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

261–270 of 689 posts

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

#261

Post by ju-st »

photojosh wrote: post #221
ju-st wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, tolls make only sense when there is an alternative to driving. When people have no other choice than to drive nothing will change with tolls. Tolls are basically an artificial added cost to driving. However ideally the public transport system should be designed in such a superior way that people would switch without artificial punishment for driving.

If that's so, then fares on public transport are basically an "artificial added cost". Roads are enormously expensive both for construction and maintenance, and in most places AFAIK fuel taxes and vehicle registrations do not cover that cost, so they are being subsidised by the general taxpayer.

I didn't meant the actual cost (as in Dollars) for the infrastructure but the associated disincentive. Collecting toll would certainly increase tax justice by relieving the general taxpayer. But that wouldn't solve the traffic problem because people will still need to travel somehow.

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

#262

Post by skybrian »

wfo wrote: post #149
maloney wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, whi…

I think the idea is that sales and gasoline taxes are already used to pay for roads and are already regressive, so you're replacing one regressive tax with another, which is (perhaps) no worse than before.

On the other hand, if you're replacing income tax with tolls or just raising tolls without lowering other taxes, then it would be regressive.

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

#263

Post by piplgobde »

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…

I have to agree with the homeless bit, ride on the red line and after a certain point it becomes a mobile homeless shelter. Have heard stories of the blue line, and I'm just glad I don't need to ride that one often at all.

Sympathetic to those without a home, but it almost makes one want to never ride on the metro or bus again. Which is especially hard since I have no other means of transportation.

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

#264

Post by JimboOmega »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #131
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…

> the bad reputation of buses Buses have a bad reputation compared to other modes of transit because they're so easily re-routable. A political whim could shut down a whole bus route in a day, leaving commuters stranded. Rail signals long-term investment, and neighborhoods will grow around rail because they can guarantee it'll be there for years to come.

Don't forget that rail (usually) has its own right-of-way.A badly planned bus system is never faster than driving; you're stuck in the exact same traffic. Rail (especially subway or Rapid Transit) though, automatically has the benefits of BRT... it doesn't get stuck in traffic.

Also when looking at e.g. Light Rail that goes on the road (like Muni's LRVs) you should consider the socioeconomic factors - the bus is looked down as for poor people in a way rail transit isn'. (Which is why, for instance, the NX is a thing; people wanted and got a specially painted bus while the N was undergoing renovations so they wouldn't be on the "common people" bus.)

Remember - a "regular" bus is never faster than driving.

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

#265

Post by anthony_romeo »

timthelion wrote: post #218
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…

Do you have any experience with busses? Was that experience "great"? For example, have you lived in Hong Kong, which I understand is a Bus city? I live in Prague, and the trams are great. It is a 100% better experience than driving. Smooth, quiet, usually plenty of leg room. Doesn't smell. The busses, however, are hell. That low key vibration of the motor, the smell of the gass, the cramped spaces, the steps, all add…

Kinda related to what you talk about, one problem is that lots of buses are just old. In Massachusetts, over the past year or so the MBTA has been rolling out new buses that are comfortable, smoother, rather quiet, and more energy efficient than the older buses. I'd actually argue that our bus system is far better than our train system.

I wonder if it's a feedback loop sort of issue. The buses are old and crummy -> people avoid the bus -> bus modernization is deprioritized -> buses get older and crummier. If a city invests in buses that don't feel like an afterthought, then perhaps more people would use them.

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

#266

Post by scythe »

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…

I had envisioned a van-based system for the last-mile rail problem. It's a more comfortable ride than a bus, and since you're focusing on short routes you should have pretty low latency with the vans, which fixes the "transfer issue" where transferring between two transit lines can add 15+ minutes to your commute. Van drivers are significantly cheaper than bus drivers, since a normal drivers' license can be used for up to 15 passengers in most states (you probably still want to vet them).

I've been semi-expecting to see UberVAN pop up actually. It doesn't seem like the kind of idea strange enough that nobody else would think of it.

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

#268

Post by mschuster91 »

timthelion wrote: post #241
jisaacstone wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had some good bus experiences, in Mexico City and KunMing I've ridden in nice clean busses with dedicated lanes and raised platforms for easy entry/exit[1]. It's near as nice as rail and from what I understand quite a bit cheaper to build [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Estaci%C3%B3n_SetDomingue...

It may be cheeper to build, though that is questionable. It is cheeper only because it takes advantage of existing roadway, but if you factor in the root cost of all of the existing infrastructure it uses than there's not much of a difference in cost between steel+gravel and concrete is there? In any case, over time the price of the busses goes up steeply. You need to replace a bus after 20 years, where-as trams last…

> there's not much of a difference in cost between steel+gravel and concrete is there?

There is a difference, because a pure asphalt track is easy to lay, and especially easy to rework.

Train tracks, especially those running in asphalt (shared road between cars and trams), have a host of problems:

1) It's really expensive to build them - trains weigh a LOT and the rails need adequate foundations

2) It's really expensive to maintain them - you can't just go with a miller over the asphalt, because there are, obviously, the rails themselves but also delicate wiring for positioning/switch controls, signalling etc.; also, in most cases there are no alternate routes, which means you have two weeks of no service at all where a bus might just be re-routed one parallel street away.

3) It's really expensive to keep them operational: unlike with rised rails, street-level sunk rails act as sinks for everything from ordinary dirt from leaves to stones idiots place in the rail or stuff that falls into the rail from improperly secured vehicles.

4) They're friggin' dangerous hazards for bicyclists! I can't count the number of falls and crashes I had due to being forced to escape into a sunken rail.

5) Idiots with huge trucks or who are not careful when operating stuff like lifters or excavators near the overhead wiring. Happens surprisingly often that someone accidentally damages or destroys overhead wiring.

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

#269

Post by timthelion »

anthony_romeo wrote: post #265
timthelion wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any experience with busses? Was that experience "great"? For example, have you lived in Hong Kong, which I understand is a Bus city? I live in Prague, and the trams are great. It is a 100% better experience than driving. Smooth, quiet, usually plenty of leg room. Doesn't smell. The busses, however, are hell. That low key vibration of the motor, the smell of the gass, the cramped spaces, the steps, all add…

Kinda related to what you talk about, one problem is that lots of buses are just old . In Massachusetts, over the past year or so the MBTA has been rolling out new buses that are comfortable, smoother, rather quiet, and more energy efficient than the older buses. I'd actually argue that our bus system is far better than our train system. I wonder if it's a feedback loop sort of issue. The buses are old and crummy ->…

But a new tram is EVEN BETTER than a new bus, and Prague has 50-60 year old trams that are as good as a new bus.

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

#270

Post by MK999 »

tunesmith wrote: post #168

What's the state of the art urban planning in terms of actually giving people less reason to drive/travel? It seems you need more zoning pods in suburbs where mini city centers (with jobs) can pop up, giving people less reason for long commutes.

As I understand it the innovation is at the zoning level. In order to affect change you need to change all of these zoning laws, and the keyword is Form Based Code, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form-based_code

Encouraging info from the wiki: The Cincinnati Form-Based Code adopted in 2013 is designed to be applied citywide in an incremental way, neighborhood by neighborhood. The code establishes transect zones and specifies standards for transects, building types, frontage types, walkable neighborhoods, and thoroughfares that can be adapted to each neighborhood.[4][5]

Post reply on HN