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.
And how long do said buses get to said location? And how long does it take for average persons residence to get to their work?
While you technically *could* live in LA without a car, it would take considerably more planning, effort, and bring your QOL down substantially trying to do the same things as you could living in other cities.
Well it took my about an hour and half to get from my apartment in Brighton to the Harbor area downtown in Boston going B line, Red Line, Silver Line. In LA that is easily attainable as long as you are sensible about where you live and work.
The public transportation in LA is far from poor. Not up to par for a city its size, perhaps, but it obviously wouldn't be on this list if it was downright terrible.
Well it took my about an hour and half to get from my apartment in Brighton to the Harbor area downtown in Boston going B line, Red Line, Silver Line. In LA that is easily attainable as long as you are sensible about where you live and work.
The public transportation in LA is far from poor. Not up to par for a city its size, perhaps, but it obviously wouldn't be on this list if it was downright terrible.
But as you just stated, switch 3 different lines. That isn't the same as just taking one line into DT like people in the city usually do and probably more like 15 minutes or even just walk or bike to everything they need. I'm not seeing how that is hour and a half, that's terrible actually. I live miles from the loop.
Well it took my about an hour and half to get from my apartment in Brighton to the Harbor area downtown in Boston going B line, Red Line, Silver Line. In LA that is easily attainable as long as you are sensible about where you live and work.
The public transportation in LA is far from poor. Not up to par for a city its size, perhaps, but it obviously wouldn't be on this list if it was downright terrible.
The only system in the US that will get you from far out suburbs to most places in city proper without a transfer of systems in a fast amount of time is Washington DC. NYC you have to take commuter rail and transfer to the NYC subway. San Fran, you have to take Bart and transfer to Muni. And places like LA you have to take the bus. From a speed stand point, Metro is really the only system that can get you to your destination without transferring systems adding to the cost of the trip and travel time. LA definetly beats most places for bus travel. That is a very slow way to travel though. We are talking multiple hours.
The only system in the US that will get you from far out suburbs to most places in city proper without a transfer of systems in a fast amount of time is Washington DC. NYC you have to take commuter rail and transfer to the NYC subway. San Fran, you have to take Bart and transfer to Muni. And places like LA you have to take the bus. From a speed stand point, Metro is really the only system that can get you to your destination without transferring systems adding to the cost of the trip and travel time. LA definetly beats most places for bus travel. That is a very slow way to travel though. We are talking multiple hours.
No, Chicago has the same thing taking you multiple places into DT, as does NYC...they have both subway + commuter rail systems that overlap...
The only system in the US that will get you from far out suburbs to most places in city proper without a transfer of systems in a fast amount of time is Washington DC. NYC you have to take commuter rail and transfer to the NYC subway. San Fran, you have to take Bart and transfer to Muni. And places like LA you have to take the bus. From a speed stand point, Metro is really the only system that can get you to your destination without transferring systems adding to the cost of the trip and travel time. LA definetly beats most places for bus travel. That is a very slow way to travel though. We are talking multiple hours.
Yeah I agree, although the longest I have ever spent on an LA bus is an hour to get from Hollywood to Santa Monica... so multiple hours is maybe a bit of an exaggeration unless you are dumb / unlucky enough to live super far from your place of work. Like I'm talking you live in Woodland Hills and work in Culver City.
Also even though it isn't on this list, I am not silly enough to argue that LA Metro is better than DC Metro. I bet you can find some on here that are though!
But as you just stated, switch 3 different lines. That isn't the same as just taking one line into DT like people in the city usually do and probably more like 15 minutes or even just walk or bike to everything they need. I'm not seeing how that is hour and a half, that's terrible actually. I live miles from the loop.
I am talking about Boston. It was about an hour to Park street on the B line, ten or fifteen on the red line from park to south station and then another 15 from south station to the courthouse stop. Brighton is far from the burbs of Boston, it is in the city limits.
No, Chicago has the same thing taking you multiple places into DT, as does NYC...they have both subway + commuter rail systems that overlap...
In NYC, you have to transfer systems from commuter rail at Grand Central or Penn to the NYC subway. You have to pay again and you lose time transferring. Chicago's Metra doesn't have many station's in the city so a transfer to the "El" is required also.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 11-08-2011 at 09:58 AM..
In NYC, you have to transfer systems from commuter rail at Grand Central or Penn to the NYC subway. You have to pay again and you lose time transferring. Chicago's Metra doesn't have many station's in the city so a transfer to the "El" is required also.
Not true, Metra has 6-7 stops into DT... why would you need to transfer? Yes if you are going to neighborhoods this is true. But then again, the EL has multiple stops in the suburbs.
Not true, Metra has 6-7 stops into DT... why would you need to transfer? Yes if you are going to neighborhoods this is true. But then again, the EL has multiple stops in the suburbs.
I was just explaining the difference in time and cost from having one system cover the suburbs and city versus two separate systems. There would be no need to transfer in D.C. unless you are coming from VRE or Marc which would be like Chicago and NYC obviously. But if you aren't coming from VRE and Marc, you have the convenience of not transferring using Metro. It's cheaper and faster.
Location: NY-NJ-Philly looks down at SF and laughs at the hippies
1,144 posts, read 1,296,325 times
Reputation: 432
I wouldn't dare think about living in any city in this country without a car besides NY, Chicago, Boston, DC or Philly. Especially not those hippie meccas out west in SF and Portland, the transit is awful.
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.
