3 ms·

Agreed. I don't think the current situation is better. Angelinos are paying the price for it in their time, their health and with their wallets. However, I thi

Agreed. I don't think the current situation is better. Angelinos are paying the price for it in their time, their health and with their wallets. However, I think moving LA towards higher density development (similar to a New York, London, Tokyo, Berlin) is the correct approach. Why are people spending 2 hours in traffic and commuting 50 miles each way, every day? It is because housing is un-affordable closer to the jobs. Even run down houses in crime ridden neighborhoods are ridiculously priced.

deaddodo 7y ago
> However, I think moving LA towards higher density development (similar to a New York, London, Tokyo, Berlin) is the correct approach. And how do you suppose LA does that? LA isn't a centralized city. Relatively little of it's business and traffic is going to DTLA specifically. People are going to Pasadena, Santa Monica, Culver City, Encino, Sherman Oaks, West Hollywood, etc and they're all coming from various places (SGV, South LA, the Valley). All higher density development would do is exacerbate the issue, we need the public infrastructure to catch up so it can handle higher densities.
- bluGill 7y ago
  If you look at an actual density map, LA is actually a lot denser than you give it credit for. There is no technical reason transit cannot get 40% of the population to work in a reasonable amount of time compared to driving. However in order to get there LA needs to invest in a lot more buses in dedicated lanes, and trains - both of which are not cheap. Don't forget to account for the overhead. In the long run it would be cheaper for everybody in LA if that investment was made, but in the short run a large investment is needed. It doesn't help that transit costs 4x-7x as much to build in the US vs Spain. It also doesn't help that nobody cares about good investments - republicans hate transit and won't invest in anything if they can avoid it. Democrats love the idea of transit and waste a lot of money on slow, expensive lines to nowhere that nobody rides thus proving the republicans right that transit is a bad investment.
- alistairSH 7y ago
  Wholistic zoning changes might help... Prioritize dense, mixed-use development within ~.5 miles of transit hubs. Every new subway/light-rail station should include rezoning with a focus on a livable mix of commercial, residential, and retail. Remove parking minimums. Let the market determine how much parking is available and how much it costs. Plentiful, free parking is not a right. Remove single-family zoning (allow accessory dwelling units and duplexes in existing SFH zones). None of this will work overnight. It will take years. But, the basic goal is to make living near work achievable and desirable.

deaddodo 7y ago

> However, I think moving LA towards higher density development (similar to a New York, London, Tokyo, Berlin) is the correct approach. And how do you suppose LA does that? LA isn't a centralized city. Relatively little of it's business and traffic is going to DTLA specifically. People are going to Pasadena, Santa Monica, Culver City, Encino, Sherman Oaks, West Hollywood, etc and they're all coming from various places (SGV, South LA, the Valley). All higher density development would do is exacerbate the issue, we need the public infrastructure to catch up so it can handle higher densities.

bluGill 7y ago
If you look at an actual density map, LA is actually a lot denser than you give it credit for. There is no technical reason transit cannot get 40% of the population to work in a reasonable amount of time compared to driving. However in order to get there LA needs to invest in a lot more buses in dedicated lanes, and trains - both of which are not cheap. Don't forget to account for the overhead. In the long run it would be cheaper for everybody in LA if that investment was made, but in the short run a large investment is needed. It doesn't help that transit costs 4x-7x as much to build in the US vs Spain. It also doesn't help that nobody cares about good investments - republicans hate transit and won't invest in anything if they can avoid it. Democrats love the idea of transit and waste a lot of money on slow, expensive lines to nowhere that nobody rides thus proving the republicans right that transit is a bad investment.
alistairSH 7y ago
Wholistic zoning changes might help... Prioritize dense, mixed-use development within ~.5 miles of transit hubs. Every new subway/light-rail station should include rezoning with a focus on a livable mix of commercial, residential, and retail. Remove parking minimums. Let the market determine how much parking is available and how much it costs. Plentiful, free parking is not a right. Remove single-family zoning (allow accessory dwelling units and duplexes in existing SFH zones). None of this will work overnight. It will take years. But, the basic goal is to make living near work achievable and desirable.