u/reddit-frog-1

In 1973, Los Angeles opened the El Monte Busway. While not rail, it demonstrated that high-speed, grade-separated bus service could provide a strong suburban connection to DTLA. The El Monte Station functioned as an effective transit gateway, aligning with LA’s pattern of suburban development while concentrating large numbers of passengers into a single corridor.

However, this concept was never fully expanded. As LA continued to invest in transit, the focus shifted heavily toward rail, and the busway model remained limited to a few corridors. In hindsight, this looks less like a failure of the concept and more like a missed opportunity to build a broader network that meets the needs of both walkable urban centers and transit-friendly suburbs.

The Harbor Transitway is often cited as a counterexample.  This opened in 1996 as a joint Caltrans project with I-105/Green line.  But its underperformance can be largely attributed to planning and design issues rather than a lack of demand.

LA is continuing to build out its rail network in high-demand urban corridors, which is the right approach in dense areas. However, many major freeway corridors, where long-distance, high-speed travel demand is highest, remain underutilized for moving large numbers of people, as most vehicles carry only one person.

A more balanced approach would prioritize:

• Subways in the most congested, high-density corridors (Further D-line extension to Santa Monica, Sepulveda Pass, Vermont, K-line northern route)
• High-quality, fully separated Busway in major freeway corridors:  
  • I-405 – Valley to South Bay  
  • I-10 – Santa Monica to San Gabriel Valley  
  • US-101 – Valley to DTLA

Importantly, freeway BRT should not be treated as a compromise. Stations can be designed to connect directly with local bus and rail services, with safe and convenient access. In suburban areas, transit gateways like El Monte can provide additional value. If designed to provide point-to-point trips rather than multi-stop service along a fixed route, the need for rider-unfriendly stations within freeway medians could be eliminated.

Why might this approach outperform a system focused primarily on at-grade light rail?

• Better buildout of a pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods and job centers
• Higher average speeds due to full grade separation
• Better suitability for long-distance regional trips
• More efficient matching of mode to corridor demand
• Potentially lower cost per rider
• Fewer conflicts with existing street traffic and less disruption to surface streets

LA doesn’t need to choose between rail and busways. A system that uses each mode where it performs best could deliver faster, more useful transit across the entire region.

I would like to add that one of the biggest concerns with this concept has to do with reallocating freeway space as building new freeway lanes is not the goal.  It is important to ensure people have a viable alternative first. That’s a valid concern. In practice, this doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing change, high-frequency service can be introduced first using existing lanes, with dedicated space phased in once demand is proven. The goal isn’t to reduce mobility, but to move more people through the same corridor while giving commuters a realistic option beyond sitting in traffic.

It's better to use an existing line to LA Union Station than have no line at all.