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

141–150 of 689 posts

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

#141

Post by yequalsx »

ghaff wrote: post #112
yequalsx wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People do know that it costs to drive a car but the cost is hidden in some sense. I think few people actually calculate how much driving really costs. When I drive 10 miles I don't think to myself that it's going to cost me $5.40 (using IRS mileage rate). Gasoline taxes do not come close to paying for the road system. I remember when gas hit around $5 a gallon in the U.S. some years ago people did think about driving…

The marginal cost per mile is probably significantly lower (and will vary by vehicle) but I agree with your basic point. I expect that people would be a lot more inclined to combine errands etc. if they had to literally pay per mile.

Yeah marginal cost per mile is less. Perhaps that's why people rarely think about the cost of a 10 mile drive.

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

#142

Post by nradov »

bit_logic wrote: post #109

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 buse…

Buses in the LA region have a bad reputation because of other bus passengers. If you ride the bus you might have to sit next to someone who smells bad or plays loud music or acts out in inappropriate ways. That's why everyone who can afford it drives their own car: to be alone. The reputation would improve if they could get more "regular" people riding, but it's kind of a chicken-or-the-egg problem.

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

#143

Post by shiftpgdn »

cosinetau wrote: post #96
shiftpgdn wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houston has flex tolling on it's main lanes. On our biggest freeway with 10+ lanes in each direction two are dedicated to tolling with a price that ranges from $1 to $8 each way. During peak hours the $8 toll makes almost no difference. The lanes remain just as jammed and on average you only save 5-10 minutes (less than 10% of the drive time) over the total length of the tollway. Obviously this isn't exactly scientif…

> Obviously this isn't exactly scientific reporting It doesn't need to be. Link to the local paper. There's a lot of misinformation being used today. It's not new, but we have the resources to verify things now. We need due diligence, not pontification.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/a...

You may need to Google that article title and click through to read it but it outlines that even at $7 each way the price wasn't high enough so now it's $10 each way (not $8 as I stated.) Even so, the $3 price hike has done little to ease congestion.

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

#144

Post by wwweston »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #69
r00fus wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we should also consider the concept of mass transit? The increased likelihood of injury or death from increased transit time in automobiles alone is a health hazard.

LA is getting better with mass transit. The problem is it's not running 24 hours. It shuts down around 1am so you it's not really good for doing things at night like in NYC. Also, there's a TON of crazy people riding, literal homeless crazy people, or kind of thuggish people. There needs to be some sort of loitering code enforcement on the train along with more security. I feel uncomfortable as a dude, I bet women fe…

> Also, there's a TON of crazy people riding, literal homeless crazy people

This is pretty true. I'm an occasional metro/bus rider, and I'd guess I've been on more rides where there's someone with a clear mental health issue than rides without. And while most of those occasions it's benign, something everyone can ignore... for enough of them it's been intense enough people on the car/bus have been clearly uncomfortable and it wasn't clear confrontational behavior wasn't going to escalate into violence.

I could imagine some people would decide never to ride again.

Enforcement is probably only part of the puzzle, though. We have the same problem with other public spaces (say, libraries) because we don't have any coherent or effective policy for dealing with people who are suffering from mental illness. Perhaps not coincidentally, there's no straightforward market-based solution to that problem (to an even higher degree than traffic).

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

#145

Post by kkitay »

bit_logic wrote: post #109

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 buse…

There's a middle ground between buses and rail: building defacto rail lines by transforming far-left lanes and middle dividers into dedicated bus tracks and semipermanent bus stations.

Urbanized (Gary Hustwit, 2011) highlights the TransMilenio bus system, which serves the city of Bogota. It specifically covers elevating the experience and status of taking the bus by adopting positive aspects of rail systems: covered waiting areas, dedicated transit lanes, more reliable service. Except it's less expensive to implement and more flexible.

TransMilenio bus and station: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Av_Am%C3%A9ricas_Transmil...

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransMilenio

With so much road already laid, LA is a perfect candidate for a system like this!

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

#146

Post by kazinator »

"To fix traffic, we need tolls"

Tolls are just a form of paying people to go away (if you don't take the toll road, you're paid by getting to keep a few dollars in your pocket).

It only reduces traffic for you if you are one of the ones that didn't go away.

If the toll discouraged you, then the traffic problem isn't solved for you; you're taking a bunch of non-toll roads riddled with detours and intersections.

We can't call that a solution to the traffic problem. That's like saying, "we can reduce congestion on this ethernet switch not by better firmware and protocols, but just getting people to stop web surfing and watching videos, and go do something else".

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

#147

Post by VintageCool »

lj3 wrote: post #62
bkeroack wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By far the most efficient mechanism humanity has ever come up with for distributing scarce resources (such as room on freeways) are free markets. The article is 100% correct that pervasive tolls are the only effective and fair way to reduce what has become monumentally oppressive traffic congestion in LA.

Tolls are a monopoly granted by the government, which makes it the opposite of a free market. The real result of a free market would be private roads or highways that would compete against each other for tolls. Neither are a great solution. Simply throwing more public transportation at the problem isn't going to help either. If LA wants to improve their traffic problem, they need to address the root cause: bad urban…

People will use free highways until they're at capacity. Throwing more public transportation at the problem does increase the number of people that can travel down the freeway, but it won't reduce traffic because any car taken off the highway by a driver switching to public transit will be replaced by another driver taking up the commute.

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

#148

Post by sologoub »

kirykl wrote: post #116
sologoub wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, and most people speed on "side streets", which are actually residential streets and people actually walk on these... Can't tell you how many times I almost got run over by such a fine motorist glued to yet another app...

I agree, general disregard for pedestrians is a big problem. Crosswalks are either a test of bravery or stupidity

Both? :)

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

#149

Post by wfo »

maloney wrote: post #53
endianswap wrote: post #13

Aren't tolls like this an incredibly regressive tax that further hurts the poor?

This is double speak, charging someone to use something is not a tax. The fee to ride the bus/train is not called a tax, why would this be any different? Roads need to stop being subsidized, it's the only thing that's going to give mass transit a chance to actually compete.

Sure, so when the police come to help you we should charge you a per-visit fee. It will be small, something poor people can't afford but rich people can afford easily, like $50. If you can't afford it, they won't go after the criminal who hurt you.

It's not regressive because charging someone to use something (like police services) is not a tax, after all.

The very point is that right now roads are paid by taxes, which are progressive, and people are suggesting replacing them with fees, which are regressive (without some additional scheme to account for this). A better solution would be subsidizing all public transit so it is free, which is progressive, not regressive. But will never solve the problem because it only incentivizes the poor to use transit.

If we stop subsidizing roads or make public transit free/cheaper then roads will be for the rich only, and public transit I'm sure will have millions poured into it and flourish. The government is, after all, historically very responsive to needs and pain points that are only felt by the poor and minorities.

We need to provide funding for transit first. We need to get middle-upper class people riding it, people who vote, are white, donate to political campaigns, know powerful people, etc which specifically means making it fast, efficient, reliable. Look at places like DC and NYC and SF/bayarea where middle-class businessmen take transit because it's the easiest, most efficient method and is fairly reliable.

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

#150

Post by virmundi »

bsder wrote: post #120
virmundi wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better enforcement is a good idea. Seems to be worth the money. Or carry concealed permits. You'll have to repeal California's action that requires all new semi-auto's to have a unique firing pin. But then you don't have to worry traveling. I carry. I keep odd hours in a small town. I walk every night .25 miles to my office at 8 PM and then back again around 2 AM. Never had any problem (probably the same as most peop…

> Or carry concealed permits. Um, no. The crazy people won't care, the gangbangers will be better armed and generally in a group, and the single mugger will now take your wallet AND gun AND may shoot you if he gets the drop on you instead of just taking your wallet. > in a small town It shows. Your assessment of the probability of crime and how you will interact with it is completely wrong.

Actually for the small town I'm in, muggings occur at night between 12 AM and 3AM. My office is down an unlit blind alley. As a result I carry a flashlight and a gun. Should be fairly good at defense. Also train to draw quickly for both. Light stuns; shot stops.

For the gangbangers, they don't really like to involve civilians in a gun fight. They save that for only the most extreme circumstances in territory protection/expansion. Honestly, not too afraid of them. A woman would benefit from a revolver in that situation. That's what my wife carries: Ruger LCR. No hammer so easy to pull from a purse (which is carried crossed over her). If she can't pull from the purse, she'll fire within it (taking the flash burn over rape, for example). In this instance the revolver will operate without catching the purse like a semi-auto would. At that point, they'd most likely run given the noise and possible loss of their friend.

As for the crazies, the point isn't to prevent them from being crazy by themselves. That's their right. It's to defend yourself if they turn that on you. When we go hiking, I carry a gun knowing the gators don't care. Doesn't mean it's useless.

Post reply on HN