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

#431

Post by ssl-3 » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 3:40 AM UTC

kjkjadksj wrote: post #308

ambyra wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Motorcycles are dangerous because of the speed honestly. Especially a lot of these bikes people buy that are just way too much power for anyone to be reasonable with. Like why do you need to strap yourself to a rocket that can go to 60 in less than 2 seconds? I’m sorry you aren’t even strapped in you are holding on for dear life. Theres no where you can do that and claim to be safe and responsible short of being a tr…

If 0-60MPH is 2 seconds, then that's an average acceleration of 1.37G over those 2 seconds.

This sounds like something that is very thrilling, enticing, and "Nope!" all at the same time.

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

#432

Post by j_m_b » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 3:41 AM 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…

Transit likely wouldn't exist without heavy government subsidies. Even with them, it's a pretty terrible way to get around, at least in the US. The vehicles are dirty, even dangerous. There are frequent delays and rerouting. Transit is a huge target for government grift as well, from everything to projects that go way over budget and never get completed to outright scams. It's far from that panacea that it's made out to be.

Maybe in Japan or Europe it's better. In the US, public transit has a far from stellar history.

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

#433

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 3:42 AM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #205

rufus_foreman wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> if you add more parking spots downtown, more people will drive downtown But that's good if you wan't more people to drive downtown, isn't it? What am I missing here?

> What am I missing here? That downtown is now a concrete hellscape instead of a pleasant place to be. Your solution ensures that always happens, overall people prefer less infrastructure built for cars, but if it is there of course they will use it.

[deleted]

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

#434

Post by jskrablin » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 3:46 AM UTC

nox101 wrote: post #424

mrangle wrote: post #378

Hardly anyone commenting, let alone policymakers with lifelong privilege and who are career incentivized to stay within a certain perspective, has significant if any experience taking the bus. I took the urban bus to and from school for years: at least 1.5 hours each way. Often two, with at least one transfer. Outside of the city center, reliance on buses is a massive poverty tax in terms of reduced quality of life.…

You should consider experiencing living in places with good non-automobile transportation. a few off the top of my head. Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, Seoul, Singapore, Taipei, London Poor people in these cities don’t feel disadvantaged for not having a car. I fact most people in these cities don’t have a car regardless of income level lived with a car in California for 20yrs, Lived withou…

I don't want to live in a city. It's noisy, polluted, crowded and I really like my small countryside house with plenty of land around it. Lived in a city for 20 years, got fed up with it, despite all of the alleged 'advantages' it offers. I guess I don't deserve decent infrastructure in your world view?

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

#435

Post by analog31 » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 3:51 AM UTC

kjkjadksj wrote: post #370

analog31 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and you're also not going to travel on a high speed, congested road. For one thing, there's usually no point.

Well from these clips, the road doesn’t have to be congested for things to go sideways before reaction time kicks in. And even from my own experiences, I once hit a big board with my car on the freeway. Didn’t see it until there it was. Four flats and a bit of a scare vs the end of my life probably right then if I were on a bike in all likelihood.

I'm a daily bike commuter, though I also own a car.

I certainly can't rule out freak accidents. However, I think that both speed and situational awareness make a difference on a bike. I tend to notice things that come into my field of vision, with plenty of time to react. In fact, I probably steer clear of things like debris and potholes on virtually every ride.

The reason why I mention congestion is threefold. First, getting hit by a car is by far the predominant hazard. I consider avoiding cars to be the #1 safety measure for cycling. If you take away that factor, then I doubt that cycling is more dangerous than driving. Second, beyond a certain level of congestion, drivers are not fully in control of their cars, but are controlled by the pace of traffic. Third, dodging traffic is the primary distraction that would make a cyclist fail to notice something like debris on the road.

I'm lucky to live in a town that has a network of bike paths, bike lanes in the more dense areas, and ample routes along sleepy residential streets. I encounter very few cars, and don't have to mix it up with heavy car traffic. Granted, living in a mid-sized town doesn't solve the car problem for humanity.

Edit: Re-reading our posts, I realized that I should clarify. "Bike" is a pedal bike in my case.

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

#436

Post by diob » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 3:52 AM UTC

nox101 wrote: post #424

mrangle wrote: post #378

Hardly anyone commenting, let alone policymakers with lifelong privilege and who are career incentivized to stay within a certain perspective, has significant if any experience taking the bus. I took the urban bus to and from school for years: at least 1.5 hours each way. Often two, with at least one transfer. Outside of the city center, reliance on buses is a massive poverty tax in terms of reduced quality of life.…

You should consider experiencing living in places with good non-automobile transportation. a few off the top of my head. Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, Seoul, Singapore, Taipei, London Poor people in these cities don’t feel disadvantaged for not having a car. I fact most people in these cities don’t have a car regardless of income level lived with a car in California for 20yrs, Lived withou…

Yep, I'm looking to move to one of those places rather than argue with USA folks about how they don't work.

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

#437

Post by wozniacki » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 3:53 AM UTC

pkulak wrote: post #407

mrangle wrote: post #378

Hardly anyone commenting, let alone policymakers with lifelong privilege and who are career incentivized to stay within a certain perspective, has significant if any experience taking the bus. I took the urban bus to and from school for years: at least 1.5 hours each way. Often two, with at least one transfer. Outside of the city center, reliance on buses is a massive poverty tax in terms of reduced quality of life.…

> That means cheaper and faster automotive transportation. That is… extremely silly. You can’t make an inherently expensive activity cheap because you’d like it to be. Cars take up so much space that’s expensive to build and maintain. They crash into things and people constantly. The pollute the air, and they are extremely expensive to own and repair, with a total lifetime measured in a couple decades, if you’re luck…

[flagged]

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

#438

Post by tcmart14 » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 3:54 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #410

pkulak wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That means cheaper and faster automotive transportation. That is… extremely silly. You can’t make an inherently expensive activity cheap because you’d like it to be. Cars take up so much space that’s expensive to build and maintain. They crash into things and people constantly. The pollute the air, and they are extremely expensive to own and repair, with a total lifetime measured in a couple decades, if you’re luck…

Cars fit in cities just fine. Just got back from Atlanta. Much nicer and cleaner and cheaper than New York City. The only problem is the pollution, which is fixed by EVs. The other stuff, like a few tens of thousands of deaths in car crashes a year, is vastly outweighed by the time saved by everyone else compared to even an excellent public transit system. Trains are not the solution. Even the best train systems are…

In both Singapore and Hong Kong, I never had to wait more than 10 minutes for a train and the stops were pretty much within 3-4 blocks within anything I'd want to get to.

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

#439

Post by lstodd » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 3:54 AM UTC

kjkjadksj wrote: post #310

ambyra wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they reduce congestion, which equals less total time on the road. Everyone gets better MPGs if there is less stop and go traffic.

Imagine stop and go traffic for a minute. Now imagine it with all those cars replaced by ninjas and dirtbikes and harleys. You can’t even hold a conversation when one of these things goes by. Imagine that being everything that goes by.

Well, you can't really commute on a Ninja or a Hayabusa. Dirtbike will get old fast too.

Maxi/midi scooters like Yamaha Majesty / X-MAX are the commuting vehicle of choice.

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

#440

Post by soared » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 3:56 AM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #421

mrangle wrote: post #378

Hardly anyone commenting, let alone policymakers with lifelong privilege and who are career incentivized to stay within a certain perspective, has significant if any experience taking the bus. I took the urban bus to and from school for years: at least 1.5 hours each way. Often two, with at least one transfer. Outside of the city center, reliance on buses is a massive poverty tax in terms of reduced quality of life.…

That buses take 1.5 hours to an urban center while cars don't is not an immobile fact of life: it is the result of decades of policy decisions that used limited budget on more roads rather than buses and trains. If, for example, Denver, CO had an actual functioning transportation network, it would cover a decent chunk of its neighboring suburbs, and these parts will be considered more desirable because you don't have…

Hard agree - look at the development of large apartment complexes right next to lightrail stations in Denver. These were promoted by policy changes, but are effective in providing mass public transit of reasonable quality into the city center from the (extremely small) suburb-ish locations they exist at.

If denver built out that light rail into a network dense housing could exist in the suburbs at an extremely reasonable cost (suburbs are cheaper than downtown, apartments are cheaper than housing). Like the article says, the neighboring counties/etc just don't want this, as the HOAs/homeowners in the suburbs want to entrench themselves and increase property values.

Buses that can drive in the shoulder are better for people who already take the bus, but they aren't going to get many more people riding the bus. A light rail that actually went all the way to Boulder would help. Or a lightrail that actually went to Golden, and not only the government building 3 miles uphill from downtown Golden.