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.
I read his post too quickly. I thought he said "a good deal more."
I'd be fine with a good deal more as well. I think both are true because I've actually tried it for fairly long periods of time. LA has a lot that's accessible. I think the big change was when I got a phone that could tell me what bus to take and when--it made me realize that LA's bus system is massive and fast and much bigger than anyone else's. In conjunction with the light and heavy rail, LA in the core is actually significantly better than most cities outside the usual ones that are mentioned. I'd actually put it up almost around Philly and the Bay Area's systems in some respects.
Again, I think I should remind you not to forget this is for the absolute amount of ground covered--not percentage-wise. This is important, because that's actually the scale that people live in since LA's a massive city.
Mostly agree, though I'm not sure if London's stop spacing is a plus; it makes it harder for most people outside of the centralmost boroughs to be within walking distance of a stop.
NYC partly replicates the large stop spacing model by using express stops on many lines with a spacing of about 1-2 km. For longer distances, it's usually worth transferring from a local subway to an express subway.
Yea, the combination of interlining and local/express stops really sets NYC's system apart.
Again, I think I should remind you not to forget this is for the absolute amount of ground covered--not percentage-wise. This is important, because that's actually the scale that people live in since LA's a massive city.
The percentage, imo, is more relevant. If the highway system only reached 30 of the 50 states, nobody would say that the U.S. has a better highway system than France simply because it has more miles of asphalt.
The percentage, imo, is more relevant. If the highway system only reached 30 of the 50 states, nobody would say that the U.S. has a better highway system than France simply because it has more miles of asphalt.
Nah, shouldn't be. This is for talking about personal scale. There are few people who live criss-crossing the metro to different parts all the time. Most people do a daily commute that is mostly fixed and even for recreation they tend towards the same pattern. If it's about where you would rather work, then the topic is about personal circumstances.
I think you've taken this position over and over again, and it doesn't make sense to keep on going with this. Everyone understands percentages. Everyone understands LA is massive. People don't really get all that much bigger.
In my humble opinion Paris, NYC, and Chicago sometimes have too many stations. Newer systems (mainly because of expense if I'm honest) have determined that ideal station spacing is between 1 and 2 km. Most of the Asian systems, Mexico City, Madrid, etc. have the large majority of their stations spaced 1-2 km apart. Even an old system like London only averages 1 station per mile. I really don't want to stop every 600 meters. Maybe when I'm 75 I'll feel differently.
That is why you get on an express line though if you are in a hurry that run on the same tracks. They bypass the least used stops, sometimes 3-4 stops at a time. Just because there is a stop doesn't mean each subway car actually stops there, but it's very beneficial for the residents not to have to walk that far, or get on a line that *is* stopping there. It's the same situation with an Express bus, it follows the same path but only stops at certain points. There are also points on the line which are running altogether different lines but merged on the same track for the transfer stations.
Nah, shouldn't be. This is for talking about personal scale. There are few people who live criss-crossing the metro to different parts all the time. Most people do a daily commute that is mostly fixed and even for recreation they tend towards the same pattern. If it's about where you would rather work, then the topic is about personal circumstances.
I think you've taken this position over and over again, and it doesn't make sense to keep on going with this. Everyone understands percentages. Everyone understands LA is massive. People don't really get all that much bigger.
So if a transit system in a really big city covers only 1/3 of its area, and a system in a smaller city covers 4/5ths of its area, you would still consider the system in the larger city superior because it serves more people?
That is why you get on an express line though if you are in a hurry that run on the same tracks. They bypass the least used stops, sometimes 3-4 stops at a time. Just because there is a stop doesn't mean each subway car actually stops there, but it's very beneficial for the residents not to have to walk that far, or get on a line that *is* stopping there. It's the same situation with an Express bus, it follows the same path but only stops at certain points. There are also points on the line which are running altogether different lines but merged on the same track for the transfer stations.
Does Chicago have express trains?
In Boston the only express trains I really remember are on the Green Line. Maybe the Red Line did though, I honestly can't remember.
I do think the stops in Boston are too close to each other. Boylston - Park St. - Downtown Crossing are pretty much within sight of each other, which IMO is a little too clustered. The cities were on a smaller scale then so it makes sense why they are that way.
I don't feel that the areas that are served by Metro rail have any coverage issues, though I am within a .5 miles of 2 subway stops so I may be clouded by my experience.
The biggest gap will be when the Purple Line is extended and there will not be a Wilshire / Crenshaw stop, leaving a 2 mile gap just south of Hancock Park. The residents were against it, that area is never going to change (historically protected mansion district), and ridership at that station would be low. With limited resources its better to save the money and use it somewhere where it will be cost-effective.
So if a transit system in a really big city covers only 1/3 of its area, and a system in a smaller city covers 4/5ths of its area, you would still consider the system in the larger city superior because it serves more people?
LA's covers more than 1/3 of the area though. Unless you are counting the mountains, which are obviously as sparsely served as they are populated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy
Maybe. Most major destinations in LA are near rail lines or bus lines with frequent service where you don't worry so much about schedules. I'd much prefer that we had trains everywhere, but I like the bus system for the most part.
Don't underestimate those rapid buses, they are actually quite effective.
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.
