NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8028494.stm)




New York City's Times Square is getting a makeover.

The famous thoroughfare is going to be closed to traffic later this month as an experiment.

Until the end of the year the square will only be open for cyclists and pedestrians.

Dumeetha Luthra went to check out the reasons behind the plan.

That's what I've found so far. So what will the effects be of the mass pedestrianisation of Times Square? Will it allow for people to feel more relaxed and enjoy the things Times Square has to offer or will it have a negative effect through traffic being detoured and possibly a negative economic effect?

I'm unsure on the matter but will be interested to see how this works out.

Yes.

The eventual removal of cars from our urban environments continues apace.

They should do this in residential neighbourhoods as well.

While this, in theory, sounds nice, remind me again how this will not make the already horrible traffic problem on the rest of the island even worse? :confused:

It will obviously make traffic problems worse in the short run, until everyone gets used to it. The only true solution to the traffic problem is less cars.

There is an area of my city that they talked about doing this with, I think they are still transitioning to it, but basically you can park on the outside of the area and walk in or ride the trolley around. I haven't driven down there much since they got the trolley cars in, it's a horrible stressful traffic nightmare down there, if I ever do go I have people drop me off so I don't have to try to find parking.

They're opening a new parking garage down there soon, but it's only for people with season tickets to baseball......I know people who don't like baseball who plan on buying season tickets just for the guaranteed parking.

I can't imagine how horrible it must be in Times Square with all the traffic....

Haha, why bother. It'll be all empty and shit again soon enough.

I can't imagine how horrible it must be in Times Square with all the traffic....
It's busy, it's fun. It's a bit hectic. It's how NYC is supposed to be.

It will turn Times square into central park just with technology.

It will obviously make traffic problems worse in the short run, until everyone gets used to it. The only true solution to the traffic problem is less cars.

So how long is "the short run" until everyone gets used to it? It doesn't change a thing except that it pushes people who would otherwise drive through Times Square (a nightmare, I admit) to instead drive on other roads, thus making the traffic elsewhere worse. Closing down roads is not the answer.

Free mass transit would be a better solution. Of course they'd have to be for it through taxes but hey, New Yorkers don't seem to mind paying the shit load they already do . . . so there you go.

While this, in theory, sounds nice, remind me again how this will not make the already horrible traffic problem on the rest of the island even worse? :confused:

I've lived a couple of places that 'pedestrianized' certain key city areas, and it's been a very positive transition, overall. It makes the area much safer, which is pretty much a good enough reason on it's own.

Awful idea. These pedestrian malls were popular back in the 1970's to compete with malls in the suburbs. Major downtown areas were closed to traffic, including Downtown Crossing in Boston. Of these, the majority have reverted back to allowing traffic. Downtown Crossing is now a ghost town. During the day, it is...decent. The shops are all a bit trashy, but it's generally safe. At night, it is pretty empty, making it much more dangerous to walk around in. Cars increase traffic in the area, which makes crimes harder to commit. This has played a large part in the downfall of Downtown Crossing. There are current talks to reopen it to motor traffic.

Article about Downtown Crossing, Boston and State Street, Chicago (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/03/09/chicagos_pedestrian_mall_solution_traffic/?page=2)

So how long is "the short run" until everyone gets used to it? It doesn't change a thing except that it pushes people who would otherwise drive through Times Square (a nightmare, I admit) to instead drive on other roads, thus making the traffic elsewhere worse. Closing down roads is not the answer.

Free mass transit would be a better solution. Of course they'd have to be for it through taxes but hey, New Yorkers don't seem to mind paying the shit load they already do . . . so there you go.

I don't know how long it takes. If it takes longer than a week, I'll have to rethink my opinion of New Yorkers. They seem rather smart. Most of them.

And you are correct that it forces traffic that would otherwise go through Times Square into different areas. It might even (hopefully) inconvenience some people enough to leave their cars at home.

Free, good mass transit is also part of the solution. This, used in combination with shutting down parts of the city to car traffic, would be even better than simply choosing one of these two options.

Awful idea. These pedestrian malls were popular back in the 1970's to compete with malls in the suburbs. Major downtown areas were closed to traffic, including Downtown Crossing in Boston. Of these, the majority have reverted back to allowing traffic. Downtown Crossing is now a ghost town. During the day, it is...decent. The shops are all a bit trashy, but it's generally safe. At night, it is pretty empty, making it much more dangerous to walk around in. Cars increase traffic in the area, which makes crimes harder to commit. This has played a large part in the downfall of Downtown Crossing. There are current talks to reopen it to motor traffic.

Article about Downtown Crossing, Boston and State Street, Chicago (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/03/09/chicagos_pedestrian_mall_solution_traffic/?page=2)

That's what I am thinking will happen. It will become dangerous. more drug dealers and homeless. Less access for the police to get into the area and patrol as they either have to be a foot or mounted patrol. Or park their car and get out.

That's what I am thinking will happen. It will become dangerous. more drug dealers and homeless. Less access for the police to get into the area and patrol as they either have to be a foot or mounted patrol. Or park their car and get out.

That's exactly what has been experienced by cities around the country with their various pedestrian malls. Yes, Downtown Crossing was hit hard by this recession, losing Filenes Basement, Filenes, and a few other more major stores, but the area was far from a place I wanted to visit past 5 PM as far back as I can remember. Even during the day, the area just kinda sucks...there are people, and the edges are decent, but the farther you get from motor traffic, the more deserted, dirty, and desolate the area becomes.

Though closing broadway to traffic is really going to shit things up big time.

Edit: I have a theory that Bloomberg feels manhattan is too crowded and wants to force people off the island.

How much of Times Square is going to be closed to traffic?

How much of Times Square is going to be closed to traffic?

I would suspect from 6th to 8th, and from W 40th to W 53rd.

http://z.about.com/d/gonyc/1/0/d/9/times_square.gif

That's "Times Square" like you see in pictures and such.

I don't know how long it takes. If it takes longer than a week, I'll have to rethink my opinion of New Yorkers. They seem rather smart. Most of them.

So, somehow, simply refusing to abandon their way of life within a week is enough to make you change your opinion of New Yorkers?:confused:

And you are correct that it forces traffic that would otherwise go through Times Square into different areas. It might even (hopefully) inconvenience some people enough to leave their cars at home.

Doubtful. Cars and American Society are intertwined. It'll take something VERY large in order for a sizable amount of people to abandon them.

Free, good mass transit is also part of the solution. This, used in combination with shutting down parts of the city to car traffic, would be even better than simply choosing one of these two options.
Eh, I don't think so. I'm all for public transportation, but I disagree with shutting down parts of the city to JUST car traffic.

So, somehow, simply refusing to abandon their way of life within a week is enough to make you change your opinion of New Yorkers?:confused:

I didn't realise that it would require abandoning a whole lifestyle in order to detour around Times Square. I was under the impression that it would only impact their commute.

Doubtful. Cars and American Society are intertwined. It'll take something VERY large in order for a sizable amount of people to abandon them.

Or many small steps. Cars and their impact on our society are a complex issue, with a myriad of complex problems that come with it. it would be foolish to think that these problems can be solved with a single big solution.

Eh, I don't think so. I'm all for public transportation, but I disagree with shutting down parts of the city to JUST car traffic.

Why? Considering the simple fact that car exhaust is a carcinogen, it makes sense to reduce the amount of exhaust in urban areas that are high density.

That's what I am thinking will happen. It will become dangerous. more drug dealers and homeless. Less access for the police to get into the area and patrol as they either have to be a foot or mounted patrol. Or park their car and get out.

A lot of shopping areas in city centres in Europe are pedestrianised to one degree or another - York centre is almost entierly pedestrianised during the day and has only limited traffic in the evening, Rue Neuve, the big shopping street, is pedestrianised in Brussels for example, without it being in any way more dangerous, good parts of Newcastle centre too.

The important point is that vehicle access is usually restricted by electronic bollards, allowing access to emergency vehicles but not others.