Re: History of the Expo Line « Reply #51 on Feb 14, 2012, 6:56pm »
Much as I rejoiced when the Gold Line opened, I still have objections to some of the station names. Since there's only one station in South Pasadena, that's what it should be called, not "Mission". There are two historic early California missions in the LA area, and neither one is near South Pasadena. There are over a dozen streets with "Mission" in their names. My other "bone of contention" is Sierra Madre Villa, which leads some people to believe that the trains go to the City of Sierra Madre. Sorry folks, it's a long uphill hike to the home of the Wistaria Vine and the Buccaneer Lounge. I would have preferred East Pasadena, which is what this area used to be called. Lamanda Park might work, but it's really the area west of here.
Re: History of the Expo Line « Reply #52 on Feb 15, 2012, 12:16am »
While there's definitely places where the intersection or cross street is the only name that makes sense, I think it should be the fallback, not the default. I'm a transplant, so maybe I'm missing something, but 103rd Street doesn't sound like it has any significance---the station should just have been called Watts Towers from the start. I also like just naming the cross streets instead of the full intersection, because if almost all the Purple Line stations wind up being named Wilshire/Something, you're essentially just adding line noise to the station name without being more informative. This may create duplicate names between parallel lines, but usually you're mentioning the station name in the context of the line it's on, so it's not going to be much of an issue.
We also need to consider the first time user, especially the person from out of town. Does the station name help them know where to alight?
Right. I feel like the intersection naming is only useful for people that are used to driving around but haven't taken the train there before. Tourists don't know the street grid already, and those used to riding the subway will have the stops mostly memorized anyway.
Re: History of the Expo Line « Reply #53 on Feb 15, 2012, 2:30am »
Given the auto-centric nature of Los Angeles, there's no denying that people do consider our street grid to be important.
I wouldn't trade "Hollywood/ Vine" for anything, and the giant development sitting on top of Hollywood/ Highland Sta. has the imaginative name of "Hollywood and Highland," so that works. Wilshire is famous enough that I see nothing wrong with including Wilshire on Purple Line station names.
That said, there are plenty of locations where a street intersection isn't needed. I'm glad that Little Tokyo has its own station, and I'm thinking LACMA Sta. for Wilshire/ Fairfax.
Once a station name is decided, that name needs to be spread around. Any good tourist will have a guide book, and any good guide book needs to list subway stations with nearby tourist attractions. Ideally, ads should include Metro station directions as well, like they do elsewhere.
Re: History of the Expo Line « Reply #54 on Feb 15, 2012, 11:44am »
I think the rough priority for station names should be:
1. Famous landmarks (e.g. LACMA, Union Station, Watts Tower etc) 2. Well known and precise neighborhood descriptions (e.g. Universal City, USC Expo Park, Culver City, Little Tokyo etc.) 3. Major intersections/commercial centers that are known independently of the existence of train station (e.g. Wilshire/Western, Hollywood/Vine, Hollywood/Highland) 4. Cross streets (e.g. Imperial/xxx, Expo/xxx, Wilshire/xxx, Santa Monica/xxx)
Most of our stations defaults to #4, which has produced some very undesirable station names.
I think the rough priority for station names should be:
1. Famous landmarks (e.g. LACMA, Union Station, Watts Tower etc) 2. Well known and precise neighborhood descriptions (e.g. Universal City, USC Expo Park, Culver City, Little Tokyo etc.) 3. Major intersections/commercial centers that are known independently of the existence of train station (e.g. Wilshire/Western, Hollywood/Vine, Hollywood/Highland) 4. Cross streets (e.g. Imperial/xxx, Expo/xxx, Wilshire/xxx, Santa Monica/xxx)
Most of our stations defaults to #4, which has produced some very undesirable station names.
Good summary. I concur. Of course, this is a topic in which there is rarely consensus. Everyone has an opinion and even on this board there are pretty strong disagreements, so there is no way to make everyone happy.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 4,005 Location: Palms, LA, CA
Re: History of the Expo Line « Reply #56 on Feb 15, 2012, 4:27pm »
Guys, not to say that this isn't an important discussion, but it's irrelevant to this thread, which is supposed to be on history, and it's ruining it...
Re: History of the Expo Line « Reply #57 on Feb 15, 2012, 6:49pm »
good point. this did get started as a discussion of whether "The Palms" was better than "Palms".
"The Palms" is historically accurate, but "Palms" is clearly the name in common usage. We don't need to change "Little Tokyo Station" to "Bronzeville" for a number of reasons.
Sometimes historical accuracy needs to take a backseat to what makes the most sense now.
When the long-awaited Expo Line opens on April 28, riders will be retracing a historic route through the city. Although its tracks, signals, and power lines are all new, much of the light rail line's right-of-way dates to 1875, when the first rail link between downtown L.A. and the Westside opened and gave birth to the city of Santa Monica.
In 1874, silver baron John P. Jones partnered with sheep rancher Robert S. Baker to develop a seaside resort town on Rancho San Vicente y Santa Monica. Perched atop picturesque bluffs and cooled by an ocean breeze, the town was favorably located -- except that it was a long stagecoach journey from the region's population center in Los Angeles. To make the town marketable, Jones built a 15-mile narrow-gauge rail line between the Santa Monica Bay waterfront and downtown Los Angeles, naming it the Los Angeles and Independence Railroad. It was only the second railroad built in Los Angeles; the first was the Los Angeles and San Pedro, which opened in 1869.
At the mouth of the Santa Monica Arroyo, where Interstate 10 meets with Pacific Coast Highway today, a wharf -- forerunner to today's Santa Monica Municipal Pier -- extended into the ocean. There, ships could dock and unload freight onto rail cars. Heading east, the railroad passed through the future communities of Palms and Culver City before crossing the marshy cienegas of the Ballona Creek plain and then turning north to its terminal at San Pedro and Fifth streets in downtown Los Angeles.
The Los Angeles and Independence helped make Santa Monica palatable to real estate speculators and prospective residents, but Jones, who was politically well-connected as a U.S. senator from Nevada, had grander plans for the railroad. Intending to connect the line with the town of Independence in the Owens Valley, and from there to a silver mine he owned in the Panamint Mountains, Jones optimistically included "Independence" in his railroad's name. Later, Jones hoped, he could extend the line still further east to Salt Lake City and create a transcontinental line to rival the Southern Pacific.
But luck did not favor the railroad -- or Jones -- in its early years. Workers had surveyed the entire route and begun grading a path through the Cajon Pass when Jones' silver mine unexpectedly played out in 1876.
Meanwhile, excursion trains brought beach-going day-trippers, but Santa Monica's population stagnated in the midst of an economic depression, and the town struggled to compete with San Pedro as a shipping center. In dire financial straits, Jones reluctantly sold the Los Angeles and Independence to Collis P. Huntington's Southern Pacific Railroad on July 1, 1877. Decades later, Jones wrote to his wife: "If you only knew how my heart ached when I was obliged by stress of circumstance to part with the RR, which together with matters connected with it was the pet project of my life."
Seeking a monopoly over rail transportation in the Los Angeles area, the Southern Pacific converted the Los Angeles and Independence to standard gauge and connected the railroad with its transcontinental line, which had arrived in Los Angeles in 1876. Traffic increased along the Los Angeles & Independence during the 1880s, as a regional population boom swelled Santa Monica's resident population as well as the number of day-trippers. The following decade, the railroad briefly became one of the region's principal freight corridors when the Southern Pacific built a mile-long wharf near Santa Monica and attempted to establish a commercial shipping harbor there.
But with the federal government's 1897 decision to build a harbor in San Pedro instead of Santa Monica, the Los Angeles and Independence declined in importance. It also faced competition for passenger service with the electric railways of the Los Angeles Pacific, which crisscrossed today's Westside and first reached Santa Monica in 1889.
In 1908, the fabled red cars of the Los Angeles Pacific (later the Pacific Electric) replaced the Southern Pacific's steam trains on the now-electrified rails of the Los Angeles and Independence.
Renamed the Santa Monica Air Line, the route was intended as a shortcut between Los Angeles and the Westside communities of Culver City, Santa Monica, and Venice. With its dedicated right-of-way, the Air Line was unusual among L.A.'s interurban routes, which usually shared streets with automobiles and pedestrians. Fewer station stops and street crossings made for a quicker trip between the Pacific Electric's terminal at Main and Sixth and the line's coastal terminus at Santa Monica's Rustic Canyon.
Despite its advantages, the Air Line never took off. Passengers complained of rough trips along the tracks formerly traversed by steam locomotives, and other lines -- such as those that rolled down Santa Monica or Venice Boulevard -- traveled through more densely populated neighborhoods. Red cars initially whisked passengers away every hour, but by 1924 service diminished to one car per day. The Santa Monica Air Line limped along for decades until it was was finally abandoned in 1953, ending 78 years of continuous passenger rail service along the route.
These are all stunningly beautiful and informative photographs, especially this one. Thanks for the great find Gokhan!
I should in turn thank to rayinla for pointing this article out.
It's a great photo indeed. It seems to be looking northeast at Ocean and Colorado, taken apparently from a building at the edge of the bluff there. The approach to the pier seems to appear in the background, although back then it would be a different structure than the one today. It could also be something else. It would be great if we had another photo from the opposite angle showing the ocean.
As an Expo Line supporter, I can understand the nostalgia for the old Air Line. I first came out to LA in 1978 to go to USC, and remember the trains running down Exposition between campus and Exposition Park. I also lived in Pasadena in the late 80s-early 90s, when you could hear in the distance the train rumbling through town. But it does irk me that there are still people out there ignorant of the Air Line's history who so readily believe that the death of light rail in LA was due to an unholy conspiracy involving oil companies, GM, etc., rather than the marketplace simply reacting to the fact that people preferred to get around in their own automobiles.
Perhaps it depends on your vantage point. If you were transit dependent--in those days I believe that meant you were probably African American--you might have been angry about the changeover to buses with noisy engines and poor acceleration and breaking ability compared to electrified railcars. That was real transit racism, or at any rate, transit classism. But nobody ever did ask you, as a transit-dependent person, because the middle class majority wanted cars and smooth roads not rutted by streetcar tracks or blocked by crossing trains.
A more essential question might be, why couldn't we have kept both? What is it about technological progress and the workings of the free market that leads to the wholesale destruction of an older yet still useful transit system? Why was the possibility overlooked (or blatantly dismissed), that there were still some people who did not wish to or could not operate their own cars for various reasons?
Guys, not to say that this isn't an important discussion, but it's irrelevant to this thread, which is supposed to be on history, and it's ruining it...
Would it be possible to split off the station name comments into their own thread?
It's also worth noting that New York City had a lot of streetcar lines like Los Angeles Railway, they were the first to sell out to National City Lines.
This goes to highlight how different modes are best applicable. Although streetcars have it all over buses in terms of charm, not to mention driving and ride performance, they both are similar in terms of the conditions under which they run (in the streets, and in traffic). In the days of Manhattan streetcars, I can't imagine that anyone of sound mind would have ridden a streetcar the entire length of the island, because that's what the subways are for. I doubt that the streetcar was ever meant to be, or considered by the average New Yorker to be, a competitive alternative to the subway.
In this city, replacing the yellow streetcars with buses, apart from diesel pollution and noise issues, probably wasn't a huge deal; but it's too bad we also lost the longer routes, which must have still run on some stretches of private ROW, judging from the fact that most of the Expo route is of that type. So, from what I've seen, is the Blue Line.
Quote:
If the subways were any less permanent, they probably would have sold those out too. Were talking less than 20 cents per gallon for gasoline!
You must be joking; think of the population density of NYC compared to LA's, in those days. And $.20 was worth a LOT more in those days, too.
Re: History of the Expo Line « Reply #64 on Jul 17, 2012, 10:43pm »
Regarding New York City: Back in the Thirties, their Mayor, Fiorella LaGuardia (after whom the airport is named) reportedly had a strong dislike for streetcars. I"m not sure how much National City Lines was involved with New York transit; as I recall they had little or no presence there.
Another problem is that rail transit gets caught up in the sprawl vs. density debate.
As a rail transit supporter, I know that subways and light rail work best in areas with at least a degree of density above suburban sprawl. Also, denser can be greener as potential public park space gets preserved instead of sprawled across by single-family homes.
However, there are many people who seem to prefer private back yards over public parks (or who want both, in the same way that people want services but no taxes). For some people, it seems like even three-to-five stories tall can be a skyscraper.
That whole private back yard thing sounds nice, but the only way most people of average means are going to get a house in the Basin is by inheriting it or winning the lotto. For the rest of us, that leaves the burbs, and the only way to not end up in the burbs is to compromise on the amount of personal space we get to have. That, in itself, isn't necessarily a bad thing. New Yorkers and San Franciscans have had to do this for generations. But what does need to change, perhaps, is people's attitudes toward city life, and what it means to raise children there. Sure it's got its problems, but there are some positive aspects too. Also, multifamily buildings, whether condos or rentals, need to offer better options for families. As it is, apartment life here is generally regarded as something young couples settle for only until the first baby is on the way, at which point the hunt for a suburban home begins.
I also want to humbly submit a first semester undergraduate paper I wrote about it, if only because this group is probably the only one anywhere that would be half way interested in what a college kid had to say 33 years ago.
I also want to humbly submit a first semester undergraduate paper I wrote about it, if only because this group is probably the only one anywhere that would be half way interested in what a college kid had to say 33 years ago.
How do I open this?
Add ".pdf" to the end of the file name and open with Acrobat or another PDF viewer.
Regarding New York City: Back in the Thirties, their Mayor, Fiorella LaGuardia (after whom the airport is named) reportedly had a strong dislike for streetcars. I"m not sure how much National City Lines was involved with New York transit; as I recall they had little or no presence there.
As always when it comes to public transit and commuting habits, New York must have been the outstanding exception among major cities of the time. I doubt that anything was ever suggested as viable competition to the subway, either fiscally or from the rider's perspective. And knocking down old buildings to make way for parking lots was never an option the way it was in Western cities.
With regard to streetcars specifically, now that you mention it, I can't remember them as ever being portrayed as a prominent feature of life in NYC, whether in 20th Century fiction or film, or in documentary material. According to the MTA's website--NYC's MTA, of course, not ours--what streetcars they had were just about all been replaced by motor buses by 1960.
Regarding New York City: Back in the Thirties, their Mayor, Fiorella LaGuardia (after whom the airport is named) reportedly had a strong dislike for streetcars. I"m not sure how much National City Lines was involved with New York transit; as I recall they had little or no presence there.
As always when it comes to public transit and commuting habits, New York must have been the outstanding exception among major cities of the time. I doubt that anything was ever suggested as viable competition to the subway, either fiscally or from the rider's perspective. And knocking down old buildings to make way for parking lots was never an option the way it was in Western cities.
With regard to streetcars specifically, now that you mention it, I can't remember them as ever being portrayed as a prominent feature of life in NYC, whether in 20th Century fiction or film, or in documentary material. According to the MTA's website--NYC's MTA, of course, not ours--what streetcars they had were just about all been replaced by motor buses by 1960.
Not a prominent feature!? New York named a whole baseball team after the bums who would dodge trolly cars. You might have heard of them, because they play in Chavez Ravine now.
Joking aside. I assure you that streetcars were a hugely prominent feature of New York life, running on virtually all the New York streets that presently have buses.
Eventually, the trolleys met the fate that many systems in North America did -- death not so much by conspiracy but by the fact that they got caught in the increasing auto traffic, and buses provided the ability to travel around blockages.
Re: History of the Expo Line « Reply #70 on Oct 18, 2012, 1:11am »
One feature that was missing from the streetcars that ran in Manhattan was trolley poles. That borough, like Washington DC, insisted that the cars be powered through a conduit system, which looks, from the top like cable car tracks. If you look at movies or photos of Manhattan in the olden days, you may see streetcars that aren't "trolleys". The city fathers of San Francisco likewise stood firm against having trolley wire strung above Market St., but the April 18, 1906 earthquake (and some back-room chicanery) eliminated their objections, and overhead wires in various configurations have been there ever since.
As always when it comes to public transit and commuting habits, New York must have been the outstanding exception among major cities of the time. I doubt that anything was ever suggested as viable competition to the subway, either fiscally or from the rider's perspective. And knocking down old buildings to make way for parking lots was never an option the way it was in Western cities.
With regard to streetcars specifically, now that you mention it, I can't remember them as ever being portrayed as a prominent feature of life in NYC, whether in 20th Century fiction or film, or in documentary material. According to the MTA's website--NYC's MTA, of course, not ours--what streetcars they had were just about all been replaced by motor buses by 1960.
Not a prominent feature!? New York named a whole baseball team after the bums who would dodge trolly cars. You might have heard of them, because they play in Chavez Ravine now.
Joking aside. I assure you that streetcars were a hugely prominent feature of New York life, running on virtually all the New York streets that presently have buses.
Eventually, the trolleys met the fate that many systems in North America did -- death not so much by conspiracy but by the fact that they got caught in the increasing auto traffic, and buses provided the ability to travel around blockages.
Indeed. My mother was born and raised in Brooklyn (like myself), and from the time she was born until she was 14, there were 3 different trolley lines passing by her home. She lived on Rockaway Av between Livonia and Dumont, and was served by the Wilson, St. Johns and Ralph-Rockaway lines. The Wilson became the B60 bus line and still passes by that block. The St. Johns became the B45 and now ends at St Johns & Ralph without serving Rockaway Av. The Ralph-Rockaway was cut back to only serve Ralph Av. It had been the B40, but now is the B47. I believe that the St Johns and Ralph-Rockaway used Pitkin Av to get from Rockaway to St Johns/Ralph.
Re: History of the Expo Line « Reply #72 on Feb 13, 2013, 11:23am »
Recently I watched the film "Killer of Sheep," directed by Charles Burnett ("To Sleep with Anger"). It's a slice-of-life drama set in South-Central Los Angeles in the late '70s. There are numerous scenes of groups of kids playing around in the neighborhood, including throwing rocks at a freight train as it rumbles by an open field. And there was another scene where one of the kids was lying underneath one of the rail cars that had been side-tracked. Could that train have been using the Expo ROW, or were there other rail lines through South-Central as well?
What struck me was that there was no sense that the train posed any danger to the kids, and in fact it was something they would play around and with. That certainly was my experience growing up in the midwest, and I am still somewhat mystified when people in Cheviot Hills and elsewhere think trains on fixed tracks running through their neighborhood are more dangerous than automobiles, trucks, and buses.
Recently I watched the film "Killer of Sheep," directed by Charles Burnett ("To Sleep with Anger"). It's a slice-of-life drama set in South-Central Los Angeles in the late '70s. There are numerous scenes of groups of kids playing around in the neighborhood, including throwing rocks at a freight train as it rumbles by an open field. And there was another scene where one of the kids was lying underneath one of the rail cars that had been side-tracked. Could that train have been using the Expo ROW, or were there other rail lines through South-Central as well?
What struck me was that there was no sense that the train posed any danger to the kids, and in fact it was something they would play around and with. That certainly was my experience growing up in the midwest, and I am still somewhat mystified when people in Cheviot Hills and elsewhere think trains on fixed tracks running through their neighborhood are more dangerous than automobiles, trucks, and buses.
The Santa Monica branch (Expo Line) of Southern Pacific ran only about once a day -- it was a minor branch. BNSF Harbor Subdivision ran more trains and part of it is still active. The most likely location is somewhere near the Alameda Corridor, which is the main trunk for the harbor, or perhaps the Blue Line auxiliary corridor near that.
Here is the clip of the scene where they throw rocks at the Southern Pacific train, which rules out the BNSF Harbor Subdivision. There are a lot of tank cars and for this reason it seems unlikely that it's on the Santa Monica branch. Perhaps Bob Davis can recognize the location.
Re: History of the Expo Line « Reply #74 on Feb 19, 2013, 2:27pm »
This was the cover story of the Orange Empire Railway Museum's July 2012 Gazette (of which my father is a member):
Air Line Memories By Ray Ballash
Now that the new "Exposition Line" in Los Angeles has opened with much fanfare, the riders are really discovering the fast service it provides. Now with three car trains running under cantenary overhead, welded rail, tunnels, trenches, and flyovers, the line has little resemblance to what it was when us kids rode it in the Pacific Electric days. Then, the line ran through some crusty old industrial districts, old neighborhoods, and a little open country on the west side. Today, everything is built up, but it's still not a neighborhood that we would like to live in.
Let's take a trip on the Air Line from what I can remember when we were all high school teenager. The proverbial seeds of our museum were virtually planted on this very line. The line's primary value was as a freight route, but the PE was required by the state to provide passenger service. The PE ran the "Santa Monica Air Line" franchise car six days a week, outbound to Santa Monica leaving 6th & Main station around 5 PM in the afternoon and inbound to LA in the morning. The crew apparently lived on the west side, which made it convenient for them. We always had a 5050 class Hollywood car from the Watts Line pool. The car would lay over behind a building on an unused siding overnight. I never rode it in the morning, but did so quite a few times on Saturday nights.
Very few passengers rode on the weekends, so it was virtually our own fan trip gathering each Saturday. Fred Lane was motorman and Mr. Cooke "Cookie" was conductor. Cookie, a solemn old guy, didn't understand what we saw in the PE. And Cookie never missed collecting a fare from each of us. He dutifully collected that 35 cents each trip and never missed me once. They both ran our trolley wire greaser car (PE 00150) during the week and traversed the Air Line on their trip to the Hollywood and Burbank lines, greasing the overhead wire. Fred, being a frugal man, would spot soda pop bottles along the track during the week, but couldn’t stop to pick them up. But on Saturday, we were his cleanup crew. Fred had a real eagle eye, he could remember where they were and we would jump out and pick them up for him. At two cents deposit each, who could resist? He also would stop anywhere on the line so we could take pictures. At each photo stop, good 'ol Cookie would get our and flag behind, protecting us from the rear in case the Super Chief might come speeding along.
There was always a freight motor tied up at Culver Junction. Must have been a night job as we always had the entire line all to ourselves.
There were continuous rumors of abandonment, but when it was finally announced, we rarely missed those last Saturday trips, always stopping to take many photos. From Santa Monica we boarded a bus For Beverly Hills and then the Hollywood Blvd. line to LA. The whole round trip was less than two dollars.
The last trip was after daylight savings time ended and therefore after dark. It was uneventful, but almost a Full car. Fred, the motorman motioned to us close to the end of the line, "we'll never use that old dash sign again, I'll stop up ahead and why don’t you throw it off in the weeds," which we were only too happy to do. And we did pick it up later. Thank you Fred, you are the reason it exists today. Well, Mr. Cooke had a duty to collect that sign and return it to the PE. I remember him asking everyone if they knew where it went. Only a few of us redly did know. I lied to him, my apologies, Mr. Cooke. All through the years he must have taken it home each night so it survived so long. I've kept it these past 59 plus years and now it’s time for our museum to take over its safekeeping. It sure brings back some good memories.
Maybe the new Metro Line will spark some young kids' imagination and the circle of life will start all over.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/6356/trolleyt.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://physics.usc.edu/Undergraduate/temporary/PE_logo.png "[avatar]"){kind=logo}
![[image]](http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/images/graemlins/default/32.gif "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/6326568669_c79bab4c5d_o.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics21/00030421.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://jpg1.lapl.org/pics28/00033975.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/CHS-14279.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/00030632.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/CHS-12861.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/expo-line-map.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/expo-relief-map.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/2940163095_3e5c83e2ca_o.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/2941017788_44f6d9dca7_o.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/2940163509_69fd09d962_o.jpg "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/images/maps/by_train2.gif "[avatar]")
![[yim]](http://images.proboards.com/yim.gif "[yim]")