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

771–780 of 783 posts

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

#771

Post by kortilla »

em-bee wrote: post #768
shiroiushi wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so the spanish inquisition, or the burning of witches, and whatever else atrocious people did in the name of religion was ok Absolutely, yes, if you ask the religious people who did those things. Of course, non-religious people (or people of a different religion) disagree, but that's simply a difference of opinion. >have you not noticed how christianity has changed over time? It's changed in many ways, and depends o…

It's changed in many ways, and depends on which group of Christians you're looking at well, i am primarily looking at the catholic church itself, and protestants that came out of it. both changed a lot over the centuries. Jesus specifically said that he did NOT come to replace anything but he did come to reform. with the sword. there's no real evidence to [...] his existence historians beg to differ. https://en.wikip…

It sounds like all you need is some education. From first principals you should immediately discard a book filled with nonsense to a modern day society, especially when the veracity of the authors can’t be verified.

If that sounds ridiculous to you, it’s not. It’s what all of the other religions that don’t stem from Christianity think of it.

This is why “education” will not fix any of this. There are very fundamental rifts in what the truth even is.

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

#772

Post by em-bee »

kortilla wrote: post #771
em-bee wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's changed in many ways, and depends on which group of Christians you're looking at well, i am primarily looking at the catholic church itself, and protestants that came out of it. both changed a lot over the centuries. Jesus specifically said that he did NOT come to replace anything but he did come to reform. with the sword. there's no real evidence to [...] his existence historians beg to differ. https://en.wikip…

It sounds like all you need is some education. From first principals you should immediately discard a book filled with nonsense to a modern day society, especially when the veracity of the authors can’t be verified. If that sounds ridiculous to you, it’s not. It’s what all of the other religions that don’t stem from Christianity think of it. This is why “education” will not fix any of this. There are very fundamental…

again, you can't simply reject a book that has dominated europe for two millenia. whether it is nonsense or not. if it was pure nonsense then it would never had a chance at dominating our culture for that long.

the legitimacy of the bible or of christianity has also been confirmed in the koran as one of the religions of the book.

i agree with you that this book and others are not suitable for our modern day society. hence the need for reform or replacement.

but the interesting part is that the replacement has been announced in the bible itself. in it jesus states that he will return.

and in the past 200 years some people have made the claim to be the return of jesus. it is now up to us to investigate these claims and find out which of these, if any, is genuine.

the primary goal of education here is that everyone needs to learn and understand that they need to critically investigate and search for the truth. all of us. and that search is not done as long as there are conflicting ideas of what the truth is. so we need to keep searching.

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

#773

Post by em-bee »

shiroiushi wrote: post #769
em-bee wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's changed in many ways, and depends on which group of Christians you're looking at well, i am primarily looking at the catholic church itself, and protestants that came out of it. both changed a lot over the centuries. Jesus specifically said that he did NOT come to replace anything but he did come to reform. with the sword. there's no real evidence to [...] his existence historians beg to differ. https://en.wikip…

>to me that doesn't really matter. whether religions are of divine origin or a fantasy, they clearly have a strong influence on the world, and therefore we must subject them to criticism and to reform if they want to keep their relevance in the world. Why do they need to stay relevant? If you're willing to accept they're fantasy, then it'd be better for everyone to read Lord of the Rings instead. At least it actually…

Why do they need to stay relevant

they don't need to stay relevant. reform is what they need to do if they want to stay relevant. otherwise they will soon stop being relevant. however as long as they continue to have a strong influence, we need to keep an eye on them and look for their replacement

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

#774

Post by em-bee »

kortilla wrote: post #770
em-bee wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you’re describing absolutely does not exist if you have any of the current religions. what are current religions for you? i do not want to promote a particular religion on this site, but there are options out there that you may not yet have considered. i also believe that while peoples behavior reflects their religion, the religions do not control or limit anyones ability to examine things critically. if you are…

You completely lost the thread. My reply is that your notion of “education will make everyone agree on things” is childish and completely ridiculous in light of even basic religious and political debates. Very smart people on both sides are definitely empathetic yet want to vote to stop the other side. It’s not shifting any goalposts at all. All it takes is one example to show how the idea fails and that’s what I pro…

well, one of the goals of education needs to be to show that there is no other side. we are all humans, in one global society, and thus we should all be on the same side. there should be no opposition. we need to be open to everyone. and the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance itself.

education means teaching people that it is desirable and beneficial to cooperate, and that it is necessary to put aside our differences in order to achieve that.

you assume that current religious doctrines trump any hope of achieving that. but i beg to differ. every religion in its core is based on love, and therefore any form rejection of non-believers is already a failure of the core beliefs of every religion.

and for every claim that their rejection or hatred is backed by their holy scripture, we can find another member of that same religion who disagrees. i have been participating in interreligious dialogue and i know that peaceful coexistence and cooperation among religions is possible.

The divine teachings are intended to create a bond of unity in the human world and establish the foundations of love and fellowship among mankind. Divine religion is not a cause for discord and disagreement. If religion becomes the source of antagonism and strife, the absence of religion is to be preferred

The establishing of the divine religions is for peace, not for war and the shedding of blood. Inasmuch as all are founded upon one reality which is love and unity, the wars and dissensions which have characterized the history of religion have been due to imitations and superstitions which arise afterward. Religion is reality and reality is one. The fundamentals of the religion of God are therefore one in reality. There is neither difference nor change in the fundamentals. Variance is caused by blind imitations, prejudices and adherence to forms which appear later, and inasmuch as these differ, discord and strife result. If the religions of the world would forsake these causes of difficulty and seek the fundamentals, all would agree, and strife and dissension would pass away

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

#775

Post by dangus »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #748
dangus wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think that detractors of transit believe that eliminating cars is the goal like it’s this black and white thing. It’s either 100% cars or 0% cars. “If I can’t do 100% of every possible trip on transit, it’s not a good investment.”

But the reality is that reducing car trips is really helpful to congestion and traffic for everyone, and having alternative options can make a lot of sense to a lot of people if they’re planned well.

If I take all my daily commutes in with the Metra but then my weekend trip to the city outside the business center is in a car, I still reduced my dependency on my car by huge percentage. That means more of my miles are being spent on safer, more energy efficient, less costly mass transit.

And anyway, you’re not really correct here in the first place. Chicago commuter rail stations downtown have easy connectivity to the L and numerous buses.

You just brazenly claim that nobody wants to transfer but it happens all the time.

Yes, it can take longer than driving…except when it doesn’t, because Chicago has two or three of the nation’s slowest highways. Metra plus a transfer is often a trivial difference in travel time, plus on the Metra you can relax, use the bathroom, and even legally drink a beer if you wish.

Many trips using the L plus Metra transfer are pretty competitive to drive times. Obviously it doesn’t work for every trip but doing a Metra ride plus a $10 Taxi ride will beat parking costs, plus you’re not operating and maintaining a personal vehicle.

Finally, for those who can’t drive at all or have difficulty doing so, having an option that’s slower or less convenient than driving is still a godsend. Being able to get somewhere via transit in 2 hours will beat a 1 hour car ride when the alternative is not taking the trip at all because you’re elderly or disabled and can’t drive yourself. If your car got totaled and you can’t afford a new one having a transit option solved the catch 22 of needing a job to pay for a car and needing a car to get to your job.

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

#776

Post by HDThoreaun »

dangus wrote: post #775
HDThoreaun wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think that detractors of transit believe that eliminating cars is the goal like it’s this black and white thing. It’s either 100% cars or 0% cars. “If I can’t do 100% of every possible trip on transit, it’s not a good investment.” But the reality is that reducing car trips is really helpful to congestion and traffic for everyone, and having alternative options can make a lot of sense to a lot of people if they’re p…

I’ve lived in Chicago my whole life and have never heard of anyone transferring to cta after taking the metra. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but it’s not scalable solution that people will buy into. The vast majority of people will just drive in that case

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

#777

Post by dangus »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #776
dangus wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that detractors of transit believe that eliminating cars is the goal like it’s this black and white thing. It’s either 100% cars or 0% cars. “If I can’t do 100% of every possible trip on transit, it’s not a good investment.” But the reality is that reducing car trips is really helpful to congestion and traffic for everyone, and having alternative options can make a lot of sense to a lot of people if they’re p…

I’ve lived in Chicago my whole life and have never heard of anyone transferring to cta after taking the metra. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but it’s not scalable solution that people will buy into. The vast majority of people will just drive in that case

Your anecdote versus mine.

As an example, there are 12 different bus lines that are directly adjacent to Millennium Station. You barely even have to step outside to use them.

Hell, you don’t have to step outside at all to transfer from the blue or red line to Millennium station trains.

All loop CTA lines are a 10 minute walk to Union Station and Ogilvie.

You really think with these kind of stats that nobody is transferring?

Not to mention the fact that the Metra runs express trains during rush hour to high population suburbs. You can get from Downer’s Grove to non-downtown neighborhoods like Lincoln Park or Wrigleyville faster than a car during rush hour via express trains + purple line.

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

#778

Post by tptacek »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #776
dangus wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that detractors of transit believe that eliminating cars is the goal like it’s this black and white thing. It’s either 100% cars or 0% cars. “If I can’t do 100% of every possible trip on transit, it’s not a good investment.” But the reality is that reducing car trips is really helpful to congestion and traffic for everyone, and having alternative options can make a lot of sense to a lot of people if they’re p…

I’ve lived in Chicago my whole life and have never heard of anyone transferring to cta after taking the metra. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but it’s not scalable solution that people will buy into. The vast majority of people will just drive in that case

I did it every day getting to Ignatius from Beverly, and again getting to my office in South Loop when I lived in Evanston. One advantage the Metra often has is better parking, so even if I could end-to-end take CTA, I might park and ride a scheduled Metra instead. (Doesn't matter anymore, I live a short walk from the Green Line).

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

#779

Post by throwaway2037 »

shiroiushi wrote: post #736
throwaway2037 wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you consider the DC Metro garbage and its recent Silver Line extension? People in seem quite pleased with their system.

As someone who used to live in DC, and now lives in Tokyo, yes, the DC metro system is pretty terrible. How long did that Silver line extension take again? And when are they going to build more lines or extensions? And when are they going to have trains that run like clockwork every 5 minutes? Heck, when are they going to install automated gates on the platforms so people can't fall into the tracks? I don't think the…

    > when are they going to install automated gates on the platforms so people can't fall into the tracks?
It is interesting that you picked this one. For those unaware, in the busiest mass transit lines in East Asia, some countries and systems are slowly installing barrier gates to prevent accidental (and intentional) falls onto the tracks. To me, Japan is special because they are trying to reduce suicides when people throw themselves in front of oncoming trains. Is that really an issue on the DC metro? I doubt at even 10% the level of Japan. And accidental falls that result in serious injury are incredibly rare. One more thing to consider: These gates require maintenance, and a lot of it. Unless your system has world class maintenance (I really mean the "world class" bit), these gates will quickly become a nuscience and disabled.

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

#780

Post by languagehacker »

gnicholas wrote: post #684
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…

I was going to read The High Cost of Free Parking, until I saw that it's 800 pages long. Did you read the whole thing, skim, or entirely skip parts? I am familiar with the general argument and feel like 800 pages is too much for a book on the subject (at least for my taste).

I listened to the audiobook, and Paved Paradise covers most of the arguments made far more succinctly.
Post reply on HN