
Cars All but Banned on One of Manhattan’s Busiest Streets - ramzyo
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/nyregion/car-ban-14th-street-manhattan.html
======
mrpopo
> “I think it’s extreme and there should be a compromise. Everybody pays taxes
> — not just the people in the buses.”

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's an unfair subsidy loophole that is finally getting plugged.

~~~
zaroth
Cars pay for the space they occupy through fuel, excise, and sales taxes.

Buses, on the other hand, are a loss-leading and highly subsidized form of
transport.

~~~
rumanator
> Cars pay for the space they occupy through fuel, excise, and sales taxes.

Your statement is absurd. You're arguing that something should have the right
to occupy the public space and deprive others from using it just because the
owner bought it and spends money on fuel.

~~~
furyofantares
The quoted text is meant to be read as “fuel taxes, excise taxes, and sales
taxes.”

------
dajohnson89
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's tempting to jaywalk without looking for an oncoming bus.

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/taxi debate, you could just see (and hear the
honking) how difficult it was for the buses to get through even during normal
traffic.

another quiet change that happened nearby, is the closure of union square w
between 14th & 17th. theres an extremely high amount of pedestrian traffic,
and near the edges of the square there's intersections that would get pretty
dicey. now it's much, much better. to be fair, ny drivers are decent, but
there's just too much volume (and pedestrians looking down at their
smartphones). i'm sure people got hit on an almost daily basis. ironically,
i'm more afraid of bicyclists hitting me than cars. they simply do whatever
they want.

but still, i firmly believe these changes are a huge positive overall.

~~~
cblum
> ironically, i'm more afraid of bicyclists hitting me than cars. they simply
> do whatever they want.

I’m in Seattle, not NYC, but this is an almost daily nuisance for me, both as
a driver and as a pedestrian. Cyclists in general seem to have an attitude
like rules and laws don’t apply to them. I see them blowing red lights,
disobeying all-way stops, and nearly running over people all the time.

~~~
adrianN
I think this is the case because in the US only extreme cyclists dare use the
road at all. When cycling becomes sufficiently safe that normal people do it,
the median cyclist becomes much friendlier to other people on the road.

~~~
tvphan
I think that's just wishful thinking. I'm from Melbourne where cycling is
pretty common (although not as hectic as in Holland). The cyclists here are
still pretty rude.

~~~
alisonatwork
There's a difference between rude and illegal. I think the original commenter
was speaking more about illegal behavior leading to accidents.

In my experience in cities where cycling is built into the architecture of the
city, most do tend to follow the road rules. However, a pedestrian might still
find it rude if a cyclist were to pass close enough to brush shoulders, or a
driver might find it rude for a cyclist to lane split.

From my perspective that kind of "rudeness" is just part city life, though,
it's not really something exclusive to cyclists.

~~~
cblum
Yeah, I was referring to outright illegal behavior. I really dislike the
"rules don't apply to me" attitude - seems so entitled.

On the rudeness aspect though, I do find cyclists in general pretty rude. I've
even seen cyclists that seem to outright seek confrontation by putting
themselves in situations that are unfavorable to them. For example, the other
day I observed a challenging traffic situation and a driver had to stop mid
turn at a corner. A cyclist was coming and saw the whole thing happen, but
they still positioned themselves such that a "hook" accident could occur once
things started moving again. As soon as the car started moving to complete
their turn, the cyclist also moved forward and started arguing with the
driver. It looked pretty clearly premeditated.

------
otterley
I'm actually thrilled about this idea, and I hope it spreads to other cities.

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.

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.

Now let's compare the means of traction: rails provide only fixed paths.
They're relatively time-consuming to fix if they break. And if there's an
equipment breakdown, if there aren'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.

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.

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.

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've often said I'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's obviously adjustable according to block
size, geography, etc.)

(Footnote: for those who maintain residences on the impacted streets, there
should be various accessibility exceptions.)

~~~
zaroth
> _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._

Of course that would itself be incredibly expensive. Roughly 1/4 the cost of
all the roads in a city is a tremendously large amount of asphalt to maintain
exclusively for buses.

The local businesses will also really enjoy being derelicted.

~~~
otterley
I’m operating under the assumption that the roads in question are already
built and that the ongoing cost to maintain them is identical or less than the
ongoing cost to maintain them if they were open to all traffic. In other
words, no worse than the status quo.

~~~
zaroth
That doesn’t actually change the cost of the policy.

Repurposing an asset you spent $X to build is the same as spending $X on a new
asset for that purpose, minus any depreciation you took up till that point.

To your point, if road costs continue to be the status quo, then 1/4 of what
you spent on roads should now be covered by bus fares. That would make the
buses impossibly expensive.

I’m sure that people who like riding public transit buses would love this
policy, because your taking an already highly subsidized (loss leading) form
of transportation and making it an order of magnitude more subsidized by
giving them free private roads to ride on.

~~~
otterley
Perhaps you have a different understanding of what “expensive” means than the
generally accepted definition. Expensive generally refers to the outlay (the
expense), not the income, or the net income, or any other financial metric.

> repurposing an asset you spent $X to build is the same as spending $X on a
> new asset for that purpose

Does GAAP agree with your claim?

~~~
zaroth
Yes, GAAP accounting considers the payment for building the road as purchasing
an asset. Cash account goes down, road assets go up.

The depreciation _expense_ for using the road accrues to whoever/whatever it
is being used for.

If you allocate roads exclusively for buses, buses need to cover the cost of
maintaining the road.

Today buses can’t even cover the cost of running the buses.

~~~
otterley
> Yes, GAAP accounting considers the payment for building the road as
> purchasing an asset. Cash account goes down, road assets go up.

True.

> The depreciation expense for using the road accrues to whoever/whatever it
> is being used for.

False. Depreciation happens no matter what. The accountants don't care how
it's used. The taxing entity may care if you want to obtain a deduction for
the depreciating asset as a cost basis, but that's not an accounting question.

> If you allocate roads exclusively for buses, buses need to cover the cost of
> maintaining the road.

No they don't. Ideally, maybe; but that's a political question, not an
accounting question.

------
mnm1
They should extend the sidewalks so there'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.

------
voidwtf
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.

~~~
fitzroy
Agreed. I've started taking the M15 SBS in the last month and it would be
great except the driver has to honk and weave around vehicles stopped in the
bus lane on almost every block.

~~~
ckdarby
Could have been solved, first time $50 fine, and second time license revoked
for a month.

People will learn quickly

~~~
gambiting
UK has automatic bus lanes cameras in a lot of places and a database of
licence plates used by buses - if your car is not on the list you get an
automatic ticket. Also works pretty well.

~~~
mcpherrinm
NYC is getting these too, so hopefully that helps:

> The MTA announced that it will ramp up its fines for bus lane blockers
> captured through its new automated bus-mounted camera system. Motorists who
> defy the new rules after a 60-day warning period will be hit with a $50 fine
> that will increase with every offense up to $250. That will begin with the
> M15 SBS on October 7, with the M14 and B44 due to be equipped with the
> automated cameras by the end of November.

[https://ny.curbed.com/2019/10/2/20895121/14th-street-dot-
mta...](https://ny.curbed.com/2019/10/2/20895121/14th-street-dot-mta-busway-
launches-this-week)

------
antpls
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.

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't respect stops or signs, they
don't slow down, and would pass at 2 cm from you at 20km/h like you do not
exist

Other than that, I'm 100% for banning cars and petrol-based motorcycles from
big capital cities around the world.

------
asauce
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.

It'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't have to deal with congestion.

------
ckdarby
All speculation, but isn't this how traffic management should always be done?

Shouldn't traffic be modeled and leave stats to just simply determine what
roads should be cars only, trucks, buses, etc?

~~~
jacques_chester
Simulating road traffic is a fertile academic and applied field. But that is
by far the easiest part. It's much harder to change the rules because then
humans are involved.

------
iron0013
This is a great idea, and would make sense in many other American cities.

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

