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.
Good catch. These 6/7 free trolleys run every 15 mins and blanket downtown (which is quite compact to begin with). They're old-timely looking with polished wooden seats but are totally modern. Because they are small, they can move in & out of traffic with ease... With all of these bus and rail options available -- and for unlimited daily riding for just $5 -- a car-less vacation, and even lifestyle for residents, is very doable here. For this reason, Cleveland deserves a spot among America's Top-10.
I agree that Miami is similar to LA for its residents not to take mass transit b/c they think their too cool not to ride them as a artificial sense of celebrity status to rent & drive a sporty or SUV vehicle.
Miami = Hollywood of the Atlantic & LA = South Beach of the Pacific.
I disagree. LA has taken to its expanding transit options a lot more than Miamians. LA has a much more coordinated and comprehensive system of LRT, HRT, BRT and commuter rail. Miami has 1 HRT line, a comprehensive system of downtown PRT (the People Mover), and 1 long commuter rail line (Tri-Rail) which that doesn't even enter downtown Miami. Miami also has a long BRT line extending southward from the Dadeland (south) terminal of the Metro (HRT). LA is the 2nd largest metro area in the country; 2nd only to NYC. But Miami sits in the nation's 5th largest metro area, which is also huge.
LA's system is growing rapidly. Miami just rejected growth of the HRT even though a short branch (now dubbed the Orange Line) now serves Miami International Airport -- more accurately, it serves the parking car rental area which connects with Tri-Rail's southern terminal and the airport's people mover which connects with the main airport terminal.
Ray - not sure if you have the list of people by metro that live above a score of 80 - might be interesting to access the coverage of people by transit - imagine LA would actually do quite well on that metric
In 50-100 years LA will have a DC or Chicago level of rail coverage, at least at the current rate of progress. In 20 years LA will have the kind of rail system that can compete with Boston's level of coverage, just over a much greater land area. Right now it's around SF or Philly level, or slightly below.
In 50-100 years LA will have a DC or Chicago level of rail coverage, at least at the current rate of progress. In 20 years LA will have the kind of rail system that can compete with Boston's level of coverage, just over a much greater land area. Right now it's around SF or Philly level, or slightly below.
I may be wrong but doesn't Los Angeles already match the DC area when it comes to commuter rail coverage?
In 50-100 years LA will have a DC or Chicago level of rail coverage, at least at the current rate of progress. In 20 years LA will have the kind of rail system that can compete with Boston's level of coverage, just over a much greater land area. Right now it's around SF or Philly level, or slightly below.
You're making the assumption that there will not be any rail expansions in cities like Philadelphia, Boston and SF within 50-100 years, which in all likelihood will not be the case. I understand that LA has a lot of momentum for mass transit right now, but all major cities are planning/funding expansion of their transportation networks.
You're making the assumption that there will not be any rail expansions in cities like Philadelphia, Boston and SF within 50-100 years, which in all likelihood will not be the case. I understand that LA has a lot of momentum for mass transit right now, but all major cities are planning/funding expansion of their transportation networks.
True, I guess I meant LA will match those cities' current coverage.
No, but I do know folks that do it & they make more sense than you.
B-More & PTL have an extensive mass transit system to be efficient w/o a vehicle within its metro area. Yes, LA is finally building its mass transit rail lines to be completed 50 to 100 yrs from now. Again, you didn't read my prior comments how the US Eastern cities kept its rail system during the post WW-2 automobile boom. LA destroyed its mass transit infrastructure, and it finally realized now to expand it all over its metro area. Traffic is a MOFO nightmare on its highways & roads not to be very enjoyable & pleasant. FYI, B-More & PTL have a rail line to connect from its airport to downtown vice versa. LA doesn't have one at this moment.
Get back with me,
When LA's mass transit rail system is to be FULLY OPERATIONAL!
I'm having a difficult time staying objective because you are actively defending BALTIMORE'S mass transit system. It's an f-ing joke compared to LA's.
I'd say the chances of this passing today are 60/40, hopefully Metro and Move LA can move towards a county-wide consensus by 2016, when it would likely be put on the ballot.
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.
FYI, B-More & PTL have a rail line to connect from its airport to downtown vice versa. LA doesn't have one at this moment. 
