Cars All but Banned on One of Manhattan’s Busiest Streets

&gt; “I think it’s extreme and there should be a compromise. Everybody pays taxes — not just the people in the buses.”<p>I would make the opposite argument actually. Car drivers pay the same amount of taxes despite taking up more space on the road, causing more accidents etc. It&#x27;s an unfair subsidy loophole that is finally getting plugged.

just walked across 14th today for lunch, it was beautiful. the only traffic is buses, and maybe the odd truck. there are cops posted -- because the street is so empty, it&#x27;s tempting to jaywalk without looking for an oncoming bus.<p>as another commenter said, the drivers brought this onto themselves. i think the impact of uber driving around waiting for a ride, + booked ubers double parked waiting for the charge to arrive, adds significantly to congestion. without getting into the uber&#x2F;taxi debate, you could just see (and hear the honking) how difficult it was for the buses to get through even during normal traffic.<p>another quiet change that happened nearby, is the closure of union square w between 14th &amp; 17th. theres an extremely high amount of pedestrian traffic, and near the edges of the square there&#x27;s intersections that would get pretty dicey. now it&#x27;s much, much better. to be fair, ny drivers are decent, but there&#x27;s just too much volume (and pedestrians looking down at their smartphones). i&#x27;m sure people got hit on an almost daily basis. ironically, i&#x27;m more afraid of bicyclists hitting me than cars. they simply do whatever they want.<p>but still, i firmly believe these changes are a huge positive overall.

I&#x27;m actually thrilled about this idea, and I hope it spreads to other cities.<p>The key to effective mass transit is not the type of equipment (train vs. bus) or the surface (rails vs. asphalt). It is the right-of-way, plain and simple. All other things being equal, a transport that has right-of-way, unimpeded by cross traffic, will be faster than a transport that has to deal with stop lights, cross traffic, etc.<p>That being said, mass transit can be extremely expensive if you take too many pains to construct the right of way off the surface. Digging is expensive and dangerous. Building elevated platforms is also more expensive, and often unsightly.<p>Now let&#x27;s compare the means of traction: rails provide only fixed paths. They&#x27;re relatively time-consuming to fix if they break. And if there&#x27;s an equipment breakdown, if there aren&#x27;t redundant paths with effective switching, it can cause a head-of-line blocking problem (comparable to a message queue). Meanwhile, tires are cheap and safe, while steering can easily avoid obstacles and other dangers. And repairing asphalt streets is relatively inexpensive.<p>So: we have good road technology. We have wide-enough arterial roads, many of which are already redundant. We have good-enough signaling technology now to create a virtual right-of-way (by setting lights to red before the vehicle crosses). Buses are pretty reliable these days, and far cheaper to manufacture than train cars. They can also be outfitted to be quite nice inside.<p>So, to me, dedicated bus thoroughfares using existing streets are a no-brainer. They win on cost, they win on effectiveness, and they win on time-to-market.<p>I can totally see 1 out of every 4 streets being used in major cities as dedicated bus thoroughfares as a viable alternative to building super-expensive and relatively unreliable transit alternatives. I&#x27;ve often said I&#x27;d love to see it happen in San Francisco. (The 1-in-4 idea being an approximation for most people to walk to their ultimate destination in a reasonable amount of time, but it&#x27;s obviously adjustable according to block size, geography, etc.)<p>(Footnote: for those who maintain residences on the impacted streets, there should be various accessibility exceptions.)

They should extend the sidewalks so there&#x27;s only two bus lanes and build some protected bike lanes there. Make this permanent. Drivers will figure out a way. I hope more cities do more of this. Cities can change. Just look at Amsterdam now compared to the seventies. I have always and still do drive around everywhere due to where I live, but this is the only way to change things. Just do it. Hopefully the judges throw out the frivolous lawsuits that prevent changes for the better like this.

I feel like the drivers did it to themselves. New York tried dedicated bus lanes and the drivers continued to use the dedicated bus lane any time police presence wasn’t obvious.

Once in a while, the Champs-Elysées in Paris are closed to cars on Sunday. When there were the yellow-vest protests, a large part of central Paris was closed to cars on Saturday too.<p>It was pleasant to walk in the streets that time, the city looked more human, with less noise, less honk, less stress. However, some cyclists and escooter drivers are a bit uneducated, many of them don&#x27;t respect stops or signs, they don&#x27;t slow down, and would pass at 2 cm from you at 20km&#x2F;h like you do not exist<p>Other than that, I&#x27;m 100% for banning cars and petrol-based motorcycles from big capital cities around the world.

Honestly, I am a big fan of this. I lived in Calgary this summer, and downtown they have a dedicated street for the train, busses, and emergency vehicles. No regular vehicles are allowed to drive down this street.<p>It&#x27;s genius. The train lines are above ground so the lines were cheaper to manufacturer, Emergency vehicles can get across downtown very quickly, and busses also don&#x27;t have to deal with congestion.

All speculation, but isn&#x27;t this how traffic management should always be done?<p>Shouldn&#x27;t traffic be modeled and leave stats to just simply determine what roads should be cars only, trucks, buses, etc?

This is a great idea, and would make sense in many other American cities.

Good luck New York with Andy Byford! I was never impressed with the man and was happy to see him leave Toronto.