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

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Cleveland's red line was mostly cobbled together from freight ROW's that are not well-integrated into their neighborhoods for the most part, with most of the 18 stations being of the dreaded park n' ride style and/or located in de-industrialized dead zones.

Good point, but the Green Line (light rail) goes right thru the best parts of the favored quarter, and that ridership sucks too.

And the Red Line still serves the airport, Ohio City, the Cleveland Clinic, Case Western, the art museum area and Little Italy. It isn't like there's zero potential.

And Woodward Ave. in 70's-era Detroit, while not industrial/vacant, was pretty down-at-the-heels. It was a really rough stretch until maybe 20 years ago. It was still a bombed out hooker/junkie corridor when I was in high school. Maybe rail would have helped a bit around the New Center area and Boston-Edison.

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Good point, but the Green Line (light rail) goes right thru the best parts of the favored quarter, and that ridership sucks too.

The Green Line is essentially an old streetcar converted to LRT going through single family/mansion areas. It would/will always be low-ridership. The Blue Line has far more potential as it is surrounded by apartment buildings almost the entire journey to the new Van Aken TOD. But yes, its ridership sucks. Though they are getting new LRT trains (finally).


https://www.axios.com/local/cleveland/2023/07/11/red-line-rta-rail-cars-purchased

...

And regarding Detroit, I agree a Woodward or Gratiot MARTA-like subway would've slowed down the decay of those streets but I feel it would've been a Baltimore Metro-type of situation instead of DC or even Atlanta. Meaning, decent service for P&R in the suburbs but inner-city stations generally neglected. I feel the same regarding the never-operating Cincinnati subway.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

[St. Louis has *46 miles of track with 37 stations in their light rail system (MetroLink). Pittsburgh has *26.2 track miles, with 53 stations on their system (The T). Not sure how much of either of those are in the core city, though.

The bolded is important to put St. Louis' 46 mile Metrolink system in context.

At 46 miles of system length, it's almost half the length of Chicago's L system.

BUT, 22 miles/11 stations of it are over in the metro east, running through an incredibly bombed out ESL and then a bunch of sprawl-burban park n' rides, and eventually even some corn fields as it rolls all the way out to Scott Air Force Base in southern IL.

This segment is a bit silly, but it was necessary to get IL to pony up money for the bi-state effort.


How many other light rail systems have cornfield segments?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And the Red Line still serves the airport, Ohio City, the Cleveland Clinic, Case Western, the art museum area and Little Italy. It isn't like there's zero potential.

I never said it had zero potential, just that most of the stations aren't all that well-located from an urbanism perspective, due to the line being built upon freight ROWs.

A subway running under Woodward, with urban-format stations running along the main spine of the city, would've almost certainly been a better arrangement, at least on paper.

But as Colday wisely pointed out above, a Detroit Woodward subway built in the 70s would've probably ended up way more like Baltimore than DC. That's a great call right there.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

But as Colday wisely pointed out above, a Detroit Woodward subway built in the 70s would've probably ended up way more like Baltimore than DC. That's a great call right there.

Yeah, that's a great comparison, much better than my Cleveland one. Detroit would have likely benefitted about as much as Baltimore, which isn't great. Baltimore has crappy ridership and little TOD despite running on a Woodward-like alignment.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

If I was to rank the success of the new build, postwar (1955 - 1985) heavy rail metro systems in terms of how much of an impact they made in transportation, planning, etc., I'd go:

DC
BART
--
MARTA
--
Baltimore
Cleveland Red Line
Miami

Not to trigger Miamians, but I put Miami below Cleveland and Baltimore, since unlike those two, Miami was not a deindustrializing city with huge population loss, and planners could have used it to shape at least some growth. It should at least belong in the MARTA league for a new build metro system in a sunbelt city with most of its growth ahead of it.

Granted LA's subway was built after 1985, but considering this is an LA thread, I'm curious where you would rank LA Metro in your list.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by craigs

Granted LA's subway was built after 1985, but considering this is an LA thread, I'm curious where you would rank LA Metro in your list.

Keeping in the spirit of this thread, LA's subway is like LA itself: hard to bucket and kind of on its own.

Its problem is that it's really short. Its absolute ridership isn't great, but its per mile ridership is excellent by US standards. It really needs to be more of a network, but it's clear that LA isn't the kind of city where a subway is the cost-effective choice to move people around. It's also not a city where you can take advantage of freight railway corridors and highway medians to build a grade-separated rapid transit system quickly (like the other 70s Metro systems), nor does it have the greenfield or even brownfield sites for easy TOD.

Building a very expensive subway very slowly under Wilshire Boulevard seems like the best of many bad options for transit expansion in that corridor. It's basically building a pre-war, under-the-city-streets subway, but for today's astronomical prices and engineering requirements.

So, if I had to put it somewhere, I'd probably put it above MARTA but below BART in its own 2nd tier, but with the caveat that it isn't a proper network on its own without the accompanying light rail system.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Keeping in the spirit of this thread, LA's subway is like LA itself: hard to bucket and kind of on its own.

Its problem is that it's really short.

LA's subway is short, but fits between Baltimore's and Cleveland's in terms of miles of track. And the new D Line extension will add 9 miles, making it longer than Miami's system. The Sepulveda line is still in the earliest stages of planning, but if built it will significantly expand the local heavy rail network in functionality and miles (comparable in length to the heavy rail subways of Philadelphia and Boston). But that's a long way off, if it happens at all.

Its absolute ridership isn't great, but it's per mile ridership is excellent by US standards. It really needs to be more of a network, but it's clear that LA isn't the kind of city where a subway is the cost-effective choice to move people around, and it's also not a city where you can take advantage of freight railway corridors and highway medians to build a grade-separated rapid transit system quickly (like the other 70s Metro systems), nor does it have the greenfield or even brownfield sites for easy TOD.

Building a very expensive subway very slowly under Wilshire Boulevard seems like the best of many bad options for transit expansion in that corridor. It's basically building a pre-war, under-the-city-streets subway, but for today's astronomical prices and engineering requirements.

So, if I had to put it somewhere, I'd probably put it above MARTA but below BART in its own 2nd tier, but with the caveat that it isn't a proper network on its own without the accompanying light rail system.

Yeah, LA's two heavy rail lines are just part of the larger network that consists mostly of buses and light rail lines.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

It's also not a city where you can take advantage of freight railway corridors and highway medians to build a grade-separated rapid transit system quickly (like the other 70s Metro systems),

No, the unavailability of any disused ROW's or a freight railroad to parallel is the advantage of LA's heavy rail subway system. It means that almost all of the stations are built exactly where they need to be.

The whole reason why postwar transit systems in the United States tend to suck is because the federal funding structure incentivized the use of pre-existing ROW's, which means you might get a few good stations, but most will be in crap locations.

St. Louis, for example, was able to build subway stations in an existing old freight railroad tunnel. But most of their light rail network has crap station locations. Like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6298187,...570INbn7G3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

[mrnyc]

^ ain’t that the truth.

and its a hard road to tod your way out of those old rail line rows.

it can be done, but a lot of things need to come together, so its sloooow going.

if yr not a growing or boom town that is.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The whole reason why postwar transit systems in the United States tend to suck is because the federal funding structure incentivized the use of pre-existing ROW's, which means you might get a few good stations, but most will be in crap locations.

Denver provides a counterexample. Denver has pretty solid ridership despite building an extensive light rail/commuter rail network on the cheap. It was almost all built on ROWs far from residential, with heavy reliance on park-and-rides, but it works.

I believe race/demographics plays a big role in U.S. ridership trends. Denver might be grouped with Seattle and Portland (maybe also SD?) as cities where the white flight/black ascendance eras never really happened, and didn't explicitly racialize transit usage.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

And regarding Detroit, I agree a Woodward or Gratiot MARTA-like subway would've slowed down the decay of those streets but I feel it would've been a Baltimore Metro-type of situation instead of DC or even Atlanta. Meaning, decent service for P&R in the suburbs but inner-city stations generally neglected. I feel the same regarding the never-operating Cincinnati subway.

I think it would have been harder to do this in Detroit because the city has/had such a large and developed footprint. You can't run a rapid transit line 20 miles down Woodward or Gratiot Avenues and skip over city neighborhoods.

[Crawford]

The plans I've read from the 1970's describe an underground line along Woodward to 6 Mile, and then an elevated alignment northwards. This is definitely the corridor with the most transit potential, but I still think it was too late. That whole corridor was in free-fall. If it was built by the mid-60's or so, I think it could have been transformative.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The plans I've read from the 1970's describe an underground line along Woodward to 6 Mile, and then an elevated alignment northwards. This is definitely the corridor with the most transit potential, but I still think it was too late. That whole corridor was in free-fall. If it was built by the mid-60's or so, I think it could have been transformative.

I don't think it was too late. The Woodward corridor is the hottest area of the city right now, and it is still in far worse shape than it was in the 1970s. A Woodward Avenue subway built in the 1970s would have just pulled forward the revitalization by 40 years, and also potentially saved a lot of businesses and buildings.

[meh]

Here's a nice map from a reddit user showing current STL Metrolink lines and in-the-works extensions:


Image Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis/comments/11gortk/comment/japujrt/

The extension from Shiloh Scott AFB to MidAmerica Airport (more cornfield miles on the far right) is fully funded by Illinois and under construction. The City North-South extension (yellow line) is in the environmental review stage and should begin construction in 2-3 years.

But, yeah, about 1/3+ of the system is currently wasted on IL cornfields and IL/MO low-density suburbs because politics.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Denver provides a counterexample. Denver has pretty solid ridership despite building an extensive light rail/commuter rail network on the cheap. It was almost all built on ROWs far from residential, with heavy reliance on park-and-rides, but it works.

Yeah, park n' rides and/or a strong feeder bus network can certainly bolster ridership on bad ROW rail routes (old freight rail corridors/expressway medians), but it's MUCH harder for stations on those kinds of routes to spur meaningful urbanism around them.

rail transit, to me, is more than just moving people around. when it's at its best, it also makes the areas it serves better from an urban form/functionality perspective.

[mhays]

Denver's system isn't terrible for one based on park-n-rides in industrial and freeway zones, but that's a low bar. Its metro and city-of transit commute rates have always been poor.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Denver provides a counterexample. Denver has pretty solid ridership despite building an extensive light rail/commuter rail network on the cheap. It was almost all built on ROWs far from residential, with heavy reliance on park-and-rides, but it works.

I believe race/demographics plays a big role in U.S. ridership trends. Denver might be grouped with Seattle and Portland (maybe also SD?) as cities where the white flight/black ascendance eras never really happened, and didn't explicitly racialize transit usage.

If any modern US light rail system should be called out for its success, I'd say it should be San Diego. According to APTA, San Diego has higher weekday light rail ridership than the other cities you listed--and fully twice that of Denver.

In fact, in the latest APTA ridership report SD narrowly edges out LA for the nation's highest weekday light rail ridership.

[Segun]

A masterfully planned subway in LA could consist of a line that's like a gigantic version of the Tokyo Yamanote Loop. Vancouver also has a loop in their system and it encompasses a large area. This "LA Loop" would go express between the downtowns and major nodes of activity.

Example:

Downtown LA--->
Echo Park
Vermont/Sunset (transfer to the Red Line)
Hollywood (also with transfer)
West Hollywood (maybe La Brea/Santa Monica)
The Grove
Century City (Purple Line transfer)
Stoner Park ??
Downtown Santa Monica (w transfers)
Venice/Marina Del Ray
LAX
Manhattan Beach
Redondo Beach
Downtown San Pedro
Downtown Long Beach
Long Beach airport
Downtown Bellflower (Also a strategic location to connect Orange County)
Downtown Downey
Downtown Huntington Park
Arts District
<----Back to LA

It's only 70 miles. Speaking of Downey, we could get Tony Stark to build it. Too bad this is the real world and America doesn't invest in practicality.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Segun

A masterfully planned subway in LA could consist of a line that's like a gigantic version of the Tokyo Yamanote Loop. Vancouver also has a loop in their system and it encompasses a large area. This "LA Loop" would go express between the downtowns and major nodes of activity.

Example:

Downtown LA--->
Echo Park
Vermont/Sunset (transfer to the Red Line)
Hollywood (also with transfer)
West Hollywood (maybe La Brea/Santa Monica)
The Grove
Century City (Purple Line transfer)
Stoner Park ??
Downtown Santa Monica (w transfers)
Venice/Marina Del Ray
LAX
Manhattan Beach
Redondo Beach
Downtown San Pedro
Downtown Long Beach
Long Beach airport
Downtown Bellflower (Also a strategic location to connect Orange County)
Downtown Downey
Downtown Huntington Park
Arts District
<----Back to LA

It's only 70 miles. Speaking of Downey, we could get Tony Stark to build it. Too bad this is the real world and America doesn't invest in practicality.

I lived blocks from Stoner Park. For Sawtelle/West LA, just go with a station at the West LA Civic Center. It's about to get redeveloped with thousands of new homes.