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

681–689 of 689 posts

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

#681

Post by trome »

OrwellianChild wrote: post #673
trome wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its a temporary bandaid though, that is the issue. With a lack of zoning, like we had not even 100 years ago, we'd have much more core development, and it'd prevent much of the extremely destructive single family home infill that is occurring.

Zoning adds risk to projects and creates an overheated housing market, where the cost of housing is land cost, construction costs, & zoning cost plus whatever the seller can get thanks to the artificially constrained supply.

"They aren't making more land" is entirely due to zoning ensuring most of the city is underdeveloped.

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

#682

Post by gambiting »

beastcoast wrote: post #641
gambiting wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd absolutely take sitting for an hour in my own car over sitting on a bus. I get to control my own temperature, volume and smell - plus I get to listen to loads of audiobooks.

As a tall person, I can't drive more than 30 minutes without needing a break for my legs. Stop-and-go traffic is especially hellish because I have to keep my feet on the brakes the whole time. Not a pleasant experience by any means.

Some manufacturers solved this problem as well - in my car(Mercedes) you can tap the brake with your foot when stopped and the car will hold the brakes until you press the accelerator again. So in stop and go traffic you don't have to keep your feet on the brakes. But yeah, I can see being uncomfortable as an issue.

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

#683

Post by AnthonyMouse »

alkonaut wrote: post #617
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That means there is a lot of capacity to add buses without causing congestion in the bus lanes. That's good. Only if you actually add the buses, and people actually ride them, neither of which is a given. > 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. That's the problem. > With to…

> The problem in most of the US is that you have a big congested highway, and then you get off the highway and drive another five or ten minutes on side streets to your destination. > there aren't regular buses on the side streets because there isn't enough traffic there to justify them That is the usual problem. But it's usually possible to have freeway buses connect to local buses that drive around an area. Driving…

> But that's where public transit can't solve the problem. Zoning and building also needs to change. Without that, people might still have to walk 30 minutes to the office.

This is my point. There is no amount you can add to the cost of driving that will get people to take a bus to a place the bus doesn't go.

And once you build high density office space next to a train station, people will take the train all on their own without any need to waste resources collecting regressive and privacy-invasive road tolls.

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

#684

Post by lightedman »

zymhan wrote: post #634
lightedman wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"LA is a victim of having too good a car infrastructure" I live in the area. I guess you've not seen the potholes lining Ventura. The infrastructure, bridges included, are garbage.

Not the best maintained, but extremely extensive, is what they were going for

If it were truly extensive we'd not have the constant traffic problems on the 5, 15, 10, 57, 71, and 134.

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

#685

Post by squozzer »

The author's thesis depends pretty heavily on drivers having alternatives. I place little faith in the Peak Travel Study -- http://www.travelbehavior.us/Nancy-pdfs/Peak%20Travel%20in%2... -- who in their right mind would drive in rush hour traffic except to work or school -- except for the naive out-of-towner who realized too late they would arrive in The Big City during Rush Hour en route to their ultimate destination?

Moreover, the HOT lane idea, which my city (ATL) has implemented in a couple of places, only reduces traffic in the HOT lane. The other lanes become MORE crowded by the people who prefer to suffer for free.

Once, I think the toll hit $35. If I were heading home, maybe I would pay it; heading to work, not so much.

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

#686

Post by rebootthesystem »

galdosdi wrote: post #671
rebootthesystem wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Savin…

> I'd be afflicted by the same sad disease as you, lack of imagination.

And the conversation stops here. Thanks.

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

#687

Post by jeffbax »

Reason Foundation (obviously coming from a market/privatization point of view) did a series of videos about these types of problems.

TL;DR:

Tolls make sense in the situation of "only highways" regardless. You can make high-speed toll lanes/highways on/along side the existing highways (and put buses there too).

Those who can afford the tolls pay for the speed feeding more money into the system. Those who cannot pay more than they already do through gas tax and such, deal slower traffic, but that traffic should be lessened due to people paying for higher speed and hopefully on more buses. There's additionally higher funding available to spend on increasingly

Current highways are effectively the tragedy of the commons, which is where semi-private/public-private partnership toll roads could alleviate the problem. Certain transit systems have pros and cons depending on area, and for places like LA it is likely that at least for now highways should be the focus of additional spending.

I'll leave the arguments to the videos, some are quite long (45+ min talks by policy experts). Mostly passing along in case others are interested, particularly those who might have strong opinions to the contrary (e.g.: the 'rail or bust' folks) I've enjoyed the rail system in Europe, but the conditions here are very different so its important to not let one's perfect ideal be the enemy of making something failing significantly better in a bang/buck sense.

Highways vs. Rail (2011): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIG0M4WT0s0

Toll vs. Gas (2011): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrh8W2IFQ04

Funding/allocation problems (2012): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUULDlMPFYU

Market success in China (2012): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUPRlrVTd2g

LA specifically w/ tunnels, over/under pass, and that LA has been building "rail" for 25 years so far (2015): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry852YXH53U

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

#688

Post by jhbadger »

trome wrote: post #603
jhbadger wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

San Diego itself (where I lived, near UCSD) is a "suburban slum" in terms of density. I now live in an actual suburb of Washington DC and it is far more dense than San Diego (as well as being on both the DC Metro and commuter rail lines)
Post reply on HN