Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (465422)	3/21/2009 3:26:54 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572702

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. Okay. I didn't explain this well enough. There would be no point to adding freeways in LA proper because they would just duplicate what's already there. Here's an existing freeway map for LA county.....please note the vacant area at the top of the map is where there are mostly mountains and the high deserts and few people live there: laalmanac.com As you can see, LA proper is congested with freeways. Now you could expand the size of the freeways from say 12 lanes to 20 or 24 lanes but most people in LA would be opposed to such a move and it would cost a huge fortune. 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. That's only in the last ten years and 11th is not great when you're the second largest metro area in the country. ... 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. But it is the second largest metro area in the country and the size of metro areas drops off significantly after Chicago [#3]. In fact the difference between LA and Chicago is sizeable...over 3 million people. After Chicago, the drop off is another 3 million to Dallas Fort Worth: en.wikipedia.org So being 6th while better is nothing to brag about. ... 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. Not if you have a huge area of mountains and deserts like LA has. In addition LA's density is not that high.....its ninth in the country: qualityhealth.com Finally, traffic flow in LA......the average speed you can travel in the city is much lower than most American cities. That adds to the congestion.