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.
Hi guys - I plan on moving to L.A. from Baltimore this summer. I've lived car free in Baltimore for 3 years - I plan on living car free in L.A. I've been reading about your metro system and its expansion plans, as well as your burgeoning bike network, and it seems things are really at a point where non-hardcore transit/cycling geeks can live car free relatively comfortably (assuming you don't live too far from where you work).
I look forward to sharing my experiences with you all once I move. I'd like to hear from others who live car free in L.A. as well.
You just need to be dedicated and patient to do it in LA. I swore by a car-free lifestyle, but LA turned me. However it is possible, depending on where you live/work and what you want your lifestyle to be.
I do live in an extremely walkable neighborhood, so those do exist as well. But I was speaking of the city as a whole.
You just need to be dedicated and patient to do it in LA. I swore by a car-free lifestyle, but LA turned me. However it is possible, depending on where you live/work and what you want your lifestyle to be.
I do live in an extremely walkable neighborhood, so those do exist as well. But I was speaking of the city as a whole.
Couple questions because I am curious...
Did you live car-free in Tampa (or whichever FL city it was that you lived in before)?
Have you lived car-free in any other cities?
I only ask because with almost every city in the US it would be better to have a car than not have one (Honestly NYC is probably the only one, maybe SF because it is so small), and also because in my experience, transit systems always seem so much better when you are only using them on a vacation or for a quick trip (I may have mentioned that before in this thread). Once you are reliant on the system, the problems/inconsistencies/delays/lack of coverage becomes so much more obvious. I am not totally reliant on the transit system here (though if I need to do anything between 8AM-7PM, it's going to be without a car), so perhaps that is why I see it is in a generally favorable light.
If I could have afforded a car in Boston I would have got one in a split-second. Even in this bastion of transit and walkability I found a lot of tasks to be incredibly inefficient to do on transit (and remember I was very low-income, so Zip Car was off the table).
Also here is an article about LA's transit system. Fairly interesting but not anything groundbreaking. Basically saying the subway is nice but doesn't have enough reach. One thing that is laughable is the author suggesting Metro spend less money on the station embellishments in order to have a bigger transit system. Methinks this author doesn't realize just how expensive each mile of track is vs. some silly tiles / film reels / paintings dressing up the stations:
Did you live car-free in Tampa (or whichever FL city it was that you lived in before)?
Have you lived car-free in any other cities?
I only ask because with almost every city in the US it would be better to have a car than not have one (Honestly NYC is probably the only one, maybe SF because it is so small), and also because in my experience, transit systems always seem so much better when you are only using them on a vacation or for a quick trip (I may have mentioned that before in this thread). Once you are reliant on the system, the problems/inconsistencies/delays/lack of coverage becomes so much more obvious. I am not totally reliant on the transit system here (though if I need to do anything between 8AM-7PM, it's going to be without a car), so perhaps that is why I see it is in a generally favorable light.
If I could have afforded a car in Boston I would have got one in a split-second. Even in this bastion of transit and walkability I found a lot of tasks to be incredibly inefficient to do on transit (and remember I was very low-income, so Zip Car was off the table).
Also here is an article about LA's transit system. Fairly interesting but not anything groundbreaking. Basically saying the subway is nice but doesn't have enough reach. One thing that is laughable is the author suggesting Metro spend less money on the station embellishments in order to have a bigger transit system. Methinks this author doesn't realize just how expensive each mile of track is vs. some silly tiles / film reels / paintings dressing up the stations:
Yes, I lived car-free in Tampa. But that was something else. And I've been to NYC for months at a time.
I do agree with your post, but I was just suggesting that you can't possibly compare LA's transit system to those in the northeast.
Did it feel easier to live car-free in Tampa?
LA's system is not comparable NYC or DC (if it counts as NE), but I think it is comparable to Boston's and Philadelphia's - I'd say not as good but a comparison is not out of the question.
Transit is easier to rely on in Boston because it covers more of that small city, but there are still noticeable gaps and inefficiencies with it. I find Los Angeles' bus system to be markedly better than Boston's for various reasons. Like I said, even in Boston it is much preferable to own a car and most of the people I knew there did have a car (minus all of my broke co-workers, but even some of them drove to work), even my friend in Beacon Hill and my wife's colleague that lived in the North End.
The biggest thing that sets Los Angeles apart from my experience in Boston is that there is 24-hour public transportation, which surprisingly does not exist in Boston. Doesn't matter how extensive the transportation system was at 11 PM when it is 1 AM and you are 4 miles from home.
LA's system is not comparable NYC or DC (if it counts as NE), but I think it is comparable to Boston's and Philadelphia's - I'd say not as good but a comparison is not out of the question.
Transit is easier to rely on in Boston because it covers more of that small city, but there are still noticeable gaps and inefficiencies with it. I find Los Angeles' bus system to be markedly better than Boston's for various reasons. Like I said, even in Boston it is much preferable to own a car and most of the people I knew there did have a car (minus all of my broke co-workers, but even some of them drove to work), even my friend in Beacon Hill and my wife's colleague that lived in the North End.
The biggest thing that sets Los Angeles apart from my experience in Boston is that there is 24-hour public transportation, which surprisingly does not exist in Boston. Doesn't matter how extensive the transportation system was at 11 PM when it is 1 AM and you are 4 miles from home.
I lived in a walk-able suburb that was on the edge of Tampa, and there were no buses or any kind of transit. So I didn't go out much, but I had everything a 1-2 mile walk away. But Tampa as a whole? Nah, it's public transit is weak there.
I have just been turned off by most public transit in LA. The distance it takes between destinations, the delays, the etiquette, etc. If this were somewhere like Boston, I'd be far more forgiving.
Maybe you like doing it in LA, but I don't. Not for the type of city LA is.
I lived in a walk-able suburb that was on the edge of Tampa, and there were no buses or any kind of transit. So I didn't go out much, but I had everything a 1-2 mile walk away. But Tampa as a whole? Nah, it's public transit is weak there.
I have just been turned off by most public transit in LA. The distance it takes between destinations, the delays, the etiquette, etc. If this were somewhere like Boston, I'd be far more forgiving.
Maybe you like doing it in LA, but I don't. Not for the type of city LA is.
Would you say that cities are in tiers?
L.A. is transitioning to another tier and shedding it's old skin.
We did have the best transit in the U.S. at one point? What makes it even different now? We have better technology.
I lived in a walk-able suburb that was on the edge of Tampa, and there were no buses or any kind of transit. So I didn't go out much, but I had everything a 1-2 mile walk away. But Tampa as a whole? Nah, it's public transit is weak there.
I have just been turned off by most public transit in LA. The distance it takes between destinations, the delays, the etiquette, etc. If this were somewhere like Boston, I'd be far more forgiving.
Maybe you like doing it in LA, but I don't. Not for the type of city LA is.
I find that I don't really need to use it very often because my neighborhood has nearly everything I need within walking distance. I agree with the etiquette (mostly with boarding and escalators) and that people are cluelessly rude a lot of the time, though I've never experienced any delays on the bus or the trains other than maybe 5 minutes. I probably take transit about 2-3 times a week, mostly to DTLA on the Red Line but occasionally on the 2 / 217 / 212 / 4 buses - with the buses I have found that the NextTrip app (while a bit optimistic with its arrival times) to be correct up to a few minutes. I've never had the "next train" thing in the Red Line be incorrect either.
Maybe I am just lucky? I sure wasn't lucky with delays in Boston - I had a bus straight up stop working on the way to work one day. We all had to get out and wait 20 minutes for the next bus.
I find that I don't really need to use it very often because my neighborhood has nearly everything I need within walking distance. I agree with the etiquette (mostly with boarding and escalators) and that people are cluelessly rude a lot of the time, though I've never experienced any delays on the bus or the trains other than maybe 5 minutes. I probably take transit about 2-3 times a week, mostly to DTLA on the Red Line but occasionally on the 2 / 217 / 212 / 4 buses - with the buses I have found that the NextTrip app (while a bit optimistic with its arrival times) to be correct up to a few minutes. I've never had the "next train" thing in the Red Line be incorrect either.
Maybe I am just lucky? I sure wasn't lucky with delays in Boston - I had a bus straight up stop working on the way to work one day. We all had to get out and wait 20 minutes for the next bus.
To be fair, some of my distaste was done in my first month out here just exploring all of LA. But now, I'm living in my bubble and haven't left the Westside or my area in 3 weeks.
But I did run into major delays almost weekly on the Red Line. I do realize that Metro can/is a good system, but I'm not one to be willing to take it given the spread-out nature of LA.
It seems I may be judging the system unfairly, but LA just isn't as dense as somewhere like Boston and taking transit here requires more patience.
To be fair, some of my distaste was done in my first month out here just exploring all of LA. But now, I'm living in my bubble and haven't left the Westside or my area in 3 weeks.
But I did run into major delays almost weekly on the Red Line. I do realize that Metro can/is a good system, but I'm not one to be willing to take it given the spread-out nature of LA.
It seems I may be judging the system unfairly, but LA just isn't as dense as somewhere like Boston and taking transit here requires more patience.
Actually there isn't that much of a difference in density... LA is a pretty dense place for an American city and is right up there with Boston, Philly, DC. LA is just much larger, and therefore needs a bigger transit system. I'm pretty sure we are closing in on having as many track miles as Boston, I know we have more transit lines now with the Expo Line opening.
I don't blame you for wanting a car, particularly living in Westwood... It seems like it is a very walkable area but not particularly close to any other "hubs" or sites of interest. Even downtown Santa Monica is 4.4 miles away (as the crow flies), and the only connections are on the bus. So I would want a car there too, though I probably wouldn't use it much. Just to go back to the density thing, your neighborhood is surrounded by some of the more low-density areas in Los Angeles like Cheviot Hills, Brentwood, Beverly Glen, etc. so that part of the city is pretty spread out and lower density than Boston, so that explains why you would think of LA as being lower density.
L.A. is transitioning to another tier and shedding it's old skin.
We did have the best transit in the U.S. at one point? What makes it even different now? We have better technology.
Yeah I'd say it is in tiers, LA is just outside of the almost-elite cities for transit (Boston, Philly, SF), which are behind DC and Chicago in the elite category, and then behind NYC as the American "champ" of transit (and it's not even close from NYC down to #2). And then of course you have to consider only the top three are even really decent compared to transit systems around the world... when I say elite I mean elite for the USA.
I'd say LA is there with Portland, Seattle, Atlanta - probably less walkable as a whole than the first two, more walkable than the latter. LA and Seattle will probably make their way up to the league with Boston and SF in the next decade or so.
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.
I sure wasn't lucky with delays in Boston - I had a bus straight up stop working on the way to work one day. We all had to get out and wait 20 minutes for the next bus.
