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.
The point is that these claims of spending hours in the car driving to work are way overblown. Like I said, if you plan ahead even a little bit before moving and starting a job in LA, you can easily take transit to work (ask a few newcomers to LA in the LA board and you will find a lot of recent transplants that are taking PT to work, and believe it or not they enjoy it.)
And no, you are not seen as a social pariah except for by a few of the worst generation of Angelenos (baby boomers between 35-60).
Those are basically the commuter rail of buses (I've never even heard of those lines). How about you show the lines people actually take and use late at night, like these: Maps & Timetables
I do agree that the bus service can be too infrequent at night on most lines, especially compared to Chicago or NYC. That being said it is still in the top 5-10 in the nation, and easily. For example, Boston has no transit after about 1:30, yet it is considered one of the premier transit systems (and better than LA).
LA just expanded all fixed-guideway lines to run until 2 AM (with a few running later). It has a long way to catch up to the big boys of transit in the US but this is a start. Metro representatives have made a point of stating this is a build-up to 24-hours service on the rails. I believe most stations are about a mile apart, which is pretty par for the course I believe. As you get further out on the Gold Line and the suburbs between Long Beach and LA, they might be more like 1.5 miles.
The subway stops in Chicago are often about 4-5 blocks a part in the core of the city and down the lake, basically any populated area. For instance from downtown to howard on the red there are 20 red line stops.
Howard is 7600 North, there are 20 stops in between there and DT, therefore average distance of .475 miles between each stop. Brown line I know is similar, and those are the ones I frequent the most. This isn't including other transportation options such as Metra Rail which hits say, North/Clybourn, Ravenswood, Rogers Park direct from DT faster than the subway does.
Now to systems which are a level above Chicago...
In Paris, which I'm also familiar with there are 245 subway stops in 34 square miles. This gives you an idea of what LA is up against as a "global" city. The average distance between stops is 1800 feet, some are closer in the city center. I believe there is a stop within 1/2 km of every address in the city.
There are 147 stops in just Manhattan, 22 square miles. NYC proper has 468 subway stops, and again this isn't including things such as the massive taxi fleet or other commuter rail services.
I'm sure somebody else would evaluate NYC. I know the most about Chicago and Paris as I've used them the most.
That's already been stated--percentage-wise, LA does terribly. However, you don't experience things percentage-wise. You experience them based on what you have accessible to you directly and if you live within the more central parts of Los Angeles, you do have a good deal of things that are accessible.
No you don't. Atlanta has more subway stations than LA in a significantly smaller space. You can even take the subway from the terminal in Hartsfield Airport directly to Downtown, which you can't do in Los Angeles.
No you don't. Atlanta has more subway stations than LA in a significantly smaller space. You can even take the subway from the terminal in Hartsfield Airport directly to Downtown, which you can't do in Los Angeles.
No you don't have a good deal accessible to you by transit in LA?
MARTA has 38 HRT stations.
LA has 80 stations with LRT and HRT combined. Say what you will about light rail but most consider it a viable form of transit and place is pretty close to HRT particularly in the mostly grade-separated form in LA where it is not a streetcar.
Atlanta is a city that over-invested in their transit. Taking a look at ridership per mile Atlanta is near the bottom of the heap. It's too bad LA and Atlanta can't trade systems.
Last edited by munchitup; 07-30-2012 at 05:52 PM..
i laugh at people who say nyc is nothing after manhattan which is practically true for nearly every city in america with a downtown.
now with that being said after manhattan im pretty sure new york city and its 4 boroughs offer more then the rest of your cities that are beyond your downtowns.
MARTA has 38 HRT stations. LA has 80 stations with LRT and HRT combined.
LA is also 3 or 4 times the size of Atlanta (land-wise). If Atlanta has approximately 40 stations, then LA should have 120 to 160 stations, not 80.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
Say what you will about light rail but most consider it a viable form of transit and place is pretty close to HRT particularly in the mostly grade-separated form in LA where it is not a streetcar.
Not at all. HRT has much more capacity than light rail, has an exclusive right of way, and can reach higher speeds than LRT. It's not even close.
i laugh at people who say nyc is nothing after manhattan which is practically true for nearly every city in america with a downtown.
now with that being said after manhattan im pretty sure new york city and its 4 boroughs offer more then the rest of your cities that are beyond your downtowns.
The non-Manhattan parts of NYC are better than the non-downtown parts of other cities?
What a bold proclamation.
The only city that could compete is LA and I agree, even it doesn't match up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
LA is also 3 or 4 times the size of Atlanta (land-wise). If Atlanta has approximately 40 stations, then LA should have 120 to 160 stations, not 80.
LA will have around 197-205 stations by 2038 at the latest. About 160 within the next 10 years, 180 in the next 20, and up to 200 in the next 30 years.
Most of the LRT in LA is on fixed guideways left over from the Pacific Electric. Not as fast as the Red Line or Purple Line, but still pretty efficient and comparable to the C and D lines in Boston but closer to the D line (as opposed to the B or E line, which are more streetcar-esque).
Last edited by munchitup; 07-30-2012 at 06:08 PM..
The non-Manhattan parts of NYC are better than the non-downtown parts of other cities?
What a bold proclamation.
The only city that could compete is LA and I agree, even it doesn't match up.
no it doesnt. A lot of you people cant crack down on manhattan because it blows anything you have to offer out of the water so you pick on the other boroughs.
Now thats just exposing how close minded people are. LOL and people call new yorkers close minded. golly gee
The non-Manhattan parts of NYC are better than the non-downtown parts of other cities?
What a bold proclamation.
The only city that could compete is LA and I agree, even it doesn't match up.
It could be for many cities, but LA? I disagree completely. LA without downtown is merely a drop in the bucket compared to other more traditional cities. It matches up to NYC without Manhattan and then some and I don't think it's even close. That's one of the attributes of being a multi-nodal city.
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.
What a bold proclamation. 
