually no mass transit.