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

191–200 of 201 posts

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#191

Post by fatnoah »

bloomca wrote: post #27

I don't think there is such a great divide. The greater divide is between people who own a car (or cars) and who do not, however, seems for USA it is a divide between New York City and the rest of the country. Also, I can comment on one thing I personally enjoy a lot – walking. I lived in many European cities, and recently moved to USA, so I can comment on it. To be able to walk, you need to live close enough to your…

>USA fails miserably at "interesting and beautiful" part.

It depends on where you are. I lived in downtown Boston and walked everywhere. I had a choice of walking along the river, down the Commonwealth Avenue mall and through the public gardens, etc, etc.

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#192

Post by burfog »

bluGill wrote: post #102
grawprog wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's more things like plans to change the fare system to one based on distance travelled, changing bus schedules so they end up more filled up but no longer arrive at offices and businesses for a time when people typically begin work, increasing multiple zone fares while leaving single zone fares the same, new train and bus routes being put in to service already well serviced areas while ignoring outlying areas. B…

A train should never be put someplace without first trying bus service. If you can get busy bus service you know the train will be used. If you can't get busy bus service - well it is easy to try those same buses on a different route until you find where people actually want to go. (and then you can build the train there if the real numbers show it is worth it)

Are there buses in Boston? I lived there, and I wouldn't know. Buses are not something I'd contemplate using.

From experiences in other cities, where I looked into the matter:

Buses are too hard to use. Buses often stop on an unexpected side of the street, get rerouted, get cancelled, and have horribly complicated schedules. Routes even vary moment by moment. The crime situation is worse. The weather protection is worse.

I've never known anybody who would use buses. Buses are just noisy things that block traffic, damage pavement (proportional to 4th power of mass), and belch lung-clogging soot. AFAIK, they drive around empty, except that sometimes they serve as homeless shelters.

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#193

Post by TheCoelacanth »

njarboe wrote: post #130
so33 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Isn't it wonderful how the car allowed a large number of families to own a home with a piece of land, yet have access to the amenities of a city? That was an illusion. House prices are soaring in the inner suburbs (case in point: the Bay Area) to the point of complete unaffordability, forcing people out further and further from where they work and, consequently, creating situations where commuters drive for hours ev…

A tunnel can have any kind of transport running in it as you want. Cars, buses, and trains at the same time. A toll tunnel that is run full will be wildly profitable and would inspire others to build them. "The Boring Company" already has the tech, we just need to work out the regulatory system so that they can build across the multiple small cities in the LA basin. Below a certain depth you can't even tell the tunne…

The problem is that digging a tunnel is expensive even when amortized over the 30,000 passengers per hour that a subway line can carry. When you amortize it over the 2,000 passengers per hour that a lane of single-occupancy vehicles maxes out at, the expense is completely outrageous.

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#194

Post by yellowapple »

taormina wrote: post #108
chrisseaton wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

'Snatch' might be more of a negative connotation? Grab feels pretty neutral.

It definitely depends on context, and possibly locality/dialect. I have heard (and used) "snatch", "snag", "grab", and "steal" here quite often.

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#195

Post by yellowapple »

skh wrote: post #57
bloomca wrote: post #27

I don't think there is such a great divide. The greater divide is between people who own a car (or cars) and who do not, however, seems for USA it is a divide between New York City and the rest of the country. Also, I can comment on one thing I personally enjoy a lot – walking. I lived in many European cities, and recently moved to USA, so I can comment on it. To be able to walk, you need to live close enough to your…

I lived in Berlin for a while and when I came back to the U.S. the two things that stood out were the massive parking lots and billboards. American cities are hostile to humans. Way too much space taken up by ugly parking lots. Go out West and so much land is fenced off. Access to lakes and rivers is hard since so much of the surrounding land is private and fenced off.

Depends on how far West, and which parts. A lot of Nevada is publicly-accessible, for example.

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#196

Post by yellowapple »

bobthepanda wrote: post #129
njarboe wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost every city in America has sidewalks. I guess you might be technically correct that "Outside of cities like NY" if "like" means "has sidewalks", but that would exclude almost 100% of cities.

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…

Nearly all suburban developments I've seen that were built within my lifetime have had plenty of sidewalks and signalled (sometimes even stoplighted!) crosswalks. The exceptions are old rural roads that became suddenly suburban when they got surrounded by housing developments, but the developments themselves always had plenty of sidewalks, and quite a few of the roads in my hometown of Elk Grove have sidewalks even when they didn't before (though sometimes with gaps, admittedly).

I've spent nearly all my life in (Northern) California and Nevada, though, so YMMV elsewhere.

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#197

Post by yellowapple »

ArtDev wrote: post #147
njarboe wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost every city in America has sidewalks. I guess you might be technically correct that "Outside of cities like NY" if "like" means "has sidewalks", but that would exclude almost 100% of cities.

I have lived exclusively in the Western Coastal states and 100% of the cities I have lived in do not have consistent sidewalk coverage. For example: Seattle, Sacramento, Olympia, Portland and especially other rural cities I have lived in. American cities are designed for cars. Not people or people on bikes. You would think that new developments would not continue this insanity and yet they are still allowed by city p…

I grew up in/around Sacramento. The new residential construction is almost always accompanied by new sidewalks, from what I've seen. It's usually the older areas that have spotty sidewalk coverage, but those are getting patched up (especially now that Sac's more-or-less recovered from the housing bust).

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#198

Post by thirdsun »

basementcat wrote: post #190
thirdsun wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Playing in select cities" - from the official website. That's what's wrong with indie cinema, documentaries and small movie projects. Another film I'm interested in, I'm ready to purchase and watch, yet I can't since it's not available anywhere, except for some screenings in a handful of places worldwide. So it ends up as an easy to miss entry on my ever growing to do list hoping to be re-discovered and some day. I…

I think part of the problem is that low budget indie releases have to _pay_ theaters to be shown. The consequence of their small budget is they can often only afford to screen in a small number of theaters in major cities. In contrast theaters literally beg studios that make blockbusters to let them project the film on as many screens as possible since these movies are expected to draw large crowds and popcorn and dr…

That's an even bigger argument for the point I tried to make. I don't want the see the film in a theater, which (in my case) would require about an hour of driving, overpriced drinks and all the other annoyances of a theater visit. Meanwhile I have a projector and good audio system at home, which is why I want to buy and download the film digitally to watch on my own terms.

And needless to say that it doesn't require a fancy projector to have a fine movie experience - most households have a big TV that comes close enough. For this kind of movie, however, audio/video equipment shouldn't be a concern at all.

What I'm trying to say is: Why screen the film at a very limited number of cinemas, which you might even have to pay when you could get paid by viewers directly?

Re: Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work

#199

Post by basementcat »

thirdsun wrote: post #198
basementcat wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of the problem is that low budget indie releases have to _pay_ theaters to be shown. The consequence of their small budget is they can often only afford to screen in a small number of theaters in major cities. In contrast theaters literally beg studios that make blockbusters to let them project the film on as many screens as possible since these movies are expected to draw large crowds and popcorn and dr…

That's an even bigger argument for the point I tried to make. I don't want the see the film in a theater, which (in my case) would require about an hour of driving, overpriced drinks and all the other annoyances of a theater visit. Meanwhile I have a projector and good audio system at home, which is why I want to buy and download the film digitally to watch on my own terms. And needless to say that it doesn't require…

Screening at a theater is a required step before a film can be considered for certain prestigious industry awards, qualify for certain production tax incentives or fulfill cast/crew contractual requirements. There exist theaters the sole purpose of which are to fulfill that specific function (they generally screen low budget indie films each for a day or so-- it is not usual for the size of the audience to be zero).

Personally I don't really disagree with you; it would be great if good films were available on Amazon, Netflix, etc sooner.

Post reply on HN