Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all: heavy rail transit is expanding in LA currently. There's the Purple Line extension, plus only heavy rail options were proposed for the Sepulveda tunnel on the west side. That line will go from the Van Nuys Metrolink to LAX (and probably a slight extension into Inglewood near the new stadium). Metro took away light rail options for this route specifically because LRT has lower capacities.
As for the LRT lines: at least a third of the Blue Line is in its own dedicated ROW, which was an older railway bed. The section between Washington Avenue and 7th&Metro gets slow since it does run at street level and stops at lights, but that could be put into a tunnel in the future. The Expo Line east of Crenshaw was done more cheaply and should have at least had overpasses. But West of Crenshaw it does have overpasses and its own ROW. The newer Santa Ana branch LRT line will be in its own ROW completely, with plenty of overpasses so speed won't be an issue (was also proposed as a heavy rail line and may still be one). Not to mention the new subway tunnel with 3 stations in Downtown for the Blue/Expo/Gold lines currently under construction.
The Crenshaw Line has subway portions and its northern extension will be completely grade separated.
Yeah BART is a hybrid commuter/urban rail system. LA's rail ridership will blow it out of the water once the expansions are complete. Not sure why you brought up MARTA in Atlanta though, since LA has 65% of its ridership with only 37% of mileage. Speaking of which, LA's heavy rail has just 15% the mileage of BART, but has 32% of the ridership.
I think the argument that X has only this much mileage but yet has this much X of the ridership is sort of misleading, but keeps coming up. Shorter systems will generally have been made in the densest parts. Extensions after a while are going to go into less dense parts at some point and can dramatically lower the passengers per mile, but that's not a good reason to stop any extensions. I think people should limit their usage of that as a comparison because it's just sort of nonsensical in a lot of ways.
In comparison to the Bay Area:
LA's heavy rail rapid transit ridership, if we're talking Purple and Red Line, isn't going to be able to beat BART's ridership for a long while.
If we're adding all heavy rail like commuter rail, then you can add Metrolink, but then you'd be adding ACE, SMART and Caltrain as well on the other side.
If you're talking about the combination of heavy rail rapid transit with light rail ridership with LA Metro Rail, then that can overtake BART in numbers, but what that misses is that the Bay Area actually has its light rail systems outside of BART and has them as Muni Metro, VTA, and the cable cars (LOL) into that as well. This is probably where LA will compare most favorably as LA has and will continue to have greater light rail ridership numbers. However, it's going to be pretty close and certainly doesn't blow the Bay Area's transit system out of the water. They are also both sort of disappointing, but that's US mass transit in general.
No. drug-addicts, "performers", beggars, thugs, and general smelly bums of all races. At some point most people get to where they feel they are too old, and have paid too many dues, to have to deal with and be amongst the dregs of society; and they are not wrong.
No. drug-addicts, "performers", beggars, thugs, and general smelly bums of all races. At some point most people get to where they feel they are too old, and have paid too many dues, to have to deal with and be amongst the dregs of society; and they are not wrong.
I think the argument that X has only this much mileage but yet has this much X of the ridership is sort of misleading, but keeps coming up. Shorter systems will generally have been made in the densest parts. Extensions after a while are going to go into less dense parts at some point and can dramatically lower the passengers per mile, but that's not a good reason to stop any extensions. I think people should limit their usage of that as a comparison because it's just sort of nonsensical in a lot of ways.
I think what you're doing it nitpicking the system. Who is to say where the extensions are actually going? I'm looking at the whole of each and checking the numbers. They are what they are. Besides, some of the extensions planned/under construction for LA go through some areas that are denser than where some rail is currently.
Quote:
In comparison to the Bay Area:
LA's heavy rail rapid transit ridership, if we're talking Purple and Red Line, isn't going to be able to beat BART's ridership for a long while.
If we're adding all heavy rail like commuter rail, then you can add Metrolink, but then you'd be adding ACE, SMART and Caltrain as well on the other side.
It'll pass BART once the extensions are complete in about 7 years. The Sepulveda line alone can double the current heavy rail ridership. You're talking about going from Van Nuys (San Fernando Valley) to West LA in 25 minutes! It takes at least 30 minutes outside of peak rush hour if there's no traffic (which is either late at night or early mornings on the weekends). Add in the Purple Line extension and you're probably close to matching BART's current numbers.
I wasn't adding commuter rail in this (only mention heavy rail). Looking at it though, the Bay Area overall has higher ridership. CalTrain is an excellent line and hopefully Metrolink is able to upgrade (electrify and double-track) their lines for more faster/efficient service.
Quote:
If you're talking about the combination of heavy rail rapid transit with light rail ridership with LA Metro Rail, then that can overtake BART in numbers, but what that misses is that the Bay Area actually has its light rail systems outside of BART and has them as Muni Metro, VTA, and the cable cars (LOL) into that as well. This is probably where LA will compare most favorably as LA has and will continue to have greater light rail ridership numbers. However, it's going to be pretty close and certainly doesn't blow the Bay Area's transit system out of the water. They are also both sort of disappointing, but that's US mass transit in general.
I mean this is exactly why I mentioned heavy rail specifically in regards to ridership numbers and not other systems (Metro LRT, Muni, etc.). Looking at light rail, LA already has the highest ridership in the US and it'll only increase in the next few years (including increasing its lead on SF's Muni/Trolley).
Overall there is more potential for an increase in rail usage in LA over the Bay, especially when you take into account that some of the most popular areas aren't served yet (but will be very soon).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf
Yes, I realize the Purple Line HRT is currently being extended under Wilshire Blvd to UCLA/Westwood. What I meant was that, other than the Red and Purple lines, it didn't seem likely LA will get any more all-new HRT or branches anytime soon. NOTE: I'm not aware of the Sepulveda HRT tunnel on the west side you're speaking of... hopefully, then, this will get done.
As for the Blue/Expo trunk line into 7th & Metro station, I also wasn't aware that the section between there and Washington Ave could be 'tunnel-ed' in the future (is this being seriously explored by Metro?)... that would be nice, esp given the very heavy traffic these 2 LRTs carry though that area -- esp the Blue Line.
Yes the Sepulveda tunnel change was very recent. Originally it had light rail, monorail, and heavy rail options, but the light rail options were eliminated and the monorail option will definitely not happen. By making it heavy rail, it'll connect with other lines easier. And if the Purple Line doesn't extend into Santa Monica anymore (hopefully it can come back up), it can turn south (or north) after Westwood and join the Sepulveda Line.
I think what you're doing it nitpicking the system. Who is to say where the extensions are actually going? I'm looking at the whole of each and checking the numbers. They are what they are. Besides, some of the extensions planned/under construction for LA go through some areas that are denser than where some rail is currently.
It'll pass BART once the extensions are complete in about 7 years. The Sepulveda line alone can double the current heavy rail ridership. You're talking about going from Van Nuys (San Fernando Valley) to West LA in 25 minutes! It takes at least 30 minutes outside of peak rush hour if there's no traffic (which is either late at night or early mornings on the weekends). Add in the Purple Line extension and you're probably close to matching BART's current numbers.
I wasn't adding commuter rail in this (only mention heavy rail). Looking at it though, the Bay Area overall has higher ridership. CalTrain is an excellent line and hopefully Metrolink is able to upgrade (electrify and double-track) their lines for more faster/efficient service.
I mean this is exactly why I mentioned heavy rail specifically in regards to ridership numbers and not other systems (Metro LRT, Muni, etc.). Looking at light rail, LA already has the highest ridership in the US and it'll only increase in the next few years (including increasing its lead on SF's Muni/Trolley).
Overall there is more potential for an increase in rail usage in LA over the Bay, especially when you take into account that some of the most popular areas aren't served yet (but will be very soon).
Yes the Sepulveda tunnel change was very recent. Originally it had light rail, monorail, and heavy rail options, but the light rail options were eliminated and the monorail option will definitely not happen. By making it heavy rail, it'll connect with other lines easier. And if the Purple Line doesn't extend into Santa Monica anymore (hopefully it can come back up), it can turn south (or north) after Westwood and join the Sepulveda Line.
As for the Blue/Expo, tunneling is an option for the distant future by Metro.
Going by passengers per mile in a comparison isn't great. The Sepulveda Pass is a great thing to build, but since it'll traverse a long path with no additional riders through the pass, it won't look great on a per mile basis--but who cares? It's still a very good idea! Yes, they are what they are, and they aren't necessarily a great way to compare how good transit systems are.
If you're saying in 7 years there'll be a Sepulveda Pass heavy rail system up and running and that with the Purple Line extension will have higher ridership than BART in 7 years with its new and better traincars with greater capacity and better signaling which will allow higher peak frequencies and Silicon Valley extension, then maybe. I'm not sure how likely the Sepulveda Pass will be completed by that point as it's still scheduled for 2033 with Measure M financing and Phase 3 to Westwood for the Purple Line extension isn't slated to finish until 2027. It's certain that Milpitas and Berryessa/North San Jose stations will be open by then connecting to VTA rail and possible that it'll open to downtown San Jose and Diridon Station (connecting to Amtrak, ACE, Caltrain, VTA). It's also possible that the pattern Caltrain runs at that point qualifies as rapid transit. These are why I don't think rapid transit heavy rail ridership by itself in LA will significantly top that of the Bay Area's, but the combination of heavy rail and light rail will swing in LA's favor.
I do think Los Angeles has a potential strong advantage in Metrolink and the potential for turning it into a massive RER/U-Bahn type system. It'll take some work, but it seems possible. The Bay Area's big mistake was having BART be broad gauge and therefore incompatible with existing rail lines--were it not for that, then BART could have potentially already merged with Caltrain and the idea of a loop around the bay and a mid-bay crossing with the Dumbarton Rail Corridor.
I'm not saying the Bay Area or BART is great, but it does have a distinct advantage right now which Los Angeles will eat into pretty rapidly. However, it's going to be a while before LA's rail transit system blows the Bay Area's "out of the water" whether it's just rapid transit heavy rail comparisons or something else. Something more like the current difference between BART and Chicago's L or BART and DC's Metro is what I'd call blowing something out of the water.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-14-2019 at 02:54 PM..
Going by passengers per mile in a comparison is bad logic in general. The Sepulveda Pass is a great thing to build, but since it'll traverse a long path with no additional riders through the pass, it won't look great on a per mile basis--but who cares? It's still a very good idea! Yes, they are what they are, and they aren't necessarily a great way to compare how good a transit system is.
Well I wasn't talking about riders per mile because I don't really care for that statistic either. The numbers I posted was for overall numbers. So it took into account the 5ish miles of water that BART runs under or the Hollywood Hills the current Red Line in LA runs under.
Quote:
If you're saying in 7 years there'll be a Sepulveda Pass heavy rail system up and running and that with the Purple Line extension will have higher ridership than BART in 7 years with its new and better traincars and Silicon Valley extension, then maybe. I'm not sure how likely the Sepulveda Pass will be completed by that point and Phase 3 to Westwood for the Purple Line extension isn't slated to finish until 2027. It's certain that Milpitas and Berryessa/North San Jose stations will be open by then connecting to VTA rail and possible that it'll open to downtown San Jose and Diridon Station (connecting to Amtrak, ACE, Caltrain, VTA). It's also possible that the pattern Caltrain runs at that point qualifies as rapid transit.
The most recent numbers I saw from Metro's plan was for the Westwood extension to be complete in 2026, but 2027 is probably right if you account for delays. The issue with that BART extension into SJ is that not an overwhelming amount of people are commuting from there to Oakland or SF proper (since Santa Clara County is a very large job base itself) so I'm not sure how much ridership will really increase.
Quote:
I do think Los Angeles has a potential strong advantage in Metrolink and the potential for turning it into a massive RER/U-Bahn type system. It'll take some work, but it seems possible. The Bay Area's big mistake was having BART be broad gauge and therefore incompatible with existing rail lines--were it not for that, then BART could have potentially already merged with Caltrain and the idea of a loop around the bay and a mid-bay crossing with the Dumbarton Rail Corridor.
I'm not saying the Bay Area or BART is great, but it does have a distinct advantage right now which Los Angeles will eat into pretty rapidly. However, it's going to be a while before LA's rail transit system blows the Bay Area's "out of the water" whether it's just rapid transit heavy rail comparisons or something else. Something more like the current difference between BART and Chicago's L or BART and DC's Metro is what I'd call blowing something out of the water.
Well I wasn't talking about riders per mile because I don't really care for that statistic either. The numbers I posted was for overall numbers. So it took into account the 5ish miles of water that BART runs under or the Hollywood Hills the current Red Line in LA runs under.
The most recent numbers I saw from Metro's plan was for the Westwood extension to be complete in 2026, but 2027 is probably right if you account for delays. The issue with that BART extension into SJ is that not an overwhelming amount of people are commuting from there to Oakland or SF proper (since Santa Clara County is a very large job base itself) so I'm not sure how much ridership will really increase.
Good points, I can agree with this.
"LA has 65% of its ridership with only 37% of mileage. Speaking of which, LA's heavy rail has just 15% the mileage of BART, but has 32% of the ridership."
^That looked like doing a ridership versus miles comparison. If you want to argue it's otherwise, let me know. If BART magically pared down a massive amount of trackage out to the further suburbs on some of this, then it'll somehow end up looking better, but that'd be a terrible idea.
It's nitpicky of me to say 2026 versus 2027 makes a huge difference. I think the Purple Line extension should be included because it'll hit around the 7 year mark which is your main point. I think it'll be incredible if the Sepulveda Pass finishes around that mark, and if this, then yea, I can see a good argument for LA having equal or better heavy rail ridership by that period. There's not an overwhelming amount of people commuting from San Jose from East Bay--the other way around though will probably see a lot of ridership. Peak direction is more likely to be to and away from San Jose/SV jobs rather than East Bay jobs.
Also, not to **** on the parade or anything--I am very glad that LA's accelerated its investment into mass transit so much over the last few decades.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-14-2019 at 03:48 PM..
It will be interesting how LA will change when the Purple Line extensions finishes to Westwood/VA. It is a major employment and/or place of interest line on nearly every stop. The Red Line has strong ridership because many people use it to get to jobs in Koreatown, Hollywood and Downtown. People will drive to a park and ride like North Hollywood Station and get to work that way. But so many more coming off other lines or commuter trains. The Purple will would allow people who work that westside direction to maybe consider homes/rental in eastern areas like east of Downtown into the San Gabriel Valley or along any of the Metrolinks stops. You are in Orange County, take the commuter train to Union Station, and transfer to the purple line and in 25 minutes be at your office job/school/museums in Beverly Hills or Century City or Westwood.
The really great thing about the Purple Line and why the extension is one of the most important mass transit investments in the US is that Wilshire itself is almost a linear downtown on its own and having this transit access might give some stations along it a more three dimensional nature along its station. LA is certainly not in the running now for the best US subway system after NYC in any sense, but it has an arguable case if the Purple Line extension, the Arts District infill, and the Sepulveda Pass happens in short order.
The question then is what happens afterwards as Measure M has a fairly long tail and there would likely need to be a lot more investment than that to leap to second place in the US. The potential options for "subway" or rapid transit heavy rail at that point are things like going south on Vermont, an extension of the Purple Line to Santa Monica, and what else? I think there should be an even larger and potentially feasible idealized optimal plan for Los Angeles that takes that into consideration. One thing is to go along all the interlining that is possible. There's generally no more than two subway services that can be interlined before frequencies get hit pretty hard for individual lines (see BART going through the transbay tunnel).
To be on topic, the real candidates on this thread now and for the immediate future are Chicago and DC and DC has a good chance of pulling ahead soon unless Chicago really figures out some extensions especially something that takes it out of the strict spoke and hub system it has. My feeling is that the best route for heavy rail expansion in Chicago is to make all day use of the express tracks it has on the North Side and then takes the Purple Line to be at all normal hours (doesn't have to be 24/7) to go underground and to go straight south down Halstead in order to hit several stops that are in the developing Cabrini-Green, Goose Island, West Loop, East Pilsen, Bridgeport and beyond through the South Side to create a modern line that connects several CTA and Metra stops and hits these new areas without requiring going through the Loop. Something like that would put Chicago squarely ahead of Washington even with Washington's Silver Line extension.
A potential leapfrog in these rankings is to make commuter rail into something like a RER / S-Bahn / Washington Metro / BART like commuter/subway hybrid out of their commuter rail systems via some combination of through-running, electrification, new/more rolling stock, fare adjustment/integration, and grade crossing elimination, which the cities of NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia are in relatively good positions to do so (especially Philadelphia as it has the through-running and electrification already up which is the most expensive part of the whole ordeal).
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-14-2019 at 09:11 PM..
well haven't been to LA and Chicago but DC's is nice,pretty modern and clean.....less crime in there system then NYC as well...the frequency on the lines could be better at times but all in all its pretty good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you associate that with Metro users?
