Both Stuyvesant square and Gramercy Park disrupt the grid a bit. The prob with US West is obsructed visibility with a single traffic lane. The Bway\E17 intersection is a mess, as is the Park Ave S/E17 (the corner of the W Hotel), which has a VERY quick light crossing the Avenue. By closing "Union Square North" (E17th), I would restrict ped crossing to the South side of the intersection, lengthen the light, allowing right turn offloading of E17th, and keep Park Ave S "No Left Turn" up to 23rd. Find ways of starting to offload Bway traffic to 5th Ave starting north of 23rd. Cabbies will learn it soon enough. STRICTLY enforce parking/double parking regs on E18/19/20, no flow problems. And post signage INSIDE the US subway station directing to Park/Greenmarket vs. Streets/Stores. Some sidewalk fencing along Park Ave S would help prevent jaywalking and avoid accidents.

It's like Paris, except this is New York.

It would be nice if there was easier pedestrian access on this corner. I love the greenmarket but sometimes on the weekend it can be a hell hole on this corner with people all squished in and pedestrians crossing the streets willy-nilly.

well, since they gave away park of the park during the renovation, I guess it is fitting to add more public space.

I hope there is a decent study on the impact this will have on 14th street though. Traffic is already a nightmare and if this pushes more case onto it, it will be impassable.

who ARE these people that want a less throbbing nyc??

Our thrust is to prick holes in the stiff front erected by these new urbanists.

We've got to come together so we can whip this thing into submission.

It'll be hard on us, but we can’t lick it by being soft!

Ok mineo. You can put that pipe down. That stuff is turning your lips powdered donut white

nice. you must either be a big guy or have a nice ass 'cause the other fellas have let you play on the computer like all day.

It's good that this corner is being addressed.

I pass through this intersection almost every day and pedestrians always (really pretty much every single time I've ever been at this intersection) cross from the north side of 17th to Union Sq when traffic on 17th gets the red light, even though Bway southbound traffic gets the green light and right of way.

That's what you'll get for not paying attention and see that the light says don't walk!

Actually, it's because it's one of the only intersections in lower Manhattan where you have to wait for two vehicle phases of the light before there's a pedestrian phase.

Why are people so quick to defend the use of streets for motor vehicle purposes only? How many people who live in this city actually use a car as their primary source of transportation? Its time we wrestle some control of the streets back from cars, I think.

I agree with Roz Harris' concerns, to a point-- drivers are a menace, & if they can't menace 17th st they'll menace 18th. Some sort of congestion toll would be nice, huh?

There seem to be a lot of unsupportable assumptions on this thread. To whit:

1. The DOT does not consult, but rather dictates. What do you think the Community Board meeting was? Or the meetings with the local BID? I can tell you from experience that the DOT will alter and even abandon plans in the face of Community Board opposition.

2. That the Community Board is some great democratic institution. Like the Commissioner of DOT, they are appointed by the officials we elect. Like DOT, the members have their own ideologies, viewpoints, and petty special interests that color and occasionally trump the wider public interests.

3. That criticism and concern expressed by CB members about aspects of the plan is the same as opposition. The CB's have a process called v-o-t-i-n-g in which they get to register their formal view on the final plan. Griping is part of the lobbying process to get changes.

4. That it is somehow significant that people who attended the hearing were concerned or even in opposition. The nature of the CB process is that those who are angry show up to vent and those who like an idea just say "good," and don't bother. Often it is not the balance of the pro-and-con, but the raw size of the con (a rough way of measuring the number of people angry) that matters.

5. That the people who show are the "voice of the community." As someone who has often played that role I can tell you it is bullshit. Attendance at CB meetings skews to those with free time to devote to it. That works against people whose jobs have long or unusual hours, people with families and children, etc. I'm not saying it isn't legitimate, I'm just saying there is a reason that the attitude of a few people at CB hearings is only one input factor and not the ballgame in making these decisions.

6. That CB 5 represents the entire relevant community. Although the changes occur with the boundaries of CB 5, they are right at it, affecting large numbers of people who live and work in CB 2 and CB 6. Just because a couple of people at the CB 5 hearing had a few criticisms doesn't mean "the community" is against it. He south of the Square just about everyone I know (a lot of people) think the changes overdue. (Some think they don't go far enough.)

Union Square and the streets around it belong to all of us, not just Giuliani-loving suburban car drivers. We want our street for more than just cars.

I agree traffic will go somewhere, but Ms. Harris is ducking the issue. DOT's job is to decide where and they are suggesting that:

1. That 18th St between Broadway and Park Ave South is currently both under capacity in auto usage and gets extremely light pedestrian usage. (Anyone who uses it can affirm this.)

2. That 17th Street gets very heavy pedestrian and other non-car usage and needs more space devoted to them, and that the current heavy car usage is dangerous.



3. The increase in traffic on 18th St between Broadway and Park Ave South will not constitute all the traffic now on 17th St because some of it will go instead to 20th St, some to 22nd St, and some to Fifth Ave.

Their suggestion - supported by mountains of research by a staff with a really good track record of being right - appears to be that it makes sense to divert some portion of traffic down these other streets to allow for the demand for non-car use of 17th Street.

Ms. Harris' observation therefore seems to me to totally miss the point. The traffic is going somewhere and they are suggesting a more rational way of organizing it. She seems unhappy that 18th St will no longer get its free ride. As a local resident who wlaks (and sometimes drives) on those streets, I have zero sympathy.

I'm guessing because "some people" live in Long Island or NJ & are the same people using the city infrastructure without paying taxes.

I dont' know how anyone can be opposed to this?

Union Square is sooo crowded with pedestrians, and that area where B'way pseudo dead-ends at the NW coren of Union Sq has always been a cluster f--k.

This seems like a pretty good idea.

And really, who are these a$$ clowns opposed to this? The people driving their cars through there? It's all pedestrians there. This is a great idea.

let's postpone traffic on this one block so the blocks around it gets worse. Yay?

"I dont know how anyone can be apposed to this"

Hey dimwit, try reading the fucking headlines! Most residents in that area are apposed to this, not just the drivers. A$$CLOWN!!

You could also try reading the article. 3 people who criticized the plan at a Community Board meeting do not count as "most residents in the area."

Only three people came out to criticize the plan.

However, no people, zero, came out to support it.

Three people are infinitely more people than zero people.

You do the math.

Thus, using stats the way that your friends at TransAlt use stats - by extrapolating minimal data - that means that NO ONE supports the plan but an infinite number oppose it.

Since the opponents vastly outnumber the supporters, why is DOT pushing this scheme down the throats of people who don't want it?

Whatever happened to democracy in Bloomberg's New York?