@nandert we need a 2023 update, more info on the West Santa Ana branch and OC streetcar, discuss K line options and do you think A line needs to be adjusted, the new configuration is too long!
One reason there’s no mass transit on the Sepulveda corridor is that rich people in Bel Air, Westwood and surrounding areas don’t want poor(er) folks from South LA and Northridge to conveniently “lower” their lifestyle and property values by . . . existing.
The Bel Air HOA president is a crazy senile Boomer who has been sending threatening emails to LA Metro over this project.. God forbid poor people can move in tunnels under his McMansion
Same argument that has been used to oppose transit projects in Atlanta into Cobb and Gwinnett counties. Though given the high demand seen in housing along existing heavy rail transit corridors, it's often not even true and is more class and race based prejudice.
Yeah but the rich NIMBYs always win, it's why there is no transit projects in West LA and why the 710 wasn't finished since San Marino and South Pasadena opposed it and fucked over Alhambra and Monterey Park.
@@BurritoKingdomMaybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like people blocked a transit project that wasn't even near them, despite the people actually living there wanting it.
@@BurritoKingdom Increasingly, they don't (see Beverly Hills High School). Even if they do manage to make everything more expensive and take far longer. I think enforcing loser pays on these frivolous suits would help by creating a "chilling effect" on would-be litigants.
Everybody just wants all the stuff with the buzzwords and something that looks cool. Why would a city like LA accept a bid from BYD to build a freakin Monorail? 😂😂
@@91djdj There's plenty of buzzwords to add to an proper train... and they can be made to look pretty cool very easily too... Of course, that requires a bit of Thinking and a lot less nonsense CGI pitches that have nothing to do with the actual project.
The fact that the proposal to make the monorail go underground is considered a legitimate option is all you need to know about how the selection process behind this is going.
@@jakob7116 Monorails suffer from crippeling overspecification: They're great as an elevated line (often better than "duorails" by taking corners better, having a smaller profile, etc.) but their _only_ great as an elevated line. The cheapest way to place rails is on ground but with monorails, you can't place the rails on ground due to the nature of monorails (some trains are suspended and thus are elevated by definition, other ride the rails like a saddle on top of a horse) and their switches are slow which makes branches and express operations also difficult.
@@jakob7116adding on the other comment; because of their wrapping around the big single rail, they also need bigger tunnels than equivalent metro trains. Edit: This is why underground matters so much because the size of the tunnel is a big part of the price.
@@MarioFanGamer659 You can place a monorail on the ground (a test line was ran in Spain for several years), the only problem is that you can't have a level crossing with it. Of course trains and level crossings are just a bad idea.
@@jakob7116 if you're going to the expense of building a tunnel, why not just build the transit mode that can carry the most people, no? The whole point of a monorail is that it's cheap and doesn't need infrastructure. Once you're building what is essentially a crappier subway, I'd rather just have a subway.
@@joseSanchez-ej2ohI was there in one of the public comment section, and it was literally just 40 of us saying the monorail is idiotic and build heavy rail, and one boomer saying monorail would be good for tourists
I think it's worth mentioning that LACMTA's had beef with BYD over their craptastic buses and their preference for unscrupulous bidding processes. (LACMTA also bought then almost instantaneously sold 11 or so buses back to BYD.) The Sepulveda monorail is unlikely to happen... But I'd be remissed to dismiss the likelihood.
One of the BS arguments I keep hearing people use for building a monorail is “it will be less noisy.” In fact this got under my skin so much that I’m working on editing a video where I went to several key locations around the city in order to measure the noise levels of trains, stroads, freeways, etc. and guess what? A passing train is actually quieter than the arterial street that this route will run along! Not only that, but now you only have noise once every 5-10 minutes instead of having noise constantly. So yea, I’m 100% behind just building a boring old normal metro line instead of a silly monorail.
For real, there's a mainline freight/commuter railway track near my grandmas house and since the trains don't horn at the level crossing, you barely hear it. Even with the oldest and most noisy metro trains we have (I'm staying in British Columbia and our metro system is the SkyTrain) they make a very satisfying sound, much better and cooler than any car engine. Also when in residential areas, a small noise barrier covering the SkyTrain bogies is all that's needed. Search up Mark I SkyTrain sounds and be satisfy as the sounds never gets old.
I bet those people have only been to NYC/Chicago and associate elevated rail with the old steel girder structures. Which are still less noisy than a highway when you're a couple blocks away. Whereas the monorail is associated with modern concrete viaducts like at Disney world. It's wrong but I think that's where they're coming from.
Cities need to do more to encourage people to ride bicycles. Safe protected bike lanes and trails are needed so adults and children can ride safely. Speak up for bicycles in your community. Bicycles make life and cities better. Ask your local transportation planner and elected officials to support more protected bike lanes and trails. Children should be riding a bicycle to school and not be driven in a minivan.
"They pressured their way into being included as an option" sounds just like how the Ontario government forced TTC to build the Scarborough RT instead of a streetcar. While there are of course places where a monorail makes sense whether it's to serve a smaller area or to unify a river valley in the case of Wuppertal, but having a monorail with low capacity run such a long distance...is not the way to go. Besides the connection problem like you mentioned, I see people say monorails are less noisy than metro trains, but if they're so concerned about the noise of a train, they should be even more concerned about all the noise coming from the freeways. Oh wait, they won't do that because they're car-pilled! People who live along NYC's Cross-Bronx have to deal with so much noise pollution, on top of the highest rate of asthma in the city because of the air pollution. Yes, I get subway trains can be noisy, but electric trains are quiet! And building monorail track is super expensive, not to mention a pain to repair, there's a reason Disney World's Mark VI monorails from 1989 have yet to be replaced, and have only solved its problems with just band-aids! They also opted not to expand their monorail system, even when they had the opportunity to do so for what's now Disney Springs. They later chose a gondola system with stops at different resorts in the Epcot and DHS area to connect them to said parks. A metro train simply has more capacity than a monorail and is faster than a monorail too. It just makes more sense. If you're gonna build a monorail UNDERGROUND...you might as well just build a metro.
The monorail alternatives are 1000% a sham. Someone is getting paid or is going to make a lot of money if Monorail is chosen. It's literally the only explanation. It baffles me that the alternatives weren't an extension of the ESFV light rail project versus a separate Metro, instead of this sham Monorail that literally no one wants.
Officials said that it wouldn't be possible to connect the line to the depot because there's no more space for new trains there, so they'd have to build a new depot anyhow, and since they're doing that there's no benefit to limit themselves to just the light rail and current trains on it if something better or less costly is available.
Great reminder to everyone that the monorail is still being unnecessarily touted as an option, despite lots of opposition from transit riders in LA! I do have a suggestion about your proposed B line extension though. I think that the B line should continue south along the Vermont transit corridor, where there's more density, can serve USC and South LA, and can connect to the E line and the C line. The B line extension as you suggest has it going through the industrial tax shelter of Vernon, which has a population of 222.
@@chase7417 me being sad cus living close to el monte, but 0 rail options other than metrolink. Best option of going to DTLA is through the J Line. If only SGV would get their butts to work to not be the sprawl it is. The only project that I know of that is actively supports TOD is the Gateway project right next to El Monte Station.
There is NO proposed extension of the B line as you suggest. What is proposed is a light rail to many Southeast cities with very high densities. Vernon just happens to be geographically next to a few of these cities and besides there are no plans to have a station actually in Vernon. The name of this light rail project is the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor or WSAB. It's not a subway, but there are plans to connect a subway station with the WSAB. Similar to how the B/D subway lines share a station with the A/E light rail lines.
LA has BYD electric buses on the G line. They forced BYD to open a manufacturing plant in Los Angeles County. (It's way out on the edge of the county in the Antelope Valley.)
Ah yes, Springfield opts for a monorail instead of fixing their most important street that would've made it safer for both cars and people, said monorail was disastrous, and LA is still like "Yup, this is exactly what we want"...smh. When it comes to the LA area, a monorail makes sense at Disneyland but of course it does, it's a small theme park resort and it helps get people from the hotels and Downtown Disney to inside the park at Tomorrowland without having to enter Main Street USA while maintaining crowd flow of those entering the two parks with it being elevated! The monorail actually opened with a little accident in 1959 where then Vice President Nixon was abducted onto the monorail by Walt without Nixon's security! The monorail was designed by famed Imagineer Bob Gurr (who designed most of Disneyland's ride vehicles like Haunted Mansion and Autopia). Up until opening day, the monorail would not cooperate with them. Gurr and a German engineer worked tirelessly each night on sketching replacement parts and rushing them to the studio in Burbank so they could be built. The day before on June 13, the monorail ran as intended for the first time, but they were still worried for opening day. Gurr was in the pilot's seat, with Nixon's family and Walt on board, but the secret service agents didn't get on board as Gurr left the moment Walt told him to. He was worried, with Walt staring at him, that the monorail would break down and he accidentally kidnapped Nixon. Thankfully, it ran as intended.
@@ianhomerpura8937 I think ALL subway Tunneling in the L.A. Area is made to tough Earthquake Standards already. I’m sure the new D Line to Beverly Hills from Downtown L.A. is Earthquake Proof.
Another BYD flub to note-Albuquerque’s bus rapid transit, ART. They were supposed to provide electric busses, and they also arrived late, did not get nearly the range they were supposed to, and did not fit under station canopies on the route. It was a disaster. I’m pretty sure the city of Albuquerque ended up suing BYD and using natural gas in the end.
I work at a big bus company. We say BYD=Build your problems. A lot of bus company's have had a lot of problems with their products. They are built to last exactly 7 years.
In contrast to that, we had Volvo 7700s in Schaffhausen until recently. They were super reliable and looked good as new even after 15 years. They never had door problems unlike the buses that came after them. I do miss them and hope they weren't scrapped but sent to a less wealthy country for many more years of reliable service.
I still remember the whole controversy surrounding BYD when their fleet of busses would not work properly for ABQ Ride's new ART system. Leaving ABQ Ride with egg on their face and having to delay the project till they could get New Flyers to replace BYDs.
100% Agree. As a person from Seattle who grew up in NYC, I really appreciate that LA can build stuff. I probably paid $3k in extra taxes for the Seattle Monorail that never happened (a car + a motorcycle that got charged the same huge tax.) I agree that a heavy rail route, or even a fast light rail route up to the Valley would be the best choice. Still, a slow route is better than no route. (I'm eagerly awaiting the Purple Line's extension (F?) at least to Fairfax because I always visit LACMA and Canter's whenever I'm down there.
I agree. The extension of the D line along Wilshire is greatly anticipated by many including me. Unfortunately, the original LACMA "floating" campus designed by Pereira and built in the 60s is no more. It was torn down and a new museum is currently under construction. It's supposed to be finished by late 2024. Of course, Canter's is still holding strong. BTW, next time you're in town, checkout Langer's Deli another long time LA eatery. Best pastrami sandwich in town and it's already within walking distance of a Metro subway station.
L.A. needs to get this right and go rail not mono... they have been doing a good job in reintroducing metro into L.A., it would be messed up to mess it up here. I think the citizens should realize that the biggest mistake was getting rid of metro and the second biggest mistake was waiting so long to start rebuilding metro rail. Don't start making the mistake of building the wrong transit modes.
It has always boggled my mind that LA can have so much drive to build so much transit, yet be so painfully illiterate on how to actually drive ridership through service quality. Transit, density, and walkability is exactly what LA needs, but the rollout to actually get there has been borderline painful to watch. I really want LA to be better and I don't want to leave behind the roots I have around here, but scampering off to Europe or something does get pretty tempting sometimes. A monorail? Really? Edit: Also, yes, nandert's videos are really important on the topic. He makes it pretty obvious that the monorail alternative to the project only exists because of BYD lobbying, Metro corruption, and Bel Air NIMBYism since no actual transit planner with a pulse would come up with them. Honestly, there is a real danger that those three forces could override what the people want and win out, you know, despite literally everyone who isn't Bel Air or paid off by BYD converging on automated heavy rail for the pass.
Bicycles, ebikes, electric cargo bicycles, robo taxis and escooters are great options for last mile, short distance travel. Reduced transportation costs and fossil fuels free transportation. Cities need to do more to encourage people to ride bicycles by providing SAFE, PROTECTED BIKE LANES and trails. Every adult and child should own a bicycle and ride it regularly. Bicycles are healthy exercise and fossil fuels free transportation. Electric bicycles are bringing many older adults back to cycling. Ride to work, ride to school, ride for health or ride for fun. Children should be able to ride a bicycle to school without having to dodge cars and trucks. Separated and protected bike lanes are required. It will also make the roads safer for automobile drivers. Transportation planners and elected officials need to encourage people to walk, bike and take public transportation. Healthy exercise and fossil fuels free transportation. In the future cities will be redesigned for people not cars. Crazy big parking lots will be transformed with solar canopies generating free energy from the sun.
@@KJSvitkoI agree with your overall argument in theory, but not in practice in LA. The city is just too spread out for what you envision. However, having more protected bike lanes is a good thing. What LA needs to do much better is to build dedicated bus only lanes throughout the city and county (LA Metro is responsible for both) to supplement the LA Metro rail system. It would go much farther in dealing with the first/last mile issue than bikes or e-scooters. Also, more buses are now fully electric or even hydrogen powered.
@@mrxman581I'm definitely in favor of LA building more dedicated bus lanes especially in the Central Region. (Area west of the LA river, North of the 10 freeway, south of the Santa Monica Mountains and East of Beverly Hills). That area is what I would consider to be LA's "Manhattan" and why D line ext, K line north and Vermont Corridor are such important projects.
@@mrxman581 the city being low density today doesn't mean it can build up in the future. many areas of LA are absolutely perfect for bike commute, and we can always build up density around transit so people can use their bike for their day to day life and hop on a train when they need to go cross town.
@@ronnyrueda5926 Well, the area you described actually already has the most public transit of any other part of the city. And will continue with the extension of the Purple line subway. And the Regional Connector opened last month in DTLA. LA Metro has to spread the love now outside the area you describe including the SFV, East LA, and Southeast LA metro region. It's actually required that they spread out the transit projects across all of LA County because some of the measures that increased the sales taxes to fund these projects were county-wide. That means building transit projects that will serve residents outside of LA city boundaries. Had those assurances not been made for residents outside of LA city, the measures would have been voted down.
I've built monorails for the Gateshead Garden Festival, in Sydney and Wuppertal, Brockway, Ogdenville AND North Haverbrook and boy did it put them on the map!
I agree they should put a subway at the Sepulveda corridor. Potential money maker for Metro. They just open the regional connecter so no more force transfers.
As someone who lives within the area of the Sepulveda pass/corridor it is an honest to god nightmare driving the 405 across from Sherman Oaks to Westwood. Judging by just how many people rely on this stretch of road to get to and from home and work, the only solution for transit here NEEDS to be high capacity heavy rail. The fact that my city even considers a monorail right now is shocking and really just goes to show how out of touch city leaders are
Why are so many US cities/metros so obsessed with non-standard quirky transit systems and gadget bahns? Just build a regular tram, subway or rail line…
Far less are than aren’t. Frankfurt style Stadtbahns have become far more popular in recent decades, but in the cases that gagetbahns are being discussed, it’s usually because a private company is offering to build it and partially or entirely fund it themselves, meaning that the government and more importantly the taxpayer, isn’t having to pay for an expensive system. This is the case with the Sepulveda corridor where BYD has constantly talking about their $6.1b (a number that is highly misleading) and has been able to rally support from more libertarian voters. The unfortunate trade off is of course the issues that generally arise from such cost cutting, such as much lower capacity and poorer connectivity to the local area and other transit services, two incredibly important things for this new line to work
It's mostly the cities in California that are obsessed with those, notably Silicon Valley/San Jose. The US as a whole if anything is a bit too hung up on light rail (witness LA, which builds what are essentially regional rail-length lines with light rail, or NYC, which is building its new Triboro line with light rail instead of heavy rail, of which it already has tons of). The US needs to give heavy rail another look, especially in LA. I think some of this stems from the idea that trains are old-fashioned and non-American and that newer is better (like Musk's electric cars in tiny tunnels, and whatever that bus/car/train hybrid that they wanted to build in San Jose is). And of course, that it will be cheaper.
Interesting debate considering LA once had one of the best inter-urban rail systems in the country with the red cars. That said, why build any lines that have incompatible tracks with ones already built? On it's face, it seems like a dumb idea.
CAN MONORAIL WORK HERE? YES IT CAN. But that's not the question to ask. The question is, "Will THIS monorail plan work?" and that answer is NO! Why? 1. The monorail options moved forward because BYD buried the numbers to make it look cheaper. They left out the cost of tunneling. When you throw that in, it's just as expensive as the metro. 2. One of the monorail plans is to run it down the 405 Expressway and build stations in the middle of nowhere that need more buses to connect. This make it a multi-seat trip AND puts the stations in a noisy, smelly channel that nobody is going to enjoy. 3. Getting to UCLA is a big deal. Metro will build a station on campus. Monorail won't, you need the people mover. Again, multi-seat trip, changing vehicles? WHY? This is so dumb. 4. BYD is shady AF. Their buses don't work in LA already, and it's believed they're bribing officials. I love monorail. But no monorail is better than a bad monorail. The metro is the better deal for both taxpayers and riders.
Tax payers won’t approve a subway, the costs of a subway through the Sepulveda pass is astronomical and will be the most expensive public transit project in the nation for a short run train. Not to mention the people that pay the most in taxes are those living near the Sepulveda pass.
The automated metro proposals allow for up to 4 car trains at 90 seconds. The 3 car trains at 2.5 minutes is the initial operating plan. It’s also worth noting that the expansion to 4 car trains is built in from the start, so there wouldn’t be any need to extend platforms.
There is actually a city in north america planning to build a huge monorriail system, the city of Monterrey in México, they will build 2 lines one as a suburban train and the other as 2 lines (yes is very strange) also whant to add one of those chinese autonomous buses to one line, they will be using CRRC material for this.
As an LA local, I can safely say that metro is run by a bunch of morons that don’t seem to understand anything about public transit and would rather waste time and money turning the system into a knock off uber with their painstakingly stupid micro transit “buses”. Let’s hope they don’t screw this up. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if they pick the worst option for the sepulveda pass project. But keeping my fingers crossed.
Become part of the solution and attend public comment community meetings. LA Metro does a lot more community outreach than most people think. I've attended many myself over the years. It helps to get better designed projects.
Become part of the solution and attend public comment community meetings. LA Metro does a lot more community outreach than most people think. I've attended many myself over the years. It helps to get better designed projects. Community input helps to counteract special interest money and influence which is ALWAYS there.
Thanks for giving Nandet a shoutout, the man doesn't get enough respect. I'm Irish and I visit family in LA regularly. It's tragic such a rich city doesn't better transit
Indeed, and not just with transit. Many important venues are currently being built too across the LA metro area. There is a lot that will get done before the 2028 Olympics. It seems many of these significant projects got a huge push when LA was awarded the Olympics a few years back even though most were already on the books. Besides the upcoming rail projects under construction you have a new LACMA being built, the Lucas museum, new Space Shuttle museum, and new Intuit Clippers arena.
Yep. Thats one thing unfortunately this video missed. The mass majority of people said they preferred heavy rail. The frustrating part is that like with all transit in LA, those with the biggest voices are the ones against the best solution. NIMBYs and Metro Board members who’ve been bribed by BYD are the ones supporting a Sepulveda monorail. One thing I would have also liked him to cover was some of the design choice for heavy rail alternatives that could teach other cities worldwide how to built better connected and less expensive transit
@@metrofilmer8894 the Orange Line was supposed to be a light rail line, but NIMBYs put up a fight. They finally caved when the city government “compromised” and built the Orange Line as BRT.
Something that is important to note with BYD is that their safety standards are not up to snuff with regards to their automotive division. There's been a long laundry list of incidents with BYD's lithium ion battery packs that have been recorded and reported on by people in China (only for the authorities to take most of it down), as well as build quality issues and health and safety issues with the most recent being the presence of hexavalent chromium found in its buses by Japanese authorities in February of this year. Now they have had a hand in building monorail before, as they were responsible for the units that are part of monorails in Yinchuan, on top of building entire monorails in Guilin and Guang'an, as well as had a hand in the Bahia SkyRail in Salvador and Sao Paulo's Line 17 along with building the Bishan rubber tire monorail in Chongqing. That all taken in to consideration, however, the idea of BYD being given the time of day for this contract given what people already know about the poor quality of their EV buses and cars and the lack of concrete data on the safety of their infrastructure when it comes to rail. The federal government needs to step in and put an end to this nonsense with BYD.
This is especially bad given BYD doesn’t even have a high capacity monorail in China, while CRRC has 4, 2 in Chongqing which uses Hitachi technology and 2 in Wuhu which uses Bombardier technology. Both options will have competition when they need to purchase new train in the future.
Interesting. I hadn’t even realized that Chongqing was CRRC/Hitachi instead of BYD/Innovia. One of the biggest Pro-Monorail arguments that I’ve seen has been that it works in places like Chongqing
@@metrofilmer8894Chongqing even has/had few trains assembled in Japan by Hitachi, therefore the destination sign is using Japanese Genki characters instead of Chinese characters (although most of the time they look similar)
Luckily the rich nimbys of beverly hills lost there fight against a similiar line (the purple line extension briefly mentioned in this video). Over 90 percent of public comments voiced against a monorail meaning that bel air will likely face defeat (aka no monorail) just like beverly hills did a few years ago.
The West side of Los Angeles is difficult to navigate, politically. Much, if not most, of L.A.'s economic activity, including high-paying jobs, are located there, and the population is among the most affluent in the United States. While I understand the need for avoiding any proprietary standards and while I recognize subways may be faster, the question for the transit agency to answer, ultimately, is what approach will best avoid lawsuits from people with deep pockets.
7 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
Vancouver's Sky Train would be a good choice but other cities transit unions fight having it tooth and nail because it is a fully automated system and requires no driver
Combining disjointed lines on the same corridor and using the same technology? Using reliable transit vehicle companies? Not building a line that is incompatible with other manufacturer vehicles? Having rapid transit serve major destinations directly? Building a major transit line that can be provide fast, frequent, and high capacity service? That might be a tall order for LA Metro, an agency which doesn't think that way by default. After all, this is the same agency whose model for rapid transit in one of the most car congested cities in the country is to use light rail at grade with traffic. Without traffic, a bus could traverse the Sepulveda Pass faster than the monorail would. Can you imagine the feeling someone riding on the monorail would have watching a bus on the 405 pass it by? I would disagree with you on sending the Sepulveda line east into Inglewood. It should continue south to the South Bay and Long Beach. LA's high capacity and grade separated heavy rail lines should provide the backbone for rapid transit from one side of the city to the other. Also, being that the South Bay and Long Beach have no commuter rail or heavy rail service at all, the Sepulveda line should offer fast transit as the transit backbone along the entire Westside.
On topic: I've been to Los Angeles in 2016 and the rail network was surprisingly good. Very few rail systems can compare to the Big Apple 🍎🍏 (where I'm from) but the "City of Angels", but after having gone a generation without having major rail transportation of some sort, LA is playing the "catch-up" game successfully, and just opened a rail project this past June (Regional Connector) and have a pair of rail projects soon-to-be open before the 2028 Olympics. Off topic: Are you or will you be in Montréal at the end of July for the festivities relating to the opening of the REM? If so, great! Would be fantastic for you and many Montrealers (and all Canadians) and transit advocates on TH-cam (like you) to give the REM your first impressions.
Egypt is building two new monorail lines with a combined length of 120 kms. They are going to be fully automated. Can you discuss that? People think its a great idea, no idea why.
This was a case of the Egyptian government wanting something cool and modern looking running in and out of their new national capitol, and the cost not being significantly more than any other option. Alstom got to build a new African/Middle East train manufacturing plant with it. Win-win.
@@KevinFields777 I am not sure if that is justified. The operational cost might become too large. I have looked up similar systems from Alstom and others and usually the line built does not exceed 20 kms except in Chongping, China. Furthermore, monorails make sense in places where it is difficult to find space or secure right-of-way. This makes sense in Chongping, China. The monorail as-built is running mostly beside highways on either side (west and east) of the old congested capital for distances in excess of 50 and 70 kms respectively. It is not actually built in the capital where it is might actually be useful because there is preexisting metro lines there. So the choice of monorail does not make sense at all. It locks you into having to build it raised, it is a customized system which locks you with the supplying company and you are not able to upgrade and modernize outside of the companies proprietry systems. A standard system makes far more sense. Looks like a very bad deal to me. Would like to hear subjective arguments to the contrary.
100% agree. The monorail here is a joke, since it will be connecting up at the Metrolink Van Neys station. In addition, there will most def be an extension south (still underground) through southern Culver City and near Playa Vista that will connect to the airport, probably coming up at surface (if it can support 3rd rails for a Metro and the Light Rail) on Portal Ave.
Wish people would talk about transit through echo park/silver lake along sunset where all these super walkable neighborhoods are. and where people are generally more enthusiastic about transit
I don't know why monorails keep being built. Especially in cities such as Los Angeles, Bangkok, and so on, where there are already heavy and light rail systems. Best way to ensure there is an incompatible system with no sharing of equipment, maintenance, parts, costs possible, yeah, great.
Monorail would make sense in a smaller area like Pasadena or Glendale in their downtown areas. But going at least more than 20 miles with a monorail isn’t a good idea. It has to be underground heavy rail, or things will get crazy
Hard to believe LACMTA is considering a 3rd form of train to take care of in addition to light rail and heavy rail, because, reasons. This absolutely needs to be regular heavy rail...which they already have facilities for.
I expect the monorail won't happen, mainly because of Caltrans and the amount of kerfuffles that will entail working with them, but LA Metro's governing body is one I'm not crazy about either. You hope for the best and pray to not be disappointed.
coming from sao paulo and our (maybe) 2 monorail lines FROM byd: build literally anything else. it's easier to build and maintain, cheaper, and has way more capacity. i can't stress enough how much line 15 should have been at least light metro
I know that the monorail option is not the best or even a good option, but I would love to see the visual of a monorail streaking by over the 405 fwy. It's like bringing the Disneyland monorail to the real world. As a kid, I looked at monorails like the public transit of the future 😊 However, that being said, I'm sure they'll pick the subway option to better connect UCLA and to the Purple line extension to the Westside. BTW, your generalizations of people movers are very shortsighted. The ones proposed and being constructed in the LA metro area are not afterthoughts or remedies for some perceived imaginary urban planning mistakes. It's never that black and white when you're dealing with a variety of agencies, funding sources, and private enterprises.
The Inglewood people mover absolutely was to remedy the mistake of the K Line not reaching the stadiums. I know metro had already environmentally cleared the current alignment before SoFi and other plans even started, but there's no doubt that Metro would have aligned K to go through the stadiums if the timing was better. Hence, now we have a people mover to fix the problem. Agree that the LAX people mover is a great solution and not really fixing a "problem"
One thing I thought about, why not extend the Van Nuys future train south, go underground under the mountains, connect with the Getty Center, to UCLA on-campus, connect with the Purple Line for the first leg. Then continue further south to LAX and then to the new stadiums in Inglewood. Eventually, with the Red Line, extend it south from Union Station, take advantage of the Slauson ROW going east, connect the Red Line to LAX. Extend the Red Line to Burbank Airport at the north end, then go eastbound along the Metrolink tracks to connect with the Van Nuys train. By doing this, you have a light rail that will provide transit from San Fernando, down Van Nuys, down I-405, to UCLA, to LAX. The Red Line will provide service to Van Nuys, Metrolink between Van Nuys and Burbank Airport, the current alignment through NoHo, Universal City/Studio City, Hollywood, Downtown LA, LA River, Slauson Ave, to LAX. This will not create a circular line but will connect in a circular way. Now if they go with Metro (NO MONORAIL, leave that to Disney), connect with Van Nuys at the Orange Line, then go along the Metrolink from Van Nuys Station and Burbank Airport, ride the Red Line current alignment, Hollywood, Downtown LA, Union Station, LA River, Slauson, Inglewood stadiums, connect with K Line and Green Line, LAX, go north towards UCLA, Getty Center, I-405 through Sepulveda Pass, and Van Nuys. NOW, we got a circular connect that goes through Downtown LA, serving major communities in the LA area and San Fernado area. Orange Line let's convert to Light Rail please! Now, another circular line in the San Gabriel Valley area.
About the Red Line, I thought about it extending north through Burbank Airport, Metrolink ROW to San Fernando, then to Santa Clarita, terminating somewhere near Six Flags Magic Mountain (they are open year-round). On the south end, continue down LA River, connecting to the Metrolink Orange Country Line, to Norwalk, and then terminating in Santa Ana. Santa Ana, I chose because of the Orange County trolley. The Green Line can be extended to Norwalk Metrolink then further east to cover more territory on the eastside underneath/or above Imperial Highway for about five miles. With the idea I had above, there will be two lines, one that is circular as described in the previous comment and one that connects three major entertainment centers (Six Flags, Universal, and Disney).
@@twizshiz Metrolink already goes from Santa Clarita through Burbank into downtown via the Antelope Valley line. If anything, the AV lines needs to be electrified, and then TOD needs to be encouraged around its stations, with street cars and light rail extending from them (to, for example, Six Flags, as you mentioned).
@@nimeshinlosangeles With light rail, it will be consistent, 5A-midnight, every 6-20 minutes, and Metrolink can be express service. Light rail can be more local, because Metrolink will continue to Palmdale.
At the same time, the MTA in New York runs local trains, buses, and commuter lines. It would be nice if MTA run Metrolink and MTA. I understand MTA is Los Angeles based, I would like to see MTA go back to the RTD days when they ran the entire county. MTA should be LA County because they are responsible for all freeways in LA County. There should not be several bus services in LA County, MTA should run it all and also run Metrolink as well.
@@twizshizA Metro is responsible for LA city and county. Metrolink is a different story because those lines cross various cities and counties including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Riverside counties.
Thank you Reece for an excellent video. I particularly liked the maps, which enabled me to visualize the area you are talking about. I shuddered when you mentioned BYD, and then CRRC. Their reputations here in Europe are not good. And can we, whether in Europe or North America, rely on being able to get spare parts from China?
The CRRC trains in a particular country in South-east Asia are absolute horrid with the worst reliability to the point where the operator had to pull the entire fleet away from the line for over an entire year where it broke the entire network, **twice.** Not to mention they had to send one by one, the entire fleet back to China because of manufacturing defects Don't get me started on the shoddy build quality and non-existent sound proofing too. Yet, despite everything, they've gone ahead and overdid themselves by ordering from the same company that screw them over multiple times for a new high capacity line that will form one of the most important transport arteries of this country. Guess the phrase "once bitten, twice shy" doesn't apply to them, they'll never learn from anything let alone their mistakes
Thanks. That was due to voters deciding to increase the sales taxes in both LA city and county. If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't have any subway or light rail.
@@LucasDimoveo they are indeed. And transit isn't too bad for a tourist staying mostly in the center. For residents that need to commute daily for work things aren't looking so bright. Could be worse, and some zones or trips are served with decent transit, but there's a lot that should be a lot better. Housing is also a major problem in Lisbon metropolitan area.
I think the reasoning is that the Sepulvida Line is planned as an express service while ESFV is planned as local, so combining them could cause capacity issues, which I guess is reasonable. IMO a better option would've been to do one line and have it have an express and local service pattern, but since ESFV is already approved, it's too late to change that.
@@adianchowdhury9016Yeah I don’t really see that as being a huge issue, similar lines exist in lots of cities. Make a bunch of stops in the valley and then express to the west side
@@RMTransitI think the issue is the grade. I think he said a light rail wouldn't be able to handle it along the Sepulveda Pass, and continuing the heavy rail further into the SFV would be cost prohibitive compared to light rail.
Well, the B and D line are one in the same once they get to Union Station. The issue is building a subway line to East LA along Whittier Blvd as originally planned decades ago.
@@arnorrian1 there is no space to do that at Union Station specifically from the West side. However there are plans to extend the subway to the East above ground near the new 6th street viaduct/bridge. I guess that line could be either an extension of either the B or D line or both I guess. It's still not clear though what shape that station will take because it's also going to connect to the approved light rail WSAB line that will serve cities in the Southeast area of LA. Which is a great idea. So passengers on the WSAB can transfer directly to the subway. At least that is how I understand it will work. No official plans have been created yet. Though the funding was approved for this station. It will cost less than your average station because they already own the tracks and working ROW.
@@arnorrian1 Then the extension to East LA would be the D line. That could work well so you eventually have two lines cross LA East to West (D and E) and two lines North to South with the extension North of the K line. That arrangement of those two lines would be awesome and finally build lines proposed decades ago at least in the case with the subway to East LA.
Hi! I enjoy your videos! You made a couple of mistakes on this one. You said Sepulveda Blvd. is the route from the San Fernando Valley to Westwood and beyond. There's an interstate freeway, 405, that is parallel to Sepulveda. Also, it would be the "B" (Red line) that would extend to the northeast valley--this is the one that goes under Hollywood, ending at Union Station in downtown Los Angeles.
Great video! As an Angeleno, the planning of this project has myself as well as other transit enthusiasts pulling our hair out. BYD has been lobbying hard in LA for years, and has had its eyes on this contract for a long time.
Which is why community input and feedback is so important to counteract those special interests. Complaining and then not doing anything about it is useless.
And the manufacturer is a different issue than the mode. Give a turnkey contract to a Japanese company. If it uses no Fed money, it can avoid prevailing wage laws which is one of the main reasons construction takes so long and costs so much in the USA.
Quick question. Could a subway style national rail network work. For example: (stand with me this about to get dense) If Amtrak were to rebrand thier east corridor as a new service where people had to buy cards (on/off line) and tap those card into gates while entering and then taps those card into different gates while leaving and you would be charged a fee for how long you spent traveling along with a service fee. The trains on this service would be painted different than amtrak other trains. With more frequent service (10-15 minutes every local. 20-30 minutes every express And finally the stations would be remodeled with metro like additions. (Digital screens telling you how far a train is. Greater Wayfinding tools ect,ect.) Now. If Amtrak were to do all the previously mention changes to the east corridor could Amtrak gain more money/a greater amount of riders on said corridor.
Is there a reason why monorails in general (not for this specific line) are so derided? The only two answers I got so far are 1. They can only go 50 mph whereas heavy rail rapid transit can go 75, and it seems like dual-rail light rail tops out at 65. 2. They're more difficult to evacuate in an emergency since there's no siding. I can understand that, but in a dual-rail system do evacuated passengers just stand on the side? Because a lot of dual-rail systems I've been on (e.g. BART) don't have any room on the sides to stand either.
They have few manufacturers so you'll likely end up with over priced low quality vehicles Their switches involve moving the entire guideway which is more complicated and therefore prone to failure. Those switches then also take much longer to fix. They also take up much more space in tunnels, are often lower capacity and many more reasons
I think some people are confused how a monorail got picked as a choice in the first place for this project. See, the LAMTA is considering taking a design/build bid for this project. The two design/build finalists were the monorail from BYD ( several versions of it, actually) and a traditional heavy rail design from Bechtel. They are also including a traditional heavy rail subway plan, built the traditional way, as one of the choices. One of the reasons, beyond corruption and bribery, that BYD's plan made it to the second round was that the top line price was very low. However, that figure hides extra potential costs. It's harder to expand. Plus, the connection to UCLA is poor on two of the three versions of the monorail plan (electric buses or a people mover). If they are to serve UCLA directly, they have to go with the design that is partly underground, eating up all those savings for a still inferior product.
I’m from the valley. Going down into central LA, is car heavy only. Also, the spacing between things like groceries stores etc is also spaced pretty far out. You need a car for even basic errands pretty much. It’s a house house apartment house house only area.,
I’m a 🚊 operator, working for Metro Los Ángeles, and I want the Sepulveda Line to be built as a heavy rail. Sadly, the ones who are behind this project only cared for the bottom line, and building a monorail 🚝 could be more of a pain in the you-know-where. :/
If you haven't already, you should do a video about the proposed Gobdala in little Cottonwood Canyon near Salt Lake City and how it was chosen over a cog railway and Bus service. Also look into the "Rio Grande Plan" here in SLC
I always find the absolute ignoring of regional rail in LA so strange. It’s the perfect solution for the sprawling city that it is. Who wants to build slow tens of miles long light rail lines? I know I don’t
Because regional rail lines are big, visible, expensive and make noise, meaning they are perfect targets for the upper class NIMBYs of LA who are terrified about their parts of LA becoming one of “those” cities, like NY San Francisco, Chicago, Portland or Seattle where homeless people are attacking them, crime is high, everything is expensive and business is nonexistent, (despite claims of things previously mentioned generally being false and those cities generally being the best cities in the country to live in)
The only logical reasons l can think of for a Monorail system are 1) A closed loop elevated system where the canatary would have clearence pronlems. 2) If the needed is for the absolutely lowest DB noise rating. 3) If the system is elevated building the pre-stressed concrete or structural steel bridge sections between supports as fully integrated sections with rail, communications and power built into the bridge section at the factory. If the systen is elevated replace some stairs with escalators. Reasons against 1) System incompatability with both heavy and light rail. 2) The sheer clunkyness of things such as turnouts.
Not only should LA build metro that parallels the historically overwhelmed 405, they should set up any additional trackage outside of the existing Red/Purple Line systems to run just like many Manhattan subways; local AND express exclusively to take full advantage of the 70-75 mph operating speeds as well as to be time competitive to even an uncongested freeway (even though that’s been rare on that particular side of LA for ages).
You completely glossed over the fact that the reason the monorail is being proposed is in part to placate the rich people in Bel Air who are terrified of a metro running beneath their very expensive houses in the mountains along the 405 where a heavy rail tunnel would need to be built. They're concerned it could affect their foundations and will reduce their property values, even though... it probably won't. A monorail is viewed as an alternative that might make this not such a big deal lol.
Nandert point that out, it's like every LA transit project is taking place in a vacuum with no comprehensive plan as to how they'll function as a whole.
@@1978dkellynot necessarily true. It comes down to funding and when it's available. A good example of that is the recent opening of the Regional Connector which had ALWAYS been part of the plan. Same is true with the subway extension along Wilshire Blvd. It doesn't always happen as fast as we'd like though. There are also good plans that haven't been done yet but not necessarily because of LA Metro's fault. Like that idiotic political BS that blocked all local funding for subway construction for 20 years. Some of the fallout from that was that East LA got a less useful light rail line than an extension of the original Red line to East LA along Whittier Blvd. Still, that subway extension to East LA can still be built and connect to the Atlantic and Whittier underground station of the approved second phase of the gold line making both lines even more functional and useful
I work at the Getty Center and live in the San Fernando Valley. The Sepulveda Corridor is one busiest and congested areas to traverse through when getting to and from work. I always wanted to see light rail system to go on Sepulveda so there would be a stop to work, which would be convenient. The monorail however, knowing LA’s history of transit and how they please more to their wealthy residents (i.e Bel Air and Brentwood) of allowing such transit to pass through is challenging. In other words, the monorail feels like dead on arrival.
LA and Orange Counties have a large number of rivers upon which, Caltrans could build freeways and Monorails without the cost of buying land which is very expensive. It's that simple, fast and less costly. Next, Caltrans could build a monorail connecting San Diego to LA via, Santa Ana and Irvine. The and 405 Freeways have sufficient space to build a Monorail in the center of those freeways. Again, it will be cheap and fast to build and considering the excessively heavy traffic transiting on them, it is imperative that Caltrans begin ASAP. Build on the Freeways and rivers.
![Would You Fall for It? [ST08]](/img/n.gif)
Thanks for the plug! Love your channel.
I love yours! The best LA transit coverage since . . . Ever!
Your videos make the planning, policy, and politics of LA Metro really digestible. I can't wait for a 2023 LA Metro update video!
When is your next video, Nandert
@nandert we need a 2023 update, more info on the West Santa Ana branch and OC streetcar, discuss K line options and do you think A line needs to be adjusted, the new configuration is too long!
id honestly love to know where you get the music for your videos, its all good stuff id love to listen standalone
One reason there’s no mass transit on the Sepulveda corridor is that rich people in Bel Air, Westwood and surrounding areas don’t want poor(er) folks from South LA and Northridge to conveniently “lower” their lifestyle and property values by . . . existing.
They deserve chocolate rain
dude Tay you are right
You think the monorail won’t bring the poor. Smh
The Bel Air HOA president is a crazy senile Boomer who has been sending threatening emails to LA Metro over this project.. God forbid poor people can move in tunnels under his McMansion
Same argument that has been used to oppose transit projects in Atlanta into Cobb and Gwinnett counties. Though given the high demand seen in housing along existing heavy rail transit corridors, it's often not even true and is more class and race based prejudice.
93% of public comments supported the subway and opposed the monorail. The NIMBYs are vocal but a tiny minority.
Yeah but the rich NIMBYs always win, it's why there is no transit projects in West LA and why the 710 wasn't finished since San Marino and South Pasadena opposed it and fucked over Alhambra and Monterey Park.
@@BurritoKingdomMaybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like people blocked a transit project that wasn't even near them, despite the people actually living there wanting it.
@@BurritoKingdom Increasingly, they don't (see Beverly Hills High School). Even if they do manage to make everything more expensive and take far longer. I think enforcing loser pays on these frivolous suits would help by creating a "chilling effect" on would-be litigants.
I think it’s so important to remind people of that!
Unfortunately those NIMBYs have influential friends in high places. One of them almost became Mayor of LA last year.
As a wise man once said: “Just build a normal f**king train!”
A fucking train? I would visit it 😂
Everybody just wants all the stuff with the buzzwords and something that looks cool. Why would a city like LA accept a bid from BYD to build a freakin Monorail? 😂😂
I’m not into trains but the wise man is
LA needs something but quick, not protects for a decade or two…they need it ASAP!!! And they need METRO OR SUBWAYS like in NYC.
@@91djdj There's plenty of buzzwords to add to an proper train... and they can be made to look pretty cool very easily too... Of course, that requires a bit of Thinking and a lot less nonsense CGI pitches that have nothing to do with the actual project.
The fact that the proposal to make the monorail go underground is considered a legitimate option is all you need to know about how the selection process behind this is going.
Not disagreeing, just asking why's that bad?
@@jakob7116 Monorails suffer from crippeling overspecification: They're great as an elevated line (often better than "duorails" by taking corners better, having a smaller profile, etc.) but their _only_ great as an elevated line. The cheapest way to place rails is on ground but with monorails, you can't place the rails on ground due to the nature of monorails (some trains are suspended and thus are elevated by definition, other ride the rails like a saddle on top of a horse) and their switches are slow which makes branches and express operations also difficult.
@@jakob7116adding on the other comment; because of their wrapping around the big single rail, they also need bigger tunnels than equivalent metro trains.
Edit: This is why underground matters so much because the size of the tunnel is a big part of the price.
@@MarioFanGamer659 You can place a monorail on the ground (a test line was ran in Spain for several years), the only problem is that you can't have a level crossing with it. Of course trains and level crossings are just a bad idea.
@@jakob7116 if you're going to the expense of building a tunnel, why not just build the transit mode that can carry the most people, no? The whole point of a monorail is that it's cheap and doesn't need infrastructure. Once you're building what is essentially a crappier subway, I'd rather just have a subway.
Nandert's LA transit videos are highly detailed and also hilarious, glad he got a plug
👍
In my public comment I referenced him and his videos
It seems that most of the public comments did dunk on the the monorail options
@@joseSanchez-ej2ohI was there in one of the public comment section, and it was literally just 40 of us saying the monorail is idiotic and build heavy rail, and one boomer saying monorail would be good for tourists
He’s a great dude
I think it's worth mentioning that LACMTA's had beef with BYD over their craptastic buses and their preference for unscrupulous bidding processes. (LACMTA also bought then almost instantaneously sold 11 or so buses back to BYD.) The Sepulveda monorail is unlikely to happen... But I'd be remissed to dismiss the likelihood.
Hell, the LA Times ran an article about those buses. I know people like to dump on New Flyer, but BYD is something else entirely.
I hope not, this line could be the start of something good for LA of well executed
@@sonicboy678New Flyer gets it flack cos they're ALL OVER the place, essentially, in every metropolis.
BYD is literal ass-on-frame crap
One of the BS arguments I keep hearing people use for building a monorail is “it will be less noisy.”
In fact this got under my skin so much that I’m working on editing a video where I went to several key locations around the city in order to measure the noise levels of trains, stroads, freeways, etc. and guess what?
A passing train is actually quieter than the arterial street that this route will run along! Not only that, but now you only have noise once every 5-10 minutes instead of having noise constantly.
So yea, I’m 100% behind just building a boring old normal metro line instead of a silly monorail.
For real, there's a mainline freight/commuter railway track near my grandmas house and since the trains don't horn at the level crossing, you barely hear it. Even with the oldest and most noisy metro trains we have (I'm staying in British Columbia and our metro system is the SkyTrain) they make a very satisfying sound, much better and cooler than any car engine. Also when in residential areas, a small noise barrier covering the SkyTrain bogies is all that's needed. Search up Mark I SkyTrain sounds and be satisfy as the sounds never gets old.
I bet those people have only been to NYC/Chicago and associate elevated rail with the old steel girder structures. Which are still less noisy than a highway when you're a couple blocks away. Whereas the monorail is associated with modern concrete viaducts like at Disney world. It's wrong but I think that's where they're coming from.
Cities need to do more to encourage people to ride bicycles. Safe protected bike lanes and trails are needed so adults and children can ride safely. Speak up for bicycles in your community. Bicycles make life and cities better. Ask your local transportation planner and elected officials to support more protected bike lanes and trails. Children should be riding a bicycle to school and not be driven in a minivan.
But it glides as smoothly as a feather!
@@heidirabenau511 Monorails are rougher than normal trains, but it is quieter, barely.
"They pressured their way into being included as an option" sounds just like how the Ontario government forced TTC to build the Scarborough RT instead of a streetcar. While there are of course places where a monorail makes sense whether it's to serve a smaller area or to unify a river valley in the case of Wuppertal, but having a monorail with low capacity run such a long distance...is not the way to go. Besides the connection problem like you mentioned, I see people say monorails are less noisy than metro trains, but if they're so concerned about the noise of a train, they should be even more concerned about all the noise coming from the freeways. Oh wait, they won't do that because they're car-pilled! People who live along NYC's Cross-Bronx have to deal with so much noise pollution, on top of the highest rate of asthma in the city because of the air pollution.
Yes, I get subway trains can be noisy, but electric trains are quiet! And building monorail track is super expensive, not to mention a pain to repair, there's a reason Disney World's Mark VI monorails from 1989 have yet to be replaced, and have only solved its problems with just band-aids! They also opted not to expand their monorail system, even when they had the opportunity to do so for what's now Disney Springs. They later chose a gondola system with stops at different resorts in the Epcot and DHS area to connect them to said parks. A metro train simply has more capacity than a monorail and is faster than a monorail too. It just makes more sense. If you're gonna build a monorail UNDERGROUND...you might as well just build a metro.
The monorail alternatives are 1000% a sham. Someone is getting paid or is going to make a lot of money if Monorail is chosen. It's literally the only explanation. It baffles me that the alternatives weren't an extension of the ESFV light rail project versus a separate Metro, instead of this sham Monorail that literally no one wants.
every project BYD is involved in is always corruption
thew whole company is a sham, not an honest project in their life
Literally that episode of the Simpsons
BYD has a manu plant up in Lancaster. Makes sense why they are pushing so hard
Officials said that it wouldn't be possible to connect the line to the depot because there's no more space for new trains there, so they'd have to build a new depot anyhow, and since they're doing that there's no benefit to limit themselves to just the light rail and current trains on it if something better or less costly is available.
Great reminder to everyone that the monorail is still being unnecessarily touted as an option, despite lots of opposition from transit riders in LA! I do have a suggestion about your proposed B line extension though. I think that the B line should continue south along the Vermont transit corridor, where there's more density, can serve USC and South LA, and can connect to the E line and the C line. The B line extension as you suggest has it going through the industrial tax shelter of Vernon, which has a population of 222.
big fan of your content Nimesh
Also extending the D line westward to 4th St in Santa Monica would be nearly infinitely more valuable than extending it eastward to El Monte
@@davidabramovitch4289 Thanks!
@@chase7417 me being sad cus living close to el monte, but 0 rail options other than metrolink. Best option of going to DTLA is through the J Line. If only SGV would get their butts to work to not be the sprawl it is. The only project that I know of that is actively supports TOD is the Gateway project right next to El Monte Station.
There is NO proposed extension of the B line as you suggest. What is proposed is a light rail to many Southeast cities with very high densities. Vernon just happens to be geographically next to a few of these cities and besides there are no plans to have a station actually in Vernon. The name of this light rail project is the West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor or WSAB. It's not a subway, but there are plans to connect a subway station with the WSAB. Similar to how the B/D subway lines share a station with the A/E light rail lines.
BYD : a car manufacturer
LA : yes so we want you to make us a monorail
I'm confused, if they want chinese trains, why did they order BYD trains, instead of CRRC, which is a train manufacturer?
They do produce monorails since 2016. But if they would really get a Chinese manufacturer, they better go for CRRC.
Exactly if they want a chinese trains at least they should order it from CRRC a trains manufacturer not a car manufacturer that makes trains
LA has BYD electric buses on the G line. They forced BYD to open a manufacturing plant in Los Angeles County. (It's way out on the edge of the county in the Antelope Valley.)
Sounds familiar
Leyland: *Builds road vehicles*
British Rail: We'll take a couple hundred of your buses and have the converted into trains
Ah yes, Springfield opts for a monorail instead of fixing their most important street that would've made it safer for both cars and people, said monorail was disastrous, and LA is still like "Yup, this is exactly what we want"...smh. When it comes to the LA area, a monorail makes sense at Disneyland but of course it does, it's a small theme park resort and it helps get people from the hotels and Downtown Disney to inside the park at Tomorrowland without having to enter Main Street USA while maintaining crowd flow of those entering the two parks with it being elevated!
The monorail actually opened with a little accident in 1959 where then Vice President Nixon was abducted onto the monorail by Walt without Nixon's security! The monorail was designed by famed Imagineer Bob Gurr (who designed most of Disneyland's ride vehicles like Haunted Mansion and Autopia). Up until opening day, the monorail would not cooperate with them. Gurr and a German engineer worked tirelessly each night on sketching replacement parts and rushing them to the studio in Burbank so they could be built. The day before on June 13, the monorail ran as intended for the first time, but they were still worried for opening day. Gurr was in the pilot's seat, with Nixon's family and Walt on board, but the secret service agents didn't get on board as Gurr left the moment Walt told him to. He was worried, with Walt staring at him, that the monorail would break down and he accidentally kidnapped Nixon. Thankfully, it ran as intended.
Reese sees your "One more lane, bro!" and raises you a "One more rail, bro!"
Make it an underground Subway.
Make it as earthquake proof as possible as well.
@@ianhomerpura8937 I think ALL subway Tunneling in the L.A. Area is made to tough Earthquake Standards already. I’m sure the new D Line to Beverly Hills from Downtown L.A. is Earthquake Proof.
@@ianhomerpura8937 Well, they already do that.
That’s the preferred option it seems
Another BYD flub to note-Albuquerque’s bus rapid transit, ART. They were supposed to provide electric busses, and they also arrived late, did not get nearly the range they were supposed to, and did not fit under station canopies on the route. It was a disaster. I’m pretty sure the city of Albuquerque ended up suing BYD and using natural gas in the end.
I work at a big bus company. We say BYD=Build your problems. A lot of bus company's have had a lot of problems with their products. They are built to last exactly 7 years.
In contrast to that, we had Volvo 7700s in Schaffhausen until recently. They were super reliable and looked good as new even after 15 years. They never had door problems unlike the buses that came after them. I do miss them and hope they weren't scrapped but sent to a less wealthy country for many more years of reliable service.
I still remember the whole controversy surrounding BYD when their fleet of busses would not work properly for ABQ Ride's new ART system. Leaving ABQ Ride with egg on their face and having to delay the project till they could get New Flyers to replace BYDs.
@@lukasegeling5205Volvo makes a good bus
100% Agree. As a person from Seattle who grew up in NYC, I really appreciate that LA can build stuff. I probably paid $3k in extra taxes for the Seattle Monorail that never happened (a car + a motorcycle that got charged the same huge tax.) I agree that a heavy rail route, or even a fast light rail route up to the Valley would be the best choice. Still, a slow route is better than no route. (I'm eagerly awaiting the Purple Line's extension (F?) at least to Fairfax because I always visit LACMA and Canter's whenever I'm down there.
I agree. The extension of the D line along Wilshire is greatly anticipated by many including me. Unfortunately, the original LACMA "floating" campus designed by Pereira and built in the 60s is no more. It was torn down and a new museum is currently under construction. It's supposed to be finished by late 2024. Of course, Canter's is still holding strong. BTW, next time you're in town, checkout Langer's Deli another long time LA eatery. Best pastrami sandwich in town and it's already within walking distance of a Metro subway station.
L.A. needs to get this right and go rail not mono... they have been doing a good job in reintroducing metro into L.A., it would be messed up to mess it up here. I think the citizens should realize that the biggest mistake was getting rid of metro and the second biggest mistake was waiting so long to start rebuilding metro rail. Don't start making the mistake of building the wrong transit modes.
It has always boggled my mind that LA can have so much drive to build so much transit, yet be so painfully illiterate on how to actually drive ridership through service quality. Transit, density, and walkability is exactly what LA needs, but the rollout to actually get there has been borderline painful to watch. I really want LA to be better and I don't want to leave behind the roots I have around here, but scampering off to Europe or something does get pretty tempting sometimes. A monorail? Really?
Edit: Also, yes, nandert's videos are really important on the topic. He makes it pretty obvious that the monorail alternative to the project only exists because of BYD lobbying, Metro corruption, and Bel Air NIMBYism since no actual transit planner with a pulse would come up with them. Honestly, there is a real danger that those three forces could override what the people want and win out, you know, despite literally everyone who isn't Bel Air or paid off by BYD converging on automated heavy rail for the pass.
Bicycles, ebikes, electric cargo bicycles, robo taxis and escooters are great options for last mile, short distance travel.
Reduced transportation costs and fossil fuels free transportation.
Cities need to do more to encourage people to ride bicycles by providing SAFE, PROTECTED BIKE LANES and trails. Every adult and child should own a bicycle and ride it regularly. Bicycles are healthy exercise and fossil fuels free transportation. Electric bicycles are bringing many older adults back to cycling. Ride to work, ride to school, ride for health or ride for fun. Children should be able to ride a bicycle to school without having to dodge cars and trucks. Separated and protected bike lanes are required. It will also make the roads safer for automobile drivers. Transportation planners and elected officials need to encourage people to walk, bike and take public transportation. Healthy exercise and fossil fuels free transportation. In the future cities will be redesigned for people not cars. Crazy big parking lots will be transformed with solar canopies generating free energy from the sun.
@@KJSvitkoI agree with your overall argument in theory, but not in practice in LA. The city is just too spread out for what you envision. However, having more protected bike lanes is a good thing.
What LA needs to do much better is to build dedicated bus only lanes throughout the city and county (LA Metro is responsible for both) to supplement the LA Metro rail system. It would go much farther in dealing with the first/last mile issue than bikes or e-scooters. Also, more buses are now fully electric or even hydrogen powered.
@@mrxman581I'm definitely in favor of LA building more dedicated bus lanes especially in the Central Region. (Area west of the LA river, North of the 10 freeway, south of the Santa Monica Mountains and East of Beverly Hills).
That area is what I would consider to be LA's "Manhattan" and why D line ext, K line north and Vermont Corridor are such important projects.
@@mrxman581 the city being low density today doesn't mean it can build up in the future. many areas of LA are absolutely perfect for bike commute, and we can always build up density around transit so people can use their bike for their day to day life and hop on a train when they need to go cross town.
@@ronnyrueda5926 Well, the area you described actually already has the most public transit of any other part of the city. And will continue with the extension of the Purple line subway. And the Regional Connector opened last month in DTLA.
LA Metro has to spread the love now outside the area you describe including the SFV, East LA, and Southeast LA metro region. It's actually required that they spread out the transit projects across all of LA County because some of the measures that increased the sales taxes to fund these projects were county-wide. That means building transit projects that will serve residents outside of LA city boundaries. Had those assurances not been made for residents outside of LA city, the measures would have been voted down.
I've built monorails for the Gateshead Garden Festival, in Sydney and Wuppertal, Brockway, Ogdenville AND North Haverbrook and boy did it put them on the map!
I’m so glad you made this!
When it’s out for real please share
@@RMTransit I got your back
The line 17 - Gold in São Paulo is gonna use the BYD monorail. It seems modern enough.
Sao Paulo also borrowed a lot of money from the Chinese government. They didn't have much of a choice.
Video on SP soon!
I agree they should put a subway at the Sepulveda corridor. Potential money maker for Metro. They just open the regional connecter so no more force transfers.
3:10 SHOUTOUT NANDERT. literally makes the best breakdowns of LA transit
As someone who lives within the area of the Sepulveda pass/corridor it is an honest to god nightmare driving the 405 across from Sherman Oaks to Westwood. Judging by just how many people rely on this stretch of road to get to and from home and work, the only solution for transit here NEEDS to be high capacity heavy rail. The fact that my city even considers a monorail right now is shocking and really just goes to show how out of touch city leaders are
Why are so many US cities/metros so obsessed with non-standard quirky transit systems and gadget bahns? Just build a regular tram, subway or rail line…
Far less are than aren’t. Frankfurt style Stadtbahns have become far more popular in recent decades, but in the cases that gagetbahns are being discussed, it’s usually because a private company is offering to build it and partially or entirely fund it themselves, meaning that the government and more importantly the taxpayer, isn’t having to pay for an expensive system. This is the case with the Sepulveda corridor where BYD has constantly talking about their $6.1b (a number that is highly misleading) and has been able to rally support from more libertarian voters. The unfortunate trade off is of course the issues that generally arise from such cost cutting, such as much lower capacity and poorer connectivity to the local area and other transit services, two incredibly important things for this new line to work
It's mostly the cities in California that are obsessed with those, notably Silicon Valley/San Jose. The US as a whole if anything is a bit too hung up on light rail (witness LA, which builds what are essentially regional rail-length lines with light rail, or NYC, which is building its new Triboro line with light rail instead of heavy rail, of which it already has tons of). The US needs to give heavy rail another look, especially in LA. I think some of this stems from the idea that trains are old-fashioned and non-American and that newer is better (like Musk's electric cars in tiny tunnels, and whatever that bus/car/train hybrid that they wanted to build in San Jose is). And of course, that it will be cheaper.
Interesting debate considering LA once had one of the best inter-urban rail systems in the country with the red cars. That said, why build any lines that have incompatible tracks with ones already built? On it's face, it seems like a dumb idea.
Federal funding should be contingent on *not* going all-in on a proprietary Chinese technology.
CAN MONORAIL WORK HERE? YES IT CAN. But that's not the question to ask. The question is, "Will THIS monorail plan work?" and that answer is NO! Why?
1. The monorail options moved forward because BYD buried the numbers to make it look cheaper. They left out the cost of tunneling. When you throw that in, it's just as expensive as the metro.
2. One of the monorail plans is to run it down the 405 Expressway and build stations in the middle of nowhere that need more buses to connect. This make it a multi-seat trip AND puts the stations in a noisy, smelly channel that nobody is going to enjoy.
3. Getting to UCLA is a big deal. Metro will build a station on campus. Monorail won't, you need the people mover. Again, multi-seat trip, changing vehicles? WHY? This is so dumb.
4. BYD is shady AF. Their buses don't work in LA already, and it's believed they're bribing officials.
I love monorail. But no monorail is better than a bad monorail. The metro is the better deal for both taxpayers and riders.
Tax payers won’t approve a subway, the costs of a subway through the Sepulveda pass is astronomical and will be the most expensive public transit project in the nation for a short run train. Not to mention the people that pay the most in taxes are those living near the Sepulveda pass.
The automated metro proposals allow for up to 4 car trains at 90 seconds. The 3 car trains at 2.5 minutes is the initial operating plan. It’s also worth noting that the expansion to 4 car trains is built in from the start, so there wouldn’t be any need to extend platforms.
It shouldn't even be a debate then, that sounds absolutely amazing.
There is actually a city in north america planning to build a huge monorriail system, the city of Monterrey in México, they will build 2 lines one as a suburban train and the other as 2 lines (yes is very strange) also whant to add one of those chinese autonomous buses to one line, they will be using CRRC material for this.
They better use the same units operated in Chongqing
@@ianhomerpura8937 no, those will be like the Sao paulo L15 or Bangkok Yellow line. Bombardier monorrails built by CRRC
That reeks of chinese foreign investment.
So BYD is basically Lyle Lanley? Got it!
I mean, one of the world's largest automobile companies venturing into monorail?
Me: $$$$$
LA: Suckers
As an LA local, I can safely say that metro is run by a bunch of morons that don’t seem to understand anything about public transit and would rather waste time and money turning the system into a knock off uber with their painstakingly stupid micro transit “buses”. Let’s hope they don’t screw this up. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if they pick the worst option for the sepulveda pass project. But keeping my fingers crossed.
Become part of the solution and attend public comment community meetings. LA Metro does a lot more community outreach than most people think. I've attended many myself over the years. It helps to get better designed projects.
Become part of the solution and attend public comment community meetings. LA Metro does a lot more community outreach than most people think. I've attended many myself over the years. It helps to get better designed projects. Community input helps to counteract special interest money and influence which is ALWAYS there.
After Seattle’s big monorail fia$co, it is a mystery to me why monorail would be anybody’s default choice.
Peter Dibbles video on the LA monorail is a really good look over it's history
Thanks for giving Nandet a shoutout, the man doesn't get enough respect.
I'm Irish and I visit family in LA regularly. It's tragic such a rich city doesn't better transit
Being a UCLA alumni and now pursuing my masters in Planning while living in this corridor, always cool to see you cover local projects!
Man I went to USC and visiting my friends on UCLA was always such a pain with no car. I’m so happy with all the transit projects going on!
Thank you for the LA content! There’s a lot things in the works out here.
More to come!
Indeed, and not just with transit. Many important venues are currently being built too across the LA metro area. There is a lot that will get done before the 2028 Olympics. It seems many of these significant projects got a huge push when LA was awarded the Olympics a few years back even though most were already on the books.
Besides the upcoming rail projects under construction you have a new LACMA being built, the Lucas museum, new Space Shuttle museum, and new Intuit Clippers arena.
Just build a metro already. Then get Siemens to sell you some Inspiros built in Sacremento (so not too far away)
Don't most people support a subway along the Sepulveda corridor? Seems like the only people opposed are the rich NIMBYs
Yep. Thats one thing unfortunately this video missed. The mass majority of people said they preferred heavy rail. The frustrating part is that like with all transit in LA, those with the biggest voices are the ones against the best solution. NIMBYs and Metro Board members who’ve been bribed by BYD are the ones supporting a Sepulveda monorail. One thing I would have also liked him to cover was some of the design choice for heavy rail alternatives that could teach other cities worldwide how to built better connected and less expensive transit
@@metrofilmer8894 the Orange Line was supposed to be a light rail line, but NIMBYs put up a fight. They finally caved when the city government “compromised” and built the Orange Line as BRT.
Something that is important to note with BYD is that their safety standards are not up to snuff with regards to their automotive division. There's been a long laundry list of incidents with BYD's lithium ion battery packs that have been recorded and reported on by people in China (only for the authorities to take most of it down), as well as build quality issues and health and safety issues with the most recent being the presence of hexavalent chromium found in its buses by Japanese authorities in February of this year. Now they have had a hand in building monorail before, as they were responsible for the units that are part of monorails in Yinchuan, on top of building entire monorails in Guilin and Guang'an, as well as had a hand in the Bahia SkyRail in Salvador and Sao Paulo's Line 17 along with building the Bishan rubber tire monorail in Chongqing. That all taken in to consideration, however, the idea of BYD being given the time of day for this contract given what people already know about the poor quality of their EV buses and cars and the lack of concrete data on the safety of their infrastructure when it comes to rail. The federal government needs to step in and put an end to this nonsense with BYD.
This is especially bad given BYD doesn’t even have a high capacity monorail in China, while CRRC has 4, 2 in Chongqing which uses Hitachi technology and 2 in Wuhu which uses Bombardier technology. Both options will have competition when they need to purchase new train in the future.
Interesting. I hadn’t even realized that Chongqing was CRRC/Hitachi instead of BYD/Innovia. One of the biggest Pro-Monorail arguments that I’ve seen has been that it works in places like Chongqing
Line 3*, 2
@@metrofilmer8894 And it could work in LA as well inf planned properly. But BYD's plan is not workable, it's all wrong.
And Line 3 is already super lacking of capacity right now as the backbone for North-South line.. Should be a A-train subway from beginning..
@@metrofilmer8894Chongqing even has/had few trains assembled in Japan by Hitachi, therefore the destination sign is using Japanese Genki characters instead of Chinese characters (although most of the time they look similar)
Luckily the rich nimbys of beverly hills lost there fight against a similiar line (the purple line extension briefly mentioned in this video). Over 90 percent of public comments voiced against a monorail meaning that bel air will likely face defeat (aka no monorail) just like beverly hills did a few years ago.
The West side of Los Angeles is difficult to navigate, politically.
Much, if not most, of L.A.'s economic activity, including high-paying jobs, are located there, and the population is among the most affluent in the United States.
While I understand the need for avoiding any proprietary standards and while I recognize subways may be faster, the question for the transit agency to answer, ultimately, is what approach will best avoid lawsuits from people with deep pockets.
Vancouver's Sky Train would be a good choice but other cities transit unions fight having it tooth and nail because it is a fully automated system and requires no driver
What a timing! I just rewatched nandert's video on this topic from 2 years ago...
A great video!
Combining disjointed lines on the same corridor and using the same technology? Using reliable transit vehicle companies? Not building a line that is incompatible with other manufacturer vehicles? Having rapid transit serve major destinations directly? Building a major transit line that can be provide fast, frequent, and high capacity service? That might be a tall order for LA Metro, an agency which doesn't think that way by default. After all, this is the same agency whose model for rapid transit in one of the most car congested cities in the country is to use light rail at grade with traffic.
Without traffic, a bus could traverse the Sepulveda Pass faster than the monorail would. Can you imagine the feeling someone riding on the monorail would have watching a bus on the 405 pass it by?
I would disagree with you on sending the Sepulveda line east into Inglewood. It should continue south to the South Bay and Long Beach. LA's high capacity and grade separated heavy rail lines should provide the backbone for rapid transit from one side of the city to the other. Also, being that the South Bay and Long Beach have no commuter rail or heavy rail service at all, the Sepulveda line should offer fast transit as the transit backbone along the entire Westside.
On topic: I've been to Los Angeles in 2016 and the rail network was surprisingly good. Very few rail systems can compare to the Big Apple 🍎🍏 (where I'm from) but the "City of Angels", but after having gone a generation without having major rail transportation of some sort, LA is playing the "catch-up" game successfully, and just opened a rail project this past June (Regional Connector) and have a pair of rail projects soon-to-be open before the 2028 Olympics.
Off topic: Are you or will you be in Montréal at the end of July for the festivities relating to the opening of the REM? If so, great! Would be fantastic for you and many Montrealers (and all Canadians) and transit advocates on TH-cam (like you) to give the REM your first impressions.
Okay I thought it was weird that Bell Air & Sherman Oaks NIMBYs to push monorails for what they claimed, but BYD backing makes a lot more sense.
Crank up the "monorail" song from the Simpsons. BTW REM in Montreal opens on the 29th.
Egypt is building two new monorail lines with a combined length of 120 kms. They are going to be fully automated. Can you discuss that? People think its a great idea, no idea why.
This was a case of the Egyptian government wanting something cool and modern looking running in and out of their new national capitol, and the cost not being significantly more than any other option. Alstom got to build a new African/Middle East train manufacturing plant with it. Win-win.
@@KevinFields777 I am not sure if that is justified. The operational cost might become too large. I have looked up similar systems from Alstom and others and usually the line built does not exceed 20 kms except in Chongping, China. Furthermore, monorails make sense in places where it is difficult to find space or secure right-of-way. This makes sense in Chongping, China. The monorail as-built is running mostly beside highways on either side (west and east) of the old congested capital for distances in excess of 50 and 70 kms respectively. It is not actually built in the capital where it is might actually be useful because there is preexisting metro lines there.
So the choice of monorail does not make sense at all. It locks you into having to build it raised, it is a customized system which locks you with the supplying company and you are not able to upgrade and modernize outside of the companies proprietry systems. A standard system makes far more sense. Looks like a very bad deal to me.
Would like to hear subjective arguments to the contrary.
Egypt is run by a corrupt military dictatorship.
100% agree. The monorail here is a joke, since it will be connecting up at the Metrolink Van Neys station. In addition, there will most def be an extension south (still underground) through southern Culver City and near Playa Vista that will connect to the airport, probably coming up at surface (if it can support 3rd rails for a Metro and the Light Rail) on Portal Ave.
I heard those things are awfully loud (sorry, had to do it, thanks Reece!)
It actually glides as softly as a ☁️
Wish people would talk about transit through echo park/silver lake along sunset where all these super walkable neighborhoods are. and where people are generally more enthusiastic about transit
I don't know why monorails keep being built. Especially in cities such as Los Angeles, Bangkok, and so on, where there are already heavy and light rail systems. Best way to ensure there is an incompatible system with no sharing of equipment, maintenance, parts, costs possible, yeah, great.
Monorail would make sense in a smaller area like Pasadena or Glendale in their downtown areas. But going at least more than 20 miles with a monorail isn’t a good idea. It has to be underground heavy rail, or things will get crazy
bullseye!
As a resident of the greater Pasadena, how dare you. We should just recreate the Red Car.
@@daviyen Fine. then the Red Cars for both downtowns. Monorail can go to the Woodland Hills where the Rams are building their new headquarters.
Thanks for covering more of LA! Definitely needed
Hard to believe LACMTA is considering a 3rd form of train to take care of in addition to light rail and heavy rail, because, reasons. This absolutely needs to be regular heavy rail...which they already have facilities for.
Absolutely agree. This location is not suitable for monorails. Should be Metro.
I expect the monorail won't happen, mainly because of Caltrans and the amount of kerfuffles that will entail working with them, but LA Metro's governing body is one I'm not crazy about either. You hope for the best and pray to not be disappointed.
coming from sao paulo and our (maybe) 2 monorail lines FROM byd:
build literally anything else. it's easier to build and maintain, cheaper, and has way more capacity.
i can't stress enough how much line 15 should have been at least light metro
I know that the monorail option is not the best or even a good option, but I would love to see the visual of a monorail streaking by over the 405 fwy. It's like bringing the Disneyland monorail to the real world. As a kid, I looked at monorails like the public transit of the future 😊
However, that being said, I'm sure they'll pick the subway option to better connect UCLA and to the Purple line extension to the Westside.
BTW, your generalizations of people movers are very shortsighted. The ones proposed and being constructed in the LA metro area are not afterthoughts or remedies for some perceived imaginary urban planning mistakes. It's never that black and white when you're dealing with a variety of agencies, funding sources, and private enterprises.
The Inglewood people mover absolutely was to remedy the mistake of the K Line not reaching the stadiums. I know metro had already environmentally cleared the current alignment before SoFi and other plans even started, but there's no doubt that Metro would have aligned K to go through the stadiums if the timing was better. Hence, now we have a people mover to fix the problem.
Agree that the LAX people mover is a great solution and not really fixing a "problem"
One thing I thought about, why not extend the Van Nuys future train south, go underground under the mountains, connect with the Getty Center, to UCLA on-campus, connect with the Purple Line for the first leg. Then continue further south to LAX and then to the new stadiums in Inglewood. Eventually, with the Red Line, extend it south from Union Station, take advantage of the Slauson ROW going east, connect the Red Line to LAX. Extend the Red Line to Burbank Airport at the north end, then go eastbound along the Metrolink tracks to connect with the Van Nuys train. By doing this, you have a light rail that will provide transit from San Fernando, down Van Nuys, down I-405, to UCLA, to LAX. The Red Line will provide service to Van Nuys, Metrolink between Van Nuys and Burbank Airport, the current alignment through NoHo, Universal City/Studio City, Hollywood, Downtown LA, LA River, Slauson Ave, to LAX. This will not create a circular line but will connect in a circular way.
Now if they go with Metro (NO MONORAIL, leave that to Disney), connect with Van Nuys at the Orange Line, then go along the Metrolink from Van Nuys Station and Burbank Airport, ride the Red Line current alignment, Hollywood, Downtown LA, Union Station, LA River, Slauson, Inglewood stadiums, connect with K Line and Green Line, LAX, go north towards UCLA, Getty Center, I-405 through Sepulveda Pass, and Van Nuys. NOW, we got a circular connect that goes through Downtown LA, serving major communities in the LA area and San Fernado area. Orange Line let's convert to Light Rail please! Now, another circular line in the San Gabriel Valley area.
About the Red Line, I thought about it extending north through Burbank Airport, Metrolink ROW to San Fernando, then to Santa Clarita, terminating somewhere near Six Flags Magic Mountain (they are open year-round). On the south end, continue down LA River, connecting to the Metrolink Orange Country Line, to Norwalk, and then terminating in Santa Ana. Santa Ana, I chose because of the Orange County trolley. The Green Line can be extended to Norwalk Metrolink then further east to cover more territory on the eastside underneath/or above Imperial Highway for about five miles.
With the idea I had above, there will be two lines, one that is circular as described in the previous comment and one that connects three major entertainment centers (Six Flags, Universal, and Disney).
@@twizshiz Metrolink already goes from Santa Clarita through Burbank into downtown via the Antelope Valley line. If anything, the AV lines needs to be electrified, and then TOD needs to be encouraged around its stations, with street cars and light rail extending from them (to, for example, Six Flags, as you mentioned).
@@nimeshinlosangeles With light rail, it will be consistent, 5A-midnight, every 6-20 minutes, and Metrolink can be express service. Light rail can be more local, because Metrolink will continue to Palmdale.
At the same time, the MTA in New York runs local trains, buses, and commuter lines. It would be nice if MTA run Metrolink and MTA. I understand MTA is Los Angeles based, I would like to see MTA go back to the RTD days when they ran the entire county. MTA should be LA County because they are responsible for all freeways in LA County. There should not be several bus services in LA County, MTA should run it all and also run Metrolink as well.
@@twizshizA Metro is responsible for LA city and county. Metrolink is a different story because those lines cross various cities and counties including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Riverside counties.
Thank you Reece for an excellent video. I particularly liked the maps, which enabled me to visualize the area you are talking about.
I shuddered when you mentioned BYD, and then CRRC. Their reputations here in Europe are not good. And can we, whether in Europe or North America, rely on being able to get spare parts from China?
The CRRC trains in a particular country in South-east Asia are absolute horrid with the worst reliability to the point where the operator had to pull the entire fleet away from the line for over an entire year where it broke the entire network, **twice.** Not to mention they had to send one by one, the entire fleet back to China because of manufacturing defects
Don't get me started on the shoddy build quality and non-existent sound proofing too. Yet, despite everything, they've gone ahead and overdid themselves by ordering from the same company that screw them over multiple times for a new high capacity line that will form one of the most important transport arteries of this country. Guess the phrase "once bitten, twice shy" doesn't apply to them, they'll never learn from anything let alone their mistakes
@@იან are these the CRRC Dalian trains that was supposed to travel along Line 3 in Manila? Or the new CRRC Sifang EMUs at the SMRT in Singapore?
@@ianhomerpura8937 They're all Sifang stock on the Singapore MRT, you're right
@@ianhomerpura8937Do the different CRRCs have very different reputations
Hey! I gotta give LA credit for actually doing something. We can't get a single damn "crosstown" tram/rail line built here in Baltimore
Thanks. That was due to voters deciding to increase the sales taxes in both LA city and county. If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't have any subway or light rail.
Los Angeles will become an amazing city
LA could easily be a Spanish or Portuguese style Mediterranean city if the public will existed
But as we all know America is known to be the land of automobiles, just like Germany. More highways please and no rails near my beloved backyard.
You don't want it to be Portuguese lol, it's only slightly better than LA, go for Spanish.
@@f.g.9466 I’ve been to Porto and Lisbon. Both are stunning cities
@@LucasDimoveo they are indeed. And transit isn't too bad for a tourist staying mostly in the center. For residents that need to commute daily for work things aren't looking so bright. Could be worse, and some zones or trips are served with decent transit, but there's a lot that should be a lot better. Housing is also a major problem in Lisbon metropolitan area.
LA its way too diverse to be a Spanish or Mediterranean city.
not a byd fan. but we need to be aboveground. REM would be cool
I think nandert mentioned why the ESFV line and the Sepulveda line weren't or couldn't have been combined in a video but I can't remember which.
I think the reasoning is that the Sepulvida Line is planned as an express service while ESFV is planned as local, so combining them could cause capacity issues, which I guess is reasonable. IMO a better option would've been to do one line and have it have an express and local service pattern, but since ESFV is already approved, it's too late to change that.
@@adianchowdhury9016Yeah I don’t really see that as being a huge issue, similar lines exist in lots of cities. Make a bunch of stops in the valley and then express to the west side
@@RMTransitI think the issue is the grade. I think he said a light rail wouldn't be able to handle it along the Sepulveda Pass, and continuing the heavy rail further into the SFV would be cost prohibitive compared to light rail.
Separating B line to go south down the Vermont Ave would be better, as would extending D line down Whittier Blvd.
Well, the B and D line are one in the same once they get to Union Station. The issue is building a subway line to East LA along Whittier Blvd as originally planned decades ago.
@@mrxman581 B and D share track now, but that can be changed. Separating them would be fairly easy.
@@arnorrian1 there is no space to do that at Union Station specifically from the West side. However there are plans to extend the subway to the East above ground near the new 6th street viaduct/bridge. I guess that line could be either an extension of either the B or D line or both I guess. It's still not clear though what shape that station will take because it's also going to connect to the approved light rail WSAB line that will serve cities in the Southeast area of LA. Which is a great idea. So passengers on the WSAB can transfer directly to the subway. At least that is how I understand it will work. No official plans have been created yet. Though the funding was approved for this station. It will cost less than your average station because they already own the tracks and working ROW.
@@mrxman581 Separation would be done at Wilshire/Vermont, B would continue south down Vermont, and D would be sole line to Union Station.
@@arnorrian1 Then the extension to East LA would be the D line. That could work well so you eventually have two lines cross LA East to West (D and E) and two lines North to South with the extension North of the K line. That arrangement of those two lines would be awesome and finally build lines proposed decades ago at least in the case with the subway to East LA.
Hi! I enjoy your videos! You made a couple of mistakes on this one. You said Sepulveda Blvd. is the route from the San Fernando Valley to Westwood and beyond. There's an interstate freeway, 405, that is parallel to Sepulveda. Also, it would be the "B" (Red line) that would extend to the northeast valley--this is the one that goes under Hollywood, ending at Union Station in downtown Los Angeles.
What are the three people movers in L.A.? Anyway, whatever is decided won't be completed until I'm long dead. :/
Great video! As an Angeleno, the planning of this project has myself as well as other transit enthusiasts pulling our hair out. BYD has been lobbying hard in LA for years, and has had its eyes on this contract for a long time.
😂BYD? Oh boi ain’t that Capitalism with Murican characteristics
Which is why community input and feedback is so important to counteract those special interests. Complaining and then not doing anything about it is useless.
And the manufacturer is a different issue than the mode. Give a turnkey contract to a Japanese company. If it uses no Fed money, it can avoid prevailing wage laws which is one of the main reasons construction takes so long and costs so much in the USA.
I hear it "rides as softly as a cloud", that's good enough for me.
Quick question. Could a subway style national rail network work.
For example:
(stand with me this about to get dense)
If Amtrak were to rebrand thier east corridor as a new service where people had to buy cards (on/off line) and tap those card into gates while entering and then taps those card into different gates while leaving and you would be charged a fee for how long you spent traveling along with a service fee.
The trains on this service would be painted different than amtrak other trains. With more frequent service (10-15 minutes every local.
20-30 minutes every express
And finally the stations would be remodeled with metro like additions. (Digital screens telling you how far a train is. Greater Wayfinding tools ect,ect.)
Now. If Amtrak were to do all the previously mention changes to the east corridor could Amtrak gain more money/a greater amount of riders on said corridor.
Is there a reason why monorails in general (not for this specific line) are so derided? The only two answers I got so far are
1. They can only go 50 mph whereas heavy rail rapid transit can go 75, and it seems like dual-rail light rail tops out at 65.
2. They're more difficult to evacuate in an emergency since there's no siding. I can understand that, but in a dual-rail system do evacuated passengers just stand on the side? Because a lot of dual-rail systems I've been on (e.g. BART) don't have any room on the sides to stand either.
They have few manufacturers so you'll likely end up with over priced low quality vehicles
Their switches involve moving the entire guideway which is more complicated and therefore prone to failure. Those switches then also take much longer to fix.
They also take up much more space in tunnels, are often lower capacity and many more reasons
I think some people are confused how a monorail got picked as a choice in the first place for this project. See, the LAMTA is considering taking a design/build bid for this project. The two design/build finalists were the monorail from BYD ( several versions of it, actually) and a traditional heavy rail design from Bechtel. They are also including a traditional heavy rail subway plan, built the traditional way, as one of the choices.
One of the reasons, beyond corruption and bribery, that BYD's plan made it to the second round was that the top line price was very low. However, that figure hides extra potential costs. It's harder to expand. Plus, the connection to UCLA is poor on two of the three versions of the monorail plan (electric buses or a people mover). If they are to serve UCLA directly, they have to go with the design that is partly underground, eating up all those savings for a still inferior product.
I’m from the valley. Going down into central LA, is car heavy only. Also, the spacing between things like groceries stores etc is also spaced pretty far out. You need a car for even basic errands pretty much. It’s a house house apartment house house only area.,
Honolulu-50 yrs to start it, $10 billion, and it goes to nowhere. No rest rooms either after 50 yrs of planning. No Monorail-follows a bad example
A monorail, what's next "pods' or a underground Tesla track.
I give up on ever being car free in 'Merica.
I’m a 🚊 operator, working for Metro Los Ángeles, and I want the Sepulveda Line to be built as a heavy rail. Sadly, the ones who are behind this project only cared for the bottom line, and building a monorail 🚝 could be more of a pain in the you-know-where. :/
If you haven't already, you should do a video about the proposed Gobdala in little Cottonwood Canyon near Salt Lake City and how it was chosen over a cog railway and Bus service. Also look into the "Rio Grande Plan" here in SLC
I always find the absolute ignoring of regional rail in LA so strange. It’s the perfect solution for the sprawling city that it is. Who wants to build slow tens of miles long light rail lines? I know I don’t
Because regional rail lines are big, visible, expensive and make noise, meaning they are perfect targets for the upper class NIMBYs of LA who are terrified about their parts of LA becoming one of “those” cities, like NY San Francisco, Chicago, Portland or Seattle where homeless people are attacking them, crime is high, everything is expensive and business is nonexistent, (despite claims of things previously mentioned generally being false and those cities generally being the best cities in the country to live in)
The only logical reasons l can think of for a Monorail system are
1) A closed loop elevated system where the canatary would have clearence pronlems.
2) If the needed is for the absolutely lowest DB noise rating.
3) If the system is elevated building the pre-stressed concrete or structural steel bridge sections between supports as fully integrated sections with rail, communications and power built into the bridge section at the factory. If the systen is elevated replace some stairs with escalators.
Reasons against
1) System incompatability with both heavy and light rail.
2) The sheer clunkyness of things such as turnouts.
Monorails are too bumpy as they ride on concrete. At least that is what I see.
Aaaah monorail!
I voted for it in Seattle, but it failed! At least I still have my monorail coffee cup!
Not only should LA build metro that parallels the historically overwhelmed 405, they should set up any additional trackage outside of the existing Red/Purple Line systems to run just like many Manhattan subways; local AND express exclusively to take full advantage of the 70-75 mph operating speeds as well as to be time competitive to even an uncongested freeway (even though that’s been rare on that particular side of LA for ages).
Can you do a video on Monterrey's under construction monorail - Line 6
But Reece, don’t you want to Build Your Dreams?
You completely glossed over the fact that the reason the monorail is being proposed is in part to placate the rich people in Bel Air who are terrified of a metro running beneath their very expensive houses in the mountains along the 405 where a heavy rail tunnel would need to be built. They're concerned it could affect their foundations and will reduce their property values, even though... it probably won't. A monorail is viewed as an alternative that might make this not such a big deal lol.
Can you explain why Hitachi monorails aren't an option for LA Metro? Or was it just speculation and gossips that said it would be BYD?
Why is LA hell bent on death by connection?! "Oh yeah you just take the metro, to the people mover, to the electric bus, and you're there!"
Nandert point that out, it's like every LA transit project is taking place in a vacuum with no comprehensive plan as to how they'll function as a whole.
@@1978dkellynot necessarily true. It comes down to funding and when it's available. A good example of that is the recent opening of the Regional Connector which had ALWAYS been part of the plan. Same is true with the subway extension along Wilshire Blvd. It doesn't always happen as fast as we'd like though. There are also good plans that haven't been done yet but not necessarily because of LA Metro's fault. Like that idiotic political BS that blocked all local funding for subway construction for 20 years. Some of the fallout from that was that East LA got a less useful light rail line than an extension of the original Red line to East LA along Whittier Blvd. Still, that subway extension to East LA can still be built and connect to the Atlantic and Whittier underground station of the approved second phase of the gold line making both lines even more functional and useful
I work at the Getty Center and live in the San Fernando Valley. The Sepulveda Corridor is one busiest and congested areas to traverse through when getting to and from work. I always wanted to see light rail system to go on Sepulveda so there would be a stop to work, which would be convenient. The monorail however, knowing LA’s history of transit and how they please more to their wealthy residents (i.e Bel Air and Brentwood) of allowing such transit to pass through is challenging. In other words, the monorail feels like dead on arrival.
Can you believe BYD had a hand in building Bart back in the day lol....
Awesome video.. i just found your channel and subscribed 😊
they should just copy the REM and put it there 😊
That's what the Regional Connector is.
@@themoviedealers Except the REM doesn't operate in the street and is mostly grade separate.
@@edwardmiessner6502fully
That’s kind of like what the automated option would be!
nandert is great
LA and Orange Counties have a large number of rivers upon which, Caltrans could build freeways and Monorails without the cost of buying land which is very expensive. It's that simple, fast and less costly. Next, Caltrans could build a monorail connecting San Diego to LA via, Santa Ana and Irvine. The and 405 Freeways have sufficient space to build a Monorail in the center of those freeways. Again, it will be cheap and fast to build and considering the excessively heavy traffic transiting on them, it is imperative that Caltrans begin ASAP. Build on the Freeways and rivers.