The subway system:
This is maybe one of the things that a visitant
can find more confusing in the beginning.
According to the talks with other Fulbrighters that come from big cities
with a subway system, we are all agree about that the NY subway system can be a
little complicated to the new visitors. Many important things should have to take into
account, such as: Different routes can be taken in the same station, the final
destination of the routes named with as specific streets (which require an
important knowledge of the urban space), differentiation among services express
and local, and in some cases you have to identify the correct entrance
according to the direction you will take.
In a first glance, the system could seem
interesting thinking that the purpose is to allocate the people in the trains
in an efficient way in order to minimize the average travel times and also the
confortability of the people. Some indicators in that respect could be very
informative, for example: Energy use per capita, CO2 emissions per
capita, average daily distance and time per capita, etc. However I don´t know
if there is a real deep study of the commuting that support for example the
differentiation among services express and local. Maybe a more simple way of
transshipments and only local services could be more effective. Very often the
minimization of the use of energy is an issue of extreme importance in
environmental terms but as we will see later seems not very relevant in US.
An interesting issue is that in the morning in
rush hours it is notorious that the trains with direction with Manhattan are
very busy and commonly you should wait more than one train to get the boarding.
In contrast those with direction Brooklyn are much less occupied. This fact is
due to the role of Manhattan as a central point of development where are
concentrated the great majority of the employment. However this overconcentration
could not be desirable when some thresholds are exceeded, i.e. the floating
population of Manhattan should spend an ever increasing time to get their work,
which results in a decrease of the quality of life and productivity, and an
increasing environmental load in terms of CO2 emissions and energy
used to the transport.
It is commonly that in every intersection of
two (o more) lines, a station is constructed in order to maximize the use of
the subway by suitable transshipments. However this is not the rule in the NY
subway system since although few there are some intersection not taken into
account for stations. I would be very interested to know what the reasons were
for that.
While the logistic of the subway
system seems interesting, on the contrary the facilities in many stations are
not in the same level since many of them seems really emaciates and dirty. Maybe
the principal reason is about the long time since were built, i.e. it is one of
the world's oldest public transit systems. The decoration in some cases seems
very ancient.
View of a subway station
Many free cultural
events:
New York has many attractions and activities
which enable you to have many alternatives when you are thinking to hanging
out. Evidently many expensive spectacles are available but also there are many
cheaper options, which result in options for a wide range of budgets. For
instance, I am thinking about the variety of museums that in weekends are free
or the movies and concerts in some parks. This free options have an important
effect in the population, some sociologists could talk about the strengthening
of the social fabric which enable a more living environment scattering the
social tensions.
In México City the local government also apply
a policy of many free cultural events with the same purpose of bring life to
the city. Notwithstanding some critics argues about the populism that involve
such kind of policy wasting public funds to transient entertainment of the
population. However, The New York City example could be a good example of the
success of this policy.
Bryant Park
Constructions
everywhere:
In big cities the constructions represent a
renovation of the infrastructure and a kind of an indicator of dynamism and
life. However, with the constructions or reshuffle of Infrastructure as building,
streets, bridges, etc., the activities should be planned to minimize as
possible the affectations to the daily life of the people in terms of the
direct impact with the generation of noise, dust, obstruction of vehicle
traffic and risk to the integrity of people. In México City very often the
government officials receive many naggings and complains about that overload of
constructions, but while we should demand a good planning, as citizens we should
understand the importance and the need of these works.
Constructions in many streets. Photo of Astor place Street.
Intense use of
energy:
From an environmental perspective maybe one of
the most remarkable issues about the American way of life is the huge energy
used. For instance in NY the summer season can be very hot so the air
conditioned should be used to low the temperature, but also in winter season
the extreme cold cause the intense use of air conditioned to arise the
temperature. During of our summer program I´ve notice that the subway system
has air conditioned in all the trains, This fact is really remarkable since the
amount of energy to achieve that should be really great. The subway of México
City only use ventilation so the requirement of energy to this respect surely
are very lower.
Other point of intense energy use is in the laundries.
Since everything is automatized specially the extensive use of dryers entail a
significant requirement of energy. Although in México there are also dryers,
the majority of people of medium and low income dry their cloths directly by
the sun. I have no doubts that the use of dryers could be a very important
percentage of the total use of energy in the households in US.
Finally apart of the well-known intense use of
the car by the American citizens, I want to point out the customary activity of
keep turn on the lights of the buildings in the night. If the use of the
buildings is residential, actually I don´t know if there are people with the
lights on the entire night. By the other hand if the building is for offices, I
don´t know if there are working people in the nights that justify turn on the
lights the entire night. Although the
view to the city could be very impressive, keep turn on the lights in the
buildings without a certain justification will be a very intense energy
activity.
This American way of life entail the highest
Ecological Footprint per capita of the world. i.e. it has been well documented
that if every person of the world follow the American way of life the natural
resources of the planet would be not enough. Furthermore the CO2 emissions
that are related to this intense use of energy determine that US is the main
country to contribute to the climate change. In fact, I´ve participated in
México in some projects - sponsored by the agency of US of international
cooperation (USAID)-related to the feasibility of application of renewable sources
of energy, however according to my observations I think that this kind of
projects could be more useful here.
The high line park is often presume as an
example of green urban policy. However that can be true expecting only local
benefits for the temperature regulation - avoiding mainly hot spots in summer-
and for leisure sites options for the population. But in terms of the entire
urban metabolism of New York City, it doesn´t represent any real decrease in
the energy balance.
Night view of Manhattan (up); High Line Park (down)
This is a great post that made me think about a lot of things. The subway system is much more difficult for visitors to figure out than, say, the Mexico City metro. As you guessed, this is because it is so old. At one time, different competing private companies operated some of the lines, so it isn't a coherent whole that we can easily explain, like the smaller public-transit systems in Boston or Washington D.C. Also a word like "downtown" in most American places means the center of the city, but here it means the southern end of Manhattan. (I recently helped some tourists from Texas who thought they were already downtown because they were in Midtown!) Regarding energy, I looked this up and found that the NYC subway system produces 2 million tons of greenhouse gases per year. However, we tend to think of it as an energy saver because many people would drive if they couldn't use the subway or buses. The system is so comprehensive that some New Yorkers, particularly Manhattanites, never learn to drive, unlike other Americans elsewhere, who tend to depend on their cars for mobility. As for the climate control on the subway cars (air conditioning for the warm months; heating in the cold months), I think most people in affluent countries consider it a necessity. Ridership on the subways has increased sharply since, say, the 1970s and even the 1980s when the subway cars were filthy and covered with graffiti (there are debates about whether graffitti was art or an indicator of an out-of-control, crime-ridden city), and consistent climate control also has something to do with that. More ridership means that the subway is in better financial shape. The transit workers (drivers, conductors, mechanics, electricians) work extremely hard; they kept the system going every day during our recent harsh winter, and they minimize damage before tremendous storms like Hurricane Sandy by moving the cars around. Better finances mean they have a better chance of being paid decently. Were also adding another much-needed subway line, the Second Avenue line, though that project keeps stalling for lack of funds.
ReplyDeletevery scientific post. I like it. and the US is also the major country contributing to the big global consumption in the world.
ReplyDelete