Restricting Manhattan’s 14th street to buses has been a success • Hacker News Board

Re: Restricting Manhattan’s 14th street to buses has been a success

#61

Post by rubyboss » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 8:50 PM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #50

rubyboss wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you are agreeing with me that you don't want people to own their own cars? I suppose we should all just do as the millenials do: rent cars by the mile (Uber) at ridiculously expensive rates.

Even when I briefly worked in London in the 90s there was no point having the car. I am truly puzzled so many locals bothered. Uber or cab should only need to be occasional - there is great, albeit crowded public transport. It was entirely counter-productive, slower than cycling, expensive and just about zero chance of convenient parking. After one or two attempts, I left it at home and took the train down each week.

I take public transport or cycle to work every day as I work in the City and it's faster and more convenient. People should be inspired to take public transport instead of driving because it's better and faster to do so, not restricted by levying giant taxes and blocking roads.

Re: Restricting Manhattan’s 14th street to buses has been a success

#62

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 8:50 PM UTC

electric_muse wrote: post #22

randall wrote: post #9

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.

Busses and delivery trucks are the most noisy and polluting! That doesn’t seem like the panacea you suggest.

> Busses and delivery trucks are the most noisy and polluting

Once private cars are off the road, busses and trucks would spend less time in traffic. That increases their economic yield, which in turn, makes a gradual electrification mandate economically feasible.

Re: Restricting Manhattan’s 14th street to buses has been a success

#63

Post by humanrebar » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 8:51 PM UTC

adjkant wrote: post #27

ses1984 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Manhattan is way to big to ban cars from the entire island. They could do it gradually and add public streetcars to main thoroughfares, but the way things are now, it would not work to straight up ban cars today.

The entire island is well covered by the subway except for going crosstown past the 100's which is served solidly by buses for that use case. Not to mention the many buses that most wealthy people ignore. No need for public streetcars when you already have buses that will be running quite ahead of schedule, as seen with 14th street :) I'm for gradually removing for other reasons, but the size is not the prohibitive f…

> ...except for going crosstown past the 100's...

You mean past 60th.

Also, the outer buroughs have plenty of subway inaccessible places. And other than Harlem, that's where working class New Yorkers live.

Re: Restricting Manhattan’s 14th street to buses has been a success

#64

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 8:51 PM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #41

jacquesm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

Re: Restricting Manhattan’s 14th street to buses has been a success

#65

Post by adjkant » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 8:53 PM UTC

electric_muse wrote: post #14

rubyboss wrote: post #5

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.

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.

As someone who lives in cities and has never owned a car, doing just fine here with walking my groceries back weekly and taking luggage around when I travel thanks very much. Doesn't work for everyone but that's why we have suburbs and plenty of car first/primary cities like Houston or Portland.

Re: Restricting Manhattan’s 14th street to buses has been a success

#66

Post by rubyboss » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

audunw wrote: post #52

electric_muse wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I’m not sure this is a widely held preference. Seems to be a vocal minority trying to impose their will on others.

Any data on that? Here around Oslo, there is quite a bit of opposition to banning cars from the city - but mostly from people living outside of it. People who live in the city, and who should have the most say, seems to like it. The green party grew in the recent election. Data has shown that businesses are doing well. Some do better, some the same, some worse (like furniture stores, which is a silly thing to have in…

Last time I was in Oslo it looked like the network of motorways in the city were well developed relative to London. It would be a shame if they banned cars in a city that is so well-equipped to handle them.

Re: Restricting Manhattan’s 14th street to buses has been a success

#67

Post by mgleason_3 » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

adrr wrote: post #24

rememberlenny wrote: post #2

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)…

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.

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.

Re: Restricting Manhattan’s 14th street to buses has been a success

#68

Post by dang » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 9:17 PM UTC

whowhatwhy wrote: post #45

wetpaws wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

not really

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

Re: Restricting Manhattan’s 14th street to buses has been a success

#69

Post by techsupporter » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 9:18 PM UTC

close04 wrote: post #58

techsupporter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 ini…

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.

Re: Restricting Manhattan’s 14th street to buses has been a success

#70

Post by nabilhat » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 9:19 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #42

randall wrote: post #9

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.

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 underst…

NYC cabs are cars only because that's the environment they operate in. Think of what a cab would look like in a busy carfree city. Disneyland makes an okay example for North Americans. There's no need to go to the considerable expense of an entire passenger car that's built for worst case freeway scenarios in a carfree city core. Imagine a cab where crumple zones and a three-digit top speed are useless.