The Expo Line operates on the old PE AIr Line on Exposition Boulevard between USC and Culver City. This line last ran in 1953.
The El Monte Busway, a very successful transit way, uses the old PE ROW between the LA River and El Monte. Metrolink uses the old PE/SP Tracks in the middle/side of I-10.
When the State of California was building the Hollywood Freeway in the 40s there was talk about placing a PE line in the center of the freeway (from downtown) but the State wanted the entire additional capital costs paid by PE.
In the context of the street running shown in the video clip - just imagine how that would affect todays traffic levels. Different Times - Different Worlds.
The other thing that struck me were the shots of 'rural' areas, which I fully expect have become fully developed urban and suburban areas in the 50+ years since PE closed up shop.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
As congestion increased, government and people realized subsidizing and building public transportation was the only way out of gridlock on highways, and LA is expanding light rail and commuter rail systems, together, putting together an approximation of what PE did. I disagree completely with the boondogel lable for most of the new systems. LA, Baltimore, San Diego, Denver, Salt Lake City, Portland OR, St. Louis, and two of the three NJT light rail systems seem to me logical and efficient transportation choices that are doing their job well. In certain other cases special conditions apply. The third NJT line, the River Line, was not designed to fill a real transportion need, buses did and probably still can handle the job. It was designed specifically to spur economic development and it is doing that job. In other cases, attraction to retail and cultural facilities was the motive. I won't comment about Austin, TX, that seems to me to generate considerable criticism. At a rabbi's home this evening he and his wife stated that our new light rail line is the best thing that happened to Jerusalem in the past ten years. And all ethnic groups use it.
LA's Blue line does duplicate the old PE Watts and Long Beach line for about 85% of its length.
Mario_vAny remains or former lines in use by today's LA 'Metro'?
The LA Blue line operates on Long Beach Blvd, as did the Long Beach line of the PE, but otherwise, I think the other lines are just approximations of PE lines.
The book From Railway to Freeway http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=from%20railway%20to%20freeway is about the demise of rail transit in Southern California
When built the communities served were widely spaced. Most people lived relatively close to the stops and also had little choice of transportation. As the area developed the space between filled in resulting in more conflicts and also more people not in convenient proximity to the rail stops. Train schedules slowed due to convicts with autos and also increased number of stops..
More people bought automobiles and often found them to be a more convenient way to get where they wanted to go. Door to door instead of station to station and not restricted by the train schedules.
If you have to drive to the station anyway it is often more convenient to just go ahead and drive to your destination.
Feeder lines in particular were unprofitable also loosing patronage to the a automobile. To cut costs trains were replaced by busses or service cut. Cutting service often resulted in loss of patronage on the main lines.
Costs increased, wages. equipment, maintenance, government regulation. There was also strong resistance to higher fares.
Ironically even when patronage increases (as during World War 2), increased costs often exceed increased revenue.
Busses cost less to purchase, maintain and operate and don't require the costly rail and electrical infrastructure and because they are not tied to rails the routes are flexible in case of problems and more easily changed to meet customer demand. ..
Prior to government involvement public transit was provided by private companies and varied from poor to excellent. For many years the PE provided good public transit at a generally reasonable direct price to the patrons. Most years the cost exceeded the revenue, but the shortfall were more than offset by revenue from freight services.
The public perceived rail as dirty and "old fashioned". Busses as clean and modern. Also complained about the trains interfering with their automobiles.
Public transit has almost never been profitable in the USA and the public generally unwilling to support it when they are aware of the monetary costs to them personally.
Eventually the cost was too much for the private company. The government came to the rescue, but decided the trains were too expensive and made the final switch to busses.
Today there is a movement to return to rail. It is touted as modern, efficient and environmentally friendly. The costs are always understated, the benefits overstated. and you don't have to pay for it. The government will. The government spreads the costs to people who receive no benefit from the system. Some of the projects are probably worthwhile, but most are costly poorly conceived and executed boondoggles.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Hello all ;
Found out a nice movie on youtube about this iconic system. It seemed towork well and well patronised. Why did it ended ? Any remains or former lines in use by today's LA 'Metro'?
Anyway, here's the link : watch?v=ebboO52In1w
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.