Traffic may be horrible in Los Angeles, but for many, it still beats the alternative of public transportation.



"...Actually, Los Angeles already has two public transit systems, one of them full and one of them pretty much empty. The one that's full is the bus system. Its riders are mostly people who can't afford a car or ? for one reason or another ? can't operate one... The other transit system looks like public transportation should ? light, heavy or subterranean, it runs on rails. It has stations and not just "stops." It's really expensive, so it should appeal to people with a choice, but the problem is that most of them still don't choose to use it.



...Worse yet, people once again have started nodding their heads when one or another dough-faced urban planner from the Institute for a Joyless Future or some pol with lots of contractor friends starts talking up another public transit project.



...Our transit system is a system in name only. What it most resembles is a defective connect-the-dots picture ? lines running from one point to another, but never meeting to form something intelligible ? or convenient. If Gertrude Stein had been forced to ride the MTA, she'd have concluded that there is no there there, or here.



...Try to get somewhere you really need to go on one of them and, suddenly, a traffic jam doesn't look all that inconvenient."



Source: Los Angeles Times, Sep 18, 2005



Question: Does density make light rail functional or is light rail more for connecting suburbs to the regional core?

From just those quotes, I would say the point to make/take would be don't skimp on the routing, because otherwise you just hurt yourself. Why doesn't Metrolink have a stop near AG edwards or a more convienent stop to SLU/ the Fox? If i am going to the fox i am gonna drive, not take metrolink.

I don't have an opinion on the LA transit system since I don't know anything about it.



However, I agree with JMedwick that routing is vital. It is important to link people with jobs and other places they want to go. Our original line hits and misses in that category. I think it is OK downtown, but when it leaves Union Station, it would have been better to have served AG Edwards, SLU, Grand Center, residential Lindell Blvd areas, etc. On the other hand, the Barnes hospital area is a good stop, DeBaliviere is dense with residential, Delmar has turned out to be a good stop, the airport is important. But, I am sure they did the best they could with resources available at the time. The new line will be important to the vitality of MLink because it connects with popular job, residential, and retail areas. The Northside & Southside lines will go a long ways towards adding residential to the lines & making the system whole.



Regarding moving commuters/daytrippers from suburbs, they need to make park n ride lots available at suburban stations. I think light rail can serve dense urban areas and suburban commuters. They really should run a line out to Chesterfield with park n ride lots at major intersections.

The reason there isn't a stop at AG Edwards, Grand Center, or more in the heart of the CWE is due to cost. Using cut-and-cover for an underground Lindell line would be extremely more expensive.



The original MetroLink line opening in 1993 reutilized railroad right-of-way for an 18-mile line with 19 stations, costing only $464 million, or $25 million per mile. The Cross-County extension only reutilizes railroad alignment between Clayton and Shrewsbury. Not surprising then, the 8-mile, 9-station line including its very expensive Forest Park Parkway alignment costs $700 million, or $87 million per mile, about 3.5 times more than the first line. And that's even without considered options for stations and alignments more in the heart of downtown Clayton, closer to the Galleria, and a through-the-park option serving Forest Park attractions.



Besides, the line is meant more so for commuters than tourists. The Grand station serves as a transfer center to our busiest bus line and others. The CWE station provides direct transit access to one of our region's largest employment centers.



By the luck of finding railroad right-of-way within proximity of major destinations, including large employment centers, higher educational institutions and major events, St. Louis is often revered as a best practice for light rail in the nation. The fare recovery is about 40 percent, while buses on average recover only 20 percent of the operating cost from fares.

I'd say density makes light rail function.



In a lot of places those two functions (serving the city & and linking 'burb to core) are seperate. The light rail/ trolley/ bus system serves the local urban user while a regional rail takes people 40 miles downtown.

I think that LA is in a similar situation as we are with the coverage of light rail.

Just think of it as a work in progress. The plan in the future is to have more connectivity to major activity centers (i.e. Chesterfield Valley, Westport). MetroLink is only 12 years old.



If we looked at the Eisenhower interstate system in 1969 there would have been just as many coverage gaps. After 12 years of the interstate system I-44 had only just begun construction into the City, I-170 ended at Page, there was no I-64 in Illinois and I-255 was non-existent(save a portion that ended at the river in S. County)



If we give it time, MetroLink will provide a transportation option rivaling DC or Chicago.

YOu are correct, the Grand stop is great for those transfering too and from buses, however, you must wonder what if. I know for cost reasons why the line was not built, however it does not mean Metrolink would not be a better system and have higher ridership if say the line did have a stop closer to SLU/ the Fox and a stop closer to AG edwards. The current program with Barnes could have been replicated. Same with fun programs for students at SLU, who as of now don't make much use of the line because of its poor (read unatractive, unsafe, difficult to get too) location. Too me one of the biggest positives for the new extension is its proximity to Wash U and its students.

As far as Grand Center, we do have to consider the construction that is planned on the Grand Bridge. This will affect public transportation because supposedly SLU is looking to link their main campus with the medical campus. If that happens, there might be more of a focus put into public transport in that general area.



Personally I think we'll eventually see a trolley on the bridge linking both campuses, as well as parts of North Grand/Grand Center. I'm not saying this is gonna happen in the next couple years, but I feel that the Delmar trolley will succeed, and Grand Center is a very logical place to look at another line.

I think we also need to understand that light rail expansion will come in smaller doses -- preferably with streetcar lines augmenting buses to forma tight grid of connectivity.



The single rail line we have currently was not meant to connect every major residential or commercial point in the metro area. Look at an old streetcar map. Take any single line and it's pretty pointless. The importance is in the connectivity of many lines. Unfortunately we won't see enough light rail built in our lifetimes to match that density. But we are hopefully headed in that direction.

I can't understand why a South Side-North Side line isn't the highest priority. The city needs to be connected by MetroLink before the suburbs. Not only are city neighborhoods more dense and built for transit and walkability, but they also have a higher transit-dependent population. It's a no-brainer. The North Side and South Side would thrive with a rail link to downtown and the CWE.

^not only would the north and south side thrive. Metro would prosper because the lines would be so popular. It would be a cash cow for Metro.

I disagree on one point



If a southside line usesrailroad rights-of-way and NOT major streets then it will be like Metro is going through suburbs. The southside line weaves around making it useless for a person in Carondolet or Tower Grove South from using the line since it goes west to the Hill when a person can take a bus to downtown. I prefer a subway, but that's costly. Another option is streetcars or Metro in the middle of Grand, Gravois, Manchester, etc. The northside line is on target by following north on Florissant and northwest on Natural Bridge.



Other than location of the line, I am for expansion of ALL Metro lines like how Denver passed a $4+ billion expansion regionally for mass transit.

SMS - you are right on about this.

There should be a Metrolink line running straight down Gravois from downtown to serve the South Side (and, eventually, Southwest County). Grand and Kingshighway could then have trolley lines that connect to the Metrolink stops at Gravois. There could also be a Broadway trolley line that feeds into east-west connectors (Arsenal? Chippewa? Loughborough?).

I would eat that South Side line up if it came through. I particularly like the linking with the streetcars. Gravois is a huge street, you could easily close up traffic a bit and run Metro right down that street.



But right now we're dreaming about this, as we can barely get one extension done.