In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them • Hacker News Board

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

#601

Post by kloop » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 1:29 PM UTC

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.

> If 'undesirables' are part of your local area, then they'll be on the public transport. The clue is in the name.

Their examples of undesirables are about behaviors, not sectors of society.

Since we're using Japan as an example, Japan does have very strict social rules on public behavior that probably help in this area.

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

#602

Post by n_plus_1_acc » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 1:30 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #379

ilyagr wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, "induced demand" is a word phrase to rally behind. The argument must be (and, I believe, is) that induced demand for buses and trains is far cheaper to a society than induced demand for cars. Adding a train car at a peak time serves a lot more people than adding a highway lane at a peak time. I'm actually curious to compare them. Apparently, 100 people is a reasonable capacity for a train car (200 is possibl…

> So, an extra car lane a mile long is about an extra half a train, give it take. The problem with this math is the last mile. With a road network you have highways with multiple lanes and a lot of traffic, and those branch out into streets with fewer lanes but more destinations. You can run a train next to the highway and it will achieve much more throughput, but as soon as you get to the offramp, what now? Those 10…

The 100 people can transfer at a traik station into 10 different convinently timed buses.

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

#603

Post by drivers99 » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 1:35 PM UTC

throwaway22032 wrote: post #5

"Induced demand" as a reason not to do something is illogical. The Green Revolution increasing crop yields induced demand for humans. Metro systems existing and building new lines induce demand, in some cases resulting in overcrowding. Building housing and offices induce demand in a location. There is nothing wrong with improving a thing so that more people are able to do that thing. I can understand concern about em…

That’s kind of a straw man argument because the original argument isn’t “it induces demand therefore it’s bad.” Induced demand is the explanation for why building more lanes (which costs money, especially if you include future replacement costs) doesn’t actually fix traffic, except temporarily. It also increases VMT (vehicle miles travelled) which has its own externalities (pollution, deaths, etc.) but that’s almost a separate matter, but helps explain why encouraging more driving and car based urban design (everything spread far apart, unproductive land use in the form of parking lots) isn’t a great idea either.

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

#604

Post by albedoa » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 1:40 PM UTC

rufus_foreman wrote: post #203

currymj wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think the point of "induced demand" is that you sometimes can't really fix -- specifically -- traffic or parking congestion problems by building more. if you widen the roads, in many cases it won't make your commute any quicker. if you add more parking spots downtown, more people will drive downtown. it's not that there's no benefit to the wider road or parking spots, just that the benefit people really care about…

>> if you add more parking spots downtown, more people will drive downtown But that's good if you wan't more people to drive downtown, isn't it? What am I missing here?

I simply would have refrained from writing multiple paragraphs about how good induced demand is until I understood the answer to this question.

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

#605

Post by someguydave » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 1:41 PM UTC

Shoshana Lew is the daughter of Jack Lew, President Obama’s Chief of Staff.

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

#606

Post by dahart » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 1:41 PM UTC

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?

Because putting people on the bus who would otherwise park their cars where the bike lane is or the sidewalk, is a good deal for you!

Also because the people on the bus pay taxes for your bike lanes & sidewalks. (If only bikers paid for the bike lanes, your taxes would probably be much higher than what you pay to subsidize buses.)

Also because the majority of people don’t bike & walk everywhere.

Also because there are rain days.

Also because we’re all in this together.

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

#607

Post by nilamo » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 1:43 PM UTC

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?

Because the cost of living in a society is helping to drive that society forward, even though you personally aren't benefiting from every dollar spent. Would that same person balk at paying emergency services, even if they aren't the ones riding an ambulance or getting help from a cop?

But even more importantly, the whole issue of cost is misplaced, imo. It's all based on millage, which ends up meaning public transport costs less than $20/year to maintain. There's no reason I'm ever going to complain about $20/year to keep buses running, and I look very questioningly at people who do complain about it. It's so small, I feel like they're making proxy arguments, or don't understand how millage works.

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

#608

Post by hifromwork » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 2:01 PM UTC

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…

>The authorities seem to be quite happy with an outcome that means poor people will just have to travel a lot less.

I'm not poor, I love travelling (and travel a lot), and I don't even have a driver's license. You don't need to drive to travel, at least in Europe.

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

#609

Post by hifromwork » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 2:06 PM UTC

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.…

>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.

It must be very cultural. I'm pretty well off (as most experienced IT people are), and I travel with Bus (or a Bike) to my job every weekday. Most of my friends and coworkers do the same (I don't even know anyone in my team who drives to work).

I'm sorry about your experience with school bus - this sounds disastrous. But believe me that it's possible to improve. In my (big, European) city public transport and biking infrastructure is pretty good, cheap, and useful.

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

#610

Post by stctw » Sun, Jun 02, 2024, 2:09 PM UTC

jcrites wrote: post #446

wozniacki wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

His account is 14 years old. He knows the guidelines. Why did you spend your time itemizing supposed violations of them?

Meanwhile, I see in these comments many such violations while advocating the other side of the issue, and none of them are downvoted, flagged, or chastised.

There is a persistent pattern on one side of the political spectrum to hold their opponents to various rules while allowing themselves to be exempt, and it is prominent on HN as well.

If you are here for open, honest, and civilized discussion, will you vouch for some of the comments which violate no guidelines but were flagged because they are in favor of the use of automobiles? Will you chastise some of the shallow dismissals which are against the use of automobiles?