As you can see, LA proper is congested with freeways.
Perhaps, but your map doesn't indicate that. Nor do the earlier LA freeway stats I posted.
Tim, all those red lines on the map are freeways. If you can't tell from that map, there are a ton of freeways in LA in a very confined space. If that doesn't impress you, I don't know what will.
"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.
That's only in the last ten years
"Only in the last ten years" is irrelevant, were discussing LA now, not LA in 1980.
and 11th is not great when you're the second largest metro area in the country.
2nd largest is a meaningless point in this context. The quoted fact was not that LA's ridership was 11 out of 50 (it isn't, its higher than that), but that's its ridership rate was 11th out of 50.
Have you ever driven in LA?
If LA's population was barely large enough to be in the top 50, or if had more people than China, and its rate remained the same, either way it would have a ridership rate that was "relatively high: 11th among the 50 largest urban areas."
If you're 11th in ridership and 2nd in population, that's not an impressive ratio. Otherwise I am not sure what you mean.
That would be a reason for it to have more freeway lane-miles per capita, not less.
Not if you have a huge area of mountains and deserts like LA has.
Yes if you have mountains and deserts like the LA area. Highways can be built through either.
You don't build freeways where people do not live......that makes no sense. People don't tend to live in deserts and mts.
And to the extent that these areas are relatively unoccupied, and aren't between areas of high population, and thus don't need much in the way of highways, that wouldn't be part of the "sprawls for miles and miles". The areas where you have real sprawl, are the areas where LA needs more highways.
You don't get it......there's no room. Its not just that you would destroy more neighborhoods......the freeways would be on top of each other. Freeways are not the solution.
In addition LA's density is not that high.....its ninth in the country:
I depends on what you measuring. LA could be higher as the different measurements I posted indicated, or it could be lower than 9th.
You're weaving and bobbing and making little sense here. |
