New York City's Remotest Spot | Hacker News Reader

New York City's Remotest Spot

newyorker.com

40 pointsjoe515028 comments

Their metric for determining remoteness is really lacking in my opinion, it doesn't jive at all with what I think many people would consider a remote location. Something along the lines of population density would tend to give a more meaningful idea of remoteness than straight line to the nearest road.

Even in very remote parts of many national forests, at least in the lower 48, there are a myriad of old logging and forest service roads that are no longer used. As such you could truly be far away from any traffic yet near an old road which would skew some of their results.

Distance from a cell tower might be a good metric.

This is another fun way of looking at it:

http://www.datapointed.net/2010/09/distance-to-nearest-mcdon...

With a little bit less serious take on the trek to the spot:

http://www.datapointed.net/2010/10/the-farthest-place-from-m...

Agreed. Based off my six years there: vinegar hill.

Couldn't agree more. Their "most remote spot" in Vermont is right next to Stratton, not far from the border with Massachusetts. The Northeast Kingdom -- where New Hampshire, Vermont, and Canada make a tri-border -- is way, way, way more remote. Yes there are dirt roads crisscrossing it, but there are very few people and plenty of wildlife, old growth forest, etc.

The one for Oregon looks suspect as well.

If I had to make a gut call, I'd say somewhere between Lake Abert and Steens Mountain, or perhaps somewhere in the extreme southeast portion of the state. Those places all have "roads" though, I suppose. Not paved ones, but someone drove a truck back and forth in the sagebrush a few times, and it wound up on a map. Still, they are extremely remote.

Edit: interestingly enough, the McFurthest spot, linked in my other comment, is between Lake Abert and Steens mountain, albeit to the south, in Nevada.

Just fyi the word is "jibe"

jibe 2 |jīb| verb [ no obj. ] N. Amer. informal be in accord; agree: the verdict does not jibe with the medical evidence.

In the US, 31 out of 33 visited states had audible human noises in their most remote spots. I wonder what the result would be for Canada's ten provinces and three territories...

> In the US, 31 out of 33 visited states had audible human noises in their most remote spots

I know the article says this, but it could't possibly be true. Most states have massive forests, including the State of New York. Even the most densely populated state, New Jersey, has them. Unless they literally sat at that spot for a day waiting for a plane to fly over them, I can't understand how it could be true.

You'd be amazed how far human sounds travel.

I grew up a 45 minute drive (~20 miles) from the nearest stoplight. The town that had the stoplight also had a train. I could hear it whenever the wind was out of the north and wasn't too strong (and almost always hear its whistle).

We were also about 6-7 miles from the interstate "as-the-crow-flies" (about 10mi driving distance). I could hear constant interstate traffic most of the time.

Note that both of those were faint, but they were definitely there.

A train 20 miles away, absolutely. Trains are by far the biggest noise polluters, mostly due to federal regulation. They have to signal at every intersection. In my humble opinion, completely unnecessary since we already have bells there, but whatever ...

As far as how forested New York State is, this gives you a good idea:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/309.html

Trains don't have to signal at every intersection. There are quiet zones in hundreds of municipalities.

True, and the horn is the loudest part of the train. The rest of the train can still be pretty loud, though, if operating at high power.

The quality of the tracking has a big effect on noise, too.

In more rural locations, many "intersections" (crossings) don't have bells.

There are people who have recorded the sounds of passing aircraft in the remotest parts of Alaska. Humans really are loud.

I think part of the problem is their definition of "remote".

My wife and I honeymooned in the Texas Hill Country. As part of it, we decided to just drive random roads (some unpaved or partially paved) just to see the countryside. At one point we pulled off the road to just walk around and take in the environment. Not a sound but the wind through the trees for a good five minutes. The Means' wouldn't count that pull-off as "remote", though.

All these parks and conservation areas have signed roads running through them. That precludes large swathes of them from being declared "remote". It doesn't matter that those roads might see half a dozen vehicles a year, while the site that meets their criteria is only two miles from a busy interstate.

Venture north in Canada and you will find nature that is almost virgin. Very peaceful.

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota registers as one of the quietest places on the planet:

what he calls the last great quiet places, areas that clock in at audible human noise-free intervals of 15 minutes or more. He only counts areas of around 3,100 square kilometres (1,200 square miles) or larger – enough to create a sound buffer around a central point of absolute quiet. Over the years, his list has shrunk as he returns to a previously quiet spot, only to find it now polluted by noise. Still, he says 12 such quiet places exist in the US, with more found around the world.

A spot in the Hoh Rainforest in Washington is one, as are places in Grasslands National Park in Canada, Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota and Haleakala National Park in Hawaii (see gallery). The others, however, he keeps confidential.

source: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140117-earths-last-place-w...

I've been to the BWCA several times and it's incredibly serene and peaceful.

...You'll hear only the constant drone of mosquitoes and your own screams as they slowly devour you...

Seriously, though, it is a fantastic place. Quetico (the Canadian side) is even more remote and beautiful, i.m.o.

The most remote spot in Alaska:

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/alaska-science-forum/most-remote-sp...

Of some pertinence: http://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html

Any truly dark place is at least a couple of hours from me, and I already live in a somewhat rural part of the western US.

My NYC remote spot is here: 40.876717, -73.927732 . It probably doesn't conform to the metrics in the article - but you get a beautiful view of the Hudson river - the Amtrak train passes by every now and then...

tl'dr: New Yorker sees a deer a quarter-mile off the road and concludes he's in the wilderness.

It's an amusing exercise for an area noted for being completely overrun by humans.

Does make me consider writing a "remoteness index" app.

Please don't post dismissive comments. HN has too many of them.

Meanwhile, there were four or five in my back yard just a few minutes ago (same as every night).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com