Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again my points on the DC economy and size of govt have nothing to do with race...
Fair enough as well as your lack of concern for the points I'm discussing which is expected to be honest. If it wasn't expected, our country would probably have a very different history wouldn't it.
I agree that even underground parking hurts street vibrancy, and why LA needs to mix parking minimums. Yet LA still has vibrant streets... It can and will get better thru streetdiets, increased mix use TOD, increased transit and parking maximums. LA is hardly alone in this across the US, but is a leader.
Not disagreeing relly just think this is why in some ways the the feel, especially initial is more disjointed. I think LA is hard to get a feel in ernest for without living there. But that said means there is a tangible difference in this regard
To me and again while I have been many times I know I am by no means the greatest understander of it but even still there is something different feeling to the LA uranity and it somehow never feels it acheives the highest compression levels on the streets some others do. Which is preferred in style is subjective but to me how it feels something is tangible.
And again there are most definately areas of LA that are very street vibrant (they just seem more disjointed and less cohesive) and think there is something to the construct and way people move around that fuels this in some tangible way.
again neither good nor bad but the same resaon while a much smaller SF feels far more urban at its peak (or to me my hometown). DC does at some level but is also a city a little different from the compressed core due to hieght limitations and the build type (larger footprint buildings)
dunno, but at the read of the author; it seems like they hit on something that may help describe this feel difference.
Fair enough as well as your lack of concern for the points I'm discussing which is expected to be honest. If it wasn't expected, our country would probably have a very different history wouldn't it.
I am not disputing other issues but are not related to my points whatsoever; nor to me realted to my points
DC funding also is not designed to help AAs (which to me there are purple green and white all being equally helped and they are not the reason either) even if it is an end result, also my point
Regarding LA being walkable and Donald Shoup, et al, I think that a big part of the difference is that LA doesn't have a significant rapid transit system. Shoup says that LA can't support one, but I'm not not sure how he reaches that conclusion. What we do have is supported pretty well despite it being very limited and not going nearly as many places as DC's system. LA's red/purple lines despite being only 17 miles in length have a slightly higher ridership per mile than DC's Metro. In December DC averaged 675k per day (6,350/mile) and in January LA averaged about 145k per day(8,300/mile). If the federal government had decided to build a system for LA instead of DC, things might be very different today.
As it is a large part of LA is much more dense than anything in DC and our trains are generally more crowded. And many people do walk and many live car-free. There are probably just as many car-free here by choice as there are poor that can't afford a car. And people do walk here, but they are discounted because they are minority. I don't even want to get started on that..
L.A. chose to build roads with their money. The federal government didn't want to build a metro system for D.C. They wanted to build a major road system for D.C. The residents of Washington D.C. blocked it and fought tooth and nail not allow it to destroy the urban core in D.C. The money was then switched to build a massive subway system instead of highway system. If L.A. didn't like cars so much, maybe your citizens would have blocked highway construction too. But people in L.A. don't like living that way.
Redskins have won 3 superbowls...LA teams, only 1.
Well we haven't had a football team since shortly after the Redskins last Superbowl win, but we have won 5 NBA titles, one World Series, and one Stanley Cup since then. DC has zip. In fact did DC ever win any major professional titles in the modern era besides the Redskins' 3 Superbowls?
Oh, and in what part of the District do the Redskins play? I can't recall where their stadium is?
I am not disputing other issues but are not related to my points whatsoever; nor to me realted to my points
DC funding also is not designed to help AAs (which to me there are purple green and white all being equally helped and they are not the reason either) even if it is an end result, also my point
I'm only talking about gentrification. What white, purple, or green people are being helped out of poverty by gentrification in D.C.?
L.A. chose to build roads with their money. The federal government didn't want to build a metro system for D.C. They wanted to build a major road system for D.C. The residents of Washington D.C. blocked it and fought tooth and nail not allow it to destroy the urban core in D.C. The money was then switched to build a massive subway system instead of highway system. If L.A. didn't like cars so much, maybe your citizens would have blocked highway construction too. But people in L.A. don't like living that way.
Yet a super majority of those same people voted to increase sales taxes for the next 30 years to build a transit system.
Regarding LA being walkable and Donald Shoup, et al, I think that a big part of the difference is that LA doesn't have a significant rapid transit system. Shoup says that LA can't support one, but I'm not not sure how he reaches that conclusion. What we do have is supported pretty well despite it being very limited and not going nearly as many places as DC's system. LA's red/purple lines despite being only 17 miles in length have a slightly higher ridership per mile than DC's Metro. In December DC averaged 675k per day (6,350/mile) and in January LA averaged about 145k per day(8,300/mile). If the federal government had decided to build a system for LA instead of DC, things might be very different today.
As it is a large part of LA is much more dense than anything in DC and our trains are generally more crowded. And many people do walk and many live car-free. There are probably just as many car-free here by choice as there are poor that can't afford a car. And people do walk here, but they are discounted because they are minority. I don't even want to get started on that..
Just a little education for you. The only real universal metric for public transit ridership is the American Public Transit Association.
D.C. Q3 2011 = 1,003,100 Daily Metro Riders 106.3 miles
L.A. Q3 2011 = 330,961 Daily Subway and Lightrail Riders Combined 79.1 miles
L.A.'s population is just way to large to have such a low ridership level. Have you seen NYC's ridership which is where L.A. population needs to be compared. It's sad no matter how you look at it which.
Yet a super majority of those same people voted to increase sales taxes for the next 30 years to build a transit system.
That is what everyone is trying to do now everywhere so L.A. just joined the club like everyone else. The problem is they needed to do that 50 years ago. It's really to little to late now. The damage is done and the cities across the country are already developed the way they are around roads other than northeast cities and Chicago/San Fran. There is no money which is why cities are building low capacity light rail because that is all cities can afford. It was way easier to build heavy rail subway's back in the 1960's. Too little too late!
D.C. Q3 2011 = 1,003,100 Daily Metro Riders 106.3 miles
L.A. Q3 2011 = 330,961 Daily Subway and Lightrail Riders Combined 79.1 miles
L.A.'s population is just way to large to have such a low ridership level. Have you seen NYC's ridership which is where L.A. population needs to be compared. It's sad no matter how you look at it which.
True that LA is way too low (NY has twice the population so NOT a good comparison). But the ridership per mile shows the areas that ARE served make good usage of the system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
