Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 689 posts

Re: To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls

#101

Post by zip1234 »

rebootthesystem wrote: post #42
myowncrapulence wrote: post #3

Imagine how much more expensive living in LA will be. Instead of fixing their god awful public transit (like NYC) they want to punish people for using the only reliable mode of transportation?

The argument for public transportation in Los Angeles is a continuing theme...and it is also one that is nonsensical in the context of this city. The city of Los Angeles, and by that I mean the sprawling megalopolis it really is, simply isn't built for public transportation. A fundamental shift in urban design of massive proportions would have to occur for mass transportation to make dent here. In order to affect thi…

They don't even need to say no taxes in certain areas. All that has to be done is allow other uses in residential areas. An area that previously just had loads of houses could then have a commercial building. Businesses would do it because it is much cheaper than building in zoned commercial or leasing in a skyscraper. Just alter zoning laws and it would be much better.

Re: To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls

#102

Post by oneplane »

adrr wrote: post #77

Problem with LA is that we build horizontally and not vertically. We keep adding more homes in suburbs and not building up in the cities that have the jobs. There's a big anti growth movement preventing high density housing. They have been successful in preventing high density projects like the Bergamot transit village(on a rail line too). Today we're voting on initiative that prevents large scale developments. If it…

To 'fix' the problem, the problem shouldn't be created in the first place. Require less cars and make people not need to go places all the time for a daily routine.

Adding stuff isn't a scalable solution. After you hit building height economics limits, you'll still have to fan out, and at the same time, having more people stuffed together in a smaller area makes for more people-problems, like foot traffic, air, water, sewage, trash, power, networking. At the same time you'll have more people needing things to do, like entertainment and work, which they will then all need to do around the same place, making everything worse.

Universal mass transit, and multiple smaller clusters instead of mega cities is scalable. But that's not what people seem to want, and thus problems get created and here we are.

Re: To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls

#103

Post by zip1234 »

Theodores wrote: post #47

The danger of this pricing scheme is that people that can't travel on their ideal commute times hit the road earlier in the morning. They then realise that if they set off another half hour earlier they would breeze in on practically empty roads. So then a lot of people start doing this, leaving the house at 6 a.m. for some epic 50+ mile commute. So then the next step is to leave a 5.30 a.m. to beat the traffic, the…

They need to change zoning to allow office space, restaurants, etc in some areas where there is just houses.

Re: To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls

#104

Post by pascalxus »

adrr wrote: post #77

Problem with LA is that we build horizontally and not vertically. We keep adding more homes in suburbs and not building up in the cities that have the jobs. There's a big anti growth movement preventing high density housing. They have been successful in preventing high density projects like the Bergamot transit village(on a rail line too). Today we're voting on initiative that prevents large scale developments. If it…

Your completely right. If housing was much cheaper, everyone would be able to move closer to their jobs and traffic would decrease significantly. Compare 5 mile commute vs 50 mile commute -> almost 10 times less aggregate traffic.

Significantly improved housing situation => Less Traffic

Re: To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls

#105

Post by remarkEon »

bufordsharkley wrote: post #94
adrr wrote: post #77

Problem with LA is that we build horizontally and not vertically. We keep adding more homes in suburbs and not building up in the cities that have the jobs. There's a big anti growth movement preventing high density housing. They have been successful in preventing high density projects like the Bergamot transit village(on a rail line too). Today we're voting on initiative that prevents large scale developments. If it…

But why is this the case? Largely because land use (powerful local zoning + low holding costs for land) incentivizes sprawl over infill. Consider cities that do better for transit by building upward. This is usually a case of a more sane zoning system, like in Tokyo[0], or ownership residing in the municipality, like Hong Kong.[1] [0] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html [1] http://www.hkclic.…

Fun fact: most zones in LA County require developers to build parking on a per-bedroom basis, so they tend to build ~2.5 stalls per unit, and most of the time that ends up being subterranean. That'll add ~$100k in development costs per unit right off the bat. They can sell the stalls individually (I believe) but because of the economics of the market it just doesn't make sense to build anything but luxury. That one rule is a significant cause of both sprawl and car addiction here, as well as more negative trends in housing availability.

Edit: If people are interested, here's the list of zoning requirements for Residential Zones in Los Angeles County.

http://planning.lacounty.gov/luz/summary/category/residentia...

Re: To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls

#106

Post by ryandrake »

digler999 wrote: post #67

Some of the cost could be mitigated with "toll-free" options, such as using a vehicle tracker like EZ-pass and not charging you if you travel less than N miles (to encourage people to live near work), or giving partial refunds if you use your car very little during a month. Another option could be a centralized "smart-driving" app, that would act as a hybrid between self-driving and manual driven cars. Each driver co…

> Some of the cost could be mitigated with "toll-free" options, such as using a vehicle tracker like EZ-pass and not charging you if you travel less than N miles (to encourage people to live near work), or giving partial refunds if you use your car very little during a month.

Don't know if LA is anything like SF, but here, the poorer you are, the longer your commute is, generally. So this scheme would simply penalize people who already can't afford to live close to work.

Re: To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls

#107

Post by givinguflac »

wwweston wrote: post #45

> The reason that electrical power and air travel don’t fail every time they get crowded is that we raise prices to manage demand. Air travel and electrical power: (1) Are easier to add capacity for during times of peak demand (2) Actually do fail (even though tolled!) when demand exceeds capacity (brown/blackouts for electrical power, cascading delays easily exceeding those for ground traffic when weather knocks dow…

I agree tolls aren't the end all solution. However, if that revenue was explicitly applied to making public transit better/more accessible/more affordable, I'd be all for it. Alas, we don't live in such a world and I'm sure the tolls would just be spent elsewhere.

Re: To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls

#108

Post by lewis500 »

To people who feel pricing roads is wrong because of equity, what about pricing cars, gasoline, transit, parking, etc? Virtually all prices are hard on the poor but there are rarely calls to do away with prices where they already exist. It doesn't make much sense to say that it's equitable to put a tax on gasoline, an input to driving, but not driving itself. Moreover, are we supposed to make all street parking or public parking garages free at all times? What I see is status quo bias. Driving on a crowded road at rush hour doesn't deserve to be price free any more than a ride on a subway, an hour in a parking garage, a court appointment, the water bill of a publicly owned utility or any of the other commodities for which government charges some price. It's especially funny to see people complain tolls are big government. Tolls are supported by virtually every conservative think tank. They are central to trump's infrastructure plans.

Re: To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls

#109

Post by bit_logic »

The true solution to LA traffic will never happen. And that solution is buses. But not the current underfunded system that barely limps along. A massive number of buses, like 5x the current number. And combined with tolls for cars to get cars off the road. The large number of buses is critical because it greatly reduces wait time between transfers. It also allows adding express bus lines between major areas. But buses have a really bad reputation in LA. They are trying to build more rail which doesn't have the bad reputation, but that will always have the last mile issue.

Since the bad reputation of buses will likely never go away, it seems rail + uber pool/lyft line might be an alternative. It won't be as good, but could be good enough. I wish there was a company other than uber/lyft which focused on just this first/last mile issue for rail. Or maybe the metro here could just start a service like that themselves. Something like Rail Pool to get people from/to the rail stations. It combines the best of both transports (the rail covers 90% of the trip, the extensive road network is used for the first and last miles).

Re: To fix L.A.'s traffic, we need tolls

#110

Post by Retric »

oneplane wrote: post #102
adrr wrote: post #77

Problem with LA is that we build horizontally and not vertically. We keep adding more homes in suburbs and not building up in the cities that have the jobs. There's a big anti growth movement preventing high density housing. They have been successful in preventing high density projects like the Bergamot transit village(on a rail line too). Today we're voting on initiative that prevents large scale developments. If it…

To 'fix' the problem, the problem shouldn't be created in the first place. Require less cars and make people not need to go places all the time for a daily routine. Adding stuff isn't a scalable solution. After you hit building height economics limits, you'll still have to fan out, and at the same time, having more people stuffed together in a smaller area makes for more people-problems, like foot traffic, air, water…

Mass transit is much cheaper to build and maintain as density increases. Assume every building has 4 vs. 40 stories, now consider how many homes / jobs / shops are within 0.2 miles of a subway stop. Further, how many subway stops you need to pass on the average trip. That's the real benefit to building up, walking simply becomes more effective.
Post reply on HN