UGH! Los Angeles traffic is ridiculous!!! (El Monte, Santa Monica: apartment, condos, transfer)

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

I don't know why but LA's transit system while its new in age looks very antiquited compared to others around the world

Agreed. BTW, why does it look like that? I can't imagine too many people looking at our subway and feeling as though this is a "world class city".

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

Thats my point. People feel tey need to have these nice cars to feel on top. While "peasants" have less nice cars and ride rails/buses.

I see a lot of peasants with nice cars. I see plenty of people that can not afford the cars they are buying. People are now taking these ridiculous 60, 72, and even 84 month loans on cars now. These are not people of means doing this, these are low income people and many middle income people that have bad credit doing this. One of our sons paid cash for his Honda Civic that he go. It is a 2009. He has friends that work with him, go to school with him that are driving Acura's, Lexus, and other brands that are cash poor. They spend it on the cars. These are people that should probably not be buying these kind of cars.

I see a lot of people like me that make a middle income wage and are driving older cars. I drive a 2003 Chevy Astro van. We own it. My wife drives a 2011 Honda Accord that is paid for. No debt. Together my wife and I make around $140,000 a year. I don't see us buying an expensive car with that kind of money. I know a lot of other people that are keeping cars for a lot longer and many of these people have money.

With the cost of cars I don't know how much someone makes. I only know what they spent.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by BGS91762

I ride the Metro daily in LA and too witness train packed during rush hour. I'm convinced the MTA has no idea how many people ride the trains and I see approximately 30 percent of people walk through the gates or jump them while Security is nowhere in sight. I would estimate more than 400k ride daily.

New York City has 4.5million riders a day. Chicago has 767,000 riders on average a day. LA may very well have over 400,000 a day as they admit that many never pay.

To make it profitable, even with those that don't pay, they would need a lot more people riding on the train.

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

New York City has 4.5million riders a day. Chicago has 767,000 riders on average a day. LA may very well have over 400,000 a day as they admit that many never pay.

To make it profitable, even with those that don't pay, they would need a lot more people riding on the train.

None of the mass transit systems (subway & light rail) in the United States operate at a profit. As in, zero.

Most of the systems in the U.S. did turn a small profit up until the 1920s. Public transit can be run for a profit when it is NOT up against free roads, cheap gas, underpriced parking and easy financing terms for new cars. That said, it is not necessarily an optimization to make the transit system and the road system fully profitable. There are social benefits both to free public roads and to inexpensive, subsidized public transit.

I think Hong Kong's system is considered one of the most profitable in the world. But they also have really expensive gas, very high density and a 90 percent ridership basis.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Great for you. The numbers don't lie though. Ridership is down. If the State ever builds the bullet train to no where, ridership will be down on that as well. The money spent has yet to show a pay off.

The numbers do lie if you haven't been on it.
The Expo in particular has revolutionized public transit in L.A. Prior to the opening of Phase 2 it had been years since I saw any public transportation in L.A. (other than the Big Blue Bus) in which most of the riders were white.
Note even in those numbers you posted rail ridership is up.

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Average Metro ridership during the month of March on weekdays:



2017: Rail 360,779 Bus 937,352 Total 1,298,131

2016: Rail 339,094 Bus 993,103 Total 1,332,197

2015: Rail 338,614 Bus 1,105,521 Total 1,444,615

2014: Rail 344,283 Bus 1,174,160 Total 1,518,443

2013: Rail 359,855 Bus 1,153,849 Total 1,513,704

2012: Rail 323,871 Bus 1,176,249 Total 1,500,120

2011: Rail 294,801 Bus 1,168,350 Total 1,463,151

2010: Rail 304,459 Bus 1,184,224 Total 1,488,683

2009: Rail 293,537 Bus 1,226,262 Total 1,519,799

So tell me again how ridership is up? More rail on the ground over the years and Metro's own statistics shows that ridership is declining. Also the numbers show very few people using the rail or the bus. Many that used the bus have switched to the rail. You did not add people that have cars to the rail in any significant numbers.

Public transit ridership has been falling in most major cities in the past few years including D.C., Chicago and NYC. The reasons are multifaceted but to name a few:

-Declining oil prices and cheap(er) gas!
-Improving economy (more people buying cars)
-Uber/Lyft, etc.

Why Public Transit Ridership Is Down In Most U.S. Cities | Here & Now

Rome wasn't built in a day. Short-term thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place. LA ripped out its public investment in rail circa 1950 to 1965. Myopic thinking we are still paying for.

The increase in rail in 2017 was due to the extension of existing rail lines, not stealing from bus lines.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

None of the mass transit systems (subway & light rail) in the United States operate at a profit. As in, zero.

Most of the systems in the U.S. did turn a small profit up until the 1920s. Public transit can be run for a profit when it is NOT up against free roads, cheap gas, underpriced parking and easy financing terms for new cars. That said, it is not necessarily an optimization to make the transit system and the road system fully profitable. There are social benefits both to free public roads and to inexpensive, subsidized public transit.

I think Hong Kong's system is considered one of the most profitable in the world. But they also have really expensive gas, very high density and a 90 percent ridership basis.

If you think that the roads are free then you may want to talk to Governor Brown. He is increasing the cost of gas to pay for the roads. Every election cycle the people of California have already voted to increase spending, taxation, to fix the roads, our gas is the highest in the nation all because of the roads. So don't tell me how free the roads are. For those that drive on the toll roads they are being doubly taxed, they still pay the high gas taxes and other fees that Brown fails to call taxes, and they pay the toll to ride on those new toll roads.

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

If you think that the roads are free then you may want to talk to Governor Brown. He is increasing the cost of gas to pay for the roads. Every election cycle the people of California have already voted to increase spending, taxation, to fix the roads, our gas is the highest in the nation all because of the roads. So don't tell me how free the roads are. For those that drive on the toll roads they are being doubly taxed, they still pay the high gas taxes and other fees that Brown fails to call taxes, and they pay the toll to ride on those new toll roads.

Gas taxes haven't covered the actual cost of building and maintaining our streets/highways in decades.

"Landing on the moon was still a wild dream the last time gas taxes and other car-related fees paid nearly the full cost of building and maintaining roads. By the 1970s, road taxes still accounted for about 70 percent of road costs, according to Dutzik, Weissman, and Baxandall, but that link weakened in the '80s and '90s. Any vestige of a strong user fee died in the 2000s on account of peak driving rates, better fuel efficiency and a gas tax held flat in the face of inflation."

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...-roads/393134/

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Funny you bring up the rail line. Who even rides it? I was listening to KFI and John and Ken mentioned that no one even rides the train. We are spending a lot of money on trains that are empty. I am not saying I am an expert on the subject but the ROI does not seem to be there.

Our mass transit system is brain dead. Let's say I live in Newhall and I want to get to Santa Monica.

In my car I get on the 14 -> I-5 -> 405 and over the hill, then get off at one of the Santa Monica off ramps.

But if I want to take the train there is a local station to Newhall, but then what? First I have to go to downtown L.A. .... and then what?

I don't live in Newhall, was just using that is an example. The problem is our mass transit system is dysfunctional. It's radial, not gridded. Most routes demand you go downtown first, then back out on a different line. Either that or you have several transfers, turning your public transit commute into 4x longer than via auto.

You wanna live in L.A. you gotta accept massive freeway traffic or try to use a dysfunctional mass transit system.

Our transit system works only if there is an entry point near your home and your rail ride terminates within walking distance of your destination.

[Mezter]

I honestly don't see how you guys deal with it. I was stuck in traffic for 2 hours for a drive that Google maps said should be 35 minutes. I mean, I know LA has notoriously bad traffic, but it's much different when you actually experience it. There's literally no exaggeration at all...