The Transit Project LA Should Do That No One Is Talking About
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Footage in Video:
@AlohaRobertTravelShow :
• Full journey on the Me...
@flattrain5834 :
• Metro E Line Cab View:...
@metrorailinlosangelesprodu4407 :
• The Grand Opening Of L...
@freddysanders2826 :
• LA Metro G Line (Orang...
@Crizmetro :
• Metro Los Angeles A & ...
@FanRailer :
• LA Metro Rail [B][D] R...
@KTLA5 :
• Deadly stabbing at dow...
@losangelesmetro :
• Preview: Riding the K ...
#transit #losangeles #train #urbanism #cities #metro
This would really aid lower income communities who struggle to keep up with LA living cost
The problem with public transport in the US is that it is seen as a welfare program and not as an essential for all classes.
Here in Australia all classes of people use our public transport system. We all have cars, but can leave them at home when we commute. Our politicians are thus held accountable for making sure that our public transport agencies give a good service. No one here would ever be concerned about whether public transport system serves poor people. They want it to serve all people.
@@MrToryhere I agree with this so much. I'm no defender of socialism at all because I firmly believe that what is best for all people naturally helps the working class the most. People always think it's one or the other, which is a mistake.
@@alexanderrotmenszthe reality is that public transit is social spending. An Uber CEO will never benefit from better public transit. Nillionaire investory investing into fintech transportation startups will be losing big with decent public transit. Social spending inherently hurts the richest, because the richest get rich by keeping the working class under control and keeping them poor.
@@MrToryherethat's not true, there's a trainline ran by a different company(Amtrak) called Metrolink that has stations from union station towards all of socal and has various white collar workers commute to downtown. I see people of all walks in that specific line, a stark comparison from Metro lines.
@@MrToryhereyeah cause australia is the public transport expert😭 the bias is insane you guys are ranked equally as bad as the us everytime
From my understanding, the original plan actually was to have what is now the G/Orange line as an extension of the B/Red line subway, but voters got spooked by a methane explosion and passed a law preventing old transit funds from being used for subway construction. Newer funds like Measure M don't have the same restrictions, which is why M was so critical for the D/Purple line subway extension to get started. I'm not exactly sure why they couldn't just use LRT for the Orange line from the start, or bring the Red line tracks above ground after North Hollywood to get around the "subway" restriction, but your proposal was definitely considered at some point.
Thanks for letting me know! Haven't heard anything about that until now.
The methane explosion at Fairfax and light rail in North Hollywood inspired two different laws. Fairfax was a federal prohibition preventing tunneling along Wilshire by cancelling funds, and G line was a state law preventing construction of a train of any kind along the now G line. Both laws inspired by NIMBY yowling, both laws repealed.
the law literally made it illegal for rail to run in that old ROW in the valley. the reason it's BRT line is because a bus isn't a train, legally speaking. personally I agree with the video's idea, but you could also make the G line light rail, extend it east, and extend the B line above ground north and aggressively rezone to create it's own ridership
it's a little more complicated than that. The methane explosion immediately led to a ban on tunneling in the mid-city area along the route the subway line was supposed to go, hence why it now goes up Vermont. Then there was a ban on using Measures A and C for subway projects because of a combo of the cost overruns seen on the IOS, many large construction mishaps (the biggest being the fire under the Hollywood Freeway in DTLA and the Hollywood Blvd Sinkhole), and some *ahem NIMBY's and the HOA's* SFV groups pushing for and somehow passing a ban on ANY above ground rail construction in the SFV. Out of all of these only the Mid-City tunneling ban and the SFV above ground rail ban were the only ones to be repealed. AFAIK the subway ban for Measure A/C funds is still on the books
The good news is that a "subway" would be the worse option here. Slap some tracks down on the existing right of way and bring the existing line up to the surface. It'll be way cheaper than any alternative. And to make sure it gets done, lobby for a new anti-NIMBY law in the name of housing crisis and need for more affordable transit. Then get building. Choo Choo!
Great concept, but the Valley is notorious for *NOT* wanting elevated rail. Maybe that opinion has lessened throughout the years, but it is something that has been a major pushback for decades.
You're right about that. The G Line in certain spots is truly in its own corridor rather than just in the middle of the street, which helps. Also there's plenty of elevated freeways in the valley so I always find that argument pretty funny. But if Metro is really going to build bridges for the G-Line in this decade, then I think laying rail on eventually can be possible.
@@alexanderrotmenszThe G line was originally designed as a light rail line, but the local community opposed it which is why it's a BRT instead, but Metro has always wanted to turn it into a light rail.
If I remember correctly, there was huge pushback from religious groups about them not crossing the tracks on certain holy days. I'm not kidding. It was something like that. It might have been a conservative Jewish group.
Now, decades later, they want light rail and complain why the valley is ignored.
Metro trains should have high signal priority.
@@SigmaRho2922 LA Metro is studying giving signal prioritization to light rail lines. Though I've read that the signal lights would need to be replaced to implement the technology. We'll see. I hope they do. It's long overdue.
@@mrxman581 that is partially true. The G Line ROW was actually supposed to be the B Line, but community opposition to an elevated and the cost led to it being changed to LRT. Then LRT was opposed because of it running at grade, which AFAIK was opposed by the Jewish community on Chandler because of a fear it would cut off pedestrian access routes. I can't remember if they were conservative, but that is what I remember from that chapter in Railtown.
It's crazy to think how much better transit in LA would be if the city/county hired people like you to be in charge. Or at the very least if the people in charge decided to listen to people like you.
I disagree. E line should be sped up, but E extension and Sepulveda line should absolutely be built. IDK how large the Orange Line ROW is, but if it was built to be turned into light rail, that’s how it should be done. The video doesn’t go into reasons as to why light rail is slower than heavy rail on average in LA, nor does it mention that the average speed is closer to 25mph than 30. Misleading!
Thank you so much!
@@indisciipline The B line having an average speed of around 34mph is very easily accessible information.
+ brick man 409 SHHEEITT! Just imagine what transit would look like if the Pacific Electric Red Cars and the Los Angeles Railway Yellow Cars were still in full operation....
@@alexanderrotmenszthe B line's average is 34 mph because it speeds up under the Hollywood hills. If you look at the section from Hollywood Highland to Union Station the average speed is 28mph. For comparison the former gold line from Union Station to Sierra Madre Villa had an average speed of 26.5mph on the former Blue line had an average speed of 22mph.
You have my subscription. We need more LA-Based transit RUclipsrs. I must disagree re: the Sepulveda Pass line. It is probably the most necessary line Metro is planning.
I hope they don't screw it up and pick a monorail. True, the Disney monorail is a success but one only has to go to Las Vegas or Jacksonville Florida to see examples of failed monorails.
@@edwardmiessner6502And what about the one in Seattle?!
100%. Few things about LA frustrate me more than the unfulfilled promise of the LA Metro.
Patience. It's a relatively young system by comparison. Only 30 years old. NYC, Paris, London, Chicago are around 100 or more.
@@theexmann granted, but the decision-making seems incompatible with a system that looks like those other cities over the next 70 years.
@@seyi8206It MUST be understood that Los Angeles has the WORST transit history of ANY city in the entire nation.
The plan for the Red Line is actually to extend it to Burbank Airport. The Orange Line will be converted into light rail (that was always the plan and it's being grade-separated) but it will extend east through Burbank and Glendale to hit the A Line in San Gabriel Valley creating an East-West link between the valleys (which is necessary since currently you'd have to go all the way into downtown and then back out along the Red Line).
I would support this idea, but it's wishful thinking. Also, I like the idea of the G Line as a Light Rail Line with the potential of extending it through Eagle Rock to Pasadena.
I don't think travel time versus driving is even worth worrying about. A car is almost always going to be faster, door-to-door, in a place like LA. Commuter Rail(Metrolink) is the only public transport that can consistently compete with the car, and even then it falls flat in terms of last mile.(Most folks are driving to/from the stations) The main appeal of public transit in Los Angeles as a whole is cost and less stress. One thing to note is that if Los Angeles had kept it's original streetcar system, the light rail system would've probably been even slower because it wouldn't have many of the grade of separations the current system has.
Traffic going into LA from the valley is much more significant than between the valley, Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena. I agree it’s a great connection for down the line, but I support the idea of maximizing more important corridors first before covering more secondary ones. And you’re right about journey times generally speaking, but I definitely think metro has to be much more competitive than it is outside it’s subway lines to get more riders. The speed being so slow is having a very negative effect.
We've got exactly the same problem here in Brussels... To get to Brussels Expo (showgrounds) for example, driving is nearly always faster, sometimes it's even twice as fast. The only moment where public transport becomes competitive is when there is heavy traffic on the roads, in that case driving and public transport take about the same time.
I agree. It's not only about how fast you can get somewhere. The problem with LA Metro, historically, has been how long it takes to get where you want to go. However, that is not necessarily the same thing as how fast a given line is. The opening of the Regional Connector proves that. The lines remained basically at the same speed and frequency but now you can get a hell of a lot faster from East LA to Santa Monica. That results in the E Line now being good enough to entice drivers from the Eastside to go to Santa Monica even during the weekend when it's still faster to drive. Why? Because now the E line is convenient enough making it a truly viable option to driving. It's a more stress free ride, gets you there in a decent amount of time, and you don't have to pay for parking or gas. And the E line will only get quicker because the headways will be reduced to every 8 minutes starting in December.
BRT is planned from Pasadena to North Hollywood, but the route isn't going to be super-direct. Basically down Glenoaks to Brand, and then all the way down to Broadway to Eagle Rock and then Pasadena. I think this follows the historic route.
@@theexmann woahhhhh i didn't know about the E line headways getting reduced to 8 minutes!! so exciting 💃
The green line has actually been fully grade separated from opening to current being entirely in the 105 median and elevated
Exactly....in the median of a freeway which isn't that pleasant to get to/wait in.
@@concertino58 all they need to do to fix it is enclose the platforms in glass but metro hasn’t seemed to make any plans for this yet
Yes this is true, apologies for not being more exact. However, as said by @concertino58, definitely isn't very convenient haha.
@@alexanderrotmensz I’m aware from experience as you literally cannot walk to the Norwalk station
@@alexanderrotmenszYes, LA Metro needs to install those platform security doors that would help tremendously with the noise level. They also need to do that on the few stations of the A line in the middle of the 210.
stockholm is a much denser then la beause it is squeed between river sea and mountains. it not really a far comparision.
The argument with the "low density" is honestly a bit of a strawman argument, as Berlin, Germany has a similar population density of LA (4,126/sqkm for Berlin vs 3,206.29/sqkm for LA)
Yeah LA is more dense than people realize, especially in the urban core of the city
SSHHEEEITT!
Just look at old construction photos of the NYC elevated extensions into the outer boroughs; the areas around the stations were totally empty when the lines started service.
I have actually been saying this all along, when they were first building the THEN "Orange Line", that it should have been a rail line, and an extension of that was THEN the Red Line, bringing the Red Line all the way to Warner Center, and eventually, to Chatsworth. But here is another thing Metro should do. To keep with their "one seat ride" theme that had them build the Metro Connector, so the A Line and the E Line could PASS THROUGH Downtown LA rather than end there, and then continue on their journeys on the other side of Downtown LA, the Red Line (B Line) should be extended beyond Union Station, and ultimately replace the proposed West Santa Ana Branch line. After Union Station, this heavy rail Red Line (B Line) should follow the LA River riverbed up to the point where the right of way that the future West Santa Ana Branch Line is suppose to ride in, crosses the LA River riverbed, at which point the Red Line (B Line) can then follow the railroad right of way all the way to Artesia, which would be instead of the West Santa Ana Branch line. Perhaps the line can continue passed where it was supposed to end in Artesia, and it can end at Disneyland instead, creating a way for people to get to Disneyland without their cars and without having to pay for expensive parking! This would create a heavy rail Red Line (B Line) that goes from Chatsworth all the way to Disneyland, and it would be consistent with Metro's "one seat ride" plan of rail lines passing through, rather than ending in, Downtown LA, eliminating transfers, and instead of having separate lines (B Line and West Santa Ana Branch Line), it could be all tied together as one line!
ha! wouldn't that be a one seat ride from universal's theme park to disney's? inb4 nimbyism from film companies
Love this and it could continue past Disneyland and the Convention Center to head to the John Wayne Airport.
(stopping near Knott's Berry Farm/Buena Park Mall would also be wise)
Is it legally forbidden to give public transport automatic priority at traffic lights in the state of California or federally? This would be a fairly easy to implement and cost effective solution for most of the problems with the existing light rail lines.
I don't think that's true, but worth investigating.
I think point 1 about the general lack of cleanliness and safety on trains is because of point 2 that the end to end travel times are poor (so anyone with a choice drives).
We can obviously do more than one thing at a time, but to me the hardest thing is improving land use around stations. If that land use improves everything else will follow.
Land use in LA is really bad, regardless of TOD or not. There are lots of places where more buildings can be squeezed in, but the city is going the other direction and more places are going abandoned.
To be fair the ridership from 2019 has to do the fact the A Line was shut down most of the year for renovations. Despite rail was still declining in 2019, ridership would’ve been around 100-105M at the most if A Line was never shut down in the first place.
I think a big problem is that we Americans are completely oblivious about how good basic transit service is in other developed countries.
Our investment into our systems is downright embarrassing.
Los Angeles is such beautiful place but it is hard to enjoy when you're always in a car. Hoping for good things for you guys from up here in the Bay Area.
The car-highway -oil industry bribe our congresspeople with campaign donations to fight trains and public transit projects in favor of private cars.
I literally have this as a plan in every single LA transit expansion Plans I do for fun! Thank you for highlighting this low hanging fruit option for extension of the B line!
Yes, this option has been discussed ever since the G line was proposed as a rail line. The reason it was never given serious consideration was the massive elevated superstructure required to completely grade separated. Both residents and businesses didn't want that. Thwre has historically been huge NIMBYism in the SFV.
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if LA Metro actually would prefer to extend the B line as you suggest.
I live on the Eastside and have attended several LA Metro community input meetings on the extension if the E line to Whittier. At ine point LA Metro was proposing a route down Garfield Blvd that would be completely elevated from Pomona to Washington Blvd and it was aggressively rejected by the community.
Another example of that was an initial proposal for running an elevated heavy rail line down Wilshire Blvd because it could be built faster and cheaper than a subway. It was also soundly rejected especially by businesses in this case.
So, no, a completely elevated heavy rail kine down the middle of a commercial street will never happen in LA.
BTW, all of LA's light rail lines are partially grade separated, and the C line is fully grade separated too.
LA Metro is working on other ways to improve capacity over the long run. One is implementing signal prioritization across the system, but that will require replacements of traffic lights and won't be cheap. They would have to phase it in over time. Another is to increase the frequency of the trains. LA Metro announced a couple of months ago that this month they would be reducing the frequency of both the subway and the A and E lines. By reducing frequency I mean the trains would ve coming more often. Then a longer term solution is to grade separate the WYE at Flower and Washington which is limiting how often trains can run.
One other thing, you say that the E line could actually be faster than driving but only during rush hour which I agree with 190%. I actually tested it. And the E line from Santa Monica to East LA Indiana station took 1:05. Driving that same distance took about 1/2 hour longer on a Friday at about 5:30pm.
However, do you know what today is considered to be the window for rush hour traffic along the 10, 5, and 405? It's between 6-8 hours total per day. Between 3-4 hour window in the morning and evening. So taking the E line in this example could benefit many nore people than you think 5 days a week. I used to drive from East LA to Westwood 5 days a week and the rush hour traffic window has only widen over the years. Sorry for the long post 😊
No need to apologize about the long post! Love the discussion.
On the first point, most of the G Line runs on its own alignment rather than in the middle of a commercial street. There's a couple of exceptions in the east valley, so perhaps cut and cover tunneling will have to happen there, sort of like on the K Line.
And on that last point, I can definitely see how it would be faster more often from East LA, as getting through downtown is just awful in the car. But for those west of downtown, the E line hardly ever saves time, but no wonder they want to extend the line east as that's where the current benefit of the line lies.
I thought reducing the frequency means trains come LESS often: "The frequency of the MBTA Red Line Ashmont Trains will be reduced from 1 train every 5 minutes to 1 train every 15 minutes."
@@edwardmiessner6502 Yes, it depends on how it's worded and context. It can go either way depending on whether you're talking about how often the train arrives or the time between train arrivals.. I've started to use the term headways instead. So saying reducing or increasing headways means the same thing to everyone. One is more and one is less.
@@edwardmiessner6502 Frequency is the number of trains per hour (tph) while headway refers to the time interval between trains. So if a train came every 10 minutes, the headway would be 10 minutes while the frequency would be 6 trains per hour. Conversely, if a line receives say, 12 trains per hour, the average headway between trains would be 5 minutes. So actually the word "headway" would be more appropriate in that context
Stockholm also has an extensive regional rail network with frequent service
With Metrolink (LA's regional service) upping its frequency in the next few years, it will be interesting to see how many riders it will bring over to LA Metro. Currently Metrolink on its own can hardly crack 10 mil pre-Covid. A very good point you make though and it would be interesting to see a deeper cooperation of service between Metro and Metrolink.
@@alexanderrotmenszMetrolink needs to be re-created into a service very similar to the LIRR and Metro-North in the New York City area; grade separated and completely electrified. The present diesel powered service just doesn't cut it!
L.A. isn't Stockholm. We're not a small, dense, stable slow growth city spread out over islands. Consider how well Stockholm residents are serviced by their system and how close people live to stations and compare that to L.A. County residents. It would cost trillions to duplicate such a system here.
@@77Catguy Just HALF of what's already been wasted on the stuperhighways in the area would be enough to cover virtually ALL initial costs....
@@CraigFThompson I would dispute that claim, certainly for an area the size of L.A. County. Transit projects here aren't realized until years after their promised completion dates, always at substantially higher expendatures than they were bid on as well. Don't forget the other dangers of public transit: violent crime, dangerous drug fumes, and endless doomsday pandemics--not to mention overasll inconvenience, especially in emergencies, bad weather conditions, etc..
There are young Metro systems that move a lot of people, but none is located north of the Rio Grande, I am talking about the Mexico City metro, São Paulo metro, and Santiago metro, they are very young system that was built slowly, most starting from the 1980s and 1970s and is better than LA metro system. I just came to the conclusion that Americans can't plan metro system well, they don't want to give up on car dependency, and even like it and they don't have an idea how to manage such a system.
This sounds like an interesting proposal. I agree with all of your arguments and your reasoning seems sound. I don't really have skin in the game, as I don't live in LA, but as a transit enthusiast I do hope to see better utilization of transit in the US overall.
It's a shame that LA is spending so much to build so much (decent) transit, but has such low ridership. My personal opinion kind of aligns with your argument, that frequency and speeds are what's limiting ridership. In addition though, I think that car centric design plays a big role, as it's really uncomfortable being in the city without a car, even if it's technically possible. With more bike infrastructure, and demand for walkability increasing, these things might solve themselves, but service frequency is going to need to increase to make it truly worth it.
The main issue with LA Metro has been that it's not comprehensive enough yet. Cities like NY and Chicago are around 100 years old. LA Metro's first modern light rail line opened in 1990 and the first subway line in 1993. That's only around 30 years ago so it's going to take some time. However, LA Metro will be at the cusp of that point by 2028. It will finally be just comprehensive enough to begin attracting single drivers away from their cars, and/or convincing younger people not to feel they have to buy a car to get around LA. And, by that matter, our aging population might feel more comfortable using it too instead of driving. And in the process eliminate all those car related expenses.
We used to have a really good public transit system before the 1950s. Pacific Electric served the entire Southland and I could theoretically go from my home to downtown in a single trip. But then it was wiped out over the years though LA Metro has been reviving a lot of the old routes.
This + Send it down Vermont all the way to the sea to replace whatever the J?/Silver Line is supposed to be
The reason why the orange line is a BRT is because of the Robbins Bill named by former state senator Alan Robbins that didn't allowed light rail. In 2014, the former state governor Jerry Brown reversed that decision in 2014. Much of the attention is now on the East San Fernando Transit Corridor and Sepulveda Transit Corridor which will changed enormously to connect the Valley to the Westside. A big game charger for all of LA.
In Van Nuys, there has been steady growth of density with multi-housing projects with 5-6 storied buildings. It's part of the TOC which creates density along the rail lines. Seriously, the valley is going though major shifts into a multi-mobility area in 20 years.
I agree, I feel like a lot of these back-of-the-napkin dream plans completely miss what it took to get stuff developed at the outset and instead look at a map of some European city, superimpose it onto Los Angeles and say "Gosh, let's just make LA into Stockholm!" I am very much pro density and pro development but Los Angeles will *never* look like one of those thousand-year-old European capitols. Anyhow, the Orange Line/G Line was designed to accommodate a rapid conversion to LRT; once ridership starts to head in that direction, or once there's enough high-density development in the Valley, I'd be all about *that* project.
@@rhysrenouille7200It MUST be understood that California is one of those states that refuses to learn from the rest of the world, unless it has sup'm to do with the automobile (car, BUS, and TRUCK)....
Nah B line should go to Burbank Airport and downtown Burbank for connection to Metrolink and eventually HSR
They are never going to have heavy rail go above ground for as long as it would have to go in the valley. The subway uses a third rail and not overhead catenary. They would have to grade separate the entire route. That means an entirely elevated system for a really long distance. That would cost a fortune. There is a reason that the subway is completely underground, except at the rail yard.
They could have subway cars that transfer from third rail to overhead caternary power feed, eliminating the need for grade separations. One train every 4 minutes shouldn't disrupt surface cross traffic that much. On the other hand you can always elevate the roads.
Yes but only as elevated grade separation ,which is far less expensive.
I clicked on this video because I myself looked at an LA Metro map recently and also thought to myself “why don’t they just make the G Line an extension of the B Line”, but this is perhaps one of the most logical and well rounded US transit videos I’ve encountered on RUclips. You pretty much have hit every point spot on (even the ones most transit advocates fail to admit)
The fact that Metro and the LA Government are willing to spend billions on all these new projects (which don’t get me wrong are still good) but fail to properly make the most minimal adjustments that makes the existing part of the system feel much less hostile in terms of efficiency and safety gives off a “I’m only doing this for the photo ops and campaign cred” kind of vibe
Thank you so much! And yeah, you hit the nail on the head there haha.
with cleptoparasitic barons never e v e r wishing folk learn the following, redevelopment schemes of big business' -- i.e., of the banking sector's -- is what gets to breaking ground on proper rapid transit projects ... the swarms of sheeple reckoning community affairs or community liaisons as bringing proper transit into existence development in this day & age is fuckingly bewildering........ I'm afraid that their very own neutralisations that those cleptoparasites happen to be bringing about, bringing on, risks becoming distressingly & cumbersomely messy....... 🤞🤞🤞
Neah, sorry dude. Density is the problem. When you have a critical mass of density you can scale your transit system to that density and cars become useless. Everyone takes the metro because it's just better. The metro gets you everywhere you would ever want to go because there are not areas that don't cater to metro users. The metro is the everything.
But for that you need a critical mass of users and a reorganization of society around the metro. There's no way to hack this. You just need enough stuff to do close to the stations and enough people living nearby. That's it.
I think this is more true than the video indicates. Stockholm being 63% denser than LA is a huge difference, and shouldn't be ignored just for the sake of it.
Having said that, increasing frequency and giving metro priority is definitely step 2 on increasing ridership. LA metro seems to think that just building more rail will improve ridership, but that's obviously not true. They need to make rail a more attractive option to driving as well.
The issue is that you actually need to scale up the infrastructure before you have the density you say because if you wait until the density is there, it will be decades before the transit system is comprehensive enough to deal with that density. I believe all current greatly used Metro systems went through growing pains similar to what LA is going through. Also, the advantage a city like NY had is that it kind of grew up and out along with the subway system. LA did that too, but it got rid of their trolly system and had to start from scratch in a city that was already grown up in many ways.
@@theexmann There's a lot of truth to this. It's the same reason developers build roads on empty lots before filling in the housing, because it's a heck of a lot easier to build housing on roads than roads on housing.
@@jamalgibson8139 You're right, and that's what happened in LA. That's why that huge trolly system was created. Basically, to promote the development of real estate.
One correction: Despite being light rail, the C line is fully grade separated.
Also K line has signal preemption at nearly all traffic signals so that's not too bad
Only California could screw this up. Trains stopped at red lights? WHY??? I am the last thing from a tree hugger but you can't fix stupid if you keep electing them.
You're absolutely right
A small correction. Unless something changed since Covid (been working at home since then), the B Line station in North Hollywood has had stairs on both sides of Lankershim even when it was still the Red Line, so we haven't had to walk across the street to transfer for several years.
I only know of a lift that is usually way too crowded. Maybe I missed it.
And it's a DAMNED SHAME that if you wanna cross the street fully protected from the weather, you gotta PAY....
Where Metro stands today, extending the B line could seem like a redundancy, since the westside of the San Fernando Valley is (poorly) served by Metrolink. I think once the Sepulveda Line opens, it'll open the opportunity for people to travel efficiently from the Valley to the Westside on transit, where major job centers are. Only then do I think the B-Line extension would have a real shot at becoming a reality.
The C Line is completely grade separated and has its own ROW also
I think the issue with low ridership with LA metro is that very few of the lines effectively serve the urban core of the city. Currently only B/D lines serve this area. The remaining lines serve downtown which by other cities standards is fairly week and is on the eastern end of the core.
I define the core region as follows (the area south of the Hollywood Hills, North of I-10, east of Beverly Hill, and West of thr LA River)
The core region has some of the highest ridership bus routes and some of the most congested streets in the county.
Metro is only planning 2 projects that will be serving this area in the near future. The underconstruction D line extension and thr future K Line north.
Hang on, would the B & D shared section have capacity to run enough service to meet demand if the G was converted to an extension of the B? Or would you overwhelm the shared section and have to build an expensive-ass bypass tunnel for the D line to completely separate it from the B to meet demand?
Alexander hits a major point! Safety! No one wants to sit next to shouting, filthy smelling person who defecates on the seats. I used the Blue line this summer and I can say that it reinforced the idea that I much rather battle with traffic in my car.
And ROAD RAGE is a perfect example of the worst that can happen in an excessively automobiliated society....
What's this "No one" business?! SPEAK FOR YOURSELF!
Well we just have to make sure to not let the NIMBYS stop this. SoCal as a whole is just infamous for NIMBYS but with car expenses this aspect could change. But very good points about what needs to be done.
Interesting, but I’m gonna disagree. Metrolink already goes from the valley to downtown (and its service needs to be improved). I think the B line should be extended to Burbank Airport, a very cost effective simple extension which will also be near the future Cal HSR station. G should be converted to light rail and connect to burbank glendale pasadena. I’m a bit biased because I live in the valley and have family in those areas. It would provide a solid east west form of travel that does not converge in downtown which is great for future proofing. I support all pro transit content anyway good job
Thank you!
On your points, Metrolink trains are far too infrequent, even when it increases to 2tph. Also, the valley is really, really big, and the G line covers essentially the 101 corridor, which is a densely populated and high traffic region, and Metrolink is inconvenient for all of those along it since it's mostly in the northern valley. While you have family in the foothill cities, for most valley residents, they look towards LA and getting over the hill, and providing that in a one seat ride is crucial for metro.
@@alexanderrotmensz I agree metrolink frequency sucks, it needs to be electrified. The east san fernando light rail project will cover more of the valley. They can still get over the hill to Hollywood with a transfer which I don’t think is a huge deal. And with the Sepulveda Line as well out of the valley. While a one seat ride over the hill is really nice I just think it’s very valuable to have a line that crosses the region without going through the city center. It ensures that there will not be capacity issues downtown in the future. Right now all of our lines end downtown which is not very future proof.
Also, California HSR will have a station at Burbank, making the b line extension north extremely important.
@@theonlyalecazam2947Metrolink also needs extensive GRADE SEPARATION!
IF IT'S GHETTOO.. Stop shooten on the train damit
Well here’s an easy fix rip up the LRT tracks on E and build a proper EL line and replace the slow service
I think the density around certain sections of the E Line warrant underground service, such as just south of downtown and Santa Monica. With how much of it is already elevated, I'm surprised they didn't make it full metro grade either. LA Metro is full of really strange lines and weird decisions.
The service is not slow for a light rail line. There are sections where it goes 55-65 mph. All the light rail lines are partially grade separated, and they all have dedicated ROWs.
@@alexanderrotmensz They are not weird and strange if you understand why they were designed that way. I give you one guess. Yup, it comes down to MONEY! Do you think Metro wouldn't want to fully grade separate as much as possible? Of course it would, but it can't because it would mean a smaller system serving many less people. The grade separations that exist are usually to avoid the worst intersections and streets and areas where there is no room for the line to be above ground. With a couple of exceptions, LA Metro has done a great job with the light rail lines. It's the largest light rail system in the USA with the most ridership when you compare 2019 numbers which are the most accurate because of the continuing Covid affects.
Also, they will be reducing the headways in December for the A nd E lines from 12 to 8 minutes during peak hours. And it's not always about speeding up a given line but improving how quickly you can get somewhere in the city. That is what a project like the Regional Connector does by eliminating possible multiple transfers reducing the amount of overall time it would take to go somewhere. From East LA to Santa Monica used to require 2 transfers and some walking to the transfer stations. Now it's a one seat ride. How much time do you think that saved? And the lines didn't really change overall speeds or arrival frequencies.
$8 billion dollars spend on waiting for red lights on tne train, Caucasian logic.
we gotta get Metro to see this video at some point before 2051!
I honestly seeing them converting the orange line to light rail and having it extend east to Pasadena and connecting with the Blue Line to Azusa. As for the red line, I feel a connection that would make more sense is a northern extension to Bob Hope Airport so airline passengers form there can have the direct connection to Downtown LA. (I mean I’d rather pay $1.75 for the subway than $10 for Metrolink)
i address in my latest video. Bottom line though is that Metrolink cannot function the way it currently does, but I have hope that it can change
@@alexanderrotmenszMetrolink MUST be first heavily grade separated, then extensively electrified!
Dear US cities BUILD ELEVATED METRO like the rest of the world
There are sections of several light rail lines that have elevated stations and viaducts. I hate this stupid perception that all our light rial lines are at grade level. THEY ARE NOT!!! They are elevated, underground, trenched, and at grade.
i was a tourist in la like 5 months ago and i was excited to go on the la metro but i ended up not cause it was like rlly sketch and weird and seemed dangerous 😭😭 there was also like no one in there at all and i just did not feel safe. they need a lot more security!!
Which lines were you riding, by chance? Overall, I agree... and competent security. I've seen security just ignore problem people.
@@x--. well, i was staying in koreatown by the wilshire/normandie station, so the d line i think it is. walked down there and saw a homeless guy sitting on the ticket machines and another one hop the gate and walk around. it was probably like 11am and there was no one there
@@seulgistube yeah those stations are always pretty abandoned but that'll change when it opens up, hopefully. Always strange how empty those stations could be.
@@x--. I take the trains occasionally and it's not that it's abandoned, it's just sketch!
Yes, metro needs signal prioritization for all trains.
Excellent ideas I hope Metro listens to good ideas.
It'll take them a while, but they'll get around to it. I've been harping on them saving gas by purchasing buses with windows that can't be opened since before the turn of the century; they've barely started putting such buses out on the streets....
You convinced me. There's going to be a resistance to elevated rail in the car-dependent Valley, if the Sepulveda Pass fiasco is any indication. But with a good transit-oriented plan, this extended B line would also connect with the Sepulveda Pass line, making The Valley way less car dependent.
Definitely some good points, I definitely think right of way is a huge problem for Metro. but even if G line ridership doubled, it would be overserved with the larger B line trains. I think the valley will be much better off with a Sepulveda heavy rail line. There's a MASSIVE demand as seen on the 405. Plus it decentralizes the system, not every line should lead to downtown. I agree about transfers tho, I think the East San Fernando line should interline with a future light rail G line to the NoHo station, and then one or the other should keep going east through to Pasadena.
Yeah definitely you're right about the Sepulveda Line, it would revolutionize the metro, but 17 billion dollars is a lot for a system with such little ridership. I'm not sure if B line trains would overserve the valley tbh, especially once the Sepulveda Line is eventually built, and it's good future proofing too as the valley continues to see the most development out of anywhere else in the city (There's tons of potential for TOD near Canoga, future video idea fs). Also the B Line does go through Hollywood and Koreatown, and once the D line extension is finished will be the fastest way along Wilshire for those in the East Valley (the densest part of SFV), which always is a jam packed traffic corridor.
@@alexanderrotmenszThe Sepulveda line heavy rail (subway) option would have an underground station in the middle of UCLA and then it would connect to the D line probably at the VA station before continuing South to LAX eventually.
@mrxman581 Yes, perhaps they should build that section first.
@@mrxman581 underground station actually AT ucla and not a mile south would be so fire...
@@sarahpreston4558I believe all the heavy rail options have a subway station within UCLA. That is for the Sepulveda line. The D line station which is already being constructed is near Gayley and Wilshire. It's a great location for both Westwood and UCLA for now. There is a free UCLA shuttle that will be very convenient. It's heavily used by staff and students even for things like going to lunch in Westwood. The shuttle has several stops around campus and Westwood.
In the future, I can see people who need to go to UCLA from the D line to stay on it to the VA station and then hop on the Sepulveda line to get to the heart of UCLA. However, the D line station in Westwood will continue to be heavily used by UCLA people because UCLA owns several buildings and rents others in Westwood so the Westwood station would work best for them.
And, of course, the D line station will open in 5 years. Who knows when the Sepulveda station at UCLA will open. Maybe 15 years from now?
I believe that once we have more lines fully built up and running, like G line connected all the way to norwalk, ridership will increase. I know for me one huge deterrent for me is lack of connections outside of downtown and no direct route to LAX. I hope large events such as the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics will help change the culture and get Angelenos comfortable with the metro!
I would extend the G Line to the Santa Anita Park. with stops in Burbank, Glendale, Eagle Rock to Pasadena. Maybe even to La Verne. I would also extend the B Line to Olive View Ucla. Go north on Lankershim, Left on Webb continue to Laurel Canyon Right on Osborne Left on Foothill and end at Olive View Ucla Medical Center. That's how u can expand and connect more people and increase ridership. Go Metro.
The NEW G LINE would have keys stops at Bob Hope Airport, Woodbury University, Glendale Galleria, Adventist Health Glendale, Occidental College, Figueroa/Colorado, Westside of Huntington Hospital by North 710, Cal Tech/PCC, Huntington Library, Rosemead/Huntington and finally Santa Anita Park.
The NEW B LINE would have keys stops along Lankershim on Oxnard, Sherman Way, Webb. Then along Laurel Canyon on Peoria and Osborne. Osborne/ San Fernando, Hansen Dam/LA Discovery Cube, Foothill/Hubbard and finally Olive View Ucla Medical Center.
Yup, replacing the G (orange) line with an underground rail line would be amazing, but it seems like wishful thinking to me. When it takes 38-45 min to make a trip to downtown from the valley by car, but 2hrs and 30 min by bus+rail, it is not difficult to understand why people continue to choose to drive.
It's actually the bus part of the trip that takes the longest; from NoHo to Union Station is approximately 25 minutes....
@user-dj7wv5ok2x You got that right. It takes me more than an hour just to get to the NoHo station by bus. Getting off the subway and onto another bus to get to my destination in downtown is what takes an extra 30 minutes depending on wait times. All in all, a trip from the valley could take as short a time as 25min (if it's all rail) or upwards of an hour and a half incorporating buses before and after the rail.
I live in Westwood and commute on the E Line regularly
But it’s faster for me to take the Big Blue Bus line 7 to Santa Monica College than it is to take the E Line
There’s almost a 15-20 minute difference in the commute time because the E Line Goes slower than the buses and has to stop at fewer red lights.
Imagine visiting LA during the Olympics in 2028 from a city like Tokyo or London you get on the new K Line from LAX just to get stuck at multiple red lights and get to your hotel a hour late because Metro thinks making light rail that submits to the will of car owners is “progress”
Partly true, but the E line is also partially grade separated and for a good amount of the line especially now with the Regional Connector segment. I believe LA Metro is looking into signal prioritization for certain light rail lines though I've heard it would require replacement of all traffic lights that will be part of the upgrade.
The good news is that LA Metro recently announced that the headways for the E and A lines were being reduced from every 12 minutes to every 8 minutes during peak hours starting in December.
That's insane lmao
It's not either/or. Public transit infrastructure includes things like buses, light rail, subways, DASH, Metro Micro, and even public Metro bikes.
The Big Blue Bus is geared towards serviing Santa Monica first and I'm sure designed their routes to serve Santa Monica college. That makes sense. It doesn't mean that the E line won't work for someone else more efficient than a bus too.
Many more people use LA Metro's bus system than they do the light rail or subway lines. That makes sense because there are 113 bus lines. I've taken the E line from East LA to Santa Monica during rush hour and the E line is much faster. So the E line isn't always slower as you're implying.
BTW, LA Metro is reducing the headways on the light rail lines down to every 8 minutes from every 12 minutes as of December 2023.
Santa Monica 7, the Pico bus terminating in the middle of a busy road is ridiculous.
Here’s what I would do to provide a strong ridership increase.
- Metro Line 30 should be extended to Sepulveda E Line with Santa Monica during Owl. If Line 730 was never implemented, I would run half of Line 30 trips including Owl to Santa Monica with Short line trips end at Sepulveda E Line.
- Discontinue BBB Rapid 7 and replace with Metro Rapid 730 from SM to Union via Pico Bl.
- Shorten Big Blue Bus 7 east to Century City, but extend west to Pacific Palisades replacing a chunk of Line 9.
YEEES I AM SO GLAD I FOUND THIS!! I feel like I am so alone on this idea when everyone talks about extending the B Line to Burbank Airport
why i made this video. We have to voice what the people really need
@@alexanderrotmensz Seriously, I find it so crazy when folks suggest the B Line go anywhere else other than the west valley. Like look at any G Line bus and 90% of folks are going to the B Line at NoHo
@@btomimatsucunard Yeah it's weird how many people seem in denial of that. I think it's because people don't find it exciting to upgrade the network but not expand the map, but the metro shouldn't become an overly extensive series of poorly connected and inconvenient lines. Metro is still forming its roots and those roots need to be strong.
@@alexanderrotmensz seriously. For me it comes down to SFV slander, or I guess the better word is neglect. It already has poor bus service for the types of trips that it needs to generate, the G Line situation just doesn't help.
Tho upon rewatching there are a couple nit picks. First is that the G Line grade separations are only at Sepulveda and Van Nuys, there was proposals for more but I think they were canceled for cost savings. Second is that the easiest way to get the B Line to the G Line ROW is to continue the tunnel up Lankershim, then under either Burbank or Oxnard to Valley College. That way the route doesn't require any extreme curves or Eminent Domain payments for tunneling under properties. Plus it was the original proposal from the 90's. :)
the problem is the residents:
"OH NO, NO NO NO, IM NOT HAVING A L TRAIN RIGHT ABOVE LITTLE TIMMYS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. NOISE! POLLUTION! POOR PEOPLE! IM NOT HAVING BIG CONCRETE TRAIN IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD NO NO NO
oh you want to add three lanes to the 101? awesome! this will fix traffic!"
2051 is way too long Los Angeles, to convert the G line to a railway system. Just convert it a heavy rail, then reroute the rail south to downtown San Pedro along Wilshire/ Vermont station. This would be beneficial not just for the locals, but the 2028 Olympic games as of this post.
Once again Los Angeles safety is a right, not a Luxury. How obnoxious this is, not having enough securities for riders like me just to go to work.
I love this idea so much, solely on the idea of adding more capacity for riders who use the G Line. The buses that are in transit rn can only hold so many people and unfortunately it’s often filled to capacity, meaning that most riders have to wait an extra 15 minutes for another bus to come by (which has happened to me before).
My take: why not complete the prject for even cheaper by just bringing back the old rail crossing gates for the Orange Line BRT? You'll instantly realize a 30% speed increase for essentially zero cost, rather than $600m for grade separation.
When you proposed turning an old overground heavy rail alignment into a metro, my first thought was, "So like the Taipei mrt red line?" And then you immediately proceeded to show an image of the Taipei mrt red line 😂 10:12
You speak logically but not realistically. L.A. may be America's second largest city with about 4 million residents, but major transit infrastructure is funded by the county. L.A. is a minority stakeholder in a county of about 10 million population: 2650 square miles with a larger population than 40 states. Transit infrastructure must be sold to the whole county, so as downtown L.A. remains the focal point, new projects must be sold to the overall county--so in addition to major projects a huge part of any transit funding package must go to local areas. Also, transit routes themselves must be drawn to serve far flung communities in order to get the votes to pass. Therefore transit maps begin to look like spokes on a wheel--but no wheel. Next prioritized project is to SE L.A. county, eventualy to connect to Orange County. Current constructiuon project towards Clairmont--eventually to cross the county line into San Bernardino County--is ridiculously redundant to existing Metrolink service.
So the point is--of course it would make more sense in terms of increased ridership and greater service--all at a bargain price--to follow the route youy suggest, but how are you going to get the funding votes from folks in Whittier, Downey, Calabassas, etc etc to pony up the funds for it?
YES YES YES
If the LRT in La were Either Grade Separated Or have Signal Priority & if the Whole LA Metro We’re Safe & Expandex. The La metro would have Ridership on Par with NYC
Could the red light slowdown issues be solved by something simple as transit signal priority?
Not completely. Even in intersections where there is signal priority, there is a lowered speed limit for the train
@@alexanderrotmensz I think there’s a better option, like having crossing gates, like in the foothills, where the A Line now runs, but put them on street intersections, and make it so that while the line is running through the middle of the street, the trains can go faster with the with the crossings going down.
The orange bus line was deliberately placed on the old Pacific electric right of way because it was less expensive
Good luck trying to convert it back to rail service
Understand something
Los Angeles county does not have the money for all these new transportation projects
They have received Federal funding and it's still not enough
So where do you think the money will come from
iirc they've studied putting the valley section underground and ridership doesn't justify the cost of tunneling. I very much agree about limiting transfers.
Hey Alexander,
Fellow LA native here. Wasn't metro trying to extend the red line to Sylmar?
Great idea. I always thought about making the G line into light rail, but never just extending the B line. That legit solves everything wrong with the G.
I would love to take public transit. I don't want to get mugged. I agree that crime and perceptions of safety is the number one hurdle.
I’m only at minute 7:30 and I couldn’t agree more. I wrote a paper on this at university in the early 2000s as the Gold (now A) line was being installed, noting that competition with traffic and red light would challenge the success of the light rail line.
4:20 (oh wow, that's perfect): As a person who lives in the City of Philadelphia, let me share some insight that might be helpful; crime is a problem for public transit's success and I feel like a lot of young people underestimate how much of an issue it really is. If people don't feel safe enough to ride on your system, people simply just won't and will opt-out for car travel.
What people need to realize however is crime is not an issue the public transit authorities need to fix because theu simply can't.
Take SEPTA for example - shoot outs, lootings and robberies, people being tipped on, you name it, it's probably happened. Homelessness and drug abuse is so high, you have zombies sleeping on the trains over night (mostly on the El, the Broad Street line, not so much). When getting on the El or the BSL, you have to pick your struggle - go through the Badlands or go through the Hood, and regional rail isn't a good an consistent option because frequencies are so terrible and it's even worse in the Northeast because we barely have it. If you decide to opt-out and take local buses instead, unless you're in Center City or Northeast, any bus that goes anywhere basically goes through in the city goes through the Hood - and not just the outskirts of the hood, they go DEEP into the hood (either North or West Philly Hood depending on the route). Hell, even a woman got raped on the El befote and no one did anything - probably the New Yorker mentality that came to Philly since everyone wants to flee NYC, but that's not the point.
SEPTA is VERY underfunded, very short staff, and they don't have the best relationship with the general public in the Delaware Valley; even though they have security, fuck shit happens all the time - be it on the news or not.
Everyone likes to blame SEPTA for every single problem on the system, and as a fan of SEPTA, they do make decisions that I as a Transit Enthusiast despise - not just me either, other fans or SEPTA like Alan Fisher also hate decisions that SEPTA makes - however us as a community put too much blame on SEPTA as sometimes we blame them for problems that are completely out of there control.
SEPTA is currently trying to redesign their bus network, modernized our trolley system, make way finding better for train lines, fix issues with regional rail, and fix up stations; it's not perfect, but damnit they're doing their best but our homeless and crime situation (keeping in mind how they're underfunded) is making it difficult as people are going to continue to put blame on them for stuff that they can't control.
Our homeless and crime situation shouldn't be an issue SEPTA has to fix, this is a problem that the City of Philadelphia has to fix.
My point nr is don't project issues that are a city problem onto public transit because it affects them yes, but they can't fix it, only the city and state can.
You hit the nail on the head with the naivety of young people. Get married, have kids, have elderly parents, and your whole world view will shift on this issue.
I agree that because of the societal issues right now and with the way funding is allocated, you almost can't blame Metro, but at the same time, there are questionable decisions. Metro is doing this "unarmed personel" thing, but it's like, what exactly are they going to do when things start to go down or if someone dangerous is about to hop on. They're in no position to act fast enough. Also, the city, not metro, should recognize that they could potentially be wasting billions because of this problem and step it up in the name of the safety of their hardworking citizens and provide some security. There are private security guards all over LA nowadays, why should the public sector be left out when it's something as important as the metro network.
@@alexanderrotmensz oh no, don't get me wrong, public transit can do more - armed security and more organization is just the start. I'm just saying that we can't blame transit authorities for something that is a city issue.
Edit: Also, sometimes authorities do mess up and can be at blame if they do something stupid.
@@Machodave2020 Yeah ok then we can for sure agree on that :)
@@Machodave2020Nice dissertation; now can you do one on Kensington Avenue?!
@@CraigFThompson huh? What are you asking?
Saying that the G Line will be grade-separated is deceptive as only two intersections will be grade-separated. If this would be converted to heavy rail the cheapest it wouldn't be cheaper then 5 billion and likely would cost more then 9 billion. Putting gates on the corridor will do plenty to prevent the bus from stopping at the lights and light rail will be fine.
LA County Metro should have a zero tolerance policy for antisocial behaviour (and they should advertise this in announcements).
This does seam like a project that should be made a priority, and with its price in a country like this, and a state that is one of the most expensive, in a city that is one of the most expensive places to build in that state, you'd think this would be an instant winner on any ballet.
A better plan would be a new subway along Ventura, leave the G as it is, and extend the B line to Burbank to meet up with Metrolink and high speed rail.
I hate to admit it but yes, safety is huge on our subways here. I wish it felt like keeping troublemakers out felt like more of a priority for Metro.
25 years the C line has never stopped at a red light. there are no at grade crossings
Something about those lines in the video remind me of the DC Metro map, because this one here looks JUST like it!
lmao you're totally right
Metrolink-Amtrak speed & frequency upgrades are coming to San Fernando Valley, particularly Burbank Airport South, Downtown Burbank & Glendale by 2030. East SFV Light Rail and NoHo-Burbank-Glendale-Eagle Rock-Pasadena BRT will also be a good commute alternatives. Those developments open the door to re-imagine the future for Metro G Line BRT.
If politicians can be convinced, Metro G Line BRT should convert to a Metro B Line Heavy Rail extension from NoHo to Chatsworth. Assuming another Federal Infrastucture Bill is passed in 2027-28, Metro's Sepulveda & B Line extension grant applications should be ready on Day 1. Since Metro already own the Rights-of-Way, it can be built as mostly aerial Heavy Rail for $4B (compared to $2B Metro Light Rail conversion) for these benefits:
• Stations can average 1 mile apart for 30-32 mph average speed
• Fast, 1-seat rides between San Fernando Valley & DTLA
• 4-8 minute Metro train frequency
• Mitigate car congestion, smog & GHG emissions from Highway 101 between SFV & DTLA
• Connect with Metro Sepulveda Heavy Rail (Alt 6) & Metro East SFV Light Rail at Van Nuys Station
• Connect with Metrolink & Amtrak at Chatsworth Station
Given these factors, Metro B Line Heavy Rail Extension should deliver 4X more ridership compared to Light Rail conversion.
this seems like chatgpt, but I wonder where the 4x ridership is coming from. I hope it's true though because that makes this a damn good argument haha.
Idk if its wrong to believe this, but i feel like itd be safer if the ridership numbers go up
They should make the intersections with rail road crossing for the light rail
red light example ****AHEM PHOENIX AHEM*****
Neighborhood NIMBY groups in SFV are SUPER against any elevated right of way. They've been effectively trying to kill the Sepulveda line by forcing it to be tunneled even along super wide stroads. (A bit ironic given how much of the 101 is elevated through the SFV but logic is not a strong suit among NIMBYs.)
That's due to the phenomenon I call "automobiliation", where people are so addicted to rubber tires and steering wheels that they "think" that adding more and more if what's been proven NOT to work will somehow solve the problem....
What’s the headway? It’s my understanding that all too often a potential rider has to wait twenty minutes or more between trains
As to safety, stop drinking the KoolAid. Drivers will use every excuse they can as long as their driving is subsidized the way American driving is. Nobody in that situation wants to mix with people they don’t want to like
Here in much denser SF, where the subway runs at 50mph, and most main line trains and buses have 7-10 minute headways people still make excuses to drive, including a 78 year old woman who killed an entire family driving too fast on city streets, and a drunk 81 year old man who killed a cyclist
But red lights are something we have in common. They don’t create safety, quite the opposite, and too many of them delay traffic especially when they don’t give priority to transit, cyclists as nd pedestrians
There was a recent article where 71% BART riders said they would use it more if it was cleaner and safer. This isn’t about selfish drivers. It’s just human nature.
i mean the safety point I always think is BS. those are larger societal problems and more security/LAPD/LASD cannot fix it. With the LAPD anyway, they might make it worse and their aggressive tactics could make people not want to ride the metro. I mean I ride the metro most days to work (Soto-Bunker Hill working the night shift) and I haven't personally felt unsafe. Not saying my subjective experience is the same as other riders but I dont think the Metro is more dangerous than just being outside in a metro region of 20 million.
But that said making the G line an extension of the B line could be a good idea. But I suspect the Metro wants to extend it to the SGV tho
You are right that there are greater societal problems at play, but there are measures can be put in place for the time being. Just because it's a big city doesn't mean it should be unsafe. Europe and Asia have figured this out, we should be right there along with them. Also, I don't buy for a second that people would feel less safe with cops patrolling with the kind of characters that use metro versus being left to fend for yourself, even if it's the horrible LAPD. As young men, yes we'll feel alright, but if you want ridership, you need the wider masses feeling comfortable going. I've been in London for the last couple of weeks and the difference is astounding.
TL;DR: To increase ridership we need more lines and more extensions for more connections, but the connections need to serve places people actually need to go to.
I believe it was actually planned for the B Line to continue on North on Lankershim and then turning away and towards Van Nuys and eventually making it to Northridge. This is why the current North Hollywood station has two platforms - it's actually meant to be a pass-through station, not a terminus. I'm not so sure of the history of the Orange Line (G Line), but as far as I understand it there was always the idea of using up the right-of-way separate from the B Line. The current plan to switch it into a light rail line was always there from the get go. Originally it was meant to be a light rail but Metro went with the bus because it didn't have the funding for full tracking. Metro actually said that they would upgrade it if the line worked out. As flawed as Metro is, the G Line was a success from the beginning, so the upgrade make sense.
Heavy rail trains are noisy. Having an above ground train would bring that noise right to the houses next to the current G Line. It would be a very difficult battle to get this approved, especially in Encino. I think the light rail option is the better option. And metro intends on extending the line to Glendale. This is yet to be seen but I am hoping it does get done. I Also don't like the idea of eliminating the potential of the G Line's extension where we just join it to the B Line. It would just truncate it at to where it is now and no more SFV-Glendale connection.
I cannot really tell you exactly why Metro is losing ridership - some say that the new lines are syphoning people away from buses, but that doesn't explain the overall loss. But I can tell you that one thing that limits anyone from taking Metro is that there aren't enough connections. Taking funding away from the Sepulveda Line or other extensions is totally the wrong way to go. Metro needs to extend lines, and add more lines. One line needs to feed the other and they need to network out further. Just the Sepulveda Line, if it ever gets built; might actually get one of the highest riderships in the country. Currently, also, many of the lines go from nowhere and take you nowhere. K Line is super guilty of this. Once the extension is built it will go _near_ LAX but the other end will still be nowhere, until they build out the extension to WeHo. The NoHo station is another one. Although NoHo might actually be a local hot spot, in the grand scale of things; it's still not much: Some cafes and a few offices and one park. It's not a business center, major attraction, or a vital destination. A better location, I would argue, would be at Van Nuys and Ventura. You have so many shops and business there and the neighborhood there (and yes, this is just dream due to the NIMBYs in that area).
But I think the problem here is not just Metro. It's a mentality that we have lost since America stopped building good transit. If you look at other nations, and not just the European ones either; you will see that when they build their lines, they make sure to make them so that they stop at landmarks and important civic structures. They go to town centers, business centers, and through residential neighborhoods. This is because they try to cover the three basic mundane needs: home, work, and shopping. Shopping might not seem crucial, but it is. If a lightbulb goes out, you'll go to the store and get one. But most of us will get in our car and go to the store to just buy that one item. Why not make it easier to do that on transit (this is an exaggeration, of course). But, if your train takes you through a shopping district, why not just do the shopping on your way home anyway? This is where we are failing. The stops are not covering all these needs (you might take the Metro to go to work and home and that it).
But also, something other countries do is make sure to take care of non routine needs. Many of their lines make sure to go hospitals, schools, libraries, parks, courthouses, etc. Some of the current lines manage to connect to some of these, but it doesn't really come off as a deliberate connection. Only some bus lines connect directly. The Stop at medical centers on Sunset are mostly coincidental and I feel that's the same for Civic Center. There are no lines going to Griffith Park, LA Zoo, Olive View Medical Center, CSUN, Mission College, any of the missions, LBCC, etc. The only line that does actually well in this regard is the G Line since it connects Van Nuys Civic center and two community colleges (Although the Winnetka station is still a bit inconvenient since it's a good walk away from the actual college). The lines should be connecting these institutions with the communities that they serve as well. And they should connect to leisure activities just as well. When are we gonna get our train to Dodger Stadium? (I know someone might mention USC and the E Line, but that was Metro cheating as the E Line mostly follows an old Pacific Electric line).
What I'm trying to say is that Metro shouldn't just build with "if you build it, they will come" mentality, but with the "connect to places people need to go" mentality. I mean, just look at the Pico stop on the A and E Line. Why couldn't that had been at the doorstep of the LA Convention Center?
DAMN; with THAT dissertation, you COULD write a transit textbook....
If it was elevated, the NIMBYs would be out in force.
What about a conversion to light rail and in combination with the East San Fernando Valley Light Rail to make a 3 line triangle. The B line can continue underground to Van Nuys multimodal Metrolink station and continue as the Sepulveda Metro to LAX
Ouuu I kinda like that y'know. I'll make this my second favorite option ;)
You sorta lost me at, “and I’ve ridden Metro several times.” Quite a sample size. That said, safer Metro is unquestionably good for all, but as a regular rider, the implications of your video clips that you’re rolling dice every time you ride isn’t true.
I guess that depends on your tolerance levels. Mine are quite low, but it is a well established problem that is well covered by media frequently and is a shared sentiment by the general public.
Why did the county get rid of the old Red Car trollies? Any system you build now a days would never compare to the Red Car trollies that went through and around all of Southern California. They were timely, accessible, and used clean energy.
Read "Moving Millions" by Stanley I. Fischler; this book might be able to clear up a lot of misunderstanding in this area. Also, another good book "Ride the Big Red Cars" by Spencer Crump, will narrow it down to the southern California area.
Density is a fake argument and always has been. Berlins urban area has a density less than half of LAs urban area, which is the part LA transit serves. Yet Berlin, a city with less than half of LAs urban population and less than half of its density, carries 7 times more people on transit than LA.
The people that argue about density are the same people that argue suburban rapid transit "destroys the character of a neighborhood". There are many parts of Berlin that are single family housing and are still successfully (profitably even) served by rapid transit.
One project that I wished you mentioned was the San Fernando Valley dedicated brt line that was planned and changed to a bus peak hour corridor.
More BUSES?! Buses are nothing more or less than automobiles....
I agree! I said this years ago.
the turn from the metro line onto the g line is probably way to sharp for long metro trains to do safely.
That's EXACTLY the same thing I was thinking! The Line would hafta go all the way up to Victory Boulevard to turn west, then turn south again to pick up the ROW before it arrives at the first stop....
How about the violence that occurs in the trains
Isn't the biggest issue with LA Metro the really low frequencies?
Last week LA Metro increased the headways on the subway from every 15 minutes to every 12 minutes during peak hours. And since the B and D lines share all the stations between Union Station and Vermont, those headways would only be every 6 minutes if you're only traveling between those two stations because you would be able to take either train.
And in December 2023, the frequencies will increase for the A and E lines. The headways will come down to every 8 minutes during peak hours. And, if you only travel between the 5 shared stations, the headways are every 4 minutes because you can use either line.
@@theexmann That's better than what I remember but still, 12 minutes on the non-interlined branches of the subway is still pretty low frequency... It's good to see that things are slowly improving though.
@@ambroiseimbert Indeed. I'm curious if the new subway extensions that will start to come online next year will allow them to reduce the times further. BTW, the subway lines are also getting new rolling stock next year after 30 years. It's long overdue.
@@theexmann That's great! The old subway rolling stock in LA feels so old and outdated...
@@ambroiseimbert Yes. The new rolling stock will have the NYC style of seating allowing for greater capacity per car, and they will have open gangways too.
this is a super good video damn
I think you're right. Moreover, the amount of dislocation from converting to rail would be best to do now, before it gains a lot more passengers after LRT conversion.
Exactly my thinking. Plus they're going to be really disappointed when all that money spent on LRT hardly increases ridership. Removing the transfer in NoHo is key.
@@alexanderrotmensz - The BRT system is already overloaded. Upgrading to LRT, along with the extension north toward San Fernando will all increase ridership. One option would be to install pantographs on the trains and run the subway under catenary, like the Blue Line in Boston.
Stopping at red lights shouldn’t be a problem- with train detection ahead of the crossings ! Over the pond it’s a normal procedure…
Btw; for busses too
Red lights wast time, and in doing so, waste MONEY. Every time a transit vehicle, whether rail or bus, gets stuck at a red signal, no service is being performed, although that driver's getting paid for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
@@CraigFThompson
And it makes the car rides more attractive if the transit vehicle stops at red lights to let pass the private cars…
Give a transponder to every public transport vehicle for the “Train Detection” ! It works…
increase incarceration
One way to improve the light rail without much effort or expense would be to give the light rail full priority at all intersections (i.e. as a light rail vehicle approaches the intersection, sensors detect it and ensure the light is green when it gets there). Many cities around the world do that with their light rail systems (and even buses in some cases), why can't LA do that? It would lead to faster journey times on said light rail and presumably more ridership which then leads to less cars on the road and better outcomes for everyone.
meh. Individual line speed is not nearly as important is the time spent getting to/from metro stations. What we really need is more interconnected services. Once we have that, we can start optimizing journey speed.
LA Metro is working on that by building more BRTs. They just announced a new one a few days ago down La Brea which will be a convenient way to get the subway at the new upcoming station at La Brea/Wilshire. There are needs to be better efficiency with systems like DASH. Many people in LA don't even know what that is.
Time is a constant variable. If eliminating 15 minutes of journey time by eliminating a transfer and grade separating track equals 15 minutes saved from some sort of interconnected service, you might as well do the one on the more vital corridor, which will be the metro line
@@alexanderrotmensz LA Metro is trying to do both at the same time. But I agree with LA Metro's overall philosophy of expanding the system as much as possible as fast as possibe even if it's not the most efficient way of building a certain line. Build the line first and upgrade it later to improve efficiency. Why? Because time is running out since most of the funding schemes have an end date. Better to build the system so it can get more people where they need to do even if it's not as fast as it could be. As long as it's a viable option.
Once residents see a much more built out system, they will be more willing to vote for additional funding to make it more efficient.
2028 will be a turning point for LA Metro. It will be at the cusp of being a comprehensive enough system to start attracting drivers away from their cars. So maybe you'll still need to use your car to get to the closest station, but then you can spend the rest of your trip using Metro. That's basically what I've done since the opening of the Regional Connector. Have visited Grand Central Market, the Broad, Chinatown, and Santa Monica. No need to pay for parking at all these places, use gas, and I avoided the traffic. It took me 10 minutes to drive to the nearest Metro station and parked my car in a Metro lot for $3 a day.
So, maybe for LA, the answer is to build enough stations so you can get to one by either walking to it, a short 10 minute drive, or a short one seat bus ride. That would be amazing and realistically doable.