Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 201 posts

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#161

Post by ilaksh »

SystemOut wrote: post #100

I don't understand why Americans love their cars so much. I grew up in Oklahoma and you pretty much have to have a car. Huge amount of land, not many people. Virtually no public transportation. I moved to the Bay Area back in 2000 and car-pooled for exactly one year of that time and then took BART the other 16 years before moving to Chicago. Even though I like driving I really hate traffic. Why would I sit in traffic…

The issue is that even in suburban areas the density is often very low so that the city can only afford a certain number of buses that run at certain times. Which makes getting around very inconvenient if you don't have a car. Cars are also much more convenient for groceries.

Personally I hate driving and take Uber or walk everywhere. But I don't have any commute, or kids or girlfriend or friends to meet up with. Since I don't live in a downtown area, it isn't feasible for me to get a life without the car. Luckily I am happy staying on the internet with an occasional walk to Walmart.

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#162

Post by rexpop »

chrisseaton wrote: post #106
uxp100 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably should specify the city you're talking about. Those seem like pretty specific complaints. I think the main thing that can be generalized across most of the US that you mentioned is the grid system, with parking lot islands in second place, but they're not common in the center of many cities. They are quite common on the edges. For example, many readers here may be familiar with San Jose, and itis not a g…

> grab a donut Funny question, but in the US does 'grabbing' something not have a bad connotation? When I hear 'grab a donut' my English mind sees you smashing your fist through the glass of the counter, taking a doughnut, and running off.

Not at all. It convey's minute commitment; both brief and trivial.

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#163

Post by Izkata »

Finnucane wrote: post #117
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our country is only 243 years old, we didn't have hundreds of years of master craftsmen making stone buildings. We fast forwarded from log cabins to awful steel buildings and strip malls made as cheaply as possible. You'd have those same ugly steel buildings if there were no stone cathedrals etc. standing there already.

In the 19th century many American urban centers become quite densely built up with all manners of buildings. These urban centers were also prone to fire. A number of cities experienced major fires that wiped out large swaths of what had been built. So they got rebuilt with more modern structures.

For a great example of this, check out some of the buildings that survived the Great Chicago Fire: http://chicago-architecture-jyoti.blogspot.com/2009/02/six-s...

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#164

Post by bunderbunder »

paulie_a wrote: post #110
kevindong wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving in downtown Chicago during rush hour is awful. I remember it taking something like 15 minutes just to move a handful of city blocks due to how backed up the on-ramp onto the highway was. Also, are you controlling for the housing type? Condos in high rises (which are much more expensive than detached single family detached) tend to be concentrated near the trains.

I am going to generalize your statement: driving in Chicago is awful. Ive consistently had it take an hour to move ten miles regardless of the day of week to visit family in Milwaukee. At least a third of the drive I could see the Sears tower in the rear view mirror. Amtrak/metra is far superior to car ownership. Uber for local travel and is quite frankly cheaper with less aggravation because I don't have to deal wit…

I don't know that that's where I was going.

These sorts of land desirability drop-offs happen very quickly in Chicago, but that could just be a function of density. Commutes in Chicagoland aren't necessarily any worse (in terms of commuting time) than they are in other places I've been - you just end up with the pattern spreading over a much wider geographic area because cars spread everything out so much.

For example, Milwaukee's rough equivalent of Chicago's West Rogers Park is probably Menomonee Falls, which isn't even in the same county. But you've got a similar pattern where it's kind of off the beaten path, transportation-wise, which makes it relatively inexpensive compared to a more well-connected area like Tosa or Whitefish Bay.

I've noticed similar patterns in North Carolina, too - plenty of people I know in the Triangle have commutes that are well over an hour, and the communities from which it's easy to get to the major employers command a premium.

If anything, I feel like this is more argument about Chicago needing a less hub-and-spoke design to its rail transit. Out on the periphery, it's possible to get very far away from the rail lines. In a city this size, it's a major failing that anyone ends up living more than 2 miles away from rapid transit.

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#165

Post by Zanta »

fulafel wrote: post #66

0.5% bike to work and 6% walk to work. Interesting that the difference is so large, you'd think that so many more people live withing short biking range vs walking range. I wonder what the stats are for other continents.

Safety is a big concern, and a place to safely store your bike (at home and at work) is another big one. I'd imagine lots of the walkers live in condos or apartments where storing a bike can be really tough.

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#166

Post by Fins »

paulie_a wrote: post #110
kevindong wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving in downtown Chicago during rush hour is awful. I remember it taking something like 15 minutes just to move a handful of city blocks due to how backed up the on-ramp onto the highway was. Also, are you controlling for the housing type? Condos in high rises (which are much more expensive than detached single family detached) tend to be concentrated near the trains.

I am going to generalize your statement: driving in Chicago is awful. Ive consistently had it take an hour to move ten miles regardless of the day of week to visit family in Milwaukee. At least a third of the drive I could see the Sears tower in the rear view mirror. Amtrak/metra is far superior to car ownership. Uber for local travel and is quite frankly cheaper with less aggravation because I don't have to deal wit…

It's bad, but compared to SV, for example, it's a breeze. Manhattan's worse, too, and let's not talk about what Boston drivers are called...

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#167

Post by bobthepanda »

ilaksh wrote: post #159
bobthepanda wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who grew up in New York, kids are actually much easier with walking, public transport, and biking. I was able to go out to school, head to team sports, go to restaurants and shopping, hang out with friends, etc. all independently. When I went to college, all of my suburban friends hadn't done too much of any of that, because being in the suburbs before driving age requires a parent available to be your cha…

I think the issue is that most cities are nothing like New York. The density is just completely different.

I didn't live in a very dense part of New York; I lived on the border between Queens and Long Island, and pretty much my entire neighborhood, and all the neighborhoods for miles, basically consisted of single-family detached homes with small yards and backyards.

The main ingredient that you need for carfree kids to work is usable transit. And by usable, I mean it was frequent; if I missed my bus I would only ever be waiting 10-15 minutes for the next one. Everything I could want to go to would be reachable by bus in 40 minutes or less.

If you were to take a map of most American cities' bus networks and only showed routes that ran every 10-15 or better throughout the middle of the day on weekdays, an awful lot of them would be mostly blank. Even more if you were to require that for Saturdays as well, and pretty much all of them for the entire week. Provide the transit and people will ride; it's how Seattle managed to buck a national trend of declining bus ridership.

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#168

Post by bobthepanda »

souprock wrote: post #157
bobthepanda wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How far do you have to go out to reach an area without sidewalks, though? Even many suburban developments don't necessarily have those. I went to a college in the suburbs of Long Island and the road outside campus was a two-lane road with a speed limit of 55 with no sidewalks. To walk outside of the cities is to invite death. And this is before we get into things like the lack of adequate marked, signalized crosswalk…

Normally, you just step off the road when a car comes. I suppose this doesn't work for high heels, but those can't handle storm drains either. You can even walk off the road. Sidewalks, signals, and crosswalks all give the illusion of safety. Either the cars are behaving well and you can just step aside, or they are misbehaving and you'll need a concrete barrier to stop them. The signals and crosswalks mean that cars…

> Normally, you just step off the road when a car comes. I suppose this doesn't work for high heels, but those can't handle storm drains either. You can even walk off the road.

This is assuming that the road something you can walk next to. And it's not amazing advice for roads with blind corners and such.

Sidewalks do actually help; drivers respond to their built environment, and most drivers do not want to scuff their cars by hitting the curb or other obstacles in the road.

The real crux of the problem is that the suburbs have become surrounded and cut across by massive high-speed traffic moats which are inherently unsafe for pedestrians because of the speed differential. Yet to walk in the suburbs you can't avoid these moats. And dissuading people from walking is near impossible, since the poor are now migrating to suburban areas and they are the ones least likely to have cars due to the cost.

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#169

Post by umeshunni »

johngorse wrote: post #54

Why do people with car drive alone to work? There is a big chance that someone from your neighborhood is going at least in your direction. We practice co-driving in Europe all the time.

In my experience (US, SF Bay Area/Seattle) - people do this for a few reasons:

1. The coordination and time overhead of sharing their commute with another person is not worth the marginal benefits - HOV lanes are not present in most of the area to make a difference in commute time and gas prices are low enough that splitting a drive isn't worth the savings.

2. Their commute also involves other errands (shopping, going to the gym, dropping off or picking up children from school/daycare) that are inconvenient to do with another person in the car.

In summary, it's convenient to drive alone and you are not penalized sufficiently for doing so.

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#170

Post by zjaffee »

clairity wrote: post #150
zjaffee wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you live in downtown, as that's the only neighborhood that fits all of those things within walking distance. The majority of people who live in LA, live somewhere nestled into the bigger sprawl that is the region. While there are plenty of neighborhoods that have walkable aspects, the city is by no means walkable (even with transit) to huge portions of the city.

i don't. downtown is dense but isn't remarkable for walkability in LA (until relatively recently it wasn't even particularly walkable). my listed criteria wasn't even complete, just what came to mind in the 30 seconds i thought about it. there are plenty of neighborhoods that are walkable in LA (silverlake, hollywood, highland park, even north hollywood, etc.). the whole city doesn't need to be reachable by foot to b…

None of those neighborhoods are walking distance to museums unless I'm forgetting something. Additionally, I wouldn't call silverlake a walkable neighborhood but I'll give you the other ones.

My definition would be could you live comfortably without ever using a car, such as being able to go grocery shopping without having to walk a ton, be near enough to the rail system such that you can get around easily, be in a neighborhood where going clothes shopping doesn't mean an inconvenient trip to a mall, ect.

Post reply on HN