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

571–580 of 689 posts

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

#571

Post by aninhumer »

timthelion wrote: post #467
csharpminor wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but what makes a tram better than a bus? I'm genuinely curious. As far as I can tell they're much more expensive per mile, have difficulty on hills, and make the street more dangerous for cyclists. The only advantage trams seem to have is that they don't have the stigma of busses.

There are several reasons. I'll devide them into to groups. Fundamental reasons: 1) The tram is a heavy vehicle running on rails and uses heavy spring shocks with one degree of freedom of movement (to tilt side to side). The bus is a light vehical with softer shock springs which have 360 degrees of freedom of movement. That is, that the bus can shake up/down, side to side, forwards/backwards and anything inbetween. T…

Please don't use code blocks with long paragraphs like this. It requires horizontal scrolling which makes it really hard to read.

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

#572

Post by inferiorhuman »

mdorazio wrote: post #554
xenihn wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 It takes thirty minutes to go a mile in traffic where I'm at (West LA, near Brentwood and Santa Monica). Then an hour to go 5 miles in any direction on the 10 or 405. It's really bad.

Which direction? I live near you and regularly commute to the South Bay. It usually takes under half an hour to go 20 miles on 405. If you live and work on the wrong traffic pattern (ex. live in South Bay, commute north) then yes, you're going to have a bad time. If you move somewhere where your commute is against traffic then it's really not bad at all.

I drove SF to San Diego last year. Taking 710 from I-5 to CA-91 took well over an hour. Absolute insanity.

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

#573

Post by inferiorhuman »

ng-user wrote: post #484
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,…

Seriously, there are worse cities than LA. Toronto has arguably the worst traffic in North America [0] [0] - http://oppositelock.kinja.com/the-busiest-highway-in-north-a...

Also has that 18-lane monstrosity.

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

#574

Post by df3 »

Better public transportation is part of the answer, but as another commenter pointed out, even in cities with decent subway systems commute times can be up to an hour.

The ideal solution would be encourage commercial and residential areas to intermingle. In particular, less restrictive zoning in residential areas could let companies locate themselves closer to workers.

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

#576

Post by df3 »

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…

Good point, but keep in mind that New York's subway is old and antiquated. Inefficient connections, overcrowded lines, and a lack of maintenance are a major part of longer commute times.

Also remember that New York is a set of islands. This already puts it at an efficiency disadvantage.

Berlin and Munich are two cities that come to mind with excellent public transport and great commute times. Most people commute in less than 30 minutes even from less central areas.

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

#577

Post by tankerdude »

edko wrote: post #195
tankerdude wrote: post #172

Simplest way: $5/gallon gas. When the costs for the road increase in that manner, there was a drastic drop in commuters and a big jump in mass transit. It has happened in the past when gas was steep. Perhaps it is time again to help reduce congestion. Right now, its not much more expensive to drive than to use light rail.

So what happens, for example, with neighboring counties, where there isn't any mass transit? Do they also pay $5/gallon, to help solve LA's problems? Or do they keep current gas prices, and get their roads clogged with Angelenos looking for cheaper fuel?

Gas taxes are state level based at this time. But let's say they become county based. Ensure that taxes are across multiple counties as LA really is a metropolis that spans many counties.

To see the effect you are talking about, you would see it and it has happened, in Primm, Nevada.

Some people make the effort to go get gas past the state line but really, it was never worth their effort.

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

#578

Post by titzer »

erispoe wrote: post #537
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…

LA is actually very suitable for public transit: it's a city with multiple, reasonably dense urban centers. The greater LA as a whole is also pretty dense, denser than NY metro area. And the city is investing like crazy in new transit infrastructure. Give it 20 years and, at least in the central parts of LA metro, it will be much more convenient to move by transit.

> The greater LA as a whole is also pretty dense, denser than NY metro area.

Sorry, this is not even close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

There are many ranking areas in NYC in the top 25, and only a few from LA. NYC overall is ranked #6! Los Angeles doesn't even place in the top 130.

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

#579

Post by paganel »

467568985476 wrote: post #462
closeparen wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 completely disagree about the reusability of time. I live in Boston and my commute on the train is only about 20 minutes, but that's plenty of time to read a few pages or catch up on the news. I see plenty of commuters reading books as well, so I'm definitely not a special case. Reading a book while standing on a crowded train is not that hard...

> Reading a book while standing on a crowded train is not that hard...

I can read a book or a newspaper while in a tramway or a bus only if I'm standing up, otherwise I get car sickness. I very rarely choose to sit down when using public transport for exactly this reason (strangely enough I can read while sitting down when riding the train).

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

#580

Post by Symbiote »

jdminhbg wrote: post #522
Symbiote wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't added the external cost to society -- accidents, pollution, congestion and so on. A study in Copenhagen found that the total cost (personal + to society) of cycling 1km was 8¢, versus 50¢ for driving, or 89¢ for driving at peak times. (That includes 16¢ given back to society in fuel tax.) The low cycling figure is mostly due to the positive benefit to society of a healthier population (reduced healthcare…

Accidents should be priced in via insurance; if the at-fault driver pays and liability insurance is mandatory, the costs are internalized.

The full reasoning for the accident cost is:

"Accident costs are founded in market values, and comprise public services (police, rescue and treatment), the loss of net productivity, premature deaths, minor and major injuries, and the cost of material damage. Costs are calculated in comparison to number of accidents related to cars/bicycles, and interpolated by the number of km driven/cycled. Accidents entail a cost of Euro 0.022/km for driving and Euro 0.106/km for cycling (COWI and Køpenhavns Kommune, 2009; Transportministeriet, 2010). Even though accidents involving cyclists entail lower material damage costs, overall costs are higher, as cyclists are more exposed and hence affected by accidents. As outlined by Transportministeriet (2013), there remains considerable uncertainty regarding average accident costs for cyclists."

I doubt the cost of treatment is recovered from road insurance policies in Denmark.

(Also NB this is urban driving at 50km/h, the accident cost of extra-urban driving may be higher.)

Post reply on HN