The vast majority of freeways in LA are ten or twelve lanes.
And LA has a lot of people, and apparently less freeway miles per person, even if on the average each mile is wider.
So the fact that many of the freeways are ten or twelve lanes isn't evidence against the fact that LA has less freeway lane-miles per person.
Its not like he just made up that point. If your going to say he's lying you need a bit more than "ten or twelve lanes" to back it up.
For decades, bond issue after bond issue to build mass transit was rejected
Which doesn't change the fact that it has more transit than most large cities.
"compared with the majority of U.S. cities, Los Angeles is not a transit wasteland. The region is second in the nation in transit patronage, behind only New York. Even on a market share basis (passenger transit miles traveled as a share of all miles traveled), Los Angeles’s ridership rate is relatively high: 11th among the 50 largest urban areas.
...
At present, Los Angeles has the sixth-most-extensive heavy and light rail network in the nation, and several new extensions are in the works.
...
Los Angeles has done reasonably well at providing good bus service. Its pioneering Metro Rapid lines use techniques like limited stops, low floors, traffic signal priority, and high bus frequencies to significantly cut travel times. Ridership on the Rapid lines has been strong, and the program is being copied by other cities. The new bus rapid transit line (the Orange Line) is also a trend-setter, providing virtually all the amenities of a rail line at a fraction of the cost.
Local bus service has also improved over the last decade, though admittedly this was in large part due to a lawsuit filed by the city’s Bus Riders Union."
----
It has less freeways per capita because the city sprawls for miles and miles.
That would be a reason for it to have more freeway lane-miles per capita, not less. |
