March 27, 2006
Get The Cars Out of Central Park?
Those crazy kids over at Transportation Alternatives are grumpy again! Hot on the heels of the recent EPA revelations about New York's awful air quality (a story so nice we posted on it twice) TA has come out kicking, along with the American Lung Association, Borough President Scott Stringer and a bunch of city council members, calling for automobiles to be banned from Central Park's loop drive (they are currently banned on the weekends, but allowed on the weekdays).
"We're here to say if you're in a car and you want to get around Manhattan, you're better off going around Central Park. It's clear, to ensure that those of all ages who choose to run, walk, bike and play in the park can enjoy themselves in a healthy and safe environment, we have to say no to cars and yes to quality recreation. Parks are for people, not cars," says Manhattan Borough President Stringer.
And you know what? we totally agree. One of the many genius parts of the original Olmsted and Vaux design of the Park are the submerged cross streets which allow cars to easily cross through the Park without disrupting the effect of a preserved nature in the middle of the city (however artificial that nature may be). As long as those cross-streets work we're at a loss as to what other reason the average joe could have to drive around in Central Park (Cops cars are another story). It's not like we're a city known for our cars. That's us, what do you think of a car-less summer in the Park?
Central Park Fog by Mercurian via G'ist Contribute.
|
Congestion pricing. Anyone that can afford to drive into New York and pay for parking can chip extra for the privilege of not taking public transportation. I just don't buy the argument that East River bridge tolls or some other tax would hurt the working poor.
No cars in the park is a brilliant idea. We need a clean sanctuary in this city that is outdoors rather than relying on our $500 home air purifiers as an escape from all of the pollution.
I just came back from a short visit to the culturally vapant Michigan Suburbs, and as much as i was anxious to get back here, i did notice how much cleaner the air was when i went on my visually nauseating brief walk around a suburban complex. I came back here and right away my lungs felt tighter- i suffer from asthma.
Another rule that should be imposed- Roof gardens on every single roof in NYC. We need more trees to help clean this smog ridden air! We can start on corporate buildings and then on residential apartments. its a cheap and easy solution. lets get started!
This is a fantastic idea, and Borough President Stringer should be encouraged to fight the good fight. Send him a short email expressing your support:
Scott Stringer
bp@manhattanbp.org
and, while you're at it, cc his deputy and chief of staff: rpierre-louis@manhattanbp.org ; acolon@manhattanbp.org
I don't understand why anyone would drive around the city anywhere at anytime. Yes to congestion pricing, yes to carfree neighborhoods, and definitely carfree parks!
While we're getting all up on this, everyone who cares should join TA, they are constantly fighting the good fight for pedestrians, straphangers and other alternative trans. takers.
Let's hope they can extend this fight to Prospect Park in Brooklyn as well.
And of course, banning cars will utterly enrage the cabbies - every single trip I've made from midtown to la guardia has gone via the park drive and the triborough. Not that that's a pro or a con, necessarily.
Quick note on the cross-park drives - from what I've googled, Olmsted and Vaux were thinking of commercial traffic rather than cars when they designed the park in the 1850s. I suspect they'd have been tempted to put the cross streets underground had they designed it in the age of internal combustion. Without more detailed research, I'd be tempted to say that the drives were expanded by Robert Moses who was parks commissioner from the 30s.
Yes, yes and yes. But sorry to be a nitpicker, but big NO to Jess's idea. It is a favorite of dreamers, but there is nothing cheap about loading a bunch on water, trees, and soil on top of your roof. Big big prices, headaches and leaks for the rest of the building's life. But yes, a great idea- just unfeasible. Hell, my roof leaks and we only have our downstairs neighbors teenagers sunbathing 4 months out of the year.
Garl N Corp, where are you doing your searches?
By far one of the most important part of the Olmsted and Vaux Greensward plan, and one of many proofs of Olmsted's genius, was that it offered up three different circulation systems. Above grounds were paths for pedestrians and roads for horses and pleasure vehicles. Purposely submerged were cross-streets specifically for commercial traffic.
And make no doubt, those cross-streets anticipated and were crucial in the development of the Upper West and East Sides. Upper Manhattan literally could not have existed as it does now if those roads were not built and submerged when the park was built. Next time you take a cab going through the park, look at the bridges you are going under. Those are Vaux bridges, dude. (there's a nice forgotten-ny page on those arches, but it seems to be down right now). And so we're clear, those roads will stay open to traffic. It's the roads that are above ground that are up for debate right now.
Moses did a lot in Central Park, some of it actually ok, but not that.
here's some pictures of the rally for a car free central park on Sunday.
The people arguing against this keep saying it will affect traffic. We have plenty of measurements of what traffic is like now. Close the park for one year, then see what the difference actually is, rather than guessing. Take the difference and measure it against the increased use of the park, decrease in accidents, etc.
I think in hindsight, everyone except the cabbies will call this a no-brainer
I think another way to save money is to shoot all cigarette smokers in the head. that way they can't pollute the air
The park is dumb. Pave it over and build affordable housing with 2 parking spots for each unit.
Agreed. Either that, or some kind of giant cemetary
I have come up with the perfect thing that all smokers should be legislatively forced to wear in public - an airtight infatable bubble filled with hydrogen. It would reduce the amount of smoking and can re-enact the Hindenberg disaster for the entertainment of us all. Oh the humanity!
No reason to have cars in the Park at all, nobody who lives in Manhattan drives through the park, why should we dodge taxis and cars when relaxing?
NYC should end it's love affair with cars, more pedestrianization would be good for the city, Central Park and Times Square should be first!
This is something I always thought was a brilliant idea! Ive been a long time jogger and the only time I like to run in central park is when there are NO cars allowed on the drives, which means mainly on weekends. Keep on fighting for it TA! It will happen one day!
TA does great stuff for the city. It's crazy that it has taken the city so long to recoginize that Central Park is not as the DOT stated, a "vital transportation link". IT'S A PARK!
TA's recent study showed how most cars in the city serve little to no economic value to commerce in the city. Many cars are simply here because of free government/corporate parking permits. The city should aim to reduce that number by half and tax corporate parking perks more.
ok have any of you really thought this through? if no cars were allowed to cross manhattan via central park, they would then have to drive the long way around to get to the same destination. this would mean more traffic congestion, more air pollution, more traffic accidents, more demand for gasoline, basically more of everything you guys are complaining about.
now i'm definitely in favor of a cleaner healthier environment, but you need to think these ideas through and make sure these suggestions don't cause more harm than good.
I think they should simple leave the park drives to the people on non-motorized vehicles. I don't know anyone that uses them. Aren't they closed a good portion of the time anyway? And I agree, those submerged cross streets are absolute genius on Olmsted's part. It was an extremely far-reaching insight that allows the park and the city to exist together so seamlessly.
They should continue to allow scooters in the park for two very good reasons:
1. They are a more environmenally friendly alternative to cars; and
2. I want to continue to drive mine there.
:-)
I think the proposal would only affect the drive, not the cross streets, which are more commonly used. I'm not sure how many cars are using the drive (or even how practical it is) to beat traffic.
Most traffic proposals are actually counter-intuitive. Every time highways have been expanded or widened as a way to improve traffic, it in fact leads to more congestion because more cars use it. One would think that restricting streets would create a traffic nightmare, but in fact the opposite is true... drivers just stay away. So the TA folks really may be on to something.
I don't know why they're bothering, if there's the same amount of cars (and more notably, BUSES) here, the air will still be terrible. I can barely breathe here in the summer. I used to live in LA and the air there was significantly better. Do the skyscrapers hold the smog in?