File: image.jpg (1.6 MB, 4032x3024)

1.6 MB JPG

Ditto btw

Add buses to supplement rail service then eliminate the expensive rail service

>>2011628
>What would public transit in LA be like today if it had been?

Full of junkies, crackheads and undesirables, much like it already is.

Don't build Union Station and instead go with the railroads' plan to build an network of elevated tracks for the PE.

>>2011661
if trams were replaced by frequent, fast busses with their own lanes that would be valid, that didn't happen anywhere where street cars were removed.

>>2011628
>What could have been done to save the Pacific Electric Railway?
the yellow and red trams were private companies, only intended to aid tract housing developments on cheap farmland bought by the owners. seeing as they were only ever meant to increase real estate value and were otherwise barely profitable, if at all, i don't see any scenario where a private company would've saved them. that leaves public ownership, and i doubt the municipality would've been any less corrupt and carbrained than any other place.
>What would public transit in LA be like today if it had been?
still quite shit as all the trams are at-grade. if the city had started building a metro network instead however, it would've made a massive difference. it would still be crappy and horrible like the NY subway because the US is a complete shithole, governed with completely wrong priorities.

>>2011729
So, just wastrels? Ok then

>>2011729
>Full of junkies, crackheads and undesirables
You must feel right at home

File: los angeles union station(...).jpg (437 KB, 1006x654)

437 KB JPG

>>2011797

Brainlet here, what's wrong with LAUPT?

>>2015028
LAUPT was forced by the city on the private railroads, who wanted to keep their own terminals. The alternate plan the railroads proposed (which was defeated in favour of LAUPT in a non-binding referendum) was to link the existing terminals with a network of elevated tracks to be used by them and the Pacific Electric, all paid for by the railroads.
See Chapter 5 of Los Angeles and the Automobile by Scott Bobbles for more details.

>>2011661

They already had that IIRC

File: pe_1949.jpg (987 KB, 3600x2223)

987 KB JPG

>>2011628
It would have had to become either publicly-owned or subsidized. The sad irony is that many US transit systems closed down because they weren't profitable and they wouldn't get subsidized, only for the cities to later implement publicly-owned and highly subsidized transit services. If they had just taken over the existing systems, tho more expensive to operate, they also would have had more passengers and more revenue. At worst it would have been slightly more expensive to keep and run but with massively better service.

The PE network after WW2 was quite serviceable. It would have benefitted for either full grade separation or at least transit-only lanes for its streetcars. In the long run an additional southwest-northeast tunnel through downtown LA so that especially the expansive southern and eastern lines could have achieved better speeds. Rolling stock was getting dated, they could of bought more PCCs, maybe even second-hand, afaik PCCs easily achieved speeds of 60 mph so they could be used on the private ROWs as well.

The PE running an interurban-type operation with private ROWs and street-running is in retrospect actually a really good concept, at least if you want to save the cost of expensive tunneling or elevated tracks. This idea is being re-invented now as so-called tram-trains.

>>2017691
>The PE network after WW2 was quite serviceable

IIRC it was one of the most extensive electric railways of the era