Does anyone else feel bad for pedestrians in sprawl orientated metros?

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by European in LA

I just moved to LA last week from London and lucky was able to afford my own automobile my second day here. I can’t seem to help but feel bad for people forced to walk and take the bus outside of the urban parts of LA. The friends i’v made here actually think dense strip malls are urban and vibrant streets with culture and historic architecture.

When I’m driving and stop at a red light, you will literally see only one pedestrian cross a street the size of a highway dodging automobiles make illegal left turns. It’l be 50 cars rushing by at 50 miles an hour vs one pedestrian simply crossing a street. Part of it has to do with entitled drivers but I feel like it’s the way the urban layout has been built/laid out.

Someone once said on City Data that LA has the density without the urbanity, which now makes sense to me. When I took the commuter rail my first day here, I noticed the stations would be in the middle of nowhere (surrounded by industrial warehouses far away from residential density or retail).

Anyways just though i’d share my observations. Do americans fall in love with Europe because of the walk friendly plazas and lack of automobile dominant streets? Just a reminder that I don’t mean to make this an LA thread or US vs Europe thread, please stay on topic on pedestrian experience in big cities like Houston, Phoenix, LA and so on.

Where do you live? That doesn’t sound like the LA that I know. At least the behavior of drivers. California drivers (LA included) typically wait for pedestrians much more so than east coast cities. That said it’s still a dangerous place for pedestrians. I take public transportation and walk without being forced (presumably you mean because of income?). What scares me most are distracted drivers and drunk drivers. That coupled with the relatively high road speeds and long distances between lights.

But it sounds like you moved to suburban LA. Maybe not even in LA at all to see so few people walking. The suburban experience will be different and much different than England where even suburban and rural cities tend to be walkable.

[pvande55]

For a region that wasn't blessed with rail transit 50 years ago, LA has done a great job of building a transit system. Light rail, subway, commuter rail to distances over 100 km out, even a circumferential line. Far from a sprawled out wasteland.

[cyphorx]

Originally Posted by pvande55

For a region that wasn't blessed with rail transit 50 years ago, LA has done a great job of building a transit system. Light rail, subway, commuter rail to distances over 100 km out, even a circumferential line. Far from a sprawled out wasteland.

Actually LA had a rail system 80 years ago, and like most of the country did away with it, San Fransisco is the only major city that kept theirs.

[MrJester]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

That density gradient is less pronounced in most California cities, whose suburbs are more densely built than their East Coast counterparts.

I believe that when you measure the density of the entire urbanized area, LA is the most densely populated metro area in the country.

If fewer people walk around LA, it's not for lack of density. It's also more densely built than the typical American Small Town, which I often hold up as an ideal urban form.

Southern Florida suburbs are also very densely packed. Kind of an anomaly in the Southeast, where suburban sprawl is the norm. Guess it's because the Everglades and the Atlantic prevent further sprawl.