Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a nice study: https://newatlas.com/motorcycles-reduce-congestion/21420/ They say 10% of traffic being replaced by motorcycles reduces congestion by 40%. California has pretty good weather so it's probably feasible to commute by motorbike almost every day.
I would rather not die.
In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them
731–740 of 783 posts
Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them
#732I 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…
Things being free in public helps low income people live nice fulfilled lives still. Now it costs $40 to launch a sailboat at my local reservoir. Even state camping spots are $40+ it seems in areas I know aren't full all the time. It costs like $20 in extra gas tax to drive to LA with your friends because California can't just set the income tax appropriately? I could go on and on. The income tax to me sounds pretty…
Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them
#733Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Things being free in public helps low income people live nice fulfilled lives still. >Now it costs $40 to launch a sailboat at my local reservoir. If you can afford a sailboat, you're not "low income".
A sailboat costs $500+ on Craigslist or Facebook marketplace. We had one when my mom was cleaning a convalescent home as her job, and commuting 35 miles one way to do it. My dad worked 55+ hours a week, and commuted 60 miles one way to do it. So unless you think my dad let my mom clean hospital floors and bathrooms while we weren't low income, I'd argue you can.
Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them
#734Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, in most cities most people by far use public transit for their commute. And in most cities, especially where this is not exactly true, car traffic is already hellish at rush hour.
I wonder what most of the commuters do at work? Sit in front of a computer maybe?
I do agree that work-from-home should be a part of the transit solution. But not even the entire software industry can work from home, nevermind all the other industries that sometimes use computers.
Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them
#735Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 p…
Have you actually talked to American voters? No, mass transit isn't directly on the ballot, but in most places, it's not a popular thing. Americans, by and large, like their cars, and really don't like public transit. The more liberal ones might give it some lip service, but they generally avoid it if they can afford to. More importantly, Americans don't want the changes needed to make it more feasible, namely higher density and a lack of free parking everywhere.
If you don't believe me about American voters, just read the other comments in this discussion.
>It's readily apparent when it comes to things like building housing
Again, people say they want more housing built, but they don't actually want to make the changes needed for this to be done. They don't want to remove zoning restrictions that prevent housing from being built in places where it's really needed to make cities more walkable and make transit work better.
>And more generally, everyone voting only in their narrow self-interest is not "democracy working correctly".
This is absolutely wrong. Democracy isn't some magical thing that produces the best possible result when done the best way. It's a product of the voters and their whims and demands, no matter how stupid or ignorant they may be.
>we live in a society and not everything that society needs to function well will benefit each and every person
If you want a society where people vote outside their narrow self-interest, you need voters who understand this and vote accordingly. If you're assuming most humans are like this, you're sadly mistaken.
>Democracy working correctly does not mean everyone saying "I oppose any public spending that does not directly accrue a benefit to me personally".
Yes, it does, if you have a population of voters who think exactly this way.
Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them
#736Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the argument would be that not creating induced demand will provide market effects to encourage the use of transit, which would then create greater demand for improved transit. How does demand for public transit produce it? I mean public calls for more transit have been loud for many years and US politicians have taken that as opportunity to tax more and produce garbage transit construction project that enr…
Do you consider the DC Metro garbage and its recent Silver Line extension? People in seem quite pleased with their system.
Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them
#737Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are all good points. High-density housing makes trains easier. Conversely, trains induce demand for high-density housing near the stations. There are many other considerations that need to be taken into consideration to make trains useful: frequency, right-of-way on road crossings (often a problem for light rail), right-of-way vs cargo trains (long-distance trains in the US), ... > The single-lane surface stree…
> Conversely, trains induce demand for high-density housing near the stations. The primary existing problem is that high-density housing is prohibited through zoning, or made prohibitively expensive through other regulatory rules. It doesn't matter how much demand you generate if increasing supply is constrained by law. Whereas if you could fix the zoning and building codes then you wouldn't need to induce demand bec…
Usually, it's because
1) the highway to their destination in the city center has too much traffic, and the train is faster, and
2) there's no parking at their destination, and no place to build it at any kind of affordable price.
Just look at Washington DC: tons of people commute by car to suburban train stations, pay a monthly fee to park in the big parking garages there, and then commute the rest of the way into the city center by train to work in government offices.
Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them
#738Earlier quoted context omitted.
The driver who ain’t carting air around. The environment that isn’t burning fuel to cart air around. At some point it becomes far more efficient to simply provide on demand service.
But we're not comparing a bus with an on demand service, we're comparing it with no buses...?
Re: In Colorado, an ambitious new highway policy is not building them
#739Earlier quoted context omitted.
A sailboat costs $500+ on Craigslist or Facebook marketplace. We had one when my mom was cleaning a convalescent home as her job, and commuting 35 miles one way to do it. My dad worked 55+ hours a week, and commuted 60 miles one way to do it. So unless you think my dad let my mom clean hospital floors and bathrooms while we weren't low income, I'd argue you can.
Are you talking about a real sailboat, or one of those tiny things that boy scouts use in small lakes that one person can easily pick up and carry?