Hacker News Reader

Comment by steveBK123 | Hacker News Reader

Two issue - US is incapable of building transit infra. We should be able, but the last 50 years have shown otherwise. Making driving harder and praying that somehow makes transit good is not a solution, though many cities are now trying that.

I think a lot of Euros misunderestimate (to quote Dubya) how much more extreme North American city climates are. Using wikipedia data, Amsterdam's lowest mean temperature month is January at 3.8C, and highest mean temperature month is July at 18.1C. Chicago has 3 months below 3.8C per year, in fact it's below 0C for 3 months. Plus 4 months above 18.1C. Some of our climates just aren't terribly comfortable for biking here. NYC is not much better either.

View on HN

The US has built lots of transportation infrastructure over the last 50 years, including astounding amounts of highways.

I think the bigger issues here are (1) a regulatory environment that heavily disfavors mass transit, and (2) a suburban (and, increasingly, urban) culture that prefers isolation to the risk of "undesirables" brought into their neighborhoods by mass transit.

As a small example of this: DC's metro was conceived a little over 50 years ago, and opened its first line about 47 years ago[1]. It's still expanding, and yet many of its stations are inconveniently placed because the communities it served didn't want DC's plurality black population entering their segregated suburbs[2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_T...

[2]: https://ggwash.org/view/98/racial-politics-kept-college-park...

DC metro was falling apart with massive service cuts as recently as like.. last year wasn't it? As I recall they had some massive deferred maintenance on the rolling stock causing derailments.

The DC metro's funding scheme can be most succinctly and politely described as "bonkers"[1]. I brought it up as an example of the US successfully constructing mass transit in the last 50 years, not a shining example of municipal management.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_T...

We're talking about Chicago. It already has transit infrastructure.

Would more be better? Sure. But this is a city where many trips can already be as fast or faster via transit than driving, depending on how difficult parking is and how far your "last mile" is.

The big thing that sucks for Chicago is that this shit deal makes it expensive to remove existing street parking and use the space for other things.

I know Chicago has transit. I was responding to the assertion that "parking being unaffordable is good because less people will park"..

Decreases in availability/access and/or increases in cost of private vehicle use, without offsetting improvements in transit are not a good thing.

I would argue that in general that's probably true but not always. Reducing car trips can also relieve stress on the communities living in these urban communities or improve the quality in specific locations. Here outright banning or discouraging driving is done to improve walkability, reduce noise and quality of stay.

Communities living in cities also need traffic calmed, quieter places nearby. Banning cars here is often a good first step and reuse the street with cafes, restaurants and transportation by bike, public transport and cars only if parked somewhere else.

Naive question here: Taking out a block of parking would have decreased the City's bottom line already, right? They wouldn't get to collect from those meters. That would have affected the city's budget. The only difference here is that the City will now have to cut a check, but the effect on the City's budget seems similar. The piece I don't know is whether the amount is different, like if the vendor is allowed to raise rates as much as they want and ask the City to reimburse at that rate instead at the rate the City "would have" chargee to park if they'd retained the ownership.

It's an interesting question. I'm just assuming the cost-per-space-removed under this regime is far greater than the lost-revenue-per-space-removed that they would have otherwise suffered, but that's just based on the fact that the deal is known to be especially bad for the city. It stands to reason that they would have gotten screwed on this point as well, but that's just a guess on my part.

The U.S. is capable of building transit infra. We are incapable of overcoming multiple nesting, competing, and ensnared layers of local, regional, state, and federal bureaucracies to actually get them built, even when there is a taxpayer desire/mandate for such projects.

That's somewhat true. Government does have the power of eminent domain to ram projects through if they want to (e.g. much interstate highway development). However, the willpower to accomplish may rightfully be tempered (e.g. fatal opposition to interstate spurs in many major cities). A state government, using eminent domain, reserves the right to seize land for "public use", which especially includes interstate highways. A "public use" project providing real, tangible benefit for a region without unsustainable cost burdens for the governed should go through, full send.

That's not to dismiss the value of local advocacy but merely to highlight the careful balancing act performed by government to maintain favor in eyes of its constituents. The fundamental tension between the People and the Government should err toward the People, as long as you place stock in a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."

long way of saying "incapable"

Transit is a false choice if your trip takes 30 min by car and 2 hours by bus.

This is why I am not a fan of congestion pricing even though I want a more transit oriented US. The US across the board gets less transit for its money than the rest of the world. Until we get costs under control it’s hard to imagine our cities building enough of the right kind of transit.

Chicago in particular was frustrating as a tourist as I found pretty much any trip not involving the loop to be tedious and lengthy.

It's not incapable. We used to have massive passenger rail networks 100 years ago. Lobbied interests destroyed them. They can only come back with a fight.

I mean sure, yes. But the loudest voices right now are the "ban cars" crowd.

Which seems like all that will do is make life even more miserable in hopes of.. then forcing transit to be built?

Congestion pricing in NYC is a convoluted mess with perverse incentives because even the anti-car lobbyists are not actually our friends.

The plan as it stands will actually penalize private car drivers while allowing ubers/lyfts/taxis to enter/exit the congestion zone unlimited times per day for 1 toll fee. Given that Manhattan 9-5 weekday traffic is largely for hire vehicles, this is completely screwed up.

Transportation Alternatives for example, lists 2 of its biggest donors being Lyft & an automated toll/ticketing tech company, lol.

Penalizing private car owners in favor of taxis in a borough where less than a quarter of households own a car seems about right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com