Can one feasibly live in LA without a car and function (Los Angeles: neighborhood, incomes)
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.
Besides, there are interesting characters who ride the bus. One time an obese lady boarded, glared around, and said, "Isn't anyone going to offer me a seat?" I spoke right up and answered, "I'd be happy to make a small contribution".
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpeeps
I think this speaks more about your character and classiness than anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by disgruntled la native
Rude.
It never happened. I was attempting to make a joke. Yes, I would have been rude indeed.
You'd really want to compare metro or urban area populations - not just the central cities. Places like SF, Boston, Baltimore, DC, are geographically tiny but still have decent sized metro areas.
I agree. When you take entire metro/urban areas into consideration, Los Angeles fares even better against its American counterparts. This is the densest urban area in the country, and the density is rather evenly-spread; transit goes everywhere, even if it's not always terribly convenient. In fact, after Honolulu, Los Angeles a higher percentage of jobs reachable by transit than anywhere else in the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly
I think it's relatively easy to argue that BART + the Muni Metro is a stronger network (at least in SF/East Bay) than what's available in central LA.
That's definitely arguable. Like another poster said, you could take a chunk of Central LA roughly the same size as the transit-heavy part of the Bay Area, and it would include the Red, Purple, Blue, Expo, and Gold transit lines, lots and lots of buses, and some of the densest urban neighborhoods in the country.
The BART + Muni combo has serious limitations: the west of the city is not served well by rail, and overall Muni is the slowest transit agency in the country with one of the worst on-time records.
Outside of SF + Oakland/Berkeley + northern San Mateo, transit becomes much less useful. To illustrate what I'm talking about, try travelling between the Mission and, say, Palo Alto. Last time I did this, BART just missed the connection to Caltrain and the trip ended up taking almost two hours. Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park, Sunnyvale, San Jose -- all important Bay Area locales that are at least as suburban and car-dependant as almost anywhere in the LA Basin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly
As far as the systems of those other cities - it's not the size of the rail system that matters so much as what's between the stations. The Chicago El and Metra form a pretty solid network by US standards and the El alone carries double what LA metro rail does on an average weekday.
I agree. I said that Chicago probably has the better system right now, but that LA is gaining. For what it's worth, as well, a decent chunk of the El (from what I remember, basically anything on the south or west sides) is a rickety piece of ish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly
And seriously - Baltimore is nothing like Philly. Baltimore has one light rail line, one subway line, and two commuter lines. Philly has this:
Philly's metro is over twice as populous as Baltimore's, and Philly itself is geographically 65% larger than Baltimore. I didn't say they were equivalent; Philly definitely has more extensive transit, but Baltimore is still a rather compact, traditionally-built city that would probably be pretty easy to get by in without a car, and quite possibly more so than LA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
BART and Muni Metro are probably overrated, but they are VASTLY better than LA.
LA has one subway line, and it doesn't go anywhere but downtown and Hollywood, which aren't really that important in the grand scheme of things. The Westside (with all the jobs and wealth, and really the city's true core) has nothing. BART in SF goes almost everywhere important in SF-Oakland.
LA doesn't really have a transit culture. It's a city built for the automobile, while SF is at least tolerable car-free (very walkable, bikable, and semi-decent transit).
This is a combination of outdated notions, unfair comparisons, and incorrect facts. LA has two subway lines which link Downtown, Westlake, Koreatown, East Hollywood, and Hollywood, all of which are important neighborhoods if you ask me. In addition, the Red Line connects to the Orange Line BRT which does a very reasonable job of traversing the south of the Valley. The Purple Line is admittedly currently a little stub, but it's expanding towards the Westside.
In addition to the subways and aforementioned Orange Line, there are four light rail lines, including the Expo Line, which (ta-da!) goes to the Westside. In fact, from my home in Long Beach, I can currently get to Culver City with a one-seat ride (stay on the Blue Line train when it reaches 7th/Metro and it becomes an Expo train), and later this year I'll be able to go all the way to Santa Monica. We also have an entirely new line, the Crenshaw Line, in the works.
Finally, most of LA was not originally built for the automobile. It was built for streetcars. Compare the urban geography and coherent, orthogonal street grid of Central LA to Atlanta or Dallas or Houston or Phoenix and you will see what a city truly designed for the automobile looks like.
Full disclosure: I recently bought a car after living car-free in Koreatown and Long Beach for a little over a year. I like it, and it's opened my options significantly, but it also brings plenty of expenses and inconveniences. Somebody wanting to avoid that can definitely live a good life in Los Angeles while doing so.
I moved to LA about two months ago, in part because the car-less lifestyle is so much better here than in Atlanta. A big reason is weather (walking/biking/bussing/training in Atlanta winters is no good) but the city is also denser so if you live anywhere in the central basin you are good to go with libraries, grocery stores, etc. Uber is also more common here, but I don't use it (or Zipcar) except for special occasions.
I agree. When you take entire metro/urban areas into consideration, Los Angeles fares even better against its American counterparts. This is the densest urban area in the country, and the density is rather evenly-spread; transit goes everywhere, even if it's not always terribly convenient. In fact, after Honolulu, Los Angeles a higher percentage of jobs reachable by transit than anywhere else in the country.
LA is not the densest area. I wish people would stop claiming this falsehood.
LA is dense, but not close to the densest area. The NYC area is far denser. You need to measure where people actually live (ie weighted density) or you can claim LA is denser than Hong Kong even, if you aren't weighting the density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Walking Nobody
I agree. I said that Chicago probably has the better system right now, but that LA is gaining.
This is nonsense too. The fact you are saying Chicago "probably" has a better system, you know nothing about Chicago or LA. LA is a completely car-oriented city where no one rides transit unless they're poor. 20 million people and one subway line. Chicago, while it's transit has issues, has like 7 subway lines and a dozen commuter rail lines, and with half the population of LA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Walking Nobody
This is a combination of outdated notions, unfair comparisons, and incorrect facts.
None of this is true either. SF has 1/4 the metro area population of LA but 4x the rail ridership share. The heavy rail, light rail, and commuter rail has all much higher ridership. SF is simply much more transit oriented than LA.
I don't get why some people in LA always try and boost the local transit. People move to LA because they like the auto culture. Why live in LA and then try and boost the transit? The whole point of LA is autotopia. Transit is for the poor. It would be like moving to Paris and trying to advocate for freeways everywhere. The only neighborhoods with good transit usage are poor immigrant areas, and LA will never be centralized or transit-oriented. If you want that move to NYC or something.
LA is not the densest area. I wish people would stop claiming this falsehood.
LA is dense, but not close to the densest area. The NYC area is far denser. You need to measure where people actually live (ie weighted density) or you can claim LA is denser than Hong Kong even, if you aren't weighting the density.
This is nonsense too. The fact you are saying Chicago "probably" has a better system, you know nothing about Chicago or LA. LA is a completely car-oriented city where no one rides transit unless they're poor. 20 million people and one subway line. Chicago, while it's transit has issues, has like 7 subway lines and a dozen commuter rail lines, and with half the population of LA.
None of this is true either. SF has 1/4 the metro area population of LA but 4x the rail ridership share. The heavy rail, light rail, and commuter rail has all much higher ridership. SF is simply much more transit oriented than LA.
I don't get why some people in LA always try and boost the local transit. People move to LA because they like the auto culture. Why live in LA and then try and boost the transit? The whole point of LA is autotopia. Transit is for the poor. It would be like moving to Paris and trying to advocate for freeways everywhere. The only neighborhoods with good transit usage are poor immigrant areas, and LA will never be centralized or transit-oriented. If you want that move to NYC or something.
Heaven forbid we try to encourage people off the roads
The key to living anywhere without a car is living as close to work as possible. I live a mile from my job so I can commute by bike or even walk. I can also easily walk to two laundromats, 3 grocery stores, several restaurants. I do own a car but I could survive without one
The key to living anywhere without a car is living as close to work as possible. I live a mile from my job so I can commute by bike or even walk. I can also easily walk to two laundromats, 3 grocery stores, several restaurants. I do own a car but I could survive without one
It's always a smart idea to live as close to possible to your work, but people get laid off. You can't in this still shaky economy assume the job is always going to be there.
LA is not the densest area. I wish people would stop claiming this falsehood.
LA is dense, but not close to the densest area. The NYC area is far denser. You need to measure where people actually live (ie weighted density) or you can claim LA is denser than Hong Kong even, if you aren't weighting the density.
This is nonsense too. The fact you are saying Chicago "probably" has a better system, you know nothing about Chicago or LA. LA is a completely car-oriented city where no one rides transit unless they're poor. 20 million people and one subway line. Chicago, while it's transit has issues, has like 7 subway lines and a dozen commuter rail lines, and with half the population of LA.
None of this is true either. SF has 1/4 the metro area population of LA but 4x the rail ridership share. The heavy rail, light rail, and commuter rail has all much higher ridership. SF is simply much more transit oriented than LA.
I don't get why some people in LA always try and boost the local transit. People move to LA because they like the auto culture. Why live in LA and then try and boost the transit? The whole point of LA is autotopia. Transit is for the poor. It would be like moving to Paris and trying to advocate for freeways everywhere. The only neighborhoods with good transit usage are poor immigrant areas, and LA will never be centralized or transit-oriented. If you want that move to NYC or something.
A huge percentage of people in Los Angeles are poor.
A huge percentage of people in LA are immigrants.
But with that said, LA has the third biggest train network in the nation. No matter how much you hate public transportation in LA, aside from the subway there is an extensive light rail and commuter network that is expanding.
Even the West Side is reachable by train (Expo line to Culver City, Santa Monica extension opens ups next year). LA is certainly no NYC when it comes to trains, but it has much more in the way of public transportation than say Mississippi or Arkansaw.
Also it amazes me that people like you assume to speak for everyone else. You spoke to all the transit users in Los Angeles to know that they are poor? You did a formal study on the subject.
Some professionals even in Los Angeles live downtown and don't use cars. Students may not want to spend money on cars when their university studies are so expensive (for this reason a lot of professionals after graduation still avoid cars).
I think people hare urbanism because they hate idea of being around people of different races. Transit might allow immigrants to come to an area where you are, so you hate it.
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.
