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.
Our late Mayor Tom Bradley made many trips to Toronto to study their internationally-renowned transit system forty years ago, and as someone who has visited both Toronto & Montreal several times, rest assured that their transit systems and exceptional subways are light years above those here in LA in every measurable way, and certainly on a par with cities such as SF, Chicago, DC & NYC, as well as several other cities in the Northeast; those are cities where you can get along extremely well without an automobile.
You might have to factor in the geographical differences between many of these other cities and L.A. Obviously, L.A. is much more spread out than those cities, and what rapid transit we do have is, and will continue to be, centered on or near the high-density corridors. You do have to choose to live near the Metro if you want to use it conveniently, with your personal definition of "near" obviously varying and dependent on such factors as whether you mind having to ride the bus a few miles to get to the train. station. Moreover, given the climate, people here want to go to the beach or do outdoor sports in relatively remote areas over all or most of the year. It's not a matter of suggesting an excuse for why our PT system isn't as good, it's just a geographical fact of life. Several upcoming projects that have been greenlighted will answer some of these needs, like being able to reach the beach, in the years to come. It's a long way off, and it is a pain, but that's what we get for starting so late.
If only we'd voted in some of the huge projects submitted to us in the 1960s or 70s, today we'd have many times the number of overall miles, routes, and stations in our rail transit system, and we wouldn't be having this discussion now. But in those days L.A. was much more conservative and suburban in its political outlook, and cars were the only acceptable way to get around. The Beverly Hills Freeway was still on the back burner, instead of being rightly deep sixed. In hindsight, I don't know how anybody in those years thought they could get a rail transit system proposal passed.
As for SF I've often maintained that BART is a rather unusual system, a hybrid of urban subway and suburban commuter railroad--the emphasis is heavily on the latter. In the City itself BART doesn't reach that many places; the Muni rail lines, if I'm reading their map correctly, doesn't go anywhere north of Golden Gate Park which leaves out vast residential areas in the northern part of the City. I'm not counting the cable cars in this statement; while certainly charming they do run in the streets and are certainly not rapid transit. I don't know about the other Muni rail lines, maybe someone can fill us in. But regardless, when it comes to mass transit much of SF is dependent on buses, although given the smaller footprint and greater density, one doesn't usually have to go as far as a typical L.A. bus trip.
I'm not disputing that San Francisco's public transit, overall, is better than L.A.'s, but to mention it in the same breath with NYC or Montreal is probably unwarranted.
Last edited by Those Who Squirm; 08-30-2012 at 10:19 PM..
LOL! You're right, it could have been worse, He could have been doing a #2 into that Snapple bottle
LOL
A few of the elevators in the L train stations in Chicago reeked of urine. My wife insisted that it was simply the cleaning solution used to clean the elevators.
I just let her believe that.
Aside from the urine, that is a system IMO LA should aspire to, including the very frequent bus service.
Homelessness is in every city. They're people too. You obviously aren't an open minded person. Many of them lost their homes due to bad situations, or were veterans abandoned by the government and scarred by war. Others are mental patients dumped by hospitals and have nowhere to go.
Any city you go you'll see them. No area has perfect PT. Yea, mind your own buisiness. That's common sense. Your there to go from point A to point B. People are different everywhere. You'll be sitting with people from all different walks of life. It is excpected, and personally I find it fascinating.
And on to Gays. ok, I'll be one to say that sure, they weird me out, not because I think that they are sick, but interacting with one that is very open about it is akward because they just act way too nice it gets uncomfortable(no offence to anyone). But overall they aren't bad people, it's the way they were. Many of them are just trying to make an honest living like you.
But you sound like an unpleasant bigoted antisocial human being.
I'd be more comfortable interacting with Hobo Bob and his invisible friend he calls Goerge than interacting with a negative ass person such as you. Although I doubt you'd want to interact with me because I am one of those "dreaded minorities".
Last edited by Count David; 08-31-2012 at 07:46 PM..
It's pretty debatable whether the Bay Area has better transit. And there is no question in 10-20 years which will have the better system.
To make a statement like that, you have obviously never lived in the Bay Area, nor have you visited it very much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1
Before I moved to LA I asked about LA public transportation and many people like yourself totally bashed it. So I left it at that until I actually started using it. The first thing I noticed was that its cheap.
Cheap is a relative term. You are paying for it one way or another, either through higher taxes and fees or fares. The bus system is okay, but it takes double or triple the time of driving unless you use an express bus (then it is only 50% longer) and the subway just doesn't go enough places. It is very limited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Those Who Squirm
If only we'd voted in some of the huge projects submitted to us in the 1960s or 70s, today we'd have many times the number of overall miles, routes, and stations in our rail transit system, and we wouldn't be having this discussion now. But in those days L.A. was much more conservative and suburban in its political outlook, and cars were the only acceptable way to get around. The Beverly Hills Freeway was still on the back burner, instead of being rightly deep sixed. In hindsight, I don't know how anybody in those years thought they could get a rail transit system proposal passed.
As for SF I've often maintained that BART is a rather unusual system, a hybrid of urban subway and suburban commuter railroad--the emphasis is heavily on the latter. In the City itself BART doesn't reach that many places; the Muni rail lines, if I'm reading their map correctly, doesn't go anywhere north of Golden Gate Park which leaves out vast residential areas in the northern part of the City. I'm not counting the cable cars in this statement; while certainly charming they do run in the streets and are certainly not rapid transit. I don't know about the other Muni rail lines, maybe someone can fill us in. But regardless, when it comes to mass transit much of SF is dependent on buses, although given the smaller footprint and greater density, one doesn't usually have to go as far as a typical L.A. bus trip.
I'm not disputing that San Francisco's public transit, overall, is better than L.A.'s, but to mention it in the same breath with NYC or Montreal is probably unwarranted.
San Francisco is easily on a par with NYC and Montreal for PT. The combo of CalTrain, Muni rail, BART for the out of city commuters and Muni buses make it very efficient. SF is only 49 square miles but its reach goes far and wide.
LA had a comprehensive light rail system at one time and Angelenos voted with their pocket books. It had nothing to do with political leanings. People preferred their own cars and own houses. They didn't want to live in a high rise jungle like NYC or Chicago.
The mistakes the politicians made was not keeping the rail right of ways open instead of letting cities like BH build parking lots in the ROW and letting cities on the coast build homes in the ROW. If they had made the zoning for those old ROWs for rail only, it would have at least preserved the space for tracks.
LA also has tons of track in the city still laid out, just buried under asphalt.
To make a statement like that, you have obviously never lived in the Bay Area, nor have you visited it very much.
Cheap is a relative term. You are paying for it one way or another, either through higher taxes and fees or fares. The bus system is okay, but it takes double or triple the time of driving unless you use an express bus (then it is only 50% longer) and the subway just doesn't go enough places. It is very limited.
San Francisco is easily on a par with NYC and Montreal for PT. The combo of CalTrain, Muni rail, BART for the out of city commuters and Muni buses make it very efficient. SF is only 49 square miles but its reach goes far and wide.
LA had a comprehensive light rail system at one time and Angelenos voted with their pocket books. It had nothing to do with political leanings. People preferred their own cars and own houses. They didn't want to live in a high rise jungle like NYC or Chicago.
The mistakes the politicians made was not keeping the rail right of ways open instead of letting cities like BH build parking lots in the ROW and letting cities on the coast build homes in the ROW. If they had made the zoning for those old ROWs for rail only, it would have at least preserved the space for tracks.
LA also has tons of track in the city still laid out, just buried under asphalt.
I have lived in the Bay Area. San Francisco / Bay Area has great PT, but you are severely over hyping it. NYC? Montreal? No way. It is not even as good as Boston's system (which I am very, very familiar with having lived completely car-free for two years there) and Boston can't hold a candle to NYC.
Did you know LA has a higher LRT ridership than SF now (and its lead will only pull away with 3 extensions/new lines in the next 5 years)? Plus at least huge portions of Metro LRT is grade separated, whereas MUNI you have to crawl along on city streets with no grade separation. BART is awesome, there is nothing in LA like it, though LA has a pretty decent commuter rail itself (and the only suburb to suburb commuter rail in the country, I believe).
And you have heard of Measure R, correct? Those same people that are so scared of transit voted en masse (over 67%) to build a public transit infrastructure in the city.
Did you know LA has a higher LRT ridership than SF now (and its lead will only pull away with 3 extensions/new lines in the next 5 years)? Plus at least huge portions of Metro LRT is grade separated, whereas MUNI you have to crawl along on city streets with no grade separation.
This is true; LA has the second highest light rail ridership in country, after Boston. As someone who has ridden both LA's light rail and SF's Muni light rail, I can tell you without question that LA's is far superior. The Muni metro is relatively speedy below ground, but the vast majority of the system is at street level where the trains travel at a snail's pace. It's so slow that sometimes it felt like it would be quicker to get out and walk. The reason it's so slow is because most of the Muni LRT system isn't grade separated, which means that trains are mixing with traffic and have to travel much slower.
Compare that to LA's LRT system, where most of it is at either street level or elevated, but all of which are at least partially grade separated (the green line is entirely grade separated) which allows for quicker service.
I have lived in the Bay Area. San Francisco / Bay Area has great PT, but you are severely over hyping it. NYC? Montreal? No way. It is not even as good as Boston's system (which I am very, very familiar with having lived completely car-free for two years there) and Boston can't hold a candle to NYC.
Did you know LA has a higher LRT ridership than SF now (and its lead will only pull away with 3 extensions/new lines in the next 5 years)? Plus at least huge portions of Metro LRT is grade separated, whereas MUNI you have to crawl along on city streets with no grade separation. BART is awesome, there is nothing in LA like it, though LA has a pretty decent commuter rail itself (and the only suburb to suburb commuter rail in the country, I believe).
That plays fast and loose with numbers and definitions. Good thing you don't have to call subways LR because then LA drops to around 9th. I am sure that the fact that SF is 1/4th the size of LA has nothing to do with the numbers either.
It is sure is good you get to exclude BART since BART alone beats LA's LR & subway combined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nave209
This is true; LA has the second highest light rail ridership in country, after Boston. As someone who has ridden both LA's light rail and SF's Muni light rail, I can tell you without question that LA's is far superior. The Muni metro is relatively speedy below ground, but the vast majority of the system is at street level where the trains travel at a snail's pace. It's so slow that sometimes it felt like it would be quicker to get out and walk. The reason it's so slow is because most of the Muni LRT system isn't grade separated, which means that trains are mixing with traffic and have to travel much slower.
As some who has ridden both SF's Muni LR and LA's LR I can tell you Muni is far superior.
It is an awfully good thing that you can exclude subways when talking about LR so you don't need to include NYC, WDC, Chicago, ATL, etc. Ypu can hope that pepole won't notice that the combined LA LR and subway are still woefully inadequate especially when trying to get from one business area to another in LA.
That plays fast and loose with numbers and definitions. Good thing you don't have to call subways LR because then LA drops to around 9th. I am sure that the fact that SF is 1/4th the size of LA has nothing to do with the numbers either.
It is sure is good you get to exclude BART since BART alone beats LA's LR & subway combined.
As some who has ridden both SF's Muni LR and LA's LR I can tell you Muni is far superior.
It is an awfully good thing that you can exclude subways when talking about LR so you don't need to include NYC, WDC, Chicago, ATL, etc. Ypu can hope that pepole won't notice that the combined LA LR and subway are still woefully inadequate especially when trying to get from one business area to another in LA.
I'm not playing "loose and fast" - I am stating hard, cold statistics from APTA. You obviously don't know the difference between light rail and heavy rail - there is a clear definition and really no middle ground. The only middle ground actually works in LA's favor, because streetcars and grade separated LRT are all considered LRT. Street-grade quasi-streetcars make up the bulk of the MUNI system. And like Nave mentioned, LA's system is almost entirely grade separated (and some lines are completely grade separated).
Another thing to note - LA's light rail has about twice the track mileage of San Francisco. Yes it has to do with the fact that the LA area is much larger, but the fact is the distance between the two are growing fairly quickly (Crenshaw, Regional Connector, Gold Line Extension, Expo Phase 2 - all in the next 5-10 years).
I'm not the one being ridiculous - I think SF has a better system than LA. Your posts on the other hand indicate the SF is on a level with NYC and Montreal, which is absolutely absurd.
Nothing wrong with taking public transportation... it's just not for me. Reasons.
1. I am snobby. I don't want to sit close to strangers and possibly smelly people, too much perfume/cologne. I don't want to overhear conversations between others.
2. I don't want to be surrounded by mostly low income people. It's not a racial thing but a class thing. I'm a minority myself. I like whites and other minorities that are similar to myself; upscale and have money. I don't want to sit next to riff raff, no offense.
3. I have money. I don't care about saving gas money or the cost of operating a car. It doesn't affect me; I don't live paycheck to paycheck and count every nickle and dime. I'm good.
4. I don't have to share share my space with anyone in my car; driving by yourself is a luxury.
5. It's ghetto having to walk to the bus stop and wait...Especially during the winter or summer! I'm spoiled; I don't even want to walk 3 minutes outside in this damn heat; I drive everywhere with A/C blasting. I have a car; I wait for no one. Sitting in traffic is not so bad when it's my own air conditioned car... it's way faster than the bus. I don't really like to walk around; I get my exercise on the treadmill and gym, not by walking around town getting sweaty.
Nothing wrong with taking public transportation... it's just not for me. Reasons.
1. I am snobby. I don't want to sit close to strangers and possibly smelly people, too much perfume/cologne. I don't want to overhear conversations between others.
2. I don't want to be surrounded by mostly low income people. It's not a racial thing but a class thing. I'm a minority myself. I like whites and other minorities that are similar to myself; upscale and have money. I don't want to sit next to riff raff, no offense.
3. I have money. I don't care about saving gas money or the cost of operating a car. It doesn't affect me; I don't live paycheck to paycheck and count every nickle and dime. I'm good.
4. I don't have to share share my space with anyone in my car; driving by yourself is a luxury.
5. It's ghetto having to walk to the bus stop and wait...Especially during the winter or summer! I'm spoiled; I don't even want to walk 3 minutes outside in this damn heat; I drive everywhere with A/C blasting. I have a car; I wait for no one. Sitting in traffic is not so bad when it's my own air conditioned car... it's way faster than the bus. I don't really like to walk around; I get my exercise on the treadmill and gym, not by walking around town getting sweaty.
Sounds like being you would own and suck at the same time.
I'm proud not be born rich. Someone's story comming up is more inspirational than another paris hilton. No offence if you came up from rags to riches.
I learned to be more humble, more appreciative towards things. I got legs so I can walk, I dont need an expensive car, I need a car, but if money can just by the basic, f* it. Atleast you know which women are real and which ones want you for money. I love the vibrancy of a city. Even if I get rich, I'd still rather be one of the people. But that might be hard to play I bet.
Do you ever think that being snobby kind of hinders on your personality?
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.
