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

351–360 of 689 posts

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

#351

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

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…

> Problem with LA is that we build horizontally and not vertically.

This is an often repeated statement that is a myth. Los Angeles is the densest urban area in the US.

> 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).

IMO, this is the root of the problem. Areas like Koreatown and Hollywood are against adding more density despite it being the area that naturally should be the most dense. It has a variety of mass transit options, is in a central location served by multiple freeways, and is where many people work.

> Today we're voting on initiative that prevents large scale developments. If it passes, housing will get more expensive and traffic will get worse. To fix the problem, we just need more affordable housing where the jobs are located and that means building upwards.

If that measure passes, it'll prevent the development of housing for the homeless and waste the $1 billion we voted to allot for that proposal. The proposal was brought forward by the head of the AIds Healthcare Foundation who has a history of sponsoring ballot proposals more for publicity than anything else.

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

#353

Post by martinald »

DrScump wrote: post #317
martinald wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not really. Firstly, planes need to be spaced after takeoff more if they are larger (eg a A380 will require more spacing than a 747). This cuts the capacity gain somewhat.

Secondly, not all gates can take larger aircraft.

Thirdly, larger aircraft take a lot more time to turn around than smaller ones (fewer doors per passenger). Which means your gates are tied up for longer.

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

#354

Post by oulu2006 »

photojosh wrote: post #205
kkitay wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ditto for Quito, Ecuador: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Quito I'm now back in Australia, and despairing because my small city is putting in a light rail solution when a bus rapid transit option would be so much cheaper, given our low ridership. But buses aren't cool. :(

I'm sitting right next to where they've been drilling on Devonshire street for the past 4 months to move a power cable to central station!

I've taken busses through Sydney for years, and to be honest, I'm really hoping the LRS does what they promise it will, because the bus system here is so bad.

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

#355

Post by jessriedel »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #156
jessriedel wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They get paid.

Wait, so this is just Uber where after you finish your short Uber shift, you go to work?

Sorta. Unlike a normal Uber driver, the carpool driver (1) specify their rough route, (2) can decline riders without penalty, and (3) isn't paid as much (basically enough to cover gas, I think). But yes, the pick-up/drop-off interface was supposed to be more or less the same.

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

#356

Post by sandover »

Some observations:

- LA is densifying fairly quickly.

- More road capacity will not, in general, be added; road capacity is actually being removed.

- Average car velocity is slowing and will likely continue to slow.

- Freeways at capacity, such as the 101 in the morning, move at approximately bicycle speed.

- Most bus routes in town move at slower than bicycle speed.

- The slower the traffic is, the safer a bicycle trip feels, subjectively.

- LA has 300+ days of great weather a year, making it pleasant to be outside.

- Air quality in LA gets better every year.

- Battery technology is the subject of intense R&D right now.

- 2-wheeled vehicles are never stuck in traffic.

- Consider the future of electric 2-wheeled vehicles in LA.

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

#357

Post by OrwellianChild »

yequalsx wrote: post #85
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…

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…

ghaff alluded to this, but there is also a disconnect between the cost at point of use and the sunk cost when it comes to cars. If you live somewhere where there are poor transit options, you must buy a car. Once you own a car, each additional mile is cheap, considering the conveience - gas taxes be damned.

It follows that converting a car-based city to a transit one necessarily takes away resources from the people who have sunk high costs into their acquisition of a car. That population almost always objects to transit-oriented development.

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

#358

Post by tim333 »

martinald wrote: post #312
Symbiote wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

They are working on improving the busses, replacing them with hybrids and the like. Taxis too. https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/pollution-a...

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

#359

Post by photojosh »

oulu2006 wrote: post #354
photojosh wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditto for Quito, Ecuador: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Quito I'm now back in Australia, and despairing because my small city is putting in a light rail solution when a bus rapid transit option would be so much cheaper, given our low ridership. But buses aren't cool. :(

I'm sitting right next to where they've been drilling on Devonshire street for the past 4 months to move a power cable to central station! I've taken busses through Sydney for years, and to be honest, I'm really hoping the LRS does what they promise it will, because the bus system here is so bad.

I think it'll be fine for Sydney, but I'm in Newcastle and it seems so daft...
Post reply on HN