New York state lawmakers have agreed to pass a sweeping climate plan

Of course it's copious.

Let's say the number of spaces in an average street is X. Most cars in those spaces are just sitting there all day, so the demand for those spaces is 10x. Okay, not copious.

But the demand for moving down that street is 1000x. Now those spaces are egregious.

That’s not free parking! Those are bike lanes pending barrier construction! :)

Pre-tax transport benefit plans at the federal level have had equivalent transit/parking amounts since 2016; not that the city has much control over that.

NYC's own pre-tax program explicitly doesn't include parking. It's also probably worth mentioning that the city has a tax on off-street parking at 18.375% in Manhattan.

Driving is also heavily subsidized by the fact that much of the cost of driving is externalized. When someone drives the fumes coming out of their car damage the health of everyone around them, that cost is paid for by everyone and not just the person driving so there is very little incentive to stop doing it.

I pay $512.84 per month for parking; it's valet parking because they stack multiple cars on elevators in the building basement.

I don't know exactly how you want to characterize the floor space of that, but my gut feel is it's basically a similar cost to rent for an apartment per unit area.

I think it probably comes pretty close - my friends with parking spaces in Manhattan pay $500+/mo

I don’t want to argue for cars, but a square of something you can park on should definitely be cheaper per unit area than something you live in. I don’t think I’ve ever parked anywhere I’d happily live.

Does a slab of asphalt have the same taxes assessed and upkeep costs as an apartment?

Well, there is some metered parking; admittedly not a whole lot. But street parking is not "copious" which implies an abundance relative to demand.

If there were "copious free parking" in Manhattan, there wouldn't be hundreds of parking garages charging up to $70 a day during the week, would there?

Only part of the 7 extension was completed. They didn’t complete one of the stations because of cost.

You’re doing that thing where you think we can only do one or the other.

It takes a long time to fix existing subways. You can’t simply close them down. Look at the L train.

There’s no reason we can’t also expand the subway. Depending on where you build, it could go a lot faster.

Walmart sells knock-offs? That looks like an original Xiomi and not a clone to me.

Also, scooters (and even e-bikes) have different acceleration curves than road bikes.

If you are doing less than 20-25mph when cruising at speed, you’re impeding bike traffic. Scooters are currently capped at 15mph, so they don’t belong in bike lanes.

(Not saying there shouldn’t be scooter lanes, just that they don’t mix with bikes)

Barriers for bike lanes are often counterproductive. There’s no way for street sweepers to clean them, so leaves and garbage accumulate, making them dangerous for bikes (and presumably impassible for skateboards).

There's nothing on a jump bike that can lock the rear wheel while in motion. The motor is in the front, and the brakes are operated by hand.

I have ate it on one while crossing train tracks while at max power, as that combination of circumstances can cause the front wheel to break traction, since there isn't traction control (yet).

Not sure if sarcasm. In fact the whole point of Drawdown is to enumerate all the possible fruit, both high and low hanging, and come up with numbers justifying their picking in parallel. So yeah, refrigerant management is part of the solution, and you can check their numbers for how much it would save and how much it would cost, and that is done deliberately to avoid nonsense like "why are you bothering with air conditioners?!".

In contrast, the upthread comment seemed to be arguing that a blanket bill trying to establish a regulation framework for climate change is insincere because of minutiae about NYC's mismanaged transportation infrastructure.

Going back to your snark: it's the equivalent of "Throw the whole Drawdown plan in the trash because China has too many air conditioners." See the problem with that logic?

Money isn't green paper rectangles, it is a store of value. It represents tradeoffs. It represents man-hours, other investments into our future that we could make, etc.

Pretending money isn't that important is just an ignorant thing to do.

Gas is way cheaper to operate and nuclear plants cannot compete profitably.

I'm too lazy to Google right now, but IIRC, NY committed something like $9B over 12 years to keep various plants open. New Jersey and Illinois either are doing or will be doing the same thing.

Perhaps, if they approved the immediate construction of several new nuclear power plants.

I'd believe that they might say it, and that they might even believe it, but reality has sharp edges that puncture wishful thinking.

No, but you could say that in order to hit 0 by 2050, you need to be at X by 2025 and Y by 2030...then commit to those.

And of course, the article states: "New York will be required to get 70 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, and shift entirely to carbon-free power a decade later."

If the goal were 5 years out, I’d believe they’d actually make some progress during the current politicians’ terms, which is a start.