LA Metro G Line | Transit Exploration
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- A quick explanation of Los Angeles Metro's unusual bus rapid transit line. How did the G Line come about, and what does its future hold?
Wanna talk with us about transit? Join our discord bellow
/ discord
Follow our Twitter
/ houseoftransit
This is just a prime example of a line that functionally makes no sense not being rail. At least Metro recognizes that it absolutely should be rail and there is a pathway for it to be converted, but so much money could have been saved just by building elevated metro rail 20 years ago instead of building this halfway bus/train thing. Still, buses and stations all look high quality, and 6 minute headways are pretty good by American standards. I can see why the line is busy, it's reliable and seems like a pleasant ride.
I started taking the regular bus to work and i am surprised by how frequent they are!
Frequency yes but I wouldn't say pleasant, especially at night
@@AlexCab_49 one night i took the night bus home after a night out at the club. People who were on that bus were very different than the rush hour working people.....
This really should be rail
I mean I like rail better but unless I'm wrong brt is cheaper to build upfront so in theory we could have more transit built that doesn't get stuck in traffic for the same amount of money wth brt as opposed to rail. It can be good especially with signal priority but I don't understand why the communities opposed rail
It was illegal to build surface or underground rail at the time this was built.
@@erik_griswold kind dumb for it to be illegal, but heard they got around and its legal again now thus the red line extension. Also, why would people oppose it?!
@@vitasoy1437 In the case of tunnels, due to cost overruns elsewhere in the county but this was banned county-wide. In the case of surface, it was only in the San Fernando Valley and it was due to NIMBYism, basically.
@@erik_griswoldYes, but the subway ban was only in terms of not providing local funding for subways. LRT was still built except in the SFV.
Many people don’t know this, but the G line is actually undergoing a conversion to switch it to light rail in around 30 or 40 years. That is the reason that they are closing most of the at-grade crossings, and replacing them with aerial bridges.
I know this, Metro plans convert G line in 2050's.
@@YevgeshikI'm sure it will happen much sooner, especially now that the new SFV light rail line will start construction soon and is set to connect to the G line.
This is why it should not be legal for a vocal minority of NIMBY people to file lawsuit to stop governments from building proper public transport. It needs to be made illegal for people to block proper pubic transport projects from being built.
In America, the government is by the people, for the people... and if the people don't want something built, it won't be built.
@@NosebergEatzbugsVonShekelstein by law yes but is it really happening today?
@@NosebergEatzbugsVonShekelsteinBut NIMBYs tend to be a minority of the people, but make the most noise because they are usually well funded since they tend to be more affluent.
At the time of the LA Metro G Line planning political pressure opposed to light rail led to a 1991 law (SB 211) prohibiting any rail other than subway in the corridor. This law was not repealed until 2014. The busway was a way to get around this prohibition. Building two overpasses on the bus line to light rail specifications allows for the possibility of eventual conversion to rail but that is a project for future generations.
The should have built Light Rail with 3-4 over/underpasses. I rode it.
Good point about the wide stations possibly being used for express busses. Sad we have never seen this. i recently posted a POV video for part of the G line.
Minneapolis / St. Paul is building a very large BRT network. We have 6 BRT lines now and more on the way in the next few years!
So far none are quite up to full BRT standards, but they’re all very solid upgraded bus routes. Metro Transit deserves credit for their expansion!
There’s almost no dedicated bus lanes.
When will North American planners learn that BRT simply does not work in high labor cost markets? The only way that BRT makes any sense at all is if you have extremely low labor costs. If you have high labor costs then any cost advantage gets eaten up by driver wages in just a few years.
Do these people not do the math at all before building these boondoggles? Ugh...
@@TohaBgood2 Well, BRT often makes sense as an upgrade of local bus routes. The problems emerge when people try to use BRT as a substitute for a subway...
@@thehouseoftransit2719 I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. BRT, and I mean proper BRT with fare gates, platforms, a dedicated right of way, is about as expensive as light rail. In fact, the whole point of BRT is that it is basically just rubber-tire light rail. It's supposed to capitalize on quasi-light rail infrastructure to deliver similar capacity and frequency as light rail.
The difference is that bendy busses can't be coupled together. So with (true) BRT you are forever limited to the capacity of the largest bendy bus that you can find. Meanwhile, the equivalent light rail line can double or triple its capacity simply by adding another car to its trains. This makes BRT two to three times more expensive to run than light rail, which in North America obliterates any savings in less than 10 years of operation.
What you are describing as an upgrade to bus routes is called an "express bus." It involves painting some lanes and removing some stops. But that is _not_ BRT no matter how much the local transit planners try to tell you that it is. BRT has an actual definition and it's not this.
The G line will get converted to light rail sooner than previously stated, especially since the new proposed SFV light rail line will start construction soon and will connect to the G line. The G line will then exist between a light rail and subway line. That will pose a huge demabd capacity issue that the G line will have trouble meeting. The community will demand the conversation to light rail sooner.
@@mrxman581 the case for rail has been building for years, we’ll see if that translates to accelerating its conversion
This absolutely should be rail and needs to be WAY faster. 18 miles should have some express trains and be able to go that route in 15-20 minutes. Transit will work when it is faster than driving. And it can be.
"This is the train to court square 23rd street,The next stop is court square 23rd street" STAND CLEAR OF THE CLOSING DOORS PLEASE!
That’s a slightly different G Line ahaha
BRT is basically
We can't afford or build a rail system here so let's make a temporary system
This isn’t universally true, although disappointingly that’s often how it works out in the US
@@thehouseoftransit2719 cause we can't buy or have a positive outcome since rail freight companies basically hold us hostage from a good transit systen
And NIMBYs (specifically LA Metro)
0:54 people always run that light
The G Line is my SFV love. It is seriously the best LA Metro line in terms of frequency. It has a lot of missed opportunities sure, namely I wish the NoHO transfer was more convenient to the B Line, that certain station decisions were better made (Sepulveda and White Oak), and that the G Line was also open for more through routed services (I can easily see an argument for express buses on Reseda and Van Nuys for example, being through routed to NoHo). If the line does get converted to rail, I do hope that its as the B line, most of the riders I see use it to get to NoHo to transfer to the B Line (granted that tends to be for the line from NoHo to Van Nuys, maybe at most Reseda)
Those aren’t faregates at the stations but rather stanchions
Good Video . The Metro Orange Line will be converted into rail in 2060 .
Forget it! I will not be able to enjoy it because by that time, I will be 82 years old!
Mississauga transitway has so much potential. This is better but it should be a lrt fr..
The transitway arguably makes more sense as a busway since it speeds up bus trips rather than serving destinations along the corridor as a rail line would be best-suited to do
They aren’t even planning on extending the red line as far as I know, they want to convert it to light rail
This is correct, which at this point is probably more logical
@@thehouseoftransit2719 from a financial and political point of view yes, from a service and future proofing view not at all
Well yes, but the B (Red) line could be extended to Burbank Airport instead and the G Line can take over the future BRT route between North Hollywood and Pasadena, becoming a more orbital-ish line.
@@acaciafruit347 yeah true that’d be helpful
Definitely screaming for rail lol
On road bus line: Tram, way less microplastic and CO2. One seat trips are only really needed when your interlinked PT system sucks - which means your PT system sucks. There's no good reason for BRT.
It’ll take decades to convert this into rail
The speaker sounds like Tina from Bob's Burgers
I’m gonna convince myself this is a compliment…
@@thehouseoftransit2719 I'm actually a big fan of the show, and listening to your video, it jumped out and grabbed my attention. It is a compliment - intrigued me to explore your video offerings.
Does anyone agree with my comparison?
It should not take decades for something that’s a no brainer to be built. The hard part (getting the right of way) is already done.
Basically XG as a Kpop group in a nutshell.
WHERE IS DCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
This should have been a tram. Idiotic behaviour again from LA residents.
man i hate nimbys.
There are two really good reasons for this to not be rail. 1) Unnecessary costs (this is working as well as rail). 2) Buses kill a tiny fraction of pedestrians per passenger mile than rail at grade.
Ok build rail above on a guideway negating 2) 1) can be dealt with by automation the rail can be express with BRT as local rapid
@@qjtvaddict Still doesn't solve the ridiculous cost and that >50% of the population won't use it EVER.
BRT is almost as expensive to build as light rail, but the driver costs are insane. Any cost advantage over light rail gets eaten up in just a few years.
There's a reason why BRT was invented and is still almost exclusively used in low labor cost markets. For an city like LA with its completely crazy labor costs, BRT is completely nonsensical.
@@TohaBgood2 Proof? You can't. Light rail is costing 100s of millions per mile, and rail cars cost more than buses.
But I agree we should save money and serve the public by not building either.
@@vimmentors6747 Proof: The Orange line cost only 25-30% less than an identical light rail line on the same alignment. The SF Muni Van Ness BRT only cost 20% less than an identical light rail line on the same alignment.
And both cities have insane labor costs. So every time you see a single bendy bus instead of a two-car light rail vehicle, that run just cost the city double the driver costs!
What I am saying is not a controversial opinion. It's been studied widely, even during the feasibility studies of the various "BRT" projects in question. The only way to make BRT "pencil" in North American cities is to ditch everything that makes BRT better than an express bus. And at that point it's more economical and faster to just build an express bus.