Times Square without cars?
ALL ABOARD: A proposed light rail system would bisect New York's Times Square. (Photo: Vision 42) Advocates of a radical new plan want to close 42nd Street to car traffic and create a light rail system to run across the island of Manhattan, from the Hudson River on the west to the East River on the east. Such redevelopment would boost the local economy and improve transportation, according to Vision 42, a citizens’ group formed in 1999 by the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility. It would also offer a less polluting travel option than the exhaust-belching buses that currently take New Yorkers across town at a snail’s pace, The New York Times reported.
EMAIL
Facebook
Stumble
Tweet
DiggSo far, property owners along 42nd Street support the proposal — but the city isn’t so sure. But even though city officials aren’t rushing to embrace Vision 42’s idea, they have launched “Green Light for Midtown,” a project to alleviate congestion in Times Square, where traffic moves an average of 4.2 miles per hour. The city has created several pedestrian malls in midtown, and over Memorial Day weekend officials closed several blocks around Times Square to cars.
Link
link:
Comments(12)
Posted By Anonymous - Mon, Oct 19 2009 at 9:52 AM ESTmini travel pod
i think railway is a bit unpractical.. maybe should invent some sort of mini travel pod so pedestrian able to hop on and off whenever they like
for eg:
a mini traveling pod, which it has dedicated sensor and will allow pedestrian hop on it and let the pedestrian ride freely around designated area
once user left the pod, the pod itself should navigate back the 'railway system' and run by itself until some other pedestrian picks it up and use again
Posted By James - Mon, Oct 19 2009 at 6:15 AM ESTWell
I feel that it is a great idea. Being a NYC citizen, it gets way too congested in 42nd street and the volume of people and cars is astounding. This system while cutting Manhattan in half will probably end up being beneficial to our city. Think about it, No pollution, cleaner air in 42nd street, no annoying car honking, and no risk of getting run over by any idiotically agressive drivers. It is a dream that should be brought into fruition.
Posted By roblr - Mon, Oct 19 2009 at 4:05 AM ESTreally
first off. great idea. second, not too genius. since car are useless there anyway. going 10mph anyways, useless. also, so many people go there for some odd reason. and wow, who is the world made that mock up photograph? hahahahaaaaaa, it is horrible. some 14 year old son of the webpage master?
Posted By Marshall - Mon, Oct 19 2009 at 3:14 AM ESTA much cheaper system...
...would be to ban cars completely in Manhattan and replace them with a much more extensive bus service.
Posted By Arthur Dent - Mon, Oct 19 2009 at 12:58 AM EST3 km Rail Line?
Manhattan is only 3 km wide at that point. Wouldn't it be easier to walk than take a train? It seems useless to have a light rail line that is only 3 km long, but I am not from New York so maybe I'm missing something.
Posted By Mr. Kriehof - Mon, Oct 19 2009 at 3:45 AM ESTWow
If 3km is something that needs rapid transit in the eyes of New Yorkers, then they need to get out more. Dedicated bus lanes could take care of short-distance travel like this (and 3km -is- short distance travel!). Good god, how lazy are people these days? I have walked 3km without even thinking about it. If NYers are that lazy, spend the $500m on segways for everyone.
Posted By silver cupcake - Mon, Oct 19 2009 at 10:29 AM ESTHey now
NY-ers are some of the most fit people in the U.S. They DO walk a lot! This rail system would be more for tourists who make up most of that foot traffic!
Posted By Anonymous - Mon, Oct 19 2009 at 11:00 AM ESTNot about distance
I live in Manhattan. NYers already walk a lot. But this also has to do with the time. This is not 3 km in a park; there are many traffic lights(25+) in that distance. Also, don't assume that this will be the only 3 km that a NYer has to walk. Many of us walk up to ten blocks to get to the subway in the first place and change trains before we get to the stop and then walk from there to the destination. It can easily take an hour from getting one neighborhood to another. At that point do you.... More
Posted By Anonymous - Mon, Oct 19 2009 at 2:47 PM ESTCorrection
There are around 13 lights - got carried away!
Posted By Avery Smith - Mon, Oct 19 2009 at 12:58 AM ESTStreetcar
Why call it light rail when what is officially known as a streetcar would be better fit? light rail is intended for more suburban use at around 50 mph and not running on streets, although it works either way. Streetcars are lighter and generally stop at every corner, move slower and stop quicker so they are more pedestrian friendly, and have lower floors for easier and quicker boarding.
Posted By Steven_S - Mon, Oct 19 2009 at 1:02 PM ESTWhy argue semantics??
You are dead wrong about Light Rail (LRT) and Streetcars. What you are describing as "light rail" is actually commuter rail (which is technically "heavy rail"). They run on regular train tracks in the suburbs to bring people into the city.
"Light Rail" and "Streetcars" are two names for essentially the same thing. This arose because of differences in British English and American English. The terms are almost interchangeable, systems described as LRT in some places are the same as.... More
Why bother with the light rail?
The pedestrian mall is probably a good idea, but the streetcar/light rail doesn't seem all that intelligent considering there's already a subway line underneath it that's being expanded west at the moment. Granted, it doesn't stop at every corner, but if you add in the future extension past Times Square, it stops every other block. Don't get me wrong, the NYC subway is disgusting and I'm more than happy to avoid it when possible, but I suspect the light rail would constantly be held up due to.... More