LA subway updates? (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach: mover, transfer, live)

[Dangerous-Boy]

Is it at least up to par with philly?

[Cream1]

No, Subway doesn't make a good Philly Cheesesteak yet

[GatsbyGatz]

LA's subway connects from Union Station to Pershing Square in Downtown, continues North with a few stations along Vermont Ave, has three stations in Hollywood, a station at Universal Studios, and ends in North Hollywood (San Fernando Valley).

It's decent if you live near those stations, but the subway as of today doesn't necessarily cover all of LA's most significant urban nodes.

However, LA recently won a long legal battle with Beverly Hills and so the subway line will be making it's most significant expansion ever: along Wilshire Blvd. Eventually, the subway will go from DTLA with stations along Wilshire Blvd, a station in Beverly Hills, and end with stations in Santa Monica. That is pretty significant as it establishes the ever-so-desired "subway to the sea".

[timtemtym]

Not yet! Philadelphia has an excellent subway system and excellent commuter rail options. Los Angeles has excellent commuter rail options, but the subway is still coming along.

We still can't even get to ANY airport using the train. LAX, Long Beach, Burbank airports are all within a few miles of the Metro subway system, but you still have to get off and take a bus over to get to the airport. I bet if they do connect it to an airport, it'll be Ontario... (joke), but the eastside transit system is coming along well.

[Those Who Squirm]

Originally Posted by timtemtym

Not yet! Philadelphia has an excellent subway system and excellent commuter rail options. Los Angeles has excellent commuter rail options, but the subway is still coming along.

We still can't even get to ANY airport using the train. LAX, Long Beach, Burbank airports are all within a few miles of the Metro subway system, but you still have to get off and take a bus over to get to the airport. I bet if they do connect it to an airport, it'll be Ontario... (joke), but the eastside transit system is coming along well.

At least Burbank Airport does have its own Amtrak/Metrolink station.

But how necessary or even practical would a Metrorail connection to LAX be, in any case? Metro uses typical urban transit trains, with no overhead luggage racks nor anywhere else to stow more than the most minimal amount of luggage. IIRC, BART trains do provide luggage space, but being a system as much for suburbanite commuters as it is for urban transit, that's to be expected.

Aside from San Francisco/SFO/Oakland, how is rapid transit to the airport designed? Do they have special rolling stock used only on the airport routes, that provides extra space for luggage?

I'm not absolutely opposed to a LAX extension, but I do think there are probably more useful projects that the money could be spent on.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by Those Who Squirm

At least Burbank Airport does have its own Amtrak/Metrolink station.

But how necessary or even practical would a Metrorail connection to LAX be, in any case? Metro uses typical urban transit trains, with no overhead luggage racks nor anywhere else to stow more than the most minimal amount of luggage. IIRC, BART trains do provide luggage space, but being a system as much for suburbanite commuters as it is for urban transit, that's to be expected.

Aside from San Francisco/SFO/Oakland, how is rapid transit to the airport designed? Do they have special rolling stock used only on the airport routes, that provides extra space for luggage?

I'm not absolutely opposed to a LAX extension, but I do think there are probably more useful projects that the money could be spent on.

We are getting a station on the Crenshaw Line to connect to a future People Mover. I have heard it is similar to what JFK has in NYC but I've never been outside that airport.

Still to get to the nicer areas of LA (Valley, Westside, DTLA, Pasadena) it will be a long train ride on rail with multiple transfers.