Hacker News Reader

Comment by seanmcdirmid | Hacker News Reader

It isn’t like the system is free to run after it is built, otherwise Seattle had a rail/trolley system 100 years ago that could just have still been in use.

I think it is really fallacious thinking when saying something would have been cheaper to build X years ago. Ya, the right aways would have been easier, but the cheaper tech would have needed to be upgraded and/or maintained. Investing heavily in a rail system right before the huge Boeing bust of the seventies could have ended up pretty badly for Seattle.

View on HN

> I think it is really fallacious thinking when saying something would have been cheaper to build X years ago

Respectfully, could not disagree more. The more urban development there is, the harder these things get to build. It's probably impossible to do nowadays, and Seattle is a cesspit of traffic, even compared to other US cities. As far as maintenance or upgrades, please. Why do you brush your teeth?

Finally, can you measure quality of life, and if so, how much money is it worth? It's shameful that it's always an economic argument, usually by people who are already well-off. The list of benefits for mass rapid transit is endless, and at the end of the day, it's Americans who suffer for not having it, nobody else (except with environmental concerns, i.e. global warming).

There is a cost to having the infrastructure, just like there is a cost to maintaining a tree. The tree analogy is actually very apt, well, except in that case planting the tree is cheap but keeping it watered is very expensive.

Don’t get me wrong, I think this would be a great ideal for Seattle today. But back then? Or even from what I remember in the late 70s and 80s? The system would have been very difficult to justify and might have rotted before it was actually needed. And I say this as someone who had to commute from Bothell to UW by bus in the early 90s.

> saying something would have been cheaper to build X years ago

I don't think that's what it means. Don't think about the actual costs, think about when you pay the costs and when you reap the benefit. People want to enjoy the benefits with as little effort or sacrifice from their side.

- Most people aren't willing to be the ones to have to pay any cost, they'd rather have others do it.

- Most people would like to enjoy a benefit as soon as possible, so they'd rather have others put that in place in advance.

Combine these 2 and you get the picture: a person today doesn't want to pay for something and even worse, only get it in a decade or more. Any other discomfort just gets piled on an already unfavorable situation.

The right of way is expensive. The land costs more, and the political cost is even greater. And the compromising that ensues ends up creating an even more disjointed an non-viable system. Look at L.A.'s subway. It's not generally useful in that there is so much sprawl compared to the system that overwhelmingly people find alternatives more generally available. And it's seeing its lowest ridership in a decade, which is the opposite of what you'd expect in a successful system in a growing city.

It has nothing to do with the technology -- it's all about the land. Dunno how long you've been here, but my brother-in-law grew up in Eastlake when the I-5 corridor and ship canal bridge were under construction. There was a several block wide zone stretching miles right through the middle of the city most of which had been eminent-domained by the government for the project. Give that a try in 2018.

Yea, when I hear people complain about traffic in Seattle and that we need more freeways, my first question to them is, will you offer your house up for the right-of-way?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com