201–210 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The European mind quivers at the thought of a state with a bigger area than most EU countries I like walking around new cities, but a lot of people are car life types
... I mean, that seems entirely irrelevant when discussing New York City, which is, geographically, rather small (though very dense).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Average commute in Tokyo is 45 minutes to an hour one way: https://nbakki.hatenablog.com/entry/2014/08/05/231455 . Average commute time in Dallas is 26 minutes one way: https://dallas.culturemap.com/news/city-life/dallas-suburb-s ... People in Tokyo will accept a longer commute for the sake of a better job or housing or both, because the commute is less miserable (and also because employers pay commute costs). > I’…
From your article: “The automobile provides better access than transit in all cities we compared, except in Shanghai, China, where automobile reaches about 90% of the jobs reachable by transit at 30 min.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a tragedy of the commons. For an individual, private car is faster, but the resulting traffic ultimately makes things slower for everyone. Public transit in Tokyo is faster than private cars in car-oriented cities.
That’s not true. Public transit in Tokyo is slower than driving in Dallas or LA. Average one-way commute in LA is just over 30 minutes: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B080ACS006037 . For Tokyo it’s 45-60 minutes based on sources I’ve seen online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tokyo has a population of some 14 million. Dallas is about 1.3 million. Did you pick cities with populations exactly 10x apart on purpose or something? Got any real stats?
So what? Why do you need one city with 13 million people when the US has the land area to build 10 cities with 1.3 million people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> put them on rails to reduce friction Good luck climbing hills. A lot of systems like these moved away from rails onto rubber tires. Rapid bus is probably best combination. Yes it will never match the throughput of rail, but it's vastly cheaper.
Have you seen hills in NYC or (most of) other major cities? Also, the solition is deeper stations under hills & escalators.
And don't get me wrong, some places in US (with extreme density) should do this. Personally it's not the places where I'd ever want to live ever again lol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the tire wear particulates being a huge source of particulate air emissions was an overestimate due to misunderstanding and misquotation of primary literature by secondary literature used by regulatory agencies. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00792
1/6 is a lot lower (good!) but is that sufficient to say they're not a large source of particulate air emissions?
From my limited reading, what fraction of road dust is from tire tread is unclear. The models trying to estimate it give anywhere numbers from 4 to 48%, but may be incorrect due to the citation problem above. Experiments seem to show 4-9%, but they have trouble excluding resuspended dust.
I'd also point out that if we're worried about air quality in NYC between modes of transport, then one should look at subways since PM2.5 in stations/tubes is many times that of the street and far exceeds EPA limits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The congestion tax has far more impact on people who live and work above 60th or in the outer boroughs or NJ than it does Manhattanites. Retail, wholesale, trades, small businesses and yes commuters in these areas, which are poorer than Manhattan, suffer disproportionately
Any evidence for that impact? While the prospect of displaced traffic was very much hyped, the data I've seen is that there's very little of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The run up to their implementation was so deeply frustrating. The sheer number of disingenuous objections. And they’ve all been proven false.
People are seemingly okay with rationing services by time, but adamantly opposed to rationing by price. You see this everywhere throughout society. But obviously the latter is better. It offers more flexibility for consumers and more transmission of demand signals.
Maybe that has to do with the fact that lifetime is somewhat (!) equally distributed, while wealth isn't
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are seemingly okay with rationing services by time, but adamantly opposed to rationing by price. You see this everywhere throughout society. But obviously the latter is better. It offers more flexibility for consumers and more transmission of demand signals.
> People are seemingly okay with rationing services by time, but adamantly opposed to rationing by price Maybe that has to do with the fact that lifetime is somewhat (!) equally distributed, while wealth isn't