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

331–340 of 783 posts

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

#331

Post by ericmay »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #266
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…

It’s hard to talk about the topic at very high level but for many American cities like Columbus where I live the answer lies at least partially converting surface parking lots in downtown areas into economically productive assets like housing or businesses which are also not extractive to the local economy. This density makes it easier to walk and bike as well.

Many cities, including Columbus, are expanding bus rapid transit and other bus related activities which is laudable, but to your point, and which I agree and would frame it slightly differently, the bus is a strictly worse version of the car in these kinds of cities and so you need category changes to change habits (trams, bikes, walking).

I think we need to focus our efforts on cities like Columbus, or others, which do have the population to support rail development and solve for that and not get too worried about solving everything everywhere all at once.

Most state departments of highways and cars (they are not departments of transportation) simply don’t fund alternative means of transportation. Leadership from the top down needs to change its focus. The mantra should be the best, safest car is the one you never get in. Instead it’s “we need to preserve going from here to there in 20 minutes without traffic surprises” as if not being stuck in traffic is a Constitutional right. It’s bankrupting us and it’s bad for business and wellbeing.

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

#332

Post by bobthepanda »

seadan83 wrote: post #315

I kinda hate that this topic almost always devolves into similar arguments about what exactly is induced demand. Despite that, these conversation threads did give me a new perspective on induced demand that I feel is worth sharing. That new perspective - I would now say that induced demand relates the efficiency of how well a resource is used to the cost of using that resource. If cost of use is high, then the resour…

Induced demand gets thrown around a lot, without understanding why it is invoked.

Inducing demand can often be good. We build things so that we can use or sell them. A railroad should induce new trips just as a highway should.

The problem with highway expansion in 2024 in the US is that each new mile of highway gets ever increasingly more expensive and hard to build and produces diminishing returns, at high cost to the neighborhoods that will be bulldozed and divided. And these high costs are sucking the money away from not only the development of alternative modes which could be good backup options, but also the maintenance of the current network. It is not unheard of for a single highway interchange to now cost nearly $2B+: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_Interchange

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

#334

Post by bobthepanda »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #266
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…

Bus coverage isn’t the only metric that matters. Frequency is also terrible.

It is entirely a symptom of investment. Bus ridership was found to decline in large part because the actual amount of service hours had declined as well. https://humantransit.org/2015/06/pity-the-poor-city-bus-writ...

Canada has significantly higher bus ridership than the US despite having pretty similar urban forms and it is entirely due to the difference in services provided.

Seattle has seen noticeable increases in bus service hours and ridership from across income ranges, and the new rail extensions are performing similarly well.

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

#335

Post by anon84873628 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #219
tromp wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 econo…

It's not really a benefit to all the ecosystems destroyed by suburban sprawl, or all the people affected by the externalized costs of that economic activity. Unrestricted growth may not be so great of an idea in the long term.

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

#336

Post by Maarten88 »

ericmay wrote: post #331
kjkjadksj wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s hard to talk about the topic at very high level but for many American cities like Columbus where I live the answer lies at least partially converting surface parking lots in downtown areas into economically productive assets like housing or businesses which are also not extractive to the local economy. This density makes it easier to walk and bike as well. Many cities, including Columbus, are expanding bus rapid…

> the bus is a strictly worse version of the car in these kinds of cities

You can change that by giving them their own lane so they don't get stuck in traffic with the cars, let them go where cars may not go, give priority at traffic lights etc. That is what they do where I live.

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

#338

Post by vegetablepotpie »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #266
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…

To expand on that, with small and midsized cities, daily cost of transit rides vs. gas is on parity. Of course this does not include maintenance, insurance, and depreciation, of owning and driving a vehicle, but most people only encounter those twice a year, vs gas and bus fees are daily and weekly.

In small and midsized cities, driving a car takes less time, likely 1/2 to 1/3rd the time of taking a bus.

Lastly, there’s the sense of control over personal space. When you’re on a bus, you do not control who gets on the bus with you. When you’re in a car, you have total control.

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

#339

Post by HPsquared »

seadan83 wrote: post #315

I kinda hate that this topic almost always devolves into similar arguments about what exactly is induced demand. Despite that, these conversation threads did give me a new perspective on induced demand that I feel is worth sharing. That new perspective - I would now say that induced demand relates the efficiency of how well a resource is used to the cost of using that resource. If cost of use is high, then the resour…

It all depends on how you define "efficiency". For the grocery example, getting food items Just-in-Time would result in fresher food, less wastage and more flexibility.
Post reply on HN