if you could rebuild LA's subway/light rail system from scratch (San Francisco: earthquake, safer)

[Infamous92]

I'd model it after DC's only on a larger scale.

[zenkonami]

In cities that continue their trend toward becoming more and more dense, we still cling to the notion of "a system very few people will ever use." Like how very few people use the systems in New York? London? Moscow? Paris? Washington DC?

If very few people are using the system in a city with L.A.'s density (and though not as dense as some of the cities above, it is still quite dense by American standards) then it's because the rail lines don't yet go to enough places to satisfy that larger number of travelers (LAX, Santa Monica / Venice, UCLA, parts of the San Fernando Valley, etc...) Buses are crucial parts of the system, but when relied on for primary corridor transit in a city with L.A.'s traffic, they simply aren't that effective (Orange Line having it's own right-of-way being an exception for obvious reasons.)

Personally, having used the Red line quite frequently, and having needed the bus system on occasion, I can say that L.A. has a very good system that has plenty of room for improvement. Hopefully the city and county will continue to work toward a wider rail system and improvements in their feeder bus system.

[zenkonami]

Originally Posted by Charles

If there was no traffic on any streets or freeways and gas was $1/gallon, would you still advocate more mass transit?

I probably wouldn't, but I'd also be pretty upset at the amount of wasteful spending that was put in to all those empty "freeways to nowhere." I do agree that it's foolish to have a large mass transit system in places that can't justify it by way of population and access, though there should always be some alternative for those who can't or won't drive cars (at a minimum buses.)

L.A., however, is congested and increasing in density - and gas is around three times more than $1/gallon. I believe that justifies improvements in mass transit as funds become available and as needs become apparent.

[Island_OnThe_Land]

Originally Posted by Charles

If there was no traffic on any streets or freeways and gas was $1/gallon, would you still advocate more mass transit?

No...and even with gas around $2.50 to $3.00 I do NOT advocate it anywhere in Alabama. That would TRULY be a waste of taxpayer money. The focus for areas like that should be on cleaner fuels, etc.

I agree cars are not evil....it's just that we have deeply subsidized the car for the past 50 years with "free" roads.

So in congested places like SoCalif. you build mass transit to balance the scales. Maybe someday there is enough of a system where a congestion pricing scheme can be implemented and each mode can actually pay its fair share.

[K 22]

I was reading about the 30/10 Plan the other day. I had a couple of ideas.

Let's say for example that these were all in place: Downtown Connector (stations at 4th/Flower, 2nd/Hope and 2nd/Los Angeles), Expo Line to Santa Monica, Purple Line to Fairfax, Crenshaw/LAX Line.

First, let's take the Blue Line and Gold Line and extend them.

- Take the Gold Line off the Northern leg from Little Tokyo and up and have it run through the Downtown Connector and then along Expo to Santa Monica. The new Gold Line becomes a true East-West Line from Santa Monica to East LA. No need for a sole Expo Line either.

- Take the Blue Line, extend it past 7th Street - through Downtown and have it go to Pasadena. Blue goes from Pasadena to Long Beach.

- The downtown stations will probably be crushed-loaded since both Blue and Gold would be serving them but it would take advantage of some more opportunities for a maximum one-transfer ride and more one-seat rides.

(BTW, the station at Pico should be underground and not at-grade, IMO.)

Secondly, I read the ultimate goal for the Crenshaw/LAX line is to go to Wilshire/La Brea. I think it should go up to Hollywood/Highland via La Brea. Put a station on Beverly or 3rd (3rd might be too close, I know), another on Santa Monica (with a transfer to the line they want to put there) and then to Hollywood/Highland. There, Hollywood/Highland to LAX, one seat ride.

Just a few thoughts. Probably not doable anyway.

[Curmudgeon]

Simple!

[nickdahammer]

I think the Regional Connector will do alot toward moving the system along. 7th/Metro Center station is pretty busy as it is, and stacking more commuters waiting around to transfer to other trains will be a nightmare IMHO. I think there are plans afoot to spur the Gold Line Eastbound off at LT and through the Connector. That makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by K 22

I was reading about the 30/10 Plan the other day. I had a couple of ideas.

Let's say for example that these were all in place: Downtown Connector (stations at 4th/Flower, 2nd/Hope and 2nd/Los Angeles), Expo Line to Santa Monica, Purple Line to Fairfax, Crenshaw/LAX Line.

First, let's take the Blue Line and Gold Line and extend them.

- Take the Gold Line off the Northern leg from Little Tokyo and up and have it run through the Downtown Connector and then along Expo to Santa Monica. The new Gold Line becomes a true East-West Line from Santa Monica to East LA. No need for a sole Expo Line either.

- Take the Blue Line, extend it past 7th Street - through Downtown and have it go to Pasadena. Blue goes from Pasadena to Long Beach.

- The downtown stations will probably be crushed-loaded since both Blue and Gold would be serving them but it would take advantage of some more opportunities for a maximum one-transfer ride and more one-seat rides.

(BTW, the station at Pico should be underground and not at-grade, IMO.)

Secondly, I read the ultimate goal for the Crenshaw/LAX line is to go to Wilshire/La Brea. I think it should go up to Hollywood/Highland via La Brea. Put a station on Beverly or 3rd (3rd might be too close, I know), another on Santa Monica (with a transfer to the line they want to put there) and then to Hollywood/Highland. There, Hollywood/Highland to LAX, one seat ride.

Just a few thoughts. Probably not doable anyway.

[Drowningintherain2]

Originally Posted by Charles

If there was no traffic on any streets or freeways and gas was $1/gallon, would you still advocate more mass transit?

Absolutely!

[Charles]

Public transportation always seems to take a lot longer to go anywhere, it is a lot less flexible, it's difficult to do dynamic routing, and it isn't very private. It's so much easier to drive to places on the spur of the moment and it is more comfortable to be in your own car.

[coo77]

Originally Posted by Island_OnThe_Land

Here's my understanding of it: the Green Line is the "train to nowhere" as why would anyone build a train to Norwalk? No offense to Norwalk.

Despite its rep as a "train to nowhere," it still has higher ridership than the Gold Line which goes to places like downtown, Pasadena, South Pasadena, Chinatown, Boyle Heights, etc... Roughly 10,000 more people board the Green Line each day over the Gold Line and both are roughly 20 miles in length. Gold Line has 21 stations and the Green Line has 14.

-So if anything the Gold Line is the biggest dissappointment.