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.
The Metro and LINK maps pwright1 posted pretty much say it all.
Let's look at it this way-what are the most relevant useful segments (lines) of mass transit on the west coast?
I think the Red Line easily takes this. A heavy rail subway which originates at Union Station (meaning you walk right off of a Metrolink or Amtrak train onto the subway), cuts through all the focal points of DTLA, cuts through the densely populated Wilshire/Vermont/Sunset/Hollywood corridor, and lets you out at a huge transit center in North Hollywood.
What's the second most useful?
The Expo line. Starts at downtown's thriving 7th Street/Metro center station (which is the singular transit station on the west coast that could most easily be mistaken for central rail depot in NYC or Philadelphia), goes through South Park, runs along densely populated south L.A., stops in Culver City and ends in downtown Santa Monica.
When the purple line extension is done (this isn't "planned", they are underground building it now), it will likely supplant the Red line as the top dog in L.A.
Think about that. I didn't even mention the Green, Gold, or Blue lines, which are bigger, have more stops, and travel though areas considerably denser than Seattle.
Los Angeles is more of a public transit city and region.
It's density and a nice rail map vs. culture, concentrated nodes, land use code, and the power of buses with HOV lanes.
For all of LA's arguments, its actual commute share peers are Atlanta, Denver, and Portland...not Seattle.
I think being multinodal can work to a transit system’s advantage as long as those nodes are well-connected and the nodes and surrounding areas have decent density whether retail density, job density and/or population density. LA’s certainly “urbanizing” its larger core at a decent clip, and with dedicated transit funding, it’s pretty straightforward to imagine it having a comprehensive network connecting many nodes.
Still though, there are large parts of LA, which is physically a large city, that are not well-positioned or built out in a way conducive to mass transit use so that’s why my vote is for Seattle.
That leaves the Sepulveda Pass as the only real gap in Metro rail coverage. With the speed at which all the other projects are moving, its hard for me to believe they won't eventually get something built there as well: https://la.curbed.com/2018/6/12/1745...onorail-subway
The Metro and LINK maps pwright1 posted pretty much say it all.
Let's look at it this way-what are the most relevant useful segments (lines) of mass transit on the west coast?
I think the Red Line easily takes this. A heavy rail subway which originates at Union Station (meaning you walk right off of a Metrolink or Amtrak train onto the subway), cuts through all the focal points of DTLA, cuts through the densely populated Wilshire/Vermont/Sunset/Hollywood corridor, and lets you out at a huge transit center in North Hollywood.
What's the second most useful?
The Expo line. Starts at downtown's thriving 7th Street/Metro center station (which is the singular transit station on the west coast that could most easily be mistaken for central rail depot in NYC or Philadelphia), goes through South Park, runs along densely populated south L.A., stops in Culver City and ends in downtown Santa Monica.
When the purple line extension is done (this isn't "planned", they are underground building it now), it will likely supplant the Red line as the top dog in L.A.
Think about that. I didn't even mention the Green, Gold, or Blue lines, which are bigger, have more stops, and travel though areas considerably denser than Seattle.
Los Angeles is more of a public transit city and region.
We should clarify some terms here - rail lines can either be built, under construction, planned or proposed. Built means it’s already built, under construction means it’s in the process of being built, planned means it’s voter approved/fully funded and in the process of being planned and designed, and proposed means it’s being considered but far from a done deal.
In other words, “planned” means it’s basically 100% sure it’s gonna happen - work is underway there just hasn’t been a shovel in the ground yet, so to speak. Seattle currently has Central Link built, Northgate link, Lynwood Link, and East Link under construction, and a number of other lines fully funded, voter-approved and in the planning stages. Seattle’s 116 mile system is essentially a done deal and a good chunk of it is currently under construction. It’s not some fantasy transit thing - it’s a real thing that is happening. And given how high Seattle’s ridership per mile is for its existing light rail line you can expect it to be a very well used system.
Overall, I think Seattle is just a more public transit oriented city in general. 3rd Avenue is the busiest bus corridor in the country. People take transit, walk or bike to get where they’re going within the urban core. As Mhays has pointed out, look at how much higher Seattle’s commute mode share is. It’s closer to cities like Philly and SF than it is to LA in that regard, and that’s before the massive rail system expansion that’s currently underway.
Amazon is much of the increase, definitely. Of their 14 msf or so HQ built or underway, maybe 3 msf was built in the previous DTS boom, 10 msf is this DTS boom, and 1 msf is Bellevue, all WAGs on my part.
The other 6 msf of Downtown Seattle's current boom, and why it seems to be continuing even with Amazon's growth a question, is that other companies are also streaming in, particularly techs. Most of the big techs have engineering offices in Downtown Seattle, and several have large ones.
The rest of the region's growth is mostly in other places that have decent mode splits today and will soon have rail: the core Eastside including Downtown Bellevue.
DTS (is that a thing now like DTLA?) is lucky to have such a growing company. LA has somewhat chased away companies that were here but would have loved Amazon to come. As it is we have a growing tech scene but it’s in venice, Culver City, Santa Monica and El Segundo. Basically the southern parts of the westside. Most of it near rail but most tech people here don’t take public transportation. In fact very few do in my experience.
Amazon is much of the increase, definitely. Of their 14 msf or so HQ built or underway, maybe 3 msf was built in the previous DTS boom, 10 msf is this DTS boom, and 1 msf is Bellevue, all WAGs on my part.
The other 6 msf of Downtown Seattle's current boom, and why it seems to be continuing even with Amazon's growth a question, is that other companies are also streaming in, particularly techs. Most of the big techs have engineering offices in Downtown Seattle, and several have large ones.
The rest of the region's growth is mostly in other places that have decent mode splits today and will soon have rail: the core Eastside including Downtown Bellevue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman
We should clarify some terms here - rail lines can either be built, under construction, planned or proposed. Built means it’s already built, under construction means it’s in the process of being built, planned means it’s voter approved/fully funded and in the process of being planned and designed, and proposed means it’s being considered but far from a done deal.
In other words, “planned” means it’s basically 100% sure it’s gonna happen - work is underway there just hasn’t been a shovel in the ground yet, so to speak. Seattle currently has Central Link built, Northgate link, Lynwood Link, and East Link under construction, and a number of other lines fully funded, voter-approved and in the planning stages. Seattle’s 116 mile system is essentially a done deal and a good chunk of it is currently under construction. It’s not some fantasy transit thing - it’s a real thing that is happening. And given how high Seattle’s ridership per mile is for its existing light rail line you can expect it to be a very well used system.
Overall, I think Seattle is just a more public transit oriented city in general. 3rd Avenue is the busiest bus corridor in the country. People take transit, walk or bike to get where they’re going within the urban core. As Mhays has pointed out, look at how much higher Seattle’s commute mode share is. It’s closer to cities like Philly and SF than it is to LA in that regard, and that’s before the massive rail system expansion that’s currently underway.
3rd ave is the busiest bus corridor in the country? I hadn’t heard that and find that hard to believe. Do you have a link?
I don't know if it's the busiest, but it's definitely up there with 2,000 bus trips along 3rd AVE per day.
2,000 bus trips per day is 1,000 bus trips each way per day. That’s a bus every 30-45 seconds 24 hours per day. What buses run on this route? I’d like to check the schedules as that seems fantastical.
Looking at the route map I didn’t see close to that. Plus it looks only a few blocks long. I would call that a “corridor”.
“Some 250 local, regional, and express buses travel this corridor every hour during the weekday rush hour—more than two buses per minute, the most of any street in North America. They carry 52,000 daily riders. The crisscrossing buses and streaming riders almost feels like a plein-air Penn Station, if the trains in New York ran on time.”
It's density and a nice rail map vs. culture, concentrated nodes, land use code, and the power of buses with HOV lanes.
For all of LA's arguments, its actual commute share peers are Atlanta, Denver, and Portland...not Seattle.
The fact is a small percentage is hov lanes. The fact is most buses make stops every two blocks. I lived in both extensively without a car and LA by far has the better public transportation, especially in urban LA compared to urban Seattle..
The fact is a small percentage is hov lanes. The fact is most buses make stops every two blocks. I lived in both extensively without a car and LA by far has the better public transportation, especially in urban LA compared to urban Seattle..
But you moved nearly 10 years ago. The improvement has been dramatic. Metro is operating at another level than where it was in 2010
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.
