# If L.A. had a modern rail system like many major cities around the world.



## the other mike (Feb 2, 2020)

Would Kobe Bryant have been routinely travelling across town by helicopter 
in order to avoid traffic and save time ?

In other words, is this country's poor infrastucture indirectly to blame for his death ?
I say yes. Not that he'd be riding the train, but the freeways would be clear enough for a smooth 45 minute limo drive, or in one of his Ferrari's or Lamborghini's.

Shanghai, China.












Los Angeles Freeway


----------



## depotoo (Feb 2, 2020)

He wouldn’t have taken rail.


----------



## the other mike (Feb 2, 2020)

depotoo said:


> He wouldn’t have taken rail.


As I mentioned .


----------



## depotoo (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > He wouldn’t have taken rail.
> ...


There were 9 people on the flight...


----------



## Dick Foster (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> Would Kobe Bryant have been routinely travelling across town by helicopter
> in order to avoid traffic and save time ?
> 
> In other words, is this country's poor infrastucture indirectly to blame for his death ?
> ...


Years ago they had a rail system and scrapped it in favor of building shit loads of freeways. It was called the red car. If they'd kept it, maintained and improved it over the years it would be running today.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> Would Kobe Bryant have been routinely travelling across town by helicopter
> in order to avoid traffic and save time ?
> 
> In other words, is this country's poor infrastucture indirectly to blame for his death ?
> ...




SORRY DUMBASS, but kobe wouldnt have taken it,,,


----------



## the other mike (Feb 2, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> SORRY DUMBASS, but kobe wouldnt have taken it,,,


As I stated in the OP.
Reading comprehension's not your bag is it genius ?


----------



## CWayne (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> Would Kobe Bryant have been routinely travelling across town by helicopter
> in order to avoid traffic and save time ?
> 
> In other words, is this country's poor infrastucture indirectly to blame for his death ?
> ...


So, the taxpayers should get stuck with 20 billion dollars so Kobe Bryant can avoid traffic?


----------



## the other mike (Feb 2, 2020)

CWayne said:


> So, the taxpayers should get stuck with 20 billion dollars so Kobe Bryant can avoid traffic?


No .
We'd rather spend $ 7 Trillion on war in the Middle East.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> CWayne said:
> 
> 
> > So, the taxpayers should get stuck with 20 billion dollars so Kobe Bryant can avoid traffic?
> ...


youre confusing federal money with state money,,,they want a train they can pay for it,,,


----------



## the other mike (Feb 2, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> youre confusing federal money with state money,,,they want a train they can pay for it,,,


Not necessarily.
Ever hear of the Hoover Dam, National Parks, Interstate highways....the National Guard.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > youre confusing federal money with state money,,,they want a train they can pay for it,,,
> ...




those benefited several states, not just one socialist state that already hates this country,,,


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Feb 2, 2020)

No.  Bryant's death has nothing to do with mass transit.  Kobe Bryant would still have been in the helicopter to avoid the masses of nutcases that use mass transit m


----------



## Manonthestreet (Feb 2, 2020)

Seeing how well their Bullet Train ate money I doubt its possible with all the crony corruption there.


----------



## the other mike (Feb 2, 2020)

Tipsycatlover said:


> No.  Bryant's death has nothing to do with mass transit.  Kobe Bryant would still have been in the helicopter to avoid the masses of nutcases that use mass transit m


How do you know ?
*https://www.businessinsider.com/kobe-bryant-flew-in-helicopters-to-maximize-time-with-family-2020-1*


----------



## the other mike (Feb 2, 2020)

Manonthestreet said:


> Seeing how well their Bullet Train ate money I doubt its possible with all the crony corruption there.


Fossil fuel propaganda aside, what's your point ?
Kobe Bryant started using helicopters as a player as a way to maintain his body and spend more time with his family


----------



## Manonthestreet (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> > Seeing how well their Bullet Train ate money I doubt its possible with all the crony corruption there.
> ...


Just the facts.....inconvenient as always., and celebs dont deign to mix with the little people except under controlled circumstances.


----------



## the other mike (Feb 2, 2020)

Manonthestreet said:


> Just the facts.....inconvenient as always., and celebs dont deign to mix with the little people except under controlled circumstances.


Celebs love showing off.


----------



## CWayne (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> CWayne said:
> 
> 
> > So, the taxpayers should get stuck with 20 billion dollars so Kobe Bryant can avoid traffic?
> ...


So, you're triggered now?

You see, spending money defending OUR national interest benefits everyone. 

Spending a few billion so Kobe Bryant doesn't have to sit in traffic benefits, Kobe.

Not sure if you can even see the difference.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > No.  Bryant's death has nothing to do with mass transit.  Kobe Bryant would still have been in the helicopter to avoid the masses of nutcases that use mass transit m
> ...


Ohhhh the old family excuse.  It's good for everything.

The sad fact is we do have rail.  That's where the crazed throw people onto the tracks, randomly stab them or bash their heads in.  Why?   Because they are crazy and some insane fan or homeless person would stab the poor man just for the fame


----------



## the other mike (Feb 2, 2020)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Ohhhh the old family excuse.  It's good for everything.
> 
> The sad fact is we do have rail.  That's where the crazed throw people onto the tracks, randomly stab them or bash their heads in.  Why?   Because they are crazy and some insane fan or homeless person would stab the poor man just for the fame


I've lived in NYC,
but that's not what we're talking about, twisted sister.


----------



## westwall (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> Would Kobe Bryant have been routinely travelling across town by helicopter
> in order to avoid traffic and save time ?
> 
> In other words, is this country's poor infrastucture indirectly to blame for his death ?
> ...








The cost to build a metro in LA would be crushing.  And, the Paris Metro, the best I have ever traveled on, is cramped, and noisy. 

The rich and famous in Paris use helicopters.


----------



## the other mike (Feb 2, 2020)

CWayne said:


> Not sure if you can even see the difference.


I'm triggered ?
_You're_ the fossil fuel advocate who's triggered here.
Prove me wrong.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Feb 2, 2020)

Manonthestreet said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Manonthestreet said:
> ...


The little people harass them unto misery.  When the little people aren't harassing them the paparazzi are putting their lives in danger.  If Kobe were seen by a pap driving on the freeway the pap would run him off the road just to film the accident.


----------



## CWayne (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> CWayne said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure if you can even see the difference.
> ...


I did in My first post to you.

You see, even if the taxpayer footed a billion-dollar bill for a rail system, Kobe would still have been on that copter.

So, you lose in national spending, you lose in local spending, and you lose in being triggered on a celeb who means nothing to about 95% fo the world.


----------



## Markle (Feb 2, 2020)

Manonthestreet said:


> Seeing how well their Bullet Train ate money I doubt its possible with all the crony corruption there.



The multi-billion-dollar California high-speed rail boondoggle was shot dead a short while back.  Thank goodness!


----------



## the other mike (Feb 2, 2020)

I wonder how many famous European soccer players spend a small fortune for helicopter service.


----------



## westwall (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> I wonder how many famous European soccer players spend a small fortune for helicopter service.








Most of them.  Anyone who has money takes helicopters.  Their time is valuable and they hate wasting it.


----------



## westwall (Feb 2, 2020)

You laugh but that just means you are not thinking.  Worldwide there are TWO high speed rail systems that pay for themselves.

Technology makes travel faster and more efficient. 

Trains are not efficient save in certain very specific situations. 

Educate yourself instead of blathering like a fool.


----------



## the other mike (Feb 2, 2020)

westwall said:


> You laugh but that just means you are not thinking.  Worldwide there are TWO high speed rail systems that pay for themselves.
> 
> Technology makes travel faster and more efficient.
> 
> ...


Since I started posting online over 15 years ago, any time I mention high speed rail ( or anything green-energy really) it never fails that within minutes, 3 or 4  fossil fuel spokes-clones like you and your pals come crawling out of the abandoned wells from somewhere to chime in.

Same arrogant attitudes. Same old talking points -- same old insulting language.


----------



## westwall (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You laugh but that just means you are not thinking.  Worldwide there are TWO high speed rail systems that pay for themselves.
> ...







You insult by laughing instead of engaging in conversation.   You don't want to learn anything,  you merely want to talk AT people.

Guess what, educated people, like me, know far more about the subject than you do.


----------



## the other mike (Feb 2, 2020)

westwall said:


> You insult by laughing instead of engaging in conversation.   You don't want to learn anything,  you merely want to talk AT people.
> 
> Guess what, educated people, like me, know far more about the subject than you do.


You're a common fossil fuel advocate troll,
straight out of the plastic goop mold.


----------



## Markle (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> Since I started posting online over 15 years ago, any time I mention high speed rail ( or anything green-energy really) it never fails that within minutes, 3 or 4 fossil fuel spokes-clones like you and your pals come crawling out of the abandoned wells from somewhere to chime in.
> 
> Same arrogant attitudes. Same old talking points -- same old insulting language.



High-speed-rail makes sense in only one location in the United States.  If you've been an advocate for for so long, surely even you know they make no sense anywhere else in the US.  The NE corridor, the Acela line.  That line makes sense because there is a population of over 40 million people along that line.

In my opinion, what would make sense would be making major improvements and added rails for freight.  Potentially that could take thousands of trucks off our highways.


----------



## the other mike (Feb 2, 2020)

Markle said:


> High-speed-rail makes sense in only one location in the United States.  If you've been an advocate for for so long, surely even you know they make no sense anywhere else in the US.  The NE corridor, the Acela line.  That line makes sense because there is a population of over 40 million people along that line.
> 
> In my opinion, what would make sense would be making major improvements and added rails for freight.  Potentially that could take thousands of trucks off our highways.


Reaganomics BS.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


----------



## Markle (Feb 2, 2020)

Angelo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > High-speed-rail makes sense in only one location in the United States.  If you've been an advocate for so long, surely even you know they make no sense anywhere else in the US.  The NE corridor, the Acela line.  That line makes sense because there is a population of over 40 million people along that line.
> ...



You must be confused, this is a thread about the fallacies high-speed rail.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Feb 3, 2020)

Mass rapid is typically most effective in densely populated areas. Although California has a lot of people, the relative density is much less than many eastern cities like New York and Chicago. That and the fact that Californy is full of liberal self centered duche bags who only pay lip service to saving the planet, but think it should be others to pay the cost.


----------



## westwall (Feb 3, 2020)

Angelo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You insult by laughing instead of engaging in conversation.   You don't want to learn anything,  you merely want to talk AT people.
> ...









Ahhhh, but I don't advocate for fossil fuel usage.  I would love to see EVs take over for the common passenger car.

But only if it is more efficient and effective.   When EVs get to that point you won't have to force people into them.

That's the point, child.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 3, 2020)

CWayne said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Would Kobe Bryant have been routinely travelling across town by helicopter
> ...


Money invested in infrastructure pays benefits, even if it is borrowed money.  We just had Trump's tax cuts, money we borrowed to give to ourselves.  You can argue the fairness of it but not that we'll all be paying interest until it is repaid and the benefits will be slim.


----------



## the other mike (Feb 3, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Money invested in infrastructure pays benefits, even if it is borrowed money.  We just had Trump's tax cuts, money we borrowed to give to ourselves.  You can argue the fairness of it but not that we'll all be paying interest until it is repaid and the benefits will be slim.


Infrastructure investment is money in the bank, as compared to what's spent on unnecessary wars
which is flushing it down the shitter.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 3, 2020)

Angelo said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Money invested in infrastructure pays benefits, even if it is borrowed money.  We just had Trump's tax cuts, money we borrowed to give to ourselves.  You can argue the fairness of it but not that we'll all be paying interest until it is repaid and the benefits will be slim.
> ...




but you want the rest of the country to pay for a rail system for the richest STATE  in the union after theyve already bankrupted themselves,,,

FUCK THAT,,,,,,


----------



## westwall (Feb 3, 2020)

Angelo said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Money invested in infrastructure pays benefits, even if it is borrowed money.  We just had Trump's tax cuts, money we borrowed to give to ourselves.  You can argue the fairness of it but not that we'll all be paying interest until it is repaid and the benefits will be slim.
> ...








What a retarded assertion.  Infrastructure that is USED is money in the bank.  Infrastructure that is not used is a net loss.


----------



## the other mike (Feb 3, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> but you want the rest of the country to pay for a rail system for the richest STATE  in the union after theyve already bankrupted themselves,,,
> 
> FUCK THAT,,,,,,


The first one's should already be between DC and Boston, and then Florida, Texas, and California.

But for the sake of this argument in, a line between San Diego, LA and San Francisco
would alleviate 30 to 40% of the traffic flow.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 3, 2020)

Angelo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > but you want the rest of the country to pay for a rail system for the richest STATE  in the union after theyve already bankrupted themselves,,,
> ...




they already exist and no ones uses them,,,


----------



## the other mike (Feb 3, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Not talking about (sc)Amtrack Uncle Joe.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 3, 2020)

Angelo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...


only because it would defuse your argument,,,

and for coast to coast planes will always be faster and more efficient,,,,


----------



## westwall (Feb 3, 2020)

Angelo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > but you want the rest of the country to pay for a rail system for the richest STATE  in the union after theyve already bankrupted themselves,,,
> ...








Calculate the cost of the cement needed to build just one of those lines.  Include the CO2 produced and give an estimate of how many trees you would have to plant to offset the CO2 cost for just the cement.

Let's see how smart you are.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 3, 2020)

westwall said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


there you went and did it,,,
now he has to think it through,,,and he was already content with using the death of a man to push his political agenda,,,


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Feb 3, 2020)

Dick Foster said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Would Kobe Bryant have been routinely travelling across town by helicopter
> ...




Steet trolleys just like san fran ...bigger system to


----------



## Dick Foster (Feb 3, 2020)

westwall said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Would Kobe Bryant have been routinely travelling across town by helicopter
> ...





progressive hunter said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Would Kobe Bryant have been routinely travelling across town by helicopter
> ...



Well having gotten my pilots license in the LA metro area, I flew mostly out of LGB to all the area airports, I can tell you that flying in that area is not the safest. Especially in the area of the crash. For starters you're flying in aluminum overcast the traffic is so thick and around the HollywoodHills and San Bernadino mountains rock piles. Just to make things really interesting you've got the Van Nuys and Hollywood-Burbank airports with some of the flakiest pilots in the sky coming and going, then to add to the pucker factor there's often smog and or fog. You're taking your life in your hands even if you're on top of your game flying in that area.
Getting around LA just isn't easy no matter how you go about it.


----------



## the other mike (Feb 3, 2020)

When we were kids they told us 
by 2020 it would be like this;


----------



## westwall (Feb 3, 2020)

Dick Foster said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...







I got my private pilots rating at Van Nuys back in the day.  Yes, it's crowded, but no worse than any other big metro area.  The weather is what killed them.  The pilot wasn't IFR rated, apparently, nor did the Sikorsky have a new GPS system, like the Garmin, or Aspen systems that give you a 3D view of what you are flying into.

I have the new Garmin, I am surprised a very wealthy air traveler didn't.


----------



## 22lcidw (Feb 4, 2020)

The major issue is that people prefer cars. Cars at least gives us the feeling of freedom.  And when comparing trains to flying, they prefer flying.


----------



## Picaro (Feb 15, 2020)

The elites would never use public transportation. Most of them of course support it, since most of them also don't pay taxes, either, and it would make their commutes around town so much more pleasant and faster if all you proles were sandwiched into rolling sardine cans and having to fight over seats that haven't been shit in by the homeless.


----------



## Picaro (Feb 15, 2020)

The way to improve traffic in LA is to start charging everybody in that desert the full cost of all that water that gets re-directed to the region from elsewhere. That will thin the place out considerably. It was a ridiculous region to build a city in in the first place. Time to let it die off.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Feb 19, 2020)

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Picaro (Feb 19, 2020)

If you're ever in the area, just pull off on the shoulder anywhere on the highway that runs from LA to Vegas, and count all the discarded needles you can find within 50 feet, no  matter where you stop. Now multiply that by 100 and you will get close to the number that will be littering the floors and seats of the trains. My own count stopped at 25, and I just walked around my truck checking my tires a few miles outside of Barstow.

There is a good reason why that shithole attracts so many deviants and sociopaths.


----------



## Markle (Feb 20, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Money invested in infrastructure pays benefits, even if it is borrowed money. We just had Trump's tax cuts, money we borrowed to give to ourselves. You can argue the fairness of it but not that we'll all be paying interest until it is repaid and the benefits will be slim.



You seem more confused than normal.

A tax cut is not borrowing money from ourselves.  A tax cut is allowing the earner to keep more of what they earned.  It is not the government's money.

Also, our revenues have increased in spite of the tax cut.  That's a great thing!


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 20, 2020)

If LA had that kind of rail system nobody would use it.

Remember, you're talking about LA fercrissake.


----------



## Markle (Feb 20, 2020)

Angelo said:


> The first one's should already be between DC and Boston, and then Florida, Texas, and California.
> 
> But for the sake of this argument in, a line between San Diego, LA and San Francisco
> would alleviate 30 to 40% of the traffic flow.



Why should we spend hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars on a system that will be used by only a few and never even pay for itself.

From Europe:  "
*“Not a single high-speed track built to date has had any perceptible impact on the road traffic carried by parallel motorways,” says a member of the European Parliament."

http://americandreamcoalition.org/pdfs/HSRLayoutFL.pdf
*
There are no circumstances under which a high-speed rail system makes sense in the US.  We have one in place, the Ac78ela Line in the Northeast.  It is practical because its corridor has a population of over 44 million people.  There is no other location in the US that has a similar corridor.


----------



## Markle (Feb 20, 2020)

HenryBHough said:


> If LA had that kind of rail system nobody would use it.
> 
> Remember, you're talking about LA fercrissake.



You're 100% correct!  Their legions of the elite would point to it with pride telling folks how fast it was and all the other details.  When asked how it was to ride, they'd respond, oh, I can't ride it, it's too inconvenient but ain't it swell!


----------



## DGS49 (Feb 20, 2020)

The spread of population in Los Angeles, the terrain, and the seismographic picture do not make for a cost-effective mass transit system that would serve the whole area.  In most large cities, there is a CBD ("Central Business District") that is the hub of the mass transit system, and all the surrounding areas have service to the CBD.  That is not the case in L.A.  They do have mass transit, but it serves only a small percentage of the overall population.

Not to mention the car culture, in which people manifest their adopted personalities with their Beemers, Prius's, Tesla's, & whatnot.


----------



## the other mike (Feb 20, 2020)

DGS49 said:


> The spread of population in Los Angeles, the terrain, and the seismographic picture do not make for a cost-effective mass transit system that would serve the whole area.  In most large cities, there is a CBD ("Central Business District") that is the hub of the mass transit system, and all the surrounding areas have service to the CBD.  That is not the case in L.A.  They do have mass transit, but it serves only a small percentage of the overall population.
> 
> Not to mention the car culture, in which people manifest their adopted personalities with their Beemers, Prius's, Tesla's, & whatnot.


LA in 2030.


----------



## Markle (Feb 20, 2020)

DGS49 said:


> The spread of population in Los Angeles, the terrain, and the seismographic picture do not make for a cost-effective mass transit system that would serve the whole area.  In most large cities, there is a CBD ("Central Business District") that is the hub of the mass transit system, and all the surrounding areas have service to the CBD.  That is not the case in L.A.  They do have mass transit, but it serves only a small percentage of the overall population.
> 
> Not to mention the car culture, in which people manifest their adopted personalities with their Beemers, Prius's, Tesla's, & whatnot.



More Ferraris, Bentleys, and Lamborghinis.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 21, 2020)

Markle said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Money invested in infrastructure pays benefits, even if it is borrowed money. We just had Trump's tax cuts, money we borrowed to give to ourselves. You can argue the fairness of it but not that we'll all be paying interest until it is repaid and the benefits will be slim.
> ...


The real question is why did revenues rise?  Was it because of economic growth or just inflation?
Before and after passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), several prominent conservatives, including Republicans in the House and Senate, former Reagan economist Art Laffer, and members of the Trump administration, claimed that the act would either _increase _revenues or at least pay for itself. In principle, a tax cut could “pay for itself” if it spurred substantial economic growth—if tax revenues rose from the combination of higher wages and hours worked, greater investment returns, and larger corporate profits. The TCJA, however, is not that tax cut.

The actual amount of tax revenue collected in FY2018 was significantly lower than the CBO’s projection made in January 2017—before the tax cut was signed into law.
Given that the economy grew in 2018, and in the absence of another policy that could have caused a large revenue loss, the data imply that the 2017 tax cut substantially reduced revenues.
The 2017 tax cut reduced the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent—a 40 percent reduction. It also reduced income taxes for most Americans.

*Did the TCJA spur enough growth to maintain federal revenue levels?*
While some TCJA supporters observe that nominal revenues were higher in fiscal year 2018 (which began Oct. 1, 2017) than in FY2017, that comparison does not address the question of the TCJA’s effects. Nominal revenues rise because of inflation and economic growth. Adjusted for inflation, total revenues _fell _from FY2017 to FY2018 (Figure 1). Adjusted for the size of the economy, they fell even more.​
We reduced our income (the tax cut) but did not reduce our expenses (gov't spending) so we'll need to borrow more to cover the difference.  You can put whatever spin you want on it but we increased our borrowing to cover the tax cut.  Basic economics.  Still confused?


----------



## Picaro (Feb 22, 2020)

Look up the history of traction companies in the U.S. they used to blanket the U.S.. One could travel all the way from NYC to Chicago or Atlanta just using local electric rails, even small towns had them. You find old books of their stock prices at Google's books, used to be free for downloading, but not sure if they still are. They all went bankrupt when cities and states started taxing railroad real estate to subsidize the automobile companies and the demand for better roads for those.

Public trnasportation around here was focused on bus routes for the black and latino maids of rich people to be able to get to their employers' houses, and didn't go where anybody else needed to go by the 1940's. You know, like to Bernie Sander's houses.


----------



## fncceo (Feb 22, 2020)

Angelo said:


> CWayne said:
> 
> 
> > So, the taxpayers should get stuck with 20 billion dollars so Kobe Bryant can avoid traffic?
> ...



A war in the Middle East is a lot more fun to watch on TV than a stupid train.


----------



## the other mike (Feb 22, 2020)

True.


----------



## Zander (Feb 22, 2020)

Th LA metropolitan area is designed for Automobiles and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. 

The place is too spread out and people want their freedom to move about on their own schedules, not a rigid rail system. 

 Hardly anyone uses the current rail system that they've poured billions into. 

Rail = FAIL


----------



## Picaro (Feb 22, 2020)

Zander said:


> Th LA metropolitan area is designed for Automobiles and will remain that way for the foreseeable future.
> 
> The place is too spread out and people want their freedom to move about on their own schedules, not a rigid rail system.
> 
> ...



The irony of this is that it was light rials that made the suburbs possible in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially LA. Without the rail lines, Hollywood and every other small town would have been empty fields until after WW II.


----------

