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

361–370 of 689 posts

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

#361

Post by CognitiveLens »

Triesault wrote: post #30
endianswap wrote: post #13

Aren't tolls like this an incredibly regressive tax that further hurts the poor?

It's mentioned in the article. > This objection also ignores just how inequitable and dysfunctional our current system is. Tolls may disproportionately burden the poor, but so do sales taxes, gas taxes and every other way we pay for roads. Is this false equivalence?

I'm not sure what the technical term would be, but I think it's less about false equivalence but more that saying that other things are bad doesn't justify making another bad thing.

"This proposed policy will make things worse, but there are other policies that make things worse, so therefore this policy cannot be criticized on those grounds".

Wat.

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

#362

Post by photojosh »

astrodust wrote: post #223
photojosh wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ditto for Quito, Ecuador: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Quito I'm now back in Australia, and despairing because my small city is putting in a light rail solution when a bus rapid transit option would be so much cheaper, given our low ridership. But buses aren't cool. :(

Which city is doing LRT? These can be more cost-effective in the long run at certain ridership levels, plus they're usually a better experience for the passenger. Busses just plain suck.

Sydney is doing them, and it seems okay.

Newcastle is doing a 4km line...

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

#363

Post by selectodude »

tapatio wrote: post #184
martinald wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the central line at rush hour in London? It's horrendous[1]. We are talking >7people per sqm, plus significant waits to even get on the trains. But yet, 100k+s use it every day of all socioeconomic backgrounds. I'd imagine mostly middle class/upper middle class professionals. Why? 1) Traffic is terrible. It will take 1hr+ to do a journey the central line does in 15-20m. 2) Even if you want to drive, par…

London sounds terrible to live in, way too many people.

London isn't very dense, which is part of why traffic is so bad.

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

#364

Post by HillaryBriss »

nradov wrote: post #142
bit_logic wrote: post #109

The true solution to LA traffic will never happen. And that solution is buses. But not the current underfunded system that barely limps along. A massive number of buses, like 5x the current number. And combined with tolls for cars to get cars off the road. The large number of buses is critical because it greatly reduces wait time between transfers. It also allows adding express bus lines between major areas. But buse…

Buses in the LA region have a bad reputation because of other bus passengers. If you ride the bus you might have to sit next to someone who smells bad or plays loud music or acts out in inappropriate ways. That's why everyone who can afford it drives their own car: to be alone. The reputation would improve if they could get more "regular" people riding, but it's kind of a chicken-or-the-egg problem.

yes. i agree. and transit policing to enforce basic regulations (like not trashing, vandalizing, noise polluting the space) is too expensive. police are just too expensive. so we don't have enough of that sort of regulatory enforcement.

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

#365

Post by narag »

martinald wrote: post #312
Symbiote wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

London hasn't adequately priced the externalities of traffic congestion. Air quality is still rather poor by European standards! The more recent changes are well overdue, but still don't go far enough.

That's mostly caused by buses though, not private cars. Eg Oxford Street is one of the worst but has no cars on it. Not sure how productive it is taxing buses...

Electric buses then.

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

#366

Post by ariwilson »

sandover wrote: post #356

Some observations: - LA is densifying fairly quickly. - More road capacity will not, in general, be added; road capacity is actually being removed. - Average car velocity is slowing and will likely continue to slow. - Freeways at capacity, such as the 101 in the morning, move at approximately bicycle speed. - Most bus routes in town move at slower than bicycle speed. - The slower the traffic is, the safer a bicycle t…

I've been riding a road bike for 8 years in LA (4 miles, Santa Monica -> Venice) and it's been great. Yesterday I tried out an electric road bike for the first time to test out a longer commute (14 miles, Redondo Beach -> Venice) and it was great @ 45 minutes mostly on the beach. Not even tired!

Compare that to my test car commute on the 405 from Redondo Beach -> Venice last Monday. Same 45 minutes but much more stress due to merging, bad drivers, people trying to make left turns last minute, etc.

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

#367

Post by jessaustin »

Symbiote wrote: post #345
jessaustin wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'bsder you seem pretty confident here, despite the fact that everything you've said contradicts what I've heard from LEOs and other trained firearms users.

His assessment is exactly why teenagers in Britain are told not to carry knives -- they're worse than nothing when a bad situation arises. But I have no idea if that could carry over to guns -- for one thing, they're more difficult to run away from. [1] http://safe.met.police.uk/knife_crime_and_gun_crime/pressure...

One wouldn't expect press-ganged children ("If you find yourself involved in a gang...") and independent law-abiding adults to face identical situations.

However, it is true that many situations don't call for firearms, and knowing when and how to de-escalate are really the first things an armed citizen should know. Discretion is the better part of valor, keep it in your pants, etc.

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

#368

Post by tim333 »

tapatio wrote: post #184
martinald wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the central line at rush hour in London? It's horrendous[1]. We are talking >7people per sqm, plus significant waits to even get on the trains. But yet, 100k+s use it every day of all socioeconomic backgrounds. I'd imagine mostly middle class/upper middle class professionals. Why? 1) Traffic is terrible. It will take 1hr+ to do a journey the central line does in 15-20m. 2) Even if you want to drive, par…

London sounds terrible to live in, way too many people.

Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded, as they say.

Actually it's not so bad - the central line at rush hour is abnormal.

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

#369

Post by ghaff »

ahh wrote: post #232

Before we ask about methods...has any American city ever fixed a traffic problem? No, I'm serious: has any city in the US ever had traffic at some (bad) level, implemented some set of new policies, then had traffic drop substantially while maintaining the same population density (i.e. I won't count the abandonment of Detroit.) I certainly don't know of any, which makes me doubtful about anyone 's proposals to fix tra…

The Big Dig did significantly improve certain aspects of Boston traffic though traffic certainly didn't drop and I won't pretend the current situation is in any way good.

I'm not sure you're ever going to significantly decrease traffic due to induced demand. Probably the best you can do is cap building and force the construction of alternatives and changes in behavior because past some point traffic can't get worse indefinitely.

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

#370

Post by ghaff »

m-j-fox wrote: post #256
ahh wrote: post #232

Before we ask about methods...has any American city ever fixed a traffic problem? No, I'm serious: has any city in the US ever had traffic at some (bad) level, implemented some set of new policies, then had traffic drop substantially while maintaining the same population density (i.e. I won't count the abandonment of Detroit.) I certainly don't know of any, which makes me doubtful about anyone 's proposals to fix tra…

NYC supposedly fixed some of their problems in the 50s if you believe Jane Jacobs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_Am... She teaches that the key to getting rid of traffic is getting rid of roads. Not everyone buys this theory, but in LA's case, why not try dynamiting the freeways and let's just see if things get better? It's not like they can get any worse.

Yeah, but Manhattan traffic hasn't actually improved has it? The volume wasn't allowed to grow indefinitely but that's a different matter.
Post reply on HN