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

161–170 of 783 posts

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

#161

Post by s1artibartfast »

secstate wrote: post #156
s1artibartfast wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax haul for 10 houses are better than a 10 unit complex. The people also want houses opposed to apartments (hence the higher price). This seems to be an ideological conflict where some people are trying to force everyone else into options they dont want- why? The solution seems simple. relax zoning where it exists and let people who want to live in tiny urban apartments do so, and let people who want to live in subu…

Careful how you swing that axe of relaxed zoning. Got me nearly kicked off my local town council. "Why can't that town two towns over build more apartments for our day laborers?" they all ask in unison.

I dont understand what you are implying. Are you saying that NIMBYs will come after you?

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

#162

Post by s1artibartfast »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #157
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The demand for housing has nothing to do with highways. Highways proscribe a particular way in which to build housing. Low density sprawl. Which results in horrible commutes people hate. We don't need that. We need high density transit. Which results in high quality of life. The reason housing isn't built is because cities abuse zoning laws. It's time for states to take back zoning regulations.

To each their own. Most Americans hate high density. I'd rather drive 2 hours than live high density.

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

#163

Post by kentonv »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #158
kentonv wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about you ask people: Would you vote for bonds for a highway expansion that will not really make your commute better but will provide more accessible housing, bringing down housing prices, and thus allow you to have a bigger, nicer home for less money? (Even if you don't actually use the particular highway!) If people are filling up the new lanes it's because they are getting value out of it. It's making people's…

But that's not at all what happens. Housing cost does not go down with highway construction. No. It's making people's lives worse. They could have better lives with transit.

You're saying that highway construction encourages building of new housing, enough to use up all the new highway capacity, but that this doesn't bring down housing costs. This is quite an extraordinary claim that goes against basic economics. I don't believe it.

I think you and others have convinced yourselves that this is true because you like the conclusion: that we should stop building highways. But it's a tortured argument that doesn't make basic economic sense.

> They could have better lives with transit.

Then build the transit! I am all for building better public transit! I am all for dense urban development, downtown residential highrises, mixed-use walkable neighborhoods, etc. We can do all of these things -- and also expand highways. With all the options available, people will choose what's actually best for them. If you're right, then people will stop using the highway and it won't be congested anymore. Win win!

I really do not believe in refusing to give people what they want because we think they'd be better off with something else that we're also not building.

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

#164

Post by kentonv »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #162
light_hue_1 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The demand for housing has nothing to do with highways. Highways proscribe a particular way in which to build housing. Low density sprawl. Which results in horrible commutes people hate. We don't need that. We need high density transit. Which results in high quality of life. The reason housing isn't built is because cities abuse zoning laws. It's time for states to take back zoning regulations.

To each their own. Most Americans hate high density. I'd rather drive 2 hours than live high density.

High density is awesome right up until you have kids and then it's awful. I think a lot of young people who don't have kids have trouble understanding this.

If I had no kids I'd love to live in a downtown high rise apartment. Really wish I had done so when I was younger. Among a lot of things I wish I could go tell my younger self to do...

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

#165

Post by s1artibartfast »

kentonv wrote: post #164
s1artibartfast wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To each their own. Most Americans hate high density. I'd rather drive 2 hours than live high density.

High density is awesome right up until you have kids and then it's awful. I think a lot of young people who don't have kids have trouble understanding this. If I had no kids I'd love to live in a downtown high rise apartment. Really wish I had done so when I was younger. Among a lot of things I wish I could go tell my younger self to do...

Yeah, it seems like a huge personality disconnect and critical lack of comprehension that other people simply dont like what they do. Ive spent a lot of time in excellent dense European cities and it still doesnt appeal to me. I dont like going out to bars, crowds, or general city life.

I like privacy, having a workshop, chickens, fruit trees, and a garden. I like having a huge kitchen, a pantry, a meat smoker, and hosting dinner parties. I like having room for an off-road vehicle and camping gear.

It is hard to keep my eyes from rolling out of my head when someone tells me how much better dense urban living is. I have never met anyone IRL that would happily trade their suburban home for urban life.

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

#166

Post by someguydave »

troyvit wrote: post #136
someguydave wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tax haul from a house is almost certainly higher than food grown on a semi-arid steppe like Colorado

Totally, which is why Colorado is producing less and less food. I mean towns sprouted up where people settled and people settled to grow food, so this has been happening in Colorado since farming began here. As a result the land left for farming is getting worse and worse. The good spots have all been paved. But say we have to keep that, my next question is, what's the tax haul for a house compared to an apartment co…

What are you talking about? King Soopers has plenty of food

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

#167

Post by bowsamic »

balfirevic wrote: post #138
appplication wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Would you say the same thing for bicycles, in places without dedicated bicycle lanes?

Yes, absolutely

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

#168

Post by bowsamic »

ambyra wrote: post #154
id00 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where should I put my toddler?

Depends where you live. In Colorado there’s no minimum age to be a motorcycle passenger. In California, the minimum age is eight, So you would need to find some alternate transportation.

The question you are replying to was rhetorical

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

#169

Post by akira2501 »

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.

> Some of the worst localized pollution I have experienced in my life

How did you quantify this? Or this a purely anecdotal observation?

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

#170

Post by akira2501 »

wongarsu wrote: post #61
Drakim wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In the first level analysis.

Once you realize the sheer amount of commerce and business that is enabled by roads you see that they pay for themselves several times over.

Post reply on HN