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

601–610 of 689 posts

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

#601

Post by lmm »

sampo wrote: post #525
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…

> have you ridden the Big Blue Bus on an August Tuesday in 90+ degree heat at 5 pm? So the buses in LA don't have air conditioning? > The bums It seems a bit uneconomical, if a population 10k smelly homeless prevents a population of 1+ million people getting to their work comfortably and efficiently.

> It seems a bit uneconomical, if a population 10k smelly homeless prevents a population of 1+ million people getting to their work comfortably and efficiently.

It is indeed. Clearly something has broken down somewhere. But do you have any proposal for a politically-acceptable way to resolve it?

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

#602

Post by Ntrails »

idiot_stick wrote: post #590
467568985476 wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I must live on another planet, because the idea of "getting in a few pages" while standing in a crowded train is not appealing. I guess it's better than staring into space for 30 minutes, but I'd hardly call it recaptured time. AudioBook in my own car while in traffic is miles more appealing.

I spend about 15 minutes every morning and evening on the tube (London). I usually get a seat, but if not it's a non-sardine style standing journey with tolerable personal space levels.

Apart from the odd occasion when I miss my stop because distracted, reading is perfect for making the journey fly by. I wouldn't want to try anything serious because the block of time is too small, but "mere" fiction is wonderful.

Sometimes I'll play on my phone instead, or just close my eyes and semi-snooze listening to music. If I could park in central London and the traffic was light I still probably wouldn't choose to take my car there and back. Which is a pretty cool place to be imo

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

#603

Post by trome »

jhbadger wrote: post #592
trome wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If it runs less often than every 15 minutes, then its not a major bus line, and your in a suburban slum. Or, possibly your local transit agency has decided lifeline service to the suburban slums/gricklegrass is more important than urban transit, in which case its time to get the management canned.

Serving suburban slums with mass transit will never provide effective transit, nor is it financially feasible for most of these areas to maintain their infrastructure long term, usually they are underwater 5x to 6x in terms of maintenance funds needed to keep the current level of infrastructure afloat.

Richer areas may be able to make it work past the 50 year mark for a few decades more, but poorer areas (Detroit, Flint, and good chunks of Texas) are literally letting their infrastructure fall to bits as the tax base can't support it.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...

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

#604

Post by trome »

midnightclubbed wrote: post #570
trome wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I go to LA, it seems like an urban slum with no significant development of note (above 6 story) in most of LA. Its as though the land is worthless, even Oceanside has taller buildings than Long Beach or Riverside, and Oceanside is literally the middle of nowhere California! With that low density style of development, your not going to be able to justify a rail line that can move 20k people an hour, as there…

Bit unfair to Oceanside there, we are closer to San Diego (or to Orange County) than Santa Monica is to Long Beach. Plus we are sat on the SoCal coast, not exactly middle of no-where...

Its an hour from anywhere (about even time wise in my experience, whether heading to San Diego or Long Beach), has a beautiful coastline, but there is a gang war currently raging there and it is a rural small town, and that is how it operates (alongside the county gov't in North County).

Hell, there was a murder last week not a block from where I walked daily when I was there a few weeks ago. Had a window get smashed there too a few months back. IMO, Seattle is safer (just gotta keep the crack heads from breaking my windows in Chinatown :P).

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

#605

Post by trome »

praneshp wrote: post #560
deepGem wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 publ…

Starting 2011,I used to go to Bangalore once a year. The number of trees cut down, the number of new cars on the road, and the terrific traffic all boggled my mind. Car after car of software engineers, probably perfectly pleasant to work with, would just lay on the horns despite knowing perfectly well that the first car was stopped at a red light. If I ever go back to India, Bangalore is the first city that's off my…

That is just plain stupid, short of being a giant asshole, you don't lay on the horn cause someone respected a light/stop sign. Sounds like a city to avoid.

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

#606

Post by trome »

OrwellianChild wrote: post #341
avn2109 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bus themed solutions would definitely be an improvement over LA's status quo. However a better idea would be to reduce the need to travel long distances by building denser. LA roads are super wide right now, so the easiest way to raise density would be by putting buildings in the middle of the road, leaving a Really Narrow Street (tm) along either side. Ground floors of new buildings could be commercial, upper floors…

Bus Rapid Transit expansion is a near-term fix that can happen in a year or two. Rezones and construction to densify a city take longer. I don't think these two solutions are incompatible - they address the problem at different time scales.

Zoning is inherently racist, designed to keep the poor and working class out of areas of the city. It stunts economic growth to boot, and should be done away with entirely.

That being said, the roadways are public property, and should be redesigned to be on a road diet, but building structures in the middle is perhaps not the best idea. Parkifying some sections, expanding others into plazas (while infilling parking to densify) and selling the edges of the roadway to new development so it may be denser would be better approaches.

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

#607

Post by dx034 »

tapatio wrote: post #184
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 sounds terrible to live in, way too many people.

It's much nicer when you cycle to work. Many parts of London are not built that densely, at least compared to other European cities.

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

#608

Post by dx034 »

narag wrote: post #365
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...

Electric buses then.

Already started, several lines run on electric buses. But you'll only see improvements once black cabs are electric, too.

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

#609

Post by jlebrech »

Tolls to subsidise busses is the solution to any gridlock issue.

The problem is buses are now run by bus companies and not a public service so the public are still charged too much to get on a bus and if they have a car it might still be more tempting to take the car to work.

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

#610

Post by dx034 »

Balgair wrote: post #332
Symbiote wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know things are done differently in America, but the profit from London's congestion charge is invested in public transport by law . For at least the first few years, it was entirely spent on improvements to buses -- giving much more capacity, and faster journeys due to the reduced congestion. * Schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, to be precise, but the whole act is a 500 page PDF, so my curiosity…

This is also true here, but someone has to build or design those improvements to buses. The contract will typically go to someone's brother's shell company or something, especially in California. The approach to the Golden Gate Bridge cost a million dollars per foot of road. Yes, seismic this-and-that, environmental reports, noise studies, etc, but the corruption is just rampant in Cali.

Won't happen in the EU. It's forbidden for any public entity to give a contract such as this one without tendering it. Certainly not a perfect system, but it counteracts corruption pretty well.
Post reply on HN