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

61–70 of 783 posts

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

#61

Post by wongarsu »

Drakim wrote: post #33
mdorazio wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Personally I feel it's fine for them to operate at a loss, it's a public service, akin to the fire department or library. The amount of good it does society to get cars off the road is staggering. The lack of bus drivers simply comes down to an unwillingness to pay more. It's the exact same problem with teachers, where the wage is extremely low but they would rather just have a shortage rather than paying more.

Crucially, the road network also operates at a loss

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

#62

Post by someguydave »

nullindividual wrote: post #48
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…

People are driven by the cattle prod. If the government wants to reduce something, it needs to be more painful to acquire or use, i.e. sin taxes. It's worked on cigarettes, alcohol, soda, etc. to varying degrees. The government would likely have a very big uphill battle to out-market the automobile industry given a large segment of the population distrusts or dislikes the government. I ultimately agree with the appro…

Hurting people to teach them your morality certainly has some interesting historical analogies

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

#63

Post by s1artibartfast »

lofatdairy wrote: post #39
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…

I didn't see anyone saying induced demand in and of itself is the thing being avoided, just that induced demand for driving caused by highway construction is being avoided, as this implies that traffic won't be alleviated by increased capacity. Induced demand can be positive, yeah, but I think induced demand is more complicated. It concerns a positive feedback loop phenomena that leads to the saturation of a system b…

Induced demand isn't necessarily complicated. The simple answer is transaction costs.

If people are willing to spend an hour in traffic to go to the beach, you are basically stuck with that travel time. You can only increase the number of people that end up going.

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

#64

Post by ambyra »

carso wrote: post #46
someguydave wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Motorcyles have a roughly 30 times higher fatality rate per mile driven compared to cars

And are also not great for air pollution - they burn less gas per mile, but the engines are very dirty.

But they reduce congestion, which equals less total time on the road. Everyone gets better MPGs if there is less stop and go traffic.

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

#65

Post by zdragnar »

n8henrie wrote: post #16
wonder_er wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

also people who care about EVs tend to forget about tire wear and brake dust. Both are emitted in huge quantities, esp. tire microplastics, by EVs.

I thought brake dust would be drastically decreased due to regenerative braking?

There's some offset due to the increased weight from the battery pack. Highway driving is better, city driving is worse. Also, the tires emit more, since wear is also a function of weight.

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

#66

Post by light_hue_1 »

someguydave wrote: post #49
turnsout wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But induced demand shows that traffic will only increase… more lanes means you're waiting more.

That’s because people are waiting too long on other roads! There is a point where traffic will not increase as all the demand has been sated.

No. There is not.

You've totally misunderstood induced demand. You can build unlimited roads and they will all be used up and commutes will increase for everyone.

People engineer cities and development around transit. If you provide massive amounts of transit to a desirable location people will saturate it.

This is why initially highway projects look like successes. Wow. My commute is so much better. And then. In a decade. They're even worse than they were originally.

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

#67

Post by adolph »

nullindividual wrote: post #48
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…

People are driven by the cattle prod. If the government wants to reduce something, it needs to be more painful to acquire or use, i.e. sin taxes. It's worked on cigarettes, alcohol, soda, etc. to varying degrees. The government would likely have a very big uphill battle to out-market the automobile industry given a large segment of the population distrusts or dislikes the government. I ultimately agree with the appro…

> If the government wants to reduce something, it needs to be more painful to acquire or use. . .

> given a large segment of the population distrusts or dislikes the government.

I have a notion the former is related to the latter and might even be a downhill spiral.

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

#68

Post by tromp »

tomrod wrote: post #54
rufus_foreman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> you cannot value everyone's opinion equally and have to just make it happen You live in a country with the wrong type of political system for that. Valuing everyone's opinion equally is called democracy.

The US is not a democracy. Not even at the state level. For many aspects and holons it is a representative republic.

The U.S. is a democracy, albeit a deficient one rather than a working one [1]. At least is the least deficient one amongst those.

[1] https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking

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

#69

Post by [deleted] »

ambyra wrote: post #52
someguydave wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Motorcyles have a roughly 30 times higher fatality rate per mile driven compared to cars

Pollution caused by congestion and manufacturing cars kills everyone. By riding a bike people can put their money where their mouth is regarding views on climate change; you're making a statement that says "I'm putting the environment ahead of my personal safety". Also, if you convert enough people, motorcycle riding becomes safer for everyone. Getting bumped by another 150lb Vespa isn't as nasty as getting hit by a…

[deleted]

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

#70

Post by wonder_er »

n8henrie wrote: post #16
wonder_er wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

also people who care about EVs tend to forget about tire wear and brake dust. Both are emitted in huge quantities, esp. tire microplastics, by EVs.

I thought brake dust would be drastically decreased due to regenerative braking?

that sounds right. Tire rubber microplastic generation would go way up, though, because of the vehicle weight.

I propose small motor scooters (as is common in asia) as the solution. Cars also take up a godawful amount of space, all the time. Especially in a city. That's the real harm, the tailpipe emissions are trivial compared to the space consumption.

Post reply on HN