Agreed that travel time is the actual metric that matters. Increasing speed usually depends on track geometry while frequency requires little to no track work. You are right to say that once you reach short enough headways (5-10 minutes, maybe?) the much larger infrastructure projects do indeed become cost effective. Honestly it's always better to build it right (grade separated) the first time but as in all things compromises are made so that projects can go forward.
Hey I am from New York (an outsider looking in). To me, I think one of LA Metro's biggest problems is the two track lines the system got, because even if they wanted to run like train every 2-5 min headways on rush hour (like 8 trains per hour), they really can't because of the two track system, especially when it comes to the A (Blue) & E (Yellow) light rail lines and also the B (Red) & D (Purple) subway lines where they interline in Downtown LA. The Regional Connector should have been four tracks (but the cost I know), and some of the light rail corridors should have been build to at least 3 track standards, so at rush hours you can run more trains with the middle track being used for peak direction express trains coming from the outer portions of the branches while the inter portions are served by local tracks (similar to what the Long Island Railroad, Metro-North Railroad & New Jersey Transit commuter rail systems do here in the New York Metro area). This is just my thoughts.
Yes express trains are very important, wish they did this with the new K line as it will take hours to get from LAX, via the people mover to DTLA when the trains stop all the time
You would also need much wider stations with multiple platforms. Interestingly enough, NYC subway has a lower mph average at about 17.5, according to wiki. All LA Metro needs to do is have signal prioritization across all light rail lines. That would be the most cost-effective way to increase speed.
Great rundown of the associated costs. I think it makes sense to increase frequencies beyond 5 minutes not based on speed but based on coping with passenger flows. All great high frequency metros have the ridership to warrant the spending. Its a good way to use the available infrastructure to the max. Also many transit systems both in the US and the world are way below that 5 min target due to a lack of operating capital. Build outs are easier to fund and build political hype on than efficiently running something in the background. I think frequency should be looked at in a more holistic way across all modes in the network, not just high capacity trunk lines. I am a big believer in the idea that local buses are super under-utilised by pretty much every transit operator in the world. Also just from personal anecdotal passenger experience i find it more frustrating to wait for transit than to ride slow transit.
Also, it’s pretty difficult to push the frequency of an on-street transit line to be better than every 5 minutes due to traffic lights. Also, out in Phoenix, our light rail line has a similar story. If the trains are on time, it takes an hour and 50 minutes for them to go across the 30-mile line, which is comparable to some similarly long bus route (the 70 is 31 miles, and it takes an hour and 45 for a bus to go along that entire route, and the 61 takes an hour and 50 to go along it’s entire route, which is 29 miles).
An LA Metro light rail would do that 30 mile trip 20 minutes faster. All LA Metro needs to do is have signal prioritization across all light rail lines. It's the most cost-effective way to increase speed.
Frequency matters more. You can run 2-carriage trains or single trams at first so you can run trains every 2 to 5 minutes. This will attract ridership and longer trains and multi-tram trains can be run when the short trains get overcrowded. Grade separating and retrofitting lines with linear induction to run trains automatically without drivers would allow for higher frequencies without bankrupting the transit authority.
A frequency of every 5 minutes would be fantastic for LA Metro. It wouldn't need to be any faster ever. Speed is very important, too, especially to entice drivers to use the Metro. And the most cost effective way to do that is to implement signal prioritization across all the light rail lines.
I think frequency matters more, once I'm on transit I mostly don't care how long it takes (besides bad planning like waiting at a street light for cars to pass). Of course it'd be better and would make more sense if it were faster than driving, but I can deal with it being a little slower for the convenience of not driving. Then again, I also drive pretty relaxed and aren't one of the people going 80+ on the freeway or 50+ on a stroad.
Take the A Line between 7th Metro and Washington Station and you'll understand why speed is more important. It's a SLOG and it doesn't matter if I'm waiting 5 minutes or 15 minutes because the ride is SO SLOW.
@@PASH3227That's probably the worst section on the whole line, especially because of the wye on Flower and Washington. But the A line is much faster in other sections in the SGV and closer to the Long Beach area. Of course, if you're only commuting within DTLA, Little Tokyo, and Chinatown, it's much faster. Which, in a car, is probably the same or slower and you have to pay for parking. I never drive into those areas anymore since the Regional Connector opened. I take the A and E lines.
Interesting analysis, but you failed to include another very cost-effective option to increase speed without constructing expensive grade separations, that is, signal prioritization. If I'm not mistaken, the E line has signal prioritization in Santa Monica and Culver City, but not LA yet. I found out recently that LA Metro has no say when it comes to implementing signal prioritization in LA. That is the purview of LADOT. The problem is that both agencies have competing mandates. LA Metro is about making the rail network as efficient, clean, and safe as practically possible. LADOT is about moving vehicles as efficiently as possible. Of course, if trains are given priority, vehicles take a hit and vice versa. I hope they come to a better agreement to improve the speed on the various light rail lines. However, I beg to differ with the implication that LA Metro didn't take grade separation very seriously when designing the existing routes for the light rails. I believe they did within the context of the available funding. All the light rail lines are, at least, partially grade separated. Many significantly so, and the C line is fully grade separated. For example, the E line has 6 subterranean stations and 2 or 3 aerial stations. And, several miles of grade separated track as well, including the underground section of track underneath Figueroa where it turns onto Flower. The A line also has underground, below grade, and aerial stations. And, several miles of grade separated track. And, I think it also has a certain amount of signal prioritization in the SGV region. BTW, an average speed og 19 mph is not below average. That's better or comparable with many other systems around the world. There is also another way to increase capacity that you didn't address, and that is increasing the passenger capacity of the individual cars. In the case of the light rail trains, that might not be a possibility right now, but both the B and D subway lines will be getting new trainsets with higher capacity cars that will have NYC style sesting, and open gangways. LA Metro did increase the frequencies for both light rail and subway lines late in 2023, but there are also structural track problems that need to be re-engineered, too, before you can increase frequency much further. Things like grade separating the wye at Flower abd Washington. That's the first retrofit grade separation they beed to do. Lastly, projects like the Regional Connector improve efficiency tremendously without needing to increase frequency or speed per se. It's taken 20 minutes off a ride from East LA to Santa Monica. And, let me say that there are now circumstances where taking the E or A line can be faster than driving. That's during rush hour. I tined a trip on a Friday at 5:30pm from Santa Monica to East LA Indiana Station, and it took 1:05. Had I driven, it would have taken 20-25 minutes more. Thanks. .
It should but in towns where trams do not have signal priority, a train's approach to an intersection is more likely to trigger a red light! On high-ridership lines the red lights would delay the trains until they bunch up to 2 or 3 trains in a row.
Signal prioritization is partially implemented, but not in LA city proper. LA Metro has no authority to implement it. That belongs to LADOT, Los Angeles Department of Transportation. And, that's the big problem because they have conflicting mandates. One prioritizes trains, the other cars.
@@alexanderrotmensz still great job. I love seeing opinions on how things could be improved. Keep up the good work. One day la and the united state will have good transit across air land and sea
What matters the most is safety. What's the point of speed or frequency if no one wants to ride the train because it's a rolling homeless shelter with three stabbings this week alone. As an Angeleno I would love to take the metro but I'd rather not risk it, I'm not going to call my wife from the hospital and say "hey honey I got stabbed because I wanted to save $3". Luckily I have a choice with my transportation but I truly feel sorry for those who are forced to take public transit in Los Angeles at this time .
6:45 literally us: we moved near a k line station a year ago and its always quicker to drive so theres 0 incentive to use the metro and of course anyone with a brain would want speed AND frequency but when you want to attract ridership frequency doesnt matter if driving is always faster why metro only partially grade separates is crazy. its like busses getting stuck in traffic vs having bus lanes
LA Metro was very conscious of where they grade separated stations and tracks based on the available funding. Think about it. To fully grade separate the entire line means building a subway or elevated lines like in Chicago. That's not happening in LA. The way to improve speed is full signal prioritization for all light rail lines. It's also the most cost-effective option. BTW, the K line speeds and frequencies will improve once the rest of the line opens and connects to both the LAX People Mover and the C line. And, if you're driving on the 10 across town from Santa Monica to East LA during rush hour am or pm, the E line is faster. I timed it.
Agreed that travel time is the actual metric that matters. Increasing speed usually depends on track geometry while frequency requires little to no track work. You are right to say that once you reach short enough headways (5-10 minutes, maybe?) the much larger infrastructure projects do indeed become cost effective. Honestly it's always better to build it right (grade separated) the first time but as in all things compromises are made so that projects can go forward.
Definitely agree with you there. Build for the long term always
Hey I am from New York (an outsider looking in). To me, I think one of LA Metro's biggest problems is the two track lines the system got, because even if they wanted to run like train every 2-5 min headways on rush hour (like 8 trains per hour), they really can't because of the two track system, especially when it comes to the A (Blue) & E (Yellow) light rail lines and also the B (Red) & D (Purple) subway lines where they interline in Downtown LA.
The Regional Connector should have been four tracks (but the cost I know), and some of the light rail corridors should have been build to at least 3 track standards, so at rush hours you can run more trains with the middle track being used for peak direction express trains coming from the outer portions of the branches while the inter portions are served by local tracks (similar to what the Long Island Railroad, Metro-North Railroad & New Jersey Transit commuter rail systems do here in the New York Metro area). This is just my thoughts.
Yes express trains are very important, wish they did this with the new K line as it will take hours to get from LAX, via the people mover to DTLA when the trains stop all the time
You would also need much wider stations with multiple platforms.
Interestingly enough, NYC subway has a lower mph average at about 17.5, according to wiki.
All LA Metro needs to do is have signal prioritization across all light rail lines. That would be the most cost-effective way to increase speed.
Great rundown of the associated costs.
I think it makes sense to increase frequencies beyond 5 minutes not based on speed but based on coping with passenger flows. All great high frequency metros have the ridership to warrant the spending. Its a good way to use the available infrastructure to the max. Also many transit systems both in the US and the world are way below that 5 min target due to a lack of operating capital. Build outs are easier to fund and build political hype on than efficiently running something in the background.
I think frequency should be looked at in a more holistic way across all modes in the network, not just high capacity trunk lines. I am a big believer in the idea that local buses are super under-utilised by pretty much every transit operator in the world.
Also just from personal anecdotal passenger experience i find it more frustrating to wait for transit than to ride slow transit.
Also, it’s pretty difficult to push the frequency of an on-street transit line to be better than every 5 minutes due to traffic lights. Also, out in Phoenix, our light rail line has a similar story. If the trains are on time, it takes an hour and 50 minutes for them to go across the 30-mile line, which is comparable to some similarly long bus route (the 70 is 31 miles, and it takes an hour and 45 for a bus to go along that entire route, and the 61 takes an hour and 50 to go along it’s entire route, which is 29 miles).
An LA Metro light rail would do that 30 mile trip 20 minutes faster.
All LA Metro needs to do is have signal prioritization across all light rail lines. It's the most cost-effective way to increase speed.
Frequency matters more. You can run 2-carriage trains or single trams at first so you can run trains every 2 to 5 minutes. This will attract ridership and longer trains and multi-tram trains can be run when the short trains get overcrowded. Grade separating and retrofitting lines with linear induction to run trains automatically without drivers would allow for higher frequencies without bankrupting the transit authority.
A frequency of every 5 minutes would be fantastic for LA Metro. It wouldn't need to be any faster ever.
Speed is very important, too, especially to entice drivers to use the Metro. And the most cost effective way to do that is to implement signal prioritization across all the light rail lines.
I think frequency matters more, once I'm on transit I mostly don't care how long it takes (besides bad planning like waiting at a street light for cars to pass). Of course it'd be better and would make more sense if it were faster than driving, but I can deal with it being a little slower for the convenience of not driving. Then again, I also drive pretty relaxed and aren't one of the people going 80+ on the freeway or 50+ on a stroad.
Take the A Line between 7th Metro and Washington Station and you'll understand why speed is more important. It's a SLOG and it doesn't matter if I'm waiting 5 minutes or 15 minutes because the ride is SO SLOW.
@@PASH3227That's probably the worst section on the whole line, especially because of the wye on Flower and Washington. But the A line is much faster in other sections in the SGV and closer to the Long Beach area. Of course, if you're only commuting within DTLA, Little Tokyo, and Chinatown, it's much faster. Which, in a car, is probably the same or slower and you have to pay for parking. I never drive into those areas anymore since the Regional Connector opened. I take the A and E lines.
Interesting analysis, but you failed to include another very cost-effective option to increase speed without constructing expensive grade separations, that is, signal prioritization.
If I'm not mistaken, the E line has signal prioritization in Santa Monica and Culver City, but not LA yet. I found out recently that LA Metro has no say when it comes to implementing signal prioritization in LA. That is the purview of LADOT. The problem is that both agencies have competing mandates. LA Metro is about making the rail network as efficient, clean, and safe as practically possible. LADOT is about moving vehicles as efficiently as possible. Of course, if trains are given priority, vehicles take a hit and vice versa.
I hope they come to a better agreement to improve the speed on the various light rail lines.
However, I beg to differ with the implication that LA Metro didn't take grade separation very seriously when designing the existing routes for the light rails. I believe they did within the context of the available funding.
All the light rail lines are, at least, partially grade separated. Many significantly so, and the C line is fully grade separated.
For example, the E line has 6 subterranean stations and 2 or 3 aerial stations. And, several miles of grade separated track as well, including the underground section of track underneath Figueroa where it turns onto Flower.
The A line also has underground, below grade, and aerial stations. And, several miles of grade separated track. And, I think it also has a certain amount of signal prioritization in the SGV region.
BTW, an average speed og 19 mph is not below average. That's better or comparable with many other systems around the world.
There is also another way to increase capacity that you didn't address, and that is increasing the passenger capacity of the individual cars. In the case of the light rail trains, that might not be a possibility right now, but both the B and D subway lines will be getting new trainsets with higher capacity cars that will have NYC style sesting, and open gangways.
LA Metro did increase the frequencies for both light rail and subway lines late in 2023, but there are also structural track problems that need to be re-engineered, too, before you can increase frequency much further. Things like grade separating the wye at Flower abd Washington. That's the first retrofit grade separation they beed to do.
Lastly, projects like the Regional Connector improve efficiency tremendously without needing to increase frequency or speed per se. It's taken 20 minutes off a ride from East LA to Santa Monica. And, let me say that there are now circumstances where taking the E or A line can be faster than driving. That's during rush hour. I tined a trip on a Friday at 5:30pm from Santa Monica to East LA Indiana Station, and it took 1:05. Had I driven, it would have taken 20-25 minutes more. Thanks.
.
You'd think that a train's approach to an intersection would trigger a green light, but I guess that's not the case?
Even if it did, speed has to be at 25mph as far as I'm aware
It should but in towns where trams do not have signal priority, a train's approach to an intersection is more likely to trigger a red light! On high-ridership lines the red lights would delay the trains until they bunch up to 2 or 3 trains in a row.
Signal prioritization is partially implemented, but not in LA city proper. LA Metro has no authority to implement it. That belongs to LADOT, Los Angeles Department of Transportation. And, that's the big problem because they have conflicting mandates. One prioritizes trains, the other cars.
You can have both. I dont know why people think you can't have both
Money isn't infinite
@@alexanderrotmensz true its not but if people where will to commit to do a project right completely. It's would be night and day
I agree that these things should've been done right in the first place
@@alexanderrotmensz still great job. I love seeing opinions on how things could be improved. Keep up the good work. One day la and the united state will have good transit across air land and sea
@@brycestewart7228 Thank you so much
What matters the most is safety. What's the point of speed or frequency if no one wants to ride the train because it's a rolling homeless shelter with three stabbings this week alone. As an Angeleno I would love to take the metro but I'd rather not risk it, I'm not going to call my wife from the hospital and say "hey honey I got stabbed because I wanted to save $3". Luckily I have a choice with my transportation but I truly feel sorry for those who are forced to take public transit in Los Angeles at this time .
Fair points
6:45 literally us: we moved near a k line station a year ago and its always quicker to drive so theres 0 incentive to use the metro
and of course anyone with a brain would want speed AND frequency but when you want to attract ridership frequency doesnt matter if driving is always faster
why metro only partially grade separates is crazy. its like busses getting stuck in traffic vs having bus lanes
LA Metro was very conscious of where they grade separated stations and tracks based on the available funding.
Think about it. To fully grade separate the entire line means building a subway or elevated lines like in Chicago. That's not happening in LA. The way to improve speed is full signal prioritization for all light rail lines. It's also the most cost-effective option.
BTW, the K line speeds and frequencies will improve once the rest of the line opens and connects to both the LAX People Mover and the C line.
And, if you're driving on the 10 across town from Santa Monica to East LA during rush hour am or pm, the E line is faster. I timed it.
u would think a faster train would increase frequency
I was about to put this point in the vid but decided against it because I don't think it's a definite yes on this, although logic says so.
If the number of trains on the line doesn’t change, then frequency can easily be increased if the trains are faster.