Downtown Freeway Loops

[nito]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I doubt the volume of cars is that much different in NYC, but New York is half the land area of London so it may seem that way.

London’s total area is double the land area of New York, but that includes a vast rural protected area (the Green Belt) which is equivalent to the combined area of Queens and the Bronx and a larger percentage of other non-developed lane (circa 50% of total area). The developed area of London is still larger than that of New York, but the difference is smaller, total/developed area aside:

• Prevalence of high-capacity grade separated roads is greater in New York than it is in London
  • This is due to the 1944 Greater London Plan envisioned by Patrick Abercrombie (the London equivalent to the projects under Robert Moses) not being fully implemented
  • Instead the motorways (expressways) were limited on their encroachment and spread, unlike the expressway setup found across New York
• More people walk/cycle/use public transport in London than New York
• The greater network of LTN’s, modal filters, school streets, bus lanes, dedicated cycling infrastructure across London
• Parking availability is declining (the last report for Central London saw a 24% decline between 2000-2005) and current planning policies across the city seek to drastically reduce or eliminate spaces.
  • By the end of the decade there might not be any multi-storey car parks left in Central London due to redevelopment plans
• I have mentioned the Congestion Charge previously, but 2019 also saw the introduction of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone, initially focused on Central London, but then expanded to an area equivalent to Inner London.
  • The ULEZ’s initial focus was reducing polluting vehicles, but it turned out to cut the number of vehicles on the road; in the two-years prior to its introduction it reduced the number of vehicles entering Central London by 15%.
  • A further expansion of the ULEZ to cover all of London is set to be introduced in late 2023.
  • By the end of the decade, the CCG and ULEZ could be replaced by road pricing (i.e. charge per mile, vehicle type, time of day, congested area, etc…)
• Another key difference is that driving from beyond London into the city is a far less palatable proposition relative to New York, not just because of the above, but because of the more extensive, fast, frequent and convenient commuter rail network
  • Pre-pandemic, nearly as many people used the rail network coming into London as the entire North American commuter rail network

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nito

London’s total area is double the land area of New York, but that includes a vast rural protected area (the Green Belt) which is equivalent to the combined area of Queens and the Bronx and a larger percentage of other non-developed lane (circa 50% of total area). The developed area of London is still larger than that of New York, but the difference is smaller, total/developed area aside:

• Prevalence of high-capacity grade separated roads is greater in New York than it is in London
  • This is due to the 1944 Greater London Plan envisioned by Patrick Abercrombie (the London equivalent to the projects under Robert Moses) not being fully implemented
  • Instead the motorways (expressways) were limited on their encroachment and spread, unlike the expressway setup found across New York
• More people walk/cycle/use public transport in London than New York
• The greater network of LTN’s, modal filters, school streets, bus lanes, dedicated cycling infrastructure across London
• Parking availability is declining (the last report for Central London saw a 24% decline between 2000-2005) and current planning policies across the city seek to drastically reduce or eliminate spaces.
  • By the end of the decade there might not be any multi-storey car parks left in Central London due to redevelopment plans
• I have mentioned the Congestion Charge previously, but 2019 also saw the introduction of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone, initially focused on Central London, but then expanded to an area equivalent to Inner London.
  • The ULEZ’s initial focus was reducing polluting vehicles, but it turned out to cut the number of vehicles on the road; in the two-years prior to its introduction it reduced the number of vehicles entering Central London by 15%.
  • A further expansion of the ULEZ to cover all of London is set to be introduced in late 2023.
  • By the end of the decade, the CCG and ULEZ could be replaced by road pricing (i.e. charge per mile, vehicle type, time of day, congested area, etc…)
• Another key difference is that driving from beyond London into the city is a far less palatable proposition relative to New York, not just because of the above, but because of the more extensive, fast, frequent and convenient commuter rail network
  • Pre-pandemic, nearly as many people used the rail network coming into London as the entire North American commuter rail network

I don't think you can support many of those claims. Also, most of New York City is located on an island(s), so I find it extremely hard to believe that it's easier to drive into New York than into London.

[nito]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think you can support many of those claims. Also, most of New York City is located on an island(s), so I find it extremely hard to believe that it's easier to drive into New York than into London.

Which part(s)? The existence of the Congestion Charge and ULEZ? That there are 13x the number of School Streets in London and that modal filters and LTN’s are prevalent across the city? That London – thankfully – didn’t develop the high-capacity grade separated road (“HCGSR”) network that New York did? London’s larger rail network?

Whilst the geography of New York doesn’t lend itself to roads to everywhere, that doesn’t contradict that there are far more HCGSR’s, that there is a broader connected HCGSR network across the city, or that there are more HCGSR routes into Manhattan. There is no equivalent to FDR Drive or Hudson Parkway around the West End or City; the Westway comes closest and that terminates on the north-western periphery of Central London. Curiously, I sought to ascertain how many HCGSR’s there are in both cities:
London: 156km
New York: 345km

Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island have more HCGSR’s than London (before factoring in Brooklyn and Queens). As you noted, London covers twice the area of New York (developed or otherwise), so the HCGSR density of New York is 4.3x that of London.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nito

Which part(s)? The existence of the Congestion Charge and ULEZ? That there are 13x the number of School Streets in London and that modal filters and LTN’s are prevalent across the city? That London – thankfully – didn’t develop the high-capacity grade separated road (“HCGSR”) network that New York did? London’s larger rail network?

Whilst the geography of New York doesn’t lend itself to roads to everywhere, that doesn’t contradict that there are far more HCGSR’s, that there is a broader connected HCGSR network across the city, or that there are more HCGSR routes into Manhattan. There is no equivalent to FDR Drive or Hudson Parkway around the West End or City; the Westway comes closest and that terminates on the north-western periphery of Central London. Curiously, I sought to ascertain how many HCGSR’s there are in both cities:
London: 156km
New York: 345km

Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island have more HCGSR’s than London (before factoring in Brooklyn and Queens). As you noted, London covers twice the area of New York (developed or otherwise), so the HCGSR density of New York is 4.3x that of London.

The FDR begins and ends in Manhattan, so that wouldn't have any factor on the ease of driving into Manhattan. That said, I don't think this really matters. A casual glance at a map of London would easily confirm that there are far more roads feeding into London than there are into New York (from the mainland).

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The FDR begins and ends in Manhattan, so that wouldn't have any factor on the ease of driving into Manhattan. That said, I don't think this really matters. A casual glance at a map of London would easily confirm that there are far more roads feeding into London than there are into New York (from the mainland).

this is all kinds of nonsense. Manhattan has a 12-lane freeway running right through it's north end and multiple freeways connecting to it along it's entire length.

The Lincoln Tunnel, Battery Tunnel, Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges, Williamsburg Bridge, Queens Midtown tunnel, Holland Tunnel, Triboro Bridge, George Washington Bridge, and Henry Hudson Bridges all provide high-capacity, freeway or nearly freeway connections into Manhattan.

FDR begins and ends on Manhattan, yes, but it directly connects to other freeways. It's not isolated.

What does London have? Westway, which is actually isolated and does not connect to the wider motorway network, and A13, which ends at Canary Wharf and doesn't really even connect into the core?

London is not on an island and thus has more local roads running in and out of the city, but even the largest ones are only 4-lanes with lots of stop lights and the vast majority are local residential streets with minimal effective capacity.

Saying Manhattan has equal or less auto infrastructure than London is just wild.

For it's size, Manhattan does not have a ton of auto infrastructure, particularly in the American context where literally every other city has massive amounts of road infrastructure into their downtowns. But it does still have a decently large amount, certainly more than central London. And that's not even discussing the wider cities. The boroughs have huge networks of freeways and large multi-lane arterials.

[Crawford]

The Cross-Bronx is six lanes, not twelve lanes.

And it's a big stretch to include the Cross-Bronx in a discussion of access to the region's core. While technically running underground for a few blocks through the northern tip of Manhattan, isn't an arterial to access the core. It's mostly for regional truck traffic, bypassing the core.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

this is all kinds of nonsense. Manhattan has a 12-lane freeway running right through it's north end and multiple freeways connecting to it along it's entire length.

The Lincoln Tunnel, Battery Tunnel, Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges, Williamsburg Bridge, Queens Midtown tunnel, Holland Tunnel, Triboro Bridge, George Washington Bridge, and Henry Hudson Bridges all provide high-capacity, freeway or nearly freeway connections into Manhattan.

FDR begins and ends on Manhattan, yes, but it directly connects to other freeways. It's not isolated.

What does London have? Westway, which is actually isolated and does not connect to the wider motorway network, and A13, which ends at Canary Wharf and doesn't really even connect into the core?

London is not on an island and thus has more local roads running in and out of the city, but even the largest ones are only 4-lanes with lots of stop lights and the vast majority are local residential streets with minimal effective capacity.

Saying Manhattan has equal or less auto infrastructure than London is just wild.

For it's size, Manhattan does not have a ton of auto infrastructure, particularly in the American context where literally every other city has massive amounts of road infrastructure into their downtowns. But it does still have a decently large amount, certainly more than central London. And that's not even discussing the wider cities. The boroughs have huge networks of freeways and large multi-lane arterials.

You're... not addressing the point that the person above was attempting to make. London has an innumerable number of roads feeding into it. Manhattan does not. This shouldn't be a controversial point lol.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You're... not addressing the point that the person above was attempting to make. London has an innumerable number of roads feeding into it. Manhattan does not. This shouldn't be a controversial point lol.

the discussion is the volume of vehicles - and claiming that there are larger volumes of vehicles in London than NYC is wildly wrong.

London has *more* roads into downtown by a purely count the street names perspective, but that absolutely does not mean it has more cars in the core or more automotive capacity into the core. NYC is far, far, larger on that front and a likely reason as to why it's pedestrian fatality rates are significantly higher.

Downtown London simply doesn't have pedestrian-vehicle conflicts anywhere close to the scale NYC does because almost every street through the core is a little 2-lane street with very slow vehicle speeds and many streets which are pedestrianized/shared spaces, which is not the case in NYC.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Cross-Bronx is six lanes, not twelve lanes.

And it's a big stretch to include the Cross-Bronx in a discussion of access to the region's core. While technically running underground for a few blocks through the northern tip of Manhattan, isn't an arterial to access the core. It's mostly for regional truck traffic, bypassing the core.

splitting hairs here but I intended to describe it by it's total lane count, not per-direction. I.e. there are 6 lanes in each direction, total 12. And yea, it doesn't really provide direct access to the core, but it does connect to FDR Drive and the Henry Hudson Parkway which do provide access to the core.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

the discussion is the volume of vehicles - and claiming that there are larger volumes of vehicles in London than NYC is wildly wrong.

London has *more* roads into downtown by a purely count the street names perspective, but that absolutely does not mean it has more cars in the core or more automotive capacity into the core. NYC is far, far, larger on that front and a likely reason as to why it's pedestrian fatality rates are significantly higher.

Downtown London simply doesn't have pedestrian-vehicle conflicts anywhere close to the scale NYC does because almost every street through the core is a little 2-lane street with very slow vehicle speeds and many streets which are pedestrianized/shared spaces, which is not the case in NYC.

I mean, it's not that hard to scroll up lol:

Originally Posted by nito

Another key difference is that driving from beyond London into the city is a far less palatable proposition relative to New York, not just because of the above, but because of the more extensive, fast, frequent and convenient commuter rail network

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think you can support many of those claims. Also, most of New York City is located on an island(s), so I find it extremely hard to believe that it's easier to drive into New York than into London.

Which is a wild take and kinda makes me think people saying this have never been to NYC before. It's easier to drive into London than into the NYC, where it routinely take 1-2 hours just to cross a bridge or tunnel? Sorry, I'm going to need some actual proof for that claim.

[nito]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Which is a wild take and kinda makes me think people saying this have never been to NYC before. It's easier to drive into London than into the NYC, where it routinely take 1-2 hours just to cross a bridge or tunnel? Sorry, I'm going to need some actual proof for that claim.

Going by USCB data, the average commute in the New York metro area is 37mins, so consider me sceptical that people are routinely spending up to 1-2hrs each way just to cross the Hudson/East River on-top of their commuter either side of the river crossing.

There simply isn’t the major road network accessing London and Central London like there is accessing New York and Manhattan. As noted in my last post, the density of high capacity grade separated roads in New York is 4.3x that of London.

There are far too many restrictions to driving in London to make it palatable or viable for large volumes of people, what with the Congestion Charge, the Ultra-Low Emission Zone, and a plethora of other measures (reduced car parking, more aggressive speed limits, modal filters, more pedestrian/cyclist friendly environments, school streets, low traffic neighbourhoods, etc…) and the extensive commuter rail network.

Pre-Pandemic Vehicle Entries
Central London *: 159,073 (84,964 for unique vehicles)
Manhattan **: 911,000
* Congestion Charge Zone, c.21.8km2Source: TfL, Camera Captures and Confirmed Vehicles seen in the Congestion Charge Zone
** Manhattan south of 60th Street, c.22.5km2, Source: 2019-2023 NYC TIPPS Report

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by nito

Going by USCB data, the average commute in the New York metro area is 37mins, so consider me sceptical that people are routinely spending up to 1-2hrs each way just to cross the Hudson/East River on-top of their commuter either side of the river crossing.

There simply isn’t the major road network accessing London and Central London like there is accessing New York and Manhattan. As noted in my last post, the density of high capacity grade separated roads in New York is 4.3x that of London.

There are far too many restrictions to driving in London to make it palatable or viable for large volumes of people, what with the Congestion Charge, the Ultra-Low Emission Zone, and a plethora of other measures (reduced car parking, more aggressive speed limits, modal filters, more pedestrian/cyclist friendly environments, school streets, low traffic neighbourhoods, etc…) and the extensive commuter rail network.

Pre-Pandemic Vehicle Entries
Central London *: 159,073 (84,964 for unique vehicles)
Manhattan **: 911,000
* Congestion Charge Zone, c.21.8km2Source: TfL, Camera Captures and Confirmed Vehicles seen in the Congestion Charge Zone
** Manhattan south of 60th Street, c.22.5km2, Source: 2019-2023 NYC TIPPS Report

There we go - indisputable data. Nearly 6x as many cars in Manhattan every day than London.

No wonder road deaths are higher.

[Crawford]

The vast majority of pedestrian road deaths in NYC aren't in Manhattan.

I don't even understand this conversation as pedestrian road deaths aren't correlated with congestion, or even autocentricity. And NYC has very low rates of pedestrian road deaths.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nito

Going by USCB data, the average commute in the New York metro area is 37mins, so consider me sceptical that people are routinely spending up to 1-2hrs each way just to cross the Hudson/East River on-top of their commuter either side of the river crossing.

Tell me you've never crossed the Hudson River in a car without telling me you've never crossed the Hudson River is a car lol.

Originally Posted by nito

There simply isn’t the major road network accessing London and Central London like there is accessing New York and Manhattan. As noted in my last post, the density of high capacity grade separated roads in New York is 4.3x that of London.

By your logic, a single freeway feeding into Manhattan would mean that it's more accessible than landlocked London because it has more freeway lanes. Nice red herring set up there.

Originally Posted by nito

There are far too many restrictions to driving in London to make it palatable or viable for large volumes of people, what with the Congestion Charge, the Ultra-Low Emission Zone, and a plethora of other measures (reduced car parking, more aggressive speed limits, modal filters, more pedestrian/cyclist friendly environments, school streets, low traffic neighbourhoods, etc…) and the extensive commuter rail network.

You say this as if it doesn't cost almost $20 to drive a car across the Hudson River.

Originally Posted by nito

Pre-Pandemic Vehicle Entries
Central London *: 159,073 (84,964 for unique vehicles)
Manhattan **: 911,000
* Congestion Charge Zone, c.21.8km2Source: TfL, Camera Captures and Confirmed Vehicles seen in the Congestion Charge Zone
** Manhattan south of 60th Street, c.22.5km2, Source: 2019-2023 NYC TIPPS Report

You should probably normalize it for daytime population, since Manhattan's daytime population is much larger than central London's.

[nito]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Tell me you've never crossed the Hudson River in a car without telling me you've never crossed the Hudson River is a car lol.

You’re comically claiming that people routinely spend over twice the average New York metro area commuting time stuck just on the river crossings in/out of Manhattan, where is your evidence for this?

Even if we assumed that there was a grain of truth, why do many (not all) of the near 1mn vehicles attempting to get into Manhattan (south of 60th St) do so knowing that they’d be wasting 1-2hrs each way struck in the likes of the Lincoln Tunnel (which is just 2.4km long)? If congestion was persistently so bad, why haven’t the authorities increased the number of crossings into Manhattan? Why is the commuter rail network so inadequate and unable to take vehicles off the roads? Is it collective stupidity, incompetence?

Originally Posted by iheartthed

By your logic, a single freeway feeding into Manhattan would mean that it's more accessible than landlocked London because it has more freeway lanes. Nice red herring set up there.

Regardless of the topographical differences between the two cities, New York has a far higher quantity of HCGSR’s accessing the city, more HCGSR lanes accessing the city, and a higher average lane count. That is despite London’s topography and London having a larger perimeter for the potential for HCGSR’s to access the city.

Number of HCGSR’s [Total Lane Count]
London: 9 [25]
New York: 14 [44]

Even if you looked at non-HCGSR dual carriageways, New York still has more of them.

Number of non-HCGSR’s dual carriageways [Total Lane Count]
London: 10 [20]
New York: 16 [34]

Whilst there may be an absence of non-HCGSR/dual-carriageways heading to/from New Jersey, the sprawling grid-nature of New York in the north and east lends itself to a large volume of roads bisecting the city boundaries. In contrast, the restrictions on urban sprawl created by the Green Belt in London doesn’t support a vast network of urban roads bisecting the city boundaries, instead you have a lot of what could be perceived as provincial or rural routes such as here, here, here, and here.

Despite London’s topography and its larger size, it simply hasn’t developed a road network like New York; like not even close as per the 4.3x higher density of HCGSR’s in New York. There simply aren’t the number of high-capacity routes that run from the outskirts to the city core or between the boroughs. The Westway (A40) which touches the north-western periphery of Central London doesn’t even provide a continuous HCGSR route to the outskirts of London because in Acton (5km out) it downgrades to the point where there are pedestrian crossings and parking bays.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You say this as if it doesn't cost almost $20 to drive a car across the Hudson River.

The tolls are still lower than the CC and ULEZ, and of course not forgetting that motor costs in the UK are far higher than they are in the US. There is simply a more hostile and costly approach to driving, not just London but the wider UK. Even assuming a higher EV adoption in London, there are just two petrol stations remaining inside Central London compared to 18 (2017) in Manhattan.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You should probably normalize it for daytime population, since Manhattan's daytime population is much larger than central London's.

The population of Manhattan south of 60th St is c.550,000, Central London is c.200,000, and commuter volumes into Central London/Manhattan (total borough) is around 1mn (2010/11 census) for both. You would be correct in saying that the daytime population is 22% higher, but that would still be dwarfed by the 474% higher number of vehicle entries into the area.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nito

You’re comically claiming that people routinely spend over twice the average New York metro area commuting time stuck just on the river crossings in/out of Manhattan, where is your evidence for this?

Obviously people don't use personal vehicles as a primary mode of transportation to work in Manhattan, regardless of where they live.