DSNY is working with the city to change rule and push back time allowed to put trash out.

[brycejones]

The third choice would have been to properly plan the infrastructure and population density to avoid both problems.

Learning some history about NYC would help you understand better.

 

[IronWing]

If the city wanted to it could start rolling out containerized trash collection tomorrow. It’s a policy choice.

Non-containerized trash pick-up sounds like a jobs program.

 

[fskimospy]

Non-containerized trash pick-up sounds like a jobs program.

Oh I'm certain if we switched to largely mechanized sanitation like other cities do the sanitation union would go on strike and try to bury the city in trash before they would let it become more efficient.

It's like with the MTA - all our trains are staffed by two operators. Almost every other major transit agency in the world uses one. Why don't we? Because the transit union would throw a shit fit if we did so now watch the MTA have a fiscal meltdown because they can't challenge the union.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What time are you envisioning this trash pickup happening? Like 10PM or later? People are not going to want trash trucks rumbling up and down the block at midnight.

Your plan is just going to lead to lots of trash roasting in the sun all day. This is a bad idea.

Oh right I forgot how trucks rumbling around NYC would interrupt the otherwise placid nature of the city.

But no, I was thinking more like 7-11 or so. Whatever the block of time is they pick up trash in the morning when people are asleep, do it at night either before or when they're asleep.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh right I forgot how trucks rumbling around NYC would interrupt the placid nature of the city.

Most of the city is relatively quiet at night, yes. People think NYC is Manhattan but the other boroughs are not like that at all.

But no, I was thinking more like 7-11 or so. Whatever the block of time is they pick up trash in the morning when people are asleep, do it at night either before or when they're asleep.

Those are the prime socializing/dining/whatever hours. People are not going to want to be fighting with sanitation trucks during that time. The city is trying to play with the hours because they are desperately attempting to find a way not to do the obviously correct thing because the obviously correct thing requires effort and making some particularly rich, whiny constituents mad.

 

[IronWing]

Bisbee is an old mining town in southeast Arizona that is built in a tight valley. Being built before the age of automobiles, most of the houses don't have street access and residents use public staircases to reach their homes. Bisbee went to centralized dumpsters last year. @Zeze - Bisbee is more advanced than NYC.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Most of the city is relatively quiet at night, yes. People think NYC is Manhattan but the other boroughs are not like that at all.



Those are the prime socializing/dining/whatever hours. People are not going to want to be fighting with sanitation trucks during that time. The city is trying to play with the hours because they are desperately attempting to find a way not to do the obviously correct thing because the obviously correct thing requires effort and making some particularly rich, whiny constituents mad.

Maybe a bunch of trash trucks making everyone's life miserable is a really good lever to get under the vehicle culture to get that ball rolling.

 

[Greenman]

Considering a large proportion of the city was built before the invention of cars or mechanized sanitation that would require a time machine. Oh and of course population density isn’t the problem, plenty of dense cities don’t have these issues, after all. I’m sure you knew that though.

If the city wanted to it could start rolling out containerized trash collection tomorrow. It’s a policy choice.

This is incorrect. Infrastructure can be upgraded to current standards. It often isn't because government backs itself into a corner where cost becomes so absurd that swimming in shit actually becomes a viable alternative.

 

[fskimospy]

This is incorrect. Infrastructure can be upgraded to current standards. It often isn't because government backs itself into a corner where cost becomes so absurd that swimming in shit actually becomes a viable alternative.

The 'infrastructure upgrade' would be containers in the parking spaces. I'm glad you agree that development can coincide with infrastructure upgrades though because in the past you said we couldn't do development until we built infrastructure to nowhere.

 

[K1052]

If somebody made me the dictator of NYC my first five acts, in order, would be:

Centralized container trash collection.
Ban sidewalk sheds for buildings not under active construction.
Abolish the parking placard system and tow like there is no tomorrow (including cop cars).
Elimination of all free parking/implementation of paid residential permits.
Honking punishable by digit removal, starting with the pinky.

 

[fskimospy]

If somebody made me the dictator of NYC my first five acts, in order, would be:

Centralized container trash collection.
Ban sidewalk sheds for buildings not under active construction.
Abolish the parking placard system and tow like there is no tomorrow (including cop cars).
Elimination of all free parking/implementation of paid residential permits.
Honking punishable by digit removal, starting with the pinky.

I think I love you. All hail Mayor For Life K1052!

 

[Amol S.]

If somebody made me the dictator of NYC my first five acts, in order, would be:

Centralized container trash collection.
Ban sidewalk sheds for buildings not under active construction.
Abolish the parking placard system and tow like there is no tomorrow (including cop cars).
Elimination of all free parking/implementation of paid residential permits.
Honking punishable by digit removal, starting with the pinky.

I have bad news..... anything Staten Island usually supports, is something usually the rest of the city would not support. Your ideas would probably liked by Staten Islanders. You probably would find a lot more support in making Westchester County the 6th borough of NYC.

 

[Brainonska511]

I have bad news..... anything Staten Island usually supports, is something usually the rest of the city would not support. Your ideas would probably liked by Staten Islanders. You probably would find a lot more support in making Westchester County the 6th borough of NYC.

Haha, you have it all wrong. Staten Island, land of cop and firefighter homes (people that completely abuse free parking and placards), would hate K1052's ideas.

 

[fskimospy]

I have bad news..... anything Staten Island usually supports, is something usually the rest of the city would not support. Your ideas would probably liked by Staten Islanders. You probably would find a lot more support in making Westchester County the 6th borough of NYC.

Lol what. Those are things everyone in NYC supports.

 

[dawp]

Anyone else get confused by the thread title? when I saw DSNY thought this was about Disney.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Same

 

[Amol S.]

Haha, you have it all wrong. Staten Island, land of cop and firefighter homes (people that completely abuse free parking and placards), would hate K1052's ideas.

Staten Islanders are known to hate trash.... Rudy's promise of removing a SI landfill was what caused him to win SI at a historically high vote.

 

[UNCjigga]

Wait, people in NYC just throw the garbage bags right on the sidewalk?

How do you think the rats got to be bigger than cats???

 

[Greenman]

The 'infrastructure upgrade' would be containers in the parking spaces. I'm glad you agree that development can coincide with infrastructure upgrades though because in the past you said we couldn't do development until we built infrastructure to nowhere.

That's incorrect again. I've stated that in many places development can't happen because of the lack of infrastructure. Here in CA we're limited by water and limited energy production. Many city's are now banning natural gas in new homes, adding electrical load to a system that often reaches capacity.
We could go ahead and build another million homes, but without water and energy they wouldn't be in demand.
It sounds to me like your city didn't properly plan for the disposal of waste, so you lose parking or have giant rats everywhere. That's poor planning no matter how you cut it.
Eliminating some parking may convince some people to move out of the city for greener pastures, which would help with the trash and parking problem. Could be a win win.

 

[MrSquished]

That's incorrect again. I've stated that in many places development can't happen because of the lack of infrastructure. Here in CA we're limited by water and limited energy production. Many city's are now banning natural gas in new homes, adding electrical load to a system that often reaches capacity.
We could go ahead and build another million homes, but without water and energy they wouldn't be in demand.
It sounds to me like your city didn't properly plan for the disposal of waste, so you lose parking or have giant rats everywhere. That's poor planning no matter how you cut it.
Eliminating some parking may convince some people to move out of the city for greener pastures, which would help with the trash and parking problem. Could be a win win.

Taking existing land to put garbage disposal containers on it has zero to do with needing to expand infrastructure like water or energy.

What are you talking about?

 

[Brainonska511]

That's incorrect again. I've stated that in many places development can't happen because of the lack of infrastructure. Here in CA we're limited by water and limited energy production. Many city's are now banning natural gas in new homes, adding electrical load to a system that often reaches capacity.
We could go ahead and build another million homes, but without water and energy they wouldn't be in demand.
It sounds to me like your city didn't properly plan for the disposal of waste, so you lose parking or have giant rats everywhere. That's poor planning no matter how you cut it.
Eliminating some parking may convince some people to move out of the city for greener pastures, which would help with the trash and parking problem. Could be a win win.

Your post seems to assume a million new homes will be inefficient single family homes on sprawling lots. We could easily add more homes to California if the definition of a home expanded beyond single-family. Multifamily homes are tremendously more energy efficient, and with water saving fixtures and no lawns to water, I'd bet they'd also use less water per capita too.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Your post seems to assume a million new homes will be inefficient single family homes on sprawling lots. We could easily add more homes to California if the definition of a home expanded beyond single-family. Multifamily homes are tremendously more energy efficient, and with water saving fixtures and no lawns to water, I'd bet they'd also use less water per capita too.

Las Vegas has managed to increase its population by 34% while reducing water usage by 25% :O

 

[Zorba]

Hmm, I've never lived in a place that limited the time for trash to be placed. As long as it is contained, no issues.

What other cities just stack trash up on the city sidewalks all evening? I haven't been to every city, but I can't think of any other I've been to where this was done, most have heard of something called a dumpster.

 

[Zorba]

Putting the trash out the night before is not the problem, the problem is putting it on the sidewalk. This problem is easily fixed so long as you ignore the car lobby, which should already be done.

Not every street in NYC has street parking, though. Most cities also don't have dumpsters sitting on the streets. They make the building owners give up some space to keep them in and the trash truck collects from there.

In the single family/row house areas, using carts seems like a no brainer, but yeah have to kill the street parking for that, or at least some of it.

 

[fskimospy]

That's incorrect again. I've stated that in many places development can't happen because of the lack of infrastructure.

I know you’ve said that before but it’s silly and it was already explained to you why that is obviously wrong. In every growing city the two take place simultaneously. It’s not like anywhere they build empty schools and useless power plants with the hope that someday people will move in to make them worthwhile.

This was another one of those objections you created out of thin air because you want to oppose development without coming right out and just saying it.

Here in CA we're limited by water and limited energy production. Many city's are now banning natural gas in new homes, adding electrical load to a system that often reaches capacity.

We could go ahead and build another million homes, but without water and energy they wouldn't be in demand.

Well if you’re right then having all the legal restrictions on density you have are unnecessary so surely you won’t mind abolishing them all. After all since apparently infrastructure is the limiting principle here then nothing will change and YIMBYs will be proven wrong.

Wait what’s that? You don’t want to do that? I wonder why. CA’s water is overwhelmingly consumed by agriculture, much of which is incredibly wasteful. There is no water limit on residential expansion. As for power, you could easily build more power plants any time you feel like it.

It sounds to me like your city didn't properly plan for the disposal of waste, so you lose parking or have giant rats everywhere. That's poor planning no matter how you cut it.
Eliminating some parking may convince some people to move out of the city for greener pastures, which would help with the trash and parking problem. Could be a win win.

That’s correct, when most of New York City was laid out prior to the automobile or mechanized sanitation they did not plan for either so there are no alleyways in the majority of the city. Hence a requirement for a time machine.

Amusingly enough eliminating parking would probably increase demand in the city because few people own cars and the space could be better used.[/quote]