Thanks for your post. This thread is dying, but just for the record, I was not addressing your comments at all. I’m quite interested in the BWC.

I too would like to find more examples of getting AAA behind smart planning. Unfortunately, truth be told, they are an Auto owners group and will represent the driving public. Yet many innovative planning strategies make things better for drivers as well, so similar to how one sees giants like AARP standing up for health care reform, I’d love to see the resources of AAA lined up behind TOD and other forms of smart planning.

And about bikes, you’re right: how about a springtime mailer to members on safe passing distances for vulnerable road users? Time to write a letter…

I did not mean to sound arrogant or demeaning, and I’m sorry if that is the how you read my post. It was just my quick encapsulation of my criticism of AAA, which doesn’t seem to support Transit-Oriented Development and Walkable Communities. Also, it reflects the views of a whole generation of traffic planners and engineers that focus more on moving cars on wide roads and less on allowing people to walk safely. This is why I left AAA and joined Better World Club.

If you have examples of AAA throwing serious resources (and it has a lot of resources) behind creating better places, please post them here. It would signal a refreshing change for AAA. I know AAA has started to include bikes in a limited area of the country, but it seems that with its enormous staff, it could provide for bikes everywhere.

Personally, I like the new Times Square, and it is an obviously progressive experiment. As these things generally work, I don’t think Times Square has been perfected yet, and so I think that AAA’s comments have some validity. Indeed, if Broadway has never sprouted Parisian street cafes, that’s something we need to address. Paris was planned in a way that allowed those institutions filling a niche in the culture. What is quintessentially New York that would fit there? Starbucks? (seriously, commerce, convenience, caffeine and haste)

Also, while I won’t speculate whether AAA would support a complete closure of the area to traffic, their argument does lead to a certain all-or-nothing logic, which I find hard to deny. I also like Alex’s comment above.

Which island, J? It’s not the one at Calyer and Franklin, is it?

This type of transfer does, however, create an additional layer of bureaucracy should the space ever need to be altered. In the latest presentation to CB1, DOT explained that they wanted to continue the Kent Ave bike lane further north, but a Green Streets island blocked the way. DOT must now coordinate with Parks before any changes can be made. This type of issue must be taken into account before permanent changes are made.

Designating the space as a park would be easier if it were a continuous space. That would mean closing the sidestreets that interrupt it. A project for MB/JSK’s third term?

Cars aren’t like people. Pedestrians (and businesses oriented to pedestrians) benefit from as many streets and intersections as possible. Cars benefit from as few streets as possible, hence the proliferation of cul-de-sacs and limited access freeways.

Despite everything I just wrote, I do think this debate should be viewed as a lesson about civics and urban planning. AAA is one of the first groups that accurately identified this as the center of the biggest city in the US. Instead of talking about traffic issues, we should also be considering how we want the heart of our city to look and feel. Many critics are correct: the lawn chairs, while fun, were tacky. I am surprised there has not been some sort of high profile design competition about what the final Times Square needs to be.

OH MY GOSH!

these tards are scared and clutching at straws. they are pissed that for once, they haven’t had their asses catered to and have had to settle for second best.

get used to it.

I’m just saying, ’cause if they want to get involved in safety issues, it seems they could be doing a lot more for safety in other ways through advocacy or lobbying.

Leaving a side the obvious lack of knowledge by the writer (There hasn’t been northbound automobile traffic in Times Square since they made Broadway one-way), wouldn’t this be an argument for eliminating all but emergency and essential local delivery traffic from TS?

Sure, and it is the world’s biggest red herring, way to be easily led.

And how, exactly, would returning to the old Times Square fix this? Weren’t peds already mixing with cross-town, uptown, and downtown traffic?

The AAA just made an argument for more limits on car traffic, since those “vacationing tourists” almost exclusively tour the city by foot.