Is the car culture that bad of a thing? (Los Angeles: to buy, schools)

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Well I guess I will give up my obvious to the least intelligent out there attempt at sarcastic humor and get to the point. Sure people that can afford cars may partake of the public transportation system as offered. For those of us that live far from the metropolitan core and live within the far flung fringes known as the suburbs, I can state that very few partake and for the most part those that are willing to ride in close proximity to those they don't know generally appear to not have the means or ability to afford personal transportation options. Then again I have not made an attempt to ask of those riding if given the option could they purchase their own vehicle and choose not to, or if they have access to such a device choose to take part in the highly liberal and subsidized system known as public transportation, even though they could on their own travel from point A to point B. (snip)

In So. California, millions of commuters from suburbia utilize the Metrolink Commuter Rail to travel into and out of Downtown LA as well as other areas. I know of several travelers who have their own personal vehicle, which is parked at the station while they use the train.

Here's an example to illustrate the advantages of utilizing mass transit.

Commuter George lives in Riverside, CA and works in Downtown LA.
Riverside, CA is approx 57 miles out of Downtown LA.
Driving costs = $1356.96 (at 54.1 per mile)
Metrolink monthly pass is 308.75
Think of all the things that George can do with that extra $1048.21 per month if George opted to commute via train versus driving.
Cost does not include parking fees or maintenance.

[jkbatca]

In short, I think cars and motorcycles are fun for fun driving (especially in the Mulholland Drive area). They suck for just getting from point A to B in California. Especially on the freeways these days, where LA is pretty much insane with wall to wall cars 24/7 as the freeways are packed these days.

My wife lately seems like she's always on the edge of her seat as people are constantly looking like they are going to plow or swerve into me (it's not me :-)). Someone recently rear-ended her as he swerved three lanes over to attempt to pull off to an exit. I NARROWLY escaped someone plowing me in the back in LA (and it seems like it's getting more and more often every time I drive there).

For commuting, I walked to work today, but I'm just lucky that I can. If I cannot walk, I would rather ride my bicycle, then motorcycle, then finally car. I also walk to the local supermarket. LOL, that's REALLY RARE in southern CA! Commuting sucks in SoCal.

For mass transportation, the problem is pretty much 99.999% anywhere else I want to go in southern CA I have to drive. Anywhere interesting anyways. Amtrak or Metrolink will not get me there (and I've taken Metrolink to the county fair before). The problem is everything, stores, attractions, etc. is so spread out that mass transit will never have enough money to cover most interesting areas effectively.

Yes there are buses, commuter trains, etc. but they rarely go where I want and when I want. I'm comparing this to east coast cities such as Washington DC, where I refuse to drive downtown and choose to take the Metro everywhere or walk when I visit. Those places were designed in an era where everything HAD to be close together.

For driving fun, the Santa Monica mountain area is a blast for anything with wheels, bicycles, motorcycles, and cars. There used to be a lot of fun off-road driving fun too, but not as much anymore.

In summary, I like vehicles for fun driving, but I wish I could get decent mass transit like back in the good old east coast days.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by Chatteress

In So. California, millions of commuters from suburbia utilize the Metrolink Commuter Rail to travel into and out of Downtown LA as well as other areas. I know of several travelers who have their own personal vehicle, which is parked at the station while they use the train.

Here's an example to illustrate the advantages of utilizing mass transit.

Commuter George lives in Riverside, CA and works in Downtown LA.
Riverside, CA is approx 57 miles out of Downtown LA.
Driving costs = $1356.96 (at 54.1 per mile)
Metrolink monthly pass is 308.75
Think of all the things that George can do with that extra $1048.21 per month if George opted to commute via train versus driving.
Cost does not include parking fees or maintenance.

Good point and well taken. I would approve of public transportation if it could pay for itself. In your example George pays $308.75 for the monthly pass and we the people pay the differance. The real deal about public transportation is that, use it or not, all the taxpaying public is paying for it.

[CantWait2Leave]

Originally Posted by oldtimebanjo

You keep saying that it's Californians that won't give up their cars. Other then Boston, New York or a few similar places you won't find anyone that would give up their cars to ride public transit. Go to Arkansas and tell them to give up their cars and trucks and ride the bus. We wouldn't need to build anymore highways or freeways to accommodate everyone's autos if we just got rid of the illegals. There'd be plenty of space to go around, that won't happen though.

Couldn't agree more

[Radical347]

No, the car culture is not that bad of a thing. It's just gotten beyond its capacity.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by hsw

Mass transit is a nasty, Third World transportation mode:

Mass transit has traditionally been considered something that defines the 'First World" and the lack of mass transit is a sufficient condition to being defined as "Third World"

However, the terms "First World", "Second World", and "Third World" are considered obsolete as they refer to political allegiances during the Cold War and should not be used.

[Senshi]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Good point and well taken. I would approve of public transportation if it could pay for itself. In your example George pays $308.75 for the monthly pass and we the people pay the differance. The real deal about public transportation is that, use it or not, all the taxpaying public is paying for it.

GASP! You mean how the public is also paying for all the roads if we use them or not??? The roads ain't paying for themselves dear. In fact people get to drive on them for FREE! I gotta pay to use the subway!

The anti-public transit snobs are hilarious.

Every road should have a toll so they can pay for themselves! That is basically your point of view.

Btw a monthly pass is $62 for the actual real Metro. Far less than your car payment/insurance/gas/parking and so forth for a month. It's incredible the amount of money I save now since I ditched my car. Makes living in LA semi affordable.

[BRinSM]

Originally Posted by Senshi

GASP! You mean how the public is also paying for all the roads if we use them or not??? The roads ain't paying for themselves dear. In fact people get to drive on them for FREE! I gotta pay to use the subway!

The anti-public transit snobs are hilarious.

Every road should have a toll so they can pay for themselves! That is basically your point of view.

Btw a monthly pass is $62 for the actual real Metro. Far less than your car payment/insurance/gas/parking and so forth for a month. It's incredible the amount of money I save now since I ditched my car. Makes living in LA semi affordable.

good point Senshi! i know that you pay vehicle registration fees and gas taxes in order to chip for use of the roads, but i'm certain that these amounts are nearly enough to cover the total costs of road upkeep. i'd like to see these stats if anyone has access to the them. if the real costs were passed on to the user i bet most of us would be riding around on bicycles to most places (which isn't that bad, i bike commute most days )

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Chatteress

Cars - not worth the expense nor headache.

That's true - for about 0.2% of adult Californians.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Chatteress

In So. California, millions of commuters from suburbia utilize the Metrolink Commuter Rail to travel into and out of Downtown LA as well as other areas. I know of several travelers who have their own personal vehicle, which is parked at the station while they use the train.

Here's an example to illustrate the advantages of utilizing mass transit.

Commuter George lives in Riverside, CA and works in Downtown LA.
Riverside, CA is approx 57 miles out of Downtown LA.
Driving costs = $1356.96 (at 54.1 per mile)
Metrolink monthly pass is 308.75
Think of all the things that George can do with that extra $1048.21 per month if George opted to commute via train versus driving.
Cost does not include parking fees or maintenance.

That works for downtown and a couple other places - or for about 4% of commuters in Southern California.

The other 96% have to spend an extra 60-120 minutes per day (or roughly 1/3 of their disposable time) to use public transit.

Also, that $0.54 per mile factors in fixed costs including depreciation which a person would have to pay even if they didn't drive their car. The real cost based on the extra miles driven is probably more like $0.30/mile.

Still, I would definitely use public transportation if it didn't waste so much time. I'd whip out my 3G laptop and go online.