I am one of those few passengers who ride the K line. More and more passengers are riding it as they learned the route. If it wasn't for the K line I will be using my var more to go to work. But it was due to the K line that I am driving less to work.
@PlaystationMasterPS3 I am into rail and high-speed rail. It is always more expensive, over budget, delayed. However, it's a public good. There is a new target and new Apartment/condo complex right across the street from the Inglewood Downtown Station. I'm pretty sure that some of the new tenants will avali themselves to the new station.
Rail projects like the K Line take time to attract new riders. This line has already made these communities more desirable to live in. Also, property values continue to go up.
All those new stadiums in Inglewood without a direct train connection is so disappointing. Great historical overview of the K line, though! It's important that people understand the history of these lines, and how much better our transit could be if we just had some long term regional planning.
Oh man, let me tell ya…it was hell accessing SoFi for Wrestlemania. NO shutttle service between Lennox Station and SoFi. SoFi really wanted to cash in on all their parking spaces!
I disagree with your overall assessment. Even in this video you see some of the past plans for exactly what you're talking about. There has been tons of long term regional planning, but things like changing funding availability, political changes, and unforeseen private development affect what ultimately gets built and when. Just look at the funding schemes Metro uses and how they came about. It's a very complex issue overall and Metro has done a decent job over the decades.
@@LuisRamirez-vv4dk I think they plan to connect the K Line to the airport people mover trains. I hope so as there's a K Line station around the corner from me.
Your point at around 11 minutes is key. LA is split up into 1000 little islands by uncrossable 7 lane highways. This is why people feel like they need to drive to pick up some eggs. Because they need to get one island over and walking there might kill you. LA needs to fix this and take out several car lanes for much higher capacity bus and bike lanes. And it's also so messed up that mass transit needs to go through environmental review when it is objectively GOOD for the environment. Using environmental law to block mass transit is like using your roach killer spray to hold the door open so roaches can get in. It's misuse and needs to be stopped immediately. This video is everything I wanted to know and more. Fantastic and 100% spot on.
Most major stadiums are usually replaced every 30 years, give or take, which is ironically about how long it takes a government transit agency to build anyting.
@wanglelife and the A line in the foothills/San Gabriel Valley. Is pretty chill and busy lately. Most of the riders in the foothills/San Gabriel Valley on the A line are from the suburbs.
Even though the plans aren’t perfect, it’s really great to see a city that has made awful transit-based decisions in the past try to right their wrongs and invest so much in transit. It’s safe to say that no other city in the US is investing as much in transit as LA!
Indeed, well said. And let's give much of the credit to LA city and county voters who approved several measures to tax themselves to build this public infrastructure. That is the main reason LA and LA County has able to build more public transit than any other city in the US in the last few decades. Voters deserve a lot of the credit.
@@theexmannYou mean being dumb enough to vote for getting taxed even more when they couldn’t even make good use of what money they had already been given! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!! 🤡
Crenshaw is NOT DENSE. According to the Mapping LA project, density is average for an LA neighborhood. It's frustrating that the northern portion of the K Line has a high density of underground stations like its Koreatown, yet most of the area surround the Leimert Park and MLK Stations are single family homes and auto-centric strip malls. There are no plans to rezone the R-1 portions, just densify the commercial areas on Crenshaw Boulevard. The plans for Crenshaw Mall involve leaving the main low rise structures in tact while adding offices and housing in the parking lots and unattached buildings. It similar to mall redevelopment in OC, yet OC malls don't have an underground light rail station.
Wasn't the Crenshaw Bvd. segment originally planned to be entirely elevated until community opposition resulted in the mixed tunnel & at-grade version we have now? All elevated would have probably been a better choice
@@PASH3227 I definitely agree that they should allow very high density development, but I wouldn't hold my breath. LA is ultra NIMBY, and this is a traditionally Black middle class neighborhood so gentrification is a big fear. It's basically a perfect storm of left-NIMBY and right-NIMBY
when the state gets off their butts and passes a WA HB 1110 like law making cities allow 4plexes by rights in r-1 things will change rapidly. we need to build the transit so it's there for when land use reform happens (and so they aren't subject to parking minimums)
@@PlaystationMasterPS3 SB-9 allows dividing lots and 4-plexes, but they need to be developed by the homeowner which severely constrains development potential. A lot of YIMBY bills in CA are hamstrung by these sort of concessions.
@@christophercotton9048 It is completely possible to build elevated structures that can survive earthquakes. There's plenty of such already in Los Angeles and in other earthquake prone areas like Tokyo and San Francisco/San Jose.
these little trains are lovely & the stations are beautiful, LA just needs to build dense housing around the stations, so many ppl want to live near a station but cant bc of housing costs
True. Make the train fit the neighborhood. Definitely need denser development, better placement of stations, and more infill to make it feasible for ridership and viability. It’s almost like the mistake in Denver of putting stations surrounded by parking lots and away from any downtowns or population centers.
It's happening. Actually, that would be a good video to make. Document the changes before and after transit train lines and stations have come into a community. For example, I've seen housing and retail developments popping up along the Expo line in the last several years.
If I recall correctly, former Mayor Garcetti put into place some sort of plan to have housing built within walking distance to every Metro station. So far, that is coming to pass. I think we will see the new stations of the K Line sprout housing in the near future. It has already happened at the Downtown Inglewood station.
eh, none of the neighborhoods the k line runs threw are that expensive. Any new housing built around the kline stations, might increase ridership, but it wouldn't be cheaper than the existing housing, due to the current high cost of construction labor. Developers have to charge pretty high rents to break even on any new projects these days.
for every station you add you get everyone already served by the system the opportunity to go to a place and the people served by the new station to get anywhere in the system, one station can really do a lot
Getting out of LAX is such a baffling experience. How do I wank from the terminal to mass transit? Oh, it's easy. You take a shuttle. To a bus lot. To get a bus to a train line. That's half built. To take another bus. Your flight to LA probably took less time than getting 5 miles away from LAX. Also, those "aspirational" 70's sci fi Domes and Pyramids station designs are just bafflingly terrible. Why would anybody want to make a train stop so giant that there's nothing around it in convenient walking distance? NYC subway stops are mostly just nondescript stairs that go to the train, so the surface entrance is literally about 6 feet from the shop you wanted to get to.
I see this a lot of times in the US, a metro line that doesn’t go to the airport (let alone a long distance train), but to a people mover or bus station in the neighborhood, on which you need to transfer if you want to go to the airport. Urban planning mistake if you ask me. Imagine how many people work at the airport and how many passengers need to got to and from the airport. You want those people from the city (center) to the airport via rail as quick as possible, not in multiple transfers. Top 5 of European airports: London, train and metro; Paris, train, high speed train, and metro; Frankfurt, train, high speed train and S-bahn; Amsterdam, train and high speed train; Madrid, train and metro. All with stations under or next to the terminal(s). USA has a long way to go before they get it.
I am probably messing this up, but I remember seeing in one of these urbanist videos that the reason the US has sooo many people movers in our airports is because there were some government rules that prohibited using government funds for public rail that connected to airports. Apparently these rules have since been lifted, so it will become more common in the future that the US will have rail going directly into our airports, as in European airports. SLC is an example of this, as one of Salt Lake's light rail lines has its terminus literally in an airport terminal.
@@kidtrunks2568 I think it is actually that there was federal money for airport transportation, but If that transportation served anything other than an airport, it was not eligible. Thats why there are so many airport people movers. There was a federal program that basically could only fund airport people movers, so cities made them to get that money. Pretty sure that was only recently changed
Follow the money has a lot to do with things. And always waiting on Fed $$ to pay for it, is unconscionable. Creative People can generate clever means of production. Let's do it. Off the streets. Above and Or BELOW!
The inglewood people mover really needs to use the same technology as the LAX people mover and to then connect the two lines and extend to the C as planned. Then it could be ran as a small system.
Right? The city of Inglewood could even make a profit off the line, it just needs to be extended to the 96th St/LAX transit center. Even if it's a separate system, as long as it does that, I think it can make money.
It surprised me the k line in the inglewood section are not getting alot of people compare to Azusa. Inglewood has twice as much people than Azusa and Azusa is a suburb city in the foothills/San Gabriel Valley and apu citrus college and Azusa downtown station has alot of people for being suburb city compare to inglewood. I wonder what's going on. 🤔🤔🤔🤔
It's wild to hear that a metro line comes every 10 minutes as an European. We're conditioned to think that anything over 5 minutes is already too much. 10 minutes is, like, fine, in a spur, on a weekend.
If you think that's bad, most community bus services in America, particularly in suburbs, come every one hour. Moreover, some don't operate on Sundays, and the local bus service in my city has stopped operating past 3 PM. It's annoying as hell.
More like 15 minutes in San Diego. I never take it. Not because of the intervals, but because it takes 3 times longer to get anywhere than my car. Plus, it really is routed for tourists and students. Goes to shopping centers, universities, stadiums and downtown. Doesn't help most people for going to work.
We should extend the Sepulveda Subway line that goes from the valley all the way to SoFi. The Subway wants to keep going, and SoFi is the logical destination beyond LAX.
@@Geotpf the redevelopment of the parking lots into high density housing would help boost ridership and rectify the high costs. That and the connection to the people mover, the Forum, and the new Intuit dome. Plus you can cap and cover the station because the area around the stadium is all parking lots.
excellent analysis. I love the irony that no EIR was needed for SoFI yet metro expansion is forever bogged down in EIA requests from neighborhoods who don't want it (I'm looking at you Beverly HIlls)
SoFi stadium was issue an exemption for the more stringent environmental review mainly due to it being contained to a much smaller area within one city compared to a transit rail line that can go through many different cities as was the case with BH and the extension of the Purple line.
I think the K line has potential, I'm still salty that Metro didn't utilize the eastern portion of the Harbor Subdivision to build a rail corridor that could've served Downtown LA, whether it would've tied in with an underground subway that would connect with the E-Line at the Expo trench, or utilized a portion of the future WSAB south of Union Station.
I used the K line to go to the Sofi Stadium when I visited LA not long after it opened. Christ it was a long walk in some pretty intense heat (by my European standards). I hope LA improves the public transport system because it has potential, but just lacks a bit of forethought
It’s maddening that they think they can consider themselves a world class city when their massive transit solution to connect downtown and the airport would require a THREE SEAT RIDE
yeah its honestly pathetic lol, I live in DTLA now and have been crunching numbers and it's still going to be significantly faster to drive to the airport even in peak traffic than take the train
As stated in the video, the k line is full of potential its just a matter of time. Also considering how much opposition there is on the Sepulveda project im wondering if metro could resequence it with k line north as their is more support for it.
A common story in many US transit systems: penny wise / pound foolish decisions to save money at the outset that are understandable from a budget standpoint but end up costing time and make the rider experience worse forever. Like not taking the K line directly under LAX. As advocates, we have to sometimes make the case better that a bit more money upfront is actually worth doing.
Even by 2028 when the Olympics are in town, it will be a huge difference to what we have now. It will start with the opening of the Regional Connector in a couple of weeks, and the LAX people mover next year, and the first section of the extension to the Purple line in 2025 and then the following two remaining sections in 2026 and 2027.
@@theexmann I hope the city doesn't stop because L.A. should be a world class city with a huge metro network!!!! I haven;t been to L.A. yet but the day i go I hope i can take a train everywhere - especially to the L.A. River when it's fully restored!!!!
But they need to make some transit-oriented-development around the stations like apartments and shopping centers within walking distance. We have spent those dollars on infrastructures already, then make it self-sustained.
@@ywc99411 What makes you think they aren't doing that already? There are several developments already happening that are right next to or close by. I know about two off the top of my head. There is one in East LA next to the Soto underground station. There is another huge mix use development near one of the Expo stations in Culver City. I'm sure there are many others already built, being built, or being planned.
Just to recap some of the original plans on this video. When it was planned: Hawthorne Mall is extinct (closed in early 90's) The K (purple) line will connect to the C (green) line. They will become one color. The extention of the current green line (C). Only goes to faded aerospace companies that don't employ many people. The Redondo Beach station is a empty parking lot in the middle of nowhere. The current two stations planned to further extend to the Southbay. Lawndale station and Torrance station. Wouldn't even be at the core or busle of the Southbay or it's traffic congestions, to help eleviate. It would need two or three more stations. Hitting Del Amo Mall, hotels, business district, hospitals, and higher density residential. If it would follow the original Santa Fe line to Lomita to be heavily used. It would have higher ridership and attractions to go to. Hawthorne Blvd So. In Torrance has a very wide medium divider in the road. Where two tracks could be built easily. Without affecting buying land.
In a city not far from LA, another light rail project broke ground a year later than the Crenshaw Line and opened a year before the Crenshaw Line. Unlike the Crenshaw Line, it's fully grade separated, and finished on budget. And its light rail system was #1 in 2022 US LRT ridership.
I assume you are talking about San Francisco MUNI. Do you have a source for you 2022 numbers? According to 2019 numbers (pre-pandemic) LA Metro had higher ridership, and Los Angeles transit ridership has recovered better post-pandemic than in greater Bay Area due to a smaller percentage of workers in the tech sector, who are working at home more than workers in other sectors.
If you're referring to SD, it's not close to LA. It's over 100 miles away. And SD is a much smaller city. LA Metro is responsible for developing transit rail projects for not only the city, but the county of Los Angeles too. The K line has had more problems than most, but there are other lines that have been built on time and on budget.
@@theexmann Both phases of the E Line took longer to build per mile than the Mid Coast. Sure, the Mid Coast follows existing ROWs, but so does the E Line.
I know that this is a long ways away, but if the K line went all the way to the Red LIne via West Hollywood, I would go to places like The Grove a lot more often. My favorite alternative is Fairfax for that reason. I love the idea of a subway to Robertson and Santa Monica, but it is too circuitous compared to going up Fairfax. We basically need a big grid of rail lines across the West Side.
It's possible to build a direct connection from the Expo Line to the Red Line and an alternate track through West Hollywood, and connect them to make a cul-de-sac loop. Bonus: the MTA can run trains clockwise and counterclockwise to serve riders without requiring change of trains at the Red Line stations.
The route to West Hollywood makes sense considering West Hollywood residents have voted to help fund the section that goes through their city. But just extending the K line North to connect to the Purple line on Wilshire would be huge.
@@theexmann - Do you think it is better to run the K subway up Robertson or Fairfax? I rarely go to that part of Santa Monica Blvd. and I'm not sure what is there. Santa Monica and Robertson is close to The Abbey and also WeHo civic center.
@@pacificostudios In terms of serving West Hollywood, Robertson would be much better. Also Fairfax will have a Purple line subway stop at Fairfax and Wilshire. I actually would prefer to have the line go up La Cienega so it's not so far West and it's the major street in that area it's also the widest street so they would be able to put it on the surface to save some money. If that happened, it would be important to have a station at Santa Monica and La Cienega.
@@theexmann This is an interesting discussion. I do not think there is an intention among Metro to put the K on the surface north of the E line. On the one hand, nonprofessionals often underestimate the cost and difficulty of laying street railways in cites as established as west Los Angeles, compared to the alternative of dispatching TBMs to drive tunnels through the soft soil under the city. On the other hand, surface lines often better integrate with the community, once completed. Having recently reconned the old Pacific Electric route that way, I would like serious consideration be given to running the K up San Vincente Blvd on the surface and redeveloping that area with new denser housing. There is even enough room there for triple tracking to provide express service so local trains can stop four times in every mile like a streetcar line. However the line would have to return to subsurface where San Vincente approaches La Cienaga (if my memory of names is correct), and popping up and diving down again may be an unwanted complication. Historically, the PE continued west at La Cienaga to reach Burton Drive (name?) and thence Santa Monica Blvd.
@1:38 and there you have your answer. The K Line isnt complete yet. Wait till the station at LAX is complete and the line connects with Metro Green Line. Then you will have more riders.
One transfer isn't bad. Most people coming and going through LAX are not headed to DTLA. However, they need to fix the connection between the Expo and K line stations so it's more seamless. An underground tunnel connecting both existing stations could fix that.
Would be nearly impossible as the flower corridor from USC to DTLA is already struggling to cope with the demands of the A and E lines combined. Besides a single transfer is far from the worst thing and it allows future planning as Crenshaw will be extended north of Expo towards Hollywood as part of mesure m
@@metrofilmer8894 Agreed. It just sucks that the Expo platform is outside on the surface and the K line station is across the street underground. They have to fix that and build an underground tunnel to the Expo station and install elevators on the Expo platform. It's going to be a pain dragging luggage across and between both stations.
@@metrofilmer8894 I think in the 50's and 60's if they were willing to tear down thousands of homes for a single interchange, there is the power to do what has to be done. I remember growing up in the 90's watching the 105 being constructed. Sometimes we just need to say hyper-local CEQA interests do not represent the greater good.
Right now the K line is well under capacity, but I think the northern extension will not have enough capacity running three car trains as it connects major subway lines, the E line, four stadiums/concert venues AND LAX. I wonder if they will extend the subway platforms somehow.
This is a lovely video! I consider myself to be a pretty big nerd when it comes to my hometown’s transit but you obviously dug much more deeper than I ever could! Keep up the amazing work and research!
From the UK and have been using this line for nearly 3 weeks to get around LA. The staff are friendly and is well secure, perfect link to Santa Monica or downtown LA.
Because in LA it is about spending on megaprojects thanks to construction lobbies; not moving people except for the three weeks of the Olympics. "Build it, and who cares if they come?"
I could see the ridership of the current K Line would’ve been about double (4000-5000) of the riders compared to currently (2000-2500) if it weren’t for COVID.
LAX is wordl's thrid busiest airport and there's no metro going there? Changing to peoplemover is uncomfortable. Shouldn't there be like a metro station at every terminal? Super weird
I lost you at "Direct LAX Connection". Face it... it's the SECOND "metro line to the airport" that actually doesn't GO to the airport. The line is destined to be a damn loser. Always will be a loser. Bypass LAX, Bypass Ballmerworld, bypass The Forum, bypass SoFi. As usual in LA? You get about 5% of what you paid for. The rest went to the unions. And corrupt contractors. And LAWA execs
Poor coordination between transportation planning and land-use policy. As long as LA remains low dense, unwalkable and spread out, the Metro is going to remain low in ridership.
I’m one of the people who takes the game day shuttle and it saves on parking time so much. I just go to Hawthorne and ride from there and I don’t worry about the traffic until the freeway. But yeah also the D Line is going to the sea. I would love the Hawthorne extension so I can take the train with unlimited right of way.
Land use is definitely a big obstacle not just for this line, but LA transit in general. If a car is a sunk cost (which for a lot of angelenos it is), why take transit when driving is faster and parking is available? Land use is not impossible to change. I just saw some new development going up near the red line off of Santa Monica. But at the same time that station has a gas station and huge surface parking right across the street. This is typical for LA unfortunately.
My hometown of Los Angeles. I left my hometown for a new life in Tokyo several years ago. I was a commuter on the silver and green lines from Downtown to El Segundo for years. I'm truly rooting for my city to build a first class rail system. But, it seems there's a lot more work to be done. The stations need far more density and jobs or attractions or vibrant neighborhoods people would go to. When I look around Tokyo as I'm doing now, it's very obvious the stations need more density and less suburban planning. They need to be safe too. When I read the comments, it doesn't seem to be talked about as much. I'm sure many here have already talked about it but LA metro shouldn't run and manage the network with social justice initiatives. It shouldn't have the reputation of life or death riding the trains either. Why do I mention social justice initiatives? With it, police or security can't properly do their jobs. They'll have to have exceptions for certain groups and nothing will change. I ride JR and Tokyo metro with peace of mind. LA riders deserve a great rail network. I could go on and on about LA's system, but safety needs to be top priority.
Great video! Can you talk about the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor that's happening In Los Angeles? Like, I don't know anything about train transit or whatever, but I think that last stop on the WSAB light rail is a bad choice. I think the last stop should be closer to Cerritos Community College.
I took a bus from Palm Springs to downtown LA, and three trains to pick up a Turo rental car. The drive back to the W hotel in Hollywood took longer than the 3 train line and an Uber for the car pick up. LA is killin’ it, but sadly I’ll be dead by the time they really get it together 50 years from now.
The hilarious thing about the disaster that is K-Line? The original rail corridor? Which defaulted back to the city in the 1950s? Actually went DIRECTLY from the Century intersection at Mines Field... right past DTLA and terminated at Union Station. These wankers COULD have had an LAX Express service right to downtown when the new airport opened in 1962. But, being LA? Uh, no. And 60 years later it's still a transit joke.
It’s amazing how behind American cities are with metro and public transport in general. When Japan, China, Europe and Australia have high quality modern efficient public transport. The stadium development in Inglewood in this video is truly pathetic how it was planned. That should not be the case in this day and age
As a proud metro rider for over 10 yrs I can’t wait for the Gold Line to go passed Montclair! I hear Green line is getting an expansion and have you heard that there might be a line from Orange County running through South East LA and Bellflower that connects to the Blue line or Green Line!
I would love to see a future where take space from the freeways to make room for higher speed higher capacity trains and use buses and these regional light rails for the remainder of the trip. LA has so much potential, but the urgency to isn't there.
Holy heck why can't they just have the same LAX/airport connector bus just go one more stop to the K/Crenshaw line. It's what happens when decision makers don't ride the transit they oversee.
I have ridden trains all over the world and LA’s Metro in April was scary. No security staff, and in the week I was there, there were 5 stabbings, 2 fatal. Jesus.
Not just Metro, all the public transit did very poorly on having transit oriented development. In Hong Kong, Most stations have a lot of apartments and shopping centers above or near the stations(some are even owned by the transit company). And all rail stations will have couple bus lines near the exit so people can transfer to the passengers' destination. Metro doesn't have to worry about the ridership if they plan and develop the neighbor around the rail stations like that. Now in L.A., I can drive from my house to the closest station and park there. But what about my destinations?
As to that last question, decentralization is another issue. When the origins and destinations are scattered throughout, it only means so many people can be served in the first place. It’s different from the New Jersey suburbs where I’m from in terms of centralization, despite both New Jersey and Los Angeles being quite “suburban” in nature. The communities around here have more robust downtowns.
The K line needs to go further North, as far as possible into the Valley side. Ideally the K line should reach the Hollywood Bowl, Griffith Observatory, L.A. Zoo and the Rose Bowl
Just imagine they accelerate the extension projects for the K line both north to Hollywood bowl and south to Torrance reinstate the Lawndale station and both finished by 2028, that will be a game changer. Maybe extend it further North to the Burbank airport and further south to Long Beach Airport by 2075, unless the project is accelerated ( and approved). Sure the K line is currently the shortest public rail service, but if those extensions are built in accelerated fashion it's impact would be big. Looking at you Lawndale.
The basic problem with post WW2 LA Transit is lack of population density. This is made worse by changing commuter patterns. The whole mess gets worse when politicians get involved. LA is the motor city, it grew most when the car was king and transit was discarded. NIMBY prevents density and mobility that would support transit. An aspect rarely examined is that LA Transit is not 24x7. Unlike NY you have to worry about getting home when Transit shuts down even if you have good weekday Transit connections.
Interesting. I also notice the foothill goldline extension project is almost finished, i wont be surprised it finished before the other section of the k line. The bridge on Glendora is complete and took a few weeks to complete. I wonder what's going on.😮😮🤔🤔🤔 and to top it off, the foothill goldline extension project is much bigger than the k line. 🤔🤔🤔
10:30 this is particularly jarring to anyone who attended Rams games when they were at the coloseum. The metro would be jam-packed with fans going to the game for about 2 hours leading up to it.
I took the C line to a chargers game a couple years ago and the service to the stadium was very good, it was like a $30 Uber to and from the station and I think $2 for the fare. The only downside I would say is if you don’t get in the line to get shuttled back to the station quick enough, it does take a while. But that being said, it’s a way better and cheaper way to get to the stadium for me at least
I ride the LA train when coming from and going to Aviation/LAX. Unfortunately on my last ride experience included several people sleeping or passed out on the floor and one man pissing in the inner doorway!
Watching this video it's almost like these new rail services are positively charged magnets, and all the big destinations like airports, stadiums and malls are also positively charged magnets. If the distance drops to less than a mile between them, they start repelling each other.
La is probable the only mayor city without a direct train to the airport. I miss chicago. Orange line directly to midway airport. Blue line directly to ohare.
If they weren''t going to connect it to the purple line-then they probabbly should have sent it to either Santa Monica or Downtown. along the Expo line. Unless you live on the K route itself taking it to the airport requires at least 3 rail connections-and thats a lot. I realize the k line and expo station aren't at grade but you could do that(i will say the connection between the expo and K line is also not grade especially coming from the West) While its ridership is going to no doubt get better-the small number is probabbly always going to keep it such that improving it with more stations or better connections will never ever quite make sense)
Good informative video, but I don't agree with your overall assessment of lack of planning. As you say, much of the current issues of why certain lines don't connect or haven't been constructed at the same time have more to do with timing of public infrastructure investment and private development. Public transit agencies priorities are to the general public and not necessarily private development. Metro has actually done a decent job of working with private development near and around Metro stations. Yes, the ridership might be low on the K line today, but it will change drastically in a year or so once the LAX People Mover is finished. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the K line gets more ridership once the Regional Connector opens in a couple of weeks due to the one seat ride from East LA and once transfer stop from the SGV gold line that won't need to go through Union Station anymore either. The Regional Connector is going to increase ridership across Metro. Very exciting stuff. Lastly, you didn't mention the impact of the sponsored measure by Zev and Waxman that cut local funding for subway construction for about 20 years. That was a huge setback for Metro. East LA should have had an extension of the original Red line subway instead it got the Gold line light rail extension. Though I haven't lost hope that it still gets extended in the future so it runs underneath Whittier Blvd and can connect with the 2nd phase of the Gold Line at Atlantic/Whittier Blvd.
The K Line is not finished! It will soon connect the airport and the C Line and plans are afoot to extend it to the D and B Lines. Ultimately there should be two northern routes with the K Line going from the B Line through West Hollywood to the Airport and South Bay and the C Line running from the B Line directly south to the airport and then East to the Metrolink at Norwalk. Ideally there would also be an east west line that maintains the existing C Line services.
The LAX connection will not substantially increase ridership. LA Metro is only forecasting 2,200 riders/ day and there's good reason for that. SFO BART station gets only 5,200 riders/day and that is with an airport station much closer to the terminals and far better regional service and access in an urban area already favorable to using transit. JFK gets 14,200/day (still far less than many European and Asian airport stations) and again that with a system far more expansive than anything LA is even planning for. Additionally, LA's LAX station is not in the terminals but will require a transfer. People underestimate the ridership decline that happens w each successive transfer. Being that most airport passengers will require at least 1 if not 2 transfers just to get to the LAX station, before transferring one more time to the People Mover, the inconvenience w luggage is pretty likely to be too much for all but those are transit dependent. The airport stations w the highest ridership numbers are the ones w rail stations inside the terminals, including stations for each terminal (most European and Asian systems w airport ridership of 30,000 to 60,000/day). I'm not saying we shouldn't have an LAX rail station. I'm saying it isn't going to explode ridership. The Sepulveda line would do more for ridership than the Crenshaw line. Also, once the South Bay line, the Crenshaw Line to Hollywood, and the Century Frwy Lines (especially if it ever connects to the OC Metrolink line in Norwalk), and the Sepulveda Line all converge at LAX, then real options are available for airport passengers. Btw, anyone else see a problem w the LAX light rail elevated station costing half of what the entire Crenshaw Line so far cost? or 2/3 the cost of the entire Regional Connector? or half the cost of the entire San Francisco Central Subway? A 101 story skyscraper, the St Regis, in Chicago's Loop was built for $1 billion, the same as this single platform, 2 rail, light rail station, on land Metro already owns, will cost. The real ridership increase for the Crenshaw Line is going to be from the connections to the Red and Purple lines. That is where the majority of the current everyday bus corridor ridership is heading and that is the corridor this line was meant to service. People are connecting to jobs in Hollywood and Mid-Wilshire. That's also the main reason that current ridership is lacking until the line is finished. Why get on a bus, then transfer to a train, only to transfer to a bus again to finish your trip when you can just stay on the bus in the first place? It's faster to just stay on the bus. Also, the detour to West Hollywood would cost $1.8 billion more for 1.5 add'l miles and practically the same projected ridership as the straight line up La Brea to Hollywood (from 87,500/day to 88,700/day). I understand the desire of WeHo to get rail access but what is the justification for much higher costs for essentially the same ridership? This really should be an additional line between Hollywood and Beverly Hills through WeHo and WeHo should demand that. It probably would only cost 2 LAX stations! The extension to the South Bay will also miss the busy Del Amo business area by choosing to stay on that old RR ROW that veers off into an oil field. This is why Metro is only projecting an add'l 5,000 riders/day on that extension. For context, that's about the same ridership as the Hollywood & Vine station by itself pre-Covid.
City planners don’t think about connecting the mostly densely populated areas to increase ridership. And they let people use the honor system to decide to pay in order to get on. When paying is optional people aren’t going to pay and you get lots of homeless people and others that make the lines unsafe. Too many things are deterring ridership.
That battery powered build your dreams monorail vehicle is sloo-ow. I hope the LACMTA picks another alternative for the sports megaplex people mover. Picking the Alstom means it could be connected with the airport people mover in the future.
Inglewood should have just bought a fleet of buses to use for schools and summer day camps and use the buses to get people to SoFi on NFL game days and concert days.
I'm intending to ride the K Line station when Metro converts the segment of the soon-to-be-former Metro C Line between Mariposa and Redondo Beach in 2024/2025.
If you seriously think that buses crawling in traffic are a substitute for trains, you have never tried to get from LAX to Union Station on public transit. The bus that is supposed to go from LAX to the Green Line runs every 45 minutes. Or, at least, it did in 2001 when I was trying to get to Union Station to catch the Southwest Chief. The parking concessions people should be swilling Maalox when the K Line finally connects with LAX. And yes, there will still be people who insist on driving there.
I am one of those few passengers who ride the K line. More and more passengers are riding it as they learned the route. If it wasn't for the K line I will be using my var more to go to work. But it was due to the K line that I am driving less to work.
glad to hear it's seeing use already. what are your thoughts on the future expansions?
out of curiosity, what station do you get off at for work? wondering how practical the transfer is, assuming you transfer
@@neckenwiler I get off of Downtown Inglewood Station. I work close to the Inglewood Superior Court House.
@PlaystationMasterPS3 I am into rail and high-speed rail. It is always more expensive, over budget, delayed. However, it's a public good. There is a new target and new Apartment/condo complex right across the street from the Inglewood Downtown Station. I'm pretty sure that some of the new tenants will avali themselves to the new station.
Rail projects like the K Line take time to attract new riders. This line has already made these communities more desirable to live in. Also, property values continue to go up.
All those new stadiums in Inglewood without a direct train connection is so disappointing. Great historical overview of the K line, though! It's important that people understand the history of these lines, and how much better our transit could be if we just had some long term regional planning.
Oh man, let me tell ya…it was hell accessing SoFi for Wrestlemania. NO shutttle service between Lennox Station and SoFi. SoFi really wanted to cash in on all their parking spaces!
They are going to build another people mover from the K line, to SoFi the Forum, and Intuit. Should open before the Olympics
I disagree with your overall assessment. Even in this video you see some of the past plans for exactly what you're talking about. There has been tons of long term regional planning, but things like changing funding availability, political changes, and unforeseen private development affect what ultimately gets built and when. Just look at the funding schemes Metro uses and how they came about. It's a very complex issue overall and Metro has done a decent job over the decades.
You're right. I think it's even more disappointing the airport doesn't have a direct connection to one of the metro lines.
@@LuisRamirez-vv4dk I think they plan to connect the K Line to the airport people mover trains. I hope so as there's a K Line station around the corner from me.
Your point at around 11 minutes is key. LA is split up into 1000 little islands by uncrossable 7 lane highways. This is why people feel like they need to drive to pick up some eggs. Because they need to get one island over and walking there might kill you. LA needs to fix this and take out several car lanes for much higher capacity bus and bike lanes.
And it's also so messed up that mass transit needs to go through environmental review when it is objectively GOOD for the environment. Using environmental law to block mass transit is like using your roach killer spray to hold the door open so roaches can get in. It's misuse and needs to be stopped immediately.
This video is everything I wanted to know and more. Fantastic and 100% spot on.
Why aren't there any underpasses for cycling or Small cars , for public transport buses etc .
not few but many under passes under freeways??
@@raghunandan9290 All highways have underpasses there at major streets
Not just that, but stores are sometimes not nearby, so driving to the stores is easier and faster.
Most major stadiums are usually replaced every 30 years, give or take, which is ironically about how long it takes a government transit agency to build anyting.
Nah. Not Most major stadiums are usually replaced every 30 years. Not “Most major stadiums are usually replaced every 30 years.” /
I'm a train operator on the K-line. You sir are Right!
Train operators love the K line since they don't have to deal with many people which mean dealing with less stabbings.
Thanks for all that you do, my friend. We are grateful for our transit workers.
@wanglelife and the A line in the foothills/San Gabriel Valley. Is pretty chill and busy lately. Most of the riders in the foothills/San Gabriel Valley on the A line are from the suburbs.
He’s not right on every message. /
Tell them to fucking open the connection to the green line already
Even though the plans aren’t perfect, it’s really great to see a city that has made awful transit-based decisions in the past try to right their wrongs and invest so much in transit. It’s safe to say that no other city in the US is investing as much in transit as LA!
Indeed, well said. And let's give much of the credit to LA city and county voters who approved several measures to tax themselves to build this public infrastructure. That is the main reason LA and LA County has able to build more public transit than any other city in the US in the last few decades. Voters deserve a lot of the credit.
Agreed
@@theexmannYou mean being dumb enough to vote for getting taxed even more when they couldn’t even make good use of what money they had already been given! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!! 🤡
Crenshaw is NOT DENSE. According to the Mapping LA project, density is average for an LA neighborhood. It's frustrating that the northern portion of the K Line has a high density of underground stations like its Koreatown, yet most of the area surround the Leimert Park and MLK Stations are single family homes and auto-centric strip malls. There are no plans to rezone the R-1 portions, just densify the commercial areas on Crenshaw Boulevard.
The plans for Crenshaw Mall involve leaving the main low rise structures in tact while adding offices and housing in the parking lots and unattached buildings. It similar to mall redevelopment in OC, yet OC malls don't have an underground light rail station.
Wasn't the Crenshaw Bvd. segment originally planned to be entirely elevated until community opposition resulted in the mixed tunnel & at-grade version we have now? All elevated would have probably been a better choice
@@PASH3227 I definitely agree that they should allow very high density development, but I wouldn't hold my breath. LA is ultra NIMBY, and this is a traditionally Black middle class neighborhood so gentrification is a big fear. It's basically a perfect storm of left-NIMBY and right-NIMBY
when the state gets off their butts and passes a WA HB 1110 like law making cities allow 4plexes by rights in r-1 things will change rapidly. we need to build the transit so it's there for when land use reform happens (and so they aren't subject to parking minimums)
@@PlaystationMasterPS3 SB-9 allows dividing lots and 4-plexes, but they need to be developed by the homeowner which severely constrains development potential. A lot of YIMBY bills in CA are hamstrung by these sort of concessions.
@@christophercotton9048 It is completely possible to build elevated structures that can survive earthquakes. There's plenty of such already in Los Angeles and in other earthquake prone areas like Tokyo and San Francisco/San Jose.
these little trains are lovely & the stations are beautiful, LA just needs to build dense housing around the stations, so many ppl want to live near a station but cant bc of housing costs
True. Make the train fit the neighborhood. Definitely need denser development, better placement of stations, and more infill to make it feasible for ridership and viability. It’s almost like the mistake in Denver of putting stations surrounded by parking lots and away from any downtowns or population centers.
It's happening. Actually, that would be a good video to make. Document the changes before and after transit train lines and stations have come into a community. For example, I've seen housing and retail developments popping up along the Expo line in the last several years.
If I recall correctly, former Mayor Garcetti put into place some sort of plan to have housing built within walking distance to every Metro station. So far, that is coming to pass. I think we will see the new stations of the K Line sprout housing in the near future. It has already happened at the Downtown Inglewood station.
eh, none of the neighborhoods the k line runs threw are that expensive. Any new housing built around the kline stations, might increase ridership, but it wouldn't be cheaper than the existing housing, due to the current high cost of construction labor. Developers have to charge pretty high rents to break even on any new projects these days.
That’s how train stations are here in Australia, and I’ve seen the same in Asia and Europe
The K line was a life saver when I went to a Chargers game last season
for every station you add you get everyone already served by the system the opportunity to go to a place and the people served by the new station to get anywhere in the system, one station can really do a lot
Getting out of LAX is such a baffling experience. How do I wank from the terminal to mass transit? Oh, it's easy. You take a shuttle. To a bus lot. To get a bus to a train line. That's half built. To take another bus.
Your flight to LA probably took less time than getting 5 miles away from LAX.
Also, those "aspirational" 70's sci fi Domes and Pyramids station designs are just bafflingly terrible. Why would anybody want to make a train stop so giant that there's nothing around it in convenient walking distance? NYC subway stops are mostly just nondescript stairs that go to the train, so the surface entrance is literally about 6 feet from the shop you wanted to get to.
I see this a lot of times in the US, a metro line that doesn’t go to the airport (let alone a long distance train), but to a people mover or bus station in the neighborhood, on which you need to transfer if you want to go to the airport. Urban planning mistake if you ask me. Imagine how many people work at the airport and how many passengers need to got to and from the airport. You want those people from the city (center) to the airport via rail as quick as possible, not in multiple transfers. Top 5 of European airports: London, train and metro; Paris, train, high speed train, and metro; Frankfurt, train, high speed train and S-bahn; Amsterdam, train and high speed train; Madrid, train and metro. All with stations under or next to the terminal(s). USA has a long way to go before they get it.
I am probably messing this up, but I remember seeing in one of these urbanist videos that the reason the US has sooo many people movers in our airports is because there were some government rules that prohibited using government funds for public rail that connected to airports. Apparently these rules have since been lifted, so it will become more common in the future that the US will have rail going directly into our airports, as in European airports. SLC is an example of this, as one of Salt Lake's light rail lines has its terminus literally in an airport terminal.
@@kidtrunks2568 I think it is actually that there was federal money for airport transportation, but If that transportation served anything other than an airport, it was not eligible. Thats why there are so many airport people movers. There was a federal program that basically could only fund airport people movers, so cities made them to get that money. Pretty sure that was only recently changed
@@bensteele5801 that's it! I wasn't too far off 😅. What a fateful program btw, the people movers are a tragedy.
yeah but think about all the contactors that dont get paid!!!!11!1 are you saying you dont want to give them a second yacht!?
Follow the money has a lot to do with things. And always waiting on Fed $$ to pay for it, is unconscionable. Creative People can generate clever means of production. Let's do it. Off the streets. Above and Or BELOW!
The inglewood people mover really needs to use the same technology as the LAX people mover and to then connect the two lines and extend to the C as planned. Then it could be ran as a small system.
Right? The city of Inglewood could even make a profit off the line, it just needs to be extended to the 96th St/LAX transit center. Even if it's a separate system, as long as it does that, I think it can make money.
@@transitmallproductions1063 Yes, as long as they share an actual station.
It surprised me the k line in the inglewood section are not getting alot of people compare to Azusa. Inglewood has twice as much people than Azusa and Azusa is a suburb city in the foothills/San Gabriel Valley and apu citrus college and Azusa downtown station has alot of people for being suburb city compare to inglewood. I wonder what's going on. 🤔🤔🤔🤔
It's wild to hear that a metro line comes every 10 minutes as an European. We're conditioned to think that anything over 5 minutes is already too much. 10 minutes is, like, fine, in a spur, on a weekend.
As a Canadian from Toronto, I was thinking the same thing. People here were up in arms after subway service got cut back to 3 minutes.
If you think that's bad, most community bus services in America, particularly in suburbs, come every one hour. Moreover, some don't operate on Sundays, and the local bus service in my city has stopped operating past 3 PM. It's annoying as hell.
More like 15 minutes in San Diego. I never take it. Not because of the intervals, but because it takes 3 times longer to get anywhere than my car. Plus, it really is routed for tourists and students. Goes to shopping centers, universities, stadiums and downtown. Doesn't help most people for going to work.
@@intreoo 3 PM? I get out of school at 4 PM.
don't rub it in europoor
We should extend the Sepulveda Subway line that goes from the valley all the way to SoFi. The Subway wants to keep going, and SoFi is the logical destination beyond LAX.
Ridership wouldn't justify the extremely high costs.
@@Geotpf the redevelopment of the parking lots into high density housing would help boost ridership and rectify the high costs. That and the connection to the people mover, the Forum, and the new Intuit dome.
Plus you can cap and cover the station because the area around the stadium is all parking lots.
excellent analysis. I love the irony that no EIR was needed for SoFI yet metro expansion is forever bogged down in EIA requests from neighborhoods who don't want it (I'm looking at you Beverly HIlls)
SoFi stadium was issue an exemption for the more stringent environmental review mainly due to it being contained to a much smaller area within one city compared to a transit rail line that can go through many different cities as was the case with BH and the extension of the Purple line.
Can't wait to visit LA when I'm 70 and it's finally walkable!
More like 200 yrs 😂
I think the K line has potential, I'm still salty that Metro didn't utilize the eastern portion of the Harbor Subdivision to build a rail corridor that could've served Downtown LA, whether it would've tied in with an underground subway that would connect with the E-Line at the Expo trench, or utilized a portion of the future WSAB south of Union Station.
I used the K line to go to the Sofi Stadium when I visited LA not long after it opened. Christ it was a long walk in some pretty intense heat (by my European standards). I hope LA improves the public transport system because it has potential, but just lacks a bit of forethought
you can take metro bus they share the same fare 🙄
It’s maddening that they think they can consider themselves a world class city when their massive transit solution to connect downtown and the airport would require a THREE SEAT RIDE
yeah its honestly pathetic lol, I live in DTLA now and have been crunching numbers and it's still going to be significantly faster to drive to the airport even in peak traffic than take the train
As stated in the video, the k line is full of potential its just a matter of time. Also considering how much opposition there is on the Sepulveda project im wondering if metro could resequence it with k line north as their is more support for it.
I remember looking forward to this for so long despite not living in LA County
This is a thorough and accurate review of the line.
A common story in many US transit systems: penny wise / pound foolish decisions to save money at the outset that are understandable from a budget standpoint but end up costing time and make the rider experience worse forever. Like not taking the K line directly under LAX. As advocates, we have to sometimes make the case better that a bit more money upfront is actually worth doing.
L.A. keeps building like this the metro will start looking impressive in the next several decades.
Even by 2028 when the Olympics are in town, it will be a huge difference to what we have now. It will start with the opening of the Regional Connector in a couple of weeks, and the LAX people mover next year, and the first section of the extension to the Purple line in 2025 and then the following two remaining sections in 2026 and 2027.
@@theexmann I hope the city doesn't stop because L.A. should be a world class city with a huge metro network!!!! I haven;t been to L.A. yet but the day i go I hope i can take a train everywhere - especially to the L.A. River when it's fully restored!!!!
But they need to make some transit-oriented-development around the stations like apartments and shopping centers within walking distance. We have spent those dollars on infrastructures already, then make it self-sustained.
@@ywc99411 What makes you think they aren't doing that already? There are several developments already happening that are right next to or close by. I know about two off the top of my head. There is one in East LA next to the Soto underground station. There is another huge mix use development near one of the Expo stations in Culver City. I'm sure there are many others already built, being built, or being planned.
Just to recap some of the original plans on this video. When it was planned:
Hawthorne Mall is extinct (closed in early 90's)
The K (purple) line will connect to the C (green) line. They will become one color.
The extention of the current green line (C). Only goes to faded aerospace companies that don't employ many people.
The Redondo Beach station is a empty parking lot in the middle of nowhere.
The current two stations planned to further extend to the Southbay. Lawndale station and Torrance station. Wouldn't even be at the core or busle of the Southbay or it's traffic congestions, to help eleviate. It would need two or three more stations. Hitting Del Amo Mall, hotels, business district, hospitals, and higher density residential.
If it would follow the original Santa Fe line to Lomita to be heavily used. It would have higher ridership and attractions to go to. Hawthorne Blvd So. In Torrance has a very wide medium divider in the road. Where two tracks could be built easily. Without affecting buying land.
In a city not far from LA, another light rail project broke ground a year later than the Crenshaw Line and opened a year before the Crenshaw Line. Unlike the Crenshaw Line, it's fully grade separated, and finished on budget. And its light rail system was #1 in 2022 US LRT ridership.
I assume you are talking about San Francisco MUNI. Do you have a source for you 2022 numbers? According to 2019 numbers (pre-pandemic) LA Metro had higher ridership, and Los Angeles transit ridership has recovered better post-pandemic than in greater Bay Area due to a smaller percentage of workers in the tech sector, who are working at home more than workers in other sectors.
@@Geotpf No, it's San Diego with the Blue Line extension.
@@ASQ1Fan Main reason is that UCSD has no parking except for graduate students.
If you're referring to SD, it's not close to LA. It's over 100 miles away. And SD is a much smaller city. LA Metro is responsible for developing transit rail projects for not only the city, but the county of Los Angeles too. The K line has had more problems than most, but there are other lines that have been built on time and on budget.
@@theexmann Both phases of the E Line took longer to build per mile than the Mid Coast. Sure, the Mid Coast follows existing ROWs, but so does the E Line.
Automated aerial is what all of LA new inner city rail lines need to be
But that’s too expensive for America.
@@GenericUrbanism Aerial is cheaper than tunneling (what they're doing now).
I know that this is a long ways away, but if the K line went all the way to the Red LIne via West Hollywood, I would go to places like The Grove a lot more often. My favorite alternative is Fairfax for that reason. I love the idea of a subway to Robertson and Santa Monica, but it is too circuitous compared to going up Fairfax. We basically need a big grid of rail lines across the West Side.
It's possible to build a direct connection from the Expo Line to the Red Line and an alternate track through West Hollywood, and connect them to make a cul-de-sac loop. Bonus: the MTA can run trains clockwise and counterclockwise to serve riders without requiring change of trains at the Red Line stations.
The route to West Hollywood makes sense considering West Hollywood residents have voted to help fund the section that goes through their city. But just extending the K line North to connect to the Purple line on Wilshire would be huge.
@@theexmann - Do you think it is better to run the K subway up Robertson or Fairfax? I rarely go to that part of Santa Monica Blvd. and I'm not sure what is there. Santa Monica and Robertson is close to The Abbey and also WeHo civic center.
@@pacificostudios In terms of serving West Hollywood, Robertson would be much better. Also Fairfax will have a Purple line subway stop at Fairfax and Wilshire.
I actually would prefer to have the line go up La Cienega so it's not so far West and it's the major street in that area it's also the widest street so they would be able to put it on the surface to save some money. If that happened, it would be important to have a station at Santa Monica and La Cienega.
@@theexmann This is an interesting discussion. I do not think there is an intention among Metro to put the K on the surface north of the E line. On the one hand, nonprofessionals often underestimate the cost and difficulty of laying street railways in cites as established as west Los Angeles, compared to the alternative of dispatching TBMs to drive tunnels through the soft soil under the city. On the other hand, surface lines often better integrate with the community, once completed.
Having recently reconned the old Pacific Electric route that way, I would like serious consideration be given to running the K up San Vincente Blvd on the surface and redeveloping that area with new denser housing. There is even enough room there for triple tracking to provide express service so local trains can stop four times in every mile like a streetcar line. However the line would have to return to subsurface where San Vincente approaches La Cienaga (if my memory of names is correct), and popping up and diving down again may be an unwanted complication.
Historically, the PE continued west at La Cienaga to reach Burton Drive (name?) and thence Santa Monica Blvd.
@1:38 and there you have your answer. The K Line isnt complete yet. Wait till the station at LAX is complete and the line connects with Metro Green Line. Then you will have more riders.
They should have done a flying junction with the Expo line so you could have a one-seat ride into DTLA from the airport.
One transfer isn't bad. Most people coming and going through LAX are not headed to DTLA. However, they need to fix the connection between the Expo and K line stations so it's more seamless. An underground tunnel connecting both existing stations could fix that.
Would be nearly impossible as the flower corridor from USC to DTLA is already struggling to cope with the demands of the A and E lines combined. Besides a single transfer is far from the worst thing and it allows future planning as Crenshaw will be extended north of Expo towards Hollywood as part of mesure m
@@metrofilmer8894 Agreed. It just sucks that the Expo platform is outside on the surface and the K line station is across the street underground. They have to fix that and build an underground tunnel to the Expo station and install elevators on the Expo platform. It's going to be a pain dragging luggage across and between both stations.
@@metrofilmer8894 I think in the 50's and 60's if they were willing to tear down thousands of homes for a single interchange, there is the power to do what has to be done. I remember growing up in the 90's watching the 105 being constructed. Sometimes we just need to say hyper-local CEQA interests do not represent the greater good.
Right now the K line is well under capacity, but I think the northern extension will not have enough capacity running three car trains as it connects major subway lines, the E line, four stadiums/concert venues AND LAX. I wonder if they will extend the subway platforms somehow.
Kinda sucks how slow it takes for metro to build anything yet freeways get widened at the blink of an eye.
This is a lovely video! I consider myself to be a pretty big nerd when it comes to my hometown’s transit but you obviously dug much more deeper than I ever could! Keep up the amazing work and research!
From the UK and have been using this line for nearly 3 weeks to get around LA. The staff are friendly and is well secure, perfect link to Santa Monica or downtown LA.
Because in LA it is about spending on megaprojects thanks to construction lobbies; not moving people except for the three weeks of the Olympics. "Build it, and who cares if they come?"
I could see the ridership of the current K Line would’ve been about double (4000-5000) of the riders compared to currently (2000-2500) if it weren’t for COVID.
I’m one of its few passengers. It’s very convient for me when I commute back home from work
The only thing worth using this for is going to the original Randy's Donuts
I think it’ll have high ridership once the LAX station opens.
and connect the Aviation station to the Veteran station
Yo man what was that intro music used? Sounds chill
LAX is wordl's thrid busiest airport and there's no metro going there? Changing to peoplemover is uncomfortable. Shouldn't there be like a metro station at every terminal? Super weird
I lost you at "Direct LAX Connection".
Face it... it's the SECOND "metro line to the airport" that actually doesn't GO to the airport.
The line is destined to be a damn loser. Always will be a loser. Bypass LAX, Bypass Ballmerworld, bypass The Forum, bypass SoFi. As usual in LA? You get about 5% of what you paid for. The rest went to the unions. And corrupt contractors. And LAWA execs
Once it goes to the airport it will be packed.
the way the voice modulates to often momentarily mumbling and sounding like (panicked!) Beeker who blathers beneath his very own neck line...
Poor coordination between transportation planning and land-use policy. As long as LA remains low dense, unwalkable and spread out, the Metro is going to remain low in ridership.
I’m one of the people who takes the game day shuttle and it saves on parking time so much. I just go to Hawthorne and ride from there and I don’t worry about the traffic until the freeway. But yeah also the D Line is going to the sea. I would love the Hawthorne extension so I can take the train with unlimited right of way.
You park your car at Hawthorn/Lennox station? If so how much is parking cost there?
@@Samuelfish2k I think it’s $15-$25 on game day. You can purchase early.
@@gbalph4 Thx for the reply
Land use is definitely a big obstacle not just for this line, but LA transit in general. If a car is a sunk cost (which for a lot of angelenos it is), why take transit when driving is faster and parking is available?
Land use is not impossible to change. I just saw some new development going up near the red line off of Santa Monica. But at the same time that station has a gas station and huge surface parking right across the street. This is typical for LA unfortunately.
2:18 where can i get this map or something similar
Screenshot it, I did.
(cough, cough, clear throat. South Central LA)
A train to the Hollywood bowl sounds ideal
My hometown of Los Angeles. I left my hometown for a new life in Tokyo several years ago. I was a commuter on the silver and green lines from Downtown to El Segundo for years. I'm truly rooting for my city to build a first class rail system. But, it seems there's a lot more work to be done. The stations need far more density and jobs or attractions or vibrant neighborhoods people would go to. When I look around Tokyo as I'm doing now, it's very obvious the stations need more density and less suburban planning.
They need to be safe too. When I read the comments, it doesn't seem to be talked about as much. I'm sure many here have already talked about it but LA metro shouldn't run and manage the network with social justice initiatives. It shouldn't have the reputation of life or death riding the trains either. Why do I mention social justice initiatives? With it, police or security can't properly do their jobs. They'll have to have exceptions for certain groups and nothing will change. I ride JR and Tokyo metro with peace of mind. LA riders deserve a great rail network. I could go on and on about LA's system, but safety needs to be top priority.
Great video! Can you talk about the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor that's happening In Los Angeles? Like, I don't know anything about train transit or whatever, but I think that last stop on the WSAB light rail is a bad choice. I think the last stop should be closer to Cerritos Community College.
I took a bus from Palm Springs to downtown LA, and three trains to pick up a Turo rental car. The drive back to the W hotel in Hollywood took longer than the 3 train line and an Uber for the car pick up.
LA is killin’ it, but sadly I’ll be dead by the time they really get it together 50 years from now.
excellent analysis & impressive research!
The hilarious thing about the disaster that is K-Line?
The original rail corridor? Which defaulted back to the city in the 1950s?
Actually went DIRECTLY from the Century intersection at Mines Field... right past DTLA and terminated at Union Station.
These wankers COULD have had an LAX Express service right to downtown when the new airport opened in 1962.
But, being LA? Uh, no. And 60 years later it's still a transit joke.
The station designs look really cool and I wish they were built
It’s amazing how behind American cities are with metro and public transport in general. When Japan, China, Europe and Australia have high quality modern efficient public transport. The stadium development in Inglewood in this video is truly pathetic how it was planned. That should not be the case in this day and age
As a proud metro rider for over 10 yrs I can’t wait for the Gold Line to go passed Montclair! I hear Green line is getting an expansion and have you heard that there might be a line from Orange County running through South East LA and Bellflower that connects to the Blue line or Green Line!
Aviation/Century is Opening in November 2024.
The rolling stock exterior looks pretty similar to LRT1's LRTA 1200 series.
I would love to see a future where take space from the freeways to make room for higher speed higher capacity trains and use buses and these regional light rails for the remainder of the trip.
LA has so much potential, but the urgency to isn't there.
how the vintage LARy Yellow Cars and Santa Fe freight were somehow less spaghettified and provided more adequate service blows my mind
Holy heck why can't they just have the same LAX/airport connector bus just go one more stop to the K/Crenshaw line. It's what happens when decision makers don't ride the transit they oversee.
I have ridden trains all over the world and LA’s Metro in April was scary. No security staff, and in the week I was there, there were 5 stabbings, 2 fatal. Jesus.
Not just Metro, all the public transit did very poorly on having transit oriented development. In Hong Kong, Most stations have a lot of apartments and shopping centers above or near the stations(some are even owned by the transit company). And all rail stations will have couple bus lines near the exit so people can transfer to the passengers' destination. Metro doesn't have to worry about the ridership if they plan and develop the neighbor around the rail stations like that. Now in L.A., I can drive from my house to the closest station and park there. But what about my destinations?
As to that last question, decentralization is another issue. When the origins and destinations are scattered throughout, it only means so many people can be served in the first place. It’s different from the New Jersey suburbs where I’m from in terms of centralization, despite both New Jersey and Los Angeles being quite “suburban” in nature. The communities around here have more robust downtowns.
The K line needs to go further North, as far as possible into the Valley side.
Ideally the K line should reach the Hollywood Bowl, Griffith Observatory, L.A. Zoo and the Rose Bowl
Just imagine they accelerate the extension projects for the K line both north to Hollywood bowl and south to Torrance reinstate the Lawndale station and both finished by 2028, that will be a game changer. Maybe extend it further North to the Burbank airport and further south to Long Beach Airport by 2075, unless the project is accelerated ( and approved).
Sure the K line is currently the shortest public rail service, but if those extensions are built in accelerated fashion it's impact would be big. Looking at you Lawndale.
The basic problem with post WW2 LA Transit is lack of population density. This is made worse by changing commuter patterns. The whole mess gets worse when politicians get involved.
LA is the motor city, it grew most when the car was king and transit was discarded. NIMBY prevents density and mobility that would support transit. An aspect rarely examined is that LA Transit is not 24x7. Unlike NY you have to worry about getting home when Transit shuts down even if you have good weekday Transit connections.
Interesting. I also notice the foothill goldline extension project is almost finished, i wont be surprised it finished before the other section of the k line. The bridge on Glendora is complete and took a few weeks to complete. I wonder what's going on.😮😮🤔🤔🤔 and to top it off, the foothill goldline extension project is much bigger than the k line. 🤔🤔🤔
They want it to connect with the future Brightline to Vegas I suspect.
@@TheRoamingHazard That connects to Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station, not Metro light rail.
10:30 this is particularly jarring to anyone who attended Rams games when they were at the coloseum. The metro would be jam-packed with fans going to the game for about 2 hours leading up to it.
I always use the game day shuttle because I simply do not want to put up with parking costs and traffic at the stadium.
Where do you park your car?
“keep building”
Spot on
Wake up babe new Metamodernism vid just dropped
I took the C line to a chargers game a couple years ago and the service to the stadium was very good, it was like a $30 Uber to and from the station and I think $2 for the fare. The only downside I would say is if you don’t get in the line to get shuttled back to the station quick enough, it does take a while. But that being said, it’s a way better and cheaper way to get to the stadium for me at least
Thanks for sharing
Sort of unfortunate that both lines that don’t go to dtla serve the South Bay which doesn’t leave it with any options to quickly commute downtown
I ride the LA train when coming from and going to Aviation/LAX. Unfortunately on my last ride experience included several people sleeping or passed out on the floor and one man pissing in the inner doorway!
why metro lines in LA have letters instead of numbers ?
They changed it for some reason. Before they were just colors. I’m relatively new to riding on trains so I’m more used to the letters.
This route should’ve waited until the LAX station/ People Mover and Airport stations are completed!!
I agree! Right now it's useless!
Watching this video it's almost like these new rail services are positively charged magnets, and all the big destinations like airports, stadiums and malls are also positively charged magnets. If the distance drops to less than a mile between them, they start repelling each other.
informative as before thank you!
La is probable the only mayor city without a direct train to the airport.
I miss chicago. Orange line directly to midway airport. Blue line directly to ohare.
If they weren''t going to connect it to the purple line-then they probabbly should have sent it to either Santa Monica or Downtown. along the Expo line. Unless you live on the K route itself taking it to the airport requires at least 3 rail connections-and thats a lot. I realize the k line and expo station aren't at grade but you could do that(i will say the connection between the expo and K line is also not grade especially coming from the West)
While its ridership is going to no doubt get better-the small number is probabbly always going to keep it such that improving it with more stations or better connections will never ever quite make sense)
Good informative video, but I don't agree with your overall assessment of lack of planning. As you say, much of the current issues of why certain lines don't connect or haven't been constructed at the same time have more to do with timing of public infrastructure investment and private development. Public transit agencies priorities are to the general public and not necessarily private development. Metro has actually done a decent job of working with private development near and around Metro stations.
Yes, the ridership might be low on the K line today, but it will change drastically in a year or so once the LAX People Mover is finished. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the K line gets more ridership once the Regional Connector opens in a couple of weeks due to the one seat ride from East LA and once transfer stop from the SGV gold line that won't need to go through Union Station anymore either. The Regional Connector is going to increase ridership across Metro. Very exciting stuff.
Lastly, you didn't mention the impact of the sponsored measure by Zev and Waxman that cut local funding for subway construction for about 20 years. That was a huge setback for Metro. East LA should have had an extension of the original Red line subway instead it got the Gold line light rail extension. Though I haven't lost hope that it still gets extended in the future so it runs underneath Whittier Blvd and can connect with the 2nd phase of the Gold Line at Atlantic/Whittier Blvd.
The K Line is not finished! It will soon connect the airport and the C Line and plans are afoot to extend it to the D and B Lines. Ultimately there should be two northern routes with the K Line going from the B Line through West Hollywood to the Airport and South Bay and the C Line running from the B Line directly south to the airport and then East to the Metrolink at Norwalk. Ideally there would also be an east west line that maintains the existing C Line services.
They were so quick to get the right of way done before the stations were completed
There was definitely a step out of place
The LAX connection will not substantially increase ridership. LA Metro is only forecasting 2,200 riders/ day and there's good reason for that. SFO BART station gets only 5,200 riders/day and that is with an airport station much closer to the terminals and far better regional service and access in an urban area already favorable to using transit. JFK gets 14,200/day (still far less than many European and Asian airport stations) and again that with a system far more expansive than anything LA is even planning for.
Additionally, LA's LAX station is not in the terminals but will require a transfer. People underestimate the ridership decline that happens w each successive transfer. Being that most airport passengers will require at least 1 if not 2 transfers just to get to the LAX station, before transferring one more time to the People Mover, the inconvenience w luggage is pretty likely to be too much for all but those are transit dependent. The airport stations w the highest ridership numbers are the ones w rail stations inside the terminals, including stations for each terminal (most European and Asian systems w airport ridership of 30,000 to 60,000/day).
I'm not saying we shouldn't have an LAX rail station. I'm saying it isn't going to explode ridership. The Sepulveda line would do more for ridership than the Crenshaw line. Also, once the South Bay line, the Crenshaw Line to Hollywood, and the Century Frwy Lines (especially if it ever connects to the OC Metrolink line in Norwalk), and the Sepulveda Line all converge at LAX, then real options are available for airport passengers.
Btw, anyone else see a problem w the LAX light rail elevated station costing half of what the entire Crenshaw Line so far cost? or 2/3 the cost of the entire Regional Connector? or half the cost of the entire San Francisco Central Subway? A 101 story skyscraper, the St Regis, in Chicago's Loop was built for $1 billion, the same as this single platform, 2 rail, light rail station, on land Metro already owns, will cost.
The real ridership increase for the Crenshaw Line is going to be from the connections to the Red and Purple lines. That is where the majority of the current everyday bus corridor ridership is heading and that is the corridor this line was meant to service. People are connecting to jobs in Hollywood and Mid-Wilshire. That's also the main reason that current ridership is lacking until the line is finished. Why get on a bus, then transfer to a train, only to transfer to a bus again to finish your trip when you can just stay on the bus in the first place? It's faster to just stay on the bus.
Also, the detour to West Hollywood would cost $1.8 billion more for 1.5 add'l miles and practically the same projected ridership as the straight line up La Brea to Hollywood (from 87,500/day to 88,700/day). I understand the desire of WeHo to get rail access but what is the justification for much higher costs for essentially the same ridership? This really should be an additional line between Hollywood and Beverly Hills through WeHo and WeHo should demand that. It probably would only cost 2 LAX stations!
The extension to the South Bay will also miss the busy Del Amo business area by choosing to stay on that old RR ROW that veers off into an oil field. This is why Metro is only projecting an add'l 5,000 riders/day on that extension. For context, that's about the same ridership as the Hollywood & Vine station by itself pre-Covid.
City planners don’t think about connecting the mostly densely populated areas to increase ridership. And they let people use the honor system to decide to pay in order to get on. When paying is optional people aren’t going to pay and you get lots of homeless people and others that make the lines unsafe. Too many things are deterring ridership.
That battery powered build your dreams monorail vehicle is sloo-ow. I hope the LACMTA picks another alternative for the sports megaplex people mover. Picking the Alstom means it could be connected with the airport people mover in the future.
A perfect example of just how awful anything designed by committee can become.
Need people who know urban, regional, and transportation planning
How complicated do you want your transit?
LA: Yes.
Almost all Metrorail lines have opened in phases over years, so the K line is not extraordinary by this definition
That's not a metro, that's a fast tram
That people mover at Inglewood is nonsense. A tram would have been a lot better, cheaper and with more transport capacity.
Better and with more capacity, yes. Cheaper, no.
Inglewood should have just bought a fleet of buses to use for schools and summer day camps and use the buses to get people to SoFi on NFL game days and concert days.
I'm intending to ride the K Line station when Metro converts the segment of the soon-to-be-former Metro C Line between Mariposa and Redondo Beach in 2024/2025.
2000 people?? Our local village train that comes twice an hour on single track moves 3000.
Where did you find the LA bus map with line frequencies?
If you seriously think that buses crawling in traffic are a substitute for trains, you have never tried to get from LAX to Union Station on public transit. The bus that is supposed to go from LAX to the Green Line runs every 45 minutes. Or, at least, it did in 2001 when I was trying to get to Union Station to catch the Southwest Chief. The parking concessions people should be swilling Maalox when the K Line finally connects with LAX. And yes, there will still be people who insist on driving there.
transit non-development! where are the cafes and shops we can get to from transit??