5 ms·

The reason those commutes are awful is not because Manhattan is unaffordable. The areas around New York City are among the least functional urban zones I've eve

by nihonde 10y ago

The reason those commutes are awful is not because Manhattan is unaffordable. The areas around New York City are among the least functional urban zones I've ever encountered. Total, utter, abject mismanagement of resources——and I say that as someone who used to live in Sheldon Silver's district of Manhattan. It's unreasonable to expect Manhattan to be affordable, but it's not unreasonable to expect the surrounding areas to be safe, able to operate trains, have reasonable housing, etc. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but New Jersey and Long Island are a toxic trash fire compared to somewhere like Tokyo. I wouldn't send my worst enemies to live in a place like Jersey City or East New York.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
I have to agree. It always boggles me when I visit Manhattan and think to myself: "This is one of the richest and grandest cities in human history - so why are the public spaces so putrid?" Constantly stepping on old gum and cigarette butts...and God help you if you need to use the subway on a hot summer day. I often feel the same way walking about San Francisco and encountering the unmistakeable stench of human excrement. Having been to old European cities like Berlin and Rome, I was surprised at how graffiti-strewn their walls tended to be, but at least their streets were CLEAN!
- douche 10y ago
  Berlin is without a doubt the nicest city I have ever been to. Every time I go there, I think to myself, why couldn't the T in Boston be 10% as nice as the U/S-Bahn system? I absolutely hate cities, and I think I could possibly stomach living in Berlin.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    It's a shame the US really came into its own around the time of the automobile. Once cities were designed around cars, it became impossible to dislodge. Old European cities were constrained by the distance one could reasonably travel by foot, so they were densely packed together. When I lived in Rome for a short while, every service I needed - groceries, dining, haircut, gelato - was within a 3-block radius. Pretty much the entire city was like that. As much as we want to densify in the US, the fact is that two-lane streets with sidewalks HUGELY increase the distance between buildings and are horrible for walkability. Most of the twisty streets in Rome could fit 1 Fiat at a time. I wish we could do that here, but we would A: have to knock down almost everything and start from scratch, and B: figure out a way for emergency services to get there and back quickly.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      I agree with this. With cars came the idea that different parts of the city could be optimized for different things. Work in one place, shop in another, sleep in yet a third. But that means you have no option but to spend a lot of time traveling between these places.
    - nihonde 10y ago
      Another small thing that makes a big difference: in Japan there is basically no street parking anywhere. There's a ton of small automated parking lots, and lots of car-elevator parking. When you buy a car, the police visit to confirm that you have a private parking spot. Not having the visual noise and clutter of parked cars everywhere makes it easier to keep the place clean, makes room for bicycles, etc.
akgerber 10y ago
The areas surrounding Manhattan are very safe (especially by American urban standards) and the MTA is an reasonably capable railroad operator. It's terrible at capital projects, however.
- nihonde 10y ago
  Come to Japan, and I will show you safe cities and trains that work. Even your measuring stick is broken.
- krschultz 10y ago
  The MTA is a pretty horrible railroad operator. It goes far beyond being bad at capital projects. They're not good at day to day operation of a railroad (look at the % of trains that are deadheaded). They're not good at labor relations. There is insane intra-organization disfunction between MetroNorth and LIRR. Worst of all, they're seemingly getting worse at safety. I believe a large part of the problem is that the MTA is actually funded/managed by Albany instead of NYC, even though it only serves NYC. That makes 0 sense. I also think it's time to eliminate the distinction between the LIRR and MetroNorth.
  - Nav_Panel 10y ago
    > I believe a large part of the problem is that the MTA is actually funded/managed by Albany instead of NYC, even though it only serves NYC. That makes 0 sense. I also think it's time to eliminate the distinction between the LIRR and MetroNorth. Brief storytime about the MTA. When the subways were built from the 00s through the 20s, some of the lines were owned by private operators, specifically the IRT (Interborough Rapid Transit) and BMT (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit), and some were owned by the city: the IND (the INDepdent Subway System). Then, then depression hit. Fares were pegged at 5 cents. All the private companies were bought by the city. The MTA was formed. Now, by the early 50s, the MTA controls the entire subway system. Around this time, Robert Moses works to convert NYC to a fully car-based city. Subway ridership declines. The elevated lines are torn down, streetcar service halted. The MTA goes bankrupt in the 1970s. They're bailed out/bought up by Albany, thus leading to the current system where Albany controls the MTA. I agree that control of the MTA should go back to the city, but good luck getting Cuomo to give it up. > They're not good at labor relations Indeed, yet the labor unions are also part of why the operating costs are so high. Each active subway train requires two human employees according to union policies. On lines with CBTC installed, no humans are technically required. The unions also fight against automation improvements such as this that could dramatically improve capacity and cut costs. > There is insane intra-organization disfunction between MetroNorth and LIRR. Not to mention NJ Transit, the PATH, and, forward-looking, DeBlasio's proposed waterfront light rail (which would be operated by another authority entirely).
sampo 10y ago
> The areas around New York City are among the least functional urban zones I've ever encountered. I would assume the greater NYC is the best functioning urban area in the USA? However, if you measure by European or Japanese standards, then everything in USA is bad.
- boxy310 10y ago
  I remember on reddit when a Swedish guy started randomly looking at Google street views in northern Indiana, and was remarking how the occupied properties look like they were abandoned, and how often guns were brandished at the Google StreetView car. The houses looked exactly the same as those within a 10-minute drive from my house in a major American metro area. A big part of it is how young American cities are. Many European cities are celebrating 800 or 1000-year anniversaries. Many American cities are celebrating 100 or 150-year anniversaries.
- rsync 10y ago
  "I would assume the greater NYC is the best functioning urban area in the USA?" Probably not. I'm thinking Denver and Minneapolis, pound for pound ? Maybe Las Vegas ... as terrible (aesthetically) as Las Vegas is and as hellish as I think it is to be there, it seems to function fairly well. Actually, now that I am thinking about it, I'll bet San Diego is probably the best managed urban area in the US.
  - jhbadger 10y ago
    Well, the public transit in SD is terrible. There is the "trolley", which basically a toy serving the downtown, and a bus system where most of the routes stop at 7pm and don't run on weekends at all. I recently moved back to the Washington DC area after living for some years in SD and despite the troubles of the Metro, it is 1000x better than the SD situation.
    - rsync 10y ago
      "Well, the public transit in SD is terrible." Agreed. But the question was which city is best managed, not which has better amenities in one or the other category. Having lived in both DC and SD, I would give say San Diego is relatively better managed.
legutierr 10y ago
If you think that Jersey City or East New York are representative of the areas around New York City, then you don't know the region well at all. Along the commuter train lines extending out of the city you will find many of the most beautiful, safest, most walkable, best-educated (with good public schools), most politically-engaged, and community-oriented towns in the country. Yes, there is a massive disparity of wealth in New York City, and in the region generally, and that definitely has an impact on the livability of many places within the region. The suburbs of New York are among the most wealthy communities in the US, but several of NJ's cities are among the poorest; unfortunately, there is also a racial component to that disparity that must not be ignored. To really live well in the NYC area, unfortunately, you must have money, which makes living here very hard for many young people starting out. But beyond a doubt it is easier (and cheaper) to live well around New York City and still be an hour's train ride from downtown than it is in San Francisco or LA. And only in this region do you still find successful adults who don't even have a driver's license, let alone a car. I don't know Tokyo, so I can't comment on the direct comparison you made. But I would suggest that every urban area in the world has its disadvantaged neighborhoods, and if you are comparing the wealthiest parts of the cities you have visited to the poorest parts of the NYC region, then that is not a fair comparison.
- nihonde 10y ago
  I lived in lower Manhattan for 20 years. I know the region well. Perhaps you would consider places like Forest Hills, Queens or Bushwick, Brooklyn or Staten Island or Hoboken or Teaneck or Westchester to be the "most beautiful, safest, most walkable, best-educated (with good public schools), most politically-engaged, and community-oriented towns in the country". For me, none of those places are within even the top 200 "most beautiful, safest, most walkable, best-educated...etc." places that I've been to in America or elsewhere. Do I have high standards? Yes. My personal opinion is that the area around NYC sets a low standard and achieves against it, and that comments like yours perpetuate the fundamental issue, which is essentially a stubborn kind of underachievement.
  - legutierr 10y ago
    I was thinking more Summit, Madison, Larchmont, Bronxville, Mamaroneck, Ramsey, Ho-ho-kus, Sleepy Hollow, Tarrytown, Nyack, Nanuet...and that's a pretty short list, and not including anywhere in Long Island or the 5 Boroughs. One thing that you will probably agree with, being as you are someone who lived for so long in lower Manhattan, is the fact that most people who live in lower Manhattan will frequently find reasons to avoid leaving the confines of Manhattan and Brooklyn whenever possible. Perhaps you don't know the region as well as you think you do?

by nihonde 10y ago

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

I have to agree. It always boggles me when I visit Manhattan and think to myself: "This is one of the richest and grandest cities in human history - so why are the public spaces so putrid?" Constantly stepping on old gum and cigarette butts...and God help you if you need to use the subway on a hot summer day. I often feel the same way walking about San Francisco and encountering the unmistakeable stench of human excrement. Having been to old European cities like Berlin and Rome, I was surprised at how graffiti-strewn their walls tended to be, but at least their streets were CLEAN!

douche 10y ago
Berlin is without a doubt the nicest city I have ever been to. Every time I go there, I think to myself, why couldn't the T in Boston be 10% as nice as the U/S-Bahn system? I absolutely hate cities, and I think I could possibly stomach living in Berlin.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  It's a shame the US really came into its own around the time of the automobile. Once cities were designed around cars, it became impossible to dislodge. Old European cities were constrained by the distance one could reasonably travel by foot, so they were densely packed together. When I lived in Rome for a short while, every service I needed - groceries, dining, haircut, gelato - was within a 3-block radius. Pretty much the entire city was like that. As much as we want to densify in the US, the fact is that two-lane streets with sidewalks HUGELY increase the distance between buildings and are horrible for walkability. Most of the twisty streets in Rome could fit 1 Fiat at a time. I wish we could do that here, but we would A: have to knock down almost everything and start from scratch, and B: figure out a way for emergency services to get there and back quickly.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    I agree with this. With cars came the idea that different parts of the city could be optimized for different things. Work in one place, shop in another, sleep in yet a third. But that means you have no option but to spend a lot of time traveling between these places.
  - nihonde 10y ago
    Another small thing that makes a big difference: in Japan there is basically no street parking anywhere. There's a ton of small automated parking lots, and lots of car-elevator parking. When you buy a car, the police visit to confirm that you have a private parking spot. Not having the visual noise and clutter of parked cars everywhere makes it easier to keep the place clean, makes room for bicycles, etc.

akgerber 10y ago

The areas surrounding Manhattan are very safe (especially by American urban standards) and the MTA is an reasonably capable railroad operator. It's terrible at capital projects, however.

nihonde 10y ago
Come to Japan, and I will show you safe cities and trains that work. Even your measuring stick is broken.
krschultz 10y ago
The MTA is a pretty horrible railroad operator. It goes far beyond being bad at capital projects. They're not good at day to day operation of a railroad (look at the % of trains that are deadheaded). They're not good at labor relations. There is insane intra-organization disfunction between MetroNorth and LIRR. Worst of all, they're seemingly getting worse at safety. I believe a large part of the problem is that the MTA is actually funded/managed by Albany instead of NYC, even though it only serves NYC. That makes 0 sense. I also think it's time to eliminate the distinction between the LIRR and MetroNorth.
- Nav_Panel 10y ago
  > I believe a large part of the problem is that the MTA is actually funded/managed by Albany instead of NYC, even though it only serves NYC. That makes 0 sense. I also think it's time to eliminate the distinction between the LIRR and MetroNorth. Brief storytime about the MTA. When the subways were built from the 00s through the 20s, some of the lines were owned by private operators, specifically the IRT (Interborough Rapid Transit) and BMT (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit), and some were owned by the city: the IND (the INDepdent Subway System). Then, then depression hit. Fares were pegged at 5 cents. All the private companies were bought by the city. The MTA was formed. Now, by the early 50s, the MTA controls the entire subway system. Around this time, Robert Moses works to convert NYC to a fully car-based city. Subway ridership declines. The elevated lines are torn down, streetcar service halted. The MTA goes bankrupt in the 1970s. They're bailed out/bought up by Albany, thus leading to the current system where Albany controls the MTA. I agree that control of the MTA should go back to the city, but good luck getting Cuomo to give it up. > They're not good at labor relations Indeed, yet the labor unions are also part of why the operating costs are so high. Each active subway train requires two human employees according to union policies. On lines with CBTC installed, no humans are technically required. The unions also fight against automation improvements such as this that could dramatically improve capacity and cut costs. > There is insane intra-organization disfunction between MetroNorth and LIRR. Not to mention NJ Transit, the PATH, and, forward-looking, DeBlasio's proposed waterfront light rail (which would be operated by another authority entirely).

sampo 10y ago

> The areas around New York City are among the least functional urban zones I've ever encountered. I would assume the greater NYC is the best functioning urban area in the USA? However, if you measure by European or Japanese standards, then everything in USA is bad.

boxy310 10y ago
I remember on reddit when a Swedish guy started randomly looking at Google street views in northern Indiana, and was remarking how the occupied properties look like they were abandoned, and how often guns were brandished at the Google StreetView car. The houses looked exactly the same as those within a 10-minute drive from my house in a major American metro area. A big part of it is how young American cities are. Many European cities are celebrating 800 or 1000-year anniversaries. Many American cities are celebrating 100 or 150-year anniversaries.
rsync 10y ago
"I would assume the greater NYC is the best functioning urban area in the USA?" Probably not. I'm thinking Denver and Minneapolis, pound for pound ? Maybe Las Vegas ... as terrible (aesthetically) as Las Vegas is and as hellish as I think it is to be there, it seems to function fairly well. Actually, now that I am thinking about it, I'll bet San Diego is probably the best managed urban area in the US.
- jhbadger 10y ago
  Well, the public transit in SD is terrible. There is the "trolley", which basically a toy serving the downtown, and a bus system where most of the routes stop at 7pm and don't run on weekends at all. I recently moved back to the Washington DC area after living for some years in SD and despite the troubles of the Metro, it is 1000x better than the SD situation.
  - rsync 10y ago
    "Well, the public transit in SD is terrible." Agreed. But the question was which city is best managed, not which has better amenities in one or the other category. Having lived in both DC and SD, I would give say San Diego is relatively better managed.

legutierr 10y ago

If you think that Jersey City or East New York are representative of the areas around New York City, then you don't know the region well at all. Along the commuter train lines extending out of the city you will find many of the most beautiful, safest, most walkable, best-educated (with good public schools), most politically-engaged, and community-oriented towns in the country. Yes, there is a massive disparity of wealth in New York City, and in the region generally, and that definitely has an impact on the livability of many places within the region. The suburbs of New York are among the most wealthy communities in the US, but several of NJ's cities are among the poorest; unfortunately, there is also a racial component to that disparity that must not be ignored. To really live well in the NYC area, unfortunately, you must have money, which makes living here very hard for many young people starting out. But beyond a doubt it is easier (and cheaper) to live well around New York City and still be an hour's train ride from downtown than it is in San Francisco or LA. And only in this region do you still find successful adults who don't even have a driver's license, let alone a car. I don't know Tokyo, so I can't comment on the direct comparison you made. But I would suggest that every urban area in the world has its disadvantaged neighborhoods, and if you are comparing the wealthiest parts of the cities you have visited to the poorest parts of the NYC region, then that is not a fair comparison.

nihonde 10y ago
I lived in lower Manhattan for 20 years. I know the region well. Perhaps you would consider places like Forest Hills, Queens or Bushwick, Brooklyn or Staten Island or Hoboken or Teaneck or Westchester to be the "most beautiful, safest, most walkable, best-educated (with good public schools), most politically-engaged, and community-oriented towns in the country". For me, none of those places are within even the top 200 "most beautiful, safest, most walkable, best-educated...etc." places that I've been to in America or elsewhere. Do I have high standards? Yes. My personal opinion is that the area around NYC sets a low standard and achieves against it, and that comments like yours perpetuate the fundamental issue, which is essentially a stubborn kind of underachievement.
- legutierr 10y ago
  I was thinking more Summit, Madison, Larchmont, Bronxville, Mamaroneck, Ramsey, Ho-ho-kus, Sleepy Hollow, Tarrytown, Nyack, Nanuet...and that's a pretty short list, and not including anywhere in Long Island or the 5 Boroughs. One thing that you will probably agree with, being as you are someone who lived for so long in lower Manhattan, is the fact that most people who live in lower Manhattan will frequently find reasons to avoid leaving the confines of Manhattan and Brooklyn whenever possible. Perhaps you don't know the region as well as you think you do?