@@fresagrus4490 Correction “Streetcars.” But these street cars also had their own right of way outside of downtown, so not really comparing apples with oranges.
@@banksrail Trams are exactly the same thing as "streetcars" in any other english dialect and in fact most other european languages too. It is not enough that americans are completely ignorant about the rest of the world, they need to brag about it. "Streetcars" and BRT are not mass transit. Period.
@@fresagrus4490 Thanks for explaining that to me, Sherlock. I was simply stating that trams are a loosely based term for both light rail and streetcars. I was clarifying which ones they actually were. Also, BRT doesn’t classify as mass transit? Have you seen Bogotá? Talk about ignorant.
You can take some solace knowing that the system we have today of LRT and BRT lines is essentially as large as the proposed system in 1948, which was the last time a proposal was put forward to save some semblance of the PE system.
@@armorpro573 They realized it decades ago. The issue if matching federal funding and political will to make it happen. The residents of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County have voted several times to tax themselves in order to build public transit light rail and subway. However, what we also need are many more dedicated bus lanes that can compliment our rail lines.
@@armorpro573 That's a short term myopic view. Cities with good public rail transit have 100 year head start on us. Do you really think Paris, NY, Tokyo built their current systems in 20-30 years? Not so much. And with every year that passes, the public rail transit system sucks less in L.A. It's going in the right direction and that is what matters.
@@armorpro573 Severe lack of public transit is ridiculous. Yes, our public transit system is not as comprehensive as other major cities, but I already mentioned partly why that is. Second, LA built a ton of freeways during the 40s, 50s, 60s as the city was growing and the automobile was also one of the newest transit technologies beginning to become more affordable to the masses. Much of those freeways were not paid for by LA, but the federal government as part of a nationwide program. The last freeway built in LA was in 1993 and the first Metro light rail line opened in 1990. The Metro system has been expanding ever since. LA has built more public transit rail than any other city in the USA since the 1990s. The commitment of the city, county, and residents has been there since the 90s. Again, it's going to take time. The start of the current Metro system is 1990s not 1900s like in Paris and NY. And just to reiterate, LA NEVER had a subway system. It had one tunnel into DTLA that carried what we would consider today to be a light rail car. LA's Yellow and Red Cars were at-grade systems and only the regional Red Car had dedicated routes. The Yellow Car had to share the street with the ever increasing popularity of the car. The Yellow Car system was mostly concentrated in DTLA. The transit history of LA is very different to other major cities with current comprehensive systems. Let's see where things stand in LA in the 2090s.
Same thing happened to Houston. We had a good transit system for our size, however after wwii it all went to hell. Local politicians have been voting against granting Metro money to expand the already small light rail and bus lines but who knows if that will change
And now Texas Central is building an HSR line between Houston and Dallas, both of which lack sufficient public transit infrastructure and are car oriented hellholes. I don't know how this is gonna work...
@@Androfier Unfortunately, Texas Central is already fighting an uphill battle with NIMBY organizations. I wish them well, but it's privately funded and I'm not sure that scheme is going to work because this project requires brand new dedicated track which is similar to what CA is doing with their HSR project.
@@tntmaster1104 Yes. Also, the route of the Expo (E) Line is much (but not all) of what used to be the Santa Monica Air Line. In addition, Metro is planning to revitalize a portion of the old Los Angeles-Bellflower-Santa Ana line for a new rail project. Its nice seeing some of these old alignments coming back.
The problem of destruction of transit network is not just confined to availability of transit services itself -- As the result, urban planning in US have been failed, especially the sprawl of low-density residential area. That is the real problem of LA and even most of US cities. Under this urban planning, reconstructing and reviving public transit network is too costly but also much less effective, in contrast to West European and East Asian cities which are developed transit-oriented and high-density areas.
That’s what happens when you tax one competitor (rail) and subsidize another (road). Really, if the roads were paid for by the people who drive on them then I suspect that we’d probably view the automobile as a convenience for longer, family travel, rather than as a commuter vehicle. That being said, it is much easier to haul kids around in a car than on a train or trolley bus
@@hughmungusbungusfungus4618 For the PE and LARy, at least at the time, outside of the normal taxes the company was also used as a road paver for the streets they operated over. It was built into their franchises to run over city streets that they were also responsible for any and all road maintenance on said streets. The PE and LARy did have fierce competition from autos and newer bus companies, but were also bogged down by the maintenance requirements of their franchises and a lack of investment in the infrastructure and rolling stock. The two companies were famous (to the detriment of the locals), of having cars running over the system that were 30 to 40 years old by the late 40's with the cars of the PE looking much worse for wear as the decades inched on. In reality by the 20's and 30's, some kind of municipal investment needed to occur in order to save some semblance of rail service in LA, but unfortunately that was not to be.
@@AdamFaruqi They were yes, but for a while the PE operated a system that catered to every major city on its system instead of it being a hub and spoke model just for LA. For cities like Long Beach, San Pedro, Pasadena, San Bernardino, and Santa Monica the PE operated a fairly dense local streetcar network in conjunction with its larger interurbans. But once automobiles began to gain popularity, the suburbs grew far beyond the extent of the original PE system, which when coupled with the PE's retraction in service, lead to a reliance more and more on cars and a reliance on buses.
Most of the Santa Monica Air Line, San Fernando Line, Long Beach line, Santa Ana Line and San Bernardino Line continued after Pacific Electric as Southern Pacific lines. That's why LA Metro could use them for LRT and BRT. Nearly all of the Metrolink San Bernardino Line is the former Pacific Electric San Bernardino Line. The southbound lanes of Huntington Blvd are the former Pasadena Short Line; the LRT uses the former Santa Fe passenger line through Pasadena instead.
When LA started it's subway system and it flooded, I'm not gonna lie: I laughed. I'd lived in NYC and the bedrock is closer to ground level than in SoCal. As a native of San Diego I thought LA was trying too hard. But, damn it, LA was persistent and you know what? I'm sincerely blown away. I moved to LA in 2019 when I went back to school and I'm stunned by how fantastic transportation has become here. I'm excited to see the next 30 years of development and I'm embarrassed I ever doubted it.
Cities older than a hundred years old are lucky because systems are built into their networks. With LA being as young as the mid half century, no wonder they don't really want to expand
@@armorpro573 On the contrary, LA has built more Metro rail than any other city in the last 20 years. And that is mostly due to residents voting to tax themselves multiple times to fund these transit projects.
You mean the gas pockets that swallowed part of Hollywood Blvd. close to Vermont Ave.? It wasn’t that it got flooded, it was methane pockets. The Bain was rich in oil once.
I think to make this map a little more comprehensive, you should include Metrolink. It performs a similar function as the Red Cars (but not Yellow Cars) did, providing service outside Los Angeles' core, and covers much of the same areas (and even goes places the Red Cars never did, like Lancaster, Ventura, and Perris).
The red car system was just the coolest thing ever. I would love to be able to take a tram from San Bernadino through downtown and up to the valley or down to Anaheim. It just boggles my mind.
This video was great. The history of the Los Angeles subway is very interesting. I am looking forward to the future development. If you like, I want you to make an animation for expanding the subway in Osaka,Japan.😉
There is a huge misnomer about the old LA transit system with Yellow and Red cars. It wasn't a subway system. There was one line that went underground for a short distance in DTLA, but it wasn't a true subway. It would be more comparable to what we now consider a light rail system. It was all above ground except for that short tunnel in DTLA.
Hey, my dear friend, if you can make the evolution of the Mexico City subway, which was inaugurated in 1969 and which to date has 12 lines and 195 stations. Greetings from Mexico 🇲🇽.
Line D looks pathetically short for a subway line in such a big city. In the future though, it will be somewhat longer at least. Hope the city's public transport network gets continuously better!
NiMBYs... Thats the reason why Wilshire Boulevard has long been under-served BUT low & behold, traffic become an even bigger issue, now rapid transit is needed.
The D line is FINALLY being extended out to the Santa Monica line due to all the traffic along Wilshire Blvd. Hopefully it will extend further to Santa Monica center.
They were going to build one single line from Union Station to North Hollywood through Fairfax but a methan gas explosion next to some store in Fairfax made them prohibit tunneling in ”danger zones”, which meant the line to Hollywood couldn’t run through there and was rerouted to the east. I suppose they had already built part of the line they at first had planned and just decided to open that anyway. Or they decided to only build the subway until the border to the ”danger zone”. I’m not sure. What i know is that the line still doubles the frequency through downtown LA as well as adding some (But not a lot) more coverage in Koreatown. The line is still mostly utilized as additional service in Downtown LA and the section between Wilshire/Vermont and Wilshire/Western has low ridership.
As much as the system is being revived, it's important to consider that simply having lot's of lines and tracks doesn't make a good system. In order for this metro system to be useful, it needs to build transit hubs and TOD's at stations, in order to make it possible to get to and from stations. That means that there's a lot of work to be done to make a dense, functioning public transit system that is properly connected. Simply building metro lines won't do much is there aren't proper transit hubs and connections between metro, buses and car- and bikesharing.
I mean most stations are already served by buses and some bus lines predate these stations. Many of the areas served by these are also popular destinations be it downtown, Santa Monica Pasadena, Burbank, or Long Beach which are already also locally walkable. I have noticed too that developers have been building dense 5 plus story housing developments around new transit stations.
Note that San Diego, North County, and the Inland Empire also have light rail that connects to the LA lines through Pamona and Orange County. You can go from rail from Escondido, to Oceanside, Through Orange County through to Corona, Rivers, and San Bernardino. Once the link between San Bernardino and Pamona is re-established you'll have a full circuit.
I wish someone would make a video discussing the downfall of the Pacific Electric and LA Railway. The history is so convoluted and involves so many backdoor deals and political scheming that even a surface level analysis would be at least an hour long.
Yay for regression! Seems like a railways was the way for every person to get around back in the day, now the rail only goes to affluent areas. Big surprise!
Do : 1) Hong Kong MTR 2) Osaka Subway 3) Seoul Metro 4) Guangzhou Subway 5) Shanghai Metro 6) Shenzhen MTR 7) Kuala Lumpur Integrated Transit System 8) Singapore MRT & LRT 9) Moscow Metro 10) Chicago L
The other thing is you have to remember is that the more cars they had on the roads the more they had to build the infrastructure of Southern California so it would literally take less time and it was more efficient at that time to hop in your car and drive somewhere because it was less crowded Prior to the boom of 1950s with the massive infrastructure of the entire country the bulk of the roads were unpaved they were dirt and during the rainy seasons they were in horrible shape Because of that rail transit that was
It was a different era. From the 50s-80s, congested dense urban centers were declining in popularity to live, and by the 70s work as well, as office parks arose in the suburbs. The construction of highways by the federal government in the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. spurred suburban housing development on the outskirts of cities with affordable single family homes all around the country. This and the rise of the automobile led to decline of public transit use and construction. Most public rail transit lines on the east coast were built well before this period in the early 1900s when most people still lived in dense urban cores. However in these cities with great public rail transit, like NYC, Philadelphia, etc. became decrepit, dangerous, and trashed by the 70s. There was no allure or need to build more public rail transit from urban to suburban centers. (It also didn't help that white flight from downtowns to the suburbs left a hole of money, political will, and businesses). Simply put public rail transit was not a priority nationwide after the 1950s, and this was the period when LA mostly grew into the major metropolis it became. It's only fairly recently in the late 90s that urban gentrification helped spur the popularity of public rail transit again.
think of the LA trains as like, really fast buses. if you use the trains by themselves, theyre more or less useless unless you have a very specific destination. the buses will take you pretty much everywhere, and sometimes u get the luxury of having the really fast bus (the train)
Nonsense. LA traffic is terrible. But LA also became one of the most fascinating, culturally rich and creatively influential cities on earth. Mobility is a disadvantage though, but that’s one aspect in the scheme of things. There’s not doubt LA is one of the world’s most important cities.
The Pacific Electric began to close unprofitable lines as early as 1918. And this wasn’t just Los Angeles. Cars became the #1 transportation choice for Americans by the 1920’s
6:07 You kinda got that one wrong. The Regional Connector opens two weeks from this Friday (June 16, 2023). It was pushed back because of delays and train testing. Also, the E Line will color scheme will be changed from aqua to yellow.
For Norwalk, the city sued to stop it. I can see why-extending it would have required tearing down a very large part of the city. For LAX, the transportation board member who had LAX in his district was against it at the time. The new K Line, combined with the LAX People Mover, fixes the problem, 30 years later. The exact routings for the K and the G Lines aren't set yet.
Everyone's saying that LA needs more transit lines. But I have a better idea. Why not clear the entire LA basin, and make it a national park? The area seems like a pretty place, but the city itself isn't.
While it could be appropriate to show the Metro Orange (G) Line since it a bus that operates on a dedicated roadway (former rail ROW), the listing of the Silver (J) Line is not appropriate as it is an express bus service that uses HOV lanes. If that was the case, perhaps the Foothill Transit Silver Streak should have also been included. I would have also included the Metrolink commuter rail system.
Los Angeles Metro Line A (1990) Subway Line B (1993) Subway Line C (1995) Light Rail Line D (2006) Subway Line E (2012) Light Rail Line G (2005) BRT Line J (2009) BRT Line K (2022) Light Rail Line L (2003-2022) Light Rail Other Lines LAX APM (2023)
That's crazy. From 1963 to 1990, there was literally Zero light rail/subway lines in the nations 2nd largest city! While Los Angeles literally dissolved their rail line infrastructure for the future of automobiles, they should've never got rid of rail lines where Metro Rail exist today. Meanwhile, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, and San Diego all kept their rail lines as backup just in case this "automobile craze" suddenly falls through. And they succeeded, whereas L.A had to literally start from scratch 😕
True. Makes it all the more impressive that LA has now built more than 100 stations and 115 miles of track in 30 years, considering the challenge building infrastructure has become since the 80s.
When the Red car lines were built they were all on right of way outside of today’s downtown LA area. Once an area next to a line became even slightly built up, the right of way would usually be taken over for a boulevard, and that line would become a streetcar. There were some exceptions, the most notable examples were the Glendale-Burbank line between Echo Park and Glendale, the two branches west from Vineyard junction, and the Northern district and Southern District main lines. These were all only line segments on lines with a lot of street running as well, though.
@@transitmallproductions1063 Also the downtown to Beverly Hills Red Car. It absolutely crawled down the Santa Monica Boulevard section in Hollywood along its route, then once again entered a dedicated right-of-way beyond West Hollywood.
This one is a bit weird. It feels like trying to make the LA public transport less pathetic than it is. It includes even bus lines, and planned extensions until like 2030. Even so it leaves Los Angeles with less real metro standard rails than Rio de Janeiro. Truly awful.
Dude, if you have ever looked into LA, its a miracle that we have the system we have today. The region is such a political mess that its remarkable that we have been able to build the lines we have today. During the entirety of the LA Metro rebirth, its been a fight with neighborhood HOA's, battles over semantics of the EIR (environmental review) process, battles between political leaders over where things get built and how, battles to get funding, battles to even justify transit of any kind. There have been so many court battles, political power grabs, neighborhood infighting, and even transit rider infighting, that the fact that anything gets built is a miracle.
It’s Really depressing to see a Extremely Useful Method of Public Transportation Fading away with a horrible Rapid Transit System on The Rise ESPECIALLY When the city had its population boom
May I suggest some changes. The El Monte Busway was created in the 1970s and should be included in that era. It predates silver line service Silver streak service by Foothill Transit should be noted Metrolink should be noted OC Streetcar should be added San Pedro Red Car should be added And that thing being build in San Bernardino too.
What's being built in San Bernardino? I heard the Brightline to Las Vegas won't come closer than Apple Valley or Victorville. If you have to drive that far, you might as well drive the rest of the way!
Wow how painful to watch everything getting removed. It's so sad. LA is slowly getting better, but it will be like 50 years to get ot it's fromer glory.
Given the insane monetary cost and length of construction in the US (especially in California), one has to commit the entire national GDP to Greater LA transit expansions in order to get to the 1920s levels of coverage and frequency. The former glory is long gone and nothing will come close to matching it in our lifetime. Sad, but also quite pathetic.
@@ramzanninety-five3639 Well you can still hope. Lucky I'm not from LA but live in Europe. I have 3 Lightrail stations ,1 tram and 5 bus stop within 2/3 of a mile or less. Served by 4 light-rail lines 3 bus lines and 1 tram line. The most I can complain about transit is the headway of "only" 15 minutes on one of the 3 the buslines.
@@ramzanninety-five3639 Peak transit LA were all trams that slowly got removed as the city became more car centric, now that more and people are using transit rather than cars (or if they don’t choose to use electric cars) to reduce carbon emissions due to climate change, transit systems will need to improve and expand their systems with possibly with buses and more trams (subway trains too maybe but they’re probably more expensive to build subways so who knows) to respond to this domain and as long as we got leaders like Biden determine to this domain to fight climate change This is why I hate seeing pessimistic comments like yours
It's worth noting that the present light rail lines are faster and much higher-capacity than the old Red Car lines. Those had many single-tracked segments and awkward intersection crossings. It's also worth noting that LA has built over 200 km (125 mi) of subway and light rail since 1990. By comparison, Toronto has only built 80 km (50 mi) since 1954.
And LA will continue to build for the foreseeable future because the residents of LA voted to increase sales taxes for 30 years to build public transit lines.
@@inglewoodea3149 Agreed, but it's about funding. Without significant help from the federal government, even the state with the largest economy of any USA, still doesn't have the immediate funds to build transit any faster. Europe and Asia build stuff faster because their public transit is mostly funded by their national governments. Huge difference. The USA has done it before with the intercontinental railway project and the national highway project. Biden has proposed more funding for public transit in decades but that is still not enough to permeate down to local city public transit funding all across the country, but it's an improvement nonetheless.
LA: ‘we want trains’ USA: ‘I think you mean highways’ LA: ‘no we mean trains’ USA: ‘I don’t know about you but, communal transport for multiple people sound pretty commie’
We haven't. Some cities serve counties that are only for making money. Atlanta is a perfect example. Most services serve north metro Atlanta, while the south is a transit desert.
As said by Anthony, it really depends on where you are. LA, public transit wise is a desert, as you have seen in the video. And being an LA native and resident, I can say that everyone wants more public transit. But, our politicians have better ideas, like getting rid of their fire and police departments and buying multi-million dollar estates in Hollywood, and hiding where the money vanishes to. But, everyone I know would love to have better public transit. Anything to cut that 20 mile 3-4 hour commute
It would be helpful if you could include Metrolink, LA’s regional commuter train lines, coming in from Orange and Ventura Counties, and the Inland Empire. This is an important (and often) overlooked aspect of LA’s regional transit system
@@MonarchACE7 Still, it is the modern version of the Red Cars. If you include Red Cars in the historical map, you should include Metrolink on the modern map, and maybe even Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner, which provides extra service along the LOSSAN corridor that several Metrolink routes use.
@@Geotpf are you conform? It’s why LA will never be like SF, Chicago or many East coast cities like NYC. Many people conforming to either driving or Uber/Lyft.
@@MonarchACE7LA Metro rail alone (not including Metrolink rail), already surpassed San Francisco in daily and annual ridership in 2023. And LA Metro and Metrolink rail combined already forms the 3rd most extensive public rail network in the U.S. behind NYC and Chicago. Aside from that, there's a lot of ongoing construction and plans on the board.
I don’t think anyone here appreciates the bright future LA has with all this investment in rail. Or how LA resurrected itself from 0 to a somewhat decent rail infrastructure in only 30 years. I also don’t think people realize the original red car system were trams, and probably would still be slower than car traffic in LA, and still require hundreds of billions in upgrades. If they keep expanding at this speed, at around 30 years (which is not a long time!) and densify housing around transit hubs, LA will likely have an easy network for most residents to use. Transit is an ever evolving process. It doesn’t just “finish” for you to use. Cities will always find new problems with the current times and will evolve, adapt and expand long after everyone is dead 10 times over. Instead of “hoping” for it to “complete” (which is a ridiculous notion that they are ever at any time complete), just use what’s already there and don’t be afraid to take advantage of the current services which is better than most people think, because a lot of those complaining have likely never even tried using it.
@@armorpro573Not sure what glory you mean. Yes, LA, was bucolic up until the 1980s. But into 2023 LA had the 3rd largest metro GDP globally behind Tokyo and NYC. That's a lot of industry and business happening in the area every year until 2023.
@@armorpro573 The streetcars though were slower and most had no grade separations. The current system being built is overall faster, more modern, and has more grade separation although still imperfect.
They are but the problem is that the metro board is made up of people who don’t use the train at all and other stupid things. Hopefully the expansions succeed because the 405 is getting more clogged.
Look, most of America loves to talk about LA being a third world unlivable shithole, but it really does have a lot of potential to be nice and a lot of anti-LA talk is largely just because it's fun to talk bad about big stuff. But LA would be a far less awful place if it didn't sprawl out so bad. Look at it on a map, compared to denser cites, and think of all that environmental destruction alone. Now, think about how much it cost to maintain. Same issue in Detroit, Detroit is almost the same physical size as New York with 1/8th the population, thus it's too expensive to take care of. LA is going down that road and, in 20 years when Houston or Miami become too populist to be propped up by oligarchs they'll have all the same problems.
@@gbalph4 LA has been shifting to infill instead of sprawl for decades- there are lots of areas here that were completely suburban in 1950 and are now as dense as central San Fransisco. The problem of unsustainable growth is looming, but at least when population starts to shrink, we have a real city hidden amidst the sprawl to work with already. Other cities you mentioned are much farther behind but I think it’ll happen there too.
@@transitmallproductions1063 also LA has become much quicker much earlier to the point where it was going by old, rail based sprawl right before said type of development declined, which is why LA at least has dense urban centers.
What is not included is the commuter rail system called Metrolink. I'm not saying it's an amazing commuter rail system, but, it really does fill in a lot east and north sections missing. If the County and region can speed up grade separation and double track, plus create the main train station loop, along with infill stations, then metrolink can be more effective. You can have trains every 15 minutes or less through inner sections like Burbank to downtown LA or Anaheim to downtown LA. Currently there is commuter based frequency where every 30 trains in morning to downtown and then every hour or more, then reverse around 3pm back to suburbs. Often last trains are 7 or 8pm. 15 minutes would be great or 30 minutes from morning to late night.
Well done. Thank you. Unless I'm mistaken though, (and I very well may be) The early 20th century lines shown include heavy rail local passenger service, whereas the modern systems are only showing light rail. LA and surrounding counties currently have an extensive network of heavy rail passenger service (Metrolink) that connects with Metro Rail.
I think Pacific Electric were considered streetcars, but on their own right-of-way, which is essentially the same as today's light rail. This video does not show commuter rail.
@@nonenoneonenonenone Correct, Southern Pacific, Santa Fe, and a subsidiary of Union Pacific all had "real" railroads in the LA metropolitan area, and those are not included on this map. Which is correct, since their main use was - and is - freight transportation, and that with the exception of the lines to San Bernardino and San Diego and one or two more they lost local passenger traffic early, in many cases already in the 1920s. Basically in terms of local passenger traffic railroads first built in the 1800s eventually couldn't compete with Pacific Electric, then PE couldn't compete with buses and cars.
@@mateuszmattias True, but in many cases, especially with the Yellow Cars, they had to share the street with the increasing number of cars. The Yellow Cars didn't have dedicated lanes like the light rail lines do today in LA. The Red Cars are the ones that had more of the dedicated ROWs and several of those have been repurposed for light rail like the Expo Line which I believe was the old Santa Monica Blvd Red Car line.
Kudos to our rail history! We once had the best interurban rail transit system in the country--if not in the world for its basis, at the time! Fast forward to the present. The Pacific Electric interurban system is long gone. Is there still commuter rail in SoCal? Well, yes--but there is no future for such beyond its current rudimentary capacity. The current oversight--and I say that in name only--forgives all transgressions of contractors when they fail to keep up with their schedule in constructing modest improvements to such. Consider the so-called "regional connector" in downtown L.A. It has a modest course of less than two miles, with an agreed contract to provide three new stations over the course of such. It has been under contract to provide such for over ten years--yet is at this point only about 75% complete. The "oversight" board--consisting largely of L.A. county supervisors, which generally escape public scrutiny in spite of having a bigger budget than 75% of American states--have done nothing to hold them accountable. Instead, they provided millions of dollars of extra "incentives" for the contractor to "accelerate" construction, in spite of their being behind by several years relative to their initial completion commitments. In spite of such "incentives", the contractor has yet again fallen behind schedule. Well, why not? The whole project--as well as other local commuter rail construction projects--are never held accountable in local media. Do they figure they have a free ride to perpetually delay construction as prices for construction materials increase, with possible kickbacks to construction contractors for doing so? Possibly or possibly not---but again, without scrutiny, who can say? I was once a rail construction advocate. Under current construction circumstances I've done a 180. I urge all to vote against future rail funding unless the whole accountability structure--or lack thereof--is radically revised, with a new oversight agency with stiff penalties for failure to hold contactors to their agreed-upon schedules.
Sad seeing the 4-decade decline of the prior private rail and streetcar networks. Hopefully LA can complete these upcoming projects by 2028, in time to host their Olympic Games.
If they don't, I think they will be missing out on quite a few tourists. Since public transit there is trash compared to what it was in the very early 1900s, I think a lot of people will be deterred by the fact that they are FORCED to use a car. Since overseas tourists likely don't own a car in the US, they will probably default to car rentals, which are not that great.
@@williamhuang8309 The 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles was the most successful in history, and that's before LA even had an urban rail network like the one it will have in 2028. Even with the onslaught of tourists from all around the world, the LA area had no traffic problems nor did the freeways became clogged thanks to staggered commute times instituted during the three weeks of the 84 Olympics. The 2028 Games will be a cakewalk compared to 84.
@William Huang, even if they miss out on a lot of tourists, LA 2028 will still probably be the most successful Olympics in History. Every city loses money when hosting the Olympics or World Cup, even huge, big name cities like Tokyo, London, and Paris. The reason why LA will be more successful than all of those is because LA already has the infrastructure for every sporting event, as well as the infrastructure for the Olympic Village, and since this infrastructure already exists, this Olympics is guaranteed to be profitable, regardless of if the public transport system is finished in time or not (hopefully so though)
@@dynasty0019 they also didn't really allow driving into the venues in '84; everyone had to get on express buses that were set up all around the city. The same thing will happen in '24, except there will now be 140 miles of urban rail.
@@MatteoAllegri yeah that and the horrible crosswalk areas are just a nightmare. They should allow more biking and scooters and improve public transit.
@@Bohh574 You’re absolutely right, I was just saying that the trams are a gigantic portion of public transport in Milan, as they’ve been since the 1870s. Thinking about the improvement, it’s sad we didn’t start sooner...
It's sad how the Los Angeles area went backwards, then had nothing for decades until rail returned. Los Angeles still has many, many more decades of work until there is comprehensive rail transit. Maybe in a future video include the Metrolink network. While it's clunky commuter rail, it's still rail. Good video. I'm subscribing. :)
I lived in LA for three years and I dread having to go on the highway. If Los Angeles kept its trams like Boston or Philadelphia, maybe it would be a bit better.
@@armorpro573 No, because streetcars are only good if they are underground or on separate right of ways. Philadelphia's are slow, narrow and awkward. Boston's are not much better.
@@armorpro573 We call them freeways. Not sure how long ago you lived in LA, but the Metro is constantly increasing in scope. In fact, several new lines are coming online for the next several years starting with this year. Both the Crenshaw line and the Regional Connector in DTLA are set to open late this year.
The E Line (Expo) today after Regional Connector opening is carrying the gold color from the L Line. In this video, the E Line after RC opening still uses its original aqua blue color instead of its new gold color. The K Line on the other hand will extend to Redondo Beach by 2024, taking over the C (Green) Line's existing route to Redondo Beach. The C Line will get rerouted to LAX/Metro Transit Center station. Aviation/LAX station will get renamed to Aviation/Imperial station afterwards. The LA Metro board approved Option 2 of the C and K Line connection plan, which involves rerouting the C Line to LAX Airport and extending the K Line to Redondo Beach.
Sugestions for new videos 1⁰: Seoul 2⁰: Moscow [3⁰: Berlin DONE] 4⁰: Frankfurt 5⁰: Rio de Janeiro (supervia, VLT, BRT) 6⁰: St Petersburg 7⁰: Barcelona 8⁰: Buenos Aires 9⁰: Chicago 10⁰: Hong-Kong 11⁰: Lisbon 12⁰: Madrid 13⁰: Cidade de México 14⁰: Montreal 15⁰: Munich 16⁰: Osaka 17⁰: Oslo 18⁰: Santiago del Chile 19⁰: Shanghai 20⁰: Stockholm 21⁰: Vienna 22⁰: Milan 23⁰: Singapore
We need Saint Petersburg Metro. The Metro stations are like museums. They are works of art, truly beautiful. To be honest, I have never seen Moscow's Metro. I've only been to the airport in Moscow a few times, on my way to Saint Petersburg.
@@rickhernandez667 In both of these city's metro station's are soo beatifull, especially the newest station's, they look like some snow-white space station's))
If you want Moscow, Saint Petersburg and other Russian metros go to Metro Cucumber. It's a channel like this with other metros (expecially ex sovietic ones, but also Shanghai Guangzhou and Dubai)
I’ve done a lot of living since I moved to LA in April 2018. We rode the expo/red/purple/blue/ and green lines many times before COVID. I didn’t realize just How recent all the expansion is but I’ve also watch the construction of the purple line and LAX Crenshaw connector right before my very eyes. My hope for LA is that someday it’ll be a connected as NYC with subway stops on every other corner. I know it would’ve benefited us many times if we could’ve just walked to the street corner to get on the subway instead of walking to the Wilshire/Western Purple line station. To me subway is superior to busses because you get places faster. The big blue bus comes all the way over where we live near Pico/Arlington, country club park. We’ve taken the R7 blue bus all the way to Santa Monica before and it take about a full hour because busses have to stop all the time, even when they’re not picking up any passengers for some reason. It’s Annoying AF. Trains stop quickly then breeze on through. That’d be cool if one day LA was sophisticated as NYC and introduced express subway lines too.
Yes, LA has been constructing both subway and light rails lines for many years now and several new lines will be coming online almost every year for the next six years. LA Metro initiated a build program years ago so that these new lines would be operational before the 2028 Olympics. For example, the DTLA Regional Connector subway/light rail will open in late 2022 as will the Crenshaw Line. LA will never have a subway system as extensive as NYC because LA is very spread out compared to NYC. The distances are just too far and as such too expensive to build. However, because of our whether, light rail lines are a very good option for LA. What LA also needs are many more dedicated bus lines that would compliment our Metro system so both are well integrated.
You need buses to drive ridership on subways. It's not enough to just have high density development around each station. This is particularly an issue if you want suburban subways to have decent ridership--you must have good connecting buses. Where I live (Toronto), our subways have high ridership in relatively low density areas because of the strong bus network.
NYC and sophisticated in the same sentence are not exactly what springs to mind. Maybe at one time. It does have the most extensive public rail network of any city in the U.S. But that too has its issues (see the current condition of many of its stations. And worse if it rains).
Your videos are a lot of fun to watch for a urban rail transit buff like myself. I'd love to see you make videos about the systems in Chicago and Boston.
The current system is sad compared to the peak.
The peak was trams. Didn't like this one, it's comparing apples and Oranges
@@fresagrus4490 Correction “Streetcars.” But these street cars also had their own right of way outside of downtown, so not really comparing apples with oranges.
@@banksrail Trams are exactly the same thing as "streetcars" in any other english dialect and in fact most other european languages too.
It is not enough that americans are completely ignorant about the rest of the world, they need to brag about it.
"Streetcars" and BRT are not mass transit. Period.
@@fresagrus4490 Thanks for explaining that to me, Sherlock. I was simply stating that trams are a loosely based term for both light rail and streetcars. I was clarifying which ones they actually were. Also, BRT doesn’t classify as mass transit? Have you seen Bogotá? Talk about ignorant.
You can take some solace knowing that the system we have today of LRT and BRT lines is essentially as large as the proposed system in 1948, which was the last time a proposal was put forward to save some semblance of the PE system.
It's evolving, just backward...
Devo
😂
It’s gnivlove, just backwards.
I knew I find you there....
bus fanatics are nutting to this while nonbus fans are jumping off bridges
LA has gotten to the point where there's too many cars and roads that they *have* to build light rail to get anywhere. Truly remarkable.
@@armorpro573 They realized it decades ago. The issue if matching federal funding and political will to make it happen. The residents of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County have voted several times to tax themselves in order to build public transit light rail and subway. However, what we also need are many more dedicated bus lanes that can compliment our rail lines.
@@armorpro573 That's a short term myopic view. Cities with good public rail transit have 100 year head start on us. Do you really think Paris, NY, Tokyo built their current systems in 20-30 years? Not so much. And with every year that passes, the public rail transit system sucks less in L.A. It's going in the right direction and that is what matters.
@@armorpro573 Severe lack of public transit is ridiculous. Yes, our public transit system is not as comprehensive as other major cities, but I already mentioned partly why that is. Second, LA built a ton of freeways during the 40s, 50s, 60s as the city was growing and the automobile was also one of the newest transit technologies beginning to become more affordable to the masses. Much of those freeways were not paid for by LA, but the federal government as part of a nationwide program. The last freeway built in LA was in 1993 and the first Metro light rail line opened in 1990. The Metro system has been expanding ever since. LA has built more public transit rail than any other city in the USA since the 1990s. The commitment of the city, county, and residents has been there since the 90s. Again, it's going to take time.
The start of the current Metro system is 1990s not 1900s like in Paris and NY. And just to reiterate, LA NEVER had a subway system. It had one tunnel into DTLA that carried what we would consider today to be a light rail car. LA's Yellow and Red Cars were at-grade systems and only the regional Red Car had dedicated routes. The Yellow Car had to share the street with the ever increasing popularity of the car. The Yellow Car system was mostly concentrated in DTLA.
The transit history of LA is very different to other major cities with current comprehensive systems. Let's see where things stand in LA in the 2090s.
@@armorpro573 did you?
is this a weird bit what what does this even mean
Same thing happened to Houston. We had a good transit system for our size, however after wwii it all went to hell. Local politicians have been voting against granting Metro money to expand the already small light rail and bus lines but who knows if that will change
And now Texas Central is building an HSR line between Houston and Dallas, both of which lack sufficient public transit infrastructure and are car oriented hellholes. I don't know how this is gonna work...
@@Androfier Unfortunately, Texas Central is already fighting an uphill battle with NIMBY organizations. I wish them well, but it's privately funded and I'm not sure that scheme is going to work because this project requires brand new dedicated track which is similar to what CA is doing with their HSR project.
Learn from loss Angeles mistake an ensure Express rail service along local rail service like nyc
Let's Gooooooo!!!!!!!
Also the last Pacific Electric line that closed in 1961 was exactly the same route that the Metro A line Blue has today
Most of our at/above grade lines are on former Pacific Electric ROWs.
@@AdamFaruqi correct
Almost the same route.. the routing in Downtown Los Angeles and in Long Beach (loop) are different.
@@MichelleBradley yeah that's the only difference but rest is the same as the old Pacific Electric route
@@tntmaster1104 Yes. Also, the route of the Expo (E) Line is much (but not all) of what used to be the Santa Monica Air Line. In addition, Metro is planning to revitalize a portion of the old Los Angeles-Bellflower-Santa Ana line for a new rail project. Its nice seeing some of these old alignments coming back.
The problem of destruction of transit network is not just confined to availability of transit services itself -- As the result, urban planning in US have been failed, especially the sprawl of low-density residential area. That is the real problem of LA and even most of US cities. Under this urban planning, reconstructing and reviving public transit network is too costly but also much less effective, in contrast to West European and East Asian cities which are developed transit-oriented and high-density areas.
public transportation is what you are searching for. Transit: the carrying of people or things from one place to another.
That’s what happens when you tax one competitor (rail) and subsidize another (road). Really, if the roads were paid for by the people who drive on them then I suspect that we’d probably view the automobile as a convenience for longer, family travel, rather than as a commuter vehicle. That being said, it is much easier to haul kids around in a car than on a train or trolley bus
@@hughmungusbungusfungus4618 For the PE and LARy, at least at the time, outside of the normal taxes the company was also used as a road paver for the streets they operated over. It was built into their franchises to run over city streets that they were also responsible for any and all road maintenance on said streets. The PE and LARy did have fierce competition from autos and newer bus companies, but were also bogged down by the maintenance requirements of their franchises and a lack of investment in the infrastructure and rolling stock. The two companies were famous (to the detriment of the locals), of having cars running over the system that were 30 to 40 years old by the late 40's with the cars of the PE looking much worse for wear as the decades inched on. In reality by the 20's and 30's, some kind of municipal investment needed to occur in order to save some semblance of rail service in LA, but unfortunately that was not to be.
But the LA sprawl was directly caused by the spread of the streetcars, not automobiles.
@@AdamFaruqi They were yes, but for a while the PE operated a system that catered to every major city on its system instead of it being a hub and spoke model just for LA. For cities like Long Beach, San Pedro, Pasadena, San Bernardino, and Santa Monica the PE operated a fairly dense local streetcar network in conjunction with its larger interurbans. But once automobiles began to gain popularity, the suburbs grew far beyond the extent of the original PE system, which when coupled with the PE's retraction in service, lead to a reliance more and more on cars and a reliance on buses.
Most of the Santa Monica Air Line, San Fernando Line, Long Beach line, Santa Ana Line and San Bernardino Line continued after Pacific Electric as Southern Pacific lines. That's why LA Metro could use them for LRT and BRT. Nearly all of the Metrolink San Bernardino Line is the former Pacific Electric San Bernardino Line. The southbound lanes of Huntington Blvd are the former Pasadena Short Line; the LRT uses the former Santa Fe passenger line through Pasadena instead.
When LA started it's subway system and it flooded, I'm not gonna lie: I laughed. I'd lived in NYC and the bedrock is closer to ground level than in SoCal.
As a native of San Diego I thought LA was trying too hard. But, damn it, LA was persistent and you know what? I'm sincerely blown away.
I moved to LA in 2019 when I went back to school and I'm stunned by how fantastic transportation has become here. I'm excited to see the next 30 years of development and I'm embarrassed I ever doubted it.
I agree. A lot of lines coming online in the years before the 2028 Olympics. A couple in late 2022, Crenshaw line and DTLA Regional Connector.
Cities older than a hundred years old are lucky because systems are built into their networks. With LA being as young as the mid half century, no wonder they don't really want to expand
@@armorpro573 On the contrary, LA has built more Metro rail than any other city in the last 20 years. And that is mostly due to residents voting to tax themselves multiple times to fund these transit projects.
I don't remember the Los Angeles subway ever flooding. If it did it must have been a minor incident years ago.
You mean the gas pockets that swallowed part of Hollywood Blvd. close to Vermont Ave.? It wasn’t that it got flooded, it was methane pockets. The Bain was rich in oil once.
6:09 Actually the expo line will change it's line color from Aqua to Gold.
Starting in 1900? Boss move. Legendary move, my good man. You go, you!
I think to make this map a little more comprehensive, you should include Metrolink. It performs a similar function as the Red Cars (but not Yellow Cars) did, providing service outside Los Angeles' core, and covers much of the same areas (and even goes places the Red Cars never did, like Lancaster, Ventura, and Perris).
The red car system was just the coolest thing ever. I would love to be able to take a tram from San Bernadino through downtown and up to the valley or down to Anaheim. It just boggles my mind.
This video was great. The history of the Los Angeles subway is very interesting. I am looking forward to the future development.
If you like, I want you to make an animation for expanding the subway in Osaka,Japan.😉
There is a huge misnomer about the old LA transit system with Yellow and Red cars. It wasn't a subway system. There was one line that went underground for a short distance in DTLA, but it wasn't a true subway. It would be more comparable to what we now consider a light rail system. It was all above ground except for that short tunnel in DTLA.
Would love to see such animation for the tram-train system here in Karlsruhe as they finish the tunnels this year.
Haha Scheiss auf Karlsruhe, dann ja sogar lieber noch Stuttgart.
Hey, my dear friend, if you can make the evolution of the Mexico City subway, which was inaugurated in 1969 and which to date has 12 lines and 195 stations. Greetings from Mexico 🇲🇽.
also very impressive what CDMX accomplished
Line D looks pathetically short for a subway line in such a big city. In the future though, it will be somewhat longer at least. Hope the city's public transport network gets continuously better!
NiMBYs... Thats the reason why Wilshire Boulevard has long been under-served BUT low & behold, traffic become an even bigger issue, now rapid transit is needed.
The D line is FINALLY being extended out to the Santa Monica line due to all the traffic along Wilshire Blvd. Hopefully it will extend further to Santa Monica center.
It's not that short at all. It's about 14 miles.
They were going to build
one single line from Union Station to North Hollywood through Fairfax but a methan gas explosion next to some store in Fairfax made them prohibit tunneling in ”danger zones”, which meant the line to Hollywood couldn’t run through there and was rerouted to the east. I suppose they had already built part of the line they at first had planned and just decided to open that anyway. Or they decided to only build the subway until the border to the ”danger zone”. I’m not sure. What i know is that the line still doubles the frequency through downtown LA as well as adding some (But not a lot) more coverage in Koreatown. The line is still mostly utilized as additional service in Downtown LA and the section between Wilshire/Vermont and Wilshire/Western has low ridership.
I would like to see the evolution of metro in San Francisco so we can see it in comparison to LA.
As much as the system is being revived, it's important to consider that simply having lot's of lines and tracks doesn't make a good system.
In order for this metro system to be useful, it needs to build transit hubs and TOD's at stations, in order to make it possible to get to and from stations.
That means that there's a lot of work to be done to make a dense, functioning public transit system that is properly connected.
Simply building metro lines won't do much is there aren't proper transit hubs and connections between metro, buses and car- and bikesharing.
I mean most stations are already served by buses and some bus lines predate these stations.
Many of the areas served by these are also popular destinations be it downtown, Santa Monica Pasadena, Burbank, or Long Beach which are already also locally walkable.
I have noticed too that developers have been building dense 5 plus story housing developments around new transit stations.
Metro Liner: *uses kilometres and not miles*
People who actually live in LA: *visible confusion*
You mean I don’t need to go on the 101 or the 10 to go places?
Would love to see Portland, Oregon sometime! Similar story to Los Angeles.
Note that San Diego, North County, and the Inland Empire also have light rail that connects to the LA lines through Pamona and Orange County. You can go from rail from Escondido, to Oceanside, Through Orange County through to Corona, Rivers, and San Bernardino.
Once the link between San Bernardino and Pamona is re-established you'll have a full circuit.
Interesting ...
Could you expand on this subject a little? I'm very interested, if you don't mind.
Boy and here I was thinking the cutbacks in *Boston's* history were heartbreaking...
I wish someone would make a video discussing the downfall of the Pacific Electric and LA Railway. The history is so convoluted and involves so many backdoor deals and political scheming that even a surface level analysis would be at least an hour long.
There has. Just search it up on TH-cam.
Wasn't that the plot of, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"?
The decline began in 1918 … I get it. Americans love cars.
"I want 1910's America"
"Why? Because you like racism?"
"No, because I love r α ί l s "
Yay for regression! Seems like a railways was the way for every person to get around back in the day, now the rail only goes to affluent areas. Big surprise!
Do :
1) Hong Kong MTR
2) Osaka Subway
3) Seoul Metro
4) Guangzhou Subway
5) Shanghai Metro
6) Shenzhen MTR
7) Kuala Lumpur Integrated Transit System
8) Singapore MRT & LRT
9) Moscow Metro
10) Chicago L
The other thing is you have to remember is that the more cars they had on the roads the more they had to build the infrastructure of Southern California so it would literally take less time and it was more efficient at that time to hop in your car and drive somewhere because it was less crowded
Prior to the boom of 1950s with the massive infrastructure of the entire country the bulk of the roads were unpaved they were dirt and during the rainy seasons they were in horrible shape
Because of that rail transit that was
All your videos are great! What do you use to make them? And where do you get your info?
Its even better when you overlay metrolink onto it
It took only 7 years for them to regret the decision of removing the last rail lines. Short-sighted, indeed.
They should've saw this coming a long time ago
It was a different era.
From the 50s-80s, congested dense urban centers were declining in popularity to live, and by the 70s work as well, as office parks arose in the suburbs.
The construction of highways by the federal government in the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. spurred suburban housing development on the outskirts of cities with affordable single family homes all around the country. This and the rise of the automobile led to decline of public transit use and construction. Most public rail transit lines on the east coast were built well before this period in the early 1900s when most people still lived in dense urban cores.
However in these cities with great public rail transit, like NYC, Philadelphia, etc. became decrepit, dangerous, and trashed by the 70s. There was no allure or need to build more public rail transit from urban to suburban centers.
(It also didn't help that white flight from downtowns to the suburbs left a hole of money, political will, and businesses). Simply put public rail transit was not a priority nationwide after the 1950s, and this was the period when LA mostly grew into the major metropolis it became. It's only fairly recently in the late 90s that urban gentrification helped spur the popularity of public rail transit again.
think of the LA trains as like, really fast buses. if you use the trains by themselves, theyre more or less useless unless you have a very specific destination. the buses will take you pretty much everywhere, and sometimes u get the luxury of having the really fast bus (the train)
Should have included Metrolink in this too
It's technically light rail and not subway
@@armorpro573 huh Metrolink is Commuter Rail
@@travelsofmunch1476 You get what I mean
I HAVE NEVER CLICKED ON A VIDEO SO QUICKLY
Hey, can you do the BART system in the bay area?
Please do the Buenos Aires metro expansion (1913 - 2019)
The Regional Connector opened in 2023, behind schedule by a bit.
A perfect representation of how Los Angeles turned into the American urban nightmarescape it is now.
Nonsense. LA traffic is terrible. But LA also became one of the most fascinating, culturally rich and creatively influential cities on earth. Mobility is a disadvantage though, but that’s one aspect in the scheme of things. There’s not doubt LA is one of the world’s most important cities.
The Pacific Electric began to close unprofitable lines as early as 1918. And this wasn’t just Los Angeles. Cars became the #1 transportation choice for Americans by the 1920’s
THE GREEN LINE SOUTH NEEDS TO CONTENUE THROUGH TORRANCE TO LONG BEACH, all freeways need center montorails not just 105/10
6:07 You kinda got that one wrong. The Regional Connector opens two weeks from this Friday (June 16, 2023). It was pushed back because of delays and train testing.
Also, the E Line will color scheme will be changed from aqua to yellow.
Final rant: WHY IN THE WORLD does the Green Line not go from the Norwalk Amtrak station directly to LAX??
With Norwalk, just poor planning. With LAX, probably the cabbies' union.
For Norwalk, the city sued to stop it. I can see why-extending it would have required tearing down a very large part of the city.
For LAX, the transportation board member who had LAX in his district was against it at the time. The new K Line, combined with the LAX People Mover, fixes the problem, 30 years later. The exact routings for the K and the G Lines aren't set yet.
I'm watching this on a metro bus.
Everyone's saying that LA needs more transit lines. But I have a better idea. Why not clear the entire LA basin, and make it a national park? The area seems like a pretty place, but the city itself isn't.
Dude, that would be incredibly expensive to just raze a bunch of houses just to make a national park.
YESSSS!! Thank you!!
Great video! Can you make a video about stockholm sometime?
Hamburg Metro or Munich Metro
While it could be appropriate to show the Metro Orange (G) Line since it a bus that operates on a dedicated roadway (former rail ROW), the listing of the Silver (J) Line is not appropriate as it is an express bus service that uses HOV lanes. If that was the case, perhaps the Foothill Transit Silver Streak should have also been included. I would have also included the Metrolink commuter rail system.
Los Angeles Metro
Line A (1990) Subway
Line B (1993) Subway
Line C (1995) Light Rail
Line D (2006) Subway
Line E (2012) Light Rail
Line G (2005) BRT
Line J (2009) BRT
Line K (2022) Light Rail
Line L (2003-2022) Light Rail
Other Lines
LAX APM (2023)
You could do one of Amsterdam, maybe include the Tram network aswell since the metro system isn't super big
1900 was ahead of it time.
Awesome videos, do, please Barcelona Spain 🇪🇸 evolution metro, Thanks 🙏🏻
In the Philippines, most big cities copy the LA model for cars and highways.
Its like the blind leading the blind.
Man, most of that was just sad
Can you make a video on the Stockholm metro, the trams and commuter rail?
Damn. The elimination of lines in the 1950's is so depressing. Had much better connectivity comparted to today.
Expo Line to Santa Monica was also 2016, not 2017
Where do you get these maps
And Los Ángeles old Tramway system?
Hello, did you say expansion
Looks like a devolution
No more like a rebirth
That's crazy. From 1963 to 1990, there was literally Zero light rail/subway lines in the nations 2nd largest city! While Los Angeles literally dissolved their rail line infrastructure for the future of automobiles, they should've never got rid of rail lines where Metro Rail exist today. Meanwhile, San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento, and San Diego all kept their rail lines as backup just in case this "automobile craze" suddenly falls through. And they succeeded, whereas L.A had to literally start from scratch 😕
True. Makes it all the more impressive that LA has now built more than 100 stations and 115 miles of track in 30 years, considering the challenge building infrastructure has become since the 80s.
I’m curious: of the original red car lines, how many had their own ROW’s or at least reserved lanes/medians?
When the Red car lines were built they were all on right of way outside of today’s downtown LA area. Once an area next to a line became even slightly built up, the right of way would usually be taken over for a boulevard, and that line would become a streetcar. There were some exceptions, the most notable examples were the Glendale-Burbank line between Echo Park and Glendale, the two branches west from Vineyard junction, and the Northern district and Southern District main lines. These were all only line segments on lines with a lot of street running as well, though.
@@transitmallproductions1063 Also the downtown to Beverly Hills Red Car. It absolutely crawled down the Santa Monica Boulevard section in Hollywood along its route, then once again entered a dedicated right-of-way beyond West Hollywood.
What about the Green Line extension to Torrance?
Would you mind doing the history for Istanbul?
This one is a bit weird. It feels like trying to make the LA public transport less pathetic than it is. It includes even bus lines, and planned extensions until like 2030. Even so it leaves Los Angeles with less real metro standard rails than Rio de Janeiro. Truly awful.
Dude, if you have ever looked into LA, its a miracle that we have the system we have today. The region is such a political mess that its remarkable that we have been able to build the lines we have today. During the entirety of the LA Metro rebirth, its been a fight with neighborhood HOA's, battles over semantics of the EIR (environmental review) process, battles between political leaders over where things get built and how, battles to get funding, battles to even justify transit of any kind. There have been so many court battles, political power grabs, neighborhood infighting, and even transit rider infighting, that the fact that anything gets built is a miracle.
It’s Really depressing to see a Extremely Useful Method of Public Transportation Fading away with a horrible Rapid Transit System on The Rise ESPECIALLY When the city had its population boom
May I suggest some changes. The El Monte Busway was created in the 1970s and should be included in that era. It predates silver line service
Silver streak service by Foothill Transit should be noted
Metrolink should be noted
OC Streetcar should be added
San Pedro Red Car should be added
And that thing being build in San Bernardino too.
What's being built in San Bernardino?
I heard the Brightline to Las Vegas won't come closer than Apple Valley or Victorville. If you have to drive that far, you might as well drive the rest of the way!
@@edwardmiessner6502 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(commuter_rail)
It is going to be similar to Sprinter in north San Diego County
@@edwardmiessner6502 no its eventually going to be connected to LA
Can you do Boston?
Wait... LA used to have trains before WW2? FUCK
That feeling I could have travel across and to LA without damn cars right now... 😥
Parking alone is a pain in the ass.
there was a train going through cerritos ca?😬 why they not rebuild that back?!
1930's rail system when it sees the 2028 rails: 👁👄👁
Wow how painful to watch everything getting removed. It's so sad.
LA is slowly getting better, but it will be like 50 years to get ot it's fromer glory.
Given the insane monetary cost and length of construction in the US (especially in California), one has to commit the entire national GDP to Greater LA transit expansions in order to get to the 1920s levels of coverage and frequency. The former glory is long gone and nothing will come close to matching it in our lifetime. Sad, but also quite pathetic.
@@ramzanninety-five3639 Well you can still hope.
Lucky I'm not from LA but live in Europe.
I have 3 Lightrail stations ,1 tram and 5 bus stop within 2/3 of a mile or less. Served by 4 light-rail lines 3 bus lines and 1 tram line.
The most I can complain about transit is the headway of "only" 15 minutes on one of the 3 the buslines.
@@IamTheHolypumpkin What city do you live in?
@@IamTheHolypumpkin wait your bus actually comes? Imagine waiting an hour for a bus and it literally never shows up.
@@ramzanninety-five3639
Peak transit LA were all trams that slowly got removed as the city became more car centric, now that more and people are using transit rather than cars (or if they don’t choose to use electric cars) to reduce carbon emissions due to climate change, transit systems will need to improve and expand their systems with possibly with buses and more trams (subway trains too maybe but they’re probably more expensive to build subways so who knows) to respond to this domain and as long as we got leaders like Biden determine to this domain to fight climate change
This is why I hate seeing pessimistic comments like yours
LA: *has good public transit*
General Motors and Ford: *D R I V E*
Fun fact: they actually bribed Congress to give them an edge in the death of rail travel
Driving in LA is the worst form of transportation says everyone who lives there
@@dorkanderson4963 actually I thought New York and Chicago were worse.
@@dorkanderson4963 Makes the whole decay of Trams in the first half of the video all the more sad
Don't forget Standard Oil and Firestone tires. It was a real conspiracy.
my god this is tragic. glad to see rail making a slow comeback but damn
It's worth noting that the present light rail lines are faster and much higher-capacity than the old Red Car lines. Those had many single-tracked segments and awkward intersection crossings.
It's also worth noting that LA has built over 200 km (125 mi) of subway and light rail since 1990. By comparison, Toronto has only built 80 km (50 mi) since 1954.
this would still have been the case if they didn't demolish nearly all of it 50 years prior
look china
And LA will continue to build for the foreseeable future because the residents of LA voted to increase sales taxes for 30 years to build public transit lines.
Still too slow
@@inglewoodea3149 Agreed, but it's about funding. Without significant help from the federal government, even the state with the largest economy of any USA, still doesn't have the immediate funds to build transit any faster. Europe and Asia build stuff faster because their public transit is mostly funded by their national governments. Huge difference. The USA has done it before with the intercontinental railway project and the national highway project. Biden has proposed more funding for public transit in decades but that is still not enough to permeate down to local city public transit funding all across the country, but it's an improvement nonetheless.
LA: ‘we want trains’
USA: ‘I think you mean highways’
LA: ‘no we mean trains’
USA: ‘I don’t know about you but, communal transport for multiple people sound pretty commie’
so true, those are so dumb
@@leobragaurbe agree on it. If L. A have a massive subway system, although length is only half of N.Y.C subway, that'll be much better than now
@@taipeicome3599 NYC is best in USA. I was there in 2018 and you can go everywhere with the subway, its like saying fuck cars and traffic jams
@@leobragaurbe yes, I went LA and NYC 10 years ago
@@leobragaurbe So, how long NYC subway is?
Public tranport in the US really was pathetic in the last decades. Maybe they finally have learned from their mistakes.
They love cars buses and commuter trains for suburban areas to connect cities
Yankees love their cars too much 🙄 Probably compensating
We haven't. Some cities serve counties that are only for making money. Atlanta is a perfect example. Most services serve north metro Atlanta, while the south is a transit desert.
@@AJsBusVideos Of course. US is capitalism country.
As said by Anthony, it really depends on where you are. LA, public transit wise is a desert, as you have seen in the video. And being an LA native and resident, I can say that everyone wants more public transit. But, our politicians have better ideas, like getting rid of their fire and police departments and buying multi-million dollar estates in Hollywood, and hiding where the money vanishes to. But, everyone I know would love to have better public transit. Anything to cut that 20 mile 3-4 hour commute
It would be helpful if you could include Metrolink, LA’s regional commuter train lines, coming in from Orange and Ventura Counties, and the Inland Empire. This is an important (and often) overlooked aspect of LA’s regional transit system
It’s not as frequent as the other rails. You either depart from Ventura early morning or leave LA around 5 to be back at Ventura by 6 or 7
@@MonarchACE7 Still, it is the modern version of the Red Cars. If you include Red Cars in the historical map, you should include Metrolink on the modern map, and maybe even Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner, which provides extra service along the LOSSAN corridor that several Metrolink routes use.
@@Geotpf are you conform? It’s why LA will never be like SF, Chicago or many East coast cities like NYC. Many people conforming to either driving or Uber/Lyft.
@@MonarchACE7LA Metro rail alone (not including Metrolink rail), already surpassed San Francisco in daily and annual ridership in 2023.
And LA Metro and Metrolink rail combined already forms the 3rd most extensive public rail network in the U.S. behind NYC and Chicago.
Aside from that, there's a lot of ongoing construction and plans on the board.
I don’t think anyone here appreciates the bright future LA has with all this investment in rail. Or how LA resurrected itself from 0 to a somewhat decent rail infrastructure in only 30 years. I also don’t think people realize the original red car system were trams, and probably would still be slower than car traffic in LA, and still require hundreds of billions in upgrades. If they keep expanding at this speed, at around 30 years (which is not a long time!) and densify housing around transit hubs, LA will likely have an easy network for most residents to use. Transit is an ever evolving process. It doesn’t just “finish” for you to use. Cities will always find new problems with the current times and will evolve, adapt and expand long after everyone is dead 10 times over. Instead of “hoping” for it to “complete” (which is a ridiculous notion that they are ever at any time complete), just use what’s already there and don’t be afraid to take advantage of the current services which is better than most people think, because a lot of those complaining have likely never even tried using it.
Well I have hope, just a tiny bit, but I wouldn't get your hopes up. Even if it took fifty years, I hardly see LA to be its former glory.
@@armorpro573Not sure what glory you mean. Yes, LA, was bucolic up until the 1980s. But into 2023 LA had the 3rd largest metro GDP globally behind Tokyo and NYC. That's a lot of industry and business happening in the area every year until 2023.
@@danmur2797 No I'm talking about the metro system. You obviously saw that LA had a vast network of streetcars, but now it's barely a pittance.
@@armorpro573 The streetcars though were slower and most had no grade separations. The current system being built is overall faster, more modern, and has more grade separation although still imperfect.
@@danmur2797 Still it would've been something to see that system still in place, albeit better upgraded
Sad, the car took over!
And suburbs.
this makes me so angry! hope they keep expanding big time
They are but the problem is that the metro board is made up of people who don’t use the train at all and other stupid things. Hopefully the expansions succeed because the 405 is getting more clogged.
@@nigelmarvin1387 hopefully it will be done by 2028 or sooner
Look, most of America loves to talk about LA being a third world unlivable shithole, but it really does have a lot of potential to be nice and a lot of anti-LA talk is largely just because it's fun to talk bad about big stuff. But LA would be a far less awful place if it didn't sprawl out so bad. Look at it on a map, compared to denser cites, and think of all that environmental destruction alone. Now, think about how much it cost to maintain. Same issue in Detroit, Detroit is almost the same physical size as New York with 1/8th the population, thus it's too expensive to take care of. LA is going down that road and, in 20 years when Houston or Miami become too populist to be propped up by oligarchs they'll have all the same problems.
Pretty much yeah. The Bay Area, DFW, Chicago, Twin Cities, Delaware Valley, Atlanta, and so many others are probably going to have the LA effect soon.
@@gbalph4 LA has been shifting to infill instead of sprawl for decades- there are lots of areas here that were completely suburban in 1950 and are now as dense as central San Fransisco. The problem of unsustainable growth is looming, but at least when population starts to shrink, we have a real city hidden amidst the sprawl to work with already. Other cities you mentioned are much farther behind but I think it’ll happen there too.
@@transitmallproductions1063 probably by 2050 but yeah I think for now it’s only the major established metros that are going down this path.
@@transitmallproductions1063 also LA has become much quicker much earlier to the point where it was going by old, rail based sprawl right before said type of development declined, which is why LA at least has dense urban centers.
LA is great right now. There's no better place.
Honestly pretty pitiful for such a massive city
I'm applying for Seoul.. How many times is this.. Please reply if possible
They’ll get there
The seoul metropolitan area is on the scale of NY's at least when talking about making a video. so...
It came out a few weeks ago from the time this reply was written. You should go check the videos on this channel to find it.
What is not included is the commuter rail system called Metrolink. I'm not saying it's an amazing commuter rail system, but, it really does fill in a lot east and north sections missing. If the County and region can speed up grade separation and double track, plus create the main train station loop, along with infill stations, then metrolink can be more effective. You can have trains every 15 minutes or less through inner sections like Burbank to downtown LA or Anaheim to downtown LA. Currently there is commuter based frequency where every 30 trains in morning to downtown and then every hour or more, then reverse around 3pm back to suburbs. Often last trains are 7 or 8pm. 15 minutes would be great or 30 minutes from morning to late night.
Unless they've recently declared independence, I suspect at 7:15 it should read 'Los Angeles County' rather than Country.
Well done. Thank you. Unless I'm mistaken though, (and I very well may be) The early 20th century lines shown include heavy rail local passenger service, whereas the modern systems are only showing light rail. LA and surrounding counties currently have an extensive network of heavy rail passenger service (Metrolink) that connects with Metro Rail.
I think Pacific Electric were considered streetcars, but on their own right-of-way, which is essentially the same as today's light rail. This video does not show commuter rail.
@@nonenoneonenonenone Correct, Southern Pacific, Santa Fe, and a subsidiary of Union Pacific all had "real" railroads in the LA metropolitan area, and those are not included on this map. Which is correct, since their main use was - and is - freight transportation, and that with the exception of the lines to San Bernardino and San Diego and one or two more they lost local passenger traffic early, in many cases already in the 1920s.
Basically in terms of local passenger traffic railroads first built in the 1800s eventually couldn't compete with Pacific Electric, then PE couldn't compete with buses and cars.
@@mateuszmattias True, but in many cases, especially with the Yellow Cars, they had to share the street with the increasing number of cars. The Yellow Cars didn't have dedicated lanes like the light rail lines do today in LA. The Red Cars are the ones that had more of the dedicated ROWs and several of those have been repurposed for light rail like the Expo Line which I believe was the old Santa Monica Blvd Red Car line.
Kudos to our rail history! We once had the best interurban rail transit system in the country--if not in the world for its basis, at the time!
Fast forward to the present. The Pacific Electric interurban system is long gone. Is there still commuter rail in SoCal? Well, yes--but there is no future for such beyond its current rudimentary capacity. The current oversight--and I say that in name only--forgives all transgressions of contractors when they fail to keep up with their schedule in constructing modest improvements to such. Consider the so-called "regional connector" in downtown L.A.
It has a modest course of less than two miles, with an agreed contract to provide three new stations over the course of such. It has been under contract to provide such for over ten years--yet is at this point only about 75% complete.
The "oversight" board--consisting largely of L.A. county supervisors, which generally escape public scrutiny in spite of having a bigger budget than 75% of American states--have done nothing to hold them accountable. Instead, they provided millions of dollars of extra "incentives" for the contractor to "accelerate" construction, in spite of their being behind by several years relative to their initial completion commitments. In spite of such "incentives", the contractor has yet again fallen behind schedule.
Well, why not? The whole project--as well as other local commuter rail construction projects--are never held accountable in local media. Do they figure they have a free ride to perpetually delay construction as prices for construction materials increase, with possible kickbacks to construction contractors for doing so? Possibly or possibly not---but again, without scrutiny, who can say?
I was once a rail construction advocate. Under current construction circumstances I've done a 180. I urge all to vote against future rail funding unless the whole accountability structure--or lack thereof--is radically revised, with a new oversight agency with stiff penalties for failure to hold contactors to their agreed-upon schedules.
Sad seeing the 4-decade decline of the prior private rail and streetcar networks. Hopefully LA can complete these upcoming projects by 2028, in time to host their Olympic Games.
If they don't, I think they will be missing out on quite a few tourists. Since public transit there is trash compared to what it was in the very early 1900s, I think a lot of people will be deterred by the fact that they are FORCED to use a car. Since overseas tourists likely don't own a car in the US, they will probably default to car rentals, which are not that great.
@@williamhuang8309 The 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles was the most successful in history, and that's before LA even had an urban rail network like the one it will have in 2028. Even with the onslaught of tourists from all around the world, the LA area had no traffic problems nor did the freeways became clogged thanks to staggered commute times instituted during the three weeks of the 84 Olympics. The 2028 Games will be a cakewalk compared to 84.
@William Huang, even if they miss out on a lot of tourists, LA 2028 will still probably be the most successful Olympics in History. Every city loses money when hosting the Olympics or World Cup, even huge, big name cities like Tokyo, London, and Paris. The reason why LA will be more successful than all of those is because LA already has the infrastructure for every sporting event, as well as the infrastructure for the Olympic Village, and since this infrastructure already exists, this Olympics is guaranteed to be profitable, regardless of if the public transport system is finished in time or not (hopefully so though)
@@dynasty0019 they also didn't really allow driving into the venues in '84; everyone had to get on express buses that were set up all around the city. The same thing will happen in '24, except there will now be 140 miles of urban rail.
It's so sad american cities are so car centric, infinite distances, no residential-business mixed areas, close to 0 walking possibilities.
LA is not fun for pedestrians at all.
@@gbalph4 every sidewalk is a homeless camping. But that's another story
@@MatteoAllegri yeah that and the horrible crosswalk areas are just a nightmare. They should allow more biking and scooters and improve public transit.
Wrong generalization, dummy
@@bryceingelsby ah yes the beautiful walkable streets of Texas. Totally not car centric either
Wierd suggestestion, ever considered making a video about Trams in New York City
That would be golden. Maybe include ones on the Jersey side of the Hudson as well?
Fascinating, just incredible... And it’s almost identical to Milan’s history! Trams and interurban services are tied to subways!
Yes but in Milan the public transit system is improving
@@Bohh574 You’re absolutely right, I was just saying that the trams are a gigantic portion of public transport in Milan, as they’ve been since the 1870s. Thinking about the improvement, it’s sad we didn’t start sooner...
@@manugamer9984 right
It's sad how the Los Angeles area went backwards, then had nothing for decades until rail returned. Los Angeles still has many, many more decades of work until there is comprehensive rail transit. Maybe in a future video include the Metrolink network. While it's clunky commuter rail, it's still rail. Good video. I'm subscribing. :)
I lived in LA for three years and I dread having to go on the highway. If Los Angeles kept its trams like Boston or Philadelphia, maybe it would be a bit better.
@@armorpro573 No, because streetcars are only good if they are underground or on separate right of ways. Philadelphia's are slow, narrow and awkward. Boston's are not much better.
@@nonenoneonenonenone Maybe but it’s better than nothing
@@armorpro573 We call them freeways. Not sure how long ago you lived in LA, but the Metro is constantly increasing in scope. In fact, several new lines are coming online for the next several years starting with this year. Both the Crenshaw line and the Regional Connector in DTLA are set to open late this year.
@@armorpro573 LA has both subway and dedicated light rail metro system. It' not nothing by far and getting bigger all the time.
Nice work! ✌️
The E Line (Expo) today after Regional Connector opening is carrying the gold color from the L Line. In this video, the E Line after RC opening still uses its original aqua blue color instead of its new gold color. The K Line on the other hand will extend to Redondo Beach by 2024, taking over the C (Green) Line's existing route to Redondo Beach. The C Line will get rerouted to LAX/Metro Transit Center station. Aviation/LAX station will get renamed to Aviation/Imperial station afterwards. The LA Metro board approved Option 2 of the C and K Line connection plan, which involves rerouting the C Line to LAX Airport and extending the K Line to Redondo Beach.
Sugestions for new videos
1⁰: Seoul
2⁰: Moscow
[3⁰: Berlin DONE]
4⁰: Frankfurt
5⁰: Rio de Janeiro (supervia, VLT, BRT)
6⁰: St Petersburg
7⁰: Barcelona
8⁰: Buenos Aires
9⁰: Chicago
10⁰: Hong-Kong
11⁰: Lisbon
12⁰: Madrid
13⁰: Cidade de México
14⁰: Montreal
15⁰: Munich
16⁰: Osaka
17⁰: Oslo
18⁰: Santiago del Chile
19⁰: Shanghai
20⁰: Stockholm
21⁰: Vienna
22⁰: Milan
23⁰: Singapore
I would like to see hong kong
Bananasolid already has a good video for Singapore
It´s evolving, just backwards!
We need Moscow metro!)
We need Saint Petersburg Metro. The Metro stations are like museums. They are works of art, truly beautiful. To be honest, I have never seen Moscow's Metro. I've only been to the airport in Moscow a few times, on my way to Saint Petersburg.
@@rickhernandez667 In both of these city's metro station's are soo beatifull, especially the newest station's, they look like some snow-white space station's))
If you want Moscow, Saint Petersburg and other Russian metros go to Metro Cucumber. It's a channel like this with other metros (expecially ex sovietic ones, but also Shanghai Guangzhou and Dubai)
I’ve done a lot of living since I moved to LA in April 2018. We rode the expo/red/purple/blue/ and green lines many times before COVID. I didn’t realize just How recent all the expansion is but I’ve also watch the construction of the purple line and LAX Crenshaw connector right before my very eyes. My hope for LA is that someday it’ll be a connected as NYC with subway stops on every other corner. I know it would’ve benefited us many times if we could’ve just walked to the street corner to get on the subway instead of walking to the Wilshire/Western Purple line station. To me subway is superior to busses because you get places faster. The big blue bus comes all the way over where we live near Pico/Arlington, country club park. We’ve taken the R7 blue bus all the way to Santa Monica before and it take about a full hour because busses have to stop all the time, even when they’re not picking up any passengers for some reason. It’s Annoying AF. Trains stop quickly then breeze on through. That’d be cool if one day LA was sophisticated as NYC and introduced express subway lines too.
Yes, LA has been constructing both subway and light rails lines for many years now and several new lines will be coming online almost every year for the next six years. LA Metro initiated a build program years ago so that these new lines would be operational before the 2028 Olympics. For example, the DTLA Regional Connector subway/light rail will open in late 2022 as will the Crenshaw Line. LA will never have a subway system as extensive as NYC because LA is very spread out compared to NYC. The distances are just too far and as such too expensive to build. However, because of our whether, light rail lines are a very good option for LA. What LA also needs are many more dedicated bus lines that would compliment our Metro system so both are well integrated.
They would get demolished with earthquakes
@@flexican5399 Japan gets earthquakes on the regular
You need buses to drive ridership on subways. It's not enough to just have high density development around each station. This is particularly an issue if you want suburban subways to have decent ridership--you must have good connecting buses. Where I live (Toronto), our subways have high ridership in relatively low density areas because of the strong bus network.
NYC and sophisticated in the same sentence are not exactly what springs to mind.
Maybe at one time. It does have the most extensive public rail network of any city in the U.S. But that too has its issues (see the current condition of many of its stations. And worse if it rains).
Your videos are a lot of fun to watch for a urban rail transit buff like myself. I'd love to see you make videos about the systems in Chicago and Boston.
Thanks! Will do!