Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

621–630 of 783 posts

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

#621
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…

Come to Edinburgh and the Lothians, it's not perfect but it's better than you might think.

A couple of important aspects:

Once buses are frequent enough, people don't need to worry about the timetable and will just get the next one. Edinburgh's main arterial routes have frequent enough buses to achieve this, even if not every bus goes to the same ultimate destination. Some of the busier bus lines have frequent enough buses all by themselves.

This does mean that there are lots of empty buses off-peak, this may seam wasteful but it's a necessary component of a functional transit system.

We also have a number of "bus gates", as well as bus lanes, with cameras to prevent other vehicles from using bus-only lanes. This lets buses go through residential areas without making them rat runs for car drivers.

Buses and trams (especially trams!) can take a lot more people than cars. If everyone who gets the bus tried to take a car instead then no-one would get anywhere.

And we also give free bus travel to young people, old people, and anyone with a medical condition that means they can't drive.

A combination of a smartphone and free bus travel gives my disabled daughter a lot more freedom than she'd otherwise be able to enjoy.

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

#622
post #407

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.…

> 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…

With perhaps the exclusion of the Amtrak northeast corridor/Acela and a couple of the US subway systems (e.g.NYC) most of the train projects in the us seem like they were designed to as an example inferior alternative to driving. There are so many comically bad examples: the air train to EWR, JFK require multiple transfers and are slower than driving at all but the most severe traffic conditions. The Houston light rail that doesn’t really go anywhere convenient, and is in the street going slower than the cars around it (stopping at traffic lights as well).

It seems as if most of the rail networks in the us are built to serve people with no other alternative as opposed to providing a better alternative to driving. Speaking of airport connections it blows my mind that US cities haven’t built trains like the Heathrow express.

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

#623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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?

At some point when you clear out all the actual places to go in order to add parking and make it easy to drive there, people realize there is nothing down there and stop going, at which point you just have what happened to Detroit.

My experience is the opposite. The harder it becomes to visit a locale, the less likely I become to visit it. Eventually I decide it's not worth visiting at all.

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

#624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t see how this is a problem unless people are saying you need to stop people from moving in because they want to store their private property on public land for free. Which is silly of course.

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

#625
post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not wrong - this is where personal, private, transportation excels. And why Culver city desperately needs a quality network of safe, protected, bike infrastructure. Cars don't scale, but bikes do.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. If there was safe and protected infrastructure, I feel a lot more people, including myself, would bike, especially with all the new e-bikes available. I will give Culver City some credit because they do have some dedicated bike lanes but they're not really protected.

When I lived in Santa Monica it was supposedly building a great network of bike lanes. That was twelve years ago…

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

#626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative to good public transit for everyone is bad public transit for the majority and cars for a few. You don't get to imagine an alternative like "cars for everyone", because it's simply not possible.

That is literally what we have now.

I don't recall receiving my tax-funded F-150 from the government this year.

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

#627

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.

Try taking three car seats/booster seats on the train because you can’t walk to your final destination from the train…unless you live in NYC/Chicago etc. there are very few us cities where most of your trips can be completed only via train/walking

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

#628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crucially, the road network also operates at a loss

In the first level analysis. Once you realize the sheer amount of commerce and business that is enabled by roads you see that they pay for themselves several times over.

[deleted]

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

#629

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…

> The only problem is the pollution, which is fixed by EVs. Unfortunately, EVs do not solve the problem of air pollution from motor vehicles: tires produce a LOT of particulates. https://theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-pr...

ICE vehicles don't have tires? A good way to estimate the environmental cost of a mass consumer product is its price (capex & opex), with the caveat that the unaccounted cost for burning gasoline is probably around 6$/gallon, right now.

100 gallons of gasoline produce ~1 ton of CO2, and it costs ~600$/ton to perform CO2 air capture.

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

#630
post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Almost none of that population lives in the mountains.

Colorado is half Switzerland and half Kansas. Literally everyone minus a rounding error lives on the flat part.

Post reply on HN