LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Interesting proposal - Page 16/17

Buying rights-of-way and building tracks in multiple corridors would be very expensive, and duplicative--there is already a train between LA Union Station and downtown Long Beach.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by craigs

Buying rights-of-way and building tracks in multiple corridors would be very expensive, and duplicative--there is already a train between LA Union Station and downtown Long Beach.

I don’t see why, since the Metrolink line would function as more of a faster, express-like service between the two. And given that speed improvements on A line (Washington-7th St segment) like grade-separation are years, if not decades away, this seems like it would be more of a lower-hanging fruit.

Expensive, though, sure.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

I don’t see why, since the Metrolink line would function as more of a faster, express-like service between the two.

Expensive, though, sure.

You don't see how a new commuter rail line running between Union Station and Long Beach would be duplicative of the existing light rail line running between Union Station and Long Beach? I do. I think it would be far better to invest that money in high-demand corridors that currently lack rail service, such as the Sepulveda Pass.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by craigs

Your article is from January, 2018. Why are you posting a five-and-a-half year old article in response to articles from this week?

Because that study is still relevant!
2012 to 2017 ridership fell 17%
During the pandemic it fell another 50% or so
Post pandemic ridership has not grown to match 2019 ridership, and there is still another 17% growth needed to match 2012 ridership.
A 10% growth in ridership two years in a row does not recover from a 50% decrease preceded by a 17% decrease.
If the pre pandemic decrease in ridership trend continues, it will never recover to pre pandemic ridership levels, nor 2012 ridership levels.

You need to step back and look at the entire forest to see what is happening, not just at the new fresh saplings.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by craigs

You don't see how a new commuter rail line running between Union Station and Long Beach would be duplicative of the existing light rail line running between Union Station and Long Beach? I do. I think it would be far better to invest that money in high-demand corridors that currently lack rail service, such as the Sepulveda Pass.

I tend to agree. We already have new A line extensions paralleling Metrolink in SGV, which isn't ideal. If we need new commuter rail, and I'm not sure if we do, it would be more towards the westside jobs or maybe LAX/South Bay jobs. Neither DTLA nor Long Beach or anywhere in between are growing as job centers although maybe that changes at some point.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by electricron

Because that study is still relevant!
2012 to 2017 ridership fell 17%

I suspect that a big part of that drop is related to a law that took effect in 2013. It directed the DMV to issue driver's licenses to all eligible California residents, regardless of their immigration status. Prior to 2013, the region's population of undocumented immigrants was essentially a captive market for Southern California transit agencies, and now they are not. Generally, people here drive if they can afford to, and it is common knowledge that LA is not a transit-oriented city or metro. "Choice" riders are few and far between here, especially after COVID.

Speaking of the pandemic and lingering ridership losses, that boils down to the surge in remote work, which has depleted the ranks of office workers to and from the center of the region's entire public transit network, downtown LA. All the light rail, metro, and commuter rail lines feed downtown, and Metro can't do anything about downtown employers allowing remote work. Absent a resurgence in in-person employment downtown, I agree with you that local transit agencies may never regain pre-pandemic ridership levels, let alone 2012 levels.

You need to step back and look at the entire forest to see what is happening, not just at the new fresh saplings.

Okay, I don't "need" to do anything I'm not already doing. I will focus on positive ridership news whenever I feel like doing so, and will leave the doom loop discussions to others.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by craigs

You don't see how a new commuter rail line running between Union Station and Long Beach would be duplicative of the existing light rail line running between Union Station and Long Beach? I do. I think it would be far better to invest that money in high-demand corridors that currently lack rail service, such as the Sepulveda Pass.

Agreed - for example that money could be used to underground the E/A lines along Flower and Washington and create better signal priority (or full preemption) along those two lines. The resulting improved operating efficiency and travel time would attract more riders than the new Metrolink line.

If we're going to build a new Metrolink line using existing ROW, it should be to LAX and/or the South Bay.

[FromSD]

It's not even clear that this redundant commuter line between DTLA and Downtown Long Beach would be that much faster. The proposal mentions stations every 1 to 3 miles. That is quite a few stations. Plus the proposed route is a bit more circuitous than the existing A line, so that won't help much either on end to end travel times.

But yes, with all the other already-approved Metro projects waiting for funding, it seems odd to spend billions on a commuter line that duplicates the existing A line.

[FromSD]

Originally Posted by electricron

Because that study is still relevant!
2012 to 2017 ridership fell 17%
During the pandemic it fell another 50% or so
Post pandemic ridership has not grown to match 2019 ridership, and there is still another 17% growth needed to match 2012 ridership.
A 10% growth in ridership two years in a row does not recover from a 50% decrease preceded by a 17% decrease.
If the pre pandemic decrease in ridership trend continues, it will never recover to pre pandemic ridership levels, nor 2012 ridership levels.

You need to step back and look at the entire forest to see what is happening, not just at the new fresh saplings.

I guess I'm not seeing the point of your argument here. Are you saying that Metro should cancel future system expansions because ridership "will never recover to pre pandemic ridership levels, nor 2012 ridership levels"? That seems like a pretty bold prediction given how circumstances change. Or are you recommending a cut in service to match the lower ridership numbers? Maybe close down the Expo line past Culver City? Or is this just an opportunity to dump on LA and its woolly-headed fixation on rail transit? Orange County spends all its transit sales tax money on freeway widening. The 405 through northern Orange County is about to go from 10 lanes to 14 lanes. Is that what you envision for LA County? The Texas Solution!

You're right to point out that LA Metro ridership numbers did decline in the years prior to the pandemic. Craigs mentioned drivers licenses. Also, an improving economy probably allowed some transit-dependent people to buy cars when they couldn't afford them previously. Also Uber and Lift took away some casual ridership. I've also wondered whether the introduction of fare gates at this time also had an impact. Could earlier numbers have been boosted by freeloaders? The advent of fare gates coincides with the beginning of ridership declines.

But all this stuff (except for the fare gates) is outside of LA Metro's control. What do you expect LA Metro to do about it? Unlike you, I do think that ridership numbers will recover and surpass their 2012 peak. The system continues to grow and reach more places that people want to visit. The extension of the subway to UCLA and beyond will be a major step forward since the Westside has a huge number of jobs. The extension of the Crenshaw line to the LAX people mover will help too, though less than the Westside subway extension. In the meantime, traffic congestion on the freeways and streets will continue to worsen with no room left for freeway expansions. If Metro finally gets a handle on transit security and quality of life issues, I think people will come around to public transit. Not everyone obviously, but enough to bring about robust ridership growth.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by FromSD

Also Uber and Lift took away some casual ridership.

Oh, yeah--most definitely. Up until the advent of app-based car services like Uber, the only affordable transportation options were to drive or take public transit. Traditional taxi cab service was always popular in cities like New York and San Francisco, but in the Southland taxis were notoriously, outrageously expensive. Very few Angelenos took taxis, so Uber and Lyft were a real game-changer here. For the first time, there was an easy, affordable, taxi-like option in LA, especially for certain kinds of trips (e.g. nighttime and weekends).

[craigs]

More frequent B/D Line subway service begins this Sunday, Sept. 10

The Source (LA Metro)
September 5, 2023



Beginning this Sunday, Sept. 10, we’re adding more frequent service to the B and D Line subway — something many riders have requested.

On weekdays, trains will run every 12 minutes from about 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. and on weekends it will be every 12 minutes from 8:15 a.m. through 7 p.m. In the B and D Lines’ shared section of track — between Wilshire/Vermont and Union Station — trains will run every six minutes during the above times.

Trains will continue to run every 20 minutes in early mornings and later in the evening — and every 10 minutes between Wilshire/Vermont and Union Station at these times.

The new timetable is here.

The increase in frequencies is part of our ongoing work to restore service to pre-pandemic levels. As many of you know, the pandemic posed dual challenges — staff attrition and ridership losses due to safer at home orders and telecommuting.

We hired enough bus operators to return to pre-pandemic bus service levels last December and this fiscal year we’re working to do the same on the rail side.

Strong ridership gains have also made this possible: we saw a 15 percent year-over-year increase in ridership this past July compared to July 2022. That was the eighth consecutive month of year-over-year ridership growth.

Metro’s monthly bus and rail ridership is now at 76 percent of its 2019 pre-pandemic level. Average weekend ridership is now at 88 percent of pre-pandemic (July 2019) levels and 72 percent for average weekdays.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by FromSD

I guess I'm not seeing the point of your argument here. Are you saying that Metro should cancel future system expansions because ridership "will never recover to pre pandemic ridership levels, nor 2012 ridership levels"? That seems like a pretty bold prediction given how circumstances change. Or are you recommending a cut in service to match the lower ridership numbers? Maybe close down the Expo line past Culver City? Or is this just an opportunity to dump on LA and its woolly-headed fixation on rail transit? Orange County spends all its transit sales tax money on freeway widening. The 405 through northern Orange County is about to go from 10 lanes to 14 lanes. Is that what you envision for LA County? The Texas Solution!

You're right to point out that LA Metro ridership numbers did decline in the years prior to the pandemic. Craigs mentioned drivers licenses. Also, an improving economy probably allowed some transit-dependent people to buy cars when they couldn't afford them previously. Also Uber and Lift took away some casual ridership. I've also wondered whether the introduction of fare gates at this time also had an impact. Could earlier numbers have been boosted by freeloaders? The advent of fare gates coincides with the beginning of ridership declines.

But all this stuff (except for the fare gates) is outside of LA Metro's control. What do you expect LA Metro to do about it? Unlike you, I do think that ridership numbers will recover and surpass their 2012 peak. The system continues to grow and reach more places that people want to visit. The extension of the subway to UCLA and beyond will be a major step forward since the Westside has a huge number of jobs. The extension of the Crenshaw line to the LAX people mover will help too, though less than the Westside subway extension. In the meantime, traffic congestion on the freeways and streets will continue to worsen with no room left for freeway expansions. If Metro finally gets a handle on transit security and quality of life issues, I think people will come around to public transit. Not everyone obviously, but enough to bring about robust ridership growth.

Stop putting words into my mouth, I did not write that Metro should not try to grow at all. My point was written earlier, which I thought was very clear.

"Of course we are going to see ridership gains post pandemic, but those huge increases from other post pandemic years gives a false impression of what is really going on. Every ridership gain year to year should be celebrated in a minor way, not the major celebration many here wish to do. Put some bird eye's view on this. They still have not reached 2019 levels, which were lower than LA's metro peak numbers historically."

In another thread, possibly in this forum somewhere or in another, I wrote transit agencies will be putting forth huge year to year ridership increases once the pandemic scare is over. I also wrote that we should account for the large ridership decreases before and during the pandemic when discussing the large ridership increases after. All I was attempting to do was to remind everyone of the earlier ridership loses.

That in no way reflects on my political view point on public transit. I just like to keep the accounting proper.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by FromSD

I've also wondered whether the introduction of fare gates at this time also had an impact. Could earlier numbers have been boosted by freeloaders? The advent of fare gates coincides with the beginning of ridership declines.

That's an interesting idea which I've never actually heard before. I've heard of cases where being super worried about fare enforcement was counter productive because the increased cost of enforcement basically canceled out the extra fare being collected making the measures a bit useless. But not that they actually caused ridership to significantly decline. If that was the case, we'd see the ratio of revenue to rider increase quite significantly and might even see an overall increase in farebox revenue unless the number of paying riders also declined.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by electricron

My point was written earlier, which I thought was very clear.

Right, Angelenos should not celebrate post-pandemic ridership gains because doom loop. Focus on the negative. Got it.

Your point is not well taken.

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by craigs

Right, Angelenos should not celebrate post-pandemic ridership gains because doom loop. Focus on the negative. Got it.

Your point is not well taken.

Only because you can not be open enough with your own viewpoints.
Again, I did write post pandemic ridership increases sho8uld be celebrated in a minor way. I did not write they should not be celebrated. Stop putting words into my mouth saying I wrote something I did not write.
From my earlier post,
"Every ridership gain year to year should be celebrated in a minor way, not the major celebration many here wish to do."

While it is true I remind everyone of negative numbers, let me repeat, those are real numbers from an UCLA study commissioned by Metro. I frequently report positive numbers as well on occasion. Those who ignore real facts from real reports and only wish to look at short term positive facts while ignoring long term facts and trends are selling themselves short.

[LAsam]

I think this is the third such incident in the last week? Someone stabbed last week at a station in Highland Park and I believe there was another incident somewhere else. If we can't make Metro safe, it's a tough sell to get people to start/keep riding.

Man fatally stabbed on Metro platform in downtown Los Angeles
by: Josh DuBose

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/man...n-los-angeles/

A search was underway in downtown Los Angeles on Thursday where a male suspect allegedly fatally stabbed a man on a Metro train platform at Pershing Square and then fled the scene.

Officers with the Los Angeles Police Department responded to reports of the stabbing at the station, located near the intersection of 5th and Hill streets, just before 5:30 p.m.

[sopas ej]

I don't know the details of the Highland Park Station stabbing, but this most recent incident and the one in Hawthorne on a C Line Station was the result of fights breaking out between the assailant and victim.

I don't know the details and I'm not blaming the victim or excusing the behavior, but it's always best not to engage with or argue with obviously crazy people. I've endured being called a ch*nk and other Asian racist insults for about 5 minutes by someone who was obviously a crazy homeless person, but I just let it roll off my back and pretended he wasn't even there.

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I don't know the details of the Highland Park Station stabbing, but this most recent incident and the one in Hawthorne on a C Line Station was the result of fights breaking out between the assailant and victim.

I don't know the details and I'm not blaming the victim or excusing the behavior, but it's always best not to engage with or argue with obviously crazy people. I've endured being called a ch*nk and other Asian racist insults for about 5 minutes by someone who was obviously a crazy homeless person, but I just let it roll off my back and pretended he wasn't even there.

I'm sorry you've had to put up with that. You shouldn't have to but that's just the reality of the current situation. Agreed that nothing good will come with arguing back with someone who's high or has mental issues. Best to just ignore them and try to extricate yourself from the situation as soon as possible.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I don't know the details of the Highland Park Station stabbing, but this most recent incident and the one in Hawthorne on a C Line Station was the result of fights breaking out between the assailant and victim.

I don't know the details and I'm not blaming the victim or excusing the behavior, but it's always best not to engage with or argue with obviously crazy people. I've endured being called a ch*nk and other Asian racist insults for about 5 minutes by someone who was obviously a crazy homeless person, but I just let it roll off my back and pretended he wasn't even there.

It was reported to be an argument not a fight although I don't know what happened.

In my opinion you were engaged with that person even if it were one-sided. The fact that you ignored them may have kept it from escalating or maybe it prolonged it. No way to know for sure although I'd agree with you and guess the latter.

Update: LAPD now reports that the fatal stabbing was unprovoked. https://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom/...les-nr23672jc/