Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 783 posts

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#21

Post by toomuchtodo »

someguydave wrote: post #18
toomuchtodo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad traffic will expand to fill the road you give it (induced demand). You destroy demand instead. https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ https://www.nber.org/papers/w15376

You want to hurt people by costing their time in order to teach them to desire your morals?

Physical systems don't care about your feelings. Live somewhere that ignores science and is financially irresponsible with infra dollars if that is your MO. We're not going to spend to build roads forever because people are ignorant and selfish, we can't even pay for the road infra we have today. And some folks are demanding more? Absolutely silly. "I'm not happy they're not building roads we cannot afford and will end up congested again, won't you think about my happiness!"

Bringing morality into an economic, fluid dynamics, and behavioral argument is not helpful, and the private car entitlement (which is demonstrably unaffordable and unfunded long term) is wild.

https://infrastructurereportcard.org/

https://pirg.org/articles/america-cant-handle-more-highways-...

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/04/13/we-could-never-afford...

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/road-funding-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/business/energy-environme...

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#23

Post by bryanlarsen »

aqme28 wrote: post #3

> If every car on the road were battery-powered and those batteries were charged entirely by renewable energy, transportation emissions would be close to zero. This is entirely false. I'm surprised to see it in the NYTimes. They're only 0 when you factor out the cost of building the car and maintaining the highway, and those are still pretty high

The goal is zero carbon by 2050. So they might not be now but they should be in the future. Zero-carbon transportation is a large part of decarbonizing infrastructure.

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#24

Post by ambyra »

infecto wrote: post #15

Sounds like the Bay Area. We don't like cars but we refuse to build comprehensive transit. To build transit that works you cannot value everyone's opinion equally and have to just make it happen. Some of the worst localized pollution I have experienced in my life was while living in the Bay Area with the massive traffic jams.

Try a motorcycle! The laws for lane splitting are the best in the country. You could probably fit 6 motorcycles in the space of one car.

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#25

Post by mdorazio »

duxup wrote: post #17

I'd rather see efforts to make mass transit more attractive and encourage its use in a POSITIVE way, rather than using a stick of clogging the roads and punishing people into using mass transit. Win the market, don't just quash what you don't like. I can imagine this easily being responded to negatively in the end and the political response is to give in and the pendulum swings wildly in the other direction. In the e…

How do you propose doing that, though? Mass transit almost everywhere runs at a significant loss already and if we're talking buses then there's a significant driver shortage. In the US the distances and routes required outside of dense urban centers also pretty much necessitate a huge increase in transit time compared to driving, making the whole thing a bad value for people who can afford a car.

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#26

Post by s1artibartfast »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #5

"Induced demand" as a reason not to do something is illogical. The Green Revolution increasing crop yields induced demand for humans. Metro systems existing and building new lines induce demand, in some cases resulting in overcrowding. Building housing and offices induce demand in a location. There is nothing wrong with improving a thing so that more people are able to do that thing. I can understand concern about em…

Induced demand is an argument from governments that don't think their purpose is to serve the public.

Public parks, museums, schools, and public safety all induce demand.

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#27

Post by ilikehurdles »

someguydave wrote: post #18
toomuchtodo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad traffic will expand to fill the road you give it (induced demand). You destroy demand instead. https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ https://www.nber.org/papers/w15376

You want to hurt people by costing their time in order to teach them to desire your morals?

This is the philosophy by which progressives have been leading cities across the west for a few years.

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#28

Post by fastball »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #21
someguydave wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to hurt people by costing their time in order to teach them to desire your morals?

Physical systems don't care about your feelings. Live somewhere that ignores science and is financially irresponsible with infra dollars if that is your MO. We're not going to spend to build roads forever because people are ignorant and selfish, we can't even pay for the road infra we have today. And some folks are demanding more ? Absolutely silly. "I'm not happy they're not building roads we cannot afford and will…

What science is being ignored? Traffic expanding to fill capacity is not a bad thing, that is efficient use of capacity?

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#29

Post by strken »

duxup wrote: post #17

I'd rather see efforts to make mass transit more attractive and encourage its use in a POSITIVE way, rather than using a stick of clogging the roads and punishing people into using mass transit. Win the market, don't just quash what you don't like. I can imagine this easily being responded to negatively in the end and the political response is to give in and the pendulum swings wildly in the other direction. In the e…

Hang on, this isn't taking anything away from drivers at all - the roads aren't suddenly going away or falling into ruin, they're just not getting enlarged. It's not much of a stick and nor is it a punishment, any more than building a road without bike lanes is a punishment for cyclists.

Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them

#30

Post by duxup »

mdorazio wrote: post #25
duxup wrote: post #17

I'd rather see efforts to make mass transit more attractive and encourage its use in a POSITIVE way, rather than using a stick of clogging the roads and punishing people into using mass transit. Win the market, don't just quash what you don't like. I can imagine this easily being responded to negatively in the end and the political response is to give in and the pendulum swings wildly in the other direction. In the e…

How do you propose doing that, though? Mass transit almost everywhere runs at a significant loss already and if we're talking buses then there's a significant driver shortage. In the US the distances and routes required outside of dense urban centers also pretty much necessitate a huge increase in transit time compared to driving, making the whole thing a bad value for people who can afford a car.

Ask the locals, try some sort of ideas?

I'm not sure if you're saying that it can't be improved or what.

It doesn't change my point, this policy easily could swing the other way if it is perceived by voters as just a stick swung at them.

Post reply on HN