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

661–670 of 783 posts

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

#661

Post by telotortium »

ethbr1 wrote: post #462
rayiner wrote: post #410

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…

> Just got back from Atlanta. Much nicer and cleaner and cheaper than New York City. Minor note that 2/3 of Atlanta was destroyed in 1864. So in contrast to other major American cities, it had the benefit of being mostly planned in an automotive era. Add in the fact that the surrounding geography doesn't preclude expansion in any direction, and it's essentially a "best-case" city for cars.

Well, 1864 was long before the automobile. However, Atlanta, like most American cities that were getting big around 1900, had lots of streetcars, so it was never going to be walkable in the same way that European cities are. Despite the nostalgia for them, streetcars were definitely not as good as busses and cars - they were pretty slow and got stuck in traffic because they ran down the middle of the street without any barriers. The thing with cars is that they let people spread out much further than even streetcars could feasibly go, and as you said, Atlanta is pretty much the best-case scenario with cars.

Even LA became an automobile city, and it has much more substantial barriers to expansion. Now that it's built out, LA is developing a pretty expansive metro system, but it will take decades to truly cover the region. It would have been nice to at least lay the main lines of the metro when land was cheap. One thing China got right is learning from these mistakes and building out their metros ahead of their city growth.

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

#662

Post by kjkjadksj »

NemoNobody wrote: post #372
kjkjadksj wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big issue with the market argument in converting car drivers to transit riders is the respective networks operate at different scales. Think of a little neighborhood with a bus line on a road; theres probably I’m not even sure call it 20x as many roads in that neighborhood that don’t have a bus line. There is so much more built out of the comprehensive road network everywhere than there is with transit. Cities are…

I had a conversation the other day with someone here from San Diego - which now has the highest cost of living in the US. I briefly looked into it from a rental pov and it seemed his statements checked out. I'm not saying that NYC is actually cheaper than San Diego - I'm aware it's incredibly expensive but I think that all the cities are more similar than they are not as far as unaffordability goes That actually real…

Theres no solid way to determine cost of living because the data are so poor. Its not like all rents and incomes are known and tabulated into a single database. Usually its journalist-statistics and not real statistic being done. Like looking at zillow prices vs what people actually pay who currently rent.

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

#663

Post by jusssi »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #579
jusssi wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is this a hypothetical future hardware store delivery service that enables a bus? No hardware store I have seen has a delivery service. I do a fair amount of gardening, and while most garden stores (not hardware stores, dedicated stores for landscaping and gardening) have the capability to deliver, it is always a very expensive service ($50-100 for a trip of less than 5 miles). Most cars can fit a few 8' 2x4s as well…

> it is always a very expensive service ($50-100 for a trip of less than 5 miles)

A.k.a the cost of not owning a car. Where I live, I could pay 100€ weekly for deliveries and it'll still be cheaper than owning and operating a decent (as in, not a 20th century rust bucket) car would be.

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

#664

Post by speedylight »

I totally understand why people hate public transit, I relied on it for years before I got my license/car. I happen to live in a state where public transportation happens to be very good on paper, but in practice is actually a hellish, miserable experience; Buses are constantly running late, they’re usually filled with sketchy people (homeless, drug addicts, etc) who make you feel uneasy and in some cases is actually unsafe (such as some having a drug induced episode, this happens a lot more common than you might think.)

In the end I told myself I don’t have to go through all that crap, so I got myself car and it very quickly dawned on me that this was indeed the correct decision and I should’ve done it years ago. The laundry list of positive changes outweighed any negatives associated with owning a car.

Only way I’m giving it up now is if we manage to invent portable teleportation devices.

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

#665

Post by unethical_ban »

speedylight wrote: post #664

I totally understand why people hate public transit, I relied on it for years before I got my license/car. I happen to live in a state where public transportation happens to be very good on paper, but in practice is actually a hellish, miserable experience; Buses are constantly running late, they’re usually filled with sketchy people (homeless, drug addicts, etc) who make you feel uneasy and in some cases is actually…

I like vehicles and motorcycles and, barring some transformative life experience, could not imagine going more than an "extended vacation in NYC" without a car in the United States.

But I also love good public transit, and think it's a huge competitive advantage for 2nd tier cities in the US. As remote work becomes a norm for the middle class, transit will be one of the main ways cities can lure people.

I agree that public safety is critical and that cities must take transit safety and cleanliness seriously. (And for that matter, take public safety in general more seriously - my city of San Antonio doesn't seem to take action on crime unless police are able to get there while it's in progress or if it's high-profile.)

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

#666

Post by lotsoweiners »

blactuary wrote: post #590
chgs wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 should I pay for that?" crippling good policy is one of our biggest impediments in the US

Seems like democracy is working correctly in my opinion.

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

#667

Post by chgs »

nilamo wrote: post #607
chgs wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Who benefits from running empty buses?

What population density do you need to sustain a 15 minute service from point A to point B on a Sunday at 6am? Or 9pm?

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

#668

Post by blactuary »

lotsoweiners wrote: post #666
blactuary wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why should I pay for that?" crippling good policy is one of our biggest impediments in the US

Seems like democracy is working correctly in my opinion.

No, this is not a democratic process. People are not voting on these things. A vocal minority with the time and ability to involve themselves in the process ruin things for everyone. It's readily apparent when it comes to things like building housing, and in this case funding transit.

And more generally, everyone voting only in their narrow self-interest is not "democracy working correctly". As numerous people have pointed out above, we live in a society and not everything that society needs to function well will benefit each and every person. Democracy working correctly does not mean everyone saying "I oppose any public spending that does not directly accrue a benefit to me personally". That's a recipe for a broken society with a great deal of deal being left behind.

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

#669

Post by blactuary »

chgs wrote: post #667
nilamo wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Who benefits from running empty buses? What population density do you need to sustain a 15 minute service from point A to point B on a Sunday at 6am? Or 9pm?

The point is that if you fund transit instead of subsidizing cars in a hundred different ways, the buses will not be empty

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

#670

Post by adamomada »

nerb wrote: post #510
rayiner wrote: post #410

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…

> 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. what in the absolute f** are you talking about? have you ever experienced the sudden death of a loved one? what about the network impact of someone dying? even if you want to look at it through a capitalistic lens, think of the reduction in capability…

He’s right, though. There are as many if not more lifetimes saved in aggregate.

You make a decision to get into the car with eyes open and most people are okay with the deal & the odds.

I have a feeling your response is because you’ve lost someone, so sorry about that. Life ends up more or less as a shit lottery and sometimes you get lucky (unlucky)

Post reply on HN