Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

81–90 of 783 posts

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

#81
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quoted a lot but misunderstood. The conclusion people seem to draw from this is that widening the highway didn't help. This is wrong. 4 lanes of bad traffic travelling at 30mph is still creating twice the value of 2 lanes of bad traffic travelling at 30mph. With the 2-lane highway you were just forcing half the people to divert to other roads or to give up on their plans entirely. With 4 lanes you're serving…

Nobody complains about induced demand when a hospital can operates on twice as many patients at a time.

[deleted]

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

#82
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.

>> 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.

> You live in a country with the wrong type of political system for that. Valuing everyone's opinion equally is called democracy.

Infrastructure should not be subject to peoples' opinions. Like utilities and defense, infrastructure is crucial for security and commerce. People simply don't know better.

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

#83
post #54

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.

Describing the US as a democracy is totally normal among actual experts in the study of governments (political scientists).

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

#84
post #30

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.

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.

> Ask the locals, try some sort of ideas?

That's what the article is about...

> Mr. Tafoya was working for the City Council when he heard about the plan to expand the highway just blocks from where his mother still lived. “I-70 radicalized me,” he said. He quit his job and helped organize a statewide coalition of activists and community members who tried to stop the Interstate 70 expansion with lawsuits and protests. In the end, Interstate 70 was expanded. But the fight served as a warning to leaders like Ms. Lew that future highway construction would face spirited opposition.

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

#85
post #57

Widening I-25 probably won't do any good (didn't do much good last time we did that), but we keep talking about light rail all the way as far north as Fort Collins, and nothing ever happens other than RTD making money earmarked for new light rail disappear into the aether.

Since I moved here in the mid 1990’s we now have added light rail to Golden, down to Lincoln on I-25, all the way up I225, and I70 from downtown to the airport. Not exactly nothing. Rail to Loveland/Ft Collins would be a great addition.

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

#86
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quoted a lot but misunderstood. The conclusion people seem to draw from this is that widening the highway didn't help. This is wrong. 4 lanes of bad traffic travelling at 30mph is still creating twice the value of 2 lanes of bad traffic travelling at 30mph. With the 2-lane highway you were just forcing half the people to divert to other roads or to give up on their plans entirely. With 4 lanes you're serving…

Nobody complains about induced demand when a hospital can operates on twice as many patients at a time.

That's because adding hospital capacity doesn't create more sick people. Unless your hospital goes around breaking people's kneecaps to make money.

Adding highways creates more traffic by telling developers to put housing in the newly accessible land.

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

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is not an argument worth having as it can be extended to any law written, up to and including laws against murder.

There is an difference between the government punishing murderers and government bureaucrats employed by elected representatives to build roads deciding to punish the general population by not building roads (and still being paid tax dollars)

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

#88

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.

That's not what induced demand is.

Imagine if there was a portal on your front lawn that allowed you instant access to downtown London. How much more frequently would you travel to London if it took you literally no time at all? All of those trips are induced demand--that is, it is extra demand that is induced by the ease of the trip. Shifting demand from one route to another is, by definition, not induced demand, since it already existed!

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

#89
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.

>> 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.

[deleted]

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

#90
As someone who loves trains and buses and planes, I wish that people who pushed public transport would actually engage with the reasons why people don't want to use it rather than just making alternatives worse.

There are three main issues that need to be solved for even me, a train lover, to prioritise using them.

1) Undesirables need to be removed. I don't want to deal with beggars or other general hoodlums. Transport police need to be aggressive with stamping out these behaviours. If I have to interact with these people I won't do it.

2) It needs to be clean and comfortable. My car has air conditioning. If I have to feel sweaty and worry about touching surfaces I'm just not going to do it.

3) I like a good walk, and there are also real limitations to scaling here, so I'm less rigid on this, but it does need to go roughly to where I want to go and it needs to be frequent. If I'm out in the rain for fifteen minutes waiting for a bus I'm just not going to do it, I could already be halfway there by car.

I don't think these are insurmountable, Japan does pretty well, but in the absence of that, the stick just isn't going to work. If travel times via car doubled, I'd probably just do less and then eventually move out of the city.

edit: I can't reply about libraries due to rate limiting.

Libraries are a great example of how public transport _could_ work!

I love libraries!

The British Library is truly public. Anyone can go, anyone can enter the reading rooms. It is a lovely environment to read or work in, as they have strict rules. It is peaceful and pleasant because of the way that it's set up.

It's also a great example of how the many can come together to do more than the few. Almost no-one is able to create a home environment with that sort of atmosphere, and by sharing it we all get more.

I would love it if public transport were like the experience of using a good library.

Post reply on HN