Does LA have the worst infrastructure? (Los Angeles, Long Beach: neighborhoods, maintenance, live)

[FlipMC]

As much as I love LA, I honestly believe that out of all the major cities in the US, it has the worst infrastructure. Its downtown should've been developed along the coast, maybe where downtown Long Beach currently is. I just think that the way it is currently organized makes it very difficult to implement efficient rail access as well as public transportation in general.

[EclecticEars]

Have you been to Cincinnati? Road quality and maintenance, public transportation, layout and organization of the city. O_M_G!

Have you been to Philadelphia? Baltimore? Detroit? New York? Sure, those cities may have their downtown districts on bodies of water and may have originally planned as river or port trading communities. But think of how poorly maintained many of their roads are, the subjectivity to the freeze/thaw effect. Philadelphia and especially New York aren't known for great air quality in the summer due, in large part, to carbon dioxide emissions from gridlocked automobiles on outmoded freeways. Think of how extensively water, sewer, power and fiber optic (although not used much any longer) lines are stretched into neighborhoods that continue to lose or have lost much population.

L.A. could use some major improvement with flow of traffic on freeways and facilitation of modern light and heavy rail. And, for Pete's sake, connect the Green Line to LAX. But LAX is in much better shape than some other metropolises in our country. Consider these: few L.A. neighborhoods are "emptying out." The Basin, North Orange County and SFV have their own individual grid street systems which are very much easier to navigate than roads that wind up and down and every which way; not all of L.A. is bisected by the Santa Monica Mountains. L.A. doesn't have freeze/thaw like 75% of the nation.

[nowincal11]

The reason downtown LA developed where it did was because it was right in between East LA, Pasadena, and Hollywood, which were 3 of most developed areas in the early 20th century. LA was built on the river, not so much the coast. Then the beachfront developed and the rest was filled in later.

LA has a pretty good road network and the roads are wide, even on residential streets. LA has a long way to go in rail transit though. At least there is room to build it.

[MIKEETC]

Originally Posted by FlipMC

As much as I love LA, I honestly believe that out of all the major cities in the US, it has the worst infrastructure. Its downtown should've been developed along the coast, maybe where downtown Long Beach currently is. I just think that the way it is currently organized makes it very difficult to implement efficient rail access as well as public transportation in general.

Los Angeles was established because that's where the first settlers settled to be (during the 1800s) close to the one of, if not the, most precious resources at the time - fresh water. They weren't thinking about infrastructure like light rail. With that said, the infrastructure that is here works fine provided you use a car. The Los Angeles metropolitan area evolved around the automobile so infrastructure for it dominates.

[John23]

I think LA's infrastructure is mostly a mess, never designed for life after 1980 or 2000.

1st - I.e. the pasadena freeway, the old streets near downtown (like vermont), they were never meant for so many large buses or so much traffic. I think cities in the east...boston, new york, phili, etc you can somewhat give a break to, because of the weather. We don't have much of an excuse here if the weather is always 75 degrees (plus or minus the santa ana winds or some heavy rain every 5 years).

In a smart world, LAX would have rail going in 3 or 4 directions. Even a small tram system like at the orlando airport would be great.

It'd be amazing if you had rail from LAX to century city, downtown, and long beach. Imagine business travelers getting off at lax, and being in downtown in 30 minutes. Or being at the beach in 20 minutes.

[nowincal11]

At least LA has room to expand the infrastructure. In the East, they are really boxed in.

[bhcompy]

Originally Posted by John23

I think LA's infrastructure is mostly a mess, never designed for life after 1980 or 2000.

1st - I.e. the pasadena freeway, the old streets near downtown (like vermont), they were never meant for so many large buses or so much traffic. I think cities in the east...boston, new york, phili, etc you can somewhat give a break to, because of the weather. We don't have much of an excuse here if the weather is always 75 degrees (plus or minus the santa ana winds or some heavy rain every 5 years).

In a smart world, LAX would have rail going in 3 or 4 directions. Even a small tram system like at the orlando airport would be great.

It'd be amazing if you had rail from LAX to century city, downtown, and long beach. Imagine business travelers getting off at lax, and being in downtown in 30 minutes. Or being at the beach in 20 minutes.

After the debacle building the Century Freeway, people are pretty leery about eminent domain

[BRinSM]

LA infrastructure is no crown jewel, but travel overseas and it's not bad. every big city in the world has terrible traffic and beat up roads. many cities have alternatives to driving, but the trains aren't all they're cracked up to be. being packed in to a train car where there's barely enough room to have both your feet on the ground is no way to travel. also, many cities don't a/c their subway cars, which is awful if you haven't experienced this. LA freeways are slow, but at least you have the ability to sit comfortably in your own car and control the temp and what you want to listen to on the radio. having the option to take a train would be nice, but it's not all that bad to drive, especially if you don't live too far from the office.

[bhcompy]

Originally Posted by BRinSM

LA infrastructure is no crown jewel, but travel overseas and it's not bad. every big city in the world has terrible traffic and beat up roads. many cities have alternatives to driving, but the trains aren't all they're cracked up to be. being packed in to a train car where there's barely enough room to have both your feet on the ground is no way to travel. also, many cities don't a/c their subway cars, which is awful if you haven't experienced this. LA freeways are slow, but at least you have the ability to sit comfortably in your own car and control the temp and what you want to listen to on the radio. having the option to take a train would be nice, but it's not all that bad to drive, especially if you don't live too far from the office.

The Tube in Summer is a lovely place. It's like a men's locker room mixed with a morgue

[John23]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

After the debacle building the Century Freeway, people are pretty leery about eminent domain

I think its sort of ironic that people have fought various freeways for 30 years.....but the streets have turned into freeways! Look at Obama's recent trip.

I think what makes LA's infrastructure stick out is the fact that we can expand our infrastructure...unlike say, san francisco, or cities in the east.

I bet if you ranked LA with cities in europe or asia...hong kong, singapore, tokyo, etc, la must be either in the middle or towards the bottom in terms of time from the airport to downtown. And in general efficiency.