He is not being serious. Just repeating the line of many that building rail (often at the expense of bus service) is the solution.

Elsewhere, he has strongly stated the opposite. Rail service needs to be fed by excellent bus service. Rail should not be built if bus ridership is not already high on the corridor.

Do you have the stats for this? I'm not disputing you I just want to see at what thresholds HRT is necessary and where in LA that is. It seems like most cities are shifting to LRT, as it's much cheaper to build and, if you have long enough trains and frequent service, it can be not unlike HRT. The Paris Metro is known for being narrow, while the Calgary C-Train has higher ridership than a lot of American heavy rail.

Well, yeah, of course. Cities are cash-trapped and transit has undergone decades of austerity, which has produced councils and planning departments that want to pursue gentrification as a means for getting more tax revenue. All this means is that there's a focus on big projects that serve affluent areas or areas primed to be gentrified and also there's a desire to have one project do 3 things with mediocrity rather than one thing well. This is a perfect example of that. Rather than continue Crenshaw right up Western or La Brea, there's proposals to do ridiculously inefficient zig-zags to hit West Hollywood. Having a Red Line spur go under SMB into WeHo and then meet up with the Purple Line makes more sense. And for north-south connectivity, add another LRT line under La Cienega would be more costly, sure, but would produce a more comprehensive rapid transit system for that part of the Westside, which would give riders far more options (because, especially in a polycentric city like LA, people aren't all going to the same place) and more efficient routing.

Public transit is a public service so I truly don't get why it's being run like a business. It's point isn't to run a profit from a combination of high ridership and appropriately priced fares, it's supposed to provide the public with good access to their city. We don't do this with police or the military, which eat billions upon billions of dollars every year. It's just ideology governing why cities like LA are pursuing mediocre one-size-fits-all approaches to transit.

You don't need to run public transit as a profitable business but you still should look at getting the best bang for your buck, so you can maximize ridership per dollar.

Otherwise you end up with white elephant American systems that barely get 25% fare box recovery ratio because they were built with little regard to ridership. From the perspective of a Canadian, American transit agencies are often well-funded and get revenue powers that few Canadian cities get (sales taxes, fuel taxes, selling bonds) but they mostly have wasted it.

Light rail is in fact best in reasonably high density areas where it's frequent stops and street level running are best suited. Many parts of inner LA are perfectly suited for this. Longer distances should be covered by Metro's and (European style) regional rail systems that connect suburban hubs to central cities and major inter changes.

In reality it should be light rail and metro and regional rail, not or. But US building costs and poor funding environments mean it's often light rail or nothing.

I don't see why longer distances can't be covered by light rail. If a light rail line has its own ROW and is either fully or substantially grade-separated with near 100% signal priority, light rail can go just as fast if not faster than heavy rail lines. This applies to LA Metro's LRVs in particular, which not only far more resemble traditional heavy rail rolling stock compared to traditional trams that LRVs are based on, but are also much faster than other systems' LRVs. For example, of LA Metro's LRV rolling stock, Kinki Sharyo P3010 LRVs can go at 65 mph, Siemens P2000 LRVs can go at 70 mph, and the AnsaldoBreda P2550 LRVs can go at 77 mph. This is compared to the maximum speeds of around 55 mph in most other light rail systems in the US. These trainsets coincidentally happen to be much wider and taller than Paris Metro rolling stock, coincidentally.

Metro's LRT speeds actually compare pretty well against the speeds of other heavy rail lines both in LA and in other networks. For example, the list below compared speeds on all LA Metro rail lines vs the DC Metro's lines:

LA Metro
A line (former Blue) - 24.9 mph (LRT)
B line (former Red) - 30.3 mph (HRT)
C line (former Green) - 34.4 mph (LRT)
D line (former Purple) - 22.6 mph (HRT)
E line (former Expo) - 19.8 mph (LRT) (this is the really slow line for LA that everyone complains about)
L line (former Gold) - 26.2 mph (LRT)

DC Metro
Yellow line - 25.9 mph (HRT)
Blue line - 27.9 mph (HRT)
Green line - 29.3 mph (HRT)
Red line - 31.4 mph (HRT)
Orange line - 32.9 mph (HRT)

Stats for DC Metro speeds: https://ggwash.org/view/4524/average...-metro-compare

The C Line is completely grade separated, even though its a LRT, so it is faster than any of DC Metro's heavy rail lines or the B and D heavy rail lines in its own network. The A and L Line (which will eventually be split into portions for the A and E Lines) have comparable same speeds as the DC Yellow/Blue Lines. The only real slow light rail line is the E Line, due to its lack of signal priority in downtown sections. This could be rectified in the future through increased grade separation (Metro is already studying grade separating the Flower St. Junction and bury tracks from the junction to 7th Metro, which would solve a major portion of the delays encountered on the A/E Lines)

For me this (not homelessness, druggies, crime, etc.) is the biggest reason I refrain from using road-sharing transit out here… it SHARES THE ROAD. If you had more bus-only lanes with signal priority I’d definitely take it more often.

Not to say commute time is the biggest concern (it shouldn’t be if you’re trying any form of alternatives to driving), but unless there’s a SIG alert-scale slowdown on the freeways, more often than not I find it beats the bus most of the time.

What is the average distance of commutes in Los Angeles? Maybe that is the real problem. Los Angeles is the densest US urban area, but it's still huge, and if people aren't living near where they work, or their workplaces are not concentrated in particular locations, it is going to be hard for transit to serve them effectively and efficiently. You can build more rail lines and bus lanes to increase speeds slightly, add more buses and trains to reduce wait times and reduce the travel times further, but transit ultimately is not for long distances. That is for the car. Transit is about medium distances, especially in a polycentric urban area, with no strong hub for a hub-and-spoke system such as commuter rail. But even commuter rail stations are surrounded by huge parking lots, aren't they?

Walking, then cycling, then transit, then car, each progressively longer distances. Distance is the number one factor in what mode people choose. That's what TOD is all about, isn't it? Increase the density near bus and rail corridors, build pedestrian walkways to bus stops and train stations to allow people to walk in a straight line, reduce the average walking distances to and from transit. So a problem of car dependence is really a problem of long distances, and the long distances is really what Los Angeles should be looking at.

You can see the massive rail system in the Chicago area didn't stop CTA, Metra and Pace from losing 8.5% of their ridership from 2011 to 2019. Even such a rail network can't solve the problem of ever-increasing distances in an ever-expanding urban area.

If they can reduce the distances enough to get people onto transit, then maybe they can try to reduce the distances further to get people onto bikes, then even further to get them walking. One step at a time.

I think what makes LA different from Chicago, is that LA is choking on traffic. And it always has.

Chicago has new high rise construction caused by young professionals migrating from the suburbs and smaller towns in the region to live downtown, but otherwise it is stagnant and there's not a lot of pressure.

I have this theory that Southern California represents the upper limits to how big a city can get and still be mostly reliant on cars. It's also built out. I mean, we are talking about 23.8 million people living on every last square inch of flat land surrounded by mountains. At some point roads don't scale up in capacity like transit does, but like you said the killer is the distance. By now LA is just so massive that there is no cheap land that can be developed into new homes that are affordable to the middle class within an acceptable commute distance even assuming the absolute best case scenario of the route being entirely freeway from start to finish and zero traffic congestion with the ability to drive 75 mph unencumbered by speed limits.

Eventually the big Texas cities are going to hit this limit too. For Houston there's still the 288 corridor south to Manvel and West Fort Worth is still close in, but otherwise you are talking about all new growth being suburbs of suburbs(I think by now, LA is suburbs of suburbs or suburbs).. If you worked or wanted to be in the city proper you either have money or settle for older areas.

There's literally any new sprawl to the south and east in Dallas. Definitely less popular than the north and west, where the sprawl has gone a lot further, to places like Denton, but as commutes become too long, they could provide cheap new tract housing for commuters into the City of Dallas. Somewhere like Wilmer or Forner are as close in as Plano is.

Here in Chicago the only way to get me out of my car is to travel downtown. Parking is insanely high, so I end up walking (10-20 minutes) or taking the train. Otherwise, its driving. Almost anywhere I wanna go in Chicago can be done by car. LA will also be this way for the foreseeable future.

It's actually amazing that L.A. has gotten to this point as basically a car-only metro. But the warning lights are blinking bright red. Heck, they were blinking 30 years ago.

Improving Metrolink/commuter rail I think would help forward sprawl, not combat it. For example, if Metrolink was able to offer frequent 1.5 hours or less travel times between Union Station and Victorville or the Coachella Valley, that would accelerate urban sprawl in these regions as these regions become much more closely linked to LA's commuter shed.

This is actually a big debate, usually between environmental groups and transit advocates. The environmental groups claim extending commuter rail outwards and increasing frequency drives sprawl. The transit advocates claim the sprawl already exists, the upgraded rail manages the sprawl around transit.

I definitely side with the transit advocates. Sprawl isn't fed from rail investments.

You see this debate playing out in the Hudson Valley, where for decades Metro North and rail advocates have been trying to extend the Hudson line north of Poughkeepsie, but the environmental groups say this will just encourage development of scenic areas. I suspect the environmentals are being a bit disingenuous, and know that sprawl is controlled by zoning rules, not transit investments. They don't want the rail bc it will change the character of towns (which is accurate; the towns will be more prosperous and expensive) not bc of sprawl.

I'm not sure what the future holds for LA, but the "cheapest" way to add growth without having to spend a fortune on infrastructure seems to be to further densify the already densest areas of downtown LA + Westlake + Koreatown into a proper walking city.

This is obviously politically contentious, because to become a walking city you have to actually remove traffic lanes, and somehow convince Angelenos that you are going to double or even triple the density along a road like Wilshire boulevard while simulatenously removing a lane of traffic in each direction and giving it over to either enhanced public transit, or enhanced active transport. But LA desperately needs to hand over space to much more efficient forms of mobility if it can grow.

I have heard this argument before. Improving rail service increases sprawl. But generally speaking, it is freeway construction that promoted sprawl in the first place. Almost always, rapid transit follows sprawl, a reaction to congestion on the roads that created the sprawl in the first place.

In a better world, we would build rapid transit as new communities develop instead of freeways. Yes, rapid transit would then be blamed for the sprawl, but at least the built form would be better and these new communities would not be so car dependent.

Has any North American city ever put rapid transit before freeways at least after World War II?

I would not so concerned about sprawl created by rapid transit. At least, what is built is more sustainable.

Isn't this what used to happen? Places like Shaker Square in Cleveland were built out alongside the new rail lines that were constructed, often by the same company. The same company that developed the neighborhood also created the Shaker Heights Rapid.

You cut sprawl by putting limits on it directly through land use codes.

Limiting transit is just trying to keep a place undesirable so people won't move there.

Angelenos and Southern Californians become wealthier during the last 30 years? If we had less disposable income and were much poorer, we would see higher transit share numbers?

The two wealthiest metros in the country have pretty high transit share, while all of the not-so-wealthy metros are nearly 100% car dependent.

People view LA area very differently from other cities.
From a car driving perspective, traveling distances aren't too long in time and distance often because there are no stops to pick up and drop passengers. For transit riders, it's a long process of many stops and transfers. Short distances 7 miles or 20km is fine and ideal, but greater distances isn't so great.

In LA driving 20 miles or less isn't bad, but many drive 30 40 to 70 miles like south bay to Downtown. Or the valley to long beach or Pomona to Westwood. There are those from Irvine into LA, Palmdale to LA, San bern to LA. Yes there are so many who use public transportation these distance. I often read why people don't use public transit for those commutes. Duh .... it's insane.

The thing with public transit is who should it benefit? The people who live in near suburbs, middle suburbs, far a uburbs, exurbs?
Chicago is 250 square miles, new york is 305 square miles, Los Angeles city is 472. But the CTA and MTA system covers primarily the city limits that converge in the central areas of the loop or Manhattan. LA county metro system covering an area 3 times the size of LA city based on the map. That's 5 new york cities, 7 Chicago's. Nyc, Chicago are efficient because people are going to a central highly dense core area and it's rail system follows that.

I think LA needs to focus more on its core areas. I think the core area is huge already the size of 3 Manhattans. From Santa Monica to Beverly Hills Hollywood to downtown 15 miles long and 4 miles wide from Hollywood to 10 freeway. You can't fix that. So you make do with with the things gs you have.

LA should have a network of streetcar trams. On sunset blvd from downtown to echo park, east Hollywood, West Hollywood. Tram on Santa Monica Blvd, , melrose, 3rd st, Olympic, pico, North south trams on Vermont, Western, la brea, Westwood Blvd, bundy, Lincoln.

In Downtown streetcars should go down to historic south central, on Olympic to Koreatown and Westlake, Beverly thru historic filipinotown and rampart, Cypress Park, Lincoln heights El Sereno, south boule heights. These wouldn't duplicate existing lines of expo, blue, red or purple lines. The nearest metro station would be half mile or more away.. streetcars should focus on getting people around locally neighborhood to neighborhood with stops every 1/4 to 1/2 mile, while metro gets them region to region of the county. With most stops from 1/2 mile toMelrose,

The most dense parts of LA are in the core already. Job rich, tourism rich. Shopping, culturem attractions, etc. Allow for more density and development. Allow for more walkable amenities, road diets, tree shade, beautiful street art. Honestly people say LA is not walkable but many parts have mostly connected walkable areas. Often time not enough places of interest within them. I think downtown to Koreatown on Olympic, wilshire , Beverly, are interesting but I doubt someone on the Westside think ethnic shops and good eating places in Westlake or Koreatown are good. Maybe su set Blvd through hipsters cafes, restaurants neighborhoods is more appealing.