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

401–410 of 689 posts

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

#401

Post by bufordsharkley »

Osiris wrote: post #307

This is just a band-aid. Same with adding buses, lanes, trains, etc. When something goes wrong in software we usually try to resolve it by finding a root cause. There are a lot of cars on the roads. Why? People live far away from their work. Why? All the office buildings are in one central place. Why? ... Etc. The solutions to the root causes, whatever they are, are, unfortunately, a lot more complex and expensive th…

Most of these have to do with inefficient use of land, and ultimately can be aided with the big kahuna of fixes: a land value tax.[0] It would work to push back against restrictive zoning policies (holding costs of land go up), and would create a virtuous cycle of land values being invested back into local infrastructure, resulting in higher land values (you can get transit for free).

Donald Shoup (the author of "The High Price of Free Parking", namechecked below), has written extensively about how LVT would improve urban land use, as has Chuck Marohn (of Strong Towns, whose "Growth Ponzi Scheme" is namechecked below.)

In fact, few things seem to have a stronger consensus than LVT among economists and urban planners. Then why don't we have it?

In short, it shows the limitation of Pareto Optimality―to enact a LVT, the returns to landowners would be limited, which creates a very active special interest. Sob stories result when land is used more efficiently―people are generally moved by tales of the Old Poor Widow who can't possibly consider moving out of her ranch house that she's lived in for 40 years.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

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

#402

Post by timthelion »

TomMarius wrote: post #383
timthelion wrote: post #316

One time I was crossing the street, and I almost got hit by some white asshole in his car, going way too fast. Actually, that happens all the time. That's why I always start shooting my machine gun at anything within 50 meters that moves.

There is one main difference, though. No one is forcing you to use car, but you'd like to force others not to.

Um? What? I don't own a car. Do you mean that "no one is forcing me to cross the street in front of my house?

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

#403

Post by TomMarius »

timthelion wrote: post #399
TomMarius wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about traffic, it's about comfort. In car, I'm comfortable even when I'm stuck in a traffic jam. Also, it takes 39 minutes to go to my office using public transit, and 18 by car, and that's the worst case.

It is only so fast, because the rest of us are in the tram though.

Nope. It's fast because the local government decided to support individual transport for once and built the tunnel complex.

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

#404

Post by branchless »

Balgair wrote: post #243
Lukeas14 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that the reputation of buses is the reason why more people don't take them in LA. Driving in traffic might be bad, but taking a bus in that same traffic is usually even more inconvenient, efficient and less economically viable. Taking a bus within the same city has never been a problem and these routes are typically pretty full. However, once you're going from one city to another, within LA county, the add…

How often do you take the Big Blue Bus? People really do drive so they do not have to deal with the bums. Those guys can be really violent and smelly some days.

Perhaps have a society without insane inequality whilst we are drawing up a wish list...

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

#405

Post by wahern »

antognini wrote: post #192
Nav_Panel wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Buses have a bad reputation compared to other modes of transit because they're so easily re-routable. I've always thought that was an advantage for buses. With rail, you have to plan it to go through areas that are not only popular now, but will be popular in 30 years. If some neighborhood suddenly becomes the happening place 10 years from now, you have to build a whole new, expensive line. But with buses, you can…

It's an advantage for the transit agency. It's a disincentive for people who wish to structure their daily life around public transit over the long term. Thus, a rail line will usually bump your property value much higher than a bus line.

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

#406

Post by timthelion »

TomMarius wrote: post #383
timthelion wrote: post #316

One time I was crossing the street, and I almost got hit by some white asshole in his car, going way too fast. Actually, that happens all the time. That's why I always start shooting my machine gun at anything within 50 meters that moves.

There is one main difference, though. No one is forcing you to use car, but you'd like to force others not to.

And you force me to breath the fumes.

Driving a car is not a human right. It is actually a very expensive service provided you, almost for free, by the government. It is your largest entitlement.

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

#407

Post by iandanforth »

bobthepanda wrote: post #390
Osiris wrote: post #307

This is just a band-aid. Same with adding buses, lanes, trains, etc. When something goes wrong in software we usually try to resolve it by finding a root cause. There are a lot of cars on the roads. Why? People live far away from their work. Why? All the office buildings are in one central place. Why? ... Etc. The solutions to the root causes, whatever they are, are, unfortunately, a lot more complex and expensive th…

The problem is that mixed use doesn't necessarily lead to any of this. People want to live where they want to live, which is not necessarily next to work. Exhibit A of this is Tokyo, which despite being very dense, very mixed-use, extensive public transport, tolled highways, expensive vehicle registration, etc., is still commuting hell.

Which commute are you referring to? My experience in Japan is very limited but my impression was that the mixed-use, and extensive public transport options led to some of the efficient transport I've ever encountered. Perhaps you're referring to strains on capacity during peak times?

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

#408

Post by Balgair »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #376
Balgair wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like that idea. The last mile issue in LA really is a problem, trying to cross streets is like playing Frogger and that would help a lot. I actually rode the buses in LA for about 2 years (Westside to UCLA). Adding more buses, and I mean a LOT more buses (10x), may actually work. However, the issue with LA buses is not the frequency or the timing of transfers, it is the city and the people themselves. LA is…

i agree with much of what you're saying, but -- 1 voter for ~50k residents? huh? there are about 4 million residents in LA. 1 voter per 50k residents amounts to 80 voters. i must be misunderstanding your comment...

You are right. I messed up here. The voter turn out in LA is typically ~10% of the population. Garcetti got ~6% of the population to vote for him in '13.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_mayoral_election,_...

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

#409

Post by to3m »

bufordsharkley wrote: post #401
Osiris wrote: post #307

This is just a band-aid. Same with adding buses, lanes, trains, etc. When something goes wrong in software we usually try to resolve it by finding a root cause. There are a lot of cars on the roads. Why? People live far away from their work. Why? All the office buildings are in one central place. Why? ... Etc. The solutions to the root causes, whatever they are, are, unfortunately, a lot more complex and expensive th…

Most of these have to do with inefficient use of land, and ultimately can be aided with the big kahuna of fixes: a land value tax.[0] It would work to push back against restrictive zoning policies (holding costs of land go up), and would create a virtuous cycle of land values being invested back into local infrastructure, resulting in higher land values (you can get transit for free). Donald Shoup (the author of "The…

UK-focused blog with rebuttals for many common anti-LVT arguments: http://kaalvtn.blogspot.co.uk/

The author is an advocate for (as I recall?) having LVT replace at least CGT, income tax, national insurance, corporation tax, and, especially, VAT.

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

#410

Post by unabst »

Osiris wrote: post #307

This is just a band-aid. Same with adding buses, lanes, trains, etc. When something goes wrong in software we usually try to resolve it by finding a root cause. There are a lot of cars on the roads. Why? People live far away from their work. Why? All the office buildings are in one central place. Why? ... Etc. The solutions to the root causes, whatever they are, are, unfortunately, a lot more complex and expensive th…

Regarding everyone who thinks LA offices are not centralized... think Tokyo. It's multiple cities connected at the hip. LA never ends between them, and is actually worse for traffic because people need to travel through them.

Like Tokyo, LA would be perfect for more trains. But like Tokyo or NY, the evolution of which becomes a city where cars become either a luxury or an impossibility.

This is great when the ride is clean and on time, which is why I would hate to see LA end up like NY.

But then again, if it's too convenient, you end up being pushed in by men wearing white gloves, at least during rush hour.

That's why co-working spaces are awesome. It's not working from home, but it's not going to work either.

Post reply on HN