K Line opened its first phase on October 10th (Los Angeles: violent crime, law)

[vincenze]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

Looking at the system map, it's a mess. Let's say I'm in the San Fernando Valley and I want to get to LAX. Looking at the map I would have to take the G Line and transfer to the B Line and then transfer to the E Line and then transfer to the K Line, and then I still wouldn't be at the airport.

I just checked Google Maps.
It gives correct routes.

You use a bus or subway to get to Union Station or Van Nuys airport.
Then, FlyAway runs to LAX every 30 minutes and stops at every terminal.

---
Otherwise, the LAX Shuttle G goes to the Green Line (C line).

The time to LAX from the Valley is approximately 2 hours. It's not bad compared to driving and searching for parking.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by vincenze

I just checked Google Maps.
It gives correct routes.

You use a bus or subway to get to Union Station or Van Nuys airport.
Then, FlyAway runs to LAX every 30 minutes and stops at every terminal.

---
Otherwise, the LAX Shuttle G goes to the Green Line (C line).

The time to LAX from the Valley is approximately 2 hours. It's not bad compared to driving and searching for parking.

Well there you go, that was my point. The bus is the fastest way to get to LAX. So what's the point of having a rail system, if the bus is faster? I did see the A line to C Line alternative. But that doesn't look any shorter or have any less transfers then the E Line to the K Line.

The only real good transit solution I can think of for LA would be to have short range maglev bullet train service operating with very few stops in the medians of all of the freeways, and serving all areas of LA, including a direct line to LAX.

And I'm not even joking about that. The cost would be astronomical, but I would have to think that when people are stuck in traffic and see a bullet train speed past them at 250 mph, they would think, you know maybe I should be on that train. But anything less than that, I just don't see having any impact on LA transportation. Sure people will probably ride short distances along some segments of light rail in LA, but I would be shocked if anyone other the the poor and homeless ride it for more than a short distance.

[vincenze]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

Well there you go, that was my point. The bus is the fastest way to get to LAX. So what's the point of having a rail system, if the bus is faster?

That's because providing fast public transport to LAX is not the highest priority.
A FlyAway bus doesn't stop at every intersection. It goes directly to the airport. That's why it's faster.
If you travel with suitcases, you may not want to transfer multiple times using subways and buses.

If you travel from the Valley to Downtown, an underground train is significantly faster than even a car. That's why the Red Line is usually full at rush hours.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by vincenze

That's because providing fast public transport to LAX is not the highest priority.
A FlyAway bus doesn't stop at every intersection. It goes directly to the airport. That's why it's faster.
If you travel with suitcases, you may not want to transfer multiple times using subways and buses.

If you travel from the Valley to Downtown, an underground train is significantly faster than even a car. That's why the Red Line is usually full at rush hours.

That is what is unusual. LA is the only city I can think of that doesn't make providing fast transportation to the airport a priority. Some cities even have rail lines devoted just to providing a connection from the airport to the central city.

It doesn't surprise me that the subway would have more ridership then the light rail. Light rail is just too slow, especially for any area the size of LA. But that is not a problem just for LA. I think a lot of cities are building light rail lines, when they should be looking at faster heavy rail options.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

That is what is unusual. LA is the only city I can think of that doesn't make providing fast transportation to the airport a priority.

Probably because providing fast public transit to so many airports would be difficult: LAX, Long Beach Airport, Hollywood Burbank Airport, John Wayne Airport and Ontario International Airport.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Probably because providing fast public transit to so many airports would be difficult: LAX, Long Beach Airport, Hollywood Burbank Airport, John Wayne Airport and Ontario International Airport.

I was talking about LAX. It's the 8th busiest in the world with 75 million passengers passing thought it. It's kind important destination, don't you think? And the Burbank Airport has a Metrolink conection. Don't you think it's kind of weird that Burbank has a train station, but LAX doesn't?

[BGS91762]

Originally Posted by vincenze

That's because providing fast public transport to LAX is not the highest priority.
A FlyAway bus doesn't stop at every intersection. It goes directly to the airport. That's why it's faster.
If you travel with suitcases, you may not want to transfer multiple times using subways and buses.

If you travel from the Valley to Downtown, an underground train is significantly faster than even a car. That's why the Red Line is usually full at rush hours.

Just took Flyaway to LAX after connecting from Montclair on Metrolink. It took about 90
minutes during morning rush hour. A great way to get to LAX.

[BOORGONG]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

That is what is unusual. LA is the only city I can think of that doesn't make providing fast transportation to the airport a priority. Some cities even have rail lines devoted just to providing a connection from the airport to the central city.

It doesn't surprise me that the subway would have more ridership then the light rail. Light rail is just too slow, especially for any area the size of LA. But that is not a problem just for LA. I think a lot of cities are building light rail lines, when they should be looking at faster heavy rail options.

I think the argument is that when you build light rail, there must be increased frequency added to the mix.
The new light rail REM line in Montreal and suburbs has trains every three minutes. they have 2-car train sets or 4-car depending on rush hour demand, etc...

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by BOORGONG

I think the argument is that when you build light rail, there must be increased frequency added to the mix.
The new light rail REM line in Montreal and suburbs has trains every three minutes. they have 2-car train sets or 4-car depending on rush hour demand, etc...

Increased frequency doesn't help when the average speed is 35 mph. It reminded me of driving on the freeways in San Jose, at 80 mph and blowing past the VTA light rail trains that were barely moving. Why am I going to get out of my car to ride on something that slow? A 20 minute car ride becomes a 90 minute train ride. Nobody who has other alternatives is going to use a system like that.

Light rail is fine for short rides in congested areas. In those cases in might even be faster than driving. But for long commutes, it's a nightmare. I think a better solution would be local frequent running streetcar lines feeding into high speed rail lines for longer distance commutes.

[vincenze]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

That is what is unusual. LA is the only city I can think of that doesn't make providing fast transportation to the airport a priority.

There were FlyAway buses to Hollywood, Orange County, Long Beach, etc.
They were canceled during Covid as people didn't want to use them.

The People Mover will connect LAX to 2 subway lines and a bus center.