@SanDiegoInnOut If you look at a map of LA's Subway/Light Rail system, you will see that the purple Line is just a 2 station branch from the Red Line, the main subway line. The red line has more cars. Also, this was on a saturday. During weekdays the Purple Line has 2 extra cars, while the red line has the full six car trains.
Not exactly. First, SF doesn't even really have an actual subway system. The BART acts like a subway through SF, but it's only passing through to the rest of the Bay Area. SF muni is nothing more than LRVs running on old street car tracks, often with no exclusive lanes for the train in the street running sections. Muni's light rail is nothing compared LA light rail. Also, LA's green line is fully grade separated and faster than the red/purple lines. So it's basically HRT with a OCS.
Why is there no talk about the subway going to the east? What with the west? The ocean is that way. It be nice if they could talk about building the subway east of union station. that my thought!!
But i will admit at least your city has shown initiative in expansions unlike mine in Atlanta, but still LA's system should be much larger than it is today. Chicago is 3rd and has a larger system if you see my point. That's all i'm saying.
I didn't say San Francisco was all subway did I? I just said LA's just sucks cause it barely goes anywhere even with the LRV's, but even comparing BART to LA's metro is still a losing argument. I compare the transit systems overall with their usefulness and feasability of their areas they service, and San Francisco's is better from experience and actual coverage. Sure when you put commuter rail into the picture it evens out, but for a city of it's size it's still way behind in progression.
@SanDiegoInnOut If you look at a map of LA's Subway/Light Rail system, you will see that the purple Line is just a 2 station branch from the Red Line, the main subway line. The red line has more cars.
Also, this was on a saturday. During weekdays the Purple Line has 2 extra cars, while the red line has the full six car trains.
Why aren't there more cars? Here in Dallas, we have up to nine.
Here in Washington DC, we have 8cars
Not exactly. First, SF doesn't even really have an actual subway system. The BART acts like a subway through SF, but it's only passing through to the rest of the Bay Area. SF muni is nothing more than LRVs running on old street car tracks, often with no exclusive lanes for the train in the street running sections. Muni's light rail is nothing compared LA light rail. Also, LA's green line is fully grade separated and faster than the red/purple lines. So it's basically HRT with a OCS.
Why is there no talk about the subway going to the east? What with the west? The ocean is that way. It be nice if they could talk about building the subway east of union station. that my thought!!
But i will admit at least your city has shown initiative in expansions unlike mine in Atlanta, but still LA's system should be much larger than it is today. Chicago is 3rd and has a larger system if you see my point. That's all i'm saying.
0:37 Come on.
I didn't say San Francisco was all subway did I? I just said LA's just sucks cause it barely goes anywhere even with the LRV's, but even comparing BART to LA's metro is still a losing argument. I compare the transit systems overall with their usefulness and feasability of their areas they service, and San Francisco's is better from experience and actual coverage. Sure when you put commuter rail into the picture it evens out, but for a city of it's size it's still way behind in progression.
LA's subway sucks, that's why. It's america's second largest city with ONLY 2 subways, pitiful. San francisco's system puts this city to shame.