> He's talking about Los Angeles specifically, not California generally. And I meant not just California as a whole, but California's metro areas and cities to

> He's talking about Los Angeles specifically, not California generally. And I meant not just California as a whole, but California's metro areas and cities too. Los Angeles isn't that dense. > But that needs to happen first This is wrong. Transportation and land use are complementary, and development in each should happen (and has to happen) in parallel. If anything, since LA has been building rail the last couple decades, it's really zoning that needs to catch up: more people would actually use transit if they lived within easy walking distance of it. > I also think its important to acknowledge the reality of the tradeoffs. LA tried building out of traffic by doubling down on freeways and sprawl enablement for decades, and it only succeeded in making the problem worse. The only logical response is to try something new, perhaps something that's already proven successful in many other cities around the globe.