People Who Live In Suburbs: Classy, Icky, or Dudes?

hmm. it seems like architecture is the type of thing where the technology isn't quite in place to make telecommuting a good option.

Oh, it definitely isn't quite there yet, but it seemed to be something that some of the larger firms were working towards at one point, but they seem to have moved away from even trying. It was never going to be a 100% of the time thing, I mean architecture is so collaborative by nature. Otoh, I can easily access AutoCAD, Revit, Outlook, and pretty much everything I need to do on any given day from home, so it could make sense for a day or two a week.

goole otm

To Dainger's point about travel between major transit lines, this is normal, I think? I'm in this situation all the time in Brooklyn, where the farther out you go along the subways, the farther any other subway line is from you, with no hope of transferring anywhere. A place could be just 1-2 miles east or west of you, and there'll be no transit to it without going many miles out of your way and taking at least an hour.

This is the price of doing business, imo? And exactly what buses and bikes are for.

Yeah, I think it's p normal too. If, for instance, I wanted to get to Call All Destroyer's place I'd have to take the train into the city center and then out again and it would probably take at least 45 - 60 mins whereas I can drive to that area in 15.

lol yes i was thinking about my trip to simmons but my trip to your place is just as bad!

Yeah - I mean I could walk to Simmon's in under 10 mins from where I am at work right now but it must be a huge pain in the ass for you to get there all the time. :(

yeah for the most part i drive

there's this thing called a "bus" yanno

What y'all need is a little thing called Love Is . . . Zipcar.

No, there *would* be things called buses that would make sense, but nobody runs them past 5pm

hence my earlier use of the word "arguably"

there's this thing called a "bus" yanno

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Monday, April 25, 2011 4:33 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

i could bore you by listing bus schedules but really now

To Dainger's point about travel between major transit lines, this is normal, I think? I'm in this situation all the time in Brooklyn, where the farther out you go along the subways, the farther any other subway line is from you, with no hope of transferring anywhere. A place could be just 1-2 miles east or west of you, and there'll be no transit to it without going many miles out of your way and taking at least an hour.

This is the price of doing business, imo? And exactly what buses and bikes are for.

― Back up the lesbian canoe (Laurel), Monday, April 25, 2011 2:48 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I think this is the wrong attitude actually - I mean I <3 buses and bikes obv, but outer brooklyn could easily be served by more train lines (or streetcars!). there are lots of historical/$ reasons why it's not, but the capacity is def there. the B6 - which is only one of a handful of ring-type lines - had 14,046,274 riders in 2009 and on average 44,035 weekday riders. for comparison, baltimore's *entire heavy rail system* had 56,800 weekday riders, miami's entire heavy rail system had 60,000 weekday riders. unlike daingers's 'why is there not a train that goes directly from my front porch to my sister's front door? idgi' - there absolutely could and should be a train you should take for those trips.

Well, there's not a train because there's the perception that there's isn't enough need, or there are political things going on that make building one difficult.

I'd say a little of column A, a little of column B.

Rly? Given the amount of digging/upheaval/expense involved, I pretty much figure no new train lines will ever be dug in NYC. It just doesn't seem practical at all when there are perfectly good streets to run buses on.

yeah i was gonna say unless there are existing right-of-way type things for rail lines it doesn't really work like that!

I'm pretty sure they can take over land to build new/extend train lines, that's what they did here in Chicago recently for new stations and have kicked it around for future system expansions. Obviously way costly, but it can be done.

lets get some street cars up in this bitch

Would be so charmed by street cars but again, what's the advantage over a bus?

Yeah, I was referring more to Chicago.

NY is stuck unless some (lol) Robert Moses type is majorly influential.

charm, laurel

also they make the streets marginally more unfriendly to cars, which is a plus imo

Haha. Oh good, let's have that argument next.

charm, laurel

― ban drake (the rapper) (max), Monday, April 25, 2011 7:25 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i mean this, btw--iirc street cars that replace bus lines tend to increase ridership along those routes, afaict because street cars are more fun/cleaner/charminger

But isn't light rail already the new streetcar? And we already said itt that one of the problems with light rail is that it's an attempt to change public perceptions of public transit, ex it's new and clean and "modern"-feeling, but it's not quite USEFUL enough to tip them into favoring it?

i dont know what you mean? i mean its as "useful" as a city/a city's population is willing to make it

i mean im not going to object to putting a lot of money into MTA's bus system, believe me, my preference for street cars is marginal and in the end buses are way cheaper

anyway with gas prices at $5 my guess is that well be seeing a lot of changing attitudes toward public transpo, buses incl.

I don't buy that at all. It seems awful rich for people who live in cities that have good mass transit systems in place for 100 years to denigrate the efforts of cities that don't have that to catch up, when using heavy rail as anything more than a commuter service tied to existing rail lines isn't feasible. On top of that, when I lived in Portland, the light rail was incredibly useful, and 90% of how I got around. And streetcars serve different purposes than light rail: streetcars work best for short-distance hauls in dense areas where volume is more important than speed, whereas light rail with dedicated ROW and longer station distances can be used to connect all parts of a metropolitan area. xp

In Portland, the light rail trains leaving downtown at rush hour are packed to the point of uncomfortability. Not useful, my ass.

RELAX, REV. I love light rail. I love all trains. But it's been a total flop here as far as I can tell, although I'd be delighted to hear otherwise. I really was asking for the differences, so thank you for your informative post!

what light rail are you talking about lg? hoboken?

Also, rail infrastructure frees up buses to provide more service beyond the highest-ridership corridors.

Where is "here"?

Yeah, max. The one from Hoboken to JC to...Bayonne?? It was supposed to open up tons of housing to commuters from places the PATH didn't reach -- did that ever really happen?

I mean, yeah, if light rail (or any other mass transit system) is poorly implemented, then of course it's not going to be useful.

I've seen a lot of confusion about what constitutes a suburb, so I present to you, the definitive suburb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C00cNNGbQWM

(also the best way of traveling around in a suburb)

well if it doesn't work in jersey then we might as well give up

lol

Rly? Given the amount of digging/upheaval/expense involved, I pretty much figure no new train lines will ever be dug in NYC. It just doesn't seem practical at all when there are perfectly good streets to run buses on.

― Back up the lesbian canoe (Laurel), Monday, April 25, 2011 6:02 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah i was gonna say unless there are existing right-of-way type things for rail lines it doesn't really work like that!

― call all destroyer, Monday, April 25, 2011 6:12 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I'm pretty sure they can take over land to build new/extend train lines, that's what they did here in Chicago recently for new stations and have kicked it around for future system expansions. Obviously way costly, but it can be done.

― 'what are you, the Hymen Protection League of America?' (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Monday, April 25, 2011 6:14 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

if you can dig under yorkville, you can dig in brooklyn. it's always been a combo of 'we're not willing to find/spend the money' + 'we can't build subways half as cheap as other developed countries for some mysterious reason' + 'nimbyism'

I posted about this on the bridge thread, but: http://transit.frumin.net/trx/TriboroRX

this is sorta the next logical step and the right of ways already exist. the MTA has even kinda once acknowledged the existence of the idea, not that they'll have the budget to even think about these things anytime soon.

I respect your bus-love laurel but the density in the far outer boroughs is way beyond what should be handled by buses alone. like, forget brooklyn - the borough of queens is denser than san francisco - would you be arguing that sf shouldn't build transit beyond buses if muni/bart didn't exist? and when multiple buslines in brooklyn have more ridership than other cities entire transit systems, well...and yeah it's expensive but it's the kinda expensive that's worth it - infrastructure that creates economic value and lasts 100 years.

also they make the streets marginally more unfriendly to cars, which is a plus imo

― ban drake (the rapper) (max), Monday, April 25, 2011 6:26 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol otm

here read this old article and look at the dreamy maps : http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/05/07/streetcars-for-brooklyn-a-new-life/

course, they just vetoed the red hook one

Another thing about streetcars vs LR: streetcars can take steeper grades, which is a big deal in Seattle when everything is at the top or bottom of a hill. When the First Hill streetcar is up and running, it will be able to provide street-level mass-transit service to First Hill & Capitol Hill (two of the densest neighborhoods in the city), whereas the only light rail station in those areas will be a single subway station deep under Cap Hill, because the light rail has to go under Seattle's hills, not over them.

more like shite rail

Listen, you've got me all wrong. I like buses, but buses are basically just big cars and I KNOW cars. But when I moved to NY, I had barely ever been on a train, only for one trip in my whole life, we had no passenger rail of any kind where I'm from, and trains were magical to me. Still are. I am all for trains of any description.

I don't dislike light rail, I just don't really understand it and I've only ever been on one system, and at the time, it didn't appear to GO anywhere that people rly needed. I think the system has been expanded since then, and looking it up today gave me the desire to go and spend a day just riding all 20 miles of it.

'why is there not a train that goes directly from my front porch to my sister's front door? idgi'

u r the perfect ilxor

there absolutely could and should be a train you should take for those trips.

what trips are these again?

from your porch to your sisters front door

iirc laurel sometimes leaves her house in brooklyn, to visit other parts of brooklyn, it is called brooklyning

i don't even have a porch SHOWS WHAT U KNO

xp The New York Times is going to do an article on it soon probably.

so like public trans trips that would be made shorter by connecting 2 existing rail lines?? or??

Well, no...new train lines that would travel horizontally across the boroughs connecting points east and west, not just running north-south into Manhattan, which is what most of them do now.