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.
"Light rail" covers a wide spectrum - it describes the technology used, but it can include anything from a "Rapid Streetcar" to a subway with complete right-of-way.
For example, Seattle is technically building a Light Rail system but much of it is/will be underground through the City, and most of the above ground parts will be grade-separated. So, essentially, it functions like heavy rail but with lower capacity. It doesn't wait at lights or contend with other traffic. LAs light rail is similar - it is almost entirely grade-separated and functions fairly similar to heavy rail.
Now - places like Portland and Salt Lake City also have light rail systems, but they basically function like streetcars downtown. I could see saying it's not fair to lump these systems with heavy rail. But LAs light rail definitely belongs in the conversation.
You already delineated the amount of people it can carry, anybody who has been to NYC or Chicago knows how cramped a subway car can be picking up 100s of people per stop. Also, speed, even in Atlanta MARTA regularly goes 70mph. Also, the average speeds are usually higher. I just looked up LA's expo line and it seems it will travel for the most part at 35mph b/c of no safety gates on the cross streets.
You already delineated the amount of people it can carry, anybody who has been to NYC or Chicago knows how cramped a subway car can be picking up 100s of people per stop. Also, speed, even in Atlanta MARTA regularly goes 70mph. Also, the average speeds are usually higher. I just looked up LA's expo line and it seems it will travel for the most part at 35mph b/c of no safety gates on the cross streets.
I don't think those limitations precludes LRT from being part of the discussion when comparing what city is better for a car-free lifestyle.
And honestly buses should definitely not be excluded either - I think the fact that LA has a superior bus system is at least important to the discussion.
Hitting all the "key spots" and all these percentage numbers don't necesarily make Atlanta easier to live car free. For starters, the areas MARTA serves are only so-so walkable:
I know what you're thinking. L.A.'s red and purple lines run along its most concentrated areas, and it's shorter in length, therefore less diluted. Well, yeah. Isnt that sorta the point? Hundreds of thousands of people live in the neighborhoods the red/purple lines run through--DTLA alone is home to 60k people or so. Hollywood, 75k. Ktown, 125k. North Hollywood, 77k. The amount of people living in neighborhoods directly serviced by the Red/Purple lines exceeds the entire population of the city of Atlanta. That's enough city to live car-free, should you choose, and it completely ignores L.A.'s light rail, which hits key areas like Long Beach, Pasadena, Culver City, Exposition Park/USC, etc etc, 44 miles of rapid bus lines, 500+ miles of commuter rail, and the most comprehensive bus system in the nation.
Los Angeles is best enjoyed with an automobile IMO, but if you want to live car-free or car-lite, you can do a lot worse. It's not that bad.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 09-24-2012 at 06:32 PM..
When I lived carfree in LA people were talking like my life was over. It turned out to be a breeze. Wherever I went in LA I could always count on the bus or subway.
I'm pretty sure you can say that forever. 1.4 Million people use LA's PT everyday. LA's light rail is the second busiest in the Nation and it's bus system boasts over 2,500 buses and over a million riders daily. I don't own a car and travel around Los Angeles with ease. The buses go EVERYWHERE and the trains are efficient.
Also, LA has many more miles of sidewalks than Atlanta and in LA the urban form and structural density is more consistant over a larger area than Atlanta's. In Atlanta there are a ton of roads and neighborhoods without sidewalks, or that are more detatched from the rest of the city.
I don't care what Walkscore says, zero percent chance I'd do either Atlanta or LA without a car. If you make more than min. wage, you're not riding the bus in either city. Give me a break. I'm an urban transit geek and can do about one stop on Marta or LA Metro before I get out, call a taxi, and have him drive me to the nearest rent a car shop. Even all the hipsters in Los Feliz and West Hollywood drive. And the 23 year olds in $900 a month, brand new Midtown apartments are driving to their jobs whether their office is downtown or in Alpharetta.
I don't care what Walkscore says, zero percent chance I'd do either Atlanta or LA without a car. If you make more than min. wage, you're not riding the bus in either city. Give me a break. I'm an urban transit geek and can do about one stop on Marta or LA Metro before I get out, call a taxi, and have him drive me to the nearest rent a car shop. Even all the hipsters in Los Feliz and West Hollywood drive. And the 23 year olds in $900 a month, brand new Midtown apartments are driving to their jobs whether their office is downtown or in Alpharetta.
That's barely true. Have you ever lived in Atlanta?
I don't care what Walkscore says, zero percent chance I'd do either Atlanta or LA without a car...I'm an urban transit geek and can do about one stop on Marta or LA Metro before I get out, call a taxi, and have him drive me to the nearest rent a car shop.
Please turn in your urban transit geek card as this does not compute!
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.