Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I live in Glendale and my job in Irvine offers free parking, why would I use public transit? PT is really only "convenient" when the cost of driving becomes prohibitively expensive. I would rather drive to work everyday, but the $600 per month cost just makes me say, "Naaah."
I would rather not drive if possible; nice to not have to pay attention to traffic and sleep or read on the way.
I would rather not drive if possible; nice to not have to pay attention to traffic and sleep or read on the way.
I agree unless it was totally inconvenient (like living in Glendale and commutting to Irvine; which is crazy far BTW). Driving from Glendale to Irving every day would be very, very expensive.
Much of Los Angeles doesn't feel very urban to me, heavily congested and large, yes but more suburban than urban.
Nearly all metropolitan areas have a large amount of suburban landscape but most large western cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, and Houston grew heavily on suburban sprawl, not the central core.
much of los angeles doesn't feel very urban to me, heavily congested and large, yes but more suburban than urban.
Nearly all metropolitan areas have a large amount of suburban landscape but most large western cities like los angeles, san diego, phoenix, denver, dallas, and houston grew heavily on suburban sprawl, not the central core.
Much of Los Angeles doesn't feel very urban to me, heavily congested and large, yes but more suburban than urban.
Nearly all metropolitan areas have a large amount of suburban landscape but most large western cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Denver, Dallas, and Houston grew heavily on suburban sprawl, not the central core.
And Tempe doesn't "feel" hot because its not humid.
And the result is... LA wins! Of course LA also has one of the smallest - if not the smallest - systems by mileage of the in the study, and its heavy rail is limited to some of the most dense and urban neighborhoods in the city.
Note: Light rail was not included. Here is why:
"Why I didn't count light rail or other transit I'm sure this will prove to be controversial, and that's fine. I did not include the light rail elements of systems in cities like Boston for 3 primary reasons:
Peer comparison: I wanted to create an apples-to-apples comparison, as best as possible. While the Washington Metro is easily comparable to BART, it doesn't make as much sense to compare a Metro stop to a Muni LRT stop on the west side of San Francsico that is just a sign on a telephone pole.
To limit the scope: This project took a good amount of time as it was. I did not want to extend that time by trying to measure too much. Besides, I (or someone) can always do a follow-up with light rail.
To avoid "mode creep": If we take Boston as an example, limiting the scope of the survey to heavy rail avoids the mode creep that can exacerbate the problems listed above. If I were to consider the Green Line, I would need to consider all of it. And if I'm considering the street-running portions of the Green Line, how can I not consider the full subway portions of the Silver Line in East Boston? And then would I not have to also include the Washington Avenue portion, that is essentially arterial bus?
This analysis is limited, as any analysis would be. I chose to try to keep it from expanding too far by limiting it to one mode. It would be interesting to look at the omitted lines, and perhaps that will happen in a future analysis."
Interesting comparison, though not exactly surprising if you think about where the LA heavy rail lines.
The biggest surprise is that BART does better than the Washington Metro. I thought the DC did a better job of putting its suburban metro stops in walkable transit oriented developments.
Interesting comparison, though not exactly surprising if you think about where the LA heavy rail lines.
The biggest surprise is that BART does better than the Washington Metro. I thought the DC did a better job of putting its suburban metro stops in walkable transit oriented developments.
I think it is the sheer size of the Washington Metro that pushes it down. One commenter mentioned there is a stop at Arlington Cemetery, obviously that stop is going to have a rock bottom walk score.
The PATCO line in Philly/NJ is basically very similar to BART and METRO in form and style; actually think PATCO was the model for METRO, BART, and MARTA.
In a quick look at walk score, the suburban NJ park and ride stops are the outliers for HR on the Philly chart. Sounds like SIRT is the same for NYC
The three PATCO stops in Philly are all above 97 and the NJ stops are all below 82
I think judging by the rectangles (25th - 75th percentiles) is a better way to judge as it excludes outliers.
Boston and Philly's are very similar; Chicago's is lower (one of Chicago's line goes in an expressway median which probably lowers the score). BART still does better than the WMTA, so it can't just be cemetery stops, just too many outer suburb stops. Cleveland's metro is strange; poor design?
NYC subways (outside of the SIR and maybe a couple PATH stops) have no park and rides. Is the same true of the LA heavy rail metro? Philly outside of PATCO?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
