LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by Easy

I've also read online the B/D have gotten more sketchy, which is hard to even comprehend given how sketchy it was 2020-2023. I've ridden the A, C, and E lines quite a bit lately, but not the B or D, so I can't say. But the light rail lines seem very much improved to me. Not perfect, but more like prepandemic, which still wasn't very good.

Have you noticed improvement in stopping at red lights/speed/travel time/delays on the A and E lines? I've only ridden the E line a few times recently and did not notice much difference - we hit a number of red lights each time and travel time was a couple minutes slower than what the schedule says.

It's ludicrous to me that this is still an issue the LADOT won't address. Mayor Bass clearly doesn't care about transit - she could get this solved immediately by telling LADOT to give proper priority (if not preemption). That's her department, so I ultimately blame her (and Garcetti).

[Illithid Dude]

Cleanliness matters more than design. Accessibility matters more than cleanliness. Speed matters more than accessibility. A wide spread network matters more than speed. Thus it is written.

[Busy Bee]

I'm a handicapped germaphobe that's afraid of fast moving objects and has bad taste in design... What about my needs?!?

[citywatch]

Map courtesy Metro/ENRCalifornia

Construction on Section 1 is now 91 percent complete. Remaining work includes completing the entrance structure and appendage activities, as well as continuing MEP and systems installation. This will be followed by systems testing and start-up operation before the projected opening in 2025.

Section 2 is now 66 percent complete, and the remaining work includes concrete construction and architectural finishes of both Wilshire Rodeo and Century City Constellation Stations, concrete lining of cross passages, tunnel invert, trackwork, systems installation, and street restoration. This section is projected to open in 2026.

Section 3 construction is currently 50 percent complete, and the remaining work includes finishing station excavation and building two underground stations and tunnel cross passages. The most fascinating part of this project was the successful tunneling under critical infrastructure, major utilities, Interstate 405, and Sepulveda Boulevard. Additionally, the PLE 3 project is currently on budget and projected to open in 2027.

.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Aesthetics and design absolutely do matter but safety, cleanliness and of course better headways are more important.

Agreed. Aesthetics impact how you may feel while traveling so they matter, especially in LA where you spend a significant time underground waiting for trains. If we had 3-5 minute headways aesthetics would be less important but still preferred.

[craigs]

A Reddit user created these rail ridership graphs using data from Metro's ridership reports. The March ridership report puts average weekday heavy rail ridership at 65,976, and average weekday light rail ridership at 139,414 (average weekday bus ridership is 750,598, for a systemwide average total ridership of 955,918):

[SoCalKid]

[QUOTE=craigs;10184898]A Reddit user created these rail ridership graphs using data from Metro's ridership reports. The March ridership report puts average weekday heavy rail ridership at 65,976, and average weekday light rail ridership at 139,414 (average weekday bus ridership is 750,598, for a systemwide average total ridership of 955,918):


Thanks for posting this, this a great way to visualize ridership. But the individual line ridership over time chart isn't very useful for the light rail lines since the A and E lines now include the former L line riders, right?

[craigs]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

But the individual line ridership over time chart isn't very useful for the light rail lines since the A and E lines now include the former L line riders, right?

The chart shows ridership on the A and E lines shot up after the L line (dashed black line) disappeared.

[edale]

The Crenshaw/K line only averaging about 3,000 riders a day is really disappointing. Hoping ridership will significantly increase once the connection to LAX exists, but that's a really low number for a line through a portion of the city that heavily uses transit, and that connects to the Expo Line. And to think community leaders there were really pushing for the whole thing to be underground, and had the nerve to claim it was a slap in the face that Metro kept portions of it at-grade. How DARE you invest billions of dollars and improve mobility options in our community, Metro?

[craigs]

Originally Posted by edale

The Crenshaw/K line only averaging about 3,000 riders a day is really disappointing. Hoping ridership will significantly increase once the connection to LAX exists, but that's a really low number for a line through a portion of the city that heavily uses transit, and that connects to the Expo Line. And to think community leaders there were really pushing for the whole thing to be underground, and had the nerve to claim it was a slap in the face that Metro kept portions of it at-grade. How DARE you invest billions of dollars and improve mobility options in our community, Metro?

This was anticipated, as is increased ridership after it connects to LAX. The other option was not to open the K Line at all until it was complete.

[edale]

Originally Posted by craigs

This was anticipated, as is increased ridership after it connects to LAX. The other option was not to open the K Line at all until it was complete.

I'd be curious to see what the anticipated ridership was for the K line, with and without the connection to LAX. As it stands now, some stations have just over 100 riders a day! That is absurdly low when you think about the costs involved in building and operating the station. Connecting to LAX and the Green Line will no doubt boost ridership, but how much remains to be seen. The real ridership boost will come when the K line connects with the D (purple) and B (red) lines, whenever that happens.

The sections of the Expo Line in East LA also have really paltry ridership. I think there's general consensus that both it and the K line were spawned more by politics than ridership forecasts, unfortunately.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by edale

I'd be curious to see what the anticipated ridership was for the K line, with and without the connection to LAX. As it stands now, some stations have just over 100 riders a day! That is absurdly low when you think about the costs involved in building and operating the station. Connecting to LAX and the Green Line will no doubt boost ridership, but how much remains to be seen. The real ridership boost will come when the K line connects with the D (purple) and B (red) lines, whenever that happens.

The sections of the Expo Line in East LA also have really paltry ridership. I think there's general consensus that both it and the K line were spawned more by politics than ridership forecasts, unfortunately.

The K line had to get built though for LAX though. I wouldnt call that political.
East LA, probably.

Thats why I dont really care for this vermont subway thing when it doesnt serve the job centers like a west hollywood or sepulveda line would. That part of south LA already has the blue line, the bus line. But people on this forum want ANOTHER LINE for that area? For what? It should be way down the list. A sunset blvd light rail (or something) should go ahead before that Vermont Subway line shit.

It would be decent if the city prioriized dense housing near those stops, but they dont. They dont do anything with them. No real plans, nothing. Why do that all over again with Vermont? It would just be another very expensive,
under utilized corridor. Nah. Screw that.

[numble]

Originally Posted by LA21st

The K line had to get built though for LAX though. I wouldnt call that political.
East LA, probably.

Thats why I dont really care for this vermont subway thing when it doesnt serve the job centers like a west hollywood or sepulveda line would. That part of south LA already has the blue line, the bus line. But people on this forum want ANOTHER LINE for that area? For what? It should be way down the list. A sunset blvd light rail (or something) should go ahead before that Vermont Subway line shit.

It would be decent if the city prioriized dense housing near those stops, but they dont. They dont do anything with them. No real plans, nothing. Why do that all over again with Vermont? It would just be another very expensive,
under utilized corridor. Nah. Screw that.

The current Vermont bus has more daily ridership than 2 of Metro's rail lines, and more ridership than Metro's BRT lines. Before the Regional Connector, the Vermont bus had more ridership than all of Metro's light rail lines. It is very unlikely to be an "under utilized corridor."

[Illithid Dude]

The K Line is really just a starter line for an eventual crosstown line. Don't forget that the eventual mid city extension has a predicted ridership of 90k people a day.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by numble

The current Vermont bus has more daily ridership than 2 of Metro's rail lines, and more ridership than Metro's BRT lines. Before the Regional Connector, the Vermont bus had more ridership than all of Metro's light rail lines. It is very unlikely to be an "under utilized corridor."

Under utlized as far as development around the stations. City leadership wont plan for any real density and just throw up 4 story buildings here and there and feel good about themselves.
Look at East LA. It will be more of that shit buecause those council members are terrfifed of real development over gentirfication bs. How has East LA gotten better? Nobodys even riding that line.

No idea how that subway will benefit the city.

Meanwhile, West Hollywood has jobs/walkable areas/hotels etc. At least the K Line has some development TOD plans.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

The K Line is really just a starter line for an eventual crosstown line. Don't forget that the eventual mid city extension has a predicted ridership of 90k people a day.

...but dumbly was not built first, likely in the name of "equity".

100 years ago, investors who wanted to make money built rapid transit lines where people lived and worked, even if there was already a functioning transit line in the neighborhood. But in the politics-driven era, there is pressure to build systems that radiate in all directions. The densest areas of metros are ignored after they get their one line in favor of building doomed lines to thinly-built areas.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

...but dumbly was not built first, likely in the name of "equity".

100 years ago, investors who wanted to make money built rapid transit lines where people lived and worked, even if there was already a functioning transit line in the neighborhood. But in the politics-driven era, there is pressure to build systems that radiate in all directions. The densest areas of metros are ignored after they get their one line in favor of building doomed lines to thinly-built areas.

Yeah, it's silly, but having a direct connection to LAX is just as important as a line through mid city. Ideally it would have been all planned together instead of in the piecemeal way it's being built now but I'm not upset that the southern portion of the K Line was built first, as it had to happen anyway.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Yeah, it's silly, but having a direct connection to LAX is just as important as a line through mid city. Ideally it would have been all planned together instead of in the piecemeal way it's being built now but I'm not upset that the southern portion of the K Line was built first, as it had to happen anyway.

The light rail mode allows transit agencies to pick up "easy wins". They can build 5X as much surface light rail as heavy rail subway but rarely are able to create a transformative project. The United States is now peppered with dozens of somewhat-useful light rail lines but has few TOD's to show for it.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The light rail mode allows transit agencies to pick up "easy wins". They can build 5X as much surface light rail as heavy rail subway but rarely are able to create a transformative project. The United States is now peppered with dozens of somewhat-useful light rail lines but has few TOD's to show for it.

So true. Hopefully a number of those systems can be upgraded to provide something approaching rapid transit in the future, but for now "somewhat-useful" is a great way to describe most light rail lines being built in the US. At least in LA we have the the D line extension and the Sepulveda line which will both be transformative, a new subway tunnel through downtown, and hopefully in the next couple decades a subway through mid city to West Hollywood and Hollywood (K line north). The B line will also be very useful again when it's cleaned up and it gets real headways, and the eastern half of the A line is good since it is fully gated or grade separated.

[TowerDude]

So when will the Purple Line extend to Lincoln in Santa Monica?