|
Raskolnikov38 posted:LA is, and forever will be garbage until they accept that hella is entirely proper i think you're yet again forgetting about the norcal/socal feud. we don't reject "hella", we just dont care lol
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
Skyscraper posted:It seems like it's saying it does work, but more people end up using the roads because of it. it's not a coincidence that rush hour from 7-9am and 4-7pm everyday are because more people just want to take a ride. You want proof that people will sit in lovely traffic to get to work everyday with 4+lanes, look at the 91W from Corona to LA. You want proof that people will sit in lovely traffic to get to work everyday with fewer lanes, check literally every other freeway in SoCal that feeds into LA, from the 101 to the 405, etc. People go where the jobs are, it's only moron companies that want to open offices in LA, specifically downtown. My job offered a bonus to move down there, I couldn't have laughed my rear end off fast enough. Going by memory (sorry, no links or studies), but I heard LA roads were designed for approximately 2 million people, but 7 million people commute to work there (not sure if "greater LA" area or just the city proper). So even though there aren't quite as many residents, the sheer, ridiculous amount of commuters make things just suck forever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Yeah, in NorCal we just say "accident"! Nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
LA is the only place I've ever been where traffic jams in the middle of the night are common.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 06:30
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:LA is the only place I've ever been where traffic jams in the middle of the night are common. Visit San Diego and witness traffic jams at 5 AM going to North Island.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 06:38
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:"The" accident? This is why we need the two extra lanes so we can get up to three.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 06:47
|
|
|
its nice to know that futurism lives on in the civil engineers of california
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Visit San Diego and witness traffic jams at 5 AM going to North Island. 5 AM is the start of morning commute. It's not the middle of the night. I could visit San Diego and try to explain to people what a book is, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 06:55
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Visit San Diego and witness traffic jams at 5 AM going to North Island.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 07:08
|
|
|
norcal has seemed to have gotten more salty re: being weirdmad at socal and i feel like it’s the techbros moving in and trying to start poo poo more than anything else
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
stone cold posted:norcal has seemed to have gotten more salty re: being weirdmad at socal and i feel like it’s the techbros moving in and trying to start poo poo more than anything else
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 09:13
|
|
|
stone cold posted:norcal has seemed to have gotten more salty re: being weirdmad at socal and i feel like it’s the techbros moving in and trying to start poo poo more than anything else nor cal is just more salty in general, what with the constant gentrification/housing shortage/poors getting pushed out while rich noobs replace them and act like dicks
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 09:37
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:Also, San Franciscans know how to park. Because you have to learn. And they know how to stop on hills and then start again. These are skills you just don't often see from people who come from SoCal. You can always tell a city car. Either from the neighborhood parking tag or from the battle damage the bumpers have from trying to force their way into a parking space. And that's when they actually try to park. At any given time, half of all San Francisco cars are double parked, but it's cool because I've got my cautions on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 12:32
|
|
|
Kaincypher posted:it's not a coincidence that rush hour from 7-9am and 4-7pm everyday are because more people just want to take a ride. You want proof that people will sit in lovely traffic to get to work everyday with 4+lanes, look at the 91W from Corona to LA. You want proof that people will sit in lovely traffic to get to work everyday with fewer lanes, check literally every other freeway in SoCal that feeds into LA, from the 101 to the 405, etc. People go where the jobs are, it's only moron companies that want to open offices in LA, specifically downtown. My job offered a bonus to move down there, I couldn't have laughed my rear end off fast enough. Going by memory (sorry, no links or studies), but I heard LA roads were designed for approximately 2 million people, but 7 million people commute to work there (not sure if "greater LA" area or just the city proper). So even though there aren't quite as many residents, the sheer, ridiculous amount of commuters make things just suck forever. So because getting to work is a necessity for people, doesn't that mean that we should widen the freeways so more people can use them, because they have to? If research shows that speed doesn't increase when we widen lanes, but the number of people served increases, is there anything to be gained by keeping the additional people off the freeway? I'm in nocal and I like socal and I hope they finish the train soon (they won't) so I can get there without taking most of a day to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
The thing is you can still serve more people without hugely increasing congestion by investing in public transportation (and encouraging people to use it). For example, a fleet of buses that can hold 40+ people each could serve as many people as a new lane without the construction costs, and it'll be better for the environment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:i think you're yet again forgetting about the norcal/socal feud. I use hella and I'm from SoCal Everyone from other states just thinks it's a general Cali thing Ron Jeremy posted:And that's when they actually try to park. At any given time, half of all San Francisco cars are double parked, but it's cool because I've got my cautions on. Don't worry this is true in LA county too Rah! posted:lol i walked right into that one Well that's because you live in San Francisco. Down here we would have had to drive Cup Runneth Over fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:So because getting to work is a necessity for people, doesn't that mean that we should widen the freeways so more people can use them, because they have to? If research shows that speed doesn't increase when we widen lanes, but the number of people served increases, is there anything to be gained by keeping the additional people off the freeway? Widening roads actually increases traffic. It leads more people to drive, and longer distances. The solution is buses, trains, and housing close to jobs, not more lanes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Don't discount the Giants/Dodgers rivalry as part of the North vs South skirmish.....and yes SF is continually re-populated every 5 years by Northeastern Trustafarians. They leave and are replaced by the newer versions, over and over and over again. They are also known as "Marina Boys/Girls"
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
kurona_bright posted:The thing is you can still serve more people without hugely increasing congestion by investing in public transportation (and encouraging people to use it). For example, a fleet of buses that can hold 40+ people each could serve as many people as a new lane without the construction costs, and it'll be better for the environment. The real strength of a solid public transit system is that you can drink on your way to work. If we really advertised that feature I think a lot more people would get on board.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Widening roads actually increases traffic. It leads more people to drive, and longer distances. It's the roads, and not their jobs, that lead people to drive? That doesn't seem right. All of what you mentioned are good solutions, and I'm for them. I just don't think they'll happen, even through they should. Cup Runneth Over posted:Everyone from other states just thinks it's a general Cali thing People have yelled at me for saying Cali in person. Do we call it that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:The real strength of a solid public transit system is that you can drink on your way to work. If we really advertised that feature I think a lot more people would get on board. Most people don't have tech jobs where they're allowed (encouraged, based on what I've heard) to drink, I think
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:People have yelled at me for saying Cali in person. Do we call it that? Yeah but only if you prefix it with "Sunny" and say the full "California" again afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Yeah but only if you prefix it with "Sunny" and say the full "California" again afterwards. Oh, you've heard me say it, then!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:It's the roads, and not their jobs, that lead people to drive? That doesn't seem right. All of what you mentioned are good solutions, and I'm for them. I just don't think they'll happen, even through they should. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand There's many decades of examples and studies showing that increasing capacity leads to increased traffic. Berkeley did a study over 13 years or so in California and concluded that for every 10% increase in capacity, there is a 9% increase in traffic. Widening roads just flat out isn't a solution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Most people don't have tech jobs where they're allowed (encouraged, based on what I've heard) to drink, I think So what? Neither have I but unless a foreman comes around and sniffs your breath when you clock in you're good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:It's the roads, and not their jobs, that lead people to drive? That doesn't seem right. All of what you mentioned are good solutions, and I'm for them. I just don't think they'll happen, even through they should. Yes. Increasing road capacity causes a short term decrease in congestion, but a long term increase in usage that eats up that capacity. Somebody who lives in Tarzana and commutes to Westwood over the 405 every day would notice the peak rush hour traffic, and then when the 405 is widened, there would be a temporary decrease in traffic, and instead of hanging around in Westwood for a few hours after work until the traffic die down, would just come straight home, increasing peak rush hour usage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand I know about that study, I'm replying to someone earlier in the thread who cited it. I don't think widening roads is a solution, I think it's a thing we can do to make life suck less for commuters because we won't build trains, and don't seem to be putting in buses. Instant Sunrise posted:Somebody who lives in Tarzana and commutes to Westwood over the 405 every day would notice the peak rush hour traffic, and then when the 405 is widened, there would be a temporary decrease in traffic, and instead of hanging around in Westwood for a few hours after work until the traffic die down, would just come straight home, increasing peak rush hour usage. Right, but what I'm saying is, having to hang around at your job for a few hours is the loving worst, unless you work at like I guess Google or some place with too much money to spend on in-office jungle gyms or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
As others are saying though, widening freeways does not actually benefit commuters except in the immediate short term. You widen the road and rush hour traffic becomes more manageable, which over time causes more people to choose to drive because congestion is the only real reason driving would otherwise be less convenient than public transportation, which increases overall traffic above levels before the freeway was widened, which once again causes rush hour congestion. There are just too many people living too far away from major employment centers to realistically handle all of them driving personal cars no matter how big you make the freeways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:People have yelled at me for saying Cali in person. Do we call it that? Mandatory deportation to another state for first offenders, imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
I didn't say widen all freeways. I said the 5 needs more lanes during the stretch where it is 3 lanes. If a freeway goes from 5 to 3 to 5 lanes that causes traffic just by the merging of lanes. I don't see what is so hard to understand here. If you live down there, you know exactly the stretch I am talking about because it sucks to drive on during traffic hours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
But the 5 doesn't need more lanes because more lanes never reduces traffic. Throwing money at a demonstrably ineffective solution is not a solution, period. It sucks to drive EVERYWHERE during traffic hours (and outside of traffic hours).
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:But the 5 doesn't need more lanes because more lanes never reduces traffic. Throwing money at a demonstrably ineffective solution is not a solution, period. It sucks to drive EVERYWHERE during traffic hours (and outside of traffic hours). 5 lanes. 3 lanes. 5 lanes. And for some reason, the traffic eases off once the 3 lanes goes to 5. Funny that. Can you explain it? Why does the traffic ease off when it goes from 3 lanes to 5 lanes? And why does it build when going from 5 to 3? I guess it is just coincidence or something. Can't be because of the merging and splitting. That wouldn't make any sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:5 lanes. I'm not familiar with that segment but usually that poo poo only happens at interchanges and there will always be traffic at interchanges because people don't know how to get up to speed to merge and other assholes would rather speed up and then slam on their brakes causing a slowdown than let someone merge in front of them. Extra lanes don't cure idiot drivers at interchanges. You could have 20 lanes in every direction and interchanges will still cause them all to slow to a crawl. If that section isn't an interchange then there is likely some other reason they were able to widen everything else to 5 but not that specific segment - I don't know, I don't live in LA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:I know about that study, I'm replying to someone earlier in the thread who cited it. I don't think widening roads is a solution, I think it's a thing we can do to make life suck less for commuters because we won't build trains, and don't seem to be putting in buses. I'm less familiar with LA, but I know they've been steadily adding more rail lines the last couple decades and plan to continue. And of course there's the HSR being built. And there's another option that can greatly improved transit while being technically easy: bus lanes. Of course the whole reason it's not used much is that politically it's super challenging, SOV motorists get very upset.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Widening is very dumb. But it would be nice if east bound 101 skyway to the baybridge in SF to not be a loving shitshow disaster with effectively only 1 lane continuing to the bridge and everything else diverting. It's much faster to go 280N, get off on city streets, plug it up, endanger bikers, pedestrians, gridlock the poo poo out of 3rd/king/harrison/bryant/essex area, and contribute to local pollution, than to stay on 101. that's p messed up. just having that one not divert off to 4th street that no one ever uses would be very helpful but I guess there isn't much to be done
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
If you want to talk about hosed up San Francisco traffic, just go back to the 1989 earthquake. There used to be an embarcadero freeway which was ugly as gently caress. The earthquake damaged it so they brought it down. However, it was convenient, too. It added many more ways to get on the freeway leading to the bay bridge. Same with the 280. It used to extend to the bay bridge but part was damaged so they just tore it down rather than rebuild. And the whatever it was that now starts at Market street. That used to extend to fell and oak. So SF went from having easy access to the freeway for the two main one way timed light thoroughfares that connected the east and west sides of the city to having them be on city streets with lots of lights approaching the freeway. About 1/2 mile including a right/left turn depending on direction. SF had another freeway that damaged the view but connected a major freeway to the bridge and a large part of the downtown area to miles and miles of streets with lights that are not timed and gently caress it. This just pisses me off. I was too young to take advantage of these things but looking back and seeing how much better it was compared to now. Just ugh. Sure it looks nicer but at the expense of anyone who needs to drive the bridge which is a metric fuckton. Xaris posted:It's much faster to go 280N, get off on city streets, plug it up, endanger bikers, pedestrians, gridlock the poo poo out of 3rd/king/harrison/bryant/essex area, and contribute to local pollution, than to stay on 101. that's p messed up. just having that one not divert off to 4th street that no one ever uses would be very helpful but I guess there isn't much to be done And that 280N used to run directly onto the bridge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Widening would be OK if it was combined with extremely strict multi-county zoning that prevented any additional sprawl. A big part of induced traffic is that it encourages sprawling development in exurbs because people can suddenly commute from that far away in a reasonable time. If we also had at the same time some kind of forced densification near employment centers, maybe that'd work, maybe. But we can't have that, because people vote against densification in their own neighborhoods, and sprawl is hard to control when there are pre-existing incorporated cities in those exurb locations who directly benefit from the increased tax income of developing single family homes and the associated local businesses as commuters to the distant employment centers show up to buy. We just don't have the kind of top-down powerful government they have in, say, China, which can mandate where people are allowed to live, and can freely bulldoze city neighborhoods (not just the "blighted" ones occupied by poor people, mind you) to build 10-story apartment buildings or whatever. The only alternative is for local agencies to refuse to expand freeways, insist on expanding local public transit options, and gradually try to pull neighborhoods kicking and screaming into accepting density. But people vote so it comes down to convincing voters. All this aside, yes, it really is kind of loving stupid for a 5 lane freeway to come down to 3 lanes for a mile just to go back to 5 lanes, and fixing that really is an OK thing to do, irrespective of induced demand, because it's dangerous and ultimately forcing dangerous merges kills people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
The 89 quake bringing down the Embarcadero freeway is the closest thing I've found to evidence that god exists
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
acksplode posted:The 89 quake bringing down the Embarcadero freeway is the closest thing I've found to evidence that god exists That will be when SF sinks into the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
Humans are gonna do that, not god
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:14
|
|