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.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,016,954 times
Reputation: 36027
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtkomori
Okay, let me clarify a few things. We were on holidays for 8 nights and 9 days spending time in both San Diego and Los Angeles. I travelled with my husband and two kids, and we had more than 5 pieces of luggage and we did quite a bit of shopping in the Asian grocery stores. Shopping would be quite difficult without a car, as it is here in Waterloo, Ontario where I live now and getting to all these places like San Diego Zoo, La Jolla, Costa Mesa, Kodak Theater, USH, Downtown,Beverly Hills would take a lot of time using transit and we couldn't have fit all of it in in just 9 days without a car. I actually don't know how convient public transport is in Southern California (have never taken train/bus) has anyone tried both, driving AND public tranport? Ofcourse, train would be much faster during rush hours when traffic is terrible but going to multiple locations by pubic transit, like shopping, dining and sightseeing in a single trip would be slower than by car? (At least here, it is!)
It's ironic how you are commenting that it is next to impossible to live in So CA without a car but you have no first hand experience with our public transit. I understand that with tons of stuff to lug around, it makes more sense to use a rental car but please don't knock our transit until you have tried it out for yourself.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,016,954 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winston Smith
It can be done! I've said it for a long time that L.A. has many pockets and areas that are conducive to not "needing" a car. (Never quite understood that notion, anyway. I need my right leg. Don't "need" a car.) I often hear the argument that L.A. is too spread out to not have a car, yet I do not know one person who traverses the whole city. Indeed I know native Los Angelinos who have never been to many parts of the city. Truth is, we have our usual destinations within the broader scope of the city. Those destinations can be reached without a car sometimes, perhaps even often reached without a car. And, if you chose to live in a part of the city where transit is good and destinations close, you do not need a car in L.A.
ETA: I will say this, though, that the tyranny of the car-culture is hard to escape in L.A.
I totally agree with you. Folks actually pity me for relying on public transit but my stress level and financial situation is far better than those who have to deal with the expense of owning a car and dealing with aggravation of sitting in traffic day in and out.
Okay, let me clarify a few things. We were on holidays for 8 nights and 9 days spending time in both San Diego and Los Angeles. I travelled with my husband and two kids, and we had more than 5 pieces of luggage and we did quite a bit of shopping in the Asian grocery stores. Shopping would be quite difficult without a car, as it is here in Waterloo, Ontario where I live now and getting to all these places like San Diego Zoo, La Jolla, Costa Mesa, Kodak Theater, USH, Downtown,Beverly Hills would take a lot of time using transit and we couldn't have fit all of it in in just 9 days without a car. I actually don't know how convient public transport is in Southern California (have never taken train/bus) has anyone tried both, driving AND public tranport? Ofcourse, train would be much faster during rush hours when traffic is terrible but going to multiple locations by pubic transit, like shopping, dining and sightseeing in a single trip would be slower than by car? (At least here, it is!)
Yes, obviously in some cases driving IS easier, but just because you were traveling and wanted a car doesn't mean people living in the area (or visiting) always need one, or that it is next to impossible to live without one. So in your specific case with all your suitcases, you probably were better off having a car (in some instances, although in many cases it's still easier to leave the car parked in the hotel lot while you check out the area by bus or subway). And sure, lots of people have tried both public transportation and buses; I would guess that many people who take public transit by choice either own a car and use it from time to time, or rent one when they want one (to go on driving vacations, etc.) I've done the San Diego-Hollywood trip multiple times both by car and by train (carrying baby, stroller, and bags) and personally found the train to be much more enjoyable than the car (fabulous views, as the train goes right along the beach for part of it, among other benefits!), but I realize it doesn't work for everybody. Still, both locals and tourists might want to check out the public transportation options more closely if they haven't already, because in some cases, especially day-to-day tourist stuff (and not trekking suitcases between hotels) it actually is easier and often faster to take the subway or bus, as you don't have to worry about driving in traffic or dealing with parking. Many parts of LA (not all, but many) are very easy to both visit or live in without a car.
I totally agree with you. Folks actually pity me for relying on public transit but my stress level and financial situation is far better than those who have to deal with the expense of owning a car and dealing with aggravation of sitting in traffic day in and out.
I know exactly what you mean. It's a perception thing, as if "why would anyone choose to take the bus?" I call my friends with that mindset "transit snobs"!
People complain about riding the bus, waiting for it, etc., but think nothing of the 10 - 15 minutes it takes to stop at a gas station. These same people will spend hour upon precious hour polishing their car, dealing with its repairs and maintenance on top of a huge cost to acquire it in the first place. I asked one friend of mine, who often complains about me driving an old hulk and riding the bus, how much money he felt I should pay to get around town -- $20k, $30k? No thanks!
Yes, obviously in some cases driving IS easier, but just because you were traveling and wanted a car doesn't mean people living in the area (or visiting) always need one, or that it is next to impossible to live without one. So in your specific case with all your suitcases, you probably were better off having a car (in some instances, although in many cases it's still easier to leave the car parked in the hotel lot while you check out the area by bus or subway). And sure, lots of people have tried both public transportation and buses; I would guess that many people who take public transit by choice either own a car and use it from time to time, or rent one when they want one (to go on driving vacations, etc.) I've done the San Diego-Hollywood trip multiple times both by car and by train (carrying baby, stroller, and bags) and personally found the train to be much more enjoyable than the car (fabulous views, as the train goes right along the beach for part of it, among other benefits!), but I realize it doesn't work for everybody. Still, both locals and tourists might want to check out the public transportation options more closely if they haven't already, because in some cases, especially day-to-day tourist stuff (and not trekking suitcases between hotels) it actually is easier and often faster to take the subway or bus, as you don't have to worry about driving in traffic or dealing with parking. Many parts of LA (not all, but many) are very easy to both visit or live in without a car.
Would add that most people on a day-to-day basis don't need to get to all of those destinations with all of their belongings in tow. Ok, rent a car for portions of the transpo. That said, whenever I travel out of town and even out of the country, I always seek out transit and train options. For one thing, it liberates me and frees my hosts from having to drive me around everywhere. For another thing, figuring out the local transit system in a city unfamiliar to me is much easier than trying to drive myself around while learning the geography of the place. I've done it, and on at least two occasions been honked at for driving the wrong way down one-way streets.
I understand that with tons of stuff to lug around, it makes more sense to use a rental car but please don't knock our transit until you have tried it out for yourself.
Well, I'll knock it, because I've tried it and have lived here for 3 years and will not ever use the public transportation in LA ever again. This is based on my experience and my conclusions (weighing area, commute, time, costs of living, so forth) After 3 weeks of living here, I was begging to have a car, that I went to my nearest Enterprise rental car and rented a small compact until my car was unloaded from the dock a week later.
1) Bus schedules - do not believe what's posted. I waited at the one bus stop near my apartment and never once did the bus come at the time the schedule said it would (it would be anywhere from 15 - 45 minutes late). I one time, walked over 2 1/2 miles on my own down the route of a bus that would take me to my work, and not a SINGLE bus came in all that time (that took me almost and hour)
2) Metro rail - none of the rail systems pass where I live, and the one line that goes by my work is the Green Line (the station is a block away) but it goes north, when I'm east. Since I dont travel anywhere else in LA that is NORTH of where I work and live, save for once a month to head into Hollywood or Downtown (I avoid those areas at all costs) - the metro isn't useful to me.
the public transportation system here is no more trustworthy or worth it than having your own car, and waiting in traffic; for one YOU have to be in an area that is regularly serviced by the system (rail or bus) and you end up trading on other areas and not saving money.
If you live in Hollywood or areas that are serviced well by the transporation system, you end up paying more in rent, or other "amenities". I live in an area where the rent is cheap for a good size apartment, at nearly half of what I could find in those ares that are serviced well by transportation. I only pay $60 a month in gas and $100 a month in insurance (I own a sports car)
$1500 1 bedroom apartment in Hollywood and $35 in transportation costs a month
or
$700 1 bedroom apartment in South bay, and $160 in transportation costs a month
Just providing another look at what you actually may be saving or not saving in the end.
[quote=Arus;14271757]Well, I'll knock it, because I've tried it and have lived here for 3 years and will not ever use the public transportation in LA ever again. This is based on my experience and my conclusions (weighing area, commute, time, costs of living, so forth) After 3 weeks of living here, I was begging to have a car, that I went to my nearest Enterprise rental car and rented a small compact until my car was unloaded from the dock a week later.
Now I'm finally seeing something I want to see! Some people have said that it's entirely possible to live in L.A. without a car, but they never mentioned whether or not it was convenient. Ofcourse, they could be living in an area well-serviced by public transport, like Hollywood/Highland and wouldn't know what it's like to be living somewhere that is not serviced very well.
According to Arus, the public transport was so inconvenient, he felt the need for a car.
I guess it also depends on your life style; if you're single or a student, you may not feel that you want to own/lease a car, but what if you have kids? I live in Waterloo, Ontario where everyone on our street owns a car, quite often two, if they have kids. I have two kids but we have only one car, my husband commutes by car, so I take taxis and buses during the day. Still, it's pretty inconvenient although Waterloo isn't as spread out as L.A.
I found it very - yes - CONVENIENT to live in LA without a car. Obviously that's not the case in every neighborhood, but I've lived in a couple of areas and have traveled to many other and those areas are very convenient. Yes, true, we did pay more to live in those areas, but cost of living and good transit options don't always go together. And no, I was not single or a student. I was a working mother, and brought my son to daycare on the train and by bus and did my grocery shopping by foot. So again, it's not for everyone, but it's all about choice; it was important to us to not be dependent on a car, and we made decisions that supported that choice. The same thing could be said of any city, not just LA. Live in an area poorly served by public transportation and you will probably choose to get a car.
Now I'm finally seeing something I want to see! Some people have said that it's entirely possible to live in L.A. without a car, but they never mentioned whether or not it was convenient. Ofcourse, they could be living in an area well-serviced by public transport, like Hollywood/Highland and wouldn't know what it's like to be living somewhere that is not serviced very well.
We must be logical about this. One cannot live in a part of the city that's not well served by public transpo and expect it to be convenient to live without a car. We have to take some measure of personal responsibility here. For those with a propensity to drive less, a move to where the buses run should probably be part of the equation. Just sayin'.... (The government can't solve all of our problems.)
Guess it all depends on where and how you live. So where exactly do people without cars live and find that it's convenient to get around by public tranpo, besides Hollywood/Highland? I just remembered my mom went crazy when we first moved to Culver City in 1971~73 because she had three young kids ages 5 and under and we only had one car and my dad commuted on that one car. My mom didn't even have a driver's license when we first moved to CC, she eventually got one AND a second car! There was just NO WAY to get around (or she thought so) back then to go to day cares and grocery shopping, etc. NOW, I believe there's a bus system run by CC that goes up to UCLA med center. My dad was working at UCLA and he drove there, guess it's possible now to commute to UCLA from CC??
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.
(The government can't solve all of our problems.)
