Comments on: Politicians call for separated bus lanes along 1st and 2nd Aves.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:08:59 +0000

No, don’t split local/express lanes like that. You want to make it easier to transfer, not harder.

What makes more sense is to choose the stops in such a way that 2nd can feed SAS when it’s finished in 2150, while 1st interpolates with missing stops like 79th and 68th.

By: rhywun

rhywun — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:54:11 +0000

Yeah, I very much agree with returning two-way traffic to avenues. Except I think only Second needs buses (or maybe express on Second, local on First?). I think both avenues could easily accommodate dedicated lanes. Most of the avenues are like six lanes?!

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:53:55 +0000

No. Car-free streets rarely work. The cases that do work tend to be narrow streets downtown, with plenty of foot traffic generators. First Avenue, a 100-foot six-lane throughfare, doesn’t fit the criteria. As for wide bus throughfares, their purpose is to increase bus speed; essentially, you’d be ramming a bus-only freeway on the Upper East Side.

You’d do much more to improve bus service by reverting First and Second to two-way operation, with local buses running on both, and plans for median-running BRT or streetcars on the avenue that gets more public transit demand.

By: Ed

Ed — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:39:17 +0000

Crazy idea: ban private car traffic from 1st Avenue (yes, this includes cabs). Reserve it for express and local busses running in both directions, plus bicylists! Drivers get the removal of busses from 2nd Avenue as compensation.

No need to construct separated bus lanes, 1st Avenue becomes a separated (and very wide) bus lanes. There may be some essential role 1st Avenue plays in traffic circulation, but I’ll admit I just don’t see what it is.

By: rhywun

rhywun — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:51:38 +0000

1a. Many merchants loudly proclaim that all their customers drive to their store when in fact they use the space in front of their store for themselves.

By: Jerrold

Jerrold — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:36:44 +0000

I never owned a car, and so some of these terms are unfamiliar to me.
What are “loading zone parking regulations”.

On another aspect of this issue, if some of those merchants on Second Ave. start to enthusiastically SUPPORT the bus lane proposal, it might be for the wrong reasons. Maybe it would mean that they’re assuming that the MTA will then abandon the Second Ave. Subway project, this time for good.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:27:08 +0000

Two reasons:

1. Separated bus lanes take away parking space, and many NYC merchants are under the misguided impression that the vast majority of their customers drive to their stores. That’s simply not true.

2. Separated bus lanes make it difficult for delivery trucks to find some to park – often illegally – to make deliveries. This is solvable simply by enforcing loading zone parking regulations.

By: Jerrold

Jerrold — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:23:04 +0000

Ben, WHY do business owners object to separated bus lanes?

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:13:59 +0000

For what it’s worth, from living in LA, the select bus services (we call them Rapids in LA) have an intangible secondary benefit – they are FAR more comfortable for riders. Without the frequent stops and endless hairpin turns into stops every 1-2 blocks, the rides are MUCH more comfortable than locals, and in LA are credited with bringing a lot of discretionary users to transit.

By: AK

AK — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:20:33 +0000

Huge! I especially liked how the Reps didn’t give people an out by stating that the SAS could be cut (i.e. that separated bus lanes are an alternative, rather than a supplement). Thanks for passing this along, Ben.