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

#261

Post by joe_the_user » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 10:06 PM UTC

languagehacker wrote: post #51

I just read Paved Paradise as well as The High Cost of Free Parking. This seems like the current gradual trend towards reversing the hidden subsidy for drivers, first by giving them less affordances at remarkably low prices or for free. A few folks in the comments have mentioned a couple of times that it doesn't make sense to make a policy like this without supporting transit. I believe the argument would be that not…

I believe the argument would be that not creating induced demand will provide market effects to encourage the use of transit, which would then create greater demand for improved transit.

How does demand for public transit produce it? I mean public calls for more transit have been loud for many years and US politicians have taken that as opportunity to tax more and produce garbage transit construction project that enrich their friends and fail to change the situation (see the "mystery" of the US not being able to build public transit).

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

#262

Post by galago » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 10:06 PM UTC

akira2501 wrote: post #189

throwup238 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP but air quality monitors that measure particulates at different sizes? It's a pretty standard way of measuring air quality. There's a map of official California monitors: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/applications/air-monitoring-sites-int...

Yes, I'm aware of how one would do it, I am questioning whether that was actually done in this case or not. Further, I would question, what other places outside of your commute have you measured air pollution? They offered it as a data point. I think it's fine form to question it.

The EPA Air Quality Index isn't everything, but it is a standard value displayed in a phone weather app. I'll notice in times and places when I suspect its bad. If you live outside a city in place without forest fires or other environmental issues you might not notice its there. Some people with respiratory issues monitor this stuff constantly.

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

#263

Post by l2silver » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 10:06 PM UTC

rufus_foreman wrote: post #190

languagehacker wrote: post #51

I just read Paved Paradise as well as The High Cost of Free Parking. This seems like the current gradual trend towards reversing the hidden subsidy for drivers, first by giving them less affordances at remarkably low prices or for free. A few folks in the comments have mentioned a couple of times that it doesn't make sense to make a policy like this without supporting transit. I believe the argument would be that not…

>> 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 agree with the urban planning bias here, especially the idea that you shouldn't build more roads to fight congestion because more people will use them, and thus they'll reach the same saturation point anyways. Mind boggling that this is an accepted principal, and one that is completely disregarded when it comes to any form of transport that isn't a car.

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

#264

Post by rangestransform » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 10:09 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #214

basil-rash wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A crackhead grabbed my girlfriend’s hair on the subway recently

Tell me, anti car fundamentalists, what are the odds that happens in a waymo?

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

#265

Post by ksplicer » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 10:11 PM UTC

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…

How are you coming to the conclusion that cars are paying their fair share of costs? I'm not familiar with Australian politics at all, but a quick look found that local governments pay most of road maintenance, not the fuel excise tax[1]. Another hidden cost of cars is that they decrease density of cities and suburbs, which causes all other infrastructure to also get more expensive (sewage, gas, power, etc).

[1] https://alga.com.au/policy-centre/roads-and-infrastructure/r...

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

#266

Post by kjkjadksj » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 10:11 PM UTC

languagehacker wrote: post #51

I just read Paved Paradise as well as The High Cost of Free Parking. This seems like the current gradual trend towards reversing the hidden subsidy for drivers, first by giving them less affordances at remarkably low prices or for free. A few folks in the comments have mentioned a couple of times that it doesn't make sense to make a policy like this without supporting transit. I believe the argument would be that not…

A big issue with the market argument in converting car drivers to transit riders is the respective networks operate at different scales. Think of a little neighborhood with a bus line on a road; theres probably I’m not even sure call it 20x as many roads in that neighborhood that don’t have a bus line. There is so much more built out of the comprehensive road network everywhere than there is with transit. Cities are barely establishing their cardinal direction rail transit routes today. Even living in a place as densely railed as nyc most of those routes are extremely biased in the sort of commutes they best serve (in to manhattan for the most part).

Since most cities can’t afford to ever build their rail networks as comprehensively as the existing road network in even a small city, we are left with bussing to build that comprehensive network. And what do you know, if you look up most cities bus networks they look pretty good and high coverage. So why don’t people take them? Its still worse than a car. A car is a direct bus on your own schedule, a bus route is a compromised route of average population and job density, might not help you get to where you are going especially for drives outside a fixed commute to a central business district. Scheduling and especially transfers can be fickle.

As long as the coverage and convenience are so lopsided, people are going to take cars if they can afford it, even with a shiny new light rail line or whatever is attempted. I have yet to see a project like that attract wealthy ridership that can afford choice, transit rider median demographics are working class or even at the poverty line in a lot of metros. Even nyc subway ridership is 40k income on avg, bus ridership 28k. In the most expensive city in north america no less.

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

#267

Post by seadan83 » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 10:11 PM UTC

thereisnospork wrote: post #218

lkurtz wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ob…

I believe there is way too much value judgement placed here.

If you have two checkouts, people will use whichever one is faster (assuming everything else is equal). Make one faster, and people will shift from one line to the other. Though, to make it an even better analogy, make one line shorter, and people will start coming in from off the street rather than switching lines.

A much better example - telecommuting. IF commute is bad, one is strongly incentivized to have some work-from-home days. If the commute time is improved, then that incentive disappears and one would then consider commuting daily.

Induced demand I think is generally all about the idea that when something is painful - people don't do it. Take away that pain point, and people come. I don't begrudge people too much for driving, as an example I'll note I do my errands on a bicycle. As such, I'm strongly incentivized to make many stops and fewer trips. Meanwhile, I've noticed that people in my family will make a car trip errand as soon as the need comes up. "Oh, I need to go to the grocery store." They get back, then realize they also needed to go to the hardware store, drive out again real quick and back when had there been more planning, the two trips could have been combined. Switching to a bike is an extreme example to avoid the excessive/unnecessary trips that are made simply because it is so convenient. If the drive time were tripled, then there might be a behavior shift to group errands together. Why do so though if it takes just a few minutes to make the individual trips? Eventually the cost of the trip is sufficient that a person will start conserving, avoiding that cost (which can be: travelling in off-hours, grouping trips together, not doing a trip altogether, finding a different mode of transport, removing the trip by moving, etc...)

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

#268

Post by em-bee » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 10:11 PM UTC

thereisnospork wrote: post #195

light_hue_1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There is not. You've totally misunderstood induced demand. You can build unlimited roads and they will all be used up and commutes will increase for everyone. People engineer cities and development around transit. If you provide massive amounts of transit to a desirable location people will saturate it. This is why initially highway projects look like successes. Wow. My commute is so much better. And then. In a d…

>People engineer cities and development around transit. If you provide massive amounts of transit to a desirable location people will saturate it. well yes, that is the objective of building transit[0]: to get people where they would like to go. That people 'induce demand' by moving to a place where they can go where they would like to go with (initially) less friction is the system reequilibrating - from places wher…

in some cities where traffic was reduced in specific areas (usually the center), business went up, because, as more people were forced to walk, they also were more spontaneously entering shops and buying more.

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

#269

Post by rangestransform » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 10:12 PM UTC

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, I would say that biking with a child in certain parts of the US is incredibly irresponsible and neglectful

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

#270

Post by rangestransform » Sat, Jun 01, 2024, 10:12 PM UTC

ambyra wrote: post #52

someguydave wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Pollution caused by congestion and manufacturing cars kills everyone. By riding a bike people can put their money where their mouth is regarding views on climate change; you're making a statement that says "I'm putting the environment ahead of my personal safety". Also, if you convert enough people, motorcycle riding becomes safer for everyone. Getting bumped by another 150lb Vespa isn't as nasty as getting hit by a…

I would rather be safe than bear a cross for the environment

I’m glad we live in a democracy where telling people to endanger themselves for the environment is a nonstarter