3 ms·

Don't be ridiculous. Very little of your 90 minute suburb commute is attributable to bike lanes and narrower lanes downtown. That probably adds 3 minutes. NYCDO

Don't be ridiculous. Very little of your 90 minute suburb commute is attributable to bike lanes and narrower lanes downtown. That probably adds 3 minutes. NYCDOT has done many studies, and sometimes it even speeds traffic up because there's less lane changing in dense traffic, which wastes lane-time. Adding bike lanes also tends to make motorists and pedestrians (but paradoxically, not really cyclists) safer. You're welcome. Most of your crap commute is caused by too many drivers on the freeway and arterial roads, where you spend most of your stop-and-go time. The bigger problem is you insist on an absurdly large amount of living space (which is what causes all the sprawl and traffic) If you compromise on this, then in most US cities you can get a reasonable commute at a reasonable price

closeparen 10y ago
Having lived in a hacker-house bunk, a 600sqft 1-bedroom is in fact not an absurd amount of living space to insist on, yet affording one (while keeping the commute to 60 minutes each way) requires driving part of the way. It's hard not to scream at the people telling me I should go back to a many-roommates situation, or lose even more than 10 hours a week commuting. The average car travel time to work in the US is 25 minutes [0], by the way. [0] https://project.wnyc.org/commute-times-us/embed.html#5.00/42.000/-89.500 https://project.wnyc.org/commute-times-us/embed.html#5.00/42...
- galdosdi 10y ago
  Yes, that IS an absurd amount of room to insist on. No wonder we have a housing crisis. 600 square feet is enough for about TEN rooms of size 6x10 each. Think about that. Maybe it's arranged very poorly. Typical arrangements make it easy to waste lots of room. Also, if you grew up with lots of space and have never lived smaller, maybe it takes a while to get used to how to arrange things more efficiently? Source: I live in 330 square feet, and have for many years (though I lived in 300sqft before that, and it was too small -- mainly because of the layout, which was square, which minimized perimeter; railroad layout feels much more spacious)

closeparen 10y ago

Having lived in a hacker-house bunk, a 600sqft 1-bedroom is in fact not an absurd amount of living space to insist on, yet affording one (while keeping the commute to 60 minutes each way) requires driving part of the way. It's hard not to scream at the people telling me I should go back to a many-roommates situation, or lose even more than 10 hours a week commuting. The average car travel time to work in the US is 25 minutes [0], by the way. [0] https://project.wnyc.org/commute-times-us/embed.html#5.00/42.000/-89.500 https://project.wnyc.org/commute-times-us/embed.html#5.00/42...

galdosdi 10y ago
Yes, that IS an absurd amount of room to insist on. No wonder we have a housing crisis. 600 square feet is enough for about TEN rooms of size 6x10 each. Think about that. Maybe it's arranged very poorly. Typical arrangements make it easy to waste lots of room. Also, if you grew up with lots of space and have never lived smaller, maybe it takes a while to get used to how to arrange things more efficiently? Source: I live in 330 square feet, and have for many years (though I lived in 300sqft before that, and it was too small -- mainly because of the layout, which was square, which minimized perimeter; railroad layout feels much more spacious)