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

451–460 of 783 posts

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

#451

Post by hamandcheese »

walthamstow wrote: post #91
throwaway22032 wrote: post #90

As someone who loves trains and buses and planes, I wish that people who pushed public transport would actually engage with the reasons why people don't want to use it rather than just making alternatives worse. There are three main issues that need to be solved for even me, a train lover, to prioritise using them. 1) Undesirables need to be removed. I don't want to deal with beggars or other general hoodlums. Transp…

If 'undesirables' are part of your local area, then they'll be on the public transport. The clue is in the name. The reason Japan doesn't have them on the trains is not because the guards have removed them, it's because they weren't there to begin with.

I'm pretty sure if they tried in Japan, the guards would remove them.

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

#452

Post by jayd16 »

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…

>because cars are faster and more convenient

They wouldn't be if everyone was in a car.

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

#453

Post by rayiner »

wozniacki wrote: post #445
kanbara wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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] htt…

Don’t get me wrong. I love the Japanese transit system. It’s a marvel. But rich people in Japan usually drive because it’s faster than even an amazing transit system. And the beauty of somewhere like Atlanta is that everyone can live like that.

It’s also extremely inconvenient with three kids, especially if you’re trying to bring a stroller onto the train during rush hour. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that every city with excellent public transit is also dying because people aren’t having kids.

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

#454

Post by Panzer04 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #415
iteria wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took the bus for nearly a decade and I drive a car now. My life was greatly improved by having a car and while a car is more expensive technically, in indirect costs, it feels like a break even to me. At least as someone who buys cheap cars, tends to live within 30mins drive of my job and keeps them for a good long time. Even in a good public transit area in the US there is a significant time sink to using public t…

> I lived in a city where I was faster to take the bus to work than drive Woah, where? I find this hard to believe. Even trains are normally slower than driving.

Really? I feel like this sort of thing is hugely dependant on start and endpoints. Trains crush cars during peak, and are usually still better in dense areas, but add 10-20 minutes of last mile either end and driving quickly ends up faster (although in dense areas parking is not cheap)

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

#455

Post by nox101 »

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?

No, you don’t. plain and simple. Tons of people living together share the costs. the few in the suburbs need to pay for their own infra. They’re not now. The cities are subsidizing the suburbs. that’s not fair.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

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

#456

Post by rayiner »

jayd16 wrote: post #452
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…

>because cars are faster and more convenient They wouldn't be if everyone was in a car.

In Tokyo, that’s true. A fairer comparison would be average commute times in places that are built around cars versus ones built around trains. Average commute in Austin Texas is 22 minutes one way: https://www.ktalnews.com/news/business/shreveport-has-one-of...

Average commute time in greater Tokyo is double that: https://resources.realestate.co.jp/living/average-work-commu...

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

#457

Post by Dalewyn »

nox101 wrote: post #455
jskrablin wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, you don’t. plain and simple. Tons of people living together share the costs. the few in the suburbs need to pay for their own infra. They’re not now. The cities are subsidizing the suburbs. that’s not fair. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

Your sentiment can be summarized as "Fuck you, I got mine." Hardly convincing.

As an aside, the countryside can survive without cities but cities cannot survive without the countryside. Perhaps consider your dependences before brazenly brushing them off.

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

#458

Post by joe_the_user »

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…

The poor in Paris indeed live far from the center. These suburbs are dreary like most but the French public transit system is good enough that getting to the center areas from many suburb is still relatively quick.

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

#459

Post by ocschwar »

hnburnsy wrote: post #411
ocschwar wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you propose doing that, though? Thankfully, Massachusetts has shown how to do that. The governor has to make a public statement that he will not allow any more eminent domain takings for highways on his watch (and issue executive orders to that effect.) After that, the people complaining about traffic have to come up with their own ideas, and if road widening (with eminent domain confiscations) are off the t…

>After that, the people complaining about traffic have to come up with their own ideas, and if road widening (with eminent domain confiscations) are off the table, even the most car-headed idiot out there has no choice but start talking about transit. They always have the option to leave the state due to a perceived reduction in QOL. >Massachusetts is hemorrhaging people. In fact, it’s seeing the highest outmigration…

Yes, people have the option of leaving. That option is so unattractive that even gainfully employed and employable people will sleep rough rather than leave.

Our biggest challenge in MA is building enough housing capacity so people can park their heads somewhere safe every night. Since geometry brooks no compromise, it's nice that none, absolutely none of our existing building stock can be torn down for highways.

It's also nice that our inner ring cities have abolished parking requirements, which makes it easier to build more housing.

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

#460

Post by jayd16 »

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.

So you drive the office workers out of the city and then what do you do with the other commercial business? They still commute or you raise taxes enough for the city center to die out and hope for suburbanization?
Post reply on HN