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

211–220 of 783 posts

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

#211

Post by Jensson »

sien wrote: post #193
Gigachad wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If boomers want to continue driving, they can. Just make them pay for what they use. Work out the real market value for the space and charge for it.

Yep. The same should be done for public transport. In the US Farebox Recovery Ratios of 20% or less are common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio#United_... Only 58% of fuel tax in Australia is spent on any kind of transport including rail. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-21/fuel-excise-not-being... Australians drive a similar amount to the US. From https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/11/13/h…

You can see about half of trips are by car in for example Germany:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1309333/germany-modal-sp...

Public transit isn't all, just being denser so that biking and walking is more viable is also a big part to why European cities aren't concrete wastelands full of parking and roads. The normal way to go and buy groceries is to walk not drive.

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

#212

Post by tomohawk »

They did that in northern Virginia. For decade after decade, they refused to build highways, and after a few million people moved there, it was no longer possible to build or expand what they have without immense expense. The traffic congestion is constant thare.

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

#213

Post by prmoustache »

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

How much of these fatalities involve some daredevils?

I became a motorbike in my late 30's and I see I am not taking risks like a lot of riders around me. I am taking ample distance between me and cars, act as if I was invisible and other users would do the most insane thing possible at all times and don't swerve around vehicles. I am even slower descending a mountain pass on my motorbike than I am riding my road bicycle.

I know from my experience driving cars at the same age that it would have been totally stupid to let 20y old me ride a motorbike.

OTOH motorbiking would be much safer with less cars on the road.

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

#214

Post by Jensson »

basil-rash wrote: post #208
rufus_foreman wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> you can do other things on public transit, What can I do on public transit that people don't do in a car in traffic?

Get harassed by homeless? Or just men in general, if you’re a remotely attractive female (using the broadest term available as it certianly isn’t restricted to what we’d appropriately call “women”).

Do you think public transit is full of drunkards? Its mostly tired people getting to or from work, those doesn't harass a lot of people. When its late and its a lot of drunks on public transit sure, but not on normal commutes. Columns I've read from women getting harassed its mostly about dance floors at clubs, not commute trains, when people aren't drunk they mostly keep their hands to themselves.

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

#215

Post by prmoustache »

appplication wrote: post #150
balfirevic wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’m an avid cyclist who’s been in a few crashes. I will absolutely not bike commute in dangerous parts of the city. So yes, I’d say the same.

you aren't really answering the question.

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

#216

Post by tekla »

Jensson wrote: post #207
rufus_foreman wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> you can do other things on public transit, What can I do on public transit that people don't do in a car in traffic?

Browse your phone? Everyone does that in public transit, drivers don't do that in cars. You could read HN and post messages for example.

> drivers don't do that in cars

See the problem is that they do, right before they drive into a pedestrian or stationary object.

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

#217

Post by standardUser »

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.

And who are you the daughter of, since these facts are clearly of paramount significance?

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

#218

Post by thereisnospork »

lkurtz wrote: post #206
rufus_foreman wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I believe the argument would be that not creating induced demand will provide market effects to encourage the use of transit Induced demand is a concept that anti-car people use, but I don't think it makes much sense. Imagine a library that only has a few copies of some best selling children's books. There's a very long queue to check out those books. Someone might argue that, "We should buy more copies of the bes…

I don’t think this analogy is quite correct. Driving on a particular route is not a driver’s objective like reading a particular book is a reader’s objective. The driver’s objective is arriving at a destination. The objective in driving is not a finite resource, but the multiple route options to the objective can be, which differs substantially from a library queue.

Let's consider a library with both a manned librarian and a self checkout, two different queues, same objective. Let's call the self checkout the 'highway' queue and the manned one the 'surface street' queue. Each of which could be expanded to improve throughput (more lanes:more self checkout lanes, more streets:more librarians).

Ultimately the problem with anti-car rhetoric is that it seeks to limit access to the objective because it is "wrong" to use a self checkout lane and people must be forced to check books out in the morally correct manner.

No one (reasonable) has a problem with the library adopting a mobile checkout app, which let's call mass transit. But crippling self checkout to force adoption of the mobile checkout app could be at best described as a 'dark pattern', forcing people to check out books 'the right way' at the cost of overall readership.

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

#219

Post by carlosjobim »

tromp wrote: post #197
rufus_foreman wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I believe the argument would be that not creating induced demand will provide market effects to encourage the use of transit Induced demand is a concept that anti-car people use, but I don't think it makes much sense. Imagine a library that only has a few copies of some best selling children's books. There's a very long queue to check out those books. Someone might argue that, "We should buy more copies of the bes…

Except that having more car traffic induces more pollution, more casualties, and more time spent unproductively (you can do other things on public transit, or get exercise commuting by bike), whereas more book reading has few downsides.

Investments in infrastructure is investing in huge net benefits for all members of society and the economy in the broadest sense possible. That's why it's been an unparalleled success all over the world to invest in roads for motorized vehicles and invest in electrification. Getting energy and goods to where they need to be as fast as possible is beneficial to all, no matter how you structure your government or economy.

Roads are not only for commuting.

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

#220

Post by colingoodman »

thebigman433 wrote: post #185
BurningFrog wrote: post #44

California, always leading the way, has boldly built almost nothing for 5 decades!

I get its supposed to be a funny joke, but CA has some of the biggest transit projects in the country going on currently. CAHSR is wildly expensive, but its still being built, and will far and away be the best rail corridor in the country when its done. LA has been building a decent amount of transit for how hard it is to get anything done there. SF already has a fairly robust and solid transit network, and there hav…

Los Angeles is indeed building a lot of public transit. As is the nature of any of these projects, especially in California, it will be many years (decades) before much of it is complete. But it's happening nonetheless.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-10-26/los-angel...

Post reply on HN