[slapshot]

> I understand that in Los Angeles, where the busses are awful...

This seems to be a common refrain, but it's also outdated. Both the bus and subway networks in LA are massively larger than in San Francisco (which, by the way, has the world's slowest bus fleet at 8.1 mph [1]). LA County is massively larger than San Francisco (including the equivalents of the entire Peninsula, Oakland, and Marin) and has sections of very dense bus service (any of the numbered streets plus Wilshire going west from downtown) and sections of very sparse bus service (Malibu). And it's all 25% cheaper than Muni too (with fewer strikes and many fewer naked people).

There are 13 subway stops under construction in LA and the LAX airport connector finally got approved with an actual train stop directly at LAX.

I'm not saying there aren't holes in the LA transport network, but it's better than many visitors realize.

[1] http://www.sfweekly.com/2010-04-14/news/the-muni-death-spira...

[ChrisNorstrom]

LA's public transit broke every misconception I had about it. It was fantastic. We actually ditched our rent-a-car and grabbed a $5/day transit pass and got to most of the places we wanted to go. All without being stuck in traffic. From Griffith Observatory to downtown, to long beach, to hollywood blvd. And it was super clean. The subway stations were beautiful. I can't wait to visit the city in a few more years after they build out the newer lines.

[harlanlewis]

I used to live in Long Beach, and you're right that the transit is quite good between heavily trafficked points and along major corridors.

But the huge area the system needs to cover means most of the resident population is significantly underserved. As a random sample, I just put the 15 miles between Lakewood to Carson into Google Maps and the transit routes start at 2 hours each way, even during peak hours! It's a 20 minute drive.

A major challenge for people living with limited means is how much slower life is when they're dependent on public transit to get around. LA's limited network removes many seemingly-accessible employment or education options entirely.

[lilsunnybee]

Thank you for bringing this up. Transit/transportation difficulties are often a huge strain if you're poor. People often wonder why poor people aren't en masse educating themselves to move up out of poverty, thinking they have plenty of time to spare for most things. When actually if you're poor everyday tasks, getting to and from work, buying groceries, etc. often take soo much longer! Having no money often means having no time as well, not even taking into account the added burden of parenting and cognitive stress from crippling poverty.

[dredmorbius]

NYC's bus fleet is slower than San Francisco's, with some routes netting 2-3 MPH.

Note that urban traffic speeds, net of stops, are often quite modest, and that "dwell times" and stop frequency have a profound impact.

Even BART, with its 80 MPH peak speeds, averages about 35 MPH for longer throughway routes. You can verify this roughly by comparing BART travel times with driving distances in Google Maps.

But cities with slow average transit speeds are also generally pretty dense. Remember, SF is 7 miles square, do even 8.1 MPH gets you from one end to the other in an hour (and that's pretty much a worst case).

Google Maps shows the SF Ferry Building to SF State (a cross-town trip) as 21 minutes by car (good luck with parking), or 39 minutes by transit.

Worse are trips between less-travelled areas. The Marina to SF Zoo is a 21 minute drive, but 1h2m by bus.

Driving from the Ferry Building to the de Young Museum in Golden Gate park is only 5.8 miles but would take 21 minutes -- that's 16.5 MPH, by car. Access to highways vs. surface streets makes a big difference.