Not to mention that the things to do in LA are so spread out. If you try to visit the city with the intention of visiting as many destinations as possible, you'll be spending more time in the car getting to these places then you will actually being at these places.
by next year with the opening of the expo line, public transit will surpass that of the bay area, and within the next 15 years will be in the same league as new york. a lot of money is being spent on it.
I doubt that. You need high density living spaces along with public transportation to get New York. LA is huge suburban sprawl that's too widespread. No rail network can cover that huge area.
Maybe if they took that diagram and put the entire thing in Santa Monica, you can probably make Santa Monica like NYC.
Sure, if you're considering all the suburbs/metro area surrounding NYC. If you're really looking at the city, then it's 26k people/square mile, not 5000. Kind of a huge difference.
i was talking about public transit coverage, i have no idea what you're referring to when you say "to get New York". LA is not new york. that's the whole point of LA. they built it on the west coast to get away from the east coast.
So true. I listen to the itineraries of people I know who visited. "Had brunch in WeHo, then went out to Malibu to the ocean, then to this sushi place that someone recommended in Van Nuys, and then back to the Santa Monica to see the sunset." And then followed up with, "It was nice, but the traffic was terrible." It hurts.
