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

291–300 of 327 posts

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#291

Post by tonymet »

moss_dog wrote: post #263
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…

It's interesting that you frame building bike lanes and reducing car speeds as "punishing drivers", seemingly ignoring that such changes enable micro-mobility users to commute to work safely.

That’s what it is . Remove capacity, increase travel times , increase driver frustration and in theory increase cycling and public transit. But the second part never happens . Travel times have been increasing for 40 years and cycling is still a fringe hobby

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#292

Post by doctorpangloss »

imtringued wrote: post #267
doctorpangloss wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is coming from someone who lives in san francisco like you and has a 2 kid, 4 adult family with no car. it's been like 80 years of USA = cars. people seem to really like SFH + cars, they vote for it, they pay for it, and seem to accept even longer commutes than ever. consider why. it's not so simple. > Strong Towns thesis is correct... slow moving crisis... The idea that LA literally can't afford to bring it's s…

The entire point by Strong Towns is that people don't pay for it.

i like their positions. but. i don't know what the point of strong towns is. people feel very strongly (haha) about it.

i can advocate for all sorts of stuff that is unpopular. it's meaningless. this is the hard thing about advocacy! strong towns spends a lot of words on stuff, but none of it on why someone who is happy with SFH cars lifestyle do, whatever it is they are asking that person to do.

> The entire point by Strong Towns is that people don't pay for it.

okay, people aren't paying for the ADA stuff. that's bad. but it's not a crisis. SFH cars people are living in that status quo every day. and it's not because they don't care and or because they are not disabled. i don't know how much the ramp codes really matter, i am not an expert, i understand that some experts in some narrow sense say they matter, but the real problem is a lack of leadership on holistic, bigger-picture issues like how to balance the costs and benefits of these sorts of requirements. we arrive at that cost-benefit organically right now, over and over again, in the absence of leadership, and most people seem pretty happy with it, which is a huge refutation of what strong towns is saying. do you get it?

strong towns says, "paying for this shit that doesn't matter does matter", which is wrong!

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#293

Post by tenacious_tuna »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #204

Controversial opinion: City roads shouldn't be for fast driving, they should be cobblestone. Safer for predestrians, easier to maintain, not rough on cars. It encourages pedestrian friendly city planning. You can somewhat walk in LA but it's damn shame how unfriendly it can be for pedestrians at times. I say shame because of the pristine weather, and people roll around sealed in aluminum boxes instead. trams and bicy…

this is one of the core conceits behind why Strong Towns / Not Just Bikes / urbanism discourse in general makes the disctinction between a "street", which is meant for people to walk along, go to stores/restaurants/etc, and "roads", which are meant to efficiently move traffic from one part of the city to another.

Combining them degrades the ability to address either point: efficiently moving traffic is inherently in conflict with being able to access businesses or having pedestrians nearby.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#294

Post by KellyCriterion »

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…

In one word:

Neoliberalism.

(and too much cars, of course)

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#295

Post by thfuran »

DANmode wrote: post #287
thfuran wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. They do it at a rate approximately proportional to the fourth power of the per-axle weight of the vehicles driving by. So really only the heaviest vehicles matter much at all.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#296

Post by notepad0x90 »

tenacious_tuna wrote: post #293
notepad0x90 wrote: post #204

Controversial opinion: City roads shouldn't be for fast driving, they should be cobblestone. Safer for predestrians, easier to maintain, not rough on cars. It encourages pedestrian friendly city planning. You can somewhat walk in LA but it's damn shame how unfriendly it can be for pedestrians at times. I say shame because of the pristine weather, and people roll around sealed in aluminum boxes instead. trams and bicy…

this is one of the core conceits behind why Strong Towns / Not Just Bikes / urbanism discourse in general makes the disctinction between a "street", which is meant for people to walk along, go to stores/restaurants/etc, and "roads", which are meant to efficiently move traffic from one part of the city to another. Combining them degrades the ability to address either point: efficiently moving traffic is inherently in…

public transport is more efficient at transporting people than cars, public transport makes roads more walkable. If you have subways, trams and buses, you can have narrower and slower roads friendly to pedestrians.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#297

Post by laurencerowe »

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.…

LA is much less dense than Canadian cities. Taking the central municipalities which seem fairly comparable:

Toronto: 3.271M in 631 km2 = 5184/km2

Los Angeles: 3.879M in 1215 km2 = 3192/km2

Toronto's population is growing, up 17% 2021 to 2025, while Los Angeles is marginally down 0.5% 2020 to 2024.

Even smaller cities in Canada seem much more dense than their Californian equivalents, and they are more pleasant and walkable/cycleable because of that.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#298

Post by learingsci »

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…

> California cities could trivially fix their budget problems by satisfying the demand for housing by adding density

I just wonder if that isn’t a totally naive, laughably unthinking remark to be making?

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#299

Post by mrguyorama »

dh2022 wrote: post #244
smetj wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

red tape, regulations, corruption, low pay, inflated prices, a gamed system. Although the topic is unrelated, I came across this the other day ... makes one think https://youtu.be/JTEJH-tKv9Q?t=910

They retrofit Yorktown in 3 days instead of 3 months. The Japanese thought Yorktown was a different aircraft carrier-they could not imagine such a fast retrofit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CV-5)#Battle_of_...

Your own citation says that the original estimate was at least 2 weeks, and further looks found that important components were undamaged, and most of the damage was easily patchable, like the flight deck and hull. Her damaged boilers were not fully repaired and she was not able to make full speed.

This isn't that abnormal for 20th century warships. They were designed to be mostly flooded and still floating, had significant redundancy, and especially in the USA, massive efforts and training and resources were spent on damage control and management.

The USS New Orleans Cruiser in WW2 had 150ft of it's front entirely blown off by an ammo detonation. One quarter of the ship just gone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_Orleans_(CA-32)#Battle... (look at those pictures!)

The spent about 11 days on a crippled boat, patching things up and putting out fires, and then she sailed backwards to a friendly port, and was eventually fully refurbished and refit.

This wasn't some era of magical American super productivity. It's what these ships were designed to do in some way. They were built to be hit by rather large weapons after all, and attempt to survive. Look at what efforts it took to finally sink the Bismarck and the Japanese super battleships.

Re: Why isn't LA repaving streets?

#300

Post by b112 »

laurencerowe wrote: post #297
b112 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

LA is much less dense than Canadian cities. Taking the central municipalities which seem fairly comparable: Toronto: 3.271M in 631 km2 = 5184/km2 Los Angeles: 3.879M in 1215 km2 = 3192/km2 Toronto's population is growing, up 17% 2021 to 2025, while Los Angeles is marginally down 0.5% 2020 to 2024. Even smaller cities in Canada seem much more dense than their Californian equivalents, and they are more pleasant and wal…

Isn't half of LA mountains, beach, and water?
Post reply on HN