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

311–320 of 689 posts

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

#311

Post by engx »

Balgair wrote: post #238
alkonaut wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's a 20 minute commute by bus, or a 1hr commute by car then it's easy. You don't care what the next guy smells like. Or if the first 2h pay of your day is used to pay for parking, then a bus ticket is attractive.

Problem is, in LA at least, the bus and the car are about the same amount of time. Maybe a smidge longer for the bus. So most people that can afford to will take a car to avoid the cranksters, shockingly rude bus patrons, and the chance of a 'piss bus' on their way home.

A bus anyway in LA is substantially longer than driving. LA traffic is so annoying that a lot of people would likely take the bus if it was faster.

If there were 10x more busses, and I could pay $10 for an all day pass, I'd take the bus every other day. Especially if the higher cost limited those who unfortunately use mass transit as temporary shelter. (And find some alternative temporary no strings attached shelter for them.)

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

#312

Post by martinald »

Symbiote wrote: post #254
martinald wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the central line at rush hour in London? It's horrendous[1]. We are talking >7people per sqm, plus significant waits to even get on the trains. But yet, 100k+s use it every day of all socioeconomic backgrounds. I'd imagine mostly middle class/upper middle class professionals. Why? 1) Traffic is terrible. It will take 1hr+ to do a journey the central line does in 15-20m. 2) Even if you want to drive, par…

London hasn't adequately priced the externalities of traffic congestion. Air quality is still rather poor by European standards! The more recent changes are well overdue, but still don't go far enough.

That's mostly caused by buses though, not private cars. Eg Oxford Street is one of the worst but has no cars on it.

Not sure how productive it is taxing buses...

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

#313

Post by oftenwrong »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #252
ahh wrote: post #232

Before we ask about methods...has any American city ever fixed a traffic problem? No, I'm serious: has any city in the US ever had traffic at some (bad) level, implemented some set of new policies, then had traffic drop substantially while maintaining the same population density (i.e. I won't count the abandonment of Detroit.) I certainly don't know of any, which makes me doubtful about anyone 's proposals to fix tra…

Vancouver, BC a "North" American city has had the same traffic volumes entering/exiting its downtown core since the 1960s even though the amount of jobs and people living in the area has massively increased during that time. This was accomplished by: 1. Never building a freeway and never expanding any road capacity at all. (This is a strong disincentive to drive to downtown) 2. Building rapid transit. 3. Building res…

See also: Canadian Cities American Cities: Our Differences Are the Same

http://www.jtc.sala.ubc.ca/newsroom/patrick_condon_primer.pd...

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

#314

Post by astrodust »

sanswork wrote: post #298
astrodust wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which city is doing LRT? These can be more cost-effective in the long run at certain ridership levels, plus they're usually a better experience for the passenger. Busses just plain suck.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/transitexpan...

Yes, Toronto, Australia. Obviously.

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

#315

Post by remarkEon »

oftenwrong wrote: post #299
remarkEon wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure there's some research on this somewhere, but parking minimums have got to be one of the most distortive policies to ever emerge in urban planning.

This is pretty much the definitive book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/dp/193236496X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_NMZ...

Very nice, thanks for the recommendation.

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

#317

Post by DrScump »

martinald wrote: post #174
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…

1) is completely false. If you have a entirely full airport at peak like LAX, JFK or LHR, how do you add more flights? The marginal cost of more flights is another runway or terminal building, which is (tens) of billions of dollars. The same problem exists within electricial grids. Providing 'peaker' plants which are only used 5% of the time are incredible expensive. cf how expensive electricity got in california whe…

You can add capacity without adding flights by using larger planes. Airlines use the smallest plane they can for a route to minimize cost.

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

#318

Post by whb07 »

I think demand based pricing is the most efficient tool to deal with traffic. That being said, assuming in 3-5 years cars will be self driven, traffic should be a thing of the distant past. Its already started where people no longer own cars and use Uber and the like...now imagine if over 50% of drivers did that? Picture a giant luxury bus with wi-fi and spacious seats driving all around the city using an Uber pool like service. Prices in theory would be vastly cheaper for the rider as a) there is no driver to pay and b) insurance cost for bus would be cheaper. seems like a win win

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

#319

Post by jessaustin »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #126
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.

It's the overall idea of wealth transfers. We're talking about two things at the same time: 1) A method to reduce traffic, 2) A method to move money from people into toll-road owners. Systematically transferring money from the overall population to a subgroup is generally thought of as a tax.

This definition of "tax" is wrong at best, precisely backwards at worst. Most people don't own real estate, yet they still call it "property tax". Most people didn't die this year, yet they still call it "estate tax". Most people don't smoke, yet they still call it "cigarette tax". In every case, the people's representatives have found some group they can shake down on the people's behalf.

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

#320

Post by ufo »

danesparza wrote: post #237
m-j-fox wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might like Sao Paulo. Its like LA but smelly-er and full of buses. In Sao Paulo there's no need to hurry to hop on your bus before it leaves the stop because another one will arrive immediately. Same deal with the metro. Trains arrive and depart every 90 seconds during rush hour. Do an image search for tráfego em sao paulo site:.br if you're curious how that's working out for them. I like this one: http://f.i.uol…

Hmmm ... given the current state of the government in Brazil https://www.ft.com/content/17bd7ffa-3944-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8... ), I wonder how much longer the government can sustain a mass transit system that runs that frequently?

The São Paulo city and state government are doing relatively fine (compared with the rest of the country)
Post reply on HN