3 ms·

>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

>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.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  On the density aspect, I was just reading: https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2010/density-doesnt-tell-us-sprawl/ https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2010/density-doesnt-tell.... I'd agree that having "evenly" spread low-medium density rather than "lumpy" density is part of the issue, but from what I remember observing in the parts of LA I've spent time in (mostly around Venice) is that the density seemed to definitely be high enough to support getting around without needing to rely on cars (whether via powered scooters, bicycles, walking or public transit), but the sheer amount of space dedicated to roads vs footpaths etc. and the general layout of the streets and distances between retail centres etc. seemed to make it clear the cars were the expected way everyone would get around, and hence that's exactly what everyone did (maybe it's changed somewhat since I was last there ~15 years ago?). Certainly it was hard to understand the lack of rail-based transit options (whether heavy or light rail).

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.

wizofaus 4y ago
On the density aspect, I was just reading: https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2010/density-doesnt-tell-us-sprawl/ https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2010/density-doesnt-tell.... I'd agree that having "evenly" spread low-medium density rather than "lumpy" density is part of the issue, but from what I remember observing in the parts of LA I've spent time in (mostly around Venice) is that the density seemed to definitely be high enough to support getting around without needing to rely on cars (whether via powered scooters, bicycles, walking or public transit), but the sheer amount of space dedicated to roads vs footpaths etc. and the general layout of the streets and distances between retail centres etc. seemed to make it clear the cars were the expected way everyone would get around, and hence that's exactly what everyone did (maybe it's changed somewhat since I was last there ~15 years ago?). Certainly it was hard to understand the lack of rail-based transit options (whether heavy or light rail).