Comment by supertrope | Hacker News Reader

Comment by supertrope | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It would be much more efficient to legalize apartments in LA than to run high speed trains to bedroom communities. Digging tunnels would blow out the cost by itself.

Dropping infinite resources into stretching commutes across vast distances is not realistic. Taken to its logical extreme everyone should commute by private jet. The larger the transportion network, the more it costs, or at the same cost the less convenient it becomes because intervals between vehicles increases.

The most efficient form of transportation is avoiding the trip in the first place through telecommuting. Then walking or biking. Then mass transit which works best with areas with lots of riders (dense cities). https://humantransit.org/basics/the-transit-ridership-recipe.

Think of train service like a pancake. For a given amount of batter you can make a normal pancake, or you can spread it thinly over a large area, or you could make a small and thick pancake. If you want great service over a huge area you must massively increase resource expenditure.

Buses aren’t that sexy but they are probably a good compromise for cities like LA. They don’t require a ton of infrastructure and can still remove lots of cars from the road. Make them convenient (better bus stop UX, wait time no more than 10 minutes, GPS track them, modernize them) and people will consider buses.

Send surveys to all the biggest companies in the city to figure out specifically the routes that need to be created.

Buses are usually the cheaper inferior option. While bus service doesn't inherently suck, buses are usually chosen because of cost not because they want to run a good service. This results in cost cutting of every portion of a bus network until the experience suffers. Dedicated lanes are not provided so buses get stuck in traffic. Bus stops without rain shelters or even a bench (versus full stations). Operating budgets get cut and then the interval between buses goes to 30 min. Service after 10 p.m. gets cut. The bus networks that don't suck are usually called "shuttles" and are underwritten by tourism districts, airports, and theme park operators.

Yes, and every LA arterial should have a dedicated lane for bikes and buses.

Buses are terrible because they get stuck in the traffic they're competing with. If the bus is the same speed as the cars, people are more likely to take a car.

This can be fixed - dedicated bus lanes mitigate this nicely - but doing so is politically unpopular. And frankly, if you have the political will then you should just build trains. They're more reliable, cheaper in the long run, and have higher capacity.

The main advantage of buses is that they're a great stopgap, and are good for niche/dynamic routes.

Los Angeles has been doing this and the BRT lines are a great way to get started since they’re so much cheaper to build. The last time I was visiting family they looked busy and outpaced the car traffic handily.

One game-changing technology is the way cameras are cheap now. You can put them on every bus and change drivers’ calculation of the risks of suffering consequences from blocking bus lanes or stops from “less likely than being struck by lightning” to “every time”. That requires political will but the technology makes the cost not only low but self-funding.

This is exactly what LA is doing btw. LA has a few light rail networks but by far most of its network is buses and most of its riders use its buses. The problems that the LA Metro Bus network echo the problems with fixing housing costs in general:

* Lack of political will to create separate lanes. City council members are drivers and empathize with their auto driving constituents and would rather have driving lanes available to auto drivers than exclusive to buses

* Better bus stops require better funding which requires raising taxes. Nicer bus stops also tend to attract the homeless. The US has been funding auto driver amenities for almost a century via taxes but only started funding transit in a consistent way federally from the BBB act, and even then only at a fraction of auto improvements.

* A bus route that serves many stops is slow. A bus route that serves few stops is inconvenient for anyone not near those stops. You can run multiple buses along a route with differing levels of service to service both modes, but that requires running more buses, which requires purchasing more buses and hiring more drivers which costs more money.

Most of this comes down to a lack of political will and funding. Most politicians still see driving as the main way to move around and are loathe to fund transit as anything more than an equity initiative to help with the sad folks who cannot drive a car. Until this changes, progress is going to be slow. Likewise most politicians benefit from high housing costs because they themselves live in more expensive, exclusive areas with exclusionary zoning and are more sympathetic to that viewpoint and view housing accessibility as largely an equity initiative.

Communities only stay "bedroom communities" for long if you force their hand in some way.

But who wants to live in apartments? It's better than being homeless but it's hardly a solution. People want single-family housing, and it is possible to build tens of millions of houses within practical commute distances of big cities. Also, we can build new cities!

What a weird argument. There are many, many apartments in New York that people want to live in so badly that they'll pay millions upon millions of dollars to do so.

and they want to live there because they don't like near-by houses? I'd imagine single family housing in manhattan would cost 10x what an apartment costs. Even brown stone housing in new york is more expensive than similarly sized/located apartments (if you call brown stones proper housing even).

It's more expensive because the tax treatment is better. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com