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

591–600 of 689 posts

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

#591

Post by AnthonyMouse »

alkonaut wrote: post #567
Balgair wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Something needs to be done about the bus lanes then. Buses should drive in dedicated lanes, that's the whole point. If you are stuck in traffic on a bus then something isn't right.

The problem is bus lanes are hopelessly inefficient, because there aren't enough buses to fully utilize them. And if you are stuck in traffic in anything then something isn't right.

If you want to spend resources to make buses more attractive, start by eliminating fares.

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

#592

Post by jhbadger »

trome wrote: post #558
jhbadger wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd rather be anywhere in Seattle or Portland trying to use mass transit rather than in LA, its so spread out due to zoning (requiring abundant, unused parking, and limiting building height) and all of my past experiences there have been piss poor with mass transit in LA. San Diego is slightly better, but it has the same issue as LA with zoning. I do not think I could reliably take the bus to work in LA or San Diego,…

Interesting that you mention San Diego. I used to live there and actually took the bus to work. But I'd say mass transit is actually better in LA (which I would use while visiting) than SD. In San Diego, busses came generally only once an hour and most stopped running after 7:30pm making it impossible to use them to go somewhere after work. LA buses generally ran all day and every 15-30 minutes. which made them much more convenient.

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

#593

Post by revelation »

OrwellianChild wrote: post #348
revelation wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buses are the worst form of public transport due to low capacity, low efficiency and large exposure to delays from individual transport (no personal car can hold up rail) with the resulting scheduling issues and low customer satisfaction. Light rail blows buses away.

This interpretation assumes that buses don't have their own right-of-way. Give buses their own lane, and suddenly they start looking like very cheap, quick-to-implement light-rail substitutes...

No, they still have terrible capacity. Does nobody do basic math anymore?

And having bus lanes, which can still be blocked, does not make them cheap light-rail. You also need to upgrade all lights at intersections to allow the bus to override the current signal.

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

#594

Post by lmm »

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...

Pedestrianisation of Oxford Street seems to be inching up the agenda. One of the big political objections is that buses are the only disabled-accessible public transport to that area but once Crossrail is operational that will no longer be true.

The buses still have to go somewhere though - the huge number of routes along Oxford Street is not about serving Oxford Street per se so much as about getting them across town. Honestly I'd be surprised if buses were the big source of pollution though - the fleet is quite modern and many of them are hybrids that deliberately run electric-only through the most polluted areas.

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

#595

Post by MarchHare »

Symbiote wrote: post #396
martinald wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Oxford Street is packed with black cabs, they always seemed smellier to me. I used to work in Zone 4, and there'd be lines of them outside the station, with engines idling all day, next to the "Buses must switch off engines while on stand" signs. The new taxi regulations are a welcome improvement [1], but they're weaker than they should be. Why are Euro IV cars still allowed as new taxis? Why is it only voluntary for…

While I do empathise that people are making a living, I look forward to the day when the black cabs are gone. The amount of pollution they put out is awful.

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

#596

Post by robk »

slg wrote: post #165
nradov wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have sat next to plenty of people who "smell bad or play loud music or act out in inappropriate ways" in London or NYC. The differentiating factor (for me at least) is that those cities provide a legitimate service level with public transit that can get me to almost any place in their city in a reasonable time frame. That allows more "regular" people to forgo cars completely in favor of public transit. In LA it is…

Seriously? You see more awful things in a single day in a SF or LA bus than 6 months in London

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

#597

Post by talldan »

eigenvector wrote: post #456
reillyse wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but travelling on those systems takes a long time. When I lived in London a 1 hour commute was seen as totally normal. That was by train and I had a very direct single overground train to take (Kentish town to Chiswick if I remember).

An hour reading, sleeping or just zoned out on a train is a lot less fatigue than an hour operating a car in stop-and-go traffic.

That's definitely not the London commuter experience. Almost every train is crowded, and there's a very low chance that you'll get to sit on many trains. At some stations it's difficult to even board a train. Plus most trains don't have air conditioning. It's far from comfortable, but most of the time it does the job.

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

#598

Post by alkonaut »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #591
alkonaut wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something needs to be done about the bus lanes then. Buses should drive in dedicated lanes, that's the whole point. If you are stuck in traffic on a bus then something isn't right.

The problem is bus lanes are hopelessly inefficient, because there aren't enough buses to fully utilize them. And if you are stuck in traffic in anything then something isn't right. If you want to spend resources to make buses more attractive, start by eliminating fares.

> The problem is bus lanes are hopelessly inefficient, because there aren't enough buses to fully utilize them

That means there is a lot of capacity to add buses without causing congestion in the bus lanes. That's good.

Obviously it might be tempting to say "look we can't sacrifice one lane of 4 here to buses when cars are jammed bumper to bumper in the other 3 lanes" but that's how bus lanes work. With too few buses, they are just an ineficcient demonstration to the people in cars that they really should be riding the bus.

> If you want to spend resources to make buses more attractive, start by eliminating fares.

If petrol taxes, parking and tolls are high enough, then the buses are already almost free in comparison. Whether it costs $0 or $4 to ride the bus to work shouldn't matter - if parking, gas and tolls are 10 times that for one day of driving. Eliminating fares is one way of making the bus relatively cheaper compared to cars - but there is very little room there. The room to increase the cost of driving is almost infinite and it can be tweaked with gas taxes, congestion fees and parking costs.

Btw: do people in US metro areas usually pay to park at work in inner cities? If metro area parking is a taxable comp then that's also a cost (e.g. if my marginal tax rate is 50% and free parking would be valued at $100 so I'd be taxed $50 per day for that benefit).

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

#599

Post by ghuroo1 »

why do people keep comparing LA to any other city in the world?

that's the same logic of: my life is a mess, but my neighbour's is worse, so I'm pretty alright.

I do think traffic is one of the main issues in our society because we still have the same mentality about cars as we had 50y ago (or more). They should never be a priority, we're a collective not a bunch of singulars, so investing in good public transportation and keeping private cars out of the main areas of interest should be the norm. This way of living messes up with our health and life quality.

Here in Lisbon, Portugal, people complaint everyday about traffic and how much time they spend on it..even public transportation is a mess because it's schedules and quantity aren't that good. Fortunately, 2 years ago, I switched to riding my bicycle for 50min (each way) everyday. The commute is by the river and there's no description for how better my life got. But I recognise we can't all do that, so at least we should invest in good public transports and keep cars out of the cities so we can just walk a little bit once we got out of the train, metro, bus, whatever or even bring our bicycles to make this easier.

We will always be as lazy as possible if we allow ourselves to drive the car everywhere.

Let's just stop thinking that the car are the solution for need, it should never be. Cars and highways mess up our health, nature, landscapes, life quality, noise, etc. etc.

(I was in Washington D.C. for 2 months and hell I was about to get crazy just from the noise of cars and for the incapacity of being able to roam freely by foot.. there were cars EVERYWHERE, huge roads everywhere. I honestly think that cities like that aren't made for people who live or work there.)

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

#600

Post by lmm »

Touche wrote: post #334
nradov wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Am I horrible person to want higher end trains again (like there used to be)? So I can pay double but have the confidence that my fellow passengers have jobs and families they care about and don't have voices in their head. Does this make me a bad human to want this?

Everyone is selfish to some extent. Your view probably makes you more selfish than people who would be happy to ride a train with every class - but still less selfish than people who insist on a private car. Up to you what level of selfishness makes someone a bad person.
Post reply on HN