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

291–300 of 783 posts

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

#291

Post by eikenberry »

dymk wrote: post #245
EasyMark wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s another huge way to put a dent it and let people live where they want: work from home works. The pandemic proved it. It’s not a 100% solution but there is seldom a 100% solution that doesn’t involve totalitarian government since not everyone wants to live in the city in concrete towers.

That’s a decision of employers, not policy makers

Until they decide to make it their decision and do something like tax companies per onsite worker and/or increased property taxes for office space that could have been better used. Lots of options.

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

#292

Post by ein0p »

Hello71 wrote: post #188
ein0p wrote: post #175

The great thing about all this is, when the pendulum inevitably swings back 15-20 years from now, we’re going to get a 20 lane highways.

the Katy Freeway already has 26 lanes since 16 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_10_in_Texas

Based, but insufficient.

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

#293

Post by seadan83 »

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

Every time you decide to delay a trip during rush-hour, because of rush-hour - that is an example of what you are describing.

As an example, in Bellevue, Washington - the evening rush hour starts (and is really bad) at 3pm - there are that many people leaving work progressively earlier that there is still a rush hour of people leaving work early to avoid the big rush-hour.

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

#294

Post by cebert »

thefaux wrote: post #204
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…

This is a flawed analogy and I think there is a false dichotomy by framing skepticism around building more highways as inherently anti-car. I'm going to go out on a limb and say most drivers do not enjoy traffic and most residents near busy roadways do not enjoy the effects of traffic on their neighborhood. The question is what is the best policy approach that manages all people's concerns. For me, the question is ho…

> For me, the question is how can we get people to live and work in areas where it isn't necessary to inefficiently, and very expensively, move people to and from work.

I cannot comprehend why more firms aren’t embracing remote work more than they do. It helps alleviate a lot of these traffic challenges and can result in reduced carbon footprints as well as more happy employees. I hope we start considering remote work as a solution to some of these problems more in the future.

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

#295

Post by Zamicol »

As someone who lives in Colorado I avoid Denver because of its traffic.

Denver isn't the only city on I-25. Forget Denver, I-25 is increasingly more congested because the population and trade in Colorado is increasing.

Politicians myopically prioritizing Denver while forgetting Colorado are colloquially referred to by locals as the "State of Denver".

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

#296

Post by kjkjadksj »

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.

It seems weird but you have to look at the market effects evangelist perspective to understand their position. A person believing in these forces might say that by having a large day laboring population and not building housing for them, there is now strong incentive for other areas to approve new housing and take advantage of guaranteed demand. And then they might go on to cite a location like (EDIT: not daly city but there is a bay area city that recently approved a ton of apartments whose name escapes me) that has taken this approach and really changed their municipal budget for the better as a result.

However, the market evangelists don’t understand that just because there is a business case to do something, doesn’t mean anything should happen either. People and therefore their markets don’t operate on entropy alone. There is a lot of irrationality that is hard to quantify.

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

#297

Post by Maarten88 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #137
troyvit wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

> Tax haul for 10 houses are better than a 10 unit complex.

I thought is is pretty well established that in US cities, poorer and denser neighborhoods are subsidizing the richer suburbs, tax-wise.

Because 10 houses need 10 of everything, paid for by taxes: street pavement, sewer, water, electricity, internet, etc. A 10 unit complex needs only one. It all needs maintenance too, starting some 25 years after being built. Most US suburbs can't pay for their own maintenance from taxes.

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

#298

Post by detourdog »

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…

The problem I have with reducing minimum parking is that in rural areas it doesn’t make sense. That doesn’t stop people in my rural town of 2,500 houses advocating for reducing parking requirements.

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

#299

Post by kjkjadksj »

eikenberry wrote: post #291
dymk wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a decision of employers, not policy makers

Until they decide to make it their decision and do something like tax companies per onsite worker and/or increased property taxes for office space that could have been better used. Lots of options.

Cities also have their own perverse incentives to maintaining the 9-5 downtown status quo. A whole host of businesses depend on these workers and they are involved in the chamber of commerce and various other orgs city leaders listen to when making decisions.

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

#300

Post by kjkjadksj »

prmoustache wrote: post #213
someguydave wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bic…

I’ve seen way too many clips of bikers to no fault getting wrecked that its just not for me. At least with a human powered bike you have the physics of only going about 15 miles an hour on your side and aren’t going to turn into a crayon.
Post reply on HN