404
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by daniel_callahan@jlai.lu to c/til@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 hours ago

More like paying men to not drive.

It seems bizarre that they even need to research this when they could simply ask Angelenos why half of us don't take public transit.

It's not safe.

We've got a massive homelessness problem in Los Angeles, and our unwillingness to house them means they'll seek shelter. The official shelters aren't safe either, and the homeless are just as scared as everybody else. So they go Metro.

There's still regular thugs blasting music and looking for a fight, but they're few and far between, and healthier public transit cultures like NYC can better deal with troublemakers organically.

It's a symptom of the housing crisis. Everything will continue to suck until we focus on housing first. No I don't want to hear your chalkboard argument about drug-test housing because you are objectively wrong, this has already been studied to death and housing first is the correct answer. We don't need more studies, the idiots just need to read them. Spend a goddamn day on the street and it will be obvious.

Sincerely,
an Angeleno public transit fanatic

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 12 points 18 hours ago

To the detractors, this experiment is based off one done in Australia, and it can have good results. Some may decide they actually don't need to drive as much and start using more public transit, and others will be able to more precisely point to pain points with not using a car.

Yes, they need more transit oriented development and better transit access, but this should be able to help

[-] nukeforyou@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 hours ago

wow, a whole 100$ a week

[-] renlok@lemmy.zarioth.com 1 points 10 hours ago

That's pretty cool

[-] Etterra@discuss.online 3 points 22 hours ago

That's almost enough to pay 1 week's rent in a shitty loft in LA.

[-] Malyca@lemmy.zip 37 points 1 day ago

LA needs mass transit first

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago

I live in LA and use mass transit every week. Coverage is not universal but it is a thing.

[-] Malyca@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 hours ago

Granted I moved away a long time ago, happy to hear it's improved.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago

Slowly but surely! They're expanding it as we speak.

[-] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Bloody typical, you seem to think you can skip straight to the end of the journey.

No, that's not how things work, this is a stepping stone towards that.

You can't just take a 200 meter horizontal leap across the water, you need these stepping stones to then make it across

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

The problem is you can't solve the problem by simply removing the car. There are 3 major phases to commuting: 1st mile, primary transit, and last mile. A car solves all 3 at once, which is why it's very easy to design around cars.

And the frustrating thing is, you really do need all 3 in a lot of places. I live in Texas where it can be triple digit temperatures for 5 months of the year.

[-] nullspace@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago

The history of transportation in LA is tragic because at one point they had not one, but two massive streetcar networks.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 day ago

Waste of fucking money. I think most people in LA already don't want to drive. Build good public infrastructure and see the results.

Does Japan offer people money not to drive? No, they make good public infrastructure and make it expensive to own a car

[-] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 18 hours ago

You need to know the pain points before you can fix them

The focus of this really is data collection, to find out what problems exist for those people and then once you have that data you can shift the focus towards fixing the problems

[-] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

So just ask people to answer survey questions. Go to some college campuses where a lot of students commute to and ask why are they paying hundreds a semester to park in a parking lot instead of taking the horrifyingly slow and inconsistent public transport.

[-] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 13 hours ago

That will only get one income level, with one group of people in it.

For good data you need DIVERSE INPUTS, which just canvassing those who already don't have cars won't do.

[-] dreamkeeper@literature.cafe 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

You need all kinds of people to respond, not just young people living on a handful of college campuses. There's only one way to do that in an area where the vast majority of people have a car.

"It's a waste of money" is a thought-terminating phrase that ruins a lot of attempts at progress. This is a drop in the bucket for a city as large as LA.

[-] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago

I'm just saying that people will gladly give their opinions on a short survey without $500 being offered

[-] craftrabbit@lemmy.zip 1 points 19 hours ago

That is the most backward way to reduce traffic I have ever heard of

[-] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 18 hours ago

It's really not?

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca -3 points 14 hours ago

So incredibly stupid/wasteful. Just put a $3/gallon additional carbon tax on gasoline/diesel. use revenue to at least cut other taxes/rent reductions if property tax cuts, or give every resident a dividend cheque based on the carbon tax revenue. Car owners will adjust and traffic/smog improved, without just paying car owners with free money. FFS, there are cheaper than $600/mo cars I can use to scam for free money.

[-] FluorideMind@lemmy.world 6 points 13 hours ago

Lmao it's a STUDY they aren't simply paying them to not drive. Read more than the title pls.

[-] AuroraZzz@lemmy.world 66 points 1 day ago

Maybe make your metro usable so not driving would be easier. It's kind of impossible to get where you need to go without a car in LA

[-] velma@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 day ago

More people taking transit will help put pressure on improving it.

[-] Pechente@feddit.org 24 points 1 day ago

I agree but I think it’s much easier the other way around. First improve the infrastructure, then incentivize people to use it.

[-] velma@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 day ago

I have to admit that I'm unsure how LA does it, but up in Washington the voters have to approve more funding for transit. Which is difficult if voters feel like transit doesn't work well to begin with and then it's an uphill battle.

Double-edged sword, I'll admit.

[-] Steve@communick.news 26 points 1 day ago

That's a chicken-egg problem.
A double-edged sword is something that could hurt as much as it helps if you're not careful.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] THB@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

LA is a tough one for this because it's so spread out. San Francisco has a famously amazing BART system but the city is also very tiny compared to what most people think of as "LA".

Depending where you live and where you go, LA Metro can be useful. I use the Metro quite often, and I know the bus system is pretty expansive as well. They've also consistently been adding new lines and stops including a way to get to LAX via Metro. So it's not like improvements aren't being made.

[-] alternategait@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

Love that you're holding BART up as a shining example.

For getting to anywhere in the city it's awful. Within the city all lines share the same stops. if you want to go east-ish/west-ish either no you don't, or you have to transfer to a bus (which is an additional fare since MUNI is a different agency).

So would it be better at getting people into the city? Again, no. To go from my school (Cal State East Bay) to 16th and mission, a place that I went to basically weekly took about 58% longer than driving (I'm bad at math, so that may be off, but 40 vs 70 minutes). Additionally, I just did a fare caluclation, and now a round trip fare for that trip is $13.50. If I drove, it's 2 gallons of gas and the $8.50 bridge toll. While driving is slightly more expensive, the save time and "last mile" convenience usually outweighed it for me.

Oh, and the hours were super limiting on week nights (when I would go to the city).

[-] alternategait@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

Any how the Maryland/Viginia/DC metro (WAMATA) blows BART out of the water while covering 1,500 square miles.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

Why waste the money on paying people to not drive instead of using money to make the reasons they don’t use public transportation better?

[-] innermachine@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Their paying for research data basically. When people say this shit ain't working and it's because xyz they can improve the public transit ! That's my thinking anyhow.

Maybe instead of paying to take the bus, we should pay people to take the bus. You're putting up with a lot of hassle to avoid taxing the roads with another car. Maybe you're owed a few bucks for your community service.

[-] village604@adultswim.fan 24 points 1 day ago

Or just make it free and pull the money from anti-homeless infrastructure.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Abyssian@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

"I gave up driving ages ago, I don't even own a car. Can I get in on this money as well?"

"No, fuck you. You don't matter. We're only paying real people with nice cars to change, not for poor slobs who already rely on public transportation to keep using it."

[-] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip 3 points 23 hours ago

I mean, to be honest, you obviously don't need incentive. What would be the point of paying you.

[-] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 2 points 16 hours ago

I think universal programs tend to have more public support.

[-] Abyssian@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

The point was that it's paying people who have options other than using public transportation, which would also correlate to them having more money than those who already have no other option.

An extreme comparison would be that it's sort of like paying billionaires to try to pollute a bit less.

[-] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip 2 points 19 hours ago

I understand the point but you don't design public policy for vibes, you design it for results. You can use incentives and disincentives, and you have to choose which one works best with the population you have to get the results you want.

Giving some incentive to the pop that already does the action you are optimizing for is pointless and a waste of money, maybe the discussion should be if instead of giving money to motorists they should have instead increased tolls, parking price, fees to enter the city, etc.

[-] Abyssian@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

That final idea of yours is the ticket, though the specifics would take work. But paying people with cars to slum it with the bums on public transportation is horrible optics and messaging. I understand trying to lighten road congestion and pollution, but there's got to be a better way.

[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago

Sounds like a great way to get a free car!

Buy the car, park it in your driveway for the next six years and use the cash incentives to make your car payments!

[-] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 day ago

Looks like its only a one time payment and only 2000 households. So its just a PR stunt. 2000 is enough for a news story but not enough to effect anything.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 day ago

it's not a 'pr stunt', it's a research study.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2026
404 points (99.5% liked)

Today I Learned

30917 readers
707 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS