In Los Angeles, the Desire of Some Is Named Streetcar
A report prepared for city officials says downtown trolleys would be a boon for development.
By Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writer
September 5, 2006

A new study that will probably reinvigorate a decades-old debate about mass transit in Los Angeles concludes that bringing back streetcars to downtown would spur more development and attract riders. It also contends that trolleys could peaceably share the road with cars.

The report, expected to be released this week by the Community Redevelopment Agency, also makes another point: Reintroduced trolleys have met with success in many other cities, and there's no reason they can't in Los Angeles.

ADVERTISEMENT
Click here to find out more!
In other cities, "the streetcars have inspired and promoted economic revival, they have encouraged and attracted tourism, and they have supplemented the existing, everyday public transit services already in operation," concludes the study, which was written by several transportation consultants.

"This isn't just a cute little tourist attraction," said Carol Schatz, president and chief executive of the influential Central City Assn., which represents downtown businesses. "We need a sophisticated and fun circulator that ties together all the vibrant districts that are spread around downtown."

While downtown is still heavily dotted with parking lots, a mini-construction boom is underway as new buildings are built and old offices are converted to residences. At least 7,600 residential units are in the development pipeline, the new L.A. Live entertainment complex is rising next to Staples Center and planning is underway for a Grand Avenue redevelopment project.

The study proposes connecting the southern and northern parts of downtown. Trolleys would run on tracks down the middle or the side of streets amid car traffic, and the streetcars would be powered by electricity from overhead wires.

There are hurdles, the most notable of which is the cost — $60 million to $73 million.

There is also the matter of political will in City Hall, which oversees a metropolis where streetcars were removed, albeit four decades ago, to clear the way for more automobiles. Although the idea of bringing back streetcars has been around for years, this particular proposal comes not from transit organizations but from the redevelopment agency, which is tasked with reinvigorating downtown, among other areas. And it was Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Los Angeles), not city officials, who corralled the $100,000 for the report.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office declined to comment on the study or the idea of returning trolleys to the streets. The mayor has been pushing for a larger light-rail line that might run on surface streets and would traverse downtown to connect the existing Long Beach and Pasadena light-rail routes to future lines to the Westside and East Los Angeles.

Streetcars hold a special place in the history of Los Angeles. The streetcar system in Southern California, which blossomed in the late 1800s, once had over 1,000 miles of track, with Los Angeles at the center. But civic leaders preferred buses, and streetcars had difficulty competing with the door-to-door convenience of automobiles in a growing and sprawling region.

After the final five lines were shut down on March 31, 1963, most of the rolling stock was sold to the transit system in the Egyptian capital of Cairo, and the Los Angeles Convention Center eventually occupied the site of the city's old trolley yards.

But why spend millions for a trolley system when the city already has a fleet of DASH buses circulating downtown? The buses, after all, don't require tracks or power lines and offer more route flexibility.

Streetcar advocates argue that people who don't like riding buses are more willing to ride aesthetically pleasing streetcars, which are usually quieter and don't weave in and out of traffic. They also believe that streetcars, like other fixed-route lines, lure development.

"There's something about the reliability and obviousness of a rail line that trumps the bus every time," said Gloria Ohland, a vice president with Reconnecting America, a group dedicated to building housing near rail stations. "And obviously it works for developers because they see rail lines in the street and they know the public sector has made a commitment to that neighborhood."

Streetcars have become something of a rage in urban planning circles. Seattle; Memphis, Tenn.; Little Rock, Ark.; Charlotte, N.C.; Dallas and Portland, Ore., have brought back trolleys in recent years and Atlanta is seriously considering doing so. Closer to home, the Port of Los Angeles opened a 1.5-mile trolley line in 2003 as a tourist attraction.

Perhaps the most talked about is in Portland, where a six-mile trolley line traverses a neighborhood known as the Pearl that until the 1990s was rail yards. After it was rezoned to allow for housing to be built, the area has thrived with new lofts and businesses. The addition of the trolley, in 2001, helped, advocates say.

"Since 1997, when the city committed to build the trolley, until today, there has been $2.3-billion worth of investment near the trolley, 7,248 residential units have been built and another 4.6 million feet of commercial space," said Vicky Diede, the project manager for Portland Streetcar.

Diede said that the most impressive statistic for her agency is that prior to the streetcar project, most of the development near the future line was built at half the allowable density. Since the project, she said, new buildings within one block of the line are at 90% of the potential density — meaning that the real estate has become much more desirable.

In Los Angeles, the new study is only a beginning, and the CRA has not yet taken a position. If there's a push to go forward, another study will be needed to work out some of the more technical aspects and to settle on a route.

Schatz said that although downtown businesses would probably be willing to shoulder some of the financial load, the city probably would need to come up with at least $40 million at a time when federal funding for trolleys is in short supply.

"I don't think it's a pipe dream," said Councilwoman Jan Perry, whose district includes much of downtown. "When you look at all the new buildings coming on line here, I think that anything that could serve residents and tourists, and reduces the number of car trips, can't just be rejected."

Waiting for some type of resolution are people such as Jim Walker, who in the final days of the streetcar system in Los Angeles spent some of his free time photographing the trolleys as they scooted about town.

After the last train rolled, he avoided downtown. "I just closed the door because I didn't want to see the destruction," said Walker, 70, who is now the historian for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

"I didn't think they would ever come back," Walker added. "But a lot of things happened since then that I never thought would, and I guess I still have some faith."

Cool, just so long as this doesn't become, "oh well, we can't build the DC because of all that money we spent on those trolleys".

i think it will be cool to have all those modes of transportation in DT further stablizing it as the hub of the region. You are gonna have the Metro Blue, Red, Gold, Expo & Purple Lines, Downtown Connector, Metrolink, Dash, Metro, & Foothill buses, Trolleys and possibly Taxis. All this is gonna create a helluva pedestrian & tourist experience igniting further development/upgrading. Also I figure with all the rail service maybe this can be a litchpin in further high density development for Union Station Area hopefully. Hopefully more extensive & rapid studies can be done so that this will get near top priority of course after or among the Purple Line and DC. I think this will come at the best time seeing that after 2008 Downtown's New face will finally be set in concrete and the residential base will be continuing to implant itself. Hopefully the Trolleys will come circa 2010 just in time when 7th, Bway, Grand, Figueroa, Spring, Main & (maybe Olympic) will have become prime established thoroughfares, & Gold Line & Expo are up and running.

double post edit

But why spend millions for a trolley system when the city already has a fleet of DASH buses circulating downtown? The buses, after all, don't require tracks or power lines and offer more route flexibility.

Streetcar advocates argue that people who don't like riding buses are more willing to ride aesthetically pleasing streetcars, which are usually quieter and don't weave in and out of traffic. They also believe that streetcars, like other fixed-route lines, lure development.

"There's something about the reliability and obviousness of a rail line that trumps the bus every time," said Gloria Ohland, a vice president with Reconnecting America, a group dedicated to building housing near rail stations. "And obviously it works for developers because they see rail lines in the street and they know the public sector has made a commitment to that neighborhood."

It seems to me that development in DTLA has already been attracted with or without a streetcar. It also sounds like Portland is looked at as an example, but why? Sounds like they took a dump of an area next to/in downtown and opened it up to housing. You telling me that shit wouldn't happen if Skidrow was simply bulldozed? I'd love to see figures on ridership/new riders as apposed to previous transit riders who had to move to riding the trolleys when their bus routes where eliminated. I'm tried of always hearing that we need to spend millions of dollars to accommedate pansies too scared, stupid, or ignorat to ride the bus. Specially in this case when they only need to ride it for two or three miles at most. Just give them all a damn bike.

eh... just take the money and use it on more trains

I hate the idea of having wires hanging everywhere.

...street car wires or train wires?

i don't like surface street idea for most types of rail, but a trolley works on the street. for other rail, if it's on the street, there's bound to be more accidents especially because speeds can get up to 65 mph with trains. overhead or submerged is great, it doesn't have to stop for anything but stations.

a trolley will obviously only do good in a small amount of space, like downtown. if i was going to the beach on a trolly, it would take me forever compared to any other mass transit or even a car during rush hour.

this system would be good for tourists, or residents who would rather not walk to get an errand done on the opposite side of downtown.

i'm not stepping on this idea for that reason because really that's what it's used for in san fransisco. this would be a great memorial and historical system to remember the red cars and it would be neat to have. and just because the city works on trolleys doesn't mean that the city will have to stop working on the faster traveling stuff they have proposed for locals.

you know, it would be REALLY nice to have if it got us closer to winning the location for the 2016 oympics.

I think this will come at the best time seeing that after 2008 Downtown's New face will finally be set in concrete and the residential base will be continuing to implant itself. Hopefully the Trolleys will come circa 2010 just in time when 7th, Bway, Grand, Figueroa, Spring, Main & (maybe Olympic) will have become prime established thoroughfares, & Gold Line & Expo are up and running.

you know what's really cool about that is that even more people will envy los angeles and want to live here. a continuous boom so-to-speak that would demand even more development (housing, office, and retail) and better things following what we've planned for our immediate future!!

los angeles is historical for growing extremely fast, we haven't seen that in a number of years until lately. i'd like to be in competition with dubai as far as size and desirability of our constructed projects!! dreams can finally become reality again in los angeles like it always used to be before the 90s.

fuck dubai

we dont need to idolize a fake city. people already judge everything from la as fake

They just need to combine Dash B & F, and change it to the trolley. That should be good enough.
http://www.ladottransit.com/dash/routes/familymaps/surrounding.html

of course don't idolize dubai!! surpass them.

also, i would rather not tear up our streets with trolleys zigzagging at all those intersections with wires overhead. that would be very counter-economical (people need to get places instead of make unnecessary turns only to end up on the same street they started from) in my opinion and an eyesore. it would be better if many went down their own streets. probably would be cool if the trolleys went through the historic core, seems to fit there. broadway should get one first as part of its revitalization.

broadway should get one first as part of its revitalization.

Broadway is packed with people. Specially on the weekends, just PACKED. So, what's wrong with it?

been there, and it's not really. maybe for LA i guess. there are a lot of people, but packed? still, downtownnews.com says the area does pretty poorly at night (yeah businesses close, but there is no night crowd). the place is doing better than before and at a fast pace. i just think a trolley down that street would look cool considering the surroundings. probably bring in more nightlife. downtown should never sleep.

what are some other suggested routes for trolleys to go through in downtown? or LA?

been there, and it's not really. maybe for LA i guess. there are a lot of people, but packed? still, downtownnews.com says the area does pretty poorly at night (yeah businesses close, but there is no night crowd). the place is doing better than before and at a fast pace. i just think a trolley down that street would look cool considering the surroundings. probably bring in more nightlife. downtown should never sleep.

what are some other suggested routes for trolleys to go through in downtown? or LA?

Did you all check out the pic of the 50s the article had? It was Broadway and 7th street probably a Saturday night way back then, it was so full of life. Ahh the good ol' days.

After reading all the posts I've changed my opinion. No, we shouldn't want or try to be like Dubai.......god!! Trolleys on one or two streets is cool, but that's it! If you really want to go ride a trolley, go to San Fran, this is LA and our buses should be enough to get a tourist the rest of the way. After visiting Chicago, I really, really, don't want LA to start imitating other cities just because what they did was successful. Think of something new and innovative. This is a "new" city!

Bring them back. Chicago's are long gone, it's too bad because they could probably do wonders for us.

I really, really, don't want LA to start imitating other cities just because what they did was successful. Think of something new and innovative. This is a "new" city!

that's more to what i'm saying. surpass everyone!! :cheer:

Did you all check out the pic of the 50s the article had? It was Broadway and 7th street probably a Saturday night way back then, it was so full of life. Ahh the good ol' days.

i wish people just kept their senses and stuck around. now they get stuck in hours of traffic to go to the same places they used to walk to anyway. that's exactly what my grandparents did. :gaah:

A good north american model to look at in terms of successful streetcar service would obviously be Toronto. But Toronto is quite a bit different than LA, both in terms of built form and its attitudes towards car culture and public transit. Plus, we have enjoyed uninterupted streetcar service for almost 150 years....so we are used to it.

But it would be worth a look.

I don't think streetcars would be quite as successful in LA, as streetcars work best as shorter distance transit vehicles, with regular stops along busy "main streets", and with ridership levels higher than buses. Streetcars are not "mini subways", which many of these new LRT lines tend to be...with actual stations located far apart and lines running long distances with nothing inbetween stations.

It would depend on how much of this service is needed in LA. From what I can tell...not that much. Would make a great addition to a revitalized old downtown area though. Nothing adds character and vibrancy to a nabe like a streetcar...it's no mystery that most of Toronto's best nabes...are ones that have streetcars rolling down the street.

Not to say that streetcars should be treated like tourist attractions (ala Frisco's cable cars) ...they are serious public transit that serves a specific transit mode that falls somewhere between buses and subways. Toronto's streetcars carry upwards of 300,000 people a day. Sure, they are also just a nice and civilized way to travel....nobody loves riding a bus, but most people love riding a streetcar....streetcars are part of my everyday life....they pick me up at my door....drop me off at my door...and take me directly to the places I like to go, which happen to be the most interesting places in the city...in comfort and style I'm not going to get on a bus, or even a subway. Some of them also run 24 hrs/day.

One of the problems I see with a lot of newer light rail/streetcar systems, is that they operate mostly independent. In Toronto, the streetcar network is totally intigrated with the rest of the transit system...they either begin at a subway station, connect with a subway station enroute, or end at a subway station (generally, they do all three), as well as make connections with bus routes along the way.

Another key element is frequency of service....unless it's good, people just aren't going to take it if they have to wait a half hour between vehicles. It's gotta be ten minutes or less even at non-peak periods, and less during peak periods.

Streetcars running on their own right-of-way is best of course, but even when they run in mixed traffic (which some of Toronto's do), it still works....streetcars with signal priority equipment and running in the middle lane control the traffic (cars have to stop when streetcars stop to let passengers on/off at each stop). This is good for the streetcars, and not so great for drivers that are following them, but then again, who cares...gotta start somewhere when shedding total car culture. Don't like it, leave the car at home or find a different route.

The trick is to keep them along busy routes, with regular stops right on the street like a bus, so people can hop on and off right where they need to be. If it isn't convenient, people won't use it. Putting track away from busy streets, with long distances between stops isn't convenient. Streetcars are not for long distance commuting.

While most of LA does not fit this criteria, I think there are areas that would benefit from it.






KGB

Of course they would be only downtown and mostly for tourists. I personally don't think they are needed though. I'd much rather see a skyride from the Vermont/Sunset station to the Griffith Observatory. Now that's LA!

ehh... i'm getting tired of this streetcar talk. it would be inneffective with today's transit that's already used (busses/rail). now, i think it would really just get in the way of regular traffic. that's why it was torn down in the first palce 40 years ago.

^^ agreed. A better idea would be a ditch taxpayers could just toss $$$ in and skip the middleman. Let's invest in real regional public transit.

After thinking about this whole streetcar thing, I'm in agreement with the previous posts. We have the most extensive bus system possibly on the planet. Streetcars are not needed in downtown LA. I would like to see them in Pasadena, Long Beach, West Hollywood.

in my opinion, we need streetcars, buses light rail and subways. We should continue to build LRT and Subway as we have discussed earlier, and every littile nieghborhood should have streetcars connecting to the main Transit lines. so, Pasadena should have street cars connecting all the main points in the city, from Colorodo, lake, delmare, fair oaks and that line should connect to the LRT stops. Downtown LA should have streetcars connecting Chinatown Station on Gold to Dodger Stadium, Down Grand, Broadway, 7th, Figueroa by Staples and Connecting to 7th metro, Red Line, Union Station. Hollywood should have streetcars on Hollywood Blvd, Highland, Vine and Sunset, connecting to the Subway Stations, Santa Monica, Long Beach, century City, Glendale, Koreatown, you get the drift.

As said eairlier, Streetcars add a sense of permanence, history and add to the city's feel and culture. I rather take a streetcar than a bus, and believe me, so would 99% of people.

"ehh... i'm getting tired of this streetcar talk. it would be inneffective with today's transit that's already used (busses/rail). now, i think it would really just get in the way of regular traffic. that's why it was torn down in the first palce 40 years ago."


Good god...if that's still the prevailing attitude regarding public transit, then it's no wonder LA remains embarrassingly poor in the transit area.

The entire point is that when well placed, streetcars are the excact opposite at being "ineffective"...they increase ridership and improve the areas they service...which in turn continues to increase ridership...and so on.

They can also move more people, faster than a bus on the same route can. Subways are nice, but they are only effective where ridership makes it practical....which in LA, doesn't represent many routes.

A transit system has to work as an intigrated system that covers the whole city, and is only as good as its weakest link. And subways require feeder routes to give them the ridership they require to make them viable. Buses are great too....they provide service to routes best suited to their ridership levels. Streetcars provide a service to routes that fall between buses and streetcars. In fact, just introducing them increases ridership by itself....A bus route was replaced by a streetcar a few yars ago, and ridership incresed by 35% almost immedietely.


As for it "gettting in the way of regular traffic"...well...WHO CARES!!!! GOOD Seriously, this west coast attitude that cars are the most important thing in life simply has to end. Now is a good time to start.

Besides, your logic is flawed anyway...do you realize how many cars one loaded streetcar takes off the road...the more people taking transit, means less cars on the road....even selfish car people should support public transit.

The only way you can coax people out of their cars and onto transit, is to provide a good enough transit system to do it....and believe me, provide it and they will use it. AT the moment, LA's transit is so pathetic, it's only considered for the poor and losers, which is relying on just the captive market, when it should be the choice riders you should be going for.

But I think the real worse enemy of LA regarding transit is simple politics....LA is so far gone down the auto dependancy hole, that not only is it nearly impossible getting it under control....it's political suicide.






KGB

...sure

I say we need a streetcar down Lincoln and Sepulveda Blvd.

Sepulveda Line:
Green Line into LAX down Sepulveda all the way to Ventura Blvd. That would alleviate traffic on the 405. Also would service Westchester, Culver City, Palms, Westwood and Sherman Oaks.

Lincoln Line:
Green Line into LAX corridor onto Lincoln Bl. Serving Playa Del Rey, Marina Del Rey, Venice and Santa Monica.

Both of these lines would have connectors to the Purple Line and Aqua Line on Expo......Woohoo!

Streetcars are not the same as Light Rail lines!!!!!!!!

Good god...if that's still the prevailing attitude regarding public transit, then it's no wonder LA remains embarrassingly poor in the transit area.

The entire point is that when well placed, streetcars are the excact opposite at being "ineffective"...they increase ridership and improve the areas they service...which in turn continues to increase ridership...and so on.

They can also move more people, faster than a bus on the same route can. Subways are nice, but they are only effective where ridership makes it practical....which in LA, doesn't represent many routes.KGB

that's not my attitude toward mass transit, just streetcars. i'm sorry but the reason the red cars were torn down was because they only reached speeds of 15 miles per hour during the 50s. the red cars were in gridlock. today those things wouldn't even be able to move.

a rail today can avoid traffic altogether by being grade separate, but the trolleys would be among the cars (a grade separate trolley would just look stupid).

to me trolleys would work in lower density areas rather than in downtown (unless servicing just a street or two). pasadena might do good with them, but a redcar or trolley that is intended to get people across long distances would take hours. speed doesn't matter? hell yeah it does. and a trolley doesn't go faster than a bus on the same route. remember a trolley wouldn't be able to move today with our traffic (they slowed down from 25 mph to 15 mph in 1950). a bus goes like 20 to 40 mph on the streets.

i agree that a trolley is desirable for business. the trolley at the grove is nice because it's just for the grove. don't depend on that thing (if it were built for it) to get you to downtown in less than an hour. the subway will get me there in less than 10 minutes.

LA isn't poor in transit, just in rail. so that's what we need to build first is effective rail. trolleys can be built if privately funded because it is an attraction to get good business in the area, but not to get me from downtown to sana monica in a desirable amount of time.

"that's not my attitude toward mass transit, just streetcars."


Well, streetcars are a mode of public transit. Plus, you seemed more concerned about how transit affects cars, rather than putting the priority on transit. Mis-placed concern, as I have already pointed out that better public transit removes way more cars from the roads, making them less congested than they were.

I would say most, if not all of you attitude derives from ignorance though...you have these "theories", which don't make much sense.








"i'm sorry but the reason the red cars were torn down was because they only reached speeds of 15 miles per hour during the 50s. the red cars were in gridlock. today those things wouldn't even be able to move."


They were removed because people wrongly thought buses were better (spurred on by the auto manufacturers, who intended to make a killing building buses). It's a mistake every city in north america now regrets (except for Toronto he he), and some are trying to re-introduce.

I'm not privy to what was going on in LA 50 years ago, but I assure you downtown Toronto is a hell of a lot denser than downtown LA...now or 50 years ago, and the streetcars here work just fine.







"a rail today can avoid traffic altogether by being grade separate, but the trolleys would be among the cars (a grade separate trolley would just look stupid)."


Some kind of rail LRT might avoid traffic, but they will undoubtidly avoid a lot of prospective riders as well. That's the problem with most of those new LRT lines....they are poorly placed, and therefore suffer from less than ideal ridership because of it.

But we aren't talking about mass transit LRT lines, which act as quasi subways....we are talking about streetcars, which provide a different service all together. Generally, they replace overcrowded and innefective bus routes.

Streetcars don't have to be grade separated...on dedicated right-of-ways they don't look stupid at all.







"a redcar or trolley that is intended to get people across long distances would take hours. "


You haven't been listening...I never said they should be used for cross town travel....that's obviously the job for subways. Perhaps I'm just not in tune with travelling in LA that much....is getting from anywhere to anywhere else involve that much distance ALL the time?

Streetcars are for getting to a specofic place on a route, or to connect to subways or other routes....not long distance travel.









"and a trolley doesn't go faster than a bus on the same route."


Well, it's a proven fact that it does...and it moves more people in the process. It will also increase ridership simply by being there, as people will take a streetcar when they wouldn't step foot on a bus. Again, I'm talking about Toronto....of course it depends on what you do....a poorly designed streetcar route will perform poorly....a good one will perform good.







"LA isn't poor in transit, just in rail. "


Well, like I said, you have to think of it as a "system". And it's only as good as its weakest link. For such a large city, it's pretty clear given ridership levels, that LA fails miserably in the transit department.

Poor transit systems are also costly....they are not cost-efficient to maintain, and therefore require large sums of taxpayers dollars to subsidize. And I don't know about you, but if I'm going to fork over vast sums of money for something, I want it to be good....not crap.







KGB

hay dickhead no one said that its the best in the world. the city does have a problum and there working there ass off to fix it

Streetcars are not the same as Light Rail lines!!!!!!!!





EXACTLY LASF!!!!!!!!!
A streetcar is more adequate for LA Blvds. Light Rail is too bulky and fast for regular streets. Another win/win situation for LA city. So when is this project going to get the green light????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Car

ignorant huh? and wikipedia doesn't take sides. while the red cars were missed, the reason at the time is pretty reasonable. and don't assume i don't want a subway to the sea and a great lightrail/subway system in the near future (today actually). just because someone doesn't want a streetcar doesn't mean anything against other mass transit (there are other "modes" of mass transit).

yes i'm listening that it won't be a broad trolley system if built, but whatever is, it needs to be privately funded.

long distances, definately. our metropolitan region covers 5 counties with the head city (L.A.) being 470 square miles (metro los angeles is like around 4,000 sq mi.). hollywood is several miles from downtown and downtown is a good 20 miles from the beach. you gotta understand our land before you can decide what kind of transit works best with it.

KGB, you say you aren't as knowledgeable about the history of los angeles now or 50 years ago or whatever (not to insult), read the link and look up whatever else about los angeles and our history in transit. it's pretty interesting.

"Good god...if that's still the prevailing attitude regarding public transit, then it's no wonder LA remains embarrassingly poor in the transit area.

What does poor transit mean?

"The entire point is that when well placed, streetcars are the excact opposite at being "ineffective"...they increase ridership and improve the areas they service...which in turn continues to increase ridership...and so on.

Streetcars in Toronto in 2006 have reported a -12% ridership level according to the ATPA.

"Subways are nice, but they are only effective where ridership makes it practical....which in LA, doesn't represent many routes.

Simply a lie. If a subway was to be built /extended, the current bus route ridership where the subway would most likely mimic would be observed first. In LA their are an innumerable amount of lines doing light rail and in some cases heavy rail numbers. The Santa Monica 4, Venice 33, Wilshire Rapid 720 along with its sister local line are the first ones that come to mind. Anyone on this board who rides the bus can attest to the overcrowding of said bus lines as well as others not mentioned here. To note: Toronto's bus ridership numbers were at 1,129.5 while LA's was at 1,198 according to the APTA.

"Streetcars provide a service to routes that fall between buses and streetcars. In fact, just introducing them increases ridership by itself....A bus route was replaced by a streetcar a few yars ago, and ridership incresed by 35% almost immedietely.

Outside of San Fransisco, most if not all US cities phased out streetcars in favor of busses. New York City which had a terrific streetcar system is no exception. Note: New York City has the highest mass transit ridership in North America. Please try re-introducing streetcars into the middle of Manhattan today.


"As for it "gettting in the way of regular traffic"...well...WHO CARES!!!! GOOD Seriously, this west coast attitude that cars are the most important thing in life simply has to end. Now is a good time to start.

You really know how to dig a ditch for yourself! US national averages for ridership are at around 3% for mass transit. Los Angeles, San Fransisco and Portland all have averages far greater than 3%. Note: These are all West coast cities in case you don't have a map handy.


"The only way you can coax people out of their cars and onto transit, is to provide a good enough transit system to do it....and believe me, provide it and they will use it. AT the moment, LA's transit is so pathetic, it's only considered for the poor and losers, which is relying on just the captive market, when it should be the choice riders you should be going for.

What's a "choice rider"? What do they look like? What cereal do they eat in the morning? And why do you feel that they should be coaxed onto transit even if transit #'s and increases are fine without them?How do we know "choice riders" are not already riding?(I really want to hear this one. :gossip: ) And please define how you came to the conclusion (in concrete data) that LA's transit was pathetic.

"But I think the real worse enemy of LA regarding transit is simple politics....LA is so far gone down the auto dependancy hole, that not only is it nearly impossible getting it under control....it's political suicide.

LA is so far gone.......Hmmm, I've been searching the net for confirmed Toronto projects, meaning subway or light rail construction. I've even been looking for perhaps a busway construction. I don't mean proposals, I mean shovel in the ground projects, perhaps you can inform me. At the moment The MTA has two projects that are currently being built, the E. Gold and the Expo. In the last six years The MTA has successfully completed 2 extensions(Red line) and 2 full projects (Gold and Orange busway lines). Our mayor is in DC as we speak on his umpteenth visit to the Capitol to beg for money for the extension of the Purple Line(formerly Red) to the beach. So no, LA is not 'so far gone'.

In addition to a growing rail line LA has one of the most extensive freeway systems in the world, hence the car usage. The creation of this system helped LA become the international powerhouse that it is today. Admittedly, it is high time for LA to earnestly work on its rapid rail system. Much has been accomplished, though much more has yet to be done.

FYI:

Toronto began operating its rapid rail system in 1954, 36 years before LA opened and began running the Blue Line. In just 16 years LA has built 117km of rapid rail that now sprawls out over the county with 60+ stations. Toronto which is known as a transit orientated community and has one of the most respected systems in the world has 70km and an equal amount of stations. By comparison NYC has well over 400 stations, now that's a transit orientated city! Eventhough LA has an infamous transit system the world over both cities bus #'s are about the same. Where LA had a 16% increase in its Heavy Rail and 13% in its Light Rail, Toronto had flat or no growth in its Heavy Rail and a -4% in its Light Rail systems respectively. Accordingly, since TO has a much much older system we can expect numbers to shift and go flat from time to time. But even in hopeless LA, 16% is a cause for celebration, isn't it? Or does that mean that 16% more people became poor and are now riding the Red Line? TO has 149 bus and streetcar routes. LA has 189. TO currently has 11 streetcar routes according to all of the info that I could gather, in that case I could see 11 streetcar routes placed over the county that connect to our rail lines, e.g. Pasadena, Long Beach, Santa Monica*, West Hollywood*, Hollywood, Downtown.

Where TO is impressive is that it has a total transit ridership, excluding commuter rail, of around 2.3 million. That's pretty good sense the metro is only around 4.3 million. A little more than half ride transit in Toronto while in LA 12% ride but with some astronomical increases in ridership over just last year. And that's in the face of an extensive freeway system, a car culture and a barely born rail service.

"KGB" it seems to me that most of your knowledge is second hand at best, at worst you're just another troll. Using words like "pathetic" are considered disparaging and conjures up feelings of hate towards the asshole and probably shouldn't be used when visiting another cities forum. I have the utmost respect for Toronto as a multicultural city, a well rode transit system and as the financial center of Canada, for whatever that's worth. It's also to be noted that out of the top 50 metros in the Americas, Canada ranks with 2 and the US ranks with 27. What's the rest of Canada? Tundra, I think. That's 25 more cities that LA has to compete with as significant metros for federal dollars to fund major projects like subways and light rail. Toronto has to compete with.....well, once again, I guess tundra.......
All kidding aside, if you can't seem to restrain your disdain for all things LA, kindly and politely, fuck off!
* I know these places don't have rail service.

You know I call L.A.'s current pace of building rail and existing rail system pathetic all the time. Why? Countless reasons, but primarily because several major central business districts are not even on the urban rail map (Santa Monica, Westwood, Beverly Hills, Century City, Glendale, Burbank, Ventura Blvd), and almost none of them are connected to each other. So even when Santa Monica is added to the map, it won't be reasonably connected to LAX and it will take nearly two hours with clean transfers to get from the Santa Monica Pier to Long Beach. This is not only an ineffective way of trying to attract "choice riders" but it is piss poor service for current riders, who are poor (average annual median income of MTA transit rider: $7K) and have no other option. You see, I know what it's like to need to get to Santa Monica on a daily basis when living in South LA (not even deep in South LA either, near the edge of West LA in fact), and having the only option be a 2-transfer 90-minute trip on a crowded bus. It fricking sucks.

At current construction pace, MTA should get to covering and connecting all of these areas around 2060-2080. I find this unacceptable, and I think everyone involved in transit advocacy, everyone who drives in Los Angeles, and everyone who has seen the traffic speed and population growth projections agrees. Our motto should be if you think it's bad just wait.

Incidentally, the most poignant point KGB made is the high subsidy of LA's transit system. Just ~25 cents of every operational dollar in LA comes from the farebox. Comparatively, Toronto has the best in North America at around 80%. There are a lot of reasons for the huge disparity, but primarily among them:
A) In LA we have 7+ buses and 7+ bus drivers doing the job that one subway train and one subway train conductor should be doing
B) fuel is more expensive than electricity
C) Toronto's ridership can afford higher fares.

And on that last point, because I'm sure someone is thinking it, you increase the prices without pushing poor people off the system by:
1) Establishing low-income discounts programs (that way your only subsidizing the rides of people who really need it)
2) On-site student, child and senior citizen discounts
3) Bulk purchasing discounts
4) Slight weekly pass discounts and significant monthly pass discounts, which incidentally encourages transit usage better than anything else.

Again, incidentally, Toronto definitely does 2-4, and I think they're doing #1, but I'm not certain.

Why we wouldn't look to successful transit systems as a guide to ours is beyond me.

ha,... if we do nothing, EVEN by 2020, rail transit development will be put into extreme overdrive leveling out anything that gets in the way. exageration of course, but the severity of doing nothing is understood. 2060 to 2080 is far out and sooo late (i want to assume that's an exageration). everyone will understand our needs way before that. that's like today's tokyo without any rail! and car traffic there is still bad!

also, if there were a line to the pier in santa monica, it would take a while whether you take car or rail to long beach. if you want to get there any faster than 80 minutes, the only way is to upgrade the rail system to high speed maglev (i would actually really like that if we had the money and rail coverage already). at the same time, we'll probably have planned or constructed rail to follow lincoln, centinella, or the 405 freeway to the green line. i honestly don't think it would be a shorter distance than santa monica to downtown LA to long beach.

my point is an extensive rail system connecting our major business districts will come into place no matter what, because it's really an emergency. but i, like many, would also like it as soon as possible. BTW, did you guys hear that glendale and burbank want a line to run from the red line in NOHO through their cities and then to downtown LA?

Glendale and Burbank are really pushing for the (Yellow Line) to come alive. Good for them and hopefully they get it and pronto. Since the 134 is a frickin nightmare. But can you believe that the LOW RIDERSHIP Gold Line is being extended to Montclair instead, what a total lack of miss use of funds. Therefore the rest of us have to sit and wait for our much needed Train is built.

You know I call L.A.'s current pace of building rail and existing rail system pathetic all the time. Why? Countless reasons, but primarily because several major central business districts are not even on the urban rail map (Santa Monica, Westwood, Beverly Hills, Century City, Glendale, Burbank, Ventura Blvd), and almost none of them are connected to each other. So even when Santa Monica is added to the map, it won't be reasonably connected to LAX and it will take nearly two hours with clean transfers to get from the Santa Monica Pier to Long Beach. This is not only an ineffective way of trying to attract "choice riders" but it is piss poor service for current riders, who are poor (average annual median income of MTA transit rider: $7K) and have no other option. You see, I know what it's like to need to get to Santa Monica on a daily basis when living in South LA (not even deep in South LA either, near the edge of West LA in fact), and having the only option be a 2-transfer 90-minute trip on a crowded bus. It fricking sucks.

At current construction pace, MTA should get to covering and connecting all of these areas around 2060-2080. I find this unacceptable, and I think everyone involved in transit advocacy, everyone who drives in Los Angeles, and everyone who has seen the traffic speed and population growth projections agrees. Our motto should be if you think it's bad just wait.

Incidentally, the most poignant point KGB made is the high subsidy of LA's transit system. Just ~25 cents of every operational dollar in LA comes from the farebox. Comparatively, Toronto has the best in North America at around 80%. There are a lot of reasons for the huge disparity, but primarily among them:
A) In LA we have 7+ buses and 7+ bus drivers doing the job that one subway train and one subway train conductor should be doing
B) fuel is more expensive than electricity
C) Toronto's ridership can afford higher fares.

And on that last point, because I'm sure someone is thinking it, you increase the prices without pushing poor people off the system by:
1) Establishing low-income discounts programs (that way your only subsidizing the rides of people who really need it)
2) On-site student, child and senior citizen discounts
3) Bulk purchasing discounts
4) Slight weekly pass discounts and significant monthly pass discounts, which incidentally encourages transit usage better than anything else.

Again, incidentally, Toronto definitely does 2-4, and I think they're doing #1, but I'm not certain.

Why we wouldn't look to successful transit systems as a guide to ours is beyond me.

"KGB" did not say that rail building or pace of rail building was pathetic but the whole system was, eventhough bus ridership is practically the same in both cities.

Also what is a "choice rider"? How do we know that they are not riding with us already? What do we expect them to do once they begin to ride if they are not riding already? Will rail lines suddenly begin to appear underneath our feet? And why do you feel that progress cannot be made without them?

Used to take me an hour and a half to get from my apartment in Harlem to JFK. No one I know of ever considered ripping out the A line or making it a monorail or Maglev to speed it up. Angelinos have been spoiled by the car and have unreasonable expectations regarding transit. The system that is in place now is a good start. As momentum builds, traffic gets worse, ridership continues to soar, developers begin to build TOD's even before the train gets there, we will see a quickening of the pace of rail building.

Transit fares:
Toronto:$2.75
LA:$1.25

Day Pass:
TO-$8
LA-$3

Weekly Pass:
TO-$30
LA-$14

Monthly Pass:
TO-$98.75
LA-$52

If the placement of the cities were reversed you'd be complaining about how expensive the system was and that's why it wasn't attracting the "choice rider".

ha,... if we do nothing, EVEN by 2020, rail transit development will be put into extreme overdrive leveling out anything that gets in the way. exageration of course, but the severity of doing nothing is understood.We DON'T have the sense of urgency to actually get a system built. We are NOT banging down our representatives doors for more mass transit. The transportation bond is at best 50-50 now. Construction for existing lines takes 5-10 times as long as lines take in Asian and European countries. Its going to take FOUR YEARS to build NINE MILES of light rail.

2060 to 2080 is far out and sooo late (i want to assume that's an exageration).I wish it were, but it sadly isn't.

Also what is a "choice rider"?People who have the choice to drive, but pick transit.

How do we know that they are not riding with us already?Median annual income of an MTA rider is $7K per year.

And why do you feel that progress cannot be made without them?I never said that it couldn't be made without them. But, I definitely think that like all things political, you increase the likelihood of success by increasing the number of stakeholders. By bringing in the choice riders we also increase our political capital, as they have more money and are more politically active.

Furthermore, how many government services for poor people can you name that aren't substandard?

If the placement of the cities were reversed you'd be complaining about how expensive the system was and that's why it wasn't attracting the "choice rider".As I said above, Toronto can have higher fare prices because their ridership can afford it and there are various discounts for the people who need it. And again, ~25 cents of every dollar for MTA operations comes from the farebox. This makes it impossible to provide current (non consent decree mandated) service upgrades, and it's why the MTA is constantly doing backflips to balance its budget. Again, 80 cents of every dollar for Toronto transit operations comes from the farebox. To get to 80 farebox recovery in LA, a day pass would be over $9. And by the way, the Toronto fares are in Canadian dollars, not American ($1 US Dollar = $1.12 Canadian Dollar).

So again, the point is LA has a high operational cost, provides a poorer service, so poor that living in the city without a car isn't even an option for a large number of city citizens. Toronto actually has a system that costs less to operate, goes everywhere and actually gives citizens the opportunity to live without the expense of a car.

Used to take me an hour and a half to get from my apartment in Harlem to JFK.Not exactly sure what your point is. We should expect our transportation systems to perform so poorly? It seems that your commute is better used added to the chorus of people who think there needs to be a more direct route from Harlem to JFK through Queens.

Incidentally, South LA to Santa Monica is about 60% as far as Harlem to JFK. Add an hour to your trip from Harlem to JFK for a more accurate comparison.

Again, the point is a 90-minute 3-bus trip to travel 10 miles from South LA to Santa Monica is unacceptable, and it doesn't encourage people to leave their cars at home or (imagine this) sell their car and take MTA. :eek2:

It's clear that nothing is going to be good enough until you have your $40 billion map laid out all over LA county. You are completely blind to any points that I've made because the way you see things are not the way that they presently are, aka "a stick in the mud".
A "choice rider" could not possibly mean a person that could drive but chooses to take transit. In LA, anyone can own or lease a car. Homeless people have cars here. Are these choice riders as well? Or do they in addition have to call some place home to become a "choice rider". And please give me a credible link that says the average transit rider is only earning $7,000 a year! That's Sub-Saharan Africa income. I don't think they'd even be able to afford a monthly pass on that income.
LA and Toronto can't possibly be compared and here is why. Toronto has 3 subway lines, 1 light rail and that's darn good enough. Toronto is also only 243 sq miles and the subway and light rail system is not one covering the entire metro area. By comparison, LA's network and your "dream" map is one attempting a countywide system, a daunting but worthy cause, that's for sure. How does 4061 sq miles sound? Should be done at a snap of a finger right? Their is absolutely nothing wrong with starting with a spine and growing the system further. In fact, the system that we have in place now could cover the entire Toronto area save for commuter rail. But you see, as ridership increases more momentum is put behind the system and more is built because at least now you have #'s to take the feds. Oh, but the political will simply isn't their because only poor people ride transit. So what explains Villaraigosa in DC looking for money for the Red Line? What about the Tri-city meetings held earlier this year between Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena to discuss an east west transit corridor? Lots of poor people in those cities. How about the meeting over the summer that included the mayors of Weho, Bev Hills and Santa Monica to discuss mass transit solutions to their congestion problems, a complete turnaround for BH? Even more poor people in those areas too, huh?
And mentioning momentum, what about the Transit Coalition and many more grassroots groups that are advocates of transit around the city? I've even seen you post over on the Transit Coalitions forum board. Listening to you, if I didn't know any better, I would advocate ripping the entire system out and just building more freeways.
I appreciate your ambitious map but with the attitude that you seem to carry I don't see how you could possibly be a lightning rod for change. It seems your map belies you. I would think you'd be the most excited and inspired person on the board about the future of LA transit if you're going to sit around for 6 months drawing up such a detailed map. I guess their are stranger things. Perhaps I'm wrong but you seem jaded, broke down and lethargic about your advocacy. Thanx for drawing up a very inspirational piece of work only to fall into the doldrums of the typical view of transit in LA.

And its not like no one has ever talked about connecting South Central with Downtown and Santa Monica. It just seems that your energies would be better spent advocating for the extension of the very much talked about Expo to SM and the high priority Burke project down Crenshaw instead of grumbling about what isn't there when everyone already knows what is needed.
I also know people (including myself) who choose to live in transit corridors (like in any other big city) and are fine with Metro. They live in NOHO and work downtown. Or they live in Los Feliz and work in Hollywood or Weho and take either the 4 or the 2 or the Rapids. You can't move to Chatsworth and then blame the MTA for not getting you down to Long Beach in less than an hour. LA has unrealistic expectations about transit that mask a deep seated class prejudice keeping many people in their cars indefitnetly, no matter how grand a system you build. Do you really think the elaborate stations along the Red Line were built for the poor??? How many professionals that live in downtown Long Beach in walking distance of the Blue Line don't take it to their job in downtown Los Angeles?
We are not really dealing with attracting "choice riders". We are dealing with class/race prejudices and perceptions and how to change them to coax "choice riders" (politically correct term for white or middle class of any race) out of their cars.

"What does poor transit mean? "


Sorta the opposite of great transit. I mean, when youlook at the size of LA and its transit, and start comparing it to other large cities and their transit, it doesn't excactly score very good marks.

All transit systems are less than perfect, but some are considerably less than others comparatively.






"Streetcars in Toronto in 2006 have reported a -12% ridership level according to the ATPA."

That would make sense, as one of the busiest, if not the busiest streetcar route is out of commision, while they construct a new right-of-way for it (St Clair).

Helps to know these things...I'm afraid Google can't always be relied upon for a comprehensive education.

I would say streetcar ridership has been up...especially on King, which has seen massive condo growth in the west end....they have had to increase service to keep up with demand.

But I don't undrstand why you are even using this angle in regards to my comment....how does this disprove my idea that replacing a bus with a streetcar increases ridership? I can give you specific examples of this...I think I already have.







"Simply a lie. If a subway was to be built /extended, the current bus route ridership where the subway would most likely mimic would be observed first. In LA their are an innumerable amount of lines doing light rail and in some cases heavy rail numbers."


Well, I can't be "lieing" unless I was being specific about something...and I certainly wasn't. And I guess it depends on what you consider "heavy rail numbers". And there's nothing very "simple" about it. Origin/destination patterns outside of very dense corridors can rarely produce viable, cost-effective subway lines. They would require heavy feeder routes. And this is begining to sound like commuter rail, rather than true mass transit subways.

Not that it matters, as we are discussing streetcars right? Streetcars provide one kind of service...subways another.









"To note: Toronto's bus ridership numbers were at 1,129.5 while LA's was at 1,198 according to the APTA. "


I'm not even sure what numbers you are quoting...is that unlinked boardings on buses in thousands?

Out of context, those numbers mean nothing. It could simply mean modal split is lower for buses in Toronto, as more people take the subway or streetcar. It could show that Toronto does a better job of linking the surface and subway networks and simply requires fewer surface links overall to handle a given demand( the TTC's 149 surface routes make 243 connections with the subway). You also have to be careful when quoting linked trips with boardings (unlinked trips), and understand the difference between the two. We may be talking apples and oranges in terms of what transit systems we are including, or not including when refering to an urban area.

So you see, quoting something from some APTA report without understanding the big picture, which is probably not a good idea.







"Outside of San Fransisco, most if not all US cities phased out streetcars in favor of busses."

This we know as a historical fact. The point is, was it a good idea in hindsight? And it hardly disproves example I gave, which is also a fact.







" Note: New York City has the highest mass transit ridership in North America."

That isn't news to most people...it is to be expected. Also note: Toronto has the second highest ridership in north america (I assume we are both excluding Mexico City). I don't quite understand your point.






" Please try re-introducing streetcars into the middle of Manhattan today."


Manhattan is adequately covered by subways.







"You really know how to dig a ditch for yourself! US national averages for ridership are at around 3% for mass transit. Los Angeles, San Fransisco and Portland all have averages far greater than 3%. "


I'm not the one digging the ditch at all...wouldn't we naturally expect the second largest city in the US to beat national averages?








"What's a "choice rider"? What do they look like? What cereal do they eat in the morning? "


I'm not even sure if that's a question or just an excuse to be a smart ass. A "captive" rider, is a person who does not have access to a car, and therefore has no choice but to use transit (or walk). A "choice" rider, is someone who has access to a car, yet chooses to use transit instead. Choice riders represent a significant amount of the population, and are therefore a significant target market. It requires a little more work to coax these people out of their cars and on to transit. I would assume LA has plenty of these potential choice riders.







"And why do you feel that they should be coaxed onto transit even if transit #'s and increases are fine without them? "


Well, I guess your idea of "fine" is different than mine. Do you really think LA's transit ridership is fine the way it is? Do you think "too many" people would be taking transit if more people took transit instead of the car?







"LA is so far gone.......Hmmm, I've been searching the net for confirmed Toronto projects, meaning subway or light rail construction. I've even been looking for perhaps a busway construction. I don't mean proposals, I mean shovel in the ground projects, perhaps you can inform me."


Well, here's what I'm going to inform you on....Toronto has been adding to its infastructure constantly, over a long period of time...not playing catch-up after neglecting it for way too long.

You have been wasting far too much energy hopelessly trying to characterize the TTC in a certain manner which is quite frankly, a losing battle.







" LA has one of the most extensive freeway systems in the world, hence the car usage. The creation of this system helped LA become the international powerhouse that it is today."


More like....it just gives you a world class level of smog. We have some monster freeways here too, only we don't put them in such high esteem.








"Toronto began operating its rapid rail system in 1954, 36 years before LA opened and began running the Blue Line. In just 16 years LA has built 117km of rapid rail that now sprawls out over the county with 60+ stations. Toronto which is known as a transit orientated community and has one of the most respected systems in the world has 70km and an equal amount of stations. "


The major flaw in your logic, is that it isn't how many miles of track you build that's important, but how and where you build it. Toronto has a built form which allows more people access to subways, without building as much track. Subways are hidiously expensive to build per mile, so it's far more cost effect to bring high density development to the subways, than it is to bring the subways to low density developments. Toronto is just a more compact city, which builds a lot of TOD development (another important related topic for another day).

That said, while Toronto has been constantly adding to subway lines every few years since the first one opened, we could certainly use more...I'd be the first to agree with that.








"I could see 11 streetcar routes placed over the county that connect to our rail lines, e.g. Pasadena, Long Beach, Santa Monica*, West Hollywood*, Hollywood, Downtown."

I'm not saying that's a bad idea (without specifics), but for refernce, Toronto's streetcars operate mostly in downtown.




Where TO is impressive is that it has a total transit ridership, excluding commuter rail, of around 2.3 million. That's pretty good sense the metro is only around 4.3 million. "

Again, I think you lack some basic information. The ridership numbers you quote is just for the TTC, which is a municipal transit system...it only operates with the confines of Toronto city proper (246 sq miles). Travel to and from the suburbs is handled by GO Transit (commuter system), and the surrounding municipalities that make up the suburbs, have their own transit systems.

And when quoting total ridership, it is better to talk in annual linked trips, not dailly boardings (unlinked trips). Ridership on the TTC was 431.222 million linked trips (not total boardings, which would be around 800 million) in 2005, which was a 13+ million increase over 2004.









"KGB" it seems to me that most of your knowledge is second hand at best"

With 2 generations of TTC employees in my family, including a current streetcar operator, and having used them daily all my life, I think my insights into streetcars are a hell of a lot more first hand than yours. Seems to you???? It's quite clear to me that you just Googled whatever mangled transit knowledge you have been passing off as "facts".








"It's also to be noted that out of the top 50 metros in the Americas, Canada ranks with 2 and the US ranks with 27. "


Ranks in what????? You certainly have a passion for making "Note" of things, they just don't seem to have any point to them. Besides your obvious lack of knowledge between different methods of deliniations of "metros" in Canada and the US, if we take a look at any WORLD "ranking" with substance, such as livibality studies or such, US cities won't even show up on the list....and Canadian ones will top the list.










"What's the rest of Canada? Tundra, I think. "


This is digressing into a childish schoolyard wank. Dude, this is discussion about streetcars....grow up.











"That's 25 more cities that LA has to compete with as significant metros for federal dollars to fund major projects like subways and light rail. Toronto has to compete with.....well, once again, I guess tundra......."


Your pattern is certainly consistant....ignorance and childish comments. FYI, our federal government has never been in the public transit business...it doesn't fund it at all (although this year for the first time, they doled out a few bucks). Toronto relies 100% on funding the operational budget of the TTC from the riders ( about 80% ) and the taxpayers of the city proper of Toronto (the other 20% ). Capital funding also comes from the city and some from the province. So don't give me this crap about having a disadvantage of competing for funds. Do more homework before spewing your nonsense...you are looking very foolish.








"at worst you're just another troll. All kidding aside, if you can't seem to restrain your disdain for all things LA, kindly and politely, fuck off! "


Oh fer christ sakes.....how does talking the finer points of streetcars and public transit translate into a disdain for all things LA????? What sort of paranoid little world do you have live in to dream this stuff up?






KGB

klamedia is out for the count! Stay down son... stay down :runaway:

agreed... someone has to much time

first of all, i hope everyone sees what's happening here. KGB, i don't know why you think you aren't more "childish" than klamedia (as you have obviously claimed) when you've just replaced his "ass hole" and "fuck off's" with "you are looking very foolish" and "childish schoolyard wank"

"What's a "choice rider"? What do they look like? What cereal do they eat in the morning? "


I'm not even sure if that's a question or just an excuse to be a smart ass.

what, are you going to break down every sentence anyone says? feed your angry monkey a bananna today? and don't break that down on your next post. my point is that with any comment such as the one klamedia wrote shouldn't even be acknowledged in support of what appears to be a "i got you back post". looks to me you have just used it to make your argument appear more intelectual (i really don't know what other word to use in place of intelectual).

" Please try re-introducing streetcars into the middle of Manhattan today."


Manhattan is adequately covered by subways.

on a different level, now i don't understand your point. i thought you wanted streetcars in downtown los angeles? downtown already has a busy subway line, 2 lightrail lines, union station and a great number of bus lines down all streets (13 separate lines on one of our streets). i guess if you want to we could design our busses like trolleys (not joking or being a smart ass, san fransisco does this to some busses).

the reason i bring all this up is that this topic shouldn't be an argument. instead of "bringing back streetcars" i'm seeing "my city is better than yours". frankly you can't compare these two cities. what works for one won't necessarily take with another because cities don't just have layouts, they have cultures.

we all come here specifically to discuss what is proposed, what is constructed, and what we think of it all and why we think that way.

now here's some reasons i don't really care for streetcars:

they cost more than busses. they are constantly delayed in their lanes by disruptions despite their right-of-way. busses can just move around obstacles (and they do swiftly throughout all my transit experience). and streetcars occupy street space which forces the need to modify traffic flow.

again, busses in los angeles travel faster than trolleys. they proved so in the 50s and that's not theory, it IS fact. look it up if you don't believe me. other cities i can't tell, but this was in los angeles.

if you want a trolley that bad, design a bus to look exactly like a trolley with rubber wheels (again, i'm not kidding, i bet it would still increase ridership). at least you can switch routes easily enough. a real trolley can be built when car commuters are heavily converted to rail users. this only seems possible if we can wheen them onto our heavy/lightrail. so there you go, the bigger stuff seems more important to me

Forgive me for "grumbling" and seeming "jaded broke down and lethargic." I thought I'd been giving an honest and rather detailed opinion of transit in Los Angeles County, and somewhere along the way I spent a month or two or nine putting together a detailed solution to the problem, but apparently I still haven't graduated beyond the level of the coach potato who throws cheetos at the screen and yells, "You suck!" before belching and flipping the channel.

All this time I thought I'd been spending my time assessing the political and financial circumstances that make rail construction so difficult to achieve, despite this sense that "everyone already knows what is needed."

Fact is klamedia, outside the tiny community of people who live and breathe developments and mass transit is a whole world filled with lots of people who, for many reasons, believe that people like us who want to raise taxes to build $100M, $200M or $300M/mile trains are nuts. Many of them vote and they ask tough and relevant questions like:

"How are you going to pay for it?"

"Why not just widen the streets."

"Don't we already have too much bond debt?"

"Isn't that money better spent on schools for the kids...housing for the homeless...more cops...more firefighters...more hospitals...etc?"

And geez do you really need to look that far for this one:

"Why not just double-deck the freeways."

I think if you got more involved in the issue you'd see:

-A mayor ago (and thereby possibly a future mayor) Red line extension was a pipe dream.
-Legal obstructions to tapping into tax revenue to build rail.
-Politicians regularly sabotaging other rail projects in an effort prioritize the rail project that runs through their district.
-Most parts of Los Angeles have unclear transportation goals
-An MTA planning department that responds more to the board than transit needs.
-A BRU with a huge budget and way too much political backing.
-MISes that haven't even been commissioned.
-The difficulty getting transportation funding from the feds.
-Editorial boards that are not friends of mass transit.
-Mass transit projects that have been scrapped.
-Mag-lev lobbyists stiffling away money for urban rail studies.
-Political candidates and officials proposing BRT or monorails, where light and heavy rail are needed.
-Political candidates and officials opposing vital small-dollar extensions.
-Members of the MTA board citing bullshit figures to discourage subway construction.
-The most crucial rail project in the country is projected to take 20 years and 3 stages to build.

(I really could go on).

As I have already stated, I submit that these and countless other factors suggest that there ISN'T enough awareness and that there ISN'T a sense of crisis and urgency. I submit that if there were, my friend, we'd have transportation ballot measures coming from every direction and 12-14 hour construction shifts...that we'd have a rail construction project similiar to Spain or Shanghai. (Google it please). But you don't even have to look that far to compare how an electorate and a government respond a crisis. Just look in our own backyard and consider the pace of LAUSD new school construction.

I'm not here to get into a cheer off or pissing match with residents of other cities. I'm here to make improvements to our existing transportation system, because I consider it vital to the future of our city and it's citizens. The seriousness of the project and the amount of FREE time I spend on it demand I and others assessments be nothing but honest, candid and as accurate as possible.

And please give me a credible link that says the average transit rider is only earning $7,000 a year!

Sorry I don't have a link, because it came from the mouth of the former CFO of MTA. I was as shocked as you. I asked if he was certain. I haven't attempted to question the figure, because well, I figure he has better access to the hard data than I do.

Damien, I respect your map, your studied insight and ambition for creating an inspirational piece of work, that is (at least in part)our potential future transit map. I've never commented on fare box recovery, for my knowledge is not extensive enough to discuss that area. I would defitnetly like to learn more about that though.
Streetcars are not the full solution to LA's mass transit woes, we both know that, I personally feel that it would be money wasted.

One of the most significant post to date on this thread is from "Croyboy" who has mentioned culture, general attitudes towards transit in this city which hints at class seperation. These are the main issues imo stifeling transit in this city and that must be understood as a comprehensive system is being put into place.


As far as Red Line extension being a pipe dream, I was under the impression from what I've read that the Wilshire leg was being constructed and was to extend beyond Farifax but was halted by the 1998 Zev's Law and has only yet reached Western.


http://www.apta.com/
http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/
http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot/home.htm

klamedia is out for the count! Stay down son... stay down :runaway:

edit.

"first of all, i hope everyone sees what's happening here. KGB, i don't know why you think you aren't more "childish" than klamedia (as you have obviously claimed) when you've just replaced his "ass hole" and "fuck off's" with "you are looking very foolish" and "childish schoolyard wank"


Yes, I think I CAN see what's happening here. Getting on the Canada=tundra angle was plainly childish and waaaay off topic. And telling me I'm digging a hole for myself and using something as ridiculous as national averages to support that claim is indeed quite foolish. I think I had reasonably substantiated the use of "childish" and "foolish".

How this equates with calling people assholes and telling them to fuck off in the course of our discussion is beyond me. So what is going on here, is you have a clear bias which gets in the way of your better judgement. If you were actually concerned with behavior, I should not be your first choice for a big lecture.








"what, are you going to break down every sentence anyone says? my point is that with any comment such as the one klamedia wrote shouldn't even be acknowledged in support of what appears to be a "i got you back post"."


Well, it was clearly a question directed at a term I used in a previous post, which is relevant to the whole transit issue we are discussing. Using that as an example for the point you are trying to make here sounds a little bizarre. I prefaced my answer by stating that his smart-assed response was odd, but gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was unfamiliar with the term, and answered it, because it's important to the topic.

I find it a bit ironic that you are going on about me, when the topic is streetcars. Stop trying to second guess or analyse me....stick to the topic.









"feed your angry monkey a bananna today? and don't break that down on your next post."


I'm only answering this to make a point....This isn't a one-way street controlled by you. Don't want to deal with responses to smart-assed comments....then don't make them in the first place. And don't try to load it up like the person who makes them are innocent, while the recipient is guilty....sorry, it doesn't work that way.







"on a different level, now i don't understand your point. i thought you wanted streetcars in downtown los angeles? "


No...I don't "want" streetcars in downtown LA at all. I saw a thread about streetcars (a topic of interest to me), and upon reading the responses in the thread, saw a lot of strange hostility and wrong impressions of them. I was merely giving some insights into their strong points, from someone who has practical experience with them. I would think this would be appreciated in the discussion, as most people in the thread really had no practical or indepth knowledge regarding them. But instead, I got some extremely hostile and defensive responses. I know I tend to talk turkey on the subject, but it's just streetcars and transit talk...nothing to take that personally.

At any rate, I was not implying that LA "should" have streetcars at all, or that I think it is more important than other forms of transit....just that if we are going to discuss the topic, we should at least get all the facts before dismissing the idea all together.







"the reason i bring all this up is that this topic shouldn't be an argument. instead of "bringing back streetcars" i'm seeing "my city is better than yours"."


Well, if someone had not tried to use as an arguement, the incorrect idea that streetcars in Toronto were some sort of failure, than I wouldn't have to correct them. I mean, what is so difficult about looking at Toronto when discussing the viability of streetcars in North American cities, when it is overwhelmingly the streetcar capital of north america, and quite successful at it to boot? I know people have this irrational knee-jerk negative reaction whenever the word "Toronto" is even mentioned....but com'on, let's try and be bigger than that.










"frankly you can't compare these two cities. what works for one won't necessarily take with another because cities don't just have layouts, they have cultures."


Well, I already achnowleged that fact. I'm not impying that we simply transplant Toronto's streetcar system to LA. Toronto and LA are vastly different in layout, built form and politcs, but that also does not imply it cannot work at all either.

We need to understand streetcars better before we can assess wether they can play a role in making LA a better transit-oriented city. My input is more related the the former than the latter. I find people tend to generally discount what they don't understand, and that's what I see here.








"now here's some reasons i don't really care for streetcars: "

"they cost more than busses. "

Well, what do you mean by "cost" ? Yea, a streetcar costs more than a bus to purchase, and not only that, the rail infastructure aint cheap either. But upfront capital costs are not the only factors when considering overall costs.

A streetcar is a much more heavy duty vehicle, and has a lot longer lifespan and fewer maintenance needs than a bus. A streetcar carries more passengers than a bus, yet still only needs one operator(wages are a major part of operating costs). A streetcar costs less to run (fuel is another expensive operating cost). Streetcars don't wear out the roads like buses do ,especially with new track technology ( road repair is another expense that people don't usually factor in, as it's one of those indirect costs...not to mention the delays caused by raods always being closed for repairs). Streetcars don't spew pollution into the air (an idea that must hit home in LA). And not to be under-rated...a streetcar has a much nicer ride than a bus.

I could go on...and I could give you some cons on streetcars as well, cause they aren't perfect, but the point I'm trying to make, is that there are many benefits to them and the most important ones is their cost efficiency....a streetcar is cheaper per rider/per mile travelled than a bus.








"they are constantly delayed in their lanes by disruptions despite their right-of-way."


Really? Like when? Give me an actual example you have experienced. It sounds like you are inventing scenarios in your head, based on some kind of inferred situations, rather than real life.

When travelling on it's ROW, the only thing that is going to delay a streetcar is a traffic light. And when installed with signal priority equipment, this gives the streetcars an advantage all other vehicles don't have. Even when travelling in mixed traffic it has the advantage.









"busses can just move around obstacles (and they do swiftly throughout all my transit experience). and streetcars occupy street space which forces the need to modify traffic flow."

Not quite sure what you are getting at here, but this idea that buses are more "flexible" certainly sounds reasonable at first (and it's an often heard excuse in any streetcar vs buses conversation), but when you look more carefully, it's generally flawed reasoning.

In regular flowing traffic, when a streetcar is in mixed-traffic, the streetcar will get from A to B quicker than the bus on the same route, because its load/unload times are shorter. This is mainly do to the fact that a bus will have to chnage lanes all the time, while the streetcar travels in the middle lane, controlling the path in front of it with signal priority (which yea, could be installed on the bus too), but also controls the traffic behind it...it does not have to pull into the right lane...stop...load/unload passengers...pull back into traffic and repeat this every stop along the route. The streetcar will alos carry a lot more people than the bus as well, reducing the number of times a bus is full and people have to wait for another one( it isn't very fast if ya can't even get on the vehicle).

In terms of manuverability, this is rarely an advantage for the bus in real life. If there is just plain heavy traffic, the bus is hemmed in as much as the streetcar is...it's not generally going to have "going around" space. Same thing if there is an accident in front...it's going to block the bus as much as it's going to block the streetcar. In the cases where there is room, and IF it's blocking the streetcar tracks (it's not like this is "constantly" happening anyway), then the vehicles in question are moved away very quickly, as getting transit on its way is a priority....accidents are generally cleared within 15 minutes or less.

And streetcars can indeed "go around". If there is a major delay ahead, then streetcars will simply divert around the delay, because when designing a streetcar line, there are always loops at various intervals and cross streets with tracks. Streetcars change routes all the time.

So in reality, it's the streetcar which has the advantage 98% of the time.








"again, busses in los angeles travel faster than trolleys. they proved so in the 50s and that's not theory, it IS fact."


Well, I don't know if this is a fact or not...I would have to read EXACTLY the study you are refering to, and excactly the context of it. Otherwise, if you can't give any details, and it was just something you "heard", I can't really take it at face value, especially given the facts we actually know. Besides, 50 years is a long time ago....let's be a little more up-to-date on our research material.






"if you want a trolley that bad, design a bus to look exactly like a trolley with rubber wheels (again, i'm not kidding, i bet it would still increase ridership)."


uh.....no. While we're at it, let's make buses look like subways...better yet, let's make them look like planes. (oh com'on, the way I see it, I'm entitles to one smart-ass comment at least).






"a real trolley can be built when car commuters are heavily converted to rail users. this only seems possible if we can wheen them onto our heavy/lightrail. so there you go, the bigger stuff seems more important to me"


Well, streetcars are rail. There's only so many people that can be converted to heavy rail subways, because of their limited coverage...streetcars serve as both rail routes on their own, providing a rail service not covered by subways...and heavy duty feeder routes for the subways themselves. And the trick to great subway ridership is both walk-in riders AND feeder routes.

So you can't say the "bigger stuff" (ie subways) are more important...it's ALL important....the operative word in "transit system"...is SYSTEM!!







KGB

First of all, I dont care about "Inter-regional" travel, and I dont know anybody who does. My life is the city of Los Angeles, specifically Downtown Los Angeles, and I couldnt care less about Pasadena, Burbank, or any one of the other 88 or so inferior cities that make up this "region"... dont even get me started on that pit Orange County. That place can burn for all
i care. I want mass transit in the City of LA, however that can best be accomplished. Let Pasadena, Burbank, etc. worry about themselves. If they want LA to worry about them, than they can be annexed:). Yes, I understand that Its important for business, etc.... but our fine city is verging on 4 million people itself, and many should eventually find their way to live DT. I have no desire to encourage people to live elsewhere and commute in, its not good in the long run for the city, and especially for DT. Thats what f****ed us up in the first place. No need to repeat the mistakes of the past in an entirely new way, you know? Especially since we already have as a good an interregional system as we should have (Gold Line, Blue Line, Metro-Link, etc). Lets bring the focus back where it should be.

Secondly, busses are not a good long term investment. They compete with cars in an extremely invasive way, and when theres as many of them as we have crammed into a relatively small area like our DT is, they suck big time. The DASH busses are terrible... Im so happy their all friendly, but they CANT KEEP A SCHEDULE, and as much as our City Council complains, I dont see that changing anytime soon. What good is a mass transit system that is chronically late? Also, its going to ALL HAVE TO BE REPLACED EVENTUALLY ANYWAY! Why? Because, the gasoline that powers them will run out. When that happens, we will have to buy a new fleet of busses that run on whatever is powering them at that point. F that, I say. Lets start switching now to a better system, so when that happens, the City wont be looking at a switch-over in the billions.

"KGB" you've gone off the deep end and yes that is a smart assed comment. You call me paranoid when you call LA transit "pathetic" (which I highly disagree) and I call you out on it but it seems that you are just as "paranoid" about Toronto and display some quite lengthy knee-jerk comments in defense of the city. So fine! You all can have your streetcars!
The ATPA is a well respected agency that I chose to quote. Whether it be linked or unlinked trips or daily, monthly or yearly averages, I cited those #'s unbiasedly in the most tangible and digestible form I could, that being daily averages.
I'll say this once again since it is clear that you are too interested in this becoming a city vs city thread than a safe place to discuss the pros and cons of each others cities without it deteriorating into a shouting match!!!!
Toronto has a renowned transit system. LA doesn't(eventhough it is praised for its Rapid Bus system). But what LA has done in the last 16 years, from nothing to 5 lines including the Orange and 6 if you include the Purple imo is remarkable. No other city in the US has built that much track between 1990 and the present and this is in light of the city being the slanderous term "car dependant". Equally no other city imo in the US has a more extensive bus system. To write off LA's progress over the past decade in light of our gov't lack of interest in mass transit but yet its obsessive war spending(that could go towards mass transit) and to just call the system "pathetic" is both an egregious comment at best and simple civic bantering at worst.
I applaude you for your knowledge on the streetcar and having the fortune of being part of a holy reverent TTC lineage but your responses are just too long, I had to get up for a bathroom break, water the plants come back and forcibly press on.
I'm sorry Toronto is looked down upon by both Vancouver and Montreal, perhaps that is something that both of our cities have experienced. But should we ultimately end up spewing out dog-eat-dog hatred? I believe that you hold it somewhere in your heart to make that change. Love is what we need today. Purely and simply ......love.

1. I find it a bit ironic that you are going on about me, when the topic is streetcars. Stop trying to second guess or analyse me....stick to the topic.


2. "frankly you can't compare these two cities. what works for one won't necessarily take with another because cities don't just have layouts, they have cultures."

Well, I already achnowleged that fact. I'm not impying that we simply transplant Toronto's streetcar system to LA. Toronto and LA are vastly different in layout, built form and politcs, but that also does not imply it cannot work at all either.

We need to understand streetcars better before we can assess wether they can play a role in making LA a better transit-oriented city. My input is more related the the former than the latter. I find people tend to generally discount what they don't understand, and that's what I see here.


3. "they are constantly delayed in their lanes by disruptions despite their right-of-way."

Really? Like when? Give me an actual example you have experienced. It sounds like you are inventing scenarios in your head, based on some kind of inferred situations, rather than real life.

When travelling on it's ROW, the only thing that is going to delay a streetcar is a traffic light. And when installed with signal priority equipment, this gives the streetcars an advantage all other vehicles don't have. Even when travelling in mixed traffic it has the advantage.


4. "busses can just move around obstacles (and they do swiftly throughout all my transit experience). and streetcars occupy street space which forces the need to modify traffic flow."

Not quite sure what you are getting at here, but this idea that buses are more "flexible" certainly sounds reasonable at first (and it's an often heard excuse in any streetcar vs buses conversation), but when you look more carefully, it's generally flawed reasoning.


5. "again, busses in los angeles travel faster than trolleys. they proved so in the 50s and that's not theory, it IS fact."

Well, I don't know if this is a fact or not...I would have to read EXACTLY the study you are refering to, and excactly the context of it. Otherwise, if you can't give any details, and it was just something you "heard", I can't really take it at face value, especially given the facts we actually know. Besides, 50 years is a long time ago....let's be a little more up-to-date on our research material.


6. "if you want a trolley that bad, design a bus to look exactly like a trolley with rubber wheels (again, i'm not kidding, i bet it would still increase ridership)."

uh.....no. While we're at it, let's make buses look like subways...better yet, let's make them look like planes. (oh com'on, the way I see it, I'm entitles to one smart-ass comment at least).
KGB

i'll go by numbers:

1. yes we all would like to stick to the topic now

2. i agree, and that's exactly what we haven't figured out is how to make them work or to see if they play a role at all in los angeles's transit system. they failed us last time at the time and we don't know how we can or if we can get them to work today. i agree that it should be studied if the city wasn't busy studying the larger projects that it plans to achieve today (yes i know, i.e.: subways, lightrails). i emphasize "plans" because if trolleys were a priority today, it is also still a plan like any other

3. i will provide the information that gives me the "scenarios in my head" at the bottom of my post. remember that the information gives me my reasons of the discussion in this topic.

and from personal experience, i am constantly delayed in san fransisco on trolleys. yes the lights, but also fellow drivers. i've only taken the trolley between market street and pier 39, but i took it a lot (i can accept that it might just be that particular line). now i hate it when i come across other people who are incapable of reading signs and lights and drive nonetheless: a lot of the reason in san fransisco is people for some reason speed up on yellows even if they are half a block away from the lights. it takes like half an hour to 45 minutes for me to walk the same route and on trolley it varried between 15 to 30 minutes (a 15 minute gap) to go those 2 miles. i spent 8 days there and it was the same every day (always something in the way)


4. reasoning is reasoning. i could say your views are excuses too. my point is still valid

5. i guess i can't take anything at face value from anyone here then. also, information will be included below. remember too that if we forget history, it's bound to repeat itself. doesn't matter if it's 10 or 1000 years, it should be remembered and avoided or fixed.

6. please... i was refering to san fransisco's trolley designed busses from a few posts back. that's not your first smart ass comment. but in a discussion (not argument) i prefer to show that i was raised with manners, metaphorically speaking, and respect for others. and let me say that i do appreciate the knowledge and input of everyone, but i like it better when people make themselves presentable.

ok, since we aren't looking at the links i provided, this is what i pulled off of the world encyclopedia, wikipedia.com:

"Decline of the Red Cars
Throughout their existence, the Pacific Electric and its predecessor railroads frequently lost money on passenger operations. There were very few years in which the company's income statement showed a profit, most notably those years during World War II, when gasoline was rationed and automobiles were not manufactured. Huntington's involvement with urban rail was intimately tied to his real estate development operations: in the pre-automobile era, electric interurban rail was the only way to connect outlying suburban and exurban parcels to central cities, and residential development of these was so lucrative that Huntington and Southern Pacific could use the Red Car as a loss leader. However, most of the company's holdings had been developed by 1920; as the company's major source cash flow began to run dry, profitability concerns meant that the least-used Red Car lines were converted to cheaper buses as early as 1925. Those lines that had enough ridership to remain profitable began to suffer the effects of traffic congestion.

Although the railway did own extensive exclusive private rights-of-way, usually in between urban areas, much of the Pacific Electric trackage in urban areas was in street lanes that were shared with automobiles and trucks, and virtually all street crossings were at-grade, meaning that ever-increasing automobile traffic led to ever-decreasing Red Car speeds along much of its trackage. At its nadir, the very busy Santa Monica Boulevard line, which connected Santa Monica and Hollywood, had an average speed of only 13 miles per hour, similar to the average speed today on Los Angeles area freeways. The company carried increased passenger loads during World War II, when Los Angeles County's population nearly doubled as war industries concentrated in the region and attracted millions of workers and their families. Aware that most of the new arrivals planned to stay in the region after the war, local governments agreed that a massive infrastructure improvement program was necessary to prevent gridlock. At that time the public demanded, and politicians agreed to construct, a web of freeways across the region. This was seen as a better solution than a new mass transit system or an upgrade of the Pacific Electric, and large-scale destruction of neighborhoods for freeway construction began in 1951."

here's another on the same site:

"The initial cost is higher than for buses, hence the usual preference for the latter in smaller cities
When operated in mixed traffic, trams are more likely to be delayed by disruptions in their lane. Buses, by contrast, can easily maneuver around obstacles. Opinions differ about whether deference that drivers show to trams -- a cultural issue that varies by country -- is sufficient to counteract this disadvantage.
Tram tracks can be dangerous for cyclists. This and problems with parked cars are avoided by building tracks and platforms in the middle of the road. Cyclists can avoid this by always riding across and never along tramways, as bikes particularly those with narrow tyres may get their wheels caught in the track grooves. It is also possible to close the grooves of the tracks on critical sections by rubber profiles. Those profiles are pressed down by the wheelflanges of the passing tram but cannot by lowered by the weight of a cyclist.
Tram infrastructure occupies urban space above ground and requires modifications to traffic flow.
Steel wheel trams can be noisier than rubber-wheeled trolleybuses, especially when cornering."

there we go, no argument, simply discussion

klamedia, about those war funds: better safe than sorry in my opinion :)

i have no problem with converting busses to rail, in fact i'd rather take rail than busses (even though i don't go there, a conversion to rail for the orange line seems reasonable), but i don't think surface rail that combines with the street level is a good idea for now considering that in los angeles a lot of people travel, well, anywhere from one block to 60 miles in one direction. our attitude and culture toward transit of any kind has to change slowly for surface rail to happen. this could happen if the mta and city get their plans and goals achieved with our current rail system and the proposals for them.

if you travel 60 miles in the first place, i think you should consider moving or getting a different job. and there's a lot of room for delays and a lot of varied time in that kind of mileage. time varied 15 minutes in SF for me to go 2 miles

Well I'd say this argument is partially mute now given Beloved Villaraigosa's inablility to deal with the "Central City East" problem.

What Central City East problem has our Beloved Villaraigosa not been able to deal with? Have I missed something?

he's talking about skid row. and by no means is this gonna affect the streetcar proposal. i really dont like negative people. everything is always so sour for them. move to the inland empire please.

Oh no, that's not a problem. That's something that LA has been working on for years.

"I'll say this once again since it is clear that you are too interested in this becoming a city vs city thread than a safe place to discuss the pros and cons of each others cities without it deteriorating into a shouting match!!!! "


I'll make this brief, but hopefully concise. I joined this topic because it was about streetcars...I have only ever concerned my posts with streetcars, or transit in general as it pertains to the topic. The only references I have made to Toronto, is when it directly relates to streetcars. You are the only one indulging in city vs city behavior outside of the topic for the purposes of running down a city, and resorting to personal attacks. Meanwhile, you accuse me of having a big hate-on for "anything LA", and "trolling" which is of course, completely unsubstantiated.







"The ATPA is a well respected agency that I chose to quote. Whether it be linked or unlinked trips or daily, monthly or yearly averages, I cited those #'s unbiasedly in the most tangible and digestible form I could, that being daily averages."


The issue there was not regarding how ridership was quoted...that was just a sidebar. You used that information to counter my claim that streetcars increase ridership when replacing a bus on the same route. Assuming for the moment there is such a report, and you are quoting it properly....you claimed that streetcar ridership was down 12% for 2006 (whatever period of 2006 that may be), as if streetcars were responsible for actually lowering ridership or something, which of course can't be gleaned from such information. Whatever it is you read, was obviously missing some critical information and therefore taken out of context, as during the begining of 2006 (and currently) a major streetcar route is not operating due to construction of a new streetcar ROW on that route.







"it seems that you are just as "paranoid" about Toronto and display some quite lengthy knee-jerk comments in defense of the city."


No, what I actually did, was counter your false claims with cold, hard facts. Big difference. I have no interest in defending "the city"...it's just ME, disagreeing with what YOU said, and backing it up....because you are WRONG...not because I feel obligated to defend "the city".








"you call LA transit "pathetic" (which I highly disagree) "


You seem to have your knickers in a big knot over this one, as you keep on mentioning it again and again.

Let me put this into perspective for you....I generally consider Toronto's transit to be borderline pathetic at the very least....so given that perspective, where do you think LA fits in? Excactly. You and I just obviously have different standards of what constitutes pathetic.









.....back to the topic. I think streetcars could play a crucial role in the revitalization and growth of downtown LA as a "more" vibrant, mixed-use place. But I think the whole state of mind regarding them in this thread is completely off the mark, which is why people have a hard time relating to them. I think we have to start looking at it from a totally different angle.







KGB

"First of all, I dont care about "Inter-regional" travel, and I dont know anybody who does. My life is the city of Los Angeles, specifically Downtown Los Angeles, and I couldnt care less about Pasadena, Burbank, or any one of the other 88 or so inferior cities that make up this "region". I want mass transit in the City of LA, however that can best be accomplished. "


You bring up a good point. "Regional" transit agencies don't favour inner core cities, especially when those inner core cities are considerally different in built form than the suburbs that surround them (which is the case generally).

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and in the case of regional transit agencies, it's the suburbs that contain the majority and transit spending and design will cater to their needs more than those of the inner core city. That's why you see spending on suburban commuter lines geared towards rush hour traffic as opposed to dedicated mass transit more suited to 24 hour/day inner city transit.

Do you really think these regional agencies care much about making downtown LA a great place to get around for the few thousand who live there? Or do you think their priority is the millions of people who live in the suburbs with their much different transit requirements?

The TTC is successful, because its ONLY jurisdiction is the city proper, and it concentrates 100% of it's efforts to catering to the needs of inner-city transit users. They don't have the burden of trying to cater to the vast suburbs, which of course were not built or designed for transit use at all.

The other regions that make up suburban Toronto have their own local transit agencies. Because they were never designed or built with transit in mind, these transit agencies are obviously not able to offer the services of the inner city, which was built in a manner which supports public transit much, much better.


But that's their problem...they made their bed, let them lie in it. Why should the inner city suffer for the mistakes of the suburbs? Trying to combine the two will only ensure they both don't work well.

Inter regional commuter transit is handled by another dedicated agency that only concerns itself with that (GO Transit).

Like anything, the more specialized it is, the more likely it is to be successful at servicing and providing its customers the product they want and need.







KGB

. This is not only an ineffective way of trying to attract "choice riders" but it is piss poor service for current riders, who are poor (average annual median income of MTA transit rider: $7K) and have no other option. .

Discussing "choice riders" and the attracting thereof, has anyone been to the Red Line stations that provide parking? The more than large lots are always full with commuters who obviously have access to cars, park them and take the Red Line the rest of the way. The Noho station if one doesn't get their by 8 am, you will not find a space. This from my own observation was the same case at the Universal stop. The Red line also has the highest ridership of any of the lines and excluding the Blue, all of them combined.

Just got this out of the Downtown News:

Metro Getting People Out of Cars


One out of three Metro bus and rail riders have transportation alternatives - i.e. cars - but elect to take public transit, according to a new in-house survey. The latest number, 34% of the 15,752 riders in the polling group, was up from 22% four years ago. The survey also examined riders' feelings about transit safety, finding that 83% feel safe while at Metro bus stops and rail stations, while 88% feel safe while riding the system.

Not bad, huh? Now let the cynics rain down their fodder.......

great news!

"The Red line also has the highest ridership of any of the lines and excluding the Blue, all of them combined."


I would expect it to be....it's the only line that is actual heavy rail subway...the others are just light rail...yea? Also, isn't it the only line that lies entirely within city-proper boundaries?







"Not bad, huh? Now let the cynics rain down their fodder."


Jeez...a little while ago you were scoffing at the term "choice rider"...now you're all over it like poop on a blanket. he he

Anyway, I'm not going to be cynical about it...ridership growth is good....anywhere you can get it.

BUT.........of all the types of transit customers, park'n riders are probably the most high maintenance.

It means you are attracting them...but only part way....why are they driving part way and taking transit part of the way....the best scenario is to get them to leave their car at home and make the trip entirely by transit. Something isn't working obviously if you aren't providing them with good enough service to their home.

They also don't represent very much ridership. Even if you were to build a pretty big parking lot at a station...say 500 spaces....well, 500 riders (or whatever, assuming some of them will be car-pooling) is really not doing much for "ridership"...it's really too small. Especially considering you generally have to coax them with "free" parking, provided they purchase a transit fare.

Which brings up the major problem with Park'n Ride programs....why waste all that valueable real estate sitting at a subway station on free parking for piddly ridership, when the land could be sold by the city to developers which they should encourage to build high density mixed-use TOD, which brings with it it's own built-in ridership sitting right on the station, which would be higher ridership than the parking lot could provide?






KGB

I still poop on the "choice rider" moniker and always will. But your comment only highlights the need to be keenly aware of the culture that transit riders and the soon-to-be-converted abide within as well as their circumstances. At the end of the Red Line along with many apartments their are an enormous amount of single family residences, this being the Valley. Seeing that we exist in a culture in LA of busses being percieved as second tier in comparison to rail many people will skip the short or not so short bus ride to the station in lieu of their car which they will drive to the station, I mean they must have some place to do their make up. Unfortunately the subway doesn't connect to many or any of the peoples two car garages so they opt to drive to the station.
500 parking spaces was seen as far too many in a city that many percieved 'no one will ride the train anyway'. So kudos.
Seems the MTA is ahead of you here. Currently the MTA is building high dense projects or has some shimmer of a plan to build high dense at most stations.......right on top of stations.
http://www.mta.net/projects_programs/joint_development.htm
The thing that 'isn't working' is a perception regarding transit that will eventually change over time.
Many times I often drive the 3/4 mile to the train station instead of waiting for the bus and I feel that LA has one the best bus systems anywhere. Why wouldn't I?

3/4 of a mile!! no wonder we have so much traffic!!

you don't need a bus, train, or a car for that, just walk it. waiting for a bus might take just as long, trip not included.

Good point. The "convenience" threashold for most people is somewhere in the half mile range, case in point NYC's local train stops are usually about a half mile apart. This brings us to a very good point. The route that I drive to get to the train has no traffic. I could easily get in my car and drive to the station 3 times faster than walking out of my door, waiting for a bus and then riding the bus as it makes its 3 or 4 stops on its way to the station. In contrast, its easier for me to hop on a train and ride it downtown than getting on a jam packed freeway. The shorter distance is easier for me to drive, the longer distance is easier for me to ride.
This brings me to an issue that I'm still resolving in my mind. I feel at best that even after most lines are built LA will be a model of a car+transit mixed culture. The only way I see this equation becoming less car is to 1)do away with free parking altogether 2)Build housing around transit with no parking or very limited parking 3)Make neighborhoods immediately surrounding transit permit only street parking as in Weho to discourage people like myself from parking on side streets and walking to the train.
And regarding more traffic on the street, does transit guarantee less traffic or just more alternatives?

They also don't represent very much ridership. Even if you were to build a pretty big parking lot at a station...say 500 spaces....well, 500 riders (or whatever, assuming some of them will be car-pooling) is really not doing much for "ridership"...it's really too small. Especially considering you generally have to coax them with "free" parking, provided they purchase a transit fare.

Which brings up the major problem with Park'n Ride programs....why waste all that valueable real estate sitting at a subway station on free parking for piddly ridership, when the land could be sold by the city to developers which they should encourage to build high density mixed-use TOD, which brings with it it's own built-in ridership sitting right on the station, which would be higher ridership than the parking lot could provide?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I feel at best that even after most lines are built LA will be a model of a car+transit mixed culture. The only way I see this equation becoming less car is to 1)do away with free parking altogether 2)Build housing around transit with no parking or very limited parking 3)Make neighborhoods immediately surrounding transit permit only street parking as in Weho to discourage people like myself from parking on side streets and walking to the train.

Your suggestions are right on. I think the solution is very limited and expensive park-in-rides with a combination of monthly passes and day entries, under new high-density mixed-use residential developments, with metered parking with 1-2 hour time limits on the arterials, and permit-only parking from 5/6pm to 10 am on the residential streets.

But that's only half of the solution. We've discouraged people from driving to the stations, now we have to encourage the alternative.

That means wider sidewalks with shade provided by drought-tolerant trees, good pedestrian crossings, slower speed limits, stops signs, bike lanes, bike racks, and maybe even temporary lockers for bike helmets. Those are the basics that every good council person should be doing.

Now if we want to get more ambitious it means over time replacing the strip malls with their the street-facing parking lots with storefronts. And for the people taking the bus to the station it means implementing an agency-wide NextBus System (http://www.nextbus.com/predictor/newUserWelcome.shtml), which uses GPS technology to provide real time maps and information on when the next bus will arrive and making the system accessible from every $20 prepaid cellphone (maybe even at a cost of what $5 a month to maintain the thing).

Park-and-rides are only meant for stations in poorly planned suburbs on rail lines that have stops more than a mile apart from one another, kind of like the Green Line. I literally cringed when I was at an Expo community outreach meeting and Councilman Bernard Parks, rather proudly said, "And the stations will have parking so people can drive to the train." The dude still doesn't get it, but hey its much easier to build a park-and-ride than implement the basic measures above, let alone the advanced ones. That stuff actually involves doing a lot more than bitching about the color of a rail line.

And regarding more traffic on the street, does transit guarantee less traffic or just more alternatives?

Its complicated. I think the easiest way to explain it is that reduced traffic is always temporary. The faster the roads are moving the more people want to drive. More people driving = more traffic. More traffic makes public transportation an attractive alternative. Really what it comes down to is the automobile is not the way a city is built to move and it's definitely an impediment to growth in the urban core.

GPS technology to provide real time maps and information on when the next bus will arrive

...sounds cool

dont they already have a system like that for the metro rapid? [big red dildo buses]

WTF is a Weho? Seriously tho, it took me a decent amount of time to figure it out, guess I'm just not hip enough.

Come on "Sprawlie" you can't be that unhip!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Hollywood

WTF is a Weho? Seriously tho, it took me a decent amount of time to figure it out, guess I'm just not hip enough.




^^:doh: :doh: :doh: So much for it being a big secret, now everyone knows about it......... lol*

GPS technology to provide real time maps and information on when the next bus will arrive...sounds cool


When you have frequent and reliable enough service, you don't need fancy GPS technology to tell you the next bus will be along...very shortly.

What "real" good is it going to do you anyway...are you going to decide not to take the bus?? Are you going to go get a haircut before the bus comes???

While it may impress people, this kind of expensive to purchase/instal/maintain bells and whistles are just wasted money...better to throw that money into improving frequency instead.






KGB

i agree, it's so unnecesary. my ride will arrive when it arrives. they always come too.

gps for transit wouldn't matter much if you want to know arrival times as it would if you wanted to know where you are going. even then, if you don't know where you are going, why are you waiting there? there's a route map there anyway

Up is the new down.......

GPS systems are the next evolution in transit info for they mimick and/or replace a handheld schedule. During rush the system could read "Trains or busses every 2 minutes" but outside of rush is when they really come in handy. When waiting for a bus or train at night it would be both reassuring and comforting to know exactly when the next bus would be arriving because some other options would be hailing a cab, walking instead of waiting or calling someone and having them pick you up. In my experience in both NYC and LA busses can be unpredictable at best and unreliable at worst. New Yorkers that I know never step foot on a bus, if it involves a bus they just hail or call a cab. In LA unfortunately, their is even moreso of a negative view on busses from a socio-economic standpoint as well as from the pervasive car culture and I feel that LA has the best bus system in the country hands down. GPS systems would in effect act as a reassurance to both the "choice rider" who has options as well as to the regular user who if the next bus is coming in 20 minutes can work out some options instead of waiting. And their are many things that I would do if their was a GPS system at my bus stop, I would be able to run into the store really quick and pick up some.......um, gum, walk down the block and back to drop a letter in the box or if I'm running too late for work just drive(the equivalent of hailing a cab).
Regarding the just more busses view, their has to be a threshold regarding the frequencey of busses with such short headways and how they eventually create traffic instead of relieving it.

i don't know what the price of installing this would be...

i don't think you wouldn't need it for rail, unless it was at grade i guess. it would be useful if people needed to know there were train delays because of an accident with a car or other vehicle.

but for subway or anything that doesn't run at street level with traffic, you probably could do without gps and just use look at a digital schedule.

again, i don't know the cost, but i would prefer if more lines were just built before we can start upgrading our system.

like cars, you get the beat-up ford when you're in high school making 50 a week, then you get the ferrari when your independent and have a good flowing income (or porsche or whatever). stupid metaphor, but i think it's a reasonable outlook

The question is are GPS systems really needed, especially if it's going to cost $Money$. Don't they offer those paper schedules thingys on the bus anymore. I remember they were located by the front and rear door. Oh the memories of my old RTD days!

Are you saying that those "paper schedule thingys" that are rarely there because someone just took all of them because they could is what we should stick with?
I think GPS systems would enhance the image of LA's transit system especially for the all important "choice rider"........??

I think GPS systems would enhance the image of LA's transit system especially for the all important "choice rider"........??



The choice rider is going to be better coaxed with better routes and frequencies much more than gimmicks like GPS. As you have already said, the LA buses cover a massive area of something like 1400 square miles....do you have any idea what sort of capital and operating budget this GPS system would cost to impliment and operate all this equipment on every vehicle and every stop?

Those millions would be better spent on things that could actually improve service, rather than just tell you what the status quo is.







"During rush the system could read "Trains or busses every 2 minutes" but outside of rush is when they really come in handy. When waiting for a bus or train at night it would be both reassuring and comforting to know exactly when the next bus would be arriving because some other options would be hailing a cab, walking instead of waiting or calling someone and having them pick you up."


Increasing non-peak service is a better idea. Why would you invest in technology that would persuade your customer to not use your product? That is just bad business. Besides, if service is that sketchy, you won't be attracting many "choice riders" anyway....the only people using it are going to be "captive riders", who won't be using those "options" anyway....they have no choice but to take the bus, and will be waiting for it regardless if they know where it is or not. You will be wasting money on something that sounds really "techy", but in reality, not terribly useful to those actually waiting for the bus.




Oh, BTW...I checked those APTA numbers you quoted for streetcar ridership as being down 12%. You misread it..you are quoting the ICTS numbers...this is the 4-mile long Intermediate Capacity Transit System line attached at the end of the regular subway AKA Scarborough RT (which is the same as Vancouver's Skytrain).

Ridership for streetcars (light rail) was up 8.3% in the first quarter of 2006, and up 14.23% in the second quarter of 2006. This despite the closure of one of the main lines in 2006.






KGB

I completely disagree with you guys about the importance of the NextBus system, definitely with respect to choice riders, but sympathize with your cost concerns. Perhaps the system should come at a small monthly cost.

Additionally, MTA buses already have some type of tracking system in place, otherwise the buses wouldn't know when to announce the next stop. Whether this info can be linked together and provided to customers is another question.

The choice rider is going to be better coaxed with better routes and frequencies much more than gimmicks like GPS. As you have already said, the LA buses cover a massive area of something like 1400 square miles....do you have any idea what sort of capital and operating budget this GPS system would cost to impliment and operate all this equipment on every vehicle and every stop?
No. Calculate it for me.

Increasing non-peak service is a better idea.

You wouldn't increase non-peak service without substantial ridership numbers. You must enjoy the look of empty busses. But then substantial ridership #'s won't appear without the perception that the agency has improved in some way, a gimmick, perhaps, but this is where GPS works best.

Besides, if service is that sketchy, you won't be attracting many "choice riders" anyway....the only people using it are going to be "captive riders", who won't be using those "options" anyway....they have no choice but to take the bus, and will be waiting for it regardless if they know where it is or not. You will be wasting money on something that sounds really "techy", but in reality, not terribly useful to those actually waiting for the bus.

We're talking about LA. Even homeless people have cars or access to one here...read:options, this is not Toronto. Sketchy?
Example1: I'm strung out, broke but have a car but use the transit system as place to beg for money. Am I a "choice rider"? Example2:I am a veteran on a very tight budget, has only one leg, am over 65 and have a pronounced body odor , I also tend to mumble loudly to myself and drool uncontrollably but I have a car. Am I a "choice rider"? Example3:I am an illegal immigrant, live in a house with 10 other families, I make $14,000 a year but have a car. Am I a "choice rider"? What is your definition of a :ugh: :cough: :vomit: :spit: "choice rider"?

The choice rider is going to be better coaxed with better routes and frequencies

Oh yeah, the MTA will begin changing its bus routes starting in December to hub and spoke for re: "Better service and to get people out of their cars"(choice riders).
Circa March 2007:
Choice Rider-"I hear the MTA has changed their bus routes to hub and spoke let's get rid of our cars and start riding the bus".
Choice Rider2-"Golly gee! That's a great idea!"

I stand by my #'s. But I will review them in all fairness when time permits.

[QUOTE=klamedia;1005026?
Oh yeah, the MTA will begin changing its bus routes starting in December to hub and spoke for re: "Better service and to get people out of their cars"(choice riders).



^^ :nono: , well maybe people do change!

You wouldn't increase non-peak service without substantial ridership numbers.


I agree....only you have it backwards...you won't get the ridership increase until the better service is there to attract them in the first place. You need to be proactive if you want to build better ridership...not reactive as you suggest.







But then substantial ridership #'s won't appear without the perception that the agency has improved in some way, a gimmick, perhaps, but this is where GPS works best.


What do you think will best influence the public's perception that transit service has improved....actually improving frequency of service, or an expensive gimmick to remind them the frequency of service has not improved?

The TTC runs buses on routes with good frequency, even though the ridership does not justify it. It does this on purpose, for a specific reason. Can you guess what it is?






What is your definition of a :ugh: :cough: :vomit: :spit: "choice rider"?


Well, I suppose it might be slightly more complex than the drooling, smelly, one-legged homeless person you seem to think it is. For the life of me, I have no idea where your strange perception of who is a potential transit rider comes from. Please explain this oddball behavior.






I stand by my #'s.


Oh...I have absolutely no doubt you "think" you actually know what you are talking about. And I'm sure there will be little time in your busy schedule to confirm your mistake (let me know if you need a link, or is left-clicking on your mouse too much work for you).






KGB

:sleepy:

By far, your best response yet.






KGB

:sleepy::sleepy:

have to say, i agree with KGB's take on this.

btw, as an angelino, i don't own a car... true mass transit user, bicyclist, and pedestrian. no, i'm not from mainland china.

So what exactly do you agree with?

So what exactly do you agree with?

well first (i stated this part already), the system isn't ready for gps just yet. we need more lines that get to even the hard-to-reach places. and with the transfer from a grid to a hub & spoke system (that's a big change btw), it will take longer to install once the hub/spoke system is in place. it would be wastefull if a new line wasn't doing as well as projected and had to have alterations figured out in its route. there would be new installations at the new stops and the old ones would have to get taken out. sounds expensive, but if anyone has or knows where to see the cost of maintainence like this, it would be useful to post.

if you suspect i agree with the rudeness in telling you that "you don't know what you're talking about," i disagree. it's always best everyone do their homework as long as there are sources.

gps would be nice someday obviously, but for right now, it's the number of riders gained and multitude of routes that seem logically important.

and c'mon... how many bums have you seen get off their ass to go to their parked car. i have seen bums get up... but not to a privately owned vehicle of theirs.

[QUOTE=croyboy;10056724]btw, as an angelino, i don't own a car... true mass transit user.



^^ :wtf:....... OK, soooooo what's wrong with this picture??? It's like saying I'm a vegan but enjoy eating Pork Chops on the weekends. Lol*

Hey Croyboy...please explain this hub & spoke layout you think is best for LA. Without really understanding how this would work, my first feelings is that this would not be suitable for LA, as it really isn't much of a "hub" city.

Anyway, I really think getting all moist over stuff like GPS, while not having much interest in things that actually improve basic infastructure, build on ridership, or involve "smart" transit planning just shows people's heads are in the wrong place. I know superficial flash-over-substance is more of an LA mantra, but applying this to public transit will just result in a very expensive mess.

My advice is to seek out the top transit planning people, wherever they may be, and force politicians to impliment their ideas. Some places can be gently coaxed into this, but I don't see LA as one of these places...I think they will have to be dragged kicking and screaming.



Hey klamedia...I'm still not quite understanding your confusion/contempt for the "choice rider" area. Despite what you are saying, I have seen data which suggests your idea everyone is a choice rider in LA, as everyone owns a car is not excactly based on facts. Those who are either too young, too old, or too poor to own and operate a vehicle appear to make up a very large portion of ridership in la...in fact, I read a study which said that 40% of the riders made less than $7500/year. I'm not hinging much on this, as one study on the internet is not enough to convince me of anything, but given the number of poor latino immigrants (legal and otherwise), I'm inclined to think it may have at least some merit.

You seem to be impressed with the TTC's ridership...well, 60% of all ridership is by choice riders. In fact, it's higher than that, as choice riders are those who own cars, while many people in Toronto choose to not own a car at all...becuase you really don't "need" one.

The TTC even loses ridership to people who don't own cars, and don't use transit much either...they live downtown or midtown, and just walk or bike most places they need to go.






KGB

well first (i stated this part already), the system isn't ready for gps just yet. we need more lines that get to even the hard-to-reach places. and with the transfer from a grid to a hub & spoke system (that's a big change btw), it will take longer to install once the hub/spoke system is in place. it would be wastefull if a new line wasn't doing as well as projected and had to have alterations figured out in its route. there would be new installations at the new stops and the old ones would have to get taken out. sounds expensive, but if anyone has or knows where to see the cost of maintainence like this, it would be useful to post.

if you suspect i agree with the rudeness in telling you that "you don't know what you're talking about," i disagree. it's always best everyone do their homework as long as there are sources.

gps would be nice someday obviously, but for right now, it's the number of riders gained and multitude of routes that seem logically important.

and c'mon... how many bums have you seen get off their ass to go to their parked car. i have seen bums get up... but not to a privately owned vehicle of theirs.

I think the point about streetcars has been lost by a poster who is treating this thread like a 13 year old boy who just discovered the joys of masturbation. If we can return back to the original topic my loose assumptions is that streetcars are somewhere around 20 mil per track mile or more. If this is the case a universal gps system that is already in operation according to Damien might be a bargain compared to a streetcar system that though I think would be "cute", imo is not necessary.

Further as we who live here in LA very well know, it is very easy to obtain a private vehicle here in the city, what with "ok credit", "bad credit" and I've even seen "no job, no money, no credit, ok" advertised. Many upon many "illegal" immigrants are indeed driving and will continue drive. In fact it's been said by immigrant watchdog groups that driving is a civil right.
The term "choice rider" at least in this city comes with alot of peripheral assumptions. Assumptions that assume race, class, ethnicity etc. To say that your goal is to attract the "choice rider" is to blatantly state who you would rather see riding your Metro.(btw kgb was correct about the lrt numbers). My question that has been conveniently avoided or maybe has not been answered because of lack of knowledge, limited vocabulary or just a preoccupation with teenage "oneupism" is what does a "choice rider" look like? Are they employed? How much money do they make? Are they a legal resident? Are they disabled? About the average transit rider making only $7000 per year I'm surprised they have enough to pay LA's ridiculously cheap fare and still have enough for food, clothing and rent. Even at $5 an hour you would end up outpacing that a year and then this was said to be an average??? Ok????
If we are to invest into a very expensive and extensive streetcar system that I personally feel is not needed and is the height of "gimmickry" in a city like Los Angeles or New York for that matter, I would like the basic profile of this mysterious person to be complete and tangible. From this point on let's stick to the topic, this is not "wanker room".:nono:


if you suspect i agree with the rudeness in telling you that "you don't know what you're talking about," i disagree.

You are one of the most reasonable posters on this forum and a joy to dialogue with even when we don't agree.

'Choice' in this case means a person who has a choice between auto and transit and chooses transit, presumably taking one car off the road. It is not a judgment about the quality of the individual.

Could we keep the adolescent sexual metaphors to a minimum, please. It is starting to smell like a locker room in here.

To say that your goal is to attract the "choice rider" is to blatantly state who you would rather see riding your Metro. My question that has been conveniently avoided or maybe has not been answered because of lack of knowledge, limited vocabulary or just a preoccupation with teenage "oneupism" is what does a "choice rider" look like? Are they employed? How much money do they make? Are they a legal resident? Are they disabled?


Good lord...if this is still going over your head at this point, it's painfully apparent that you are never going to get it, and pointless to continue trying to explain it to you....safe to say that you can just kiss your career as a transit planner goodbye.

You can continue with all the insults you like, but we both know you are simply waaaaay outgunned in this matter. If you can't keep up, then just go sit at the kiddie table, cause your opinions are not worthy of serious transit discussion or debate.




If we are to invest into a very expensive and extensive streetcar system that I personally feel is not needed and is the height of "gimmickry"


Oh, so in your opinion, serious investment in infastructure and upgrading service for transit is "height of gimmickry", and GPS is your idea of improving transit????

GPS would be on par with installing video screens in buses and showing movies.

And I never suggested streetcar routes had to be extensive...in fact, I never even suggested there is any route that would be suitable at all in LA....I was thinking more of incorporating them into the revitalization and intensification of downtown.

My suggestions are based on looking at it from a different approach than you are. They can be very successful...it's important to look at excactly what makes them work, and see if it can be applied in the LA context.






KGB

'Choice' in this case means a person who has a choice between auto and transit and chooses transit, presumably taking one car off the road. It is not a judgment about the quality of the individual.

Could we keep the adolescent sexual metaphors to a minimum, please. It is starting to smell like a locker room in here.

Fine. My concern is that race, class and income does not come into play, ever.

I became a "Choice Rider" once they painted the buses California poppy orange and the flexible "dildo" (per godbless...) buses came into service! There's no need for Streetcars once they paint the DTLA DASH buses effervescent Grape! or Lime Green anyone!

doesent like san fransisco have street cars ???

i vote for lime green

i vote for lime green




OMG, Know you want a lime green dildo bus......:eek2: