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

Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

practical.engineering

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 352 posts

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#301

Post by s1artibartfast »

Gud wrote: post #252
s1artibartfast wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to the parent poster as well, almost everyone within the 5000km2 around Zurich is within a couple minutes walk of public transport. It is really is quite remarkable. However, I think this is enabled by expensive high density apartment housing. Americans would consider the apartment sizes inhumane and a supermajority of the population are locked out of our owning a home.

You are making the argument that Americans would consider it inhumane to live in Swiss apartments because they are too small?

I was being hyperbolic, but yes, I think they would consider them too small and too old. Many would simply be illegal in the US due to their lack of amenities.

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#302

Post by supertrope »

onecommentman wrote: post #212
s1artibartfast wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Americans vote with their wallets and feet. They don't want dense apartment living and the majority run from it as soon as they can afford it. It is usually possible to rent small apartments near work in most metro areas, but instead they prefer 3000sqft places to 600sqft and supermarkets to corner stores. There is a huge amount that would have to change about the American dream and esthetic desires to enable ca…

The one thing you can count on based on decades of experience living with the anti car crowd is they are uniquely ill-equipped to change the hearts and minds of the average American. Their Modus Operandi is shrill hectoring about how the lifestyle of the average American is a “problem”, when the average American is either quite satisfied with their situation or actually aspire to the “problematic” low density lifesty…

Americans complain about unaffordable housing, car prices, gas prices, and car insurance premiums. But very few connect the dots between zoning and our housing and transportation ills. If your state DOT spends 98% of their budget on car traffic and 2% on walking, biking, and non-single occupancy vehicles that's what you'll get.

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#303

Post by rickydroll »

throwup238 wrote: post #221
hoten wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll accept that. Somehow I forgot to mention truck nuts. Car culture is something else entirely in Texas.

Truck nuts? https://smartcdn.gprod.postmedia.digital/driving/wp-content/...

So you're telling me that these big macho guys from Texas did gender reassignment surgery on their vehicles?

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#304

Post by oremolten »

lelandbatey wrote: post #122
pc86 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you think the alternative is. The US is huge compared to any similarly developed country. Is the answer huge cities right next to thousands of square miles of untouched nature? That hasn't happened in any society on the planet. It sounds like you just want everyone to live in a city and take public transit everywhere but cities are awful for your mental health[0] and most people in the US do not wan…

The US being huge has no bearing on the requirement that I have to own a car to get to work every day, or to go to the grocery store, or to take kids to school. I live in a more suburban area than I used to and having to pilot a huge deadly vehicle everywhere is vastly more stressful than just walking to handle my groceries. Note that the study you link to there is from 1994 and only controlled for the following crit…

You're not required anything. Nothing is stopping you from walking or riding a bike. You're making a choice of convenience. You're over privileged life has made you believe you need this "deadly vehicle". Go with out? like the 5billion other people that are, or continue to wine about your luxuries and not being able to get groceries 2 minutes faster.

How about this, instead of designing your consumer luxury life around needing to go to a store or restaurant 2-3 times a day... instead maybe shape your habits around not being a mindless consumer.

wahhh it really is awful I have to drive for 30 minutes 1x a month to get groceries.

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#305

Post by DidYaWipe »

macNchz wrote: post #183
DidYaWipe wrote: post #139

"the worst symbol of our car-obsessed culture" Nothing against the article, which covers an interesting topic. But this refrain gets tiresome, the railing against our "car obsession." We have a big-ass country. We like to move about it. Many of us don't want or need to live on top of each other. That is all.

My main complaint is that the people who like suburban density went ahead and made zoning codes to basically prevent building anything but sprawl, so now the few remaining places that don't require a car are rare and super expensive. I'm even a car guy—I own a stick shift BMW—I just don't have much interest in getting into it to do literally any activity or errand other than walking around the neighborhood.

"The people who like suburban density went ahead and made zoning codes to basically prevent building anything but sprawl"

What, exactly, qualifies as "sprawl" to you? Houses with yards? How do you propose we build those to make them "non-sprawly?" Most of your statement is true, though: "People who like suburban density went ahead and made zoning codes to basically prevent building anything but" that density. So?

Those codes exist in SOME areas. They give people a choice of what kind of area they live in. Yes, yes, they were all racist and evil back in the day. Today they serve a valid and non-nefarious purpose: giving people a choice.

"the few remaining places that don't require a car are rare and super expensive." Do you have specifics on that? Are you saying there are no small towns to live in? That condos and apartments in the downtowns and city centers and town centers and boroughs of United States cities are more expensive than houses?

Take L.A. for instance. It has become very popular to piss and moan about "single-family homes" and to pass craven developer handouts in the guise of sham "housing reform." Meanwhile, dead or dying malls sit with boarded-up anchor tenants (there's an abandoned Macy's a few miles from me) and vast empty parking lots growing weeds.

Also, downtown L.A. is not "full." Nor are other high-density areas across the county, if you look at vacancy numbers. And then there are the tracts of disused, formerly commercial or light-industrial parcels all over the city and county. And yet already-residential areas are targeted for destruction.

And I do mean destruction. In a drought- and heat-plagued area, there is no excuse to promote the wipeout of every last tree and the paving-over of every last yard for the construction of 10 units where a single house stood. Yes, recent state legislation allowed just that, WITH NO REVIEW REQUIRED OR POSSIBLE. A developer's dream.

Meanwhile, vast tracts that have already suffered these effects of "density," the aforementioned malls and parkingn lots, sit empty.

And on top of all this, nothing is being done about the corporate buy-ups of entire neighborhoods. This is even worse than the "shortage" itself, because it takes what housing does exist off the market PERMANENTLY. Corporations don't typically die and leave their homes to their kids. But people do, and corporations are scooping up those houses as fast as they can, exacerbating a home-ownership crisis that deprives Americans of their best way to build wealth.

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#306

Post by DidYaWipe »

macNchz wrote: post #281
kulahan wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is strongly overestimating the ratio of Americans who would be willing to walk to work, but that’s pure conjecture

Based on the price of houses in walkable/transit accessible parts of older American cities, there’s quite clearly a market for it. Ultimately, many Americans have basically no reference point for what it would be like to not depend on a car—it’s just what they’ve always known—so I’m sure you’re correct in that most would say they weren’t interested in living that way, but that’s not much of a reason to make rules aga…

That isn't the reason. The reason is that people who don't want to live that way have specifically chosen to live in an area developed in a different way. Why should that be destroyed or vilified?

I see the appeal of both kinds of lifestyle. Some of my best friends live in nice Chicago neighborhoods where they don't need cars. They are not rich or even significantly "well-off" by most standards, and their homes did not and do not cost as much as a house in a suburban area.

The "rules" prevent profiteers from destroying the standard of living for people who moved AWAY from density. Why should such people be herded around the country, hounded out of their homes for someone else's (increasingly a corporation's) profit? That's akin to black people being herded out of their neighborhoods for the construction of a highway.

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#307

Post by DidYaWipe »

DidYaWipe wrote: post #143
s1artibartfast wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corrective comments mean nothing specifically in the case where the author has no interest in correcting their behavior in the future. I realize may fall into this case, but it isn't universal. Some people seek to improve their grammar and avoid mistakes. Pointing them out doesn't have to be viewed as an attack. Alternative responses are as simple as "thanks" or "you are correct, of course"

They mean something to readers, though, regardless of whether the author is amenable to taking in the information or not. People learn by reading, so we all benefit by giving them correctly written material to learn from.

I love how someone downvoted that. Up with illiteracy!

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#308

Post by kulahan »

ludsan wrote: post #280
kulahan wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan is an extremely small island. I don’t think a lot of their experience would apply to us. China may be a better example.

Honshu is the 7th largest island in the world. It's area is a little more than 1/3 of texas.

The fact that it barely measures up to our second largest state would reinforce my point.

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#309

Post by m1n1 »

bamboozled wrote: post #153
yossi_peti wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people want to live in rural areas, that's fine by me. They don't particularly contribute to the problems with car-centric infrastructure in the US. The main complaints are how most cities in the US are designed in ways that are hostile to anybody who doesn't have a car, such as: - making it difficult to get around safely by bike - zoning restrictions that force development to be clumped in certain areas - underde…

Japan is awesome like this, they have amazing highways and rail. Tokyo in my option is a bit too car friendly but it’s still very walkable and rideable.

If that system existed in America, what would it take to keep it as clean and as safe? (Edit: I visited Japan and loved the train system)

Re: Why are Texas interchanges so tall?

#310

Post by variant »

xyst wrote: post #90

It’s a shame this country is so obsessed with cars. There’s so much land yet we devote it to destroying lush ecosystems (that help reduce effects of Mother Nature) and replacing it with massive highway projects that end up costing everyone more in taxes/indefinite maintenance costs. Then the effect is 10X’d when useless suburbs are built. More car dependence. More time spent on roads. Traffic slows to a halt as subur…

We prefer cars. It's fine.
Post reply on HN