It seems as though there is a push in several cities such as Louisville, KY (where I currently live) to make the city more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Unfortunately, these things take time and there is a lot of wealthy opposition to them even though it improves the quality of the city over the long haul. Some people with deep pockets will fight change no matter what it is even if it ultimately benefits the majority. Politicians are "owned" by these folks. I'm sure NY is no different in that aspect.

So we are saddened to read in the New York Times that the most basic definition of our human-ness, the ability to locomote on two feet, is being dimmed to dross in the city we admire so much. Sadly, we fear the repercussions: as Toronto's decision-makers learn of the replacement of New York's logo, from "I (heart) NY" to "I (car) NY," what mischief is to follow in our own fair city?

As always, we hold out faith that the car advertisement, that insidious leakage that pays the salaries of so many hacks and media clowns, will one day be seen for what it is, and be rejected. That, we believe, will be the start of a sea-change to ring the death-knell of car-culture at last.

It cannot come too soon.

See also http://allderdice.ca/?p=176 for the ALLDERBLOB on Robert Sullivan's op-ed.

You shamelessly appropriated my usual line about Bloomberg priorities. Yes it is clear that "livable streets" are not his priority, and that he is not the next Ken Livingstone. But who can say how the Sustainability effort will play out? Maybe City Hall is unleashing a little genie is will have trouble stuffing back in the bottle.

Bloomberg just needs to step out of the way, or expend a very small amount of political capital and we could see a car-free Central Park, car-free space in Times Square,car-free experiments in lower Manhattan retail areas, and a host of neighborhood bike/ped improvements.

These might be modest steps compared to the dramatic moves in London and Paris. They might be small consolation given the city's utter failure to deal with the huge increases in off-street parking, truck traffic and traffic congestion. Yet, they are still changes that would mean a great deal.

It's currently #20

See http://www.nytimes.com/gst/mostemailed.html

Smith is only one lane and I think Smith and Court are narrower than both 7th and 5th. Are their sidewalks wider too?

Certainly the uses, destinations and "mental speed bumps" of the streets play a large factor in their walkability along with many other factors that DOT and DCP have not yet begun to consider in their pedestrian level-of-service calculations.

I agree that there are plenty of great pedestrian streets with one-way traffic. however, the bullet points Aaron cited point to systemwide effects that detract from the overall pedestrian experience. The more one-way streets there are in the grid, for instance, the more turns cars have to make, and the more potential for vehicle-pedestrian conflict.

Also, one-way avenues make surface transit less convenient for people -- there's a great section in Death and Life of Great American Cities about the relationship between converting streets to one-way flow and declining bus ridership.

I would, however, rather jaywalk across Smith and Court... Perhaps that could give businesses on those one way streets an advantage. (Not that I actually believe that any able-bodied person refuses to shop on the west side of 7th Avenue simply because there are two lanes of traffic separating them from the east side.)

The city has recently converted portions of Fulton Avenue in Brooklyn to a one-way street. It is likely that many of the problems that you identify will occur (in fact, increasing traffic speeds was probably the intention of the DOT). However, elimination of eastbound traffic has made crossing the street easier for those of us too impatient to wait on the traffic light.

It would seem to me that Mayor Bloomberg has made his decision. He's not going to deal with modernizing New York City's public spaces and transportation policy. Rather, he's going to focus on education, pension reform, gun control, smoking, fostering a real estate boom, revitalizing the waterfront, and quite a few other items. But not Livable Streets.

Essentially, it seems to me that Bloomberg has decided that he is going to be the last Mayor of the 20th century rather than the first mayor of the 21st.

On two-way streets as a traffic-calming measure:

• Single or double traffic lanes, either face-to-face or with a median, sometimes flanked by parking. The benefits:
• Less driving, less confusion, and better traffic access
• Eliminates the need to drive blocks and blocks out of the way
• No need to make extra turns to get to nearby destinations
• Drivers can get directly to their destination
• Increases commercial traffic and business
• Decreases the speed of traffic

I live on E85th between First and Second. I couldn't imagine a better street. We have a 2 large ped plazas opposite ends of the southside of the block. A small independent coffee shop (Rohr's), an awesome sushi place (Poke), a cool Irish Bar (Ryan's Daughter), a shoe repair shop, a kids dressy clothing store, an Italian restaurant (Ruggetta), a great brunch place with outdoor sidewalk seating and many buildings with stoops for people to sit out on. We also have a small one theater movie house around the corner. Mixed use is really another way of describing places that are people friendly, add convenience to accomplishing daily chores, support small and unique businesses and give a block a character.

Is there any place that mixed uses work better than in Brooklyn?

Maybe the mayor is right and congestion pricing is beyond his control in the state legislature. But the mayor is the boss of city streets and he is not getting the job done.