My Experience with the LA Metro

[lrt's friend]

I have just returned from a 12 day trip to Los Angeles when I visited many locations in Southern California and used public transit quite regularly. I did not use a car at any point. My observations are relevant to our experiences with light rail in Ottawa, as there were many shared issues. It also tells us that we should temper our expectations.

For most of my trip, I was based out of Pasadena, very close to light rail (Line A). It proved to be a good location and fairly upscale with traditional main streets and fairly good density. There were direct bus routes from Pasadena to Hollywood and to Universal City and Warner Brothers. I used both those routes.

Line A and E are light rail while Line B and D are subways. There are other lines that I did not use.

Line A from downtown to Pasadena was quite fast using high floor LRVs, with one 8 block section that ran on street. Here the trains did not run faster than a car. Trains mostly had to stop at only one intersection, and all other parts of the line had absolute priority. At our station, we had to walk across the tracks and other intersections used crossing gates. The ride was smooth even on curves and trains ran mostly at a good clip. There was some sharp turns at Union Station, similar to near Hurdman Station. Trains ran fairly slowly on those curves but may have also be constrained by the location of Union Station.

Line E which ran from downtown to Santa Monica, also used high floor LRVs. This line was much more subject to bog downs and it was a slow journey to the end of the line. Much of the line has priority by grade separation or barricaded intersections, but there is more street running near downtown and at Santa Monica and more stops for traffic signals.

Line B (Hollywood) and D (Wilshire) were subways and ran well, however, I found the stations and trains somewhat grubby.

Overall the rail network was well connected, particularly downtown and served many important destinations for locals and tourists. Line D is in the process of being extended, and rail service will also be available to LAX probably early next year. This will be an important addition, but there will be a lack of a direct downtown line. The current airport express bus service (Fly away) may still be viable and I used it both at the start and end of my trip..

Now, the downside, homeless people, those with mental problems and drug addicts were regularly on the trains. Part of this problem relates to the lack of fare gates at many stations. There was extensive security to try to control the problems. I saw one lady who caused a problem on our train and began vomiting all over the place. I believe she was on drugs. I think this overall problem has caused a major problem with the perception of the system with locals and limits ridership especially after dark. I was never frightened but I was vigilant. We need to make sure that our rail network does not get taken over by undesirables. This will result in a fatal loss of confidence, even beyond what we have experienced so far.

There were interruptions in service. We experienced a line closure and replacement buses. We also experienced track maintenance during service hours resulting in one track operations and reduced service. So, what we are experiencing in Ottawa is not that unusual. The service interruptions seemed to be more frequent than what we experience in Ottawa. There were a lot of transit staff available throughout the system to help with directions and also when there was service interruptions.

Trains seemed to have variable qualities of announcement systems. One train did not announce stations at all, which was a problem after dark. You could not see station names at the stations either from on board. This was a problem for us as visitors who was not familiar with LA geography. Other trains only had visual announcements of stations. This is likely the result of the age of some trains.

There seemed to be a more extensive network of frequent bus routes even on weekends, but traffic can be awful in LA both on city streets and on freeways. The bus route from Pasadena to Hollywood was interesting but painfully slow.

Ridership appeared to mostly poor and infirm people, so does not effectively cater to the middle class. Some trains and buses were very busy while others were mostly empty.

[FutureWickedCity]

While it hardly goes everywhere, the LA metro does cover an astonishing amount of territory. You really realize how massive the area is when some distances between stations are more than 10 minutes apart going full speed (like between Hollywood and K-town). I was definitely always on high alert but no incidents thankfully happened.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have just returned from a 12 day trip to Los Angeles when I visited many locations in Southern California and used public transit quite regularly. I did not use a car at any point. My observations are relevant to our experiences with light rail in Ottawa, as there were many shared issues. It also tells us that we should temper our expectations.

Thanks for the report. I'm thinking of doing the same thing later this year and have been very curious about the system. Curious as to where your destinations were.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

Thanks for the report. I'm thinking of doing the same thing later this year and have been very curious about the system. Curious as to where your destinations were.

My trip was partially an organized bus tour and partially self directed, so some of the locations were beyond LA Transit reach.

As part of the tour, we went to Balboa Park in San Diego as well as the local Botanical Gardens, Huntingdon Gardens in Pasadena, Lotusland in Santa Barbara, the Santa Barbara Mission, Solvang, a curious Danish themed town northwest of Santa Barbara in a vineyard district, the Griffith Observatory (you can get there by transit), a few other private places, one of which was absolutely fabulous. Most locations included privately arranged tour guides.

Privately and entirely by transit, we did the Warner Brothers studio tour (expensive but it was really good - there are 2, 4 and 6 hour options, we did the 4 hour option), went to the Getty Villa in Malibu, Santa Monica Pier (cheesy like Niagara's Clifton Hill). It would have been easy to walk down the beach to Venice but we didn't have time. We went to Hollywood (surprisingly grubby for such a key tourist destination, but still worth going there) and strolled the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Grauman's Chinese Theatre is the centre of Hollywood with beautiful architecture and this is where the stars put their foot and hand prints into the pavement going back to the 1920s. We took a bus tour to Beverly Hills and Rodeo Drive. The best tours have open topped buses are based out of the centre of Hollywood, and if time permits, take an on and off service. We also went to Wilshire Boulevard to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The Science museum and La Brea Tar Pits are right next door as well as an automotive museum a block away. We didn't have time to see everything out there.

There were so many other destinations that 12 days was not enough. We didn't try to cover attractions in downtown LA, mostly because we ran out of time. Huntingdon Gardens, Balboa Park and Wilshire/La Brea you can spend a whole day at each and with an on and off bus tour, also Hollywood/Beverly Hills.

Depending on your hotel location, the Fly Away Express bus from LAX to Union Station in downtown LA worked really well. It was no problem getting up to our hotel in downtown Pasadena without a rental/Uber.

Like transit everywhere, transit will take time, but service on key corridors was good. From what I saw, driving in LA is not great with traffic jams on the freeways common.

[phil235]

^That's great, thanks for the detail. Sounds like an amazing trip. I haven't picked a hotel yet, but was hoping to get something that would work using transit. Sounds like the metro is pretty useful for the locations you are talking about, and good to know that the observatory is accessible as that would be on the list. I expect we would be adding downtown and likely Dodger Stadium to the itinerary, but I think both of those are well served (the stadium at least during games). Also interested in seeing the Wiltshire BRT, as that seems like something that you could easily adapt to Carling here.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

^That's great, thanks for the detail. Sounds like an amazing trip. I haven't picked a hotel yet, but was hoping to get something that would work using transit. Sounds like the metro is pretty useful for the locations you are talking about, and good to know that the observatory is accessible as that would be on the list. I expect we would be adding downtown and likely Dodger Stadium to the itinerary, but I think both of those are well served (the stadium at least during games). Also interested in seeing the Wiltshire BRT, as that seems like something that you could easily adapt to Carling here.

I don't think Wilshire is really BRT as you are thinking. For your info, it has the 20 local bus and the 720 limited stop service. Both offer frequent service, and perhaps the 720 is what they are calling BRT but there is no bus lane that I noticed. So, not much useful to really apply to Carling. They are building a subway extension on Wilshire right now. I was waiting for the 20 coming back and noting tar seepage right in the sidewalk and wondered how they can build a subway through that location with all the underground tar deposits. There is a stunning art deco building at the current Wilshire subway terminus at Western Avenue. My comment about this location, is that the city could do a lot better at cleaning up trash. It was otherwise a nice location.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

^That's great, thanks for the detail. Sounds like an amazing trip. I haven't picked a hotel yet, but was hoping to get something that would work using transit. Sounds like the metro is pretty useful for the locations you are talking about, and good to know that the observatory is accessible as that would be on the list. I expect we would be adding downtown and likely Dodger Stadium to the itinerary, but I think both of those are well served (the stadium at least during games). Also interested in seeing the Wiltshire BRT, as that seems like something that you could easily adapt to Carling here.

Just noticed that Dodgers Stadium is close to Chinatown and there is a Line A station at Chinatown, one stop north of Union Station. There is pedestrian walkway across the 110 Freeway that separates the stadium from Chinatown, but it looks walkable. On game days, there is an express bus from Union Station to the stadium.

Our bus tour took us by the Rose Bowl, which was not that impressive from the outside. It was possible to walk there from our Pasadena location but it was a good hike.

[Panpillsnoo]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I haven't been to Los Angeles, but I'd like to visit, maybe next year. Although I feel even 12 days won't be enough, it's really huge.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I don't think Wilshire is really BRT as you are thinking. For your info, it has the 20 local bus and the 720 limited stop service. Both offer frequent service, and perhaps the 720 is what they are calling BRT but there is no bus lane that I noticed. So, not much useful to really apply to Carling. They are building a subway extension on Wilshire right now. I was waiting for the 20 coming back and noting tar seepage right in the sidewalk and wondered how they can build a subway through that location with all the underground tar deposits. There is a stunning art deco building at the current Wilshire subway terminus at Western Avenue. My comment about this location, is that the city could do a lot better at cleaning up trash. It was otherwise a nice location.

Thanks. BRT may be an exaggeration, but I read an article at one point a few years back on express bus lanes that were quite effective in improving service. Maybe they have been downgraded since that time. Never thought about the tar angle, but that can't make for good boring.

I knew about the express bus from Union Station to Dodger Stadium, but thanks for the rest of the info. I gather that it is pretty much surrounded by parking lots, which is unfortunate, but the pedestrian bridge sounds promising.

[homebucket]

Thanks for sharing your experiences! I have noticed that the light rail lines, while being very long and extensive, tend to run quite slowly and be prone to delays, which isn't surprising given it does run at street level for some of its portions which leads to bunching and having to wait at traffic lights. I know folks in LA like to tout that it's got the longest light rail line in the world, but I'm not sure that it is the flex they think it is. With that amount of distance, it would be better off as true heavy rail and fully grade separated (either subway or trenched/elevated for cost savings) for maximum efficiency. In its current form, it's just not competitive with driving, even with LA traffic. I think light rail does have its purpose but in this case, the way LA is using it as long distance/regional transport, it doesn't work very well.

I'm sure you noticed the B/D heavy rail lines worked much more quickly and efficiently. The only problem is they only have 2 lines of them, although one of them is being expanded.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I know folks in LA like to tout that it's got the longest light rail line in the world, but I'm not sure that it is the flex they think it is. With that amount of distance, it would be better off as true heavy rail and fully grade separated (either subway or trenched/elevated for cost savings) for maximum efficiency.

This comment is a bit relevant to Ottawa as well, where we are in the process of running LRT to suburbs outside the greenbelt that are 25 km from downtown. As you point out, those distances would be much better served by heavy commuter rail.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

This comment is a bit relevant to Ottawa as well, where we are in the process of running LRT to suburbs outside the greenbelt that are 25 km from downtown. As you point out, those distances would be much better served by heavy commuter rail.

More than a bit relevant. The cities are completely different in almost every way but both have transit designed by people who don't use transit and prioritize having a stop near you with no regard for time transfers etc.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

This comment is a bit relevant to Ottawa as well, where we are in the process of running LRT to suburbs outside the greenbelt that are 25 km from downtown. As you point out, those distances would be much better served by heavy commuter rail.

The lack of available rail lines and the removal of Union Station downtown limits those possibilities.

The intent of the Greber Plan has backfired, big time.

I remember Lowell Green complaining about the removal of the tracks between Bells Corners and Carleton Place in the early 1990s. He was more forward thinking than any of our politicians.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

More than a bit relevant. The cities are completely different in almost every way but both have transit designed by people who don't use transit and prioritize having a stop near you with no regard for time transfers etc.

Rail transit in Ottawa was designed by tax cutter politicians, accountants and lawyers. What do we expect? And the public has responded to the flawed end product accordingly. Timed transfers?? What do we expect when rail and bus operations are siloed the way it was explained at a public meeting I attended. Rail people, transfers are not my responsibility, talk to the bus people. Bus people, we don't have the budget to have timed transfers with the trains. Politicians, talk to the transit planners, we have washed our hands of transit planning beyond setting the budget. Transit planners, our budget has been restricted, therefore we have to cut service.

LA does have commuter trains and has a large Union Station downtown. In this respect, there is no comparison to Ottawa. Ottawa is achieving full grade separation, which LA can't because of the enormous size of the city. LA has achieved specific tax funding for transit that is now helping rail expansion including the D Line subway extension, the recent new downtown subway connection and the LAX rail connection. Some of the rail routes are on legacy Pacific Electric routes which were never fully grade separated. LA has been forced to make compromises similar to what was implemented in Calgary and Edmonton. Better semi-segregated rail over no rail at all. As I have said, the Line A running north to Pasadena and beyond is quite effective even though not fully grade separated. LA's rail network is not sufficiently comprehensive enough and safe enough to receive full acceptance by LA residents.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The lack of available rail lines and the removal of Union Station downtown limits those possibilities.

The intent of the Greber Plan has backfired, big time.

I remember Lowell Green complaining about the removal of the tracks between Bells Corners and Carleton Place in the early 1990s. He was more forward thinking than any of our politicians.

I liked the idea of a combined tunnel that the task force came up with. That would have been away to get commuter rail downtown

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The lack of available rail lines and the removal of Union Station downtown limits those possibilities.

The intent of the Greber Plan has backfired, big time.

I remember Lowell Green complaining about the removal of the tracks between Bells Corners and Carleton Place in the early 1990s. He was more forward thinking than any of our politicians.

The intent of the Greber plan was to decentralize employment, get people into cars and remove rail from downtown. The intent has been fulfilled rather well.

It was a terrible plan, that is a different issue.

[Truenorth00]

I spent 2.5 years in California. I don't think we have much to learn from LA. Except to avoid their mentality. Transit really is seen as something for the poors. This was also a place where I saw people commute by air for the first time. The LA area, in particular, was just ridiculous, as a massive continuous urban (or rather suburban) agglomeration. I've actually spent 3+ hrs in the middle of the day getting from one side of the area to the other while driving through. That time in California is what really convinced me about urbanism. That place is a disaster for quality of life. Everybody spends all their time in and money on cars.

One particular thing that was actually annoying in California, but has been substantially better in Canada, is the lack of a common fare card for the state. I have a collection of transit fare cards from my time there.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I spent 2.5 years in California. I don't think we have much to learn from LA. Except to avoid their mentality. Transit really is seen as something for the poors. This was also a place where I saw people commute by air for the first time. The LA area, in particular, was just ridiculous, as a massive continuous urban (or rather suburban) agglomeration. I've actually spent 3+ hrs in the middle of the day getting from one side of the area to the other while driving through. That time in California is what really convinced me about urbanism. That place is a disaster for quality of life. Everybody spends all their time in and money on cars.

One particular thing that was actually annoying in California, but has been substantially better in Canada, is the lack of a common fare card for the state. I have a collection of transit fare cards from my time there.

My thoughts exactly. With most of their growth happening in the car-era, you have massive expanses of low density development that’s only traversable by car, and by sitting in a lot of traffic. It just sucks the life out of you (not to mention the effect of the blazing heat compounded by all the asphalt). If there’s one similarity to Ottawa, it’s that building a good transit network at a reasonable cost is difficult because of how LA (and most other cities in CA, NV, AZ, NM, UT, CO, TX, etc.) have been developed.

Contrast that with much older cities (by American standards) like NYC, Boston, Philly etc. and you see how the layout is much more conducive to building a good transit network, where the challenge then becomes maintaining and modernizing century old systems.

Here in Ottawa, the Greber plan really dictated the direction of our city and the effects are still felt to this day. Probably the biggest and most challenging of these effects to overcome would be public attitude towards public transit. That negative attitude is multiplied tenfold when you visit a place like LA. It’s funny because people from LA are generally regarded as being very progressive, but watch how quickly they turn into elitists and scoff at the thought of ever taking public transit.

On its own, LA may appear to have a decent transit network, but when you consider the sheer geographical size and population of the area it’s meant to serve, it’s nothing but a travesty. If anything, what Ottawa can learn from LA is what to expect the former to end up looking like if we don’t change our attitude towards building and using public transit.

[Truenorth00]

While there I got some free transit passes for the town we were in. We decided we could go without a second car and I would use transit as needed. The amount of colleagues who expressed concern seeing me waiting at a bus stop outside the base was both bizarre and amusing at the same time. I got concern about everything from my financial well-being to my family life to my mental health. They really couldn't fathom our decision to be a one car family. Transit was seen as something for just the poor or infirm. And this was in a well off town where transit was clean and decently organized (for small town America).

Strangely though, I found people were much more accepting of active commutes like biking, jogging or longboarding to work. Transit seemed to be their only hang up.

[lrt's friend]

After my return for a week, I will add a couple of more comments.

The LA subway stations are dark, dreary and have a foreboding element because of the presence of the homeless, drug addicted and other questionable characters. There is also a slight essence of sewage. Sound (or smells) familiar? Other than the main interchange stations, stations are eerily quiet. Subway frequency is not that great. We complain about 10 minute frequency??? That is very good compared to LA. The subway trains themselves are also pretty dreary. Our trains are bright and modern in comparison.

Some investment needs to be made to make underground stations bright and cheery. Not just grey concrete.

I think that heavy rail, light rail, high floor, low floor is overblown in our discussions. Reliability, and speed are the most important factors. As I saw it, LA has worse reliability problems compared to Ottawa. LA's light rail lines were just as fast as the subways except when LRT ran on street in mixed traffic. Those on-street operations were relatively short. I don't know if it is at all possible, but the area around Pico Station (Line A and E) should be put underground.

LA's downtown is served by six rapid transit rail spokes at the present time, plus a number of commuter spokes. The LA regional downtown connector, which opened in 2023, greatly improved connections between the six spokes, eliminating a lot of short distance transfers. This was seen as a game changer. Ottawa has created a similar problem, lacking proper downtown connections. This will need to be resolved in the future if we are serious about having an efficient transit network.