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.
Urban layout:
L.A.'s combination of the world's most advanced freeway system and robust metro rail network put it easily on top in this category as well. If we were judging infrastructure as a historical whole since the beginning of the city, you could put L.A. ahead of all the east coast cities and Chicago as well, based on the scale of the early Red Car lines, their ambitious and revolutionary freeway project, and today's rail revival ahead of their third Olympics.
LA had the "world's most advanced freeway system" in the 1960s. I'd hardly call the current system advanced. Additionally, there is a difference between "expansive" and "advanced". I've seen more advanced and better maintained urban freeway systems in developing countries.
From a historical comparison, LA is definitely ahead of other west coast cities. But to suggest that it is ahead all east coast cities is absolute nonsense. NYC was building impressive bridges, highways, parkways, subways, heavy rail, streetcars, etc. long before Los Angeles. Most major American cities had expansive streetcar networks. LA's was large in route miles, but wasn't particularly great otherwise.
Ultimately, the LA region is a terrible place for mobility. This isn't subjective; Census data shows that commutes are significantly longer.
LA invests wholeheartedly in building the trending transportation mode (streetcars, highways, metrorail, and now light rail/BRT). Sadly, time and time again, the city then underinvests in maintaining these systems and they fall apart. This results in the terrible transportation network that defines LA.
What are the differences and similarities of these West Coast major cities?
Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego
List Positives and preference if you like pertaining to...
I ranked them based on my own preferences.
Urban layout (note: often dictated by topography/geography):
Portland: small downtown blocks great for walking; large grid system; decent transit; good preservation of natural areas
Seattle: street grid placed on varying topography, interesting/good transit network
San Diego: canyons are nice to break up sprawl, but annoying for mobility (everyone funneled through chokepoints); multiple "villages" and main streets throughout city which is nice; transit could be improved, broken street grid in many places.
SF: I love the bay itself, but it really makes regional travel obnoxious and time consuming. Every trip route feels like you are being funneled through something.
LA: endless sprawl in the basin and valley, with no natural breaks. Completely overbuilt to the point of being ugly. I do appreciate some of the urban corridors...although they are plagued with traffic.
Culture & Diversity
SD: Pretty diverse and well-integrated...there's a lot less animosity between different groups in San Diego compared to SF and LA (not to discredit its own racist policies like redlining). The vibe is very "chill" and "work to live". I appreciate the work-life balance, although others prefer more fast paced. I also like the focus on outdoor activities.
SF: Diverse with good local culture and attractions. I'm not a fan of the fake liberalism or neoliberalism that radiates from the region. Similar to LA, people are constantly trying to "out-woke" each other. I'm also not a fan of the infatuation with tech culture. I'm just not interested about how some lifestyle app as a topic of conversation.
LA: High culture, pop culture, fashion, design, and diversity. It's unrivaled on the west coast. It's the epicenter of "trendy" and to some extent, nationwide fads and trends. That alone deserves respect. Although for me personally, I'm not a fan of this type of culture because of the superficial, fame-hungry people it attracts.
Seattle: I like the culture a lot (outdoors/hiking, particularly), but is somewhat lacking in diversity.
Portland: Has a better work-life balance, but lacking in diversity.
Climate (as a whole...I realize microclimates can make conditions similar)
SD: Most temperate climate, which I prefer.
Seattle: Great summers, a chance of snow.
LA: too hot. Most of LA is not on the beach and the basin/valley gets hot. A less temperate San Diego
Portland: A less temperate Seattle.
SF: Too much fog. It's consistently chilly. East Bay is nice, however.
Education
All of these cities are pretty educated, although LA and its residents feel the least educated.
- LA wins in terms of higher education (UCLA, USC, CalTech, Claremont McKenna Colleges, many CSUs)
- San Diego wins in overall quality of public schools. The majority of the city's high schools are very high performing by state standards.
Politics
Definitely not LA or SF. San Diego's politicians are uninspiring. Not familiar with Portland or Seattle.
Infrastructure & Architecture
- Infrastructure: Seattle overall. LA for airports/seaports. San Diego for highways.
- Architecture: San Francisco (very unique and iconic) and Los Angeles (art deco, in particular)
Economy
All economies are pretty healthy.
- LA and San Diego wages are lousy considering cost of living. The "sunshine tax" is frustrating.
- For larger corporations already in LA/OC, it's hard to justify a separate office in San Diego which means the career opportunities in LA/OC are better at the expense of SD.
- Seattle and SF are great for tech workers, but that doesn't help the majority of people who are not in tech with stagnant wages that can't keep up with rising housing costs. These two economies are also particularly vulnerable to corrections.
- Portland has the smallest job market.
LA had the "world's most advanced freeway system" in the 1960s. I'd hardly call the current system advanced. Additionally, there is a difference between "expansive" and "advanced". I've seen more advanced and better maintained urban freeway systems in developing countries.
From a historical comparison, LA is definitely ahead of other west coast cities. But to suggest that it is ahead all east coast cities is absolute nonsense. NYC was building impressive bridges, highways, parkways, subways, heavy rail, streetcars, etc. long before Los Angeles. Most major American cities had expansive streetcar networks. LA's was large in route miles, but wasn't particularly great otherwise.
Ultimately, the LA region is a terrible place for mobility. This isn't subjective; Census data shows that commutes are significantly longer.
LA invests wholeheartedly in building the trending transportation mode (streetcars, highways, metrorail, and now light rail/BRT). Sadly, time and time again, the city then underinvests in maintaining these systems and they fall apart. This results in the terrible transportation network that defines LA.
Had to go back and figure out why my post is being replied to 25 months after the fact. That said, not going to go to far into detail as its not needed.
Second generation metro rail was implemented in L.A. because of rising population and rising gas prices, among other things. They weren't copying a trend (that they had already set).
As far as the L.A. region being terrible for mobility, all I have to say is this-I'm going to the Clippers-Rockets game tomorrow night.
I'll use Amtrak-Metro Red Line-Metro "A" Line to get to Staples Center, from San Diego.
The game will probably let out 20-30 minutes before the LAST train of the day goes south to San Diego. If I miss it, stuck there with no place to sleep.
That's how much confidence I have in their system.
Its not going to be an issue because I"ve threaded needles even tighter than that with L.A.'s "terrible transportation network.”
Last edited by Losfrisco; 12-18-2019 at 01:27 PM..
Had to go back and figure out why my post is being replied to 25 months after the fact. That said, not going to go to far into detail as its not needed.
Second generation metro rail was implemented in L.A. because of rising population and rising gas prices, among other things. They weren't copying a trend (that they had already set).
As far as the L.A. region being terrible for mobility, all I have to say is this-I'm going to the Clippers-Rockets game tomorrow night.
I'll use Amtrak-Metro Red Line-Metro "A" Line to get to Staples Center, from San Diego.
The game will probably let out 20-30 minutes before the LAST train of the day goes south to San Diego. If I miss it, stuck there with no place to sleep.
That's how much confidence I have in their system.
Its not going to be an issue because I"ve threaded needles even tighter than that with L.A.'s "terrible transportation network.”
Haha, I love your anecdotal stories. The trip you just described (inter-city/commuter rail with a late night downtown-only transit connection) is available in most major cities.
I would rather rely on Census commuter data, supported by my own LA region travel experiences, rather than your obscure trip.
LA's transportation network is underwhelming for a region of its size, which is why it ranks so poorly in mobility measures (reliability, safety, travel times, hours of delay, # super commuters, etc.). It's absolutely hilarious that you think it is the best transportation network in the U.S. Nobody can take you seriously after a statement like that.
Haha, I love your anecdotal stories. The trip you just described (inter-city/commuter rail with a late night downtown-only transit connection) is available in most major cities.
I would rather rely on Census commuter data, supported by my own LA region travel experiences, rather than your obscure trip.
LA's transportation network is underwhelming for a region of its size, which is why it ranks so poorly in mobility measures (reliability, safety, travel times, hours of delay, # super commuters, etc.). It's absolutely hilarious that you think it is the best transportation network in the U.S. Nobody can take you seriously after a statement like that.
Out of curiosity who do you think has the best transportation network in the US?
We all know that NYC and other Northeast cities have great public transportation, but their freeways absolutely blow. Actually we can’t call them freeways because you have to pay to drive on many of them with no real alternatives.
I’m not sure why you don’t think LA has a great freeway system? Yeah it’s often crowded, and it’s home to the mysterious 12am traffic jam with no accident/construction in sight, but it’s great for covering the region. There’s just too many cars, but that can be said of many major metros, including those with great public transportation.
I don’t know, but when you factor in the strides they’ve made the last 20+ years with public transportation, along with their freeway system, I’d say LA has a great transportation network? And this is coming from someone from San Diego that despises LA traffic, for whatever that’s worth?
LA's freeway system is terrible. Way under built for it's population. This isn't necessarily a bad thing except there are not a lot of good alternatives for a lot of people.
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.
