3/31 More proof that LA sux:
http://laist.com/2007/06/12/la_wins_5_of_th.php
http://laist.com/2009/03/27/emergency_weekend_closure_of_405_co.php
\_ LA has the worst traffic jams in the nation, but also one of the most
extensive public transit systems, very high usage, and is also
\_ LA has the worst traffic jams in the nation, but also one of the
most extensive public transit systems, very high usage, and is also
one of the most dense urban areas in the US. -ERIC MORRIS
\_ LA itself might be okay, but anytime you leave it, you're
pretty much screwed. Public transit in the greater LA area is
hardly extensive, but nor could you really expect it to be,
cost-effectively anyway, for such a large area. Go sprawl.
\_ LA is much less sprawling than most other urban areas.
If you consider the Bay Area as a whole, the two are
comparable. I have an insane coworker who was commuting
from Vacaville to San Jose for about 3 years, and finally
moved last month.
\_ How far is it from Encino to Redlands? LA is not less
sprawling than other urban areas.
\_ I didn't realize Redlands was part of LA. I think
the point the guy is making is that LA has some
very, very densely developed areas of the type that
do not exist in many American cities outside of NYC
and it will continue to get more dense as the
population swells. LA is very big but it is also
very dense if you look at the "urban area" versus
just the city proper. In fact, it is the most
dense urban area according to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas
(I read it is the #3 most dense behind NYC and SF
according to another study, but the point is it is
*MUCH* more dense than typical for a large US city.)
population swells. LA is the 3rd most dense city
in the nation (behind NYC and SF) and has areas
more dense than SF (and just as dense as Manhattan).
So I would agree that LA is much less sprawling
than most other urban areas since it is ranked
#3. LA is very big but it is also denser than
cities like Dallas, Phoenix, Boston, Washington DC,
Atlanta, Philadelphia, and even Chicago when you look
at the "urban area" versus just the city proper.
Travel just outside the city limits of most cities
(including NYC) and the density really drops off
quickly even though a significant portion of the
population lives there. Not true in LA, which is
fairly densely developed throughout the county
and even into other counties. BTW, I fail to see how
taking the 9 million people not living in LA
and even into other counties. I fail to see how
taking the 11 million people not living in LA
proper and cramming them into LA proper "to make
it more dense" would improve the quality of life.
\_ Redlands is as much a "part of LA" as Vacaville
is a "part of San Francsisco." Reducing people's
commutes would improve their quality of life, but
obviously this could only work if there was enough
transit to move them around. Because not everyone
can drive a car everywhere in a dense urban area,
as Hong Kong and NYC already know and LA is
starting to find out.
\_ Redlands is at least as much a part of the LA
metro area as Vacaville is part of the Bay Area.
The idea that the Inland Empire is a seperate
metropolis is a joke and this is coming from a guy\
who was born in Riverside and still has family
metropolis is a joke and this is coming from a guy
who was born in Riverside and still has family
there.
\_ Calling Vacaville a part of the Bay Area is
is a joke.
|_
http://csua.org/u/nx8 aka
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/los-angeles-transportation-facts-and-fiction-driving-and-delay |
http://csua.com/feed/