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.
You've made this claim before. Unless you're comparing someone living in Charles County, MD to someone living in West Hollywood, there are probably very few people who share this sentiment. DC's Metro system is superior to every city's except New York's (and possibly Chicago's). I also doubt that there are many Angelenos that would contest this assertion.
.
Did you not catch the part where I said for ME? I'm not trying to argue that it's that way for all people. I personally had an easier time getting around in LA via public transportation than I did in either DC or in SF. I lived in two different locations in LA, and lived and worked in DC (Connecticut Ave, right near the Woodley Park station), and lived in SF. Clearly it depends on where you live and where you work, but DC's system is geared primarily towards people commuting into the core; that's great for commuters, but it can get a bit unwieldy when trying to get around the city. I'm not suggesting that it was bad by any means -- just that it wasn't as efficient as it could have been, considering the short distances. My commute was a very short distance, but still required a bus transfer (could have walked in almost the same time, but during summer months would have arrived drenched in sweat). I loved the Metro and used it frequently, but it still had some big gaps.
In SF, BART really serves primarily commuters from outside of the city along with a few neighborhoods. The rest of the city has to depend on MUNI, which was when we lived there the slowest system in the country with, I believe, the most delays. Luckily I was able to get around primarily on foot (which was faster than sitting on the bus most of the time anyway, even if there was room on the bus; there were plenty of times when overcrowded buses wouldn't even stop because they were filled up), but getting around the city on MUNI was often very frustrating, and again, unless going to the financial district the system was just not efficiently set up to get people quickly and efficiently moved from point A to point B.
Where LA really shines is that it has both the good connections to downtown (for many, although not all, areas) but ALSO has a really good system for moving around an area that does not just have one major center. That really benefits those of us who use public transportation for more than just getting to and from our downtown office jobs. Or, perhaps even more useful, the non-downtown bus routes include Rapids and other express types of buses; in many cities if you're going from point to point that doesn't end downtown you're stuck on a slower, local bus. I found the variety of subway, light rail, local buses, and those (my favorite) rapids, made it easier to more efficiently get around to more places. The Rapids, in particular, coupled with everything else, gave me more flexibility than I'd experienced other places. (outside of the obvious, like NYC. LA is clearly not in that league! But it's much better than most people realize. I'm always shocked at how many people don't even KNOW that it has subways and trains!)
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 07-02-2012 at 10:49 AM..
Did you not catch the part where I said for ME? I'm not trying to argue that it's that way for all people. I personally had an easier time getting around in LA via public transportation than I did in either DC or in SF. I lived in two different locations in LA, and lived and worked in DC (Connecticut Ave, right near the Woodley Park station), and lived in SF. Clearly it depends on where you live and where you work, but DC's system is geared primarily towards people commuting into the core; that's great for commuters, but it can get a bit unwieldy when trying to get around the city. I'm not suggesting that it was bad by any means -- just that it wasn't as efficient as it could have been, considering the short distances. My commute was a very short distance, but still required a bus transfer (could have walked in almost the same time, but during summer months would have arrived drenched in sweat). I loved the Metro and used it frequently, but it still had some big gaps.
I hear you, but I still think the majority of people would say that DC is much easier to manage, even when taking non-core trips around the city. There are a lot of cross-town bus routes in addition to the city's extensive rapid transit system. The Circulator bus has made things even easier than they already were.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. I didn't say that L.A.'s major economic, cultural, and entertainment centers aren't accessible by public transit from most neighborhoods. I said I don't know L.A. well enough to know whether they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Jarrett Walker, the transportation planner who writes the Human Transit blog, had an interesting post on Walkscore. Its biggest criticism is that it doesn't take into account, for example, an expressway separating two businesses. If the city is not scaled to the pedestrian, there may be very few places to which you can actually walk. Crystal City, Virginia is a perfect example of this.
Two of my favorite walking cities are not particularly dense at all: Charleston, SC and Annapolis, MD. The overall urban experience (sidewalk cafes, streetlife, etc.) is far greater in those cities than it is in much larger and denser cities.
Of course there will be variations in individual neighborhoods. Another flaw with Walkscore is that they use a one-mile radius as their standard for places within walking distance. Some street patterns will make the actual walk much longer. However, in a city the size of Los Angeles you can expect to find the whole variety of individual situations. A moderately good walk score for the city as a whole at least gives some indication that there are many areas, even if not all neighborhoods, where local stores that serve everyday needs can be reached conveniently on foot. The fact that there may be (and likely are) local exceptions to this does not speak for the city in general. The key question for how manageable the city as a whole is without a car still then becomes how readily one can reach major attractions via public transit. I'm not familiar enough with L.A. to know the answer to that question from personal experience, though Uptown_Urbanist's post above indicates that public transit does serve that need well.
Jarrett Walker, the transportation planner who writes the Human Transit blog, had an interesting post on Walkscore. Its biggest criticism is that it doesn't take into account, for example, an expressway separating two businesses. If the city is not scaled to the pedestrian, there may be very few places to which you can actually walk. Crystal City, Virginia is a perfect example of this.
Two of my favorite walking cities are not particularly dense at all: Charleston, SC and Annapolis, MD. The overall urban experience (sidewalk cafes, streetlife, etc.) is far greater in those cities than it is in much larger and denser cities.
I still think that Walkscore gives a pretty accurate picture, particularly on a micro-level.
For example, that area you posted gets a walk score of 57. Pretty terrible: Walk Score of 8th St S Arlington VA 22204 . There really are few places in Los Angeles that are like Crystal City (at least from what I can tell) - perhaps the Warner Center or Century City, both of which are not considered walkable places in LA (though the WC is getting better I hear).
IMO a specific address needs to have a walkscore of about 85 for it to be easy to live without a car. Most of the complaints I hear about Walkscore come from people who live in almost completely car-dependent locations - they are piddling about the difference between a 60 score and a 55 score, both of which are extremely car-dependent.
As an aside, like Uptown Urbanist (who lived in the same neighborhood in Hollywood as I do), I find the transit system works just as well as in Boston, and I find it to actually be a little bit speedier, particularly the buses. I relied on the transit more in Boston, as here in Hollywood I rarely even need to use the transit system to get chores done.
Last edited by munchitup; 07-02-2012 at 02:43 PM..
Where LA really shines is that it has both the good connections to downtown (for many, although not all, areas) but ALSO has a really good system for moving around an area that does not just have one major center. That really benefits those of us who use public transportation for more than just getting to and from our downtown office jobs. Or, perhaps even more useful, the non-downtown bus routes include Rapids and other express types of buses; in many cities if you're going from point to point that doesn't end downtown you're stuck on a slower, local bus. I found the variety of subway, light rail, local buses, and those (my favorite) rapids, made it easier to more efficiently get around to more places. The Rapids, in particular, coupled with everything else, gave me more flexibility than I'd experienced other places. (outside of the obvious, like NYC. LA is clearly not in that league! But it's much better than most people realize. I'm always shocked at how many people don't even KNOW that it has subways and trains!)
LA has a very well-connected grid system with pretty high frequencies. I love this gridded bus system (Vs most cities spoke and wheel system) - my only beef with it is that transfers are not free, so 75% of the time I just buy a day pass.
One the Regional Connector is finished, I have heard talk of a distance-based fare system, which might do away with the non-free transfers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
I'm not sure what you're asking here. I didn't say that L.A.'s major economic, cultural, and entertainment centers aren't accessible by public transit from most neighborhoods. I said I don't know L.A. well enough to know whether they are.
The biggest ones that are tough to get to via transit are the Griffith Observatory. The Getty is located in a mountain pass so there is only one bus line to get to it (though the Getty is free, the only charge is parking so a bus trip to the Getty makes it free!). I though Dodger stadium would be hard but it actually was quite easy to get there on the bus (I went to a game this weekend) - plus there is a free shuttle from Union Station if you are taking the subway/LRT.
I really can't think of any attractions that are particularly hard to see in LA on transit (plus this sort of thing matter very little to someone living car-free.)
Last edited by munchitup; 07-02-2012 at 02:47 PM..
Munchitup, interesting info on the places in L.A. accessible by transit. I agree that the hub-spoke transit pattern has a significant drawback in the fact that you may have to go in and then back out to make a trip across the outer sections of a city (or metro area). I've had the thought that I'd like to see transit lines forming something roughly like concentric circles or semicircles at several distances out from city centers, serving for transit a similar function to that which outer belt highways serve for drivers. But those grid pattern transit lines sound like an interesting idea as well.
For the OP to include bicycling as a viable means of non-auto transportation most likely significantly increases the number of suburban areas where it would be reasonable to live car-free. As I related in an earlier post, the area where I live now works pretty well for car-free living, because the basics are all located no more than a mile or so away, along a main street with a number of everyday kinds of small businesses along its length through this part of town, and there is local transit which serves downtown and a nearby mall area.
On the other hand, the leafy suburb where I grew up seems unworkable without a car for most town residents if you think only in terms of walking places, but that town's little downtown collection of basic stores, the library, and several commuter rail stations would be accessible from most or maybe even all parts of town if you thought in terms of bicycling with a five-mile ride being the maximum convenient distance. Based on that criterion, the town would be very manageable without a car, and we're talking about a town where some sample streets I entered at Walkscore got scores of 15, 28 . . . and . . . ZERO. Sometimes a bike can really get you places.
Munchitup, interesting info on the places in L.A. accessible by transit. I agree that the hub-spoke transit pattern has a significant drawback in the fact that you may have to go in and then back out to make a trip across the outer sections of a city (or metro area). I've had the thought that I'd like to see transit lines forming something roughly like concentric circles or semicircles at several distances out from city centers, serving for transit a similar function to that which outer belt highways serve for drivers. But those grid pattern transit lines sound like an interesting idea as well.
While LA's transit might be as good or better than in older transit cities for non-center city trips, far more trips in older transit cities are to the city center so a city like Boston might feel like it has a better transit system; center city trips are what transit does best at.
While LA's transit might be as good or better than in older transit cities for non-center city trips, far more trips in older transit cities are to the city center so a city like Boston might feel like it has a better transit system; center city trips are what transit does best at.
I'd also think that different transit systems would fit different cities. A big advantage of the older cities is that, in addition to being densely built, they tend to have the economic centers and the amenities concentrated in relatively small central city areas. That reduces the need to move across the peripheral sections of a city, so hub-spoke transit can work pretty well, since every transit lines leads to the general area where you're usually going to want to get to when you go out beyond your neighborhood.
Last edited by ogre; 07-02-2012 at 10:08 PM..
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.
