3 ms·

Yeah ive been to manhattan, I live drive and bike there. I'm a licensed yellow taxi driver too, though I don't start work till next week. Latency is bad but th

Yeah ive been to manhattan, I live drive and bike there. I'm a licensed yellow taxi driver too, though I don't start work till next week. Latency is bad but thoroighput is amazingly good. With the high level of wealth theres no physical way short of congestion charges that manhattan wouldn't be clogged all the time. Tbqh outside of the PM rush,core midtown, and the tunnel ramp areas, I find driving in manhattan during the day to be just fine. You don't go faster than a bicycle, but what do you expect? Thanks to the grid you are still able to make consistent progress toward your destination. When your vehicle size is so inefficiently large in such a dense place, merely matching speed of the effecient modes is a freaking miracle, not a disaster. It's true manhattan has a certain amount if hierarchy but its optional, unlike a classic suburban pattern. You can still take 28th instead of going to 34th or 42nd if you want, and depending on how far you're going this may be faster. You meant FDR and West Side. These are only 6 lanes each and only contribute about as much as an extra avenue each. Can you explain why LA and manhattan size or aspect ratio make them incomparable rather than just hand waving? I've thought a lot about how a green wave system can be applied even in a very square town.

bogomipz 9y ago
>"Latency is bad but thoroighput is amazingly good." No the throughput is most certainly "amazingly good." The number of of avenues and major east-west thoroughfares is small compared to the number of one lane one way street. Throughput is decreased further by the volume construction that happens now, the protected bile line and dedicated bus lanes. >"Can you explain why LA and manhattan size or aspect ratio make them incomparable rather than just hand waving? " There was nothing hand wavy abut anything I wrote. Nor did it concern aspect ratios, there is nothing geometric about the footprint of LA at all. The fact that Los Angeles is such a sprawl means that amount track miles it would now take to provide similar transit coverage isn't feasible. And probably never will be. There will never be a train that takes someone from Northridge to Culver City or from Westwood to Altadena.
- galdosdi 9y ago
  Have YOU been to manhattan lately? How much have you driven there? > The number of of avenues and major east-west thoroughfares is small compared to the number of one lane one way street. Uh, you're begging the question. Each of those one lane one way streets adds one lane of capacity, but you seem to assume they each add zero lanes of capacity. I don't get that. Zero != One. Also, actually, most of those cross streets are two lane roads. They're unpainted in many cases except in midtown, which is probably why you think they're all one lane. If you recount throughout available with both of those two above facts in mind you'll get an order of magnitude more capacity. Also most avenues have 3 to 5 lanes. Time based regulations increase these in some areas, there are "no standing between 7a-7p" lanes all over town. It may well be that you even live in manhattan but it sounds like you have not driven there much or you would have over time observed all these features. They make a big difference. > The fact that Los Angeles is such a sprawl means that amount track miles it would now take to provide similar transit coverage isn't feasible. Huh? You were talking about road layout not rail though. You still haven't said why, regarding well signalled road grids, LA and manhattan are incomparable.

bogomipz 9y ago

>"Latency is bad but thoroighput is amazingly good." No the throughput is most certainly "amazingly good." The number of of avenues and major east-west thoroughfares is small compared to the number of one lane one way street. Throughput is decreased further by the volume construction that happens now, the protected bile line and dedicated bus lanes. >"Can you explain why LA and manhattan size or aspect ratio make them incomparable rather than just hand waving? " There was nothing hand wavy abut anything I wrote. Nor did it concern aspect ratios, there is nothing geometric about the footprint of LA at all. The fact that Los Angeles is such a sprawl means that amount track miles it would now take to provide similar transit coverage isn't feasible. And probably never will be. There will never be a train that takes someone from Northridge to Culver City or from Westwood to Altadena.

galdosdi 9y ago
Have YOU been to manhattan lately? How much have you driven there? > The number of of avenues and major east-west thoroughfares is small compared to the number of one lane one way street. Uh, you're begging the question. Each of those one lane one way streets adds one lane of capacity, but you seem to assume they each add zero lanes of capacity. I don't get that. Zero != One. Also, actually, most of those cross streets are two lane roads. They're unpainted in many cases except in midtown, which is probably why you think they're all one lane. If you recount throughout available with both of those two above facts in mind you'll get an order of magnitude more capacity. Also most avenues have 3 to 5 lanes. Time based regulations increase these in some areas, there are "no standing between 7a-7p" lanes all over town. It may well be that you even live in manhattan but it sounds like you have not driven there much or you would have over time observed all these features. They make a big difference. > The fact that Los Angeles is such a sprawl means that amount track miles it would now take to provide similar transit coverage isn't feasible. Huh? You were talking about road layout not rail though. You still haven't said why, regarding well signalled road grids, LA and manhattan are incomparable.