California Intercity Trains Setting Ridership Records
At the core of opposition to high speed rail is a simple assumption: that Californians are somehow inherently opposed to riding trains. California’s “car culture” is supposedly one where people are so fanatically devoted to their automobiles that they’d rather sit in traffic and spend lots of money on gas rather than use a train when one is available.
In reality, California’s “car culture” doesn’t exist, at least not in that sense. Because so much of our state’s urban infrastructure was developed in the automobile age, and because of the predatory practices of the monopolistic Southern Pacific Railroad, Californians turned to automobiles as the basis of their transportation after about 1920 – and even then passenger rail remained popular, including the Pacific Electric line in LA and the urban rail lines in SF that became Muni. It’s not that Californians won’t ride trains because they’d rather drive, it’s that for about 90 years we’ve been prioritizing automobiles over trains, and so most Californians don’t have a choice of taking a train for their usual trips.
Increasingly, however, Californians who do have a choice of a train are using it. That’s not news to this blog, but it is apparently news to the San Francisco Chronicle, which today reported on rising ridership on Amtrak California’s intercity routes:
Amtrak California, the state partnership with the national passenger rail corporation, carried about 5.1 million of the 27.1 million passengers who took Amtrak trains in 2009. And the number of riders is rising. California spends about $90 million a year on operating subsidies.
In November, the Capitol Corridor saw a 10.6 percent increase in ridership over the previous year; the Pacific Surfliner drew 4.2 percent more passengers and the San Joaquin carried 2.3 percent more riders.
“People are definitely seeing Amtrak California as a viable alternative,” said Matt Rocco, a spokesman for Caltrans, whose rail division manages the San Joaquin and Surfliner routes.
This is part of a much longer trend in growth of passenger rail ridership, as the Capitol Corridor ridership chart below indicates (dating only to 2009, and therefore doesn’t include the 2010 numbers):
You see a little dip there for 2009 due to the recession, but even then ridership remained at 2007 levels. It seems clear that 2010 ridership will be above that for 2009, and perhaps will be close to the 2008 mark, set during the oil price spike that year which brought pump prices to $4.50/gal for much of California.
The SF Chronicle article shows why Californians are already building a train culture:
Ian Boatwright, a 30-year-old caterer, moved from the Bay Area to Sacramento a few years ago to cut his cost of living. But he still travels to the bay regularly to work catering jobs and to visit his girlfriend. Driving down Interstate 80 wore on his psyche as well as his car, which blew its engine one day, so Boatwright turned to the train. He rides the Capitol Corridor two or three times a month.
“It’s convenient, it links right to BART, and it’s a pretty quick ride – almost as fast as driving,” he said. The trip between Sacramento and Richmond, which takes about an hour and 20 minutes by car, depending on traffic on busy Interstate 80, takes an hour and 25 minutes if the train is running on schedule. And it usually is. The Capitol Corridor leads the nation with a 95 percent on-time performance rate, which has improved over the past few years.
The trains are fast, reliable, and connect to other rail systems that carry passengers to their destinations. And that’s on trains that have a top speed of 79 mph (which will hit 90 mph on the Capitol Corridor route once positive train control is installed).
The success of Amtrak California provides a clear indication that Californians will flock to high speed trains once they become available at the end of the decade. Fast speeds, reliable service, and stations where people want to go – like downtown San Francisco, or transfers to an expanded Metro Rail network at LA Union Station – will ensure that our system has no problem attracting riders.
I’m sure HSR critics and opponents will find some fault with these Amtrak California numbers, or find some way to argue that they don’t mean Californians will ride the bullet trains. But if you notice, HSR opponents aren’t really arguing that Californians won’t ride the trains, not any longer. Instead their arguments are about process, trying to make the Authority look bad, trying to claim that even if the idea is sound, the execution is so flawed that we should just stop.
As oil prices rise and California’s need for sustainable methods of travel becomes desperate, we should learn to ignore those critics. There are certainly ways to improve the project’s planning and oversight, and ways to improve the Authority’s operations. But that needs to be done to ensure the project is built well, on-time and on-budget. As HSR opposition fades and becomes less publicly acceptable, we should become less attentive to their increasingly desperate whining, and continue refining and perfecting our project so that we can find the rest of the funding we need to ensure Californians can ride the bullet trains by 2020. If you build it, they will ride.
Let me tell you, these trains are doing well in spite of how poor the infrastructure is.
Coming out of San Diego tonight on the Surfliner was like being a salmon swimming upstream. Stopped twice for 10-15 minutes at a time to allow a Southbound Coaster and a Southbound Surfliner to pass. LOSSAN needs to be double tracked on the double.
But despite this, people hate driving so much that they’ll put up with it. If these trains we have now are setting records, imagine what proper service could do for ridership. It would clean up, that’s what.
YesonHSR Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
The high-speed rail ridership will blow the doors off any nonsense Reason foundation/Cato doublespeak propaganda that no one is going to ride these trains.. today’s Amtrak service is heavily patronized. Just wait till the high-speed rail starts running it willl iterally change the culture of California even further away from the automobile and airplane as the only source of travel and that’s why those goons are fighting so hard to stop this from being built.
Spokker Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Yeah but I’d still like to see LOSSAN double tracked. I just hope California remembers the not so sexy rail projects.
MGimbel Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Maybe Jerry Brown will try to build a LOSSAN Shinkansen again. :)
Spokker Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Fuck it, just double track the goddamn thing so we don’t sit on a siding on the edge of a mountain for 20 minutes because some asshole at NCTD can’t dispatch trains correctly.
Daniel Krause Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Sorry, but we have priorities. We must spend $4.5B turning the now-scenic I-5 into a 20-lane mega freeway in northern San Diego County. We simply can’t afford to double track.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 5th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Hey now, an automobile is freedom, unlike a train
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 4:21 am
What I would like to know is where the “lamestream” media has been for the last 5 or 10 years. This has been going on for at least that long, with younger people driving less than their elders (well before the current recession, as pointed by by Draves of Nine Shift), and with increasing popularity for local rail services, including light rail. Heck, I was seeing the pattern starting to emerge 20 years ago! You would think this news (and peak oil) has been a state secret all this time.
And I find Robert’s comment about how the opposition is now claiming process instead of “no one will ride” to be an interesting development as well.
James Fujita Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
I don’t think California will forget the “not so sexy” projects.
However, by the time you bypass old town San Juan Capistrano (an absolute must for double-tracking LOSSAN), placate the coastal NIMBYs and straighten out the curves in Sorrento Valley (another must), LOSSAN ends up as a “sexy project” anyways.
Nathan G Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Part of the Federal Grant to CA from the Federal DOT is for the adding of about 15 miles of total double tracking through that area.
Nathan G Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Here is the link that outlines the projects ,
http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/downloads/Summary_of_FY10_Selected_Projects_1010.pdf
Sort of OT: Not sure if this is old news to people here or not, but TIME had a great summary/update on the U.S. HSR programs. I was very impressed that they got most of the facts right and had a really good, impartial take on the it:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2039897-1,00.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 4:32 am
As usual, the comments that follow are interesting, if predictable. . .
I wonder if the age pattern presists among the respondents; I noticed one who really hated the idea and says he will drive no matter what has a Confederate flag for his avatar. . .
I actually don’t think that “Californians are somehow inherently opposed to riding trains” is actually the core assumption of the opposition. Rather, they’re more concerned about bankrupting the state and disrupting neighborhoods.
The point, remains, however, is that we do need to spend funds on infrastructure and reap the benefits now, or delay and incur the consequences. And of course, we need to ensure that costs don’t balloon out of control, or it’d be better off taking a step back and pondering the solutions.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 4:37 am
“I actually don’t think that “Californians are somehow inherently opposed to riding trains” is actually the core assumption of the opposition. Rather, they’re more concerned about bankrupting the state and disrupting neighborhoods.”–Caelestor
That may actually be the case, but I wonder why it wasn’t here before, why it wasn’t around earlier in the rail debate, and why the same crowd never mentions the oil problem, nor the real costs of the highway system.
Frankly, it sounds like the generational business to me, and that actually boils down to a type of prejudice, which is really quite foolish.
Victor Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 11:58 am
That’s cause some fear change & will say or even do anything to keep change from happening. It’s one thing for a person to not ride the rails cause they have a need to use an auto, But It’s another thing when someone wants to keep using autos when they don’t need to out of fear, Fear of others and of not wanting to be truly independent(walking). When I was growing up, If I wanted to go somewhere, I didn’t drive a Car, I walked and then got on a Local Bus to go to the Mall If I wanted to do some shopping, I’m not as able to do that anymore, So I drive as frozen food is perishable and decay waits for no one.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Rather, they’re more concerned about bankrupting the state and disrupting neighborhoods.
Building the same capacity with highways and airports will cost much more and be far more disruptive.
I found the Capital Corridor ridership stats for FY 2009-2010—-1,581,000 (down slightly from the previous year, but the second half of 2010 looks really interesting:
July 2010——-up 5.0% from July 2009
Aug 2010——-up 5.0% from Aug 2009
Sept 2010——up 4.0% from Sept 2009
Oct 2010——–up 3.1% from Oct 2009
Nov 2010——-up 10.6% from Nov 2009
I wonder if the November jump reflects an improving economy, and if an improving economy plus higher gas prices won’t lead to big ridership jumps beyond November. Ridership for FY 2010-2011 could easily break all records.
Alan F Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 8:06 am
Amtrak system wide ridership for FY2011 is very likely to smash the FY2010 record of 28,716,857 passengers, which was just barely ahead of the then FY08 record. The Amtrak FY10 ridership numbers were held down by the weak numbers for the Surfliner and Capital Corridor which were down or barely up compared to the down FY09 year. The Acela, most other corridors, and the long distance trains were up, some by a lot for FY10 over FY09. If the big jump in November for the California corridors continues, Amtrak should easily exceed 30 million riders system wide for FY11.
The Amtrak October 2010 monthly report for the 1st month of FY2011 is interesting because it showed that ridership October 09 versus Oct 2010 was up for every single service except 2. Only the Ethan Allen and Coast Starlight were down in ridership, but those are both once a day trains, so a service disruption or weather can cause a ridership drop-off over a small one month sample. Oct 2010 ridership (over Oct 09) was up 6.9% and revenue up a whopping 14.1% system wide. I think the revenue is up so much because more people end up paying higher bucket prices. The November 2010 monthly report is not on the Amtrak website yet, but will likely show up in a week or so.
Of the 3 main categories for Amtrak services (NEC, other corridor services, long distance), the long distance trains show the highest percentage increase in ridership, 6.6% for FY10 as a whole and 8.1% in Oct 2010. I think Amtrak can thank TSA and the airlines for much of that growth.
If Amtrak can finally roll out free WiFi for the NEC Regional & Keystone trains, CA corridors, and the other busier corridors in the next few months, that should increase ridership even more. The Acela got a noticable bump in ridership after Amtrak added free WiFi in March 2010.
Add up increased gasoline prices, fun times at the airport with body scanners & patdowns, and the considerable amount of free publicity that Amtrak is getting with the news on HSR projects, Amtrak is going to have a record ridership year at the same time they will be facing some hostility from the Republican controlled Congress.
in addition to the amtrak.com website, and the sites for the individual state trains, many people don’t know that there is a caltrans site for these trains as well. If you look here at the format its very easy to see what the state hsr site might look like. Note all the special fares and promos including things like disneyland etc. This is where the win win win comes in. With the state, and marketing, and private businesses and tourism working together to “sell” california to the world while providing mobility and lifestyle to californians. We are already well on our way, but its a drop in the bucket with such a big state. One has to be able to imagine the full potential which I think is unlimited.
James Fujita Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
The Caltrans site still links to Amtrak.com for ticket sales, though.
And Amtrak.com remembers my name and information for easy purchases. That’s the most important part.
The San Joaquin is Amtrak’s fifth-busiest service and the railroad’s third-busiest in California.[1] During fiscal year 2010, the service carried 977,834 passengers, a 5.2% increase from FY 2009′s total of 929,172 passengers.[1] Total revenue during FY 2010 was US$31,341,146, a 12.7% increase from a total of US$27,816,923 in FY 2009.[1]
ridership increased 5.2 percent but revenue increased 12.7 percent.
Daniel Krause Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 10:56 am
I’ll be riding it tomorrow, as long as the Grapevine stays open. Love the service, though I wish it were faster of course.
The Pacific Surfliner is a 350-mile (563 km) Amtrak regional passenger train route serving communities on the coast of Southern California between San Diego and San Luis Obispo. The service carried 2,613,604 passengers during fiscal year 2010, a 0.8% increase from FY 2009′s total of 2,592,996 riders.[1] Total revenue during FY 2010 was $49,523,433, an increase of 6.4% from FY 2009.[1] The Pacific Surfliner was Amtrak’s third-busiest service, and the busiest outside of the Northeast Corridor.[1]
ridership increased .08 percent but revenue increased 6.4 percent.
During fiscal year 2010, the Capitol Corridor service carried a total of 1,580,619 passengers, a 1.2% decrease from FY 2009′s total of 1,599,625 passengers.[1] Total revenue in FY 2010 was $22,872,085, a 3.2% increase from FY 2009′s $22,160,890 total revenue.[1] It is the fourth busiest Amtrak route in terms of ridership, surpassed only by the Northeast Regional, Acela Express, and Pacific Surfliner.[1] The line also carries more passengers per mile than any Amtrak service other than the Northeast Regional.
ridership down 1.2 percent, revenue up 3.2 percent.
Donk Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 7:59 am
To finish your point, the total Amtrak CA ridership for 2010 was 5,172,057. So according to their figure of “about 5.1 million” in 2009, ridership only slightly increased in 2010 on the combined Amtrak CA routes. If it was exactly 5.1M in 2009, this would be an increase of 1.41% in 2010.
jimsf Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 11:06 am
right. and too have any increase in ridership growth in a recession with little job growth speaks either to the strength the system or the strength of california’s economy in spite of the recession, or both.
Wow. What’s 108% of zero again?
We have 35 more of bus lines (buses! the horror!) in San Francisco that carry more riders each and every day than the olde tyme Capitol Corridor Amtrak FRA dead end.
Stick a fork in it and stop shovelling tax dollars into a black hole.
synonymouse Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 11:07 am
Yeah, and that’s in spite of the fact that the busiest line(#38 Geary)remains a stanky old diesel operation while Muni management blows its fortune on the poorly planned Central Subway. They haven’t even moved on the obvious conversion to trolley bus which would allow online vehicle storage at Presidio bus barn(nee Geary Carhouse)
Peter Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Ever heard of Geary BRT? Why would they implement a trolley bus system when they’re about to completely rebuild Geary?
synonymouse Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 11:40 am
What, “bulb” bus stops and reserved lanes on streets where trucks double park with political immunity and all served by wornout stanky diesels that have to deadhead from the remotest southeastern outpost of the City? Quintessentially Muniserable.
Al Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
No, a pair of lanes in the center of the street, with no access to trucks or any other vehicles.
Unfortunately, it seems to be stalled.
synonymouse Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
That would have to be west of Van Ness. Downtown the 38 runs on the one-way couple of Gear and O’Farrell Sts., best described as “open city”.
Absent subway-surface light rail, trolley coaches are the best interim solution for Geary.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 11:08 am
Are they intercity bus lines along a similar route? Otherwise they’re rather irrelevant as means of comparison.
Amanda in the South Bay Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
What in the world does MUNI’s bus system have to do with the Capitol Corridor? Oh noes, more people take MUNI daily than ride the Capitol Corridor! The horror!
What kind of advanced engineering degree do I need to make this kind of sophisticated analysis?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
“Suburban choo choo riders” = good.
“Urban bus riders” = bad.
Glad to be of assistance in your higher education pursuits. It’s never too late to continue learning!
I think on this occasion you’re putting more of a positive spin on things than is realistic. I’ll come clean – I’m British, and I moved to LA a year ago (which is probably the worst move that someone who believes in public transport can make!)
Car culture, in my opinion, does exist – in fact in LA it’s endemic, and it will take time and cultural shifts to eradicate it. But I fully expect that to happen – it’s not fully embedded; it’s caused by low (yes, you read that right) gas prices, urban sprawl, and chronic underinvestment in public transport. But it also needs to be understood that high speed rail best operates as part of a wider transit network, which currently does exist but is, at least in the LA area, completely inadequate, and still will be even when the 30/10 infrastructure is in place.
I suspect Amtrak is seeing success more through chance than design… it sounds as though the Capitol Corridor is infinitely better than anything LA has though.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Define what you mean by “car culture.” There is a sort of “sprawl culture” but that is fading.
Rollo Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
A fair point, but how about this: “one where people are so fanatically devoted to their automobiles that they’d rather sit in traffic and spend lots of money on gas rather than use a train when one is available.”
Maybe substitute “bus” for “train” for most people in LA, and recognise that they’d “rather sit in traffic” for often very valid reasons, but that doesn’t make it less true!
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Presumes, of course, that they know about the trains, which is often not the case.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
San Diego Metrolpoitan Transit System trains carry about 100k a day. The buses are around 150-200k per day. The Coaster is paltry at around 6k per day…, but better than ACE at around 2k per day.
Los Angeles Metro carries over 300k riders a day on its trains. Bus is about 1.1 million a day. So, there are folks on trians in LA. That doesn’t include the commuter Metrolink rail system, but those numbers are relatively low… Caltrain level, 35-40k.
What I am saying is, yes, people are taking trains. In LA’s case, incresaingly so. They are building and planning 6 lines right now; two got FTA approval to go into Preliminary Engineering. Three are under construction right now: Exposition I (opening in 2011), Foothill (just started), and Exposition II (just started). Another is named Crenshaw.
San Diego just recently committed itself to doign the Mid-Coast Line from Old Town to University City.
James Fujita Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Car culture does exist, and it’s not going to go away even if we had Tokyo-levels of rail service.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Although I am a rail fan, I am not a rail jihadist. The private motorized vehicle does have its uses, and there are certain situations where a car or truck may be preferable to a train or bus. There is also the phenomenon of automobile as a hobby, such as the restoration of vintage models, custom design work, and racing.
I would love to see us reach the point where the car is still a viable form of transportation, but it is just one of many options available; where a family might have a car, but it would not be a necessity.
The feeling of “I have no other choice but to drive” should disappear. But, I would have no objections to someone who took the train for most trips, but owned a car for other purposes, such as the aforementioned car enthusiast hobbies.
Or even “soccer mom needs to run eight local errands and get the groceries before picking up the kids”.
The two forms of transportation do not need to be mutually opposed.
Caelestor Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Nobody should hate the car. It’s great for visiting the grocery store or far-flung areas like Tahoe!
However, there needs to be more efficient ways for people to get to their jobs or go on business trips whenever possible, and that’s where transit comes in. Transit can save people a lot of commute time.
egk Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Tahoe? No, you didn’t write Tahoe, did you? You mean that place where millions of people annually travel – often in poor weather – from essentially the same place (the bay area) to essentially the same place (a handful of ski areas) at essentially the same time, overloading the roadways. You wouldn’t want to run trains there…
Reality Check Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Some Burlingame NIMBY just had this Comment: Build HSR where the people are, like SF- Lake Tahoe in yesterday’s San Mateo Daily Journal.
James Fujita Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Nothing wrong with ski trains, but it is awfully seasonal and limited. It is the sort of thing which really ought to wait until after you’ve taken care of Los Angeles-San Francisco, Los Angeles-Las Vegas, San Francisco-Sacramento, Los Angeles-San Diego, Los Angeles-Santa Barbara, San Francisco-Monterey, and maybe even Los Angeles-Palm Springs first.
Now, if Tahoe were to host the Winter Olympics that might be different….
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
The Olympics are a once in every few decades event.
People go to Tahoe to ski, or in the summer to enjoy the mountains. If the train is going to Tahoe it can probably go to Reno which has a year round attraction, the casinos….
James Fujita Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
yes, but think of all of the transit proecjts built because of the Olympics
James Fujita Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
projects, even. the Montreal subway… Salt Lake City LRT… the Shinkansen (1960 and 1998)… London Javelin…
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Seems to me that a 90-110 miles per hour service should be able to make a profit as a private line between Sacramento and Tahoe, with trackage rights to San Francisco/Emeryville, especially if connecting service can be arranged from CV and SoCal via rest of CAHSR.
synonymouse Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Maybe if you were paying Greyhound Bus driver wages.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Greyhound is unionized. So Union wages?
synonymouse Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
From what I could locate on the web Greyhound is paying around $20/hr and BART around $37/hr.
Alon Levy Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 7:47 am
But the railroad doesn’t come all that close to Lake Tahoe. It serves Truckee, which would require a connecting bus ride.
Building a greenfield route from Truckee to Tahoe City along the river is probably feasible, but it would be curvy.
thatbruce Reply:
January 7th, 2011 at 10:35 am
And you’d still need to take a shuttle bus from a possible Tahoe station to the individual resorts. If you want a ski-train service, tack extra coaches onto the existing Amtrak service and provide a bus shuttle buses from Truckee, which isn’t that far away (some resorts currently offer shuttles to the Truckee/Tahoe Airport, which is just a stone’s throw from the station).
D. P. Lubic Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Wonderfully put, James! I happen to like old cars, too. Really got my wife “steamed up” when we got to see a Stanley Steamer at a car show (“What? You weren’t joking about steam cars, they are real?”), and at the same show was a beautiful Duesenberg–none of this is stuff I’ll be able to buy! Then there was the 1932 Chrysler Imperial at a show in Virginia; big, l-o-n-g straight-eight in it, and what was impressive was the owner starting it. Wonderful sound, different from anything else I’d heard, and then the owner balanced a nickel on edge on the running engine, and it stayed upright, dancing ever so slightly–s-m-o-o-t-h. . .as was a ride I got to take in a 1938 Buick. . .
An interesting thing, though–if you go to cruise-ins in the area where I live, you notice all the guys with the 60s-looking hot rods (which is to say 1950s cars that look like they would have been hopped up by someone getting them cheap as used cars in the late 60s, when they would have been 10 to 15 years old), all these guys have grey hair. The cars are beautiful if you’re a rod man, and the fellows apparently now have the skills and/or money to make their boy-dreams really come true the way they wished they could have been done years before, but still, you get the impression that these guys are reliving boyhood dreams–another part of the past. This is actually quite a contrast to what these guys would have been doing 45 years ago, when they were trying to take older cars into the future with more performance and their own customizing touches. The famous customizer, George Barris, had a lot of custom cars that really were forward looking for their time, with organic shapes curved in fiberglass, bubble tops like an airplane canopy, and so on. Today they are almost as retro as, well, my steam engines. . .
At least that’s part of what I see here. Is it the same out west?
James Fujita Reply:
January 6th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
it depends. there’s also lowriders (1970s-1980s) and Asian drift racing “rice burners” (Honda Civic + tons of stuff from Mugen)
when all you have is a nostalgia hammer, everything looks retro.