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 said that it "functions more like Phoenix or Dallas than NYC." And that's absolutely true. The city has a car-dominated culture. There's no denying that.
Closer to Portland and a little behind Seattle as far as car-commuter rates, I believe. So more right in the middle than at the bottom.
And with the rapid progress being made on the transit systems and the obvious willingness to fund transit expansion, the city may not be as car-crazy as you let on.
As a comparison, according to the most recent Census statistics, 7.1% of Los Angeles County residents take transit to work and 11.0% of Los Angeles City residents do the same.* There is certainly room for improvement.
* Those figures, by the way, put Los Angeles (both city and county) near the top of American cities. This is not a particularly car-obsessed city by U.S. standards.
It's not really a number to be proud of - but the city recognizes this and is working to fix this issue.
Your incessant refusal of wanting LA to be more like NYC is out of spite. Why would you not want a core area where all the energy is? Barcelona, Madrid, Milan, Amsterdam, Prague, you name it, they all got it and they have it in the core. Tell me how your tourists feel when they barely know how to drive and have to rent a car to go where they want?
Please, don't give me that rubbish about your bus system. Buses are an inferior transportation system.
"F*** Scarlett Johansson. I didn't want that h** anyway! Besides, who says that tig ole' bitties, an hourglass figure, a round backside, and lustruous hair is the defintion of beauty! Who decided that??? There are many forms of beauty, including Rosie O'Donnell. You can keep Scarlett Johansson for all I care. Rosie O'Donnell is prettier, slimmer, has a rounder backside, and has more lustruous hair than stupid Scarlett anyway. Take that!"
Well, if "urban" means car culture, lack of transit, and lack of an active pedestrian life over a large area, you can keep it.
You win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
There's a bit of cognitive dissonance here. You can't say "Who cares that we're an auto-centric city. That means nothing! That's not indicative of urbanity!" and then turn around and say, "Look at our transit numbers!" (which are still lackluster).
Yup, from you. Munchitup and I are not the same person.
Closer to Portland and a little behind Seattle as far as car-commuter rates, I believe. So more right in the middle than at the bottom.
82 percent of the people in Portland and Seattle drive? That would not surprise me actually, as I only think those cities get hyped up because the standard for "urbanity" in America is so ridiculously low.
"F*** Scarlett Johansson. I didn't want that h** anyway! Besides, who says that tig ole' bitties, an hourglass figure, a round backside, and lustruous hair is the defintion of beauty! Who decided that??? There are many forms of beauty, including Rosie O'Donnell. You can keep Scarlett Johansson for all I care. Rosie O'Donnell is prettier, slimmer, has a rounder backside, and has more lustruous hair than stupid Scarlett anyway. Take that!"
Exactly Bajan,
Here's a litmus test. Prague, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Toronto, Milan, Rome, LA, and Barcelona.
Which one stands out?
Which one is the clear outlier for pedestrians?
Which one will foreign immigrants have the hardest time getting around in?
Why wouldn't you want LA to be more like NYC? Wouldn't you want to see Downtown LA as successful as Lower Manhattan? I'm inclined to believe that if it was, we wouldn't hear the end of it. That alone tells me that you secretly do want the Manhattanization of LA.
Your incessant refusal of wanting LA to be more like NYC is out of spite. Why would you not want a core area where all the energy is? Barcelona, Madrid, Milan, Amsterdam, Prague, you name it, they all got it and they have it in the core. Tell me how your tourists feel when they barely know how to drive and have to rent a car to go where they want?
Please, don't give me that rubbish about your bus system. Buses are an inferior transportation system.
I'd like to se DTLA fulfill its potential, to stand out as the absolute best of SoCal's many CBDs. It will never be the center of energy other downtowns are, and that's fine. It doesn't need to be. Just get better (which it is).
Beyond that, no, I like the way L.A. is. I'm not interested in cramming 90% of everything there is to see and do in the metropolitan region into a 5 sq mile area. L.A.'s polycentricism is by far its greatest strength. I'll take a great region over a great downtown anyday.
As for how the tourists feel, I'll have to ask them. They number in the God knows how many millions every year, so it could take awhile before I get all their feelings down.
82 percent of the people in Portland and Seattle drive? That would not surprise me actually, as I only think those cities get hyped up because the standard for "urbanity" in America is so ridiculously low.
Yep, Seattle is definitely a few percentages higher though (maybe more like 17%). There's a graph floating around that shows them around the same place (particularly Portland).
LA has more riders, riders per mile, and track mileage than the (rightly so) lauded Portland LRT system and is still growing. And that doesn't even count the subway line.
"F*** Scarlett Johansson. I didn't want that h** anyway! Besides, who says that tig ole' bitties, an hourglass figure, a round backside, and lustruous hair is the defintion of beauty! Who decided that??? There are many forms of beauty, including Rosie O'Donnell. You can keep Scarlett Johansson for all I care. Rosie O'Donnell is prettier, slimmer, has a rounder backside, and has more lustruous hair than stupid Scarlett anyway. Take that!"
This is funny, considering how badly L.A. lords over most cities in popularity, desirability and COL.
I wouldn't refer to dating Scarlet Joe as a "captive lifestyle" either, which is how you referred to the transit lifestyle earlier. That cracked me up.
Yep, Seattle is definitely a few percentages higher though (maybe more like 17%). There's a graph floating around that shows them around the same place (particularly Portland).
This shows Atlanta being ahead of LA. That's not a good look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
LA has more riders, riders per mile, and track mileage than the (rightly so) lauded Portland LRT system and is still growing. And that doesn't even count the subway line.
Los Angeles has 3.7 million people. Portland has 600,000 in approximately 134 sq. miles. That shouldn't be surprising. That would be like China boasting about defeating Equitorial Guinea in a ground war.
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.
