I know targeted advertising is crazy these days, but proposing a line that basically runs straight from my apartment to Dodger Stadium is some next-level stuff.
As someone who just moved out of La Crescenta/Montrose because of a lack of public transit, it feels nice to see my former neighborhood finally included in some LA Metro talk. Being 10 minutes from a Gold Line station is so amazing, but I would love to see this final map for LA.
As someone who currently lives there it’s great to see even just the mention of a transit line through here since it’s usually an area so forgotten by metro, I mean the shape of the mountains arent even drawn that accurately. Hopefully I’ll be able to ride a line from here someday
I love these maps! I see why you didn't, but I'd love to see some ideas on what an expanded and electrified Metrolink system could be like. I feel like the greater LA metro area's geography lends itself well to a Paris or Tokyo-style through running regional rail system. Definitely seems bleak with how little it's expanded compared to Metro Rail though :( Electrified Surfline could be a great catalyst, though!
Love this! You are correct in your base assumption that METRO is wasting a great deal of money and opportunity by not thinking on a network level and not having a "full build out" already planned so that provisions can be made for future lines and to eliminate short sighted choices. Every new line and connection impacts the rest of the network. I also agree with your choice of BRT for East LA County N/S connections. I won't quibble about your routing choices because everyone will have their individual ideas to bring up. Instead I want to address a very important issue I see among many LA forums and that is station intervals. Many in LA, and indeed at Metro, seem to believe that 1 mile or more intervals between stations is appropriate for the central part of the city. I define the central city as the ocean to ELA/Pasadena (roughly along the 710) and from the southern San Fernando Valley to the Century Freeway. This area contains the densest population and employment centers in the metropolitan area. For example, on the Santa Monica Blvd line, you have 4 stations between La Cienega and Vermont (1 for every 1.2 miles) and 5 stations between Vermont and Union Station (1 for every 0.8 miles) where the greater residential and employment density is between La Cienega and Vermont. On the Venice Blvd line, you have 7 stations between the beach and Culver City station (1 for every .75 miles) but only 5 stations between Culver City and Pico station (1 for every 1.5 miles) where the greater density and more transit dependent population is between Culver City and Pico station. On the Slauson line there are 4 stations between Crenshaw and Long Beach Blvd (1 for every 1.25 miles) and on the G Line 6 stations between Glendale Blvd and Memorial Park in Pasadena (1 for every 1 mile) where South LA is far denser than Eagle Rock. I believe station intervals should be 1/2 mile (radius of 1/4 mile between stations) in the central part of the city as a rule (there are always exceptions). In downtown, intervals should be 1/4 mile or less to efficiently distribute people and avoid station overcrowding. 1/2 mile station intervals is still more than cities like NY, Chicago, SF, Toronto, and Montreal have across large portions of their cities. 1/2 mile is still considered rapid transit and would also make the system more accessible and increase usefulness and ridership by bringing people closer to where they need to be. In a city like Los Angeles, these would not be wasted stations especially since walking a 1/2 mile in LA, with it's hot sun and unshaded streets, feels far longer than doing the same in Chicago or NY. One more thing, it's a quibble but I think it's important. I prefer station names with streets instead of places unless those places are universally used (such as Times Sq). Stations like Theater Row/Studio District, East Hollywood, Toy District, and Fashion District are too vague. A street name leaves no doubt which intersection this station is at. I lived in Hollywood and I don't know where the Theater Row/Studio Dist station would be. Using these as an adjunct to the street names is fine. Similarly, using neighborhoods can be too broad as a location unless it's the only one in a city such as for a Metrolink station. But in the city, a precise location is required. Harvard Heights, Picfair Village, Edendale, Silver Lake, and Echo Park isn't precise enough especially if you don't live in that neighborhood. Is the Fashion Dist station on Venice, Pico, 11th St, or 9th St and Los Angeles St, Maple, or San Pedro? Is the Echo Park station at Alvarado, Glendale Blvd, or Echo Park Ave? And lastly, there has to be a separation between urban rapid transit and outer suburban rapid transit. Demand patterns are way too different to try to service with an urban rapid transit line that also tries to serve the denser city with high frequency and longer service hours. Metro has tried to serve both within the same system and that's why we have a line going all the way out to the San Bernardino County line. This is clearly Metrolink territory and should remain so. I believe the line between Pasadena and Claremont should be a Metrolink line. The Pasadena light rail should go along Colorado to Rosemead instead. This is a case where Metro believed that a station on the 210, nearly a 1/2 mile away from Colorado Blvd and up to 2 miles apart, was good enough. It isn't good enough. If I were going to Pasadena City College, I'd rather drive than walk nearly a mile to get to class from the Allen Ave station or wait 15 min for a 5 min bus ride. All that said, I love your map and the approach to planning rapid transit in LA that drove you to make it. I am so disappointed in the way Metro plans. Cities like Paris, London, Madrid, and Santiago have their systems planned out decades in advance and follow those plans with provisions built in to accommodate what may be built 10 years later. In addition, those cities make urban planning, zoning, and development choices based on the rapid transit that will be there in the coming years. Imagine that! It's as if the entire city operates as one cohesive unit. So, Bravo to you for highlighting a more logical and smarter approach to planning. This turned out way longer than I planned it to be.
I really like your ideas but I would like to point out one thing. Station names with neighborhood give the station a personal touch like this station really serves my neighborhood as it has the name of it. Secondly, I agree that station names with intersections help in wayfinding so what we can do is to put the neighborhood name as the official name and add the intersection as a subtitle or vice versa
If NoHo-Pas gets converted to light rail, i just know the residents along Chandler Blvd are going to have a fit if Metro (who maintains Chandler Blvd already) suggests a Chandler alignment. Chandler in Burbank is mostly residences with nearly no businesses except those accessible via the north-south major arteries. And they LOVE that bike path and are not going to want it destroyed for a big ugly train. I'm sure an underground alignment could be proposed and would be preferable, but as we've seen before with NIMBYs they don't even like the idea of a train going under them, so I think that's going to be a fight. But it would be such poetic justice to see a rail line on the street named after Harry Chandler who was notorious for hating the red cars and was instrumental in their demise.
Another thought- I like the idea of the L/U line concept going through Glendale and running up the Verdugo Pass to serve the foothills. I think both lines in downtown would probably run down Central vs. Brand because the existing transit proposals (NoHo-Pas BRT and Glendale Streetcar) both eye Central over Brand, but I agree a G Line to Pasadena would opt for Colorado instead of Broadway. Central Ave has direct access to the Amtrak/Metrolink station while Brand runs south of it and Brand through downtown is a lot busier and more cramped to put a rail line especially one elevated (which the people who paid $1.5 million to live at the Americana would complain about obstructing their view), and then you have Brand south of Colorado serving mostly car dealerships (boooo). That is unless it went underground in time for downtown, which I wouldn't mind, but would be difficult to do north of downtown where the 134 freeway is in a trench. My wacky idea is if they were to go with above ground LRT on Brand Blvd. would be to take the portion from Broadway to Colorado and completely close it off to vehicle traffic, leaving only the light rail tracks and converting the rest of the ROW to a pedestrian experience, connecting the Americana (and Galleria to an extent because of the existing pedestrian overpass) to the walkable shops between Brand and Louise as well as the public library and future Armenian American Museum location. Harvard would also be closed off between Brand and the parking alley one block east of Brand. Thru traffic can be diverted to Central Avenue. Maybe a second pedestrian overpass can be created to bring people from the Americana to the Galleria at the Central Ave entrance.
I have such strong feelings about Chandler, having had to eskate from the NoHo station to slightly past downtown Burbank. I'm glad that there's a bike path, but I really do hate it. It is the most boring bike path anyone could ever dream of. It's so long, and NOTHING BUT RESIDENTIAL. If I could've taken a train instead, I would've in a heartbeat. /end rant
another great video, Nick! Love the maps, and appreciate all your wonderfully fantastic ideas. Now to influence reality with some of these great projects!
I honestly think the enthusiasm seen for metro planning is more intense on the transport TH-cam channels than that evidenced by the powers that be. You go, guy. ;)
Instead of extending the A line to Ontario airport there is also an option from San Bernardino to extend the service from soon to be completed Redlands rail line there to Claremont (or possibly Covina). There's a 2018 study by the San Bernardino county transit agency ("Hybrid Rail Service Planning for San Bernardino - Los Angeles Corridor") that models headways as short as 15 minutes and includes options that connect to the Ontario airport.
There's also a 2014 "Ontario Airport Rail Access Study" from the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority that includes both options for the LA metro A to Ontario and the Redlands "Arrow" line to Ontario
Do my ears deceive me? Someone discussing transit planning that actually mentions 7th Street in Long Beach? I used to lived west of the Pacific stop on the A Line and I actually can't believe that there wasn't already a BRT on the 7th St corridor (which already sits as a weird almost leftover freeway right of way.) Long Beach buses were great in my very limited and very downtown experience but no BRTs in Long Beach always struck me as weird when the city & county were already doing things like completely closing a portion of 1st St for the then-Blue Line's right of way - a move that seems politically untenable almost anywhere else in LA County.
Great job, but I do have to disagree with you on interlining these services. If we proceed to offer a bit more grade separations to some of these lines in order to allow for higher frequencies, plus add some automation to the system like you suggested, the advantages of having one seat rides rapidly diminish at which point you can create a network where you might need to transfer, but it takes at most maybe 1 minute to transfer, and maybe 1.5 to 2 minutes on average to wait for the next train. In this case it would make more sense to have your U line just continue east along where you have your ESFV line go, transfer to the WSAB at Echo Park, and then have the ESFV line either terminate at LaCienega/Santa Monica, or maybe head down Beverly or just have it reach the D line along Fairfax.
I recently visited LA from Toronto and these proposals seem to continue a thing I noticed with LA in general: Just have the line go in a straight line, as long as practical. Not every line has to have 3 turns in it. In fact, every turn makes the line slower and less coherent.
Many of the light rail lines follow old ROWs that Metro owns that original were used by the old Red Cars. So, at least in part, these lines follow an existing ROW. Much less expensive when LA Metro doesn't have to buy up property to build lines.
@@theexmann I get the logic, but it's still a hindrance on speed and providing stops at actual trip generating spots. Riding the blue line, it's painful how in the middle of nowhere almost all the stops are.
@@JohnUnit The A line stops in the middle of nowhere? That's ridiculous. In fact, LA Metro does a much better job at placing stations than most transit agencies. They also have a comprehensive project to help build development near transit stations. BTW, the blue line no longer exists so not sure when you last rode the A line. It now stretches from Long Beach to Azusa. In fact, LA Metro's light rail system is the largest in the country with the most ridership. And both the top and average speeds on LA Metro's light rail system are comparable to other systems and faster than many. And those times will continue to improve as updates are made to the system like signal prioritization.
Wow. This is brilliant. And your point about planning ahead for a future with trains makes total sense. The best cities have always had robust public transportation systems - this will never change, tho the specifics of the technology may.
Yes that Atlantic BRT needs to be a subway. This map ignore the fact that east side commuters are high users of the metro as it is, and also the complete lack of trains in the area. More light rail/subway needs to be added in the east LA area, and there are obvious north south routes (atlantic being one of them) but also garfield that will hit some other gateway cities and can continue down into also pooly served long beach. Certainly one line should go north south from MP all the way down to Cal State Long Beach hitting many gateway high density cities along the way.
Indeed. An additional recommendation is to extend the D line past the Arts District to East LA via Whittier Blvd as a subway. That line was originally planned in the 1990s but didn't get built due to the moratorium on subway construction for 20 years. They have already approved an extension of the old East LA Gold Line (now E line) from Atlantic/Pomona to the city of Whittier. And it will go underground along Atlantic with 3 underground statons. They will redesign the Atlantic station to go below grade, underground at Whittier Blvd, and another underground station at the Citadel Outlet Shopping Center.
I kind of picture the Sepulveda Line connecting with the Vermont Line, through the Harbor City area, in a "U" shape. This way, the trains could continue, seamlessly, from Sepulveda to Vermont without having to switch, turn around, or anything like that. Then trains could be in continuous service, possibly having more frequent service since trains don't have to change tracks or direction. Then you could add a line in parallel to connect San Pedro with Long Beach, then leading towards Long Beach Airport or to Cal State Long Beach. It would be a short line that could be BRT or light rail. I'm not so sure where commuters in these areas tend to go. I'm assuming having better connections to their surrounding areas could help boost their local neighborhoods. I know a lot of people who live in Long Beach but work in Brentwood. Trying to keep locals local, could help with traffic and long commutes. Either way, there could be a switch installed along the Vermont line for future extension to San Pedro, as a spur. These trains going on the spur could on there when they are leaving the circuit for storage or maintenance (basically, when the train needs to be taken off service or doesn't need to go on service immediately). You could even quad track along Vermont or Sepulveda and just have local and rapid service, but rapid service branches off to San Pedro (becoming a local service train servicing all stations); and the other trains continue on on their circuit, uninterrupted. Also, I still believe that the Vermont Line needs to go to Downtown Burbank, not just the airport. Why not just make a two way loop connecting Burbank Airport and Downtown Burbank with the orange line. At the junction point for the trains, you cold have them alternate going clockwise or counter clockwise in the loop. That way (again), you don't have to have the trains turn around and they just can continue on with their service without having to halt for long. Yes, the junction would be complex and may need to be multilevel, but service would be fast! And, yes, it means someone commuting to Burbank airport might catch a train that stops there first but occasionally second. But that's why trains have signage: If the train is looping clockwise, last stop is Downtown Burbank (before becoming returning service going south on Vermont towards San Pedro). The sign could read VERMONT LINE [NORTHBOUND] San Pedro - Downtown Burbank. If it's counterclockwise (meaning the last stop is Burbank Airport before it becomes a return service going south), it would read VERMONT LINE [NORTHBOUND] San Pedro - Burbank Airport. Even crazier, just make the Sepulveda Line and Vermont Line a giant loop: THE SEPULVERMONT LOOP. The southern part of the loop is already explained above, but then have the northern part of the loop connect. Take the Sepulveda Line past the Van Nuys Station and have it continue to: a) Sylmar Station (with other infill stations, of course) before turning south to connect to Burbank's stations and closing the loop. Or b) going East and connecting Van Nuys straight to Burbank then continuing on towards Vermont. Now this is the type of "hyperloop" I want to get on or have funded!
The “U” shape makes sense since the most affordable option for the Sepulveda line is the bechtel plan which would require it to follow the the metro link tracks then have it be elevated until it reaches the mountains. For the “U” to happen, the Vermont line would have to be elevated towards the tracks on Lankershim and Sherman way
I think a Rose Bowl station would be great for when there are events there, but there are, what, a dozen events in the Bowl a year? (not including the swap meet) Plus it's at the bottom of a canyon which would probably complicate construction and routing. I'm not sure the expense of bringing a line to the Rose Bowl would justify the benefits unless you continue that line to LC-F and further to La Crescenta and Tujunga instead of bringing two lines over the hill from Glendale. (I don't think La Canada-Flintridge would have enough ridership to justify two lines anyway)
Yeah I agree with you there. I think like the potential Hollywood Bowl station, it would likely only happen if they have to do construction there anyway, but as one-off extension to the A/Blue/Gold/I don't know what to call it Line, it would be a hard sell. I think it would be more beneficial to route that line up to Altadena instead *if* they were to build an extension.
The problem I have with that is that if you live in Tijunga or La Crescenta and want to go to downtown or the west side, then you would have to take the line all the way to Pasadena and then go through SouthPas and then go on the route to downtown instead of just going through Glendale to go there. Not to mention if you want to go to Glendale from there then you have no option besides car unless maybe there’s a brt or light rail line built going there
@@HSMiyamoto * and instead of the WSAB LRT line running under 8th and a station at 8th & Fig, why not run the line up Central Avenue to Union Station so as to completely overload 7th/Metro at rush hour? As well, this video suggests an LRT extension from 8th & Fig thru Westlake, Echo Park, Silverlake, Atwater, downtown Glendale. Really! What would that do to 7th/Metro during morning and evening rush hours? INSANE! A WSAB LRT line to Union Station can be extended to Dodger Stadium, Atwater and downtown Glendale and avoid a permanent/negative impact on 7th/Metro. There are two heated, high pressure oil pipelines under Alameda Street all thru downtown L A and south to Wilmington. They are dangerous.
@@johncrandell4479You make some good points about Metro Center not being capable of handling a fourth rail line. WSAB could go through DTLA connecting to line B at Pershing Square, and then maybe follow 3rd and 2nd to connect with line A and go into Echo Park, etc., with a final destination of Hollywood and Western via Los Feliz. The Sunset Blvd corridor has always had a lot of potential for rail, despite the higher incomes there.
Another great video by Nandert! After learning about Montreal's amazing new light metro regional project and the Vancouver Skytrain; the cities of Los Angeles and Chicago would be great cities to integrate such a network similar to that of Skytrain or the future REM in Montreal. The Vermont corridor should be a light metro from the start, not after a BRT has been built with high frequency. The beauty of light metro systems is that they are cheaper than a traditional subway, yet still very effective and transformative.
IMO, the region’s maximum priorities should be establishing the Sepulveda transit corridor (hopefully Red/Purple line grade metro), extending the Orange line to Pasadena (but using existing freeway ROW through Glendale particularly the I-5 & CA 2/Glendale freeways) and designing it for eventual LRT conversion, making the K line go to Long Beach with the green line instead terminating at the LAX APM, and extending the Green Line to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Metrolink station. Even longer term, they should extend both the red & purple lines as far as: >Six Flags Magic Mountain >Anaheim, both Disneyland AND Angel Stadium & Honda Center & LAX With potential for the Sepulveda metro line to be a 2 line corridor; one to go to LAX, and the other being a new line from at least Sherman Oaks to parallel the purple line all the way to Downtown LA. With ALL said new metro corridors outside of the west LA, North Hollywood, and DTLA all having a more modern version of the NYC style local/express stops built in exclusively to make said lines even more competitive to even free flow freeway conditions, much less gridlocked traffic…
Love these videos as always! One idea I have had regarding some of your corridors was to logically expand LA's subway system. I think for me its logical to have the Vermont Corridor interline with the Red Line before branching off to Glendale, having the Red line potentially take over the Orange Line (since many of the riders from the Line that I have seen will transfer to the Red Line at NoHo anyways), sending the Red Line to the Arts district while sending the Purple line over to El Monte via a converted El Monte busway, and finally converting the line to run as a fully autonomous line instead of one that runs semi autonomously with a driver as a safeguard. To me that covers a lot of the ridership patterns that the system currently has, and upgrades the infrastructure to modern specs.
We could also just have the Purple and Red lines seperate but keep the original curve of track that ran the Red line into downtown and have the Redline run services downtown during rush hours. This would actually justify the letter naming for the lines. The red "B" train could have like, I don't know, an F express or something that runs at peak times.
Awesome and rational. Any thoughts on expanding the ART "Metro Cable" aerial line between Union Station and Dodger stadium to the LA Zoo, Observatory, Hollywood Sign and Hollywood Bowl/Hollywood Highland? Aerial cable transit system enhancements are common in hilly cities in Mexico and South America (Bolivia, Colombia, others). Might also work from Crenshaw to Sofi, Orlando/Disneyworld style.
Content is good until you start introducing your plans, just a few thoughts (I'll use colors for lines since it's easier): 1. You are pretty much having 4 lines interline, mixing different services at different segments of each line. That's a pretty big no-no. Many transit systems are trying to simplify networks and reduce crazy interlines nowadays to increase service stability and ultimately increase frequency, because if you have one stretch down you cascade to the rest (could even be a 20 sec delay with someone blocking doors on one train, messing up the sync between lines). And it's even worse with light rail when you get delays also from road traffic. Gets even more complicated when it's 4 lines interlining at high service frequencies. It's not something that a signaling system can solve as you can't avoid interruptions from external factors. 2. I don't see the benefit of switching the current Gold line past Memorial Park to your Orange line. Rail traffic is not road traffic. A grid works for roads because it's a one-seat ride for a car no matter how many turns you take; rail should be about bringing the most ppl to where they want to go with the least transfers. Your E-W orange line might help the few that travels between the Foothill and the west, but other than that you are spending BIG money to rebuild a working stretch of line just to discourage the majority of Foothill riders into Downtown and create a terrible transfer station for those who are affected. Just terminate the Orange line at Memorial Park and let the majority of Foothill riders have their one-seat ride. 3. Big tunnels through the mountains are expensive. We already have a Red line subway with plenty of capacity, and (hopefully a subway not monorail) a 2nd one at Sepulveda. Not sure if it's a good use of funds to build 2 more while not maximizing the return on the first two. Even worse return of investment making them low-capacity light rail for mostly local service. Just funnel more local light rail services to the heavy rail subway corridors we have / will have and squeeze the most out of those investments. I'll stop here as the comment is getting too long.
Our biggest hope for Inglewood people mover is that it ends up being something like VAL, so that we can make it useful and build Lille metro style service. Also my very optimistic prediction is that the LAX express line would have some amount of foresight and connect to Sofi stadium/Inglewood forum.
This reminds me of transit projects being done in Paris, because the operator is building several BRT lines, the majority of these outside the gates (Portes) of the old city. I think there are (at least!) 8 BRT projects in Paris. Plus several light rail lines, Grand Paris Express, Cable cars etc
I think that the Sepulveda line should run from LAX to SoFi then continue back to the LAX/Crenshaw line and take over the abandoned right-of-way that LAX/Crenshaw leaves as it turns on to Crenshaw Blvd. This would take the Sepulveda line out to Vermont Blvd, and the future junction of the A line and Santa Ana line. Edit: If the Santa Ana line is built heavy rail, the Sepulveda line could potentially interline with it, and turn the Sepulveda line into one long heavy rail link between Burbank and Orange County. This would have huge draw, considering the connections to LAX and three stadiums at Hollywood Park.
This is correct. I am assuming you are connecting this to the end of the D line at the Arts District Station? It would give a one seat ride from downtown to LAX via LAUS. I like it, even though the line's diagram is a huge loop that crosses itself in Westwood. To avoid confusion, trains would probably need to change line letters at LAUS.
Why not a light rail line on Beverly Boulevard that can also go to Glendale through Glendale Boulevard, which starts by Belmont High School? Both Belmont High School and Edward Roybal Learning Complex students will benefit from Metro taking them to school. MacArthur Park Station is too far from Belmont and Civic Center/Grand Park is too far from Roybal.
As someone who goes to college in Burbank and bikes everywhere these are my wildest dreams lol, especially due to the fact I saw a station that goes straight to my college lmao
BTW, I've read that Metro is planning on relocating the City of Commerce Metrolink station so that it's behind the Citadel Outlet Mall. That makes a lot of sense compared to where it is now because it will be roughly in the same area as the future Gold Line station.
Let's go for even more broke: the LA downtown streetcar. Not that catenary-less type of dinkytoy streetcar but a proper 5-car long streetcars drawing that juicy power from overhead wires.
All your ideas of a new metro line are similar to mine. I always go to Google maps and just draw imaginary lines from downtown to all parts of LA. I really wish this map you provided can really be possible because I hate driving and jealous that other countries like Europe and Asia already have this.
In the long range vision map, I would extend the 4 along the BRT (not replacing mind you) to meet the C and E lines, avoiding the need to change to a bus, as well as the C to meet the E, and maybe even into Yorba Linda/Anaheim Canyon. Additionally, the F line heading further south to create an outer loop, avoiding the very centre of LA, seems like it'd be useful
Great Video! The one issue I see is that where was the thought process in constructing local and express. LAX will finally have transit to get there. However, if you land and wanna go downtown, what will that be-like 3 transfers plus luggage. Is that really convenient? Rail is great when it’s designed correctly!
The Artesia Boulevard segment should also operate thru to Buena Park METROLINK station,, eliminating the transit deserts between Studebaker and Bloomfield Ave and between Shoemaker and Valley View Street at the Los Angeles-Orange County border.
as someone who lived in orange county my whole life, the light rail line that you labeled #3 would be an amazing idea. That line follows the exact route of bus 29, which is one of the busiest most frequent bus lines in the whole oc system. having public transport that isn't just shitty buses that come every 30-60 minutes would be awsome
I have no idea why anything about OC was included in this video since that's a different county. LA Metro is responsible for local transit projects in LA County, OC needs to step up if they want local transit rail for their residents. Seems like the Santa Ana streetcar is the only thing they're doing.
I have no idea why anything about OC was included in this video since that's a different county. LA Metro is responsible for local transit projects in LA County, OC needs to step up if they want local transit rail for their residents. Seems like the Santa Ana streetcar is the only thing they're doing.
Just wanted to say, I think the Harbor Sub might only be able to handle one mode of rail if we have to keep the bike path that's being being along that route. And I think it might be just ight rail sadly. Really wanted the LAX express train. Unless there's something I missed or there's enough community support in that corridor to have 2 modes of rail it seems that's how it might play out.
I think first they should extend the existing tunnel to the point where the A and E Trains meet, and give each a separate portal (and no underground track crossing)
@@aaravyadav3748 I feel like they could've did a cut and method within the ROW. That way people coming from the airport won't have to schlep from underground, to street level, cross the street and wait for another train.
For the interlining part, could quad tracking in some of the shared sections fix that? if you go for TBMs you could still use 1 massive TBM like what VTA is doing in San Jose, except you would utilize a lot more of the total dug area.
this would be my dream version of LA. too bad that's not what it is already. i live in mar vista so i was really happy to see your line going through there. i always wish i could take a train to other parts of the city from here, especially in the corridor along venice blvd. to culver
The D Lne should be extended to East LA along Whittier Blvd which is what was originally proposed. Actually, the original Red line subway was supposed to go along Whittier Blvd which is now the B line.
As a Long Beach resident, there is NO REASON to have a rail line terminate at the airport. There isn't enough of a travel demand to make it the terminus. I think the C line should be extended from the Torrance Transit Center to Long Beach via Carson (Harbor UCLA and Carson Civic Center). Carson has higher density than Sepulveda. After connecting with the A Line at Wardlow, it should travel east to the airport and then southeast to CSULB.
Completely agree with this statement, although I've always found the galleria as an odd choice for a stop but never Del Amo. Carson from Del Amo (maybe even from Redondo) does have density up till avalon. I might be biased by the fact this is the line I would take the most
Love the video though I do not live in LA but the one thing for me is would you be able to put a satellite image of your proposed layout. It is really difficult to get a sense of scale with these projects without it.
A bit of an issue with running the blue line over the top of Colorado.. the rose parade would bring a halt to the last train stations making it inconvenient once a year granted but I’m pretty sure that’s why metro chose to stay underground through the parade route
Wow, a man can dream. As an LA native who is living in CT and is becoming accustomed to Northeast quality public transit (not world class but best in the country by far), I would love for LA to one day have a system that can truly compete. Great work.
It is all half ass. Southern California needs a regional express train system. One must be able to go from Santa Monica to San Bernardino in 30 minutes. Same goes for a Santa Barbara to San Diego route. Train stations need to be regional high density hubs with car free zones.
Extending the x line through slauson and have it stop somewhere near The Citadel would be great! The bus line the runs through slauson is always packed especially during rush hour.
Newbie question: are all of these proposed lines LRT? (Or did I miss that some of them would be "proper" metros?) Loved the video btw, cheers from Stockholm! < 3
If this happened I’d be able to easily walk or bike to two different metro lines and quickly get almost anywhere I’d need to be. There would be no need for a car in Los Angeles (especially with commensurate bike infrastructure). As it stands, I am ready to leave Los Angeles forever, but this is a version of LA I would happily spend my life in.
There’s still a scar running through Orange County that used to be the Red Car line. It’s still empty for the most part and can be easily turned back into a route.
It's really sad how absurdly expensive it is to build infrastructure in the US these days. In NYC, even in Manhattan there are large sections of the city that aren't served by the subway. In Chicago too as he pointed out, there could be so much more. But the cost is so prohibitive that nothing can get built, and the few projects that do get funded take 20+ years to build. Even in LA, they are building light rail because it's much cheaper, but less than ideal as it shares right of way. But even the LA system, which is being "aggressively" built out by modern standards has only a few projects that will materialize before the 2050s. For comparison, in Shanghai, China built a subway larger than New York's from SCRATCH in like 15 years. That's what a city the size of LA needs - like 12 new heavy rail lines with 300 stations, built within 20-30 years. But that's completely impossible in the US now, it would literally cost a trillion dollars and take 120 years.
One of the main reasons it's taking longer is due to the funding. The LA Metro transit projects are funded through a few sales tax measures which means only a certain amount of money is available at any given time. In order to build out these transit systems faster we need a lot more federal funding to support local city transit projects. That's what they do in China. The national government is the entity that funds these projects. It's not the local cities. Same goes with their HSR system in China. It's being funded by their national government. Unlike the USA where California is funding about 85% of the CAHSR right now.
@@theexmann But it's also the cost, to build what LA actually needs will literally cost almost a trillion dollars, the US federal government is never going to spend that on one city's rapid transit system. 100 years it was 1/10th the cost (adjusted for inflation), that's how NYC got its system, it would be impossible today.
Imma be real honest. I think LA metro should primarily focus on the LA basin as it's more dense and more feasible to have them well connected with lines connecting the LA basin with the SFV (Sepulveda pass line) and towards OC and SGV.
To get people out of their cars and go carbon free this map would need to be the official goal system, five years ago. I should mention this would put LA in competition with Seoul. maybe. And it still might not be enough! People just don’t realize how massive this city and county is. I think the effort needs to be tripled
LAX is one of the largest employment centers as well as transportation nodes. Are Hollywood, Norwalk and Torrance really where all that travel demand wants to come from or go to? I feel that the Crenshaw line needs a branch into downtown -- maybe over Pico -- and connecting with Vermont. That transfer at Exposition will not be popular, and adding more trains is impossible until the Flower street tracks are undergrounded.
Yikes nandert, you speak fast enough, and complex enough, that we need to be paying attention. When you then write entire commentaries on your narration, that appear at the same time, it's too much to absorb. It may be funny stuff, but you're not helping your main points to come across - imho of course.
This is a really great video....and I don't even live on the west coast...I'm just fascinated with L.A. working on transit after being the "city of freeways" as long as I've been alive. All great stuff...but...it makes zero sense to invest in the electrifcation of Amtrak to San Diego - it would be a huge waste of money. Better to just keep the diesel service there. and invest in other things.
I only half understood the language in this video (not that into trains and metros) and yet this still managed to be one of the most entertaining and informative things I've seen
In an alternative world with peace, dignity, love, no wars, common sense and unlimited funding we all wish this could become a reality, but with how tight the U.S. government budget for transportation infrastructure. This will never happen, as only half of these projects will be built in the next 50 years and finally reach density areas that are heavily used.
Sepulveda monorail proposal is the worse consideration. Only the heavy rail line should be proposed. The shortcomings are Metro stations in the middle of freeways and far from residential areas and businesses. No stops are at shopping centers since owners don’t want parking to be used by commuters. Metrolink is not electrified and integrated into Metro. If Metrolink can’t or won’t do more frequent service in LA County, let Metro have their routes. Nonetheless, as a LA County resident, I will never use it unless I must go to LA City for these specific reasons: a job or LAX or venue when there’s a direct Metro station. No bus transfers and I can return to a safe station for Uber for the last mile. I suggest these changes to your map. Extend Green Line Norwalk station further east to Brea on Imperial Blvd. Extend proposed West Santa Ana Branch to Anaheim Metrolink-Amtrak station with a stop at Disneyland. Have more north south lines especially parallel to 605 Freeway and an alternate to the ratty Blue Line that goes into the worst neighborhoods like Compton.
WSAB should go all the way to Bob Hope Airport with stop at Dodgers Stadium and LA Zoo with a People Mover from the rail station to the Zoo over the freeway.
still don’t understand why in the world the green line doesn’t continue to the norwalk amtrak station (a mile more to the east) and LAX (a mile more to the west).
In a city with worst traffic in the country, all those in streets, grade crossing rails are just a waste of money (poor planning). LA needs a True subway and denser neighborhoods
The Expo line, which is light rail, is grade separated for much of it. Although I do agree, would be better to have tracks not at street level OR priority for light rail trains. But a true subway system for all lines will probably never happen
Subways would be ideal, but way too expensive when you consider the distances that need to be covered. Besides all the light rail lines are partially grade separated with either aerial or underground stations. Frequencies will be improved and eventually signal prioritization will be implemented and that will help a lot. And we have great weather most of the year so light rail suits us being outdoors.
There's an old Pacific Electric right-of-way diagonal across Long Beach to Seal Beach. It used to be fully grade separated in 1920. They should do that as a spur of the A line.
Yeah I think this one could work super well with a BRT line to connect the "triangle", and could serve a lot of Long Beach quite well if feeder bus service is good enough. Unfortunately east Long Beach has little motivation to densify itself and would likely oppose a rail project like this. We can dream though...
That's the old Balboa Beach line. In Pacific Electric days, there was so little car traffic that travel from Balboa Pier to DTLA was faster than trying to drive there now. Plus old P.E. went straight north to 6th and Main rather than turn west onto Washington like the A line today. That area is too affluent to want transit, and ironically, one reason is that so much of the old P.E. route is a linear park that raises property values.
I think just maybe a NYC Subway style system should be constructed or maybe compare it to S-Bahn in Germany by adding branches in suburbs and core trunk lines in Downtown, West Side, Santa Monica Mountains, and other dense places
I know targeted advertising is crazy these days, but proposing a line that basically runs straight from my apartment to Dodger Stadium is some next-level stuff.
That last map was the most beautiful map I’ve ever seen in my life, I’d give anything to have to have a transit system like that
Oops. Bye John Oliver. I’ve got something more important to watch.
As someone who just moved out of La Crescenta/Montrose because of a lack of public transit, it feels nice to see my former neighborhood finally included in some LA Metro talk. Being 10 minutes from a Gold Line station is so amazing, but I would love to see this final map for LA.
As someone who currently lives there it’s great to see even just the mention of a transit line through here since it’s usually an area so forgotten by metro, I mean the shape of the mountains arent even drawn that accurately. Hopefully I’ll be able to ride a line from here someday
@@chrisabella2780 This map is a diagrammatic map so geography may not be that proper
lots of maps videos are the best videos
I love these maps! I see why you didn't, but I'd love to see some ideas on what an expanded and electrified Metrolink system could be like. I feel like the greater LA metro area's geography lends itself well to a Paris or Tokyo-style through running regional rail system. Definitely seems bleak with how little it's expanded compared to Metro Rail though :( Electrified Surfline could be a great catalyst, though!
That’s what I am thinking
Love this! You are correct in your base assumption that METRO is wasting a great deal of money and opportunity by not thinking on a network level and not having a "full build out" already planned so that provisions can be made for future lines and to eliminate short sighted choices. Every new line and connection impacts the rest of the network.
I also agree with your choice of BRT for East LA County N/S connections. I won't quibble about your routing choices because everyone will have their individual ideas to bring up.
Instead I want to address a very important issue I see among many LA forums and that is station intervals. Many in LA, and indeed at Metro, seem to believe that 1 mile or more intervals between stations is appropriate for the central part of the city. I define the central city as the ocean to ELA/Pasadena (roughly along the 710) and from the southern San Fernando Valley to the Century Freeway. This area contains the densest population and employment centers in the metropolitan area.
For example, on the Santa Monica Blvd line, you have 4 stations between La Cienega and Vermont (1 for every 1.2 miles) and 5 stations between Vermont and Union Station (1 for every 0.8 miles) where the greater residential and employment density is between La Cienega and Vermont.
On the Venice Blvd line, you have 7 stations between the beach and Culver City station (1 for every .75 miles) but only 5 stations between Culver City and Pico station (1 for every 1.5 miles) where the greater density and more transit dependent population is between Culver City and Pico station.
On the Slauson line there are 4 stations between Crenshaw and Long Beach Blvd (1 for every 1.25 miles) and on the G Line 6 stations between Glendale Blvd and Memorial Park in Pasadena (1 for every 1 mile) where South LA is far denser than Eagle Rock.
I believe station intervals should be 1/2 mile (radius of 1/4 mile between stations) in the central part of the city as a rule (there are always exceptions). In downtown, intervals should be 1/4 mile or less to efficiently distribute people and avoid station overcrowding. 1/2 mile station intervals is still more than cities like NY, Chicago, SF, Toronto, and Montreal have across large portions of their cities. 1/2 mile is still considered rapid transit and would also make the system more accessible and increase usefulness and ridership by bringing people closer to where they need to be. In a city like Los Angeles, these would not be wasted stations especially since walking a 1/2 mile in LA, with it's hot sun and unshaded streets, feels far longer than doing the same in Chicago or NY.
One more thing, it's a quibble but I think it's important. I prefer station names with streets instead of places unless those places are universally used (such as Times Sq). Stations like Theater Row/Studio District, East Hollywood, Toy District, and Fashion District are too vague. A street name leaves no doubt which intersection this station is at. I lived in Hollywood and I don't know where the Theater Row/Studio Dist station would be. Using these as an adjunct to the street names is fine. Similarly, using neighborhoods can be too broad as a location unless it's the only one in a city such as for a Metrolink station. But in the city, a precise location is required. Harvard Heights, Picfair Village, Edendale, Silver Lake, and Echo Park isn't precise enough especially if you don't live in that neighborhood. Is the Fashion Dist station on Venice, Pico, 11th St, or 9th St and Los Angeles St, Maple, or San Pedro? Is the Echo Park station at Alvarado, Glendale Blvd, or Echo Park Ave?
And lastly, there has to be a separation between urban rapid transit and outer suburban rapid transit. Demand patterns are way too different to try to service with an urban rapid transit line that also tries to serve the denser city with high frequency and longer service hours. Metro has tried to serve both within the same system and that's why we have a line going all the way out to the San Bernardino County line. This is clearly Metrolink territory and should remain so. I believe the line between Pasadena and Claremont should be a Metrolink line. The Pasadena light rail should go along Colorado to Rosemead instead. This is a case where Metro believed that a station on the 210, nearly a 1/2 mile away from Colorado Blvd and up to 2 miles apart, was good enough. It isn't good enough. If I were going to Pasadena City College, I'd rather drive than walk nearly a mile to get to class from the Allen Ave station or wait 15 min for a 5 min bus ride.
All that said, I love your map and the approach to planning rapid transit in LA that drove you to make it. I am so disappointed in the way Metro plans. Cities like Paris, London, Madrid, and Santiago have their systems planned out decades in advance and follow those plans with provisions built in to accommodate what may be built 10 years later. In addition, those cities make urban planning, zoning, and development choices based on the rapid transit that will be there in the coming years. Imagine that! It's as if the entire city operates as one cohesive unit. So, Bravo to you for highlighting a more logical and smarter approach to planning.
This turned out way longer than I planned it to be.
I really like your ideas but I would like to point out one thing. Station names with neighborhood give the station a personal touch like this station really serves my neighborhood as it has the name of it. Secondly, I agree that station names with intersections help in wayfinding so what we can do is to put the neighborhood name as the official name and add the intersection as a subtitle or vice versa
@@aaravyadav3748 Oh god, it's deja vu. Battle of the Station Names! Part III. ;)
If NoHo-Pas gets converted to light rail, i just know the residents along Chandler Blvd are going to have a fit if Metro (who maintains Chandler Blvd already) suggests a Chandler alignment. Chandler in Burbank is mostly residences with nearly no businesses except those accessible via the north-south major arteries. And they LOVE that bike path and are not going to want it destroyed for a big ugly train. I'm sure an underground alignment could be proposed and would be preferable, but as we've seen before with NIMBYs they don't even like the idea of a train going under them, so I think that's going to be a fight.
But it would be such poetic justice to see a rail line on the street named after Harry Chandler who was notorious for hating the red cars and was instrumental in their demise.
Another thought- I like the idea of the L/U line concept going through Glendale and running up the Verdugo Pass to serve the foothills. I think both lines in downtown would probably run down Central vs. Brand because the existing transit proposals (NoHo-Pas BRT and Glendale Streetcar) both eye Central over Brand, but I agree a G Line to Pasadena would opt for Colorado instead of Broadway. Central Ave has direct access to the Amtrak/Metrolink station while Brand runs south of it and Brand through downtown is a lot busier and more cramped to put a rail line especially one elevated (which the people who paid $1.5 million to live at the Americana would complain about obstructing their view), and then you have Brand south of Colorado serving mostly car dealerships (boooo). That is unless it went underground in time for downtown, which I wouldn't mind, but would be difficult to do north of downtown where the 134 freeway is in a trench.
My wacky idea is if they were to go with above ground LRT on Brand Blvd. would be to take the portion from Broadway to Colorado and completely close it off to vehicle traffic, leaving only the light rail tracks and converting the rest of the ROW to a pedestrian experience, connecting the Americana (and Galleria to an extent because of the existing pedestrian overpass) to the walkable shops between Brand and Louise as well as the public library and future Armenian American Museum location. Harvard would also be closed off between Brand and the parking alley one block east of Brand. Thru traffic can be diverted to Central Avenue. Maybe a second pedestrian overpass can be created to bring people from the Americana to the Galleria at the Central Ave entrance.
I have such strong feelings about Chandler, having had to eskate from the NoHo station to slightly past downtown Burbank. I'm glad that there's a bike path, but I really do hate it. It is the most boring bike path anyone could ever dream of. It's so long, and NOTHING BUT RESIDENTIAL. If I could've taken a train instead, I would've in a heartbeat. /end rant
another great video, Nick! Love the maps, and appreciate all your wonderfully fantastic ideas. Now to influence reality with some of these great projects!
Great video, keep em coming. I'm a huge transit nerd and want more transit oriented subreddits in my life... what recommendations do you have?
r/transitdiagrams
I honestly think the enthusiasm seen for metro planning is more intense on the transport TH-cam channels than that evidenced by the powers that be. You go, guy. ;)
As a Transportation Planner in LA this is a great video!
Instead of extending the A line to Ontario airport there is also an option from San Bernardino to extend the service from soon to be completed Redlands rail line there to Claremont (or possibly Covina). There's a 2018 study by the San Bernardino county transit agency ("Hybrid Rail Service Planning for San Bernardino - Los Angeles Corridor") that models headways as short as 15 minutes and includes options that connect to the Ontario airport.
There's also a 2014 "Ontario Airport Rail Access Study" from the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority that includes both options for the LA metro A to Ontario and the Redlands "Arrow" line to Ontario
Do my ears deceive me? Someone discussing transit planning that actually mentions 7th Street in Long Beach?
I used to lived west of the Pacific stop on the A Line and I actually can't believe that there wasn't already a BRT on the 7th St corridor (which already sits as a weird almost leftover freeway right of way.)
Long Beach buses were great in my very limited and very downtown experience but no BRTs in Long Beach always struck me as weird when the city & county were already doing things like completely closing a portion of 1st St for the then-Blue Line's right of way - a move that seems politically untenable almost anywhere else in LA County.
Great job, but I do have to disagree with you on interlining these services. If we proceed to offer a bit more grade separations to some of these lines in order to allow for higher frequencies, plus add some automation to the system like you suggested, the advantages of having one seat rides rapidly diminish at which point you can create a network where you might need to transfer, but it takes at most maybe 1 minute to transfer, and maybe 1.5 to 2 minutes on average to wait for the next train. In this case it would make more sense to have your U line just continue east along where you have your ESFV line go, transfer to the WSAB at Echo Park, and then have the ESFV line either terminate at LaCienega/Santa Monica, or maybe head down Beverly or just have it reach the D line along Fairfax.
I recently visited LA from Toronto and these proposals seem to continue a thing I noticed with LA in general:
Just have the line go in a straight line, as long as practical. Not every line has to have 3 turns in it. In fact, every turn makes the line slower and less coherent.
Many of the light rail lines follow old ROWs that Metro owns that original were used by the old Red Cars. So, at least in part, these lines follow an existing ROW. Much less expensive when LA Metro doesn't have to buy up property to build lines.
@@theexmann I get the logic, but it's still a hindrance on speed and providing stops at actual trip generating spots. Riding the blue line, it's painful how in the middle of nowhere almost all the stops are.
@@JohnUnit The A line stops in the middle of nowhere? That's ridiculous. In fact, LA Metro does a much better job at placing stations than most transit agencies. They also have a comprehensive project to help build development near transit stations.
BTW, the blue line no longer exists so not sure when you last rode the A line. It now stretches from Long Beach to Azusa. In fact, LA Metro's light rail system is the largest in the country with the most ridership.
And both the top and average speeds on LA Metro's light rail system are comparable to other systems and faster than many. And those times will continue to improve as updates are made to the system like signal prioritization.
I’m an Orange County resident, so I have no idea how LA works and how metro works, but this map looks amazing.
Wow. This is brilliant. And your point about planning ahead for a future with trains makes total sense.
The best cities have always had robust public transportation systems - this will never change, tho the specifics of the technology may.
With your map no one would need a car in LA! Aaah...one can dream...but seriously, what's coming in LA's transit future is pretty exciting!
Yes that Atlantic BRT needs to be a subway. This map ignore the fact that east side commuters are high users of the metro as it is, and also the complete lack of trains in the area. More light rail/subway needs to be added in the east LA area, and there are obvious north south routes (atlantic being one of them) but also garfield that will hit some other gateway cities and can continue down into also pooly served long beach. Certainly one line should go north south from MP all the way down to Cal State Long Beach hitting many gateway high density cities along the way.
Indeed. An additional recommendation is to extend the D line past the Arts District to East LA via Whittier Blvd as a subway. That line was originally planned in the 1990s but didn't get built due to the moratorium on subway construction for 20 years.
They have already approved an extension of the old East LA Gold Line (now E line) from Atlantic/Pomona to the city of Whittier. And it will go underground along Atlantic with 3 underground statons. They will redesign the Atlantic station to go below grade, underground at Whittier Blvd, and another underground station at the Citadel Outlet Shopping Center.
I kind of picture the Sepulveda Line connecting with the Vermont Line, through the Harbor City area, in a "U" shape. This way, the trains could continue, seamlessly, from Sepulveda to Vermont without having to switch, turn around, or anything like that. Then trains could be in continuous service, possibly having more frequent service since trains don't have to change tracks or direction. Then you could add a line in parallel to connect San Pedro with Long Beach, then leading towards Long Beach Airport or to Cal State Long Beach. It would be a short line that could be BRT or light rail. I'm not so sure where commuters in these areas tend to go. I'm assuming having better connections to their surrounding areas could help boost their local neighborhoods. I know a lot of people who live in Long Beach but work in Brentwood. Trying to keep locals local, could help with traffic and long commutes. Either way, there could be a switch installed along the Vermont line for future extension to San Pedro, as a spur. These trains going on the spur could on there when they are leaving the circuit for storage or maintenance (basically, when the train needs to be taken off service or doesn't need to go on service immediately). You could even quad track along Vermont or Sepulveda and just have local and rapid service, but rapid service branches off to San Pedro (becoming a local service train servicing all stations); and the other trains continue on on their circuit, uninterrupted.
Also, I still believe that the Vermont Line needs to go to Downtown Burbank, not just the airport. Why not just make a two way loop connecting Burbank Airport and Downtown Burbank with the orange line. At the junction point for the trains, you cold have them alternate going clockwise or counter clockwise in the loop. That way (again), you don't have to have the trains turn around and they just can continue on with their service without having to halt for long. Yes, the junction would be complex and may need to be multilevel, but service would be fast! And, yes, it means someone commuting to Burbank airport might catch a train that stops there first but occasionally second. But that's why trains have signage: If the train is looping clockwise, last stop is Downtown Burbank (before becoming returning service going south on Vermont towards San Pedro). The sign could read VERMONT LINE [NORTHBOUND] San Pedro - Downtown Burbank. If it's counterclockwise (meaning the last stop is Burbank Airport before it becomes a return service going south), it would read VERMONT LINE [NORTHBOUND] San Pedro - Burbank Airport.
Even crazier, just make the Sepulveda Line and Vermont Line a giant loop: THE SEPULVERMONT LOOP. The southern part of the loop is already explained above, but then have the northern part of the loop connect. Take the Sepulveda Line past the Van Nuys Station and have it continue to: a) Sylmar Station (with other infill stations, of course) before turning south to connect to Burbank's stations and closing the loop. Or b) going East and connecting Van Nuys straight to Burbank then continuing on towards Vermont. Now this is the type of "hyperloop" I want to get on or have funded!
The “U” shape makes sense since the most affordable option for the Sepulveda line is the bechtel plan which would require it to follow the the metro link tracks then have it be elevated until it reaches the mountains. For the “U” to happen, the Vermont line would have to be elevated towards the tracks on Lankershim and Sherman way
This is so cool and I’d love to see this system fully built. The only thing is that I think BRT should be replaced by light rail as much as possible
I think a Rose Bowl station would be great for when there are events there, but there are, what, a dozen events in the Bowl a year? (not including the swap meet) Plus it's at the bottom of a canyon which would probably complicate construction and routing. I'm not sure the expense of bringing a line to the Rose Bowl would justify the benefits unless you continue that line to LC-F and further to La Crescenta and Tujunga instead of bringing two lines over the hill from Glendale. (I don't think La Canada-Flintridge would have enough ridership to justify two lines anyway)
Yeah I agree with you there. I think like the potential Hollywood Bowl station, it would likely only happen if they have to do construction there anyway, but as one-off extension to the A/Blue/Gold/I don't know what to call it Line, it would be a hard sell. I think it would be more beneficial to route that line up to Altadena instead *if* they were to build an extension.
Before going to the Rose Bowl, go to Dodger Stadium. Imagine if Chavez Canyon were partially returned to residential use?
The problem I have with that is that if you live in Tijunga or La Crescenta and want to go to downtown or the west side, then you would have to take the line all the way to Pasadena and then go through SouthPas and then go on the route to downtown instead of just going through Glendale to go there. Not to mention if you want to go to Glendale from there then you have no option besides car unless maybe there’s a brt or light rail line built going there
@@HSMiyamoto * and instead of the WSAB LRT line running under 8th and a station at 8th & Fig, why not run the line up Central Avenue to Union Station so as to completely overload 7th/Metro at rush hour? As well, this video suggests an LRT extension from 8th & Fig thru Westlake, Echo Park, Silverlake, Atwater, downtown Glendale. Really! What would that do to 7th/Metro during morning and evening rush hours? INSANE! A WSAB LRT line to Union Station can be extended to Dodger Stadium, Atwater and downtown Glendale and avoid a permanent/negative impact on 7th/Metro. There are two heated, high pressure oil pipelines under Alameda Street all thru downtown L A and south to Wilmington. They are dangerous.
@@johncrandell4479You make some good points about Metro Center not being capable of handling a fourth rail line. WSAB could go through DTLA connecting to line B at Pershing Square, and then maybe follow 3rd and 2nd to connect with line A and go into Echo Park, etc., with a final destination of Hollywood and Western via Los Feliz. The Sunset Blvd corridor has always had a lot of potential for rail, despite the higher incomes there.
Hey Nandert, when there is an update on the sepulveda line please post them as a community post. Or make a video about them, you know I'll watch it!
Crenshaw North does, in fact, need to be in every video thank you very much
Getting a new nandert video is better then Christmas!
So we get this; then, we get Christmas?
Another great video by Nandert! After learning about Montreal's amazing new light metro regional project and the Vancouver Skytrain; the cities of Los Angeles and Chicago would be great cities to integrate such a network similar to that of Skytrain or the future REM in Montreal. The Vermont corridor should be a light metro from the start, not after a BRT has been built with high frequency. The beauty of light metro systems is that they are cheaper than a traditional subway, yet still very effective and transformative.
Careful with your double negatives!
@@fehzorz What do you mean?
@@Austin-uj4re "Never ceases to disappoint" means "Will always disappoint"
@@fehzorz Ahh, I see now. I thought it meant something else. Thanks for the correction.
On new corridors then yes
IMO, the region’s maximum priorities should be establishing the Sepulveda transit corridor (hopefully Red/Purple line grade metro), extending the Orange line to Pasadena (but using existing freeway ROW through Glendale particularly the I-5 & CA 2/Glendale freeways) and designing it for eventual LRT conversion, making the K line go to Long Beach with the green line instead terminating at the LAX APM, and extending the Green Line to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Metrolink station.
Even longer term, they should extend both the red & purple lines as far as:
>Six Flags Magic Mountain
>Anaheim, both Disneyland AND Angel Stadium & Honda Center
& LAX
With potential for the Sepulveda metro line to be a 2 line corridor; one to go to LAX, and the other being a new line from at least Sherman Oaks to parallel the purple line all the way to Downtown LA.
With ALL said new metro corridors outside of the west LA, North Hollywood, and DTLA all having a more modern version of the NYC style local/express stops built in exclusively to make said lines even more competitive to even free flow freeway conditions, much less gridlocked traffic…
Love these videos as always! One idea I have had regarding some of your corridors was to logically expand LA's subway system. I think for me its logical to have the Vermont Corridor interline with the Red Line before branching off to Glendale, having the Red line potentially take over the Orange Line (since many of the riders from the Line that I have seen will transfer to the Red Line at NoHo anyways), sending the Red Line to the Arts district while sending the Purple line over to El Monte via a converted El Monte busway, and finally converting the line to run as a fully autonomous line instead of one that runs semi autonomously with a driver as a safeguard. To me that covers a lot of the ridership patterns that the system currently has, and upgrades the infrastructure to modern specs.
We could also just have the Purple and Red lines seperate but keep the original curve of track that ran the Red line into downtown and have the Redline run services downtown during rush hours. This would actually justify the letter naming for the lines. The red "B" train could have like, I don't know, an F express or something that runs at peak times.
I would vote for Nandert
absolutely banging content
Awesome and rational. Any thoughts on expanding the ART "Metro Cable" aerial line between Union Station and Dodger stadium to the LA Zoo, Observatory, Hollywood Sign and Hollywood Bowl/Hollywood Highland? Aerial cable transit system enhancements are common in hilly cities in Mexico and South America (Bolivia, Colombia, others). Might also work from Crenshaw to Sofi, Orlando/Disneyworld style.
Thanks for the La Crescenta mention, I always thought a light rail or brt line to here would be a great idea!
19:40 as a monterey park resident, i heartily approve of this line
Content is good until you start introducing your plans, just a few thoughts (I'll use colors for lines since it's easier):
1. You are pretty much having 4 lines interline, mixing different services at different segments of each line. That's a pretty big no-no. Many transit systems are trying to simplify networks and reduce crazy interlines nowadays to increase service stability and ultimately increase frequency, because if you have one stretch down you cascade to the rest (could even be a 20 sec delay with someone blocking doors on one train, messing up the sync between lines). And it's even worse with light rail when you get delays also from road traffic. Gets even more complicated when it's 4 lines interlining at high service frequencies. It's not something that a signaling system can solve as you can't avoid interruptions from external factors.
2. I don't see the benefit of switching the current Gold line past Memorial Park to your Orange line. Rail traffic is not road traffic. A grid works for roads because it's a one-seat ride for a car no matter how many turns you take; rail should be about bringing the most ppl to where they want to go with the least transfers. Your E-W orange line might help the few that travels between the Foothill and the west, but other than that you are spending BIG money to rebuild a working stretch of line just to discourage the majority of Foothill riders into Downtown and create a terrible transfer station for those who are affected. Just terminate the Orange line at Memorial Park and let the majority of Foothill riders have their one-seat ride.
3. Big tunnels through the mountains are expensive. We already have a Red line subway with plenty of capacity, and (hopefully a subway not monorail) a 2nd one at Sepulveda. Not sure if it's a good use of funds to build 2 more while not maximizing the return on the first two. Even worse return of investment making them low-capacity light rail for mostly local service. Just funnel more local light rail services to the heavy rail subway corridors we have / will have and squeeze the most out of those investments.
I'll stop here as the comment is getting too long.
Foothill? You mean metrolink one seat ride
Interlines aka Trunk lines are very good on a big system... look at nyc
Our biggest hope for Inglewood people mover is that it ends up being something like VAL, so that we can make it useful and build Lille metro style service. Also my very optimistic prediction is that the LAX express line would have some amount of foresight and connect to Sofi stadium/Inglewood forum.
This reminds me of transit projects being done in Paris, because the operator is building several BRT lines, the majority of these outside the gates (Portes) of the old city. I think there are (at least!) 8 BRT projects in Paris.
Plus several light rail lines, Grand Paris Express, Cable cars etc
I think that the Sepulveda line should run from LAX to SoFi then continue back to the LAX/Crenshaw line and take over the abandoned right-of-way that LAX/Crenshaw leaves as it turns on to Crenshaw Blvd. This would take the Sepulveda line out to Vermont Blvd, and the future junction of the A line and Santa Ana line.
Edit: If the Santa Ana line is built heavy rail, the Sepulveda line could potentially interline with it, and turn the Sepulveda line into one long heavy rail link between Burbank and Orange County. This would have huge draw, considering the connections to LAX and three stadiums at Hollywood Park.
This is correct. I am assuming you are connecting this to the end of the D line at the Arts District Station? It would give a one seat ride from downtown to LAX via LAUS. I like it, even though the line's diagram is a huge loop that crosses itself in Westwood. To avoid confusion, trains would probably need to change line letters at LAUS.
Great video nandert! Question, If all of the Measure M projects are completed, how many miles of track/rail will it add to L.A.’s existing 93.6 miles?
Why not a light rail line on Beverly Boulevard that can also go to Glendale through Glendale Boulevard, which starts by Belmont High School? Both Belmont High School and Edward Roybal Learning Complex students will benefit from Metro taking them to school. MacArthur Park Station is too far from Belmont and Civic Center/Grand Park is too far from Roybal.
As someone who goes to college in Burbank and bikes everywhere these are my wildest dreams lol, especially due to the fact I saw a station that goes straight to my college lmao
BTW, I've read that Metro is planning on relocating the City of Commerce Metrolink station so that it's behind the Citadel Outlet Mall. That makes a lot of sense compared to where it is now because it will be roughly in the same area as the future Gold Line station.
Great work again Nick. It was a lot to absorb, but i think you covered it all.
Let's go for even more broke: the LA downtown streetcar. Not that catenary-less type of dinkytoy streetcar but a proper 5-car long streetcars drawing that juicy power from overhead wires.
All your ideas of a new metro line are similar to mine. I always go to Google maps and just draw imaginary lines from downtown to all parts of LA. I really wish this map you provided can really be possible because I hate driving and jealous that other countries like Europe and Asia already have this.
In the long range vision map, I would extend the 4 along the BRT (not replacing mind you) to meet the C and E lines, avoiding the need to change to a bus, as well as the C to meet the E, and maybe even into Yorba Linda/Anaheim Canyon. Additionally, the F line heading further south to create an outer loop, avoiding the very centre of LA, seems like it'd be useful
Great Video! The one issue I see is that where was the thought process in constructing local and express. LAX will finally have transit to get there. However, if you land and wanna go downtown, what will that be-like 3 transfers plus luggage. Is that really convenient? Rail is great when it’s designed correctly!
The Artesia Boulevard segment should also operate thru to Buena Park METROLINK station,, eliminating the transit deserts between Studebaker and Bloomfield Ave and between Shoemaker and Valley View Street at the Los Angeles-Orange County border.
as someone who lived in orange county my whole life, the light rail line that you labeled #3 would be an amazing idea. That line follows the exact route of bus 29, which is one of the busiest most frequent bus lines in the whole oc system. having public transport that isn't just shitty buses that come every 30-60 minutes would be awsome
I have no idea why anything about OC was included in this video since that's a different county. LA Metro is responsible for local transit projects in LA County, OC needs to step up if they want local transit rail for their residents. Seems like the Santa Ana streetcar is the only thing they're doing.
I have no idea why anything about OC was included in this video since that's a different county. LA Metro is responsible for local transit projects in LA County, OC needs to step up if they want local transit rail for their residents. Seems like the Santa Ana streetcar is the only thing they're doing.
Just wanted to say, I think the Harbor Sub might only be able to handle one mode of rail if we have to keep the bike path that's being being along that route. And I think it might be just ight rail sadly. Really wanted the LAX express train. Unless there's something I missed or there's enough community support in that corridor to have 2 modes of rail it seems that's how it might play out.
I feel like expo should be rebuilt underground from western to farmdale to better facilitate a transfer to the crenshaw line.
I think first they should extend the existing tunnel to the point where the A and E Trains meet, and give each a separate portal (and no underground track crossing)
Expo should really be Underground in that area
@@aaravyadav3748 I feel like they could've did a cut and method within the ROW. That way people coming from the airport won't have to schlep from underground, to street level, cross the street and wait for another train.
We need let from union to Disneyland via Anaheim on a line tracks than c line track then metrolink track
For the interlining part, could quad tracking in some of the shared sections fix that? if you go for TBMs you could still use 1 massive TBM like what VTA is doing in San Jose, except you would utilize a lot more of the total dug area.
this would be my dream version of LA. too bad that's not what it is already. i live in mar vista so i was really happy to see your line going through there. i always wish i could take a train to other parts of the city from here, especially in the corridor along venice blvd. to culver
The D Lne should be extended to East LA along Whittier Blvd which is what was originally proposed. Actually, the original Red line subway was supposed to go along Whittier Blvd which is now the B line.
The sexiest colored lines I’ve ever seen 🥵
As a Long Beach resident, there is NO REASON to have a rail line terminate at the airport. There isn't enough of a travel demand to make it the terminus. I think the C line should be extended from the Torrance Transit Center to Long Beach via Carson (Harbor UCLA and Carson Civic Center). Carson has higher density than Sepulveda. After connecting with the A Line at Wardlow, it should travel east to the airport and then southeast to CSULB.
Completely agree with this statement, although I've always found the galleria as an odd choice for a stop but never Del Amo. Carson from Del Amo (maybe even from Redondo) does have density up till avalon. I might be biased by the fact this is the line I would take the most
How do you make your maps? I am interested in making my own for fun! Thanks!
Love the video though I do not live in LA but the one thing for me is would you be able to put a satellite image of your proposed layout. It is really difficult to get a sense of scale with these projects without it.
this was such a well thought out video. Very informative, and just super high quality. Fucking impressive.
A bit of an issue with running the blue line over the top of Colorado.. the rose parade would bring a halt to the last train stations making it inconvenient once a year granted but I’m pretty sure that’s why metro chose to stay underground through the parade route
Maybe the line on Slauson could go north to Union Station via The Arts District and the D Line could take over the El Monte Busway
Wow, a man can dream. As an LA native who is living in CT and is becoming accustomed to Northeast quality public transit (not world class but best in the country by far), I would love for LA to one day have a system that can truly compete. Great work.
Same I’m from LA but live in NYC. I want my native city to improve in public transit.
Dear Metro,
Hire this man ASAP!
You are my spirit animal Nick!
I like the vision! I’d have two lines out my front door in Sunset Junction 🤙
Wow! Nice work!
It is all half ass. Southern California needs a regional express train system. One must be able to go from Santa Monica to San Bernardino in 30 minutes. Same goes for a Santa Barbara to San Diego route. Train stations need to be regional high density hubs with car free zones.
Extending the x line through slauson and have it stop somewhere near The Citadel would be great! The bus line the runs through slauson is always packed especially during rush hour.
Newbie question: are all of these proposed lines LRT?
(Or did I miss that some of them would be "proper" metros?)
Loved the video btw, cheers from Stockholm! < 3
I think it's cute that Orange County thinks the 405 widening project is gonna fix anything. Lol. But rail is still the enemy...
If this happened I’d be able to easily walk or bike to two different metro lines and quickly get almost anywhere I’d need to be. There would be no need for a car in Los Angeles (especially with commensurate bike infrastructure). As it stands, I am ready to leave Los Angeles forever, but this is a version of LA I would happily spend my life in.
There’s still a scar running through Orange County that used to be the Red Car line. It’s still empty for the most part and can be easily turned back into a route.
Looks great bro. Shove it in the city's face everyday until they do it
It's really sad how absurdly expensive it is to build infrastructure in the US these days. In NYC, even in Manhattan there are large sections of the city that aren't served by the subway. In Chicago too as he pointed out, there could be so much more. But the cost is so prohibitive that nothing can get built, and the few projects that do get funded take 20+ years to build. Even in LA, they are building light rail because it's much cheaper, but less than ideal as it shares right of way. But even the LA system, which is being "aggressively" built out by modern standards has only a few projects that will materialize before the 2050s. For comparison, in Shanghai, China built a subway larger than New York's from SCRATCH in like 15 years. That's what a city the size of LA needs - like 12 new heavy rail lines with 300 stations, built within 20-30 years. But that's completely impossible in the US now, it would literally cost a trillion dollars and take 120 years.
One of the main reasons it's taking longer is due to the funding. The LA Metro transit projects are funded through a few sales tax measures which means only a certain amount of money is available at any given time. In order to build out these transit systems faster we need a lot more federal funding to support local city transit projects. That's what they do in China. The national government is the entity that funds these projects. It's not the local cities. Same goes with their HSR system in China. It's being funded by their national government. Unlike the USA where California is funding about 85% of the CAHSR right now.
@@theexmann But it's also the cost, to build what LA actually needs will literally cost almost a trillion dollars, the US federal government is never going to spend that on one city's rapid transit system. 100 years it was 1/10th the cost (adjusted for inflation), that's how NYC got its system, it would be impossible today.
I want to see a movie based in a world where your ideal transit map is already in place.
Yotam Amit1 was the time for me when black TVs happened today and failed uvula
Imma be real honest. I think LA metro should primarily focus on the LA basin as it's more dense and more feasible to have them well connected with lines connecting the LA basin with the SFV (Sepulveda pass line) and towards OC and SGV.
To get people out of their cars and go carbon free this map would need to be the official goal system, five years ago. I should mention this would put LA in competition with Seoul. maybe. And it still might not be enough! People just don’t realize how massive this city and county is. I think the effort needs to be tripled
I would personally extinguish Hell if it meant bringing that map into reality.
LAX is one of the largest employment centers as well as transportation nodes. Are Hollywood, Norwalk and Torrance really where all that travel demand wants to come from or go to? I feel that the Crenshaw line needs a branch into downtown -- maybe over Pico -- and connecting with Vermont. That transfer at Exposition will not be popular, and adding more trains is impossible until the Flower street tracks are undergrounded.
If Metro sees this video, what are the chances of all of these becoming funded in this Decade
Less than 0%, I have a higher chance than being elected President right now as a 16 year old.
If LA had a transit system like this i would actually go outside
With the tiny slow LRVs we have now it’ll take forever to get anywhere with this; that being said yes please I want
Can we talk about the politics about getting this done on the local level? Because I don't think it is possible.
Now that they're building the Arts District metro stop they can sell air rights to the subway yards for some serious transit oriented development
If Sepulveda Pass line goes down Sepulveda, then you have no north/south options between the 405 and Lincoln. At the very least need BRT down Bundy.
Interesting video.
Will that build out actually reduce road traffic at all or just allow the city to grow without more freeways?
Yikes nandert, you speak fast enough, and complex enough, that we need to be paying attention. When you then write entire commentaries on your narration, that appear at the same time, it's too much to absorb. It may be funny stuff, but you're not helping your main points to come across - imho of course.
Respectfully disagree, for me. Although, to be fair, I get why you would say that.
I like your master plan
This is a really great video....and I don't even live on the west coast...I'm just fascinated with L.A. working on transit after being the "city of freeways" as long as I've been alive. All great stuff...but...it makes zero sense to invest in the electrifcation of Amtrak to San Diego - it would be a huge waste of money. Better to just keep the diesel service there. and invest in other things.
I like the video but it is really hard to listen to something and read something else on the screen at the same time.
I only half understood the language in this video (not that into trains and metros) and yet this still managed to be one of the most entertaining and informative things I've seen
In an alternative world with peace, dignity, love, no wars, common sense and unlimited funding we all wish this could become a reality, but with how tight the U.S. government budget for transportation infrastructure. This will never happen, as only half of these projects will be built in the next 50 years and finally reach density areas that are heavily used.
Sepulveda monorail proposal is the worse consideration. Only the heavy rail line should be proposed. The shortcomings are Metro stations in the middle of freeways and far from residential areas and businesses. No stops are at shopping centers since owners don’t want parking to be used by commuters. Metrolink is not electrified and integrated into Metro. If Metrolink can’t or won’t do more frequent service in LA County, let Metro have their routes.
Nonetheless, as a LA County resident, I will never use it unless I must go to LA City for these specific reasons: a job or LAX or venue when there’s a direct Metro station. No bus transfers and I can return to a safe station for Uber for the last mile.
I suggest these changes to your map. Extend Green Line Norwalk station further east to Brea on Imperial Blvd. Extend proposed West Santa Ana Branch to Anaheim Metrolink-Amtrak station with a stop at Disneyland. Have more north south lines especially parallel to 605 Freeway and an alternate to the ratty Blue Line that goes into the worst neighborhoods like Compton.
WSAB should go all the way to Bob Hope Airport with stop at Dodgers Stadium and LA Zoo with a People Mover from the rail station to the Zoo over the freeway.
still don’t understand why in the world the green line doesn’t continue to the norwalk amtrak station (a mile more to the east) and LAX (a mile more to the west).
In a city with worst traffic in the country, all those in streets, grade crossing rails are just a waste of money (poor planning). LA needs a True subway and denser neighborhoods
The Expo line, which is light rail, is grade separated for much of it. Although I do agree, would be better to have tracks not at street level OR priority for light rail trains. But a true subway system for all lines will probably never happen
Subways would be ideal, but way too expensive when you consider the distances that need to be covered. Besides all the light rail lines are partially grade separated with either aerial or underground stations. Frequencies will be improved and eventually signal prioritization will be implemented and that will help a lot. And we have great weather most of the year so light rail suits us being outdoors.
There's an old Pacific Electric right-of-way diagonal across Long Beach to Seal Beach. It used to be fully grade separated in 1920. They should do that as a spur of the A line.
Yeah I think this one could work super well with a BRT line to connect the "triangle", and could serve a lot of Long Beach quite well if feeder bus service is good enough. Unfortunately east Long Beach has little motivation to densify itself and would likely oppose a rail project like this. We can dream though...
That's the old Balboa Beach line. In Pacific Electric days, there was so little car traffic that travel from Balboa Pier to DTLA was faster than trying to drive there now. Plus old P.E. went straight north to 6th and Main rather than turn west onto Washington like the A line today. That area is too affluent to want transit, and ironically, one reason is that so much of the old P.E. route is a linear park that raises property values.
They should use ALL of the old Pacific Electric ROW that still exists mostly unobstructed.
I think just maybe a NYC Subway style system should be constructed or maybe compare it to S-Bahn in Germany by adding branches in suburbs and core trunk lines in Downtown, West Side, Santa Monica Mountains, and other dense places