6 ms·
Like most cities, LA's public transit system used to be a privately-owned, for profit network, mostly from Pacific Electric and Los Angeles Railway. By the 50s,
by bouncing 8y ago
Like most cities, LA's public transit system used to be a privately-owned, for profit network, mostly from Pacific Electric and Los Angeles Railway. By the 50s, those companies had shuttered most of their routes because of competition from private cars and buses, so eventually they were bought by local government and became the public transit system.
Same thing happened in Chicago. Before there was the CTA, there were private, for-profit rail roads connecting the city, owned mostly by the Chicago Rapid Transit Company.
So, if Via is unsustainable and unprofitable, and was acquired by local government, that wouldn't really be any different from how the LA Metro got started.
- duxup 8y agoI'm not sure it is quite the same thing. Via leads them down a very specific path that now has to be sustained and failed. One that otherwise they may not have taken.
- et-al 8y ago> So, if Via is unsustainable and unprofitable, and was acquired by local government, that wouldn't really be any different from how the LA Metro got started. Why would LA Metro pay to acquire Via when it can just run identical bus routes? Also, LA transit planners probably already know which areas would benefit from new bus route, but are constrained by their budget. Unless advertisers are thinking it's profitable to blast ads to commuters for their 30-45 min commute, affordable transit will continue to need to be subsidised by tax dollars (yes, yes.. transit in Asia, real-estate).