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

561–570 of 783 posts

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

#561

Post by detourdog »

slyall wrote: post #524
detourdog wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The area of the town is around 43 square miles. The houses are not near the grocery stores. New England towns used to be very neighborhood centric. Our town used to have 14 schools because everyone had to walk to school. Our schools have been centralized and now require busing. Walkability used to be a thing but no longer. Off street parking is convenient during snow removal.

Sounds like it isn't really a town except in name. More like a densely settle old farming area. Where I'm from (New Zealand) a 2500 person town would be 1/4 acre suburban sections with wide streets surrounding some shops. eg this place: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZcHRLi9HjNiuMsvc6

New England towns are 100s of years old. My town was considered the gateway to the west as it is the last town in the northwest corner of Massachusetts.

The town was developed around walking but our modern infrastructure has eliminated the practicalities.

My only point is that parking minimums shouldn’t be thought of as universal solution.

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

#562

Post by ricardobeat »

> more than half of $1.2 trillion enabled by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 will be spent on highway expansion and resurfacing.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but that sounds like enough to build a China-like countrywide rail network. Spending it on resurfacing asphalt would be criminal.

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

#563

Post by 8organicbits »

rayiner wrote: post #453
wozniacki wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Americans have an obsession with strollers that I haven't understood. I took my infants on Caltrain, BART, and light rail using a baby bjorn. When they could walk, they walked or were carried. It's not something you should avoid having kids over.

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

#564

Post by amanaplanacanal »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #551
kanbara wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this entire monologue boils down to “people want cars and public transit is bad, so don’t improve it and prioritise access” which sounds a lot like you work for ford

It's not that public transit is bad, it's that if you try to make car travel worse without providing people with a viable alternative to it, you will lose at politics. And just sticking a bus lane in there doesn't provide an alternative unless the bus comes at short intervals to the places where people actually travel, which isn't compatible with the geography of most American cities, because at least one of the endp…

Unfortunately we built those suburbs without factoring in the real cost of transporting people to and from them. Now those homeowners are real used to that transportation subsidy and are not happy when it is threatened to be taken away. Something is going to give, cities can’t afford it any more.

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

#566

Post by zbrozek »

ricardobeat wrote: post #562

> more than half of $1.2 trillion enabled by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 will be spent on highway expansion and resurfacing. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but that sounds like enough to build a China-like countrywide rail network. Spending it on resurfacing asphalt would be criminal.

Not in this country. It might get you through the first round of environmental studies for such a network though.

Remember that the SF to LA rail line is up over $135B and still has many years of cost growth ahead of it before completion.

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

#567

Post by amanaplanacanal »

lukas099 wrote: post #538
m463 wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly! The urban core takes in way more taxes per person than it costs for infrastructure, suburbia is the exact opposite. Urbanites are subsidizing the suburbs currently.

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

#568

Post by amanaplanacanal »

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…

Don’t forget our automobile infrastructure gets heavy government subsidies too. Gas taxes and fees aren’t nearly high enough to pay for all the roads and parking we have.

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

#569

Post by hkpack »

dyauspitr wrote: post #530
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…

What’s so great about transit besides the environmental savings. Having to share space with other people, walk to the train station, put up with a train schedule, have no way to travel past some arbitrary time (midnight to 2am in most places), no way to transport large items or groceries, no way to go off the beaten path, having to live in densely populated cities with no room for any activities. I like the idea of h…

> having to live in densely populated cities with no room for any activities.

Depends on activities, I guess, but my experience is the opposite, densely populated areas has vastly more activities available within 20-30 minutes reach especially to parents with kids.

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

#570

Post by amanaplanacanal »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #522
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…

> Trains, my friend. We need trains. Busses first, but eventually trains. For that, we first need density. And who is against more density in existing cities where naturally more density makes most sense? More or less the same people arguing against cars. https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2024/03/25/letting-aaron-pesk... https://www.kqed.org/news/11964754/sf-supervisors-to-vote-on... https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/hous…

Do people outside of the weird zoo that is SF do that? Everything I read online that is anti car is also pro density.
Post reply on HN