4 ms·

I’m surprised by this article. Most people seem to agree that the the metro systems of NYC, Philadelphia, and DC are much better than those of the west coast. L

by dangwu 8y ago

I’m surprised by this article. Most people seem to agree that the the metro systems of NYC, Philadelphia, and DC are much better than those of the west coast. LA’s is unusable for most people because there aren’t enough stops. Seattle’s light rail is definitely gaining steam as it adds more stops.

ummonk 8y ago
Right. I'd like the West Coast transit systems to match those available in NYC, DC or Boston. It could be done 20 years from now if we started laying down more subway now. Scooters and self-driving cars is not a transit system.
kenhwang 8y ago
I think LA's is only really usable to get to/from DTLA. The nice part is DTLA is becoming more eventful, so you actually want to go there sometimes for non-work reasons. Getting anywhere else is a bit of a crapshoot for the last-mile. I don't think LA's train system is ready for primetime until it can reasonably get into LAX; preferably with a more direct route from the westside that doesn't detour through DTLA.
- jpatokal 8y ago
  The Crenshaw/LAX line that does just that is scheduled to open in 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crenshaw/LAX_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crenshaw/LAX_Line ...although its utility will be limited until they connect it to the Red/Purple lines, and that's still on the drawing board.
  - kenhwang 8y ago
    Then there's the people mover for inner-LAX travel between the train station and the terminals scheduled for 2023. But once that and the connection to red/purple is done, I'd say LA's public transit would be in a reasonably usable state.
tallanvor 8y ago
The difference is that places like Seattle and LA are expanding their systems. In New York, Boston, and DC it's rather stagnant.
- Klonoar 8y ago
  Having lived in both Seattle and DC... this is wrong, at least comparing those two. DC managed to build a new line out to Dulles with others in the works, Seattle's light rail is a joke if you're trying to use it for more than a straight line through the city. A common misconception people have about the DC metro is that it belongs to DC, but the abbreviation WMATA has nothing to do with DC for a reason. Maryland, Virginia, and I believe even the Federal Govt have to be a part of any changes that happen there. Given that, it's an absolute wonder that anything works.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Boston supposedly has the north/south station rail connector project under way again. It's only been half a century. I'll believe it when I see it. Even then I won't ride on it for a few years in case the ceiling falls down.
    - nck4222 8y ago
      "underway" is a generous way to describe it. There's been no funding allocated, and there's no plans to allocate funding at the moment. There are studies underway, but there have been studies done dozens of times over decades. Although there does seem to be some political support for getting it done this time.
    - rhodysurf 8y ago
      That has to be the most frustrating part of bostons transportation, none of the big hubs are conveniently connected.
      - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        And the lack of some sort of beltway line that connects the ends of the existing subway lines. As it stands anyone who has to cross the city by rail needs to go through the city.
Shivetya 8y ago
Well one part they don't discuss is ridership numbers increased as the number of in town jobs increased, not because they built out their systems. Plus when factoring in increased rail ridership much can be found in decreased bus usage. In some cities they reduce routes to force the issue. Plus none of these systems brings in enough in fares to cover a majority of their expenses let alone put a dent in their deferred backlogs. Instead the new angle is to go after rider sharing services with new fees and you can bet the scooter invasion is ripe for taxation. I do find it interesting they talk about the recent surge in EV scooters as being a benefit. I wonder who led that charge. I was amazed that just one company has twelve thousand scooters in the NYC area! Public planners cannot easily factor those in and given NYC weather where to these end up in winter? If you want to see the statistics as reported to the Federal Government on ridership numbers and cost per mile check out the spreadsheets at [1] the FTA California transit numbers show a decline and that two thirds and more are by bus in a 2018 June report. Plus the percentage [2]. A large share of the systems need replacement and this is not factored into new taxes. Throw in the transit only reduces emissions per mile when compared to solo drivers but worse those numbers are moving close to parity as cars become more efficient Mass transit is a good idea but technology is rapidly displacing it and it only appears cheap because riders don't pay but a fraction of the cost. In fact most are paid by people who cannot even make use of it [1] https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/monthly-module-adjusted-data-release https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/monthly-module-... [2] https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3860 https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3860
- michaelt 8y ago
  none of these systems brings in enough in fares to cover a majority of their expenses Public transit systems often generate a bunch of economic value they can't (or find it isn't politically acceptable to) capture in fares. For example, if trains to the financial district save each rider 1 hour per day, and the riders are 70% stockbrokers on $150/hour and 30% janitors on $15/hour, a fare of $40/day might maximise revenue but be unpopular with voters as it excludes all the janitors. Or if a new public transport system means for the same commute time I can travel further, and that means I can buy a family home for $300,000 instead of $450,000 it's going to be difficult for the public transport to capture much of the value created in fares.
nicwilson 8y ago
Its also almost uselessly infrequent. As a poor sod needing to go to the Aussie consulate between Beverly hills and Santa Monica from Irvine, I'm incredibly lucky that the train was 5 mins late, because there wasn't much else to do that day: last train for the morning left 9:02am, next train 4:30pm! And I thought Perth's public transport was shit in comparison to Singapore/Hong Kong/London/Berlin, boy have I got new found respect for it!
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Irvine is not part of LA's public transportation system... And in the case of London and Berlin, you're comparing national rail systems to that of a single city that could easily fit the 4 cities you mentioned within its borders and still have room for Paris and Tokyo. And let's not even get started on the LA metropolitan area, which is geographically the largest in the Western world.
  - nicwilson 8y ago
    Irvine is about as far out as Mandurah from Perth and it goes about that far again north: if LA's public transport system was actually well designed it would be.

by dangwu 8y ago

ummonk 8y ago

Right. I'd like the West Coast transit systems to match those available in NYC, DC or Boston. It could be done 20 years from now if we started laying down more subway now. Scooters and self-driving cars is not a transit system.

kenhwang 8y ago

I think LA's is only really usable to get to/from DTLA. The nice part is DTLA is becoming more eventful, so you actually want to go there sometimes for non-work reasons. Getting anywhere else is a bit of a crapshoot for the last-mile. I don't think LA's train system is ready for primetime until it can reasonably get into LAX; preferably with a more direct route from the westside that doesn't detour through DTLA.

jpatokal 8y ago
The Crenshaw/LAX line that does just that is scheduled to open in 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crenshaw/LAX_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crenshaw/LAX_Line ...although its utility will be limited until they connect it to the Red/Purple lines, and that's still on the drawing board.
- kenhwang 8y ago
  Then there's the people mover for inner-LAX travel between the train station and the terminals scheduled for 2023. But once that and the connection to red/purple is done, I'd say LA's public transit would be in a reasonably usable state.

tallanvor 8y ago

The difference is that places like Seattle and LA are expanding their systems. In New York, Boston, and DC it's rather stagnant.

Klonoar 8y ago
Having lived in both Seattle and DC... this is wrong, at least comparing those two. DC managed to build a new line out to Dulles with others in the works, Seattle's light rail is a joke if you're trying to use it for more than a straight line through the city. A common misconception people have about the DC metro is that it belongs to DC, but the abbreviation WMATA has nothing to do with DC for a reason. Maryland, Virginia, and I believe even the Federal Govt have to be a part of any changes that happen there. Given that, it's an absolute wonder that anything works.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Boston supposedly has the north/south station rail connector project under way again. It's only been half a century. I'll believe it when I see it. Even then I won't ride on it for a few years in case the ceiling falls down.
  - nck4222 8y ago
    "underway" is a generous way to describe it. There's been no funding allocated, and there's no plans to allocate funding at the moment. There are studies underway, but there have been studies done dozens of times over decades. Although there does seem to be some political support for getting it done this time.
  - rhodysurf 8y ago
    That has to be the most frustrating part of bostons transportation, none of the big hubs are conveniently connected.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      And the lack of some sort of beltway line that connects the ends of the existing subway lines. As it stands anyone who has to cross the city by rail needs to go through the city.

Shivetya 8y ago

Well one part they don't discuss is ridership numbers increased as the number of in town jobs increased, not because they built out their systems. Plus when factoring in increased rail ridership much can be found in decreased bus usage. In some cities they reduce routes to force the issue. Plus none of these systems brings in enough in fares to cover a majority of their expenses let alone put a dent in their deferred backlogs. Instead the new angle is to go after rider sharing services with new fees and you can bet the scooter invasion is ripe for taxation. I do find it interesting they talk about the recent surge in EV scooters as being a benefit. I wonder who led that charge. I was amazed that just one company has twelve thousand scooters in the NYC area! Public planners cannot easily factor those in and given NYC weather where to these end up in winter? If you want to see the statistics as reported to the Federal Government on ridership numbers and cost per mile check out the spreadsheets at [1] the FTA California transit numbers show a decline and that two thirds and more are by bus in a 2018 June report. Plus the percentage [2]. A large share of the systems need replacement and this is not factored into new taxes. Throw in the transit only reduces emissions per mile when compared to solo drivers but worse those numbers are moving close to parity as cars become more efficient Mass transit is a good idea but technology is rapidly displacing it and it only appears cheap because riders don't pay but a fraction of the cost. In fact most are paid by people who cannot even make use of it [1] https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/monthly-module-adjusted-data-release https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/monthly-module-... [2] https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3860 https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3860

michaelt 8y ago
none of these systems brings in enough in fares to cover a majority of their expenses Public transit systems often generate a bunch of economic value they can't (or find it isn't politically acceptable to) capture in fares. For example, if trains to the financial district save each rider 1 hour per day, and the riders are 70% stockbrokers on $150/hour and 30% janitors on $15/hour, a fare of $40/day might maximise revenue but be unpopular with voters as it excludes all the janitors. Or if a new public transport system means for the same commute time I can travel further, and that means I can buy a family home for $300,000 instead of $450,000 it's going to be difficult for the public transport to capture much of the value created in fares.

nicwilson 8y ago

Its also almost uselessly infrequent. As a poor sod needing to go to the Aussie consulate between Beverly hills and Santa Monica from Irvine, I'm incredibly lucky that the train was 5 mins late, because there wasn't much else to do that day: last train for the morning left 9:02am, next train 4:30pm! And I thought Perth's public transport was shit in comparison to Singapore/Hong Kong/London/Berlin, boy have I got new found respect for it!

gamblor956 8y ago
Irvine is not part of LA's public transportation system... And in the case of London and Berlin, you're comparing national rail systems to that of a single city that could easily fit the 4 cities you mentioned within its borders and still have room for Paris and Tokyo. And let's not even get started on the LA metropolitan area, which is geographically the largest in the Western world.
- nicwilson 8y ago
  Irvine is about as far out as Mandurah from Perth and it goes about that far again north: if LA's public transport system was actually well designed it would be.