4 ms·

Even that's not really the whole picture. Sure, a road, completely standalone, can cost similarly between a 1k skyscraper and a suburban house. But the road i

Even that's not really the whole picture. Sure, a road, completely standalone, can cost similarly between a 1k skyscraper and a suburban house. But the road in front of a 1k skyscraper alone will never be enough to transport those people, unless you bump it's price up (make it wide, tack on a parking garage, etc). To prevent that, you'll need something extra (Subway, LRT, a bus line), and that cost will immediately be way higher per-person than the suburban road ever would be. This is something urbanists / StrongTowns types routinely misunderstand. Roads aren't cheap, but they are almost always the cheapest form of public transportation possible in nearly every situation. (Yes, even in total cost of ownership. Yes, even when including the public funding in their cost. And yes, even when including personal vehicle costs). The minute you put even the lightest form of alternative public transit on that road, the cost spikes exponentially. Even the cost to run just a basic busline, with a driver on a timetable, costs more in one year than the entire construction + maintenance budget of that road will cost over 6+ years. (This is not an argument against alt. public transit. I support alt public transit. We should have more trains, subways, and buses, everywhere. It just isn't cheap -- it would require us to spend way more per rider on transit than we are used to, which is why most places are built with public roads only -- it's the absolute cheapest TCO option in nearly every situation)

Retric 7y ago
The most critical transportation infrastructure in NYC is sidewalks. They work really well because walking in a dense urban area is the rough equivalent of traveling hundreds of miles of hour in the suburbs. Manhattan‘s 1.5 million commuters very much depend on roads, busses, and rail to get to work, but the city can devote far less land to roads and build fewer and shorter due to the density. Subway + sidewalk = highway + local roads. So try that comparison of a bus vs 100+x as much roads. Because, Manhattan has infrastructure for 1.6 million residents and 1.5 million commuters. That includes stuff like like office space and schools so your talking about a full state in under 23 square miles with 1.3 square miles of that being parks. Try doing that in the suburbs where most buildings have ground level parking lots and you need massive amounts of granted relatively inexpensive roads.
- maxsilver 7y ago
  "Walking" is not transportation infrastructure, it is a lack of transportation infrastructure. That's doesn't mean walking is bad (walking is great!), but it doesn't count as transit infrastructure. Claiming walking as "transportation infrastructure" is like saying a homeless man's sleeping bag is "housing infrastructure". > Manhattan has infrastructure for 1.6 million residents and 1.5 million commuters. Except it doesn't quite, though, does it? Despite Manhattan being one of the wealthiest places in America, and despite it having the highest funded transit agency in the nation, Manhattan is critically short on transportation infrastructure for it's residents. It has the second-worst commute times in the nation (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-top-20-worst-commutes-in-america-2017-12-07 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-top-20-worst...) and its transit agency is notorious for delays and problems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_transit_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_transit_cri...) . NYC transportation is so bad that chartering a private helicopter is a viable alternative - https://www.uber.com/blog/new-york-city/uber-copter/ https://www.uber.com/blog/new-york-city/uber-copter/ (Again, I support alternative public transit and despite NYC's issues, we should still be building more subways and trains across the US. But the idea that they are some sort of panacea is a lie, the idea that "save money" is not true, and the idea that they are cheaper for individual persons to use is only true if they are subsidized to an exceptionally higher dollar amount, far above any that public car transport ever has been). > Try doing that (housing 1.6 million residents in 23 square miles) in the suburbs Wait, no one is arguing that density isn't dense -- obviously Manhattan is one of the densest places in the US, far denser than any suburb. I agree entirely. But also, almost no one can afford to live in Manhattan, and most municipalities could never handle the cost nor the complexity of building/maintaining another Manhattan. (Arguably, NYC itself sometimes can't handle the cost/complexity of maintaining Manhattan). Only 0.3% of Americans live in Manhattan. ~99% of the 1+ million residents of my hometown here in Michigan will never be able to afford to live in Manhattan or any place like it. Every single adult here would need a 200-400% raise before we could afford to live a dense urban lifestyle anything like how Manhattanites do. No one is arguing that density isn't dense. The argument is that density is inherently more complicated, inherently more expensive, and requires massive amounts of extra money to pull off.

Retric 7y ago

The most critical transportation infrastructure in NYC is sidewalks. They work really well because walking in a dense urban area is the rough equivalent of traveling hundreds of miles of hour in the suburbs. Manhattan‘s 1.5 million commuters very much depend on roads, busses, and rail to get to work, but the city can devote far less land to roads and build fewer and shorter due to the density. Subway + sidewalk = highway + local roads. So try that comparison of a bus vs 100+x as much roads. Because, Manhattan has infrastructure for 1.6 million residents and 1.5 million commuters. That includes stuff like like office space and schools so your talking about a full state in under 23 square miles with 1.3 square miles of that being parks. Try doing that in the suburbs where most buildings have ground level parking lots and you need massive amounts of granted relatively inexpensive roads.

maxsilver 7y ago
"Walking" is not transportation infrastructure, it is a lack of transportation infrastructure. That's doesn't mean walking is bad (walking is great!), but it doesn't count as transit infrastructure. Claiming walking as "transportation infrastructure" is like saying a homeless man's sleeping bag is "housing infrastructure". > Manhattan has infrastructure for 1.6 million residents and 1.5 million commuters. Except it doesn't quite, though, does it? Despite Manhattan being one of the wealthiest places in America, and despite it having the highest funded transit agency in the nation, Manhattan is critically short on transportation infrastructure for it's residents. It has the second-worst commute times in the nation (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-top-20-worst-commutes-in-america-2017-12-07 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-top-20-worst...) and its transit agency is notorious for delays and problems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_transit_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_transit_cri...) . NYC transportation is so bad that chartering a private helicopter is a viable alternative - https://www.uber.com/blog/new-york-city/uber-copter/ https://www.uber.com/blog/new-york-city/uber-copter/ (Again, I support alternative public transit and despite NYC's issues, we should still be building more subways and trains across the US. But the idea that they are some sort of panacea is a lie, the idea that "save money" is not true, and the idea that they are cheaper for individual persons to use is only true if they are subsidized to an exceptionally higher dollar amount, far above any that public car transport ever has been). > Try doing that (housing 1.6 million residents in 23 square miles) in the suburbs Wait, no one is arguing that density isn't dense -- obviously Manhattan is one of the densest places in the US, far denser than any suburb. I agree entirely. But also, almost no one can afford to live in Manhattan, and most municipalities could never handle the cost nor the complexity of building/maintaining another Manhattan. (Arguably, NYC itself sometimes can't handle the cost/complexity of maintaining Manhattan). Only 0.3% of Americans live in Manhattan. ~99% of the 1+ million residents of my hometown here in Michigan will never be able to afford to live in Manhattan or any place like it. Every single adult here would need a 200-400% raise before we could afford to live a dense urban lifestyle anything like how Manhattanites do. No one is arguing that density isn't dense. The argument is that density is inherently more complicated, inherently more expensive, and requires massive amounts of extra money to pull off.