Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why isn't LA repaving streets?

lapublicpress.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 327 posts

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#231

Post by scoofy »

ndriscoll wrote: post #213
scoofy wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the problem is that our cities are already leveraged up to their eyeballs. At some point, the actual humans buying those bonds start becoming skeptical of the city’s ability to pay them back. LA currently has about a billion dollars of outstanding general obligation bonds (edit: but that does not include all their future liabilities). They're still rated AA, but I presume that is because the credit writing agenc…

Wikipedia says the GDP of the LA metro is ~1.5T. I think they could handle 1B in bonds. If they choose not to, it's not because it's some impossibility. Certainly not because roads are impossibly expensive.

I said general obligation bonds, not general liabilities. These technically are what makes this discussion so difficult.

My point is that much of what the city can tax has little to do with the city's GDP. Either the landscape of the city will have to change or the current taxation paradigm will have to change.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#232

Post by rudhdb773b »

trollbridge wrote: post #76
stock_toaster wrote: post #38

Maybe roads would last longer if we weren't all being forced to buy super heavy SUVs just so automakers can skirt emissions and fuel economy requirements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPm4de6-eTg

People in cities generally want deliveries of goods, which requires heavy trucks.

Heavy trucks aren't required for the vast majority of residential deliveries.

If you order anything in Bangkok, even say a refrigerator or a king size mattress, it will almost always be delivered by a modestly sized pickup truck (with a high roof covering the bed).

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#233

Post by scoofy »

Spooky23 wrote: post #218
scoofy wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the problem is that our cities are already leveraged up to their eyeballs. At some point, the actual humans buying those bonds start becoming skeptical of the city’s ability to pay them back. LA currently has about a billion dollars of outstanding general obligation bonds (edit: but that does not include all their future liabilities). They're still rated AA, but I presume that is because the credit writing agenc…

LA County has a bigger economy than many European countries, and would displace Illinois by GDP if it were a state. LA is fine.

I also think LA will be fine in the long run, I just think that their tax structure will force significant changes. The tax base is able to cover the cities liabilities, it's just that the residents don't want to pay those extra taxes, and don't want to change in ways that let other people pay them.

The city has a billion dollar deficit right now. Trivial for residents to afford ($83 per person), but difficult to actually implement politically.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#234

Post by strictnein »

BariumBlue wrote: post #88
scoofy wrote: post #70

I have been a Strong Towns follower/member for about 6 years. I really don't think people realize the world of pain we're signing up for by not actually fixing the underlying problem of lack of density and walk-ability and their effect on the municipal budgets of American cities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_Towns I know municipal finance is about as exciting socks for Christmas, but if the Strong Towns thesi…

To add to what the central city budget problem is - each new piece of street and road in LA has, on average, not paid for itself in terms of increased revenue from taxes or otherwise. So for each new street widening, new road, and piece of highway capacity, LA was increasing it's financial liability to revenue ratio. Add over decades all of the street and road construction that LA has done, and it now has a unsustain…

Unless things are really different in California from where I'm at, I find it unlikely that the city is responsible for maintaining state and federal highways.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#235

Post by roger110 »

stock_toaster wrote: post #38

Maybe roads would last longer if we weren't all being forced to buy super heavy SUVs just so automakers can skirt emissions and fuel economy requirements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPm4de6-eTg

How are we being forced to buy SUVs? There are plenty of regular cars for sale.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#236

Post by IncreasePosts »

watwut wrote: post #160
IncreasePosts wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that just because Americans spend a lot more time in their cars than Europeans do?

No, per km Europeans are safer. Road design is safer, cars are safer.

I'm not sure it is so simple. Some states have death rates in line with western/northern Europe (eg massachusetts has 4 deaths per billion km, similar to Germany), but road design and cars driven in massachusetts are highly similar to states with a larger death rate(south carolina, looking at you).

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#237

Post by roger110 »

cyberrock wrote: post #188
stock_toaster wrote: post #38

Maybe roads would last longer if we weren't all being forced to buy super heavy SUVs just so automakers can skirt emissions and fuel economy requirements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPm4de6-eTg

Even if it were caused by passenger cars, the skyrocketing brightness of lights at sedan height probably push more people to buy large cars than this. In a just world, cars with ridiculously bright lights would be crushed in a monster car rally. Alas the cops don't even pull them over.

This is the sole reason I've always hated Teslas. Didn't care that they're EV and new and have stereotypes about the drivers, just that the lights are way brighter. Or sometimes pointed further up out of the factory for some reason.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#238

Post by roger110 »

duped wrote: post #145
doug_durham wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is "forcing" anyone to buy a "super heavy SUV. Make a better argument.

Last time I bought a car, I was replacing my 2010 CRV. If I wanted to purchase a subcompact SUV or hatchback sedan that was smaller and more fuel efficient I would have needed to wait at least six months. Economic realities do force decision making.

Was this that one year when the whole auto market was completely screwed up? This is normally not an issue. Also why do you need a hatchback instead of just a regular car?

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#239

Post by roger110 »

nine_k wrote: post #100
bigbadfeline wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe roads would last longer if we weren't all being forced to buy super heavy SUVs Maybe not. Due to battery weight, EVs are super heavy even if they aren't SUVs, so are delivery trucks without which an urban community cannot and will not exist. Urban roads should be able to handle the weight even if everyone converted to EVs.

This has little to do with EVs, and much more to do with the idea that whoever brings a heavier vehicle to collision, wins (and lives). Hence the propensity to drive truck-sized SUVs and actual F-150s with just the driver, and the light load, but the pleasant feeling of safety . Who's gonna survive in an incident of road rage gone bad, a Ford Explorer or a Fiat 500? Coming back to the EVs, a small EV is a possibility…

It takes less power to accelerate a lighter car, but about the same to keep it moving. And some of the energy is recouped during gen-braking.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#240

Post by roger110 »

Freedom2 wrote: post #54
atleastoptimal wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People buy SUV's because they want to avoid being injured in crashes (at the detriment of the other driver)

Yet per capita, US vehicle occupants are more likely to be injured in general while on the road than Europeans. Perhaps the driving standards are just far too different.

Two people crashing in big SUVs/trucks aren't really safer than two people crashing in smaller cars. As for the difference, my guess is the driving standards.
Post reply on HN