381–390 of 564 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a huge reason the Apollo program succeeded as well. Everyone accepted the fact that the astronauts might not be coming back.
That's quite different. The astronauts were small in number and accepted the risks for themselves. It's not as if hundreds of contractors died building the Saturn V itself.
I don't know the answers, but as someone who works in the industry (on the design side). I think a big unmentioned factor is probably liability and the prospect of litigation. If you look at old blueprints for projects in the past, they are a LOT less detailed. They had to be, because it was physically more difficult to produce them since they had to be drawn by hand. A lot was left to the contractor to figure out in…
In summary, end contracting and subcontracting.
I think it comes down to new non-functional requirements: safety, environmental concerns, accessibility, liability protection, etc. With these requirements, Paris or London or New York would have never had a subway system in the late 1800's or early 1900's. By now though, all these systems have been maintained and modified to comply to the new non-functional requirements over time.
So if you added the accumulated cost of running a subway system today, while adding all the maintenance costs over time, it might be the case that the cost of building the same thing from scratch would be cheaper, but unfortunately without the benefit of having passengers enjoy it (and pay for it) for over 100 years (thus partially subsidizing the maintenance costs).
So you could even consider something as rigid as a subway system built in an "agile" way, with a quick and literally dirty MVP out of the way early, and additional non-functional requirements added over the course of decades. It's just that those requirements weren't known or wanted initially.
Now would it be ok to do the same now? Have a subway system in a city that needs it, but without bathrooms in stations, with no pollution requirements initially, not accessible to the disabled, (name your other requirements not necessary for a MVP), but with the benefit that at least it exists now, it can be subsidized by passengers that are willing to use it, so that over time those other requirements are met. Better have them later than never.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have a source for any of that? Sounds like a completely made-up justification after the fact. Surely someone would have raised the point that the soviet union could just launch it's missiles in the middle of the work day. Also, Moscow is tremendously sprawled out.
Federal Highways in the US are designed to increase national security. The best example is certain bridges are in certain places so that their destruction would cut off the easy path for mobilized enemy armor. They're designed to be easily blown up on purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "I hate that I get so stressed from my daily commute, but being able to drive to the countryside on the weekend is so nice." I have truly never understood this line of thinking. These two are not tied together. I grew up in a car-centric city, but moved away in my teens. I've never personally owned a car and haven't had one in the household since I was 17. I hear this supposed "upside" of cars from my friends who a…
> What prevents you from renting a car when you want to drive out to the countryside? Nothing, but it is a barrier. When you own a car, you just get in, make sure you've got gas, and go. When you don't, you need to go out and find a rental place, get there, find a car you want/like, etc. It's a small barrier, and mostly psychological, but it's there and it affects decisions.
* Most US car rental price comparison sites let you book a car months in advance to lock in the price, but you don't pay till pick up. There's almost never a penalty for booking and not picking up, so I used to just block book the weekends months in advance, whether I needed the car or not.
* I just used the big rental firms - at the time services like ZipCar were priced to heavily incentivise you to only drive between ZipCar areas and drop off, e.g. use a different car for the outbound journey and the return one. Using them for all-day tripping often ended up being significantly more expensive than a traditional rental. I've no idea if this has improved. Car sharing services appeared to really rely on both your start and end destinations being in their 'coverage' areas though.
* Once I got to know staff at my local rental place, I started getting 'free' upgrades a lot.
However, after four or five months I ended up buying a modest low mileage 3 year old Honda. The cost of running isn't actually all that much more, and now I don't have to factor in travel time to rental place, having to refill the rental before return, clock-watching etc. This is entirely selfish of me of course, but very much caused by the small 'barrier' you mention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. America's forced dominance of the automobile is pretty grossly unethical. Freedom means the ability to make meaningful choices, and if biking is incredibly dangerous, transit is slow and infrequent, and nothing is within walking distance, then those are hardly meaningful options, are they? Building to support multiple modes of transportation is the freedom-loving thing to do. Want to walk? Go for it! Transit?…
Biking is not "incredibly dangerous". It plenty safe. It is healthy. It however sometimes slows down cars and some drivers are then motivated to frame biking as dangerous activity to stop it. But really really really, biking is not incredibly dangerous.
These are both avid riders with professional-grade equipment taking a short Mission-FiDi route.
Regardless of its "project zero" marketing, SFMTA has bikes last on its priority list. It has to be pushed by guerrilla infrastructure groups to do anything meaningful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "I hate that I get so stressed from my daily commute, but being able to drive to the countryside on the weekend is so nice." I have truly never understood this line of thinking. These two are not tied together. I grew up in a car-centric city, but moved away in my teens. I've never personally owned a car and haven't had one in the household since I was 17. I hear this supposed "upside" of cars from my friends who a…
> What prevents you from renting a car when you want to drive out to the countryside? Nothing, but it is a barrier. When you own a car, you just get in, make sure you've got gas, and go. When you don't, you need to go out and find a rental place, get there, find a car you want/like, etc. It's a small barrier, and mostly psychological, but it's there and it affects decisions.
Hell, I live in Manhattan and I now don't do a lot of things I used to do when I lived out in the suburbs and had a car, for precisely this reason. Instead I do a lot more things on my bicycle, including long weekend trips -- it's basically become to me what my car used to be to me when I lived in the suburbs. Except using it actually improves my health.
I don't know the answers, but as someone who works in the industry (on the design side). I think a big unmentioned factor is probably liability and the prospect of litigation. If you look at old blueprints for projects in the past, they are a LOT less detailed. They had to be, because it was physically more difficult to produce them since they had to be drawn by hand. A lot was left to the contractor to figure out in…
Design/build raises the level of dumb even higher by giving all parties powerful incentives to build the cheapest, minimally viable slop possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "I hate that I get so stressed from my daily commute, but being able to drive to the countryside on the weekend is so nice." I have truly never understood this line of thinking. These two are not tied together. I grew up in a car-centric city, but moved away in my teens. I've never personally owned a car and haven't had one in the household since I was 17. I hear this supposed "upside" of cars from my friends who a…
In Canada, renting a car when you're under 25 years old is pretty annoying. It's usually an extra $25 a day and that's what turned me off to renting. Some rental companies won't even let you get a car if you're under 25. It's actually a function of age, so I'm currently 24 and in theory, it should be cheaper now.. so let's do some blanket math to entertain your idea. - I drive my car only on weekends, so Friday - Sun…
I also don't think it's a given that you'd need a rental car every single weekend. If you need a car every single weekend then owning one yourself clearly makes the most sense. It's when you only need the car occasionally that it would make more sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If people don't bang on about it, nothing will ever change ... It's not going to change anyway. The car haters on HN are in the minority of Americans.
It's already changing in statistically significant ways: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/the-d...
>By year-end 2016 road travel had hit an all-time high, north of 3.2 trillion vehicle-miles. Gasoline demand has followed apace, also hitting new highs. So much for peak driving.
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/05/29/millennia...