311–320 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congestion pricing is paid at the point of entry, so the non local cars also pay the fee. In fact, it's easier to collect from them.
I’m not talking about proposed congestion pricing (which hasn’t passed in NYC yet AFAIK), I’m talking about a recent fee that only applies to Uber/Lyft-type rides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea what you are really trying to say. How do you define need? All my Lyft trips have either been to/from an auto mechanic or the airport. Is that "need"? In principle, I could have gotten friends to drive me, given enough incentive. Or I could have parked at the airport, or ridden the bus, or gone to a mechanic that made it convenient to wait for work to be done.
Gp is trying to say that nobody is really "sharing a ride" that they would be driving anyway, as in hitchhiking with compensation. It's virtually all professional drivers going where the client goes exclusively because the client goes there. Hence the term "ridesharing" is misleading. A very successful piece of clever viral marketing, or maybe a fossil of an early strategy. It's a semantic point, but a valid one. Wor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LA's limited transportation infrastructure prevents DTLA's homeless from getting to Beverly Hills, Long Beach's gang-related activity from getting to Brentwood, etc. Gangsters have cars and don't rely on public transportation. DTLA homeless can and do use the MTA bus that goes literally from downtown to Beverly Hills. Care to clarify your comment?
No, your perception of LA's public transportation is completely out of touch with reality. Subway and train systems are fundamentally different modes of transit than bus systems. They are more accessible, run on regular schedules, and they are anonymous. The urban poor in other cities utilize them disproportionately which is why Beverly Hills shuts down every hint of a conversation of adding public transit connection…
What makes you think I'm offended? I just didn't understand your argument (and still don't), and I wanted to see what you meant.
And what does it mean "my perception of LA's public transportation is out of touch"? I only said two sentences, one about gangsters typically having cars, and the other about homeless people often taking MTA bus from DTLA to Beverly Hills. Which of those was incorrect?
Edit: I can think of a reason why rich people may not like subways going to their neighborhoods. Slow and unreliable buses are a problem not for gangsters and homeless, but for the hard-working middle-class and poor people who need to commute to work - even if they have cars, traffic makes it very tough, and subway would have made it really nice. It's quite possible that rich people don't want too many middle-class and poor people getting jobs in their neighborhood. I have no idea if it's true, but at least it sounds plausible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every bit of new construction seems to be mixed use commercial, retail, and housing with large underground parking structures. He's right that its "luxury" condos but its still a lot denser than the traditional two story apartment buildings.
Building luxury condos and apartments is fine. Rich people will live in them instead of outbidding poorer people for the older apartments. People who oppose luxury apartment construction need to explain how they will prevent rich people from competing with poor people over existing housing and causing the prices to go up.
Yes, those kind of policies seem to be on the more reasonable spectrum to me, though I'd prefer having incentives instead of hard requirements. Of cause prices for luxury space would go up, but this doesn't seem like much of a problem for most residents.
You seem to see new luxury apartment as only option over currently existing housing. That might be the only realistic option when owners want to maximize profits, but for society it might be better to optimize other metrics, like people living there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gp is trying to say that nobody is really "sharing a ride" that they would be driving anyway, as in hitchhiking with compensation. It's virtually all professional drivers going where the client goes exclusively because the client goes there. Hence the term "ridesharing" is misleading. A very successful piece of clever viral marketing, or maybe a fossil of an early strategy. It's a semantic point, but a valid one. Wor…
Well, yeah, that was obvious. But I was focusing on a different semantic point, which apparently you have no interest in discussing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, your perception of LA's public transportation is completely out of touch with reality. Subway and train systems are fundamentally different modes of transit than bus systems. They are more accessible, run on regular schedules, and they are anonymous. The urban poor in other cities utilize them disproportionately which is why Beverly Hills shuts down every hint of a conversation of adding public transit connection…
For the specific example you gave: does an irregular schedule really create an obstacle for a homeless person who wants to make a trip from DTLA to Beverly Hills? What does it mean "more accessible"? What do you mean by "anonymous"? What makes you think I'm offended? I just didn't understand your argument (and still don't), and I wanted to see what you meant. And what does it mean "my perception of LA's public transp…
People have been trying for years to do things like add safe bike lanes, rebuild the streetcar system, and build a subway system. Angelinos have been far more concerned with the temporary traffic disruptions, slight inconveniences, and potential demographic shifts of each.
My entire neighborhood threw a fit when someone tried to install a roundabout instead of a 4 way stop to reduce congestion.
Nobody would have been negatively impacted for more than a few months, but the people here just don't care about collective benefit, at all.
And that's before we start discussing the people who have deliberately induced greater congestion by adding speed bumps to side streets in an effort to protect property value.
LA chose to have this problem. It's not something that just happened on its own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congestion taxes can also shift road use to other times. Imagine many people on the roads are making relatively short trips (eg. a trip that takes 20 mins in traffic instead of 10 mins) that generate a lot of lane changes and contribute to congestion. A congestion tax could encourage them to drive in non-peak times, use the bus, or not make the trip.
The city is already built this way and people already made decisions on where to work and live based on facts on the ground. Unless congestion charges are levies only on newcomers, it has no legitimacy. Try these social experiments on a new city.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The milk would cost more, but we'd save even more money on road maintenance. Then many trucks could be adjusted to have more axles and lighter loads, saving money on both ends. The end result is a better system.
> The milk would cost more, but we'd save even more money on road maintenance. This would adversely affect the poor as they drive less and still need milk.
so unless you have a solution with no drawbacks, there's nothing you can do to not 'affect the poors'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You are also incorrect suggesting that $5 per gallon is “about equivalent to what other rich countries tax motor fuel.” In France, it’s $2.77 per gallon. In the UK, it’s $2.83 per gallon. Netherlands is $3.5 per gallon. Sweden is $3.51. In Australia, it’s $1.12 per gallon, New Zealand is $1.58. None of those countries are even close to $5 per gallon." This is incorrect, in the UK at least. The best price I get is ab…
I think you have liters and gallons backwards, unless the British gallon had shrank significantly with the Brexit.
Though I had forgotten that the US used a different one. So my maths is off above. Thanks for pointing that out!
Using the US Gallon: £1.21 per liter == $1.61 per liter == $6.09 per Gallon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no practical means of transit in LA. Sure, there are light rail here and there but it doesn’t get you most places you want to go. Charging tolls does not fix anything. All that does is enable those with money to have a slightly less stressful commute and add an empty lane to an otherwise crowded highway.
At some point there will be an incentive to move closer to where you drive to the most often. For a lot of people this would be their job. Unfortunate that the sprawl is so heavily subsidized. In a world where it wasn't, people would make different choices about where to live and work.