On my first visit to Los Angeles a few weeks ago, I rode the metro B line and I walked a ton.. what I learned is that the biggest battle is cultural. Angelinos DON'T WANT to walk or ride transit, and they mock people that do. A true change of mindset is necessary for transit to really thrive in LA.
I agree that these bigger projects should have priority. But most of these smaller extensions will have a much bigger impact in parts of the city that are actively looking to expand and densify. This is definitely a long term play, and the construction of these projects are already going to take years before they come to fruition.
These projects were a necessity to get Measure M to pass. Without the funds from Measure M projects like Sepulveda or K line North would not be on anyone's radar.
I also want to clarify because of the language used in Measure M the funds for these lower ridership projects are locked into their specific subregion of the county. So in essence you cannot reallocate funds for the Southbay, Gateway, and Eastside Lines to fund Sepulveda or K line North as these projects are located in a separate sub region. This restriction was put in place to ensure regional equity of transit spending so the local politicians of the cities outside LA would support Measure M ensuring its 2/3rds approval.
@@ronnyrueda5926 right but "regional equity" has to be tied to demographic as well as locality, If 5m people live in say the east and only 1m people live in the west as a crude example, it would be utter insanity to spend 50% of your allocated funds on the west.
@@BigBlueMan118Tell that to the voters. These funding measures needed a 2/3rds approval to pass so appeasing the suburbanites is unfortunately the name of the game.
@@ronnyrueda5926 If they cant get safety and cleanliness back under control or increase ridership by providing an effective attractive offering, theyre less likely to win additional future measures though
Is a lack of coverage the reason I don't use LA Metro for a lot of trips? Yes. There's a giant hole from Koreatown to West LA. The D line extension, K line north, and Sepulveda line are absolutely necessary to get ridership up. The smaller projects are there because people won't vote for funding measures if their region won't get anything. Cancelling those smaller projects is generally not legal and leaving them out of the funding package would have meant the overall package might not have passed at all. Also, LA Metro's light rail lines are not that slow. Average speeds are comparable with some heavy rail lines like Paris metro.
Yes, it's about spreading out the funding for areas that still don't have access to the LA Metro. The Westside has several lines already and getting a huge one with the extension of the D line. The most expensive extension to date by far at almost $10 billion. The Sepulveda Pass line will be even more expensive still.
To answer the question in the title, no. Actually, an emphatic NO. Part of making the current service better is making it reach places people want to go, currently it does not go to enough places. The region is enormous, and the amount of square miles the system covers is pathetic.
Your vision of equity has it totally wrong, you are trying to give every man & their dog a low-quality ride rather than giving the majority a good one. It isn't doing you much good if the system remains low ridership overall, you have just increased operational cost for low revenue returns. Lines that would otherwise be higher-ridership are getting neglected to expand the system to chase marginal riders in low-density sprawl that will never see transit-oriented development. Meanwhile they (Metro) have cut corners and built in bottlenecks left+right+centre: *flat junction at the northern end of the new Regional Connector tunnel where the A and C lines merge which will bake in a conflict that will limit speed and capacity forever *short platforms on the new underground lines restricting future train lengths to 270ft rather than the platforms built into the D & B line tunnels which are 450ft and can therefore carry almost twice the future ridership *stacks of slow sections with dozens of intersections which will be a constant handbrake on speed and future automation until they are removed at great expense and disruption *stacks of the cities' busier more important and slow bus routes still not served like Crenshaw & Vermont whilst Metro chases low-ridership SFHs *key destinations still not directly connected and/or poorly served with gadgetbahn solutions like people movers
@alexanderrotmensz Not when the funding schemes said that the Metro infrastructure would be built so every region of the county would have access. It wasn't written to say the highest ridership areas would get it first. Had the law been written that way, it would have NEVER passed, and LA would still have no metro system. Residents aren't going to pay additional sales tax and not get the benefit of it.
@@mrxman581 so now increased charges will be hidden but certainly will come due to the system being more extensive with higher maintenance and operational costs, lack of attraction for TOD leading to more sprawl and all the costs associated with that, and all the costs associated with the lack of mode shift away from private transport because the PT system is slow, inefficient, ureliable, unattractive, poorly-utilised, relatively infrequent and doesnt serve the areas where people want to go well. Not to mention other problems which will begin to surface due to cost-cutting and bottlenecks theyve built into the system. Conversely if there is ever a major shift and big increase in demand, the system isnt capable of ramping up capacity because they havent built long platforms, high-capacity turnbacks or grade separations in key areas. I know most Americans are devoted to the idea that bigger=better but it certainly aint true regarding transit.
The number of square miles it covers is within jurisdiction. What you're advocating for isn't. Let me guess, you want the A Line to get to Ontario... That's never gonna happen. If San Bernardino County wants rail, they'll develop their own system, just like Orange County with the OC Streetcar which was planned to be its own network. LA Metro is for the LA County, not the entire basin. It's in the name. They're not the Pacific Electric, which was privately owned.
Fixes for the problems you described are already in progress (as you mentioned at the end of the video), besides grade separating the light rail (which is important!). All of these were planned prior to the recent safety discussions. Division 20 updates will allow for faster headways on the heavy rail. We are ordering new cars for heavy rail. 7th Street Metro Center (shown as an example of poor lighting) will be refurbished with an emphasis on lighting. Metro will be creating its own police force. It is more complex than having to pick one or the other (improving current lines vs. planning new lines). In my opinion, it is crucial that both are done well. With how long it takes to build new rail in North America, I do like that we are in the planning stages of many projects so that we can hit the ground running when we're ready for shovels to hit the dirt. Metro's biggest issue is that it is a county agency. Because of this, they have had to prioritize reaching satellite cities as much as the core, which is frustrating. However, I don't see a way around it while keeping buy-in from the entire county. Ideally, I'd like to see something like the K Line north be prioritized over the SFV line, WSAB, or E Line east, but there are too many municipalities to satisfy.
They're going to need a lot of transit cops to stay on top of security on the LA metro. I know LASD currently works the metro, but they just roust the homeless camping out on the trains at the terminal points at the end of the night.
@@mrvwbug4423LAPD, LASD, and LBPD are history. They will be phased out over the next 5 years as LA Metro sets up their own internal security force solely focused on LA Metro and they'll answer to the LA Metro which isn't the case today.
Another reason why the big most important projects aren't build yet is because Metro also spends the money on widening freeways when they make congestion worse instead of funding those projects that can be built sooner.
yo....we already get treated like step-children down here in Torrance when it comes to transit infrastructure. This K line extension was sapposed to help ease traffic for the olympics, but that's not even gonna happen now.
Not sure if anyone’s said this yet, but often you have to start off by putting rail projects in places that don’t seem to make sense (the suburbs in this case) because that’s where the taxpayers who’ll oppose these projects live and it’s smart to make them happy first so they don’t kill your rail ideas before they get a chance to blossom. That’s a big reason CA HSR is being placed in such a weird corridor to start with (I think it’s Bakersfield or something?)
@@matthewcron8842 This doesn't actually make sense though, building poor-quality lines in places that will never generate high ridership or TOD and ignoring more important corridors with more potential riders and upzoning first. CAHSR would have been far more successful if it had focused on SF-Gilroy and Burbank-Annaheim as their stage 1, would serve way more people early on and have a proof of concept nice and solid to build from generating revenue.
@@BigBlueMan118Merced and Bakersfield are disadvantaged communities as they were bypassed by I 5 and California high speed rail would connect them and provide economic opportunities and development.
This video is very poorly researched so it's basically garbage. First, the southern extension of the current C line will not be $2 billion. That is the highest cost alternative over Hawthorne which LA Metro already said they don't want, and they didn't approve. The LPA was approved and it costs about $1 billion less because it uses an existing ROW that LA Metro already owns. Second, the K and C lines will be reconfigured. The K line will take over the southern section of the C line including the previously discussed extension. The C line, in turn will turn north to connect to the Transit Center Station under construction so that it has a direct connection to the LAX APM as well. Yes, both the K and C lines will connect to the LAX APM. Third, the reason for expanding LA Metro into regions of LA County that currently has no metro access has to do with how the funding propositions were crafted. The reason the funding measures passed is because it was a clear mandate that if passed, the metro would expand to the different regions of the county as equitably as possible. That's good and fair. What's not fair are for residents of the SFV or Southeast LA not to get rail transit only until the most denses areas get them first. All county residents have been paying the additional sales taxes that fund these transit projects for years and decades already. It's about time these underserved communities get their Metro rail lines. Fourth, the ridership on the LA Metro has gone up every month over the last 16 months straight! It's recovering it's ridership from Covid faster than many other cities. And it will only continue to increase with several projects being completed next year. Fifth, LA Metro has instituted new policies to improve the experience over the last year and it shows including more security and cleaning crews, and ambassadors. Things have improved noticeably since about June 2023. The recent increase in crimes has led LA Metro to add even more security which has begun to roll out and will take some time to fully deploy. Sixth. The extension of the E line to Whittier will be done in two phases to lower the cost. Same is true for the Southeast Gateway line. The SFV line will connect to the G line and Metrolink. Very important to have more multi-modal connections outside of Union Station. Seventh, LA Metro will select the heavy rail option for the Sepulveda line. The vast majority of residents are against the Monorail. And you conveniently forgot to mention the extension of the D subway line under the densest corridor in the city because it didn't fit with your thesis. Eighth. I completely agree with LA Metro's vision to expand the network as fast as possible and using light rail as the backbone of the network. LA County's 4700 square miles is too vast to serve only with very expensive heavy rail subway or elevated rail. BTW, you keep saying that light rail is inferior to heavy rail by a wide margin. In terms of capacity, probably, but not speed. The top and average speeds of LA Metro's subways and light rail lines are not too far off especially if the light rail lines have full signal prioritization. Though on LA Metro it's not as critical because all the LRT lines run on dedicated ROWs and are, at least, partially grade separated. Some of them significantly so. Nonetheless, signal prioritization needs to be implemented across all LRT lines. The reason it hasn't been is due to LADOT not cooperating. They are the agency that has the authority to implement signal prioritization in the city of LA. It's not up to LA Metro. Unfortunately, these two agencies have competing mandates. LADOT favors vehicle travel efficiencies, and LA Metro favors mass transit efficiencies. Ninth, LA Metro has done a remarkable job over the years to expand the system to as many residents as possible considering the available funding schemes, coverage area, and constant obstacles like NIMBYS and politicians at various levels. They are to be commended.
Yeah this has been a common thing that I have seen when people make videos to discuss the issues with LA Metro's expansions plans. They never seem to look at the politics and funding mechanisms that lead to the selection of the projects that Metro is currently working on.
@@ronnyrueda5926Exactly. The process to get public transit infrastructure built is rooted in politics and funding schemes. Without those, it never gets built.
My guy also called the communities along the Southeast Gateway Line "low density" and that is FALSE! Artesia has over 10k per square mile and Huntington Park has over 15k per square mile (and may be even higher since immigrants are often undercounted in the census). The only light rail line I'm not on board with is the Eastern San Fernando Light Rail line. It doesn't utilize an existing ROW so it should've just been a grade separated light rail line, like portions of the K Line.
I don’t know what some people in the comments are talking about. The Extension of the K line south bound is a good and critical step in filling a gap in the South Bay where there is no public transportation. On top of that it would soon after extend to Long Beach which would give the K line even more ridership, so to those who say that the South Bay extension is not important you are wrong.
I do agree with your part that we shouldn’t be only focused on expansion projects when it comes to improving transit. Some transit systems don’t really need that many extensions, just some station improvements, more frequency, more security, and better path finding. But I still wish that transit got more funding and political support in the US. There is still some people who are still skeptical about using transit, so even when you do expand transit, they probably won’t take it because of the negative perception that transit has.
Yeah K Line north is way more important than K Line south. I have no idea why they're doing south first. There is a chicken and egg problem where you're right that these extensions would only travel through low density suburbs, but if we want those areas to densify, it's important to add transit there at the same time. However, to your point, LA is horrendous at this and still has single-family zoned areas around rapid transit stations. So the city is wasting what little opportunity they have to make the city more livable. What's the point of extending rail if we don't even make the most of the rail we already have. I largely agree. It's almost impossible to provide good coverage to a land area as large and low density as LA. The city should focus its efforts on the core of the city and provide exceptional service and walkability there. But that means it also must densify which it refuses to do. The state is being too friendly to LA. LA simply isn't upzoning where people desire to live, and as a result we get more and more sprawl in places like the Inland Empire. Building the longest light rail line in the world out to the Inland Empire is not a solution. Not even close. I disagree that the reason Metro is slow is due to not enough focus. I think the reason for that is LA won't let Metro slow a single car down, so our rapid transit costs way more when it needs to tunnel or bridge over a street that could otherwise have been closed to cars. And where grade-separation wasn't done, for some insane reason cars are still given priority over rapid transit. I think that's in part due to CEQA. Metro would be sued if they slow cars down due to "environmental review" which is painfully backwards.
Totally see what you mean, but I'm not sure if "densifying" is any goal that can be actively reached. Transit can't do much if housing ordinances don't change with them
I agree that at least a partial expansion of the K line to the D line would be more useful than the extension south to Torrance. The entire K line north extension to the B line would be too expensive to do all at once since the entire route will be underground. It would be way more expensive than the extension to Torrance. BTW, both the average and top speeds of LA Metro's light-rail lines are not slow compared to many similar lines around the world. All light-rail lines are at least partially grade separated and they all run on dedicated ROWs. Projects like the Regional Connector actually made the whole network more efficient without the need for complete grade separations. That's where the focus needs to be.
@@alexanderrotmenszRidership has increased every month for the last 18 months. LA Metro has recovered it's pre-pandemic ridership faster than most in the USA. Those are signs of success considering the continuing residual effects from Covid.
The reason Metro is doing these smaller projects is because they needed to pass measure M. They needed far flung suburbs to vote for it, and giving them transit projects helped the measure get 2/3 of the vote. If i were in charge, I’d say they need to complete the K line north, Sepulveda subway, and the B line on Chandler first. (With D to Santa Monica and light rail on Venice shortly afterwards) But metro was constrained politically.
The Westside already has LA Metro access and it will increase significantly with the D line to the VA and the most expensive extension in the history of the LA Metro. The Sepulveda Pass line will cost even more. The projects on the Eastside of LA need to be done first as well as the SFV line.
@@jonathaneby1440Even if that is true, it's a matter of equity. When the tax increase measures were written and proposed, they passed because the understanding was that LA Metro would build lines to service the entire county. Without that provision, the measures would have failed. It's not fair for voters to pay increased sales taxes for the foreseeable future and not get Metro rail service in their area. The Westside already has the E line and very soon the D line subway. East LA has no subway, and it needs one, especially because the geography makes building another LRT almost impossible. The originally proposed Eastside extension of the subway line down Whittier Blvd needs to happen. That's the busiest corridor in East LA and Boyle Heights. There are a lot of jobs there, too.
In response to the title, no. I actually think Metro's current plans are not expanding enough. I also am pretty sure that the Measure M funds that are funding pretty much all of this expansion have to be allocated to certain lines. While I agree that the K line north should be one of the top priorities, from my understanding it's a bit more difficult than saying "we're going to use the monies over here now." But hey, thanks for making this video!
The vision of equity has to be legit, if you are trying to give every man & their dog a low-quality ride rather than giving the majority a good one it isn't doing you much good if the system remains low ridership overall, you have just increased operational cost for low revenue returns. Lines that would otherwise be higher-ridership (Crenshaw North, Vermont South, Sepulveda, higher speeds on the existing workhorse lines) are getting neglected to expand the system to chase marginal riders in low-density sprawl that will never see transit-oriented development. Meanwhile they (Metro) have cut corners and built in bottlenecks left+right+centre: *flat junction at the northern end of the new Regional Connector tunnel where the A and C lines merge which will bake in a conflict that will limit speed and capacity forever *short platforms on the new underground lines restricting future train lengths to 270ft rather than the platforms built into the D & B line tunnels which are 450ft and can therefore carry almost twice the future ridership *stacks of slow sections with dozens of intersections which will be a constant handbrake on speed and future automation until they are removed at great expense and disruption *stacks of the cities' busier more important and slow bus routes still not served like Crenshaw & Vermont whilst Metro chases low-ridership SFHs *key destinations still not directly connected and/or poorly served with gadgetbahn solutions like people movers
Having read most of the comments, I note that literally no one has mentioned the effect of these system extensions on funding for operations. Transit requires subsidies to remain in operation, and these low-ridership extensions will surely increase operating expenses far beyond any increase in ridership. In stark contrast, if the Sepulveda line really increases system ridership by 66%, it seems likely that much of this ridership will be in the form of reducing slack capacity on currently underutilized services. To the degree that more service would be required, it would come in the form of more frequent trains and buses, which would attract more ridership due to shorter wait and transfer times.
All residents of LA County are paying the additional sales tax. The measure was written so that the LA Metro would expand across the County. The Westside already has had several lines that service it. Areas to the East are overdue to having access to the LA Metro. There is only one line. The Westside has the E line, the K line, and the extension of the D line. And, the SFV line is getting built next. The extension of the E line East and the Gateway Cities lines need to come before the Sepulveda line. As it is, East LA got cheated out of the original Red line subway extension under Whittier Blvd. Instead they got the Gold line light rail. Areas like the San Gabriel Valley also have only one LA Metro line. The Northeast area of LA (Echo Park, Silver Lake, and East Hollywood) has none. They need to build a light rail line from DTLA down Sunset Blvd and connect to the B line at the Vermont/Sunset Station. They also need a N/S route along the Rosemead-Lakewood corridor from the A line down to the C line and connect to the E East LA extension and Gateway Cities line along the way. Those lines would connect those disparate neighborhoods to LAX for one. That would be huge.
@@mrxman581 That's only because it's recovering from a very low base. As it stands the majority of people that use LA Metro are low income workers that cannot work remotely, which is why NY/Chicago haven't recovered as quickly.
It's the California curse, trying to appeal to too many special interests at once because otherwise someone will sue, so projects are endlessly delayed, massively over budget and usually scaled back (prime example is CAHSR). The low ridership makes a case for not expanding anything and potentially just ripping it out entirely. LA needs to take their drug and homeless problem seriously if they want people to start using public transit again, having a system that is faster than driving and is clean and safe is essential, LA metro fails on all those points right now, it used to be clean and safe, but only certain lines were faster than driving.
Ridership has gone up every month for the last 18 months. Your ASSUMPTIONS ARE WRONG! LA Metro has recovered it's pre-pandemic ridership faster than most in the USA.
LA metro.. i almost never take it. but when i do, it's absolutely adequate. west LA to DTLA. it's clean. frequrent enough. longest wait is like 15 minutes mid day. definitely could be more frequent, sure. and yeah, driving is faster, but it beats driving on the 10 during rush hour (it's actually the same time travelling, but relaxing on a train is better than stressful stop-go traffic and searching and paying for parking.) worst thing is smelly homeless people. that's it. if other lines are really so terrible ill take yalls word for it. LA Metro.. in my experience, they do nothing wrong. they have a budget, and they spend it. doesnt really matter what they spend it on. the problem isn't the train. the problem the train doesnt go anywhere/connect anything. it cant, 'cause there's nothing to connect. it connects actual residents to nothing. what i mean is land use around the stations is very dumb. you go outside a station and at least half of the land use is car-centric. that's the problem. you cant have good transit without good land use. it's not LA Metro's problem. there's no place for it to build stations where it would be of good use, because the entirety of LA is intensely car-centric. LA Metro does its part and it does it perfectly adequately. the problem is LA. LA just isn't letting its transit system to live up to its full potential because the city is always refusing to densify around stations. and as it is right now, the metro has got ass-loads and ass-loads of untapped potential. it can expand and add stations all it wants, but it wont improve unless land use improves.
I dont think you are thinking of the long term planning Metro puts into some of these projects. The green line extension to Torrance is supposed to one day go even further south as a connection to the blue north of Long beach. By then this will be the K(Crenshaw) line that would extend from Southbay area up to Hollywood. The K line is projected to one day connect to the Blue, Green, Purple, Expo, and Red line, making it one of the most important lines in the future of the city. Its just that Metro has to deal with many of the smaller communities in this area that make the beauracy of planning, developing and building transit so much harder than it has to be. If anything we should be calling for reform in the authority Metro has as a county wide transit agency, as well as environmental laws like CEQA which have some outdated stuff in them that hold metro back. LA has many small cities and communities within it(Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, San Fernando, Lawndale, etc.) That unfortunately have the power to slow development for decades.
In the '80s, Los Angeles peaked in ridership at 500,000,000. If you want more people on Metro, advocate for the agency to bring back their expansive bus system. Busses have and always will be what brings transit ridership to this city, and without high quality service in that department nothing will improve. Also, I want to ask: why not advocate for expansion in both high-density corridors and low density corridors? Is the idea not to build first and allow ridership to come later, when higher densities enable better justification to build? This is especially true for the C Line extension into the south bay, which is fully grade separated. However, while I disagree with your point on building in low-density areas, I agree that it should be built to higher quality standards. All the travel times mentioned in your video are depressing, and in my opinion the second largest factor keeping people away from the metro (lack of quality bus service being the first). I do believe the biggest factor that determines if the average person will ride Metro or not is whether the trip takes longer than their current option. As a car ride is the other option of most Angelinos, Metro needs to step up its game here, and I wouldn't mind if some projects in the anterior got delayed for E/A/K line grade separation or crossing gate projects. What I continuously disagree with you on is safety. I do believe that it is important generally to provide a safe and clean experience from entrance to exit, and especially to keep those who commit crimes off the system. I do not, however, think it seriously affects ridership. Systems in Europe are typically somewhat grimey and edgy as well (though I admit not to the level of Metro), and compared to even other American cities like Philadelphia (staring daggers at the BSL) Metro's safety and cleanliness aren't that bad. I simply believe it isn't what many take into consideration when choosing whether or not to ride the system, and having it listed as a major ridership threat in a video about attracting ridership is likely untrue. Keep up the videomaking! Glad to have another RUclips voice in the LA Transit sphere.
Great video! I think the Fairfax/San Vicente line is the most crucial, other than the Sepulveda line. I agree the suburbs are too scarcely populated to be priority rn. Heart of LA needs to be completed first
This is a bit unnecessarily provocative in its framing. The argument being made is not really that LA metro is over-expanding. But rather, that LA metro is mid-prioritizing is expansion projects such that more important projects are struggling because less important projects are attracting too much attention and funding. So it’s really a matter of priorities, rather than the ultimate scale of expansion.
The project priorities are partially dictated by the way the measure that was passed by county voters was written. Equity access to the LA Metro is written into the law. Without that condition, the measure would not have passed. Everyone pays the additional sales tax that funds these projects. The Southeast and SGV are entitled to access, too.
The projects you call “low priority” also are in some of the most marginalized areas of LA. The projects you call “high priority” are in the wealthiest. You should also consider transit dependent populations in LA and how much more value new projects adds to these communities. Further, the Eastside of LA hasn’t had a single Metro project but we’re still paying measure M and R taxes like the rest of the county. Also, the sepelveda line might be monorail because of bel air nimby’s. The eastside extension has much less community opposition.
The LA Metro Rail is such an inconsistent service. People scream so often on it that you start to feel the urge to chime in. I'd take the most unconventional busker-musician over any of the threats. The Falun Dafa peddlers - AKA Scientology of the East. The abusers. Women telling the story of Eve being created first. The Red Line smells like feet at best. You get used to it which makes me wonder how I stunk after riding it daily for some time. People will legit light up a meth pipe next to you. This complete stranger was randomly looking sideways and leaning on me - I'm cuddly but NOT IN PUBLIC AND DEFINITELY NOT WITH A PERSON I JUST MET. Then she offered me her meth pipe. I thankfully got away. I could tell it was like Adderall to her. She seemed more sedated than stimulated from the crystal meth. She seemed harmless after I told her to back off but I didn't want to chance anything or get secondhand high. I swear I was already secondhand high. How often is the metro deep cleaned after such a thing? What was that train doing to my brain? But the red line is FAST. It sure beats the 101 if you want to walk around hollywood for a bit. The light rail lines? I like them, and we need more!
I live in Baldwin Hills and I agree, the K line should be a top priority as it would extend from the LAX airport into Hollywood/West Hollywood. It would be a fast route and very convenient. I get tired of driving all around and would like a quick/safe alternative.
Seattle also made a terrible mistake... on its core line... the vackbone of the system, it connected its great connection to the airport which is elevated grade seperated... to it's section going through downtown...which is grade seperated in a tunnel through the city center with a section through the southern neighborhoods of the city with at grade segments down the center of city streets that can get blocked by traffic and affected by red lights and are legally speed limited... amd it is likely a 100 year mistake... they won't get the money to fix it for at least decades amd every project they plan takes at least 20 years due to bureaucratic red tape, incompetence and corruption... what a blunder...
LA Metro didn't make a mistake. It's about getting LADOT to implement signal prioritization in the city of LA. But even without that the LA Metro light-rail lines are relatively fast compared to other similar lines across the world.
People arguing in the comments about "politics" and making things "fair" rather than prioritzing transit that can benefit the most people and actually make a profit while also proving to other cities that transit is a worthwhile investment is such an american way of doing things. In the rest of the world, they prioritize the backbone of the transit system first. They try and get as many people riding as possible, and then the more underserved and less dense communities are worked on after. This way of building transit in the US makes me think that politicians are almost trying to make transit projects fail. Instead of playing polticis, you build where it makes sense. When you dont serve as many people as possible first, you have less money for things that make transit high quality. Clean, safe, timely, etc. The rest of the world understands that they will sometimes have to pay taxes for the greater good of their community, and sometimes, they might never see the benefit from paying for something in their lifetime. But they do it for their kids and grandkids. Oh, well. I guess America does most things backward. No wonder most of your cities have low ridership, unclean and unsafe trains, etc...... honolulu did the exact same dumb thing with their new project. They wanted to build the rail from the "underserved" areas first. Instead of building the project in the most dense urban core and to the airport. Now you have only 50% of the project done, and no one is riding it because it doesn't serve the core of the city yet. They could've been serving tens of thousands per day and started making a profit and prove that transit is worthwhile to the more areas of Honolulu. Instead, people are now complaining. it's pointless, and they are compromising more and more, removing future stations that prob wouldn't have been removed if they focused on getting as many people riding as quickly as possible.
The US is bad at transit funding so many transit systems need to ask local Jurisdictions for money. California has a law that requires 2/3rds approval for new taxes. So in order to get the local funding to build new transit you have to spend transit dollars in these less than optimal areas to get their approval. If you have a way of navigating the gymnastics of transit funding I'm all ears.
Well then run for office to change things. The whole "AMerICA DoES iT DiFFerENTLY wHY CAN't thEY Do IT LIEK IN EURope" argument is tired. Before you change the system, you need to understand how it works.
I definitely think that LA metro has a severe overspending problem but not in doing expansions, rather in doing expansions as expensicely and inefficiently as possible. Like Im from Copenhagen, and were currenrlt getting an 18 mile orbital light rail line with 29 stations, orbiting in an arc around the city parallel to the busiest highway built for 1.4 billion USD. Of course people still like to complain about the price of that and especially the disruptions during construction but jesus, we're doing quite well in Copenhagen compared to LA.
A lot of comments are bringing up the political realities of why this is happening, but I don't think that negates what is being said in the video. Just because there is a reason it is being built like this doesn't mean nothing can be done to get around that reason. Other places around the world build transit in a way that prioritizes the backbone of the network first. Instead of piling on him for not knowing what he's talking about, why don't you open your mind a little and consider that maybe the funding/governing structure around Metro is broken. Then we can consider if there are ways to fix it so we all get better transit in the end. Maybe the video could have been more clear about the causes of this issue, but I do think it is an issue that can and should be fixed.
Thank you. This summarizes my points pretty well to what people are saying. I should have made it more clear in the video but yeah we should not be slaves to a dumb bureaucracy
It seems a little simplistic to say the governing structure of Metro is broken. The real issue is transit funding in the United States is broken. Metro is working around that by using local sales tax revenue to fund their projects. But that local funding comes with a specific California caveat of sales tax initiatives requiring 2/3rds majority to pass. While I agree these funding issues need to be addressed they need to be addressed at the state and federal level. Metro as an agency can only control so much given the restrictions.
@@ronnyrueda5926 yep, I completely agree. Metro is doing well with what it has to work with. If we can change something at a higher level of government, they could have much more flexibility to spend resources more effectively
When a random dude with a small YT channel makes better recommendations to improving LA transit than people with expensive graduate degrees can think up. It is quite telling of what kind of a society we’ve become…
I've been thinking this as well. I think they should be spending money on more service improvements and BRT lines with later conversion to light rail, but absolutely we don't need to be spending 2 billion dollars on just 5,000 riders.
Oh Toronto is the poster child for oddball transit. 10 km = 1 hour. 2 hours if you walk. TCC - You'll get there when you get there. Quit complaining. Listen to a podcast.
Dangerous - no, still safer than driving your car. This is just a matter of optics. Crime on a metro gets publicised, vehicle crimes not as much. As far as violent crime is concerned it does across the board during the pandemic.
The cost of establishing right of ways and initial construction inflates much more rapidly than the cost of service improvements IMO. If the willpower to break ground is present now, then I agree with the current expansion plans. Look at what ridiculous opposition can do. The 1985 methane explosion which had nothing to do with the subway set the D line extension back 30 years. 30 years of inflation, price increases, anti transit legislation, you name it. I don't disagree about the safety, cleanliness, and efficiency one bit, but the political firepower to scrape funding together for a tunnel dug and rail built is exceedingly more difficult than hiring more janitors and police.
100% agree with Metro needing to improve its core network before working on these low density extensions. All lines should be 100% grade separeted, frequncies increased to 2-5 min peak/ 5-10 off peak. All light rail trains should be 6 cars instead of 3. Stations should all be fully enclosed with platform screen doors and all the Fetty smoking fucks thrown off. Only then will it be a true transit system, instead of the half ass system it is today. Right now, Its almost like the system is being designed by people who dont ride public transit lol.
The problem isn't all these small projects per se, but rather that the authority is spending so much money on them! Like $2 bil for a 2-stop light rail extension? What are they building, the 2nd Avenue Subway???
@@EdwardM-t8p It's expected to cost 1 billion. It's also vital for an eventual extension to Long Beach. Due to Measure M, LA must fund projects in the south bay. If they pulled out of K Line south, the money would go to a 405 expansion project.
i'm sorry but lfg with the k line extension alignment FINALLY being chosen after literally my entire lifetime, $2 billion is really sad for that small of an extension tho. we really do need it, torrance places no emphasis on its transit system except for this enormous hunk of metal and concrete in the middle of an industrial area that they've rerouted a few buses to (they call it a transit center). maybe it'll shift their opinions more towards it
The light rail lines are long and obviously would ideally be proper subways. But when even it is time to finally do so, do they go with a fleet of two different trains or update the subway stations? The metro and light rail vehicles have different widths! California in general is on such a high horse... We spent so much on so little and it's never done right... * Bob's Burger facepalm *
Most of LAs above ground metro lines should be heavy commuter rail, LA is the worst offender of light rail obsession, they're the textbook definition of tram-trains.
I still don’t get how they built a line heading all the way to Rancho Cucamonga but not the Sepulveda pass. Anyone who knows LA knows the potential impact of traffic for people that travel this section. From people heading to west LA for work, school, or to the airport, it would become a highly used line.
@@mrxman581 I thought I saw something where the line would extend to Rancho. Maybe it was heavy rail. Either way, a line through the pass into Van Nuys should have been top priority after the lines extending to Santa Monica and the VA.
Metrolink is going to RC, they have to extend that because RC is the western terminus of Brightline West, at least until the line between RC and LA Union is electrified and Brightline trains can get all the way into LA. Metrolink is basically going to ferry Brightline passengers from RC to LA.
100% agree with the video, first priority has to be building the Sepulveda Line as automated heavy rail, maximizing frequency on existing lines, and new grade separated lines in the core. Suburban extensions should come only after core projects are done.
Where did you get the data on ridership of monorail vs light rail? What makes you so sure Monorail would be slower and have less ridership? And something you failed to mention on what “Metro should do” is they should connect Pasadena to Santa Monica, Long Beach to Santa Monica, and Long Beach and Pasadena to East LA. I don’t care what they call it. The infrastructure is there pretty much.
Metro’s own studies produced the ridership numbers. Also, they’ve actually done what you described. They opened it last year, it’s called the regional connector
Thank you for your response. I probably wasn’t clear what I said about going from Pasadena to Santa Monica. The regional connector in my mind was a good first step, but I think it is flawed. If you wanted to go from say Pasadena or anywhere East of it to Santa Monica, you would have to take the Metro A line down to Little Tokyo, and then transfer to the Metro E line. What Im saying is the infrastructure is there to have a single train from Pasadena to Santa Monica without having to transfer. Same for having to go from Pasadena to Atlantic station in East LA. It used to be just one ride. I think the connector is one big compromise.
Thank you! LA Metro has been too concerned with building "where they can build cheaply" instead of where and "how" they "should" build. You highlighted the "reconstruction" on existing lines after only a few decades. These reconstructions have left the A line still subpar by not removing all grade crossings (the A line has had over 800 car collisions since it started). Metro has recently backtracked on grade separations for the successful Orange Line BRT grade separations (which has more ridership than the Pasadena section of the Blue Line). And the poor freeway location for the Green Line means that there are many bus routes in LA with higher ridership than that entire line. All of this is a liability for LA Metro as they have rail lines that are performing terribly, where the rail lines should be the trunk lines for the entire region. The J express bus line performs better than all of Metro's recently built rail extensions (K line, ELA, Arcadia). LA has only two subway lines, everything else is light rail running on street level and subject to traffic and stop lights. Can you imagine NYC, London, Paris, or any other global city with trains that stop at red lights? Street running will always mean slower trains. Always. This approach means routes are less than optimal, more bus transfers are necessary, and ridership remains very low when compared to other major cities. There is a reason why NYC, Chicago, Paris, London, don't use street running light rail as their trunk lines. It's slower and carries fewer people. Light rail is great for cities like San Diego, Minneapolis, and LA suburbs, but not a great solution for Los Angeles. Eventually LA will need to spend as much money as it cost to build to grade separate all of its light rail lines in the city to meet demand. That's poor transit planning and fiscal management. It's faster and more convenient to take one bus even if it takes longer rather than to get off, wait for a train, take the train, and then get off and wait for the bus to take where the first bus also goes. That's why the ELA extension is poorly ridden. It's faster to stay on the Cesar Chavez or Whittier bus to downtown and beyond than to use the light rail line (which barely sees 2000 riders/day) and transfer again. The same goes for the current Crenshaw Line, it's faster to stay on the Crenshaw bus (until the northern section is built). However, if the Crenshaw goes to West Hollywood (another cost boondoggle of billions for the same amount of riders), many Crenshaw riders may stay on the Crenshaw bus to Hollywood and mid-Wilshire. The same will be true for the Van Nuys light rail line. While LA Metro is committed to serve the entire county, construction should have been focused on where most of the people and jobs are first. A subway network in the central core of the region incl LA adjacent suburbs, light rail and trams in the larger suburbs connecting to Metrolink, and trams connecting the larger suburbs to adjacent cities. I see many people here think that extending Metro rail lines as far and wide as possible is a good thing but it isn't. Operating costs with lower ridership are going to hobble the agency and force poor service, long frequencies, and less maintenance. Metrolink is the suburban network and should remain so. In fact, LA Metro's transit funds used in the suburbs should be used to expand Metrolink service for the suburbs and tram services linking suburbs to Metrolink. It needs a lot of improvements and new routes that don't go downtown but it is the key suburban transit network. Metrolink is of even more importance since a large reason for Metro's transit decline over the last decades is that many LA neighborhoods have been emptied of working class workers moving to the far suburbs like the Inland Empire to afford housing. You correctly highlighted the South Bay extension as a fiscal disaster. Why spend $1-2 billion (which will no doubt end up being $3-5 billion) on a rail extension that will only gain the ridership of a moderate bus line? It's not even going to serve South Bay residents very well. This line veers way off the South Bay's main commercial corridor along Hawthorne to dump people off in the middle of an oil field, forcing an extra bus transfer to get back to Hawthorne. Of course, ridership is going to be low. Rail lines in global cities go into the middle of commercial districts and key destinations, LA Metro light rail lines leave almost everyone a mile or two from where they need to be. The Long Beach extension from the South Bay will go through the lowest density corridor and will be a mile or two from central Wilmington, Lomita, PCH and the South Bay medical center, the commercial PCH and Hawthorne corridors, and the Torrance medical center, all necessitating forced bus transfers. The line will go from the oil fields to downtown Torrance, which is not the region's key commercial center, and then miss the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center by over a mile because they won't deviate from that RR ROW. The South Bay Line is an example of very poor transit planning, cost effectiveness, and execution. Metro didn't even analyze a Hawthorne/PCH corridor. I'm pretty sure, the South Bay cities will eventually build a BRT or tram line along the busy Hawthorne/PCH corridor which will make the rail line largely redundant. Every transit planner knows that for more bus transfers that are required over one transfer, ridership is drastically reduced. The South Bay money should go to finishing the Crenshaw Line in Los Angeles, which is a major regional connection and will better serve South Bay residents anyways. The Van Nuys light rail money should go to the Sepulveda Line. That is the also a major regional connection and will also better serve SFV residents.
Let's dispel some misinformation here. Per Measure M the south bay funds cannot be reallocated to Crenshaw North as they are in different justification. Crenshaw North is in the Central region of LA and South Bay extension is in the South Bay. Canceling the funds for that project would force the south bay council to redirect those funds a different south bay project. The same could be said for the Van Nuys line. 2nd, while i do agree the snake like routE for the Crenshaw North through West Hollywood is circuitous it will still be faster than the competing bus line. The estimated trip time from Expo/Crenshaw to Hollywood Highland through West Hollywood is forecast to take 21 minutes. This is almost half the time the bus takes, 40 minutes, for the same trip.
@@ronnyrueda5926 I appreciate your clarification of measure M. It's too bad that measure M is forcing poor transit planning. The fact remains that the South Bay extension is only going to have 5000 riders/day for a cost of $2-4 billion, which doesn't warrant a rail line. A BRT line along Hawthorne would be more useful, productive, cost effective, and attract more riders. If a rail line is mandatory then Metro really should build it on Hawthorne all the way down to PCH. I know they want to use that old out of way RR ROW, but it's a poor choice. I also know that ship has sailed already but it is going to cost them more in the long run. Both the circuitous route of the Crenshaw North line and the direct La Brea have basically the same ridership estimates. The direct route up La Brea will take 12 minutes w a ridership of 88,000/day and annual operating costs of $21.2 million/yr. The San Vicente route will take 20 minutes w a ridership of 90,000/day w operating costs of $31.6 million/yr. The cost estimates, which will undoubtedly grow are: La Brea $4.5 billion San Vicente $6.5 billion The difference of $2 billion (+ cost increases) for 3,000 riders, an add'l 10 minutes of travel time, and $10 million/yr in additional operating costs just doesn't make sense. Either option would make the Crenshaw Line the busiest line in the system by far. The A and B lines get about 66,000/day. This is likely to cause severe overcrowding since light rail trains have less capacity and the stations were built for only 3-car trains on the existing K Line. Metro is planning to extend the platforms in El Segundo and to increase the power transmission capabilities for longer trains on the Century Frwy section of the C Line. If the Crenshaw North line reaches 90,000/day, Metro will need to extend platforms again to accommodate 6 or 8 car trains. Grade separation will probably need to be done on the existing K Line as well since train frequencies will need to be high which will hamper traffic with constant train crossings. All of this points to poor planning and far more cost than if they did this right to begin with. West Hollywood deserves rail access but not this way. Metro did examine a branch of the Purple Line diverging from Beverly Hills up San Vicente through WeHo to Hollywood along Santa Monica. That branch would add 15,000 riders/day. This would provide direct one-seat rides from Hollywood and WeHo to BH and WLA. It would be an important regional connection benefitting those from the east SFV as well with fast access to BH and WLA.
@@bryanCJC2105 while I understand these numbers the fact is West Hollywood is willing to tax themselves to get their preferred alignment thus potentially accelerateing the project. If the La Brea alignment is chosen the north extension essentially goes back to waiting till the 2040s when measure M funding kicks in.
@@ronnyrueda5926 At the risk of being pedantic. WeHo is only planning to put in a small portion of the addl cost through an EIFD in WeHo and Los Angeles. They are going to ask the county, state, and the federal govt for a large portion of the additional money. That isn't funding it themselves. The cost estimates include an aerial alignment on San Vicente. I'm willing to bet that the residents and businesses along San Vicente will demand all of it to be underground, adding $2-3 billion to that alignment. The objective bottom line question is: why are the residents of WeHo worth a $2-3 billion investment that will not realize a meaningful net gain in ridership, but that will cost all other riders an extra 10 min of travel time in addition to having to pick up a big portion of the extra cost both in construction and operating costs? That equation makes no sense.
@@ronnyrueda5926 WeHo is only planning to put in a portion of the addl cost through an EIFD in WeHo and Los Angeles. They are going to ask the county, state, and the federal govt for a large portion of the additional money. That isn't funding it themselves. I don't know why the county, state, and federal govt should pay more and get nothing for the investment other than trading La Brea riders for WeHo riders with no meaningful increase in ridership. That is money that can go to other projects down the line that will increase ridership on the system. The cost estimates include an aerial alignment on San Vicente. I'm willing to bet that the residents and businesses along San Vicente will demand all of it to be underground, adding $2-3 billion to that alignment. The objective bottom line question is: why are the residents of WeHo worth a $2-3 billion investment that will not realize a meaningful net gain in ridership, but that will cost all other riders an extra 10 min of travel time in addition to having to pick up a big portion of the extra cost both in construction and operating costs? It's just trading La Brea riders for more costly WeHo riders. That equation makes no sense.
I think I agree with the videos' premise, and I'll say why: your vision of equity has to be legitimate and sincere, if you are trying to give every man & their dog a low-quality ride rather than giving the majority a good one it isn't doing you much good as the system remains low ridership overall, you have just increased operational costs for low revenue returns and you will retain a reputational hit. Lines that would otherwise be higher-ridership (Crenshaw North, Vermont South, Sepulveda, higher speeds on the existing workhorse lines A & E, automation to improve frequency+speed on the B & D heavy rail lines) are getting neglected to expand the light rail system to chase marginal riders in low-density sprawl that will never see transit-oriented development. Meanwhile they (Metro) have cut corners and built in bottlenecks left+right+centre: *flat junction at the northern end of the new Regional Connector tunnel where the A and C lines merge which will bake in a conflict that will limit speed and capacity forever *short platforms on the new underground lines restricting future train lengths to 270ft rather than the platforms built into the D & B line tunnels which are 450ft and can therefore carry almost twice the future ridership *stacks of slow sections with dozens of intersections which will be a constant handbrake on speed and future automation until they are removed at great expense and disruption *stacks of the cities' busier more important and slow bus routes still not served like Crenshaw & Vermont whilst Metro chases low-ridership SFHs *key destinations still not directly connected and/or poorly served with gadgetbahn solutions like people movers
Fewer and busier routes would also address one of the primary concerns where the metro has basically turned into a rolling homeless camp. Low ridership and unsafe conditions on the trains because half the passengers are fare evaders and doing the "fentanyl lean" just gives NIMBYs plenty of reasons to block future expansion. The "crime train" has traditionally been a BS trope used by anti-transit NIMBYs, but when the trope has become real then LA has no defense. The metro should've been built as heavy rail trunk lines with grade separation and high capacity using bus services as feeders and maybe trams in some busier areas.
Some of stuff you said is right, but most of the stuff you sa8d is incorrect. That is because the common problems from tunnel vision selfish train lovers. Yes, you deserve me to report misinformation. The major problem in LA metro rail is lack of connection, you guys hate that, bu services. Yiu are right the cleanness n safety are big issues. METRO must do something to improve, That's the only thing you are right. You mentioned LA is so spread, the metro cannot cover. Thats the main problem in LA metro. All the tunnel vision selfish train lovers like you don't want to admit. There must be more frequent bus services to connect to train stations. There must be increase of bus services where trains don't exist. Thats fine to make tunnel vision selfish train lovers like you happier, just build the big parking lots at each station. Those are in center of busy traffic neighborhood. The real estate costs are high. To make you guys happy, metro waste the money on parking lots which none of you wanted to say. Oh i forget, people keep saying reduce traffic congestion n oil dependency are the ones crying for parking lots. Many car drivers support the projects in hope more bus connections with train services, the nightmare losing mobility would be over. No, you guys push hard to build trains atvany cost including cutting bus services. Many of you think it is ok. There are plenty wrong. Is regional connector needed? LA public transportation is terrible, n metro just wanted to build that small duplicate segment rail. Without that stupid regional connector, bus services can be improved. Ok , train lovers truly believe non car drivers should not take trains, but without regional connector, the money could be used on other rail projects. Metro has a lot surface rail. Thank you,tunnel vision rail supporters. You guys insist rails at any costs such as reducing bus services. Then you get this. EXPO ONTHE Surface street. People already mentioned the problem. Well, build the rail at any cost. You guys win. Auto n oil industry win
Considering the Climate Crisis, we need AS MUCH public transport AS POSSIBLE and FAST. Rail construction takes too long and the initial investment is high, therefore creating and expanding bus networks and increasing the comfort riding buses should be prioritized. Unlike here in Europe, most US cities have this grid-iron design with straight and wide streets and roads. That makes it easy to use long buses (3 segments) or even those "trains on rubber tires" and give them bus only lanes to run on. Then prioritize these streets and roads when it comes to maintenance to ensure a comfortable ride. Once public transport enjoys high ridership along these lines, one might consider replacing it with rail or trolleys for the future.
I agree with a fair bit of what you've written especially in regards to the climate crisis and the need for emergency decarbonisation efforts. But the problem with the portion of your argument about buses is that buses are not as energy-efficient as electric trams on steel rails, buses don't last anywhere near as long as trams do (typically about half the lifetime), buses degrade the road surface significantly faster than rail vehicles degrade their tracks, and you would still need to employ and operate 2-3 times as many bus vehicles as LR vehicles. I would suggest we can agree that the rail lines should form the spine of any transit network, with buses running short frequent trips connecting regions with rail corridors.
@@BigBlueMan118 Comparing 🚐 to 🚊 is the wrong first step evaluating the issue. Any solution needs to be compared to 🚗 in the first place, especially considering the urgency to get cars off the roads and slow/stop urban sprawl. Buses (even diesel ones) are still MASSIVELY MORE EFFICIENT compared to cars, can be set up in little time (unlike rail, that will easily take 5 to 10 years or even more) and the wear on streets/roads isn't actually that much of an issue. Considering the physics/mechanics of the wear and tear on streets weight (trams aren't exactly lightweight either) and torsion are the main culprits, with torsion tearing the surface in little time. Now consider buses that hardly ever take a turn, only following just one street/road ;) ..but actually with the advantage of overtaking parked or broken down vehicles, trams included. I live almost next to a tram line. You don't want to know how often buses jump in to take over the line because the rails are blocked. .. because a tram broke down, had an accident or was blocked by another vehicle.
@@BigBlueMan118 The advantage of 🚌 over 🚗 is so massive that the long term advantage of 🚊 over 🚌 is negligible short term. ..and as I said, one can start planning to replace parts of a bus network with rail from day one, but we must act now to get as many cars off the streets and stop urban sprawl. We don't have the luxury of time to wait for rail projects being realized over a period of 7 to 10 years. ..or worse. ..and considering wear and tear, buses aren't really the culprit, actually their impact is negligible. They don't put that much pressure on the ground and the worst impact on the surface comes from torsion anyways. .. especially when wheels are turned on the spot. Buses that go a straight line don't do much of that.
Good vid. It appears the local bureaucracy is ill advised and isn't allocating taxpayer money effectively. These projects offer financial perks to companies in the business of public infrastructure and engineering, contracted with the city. The K-line $2.2 billion extension and the E-line $7 billion extension are insane. They're building rail at a loss. The idea is to improve the line already in use. Again, a waste of taxpayer money and public resources.
On my first visit to Los Angeles a few weeks ago, I rode the metro B line and I walked a ton.. what I learned is that the biggest battle is cultural. Angelinos DON'T WANT to walk or ride transit, and they mock people that do. A true change of mindset is necessary for transit to really thrive in LA.
It's like the opposite of NYC. You have to be crazy to drive in Manhattan (and NYC cab drivers are indeed crazy).
As a resident, I enjoy riding the bus and the train. I don't want to be pitied just because I don't want to ride a car.
Car culture in LA runs deep. It is going to take the younger generations to break that cycle
@@JacquelineFuentes-e8i As a Gen Z person, I agree!
i think measure hla will be a game changer, safer walking and biking around metro stations will naturally lead to more ridership
I agree that these bigger projects should have priority. But most of these smaller extensions will have a much bigger impact in parts of the city that are actively looking to expand and densify. This is definitely a long term play, and the construction of these projects are already going to take years before they come to fruition.
True, and it shouldn't costv$2 bil to extend a light railway for 2 stops. Even New York City did better with its 2nd Avenue Subway 😭
@user-uo7fw5bo1o That price is for the most expensive route, which LA Metro already voted against.
@@mrxman581 So which route did they pick and at what cost? 🤨
These projects were a necessity to get Measure M to pass. Without the funds from Measure M projects like Sepulveda or K line North would not be on anyone's radar.
I also want to clarify because of the language used in Measure M the funds for these lower ridership projects are locked into their specific subregion of the county. So in essence you cannot reallocate funds for the Southbay, Gateway, and Eastside Lines to fund Sepulveda or K line North as these projects are located in a separate sub region.
This restriction was put in place to ensure regional equity of transit spending so the local politicians of the cities outside LA would support Measure M ensuring its 2/3rds approval.
@@ronnyrueda5926Very well explained, and concise. Much better than my attemp. Thanks.
@@ronnyrueda5926 right but "regional equity" has to be tied to demographic as well as locality, If 5m people live in say the east and only 1m people live in the west as a crude example, it would be utter insanity to spend 50% of your allocated funds on the west.
@@BigBlueMan118Tell that to the voters. These funding measures needed a 2/3rds approval to pass so appeasing the suburbanites is unfortunately the name of the game.
@@ronnyrueda5926 If they cant get safety and cleanliness back under control or increase ridership by providing an effective attractive offering, theyre less likely to win additional future measures though
Is a lack of coverage the reason I don't use LA Metro for a lot of trips? Yes. There's a giant hole from Koreatown to West LA. The D line extension, K line north, and Sepulveda line are absolutely necessary to get ridership up. The smaller projects are there because people won't vote for funding measures if their region won't get anything. Cancelling those smaller projects is generally not legal and leaving them out of the funding package would have meant the overall package might not have passed at all.
Also, LA Metro's light rail lines are not that slow. Average speeds are comparable with some heavy rail lines like Paris metro.
Yes, it's about spreading out the funding for areas that still don't have access to the LA Metro. The Westside has several lines already and getting a huge one with the extension of the D line. The most expensive extension to date by far at almost $10 billion. The Sepulveda Pass line will be even more expensive still.
To answer the question in the title, no. Actually, an emphatic NO. Part of making the current service better is making it reach places people want to go, currently it does not go to enough places. The region is enormous, and the amount of square miles the system covers is pathetic.
Your vision of equity has it totally wrong, you are trying to give every man & their dog a low-quality ride rather than giving the majority a good one. It isn't doing you much good if the system remains low ridership overall, you have just increased operational cost for low revenue returns. Lines that would otherwise be higher-ridership are getting neglected to expand the system to chase marginal riders in low-density sprawl that will never see transit-oriented development. Meanwhile they (Metro) have cut corners and built in bottlenecks left+right+centre:
*flat junction at the northern end of the new Regional Connector tunnel where the A and C lines merge which will bake in a conflict that will limit speed and capacity forever
*short platforms on the new underground lines restricting future train lengths to 270ft rather than the platforms built into the D & B line tunnels which are 450ft and can therefore carry almost twice the future ridership
*stacks of slow sections with dozens of intersections which will be a constant handbrake on speed and future automation until they are removed at great expense and disruption
*stacks of the cities' busier more important and slow bus routes still not served like Crenshaw & Vermont whilst Metro chases low-ridership SFHs
*key destinations still not directly connected and/or poorly served with gadgetbahn solutions like people movers
If for the same money you can get more ridership by doing other things , shouldn’t that be the option you go with?
@alexanderrotmensz Not when the funding schemes said that the Metro infrastructure would be built so every region of the county would have access. It wasn't written to say the highest ridership areas would get it first. Had the law been written that way, it would have NEVER passed, and LA would still have no metro system.
Residents aren't going to pay additional sales tax and not get the benefit of it.
@@mrxman581 so now increased charges will be hidden but certainly will come due to the system being more extensive with higher maintenance and operational costs, lack of attraction for TOD leading to more sprawl and all the costs associated with that, and all the costs associated with the lack of mode shift away from private transport because the PT system is slow, inefficient, ureliable, unattractive, poorly-utilised, relatively infrequent and doesnt serve the areas where people want to go well. Not to mention other problems which will begin to surface due to cost-cutting and bottlenecks theyve built into the system.
Conversely if there is ever a major shift and big increase in demand, the system isnt capable of ramping up capacity because they havent built long platforms, high-capacity turnbacks or grade separations in key areas.
I know most Americans are devoted to the idea that bigger=better but it certainly aint true regarding transit.
The number of square miles it covers is within jurisdiction. What you're advocating for isn't. Let me guess, you want the A Line to get to Ontario... That's never gonna happen. If San Bernardino County wants rail, they'll develop their own system, just like Orange County with the OC Streetcar which was planned to be its own network. LA Metro is for the LA County, not the entire basin. It's in the name. They're not the Pacific Electric, which was privately owned.
Fixes for the problems you described are already in progress (as you mentioned at the end of the video), besides grade separating the light rail (which is important!). All of these were planned prior to the recent safety discussions.
Division 20 updates will allow for faster headways on the heavy rail.
We are ordering new cars for heavy rail.
7th Street Metro Center (shown as an example of poor lighting) will be refurbished with an emphasis on lighting.
Metro will be creating its own police force.
It is more complex than having to pick one or the other (improving current lines vs. planning new lines). In my opinion, it is crucial that both are done well. With how long it takes to build new rail in North America, I do like that we are in the planning stages of many projects so that we can hit the ground running when we're ready for shovels to hit the dirt.
Metro's biggest issue is that it is a county agency. Because of this, they have had to prioritize reaching satellite cities as much as the core, which is frustrating. However, I don't see a way around it while keeping buy-in from the entire county. Ideally, I'd like to see something like the K Line north be prioritized over the SFV line, WSAB, or E Line east, but there are too many municipalities to satisfy.
They're going to need a lot of transit cops to stay on top of security on the LA metro. I know LASD currently works the metro, but they just roust the homeless camping out on the trains at the terminal points at the end of the night.
@@mrvwbug4423LAPD, LASD, and LBPD are history. They will be phased out over the next 5 years as LA Metro sets up their own internal security force solely focused on LA Metro and they'll answer to the LA Metro which isn't the case today.
Another reason why the big most important projects aren't build yet is because Metro also spends the money on widening freeways when they make congestion worse instead of funding those projects that can be built sooner.
yo....we already get treated like step-children down here in Torrance when it comes to transit infrastructure. This K line extension was sapposed to help ease traffic for the olympics, but that's not even gonna happen now.
Because of NIMBYS.
lol every region of LA feels like the step child when it comes to transit infrastructure.
I completely agree with everything you said. The Sepulveda Line will be game changing for the LA metro and should be completed as soon as possible.
The fault there isn't really with Metro, its with the Beverly Hills NIMBYs that are holding up progress
Not sure if anyone’s said this yet, but often you have to start off by putting rail projects in places that don’t seem to make sense (the suburbs in this case) because that’s where the taxpayers who’ll oppose these projects live and it’s smart to make them happy first so they don’t kill your rail ideas before they get a chance to blossom. That’s a big reason CA HSR is being placed in such a weird corridor to start with (I think it’s Bakersfield or something?)
Like Merced to Bakersfield first.
@@matthewcron8842 This doesn't actually make sense though, building poor-quality lines in places that will never generate high ridership or TOD and ignoring more important corridors with more potential riders and upzoning first. CAHSR would have been far more successful if it had focused on SF-Gilroy and Burbank-Annaheim as their stage 1, would serve way more people early on and have a proof of concept nice and solid to build from generating revenue.
@@BigBlueMan118Wrong, and not true.
@@BigBlueMan118Merced and Bakersfield are disadvantaged communities as they were bypassed by I 5 and California high speed rail would connect them and provide economic opportunities and development.
Sometimes I think these projects are supposed to fail just so nobody suggests anything similar for the next 50 years.
This video is very poorly researched so it's basically garbage.
First, the southern extension of the current C line will not be $2 billion. That is the highest cost alternative over Hawthorne which LA Metro already said they don't want, and they didn't approve. The LPA was approved and it costs about $1 billion less because it uses an existing ROW that LA Metro already owns.
Second, the K and C lines will be reconfigured. The K line will take over the southern section of the C line including the previously discussed extension. The C line, in turn will turn north to connect to the Transit Center Station under construction so that it has a direct connection to the LAX APM as well. Yes, both the K and C lines will connect to the LAX APM.
Third, the reason for expanding LA Metro into regions of LA County that currently has no metro access has to do with how the funding propositions were crafted. The reason the funding measures passed is because it was a clear mandate that if passed, the metro would expand to the different regions of the county as equitably as possible. That's good and fair. What's not fair are for residents of the SFV or Southeast LA not to get rail transit only until the most denses areas get them first. All county residents have been paying the additional sales taxes that fund these transit projects for years and decades already. It's about time these underserved communities get their Metro rail lines.
Fourth, the ridership on the LA Metro has gone up every month over the last 16 months straight! It's recovering it's ridership from Covid faster than many other cities. And it will only continue to increase with several projects being completed next year.
Fifth, LA Metro has instituted new policies to improve the experience over the last year and it shows including more security and cleaning crews, and ambassadors. Things have improved noticeably since about June 2023. The recent increase in crimes has led LA Metro to add even more security which has begun to roll out and will take some time to fully deploy.
Sixth. The extension of the E line to Whittier will be done in two phases to lower the cost. Same is true for the Southeast Gateway line. The SFV line will connect to the G line and Metrolink. Very important to have more multi-modal connections outside of Union Station.
Seventh, LA Metro will select the heavy rail option for the Sepulveda line. The vast majority of residents are against the Monorail. And you conveniently forgot to mention the extension of the D subway line under the densest corridor in the city because it didn't fit with your thesis.
Eighth. I completely agree with LA Metro's vision to expand the network as fast as possible and using light rail as the backbone of the network. LA County's 4700 square miles is too vast to serve only with very expensive heavy rail subway or elevated rail.
BTW, you keep saying that light rail is inferior to heavy rail by a wide margin. In terms of capacity, probably, but not speed. The top and average speeds of LA Metro's subways and light rail lines are not too far off especially if the light rail lines have full signal prioritization. Though on LA Metro it's not as critical because all the LRT lines run on dedicated ROWs and are, at least, partially grade separated. Some of them significantly so. Nonetheless, signal prioritization needs to be implemented across all LRT lines. The reason it hasn't been is due to LADOT not cooperating. They are the agency that has the authority to implement signal prioritization in the city of LA. It's not up to LA Metro. Unfortunately, these two agencies have competing mandates. LADOT favors vehicle travel efficiencies, and LA Metro favors mass transit efficiencies.
Ninth, LA Metro has done a remarkable job over the years to expand the system to as many residents as possible considering the available funding schemes, coverage area, and constant obstacles like NIMBYS and politicians at various levels. They are to be commended.
Yeah this has been a common thing that I have seen when people make videos to discuss the issues with LA Metro's expansions plans. They never seem to look at the politics and funding mechanisms that lead to the selection of the projects that Metro is currently working on.
cleptoparasites ever dismissive of hearfelt passion..?
@@ronnyrueda5926Exactly. The process to get public transit infrastructure built is rooted in politics and funding schemes. Without those, it never gets built.
My guy also called the communities along the Southeast Gateway Line "low density" and that is FALSE! Artesia has over 10k per square mile and Huntington Park has over 15k per square mile (and may be even higher since immigrants are often undercounted in the census).
The only light rail line I'm not on board with is the Eastern San Fernando Light Rail line. It doesn't utilize an existing ROW so it should've just been a grade separated light rail line, like portions of the K Line.
I don’t know what some people in the comments are talking about. The Extension of the K line south bound is a good and critical step in filling a gap in the South Bay where there is no public transportation. On top of that it would soon after extend to Long Beach which would give the K line even more ridership, so to those who say that the South Bay extension is not important you are wrong.
Yes, and if the project is scrapped, the money would go to a 405 freeway project, not the Sepulveda line or K Line north.
I do agree with your part that we shouldn’t be only focused on expansion projects when it comes to improving transit. Some transit systems don’t really need that many extensions, just some station improvements, more frequency, more security, and better path finding. But I still wish that transit got more funding and political support in the US. There is still some people who are still skeptical about using transit, so even when you do expand transit, they probably won’t take it because of the negative perception that transit has.
The southeast gateway cities are anything but low density.
Yes. One of the numerous uninformed points he made.
Yeah K Line north is way more important than K Line south. I have no idea why they're doing south first.
There is a chicken and egg problem where you're right that these extensions would only travel through low density suburbs, but if we want those areas to densify, it's important to add transit there at the same time. However, to your point, LA is horrendous at this and still has single-family zoned areas around rapid transit stations. So the city is wasting what little opportunity they have to make the city more livable. What's the point of extending rail if we don't even make the most of the rail we already have.
I largely agree. It's almost impossible to provide good coverage to a land area as large and low density as LA. The city should focus its efforts on the core of the city and provide exceptional service and walkability there. But that means it also must densify which it refuses to do. The state is being too friendly to LA. LA simply isn't upzoning where people desire to live, and as a result we get more and more sprawl in places like the Inland Empire. Building the longest light rail line in the world out to the Inland Empire is not a solution. Not even close.
I disagree that the reason Metro is slow is due to not enough focus. I think the reason for that is LA won't let Metro slow a single car down, so our rapid transit costs way more when it needs to tunnel or bridge over a street that could otherwise have been closed to cars. And where grade-separation wasn't done, for some insane reason cars are still given priority over rapid transit. I think that's in part due to CEQA. Metro would be sued if they slow cars down due to "environmental review" which is painfully backwards.
Totally see what you mean, but I'm not sure if "densifying" is any goal that can be actively reached. Transit can't do much if housing ordinances don't change with them
I agree that at least a partial expansion of the K line to the D line would be more useful than the extension south to Torrance. The entire K line north extension to the B line would be too expensive to do all at once since the entire route will be underground. It would be way more expensive than the extension to Torrance.
BTW, both the average and top speeds of LA Metro's light-rail lines are not slow compared to many similar lines around the world. All light-rail lines are at least partially grade separated and they all run on dedicated ROWs. Projects like the Regional Connector actually made the whole network more efficient without the need for complete grade separations. That's where the focus needs to be.
It’s wild that someone could think that LA’s metro too expansive. Do you also think LA’s highway/roadway system is underbuilt?
No lol. Of course I want Metro to expand, but it also has to be successful.
I think you interpreted the video wrong. I’m all for having an expense network. But you should probably start on making the current service good.
@@TheEpicDiamondMinerIt's continues to improve. The Regional Connector is a great example of that.
@@alexanderrotmenszRidership has increased every month for the last 18 months. LA Metro has recovered it's pre-pandemic ridership faster than most in the USA. Those are signs of success considering the continuing residual effects from Covid.
The reason Metro is doing these smaller projects is because they needed to pass measure M. They needed far flung suburbs to vote for it, and giving them transit projects helped the measure get 2/3 of the vote.
If i were in charge, I’d say they need to complete the K line north, Sepulveda subway, and the B line on Chandler first. (With D to Santa Monica and light rail on Venice shortly afterwards) But metro was constrained politically.
The Westside already has LA Metro access and it will increase significantly with the D line to the VA and the most expensive extension in the history of the LA Metro. The Sepulveda Pass line will cost even more. The projects on the Eastside of LA need to be done first as well as the SFV line.
@@mrxman581 the jobs are on the westside. We need to do both, but getting access to the jobs on the westside is good for the region.
@@jonathaneby1440Even if that is true, it's a matter of equity. When the tax increase measures were written and proposed, they passed because the understanding was that LA Metro would build lines to service the entire county. Without that provision, the measures would have failed. It's not fair for voters to pay increased sales taxes for the foreseeable future and not get Metro rail service in their area. The Westside already has the E line and very soon the D line subway. East LA has no subway, and it needs one, especially because the geography makes building another LRT almost impossible. The originally proposed Eastside extension of the subway line down Whittier Blvd needs to happen. That's the busiest corridor in East LA and Boyle Heights. There are a lot of jobs there, too.
In response to the title, no. I actually think Metro's current plans are not expanding enough. I also am pretty sure that the Measure M funds that are funding pretty much all of this expansion have to be allocated to certain lines. While I agree that the K line north should be one of the top priorities, from my understanding it's a bit more difficult than saying "we're going to use the monies over here now." But hey, thanks for making this video!
The vision of equity has to be legit, if you are trying to give every man & their dog a low-quality ride rather than giving the majority a good one it isn't doing you much good if the system remains low ridership overall, you have just increased operational cost for low revenue returns. Lines that would otherwise be higher-ridership (Crenshaw North, Vermont South, Sepulveda, higher speeds on the existing workhorse lines) are getting neglected to expand the system to chase marginal riders in low-density sprawl that will never see transit-oriented development. Meanwhile they (Metro) have cut corners and built in bottlenecks left+right+centre:
*flat junction at the northern end of the new Regional Connector tunnel where the A and C lines merge which will bake in a conflict that will limit speed and capacity forever
*short platforms on the new underground lines restricting future train lengths to 270ft rather than the platforms built into the D & B line tunnels which are 450ft and can therefore carry almost twice the future ridership
*stacks of slow sections with dozens of intersections which will be a constant handbrake on speed and future automation until they are removed at great expense and disruption
*stacks of the cities' busier more important and slow bus routes still not served like Crenshaw & Vermont whilst Metro chases low-ridership SFHs
*key destinations still not directly connected and/or poorly served with gadgetbahn solutions like people movers
@kyletopfer7818 you know very little of why the LA Metro is being built the way it is as does the dude who made this poorly researched content.
Having read most of the comments, I note that literally no one has mentioned the effect of these system extensions on funding for operations. Transit requires subsidies to remain in operation, and these low-ridership extensions will surely increase operating expenses far beyond any increase in ridership. In stark contrast, if the Sepulveda line really increases system ridership by 66%, it seems likely that much of this ridership will be in the form of reducing slack capacity on currently underutilized services. To the degree that more service would be required, it would come in the form of more frequent trains and buses, which would attract more ridership due to shorter wait and transfer times.
All residents of LA County are paying the additional sales tax. The measure was written so that the LA Metro would expand across the County. The Westside already has had several lines that service it. Areas to the East are overdue to having access to the LA Metro. There is only one line. The Westside has the E line, the K line, and the extension of the D line. And, the SFV line is getting built next.
The extension of the E line East and the Gateway Cities lines need to come before the Sepulveda line. As it is, East LA got cheated out of the original Red line subway extension under Whittier Blvd. Instead they got the Gold line light rail.
Areas like the San Gabriel Valley also have only one LA Metro line. The Northeast area of LA (Echo Park, Silver Lake, and East Hollywood) has none. They need to build a light rail line from DTLA down Sunset Blvd and connect to the B line at the Vermont/Sunset Station.
They also need a N/S route along the Rosemead-Lakewood corridor from the A line down to the C line and connect to the E East LA extension and Gateway Cities line along the way. Those lines would connect those disparate neighborhoods to LAX for one. That would be huge.
@@mrxman581 That's only because it's recovering from a very low base. As it stands the majority of people that use LA Metro are low income workers that cannot work remotely, which is why NY/Chicago haven't recovered as quickly.
It's the California curse, trying to appeal to too many special interests at once because otherwise someone will sue, so projects are endlessly delayed, massively over budget and usually scaled back (prime example is CAHSR). The low ridership makes a case for not expanding anything and potentially just ripping it out entirely. LA needs to take their drug and homeless problem seriously if they want people to start using public transit again, having a system that is faster than driving and is clean and safe is essential, LA metro fails on all those points right now, it used to be clean and safe, but only certain lines were faster than driving.
Ridership has gone up every month for the last 18 months. Your ASSUMPTIONS ARE WRONG!
LA Metro has recovered it's pre-pandemic ridership faster than most in the USA.
I agree that a heavy rail Sepulveda line would be a game changer and crack ridership open.
LA metro.. i almost never take it. but when i do, it's absolutely adequate. west LA to DTLA. it's clean. frequrent enough. longest wait is like 15 minutes mid day. definitely could be more frequent, sure. and yeah, driving is faster, but it beats driving on the 10 during rush hour (it's actually the same time travelling, but relaxing on a train is better than stressful stop-go traffic and searching and paying for parking.)
worst thing is smelly homeless people. that's it.
if other lines are really so terrible ill take yalls word for it.
LA Metro.. in my experience, they do nothing wrong. they have a budget, and they spend it. doesnt really matter what they spend it on.
the problem isn't the train. the problem the train doesnt go anywhere/connect anything. it cant, 'cause there's nothing to connect. it connects actual residents to nothing. what i mean is land use around the stations is very dumb. you go outside a station and at least half of the land use is car-centric. that's the problem. you cant have good transit without good land use. it's not LA Metro's problem. there's no place for it to build stations where it would be of good use, because the entirety of LA is intensely car-centric.
LA Metro does its part and it does it perfectly adequately. the problem is LA. LA just isn't letting its transit system to live up to its full potential because the city is always refusing to densify around stations. and as it is right now, the metro has got ass-loads and ass-loads of untapped potential. it can expand and add stations all it wants, but it wont improve unless land use improves.
I dont think you are thinking of the long term planning Metro puts into some of these projects. The green line extension to Torrance is supposed to one day go even further south as a connection to the blue north of Long beach. By then this will be the K(Crenshaw) line that would extend from Southbay area up to Hollywood. The K line is projected to one day connect to the Blue, Green, Purple, Expo, and Red line, making it one of the most important lines in the future of the city. Its just that Metro has to deal with many of the smaller communities in this area that make the beauracy of planning, developing and building transit so much harder than it has to be.
If anything we should be calling for reform in the authority Metro has as a county wide transit agency, as well as environmental laws like CEQA which have some outdated stuff in them that hold metro back.
LA has many small cities and communities within it(Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, San Fernando, Lawndale, etc.) That unfortunately have the power to slow development for decades.
In the '80s, Los Angeles peaked in ridership at 500,000,000. If you want more people on Metro, advocate for the agency to bring back their expansive bus system. Busses have and always will be what brings transit ridership to this city, and without high quality service in that department nothing will improve. Also, I want to ask: why not advocate for expansion in both high-density corridors and low density corridors? Is the idea not to build first and allow ridership to come later, when higher densities enable better justification to build? This is especially true for the C Line extension into the south bay, which is fully grade separated.
However, while I disagree with your point on building in low-density areas, I agree that it should be built to higher quality standards. All the travel times mentioned in your video are depressing, and in my opinion the second largest factor keeping people away from the metro (lack of quality bus service being the first). I do believe the biggest factor that determines if the average person will ride Metro or not is whether the trip takes longer than their current option. As a car ride is the other option of most Angelinos, Metro needs to step up its game here, and I wouldn't mind if some projects in the anterior got delayed for E/A/K line grade separation or crossing gate projects.
What I continuously disagree with you on is safety. I do believe that it is important generally to provide a safe and clean experience from entrance to exit, and especially to keep those who commit crimes off the system. I do not, however, think it seriously affects ridership. Systems in Europe are typically somewhat grimey and edgy as well (though I admit not to the level of Metro), and compared to even other American cities like Philadelphia (staring daggers at the BSL) Metro's safety and cleanliness aren't that bad. I simply believe it isn't what many take into consideration when choosing whether or not to ride the system, and having it listed as a major ridership threat in a video about attracting ridership is likely untrue.
Keep up the videomaking! Glad to have another RUclips voice in the LA Transit sphere.
Comfortability is not a word. We have a word for that. Comfort.
Great video! I think the Fairfax/San Vicente line is the most crucial, other than the Sepulveda line. I agree the suburbs are too scarcely populated to be priority rn. Heart of LA needs to be completed first
This is a bit unnecessarily provocative in its framing. The argument being made is not really that LA metro is over-expanding. But rather, that LA metro is mid-prioritizing is expansion projects such that more important projects are struggling because less important projects are attracting too much attention and funding. So it’s really a matter of priorities, rather than the ultimate scale of expansion.
The project priorities are partially dictated by the way the measure that was passed by county voters was written. Equity access to the LA Metro is written into the law. Without that condition, the measure would not have passed. Everyone pays the additional sales tax that funds these projects. The Southeast and SGV are entitled to access, too.
The projects you call “low priority” also are in some of the most marginalized areas of LA. The projects you call “high priority” are in the wealthiest. You should also consider transit dependent populations in LA and how much more value new projects adds to these communities. Further, the Eastside of LA hasn’t had a single Metro project but we’re still paying measure M and R taxes like the rest of the county. Also, the sepelveda line might be monorail because of bel air nimby’s. The eastside extension has much less community opposition.
The LA Metro Rail is such an inconsistent service. People scream so often on it that you start to feel the urge to chime in. I'd take the most unconventional busker-musician over any of the threats. The Falun Dafa peddlers - AKA Scientology of the East. The abusers. Women telling the story of Eve being created first. The Red Line smells like feet at best. You get used to it which makes me wonder how I stunk after riding it daily for some time. People will legit light up a meth pipe next to you. This complete stranger was randomly looking sideways and leaning on me - I'm cuddly but NOT IN PUBLIC AND DEFINITELY NOT WITH A PERSON I JUST MET. Then she offered me her meth pipe. I thankfully got away. I could tell it was like Adderall to her. She seemed more sedated than stimulated from the crystal meth. She seemed harmless after I told her to back off but I didn't want to chance anything or get secondhand high. I swear I was already secondhand high. How often is the metro deep cleaned after such a thing? What was that train doing to my brain?
But the red line is FAST. It sure beats the 101 if you want to walk around hollywood for a bit.
The light rail lines? I like them, and we need more!
I live in Baldwin Hills and I agree, the K line should be a top priority as it would extend from the LAX airport into Hollywood/West Hollywood. It would be a fast route and very convenient. I get tired of driving all around and would like a quick/safe alternative.
Seattle also made a terrible mistake... on its core line... the vackbone of the system, it connected its great connection to the airport which is elevated grade seperated... to it's section going through downtown...which is grade seperated in a tunnel through the city center with a section through the southern neighborhoods of the city with at grade segments down the center of city streets that can get blocked by traffic and affected by red lights and are legally speed limited... amd it is likely a 100 year mistake... they won't get the money to fix it for at least decades amd every project they plan takes at least 20 years due to bureaucratic red tape, incompetence and corruption... what a blunder...
LA Metro didn't make a mistake. It's about getting LADOT to implement signal prioritization in the city of LA. But even without that the LA Metro light-rail lines are relatively fast compared to other similar lines across the world.
People arguing in the comments about "politics" and making things "fair" rather than prioritzing transit that can benefit the most people and actually make a profit while also proving to other cities that transit is a worthwhile investment is such an american way of doing things. In the rest of the world, they prioritize the backbone of the transit system first. They try and get as many people riding as possible, and then the more underserved and less dense communities are worked on after. This way of building transit in the US makes me think that politicians are almost trying to make transit projects fail. Instead of playing polticis, you build where it makes sense. When you dont serve as many people as possible first, you have less money for things that make transit high quality. Clean, safe, timely, etc. The rest of the world understands that they will sometimes have to pay taxes for the greater good of their community, and sometimes, they might never see the benefit from paying for something in their lifetime. But they do it for their kids and grandkids. Oh, well. I guess America does most things backward. No wonder most of your cities have low ridership, unclean and unsafe trains, etc...... honolulu did the exact same dumb thing with their new project. They wanted to build the rail from the "underserved" areas first. Instead of building the project in the most dense urban core and to the airport. Now you have only 50% of the project done, and no one is riding it because it doesn't serve the core of the city yet. They could've been serving tens of thousands per day and started making a profit and prove that transit is worthwhile to the more areas of Honolulu. Instead, people are now complaining. it's pointless, and they are compromising more and more, removing future stations that prob wouldn't have been removed if they focused on getting as many people riding as quickly as possible.
The US is bad at transit funding so many transit systems need to ask local Jurisdictions for money.
California has a law that requires 2/3rds approval for new taxes.
So in order to get the local funding to build new transit you have to spend transit dollars in these less than optimal areas to get their approval.
If you have a way of navigating the gymnastics of transit funding I'm all ears.
Well then run for office to change things. The whole "AMerICA DoES iT DiFFerENTLY wHY CAN't thEY Do IT LIEK IN EURope" argument is tired. Before you change the system, you need to understand how it works.
LA Metro train is fast
I definitely think that LA metro has a severe overspending problem but not in doing expansions, rather in doing expansions as expensicely and inefficiently as possible. Like Im from Copenhagen, and were currenrlt getting an 18 mile orbital light rail line with 29 stations, orbiting in an arc around the city parallel to the busiest highway built for 1.4 billion USD. Of course people still like to complain about the price of that and especially the disruptions during construction but jesus, we're doing quite well in Copenhagen compared to LA.
I agree with you that the Sepulveda line and the K Line north are the most important. And they are spreading themselves thin.
A lot of comments are bringing up the political realities of why this is happening, but I don't think that negates what is being said in the video. Just because there is a reason it is being built like this doesn't mean nothing can be done to get around that reason. Other places around the world build transit in a way that prioritizes the backbone of the network first.
Instead of piling on him for not knowing what he's talking about, why don't you open your mind a little and consider that maybe the funding/governing structure around Metro is broken. Then we can consider if there are ways to fix it so we all get better transit in the end.
Maybe the video could have been more clear about the causes of this issue, but I do think it is an issue that can and should be fixed.
Thank you. This summarizes my points pretty well to what people are saying. I should have made it more clear in the video but yeah we should not be slaves to a dumb bureaucracy
It seems a little simplistic to say the governing structure of Metro is broken.
The real issue is transit funding in the United States is broken. Metro is working around that by using local sales tax revenue to fund their projects. But that local funding comes with a specific California caveat of sales tax initiatives requiring 2/3rds majority to pass.
While I agree these funding issues need to be addressed they need to be addressed at the state and federal level. Metro as an agency can only control so much given the restrictions.
@@ronnyrueda5926 yep, I completely agree. Metro is doing well with what it has to work with. If we can change something at a higher level of government, they could have much more flexibility to spend resources more effectively
I suspect mercantalism be more on point hereabouts than politics 👀
@@trainrover what does mercantilism have to do with it?
What now a are low density suburbs could see a significant boost, if zoning changes and allows a higher density around the stations.
When a random dude with a small YT channel makes better recommendations to improving LA transit than people with expensive graduate degrees can think up. It is quite telling of what kind of a society we’ve become…
I won't be surprised if he has a degree.
@@greysnake2903 You don’t need a graduate or bachelor degree to figure this out. This is all common sense. But how many people are humble these days?
I've been thinking this as well. I think they should be spending money on more service improvements and BRT lines with later conversion to light rail, but absolutely we don't need to be spending 2 billion dollars on just 5,000 riders.
yeah they got to make the metro safe and clean before they expect people to ride it
You are right about the San Fernando line it’s a mistake
Hey Alex, love your videos!
Good video. I agree completely. Metro sucks actually. Not really usable. Not convenient. Not safe.
La is a huge city it needs proper rapid transit and the LRT is too slow to attract ridership.
Measure M damnit it, measure m
big issue is level crossings - you need to get rid of those.
Oh Toronto is the poster child for oddball transit. 10 km = 1 hour. 2 hours if you walk. TCC - You'll get there when you get there. Quit complaining. Listen to a podcast.
Dangerous - no, still safer than driving your car. This is just a matter of optics. Crime on a metro gets publicised, vehicle crimes not as much. As far as violent crime is concerned it does across the board during the pandemic.
The cost of establishing right of ways and initial construction inflates much more rapidly than the cost of service improvements IMO. If the willpower to break ground is present now, then I agree with the current expansion plans. Look at what ridiculous opposition can do. The 1985 methane explosion which had nothing to do with the subway set the D line extension back 30 years. 30 years of inflation, price increases, anti transit legislation, you name it. I don't disagree about the safety, cleanliness, and efficiency one bit, but the political firepower to scrape funding together for a tunnel dug and rail built is exceedingly more difficult than hiring more janitors and police.
100% agree with Metro needing to improve its core network before working on these low density extensions. All lines should be 100% grade separeted, frequncies increased to 2-5 min peak/ 5-10 off peak. All light rail trains should be 6 cars instead of 3. Stations should all be fully enclosed with platform screen doors and all the Fetty smoking fucks thrown off. Only then will it be a true transit system, instead of the half ass system it is today. Right now, Its almost like the system is being designed by people who dont ride public transit lol.
I agree with everything you said!
The problem isn't all these small projects per se, but rather that the authority is spending so much money on them! Like $2 bil for a 2-stop light rail extension? What are they building, the 2nd Avenue Subway???
IT'S NOT $2 BILLION! That option was NOT selected.
@@mrxman581 Okay, Mr. It's Not $2 Billion, which option did they select and how much does or will it cost? 🤨
@@EdwardM-t8p It's expected to cost 1 billion. It's also vital for an eventual extension to Long Beach. Due to Measure M, LA must fund projects in the south bay. If they pulled out of K Line south, the money would go to a 405 expansion project.
i'm sorry but lfg with the k line extension alignment FINALLY being chosen after literally my entire lifetime, $2 billion is really sad for that small of an extension tho. we really do need it, torrance places no emphasis on its transit system except for this enormous hunk of metal and concrete in the middle of an industrial area that they've rerouted a few buses to (they call it a transit center). maybe it'll shift their opinions more towards it
It's not $2 billion. That option was not chosen. They chose a much less expensive route along a ROW LA Metro already owns.
Is Metro over expanding. H no Metro is 25 year's behind. Our Metro should be just as extensive as New York, Chicago, and DC.
Nope! Never
No
The light rail lines are long and obviously would ideally be proper subways. But when even it is time to finally do so, do they go with a fleet of two different trains or update the subway stations? The metro and light rail vehicles have different widths!
California in general is on such a high horse... We spent so much on so little and it's never done right... * Bob's Burger facepalm *
Most of LAs above ground metro lines should be heavy commuter rail, LA is the worst offender of light rail obsession, they're the textbook definition of tram-trains.
Great video. Great!
I still don’t get how they built a line heading all the way to Rancho Cucamonga but not the Sepulveda pass. Anyone who knows LA knows the potential impact of traffic for people that travel this section. From people heading to west LA for work, school, or to the airport, it would become a highly used line.
It's not going to RC. The latest extension of the A line is to Pomona.
@@mrxman581 I thought I saw something where the line would extend to Rancho. Maybe it was heavy rail.
Either way, a line through the pass into Van Nuys should have been top priority after the lines extending to Santa Monica and the VA.
Metrolink is going to RC, they have to extend that because RC is the western terminus of Brightline West, at least until the line between RC and LA Union is electrified and Brightline trains can get all the way into LA. Metrolink is basically going to ferry Brightline passengers from RC to LA.
100% agree with the video, first priority has to be building the Sepulveda Line as automated heavy rail, maximizing frequency on existing lines, and new grade separated lines in the core. Suburban extensions should come only after core projects are done.
Where did you get the data on ridership of monorail vs light rail? What makes you so sure Monorail would be slower and have less ridership? And something you failed to mention on what “Metro should do” is they should connect Pasadena to Santa Monica, Long Beach to Santa Monica, and Long Beach and Pasadena to East LA. I don’t care what they call it. The infrastructure is there pretty much.
Metro’s own studies produced the ridership numbers. Also, they’ve actually done what you described. They opened it last year, it’s called the regional connector
Thank you for your response. I probably wasn’t clear what I said about going from Pasadena to Santa Monica. The regional connector in my mind was a good first step, but I think it is flawed. If you wanted to go from say Pasadena or anywhere East of it to Santa Monica, you would have to take the Metro A line down to Little Tokyo, and then transfer to the Metro E line. What Im saying is the infrastructure is there to have a single train from Pasadena to Santa Monica without having to transfer. Same for having to go from Pasadena to Atlantic station in East LA. It used to be just one ride. I think the connector is one big compromise.
Thank you! LA Metro has been too concerned with building "where they can build cheaply" instead of where and "how" they "should" build. You highlighted the "reconstruction" on existing lines after only a few decades. These reconstructions have left the A line still subpar by not removing all grade crossings (the A line has had over 800 car collisions since it started). Metro has recently backtracked on grade separations for the successful Orange Line BRT grade separations (which has more ridership than the Pasadena section of the Blue Line). And the poor freeway location for the Green Line means that there are many bus routes in LA with higher ridership than that entire line. All of this is a liability for LA Metro as they have rail lines that are performing terribly, where the rail lines should be the trunk lines for the entire region. The J express bus line performs better than all of Metro's recently built rail extensions (K line, ELA, Arcadia).
LA has only two subway lines, everything else is light rail running on street level and subject to traffic and stop lights. Can you imagine NYC, London, Paris, or any other global city with trains that stop at red lights? Street running will always mean slower trains. Always. This approach means routes are less than optimal, more bus transfers are necessary, and ridership remains very low when compared to other major cities. There is a reason why NYC, Chicago, Paris, London, don't use street running light rail as their trunk lines. It's slower and carries fewer people. Light rail is great for cities like San Diego, Minneapolis, and LA suburbs, but not a great solution for Los Angeles. Eventually LA will need to spend as much money as it cost to build to grade separate all of its light rail lines in the city to meet demand. That's poor transit planning and fiscal management.
It's faster and more convenient to take one bus even if it takes longer rather than to get off, wait for a train, take the train, and then get off and wait for the bus to take where the first bus also goes. That's why the ELA extension is poorly ridden. It's faster to stay on the Cesar Chavez or Whittier bus to downtown and beyond than to use the light rail line (which barely sees 2000 riders/day) and transfer again. The same goes for the current Crenshaw Line, it's faster to stay on the Crenshaw bus (until the northern section is built). However, if the Crenshaw goes to West Hollywood (another cost boondoggle of billions for the same amount of riders), many Crenshaw riders may stay on the Crenshaw bus to Hollywood and mid-Wilshire. The same will be true for the Van Nuys light rail line.
While LA Metro is committed to serve the entire county, construction should have been focused on where most of the people and jobs are first. A subway network in the central core of the region incl LA adjacent suburbs, light rail and trams in the larger suburbs connecting to Metrolink, and trams connecting the larger suburbs to adjacent cities. I see many people here think that extending Metro rail lines as far and wide as possible is a good thing but it isn't. Operating costs with lower ridership are going to hobble the agency and force poor service, long frequencies, and less maintenance. Metrolink is the suburban network and should remain so. In fact, LA Metro's transit funds used in the suburbs should be used to expand Metrolink service for the suburbs and tram services linking suburbs to Metrolink. It needs a lot of improvements and new routes that don't go downtown but it is the key suburban transit network. Metrolink is of even more importance since a large reason for Metro's transit decline over the last decades is that many LA neighborhoods have been emptied of working class workers moving to the far suburbs like the Inland Empire to afford housing.
You correctly highlighted the South Bay extension as a fiscal disaster. Why spend $1-2 billion (which will no doubt end up being $3-5 billion) on a rail extension that will only gain the ridership of a moderate bus line? It's not even going to serve South Bay residents very well. This line veers way off the South Bay's main commercial corridor along Hawthorne to dump people off in the middle of an oil field, forcing an extra bus transfer to get back to Hawthorne. Of course, ridership is going to be low. Rail lines in global cities go into the middle of commercial districts and key destinations, LA Metro light rail lines leave almost everyone a mile or two from where they need to be. The Long Beach extension from the South Bay will go through the lowest density corridor and will be a mile or two from central Wilmington, Lomita, PCH and the South Bay medical center, the commercial PCH and Hawthorne corridors, and the Torrance medical center, all necessitating forced bus transfers. The line will go from the oil fields to downtown Torrance, which is not the region's key commercial center, and then miss the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center by over a mile because they won't deviate from that RR ROW. The South Bay Line is an example of very poor transit planning, cost effectiveness, and execution. Metro didn't even analyze a Hawthorne/PCH corridor. I'm pretty sure, the South Bay cities will eventually build a BRT or tram line along the busy Hawthorne/PCH corridor which will make the rail line largely redundant. Every transit planner knows that for more bus transfers that are required over one transfer, ridership is drastically reduced.
The South Bay money should go to finishing the Crenshaw Line in Los Angeles, which is a major regional connection and will better serve South Bay residents anyways.
The Van Nuys light rail money should go to the Sepulveda Line. That is the also a major regional connection and will also better serve SFV residents.
Let's dispel some misinformation here.
Per Measure M the south bay funds cannot be reallocated to Crenshaw North as they are in different justification. Crenshaw North is in the Central region of LA and South Bay extension is in the South Bay. Canceling the funds for that project would force the south bay council to redirect those funds a different south bay project.
The same could be said for the Van Nuys line.
2nd, while i do agree the snake like routE for the Crenshaw North through West Hollywood is circuitous it will still be faster than the competing bus line. The estimated trip time from Expo/Crenshaw to Hollywood Highland through West Hollywood is forecast to take 21 minutes. This is almost half the time the bus takes, 40 minutes, for the same trip.
@@ronnyrueda5926 I appreciate your clarification of measure M. It's too bad that measure M is forcing poor transit planning.
The fact remains that the South Bay extension is only going to have 5000 riders/day for a cost of $2-4 billion, which doesn't warrant a rail line. A BRT line along Hawthorne would be more useful, productive, cost effective, and attract more riders. If a rail line is mandatory then Metro really should build it on Hawthorne all the way down to PCH. I know they want to use that old out of way RR ROW, but it's a poor choice. I also know that ship has sailed already but it is going to cost them more in the long run.
Both the circuitous route of the Crenshaw North line and the direct La Brea have basically the same ridership estimates.
The direct route up La Brea will take 12 minutes w a ridership of 88,000/day and annual operating costs of $21.2 million/yr.
The San Vicente route will take 20 minutes w a ridership of 90,000/day w operating costs of $31.6 million/yr.
The cost estimates, which will undoubtedly grow are:
La Brea $4.5 billion
San Vicente $6.5 billion
The difference of $2 billion (+ cost increases) for 3,000 riders, an add'l 10 minutes of travel time, and $10 million/yr in additional operating costs just doesn't make sense.
Either option would make the Crenshaw Line the busiest line in the system by far. The A and B lines get about 66,000/day. This is likely to cause severe overcrowding since light rail trains have less capacity and the stations were built for only 3-car trains on the existing K Line.
Metro is planning to extend the platforms in El Segundo and to increase the power transmission capabilities for longer trains on the Century Frwy section of the C Line.
If the Crenshaw North line reaches 90,000/day, Metro will need to extend platforms again to accommodate 6 or 8 car trains. Grade separation will probably need to be done on the existing K Line as well since train frequencies will need to be high which will hamper traffic with constant train crossings. All of this points to poor planning and far more cost than if they did this right to begin with.
West Hollywood deserves rail access but not this way. Metro did examine a branch of the Purple Line diverging from Beverly Hills up San Vicente through WeHo to Hollywood along Santa Monica. That branch would add 15,000 riders/day.
This would provide direct one-seat rides from Hollywood and WeHo to BH and WLA. It would be an important regional connection benefitting those from the east SFV as well with fast access to BH and WLA.
@@bryanCJC2105 while I understand these numbers the fact is West Hollywood is willing to tax themselves to get their preferred alignment thus potentially accelerateing the project. If the La Brea alignment is chosen the north extension essentially goes back to waiting till the 2040s when measure M funding kicks in.
@@ronnyrueda5926 At the risk of being pedantic. WeHo is only planning to put in a small portion of the addl cost through an EIFD in WeHo and Los Angeles. They are going to ask the county, state, and the federal govt for a large portion of the additional money. That isn't funding it themselves.
The cost estimates include an aerial alignment on San Vicente. I'm willing to bet that the residents and businesses along San Vicente will demand all of it to be underground, adding $2-3 billion to that alignment.
The objective bottom line question is: why are the residents of WeHo worth a $2-3 billion investment that will not realize a meaningful net gain in ridership, but that will cost all other riders an extra 10 min of travel time in addition to having to pick up a big portion of the extra cost both in construction and operating costs?
That equation makes no sense.
@@ronnyrueda5926 WeHo is only planning to put in a portion of the addl cost through an EIFD in WeHo and Los Angeles. They are going to ask the county, state, and the federal govt for a large portion of the additional money. That isn't funding it themselves.
I don't know why the county, state, and federal govt should pay more and get nothing for the investment other than trading La Brea riders for WeHo riders with no meaningful increase in ridership. That is money that can go to other projects down the line that will increase ridership on the system.
The cost estimates include an aerial alignment on San Vicente. I'm willing to bet that the residents and businesses along San Vicente will demand all of it to be underground, adding $2-3 billion to that alignment.
The objective bottom line question is: why are the residents of WeHo worth a $2-3 billion investment that will not realize a meaningful net gain in ridership, but that will cost all other riders an extra 10 min of travel time in addition to having to pick up a big portion of the extra cost both in construction and operating costs? It's just trading La Brea riders for more costly WeHo riders.
That equation makes no sense.
I think I agree with the videos' premise, and I'll say why: your vision of equity has to be legitimate and sincere, if you are trying to give every man & their dog a low-quality ride rather than giving the majority a good one it isn't doing you much good as the system remains low ridership overall, you have just increased operational costs for low revenue returns and you will retain a reputational hit. Lines that would otherwise be higher-ridership (Crenshaw North, Vermont South, Sepulveda, higher speeds on the existing workhorse lines A & E, automation to improve frequency+speed on the B & D heavy rail lines) are getting neglected to expand the light rail system to chase marginal riders in low-density sprawl that will never see transit-oriented development. Meanwhile they (Metro) have cut corners and built in bottlenecks left+right+centre:
*flat junction at the northern end of the new Regional Connector tunnel where the A and C lines merge which will bake in a conflict that will limit speed and capacity forever
*short platforms on the new underground lines restricting future train lengths to 270ft rather than the platforms built into the D & B line tunnels which are 450ft and can therefore carry almost twice the future ridership
*stacks of slow sections with dozens of intersections which will be a constant handbrake on speed and future automation until they are removed at great expense and disruption
*stacks of the cities' busier more important and slow bus routes still not served like Crenshaw & Vermont whilst Metro chases low-ridership SFHs
*key destinations still not directly connected and/or poorly served with gadgetbahn solutions like people movers
Fewer and busier routes would also address one of the primary concerns where the metro has basically turned into a rolling homeless camp. Low ridership and unsafe conditions on the trains because half the passengers are fare evaders and doing the "fentanyl lean" just gives NIMBYs plenty of reasons to block future expansion. The "crime train" has traditionally been a BS trope used by anti-transit NIMBYs, but when the trope has become real then LA has no defense. The metro should've been built as heavy rail trunk lines with grade separation and high capacity using bus services as feeders and maybe trams in some busier areas.
Some of stuff you said is right, but most of the stuff you sa8d is incorrect. That is because the common problems from tunnel vision selfish train lovers.
Yes, you deserve me to report misinformation.
The major problem in LA metro rail is lack of connection, you guys hate that, bu services.
Yiu are right the cleanness n safety are big issues. METRO must do something to improve,
That's the only thing you are right.
You mentioned LA is so spread, the metro cannot cover. Thats the main problem in LA metro. All the tunnel vision selfish train lovers like you don't want to admit.
There must be more frequent bus services to connect to train stations. There must be increase of bus services where trains don't exist.
Thats fine to make tunnel vision selfish train lovers like you happier, just build the big parking lots at each station. Those are in center of busy traffic neighborhood. The real estate costs are high. To make you guys happy, metro waste the money on parking lots which none of you wanted to say. Oh i forget, people keep saying reduce traffic congestion n oil dependency are the ones crying for parking lots. Many car drivers support the projects in hope more bus connections with train services, the nightmare losing mobility would be over. No, you guys push hard to build trains atvany cost including cutting bus services. Many of you think it is ok.
There are plenty wrong. Is regional connector needed? LA public transportation is terrible, n metro just wanted to build that small duplicate segment rail. Without that stupid regional connector, bus services can be improved. Ok , train lovers truly believe non car drivers should not take trains, but without regional connector, the money could be used on other rail projects.
Metro has a lot surface rail. Thank you,tunnel vision rail supporters. You guys insist rails at any costs such as reducing bus services. Then you get this. EXPO ONTHE Surface street. People already mentioned the problem. Well, build the rail at any cost. You guys win. Auto n oil industry win
they're gonna end up paying double fixing what they thought they were saving on
Considering the Climate Crisis,
we need AS MUCH public transport AS POSSIBLE and FAST.
Rail construction takes too long and the initial investment is high, therefore creating and expanding bus networks and increasing the comfort riding buses should be prioritized.
Unlike here in Europe, most US cities have this grid-iron design with straight and wide streets and roads.
That makes it easy to use long buses (3 segments) or even those "trains on rubber tires" and give them bus only lanes to run on.
Then prioritize these streets and roads when it comes to maintenance to ensure a comfortable ride.
Once public transport enjoys high ridership along these lines, one might consider replacing it with rail or trolleys for the future.
I agree with a fair bit of what you've written especially in regards to the climate crisis and the need for emergency decarbonisation efforts. But the problem with the portion of your argument about buses is that buses are not as energy-efficient as electric trams on steel rails, buses don't last anywhere near as long as trams do (typically about half the lifetime), buses degrade the road surface significantly faster than rail vehicles degrade their tracks, and you would still need to employ and operate 2-3 times as many bus vehicles as LR vehicles. I would suggest we can agree that the rail lines should form the spine of any transit network, with buses running short frequent trips connecting regions with rail corridors.
@@BigBlueMan118
Comparing 🚐 to 🚊 is the wrong first step evaluating the issue.
Any solution needs to be compared to 🚗 in the first place, especially considering the urgency to get cars off the roads and slow/stop urban sprawl.
Buses (even diesel ones) are still MASSIVELY MORE EFFICIENT compared to cars, can be set up in little time (unlike rail, that will easily take 5 to 10 years or even more) and the wear on streets/roads isn't actually that much of an issue.
Considering the physics/mechanics of the wear and tear on streets weight (trams aren't exactly lightweight either) and torsion are the main culprits, with torsion tearing the surface in little time.
Now consider buses that hardly ever take a turn, only following just one street/road ;)
..but actually with the advantage of overtaking parked or broken down vehicles, trams included.
I live almost next to a tram line.
You don't want to know how often buses jump in to take over the line because the rails are blocked.
.. because a tram broke down, had an accident or was blocked by another vehicle.
That won't work in LA for several reasons. Though we do need gold level BRT lines
@@mrxman581
Doesn't NYC do something like that?
Please tell me the reasons why it wouldn't work. ..or at least the most crucial ones.
@@BigBlueMan118
The advantage of 🚌 over 🚗 is so massive that the long term advantage of 🚊 over 🚌 is negligible short term. ..and as I said, one can start planning to replace parts of a bus network with rail from day one, but we must act now to get as many cars off the streets and stop urban sprawl.
We don't have the luxury of time to wait for rail projects being realized over a period of 7 to 10 years. ..or worse.
..and considering wear and tear, buses aren't really the culprit, actually their impact is negligible.
They don't put that much pressure on the ground and the worst impact on the surface comes from torsion anyways. .. especially when wheels are turned on the spot.
Buses that go a straight line don't do much of that.
Good vid. It appears the local bureaucracy is ill advised and isn't allocating taxpayer money effectively. These projects offer financial perks to companies in the business of public infrastructure and engineering, contracted with the city. The K-line $2.2 billion extension and the E-line $7 billion extension are insane. They're building rail at a loss. The idea is to improve the line already in use. Again, a waste of taxpayer money and public resources.
Um, almost all transit is "built at a loss". Transit is not a money maker any more than a freeway is a money maker.
hey bro I live in whittier and that lambert stop is gonna be right next to my house. It's my low density suburb 🙃🥲