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

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

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.

I don't understand this comment. There are virtually no parking garages in Midtown. Also, the ridership of NYC subway would obviously be capped by population. NYC and London are roughly the same population, so no surprise that they have similar ridership.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by FromSD

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.

I’d also add that it’s LACMTA’s utter incompetence as a transit authority that is holding back ridership. CalUrbanist made a great point about Metro’s seemingly low expectations for ridership being a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. They reduce frequencies to headways that are hardly competitive and attractive to prospective riders (choice or not) and only increase them when there’s “demand.” They have the temerity to literally ask the public for what they want, as if it’s a tough nut to crack. Everything is half-assed, and any marginal improvements are overly celebrated by them as if they made a major concession.

[eschaton]

It seems to me if LA wanted to massively increase the scope of its rail system, the streetcar-era legacy (the hugely overbuilt avenues, which have become stroads) is a real advantage. Most of them would function far better as urban streets with a two-lane road diet, and the surface street system is gridded well enough in the core that taking large sections of an avenue more-or-less out of commission during construction wouldn't really hurt much.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It seems to me if LA wanted to massively increase the scope of its rail system, the streetcar-era legacy (the hugely overbuilt avenues, which have become stroads) is a real advantage. Most of them would function far better as urban streets with a two-lane road diet, and the surface street system is gridded well enough in the core that taking large sections of an avenue more-or-less out of commission during construction wouldn't really hurt much.

A light rail/street car down Sunset from downtown to Hollywood would be insanely popular with locals and tourists.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by Quixote

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.

Yes, I think it's reasonable to presume why one might want to or need to own a car in SF, especially for trips outside the City and for bigger shopping trips. It doesn't have a particularly extensive rapid transit network and some large parts of the city are lacking in urbanism (wide streets, lots of parking, SFH). But even though car ownership might be high, at least in my personal experience, car usage is not as high as one would think. It's not NYC by any means, but there is ample opportunity to live a car lite lifestyle here.

Anecdotally, I've noticed that my friends who are transplants from more autocentric Sun Beltian cities tend to use their car far more often for trips throughout the City (not just for trips to Costco, but to dine and meet up with friends) than natives who have grown up here using the public transit system their whole lives and are used to/more willing to put up with its intricacies and flaws (Muni is free for 18 years and under). They've hinted that their preference is for trains, and they don't really like to ride the bus, although I think the Muni bus network is an underrated and underappreciated part of SF transit.

[Chisouthside]

I lived car free for two years in the Bay(SF/SJ) and made it work. If i ever needed a car i would just uber it, was still cheaper than having a car. Though I was lucky and used the transportation provided by my job to commute and that helped. I too would say that some of my coworkers from more non Cal suburban area refused to ride the work coach and would isntead drive.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Anecdotally, I've noticed that my friends who are transplants from more autocentric Sun Beltian cities tend to use their car far more often for trips throughout the City

Same anecdotal experience here in Chicago.

Not so much with the L, but for buses.

Transplants will ride the train to work (or a bus if they absolutely have to), but for general getting around town, it's driving/ride share with that group (at least the big 10 crowd, I'm not talking about about poor immigrants or whatever).

Maybe it's just an economic class thing and I'm just a notorious penny-pincher who doesn't think twice about hopping on a bus to save money.

I ALWAYS want to save money.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Quixote

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.

No, Chicago has a huge metropolitan rail system bc the U.S. tended to have the best rail systems on earth until WW2, and Chicago was the second largest U.S. city. It has a huge legacy network bc it was a huge world city already in 1945. Chicago might have had the world's second or third largest urban economy in 1945.

U.S. rail was basically the Japan of the prewar globe. It generally had much better systems than Europe. The European transit orientation is a conscious post-1970 effort at reentering regions and fighting pollution, while the U.S. went in the other direction. Germany, to take an example, didn't start widespread electrification and development of suburban rail systems until the 1970's, when the U.S. was in its peak interstate madness. Germany's forests started dying, the cities were black from diesel, and public sentiment took a big u-turn.

[Chisouthside]

Even now Chicago still has 4 commuter rail terminals in downtown, not counting all the other terminals that were torn down in the last 60 years.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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.

Moscow isn't Europe, Rome definitely has a smaller system (a couple of subway lines and limited suburban rail), Barcelona has a much better system than Chicago, but I don't think it's bigger. Plenty of European systems are better than Chicago, but I think just four are bigger.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

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.

Why would I compare LA's light rail and heavy rail to SF's heavy rail only? Makes no sense. Yes, LA has a small metro, but that's kind of the point. Two lines serving the densest, most transit-oriented sections, and the ridership is middling, and hasn't budged in decades. BART is essentially S-Bahn or RER type service, not traditional Metro like LA, yet it still has slightly over twice the ridership of a traditional system like LA. Suburban-oriented systems should have much lower ridership.

In any case, SF has higher heavy rail ridership and higher overall rail ridership.

[Nouvellecosse]

Few European cities have larger "metro systems" than Chicago. But many (most?) European cities have frequent electrified rail that operates much more like a metro system compared to most commuter/suburban rail services in NA. That's the thing I find most impressive about the transit in Europe. The sheer variety of rail services. The cities have their metros, yes, but then there's all this other stuff that one may not even know about without being quite familiar with the city. And those additional services often have equal or greater ridership than the main metro system.

For instance, the Copenhagen S-tog suburban system has nearly the same length as the L and has service levels much more like a metro than a NA comuter service. And it's also older and better known than the city's smallish new metro system. But if you just compared its metro system to those of other places it wouldn't look very impressive. But in reality, it's basically like if Greater Miami were 1/3 its current size (making it similar in size to greater Copenhagen) but still had an equally large Metrorail system, then built an entire electrified suburban system with BART's length, frequency, and ridership.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Crawford

In any case, SF has higher heavy rail ridership and higher overall rail ridership.

Riders per route mile is a pretty interesting contrast.

Heavy-rail track, miles:
BART: 122
Metro B/D: 17

Average weekday ridership:
BART: 158,400
Metro B/D: 73,700

Riders per track mile:
BART: 1,298
Metro B/D: 4,335

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why would I compare LA's light rail and heavy rail to SF's heavy rail only? Makes no sense.

Because that would be comparing 2 whole systems? But instead, you want to compare the whole BART system, which has a system length of 131.4 miles, to LA's combined B/D lines, which total 19.8 miles. Ooooookaaaaaay... whatever tickles your pickle.

If that's apples to apples to you, then

[Crawford]

I'm still unclear why comparing heavy rail to heavy rail isn't apples to apples, and then the reasoning given is that one system is physically smaller.

That's the whole point. SF is a more transit-oriented city. Not surprisingly, it has more heavy rail, which likely contributes to higher transit utilization. The vast majority of the BART route miles are in suburban areas, and the system is run more like RER/S-Bahn type systems. Only the core segment really runs in an urban corridor analogous to LA, so it isn't like BART is covering some vast urban expanse. Pittsburg isn't driving ridership, it's the Market Street corridor, which is pretty short.

If you want to compare overall rail, or overall transit usage, it's the same conclusion. SF has much higher transit utilization. LA's suburban rail network is much larger and more robust than SF, yet still has lower ridership, BTW.

[38 Geary]

I’m not sure there’s even a point in comparing heavy rail to heavy rail. Wouldn’t it make more sense to compare the totality of rail transit system and ridership? Especially since there’s a lot of nuances even within each rail mode. They are all linked to some extent after all. So it’d be BART + Muni Metro + Caltrain and Metrorail + Metrolink. If you look at it from that perspective, then yes overall Bay Area rail ridership should exceed that of LA.

[Crawford]

And actually you see the inverse with a light rail comparison. MUNI light rail covers a very limited geography relative to LA light rail. Much smaller system. Yet MUNI light rail ridership isn't too far off from that of LA.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And actually you see the inverse with a light rail comparison. MUNI light rail covers a very limited geography relative to LA light rail. Much smaller system. Yet MUNI light rail ridership isn't too far off from that of LA.

Agreed. I would make the calculation for the two systems if I could figure out how to untangle the interlined light rail routes and list just service track miles in both cities.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Same anecdotal experience here in Chicago.

Not so much with the L, but for buses.

Transplants will ride the train to work (or a bus if they absolutely have to), but for general getting around town, it's driving/ride share with that group (at least the big 10 crowd, I'm not talking about poor immigrants or whatever).

Maybe it's just an economic class thing and I'm just a notorious penny-pincher who doesn't think twice about hopping on a bus to save money.

I ALWAYS want to save money.

it's not just saving money, I hate the idea of being chauffeured. I only take Lyft if I have no other choice (typically on business travel to places where they don't have reasonable transit to the airport...). Otherwise it's train, bus, bike or divvy...

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Moscow isn't Europe, Rome definitely has a smaller system (a couple of subway lines and limited suburban rail), Barcelona has a much better system than Chicago, but I don't think it's bigger. Plenty of European systems are better than Chicago, but I think just four are bigger.

Barcelona is very slightly bigger in track miles (by 0.3 miles, if Wikipedia is to be believed). It also has significantly more stations (189 vs 145). I'd call it a wash...

But cities like Amsterdam don't have a big metro, but have really good regional rail that has comparable service levels to the L and I'm sure is longer if you add it all up...