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.
You should make a video. I simply used Google to see what the commute was like. In nearly all cities, including NYC, it is invariably faster to commute by car than transit. But most people on the East Coast will not commute by car because the parking is too expensive.
You looked on google, yet I didn't tell you where I live in Northridge (Note: It's actually not far from an Orange Line Station. 2-3 miles, tops). So, there goes your speculation. Whoopsie daisie!
That's also why I commute via transit vs. car. Parking and gas isn't cheap, and I made a decision based on how much I want to save over the next year. I was given the choice between a metro pass and free parking, and a free commute will ALWAYS win vs. paying for it.
Quote:
I don't know about people "tweeting" about it, but you sure do see a lot of posts and threads on the topic. This is not something that comes up very often in the NYC, DC or Philly forums because the public transit, urban and walkable lifestyle is very much ingrained in those cities. I have no interest in making a video about something that 8 million other people do along with me on a daily basis. I'd rather make a video of me taking out the trash.
I didn't know that City Data (and not even all of City Data, just the City vs City forum as I see more people complaining about LA in the LA forum than post about public transportation) was representative of millions of people in real life.
What you're saying is that Angelenos aren't allowed to speak on this subject, and that we should just sit back and let anyone say anything without trying to at least alleviate some of the misconceptions about the city?
FYI: Before my thread got deleted, I sure as hell peaked the interest of a lot of the posters here, many of whom are from Philly, DC, NYC, etc.. So there goes your theory about no one being interested on a City Enthusiast forum!
Last edited by Lifeshadower; 08-29-2012 at 11:03 AM..
Not really during rush hour. Compare google car times (with traffic) for public transit commute times. And many times, even if transit is slower, it's not by much.
No, even during rush hour. If you live in Bergen County, it's faster to drive into Manhattan than it is to take transit. It's not like the train into the city is right by your house. You have to drive to it, park, ge to the platform, etc. Sometimes that alone can take 20 to 30 minutes.
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."
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 definitiioon of "captive riders" in car-centric cities.]
So the majority of riders on LA's subway, lightrail, Metrobus, Rapid Transit, Big Blue Bus, Culver City Transit and every other LA transit company are poor immigrants? And the average salary is $12000? I use it and that is a bunch of BS! Ride it and see for yourself.
Don't get mad at me. I just go with what the data says. And the data does not say that the average salary is $12,000. It says that the median salary is $12,000. That means that half of the bus riders in Los Angeles earn less than that.
How can the median salary be 12k if only 39% earn less than 25k a year?
That article is a complete joke, like about 3/4 of the content on Atlantic Cities. Which is why a real writer, Jarrett Walker was so moved to write a rebuttle.
IHowever, if we are talking downtown's and urbanity, LA is simply small compared to Chicago's downtown. LA is on Seattle or San Francisco's level yet with a lot less vibrancy in the inner core. It is "nowhere" near as large or vibrant as Chicago's downtown. You're not really going to argue this point are you? Are you?
Of course I'm not going to argue that LA's downtown is big compared to Chicago's downtown. Everyone knows that LA has a very small downtown relative to overall size. It's much smaller than that of Chicago, DC, or even SF.
But LA, as a whole, feels much bigger than Chicago, as a whole, because LA actually is much bigger than Chicago. 4 million compared to 2.7 million; 18 million compared to 9 million. LA just goes on and on and on, with fairly high density over a vast area.
LA's true "core" isn't even downtown. It's basically the area from Westwood to Hollywood. This area has no rail, no city-subsidized mega-redevelopment, nothing. It's what people around the world think of, though, when they think LA. Palm trees, celebrities, glamour, etc. That's a better equivalent to downtown Chicago, if you're looking for the iconic heart of the region.
How can the median salary be 12k if only 39% earn less than 25k a year?
Because the link refers to "HHI" or Household Income. It's not uncommon for immigrants to have more than two incomes in one household. Two people working at McDonald's would have an HHI in excess of $25,000 per year.
Because the link refers to "HHI" or Household Income. It's not uncommon for immigrants to have more than two incomes in one household. Two people working at McDonald's would have an HHI in excess of $25,000 per year.
That's possibly because the article is referring to bus riders in the city of Los Angeles whereas the data is referring to the County. That's one possible explanation.
That's possibly because the article is referring to bus riders in the city of Los Angeles whereas the data is referring to the County. That's one possible explanation.
Perhaps, but I doubt it. Going off the county stats that are available, the 12k figure is clearly incorrect and probably by a decent margin. The majority of riders in LA County are in the city itself, I just have a hard time believing the smaller number of riders from around the county are enough to boost the HHI average by that large of a margin.
I just think that Atlantic author was going off of questionable information and tried to pass it off as fact. Not surprising considering the publication.
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.
