METRO Subway and what it could have been? (Pasadena, Orange: sales, transfer to)

[guydude]

Originally Posted by munchitup

LA had an extensive streetcar system in the 30s, were there really plans for heavy rail too? Not disagreeing just curious.

There were. A steetcar will only go so far, eventually there needs to be an upgrade.

[mayorhaggar]

Originally Posted by Marv101

Our late Mayor Tom Bradley made many trips to Toronto to check out their world-class subway system, which has won all sorts of international
awards for design and efficiency; if it's not the best such system in North America (apologies to the folks in Montreal & SF), it's pretty damned close.

Their standout system convinced our Mayor that LA could have an equally world-class subway sytem serving as the linchpin for a public transit system that everybody would use; I do recall reading that Toronto's transit system was so well thought out and covered the city so thoroughly that nobody living within the city limits would be more than three blocks from a city bus line.

Toronto's subway cars and buses all had devices in them which allowed the folks at their command center to know where every single bus and other public transit vehicle were at any hour of the day or night; that thought never occurred to those who designed LAs subway, not to mention the buses and light-rail systems.

I don't want to get this topic off-track (pun intended) but how useful is the TTC subway? It only has 2 lines (with 2 feeder train route branches) in a city of 2.6 million, I've never been to Toronto but 2 lines doesn't seem like it would be enough in a big city like that. Also lots of transit services have GPS devices on trains and buses that let you see where they are at any time, even incompetent old Muni in SF has this.

[K 22]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

I don't want to get this topic off-track (pun intended) but how useful is the TTC subway? It only has 2 lines (with 2 feeder train route branches) in a city of 2.6 million, I've never been to Toronto but 2 lines doesn't seem like it would be enough in a big city like that. Also lots of transit services have GPS devices on trains and buses that let you see where they are at any time, even incompetent old Muni in SF has this.

Toronto has free transfers and a majority of their rail stations have their own bus depots - which makes going from bus to train and vice versa extremely easy and pretty quick too. Toronto isn't decentralized like LA is but it is pretty spread out when you the further you get from downtown.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

I don't want to get this topic off-track (pun intended) but how useful is the TTC subway? It only has 2 lines (with 2 feeder train route branches) in a city of 2.6 million, I've never been to Toronto but 2 lines doesn't seem like it would be enough in a big city like that. Also lots of transit services have GPS devices on trains and buses that let you see where they are at any time, even incompetent old Muni in SF has this.

TTC has an extensive tram/light rail and bus system to complement the subway system. There's also an extensive commuter rail system with good linkage to the other modes of transit. Basically, Toronto has mixed mode system that integrates very well which Los Angeles can ostensibly have as well though currently it seems to concentrated on making Union Station the linchpin for everything.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

TTC has an extensive tram/light rail and bus system to complement the subway system. There's also an extensive commuter rail system with good linkage to the other modes of transit. Basically, Toronto has mixed mode system that integrates very well which Los Angeles can ostensibly have as well though currently it seems to concentrated on making Union Station the linchpin for everything.

If done correctly LAX could end up being a second hub

[SalParadise]

Originally Posted by munchitup

If done correctly LAX could end up being a second hub

Yes, that would be great. Care to elaborate on what you think would be ideal (or what is proposed).....

[nickdahammer]

By the way, there was a plan Angelenos voted on in the late 1920's that had, among other things, a subway going underneath Broadway, up into Lincoln Heights. Also proposed were elevated bridges through downtown to help steer the streetcars away from automobiles, but the Chandlers (L.A. Times) helped stigmatize the L.A. version of the EL, saying that they would ugly up the place, up the density, and squash plans for a unified ('Union') station hub, bla bla bla. I've seen the plans- it was a pretty impressive plan.

70 Years Later, Los Angeles Is Still Stalled in a Rail Fantasy : Transportation - Los Angeles Times

Some great stuff here:

Past Visions & Studies | Past Visions of L.A.'s Transportation Future

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by robertpolyglot

Do you think LA could have, and should have, gone all subway or, in places, elevated tracks with dedicated heavy-rail lines (like BART in the Bay Area), or did they blow it? I think they blew it.

I think a world-class city, and my hometown, needed a more world-class transit system, some of which could have replaced Metrolink and sharing train tracks. Aside from the Red Line (yay), I once took the Gold Line from Pasadena and it "crawls" through some neighborhoods.

Definitely, LA blew it in terms of developing more subways/light rails ... Unfortunately, LA opted to invest in developing towards the automobile and now, we are all paying for it with the huge parking lots our freeways have become. With more and more folks using our roadways and freeways, this is no longer sustainable. The good news is that there are several rail projects in the works but the downside is that the cost is much greater than it would have been had we invested in rail/subways to begin with

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by munchitup

Other than the Green Line, which was built along with the 105, most of the Metro stops are in well-planned areas and useful areas. I posted an article on another thread of a study that determined LA's Red Line subway line is the "most walkable" in the nation, according to Walkscore. (This obviously is limited because it doesn't take into account the scores of the light rail stations, so LA is definitely not #1 in the nation, but I would venture to guess it could easily be in the top 5-6 in the country w/ light rail included).

The ridership per track mile for the entire system will be around 5k (after the Expo Line), meaning it is well ridden and useful to those that use it. With gas going through the roof this figure only stands to improve.

It would be great to have heavy rail throughout the city, but LA just doesn't have the density to support a NY-style subway/elevated heavy rail. In fact, there really aren't any other cities in the US that do - take a look at Chicago/DC's ridership numbers, they are significantly lower than NYC's. You could have heavy rail throughout the city but don't be mad when fare prices double or triple because there is excessive heavy rail.

And even then NYC's subway gets overrated. It's not like you get into the station and *poof* you are at your destination. Often it takes a decent chunk of time to get anywhere, especially if you are traveling cross town or between boroughs.

Heavy rail through the SGV would be extremely cost-prohibitive; I do agree the Blue Line probably could have been made a subway but it was built on the cheap as the first line - I think city officials just wanted to get it done to show residents that mass transit can and will be built. Someday (possibly decades ), the Vermont Ave Subway will pick up that slack and provide a quicker route through South LA.

Having just recently visited NYC for the first time last summer, I was shocked at how much walking I had to do from the subway station to my destination. NYC's subway far surpasses LA though as at least things are walking distance.

[HarryKerry]

It might interest you to know that part of the original plan (from the Go-Go '80's) was to transform several east-west bus lines to Trolley Bus. They had gotten a fair amount away into the planning process. They were to have planted mature trees along the routes to keep the centenary wires less noticeable. Trolley Bus was the FIRST thing that was killed with the 90's recession. Then almost everything else. Can anyone dig up the truly ambitious circa 1980's rail plan. It was nice, but died it death.