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

101–110 of 783 posts

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

#101

Post by walthamstow »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #55
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

The induced demand argument is sort of crazy. It is saying you shouldn't build something because if you do, it will be extremely popular and widely used. We shouldn't build libraries - if we do, people will want to check out books. Instead, let's penalize people who read books. That will destroy the demand for books. Problem solved.

You are comparing the externalities of car driving to that of libraries

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

#102

Post by [deleted] »

theodorejb wrote: post #11
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

Not to mention greater wear on the road and increased particle emissions from brakes and tires due to heavy batteries in EVs. https://nypost.com/2024/03/05/business/evs-release-more-toxi...

[deleted]

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

#103

Post by troyvit »

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.

> To build transit that works you cannot value everyone's opinion equally and have to just make it happen.

Yep.[1]

The governor is _trying_ to build comprehensive transit in Colorado[2], but between an incompetent transportation district and the difficulties of building public transit infrastructure to serve our metastatic urban sprawl makes public transit difficult to fund over cars.[3]

Our state metro areas just refuse to accept that if they want growth they'll need density. They'd rather pave their farms because they value the taxes they get from McMansions more than actual food.

[1] https://www.cpr.org/2024/04/17/rtd-leadership-elections-cont...

[2] https://www.cpr.org/2024/01/12/jared-polis-2024-state-of-the...

[3] https://pressbooks.uwf.edu/envrioscience/chapter/14-3-the-im...

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

#104

Post by someguydave »

jcranmer wrote: post #88
someguydave wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, si…

If this were absolutely true, the wide highways would be completely packed at 2am

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

#105

Post by walthamstow »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #94
walthamstow wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What I'm saying is that public transport is a reflection of the local society. You can accept it, work to improve it, or hide from it in your private vehicle.

Here in London, hardly a quaint and sleepy village, everyone uses public transport, including beggars and hoodlums as you put it, and it's fine.

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

#106

Post by throwaway22032 »

walthamstow wrote: post #105
throwaway22032 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What I'm saying is that public transport is a reflection of the local society. You can accept it, work to improve it, or hide from it in your private vehicle. Here in London, hardly a quaint and sleepy village, everyone uses public transport, including beggars and hoodlums as you put it, and it's fine.

We simply disagree that public transport (or society in general) has to accept everyone regardless of how badly they behave.

It has nothing to do with "sectors of society".

If you want me on the bus, kick off the dickheads. Making driving worse will not get me on the bus however much you attempt to manipulate me emotionally.

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

#107

Post by turnsout »

someguydave wrote: post #104
jcranmer wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, si…

If this were absolutely true, the wide highways would be completely packed at 2am

Induced demand does not turn people nocturnal

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

#108

Post by walthamstow »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #106
walthamstow wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm saying is that public transport is a reflection of the local society. You can accept it, work to improve it, or hide from it in your private vehicle. Here in London, hardly a quaint and sleepy village, everyone uses public transport, including beggars and hoodlums as you put it, and it's fine.

We simply disagree that public transport (or society in general) has to accept everyone regardless of how badly they behave. It has nothing to do with "sectors of society". If you want me on the bus, kick off the dickheads. Making driving worse will not get me on the bus however much you attempt to manipulate me emotionally.

Not every individual, obviously, I meant all sectors of society, as you probably knew but chose to ignore in favour of a snipe

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

#109

Post by ambyra »

turnsout wrote: post #42
someguydave wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

More lanes only helps the car manufacturers. A nice train system up and down the front range would be great. Would also help people get their 10,000 steps in every day walking to the train.

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

#110

Post by mc32 »

adolph wrote: post #92
mc32 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It wasn't for people but parts & subassemblies deliveries. They'd get tied up in the traffic.
Post reply on HN