Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Newtopian 3019 days ago
"Having never lived in a truly big city I don't really understand why would anyone walk to anywhere, as such more density necessarily means more traffic".. Ok I filtered a bit with what I actually understood... still, you should try living in a really big city, preferably outside of north-america and see what "walkability" really means in it's natural environment.
1 comments
wffurr 3019 days ago
Boston/Cambridge is one of the most walkable cities in North America–it's much closer to the European model than the typical North American city.

I still don't get what the grandparent is on about though. I live in Boston, and it's pretty great. I feel free to live my life the way I want here, as opposed to being forced into owning a car and drive it everywhere.

link
sampo 3018 days ago
The neighborhoods and downtown in Boston can be nice and walkable. But if you want to get around to places around the city, the Boston T has an average speed of about 10 mph [1]. A decent subway system can take you to places at more like 30 mph. NYC subway does about 15 mph [2]. D.C. metro does 30 mph [3].

(Not talking about the train top speed, but the average speed, including stops and acceleration, along the whole line.)

[1] For the Green line: http://walkingbostonian.blogspot.com/2015/01/taking-look-at-...

[2] https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/17313-subway-system-a...

[3] https://ggwash.org/view/4524/average-schedule-speed-how-does...

link
wffurr 3018 days ago
No doubt the T could be better, but comparing the green line is very misleading. It's an above ground street trolley for a lot of its route, and it's much older than any of those other systems. The other Boston subway lines are proper light rail systems that move much faster.

The red line e.g. runs at 20 mph[1]. The problem with the red line are the age of the rolling stock and signal equipment and their tendency to catch on fire.

[1]: http://www.bostonologist.org/feed/2015/1/29/speed

link