As most of you know, I was in the Rose Parade today, but this is completely irrelevant to the question (but it is nice background info). So as I was getting ready to leave, my parents called my and told me about some awful traffic on the 210. So I decided to take the 110 to the 105. So, on my way, I was able to compare the Gold and Green Line. From what I saw, the Gold Line was moving extremely slow and it would be better to take a car even with traffic (add on to the fact that whenever I drove on the 210 this week, I saw almost no one waiting for the trains). So I then missed the ramp to the 105 (there really aren't enough signs out there), but I eventually got there. While driving along, I saw many people waiting for those trains (but not a lot of trains coming to get them). So, where can I find statistics that show recent ridership on both of these lines? It seems that the Green Line is starting to become more popular.

^^ The Green Line becoming Popular, well I guess so. I know it would be if it was to connect to LAX/Westchester and connect to the Expo Line, Purple Line and eventually Orange Line. It would become a heavily used line that would travel North (Valley) and the South Bay of LA running right of the across the densely populated Westside/Century City of LA.

Getting back on topic as far as getting ridership stats, I would say try www.mta.net .....

check the Metro.net page and navigate to ridership. its roughly 40,000 for the Green Line and about 20,000 for the Gold.

It seems that the Gold Line should be extended to an Irwindale station, and it could run south there instead of eastward as some have proposed (there's really no need for it over there with Metrolink service already there).

To really increase ridership, the speed on the Gold Line needs to be increased. It goes pretty fast while on the freeway, but it slowed to near 10mph while running through Pasadena. Has the possibility of grade separation been discussed?

So many people think the Green Lines like never used, but thats really not the case. Theres never been a time where I've been on it and the train wasnt' at least 1/2-3/4 full, even when it was about 10PM. Its like a little money maker everyone forgot about (Feels like it, since theres not even any drivers, its fully automated)

To really increase ridership, the speed on the Gold Line needs to be increased. It goes pretty fast while on the freeway, but it slowed to near 10mph while running through Pasadena. Has the possibility of grade separation been discussed?

It's expensive (the Gold Line was built on a budget so it could open at all), and some areas are fairly dense or not topographically feasible to build grade separation.

It's expensive (the Gold Line was built on a budget so it could open at all), and some areas are fairly dense or not topographically feasible to build grade separation.

If that's the case then the line should have been pushed back until enough funds were available to build it right. It moves way too slowly through downtown Pasadena. It should have stayed sunken there. Why can't a sunken rail line be built in dense areas?

If that's the case then the line should have been pushed back until enough funds were available to build it right. It moves way too slowly through downtown Pasadena. It should have stayed sunken there. Why can't a sunken rail line be built in dense areas?

Because you need easement space and there is no room for that in dense areas. There are liability issues without that space; cars, people and animals can fall in the ditch. You're better off going fully underground for a portion of the line as is the case with East L.A.

As for pushing back the Gold Line until the funds were available, that's exactly what happened; the line had originally been planned to be an extension of the Blue Line. And pushing it back even further would mean losing the project altogether -- this project recieved state transportation funds, and if you're not going to spend the allocated funds by a certain date, they might be better given to SF, SD, San Jose or Sacramento. No local politician wants *that* to happen (unless your name is Mike Antonovich).

So how did East L.A. do it and Pasadena not? You have to remember the political and economic climate at the time the lines were originally funded. The Gold Line was largely planned during a recession, followed by an era of budget shortfalls and mismanagement in the MTA. The East L.A. Gold Line was originally going to be a Red Line subway extension, but the budget was cut. There was massive community support for it, so they built it as a light rail line instead, which was still much cheaper than heavy rail subway.
Things are *much* better in the MTA these days, from both the rider and the administrative perspective. Even Villaraigosa would have laughed at the whole concept of a "subway to the sea" 10 years ago.

Great explanation for it. Now it all makes sense. But obviously the line can't stay the way that it is now. If it goes that slow, what's the point. It's the easiest explanation for why people have decided to stay in traffic instead of taking the Gold Line.

Really though, I kind of don't understand ground level light rail. It's supposed to help traffic, but once it gets popular, the trains make traffic horrible again. Just look at the blue line. I guess the only reason for favoring light rail over subway or some other grade separated mass transit is simply cost.

The Gold Line averages 40 mph in grade seperated areas down to 10 mph in the only street running section which is Marmion Way. By comparison, NYC local trains run at 13-14 mph on average the entire line. In fact, I used to ride my bike from Harlem to downtown(about 8-10 miles) and beat the locals, yet the locals are heavily used. Bottom line, it's your perception and it seems you have the stereotypical LA misperception of what transit can/cannot do. Rapid Transit will never beat a private car during off-peak hours, that's unless the stations are 10 miles apart and then still the car most likely will win. Another misconception is that mass transit will relieve traffic. In cities with huge heavy rail systems, traffic abounds! London, New York, Tokyo all have horrendous traffic but with gargantuem rail systems, that take you "everywhere". So if you are looking for the coming larger rail network around LA county to solve car traffic, you will be greatly disappointed.
What transit can do is relieve you of the burden of having to own a car. You know, the expenses of purchasing, repairing, insurance etc.

Now about the Gold Line speed. In recent months the average speed has increased upwards by 10mph in some places. You can now ride from Sierra Madre Villa to LAUS in about 29 minutes, a little less if you catch an express train. What boggles my mind is why is a 30 minute one- seat ride for $1.25 not attractive to these dumb fucks who schlep up the 110 day in and day out possibly beating the train no more than 5 to 10 minutes?? When you throw in wear and tear on your car, gas and not to mention nerves, the Gold Line comes out an obvious winner in my book. My conclusion:You can't count on the present population in this city who are welded inside of their car and who have an inferior class perception of transit in the first place to choose a train over their car, even when it is comparable. At this point, you would have to appeal to the young, the elderly, the urban wannabees and the newly moved in. People who have the same misperception like "phattonez" who will drive beside a train and say "gee my car is beating the train I guess that means that my car is superior to the train" without realizing the aforementioned expense not to mention the pollution of driving a car will never be won over, these people are a lost cause.

In a previous thread though I proved that our ridership (Bus and rail)was comparable to all of the major cities in the US outside of NYC in fact due to the MTA's aggresive campaigning last year the ridership is growing much faster than most other major cities in the US.

To really get concrete and solid info on ridership, the why's and why nots by serious transit heads and industry insiders please visit the Transit Coalition website. They have like 50 threads on why The Gold Line is the way it is, how it has improved and what is in its future.

Go here to check on national ridership stats:http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/
Go here to view our rail system and others around the world:http://www.urbanrail.net/am/lsan/los-angeles.htm
Go here to view the MTA's Long Range Plan:http://www.mta.net/board/Items/2006/05_May/20060503RBMItem45handout.pdf
All about transit in LA by heads who know what they are talking about:http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=ExpoLine
All about the Gold Line:http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=ExpoLine&boardid=Pasadena&spec=6212454

Quick stats about transit in LA:

#9 in heavy rail(only 2 lines)(139,000 boardings by comparison NYC 6,034,000)
#3 in light rail(started running in 1990)(once E. Gold and Expo open will be #1)
#2 in bus ridership(bus ridership rocks)(no one else even close)
#5 in commuter rail(embarresed and pathetic)

Altogether LA ranks #3 in metro area ridership including all modes due to our good light rail and phenomenal bus ridership #'s. In fact by comparison, LA metro has 94% of the overall ridership that Chicago has and LA's ridership is increasing at a much faster rate. It's funny that LA is never acknowledged as a transit city.

Not bad for a city with no transit.
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/los-angeles-mapwithpurpleline.gif

This doesn't even include the exclusive transitways.
Others by comparison:
San Franciscohttp://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/bart.gif
Atlantahttp://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/atlantatransit.gif
Bostonhttp://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/bostontransit.gif
Our goal, Londonhttp://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/londontransit.gif
Our futurehttp://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/losangdamiengproposal.gif

Klamedia, I had no problem with the speed of the Gold Line in the median of the 210. The problem I had with it was its speed in downtown Pasadena. It was at a crawl. Los Angeles is different from other cities, and its citizens demand more. I'm happy with the speed on the Red Line, the Green Line, and the Gold Line in the median of the 210 (I haven't seen the Blue Line first hand to judge its speed). This is the thing, these lines beat the traffic, easily. However, when the Gold Line goes 10 mph through a city, is it really easier for me to go on that than to just use my car?

Every train that I've rode in every city has spots along the line where it slows, be it a sharp turn or maintenance area. The people of LA don't just demand more from transit, they are approaching transit with a prejudice that it is slow and only for the poor. So no matter if you made it so that the Gold Line sprouted wings and hovered directly above the 110, alot of those people would not leave their cars.

That is the mindset of the old Angeleno. The young Angelenos see it as a way to beat the traffic and it is not just for the poor. I'm 17 years old, and see myself using Metrorail a lot next year when I go to college (to get from Los Angeles to Pasadena). The only problem I have right now is that the Gold Line goes slow for a long time through Pasadena. It's not beating traffic, and the money I would save is not worth the extra time. So, what's the advantage of the Gold Line there?

"Phattonez" it aint that slow. A 30 minute ride from Sierra Madre to LAUS is not that slow.......geez, you make it seem like it's covered by a tarp and being pulled by horses. And if you are going to PCC they have a shuttle that will pick you up from the Allen station. The only stops in Pasadena that are not along the 210 are Fillmore, Del Mar and Memorial Park. I don't remember it going slow through these stops. The slowest running segment is along Marmion Way around the Highland Park station and that segment is a little less than a mile, I believe. I don't particularly like that it runs so slow their either but the obvious fact is that you are 5 feet from the front door of someone's home. Give the train another try if you haven't rode it in a while.

Note:
On Rose Parade Day the train was standing room. In fact, so many people took the train that their were lines around the block and down the street at many of the stations.

Note:
On Rose Parade Day the train was standing room. In fact, so many people took the train that their were lines around the block and down the street at many of the stations.

You should have seen the traffic on the 210. I'm sure that explains it, but I can't complain, it only gives more publicity to mass transit.

My problem was that the arms went down at the "railroad crossing" and it took 30 seconds to get there. It was going slower than a freight train running through a residential area. Maybe it was just a one time occurance, but I will definately have to ride it next year. Hopefully some of the issues will be resolved by then.

The Gold Line averages 40 mph in grade seperated areas down to 10 mph in the only street running section which is Marmion Way. By comparison, NYC local trains run at 13-14 mph on average the entire line. In fact, I used to ride my bike from Harlem to downtown(about 8-10 miles) and beat the locals, yet the locals are heavily used.


This is true...the distance from midtown Manhattan to Bay Ridge in Brooklyn is the same distance as from Downtown LA to Watts. The Blue Line - a light rail train that runs in the street for 4 miles - from Metro Center to Watts 103rd St takes about 30 minutes. Yet NYC's "R" train, which is totally underground, takes about an hour! Same distance, folks!

It's not beating traffic, and the money I would save is not worth the extra time. So, what's the advantage of the Gold Line there?

If every person who rode the bus and train was in their own car on the freeways instead, imagine what the traffic would be like.

There's always gonna be traffic. There's nothing we can do about that. These lines do not solve traffic, they just give an alternative to sitting in traffic. However, people have to be persuaded to ride these lines. Angelenos are not accustomed to riding mass transit. There has to be an advantage to make people ride mass transit.

^^ Phattonez if the train is that slow kick it to the curve and choose another alternative to get to your destination.

^^I am, I'm chossing a car. I have the mindset that a lot of other people have. However, I support mass transit, and I would ride it if it went faster than a cow. I'm just being economical. It's more advantageous for me as an individual to take my car than to ride the train.

So you convinced yourself to do what you were going to do in the first place.

What I was going to do in the first place was take Metrorail to PCC. I was always going to do that. I was just noticing how the Green Line is more popular than the Gold Line and I was giving an explanation for why.

I'm reviewing your posts from this thread and you've given no indication that you've even tried the Gold Line before. How would you know if the train is truly slow or not.....what? by sitting in your car and watching the train go by? And you think that you are different from the average "welded in the seat" Angeleno? I gave you link after link that would tell you all things about the Gold Line and transit in LA from pretty reputable sources imo. My stats were that rail transit in LA averages somewhere between 30-40mph for the entirety of each line, well above average speeds for locals in more "mature" transit cities. Do me a favor, could you get me some stats on average speeds for autos during rush hour in LA?

For the last time, I'm not against mass transit. I think that LA has done a great job with it. My only problem is that it is forced to go extremely slow in some sections. That is all that this thread is about. Many people see the train going slowly through Pasadena, and this is my theory for why the train has not been as popular as expected.

My only problem is that it is forced to go extremely slow in some sections.

And cars go 70 MPH all the time? LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have no problem with you buying a car, I own a car myself. But it doesn't sound like you've ridden the Metro enough.

And cars go 70 MPH all the time? LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have no problem with you buying a car, I own a car myself. But it doesn't sound like you've ridden the Metro enough.

It goes faster that 5 mph. You have to understand that I'm looking at this from the view of someone who is trying to decide whether or not Metrorail is advantageous or not. When they see a slow section like that, what do you think is going through their head?

It goes faster that 5 mph. You have to understand that I'm looking at this from the view of someone who is trying to decide whether or not Metrorail is advantageous or not. When they see a slow section like that, what do you think is going through their head?

I dunno, I live by the Red Line, and it almost always speeds at 50-70mph...

Phattonez, where do you live?

Wow the GoldLine drops down to 5MPH in Pasadena, they should call it the "Snail Line" instead of Gold....Lol*

Wow the GoldLine drops down to 5MPH in Pasadena, they should call it the "Snail Line" instead of Gold....Lol*

Wow, that would actually be funny if the word "snail" was a color as well... :eek:

Speaking of MTA..... does every future line has to be named after a color. For example I would like to keep the name Expo Line!

I hated riding BART because it smelled bad and was generally dirty. There are plenty issues as to why people avoid mass transit.

Speaking of MTA..... does every future line has to be named after a color. For example I would like to keep the name Expo Line!

Since the system was established and lines were designated by colors, yes, the lines should be named after a color. "Expo" doesn't translate into any color, and how will it be represented on a map? It's not like we're running out of colors already.

Bernard Parks supports the "Expo Line" name. He knows absolutaly nothing about how transit systems work.

If they decide to do a massive system line renaming, fine (which incurs an expense not only from the MTA but for businesses who advertise their proximity to a certain line), but I think it's horrible to have lines that are named after colors and lines that are not. Washington DC and Boston names their lines after colors. Keep it consistent!

I like colors! What's so inspiring about naming a line A or 1?

Rode the Green Line yesterday and because of this thread I sat in the last car in the last seat so that I could watch the speedometer. Top speed:65. Low speed:35. Passed up many a car sitting on the 105, even those in the carpool lanes. The Green Line only gets 10,000 more daily riders than the Gold and had an 8 year jump on the Gold. The Green Line is also fully grade seperated from the beginning to the end. What will it take for those drivers who are stuck in traffic day in and day out while the Green Line passes them up going 65 mph to change their mode of transportation? What will be the excuse this time? Oh yeah, it doesn't go anywhere right? But if I live in Norwalk and work in any one of the many factories that line the Green Line close to its southern terminus wouldn't be riding the train be more advantageous than driving? Unless gas hits $10 a gallon you just won't be able to pry many of these people from their cars and that's why I think it is futile to try and convert the average "choice driver". Concentrate on people who don't/won't or can't afford a car, the young, the elderly, the newly arrived and the persons choosing to live within the context of a traditional urban experience. Fat Joe who has been driving from Norwalk to his factory job for the last 15 years is already probably a lost cause.

I hated riding BART because it smelled bad and was generally dirty. There are plenty issues as to why people avoid mass transit.


^ Are those the blue/white commuter buses on the FWY?

^ Are those the blue/white commuter buses on the FWY?

BART is the heavy rail system in the Bay Area:

http://www.yelloworld.org/immagini/bart_a1.jpg

Oh wait, sorry, wrong Bart! I mean this one:

http://www.temescalplace.com/BART.jpg

Wow the GoldLine drops down to 5MPH in Pasadena, they should call it the "Snail Line" instead of Gold....Lol*

It was somewhere between 5-10 mph.

Imagine how many more people would ride the Green Line if it was only extended to LAX. MTA really should consider constructing that before the "subway to the sea."

It was somewhere between 5-10 mph.

Imagine how many more people would ride the Green Line if it was only extended to LAX. MTA really should consider constructing that before the "subway to the sea."

But the "subway to the sea" doesn't go slower than 55mph :)

Seriously, the LAX Green Line thing is also being held up by the LAX expansion plans. They can't build the line it until the LAX plan is finalized, or else they might have to tear out stuff and build again.

Which is why I love subways, but we should work on existing lines before building new ones.

How many years have they been trying to decide about the LAX rennovation? Endless, endless beauracracy.

The only reason that I think the Green Line should be extended is to eventually push the line to Santa Monica. I honestly don't believe that extending the line to LAX only will raise ridership significantly. The people who would use the line when it connects to the airport, are the same people that use the line the currently. I really can't imagine how cutting out a 5 minute bus ride from the current aviation station is really going to get that many more people to ride the train. The problem now, is that once you board train at the Aviation staition, you have to tranfer atleast once to get anywhere, save the Norwalk park n' ride. It's an hour to Downtown, if youre lucky, the Flyaway is only 45 minutes. However, if the train were to get a station at LAX then continue north past the Marina, Venice, eventually getting up to Santa Monica, you would see a large jump in ridership. This would mainly be because the line would now serve a major residential area. It would also make an easier ride to major employment destinations on the Westside. I think this is fairly obvious though.

I was looking at the Green Line's extension to LAX, and I noticed a rail line that goes from LAX to the 110 and the Blue Line's Slauson station. I don't know if it's used, but I didn't see any trains on it on Google's map, and even if there is a train there, couldn't it be built elevated or underground? Just a possibility.

It was somewhere between 5-10 mph.

Imagine how many more people would ride the Green Line if it was only extended to LAX. MTA really should consider constructing that before the "subway to the sea."

Phattonez, I'm sorry but I think you are over-exaggerating that it moves at 5-10 mph. More than anything, it's more like 13-15 mph and 45-50 mph the rest of the line. Sure, the Gold Line can move pretty slowly in certain stetches of Pasadena, but since that portion is not grade separated that's something to be expected of---you can't expect a train (one not grade separated) to move along with automobiles at 35 mph in high density zones can you? You have to understand the laws of phsyics---the more massive a moving object is, the more kinetic energy it has..and as a result more work/energy is required to offset the energy of the massive object(in layman's terms..to slow it down). Rail trains weigh tons and just can't stop on a dime like your average automobile and requires more time and distances to slow down. Why do you think they are expanding the lengths of airport runways to accomodate the new, super-jumbo jets nowadays? Yes, super jumbo jets are more massive than your normal DC-10 or 747 jets and require greater distances to slow down. That theory pretty much applies with all big, moving objects. With rail transit, especially in non-graded transit corridors..besides the massive nature of it, you allso have to factor in the hidden dangers of unsuspecting pedestrians, cars, busses, or bicyclists that might jump right out in front of it.


You seem like a pretty intelligent person, but what you said was just not true. So, i'm just trying to clarify things. Hypothetically speaking, if some clueless Angeleno(who initially might've had very little knowledge about mass transit in LA, yet always had thoughts about giving it a chance) joined this forum today and happened to just click on this thread about ridership statistics..and then reading your fallacious comment, they'd probably believe what you said was true and think the Gold Line (or any mass-transit rail line for the matter) actually moves at the snail pace of 5mph (heck! most people walk faster than 5mph) as you contended.. this person would probably chalk it up in their future plans and say Fagettaboutit!!! Reinforcing the negative stereotypes (which so many Angelenos already have regarding mass transit) in his/her head and from this day on avoid it like the "Black Plague" or a nasty, festering genital wart. Just think how the pro-transit contingent (Klamedia, EL Songs, Damien, etc.) feels? All their efforts in promoting the positive attributes of taking public transportation--And trying to change people's minds and negative perceptions would all simply all go bye-bye down the drain...Hell! it'll be 100 times harder to convince those transit-ignorant folks to get out of their cars in the future...:lol: If anything is true at all, head-to-head rail transit is alot more reliable and beats your typical bus or car in rush hour traffic anyday!! Even HOV-lanes on the freeways are experiencing MAJOR gridlock nowadays with hybrid vehicles sharing the same lanes in California. I don't know who made the stupid law giving (from what I've witnessed even single occupied vehicles) the green light and freedom to use carpool lanes...all just because they have a stupid hybrid sticker on its bumper? Its getting bad now but in the future more single passenger occupied hybrid vehicles equals more traffic jams in the HOV lanes. That's just my opinion of course.

Phattonez, from what I've read it seems like you'll be commuting quite a distance. Before you make up your mind, weigh the advantages of taking metro rail. Think about the amount of money you'll save overtime with car insurance payments, car repairing costs, gas money (astronomical gas prices which are already above the national average and amongst the highest in the nation), less air pollution, avoiding freeway gridlock, and less stress is advantageous enough to take metro rail in my opinion. I don't know for sure if you already own a car but since you're only 17 and basically a novice driver..there's no way in hell you're gonna get cheap car insurance rates. Insurance companies are notorious for giving young drivers the biggest rates and grief (which IMO, understandbly so considering young drivers are involved in the highest incidences of accidents). Also you have to really understand the nature of the Southern California Freeway, which are totally unpredicatable when it comes to traffic jams. What rail offers you is predicability and reliability. If you've driven on LA's freeways long enough, you'll realize what I mean and how unpredictable the nature of it is. There are times when traffic is moving along pretty nicely and when you hit a certain interchange..BAM!!! Gridlock hits you in the face for whatever reasons. From silly reasons like the CHP stopping traffic because of a dog or far worst reasons like highly toxic transport truck overturning on the freeway..you can count on major headaches and being stuck from anywhere from 10 minutes up an hour. What's even worst is when there's an accident people in LA( actually pretty much any freeway in the world) like drama and would slow down and watch and rubberneck, causing traffic to slow down to a stop. There's even what I like to call the "Lunch Hour Gridlock" (which is traffic on the freeways that happen around the lunch hour) and can be as bad as the usual morning and afternoon rush hours for certain stretches and you're driving along let's say anywhere from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and notice traffic gets heavier than normal off-peak hours..yes, the reason being many folks like to take an hour-long lunch break and drive on the freeways to whatever restaurant they're going to (heck! this happens particuarly alot with my co-workers that's for sure). Since you mentioned you'd be traveling some great distances to attend college in Pasadena, the time you save can be crucial in how successful your college career becomes. Who knows? A traffic jam could cost you invaluable time and make you miss that one crucial test or lecture. Instead of being stuck in traffic, stressed out you can use that time to relax..listen to your IPOD or use that extra time to read over notes and cram some more, so you can ace that quiz or test. I don't know how serious you are about your college education, but you and I know time is money $$$$. How you decide to use your time, can determine how successful you are in your college career and in life.

Phattonez, I just think you are being myopic(I don't blame you, most young ppl tend to be that way) and not seeing the big picture. In a previous post, I believe you mentioned you were only 17 years old or something and when I was your age..which wasn't that long ago, I guess I'm getting old? LOL.. I thought I knew everything in the world and didn't spend enough time listening to the wisdom of my elders, which sometimes I regret now, because I would've avoided many pitfalls in life had I listened. And yes, wisdom does not happen over night and certainly comes with experiences and lots of trial and error in life. I think Klamedia and El Songs are both very wise forumers here, especially regarding rail transit(which they know so much more of compared to me). Just really try to listen to them and see what they really are saying before you try to affirm the belief you say that's already in your head (you kept mentioning how you share the same mindset of most every other Angeleno that doesn't use mass transit). For the most part our intentions are good. Whether you decide to listen to us, that's really up to you to decide at the end of the day of course. But actually listen to what we are trying to say. Okay enough with this lonnnng essay...LOL...:lol: Good luck with your decision, hopefully what you decide in the end truly works for you...:cheers:

I think that you are referring to the Harbor Subdivision ROW. There are actually proposals on the internet that would use this ROW to connect downtown with LAX and even the South Bay communities as a new Metrolink line. Seems like a no brainer.

Wow, what a read. That was great. But yeah, I understand now about the Gold Line and why it has to go so slowly. I guess I just like speed. It's just a part of being young, I hate going slow. Even if it is for a short amount of time, I hate going slow. I can imagine that is what many people are thinking when they see the train moving through Pasadena. I understand how quickly it moves in the median of the 210. However, people who are reluctant to take mass transit need only one reason to not take it, and this slow section in Pasadena gives them that oppurtunity. I would much rather have the Gold Line be a subway, but right now we're stuck with it as a light rail. Another problem is South Pasadena. Citizens there just seem to not want anything in that city, be it the 710 or anything.

Right now, it seems like the only way for me to get to Pasadena from whatever college I end up going to is Metro. I hate traffic, and I definately don't want to be stuck in the volume of traffic of downtown. Traffic on the 210 is bad enough, I don't want to experience how bad it can truly get. I can see myself using the Red Line easily, but during times of light traffic, I might end up using my car. All I'm really after right now is speed, and since I own a car, it's seems more advantageous to use it when there is no traffic.

In no way am I against mass transit. I'd like to see it expanded, but I'd also like all of the lines to have the speed of the Red Line. I understand how improbable it is, but it just seems like that is what needs to be done. With time though, we might get enough people to ride mass transit, but right now we need to convince people to ride, and it seems that the best way to do it is with speed (i.e. Gold Line Express, Metro Rapid and Express).

We've seen the effects of a light rail reaching its capacity in the Blue Line. It looks like that line will either need to be build elevated or as a subway.

In conclusion, I guess I'm just more of a subway advocate than a light rail advocate. I know it is a lot more expensive, but it does not require much use of eminent domain, it goes faster, and is less vulnerable to NIMBY's. I hope this helps everyone to understand my position, even if I did ramble on.

I think that you are referring to the Harbor Subdivision ROW. There are actually proposals on the internet that would use this ROW to connect downtown with LAX and even the South Bay communities as a new Metrolink line. Seems like a no brainer.

So I'm assuming by that reply that freight trains still run on that line?

So I'm assuming by that reply that freight trains still run on that line?

Some do, but not as much. Most of the freight traffic was diverted to the Alameda Corridor (a grade-separated right of way for freight trains paralleling Alameda St. from Carson to Vernon) when it opened in 2002. There are a few local freight trains that use the route to serve various industries along the route.

It was somewhere between 5-10 mph.

Imagine how many more people would ride the Green Line if it was only extended to LAX. MTA really should consider constructing that before the "subway to the sea."

Phattonez, I'm sorry but I think you are over-exaggerating that it moves at 5-10 mph. More than anything, it's more like 13-15 mph and 45-50 mph the rest of the line. Sure, the Gold Line can move pretty slowly in certain stetches of Pasadena, but since that portion is not grade separated that's something to be expected of---you can't expect a train (one not grade separated) to move along with automobiles at 35 mph in high density zones can you? You have to understand the laws of phsyics---the more massive a moving object is, the more kinetic energy it has..and as a result more work/energy is required to offset the energy of the massive object(in layman's terms..to slow it down). Rail trains weigh tons and just can't stop on a dime like your average automobile and requires more time and distances to slow down. Why do you think they are expanding the lengths of airport runways to accomodate the new, super-jumbo jets nowadays? Yes, super jumbo jets are more massive than your normal DC-10 or 747 jets and require greater distances to slow down. That theory pretty much applies with all big, moving objects. With rail transit, especially in non-graded transit corridors..besides the massive nature of it, you allso have to factor in the hidden dangers of unsuspecting pedestrians, cars, busses, or bicyclists that might jump right out in front of it.


You seem like a pretty intelligent person, but what you said was just not true. So, i'm just trying to clarify things. Hypothetically speaking, if some clueless Angeleno(who initially might've had very little knowledge about mass transit in LA, yet always had thoughts about giving it a chance) joined this forum today and happened to just click on this thread about ridership statistics..and then reading your fallacious comment, they'd probably believe what you said was true and think the Gold Line (or any mass-transit rail line for the matter) actually moves at the snail pace of 5mph (heck! most people walk faster than 5mph) as you contended.. this person would probably chalk it up in their future plans and say Fagettaboutit!!! Reinforcing the negative stereotypes (which so many Angelenos already have regarding mass transit) in his/her head and from this day on avoid it like the "Black Plague" or a nasty, festering genital wart. Just think how the pro-transit contingent (Klamedia, EL Songs, Damien, etc.) feels? All their efforts in promoting the positive attributes of taking public transportation--And trying to change people's minds and negative perceptions would all simply all go bye-bye down the drain...Hell! it'll be 100 times harder to convince those transit-ignorant folks to get out of their cars in the future...:lol: If anything is true at all, head-to-head rail transit is alot more reliable and beats your typical bus or car in rush hour traffic anyday!! Even HOV-lanes on the freeways are experiencing MAJOR gridlock nowadays with hybrid vehicles sharing the same lanes in California. I don't know who made the stupid law giving (from what I've witnessed even single occupied vehicles) the green light and freedom to use carpool lanes...all just because they have a stupid hybrid sticker on its bumper? Its getting bad now but in the future more single passenger occupied hybrid vehicles equals more traffic jams in the HOV lanes. That's just my opinion of course.

Phattonez, from what I've read it seems like you'll be commuting quite a distance. Before you make up your mind, weigh the advantages of taking metro rail. Think about the amount of money you'll save overtime with car insurance payments, car repairing costs, gas money (astronomical gas prices which are already above the national average and amongst the highest in the nation), less air pollution, avoiding freeway gridlock, and less stress is advantageous enough to take metro rail in my opinion. I don't know for sure if you already own a car but since you're only 17 and basically a novice driver..there's no way in hell you're gonna get cheap car insurance rates. Insurance companies are notorious for giving young drivers the biggest rates and grief (which IMO, understandbly so considering young drivers are involved in the highest incidences of accidents). Also you have to really understand the nature of the Southern California Freeway, which are totally unpredicatable when it comes to traffic jams. What rail offers you is predicability and reliability. If you've driven on LA's freeways long enough, you'll realize what I mean and how unpredictable the nature of it is. There are times when traffic is moving along pretty nicely and when you hit a certain interchange..BAM!!! Gridlock hits you in the face for whatever reasons. From silly reasons like the CHP stopping traffic because of a dog or far worst reasons like highly toxic transport truck overturning on the freeway..you can count on major headaches and being stuck from anywhere from 10 minutes up an hour. What's even worst is when there's an accident people in LA( actually pretty much any freeway in the world) like drama and would slow down and watch and rubberneck, causing traffic to slow down to a stop. There's even what I like to call the "Lunch Hour Gridlock" (which is traffic on the freeways that happen around the lunch hour) and can be as bad as the usual morning and afternoon rush hours for certain stretches and you're driving along let's say anywhere from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and notice traffic gets heavier than normal off-peak hours..yes, the reason being many folks like to take an hour-long lunch break and drive on the freeways to whatever restaurant they're going to (heck! this happens particuarly alot with my co-workers that's for sure). Since you mentioned you'd be traveling some great distances to attend college in Pasadena, the time you save can be crucial in how successful your college career becomes. Who knows? A traffic jam could cost you invaluable time and make you miss that one crucial test or lecture. Instead of being stuck in traffic, stressed out you can use that time to relax..listen to your IPOD or use that extra time to read over notes and cram some more, so you can ace that quiz or test. I don't know how serious you are about your college education, but you and I know time is money $$$$. How you decide to use your time, can determine how successful you are in your college career and in life.

Phattonez, I just think you are being myopic(I don't blame you, most young ppl tend to be that way) and not seeing the big picture. In a previous post, I believe you mentioned you were only 17 years old or something and when I was your age..which wasn't that long ago, I guess I'm getting old? LOL.. I thought I knew everything in the world and didn't spend enough time listening to the wisdom of my elders, which sometimes I regret now, because I would've avoided many pitfalls in life had I listened. And yes, wisdom does not happen over night and certainly comes with experiences and lots of trial and error in life. I think Klamedia and El Songs are both very wise forumers here, especially regarding rail transit(which they know so much more of compared to me). Just really try to listen to them and see what they really are saying before you try to affirm the belief you say that's already in your head (you kept mentioning how you share the same mindset of most every other Angeleno that doesn't use mass transit). For the most part our intentions are good. Whether you decide to listen to us, that's really up to you to decide at the end of the day of course. But actually listen to what we are trying to say. Okay enough with this lonnnng essay...LOL...:lol: Good luck with your decision, hopefully what you decide in the end truly works for you...:cheers:



^^Jesus!!!!!! what was that all about..... Trance 101 @ PCC*

^^

That was me incoherently rambling jibberish..:lol:

Some do, but not as much. Most of the freight traffic was diverted to the Alameda Corridor (a grade-separated right of way for freight trains paralleling Alameda St. from Carson to Vernon) when it opened in 2002. There are a few local freight trains that use the route to serve various industries along the route.

It seems like a no-brainer then. Some kind of line should be built there. I think we can all agree that Metrorail needs to be extended to LAX.

Kind of off topic, but when will some kind of line, bus or rail, be extended through Dodger Stadium?

^ Dodger's should be moving out of Chavez Ravine. So there's no need for a Dodger Stadium connector, unless the Silver Line (if it's still a proposal) would service the East Sunset area including possibly Chavez Ravine.

As far as Dodger's Stadium it will eventually be move to Downtown, hopefully the corn fields next to ChinaTown.

^ Dodger's should be moving out of Chavez Ravine. So there's no need for a Dodger Stadium connector, unless the Silver Line (if it's still a proposal) would service the East Sunset area including possibly Chavez Ravine.

As far as Dodger's Stadium it will eventually be move to Downtown, hopefully the corn fields next to ChinaTown.

Any transit serving Dodger Stadium needs not only the consent, but financial commitment of the Dodgers/Frank McCourt.

It doesn't look like the Dodgers are going anywhere soon, as McCourt made a 25-year commitment to keeping the Dodgers at Chavez Ravine.

As mentioned before, it's logistically difficult to build a light rail or subway line to the stadium. It sits way too high for a subway station to serve it, and light rail trainst must not only veer from their route but climb the hill to serve the stadium -- both of which require a much higher expense than normal subway or light rail routings.

The best, and only realistic, transit option for the stadium is a Hollywood Bowl-type bus system where buses originate at various points around the city and converge at the stadium.

And as of now there are 0 buses that go to the stadium. The city should work something out with the McCourts where buses go to the stadium and some parking lot can be removed for parks or whatever else the McCourts want to develop there.

What if they built a Dodger Monorail to bring visitors up to the Ravine.

They would need to put it near some kind of parking lot or Metrorail station.

Agree wholeheartedly with "futuretrance" that what we say on this board needs to be backed up by some facts or at least be true and if all else fails it should be stated as a question.

A)The Gold Line averages only 5-10 mph:False
B)LA has poor mass transit ridership for a US city:False
C)Rail mass transit is slow here:False

I can imagine that is what many people are thinking when they see the train moving through Pasadena. I understand how quickly it moves in the median of the 210. However, people who are reluctant to take mass transit need only one reason to not take it, and this slow section in Pasadena gives them that oppurtunity.

If it wasn't for the less than a mile stretch of Marmion Way it would be something else. If they are looking for reasons not to take it why waste millions of dollars on a population that is entering into it negatively to begin with. Target customers who will be more probable to taking the train. Spend millions of dollars to get those people on the trains which are students, the elderly, people with no car or who choose not to drive, population that lives in proximity of the train namely all of the TOD's that line the Gold. Interesting Fact: What slow light rail line that nobody takes and should be discarded as a failure and ripped out because it goes so slow that a person on crutches could probably beat it-has invested all around it over a billion dollars worth of retail and NEW residency? The Blue-well it's true the Blue goes mighty fast but no one has offered or planned anything around the majority of the line outside of the LBC. Could it be The Green-pretty undesirable to build homes over a freeway though I did see some clearing of lane close to its southern terminus but that was just clearing of land. Or perhaps the Gold-Why yes it is the Gold. The newest rail line on the block at just a mere 3+years old has TOD's being built or built already in Highland Park, S. Pasadena and Pasadena. Here is just one of the TOD's that the useless Gold Line has inspired:http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/TODGoldline.jpg

I never said any of that. I only said that it was slow in downtown Pasadena.

I never said any of that. I only said that it was slow in downtown Pasadena.

It shouldn't be slow in Downtown Pasadena, it goes below ground there or in the middle of the freeway! You probably saw the train slowing down to pick up passengers, haha!

:lol:

it's fucking slow in highlant park...way TOOOOOOO slow

And what is TOOOOOOO slow?

Between the years of 2003 and 2006 ridership jumped on rail lines only from 197709 to 277000. If my math and #'s serve me correctly that's around a 40% increase. If all things were to stay the same over the next 10 years, no new lines being built we would see that # hit 637000, roughly the total amount of Chicago's urban rail ridership.

Rail #'s (heavy and light rail excluding suburban/commuter rail)
1)NYC
2)DC
3)Boston
4)Chicago
5)SF
6)Phili
7)LA
8)New Jersey
9)Atlanta

Not bad for a system that is only 17 years old and that is being built in random pieces but not great either but good.

^^But this is a statistic against places with well established mass transit systems that have been along for many years now. Also, these places don't have the freeway system that LA does, so they don't have to compete as much for ridership.

That's what makes Los Angeles a great city. Where we have our realiable FWY's and now our very reliable Mass Transit. We have a choice from both worlds, and others, well either have one or the other. Some "might" have both, but very few indeed!

I do must say as time progresses more and more Angelinos are supporting Mass Transit and taking advantage of it as well. Like the previous forumer mentioned we only had it for 17 years or so.

We're still not there yet, but we're headed in the right direction.

Technically the system is 16 1/2 years old. It doesn't turn 17 until July. :)

Like the previous forumer mentioned we only had it for 17 years or so.

Hello! You used to at least call me "K"! Now it's just down to 'the previous forumer'.......how cold you are?

TWO THINGS:

1. Los Angeles is not considered a "transit city" compared to those others because despite having high ridership (which you'd expect from the country's second most populated city) we have a fraction of the percentage of the population who use mass transit. In NYC 55% of people commute to work using mass transit. They are the country's leader by far. Chicago, San Fran, Philly, D.C. and Boston all average between about 30-40%. Los Angeles is at 12% - maybe. We are improving, but we have a ways to go. In a city with as many major job centers and such a dispersed population is it really a surprise that buses and 100 miles of rail/busways doesn't cut it?

2. I have no problem with people criticizing the Metro system. I am a mass transit advocate, not a paid member of the Metro public relations department. Where there are deficiencies in service they must be identified so they can be corrected and so the same mistakes are not repeated. I believe that good service, not hot air will encourage more people to use mass transit. Period.

The Gold line is a case study on how NOT to build rail in Los Angeles and why grade separation is so important. No there is no 5 mph segment (the slowest is 20 mph), and most of the other sections I think are approved at up to 55 mph, but Metro recognizes the same problem you do phattonez. The Gold line recently added (or is currently adding) substations, and Metro rail operations has done quite a few other things all to: IMPROVE THE SPEED OF THE LINE. These necessary upgrades - and the slow speed of the line in some segments are the result of a poorly designed line. A mistake, I'm afraid we're currently making with the Expo line and Eastside Gold line. A mistake some politicians are advocating we make by suggesting the Downtown Connector run at-grade for example.

You're exactly right phattonez, light rail doesn't cut it, and Metro even knows it. Metro service policy states that any rail line expected to serve 50K passengers a day should be heavy rail - 100% grade separated. If we ever got to a level where 25% of LA County residents used mass transit is there any doubt that the Eastside Gold, Expo and Pasadena Gold would each have at least 50K passengers a day? It's simply not possible to create the type of change and provide the speedy transportation of such a dispersed population with at-grade rail.

Our politicians tell us the high capital cost of grade-separated rail is too great. If you think they're wrong phattonez, write them, go to the meetings and tell your elected representives to spend YOUR tax dollars efficiently - to find the money and build these rail projects in dense urban areas separate from traffic.

Ultimately, you are a taxpayer, just like everyone else and soon you will be a voter, so you have as great a right to express how you feel your money should be spent as anyone. If it is important to you - as it is to many others - do something about it. It's the only way we're going to change things. Reprimanding you for your observations, which are shared by far more people than just you doesn't help change things. Getting you to become an activist does.

We are the city of dreams damn it! We are the richest city in the richest state in the richest country in the world. We have the world's seventh largest economy, best universities and access to the world's best engineers and scientists. We have the capacity to do great things. We just need our leaders and our people to expect it, and to accept nothing less.

^^i.e. Blue Line.

And Damien, I agree that the cost is not too expensive. If they settle for something, they ultimately will have to pay more in the end tearing it out and replacing it.

Hello! You used to at least call me "K"! Now it's just down to 'the previous forumer'.......how cold you are?



Oh my..... what was I even thinking when I posted that. My apologies (K) and see you at the meet!!!

[QUOTE=Damien;11200585]TWO THINGS:

1. Los Angeles is not considered a "transit city" compared to those others


^^ First of (D) you stared with the wrong foot there.:ohno:

We need to get used to saying "We are a highly dependent Transit City" Instead of always having to give an explanation and whatnot. I guess it needs to start here so when discuss it with the outside world. It would just flow out naturally, we are a Transit City.....

[QUOTE=Damien;11200585]TWO THINGS:

1. Los Angeles is not considered a "transit city" compared to those others


^^ First of (D) you stared with the wrong foot there.:ohno:

We need to get used to saying "We are a highly dependent Transit City" Instead of always having to give an explanation and whatnot. I guess it needs to start here so when discuss it with the outside world. It would just flow out naturally, we are a Transit City.....

well...at least way more of a Transit City than Houston! Cheers LA! :cheers:

I'd like to know, who actually uses transit here? I was in LA for the last 3 weeks and used it almost every single day. I did notice that the Gold Line seems to have a lot more passengers than at least 7 months ago. -or, the trains aren't getting cleaned every night-

[QUOTE=Ferneynism;11212248]

well...at least way more of a Transit City than Houston! Cheers LA! :cheers:

I'd like to know, who actually uses transit here? I was in LA for the last 3 weeks and used it almost every single day. I did notice that the Gold Line seems to have a lot more passengers than at least 7 months ago. -or, the trains aren't getting cleaned every night-

Of all the postwar-growth US cities, Los Angeles is the most transit-friendly.

I own a car but didn't feel like filling my tank today, so I paid $3 and rode the Red and Orange lines in the Valley to visit the CA Board of Equialization office and Fry's in Canoga Park (just across the parking lot from the Warner Center station).

You should stop and got a drink from Yankee Doodles on Victory.

Of all the postwar-growth US cities, Los Angeles is the most transit-friendly.

I'm not going to even get into debating your definition of a "post-war growth US city" and simply point to the facts: Before WWII we were the world's leader in rail transit. With about 1500-1600 miles of track (combined yellow car and red car) we had more miles of tracks than any metropolitan area on the globe. The height of the service was in the '20s. Ridership on the Yellow Cars peaked during WWII.

I'm not going to even get into debating your definition of a "post-war growth US city" and simply point to the facts: Before WWII we were the world's leader in rail transit. With about 1500-1600 miles of track (combined yellow car and red car) we had more miles of tracks than any metropolitan area on the globe. The height of the service was in the '20s. Ridership on the Yellow Cars peaked during WWII.

Yes, I know what the Red and Yellow Cars were. Some of them ran in my neighborhood, there's even some remnants of tracks that can be found. But most of the Pacific Electric ran in semi-rural, sparsely populated areas. Yes it ran all the way to Redlands and Canoga Park, but there weren't very many people who lived there back then.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe most cities had street car systems that once again in most cities are torn out, one reason to never put public trust in private investment ever again. LA didn't just tear out the tracks to the spite of everyone. The capitalists weren't making the profit and we all know that capitalists are all about money. To approach the collapse of the extensive street car system solely as some kind of conspiracy is not to understand the laws of economics. So LA did a very "LA thing", tore out the most extensive street car system in the world to build one of the most extensive freeway systems in the world. Further from what I understand, the building of the Blue Line and subsequent light rail lines as light instead of heavy rail lines was the only way those lines were going to be built. Do I like light over heavy, especially mixed traffic sections, absolutely not. But I do clearly understand after building a massive multi-billion dollar freeway system and touting yourself as the 'city of the future' because of such, is a hard swallow when you realize in less than 20 years that the 'city of the future' would have to come to the realization that it would need to still build infrastructure that befits those 'cities of the past'.
The light rail lines that we have now including the coming Expo and E. Gold are momentum building projects, realizing the current and past political climate. It's nothing to be ashamed of that LA has (I keep coming up with)14% ridership using the county population while including inter-agency bus lines as well and rightfully excluding Metro link, while let's say for Chicago if you exclude their inter-metro area Metra the #'s drop to somewhere around 18% and the city hasn't nearly the freeway miles covering the metro. Though with the an 11% increase every year for at least the past 3 years in summation of all modes is hugely promising for the city. Like it or not LA is part of the Post-WWII growth city family throw Phoenix, LV, Houston, San Antonio, San Diego, San Jose all in their together.
Like "el" said, the modern rail system is only 17 years old and we have a very robust bus ridership and I'm getting a total of 1803.5 for all modes as in ridership. So I'm getting 13% ridership including the 16m population # that is thrown out there for the larger metro area. But if I use the 10m - 12m population # for the county that only the MTA actually covers we jump up significantly to 20%. That's not bad for a metro that is just understanding what mixed-use means and how this relates to transit and civic cohesion. We're just understanding that we need parks and a center! This place is really just a huge civic experiment.
I believe that after this last wave of at-grade lines are built (EXPO and E. Gold) sometime in the next decade we will be ready for that 45 billion dollar bond proposal, that I'm sure in true LA fashion will be wittled down to 20 billion while we invest in the new technology of the day, flying cars.*

*Not a paid MTA employee either.

Facts:
Rode the Gold Line yesterday, sat in last car in the last seat to see how fast we were going.
Most of the line varied anywhere between 30-50 miles per hour. The infamous 'slow running' section Marmion Way slowed down to 20 mph(not 5 or 10) for less than a mile so as not to run over any unruly children or its pet Spot.
If you really want to get me hot, let's talk about the slow running middle of the street Blue Line segments along Washington and Long Beach.
But it might be good to actually ride the trains before assuming the speed.:)

Like it or not LA is part of the Post-WWII growth city family throw Phoenix, LV, Houston, San Antonio, San Diego, San Jose all in their together.

I'm sorry, but you're both wrong. The turning point in the history of Los Angeles was after the discovery of oil at the turn of the century - NOT - after WWII. Add the movie studios and aqueduct (and subsequent annexation orgy), and the introduction of a couple of men named Hughes and Huntington, and by 1930 were the 5th largest city in the country.

This is all, well, verifiable facts. Just read your Los Angeles history and look at the census data: Population of the 100 Largest Cities 1790 - 1990 (http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027.html)

And again, my point, which everyone clearly sees is that unlike Phoenix and San Jose we had a large metropolitan population and a first class rail system before the freeway craze and during the personal automobile boom. We were in the category that included New York, Boston, Chicago and Philly.

Just because we made a lot of the same mistakes as we began to urbanize outside our downtown core does not put us in the same category as Phoenix, Houston and San Antonio.

So LA did a very "LA thing", tore out the most extensive street car system in the world to build one of the most extensive freeway systems in the world.

I'd debate how coordinated the two acts were, but your point is made.

Further from what I understand, the building of the Blue Line and subsequent light rail lines as light instead of heavy rail lines was the only way those lines were going to be built.

A project designed and constructed in the 1980s vs. those designed and constructed in the 21st century.

So I'm getting 13% ridership including the 16m population # that is thrown out there for the larger metro area. But if I use the 10m - 12m population # for the county that only the MTA actually covers we jump up significantly to 20%.

I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but mine are from the U.S. Census (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/001701.html) - the same data transportation engineers and MTA planners use when filing EIRs. 12% is the city, 7% is region. Even in our most densely populated areas we don't reach 25%.

I believe that after this last wave of at-grade lines are built (EXPO and E. Gold) sometime in the next decade we will be ready for that 45 billion dollar bond proposal, that I'm sure in true LA fashion will be wittled down to 20 billion while we invest in the new technology of the day, flying cars.

Again, the point is we're spending massive sums of money making mistakes that will need to be fixed with money from that $20 billion bond. That less money to spend enhancing the system in the future, and lost potential ridership and economic development in the interim. Employ the best engineers in the world to build it right now, pressure the politicians to give them the money to do so, and create a system that doesn't just convert bus riders into train riders, but is good enough to get people out of their cars. And the ability of the line/system to get people out of their cars (i.e. new revenue) is a major factor when competing for federal money.

and create a system that doesn't just convert bus riders into train riders, but is good enough to get people out of their cars. And the ability of the line/system to get people out of their cars (i.e. new revenue) is a major factor when competing for federal money.

So the crowded Metro Rail park and ride lots mean nothing to you?

I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but mine are from the U.S. Census (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/001701.html) - the same data transportation engineers and MTA planners use when filing EIRs. 12% is the city, 7% is region. Even in our most densely populated areas we don't reach 25%.



Again, the point is we're spending massive sums of money making mistakes that will need to be fixed with money from that $20 billion bond. That less money to spend enhancing the system in the future, and lost potential ridership and economic development in the interim. Employ the best engineers in the world to build it right now, pressure the politicians to give them the money to do so, and create a system that doesn't just convert bus riders into train riders, but is good enough to get people out of their cars. And the ability of the line/system to get people out of their cars (i.e. new revenue) is a major factor when competing for federal money.

Los Angeles County:10, 245, 672
Ridership in LA county(I exclude Metrolink because it hops counties):
1761.6 all modes, incl. interagency busses(can't find Foothill Transit nor Montebello #'s but I know that it's significant)1996.7. Divided by the 10m and I get around 19%. That's without counting Metrolink or all of the interagency busses. Open to discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/#A1

And yes, I totally hear what you are saying about the $20 mil but I really do see these trains that have and will be built in our stab at rapid rail transit to be a precursor, a laying of the groundwork, a momentum builder to a $45 billion bond that you are proposing. The catalyst will be and always has been a subway down Wilshire.

I'm sorry, but you're both wrong. The turning point in the history of Los Angeles was after the discovery of oil at the turn of the century - NOT - after WWII. Add the movie studios and aqueduct (and subsequent annexation orgy), and the introduction of a couple of men named Hughes and Huntington, and by 1930 were the 5th largest city in the country.

.


Gee, I've always read something about all of those returning GI's and the SF Valley....... But still, to say LA was on par with NYC or Chicago at the turn of the century when both of those cities metro pop's were in the multi-millions and LA's entire metro pop was 250, 000 is stretching it a bit, donchathink?

But more importantly, being a huge fan of your rapid rail proposal, strategically how are we planning to float this bond onto the public's conscienceness considering your dire outlook on mass transit in the LA area?

Perfect example of LA mass transit bias taken from Wikipedia:

True to reputation, Los Angeles' rail system does not have high ridership, averaging 276,900 trips a day, 0.4% of the 65 million taken daily.[2] This compares with ridership of 699,599 trips for Washington Metrorail's subway[3], 664,700 trips for Boston's subway T, and the city of Chicago L's 644,200, all of which are dwarfed by New York City's 6.0 million average daily weekday trips taken [4].

With the exception of DC(which is kicking everyone's ass outside of NYC)LA's ridership in comparison is nearly half of Boston and Chicago and these systems only had a jump of ........100+years. Also DC's #'s are skewed probably to not show up Chicago and Boston.......DC's #'s are phenomenal for such a "new system". Having just celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2001, they are batting (according to the ATPA)984.5 daily trips! But truly if the article really intended to make a point about ridership #'s, it would have been frank and said that all heavy and light rail ridership #'s(non-commuter) in all the cities in the US COMBINED still do not add up to NYC's daily ridership, telling of those cities that started building grade seperated rail concurrently.

Gee, I've always read something about all of those returning GI's and the SF Valley....... But still, to say LA was on par with NYC or Chicago at the turn of the century when both of those cities metro pop's were in the multi-millions and LA's entire metro pop was 250, 000 is stretching it a bit, donchathink?



I think it's safe to assume that no one in this forum - or even their parents - even existed before WWII, so any opinions posted here on Los Angeles' status as a city before WWII is limited to second-hand historical data and therefore is just as good as the next person's. So unless you're the resident octogenarian here, wouldn't you agree, Damien?

I think it's safe to assume that no one in this forum - or even their parents - even existed before WWII, so any opinions posted here on Los Angeles' status as a city before WWII is limited to second-hand historical data and therefore is just as good as the next person's. So unless you're the resident octogenarian here, wouldn't you agree, Damien?

Los Angeles transformed from a dirt town to a city when the railroad was extended west, oil was discovered, the aqueduct was built, and the aviation and movie industries set up shop. All of these things happened BEFORE WWII. This isn't an disagreement between me and you or anyone else in the forum. It's between history and not-history.


But more importantly, being a huge fan of your rapid rail proposal, strategically how are we planning to float this bond onto the public's conscienceness considering your dire outlook on mass transit in the LA area?

There's nothing wrong with being honest with people. You can't attempt to market a Ford like it's a Mercedes and expect to be taken seriously or to gain trust. I'd much rather call it like it is, explain why it is the way it is, and offer suggestions on how we can improve what we have and what we will have.

There's this huge American ego that in many ways allows us to delay much needed reforms. We're obsessed with bullshitting ourselves about everything, instead of actually being real with ourselves. Perhaps its because doing that forces us care. It forces us to tackle the tough issues and commit to change, or admit that we don't care and do nothing.

We have a problem and everyone recognizes it. I'd rather use my energey working to get those people to invest in new solutions than make sell a sub-par product like it's the best thing since sliced bread. When people are wrong I'll correct them. When they're right, I'll tell them why I agree.


Los Angeles County:10, 245, 672
Ridership in LA county(I exclude Metrolink because it hops counties):
1761.6 all modes, incl. interagency busses(can't find Foothill Transit nor Montebello #'s but I know that it's significant)1996.7. Divided by the 10m and I get around 19%. That's without counting Metrolink or all of the interagency busses. Open to discussion.

Ridership is the number of rides, not the percentage of people in the population using transit.

To get from San Bernardino to Santa Monica Promenade would require:
1) Metrolink to Union Station
2) Red line to Wilshire/Western
3) 720 bus from Wilshire/Western to Santa Monica Promenade

Those are 3 different seats occupied by the same person calculated as 3 rides.

The percentage of people who use public transit to get to work in Los Angeles is 12%. Regionally the number is around 7%.


So the crowded Metro Rail park and ride lots mean nothing to you?

Add up all the park and ride spaces in the Metro Rail system and compare them to:
a) the bus ridership
b) the rail ridership
c) the driving commuters

I'm outright opposed to park and rides in the urban core and only willing to tolerate some of them in the immediate suburbs for now. But ultimately any noticable change in the percentage of people who use public transit in our region will revolve around a first-class grade-separated rail system as the spine complimented by a first class local spoke-and-hub bus system as the limbs among other very necessary changes.

Los Angeles transformed from a dirt town to a city when the railroad was extended west, oil was discovered, the aqueduct was built, and the aviation and movie industries set up shop. All of these things happened BEFORE WWII. This isn't an disagreement between me and you or anyone else in the forum. It's between history and not-history.



Yes, I know my L.A. history and that is all correct. But many parts of the Los Angeles we know today didn't really exist in the same sense before WWII. The Valley was a big farm, the Westside a bunch of oil fields and meadows and the entire city had no professional sports teams.

Like I said, neither you or I were around back then. And stop building that time machine just to try to disprove me.

Elsong you labeled L.A. a "post-war growth city" suggesting we didn't become a large urban center until after WWII. That simply not true.

We didn't have "nothing to work from," like San Jose (not even among the top 100 cities in America in '40s or '50s), San Diego (#53 on the '30s census to #18 in the '60s census), Las Vegas (an entertainment destination FOR Los Angeles) or Phoenix (100K in 1940s census to 500K in 1950 census). We became an international city because of oil, movies, aviation, the aqueduct and the ports all well established before WWII, not because of returning vets.

We already had a city - the fifth largest in the country - BEFORE THE WAR. We already had a strong urban core, financial center, international port (that passed Frisco to become second only to NYC in the 1920s), global industries and INFRASTRUCTURE.

Anyone who has ever traveled back east or in the midwest has seen lots of cities that were cities before the war surrounded by suburbs or rural areas. They all had/have the land to make the same horrible land-use mistakes we did. We actually did it - on a massive scale - primarily by abandoning our EXISTING downtown. A downtown that was the center of our 1500-1600 mile rail system. We became a "non-radial city," but we did not start that way and it was NOT solely the product of a blank slate post-WWII highway planning. Again, just because we made a lot of the same mistakes as the cities that "became cities" after the war does not put us in the same category.

Ok, I'm gonna chill on all of this badminton of history and get to what I believe is the real shit. Damien, I think it is plausible that you are taking the 'shoot from the hip' approach but if this bond is to be able to actually float, what is the strategy of motivating the population into actually getting behind you and this proposal? I don't believe that it is ego at all on the part of the city and its residents, I believe the citizens of LA would be the first to tell you about the serious problems i.e. traffic, that exists in this city. LA is really not the kind of city that 'hides its poor', as so many forumers have lamented on this fact. LA is not a NYC where it feels like you have to pretty much join the 'I Love NY' club to actually be accepted much less continue to reside in the city. This city has a bad case of self-deprication, so I feel that your 'realism' approach if not swaddled with a Villaraigosa-like city of dreams, look to the future nudge has the potential to continue the viscious nihilistic yet apathetic cycle that this city seems to be stuck in.
I am certainly not being myopic in my approach to our transit situation, I just tend to see an enormous potential, an explosion of ridership and transit friendly infrastructure the likes that this city has never seen before partly due to the fact of the quickly detiorating traffic situation along with the natural tendency towards density that the city has been experiencing since the mid-70's.
So my question posed more acutely would be, what is the beckoning call for the urgency of this proposal? What is the "rah-rah" statement? It can't just be 'well you know traffic is getting worse'. The answer:'Yes, isn't it terrible' as they roll up the window on their SUV and drive off.

And as far as those ridership #'s are concerned I got them from credible sources and their really is no reason for me to cede to the 12% figure. I'm quite sure interagency busses are not being counted. And as far as linked trips and unlinked blah blah blah, all agencies use the same formula, so that's neither here nor there.
Heavy rail-139.2
Light-137.7
Bus-1484.7
add interagencies
LB 85.0
Norwalk 8.3
SM 125.7
Torrance 16.1
I have excluded Metrolink #'s and have yet to add in Montebello or Foothill #'s.
If their is something that I have missed that will add to or augment my conclusions please let me know.

Elsong you labeled L.A. a "post-war growth city" suggesting we didn't become a large urban center until after WWII. That simply not true.

We didn't have "nothing to work from," like San Jose (not even among the top 100 cities in America in '40s or '50s), San Diego (#53 on the '30s census to #18 in the '60s census), Las Vegas (an entertainment destination FOR Los Angeles) or Phoenix (100K in 1940s census to 500K in 1950 census). We became an international city because of oil, movies, aviation, the aqueduct and the ports all well established before WWII, not because of returning vets.

We already had a city - the fifth largest in the country - BEFORE THE WAR. We already had a strong urban core, financial center, international port (that passed Frisco to become second only to NYC in the 1920s), global industries and INFRASTRUCTURE.

Anyone who has ever traveled back east or in the midwest has seen lots of cities that were cities before the war surrounded by suburbs or rural areas. They all had/have the land to make the same horrible land-use mistakes we did. We actually did it - on a massive scale - primarily by abandoning our EXISTING downtown. A downtown that was the center of our 1500-1600 mile rail system. We became a "non-radial city," but we did not start that way and it was NOT solely the product of a blank slate post-WWII highway planning. Again, just because we made a lot of the same mistakes as the cities that "became cities" after the war does not put us in the same category.


Yes, but you still weren't there.

Yes, but you still weren't there.

We weren't there for the American Revolution, so how can we prove that it happened?:nuts:

We weren't there for the American Revolution, so how can we prove that it happened?:nuts:

It's a conspiracy, I tell you. C-O-N....SPIRACY!