That stutter was in the original Metro footage, probably recovered from vhs years ago. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-maCwl4gJSGQ.htmlm
I still think it's stupid the trains don't have traffic light priority EVERYWHERE. You don't need the gates over the road, but you can give turning and cross traffic the red light every time the train comes. The requirements to reduce traffic impact are terrible since it undermines the usefulness of mass transit.
+ghostbirdofprey Agreed. Luckily California law has been fixed since the Expo Line's environmental reports. The City of Los Angeles, on the other hand, has forcefully ignored the issue for decades.
It's all about balance. You can't expect drivers to wait 2 minutes or more for a train to pass by every other cycle if it has a short headway. Drivers will get impatient and run the red light if they continue to see this pattern with a red light with no train or cross traffic for 1-2 minutes. That can have deadly results. Yes, I know. Damn those cars. Damn those drivers. They can wait. However, one thing that no one has mentioned yet is...pedestrians and bicyclists. They have to wait too! You think pedestrians and bicyclists are going to wait 2 minutes or more for a train that they think they can beat but don't see coming? Bicyclists will risk it more than pedestrians, but either way, long waits for any mode of transportation only encourages disrespect for traffic signals. That's why LA has so many 2-phase signals and permitted left turns. I think people are so used to these "short" waits that traffic officials chose to keep the signal cycles as short as possible. Good signal timing can help reduce the delays so that when the train is arriving at the intersection, it has a better chance of being in that window when the signal priority can be activated. However, it is not a 100% chance that they will have signal priority every time they reach an intersection.
They trolleys have right of way due to limited maneuverability when running on street grade. But they must stop at traffic lights. There are no gates in Boston but the track's run on the left side of the street because there were median strips back in the day
It's also worth mentioning that the Expo Line is only in the middle of the street during the short section it shares with the Blue Line. After that, it either runs on a surface-level right of way with crossing gates, or on elevated viaducts
Easy: Metro doesn't have the money and it would take forever to build. Light rail is cheap. The problem is it's awfully slow when it's on streets competing with traffic. If the MTA did things right, all light rail should be separate from street traffic. Have it on an elevated line for the entire distance.
elevated rail has no longer been a best practice since we saw what it did to chicago and vancouver. plus you talk about cost and time yet you argue for a costly and time consuming construction process. and there are ways to prioritize and compromise the conflicting rationalities between rail and non rail.
Transit priority signalling is a relatively simple fix that exists elsewhere though I 1000% agree with your comment. Grade separation may cost MORE upfront but in the long-term? #worthit
@@gotacallfromvishal What it did to Vancouver? The Skytrain has been an absolute success which is why they're doubling down on it and want to make even more of it. New systems like HART and REM were inspired by Vancouver, and many other cities around the world are following suit like Copenhagen.
The Expo will take about 40 minutes to get from DTLA to Santa Monica if it has signal preemption at DTLA to USC. That's all that's needed in the short term. Now for the long term, Metro can fence the ROW from the streets in those above mentioned areas and install crossing gates so the trains can go faster. Getting rid of the streetcar elements of Expo can potentially shave travel time down to 30 minutes.
Crossing gates and 55mph operation is very unlikely in the heart of Downtown LA. Remember that a crossing gate has more impact on traffic than prioritized/preempted/synchronized street running. Heck it would probably impact pedestrian traffic as well, not just cars. The section from Western to USC may be a candidate for this, though. There's a really big question now, 30 years into Light Rail, about whether we can actually 'convert' light rail into subways cheaply and effectively. It may turn out to be cheaper just to build a second Regional Connector serving new people, rather than trying to depress the Flower St segment while it is under daily service.
I'm honestly surprised a full central subway/LRT loop was never planned for downtown LA. Almost every city where lines connect at least had a plan in place at SOME point...
Subways would be a lot cheaper if they stopped building deep stations with TBM equipment and used traditional cut and cover. Fear of the slightest complaint over the short disruption caused by cut and cover is what drags out these projects in cost and time. All we're doing with TBM built subways is enriching a few highly specialized international firms while cut and cover construction can be done by ordinary domestic contractors.
SSN 21 The problem with modern day subways is the need for ancillary structures at each stop. Plus the need to make them handicap accessible. Here in nyc each new stop on the new Q train has three ancillary buildings. These buildings provide ventilation in case of a fire. So you can imagine all the costs associated with tunneling down to the tracks for each one. What’s more important? Having a useable subway that is potentially dangerous or none at all. We can’t build all the tunnels we need at the price it is nowadays. Not sure cut and cover would reduce these costs much anyhow.
qjtvaddict unfortunately there should be no new subways built until the costs are brought under control. What’s happened is that the powers that be that are making up to 500 dollars an hour are going to really hurt NYs ability to grow and attract new business. It’s really extortion. We should have gotten triple the miles of new tunnels for the price we payed.
Yes, but this was a result of the subway option getting cancelled. Once the original Wilshire subway was killed, Metro was forced to move to the ROW in order to build a similar thing for cheaper.
Expo serves Downtown to Santa Monica and places along it's route. Wilshire has millions of sq ft of offices, shops and museums etc along it's route. It has much bigger destinations along it's route than expo. It can justify it's own metro. There are several other mahor street corridors that could justify subway, but subway is so expensive! You build what you can afford
Henry Waxman, who was instrumental in banning subway tunneling in his district in the mid-1980s finally lifted the ban with then L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's persuasion mid-December 2005. Ironically, the Expo Line, which was conceived by local advocates since 1989, further fueled after the 1998 ban of the use of local tax dollars for subway construction, was far in it's environmental process (albeit itself took a long time) had its EIR approved at the same time. Even with the Purple Line subway tunnelling ban lifted, there was still no money to construct it in 2005, it wouldn't be until the successful passage of Measure R in 2008, then Measure M in 2016 (after the failure of Measure J in 2012) did the Wilshire subway finally became reality, but by the time public scoping for the Purple Line started, the Expo Line to Culver City was already under construction in 2008, and by the time ground broke for the Purple Line subway in November 2014, the Expo Line to Santa Monica was already under construction. Yes, the existence of the Expo Line to Santa Monica actually killed our chance at the Purple Line to Santa Monica, but in November 1998, all hope was lost for a subway to Santa Monica, so that's why the Expo Line was heavily advocated as the affordable rail option to the beach that would be built in what what seen as the lifetime of those back prior to the Millennium. In a perfect world, Metro would have unlimited funds & a master plan to build out a fully grade-separated system, but as this video shows, circumstances happen and the future looked bleak for Metro planning in the early years. Even today, federal funding is at risk and any future projects needing federal funding may be delayed or won't happen. Only one project that would be built without federal funding, the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor, a fully at-grade LRT on Van Nuys Boulevard, has a better chance of being built. articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/17/local/me-waxman17 www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/metro-board-directors-certifies-final-environmenta/
Subway does not necesserily mean fully underground. The new york subway has more above ground sections than underground - so does the London Underground. What subway means in this case is that every grade crossing is grade separated, either an overpass or an underpass, and at grade sections are buried in dense areas - such as the section in downtown. The sections along the rail corridor can stay as they are.
For the most part it's the NIMBYism of the westside and places like the Fairfax and Hancock Park communities. Metro today has even killed the Wilshire/Crenshaw Station all because they believe that Wilshire/Western is too close to the Crenshaw facility. In reality one can argue that Wilshire/Normandy is too close to Wilshire/Western.
fortunately now there's a pro-rail constituency in areas where the NIMBYs used to be able to block it: now everyoe's saying "why didn't we have this earlier?" a lot of the professional litigants like Damien Goodmon no longer have any leverage
When the Crenshaw line goes north of Exposition Blvd., it will veer west off of Crenshaw. The Grove/Farmers Market is likely to be on the Crenshaw extension.
The original 2 Rapid Lines down Wilshire and Ventura Blvds had dedicated stations amenities, consistent traffic signal priority, extremely high frequency, and other special Bus Rapid Transit perks. Much of this has been lost in the expansion to 20-something Rapid lines.
America doesn't seem to understand what BRT is at all. Completely separate traffic lanes and you pay to get into the station, rather than pay to get onto the bus. That way, the bus stops, everyone gets on, and the bus takes off again. People just walk onto the bus...takes like 30 seconds or even less. Everyone is going to the same place...the city center. SO no one gets off until it reaches a certain station. The point of BRT is to build a transit network that is exclusive to one form of transit...buses...and optimize their efficiency. America keeps trying to smash "BRT's" in with cars, which is NOT WHAT A BRT SYSTEM IS. The problem, as always, is that the auto companies in the US don't want to build good transit systems in fear of losing their grasp over the market and their power over government officials. Just my 2 cents.
Part of the issue is placement. Here in NYC, the closest we've been able to get to BRT is Select Bus Service (assuming that you're not talking about the S79, which is essentially branded the way it is to maintain the Staten Island naming convention). The buses don't actually use a completely separate ROW because there's no space for it, not to mention that it's cost-prohibitive to try to make space for it. In addition, the routes under the plan are often modified variants of limited-stop service, though some exceptions exist (the Bx6 never had limited-stop service until SBS started, though the local service is fully intact, whereas the S79 lost most of its stops, only to see the S59 and S78 assume local service for it).
Call Me Swivel Hips BRT doesn't a system like a subway or train in which you've to pay before you can use it. Systems such as the Oyster card, the OV-Chipkaart and the Metrebus Card provide a sufficient efficient system without entry ports for the bus. There are other solutions too such as providing the possibility of paying by contactless payment (credit)cards or paying with the NFC function of smartphones.
Don't Forget when L.A Held the Summer Olympics in 1984 they use Buses to connected people from downtown to the Colosseum and they took one lane on each busiest blvd for bus only but now with the Olympics is coming to L.A in 2028 with the exopline and the rest of metrorail it is going to be much easier for Angelinos and the rest of the world to ride the metrorail to any Olympic Games.
Rol Over says: "but now with the Olympics is coming to L.A in 2028 with the exopline and the rest of metrorail it is going to be much easier..." == Just make sure hire more experienced contractor even if it costs a little more. Otherwise it'll end up in sinking street and 5 times more cost. See my another comment above.
In Shanghai they built an entire system the size of NYC's in 20 years. In LA they'd spend that much time and money on just 2 lines with 10 stations each. And building non-grade separated lines is mostly useless. The Expo line is basically a bus on rails. It takes as long to get from Santa Monica to downtown on that line as it does on the 720 bus that runs on Wilshire. Not to mention, most of the stops are park-and-ride because the line doesn't run through a particularly dense corridor, again, I'm guessing to save money. It's all half-assed because construction cost is obscene. I'm glad they're building something, but by the time LA resembles anything like a real dense urban environment where you can reliably and consistently take public transportation anywhere, we'll all be dead and there will be better technologies out there. If you're going to live in LA, you still absolutely do need a car to have an experience worthy of what the city offers and costs. Otherwise, just move to NY or Chicago.
The Expo Line (and part shared with the Blue Line), if done as subway without that moratorium, would have taken an average person's lifetime to be built. There just wasn't the money. What should be considered now, is at least get the portion between the Convention Center and USC removed from street level. Either underground or overhead. The trains compete with traffic. Someone could almost walk that route faster, than take the train.
While true on the long term, I think we need to be careful about jumping to the most expensive options. Five minutes could be cut off the full Expo trip for practically-free if the signals favored trains. I originally intended to go over the signals issue in this video, but it took too long :(. Maybe that'll be next...
Viaduct is the cheapest way to separate trains and cars if you don't have room for a separate right-of-way. Next is an open cut, which takes up more room than pillars.
La will probably see the new expansions of the Light rail built as premetro system with grade separated crossings. The problem isn't the a costly metro heavy rail but the car traffic system that has reached its limits and is to expensive and land requiring to expand, meaning that in the long run there will be more underground.
The subway and elevated tracks will never collide with the cars. Expensive to built but a long run save time and money. The Railroad cross is such a 1970's technology. The Expo line 7th street to Santa Monica takes 45 minutes. The train should be quicker than cars. Adding express train will cut travel time like New York subway.
The state restriction preventing the construction if subways was temporary and ran out in 2010. So there is no longer any restriction preventing heavy rail subways being built.
@@AVeryRandomPerson I was referring to the Orange line. This initially was meant to be an underground heavy line. However the residents in Valley Village were able to exert political pressure in Sacramento and an assembly bill was passed prohibiting underground lines until 2010. Their argument was based from the Northridge Earthquake, so the Orange line became a dedicated bus route( BRT) along Chandler Blvd. from North Hollywood to Canoga Ave. The argument was without merit since the BART line in SF was unaffected by the Loma Preiator Quake while the Bay Bridge had a collapse along with the double decker freeway in Oakland.
Edmonton and Calgary were strong pioneers of light rail. Edmonton build a tunnel under downtown and Calgary shown how a transit only street with at grade rail (sharing with not too many buses), and Calgary built out their LRT rapidly. Edmonton did so more slowly. Edmonton's trains were built for capacity to start with, 4 car trains from the beginning and now 5 cars can be used (except for the stupid short platforms at NAIT station on one odd line). You can use LRT for a very wide array of purposes and is far more flexible than a subway. 5 cars, carrying about 200 people each, runnning on 4 minute headways in each direction can carry 30 thousand people per hour, likely enough to meet your needs. With good enough signal systems, it can be made to run every 2.5 minutes, or 48 thousand per hour. Few cities where it would be questioned as to what form a transit system would take have enough capacity to warrant a subway with more capacity than this. You can build LRT to suit pretty much any right of way you want it to. Reserved lanes or shared with buses, shared with general purpose traffic light a streetcar, on it's own right of way at ground, next to freight train tracks, over in a viaduct above traffic or under traffic in a tunnel, and with modern low floor cars, and you can let it either get some limited priority (like extending greens or shortening reds), no priority, or full priority as you wish it to have, and it can go pretty fast, most trains can go up to 70-90 km/h (45-55 mph), you can make it integrate into pretty much any environment you want it to. I like it over LRT for all but the biggest cities in the world.
Exactly, that is one of the strengths of Light Rail, it can be built to Pre-Metro standards with high capacity, grade separations and longer platforms. Calgary is one of my favorite LRT systems because they take a cost effective and methodical approach to building their network and extensions.
if you're building tunnels underground, you might as well build a subway tho. Better capacity and higher speeds due to exclusive right of way. Even if you don't want/need an NYC-styled subway system (which LA absolutely does as a city of 2 million) you can still build a "light metro" a la Vancouver Skytrain or the new Montreal REM
But if you build overhead trains you are using up valuable land which could be used for other developments. Underground is quieter, faster and not as ugly and you can still develop the land above the underground train line (if it isn't already).
Transportation, yes. Not sure about LA, I'm in the Bay now. This video took way longer than I'd hoped to make, I'll have to rethink my process if I want to make videos regularly.
It's basically just a Pacific Railway reboot of the long-defunct interurban trolley/streetcar/LRT that used to exist at a 5th the cost of a subway. The small trade-offs that can still be tweaked are worth it, and YES even with the cost overruns... The project is ALREADY exceeding it's 2030 ridership projections during its first year of opening...
And not even any mention that much of this right of way used to be the Pacific Electric Santa Monica Air Line. Making this heavy rail subway would have been impractical.
Well blame the traffic regulations. We have dozens of cities in Europe with succesful lightrail networks like Berlin, Stockholm, Nice and Lyon just to name a few and they all give the trams first priority in traffic lights meaning as the tram approaches the traffic lights, all signs that interfere with the light rails path turn red and the path for the lightrail will be all green when it goes through. Same with BRT routes. Besides a ton of Europeans are more comfortable riding a Lightrail train than the deeb underground "Tuna cans" of the subway.
Craig F. Thompson In America that may be true but not in Europe. The vast majority prefer Lightrail/Streetcars as a major transportation service. People over here think They're easier to access, more Comfortable to ride and that they add to making a city more beautiful and give it more life. You're not just travelling from point A to point B. You're Experiencing the city hands on when you ride the lightrail down the streets and see all the cozy shops and beautiful parks that you pass by. And again waiting for red light isn't a problem here. The lights will automatically turn green for a lightrail train when it's within 1000ft of the crossing.
Different dynamic here in the US. 1) Big Oil runs the country and along with the auto and rubber manufacturers tore out all of the LRT systems that were present in most of our cities to sell their product. People don't realize that LA was built around the streetcar. It was a transit city and still has this in its DNA. The city had already reached over 1 and a half million people (the size of Phoenix today) before the first freeway was ever built. 2) Along with the tearing out of transit in our cities white people began to move out of the cities to the suburbs. By law and strategy in many places black people specifically were not allowed to follow. Eisenhower initiated the Interstate Highway plan that connected white suburbs directly to the city centers and removed altogether mature black and immigrant neighborhoods that were in the way in the name of urban renewal. 3)So public transportation like public schools and public housing and public health (Medicare/caid) are all considered for the poor and/or black, brown or immigrant. Conclusively, we are still fighting the stigma of prioritizing public transportation over cars in this country as it is still considered for the poor only and unless it reaches the suburbs. It's interesting and telling to note that all of our modern HRT systems that were built after WWII have lines that reach the suburbs. While prior to this time old legacy systems like Chicago and NYC barely if at all reach outside the city limits into what were then satellite cities with the exception of the massive LA Pacific Electric system which I stated above literally built and organized the region. The US is a racist and classist country that was built on the idea of individualism and does horribly with public or collective ANYTHING (see examples above) that has the potential to level the playing field because of its deep-rooted stratification system. This is the difference between the US and Europe.
I was thinking more about the current situation than about the past but alright. I'm still surprised at how Racist America is and how Racism is in one way or another in peoples mind all the time. And here I'm just thinking "It's just a skin color calm down people!" but back to subject I still think it's weird how they simply don't do the things that makes lightrail successful. Maybe the city planning organisations need to hire some people from Europe so they can get a different point of view on these subjects.
Our planners here in the States are just as good as those in Europe. What you're not considering is the extensive public comment period for any project that has the potential to impact the environment where the public can object. Also you need to consider that even if you try to push a project through it could be sued therefore tying up the said project in the courts for years. Every LRT line in LA has been sued sometime within its construction. The Purple Line subway was sued successfully in the 80's that prompted the Congressman of that district to ban any subways underneath Wilshire Blvd. This ban lasted from the early 80's until 2005 when it was lifted. Additionally, we haven't even got into CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) which had/has good intentions but can be used by anyone who feels that the surrounding environment may be harmed by the project. Again, potentially tying up said project in the courts for years. When we look at it fairly, LA has one of the best rail systems of its size in the country. Unlike BART which is mostly a commuter system, the LA Metro completely blurs the lines between commuter and urban rail. On top of that we also have a quite extensive commuter rail system in place that could be extremely valuable if it were to be electrified and run with increased headways. Further, BART is a distance-based system that in the long run hurts the very people that public transportation is to first and foremost serve. Over time as more poor people are displaced into the suburbs, our metro areas will begin to take on the Paris Effect. Wealthy and well-to-do in the center while the poor and working class ring the donut hole. Distance-based fares will harm and is harming poor folks as it will become extremely expensive for those to get into the CBD for work who already have little money. In contrast, in LA you can ride 40 miles for a flat fare of $1.75! I take the train from Long Beach to North Hollywood 1:10-20 with only one transfer. The time it takes is highly competitive with car travel during rush and the cost is uncomparable. Basically LA is rebuilding its original system that was ripped out. The reason that so much of it for now is LRT is because the ROW already exist from the previous system that was btw the largest electrified trolley system in the world. This is why LA is thought to be so very big. It's not that the city is really all that large at 469 sq miles it's a medium -size city. It's "large" because the ENTIRE metro/urbanized area acts as one city. When we speak of LA we don't discount Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Pasadena, West Hollywood, Culver City etc., these places are considered to be part of it all. Why? Because the original system tied all of these smaller cities together essentially forming the way we see LA today, the freeways came much later and only followed the rail lines for the most part. It's within LA 's DNA to be a transit city.
We'd love to hear more about the "field trip" to Curitiba, Brazil. Can drop a link? We'd love to see more field trips happen - particularly planners in "young" cities in the developing world who are sleepwalking into car-centric planning, when they could instead envision walkable, bikeable cities, if only they could see them in real life.
Funny thing is Melbourne, Australia in particular puts most of its transport money into Heavy Rail, but not much in buses or expand/upgrade our existing tramways, I call them tramways not light rail since majority of it is not right of way, which causes a lot of delays. But here we are very fortunate that we had already got a establish network of railways and tram ways, but as you said it gets quite expensive especially when in tunnels. Here are projects in Melbourne if you wanna check them out, 9km Metro Tunnel $10 billion, 8km Mernda Rail $500 million, 50 grade separations $6 billion, West Gate Tunnel toll road State funds 1/3 $2 billion, North East Link toll road $? billion, Pakenham/Cranbourne rail upgrade (includes new trains, stabling) $2 billion also a lot of money is spent on new rolling stock for all modes of public transport.
Grade separation often can double or triple the cost of a project... I was told by my industrial estimating uncle who worked on my hometown of Edmonton's subway/LRT project the cost index is kinda as follows... At grade is 100. Above grade would be 200. Tunnel? 500 to 1000... Having said that, Edmonton built the damn subway under downtown and had it stuck for budget reasons for 20+ years only emerging from beneath the university 10 years ago...
So even just doing SECTIONS can add at least 1.5x the budget to a project. Hence why even the HSR/Caltrain corridor running at up to 180 km/h will still have only gated intersections and not full grade separation... Sigh!
Another thing might be local complaints about aesthetics or whatever. I remember reading somewhere that BART was gonna give Berkeley above-ground stations, but Berkeley hated the idea so much they paid with their own city money to put their stations underground.
If these light rail lines were all subways, and/or totally elevated so they wouldn't take part of a street, we would probably need to wait until the year 2525 for them to be finished. Then there's the issue of costs. L.A. Metro does most things on the cheap. They never have enough money.
Metros (Subways) are Heavy Rail. Metros are trains that can carry a high capacity of people mostly underground but also on at grade or elevated track separated from any other obstructions. Systems like Toronto, NYC, Chicago, Washington D.C. Trams (Streetcars) are Light Rail. Streetcars run on streets (duh) but can also have their own right if way. This includes tunnels and bridges. Here in North America, this is also known as LRT, but in Europe it still counts as a tram. Example: Expo Line, Pittsburgh, Portland. There are Mini Metros, which are like Metros but smaller. Systems like Vancouver, Scarborough RT (Toronto), Rennes, Lausanne. BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) is like LRT but with Buses.
So yeah uh the expo line was supposed to be a subway they couldn't get in certain stations and Santa Monica didn't have enough space. So yeah all this is true but you forgot that
Could the expo line had been built as above ground heavy rail or would it had been just as expensive as a Subway ? The Chicago L is above ground heavy rail
Sure, the optics of stopping at intersections is bad, but the line still averages 20 mph. That’s much faster than most transit lines, and above average for light rail. It’s only 46 minutes from Metro Center to Santa Monica. In NYC, the trip from Wall Street to 242nd St which is the same distance takes 67 minutes. That’s an entirely grade separated route too. According to the APTA Fact Book, the average speeds by mode are: Bus - 12.2 mph Bus Rapid Transit - 10.6 mph Commuter Bus - 30.6 mph Commuter Rail - 32.0 mph Heavy Rail - 20.0 mph Hybrid Rail - 30.0 mph Light Rail - 16.0 mph Cable Car/Monorail/Automated Guideway - 11.6 mph Streetcar - 7.4 mph Average of all Transit Modes - 15.3 mph Having a light rail line average 20 miles per hour is not slow at all by comparison
By comparison to light rail, maybe not too bad. I don't see how that matters, like we stop caring that trains are getting stopped by cars because in other places they get stopped even more?
Well I think Metro has a misconception about the terms of heavy rail and subway. LA region needs more heavy rails not only LRT/BRT. Heavy rail has high capacity, higher speed, and more space and reliable service than LRT/BRT. Of course building a heavy rail is extremely expensive than a LRT/BRT, but keep in mind that heavy rail does not necessary mean a underground subway. In fact, they can build in at grade or aerial section, which will be less expensive than a underground subway.
Yes, that's true. The "EL" in Chicago is just what you're talking about. I could never figure out why L.A. built light rail instead of elevated heavy rail. Makes no sense.
For environmental and historic reasons, it's extremely difficult to build new elevated rail in urban areas. Impacts to historic character, blocked views, ugly pillars, privacy, noise, vibration, all work against it. Then you go back to existing rail systems and realize a pattern where heavy rail systems running through white, affluent areas are underground, but then come to aerial alignments as they pass through minority, low-income areas. IE San Francisco's Bart through Richmond vs Berkeley, where Berkeley put together a lawsuit against Bart and Richmond didn't. Guess which one has a subway and which has elevated rail. Environmental Justice laws are supposed to have 'fixed' this issue by adding another layer of lawsuits through minority and low-income areas. The modern concept of Light Rail was developed to work around this limitation. Since a slow-ish LRT train has been held by courts not to be more disruptive than normal street traffic, you can run trains at-grade anywhere you can find a major street. Everything west of USC is minority/low income for Expo till you hit the Westside, so that means elevated rail was off the table there. Everything north/east of USC is dense urban area that would be extremely expensive to build /either/ subway or aerial. Expo was able to serve both areas with the money available because it was able to make compromises in speed and capacity to do so. Were they bad compromises? I'm not answering. But you have to admit, no other rail system could have done the same with the resources available.
Thanks for the interesting reply. BUT..... I disagree with some of your argument. I live in D.C. which along with NY and Chicago is on of the only cities with serious mass transit. Los Angeles has a light rail system that transports a bit over 200,000. That just is not going to cut it. I lived in Dallas for a few years - a city that has a lot in common with L.A. DART has spent over 4 billion for almost 100 miles of light rail, and it carries only 100,000. The notion that "if you build it they will come " was the driving force in Dallas, and I suspect it is in L.A. as well. But they didn't. Come that is. American cities are anomalies compared to most of the world. Especially cities in the West. They weren't built for people. They were built for cars. And they sprawl. Traffic in Dallas as I recall was just about as bad as L.A. I don't know the political dynamics of L.A. but find it kind of surprising about the difference in light rail development in wealthy vs. not so wealthy neighborhoods. We haven't had that problem here. And in fact, METRO is on the surface through many of the wealthiest parts of the D.C. area. The new Silver Line goes right through Tysons Corner, a massive commercial development that has about the same sq. footage, residential and commercial as downtown Denver, and the second phase is under construction to Dulles Airport about 26 miles from downtown. It is nearly all on the ground, or elevated. But it's extremely quiet. People know what they're getting, and if a metro line is going through, almost nobody objects. There is an urban legend that Georgetown ( which does not have a metro stop ) objected to a station because it didn't want "those people" invading their turf. As it turns out, METRO vetoed the station on the Orange line because the cost of bringing people down the a station that would likely be just under the Potomac was difficult from an engineering perspective, and off the radar screen financially. Now by the way, Georgetown is literally begging for a METRO connection. They will get it, but not for some time. There is a third option that most Americans are unaware of. Fairly common in Asia, and Europe to a lesser degree. It's " Pre-Metro". The trains are heavy rail essentially, but will share right of way, cross streets, etc. like light rail. And because of that are powered from overhead cables. BUT.... pre- metro systems can be converted to full metro fairly easily. Just a thought. They are less expensive than heavy rail, but like our METRO, can be put in trenches for several miles and you hardly notice them. Don't get me wrong, I love California, and L.A. is nice. I've always had a good time there, and have family around So. Cal. But.... let's face it. L.A. does not have a lot of historic character. I am really appreciative of your site, and I hope things work out in the L.A. area. Our METRO is undergoing massive maintenance that was avoided for years ( I think mostly to fund expansion which has gone on for the last 25 years ). But we could not survive without it, and you can see where underground and obviously surface lines are when flying over the D.C. area because you see lines of mid rise buildings lining the route. I'm curious to know what you think of the high speed rail project in California. We have "baby" high speed rail on the East Coast - 150 miles an hour top. But it is being upgraded, and should hit speeds I believe of around 165 or so. I have my office overlooking Union Station's rail yard and watch Metro trains, commuter trains, and regional, and Acela ( high speed ) trains constantly going in and out I've been in Union Station in L.A. and thought it was a work of art. Best of luck !!
Yup it's true that building a mass transit would impact a lot of businesses and residential area nearby. As you mentioned above, light rail was developed to work through those environmental concerns and problems. However, LRV tend to have smaller cars than any heavy rail and commuter rail cars, which means that they carry far less riders than regular EMUs. They also operate much slower speed. The average of LRV is 55mph but it runs much slower than that. Heavy rail, however, they can maintain mostly 70mph or higher since they are separated right of way. Indeed, heavy rail would be more reliable and capable than LRT. Fully separated route can reduce the external factors of service disruption, such as train/auto accidents.
Meanwhile in Lisbon, Portugal, government devided to go for 2 new stations in a less than 3km extension conecting 2 lines into a small central circular line costing almost 300M euros
i just got back from riding the red line metro subway yesterday. It was so convenient and fast to get from the chinese theater to union station. wow, and it took 20 years to build it?!
One thing I want - an LA Metrolink line to link up with the Metrolink. At Manchester Airport. Or at least Cornbrook or Piccadilly Gardens. Or even Rochdale.
On its way out of downtown the Expo line Rises up and reaches street-level in front of the Staples Center as many of you know. What I don't understand is why it could not have been designed to continue going upward until it reached above street level. But then the blue line was built much much much earlier decades ago now and they never had it rise above street level making its way out of downtown Los Angeles and it rises up from below-ground at exactly the same spot they could have made it do so way back then. By not building infrastructure decades ago to have those tracks rise above street level they just passed the cost on to present day and the cost just gest that gets that much higher.
This is called "Light Rail". The answer is you make the light rail cars run in subways, not the other way around. It's happening with the regional connector in DTLA
Incompatibility. The heavy rail cars use a 3rd rail to draw power and the light rail cars have a pantograph and catenary wire. Since there's no reason to use one on the other's tracks, neither can accept both sources of electrification.
+Karen Elizabeth Thomas Ha, yeah that's on purpose. Anyway yes, definitely. Expo is looking like it'll be the most heavily ridden light rail in North America once they work out the red-light issue. That's why Metro isn't- and shouldn't- focus on a subway-only system, since a subway ends up being twice as ridden for five times the cost. And yet people still complain we didn't spend more. So I made this video so I don't have to keep repeating the explanation.
Maybe in the future, the route can fix portions and probably elevate it. I watched a video on how Japan closed a train for 1 day and worked around the clock to turn a section a subway. I also think that some station overpasses on Washington, Vermont, Western, Crenshaw can be precast/premade offsite and the close the line for a week and then do everyone at once. Is that possible? I also watched another video there they fixed another overpass overnight with a premade bridge.
I've been on the blue line with people that wield bats, knives, and other weapons. Sometimes even line 51 going from Wilshire and Vermont to Avalon Station or CS Dominguez Hills, I've encountered women wielding knives.
It would have made no sense to make The Expo Line a subway when the current Expo Line runs mostly on a old rail right-of-way. That would have been a waste of money. They did the right thing. Now in 10 years people in West L.A. Country will have two lines, The Expo Light Rail Line & The Purple Subway (Heavy Rail) Line.
+Kajo De Riz Yes. 55mph with crossing gates in less dense areas, grade separations over / under the most major sections (Expo descends into a full subway under Downtown LA), and when you run out of money, give up and throw it in the street.
The idea that making cars wait is a negative environmental impact only makes sense if you don’t consider the value of luring people from their cars to Metro. If the system functioned better and trains didn’t have to wait at the red lights, maybe more people would get out of their cars, which would have a very positive environmental impact.
True but when you need the support of a wealthy minority who look down on transit riders in order to actually be able to build the line, this is what happens
They should have started with gold standard BRT everywhere. Curitiba and especially Bogotá show what can be done. The ability to run passed the dedicated guideway section would have provided a far better service to more people and freed up money for cross city busways. I like railways as much as the next gunzel but for a city with the topology and climate of LA, BRT is a good fit. The fetish for railroads has a long history and goes back to the astonishing role they played in the 19th century in transforming human civilisation.
adding more than one trailer to a bus attracts heavy scrutiny from american safety agencies. Trains can handle more passengers per vehicle, and there are more options for rail capacity in train format than in special long bus format. Rail bias for low-density communities is dumb though, yes
When redline wait times are 25+ minutes is it really worth it? Eastbound Expo fills up at the second stop - it's basically SMC's train. The new Purple Line ending in Westwood & not connecting to Expo is pointless.
But now that it's built, and there is more transit funding, why not improve it? Expo is already running pretty much to capacity at certain hours because its stations can only accommodate three car lengths of train. Then there is the bottleneck with the tie-in to the shared tracks with the Blue Line, with the Blue line getting priority and Expo trains sometimes being required to wait ten minutes before proceeding. How about shallow trenching the line to avoid tie-ups at the crossings at Vermont, Western, and minor streets on the east end? Of course Santa Monica is to blame for wanting street level service--and the resulting carnage--at the West end of the line. But the point is, with relatively minor improvements, the route would be genuinely competitive with the forever-gridlocked 10 Freeway and ridership could expand exponentially.
The banning of subway funding was not because voters didn't want more subways. The measure was initiated by zev and waxman to cater to unjustified fears of methane gas. An explosion in the Wilshire area that had nothing to do with the subway. Both politicians were more worried about their careers than what was best for LA. We all lost 20 years of subway construction. East LA should have had an extension of the Red line running underneath Whittier blvd. Instead we got the gold line extension to Atlantic blvd. Still hoping for that subway extension.
When the Red Line was built, they were using the Cut and cover method. Today a tunnel boring machine can do the same thing without disruptions to streets and traffic. Plus despite what is believed, they CAN be reused, fitted with tunnel lining segmenting cars and the only street disruptions would be where new stations are being added. The biggest problem is political over geologic. Those that back the at grade system are trying to return to a good old days past that truly never existed. And while cheaper will find that unless they have sufficient rolling stock, to have headways every ten minutes, they will never get people out of their vehicles as they think they will accomplish. Especially with the continued growth of population pushing the real estate market to build tall apartment houses where single family homes once stood. One example is the G (Orange line) thus was planned a# an underground line. It was on the existing Chandler tight of way that had a red line this was opposed as initially it would also be cut and cover. It was downgraded to a bus line but with only stops where a subway would be. This has proved detrimental as the construct if apartments along the route are mostly in between these stations and at currently unserved intersections. As such although the ridership as of 2019 was over 20,000 per day many more still were forced to use private vehicles. Even on this line, that the busses have to stop at red lights has caused LA Metro to decide to build a 25 Million Dollar bridge over Supulveda Blvd. Utter insanity. For a few minutes of waiting time especially since this would also be the new stop location instead of the current one about a thousand feet to the west. The proposal to have the G line as a light rail was also rejected due to a noise factor and the initial reason for the Supulveda bridge The.Expo line causes backups on the major streets with heavy traffic that it crosses such ax Vermont Av. Where there will be even greater problems if LA Metro puts the proposed dedicated bus lanes in place.
