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 provide

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.