Smoking Ban May Now Include Your Apartment
Access-A-Ride Nailed by Local News
Giuliani Livid Over Bringing 9/11 Trials to NYC
House Cat Terrorizes Family In Dramatic Hostage Situation
Oreo The Dog Is Dead, Blame Game Is Not
The NY Times wonders why there are such big cars in the city, as many auto manufacturers are bring teeny tiny "city cars" to the International Auto Show, like the Renault Zoe. Apparently, the Times didn't get the memo that NYers will try to find ways to maximize their space, from getting mini-storage at a warehouse to mini-store on wheels in the form of an SUV. Plus, bigger is always better, ain't it? Anyway, Gothamist was amused by the failed introductions of smaller cars (like the Smart car) to the U.S.; again, when New Yorkers see their American brethren driving across country in their souped up SUVs, clearly there's a envy factor. So that's the illogical explanation as to why there are not only Hummers in the city, but also those ridiculous SUV limos carting the prom kids in town.
Also at the Auto Show: A fight between some Crips and some Bloods occured last night. According to the NY Post, it's "become a tradition for gang members to attend the show on Easter." Even the Crips and Bloods have their Easter traditions - fabulous!
Ask Gothamist on driving in Central Park and what the parking signs mean in the city. Gothamist on how the city could be "oversigned" because of cars and the expenses of having a car here.
Photo of Renault Zoe from MSN
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
The reason there are big cars and SUVs in the city is party because NYC is not just Manhattan, but also some of the more "suburban" style neighborhoods of Queens and the Bronx where it is easy to garage or drive a giant SUV. Also, the city is very easily accessible by highways from CT, upstate NY and NJ, meaning that more people can drive their big cars into the city. Unlike, say, London, which is very difficult to drive into from the 'burbs. If NYC were more self-contained, and people used cars only for getting around the city and not for getting from the city to Westchester, New England or Long Island, I bet you'd see a lot more Minis, Golfs and Smart Cars, like in Europe.
1) They have smaller cars in Europe because gas is twice as expensive. Even the luxury models over there like BMW & Mercedes come with smaller engines.
2) And the city roads are tiny, try driving a Buick or SUV through down a windy Italian road or through a small country town in France.
Another thing: If you live and work in Manhattan, you really have no need for a car. The people with cars are probably the ones who work outside of the city and use the car to commute. I can’t imagine that they’d willing to risk their lives in a Smart Car on the SUV-clogged highways of New Jersey.
just a nitpick, but i think european gas isn't actually more expensive, it's just not subsidized like ours. so in effect, all americans are footing half the bill for gas guzzlers. am i wrong?
beyond commuters, i think SUVs in the city --most of which will never come in contact with an unpaved road-- are also a result of bling, testosterone and entitlement. (or selfishness, stupidty and irresponsibility)
that zoe is cute. i wonder if they'll come to america.
"I can’t imagine that they’d willing to risk their lives in a Smart Car on the SUV-clogged highways of New Jersey."
The Smart is actually quite safe. Mercedes always cares about safety in all its models. This is the same, old, mistaken American attitude of bigger is better, or bigger is safer. I seriously considered buying a Smart Fortwo Cabriolet. Unfortunately, they won't be sold here when Smart comes next year. Only a new, bigger model for American "sensibilities." Canada's getting them, but not us. Besides, NYS parking laws being stringent and stupid, you can't park a Smart Fortwo perpendicular to the curb in NYC like you can in Europe.
you're right captain, smart designed a strong crash frame that ricochets to protect the cabin. they explain it all on their site. the very slow acceleration could be kinda dangerous on american on-ramps though.
you can order the smart cars in the US right now through zapworld. i think smart has ditched the forMore SUV that they were developing for the american market. diamler-chrysler is talking about scrapping smart altogether since they have been losing money non-stop.
I live and work in Manhattan but spend a lot of time outside the city (New Jersey, Quebec, Ontario, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire and many other parts of New York State in the last ten weeks) -- am I allowed to have a car in your scheme?
I don't think anyone is saying, jt, that no one should be allowed to have a car, but that the type of driving most NY'ers do dictates the type of cars they have. If NY were more like London or Rome, we'd see a lot of small cars. But since NYC has greater access to highways, that's why there are a lot of big cars here. Simple statement of fact, not judgement.
Can we introduce a new word into the urban vocabulary? Hummer Limo's...I like to call them "Hummasines"...Wuddaya think?
If you think 4x4's never see off-road use, you don't get out to the outer boroughs. My 4wd is parked "on" the street in the mud facing down a 30+ deg. slope in Riverdale, Bronx. Try that with a smart car. Or, try going through a 1' pot hole with a mini-car with 12" tires in the middle of 5th ave. as you look up at all the cabs whizzing by. Or throgh a 8" deep puddle when the storm drains clog up. NYC has some third-world driving conditions that require a bigger, more powerful car, or punish those that are not.
If you think 4x4's never see off-road use, you don't get out to the outer boroughs. My 4wd is parked "on" the street in the mud facing down a 30+ deg. slope in Riverdale, Bronx. Try that with a smart car. Or, try going through a 1' pot hole with a mini-car with 12" tires in the middle of 5th ave. as you look up at all the cabs whizzing by. Or drive through an 8" deep curb-to-curb puddle when the storm drains clog up. NYC has some third-world driving conditions that require a bigger, more powerful car, or punish those that are not.
jimbo, I watched a rear-wheel drive SUV spinning it's wheels like mad in the last big snowstorm. Very funny. Yeah, I know your car has 4-wheel drive but there are smaller cars (not the mini smart car maybe, but small) that have that too and can easily handle the stuff you deal with. Like my Suburu. But then again I don't need a "bigger, more powerful" car vehicle to compensate for other issues...
PS -- I do not believe there is a 30 degree slope on a road anywhere in NYC -- please give details of location to confirm.
I have a small car
as seen in NYMag here http://www.jkscnyc.org/media/sc/NYMagCushman092004.jpg
3 wheels, and one passenger. If anyone wants one, send me a message through http://www.gregoryheller.com i should have 2 for say within about 2 weeks (no soundsystems in those)
But seriously Gothamist, what about the minicooper craze? and how come everyother car in the east village and lower east side seems like it is a golf, gti or jetta? I think nyers are pretty pragmatic when it comes to car size, it's all the suburbanites driving into the city that feel like they need the armor of an SUV to protect them. Double the parking fines for SUVs, and increase the registration fees (not to mention gas) and we will see a drop in SUVism. Great open ed by Thomas Friedman in the NYT sunday here http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/opinion/27friedman.html.
Hijiki,
one thing many do not realize is that SUVs are very attrative to consumers for very specific reasons. The Gov and Detroit got togther and classified them as trucks, noit as cars (which is what their body frames are) and relaxed all sorts of labor issues regarding their construction. Thus you do not have to pay a gas guzzler tax, you can have a bigger cheaper engine than you could have in a car (weithout additional taxes), the labor costs are lower, the car manufacturer does not have to count them in their average fleet MPG, etc. It is a true example of welfare for rich people. If they were treated as cars (which they 99% are) they would cost roughly $10 to $20 K more per- thus you would not see nearly as many of them.
Also, the USA does not subsidize our gas consumption- we get the employee discount. ;)
Must learn to preview- sorry.
i get around jimbo, but i was referring to a specific group that clearly never goes off road. (notice how i prefaced my statement with 'in addition to commuters'.) i don't deny that SUV's have legitimate uses, but the giant escalade with spinner wheels and ultra-low profile tires are not going off road. they are polluting the air, blocking views, and making the city more dangerous for everyone. there are stats about how many SUVs go off-road which i don't recall off hand, but it is the majority that never do. there are many awd cars and wagons that can handle nyc roads, but i don't think anyone said you should get a smart car.
also, max, owning a hummer comes with some big tax breaks because of it's commercial truck classification. it's just backwards.
jimbo, one of the reasons the city streets are full of potholes that only your SUV can succesfully navigate is because your SUV, with it's enormous weight, causes bigger potholes to form! heavier cars and heavier use means more wear and tear on our roadways.
i mean "its."
Ok, I don't have an enormous truck, just a small Honda SUV, so it's no compansation for anything except lack of a trust fund (and it parks like a car!). It also fits anything I'd want to put in it, from groceries (and bulk drygoods) to "street treasures" aka stuff rich people throw out.
People spinning out don't know how and/or when to drive. I see them tossed like snack wrappers by the side of the highways everytime it snows or sleets. I agree, 4wd is not a cure-all for bad conditions or stupidity.
The steep hills are all over Riverdale - come for a visit, stay for a lifetime. It's because we're on a giant cliff looming over the rest of the Bronx. Drive the backside of Palisade ave. in the 250's. For a flavor, check out ForgottenNY's tours:
http://www.forgotten-ny.com/Alleys/morebronx/northwest.html (gives a good idea of the rough roads, but no steep street pics)
http://www.forgotten-ny.com/STREET%20SCENES/STEP%20STREETS/steps.html (we don't drive the steps, but look at the dirt road)
http://www.forgotten-ny.com/Alleys/tulfan/tulfan.html
http://www.forgotten-ny.com/STREET%20SCENES/spuytenduyvil/spuyten.html
Potholes - SUV's, unless they've just robbed the gold at the Reserve, are not main the reasons for potholes. The reasons for potholes are: water/ice, plows, heavy traffic of giant trucks, not-so-giant trucks (but still way bigger than even a "Hummasine"), underground utilities, lack of the city/state's ability to make smaller timely repairs. See NYDOT - http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/pr2003/pr03_35.html
Jimbo, thanks for the links, but none of those are close to 30 degrees, unless there is a dirt road parallel to the steps that I cannot see. And part of the *lawn* on 2505 Palisade Avenue might be 30 degrees. It's possible that some are them are close to 30 *percent* in gradient, but that's a different thing than degrees -- perhaps that's what you meant. There are a few short sections of pavement in San Francisco that are about 30 percent but no paved road in NYC or SF or anywhere in the US (perhaps the world???) is 30 degrees. I think 30 degrees is well over 50% and there aren't roads like that.
jimbo, suvs are not the primary cause of potholes, but they certainly exacerbate the problem. that's one reason why some bridges and roads have weight restrictions on them. the brooklyn bridge has a weight restriction for commercial trucks and cars of about 6000 pounds. however, most hummers and large SUVS (navigator, etc.) weigh more than that even though they aren't "commercial" vehicles.
it's pure physics. all things being equal (water, ice, temperature, salt, etc.) surely 20 bicycles going over a crack in the road won't cause the crack to expand as fast as 20 Cadillac Escalades.
Those over-sized cars are such a waste of gas, and maybe will even cause more problems.
Just go to Google and type in "war with China" "oil" or variations. There's a low level buzz now from some businesspeople that sometime in the near future the United States and China will go to war over oil. Already China is buying stakes in oilfields in Canada, as well as South America and Africa. This will probably be called the "first SUV war."
What ever happened to "conservation"? It seems like a dirty word these days for the average person.
JT, You're right about deg. vs. %, you can tell I'm no scientist. In any case, very steep and rough and you need parking brake, brake+gas when going in reverse, traction in winter, ground clearance or a lot of repairs on your car.
D, semantics. Potholes existed before cars and before SUVs. Sure SUV's may exacerbate the problem, but so do buses (even crunchy granola, runs on wind, eco-buses). I would posit that if every SUV fled NY for Montana, there would still be potholes every year in roughly the same number and locations, and for the same reasons.
Speaking of potholes and Riverdale, we also have giant sinkholes, where 5-10 Sq. ft of road collapses over eroded runoff/storm drains after a lot of rain. There was one near me that they repaired every week for a few months and it kept collapsing and taking the mob-supplied road materials with it.
My point from above needs to be made explicit. People want SUV's for a variety of (non-evil) reasons whether they live in NY or Alaska. There should be no subsidy for this, nor there should be any ban or limit. If you want to fight against capitalism using SUV's as a stand-in for Fat Cats and Running Dogs, say so. That way people can mock your failed "ideals." They can also suggest you drive those eco-friendly Trabants from E. Germany or the mid-century Pontiac Cheiftans still puttering around Cuba to see how non-capitalist economic systems handle choice and pollution. Also, they fail as social criticism. Don't be lazy and say "escalades with spinner wheels and extra low profile tires" when you want to mock the choices made by gel-encrusted bridge and tunnel wankers or momma's-basement-dwelling gangtsa wannabes. Say what you mean.
Also, SUV's should not be blamed for potholes, war with China, herpes, or subway fires. They are what they are, trucks with seats and DVD-players, not the anti-Christ.
wow jimbo, you're kinda touchy about your mini-suv. you seem to be confused over who or what you're debating. what in the world is this garbage about cuba and failed ideals? that's an absurd leap, not to mention speculative and irrelevent.
when i talk about spinners and low profile tires i know exactly who i'm talking about. doing that to a 4X4 makes the truck worthless off-road and negates foul weather performance making it nothing more than a giant showpiece. the people who drive those monsters are selfish and irresponsible... exactly as i said. what is lazy about that? did i confuse you by not throwing in derogatory stereotypes?
if you want to talk about honesty then let's examine why you're fighting tooth and nail for your right to pollute my air and water, to make my walk to work and my drive out of town more dangerous, and to limit my options in buying a more responsible vehicle. i have no problem placing limits on dangerous overconsumption when it endangers my safety, my health, and my choices. but what's really sad is that you do it in the name of a honda that probably gets as good gas mileage as an average car and is hardly any bigger or heavier than one.
Hijiki,
You got me, you're just calling non-Honda SUV owners monster-driving, selfish, and irresponsible. That's rational. Let's make a law and take their cars so your choices are respected.
Who cares about letting people make their own decisions? They're selfish and irresponsible. Only enlightened folks are able to see through the consumerism and gluttony that blinds others. These wise philosopher-kings, like Hijiki, should be making the choices for the rest of us. I stand corrected.
My points about societies where these choices are taken out of the hands of everyday slobs like me, and are instead determined for the "greater good" are irrelevant. I now see that there are people who can make a million small decisions, like how useful cars should for every individual, on such an efficient basis, that no individual choice is necassary.
i called someone who drives a 9mpg pavement-bound monster truck around the city while endangering the safety and health of everyone around them selfish and irresponsible. yes, i think that is rational. i'd like to hear you justify their right to do that over my right to choose a small car without fear of being crushed. and over my right to see the traffic and signage around me. or my right to a clean environment and natural resources for the future. does your right to consume what's left of our fossil fuels supersede my right to conserve those resources? do you own them? when were they donated to the free market with no strings attached? are they yours to deplete? are they yours to kill for in the name of our country? is your right to pillage our atmosphere more important than my right to conserve it? if you want to talk about automobiles in the scheme of global societies and governments, then lets look at the implications beyond just individual consumer choice.
what you've said is that your freedom of choice is more important than mine and i said that it's not so let's drop that ridiculous philospher-king projection. we both want freedom here, but there is no such thing as unregulated freedom in the civilized world. at some point, one person's freedoms eventually intrude on the rights of another. you are required by law to drive under the speed limit and stop at red lights. these are regulations for the same common good that you seem to despise. it's a desperate leap from requiring minimum fuel efficiency to the state of cuba's government.