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

501–510 of 689 posts

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

#501

Post by maxsilver »

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…

> Increase the cost of vehicle registration or gas taxes to encourage workers to prefer jobs closer to their home.

Your suggestion would have the opposite effect -- if you increase the cost of commuting, people will commute further to find cheaper housing to make up for the cash you just took away from them. If a person can't afford to live near their job already, taking more money from them (by taxing their commute) just makes all housing less affordable to them.

(There should probably be a "Paradox" label for this. It's a commonly cited argument that sounds plausible, but isn't)

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

#502

Post by s0rce »

ptaipale wrote: post #416
tomjakubowski wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But light rail (trams, or perhaps called streetcars in American English) can have stops as often as buses. I have a hard time justifying trams/streetcars over buses. They largely seem equivalent except that buses are more flexible since they're not bound to a set of tracks. For example, if a car crash or other obstacle blocks the tram tracks, the trams have to wait for the obstacle to be cleared. A bus can just go…

Trams are more comfortable for the passenger, as the ride is smoother. It's on rails, so no bumps, and acceleration/deceleration generally doesn't have abrupt jerks. On the other hand, buses are far more flexible; a minor glitch like an accident or someone unloading their moving goods stops a tram on the street totally, because it absolutely doesn't go round any obstacle. Buses do.

Also, no diesel fumes on an electric street car make the journey much more pleasant for many.

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

#503

Post by wapz »

sahaskatta wrote: post #500
u801e wrote: post #496

Collecting money via tolls has a higher administrative cost compared to collecting money via the gas tax [1]. The infrastucture to collect the gas tax is already in place. In contrast, there are a lot of things that need to be done before tolls can be put in place (legal, contracting, setting up collection points, etc). Plus, the public-private partnerships that some governments get into for these types of toll roads…

I wish it was that simple. Raising the gas tax isn't the solution. The gas tax will not work for to much longer because it doesn't accurately correlate to the number miles traveled. - A old compact car from 2007 may only get 20 mpg while a new car from 2017 may get 40 mpg. - Someone would a plug-in hybrid such as a Chevy Volt may only fill up their tank once every few months as they start off with a 50 mile battery r…

Is that a bad thing? There is a reason the government subsidizes pure electric cars and requires car manufacturers to make electric cars (albeit they only do it to meet the quota).

I understand it's going to punish those who really can't afford a decent car, but for ~$4000 in the bay area you can get a pretty decent used car that will get you 30+ mpg.

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

#504

Post by Neeek »

closeparen wrote: post #455
idlewords wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

London, Paris, NYC and Tokyo all have a comprehensive subway system and light rail covering the extended metro area. For many parts of LA, driving (or taking a bus through terrible traffic) is the only option.

New York's public transit commuters have some of the worst commute times in the country, at 7.5-11 hours/week (45 minutes each way on the low end). For LA's drivers, even 37 minutes is pretty bad. [1] Public transit mitigates the environmental and public safety effects of traffic, but the "wasting your life in a slow-moving vehicle" problem is much worse with public transit (even rail). And no, that time is not reusa…

I'm going to have to disagree with the "wasting your life in a slow-moving vehicle" comment. I'd rather spend an hour and a half on a bus to work where I can take calls and work from my laptop/read a book/nap or whatever, than spend 45 minutes sitting in and/or dodging traffic where I am getting NOTHING done.

Granted, if the bus is packed it can be difficult or impossible to get anything useful done also.

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

#505

Post by nradov »

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.

Air quality is poor because the UK government gave tax breaks to diesel vehicles in an attempt to cut carbon emissions. But they didn't realize at the time how harmful diesel particulate emissions are.

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

#506

Post by wapz »

unabst wrote: post #410
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…

Traffic in Tokyo is much worse because freeways are few and far between in Japan (and with very, very expensive tolls). I have to take the local roads if I go anywhere, so a 10km drive ~6 miles takes about 30-40 minutes. When I lived in Berkeley, I could get to downtown SF in under 20 minutes with no traffic, and even with traffic it would take about 40 minutes.

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

#507

Post by jhbadger »

reillyse wrote: post #445
bootloop wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. I am from europe and visited a few north american cities in the past, including LA. No or bad public transport was the norm but LA was a whole other level. You get out of the airport and there is a endless line of car rental places after each other. That makes it clear to you that you won't get far without a car. Going into the city or out takes you on a ridiculous wide highway which is basically a perm…

Yes car is king in LA. In recent years though Lyft/Uber have changed the game a lot. I'd say it's cost effective to not have a car at this stage, especially when you add in the cost of parking.

It depends on what you mean by LA. LA itself actually has fairly decent public transit (by US standards, not NYC, but by nearly every other city) -- the RapidBus busses are actually fairly rapid (they can control stoplights so they always hit green) and the Metro is quite nice where it goes.

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

#508

Post by deepGem »

reillyse wrote: post #427

LA doesn't have a traffic problem. People just have overly high expectations. As someone who has also lived and commuted in lots of cities around the world, LA just doesn't have that much of a problem. What other major city in the world would you expect to be able to drive 15 miles through the centre at rush hour and get to your destination in under an hour (I'm using as reference Downtown LA to Santa Monica at 9am,…

Delhi is a bad example. I'm not saying Delhi's traffic is any better. You have an alternative to driving. Delhi has some respectable public transit. The Delhi metro is rapidly growing and expanding to cover every facet of the city.

If you want to truly experience terrible traffic please come to Bangalore. It'll take an hour to cover just 5 miles, if you are lucky. One of the absolute worst cities to commute. The public transit is laughable at best. The Bangalore Metro, once it becomes fully operational sometime in March-April 2017 might do some good.

I'll sit in LA traffic for an hour any day, as compared to sitting in Bangalore traffic even for 15 mins. The road rage is unfathomable.

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

#509

Post by megablast »

nradov wrote: post #142
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.

Do you really think this only happens in LA?

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

#510

Post by megablast »

sqldba wrote: post #296
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…

I live in Australia. The last time I took a bus, many years ago now, a bunch of natives took turns urinating down the aisle and threatening to slit the throat of all the white passengers - which was just me and the driver. I live in one of the major cities. After that I went out and bought a car and I get more than a little upset when anyone suggests people should be forced to do otherwise.

Sure, except 100,000s of people catch buses every single day and are fine.

What happens when you crash your car, are you going to buy a plane?

Post reply on HN