How Politics Stalled LA's Most Important Subway Line
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 02. 2024
- This subway line was supposed to be the backbone of LA's modern transit system. Why did they build the rest of the system without it?
If you'd like to help me make more videos like this, please like, comment and subscribe. Consider supporting me on Ko-fi or Patreon to help me grow this channel and reach more people.
Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/bharatarimilli
Patreon: / bharatarimilli
Sources:
Railtown: The Fight for the Los Angeles Metro Rail and the Future of the City by Ethan N. Elkind
The Seven Eras of Rapid Transit Planning in Los Angeles by Robert P. Sechler scsra.org/library/rapid-transi...
Footage:
Prelinger Archives
UCLA Film & Television Archive
National Archives Catalog
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
C-SPAN
Los Angeles Times - Zábava
I'm surprised you didn't mention Beverly Hills' opposition to the Purple Line extension. It was one of the most egregious example of NIMBYism, Classism, and Racism in modern US History. BH weaponized everything from environmental laws, school districts, zoning, etc. to stop the line from being built. While Waxman and Yaroslavsky eventually did change their minds, BH to this day refused to accept the Purple Line, only grudgingly admitting defeat after losing in the courts.
I definitely think Beverly Hills' opposition to the Purple Line and current opposition to the Sepulveda Transit Corridor could be the subject of a whole video. I chose to focus on these earlier examples because of their greater impact to the vision for LA's system as a whole.
@bharatarimilli Technically, it was the BH School District who opposed the Purple Line the most. However, in the end, they got the city to backup their fight and helped fund their claims in court.
The opposition to the Sepulveda line is coming from Bel-Air not Beverly Hills. NIMBY claims that are equally absurd.
Oh yes absolutely, I was meaning to reference the multiple groups opposing Sepulveda (Bel-Air and Sherman Oaks), not that Beverly Hills is opposing it as well. I realize I worded that weirdly.
Beverly Hills NIMBYs definitely opposed the extension of the purple line. I’m not convinced that their opposition actually impacted progress on the line. It’s not as if construction of the Purple Line extension had to pause awaiting resolution of the BH court case. The extension is being built (and funded) in segments, and the BH segment was scheduled to start quite a while after the start of construction of the first segment to La Cienega.
An even worse story was the way special interests derailed the construction of a light rail line in the San Fernando Valley that would have connected to the terminus of the Red Line subway in North Hollywood. What the Valley got instead was a busway. The Orange Line busway is OK as busways go, but light rail would have been better.
the state should step in and stop them from sabotaging the whole city like that
damn you reagan
VOTE BLUE; WON'T YOU?!
Ya damn him for wanting a profitable effective system
@@stenbak88 "Trickle-down economics" was neither "profitable" or "effective"....
LA's weather is too good to sit in a car all day!
It’s also why it has the most homeless people in the nation.
And due to the high amount of mentally ill homeless people, even when metro gives out FREE tap cards, people still wouldn’t ride the train or bus over a car.
@@AG-yc7vt It also has a high homeless population because other states literally put their homeless on greyhounds and send them over here.
Nice succinct story. Thanks for uploading this!
Thanks for watching! I'm a huge fan of your videos so it means a lot!
Excellent presentation 👏
I was pleasantly surprised that you captured almost every aspect of what happened, especially Waxman's unfortunate early opposition, emboldened by the Beverly Hills school folks. Great job!!
Thank you for threading together the pieces of history that produced today's weird LA transit world! Great work creating a clear, informative, and engaging explainer that covers a lot of ground in a limited amount of time.
LA's Metro might be weird in a way, but only because it's a unique city in how it's layed out and its size. Very different from other cities with mass metro rail systems. It's weird by necessity and at times by some crazy politicians. However, in spite of all that and then some, it continues to move forward and grow.
LA Metro is growing more than any other in the USA. Within the next 12 years, 9 different LA Metro rail projects are scheduled to be completed. Increasing the size from 109 miles to around 180 miles. It will likely be the 2nd largest in the USA behind NYC.
Thank you for the kind words! I think LA's transit story is fascinating and it's cool to see that others think so too.
It is deeply frustrating to me that we could've had so much better. Take the A-Line for example, its 48 miles long (and counting) it never travels above 55 mph, stops really often, waits at traffic lights, doesnt have an express option, and takes over two hours from one terminus to the other. That's beyond ridiculous. The A and E lines would just be...... better as heavy rail.
Hell, if they were fully grade-separated _with their existing rolling stock,_ they could at least function as decent light metro lines.
@@sonicboy678Actually, the heavy rail equipment is "better"; the cars are wider, as well as the seats, so there's more passenger space in comparison to light rail.
@@user-dj7wv5ok2x Great. Where, exactly, does this fit in with my statement?
@@sonicboy678 "Existing rolling stock" would mean "light rail", wouldn't it?!
@@user-dj7wv5ok2x That's what you're hyperfocused on? Seriously? The complaints are primarily centered around the portions that _aren't_ grade-separated, which heavily kneecap usefulness. That's it.
Nice video, but you should've included how Beverly Hill's opposition to the D line (purple) extension stalled the project for years. Beverly Hills, Bel Aire, and Sherman Oaks are also stalling the Sepulveda Line.
The opposition did not greatly stall the project. LA Metro won all the court cases and argued to have the construction continue. It might have gotten delayed by a few months at the very most. It was the path under BH high school that caused the most problems. There was also the change of the Century City station to avoid a fault line that was discovered later in the process, which also caused a delay.
I noted a "complaint" about light rail being too slow and uncomfortable; however, even though the rail cars are narrower than a bus, the riding quality is much better, and the trip is almost always faster.
Indeed. Especially during rush hour in the morning and evening. I rode the E line recently during rush hour and the 10 fwy was at a standstill as the E line zoomed by at 55 mph.
This tells you that even if you can convince Waxman of all people to finally embrace transit, anything is possible. And LA's light rail aren't too bad, especially the newer ones that act like subway systems, See: K line.
true BUT we end up with light rail cosplaying as a proper subway. LIke seattle
@@chromebomb It’s not unheard of. Amsterdam and Germany have many lines that do the same thing. The term pre-Metro and tram-trains are things for a reason.
@@CityLifeinAmericaThat’s true, but they usually have that in addition to an S-Bahn system that you would take for trips of 10+ miles
@chromebomb LA is way too spread out to depend mainly on heavy rail subway. And, don't forget that LA Metro is responsible for providing metro rail services for all of the county, too. The city is 500 square miles and the county is 4800 square miles.
That being said, heavy rail subway lines are also being built where they make sense.
Along Wilshire Blvd
Sepulveda Pass along the 405
To East LA along Whittier Blvd
Along Vermont's South section
The E line and A line have many sections that are fully grade separated and have both aerial and subterranean stations. In fact, the C line is completely grade separated in the middle of the 105 fwy.
7:44 crazy to think the next heavy rail or at least not a LRT system rapid transit system built was in San Juan then Honolulu compared to all places in the CONUS
Yes, that was surprising if true.
@@mrxman581it is true.
Honolulu - 2023
San Juan - 2004
LA - 1993
(Miami - 1984)
Thats it for the past 30-40 years in the US, petty pathetic. Europe, despite being poorer and already having better public transportation, built 13-17½ in the past 30-40 years. There's still hope for the US, although it will probably be another decade before the next system opens.
We have been building LRT though, like mad. It’s almost like these were a consolation prize for not getting heavy rail.
See: Phoenix, Seattle, Portland, Charlotte, etc.
@@CityLifeinAmerica 'like mad' 🤣 In the last 30 years the US has built 17 new systems, Europe has built 70.
And consolation prize? In places like Seattle its more like something that will forever hold you back
And what’s even sadder is that the Honolulus rail is completely inaccessible to the overwhelming percentage of residents of the island of Oahu. Even the current plans of completion barely have any of the routes in the highest density of the city and Honolulu itself is surprisingly dense, I’ve lived here for almost 5 years. All places receive a constant fight of any construction that occurs in any city, that is so horrible because it restricts the most practical infrastructure from being built. Even getting dedicated space for BRT in high traffic corridors in the city is a nightmare.
This is a VERY good video about this topic and as someone who lived in LA for 15 years and did a lot research into it's failed public transit plans I wholeheartedly approve this video and have no notes. Great job!
Transit plans have not failed. Perfect, no, but not failed either.
Good video, but it missed the mark on some things. The history behind the "Subway to the Sea" (that's what people were calling it), was basically accurate. But what wasn't clearly explained is that local funding of subway lines was stopped, but not federal funding. The problem though was that most federal transit funding requires local funding, too. Let's not forget the subway funding moratorium almost lasted 20 years.
A very important factor you failed to mention was the various transit propositions that were passed that allowed the construction of both light rail and subway lines including the current B line extension. Another important aspect of that funding scheme is how it affects what projects are proposed and approved to get funding. A video about that process would be very enlightening for many people.
The implication that the majority of light rail lines would have been subway lines had local funding not been blocked, is categorically not true.
Light rail lines were always going to be part of the LA Metro due to cost, and because they were buying up existing ROWs that were not being used anymore. For example, the Blue line (now A line) was always conceived as a light rail line because it partly uses an old ROW.
The original Red line (Wilshire subway line) is now getting built which is great, but the bigger story is the still unbuilt extension of the original Red line to East LA partly along Whittier Blvd which is arguably the 2nd busiest commercial corridor in LA. You show the map route in the video, but don't specifically mention it.
Because local funding for subways was blocked, East LA got the Gold line Eastern extension through an area of East LA that wasn't as dense commercially, but it was basically the best way it could be built due to the very many narrow streets in the area. Very few are wide enough to support building a at grade light rail route. Which goes back to why a subway was originally proposed for East LA.
Ultimately, Waxman and Yaroslavsky screwed East LA, not West LA because East LA still continues to have no subway line to serve its busiest corridor. I've begun to hear conversations of finally extending the subway line to the 6th Street Viaduct and then onto Whittier Blvd to Atlantic which would be about half rhe length of the original proposed subway line to East LA. I really hope it happens. East LA deserves it and it's long overdue.
That's a very valid point. I didn't mean to suggest that the entire network would have been heavy rail, just that there were many corridors initially planned as extensions of the Red Line that were instead built as light rail or BRT. Definitely something I could have been clearer about. I initially intended to reference the difference between the LACTC and RTD, which would have helped here.
Regarding funding, while there was no subway funding ban at the federal level, I think the shift from the generous support for heavy rail projects during the UMTA era to LA essentially fighting for scraps certainly would have had an impact on the shape of the system even without the local subway moratorium. Local funding was LA's primary issue but the fact that there were so few heavy rail projects built in the US following the Red Line is notable, I think.
Lastly, I did initially include the story of Proposition A in the video but took it out to focus on how politicians impacted the system because that ended up having a greater impact to the ultimate shape of the system. There's definitely a case to be made that it was worth keeping!
I really appreciate you taking the time to watch and leave comments!
Just to be clear: No line that was intended to be a subway was built as light rail. The various light rail projects that got built were always going to be light rail. Basically, the only subway that wasn't built was the rest of the Purple/D Line, and that's now under construction, to be opened pretty soon.
@Geotpf True, sort of. The East LA gold line got built because there was no local funding to build the originally proposed East LA subway extension of the original Red line. It's a subway line that should still get built. It would be a highly used line under Whittier Blvd.
Great video! Really explains why the metro system is what it is and why we don't yet have such obvious lines! (tho the light rail isn't thaaaat bad)
Light rail is, at the VERY LEAST, better than having to take a BUS for an equivalent distance/time!
Let this be a reminder to everyone watching this video and is a citizen, voting is taking place this Tuesday on March 5th, 2024!! Go out there and vote for better public transportation, a safer walkable city, and better government officials! Or don’t complain when the city makes decisions that you could’ve voted to prevent
Light rails are not fast enough to attract riders from cars and have fewer capacity to match future growth. American big cities should focus on grade-separated rapid transit, light rail projects like the Seattle Line 1 Rainer Valley section, LA Blue line (A line), Houston Red Line have encountered these problems and future Toronto Line 5 would be a failure as well.
Yes. I do not see the point in investing at grade light rail. To me, it has almost no advantages to a much cheaper and quick to construct dedicated ROW BRT. The only rail worth investing in is elevated or tunneled high capacity rail.
@@usernameryan5982Light rail moves more people, cleaner, and less expensive to maintain compared to BRT. LA's light rail lines are not designed like low level trams or streetcars. That's why they are vastly superior to BRTs.
@@mrxman581 You're not understanding what the original commenter or myself is saying. There are very few corridors that BRT does not have the capacity to handle in America. And if such a corridor does exist, it's better to invest in a much higher capacity form of rail so it can handle even more growth, mainly metros that can be automated. And you're claim is not universally true, it depends on the context. I've read plenty of data on transit.dot.gov that are completely contrary to your claim.
@@mrxman581 I already responded to this but for some reason it’s not showing up. A Quick Look into the data of operating cost per passenger mile and you’ll quickly find your statement is almost completely misleading or false. It’s rare to have corridors that BRT can’t handle but that doesn’t mean they should build light rail when there are much greater forms of capacity to handle the growth.
Good thing Toronto is extending Line 1 and Line 2 and building a new rapid metro line, Line 3. Line 4 might be extended as well when they have the funding.
As a born and raised Angeleno that has traveled to Japan, Seoul, and CDMX. It's crazy how much better our public transportation could be
Very good summary of the Issues.
Loved this video, keep em coming!
This is a great summary of Railtown! Good job!
Great video, looking forward to more of these, particularly about LA!
Great video!
I heard that General Motors and Goodyear bought out L.A's street cars, so the city was forced to buy GM buses riding on Goodyear tires, but i think they did that to other cities that had street cars as well like NYC, and Chicago etc.
What You Left Out - WHY the Westside didn't want an extension down Wilshire Blvd (Miracle Mile)-- because the construction techniques at the time were A MESS . . . When they were building the Red Line under Wilshire Boulevard (in the DOWNTOWN) area in the early 90s, it was so disruptive, with the road being torn up over the subway, that many local businesses could not survive. I went down to that area once, and it was chaos. No one would want to shop there. The Miracle Mile didn't want that chaos . . . Newer construction techniques are less disruptive.
very good video
Why is it always Reagan
great video
2:42 Man, Delaware must've fell hard if it was once more populated than LA County in the 70s
Ah good catch! Sorry for that, that's my mistake.
Back then cars weren't the main contributing factor in LA's smog. Up until abound 1960 the Department of Sanitation didn't pick up burnable trash. Every home, apartment, building and business had an incinerator. Imagin an entire city burning their trash. When it was really bad it was a choking, eye watering smog and kids were not let outside for recess.
Air quality was also very bad throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s. I grew up with Smog Alerts when we couldn't play outside. It was vehicles, trucks, and buses. Remember, having to roll up the window in the car when next to a truck or bus. It was horrible.
rip og la streetcar system. were literally rebuilding on the same lines we used to have
It seems to me that the line still won’t have enough stations for such a huge distance it will cover 🤔
This line would have SAVED me as a UCLA student!!! I had to take a BUS to the Santa Monica line, just to get to downtown, which added to my commute by so much
Aside from taking heavy rail to Pomona by partially taking over that failed "busway" infatuation, over Ramona Blvd, curving onto Valley Blvd, all the way to Pomona, terminating over the transit center....
Why don't we also seriously consider extending the purple line to Lincoln Blvd in Santa Monica, curving under Lincoln Blvd to a portal somewhere south of the 10 freeway, and going elevated all the way to LAX, with a huge four-track terminal above parking lot "C" ?!
The Sepulveda line is set to go from the valley to LAX. It will likely connect to the B line at the VA.
The extension of the B line to the Sea has been proposed for a long time. Too expensive to do now considering other areas that still don't have any Metro lines. At least SM has the E line that terminates past Lincoln closer to the pier.
It's crazy that the federal government gave Atlanta a full subway system but not LA...
As I recall, all of these politicians were democratically elected. And the voters specjically turned down the system in a democratically held vote. The fact that the subway system was not built was not due to the actions of a few politicians, but it was due to the wishes of the citizens.
The problem with Pacific Electric Railway was that A) It was slow. Too slow. Top speed for those trains were 25mph. And B) The timetables were nowhere near that of today's Metro Rail. To put it in perspective, check out the timetables for MetroLink. Trains were nowhere as frequent and remember, the population was a fraction of what it is today!
This is fascinating, but WHY do you add unnecessary music? So many CZcamsrs do this.
LA missed the boat on rapid transit. When the Blue Line was opened in 1990, it should have included a third track for express trains. Business commuters from Long Beach and OC didn't need to stop at most cities in the middle of the line.
Jump ahead 30+ years and today most people I know refuse to take Metro for safety concerns. On my recent rides I have witnessed a variety of drug use, riders urinating on the trains or sleeping in their feces, illicit sales conducted, riders jumping on the trains carrying stolen goods (bunches of clothing still on the hangers), people screaming due to psychosis, and in one instance, a fire crackers was exploded in my car. Many of the stations don't have gates, offering free ridership for many.
What's the story behind the DC Metro? It runs thorugh DC, Virginia and Maryland, and is clean, safe, efficient, and still expanding. How do we get a system like that in Los Angeles?
What about the brooding Nemesis of earthquakes?
they have built metros in earthquake-prone areas such as Tokyo, Naples, San Francisco, Santiago de Chile, Istanbul and many more without much issues. The technology exists, the bigger obstacle is the political inertia.
Subway stations are actually safer to be in during an earthquake then above ground inside a building
It feels like maybe you're being part of the problem by framing this as a right left issue. Japan is far more right than left yet they have the best transit system in the world. Most of it is private. It happens to be designed in a way that makes it so the better each line is the more money they makes. Train companies own office buildings, apartments, shopping centers. If their lines suck then no one travels that line to their other businesses and no one rents their apartments.
Didn’t know they are privately owned. Our case study (and I bet lots of US case studies on urban development) does appear to be more related to NIMBYISM and their hands on the throats of politicians.
There is a separate conversation that public (or mass) transit has been wrapped around the axle of US political polarization.
As much as I love this video. You don’t mention that SF got the funding for a metro system from the feds before LA because the population of SF was larger until the mid 60s.
Thats democracy.
I have a little disagrement with you in regards to BART when you show your footage. BART while it recived some federal funding, modt funding for the construction came from the three original counties that compromise the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa) and local toll payers. So no, the federal government did not contribute the vast funding for what it became BART. No sure of the other system system though.
I disliked because "it was stopped by a handful of powerful people" in the same video as "68% of the district voted against it"
I think Americans secretly like being stuck in traffic
NO train to LAX, NO train to Dodger Stadium, plus NO high speed rail to SF, Palm Springs, or Vegas. Just a sad time for travel in LA.
All of those transit projects are being addressed. It takes time. Though LAX will have a Metro connection next year.
The Coachella Valley Rail project has been proposed, and is being studied.
CAHSR being built.
Gondola project to Dodgers Stadium has passed initial EIR approval.
@@mrxman581 why doesn’t the train go right to the terminals at LAX? I have to stop short and take a bus? And even Uber/Lift is offsite. Ridiculous!
Waxman. He gave that money to Israel
Idk if its accurate to say politicians got their way, I think it was more the angry NIMBYs in their districts
Politicians cared more about their jobs than doing the right thing and stand up to the NIMBYs. They failed to lead and we all paid for it.
Seeing this from one of the transit heavens on Earth (Paris), it seems completely bonkers!
I know about the low density issue, the special interests, etc. But still, LA could have had at least something a bit better and more developed.
I really don't understand how a city this size could think light rail is even remotely enough...
Public transportation in LA seems to be merely an afterthought designed to carry a marginal portion of the population.
Whereas the challenges of today require a shift from the personal car to public transit. Which means having the size and capacity to efficiently and rapidly move millions every day, not just some of the poorest.
It feels like most of the system was engineered to remain not too efficient and to support the car dependency instead of solving and replacing it. Traffic light priority should be a bare default minimum at every single intersection and grade separation a number one concern.
It feels drastically undersized, as if its unique goal was only to cater for the minority of people that don't drive and no one else.
Even when the current plans are completed, will the system be able to carry at least 20 or 25% of current drivers? I doubt that, and it is the main issue in my opinion, one from a European who considers public transportation as the primary backbone transportation of cities, not the secondary or support mode.
Anyway, I wish the best for LA. (It's high time for me to revisit btw).
Greetings from Paris!
Do you know how large Los Angeles is? How large the County is? LA Metro is responsible for providing metro rail services for both.
The city is 500 square miles, and the county is 4800 square miles. Paris, by comparison is 40 square miles. That's the difference. That is why LA will always have light rail lines as the main way to move people around the city and county. Much of our light rail is also grade separated, has aerial stations and subterranean stations. We also have the mild weather where the use of light rail is very convenient.
However, we are building more subway too where it makes sense, but it will never be the majority of the metro network.
There are 9 metro rail projects set to be completed over the next 12 years expanding the system from 109 miles to around 180 miles. It will consist of new subway, light rail, and automated elevated tram.
BTW, Los Angeles operates 114 bus lines including a few BRT lines. There are more BRT lines being proposed too
@mrxman581 And Manhattan is 23 square miles, does it change anything one bit ?
The size comparison is misleading, you took the smallest denominator to compare with the largest... Paris core or Paris "proper" is to the Greater Paris area like what Manhattan is to New York, it doesn't make sense to only count the core.
And beyond that, the size isn't and never was an excuse to not have good transportation.
Paris core hosts about 2.5 million people by night, up to over 6 million by day. The agglomeration has around 12 M and the entire metro area around 15 M.
There are 16 metro-subway lines (plus 4 in construction, including a gigantic loop line fully underground), 14 tram lines, 5 main regional heavy metro lines with numerous branches, 8 main suburban train lines or "sectors", and 15 thousand busses directly under the city regional transportation agency, plus the busses under smaller local municipal agencies. It's not urban transportation per se but there are also 4 main radial high-speed lines that carry a great number of long distance HSR commuters every day.
It is slightly different but similar in London, in Berlin, Madrid, Tokyo, etc.
IDFM (Île-de-France Mobilités) is responsible for providing all types of transportation to the entire region (4,640 square miles), and sometimes beyond.
The inner part of the agglomeration is called Grand Paris (not to be confused with the wider Greater Paris area) covers about 315 square miles and roughly 7 million people.
The built-up area is roughly comparable in both LA County and Île-de-France. Yet, the capacity and coverage of public transportation are night and day.
I could have taken London or Tokyo instead of Paris, it would be the sane.
Right now IDFM is, in collaboration with SGP, doubling the length of the metro network (the subway), and also substantially expanding the RER network (regional express heavy metro) and tram network ,after having already opened a dozen new tram lines mainly for suburbs to suburbs journeys, in the last decade and a half.
Between now and late June there are about 35 kilometers of new metro, tram and RER lines that are expected to open, 30km of which are underground.
The goal is to reach a daily capacity for the rail networks of at least 20 million trips by 2030 or 2032, further replacing the need for a car for most people.
Several lines carry between 750k and a million passengers daily, RER A carries 1.5 M, RER B 1.3 M and M14 is expected to soon carry well over a million daily.
The lines under construction are expected to carry an extra 3 million passengers daily.
Some of the tram lines carry well over 300k daily, even if their length is barely 10 miles.
That is real mass transit, a true backbone network that makes the car the second or third option and not the default transportation means.
I'm baffled by the choice of using light rail, which seems to be a bad habit in the US. Instead of solving the outrageous cost ballooning issues, the cheapest solution is chosen, despite not being the right one in many cases.
In order to have proper public transportation that could make a real difference in the modal share, you need high capacity, full priority and high frequency... Light rail isn't exactly known for any of that.
Sure, Angelinos also aren't known for their love of PT, but if LA Metro wants to change that, they need proper equipment that would be easier, faster, cheaper and better than driving.
What I'm criticizing is the choice of not putting public transportation front and center.
All of what is being developed is better than nothing, sure, but it is still keeping public transportation relegated as a marginal means of transportation, far behind the personal car.
It remains like the third option after the personal car, and Uber or Lyft.
The size is irrelevant, it's a false problem.
Size should even be an asset, not a problem, because when you have space, you can build proper transportation much more easily and more cheaply.
A city like Los Angeles should have heavy metro trains running both local and express services, regular metro trains running the usual metro lines and tram lines with full priority. Plus a network of busses acting as feeders to the main lines. Under, on, or over the ground is not the issue.
The questions to ask are the following :
Can the LA Metro network be the city's main means of transportation?
Does it cater to everyone, rich and poor?
Does it have enough capacity and speed to be able to take at the very least a 20 or 25% modal share?
If any of the questions has no for an answer, then it's a problem...
It feels like what is developed by LA Metro right now is a marginal system, aimed at those who don't have a car, who don't or won't drive. Like a minimum equipment.
Instead of being the true arterial system of the city.
In other words, the LA Metro network should have more capacity than the freeways.
Just to give you an example :
RER A, the main East-West line of the Paris RER network, has trains carrying more than 3000 passengers every 2 minutes each way on peak.
M14 has trains each carrying 1200 passengers every 80 or 85 seconds, each way during peak hours.
You can find pretty much the same kind of high capacity and high frequency in London, Tokyo, etc. It's not a Paris thing.
The fact that the lines are underground or on the surface or elevated is irrelevant, what's important is that the transportation network is the true workhorse of its city, not the highway network.
What I've hoped for LA is a network capable of moving millions from where they are to where they want to go.
A network that is the lifeblood of the city and its primary means of transportation.
Right now it feels like they are developing only a marginal network of mostly light rail for the price of heavy underground subway, with plenty of blank zones and far from having the capacity to become the main transportation means in LA.
@@KyrilPGThere's a few assumptions in your argument that weaken some of your points.
LA is a much more complex story than the cities you listed for various reasons.
Before I get into them it should be noted that LA today is building out a system much faster than any other U.S. city. And the light rail options have largely been built along existing right of way paths of previous defunct lines making it more affordable to do so. But subway lines are being built in parallel at the same time.
As the video highlights, funding from the federal government or lack of, has been an issue. Cities like New York or Chicago built up their pt rail network in the early 1900s when they were already large populated cities and getting funding from the federal government. London, Paris, and Tokyo likewise were already big cities when they got their first pt rail lines.
LA was not a very large city until after 1960. By that time as the video mentioned, federal funding for pt rail was dismantled. The federal government built a network of interstate highways instead from the 1940s-1970s largely for ease of military movement. However it quickly became the main mode of transportation as home builders built more cheaply on the outskirts of cities (where pt didn't reach), building homes that Americans could afford. That was the rise of the car commuting culture, not just in LA, but every major U.S. city. Even the biggest transit systems like NYCs were neglected and underfunded making them inefficient, dirty, and aethetically unappealing during this time. People abandoned inner city cores for cleaner suburban lifestyles.
Today LA (still not getting the same amount of federal or state funding cities like NYC or San Francisco get despite LA being the 2nd largest city in the country) has managed to build out the 3rd and soon 2nd largest public rail transport network in the U.S. behind only NYC, largely through local funding. Sure light rail is not a complete adequate substitute for heavy rail, but considering the numerous underfunding priority from the national and state governments its done a pretty good job to be accessible to the largest geographic area possible.
Size in an underfunded system is NOT an advantage or plus. As the other commenter noted LA County is 4800 Sq miles and the metro area has 13 million people (19 million conurbation). But LA is building the fastest it can, with the funding it has. And also LA is already a dense area, and also an earthquake fault zone, making it both trickier and more expensive to build above and below ground.
As a side note, LA has one of the best planned and extensive highway systems in the world, so even a full subway system would likely not entirely replace them, even if portions were torn down. But most would likely not be torn down and here's why. The highways don't just provide commuters with a first transportation option. They're also vital arteries for the movement of goods for the U.S. The ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach are the busiest ports outside of east Asia in the world--busier than the port of Rotterdam which is Europe's busiest port complex. So there is a lot of cargo movement coming off the ships to inland warehouses on highways; cargo which is then redistributed to the rest of the country. Not even NYC ports are as busy (and NYC also has big logistical challenges for its retail sector due to lack of highway reach and street access).
To make a fair comparison to a European city, it would be like combining the cities of London or Paris with Rotterdam. Try moving people and cargo efficiently on only a subway system. Not happening.
Even with full rail yards taking some of those container ships away from the ports currently, there is still an army, a fleet of lorry/truck drivers that whisk away the cargo via highway to more inland warehousing areas. That is then distributed to other cities.
My hope is that subway lines keep expanding over the decades. Maybe get a few HSR lines for the metro area alone given the geographic size, not just intercity HSR. Funding is pivotal for this though, especially from the federal and state governments, rather than just local and private funds.
Capitalism
NIMBYism. Fiscal conservatism.
@@foreignparticle1320 aka capitalism
@@handsfortoothpicks Negative.
@@foreignparticle1320 "nimbyism" is just a form of reactionary though and conservatism is a liberal ideology which makes it bourgeois
LA sucks anyway. What a s--t whole
But what about the rampant drug use and violence on all trains, buses, and stations we have now? Why make expansions when the current lines are unusable because of a few troublemakers who have complete freedom to terrorize riders at will?
Los Angeles doesn’t have a rapid transit system;
it has a $40 billion underground crackhouse.
Not true. Things got bad during Covid, but that has changed dramatically over the last 6 months. It has gotten much better and ridership went up every month in 2023.