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.
Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, rail transit development is actually happening. LA Metro Rail expansion now has more track than Bart and is still growing strong.
Amazing to see the pipe dream of bay area transit fail so bad, while LA continues smart growth.
Glad to see LA finally catching up. Let's be frank here, it's been a bit embarrassing that a city of LA's size didn't have more track than BART. And LA still has a long way to go: their ridership is still very low (which I hope continues to improve things), and their schedules/frequency for some of their rail lines (such as the one heading south to OC) absolutely blows if you need to go anytime besides the few rush hour trains.
All of those critical things aside, it's great to see them heading in the right directions. I'm sure they have a bright future in regards to public transit (even if convincing people to get out of their cars will still be a challenge).
By the way, this isn't to say the Bay Area is some perfection of public transit - but it's still better off than LA is right now. At least in practical terms. Part of that is geographically-based (LA is way more sprawled and has more flat land to sprawl to, making public transit logistically much harder) - but it's still the reality.
It was probably cheaper to not put in overhead wires. Also I read they are building it in a way that would allow the line to be converted to conventional BART if ridership warranted it and there was money so maybe that is part of the reason they didn't put in electric overhead wires.
I actually would love to see BART and Caltrain merge. As much as I don't love the bloated nature of BART's employment structures, it'd be much better if we had one regional rail agency vs. two (especially one that is constantly begging for funding).
Caltrain could offer some legitimate recommendations/expertise on how to run these eBART lines. And having Caltrain on board with BART might also give incentive to build more eBART lines, perhaps at the ends of all BART lines (I'd love to see each BART line have its own eBART extension out to the very far exurbs of the region).
This merger could also provide some money and incentives for Caltrain to get some much needed improvements (electrification, grade separation on the entire line, more passing tracks) <- some of this is going to happen with highspeed rail, but a BART/Caltrain merger could help even further.
The region is probably too balkanized to do this, but I'd love to see it happen.
Glad to see LA finally catching up. Let's be frank here, it's been a bit embarrassing that a city of LA's size didn't have more track than BART. And LA still has a long way to go: their ridership is still very low (which I hope continues to improve things), and their schedules/frequency for some of their rail lines (such as the one heading south to OC) absolutely blows if you need to go anytime besides the few rush hour trains.
All of those critical things aside, it's great to see them heading in the right directions. I'm sure they have a bright future in regards to public transit (even if convincing people to get out of their cars will still be a challenge).
By the way, this isn't to say the Bay Area is some perfection of public transit - but it's still better off than LA is right now. At least in practical terms. Part of that is geographically-based (LA is way more sprawled and has more flat land to sprawl to, making public transit logistically much harder) - but it's still the reality.
LOL it is funny to see BayArea homers talk about playing catch up, as they cling to their dilapidated legacy transit, that could not withstand the test of time for more than two generations. LA metro ridership is not too far from BART, and will probably be neck and neck with in 2 years, tops.
Keep in mind that BART has high ridership, because it is logistically impossible to drive to SF/San Mateo job centers from the east bay. There is a reason BART follows the path of freeways.
Now in the last 25 years, LA went from literally no rail, to building a transit system that will only be rivaled by cities back east.
In the last 10 years, all Bart has done is figure out how to expand a few miles further into Fremont.
The simple reality is the bay gambled on an unsustainable transit model that is destined to fail, much like LA did with the Freeway system. Though to be fair to LA, no one in 1960 imagined women would need cars to commute to jobs, adding to gridlock. Just google LA's transit expansion with in the next five years. This is a feat the world has never seen, taking an autocentric city and making it transit oriented. In 5 years, BART still wont be in Antioch, Livermore, or San Jose.
Glad to see LA finally catching up. Let's be frank here, it's been a bit embarrassing that a city of LA's size didn't have more track than BART. And LA still has a long way to go: their ridership is still very low (which I hope continues to improve things), and their schedules/frequency for some of their rail lines (such as the one heading south to OC) absolutely blows if you need to go anytime besides the few rush hour trains.
All of those critical things aside, it's great to see them heading in the right directions. I'm sure they have a bright future in regards to public transit (even if convincing people to get out of their cars will still be a challenge).
By the way, this isn't to say the Bay Area is some perfection of public transit - but it's still better off than LA is right now. At least in practical terms. Part of that is geographically-based (LA is way more sprawled and has more flat land to sprawl to, making public transit logistically much harder) - but it's still the reality.
I agree, I don't what what all this chest thumping about LA Metro finally catching up to cities a third to half its size is. If anything that shows how pathetically small LA Metro still is and how much farther it has to catch up.
It's commuter rail is an embarrassment with how few people ride considering how large its service area is.
And even LA Metro lines themselves, most are more akin to how Denver, San Diego, Dallas, etc..build their rail systems than the Bay Area or cities back east. It's mostly at-grade running light rail with tons of crossings at intersections. That's why it takes nearly an hour to go 15 miles from DTLA to Santa Monica. You have trains that actually have to sit at a traffic light and wait for automobiles. You think a supposed "world class city" would spend a little more money for some grade separations, especially in the core and downtown areas.
I actually would love to see BART and Caltrain merge. As much as I don't love the bloated nature of BART's employment structures, it'd be much better if we had one regional rail agency vs. two (especially one that is constantly begging for funding).
Caltrain could offer some legitimate recommendations/expertise on how to run these eBART lines. And having Caltrain on board with BART might also give incentive to build more eBART lines, perhaps at the ends of all BART lines (I'd love to see each BART line have its own eBART extension out to the very far exurbs of the region).
This merger could also provide some money and incentives for Caltrain to get some much needed improvements (electrification, grade separation on the entire line, more passing tracks) <- some of this is going to happen with highspeed rail, but a BART/Caltrain merger could help even further.
The region is probably too balkanized to do this, but I'd love to see it happen.
Yeah maybe something similar to NYC MTA as it has NYC Subway, LIRR, and Metro North all under one umbrella. Metro North and LIRR even have multiple propulsion systems (third rail, overhead catenary, and DMU).
I agree, I don't what what all this chest thumping about LA Metro finally catching up to cities a third to half its size is. If anything that shows how pathetically small LA Metro still is and how much farther it has to catch up.
It's commuter rail is an embarrassment with how few people ride considering how large its service area is.
And even LA Metro lines themselves, most are more akin to how Denver, San Diego, Dallas, etc..build their rail systems than the Bay Area or cities back east. It's mostly at-grade running light rail with tons of crossings at intersections. That's why it takes nearly an hour to go 15 miles from DTLA to Santa Monica. You have trains that actually have to sit at a traffic light and wait for automobiles. You think a supposed "world class city" would spend a little more money for some grade separations, especially in the core and downtown areas.
LoL, it's not like most of Muni in 'world class' SF is any different. That's how light rail works.
The alternative is heavy rail like Cal Train, which is even more costly and infrequent. Or something like BART - over extended, under funded, and in dispair. BART has trouble simply policing and cleaning, let alone repairs or expansion.
What we are seeing in LA is much smarter transit growth and planning . Heavy rapid transit upgrades in Central LA, with slower/commuter based rail transit outside the core.
This is why LA can expand 15 miles through an urban jungle in a couple years, while BART can not figure out how to get a few miles down the freeway into Livermore. The future for LA is more options, while the future for BART is more breakdowns, strikes, and money, while offering little in the way of upgraded service.
LoL, it's not like most of Muni in 'world class' SF is any different. That's how light rail works.
The alternative is heavy rail like Cal Train, which is even more costly and infrequent. Or something like BART - over extended, under funded, and in dispair. BART has trouble simply policing and cleaning, let alone repairs or expansion.
What we are seeing in LA is much smarter transit growth and planning . Heavy rapid transit upgrades in Central LA, with slower/commuter based rail transit outside the core.
This is why LA can expand 15 miles through an urban jungle in a couple years, while BART can not figure out how to get a few miles down the freeway into Livermore. The future for LA is more options, while the future for BART is more breakdowns, strikes, and money, while offering little in the way of upgraded service.
Seattle's light rail is being built more like a rapid transit Metro than typical light rail. Muni Metro, while nothing to brag about, at least runs underground in the core.
Caltrain isn't heavy rail, it's commuter rail. BART is heavy rail and yes it's more costly and actually more frequent, much more frequent. I get it, LA went cheap with their system hence all the at-grade crossings and waiting for cars to pass an intersection.
The only heavy rail rapid transit in the core of LA is the purple line extension, the rest is light rail.
The reason why LA can expand 15 miles through an "urban" jungle so quickly is because it used an abandoned railroad right-of-way that used to run rail service until the 50's. So basically LA spent billions to restore service to where it already had it before.
BART is definitely going through some growing pains but many well established systems do. WMATA in DC, the most similar system to BART, is having it even worse right now. NYC subway and the Chicago El all went through some bad times with deferred maintenance. LA is a much younger system and there really isn't anything to suggest they wouldn't experience the same thing later on down the road. When you focus so much on expansion there is a greater chance the existing system and infrastructure gets ignored.
Seattle's light rail is being built more like a rapid transit Metro than typical light rail. Muni Metro, while nothing to brag about, at least runs underground in the core.
Caltrain isn't heavy rail, it's commuter rail. BART is heavy rail and yes it's more costly and actually more frequent, much more frequent. I get it, LA went cheap with their system hence all the at-grade crossings and waiting for cars to pass an intersection.
The only heavy rail rapid transit in the core of LA is the purple line extension, the rest is light rail.
The reason why LA can expand 15 miles through an "urban" jungle so quickly is because it used an abandoned railroad right-of-way that used to run rail service until the 50's. So basically LA spent billions to restore service to where it already had it before.
BART is definitely going through some growing pains but many well established systems do. WMATA in DC, the most similar system to BART, is having it even worse right now. NYC subway and the Chicago El all went through some bad times with deferred maintenance. LA is a much younger system and there really isn't anything to suggest they wouldn't experience the same thing later on down the road. When you focus so much on expansion there is a greater chance the existing system and infrastructure gets ignored.
Muni goes underground in SF's little core. As we know, most of muni light rail is the same as LA. And muni is the transit authority with more issues than BART. Seattle is also a horrible comparison. It's a system not remotely comparable to the dynamic/size/expansion of LA. That is like comparing Sac or Denver rail to muni.
LA abandonded it's street car system, like every other city on earth. And replaced them with buses, like everyone else. Street cars are costly and travel the same speed on the same roads as buses, with less passanger capacity. It would be mornoic for any city to keep that large of a street car system when there are cheaper alternatives.
And in addition to all of this, you have an even bigger expansion with the Crenshaw Lax line slated to open in 3 years. The subway light rail regional connector (similar to muni light rail in the SF core) slated to be open in 4 years in Downtown LA. Then you have the purple line, heavy rail, going DEEP into west LA. Another game changer.
And no, the Red Line is also heavy rail in LA's core, which links DTLA with Hollywood and beyond.
Again, what LA is doing is smart sustainable growth. Comparing BART with NYC/Chicago heavy rail is laughable. Chi/Nyc/La heavy rail are much cheaper to operate and repair. BART considerably more expensive to maintain and repair than even DC rail transit. Except DC has a much better urban fabric and gets more sympathy from congress.
I'm not sure how you can call BART woes "growing paines", when there is little in the way of note worthy growth! The paines are from creating an unsustainable mode of transit. As another poster noted, BART should have been SFO-Rich-Oak at the core. With commuter and light rail picking up the rest. It would have made for a larger, more effective, and cheaper regional rail transit. Like what LA is doing now.
But that is the history of CA. The bay gets a head start, but LA always wins in the long run.
Last edited by WizardOfRadical; 07-04-2016 at 08:40 PM..
Muni goes underground in SF's little core. As we know, most of muni light rail is the same as LA. And muni is the transit authority with more issues than BART. Seattle is also a horrible comparison. It's a system not remotely comparable to the dynamic/size/expansion of LA. That is like comparing Sac or Denver rail to muni.
LA abandonded it's street car system, like every other city on earth. And replaced them with buses, like everyone else. Street cars are costly and travel the same speed on the same roads as buses, with less passanger capacity. It would be mornoic for any city to keep that large of a street car system when there are cheaper alternatives.
And in addition to all of this, you have an even bigger expansion with the Crenshaw Lax line slated to open in 3 years. The subway light rail regional connector (similar to muni light rail in the SF core) slated to be open in 4 years in Downtown LA. Then you have the purple line, heavy rail, going DEEP into west LA. Another game changer.
And no, the Red Line is also heavy rail in LA's core, which links DTLA with Hollywood and beyond.
Again, what LA is doing is smart sustainable growth. Comparing BART with NYC/Chicago heavy rail is laughable. Chi/Nyc/La heavy rail are much cheaper to operate and repair. BART considerably more expensive to maintain and repair than even DC rail transit. Except DC has a much better urban fabric and gets more sympathy from congress.
I'm not sure how you can call BART woes "growing paines", when there is little in the way of note worthy growth! The paines are from creating an unsustainable mode of transit. As another poster noted, BART should have been SFO-Rich-Oak at the core. With commuter and light rail picking up the rest. It would have made for a larger, more effective, and cheaper regional rail transit. Like what LA is doing now.
But that is the history of CA. The bay gets a head start, but LA always wins in the long run.
Yes I'm aware and just stated that, not sure why you're repeating it. My point about Seattle was to address that all light rail is similar when it comes to lower speeds and at-grade crossings. The way they are building their light rail system, a lot of it will run underground and be grade separated. It also is built to handle 4-car trains which LA Metro's light rail, or most light rail systems, can't even accommodate. So while it is light rail it's speed and capacity will be faster and higher than your typical Light Rail system including LA's.
Not sure what your point is about LA abandoning it's streetcar system, I'm aware. I simply pointed why the Expo Line was able to built so quickly and relatively cheaply. You'd think with an existing ROW they would spend a little more to avoid street intersections and speed up travel times.
And what upgrades is the Red Line having? I'm aware it's heavy rail, it all used to be called the Red line before they started calling the spur to Wilshire/Western the Purple Line. Only the Purple Line is being extended which is why I didn't mention the Red Line.
How would you even know what heavy rail systems cost to operate? FYI:
Operating Expenses Per Vehicle Revenue Mile for Heavy Rail
CTA: $7.73
BART: $8.24
WMATA: $12.86
NYC MTA: $14.55
LACMTA: $18.70 (and for light rail is $18.61)
As you can see from the above NTD data LA Metro's Heavy Rail is actually the most expensive to operate out of that group while BART is second cheapest.
Growing pains as in the system is getting older and has deferred maintenance. LA is too young of a system to have that issue but you can't guarantee it won't. With all the focus expansion is runs a greater chance of it happening too.
What are you talking about? LA isn't expanding its commuter rail system (Metrolink). It's just building more light rail with the exception of the Purple Line. Light rail is slower than heavy rail and commuter rail so expanding all the way out to the Inland Empire and across vast swaths of urban sprawl with at-grade crossings and stations isn't exactly anything revolutionary or necessarily the best way to reach those areas. It's just the cheapest form of rail and pretty much what LA's system will consist mostly of, light rail.
Speaking of sustainability, which of these systems seems the least sustainable to you?
Farebox Recovery Ratio for Heavy Rail (the proportion of operating expenses recovered from fares)
LACTMA: 23%
NYCMTA: 41%
CTA: 42%
WMATA: 44%
BART: 62%
Better hope those local funds for operating expenses don't dry up! Hopefully LACMTA can withstand the next recession and dip in local sales tax revenue.
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.
I agree, I don't what what all this chest thumping about LA Metro finally catching up to cities a third to half its size is. If anything that shows how pathetically small LA Metro still is and how much farther it has to catch up. 
