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

671–680 of 689 posts

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

#671

Post by galdosdi »

rebootthesystem wrote: post #387
galdosdi wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baloney. Just add a bunch of buses, with exclusive bus lanes covering their whole route. Choose the initial routes so they'll at least break even. Bam, you have a good public transit system that is much faster than private cars due to being immune to traffic, and you didn't have to confiscate any property, build anything expensive, or do anything else exciting or risky. Everyone's obsessed with rail, and rail is nice…

How did you know my name is Baloney Bam? You must not live in Los Angeles. If you took a lane away on every freeway the mayhem you'd create would be indescribably. In some places you can't due to the topology of the roads. Besides, buses will guarantee that it will take three hours to move a handful of miles because they would have to get on and off the freeways at regular intervals and brave street level congestion…

> If you took a lane away on every freeway the mayhem you'd create would be indescribably.

Really? Because all those lanes that have been added over the years don't appear to have made a big difference.

Also, the lane would be replaced with something amazing angelinos have never seen before -- a transport mode way faster than any other. With all the people choosing to use that bus, there'll be less car traffic. Saving half an hour has a way of turning excuses like "the bus is crowded" into jelly.

(Also, if it turns out you're right, lane rules and hours can be adjusted immediately with just a little paint or a sign. This is not risky.)

> Besides, buses will guarantee that it will take three hours to move a handful of miles because they would have to get on and off the freeways at regular intervals and brave street level congestion while then making stops

Um, don't use the freeway then, except where it's genuinely more direct. Then you don't have to take lanes away anyway.

> at non-existing parking lots (they don't exist now) to pick-up and drop off people.

Are you kidding? There's so much space in wasted parking lots for individual businesses, or even street space on these huge wide roads, any of which could be reclaimed.

> You must not live in Los Angeles.

Correct! If I did, I'd be afflicted by the same sad disease as you, lack of imagination.

Fact is, we make it work here in metro NYC, which is as big and sprawled out as LA -- probably more actually. If we can do it, so can you. (Note that by metro NYC I don't mean manhattan and the like, I mean to emphasize the outer parts, the 4 boroughs and 3 detached counties (Westchester, Bergen, Hudson) surrounding manhattan.

I invite you to come tour outer NYC, and see what you think

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

#672

Post by trome »

OrwellianChild wrote: post #667
trome wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle needs to dezone MLK, Interbay and other major transit corridors and allow these areas to densify. The transit is there, and the property is either empty parking lots or 1 story slum commercial as the zoning restricts the area to a certain use. These areas should be replaced with dense, mixed use development. We can have $800 apartments inside the city if we so choose, but with zoning forcing developers to bui…

That's the plan! https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/HALA/Policy/MH...

No, the areas will still have restrictive height caps that will stave off tall buildings per that HALA overview doc, we need these areas de-zoned, not rezoned.

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

#673

Post by OrwellianChild »

trome wrote: post #672
OrwellianChild wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the plan! https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/HALA/Policy/MH...

No, the areas will still have restrictive height caps that will stave off tall buildings per that HALA overview doc, we need these areas de-zoned, not rezoned.

I feel like you're letting great be the enemy of good, but we can agree to disagree. With few exceptions, all cities have zoning to keep some consistency and continuity within neighborhoods. Within that frame, I'm happy the city is pursuing "larger than normal" upzones and converting some SF zoning to mixed-use.

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

#674

Post by tropo »

bsder wrote: post #381
jessaustin wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'bsder you seem pretty confident here, despite the fact that everything you've said contradicts what I've heard from LEOs and other trained firearms users.

> despite the fact that everything you've said contradicts what I've heard from LEOs and other trained firearms users. Really? 1) Muggers The LEO's I deal with are normally "Just give them your wallet and phone. Do not fight back." Now, admittedly, most of this advice is from the US and being near big cities. In the US, we don't tend to have kidnappings--normally muggers will take your wallet and phone and run unless…

The LEOs you've dealt with are clearly not Florida sheriffs from non-urban counties. Brevard County sheriff Wayne Ivey is well-loved for his stance on the matter: good people should be prepared to shoot bad people. His department offers a tactical shooting course. BTW, this is a "Stand Your Ground" state, so there is no duty to retreat or otherwise let an evildoer control you.

I try to imagine a San Francisco or Berkeley police chief telling people to shoot bad people dead. It's... not working. :-)

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

#675

Post by tropo »

Symbiote wrote: post #583
jessaustin wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, a wallet (or a jewel!) isn't worth anyone's death, even a criminal's. One doesn't carry in order to defend a wallet. Any decent person would gladly lose $100 and some credit cards, not to have a death on her conscience. A criminal should know, however, that by violating the norms of polite society, he places himself in a fraught situation. It's very easy to cross the line between credibly threatening prope…

Deadly force absolutely must get one in trouble, in order to determine whether the force was appropriate or not. That much we owe to the deceased and their family. The best jurisdiction is one where it's hardly considered necessary to carry arms, or use deadly force. Gun ownership and the murder rate (and gun murder rate) seem roughly correlated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by...

This is "guilty until proven innocent". That isn't how law is supposed to work. We are supposed to assume that the force was appropriate. Of course, this doesn't mean we don't bother investigating, but the proper assumption is that a person is innocent.

In states that endorse "innocent until proven guilty", the police won't even lock you up or take your gun if you can make a plausible claim to have properly used force.

When the force is appropriate, we owe nothing to the deceased and their family. The deceased was a hazard, and the family set that hazard loose upon society. They owe us:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_fee

I see that your article does not distinguish legal gun ownership from illegal gun ownership. I suspect that "murder" might not be the obvious. (suicide? shot by cop? vehicular homocide?) Medical care varies greatly by state, changing survival odds. You may also be making a backwards assumption about cause and effect: people in places with lots of murder might feel a greater need to have a gun.

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

#676

Post by tropo »

csharpminor wrote: post #441
timthelion wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a new tram is EVEN BETTER than a new bus, and Prague has 50-60 year old trams that are as good as a new bus.

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.

Difficulty on hills is just a matter of going cheap.

Putting a motor on each axle or wheel normally solves the problem.

For more extreme situations: cable car, cog railway, linear motor... all of which can actually go vertical but then we call it an elevator.

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

#677

Post by joelx »

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.

Why go through the complexity and expense of setting up a toll system when LA could simply raise gas taxes?

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

#678

Post by hermitdev »

drewbug01 wrote: post #658
officelineback wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the conditions change so quickly that opening Waze just before you leave doesn't at least give you a ballpark estimate?

Yes, actually. Crashes, for example, can't be predicted via Waze and periodically f * up your commute in an epic way. And they happen very quickly and the effects ripple through the system equally quickly.

One other thing. If you get on at 22nd street, headed north on 294, past the Cermack toll (and 290/Roosevelt ramps), you have no exit available for about 8 miles. So, you're committed. And, once you've made it that far, you might as well stick it out, because it'll open up to 80-90 mph as soon as you get past the Touhy toll about 2 miles away.

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

#679

Post by hermitdev »

officelineback wrote: post #653
hermitdev wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one such commuter. I go from western Chicago burbs to north. There is no legit public trans option. It's 3 hours one way for what takes me 30 mins in no traffic. What i really hate is the variability. Good days its 30 min. Bad days, may be over 2 hours. And, you cant always tell before you get on the road.

So the conditions change so quickly that opening Waze just before you leave doesn't at least give you a ballpark estimate?

In addition to what drewbug stated: I check traffic before I leave. If I'm lucky, there's a stated 10 minute delay due to a single accident. By the time I get to where the accident was, there's been 3 more. In my 25 mile commute, it's common that I see at least 4 accidents each way. See my other comment, by the time you're on the highway, due to the routes, it's a waste to reroute, mostly due to lack of off ramps.

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

#680

Post by closeparen »

sampo wrote: post #499
closeparen wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20 minutes standing on a violently accelerating and decelerating train while strangers' bodies are touching you is much more fatiguing than 2 hours at a standstill in a car (BART is far and away the worst part of every workday, while even the slowest trips to Monterey or Tahoe are a blast, but maybe that's just me).

> BART is far and away the worst part of every workday BART is loud, rattly, screechy, wobbly, and generally feels like it could fall apart any moment. I wonder if even third world countries are able to produce trains that bad. But in developed parts of the world, trains are quiet and clean and run smoothly. In general when Americans say they don't like public transit, they mean they don't like American public transi…

Sure, public transit can be done well. You can also offer guaranteed seating for a price, which changes the experience entirely. I'd love to spend the first and last hour of my workday on an Amtrak-like train (assuming it had reasonable on-time performance).

The proposal here isn't to do public transit better, though. It's to get more people to use the existing, shitty public transit by pricing them out of driving.

Post reply on HN