Construction rolling along on Orange Line extension

Full story: LA Daily News

Train rails along an old wooden bridge crossing the L.A. River are on the route for the Orange Line extension, Wednesday, July 21, 2010.

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 78 of78
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Aug 18, 2010
 
Bureaucratic Mess wrote:
- they like having mature and responsible citizens subsidize their travel costs
So obviously then you're a liberal. Seeing as how you accepted part of that $34.5 Billion dollar road subsidy everytime you drove your car on the roads last year. Every American paid a subsidy of $112 last year so that you and everyone else could drive their cars on the roads.

Guess I'll see you on the roads again soon, liberal. After all there will be still more road subsidies this year for you to partake of again.

Bureaucratic Mess

Pasadena, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Aug 18, 2010
 
ahblid wrote:
<quoted text>
Every American paid a subsidy of $112 last year so that you and everyone else could drive their cars on the roads.
And I consider every damn penny of it worth it. The last time I rode a choo choo train, it was just for the amusement of it.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Aug 18, 2010
 
Bureaucratic Mess wrote:
<quoted text>
And I consider every damn penny of it worth it. The last time I rode a choo choo train, it was just for the amusement of it.
Still makes you a liberal according to your definitions of a liberal.

You are taking taxpayer subsidies!

So make sure you wear the label proudly.
Anamouse

Manhattan Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Aug 19, 2010
 
ahblid wrote:
<quoted text>
You're welcome. And thank you for your civilised response.
<quoted text>
Again, I agree, everyone benefits from the roads. I wouldn't argue that at all. However, if we only needed roads with enough lanes to handle trucks, emergency vehicles, and military vehicles; then our expenses would be much less. LA wouldn't need 12 lane freeways but for cars.
So to some extent, I do believe it is fair to say that those without cars are indeed being taxed so that you and I can drive our cars. Even though I do take the trains when I can, my job doesn't always allow me to do that and I do often have to drive. So I'm just as guilty as it were of reaping that benefit.
12 lane freeways might not be needed but major highways are essential parts of all major cities, if not for commuting, for commerce.

Many of the largest cities with great public transportation, like New York, have very heavy business delivery traffic during hours when most people are not commuting, and the roads also have to be large enough to handle the largest deliveries that go into those areas.

Tiny streets might work for the mail man, but they don't work well for the types of delivery trucks and cranes that are needed to build and maintain large buildings. There's a reason why there are few places you can't get to on a road that can't accomodate a 13.5 foot tall vehicle with a load that's wider than a Mac truck. That also means most areas are also accessible via at least a few roads and bridges that can accomodate extremely heavy trucks.

We're not a third world country so if we want the big stuff we also need the roads to support it.

Since: Oct 08

West Hills, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Aug 19, 2010
 
Bureaucratic Mess wrote:
Why liberals like failed choo choo train public transit systems:
I'm far from a liberal and I support a well planned light rail system.
- they're childish
I know you are but what am I ;)
- they can only find employment in unionized government programs
You will find a hard time finding a bigger opponent of U.S. Unions than I, I think public employee unions should be illegal (because they pit workers against taxpayers) and think it should also be illegal to force any worker to participate in a union or collective bargaining agreement based on a majority vote.
- they enjoy the government making their decisions for them, including where and when to travel
Or maybe I'd rather they spend my tax dollars more intelligently than they are today, that is if they have to spend them at all.
- they've made financial investments in rail systems
Checks my stock portfolio, nope don't see anything.
- they like sending money to foreign countries to build trains for us, especially Europe
As opposed to sending money to foreign countries to send us their oil, especially the middle east.
- they've bought into the propaganda of the Global Warming agenda
Not convinced about Global warming but I am convinced that reducing our dependence on foreign oil makes our country stronger.
- they like having mature and responsible citizens subsidize their travel costs
Part of being a responsible citizen is supporting what is best for your community/country rather than just what benefits yourself. Sure it would be great if they build me a private freeway to let me drive all by myself from my home to where I work but that wouldn't exactly be responsible now would it?
Stop Gridlock

San Diego, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Nov 3, 2010
 
Anamouse wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're the one with limited sight, you may not have noticed but this tiny little Orange Line extension isn't any where near you in San Diego, it's in the West end of the San Fernando Valley, North of LA, and in a place that doesn't ever get gridlock and probably never will because it's not a main cooridor.
It won't take traffic off our conjested freeways, it doesn't run parallel to any of them, but it may make it easier for people who are too poor to own a car to get to the very affluent shopping center it goes by. I suppose some janitors and dish washers might use it to get to work, but they don't drive now so that won't help traffic much.
Before you speak perhaps you should visit the community.
HAHA and i'm the short sighted one - First off - i'm an LA native (own a house in the West Valley and have family that have lived in the Valley before it was even the suburban mecca that you seem to love with all the cars and wide blvds. Anyway, I think that we should just listen to all the naysayers on here and keep paving over everything - not spend money on public works projects, let's just let our infrastructure crumble and also while we are at it let's just make it mandatory that everyone has to own a car. I'm a white collar worker that owns a car, a home and commutes and would rather take rail or BRT than have to sit on the 101 freeway. Connectivity is the key not one mode - the Car - by the way good luck affording Gas in the next decade as it goes up steadly when other economies grow stronger and our dollar goes downhill supporting our suburban sprawl.
Stop Gridlock

San Diego, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Nov 3, 2010
 
Bureaucratic Mess wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm no longer willing to bet my tax dollars on it. Can you point to any profitable and efficient rail system not subsidized by public tax dollars? I believe that even San Diego's and SF's metro systems operate in the hole.
Can you point to any profitable road system that isn't subsidized by public tax dollars? really this subsidy of road over rail is a 55 year failure by our federal goverment - paved over some of the best parts of our cities. The reason that our private trolleys and railroads dies was because the Federal Goverment started subsidizing roads.
Anamouse

Manhattan Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Nov 4, 2010
 
Stop Gridlock wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHA and i'm the short sighted one - First off - i'm an LA native (own a house in the West Valley and have family that have lived in the Valley before it was even the suburban mecca that you seem to love with all the cars and wide blvds. Anyway, I think that we should just listen to all the naysayers on here and keep paving over everything - not spend money on public works projects, let's just let our infrastructure crumble and also while we are at it let's just make it mandatory that everyone has to own a car. I'm a white collar worker that owns a car, a home and commutes and would rather take rail or BRT than have to sit on the 101 freeway. Connectivity is the key not one mode - the Car - by the way good luck affording Gas in the next decade as it goes up steadly when other economies grow stronger and our dollar goes downhill supporting our suburban sprawl.
Excuse me, what does creating an new public transportaion system have to do with the fact that a lot of our existing infrastructure is crumbling? If anything I would say that the money for this new system should be spent to fix the crumbling infrasturcture that's dying of neglect instead of building something else.

The new system wastes valuable tax money on something we really don't need while ignoring problems that effect all of us.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Nov 5, 2010
 
Anamouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, what does creating an new public transportaion system have to do with the fact that a lot of our existing infrastructure is crumbling? If anything I would say that the money for this new system should be spent to fix the crumbling infrasturcture that's dying of neglect instead of building something else.
The new system wastes valuable tax money on something we really don't need while ignoring problems that effect all of us.
It has everything to do with it. It helps to ease the current strain on the existing infrastructure, it provides an alternative while the existing infrastructure is being repaired, and it helps to cut down on our expanding the far more expensive road infrastructure in the future.

We can't afford to continue to borrow $34.5 Billion a year for our highways, much less let that number double or even triple.
Anamouse

Manhattan Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Nov 9, 2010
 
ahblid wrote:
<quoted text>
It has everything to do with it. It helps to ease the current strain on the existing infrastructure, it provides an alternative while the existing infrastructure is being repaired, and it helps to cut down on our expanding the far more expensive road infrastructure in the future.
We can't afford to continue to borrow $34.5 Billion a year for our highways, much less let that number double or even triple.
Oh really! Tell me which crumbling bridges and what other infrastructure this project will save by prolonging it's lifespan? I wasn't aware that any of this countie's worst infrastructure was along this rout, but judging by your statment, I'm sure you can enlighten me.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Nov 10, 2010
 
Anamouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really! Tell me which crumbling bridges and what other infrastructure this project will save by prolonging it's lifespan? I wasn't aware that any of this countie's worst infrastructure was along this rout, but judging by your statment, I'm sure you can enlighten me.
I didn't say that any of this country's worst infrastructure was along this route. I said that trains take some of the load off of our infrastructure and help to prolong its life. Every car taken off a road prolongs the life of the pavement on that road. Every car that doesn't hit a joint on a bridge because its owner took the train prolongs the life of that bridge.

It's a simple concept.
listen to me

Arcadia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Nov 10, 2010
 
ALL THOSE PUCKERING SPINKTERS PASSING THERE DIRTY GASS OUT TO ALL .
JUST WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE. GAVE YOU A ROTTEN VOTE AND YOU STILL ARE NOBODY.
MINDLESS NOBODIES FLAPPING THERE LOOSE TOUNGS LIKE DIRTY RAGS IN THE WIND ..
GET THE FACTS JACK .
LETS START AN EFFICIENCY PROGRAM ..
NO EFFICIENCY LOOSE YOUR JOB AND PAY . LOOSE YOUR RETIREMENT.
Anamouse

Manhattan Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Nov 11, 2010
 
ahblid wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say that any of this country's worst infrastructure was along this route. I said that trains take some of the load off of our infrastructure and help to prolong its life. Every car taken off a road prolongs the life of the pavement on that road. Every car that doesn't hit a joint on a bridge because its owner took the train prolongs the life of that bridge.
It's a simple concept.
That would be great if it wasn't a lot less expensive to keep the roads maintained than it will be to build and then continue to subsitize this public transportation project.

It would also be great if this project meant we could stop maintaining some of the public roads around it's rout, but thats not going to happen.

Were going to spend a fortune to build and subsidize this and we're going to continue to have to maintain all the roads around it just as we did before it was built. There will just be less money to maintain them since we blew a lot on this project.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Nov 11, 2010
 
Anamouse wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be great if it wasn't a lot less expensive to keep the roads maintained than it will be to build and then continue to subsitize this public transportation project.
It would also be great if this project meant we could stop maintaining some of the public roads around it's rout, but thats not going to happen.
Were going to spend a fortune to build and subsidize this and we're going to continue to have to maintain all the roads around it just as we did before it was built. There will just be less money to maintain them since we blew a lot on this project.
Just the Federal subsidy to the highways last year would have paid to run every train, monorail, bus, ferry, and demand response service in the US in 2008 with money left over. That Federal subsidy was $34.5 Billion and represented a 50% subsidy to drivers.

Most cities, counties, & states further subsidize the roads.

If we took what the Fed actually spent on the highways last year,$69.116 Billion, and added that to the fares collected then we could have run every bus, train, ferry, monorail, and demand response service in the US for 2006, 2007, & 2008.

So, NO, the roads wouldn't be cheaper!

I do agree that building rail transporatation isn't going to cut the need to maintain the roads. And I'm not suggesting to do away with the roads.

But I also know that we cannot continue building new roads and/or widening our roads. Not only do we not have the space in most of our cities for more/wider roads, we cannot afford them. We can't afford to keep borrowing $34.5 Billion, much less watch that number double and eventually triple, which is what is going to happen if we don't keep building the cheaper to operate and maintain trains.
Anamouse

Manhattan Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Nov 11, 2010
 
ahblid wrote:
<quoted text>
Just the Federal subsidy to the highways last year would have paid to run every train, monorail, bus, ferry, and demand response service in the US in 2008 with money left over. That Federal subsidy was $34.5 Billion and represented a 50% subsidy to drivers.
Most cities, counties, & states further subsidize the roads.
If we took what the Fed actually spent on the highways last year,$69.116 Billion, and added that to the fares collected then we could have run every bus, train, ferry, monorail, and demand response service in the US for 2006, 2007, & 2008.
So, NO, the roads wouldn't be cheaper!
I do agree that building rail transporatation isn't going to cut the need to maintain the roads. And I'm not suggesting to do away with the roads.
But I also know that we cannot continue building new roads and/or widening our roads. Not only do we not have the space in most of our cities for more/wider roads, we cannot afford them. We can't afford to keep borrowing $34.5 Billion, much less watch that number double and eventually triple, which is what is going to happen if we don't keep building the cheaper to operate and maintain trains.
Excuse me, "subsidize the roads"???? The roads must exist or our city dies, and public roads have always been built and maintained with public funds.

They bare no resemblance to a rail system that most people could very easily live and go to work without.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Nov 11, 2010
 
Anamouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, "subsidize the roads"???? The roads must exist or our city dies, and public roads have always been built and maintained with public funds.
They bare no resemblance to a rail system that most people could very easily live and go to work without.
Actually that's not entirely true. LA grew up on trains. There was a time when people didn't drive to work, they took a train. Now I do agree that we can't just rip out our roads overnight, without first having a very strong rail system. And I'm not advocating for that anyhow.

But again, most US cities grew up on rail, not roads!

Next, the point of my post was to show you that roads are not cheaper!

One good example of this was the 710 freeway extension that got written up several years ago by Taxpayers for Common Sense. That 5 mile extension would have cost more than the entire LA subway did, inflation adjusted, and it would have move fewer people than the subway does. That extension at the time it was proposed would have cost more than $311 Million per mile and that was back in 1994.

Finally, most people in LA even if they never set foot on a train couldn't easily live and go to work without the trains. Without the trains there would be at least another 125,000 cars on the roads every weekday. You're dreaming if you think that won't affect your ability to drive around LA.
Anamouse

Manhattan Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Nov 12, 2010
 
ahblid wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually that's not entirely true. LA grew up on trains. There was a time when people didn't drive to work, they took a train. Now I do agree that we can't just rip out our roads overnight, without first having a very strong rail system. And I'm not advocating for that anyhow.
But again, most US cities grew up on rail, not roads!
Next, the point of my post was to show you that roads are not cheaper!
One good example of this was the 710 freeway extension that got written up several years ago by Taxpayers for Common Sense. That 5 mile extension would have cost more than the entire LA subway did, inflation adjusted, and it would have move fewer people than the subway does. That extension at the time it was proposed would have cost more than $311 Million per mile and that was back in 1994.
Finally, most people in LA even if they never set foot on a train couldn't easily live and go to work without the trains. Without the trains there would be at least another 125,000 cars on the roads every weekday. You're dreaming if you think that won't affect your ability to drive around LA.
Trains may have been the long distance vehicle of choice back when most people didn't own reliable long distance transportaion of their own, but that's not been true for 100 years and roads always preceeded rails they just weren't as convenient for people who didn't have their own reliable long distance transporation to use. Trains made it practical for the average Joe to go from the East Coast to the West Coast.

And their's a reason why virtually all cities still have roads even to places that are well served by public transportaion, the ROADS are essential delivery paths for everything it takes to build and maintain the buildings we work and live in. You might bring groceries home on a train, but when you need a new roof you need roads that can support truck traffic. When your business building needs an HVAC uprgrad it always arives in pieces on TRUCKS. You can't even get a garage door replaced without a TRUCK. There are just far too many things we need roads for to get rid of them.

And if you have to keep your roads and bridges well enough maintained to support the truck traffic that you can't live without, cars might as well use those roads too.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Nov 12, 2010
 
Anamouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Trains may have been the long distance vehicle of choice back when most people didn't own reliable long distance transportaion of their own, but that's not been true for 100 years and roads always preceeded rails they just weren't as convenient for people who didn't have their own reliable long distance transporation to use. Trains made it practical for the average Joe to go from the East Coast to the West Coast.
Trains are still a big part of the transportation picture. Or did you forget already the 125,000 additional cars that would be on LA freeways & Streets without the trains.

And train ridership continues to grow every day in this country, nearly doubling from 2.488 in 1979 to 4.473 in 2008.
Anamouse wrote:
<quoted text>And their's a reason why virtually all cities still have roads even to places that are well served by public transportaion, the ROADS are essential delivery paths for everything it takes to build and maintain the buildings we work and live in. You might bring groceries home on a train, but when you need a new roof you need roads that can support truck traffic. When your business building needs an HVAC uprgrad it always arives in pieces on TRUCKS. You can't even get a garage door replaced without a TRUCK. There are just far too many things we need roads for to get rid of them.
Again, I'm not suggesting that we throw our roads away. What part of that do you not understand?

But am saying that we cannot survive with just our roads. We need our trians too. After all, 40% of this country's freight moves by rail. Yes, much of it may finish the last few miles on a truck, but trains move the largest amount of feight in our country. Trucks only move 28% of the freight.
Anamouse wrote:
<quoted text>And if you have to keep your roads and bridges well enough maintained to support the truck traffic that you can't live without, cars might as well use those roads too.
Here you're totally wrong. If we built our highways for trucks only, then we would only have 4 lane highways and our expenses for those freeways would be at least half of what they are now. We don't need 6, 8, 10, 12 lane freeways for our trucks. We need them for cars!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 78 of78
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••

Chatsworth News Video

•••
•••

Chatsworth Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chatsworth People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chatsworth News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chatsworth
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••