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

591–600 of 783 posts

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

#591

Post by ben_w »

graemep wrote: post #581
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…

In the UK where we do not have net subsidies for ICE cars (because of taxes on car ownership and fuel) and we do not have minimum parking requirements (AFAIK - there are certainly newish city centre blocks of flats with no parking at all) this does not seem to happen. We have a lot of policies and a rise in the expense of owning a car, but we have not had the required rise in investment in public transport (we need a…

My experience of the UK (resident) and the US (tourist use of public transit in both central California and the Newark-Boston strip), is that the UK system is wildly better than the USA system.

I needed to show a passport (perhaps any photo ID would have worked, but still WTF?) to get the train from Davis to Sacramento, the trains were not particularly frequent, and that's the equivalent distance of Petersfield to Portsmouth & Southsea:

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Davis,+California,+USA/Sacra...

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Petersfield,+UK/Portsmouth+a...

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

#592

Post by buran77 »

chgs wrote: post #589
graemep wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK where we do not have net subsidies for ICE cars (because of taxes on car ownership and fuel) and we do not have minimum parking requirements (AFAIK - there are certainly newish city centre blocks of flats with no parking at all) this does not seem to happen. We have a lot of policies and a rise in the expense of owning a car, but we have not had the required rise in investment in public transport (we need a…

The lack of parking leads to more demand for on street parking, which is delivered via the ballot box. Majority of housing developments have minimum parking stipulations, although in practice those aren’t really practically met (a garage is claimed as a space for example, or a drive which only fits one behind another), which leads to on road parking. With public transport there are two elements. The capital expenditu…

> Why do you think someone who walks and bike everywhere should pay increased taxes to subsidise empty buses running around the place?

This is a question that can be applied to a lot of things, with deleterious results. Why would a person with no kids pay increased taxes to subsidize schools? Never sick but subsidizing hospitals? Not retired but subsidizing someone else's pension? Any kind of spending that you don't benefit from explicitly, directly, and instantly deserves the same question, right?

You're living in a society, the well being of the society reflects on your well being. People being more educated or healthier makes society better for you too. People having the option to take public transport to work because it's more efficient, cleaner, and cheaper (so for some it's the only option) and thus keep that job also makes society better for you.

If your logic is "pay only for what you use" then the one day when you need to use any of that "subsidized" infrastructure of services it might just cost more than you'll ever afford.

That road you ride/walk on, the park that gives you some fresh air, or the electricity that keeps your computer running were brought to you by someone who probably received subsidized education, healthcare, and public transport to get to work.

P.S. All those big fans of Thatcher's "[socialist governments] always run out of other people's money" aren't actually against subsidies, only against the ones that don't predominantly benefit them. Subsidy for the parking spot I need is good, subsidy for the public transport I don't need is bad.

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

#593

Post by [deleted] »

kanbara wrote: post #426
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

[deleted]

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

#594

Post by thsksbd »

s_dev wrote: post #539
anon291 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 netw…

Colorado is five times larger and has a much smaller population.

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

#595

Post by ericmay »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #550
oefrha wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm telling you that buses must be empty because if they only go along the busiest roads then nobody takes them because their route is sleepy road -> busy road -> sleepy road, and a bus that only travels along the busy road can't pick them up or drop them off. Whereas a bus that travels along the sleepy road will be empty, because it's a sleepy road which only gets one car an hour as it is. These can both be true at…

I agree, but want to add that part of the problem here and why this can occur is because of easy and cheap parking. It’s not strictly the induced demand phenomenon but I think your point is the major factor.

From what I’ve seen in my own reading and world travels is that you have to just stop expanding the roads or working on them outside of necessary maintenance and such. Add bike and bus lanes, make the car lanes smaller (safely) and then let people sort out whether it’s worth it to drive. Finding ways to tax the ever living hell out of or zone away surface parking lots should help too.

Whenever a department of “transportation” or city/regional officials get together in a room to discuss these topics, there should be very little if any discussion about how changes affect drivers.

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

#596

Post by mcmoor »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #86
s1artibartfast wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody complains about induced demand when a hospital can operates on twice as many patients at a time.

That's because adding hospital capacity doesn't create more sick people. Unless your hospital goes around breaking people's kneecaps to make money. Adding highways creates more traffic by telling developers to put housing in the newly accessible land.

People around me go less to the doctor/hospital for "small" things, mostly because of perception of how long and expensive one session can be. Sometimes it makes them neglect preventative things. More hospital would induce this demand and make people consult doctor more often.

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

#597

Post by thsksbd »

8organicbits wrote: post #563
rayiner wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thank you for that lifestyle lecture.

My kids hated the bjorn and so did my (very third world communist country) foreign wife. I liked it.

The stroller also has storage space for, for example, the medicine bag that keeps my last kid alive in case he swallows . The stroller has everything ready to go except the baby and we don't have to don our various accessories.

Finally, as Europeans, we find those Americans and their various polyester bags (back, front, bjorn, fanny, etc) look ridiculous. One looks like a marine about to assault Fallujah. The stroller has a dignity to it that all those bags lack.

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

#598

Post by fortzi »

chgs wrote: post #589
graemep wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK where we do not have net subsidies for ICE cars (because of taxes on car ownership and fuel) and we do not have minimum parking requirements (AFAIK - there are certainly newish city centre blocks of flats with no parking at all) this does not seem to happen. We have a lot of policies and a rise in the expense of owning a car, but we have not had the required rise in investment in public transport (we need a…

The lack of parking leads to more demand for on street parking, which is delivered via the ballot box. Majority of housing developments have minimum parking stipulations, although in practice those aren’t really practically met (a garage is claimed as a space for example, or a drive which only fits one behind another), which leads to on road parking. With public transport there are two elements. The capital expenditu…

Then you must apply the same logic to public infrastructure for cars. Why would someone who only walks or bikes have to pay for the gigantic and expensive infrastructure needed for cars? Why would they have to have their immediate surrounding sacrificed to make room for all these cars?

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

#599

Post by detourdog »

slyall wrote: post #572
detourdog wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you are talking about Williamstown then even though it is spread out it looks fairly cyclable. At least distance-wise. There is even a big shared carpark for the built-up area so individual shops don't need to provide parking. Whereas in North Adams the aerial view shows the (I assume mandated) carparks are pretty empty. I'll bet a few landlords would love to have more buildings and less carparks Remember when you…

The big shared car park that I presume you see is the college's parking for a theater almost any parking lot you see in Williamstown is the college's.

I'm not saying it is not cyclable. When managed to get a bike path built all the way to North Adams. The neighborhood argued against using the easement on their properties and caused a multi-year delay and 2 mile diversion of the bike path.

I'm saying that the entire environment is built around cars. The entire notion that limiting parking for apartment buildings will help housing costs is backwards. People need access to groceries all year round and if the closest grocery store is in North Adams it is too soon to worry restricting parking.

North Adams on the other hand has a really weird relationship to cars and the destruction of the local economy.

Sometime in the past 50 years some central planner decided that have Route 2 run through North Adams downtown was inconvenient. The fix was to tear down all the buildings on Main Street and replace them with an overpass and Route 2 can then run through straight through with only a couple of stop lights.

This plus the loss of factory jobs decimated the economy local economy in the late 70's. When I move to the area in the 2001 they had the highest teen pregnancy rate in at least Massachusetts.

MassMoca is a contemporary art museum meant to lift North Adams and I would say after 25 years it is showing some traction with the local economy. North Adams is the best place for housing in the area. The downtown has everything one needs including affordable housing. North Adams doesn't need to build more parking. If the trolly that used to connect Williamstown to North Adams still existed that may change my position on parking in Williamstown.

My Mom was anti-car and growing up in Florida we could do anything we needed in Gainesville on foot, bike, or bus. When we moved north to Pennsylvania Dutch country we got a car.

I'm surprised by your diligence and I'm happy to answer any other questions you might have.

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

#600

Post by detourdog »

CalRobert wrote: post #480
detourdog wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I have with reducing minimum parking is that in rural areas it doesn’t make sense. That doesn’t stop people in my rural town of 2,500 houses advocating for reducing parking requirements.

Why doesn't it make sense? I don't see why you should be forced to build parking if you don't want to.

If there is in adequate parking for an apartment building it disrupts the neighborhood. A developer does gain much money from needing to provide free parking. The incentive is to have more people paying rent and less land wasted on parking.
Post reply on HN