Just back from a vacation that included several days in New York City. I'd been to New York a few times before last week, but every trip was a work-related endeavor that left little time for simply enjoying the city. And yet, every time I'd been there I'd enjoyed the city more than I expected.
So I felt it was time to find out how enjoyable the city is when enjoyment is the only reason to go. Also, as indicated during last Tuesday's blog entry, I wanted to see how much of a "car town" New York really is (or isn't). I think I had a sense of both issues before going to NYC for a vacation, and yet the depth of how each affected me is something I couldn't foresee.
First, how enjoyable is New York when your only agenda item is to enjoy New York? Well, here's a word I didn't expect to use for America's largest population center: charming. Yes, the city is downright charming. And not just from a "I want to be entertained at 2 a.m." perspective (though it shines there, too). No, it's even charming for a family of four, with two kids ages 8 and 10. Whether walking Times Square or meandering in Central Park or even just sitting at an open cafe enjoying the best "people watch" in North America, the city offers as much family-friendly entertainment as Disneyland or Six Flags.
But you may notice in my description of New York fun that I have yet to mention a car-related activity (cruising, showing, street racing, canyon carving. etc.). This brings me to my second question: How much of a car town is NYC? Not much at all, really. And you know what? That's why I LOVE it!
For years I've heard people complain about how the politicians in D.C., or the news and entertainment people in New York, view the automobile as a liability because they have a lifestyle that doesn't require one. In fact, for people in those cities (among others) a car is an expensive and aggravating appliance. Not surprisingly, the residents of such cities also seem more willing to tax, regulate and restrict automobile use to curb everything from pollution to traffic to oil consumption.
Before going to New York last week I was ready to not need a car to enjoy the city. What I wasn't prepared for was to not even remotely want a car while having such a grand time. I've had a taste of this in San Francisco. You know, the ability to see the bulk of a city without using any form of internal combustion. New York takes the San Francisco thrill of walking city streets and multiplies it by several factors. I'm sure the not-particularly-humid July weather added to the fun, though I imagine walking through the city during a light December snowfall would have a charm all its own.
Bottom line: New York isn't a car town, and between its functional mass transit system and dense layout you'd be crazy to deny it. I know Jerry Seinfeld spent the kind of money only he could afford to spend to build a multi-story garage in New York for all his automotive toys. Certainly that's his right, but to me that would be like spending millions of dollars to put a ski resort in El Paso, Texas or a surfing school in Death Valley.
Sometimes you're better off embracing reality, even if the reality is specific to a location. I still don't want politicians outlawing the automobile for everyone just because most of them live in D.C. and/or have a limo driver. And I still embrace the thrill of driving a car...when I'm in a situation where a car makes sense.
However, as an L.A. driver who hates L.A. traffic (but has no realistic alternative), a few days in a city where cars are a pointless liability can feel like nirvana -- even for a car guy.
By 1487
on July 7, 2009
06:24 AM
Agreed.
By 1487
on July 7, 2009
06:26 AM
Oh and I've always found it ironic that the state with the most radical environmental views and most hatred of the car is one of the most car dependent in the nation. Instead of blaming auto companies for everything and constantly demanding 80mpg cars why dont people from California either demand better mass transit or better yet move to a place where it exists?
By dougtheeng
on July 7, 2009
08:59 AM
agreed 1487. mass transit in cities like NYC is amazing. I wish I lived somewhere where mass transit was more viable.
By tiruvan
on July 7, 2009
09:42 AM
Karl,
I really admire and appreciate your ability to be bold and say it like it is. For an editor of Edmunds to say that cars don't make sense all the time is simply great IMHO. This kind of genuineness makes reading your blog/tweet worthy.
I've been to NYC twice in my life for one week each time. The city is one of its kind in the country (and probably the world) and is very much enjoyable on foot itself.
I feel at least the top 5 big cities in USA could be like it if only they had the kind of public transportation that NYC does. But like 1487 said it is up to the people of such cities to start demanding better mass transit systems rather than a full size SUV with 40mpg.
A very nice picture by the way ... taken from the iPhone?
By carlisimo
on July 7, 2009
10:23 AM
Good post.
Like many people, I live in suburbia and work downtown (in San Francisco). I need a car at home, but I wouldn’t want to have it in the city. Fortunately, I have a pretty good arrangement here – I walk or drive to the commuter train station (depending on the weather) and take a 45 minute ride, then walk two blocks to my office. Sitting in a train has its disadvantages (the occasional fat, noisy, or smelly person) but I get an hour and a half a day to just read! That’s a wonderful thing.
Back home, I still need a car to go places and have fun – but since I don’t spend 10% of my waking life in it, it doesn’t have to be particularly comfortable on the freeway. So I have a Miata. I feel like I could have whatever I want – at 3,000 miles a year, who cares about mileage?
I think the ideal situation is for cars to give you the freedom to go where ever you want, like on weekends. But using them to go to work is sad. For most people, work doesn’t move around, it’s always the same path day in and day out. That doesn’t take advantage of cars’ mobility. If everyone’s going to the same place on a crowded freeway, that freeway would be better off as a train. The difficulty is in what happens after you get off at the station – in downtown areas, thousands of people can get off and just walk to their office, but that doesn’t work in areas of lower density. Maybe people will drive their personal cars to the suburban station, take the train, and take a rented or transit-owned transportation pod from the train hub to their office vicinity. The key is just to eliminate the part of the commute where everyone’s on the same freeway going in the same direction at the same time. There’s got to be a better way.
By rsholland
on July 7, 2009
10:55 AM
I grew up 30 miles from NYC, in central NJ, so I've had plenty of Big Apple exposure. Now I live roughly 200 miles from NY, and usually drive up once a year to the car show.
...And once a year is about all I can handle, as parking is about $50 a pop for the show (your mileage may vary).
As they say: "It's a great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there."
By 1487
on July 7, 2009
10:59 AM
Cars dont work well in too many central cities but NYC is larger and more dense than most other large US cities so a car REALLY doesnt make sense there. The problem (as far as I can tell) with CA is that they are so arrogant there that they assume they have nothing to learn from the older parts of the country. Just because the population has shifted south and west doesn't mean that there arent some good ideas back on the east. All major NE cities have public transportation that ranges from adequate to great. Philly is in the middle- its better than most but lacks the extensive subway coverage of NYC due to lack of density.
By rsholland
on July 7, 2009
11:00 AM
Meant to say...
As they say: "It's a great place to visit, but (as a car guy) I wouldn't want to live there."
By editor_karl
on July 7, 2009
01:56 PM
tiruvan: The wife actually took that photo, with a 1st gen iPhone to boot!
carlisimo: Your situation sounds like a dream to me. There's actually a rail station near my house (about 1.5 miles) that I could drive/walk to like you. But it only goes to downtown LA. There's no way to get from there to Santa Monica short of a cab (probably a 90-minute ride and at least $50 in rush hour) or a bus (cheap, but probably a TWO-HOUR ride in rush hour). And this is after the hour-plus train ride to get to downtown. Car takes me approximately 1-hour and I get to see the Pacific for 85 percent of it. Plus it's a great vehicle evaluation route.
Still, not having to drive a car everyday gets more appealing to me all the time. Guess I'm getting old, or maybe just more particular about how I express my "car guy" passions (commuting just doesn't count).
By gooney911
on July 7, 2009
02:00 PM
Like Mr. Holland, I also grew up in central NJ, 30-ish miles outside New York City. There was a train station 5-10 minutes from my house where I could hop a train straight into NYC and be there in about an hour (as opposed to the 90 minute minimum to drive in). And once into the city, I would hop a subway as close to my destination as possible and walk the rest of the way.
I'm a pretty stereotypical NJ driver, and sitting in traffic makes my blood boil. So it was always nice to just not have to worry about traffic, parking, and crazy cab drivers. And once you get past the sheer size of, and the number of different lines on the subway system, it's actually very well laid out. I can't remember ever having to walk more than 10 minutes to my destination after coming up out of the subway.
I also have pretty extensive experience with the Septa system in Philadelphia, and the Metro in Washington DC, and made use of them whenever possible to avoid driving. However, neither of those two are on the same level as the New York City subway.
I enjoy driving far too much to ever live in a place like NYC, but I do have to agree with Karl that it really is a great thing every once in a while to just let it go, and not have to deal with driving.
By nosubstitute
on July 8, 2009
03:06 PM
Spot on.
As a San Francisco boy, I love being able to walk to 90% of my destinations along our wonderfully scenic streets. It's one of the main reasons I spend what it takes to live here.
But as a car nut, I love taking off for nearby Hwy. 1 or the wine country or Yosemite or Lake Tahoe to enjoy the great driving and even more magnificent beauty of our incredible state.
An added benefit of having the car jones in a walking city is that if you have only one car and don't need to drive it much you can get something really really cool.
By billt9
on July 8, 2009
03:50 PM
Gentlemen, don't forget that by "New York City", you all really mean "Manhattan".
And don't forget that Manhattan is 2 (two) miles wide, by 7 (seven) miles long.
Subways are really really really slow.
It takes you ages to travel across those 2 miles.
It seems pretty darn fast because Manhattan packs so much into those two miles, so you pass a lot of stuff just traveling a couple feet.
Subways are really really really slow.
It's not feasible nor logical to build a mass transit to a city 60 miles wide, like cities in California or Texas.
Europeans built Manhattan in 1624, and packed it tight for walking. Which is good for building a mass transit on.
It is not possible to convert a city designed for cars, that's 60 miles diameter, to have a mass transit, good for a city that's 2 miles wide.
Manhattan is 2 miles wide. Two. Miles.
By carlisimo
on July 8, 2009
04:43 PM
BART, the commuter train system in the San Francisco Bay Area, is basically an X. Each of the two legs of that X is about 50 miles long.
The system certainly has its problems, but they're due to the people running it and not any inherent geographical limitation. It gets a lot of traffic on weekdays and weekdays. With a system that extends into the suburbs like that, you do need big parking lots at most of the stations, but I don't see anything wrong with that.
Boston's system also goes to distant suburban neighborhoods.
By dougtheeng
on July 9, 2009
06:15 AM
"Manhattan is 2 miles wide. Two. Miles."
yah but correct me if I'm wrong...but the Subway goes to other Boroughs too, right? Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx.
By gooney911
on July 9, 2009
07:50 AM
You're correct Doug. The NYC subway goes all over four of the five boroughs.
By estreka
on July 11, 2009
01:00 PM
I've been to NYC once. Had a great time. I'd echo all the things stated above.