>>1466643>Bro... you're not from LA...And you are?
>Even if you work close by it's still gonna be at least a 30 minute drive to go 2 or 3 miles during rush hour, without even touching a freeway.Despite the fact that commuters from outside of LA are using the freeway, you still have to get off and get on the freeway, your workplace isn't on the freeway it's in the city, which means you have to get off the freeway and drive in the city until you get to where you need to be.
Because of this, people traveling within LA are still going to experience traffic because you have people that can't utilize public transportation because there's no public transportation that can get them where they're coming from. The streets of LA are streets, they're going to be used by everybody, a large portion of this is people who are outside of LA going to and from work. If more people who worked in LA could actually live in LA then there would be more utilization of public transportation, walking, bike-riding and ride-sharing. Which means that there would be less people driving their personally owned vehicles on the streets and freeways of LA's. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.
>Massive amounts of people drive from central LA to burbank or Hancock park to downtown, valley to hollywood, etc etc. Even centrally located people have to commute, and they all have to take the same roads.I don't see how this contradicts with what I'm saying. They could expand public transportation and incentivize it to lower street traffic down to decrease traffic between these areas but the primary issue here is the fact that so many people are driving on the fucking roads because people can't afford to live in Los Angeles. If you wanted less people driving in LA you would want more housing so more people wouldn't have to drive to their work from less expensive places. You would also make public transportation more effective to incentivize this.
