Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.