42nd Street Light Rail

[ryan]

From the NY Post:

42ND ST. SHUTTLE A RAIL GOOD IDEA By ANGELA MONTEFINISE

Crosstown travel might get a futuristic twist if a plan to bring a light-rail system to New York City becomes a reality. Vision42 — a citizens initiative that's part of the nonprofit Institution for Rational Mobility — is proposing the construction of a light rail system along 42nd Street, with stops at each avenue from river to river.

The system would be above ground and replace all vehicular traffic on the major thoroughfare, which under the plan, would basically become a pedestrian walkway.

"Practically speaking, it could absolutely be done," said civil engineer George Haikalis, who helped launch vision42 in 1999. ";It's been done before all over the world."

Architect Roxanne Warren, another founder of the group, said she and Haikalis decided to pursue the plan after she took a crosstown bus ride and "went slower than the pedestrians."

"Right now, crosstown travel is impossible," she said. "The estimated travel time of the rail system would be 20 minutes."

Warren and Haikalis have already made nearly 200 presentations to community leaders and elected officials on the rail system, and they are waiting for the results of three technical studies to really get the word out.

The studies — which are being done by consultants and were funded by a grant from the New York Community Trust — are investigating economic impact on the city, cost and traffic impact.

"While many of the people who saw the presentation were excited about the idea, there were certain questions about cost and so forth," Haikalis said. "To move this thing along, we really needed some technical input."

The results of the studies will be posted on vision42's Web site on April 18 — the same day as a public forum to be held at the New York Marriott Marquis Hotel with the Manhattan Borough President's Office and Community Boards 4, 5 and 6.

"We'll have representatives of the consultants there to answer questions, so everyone interested can have their concerns heard," Haikalis said.

The idea for a rail line on 42nd Street isn't new — in 1994, the City Council voted to support a rail line on the street, but when cost exceeded what was expected, the plan died. The cost then for the rail and street repairs was about $100 million.

"We wanted to revive the plan, but also make the street a pedestrian walkway," Warren said. "It will change New York if it goes through."

According to vision42, the rail system would take six years to build and probably be run by the MTA.

City Transportation Department spokeswoman Kay Sarlin said, "We are always open to new ideas, but we have had concerns about the feasibility of a 42nd Street light rail. The Shuttle and No. 7 trains currently provide cross-town service, and the administration's transit priority in the area is the extension of the No. 7."


From vision42.org (http://www.vision42.org/index.php):

http://www.vision42.org/_img/home_main2.jpg


http://www.vision42.org/_img/gallery_grandcentral.jpg


At Grand Central Terminal, an auto-free 42nd Street would greatly facilitate access to the station by pedestrians.


http://www.vision42.org/_img/gallery_timessq2.jpg


http://www.vision42.org/_img/gallery_timessq.jpg


Times Square receives some 165,000 people per day, even before the addition of planned new office towers.


http://www.vision42.org/_img/gallery_bryantrail.jpg


Landscaping will bring continuous greenery from Bryant Park and the new riverfront parks into the heart of Midtown.


http://www.vision42.org/_img/gallery_plaza.jpg



http://www.vision42.org/_img/gallery_stop.jpg


vision42 will create an outdoor “urban room” for theater-goers and residents of massive apartment towers.
http://www.vision42.org/_img/gallery_typicalblock.gif
http://www.vision42.org/_img/gallery_crosssection.jpg
vision42 and the #7 Subway Extension
http://www.vision42.org/_img/shim.gif
These two rail proposals for Midtown serve very different functions and are complementary. The subway provides speedy, underground, long-distance service, while the light rail line extends the reach of the subways to the rivers, providing fine-grained, high-quality transit service at street level to all of 42nd Street’s destinations. Its easy boarding and frequent access points make it an ideal collector/distributor for the subways and ferries, while its placement in a pedestrian street enhances access to all the subways, including the #7. The light rail line serves the entire 42nd Street corridor, including high-density development areas on the far eastern and far western ends of 42nd Street that are not directly served by either the subways or commuter rail. Also shown is the route of the #7 extension as it was originally proposed, passing deep under Eighth Avenue and stopping at Penn Station before turning west to a terminus at the Hudson Yards.


There's a lot more on their site (http://www.vision42.org/index.php).

[NewYorkYankee]

I can't see this happening.

[TomAuch]

Looks pretty cool, but is this even going to happen? I HATE traffic congestion, and would love to see NYC improve on that, but I would figure there will be a lot of opposition towards this. Boston does it, although many of their cars look really old and beat up.

[TLOZ Link5]

This will supplement the existing subway lines, like the old trolleys used to do and like the buses were supposed to. The problem is that there is so much congestion on 42nd Street that the buses aren't practical.

[MidnightRambler]

I'm all for it, but it'll never happen. As far as traffic goes though... how about congestion charging for midtown?

[mkeit]

A light-rail line for this short length would be totally rediculous. Unless it it used as a cheaper replacement for the 7 extension to the STADIUM.

[junglizt1210]

i hate having to get into the jungle that is Grand Central/Times (although admittedly it -can- be fun) so Im all for it :)

i guess you have to make short term sacrifices to gain long term benifits.... this would be one of them, there would be chaos during the 6 years it would take builidng it....

[TLOZ Link5]

A light-rail line for this short length would be totally rediculous. Unless it it used as a cheaper replacement for the 7 extension to the STADIUM.

It can be easily extended, however. Every light-rail system starts out small.

[NYCResident]

This is a ridiculous idea - but if they really wanted to make crosstown access easier and willing to go so far as eliminating vehicular traffic on 42nd street, why not do it MUCH cheaper by simply only allowing buses? Why spend $$$$ to build a light rail when good old-fashioned public transportation can do it cheaper and just as efficiently?

[billyblancoNYC]

I know els are out of fashion, but imagine an airtran like rail up 42nd, 34st, 125th, etc, and then all connecting somehow at, say, the FDR and West Side Hway.

[NYCResident]

Putting aside the practicality of an el for a second, I can understand that at least the benefit you get with an el is that you're increasing capacity on a roadway by using the air above it. However, this proposal shows a street level light rail, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Now getting back to reality, need I remind anyone of the financial state of the MTA and the city?

[mkeit]

The pictures on the web site look nice-however they seem to have left out the Overhead Wire System. The alternative would be a center slot for power similar to the old streetcars. I don't see this either.

With the rebuilding of the west side, where will they be stored? A maintenance building and yard is needed. Where will the substation buildings-at least 2- be located?

Light rail vehicles cost around $ 3 million each in large quantities. The cost of the guideway in Phoenix-the most recent system to be built-is running about $ 8 million/mile. Manhattan construction has got to be a hell of a lot more expensive. The guideway has to be excavated at least 3 feet deep x 25' wide. Rock excavation will be even more expensive, All utilities that cross it have to be relocated.

A busway would be a lot easier.

[NYatKNIGHT]

New York eliminated all its elevated trains and put them underground for reasons that would be foolhardy to disregard, especially here where there is a subway under the street now that is being extended to the West Side. The cheapest and easiest answer is to remove passenger vehicles from 42nd St. and use Bus Rapid Transit.

[tmg]

I would suggest that neither light rail nor bus rapid transit would make much of a difference in that corridor.

Two of the major sources of delay in that corridor are:
(1) Long dwell times due to high passenger boarding volumes at each stop; and
(2) Long delays at traffic lights due to high traffic volumes on the avenues.

The only way to address (1) is to erect per-paid fare controlled areas on the sidewalk, so people can board vehicles faster and by multiple doors. This can be done regardless of what types of vehicles are used.

The city will not be willing to address (2) no matter what is done on 42nd St.

I think it would be great to make 42nd Street for transit and pedestrians only. But reducing traffic on that street won't by itself make a dramatic difference in travel times.

[alex ballard]

Doesn't the 7 train run along 42st? Why can't people use that?

[macreator]

Another problem in my opinion is that all of the non-bus traffic on 42nd street (and there is a lot of it) will be pushed off onto other, narrower, streets. How would the City compensate? I suppose they could not allow any parking or standing on 41st and 43rd street.

I think the idea of a monorail system going across 42nd Street might be an interesting idea and hooking it up via the FDR drive to the proposed AirTrain tunnel to JFK could be fabulous. The monorail system could also extend to the Javits Center and the West Side Stadium providing easy access between Midtown and the convention district and further enabling the City to cope with the many Olympic goers we might see if we win the 2012 Olympic bid. The result could be an amazing system offering a one seat ride from JFK right into Midtown and for the Olympics, right into the stadium area.

Remember, this is a daydream, the cost of such a project would be astronomical, but it is fun to imagine.

[NYCResident]

Doesn't the 7 train run along 42st? Why can't people use that?

They can, it's just that it doesn't stop at every block and doesn't extend the entire length of 42nd street.

[macreator]

It appears that the light rail proposal does indeed include a connection to the Javits center and the West Side Stadium.

On some of the maps they mention a proposed 35th street Ferry on the East side. Anyone know anymore on this issue?

[BrooklynRider]

I know els are out of fashion, but imagine an airtran like rail up 42nd, 34st, 125th, etc, and then all connecting somehow at, say, the FDR and West Side Hway.

I was envisioning the same thing. Kind of like Miami's system only with trains rather than single cars.

[TLOZ Link5]

I was envisioning the same thing. Kind of like Miami's system only with trains rather than single cars.

In 1968, such a proposal was part of the MTA's "Program for Action." It was cancelled due to the fiscal crisis.

[ryan]

I was envisioning the same thing. Kind of like Miami's system only with trains rather than single cars.

I'm not sold on elevated trains - I can't help think of Broadway in Williamsburg, even though I know a modern train would be less bulky. Some of my favorite cities to walk around have streetcars of some kind - San Francisco & Amsterdam come to mind - and I think it adds a lot to the streetlife.

Subways are obviously ideal, but for the same money how much further could you run surface trains? Busses are obviously cheap, but how many of you ride the bus here? It's not appealling to a lot of people, and they have less capacity than trains. As the city develops, public transportation has to extend to areas not served by subways - think the far west and east sides. The shuttle and the 7 train only go from Grand Central to Times Sq. - that's only what, a third, a quarter of the city?

The F line in SF's embarcadero is great as a museum, but even with modern cars I think it would have the same positive impact on the area. Imagine a train that hit all the tourist spots between the UN and Chelsea piers? Better yet if it connected to an east river ferry serving built-up LIC and North Brooklyn waterfronts.

[NYCResident]

Subways are obviously ideal, but for the same money how much further could you run surface trains? Busses are obviously cheap, but how many of you ride the bus here?

um, check the MTA web site - averages about 50-60 million people a month. Include me in that number - I ride buses just as often as subways.


It's not appealling to a lot of people, and they have less capacity than trains.
Again, think about what is being proposed here - if you're willing to cut off 42nd street to all traffic, then you can run all the buses you want. Capacity is no longer an issue.

I'm sorry, but this is really a brain dead idea.

[STT757]

Another problem in my opinion is that all of the non-bus traffic on 42nd street (and there is a lot of it) will be pushed off onto other, narrower, streets. How would the City compensate? I suppose they could not allow any parking or standing on 41st and 43rd street.

I think the idea of a monorail system going across 42nd Street might be an interesting idea and hooking it up via the FDR drive to the proposed AirTrain tunnel to JFK could be fabulous. The monorail system could also extend to the Javits Center and the West Side Stadium providing easy access between Midtown and the convention district and further enabling the City to cope with the many Olympic goers we might see if we win the 2012 Olympic bid. The result could be an amazing system offering a one seat ride from JFK right into Midtown and for the Olympics, right into the stadium area.

How would you link a Monorail (Mono= one rail) with the Airtrain which runs on standard (two) rails? You can't.

[macreator]

How would you link a Monorail (Mono= one rail) with the Airtrain which runs on standard (two) rails? You can't.

Oh my mistake. I forgot that the AirTrain is indeed running on a traditional two rail system. The AirTrain as a monorail system with concrete sides came to mind for some reason.

[ryan]

Again, think about what is being proposed here - if you're willing to cut off 42nd street to all traffic, then you can run all the buses you want. Capacity is no longer an issue.

I don't think you have to cut off car traffic to have surface rail - I think the two are separate issues. I have nothing to do with the vision42 site.


um, check the MTA web site - averages about 50-60 million people a month. Include me in that number - I ride buses just as often as subways.

I'm sorry, but this is really a brain dead idea.

For all the bravado of nyers, there is also a wet blanket of "things are fine the way they are" - a resistance to imagining the city evolving into something better than it is right now. Settling for what how things are rather than making them better.

Busses systems are a scam put on people in US cities by GM, Standard Oil, Firestone and others. That's why cities in other parts of the world have superior public transportation (NYC obviously has much better public transformation than the rest of the US, but most of it was built before WWII) You can debate the quantitative details of the bus v. light rail question (busses are cheaper short term/light rail can be cheaper in the long-run) but I think the quality of the experience of light rail is more pleasant.

Busses are functional, but I think more people would ride light rail - especially if it were extended into a developing area - like the embarcadero in SF. I know so many people who don't use Laguardia because they would rather take a much longer subway ride to JFK. Why build the Airtrain when there already were busses?

[NYatKNIGHT]

^Because of speed.

I am not only a light rail fan, but I've built a career out of designing and planning them. In most cases I back them 100%, but for 42nd St., save the millions and go with a better bus system. Here, a bus and light rail at the surface would be very close to the same thing. There is no advantage except for one being a smoother ride. They would both take up a lane, they would both be susceptible to obstacles (so their speed would be the same), and if we're talking about the future, the buses should run much cleaner than they do now. And a bus doesn't need a tail track for turn arounds - something to note when space is tight.

Besides, there already is a rail running down 42nd St., it's just below the surface. They just need to extend the 7 train (which they are) and add a few more stops.

I can think of a lot of places in the city that would benefit from LRT, but here it would be redundant. A light rail along the west side.....now that would be something.

[ryan]

I very selfishly like the idea b/c the imagined North Brooklyn ferry/42nd st. light rail is a much more appealling commute for me than the G (which doesn't deserve quite as much scorn as it gets). I agree with the others that other east-west corridors need it much more.

NY@Knight - since you are an expert, how do you feel about monorails? Most of my knowledge comes from the Simpsons and disney, though I did come across the "monorail society homepage" (http://www.monorails.org/) which I thought was a joke until I read how earnest it is.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Monorails have a greater area of intersection with their track, which limits its flexibility due to the complexity of switches, and results in more break downs, which lends inefficiency for lengthy travel. So, their uses are limited. They have a long way to go before they replace rail with performance, if it's even possible. However, if they can get that Maglev technology to work better......

We also tend to forget lessons learned from the past, especially with regard to elevated trains. One of the problems with the El in dense corridors is that they hang over the streets blocking out sky, views, storefronts, and sight corridors. Their move underground was considered a huge improvement. So even an efficient monorail going down a Manhattan avenue or street is probably not the way to go.

[macreator]

Is anyone going to be going to the vision42 meeting on the 18th at the Marriot Marquis in Time Square?

[mkeit]

Someone from Vision42 e-mailed me on the design of the system. They are planning to use battery or fuel cells-neither of which has been used in an operating system.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Old Proposal to Build Light-Rail Line on 42nd Street Is Revisited

By SEWELL CHAN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=SEWELL CHAN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=SEWELL CHAN&inline=nyt-per)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gif
April 18, 2005



http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/s.gifome ideas never go away. Three transportation projects first proposed decades ago - a Second Avenue subway, a Long Island Rail Road connection to Grand Central Terminal and a direct train ride from Manhattan to Kennedy Airport - all find themselves in some stage of planning now.

A man named George Haikalis would like to revive another long-discussed project. He wants New York City to build a crosstown light-rail line on 42nd Street and to close the street to vehicles. He wishes to create, in effect, a giant pedestrian mall between the Hudson and East Rivers.

At first, Mr. Haikalis, a civil engineer and a transportation planner who once worked for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, may seem like just another dreamer with a grandiose but improbable plan.

But after six years, he raised nearly $200,000 to pay for a series of technical studies that he says demonstrate the tremendous benefits for the economy, the transit system and the environment from a light-rail system, the term now preferred for streetcars and trolleys.

Mr. Haikalis plans to present the three studies tonight at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in Times Square at a meeting sponsored by C. Virginia Fields, the Manhattan borough president, who is running for mayor. While she has not endorsed the plan, her interest in it is a modest step forward for an idea that has persisted through four mayoral administrations.

Streetcars were the dominant mode of public transit on 42nd Street from 1898 to 1946, when they were replaced by buses.

The City Planning Commission considered an above-ground rail line on 42nd Street in 1978. The Department of Transportation commissioned its own study a few years later. Then the Metropolitan Transportation Authority took a look.

In June 1994, the City Council gave overwhelming approval to the project, which was estimated to cost $135 million. The city was authorized to choose one of four bidders to lay the track, build the cars and operate a new trolley system as a franchise.

And then the plan quietly died. Rudolph W. Giuliani, the mayor at the time, withdrew his initial support, citing concerns about the feasibility and cost. Deeply discouraged, the leading proponent of the project, Frederic S. Papert, gave up promoting it.

Mr. Papert, who runs the 42nd Street Development Corporation, a nonprofit group that has worked on redeveloping Theater Row since the 1970's, sought to have three of the six lanes on 42nd Street dedicated for use by streetcars, while the other three lanes would be used for one-way westbound traffic.

Mr. Haikalis's idea is, in some respects, more ambitious. He wants to close the 60-foot-wide street to cars and trucks altogether. The M42 bus line would be replaced with a 2.5-mile light rail: 1.9 miles on 42nd Street, between First and 12th Avenues, and short extensions to two ferry terminals, at 39th Street on the Hudson River and 35th Street on the East River.

The typical travel time from end to end would be slightly more than 21 minutes, based on 20 seconds of "dwell time" at each of its 16 stops and the current configuration of traffic lights, according to Halcrow, a London-based planning and design company that conducted one of the technical studies.

Each rail car would be 150 feet long and hold up to 300 passengers, with low floors to make the cars easy to board and exit, even for disabled riders. The Halcrow study found that the rail system would cost as much to operate as the buses it would displace but would carry three times as many passengers.

According to the study, the project would cost $360 million to $510 million. The biggest single expense would probably be moving underground utility connections, including water and sewer mains, gas pipes and cables for telecommunications and electricity.

A second study, by Samuel I. Schwartz, a former first deputy transportation commissioner, concluded that the traffic changes from banning vehicles could be managed by adjusting parking rules, traffic-regulation enforcement, lane markings on surrounding streets and traffic-signal timing.

The final study commissioned by Mr. Haikalis concluded that the rail project would save travel time, increase office rent and occupancy rates, and reduce traffic accidents.

According to that study, by Regina Armstrong, an economist at Urbanomics of New York and New Jersey, a consulting firm, the project would raise nearby property values by $3.6 billion and bring about $527.3 million in annual net benefits to the city's economy, primarily through higher city and state tax revenues. That sum takes into account the estimated $84.1 million cost each year for diverting traffic and deliveries from the street. The light rail would cost $29.7 million to $39.4 million to operate each year, she found.

Even if political support for the project could be found, the technical challenges would be considerable. For instance, overhead electrical wires would be the simplest power source for the streetcars, but they are considered unsightly. Other options are hydrogen fuel cells or vehicles that use a hybrid of diesel and electricity. It is unclear which public entity, if any, would be willing to operate the system.

Quite often, detailed studies follow political support. Mr. Haikalis seems to have the process in reverse. A small nonprofit group he founded in 1997, the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility, paid for the studies using a grant from an anonymous donor, through the New York Community Trust, a foundation.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has invested much of his political capital in the proposal to build a football stadium and convention center on the Far West Side. A $2.1 billion extension of the No. 7 subway line, to be paid for by the city, is a major element of that plan.

City officials, while skeptical, said they were willing to hear Mr. Haikalis's ideas.

"In the past, we've had concerns about the feasibility of a 42nd Street light rail, particularly because of construction and traffic mitigation issues," said Kay Sarlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Transportation. "The city's current transit priority in the area is extending the No. 7 train. However, we've met with the institute to discuss its proposal, and we look forward to seeing more detailed plans."

Ms. Sarlin noted that two subway lines - the shuttle and the No. 7 - already run under the street, although they cover only the stretch between Grand Central and Times Square.

A spokesman for Consolidated Edison, which objected to the project in the early 1990's, was noncommittal. "We'd have to review the details," said the spokesman, Michael S. Clendenin. "Relocation costs with any project are always a concern."

Ms. Fields, the Manhattan borough president, said she was intrigued by the proposal. "I am interested in exploring alternative transportation modes, from east to west, as a way of reducing congestion and dealing with environmental issues from the many cars on 42nd Street," she said.

More than 20 major cities - including Los Angeles, Boston and Pittsburgh - have built light-rail systems in recent decades. Across the Hudson, New Jersey Transit has three light-rail lines: the Newark subway, the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail connecting Bayonne, Jersey City and Hoboken, and the new River Line between Camden and Trenton.

Michael Horodniceanu, a former city transportation official who is not involved in the effort, said support for a light-rail line might ultimately have to come from pedestrians, commuters and drivers who are tired of congestion.

"As time passes and as we become more and more dependent on transit rather than on cars, the chances are going to get better and better," he predicted.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/04/18/nyregion/18rail_lg.jpg

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[macreator]

Did anyone go to tonight's meeting?

[BPC]

I did. A good-sized, and fairly friendly, crowd attended. BP Fields opened the meeting with some politicianese about needing to consider this idea, without ever saying she actually supported it, and then promptly took off before the substantive presentation.

As for the substance, the IRM hired three agencies to research three separate aspects of the proposal: economics, design and cost. The gyst of the three reports is that the proposal would cost about 1/2 billion (mostly in movig utility wires) dollars but, in their view, would generate well over that in new tax dollars generated by improved property values and so on. The reports also concluded that neighboring streets could easily handle the overflow if cars were removed from 42nd Street, a conclusion I agree with but some at the meeting expressed skepticism on.

[ryan]

The reports also concluded that neighboring streets could easily handle the overflow if cars were removed from 42nd Street, a conclusion I agree with but some at the meeting expressed skepticism on.

I've harped on this before, but... Jane Jacobs has written that traffic is not a constant flow like water - it does not divert, it decreases. When 5th avenue was closed through Washington Sq. Park, conventional wisdom was that traffic would overrun the neighboring streets, but instead traffic in the whole neighborhood decreased. Drivers chose other paths, or chose not to drive.

The conventional wisdom that traffic is constant and will just go another route and clog side streets has not been proven. Makes logical sense, but is wrong. Jane Jacobs is a better writer than I am, so I suggest your read her books (http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Jacobs.html).

[mkeit]

Regardless of the merit of a light-rail system, I think the fact that they are pushing a light-rail technology that does not exist-fuel cells or diesel/electric hybrids in 150' long rail sets will doom it.

[NYatKNIGHT]

The technology will be better in decades to come, if and when this ever happens. Who knows, maybe all of midtown will be closed to passenger vehicles by then.

However, proposed transit options that can be considered redundant tend to fall in the priority list.

I hate to come off sounding negetive about any light rail projects - I would of course prefer a light rail line to all that auto traffic on 42nd and elsewhere - as long as their projected economic and cost predictions are credible, which they may be, this is 42nd Street after all.

And I agree with you guys that the surrounding streets can handle the overflow traffic. Drivers will find a different way altogether as Ryan pointed out. I think there was a recent study about closing the roads of Central Park that also supports this.

[ryan]

Fuel cells are a red herring because it currently takes more energy (coal and nuclear generated electricity) to produce hydrogen than fuel cells produce. They are actually more polluting than fossil fuels alone. If the technology can be made viable, it really is decades out... as it seems this project would be if it ever happens at all.

K@K - why so much cost to reroute utilities? Does light rail really require that much more substantial a roadbed?

[NYatKNIGHT]

Utility relocation is a huge puzzle in light rail design, especially in big, old, dense cities. Light rail subgrade goes just enough deeper than regular roadway to cause rerouting - about 4 feet down +/-. Since most utilities are as shallow as they can safely be placed, pretty much everything except for sanitary sewer is too close. Also, crossing under the tracks is avoided if possible for repair reasons. Then there's the system ductbank and track drains that are added beneath the surface that further displace utilities. If after all that the existing utilities still don't need to be rerouted, most nearby pipes and trenches are replaced to stand up to the vibration and corrosion caused by the electric current.

And finally, once everything is planned, they rip up the roadway to discover what is really under there, which never matches the plans exactly, and entire systems somethimes have to be redesigned on the fly. I can definitely see why so much cost would go to utility relocation, especially for a place like 42nd Street.

[mkeit]

The guideway is usually 12-14" thick from top of rail. It needs about 8-12" of compacted fill below the concrete.

The problem with utilities is that they cannot remain below the guideway-they all have to be relocated. Manhattan has a hugh amount of cable ducts, pipelines , etc.

To bring up the Phoenix example, on the most recent contract LS3- 4 miles long-the low bidder for the guideway -$ 6 million/mile, track work-$ 5 million/mile, utility relocation-$ 2 million/mile. And Phoenix is a lot cheaper and easier to do this work.

[NYatKNIGHT]

I've often seen the base course + subgrade exceed 24", not to mention even deeper with special trackwork sections and platform areas. I only mention that as answer to ryan's question about depth - it often goes deeper than the roadbed. Also, it's not too unusual for deeper storm and sanitary sewers to be left where they are, and even new/replaced pipes and conduits often do cross under the tracks. But the point is the same, the relocation of utilities under 42nd street would be a formidable job not to mention there are subways below to add to the complexity.

[Clarknt67]

the typical travel time from end to end would be slightly more than 21 minutes

Would that be slightly LESS than 22 minutes?

I'm not really convinced. Don't we already have the 7 AND the Times/GCS shuttle running this route? I just think there was better ways to spend our transportation dollars. I'm also skeptical that the surrounding streets can handle the traffic. [But then, I'm also indifferent, as I have a personal prejudice that more than half of the people in cars on Manhattan are just stupid schmucks that should be traveling by public trans but are too spoiled and selfish to do so.]

That said, I'm always in favor of anything that gets cars off the road, including shutting them out of 42nd. If they really did this, imagine what a grand sight (and site) that mall would be.

And, if it's successful, it's a great argument for including street cars into the Brooklyn Bridge Park design, something I'd love to see.

[Deimos]

[But then, I'm also indifferent, as I have a personal prejudice that more than half of the people in cars on Manhattan are just stupid schmucks that should be traveling by public trans but are too spoiled and selfish to do so.]


I'm 100% with you on this one... then again, i'm an east-sider who doesn't own a car (or even have a valid driver's license... but that's just because i'm too lazy to renew it). Only Taxis, limos, buses and delivery trucks should be on the road in the city from 8am to 6pm monday to friday.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Real Schmucks

[TLOZ Link5]

Daily News columnist Lenore Skenazy chimes in:

City trolley rings the bell

Wednesday, April 20th, 2005

I have a desire named streetcar. How I long to see streetcars reclaim their rightful place in New York City, i.e., smack dab in the middle of the road, passengers waving out the windows, Judy Garland belting out a song up front. (I know it was a trolley. And St. Louis. Give me a little license here!)

Anyway, until we return to the 1940s, I would happily settle for a single streetcar line running along a car-free 42nd St. And, not-so-coincidentally, that just happens to be the plan unveiled this week by the engineering/architecture firm Vision 42.

These plans, more radical than several 42nd St. proposals of the past, look incredibly cool. Imagine a sleek light-rail system running from the E. 35th St. ferry terminal up to 42nd and over to the ferries on the Hudson. Riders would whiz past widened sidewalks, trees and cafes. With multiple passenger entrances and street-level doors for easy wheelchair access, a crosstown trip would take only 21 minutes, even while halting at all the old bus stops and street lights.

Drivers, I feel your pain. Not! Five times more people walk than drive in midtown.

We win.

In fact, walkers have to win or 42nd St. is headed for what Transportation Alternatives chief Paul White calls "ped-lock." Simply put: As the sidewalks become impassable, pedestrians spill into the street, making the streets impassable, etc., etc.

Foot traffic on 42nd has already jumped 45% in the past five years, says Tim Tompkins, president of the Times Square Alliance. "And then you have another 4 or 5 million square feet of office space going up. So you've got even more people coming. Someone's got to be thinking about how they are going to move."

Banning cars and running a spacious streetcar every four minutes sounds like it would solve the problem. But of course, not everyone agrees. Gene Russianoff, senior attorney at the New York Public Interest Research Group, says, "I've become a fiscal conservative in my old age." He wants all transit dollars to be spent maintaining the existing subways and buses.

Hey - I want a working transit system, too. But the beauty of the streetcar plan is that it will actually pay for itself. As property values along the beautified 42nd St. skyrocket, increased property tax revenue would pay for the project in just a few years.

Vision 42's numbers seem to prove it, even after factoring in the inconvenience and expense of diverting all 42nd St. deliveries. So what are we waiting for?

Great ideas are like streetcars - they haven't come along for a while. This one deserves a run.

©Copyright 2005, the New York Daily News

[NYCResident]

All the advantages of a light rail that are being argued (increase in property values/tax revenue, fewer accidents, faster access crosstown) would just as easily apply if you just limit 42nd street to just buses. So why waste the estimated $500MM and all the disruption to lay down the rail, move cabling, ducts, etc. for this??

I have a whole laundry list of other things the city can spend $500 million on.

[ryan]

I doubt busses have the cachet to raise property values/tax revenue as much. Shortsighted thinking about infrastructure investment makes the city stagnate.

[Deimos]

Wouldn't the light-rail be quieter and cleaner than a bus?

[mkeit]

Quieter and cleaner but very expensive.

The cost projections on the Vision42 site are far too low.

To avoid $ 100 million in utility relocation, they propose using lightweight track supports that are are untested. What will be the axle loading?

They show in drawings , but do not mention, girder rail. This is only made in Europe and is very expensive. It requires a " Buy America" waiver if they use federal funds.

They have insisted in the e-mails and statements that they will use either the hybrid or fuel cell technology. In the full report, they suggest that an overhead wire system will be the way to go, although it will cause problems for parades.

No wire system is shown in the drawings. The hybrid system adds a lot of weight and cost to a 40' bus-what about a rail car. And it is still diesel- fumes and particulate matter.

All existing US LRT systems use standard 85-92' cars. Vision42 calls for a 150' unit with only 60 seats. It sounds like 3 busses articulated together.

I also missed the mention of fares or fare collection. will they use tickets? A farebox will mean that only one door can be used for entry. The number of doors are not mentioned

They are not sure what agency would operate it-MTA, NYCDOT or someone else. I see a major turf war.

[NYCResident]

I doubt busses have the cachet to raise property values/tax revenue as much. Shortsighted thinking about infrastructure investment makes the city stagnate.

I don't think it's the rail itself that would raise property values. It's more due the fact that 42nd street would be closed to most street traffic, reduce congenstion, having in effect a pedestrian mall, etc.

You may call it shortsighted, I call it being pragmatic. I'm all for moving this city forward, let's just do it responsibily.

As for the quiet/cleaner argument, mkeit has it right. Sure a rail would be quieter/cleaner, but let's do a simple cost/benefit analysis - by eliminating all vehicles except for buses, and using clean-air buses, it would still be a big improvement from what you have today at a substantial lower cost.

[Clarknt67]

I don't think it's the rail itself that would raise property values. It's more due the fact that 42nd street would be closed to most street traffic, reduce congenstion, having in effect a pedestrian mall, etc.

You may call it shortsighted, I call it being pragmatic. I'm all for moving this city forward, let's just do it responsibily.

As for the quiet/cleaner argument, mkeit has it right. Sure a rail would be quieter/cleaner, but let's do a simple cost/benefit analysis - by eliminating all vehicles except for buses, and using clean-air buses, it would still be a big improvement from what you have today at a substantial lower cost.

MTA buses running on a closed pedestrian mall just doesn't quite cut it IMO. Who would want to walk around in all that diesel smoke? and the way the bus drivers drive who would feel safe? At least trains stay on the rails (mostly).

[Deimos]

I'd also worry about the safety of the light rail. I was in Portland OR a while back, and they have an above ground light rail system in place. The car I was in was rushing to get through a light before it turned red, and as we were passing through the intersection, I saw the train coming right for us. Needless to say, it was a scary moment. I can just imagine how it will feel being in a cab in the same situation rushing to beat the light.

[NYatKNIGHT]

I lived in Denver when they first started their light rail. Cars/people got hit more at first, but as people were more attentive it no longer became an issue. LRT would never get going fast on 42nd St.

Denver also has a bus/pedestrians only street, the 16th St. Mall. They run in narrow lanes lined with a curb, so like rail they don't deviate. The driver has the most boring job in the world: Go. Stop. Announce Station. Repeat. And it's not a street full of deisel smoke, not at all, in fact with no cars it's one of the more pleasant streets. BRT works just fine and would not be a disaster. LRT is preferable, but can be cost-prohibitive.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The advantage of light rail over bus is that it has its own corridor. Once you remove the vehicle traffic, that advantage is gone. The rail would be "nicer," but the biggest benefits to the street environment would be removing the vehicle traffic and widening the sidewalks.

Also, implimenting a bus system might actually get done sometime this century.

[billyblancoNYC]

The advantage of light rail over bus is that it has its own corridor. Once you remove the vehicle traffic, that advantage is gone. The rail would be "nicer," but the biggest benefits to the street environment would be removing the vehicle traffic and widening the sidewalks.

Also, implimenting a bus system might actually get done sometime this century.

That's true. If the street was made 2 lanes for just bus traffic, and the rest for peds, the area would still get a boost in value and the commuting would be greatly enhanced. If that was tested and did well, it should be expanded to all the major roads...34th, 23rd, etc.

[BPC]

I think the 42nd Street light rail plan is a good one. But if we want to take an incremental step in the same direction which will make a big difference with minimal cost and disruption, just remove the two outer lanes and use them to widen (and landscape) the sidewalks. The remaining four lanes can be made "express" (ie, no turn) lanes from 1st avenue to 9th avenue, which will remove most of the traffic without need for any other restrictions.

Then, somewhere down the line, when all the approvals are done and the financing is in place, the last for lanes can be ripped up and the light rail put in place.

[Deimos]

That's true. If the street was made 2 lanes for just bus traffic, and the rest for peds, the area would still get a boost in value and the commuting would be greatly enhanced. If that was tested and did well, it should be expanded to all the major roads...34th, 23rd, etc.
14th, 23rd, 34th, 42nd, 57th should all be like this eventually... especially the last 3. The city will become so much more pleasant to travel cross town!

But to discourage the drivers, how about a tax to park your car in a garage between 7am and 12pm? This way commuters get hit, but a day tourist probably will be able to avoid the tax. Something like $10.00 should be enough to really hit people in their pockets and keep their cars in the suburbs where they belong! Of course the cost to park on the street will have to see a similar increase during the business day to make it work. Zippy, with these ideas, I don't think your comments about getting a studio apartment for your car are so outlandish anymore :)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Before serious thought is given to closing down streets to car traffic, the number of cars entering Manhattan has to be reduced.

There is a unique psychology involve in how auto commuters view the expense of driving to work. Forget factoring the wear and tear cost-per-mile, the occasional fender bender, or traffic violation that jacks up insurance rates. Filling up with gas is like buying groceries. Once you swipe the card at checkout, you don't worry about the cost of an egg as you cook it.

Drivers do seem to be resistant to paying tolls. We never drive to any places in Manhattan, but trips to Riis Park require the car. Since it is an occasional trip, we take the BBT back into Manhattan. It's amazing how much of the traffic off the Gowanus Expwy will squeeze onto the BQE and crawl to the East River bridges just to avoid the toll.

They should toll these bridges.

[NewYorkYankee]

True True True Zippy. We usually enter Manhattan through the BBT but once we didnt, and the BQE really slowed down, to a stand still even. We crossed The Queensboro.

[Deimos]

Zippy,

I agree with you on that one... but the politicians would never commit career suicide by building tolls on all the crossings.

[pianoman11686]

I don't think raising/introducing tolls on some bridges is political suicide at all. MTA has increased tolls several times over the past years, and people deal with it. Although all of you guys have good observations about increasing tolls, maybe taxing parking in Manhattan, etc, I really don't think it matters that much to most people. The commuters who have the mentality that driving into Manhattan is a necessity will fork over an extra ten bucks every day, because in the long run it doesn't make that big a difference for them. What NYC needs to do is change the overall perception of Manhattan by drivers. Manhattan is owned right now by pedestrians, just by their sheer numbers. The cars only add to the mess because there's not enough room. If you make certain streets like 42nd, 34th, 57th, and even Central Park South I was thinking, since nobody mentioned it, pedestrian only, then maybe drivers will switch out of their stubborn mindset.

[BPC]

It's all pretty basic economics. Manhattan's city streets are permanently jammed. That means there is a shortage of road space. There are two ways to fix a shortage. You can increase the supply. In Manhattan, there is no space for any new roads. Or you can decrease demand. In Manhattan, that would be easy to do. You simply increase the price of the product until the supply meets the demand. In Manhattan, the price of road space (at least for many outer borough and NJ commuters) is basically free. (For Manhattan car owners, it is not free. Most have to either pay $300-500 a month for parking, or spend all their evenings circling around looking for a street spot.) Anyway, if you increase the price -- the easiest way would be by increasing the tolls of all the bridges and tunnels -- eventually you will reach an equilibrium price at which the streets flow smoothly, and pedestrians can walk the sidewalks again without passing out from the fumes.

Now, there may be sound policy reasons for tweaking the pricing scheme. Obviously, public buses should pay no tolls (and indeed, should have reserved express lanes, if possible). And there probably should be an exemption (or discount at least) for true commercial vehicles. But for those persons who drive their cars into the City just for the heck of it should be priced to the point where the jams go away. As any economist will tell you, there is a price where that will happen.

[Roberto2005]

Wheter a light rail or bus system is considered, I think the ride should be free. We can sqeeze a lot of the dwelling time out of the system by simply loading people en-masse. This in conjuntion with a pedestrianized street, will make it much more pleasant and quick to get around for both tourists and residents.

I don't think the lost revenue would be significant given that most users would be using transfers or unlimited daily/weekly/montly passes.

[NIMBYkiller]

Seems to me like this would be a waste. There's already the 7 AND the shuttle. Just extend the 7 and you've got your 42nd st transit. Add a buslane to the road in each direction to help move the M42 and some of the other buses.

[TLOZ Link5]

Hmmm, I don't know. Trolleys often supplemented existing subway lines in New York. Plus this new light rail will provide access to areas along the corridor that can't be served by the 7, especially on the East Side (the grade of the 7 train's tunnel becomes very steep after GCT in order to clear the bottom of the East River).

[Kris]

Group pushes to transform 42nd Street into pedestrian mall
By Chuck Bennett
amNewYork Staff Writer
October 25, 2006

Urban planners are pushing to transform 42nd Street into a pedestrian mall, complete with its own street-level rail line.

The transformation, which advocates say would turn the clogged streets into a narrower version of an Italian piazza, would boost business on the strip by up to $500 million a year while cutting crosstown travel time in half.

The main group promoting the idea, Vision42, released a study Tuesday supporting its claims. Retail and restaurant business would jump 35% to $1.49 billion a year with more pedestrians on the streets, according to the study.

That would increase tax revenue by an additional $28 million a year for the city and state.

Vision42 backers say the light rail, which would run river to river along 42nd Street, and pedestrian mall would boost property values by $3.5 billion which would translate into a $277 million boost in property taxes.

Still, the project is years away, if approved.

It would cost an estimated $360 to $510 million to convert the streets and build the light rail system. City Hall has yet to endorse the project.

"Most people are interested but cautious," said George Haikalis, co-chairman of Vision42 and president of the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility.

"This is a heavy lift and it would take the mayor's unabashed support for it to happen. So far, he has not signed on to it."

The city Department of Transportation remains cool to the idea. It is worried that businesses would be unable to receive deliveries if the street was closed to traffic. It also says the city's main Midtown focus is on the $2 billion extension of the No. 7 train west to 11th Avenue and south to 34th Street.

"We've met with the institute to discuss its proposal in the past and we'll review the economic studies they recently released but our focus is on the extension of the no. 7 train to increase mobility on 42nd street," DOT spokeswoman Kay Sarlin said.

Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

[BigMac]

vision42 (http://www.vision42.org/index.php)
October 24, 2006

http://www.curbed.com/2006_10_Times%20Sq%20One.jpg

http://www.curbed.com/2006_10_Times%20Square%20Two.jpg

http://www.curbed.com/2006_10_Times%20Square%20Three.jpg

© 2000-2005 vision42

[BPC]

Nice drawings, and good idea, but I have to believe there will be some fencing around the train tracks.

[ablarc]

The city Department of Transportation...says the city's main Midtown focus is on the $2 billion extension of the No. 7 train west to 11th Avenue and south to 34th Street...

"We've met with the institute to discuss its proposal in the past and we'll review the economic studies they recently released but our focus is on the extension of the no. 7 train to increase mobility on 42nd street," DOT spokeswoman Kay Sarlin said.
The #7 extension and the light rail mall would not really be competing much with each other for passengers. They could, however, be competing for funds.

[daver]

Nice drawings, and good idea, but I have to believe there will be some fencing around the train tracks.
Short answer is NO, it will be safer than it is with the cars due to: 1) only having 40 trains per hour, versus the current 1,600 autos, 2) the trains will only move at 15 miles per hour max and be driven (purportedly) by folk paying attention, 3) the pedestrians will have a lot more space to walk withou fear of cars making turns into them while crossing intersections at the already designated spots.

http://www.vision42.org/about/faq.php

Because we all know that no one would walk across the tracks, right? (ha ha)

[ablarc]

Yeah, this is a streetcar, and streetcars don't have fences.

[ablarc]

How long will construction take...?
Once the Mayor has indicated his/her support, two years should be allotted for the Environmental Impact study and its approval, after which construction can be completed within four years.
If this question had been asked in 1910 the answer would have differed dramatically. Sign of the times.

[virtualchoirboy]

I dont like.

Why not let traffic play in the day and then open it for pedestrians at night? It works for New Orleans.

[Strattonport]

Traffic congestion in Manhattan is mostly a bad thing in Manhattan. It slows down buses as we've seen earlier this week, along with taxis and delivery trucks, draws in pollution and creates conflicts with bikers and pedestrians. We need congestion pricing, although it seems a lot more likely now (http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/10/20/rumor-confirmed/). As for the fencing suggestion, I don't see how a train would be more dangerous than what we have now.

[gradvmedusa]

This looks a lot like what Istanbul has in the Galata district, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istiklal_Avenue it seemed to work out well there. However the whole length of this street is pedestrian focused, tons of small shops, restraunts, cafes, churches, embassies...etc...not many faceless office buildings like 42nd street.

[OmegaNYC]

A streetcar line in the middle of Manhattan? I don't know. It looks like something that you'll find in San Diego. Not New York. :confused:

[antinimby]

This is what I think they should do in Manhattan and perhaps other parts of the city as well.

Replace the slow and exhaust belching-buses with surface light rail similar in set up to the streetcars that were popular back in the 19th and 20th centuries.


http://www.lrta.org/images/Luas2.jpg


This will be much more reliable and cleaner than buses and can serve the same purpose as subways in parts of the city that does not have them like the West Side of Manhattan, Battery Park City, the Lower East side, Red Hook in Brooklyn, eastern parts of Queens and of course, Staten Island.

The cost to build them will be less than digging new subway tunnels.

Of course this idea makes too much sense and is too brilliant so therefore, the City won't do it.

[Deimos]

This is what I think they should do in Manhattan and perhaps other parts of the city as well.

Replace the slow and exhaust belching-buses with surface light rail similar in set up to the streetcars that were popular back in the 19th and 20th centuries.


http://www.lrta.org/images/Luas2.jpg


This will be much more reliable and cleaner than buses and can serve the same purpose as subways in parts of the city that does not have them like the West Side of Manhattan, Battery Park City, the Lower East side, Red Hook in Brooklyn, eastern parts of Queens and of course, Staten Island.

The cost to build them will be less than digging new subway tunnels.

Of course this idea makes too much sense and is too brilliant so therefore, the City won't do it.

I could see NIMBY's canning that one fearing the EM waves coming off the power lines

[TREPYE]

Good idea but wrong location. This makes a lot more sense in Red Hook where you can improve the areas accessibility to subway stations and perhaps unify that part of the waterfront with the Brooklyn Bridge park.

[ablarc]

I could see NIMBY's canning that one fearing the EM waves coming off the power lines
When New York last hosted streetcars their power source was in a slot between the tracks. Though this sometimes created difficulties during snows it was preferable to overhead wires. Washington used the same system.


Good idea but wrong location. This makes a lot more sense in Red Hook where you can improve the areas accessibility to subway stations and perhaps unify that part of the waterfront with the Brooklyn Bridge park.
Yay, Red Hook. The city is currently proposing BRT, but that is a mistake.

[kliq6]

they can focus on both 7 train and this, but not sure if i like this plan. 7 train is ment to help growth of the far west side while this would try and make life along 42nd street more open and easy, not sue if this would help as it would make traffic on other streets even worse!

[Strattonport]

I've read this elsewhere (I can't remember where though...), but that's a myth. If road access is limited, most people will simply find other means of getting there...why not take the light rail then?

[ablarc]

I've read this elsewhere (I can't remember where though...), but that's a myth. If road access is limited, most people will simply find other means of getting there...
...except for cabs.

Isn't it high time for congestion charging? Cabs, delivery trucks and buses are indispensable occupants of the streets of Manhattan; others should have to pay for the privilege.

[macreator]

...except for cabs.

Isn't it high time for congestion charging? Cabs, delivery trucks and buses are indispensable occupants of the streets of Manhattan; others should have to pay for the privilege.

This would be a no brainer if NYC was in Europe but it is incredibly tough to pass any laws limiting automobile usage in the US.

NYC bucks the American car culture for the most part but passing congestion pricing would still be tough. Not impossible though, and I hope it'll happen.

I support Vision42 even if there was no light rail. Giving over one of the most highly pedestrian-trafficked street to pedestrian is an easy sell for me.

Here's an idea: How about having property owners fronting on 42nd street chip in for the project kind of like how property owners fronting Bryant Park chip in for the park's maintenance. The project would clearly benefit 42nd street property owners so there's definitely incentive. The City could subsidize the costs of course.

[gradvmedusa]

I would have to disagree with the blanket statement, "...trucks are indepensable" sure delivery have to be made but 18 Wheelers should not be allowed to meander through the streets of Manhattan at will. Depots need to be established where the cargo is taken out of these 65 foot long beheamoths and loaded into smaller trucks which could make the final leg of the journey, at night...only. That's the way it's done in most of the world.

[ablarc]

I would have to disagree with the blanket statement, "...trucks are indepensable"
So would I. The word I had in place of your three dots was "delivery" --so the statement wasn't all that blanket. :cool:

[macreator]

Most cities do deliveries and garbage pickup during the night to mitigate congestion. Private trash pickup companies already do pickups during the night, why not the Dept. of Sanitation?

The only reason I see for New York not doing the same is the power of the unions perhaps that surely would rather work during the day hours than at night.

[ryan]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gif


January 29, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
The City That Never Walks (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/opinion/29sullivan.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1)

By ROBERT SULLIVAN
FOR the past two decades, New York has been an inspiration to other American cities looking to revive themselves. Yes, New York had a lot of crime, but somehow it also still had neighborhoods, and a core that had never been completely abandoned to the car. Lately, though, as far as pedestrian issues go, New York is acting more like the rest of America, and the rest of America is acting more like the once-inspiring New York.

As a New Yorker who has spent two years researching roads and transportation across the United States, I am saddened to see our city falling behind places like downtown Albuquerque, where one-way streets have become more pedestrian-friendly two-way streets, and car lanes are replaced by bike lanes, with bike racks everywhere.

Then there is Grand Rapids, Mich., which has a walkable downtown with purposely limited parking and is home to a new bus plaza that is part of a mass transit renaissance in Michigan. The state is investing in high-speed trains, and it is even talking about a mass transit system for the nation’s auto-capital, Detroit, where a new pedestrian plaza anchors downtown. In Indianapolis, an urban walking and biking trail will soon link inner-city neighborhoods — something New York certainly hasn’t tried.

We have lost our golden pedestrian touch in New York mostly because we still think about traffic as though it were 1950, and we needed Robert Moses to plow a few giant freeways through town to get the cars moving again. But the fact is that more roads equal more traffic.

London now charges drivers a fee to enter the core business area, but here such initiatives are branded as anti-car, and thus anti-personal freedom: a congestion fee, critics say, is a tax on the middle-class car commuter. But as matters now stand, the pedestrian is taxed every day: by delays and emissions, by asthma rates that are (in the Bronx) as much as four times the national average. Though we think of it as a luxury, the car taxes us, and with it we tax others.

And yet, here in New York, we even have the debate over bicycle traffic backwards. We focus on drivers’ complaints about the bicycle commuter who races through red lights, rather than on the concerns of the mother biking her child around organic-food delivery trucks that idle in bike-only lanes. In December, the police say, a bicyclist was killed on the Hudson River Greenway by a drunken driver speeding along a bike lane that was completely separated from the road. Asked what was being done to improve safety in light of the biker’s death, Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested that bikers “pay attention.”

“Even if they’re in the right, they are the lightweights,” he told a reporter.
Contrast this response with that of Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago after a 4-year-old pedestrian was killed in a hit and run. Mayor Daley immediately set up a pedestrian awareness program, suggested that police sting operations arrest speeding drivers and proposed to add 500 miles of bike lanes, so that there would be one within a half-mile of every resident.
One reason New York is losing its New York edge may be that the city’s revival is partly based on a strange reversal: the city is the new suburb. Families have returned to the New York that was abandoned years ago for lawns and better public schools. They’ve brought with them a love of cars. A new study by Bruce Schaller, a local transportation consultant, shows that half the drivers in Manhattan are from the city — and that more city residents than suburbanites drive to work every day.

New Yorkers always find good reasons to drive. Public transportation is dirty, time-consuming, a hassle, unsafe. Walking takes too long. The children will be late for school. But choosing the car is no longer safe — for your children who already don’t get enough exercise, for anyone’s lungs or for the future of New York as a livable place. There are even such things as secondhand driving effects: studies show that people who live on high-traffic streets tend to stay inside.

The simple and elegant cure for the loss of New York’s inner pedestrian is to open up car-clogged streets and public spaces. Another of Mr. Schaller’s surveys, sponsored by the citizens’ group Transportation Alternatives, showed that 89 percent of people questioned on Prince Street in SoHo got there by subway, bus, foot or bicycle, and that the majority would gladly give up parking for more pedestrian space.
With a million more New Yorkers scheduled to arrive by 2030, true sustainability requires the city — or at least its residents — to make a bold move. Some neighborhoods are already working on it. The Ninth Avenue Renaissance Project, sponsored by a coalition of residents and businesses, has held community workshops on converting Ninth Avenue from Lincoln Tunnel access ramp to boulevard.

The now chic Meatpacking District plans to bring back a space that, since the area was a Native American village, has been a natural gathering place for people without combustion engines: wider sidewalks, public seating and a piazza in the restaurant-surrounded open field of paving stones could be more like Campo dei Fiori in Rome and less a spot for crazed U-turns. In Williamsburg, Brooklyn, the city’s Department of Transportation has replaced parking spaces near a subway station with rows of bike racks.
But these are tiny steps. Boston’s mayor has endorsed converting Hanover Street in the city’s North End into a car-free pedestrian mall. Why don’t we do the same in part or even all of SoHo? In Los Angeles, some traffic lights are programmed to change for approaching buses (a signal in the bus alerts the light). Why can’t the same happen on 14th Street?

And if Boulder, Baltimore, Sacramento, San Diego, Denver, Houston, Dallas, Portland, Ore., and Bergen County in New Jersey can build light rails, then why can’t New York finally put one on 42nd Street? Times Square could be the Crossroads of People instead of the Crossroads of Car Congestion.

These are relatively cheap changes — in some cases, they require just a couple of sawhorses. And New York’s walkability is crucial to its character, no small part of which is its relative freedom from America’s plague of strip malls. The great shame of the 22-acre Atlantic Yards mega-development in Brooklyn is that it seems like something out of Atlanta in the 1990s.

Not today’s Atlanta. Today’s Atlanta is building a circular hiking, recreation and even transit trail, a little like the still unfinished Manhattan greenway.
“Roads no longer merely lead to places; they are places,” wrote John Brinckerhoff Jackson, the landscape historian. We’ve already lost a lot of New York to traffic. If New Yorkers don’t get out of their cars soon, the city’s future residents won’t have a reason to.
Robert Sullivan, a contributing editor at Vogue, is the author, most recently, of “Cross Country.”

Copyright 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[MikeW]

a local transportation consultant, shows that half the drivers in Manhattan are from the city — and that more city residents than suburbanites drive to work every day.

This line is why many of the changes he talks about will never happen. These people vote.

[ryan]

The number of people driving is still a minority regardless of where they live, so unless they vote at very high rates I don't see why our elected representatives would accommodate them at the majority's expense.

[MikeW]

Been out in the boroughs lately? They're not so much of a minority out there. Besides it take more people to push through a change than to stop it.


The number of people driving is still a minority regardless of where they live, so unless they vote at very high rates I don't see why our elected representatives would accommodate them at the majority's expense.

[BPC]

You can't just impose a new fee and ask people to support it unconditionally. You have to couple it with a tangible transit-related benefit. Otherwise, people will just assume that the new tax will go down the black hole that is the NYC budget. If you want a congestion tax, couple it with light rails and FREE commuter buses into the City, or any of the other great ideas that are bounced around this forum, and pass a law that requires the new revenues to support these new transit benefits. Then there could be some support.

[JCMAN320]

It's true what this article says. I read a NYtimes report that said that a little more than half of the traffic and cars in Manhattan come from the outer boroughs which is astouding!!

[MikeW]

A lot of the outer outer boroughs (eastern Brooklyn, large hunks of Queens, northern Bronx, and practically all of SI) developed after WWII, and are nearly as car-centric as the suburbs. And seeing as how they're residents of NYC, they feel they have a right to drive into Manhattan.

[macreator]

A lot of the outer outer boroughs (eastern Brooklyn, large hunks of Queens, northern Bronx, and practically all of SI) developed after WWII, and are nearly as car-centric as the suburbs. And seeing as how they're residents of NYC, they feel they have a right to drive into Manhattan.

Very true, and as a result they are underserved by mass transit. This needs to be resolved so these folks have a choice besides taking their gas guzzler for a ride in Manhattan's streets.

Someone told me that Vision42 got very close to actually happening sometime in the early 90's but got cut due to budget restrictions at the time. You'd think with our surplus right now we could spend some cash to reinvigorate the project.

[ryan]

And seeing as how they're residents of NYC, they feel they have a right to drive into Manhattan.

I don't think anyone has a god-given right to drive into Manhattan. These idiots should be taxed. The quickest stats I found on who is driving into Manhattan come from (admittedly) anti-car Transportation Alternatives about tolling the East River bridges. Why should the majority who takes public transportation accommodate a minority who drives?

Winter 2003, p.15 (http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/031Winter/15tolls.html)

T.A. and the Mayor Still Want to Toll the East River Bridges
Tolls will reduce cut-through traffic to the free bridges in surrounding neighborhoods, reduce traffic and reduce air pollution.
Mayor Mike Bloomberg seeks East River bridge tolls and takes the subway to work.

Despite bitter opposition from Brooklyn and Queens politicians, Mayor Michael Bloomberg still wants to toll the East River bridges. In the last issue of Transportation Alternatives Magazine, T.A. provided detailed coverage of the political and policy issues involved. Not much has changed in the intervening months. Transportation Alternatives, along with the Mayor and every single major environmental, transportation watchdog and transit group in New York City, supports placing tolls on the East River bridges. Tolls are good transportation and environment policy.

Who is Driving? Who Will Pay?

A new report by Charles Komanoff of The Bridge Tolls Advocacy Project clarifies who is driving and what they will pay if the City charges tolls on the East River bridges. For the full report, see www.bridgetolls.org/whowillpay.

The most important finding is that only 100,000 or so New York City residents-fewer than 2% of New Yorkers of driving age-stand to pay dearly when the bridges are tolled. The other 98% of New Yorkers will spend, on average, less than $50 a year in East River bridge tolls. And, contrary to what some elected officials would have us believe, only 2% of Brooklyn and 2% of Queens residents commute to work by car over the East River bridges. The reality is that the vast majority of Brooklyn and Queens residents take mass transit, bicycle or walk to work.

Key Findings

2%: NYC residents who commute by car every day across the East River bridges.
2%: Brooklyn residents who commute by car every day across the East River bridges.
2%: Queens residents who commute by car every day across the East River bridges.
75%: Motorists using the East River bridges who are non-commercial drivers.
20 seconds: Average wait at MTA toll plaza.

Where Would Toll Revenue Come From?
By type of driver
25% Commercial drivers
25% Everyday commuters
50% Non-commute trips by other drivers

By residency of driver
78% NYC ($543 million, led by Brooklyn,
with $233 million)
18% Long Island ($129 million)
4% NJ ($28 million)

Putting it into perspective
New Yorkers are much more likely to take mass transit, bicycle or walk than to drive
over an East River bridge to get to work.

NYC
Mass transit: 29%
Bicycle or walk: 10%
Car trip on ERB: 2%
Brooklyn
Mass transit: 58%
Bicycle or walk: 9%
Car trip on ERB: 2%
Queens
Mass transit: 47%
Bicycle or walk: 6%
Car trip on ERB: 2%
Manhattan
Mass transit: 54%
Bicycle or walk: 24%
Car trip on ERB: 1%

Tolls Score Card

Supporters
Transportation Alternatives
Mayor-Leading Charge
State Senate Boss Joe Bruno
All Major Environmental Groups
All Major Civic Groups
All Transportation Reform Groups
Daily News, NY Times, NY Newsday

Opponents
AAA
Governor Pataki
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (what is his problem?)
Much of the Brooklyn and Queens City Council Delegation
Some Manhattan City Councilmembers (what is their problem?)

No Stated Position
City Council Speaker Gifford Miller
Majority of City Council Members
Majority of City Delegation to Legislature
Major Business Groups
Major Trucking Groups

Baloney Poll Question Obscures Truth
A February 27th Quinnipiac College poll found that NYC residents opposed tolling the East River bridges, 65% to 31%. But the poll did not include what pollsters call a "benefit statement;" this statement should have explained that the tolls could reduce traffic congestion and air pollution as well as what toll revenue might be spent on. It is well known that, without being given this context, the public opposes fees, fares, taxes or charges of any other kind. Indeed, a July 17, 2002 Quinnipiac poll found that NYC residents supported East River bridge tolls two to one over raising taxes to plug the city budget deficit.

[MikeW]

Ryan,

Not god given, but politically given, seeing as there are enough of them to put enough torque on the various politicians to prevent it from happening.

Note the date of your article - 2003. I't four years later. It hasn't happened, and no one it talking seriously about it happening.

[spatulashack]

The fact of the matter is that taxing drivers will only work if the mass transit system is expanded. Almost all of New York's 26 subway lines are PACKED during rush hours and New Jersey Transit and LIRR are also jammed. We need to expand our subway system and then force people to use it. In addition to the Second Avenue Subway we also need a few cross-town lines. It is ridiculous that unless you are near the L, you can't go cross-town without transferring 3 times. Adding a couple East-West lightrails would do the trick.

[MikeW]

When they were flogging the 42nd St tram idea back in the 90's, I got the idea to do something slightly different. I would have done an underhanging monorail, that would come down to street level to pick up and discharge passengers, then climb back up over the traffic to travel between stops. This would have the advantage of street level pickup and discharge, while still traveling above and out of traffic.

[NIMBYkiller]

That's a really interesting idea and it definately solves the problem of blocking traffic. However, with the 7 extension, I don't think 42nd St is right for light rail or any other additional crosstown line. 125th St definately needs a crosstown line, but I get a feeling that will become an extension of Second Avenue Subway(via the Q train, which is supposed to be extended onto SAS), which is perfect.

Getting back to midtown though, I could see a need for something on 34th St (maybe 28th/29th?) or in the 50s. I say along 57th from the bridge to the Hudson, then down to the Javits Center.

[jarod213]

But light rail is extremely convenient on 42nd street. Hop on, Hop off. Much easier than going down underground and coming back up. This would alleviate pressure on the 7 and the Shuttle. Plus, think about how crowded the sidewalks are on 42. We REALLY do need a pedestrian thoroughfare. I'm tired of all we provide for fat people in their cars!

[Eugenious]

But light rail is extremely convenient on 42nd street. Hop on, Hop off. Much easier than going down underground and coming back up. This would alleviate pressure on the 7 and the Shuttle. Plus, think about how crowded the sidewalks are on 42. We REALLY do need a pedestrian thoroughfare. I'm tired of all we provide for fat people in their cars!

Shellie and the suburban assemblymen would shoot this down so fast it's not even funny. Until we have a change in political system in this state and city there will always be a bias towards the suburbs ALWAYS.

[NIMBYkiller]

You can hop on and hop off the bus. Look, once every other transit project in the city is done, then we can work on overly-redundant ones like this. Until then, there are bigger needs

[MikeW]

I think that, at this point, and I haven't confirmed this, the population of the suburban counties (Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland, Westchester, and some of the further north), may be higher than the city. This may explain the bias. Although, what I think your actually seeing is the old pro-city bias getting equalized by the growth in the 'burbs.


Shellie and the suburban assemblymen would shoot this down so fast it's not even funny. Until we have a change in political system in this state and city there will always be a bias towards the suburbs ALWAYS.

[ablarc]

You can hop on and hop off the bus.
Yeah, but this scheme's payoff is in the pedestrianization of the roadway. I suppose they could do it with electric buses, preferably without overhead wires.

In fact, the light rail should also be without those unsightly wires: bring back the slot between the tracks that New York's streetcars once had.

[Hamilton]

I think that, at this point, and I haven't confirmed this, the population of the suburban counties (Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland, Westchester, and some of the further north), may be higher than the city. This may explain the bias. Although, what I think your actually seeing is the old pro-city bias getting equalized by the growth in the 'burbs.

2000 Census figures
Nassau 1,334,544
Suffolk 1,419,369
Westchester 923,459
Orange 341,367
Rockland 286,753
Putnam 95,745
Dutchess 280,150
Ulster 177,149

Total: 4,858,536

New York City Total: 8, 008, 042

These numbers have undoubtedly changed since then, but unless the suburbs have grown 70% in the past 7 years, New York City still far outranks them in population.

[MikeW]

Fair enough. But how representation is doled out also counts. If you digging, you might want to check the # of state senators and assemblycritters assigned to each county.


2000 Census figures
Nassau 1,334,544
Suffolk 1,419,369
Westchester 923,459
Orange 341,367
Rockland 286,753
Putnam 95,745
Dutchess 280,150
Ulster 177,149

Total: 4,858,536

New York City Total: 8, 008, 042

These numbers have undoubtedly changed since then, but unless the suburbs have grown 70% in the past 7 years, New York City still far outranks them in population.

[Derek2k3]

The NY Times
January 27, 2009, 2:54 pm

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/vision-of-42nd-street-as-a-car-free-light-rail-corridor/

42nd Street as a Car-Free Light Rail Corridor
By Sewell Chan

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/27/nyregion/42ndlightrail-480.jpg
Image: Mathieu Delorme for the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility
A rendering shows the proposed 42nd Street light rail passing the United Nations complex on the East Side.

It’s an idea that at first blush seems almost more fantastic than congestion pricing: closing 42nd Street to vehicular traffic from river to river and creating a 2.5-mile street-level light rail line, at a cost of around $500 million, that would ferry passengers across the entire width of Midtown in a mere 21 minutes. But with New York City seeking ways to mitigate congestion, and with the federal government offering infrastructure money to cities, the proponents of the idea hope they will at least get a hearing.

The idea is the brainchild of a tiny nonprofit organization called the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility. Since 1999, when the institute unveiled Vision42, its proposal for the light rail, it has given 300 presentations, commissioned three rounds of technical studies and presented its ideas as two community forums.

In a new 49-page report, Roxanne Warren, an architect who is chairwoman of the Vision42 initiative, and George Haikalis, a civil engineer who is the president of the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility, summarized the key findings from the studies.

The new report estimates that the light rail line would cost $411.3 million to $582.3 million in 2007 dollars, but generate $704.9 million in annual economic benefits, and yield $175.4 million a year in additional fiscal benefits to the city and state.

By speeding up crosstown travel time, the project would raise commercial property values by $1 billion — a result of ground-floor business revenue, rent and occupancy increases and reduction in accidents — and increase business in retail shops and restaurants by 35 percent, the study estimates.

The report notes that until 1946, streetcars and trolleys ran in New York City over underground utility lines. The new light rail cars could draw power from fuel cells or other advanced technologies. The trip from river to river would take only 21 minutes, even with speeds limited to 15 m.p.h. to keep passengers safe.

The study tried to anticipate and address the many skeptical objections — leaving aside cost — that have been raised about the project. For instance, the study found that most large office buildings along 42nd Street have their freight-delivery entrances on 41st or 43rd Streets. It also argued that taxis could continue to go up and down the avenues, dropping pedestrians seeking to enter buildings on 42nd Street at rear or side entrances. Finally, the study argued that closing off 42nd Street to traffic would not mean worse congestion in other parts of Midtown.

“Studies of 47 cases of street closings around the world have demonstrated that when city streets have been closed to traffic, not all of the traffic has relocated to other streets,” the study stated. “Much of the traffic has simply disappeared.”

The study estimates that work on that light rail could be completed in two years, and that the costs could be covered by the expected gains in tax revenue. Tax-increment financing could be used to pay debt service on the project; alternatively, the city could create a transit benefit improvement district that would shift the cost to property owners.

But the study did not directly address the principal vulnerability of the proposal: It so far does not have support from the Bloomberg administration or the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, two entities that would be key to getting the idea off the ground.





"Isn’t it sad that even the people depicted in computer-generated visions of the future are becoming obese?

Give ‘em points for accuracy!
— Robert "

[NoyokA]

The 42nd street idea is so idiotic. I have no problem with closing the street for pedestrians but putting a light rail here is retarded, there's the 7 and there's the shuttle that does the same exact thing. If it belongs anywhere it belongs on 34th Street of 125th Street where there is no crosstown subway connection. And logistically the light rail will either stop for up/down-town traffic which will make it effectively the same as a crosstown bus minus the cool factor or it will have right of way which will make up/down-town traffic which already is a nightmare even worse which would be beyond horrible.

[Alonzo-ny]

Taking the shuttle or the 7 doesn't provide many exit points with no real access to the far east and west sides. Plus its fairly prohibitive to climb all the way to the bowels of Manhattan to take the 7 or the shuttle which isn't a pleasant experience. It sounds like light rail would be much quicker and more pleasant.

[ZippyTheChimp]

^
That's the point.

On a high-volume avenue like 42nd, light-rail (or a bus not impeded by car traffic) provides hop on/hop off transportation. The Shuttle is really an extension of subway surface between Grand Central and Times Square. And without the 10th Ave station, the #7 is even more destination oriented service - to the Westside Yard.

See here: http://www.vision42.org/about/no7.php

[NoyokA]

It provides a convenience, even though I don't think walking the couple blocks from Lexington to the east side and the couple of blocks from 8th avenue to the west side is such a hassle. But why spend $500 million here when you can provide an actual convenience with no subway alternative on major thoroughfares at 34th street, where the m34 is voted everyyear the slowest bus in the City, or at 125th street where theres no cross town subway option above 53rd street.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I don't know why 42nd street was picked for the project. Maybe the traffic patterns are more workable, or maybe the economic impact is greater.

8th Ave to the west side is about 3/4 of a mile.

At any rate, it's mentioned that the cost is a problem.

What I don't understand is why it has to be light rail. Once you remove the traffic and reconfigure the streets for pedestrians, you can accomplish the same thing with buses in dedicated lanes.

[NoyokA]

I agree. Lightrail is such a small-city look-at-me gimmick. A dedicated bus lane would be just fine and wouldn't cost nearly as much. Or they could just build the damn entrance as originally planned at 41st and 11th for the 7, but that would make too much sense, we are afterall dealing with the MTA.

I also find it ironic that Grand Central Terminal was built in place of Grand Central Depot largely because of public outcry following people getting hit by its trains so they built Grand Central and put the railroad underground. 100 years later we want to put a train back at street level.

[STT757]

Lightrail is such a small-city look-at-me gimmick.

In some instances I would agree, however New Jersey has had overwhelming success with the Hudson Bergen Light Rail as well as the River Line light rail from Trenton to Camden. Light Rail Across town at 42nd street does not work, besides the redundancy from buses and the 7 train it would be no more effective than buses due to the problems with synchronization of the traffic lights which have proved to be challenging in Jersey City which is much less dense than 42nd street.

I believe there is a place for Light Rail in the City, but not in Manhattan. On Staten Island the North Shore Rail Road right of way sits abandoned, and the neighborhoods it runs through are the most severely impacted by the current housing/mortgage crisis. Rebuilding the Right of Way along the North Shore of Staten Island from Mariners Harbor to St.George would go a long way to help save the neighborhoods surrounding the abandoned right of way. I know from personal experience that the areas of the North Shore of Staten Island are ground zero for the housing / mortgage crisis, I believe the North Shore has some of the highest if not the highest foreclosures per sq mi than anywhere else in the Country. Meanwhile on the South Shore of Staten Island along the Staten Island Railway they are experiencing very few foreclosures, the access to transit has to figure somewhat in the stability of the housing market on the South Shore vs the instability on the North Shore.

$500 Million would be better spent on a North Shore of Staten Island Light Rail, there's an existing Right of way which used to have passenger train service already in place. There are even abandoned stations all along the line which of course would need to be replace. The Light Rail has the flexibility of being able to diverge off the North Shore Right of Way through Graniteville for instance to the College of Staten Island and the Staten Island Mall. It could even be extended to the West Shore Expressway where Park and Rides could be constructed.

All this could lay the ground if the Port Authority were to help facilitate the extension of the Hudson Bergen Light Rail over either the current Bayonne Bridge or the possible replacement the PA have been studying.

Staten Island has much more in common with New Jersey than it does with Manhattan, I can see Light Rail succeeding on Staten Island's North Shore just as the Hudson Bergen Light Rail has succeeded along the Hudson River Waterfront in New Jersey.

[londonlawyer]

I hope that this will be built. Moreover, it's my understanding that the sidewalks would be widened significantly and green space would be included along them.

I would like to see this added to many of the major east-west streets (i.e., Houston, 14th, 57th and 86th).

[Ninjahedge]

the entire width of Midtown in a mere 21 minutes.

I walk from Pot Authority to 2nd Avenue in under 20 minutes.

They are subtracting only a few minutes for the majority of people that would be using this as most people are not going from the Hudson to the East River on any sort of commute.

The main problem to any cross-town transit is the fact that there are SO MANY STOPS that people would want to get off at. After taking the ferry from NJ and hopping on the shuttlebus, I found this to be the case (a stop every block and a half).

If they were to do something like this, they would need to coordinate the signals, and limit the stops to major transit points (both rivers, Port Authority, Grand Central, and then possibly something like 6th or 5th avenue).


Although more crosstown transit would be welcomed, I do not know if this money would be well spent or just add another set of tickets you would have to buy for your daily commute.

[NYatKNIGHT]

If it wasn't a pipe dream and was a matter of how to spend actual money, I'd have to agree with others above: build more 7-train stops, install a dedicated bus lane, close 42nd street to passenger vehicles, and build LRT where it's more useful.

[scumonkey]

Please.... Can't any of these fools just finish one transit project, before even starting to think of another one?
Running out of money again, while paying for designs, projections, surveys, etc- and never finishing anything,
seems to be the modus operandi in this town! :rolleyes:

[meesalikeu]

hmm. well, it would be a lot easier and cheaper to close 42nd to auto traffic and build brt and run some kind of non-smelly hybrid or electric powered busses.

that way ideally bike lanes could be accommodated and 42nd st sidewalks could be expanded to allow for more walking room & cafe seating.

it's all just a pipe dream tho. won't happen.

ps -- i totally agree surface light-rail has no place in manhattan or in any busy centers for that matter. however, it might be fine on the perimeter of nyc perhaps. say fordham or tremont roads in the bronx for example? victory blvd in staten island? bell blvd? i dk, i can't really picture it working well in those kinds of places either as i'd think there needs to be some kind of major parallel road alternative for cars and often there are none.

[yankees12]

I think light rail on 42nd Street would be a bit of a waste, considering there's already 2 Subway lines that run on it, and it's already the most active crosstown street in the city. If light rail is going to be used on a crosstown street, it should be one without subways, that will provide good access to the subways it crosses, and on a street that can use increased attention.

I say put it on 50th Street. There is no major crosstown street between 42nd and 57th, a way-too-large gap, especially for the most prominent neighborhood in the city, if you ask me. By closing off 50th Street, running LR down the middle of it, and making the rest of it into a pedestrian mall, it essentially becomes a major street for pedestrians (who, of course provide any sense of street life to a certain street). Shops, restaurants, etc., will flood 50th Street wanting to get passengers coming off of the Light Rail or just pedestrians walking around the nicely landscaped pedestrian mall, with giant space for "sidewalks" (which would really be the entire road outside of the LR running down the center). Also, there are 50th St. stops (or stops near it on 49th or 51st) on the 8th Ave., Broadway, 7th Ave., and Lexington Ave. lines, giving it ample and easy subway access everywhere in the city.

[Ninjahedge]

It's just plain silly.

Hell, they could revert 42nd back to a one way and widen the sidewalks AND put 2 dedicated bus lanes on it. (3 lanes total instead of 4+2 shoulders, maye 4 lanes with a hard seperator for the busses).

More space, less snarling with 2 way traffic and turns.

As for making it pedestrian.... meh. The place people would need that the most would be Times Square, but that section is only 30 feet long! (maybe 50 yards, I forget exactly). There are many more areas that would be better for pedestrian malls, mostly in the Village, Chinatown, Little Italy and other crowded classic areas.....

[ablarc]

Everyone's being so sensible. I like the crazy pipedream.

[Alonzo-ny]

Ultimately it would be great to do crosstown light rail all through the city. connect it to the subway system. All the major crosstown routes, canal, 14th, 23rd, 34th, 42nd etc. A car free manhattan would be the greatest thing that could happen.

[meesalikeu]

I think light rail on 42nd Street would be a bit of a waste, considering there's already 2 Subway lines that run on it, and it's already the most active crosstown street in the city. If light rail is going to be used on a crosstown street, it should be one without subways, that will provide good access to the subways it crosses, and on a street that can use increased attention.

I say put it on 50th Street. There is no major crosstown street between 42nd and 57th, a way-too-large gap, especially for the most prominent neighborhood in the city, if you ask me. By closing off 50th Street, running LR down the middle of it, and making the rest of it into a pedestrian mall, it essentially becomes a major street for pedestrians (who, of course provide any sense of street life to a certain street). Shops, restaurants, etc., will flood 50th Street wanting to get passengers coming off of the Light Rail or just pedestrians walking around the nicely landscaped pedestrian mall, with giant space for "sidewalks" (which would really be the entire road outside of the LR running down the center). Also, there are 50th St. stops (or stops near it on 49th or 51st) on the 8th Ave., Broadway, 7th Ave., and Lexington Ave. lines, giving it ample and easy subway access everywhere in the city.

^ something like that makes more sense than closing off a busy cross street like 42nd and shoving more traffic down sidestreets.

[Ninjahedge]

"Shoving traffic" down side streets would make more sense if they were more vigilant about parking/double parking (COPS INCLUDED!!!!!!).

The key here is not to make NYC more car friendly, but simply easier to get around.

The only thing I can say for cars in NYC is that we should make it easier for them to get ACROSS NYC, make deliveries during non-peak hours, and/or get to central nexus points that would allow people to LEAVE THEIR CARS AND USE MASS TRANSIT.