SF vs. LA: "Level of Difficulty" in Day-to-day Life? (Richmond: transfer to, construction)

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by AngusHsu

The Expo Line to Santa Monica is expected to be completed in 2016. Not sure where you get the 2014 figure from. I rode the Expo Line when it first opened back in late April and went to USC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_Ph..._Angeles_Metro)

Anyway, the metro system is cleaner and much newer in LA. Coverage isn't that great though. You can't directly compare the two systems. BART has better coverage but is much dirtier since the "no food/drink" isn't strictly enforced like it is at the Metro.

I don't think BART has better coverage than MetroLink/MTA. Remember, Metrolink also has heavy trains that serve Inland Empire, Orange County, and North L.A. Not to mention just overall better quality of trains. You don't even hear the outside world inside a Metrolink train from say Burbank to Union Station. But on a BART train, going under the bay tunnel, it literally sounds like metal grinding against metal, and no amount of ear covering will block that screeching sound out. It's horrible.

On top of that, BART doesn't even make a complete circle around the Bay, and doesn't yet have a San Jose connection, you know... the 3rd largest city in all of California?

BART is certainly more dirty as I pointed out before. The old green cushions smell like a porto-potty by 5PM if you're unfortunate to be on the train by then. BART used to be a cutting edge system (in the 70s), but right now, it's outdated, breaking down, and not even profitable.

[04kL4nD]

Interesting... Tell us less

[sav858]

Originally Posted by AngusHsu

Anyway, the metro system is cleaner and much newer in LA. Coverage isn't that great though. You can't directly compare the two systems. BART has better coverage but is much dirtier since the "no food/drink" isn't strictly enforced like it is at the Metro.

I agree, the Bay Area generally has much better coverage overall than LA's transit system. I don't know if you seen the new seats but they are much better than the current cloth one's, much easier to keep clean. And when they finally get the hard floors in all the cars and rid of the carpet it will be much easier to keep them clean.

Probably one of the reasons LA's system, especially Metrolink, can stay so clean is that it carries far fewer passengers. I know Doc claimed Metrolink has better coverage but good luck trying to catch a train during non-commute hours and on weekends. When you have over 500 miles of track, 7 lines, and only about 41K passengers per day trains are not going to be running very often. Compare that to Caltrain which has only ONE line that is just under 80 miles long yet carries more passengers at 42K per weekday.

And of course BART carries nearly 380K per weekday on just a little over 100 miles of track. Considering LA, our nation's 2nd largest city, has only ONE heavy rail line it's kind of sad but it is improving slowly.

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

But on a BART train, going under the bay tunnel, it literally sounds like metal grinding against metal, and no amount of ear covering will block that screeching sound out. It's horrible.

Actually a nice pair of BOSE headphones works great, can't even hear anything but your music even in the transbay tube.

BART used to be a cutting edge system (in the 70s), but right now, it's outdated, breaking down, and not even profitable.

This has to be one of the dumbest comments ever considering there isn't such thing as a "profitable" transit system anywhere in the world outside of Japan, and certainly not in LA.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

I don't think BART has better coverage than MetroLink/MTA. Remember, Metrolink also has heavy trains that serve Inland Empire, Orange County, and North L.A. Not to mention just overall better quality of trains. You don't even hear the outside world inside a Metrolink train from say Burbank to Union Station. But on a BART train, going under the bay tunnel, it literally sounds like metal grinding against metal, and no amount of ear covering will block that screeching sound out. It's horrible.

On top of that, BART doesn't even make a complete circle around the Bay, and doesn't yet have a San Jose connection, you know... the 3rd largest city in all of California?

BART is certainly more dirty as I pointed out before. The old green cushions smell like a porto-potty by 5PM if you're unfortunate to be on the train by then. BART used to be a cutting edge system (in the 70s), but right now, it's outdated, breaking down, and not even profitable.

BART does have the problem of not serving some of the most important population centers, but there is a San Jose/Santa Clara connection in the works. And the project is being run by the VTA, which has shown it can get projects like this done, relatively efficiently. (See, for example, the light rail running in the median of 87 and 85 and adjoining stations.)

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

BART does have the problem of not serving some of the most important population centers, but there is a San Jose/Santa Clara connection in the works. And the project is being run by the VTA, which has shown it can get projects like this done, relatively efficiently. (See, for example, the light rail running in the median of 87 and 85 and adjoining stations.)

We'll see. If they can get it done in a timely fashion (not 20 years), then that shows progress.

But as of now, to say that BART serves a greater area of people than the Metrolink/MTA system, is simply false and not based on fact. As a Bay Area resident, I think the Mass Transit here is not horrible, but it's not that much better than other systems around the country, it's simply average in comparison.

[Bushrod King]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Better:
New York
Chicago
Washington D.C
Boston

About the same:
Los Angeles Metro
Portland

Not as good:
Dallas
Denver
Seattle

When your finances allow, or if life takes you there, you should ride on a few more systems if you think the Bay Area has the #2 mass transit system in the U.S.

Considering you use other peoples opinions as your own you don't need to tell anybody anything about transportation. If you think LA's system is "About the same" it shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

Again you've never been to any of the cities you're speaking on.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by Bushrod King

Considering you use other peoples opinions as your own you don't need to tell anybody anything about transportation. If you think LA's system is "About the same" it shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

Again you've never been to any of the cities you're speaking on.

Have you ridden the L.A system? Which stations have you been to? What route did you take?

[Bushrod King]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Have you ridden the L.A system? Which stations have you been to? What route did you take?

Considering my sister lives there and I went to Grad School at UCLA I really don't have to justify anything to a pathological lying sociopath such as yourself.

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by sav858

In addition to NYC I'd put Chicago, DC, and Boston above the Bay Area. Bay Area is easily one of the Top 10 in the country and arguably Top 5 as well. Either way, it's sure as hell better than LA and any city west of the Mississippi.

I'd probably add Philly to the list of cities in the US with better public transportation than the Bay Area.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

I'd probably add Philly to the list of cities in the US with better public transportation than the Bay Area.

I'd say that one's debabtable. They don't have much in the way of heavy rail and I believe transit use there is about the same or even slightly below the Bay Area.