daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 8th, 2011, 03:41 PM   #701
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

The following is a screen shot of an LACMTA slide describing a series of rail transit plans brought to the voters during the 1960s and 1970s. If any of the plans had been approved, Los Angeles would have had a metro system similar to BART or the Washington Metro.

greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 8th, 2011, 06:59 PM   #702
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,451
Likes (Received): 63

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larmey View Post
It's shockingly depressing that LA, a massive city in one of the world's richest countries, has a poorer public transportation system than Mexico City, a massive city in a developing country.

When will LA, which admittedly grew up after the car, follow the example of it's older sisters named Chicago and New York?

That is a terrible comparison. First off, Mexico City is more comparable in size to New York City. Do you want to compare those two transit systems?

Second, Los Angeles is in the midst of a large expansion of its rail transit network. In 25 years, the city has built a respectable network of subway and light rails to go along with a large commuter rail network. All Mexico City really has is the subway. It just recently opened its first commuter rail line.

And outside of Mexico City, rail transit is terrible in Mexico, which is not the case in the United States outside of New York City.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud

Last edited by hoosier; May 8th, 2011 at 07:05 PM.
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2011, 09:18 PM   #703
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
outside of Mexico City, rail transit is terrible in Mexico, which is not the case in the United States outside of New York City.
Thus NYC rail service deplorable?


I think the trick is to weigh how much rail service be rush hours only, e.g., only 40% of Montreal's rail service --somewhat about to become just 33% will be-- is daily.

Anyhow, by the LA timetables, it seems possible to catch a train home once the bars shut.

Last edited by trainrover; May 8th, 2011 at 10:21 PM.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2011, 09:28 PM   #704
soup or man
Avant Garde
 
soup or man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 3,759
Likes (Received): 867

In a ideal world, the Green Line would connect with the Blue Line in Long Beach and go east a bit. Therefore, making the Green Line useful.
__________________
Far from basic.
soup or man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2011, 10:08 PM   #705
State of the Union
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 12

I'm still failing to see how you guys compare NYC to a city that's far more spread out and far less dense. I think there was a reason why LA had Pacific Eletric instead of the Los Angeles "L". Think about this. Even IF LA had kept it's rail system, wouldn't we have been Light Rail based anyway? I would say we actually came out better because now atleast we SOME form of HRT, the Red Line and the soon to be Purple Line. This is what I don't get about people complaining about our system being light rail based. Considering the ridership, noone seems to care about SFO's or boston's light rail systems that get far more demand than even the Blue Line does. People act like LA is the only the city with a combined HRT and LRT.
State of the Union no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2011, 10:23 PM   #706
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

True. Ultimately, it was just a tram that USA boasts as its first ever metro.
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011, 01:28 AM   #707
LtBk
Registered User
 
LtBk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Greater Baltimore
Posts: 3,103
Likes (Received): 3711

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
The following is a screen shot of an LACMTA slide describing a series of rail transit plans brought to the voters during the 1960s and 1970s. If any of the plans had been approved, Los Angeles would have had a metro system similar to BART or the Washington Metro.

Such a shame that LA voters reject mass transit plans 3 times. I bet they feel stupid after all those years.
LtBk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011, 02:12 AM   #708
State of the Union
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by LtBk View Post
Such a shame that LA voters reject mass transit plans 3 times. I bet they feel stupid after all those years.
If LA wanted Mass transit in 1968, they wouldn't have dismantled the street car system less than a decade before. Just say'in.
State of the Union no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011, 02:30 AM   #709
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
I'm still failing to see how you guys compare NYC to a city that's far more spread out and far less dense. I think there was a reason why LA had Pacific Eletric instead of the Los Angeles "L". Think about this. Even IF LA had kept it's rail system, wouldn't we have been Light Rail based anyway?
That is not necessarily a fact since once ridership goes beyond peak it ensures that line can generate enough cash flow to justify transition from light rail to heavy rail to provide larger capacity.
It happened here in Tokyo when the city decided to move from street trolleys system to a full fledged subway system in the '60s.
SamuraiBlue está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011, 03:54 AM   #710
State of the Union
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
That is not necessarily a fact since once ridership goes beyond peak it ensures that line can generate enough cash flow to justify transition from light rail to heavy rail to provide larger capacity.
It happened here in Tokyo when the city decided to move from street trolleys system to a full fledged subway system in the '60s.
Ok, first, you can't use the Rail capital of World as an example. Japan is heavily Dependant on Rail. I mean, it's not like they had a choice but to upgrade. Second, why wasn't Boston's green line upgraded HRT before it had a huge deficit? The green line has been around for decades, the high ridership it has didn't just appear and was certainly around before MBTA tanked.

Seriously, how dare you use Tokyo as an example. Using Japan as a comparison for anything involving is rail is just as low as it gets.
State of the Union no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011, 04:12 AM   #711
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Ok, first, you can't use the Rail capital of World as an example. Japan is heavily Dependant on Rail. I mean, it's not like they had a choice but to upgrade. Second, why wasn't Boston's green line upgraded HRT before it had a huge deficit? The green line has been around for decades, the high ridership it has didn't just appear and was certainly around before MBTA tanked.

Seriously, how dare you use Tokyo as an example. Using Japan as a comparison for anything involving is rail is just as low as it gets.
I believe you are not fully aware of cause and effect that made Tokyo's transition. What you call rail capital of the world only became so for the '70s on as Tokyo gradually constructed subway lines after demolishing all street trolley lines to make more room on the streets.
The street cars were running all over Tokyo and there were only 2 subway lines in Tokyo in the early '60s.
The Hibiya line the third in the system did not go into full operation until the mid '60s.
SamuraiBlue está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011, 04:34 AM   #712
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
I'm still failing to see how you guys compare NYC to a city that's far more spread out and far less dense. I think there was a reason why LA had Pacific Eletric instead of the Los Angeles "L". Think about this. Even IF LA had kept it's rail system, wouldn't we have been Light Rail based anyway? I would say we actually came out better because now atleast we SOME form of HRT, the Red Line and the soon to be Purple Line. This is what I don't get about people complaining about our system being light rail based. Considering the ridership, noone seems to care about SFO's or boston's light rail systems that get far more demand than even the Blue Line does. People act like LA is the only the city with a combined HRT and LRT.
1. Both Boston and San Francisco have populations much smaller than Los Angeles.

2. Both Boston and San Francisco have heavy rail metro networks that are far more extensive than Los Angeles.

3. The light rail lines in both Boston and San Francisco converge into tunnels that run through the central part of the city. In Los Angeles, the Blue Line and future Expo/Aqua Line meander on city streets before entering the tunnel for the Metro Center Station. The grade-separated segments of the Blue Line and Expo/Aqua Line are in areas that are less-densely populated.

San Francisco is a particularly good example of how a light rail system can complement a metro system. The BART network provides high speed/high frequency transit between the cities of the region. The Muni light rail system provides transit within the city of San Francisco. An extension of BART to San Jose has now been funded. San Jose has its own light rail network.

With the completion of the downtown connector and the planned extensions of the Gold Line, Los Angeles may have light rail trains running from Claremont to Long Beach. This is similar to the distance from San Francisco to San Jose. It will be as though the main trunk of BART were built as light rail!
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011, 04:38 AM   #713
manrush
Agenda 21 Advocate
 
manrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Urban New England
Posts: 4,150
Likes (Received): 499

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Ok, first, you can't use the Rail capital of World as an example. Japan is heavily Dependant on Rail. I mean, it's not like they had a choice but to upgrade. Second, why wasn't Boston's green line upgraded HRT before it had a huge deficit? The green line has been around for decades, the high ridership it has didn't just appear and was certainly around before MBTA tanked.

Seriously, how dare you use Tokyo as an example. Using Japan as a comparison for anything involving is rail is just as low as it gets.
The bolded question is an easy one to answer: the MBTA is run by stupid people.
manrush no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011, 04:41 AM   #714
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

I wish to make it clear that I am not trying to pick on soup or man, State of the Union, and other defenders of the Los Angeles light rail network. I am sure they would have preferred heavy rail. It is a credit to transit supporters that Los Angeles has come to the realization that the freeway solution for transportation has reached its limit. I fully concur that the fundamental issue in Los Angeles is money. Light rail will allow the fullest possible coverage of the region, even though it is not the ideal solution.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011, 09:54 AM   #715
State of the Union
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
I believe you are not fully aware of cause and effect that made Tokyo's transition. What you call rail capital of the world only became so for the '70s on as Tokyo gradually constructed subway lines after demolishing all street trolley lines to make more room on the streets.
The street cars were running all over Tokyo and there were only 2 subway lines in Tokyo in the early '60s.
The Hibiya line the third in the system did not go into full operation until the mid '60s.
Yes but again, using a country where getting funding for rail gets little if any opposition to a country where we can barely enough funds for a mere 8 miles of subway as a comparison is simply unfair.

greg_cristine: The Red Line alone gets nearly half of BART's total ridership. Even *IF* there was money for an HRT line to Claremont, does it's ridership really justify the cost? And I think Heavy Rail is fine only dense populated areas. The Gold Line Pasadena segment gets just over an absymal 20,000 daily ridership. You think it should be HRT? The far flung areas that BART covers should either be Commuter Rail or LRT, honestly. I don't think HRT is right for every corridor. Frankly the only reason why some cities even have HRT in far flung areas is to keep consistency with the rest of the system.(This, of course, was easy when construction costs were far less. Now with modern ridiculously high construction costs, consistency matters so much less now than it did back then) It doesn't mean that LRT couldn't have easily served that same corridor.
State of the Union no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011, 12:17 PM   #716
Larmey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 670
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
That is a terrible comparison. First off, Mexico City is more comparable in size to New York City. Do you want to compare those two transit systems?
The metropolitan areas, which can only exist when there is effective urban transit, of all three cities are roughly comparable in size. ~20 million. So it's a perfect comparison.

Quote:
Second, Los Angeles is in the midst of a large expansion of its rail transit network. In 25 years, the city has built a respectable network of subway and light rails to go along with a large commuter rail network. All Mexico City really has is the subway. It just recently opened its first commuter rail line.
All it has is the subway?

If a subway is such an easy thing to build, why does LA have a public transit network comparable to a European city 1/1000th the size of LA? The LA network is in no way, shape, or form respectable. It's a a total, utter, and complete disgrace for a mega-city in a country as wealthy as ours.

Quote:
And outside of Mexico City, rail transit is terrible in Mexico, which is not the case in the United States outside of New York City.
x 1000

Outside the Northeast, with New York City as the hub, rail transit is terrible in the US.
Larmey no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011, 12:31 PM   #717
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
Yes but again, using a country where getting funding for rail gets little if any opposition to a country where we can barely enough funds for a mere 8 miles of subway as a comparison is simply unfair.
If you are talking about construction subsidiaries I believe most European cities as well as US Cities receive them if you are talking about operational subsidiaries most all line runs a profit now.
One more point is that some of the subsidiaries were provided as government loans in which a lot had been paid back already.
The biggest reason why Tokyo relies on public transit is because in the '60s the then governor adopted a building code that prohibits large parking areas within any new construction within Tokyo proper forcing the people to use public transit to commute.

Last edited by SamuraiBlue; May 9th, 2011 at 12:37 PM.
SamuraiBlue está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011, 02:28 PM   #718
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of the Union View Post
...
greg_cristine: The Red Line alone gets nearly half of BART's total ridership. Even *IF* there was money for an HRT line to Claremont, does it's ridership really justify the cost? And I think Heavy Rail is fine only dense populated areas. The Gold Line Pasadena segment gets just over an absymal 20,000 daily ridership. You think it should be HRT? The far flung areas that BART covers should either be Commuter Rail or LRT, honestly. I don't think HRT is right for every corridor. Frankly the only reason why some cities even have HRT in far flung areas is to keep consistency with the rest of the system.(This, of course, was easy when construction costs were far less. Now with modern ridiculously high construction costs, consistency matters so much less now than it did back then) It doesn't mean that LRT couldn't have easily served that same corridor.
Certainly the ridership on the Blue Line could have justified heavy rail. The same is true for the expected ridership on the Expo/Aqua Line.

The Gold Line has been under-performing in terms of ridership. Much of the problem is attributed to the dreadfully slow segment south of Pasadena, where it runs on surface streets. If you look at the number of cars traveling I-10 and I-210 through Claremont, you could certainly build the case for heavy rail. A slow light rail line might not be competitive in terms of travel time even with a congested freeway. A heavy rail line would do better.

If you look at BART, you might have been able to build the case that light rail would have sufficed for some of the branches when they first opened. As the population has grown and traffic congestion has increased, heavy rail has to be seen as the wise choice.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011, 05:27 PM   #719
State of the Union
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
If you are talking about construction subsidiaries I believe most European cities as well as US Cities receive them if you are talking about operational subsidiaries most all line runs a profit now.
One more point is that some of the subsidiaries were provided as government loans in which a lot had been paid back already.
The biggest reason why Tokyo relies on public transit is because in the '60s the then governor adopted a building code that prohibits large parking areas within any new construction within Tokyo proper forcing the people to use public transit to commute.
You continue to miss the point. It's not about how Tokyo got there, it's about what it is today. The fact is, building a new rail line doesn't get much second thought in Japan. In the US, politicians and wealthy folks are constantly trying to kill any rail expansion. Honestly, you can't use Japan as a comparison when a rail line has it's own super model, and a baseball team ad advertising a new train, or a famous musician who loves trains and does a commercial for the line. Come on, I've seen this in Japan Thread. Totally different outlook on rail.
State of the Union no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2011, 06:21 PM   #720
diegohdm
Registered User
 
diegohdm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cuiabá - MT / Brazil
Posts: 694
Likes (Received): 93

hi.. i have a question here

i'm from Brazil, and next month i'm going to LA (to stay 40 days)

so.. which maps i need from public transport? (BRT and metro) ?
diegohdm no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
los angeles

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium