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

281–290 of 327 posts

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#281

Post by DauntingPear7 »

roger110 wrote: post #242

The part about bike lanes is annoying. Whenever some city or district goes all in on bike lanes, the end result is almost nobody using those, and more congestion. It makes sense in like Manhattan.

IMO it’s like that Reddit post from a while back with the subway to nowhere in china. You need the infrastructure to encourage usage and buildout. It’s a chicken and egg problem. I personally don’t bike at my uni bc the state DOT decided it’s fine to have a bike lane between a right turn lane/bus lane and 3/4 lanes of traffic. On a state highway (truck route). Safe to say I don’t feel safe biking there, despite it being at the heart of the university. Plenty of people bike on the other side, where there’s a protected separated bike lane going the other direction.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#282

Post by bradchris »

amluto wrote: post #150
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…

> lack of density One interesting question: what is "density"? Is it number of people per road-mile? Number of households? Structures? Sales tax revenue? Property tax revenue? Property value per road mile? LA has somewhat insane property values right now, and by the metric of millions of dollars of residential value per road-mile, I think one might imagine the density to be sufficient to afford decent streets. Of cou…

Fundamentally the issue, aside from lack of density, is Prop 13. In LA, and every other part of California, your tax rate will get frozen (forever, essentially) at what you buy your home for. So you have some people who now have a $7m home paying taxes as if it were $300k, because they bought it in 1978.

With a setup like that, of course SFHs, no matter how high they’re valued, will not provide enough tax revenue on their own

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#283

Post by ibejoeb »

afpx wrote: post #270
imtringued wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you're camouflaging the implicit position of "I'm going to stay in my home, even if I have to see the world burn." as the seemingly reasonable position "I'm going to stay in my home", while being utterly ignorant to the consequences based on absurd levels of wishful thinking. You're saying the government is going to fail, but actually it's not really going to fail. Someone is going to bail you out…

I'm trying to follow this but unclear of the root of the problem. Is it beacause building roads in L.A. is inherantly more expensive than elsewhere? I thought one of the selling points of cities was scale: costs are spread over more people. But, it sounds like road building is cheaper per resident in my small city. Sounds more like a corruption problem.

>costs are spread over more people

I'm suggesting that this isn't the actual answer. The thread started with the premise that the city doesn't have enough revenue, and that the way to increase that revenue is to bring in more people who pay more tax. Next, bringing in more people requires more housing, so that requires incentives for developers to displace people residing in SFH so that the can replace those with high density housing. There's a big problem: more people require more services beyond fancy curb cuts, like police, fire, water, electricity, schools, hospitals, etc. That cost that is spread also grows proportionally with the number of people, and you can't ignore that.

On the cost of building roads: there are cement and asphalt plants right in LA city proper, and also in weho and inglewood, among others in the county. LA has a price problem, not a cost problem.

There are more specters, too, which are bound to be political fights. For one, when you dig up a road, there are numerous places that will require displacing very large homeless camps. Now, credit where it's due, LA has shown that it is able to do that sometimes, like around Echo Park, which is the junction of several major thoroughfares like glendale blvd and the 101. Still, these are non-trivial projects that take years.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#284

Post by ibejoeb »

b112 wrote: post #277
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…

This always grinds my gears (pun intended). Forcing everyone to live in a horribly dense, stifling, unhealthy situation isn't the issue. And the concept of saying LA isn't dense enough is beyond mind boggling, the number of people living there is beyond absurd. And yes, I know it's spread out, but the numbers don't lie, there's already more density than many places. What this really is, is backdoor environmentalism.…

All true. There's also a perverse incentive in getting involved in LA. It's a major market where overly ambitious people go to make bigger names for themselves. Their goals are not aligned with operating the city; it's a stepping stone to CA and the national stage. Most major markets have this problem, of course, but LA is at the top.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#285

Post by duped »

roger110 wrote: post #238
duped wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because I wanted one? Purchasing decisions are multi axis

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#286

Post by duped »

doug_durham wrote: post #203
duped wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was spread across multiple makes and models. The car I wound up with is larger than I would like, but you're right, it was in stock. Because the dealers stock what people want and lead times (at the time) were atrocious.

I could walk in to any number of dealers and purchase what you are describing tonight. I have an excellent electric SUV that I walked into a dealer an purchased.

Good for you!

I hate this trend on Hacker News where you share an anecdote and get replies calling you a liar. Cool?

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#287

Post by DANmode »

thfuran wrote: post #45
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

I don’t think SUV vs car makes a meaningful difference when e.g. delivery vans and garbage trucks exist.

Roads don’t get worn all at once.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#288

Post by DANmode »

roger110 wrote: post #238
duped wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They’re the only cars with cargo space, vs shiny dick with chairs in it, if you’ll excuse the reference.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#289

Post by DANmode »

nxm wrote: post #149
duped wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not the full story. I presume it was some Toyota, which are in high demand. Plenty of small size alternatives are available from other brands with 0 wait time.

So buy an SUV, or accept a huge hit in reliability driving a different brand?

Now who’s leaving out part of the story?! :]

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#290

Post by tonymet »

ak217 wrote: post #227
tonymet wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the code" is the issue. This isn't building code like protecting earthquakes, electrical, fire safety. When people hear "the code" -- they think critical safety measures. Activists came up with a doorjamb law to require bike lanes, ADA and road diets on every block that receives repair. That's just not practical in LA. You can't punish drivers into riding a bike to work. this is coming from someone who biked and bus…

As someone who has biked and rode trains to work for the past 30 years and continues to do so, I think requiring bike lanes whenever streets are repaved is a pretty awesome idea. ADA ramps are pretty great too, they are not just for disabled people, though the ADA lawsuit regime where private companies get sued needs to stop. Yes I understand there is a funding issue, it needs to be solved by making the design and ap…

Awesome ideas are not often practical
Post reply on HN