
Restricting Manhattan’s 14th street to buses has been a success - js2
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/nyregion/14th-street-cars-banned.html
======
Tiktaalik
The tech industry is floating all these complex technological ideas so solve
traffic congestion, from apps that track traffic, to ride hailing to
autonomous cars, but the reality is that traffic congestion is not a tech
problem but rather a simple physics problem (and political problem).

The core issue is simply that cars physically take up too much space on the
road, and move too few passengers.

This simple physics problem can be solved solved with 19th century solutions
as NYC has here. Make exclusive room for buses, which are dramatically more
space efficient than cars. Problem solved.

~~~
anonu
The work of Robert Moses is slowly getting undone. He left a major imprint on
NYC, building infrastructure to support the automobile. For Moses, the car was
the great middle class equalizer.

The result is NYC has 2 highways going up and down it's waterfront when it
could have focused on integrating it's city on the rivers as opposed to using
them to funnel cars into Manhattan.

~~~
ggm
I sometimes visit a Brisbane development forum which cannot fathom my
suggestions to adopt "the big dig" with our city riverfront freeway. They all
see this as a waste of time, and I still see this as returning 100+ year value
to something precious: waterfront is too valuable to waste on cars.

The ground is amenable to tunnels. We should be getting rid of the flyovers.

~~~
LilBytes
Have you seen the posts on Facebook or the Courier Mail about the soon to be
dedicated busway that's going on Gympie Road? Or around how the road is
specifically going to be widened to open a 24/7 bus lane?

The public are vehemently against more busways while also complaining about
how congestion on Gympie Road, Lytton Road and Wynnum Road are constantly
getting worse. It all really beggers belief.

We continue to throw money on making roads bigger but it doesn't help, all it
means is more and more people move to the other end before the status quo
reaches equilibrium again, and the cycle of road works starts again. This of
courst assumes the road works ever finish. I'm looking at you, Kingsmith
Drive, Mudeergaba Exit on the Gold Coast. All the while we're saying there's
less commuters using public transport year on year than ever before.

This is a surprise to no one if you notice busses take an hour to travel 8km
when you're contending with gridlocked cars for the entire distance.

Less you purchase a moped or a motorcycle and join me and the 2 Wheel Nomads
that Brisbane's starting to enjoy.

The article is behind a pay wall, I'm not sure how to get around it.

[https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2...](https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fcouriermail%2Fposts%2F10157191246717702&width=500)

------
rememberlenny
This is one of the more exciting things that has happened to traffic in NYC.
Getting rid of cars in a city isn't possible, but being able to make this
change to one street at a time seems feasible.

I live a block away from this area, and it's completely transformed the
neighborhood. It's much safer to walk across 14th st. There are many shops in
the area that seem to be getting more foot traffic (no data behind this).
There are more people congregating around the bench/sitting areas around 14th
street.

~~~
adrr
This is a better strategy than trying to put bike lanes on every street.
Drivers don't pay attention enough. Risk of getting doored or having some car
turn right without checking their blindspot/mirrors is too high.

~~~
mgleason_3
Vancouver took their 2-lane each way (4 total) roads and dedicated the outer
lane to bikes. They protected that lane from car with planters. So, it can
definitely be done.

That said, IDK if it’s a resounding success. There may be measures by which it
is, I’m just not aware.

For example, I found it difficult as a pedestrian and saw a few collisions and
lots of near misses between bikes and pedestrians. The planters create a nice
protected area which feels like it’s safe for walking and crossing. But the
bikes were moving quickly and quite unyielding in their perceived right-of-
way.

When we were there, there was definitely other challenges. There were terrible
traffic jams - especially going into the city. It seems like a lot of traffic
needs to go through the city to get somewhere else. It didn’t seem like they
had adequate public transportation.

~~~
Scoundreller
> Vancouver took their 2-lane each way (4 total) roads and dedicated the outer
> lane to bikes. They protected that lane from car with planters. So, it can
> definitely be done.

Makes snowplowing a mess. NYC can’t just shutdown like Vancouver does every
time it snows :)

~~~
jrockway
It is street parking that ruins winter for bikes. The snow plows can't get to
the edge of the road, so the bike lane which marks the parking/plowable road
area suffers.

I don't think it's a big deal because we don't really get a lot of snow in
NYC. A plan to improve the 50 weeks a year without snow on the ground is
better than not doing the plan because a couple weeks in February will be
miserable.

~~~
Symbiote
Here in Copenhagen, the city has narrow versions of the usual equipment for
clearing bike lanes. The bike lanes are cleared before the car lanes!

[http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/ultimate-bike-lane-
snow...](http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/ultimate-bike-lane-snow-
clearance.html)

------
Wowfunhappy
As far as I'm concerned, cars have no place in Manhattan, and should be banned
from all but a handful of designated roads. Maybe give out special licenses to
the disabled, or anyone else who _physically requires_ a car—that way, they'll
actually be able to get around at reasonable speeds, too.

~~~
thebradbain
Instead of an outright ban, I'd love to see price-prohibitive congestion
pricing and street-parking pricing (prohibitive in the sense that it wouldn't
make financial sense to drive a car as the primary mode of transport, not that
if someone needed to occasionally use a car they couldn't) within Manhattan,
with the aforementioned provisions carved out for those who demonstrate a need
for a car.

That way, for any of those stubborn and wealthy enough who refuse to use
public transit, we can direct all funds generated to improving public transit
-- not just reliability and frequency, but also line expansions and remodeling
the deteriorating stations and upgrading train/bus interiors to create a
first-class transit experience for the rest of us and to finally prioritize
public transit correctly in the US.

Singapore already operates a similar (but stricter and broader) scheme:
[https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/asia/singapore-
cars/index.htm...](https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/asia/singapore-
cars/index.html).

~~~
neilv
> _price-prohibitive congestion pricing and street-parking pricing_ [...] That
> way, for any of those stubborn and wealthy enough who refuse to use public
> transit, we can direct all funds generated to improving public transit*

That seems to hand the shared public resource to the wealthy. (Regardless of
whether you envision the revenue being used to someday provide a comparably
attractive option for the non-wealthy.)

~~~
pkulak
Is it really "handing" if it's market priced?

~~~
abdullahkhalids
1\. The ability to transit from one place to another is a right of the people
of a city, that should not be modulated by one's socioeconomic class (or
medical condition or sex etc).

2\. If rich people can zoom around the city much faster than poor people, then
rich people have more of this right than poor people. Not good.

3\. Crucial to this argument is that the price is prohibitive in nature, and
that transit by car is a rivalrous good. So other rights, such as easy access
to food, don't fall so easily to this argument because poor people can still
buy nutritious food from their wages, even if rich people can buy more
expensive and better food.

------
randall
Imagine if, in high density areas like Manhattan, cars were simply not
allowed. Wow. The thought of how pleasant Manhattan would become if only cabs
+ busses + delivery trucks + ambulances were allowed makes me almost too
happy.

Would be so awesome.

~~~
gpm
I don't understand why "cabs" is an allowed exception here.

Cabs are like cars, except more expensive, and they drive around without
anyone using them for transport looking for business. Why are they superior?

I'm picking on this example not because I think that list is meant to be
complete or perfectly thought out, but because cabs often seem to get
exceptions like this (e.g. in HOV lanes) and I really don't understand why. It
basically seems like a "I'm rich enough to pay someone to do my driving for
me" exception.

~~~
adventured
Cabs could be highly useful for various emergencies or more generally for
people in need of urgent singular transport.

Ambulances cover the medically injured. Buses cover normal strictly time
regimented use.

A simple scenario: my son has been injured at home and I need to immediately
get home or to the hospital. The bus may take far too long depending. That's
an example of an urgent need for singular transport.

~~~
nikanj
Would you be happier if your taxi wasn't stuck in traffic? I have an inkling
that 99% of cars on Manhattan are not urgent emergency

------
gniv
The article is a bit lacking in facts. Here's some more info from another
source [1]:

"The MTA and Department of Transportation announced Monday that beginning July
1, private cars will be banned along 14th Street from Third to Ninth Avenues
from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m."

"It’s part of the MTA’s plan to increase bus service while repairs continue on
the L train."

[1] [https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/06/11/commuter-alert-
most-...](https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/06/11/commuter-alert-most-of-14th-
street-will-be-closed-to-cars-most-of-the-time-starting-july/)

~~~
Merrill
Repairs aren't the only cause of mass transit outages. There are also the
occasional MTA strikes, which happened in '66, '80, and 2005.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_York_City_transit_str...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_York_City_transit_strike)

------
mapgrep
This conclusion of “a phenomenal success” is based on “a span of several
days.” Again, several days.

I want this to be true. I support this policy decision. I don’t own a car,
live in NY, and want to see the streets reclaimed from drivers. Love it.

But if someone declared this experiment a terrible failure after /several
days/ I would laugh and say, “please wait a bit so we can examine some real
data.”

Please, urbanists, consider waiting a bit before calling this “a phenomenal
success.” Let’s have some evidentiary standards.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
Well, it hasn't caused the immediate armageddon some were predicting.

It may be early yet, but realistically, what catastrophes do you foresee that
wouldn't have come by now?

~~~
hoorayimhelping
In the six years I lived in NYC proper, there was a giant flood, a giant power
outage, several hurricanes, several blizzards, several city-wide protests, and
countless large events taking place on the streets.

That's just a few events I thought of off the top of my head. That doesn't
cover the normal ebb and flow of activity in the city - it's pretty busy
around Thanksgiving and Christmas, and dead in February, and a zoo in the
summertime. How do all those things affect this? What happens when school is
out? What happens during shopping season? What happens in heat waves or during
snowstorms?

The point is, a lot of different things can happen in the city on pretty
annual cycle, and declaring this a success even after a month is pretty silly
and potentially very costly.

~~~
fishingisfun
not even a month

------
chrismcb
I wish they works ban cars on the Las Vegas strip. It would require rerouting
hotel entrances. But the amount of real estate it would free up would be
incredible.

~~~
woutr_be
Out of interest, how much real estate would it actually free up? I assume you
still need roads for emergency services, delivery trucks, construction
vehicles, etc... Maybe the number of lanes can be reduced, but that wouldn't
exactly free up any sizeable amount of real estate that could be used for more
housing, or would it?

------
baxtr
Cities were designed around cars. It’s time for a change.

~~~
jacquesm
Very few cities were. Cities for the most part were designed around horse
drawn carriages and tons of foot traffic.

~~~
baxtr
That's a very narrow way to read my comment.

Cities are rebuilt all the time. My city now invest heavily into bike lanes
reducing the number of car lanes from 2 to 1 and replacing them by bike lanes.
That is a choice, which can be made every year by any city.

~~~
jacquesm
Of course there is no reason to leave things as they are. But any city older
than 120 years - and that's the bulk of them near where I live - will have had
horses and carriages as the bulk carriers of their time. Except for those
parts where boats were used, but that requires some pretty rare conditions
(Venice, Amsterdam, Bruges).

Getting rid of cars is a good thing, let's hope we get rid of them in inner
cities before electrics take over and rob us of that chance. The pollution
caused by cars is one of the main drivers of getting rid of them, if that
reason is dealt with then it will be much harder to marshal the forces
required to see this through.

------
jshaqaw
I’m torn on the cars in Manhattan debate. I live my whole city life on public
transport. I hate the pollution of cars and I hate how perilous it is for my
kids to cross the streets.

At the same time we sometimes do want to or have to travel outside the city.
I’m not really sure how that would work in a car free city.

~~~
danielharan
You could have parking with rental cars on the periphery of the city or its
car-free zone.

~~~
jshaqaw
Sort of. It sounds OK in pure theory. In practice when we end up loading the
car to visit parents/grandparents for a week plus a dog in tow I’m not sure
how we end up getting from our apartment door to the peripheral rental car
zone which this being Manhattan is presumably in NJ. That’s a lot of cargo!
Again I would love a car free Manhattan if I could figure out how to make it
work. But many of those who argue this most vehemently I often suspect aren’t
trying to raise families in NYC.

------
Ericson2314
Ironically with a superblock style plan, 14th Street would be one of the
_only_ streets where cars are allowed.

Jokes aside, yes, I really hope this is the beginning of the end of cars in
Manhattan. When it was announced I was thrilled: here was the perfect flash
point to grow the anti-car movement in NYC. Now we have to deliver.

------
wging
Seattle did this for a stretch of 3rd. I don't have the data to call it a
success (or failure) but buses on 3rd seem pretty quick to me.

------
throebd
Maybe fix the metro first? Kiev in Ukraine has better metro than NYC.

~~~
wetpaws
This is a false dichotomy. One does not exclude another.

~~~
close04
No but the order is important. Making public transport better first would make
the transition away from car traffic somewhat smoother.

Many cities already successfully pulled this off and this method received far
more popular support than just cutting off car traffic and expecting the
people to "deal with it" without having good options.

~~~
techsupporter
Except that the order usually goes like this:

1\. You can't take away personal car access; the public transportation sucks!
Make it better, first.

2\. You can't improve public transportation; everybody drives so it's not a
good cost investment. Get more people to ride transit, first.

3\. Goto 1

~~~
close04
Most European cities that shifted away from car traffic did exactly that.
First they improved public transport and encouraged any other alternatives
like bicycles. They invested in that infrastructure until it was ready to take
over. Then they started to slowly "push" people away from cars by turning some
streets or city centers into pedestrian zones.

You collect the returns _after_ you invest. Otherwise almost any initiative
would get bogged down into your 3 point loop. When companies build a new HQ
they don't tear down the old one first. The "loop" is a fake conundrum.

~~~
techsupporter
It's not a fake conundrum in political systems, especially when--as so often
happens--road projects sail through the legislature with nary a peep but
public transit spending has to be voted on (often more than once) by the
people in the region or, sometimes, statewide. European countries often don't
have these barriers or at least have a political and government legacy where
the people see the investments as worth it. That's not a situation we often
enjoy in the States, some reasons cultural and some self-inflicted.

For example, in western Washington, we've repeatedly voted to tax ourselves
for transit. Our regional leaders had to push, prod, and beg our state elected
leaders to pass laws permitting us to have those votes. (Meanwhile, road
projects sail through.) Yet, more often than not, we've voted yes. But in
November, through our tediously broken initiative system, the entire state
will get to vote on whether to repeal our locally-approved taxing authority
because a political shyster likes running bumper-sticker-politics campaigns on
$30 car tabs because "nobody uses transit."

You're right that the "loop" need not happen and often doesn't in most
circumstances but people are _very_ persnickety about transportation and their
deity-granted right to park their vehicle on a free street directly in front
of their place of residence.

~~~
close04
Some political systems make even the best solutions "a loop".

------
rubyboss
I don't understand this anti-car sentiment from the city liberals. It's
already happened here in London and it's getting worse. From 20mph speed
limits to blocking roads for bus-only traffic to ultra-low emission zones and
congestion charges. It's becoming pretty clear that they don't want people to
own their own cars. I'm struggling to see how this is progress.

~~~
electric_muse
Walkable cities sounds great until you have luggage to carry or groceries to
lug. It’s all about the collective good over that of the individual.

~~~
jcranmer
I have had absolutely no problem lugging my luggage to the airport or carrying
my groceries on foot or by mixed foot/train/bus. It might require some
modifications to your trip (e.g., going more frequently, or purchasing some
personal shopping carts to carry stuff around in), but it's not that hard.

~~~
jimktrains2
Depending on area of course, but usually a grocer or supermarket is much
closer, meaning that more frequent and smaller trips aren't an issue and mean
you often have fresher produce to work with.

------
thrower123
This kind of thing makes sense in Manhattan. Manhattan is relatively tiny, and
it is dense, and there is workable public transit. A subway system with
stations every quarter mile or less does wonders.

It just doesn't extrapolate to anywhere else in the country particularly well.
Even Boston is a shit-show without cars, and that is another dense, old, East
Coast city with legacy public transit, albeit much less well designed.

It's a complete non-starter most places.

~~~
kunai
Congestion charges and upzoning would fix that issue, but people with the same
outlook on this problem (aka NIMBYs) that you do seem to hate those things as
well.

People often forget this fact but the vast majority of cities east of the
Mississippi in the U.S. developed without cars for most of their existence.
Streetcars were the name of the game until the 1950s, after which personal car
ownership was heavily pushed and subsidized by the government after bending to
the will of GM, Ford, and Chrysler.

The entire idea of designing our cities around car ownership and the single-
family household is extraordinarily new and unnatural. There's nothing
prohibiting us from creating density in these post-WWII cities; just look at
Denver or Portland and their massive successes with public transit and
upzoning.

