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.
It also has nothing to do with with LA's crippling traffic being the main reason people will (and do, as evidenced just a few posts up) leave their cars at home.
82 percent of Angelenos commute by automobile. Lifeshadower is clearly somewhat of an outlier here. Furthermore, 92 percent of LA's bus riders are described as "people of color" and have a median income of $12,000, which is already telling you that the overwhelming majority of those riders are likely immigrants who are unable to afford cars. There are also studies (I posted one once before) showing that these immigrants abandon public transit once they save up enough money to buy a car.
Even when you look at core LA zip codes, I don't think you'll find one where transit ridership is over 50 percent.
So, yes, I do think that the problem is the wide availability of parking. If 82 percent of Angelenos are driving to work every day, then they've got to be parking their cars somewhere. I seriously doubt they're paying $20-$30 for parking each time they go to work. That's essentially what most people would have to pay if they drive to work in DC or Boston.
LA is a different kind of urban, but no less so than SF & DC. LA is sooo much bigger it doesnt have to answer to DC or SF or anyone not on their level.
Smh DC's metro area is bigger than the bay and more fast paced. Add Baltimore on a CSA level and its only behind NYC, LA, and Chi. DC kicks SF's ass..
Besides the fact that San Francisco is significantly denser in its core than DC, it's urban area is also more dense and compact as well. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
DC urban area: 1300 sq miles, population: 4.6 million
San Francisco: 528 sq miles, population: 3.3 million
Now, add San Jose's UA to San Francisco to form what is commonly known as The Bay Area:
San Francisco + San Jose UAs: 800 sq miles, population: 4.9 million
"The Bay Area" crams more people in far less space than Washington D.C. The Census Burueu can fool you into thinking DC is larger than San Francisco and environs, but not I, and anyone else who has been to both places. San Francisco feels larger (and more vibrant than anywhere outside Manhattan, though admittedly, I have not been to Philly).
Well, in Atlanta they didn't. We can speculate all day about what people would do, but at the end of the day, the facts are that Atlanta extended its train lines and had very little increase in ridership to show for it. While there's certainly good reason to believe that LA would get a higher boost than Atlanta because of its density, it's hard to imagine that many people already accustomed to a car commute would switch over to public transit. It's hard getting people out of their cars in cities that are already very transit-oriented, little less cities that have never had a transit culture. For every family member you have that would ride transit, I know someone working as in-house counsel in LA who drives a 5 Series that would not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Myself, the only time I drive in New York City is if there's a large speed difference. I enjoy not having to worry about the road, though the lack of convenient parking is an added plus. If I lived in Brooklyn, I would never want to drive to Union Square just to save a few minutes. Plus, if I walk around I can find another subway stop. With a car, I have to walk back to it.
If you live in Brooklyn, it's definitely faster to drive to Manhattan on a Friday Night than walk to the train, wait for the train, deal with the stops, etc. If I'm going to the Harlem Tavern on 116th, I can fly up the FDR and be there in no time. If I'm going to a club off Houston, I'll drive and park. If I'm going to the US Open, I'll drive and park. It's not that big a deal.
They extended MARTA in Atlanta and people still drive. There's little point in taking public transit if there's free or cheap parking. Nearly all public transit riders are "captive" either in the sense that they can't afford a car or they can't afford a limo and driver (or daily cab fare) to drop them off at their Midtown office. Do you think most people would take a train in New York if they had door-to-door car service (which is actually common among NYC law and banking firms for late night commutes).
It is so cute to see naive, well meaning Angelenos like munchitup thinking that people will use PT if only given the option... or because the traffic is bad. Of course the truth is that the allure of the automobile is too great and most people will only use PT not out of preference but out of absolute necessity. Because cars are great. Mr Nonsense got that part right. Heck, if i could own a car and drive to work every day, practically and affordably, I'd love to do it. Then again -- I would have to live somewhere that looked like Houston or LA (or most other urban areas that pass for cities in this country). You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. So if you want Ray's favorite omelette of car friendly utopia you must accept a disfigured metropolis bereft of pedestrians, cris-crossed by freeways, and peppered with strip malls and parking lots.
Sorry bro, but DC is 60 sq miles with a density under 11,000 ppsm. That's not cutting it. I've heard arguments in favor of Chicago, San Francisco, and Philadelphia over Los Angeles for urbanity, and I can respect them and even see where the arguments make sense, but not DC. Too small, not dense enough. Really nice city though. I have a friend in Poolsville, Maryland. That whole area, and DC itself are really nice.
LA is a different kind of urban, but no less so than SF & DC. LA is sooo much bigger it doesnt have to answer to DC or SF or anyone not on their level.
I think the best way to explain this lies with lifestyle. L.A doesn't offer any neighborhoods that DC and San Fran offer. There is no equivalent in L.A. to the most urban neighborhoods in DC and San Fran. DC and San Fran offer rich, expensive, safe, and amenity high urban neighborhoods with high transit usage. L.A. can't offer the equivalent. That is the biggest difference.
Besides the fact that San Francisco is significantly denser in its core than DC, it's urban area is also more dense and compact as well. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
DC urban area: 1300 sq miles, population: 4.6 million
San Francisco: 528 sq miles, population: 3.3 million
Now, add San Jose's UA to San Francisco to form what is commonly known as The Bay Area:
San Francisco + San Jose UAs: 800 sq miles, population: 4.9 million
"The Bay Area" crams more people in far less space than Washington D.C. The Census Burueu can fool you into thinking DC is larger than San Francisco and environs, but not I, and anyone else who has been to both places. San Francisco feels larger (and more vibrant than anywhere outside Manhattan, though admittedly, I have not been to Philly).
Thats part of why Philly seems larger than DC because its larger denser core, both spread into very low density suburbs, but Philly is a little more captive. The SF bay area is contained more than DC's because of geography, so it will always be denser than DC, and SF is the extreme of that; landlocked on the peninsula surrounded by water. San Francisco will only become more dense and urban while DC can and is spreading out into the burbs....
They extended MARTA in Atlanta and people still drive. There's little point in taking public transit if there's free or cheap parking. Nearly all public transit riders are "captive" either in the sense that they can't afford a car or they can't afford a limo and driver (or daily cab fare) to drop them off at their Midtown office. Do you think most people would take a train in New York if they had door-to-door car service (which is actually common among NYC law and banking firms for late night commutes).
Here's the best answer. Most would still take transit, but the driving rate doubles.
Schaller's study found that of the 177,300 government employees working in Manhattan south of 59th Street, 47,400 or 27 percent drive to work. By contrast, only 14 percent of private sector employees drive. Two-thirds of these government workers are employees of the City of New York. For these city workers, free parking amounts to a $35 million per year perquisite.
Interestingly, financial workers are among the most likely to take transit into Manhattan, contrary to some stereotypes tossed here.
82 percent of Angelenos commute by automobile. Lifeshadower is clearly somewhat of an outlier here. Furthermore, 92 percent of LA's bus riders are described as "people of color" and have a median income of $12,000, which is already telling you that the overwhelming majority of those riders are likely immigrants who are unable to afford cars. There are also studies (I posted one once before) showing that these immigrants abandon public transit once they save up enough money to buy a car.
Even when you look at core LA zip codes, I don't think you'll find one where transit ridership is over 50 percent.
So, yes, I do think that the problem is the wide availability of parking. If 82 percent of Angelenos are driving to work every day, then they've got to be parking their cars somewhere. I seriously doubt they're paying $20-$30 for parking each time they go to work. That's essentially what most people would have to pay if they drive to work in DC or Boston.
You probably wouldn't.
As someone who doesn't commute for my job, I honestly don't know where most people park their cars and if they pay. I had an interview with a place in the Miracle Mile (Fairfax and Wilshire) and they had an underground lot that cost something like 100 a month to park in (might have been 75). My wife just got a new job downtown and it sounds like it comes with free parking in an underground lot (fancy building, it has valet). So some people in Los Angeles will have to pay, others will not - it really depends on the area but even then can be kind of random. Probably at this point most do not have to pay.
Another anecdote about working in LA and parking... I interned in West LA (the literal neighborhood by the 405) and had to drive in from way out of LA. While the building was very office-park feeling, it had very limited parking so I had to find street parking and move my car every 4 hours so I didn't get a ticket. This was after circling the block for a while too. This was a very suburban part of the city, near Olympic and Bundy, but even there traffic sucked and parking was only slightly better.
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.
