Imagine a Times Square unencumbered with cars. Imagine walking around 42nd St. in front of Grand Central without a steady stream of traffic passing by just inches from throngs of harried commuters. For years, that’s what Vision42 has desired.
Since Day One of Second Ave. Sagas, Vision42’s website has been on my blogroll, but I’ve never taken the time to explore the group’s initiative. With an article in The Times and an extensive post on The Transport Politic, today is definitely Vision42 day.
So we start with the organization’s mission statement. Vision42 is “a citizens’ initiative to re-imagine and upgrade surface transit in Midtown Manhattan, with a low-floor light rail line running river-to-river along 42nd Street within a landscaped pedestrian boulevard.” No longer would cars, trucks or buses of any kind be allowed on one of Manhattan’s most famous streets. Instead, sidewalks would be significantly widened and a fuel-cell powered light rail system would run from the 35 St. Ferry Terminal on the East Side, north toward the UN building and then along 42nd St. to the 39th St. Ferry Terminal on the West Side. The trams would stop at every avenue block from river to river.
According to the group’s report, a crosstown trip would take just 21 minutes, and trains would run every 3.5 minutes during peak times and every 4 minutes during off-peak hours. The trams would connect to every major north-south subway in Manhattan.
As far as its economic impact goes, the new tram would provide $700 million in economic benefits a year with an additional fiscal benefits in the form of property valuation increases of $175 million. Businesses along 42nd St. would see estimated economic increases of $430 million. (For more on the benefits of the project, check out page 30 of this pdf presentation.)
At the same time, Vision42 estimates that the full project would cost approximately $380-$580 million to install and could be ready to go in two years from the start date. Although utility relocation would be a concern, the group notes that heavy streetcars ran over utilities for decades with no problems. Utility relocation, though, remains the lion’s share of this project’s cost.
The article in today’s Times talks about the group’s make-up and the city’s unwillingness to support the project. Writes Alison Gregor:
While three large owners of real estate on 42nd Street and a real estate company that manages office buildings there have signed on to support the proposal, advocates for Vision 42 said they had not been able to engage the city in a discussion.
“We think the mayor considers this competitive with his No. 7 subway line extension,” said Roxanne Warren, an architect who is co-chairwoman of Vision 42.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s office said it was not inclined to support the proposal and deferred to the city’s Department of Transportation for comment. Scott Gastel, a spokesman for the department, said in an e-mail message, “While there are no plans for a project like this at this time, we are working closely with the M.T.A./N.Y.C. Transit to extend the 7 line, which will greatly improve commuter access throughout the corridor.”
The 7 line extension is a real estate-driven project whose wisdom has been questioned. It wouldn’t benefit people moving into and out of the 42nd St. businesses corridors and shouldn’t be equated with a proposal to radically reconceptualize an urban thoroughfare.
At TTP, Yonah Freemark talks about the costs of the project and who would foot the bill. He notes that the MTA won’t be paying for this project any time soon and urges the high-powered and deep-pocketed real estate ventures support the project to come forward with private investment. “Vision42 should be not working to change the Mayor’s mind,” he writes, “but rather to deliver a check to City Hall covering the line’s entire costs upfront. The administration might then find it easier to support the project.”
Drivers would protest the closure of this street, but in the end, the city would be better off for it. Unfortunately, both the political will and capital are lacking to push through a project of this scope. With it, though, you could truly meet those dances on the avenue streetcars are taking you to.
37 comments
Yet another example of Bloomberg only caring about his rich buddies and not the rest of new yorkers! To even compare the 7 line extension which is a huge waste of money with this project is ridiculous.
How is it possible that anyone would vote for this tyrant?
Considering that his opponent doesn’t support bike lanes, pedestrian-friendly initiatives or projects that are antithetical to livable streets and transit investment, I can see why people would vote for Bloomberg.
But yes, I certainly agree. To compare the 7 line extension to anything practical is a big mistake.
Are you saying that Bloomberg is in favor of funding mass transit? He had 8 years to up the city’s contribution to an acceptable level and he did nothing. I don’t support bike lanes either because there is no enforcement for them so they are a big waste of money. Cars are double parked in the bike lanes all over the city and cops and “official” vehicles park there also.
That’s silly. Wouldn’t it make sense to support actual enforcement and truly separated bike lanes than none at all because the city won’t enforce them as much as it should?
Bloomberg’s record is poor on transit, but Thompson’s would be worse. It’s a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Thompson could lead to a pro-transit mayor in the future. Bloomberg could only lead to a fourth, and a fifth, and a ninth Bloomberg term.
Does it cost a lot of money to paint 2 white lines on the street? It’s not like they actually pave the bike lanes so that they’re suitable for bike travel.
Hey, defunding this streetcar-for-the-cost-of-a-subway project is actually a good thing Bloomberg’s doing.
Yeah, I think it’s a stupid idea. They’re asking us to invest in expensive infrastructure and a whole fleet of transit vehicles that can be used on a two-mile east-west route and nowhere else.
And how about car storage and maintenance facilities? Advocacy groups never seem to mention those. How is a car yard and repair shop a good use for riverfront land in Midtown?
Crosstown routes like this are perfect for bus rapid transit. Heck, we don’t even have to close 42nd Street to serve this corridor. We could turn 40th into a two-way busway. Almost all the connecting subway stations stretch down to 40th Street anyway.
All for DOT car-free 42nd Street however, considering 2 subway lines already serve 42nd Street crosstown (S/7), any tram service should be entirely funded by the private sector or business alliance. There are much better ways to spend public funds on transit expansion.
42nd St is one of the most developed urban areas in the United States, and I wouldn’t give further development as one reason for the light rail line. But the line would definitely benefit the area. In terms of the larger transit picture, the completed loop (with the other half down 34th St) makes more sense because it would connect Penn Station and Grand Central. And absolutely, it should be privately funded- and maybe even privately operated.
Privately funded and operated? Within a few decades it will almost certainly be taken over by the public sector. The history of almost all transit development in this country is “lemon socialism,” where the private sector builds it, sucks all of the money out of it as it can, then leaves it for the public sector (or leaves it entirely). The subways, buses, trolleys in NY were ALL begun as private enterprises (with the partial exception of the IND subway). Amtrak? Started out as private railroads until the companies ran them into the ground. Only some of the newer transit systems like DC started as public corporations. There is no way that a transit system can earn enough profits for it to be privately maintained – no amount of fare revenue, advertising, etc. can make up the operating expenses without public contributions.
Three things:
1. For the projected cost, $200 million per route-km, you could almost build a subway in many cities. For reference, the next most expensive light rail system in the US, Seattle, clocked it at $110 million, and included elevated and deep underground construction. Surface-only systems average about $20 million per route-km.
2. There’s no reason to make the first crosstown street to get light rail 42nd and not 125th. East Harlem is an asthma crisis zone due to all the cars and freeways; Midtown isn’t. Harlem has a big east-west connectivity problem; 42nd Street hosts two crosstown subway lines totaling 5 tracks. Harlem has very slow traffic, slower than walking; Midtown’s is less slow.
3. People don’t travel in loops; they travel in lines. If you want to connect Penn Station to your system, put a 34th Street light rail system, separate from the 42nd Street one. The connector tracks on 1st and 12th between 34th and 42nd would serve no transportation purpose – they’d just cost money. If you want to connect Penn to GCT, then have a branch of the 34th Street line go up Park and enter GCT. Or, better yet, yell at the DEP for not letting anyone build a rail tunnel a full block east of Water Tunnel 1, preventing a heavy rail connection between NJT and Metro-North.
The part that gets me is that it’s supposed to take “just 21 minutes” to go from river to river. Yeah, that’s about 6-7 mph on average.
Unless that thing is free, I’ll walk, thanks. Not worth paying a fare for if it’s going to be that slow.
But… development! Money! Slick technology! And fewer cars in the freeway-choked ghetto of
HarlemMidtown!It should take 10 minutes to get from river to river.
To be fair, taking the subway to go crosstown on 42nd Street is really unpleasant–unless your start point and end point happen to be aligned just right and you know the tunnels like the back of your hand. I’ve lived here 12 years and every time I do this it seems like I wind up huffing and puffing down blocks and blocks of corridors, walking half the distance across the island anyway. Some sort of surface transit corridor on 42nd (and 34th, and why not 14th while we’re at it) is a splendid idea. Not that it should be a streetcar. I would welcome that but it sure sounds overpriced. I think BRT would be a fine start. (Are we going to do this on 34th soon?)
BRT costs are generally the same as light rail costs, once you include signal priority, off-board fare collection, and a dedicated right of way. The reason for the inflated cost estimates is that New York’s government agencies are a mixture of corrupt and incompetent.
I assume that you mean if you are traveling between the Port Authority Bus Terminal and Grand Central. Remember that there is the choice between the S shuttle and the #7 lines,
which can save you some of that “huffing and puffing” down corridors.
The S shuttle is better if you are going to the western part of the Grand Central area. The #7 is better if you are going to the eastern part of that area.
Something about this proposal makes some people so angry they can’t count straight, leading them to claim, that “42nd Street hosts two crosstown subway lines totaling 5 tracks.” However many tracks the #7 and the Shuttle may boast, they run only from Fourth (a.k.a. Park Ave) all the way over to Seventh Ave. We should ignore the other 10 blocks between the rivers? Come on.
rhywun correctly described the stations on the #7. I’ve lived here three times as long as he, the young whippersnapper, and I NEVER find the Flushing line stations usable. I ALWAYS get lost and find my arthritic self climbing flights of stairs just to ‘get me OUTTA here!’ I can manage the barely three-block-long Shuttle, I’ll admit.
Not sure that I favor completely closing the street to cars, taxies, limos, emergency and delivery vehicles. Some folks more crippled than I really need door-to-door car service. And Broadway has been nicely calmed by using only two lanes for traffic. Grand Central already blocks off 43rd and 44th, iirc. The Public Library/Bryant Park interrupts 41st. Take out 42nd and it could tangle into a knot.
Of course, 42nd is six lanes wide. Keep two lanes for one-way traffic. Take two lanes for streetcars. Divide one lane to add to the sidewalks on either side. Use one lane for bikes. Or perhaps move the bike lanes to 40th St and leave more space for sidewalks.
Bloomberg’s people are silly to think this streetcar competes with his subway. Except for a few tourists riding end to end, much of the streetcar market is going to be hop on, hop off, “Not in a big hurry, but my feet hurt.” The subway extension will connect one future nest of commercial high rises, the Convention Center, and perhaps some hotels, with other mass transit. The streetcar is not competition for the Acela or Southwest Airlines either.
Mayor Bloomberg should embrace streetcars everywhere, not just here but on 125 Street and in the boroughs. He might actually get several lines finished by the end of his fourth term, which is more than can be said for Stage 1 of the SAS and probably for the #7 extension as well. (Yes, I said fourth term. No way he’ll finish a damn thing in just three.)
Heh. I haven’t been called a whippersnapper in about 35 years. Thanks!
I have no problem with restricting cars on 42nd (except emergency vehicles, of course). But it really is only necessary between say 1st and 8th or 9th, where all the foot traffic is. And let’s face it, walking on 42nd is no picnic either, the way it is now. But I would settle for your solution too. Heck, anything is better than the current situation.
Yes, the Shuttle and the 7 only go from GCT to Times Square. This is not that stupid, as those are the two top destinations on 42nd. It’d be nice if the 7 also went to 10th Avenue, but Bloomberg won’t fund that.
For $600 million, you might just be able to fund ADA compliance for the Midtown stations, and to make this ADA compliance consist of elevators that don’t smell like there’s a cholera epidemic going on. That would give people with disabilities a way of getting both across 42nd (at least, parts of it) and to other parts of the city.
Alon — From Grand Central neither the #7 nor the Shuttle reach past Seventh Ave, and the Port Authority bus terminal is on the west side of Eighth. Sorry, but they don’t even connect the two largest destinations.
East of Grand Central, lessee, the Chrysler Building, the former offices of the Daily Planet where Clark and Lois worked, the former headquarters of Mobil, still the headquarters of Pfizer, the Ford Foundation, and assorted other large office buildings. And the United Nations complex, which is likely to grow soon with another office tower on the south side of 42nd. The Tudor City residential towers will be joined by gigantic apartment buildings covering most of five full city blocks formerly owned by Con Edison. At 35th on the East River is a ferry dock that could become quite busy. The Tudor Hotel, a Helmsley Hotel, and the Grand Hyatt face onto the street, while akaUN Hotel is four blocks north of the street, among others near it. Not to forget bus routes on First, Second, and Third Avenues.
West of Seventh Ave remains the city’s largest concentration of movie screens, theaters for live shows, other entertainment venues, and many restaurants and bars, as well as many nearby hotels. Two new skyscraper office towers face the previously mentioned bus terminal on Eighth. West of it are most of two blocks ripe for high-rise TOD, above the bus station and across the street from it.
Then 42nd passes a stretch of off-Broadway theaters as it enters a strip lined by hgh-rise apartment towers. At the Hudson River it ends at the piers used by the Circle Line tours and the dock for the busy ferries from Jersy. That’s not far from the Intrepid sea air space museum and the cruise ship piers used for some business shows. In the other direction is the Convention Center, and eventually a nest of development over the rail yards where the streetcar could have its barn. Not to forget the bus lines on Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues.
In any other city besides New York, that list of trip-generating locations would easily justify a large investment. I’m not saying it’s top priority. But if they can raise 50% for the local match, and they want to go for the federal funds, it’s OK by me.
I remember that some years ago, the Times ran an editorial that was creatively entitled “A Desire Named Streetcar”.
In that editorial, they were pointing out the problems with bringing back the 42nd St. trolley, which some people were advocating at that time. If I recall correctly, they were making the point that a trolley car is really a one-car subway train that is running on the surface, rather than underground or elevated, and they were discussing the various disadvantages of it.
A streetcar beats a bus/BRT route in terms of attracting development, because development knows that a rail route will still be there in a decade. But that isn’t really an issue on 42nd, the high density development is generally there anywhere east of 8th.
I would rather see BRT along 42nd Street and elsewhere. It could be up and running in a year. And the less a transit technology is compatible with existing systems, the less likely it can be easily expanded or modified as circumstances warrant. Like AirTrain…
No, BRT can’t be implemented in a year. Slightly better bus service can. True BRT consists of, at a minimum, physically separated rights of way, off-board fare collection, level boarding, and signal priority. It ends up costing the same as LRT and taking as much time. The reason it looks cheaper is that the largest and most familiar systems are in developing countries, where everything is cheaper, especially labor.
What if on 42nd St.(and possibly other major crosstown streets) they were to do ONLY the physically separated rights-of way for buses? That might make more sense than bringing back the trolleys.
Those rights of way would have to be in the center lanes, because the curb lanes are used for parking and loading. This would require significant streetscaping – it’s nontrivial to get people to board buses in the fast lane.
You might get a lot of benefit cheaply by making 42nd St two lanes one-way for regular traffic, and two lanes for buses, one being contra-flow. (Expect a certain casualty rate among jaywalkers stepping into the contra-flow bus lane.) That would free up two lanes to double the width of the sidewalks, which are terribly overcrowded.
If this half step turned out to be successful, then you could take another look at whether to close the whole street to traffic and put in more of the BRT package, or go for the streetcar.
(Off topic)
Working Class–
The new bike lanes aren’t perfect, but I believe they are far from a waste of money. I’m a daily bike commuter (Prospect Heights/Bkln to 20th St., west side), and they are extremely, and surprisingly (considering they usually amount to no more than some painted lines on the street), helpful and useful. They very much seem like an idea whose time has finally come, and unless Thompson gets the voters’ nod, which I think is very unlikely, I expect to see them extended, and, next spring when warm weather breaks again, continuing double digit percentage increases in the number of NYers riding bikes regularly for local transportation.
Oh yes, as to the 42nd street trolley: Never Happen.
I’m with you on the bike lanes. Amazing what a few buckets of paint can do. The minimal bike lanes run a terrible risk of “dooring” but they do get drivers to concede that little strip of pavement.
Now Sadik-Kahn’s DOT is moving to full-scale, physically separated lanes in Manhattan, as seen in Chelsea on 9th and 8th Avenues. On the West Side the Community Board gave its OK to such lanes 110th St to 59th on Columbus and Amsterdam, and a similar plan is advancing for 1st and 2nd Avenues as well.
These moves are not quite as good as congestion pricing, because the don’t raise any funds to improve outer-borough transit. But they do reduce the space allotted to commuting by private car from Westchester and other suburbs, and give it over to city residents who bike and walk.
(Yes, the real bike lanes make streets safer for pedestrians, by reducing the number of lanes to be crossed at intersections.)
I just realized why the TITLE of this thread looked sort of “strange” to me,and I couldn’t figure out exactly why.
“A AUTO…..” should be “AN AUTO…..”.
I see that it has been corrected now.
I guess few members of this board go and visit Buffalo often. I am not suggesting that 42nd Street project has the same implications as Buffalo’s subway system (thrusting a heavy car city with a train that blocks cars from its busiest street) but the imagry in that article strikes me as very similar in looks.
The biggest problem this article poses is where the hell are all the cars that cransverse from Queens to NJ go now?!? Side streets? 34th Street? How will trucks that deliver goods and merchandise to shops and businesses on 42nd street or Midtown be affected by closing off the biggest motorway street from cars? Side Streets are already beyond capacity. Trucks often block streets mid-day to deliver merchandise because of little room to park. All the other Crosstown streets such as 34th, 23rd, and 59th are already crowded and busy. They don’t need more excess cars.
We need more roadways overhead. NOT LESS! We need a Crosstown Expressway that connects to various Avenues and the FDR Drive and runs overhead above a Crosstown street. (pref. 42nd Street because of its proximity to the tunnel to NJ)
You can’t ignore the high demand for cars and large vehicles to travel in-and-out of Manhattan.
This solution is short-sighted. Pedestrian malls have proven to be failures in other cities. This is the reason I never ventured past my 1st classes in Urban Planning. Practicality and seeing problems in plans are never in terms with design. In other words, Architects have structural Engineers to back designs up. Urban Planners do not. They have politicians. Not a very good mix.
In other words, Underground/Overhead transport = GOOD because it maximizes the use of land needed.
This does the opposite. IT hinders growth by making it look ‘futuristic’ and ‘clean’ without realizing that NYC is great because of its grit and crowded streets. The same way buildings are marveled for their architecture.ie: Buffalo: Tourists come to see buildings in Buffalo, but run away from the city as soon as they see them.
Jon: It’s an established fact that if you eliminate roads, you eliminate cars. We don’t need more roads in New York City right now.
No. Those ‘cars’ (which also includes trucks and buses travelling from New Jersey) will simply drive along side streets on 23 – 59 street. Consider the amount of traffic crossing 4 lanes of traffic, and demand is consistently high. All the cars clogging 42 st will simply drive along those side streets that are already clogged. You make it sound that the only vehicles traversing Manhattan are cars. What about small delivery trucks? Express buses? Charter buses? Why destroy the overground when the 7 and the S exist? Why not just extend the 7 train crosstown? What about build a highway atop of 42nd Street that goes straight from the Lincoln Tunnel to the FDR and build the 42nd Street Pedestrian Mall? This way trucks that serve a positive impact to the city can traverse from NJ to Queens/Brooklyn/Midtown as fast as possible? And, yes, evil cars as well? Or simply close off the 1st 2 lanes that are available for parking to a light-rail?
Doesn’t closing off 42nd street seem too impractical and wasteful? I know you believe cars are evil, but you’re not decreasing demand by doing so. Anyone who does not need to travel into Manhattan by car does not because streets are too overcrowded as-is. If 42nd Street wasn’t the most conevnient means of access to the Lincoln Tunnel I wouldn’t be so hostile to this. As it stands it does. If additional tunneling were to reroute the tunnel to 32-35th street I wouldn’t mind the proposal so much. Let cars get to Midtown via 34th street instead. But blocking the closest path to the tunnel is stupid.
To correct some things (or clarify)
– I know 42nd Street has 6 lanes, but it usually turns into 4-5 lanes when a truck needs to make a delivery or w/e.’
– I never said a light rail on 42nd Street would be a bad idea. I think its awesome if it does not interfere with traffic. Imagine the 1st and last lane of 42nd Streets, 34th, 23rd, 86th, 72nd, 125th,14th, and Canal Street having a street car that has its own lane and only goes crosstown? It would run independently w/o the need of human input, and would circle around those streets making no connections in order to simplify the system? 1 stop per block, and payment is received before entrance of the vehicle. The train woul cost $1 and work with Unlimited cards and transfers. It runs every 2 minutes, and is expected to stop every block. In other words, it keeps going until the nearest train is a block (or station) away. It would be pretty awesome.
Also note that the train’s lane would be separated into its own traffic by a 2.5 foot high steel so kids won’t just run into it or w/e.
Just wana throw that in there. I’m just against closing off a street from traffic. Mixed use sounds a lot more efficient.
[…] settled for a patched-up shuttle, and New York’s transit riders are still today hoping for river-to-river rail along the avenue I’m taking you to, 42nd Street. Categories : Subway […]