4 ms·

I never understood the whole "designing infrastructure better" thing. Most large cities are fully built out. You can't design infrastructure better as the infr

I never understood the whole "designing infrastructure better" thing. Most large cities are fully built out. You can't design infrastructure better as the infrastructure is already there. Maybe on brand new places being built, but that won't help Chicago or San Francisco or Los Angeles. You can't just use eminent domain and take out all buildings and highrises on both sides of Market Street in San Francisco to build a 10 foot wide roadway only for bicycles on each side. It's the same with public transportation as well, especially light rail. To put in light rail in some cities, you would have to rip up tens of thousands of homes and businesses. I never did get this whole argument. It's like saying that you should make a better infrastructure for the human body. I for one, would like it if my anus would be right over my achilles tendon, that way if I shit my pants, it wouldn't dribble all down my leg, it would just be there on the ground already with minimum fuss.

wizofaus 4y ago
> the infrastructure is already there Yes but it needs constant maintenance. Choosing to keep repairing it in order for it to keep serving its current purpose (as a pathway exclusively for large motorised vehicles) might be the easiest option, but it's still a choice that has to be made. Undoubtedly the existence of buildings/residences/other infrastructure puts restraints on what you can do to redesign particular roads etc., but it doesn't make it impossible. And from what I recall, many (most?) of LA's freeways look as though they were simply built over the top of an already "fully built out" city anyway.
- FrontierPsych 4y ago
  >many (most?) of LA's freeways look as though they were simply built over the top of an already "fully built out" city anyway. Yes, however, it's not happening now. There are no more freeways being built in the city of Los Angeles. It's all just so silly to me. For example, you take a street like Santa Monica Blvd in Los Angeles. It's a large main artery within the city. It goes from the Pacific Ocean to the Silver Lake district where it meets up with Sunset Blvd, which also goes from the Pacific Ocean to Downtown Los Angeles. So are you and others saying to completely disallow any cars at all on those main arteries? To turn them into one long bike path? So that all the cars have to go down the side streets and clog up all those side roads, which will definitely be infinitely worse for traffic? Or are you saying to ban cars altogether and not allow any cars to be used anywhere, for any purpose, and we go back to horse and carts? Right now, bicyclists can use the suburban side streets. Despite being in Los Angeles, the side streets are empty almost all of the time. I walk a lot and don't use the main arteries, but use the side streets. Hell, I walk right down the middle of these suburban side streets if I want, there are so few cars. Despite being Los Angeles, these LA suburban streets are the same as those in Lincoln Nebraska or Little Rock Arkansas, traffic-wise. Not in Downtown LA, of course, but that's the exception, not the rule. The downtown area is tiny compared to the city of LA. LA is completely filled with non-busy suburban streets. Go to Google maps and look yourself. It's the exact same with San Francisco or Sacramento or any other city. Not everywhere, not in the highest density of downtown areas. But people really are not specifying that they are only talking about those areas. They are talking about cities in general, the entire city, which is a LOT bigger than just the extreme downtown areas of any major city. I just fail to understand what the issue is. To me, it really isn't about bike paths or pedestrian paths or anything like that. That's just an excuse. The real reason is just to get rid of cars, to get rid of cars. If that's the case, just be honest about it.
  - davidw 4y ago
    It's not all or none. You could easily add some protected bike lanes here and still allow automobiles: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.09075,-118.3372144,3a,75y,270.61h,85.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si_7swdrZZ_uPT0pQVvgQ3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@34.09075,-118.3372144,3a,75y,27... Or you could put those bike lanes a block or two over. Lots of ways to do this without 'completely disallowing cars'.
    - FrontierPsych 4y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean on the google map you show. Personally, I would just go down Lexington Street which is one block over and no traffic. I see these bike lanes in super heavily traffic arteries and no way would I personally go down them. All it takes is one tiny slip on the part of the bike rider or the auto driver and you end up as a grill decoration. I'm NOT anti bike. I just think as a bike rider, you have the responsibility to figure out alternate routes. I would feel this way for myself. I don't ride a bike now, but when I did, I always tried to find alternate routes that kept me off main thoroughfares. Maybe you do, I don't know, but that's not my point, really. I just think that there are a certain vocal minority that wants the same rights on public roads as automobiles have, and that is the only reason. And they do, I always give bikers wide berth and respect them. But the fact of the matter is that main arteries are by nature going to be more dangerous, even with those little tiny bike lanes. What is the problem with going the side streets, if you can? I'm not saying it is always possible, but when it is, why not? I work on a major thoroughfare in LA but walk every day, but do it on the side streets. It's a million times better - no traffic noise, no cars. As I said, I can walk right down the middle of the street, which I have done on occasion. For sure I can do that street crossing where you saunter diagonally across the road, not worried about a crosswalk. Every driver that goes by is going 25 mph, so easy for each to see each other and reaction time is better.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    > I just fail to understand what the issue is. That to me suggests you've had very little exposure to cities that haven't so thoroughly given themselves over to one single mode of transport. Or that all the issues from having so many people depend on private cars to get almost anywhere simply don't bother you - but there are more than a few of us who feel very differently. I'd think LA is almost an ideal city for a (necessarily slow) transformation away from car dependency, given its density, climate and terrain, and indeed it would happen anyway if so much time, effort and money wasn't dedicated to maintaining such a massive road network - though simply neglecting it would obviously result in a fairly unpleasant transition for most. It would definitely require far more vision and willingness to break away from "what we've always been doing" than I suspect any of those currently in charge have. LA is certainly not exceptional in that regard - I'd say the same for basically all major cities in Australia too.
Timshel 4y ago
Strange argument, you do realize that the same fact applied to all the large cities now known for cycling ? search for Amsterdam from the 1970s for example. Things like protected intersections (https://momentummag.com/protected-intersections-latest-trend-cycling-safety/ https://momentummag.com/protected-intersections-latest-trend...) do not take more space. Things that play against many American city is that density might not be sufficient, but for cities like SF density is probably enough and you have so much space dedicated to cars that you can reclain. On Market Street i can see some non protected bike lane that were already reclaimed from car lane. In some years this might turn in protected bike lane. By just reducing the width of car lanes (which help reduce speeding) you can probably build bike lane in many US streets ...
- FrontierPsych 4y ago
  >search for Amsterdam from the 1970s for example. Everyone always compares Europe to the USA. What works there is a non-starter in the USA because first, yes, we have a different culture, but also, the density in Copenhagen is way different than in most USA cities. It can work in some places, but not in all. Sure, in the city centers you can have the intersections, that's fine. But in California, like in Los Angeles, it is so huge that some people would have to ride 30-50 miles to their workplace. Because the USA is a lot bigger. Also I noticed in the photos you linked to that the streets are just one lane each direction. Totally a no go, it wouldn't work. It would be totally impossible on main city arteries. However, even in Los Angeles, if you go down the side streets, there's hardly any cars there. Shit, I walk down the middle of these suburban streets with no problem. Not at 8 am or 5 pm when the commutes begin, but during the day there's hardly any traffic, even on the streets the next one over from the main city artery streets. Just about any bicycle rider should be able to get to wherever they want using the back streets - the streets off the main arteries. So it is a little out of the way and not a straight shot, but that's the whole point of riding a bicycle, is to be on the bicycle and also to get exercise, so who cares if one goes out of the way just a little bit. But it just seems like bicyclists want to use the main vehicle arteries....just because. I mean, even if you make these arteries more bike friendly, believe me, they will still be fantastically more dangerous than just taking the side streets. It's nuts. I only walk on the side streets everywhere, it's so much more satisfying than the noise of main arteries. As far as Market Street in San Francisco goes, you can ride your bike down Minna, for example. But what I'm saying with San Francisco does not really have to do with bicycles. I'm talking about Muni, not bicycles. I used Muni for years, and it makes sense in a city like San Francisco. It is great - go downtown, you avoid d traffic and don't have to worry about parking. But this is not the same in other cities. It's ridiculous in Los Angeles, for example, which is spread out all over fuck. Also, people always seem to compare to Copenhagen. First, it is their culture. We have a different culture, and I'm not even talking about cars vs bikes. But it is unfair comparison because Copenhagen is unique. You don't have this in London, or Berlin, or any other country. Copenhagen is an outlier, probably the only one. And additionally, while super hardcore and super fit bicyclists might be able to ride anywhere in San Francisco, let's see a normal person take a bike ride up California Street from the Financial District to Pacific Heights. Good luck with that one. >By just reducing the width of car lanes (which help reduce speeding) you can probably build bike lane in many US streets It depends, but honestly, I don't see it. Like on Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards, no way, just no way. Those are the main arteries from the Pacific Ocean to downtown LA. Going down to one lane? Nope. Just impossible. However, there are tons of suburban streets, that I mentioned that are a way better and massively less stressful for a bike rider. You have to sometimes zig and zag, but so what? It's a block or two to go around a park or whatever. This is in Los Angeles. And even in San Francisco, must of the city is suburban streets. Sunset, Richmond, Excelsior, Potrero Hill, Noe Valley and the rest - all of these you can ride on off the main arteries. But sure, downtown is always different. But bike riders are going to want a bike lane ALL the way down Mission Street, just because. No reason, except "just because." I mean, I know I'll always get pushback. There will always be, "yeah, but this and that."
pwinnski 4y ago
> You can't just use eminent domain and take out all buildings and highrises on both sides of Market Street in San Francisco to build a 10 foot wide roadway only for bicycles on each side. The goal isn't to create pedestrian and cyclist space from building footprints, it's to repurpose the existing roads and streets away from cars, to pedestrian and cyclist use. Here are a few links to examples of successful conversions. Please note that no buildings were torn down to make any of this happen. https://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-design-guide/streets/pedestrian-priority-spaces/pedestrian-only-streets/pedestrian-streets-case-study-stroget-copenhagen/ https://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-... https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2022/06/21/seven-stroads-have-been-converted-streets https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2022/06/21/seven-stroads-ha... I live in a suburb of Dallas, Texas. Most people would say it's "fully built out" despite the oodles of new construction happening just slightly farther away from the city center. Still, light rail is being built right through Plano and Richardson and Addison, all existing built-out suburbs. The "Silver Line" will be done in a few years without tearing down tens of thousands of existing homes and businesses. https://dart.org/about/project-and-initiatives/expansion/silver-line-project https://dart.org/about/project-and-initiatives/expansion/sil...
- FrontierPsych 4y ago
  I read the links, but yeah, so I still don't get it. First of all, I don't get why it would be necessary to convert those streets on the first link you provided. On the first photograph, the sidewalks look empty. There are no impediments to walking down that street, although really, it is a dishonest comparison - one that is probably the worst black and white photo to make the first one seem as bleak as possible, and the second in color with people there dressed in summer clothes. But be that as it may, it's only aesthetic purposes only. It's not like some life-changing functionality. Also, as I look at it on Google maps in that example that you gave of Strøget in Copenhagen Denmark, it's only one street. The rest of Copenhagen is chock-a-block full of regular city streets, same as any other major city. Color me unimpressed. In Santa Monica, there's a pedestrian shopping street where no cars are allowed. It's on 3rd Street. All kinds of stupid shit like palm readers and people preaching Jesus, although it is "upscale." So what? Lot's tourists walk up and down, but I've never been a guy who is into tourist traps that attract suckers to places with a lot of shops and sidewalk cafes that people pay high prices for mediocre food. But that's just me. It's all overhyped. Like Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco. That whole street in Capenhagen that you linked to is hilariously funny, now that I look at it. I'm on Google street maps, and it is completely lined with shops like Louis Vuitton, Prada, Gucci and other super high-end shops. I guess it is a great place for ultra-high end people to go to to spend $10,000 on a purse. I'm sure it keep the riff-raff out. The poor don't deserve a pedestrian place, I guess. Just so not impressed. And then, to walk down this Stroget in Copenhagen, you still have to drive there, and then park somewhere, probably far away, and walk down city streets a long way to get there. And for me, for my money, if one wants to visit a nice place, instead of me going to this high-priced tourist trap, that quite honestly I'll go to some place I have to walk down a sidewalk next to a busy street to a store that is honest, run by honest people, rather than a Gucci store in some high-end place like 3rd street in Santa Monica. And furthermore, if I want a nice place to walk and get away from everyone, I'll just drive for 5 more minutes and go to Topanga State Park, a massive park, with almost unlimited walking trails. Why would I give a shit about some walking street tourist trap? A place to walk around and buy shit, or should I say shit, and contribute more to the global warming by buying shit. Gucci handbags for $10,000. So yeah, having a pedestian place to walk is so great. For the well-heeled crowd. . As far as light rail, that has to be the most stupidist of the stupid. Yes, it works in dense population areas like San Francisco and New York, for sure, but those places are rare in the USA. When I lived in Sacramento, California, and they put in a light rail. What a complete joke. I had to drive over some light rail tracks at least twice a day, during all hours. I never saw more than 3 people per car. Ever. Even in the morning commute hours. Because Sacramento is so spread out. It's ridiculous. They spent $500 million on it. Plus the ongoing maintenance of the rail cars, rails, the administrators, the railcar drivers and their benefits and pensions, and on and on for ongoing expenses. If you use the light rail, it costs $2.50 per ticket, so $5 for the day to commute. If you have a 10 mile commute to, and 10 mile commute back, if your vehicle gets 20 miles to the gallon, it costs $4.50 to drive, and this is at current gasoline prices. A few years ago, it cost $3 instead of $5. Plus you have the added flexibility with a car to pick up your kids from school, go to a shop, or whatever. Why would transportation, that carries 60 people in a train car, maybe with 3 cars total of 120 people, or whatever it is, and the cost averaged out between all the riders, cost more than the cost of driving the same distance? It doesn't make any sense at all. Maybe if rides cost 25 cents or 50 cents, yeah, ok, maybe. As far as I'm concerned, these light rail projects are more resume builders for the city council and mayor. They will spend $1 billion just to say that they did it under their watch. Bragging rights. "Look at me, look at me, look what I did, I spend $1 billion on a light rail project." But most of the USA is not like Europe, so what works in Europe is not the same as the USA. So it's comparing apples to oranges.

wizofaus 4y ago

> the infrastructure is already there Yes but it needs constant maintenance. Choosing to keep repairing it in order for it to keep serving its current purpose (as a pathway exclusively for large motorised vehicles) might be the easiest option, but it's still a choice that has to be made. Undoubtedly the existence of buildings/residences/other infrastructure puts restraints on what you can do to redesign particular roads etc., but it doesn't make it impossible. And from what I recall, many (most?) of LA's freeways look as though they were simply built over the top of an already "fully built out" city anyway.

FrontierPsych 4y ago
>many (most?) of LA's freeways look as though they were simply built over the top of an already "fully built out" city anyway. Yes, however, it's not happening now. There are no more freeways being built in the city of Los Angeles. It's all just so silly to me. For example, you take a street like Santa Monica Blvd in Los Angeles. It's a large main artery within the city. It goes from the Pacific Ocean to the Silver Lake district where it meets up with Sunset Blvd, which also goes from the Pacific Ocean to Downtown Los Angeles. So are you and others saying to completely disallow any cars at all on those main arteries? To turn them into one long bike path? So that all the cars have to go down the side streets and clog up all those side roads, which will definitely be infinitely worse for traffic? Or are you saying to ban cars altogether and not allow any cars to be used anywhere, for any purpose, and we go back to horse and carts? Right now, bicyclists can use the suburban side streets. Despite being in Los Angeles, the side streets are empty almost all of the time. I walk a lot and don't use the main arteries, but use the side streets. Hell, I walk right down the middle of these suburban side streets if I want, there are so few cars. Despite being Los Angeles, these LA suburban streets are the same as those in Lincoln Nebraska or Little Rock Arkansas, traffic-wise. Not in Downtown LA, of course, but that's the exception, not the rule. The downtown area is tiny compared to the city of LA. LA is completely filled with non-busy suburban streets. Go to Google maps and look yourself. It's the exact same with San Francisco or Sacramento or any other city. Not everywhere, not in the highest density of downtown areas. But people really are not specifying that they are only talking about those areas. They are talking about cities in general, the entire city, which is a LOT bigger than just the extreme downtown areas of any major city. I just fail to understand what the issue is. To me, it really isn't about bike paths or pedestrian paths or anything like that. That's just an excuse. The real reason is just to get rid of cars, to get rid of cars. If that's the case, just be honest about it.
- davidw 4y ago
  It's not all or none. You could easily add some protected bike lanes here and still allow automobiles: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.09075,-118.3372144,3a,75y,270.61h,85.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si_7swdrZZ_uPT0pQVvgQ3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@34.09075,-118.3372144,3a,75y,27... Or you could put those bike lanes a block or two over. Lots of ways to do this without 'completely disallowing cars'.
  - FrontierPsych 4y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean on the google map you show. Personally, I would just go down Lexington Street which is one block over and no traffic. I see these bike lanes in super heavily traffic arteries and no way would I personally go down them. All it takes is one tiny slip on the part of the bike rider or the auto driver and you end up as a grill decoration. I'm NOT anti bike. I just think as a bike rider, you have the responsibility to figure out alternate routes. I would feel this way for myself. I don't ride a bike now, but when I did, I always tried to find alternate routes that kept me off main thoroughfares. Maybe you do, I don't know, but that's not my point, really. I just think that there are a certain vocal minority that wants the same rights on public roads as automobiles have, and that is the only reason. And they do, I always give bikers wide berth and respect them. But the fact of the matter is that main arteries are by nature going to be more dangerous, even with those little tiny bike lanes. What is the problem with going the side streets, if you can? I'm not saying it is always possible, but when it is, why not? I work on a major thoroughfare in LA but walk every day, but do it on the side streets. It's a million times better - no traffic noise, no cars. As I said, I can walk right down the middle of the street, which I have done on occasion. For sure I can do that street crossing where you saunter diagonally across the road, not worried about a crosswalk. Every driver that goes by is going 25 mph, so easy for each to see each other and reaction time is better.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  > I just fail to understand what the issue is. That to me suggests you've had very little exposure to cities that haven't so thoroughly given themselves over to one single mode of transport. Or that all the issues from having so many people depend on private cars to get almost anywhere simply don't bother you - but there are more than a few of us who feel very differently. I'd think LA is almost an ideal city for a (necessarily slow) transformation away from car dependency, given its density, climate and terrain, and indeed it would happen anyway if so much time, effort and money wasn't dedicated to maintaining such a massive road network - though simply neglecting it would obviously result in a fairly unpleasant transition for most. It would definitely require far more vision and willingness to break away from "what we've always been doing" than I suspect any of those currently in charge have. LA is certainly not exceptional in that regard - I'd say the same for basically all major cities in Australia too.

Timshel 4y ago

Strange argument, you do realize that the same fact applied to all the large cities now known for cycling ? search for Amsterdam from the 1970s for example. Things like protected intersections (https://momentummag.com/protected-intersections-latest-trend-cycling-safety/ https://momentummag.com/protected-intersections-latest-trend...) do not take more space. Things that play against many American city is that density might not be sufficient, but for cities like SF density is probably enough and you have so much space dedicated to cars that you can reclain. On Market Street i can see some non protected bike lane that were already reclaimed from car lane. In some years this might turn in protected bike lane. By just reducing the width of car lanes (which help reduce speeding) you can probably build bike lane in many US streets ...

FrontierPsych 4y ago
>search for Amsterdam from the 1970s for example. Everyone always compares Europe to the USA. What works there is a non-starter in the USA because first, yes, we have a different culture, but also, the density in Copenhagen is way different than in most USA cities. It can work in some places, but not in all. Sure, in the city centers you can have the intersections, that's fine. But in California, like in Los Angeles, it is so huge that some people would have to ride 30-50 miles to their workplace. Because the USA is a lot bigger. Also I noticed in the photos you linked to that the streets are just one lane each direction. Totally a no go, it wouldn't work. It would be totally impossible on main city arteries. However, even in Los Angeles, if you go down the side streets, there's hardly any cars there. Shit, I walk down the middle of these suburban streets with no problem. Not at 8 am or 5 pm when the commutes begin, but during the day there's hardly any traffic, even on the streets the next one over from the main city artery streets. Just about any bicycle rider should be able to get to wherever they want using the back streets - the streets off the main arteries. So it is a little out of the way and not a straight shot, but that's the whole point of riding a bicycle, is to be on the bicycle and also to get exercise, so who cares if one goes out of the way just a little bit. But it just seems like bicyclists want to use the main vehicle arteries....just because. I mean, even if you make these arteries more bike friendly, believe me, they will still be fantastically more dangerous than just taking the side streets. It's nuts. I only walk on the side streets everywhere, it's so much more satisfying than the noise of main arteries. As far as Market Street in San Francisco goes, you can ride your bike down Minna, for example. But what I'm saying with San Francisco does not really have to do with bicycles. I'm talking about Muni, not bicycles. I used Muni for years, and it makes sense in a city like San Francisco. It is great - go downtown, you avoid d traffic and don't have to worry about parking. But this is not the same in other cities. It's ridiculous in Los Angeles, for example, which is spread out all over fuck. Also, people always seem to compare to Copenhagen. First, it is their culture. We have a different culture, and I'm not even talking about cars vs bikes. But it is unfair comparison because Copenhagen is unique. You don't have this in London, or Berlin, or any other country. Copenhagen is an outlier, probably the only one. And additionally, while super hardcore and super fit bicyclists might be able to ride anywhere in San Francisco, let's see a normal person take a bike ride up California Street from the Financial District to Pacific Heights. Good luck with that one. >By just reducing the width of car lanes (which help reduce speeding) you can probably build bike lane in many US streets It depends, but honestly, I don't see it. Like on Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards, no way, just no way. Those are the main arteries from the Pacific Ocean to downtown LA. Going down to one lane? Nope. Just impossible. However, there are tons of suburban streets, that I mentioned that are a way better and massively less stressful for a bike rider. You have to sometimes zig and zag, but so what? It's a block or two to go around a park or whatever. This is in Los Angeles. And even in San Francisco, must of the city is suburban streets. Sunset, Richmond, Excelsior, Potrero Hill, Noe Valley and the rest - all of these you can ride on off the main arteries. But sure, downtown is always different. But bike riders are going to want a bike lane ALL the way down Mission Street, just because. No reason, except "just because." I mean, I know I'll always get pushback. There will always be, "yeah, but this and that."

pwinnski 4y ago

> You can't just use eminent domain and take out all buildings and highrises on both sides of Market Street in San Francisco to build a 10 foot wide roadway only for bicycles on each side. The goal isn't to create pedestrian and cyclist space from building footprints, it's to repurpose the existing roads and streets away from cars, to pedestrian and cyclist use. Here are a few links to examples of successful conversions. Please note that no buildings were torn down to make any of this happen. https://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-design-guide/streets/pedestrian-priority-spaces/pedestrian-only-streets/pedestrian-streets-case-study-stroget-copenhagen/ https://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-... https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2022/06/21/seven-stroads-have-been-converted-streets https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2022/06/21/seven-stroads-ha... I live in a suburb of Dallas, Texas. Most people would say it's "fully built out" despite the oodles of new construction happening just slightly farther away from the city center. Still, light rail is being built right through Plano and Richardson and Addison, all existing built-out suburbs. The "Silver Line" will be done in a few years without tearing down tens of thousands of existing homes and businesses. https://dart.org/about/project-and-initiatives/expansion/silver-line-project https://dart.org/about/project-and-initiatives/expansion/sil...

FrontierPsych 4y ago
I read the links, but yeah, so I still don't get it. First of all, I don't get why it would be necessary to convert those streets on the first link you provided. On the first photograph, the sidewalks look empty. There are no impediments to walking down that street, although really, it is a dishonest comparison - one that is probably the worst black and white photo to make the first one seem as bleak as possible, and the second in color with people there dressed in summer clothes. But be that as it may, it's only aesthetic purposes only. It's not like some life-changing functionality. Also, as I look at it on Google maps in that example that you gave of Strøget in Copenhagen Denmark, it's only one street. The rest of Copenhagen is chock-a-block full of regular city streets, same as any other major city. Color me unimpressed. In Santa Monica, there's a pedestrian shopping street where no cars are allowed. It's on 3rd Street. All kinds of stupid shit like palm readers and people preaching Jesus, although it is "upscale." So what? Lot's tourists walk up and down, but I've never been a guy who is into tourist traps that attract suckers to places with a lot of shops and sidewalk cafes that people pay high prices for mediocre food. But that's just me. It's all overhyped. Like Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco. That whole street in Capenhagen that you linked to is hilariously funny, now that I look at it. I'm on Google street maps, and it is completely lined with shops like Louis Vuitton, Prada, Gucci and other super high-end shops. I guess it is a great place for ultra-high end people to go to to spend $10,000 on a purse. I'm sure it keep the riff-raff out. The poor don't deserve a pedestrian place, I guess. Just so not impressed. And then, to walk down this Stroget in Copenhagen, you still have to drive there, and then park somewhere, probably far away, and walk down city streets a long way to get there. And for me, for my money, if one wants to visit a nice place, instead of me going to this high-priced tourist trap, that quite honestly I'll go to some place I have to walk down a sidewalk next to a busy street to a store that is honest, run by honest people, rather than a Gucci store in some high-end place like 3rd street in Santa Monica. And furthermore, if I want a nice place to walk and get away from everyone, I'll just drive for 5 more minutes and go to Topanga State Park, a massive park, with almost unlimited walking trails. Why would I give a shit about some walking street tourist trap? A place to walk around and buy shit, or should I say shit, and contribute more to the global warming by buying shit. Gucci handbags for $10,000. So yeah, having a pedestian place to walk is so great. For the well-heeled crowd. . As far as light rail, that has to be the most stupidist of the stupid. Yes, it works in dense population areas like San Francisco and New York, for sure, but those places are rare in the USA. When I lived in Sacramento, California, and they put in a light rail. What a complete joke. I had to drive over some light rail tracks at least twice a day, during all hours. I never saw more than 3 people per car. Ever. Even in the morning commute hours. Because Sacramento is so spread out. It's ridiculous. They spent $500 million on it. Plus the ongoing maintenance of the rail cars, rails, the administrators, the railcar drivers and their benefits and pensions, and on and on for ongoing expenses. If you use the light rail, it costs $2.50 per ticket, so $5 for the day to commute. If you have a 10 mile commute to, and 10 mile commute back, if your vehicle gets 20 miles to the gallon, it costs $4.50 to drive, and this is at current gasoline prices. A few years ago, it cost $3 instead of $5. Plus you have the added flexibility with a car to pick up your kids from school, go to a shop, or whatever. Why would transportation, that carries 60 people in a train car, maybe with 3 cars total of 120 people, or whatever it is, and the cost averaged out between all the riders, cost more than the cost of driving the same distance? It doesn't make any sense at all. Maybe if rides cost 25 cents or 50 cents, yeah, ok, maybe. As far as I'm concerned, these light rail projects are more resume builders for the city council and mayor. They will spend $1 billion just to say that they did it under their watch. Bragging rights. "Look at me, look at me, look what I did, I spend $1 billion on a light rail project." But most of the USA is not like Europe, so what works in Europe is not the same as the USA. So it's comparing apples to oranges.