Original plans came from this document: https://lawa.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=980&meta_id=62527
Ride app (TNC) pickup section seems smaller than current LAXit pickup.
Local shuttles will be at ITF West
Flyaway, other long-distance buses, and private passenger cars (POV) will be at ITF East.
Posted by a group known as RebuildSoCal partnership.
This doesn't align with any current or previous metro line proposal.
Edit: Also mentions 10 miles of underground rail. Sounds more like the sepulveda south extension.
Recently I noticed if my connection on Warp is not 5G, when I use the hotspot, I don't have a network connection. As long as 5G is used, the hotspot network works. I'm wondering if this is a known hotspot limitation or if this is something specific happening with my Google pixel phone.
Also, if you are using light speed or dark star, share your experience.
In California, public charging rates can be extremely high, often it's $0.50/kWh.
My home rate is $0.29/kWh.
There are some public chargers at $0.30/kWh, but it's becoming rare that I don't bother spending the time to check anymore and now never public charge. $0.30 is basically my limit.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1ShRv-ilRDxsEZUleRwi09ZDiUiwXsAw&usp=sharing
This google map brings together future transit projects from LA, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. It has planned projects, active studies, and also archived studies on different layers. Each project includes links back to its original source for anyone who wants to explore the details.
It goes beyond only rail lines, with map layers that include future BRT and dedicated bus lanes. The goal is to provide a more complete picture of how the region's transit network is improving across multiple modes including investments in dedicated bus lanes.
Please give me feedback if you find projects that are incorrect or missing.
The map also explores ideas for improving regional commuting. Because the LA region lacks many of the rail rights-of-way needed for an extensive long-distance commuter rail network, one layer highlights the current highway-based commuter bus services while another presents a conceptual network of highway-based commuter express buses operating on dedicated highway lanes. The idea is to illustrate how repurposed highway lanes and transit hubs could dramatically improve regional transit by cutting current commuter bus travel times by roughly half.
California is the only government in the world to offer this program.
It's called California Low Cost Automobile Insurance (CLCA).
Since ~20% of California drivers are uninsured, the goal is to provide a subsidy to convince people to sign up for mandatory auto insurance.
If a driver qualifies (good driver & low income), a lower rate is applied. This is funded from everyone else paying a slightly higher price.
About 0.3% of insured drivers are on the CLCA program, and according to the data, 77% of CLCA program members were previously uninsured.
The concept is getting driver-subsidized insurance provides a better societal benefit since having insurance is better than not having insurance.
However, according to statistics, the percentage of uninsured drivers has been increasing over the last 5 years, so I don't think this program is that effective.
With the US being heavily auto-dependent, I wouldn't be surprised if others states are watching how this evolves as the US average for uninsured drivers is 15%.
Has anyone experienced just the buttons of the key fob failing? Battery good, red light on key fob appears, but no action from car. The push button start and door lock/unlock from door handle working, meaning proximity sensor is working correctly.
I'm hoping that the whole key fob doesn't need replacement as that is $$$.
I can't believe there is a lawsuit between Measure HLA and Metro.
Can't we all just get along 😒
TLDR: When 2/3rds of the stadium need to take the rail line, it requires 90 minutes to accommodate all riders.
Question, how does this compare to other stadiums? Better or worse than average?
The existing Metro Rail + Metrolink + Local Sofi Shuttle network already provides the needed connection to Sofi, but with terrible efficiency. Metro was smart to provide the needed enhanced service. The buses will transport people to the stadium in a reasonable amount of time.
This service would even be more effective if these long distance busways were prioritized. Imagine if it was possible to provide exclusive use of the HOV lanes for these buses during the pre-game and post-game travel windows.
And imagine still if this service was offered to major job centers on a daily basis. This level of service is available today and it shouldn't only be reserved for major sporting events.
I've been wondering whether car insurance pricing does enough to encourage better driving.
In theory, drivers who avoid accidents, tickets, and other indicators of poor driving should pay less. But when I look at how people actually drive, it doesn't seem like insurance costs are a strong enough incentive to become better and safer drivers.
Do you think insurance companies accurately reward safe drivers and penalize unsafe drivers? If not, what prevents insurance rates from having a stronger effect on driving behavior?
Both roads and canals are long-established public transportation corridors, and in many countries both are publicly owned or publicly controlled infrastructure that private users access.
One thing I've noticed is that canal systems often seem to use explicit capacity management when demand exceeds supply. Examples include lock scheduling, transit reservations, congestion pricing, auctioned slots, and other allocation mechanisms.
By contrast, most public roads operate on an open-access basis. When demand exceeds capacity, the primary outcome is congestion. Outside of a few examples such as congestion pricing zones and HOT lanes, road users generally aren't required to reserve capacity.
This makes me wonder why did roads and canals evolve such different operating philosophies?
If congestion pricing and slot allocation are considered reasonable tools for canals, should similar approaches be used more widely on roads?
What created this divergence, as the same supply/demand dynamic impacts both types of corridors?
Burbank is the first, but won't be the last to request a Metro project to be scaled down specifically due to SB 79.
How will this affect all future projects?
Even with all the new Metro funding, a project can't move forward if residents will block it, and the residents now have a very powerful reason to block transit projects.
It sucks to see delayed projects and money going to legal fees rather than being spent on construction.
This 2031 map is shaped by the opposition of r/LAMetro users to road congestion pricing.
A common argument is that road congestion pricing cannot be implemented until a viable public transit alternative already exists.
This proposal shows a transit network that could realistically be implemented within the next five years and provide a comprehensive alternative to private car use for accessing the region’s major job centers.
The biggest gap to fill is rapid commuter transit to West Los Angeles and the South Bay, since Metrolink primarily serves the northern and eastern parts of the region.
Ideally, this level of service would be provided by rail. But while this level of rail projects are likely 30+ years away, this proposal could be operational by 2031.
This proposal will also be supported by local bus networks and future autonomous shuttle services connecting major transit stops to surrounding job centers and employers.
Key map features:
- Current Metro & Metrolink network and lines scheduled for completion in 2031
- All BRT lines scheduled to complete by 2031 (in brown)
- Bus line improvements on Roscoe and Nordhoff are implemented as full BRT
- Express busway lines that will use existing and retrofitted lanes along existing major highway corridors (405, 10, 60, 91, 605, 101) using stops at major transit hubs that are off the highway. (Avoiding 110-style noisy stops)
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:
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?
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.