Most active commenters
  • genewitch(3)
  • soperj(3)
  • virtualritz(3)

←back to thread

437 points Vinnl | 13 comments | | HN request time: 1.874s | source | bottom
Show context
aynyc ◴[] No.43991318[source]
As a long time NYC resident who moved out during Covid but commute to work in the city. I definitely noticed less traffic on the streets and less noise.

I see a lot of talk of other cities that don't have good public transportation. For example, between Flushing in Queens to 8th Ave in Brooklyn, there are privately run buses at affordable rate and get you there at half the time of trains. There are buses from a lot of residential areas in NJ that are closer to NYC that go to port authority (west side, 42nd st) very quickly. In fact, those buses are getting there faster and more comfortable than ever due to congestion pricing.

I'm curious, do other larger cities where commercial is concentrated into one area not have a private mini-bus(es)? I know public transportation would be great, but having a competitive environment for privately own bus services might be the answer to a lot of cities.

replies(13): >>43991570 #>>43991715 #>>43992036 #>>43992139 #>>43992155 #>>43992682 #>>43992791 #>>43993344 #>>43993368 #>>43993567 #>>43993947 #>>43993996 #>>43994810 #
virtualritz ◴[] No.43993344[source]
It's curious but unsurprising that privatization of public transport is considered an answer to congestion when existence of good (or great) public transport is the working answer one can find in many places around the world.

When I visited NYC two years ago, I was blown away by how unbelievably bad public transport infrastructure is.

The most flabbergasting thing was the absence of Metro ring lines around the center. The fact these have not been built, in 2025, when Metro transport networks in most cities are now over a century old, is telling.

IMHO the real problem is cars. The US still can't imagine itself without cars.

I live in Berlin center. The only reason for me to own a car is prestige. So I don't.

During rush hour any destination I go to, even outer city, would take me the same time by public transport as by car. At least.

During non-peak hours going by car can be from 25-40% faster than by public transport if you trust Google Maps & co.

But these estimates only consider travel time. When you add finding a place to park at the destination (and walking to the destination as the place may not be right in front) this shrinks to either negative numbers or max. savings of maybe 25%.

My average travel time is around 30mins by public transport. This includes walking to and from the station.

Why would I own a car to save maybe, on a lucky day, 5mins?

At the same time bike infrastructure is being improved. Lots of side streets have been declared bike streets, cars may only enter if they have business there (you live there or deliver something).

The city has enforced this with blocking off intersections on such streets with permanent structures that let only bicycles pass.

Big streets have bike lanes that are often separated by a curb or bollards from car traffic.

This makes it also less nice to drive a car. You can't use Waze any more to guide you through side streets to avoid congestion because these streets can't be passed through any more by car, only on foot or by bike.

Which means the chance of being stuck in traffic increases. When at the same time you have options to be there just as fast with public transport and almost as fast but more healthy and with less likeliness of being ran over by a car, by bike.

These ideas are not new. And there are many more things other cities do to reduce car traffic/need for cars.

If you think of private mini busses, the best examples IMHO is actually ridepooling, e.g. Volkswagen's Moia in Hamburg and Hannover.

replies(11): >>43993919 #>>43993932 #>>43994342 #>>43994400 #>>43994434 #>>43994557 #>>43994841 #>>43994944 #>>43995383 #>>43995913 #>>43996028 #
Thorrez ◴[] No.43993919[source]
>IMHO the real problem is cars. The US still can't imagine itself without cars.

All of the US except NYC. In NYC 45.6% of households own a car. In Berlin it's 49%.

https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/u-s-cities-with-th...

https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/en/car-free-berlin-li.113268

replies(2): >>43993950 #>>43993966 #
steadicat ◴[] No.43993966[source]
You’re kind of proving the point here. NYC has fewer car owners and yet NYC doesn’t have a single pedestrian street or street closed to through traffic. Sounds like a city that can’t imagine itself without cars even though it’s completely realistic.
replies(6): >>43994082 #>>43994120 #>>43995213 #>>43995342 #>>43996888 #>>43997737 #
ochoseis ◴[] No.43994120[source]
You’re either exaggerating or don’t spend much time in NYC. Half of Broadway is closed to cars now, same with Wall Street. We have summer streets where they close many on weekends. Lots of dedicated bike lanes and a few isolated paths throughout the city. Could there be more? Sure. Are they completely absent? No.
replies(1): >>43994588 #
1. steadicat ◴[] No.43994588[source]
I think we just have a different idea of what it means to be closed to cars. I live right by the stretch of Broadway you mention, so I’m very familiar. This is what it looks like: https://flatironnomad.nyc/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/4.2-Pla...

There is no restriction of through traffic. Effectively pedestrians are still confined to tiny and overcrowded sidewalks.

By comparison, here’s what a pedestrian street looks like in the non-US city I grew up in: https://sana.ae/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Corso-Italia-Stre...

Keep in mind that cars are still allowed for emergency services and (night time) deliveries. But the difference is night and day.

This is exactly what “the US can't imagine itself without cars” means to me.

replies(3): >>43995546 #>>43996943 #>>43997680 #
2. genewitch ◴[] No.43995546[source]
The entire country of Italy is only twice the size of the state of New York.
replies(1): >>43996506 #
3. soperj ◴[] No.43996506[source]
And they can manage it, why can't New York?
replies(1): >>43997918 #
4. ardit33 ◴[] No.43996943[source]
Man, there are street that are closed to traffic, and you just are either lying or being dumb.

They just don't look like streets anymore, as they are turned into plazzas or parks.

EG: E25st at Lex, Baruch College is truned into a plazza/walkaway. No cars. 8th/st Saint Marks, by A Ave, is off cars, (It is part of the Tompkins park). Irvin Avenue is part of a park (gets interrupted by Grammercy Park)

etc...

There are plenty of places like that, but over time they turn into plazzas or parks, and you think they were not streets at some point.

Ps https://maps.app.goo.gl/Df6U3DkPpUxirG5B9

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZivSNhiEnn2Q4pjr6

You can see throw time that it used to be a street at some point.

Anyways, there are plenty of examples like that. Just stop exaggerating.

5. creaturemachine ◴[] No.43997680[source]
Those photos say it all. The NYC reduced street still manages to park a Chevy Silverado smack in the middle of it all, and all those planters aren't there for the sake of having plants, but rather as crash barriers protecting the patios from traffic.
6. genewitch ◴[] No.43997918{3}[source]
New York City has more people in it than the 4 most populated metro areas in Italy. Italy has ~3x the population of the state of New York, half the population of the state lives in NYC area.
replies(2): >>43997983 #>>44000177 #
7. soperj ◴[] No.43997983{4}[source]
So they need it more than Italy. You can handle wayyy more traffic without cars on the road than you can with.
replies(1): >>43999370 #
8. genewitch ◴[] No.43999370{5}[source]
in context, i am specifically talking to “the US can't imagine itself without cars” point here and in my other reply upthread. I live ~36 hours from Los Angeles, driving at legal highway speeds, assuming no stops or delays. It's all about perspective. California is larger than germany. New York isn't a small state by any stretch of the imagination, unless you're comparing it to texas, alaska, or california. The car/public transportation stuff in the US is partly because of the ruralness of the country in general, plus culture. A lot of people have the idea that public transit is for the poors.
replies(1): >>43999509 #
9. soperj ◴[] No.43999509{6}[source]
I live in Canada, a bigger country with less people and better public transport. A bunch of provinces are bigger than Texas, doesn't stop the public transport from being decent inside the cities.
10. virtualritz ◴[] No.44000177{4}[source]
The obvious answer is more public transport infrastructure & bike lanes.

If you think population density is an excuse for public transport infrastructure not coping or need for more people owning cars I suggest taking a long hard look at e.g. Japan to have that hypothesis reality-checked.

I'm btw. not saying you did, just reading between the lines.

As I wrote in an earlier reply to parent, NYC hasn't managed to even build ring Metro lines around its city center – since a century!

And that is for one reason and one reason only: not nearly enough (political) pressure from the public to improve public transport infrastructure.

And that in term gets us to the root cause again: the US can't imagine itself without cars.

This is not a critique. It's just an observation that is very plain to see if you grew up in Europe (and possibly many other places, too).

When/if that changes, ever, the above things will just happen naturally.

replies(1): >>44002207 #
11. Thorrez ◴[] No.44002207{5}[source]
What would a ring metro look like in NYC? Manhattan is an island. Directly west of it is a body of water, then land that is not NYC, in fact is not NY.
replies(1): >>44003095 #
12. virtualritz ◴[] No.44003095{6}[source]
It doesn't have to be a closed ring. Or resemble a ring.

Many metro systems in other big cities with comparable topological constraints have metro lines that are orthogonal to those going out in roughly a star pattern from the center.

But NYC almost only has the latter.

Underwater sections are not an issue, really. There are many cities that have metro lines going under bodies of water.

And even the length or depth required is not an issue if you want to build it.

That's why you can go from England to France, by train, in roughly half an hour, under the English Channel.

replies(1): >>44009577 #
13. lsaferite ◴[] No.44009577{7}[source]
That is a seriously hand-wavy response to a complex task.