Keep everything as it is, but eliminate all the taxis and non-essential vehicles for deliveries. Expand the public transportation system. What will the result be?
That would be hard to imagine. You know. A New York City without taxi cabs. It means we wouldn't have had a movie like "Taxi Driver" and we wouldn't have heard Robert De Niro say "You talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?"
Well- I guess if it's that difficult, we also wouldn't have other movies or genres that propose non-obvious alternatives to reality... Seriously- what will the result be? A basically all-pedestrian city...
I keep on watching CNN and there is an ad about this Keystone XL project the government wants to invest in... and I keep on thinking to myself, instead of investing in a damn pipeline, why doesn't the government invest in upgrading its public transportation system? Build more trains, subways, etc... by creating another pipeline, they are basically promoting the continued use of vehicles which we know are the sole contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.
Ok- thanks for the fact check... still though cars are up there at 28%... and if what you are saying is correct, I think its time that there is a moral check for companies and what is good for the environment...
Nov 17, 13 11:57 am ·
·
New york would be unbearable without taxis. I like walking butt not that much.
I walk to Chinatown from the Upper West Side every weekend. I also walk/bike to work and sometimes take the subway... the fact that you can do this means there is absolutely no excuse for others not to be able to reduce their carbon footprint... Change is never simple... you can't just expect things will be different without putting in effort to create change. By change I mean creating walkable cities... I just think people are lazy...
I can imagine NYC without cars pretty easy because everything you need is right there (assuming there are still some commercial delivery vehicles to bring it) but I can't imagine many American cities that could work without some sort of powered personal transportation units. Everyone would just stay home all the time and have no money because there would be no economy, what kind of utopia is that?
That's the point- why can't our economy be sustained by other means? Why can't we improve our city planning and upgrade our infrastructure so we are less dependent on cars??
what about the Air Train- hello? take the A/C to Howard beach and then the bus... oh and if you say, "yeah, but it's easier to take the car" you may be right right now, but let's talk in a while when global warming really impacts our day to day lives. Unless you're one of those freaks who deny the existing of the phenomenon altogether.
Nov 20, 13 12:04 pm ·
·
How woold a warmer globe ever make it easier to take the train than a car? If the globe is hotter then it's probably going to make the door-to-door convenience of a climate-controlled car even more appealing than a train full of stinky people.
New York with only taxis and Delivery Vehicles would be possible. What needs to happen is the public stigma associated with New York's mass transit system that it is (was) a dirty sweaty noisy crime ridden confusing mess, if it was clean with usable public restrooms and reasonably simple way-finding more folks would use it. But it is also a system that is operating above capacity during rush hours so major investment in larger station platforms and longer trains or buses needs to be considered.
Taxis are an important component of a mass transit system, they are technically referred to as Para-transit and with out them more people would feel the need for personal cars. Perhaps banning personal cars on Manhattan or charging $50 for the privilege of driving on the surface streets during the typical m-f work week would help reduce the number of cars while improving the travel times for cabs and buses. I think London has a similar system. A lower volume of cars would make biking much more safer too. Also charge more for parking $10-20 per hour would make a huge dent in the personal car use.
The other thing to consider is the resiliency of the transit system, the subway is vulnerable to flooding you don't need a hurricane just a heavy downpour. Much has to be done to secure it against flooding people do not want to climb up a stairway turned waterfall on their way to work.
Chicago has similar problems with weather as the temperature plummets so does the ridership since no one got the brilliant idea when they were spending $22 mill per station to cover and enclose the station platform where folks are waiting exposed to the cold winter winds.
Think about how comfortable your personal car is as compared to what transit can offer and look for ways to bring the user experience on mass transit up to or above the personal car and things will change. But the personal car has a lot of comfort and the supposed security and value will be challenging for the nation's mass transit systems to overcome. Both systems are competing for customers on the basis of value, convenience, and comfort.
What doesn't kill you makes you tougher, or so they say. Thinking about Chicago's windy platforms made me shiver.
BB, you ask why our economy can't be sustained by other means. I guess it is because a component of a good economy is velocity. The rate of exchange, the probability that a dollar is going to be effectively simultaneously two places at once. Which happens in New York. The vibrancy of an exchange comes, in part, from the ability to make the exchange, and enabling people to move about (with borrowed power, or cars in today's world) as they wish in comfort is paramount to the exchange. In NY, you don't need the car because everything really is right there (we're talking Manhattan, right?) so it works. Elsewhere, density is not high enough and everywhere but Manhattan is a big, big place where everything is not right there and support is needed.
By investing in more mass transit, the city would create tons of jobs as well. Then why not do it?
Because the political will to fund mass public transit - which by definition takes profit away from the private sector - is non-existent.
As far as I am concerned taxes on gasoline should be at least $5 a gallon, and progressive based on the efficiency of the vehicle (Hummer at 11mpg taxed at $20/gallon). You'd see changes pretty damn quick if the power of economics was used to influence behavior in a different way than it is now.
Not sure what you mean by reclaiming our use to society, but don't you think somebody is just going to design a friendly little way to replace cars? I find it hard to think that auto-mobility will be going away.
There are many problems with cars aside from energy use. Cars are antisocial. They separate people from each other, and the consequences of that behavior are readily apparent.
Nov 20, 13 2:08 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Imagine New York City without Cars
Keep everything as it is, but eliminate all the taxis and non-essential vehicles for deliveries. Expand the public transportation system. What will the result be?
That would be hard to imagine. You know. A New York City without taxi cabs. It means we wouldn't have had a movie like "Taxi Driver" and we wouldn't have heard Robert De Niro say "You talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?"
Well- I guess if it's that difficult, we also wouldn't have other movies or genres that propose non-obvious alternatives to reality... Seriously- what will the result be? A basically all-pedestrian city...
I keep on watching CNN and there is an ad about this Keystone XL project the government wants to invest in... and I keep on thinking to myself, instead of investing in a damn pipeline, why doesn't the government invest in upgrading its public transportation system? Build more trains, subways, etc... by creating another pipeline, they are basically promoting the continued use of vehicles which we know are the sole contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.
Because there is no financial profit in public transit. Henry Ford bought up street car companies just so he could shut them down.
And vehicles are not the sole contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.
Electricity production 33%
Transportation 28% (cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes)
Industry 20%
Commercial and Residential 11% (mostly heating)
Agriculture 8%
NYC without cars
Ok- thanks for the fact check... still though cars are up there at 28%... and if what you are saying is correct, I think its time that there is a moral check for companies and what is good for the environment...
New york would be unbearable without taxis. I like walking butt not that much.
I walk to Chinatown from the Upper West Side every weekend. I also walk/bike to work and sometimes take the subway... the fact that you can do this means there is absolutely no excuse for others not to be able to reduce their carbon footprint... Change is never simple... you can't just expect things will be different without putting in effort to create change. By change I mean creating walkable cities... I just think people are lazy...
What is that poor husky doing in there?!?! It looks confused. Poor doggie. Stupid humans.
"Humans! Why is no one petting me?"
That's really hard to imagine! I think soon it be vise versa as in the movie 5th element, all flying cars...
I can imagine NYC without cars pretty easy because everything you need is right there (assuming there are still some commercial delivery vehicles to bring it) but I can't imagine many American cities that could work without some sort of powered personal transportation units. Everyone would just stay home all the time and have no money because there would be no economy, what kind of utopia is that?
That's the point- why can't our economy be sustained by other means? Why can't we improve our city planning and upgrade our infrastructure so we are less dependent on cars??
Because people with money can never have enough, and they perpetuate their personal interest at the expense of everyone on the planet.
As far as I am concerned, they are the real terrorists.
Everything is right there? Bullshit, just try walking to JFK. Good luck with that.
what about the Air Train- hello? take the A/C to Howard beach and then the bus... oh and if you say, "yeah, but it's easier to take the car" you may be right right now, but let's talk in a while when global warming really impacts our day to day lives. Unless you're one of those freaks who deny the existing of the phenomenon altogether.
How woold a warmer globe ever make it easier to take the train than a car? If the globe is hotter then it's probably going to make the door-to-door convenience of a climate-controlled car even more appealing than a train full of stinky people.
I'll let you think about what you just said... the whole point of not having cars is to not contribute to global warming!
New York with only taxis and Delivery Vehicles would be possible. What needs to happen is the public stigma associated with New York's mass transit system that it is (was) a dirty sweaty noisy crime ridden confusing mess, if it was clean with usable public restrooms and reasonably simple way-finding more folks would use it. But it is also a system that is operating above capacity during rush hours so major investment in larger station platforms and longer trains or buses needs to be considered.
Taxis are an important component of a mass transit system, they are technically referred to as Para-transit and with out them more people would feel the need for personal cars. Perhaps banning personal cars on Manhattan or charging $50 for the privilege of driving on the surface streets during the typical m-f work week would help reduce the number of cars while improving the travel times for cabs and buses. I think London has a similar system. A lower volume of cars would make biking much more safer too. Also charge more for parking $10-20 per hour would make a huge dent in the personal car use.
The other thing to consider is the resiliency of the transit system, the subway is vulnerable to flooding you don't need a hurricane just a heavy downpour. Much has to be done to secure it against flooding people do not want to climb up a stairway turned waterfall on their way to work.
Chicago has similar problems with weather as the temperature plummets so does the ridership since no one got the brilliant idea when they were spending $22 mill per station to cover and enclose the station platform where folks are waiting exposed to the cold winter winds.
Think about how comfortable your personal car is as compared to what transit can offer and look for ways to bring the user experience on mass transit up to or above the personal car and things will change. But the personal car has a lot of comfort and the supposed security and value will be challenging for the nation's mass transit systems to overcome. Both systems are competing for customers on the basis of value, convenience, and comfort.
Keep on Moving
Peter N
^Finally an intelligent comment... By investing in more mass transit, the city would create tons of jobs as well. Then why not do it?
What doesn't kill you makes you tougher, or so they say. Thinking about Chicago's windy platforms made me shiver.
BB, you ask why our economy can't be sustained by other means. I guess it is because a component of a good economy is velocity. The rate of exchange, the probability that a dollar is going to be effectively simultaneously two places at once. Which happens in New York. The vibrancy of an exchange comes, in part, from the ability to make the exchange, and enabling people to move about (with borrowed power, or cars in today's world) as they wish in comfort is paramount to the exchange. In NY, you don't need the car because everything really is right there (we're talking Manhattan, right?) so it works. Elsewhere, density is not high enough and everywhere but Manhattan is a big, big place where everything is not right there and support is needed.
And if we make changes to "the other places" we can finally reclaim our use to society as architects
By investing in more mass transit, the city would create tons of jobs as well. Then why not do it?
Because the political will to fund mass public transit - which by definition takes profit away from the private sector - is non-existent.
As far as I am concerned taxes on gasoline should be at least $5 a gallon, and progressive based on the efficiency of the vehicle (Hummer at 11mpg taxed at $20/gallon). You'd see changes pretty damn quick if the power of economics was used to influence behavior in a different way than it is now.
Not sure what you mean by reclaiming our use to society, but don't you think somebody is just going to design a friendly little way to replace cars? I find it hard to think that auto-mobility will be going away.
There are many problems with cars aside from energy use. Cars are antisocial. They separate people from each other, and the consequences of that behavior are readily apparent.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.