Is it only a dream?

http://www.villagetrolley.org/

(But really, let's do away with the last of the faux-punk shops. It's OVER.)

We should do anything possible to push forward pedestrian zones in New York. This creates a much more pleasant and civilized urban experience. Imagine - one could actually sit in an outdoor cafe without breathing in exhaust fumes and having to shout over car horns.

(Speaking car horns, there really needs to be a city-wide ban on car horn usage except in emergencies)

Glad you joined the discussion. I hope you are right and I am wrong. However, I am not sanguine that WSP and Prince are similar enough, nor even that the traffic "disappeared" from WSP and did not reappear anywhere else. It seems to me that while traffic on Fifth near WSP isn't too bad, Broadway and Mercer, not that far away and handling Southbound traffic, aren't too well off.

Lucky you...Oslo ... must be nice. I am curious how residential vs commercial the buildings on those pedestrian streets in Oslo are. Do you see more tourists or people who live in the neighborhood?

While I am at it, one thing I failed to write was that the City should start providing #1 bus service south of the Village on weekends and evenings. Is any group actively advocating for that? Bet it would cut down on private vehicles and taxis. I should think the permanent and ephemeral populations are numerous enough to warrant this by now.

SoHo Resident

But my point is that collective wisdom said that you couldn't close Fifth Ave. through WSP because the surrounding streets would be flooded with the overflow. And today? Those streets are quieter than they were then. The traffic didn't shift - it just no longer came.

The difference is that Mulberry St. is marketed as a destination to draw in people. That's not the idea behind a pedestrianized Prince. We're just giving the space back to the people who are already there. If that turns out to be a draw, then clearly we have evidence that there is a need for more such zones throughout the city.

I will read the research and let you know if you've persuaded me. My own practical experience, living not far from Mulberry, and hearing complaints from residents of Little Italy (including the Realtor-named NoLita), is that traffic problems did arise, are still there, and that the DOT did not even help out with signage. Maybe it is a question of what the "major" traffic problems referenced in your quote are to perceived to be. Also, note that there is a reference to "appropriate local circumstances" that "could" result in overall reductions in traffic level. Do those circumstances exist in SoHo? Sounds a bit hedgy to me.

Also, reallocating to pedestrians will not be the case, unless there is some control of on-street vending at the same time.

I guess I would like to see this work to the benefit of all, but think that in the long run the people who will lose out are the artists who have been long-time residents on Prince.

SoHo Resident

Making a 1-day pedestrian mall in SoHo will remove traffic from one street once a week....and make it worse on other nearby streets.

Not likely, SoHo Resident.

Taking Prince Street offline will almost certainly result in a net reduction of cars traveling through SoHo. It will most likely reduce total vehicular traffic on each of the side streets crossing the car-free section of Prince. You can find extensive research on this topic here:

http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/disappearing-traffic/

Reallocating roadspace from general traffic, to improve conditions for pedestrians or cyclists or buses or on-street light rail or other high-occupancy vehicles, is often predicted to cause major traffic problems on neighbouring streets. This paper reports on two phases of research, resulting in the examination of over 70 case studies of roadspace reallocation from eleven countries, and the collation of opinions from over 200 transport professionals worldwide. The findings suggest that predictions of traffic problems are often unnecessarily alarmist, and that, given appropriate local circumstances, significant reductions in overall traffic levels can occur, with people making a far wider range of behavioural responses than has traditionally been assumed.

And stop this "rich people" crap. You sound like McCain, trying to remove legitimacy by calling names.

Yes, I have a job. I've worked in SoHo for 10 years, and I'm typing from work right now. I live a fifteen minute walk away, so I don't use a bridge, a tunnel, or even a subway to get here.

Telling us to try it in a neighborhood outside Manhattan is pretty funny. If anything belongs in Manhattan, it's pedestrians. Manhattan simply would not function if everyone drove everywhere. It would function fine if everyone walked or biked everywhere. Maybe you are the one who needs to move out of Manhattan. Places like Long Island and Los Angeles are already designed around cars. Maybe you would feel more at home there.

Since the streets are public space that we all pay for, I don't see how the rights of the richest New Yorkers to drive their Mercedes at all hours are more important than the rights of the majority of New Yorkers who use public transportation and feet to get around.

Trying to portray everyone who doesn't drive as an extremist is pretty funny when it is drivers in Manhattan who are the vocal minority.

1. A lot of traffic in Soho is headed to the free Holland Tunnel outbound. Unless you figure out a way to stop toll-shopping (and I think two-way tolls on all crossings is the only solution) then you will always have a lot of traffic on Canal and Broome headed to the tunnel. Traffic backs up throughout Soho because of this.

2. A lot of traffic in Soho is there looking to park on the street, for free. I recall a survery that stated that 40-45% of traffic in Soho on the weeknds was looking for parking. Reduce the amount of parking permanently or install Muni-meters for the weeknds that charge a high enough amount to make parking in a garage (at $25 or so) a viable alternative.

3. A pedestrian Prince St will absolutely raise the quality of the retail tenants and a compromise can be worked out to allow deliveries during certain hours and access for homeowners to their front doors.

I fault the program for being too limited in scope...why just certain hours on certain days? Go for a compromise plan like I mention in 3 and have it be permanent. The only people parking on the street during the week are probably our friends the placard-wielders and delivery vehicles.

It was clear from last night's meeting that many of the people against the car-free Prince proposal want fewer pedestrians in the neighborhood, not more. In a sense, they concede that a car-free Prince would be more appealing to outsiders. It's just not what they want.

It makes me sad that a neighborhood would prioritize cars over people in order to make their neighborhood less appealing, but it seems the opponents of this proposal have done just that.

i think you meant "lives" not "life's".

clearly you bought your V8 benzo with money from a patronage job via George W. Bush

-- Brooklyn Hippie.

I overheard someone say that the only people that were for the plan were a bunch of freaks and people from Brooklyn. All I can say to that is that the people against it seemed to be a bunch of cranky rich people who want to pretend that their neighborhood hasn't already changed, as all neighborhoods in NYC eventually do. The most vocal people mentioned that they owned several buildings in the area, while the others tried to paint themselves as a bunch of scrappy artists.

I live on Perry, just off of Bleecker, which is getting a ridiculous amount of tourists ever since Marc Jacobs, Magnolia Cupcake and an apartment from Sex In the City are within a block. Yes, it's annoying - but I would love it if they closed off Bleecker - because the most annoying sound I hear in my apartment all day is the honking of horns and the low hum of trucks unloading all of the time.

If the DOT seems serious about keeping the sausage on a stick people away, I don't see what the problem is. I would gladly trade a few more pedestrians for all the cars we currently have.

1. This is not traffic mitigation or reduction but just traffic transfer...to other nearby streets. What we need out of DOT are strategies to reduce traffic entirely.

2. What will happen to Broome Street, which is already severely congested by cars moving West on weekends when cars from Broadway to Sixth Ave are forced to bypass Prince before they can turn West? My solution if the Mall goes through: do not allow right turns onto Broome from those Streets...force vehicles to go to Canal, which is not as residential a street.

2. Perhaps parking should not be permitted on Prince (or any of SoHo) on weekends as an alternative. I have little sympathy for residents who want to park there for free, but lots of sympathy to those who want to be able to take a cab (such as the sick or elderly) or take a delivery on a day convenient to them.

3. what happens to the bicycle lane? If bicyclists are still allowed when it is a pedestrian walkway, then there will be injuries. Sorry, but many bicyclists I see in SoHo are not considerate or careful.

4. Certain businesses may benefit from the street being closed to traffic, but not all, including:

- The artists who live and work on Prince will be disadvantaged should they need to transport large canvasses or sculptures on Sunday.

- This mall could draw potential customers away from similar businesses in the area that are not on Prince.

- It was only when Trees not Trucks and other traffic alternatives advocacy groups stopped through trucks from Broome Street that the vacancy rate on stores reduced on that street. If more cars and trucks are forced onto it, they will create a "boundary" effect that could well result in economic hardship on Broome.

5. Lots of residents of SoHo have lived here for 35 or more years... they moved here when it wasn't a hip place but a place where they could live and manufacture their art at the same time. In fact, it was quiet. By and large, the only people living in SoHo lofts legally are artists who are certified as such by the Department of Cultural Affairs, and non-artists who were grandfathered in in the 1980s. Don't blame long time residents for dirtying their pond...we could not get the City to enforce the laws so the cost of lofts went up.
7. The Mulberry Street Mall, also in CB#2, was also an experiment. Once established, despite complaints from residents and elected officials, it was IN. Believe me, there are traffic problems in the surrounding areas. DOT's response: just avoid that area; live with the honking.

SoHo Resident too.