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.
OK, Tokyo has more households that have cars than Phoenix in absolute numbers as well, that doesn't mean you need a car in Tokyo compared to Phoenix...
There is a HUGE difference between car ownership rates between NYC and LA. Most people who move into NYC, move into areas that you do not need a car.
Well, your friends do not actually live in New York City, so their suburban experience is different compared to someone who lives in NYC. NYC is a one fare zone, so all you need is a Metrocard to get around and nothing else.
FYI, I live and Brooklyn and do not own a car. Yes, I can easily afford it.
Its all in how you frame things.
"You don't need a car in Manhattan" and "there are about 300,000 privately owned and parked cars on the island of Manhattan" are both true.
Okay? But LA's decentralized nature of its job centers make it less useful and convenient for a lot of people.
Does that mean everyone in metro NY works in lower Manhattan? I'm having a very hard time thinking of a job center in Metro L.A. that doesn't get full Metro service, BRT at a minimum.
So in a city where the median home price is pushing a million dollars whose mass transit system is supposed to be offsetting this, you have 4 million people saying "man it sure is expensive here, I think I'll buy this car and pay to park it in my 75,000 ppsm neighborhood just in case I need it for something, of course, this is NYC where you absolutely don't need a car but hey you never know."
Makes sense.
Yes, people do exactly that.... because they are rich. Some people even have car elevators that bring their car directly to their floor in a building. There are plenty of people who own cars for whatever reason.
"You don't need a car in Manhattan" and "there are about 300,000 privately owned and parked cars on the island of Manhattan" are both true.
"You do not need a private plane in Manhattan" and "there are 10,000 private plane owners on the island of Manhattan" are both true as well.
Dude, people who own cars there are either rich (1%) or they are poor and live in the projects and get some kind of government subsidy or something. An average household making $100k-$200k a year is not owning a car in Manhattan.
You could say this about dozens of other metros in the country, including places like Fresno and Bakersfield.
When pretty much any other place has bad traffic and congestion, its because infrastructure in America is terrible, the place is a big suburb, etc.
When NYC metro has WORSE congestion and LONGER average commute times than these places its somehow exempt from those characterizations because "NYC don't need car."
It looks like the don't need a car meme is more of a projected image than a reality.
That's not quite accurate, because the degree of how easy it is to get around with a car changes from place to place and in NYC, even in the outer boroughs, it's much easier to get by without one than pretty much any part of Fresno or Bakersfield because there's generally a lot more within walking distance and higher frequency bus service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Okay? But LA's decentralized nature of its job centers make it less useful and convenient for a lot of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
Which is the entire point of "metro" mass transit systems, which Los Angeles has one of the biggest.
Los Angeles can actually benefit from its polycentric business districts because it can mean that mass transit doesn't necessarily have a huge peak crush period the way NYC has. Hopefully it'll get to a point soon with the transit projects under construction where more people in LA city and county find mass transit to be useful and there would be even broader base of support in further expanding its network.
That's not quite accurate, because the degree of how easy it is to get around with a car changes from place to place and in NYC, even in the outer boroughs, it's much easier to get by without one than pretty much any part of Fresno or Bakersfield because there's generally a lot more within walking distance and higher frequency bus service.
Los Angeles can actually benefit from its polycentric business districts because it can mean that mass transit doesn't necessarily have a huge peak crush period the way NYC has. Hopefully it'll get to a point soon with the transit projects under construction where more people in LA city and county find mass transit to be useful and there would be even broader base of support in further expanding its network.
Exactly. Centralized job centers spend a lot of money getting a ton of people in one place while operating near empty trains going the opposite direction. In what universe would that be considered efficient? LA will have the opportunity for real efficiency with full trains going all over although more full heading towards western jobs in the am rush.
Well yeah, the easier you make it to drive the more people will. LA's job centers are more decentralized too which makes commuting by transit difficult.
Let’s put this in mathematical terms.
A < B (LA transit worse than LA cars) and
C > D (NYC transit better than NYC cars)
You can’t assume from just this info that C > A. Of course it is but not that much better for a large number of people. Anyone living in central LA has access to many jobs in DTLA, the westside, South Bay and even the Valley.
Exactly. Centralized job centers spend a lot of money getting a ton of people in one place while operating near empty trains going the opposite direction. In what universe would that be considered efficient? LA will have the opportunity for real efficiency with full trains going all over although more full heading towards western jobs in the am rush.
Yea! LA just needs more rail between the various job centers and the transit expansions of recent years and the upcoming ones to be finished within a decade are going to be great. I just wish they’d electrify Metrolink and make the Harbor Subdivision a part of a larger frequent and through-running Metrolink service. That and I wish part of the regional connector's funding meant reworking where the Blue Line (A Line?) and Expo Line interlined. That part is going to be the Achille's Heel of the larger regional connector system if they don't do something about it soon.
A < B (LA transit worse than LA cars) and
C > D (NYC transit better than NYC cars)
You can’t assume from just this info that C > A. Of course it is but not that much better for a large number of people. Anyone living in central LA has access to many jobs in DTLA, the westside, South Bay and even the Valley.
Wait hang on a second. Are you saying that if I opt to drive my car in rush hour traffic in a 13 million person metro area there will be bad traffic?
I never thought of that. Insight like that is why I keep coming back to this website.
Must be a Los Angeles thing only, I guess everyone is just zipping around like the Jetsons in the other big metros.
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.
