Public Transportation in LA

[marilyn220]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

But some of the valleys are in the city of LA; I get your overall point (live in an area that has good public transportation, as not all areas do), but disagree that it's easy to divide into a city versus suburb thing in the LA area. Public transportation in Pasadena, for example, is pretty good. Not as good as city neighborhoods like Hollywood, but better than a lot of other LA city neighborhoods.

I would agree that the areas with the BEST public transportation are in the city, though, although not all areas of LA are equal on that front, and not all areas outside of city limits are bad.

See? I've been living here for several years and anything outside the confines of what I consider 'working LA" (Downtown, Century City, Westwood, West LA, Hollywood, etc.) is not the city of LA to me. I consider Long Beach, Pasadena, etc., to be like NY's Brooklyn, Bronx, etc.

I mean the OP needs to stay near or close to wherever Wilshire Blvd is. Wilshire is like Manhattan's version of Broadway. It goes on forever, and whatever bus you take on it will transfer you to different parts of the city.

So, I don't know what you call this part of LA, but this is what I consider to be the CITY. All those other places are the equivalent of suburbs to me, whereas the Valleys is like living on Long Island or something.

[HarryKerry]

Actually you are going to find that even on bus lines with 3-5 minute headways, there is either standing room only or NO ROOM at all and sometimes the bus has to pass you up, and you HOPE the next one is on schedule and not delayed in legendary LA traffic. Oh, and that damed Limited is SRO also. CRAP! I let a local pass crush load pass me and now the Limited is packed, but what's that another local right behind it, and I can see maybe some room. YES! Room on the local, I am not up against some armpit nor jostled back and forth by the bus negotiating traffic nor having to be stepped on and myself step on people to make room for desperate riders trying to exit, "WAIT! WAIT! Comin' Through! BACK DOOR! BACK DOOR!" he screams to the driver as he pushes his way through to exit. But being on the local means I have a longer trip in store having to stop at just about EVERY stop along the way, and it gets more crowded and SRO crush load so that when I exit, I am the one squeezing through (get up and make way to the back door at least 2 stops before the one I want) and yelling, "WAIT! Comin' through!" Even the Metro Rapid on Wilshire heading west from Western Ave. can be saturated.

Blue Line trains were running about 3 minutes apart during rush hours and saturated. MTA spent millions extending platforms to allow for additional car. Now Blue Line running about 5-6 minutes during rush.

Purple Line subway is lower ridership because it doesn't go far enough. It ends at Wilshire/Western. However Purple and Red Lines in evening rush are saturated SRO at 7th Metro Center heading east to Union Station (combined service of 5 minutes between trains) because of the legions making connections with Metrolink commuter trains, few connecting to Gold Line. Also, in the afternoon rush heading west out of 7th Metro Center, while the purple has lots of seats, the Red Line is SRO heading to Mid-town, Hollywood, and North Hollywood.

Gold Line eastside is one of the best rides because very few people use it. However, in the afternoon rush, when it arrives at Union Station platform it becomes SRO heading out to Pasadena.

And Green Line can be busy, but it often does have seats, however, at headways of about 8 minutes during the rush, it can be saturated by the time it reaches Aviation Station heading east, just a few miles from the terminus. It can stay saturated until it arrives at Imperial station were lots of people connect to and from the Blue Line. Green line continuing east has seats and relief for its final leg to Norwalk.

Now, Metorlink commuter rail has always had problems keeping up with demand, even during its first ever decrease in ridership--due to the economy. While ridership numbers vary by line, in general, it can be tough to get a seat and Metrolink has had to lease equipment from other agencies over the years until it receives it order of rail cars to meet demand. Now, 2 years LATE, Metrolink is finally receiving its latest order of 117 rail cars that should allow it to remove the few leased cars from service and begin replacing the some of the older cars it owns.

And the Amtraks in the afternoon out of Union Station heading south are also at capacity as Metolink Monthly pass holders may ride them free of charge, although the Pacific Surfliner trains heading south have very healthy numbers of non-Metrolink riders.

Hope that paints a picture.

[HarryKerry]

Originally Posted by marilyn220

See? I've been living here for several years and anything outside the confines of what I consider 'working LA" (Downtown, Century City, Westwood, West LA, Hollywood, etc.) is not the city of LA to me. I consider Long Beach, Pasadena, etc., to be like NY's Brooklyn, Bronx, etc.

I mean the OP needs to stay near or close to wherever Wilshire Blvd is. Wilshire is like Manhattan's version of Broadway. It goes on forever, and whatever bus you take on it will transfer you to different parts of the city.

So, I don't know what you call this part of LA, but this is what I consider to be the CITY. All those other places are the equivalent of suburbs to me, whereas the Valleys is like living on Long Island or something.

I understand your point, but the city of Los Angeles is really the entier city, valley and all. However, what you have described as "the city" is referred to as "the central urbanized core" of Los Angeles, and it includes Santa Monica and Beverly Hills.

[uptown_urbanist]

You may consider places like Pasadena to be suburbs (and I agree that they are not city of LA), but I disagree that the public transportation options are automatically worse there; you certainly don't need to live near Wilshire to live easily without a car in LA. If you work somewhere along Wilshire then yes, by all means that's a great option, but given that the area is so huge and there are so many other centers of business and neighborhoods, it's not automatically the best option, and public transit in those other areas can also be quite good. That said, I think places like Hollywood and Koreatown offer the most convenient living for a public transit-dependent lifestyle. Proximity to major east-west and north-south streets (and their bus lines) as well as the Red Line as well as very walkable and relatively centrally located. Still, if someone works downtown and lives a life that's more oriented between there and Pasadena (and not west), then somewhere like Pasadena along Colorado is certainly easily livable without a car. They have a lot of buses as well as the Gold Line (as well as things to walk to), although it's obviously not the right choice if one spends much time in, say, Century City. Just as Westwood would not be a good choice for someone who spends a lot of time farther east. My main point is just that looking at city limits is going to give a superficial look at whether or not an area is good for those dependent on public transportation. That's more true of LA than it is of many cities/metro areas.

[Those Who Squirm]

Originally Posted by 1200RT

its tough.

buses are the primary public transport here ... there ARE trains, but they dont branch out much. If you live along a metrolink line, you could get by .... but still not ideal.

I haven't been on a bus in years, but from what i hear, it isnt all that bad of a system. Someone else will chime in.

The buses usually work well for what buses are best suited for--that is, short trips of no more than a few miles. Santa Monica's muni system covers SM and adjacent areas of WLA, Culver City, and Palms very well. But riding crosstown on a bus is usually something you want to avoid. Usually, this isn't because of unpleasant persons or experiences you might encounter, but simply because bus trips are so slow. Rush hour is worse, of course, not only because of the traffic, but also because every person boarding has to either pay money or swipe their TAP card before the bus can move on.

[joerankinn]

Public transportation is not so bad. The NY way of life is what many would always see, why not appreciate what we have locally? Yes, great info you got there BRinSM to many it is a helpful comment. Sure is true LA is not a manhattan price-y shall I rather say. But we all know it, or at least we have an idea that it's true. Just know your way around, we always get by.

[pwright1]

Originally Posted by Those Who Squirm

The buses usually work well for what buses are best suited for--that is, short trips of no more than a few miles. Santa Monica's muni system covers SM and adjacent areas of WLA, Culver City, and Palms very well. But riding crosstown on a bus is usually something you want to avoid. Usually, this isn't because of unpleasant persons or experiences you might encounter, but simply because bus trips are so slow. Rush hour is worse, of course, not only because of the traffic, but also because every person boarding has to either pay money or swipe their TAP card before the bus can move on.

Actually if you take Rapid Transit buses they will get you across town sooner than you think. They don't stop as often as other buses. My car was at the dealer all weekend and I met a friend in Long Beach for a superbowl party. I got on the RT 720 on Wilshire in Santa Monica a got off in dt Los Angeles. From there I hopped on the blue line light rail to dt Long Beach where my friend picked me up and off to the super bowl party we went. And since she lives in Long Beach this was the best way to go. After all the festivities she took me to the blue line light rail and back home to L.A. I went.