Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Thesis (Concept) - Ronald Woudstra

Thesis (Concept) - Ronald Woudstra

Ratings: (0)|Views: 68|Likes:
Published by Ronald Woudstra
draft thesis on pedestrianization in large cities.
draft thesis on pedestrianization in large cities.

More info:

Published by: Ronald Woudstra on Sep 21, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/27/2012

pdf

text

original

 
T
ABLE
O
F
C
ONTENTS
C
HAPTER
1I
NTRODUCTION
§1.1 Statement of the Issue§1.2 Goals and Objectives of the Study§1.3 Literature Review§1.4 Methodology§1.5 Organization of the Study
 C
HAPTER
2H
ISTORICAL
 
PRECEDENTS
 
REGARDING
 
THE
 
TRANSFORMATION
 
OF
42
ND
 
STREET
§2.1Regional Plan Association: Urban Design Study of Manhattan, 1969§2.2 New York Department of City Planning Urban Design Group: 42
nd
Street Study§2.3 Vision 42§2.4 Conclusion
C
HAPTER
3P
EDESTRIAN
 
PROJECTS
 
IN
N
EW
ORK 
: B
ENEFITS
, I
SSUES
,
AND
 P
ROCESSES
§3.1The Potential for Pedestrian Projects in New York City§3.2 Pedestrian projects in New York: Precedent Studies§3.3Pedestrian Projects in New York: Recent Trends &Processes
 
§3.4 Conclusion
C
HAPTER
4R
ECOMMENDATIONS
 
REGARDING
 
THE
 
PEDESTRIANIZATION
 
OF
42
ND
 
STREET
C
HAPTER
5C
ONCLUSION
§5.1Summary of Findings§5.2Suggestions for Future Research
1
 
C
HAPTER
1 || I
NTRODUCTION
§1.1 Statement of the IssueVision 42 was a proposal to implement a light rail transit system along anauto-free, landscaped 42
nd
street. It claims to enhance access to the manydestinations along 42
nd
street, as well as to provide for an enhancedpedestrian experience.Its core idea was to have an auto-free light rail boulevard for 42
nd
Street. Theproposal, set forth by the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility, Inc., offered away of increasing the efficiency of the street’s transportation infrastructure.As a proposal that entails an elaborate form of pedestrianization, Vision 42fits within the larger trend towards the pedestrianization of the public right-of-way in New York. Indeed, across the city, space currently designated tomotorized traffic is being reallocated to pedestrians.Despite the benefits of Vision 42, it was not embraced by the city. This wasmostly because of political and financial reasons. This is unfortunate, becausethe context –42
nd
street and its surroundings—could benefit greatly fromhaving more space for pedestrians.Midtown Manhattan is a heavily congested area, and a major destination forcommuters, 85 percent of whom commute to Midtown by train, bus, ferry.Most commuters proceed to their final destination on foot or by local transit.Especially congested is 42
nd
street, a corridor which connects majordestinations and transportation hubs such as the UN, Grand Central Terminal,Bryant Park, Times Square, and the P.A. Bus Center with the waterfronts,ferries and new developments at the riverfronts (Warren et al, 2008: p.5).Even though 500,000 pedestrians a day use 42
nd
street, the allocation of space along 42
nd
street is currently distributed very inequitably: pedestriansoutnumber motorists by 5 to 1, yet travel lanes dedicated to vehicular traffictake up more space than the sidewalks that line them. Some 60 percent of street space allocated to motorists.
2
 
42
nd
Street has also been a very successful corridor in terms of newdevelopment—demand for pedestrian space grows with every newdevelopment. By 2012, pedestrian volumes in Times Square will havequadrupled compared to 1982.In addition, local (Crosstown) bus access in Midtown is characterized byextremely low travel speeds. The current local bus service on 42
nd
street isone of the MTA’s busiest lines, yet it is also amongst the slowest in thesystem. The growing needs for improved transit to either the far west and fareast ends of 42
nd
street cannot be met by the extension of the #7 subwayline and the existing subway shuttle between Times Square and GrandCentral Station (Warren et al, 2008: p.5). Summarizing, the corridor is in needof a more efficient transportation system in general, and more appropriatepedestrian facilities.Vision 42 proposed river-to-river light rail transit, along a 2.5 mile, low-floorlight rail line. The total, river-to-river travel time would be 21 minutes withthe proposed light rail line. The vision suggested that, ideally, vehicles wouldbe arriving every 3.5 minutes. 16 pairs of stops were proposed, basically onestop at every block (Warren et al, 2008: p.5). The proposal also envisioned a significant expansion of space allocated topedestrians.Precedents for this have been abundant in the recent history of New YorkCity: the NYC South Street Seaport is a pedestrians-only street in Manhattanthat predates the current proposal. Proponents of Vision 42 also pointed outthat, today, Washington Square Park is a car-free park (compared to an auto-accessible park in the 1950s). The conversion of both places to car-freestreets and parks has gone smooth and has not resulted in major trafficproblems (Warren et al, 2008: p.47).Indeed, studies show that traffic is generally quite elastic—when streets areclosed, much of the traffic disappears
 
(Cairns, Hass-Klau et al, 1998).Furthermore, current volumes of traffic on 42
nd
St accounts for less than 5percent of traffic in the 10-block area which surrounds 42
nd
street. Traffic
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->