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: tejek who wrote (465500)	3/25/2009 8:25:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572702

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. "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. 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." 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. 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. 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. But ninth highest density in the country isn't "not that high", that is high density. Finally, traffic flow in LA......the average speed you can travel in the city is much lower than most American cities. Which judging by the facts about its transit line miles per person, transit capacity per person, transit useage rates, and highway lane miles per person, all compared to other cities, would apparently be to a significant extent because of its low highway lane-miles per capita.