Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not from what I've seen. White people do ride east-west buses, at least in Manhattan. Manhattan buses are generally whiter than the subway, it's rather noticeable.
Are you sure they aren't just Hispanics with light complexion?
Just kidding, of course, that probably has more to do with Manhattan being extremely pasty white in comparison to NYC and the buses mostly serving as neighborhood routes rather than longer-distance commuter routes.
Are you sure they aren't just Hispanics with light complexion?
Just kidding, of course, that probably has more to do with Manhattan being extremely pasty white in comparison to NYC and the buses mostly serving as neighborhood routes rather than longer-distance commuter routes.
That is because subways service the long distance routes, but also allow a ride to hop on for a couple stops just as easy.
Except when going east-west since they either walk or take a cab.
Unless they are hipsters who take the L train (Runs along 14th street from 8th to the East River, then into Hipster Brooklyn).
Anyway, the reason a lot of people don't take the crosstown buses in Manhattan probably has more to do with the fact that you can walk as fast in many cases, rather than race. I don't know because I've never ridden one, but I suspect the predominant color is gray.
Unless they are hipsters who take the L train (Runs along 14th street from 8th to the East River, then into Hipster Brooklyn).
Anyway, the reason a lot of people don't take the crosstown buses in Manhattan probably has more to do with the fact that you can walk as fast in many cases, rather than race. I don't know because I've never ridden one, but I suspect the predominant color is gray.
There has been a number of times where I have walked faster than cars trying to go east and west in Manhattan during rush hour.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Not saying there's a right or wrong to define "walkable", but I usually use walkable to mean "it's convenient or practical to go someplace by foot most of the time" rather than "one can walk there if you have to". Stores 0.8 miles away would be over a half an hour roundtrip, certainly doable, but a bit on the long side of practical.
Not as practical as driving. Lugging six bags of grocers for 15 minutes isn't an attractive alternative to driving for most people. The argument is that since a very small segment of the population actually cares about this, everywhere, or at least the vast majority of places should cater to this whim that most people frankly don't care about.
Take Central Seattle... it's pretty difficult to find anywhere in Lower Queen Anne, Downtown, or much of Capitol Hill where you'd be farther than a 15-minute walk from a supermarket. A lot of people still drove. Aside from Kressiga, they all have parking. Westlake Whole Paychecks has free parking despite being located at a rail stop, being a transit hub for bus routes, and generally being located within very easy walking distance of thousands of people. I mean, Denny Triangle is somewhat of an ocean of surface lots that's only really recently been revitalizing rapidly. A lot of urbanistas can't walk past a surface parking lot since it breaks the urban fabric, although personally I found it a quick and easy walk. For me, it was a great alternative to driving considering I had to walk half the way in the opposite direction to retrieve my car from its parking spot anyway.
If you look at downtown, it's 10% of Seattle's total population, as many people walk to work as drive or car-pool, 40% don't even own a car. There's also other neighborhoods that are walkable such as Ballard, parts of Capitol Hill not located in the downtown area, U District, Ravena, West Seattle, Fremont, Wallingford, Queen Anne, etc. But the presence of places like the Eastside that are largely unwalkable is intolerable. Why someone who cares highly about walkability even would consider living in Issaquah or Sammamish (both also growing very rapidly) is beyond me, but the fact that that choice even exists really does seem to aggravate people.
Not as practical as driving. Lugging six bags of grocers for 15 minutes isn't an attractive alternative to driving for most people. The argument is that since a very small segment of the population actually cares about this, everywhere, or at least the vast majority of places should cater to this whim that most people frankly don't care about.
Within the bounds of what has been presented, it is indeed not as practical, or comfortable, as driving.
So, of course it's impractical. But, even in a walkable context, an average person isn't going to make a full shopping run and then walk home or take PT. To suggest that is to suggest a fiction as if it's a reasonable possibility, so it's disingenuous.
Even in a walkable context, the average person will use a car, personal or rented (taxi, Zipcar, etc.), for a big shopping trip.
But, the core idea of walkability is to make more things practical without a car, not all things, by making more places people-centric or, at least, mode-equal.
Within the bounds of what has been presented, it is indeed not as practical, or comfortable, as driving.
So, of course it's impractical. But, even in a walkable context, an average person isn't going to make a full shopping run and then walk home or take PT. To suggest that is to suggest a fiction as if it's a reasonable possibility, so it's disingenuous.
Even in a walkable context, the average person will use a car, personal or rented (taxi, Zipcar, etc.), for a big shopping trip.
But, the core idea of walkability is to make more things practical without a car, not all things, by making more places people-centric or, at least, mode-equal.
What you just said is sensible. The problem is that some don't see the sense you make, it's become an all or nothing "get rid of cars" mantra.
Take Central Seattle... it's pretty difficult to find anywhere in Lower Queen Anne, Downtown, or much of Capitol Hill where you'd be farther than a 15-minute walk from a supermarket. A lot of people still drove. Aside from Kressiga, they all have parking. Westlake Whole Paychecks has free parking despite being located at a rail stop, being a transit hub for bus routes, and generally being located within very easy walking distance of thousands of people.
Much of NYC is within a 15 minute walk or less from a supermarket, but many (in some areas most, Manhattan all but a couple) supermarkets don't have parking. Adding parking would be difficult and cost money that might not be worth it to the store. People seem to manage, I didn't realize it was such a big deal until I came to this forum.
The London suburb my aunt lives in the local supermarket is free for up 1.5 hours and they care. But regardless, out of all stores, supermarkets are a type of store that will try add parking for reasons many of posters have described.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
