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

441–450 of 783 posts

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

#441

Post by locallost »

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.…

I took public transport that was pretty bad, and now that I am older, I am still very supportive of public transportation. Unlike personal automotive transportation, it's been made to work somewhere. Cheaper and faster automotive transport does not mix well, people have been dreaming about it for a century and somehow it never worked anywhere. It's a shame you're throwing words like ivory tower around because it's exactly the acceptance of observed reality that is forcing people to think about new ways of doing things. Let's care about working people in ways other than making them spend a huge chunk of their income on inefficient transportation that always takes forever no matter how many lanes you build. Transportation they have to use because it's exactly the middle class that wants to prioritize its own comfort instead of the common good and there are no alternatives.

Colorado has the right idea.

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

#442

Post by rayiner »

osigurdson wrote: post #418
rayiner wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the best bus systems are slow and inconvenient compared to cars. I went to see Taylor Swift in Tokyo this year, and took the bus to the subway. It was timely, clean, and efficient—far better than anything America could ever be able to do. But I still took an Uber back, because I wanted to get home quickly.

Was this possibly in the evening and thus less busy?

I was getting out of a Taylor Swift concert with 50,000 people so it was busy.

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

#443

Post by soared »

peapicker wrote: post #85
rpcope1 wrote: post #57

Widening I-25 probably won't do any good (didn't do much good last time we did that), but we keep talking about light rail all the way as far north as Fort Collins, and nothing ever happens other than RTD making money earmarked for new light rail disappear into the aether.

Since I moved here in the mid 1990’s we now have added light rail to Golden, down to Lincoln on I-25, all the way up I225, and I70 from downtown to the airport. Not exactly nothing. Rail to Loveland/Ft Collins would be a great addition.

The airport lightrail is incredible, but the Golden one is useless unless you're going to court. Great example of politics getting in the way, since the lightrail only serves the government building which is miles away and very uphill from downtown Golden where people live and work.

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

#444

Post by roywiggins »

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…

> The only problem is the pollution, which is fixed by EVs.

Unfortunately, EVs do not solve the problem of air pollution from motor vehicles: tires produce a LOT of particulates.

https://theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-pr...

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

#445

Post by wozniacki »

kanbara wrote: post #420
rayiner wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

this is insane. i have never ever taken a taxi in tokyo. the transit system is world class, cheap, and extremely convenient.

You mean even the part where people get stuffed into already packed trains? [1] I get it. Japanese trains are some of the best anywhere but lets not make them into some downside-free experience, not including the amount of walking thats involved trying to get into and out of the maze of levels at some of the stations, dodging salarymen and other straphangers.[2]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSuU3GOKWAY

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCqBlwJy4M8

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

#446

Post by jcrites »

wozniacki wrote: post #437
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…

[flagged]

Please take a moment to review the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

> Please don't post insinuations about [] shilling[] and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken.

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

#447

Post by stouset »

dmix wrote: post #427
nox101 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

dont poor people in Paris live on the edges of the city far away from the good jobs downtown and are closer to the highways? I don't know much about European cities but maybe it's easier to build housing there than it is here because that's always the main issue in north america. The only reason people live in the suburbs where everyone is forced to drive is because a) housing it cheaper and b) its safer (most EU cit…

I know it’s hard to imagine if America is all you know, but there are other alternatives than endless suburbia.

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

#448

Post by stouset »

jskrablin wrote: post #434
nox101 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you’re willing to split the cost with ten people rather than ten thousand, have at.

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

#449

Post by hyperhopper »

kanbara wrote: post #420
rayiner wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

this is insane. i have never ever taken a taxi in tokyo. the transit system is world class, cheap, and extremely convenient.

Then clearly you have not spent much time in Tokyo, the trains don't run between 12 and 5am. That's a lot of the day to not have access to public transit, especially for peak partying hours on a weekend.

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

#450

Post by rayiner »

tcmart14 wrote: post #438
rayiner wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I stayed recently in Askakusa on a family trip and the train was about a 15 minute walk away. Even in the close in districts there are many residential places that are a 15-20 minute walk away, and on top of that you might have to take a bus to the train, or transfer lines, etc. Even in Tokyo the door to door time is usually much faster driving.

I don’t know about Singapore or Hong Kong. But I suspect rich people there drive rather than taking public transit.

Post reply on HN