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.
L.A. Metro has more rail stops than all of BART and Muni combined (and it is much cheaper and more pleasant to ride). The state of the art freeway system complements this. If you decided to hop in a car and drive in traffic, well, that's on you (as it would be anywhere).
If you were just going around DTLA, Koreatown, and Hollywood (which equals or exceeds all SF nightlife), you would be getting around faster because there is more subway coverage there than in all of San Francisco. The only place I can think of that might present a serious "traffic" situation would be if you just had to go check out Ventura Boulevard and hopped on the 405 from west L.A. (not sure why someone would do this). More options for nightlife, more places that attract people, yes, I guess could mean traffic in some cases. I'll take increased traffic if it means increased destinations.
That bold'd is probably not true given the many, many stops that Muni Metro trains make. If anything, Muni Metro should consider eliminating some stops.
LA's freeway system is extensive and blows. I wish the city and metro had built more densely and prioritized mass transit much earlier. That Purple Line extension can't come fast enough. I also hope they electrify Metrolink and through-run Union Station soon and basically turn Metrolink into a BART kind of system, hopefully with some usage of the Harbor Subdivision.
L.A. Metro has more rail stops than all of BART and Muni combined (and it is much cheaper and more pleasant to ride). The state of the art freeway system complements this. If you decided to hop in a car and drive in traffic, well, that's on you (as it would be anywhere).
If you were just going around DTLA, Koreatown, and Hollywood (which equals or exceeds all SF nightlife), you would be getting around faster because there is more subway coverage there than in all of San Francisco. The only place I can think of that might present a serious "traffic" situation would be if you just had to go check out Ventura Boulevard and hopped on the 405 from west L.A. (not sure why someone would do this). More options for nightlife, more places that attract people, yes, I guess could mean traffic in some cases. I'll take increased traffic if it means increased destinations.
Yet it still has far less ridership despite all those additional stops. And your average Metro passenger is a lot poorer and uneducated than your average Muni or BART rider, especially BART.
"The state of the art freeway system"? Yeah maybe in 1960. Now it's just under-built and overburdened with the nation's worst traffic.
Yet it still has far less ridership despite all those additional stops. And your average Metro passenger is a lot poorer and uneducated than your average Muni or BART rider, especially BART.
"The state of the art freeway system"? Yeah maybe in 1960. Now it's just under-built and overburdened with the nation's worst traffic.
Man what the hell did this have to do with anything discussed over the last several pages?
Speaks to the mentality of the Bay Area. Not as inviting/welcoming as they like to perceive. But we only need to look at the housing crisis to see that.
Man what the hell did this have to do with anything discussed over the last several pages?
Speaks to the mentality of the Bay Area. Not as inviting/welcoming as they like to perceive. But we only need to look at the housing crisis to see that.
This should be pretty obvious....Choice Riders tend to highlight the efficiency of a Public Transportation system vs. Poor People who ride because they have no other options.
Man what the hell did this have to do with anything discussed over the last several pages?
Speaks to the mentality of the Bay Area. Not as inviting/welcoming as they like to perceive. But we only need to look at the housing crisis to see that.
I clearly was responding to a specific statement regarding Metro vs BART/MUNI.
The fact that you couldn't pick up on that speaks to the education levels and reading comprehension of Angeleno's.
a few decades ago I would have easily picked SF. But all this feces nonsense makes me think that there must be a gateway to hell that has opened up in the Bay so count me in with Randy Newman.
Which part of that post you quoted had anything to do with people being poor and/or uneducated?
The poster claimed Metro was more pleasant to ride. That can partly be attributed by the types of passengers one is around. In addition they mentioned the # of transit stops as if somehow that equates to a better or more efficient system. Are you understanding why I mentioned that now or did you need more explaining?
This should be pretty obvious....Choice Riders tend to highlight the efficiency of a Public Transportation system vs. Poor People who ride because they have no other options.
Why? It's true though. You want to get drivers off the road and onto public transit then you need to attract choice riders.
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.
