« Third Quarter Report: Foreclosures Down in Brooklyn Another One Down on Bond »

October 3, 2008

Car-Free Prospect Park? Blech!

Well, that's not exactly the position of Community Boards 7 and 14, but they do have some reservations about the three-month trial of a car-free zone in Prospect Park. Fearful that neighborhood streets will clog with traffic if cars are turned out from the park's circular drive, they're asking for an environmental impact statement to be prepared. "A car-free park 'could have a major environmental impact,'" said Assemblyman Jim Brennan at a press conference yesterday. According to Streetsblog, "he co-signed a letter with the CB chairs asking DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan for the EIS." They prefer that the park not be closed to traffic, even for a trial period. Needless to say, this isn't sitting well with bike advocates, including Transportation Alternatives, which has been working to rid the park of cars for many years; the move by Brennan et al also comes on the heels of a petition in favor of the car-free park signed by 10,000 that was delivered to City Hall two weeks ago. This move brought out the warm and fuzzy side of CB7's Randy Peers: ""We abhor the tactics of the bicycle advocacy group," he said.
Foes Car-Free Prospect Park Trial Demand EIS [Streetsblog]
Photo from A Year in the Park.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6522

Comments

I think that in all fairness the CBs need to be open to this on a trial basis. If they're interested in improving the quality of life for residents, they need to be open to exploring ideas to do that. Who knows, they might be surprised.

Posted by: BrooklynButler at October 3, 2008 9:45 AM

What heck--try it for a month or two and see. Screw the studies and impact statements. Too expensive and time consuming!

Posted by: guestula at October 3, 2008 9:47 AM

A very small number of car owners cause a lot of danger and problems for a large number of pedestrians and bikers. Last week I watched a speeding driver swerve into the "bike lane" - to avoid a squirrel.

Bottom line, banning cars would cause a minor inconvenience to a few car owners and improve the park - and safety - for a much larger group of bikers, runners and pedestrians. Time for a little democracy.

Posted by: Johnny at October 3, 2008 10:01 AM

I've seen research cited someplace, showing that car traffic is a "build it and they will come" proposition: Widen the clogged 2-lane highway to 6 lanes, and all 6 will clog up. Anyone able to muster the studies? They'd be relevant here to the overflow issue.

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at October 3, 2008 10:02 AM

Johnny, I couldn't have said it better myself. Ban the cars, build a pool, and let the park be a park, not some ridiculous race course.

Posted by: slopenick at October 3, 2008 10:27 AM

If it's going to a permanent change in the traffic pattern, DOT is required to do an environmental study.

The question isn't only bikers vs. drivers, it's autos vs. residential streets in the area that might get flooded with traffic if the park is entirely car-free all the time.

Posted by: Boxermonkey at October 3, 2008 11:01 AM

Its a park! And cars don't belong in parks.

Posted by: CGmodern at October 3, 2008 11:02 AM

nice photo...what a bunch of winners, huh?

love how they had a press conference on a weekday afternoon, when most residents of the community they
(mis)represent, who strongly favor a car free park btw, are at, um, WORK

i know...why dont we just get rid of the park?
its so annoying how its right smack in the middle of everything...imagaine how nice life would be if we replaced it with a twelve lane highway

Posted by: blackstoner at October 3, 2008 11:07 AM

boxermonkey, as EIS is not required for trials, so this is just attention-grabbing bs

the streets wont get flooded...many drivers will realize that this route sucks and will go back to using the roads that were meant for high volume...prospect expressway/bqe/flatbush ave/etc

we need to stop bending over backwards for car drivers in this city

Posted by: blackstoner at October 3, 2008 11:12 AM

blackstoner, your post was very insulting and demeaning.
The people in the photograph look like perfectly nice, responsible Americans who are involved in the community. Why do you think they look like losers? Because they are over thirty? Honestly, whatever your point of view is, you sabotage it with your arrogance and rudenss. You better stick to blogs because in the real world, you could get punched in the nose.

Posted by: sam at October 3, 2008 11:19 AM

sorry i hurt your feelings sam

Posted by: blackstoner at October 3, 2008 11:31 AM

Why are bicyclists taking all the heat and anger that more properly belong to car and truck drivers? The drivers are the ones polluting the environment and endangering the lives of pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as other drivers. When was the last time a bicyclist killed a driver? Why is driving a more respected right than walking or bicycling? Especially in New York?

That being said, the Community Boards' desire to understand whether closing the Park to vehicular traffic will inundate local neighborhoods with frustrated drivers is a reasonable one. The EIS seems to be a smoke screen, but it would study a legitimate question. We can all hope that blackstoner's prediction is correct, but if it isn't, we should know so we can judge whether the vehicle-free experiment was a fair trade.

Posted by: Brooklyn Chicken at October 3, 2008 11:33 AM

How about some speed bumps?

Posted by: Suburbandude at October 3, 2008 11:34 AM

this might be useful to the discussion, albeit a 10-year old study

http://www.transalt.org/campaigns/prospark/study_comments

as well as:

http://www.transalt.org/campaigns/prospark/faq

Posted by: blackstoner at October 3, 2008 11:40 AM

All this support for bicyclists!!! They never seem to have any regard for pedestrians.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 3, 2008 11:40 AM

why is the assumption that a car-fre park is only good for cyclists?

pedestrians, joggers, skaters, children...everyone benefits from a car-free park...except for a very vocal minority of selfish drivers

Posted by: blackstoner at October 3, 2008 11:48 AM

sam:

well, one thing that is obvious about them is they are old and many are fat. Such people typically have very little concern for the future. Gluttony by its very nature is evidence of excessive self interest. The elderly too are always heavily resistant to change and motivated to maintain the status quo.

This is always the case with these community boards. No one else has time for them; we're all working.

Posted by: Polemicist at October 3, 2008 12:06 PM

I will have to say, as someone who grew up on prospect park west, there has been an ever increasing volume of traffic, at ever increasing speeds. So I empathize with the concern that closing park will only re-route rush hour commuters on already clogged roads.

I think the open driving hours were already successfuly, substantially reduced. Also, while I understand Transit Alternative and other groups' initiative, I can't tell you how many times, as a pedestrian, I have almost been run over by a bike while crossing at a green light (in my favor). One even ran over my dog (while crossing on a leash), causing bicyclist to flip off.

Posted by: ppw_girlz at October 3, 2008 12:13 PM

Blackstoner: I was there and didn't see anything wrong with the people in the photo. The event was at 8am and 2 of those participating biked to work afterwards.

Polemicist: Yes if you consider anyone over 40 old, most of them were old. From what I observed they were no fatter than the average Brooklynite. The vast majority of Community Board members are employed and since all Community Board meetings take place during evening hours, working people are fully able to participate.

Posted by: yaakovdoe at October 3, 2008 12:26 PM

Have to play devil's advocate to counter all this overblown stuff.

Firstly, assuming they're not expanding the hours, the park's closed to traffic when, probably, 95% of people are there...evenings, weekends. I cycle there at 9am. I see probably 100 people in the entire park. Are they so discommoded by cars? now 4-6 pm ma be different...schools are out, kids around, so I'd agree that maybe cars should not be there. Maybe.

Secondly, stop with the "I saw a car swing into the cycle lane" junk...as you yourself noted, it was to avoid a squirrel. If there were no cycles around why shouldn't the car avoid an animal? If the car did endanger a cyclist, you'd have a point, but I suspect not.

And with this "run over by a cyclist" (to spread the rant)...what, you can't avoid a cyclist as you cross? Or look him in the eye and force him to go around or slow down? I've done both, in both directions.

I'm amazed how intolerant everyone is of everyone else. I'm waiting for someone to complain about the "speed-walkers mowing down little kids and strollers." Or about that woman with a a walker holding up other peds, why can't she stay home?

Finally, speaking as a cyclist, since there are wide bike lanes, and not all that many cycles when cars are around, I've rarely felt intimidated. And I used to ride with my 10-yr old back from the Tennis center at 5pm, with cars speeding by and he didn't feel intimidated either.

Hey where are the frequent posters?

Posted by: cmu at October 3, 2008 12:26 PM

I've spent a LOT of time running and cycling in the park. The danger from cars is significant. The quality of life impact from cars similarly large. But the number of cars is relatively small. It only takes one idiot driving at high speed (a frequent occurrence) or blasting a horn (also frequent) to have a negative impact of a lot of people's safety and enjoyment.

When there are cars in the park, you'll see a lot of cyclists and runners crammed into the two small inside lanes while the smaller number of cars take over the vast majority of the space. Banning cars outright will force a small number of vehicles into streets that aren't especially busy - even at rush hour. A minor inconvenience for car owners. A big safety and quality of life win for the rest of us.

Posted by: Johnny at October 3, 2008 12:29 PM

CMU - try it after work. 6:30 or 7, just before they close the road again. Quite a lot of people, especially in summer.

And my point with the swerving to avoid the squirrel was that it happened so quickly the car driver didn't have time to check his blind side. He (she) just swerved and was just lucky there were no cyclists or pedestrians to his left at the time.

Cars and a large number of people in close proximity is a recipe for disaster.

Posted by: Johnny at October 3, 2008 12:32 PM

I'm in the park running or playing frisbee at least four or five days per week, never drive there, and I despise lardass motorists as much as anyone, but I think some perspective is in order.

Cars are only allowed in the park for a brief period in the a.m. and p.m. rush hours, and for the a.m. they're limited to the Manhattan-bound portion of the road loop. For the vast majority of the time, and for the entire 500+ acre park except for a single roadway, the park already IS car-free. You pretty much have to go out of your way to encounter cars in the park as it is.

Posted by: Flatbushwhacker at October 3, 2008 12:33 PM

i would also like to mention that plenty of cars sneak in during "off" hours...some of the park entrances are poorly guarded....again all it takes is one self-entitled idiot to cause a lot yof pain

the current entrance/exit situation to the wollman parking lot is also a mess...hopefully to be better designed as that whole part of the park gets redone

Posted by: blackstoner at October 3, 2008 12:37 PM

Blackstoner, those self-entitled idiots are almost all cops or firefighters, who don't have to worry about getting a ticket if they're pulled over.

Posted by: Flatbushwhacker at October 3, 2008 12:40 PM

"If it's going to a permanent change in the traffic pattern, DOT is required to do an environmental study." That's the thing; TA is proposing a trial, which does not require an EIS. Jim Brennan is an attorney and he has to know this, which should make his co-signing of the letter an embarrassment.

Posted by: g man at October 3, 2008 12:50 PM

blackstoner, Even on weekends, when a few cars are "sneaking" in to deliver picnic goods or pick up grandmothers, I've (in 7 years) never seen any problem other than with the entitled ones not wanting to move out of the way for 10 seconds.

Some roads are meant to be shared, checkout the rest of the world if you don't believe me. Plenty of "woonnerfs", "shared streets" etc where the occasional car is allowed a pedestrian area, and nobody gets upset.

Johnny, as I said, I'm much more in agreement with the evening closure. And when I'm cycling, I never assume a car won't swerve into the bike lane. Of course, I'm going considerably slower than most vehicles. It's the cycling speeders who'd be in danger in your scenario.

Posted by: cmu at October 3, 2008 1:19 PM

While we're dishing, let's whack the pedestrians who slog three- and four-abreast across both the ped and the bike lanes in rush hour, Ipods in ears (and hence oblivious to bicycle bells or cylists' loud verbal warnings). If a cyclist comes along and there is car traffic on the right, cyclist can either (a) slam on the brakes behind the cretinous pedestrians and proceed at their bovine pace, (b) swerve right to avoid them into traffic lane, or (c) run them over. I fantasize often about (c). People,what part of "lane with little bicycle guy painted on it" don't you and your companions understand?

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at October 3, 2008 1:25 PM

wow cmu you see nothing wrong with people illegally driving into the park durring car-free hours...thats sad

Posted by: blackstoner at October 3, 2008 1:56 PM

from Poley's usual rollout of stupidity to Brenda's, what a nasty thread. Brenda-
1. Pedestrians have the right of way
2. they are taxpayers
4. There are more pedestrians than bikers
5. Get hit with a bike you wil suffer a lot more damamge than getting bumped by another human being
6. remind me to avoid people like you with those bloodthirsty tendencies.

talk about cretinous- you both are perfect examples.

Posted by: lurker in the mist at October 3, 2008 2:01 PM

G-man,

you are completely correct and of course Brennan is pulling a political stunt, but c'mon - he's a state assemblyman - he really doesn't have a lot of pull in the broader sense of things.

I DO appreciate the reduction in cars in the park. I just happen to think that if the entire park was completely closed to cars 24/7, it would have a potential adverse impact on the residential streets around the park and that should be examined rationally. If that makes me anti-bicycle or NIMBY, so be it.

Posted by: Boxermonkey at October 3, 2008 2:20 PM

cars are a problem. And they arent just in the park during those limited hours. b/c of the wollman parking lot, there are cars frequently. Windsor terrace is in danger of increased traffic b/c all the cars are squeezed between the cemetary and the park. theres not much anyone can do about it.

bicycles are also a problem b/c they race around the park and rarely obey traffic signals.

Posted by: slick at October 3, 2008 2:32 PM

I cycle through Prospect Park most days, commuting to work. Getting into the park by bike is really dangerous at rush hour. The entrance approaches at all the traffic circles at the park edges need to be redesigned. But the dangers of rush hour traffic aren't only to entering cyclists. I enter the park from Grand Army Plaza, during the early evening while cars are still permitted. When the traffic lights change there’s a rush of cars through, then a longish time during which no cars enter. During this no-traffic time pedestrians wander all over the park entrance road. The road just inside the park is hidden from view of entering traffic, and people at this after work time seem unaware that with the changing lights cars will again come speeding through. There tend to be a lot of people around this space - it seems to be a gathering place for after work running and cycling groups. It’s only a matter of time before an unwary pedestrian gets hit by a car. I look forward to the car free trial - hopefully it will encourage the permanent banning of cars from the park.

Posted by: bikecommuter at October 3, 2008 2:38 PM

"I will have to say, as someone who grew up on prospect park west, there has been an ever increasing volume of traffic, at ever increasing speeds. So I empathize with the concern that closing park will only re-route rush hour commuters on already clogged roads."

PPW, that kinda doesn't make sense. Hard to increase the speed of traffic as well as the volume. More traffic would solve the speed problem, tho admittedly there are better ways to accomplish that.

Posted by: denton at October 3, 2008 3:38 PM

Thank you Denton for your view on the physics of traffic. All I can say is there are a h*ll of a lot more cars going a h*ll of a lot faster. Same can be said for 8th ave.

Commuters try to get from Grand Army Plaza to 15th street circle as fast as they can, and it's like drag racing with trying to beat the timing of the lights.

Posted by: ppw_girlz at October 3, 2008 3:56 PM

Polemicist, for someone who wants to house the world in high density buildings for the good of mankind and growth of the city, you certainly have a list of the worthy who are eligible for your brave new world. Maybe that's how your future would work - because you obviously reject anyone over 30, the overweight, and many, many other "rejects" from past posts. So there really won't be that many people worthy of living in your New York.

You remind me of that late '70's movie called Logan's Run, where everyone in this perfect future society was beautiful and young, and when you reached 30, they killed you, because they figured out there weren't enough resources for everyone. Of course no one knew that was their fate, but, details. Rent it sometime, you'll love it.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the park and its traffic patterns to make an informed comment about cars, pedestrians and bikers. Most of us are one or more of these, seems like a happy medium can be found somewhere.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 3, 2008 5:18 PM

No, I see nothing wrong with being tolerant.

So many of you here take exception to others: brenda (cylist) against the joggers ("slam on the brakes" to avoid a ped...don't you have eyes to see them in advance?); blackstoner (?) against the occasional car (let's keep the illegality out of it, that's not what I;m talking about); bikecommuter against cars and peds; pedestrians against dangerous cyclists; all non-car people against cars; and no doubt car drivers against stupid cyclists who run red lights or whatever.

Don't you all see that it's so easy to demonize the others? It's not ALL car drivers who're maniacs, or ALL cyclists who threaten peds, or vice-versa. It's a small minority of each, most people are courteous to others, and most don't deliberately hit others.

But you wouldn't know it reading these comments.

Posted by: cmu at October 3, 2008 6:23 PM

truer words were never spoken, cmu. Well...ok, maybe there are, but thanks for the splash of cold water. Now if we can all just avoid getting exterminated for falling outside poley's favorite demographic and and avoid getting killed by bike psychopath brenda we'll be fine.

Posted by: lurker in the mist at October 3, 2008 6:49 PM

why is brenda a psychopath for complaining about people who clog up bike lanes? don't walk in the frigging bike lane.

were you molested by a bicycle as a child or something?

Posted by: z at April 16, 2009 10:30 AM

wow, i just realized i snarked in response to a 6-month-old post. joke's on me!

Posted by: z at April 16, 2009 10:41 AM

Parks are for people, yes, but too many of those people have cars, big cars, and drive them even when there's perfectly acceptable public transportation available. Consequently, if you close the park at rush hours, the streets, especially Prospect Park Southwest, clog up, drivers become cranky and impatient with traffic lights, pedestrians outside the park are endangered, buses are slowed up and homeowners are subjected to hell--cars, horns, pollution. Opening the park to cars during rush hours makes our neighborhood more livable.

Posted by: lf2009 at April 17, 2009 1:16 AM

« Third Quarter Report: Foreclosures Down in Brooklyn Another One Down on Bond »

October 3, 2008

Car-Free Prospect Park? Blech!

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions