Where the New York City Subway Doesn't Go • Hacker News Board

Re: Where the New York City Subway Doesn't Go

#31

Post by eternalban » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 2:12 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #10

Ignoring the bus lines is pretty wacky. I grew up in Queens, and rode the bus all of the time. My dad took the bus to the express train to manhattan for several years. The bus isn't sexy, but it works and is often less unpleasant than the subway. Also, you need to remember how places like Queens developed. It was mostly little downs until about 100 years ago. The house I grew up in was part of a 120 acre farm as late…

Queen was really a trip for this ex-Manhattanite. Lived there for a few months a few years ago -- remember that winter that shut all the /buses/? Couldn't get a ride to Flushing stop for a few days there and had to winter wonderland trek.

You need a car in Queens.

Re: Where the New York City Subway Doesn't Go

#32

Post by pdabbadabba » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 2:33 PM UTC

Ollinson wrote: post #25

pdabbadabba wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth bearing in mind that in areas of NYC where the bus is the only option, a bus commute is often much much longer than a subway commute. I had the displeasure of attempting a few bus commutes into Manhattan from my old neighborhood in Bed-Stuy, and I would not be eager to do it again. So, while I agree that one shouldn't completely ignore the buses, I think it is also misleading to treat them as equivalent to…

Bus routes are not supposed to replace train routes. It is by design that bus routes are longer, buses are meant to service areas not accessible by train. I'm curious if you traveled by bus since the introduction of bus time last year? It has really changed my commuting life. In the past I might be standing out in the cold or heat for a half hour waiting for the next bus. Now I can predict when my bus will show up an…

> Bus routes are not supposed to replace train routes. It is by design that bus routes are longer, buses are meant to service areas not accessible by train.

I agree! I only mean that, when making a map of public transit coverage in a city, it might make sense to recognize that bus transportation is, in many cases, very inconvenient to avoid the impression that everyone is served equally.

I left New York before Bus Time was introduced, but I'm glad to hear it has improved the experience of waiting for a bus.

Re: Where the New York City Subway Doesn't Go

#33

Post by steveklabnik » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 2:40 PM UTC

koliber wrote: post #5

The author is misleading about lack of subway access to JFK airport. I have traveled many times to JFK by subway. He is technically correct that the subway does not tunnel underneath JFK and does not go to terminals. However, you take the A train and then hop onto the AirTrain provided by JFK to get to the terminal.

Yeah, they're not counting AirTrain. You can get to it from the J, the E, and the A, actually.

Re: Where the New York City Subway Doesn't Go

#34

Post by steveklabnik » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 2:41 PM UTC

pdabbadabba wrote: post #17

Spooky23 wrote: post #10

Ignoring the bus lines is pretty wacky. I grew up in Queens, and rode the bus all of the time. My dad took the bus to the express train to manhattan for several years. The bus isn't sexy, but it works and is often less unpleasant than the subway. Also, you need to remember how places like Queens developed. It was mostly little downs until about 100 years ago. The house I grew up in was part of a 120 acre farm as late…

It's worth bearing in mind that in areas of NYC where the bus is the only option, a bus commute is often much much longer than a subway commute. I had the displeasure of attempting a few bus commutes into Manhattan from my old neighborhood in Bed-Stuy, and I would not be eager to do it again. So, while I agree that one shouldn't completely ignore the buses, I think it is also misleading to treat them as equivalent to…

From where I live in Brooklyn, if I want to get to downtown Brooklyn, I can take a bus that goes straight down the relevant avenue to get there, _or_ I can take the train into Manhattan and then down.

The train is five minutes faster.

Re: Where the New York City Subway Doesn't Go

#35

Post by steveklabnik » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 2:44 PM UTC

mosburger wrote: post #2

The lack of subway access to LGA is what I, an occasional traveler to NYC, find the most mind-boggling.

You can take the M to Jackson Hts - Roosevelt Av, and then there's a Q70 shuttle from there. It's not too bad.

I still prefer JFK.

Re: Where the New York City Subway Doesn't Go

#36

Post by bane » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 2:53 PM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #8

The radius of the circle the author used, 500m, is a bit under twice the length of a Manhattan block. I can guarantee you that your typical regular transit user is capable of walking a couple blocks without having to stop for a Gatorade.

It's a useful metric, IIR the Paris Metro is designed so that no point in the city is more than 500m from a station.

Re: Where the New York City Subway Doesn't Go

#37

Post by lloyddobbler » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 3:28 PM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #8

The radius of the circle the author used, 500m, is a bit under twice the length of a Manhattan block. I can guarantee you that your typical regular transit user is capable of walking a couple blocks without having to stop for a Gatorade.

I was thinking this, too.

I can't imagine anyone--even those from out of town--thinking that walking 3-4 blocks to a subway station in NYC is too far to handle.

Re: another comment, the Paris Metro _is_ dense enough to work in the city proper - but only in the city proper. A side effect is that the service is super-slow except on 1-2 lines. The slow speed makes it nearly impossible to expand to the marginal/suburb areas, so you wind up with a similar situation to New York's outer boroughs.

Re: Where the New York City Subway Doesn't Go

#38

Post by michaelpinto » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 3:40 PM UTC

Something tech folks may find of interest is that eons before Uber there were private van sharing services in Queens that operated near all of the final subway stops like Jamaica. Also due to the lack of yellow cabs you'd tend to use black car services to fill the taxi void.

Re: Where the New York City Subway Doesn't Go

#39

Post by fluxquanta » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 3:44 PM UTC

codingdave wrote: post #18

melling wrote: post #6

It doesn't go to New Jersey either, but it should. http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/extend-7-train-secaucus-art...

Did something happen to the PATH trains? I always used those when work took me to NJ.

PATH was screwed up for years after 9/11.

Re: Where the New York City Subway Doesn't Go

#40

Post by harryjo » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 3:59 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #10

Ignoring the bus lines is pretty wacky. I grew up in Queens, and rode the bus all of the time. My dad took the bus to the express train to manhattan for several years. The bus isn't sexy, but it works and is often less unpleasant than the subway. Also, you need to remember how places like Queens developed. It was mostly little downs until about 100 years ago. The house I grew up in was part of a 120 acre farm as late…

The NY subway is filthy, hot, and loud. (Other systems, like DC Metro, are much nicer). "Sexy" tastes may vary, but buses are much nicer rides when you can get them.