[otoburb]

>>[...] a lot of people don't want to give up street parking spots for garbage containers.

This is an understatement. A New Yorker with a car that doesn't/can't pay the monthly indoor garage fees will fight tooth and nail for street parking.

[hombre_fatal]

On the other hand, it's a reminder of how car-brained we are. You can fit a dumpster in the space that a single SUV takes up, but even in NYC that driver's convenience is more important than a basic amenity like waste management.

[PennRobotics]

That's a $225,000 dumpster as of 2007: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/us/12parking.html

[hombre_fatal]

How does the price of private parking garages interact with curb-side parking and curb-side amenities?

Frankly I think the fact that a private parking garage space costs $225,000 should make us question further why we are content giving up such valuable public street space so that one person can park their vehicle.

If it costs $225,000 to park your vehicle for a year in a parking garage, imagine how insanely valuable the ground-level spaces are that we casually give up to a handful of vehicles so they can run in to Starbucks on Broadway. And presumably you're nodding along saying yes, that's the best use of that space.

[eli]

Yeah a parking-spot sized space is valuable. And yet the city is pretty much giving them away to drivers.

[giantg2]

This assumes the only way to provide waste management is to replace parking with dumpsters.

[hombre_fatal]

No, it questions the trade-offs we're making.

The resistance to do anything but prioritize the convenience of a minority of drivers in cities like NYC while we look for "better" solutions (aka a solution that doesn't sacrifice their convenience) has already made a decision on the trade-offs.

[giantg2]

A solution that meets the needs of multiple parties would be "better". When changing the status quo, it's "better" to find a solution that provides the intended benefit with the least negative impact on other groups.

If you actually want to provide the best benefit, we should start at the source and be looking at waste reduction. Instead of taking up 10% of the parking, it could be more feasible to take up 2.5% with smaller or less frequent dumpsters. You'd need less landfill space. You would hopefully have cheaper products through less material and less packaging. There's a lot of empty commercial real estate that could be repurposed, maybe for parking or residences with more modern waste management. There's likely other technologies that could be used for waste pickup at large buildings, like containers in the basement rolling out subsurface into the street and bottom loading into a truck via elevator. Or just more frequent pickup.

We could blame everything on cars. I feel that there are plenty of issues that are due to the old infrastructure that never envisioned all these uses or politics though. It seems other cities have figured this out just fine and kept their cars. Seems odd that NYC can't figure it out.

[micromacrofoot]

it's that or the sidewalks, there's not enough space

[giantg2]

Seems odd though that other cities can largely figure this out. Seems like a zoning failure, but nobody is talking about that. Maybe there is bias here since the zoning threads are always about increasing density, which this problem seems to largely be based (and coupled with old infrastructure and politics/cost/union).

[micromacrofoot]

I mean sure, but you're not going to be able to undo the past 100 years of development in NYC that caused it... so what's there to talk about? if they rezone NYC to require space for trash barrels and dumpsters it could be 200 years before half of the city redevelops to incorporate it.

NYC is one of the few places that has density in the US, and largely because it's old density. I feel like you're trying to paint this with a "see density bad" argument that is a lot more nuanced than you're making it.

[giantg2]

Density without modern updates or planning for the future is basically the root cause of this and other issues there. This is important to note even for proponents of increasing density. Even if it's old density, updates for things like rentals can be enforced. Modern approaches are how international cities deal with their trash at similar densities (compactor, below grade, tubes, etc). Politics are a major hinderrance. Is it really a surprise that NYC has a waste problem when the waste management budget has been repeated cut in the past few decades? Now they want to take the cheap and non-scalable bandaid option of dumpsters on streets, instead of a modern and forward looking approach, while blaming people with vehicles (for which the city has failed them in modern approaches or quality alternatives). Classic blame the other subgroup instead of the leadership. But yes, there is a lot of details, subtleties, and caveats involved in all of these.

[1over137]

Which is crazy, because they live in the city with probably the best public transport in their country.

[lotsofpulp]

It is good to get into and out of Manhattan. For other destinations, it’s not as easy. Compare to Tokyo’s subway map, which connects far more regions.

[vasdae]

I live in Europe and public transportation is full of scum, I don't even want to imagine how it is in new york city.

[ihateolives]

Yes, Europe is single country and same standards apply everywhere.

[PrimeMcFly]

Europe, at least the EU, isn't that far off being a country, honestly. Meets most of the criteria.

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

Substandard, decrepit, and unreliable to the point of necessitating alternative means compared to advanced economies.

[FFP999]

The real problem is that, for all that, it's still probably the best transit system in the USA. I live in Boston and I would trade the MBTA for the NYC MTA in a heartbeat. (Though to be fair, I would also trade the MBTA for a handful of shiny rocks, that being about equivalent in value.)

[kibwen]

And yet Boston's MBTA is still one of the top 5 best transit systems in the country, which is saying something. (Fun fact: Boston's red/orange/blue lines are also the most cost-efficient transit system in the US, as measured by farebox recovery ratio.)

[FFP999]

The T's FRR is the highest in the country: all of 30% or so. So it doesn't come close to giving acceptable service _or_ paying for itself.

The basic problem with the T is that it's a state agency. By which I mean, it depends on the support of the entire Massachusetts legislature, and if you are a legislator representing a district in western Mass, funding the T is a hard sell. Your constituents are going to be worried about crime, drugs, and unemployment, not a transit system that they'd have to drive for an hour to reach. The best you can do is make a general appeal to the Boston metro area as the entire economic engine of the Commonwealth, making its smooth running a win for all taxpayers in Massachusetts. Which, even though it's true, is not going to go over well with the public.

I've thought of one possible solution, which is to dissolve the T, blacklist and/or jail its top management as appropriate, and turn transit operations over to a new agency that's funded and run by only Boston-area communities who actually can point to a direct benefit from T service.

[kibwen]

> The T's FRR is the highest in the country: all of 30% or so.

According to the Federal Transit Administration, the Boston subway has a FRR of 74%. This is not the entire MBTA, which would also include things like the bus service (it should not be a surprise to anyone that trains are more efficient than buses).

I'm not disagreeing with you on the premise that the state has mismanaged the T and that it should be turned over to a municipal agency, only that the situation is not quite as dire as it seems. Most other cities in the US would be over the moon if they had Boston-level transit (which, again, is saying something about how poorly the US has managed its transit infrastructure).

[paleotrope]

"turn transit operations over to a new agency that's funded and run by only Boston-area communities who actually can point to a direct benefit from T service."

How would they pay for it? It's set up the way it is for a reason.

[gottorf]

It really is crazy how bad the T is! I suppose the long tradition of MBTA management seats being used as patronage rewards has not helped.

[FFP999]

I feel a little hopeful about the new GM though (Philip Eng, former head of the Long Island Railroad, for those just joining us). He's actually an engineering and operations guy, as opposed to the old GM Steve Poftak. Poftak's qualifications were an MBA and strict adherence to the Pioneer Foundation's party line.

At least the T put the final nail in Charlie Baker's further political ambitions. Hopefully he'll stay at the NCAA, we're just going to have to ask college sports fans to take one for the team (pun intended) there.

[crazygringo]

On the other hand, a New Yorker without a car, who walks around piles of leaking garbage bags on the sidewalk, is ecstatic about replacing parking spots with garbage containers.

Fortunately, it's a good thing to realize that each neighborhood is different. The busy neighborhoods with the most trash (e.g. much of Manhattan) have the smallest number of car-owning residents because it's a lot of tall buildings, while the neighborhoods with the most car-owning residents (e.g. much of Queens) generate the least trash, because it's a lot of houses.

[sschueller]

Solutions exist[1] that provide a very large trash storage with little above ground space.

[1] https://www.villiger.com/en/products#underground-systems

[woodruffw]

This doesn't necessarily preclude them, but a thing to note about underground utilization in NYC: the city has absolutely no idea what's beneath its surface, in part due to centuries of development with nonexistent or inaccurate recordkeeping.

Burying trash receptacles rather than reusing parking spaces may be cheaper, but it isn't guaranteed. It may also vary by borough (Queens in particular has less underground infrastructure).

[Ericson2314]

Yes we absolutely need those. But they will still reduce parking spaces. This is an unavoidable fight, and one that vast majority of non-far-outer-borough New Yorkers who don't drive need to win.

[balderdash]

My anecdotal experience is that as it relates to manhattan, a huge portion of street parking is used by commuters (even from other parts of NYC) a resident parking plus metered solution would free up a ton of space.

[jareklupinski]

> A New Yorker with a car

this is an oxymoron

we just borrow other peoples' cars / use taxis

[Ericson2314]

Fuck cars. Everyone street parking in NYC is a "rat breeder", simple as. It's on their hands.

[logicalmonster]

Good for you if you never need a car, but other people need cars for work and family needs. What do you propose that they do?

[Ericson2314]

You don't need a car to have a family in NYC. You might in every other city in America but you do not here.

[logicalmonster]

How do you know everybody's needs?

Some people do need a car for work, healthcare, education, living with disabilities, or many other reasons not mentioned.

[Ericson2314]

How do you? Why the assumption that public transit cannot fulfill the needs of the vast majority of people?

Perhaps there is some tiny fraction that needs a care. Well, there would be enough on-street parking left for them.

What is far more common is the a bunch of people that don't need cars hide behind the mythical empathetic car-dependent person.

[logicalmonster]

First you said "You don't need a car to have a family in NYC" and now you're talking about "the vast majority of people". Which is it? Your thesis is changing.