Toilet Fleet wrote:ross has his correct points about what makes LA suck but the transit thing has gotten so much better and is already much better than any number of big cities in the u.s. that i kind of wonder what efforts he took to use it. in LA proper, the metro is pretty great. that there is a three plus hour window of nonuse is kinda lame, but the blue line runs all the way to long beach, and the expo extension to santa monica is gonna be open in like a month. and suburbs/exurbs are well serviced by metrolink that compares favorably to other light rail. it's easier for poor people to afford car expenses than the rents near most metro-serviced areas, but that's the truth basically every place that has subway/light rail service—plus there isn't a mass transit culture out here yet, which will take time
yeah, SF seems similar - you'll have a good time if you're near rail, a terrible time if you're on a bus.
you're right that I didn't put much effort into transit. the stuff we wanted to do was in Alhambra & W Hollywood - driving was ~40 min and transit would be ~90 min. that's slow but not impossible. it's just that things are SO spread out; it feels like anytime you're in an area to do a thing, there's just that thing and not that many neighborhoods/districts where you can walk around and have a good time in that area. I've deliberately spent
very little time there, so of course I could be missing a ton. but from what I've seen in Hollywood & Beverly hills, when there
is density of stuff-to-do, it's a sort of BAD density.