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.
As usual Philadelphia was overlooked but at least we are in good company since Chicago was forgotten as well. Both those cities have better mass transit (including bus coverage) then most of the cities on the list.
They based it on metro areas, not just central city. Chicago has a very good city bus system with 150 routes covering almost every residential building within 1/2 mile.
The suburbs though have very crap bus service, so while the city is excellent, the burbs arent, and that's why it didn't make the list. Maybe Philly is the same?
Agreed, although I think LA's spot on this list is deserved, cities like Philadelphia, Boston and probably even Chicago as a whole are more walkable than LA. I can't think of a lot of spots in Boston you have to have a car to live comfortably. Granted, LA is so big that its walkable areas probably add up to the same square mileage as the city of Boston (or bigger) .
This was my response in the General US version of this thread when the LA/Boston comparison was brought up:
I think one of the major issues with this list, in spite of its fidelity to statistical data, is that its numbers are derived from the entire MSA for each city.
Having lived in both Los Angeles proper and Boston proper, I don't think anyone who has done the same would disagree with my observation that it is more practical and convenient to travel by car than public transportation in LA, while the opposite is almost certainly true for the city of Boston.
The problem is that this list does not concern the cities themselves, but rather the MSAs. In this case, the selected MSAs do not exactly offer the most even comparison.
Both Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana and Boston-Cambridge-Quincy are of a similar geographic size; 4,850 sq. miles and 4,674 sq. miles respectively. However, it is obvious that Los Angeles' MSA is a far more urbanized area, having nearly three times the density and total population of Boston's MSA.
In other words, the statistics for Boston offered in this list take into account communities that are on the exurban fringes of the metro area, whereas the LA-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA does not even include all of LA's suburbs. I think that the numbers for transit coverage and proximity to transit would increase substantially if you examined a more circumscribed portion of the Boston metro.
You're gonna be miserable without a car, esp if you have a family, in these 2 areas. I've lived in both and have a difficult time going without a car for any extended period (while when I lived in Berkeley, CA I didn't have a car for 3 years and lived fine even though it's less walkable than San Francisco.)
This was my response in the General US version of this thread when the LA/Boston comparison was brought up:
I think one of the major issues with this list, in spite of its fidelity to statistical data, is that its numbers are derived from the entire MSA for each city.
Having lived in both Los Angeles proper and Boston proper, I don't think anyone who has done the same would disagree with my observation that it is more practical and convenient to travel by car than public transportation in LA, while the opposite is almost certainly true for the city of Boston.
The problem is that this list does not concern the cities themselves, but rather the MSAs. In this case, the selected MSAs do not exactly offer the most even comparison.
Both Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana and Boston-Cambridge-Quincy are of a similar geographic size; 4,850 sq. miles and 4,674 sq. miles respectively. However, it is obvious that Los Angeles' MSA is a far more urbanized area, having nearly three times the density and total population of Boston's MSA.
In other words, the statistics for Boston offered in this list take into account communities that are on the exurban fringes of the metro area, whereas the LA-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA does not even include all of LA's suburbs. I think that the numbers for transit coverage and proximity to transit would increase substantially if you examined a more circumscribed portion of the Boston metro.
I lived in both (Hollywood, LA and Brighton, Boston)... I can concur on these points, adding that the suburbs of LA have substantially better transit service (read: buses / metro link, even some light rail) than Boston. This is especially magnified if you are traveling from one suburb to another in the Boston area (super hard).
However, if this list was just about the city proper I think Los Angeles would still belong on this list, or at something like 11. Ridership is a little deceiving in LA because (esp. w/ the older generations) there is a stigma against riding public transportation. This stigma is gradually fading as the city densifies and driving becomes more and more of a nightmare.
You're gonna be miserable without a car, esp if you have a family, in these 2 areas. I've lived in both and have a difficult time going without a car for any extended period (while when I lived in Berkeley, CA I didn't have a car for 3 years and lived fine even though it's less walkable than San Francisco.)
This could have something to do with the fact that Orange County definitely has the worst PT of the entire MSA.
21604654[/color] (tel:21604654 - broken link)]What about like Supermarkets per sq mile, i don't care how walkable your area is if you need to go 1.5 miles to the nearest grocery store, you need a car.
or bars, resturants, shops ect. and over all proximity to amenties you would want.
That's a good point. This whole article is IMHO based on false criteria: bike ridership, percentage of the city that is covered by bus service?
What really lets people dump their cars or "Live Without a Car" is not only availability of a bus service but most importantly availability of public transportation alternatives to get to work, shopping, entertainment and other services. I think the only reasonable criteria for ranking BEST CITIES TO LIVE WITHOUT THE CAR is by comparing percentage of HOUSEHOLDS that do not have access to CARS
This statistics clearly shows in what cities people are able to get rid of their cars and still function i.e. get to places they have to get to.
It doesn't have anything to do with culture but simple necessity: in some cities car is a necessity and in some is not.
IF LA is so easy to live without a car, why doesn't a greater % of LAers live without cars.
Because LA is easy to live in with a car. It's the norm, there, and when you consider freeways, cheap parking, etc., most people see no reason to consider car free living. But it's actually pretty easy to do in LA.
The other thing, is that I think this analysis places a great deal of weight on proximity to transit, without considering usefulness of transit. I'm quite certain that a far greater percentage of people in greater LA live close to a bus line than would be the case in greater Boston, for example. Suburban transit in Boston is so-so at best, whereas in LA, it is nearly as good as it is in the city core. In spite of the core transit being less sufficient than it is in Boston, the the greater percentage of people with access to some transit elevates LA's score.
Because LA is easy to live in with a car. It's the norm, there, and when you consider freeways, cheap parking, etc., most people see no reason to consider car free living. But it's actually pretty easy to do in LA.
The other thing, is that I think this analysis places a great deal of weight on proximity to transit, without considering usefulness of transit. I'm quite certain that a far greater percentage of people in greater LA live close to a bus line than would be the case in greater Boston, for example. Suburban transit in Boston is so-so at best, whereas in LA, it is nearly as good as it is in the city core. In spite of the core transit being less sufficient than it is in Boston, the the greater percentage of people with access to some transit elevates LA's score.
And how long do said buses get to said location? And how long does it take for average persons residence to get to their work?
The thing with LA is it's so spread out, nothing is centralized PLUS it has poor transportation. It's absolutely nothing like getting things done around Boston in a timely fashion.
While you technically *could* live in LA without a car, it would take considerably more planning, effort, and bring your QOL down substantially trying to do the same things as you could living in other cities.
Last edited by Garfieldian; 11-07-2011 at 06:41 PM..
Sorry had to get all cliche but I lived all over LA as well.. this pretty much sums it up ..transit friendly if your transient friendly. Outside of Venice and parts of SM.. NOBODY WALKS IN LA.
Last edited by Scott5280; 11-07-2011 at 06:49 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.
.
