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

531–540 of 783 posts

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

#531

Post by jfoutz »

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…

I think you might be missing a little part of, market vs free market.

There are many opinions, of course.

Subsidise what you want and tax what you don’t is pretty popular, based on what people actually do.

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

#532

Post by m463 »

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…

Is it possible that ALL infrastructure issues revolve around more people?

If a place is nice, more people move there, and then the infrastructure is overburdened? but momentum just makes things end up bad in the end.

What about finding ways to distribute the population more broadly, by say fighting return-to-office kinds of things? Maybe taxing dense populations somehow?

On the other hand, does fighting all this like colorado is doing - does it make colorado less competitive?

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

#533

Post by Eric_WVGG »

j_m_b wrote: post #432
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…

Heck, they’re better in Russia. Marble, polished brash, chandeliers… and we’re talking the USSR period.

Imagine telling your kid to mow the lawn, and he deliberately does a terrible job so you quit asking him to do it. That’s what legislators have been doing to US public services for fifty years. It’s the same thing with the post office, they are wretched by design.

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

#534

Post by softsound »

I wish bus stops where I live weren't so hostile to the user, no one wants to sit on metal in 100 degree weather, especially with no shade. Also if the buses came sooner then every 30 mins I would consider them more often but if it takes me 30 mins to walk to a stop where I sweat in the sun with no shade and the bus left early before I arrived I might end up waiting an hour hoping it arrives. So then I have to leave extra early and it's too much effort especially when I have a car.

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

#535

Post by softsound »

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #507
gonzo41 wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or you know, trains and trams and busses.

Those have fixed stops and schedules, so you need to walk up to the stop and wait for the next arrival. Taxis are more flexible in both space and time.

I kinda feel most Americans should be trying to walk more... but also if the schedules and stops were improved people would use it far more. I'd like to take a tram or bus I just don't want to spend an extra 40+/- mins getting there to arrive with no protection from the weather. I don't particularly like taxis much but at least they figure out where you need to go without too much effort, I do drive though way more then I taxi. Taxis are more rare trips for traveling in places I don't know or can't drive. I wish we had high speed trains where I lived in my capital city, just an easy way to travel to the major cities by train would make my day. I'd travel far more often if I could then. Trains to me are the best of all worlds.

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

#536

Post by oefrha »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #386
pooper wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 I feel like we are in agreement. It might not be enough but it is necessary. Problem is we don't even have enough political capital to enforce this. Bill deBalsio the ex mayor of New York came on a radio show and said (paraphrasing) he can't order cops to ticket cars and trucks tha…

> Problem is we don't even have enough political capital to enforce this. The problem is that you're proposing a new problem rather than a solution. Suppose there are two car lanes and they're somewhat congested. You suggest converting one to a bus lane to encourage people to take the bus. The result is to make the remaining car lane disproportionately more congested, because the bus lane gets 10% of people to take t…

You’re telling us that buses must be empty, because people won’t take buses, because there aren’t enough buses, because buses would be empty if there are enough buses. Can you spot where the logic breaks down?

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

#537

Post by globular-toast »

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.…

Buses are only bad because everyone else has cars. They get all downsides of car travel (plus more) with none of the upsides. It wouldn't be a "poverty tax" if the alternative was walking or cycling.

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

#538

Post by lukas099 »

m463 wrote: post #532
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…

Is it possible that ALL infrastructure issues revolve around more people? If a place is nice, more people move there, and then the infrastructure is overburdened? but momentum just makes things end up bad in the end. What about finding ways to distribute the population more broadly, by say fighting return-to-office kinds of things? Maybe taxing dense populations somehow? On the other hand, does fighting all this like…

This doesn’t make sense to me. The marginal increase in infrastructure costs for each new person is less than the tax revenue they generate.

If anything we should tax low density, since more infrastructure is needed per person.

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

#539

Post by s_dev »

anon291 wrote: post #471
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…

Is Colorado building meaningful amounts of trains?

Switzerland has incredible trains and train networks. Just before people chime in with "Trains are good but mountains are too much of a challenge so might work in other places better with a flat geography".

Sounds reasonable until you see how the Swiss do it. Nobody said that but that's where I feel this conversation is going and the previous commenter did say 'buses first'. Probably to exploit the existing road network and achieve ambitious goals in a piece meal manner.

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

#540

Post by jusssi »

tbrownaw wrote: post #321
HDThoreaun wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think to would be extremely difficult to make the bus better than driving for people that already have a car. The most obvious option is making parking expensive or hard to find but I think that would lead to new politicians before people really embrace the bus. Reality is that americans dont enjoy being in enclosed spaces with strangers, hard to overcome that.

It shouldn't be that hard to make it better (for a decent fraction of people) for specific things, like say commuting or nightlife. It would be very hard to make it better for, say, picking up DIY supplies at the hardware store.

The hardware store probably has a delivery service, because not everyone has a van or a pickup for those 2x4s. But if you DIY big stuff often enough for that to be a factor to consider, you're probably not the target group anyway. Just like people who need to drive 800 miles without a stop every other week aren't the target group for current EVs.
Post reply on HN