Should there be any doubt that LA belongs among the big 6 urban US cities?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Keep in mind that the most important transit line in LA - the Wilshire subway - was supposed to be the first one built. It could and should have been operational sometime in the 1990s instead of 2028~.

Eh, it was mostly built. I doubt adding a few stations will be a gamechanger for overall transit numbers. Downtown and Hollywood have had subway service for a generation now. Locals in places like Bev Hills and Century City are far less likely to take transit than locals in Koreatown or MacArthur Park.

When the new segment opens, I doubt the relative ridership ratio between BART and LA MTA changes much.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Eh, it was mostly built. I doubt adding a few stations will be a gamechanger for overall transit numbers. Downtown and Hollywood have had subway service for a generation now. Locals in places like Bev Hills and Century City are far less likely to take transit than locals in Koreatown or MacArthur Park.

When the new segment opens, I doubt the relative ridership ratio between BART and LA MTA changes much.

I'm guessing the most substantial ridership gains will not happen in the areas you mentioned, but rather further west, at Westwood/UCLA and Westwood/VA Hospital. I think Wilshire/La Cienega should see a decent amount of ridership as well due to being near Cedars Sinai, although it's still a good 15-20 min walk from the station location. According to LA Metro, the Westside is the region’s second-largest job center.

At these three locations you have major healthcare employment hubs (VA West LA, UCLA, and Cedars Sinai), where workers don't work remotely. I think a decent amount of patients will use them as well (except maybe the Cedars Sinai one). Then of course you've got the UCLA campus and Westwood area where I could see a lot of students and workers using the service. The only downside again, is that campus is a good 15-20 min walk from the station. There will be a future station actually at UCLA added as part of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor, where people would be able to transfer from the Westwood/UCLA station. But who knows when that is coming.

[phone]

Originally Posted by Docere

Years ago Peter Ustinov described Toronto as "New York run by the Swiss."

I forget which forumer said it, but someone updated the saying to "Singapore run by the Italians" which I thought was quite fitting...

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by CalUrbanist

Perfectly stated.

NYC is light years ahead of US, but light years behind Asia/EU in urbanism.
It’s hyper dense, no doubt. It’s just American, and kinda sucks for that reason. Car culture still strongly influences NYC, crazily enough. I think it’s because Cities are their Metros.

I was more referring to reluctance to push back against car culture. The city still gives far too much space to cars, despite most people here not even owning one. As a city, NYC holds its own against any city on earth, but that is solely due to transit infrastructure developed in the early 20th century.

Originally Posted by CalUrbanist

NY Metro is just as car-culture as any other. There has been little to no progress channeling growth in sustainable urban and pedestrian friendly development patterns since mid-century. And NYC cannot escape the repercussions of its greater region, not just in terms of cars trying to cram themselves into the city, but also everything that afflicts American retail culture - all the retailers, delivery vans, logistics infra, street design, parking garages, etc is suburban oriented, even in Manhattan. This may sound odd, but NYC feels like an overly crowded Los Angeles rather than a thoroughly urban city.

To me Taipei or Paris urbanism feels way more refined. NYC feels like an American simulacrum of “urban”. As if the product of a “Make America Urban Again” campaign. It’s a reinterpretation of past legacies through present lenses, but not the real thing. Urbanism isn’t “normal” anymore in America. Not in SF, not in Chicago, and not in NY.

I have to strongly disagree here. Manhattan is one of the absolute most urban places on the face of the planet. You can't even find something like Manhattan in Tokyo.

[FromSD]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I'm guessing the most substantial ridership gains will not happen in the areas you mentioned, but rather further west, at Westwood/UCLA and Westwood/VA Hospital. I think Wilshire/La Cienega should see a decent amount of ridership as well due to being near Cedars Sinai, although it's still a good 15-20 min walk from the station location. According to LA Metro, the Westside is the region’s second-largest job center.

At these three locations you have major healthcare employment hubs (VA West LA, UCLA, and Cedars Sinai), where workers don't work remotely. I think a decent amount of patients will use them as well (except maybe the Cedars Sinai one). Then of course you've got the UCLA campus and Westwood area where I could see a lot of students and workers using the service. The only downside again, is that campus is a good 15-20 min walk from the station. There will be a future station actually at UCLA added as part of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor, where people would be able to transfer from the Westwood/UCLA station. But who knows when that is coming.

I agree. It's not that residents of Century City will be filling the Wilshire subway cars. Century City doesn't have many residents. It's the fact that people elsewhere in LA will be able to take the subway to one of the most important (if not the most important) job centers in LA County. The Red Line extension may in fact help Downtown LA as much as anywhere else. It will improve its appeal as a residential area, as people will be more willing to pay high rents or condo prices if they can get to their well-paying jobs on the west side easily.

Several people have pointed out that the LA Metro system has been weak on "choice" riders. That's partly because the system has mostly not served areas where choice riders are likely to live. Yes, the Expo line serves West LA and Santa Monica, and the Gold Line serves Pasadena, South Pasadena and Arcadia, but these are light rail lines that often run in mixed traffic. LA's true high capacity metro line, the Red Line, serves mostly poorer areas like Westlake and East Hollywood, not areas where choice riders are tend to live. (Not that that's a bad thing. These transit-dependent areas should be the top priority for the system.) The extension of the Wilshire subway to beyond the 405, however, should shift the pattern somewhat, as higher income areas finally have better access to high quality public transit.

CalUrbanist makes a valid point about U.S. rail transit systems focusing too much on far flung suburbs to the detriment of comprehensive service in core metro areas. In LA's case that is due to political necessity. The tax increases needed to fund LA transit expansion require a two-thirds county-wide vote. That result would never be achieved if proposed transit improvements were devoted to the core area only. So the Gold Line is being extended to Claremont, at the far reaches of the San Gabriel Valley, before there is any funding available to build a much needed north-south subway line connecting the Red Line to the Expo line through Hollywood and Mid City.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think this is a little too extreme. The Big 6 do have pretty good transit, even for global standards. Excepting NYC they don't have terrific ridership, but the transit is pretty good. The systems suffer from underinvestment, but are still quite robust.

Chicago, even if it were in Europe, would have a really huge metropolitan rail system. DC, even if it were in Europe, would have a really impressive Metro system. And NYC transit is definitely in the same general league as Paris or London, and much more extensive than any other European city.

Tokyo has, by far, the best metropolitan rail system on earth, but it's so amazing due to frequency, coverage and ridership. It doesn't have a grand system, though. There isn't a Tokyo station that comes close to, say, Philly's 30th Street Station. There isn't a station in Asia that comes close to, say, Milano Centrale. It's a strictly utilitarian network, all business, no flash. The European systems are the grandest on earth, but fall short to Japan on all other factors.

Tokyo's level of frequency is unmatched, but I think NYC's system is designed better, if that makes sense. I haven't experienced another major system with the local/express design that NYC built. It was an absolute genius design that separates the NYC subway from its peers. It is something you really only understand if you have used the NY subway a lot.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

How many European systems are bigger than Chicago's CTA-Metra rail network? Pretty sure just London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid. That isn't terrible company. Yes, the system has worse frequencies and isn't as modernized, but it isn't a bad system.

Moscow, Rome, and maybe Barcelona. But yes, Chicago's is one of the larger systems in the world. Not many cities in the world that are not the capital and/or the nation's largest city will have a system as large as Chicago's.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Crawford

BART's daily ridership is slightly more than twice that of LA MTA subway.

Are you seriously comparing the ridership of the whole BART system to the ridership of just one LA subway line? Let's face it, LA's B/D lines are really just one subway line with a short spur. For Q3 2023, the combined Metro B and D lines averaged a weekday ridership of 73,700.

Currently, LA's total Metro Rail system has a higher weekday daily ridership than BART's whole system. As of Q3 2023, BART's weekday daily ridership is 164,500. LA's Metro Rail, as of Q3 2023, has a weekday daily ridership of 189,200.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Eh, it was mostly built. I doubt adding a few stations will be a gamechanger for overall transit numbers.

Oh mah gah are you actually saying that the D (Purple) line is mostly built, and that they're only adding a few more stations??

Ay, no mijo.

Here's a map. Right now, the D/Purple line ends at Wilshire/Western station and is currently only 5.1 miles. By 2027, it will be extended west by 9 miles and add 7 new stations:

urbanrail.net

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

How many European systems have grander Metro systems than DC? I'm not sure if any. Again, DC is lacking in many respects, but the system is a very impressive piece of infrastructure. BART is pretty impressive too. Philly's Center City rail tunnel is pretty good. LA's transit investments are pretty comprehensive.

The U.S. is so incredibly autocentric, so ridership will generally suck, but there are opportunities to live a transit-oriented lifestyle. Not everything is garbage.

BART is... underwhelming to me as a rapid transit system, but it is a great commuter rail system. SF could really use more subway lines throughout the city. BART does will to funnel people from neighboring cities into San Francisco, but it doesn't really seem that useful for many people who live in the city of San Francisco itself.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by FromSD

I agree. It's not that residents of Century City will be filling the Wilshire subway cars. Century City doesn't have many residents. It's the fact that people elsewhere in LA will be able to take the subway to one of the most important (if not the most important) job centers in LA County. The Red Line extension may in fact help Downtown LA as much as anywhere else. It will improve its appeal as a residential area, as people will be more willing to pay high rents or condo prices if they can get to their well-paying jobs on the west side easily.

Several people have pointed out that the LA Metro system has been weak on "choice" riders. That's partly because the system has mostly not served areas where choice riders are likely to live. Yes, the Expo line serves West LA and Santa Monica, and the Gold Line serves Pasadena, South Pasadena and Arcadia, but these are light rail lines that often run in mixed traffic. LA's true high capacity metro line, the Red Line, serves mostly poorer areas like Westlake and East Hollywood, not areas where choice riders are tend to live. (Not that that's a bad thing. These transit-dependent areas should be the top priority for the system.) The extension of the Wilshire subway to beyond the 405, however, should shift the pattern somewhat, as higher income areas finally have better access to high quality public transit.

CalUrbanist makes a valid point about U.S. rail transit systems focusing too much on far flung suburbs to the detriment of comprehensive service in core metro areas. In LA's case that is due to political necessity. The tax increases needed to fund LA transit expansion require a two-thirds county-wide vote. That result would never be achieved if proposed transit improvements were devoted to the core area only. So the Gold Line is being extended to Claremont, at the far reaches of the San Gabriel Valley, before there is any funding available to build a much needed north-south subway line connecting the Red Line to the Expo line through Hollywood and Mid City.

Yea, Metro messed up when they didnt prioriize the job centers or didn't plan to connect them well. The Expo line does a better job of that but it was too late.
Honestly, there should've been a line to the USC Medical Campus and Cal State LA over the east side light rail, which looks like it's not doing well. There's no jobs there. No shit.

Everyone keeps talking abotu a Vermont subway line. Over West Hollywood/West LA job centers? Fuck no. No. That's the reason why the metro system isnt as good as it could be.
Cant keep doing the same dumb shit.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I'm also fairly certain that SF has a higher % of commuters that walk and bike than LA as well. I'm not really buying Quixote's assertion that car ownership has a meaningful impact on the ability of residents of a city to live car lite.

I’m saying car ownership is sort of a reflection of car-lite living (if we assume that the car is used for more than road trips once a year), and that while owning a car may not be necessary, it’s not a total inconvenience either. This has a lot to do with how U.S. urban cities’ neighborhoods are structured — overwhelming single-use residential, and often not served by good transit (at least light rail). Heck, even Brooklyn probably has a sizable car ownership rate outside of the prime areas.

My guess as to why SF has high car ownership rates:

1) Lots of SFH with an attached garage and front driveway
2) Bay Area is extremely multi-nodal, and many people commute to office parks in the suburbs
3) Access to the abundance of natural beauty available
4) Lack of amenities within walking distance and an easy ability to drive to and find parking in other places. For example, I bet it’s not uncommon for people in the Sunset District to drive down to the Costco in South San Francisco to stock up on basic goods like toilet paper and shampoo.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I'm guessing the most substantial ridership gains will not happen in the areas you mentioned, but rather further west, at Westwood/UCLA and Westwood/VA Hospital. I think Wilshire/La Cienega should see a decent amount of ridership as well due to being near Cedars Sinai, although it's still a good 15-20 min walk from the station location. According to LA Metro, the Westside is the region’s second-largest job center.

At these three locations you have major healthcare employment hubs (VA West LA, UCLA, and Cedars Sinai), where workers don't work remotely. I think a decent amount of patients will use them as well (except maybe the Cedars Sinai one). Then of course you've got the UCLA campus and Westwood area where I could see a lot of students and workers using the service. The only downside again, is that campus is a good 15-20 min walk from the station. There will be a future station actually at UCLA added as part of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor, where people would be able to transfer from the Westwood/UCLA station. But who knows when that is coming.

On the interim, I'm sure they'll use bus shuttles. Here in Pasadena, there's a PCC (Pasadena City College) shuttle bus that goes between the A Line Allen Station to the PCC campus. And of course Pasadena Transit has bus line 10 that goes from Allen Station to the Caltech campus: https://rt.pasadenatransit.net/rtt/public/

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think this is a little too extreme. The Big 6 do have pretty good transit, even for global standards. Excepting NYC they don't have terrific ridership, but the transit is pretty good. The systems suffer from underinvestment, but are still quite robust.

Chicago, even if it were in Europe, would have a really huge metropolitan rail system. DC, even if it were in Europe, would have a really impressive Metro system. And NYC transit is definitely in the same general league as Paris or London, and much more extensive than any other European city.

Tokyo has, by far, the best metropolitan rail system on earth, but it's so amazing due to frequency, coverage and ridership. It doesn't have a grand system, though. There isn't a Tokyo station that comes close to, say, Philly's 30th Street Station. There isn't a station in Asia that comes close to, say, Milano Centrale. It's a strictly utilitarian network, all business, no flash. The European systems are the grandest on earth, but fall short to Japan on all other factors.

These are such irrelevant factors, and are absent of city-specific context.

Chicago has a huge metropolitan rail system because its metro is home to nearly 10 million people, the majority of whom live in a type of suburban sprawl that doesn’t exist in European cities. The Chicago L also has a good number of stations in freeway medians. For a pre-war system, that’s a bit odd and not at all inviting to riders/pedestrians.

DC’s metro system functions as both rapid transit and commuter rail for the DC MSA. It serves the CBD and CBD-adjacent nabes quite well, and the rest of the District only so-so or not at all — partly because it doesn’t need to.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Quixote

These are such irrelevant factors, and are absent of city-specific context.

Chicago has a huge metropolitan rail system because its metro is home to nearly 10 million people, the majority of whom live in a type of suburban sprawl that doesn’t exist in European cities. The Chicago L also has a good number of stations in freeway medians. For a pre-war system, that’s a bit odd.

DC’s metro system functions as both rapid transit and commuter rail for the DC MSA. It serves the CBD and CBD-adjacent nabes quite well, and the rest of the District only so-so or not at all — partly because it doesn’t need to.

Yes, Chicagoland has roughly the population of Sweden... Comparing CTA to Stockholm Metro and Metra to Swedish railways does not do Chicago any favors...

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

BART is... underwhelming to me as a rapid transit system, but it is a great commuter rail system. SF could really use more subway lines throughout the city. BART does will to funnel people from neighboring cities into San Francisco, but it doesn't really seem that useful for many people who live in the city of San Francisco itself.

Yeah, in SF, BART is basically just a single branch (with multiple lines) running diagonally through the City, mainly serving the FiDi and Mission and a small handful of the outer neighborhoods.

More local service is filled in by Muni Metro, although that also has its flaws, namely speed of service given it shares the streets with mixed traffic.

There's also Caltrain which is a commuter line running up the Bay side of SF.

Fortunately, being relatively compact, SF does have extensive bus service, which can be hit or miss, but I think does a pretty good job, especially the rapid routes. I believe something like 95% of the City is within 2 blocks of a bus route.

As far as room for improvements, yes, there are plenty. There's the Second Transbay Tube which would then go under Geary to serve Japantown, Lower Pac Heights, and the Inner Richmond and then down 19th Ave to serve the Sunset. And then there's the T Third extension to North Beach and Fisherman's Wharf, and the HSR/Caltrain extension to the Transbay Transit Center (Salesforce).

There's also some corridors that could benefit from BRT similar to the Van Ness BRT line. A suggestion I have would be to do a Sunset Blvd BRT from Golden Gate Park down to Lake Merced and develop the Parkway into a mixed use commercial/high density residential corridor.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by CalUrbanist

Yes, Switzerland is in Europe, for Americans who have no clue about the world. It’s an OECD country.
For those curious enough to wonder, Taipei is in Taiwan. Also not Illinois.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by CalUrbanist

I know Americans already suffer the affliction of Americacentrism, and this is SSP of all places, but by world standards, NY is even subpar when considering the big picture.

Agreed, and I’ve hinted at this several times, including in this thread.

NYC Subway, considering the population density served, number of stations, express tracks, and 24-hour service, should have ridership that’s leaps and bounds ahead of London. London’s Underground is identical in route length, but has far fewer stations and mostly serves Greater London north of the Thames. So, smaller service area with far fewer people/density, no express trains, no 24-hour service, no AC — and it only lags behind the NYC Subway by like 500K riders.

And agreed about Manhattan. Wide avenues, parking garages along east-west streets in Midtown, fewer dense storefronts (amenities), more chain establishments, etc. It’s pretty telling that London manages to fit nearly all of its world-class amenities in an area the side of Midtown, and still be every bit the global powerhouse that NYC is. All those big-footprint office towers really spread out NYC’s urbanism, but that’s also what makes the city so grand.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

The Chicago L also has a good number of stations in freeway medians.

The L system is 25% expressway median by route mileage, but only 17% by station count.

the system has 112 route miles (not including the purple line's express run from Evanston to the loop because it's a rush-hour only service, only the full service section of the purple line through evanston/wilmette is included here).


here's a break down of route miles by ROW type:

elevated (structured): 49.0 miles (44%)

expressway median: 27.6 miles (25%)

elevated (embankment): 17.8 miles (16%)

subway: 10.7 miles (10%)

at-grade: 5.6 miles (5%)

open trench: 1.3 miles (1%)



the el system has 146 stations (each station is counted only once here, many are used by multiple lines, like the loop stations):

elevated/embankment stations: 88 (60%)

expressway median stations: 25 (17%)

subway stations: 22 (15%)

at grade stations: 11 (8%)



The 3 main expressway median sections of the L are certainly not good, but the west side blue line down the Ike is the worst in terms of its encroachment on the urban core.


Below are the distances from State/Madison to the first station that's in an expressway median:

West side blue down the Ike: first expwy station is 1 mile out

South side red line down the Dan Ryan: first expwy station is 3.5 miles out

Northwest side blue line down the Kennedy: first expwy station is 6.5 miles out

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

On the interim, I'm sure they'll use bus shuttles. Here in Pasadena, there's a PCC (Pasadena City College) shuttle bus that goes between the A Line Allen Station to the PCC campus. And of course Pasadena Transit has bus line 10 that goes from Allen Station to the Caltech campus: https://rt.pasadenatransit.net/rtt/public/

Yeah, I'm sure the bus shuttles will be used frequently. Depending on where you need to go on campus and bus frequency, it might even be faster than transferring onto the Sepulveda line (is there a letter designated for it yet? S for Sepulveda maybe, or V for Valley?). Regardless, I imagine the Westwood/UCLA station will probably the station with the highest ridership on the extension.