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'm actually pretty familiar. But what I'm trying to say is no matter what neighborhood you're in in LA you can walk to neighborhood conveniences. No matter if you're in Leimert Park, Koreatown, Brentwood, Hollywood, Melrose Hill, East LA, you are always within walking distance from stuff. As I sit here in west LA I can walk to the library, the post office, Vons, the movies, restaurants, the bus stop, a park, 3 delis, a variety of restaurants, ice cream, a laundry mat, 4 cleaners and so on. Even in south LA there's plenty. In parts of Chicago I didn't see like a grocery store, especially on the south side.
But Chicago is far more pedestrian-oriented than LA and has a large pedestrian-oriented core. You couldn't find an area in LA that sustains a pedestrian-oriented built form and the streetlife of Lincoln Park for more than a few blocks moving in all four directions.
There's also possible Metrolink commuter rail expansions.
Oh yeah, I was going to mention that too. People don't realize that Metrolink is actually about as extensive as Metra. It's just that it has miserable ridership numbers because it has such infrequent service. Through-routing the lines and electrification (I admittedly don't know much about the technical side of this) sounds like it would do a lot to make the lines more attractive.
They also hit pretty prime locations too, many stations are located in the historic city centers of the satellite cities - including Riverside, San Bernardino, Fullerton, Burbank, etc. The Anaheim station is next to Angel's Stadium and will connect to a future streetcar.The Ventura Line runs right down the middle of the San Fernando Valley, which seems like a huge opportunity.
Not on Chicago's level, but just about edging into the same ballpark.
LA does get better every year IMO, that is for sure.
Here are some walk scores in neighborhoods that aren't on most peoples' radars in Chicago to even live if you're a "hip, young professional" making a good salary. Most people on here haven't a clue these neighborhoods even exist. They're a far cry from the Lincoln Parks, River Norths, etc.
These are in no way the Loop, River North, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Wicker Park, Lincoln Square, etcs which are even more walkable and usually in the high 90s or 100.
Oh yeah, I was going to mention that too. People don't realize that Metrolink is actually about as extensive as Metra. It's just that it has miserable ridership numbers because it has such infrequent service. Through-routing the lines and electrification (I admittedly don't know much about the technical side of this) sounds like it would do a lot to make the lines more attractive.
Or it has miserable ridership because there's not as much demand to fill the trains. LA's downtown is less of a draw than the Chicago Loop is, and it's easier to drive and park into LA's downtown.
But Chicago is far more pedestrian-oriented than LA and has a large pedestrian-oriented core. You couldn't find an area in LA that sustains a pedestrian-oriented built form and the streetlife of Lincoln Park for more than a few blocks moving in all four directions.
This is true - LA is behind both cities in pedestrian orientation. But I think Pwright is also correct that almost everywhere in Los Angeles has walking-distance access to a pretty wide variety of necessities / amenities. This is even true in most of the suburbs as well. This is why you see a pretty decent amount of people walking around, even if the landscape is marred by a parking lot, gas station, strip mall or drive-thru restaurant with relative frequency (though they aren't the majority). Los Angeles has quite a lot of work to do on its main retail corridors - but they're on it.
Or it has miserable ridership because there's not as much demand to fill the trains. LA's downtown is less of a draw than the Chicago Loop is, and it's easier to drive and park into LA's downtown.
True but the lines aren't totally focused on DTLA. They hit major job centers like Irvine and Anaheim - and there is even a line that runs between the Inland Empire and Orange County. It'd be nice if Orange County maybe stepped up to the transit plate a little bit to fill in that last mile, which seems impossible at the moment considering OCTA. At the very least true BRT would work there, given the ultra-wide streets. I believe San Bernardino is investing heavily in BRT throughout the county, and maybe Riverside too.
I think the ridership numbers of LA's existing Metro lines show that when built, people do utilize transit.
Saying Los Angeles is the densest urban area in the U.S. is a Flawed statistic. Jacksonville has more people than Boston, DC or SF But we all know the least urban of the four is jax.
The urban density stat is a joke and is flawed. Urban density is defined By continuous development WITHOUT stopping. LA has medium density over 1000's of Square miles without getting rural. Honestly, who even knows where their DT is? LA is just like 10,000 sq miles with the same continuous density.
Again, when the LA CSA hits 20 million they will be the ONLY hyper city in the first world without an efficient subway system.
Not really. If anything, its doubly impressive due to the massive population of the urbanized area. It's easy to maintain a high density with a small population; try maintaining it with a population over 12 million.
First, your analogy is flawed. Jax has a larger population, but nowhere near the density of the a Boston or San Francisco. Los Angeles OTOH is easily in the same density group as Chicago and Toronto. Depending on how you look at it, you could argue the L.A. tops both:
Population over 20,000 ppsm
Los Angeles UA: 1,956,347 (15.99% of UA)
Chicago UA: 1,120,257 (12.52%)
Toronto UA: 993,659 (19.19%)
Los Angeles comes close to matching Chicago and Toronto combined at the census tract level. Impressive, and completely debunks the notion that Los Angeles only has dense suburbs and nothing else.
True but the lines aren't totally focused on DTLA. They hit major job centers like Irvine and Anaheim - and there is even a line that runs between the Inland Empire and Orange County. It'd be nice if Orange County maybe stepped up to the transit plate a little bit to fill in that last mile, which seems impossible at the moment considering OCTA. At the very least true BRT would work there, given the ultra-wide streets. I believe San Bernardino is investing heavily in BRT throughout the county, and maybe Riverside too.
I think the ridership numbers of LA's existing Metro lines show that when built, people do utilize transit.
I think that's fine for the people who can make that commute happen by transit. But what are the odds of that? That's probably the biggest reason for the low ridership. The more dispersed economic activity is, the harder it is to get people onto transit.
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.
