While I completely agree with a lot of this video (ESPECIALLY the three-car capacity stations & DTLA to LAX issues), I think that something is underestimated in this video, is the severe NIMBYism in Los Angeles. Getting a BRT in heavily trafficked, high(er) density corridors comes with IMMENSE public pushback (i.e. North Valley BRT and Noho to Pasadena BRT) from people who want to keep a "small town feel", and who elect LA city councilmembers that literally run their campaigns around not building any type of transit :(
Seems like LA needs their own Robert Moses!!! Smart citizens would propose such a position and those NIMBY ppls rights to resist will be removed by the state like here in NYC! If ppl in pasedena want a small town feel.... 🗣MOVE TO A SMALL TOWN THEN
Yep. Metro was forced to comply to these people. If they could, they probably would have made the projects all Heavy Rail like with complete grade separation
See also: Sherman Oaks homeowners lobbying for the Sepulveda monorail so an elevated HRT won't pollute their sight lines, Beverly Hills school district encouraging their HS students to protest against the D/Purple line extension, and (the grandaddy of them all) the 1985 Ross Dress For Less methane explosion that halted subway construction on Wilshire for almost 30 years. Rich Westsiders have way too much power.
As a user of transit in LA, the biggest issues I face are lack of frequency on the regional lines (there is currently only one that might be considered acceptable with almost hourly trains) and lack of grade separation on the light rail lines. Traveling the few miles from Down Town to USC for example is an agonizing 10-20 minute journey through stop and go traffic… on a train. Additionally, the network might look large and expansive but everything is so spread out that there are a lot of places that are very long walks from rail stations; many are served by busses but those busses come very infrequently much of the time.
Yes. There needs to be a campaign to double the frequence of every single bus line in the city. My daughter takes a bus home from her school in downtown LA and if she misses her bus it's 20-30 minute wait for the next one... at peak hours on a weekday! It's ridiculous.
Yes to regional connector demystified! As an LA local you pretty much nailed it. However there is the LAX Flyaway that runs from LAX to Union Station nonstop. That certainly counts as transit.
I've taken flyaway many times before and its really a great system to get to/from the airport. The Van Nuys-LAX bus travels from a dedicated terminal in the Valley to the Airport proper, with the only downside being the lack of transit only lanes leading into the airport itself
And what’s more staggering is that Calgary metro has barely 1.3 million population, like less than 1/10 of LA’s population. Calgary is in the most conservative province in Canada, and they are still expanding their LRT system with the construction of future Green Line. Another ridership difference: 45% of Calgary downtown workers take transit (CTrain) to work.
I can believe it. The C-Train is superb, and far faster than the LA Metro, and Calgary has a really decent bus network. I love Calgary's transit network.
@@RoboJules not to mention that at least Calgary bus networks serves all areas of the city adequately, whilst certain parts of LA have little to no bus services at all!
You missed the biggest problem facing LA transit. Even before COVID, ridership has been falling steadily most of the decade. Metro preaches to the choir but does a lousy job making non-customers try them. Only Japanese guidebooks mention that LA transit is fast, frequent, convenient, cheap ($7 day pass). Until COVID, LA Metro ran a grid of red express buses that were fast and frequent (originally every 12 minutes, but later fell to every 15 minutes), but the only place where I’ve seen the brochure explaining that system was in downtown hotel parking. Once I saw a young woman crying at the Getty Villa. She had just received her masters of computer science degree at USC, and wanted to visit the museum before moving back to Beijing. Uber brought her there for under $20, but the return trip during rush hour would cost nearly $70. With a TAP card, we took the bus to Santa Monica and transferred to the Expo Line, which stopped only two blocks from her home, and ran faster than Uber for under $2. One has to wonder how LA Metro managed not to capture a graduate computer student who had used transit all her life, and never once tried any bus or train for the two years she lived near bus and train stops. The Purple Line does not need to reach Santa Monica. The Expo Line already does. West of the VA hospital/405 freeway, the ridership drops so dramatically that the majority Wilshire express buses terminate there. The housing/business density of Wilshire west of 405 simply does not justify the cost of rail. The real black hole is Burbank+Glendale: the hub of movie studios, and less than 15 miles from DTLA, Burbank Airport, Hollywood, and Pasadena, but has no rapid transit. Stop beating the Orange Line dead horse: it’s a bus because of anti-transit legislation. Having ridden it, the experience is comparable to riding light rail. Yes, it would work better as light rail, but the money is better spent on places currently without rapid transit. The Olympics is a three week party where the overwhelming majority of the attendees will not use public transit. LA voters have been supporting transit taxes for decades while fewer of them each year actually use transit. Eventually, taxpayers will stop supporting what they don’t use, and Metro is blind to that looming crisis.
@@PolicyThwonk That was the minimum criteria. Several lines had better headway, especially during rush hour. Keep in mind express routes also had corresponding local services. Also this replaced a non-grid system with infrequent service, it is a major improvement.
@@neilworms2 Purple Line to the sea would cost billions, where traffic west of West LA don't even fill buses. That same money spent through the Sepulveda corridor connecting the West Side to San Fernando Valley gets much more bang for the buck.
If I could give some insight to the SoFi stadium and the Forum's location, both stadiums were built in the footprint of the former Hollywood Park racetrack. The racetrack closed about 20 years ago and when it was in its golden age it was close to the LARy's 5 Line. It could have been located located closer to a Metro Line but that would require massive Eminent domain requirements, and politically that has been incredibly unpopular for decades here, especially now with gentrification being such a big issue. Actually on that note I would say that the biggest road block for LA Metro construction/ planning is the politics of LA and how much those politics are tied up in property values and HOA's. Because of that elevated railroads in the city are rare or nonexistent as a result, its low hanging fruit for HOA's to oppose on the offset.
@@mattslowikowski3530 Its mainly the US's views on private property I believe and the fact that many of our politicians are HOA members or have HOA members as backers. Tho for LA I think its mainly cuz they form such a huge voting block, and know how to take advantage of the Environmental Review Process to their benefit. I know that for many early projects and many projects that happen today (mainly BRT but with some LRT projects) that the HOA's would whip other HOA's and drivers into a tizzy and they would form some kind of group that would sue a project into the ground over some perceived error in the EIR process to stop a project in its tracks. Recently its been over vehicle reduction data and impact on the local community, and has been used in lawsuits on the purple line extension, the Expo Line phase 2, the North San Fernando Valley BRT, the NoHo to Pasadena BRT, the Red Line extensions into the valley, and the orange line
Also to note, we only use up to 3 cars because our platforms barely fit within a block in street running zones. Ex: the Long Beach loop on the A Line, Expo/Vermont on the E Line, and Maravilla and East LA Civic Center on the L Line. Extending some platforms would require eliminating ADA or permanently closing some major thoroughfare streets which will never happen. We continue to build our lines limited to 3 cars. Our 3-car light rail subway stations also can't be extended either, to also note.
4:06 Singapore also built it's MRT (metro/subway) platforms for the Circle & Downtown Lines to be only 3 cars long, which I'm abit concerned will push up the construction cost per unit capacity, especially as both lines are fully underground & thus already pretty expensive to start with (S$10b over 35km & S$20b over 42km respectively), with alot of the costs being fixed e.g. tunneling, as the loading gauge is the same as the older MRT lines with 6-car long platforms
The ADA makes a lot of pedestrian-oriented infrastructure cost many times what it otherwise would cost. For example, a pedestrian overpass (over a railroad, street, or freeway) can't have any stairs-it must be a ramp with a relatively low grade level so a wheelchair user can use it. But this makes it take up two to three times the amount of space (meaning it costs two or three times as much or more), and also frequently results in switchbacks or a longer ramp, making it less useful for pedestrians themselves (unless you spend even more money to build stairs AND a ramp (or elevator)).
I knew the Long Beach loop had some tight tolerances but they already run shortlines to Willow Street Station and sometimes on other lines. I wonder how many stations are limited and if some creative routing could help improve volume (not that it's fun to get on a short-line to Willow, not realize it and get kicked off and have to wait for the soon to be heavily packed Long Beach train).
@@davidlang1125 Ain't that the truth! I was floored when a Metro employee explained to me the power issues. Like so many issues of the modern era, it feels like our parents chose options that were cheapest for them and would burden future generations.
My grandmother grew up in east LA in the 1950's. She used to take the streetcars to school every day, to the dance hall, to run errands for her family, etc. Never needed to set foot in a car once. However, the automobile companies at the time paid off the city government to expand the freeway system and eventually scrap the streetcar system. Today we are dealing with the consequence of this decision and having to play catch up with many other cities that prioritized efficient public transportation over the profits of large corporations.
Agreed, although some of the poor planning can't be avoided. LA metro is a county agency and Los Angeles is a very large county. When taxes are raised to fund trains, residents that live far outside of central LA also want light rail so we end up with a real hodgepodge that isn't as connected nor serving the areas most needing transit.
And the C Line was litterally built in the median of Interstate 105 as a kind of ”compensation” for those who had gotten their houses demolished for the highway, hence they didn’t extend the C Line to Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Station because the highway wouldn’t go there (When they could have just elevated or tunneled the line).
Some additions 1) Metrolink is far too expensive. It’s a luxury, hence 40,000 riders 2) Sofi was built there because of the land from the closed racetrack 3) have you ridden Metro? You need a cop on nearby every train/bus
There are HUGE plans for Union Station Downtown L.A., which will look like an airport. Really amazing plans with upgraded services for trains, light trains and buses. Should cover that as well.
For riders like me we always been advocating for grade separation, longer platforms and signal priority. The Blue Line has capacity issues running 3-car trains during peak and rush hour. Not all stations on the line can expand to a 4-car length platform so the only other option would have to be grade separation. I agree on focusing more resources to the core section of the region rather than expand outward. The Red Line was originally intended to go to Warner Center but NIMBYs and a few politicians banned tunneling in LA. Partially why the Red Line and Purple Line abruptly ends at their termini. Also a methane gas explosion halted construction down Wilshire. Yeah it’s being built now but progressing slowly and one of the tunneling machines has been parked for months.
Have you ever looked at the original Blue Line EIR from the mid to late 80's? There are some pretty interesting alternatives the line could have taken into LA and Long Beach, with the long beach options being pretty disappointing with hindsight. Like I get the Blue Line today retraces the PE line into the LB Downtown, but it could have gone along the river in its own ROW.
Why not just increase frequency as much as possible? I mean, it would be more attractive to passengers than just running longer trains at the same frequency.
This was a decent breakdown, but as someone who lives in the LA area, there are a few things you missed and are critical to consider: 1) Unlike most metropolitan areas, downtown LA isn't really the core of where people work and/or live. So while it could be good to have, say the Crenshaw Line, actually go all the way towards DTLA anyways, it may not actually help. People live and work in so many places throughout LA that there's no real unified flow of where people go, especially during rush hour. This likely led to the hodgepodge of routes LA Metro has as it's just trying to capture demand, but making many concessions in a way that could hurt it in the long run. But at the same time too, cities that have their metros all connect in their downtowns (like Chicago) miss those that may have to commute from one suburb to another. It wouldn't make sense to take a light rail southeast to downtown just to hop on another one going west. At that point, you might as well drive yourself. That's the sort of demand LA Metro is trying to capture, but it's a difficult task. 2) When it comes to SoFi Stadium, it's my understanding that the planning for that occurred after the Crenshaw Line was proposed and approved. Since it is being built by private owners, with approval from the City of Inglewood, they put it on the land they already owned. Sure, it would be nice if they could have built it closer to where the line would be, but ultimately it was cheaper and faster to build it on the land they already owned rather than trying to acquire more land just to be closer to public transportation. The Inglewood People Mover is sort of the way to fix that up (and going to be more for locals rather than tourists going straight from LAX to SoFi). Also, putting it closer to the Crenshaw Line would have put it directly under the landing paths for one of the runways at LAX, which could have introduced more construction limitations than it already faced being built between the paths. 3) The LAX people mover is also meant for more connections beyond public transportation. There are going to be station stops for a rental car facility, drop off/pick up zones for Uber/Lyft and the general public, bus lines, and the Crenshaw Line. While you could provide a metro line that's free for those going between the terminals and these facilities (similar to Vancouver), a dedicated people mover allows the airport to guarantee service every 90-120 seconds, whereas a metro line will be more out of their control. (Also, you don't need to worry about people tapping on/off just to use it, even if it's free.) Additionally, there are proposals to extend the Crenshaw Line north and south, so by not having it enter LAX, you are also helping locals who may need to travel on it.
I appreciate the comment, but it feels like you are trying to explain why the things you are discussing are the way they are (at least for the latter two). But, thats sort of my point - I don't think the justification which we see makes sense!
@@RMTransit I think the better explanation for the second point is that the approval and construction on the SoFi stadium occurred much later than the Crenshaw Line got final approval on all of its EIR documents. If Metro were to reevaluate the project, the project's budget would balloon far beyond what Metro could feasibly allow with the sales taxes in place for LA County, especially given that the money has to legally abide by the allocations voted on within the original propositions. In short, the EIR process would have to have started anew which would have been years of study and public outreach according to CA/US Law, and it would face an uphill climb to allocate additional money given the priorities of the board. LA's biggest problem is that transit in LA will forever be myred in politics, and TBH I really have no clue how we can feasibly fix this so that things can get done sooner and more efficiently both in construction and in operations. LA Transit advocates face a very powerful NIMBY faction with the HOA's that are scattered across the county, a very driving centric LADOT that often hinders any kind of meaningful change to buses or trains, astronomical costs for transit construction in the county, and if I am very honest weak leadership at the LA Metro board and the County Supervisors, let alone the city councils of the 80+ cities that make up the region. And this is by far not a justification of the way things are, but an honest view of what transit in LA is like on the political scale. It's a miracle that the projects we have now even got built given the obstacles and roadblocks that are thrown at transit projects at every turn of the process to create them. I mean in the last 20 years we have seen at least 3 projects myred in legal challenges to try and kill them, and countless others watered down or killed due to severe and ugly neighborhood backlash.
Continuing the Crenshaw Line to downtown as suggested in the video would also require three separate lines (Crenshaw, Expo, and Blue) to share a single track downtown. Huge negative impacts on headways systemwide. The current plan instead proposes to extend Crenshaw line north to Hollywood and Highland, with a stop at the purple line, which goes much further in establishing a useful transit grid across the city. As Juan points out, downtown LA, while a destination, is really not the singularly important destination that it is for other cities -- not only for tourists but also for residents. Since the video seems to be focused on the tourist experience in LA, it is worth pointing out that Hollywood has a comparable density of hotel rooms to downtown, if not more. Also, I'm not really sure why the fixation on the football stadium to begin with. How many football games are played per year? The system should prioritize serving daily commuters, not the rider who uses transit twice a year: once to go to a football game and once to the airport.
The headways are low, you could interline, the interlining downtown is very short atm. Airports and stadiums are major destinations and have thousands of employees
Such designation simply does not justify the significant opportunity costs involved in arbitrarily connecting these destinations with one-seat rides. This is a rather simplistic view of the role of transit, and to my knowledge has not been supported by any form of data in the very many planning studies that have been done. Do we want transit to take us everywhere without ever having to transfer? Yes. Is this technically or economically or physically feasible? No. There are opportunity costs: getting a one-seat ride downtown (again, a rather arbitrary goal) would necessitate cutting service across almost the entirety of Expo and Blue lines. Is this worth it? Increasing maximum headways from 6 to 9 minutes across 30 something stops to connect one line to two stops downtown would have significant negative impacts on overall ridership and quality of service. If we were to measure systemwide wait times, riders waiting 3 extra minutes at all these stops would far outweigh the smaller number of riders having to wait to transfer from Crenshaw to Expo to go downtown. Now if we had the data or experience to show that an exceedingly large number of riders will need to make that specific transfer, then the benefits might justify the costs and the proposal might be warranted. But the data, to my knowledge, do not support this conclusion. On top of this, the fact that Expo and Blue share track downtown already causes huge problems for the system, no matter the length. Having three, not fully grade separated lines share one track, even for a very short length, will cause further delays across the lines. Yes, Metro should prioritize undergrounding and doubling that shared track, but still, are there any data to support the idea that it would be cost effective to add a third line to this mix? More cost effective that extending the line directly north to hit other, currently underserved "major destinations," which would also offer a high degree of new, systemwide interconnectivity?
Cities need to do more to encourage people to ride bicycles. Safe protected bike lanes and trails are needed so adults and children can ride safely. Speak up for bicycles in your community. Bicycles make life and cities better.
trains won’t be automated in LA (and the mainland US) because unions. Remember, in the US transit construction is as much a jobs program as it is a transportation improvement.
Great video! LA's light rail trains are limited to 3 cars so that they don't block intersections on the street running bits. Also besides being limited by train length, all of the light rail lines are built with a power/electrical supply infrastructure that limits frequency to 10-12 trains per hour. I think that could be fixed, but metro appears to believe that it's sufficient.
Yeah, we were all pretty shocked when we heard trains from Crenshaw Line wouldn't be going all the way down the Green Line because they didn't have the power/electrical to support it (well, this and a few other things). Just crazy.
I'm an Angeleno who recently started to use LAC Metro, so this resonates personally with me. The way I see it, it's all relative. We can complain about the upcoming improvements to the system but they still are exactly that - improvements. And for all the complaints about LAC Metro overall, it's still probably the best public transportation system in the United States outside of the Northeast and Chicago - admittedly a low bar, but the context is important. I would love to see this Sepulveda Pass line come to fruition since it would plug a glaring gap in the rail network. I'm also hoping that lines are as grade separated as possible and I do wish for more heavy rail like with the B and D Lines rather than light rail. And yeah I was also scratching my head at why the K Line terminates at the Expo Line, necessitating a transfer to get to Downtown. I guess it's an improvement over going through the C and A Lines but it still seems like it'd be annoyance for those arriving at LAX. This is a separate issue, but as someone who uses the B Line (Red) there really needs to be more security and cleaning people working those trains. The trains are, to put it simply, gross. And they're often full of noisy and disruptive hooligans. I imagine the same goes for the D Line (Purple).
@@Cyrus992 Oh I forgot about the Bay Area (even though I was born and raised there lol). No, the Bay Area has better public transportation overall than SoCal does.
The other huge plus of the regional connector is how much cheaper it will make track maintenance. MOW equipment will now be able to be moved between the two devisions, meaning that Metro won’t need to buy as much MOW equipment in the future. The same goes for car overhauls. The entire light rail system can now have one heavy repair shop, without the need to truck equipment or move it via the freight network. This is the main reason why NYC’s Coney Island Overhaul Shop is so genius, it is able to service both A division and B division cars, saving millions by not having to deal with a second shop.
One thing to keep in mind in regards to utilizing highways for grade-separation is that CalTrans, the state DOT, has very explicit regulations that make using freeway medians a no-go and using the medians/ROW very expensive with mitigation measures. And please do a Regional Connector Demystified!
@@x--. Building a transit corridor (which eventually became the Green Line) down the 105 was a requirement of a court order that allowed the 105 to be built in the first place, and the 210 was basically built around an existing freight line that was reused for the Gold Line. Caltrans does not like transit lines operating in their right of ways in general. Also, it's worth noting that almost everybody has decided that stations in the middle of a freeway are horrible for multiple reasons (not close to any destinations, very noisy, very windy, very polluted).
@@Geotpf Well, I'm glad that everyone has decided it's as terrible as should have been obvious in the beginning but color me unconvinced that Metro changed it's mind instead of just running out of freeways with space in the middle for rail. Maybe I've spent too much time sucking up pollution from staffing in the literal middle of the 105 and 210. ;)
The Green Line was originally designed to be an automated light rail line, but something happened along the way. I think it was mostly a cost issue -- hiring operators to operate a relatively low ridership line was apparently cheaper than automating it.
@@colormedubious4747 I was working for Metro when they were talking about automated trains and you are correct, that's exactly what happened, the union wasn't having it.
as someone from socal that has sat through years worth of traffic, anything that can take cars off the road, even if its not the most efficient form of transit, is welcomed with open arms
Yeah, the Regional Connector actually represents the last phase of the Blue Line, as it was originally envisioned in the 80's. Also, Metrolink has committed, on paper at least, to following what Caltrain and GO are doing in terms of Electification and Service enhancement. But it's not really going to get underway until the run-through tracks at Union Station are ready. No mention of LA's Poor Headways? The stangnant ridership on the system over the last decade has a lot to do with this. And while you're harping on core-capacity is good, LA's not really a city's that's ignoring it. The West Santa Ana line includes the first part of what will eventually be the third tunnel through the Downtown area.
The Crenshaw could have never shared the expo line tracks to downtown. You would have had 3 trains routes sharing the tracks between LATTC and downtown. That’s simply not feasible.
I agree. Unfortunately construction was done so badly in the 80s and 90s that they actually banned Subway construction back about the turn of the millennia. They only lifted the ban about 5-10 years ago when Measure R, which included the D(Purple) Line Extension. This means everything in between like the Expo, Gold and Orange Lines was forced to be built with an alternative to Subways.
@@metrofilmer8894 Oh no! That really is a shame! Don't get it wrong, I'm not against trams or light rail at all. All it is, is that light rail/trams in my opinion are better suited to small or medium sized cities (for example those with a metro population of up to maximum 3 or 4 million). A very big city, like Los Angeles, as I said before, needs a proper, full, high capacity metro / subway system due to how many people would be using the system. Also, apart from the city centre / downtown tunnels as well as around the Hollywood / Beverly Hills area, LA has this advantage of being able to reuse old railway infrastructure (mainly former Pacific Streetcar lines), making the cost of a full metro line cheaper rather than building everything from scratch.
Yeah, having heavy rail/subway would work better, but it also costs A LOT of money and takes a lot of time. The Blue Line/A Line (Long Beach route) was built for the fraction of the cost of the red and purple lines. LA Metro is pretty slow at building the current lines (Crenshaw was supposed to open in 2019...), but light rail is the "faster" option if we don't want everything to be stuck in construction for long periods of time. The ideal would be light rail but with better separation and priority when they are at the same grade (just look at where the Blue/Expo (now A/E lines) intersect near DTLA. There's a lot of good videos (better than this one) from people in LA that describe the challenges LA has and their actual plans with Measures R and M. It will explain why they made some decisions (like not having Crenshaw go into LAX given its planned extensions and multiple lines going to the LAX station). People's work and homes are spread out throughout LA County, there's no core of where everyone works or lives, so a system like Chicago or New York wouldn't work as well here. The demand is spread out and it's quite difficult to capture it, more so with NIMBYs, car drivers, and more.
@@JuanWayTrips This is what makes LA an advantage in terms of costs. There is already pre-existing infrastructure (the former Pacific Streetcar lines), which means that outside of the Downtown Los Angeles or Hollywood/Beverly Hills/Santa Monica areas, less tunnels will be needed, making the cost MUCH lower.
@@gabrielstravels The former Pacific Streetcar lines no longer exist. In a couple cases, the right of way can (and has been) reused. But no rails or stations remain.
AHHHH, that Inglewood thing coming so close to at least through lining with the Airport peoplemover then going with "nah, lets have a gap" (and both being peoplemovers inevitably a break of technology as well) makes me want to scream.
@@theexmann I do think however, they could have connected the APM's to each other for direct trains from the airport to the stadium. While they are paid differently, the stadium APM is built by Metro I believe while the airport AIPM is built by the airport.
I remember berating it in a planning meeting (I was one of 3 members of the public there and the only one talking about it). So. Much. Pain. But people don't care and Metro sure as hell doesn't care.
@@x--. Neither the Inglewood people mover nor the LAX people mover is a LA Metro project. The LAX people mover is owned by LAX; the Inglewood people mover is owned by the city of Inglewood. Both have little care what happens outside their own territory. Also, I think the LAX people mover was far along in the planning and possibly already started construction before the Inglewood people mover was suggested; the result would be that LAX would end up running the whole thing if the two were combined and neither group wanted that.
The Regional Connector will be transformational. The extension of Crenshaw/LAX line to Purple Line will create a single transfer route from Downtown to the airport area (will need to transfer to people mover)
The crime rate on LA's buses and trains is very significant, and tends to limit ridership. Until LA gets serious about clearing the homeless off and cleaning the buses, trains and platforms of the various bodily fluids and trash, mass transit in the LA area will be noting but a huge money pit with endlessly decreasing ridership.
LA metro should also keep their buses clean and have security in them so that more ppl can take it since the buses here in LA are thought as dirty by it's population. And I think we should have more underground and elevated subways.
This is all stuff we should've already had in our city for decades. We're the most rich state in the most powerful country in the world and yet China has better public transit than us :/
@@quanta2k I know and LA DOES have the density for such a transit system. City proper has a density of about 12,000 ppl/Mi^2 which is similar to Chicago and Philadelphia.
@@AlexCab_49 I think LA should build subways first since more people with cars can transition to using public transportation since global warming is a serious issue. Light rails are too slow given how spread out LA is so it would be a waste of money.
@@quanta2k For suburbs I think we should focus on improving Metrolink like electrifying them and increasing their headways up to 30 minutes. I live in the West Valley and taking commuter rail is more convenient for me then taking the orange and red line if I'm heading in towards DTLA.
Hopefully, DC, even though DC right now is in a planning standstill. Everything major is being planned for 2040 which is so long away. They need to increase core capacity now (During rush hour, the central stations are like ants swerving everywhere)
No one in LA is going to call the trains by their letters, we are going to keep calling them by their colors. Metro, stop trying to make letter lines happen! We don't have a complicated transit system like New York to necessitate using letters.
@@jecarlin They are building so many new lines they ran out of colors. Unless you want the Light Blue line, the Olive Green Line, the Magenta Line, etc. Also, "Expo" is not a color.
I know it's not the core of the discussion, but LA (and most of Cali for that matter) seems to have a huge problem with their lack of density and love of R1 housing. I'm glad downtown can get this kind of transit, but they'll need to find a way to encourage people to not drive from the suburbs still with some kinda regional rail IMO.
The only tunnel cannot be used but is still partially there! You can still see the Terminal building downtown and the old portal which now is an apartment complex. The tunnel is underneath but has been partially filled in by the Bonaventure hotel underground. The Red Line (now B Line) goes to Hollywood which was the purpose of the old tunnel.
Their abandoned streetcar (or tram as we Brits call) is what makes expanding the LA metro system a huge advantage in terms of cost - less tunnels needed so less need to build new lines from scratch, so, by reusing the old Pacific Streetcar lines, the costs become lower.
@@gabrielstravels most of that land has been sold off already to either freight companies or developers. like if one were to look at the Huntington Beach branch line from long Beach, all the property along the old right of eay has houses and such things on it. tunnels would be necessary in most places anyway, regardless of the streetcar past.
Speaking of putting a stadium where there isn't rail... have you heard of Truist Park in Atlanta? There are busses to Marta rail, but it can be less convenient.
The biggest issue with transit in la is that so much of the city is single family homes. Very busy areas (Westwood, South Bay, Weho) are all surrounded by very large expensive homes. These people lobby hard to make sure the route doesn’t go by their homes.
Interlining Crenshaw and Expo would mean three light rail lines going through Pico station, and would completely destroy any sense of reliability for all three lines.
Hahahaha. Reliability of Expo? You have a sense of reliability for that line? The only way that line is reliable is when it's running more trains to make up for the fact that all the trains are late. Not that you're wrong but they could shortline from Santa Monica to LATTC Station or some other creative option but that was never the plan. They wanted to go north so probably not even worth the time to talk about it ;)
True. L.A. needs to elevate a lot of there lines as a cost cutting measure to building subway and means to avoiding traffic stops. It sound be built at a design that would let natural light through and is asthetically pleasing.
Not really a fair complaint. This line will be a semi circle line connecting multiple lines. Vital for interneighborhood commuting. Here in NY we are dying for one!
The Crenshaw/ LAX line is supposed to go up north to a terminal at the Hollywood Bowl. So I’m guessing that’s why they didn’t align it with the Expo line. Also, it connects a community that depends on the system a lot along with aligning to those that travel from the west side to LAX. Hopefully the extension comes soon bc cities like West Hollywood want it, mainly within their city boundary. It makes sense.
I do often wonder why there is such a lack of transit options in the Burbank/Glendale Area. Considering there are so many major studios as well as several different community hubs, it seems to make so much sense.
The problem with Los Angeles Metro board is filled with people from los angeles city. The County is not represented by the county. The map of Los Angeles is wrong with Downtown drawn as center of the County. Metro is only in the city not the county.
Sofi stadium was built where it was because it was an open large area of land. It was privately funded so the owners wanted to own the area around the land so they could use the increased property value from the stadium for their developments.
Enjoyed your take. Thanks. I’m afraid that the vast majority of the far flung regions are not about to give up the convenience of hauling themselves and whatever else they can fit into their cars or trucks at a moment’s notice. Even paying the thousands of dollars a year for the privilege of doing so. The suburbanites live for the car culture. The train to nowhere (savoy brown) doesn’t suit their purposes. I can see ppl that travel lightly and live near train or subway stops being the major proponents. But convincing ppl to pry themselves out of their cars? Maybe if it was a dense city like nyc where you could pick up a few items on the way home to your mixed use bldg.; that lifestyle is few and far between here. .
Expo train ext to Santa Monica was a nice addition, but you felt felt the distance you were covering. Very slowly. I lived in LA for 9 years. A lot of LA transplants I met (and there are a lot of LA transplants, I was one) seemed to have moved to LA never expecting to ride the LA Metro. Not to be too spicy here, but ridership really seemed to break along socio-economic lines. The young professionals I was meeting were moving to newly gentrified neighborhoods that had happened to have spotty access to trains. Echo Park - no trains. Silver Lake: one train if you happen to live on the eastern edge of the neighborhood (Red Line on Vermont/Santa Monica Blvd). Los Feliz, same as Silver Lake. Highland Park: one side of the neighborhood has the Gold Line, the other side didn't. If you live in HP closer to Eagle Rock or in Eagle Rock, there is no close train - you don't really even think of the train because of how far you are from the station (I guess that same idea goes for all of the other neighborhoods).
@@christopherjrager TBH it depends on the line, tho surprisingly the most crazy experiences I've had on the LA buses have been on the Big Blue Bus system, and it tends to have the better customer experience on the trips I've taken on them.
It's quite different than Chicago, where people of all income levels use the CTA, while in LA there is a perception that public transportation is for poor people.
The crenshaw line wasnt interlined into downtown since the exposition line near the pico station hits this awful at grade y intersection with the blue line that is going to be the bottleneck of LA transit for 50 years and already limits frequency. Extending the crenshaw line north fully grade seperated as is planned provides an important north south link and connects to very dense parts of central LA that are currently underserved.
The whole flower street section is meant to be fixed no? There's no reason that in the meantime before Crenshaw goes north interlining couldn't happen!
@@RMTransit There are currently no funded plans to bury that whole section near the LATTC but it should be a priority. The other issue with running the crenshaw line downtown in the interim is that there is no connection between the two lines at expo/crenshaw (the expo line is at grade and the crenshaw lines terminus is below ground). I think that investing the required 2 to 3ish billion dollars required to grade seperate the rest of the LA light rail system and upgrade it to automated light metro would be game changing. Its not as sexy as adding new lines, but would allow really really high frequencies along existing corridors that right now have 15 minute headways off peak. A couple other important projects that I think would be important is heavy rail along the vermont north-south corridor (right now slated for BRT, but one of the densest corridors in the city) and improved connections between the light rail and an improved metrolink system (most importantly, closing the gap between the Norwalk terminus of the green line and Norwalk metrolink station, less than 3 miles apart).
I know there isn’t a track connection, I think there probably should have been! LA has a lot of potential, it just needs to make sure it’s making the right investments!
You made the wrong supposition on the Crenshaw Line. As you mentioned, LA is polycentric, and very few people boarding at LAX are actually destined for downtown. The line should connect to Purple and Red Lines since far more people stay around Mid Wiltshire and Hollywood People destined Downtown have had the Flyaway Bus for a decade, and that while it carries respectable traffic, it has never needed more than 3 buses per hour, which says the traffic demand is not worth extending Crenshaw Line to Downtown. At the airport end, while it would be nice to run the Crenshaw Line to the terminals, it was never realistic due to the cost and disruption. People movers prove adequate or the passenger volume at JFK EWR ORD SFO SEA
Dead ending at Expo forces a transfer anyway! The rest of the comment re. the demand, you can’t expect to drive ridership with low quality transit. People movers are bad and they actively discourage transit use (SEA doesn’t have one outside the terminals), extra transfers with luggage really impact ridership. That point about transfers is why I think Crenshaw should go straight to downtown LA via an inter line.
it has been the worse for wear ever since the dismantling of the Red Car in 1961 and Yellow Car in 1963 snarling the traffic system until 1992 and 1993 when Metrolink and LAMetro were established
So for the 3 car train issue on the LRT’s, Metro makes this sound very confusing. They don’t actually mean 3 cars, rather what they mean is 3-Units hooked together. In my opinion, I think this should work fine if the frequency is high enough. There are also limitations with the types of curves Metro has on its system that make 4 car trains difficult to operate, as well as power limitations. While I wholeheartedly agree that they SHOULD interline some of the upcoming lines, the issue of longer trains is one that is kinda difficult to work around.
Public transport needs to have excellent connectivity (integration) to other modes while being more competitive against the car in terms of door to door average speed and trip time. If public transport is significantly slower than driving for an equivalent door to door trip, then people will refuse to stop driving cars.
The K Line (Crenshaw/LAX) has so many issues, it's not even funny. First, the Centinela Ave crossing is going to get a rebuild before the for grade separation *before* the line opens apparently. Then, it's impossible to interline the K Line with the E Line because of downtown traffic congestion when the A Line is also involved. Plus there is no room for a portal for the K Line to join the E Line as the Expo/Crenshaw K Line platforms are built underground. I have several grudges against the contractors myself. The route should have been opened 2 years ago but utilities, missed measurements, safety lawsuits, fossils found in the Crenshaw District, and COVID rawdawgged the hell of the project. I lost interest and enthusiasm in the line. So I'm not looking forward to its extension into Hollywood.
I was so excited for the line...but the constant delays, grade separation proposed before the line is even built....its become the white elephant of recent LA transit construciton for me...
Now that the line is partly opened, that grade separation has still yet to be approved. They keep kicking the can on approval because they want it done, but it will cost a bloody fortune and also possibly shut down the line about a year after it fully opens, and they know that both will make them look stupid so they can't decide whether to do it or not.
@@Geotpf Realistically, never going to happen at least for another decade. The idiots should have done it during the initial construction. The best they could do is turn Centinela into a cul de sac. Otherwise, the city should face a lawsuit.
For better or worse, Los Angeles light rail and even bus rapid transit lines largely follow old interurban electric, streetcar, and passenger train lines. This helps limit the cost of rail extensions, but many important streets are served by heavily used bus routes, like Vermont.
Great video! Completely agree with your statements regarding Metrolink. It is a major missing piece in LA's transit expansion. On the lines where they own the infrastructure (I believe Antelope Valley, Orange County, San Bernardino, and Ventura County), there is no reason for anything less than electrified service every 15-30 minutes. With Southern California's traffic and sprawl, this system could easily carry hundreds of thousands of daily riders.
Metrolink only owns the San Bernardino line. All other lines use track owned by the freight companies. And pre-Covid, the San Bernardino line was quite frequent (schedules are still 25-35% less frequent than pre-Covid).
Metrolink badly needs electrification, complete double track and grade separation, and double decker EMUs. (ideally Stadler KISS). As well as better frequency.
While I don't live in LA, I have relatives who do and I visited them a few times prior to COVID. I have seen all the construction and although I'm happy to see transit systems getting extended, I believe that the planners should at least think some things more through.
I think the great thing about the regional connector is not just someone taking the whole gold line and then continue all the way to Santa Monica but it is about destinations that are just a few stops from Downtown on one side to maybe the other side of Downtown. Those trips might be aftewards zero transfer, while they are now at least 1 transfer more.
Thank you for doing a video on LA. I really like their metro and have been following their rail expansions lately. I do agree with all the problems they have that you mentioned such as not enough grade separations, the Crenshaw line not going to the airport nor to Downtown, and especially bewildered about the people movers they are building for both the stadium and the airport. I also don’t like how the Sepulveda line and the East Valley line are separate lines. They really should’ve combined them since they both terminate so close together. The LA Metro is worse than a bowl of spaghetti, it a bowl of spaghetti that a child chopped up with a fork and mixed together; it’s a bunch of short lines that don’t really go anywhere significant and require multiple transfers to get to Downtown or other places of interest.
The thing that gets me about Los Angeles rail transit is that it is vastly undersized and vastly underperforming. The Los Angeles Metro would be pretty good for Boston and its suburbs, which are much more compact and have much lower total population, but for actual Los Angeles, you need nothing less than a souped-up version of the subway system that New York has (except put on elevated structures where possible), including 4 track lines with express trains, with light rail and bus feeders. And judging from the last schedules I looked up, Los Angeles Metrolink is far short of what you need in frequency and hours of service. Actually just checked again for 1 example -- no improvement. Los Angeles Union Station to Oceanside: trains depart at 07:58, 15:23, 16:30, 17:40, and 18:31. That's IT!? No wonder it doesn't get much ridership.
The LA Metro Blue Line is the busiest light rail line in the world. That's hardly underperforming. Also note that along the Orange and Ventura Metrolink Lines (LOSSAN corridor), the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner duplicates service. For your example, there are additional trains at 6:10, 7:10, 10:10, 11:10, 12:10, 15:10, 17:10, 18:10, 19:10, and 22:20 from Union Station to Oceanside. For shorter trips on the LOSSAN, other Metrolink lines duplicate the main Orange/Ventura lines. Antelope Valley trains duplicate Burbank to Union Station. 91/Perris Line duplicate Union Station to Fullerton. IE/OC line duplicates Orange to Oceanside.
@@Geotpf Ridership isn't the only aspect of performance -- how long it takes to get where you're going is another. When I rode the Blue Line back in the 1990s (and I haven't seen anything to suggest that it has improved since then), I had to wait a long time (over 20 minutes) and then be on it for a long time to get from the intersection with the Green and Blue Lines (was coming from the airport) to the intersection with the Red Line. As for Metrolink, depending upon Amtrak for duplication only works for 1 line, and that's assuming that you can use Metrolink tickets on Amtrak (the schedule I looked at didn't say anything about that, whereas Shore Line East schedules do say something about that, so it looks to me like you can't do that).
@@Lucius_Chiaraviglio The Pacific Surfliner fully duplicates two lines, as I stated (Orange and Ventura). The Blue Line has 10 minute headways, which is still covid-reduced.
@@Geotpf Okay, I should have said that depending upon 1 Amtrak line for duplication only works for 1 line unless you have 2 lines that are essentially the same or 2 lines end-to-end. As for Blue Line service, nice to hear that the service frequency is apparently greater than it was when I was there, but what about the speed once you do get on?
@@Geotpf Doesn't quite duplicate it. For example, the Surfliner doesn't stop at Tustin Station, which is less than a mile from my home. I can take Metrolink direct to and from LA Union when it's in service, but that ends at 6:31 weekdays and 4:30 weekends, just as Lucius said. I mean yeah, I could take the bus from Santa Ana, but it should stop at Tustin. I suspect once Tustin Legacy is fully developed, just south of Tustin Station, it would make for a pretty nice transit hub, but that's at least a decade off.
I think you have nailed the point that sorting out the core should be first priority. Although I cannot speak for Americans but for British cities, public transport system commonly get overwhelmed after line extension. London Overground and Manchester Metro are classic examples. They are the failing on their own success, where there are not enough capacity in the core section but no funding are available to alter those busy routes and stations.
Reminds me of Singapore's 2011 Jurong East (MRT i.e. subway/metro station) Modification Project (JEMP) that added 1 platform to that station to allow increased peak hour frequency of the North South line, which connects our north-western suburbs to the station (where the line terminates), where downtown-bound passengers are supposed to transfer to the East West line (that runs through that station). Problem is that the East West Line itself serves our western suburbs before coming to Jurong East station, & is already quite crowded with commuters by that time, so people who just alighted from the North South line sometimes have difficulty boarding. Some netizens are thus questioning the wisdom of having the North South line terminate there I remember.
Me too! The A train and the 3 train should directly service JFK. Then G train and the N train should service LaGuardia. Its called having weak ass politicians. If i were mayor id eminent domain the NIMBY assholes in Astoria especially and force LGA to get those trains. Cuomo isnt as great as the bootlickers think he is
@@mrgooglethegreat At this point let's just hope we do not make more mistakes rather than fix the wrongs of the past. Astoria should be extended to LaGuardia instead of the AirTrain, they could have two stops, Terminal A and Terminal B/C, and it would serve all terminals instead of the AirTrain, which wouldn't connect to Ter. A. In the distance future, If they could untangle JFK's trains, that would be great. Since the airports in a circle, they could build the station at the centre and have walkways to each terminal. They would still need the AirTrain to connect to the other train lines and transfer between terminals.
My guess it they either realized that was the most efficient as Howard Beach and Jamaica already existed and it wouldn’t be anywhere near direct as Howard beach is when crossing over to the Rockaways
@@metrofilmer8894 JFK doesnt upset me as much as LGA tho. I live off Ditmars in east elmhurst. Cuomos planning to block my view of the bay with an airtrain that makes zero sense to build. Id love to have the N and the G come to the airport. Then the whole city benefits and i wont have to drive to work in Brooklyn everyday. The new LGA looks amazing tho...im looking at it out the window now. I feel the subway need to be finished in general in NYC tho. Its very much incomplete 100 years after its beginning. They've completed systems all around the world in no time. Airports in NYC deserve direct subway access. Id say leave the A by JFK in howard beach and push the 3 into the middle of the terminals like u said.
@@mrgooglethegreat In Singapore 1 of our lawmakers (Ellen Lee) was brave enough to call her voters 'selfish' (in 2011/2012) for opposing a nursing home to be built in her constituency. The opposers were disparaged as a "vocal minority" that would be 'dangerous' to accede to
Johnny Carson explained the bus problem in LA on his late nite TV show. "If you want to go to work by bus in LA, you better leave now". Problem for LA and many cities is that transit is radial oriented, if you don't work in center city you need to take one line into the center then another out to where yer goin'. When I worked in NYC my work location was the northern Bronx while I lived on Long Island. You can't get to the Bronx from downtown NY in the morning, it's a twenty mile journey on a three track el with all morning express services INTO the city on the old Lexington Av system that doesn't have a direct connection to Penn Sta. It would take about two hours to get to the nearest station then another hour on the bus to where I was going, I made that mistake one time. I could usually get there by car in an hour. A lot of folks in the city work in hospitals and schools not near a subway station and thus depend on their car for work travel in a reasonable amount of time.
The last streetcars ran in Los Angeles in March 1963, five months after Carson began hosting "The Tonight Show" (which then was broadcast out of New York). The first Metro line opened in mid-1990, nearly two years before Carson turned over hosting duties to Jay Leno. (The current host, Jimmy Fallon, moved the show back to Rockefeller Center a few years ago.)
11:35. An affluent and progressive city? Los Angeles? Dorothy Parker called it 72 suburbs in search of a city. Retrofitting some concept of urbanity there is going to be an enormous undertaking.
Well politically LA is pretty progressive actually, on a political spectrum. But so is many 'suburbs' of large cities nowadays (NJ, CT, DE, RI, etc. are all safely 'progressive' states now despite them mostly being 'suburban'). Especially since the actual progressive political figures (AKA the Dem party) here in the US doesn't really take the position of 'city over suburbs', the only time you'll hear that being mentioned is usually the Republicans accusing the Democrats of 'killing the suburbs' and they're 'defending the suburbs', but when u look at it recently Democrats have been doing quite well politically in suburban areas. And of course I don't think the leading national figures would take the positions like 'suburbs (or I should say suburbia) are bad', or even 'we screwed up the last 50-100 years building up suburbs to how they look RN' (which is a position I'd fully agree, as well as most urbanists. Suburbs need to be an option for ppl who'd want a combination and balance of easy access to resources in a large metropolis and a quieter, more laid back lifestyle especially during weekends & holidays but obviously you actually need good transit, for example, to do that). However I don't think you need to support those ideas to be 'progressive' in the USA, this is even less important than supporting 'big government' (which is already not even a consensus among the Dems and the American left due to its association with socialism or even communism, and how much America have rejected and vilified the C & S words since the cold war at least).
Of course it’s an affluent (obv) and progressive city. That’s not even a question. Also Parker never said that about LA. She said that about Oakland. And for both cities, it’s an outdated cliche.
I love how frequent the blue line ran on 3 car trains back in 2000's in the morning trains was running every 5 minutes. I don't think Metro will have capacity issues with 3 car trains if Metro went back to real frequent service.
FYI I will say the LAX line is underground and you will need to transfer anyways because South LA / Crenshaw wanted the line to be underground for about 50% of the time and the area where the transfer is taken place is dense and high traffic. Also, I said this already later but there will be a possibility for the LAX line to continue North towards Sunset Blvd. if you want to know why routes are made look at the old red car routes back in the day. Also metro link is used mostly for long distance routes and many of inner city lines are being used for LRT of old / abandoned train routes that were used for freight. Also once get DTLA you have more options for than the rest of the city. The Expo, LAX, and Long Beach line will be the first circular route in the city on top of proposed projects that might close the gaps. Hopefully, the newest approved federal funding for rail will help get more projects off the ground. Most tourists fly into LA so they will most likely stay on Century Blvd mass of hotels and some new hotels are being built up currently for preparation the future and stadium events. SoFi (pronounced like Sci-fi) stadium and outlying complex infrastructure will also have hotels, luxury shopping, and etc. I live a block away from the LAX line and 10 minutes from the LAX. The LAX People mover similar to NYCs JFK ppl mover is closing in to LAX and a Las Vegas 3-story like rental structure transit center is being built as we speak. LA has a huge bus infrastructure which was running late before Covid hit and there is even a LA Times write up on it (LA Times moved from DTLA to be next to LAX/ Norwalk line). We will have wait to see if it will bounce back especially with high cost of ride-share apps and gas prices since I had to to drive to the Expo line to see events near DTLA which why I can’t wait for the LAX line to open up. Politics and NIMBYism are the biggest issues on top homelessness and lack of cleanliness being a deterrent to ridership. There were options to continue the LAX line down to Sunset/ Hollywood area and possibly the valley instead of going to DTLA which is already congested with other lines. On the other hand the LA Metro is funded by older affluent families who want a similar routes to the Red Cars back in the day but there are a lot of red tape and opposition. And as far as the purple line goes since I sometimes visit the UCLA area the core infrastructure is being built and seems to be on track to open along with the LAX Line. The pandemic has helped to get projects up to speed although the lax line is behind in schedule since the lax transit hub was running behind.
There isn't even good connectivity between the metrolink and metro. The LAX green line terminates only a mile or two from the Norwalk metrolink station. If only they had made that connection, people would be able to travel between Disneyland and LAX (if Metrolink would expand their pathetic service hours). Also, as someone who lives in Echo Park, I'm super disappointed that there are no plans for any sort of rapid bus or rail lines through the densely populated areas around here-- and in fact last year they actually cut three bus lines in my neighborhood. We no longer have a direct bus route to Union Station (704) and the number 2 bus now veers south at Alvarado St, never making it to downtown and reducing sunset blvd frequency dramatically. The 200 bus is gone. And frequency on the remaining lines remains pathetic like the 92 which only runs every 20 minutes at peak. The well-thought-out red express bus system has been dismantled for some reason and not replaced with anything. To those of us living in neighborhoods without any future plans of rail or BRT, we feel abandoned and betrayed.
No LAMTA rail system will probably ever go to Orange County, where Disneyland is. As for the gap between the Green Line's Norwalk station and the Metrolink's Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs station, this has been an obvious problem for decades now. One major problem seems to be opposition from the city of Norwalk itself, as construction to connect the two would make quite a mess of the city. It would also cost more than $300 million, and currently has no funding.
@@Geotpf well that sucks. Yet they have no problem decimating neighborhoods for a freeway. The other issue, of course, is the Metrolink's shitty-ass schedule. Basically if you aren't working 9-5 in downtown LA, Metrolink is just not meant for you. Talk about a wasted resource.
You make a great point about extensions and capacity in the core. Take Bart here in the bay for example. They expanded so much into the burbs and didn't focus on its core as much as they should have. Now they did try twice but either Feinstein or Pelosi that declined funds for a second transbay tube as well as local merchants on Geary pushing back over fear of parking loss (like it's that serious). So again here we have the agency either pushing or not pushing for core capacity and local politics getting in the way of seeing those projects coming to fruition.
Every single car-centric land of the world: Hey, I do not know anything about how to build a public transport network, what should I do? Hold my people moover...
Il trasporto pubblico negli Stati Uniti (con alcune strane eccezioni, ad esempio New York) fa' cosi' schifo che fa vedere il nostro molto criticato trasporto pubblico in Italia come se fosse ottimo ed efficiente. Ad esempio: almeno abbiamo il Frecciarossa, o l'Italo - treni che possono viaggiare a 300 km/h per lunghi periodi di tempo. Mentre negli Stati Uniti, c'e solo l'Acela Express, che per una distanza piu' o meno equivalente a Milano-Napoli, raggiunge piu' o meno i 250 km/h solo per 5 minuti, per un viaggio di 6-7 ore in totale.
@Luca Candido Anche se, almeno qui' in Campania nelle zoni rurali, purtroppo quasi tutti usano la macchina perche' i collegamenti autobus sono quasi completamente inesistenti.
There are a substantial number of potential viewers to whom "people mover" doesn't mean much. I googled it, but a lot of people wouldn't. And even having googled it, I'm still not clear why it's always a bad idea, if it is.
Looking photos on the interent, at around 13:10, I have to agree with you. I love the stations on the B and D lines, and once the pandemic is no longer an issue, I'd love to visit Los Angeles and take photos of the B/D line stations. In fact that's the only thing I like about LA's public transport system.
I wish this were so good, sir. Sure Hollywood/Vine Station is really cute the first few times but I wish I could say they were truly nice. No bathrooms means the elevators become bathrooms. The stations are generally clean but they can feel very sterile -- at least until they are so packed that the lack of sound dampening and platform protection makes it feel more uncomfortable. I'd be really curious how your visit turns out given how many hours I've spent waiting for trains underground at nearly every station on the Red/Purple line (sorry Vermont/Beverly).
At least carefully analysing on Google Maps, the reason why public transport in Los Angeles is crap is because effectively coverage of the metro and light rail system is almost non existent. In fact, for a city that has a metro population of 18 million, I question whether building LRT / trams (with the exception of short local lines) is a good idea or not - if so many people are going to use it in such a big city, then I'm afraid only a proper metro (heavy rail as you guys in North America call) system just like the current B/D lines will work for Los Angeles. Sure, it may be very expensive, but for such a big city, I have a feeling that LRT will not provide enough capacity, and that a full proper metro would be the only solution to properly reducing traffic issues.
Btw it's 10 million for the whole of LA county and 18 million for LA county plus Orange county, Ventura county (Thousands Oaks, Oxnard etc.) and Inland Empire of which both of the latter can be mistaken for being part of LA
@@mrrobot5963 In fact I think Metrolink should be fully electrified, with frequencies of every 15 to 30 minute all day Monday to Sunday, using Stadler KISS for the busiest routes and Bombardier Talent 2 for the least busy routes. In addition, a new City Tunnel should be built in Downtown Los Angeles
To build an entirely underground Metro subway system that properly covered all of greater Los Angeles would cost about a trillion dollars. It's not even remotely feasible.
As an Angeleno, I can say that the LA rapid transit system suffers from a lack of a master plan and a lack of foresight. For one thing, the transit agency itself is responsible for both Los Angeles city and the entirety of Los Angeles County (oh, and Los Angeles city has it's own little separate free bus system from LA Metro). As a result, they have to spread rapid transit to all the tax paying areas regardless of whether it makes the most sense. The urban core of the region (roughly the area bounded by the 101 and 134 freeways on the north, the 710 on the east, the 105 or the 91 on the south and the ocean/405 north to the 101 again on the west) is left without a dense enough network to distribute riders going anywhere but downtown. Downtown LA by the way, is a M-F 9-5 destination and is one of several major employment centers. Without a dense distribution network in central LA, there is little incentive for someone to ride a train with perhaps a transfer already required, then to have to transfer to a bus for that last 2 or 3 or 5 miles in heavy traffic. The bus should cover the last mile in a dense city, not the last 5. It isn't worth the effort. The lack of planning is quite serious. LA Metro doesn't really think with the entire network in mind. Because they lack a master plan for a completed network, they are left wondering where to extend each line and then solve that one extension without considering the whole network. For example, the Crenshaw line's norther terminus is at the Expo line for now. Where to extend it? North to Hollywood along the LaBrea corridor in a standard grid pattern? Slightly west to Fairfax then back east to Hollywood? Or even further west to West Hollywood then swinging back east to Hollywood? This would be an easy question to answer if LA Metro already had a vision for the corridors in the central city before building a very circuitous route. Is there an east-west Santa Monica Blvd corridor plan? Is there a north-south LaCienega corridor? Is there a Venice Blvd corridor? These corridors are all part of the grid in the central city that would serve as a distribution network for the entire system. The Sepulveda line is a factor to account for also. Would West Hollywood be better served with an east west line connecting Santa Monica to Hollywood with connections to the Sepulveda line, the Crenshaw line on LaBrea, and the Red Line in Hollywood. Metro should already know the answer to these questions to direct their planning. West Hollywood wants a rail line at any cost and they don't seem to care where it goes. This isn't good planning. You brought up the subway lines that end downtown without extending east. The previous transit authority drew up the original corridor plan in the 70s that showed the Wilshire subway extending east to Whittier. Instead it is going to be an extension of the East LA light rail, necessitating a transfer to travel the corridor. It showed the Sepulveda line extending from the top of the San Fernando Valley to Long Beach. These are natural transit corridors in the city that serve multiple markets and commutes: N San Fernando Valley to South San Fernando Valley, San Fernando Valley to West LA or the South Beach, West LA to South Bay or Long Beach, South Bay to Long Beach. But, because of a lack of a master vision by the new transit agency, the Sepulveda corridor will be divided into three, if not four segments: From the northern end of the San Fernando Valley to Ventura Blvd as light rail, from Van Nuys to potentially LAX as heavy rail (overlapping with the light rail), from LAX to Torrance as light rail, and from Torrance to Long Beach as heavy rail, light rail, or BRT? For most people, traversing that corridor will already require one transfer and for some two transfers. Of course, as you mentioned, a completed network would render the light rail lines as overcrowded. Even when all the current planned extensions are built, the central core will still be underserved by rapid transit rendering the sparse network as a 3rd choice for most residents to use (after driving and uber). That Metro is even considering a monorail, another incompatible system requiring separate yards, staff, technicians, machinery, management, procurement, etc. shows you the lack of foresight and planning. The city core should be subway but there are a lot of political idiots that prevented that and is why we have all this light rail on 60 mile lines. But that isn't an excuse anymore going forward. And there is more but this is enough to give you an idea of the challenges of planning and building transit in LA Yes, LA has come a long way but it's haphazard and it handicaps whatever ultimate system is built. LA's rapid transit will never equal those of the great cities. It's too bad because LA deserves a world class transit system.
Would you be able to do a Minneapolis/Twin Cities episode? For a midwestern metro their plans seem rather ambitious - I'd absolutely love to hear your analysis and criticism!
Highly disagree they rely way too much on "rapid" buses that run in traffic. All of their light rail miss the areas that need it the most. It looks good on a map but needs so much more. Reece if you ever need to talk to someone bout Minneapolis I could go on for hours about it and I could give knowledge you could use
Maybe you could cover San Diego Trolley's new Mid-coast trolley next. It's an upcoming 11 mile extension of the blue line connecting Downtown San Diego with UCSD and the surrounding University Town Center edge city. The bad: The current Downtown to UCSD bus route isn't all that busy of a route, and much of the route runs through low density areas, hinting that ridership may struggle on the new light rail extension. The good: it's a double tracked, fully grade-separated, fully electrified extension with low-floor LRVs and headways of 7.5 minutes during rush hour--not too shabby compared to other American light rail. They're also re-routing bus routes to complement the new rail extension. San Diego Trolley did have an impressive, pre-COVID ridership that rivaled Portland's light rail. I believe San Diego's very low crime rate is key to San Diego Trolley's success--people aren't afraid to use transit because of crime unlike in cities like San Francisco.
San Francisco has had a one-seat, fully grade separated ride direct from Downtown SF to SFO's International Airport since 2003. Even much sprawlier DFW and Atlanta have one-seat rides direct from their airport terminals to Downtown.
The BART system in San Francisco has a lot of routes so most of the time you don’t have to transfer however on weekends it is different. Offering one seat rides works better if you have long but few lines instead. In Atlanta you would need something like 16 different routes to make it possible to travel between any 2 stations without needing to transfer.
As someone who lives in LA and rides at LA Metro are trains are three train sets sometimes two train sets and not five train sets. here in the LA area we also have many other transit agencies besides Metro for example you have the Long Beach Transit foothill Transit Torrance Transit Montebello bus line and several others
The LA region should honestly just amalgamate a bunch of its cities into LA proper. 88 different cities and way too many agencies that could all be collaborating instead of competing
@@davidking8472 or simply grant power to an overarching regional transport agency that governs all transit planning and operations, like Transport for London, HK MTR, or Metrolinx in Toronto
@@davidking8472 Exactly it should be one regional municipality divided into large boroughs like New York City. The only exception would be the schools which would have local school districts controlled by local school committees but fully funded by the municipality.
From a new viewer: A great video! Gives a better breakdown and general critique of the metro rail system as a whole. Still don't think the Crenshaw should/can be interlined with the Expo; the Expo heading into DTLA is already at-grade and slow af, especially at Flower/Washington. As it stands, I am very happy to transfer at Expo/Crenshaw or Willowbrook/Rosa Parks to get from LAX to DTLA. It would be better for the Crenshaw line to continue up San Vicente and Santa Monica to service the one and only neighborhood that is actually begging for rail - WeHo. Metro tracks on the freeway exist in two (three counting BRT) places around LA and everyone agrees they're deafening and depressing. The stations elsewhere are pretty aight. They're flashy and have nice public art (as all transit stops should have), but some of them are in desolate places that aren't well-connected to activated streets. I'm glad you hate the Sepulveda monorail as much as we do (see above reasons). I am hoping to God that the Inglewood and LAX people movers can be combined to save Los Angeles 100 years of embarrassment over two similar systems separated only by bureaucracy and 2 miles of Century Blvd. As for the bus, LACMTA has already embarked on the NextGen bus plan, but so far it seems the plan is mostly rebalancing the network to boost service on high-ridership corridors while pruning some less-used routes. I do agree with your hope that core services should be paid for and built now before costs increase, but knowing LA, we're gonna half ass everything and go for minimal cost savings for a huge trade-off in quality. LACMTA tends to dream in the long-term and decide in the short-term lol. The one project I would have appreciated more discussion on is the large amount of public support for an HRT subway down Vermont Avenue to South LA, which would support one of the workhorses of the whole bus system and provide quality transit to a large underserved community.
Real estate trends will likely gentrify Vermont corridor. I lived in a gentrifying area of LA that were mostly immigrant and transit dependent. I used to take packed busses to Downtown. Gentrification pushed poorer economically out, now the area is full of hipsters in expensive apartments or affluent homeowners. Ridership is lower on busses. Cars are mostly, tesla, prius or german brands instead of decades old Hondas. Problem with creating transit for a certain group, is never certain anymore. At least for LA which has widespread Gentrification.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the new subway cars being delivered to the red and purple lines. Those seem like an important fact since LA is building such a modern system and unlike the light rail, the current subway cars have NEVER been replaced until now
2 years later. 2023. Some of the projects you talked have materialized, and gaining good traffic. Partially thanks to $6/gal gas price. Orange Line (now G line) is still a bus, but electrified. Great video. Thanks.
Whenever you see me in the comments making fun of America's general broken idea of public transit investment, and how useless light rail can be when it's badly designed, I'm always thinking about LA. The LA Metro is a joke. Any At-Grade lines like the Gold Line are often run at a speed in between the Muni Metro and the C-Train but are meant to cover over twice the distance. I'm not even knocking at-grade light rail systems, as Phoenix has an absolutely fantastic one, which is fast, efficient, and designed appropriately. Like everything, LA just can't get Transit right because they really aren't doing the necessary research to build a propper transit system. Say what you want about all the rediculous studdies Canadian cities go through before building transit, but it's kept Translink lean, efficient, and well designed. LA Metro just likes to throw money at a problem thinking that capital is the ultimate solution to any problem, and then they end up with one of the slowest light rail systems in North America.
They never should've gotten rid of their streetcar network. LA once had the best public transit system on Earth. They were envied by Europe and Asia. Oh well.
The problem is that the metro area is so spread out that even by building 50 amazing light rail lines, the average person would still live a few kilometres away from the next station. A few ballistic missiles from North Korea and just rebuilding the entire city from scratch would be the cheapest option to fix that.
You should take a look at Arrow in Redlands if you don't know about it yet. Basically Metrolink was handed a transit project complete with pre-ordered DMUs (their first multiple units). It should be interesting to see what their response is to having 21st century rolling stock.
Connecting Palmdale, Lancaster and California City can help expand Los Angeles further up... Better for everyone in Los Angeles to get these things done.
They are already connected via Metrolink and will be serviced by the high speed rail system. They are way too far away to be connected to Metro Rail subway or light rail.
Can't agree with you more about transfers. Even in TOKYO, I'll often opt for the bus for certain routes.... like transferring between Narita and Haneda. Although there is now a direct link that occasionally runs, most of the trips require a transfer or two.... so I just take the bus... IN TOKYO!!! And I'm not the only one. Convenience is KEY.
I think safety is the biggest issue on the LA Metro now. I’ve traveled on it recently and I don’t feel safe. The trains aren’t clean and even the newest lines don’t feel safe to me.
Not sure if converting the orange line to light rail would allow for connecting to downtown as the red line going from north hollywood to down town is heavy rail.
The problem with LA is that it is unlike a most cities in the world in which traditional transportation systems work. You have pockets of high density with lower density between them. I think in the central LA area it makes absolute sense. But further out density drops and rides become longer for less people. My guess is that as lines are built, density along those lines will increase as we are now seeing along its L Line to and E line. Definitely a work a progress and one to keep an eye on. I think in time it will finally stick the landing, but for now it needs to keep on trying.
My main critique about their future plans is the East San Fernando Light Rail Transit Project. It would force riders to make 2 transfers in order to get to Downtown LA and add to the already overcrowded G Line. I would have extended the project southeast along Van Nuys Boulevard and Ventura Boulevard to Universal/Studio City Station.
Great video! The whole 2 people mover thing is an absolute disaster, and for sure the majority of people aren't going to ride to games there lol. I know it's not really fair to compare LA and New York, but seriously the Mets stadium has the 7 and LIRR lol
@@RMTransit I’m not sure you can say that because real estate is high there , and why would you think you can just plop a stadium by any transit line, as if LA is some fully suburban area with swaths of land available.
@@gabrielstravels it is unfair when you compare the densities of both those cities . New York has the highest density of any city in the US by far( and it’s not close) and the L.A has one of the lowest densities in the U.S . This is common knowledge.
@@apluto12-z3e densities may be completely different but the population is extremely similar for both, so at the end of the day, you will still need a full metro system in both. Maybe in NYC you'd build shorter lines with stations every 600-700m, whilst in L.A. you'd build longer lines with stations every 2-3 km
If you're up for looking at a smaller city, can you look at Halifax? Both the redesign that's been implemented over the past few years, and the BRT/Rapid ferry proposal
Thanks for the video! If the Metro and the city were really serious about the Metro they would really work on the security. All of the trains can be dangerous, especially at night. The cars on the Red line solitary while in motion, the police can’t walk car to car. Criminal types watch what ever car the police are occupying and they take the next car over. That is a huge security oversight. The cameras are obviously not live monitored. Los Angeles is a car town and we are now generations deep into the auto habit. With security in mind as well as destination. Most places are easier to get to via car. Los Angeles is no longer a walkable city. South Los Angeles to Torrance (Southbay) is mostly a pain. The estimated time from SoLA to Torrance Memorial hospital via Metro is 2 hours with a 22 minute walk.
Even extending that SoFi Stadium people mover to a Green (C) Line station, allowing multiple pathways, would make that piece more effective. And if the Crenshaw for some reason can't make the turn to join the E, at least have it go up to Wilshire to also meet the Purple (D).
I am trying to think how it would be if LA had kept the beautiful and extensive Pacific Electric Railway network....What a big mistake that was to tear evrything down!
With all due respect, the Pacific Electric peak ridership was 1920. By the time the 1950’s rolled around, the system was a shell of its former self, and most lines were already closed (the last PE line was LA/Long Beach, closing on April 9, 1961).
While I completely agree with a lot of this video (ESPECIALLY the three-car capacity stations & DTLA to LAX issues), I think that something is underestimated in this video, is the severe NIMBYism in Los Angeles. Getting a BRT in heavily trafficked, high(er) density corridors comes with IMMENSE public pushback (i.e. North Valley BRT and Noho to Pasadena BRT) from people who want to keep a "small town feel", and who elect LA city councilmembers that literally run their campaigns around not building any type of transit :(
Good point
Seems like LA needs their own Robert Moses!!! Smart citizens would propose such a position and those NIMBY ppls rights to resist will be removed by the state like here in NYC! If ppl in pasedena want a small town feel.... 🗣MOVE TO A SMALL TOWN THEN
Nimbyism + pervasive car culture that makes people think driving is better than transit.
Yep. Metro was forced to comply to these people. If they could, they probably would have made the projects all Heavy Rail like with complete grade separation
See also: Sherman Oaks homeowners lobbying for the Sepulveda monorail so an elevated HRT won't pollute their sight lines, Beverly Hills school district encouraging their HS students to protest against the D/Purple line extension, and (the grandaddy of them all) the 1985 Ross Dress For Less methane explosion that halted subway construction on Wilshire for almost 30 years.
Rich Westsiders have way too much power.
As a user of transit in LA, the biggest issues I face are lack of frequency on the regional lines (there is currently only one that might be considered acceptable with almost hourly trains) and lack of grade separation on the light rail lines. Traveling the few miles from Down Town to USC for example is an agonizing 10-20 minute journey through stop and go traffic… on a train. Additionally, the network might look large and expansive but everything is so spread out that there are a lot of places that are very long walks from rail stations; many are served by busses but those busses come very infrequently much of the time.
Yes. There needs to be a campaign to double the frequence of every single bus line in the city. My daughter takes a bus home from her school in downtown LA and if she misses her bus it's 20-30 minute wait for the next one... at peak hours on a weekday! It's ridiculous.
Yes to regional connector demystified! As an LA local you pretty much nailed it.
However there is the LAX Flyaway that runs from LAX to Union Station nonstop. That certainly counts as transit.
I've taken flyaway many times before and its really a great system to get to/from the airport. The Van Nuys-LAX bus travels from a dedicated terminal in the Valley to the Airport proper, with the only downside being the lack of transit only lanes leading into the airport itself
FlyAway is expensive and get stuck in traffic. It's definitely necessary, but could be improved as you say with a dedicated lane.
I can’t believe Calgary has almost as much rail ridership as LA
And what’s more staggering is that Calgary metro has barely 1.3 million population, like less than 1/10 of LA’s population. Calgary is in the most conservative province in Canada, and they are still expanding their LRT system with the construction of future Green Line. Another ridership difference: 45% of Calgary downtown workers take transit (CTrain) to work.
That's the power of limiting parking supply
I can believe it. The C-Train is superb, and far faster than the LA Metro, and Calgary has a really decent bus network. I love Calgary's transit network.
Yep. Thanks GM
@@RoboJules not to mention that at least Calgary bus networks serves all areas of the city adequately, whilst certain parts of LA have little to no bus services at all!
You missed the biggest problem facing LA transit. Even before COVID, ridership has been falling steadily most of the decade. Metro preaches to the choir but does a lousy job making non-customers try them. Only Japanese guidebooks mention that LA transit is fast, frequent, convenient, cheap ($7 day pass). Until COVID, LA Metro ran a grid of red express buses that were fast and frequent (originally every 12 minutes, but later fell to every 15 minutes), but the only place where I’ve seen the brochure explaining that system was in downtown hotel parking.
Once I saw a young woman crying at the Getty Villa. She had just received her masters of computer science degree at USC, and wanted to visit the museum before moving back to Beijing. Uber brought her there for under $20, but the return trip during rush hour would cost nearly $70. With a TAP card, we took the bus to Santa Monica and transferred to the Expo Line, which stopped only two blocks from her home, and ran faster than Uber for under $2. One has to wonder how LA Metro managed not to capture a graduate computer student who had used transit all her life, and never once tried any bus or train for the two years she lived near bus and train stops.
The Purple Line does not need to reach Santa Monica. The Expo Line already does. West of the VA hospital/405 freeway, the ridership drops so dramatically that the majority Wilshire express buses terminate there. The housing/business density of Wilshire west of 405 simply does not justify the cost of rail.
The real black hole is Burbank+Glendale: the hub of movie studios, and less than 15 miles from DTLA, Burbank Airport, Hollywood, and Pasadena, but has no rapid transit.
Stop beating the Orange Line dead horse: it’s a bus because of anti-transit legislation. Having ridden it, the experience is comparable to riding light rail. Yes, it would work better as light rail, but the money is better spent on places currently without rapid transit.
The Olympics is a three week party where the overwhelming majority of the attendees will not use public transit. LA voters have been supporting transit taxes for decades while fewer of them each year actually use transit. Eventually, taxpayers will stop supporting what they don’t use, and Metro is blind to that looming crisis.
Great point
Good points though I would barely consider every 12 min as frequent.
disagree about the purple line, it would be a faster way to get there and the expo would be a more local route.
@@PolicyThwonk That was the minimum criteria. Several lines had better headway, especially during rush hour. Keep in mind express routes also had corresponding local services. Also this replaced a non-grid system with infrequent service, it is a major improvement.
@@neilworms2 Purple Line to the sea would cost billions, where traffic west of West LA don't even fill buses. That same money spent through the Sepulveda corridor connecting the West Side to San Fernando Valley gets much more bang for the buck.
If I could give some insight to the SoFi stadium and the Forum's location, both stadiums were built in the footprint of the former Hollywood Park racetrack. The racetrack closed about 20 years ago and when it was in its golden age it was close to the LARy's 5 Line. It could have been located located closer to a Metro Line but that would require massive Eminent domain requirements, and politically that has been incredibly unpopular for decades here, especially now with gentrification being such a big issue. Actually on that note I would say that the biggest road block for LA Metro construction/ planning is the politics of LA and how much those politics are tied up in property values and HOA's. Because of that elevated railroads in the city are rare or nonexistent as a result, its low hanging fruit for HOA's to oppose on the offset.
Why do HOAs have so much power in the US? I haven't heard of them in Canada influencing city decisions to near the same degree
@@mattslowikowski3530 Its mainly the US's views on private property I believe and the fact that many of our politicians are HOA members or have HOA members as backers. Tho for LA I think its mainly cuz they form such a huge voting block, and know how to take advantage of the Environmental Review Process to their benefit. I know that for many early projects and many projects that happen today (mainly BRT but with some LRT projects) that the HOA's would whip other HOA's and drivers into a tizzy and they would form some kind of group that would sue a project into the ground over some perceived error in the EIR process to stop a project in its tracks. Recently its been over vehicle reduction data and impact on the local community, and has been used in lawsuits on the purple line extension, the Expo Line phase 2, the North San Fernando Valley BRT, the NoHo to Pasadena BRT, the Red Line extensions into the valley, and the orange line
Screw HOAs. They can go shove it up their somethings.
YES to regional connector demystified!
I mean he pretty much covered it all, there's not much more to talk about haha
Also to note, we only use up to 3 cars because our platforms barely fit within a block in street running zones. Ex: the Long Beach loop on the A Line, Expo/Vermont on the E Line, and Maravilla and East LA Civic Center on the L Line. Extending some platforms would require eliminating ADA or permanently closing some major thoroughfare streets which will never happen.
We continue to build our lines limited to 3 cars. Our 3-car light rail subway stations also can't be extended either, to also note.
4:06 Singapore also built it's MRT (metro/subway) platforms for the Circle & Downtown Lines to be only 3 cars long, which I'm abit concerned will push up the construction cost per unit capacity, especially as both lines are fully underground & thus already pretty expensive to start with (S$10b over 35km & S$20b over 42km respectively), with alot of the costs being fixed e.g. tunneling, as the loading gauge is the same as the older MRT lines with 6-car long platforms
The ADA makes a lot of pedestrian-oriented infrastructure cost many times what it otherwise would cost. For example, a pedestrian overpass (over a railroad, street, or freeway) can't have any stairs-it must be a ramp with a relatively low grade level so a wheelchair user can use it. But this makes it take up two to three times the amount of space (meaning it costs two or three times as much or more), and also frequently results in switchbacks or a longer ramp, making it less useful for pedestrians themselves (unless you spend even more money to build stairs AND a ramp (or elevator)).
I knew the Long Beach loop had some tight tolerances but they already run shortlines to Willow Street Station and sometimes on other lines. I wonder how many stations are limited and if some creative routing could help improve volume (not that it's fun to get on a short-line to Willow, not realize it and get kicked off and have to wait for the soon to be heavily packed Long Beach train).
Three car sets is evidence of really piss-poor planning! Huge cost consequences in the future because of this.
@@davidlang1125 Ain't that the truth! I was floored when a Metro employee explained to me the power issues. Like so many issues of the modern era, it feels like our parents chose options that were cheapest for them and would burden future generations.
My grandmother grew up in east LA in the 1950's. She used to take the streetcars to school every day, to the dance hall, to run errands for her family, etc. Never needed to set foot in a car once. However, the automobile companies at the time paid off the city government to expand the freeway system and eventually scrap the streetcar system. Today we are dealing with the consequence of this decision and having to play catch up with many other cities that prioritized efficient public transportation over the profits of large corporations.
As a Londoner I find LA's transport network bafflingly poorly planned. You'd never think they're in such a rich state.
Agreed, although some of the poor planning can't be avoided. LA metro is a county agency and Los Angeles is a very large county. When taxes are raised to fund trains, residents that live far outside of central LA also want light rail so we end up with a real hodgepodge that isn't as connected nor serving the areas most needing transit.
Part of the problem is they started from literally zero in 1990 (other than buses and a few Amtrak trains).
@@Geotpf yes and they’ve already allowed a car centric culture to fully mature. Undoing that is nigh impossible
And the C Line was litterally built in the median of Interstate 105 as a kind of ”compensation” for those who had gotten their houses demolished for the highway, hence they didn’t extend the C Line to Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Station because the highway wouldn’t go there (When they could have just elevated or tunneled the line).
Some additions
1) Metrolink is far too expensive. It’s a luxury, hence 40,000 riders
2) Sofi was built there because of the land from the closed racetrack
3) have you ridden Metro? You need a cop on nearby every train/bus
There are HUGE plans for Union Station Downtown L.A., which will look like an airport. Really amazing plans with upgraded services for trains, light trains and buses. Should cover that as well.
If you're referring to the giant glass donut they were planning, it got scrapped because it's a giant waste of money.
For riders like me we always been advocating for grade separation, longer platforms and signal priority. The Blue Line has capacity issues running 3-car trains during peak and rush hour. Not all stations on the line can expand to a 4-car length platform so the only other option would have to be grade separation. I agree on focusing more resources to the core section of the region rather than expand outward. The Red Line was originally intended to go to Warner Center but NIMBYs and a few politicians banned tunneling in LA. Partially why the Red Line and Purple Line abruptly ends at their termini. Also a methane gas explosion halted construction down Wilshire. Yeah it’s being built now but progressing slowly and one of the tunneling machines has been parked for months.
Have you ever looked at the original Blue Line EIR from the mid to late 80's? There are some pretty interesting alternatives the line could have taken into LA and Long Beach, with the long beach options being pretty disappointing with hindsight. Like I get the Blue Line today retraces the PE line into the LB Downtown, but it could have gone along the river in its own ROW.
Why not just increase frequency as much as possible? I mean, it would be more attractive to passengers than just running longer trains at the same frequency.
your delivery is so passionate love to see it haha also fun editing style and obviously love the topics/material keep up the great work!!
This was a decent breakdown, but as someone who lives in the LA area, there are a few things you missed and are critical to consider:
1) Unlike most metropolitan areas, downtown LA isn't really the core of where people work and/or live. So while it could be good to have, say the Crenshaw Line, actually go all the way towards DTLA anyways, it may not actually help. People live and work in so many places throughout LA that there's no real unified flow of where people go, especially during rush hour. This likely led to the hodgepodge of routes LA Metro has as it's just trying to capture demand, but making many concessions in a way that could hurt it in the long run. But at the same time too, cities that have their metros all connect in their downtowns (like Chicago) miss those that may have to commute from one suburb to another. It wouldn't make sense to take a light rail southeast to downtown just to hop on another one going west. At that point, you might as well drive yourself. That's the sort of demand LA Metro is trying to capture, but it's a difficult task.
2) When it comes to SoFi Stadium, it's my understanding that the planning for that occurred after the Crenshaw Line was proposed and approved. Since it is being built by private owners, with approval from the City of Inglewood, they put it on the land they already owned. Sure, it would be nice if they could have built it closer to where the line would be, but ultimately it was cheaper and faster to build it on the land they already owned rather than trying to acquire more land just to be closer to public transportation. The Inglewood People Mover is sort of the way to fix that up (and going to be more for locals rather than tourists going straight from LAX to SoFi). Also, putting it closer to the Crenshaw Line would have put it directly under the landing paths for one of the runways at LAX, which could have introduced more construction limitations than it already faced being built between the paths.
3) The LAX people mover is also meant for more connections beyond public transportation. There are going to be station stops for a rental car facility, drop off/pick up zones for Uber/Lyft and the general public, bus lines, and the Crenshaw Line. While you could provide a metro line that's free for those going between the terminals and these facilities (similar to Vancouver), a dedicated people mover allows the airport to guarantee service every 90-120 seconds, whereas a metro line will be more out of their control. (Also, you don't need to worry about people tapping on/off just to use it, even if it's free.) Additionally, there are proposals to extend the Crenshaw Line north and south, so by not having it enter LAX, you are also helping locals who may need to travel on it.
I appreciate the comment, but it feels like you are trying to explain why the things you are discussing are the way they are (at least for the latter two). But, thats sort of my point - I don't think the justification which we see makes sense!
@@RMTransit I think the better explanation for the second point is that the approval and construction on the SoFi stadium occurred much later than the Crenshaw Line got final approval on all of its EIR documents. If Metro were to reevaluate the project, the project's budget would balloon far beyond what Metro could feasibly allow with the sales taxes in place for LA County, especially given that the money has to legally abide by the allocations voted on within the original propositions. In short, the EIR process would have to have started anew which would have been years of study and public outreach according to CA/US Law, and it would face an uphill climb to allocate additional money given the priorities of the board. LA's biggest problem is that transit in LA will forever be myred in politics, and TBH I really have no clue how we can feasibly fix this so that things can get done sooner and more efficiently both in construction and in operations. LA Transit advocates face a very powerful NIMBY faction with the HOA's that are scattered across the county, a very driving centric LADOT that often hinders any kind of meaningful change to buses or trains, astronomical costs for transit construction in the county, and if I am very honest weak leadership at the LA Metro board and the County Supervisors, let alone the city councils of the 80+ cities that make up the region. And this is by far not a justification of the way things are, but an honest view of what transit in LA is like on the political scale. It's a miracle that the projects we have now even got built given the obstacles and roadblocks that are thrown at transit projects at every turn of the process to create them. I mean in the last 20 years we have seen at least 3 projects myred in legal challenges to try and kill them, and countless others watered down or killed due to severe and ugly neighborhood backlash.
Continuing the Crenshaw Line to downtown as suggested in the video would also require three separate lines (Crenshaw, Expo, and Blue) to share a single track downtown. Huge negative impacts on headways systemwide. The current plan instead proposes to extend Crenshaw line north to Hollywood and Highland, with a stop at the purple line, which goes much further in establishing a useful transit grid across the city. As Juan points out, downtown LA, while a destination, is really not the singularly important destination that it is for other cities -- not only for tourists but also for residents. Since the video seems to be focused on the tourist experience in LA, it is worth pointing out that Hollywood has a comparable density of hotel rooms to downtown, if not more.
Also, I'm not really sure why the fixation on the football stadium to begin with. How many football games are played per year? The system should prioritize serving daily commuters, not the rider who uses transit twice a year: once to go to a football game and once to the airport.
The headways are low, you could interline, the interlining downtown is very short atm.
Airports and stadiums are major destinations and have thousands of employees
Such designation simply does not justify the significant opportunity costs involved in arbitrarily connecting these destinations with one-seat rides. This is a rather simplistic view of the role of transit, and to my knowledge has not been supported by any form of data in the very many planning studies that have been done. Do we want transit to take us everywhere without ever having to transfer? Yes. Is this technically or economically or physically feasible? No.
There are opportunity costs: getting a one-seat ride downtown (again, a rather arbitrary goal) would necessitate cutting service across almost the entirety of Expo and Blue lines. Is this worth it? Increasing maximum headways from 6 to 9 minutes across 30 something stops to connect one line to two stops downtown would have significant negative impacts on overall ridership and quality of service. If we were to measure systemwide wait times, riders waiting 3 extra minutes at all these stops would far outweigh the smaller number of riders having to wait to transfer from Crenshaw to Expo to go downtown. Now if we had the data or experience to show that an exceedingly large number of riders will need to make that specific transfer, then the benefits might justify the costs and the proposal might be warranted. But the data, to my knowledge, do not support this conclusion.
On top of this, the fact that Expo and Blue share track downtown already causes huge problems for the system, no matter the length. Having three, not fully grade separated lines share one track, even for a very short length, will cause further delays across the lines. Yes, Metro should prioritize undergrounding and doubling that shared track, but still, are there any data to support the idea that it would be cost effective to add a third line to this mix? More cost effective that extending the line directly north to hit other, currently underserved "major destinations," which would also offer a high degree of new, systemwide interconnectivity?
Cities need to do more to encourage people to ride bicycles. Safe protected bike lanes and trails are needed so adults and children can ride safely. Speak up for bicycles in your community. Bicycles make life and cities better.
trains won’t be automated in LA (and the mainland US) because unions. Remember, in the US transit construction is as much a jobs program as it is a transportation improvement.
Yeah, I was shocked when I learned Green Line was originally supposed to be fully automated.
Great video! LA's light rail trains are limited to 3 cars so that they don't block intersections on the street running bits. Also besides being limited by train length, all of the light rail lines are built with a power/electrical supply infrastructure that limits frequency to 10-12 trains per hour. I think that could be fixed, but metro appears to believe that it's sufficient.
Yeah, we were all pretty shocked when we heard trains from Crenshaw Line wouldn't be going all the way down the Green Line because they didn't have the power/electrical to support it (well, this and a few other things). Just crazy.
I'm an Angeleno who recently started to use LAC Metro, so this resonates personally with me. The way I see it, it's all relative. We can complain about the upcoming improvements to the system but they still are exactly that - improvements. And for all the complaints about LAC Metro overall, it's still probably the best public transportation system in the United States outside of the Northeast and Chicago - admittedly a low bar, but the context is important.
I would love to see this Sepulveda Pass line come to fruition since it would plug a glaring gap in the rail network. I'm also hoping that lines are as grade separated as possible and I do wish for more heavy rail like with the B and D Lines rather than light rail. And yeah I was also scratching my head at why the K Line terminates at the Expo Line, necessitating a transfer to get to Downtown. I guess it's an improvement over going through the C and A Lines but it still seems like it'd be annoyance for those arriving at LAX.
This is a separate issue, but as someone who uses the B Line (Red) there really needs to be more security and cleaning people working those trains. The trains are, to put it simply, gross. And they're often full of noisy and disruptive hooligans. I imagine the same goes for the D Line (Purple).
@@Cyrus992 Oh I forgot about the Bay Area (even though I was born and raised there lol). No, the Bay Area has better public transportation overall than SoCal does.
The other huge plus of the regional connector is how much cheaper it will make track maintenance. MOW equipment will now be able to be moved between the two devisions, meaning that Metro won’t need to buy as much MOW equipment in the future. The same goes for car overhauls. The entire light rail system can now have one heavy repair shop, without the need to truck equipment or move it via the freight network. This is the main reason why NYC’s Coney Island Overhaul Shop is so genius, it is able to service both A division and B division cars, saving millions by not having to deal with a second shop.
One thing to keep in mind in regards to utilizing highways for grade-separation is that CalTrans, the state DOT, has very explicit regulations that make using freeway medians a no-go and using the medians/ROW very expensive with mitigation measures.
And please do a Regional Connector Demystified!
Already did! It's here!
ua-cam.com/video/TwOVxIFPDpc/v-deo.html
Do you have more information on not using medians? I hadn't heard this and both the Green & Gold operate "in freeways." Thanks.
@@x--. Building a transit corridor (which eventually became the Green Line) down the 105 was a requirement of a court order that allowed the 105 to be built in the first place, and the 210 was basically built around an existing freight line that was reused for the Gold Line. Caltrans does not like transit lines operating in their right of ways in general. Also, it's worth noting that almost everybody has decided that stations in the middle of a freeway are horrible for multiple reasons (not close to any destinations, very noisy, very windy, very polluted).
@@Geotpf Well, I'm glad that everyone has decided it's as terrible as should have been obvious in the beginning but color me unconvinced that Metro changed it's mind instead of just running out of freeways with space in the middle for rail. Maybe I've spent too much time sucking up pollution from staffing in the literal middle of the 105 and 210. ;)
The Green Line was originally designed to be an automated light rail line, but something happened along the way. I think it was mostly a cost issue -- hiring operators to operate a relatively low ridership line was apparently cheaper than automating it.
@@colormedubious4747 I was working for Metro when they were talking about automated trains and you are correct, that's exactly what happened, the union wasn't having it.
as someone from socal that has sat through years worth of traffic, anything that can take cars off the road, even if its not the most efficient form of transit, is welcomed with open arms
Yeah, the Regional Connector actually represents the last phase of the Blue Line, as it was originally envisioned in the 80's.
Also, Metrolink has committed, on paper at least, to following what Caltrain and GO are doing in terms of Electification and Service enhancement. But it's not really going to get underway until the run-through tracks at Union Station are ready.
No mention of LA's Poor Headways? The stangnant ridership on the system over the last decade has a lot to do with this.
And while you're harping on core-capacity is good, LA's not really a city's that's ignoring it. The West Santa Ana line includes the first part of what will eventually be the third tunnel through the Downtown area.
The Crenshaw could have never shared the expo line tracks to downtown. You would have had 3 trains routes sharing the tracks between LATTC and downtown. That’s simply not feasible.
3:16 Exactly why only heavy rail/full metro/subway works for Los Angeles.
I agree. Unfortunately construction was done so badly in the 80s and 90s that they actually banned Subway construction back about the turn of the millennia. They only lifted the ban about 5-10 years ago when Measure R, which included the D(Purple) Line Extension. This means everything in between like the Expo, Gold and Orange Lines was forced to be built with an alternative to Subways.
@@metrofilmer8894 Oh no! That really is a shame!
Don't get it wrong, I'm not against trams or light rail at all. All it is, is that light rail/trams in my opinion are better suited to small or medium sized cities (for example those with a metro population of up to maximum 3 or 4 million). A very big city, like Los Angeles, as I said before, needs a proper, full, high capacity metro / subway system due to how many people would be using the system.
Also, apart from the city centre / downtown tunnels as well as around the Hollywood / Beverly Hills area, LA has this advantage of being able to reuse old railway infrastructure (mainly former Pacific Streetcar lines), making the cost of a full metro line cheaper rather than building everything from scratch.
Yeah, having heavy rail/subway would work better, but it also costs A LOT of money and takes a lot of time. The Blue Line/A Line (Long Beach route) was built for the fraction of the cost of the red and purple lines. LA Metro is pretty slow at building the current lines (Crenshaw was supposed to open in 2019...), but light rail is the "faster" option if we don't want everything to be stuck in construction for long periods of time. The ideal would be light rail but with better separation and priority when they are at the same grade (just look at where the Blue/Expo (now A/E lines) intersect near DTLA.
There's a lot of good videos (better than this one) from people in LA that describe the challenges LA has and their actual plans with Measures R and M. It will explain why they made some decisions (like not having Crenshaw go into LAX given its planned extensions and multiple lines going to the LAX station). People's work and homes are spread out throughout LA County, there's no core of where everyone works or lives, so a system like Chicago or New York wouldn't work as well here. The demand is spread out and it's quite difficult to capture it, more so with NIMBYs, car drivers, and more.
@@JuanWayTrips This is what makes LA an advantage in terms of costs. There is already pre-existing infrastructure (the former Pacific Streetcar lines), which means that outside of the Downtown Los Angeles or Hollywood/Beverly Hills/Santa Monica areas, less tunnels will be needed, making the cost MUCH lower.
@@gabrielstravels The former Pacific Streetcar lines no longer exist. In a couple cases, the right of way can (and has been) reused. But no rails or stations remain.
AHHHH, that Inglewood thing coming so close to at least through lining with the Airport peoplemover then going with "nah, lets have a gap" (and both being peoplemovers inevitably a break of technology as well) makes me want to scream.
at least both of them with be APM's (automated people movers)
Yeah, it’s very frustrating and shows how disintegrated the planning of the transportation and land use is
@@theexmann I do think however, they could have connected the APM's to each other for direct trains from the airport to the stadium. While they are paid differently, the stadium APM is built by Metro I believe while the airport AIPM is built by the airport.
I remember berating it in a planning meeting (I was one of 3 members of the public there and the only one talking about it). So. Much. Pain. But people don't care and Metro sure as hell doesn't care.
@@x--. Neither the Inglewood people mover nor the LAX people mover is a LA Metro project. The LAX people mover is owned by LAX; the Inglewood people mover is owned by the city of Inglewood. Both have little care what happens outside their own territory. Also, I think the LAX people mover was far along in the planning and possibly already started construction before the Inglewood people mover was suggested; the result would be that LAX would end up running the whole thing if the two were combined and neither group wanted that.
The Regional Connector will be transformational. The extension of Crenshaw/LAX line to Purple Line will create a single transfer route from Downtown to the airport area (will need to transfer to people mover)
The crime rate on LA's buses and trains is very significant, and tends to limit ridership. Until LA gets serious about clearing the homeless off and cleaning the buses, trains and platforms of the various bodily fluids and trash, mass transit in the LA area will be noting but a huge money pit with endlessly decreasing ridership.
LA metro should also keep their buses clean and have security in them so that more ppl can take it since the buses here in LA are thought as dirty by it's population. And I think we should have more underground and elevated subways.
This is all stuff we should've already had in our city for decades. We're the most rich state in the most powerful country in the world and yet China has better public transit than us :/
@@quanta2k I know and LA DOES have the density for such a transit system. City proper has a density of about 12,000 ppl/Mi^2 which is similar to Chicago and Philadelphia.
@@AlexCab_49 I think LA should build subways first since more people with cars can transition to using public transportation since global warming is a serious issue. Light rails are too slow given how spread out LA is so it would be a waste of money.
@@quanta2k For suburbs I think we should focus on improving Metrolink like electrifying them and increasing their headways up to 30 minutes. I live in the West Valley and taking commuter rail is more convenient for me then taking the orange and red line if I'm heading in towards DTLA.
I'm really liking these long-form videos on American transit system planning (Philly, NYC, LA). Can't wait to see what comes next!
Hopefully, DC, even though DC right now is in a planning standstill. Everything major is being planned for 2040 which is so long away. They need to increase core capacity now (During rush hour, the central stations are like ants swerving everywhere)
2:03 "someone is going to hate me for that" I'm currently praising you at this moment for saying "Expo line" instead of the letter
No one in LA is going to call the trains by their letters, we are going to keep calling them by their colors. Metro, stop trying to make letter lines happen! We don't have a complicated transit system like New York to necessitate using letters.
@@jecarlin They are building so many new lines they ran out of colors. Unless you want the Light Blue line, the Olive Green Line, the Magenta Line, etc. Also, "Expo" is not a color.
@@Geotpf Expo is not a color but is represented by light blue. Not really true that they ran out of colors, either.
I know it's not the core of the discussion, but LA (and most of Cali for that matter) seems to have a huge problem with their lack of density and love of R1 housing. I'm glad downtown can get this kind of transit, but they'll need to find a way to encourage people to not drive from the suburbs still with some kinda regional rail IMO.
L.A. should utilize their abandoned streetcar tunnels for these new systems.
The only tunnel cannot be used but is still partially there! You can still see the Terminal building downtown and the old portal which now is an apartment complex. The tunnel is underneath but has been partially filled in by the Bonaventure hotel underground. The Red Line (now B Line) goes to Hollywood which was the purpose of the old tunnel.
Their abandoned streetcar (or tram as we Brits call) is what makes expanding the LA metro system a huge advantage in terms of cost - less tunnels needed so less need to build new lines from scratch, so, by reusing the old Pacific Streetcar lines, the costs become lower.
@@gabrielstravels k
@@gabrielstravels most of that land has been sold off already to either freight companies or developers. like if one were to look at the Huntington Beach branch line from long Beach, all the property along the old right of eay has houses and such things on it. tunnels would be necessary in most places anyway, regardless of the streetcar past.
@@ganginfr4923 True - but tunnels would be needed more in Downtown LA or the Hollywood / Beverly Hills area to be fair...
Speaking of putting a stadium where there isn't rail... have you heard of Truist Park in Atlanta? There are busses to Marta rail, but it can be less convenient.
The biggest issue with transit in la is that so much of the city is single family homes. Very busy areas (Westwood, South Bay, Weho) are all surrounded by very large expensive homes. These people lobby hard to make sure the route doesn’t go by their homes.
NIMBYs are definitely a big problem, but as Toronto shows you can create a highly successful transit system even serving areas with SFH
Interlining Crenshaw and Expo would mean three light rail lines going through Pico station, and would completely destroy any sense of reliability for all three lines.
Hahahaha. Reliability of Expo? You have a sense of reliability for that line? The only way that line is reliable is when it's running more trains to make up for the fact that all the trains are late.
Not that you're wrong but they could shortline from Santa Monica to LATTC Station or some other creative option but that was never the plan. They wanted to go north so probably not even worth the time to talk about it ;)
True. L.A. needs to elevate a lot of there lines as a cost cutting measure to building subway and means to avoiding traffic stops. It sound be built at a design that would let natural light through and is asthetically pleasing.
Not really a fair complaint. This line will be a semi circle line connecting multiple lines. Vital for interneighborhood commuting. Here in NY we are dying for one!
The Crenshaw/ LAX line is supposed to go up north to a terminal at the Hollywood Bowl. So I’m guessing that’s why they didn’t align it with the Expo line. Also, it connects a community that depends on the system a lot along with aligning to those that travel from the west side to LAX. Hopefully the extension comes soon bc cities like West Hollywood want it, mainly within their city boundary. It makes sense.
Thank you! I wonder if they could interline with Expo in the interim period between now and whenever the WeHo extension is finished.
I do often wonder why there is such a lack of transit options in the Burbank/Glendale Area. Considering there are so many major studios as well as several different community hubs, it seems to make so much sense.
The problem with Los Angeles Metro board is filled with people from los angeles city. The County is not represented by the county. The map of Los Angeles is wrong with Downtown drawn as center of the County. Metro is only in the city not the county.
Sofi stadium was built where it was because it was an open large area of land. It was privately funded so the owners wanted to own the area around the land so they could use the increased property value from the stadium for their developments.
Enjoyed your take. Thanks.
I’m afraid that the vast majority of the far flung regions are not about to give up the convenience of hauling themselves and whatever else they can fit into their cars or trucks at a moment’s notice. Even paying the thousands of dollars a year for the privilege of doing so. The suburbanites live for the car culture. The train to nowhere (savoy brown) doesn’t suit their purposes. I can see ppl that travel lightly and live near train or subway stops being the major proponents. But convincing ppl to pry themselves out of their cars? Maybe if it was a dense city like nyc where you could pick up a few items on the way home to your mixed use bldg.; that lifestyle is few and far between here. .
An arts district station is actually being built and has recently gotten funds for it ahead of schedule. It should be completed by 2024 or 2025
Expo train ext to Santa Monica was a nice addition, but you felt felt the distance you were covering. Very slowly. I lived in LA for 9 years. A lot of LA transplants I met (and there are a lot of LA transplants, I was one) seemed to have moved to LA never expecting to ride the LA Metro. Not to be too spicy here, but ridership really seemed to break along socio-economic lines. The young professionals I was meeting were moving to newly gentrified neighborhoods that had happened to have spotty access to trains. Echo Park - no trains. Silver Lake: one train if you happen to live on the eastern edge of the neighborhood (Red Line on Vermont/Santa Monica Blvd). Los Feliz, same as Silver Lake. Highland Park: one side of the neighborhood has the Gold Line, the other side didn't. If you live in HP closer to Eagle Rock or in Eagle Rock, there is no close train - you don't really even think of the train because of how far you are from the station (I guess that same idea goes for all of the other neighborhoods).
And yes there are buses... but I don't how to diplomatically explain my experience on LA Metro buses.
@@christopherjrager TBH it depends on the line, tho surprisingly the most crazy experiences I've had on the LA buses have been on the Big Blue Bus system, and it tends to have the better customer experience on the trips I've taken on them.
It's quite different than Chicago, where people of all income levels use the CTA, while in LA there is a perception that public transportation is for poor people.
The crenshaw line wasnt interlined into downtown since the exposition line near the pico station hits this awful at grade y intersection with the blue line that is going to be the bottleneck of LA transit for 50 years and already limits frequency. Extending the crenshaw line north fully grade seperated as is planned provides an important north south link and connects to very dense parts of central LA that are currently underserved.
The whole flower street section is meant to be fixed no? There's no reason that in the meantime before Crenshaw goes north interlining couldn't happen!
@@RMTransit There are currently no funded plans to bury that whole section near the LATTC but it should be a priority. The other issue with running the crenshaw line downtown in the interim is that there is no connection between the two lines at expo/crenshaw (the expo line is at grade and the crenshaw lines terminus is below ground).
I think that investing the required 2 to 3ish billion dollars required to grade seperate the rest of the LA light rail system and upgrade it to automated light metro would be game changing. Its not as sexy as adding new lines, but would allow really really high frequencies along existing corridors that right now have 15 minute headways off peak.
A couple other important projects that I think would be important is heavy rail along the vermont north-south corridor (right now slated for BRT, but one of the densest corridors in the city) and improved connections between the light rail and an improved metrolink system (most importantly, closing the gap between the Norwalk terminus of the green line and Norwalk metrolink station, less than 3 miles apart).
I know there isn’t a track connection, I think there probably should have been! LA has a lot of potential, it just needs to make sure it’s making the right investments!
You made the wrong supposition on the Crenshaw Line. As you mentioned, LA is polycentric, and very few people boarding at LAX are actually destined for downtown. The line should connect to Purple and Red Lines since far more people stay around Mid Wiltshire and Hollywood
People destined Downtown have had the Flyaway Bus for a decade, and that while it carries respectable traffic, it has never needed more than 3 buses per hour, which says the traffic demand is not worth extending Crenshaw Line to Downtown.
At the airport end, while it would be nice to run the Crenshaw Line to the terminals, it was never realistic due to the cost and disruption. People movers prove adequate or the passenger volume at JFK EWR ORD SFO SEA
Dead ending at Expo forces a transfer anyway!
The rest of the comment re. the demand, you can’t expect to drive ridership with low quality transit. People movers are bad and they actively discourage transit use (SEA doesn’t have one outside the terminals), extra transfers with luggage really impact ridership.
That point about transfers is why I think Crenshaw should go straight to downtown LA via an inter line.
it has been the worse for wear ever since the dismantling of the Red Car in 1961 and Yellow Car in 1963 snarling the traffic system until 1992 and 1993 when Metrolink and LAMetro were established
So for the 3 car train issue on the LRT’s, Metro makes this sound very confusing. They don’t actually mean 3 cars, rather what they mean is 3-Units hooked together. In my opinion, I think this should work fine if the frequency is high enough. There are also limitations with the types of curves Metro has on its system that make 4 car trains difficult to operate, as well as power limitations. While I wholeheartedly agree that they SHOULD interline some of the upcoming lines, the issue of longer trains is one that is kinda difficult to work around.
When it comes to quality transit, the F-word is the most important thing.
The F-word being 'frequency' of course.
Public transport needs to have excellent connectivity (integration) to other modes while being more competitive against the car in terms of door to door average speed and trip time. If public transport is significantly slower than driving for an equivalent door to door trip, then people will refuse to stop driving cars.
Great LA recap. I vote yes for a Regional Connector Demystify.
The K Line (Crenshaw/LAX) has so many issues, it's not even funny. First, the Centinela Ave crossing is going to get a rebuild before the for grade separation *before* the line opens apparently. Then, it's impossible to interline the K Line with the E Line because of downtown traffic congestion when the A Line is also involved. Plus there is no room for a portal for the K Line to join the E Line as the Expo/Crenshaw K Line platforms are built underground. I have several grudges against the contractors myself. The route should have been opened 2 years ago but utilities, missed measurements, safety lawsuits, fossils found in the Crenshaw District, and COVID rawdawgged the hell of the project. I lost interest and enthusiasm in the line. So I'm not looking forward to its extension into Hollywood.
I was so excited for the line...but the constant delays, grade separation proposed before the line is even built....its become the white elephant of recent LA transit construciton for me...
Now that the line is partly opened, that grade separation has still yet to be approved. They keep kicking the can on approval because they want it done, but it will cost a bloody fortune and also possibly shut down the line about a year after it fully opens, and they know that both will make them look stupid so they can't decide whether to do it or not.
@@Geotpf Realistically, never going to happen at least for another decade. The idiots should have done it during the initial construction. The best they could do is turn Centinela into a cul de sac. Otherwise, the city should face a lawsuit.
For better or worse, Los Angeles light rail and even bus rapid transit lines largely follow old interurban electric, streetcar, and passenger train lines. This helps limit the cost of rail extensions, but many important streets are served by heavily used bus routes, like Vermont.
Great video! Completely agree with your statements regarding Metrolink. It is a major missing piece in LA's transit expansion. On the lines where they own the infrastructure (I believe Antelope Valley, Orange County, San Bernardino, and Ventura County), there is no reason for anything less than electrified service every 15-30 minutes. With Southern California's traffic and sprawl, this system could easily carry hundreds of thousands of daily riders.
Metrolink only owns the San Bernardino line. All other lines use track owned by the freight companies. And pre-Covid, the San Bernardino line was quite frequent (schedules are still 25-35% less frequent than pre-Covid).
Metrolink badly needs electrification, complete double track and grade separation, and double decker EMUs. (ideally Stadler KISS). As well as better frequency.
While I don't live in LA, I have relatives who do and I visited them a few times prior to COVID. I have seen all the construction and although I'm happy to see transit systems getting extended, I believe that the planners should at least think some things more through.
Yep. Metro had its hands kinda tied behind their back when making it.
I think the great thing about the regional connector is not just someone taking the whole gold line and then continue all the way to Santa Monica but it is about destinations that are just a few stops from Downtown on one side to maybe the other side of Downtown. Those trips might be aftewards zero transfer, while they are now at least 1 transfer more.
Thank you for doing a video on LA. I really like their metro and have been following their rail expansions lately. I do agree with all the problems they have that you mentioned such as not enough grade separations, the Crenshaw line not going to the airport nor to Downtown, and especially bewildered about the people movers they are building for both the stadium and the airport. I also don’t like how the Sepulveda line and the East Valley line are separate lines. They really should’ve combined them since they both terminate so close together. The LA Metro is worse than a bowl of spaghetti, it a bowl of spaghetti that a child chopped up with a fork and mixed together; it’s a bunch of short lines that don’t really go anywhere significant and require multiple transfers to get to Downtown or other places of interest.
The thing that gets me about Los Angeles rail transit is that it is vastly undersized and vastly underperforming. The Los Angeles Metro would be pretty good for Boston and its suburbs, which are much more compact and have much lower total population, but for actual Los Angeles, you need nothing less than a souped-up version of the subway system that New York has (except put on elevated structures where possible), including 4 track lines with express trains, with light rail and bus feeders. And judging from the last schedules I looked up, Los Angeles Metrolink is far short of what you need in frequency and hours of service. Actually just checked again for 1 example -- no improvement. Los Angeles Union Station to Oceanside: trains depart at 07:58, 15:23, 16:30, 17:40, and 18:31. That's IT!? No wonder it doesn't get much ridership.
The LA Metro Blue Line is the busiest light rail line in the world. That's hardly underperforming.
Also note that along the Orange and Ventura Metrolink Lines (LOSSAN corridor), the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner duplicates service. For your example, there are additional trains at 6:10, 7:10, 10:10, 11:10, 12:10, 15:10, 17:10, 18:10, 19:10, and 22:20 from Union Station to Oceanside.
For shorter trips on the LOSSAN, other Metrolink lines duplicate the main Orange/Ventura lines. Antelope Valley trains duplicate Burbank to Union Station. 91/Perris Line duplicate Union Station to Fullerton. IE/OC line duplicates Orange to Oceanside.
@@Geotpf Ridership isn't the only aspect of performance -- how long it takes to get where you're going is another. When I rode the Blue Line back in the 1990s (and I haven't seen anything to suggest that it has improved since then), I had to wait a long time (over 20 minutes) and then be on it for a long time to get from the intersection with the Green and Blue Lines (was coming from the airport) to the intersection with the Red Line. As for Metrolink, depending upon Amtrak for duplication only works for 1 line, and that's assuming that you can use Metrolink tickets on Amtrak (the schedule I looked at didn't say anything about that, whereas Shore Line East schedules do say something about that, so it looks to me like you can't do that).
@@Lucius_Chiaraviglio The Pacific Surfliner fully duplicates two lines, as I stated (Orange and Ventura). The Blue Line has 10 minute headways, which is still covid-reduced.
@@Geotpf Okay, I should have said that depending upon 1 Amtrak line for duplication only works for 1 line unless you have 2 lines that are essentially the same or 2 lines end-to-end. As for Blue Line service, nice to hear that the service frequency is apparently greater than it was when I was there, but what about the speed once you do get on?
@@Geotpf Doesn't quite duplicate it. For example, the Surfliner doesn't stop at Tustin Station, which is less than a mile from my home. I can take Metrolink direct to and from LA Union when it's in service, but that ends at 6:31 weekdays and 4:30 weekends, just as Lucius said. I mean yeah, I could take the bus from Santa Ana, but it should stop at Tustin. I suspect once Tustin Legacy is fully developed, just south of Tustin Station, it would make for a pretty nice transit hub, but that's at least a decade off.
I think you have nailed the point that sorting out the core should be first priority. Although I cannot speak for Americans but for British cities, public transport system commonly get overwhelmed after line extension. London Overground and Manchester Metro are classic examples. They are the failing on their own success, where there are not enough capacity in the core section but no funding are available to alter those busy routes and stations.
Reminds me of Singapore's 2011 Jurong East (MRT i.e. subway/metro station) Modification Project (JEMP) that added 1 platform to that station to allow increased peak hour frequency of the North South line, which connects our north-western suburbs to the station (where the line terminates), where downtown-bound passengers are supposed to transfer to the East West line (that runs through that station). Problem is that the East West Line itself serves our western suburbs before coming to Jurong East station, & is already quite crowded with commuters by that time, so people who just alighted from the North South line sometimes have difficulty boarding. Some netizens are thus questioning the wisdom of having the North South line terminate there I remember.
You touched on it a bit here, but I’d definitely love to see a video on why the JFK AirTrain exists.
Me too! The A train and the 3 train should directly service JFK. Then G train and the N train should service LaGuardia. Its called having weak ass politicians. If i were mayor id eminent domain the NIMBY assholes in Astoria especially and force LGA to get those trains. Cuomo isnt as great as the bootlickers think he is
@@mrgooglethegreat At this point let's just hope we do not make more mistakes rather than fix the wrongs of the past. Astoria should be extended to LaGuardia instead of the AirTrain, they could have two stops, Terminal A and Terminal B/C, and it would serve all terminals instead of the AirTrain, which wouldn't connect to Ter. A.
In the distance future, If they could untangle JFK's trains, that would be great. Since the airports in a circle, they could build the station at the centre and have walkways to each terminal. They would still need the AirTrain to connect to the other train lines and transfer between terminals.
My guess it they either realized that was the most efficient as Howard Beach and Jamaica already existed and it wouldn’t be anywhere near direct as Howard beach is when crossing over to the Rockaways
@@metrofilmer8894 JFK doesnt upset me as much as LGA tho. I live off Ditmars in east elmhurst. Cuomos planning to block my view of the bay with an airtrain that makes zero sense to build. Id love to have the N and the G come to the airport. Then the whole city benefits and i wont have to drive to work in Brooklyn everyday. The new LGA looks amazing tho...im looking at it out the window now.
I feel the subway need to be finished in general in NYC tho. Its very much incomplete 100 years after its beginning. They've completed systems all around the world in no time. Airports in NYC deserve direct subway access. Id say leave the A by JFK in howard beach and push the 3 into the middle of the terminals like u said.
@@mrgooglethegreat In Singapore 1 of our lawmakers (Ellen Lee) was brave enough to call her voters 'selfish' (in 2011/2012) for opposing a nursing home to be built in her constituency. The opposers were disparaged as a "vocal minority" that would be 'dangerous' to accede to
Johnny Carson explained the bus problem in LA on his late nite TV show. "If you want to go to work by bus in LA, you better leave now". Problem for LA and many cities is that transit is radial oriented, if you don't work in center city you need to take one line into the center then another out to where yer goin'. When I worked in NYC my work location was the northern Bronx while I lived on Long Island. You can't get to the Bronx from downtown NY in the morning, it's a twenty mile journey on a three track el with all morning express services INTO the city on the old Lexington Av system that doesn't have a direct connection to Penn Sta. It would take about two hours to get to the nearest station then another hour on the bus to where I was going, I made that mistake one time. I could usually get there by car in an hour. A lot of folks in the city work in hospitals and schools not near a subway station and thus depend on their car for work travel in a reasonable amount of time.
The last streetcars ran in Los Angeles in March 1963, five months after Carson began hosting "The Tonight Show" (which then was broadcast out of New York). The first Metro line opened in mid-1990, nearly two years before Carson turned over hosting duties to Jay Leno. (The current host, Jimmy Fallon, moved the show back to Rockefeller Center a few years ago.)
The streetcars that shut down in '63 were trackless trolleys, similar to the Frankford Street 66 SEPTA line in Philadelphia.
This video is nice and all, but as someone who has lived in Los Angeles his whole life I think you are misunderstanding Downtown LA.
11:35. An affluent and progressive city? Los Angeles? Dorothy Parker called it 72 suburbs in search of a city. Retrofitting some concept of urbanity there is going to be an enormous undertaking.
Well politically LA is pretty progressive actually, on a political spectrum. But so is many 'suburbs' of large cities nowadays (NJ, CT, DE, RI, etc. are all safely 'progressive' states now despite them mostly being 'suburban'). Especially since the actual progressive political figures (AKA the Dem party) here in the US doesn't really take the position of 'city over suburbs', the only time you'll hear that being mentioned is usually the Republicans accusing the Democrats of 'killing the suburbs' and they're 'defending the suburbs', but when u look at it recently Democrats have been doing quite well politically in suburban areas. And of course I don't think the leading national figures would take the positions like 'suburbs (or I should say suburbia) are bad', or even 'we screwed up the last 50-100 years building up suburbs to how they look RN' (which is a position I'd fully agree, as well as most urbanists. Suburbs need to be an option for ppl who'd want a combination and balance of easy access to resources in a large metropolis and a quieter, more laid back lifestyle especially during weekends & holidays but obviously you actually need good transit, for example, to do that). However I don't think you need to support those ideas to be 'progressive' in the USA, this is even less important than supporting 'big government' (which is already not even a consensus among the Dems and the American left due to its association with socialism or even communism, and how much America have rejected and vilified the C & S words since the cold war at least).
LA has lots of pockets of density unlike let’s say Houston
Of course it’s an affluent (obv) and progressive city. That’s not even a question. Also Parker never said that about LA. She said that about Oakland. And for both cities, it’s an outdated cliche.
Let's no quote disgruntled 20th century new yorkers about L.A.... a very different L.A. than exists now, BTW.
I love how frequent the blue line ran on 3 car trains back in 2000's in the morning trains was running every 5 minutes. I don't think Metro will have capacity issues with 3 car trains if Metro went back to real frequent service.
FYI I will say the LAX line is underground and you will need to transfer anyways because South LA / Crenshaw wanted the line to be underground for about 50% of the time and the area where the transfer is taken place is dense and high traffic. Also, I said this already later but there will be a possibility for the LAX line to continue North towards Sunset Blvd. if you want to know why routes are made look at the old red car routes back in the day. Also metro link is used mostly for long distance routes and many of inner city lines are being used for LRT of old / abandoned train routes that were used for freight. Also once get DTLA you have more options for than the rest of the city. The Expo, LAX, and Long Beach line will be the first circular route in the city on top of proposed projects that might close the gaps. Hopefully, the newest approved federal funding for rail will help get more projects off the ground.
Most tourists fly into LA so they will most likely stay on Century Blvd mass of hotels and some new hotels are being built up currently for preparation the future and stadium events. SoFi (pronounced like Sci-fi) stadium and outlying complex infrastructure will also have hotels, luxury shopping, and etc. I live a block away from the LAX line and 10 minutes from the LAX. The LAX People mover similar to NYCs JFK ppl mover is closing in to LAX and a Las Vegas 3-story like rental structure transit center is being built as we speak. LA has a huge bus infrastructure which was running late before Covid hit and there is even a LA Times write up on it (LA Times moved from DTLA to be next to LAX/ Norwalk line). We will have wait to see if it will bounce back especially with high cost of ride-share apps and gas prices since I had to to drive to the Expo line to see events near DTLA which why I can’t wait for the LAX line to open up. Politics and NIMBYism are the biggest issues on top homelessness and lack of cleanliness being a deterrent to ridership. There were options to continue the LAX line down to Sunset/ Hollywood area and possibly the valley instead of going to DTLA which is already congested with other lines. On the other hand the LA Metro is funded by older affluent families who want a similar routes to the Red Cars back in the day but there are a lot of red tape and opposition. And as far as the purple line goes since I sometimes visit the UCLA area the core infrastructure is being built and seems to be on track to open along with the LAX Line. The pandemic has helped to get projects up to speed although the lax line is behind in schedule since the lax transit hub was running behind.
There isn't even good connectivity between the metrolink and metro. The LAX green line terminates only a mile or two from the Norwalk metrolink station. If only they had made that connection, people would be able to travel between Disneyland and LAX (if Metrolink would expand their pathetic service hours). Also, as someone who lives in Echo Park, I'm super disappointed that there are no plans for any sort of rapid bus or rail lines through the densely populated areas around here-- and in fact last year they actually cut three bus lines in my neighborhood. We no longer have a direct bus route to Union Station (704) and the number 2 bus now veers south at Alvarado St, never making it to downtown and reducing sunset blvd frequency dramatically. The 200 bus is gone. And frequency on the remaining lines remains pathetic like the 92 which only runs every 20 minutes at peak. The well-thought-out red express bus system has been dismantled for some reason and not replaced with anything. To those of us living in neighborhoods without any future plans of rail or BRT, we feel abandoned and betrayed.
No LAMTA rail system will probably ever go to Orange County, where Disneyland is.
As for the gap between the Green Line's Norwalk station and the Metrolink's Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs station, this has been an obvious problem for decades now. One major problem seems to be opposition from the city of Norwalk itself, as construction to connect the two would make quite a mess of the city. It would also cost more than $300 million, and currently has no funding.
@@Geotpf well that sucks. Yet they have no problem decimating neighborhoods for a freeway. The other issue, of course, is the Metrolink's shitty-ass schedule. Basically if you aren't working 9-5 in downtown LA, Metrolink is just not meant for you. Talk about a wasted resource.
You make a great point about extensions and capacity in the core. Take Bart here in the bay for example. They expanded so much into the burbs and didn't focus on its core as much as they should have. Now they did try twice but either Feinstein or Pelosi that declined funds for a second transbay tube as well as local merchants on Geary pushing back over fear of parking loss (like it's that serious). So again here we have the agency either pushing or not pushing for core capacity and local politics getting in the way of seeing those projects coming to fruition.
You talk about the peoplemover being inadequate for SoFi stadium, but I'm sure that has more capacity than the proposed gondola to Dodger Stadium!
Every single car-centric land of the world:
Hey, I do not know anything about how to build a public transport network, what should I do?
Hold my people moover...
Il trasporto pubblico negli Stati Uniti (con alcune strane eccezioni, ad esempio New York) fa' cosi' schifo che fa vedere il nostro molto criticato trasporto pubblico in Italia come se fosse ottimo ed efficiente.
Ad esempio: almeno abbiamo il Frecciarossa, o l'Italo - treni che possono viaggiare a 300 km/h per lunghi periodi di tempo.
Mentre negli Stati Uniti, c'e solo l'Acela Express, che per una distanza piu' o meno equivalente a Milano-Napoli, raggiunge piu' o meno i 250 km/h solo per 5 minuti, per un viaggio di 6-7 ore in totale.
@Luca Candido Anche se, almeno qui' in Campania nelle zoni rurali, purtroppo quasi tutti usano la macchina perche' i collegamenti autobus sono quasi completamente inesistenti.
Or monorail
There are a substantial number of potential viewers to whom "people mover" doesn't mean much. I googled it, but a lot of people wouldn't. And even having googled it, I'm still not clear why it's always a bad idea, if it is.
Yes on the demystified.
A demystified video on the Regional Connector would be cool, but I also think one on the commuter rail system would be neat as well.
Looking photos on the interent, at around 13:10, I have to agree with you. I love the stations on the B and D lines, and once the pandemic is no longer an issue, I'd love to visit Los Angeles and take photos of the B/D line stations. In fact that's the only thing I like about LA's public transport system.
I wish this were so good, sir. Sure Hollywood/Vine Station is really cute the first few times but I wish I could say they were truly nice. No bathrooms means the elevators become bathrooms. The stations are generally clean but they can feel very sterile -- at least until they are so packed that the lack of sound dampening and platform protection makes it feel more uncomfortable.
I'd be really curious how your visit turns out given how many hours I've spent waiting for trains underground at nearly every station on the Red/Purple line (sorry Vermont/Beverly).
At least carefully analysing on Google Maps, the reason why public transport in Los Angeles is crap is because effectively coverage of the metro and light rail system is almost non existent.
In fact, for a city that has a metro population of 18 million, I question whether building LRT / trams (with the exception of short local lines) is a good idea or not - if so many people are going to use it in such a big city, then I'm afraid only a proper metro (heavy rail as you guys in North America call) system just like the current B/D lines will work for Los Angeles.
Sure, it may be very expensive, but for such a big city, I have a feeling that LRT will not provide enough capacity, and that a full proper metro would be the only solution to properly reducing traffic issues.
Btw it's 10 million for the whole of LA county and 18 million for LA county plus Orange county, Ventura county (Thousands Oaks, Oxnard etc.) and Inland Empire of which both of the latter can be mistaken for being part of LA
What about Metrolink. Metrolink can upgrade and electrify their corridors and increase frequencies to S-Bahn level service.
@@mrrobot5963 In fact I think Metrolink should be fully electrified, with frequencies of every 15 to 30 minute all day Monday to Sunday, using Stadler KISS for the busiest routes and Bombardier Talent 2 for the least busy routes. In addition, a new City Tunnel should be built in Downtown Los Angeles
Also Metrolink would be fully or almost fully grade separated with removal of level crossings, and doubling of tracks on all lines.
To build an entirely underground Metro subway system that properly covered all of greater Los Angeles would cost about a trillion dollars. It's not even remotely feasible.
As an Angeleno, I can say that the LA rapid transit system suffers from a lack of a master plan and a lack of foresight. For one thing, the transit agency itself is responsible for both Los Angeles city and the entirety of Los Angeles County (oh, and Los Angeles city has it's own little separate free bus system from LA Metro). As a result, they have to spread rapid transit to all the tax paying areas regardless of whether it makes the most sense. The urban core of the region (roughly the area bounded by the 101 and 134 freeways on the north, the 710 on the east, the 105 or the 91 on the south and the ocean/405 north to the 101 again on the west) is left without a dense enough network to distribute riders going anywhere but downtown. Downtown LA by the way, is a M-F 9-5 destination and is one of several major employment centers. Without a dense distribution network in central LA, there is little incentive for someone to ride a train with perhaps a transfer already required, then to have to transfer to a bus for that last 2 or 3 or 5 miles in heavy traffic. The bus should cover the last mile in a dense city, not the last 5. It isn't worth the effort.
The lack of planning is quite serious. LA Metro doesn't really think with the entire network in mind. Because they lack a master plan for a completed network, they are left wondering where to extend each line and then solve that one extension without considering the whole network. For example, the Crenshaw line's norther terminus is at the Expo line for now. Where to extend it? North to Hollywood along the LaBrea corridor in a standard grid pattern? Slightly west to Fairfax then back east to Hollywood? Or even further west to West Hollywood then swinging back east to Hollywood? This would be an easy question to answer if LA Metro already had a vision for the corridors in the central city before building a very circuitous route. Is there an east-west Santa Monica Blvd corridor plan? Is there a north-south LaCienega corridor? Is there a Venice Blvd corridor? These corridors are all part of the grid in the central city that would serve as a distribution network for the entire system. The Sepulveda line is a factor to account for also. Would West Hollywood be better served with an east west line connecting Santa Monica to Hollywood with connections to the Sepulveda line, the Crenshaw line on LaBrea, and the Red Line in Hollywood. Metro should already know the answer to these questions to direct their planning. West Hollywood wants a rail line at any cost and they don't seem to care where it goes. This isn't good planning.
You brought up the subway lines that end downtown without extending east. The previous transit authority drew up the original corridor plan in the 70s that showed the Wilshire subway extending east to Whittier. Instead it is going to be an extension of the East LA light rail, necessitating a transfer to travel the corridor. It showed the Sepulveda line extending from the top of the San Fernando Valley to Long Beach. These are natural transit corridors in the city that serve multiple markets and commutes: N San Fernando Valley to South San Fernando Valley, San Fernando Valley to West LA or the South Beach, West LA to South Bay or Long Beach, South Bay to Long Beach. But, because of a lack of a master vision by the new transit agency, the Sepulveda corridor will be divided into three, if not four segments: From the northern end of the San Fernando Valley to Ventura Blvd as light rail, from Van Nuys to potentially LAX as heavy rail (overlapping with the light rail), from LAX to Torrance as light rail, and from Torrance to Long Beach as heavy rail, light rail, or BRT? For most people, traversing that corridor will already require one transfer and for some two transfers.
Of course, as you mentioned, a completed network would render the light rail lines as overcrowded.
Even when all the current planned extensions are built, the central core will still be underserved by rapid transit rendering the sparse network as a 3rd choice for most residents to use (after driving and uber). That Metro is even considering a monorail, another incompatible system requiring separate yards, staff, technicians, machinery, management, procurement, etc. shows you the lack of foresight and planning. The city core should be subway but there are a lot of political idiots that prevented that and is why we have all this light rail on 60 mile lines. But that isn't an excuse anymore going forward.
And there is more but this is enough to give you an idea of the challenges of planning and building transit in LA
Yes, LA has come a long way but it's haphazard and it handicaps whatever ultimate system is built. LA's rapid transit will never equal those of the great cities. It's too bad because LA deserves a world class transit system.
Would you be able to do a Minneapolis/Twin Cities episode? For a midwestern metro their plans seem rather ambitious - I'd absolutely love to hear your analysis and criticism!
yes please!
Highly disagree they rely way too much on "rapid" buses that run in traffic. All of their light rail miss the areas that need it the most. It looks good on a map but needs so much more.
Reece if you ever need to talk to someone bout Minneapolis I could go on for hours about it and I could give knowledge you could use
LAs network is light-years beyond ours. And Seattle a similarly sized city is the same
Maybe you could cover San Diego Trolley's new Mid-coast trolley next.
It's an upcoming 11 mile extension of the blue line connecting Downtown San Diego with UCSD and the surrounding University Town Center edge city. The bad: The current Downtown to UCSD bus route isn't all that busy of a route, and much of the route runs through low density areas, hinting that ridership may struggle on the new light rail extension. The good: it's a double tracked, fully grade-separated, fully electrified extension with low-floor LRVs and headways of 7.5 minutes during rush hour--not too shabby compared to other American light rail. They're also re-routing bus routes to complement the new rail extension.
San Diego Trolley did have an impressive, pre-COVID ridership that rivaled Portland's light rail. I believe San Diego's very low crime rate is key to San Diego Trolley's success--people aren't afraid to use transit because of crime unlike in cities like San Francisco.
San Francisco has had a one-seat, fully grade separated ride direct from Downtown SF to SFO's International Airport since 2003. Even much sprawlier DFW and Atlanta have one-seat rides direct from their airport terminals to Downtown.
The BART system in San Francisco has a lot of routes so most of the time you don’t have to transfer however on weekends it is different. Offering one seat rides works better if you have long but few lines instead.
In Atlanta you would need something like 16 different routes to make it possible to travel between any 2 stations without needing to transfer.
In Chicago, both airports have an L train that goes from the airport to downtown. You'd think major cities would have the same.
As someone who lives in LA and rides at LA Metro are trains are three train sets sometimes two train sets and not five train sets. here in the LA area we also have many other transit agencies besides Metro for example you have the Long Beach Transit foothill Transit Torrance Transit Montebello bus line and several others
Which is what I said in the video!
The LA region should honestly just amalgamate a bunch of its cities into LA proper. 88 different cities and way too many agencies that could all be collaborating instead of competing
@@davidking8472 or simply grant power to an overarching regional transport agency that governs all transit planning and operations, like Transport for London, HK MTR, or Metrolinx in Toronto
@@davidking8472 Exactly it should be one regional municipality divided into large boroughs like New York City. The only exception would be the schools which would have local school districts controlled by local school committees but fully funded by the municipality.
From a new viewer:
A great video! Gives a better breakdown and general critique of the metro rail system as a whole.
Still don't think the Crenshaw should/can be interlined with the Expo; the Expo heading into DTLA is already at-grade and slow af, especially at Flower/Washington. As it stands, I am very happy to transfer at Expo/Crenshaw or Willowbrook/Rosa Parks to get from LAX to DTLA. It would be better for the Crenshaw line to continue up San Vicente and Santa Monica to service the one and only neighborhood that is actually begging for rail - WeHo.
Metro tracks on the freeway exist in two (three counting BRT) places around LA and everyone agrees they're deafening and depressing. The stations elsewhere are pretty aight. They're flashy and have nice public art (as all transit stops should have), but some of them are in desolate places that aren't well-connected to activated streets. I'm glad you hate the Sepulveda monorail as much as we do (see above reasons). I am hoping to God that the Inglewood and LAX people movers can be combined to save Los Angeles 100 years of embarrassment over two similar systems separated only by bureaucracy and 2 miles of Century Blvd. As for the bus, LACMTA has already embarked on the NextGen bus plan, but so far it seems the plan is mostly rebalancing the network to boost service on high-ridership corridors while pruning some less-used routes.
I do agree with your hope that core services should be paid for and built now before costs increase, but knowing LA, we're gonna half ass everything and go for minimal cost savings for a huge trade-off in quality. LACMTA tends to dream in the long-term and decide in the short-term lol. The one project I would have appreciated more discussion on is the large amount of public support for an HRT subway down Vermont Avenue to South LA, which would support one of the workhorses of the whole bus system and provide quality transit to a large underserved community.
Real estate trends will likely gentrify Vermont corridor. I lived in a gentrifying area of LA that were mostly immigrant and transit dependent. I used to take packed busses to Downtown. Gentrification pushed poorer economically out, now the area is full of hipsters in expensive apartments or affluent homeowners. Ridership is lower on busses. Cars are mostly, tesla, prius or german brands instead of decades old Hondas. Problem with creating transit for a certain group, is never certain anymore. At least for LA which has widespread Gentrification.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the new subway cars being delivered to the red and purple lines. Those seem like an important fact since LA is building such a modern system and unlike the light rail, the current subway cars have NEVER been replaced until now
They are from CRRC tho
2 years later. 2023.
Some of the projects you talked have materialized, and gaining good traffic. Partially thanks to $6/gal gas price.
Orange Line (now G line) is still a bus, but electrified.
Great video. Thanks.
Whenever you see me in the comments making fun of America's general broken idea of public transit investment, and how useless light rail can be when it's badly designed, I'm always thinking about LA. The LA Metro is a joke. Any At-Grade lines like the Gold Line are often run at a speed in between the Muni Metro and the C-Train but are meant to cover over twice the distance. I'm not even knocking at-grade light rail systems, as Phoenix has an absolutely fantastic one, which is fast, efficient, and designed appropriately. Like everything, LA just can't get Transit right because they really aren't doing the necessary research to build a propper transit system. Say what you want about all the rediculous studdies Canadian cities go through before building transit, but it's kept Translink lean, efficient, and well designed. LA Metro just likes to throw money at a problem thinking that capital is the ultimate solution to any problem, and then they end up with one of the slowest light rail systems in North America.
They never should've gotten rid of their streetcar network. LA once had the best public transit system on Earth. They were envied by Europe and Asia. Oh well.
@@mrrobot5963 thanks GM 😔
The problem is that the metro area is so spread out that even by building 50 amazing light rail lines, the average person would still live a few kilometres away from the next station.
A few ballistic missiles from North Korea and just rebuilding the entire city from scratch would be the cheapest option to fix that.
You should take a look at Arrow in Redlands if you don't know about it yet. Basically Metrolink was handed a transit project complete with pre-ordered DMUs (their first multiple units). It should be interesting to see what their response is to having 21st century rolling stock.
I am pretty sure I mentioned it! Its a good looking project!
Connecting Palmdale, Lancaster and California City can help expand Los Angeles further up... Better for everyone in Los Angeles to get these things done.
They are already connected via Metrolink and will be serviced by the high speed rail system. They are way too far away to be connected to Metro Rail subway or light rail.
Can't agree with you more about transfers. Even in TOKYO, I'll often opt for the bus for certain routes.... like transferring between Narita and Haneda. Although there is now a direct link that occasionally runs, most of the trips require a transfer or two.... so I just take the bus... IN TOKYO!!! And I'm not the only one. Convenience is KEY.
I think safety is the biggest issue on the LA Metro now. I’ve traveled on it recently and I don’t feel safe. The trains aren’t clean and even the newest lines don’t feel safe to me.
Defs keen on a demystified for the regional connector
Calgary could fix capacity by improving frequency too
Not sure if converting the orange line to light rail would allow for connecting to downtown as the red line going from north hollywood to down town is heavy rail.
The problem with LA is that it is unlike a most cities in the world in which traditional transportation systems work. You have pockets of high density with lower density between them. I think in the central LA area it makes absolute sense. But further out density drops and rides become longer for less people.
My guess is that as lines are built, density along those lines will increase as we are now seeing along its L Line to and E line.
Definitely a work a progress and one to keep an eye on. I think in time it will finally stick the landing, but for now it needs to keep on trying.
My main critique about their future plans is the East San Fernando Light Rail Transit Project. It would force riders to make 2 transfers in order to get to Downtown LA and add to the already overcrowded G Line. I would have extended the project southeast along Van Nuys Boulevard and Ventura Boulevard to Universal/Studio City Station.
3 car trainsets shouldn't matter if there is enough frequency right?
Great video! The whole 2 people mover thing is an absolute disaster, and for sure the majority of people aren't going to ride to games there lol. I know it's not really fair to compare LA and New York, but seriously the Mets stadium has the 7 and LIRR lol
I don’t think it’s unfair though! Surely there are other sites they could have used where they’d be right on rail! NY is a great case study for this!
I also don't think it's unfair either. Both are megacities with metro populations of almost 20 million, and both are well visited by tourists
@@RMTransit I’m not sure you can say that because real estate is high there , and why would you think you can just plop a stadium by any transit line, as if LA is some fully suburban area with swaths of land available.
@@gabrielstravels it is unfair when you compare the densities of both those cities . New York has the highest density of any city in the US by far( and it’s not close) and the L.A has one of the lowest densities in the U.S . This is common knowledge.
@@apluto12-z3e densities may be completely different but the population is extremely similar for both, so at the end of the day, you will still need a full metro system in both. Maybe in NYC you'd build shorter lines with stations every 600-700m, whilst in L.A. you'd build longer lines with stations every 2-3 km
Going from living in the Tokyo metro region to LA was a heck of rude awakening 💀💀
If you're up for looking at a smaller city, can you look at Halifax? Both the redesign that's been implemented over the past few years, and the BRT/Rapid ferry proposal
Thanks for the video! If the Metro and the city were really serious about the Metro they would really work on the security. All of the trains can be dangerous, especially at night. The cars on the Red line solitary while in motion, the police can’t walk car to car. Criminal types watch what ever car the police are occupying and they take the next car over. That is a huge security oversight. The cameras are obviously not live monitored. Los Angeles is a car town and we are now generations deep into the auto habit. With security in mind as well as destination. Most places are easier to get to via car. Los Angeles is no longer a walkable city. South Los Angeles to Torrance (Southbay) is mostly a pain. The estimated time from SoLA to Torrance Memorial hospital via Metro is 2 hours with a 22 minute walk.
Even extending that SoFi Stadium people mover to a Green (C) Line station, allowing multiple pathways, would make that piece more effective. And if the Crenshaw for some reason can't make the turn to join the E, at least have it go up to Wilshire to also meet the Purple (D).
One of the plans in measure M is to extend the Crenshaw line up to Wiltshire. It not expected to happen for a while but they have a plan for doing it
I am trying to think how it would be if LA had kept the beautiful and extensive Pacific Electric Railway network....What a big mistake that was to tear evrything down!
With all due respect, the Pacific Electric peak ridership was 1920. By the time the 1950’s rolled around, the system was a shell of its former self, and most lines were already closed (the last PE line was LA/Long Beach, closing on April 9, 1961).