4 ms·

This is true. What works in Bangkok can't necessarily work in Los Angeles. It's usually American cities that lack the critical density by design for the automob

This is true. What works in Bangkok can't necessarily work in Los Angeles. It's usually American cities that lack the critical density by design for the automobile that results in an inability to support efficient local logistics.

hollerith 3y ago
I always thought that the places with the high local transportation costs are the cities with narrow streets and no room for parking whose growth mostly predates the automobile.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  Except that doesn't preclude other forms of transportation, i.e., bicycle, motorcycle, or Vespa. Good luck reengineering the suburbs of America to discard the automobile.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  There's two things going on there, actually: 1. Cars are more expensive in those places, generally, but 2. You don't need a car as much, so there's fewer cars and they're not driven as far. In practice this tends to mean lower transportation costs in those areas, even if on paper it may look like it's more expensive because owning/operating a car there costs more. When we moved to Munich, we ditched having a car entirely. If we still had a car and had driven it just as much as in the states, then sure it would've been more expensive. We just didn't need to do that. (As soon as we moved back to the US we got a car again of course)
TulliusCicero 3y ago
Los Angeles -- at least LA proper -- is mostly okay-ish for density. Where it lacks is in street/road design, which can be updated.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  There is no "proper" but a small urban core that doesn't contain the greatest part of the population for enough hours a day. It's mostly urban sprawl from shore to desert that isn't effectively reachable by bike messenger.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    Not sure what you're talking about. Almost all of LA is plenty fine density-wise for biking, it's just a matter of the infrastructure being bad. Would certainly be helpful to also upzone for mixed-use, so you could get more shops in places closer to where people live, but it's not absolutely required.

hollerith 3y ago

I always thought that the places with the high local transportation costs are the cities with narrow streets and no room for parking whose growth mostly predates the automobile.

1letterunixname 3y ago
Except that doesn't preclude other forms of transportation, i.e., bicycle, motorcycle, or Vespa. Good luck reengineering the suburbs of America to discard the automobile.
TulliusCicero 3y ago
There's two things going on there, actually: 1. Cars are more expensive in those places, generally, but 2. You don't need a car as much, so there's fewer cars and they're not driven as far. In practice this tends to mean lower transportation costs in those areas, even if on paper it may look like it's more expensive because owning/operating a car there costs more. When we moved to Munich, we ditched having a car entirely. If we still had a car and had driven it just as much as in the states, then sure it would've been more expensive. We just didn't need to do that. (As soon as we moved back to the US we got a car again of course)

TulliusCicero 3y ago

Los Angeles -- at least LA proper -- is mostly okay-ish for density. Where it lacks is in street/road design, which can be updated.

1letterunixname 3y ago
There is no "proper" but a small urban core that doesn't contain the greatest part of the population for enough hours a day. It's mostly urban sprawl from shore to desert that isn't effectively reachable by bike messenger.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  Not sure what you're talking about. Almost all of LA is plenty fine density-wise for biking, it's just a matter of the infrastructure being bad. Would certainly be helpful to also upzone for mixed-use, so you could get more shops in places closer to where people live, but it's not absolutely required.