[HN Gopher] How far can you get in 40 minutes from each subway s...
___________________________________________________________________
How far can you get in 40 minutes from each subway station in NYC?
Author : jxmorris12
Score : 218 points
Date : 2025-01-24 03:46 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (subwaysheds.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (subwaysheds.com)
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| Does it take into account the way that some subway lines run much
| less frequently than others?
| amanda99 wrote:
| No, it seems to assume changing trains is instantaneous and
| trains are waiting for you.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Which is why people prefer personal cars whenever possible.
| Mass transit has to operate at 5 minute intervals (so that
| you are waiting at most 10 to 15 minutes in the event of a
| missed connection).
|
| If it isn't that frequent, then I am going to opt for a
| personal car every chance I can. Using only the subway in
| Manhattan/some parts of Brooklyn is convenient, but as you
| stray further, it starts getting tedious.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Mass transit has to operate at 5 minute intervals (so
| that you are waiting at most 10 to 15 minutes in the event
| of a missed connection).
|
| Which is not only possible, but quite feasible. Upgrading
| to provide six-minute service 24/7 would only require a
| one-time investment of $300M, because it is projected to
| raise enough revenue to pay for itself in the long term.
|
| Unfortunately the current governor is trying to _cut_
| transit funding again with her most recent budget proposal,
| so that 's unlikely to happen anytime soon.
| marcinzm wrote:
| I'm not convinced it'd pay for itself since maintenance
| still needs to be done so it's not really 6 minutes 24/7.
| The 7 train in theory runs on weekends and in theory runs
| fairly often. In practice it's down every other weekend
| for I think 5+ years now. The MTA does not have a good
| track record of timely maintenance and also seems to not
| care much about long term downtime (ie: like their
| original proposal for a 15 month closure of the L line).
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > The MTA does not have a good track record of timely
| maintenance
|
| A big part of that is because the MTA has been starved of
| funding for fifteen years now, to the point where they've
| had to substitute capital funds for operating funds in an
| effort to keep the lights on. Maintenance becomes more
| expensive when it's perpetually deferred - and it just
| became even more expensive because Hochul's inexplicable
| last-minute flop in June caused S&P to downgrade the
| MTA's credit rating, which means all future bonded
| capital projects will have to waste even more money on
| higher interest payments.
|
| > (ie: like their original proposal for a 15 month
| closure of the L line).
|
| That closure was intended to fix damage caused by
| Hurricane Sandy, and to bolster the tunnels against
| future climate disasters. The decision to forego the full
| maintenance (made unilaterally by then-Governor Cuomo as
| a political move) just kicked the can down the road.
| marcinzm wrote:
| Sure. My point is that cannot magically assume all of
| that will go away in the future when making forecasts on
| the impact of changes.
| bob_theslob646 wrote:
| You're conveniently forgetting out the nuance of the MTA.
| You do recall that the top person in the world for
| Transit quit because of the bureaucracy there, right?
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43561378
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > You're conveniently forgetting out the nuance of the
| MTA. You do recall that the top person in the world for
| Transit quit because of the bureaucracy there, right?
|
| Byford quit because of Andrew Cuomo, the then-governor,
| not because of bureaucracy within the MTA. This was
| widely reported even _before_ his resignation was
| official, but was confirmed explicitly later on[0].
|
| > _To use a transit analogy, Byford fled the MTA because
| he felt like he had been tied to the tracks while a train
| driven by Andrew Cuomo cut his legs off, Kramer reported_
|
| Which is my point: the governing authorities make
| political decisions to starve the MTA of funding or
| cancel capital projects at the last minute, which harms
| the MTA in the long run and creates many of the problems
| that people end up blaming the MTA for.
|
| [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/exclusive-andy-
| byford-m...
| chpatrick wrote:
| I live in Budapest and would definitely not prefer a
| personal car. Public transport is super convenient, cheap
| and fast here, and I don't need to worry about parking,
| fuel, congestion or maintenance.
| cmiller1 wrote:
| Mass transit and personal cars aren't necessarily mutually
| exclusive:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| They are mutually exclusive in the US because space for
| cars (current US sized cars) means everything is farther
| apart, which means the public transit is not economical,
| or lots of walking. And walking is more dangerous for
| pedestrians due to inattentive drivers and large arterial
| roads with wide crossings.
|
| The constraints lead to completely opposite designs,
| which is why only very few, very dense cities in the
| world have convenient public transit, and they also
| happen to be inconvenient for personal cars.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Plenty of metros run at 5 minute frequencies or less. Some
| _trams_ do, at peak times.
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| The highest frequency subway lines do 3 mins at peak,
| which is amazing.
| Symbiote wrote:
| The Victoria Line in London has a _100 second_ interval,
| although apparently in practise it 's more frequent:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ0zk4MWCQY
|
| From a quick search, there are also lines in Paris and
| Moscow with similar frequency.
| rsynnott wrote:
| There's a tram line in Dublin which hits every three
| minutes at peak times, which is just bonkers (it's not
| fully segregated, so if there's any traffic problem at
| all then about four of them end up piled up one behind
| the other). Its most busy section was meant to be
| converted to metro, but due to planning permission
| nonsense it will just continue to be one of the world's
| busiest tram lines until at least 2040 (it is actually
| higher peak time capacity than many metro lines at this
| point).
|
| They just got permission to go from 22 to 26 trams per
| hour at peak times. I'm thinking that by the time it gets
| metro-ified it'll just be a continuous procession.
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| In a car, you still need to park, which in NYC might take
| 20 mins and still leave you blocks from your destination.
| The other difference is what you can do with your travel
| time. While driving, you're limited to passive activities.
| Cabs and ride share solve this, for a price.
|
| But people do love car travel, regardless of the problems.
| I have a buddy who would nearly always opt for Uber, even
| at times when traffic made it slower than the subway.
| baq wrote:
| Technical term is isochrone map:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochrone_map
| kittikitti wrote:
| Thank you so much for this, I have trouble communicating time
| from maps even though its often so interconnected and this
| concept opens it up.
| pella wrote:
| "Full code for the isochrone workflow is available on"
|
| https://github.com/chriswhong/nyc-subway-isochrones
| davidw wrote:
| Mapbox also provides an isochrone API:
| https://docs.mapbox.com/playground/isochrone/
| intexpress wrote:
| Jackson Heights is the winner here
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| The loser is 241st in the Bronx. Can't even get out of the
| Borough.
|
| Unless we're also considering Staten Island, which few do :)
| mgce wrote:
| Also the Rockaways, which are famous for being remote and
| poorly transit-served.
| saltcod wrote:
| Very cool project
| Tade0 wrote:
| I'm of the opinion that every 500k+ city should have a subway
| line.
|
| I grew up in a city with one (just _one_ for the majority of my
| 20 years there) and if there 's one thing I miss from that place
| it's the ability to move at an _average_ speed of 35km /h at any
| time the trains were operating, especially at 2am on a Friday
| night after a couple of beers with the guys.
|
| The other thing I noticed when I was visiting my family there
| during the recent holidays is that there are so few cars in
| places close to the subway lines - roughly half the usual
| concentration. The incentive to have one is just not strong
| enough.
| xvedejas wrote:
| I'm of the opinion that it depends on density. You could build
| a subway line in some US cities of 1M and nobody would ride it;
| you could build a subway line in a city of 50k and everyone
| would ride it. It depends on whether there is density to
| support walking directly to many things (businesses,
| residences, and other transit lines) or not.
| HPsquared wrote:
| The subway is the big expensive investment. In theory,
| businesses and housing etc would develop around the stations.
| Like how suburbs develop around train stations.
| ghaff wrote:
| In theory. The commuter rail I sometimes take follows an
| old rail right of way. Some of the stations are in fairly
| developed areas. But some of those, like Concord,
| presumably predate even the original rail. And a lot of the
| towns are pretty spread out. You can't walk to much until
| you get to the last two stops in the city proper.
| jonahrd wrote:
| This is because the T is not a "real" transit system in
| the way that it's simply not designed to move enough
| people fast enough to compete with cars.
| ghaff wrote:
| Well, if I'm going into the city 9 to 5ish I'll usually
| take commuter rail because it's less painful even if it
| takes as long as driving. But I do need to drive to and
| park at the nearby commuter rail station.
| macNchz wrote:
| I imagine that at least one factor there is that building
| up is prohibited by zoning--a super brief glance at
| Concord's zoning map & code it looks like the only kind
| of residential buildings you can build anywhere without
| special permission are single-family.
|
| Now there are surely people living there who would argue
| that this zoning has protected the shape and nature of
| the town they that they prefer, but the flip side of that
| coin is that, at $1.4m, a median home in Concord costs
| more than 3x that of the country overall.
| ghaff wrote:
| There's probably some truth in that. On the other hand,
| Concord is a pretty far-flung suburb; you're probably
| over 30 minutes to get to Cambridge without heavy
| traffic. I believe the prison out there is closed now but
| don't know what the plans are for the land.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| And then landowners who were "smart" enough to own land
| where this ends up going in get to reap all the financial
| upside, instead of the public which actually invested in
| that infrastructure.
|
| Just imagine if the public could capture the (financial)
| upside it produces, then it could apply that money to do
| the same thing down the road, then do the same thing again
| down the road further.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem?wprov=sf
| t...
| showerst wrote:
| A version of this is common now in the US through Tax
| Increment Financing.
|
| https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/value_capture/defined/tax_in
| cre...
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I don't see how that is a version of what llamaimperative
| posts.
|
| If anything, TIF increases rewards for landowners who do
| nothing or otherwise underutilize land. Taxing the
| product of work to make a piece of land beneficial for
| society is amazingly backwards.
|
| The proper direction to go in is marginal land value tax
| rates, with increasing penalties the longer a spaces
| remains unused.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| In some countries the transit companies (public or
| private) also become the landowners of the adjacent areas
| - this would be the "rail plus property" model.
|
| In fact, the rail plus property model allows the rail
| operate to better capture their added value, so it
| applies even in "private" scenarios. The most famous
| example would be Tokyo.
|
| The goal shouldn't be for the public to be able to reap
| direct financial benefits from the induced activity
| around transit hubs, the goal should be to firstly to
| incentivize and maintain affordable, high quality,
| sustainable transit, secondly to provide more and better
| economic opportunities.
| shipp02 wrote:
| This is the case in Hong Kong as well. The subway company
| is also involved in the malls built on top of them.
|
| There are malls and neighborhoods built entirely around
| the subway station
| RhysU wrote:
| > Just imagine if the public could capture the
| (financial) upside it produces...
|
| Like through taxes on the sale of the property or the
| increased business income it produces? The public will.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| No, taxes on the unimproved value of the land
| jeromegv wrote:
| This typically goes to the higher level of government.
| Not the local one that manage and build that transit
| system.
| balderdash wrote:
| Density yes, but more importantly 1) speed vs traveling by
| car, 2) starting and stopping in places people want to travel
| between, 3) safety, 4) real estate prices/regulation.
|
| Density goes to number 1 (more traffic = better reason to use
| the subway) and 2 (more likely to be able to serve people's
| desired trip)
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Also the shape of density.
|
| A small city in a straight line along the coast is going to
| get a lot more mileage out of a single line than something
| spread out across a plain.
| telesilla wrote:
| If not a subway at least some form of transport that won't get
| stuck in gridlock. Three examples I can think of are the
| Wuppertal suspension railway, Las Vegas monorail (though more
| of a tourist pull than for the locals) and the dedicated
| Metrobus lanes in Mexico City.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Monorail
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Metrob%C3%BAs
|
| What others have I missed?
|
| (btw I never noticed before that HN can't handle UTF-8 chars in
| urls)
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| American cities of 500k people really don't see gridlock
| though. Maybe a couple blocks downtown by the highway ramps
| thats it.
| fsckboy wrote:
| yes, but wikipedia _can_ handle unaccented
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Metrobus
| Gh0stRAT wrote:
| You missed Adelaide's O-Bahn, which is another way to
| mitigate the "buses get stuck in traffic" problem.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-Bahn_Busway
| telesilla wrote:
| This is fantastic. How do the locals experience a bus
| suddenly in the air? Does it feel safe?
| oblio wrote:
| They don't need silly suspension railways in most places. A
| tram line fits perfectly in 1 lane, so that would make it 2
| lanes for both ways. US lanes are so wide that it's likely 2
| tram rails fit in 1.5 road lanes, with a bit of extra room
| for wider sidewalks (sorely needed in most of the US), bike
| lanes (also sorely needed in most of the US) or just general
| greenery (hedges would do wonders for US urban
| landscapes...).
|
| Of course this would require that the 3-4 lane stroads give
| up 2 of their carlanes so instead of doing the reasonable
| thing, building infrastructure costing 10x is almost
| universally preferred.
|
| Heck, it doesn't even need to be a tram. BRTs are good enough
| for a lot of cases.
| keiferski wrote:
| Having lived in / visited a few dozen cities in Europe, I
| actually think trams are generally preferable to subways. In
| places with both, I tend to use the trams almost exclusively.
|
| A hop on, hop off tram system is much quicker and efficient
| than going into a subway station, then back up, etc. At least
| if you aren't going entirely across town.
| euroderf wrote:
| Trams do need dedicated lanes.
| markkanof wrote:
| Not necessarily. Unless I am misunderstanding what
| specifically is being referred to as a tram. In Portland,
| Oregon for example, we have small trains that run at street
| level and share lanes with automobile traffic.
| tallowen wrote:
| Portland's trams don't move anywhere close to 35mph as
| the OP mentioned. Portland's trams are quite capacity
| constrained due to needing to navigate the short blocks
| and many intersections of downtown Portland. Dedicated
| travel cooridors where these trams could move at closer
| to 35mph would allow trips _through_ downtown to become
| competitive which currently are often not ideal.
| ghaff wrote:
| The streetcars in Portland OR are useful on some routes
| but they're pretty much painfully slow around downtown.
| keiferski wrote:
| Depends on the city, but in most places the lanes are wide
| enough that a tram-designated area isn't really an issue.
| Even then, it wouldn't be a horrible idea if an avenue
| (running north-south) or two in Manhattan had one less lane
| for cars and one more for trams.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > * trams are generally preferable to subways. In places with
| both, I tend to use the trams almost exclusively*
|
| In towns with trams I've found Ubers almost always faster.
| That said, most American trams are at grade, so you get a bus
| that can't change lanes.
| Tade0 wrote:
| What makes for a more pleasant experience is not necessarily
| the optimal choice for commuters as subway wins over trams by
| close to an order of magnitude in terms of throughput.
|
| In the city I grew up in during rush hour subway trains leave
| less than every two and a half minutes and pack well over a
| thousand commuters each. That is an impossible feat for even
| the best tram system, as they're limited both in vehicle and
| station length, not to mention speed, as you can't have 40
| tonnes of metal hurtling at 80km/h through intersections.
| rightbyte wrote:
| I disagree. Trams are too slow. They are not good for long
| tracks, like sub ways.
| 7thpower wrote:
| Have you spent much time in ~500k cities? Many of them have a
| lot of sprawl and very little traffic.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Where would you put the subway line in Tucson, AZ?
| Tade0 wrote:
| I'm no city planner, but I would definitely connect the
| Amrtak station with the University of Arizona and on the
| other end make it reach the edge of downtown.
|
| The rest of the city is really spread out with all those
| detached houses, so I'm out of ideas but then again my city
| put a subway station in such a location and it serves a
| whopping fifteen hundred people daily - that's one subway
| car, but at the same time appropriately a thousand fewer cars
| on the road. Still worth it in my book.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > I'm no city planner, but I would definitely connect the
| Amrtak station with the University of Arizona and on the
| other end make it reach the edge of downtown.
|
| I went to U. of A. and have absolutely never even _heard_
| of any student ever needing to go to the Amtrak station,
| for any reason. Not trying to be rude, but that smells like
| unthinkingly-applied urbanist ideology -- thinking "trains
| are cool" and working backwards from there.
|
| But sure, people do go to that area for nightlife, so let's
| assume you said something like "Hotel Congress" instead of
| "the Amtrak station". Still, that's less than 3km from
| campus -- even if there were no transit options, you could
| bike, walk, take a rental scooter or an uber.
|
| But if none of those options work, fear not, there is
| already a streetcar that basically covers exactly your
| proposed route: https://www.suntran.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2021/06/Sun-Link-... . So why would it make
| sense to spend a giant sum on a subway to replicate the
| streetcar over this tiny area?
|
| > The rest of the city is really spread out with all those
| detached houses, so I'm out of ideas
|
| That's my point. Your claim that any 500k city could
| benefit from a subway is wildly over-general. It entirely
| depends on the type of city.
| Tade0 wrote:
| I get where you're coming from as I have a lot of words
| to say to those urbanist ideologues and none of them are
| pleasant.
|
| Main reason why I think subway is superior to anything,
| including trains riding on the surface, is that it
| doesn't get in the way of anything.
|
| My current city is subject to a double whammy of a train
| and river system. The result is of course gridlock, as
| bridges have limited capacity and not all train crossings
| could be made into viaducts. Having a single subway line
| would greatly improve things, but alas - the city is in
| debt due to having built a football stadium which went
| way over budget.
|
| That being said to me American cities stretch the
| definition of cities. If there's no functional difference
| between a district within city limits and a suburb, why
| bother with having a distinction? I mean, we have
| districts of detached houses in my corner of the world,
| but they're former villages absorbed by cities and are
| gradually being densified.
| rayiner wrote:
| With subway lines costing a billion dollars a mile that just
| makes no sense.
| bdunks wrote:
| I love this. I agree with the "about" that it's visually
| compelling, and I'm mesmerized.
|
| This doesn't detract from my enjoyment the site, but for trip
| planning I'm a little skeptical of the results around the edges,
| especially when I'm assuming multiple transfers would be required
| (e.g., Local -> Express -> Express -> Local).
|
| With a caveat this was over 10 years ago (~2012-2013), and train
| frequencies may have changed:
|
| I used to live pretty far up on the upper west side, and took the
| 1 train from the 103rd street station daily. My weekday route was
| 1 -> 2/3 -> 7 into midtown. The 20 minute radius is accurate at
| peak times, when it only takes 2-3 minutes to catch a transfer.
| However, the website "about" makes an assumption this is for noon
| on a weekday. I don't think I ever made it to Brooklyn in under
| 40 minutes.
| amelius wrote:
| Does it also work at 3am?
| jpalawaga wrote:
| It does. New York's system is one of only a handful in the
| world that operates all (or nearly all) lines 24/7.
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| The level of redundancy in the NYC subway is marvelous. In
| most of the densest areas, you have 4-track lines and often
| other lines within a mile. It makes it possible to do
| maintenance while still offering 24/7 service.
| amelius wrote:
| I don't see any violations of locality here.
| rst wrote:
| There are a few -- select the 79th street station on the #1
| line (farthest west in Manhattan) and look at Brooklyn, due
| pretty much directly south. The 36th Street station on the
| D/N/R lines is reachable in 40 minutes because it gets express
| service, but the stations to the north and south are local
| stops, and for that reason, take longer to get to.
| _kb wrote:
| There a pretty neat free tool - http://pedestriancatch.com - that
| will also let you run walkability simulation anywhere with
| OpenStreetMap data. Great for when you're moving or exploring
| somewhere new.
| dzonga wrote:
| nice too. but been a while since I lived in NY. what these things
| don't tell ya is how frequent the trains break down. my morning
| commute would be 30 mins on a packed train, but the evening train
| would be 2x-3x that time due to trains / track issues.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Travel times would be much improved by a high speed line.
|
| Ie. a route with 4 stops and a travel speed of 100 mph.
|
| The finances of railways actually get better with faster trains -
| because the sooner you can get the person to their destination,
| the quicker you can get that train serving another passenger.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| MTA runs express trains. They don't get up to 100mph, but they
| skip many local stops along the way. Raising their speed to
| 100mph would likely not meaningfully increase transit time -
| you'd maybe shave off a few minutes.
| bob_theslob646 wrote:
| I wonder if there was a way to calculate how many more
| passengers they could serve if they had faster trains?
| marcinzm wrote:
| You do realize that Manhattan is only 14 miles long? With a
| stop every 3 miles even a Shinkansen wouldn't reach 100mph
| before it had to start slowing down again.
| bob_theslob646 wrote:
| According to chatgpt, the max speed is higher than what you
| stated and is 155mph before needing to slow down.
| pieix wrote:
| Are there any metros with intra-city high speed trains like
| this?
| Symbiote wrote:
| In London you can take a high speed train from St Pancras to
| Stratford, though it's a normal high speed train that then
| continues far outside the city.
|
| It's the blue+yellow line which goes off the east side:
| https://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-rail-and-tube-services-
| map...
|
| I don't think that's unusual for very large cities with high
| speed trains. The longest-distance trains probably only stop
| at one station in each city, but medium-distance trains can
| stop at multiple.
|
| I've never come across a metro train travelling that fast
| though. The cost of building the line to support those speeds
| would be tremendous for a small difference in journey time.
| notjustanymike wrote:
| Some kind of Metro (that runs) North?
| matv wrote:
| Very cool!
| jimmySixDOF wrote:
| Nice effort and just shows you how far the art/science of dataviz
| has come with the ability of websites to work like realtime game
| engines.
|
| This is the same information visually expressed in a grid chart
| from 1983 by Edward Tufte (The Visual Display of Quantitative
| Information). While the method can't scale the same way it feels
| like a more creative approach :
|
| https://www.edwardtufte.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/VDQI-...
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| I wouldn't say that Maray's chart as cited by Tufte is directly
| comparable: it displays the timings of trains along a one-
| dimensional railway, therefore displaying two dimensions of
| continuous data for each train (the second dimension being
| time). The online map displays a two-dimensional area, with an
| extra (quantized, not continuous) dimension of time with the
| colour-coding. It's a tradeoff between displaying more
| precision for fewer train timings or less precision for many
| train timings.
| piinbinary wrote:
| Why don't any of the trains go into New Jersey? That seems like a
| big wasted opportunity for adding more space that can easily
| commute into the city.
| marcinzm wrote:
| Trains do go into New Jersey from NYC. Just not MTA trains.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Because it's the New York City subway.
|
| There are trains that go to New Jersey - the PATH trains, as
| well as NJtransit commuter trains that leave from Penn Station.
| ryanhecht wrote:
| Excellent information if you're playing Jet Lag: The Game's[1]
| home game[2]
|
| 1: https://www.youtube.com/c/jetlagthegame
|
| 2: https://store.nebula.tv/products/hideandseek
| CSMastermind wrote:
| I've been meaning to try it out in NYC because it seems like
| that's one of few geos they playtested. It's super fun in other
| cities but you have to modify the rules and cards a bunch to
| make it work.
| ryanhecht wrote:
| I'm a huge theme park nut that lives in Orlando - I'm trying
| to design a version that can work across Walt Disney World
| (or maybe even ALL of Orlando's theme park campuses).
|
| Photos pose a huge challenge because my friends (fellow theme
| park nuts) can pick out the smallest details in every park --
| even the color of pavement and themed lighting fixtures! I'm
| having fun thinking of what adaptations to make.
|
| Agreed that this product would be better as a game design
| framework rather than a ready-to-play game in any geo (and
| tbh, would be a better fit for what Jet Lag is all about:
| people designing games for themselves to play!)
| CSMastermind wrote:
| So I actually live in Orlando and bought the game with the
| intent of doing exactly that...
|
| I'm not a theme park nut but that seemed like a fun way to
| play the game (actually I was thinking Universal might work
| better but I wasn't sure).
|
| Definitely share if come up with something good.
| jklein11 wrote:
| Super cool! Its kinda crazy how out of the loop JFK airport is
| ghthor wrote:
| I made the mistake of trying to use subway to get to JFK. That
| day I learned the way was to take the LIRR from grand central
| station.
| notjustanymike wrote:
| Shockingly easy to get to though. LIRR to Jamaica, then
| AirTrain. Usually faster than a car, and more predictable than
| taking the A (which you have to be careful to choose the right
| one).
| fldskfjdslkfj wrote:
| It's crazy how dysfunctional the state structure can be - in any
| functioning country the subway would extend to NJ.
| marcinzm wrote:
| The PATH train does exactly that.
| fldskfjdslkfj wrote:
| the PATH train is a lousy a replacement. Just look at the
| connectivity and coverage of NJ vs Queens & Brooklyn:
|
| https://stewartmader.com/wp-content/uploads/Subway-NY-NJ-
| sca...
| marcinzm wrote:
| That's a separate issue versus trains going to/from NYC.
| They do.
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| The Jersey side is so sad, for one of the country's most
| densely populated areas.
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| It would make much more sense for it to be unified with the
| MTA subway, with more connectivity. My dream would be a
| single seat ride from Newark Airport to Atlantic Terminal in
| Brooklyn, via Newark Penn Station and World Trade Center.
|
| There was also once a proposal to have the 7 train go out to
| Seacaucus Junction, which would be huge for accessing the
| East Side for NJers.
| marcinzm wrote:
| I wonder if the real limit is tunnels. Connectivity doesn't
| fix the issue of physical limits on tunnel capacity and the
| massive cost of new tunnels.
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| If you're talking about underwater, I don't think that's
| the problem compared to running track through populated
| areas, whether that's through tunnels, cut-and-cover, at-
| grade or viaduct.
| balderdash wrote:
| It blows my mind there isn't the equivalent of the Heathrow
| express in nyc (even if it was just a regular express train
| subway)
| ghaff wrote:
| In London, you also have the Piccadilly line depending
| upon where you're going and how much luggage you have
| (many of the London tube stations are pretty awful in
| terms of accessibility as I discovered on a trip where I
| had heavier luggage than normal last year).
| Symbiote wrote:
| Since 2022 there's also the Elizabeth Line, which uses
| the same tracks as the Heathrow Express, but then
| continues under Central London and far to the east.
|
| It takes 27 rather than 15 minutes to Paddington, but
| it's also half the price of the Heathrow Express.
|
| It's the purple edged line:
| https://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-rail-and-tube-services-
| map...
| ghaff wrote:
| Right. But I usually stay near Trafalgar Square and the
| Piccadilly line is much more convenient for that. (Though
| I will be taking the Elizabeth line outbound my next trip
| because I'm initially going to Shoreditch. And, yes,
| Heathrow Express is something of a rip-off which the
| airport steers you towards.)
| rangestransform wrote:
| That would cause a huge headache for the NYC side to be
| subject to FRA regulations, it's a big part of why PATH
| costs so much to run
| SJetKaran wrote:
| Big +1, and an obvious observation for anyone who moved here
| marstall wrote:
| it does, check out PATH.
| ahstilde wrote:
| Transit in NJ is served by PATH, NJ Transit Rail, and NJ
| Transit Light Rail
|
| They share multiple exchanges.
|
| Crossing state lines causes regulations to triple (new state,
| and federal), so this is what we have.
| umanwizard wrote:
| There _is_ a subway that connects Manhattan and NJ, called the
| PATH. Unfortunately it's run by a completely different
| organization, which I agree is silly.
| jpalawaga wrote:
| Something here is not quite right. For example, if you look at
| the 7th ave line (red line/1,2,3) 18th street and 14th street
| have similar radii.
|
| But anyone knows that 14th street is much more convenient because
| it's triply serviced by the 1,2,3 with 2,3 being express trains.
| 18th street is serviced by one train the runs locally. This
| ignores that you could easily switch to the L, A/C/E, F/M with a
| short walk.
|
| Still, a cool visualization to show the power of mass transit,
| and even compare relatively between lines.
| mannykannot wrote:
| I see what you mean. According to this map, you can get from
| the 18th. street station to the 1st ave. stop on the L in ten
| minutes, but not from 14th. street.
| anyonecancode wrote:
| Cool! Though the data must be a bit noisy as you get some
| oddities. For instance, if you select Astoria/Ditmars (last top,
| NW Queens) the Flushing/Main Street stop (last stop of purple --
| go directly west on map from Astoria) is out of range. Click
| Flushing/Mains Street, though, and Astoria/Ditmars is in the 40
| minute range.
| 65 wrote:
| I live in NYC and I can tell you... these times seem optimistic.
| rst wrote:
| They're assuming very quick transfers (rush hour service). But
| then again, a lot of transit planning seems to assume rush hour
| commutes are the only reason why it's there.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > Isochrones are manually calculated using turf.js assuming
| 1.2m/s walking speed after the subway trip.
|
| This is super cool, and I don't want the following statement to
| be taken as a criticism, because it's an unrealistic expectation:
| I do not rely on estimates like this until they are ground-
| truthed.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I wonder if they factored in the time to walk to and from the
| surface and platform here. Also intersection signal patterns on
| the surface.
| binary132 wrote:
| I've always wanted a feature like this in Zillow for filtering
| the results by commute time to a given destination, but this is
| even cooler!
| bowsamic wrote:
| Much slower than I would have guessed
| ahstilde wrote:
| This is great. It doesn't paint a full picture, however. It's
| certainly possible to go farther leveraging the other rail lines
| in the area: PATH, LIRR, Metro North, NJ Transit Light Rail
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Depends what your transfer process looks like. Some of those
| trains are not very frequent at all outside the 9-5 commute
| pattern.
| bob_theslob646 wrote:
| Well it depends because they added the Grand Central line so
| that you can get from the middle of Manhattan to Queens
| fairly quickly as Grand Central stop at Jamaica station on
| the Long Island railroad which is a hack to getting to JFK
| without having to use the Subway.
| AbstractH24 wrote:
| I love it, but as someone who lives in Queens I think it's
| underestimating by maybe 20% or 30%, particularly when a transfer
| or significant walking is involved (and I walk quite fast)
| cooljacob204 wrote:
| Yeah, I wish I could get from Astoria to Forest Hills in only
| 40 minutes.
| amelius wrote:
| There seems to be a bug:
|
| Click on Howard beach (JFK Airport), then on Broad Channel. The
| times are not updated.
| dave333 wrote:
| But how long does it take to get to Mornington Crescent?
| dave333 wrote:
| Assuming multi-modal travel is allowed of course.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Apparently you can walk to North Brother Island in 20 minutes
| from 138th St.
| standardUser wrote:
| I'm curious how the creator chose 40 minutes as the cutoff
| because I use the same cutoff. Less than 40 minutes is normal,
| ordinary, wouldn't think twice about it. More than 40 minutes is
| an outrage, preposterous, is this place even still in NY?
| ourmandave wrote:
| This feels like a question you would ask if you were a level
| designer for a zombie video game.
| TZubiri wrote:
| Logistically, space is not euclidean.
| cyberax wrote:
| Yeah. Isochrones are great, because they clearly show the
| inferiority of ANY type of public transit to cars.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-25 23:01 UTC)