In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by walthamstow » Fri, May 31, 2024, 2:30 PM UTC

throwaway22032 wrote: post #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. Transp…

If 'undesirables' are part of your local area, then they'll be on the public transport. The clue is in the name.

The reason Japan doesn't have them on the trains is not because the guards have removed them, it's because they weren't there to begin with.

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

#92

Post by adolph » Fri, May 31, 2024, 2:30 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #34

someguydave wrote: post #6

I am skeptical that all the tradeoffs are being considered here, it sounds like a recipe for permanent bad traffic justified with dubious moralizing. By the way, she is the daughter of Jack Lew who was President Obama’a Chief of Staff.

Bad traffic is bad for industry/business. Boeing threatened to move some manufacturing out of the Seattle because they'd have parts delivery delays due to traffic from Everett to Renton. Eventually I think they moved some to SC, but not a lot because the WSDOT gave in and widened some road infra.

That's weird on Boeing part.

The Amtrak Cascades 518 goes from Everett (Tukwila) to Renton daily. Surely Boeing should do their part, show a good example for the community and take public transportation.

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

#93

Post by rpcope1 » Fri, May 31, 2024, 2:30 PM UTC

peapicker wrote: post #85

rpcope1 wrote: 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.

Sure, maybe a little more trackage around Denver, but don't you remember all the controversy how the space and money to run light rail along 36 went away and we wound up with just a new express lane in its place? Maybe Jared will actually get something done and they'll run light rail in tandem with the BNSF line from Denver all the way north, but I'm still really skeptical because I've heard "it's just 3-4 years out, we have a plan" for at least 15 years now.

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

#94

Post by throwaway22032 » Fri, May 31, 2024, 2:34 PM UTC

walthamstow wrote: post #91

throwaway22032 wrote: post #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. Transp…

If 'undesirables' are part of your local area, then they'll be on the public transport. The clue is in the name. The reason Japan doesn't have them on the trains is not because the guards have removed them, it's because they weren't there to begin with.

If the answer is to throw up our hands and say that nothing can be done, then I'll just drive instead, because there are no beggars in my car, I don't let them in.

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

#95

Post by turnsout » Fri, May 31, 2024, 2:35 PM UTC

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.

You clearly misunderstand the concept of induced demand

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

#96

Post by appplication » Fri, May 31, 2024, 2:35 PM UTC

someguydave wrote: post #32

ambyra wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Agree, a motorcycle is a complete nonstarter for this reason. It’s just not responsible for anyone with a family.

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

#97

Post by itishappy » Fri, May 31, 2024, 2:35 PM UTC

someguydave wrote: post #37

strken wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is punishment if you are intentionally engineering the roads to cost people more time using them.

Stop punishing people by widening roads! It hasn't been shown to decrease transit times, but it has been shown to harm local standards of living.

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

#98

Post by s1artibartfast » Fri, May 31, 2024, 2:35 PM UTC

light_hue_1 wrote: post #86

s1artibartfast wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree, but I think we draw different conclusions. I like both having housing and being treated when I am sick.

The point of building and expanding highways isn't to reduce traffic, but enable more people to go places. Zero Highways would mean Zero traffic. a $1000 toll would mean zero traffic.

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

#99

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, May 31, 2024, 2:37 PM UTC

light_hue_1 wrote: post #86

s1artibartfast wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, and look, we've got all this demand for housing that isn't being addressed at the moment.

Maybe what you're describing is a positive outcome?

You can't be "we can't build roads because it will cause houses to be built" and "it's a crisis that nobody can afford a house" at the same time.

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

#100

Post by turnsout » Fri, May 31, 2024, 2:37 PM UTC

someguydave wrote: post #77

turnsout wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allowing people to realize their desires is not necessarily a good thing or the role of government. The majority of people would like to pay 0 taxes and never pay for healthcare.

Punishing people into having correct desires is the role of government?

Sometimes it is. If you desire to be naked on the subway, the government will punish you.

You don't just get to do whatever you want. The government's job is to look after The Public and ensure that most people get what they need—not to ensure that all people get what they want.