NYC's new rat-killing weapon is wildly successful – for now | Hacker News Reader

NYC's new rat-killing weapon is wildly successful – for now

businessinsider.com

26 pointsmomirlan92 comments

>>[...] a lot of people don't want to give up street parking spots for garbage containers.

This is an understatement. A New Yorker with a car that doesn't/can't pay the monthly indoor garage fees will fight tooth and nail for street parking.

Which is crazy, because they live in the city with probably the best public transport in their country.

Substandard, decrepit, and unreliable to the point of necessitating alternative means compared to advanced economies.

The real problem is that, for all that, it's still probably the best transit system in the USA. I live in Boston and I would trade the MBTA for the NYC MTA in a heartbeat. (Though to be fair, I would also trade the MBTA for a handful of shiny rocks, that being about equivalent in value.)

It really is crazy how bad the T is! I suppose the long tradition of MBTA management seats being used as patronage rewards has not helped.

I feel a little hopeful about the new GM though (Philip Eng, former head of the Long Island Railroad, for those just joining us). He's actually an engineering and operations guy, as opposed to the old GM Steve Poftak. Poftak's qualifications were an MBA and strict adherence to the Pioneer Foundation's party line.

At least the T put the final nail in Charlie Baker's further political ambitions. Hopefully he'll stay at the NCAA, we're just going to have to ask college sports fans to take one for the team (pun intended) there.

And yet Boston's MBTA is still one of the top 5 best transit systems in the country, which is saying something. (Fun fact: Boston's red/orange/blue lines are also the most cost-efficient transit system in the US, as measured by farebox recovery ratio.)

The T's FRR is the highest in the country: all of 30% or so. So it doesn't come close to giving acceptable service _or_ paying for itself.

The basic problem with the T is that it's a state agency. By which I mean, it depends on the support of the entire Massachusetts legislature, and if you are a legislator representing a district in western Mass, funding the T is a hard sell. Your constituents are going to be worried about crime, drugs, and unemployment, not a transit system that they'd have to drive for an hour to reach. The best you can do is make a general appeal to the Boston metro area as the entire economic engine of the Commonwealth, making its smooth running a win for all taxpayers in Massachusetts. Which, even though it's true, is not going to go over well with the public.

I've thought of one possible solution, which is to dissolve the T, blacklist and/or jail its top management as appropriate, and turn transit operations over to a new agency that's funded and run by only Boston-area communities who actually can point to a direct benefit from T service.

> The T's FRR is the highest in the country: all of 30% or so.

According to the Federal Transit Administration, the Boston subway has a FRR of 74%. This is not the entire MBTA, which would also include things like the bus service (it should not be a surprise to anyone that trains are more efficient than buses).

I'm not disagreeing with you on the premise that the state has mismanaged the T and that it should be turned over to a municipal agency, only that the situation is not quite as dire as it seems. Most other cities in the US would be over the moon if they had Boston-level transit (which, again, is saying something about how poorly the US has managed its transit infrastructure).

That one's on me for not reading more carefully. But my basic point is, public transit is a lousy way to make money, and if that's something you emphasize, it's neither going to make money nor give good service.

I'm reminded of some Terry Pratchett book about the Ankh-Morpork opera, in which the new owner of the opera house asks how they make money, and the manager says they don't--you make money other ways so that you can have things like the opera.

"turn transit operations over to a new agency that's funded and run by only Boston-area communities who actually can point to a direct benefit from T service."

How would they pay for it? It's set up the way it is for a reason.

How does a government pay for anything? Taxes.

It is good to get into and out of Manhattan. For other destinations, it’s not as easy. Compare to Tokyo’s subway map, which connects far more regions.

I live in Europe and public transportation is full of scum, I don't even want to imagine how it is in new york city.

Yes, Europe is single country and same standards apply everywhere.

Europe, at least the EU, isn't that far off being a country, honestly. Meets most of the criteria.

On the other hand, it's a reminder of how car-brained we are. You can fit a dumpster in the space that a single SUV takes up, but even in NYC that driver's convenience is more important than a basic amenity like waste management.

This assumes the only way to provide waste management is to replace parking with dumpsters.

it's that or the sidewalks, there's not enough space

Seems odd though that other cities can largely figure this out. Seems like a zoning failure, but nobody is talking about that. Maybe there is bias here since the zoning threads are always about increasing density, which this problem seems to largely be based (and coupled with old infrastructure and politics/cost/union).

I mean sure, but you're not going to be able to undo the past 100 years of development in NYC that caused it... so what's there to talk about? if they rezone NYC to require space for trash barrels and dumpsters it could be 200 years before half of the city redevelops to incorporate it.

NYC is one of the few places that has density in the US, and largely because it's old density. I feel like you're trying to paint this with a "see density bad" argument that is a lot more nuanced than you're making it.

Density without modern updates or planning for the future is basically the root cause of this and other issues there. This is important to note even for proponents of increasing density. Even if it's old density, updates for things like rentals can be enforced. Modern approaches are how international cities deal with their trash at similar densities (compactor, below grade, tubes, etc). Politics are a major hinderrance. Is it really a surprise that NYC has a waste problem when the waste management budget has been repeated cut in the past few decades? Now they want to take the cheap and non-scalable bandaid option of dumpsters on streets, instead of a modern and forward looking approach, while blaming people with vehicles (for which the city has failed them in modern approaches or quality alternatives). Classic blame the other subgroup instead of the leadership. But yes, there is a lot of details, subtleties, and caveats involved in all of these.

No, it questions the trade-offs we're making.

The resistance to do anything but prioritize the convenience of a minority of drivers in cities like NYC while we look for "better" solutions (aka a solution that doesn't sacrifice their convenience) has already made a decision on the trade-offs.

A solution that meets the needs of multiple parties would be "better". When changing the status quo, it's "better" to find a solution that provides the intended benefit with the least negative impact on other groups.

If you actually want to provide the best benefit, we should start at the source and be looking at waste reduction. Instead of taking up 10% of the parking, it could be more feasible to take up 2.5% with smaller or less frequent dumpsters. You'd need less landfill space. You would hopefully have cheaper products through less material and less packaging. There's a lot of empty commercial real estate that could be repurposed, maybe for parking or residences with more modern waste management. There's likely other technologies that could be used for waste pickup at large buildings, like containers in the basement rolling out subsurface into the street and bottom loading into a truck via elevator. Or just more frequent pickup.

We could blame everything on cars. I feel that there are plenty of issues that are due to the old infrastructure that never envisioned all these uses or politics though. It seems other cities have figured this out just fine and kept their cars. Seems odd that NYC can't figure it out.

That's a $225,000 dumpster as of 2007: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/us/12parking.html

How does the price of private parking garages interact with curb-side parking and curb-side amenities?

Frankly I think the fact that a private parking garage space costs $225,000 should make us question further why we are content giving up such valuable public street space so that one person can park their vehicle.

If it costs $225,000 to park your vehicle for a year in a parking garage, imagine how insanely valuable the ground-level spaces are that we casually give up to a handful of vehicles so they can run in to Starbucks on Broadway. And presumably you're nodding along saying yes, that's the best use of that space.

Yeah a parking-spot sized space is valuable. And yet the city is pretty much giving them away to drivers.

Solutions exist[1] that provide a very large trash storage with little above ground space.

[1] https://www.villiger.com/en/products#underground-systems

Yes we absolutely need those. But they will still reduce parking spaces. This is an unavoidable fight, and one that vast majority of non-far-outer-borough New Yorkers who don't drive need to win.

This doesn't necessarily preclude them, but a thing to note about underground utilization in NYC: the city has absolutely no idea what's beneath its surface, in part due to centuries of development with nonexistent or inaccurate recordkeeping.

Burying trash receptacles rather than reusing parking spaces may be cheaper, but it isn't guaranteed. It may also vary by borough (Queens in particular has less underground infrastructure).

On the other hand, a New Yorker without a car, who walks around piles of leaking garbage bags on the sidewalk, is ecstatic about replacing parking spots with garbage containers.

Fortunately, it's a good thing to realize that each neighborhood is different. The busy neighborhoods with the most trash (e.g. much of Manhattan) have the smallest number of car-owning residents because it's a lot of tall buildings, while the neighborhoods with the most car-owning residents (e.g. much of Queens) generate the least trash, because it's a lot of houses.

Fuck cars. Everyone street parking in NYC is a "rat breeder", simple as. It's on their hands.

Good for you if you never need a car, but other people need cars for work and family needs. What do you propose that they do?

You don't need a car to have a family in NYC. You might in every other city in America but you do not here.

How do you know everybody's needs?

Some people do need a car for work, healthcare, education, living with disabilities, or many other reasons not mentioned.

How do you? Why the assumption that public transit cannot fulfill the needs of the vast majority of people?

Perhaps there is some tiny fraction that needs a care. Well, there would be enough on-street parking left for them.

What is far more common is the a bunch of people that don't need cars hide behind the mythical empathetic car-dependent person.

First you said "You don't need a car to have a family in NYC" and now you're talking about "the vast majority of people". Which is it? Your thesis is changing.

My anecdotal experience is that as it relates to manhattan, a huge portion of street parking is used by commuters (even from other parts of NYC) a resident parking plus metered solution would free up a ton of space.

> A New Yorker with a car

this is an oxymoron

we just borrow other peoples' cars / use taxis

The real solution is quite simple: trash cans

The reason why NYC has such a rat epidemic is because they literally throw their trash bags on the street. Which leads to some getting ripped open and leaving food for pests.

New Yorkers are so precious about this. I've heard pages and pages of excuses why trash containers can't possibly work in New York City, despite literally every other city in the developed world-- including all the others in the United States-- somehow managing to master this arcane technology.

This is actually somewhat common in city centres for space and access reasons; lots of places do it. Here's one recent attempt at fixing it: https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/dublin/2023/06/21/plastic...

(Once you go outside the canals it's wheelie bins, but they are not considered suitable for use in the very centre, for reasons I was never super-clear on)

I live in New York. I believe it will work. It's the street-parking minority that is in denial.

The Back Bay section of Boston begs to differ. Even with alleyways between the streets, still no trash cans, just plastic bags (that get chewed through pretty much uniformly).

Nobody's saying they can't work, they're just saying it's an expensive transformation that involves tradeoffs.

Which is in large part because of the way NYC was laid out originally -- no back alleys where garbage could be stored and collected, in order to reduce areas for potential crime.

If it were as simple as you imply, it would have been done already. Guess what -- it's actually pretty complex, but containerization is a major focus of the current administration. Nobody's being "precious" about anything -- there's no need to be insulting.

We Americans love our Exceptionalism, what can I say!

Careful. You might then get javelinas like we do in Phoenix. They'll just kick over the trashcan.

The first time I visited NYC, I was appalled that so many people just casually live in the stink of street trash 24/7. They just don't see it as an issue, strangely

~20 years ago I visited Toronto for a Debian conference in the middle of an outdoor workers strike. I wanted to visit Chinatown, but the heaps of trash bags that hadn't been collected left a stench that I couldn't stomach.

I remember that strike :-) Welcome to Ontario :-)

Spadina Chinatown has always been notorious for that. Back in the 90s, it was intolerable on garbage days even when there was no strike. Lots of expired seafood in bags out on the sidewalk etc.

Nothing like rotting squished crabs baking in hot humid 85f summer smog.

It's improved a lot since then.

EVERYONE but Bill Deblasio sees it as an issue.

Bill Deblasio is not the mayor of NYC, please update your copypasta

Hong Kong in the 60s-70s was a real shithole, NYC sounds a lot nicer. HK cleaned itself up, real nice. Our fave market was called "stinky's".

The first time I visited NYC was for a job interview. I wanted to live in an urban, walkable city with plenty of cultural and business opportunities. The trash situation was a primary factor in me choosing another city and another job.

I get that many many people in NYC don't see this as an issue, or don't see this as a solvable problem. As an outsider it is absolutely disgusting, and forever lowered my opinion of the city.

Everyone sees this as an issue, and many know that European recessed underground containers on the street are the solution. (No allies needed.)

But the car lobby, despite being a clear minority, is really strong. It sucks.

Trash cans aren't viable because of shortcomings in our infrastructure; we don't have alleyways. Large apartment buildings use dumpsters or basement trash rooms, but you can't exactly cart those out on to the sidewalk. Street side pickup is the only option barring rebuilding the city, and a garbage man isn't picking up an entire trash can. Having a truck pick up the garbage can would also encounter issues with space and time. That's how we landed on our current... well... "solution".

Also trash cans aren't foolproof. I've encountered more than a few of the critters digging through our refuse, along with a trash panda once or twice. The bags aren't rat proof either; it's not that they rip, but rather the rats chew through.

Complicated problem with a lot of legacy infrastructure debt.

You forgot to mention the union of garbage men that fights against any kind of gains of efficiency. You could have easy-open small dumpsters that are found all over Europe, but that would take work away from a couple guys throwing bags of garbage into the truck.

Any real-world examples of the NYC sanitation doing this? Or just a generic "unions bad" comment?

Couldn't you repurpose on-street car parking for trash containers? (I suppose Americans love their cars too much for that...)

Don't Americans have Wheelie Bins?

https://wikiwaste.org.uk/Wheelie_Bin

In many cities yes. The current mayor of NYC proposed using trash cans.

The proposal was met with open arms and without controversy (just kidding).

https://gothamist.com/news/nyc-homeowners-to-be-charged-for-...

This is true and also a simplification: NYC required steel trashcans for street pickup for decades, until getting rid of them for performance reasons (I believe the argument was that they made garbage pickup slower).

The city is now bringing back the trashcan requirement, but plastic this time. It remains to be seen how effective that will be (since rats will happily chew through heavy plastic to get to food).

Edit: I realized that I've also simplified: the new can requirement is for commercial pickups only. That's the majority of rat-inducing foot waste, but it's still just a partial solution.

We can just put them on the street, replacing parking spots.

Taking the Trash Off the Streets: Innovative Waste-Management Solutions for New York City (2023)

https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/in...

when walking through some neighborhoods (parts of park slope) i saw almost exclusively trash cans at every residence. At any rate, to say its impossible to implement trash cans just sounds nuts. I'm sure it truly is complicated, but not viable? I don't think so.

You walked through the most expensive neighborhood in all of Brooklyn, home to multi-million dollar brownstones and full floor condos. Try poking at some denser neighborhoods, the problems will become more evident.

even if we're talking densely populated areas, aren't cans just going to be better no matter what? The alternative is literally throwing plastic bags of trash into the street. I adore NYC and I look for every excuse I can to go. I understand that it has very unique issues that few, if any, cities on earth have to contend with. This one just seems pretty addressable. I need a youtube series or podcast about how it got to this point, whats been tried, and why it failed so I can fully comprehend it.

Can also put them underground, they're getting popular here. Truck has a crane and just lifts them up.

> The reason why NYC has such a rat epidemic is because they literally throw their trash bags on the street.

NYC has huge underground tunnel networks for subway and other things. The only other city in the US with a comparably large rat problem is Chicago, which also has substantial tunneling. This gives rats a huge place to live. While trash is a contributing factor the huge amount of old tunnels is the main reason it's so hard to control.

The city can do all the control it wants in the parks but it isn't going to put much of a dent in the underground systems.

There's always a cost and a tradeoff. The real question might not be choosing rats or no rats, but choosing between rats or parking. As far as I understand the proposed solution, the containerization proposed would take up somewhere in the range of 100,000 to 200,000 parking spots in NYC.

I walked past a giant trash bin in Singapore one night and there were literally 10+ rats shuffling around inside it and I could hear it shaking and banging. Singapore has no litter problem (but the heat and humidity probably makes the trash more delicious smelling) but the rats can find their way into anything...

This is very "if it's not perfect, it's not worth doing".

It's not really a solution, because even then no one's perfect about using them, but it can help. Rats will chew right through a plastic trash can if they're desperate, and steel dumpsters eventually rust out and create nice little rat doors.

Almost ever major city has some level of rat problem, with underground transit and other man-made tunnels I believe the problem is essentially impossible to solve. It's all about management.

"A female rat typically births six litters a year consisting of up to 12 rat pups, although 5-10 pups are more common. Rats reach sexual maturity after nine weeks, meaning that a population can swell from two rats to around 1,250 in one year, with the potential to grow exponentially."[1]

Unless you kill all of them at once and set up some sort of impossibly perfect rat detection system to kill the ones in every building and trash can, how is killing something like on the order of 10 female-year progeny even news? It's like putting a piece of masking tape over a water main break. You have to reduce their food, their ability to reproduce, etc.

https://www.rentokil.com/us/about/blog/all-industries/quickl...

The original NYC "Director of Rodent Mitigation" Rat Czar job posting was hilarious, but completely serious. The municipal government took down the job posting once it was filled, but copies are still floating around for posterity[1].

[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11493659/Seeking-le...

Missed an opportunity to be called "rat king"

The Daily Mail?! Surely we can do a little better

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63837306

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/14/1170120247/nyc-rat-czar-kathl...

As much as it pained me, the only news (sic) outlet that I could find displaying a full copy of the actual text of the job posting in its full glory was The Daily Mail.

hah fair enough :)

Need to lift that ferret ban, let the ferrets work.

HN front-page, 2033

NYC's new ferret-killing weapon is wildly successful – for now

SKINNER: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

Has the option for rat birth control failed?

https://time.com/6264623/rat-birth-control-poison-contrapest...

There were massive protests among the rat population, as the overwhelming majority of them turn out to be Republicans.

It's only semi-effective, you need to get rats to drink the substance, and it makes them less fertile for about 100 days. Could work along with other methods, but not a silver bullet.

I'm confused what dry ice has to do with carbon monoxide...they lost me there...

Dry ice sublimates into CO2 which also suffocates the rats as CO2 is heavier than air and will fill up a burrow, taking away all the oxygen.

Sure, although the article talks about monoxide…thus my confusion. It’s also a much less pleasant way to go: this is an “as I understand it” to be clear; carbon monoxide binds to your hemoglobin better than oxygen, but your bloodstream doesn’t build up carbon dioxide (which is what causes that panicky “I need a breath” feeling). Adding CO2 accelerates that feeling…

They reproduce fast.

I wonder will some of them eventually evolve some tolerance and/or ability to sense the carbon monoxide, so they can escape before there is too much of it?

> "It's really a cultural issue. It doesn't have to be that way."

> "overflowing garbage cans"

Hmm something doesn't add up here

When I see articles like this, I can't stop myself from thinking what if we're the rats in the eyes of AI.

How about giant glue traps?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com