3 ms·

> 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 t

> 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).

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).