from Hacker News

Los Angeles Drivers on the 405 Ask: Was $1.6B Worth It?

by mrjaeger on 12/20/16, 7:38 PM with 65 comments

by yason on 12/20/16, 9:18 PM
If you make more space for cars, and thus reduce congestion, the improved traffic conditions will attract more drivers until the congestion reaches some boundary threshold again where the majority of the remaining drivers are no longer willing to spend their time on the route.
The problem is that the demand is virtually indefinite for a nominally free supply.
The only cost involved is time―time that is wasted in congestion―which limits the amount of drivers willing to use the route during congested times.
Dynamic tolls would make the cost explicit.
If the cost of using the road at any given time would be high enough that there's barely no congestion on the road, i.e. practically everyone can cruise at the limit, then people could choose to pay for the privilege, postpone their trip to a later/earlier time slot when there's less congestion and the toll would be lower or zero, or omit the trip all together. Obviously, people wouldn't like this because they've used to getting free access, or "free" if you don't count the billions of tax dollars that go into widening and extending this utopia of endless freeway capacity.
by AdamN on 12/20/16, 8:46 PM
We'll never know the value of 3 overpasses being made more earthquake resistant or the other safety improvements (typical NYTimes that they don't even research the issue). I hate these articles because they're so weak in journalism.
http://dot.ca.gov/dist12/DEA/405/index.php#Technical
by cgrubb on 12/20/16, 9:09 PM
```
    Vehicle capacity on the northbound 405 has increased from 10,000
    vehicles per hour to 11,700 vehicles per hour at peak times. 
```
http://thesource.metro.net/2015/05/28/study-finds-traffic-on...
So capacity increased maybe 10k a day, or 750M over a 20 year period. Makes the $1B investment seem reasonable.
by riffic on 12/20/16, 8:48 PM
>“I haven’t noticed substantial cutbacks in traffic. As a matter of fact, I would say it was the opposite.”
That is the very nature of Induced Demand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand).
by cezary on 12/20/16, 9:13 PM
> "Richard Close, 73, who has lived in Sherman Oaks for 43 years, said his daily commute to Santa Monica has become easier, and with the construction crews gone, he has come to appreciate the new 405. He said he leaves his office after 7 at night, to miss the worst of rush hour, and it takes about 75 minutes to go 15 miles, which he said saved him 15 minutes a night on his old commute."
So he went from going an average of 10 miles/hr to 12.5 miles/hr. Never mind the ever-increasing population of the area and this little boost in commute time is just going to evaporate as more people congest the highway. Ideally they'd take away a lane on each side and build a new Metro rail line. It might not alleviate traffic much, but it would give people an alternative to driving.
by johansch on 12/20/16, 8:57 PM
I often read that it's pointless to widen/improve the capacity of roads because increased traffic will swallow the wins (in individual transit times).
I think that's the wrong way to look at it: I argue that the increased traffic throughput allows for economic growth in the region:
Individuals are of course likely to only think about latency/transit time (which hasn't improved, because of the increased traffic.). The society and the local economy cares about the throughput though.
by rpedroso on 12/20/16, 8:53 PM
One unfortunate side-effect of traffic capacity expansion is that usage increases to compensate:
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Matthew_T...
by majormajor on 12/20/16, 9:07 PM
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I'm not looking forward to the similar articles about self-driving cars: "traffic still basically the same, people now just live spread out even further since total vehicle throughput is higher due to more efficient autonomous driving."
by jasonwilk on 12/20/16, 8:53 PM
Traffic in Los Angeles is in a sad state. I have moved my house and office to within 2.5 miles of eachother so that I never need to see a freeway. I am fortunate to be able to do so. There is heavy traffic all the time, even when you least suspect it. It's no way to live.
by Tiktaalik on 12/20/16, 9:00 PM
Of course it wasn't worth it. Road improvements for cars incentivize driving, and so the result is more traffic.
Frustratingly the California DOT has studied this and has acknowledged this fact, so I suppose spending 1.6 billion on road improvements was a political decision and the experts were ignored? http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/11/californias-dot-admit...
If you want to reduce traffic and get people to their destination faster you need to halt and/or reverse road network expansion and put all your money toward alternatives such as transit and cycling.
by majormajor on 12/20/16, 9:31 PM
An area I wish the NY Times had dug deeper on, as this article seems fairly light compared to the local coverage of "did traffic on the the 405 get better? nope not really," is did seeing how little impact this massive highway project had help convince 70% of LA county voters to pour massively more money into public transit then ever before?
by ariwilson on 12/21/16, 12:53 AM
In related LA news, Metro is doing an amazing job massively expanding LA's transit footprint, in rail, bus, and local (e.g. bikes). LA voters overwhelmingly approved Measure M to further fund the plan:
http://theplan.metro.net/
by CodeWriter23 on 12/20/16, 9:33 PM
The addition of the HOV lane is worth it IMO. The single-rider commuters of course are still kvetching because they are receiving a nominal change in their commute times. Carpools however are benefitting and carpooling is the needed behavior modification.
by devy on 12/20/16, 9:26 PM
It's interesting to see NY Times covering this story not LA Times covering it.