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

741–750 of 783 posts

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

#741

Post by detourdog »

CalRobert wrote: post #624
detourdog wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have little idea what you are referring to. During snow removal the streets need to be clear.

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

#742

Post by thefrozenone »

mrangle wrote: post #656
Cheer2171 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you open to the possibility that your particular experience with buses is not what all buses are or must be like? This is also sounds like an underfunded and sparse bus system. You can do buses right or you can do them poorly, same with anything. If you have a dense enough network that most people don't have to transfer, or enough frequency it doesn't matter, it makes a huge difference. Public transportation (and…

>Are you open to the possibility that your particular experience with buses is not what all buses are or must be like? This is also sounds like an underfunded and sparse bus system. You can do buses right or you can do them poorly, same with anything. If you have a dense enough network that most people don't have to transfer, or enough frequency it doesn't matter, it makes a huge difference. You haven't the slightest…

You should at least mention what city you lived in. Your initial comment is hardly credible. Lots of people have ridden buses for more than 18 months in their entire life and appreciate it.

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

#743

Post by bobthepanda »

shiroiushi wrote: post #728
bobthepanda wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The transit systems used to be private. They went broke competing with free highways. Compare this to Japan, where transit is still going strong because the highways must recoup revenues via tolls.

That's only part of it. Do you mean intra-city transit or inter-city transit? Highways are used by car drivers to move within the city (or between cities in the same metro area, such as between Yokohama and Tokyo), not just between far-apart metro areas. One huge difference between the US and Japan here is parking. Having a car is one thing, but where are you going to park it when you arrive at your destination? If y…

Both, and both. Both intracity transit and Amtrak is a total joke, and if anything Amtrak is significantly worse, with some intercity connections not even having daily service.

This is entirely a policy choice. America subsidizes parking by requiring very high parking per place, and since they’re required to build it anyways and there is so much supply it is always free.

Japan does not subsidize parking like this, in fact quite the opposite. There is no free street parking and to buy a car you need proof of a parking spot to store it in, and parking is more of a market as a result.

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

#744

Post by blactuary »

shiroiushi wrote: post #735
blactuary wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. 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 o…

You're mistaking me arguing normative vs. positive. Those voters support those things because they are not forced to bear the costs.

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

#745

Post by talldatethrow »

shiroiushi wrote: post #733
talldatethrow wrote: post #730

Earlier 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?

You can buy 14' fly J sailboats with trailer for $500 once in a while, or all the time for $1000.

Obviously it's not some keeled ocean going vessel you keep at the marina.

But let's use your version.. a tiny boy scout dingy you can lift by yourself and put in the water. Should it cost $40 to put that in the water?

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

#746

Post by kjkjadksj »

analog31 wrote: post #435
kjkjadksj wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well from these clips, the road doesn’t have to be congested for things to go sideways before reaction time kicks in. And even from my own experiences, I once hit a big board with my car on the freeway. Didn’t see it until there it was. Four flats and a bit of a scare vs the end of my life probably right then if I were on a bike in all likelihood.

I'm a daily bike commuter, though I also own a car. I certainly can't rule out freak accidents. However, I think that both speed and situational awareness make a difference on a bike. I tend to notice things that come into my field of vision, with plenty of time to react. In fact, I probably steer clear of things like debris and potholes on virtually every ride. The reason why I mention congestion is threefold. First…

Yeah I was referring to motorcycles. I think bike danger is overstated honestly. Most speeds you go you end up with scrapes and bruises laying the bike over. Sure there are freak accidents where you land wrong on your neck, but that could happen in your kitchen or shower or going down the stairs as well.

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

#747

Post by kjkjadksj »

lstodd wrote: post #439
kjkjadksj wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine stop and go traffic for a minute. Now imagine it with all those cars replaced by ninjas and dirtbikes and harleys. You can’t even hold a conversation when one of these things goes by. Imagine that being everything that goes by.

Well, you can't really commute on a Ninja or a Hayabusa. Dirtbike will get old fast too. Maxi/midi scooters like Yamaha Majesty / X-MAX are the commuting vehicle of choice.

This is america though. Rather than a sensible commuting vehicle, the best selling vehicle is the f150. There is a subset of truck owners that will put a nut sack on the hitch and blow a cloud of black diesel exhaust at a car like a prius at a light.

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

#748

Post by HDThoreaun »

dangus wrote: post #726
HDThoreaun wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is saying no congestion. The idea of highway expansion is to allow more people to travel while keeping congestion about constant. NYC and Chicago's highways allow the massive suburban areas and the tens of millions that live in them to semi conveniently go to the city. To do that with trains would require driving to a commuter rail station and then transferring to the metro to get where you want to go. Suburba…

Chicago and NYC have huge commuter rail networks that accomplish exactly what you’re claiming is impractical. The Metra commuter rail in Chicago handles over 2.5 million trips per month. 59 percent of the people who commute to Manhattan do so via public transit. People commute to work to Manhattan from Connecticut and New Jersey by train. Penn Station is the busiest transportation facility in the Western hemisphere,…

Commuter rail only works if you want to go within a mile of one of the stations. No one wants to take the commuter rail and then get on another train. The people who use commuter rail in Chicago at least all also have a car that they use to get to the city whenever they’re doing anything else since the train only goes to the business area

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

#749

Post by bobthepanda »

rdtsc wrote: post #729
kjkjadksj wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labor is a huge cost and these transit agency budgets are thin

I like the sibling comment idea of using AI eventually. But in general for public transportation I think running at a loss is not unreasonable. It's nice if it's profitable, but it's ok if it isn't. Hopefully it's reducing emissions, giving people who can't or don't want to drive reliable access to their employment, etc. is still worth it.

the problem, generally speaking, is even if it reduces costs per ride, if it becomes popular it quickly becomes too expensive.

New York City tried replacing its dial-a-ride accessibility public transit service that required 24h advance appointments with an e-hailing subsidy and blew out its budget. https://www.thecity.nyc/2023/06/22/mta-paratransit-ehailing-...

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

#750

Post by EricE »

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #338
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…

To expand on that, with small and midsized cities, daily cost of transit rides vs. gas is on parity. Of course this does not include maintenance, insurance, and depreciation, of owning and driving a vehicle, but most people only encounter those twice a year, vs gas and bus fees are daily and weekly. In small and midsized cities, driving a car takes less time, likely 1/2 to 1/3rd the time of taking a bus. Lastly, ther…

Yes, cars are not a universal problem to be "solved". Want to live car free? There are plenty of cities to choose from - go knock yourselves out.
Post reply on HN