In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Building Them

Re:In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Build... by m463 on Sunday June 02, 2024 @03:21AM (#40552107)

Is it possible that ALL infrastructure issues revolve around more people?

If a place is nice, more people move there, and then the infrastructure is overburdened? but momentum just makes things end up bad in the end.

What about finding ways to distribute the population more broadly, by say fighting return-to-office kinds of things? Maybe taxing dense populations somehow?

On the other hand, does fighting all this like colorado is doing - does it make colorado less competitive?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Build... by lukas099 on Sunday June 02, 2024 @04:11AM (#40552360)

This doesn’t make sense to me. The marginal increase in infrastructure costs for each new person is less than the tax revenue they generate.

If anything we should tax low density, since more infrastructure is needed per person.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Colorado, an Ambitious New Highway Policy Is Not Build... by amanaplanacanal on Sunday June 02, 2024 @06:41AM (#40553024)

Exactly! The urban core takes in way more taxes per person than it costs for infrastructure, suburbia is the exact opposite. Urbanites are subsidizing the suburbs currently.

[ Parent | on HN ]