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.
Both cities have reputations as auto-centric cities. In fact, Atlanta has been called "Baby L.A." But there are undoubtedly areas in both cities where a car-free lifestyle is possible. Which city do you think a car-free lifestyle would be easiest in given the urban design, densities, public transit options, size, and any other factors that merit discussion?
Here are some interesting facts:
LA has greater bus ridership than Atlanta (1.1 million vs. 200K). But the city of Los Angeles is about 7 or 8 times the size of Atlanta, so that's to be expected. Atlanta, however, has more rapid rail riders than LA (225K vs. 142K). Atlanta also has more subway stations and more track.
Both cities have reputations as auto-centric cities. In fact, Atlanta has been called "Baby L.A." But there are undoubtedly areas in both cities where a car-free lifestyle is possible. Which city do you think a car-free lifestyle would be easiest in given the urban design, densities, public transit options, size, and any other factors that merit discussion?
Here are some interesting facts:
LA has greater bus ridership than Atlanta (1.1 million vs. 200K). But the city of Los Angeles is about 7 or 8 times the size of Atlanta, so that's to be expected. Atlanta, however, has more rapid rail riders than LA (225K vs. 142K). Atlanta also has more subway stations and more track.
Don't forget to take into account LA's LRT system - 154k daily riders plus the (purposefully lowball estimate) of 30-40k more when the Expo opens in two weeks.
LA transit system is pathetic compared to Atlanta especially when you factor in metro sizes 18 million to 6 million. Sorry but buses are a third rate means to get around
Maybe LA because I remember the buses did go everywhere.
The only thing I don't remember is if there is a REGULAR bus that does Sepulveda between the basin and the Valley. I don't think such a beast existed, as I might have used it to take a summer class at CSUN instead of driving and let Metro/RTD pay for the air conditioning.
Maybe LA because I remember the buses did go everywhere.
The only thing I don't remember is if there is a REGULAR bus that does Sepulveda between the basin and the Valley. I don't think such a beast existed, as I might have used it to take a summer class at CSUN instead of driving and let Metro/RTD pay for the air conditioning.
The 761 Rapid Bus (better than a local bus) runs the Sepulveda Pass between Pacoima and Westwood. Runs every 10-15 minutes during rush hour, limited stops, makes the trip from
You can get anywhere in the city on PT and the buses run 24/7. Makes living without a car significantly easier. Sorry if we are second class citizens for using buses .
Atlanta win this one. Marta is pretty good in most of Fulton and Dekalb County. For a city it's size LA transit isn't that impressive. If you live in Sandy Springs, Decatur, East Point, College Park,or the West End you can get by without a car in Atlanta. I know because I did it for a year living in East Point GA. Even certain parts of Alpharetta are pretty decent for public transit. Atlanta is also better than the South Florida metro when it comes to public transit by far. I truly feel sorry for people who have to depend on it.
Both cities have reputations as auto-centric cities. In fact, Atlanta has been called "Baby L.A." But there are undoubtedly areas in both cities where a car-free lifestyle is possible. Which city do you think a car-free lifestyle would be easiest in given the urban design, densities, public transit options, size, and any other factors that merit discussion?
Here are some interesting facts:
LA has greater bus ridership than Atlanta (1.1 million vs. 200K). But the city of Los Angeles is about 7 or 8 times the size of Atlanta, so that's to be expected. Atlanta, however, has more rapid rail riders than LA (225K vs. 142K). Atlanta also has more subway stations and more track.
LA has the better access to PT. It may not have the most convenient system but it is far ahead of ATL in terms of access.
Virtually everyone in Metro LA has access to PT, while the percentage is 70% for ATL.
Rank / Metro /Access (Percentage Coverage ) 1. Los Angeles 99.1
2. New York 98.7
San Jose 98.2
San Francisco 98.1
3. Miami 97.2
4. DC 96.4
San Diego 95.9
5. Chicago 95.5
6. Philadelphia 95.4
7. Boston 93.1
8. Houston 73.4
9. DFW 71.2 10. Atlanta 68.5
I'd like L.A. to be more car free and more pedestrian friendly. Build tall and midrises from downtown and have downtown spread and encourage people to want to move in. Get rid of that whole "we need lawns" mentality. Create a central park so everyone can have one giant green lawn. IMO, lawns are just status symbols. Who cares that the woman across the street has greener year around grass?
I know it's impossible but I wish L.A. can shrink the sprawl and learn alittle from New York. You can still have a summertime feel with a metropolis. But if that ever happens, I'll be living in a retirement home by then..
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.
.
