Why doesn't LA Metro attract high net worth ridership?

I think the D Line extension will definitely bring a lot of new people into Metro, including the people you described. Especially people living in Mid City, Beverly Hills, Westwood areas. A lot of NYC transplants live in those areas and are likely open to riding into DTLA vs. driving since it'll be a LOOOT faster.

I make $200k+ and don't own a car and take metro a lot. I'm often hitting the 7 Day cap.

I'll tell you why rich people don't take the metro like me. It's uncomfortable and more inconvenient than driving your own car where you don't have to worry about unsafe people, smells, and seeing a homeless dudes dick and ass.

Realistically, I think it's competitiveness on time more than anything. If there were a few lines that were really noticeably faster than driving (for a round trip, not just one direction during rush hour!), higher income people would choose it. As is, the E line is barely competitive with rush hour traffic.

That's why the D line extension is a big deal, and Sepulveda would be too.

From 2003 to 2020, my spouse and I commuted to our downtown office jobs in suites, etc. on the light rail. There were others who were in similar occupations, sans the suits, as well.

During the pandemic we didn't commute and many of our peers didn't either. We worked from home.

We never returned to Metro because we retired. I'm sure others retired or never returned to the office.

When interviewing for my current job in DTLA, I told one interviewer I was considering taking the Metrolink/Metro to work, and she still makes fun of me for it 18 months later. It's definitely a class thing because I'm the only lawyer I know taking the Metro, but our staff who aren't provided parking take the train with me.

I take the train because I've been in a bad wreck and now hate traffic.

I’m probably the only person in my DTLA office who takes the Metro, but the Wilshire line extension will be an enormous help. We often have to go to our other office in Century City (sometimes midday through rush hour), and I can see a lot of people being willing to take metro in that case since driving there is so painful.

I would also say that there is a first mile issue for me — I generally get dropped off at the nearest metro stop when my husband is dropping our daughter off at school. If I didn’t have that drop off, I might not take metro because getting the bus to the station would take twice as long.

As people have noted LA Metro unfortunately does miss out on some important job/residential areas.

* The D line (purple) extension got delayed like 40 years
* The C line (green) was supposed to go to lax like 30 years ago but got built towards el segunado for the air defense jobs (which that job market subsequently crashed)

It depends the ride and the time. I know a ton of business people that ride the A line between 7th street and then take Metrolink to OC, you’ll see a lot of suits between 5:30 and the last train

Because commuting by car, while a pain in the ass, is still heavily prioritized with money and resources in this county. If you have money, there’s no way you’re going to give up a your experience in a nice, clean expensive car with a great sound system even if it means you have to sit in traffic for a long time. We need to start tipping the scales in the other direction to make public transportation more convenient, and cars less convenient, and then people will start making the switch. 

Rich people in places with incredible train and bus systems like Switzerland also get subsidized rail passes from their employers, so while they of course have posh cars in their garages, it’s often faster and more convenient to take the train to work than driving

Well which metro are you talking about because the system includes buses and rails. If we are talking about rails specifically, it is linked to DTLA but the rich people you are trying to attract work predominately on the west side cause that is where the tech hub is. I think the bigger issue is that while others are okay taking the bus, most would rather want the rail experience.

The rails in NYC and London and any other big Asian city work well because it's built more like a web. But we don't, we build it like a starfish. For NoHo to get to Pasadena, you need to take red all the way down to the union station and switch to blue all the way back up. Same thing about being in hollywood and wanting to go to wilshire/western. And there is currently no way to get to the arts district. There are a lot of times that people want to take it for medium to short rides but it isn't easily available to them because of how we decided to build our metro rails and because of how sprawled LA is

When you travel to places like NYC or London, you see a lot of men in business suits and well off people riding the Metro.

Those cities have much, much better subway systems than LA. When you add in the safety issues it's just not worth it to take it unless it's extremely convenient. Because LA's system is lacking, and most people don't ride it, there hasn't been a lot of pressure to make the subway system safer. That's starting to change now though. Many delayed subway lines will finally start opening later this decade. Once that happens and people start using them, there will be a lot more pressure on metro for them to clean up the system and make it safer.

It really doesn't have much to do with safety. Just look at the history of LA: rich white people have spent decades trying to keep transit out of their neighborhoods. Zev Yaroslavsky passed an entire initiative to ban subway construction. Most of the rich white areas of LA aren't well connected to the Metro system at all as a result.

Better coverage into rich neighborhoods, denser development, less road space devoted to cars, less parking, and congestion pricing. When those things start to happen combined with high frequency, security and clean stations, then rich people will start to ride the system.

Because metro is incomplete and not convenient. There are no stops within a 20 minute walk to where any of my 4 offices have been in LA.

In NYC, my offices had 5 different lines within a 5 minute walk.

trains dont go enough places to justify using a slower and dirtier mode of transport. metro knows this and is building more fast lines (and hopefully cleaning up the system a bit)

In one word: Parking

Parking is a hell of a lot more scarce in Manhattan and Central London than it is in Downtown LA. Its always either difficult and time consuming to find a spot or very expensive in the former two, but, relatively speaking, that's not the case in DTLA at all. This means that, comparatively, driving in LA is simply a much more attractive option than in NY and London in the first place. If you can easily afford the (fairly low) cost of having a car and driving in LA, and its not terribly inconvenient (like it is in certain other cities), then why consider the alternatives?

One of my less egalitarian takes is: what if subway trains had a first class car with an attendant, and it was more like $10/ride for first class?

It’s a status symbol to NOT ride the metro in LA, whether it be bus rail or train in LA.

There are plenty of white collar workers on the west LA portions of the E line. That said, many offices in Santa Monica tend to attract people who prefer to dress casually and probably don't look very affluent despite working in tech and entertainment. But they are typically only on for a few stops. 

I’ve noticed more use as the lines and service get better, but a lot of my female friends do not feel safe riding at all or won’t ride alone.

Because the systems in cities like NYC or London developed primarily in the early parts of the 1900s. They were built to cover compact cities with stops located conveniently within easy walking distance of wherever you are. Los Angeles and OC are vast metropolitan areas that had no mass transit system other than busses until very recently. It is very difficult to cover a large area after the fact because of extreme costs and existing infrastructure that you can't disturb easily. In addition, California grew on a car culture - cars were part and parcel of the California dream.

The LA mass transit system is just not convenient enough to reach most people. I just visited London and previously went to Munich, Germany and those systems are very convenient, clean, well-maintained, etc. People in those countries also pay astronomical taxes to maintain those systems. The LA Metro is disgusting, with homeless people defacating in trains, garbage and filth all over the stations, etc. They look like hepatitis factories.

Time is money. It’s slower than driving, dirtier and a whole lot more depressing. The inconsistency of the system alone makes it hard to rely on, let alone the filth and insanity. The system doesn’t provide enough comprehensive coverage to make it a viable replacement for independent transportation. I say this as someone who has used it for about six years instead of driving. The overall number of destinations available to you on metro is easily less than half of where a car can take you. Every trip in metro is at least half an hour longer than it would be to drive.

I took it for a few years when I worked in DTLA pre-pandemic. There were a lot of working professionals who took it during the morning and evening rush hour. It was also a mix of lower income people on their way to/from work and some homeless people. I learned only to take the train during work rush hour though because it’s creepy after 7pm and even during the afternoon since it’s a different type of crowd at that time.

Although I made good money, I never wore expensive jewelry or designer handbags on the train. I didn’t want to attract attention. So that probably made me look like an average income earner. It was uncomfortable with the smell of urine and homelessness so I used to put Vicks under my nose to mask the smell a bit. I could’ve driven but the commute would be an hour compared to 15 min train ride (25-30 min if you include walking time). I figured I could suck it up for those 15 min in a smelly crowded train vs being stuck in my car for an hour.

It does not happen in LA because we do not have towers full of rich people walking to a station and being whisked to another tower full of rich people.

We have hilly spread out neighborhoods nowhere near transit. And our desitination densities (high paying jobs clustered together) is nowhere near as high as NY, and usually not convenient to transit, either.

This is completely aside from the danger and discomfort of today's daily transit rides.

To change this you would need to findamentally change city infrastructure within a few minutes walk of transit destinations. Some places, like DTLA, are already doing this, but nowhere near in the densities required for NY style transit.

There is too much of a stigma here that transit is only for the poor, destitute and homeless.

I make over 100k a yr and was a rider. Not lately. Its too dirty and slow

Long time Angelino who's been on the East Coast now for a while and heavily uses metro in NYC, DC, and London, and formally did here:

1) DTLA got shafted by COVID due to remote work killing the back offices that people moved there for. The declining number of people made streets sketchier which had the domino effect of hipper businesses leaving and then a huge amount of the higher end finance, legal, and consulting offices that actually do need people in the office returning to Century City. Downtown doesn't look as bad as it did immediately after COVID, but it's great 20 year rebound that peaked right when I was leaving town seems to be in irreparable decline and the white collar people that could take the train (as I once did) don't have a reason to since they're just going to Century City from the Westside.

2) Dude the homeless situation has gotten out of hand. I'm from here. I took the bus everyday as a kid. I've seen absolutely wild shit on the NYC subway, and LA has a problem that people who are pretty used to insane shenanigans just can't stomach anymore. Pre-COVID, my very white collar father who always goes out of his way to take trainborne metro wherever he is, especially when working in NYC, used to take the Expo line all the time (they still live here) but at this point it's just not worth it for him. And because so many people feel that way, you get half empty cars donated to some guy flipping out that further dissuades people from riding.

walking distance from desirable locations

I’m certain a lot of business people or people who work in DTLA take the red line.

When you travel to places like NYC or London, you see a lot of men in business suits and well off people riding the Metro.

As someone who has lived in London and LA, I can tell you it's a simple answer. The Metro is just part of a wider rail network connecting the towns and cities around London

Many of those people travel from outside of London, maybe 20-30 miles outside. They have a fast frequent train service that operates every 15-20 minutes in peak times. They can arrive at the terminus station in London in 20 - 30 Minutes and connect with the Tube to get to their final destination. Probably less than an hour door to door. You can't drive there in that time. Imagine a fast 60-80mph, frequent every 20 minutes, Metrolink service into Union Station. You get some idea of the difference.

I used to commute from outside of London (About 23 miles) to Baker Street in 45 minutes.

Unless you live and work near train stations and don’t have to transfer metro is almost certainly not competitive on time with driving. Coupled with the rider experience being borderline intolerable (constantly subjected to the deeply uncomfortable behavior of the mentally ill, anti-social assholes, uncleanliness, etc) it’s just not an appealing option for the extreme majority of residents who have other choices

So many reasons. But here’s the main one: the Metro isn’t nearly as widespread as NY’s subway system. In NYC, it’s literally the fastest and most efficient way to get pretty much anywhere you’re going. That’s not the case in LA. Using the Metro in LA usually means some combination of driving to a stop and then taking a train. Or taking a train and then ubering. There’s always an extra vehicle involved. So rich people might as well just drive the whole leg.

Security.

That's flat out it. When I started taking it to work last summer I had a co-worker tell me I shouldn't and to be careful because of the shit he'd seen on fooltube or heard about. Fights and crackheads and crazies. And to an extent he was right.

Examples:
Last year on the C line going west, I'm standing with my bike by the door and this big African American dude with a cane stomps onto the car I was on. He was banging his cane on stuff and yelling. Among the things he yelled was "Fuck white people!" There were only a handful of people on the train and I was the only white one. I kept my distance and didn't look at him. He got off at the Hawthorne stop and as the train was coming to the stop, he was banging his can against the door, hard.
Another time I had a guy say, "I'm going to fucking kill you" while standing in front of me. Not sure if he was addressing me or just talking out loud to nobody because he was nuts.

I carry pepper spray with me - not that it would do me much good.

I loath driving enough that I will put up with sketchyness but a lot of people will not.

Fact for the matter. Metro LA does not efficiently move people everywhere they need to go. If you live near a Lightrail and your work happens to be near one to its great. But for the vast majority of others, the bus just takes way too damn long. When I used to take the bus to school, it would take more close to an hour to get to school whereas driving or hitching a ride with my friends took me 15-20 minutes tops.

It doesn’t come as often -> not a convenient option -> people who can afford the car go with a car cause it’s more practical -> only poor are left in the train -> less investment and crime is more likely etc. The investment and convenience of service always come before people people who have a choice decide to use it, not other way around. People who can afford any type of transportation will always choose what is faster and more practical

High income people do take the Metro if it’s convenient. There’s a lot of white collar high earners downtown who take it but those kinds of jobs are usually hybrid now.

Right now, though: 1) Transit must be convenient. Right now, with frequencies what they are, plus delays and trains getting stuck at red lights, it’s not always useful to take the Metro. It’s also not accessible in various parts of the city, either by rail or by bus. 2) Transit must provide a comfortable rider experience. Whether it’s Metro’s fault or someone else’s or some combination, transit doesn’t feel safe. Plus, cleaning hasn’t really been up to standard. There’s other aspects to this to, like lighting and way finding, that Metro can improve too. 3) I honestly think this is the most important and most overlooked, but transit must be the most viable alternative. In LA, I always argue that in much of the city, it’s actually possible to live car free. I think that in LA, transit isn’t actually too bad, but driving is always too easy. Whether traffic isn’t bad enough to be comparable time-wise to Metro or there’s an over abundance of free or under-priced parking, driving in LA is too incentivized to be that competitive with Metro.

In New York, that threshold is much higher, where only the city’s ultra rich regularly drive because traffic is so impacted and parking is scarce and a lot of routes are tolled somehow. The discourse in LA is heavily dominated by #2 right now. It’s easy for privileged people to say, “I don’t take Metro because it isn’t safe,” because that is the most apparent issue right now. And that’s valid! But, I think that even if you got rid of all crime on the system, and made every train, bus, and station completely spotless, there would be barely any additional high income earners on the system. Because a car, gas, maintenance, insurance, and parking are less of an issue for them so they can afford the convenience.

TLDR: To get more high income riding Metro, transit must be a competitive alternative to driving. To do so, transit service must be more frequent and reach more areas of the county. Driving needs to be disincentivized through parking scarcity (build more housing and commercial areas instead) and congestion pricing (tolls, etc). And this is all on top of better managing crime and cleanliness on the system. There is also the overarching problem that white collar jobs have largely gone remote or hybrid, so a lot of ridership has been lost permanently.

is this a real question?

I mean I do see a lot of downtown-working white collar professionals come off, for example, the A line from Pasadena, or the various Metrolink lines if you're there at commute times. But as you know, working Downtown is by no means the default LA experience. Just as many are working in some office park in the Valley or what have you.

But LA's got a culture of car worship that goes back over 100 years at this point. Hopping behind the wheel is so many people's autopilot and the majority of this area still is designed that way. There's also the safety perception factor. Many people who can afford to avoid urban grit will pay to avoid it. Let's face it, the Metro board members themselves aren't exactly taking Metro down to the Gateway building for their meetings. Not even just the high-profile ones that need security like Bass. To be fair though, in NYC in particular, it's not uncommon for a high net worth individual to have a standing Town Car order for their commute.

From a network design perspective, high net worth individuals in LA are also more likely to live in SFH neighborhoods relative to NYC or London, where apartment/townhouse living is common all the way up the income ladder. Living centrally is prestigious there, where LA was marketed from the get-go as a place where the well-off would find some cul-de-sac or hill to tuck themselves into. SFH subdivisions, especially windy hillside cul-de-sacs, are not conducive to robust transit connectivity, so many of these people are by design living in some of the network's hardest to serve spots.

Metro is disgusting and the routes are basically useless for the majority of people. Who wants to spend 3-4x as long to get somewhere all the while enjoying the smell of hot piss and the threat of danger from a manic bum with a hammer.

There is almost no trip on the LA metro that isn’t faster and easier in a car.

In New York, if you wanna get across the city, the fastest way to do it is on the subway. I was hanging out with my millionaire friends there and I took a Lyft somewhere because I was in a hurry and they laughed at me.

I often take the metro here from little Tokyo to highland park. I live right by the station in little Tokyo, and my destination is right by the station in highland park. Even during rush hour, driving there takes about half as much time.

I suggest walking up 5 Ave above 55th St in Manhattan or around the City of London around 4pm on a workday and counting all the idling black cars before you make any assumption about how "high net worth" individuals take public transit to and from work.

Because wealthy people value their time, and public transit is anything but time efficient.

Metrolink in May had 4 or 5 serious rush hour delays/cancellations due to hitting people near that homeless encampment in El Monte. Until they fix that and stop the doomsday "I'm stuck" situations I understand why people don't want to take public transit. And I like the Metrolink even

Cities where high net worth people take the metro are cities where it's also very inconvenient to own a car.

LA isn't like NY or SF where owning a car is inconvenient. LA generally has ample parking. Most inner city apartments also come with designated parking. You kind of need a car to get around anyway so most people just own a car.

Not to mention in LA it isnt super convenient to take metro most places. You'll still end up having to walk or take additional busses outside of just having to take a train or subway.

If you're going to have to take the bus anyway. You're not really saving anytime so most people probably rather just drive themselves.

Expo line has well paid riders riders that come in from the beach from what I’ve seen. My office will reimburse their employees for their fare expenses if they ride the train.

It is a cultural and location phenomena. Here in NYC, high wage earners take the subway for short distances (quicker than walking but faster than driving) low income people tend to live in the extreme ends of the subway. Now those who live in the suburbs are more likely to take the railroad (metro north and LIRR) fares on those lines are expensive. Low income people in the said area use the bus.

NYC is big in terms of people but it’s really small in regard to land, that goes for the city proper.

I'm no cultural anthropoligist, but: I'm from NYC and have lived in LA for almost 30 years. Maybe because of geography, LA is divided up much more by class than NYC. People in LA make a big deal about separating themselves from others. See the resistance of Beverly Hills to the Metro, the leeway given Beverly Hills cops to harass drivers who don't seem to belong, and so on.

When I moved here, I didn't know how to drive and took buses. The system was a mess -- they did not even publish a system-wide map!

NYC and London have systems that are far older than the LA Metro. The cities are also planned completely differently than Los Angeles. California and the American West were built up with the idea that there was unlimited space to build residential neighborhoods. And that people would have cars to get around. Comparing the 3 simply because they each have a metro system is shortsighted. It's like you didn't put any thought into the idea beyond the basic concept that they all have trains and busses.

Piss, shit, mentally ill people in every train is one thing, but the speed of the metro is an absolute joke when the line runs above ground. It literally faster to take a car most of the time than ride the metro.

Because the London metro is clean, safe, fast, affordable, and goes all over the entire city. The LA metro isn’t any of those things.

Making the metro desirable for high net worth individuals means making it undesirable for the sorts that might dissuade them from riding. That could entail ridding the streets of the mentally ill in many cases that are against their will and enforcing treatment. It could mean having absolutely draconian punishments for causing serious disturbances. It likely means a much bigger law enforcement presence. And it probably means increasing the cost of the metro to price out certain folk.

FWIW- I am not advocating for or against any of these things, but they are the types of changes that would likely need to occur.

TL/DR - you want high income peeps on the metro you gotta lose the drug addicts/urinators/mentally unstable.

I make more than your average suit dude, but I wear jeans and a t-shirt when I ride the metro. Workplaces with serious dress codes are a lot less common on the West coast, and anecdotally you see less people wearing suits anywhere here from what I can tell.

When it's faster than a car from door to door. Unless you work at a Metro station and live at another, the travel time for a given train by itself is irrelevant.

Got on a train and a homeless woman had a mattress on there covered in feces, I was good after that.

There are no bathrooms, restaurants or quick bites around a lot of stops. Parking is shitty and far sometimes. Needs AC. Humid. Creepy. Requires multiple passes to get anywhere far (metro vs the train passes). Dirty, dangerous, stinky, risk of getting killed, mugged etc. Risk of car being destroyed or stolen when you return.

I live along the expo line and I make right around 100k+ pretax including retirement funds and investment accounts. At 27 years old, I now only drive an average of 3000 miles a year and trying to actively bring that down to 2000 miles by next year. If you sit long enough on the green line, there’s a good number of space industry folks who take that line to Norwalk and commute out of there. It’s there if you seek it is what I’m saying. 😊

Car dependent infrastructure

I make good money and when I lived in LA (25 years) I rode Metro whenever I could. It’s the last mile that we don’t have figured out yet. But let’s face it, it’s not safe. I’m a pretty big guy and that helps me feel confident on public transit, but if it were my daughters I would probably suggest not riding alone.

Having also lived in Europe for work (Madrid and Düsseldorf) and seen the differences, I can tell you from my point of view what some of the main issues are. First off, there is a lot more inequity in the United States, so culturally public transit has been presented as something for people who can’t afford a car aka poor people. There also seems to be much more prevalent severe poverty, mental health and homeless issues in America, which lead to crime, etc. Second, the level of fare and behavioral enforcement is night and day. Last week here in Madrid someone yelled on a train (mental health issue) and two stops later was escorted off my transit security. The fare gates typically have an employee standing next to them. Most major stations have a Metro Madrid booth where you can ask questions, etc. and cameras are EVERYWHERE

its ligh-trail/brt and LA is sprawly

mass transit needs to get you to your destination faster than driving in order for ppl to consider it over driving. Which is the case for nyc and london. NYC subway smells like piss and it’s not the safest thing around. But that is not stopping the millions from riding it. This is also the case in Japan, outside of the few popular big cities like Tokyo, other metros in Japan is underutilize as it is faster to get to a destination faster with driving.

In New York, mass transit is often the fastest way to get from where you are to where you are going. That makes it a premium option even if it smells like piss.

In LA, mass transit is very seldom the fastest way to get from where you are to where you are going.

And that's pretty much the whole issue.

Not a high net worth rider, but I often take the E line to and from DT to Culver. I've seen one stabbing victim who came onto the train after the stabbing bleeding everywhere, people defecating on the metro, a few fights, and most rides can be pretty uncomfortable. Totally understand why no one likes to take public transit. Also, unless where you want to go is conveniently near a station, which is rare, then transferring to busses yada can be slower than just driving.

On top of that, recent years saw 50% increase in crimes in the past years, which is after the pandemic likely lowered the number of daily riders. Recently bus drivers protested the rise in violence against them. Its horrible.

I've always wanted free public transit, but maybe enforcing passes would help. Otherwise, it is just a symptom of a city and society that is, idk failing? I just moved hear, and I personally feel safe, but that actor was just killed pretty close to me, and it can feel lawless where I live. People don't want to be close to crime or in danger, so better to just sit in traffic and keep defunding the police. I think people both do and don't understand how bad it can be, and choose not to even engage.

The hard truth is that you need to make driving harder to make transit more appealing. Parking is too cheap and abundant for that to be the case.

A higher barrier of entry for riders.

I read that the Metrolink line from Union Station to Pasadena has the most ridership. I assume that’s people in Pasadena going to work downtown. They’ve got money, right?

1. Feels unsafe.

2. Convenience and time saved is not quite enough. Convenience - difficult to get to the actual transit location. Time saved is not much if you factor in the commute TO the station from where you live. Id consider taking public trans if it shaved my total commute time by 50% if safety issue has been addressed.

Y'all crack me up. You want to gentrify the metro because it makes the experience better but when affluent people gentrify a neighborhood, and make it better, oh man it's time to get real angry and fight it.

Upper middle-class people have enough money to not sit next to smelly homeless people that have mental problems and might rob them or fight them over nothing.

Upper class people have enough money to buy luxury cars which are far better experiences than a metro will ever be.

Very rich people have drivers that take them around to lower their risk exposure to lawsuits and give them time to relax or work during trips.

Extremely rich people will just fly in helicopters to avoid all traffic or dealings with us peasants.

This just simply isn't something that will happen because of the demographics of the metro and the experience. It works in New York because they heavily discourage car ownership and culturally it's more ingrained to take a subway.

I don’t because I work at LAX it’s it’s a shit show getting there atm. Hopefully that changes the LAX transit center opens, but it does suck that I’m still not close to any trains. I need to take the bus to them and the busses are even more hit or miss imo

Honest answer is it's hard to attract people when there are safety issues, homeless, and crazy people around.

It needs to be clean, safe, reliable, convenient, and frequent. That’s it.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/rise-mass-transit-crime-la-officials-searching-solutions/story?id=108745419

No express trains!!!!

I didn't really see anyone in suits in the subway in Manhattan when I visited for a few days two weeks ago. I like metros and use the NYC subway during visits. Years ago I was surprised my colleagues (Big 4 Accounting Firms) working in Manhattan don't, generally because it is hot during the summer because no AC and risky at night). They took cabs if needed.

I don’t take it bc I don’t like getting stabbed on my commute

Simple. Jaguar or train. LA trains are gross as fuck and the bus isn't any better. Throw in a chance of assault .and an almost certainty of being annoyed or disgusted somewhere on your journey and it's easy to say no to the public transport.

Jag is just sitting in the garage .....Uber Lux on the end of the phone......

It's not hard to understand.

LA Metro lives in a buble of linear discovery on public transport, as if LA has unique problems unsolvable in modern times.

When it's been solved for 100 years in some places. London being the best example I can think of. I used it for 7 years, disgusted and scared zero times. I've been scared and disgusted on the LA metro multiple times this year already.

It's not a lack of anything but desire and greed.

Probably because the experience is currently awful, combined with the fact that a lot of routes aren't competitive enough with driving. I could (and have) take the Expo Line into work, but it's an extra 30 minutes both ways due to it running in street traffic.

In LA, you car is part outfit. It’s a fashion statement. It’s like asking “why don’t I see rich people walking around without shoes”. Also those other cities are have much more lines with more stops and are much denser. LA is much more spread out. There is only a few lines and the nearest stop to your destination is still a mile or more away.

I highly don’t think it’s worth paying $1.75 to get inconvenienced by some crazy person on your route.  I make over $150k yr and I take the metro but let me tell you how often while I am riding that I regret my decision and wish I drove instead of taking the train. 

lol, look what are you looking for your next mark. There probably are a good number of folks that make decent money but are smart enuf to not flaunt it. But you hit the nail on the head I have a buddy that works in el segundo and he gets a subsidized tap card but will not use it so I use it mainly to joyride on the weekends for him the safety issue is paramount

Driving in LA is too cheap.

Why would it?

The metro doesn’t go to high net worth areas. Those commuter express buses do and those are popular.

It doesn’t go to high net worth areas conveniently

My wife and I are high income and ride the red line all the time. You’d just never know it by looking at us

The urban and infrastructure design is so different between LA and NYC. That’s why.

They don't want to die.

Homeless people and violent groups of young men. I started riding my bike to work from Koreatown to Culver City. Might take an hour or more half the time but I don't have to be insulted or assaulted by people as a target just for looking clean for work. 7th and Normandie so the station is 2 blocks away and still a nope. I work late night btw

Because it’s too much of a hassle to deal with the psychotics that roam free, or risk getting shanked on the way to work.

I'm here for college, but live in Chicago over the summers where I take the CTA to both of my jobs there. Every time I'm back here, I'm appalled at how much worse it is. I can never complain about the CTA again lol

dumb question… rich people can afford to not get stabbed.

its slower then it should be and it not as reliable as it should be. plus the smell is terrible sometimes.

If the metro were to become less horrible than traffic, it would!

My recipe to make Metro successful and appealing to most everyone:

1) Serious security on every bus or rail car. (armed)

2) Squeaky clean buses and trains

3) Increase the frequency (especially bus) by twice the amount

That's it. Change the narrative. Instead of flushing billions down the "homeless" toilet that has accomplished nothing.

Probably all of the drugs, needles, violence, tweakers and shit.

There is a sub Reddit of just famous rich people riding the subway in NYC

Where is an epic beard man when you need one?

Metro can’t skyrocket

Have you been on the LA metro? Lol It’s a dumpster fire. Also the main reason is bc LA metro is not convenient or very well orchestrated. No one gets on it unless you absolutely have no other choice. Thats why Uber and Lyft dominate LA public transit.

If you ever rode the metro you’d know why.

Because the metro smells like piss 👍

In Europe and Asia they keep their metros clean but in the US everything’s dirty as hell

Until the buses, light rail and heavy rail lines … truly run 24/7 365 days a year every year this will never get like NYC OR LONDON … stop 🛑 comparing these systems to what we have here now 🤔🤡 we got so much work to do here… glad you didn’t mention TOKYO OR SOUL SOUTH KOREA… WE ARE A JOKE

Two words- bum shit

The wealthiest parts of NYC (primarily in Manhattan and Brooklyn) are the most central and accessible parts of the city so they’re (primarily) well stocked with subway stops.

Same goes for commuters from wealthy suburbs. Connecticut, Westchester etc all have commuter rails accessible to them.

If you live in a $20M townhouse in the west village, you can walk to a train in two minutes. If you live in a $20M house in Malibu there’s no train anywhere near you.

Im surprised no one is pointing the obvious:

Its not safe.

A car is a status symbol in L.A, not so much in NY.

I often take the E line from Santa Monica to avoid downtown traffic and parking costs.

You'll find a lot of the clientele you're looking for if you hangout around the USC stop as an Angel City FC game is ending. Maybe LAFC, too, but I didn't go to those, so I don't know.

La Metro is the worst system in the entire world

Because high-net worth commuters don’t want to arrive at the office smelling like weed?

The reason I left NYC for CA was that I didn’t want to rely on public transportation, and I enjoy cars/driving. I feel like a lot of people in my income level (or higher) feel the same way.

NYC is also very small/dense so it doesn’t really make sense to have a car there vs in LA where folks commute maybe 20-30 miles one way for work.

I am a business WOMAN, and I use Metro daily. Really depends on where you’re coming from. DTLA 7th at Fig station has a very eclectic demo, as a does Hollywood / Highland, North Hollywood station and Union Station. I do primarily take the Redline so I can only speak to that.

Less drugs and homelessness will be a good start. I’m so tired of seeing people injecting and having open soRes.

should be free price has gotten to high even with life program people still paid 16 in LA

I live in London now, but used to live in LA. The resources and culture are just way different. There are responsive police here, constant reminders on how to text them while on transit, security cameras everywhere (not just on transit, but EVERYWHERE in the city), and well-trained, polite, and numerous transport staff. British people do NOT tolerate antisocial behavior on the tube or on trains. In LA, it’s de facto permissible to harass random people, shit in public, and do drugs in public. Until that changes, nobody in the professional working class is going to ride it.

LA metro system is very Spoke and Hub as they say in transit- wether on the Metro or Metrolink it wants to take you Downtown. with the exception of the C and L everything goes downtown or passes through. Thats not universal on the Buses, but more true then not a lot of the time

And Thats pretty common in transit systems all over the world. We have a center, with all the big buildings-and its assumed most people will go there-or they can catch another train from there. Theeotically it would be faster if the train was more direct-but well only so many lines-and downtown is where the big business is.

But downtown LA-government is there. Some Law firms, import export. A certain amount of banking...but while there is certainly a lot of devolopment there its not really. the center of the Suit and tie business world in LA. There isn't no big business there-but not much.

Big Business in LA is fairly spread out. A lot is in the West side, and South with the studios and Game Devs. A fair Amount in the Valley. A lot in the OC-its everywhere.

The Freeways somewhat detour downtown-but they frankly go everyhwere. Its not for nothing that busiest streach of freeway-which suggest the space that busiest and most important for transit-is the 405 from 10 to the airport in the west side-the E line there assumes you really want to go to downtown but not to the valley or the south.

I do think a metro system that more accuratly depicts the freeway would get more suit and tie style business-more business in general-but the irony of a system that seems geared to get businessmen downtown ala the 40s in new york....probabbly doesn't actually do much of that.

In NYC you take the metro because its the best way to get from A to B. In LA it is rarely the best A to B

The real rich lives in places like Brentwood, Bel Air, etc etc...LA does not have the Wall St types..most Metro commuters are government types probably, heading to DTLA...

Lmao I'm from NYC and your first mistake was thinking that men in business suits are well off.

Public transport needs to be faster and more convenient than car. That's the difference between NYC/London and LA. LA's public transit is still stuck in the same traffic as everyone unless. But a car isn't making multiple stops to pick people up or drop them off.

LA is too spread out to ever be a metro using city. In New York and London, the city is compact and there are enough train stations close enough together that once you get off the train, you only have to walk a couple blocks at most to get to your final destination. In LA, it’s very unlikely the stations are exactly where you need them. You’d have to transfer a bus or get an Uber after taking the train. It’s just not worth it for people who can afford other options.

I take the Green Line from Norwalk to Aviation, then the Metro connector to the airport. The commute time is the same if I drive because of traffic, and I’m spending more on gas. The ONLY reason, and I mean the only reason I do not drive is because I can’t afford to.

So, someone who doesn’t have to worry about the money aspect is not gonna take our trash train.

Los Angeles is a driving city regardless of how bad traffic is. And lots of rich people have drivers. Also, LA metro sucks.

They do, they just don’t look like it. In LA culture high net worth people fit in very well into the crowd.

BECAUSE ITS NOT RELIABLE & DANGEROUS, ESPECIALLY FOR WOMEN.

Honestly, the moment LA Metro decided to have above ground light rail lines was the moment it went to shit. Literally no point. Slows trains, constantly having to stop for traffic is just stupid. They should have priority & right of way. Just imagine for a second if every train in LA was an underground train, like a real train, not light rail, to be able to get from DTLA to Long Beach is 20 mins would be life changing but no, we decided to go for the cheap light rail where it takes an hour, of course I’d rather just drive. This is LA, for most people, time is money. & I would rather drive a car everywhere if it meant less time waiting around for trains & them going slow & dropping me off now where where I actually need to be & not being sexually harassed somewhere on the LA Metro line would help but things only got worse with LA Metro after the pandemic.

Probably the meth and fentanyl usage that is allowed all over the system. 🤷🏾‍♂️

Who wants to ride through Watts?

Well-off people in LA don’t dress like well-off people in NYC 🙂 software engineers making $300k/year are gonna be wearing jeans and a button up, not a suit and tie.

it will, when the gas prices jump to $7 and better security,

*it doesn’t go to enough affluent neighborhoods

*lots of stabs and pee

Media professional, decent $: the Silver Line rules