Living Like New York City in Cow Country - Bring on the Trains and Delis

Logically, the conclusion makes all the sense in the world.

New York City is the most eco-friendly place to live and reside. Green A City reports New York City's Small Carbon Footprint:

New York released details of its carbon inventory Friday, and its emissions were just under one percent of the nation's, with about 2.7 percent of the national population of 300 million. That means the city emits only about one-third as much as the rest of the nation does on average, mostly because of its strong city and metro region public transit.

What is comforting is that despite having such a small carbon footprint per capita, New York City leaders are looking to further reduce greenhouse emissions, particularly as New York City Tallies Its Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

The inventory will serve as the benchmark for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent between now and 2030...

..."The biggest city in the U.S. is also one of the leaders in local climate action, earning the nickname the Big Green Apple," joked Wyman. "New York City has demonstrated that we can turn the problem of global warming into profitable solutions that also make our communities cleaner, better places to live; a target Mayor Bloomberg set during a speech last December.

Public transit is the best means of controlling emissions from automobiles. My own experience leads me to conclude that while there are some mechanisms for controlling automobile use, such as toll booths or manipulations of parking fees, attempts to ban the automobile or make it inconvenient to use accomplish little except creating congestion.

The positive alternative is to construct an attractive, efficient, lower cost public transit system.

In their commentary, Green A City also makes this very critical observation:

The Big Apple's mixed-use zoning, allowing businesses and residents and retail to occupy the same neighborhoods, also contributed to its low-carbon output, as people have no-carbon options besides public transit--you can actually walk or bike to get things done and to go punch the clock. (emphasis added)

This was a lesson drummed into me by City of Madison planners in 1968. As both public and private infrastructure is constructed, particularly in a downtown, the objective is to maximize its use.  The cost of that infrastructure comes with the initial capital investment and it makes sense then to use those sewers, roads, cables and wires, schools, buildings - both public and private - to the maximum extent possible.

That is not to say there are not conflicts from the residential-commercial interface, the challenges of providing green space, and getting a taxi on a rainy day.  

In Madison our mayor's aggressive work in this area needs support.

Cieslewicz Calls for Federal Support for Transit, Energy Efficiency Initiatives

Mayor Dave Cieslewicz today called on Congress to act quickly to pass two measures that would increase support for local transit and energy efficiency initiatives. With gas prices continuing to average $4 per gallon with little relief in sight, these initiatives would help local governments and commuters reduce both energy costs and global warming emissions.

"The threat of global climate change combined with the extraordinary increase in fuel costs demand a paradigm shift when it comes to energy use," said Mayor Dave Cieslewicz. "We need to accelerate our efforts to become more energy efficient and encourage use of mass transit alternatives. The federal government can help us make significant progress on both fronts by advancing these two pieces of legislation."

The Mayor is taking part in a nationwide campaign asking for Congress to enact two measures, both of which are supported by Cong. Tammy Baldwin...

Comments

[R.J.]

Begging for subsidies to build it, that's cool.
In five years there will be begging for subsidies to expand it to become profitable.
In ten years there will be begging for subsidies to keep the workers' lush pension plan from dissolving.
In fifteen years, having lost a billion dollars, it will be deemed too big to fail and will grab a healthy slice of DOT cash (so long Gov's slush fund).
As the mode of transportation for thugs and a few idealistic professors to get around, I say go for it since Green Bay and Beloit will be picking up the tab.

[antpoppa]

What can I say? "ALL ABOARD!!"

[Donald]

I noticed they didn't include the emissions produced elsewhere that are used to keep NYC alive. NYC depends on massive carbon subsidies charged to someone else.

Train. You really need to think about scale here. What works best in Madison? Trains are a massive and inefficient people mover. Maybe they work in NYC, but the scale problem here makes them a terrible transportation choice. I'd rather pay people to stay home, ie. telecommute.

[rich]

Up to a point.

I agree with the core point here: cities are efficient; they're efficiency tools. But the fiscal, carbon & energy measures are not enough to self-aggrandize in a green image that's only half the package. Without designing cities that people actually want to live in, density is meaningless. We need highly vegetated, ecologically sound cities with unique and interesting civic spaces woven into the classic mixed-use urban landscape Soglin cites. Because without those attractors, cities as conventionally conceived won't do the job --- and won't attract enough people. Cities will not become the kind of resource-rich environments capable of resolving our current slate of challenges.

Density is not enough: and Soglin's knee-jerk support for the bloodless, business-as-usual Edgewater Hotel redesign doesn't so much help cities & the environment, as it sets back both.

Shoreline sites such as the Edgewater on Lake Mendota or the UW-M's possible Lake Michigan siting of its water sciences facility are a huge opportunity to do world-class, cutting edge sustainable design.

Instead, nominally progressive and supposedly environmentally aware mayors, past and present, are setting us back decades, squandering the future, and settling for business-as-usual practices and second-rate outcomes.

Yes--real, functional cities are a requirement. But a 'green' that settles for dense and urban without ensuring a livable and highly vegetated city landscape is pointless, and self-defeating in a way that takes us right back to the kind of cities, circa 1940, that everybody ran away from.

Can New York City really term itself 'green'? By happenstance, yes, but not really by intention until very recently.

Walk down any street, and you see Chilean Sea Bass on the window menus of restaurant after restaurant. The self-advertisment as a 'green' city enables a level of self-satisfaction that precludes vast numbers of NYC residents from adopting green lifestyles. The bottled water problem is only visible -- consumption of tasty ortolans and the absentee ownership and exploitation of natural resources far removed from NYC is not only standard, it's admired. Why settle for an apartment in SoHo, when a second home in suburbia can double your ecological & carbon footprint.

NYC off-shores its waste & out-sources its environmental impact, whether its dumping garbage or strip-mining coal: Jeffrey Sachs, of all people, has been advocating for coal --- seems mountaintop removal and violations of the Clean Water Act in West Virginia are A-OK with that fine upstanding New Yorker, as long as he doesn't have to face the consequences of his profligate intellect.

Must be OK -- if you're a New Yorker.

Cities are efficient -- but you can walk the street in NYC and get a real load of the incredible waste occuring day-in & day-out.

Cities are efficient -- but they need a vast overhaul, and the antiquated thinking of Dave Ciezlewicz is being rapidly outpaced by visionary leaders around the country.

Cities are efficient, but that's no excuse for defaulting to business-as-usual.

That includes Madison's street reconstruction, tree policy, backwards shoreline zoning attitude, the privatization of public space at the Edgewater, and in particular the utter inability to move on greener architectural design.

Cities are great. Dense, compact, mixed-use urban environments are necessary --- but do not trump the obligation to build a more ecologically sound city that people actually want to live in.

If the new Edgewater's design precludes public access by an unmistakably unwelcoming design --- or if it has so few ecologically-sound features built into it --- it along with those projects coming after it will kill the 4 Lakes that laid Madison's golden eggs.

Live in the past and die soon; or catch up with the rest of the country in the quality of urban design & architectural quality, and thrive economically. An easy choice. But it really is just that simple.

[R.J.]

"catch up with the rest of the country"

This is what it always boils down to. Why is there always the ego problem?