I do not consider increasing blocks a good solution. It does not scale while the negative consequences for decentralisation are unclear. Since Bitcoins only true value lies in decentralisation, I support not hastily moving away from this core concept just to solve a current - perceived as immediate - issue. There is too much at stake.
Maybe you are right, bigger blocks do not scale. But increasing the current size is a requirement for climbing. Check the LN white paper and note the block size needed so that each person can open and close a channel once a year using segwit.
There are already 2 different solutions ready for implementation (they might be already in the test stage, for all I know) to bundle multiple channel opening transactions into a single blockchain event - similar to what CoinJoin does. The fee would get split among the openers. The more you're willing to wait for a larger pool of channel openers, the less you pay. The same mechanism can be used to fund channels with exhausted capacity. This seems an excellent way to go for the time being. I'm confident more sophisticated stuff will come along.
That sounds like an excellent idea, depending how big the overall effect would be.
Now what we should really do is force the big actors to embrace segwit, so LN can flourish. Like, some heavy user lobbying on Coinbase. Of course, more variety and competition in the exchange market can't hurt.
Am I understanding it correctly that LN only works with segwit?