The Transit Project LA Should Do That No One Is Talking About 

This would really aid lower income communities who struggle to keep up with LA living cost

From my understanding, the original plan actually was to have what is now the G/Orange line as an extension of the B/Red line subway, but voters got spooked by a methane explosion and passed a law preventing old transit funds from being used for subway construction. Newer funds like Measure M don't have the same restrictions, which is why M was so critical for the D/Purple line subway extension to get started. I'm not exactly sure why they couldn't just use LRT for the Orange line from the start, or bring the Red line tracks above ground after North Hollywood to get around the "subway" restriction, but your proposal was definitely considered at some point.

Great concept, but the Valley is notorious for *NOT* wanting elevated rail. Maybe that opinion has lessened throughout the years, but it is something that has been a major pushback for decades.

The plan for the Red Line is actually to extend it to Burbank Airport. The Orange Line will be converted into light rail (that was always the plan and it's being grade-separated) but it will extend east through Burbank and Glendale to hit the A Line in San Gabriel Valley creating an East-West link between the valleys (which is necessary since currently you'd have to go all the way into downtown and then back out along the Red Line).

100%. Few things about LA frustrate me more than the unfulfilled promise of the LA Metro.

You have my subscription. We need more LA-Based transit RU-vidrs. I must disagree re: the Sepulveda Pass line. It is probably the most necessary line Metro is planning.

It's crazy to think how much better transit in LA would be if the city/county hired people like you to be in charge. Or at the very least if the people in charge decided to listen to people like you.

I would support this idea, but it's wishful thinking. Also, I like the idea of the G Line as a Light Rail Line with the potential of extending it through Eagle Rock to Pasadena. I don't think travel time versus driving is even worth worrying about. A car is almost always going to be faster, door-to-door, in a place like LA. Commuter Rail(Metrolink) is the only public transport that can consistently compete with the car, and even then it falls flat in terms of last mile.(Most folks are driving to/from the stations) The main appeal of public transit in Los Angeles as a whole is cost and less stress. One thing to note is that if Los Angeles had kept it's original streetcar system, the light rail system would've probably been even slower because it wouldn't have many of the grade of separations the current system has.

I literally have this as a plan in every single LA transit expansion Plans I do for fun! Thank you for highlighting this low hanging fruit option for extension of the B line!

The green line has actually been fully grade separated from opening to current being entirely in the 105 median and elevated

I have actually been saying this all along, when they were first building the THEN "Orange Line", that it should have been a rail line, and an extension of that was THEN the Red Line, bringing the Red Line all the way to Warner Center, and eventually, to Chatsworth. But here is another thing Metro should do. To keep with their "one seat ride" theme that had them build the Metro Connector, so the A Line and the E Line could PASS THROUGH Downtown LA rather than end there, and then continue on their journeys on the other side of Downtown LA, the Red Line (B Line) should be extended beyond Union Station, and ultimately replace the proposed West Santa Ana Branch line. After Union Station, this heavy rail Red Line (B Line) should follow the LA River riverbed up to the point where the right of way that the future West Santa Ana Branch Line is suppose to ride in, crosses the LA River riverbed, at which point the Red Line (B Line) can then follow the railroad right of way all the way to Artesia, which would be instead of the West Santa Ana Branch line. Perhaps the line can continue passed where it was supposed to end in Artesia, and it can end at Disneyland instead, creating a way for people to get to Disneyland without their cars and without having to pay for expensive parking! This would create a heavy rail Red Line (B Line) that goes from Chatsworth all the way to Disneyland, and it would be consistent with Metro's "one seat ride" plan of rail lines passing through, rather than ending in, Downtown LA, eliminating transfers, and instead of having separate lines (B Line and West Santa Ana Branch Line), it could be all tied together as one line!

I think point 1 about the general lack of cleanliness and safety on trains is because of point 2 that the end to end travel times are poor (so anyone with a choice drives). We can obviously do more than one thing at a time, but to me the hardest thing is improving land use around stations. If that land use improves everything else will follow.

I clicked on this video because I myself looked at an LA Metro map recently and also thought to myself “why don’t they just make the G Line an extension of the B Line”, but this is perhaps one of the most logical and well rounded US transit videos I’ve encountered on RU-vid. You pretty much have hit every point spot on (even the ones most transit advocates fail to admit) The fact that Metro and the LA Government are willing to spend billions on all these new projects (which don’t get me wrong are still good) but fail to properly make the most minimal adjustments that makes the existing part of the system feel much less hostile in terms of efficiency and safety gives off a “I’m only doing this for the photo ops and campaign cred” kind of vibe

To be fair the ridership from 2019 has to do the fact the A Line was shut down most of the year for renovations. Despite rail was still declining in 2019, ridership would’ve been around 100-105M at the most if A Line was never shut down in the first place.

A small correction. Unless something changed since Covid (been working at home since then), the B Line station in North Hollywood has had stairs on both sides of Lankershim even when it was still the Red Line, so we haven't had to walk across the street to transfer for several years.

Yes, this option has been discussed ever since the G line was proposed as a rail line. The reason it was never given serious consideration was the massive elevated superstructure required to completely grade separated. Both residents and businesses didn't want that. Thwre has historically been huge NIMBYism in the SFV. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if LA Metro actually would prefer to extend the B line as you suggest. I live on the Eastside and have attended several LA Metro community input meetings on the extension if the E line to Whittier. At ine point LA Metro was proposing a route down Garfield Blvd that would be completely elevated from Pomona to Washington Blvd and it was aggressively rejected by the community. Another example of that was an initial proposal for running an elevated heavy rail line down Wilshire Blvd because it could be built faster and cheaper than a subway. It was also soundly rejected especially by businesses in this case. So, no, a completely elevated heavy rail kine down the middle of a commercial street will never happen in LA. BTW, all of LA's light rail lines are partially grade separated, and the C line is fully grade separated too. LA Metro is working on other ways to improve capacity over the long run. One is implementing signal prioritization across the system, but that will require replacements of traffic lights and won't be cheap. They would have to phase it in over time. Another is to increase the frequency of the trains. LA Metro announced a couple of months ago that this month they would be reducing the frequency of both the subway and the A and E lines. By reducing frequency I mean the trains would ve coming more often. Then a longer term solution is to grade separate the WYE at Flower and Washington which is limiting how often trains can run. One other thing, you say that the E line could actually be faster than driving but only during rush hour which I agree with 190%. I actually tested it. And the E line from Santa Monica to East LA Indiana station took 1:05. Driving that same distance took about 1/2 hour longer on a Friday at about 5:30pm. However, do you know what today is considered to be the window for rush hour traffic along the 10, 5, and 405? It's between 6-8 hours total per day. Between 3-4 hour window in the morning and evening. So taking the E line in this example could benefit many nore people than you think 5 days a week. I used to drive from East LA to Westwood 5 days a week and the rush hour traffic window has only widen over the years. Sorry for the long post 😊

Is it legally forbidden to give public transport automatic priority at traffic lights in the state of California or federally? This would be a fairly easy to implement and cost effective solution for most of the problems with the existing light rail lines.

The argument with the "low density" is honestly a bit of a strawman argument, as Berlin, Germany has a similar population density of LA (4,126/sqkm for Berlin vs 3,206.29/sqkm for LA)

The reason why the orange line is a BRT is because of the Robbins Bill named by former state senator Alan Robbins that didn't allowed light rail. In 2014, the former state governor Jerry Brown reversed that decision in 2014. Much of the attention is now on the East San Fernando Transit Corridor and Sepulveda Transit Corridor which will changed enormously to connect the Valley to the Westside. A big game charger for all of LA. In Van Nuys, there has been steady growth of density with multi-housing projects with 5-6 storied buildings. It's part of the TOC which creates density along the rail lines. Seriously, the valley is going though major shifts into a multi-mobility area in 20 years.

I think a big problem is that we Americans are completely oblivious about how good basic transit service is in other developed countries. Our investment into our systems is downright embarrassing. Los Angeles is such beautiful place but it is hard to enjoy when you're always in a car. Hoping for good things for you guys from up here in the Bay Area.

Stockholm also has an extensive regional rail network with frequent service

This sounds like an interesting proposal. I agree with all of your arguments and your reasoning seems sound. I don't really have skin in the game, as I don't live in LA, but as a transit enthusiast I do hope to see better utilization of transit in the US overall. It's a shame that LA is spending so much to build so much (decent) transit, but has such low ridership. My personal opinion kind of aligns with your argument, that frequency and speeds are what's limiting ridership. In addition though, I think that car centric design plays a big role, as it's really uncomfortable being in the city without a car, even if it's technically possible. With more bike infrastructure, and demand for walkability increasing, these things might solve themselves, but service frequency is going to need to increase to make it truly worth it.

One correction: Despite being light rail, the C line is fully grade separated. Also K line has signal preemption at nearly all traffic signals so that's not too bad

Alexander hits a major point! Safety! No one wants to sit next to shouting, filthy smelling person who defecates on the seats. I used the Blue line this summer and I can say that it reinforced the idea that I much rather battle with traffic in my car.

YEEES I AM SO GLAD I FOUND THIS!! I feel like I am so alone on this idea when everyone talks about extending the B Line to Burbank Airport

They are never going to have heavy rail go above ground for as long as it would have to go in the valley. The subway uses a third rail and not overhead catenary. They would have to grade separate the entire route. That means an entirely elevated system for a really long distance. That would cost a fortune. There is a reason that the subway is completely underground, except at the rail yard.

stockholm is a much denser then la beause it is squeed between river sea and mountains. it not really a far comparision.

Excellent ideas I hope Metro listens to good ideas.

I think the issue with low ridership with LA metro is that very few of the lines effectively serve the urban core of the city. Currently only B/D lines serve this area. The remaining lines serve downtown which by other cities standards is fairly week and is on the eastern end of the core. I define the core region as follows (the area south of the Hollywood Hills, North of I-10, east of Beverly Hill, and West of thr LA River) The core region has some of the highest ridership bus routes and some of the most congested streets in the county. Metro is only planning 2 projects that will be serving this area in the near future. The underconstruction D line extension and thr future K Line north.

Great idea. I always thought about making the G line into light rail, but never just extending the B line. That legit solves everything wrong with the G.

we gotta get Metro to see this video at some point before 2051!

The C Line is completely grade separated and has its own ROW also

This + Send it down Vermont all the way to the sea to replace whatever the J?/Silver Line is supposed to be

Yes, metro needs signal prioritization for all trains.

There are young Metro systems that move a lot of people, but none is located north of the Rio Grande, I am talking about the Mexico City metro, São Paulo metro, and Santiago metro, they are very young system that was built slowly, most starting from the 1980s and 1970s and is better than LA metro system. I just came to the conclusion that Americans can't plan metro system well, they don't want to give up on car dependency, and even like it and they don't have an idea how to manage such a system.

Where Metro stands today, extending the B line could seem like a redundancy, since the westside of the San Fernando Valley is (poorly) served by Metrolink. I think once the Sepulveda Line opens, it'll open the opportunity for people to travel efficiently from the Valley to the Westside on transit, where major job centers are. Only then do I think the B-Line extension would have a real shot at becoming a reality.

You convinced me. There's going to be a resistance to elevated rail in the car-dependent Valley, if the Sepulveda Pass fiasco is any indication. But with a good transit-oriented plan, this extended B line would also connect with the Sepulveda Pass line, making The Valley way less car dependent.

Nah B line should go to Burbank Airport and downtown Burbank for connection to Metrolink and eventually HSR

This does seam like a project that should be made a priority, and with its price in a country like this, and a state that is one of the most expensive, in a city that is one of the most expensive places to build in that state, you'd think this would be an instant winner on any ballet.

i was a tourist in la like 5 months ago and i was excited to go on the la metro but i ended up not cause it was like rlly sketch and weird and seemed dangerous 😭😭 there was also like no one in there at all and i just did not feel safe. they need a lot more security!!

Well we just have to make sure to not let the NIMBYS stop this. SoCal as a whole is just infamous for NIMBYS but with car expenses this aspect could change. But very good points about what needs to be done.

Only California could screw this up. Trains stopped at red lights? WHY??? I am the last thing from a tree hugger but you can't fix stupid if you keep electing them.

I’m only at minute 7:30 and I couldn’t agree more. I wrote a paper on this at university in the early 2000s as the Gold (now A) line was being installed, noting that competition with traffic and red light would challenge the success of the light rail line.

Definitely some good points, I definitely think right of way is a huge problem for Metro. but even if G line ridership doubled, it would be overserved with the larger B line trains. I think the valley will be much better off with a Sepulveda heavy rail line. There's a MASSIVE demand as seen on the 405. Plus it decentralizes the system, not every line should lead to downtown. I agree about transfers tho, I think the East San Fernando line should interline with a future light rail G line to the NoHo station, and then one or the other should keep going east through to Pasadena.

I believe that once we have more lines fully built up and running, like G line connected all the way to norwalk, ridership will increase. I know for me one huge deterrent for me is lack of connections outside of downtown and no direct route to LAX. I hope large events such as the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics will help change the culture and get Angelenos comfortable with the metro!

I love this idea so much, solely on the idea of adding more capacity for riders who use the G Line. The buses that are in transit rn can only hold so many people and unfortunately it’s often filled to capacity, meaning that most riders have to wait an extra 15 minutes for another bus to come by (which has happened to me before).

Well here’s an easy fix rip up the LRT tracks on E and build a proper EL line and replace the slow service

I would extend the G Line to the Santa Anita Park. with stops in Burbank, Glendale, Eagle Rock to Pasadena. Maybe even to La Verne. I would also extend the B Line to Olive View Ucla. Go north on Lankershim, Left on Webb continue to Laurel Canyon Right on Osborne Left on Foothill and end at Olive View Ucla Medical Center. That's how u can expand and connect more people and increase ridership. Go Metro.

Neah, sorry dude. Density is the problem. When you have a critical mass of density you can scale your transit system to that density and cars become useless. Everyone takes the metro because it's just better. The metro gets you everywhere you would ever want to go because there are not areas that don't cater to metro users. The metro is the everything. But for that you need a critical mass of users and a reorganization of society around the metro. There's no way to hack this. You just need enough stuff to do close to the stations and enough people living nearby. That's it.

LA County Metro should have a zero tolerance policy for antisocial behaviour (and they should advertise this in announcements).

I would love to take public transit. I don't want to get mugged. I agree that crime and perceptions of safety is the number one hurdle.

I honestly seeing them converting the orange line to light rail and having it extend east to Pasadena and connecting with the Blue Line to Azusa. As for the red line, I feel a connection that would make more sense is a northern extension to Bob Hope Airport so airline passengers form there can have the direct connection to Downtown LA. (I mean I’d rather pay $1.75 for the subway than $10 for Metrolink)

When you proposed turning an old overground heavy rail alignment into a metro, my first thought was, "So like the Taipei mrt red line?" And then you immediately proceeded to show an image of the Taipei mrt red line 😂 10:12

My take: why not complete the prject for even cheaper by just bringing back the old rail crossing gates for the Orange Line BRT? You'll instantly realize a 30% speed increase for essentially zero cost, rather than $600m for grade separation.

4:20 (oh wow, that's perfect): As a person who lives in the City of Philadelphia, let me share some insight that might be helpful; crime is a problem for public transit's success and I feel like a lot of young people underestimate how much of an issue it really is. If people don't feel safe enough to ride on your system, people simply just won't and will opt-out for car travel. What people need to realize however is crime is not an issue the public transit authorities need to fix because theu simply can't. Take SEPTA for example - shoot outs, lootings and robberies, people being tipped on, you name it, it's probably happened. Homelessness and drug abuse is so high, you have zombies sleeping on the trains over night (mostly on the El, the Broad Street line, not so much). When getting on the El or the BSL, you have to pick your struggle - go through the Badlands or go through the Hood, and regional rail isn't a good an consistent option because frequencies are so terrible and it's even worse in the Northeast because we barely have it. If you decide to opt-out and take local buses instead, unless you're in Center City or Northeast, any bus that goes anywhere basically goes through in the city goes through the Hood - and not just the outskirts of the hood, they go DEEP into the hood (either North or West Philly Hood depending on the route). Hell, even a woman got raped on the El befote and no one did anything - probably the New Yorker mentality that came to Philly since everyone wants to flee NYC, but that's not the point. SEPTA is VERY underfunded, very short staff, and they don't have the best relationship with the general public in the Delaware Valley; even though they have security, fuck shit happens all the time - be it on the news or not. Everyone likes to blame SEPTA for every single problem on the system, and as a fan of SEPTA, they do make decisions that I as a Transit Enthusiast despise - not just me either, other fans or SEPTA like Alan Fisher also hate decisions that SEPTA makes - however us as a community put too much blame on SEPTA as sometimes we blame them for problems that are completely out of there control. SEPTA is currently trying to redesign their bus network, modernized our trolley system, make way finding better for train lines, fix issues with regional rail, and fix up stations; it's not perfect, but damnit they're doing their best but our homeless and crime situation (keeping in mind how they're underfunded) is making it difficult as people are going to continue to put blame on them for stuff that they can't control. Our homeless and crime situation shouldn't be an issue SEPTA has to fix, this is a problem that the City of Philadelphia has to fix. My point nr is don't project issues that are a city problem onto public transit because it affects them yes, but they can't fix it, only the city and state can.

A few things to note. 1. Over the last few years the city of Los Angeles has seen a great deal of transit ridership growth. Freeway usage is down, but feels more crowded due to freeway capacity constraints. 2. The B line was originally planned to be an elevated line down Sherman way as it was meant to follow the original route for the Pacific Electric Hollywood Line, it honestly would be great to have this, however, the valley for some reason will fight elevated rail (even though it delivers projects faster and doesn’t have the noise problems of the past, traffic is louder than elevated rail). The original proposal (underground) would be the best option to build since it may have the most community support. The Sherman way route provides more access to people who live on the Sherman way corridor who commute into Downtown. The Sherman way corridor has also been very underinvested in. 2. The g line has its purpose local transportation for people who live south of Sherman way and can accomplish some pretty good easy west trips in the future (Chatsworth to Pasadena). It’s a great east west route that serves a lot of local trips and regional East west trips. The future conversion to rail of both the g line and the NoHo line means that a SFV-SGV LRT is very possible.

Hang on, would the B & D shared section have capacity to run enough service to meet demand if the G was converted to an extension of the B? Or would you overwhelm the shared section and have to build an expensive-ass bypass tunnel for the D line to completely separate it from the B to meet demand?

They should make the intersections with rail road crossing for the light rail

One project that I wished you mentioned was the San Fernando Valley dedicated brt line that was planned and changed to a bus peak hour corridor.

Yup, replacing the G (orange) line with an underground rail line would be amazing, but it seems like wishful thinking to me. When it takes 38-45 min to make a trip to downtown from the valley by car, but 2hrs and 30 min by bus+rail, it is not difficult to understand why people continue to choose to drive.

TL;DR: To increase ridership we need more lines and more extensions for more connections, but the connections need to serve places people actually need to go to. I believe it was actually planned for the B Line to continue on North on Lankershim and then turning away and towards Van Nuys and eventually making it to Northridge. This is why the current North Hollywood station has two platforms - it's actually meant to be a pass-through station, not a terminus. I'm not so sure of the history of the Orange Line (G Line), but as far as I understand it there was always the idea of using up the right-of-way separate from the B Line. The current plan to switch it into a light rail line was always there from the get go. Originally it was meant to be a light rail but Metro went with the bus because it didn't have the funding for full tracking. Metro actually said that they would upgrade it if the line worked out. As flawed as Metro is, the G Line was a success from the beginning, so the upgrade make sense. Heavy rail trains are noisy. Having an above ground train would bring that noise right to the houses next to the current G Line. It would be a very difficult battle to get this approved, especially in Encino. I think the light rail option is the better option. And metro intends on extending the line to Glendale. This is yet to be seen but I am hoping it does get done. I Also don't like the idea of eliminating the potential of the G Line's extension where we just join it to the B Line. It would just truncate it at to where it is now and no more SFV-Glendale connection. I cannot really tell you exactly why Metro is losing ridership - some say that the new lines are syphoning people away from buses, but that doesn't explain the overall loss. But I can tell you that one thing that limits anyone from taking Metro is that there aren't enough connections. Taking funding away from the Sepulveda Line or other extensions is totally the wrong way to go. Metro needs to extend lines, and add more lines. One line needs to feed the other and they need to network out further. Just the Sepulveda Line, if it ever gets built; might actually get one of the highest riderships in the country. Currently, also, many of the lines go from nowhere and take you nowhere. K Line is super guilty of this. Once the extension is built it will go _near_ LAX but the other end will still be nowhere, until they build out the extension to WeHo. The NoHo station is another one. Although NoHo might actually be a local hot spot, in the grand scale of things; it's still not much: Some cafes and a few offices and one park. It's not a business center, major attraction, or a vital destination. A better location, I would argue, would be at Van Nuys and Ventura. You have so many shops and business there and the neighborhood there (and yes, this is just dream due to the NIMBYs in that area). But I think the problem here is not just Metro. It's a mentality that we have lost since America stopped building good transit. If you look at other nations, and not just the European ones either; you will see that when they build their lines, they make sure to make them so that they stop at landmarks and important civic structures. They go to town centers, business centers, and through residential neighborhoods. This is because they try to cover the three basic mundane needs: home, work, and shopping. Shopping might not seem crucial, but it is. If a lightbulb goes out, you'll go to the store and get one. But most of us will get in our car and go to the store to just buy that one item. Why not make it easier to do that on transit (this is an exaggeration, of course). But, if your train takes you through a shopping district, why not just do the shopping on your way home anyway? This is where we are failing. The stops are not covering all these needs (you might take the Metro to go to work and home and that it). But also, something other countries do is make sure to take care of non routine needs. Many of their lines make sure to go hospitals, schools, libraries, parks, courthouses, etc. Some of the current lines manage to connect to some of these, but it doesn't really come off as a deliberate connection. Only some bus lines connect directly. The Stop at medical centers on Sunset are mostly coincidental and I feel that's the same for Civic Center. There are no lines going to Griffith Park, LA Zoo, Olive View Medical Center, CSUN, Mission College, any of the missions, LBCC, etc. The only line that does actually well in this regard is the G Line since it connects Van Nuys Civic center and two community colleges (Although the Winnetka station is still a bit inconvenient since it's a good walk away from the actual college). The lines should be connecting these institutions with the communities that they serve as well. And they should connect to leisure activities just as well. When are we gonna get our train to Dodger Stadium? (I know someone might mention USC and the E Line, but that was Metro cheating as the E Line mostly follows an old Pacific Electric line). What I'm trying to say is that Metro shouldn't just build with "if you build it, they will come" mentality, but with the "connect to places people need to go" mentality. I mean, just look at the Pico stop on the A and E Line. Why couldn't that had been at the doorstep of the LA Convention Center?

I live in Westwood and commute on the E Line regularly But it’s faster for me to take the Big Blue Bus line 7 to Santa Monica College than it is to take the E Line There’s almost a 15-20 minute difference in the commute time because the E Line Goes slower than the buses and has to stop at fewer red lights. Imagine visiting LA during the Olympics in 2028 from a city like Tokyo or London you get on the new K Line from LAX just to get stuck at multiple red lights and get to your hotel a hour late because Metro thinks making light rail that submits to the will of car owners is “progress”

I hate to admit it but yes, safety is huge on our subways here. I wish it felt like keeping troublemakers out felt like more of a priority for Metro.

Something about those lines in the video remind me of the DC Metro map, because this one here looks JUST like it!

Saying that the G Line will be grade-separated is deceptive as only two intersections will be grade-separated. If this would be converted to heavy rail the cheapest it wouldn't be cheaper then 5 billion and likely would cost more then 9 billion. Putting gates on the corridor will do plenty to prevent the bus from stopping at the lights and light rail will be fine.

I think you're right. Moreover, the amount of dislocation from converting to rail would be best to do now, before it gains a lot more passengers after LRT conversion.

Interesting, but I’m gonna disagree. Metrolink already goes from the valley to downtown (and its service needs to be improved). I think the B line should be extended to Burbank Airport, a very cost effective simple extension which will also be near the future Cal HSR station. G should be converted to light rail and connect to burbank glendale pasadena. I’m a bit biased because I live in the valley and have family in those areas. It would provide a solid east west form of travel that does not converge in downtown which is great for future proofing. I support all pro transit content anyway good job

iirc they've studied putting the valley section underground and ridership doesn't justify the cost of tunneling. I very much agree about limiting transfers.

i think it has a lot to do with PR as well. the speed and safety of the metro doesnt seem far off from other passenger rail systems in the US, but you dont think "metro" when you hear LA the same way you might with somewhere like NYC,

A better plan would be a new subway along Ventura, leave the G as it is, and extend the B line to Burbank to meet up with Metrolink and high speed rail.

the turn from the metro line onto the g line is probably way to sharp for long metro trains to do safely.

What about a conversion to light rail and in combination with the East San Fernando Valley Light Rail to make a 3 line triangle. The B line can continue underground to Van Nuys multimodal Metrolink station and continue as the Sepulveda Metro to LAX

YES YES YES

love this idea! it would be awesome to see an at-grade metro in the SF valley

Idk if its wrong to believe this, but i feel like itd be safer if the ridership numbers go up

If the LRT in La were Either Grade Separated Or have Signal Priority & if the Whole LA Metro We’re Safe & Expandex. The La metro would have Ridership on Par with NYC

Metrolink-Amtrak speed & frequency upgrades are coming to San Fernando Valley, particularly Burbank Airport South, Downtown Burbank & Glendale by 2030. East SFV Light Rail and NoHo-Burbank-Glendale-Eagle Rock-Pasadena BRT will also be a good commute alternatives. Those developments open the door to re-imagine the future for Metro G Line BRT. If politicians can be convinced, Metro G Line BRT should convert to a Metro B Line Heavy Rail extension from NoHo to Chatsworth. Assuming another Federal Infrastucture Bill is passed in 2027-28, Metro's Sepulveda & B Line extension grant applications should be ready on Day 1. Since Metro already own the Rights-of-Way, it can be built as mostly aerial Heavy Rail for $4B (compared to $2B Metro Light Rail conversion) for these benefits: • Stations can average 1 mile apart for 30-32 mph average speed • Fast, 1-seat rides between San Fernando Valley & DTLA • 4-8 minute Metro train frequency • Mitigate car congestion, smog & GHG emissions from Highway 101 between SFV & DTLA • Connect with Metro Sepulveda Heavy Rail (Alt 6) & Metro East SFV Light Rail at Van Nuys Station • Connect with Metrolink & Amtrak at Chatsworth Station Given these factors, Metro B Line Heavy Rail Extension should deliver 4X more ridership compared to Light Rail conversion.

I agree! I said this years ago.

YES!!!

What I am taking from this is the best thing you can do to promote mobility in LA is to do away with highly subsidized mass transit, and putting 100% of spending into projects that promote movement of cars to prepare for robo-taxis which are better suited to LA and can move riders more economically than LA's buses and trains. For what we are spending on just subsidizing light rail operation, how many hundreds of miles of loops can Boring build?

One way to improve the light rail without much effort or expense would be to give the light rail full priority at all intersections (i.e. as a light rail vehicle approaches the intersection, sensors detect it and ensure the light is green when it gets there). Many cities around the world do that with their light rail systems (and even buses in some cases), why can't LA do that? It would lead to faster journey times on said light rail and presumably more ridership which then leads to less cars on the road and better outcomes for everyone.

Hey Alexander, Fellow LA native here. Wasn't metro trying to extend the red line to Sylmar?

Stopping at red lights shouldn’t be a problem- with train detection ahead of the crossings ! Over the pond it’s a normal procedure… Btw; for busses too

Dear US cities BUILD ELEVATED METRO like the rest of the world

Could the red light slowdown issues be solved by something simple as transit signal priority?

The orange bus line was deliberately placed on the old Pacific electric right of way because it was less expensive Good luck trying to convert it back to rail service Understand something Los Angeles county does not have the money for all these new transportation projects They have received Federal funding and it's still not enough So where do you think the money will come from

the problem is the residents: "OH NO, NO NO NO, IM NOT HAVING A L TRAIN RIGHT ABOVE LITTLE TIMMYS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. NOISE! POLLUTION! POOR PEOPLE! IM NOT HAVING BIG CONCRETE TRAIN IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD NO NO NO oh you want to add three lanes to the 101? awesome! this will fix traffic!"

this is a super good video damn

red light example ****AHEM PHOENIX AHEM*****

They are only grade separating the area between Sepúlveda and Van Nuys, the rest of the intersections are getting gated crossings.

$8 billion dollars spend on waiting for red lights on tne train, Caucasian logic.

25 years the C line has never stopped at a red light. there are no at grade crossings

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't giving signal priority to the transit lines be a much cheaper fix? I don't know why on earth this wasn't already done. LRT should always have signal priority so they don't have to stop at lights

Why did the county get rid of the old Red Car trollies? Any system you build now a days would never compare to the Red Car trollies that went through and around all of Southern California. They were timely, accessible, and used clean energy.

Isn't the biggest issue with LA Metro the really low frequencies?

IF IT'S GHETTOO.. Stop shooten on the train damit

What’s the headway? It’s my understanding that all too often a potential rider has to wait twenty minutes or more between trains As to safety, stop drinking the KoolAid. Drivers will use every excuse they can as long as their driving is subsidized the way American driving is. Nobody in that situation wants to mix with people they don’t want to like Here in much denser SF, where the subway runs at 50mph, and most main line trains and buses have 7-10 minute headways people still make excuses to drive, including a 78 year old woman who killed an entire family driving too fast on city streets, and a drunk 81 year old man who killed a cyclist But red lights are something we have in common. They don’t create safety, quite the opposite, and too many of them delay traffic especially when they don’t give priority to transit, cyclists as nd pedestrians

2051 is way too long Los Angeles, to convert the G line to a railway system. Just convert it a heavy rail, then reroute the rail south to downtown San Pedro along Wilshire/ Vermont station. This would be beneficial not just for the locals, but the 2028 Olympic games as of this post. Once again Los Angeles safety is a right, not a Luxury. How obnoxious this is, not having enough securities for riders like me just to go to work.

LA doesn't need more transit.... LA needs Robocop.

If it was elevated, the NIMBYs would be out in force.