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.
After a certain point, having more and more things in a short distance doesn't really change the walkability. It might make it more urban, more vibrant. It doesn't really matter whether there are 3 coffee shops (walkscore like to focus on them) or a dozen in walking distance.
It doesn't make that big a difference in that specific example because Adams-Morgan and Little Italy are both clearly walkable neighborhoods. But for someone with little knowledge of DC, the 7 point difference between Adams-Morgan and Takoma does not adequately convey the actual difference in walkability (and amenities) between the two neighborhoods. I would say that Adams-Morgan should be a good 15 to 20 points higher than Takoma. Easily.
I assume much of it is because there are more places public transit would be useful. Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto would all be in between New York City and San Francisco. Also, Vancouver increased transit usage without as far I can tell much change in parking availability.
You don't have to really think about it that hard, nei. The median income of bus riders (and bus riders are by far the predominant group of PT users in LA) is $12,000. It's easy to infer from that statistic that most bus riders are poor immigrants that cannot afford a car (they likely do not even have licenses, but that often doesn't stop people from driving). This is why Angelenos in the LA forum refer to the bus as "poor people's transit."
Contrast this against New York City where you have a much more varied demographic among bus riders.
So what you have essentially is a number of poor immigrants biasing the transit numbers for L.A. upwards. But studies show that immigrants move away from transit use once they can afford a car. And with a median income of $12,000, it's pretty clear that the majority of LA's bus riders cannot afford a car. These people are the definition of "captive riders" in car-centric cities. This is very different from NYC or DC where 98 percent of the associates at Wachtell, Skadden, Davis Polk or J.P. Morgan Chase commute to work by transit (these are also "captive" riders, btw, but the threshold of exclusion is so much higher in NYC and DC because parking is prohibitively expensive. Guys like Dick Fuld and Lloyd Blankfein would be "choice" riders since they clearly have enough money to easily avoid public transit). In Los Angeles, the overwhelming majority of these individuals would have cars (nice ones, too), and would drive them to work.
I do think I agree that LA's transit numbers are "skewed" a bit upwards because of lack of choice riders.
What I mean is that LA has a HUGE demographic of new-to-U.S. poor immigrants (only NYC rivals LA in numbers of immigrants from developing world), and those immigrants tend to use transit. And yet, despite this massive transit-friendly population, LA's overall transit numbers remain rather low (though not as low as some other newer cities).
I am guessing that the number of choice riders in LA is quite low. I'm not 100% certain, but based on my experiences in LA, people who can afford to avoid transit usually do so. There really isn't such a thing as a rich, transit friendly neighborhood in LA, at least not yet. There aren't even many middle class transit friendly neigborhoods, though there are a few.
I do think I agree that LA's transit numbers are "skewed" a bit upwards because of lack of choice riders.
I think all transit riders are "captive" riders. The only difference between NYC and LA is that "captive" riders are richer.
Just for the hell of it, I called to get a quote on a monthly parking pass in Lower Manhattan. I got a quote for $750.00. But the parking attendant told me they are running a "special" this month. Given the choice between $90 in monthly subway fare and $750 in monthly parking fees, I think it's safe to assume that most people are going to take transit. Only the very wealthy can truly afford not to take public transit at that cost.
I personally would not consider myself a "choice" rider. I'm largely indifferent to public transit and only ride it because I have no other feasible option. When the opportunity presents itself to drive, I usually take it. And from the link that nei posted earlier, many New Yorkers often take it as well. The cheaper parking is in a city, the weaker the incentive is to ride public transit. It's nearly impossible to have a transit culture with abundant parking.
I don't think anyone would claim that LA is exactly like Atlanta. But, if you were to group cities based on common characteristics, LA would fall more into the Dallas/Houston/Atlanta boat than the NYC/Boston/Philly boat.
Now, granted, this is a separate issue from whether or not LA has a "big city mindset". LA is huge, and feels huge. Excepting NYC, no city in the U.S. can compare to LA in "big city feel". LA makes Chicago, SF, Boston, etc. feel like mid-sized cities, IMO.
This is just nuts. Unless you're talking about the LA's "region," the city of LA-- downtown -- seems like a mid-sized city, and absolutely no bigger. The region, yes, is large and incredibly spread out and sprawling, so it is massive but if you're talking downtown, it's not at all impressive in any imagineable sense. For a city with it's population size, the city/core is underwhelming at best.
Also, it's incredibly apparent that you have never been to Chicago otherwise you'd (hopefully) censor comments like the one above.
LA is just a weird city. When Metro or MARTA first opened up in D.C. and Atlanta, the people just took it or didn't. It's hardly a matter of discussion. In LA you'll have the wiz kids telling all their friends they rode the train for the first time and that they should try it too. It's like going to Disney World and tweeting about it. It's not meant to be a conversation starter but it's still a powerful marketing tool, word of mouth.
LA's been investing lots of money in its "urban living" campaigns and it's obvious. From the new Samsung Galaxy III commercial to movies like Takers, they're doing everything they can to expose urban living in downtown.
This is just nuts. Unless you're talking about the LA's "region," the city of LA-- downtown -- seems like a mid-sized city, and absolutely no bigger.
Well, yeah, obviously LA's downtown does not feel super huge, but downtown LA is like 2% of LA. Why would you base LA's overall feel by only looking at a single neighborhood? Downtown isn't even the most important or iconic part of LA. I've been to LA dozens of times, and only been downtown twice.
LA, overall (and no, I'm not talking about the whole Southland region, but really just LA) feels absolutely huge. What difference does it make that downtown LA is puny? I mean, downtown Sao Paulo is puny too. Same with downtown Mexico City. Those cities feel absolutely MASSIVE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLake
Also, it's incredibly apparent that you have never been to Chicago otherwise you'd (hopefully) censor comments like the one above.
I think this may be the silliest comment in this whole thread. Chicago, in no way, feels as massive as LA. Not even close. LA feels absolutely huge, and goes on forever, relative to Chicago. Do a nighttime landing at LAX, and compare with ORD. There's no comparison.
You don't have to really think about it that hard, nei. The median income of bus riders (and bus riders are by far the predominant group of PT users in LA) is $12,000. It's easy to infer from that statistic that most bus riders are poor immigrants that cannot afford a car (they likely do not even have licenses, but that often doesn't stop people from driving). This is why Angelenos in the LA forum refer to the bus as "poor people's transit."
Contrast this against New York City where you have a much more varied demographic among bus riders.
So what you have essentially is a number of poor immigrants biasing the transit numbers for L.A. upwards. But studies show that immigrants move away from transit use once they can afford a car. And with a median income of $12,000, it's pretty clear that the majority of LA's bus riders cannot afford a car. These people are the definition of "captive riders" in car-centric cities. This is very different from NYC or DC where 98 percent of the associates at Wachtell, Skadden, Davis Polk or J.P. Morgan Chase commute to work by transit (these are also "captive" riders, btw, but the threshold of exclusion is so much higher in NYC and DC because parking is prohibitively expensive. Guys like Dick Fuld and Lloyd Blankfein would be "choice" riders since they clearly have enough money to easily avoid public transit). In Los Angeles, the overwhelming majority of these individuals would have cars (nice ones, too), and would drive them to work.
21.5% of riders had a household icome of $100,000+
34.5% of riders had a household income of $75,000-99,999
15.6% of riders had a household income of $50,000-74,999
18.6% of riders had a household income of $35,000-49,999
13.3% of riders had a household income of $25,000-34,999
18% had a household income below $25k
Compare to New York:
25.2% of riders had a household icome of $100,000+
37.6% of riders had a household income of $75,000-99,999
15% of riders had a household income of $50,000-74,999
18% of riders had a household income of $35,000-49,999
12.3% of riders had a household income of $25,000-34,999
17.1% had a household income below $25k
If that first breakdown is for LA, I don't believe those numbers. No way in hell more than half of LA bus riders have incomes of 75k+. That's not realistic.
Keep in mind that the overall population of LA households won't have that proportion of 75k+ incomes. It's basically saying that LA bus riders are richer than the average Angelino, which doesn't pass the smell test.
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.
