« The Making of Google Streetview New Art Center Brewing on Bergen »

April 17, 2009

Two Lanes for Two-Wheelers on Prospect Park West

The reduced car access to Prospect Park isn't the only bike-friendly change in the works for the Park Slope area: The Department of Transportation showed off a plan for a two-way bike path along Prospect Park West at a Community Board 6 meeting on Thursday night, reports The Brooklyn Paper. The move would eliminate one lane of car traffic, something that advocates claim would have ancillary safety benefits. "Prospect Park West needs traffic calming, and it needs to be more accommodating to all users," said Joshua Benson, DOT’s bike program coordinator; only a few parking spaces would be lost. Unlike the traffic reduction measure for the park that is being vociferously opposed by Community Board 7, the bike lane proposal has the support of both CB6 and Transportation Alternatives. "It’s a pretty good package," said TA's Wiley Norvell. “You get safer access to the park — and the chance to put in an innovative bike lane in one of the densest cycling communities in the city.”
City Rolls Out Two-Way Bike Lane on PPW [Brooklyn Paper]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9342

Comments

awesome. it will eventually tie into the eastern parkway improvements - if they ever start the work. They had the ground breaking for that about 4 years ago and still no work.

Posted by: oldrte10 at April 17, 2009 10:06 AM

I swear to GOD the Asshats are going to turn Brooklyn into one big pedestrian mall!

One question-- Do idiots ride their bike into the freezing cold?????

All that wasted space clogging up traffic!

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at April 17, 2009 10:12 AM

Umm... I shouldn't engage... but YES, people ride bike YEAR ROUND, and if there are more dedicated bike paths, it becomes a safer enterprise. SO, all of a sudden riding bikes becomes more attractive to more and more folks -- even if that means only in the nicer weather.

And cutting PPW down to 2 lanes is hardly "clogging up traffic." That road doesn't need 3 lanes.

While it's less possible because it's a 2-way road, it would be nice if such a thing was also added to PP SouthWest.

These buffered bike-lanes are truly the way to go. While bike lanes, in general, are a good thing because they bring a little awareness to sharing the road... I actually prefer to "hedge" a bit and ride a bit in the road instead of the bike lane (of course moving over for cars to pass). It's simply a bit dangerous with the parked cars. Doors open, you die. There needs to be a door buffer zone. (Like the 9th Street lane... though, if you ask me, the lines are drawn backwards. The cross-hatched portion should be against the parked cars... I ride IN the cross-hatched area.)

Posted by: tybur6 at April 17, 2009 11:02 AM

Great idea! PPW has way too many lanes and extremely dangerous traffic.

oldrte10, the Eastern Parkway project is funded (with stimulus money) and should start construction within a year.

Posted by: zinka at April 17, 2009 11:03 AM

Oh, and what a glorious thing if BIG swathes of Brooklyn became traffic-free zones.

Imagine if 10 blocks of 5th Avenue in Park Slope became bus-only (or even was replaced with a streetcar from atlantic to prospect ave!!) and in the nice weather the restaurants and cafes poured out on triple-width cobblestone "sidewalks"... It would truly be a destination.

This isn't a fantasy... cities ALL over the world have things like this.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 17, 2009 11:16 AM

by the way, if you were wondering, I don't live in Park Slope. I just imagined 5th Ave with it's restaurants and shops to be a good candidate. But perhaps it's Smith Street or somewhere in Williamsburg... or all of these places!

(I don't mention Brooklyn Heights because they already have the Promenade! Can't be greedy.)

Posted by: tybur6 at April 17, 2009 11:20 AM

I agree wholeheartedly with tybur6. The DOT, spearheaded by Commissioner Sadik-Khan, is doing some great things that will hopefully transform our city.

http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-2-18-17075-1,00.html

Posted by: betterside at April 17, 2009 11:25 AM

Oh, and folks have been looking at this sort of stuff in Manhattan for decades.... like this project http://www.vision42.org/

Fills the cross-town transport gap and makes for a pleasant place to be a non-mechanized human.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 17, 2009 11:27 AM

I'm all for things like this but my question is, what happens to the surrounding neighborhoods and increased car traffic? How will those neighborhoods be impacted?

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 11:36 AM

bxgrl -- PPW is a problem being a virtual speedway (with terrible light sequencing that actually promotes 50+ mph driving) and needs "traffic calming."

I've never quite gotten the issues surrounding traffic displacement. It's not like the traffic is being moved to streets that didn't have car before. If you narrow PPW or even shut down the park slope stretch of 5th Avenue... the cars will either simply travel slightly slower (but less erratically and dangerously) in the case of PPW... or they will be "displaced" to 4th Ave, 6th Ave, 7th Ave or PPW if 5th ave disappeared. All of these streets already have cars -- it would take a lot of convincing to suggest the quality of life would be adversely effected.

(In contrast to say, Prospect Park... where it is a PARK, but twice a day the perimeter becomes the Indy 500.)

Also, streets like 4th Ave (a proper boulevard that is designed for large traffice flow) are seldom "at capacity" because there are alternatives like 6th Avenue -- what if 6th Avenue was "calmed" with various techniques... bike lanes, single travel lane, irregular driving path, etc. And then 4th avenue was improved (better left turning capacity, light patterns, etc)...

Of course it has to be a somewhat comprehensive approach, but traffic "displacement" doesn't have to be an issue.

Also, and this is a controversial statement, the community groups tend to screw this stuff up because they are adverse to CHANGE... in general. Not the effect, just the change. What is best for the community/city/region -- through economic and environmental impact studies, modeling and so on... is usually destroyed and some half-assed "solution" is arrived at because of parochial pet peaves (e.g., "I will lose all of my business because it will be harder to drive to my shop." even though she never really had many driving customers and the proposed plan would improve other forms of transportation.) But that voice will win and the majority will suffer.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 17, 2009 11:56 AM

By the way, the above pet peeve is actually a somewhat rational one... I was recently involved with trying to add a small park area to a neighborhood in central brooklyn. The neighborhood association crushed it... basically because it would bisect a fairly low-volume street and force traffic to go around the block

This design actually ADDED parking to the neighborhood, ADDED a park in an area that has almost no green space, and would ALLEVIATE congestion at a badly design intersection.... but, many residents would have to add 2 mins to their commute and, more importantly, SOMETHING would change. All the change is good, but it's change and that's bad. Why would you want a park outside your oppressive soviet-style apartment building?

Posted by: tybur6 at April 17, 2009 12:06 PM

tyburg- having participated in the aforementioned Indy 500, traffic calming is a concept I can agree with you on. I was just wondering about the impact of displacement because I think it is going to happen in many more places- especially if and when AY gets going. I am dreading that day. But insofar as Prospect Park- I've always felt the traffic circle was a horrible concept-maybe it when it was a leisurely ride in your carriage with your matched set of bay mares, but certainly not the merry-go-round it is today with 2 ton metal vehicles racing around.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 12:12 PM

Wouldn't it be interesting if people were made the priority instead of cars, tyburg6? I mean for all the carrying on about cars and traffic, the fact that a park would not get built because of concern for cars is a pretty sad commentary. I guess the neighborhood association had a lot of drivers.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 12:25 PM

"Umm... I shouldn't engage... but YES, people ride bike YEAR ROUND, and if there are more dedicated bike paths, it becomes a safer enterprise."

Umm... I shouldn't engage... but YES, Assheads are retarded! You are saying someone rides their bike in 20 degree weather or when it's snowing????!!!! I will be happy for 2 things Bloomberg failing for reelection and the collapse of our financial system so this crap does not happen!

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at April 17, 2009 1:18 PM

Despite my opposition to the proposed reduced car access to Prospect Park, I think THIS is an excellent idea.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at April 17, 2009 1:20 PM

The What... People walk in 20 degree weather, right? Or does everyone start driving after Nov 1st?

There are these AMAZING inventions called clothes!

Also, according to NOAA, New York City has around 78 days per year that are below freezing, i.e., 32 degrees. That leaves 287 days that is it above freezing.... and far more than half the year, the temperature is above 50 degrees!

I suppose it would also be crazy to ride a bike if it's raining right? What about a little wind? Luckily everyone has a car and there's nothing wrong limiting the transportation options for a city of 8 or 9 million people. We're lucky!

Posted by: tybur6 at April 17, 2009 1:38 PM

I agree with The What on this one. I like the fact that NYC is fairly drivable for a major city.
I did not grow up here but I like NYC for what it is and have no desire to live somewhere more Continental European.
Building lots of bike lanes and worsening gridlock will make things worse for drivers, pedestrians and bus riders.

Posted by: etson at April 17, 2009 1:51 PM

Etson... "Building lots of bike lanes and worsening gridlock" -- the latter doesn't follow from the former.

"... will make things worse for drivers, pedestrians and bus riders." Why?!

Also, NYC keep growing... and growing... and growing... It's not a matter of if you like it as it is. It's not going to stay that way!! Manhattan is DEFINITELY not drivable. It is always at capacity if not far exceeding drivable levels. usually gridlock or close to it. Hopefully you were referring to Brooklyn or Queens.

Adding alternative forms of transportation does not necessarily constrict driving. it may actually alleviate the congestion.

Also, you may not want to live somewhere more continentally european -- that's fine -- but Europe also has great examples of how the deal with balancing huge density with livability. Brooklyn and NYC, in general, is quickly showing it's true colors here... it's packed to the gills and there hasn't been any real change in transportation infrastructure for decades.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 17, 2009 2:07 PM

Thanks tybur6. I drive mainly on weekends now but I used to commute by car from Manhattan to CT every weekday for a few years and apart from coming back in on Friday evenings I had few problems.

Posted by: etson at April 17, 2009 2:15 PM

By the way, most streets could probably lose one of their sidewalks and we could get another lane for cars!

Posted by: tybur6 at April 17, 2009 2:16 PM

The DOT's proposed PPW bike lane is indeed an excellent idea. The dedicated and buffered bike lanes they've installed in Manhattan work really well.

I believe TA also recently proposed expanding the bike and pedestrian lanes in PP, and limiting cars to a single lane, which I think is also an excellent idea... but I would feel a lot safer, and be sufficiently happy, if the police would simply enforce the park's posted 25 mph speed limit.

Posted by: Trembly Chap at April 17, 2009 2:19 PM

HA!

in reality it's [Parking] [Deliveries] [Travel Lane] [Travel Lane] [Double Parking] [Illegal standing]

Posted by: illig at April 17, 2009 2:34 PM

Etson... you left the city and came back. You didn't drive around the city. Try running errands by car in Manhattan around 11:30am -- or better, try to be a delivery truck driver in the city all day.

You're experience wasn't a "drivable city" -- it was a city you didn't seem to have much trouble leaving (in the opposite direction of the prevailing flow)

But that's really beside the point. It's simply wrong to think a city of 8, 9, 10, 15 million people could be based on a car/bus/taxi infrastructure! It is already showing signs of failure and it will just get worse as the population grows.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 17, 2009 2:57 PM

Tybur6,
I don't think narrowing roads so a few people can ride bikes will be a positive change to NYC's infrastructure. Rather it makes things less convenient for most people so a relatively small number can feel good about themselves.
I am confused by your argument that less road capacity will cause less gridlock - unless you are arguing for making things much worse deliberately so that driving is impossible.

Posted by: etson at April 17, 2009 3:14 PM

And I also have colleagues now who commute into the city from NJ by car with few problems. Just have to plan the timing of your day better if you do that.

Posted by: etson at April 17, 2009 3:20 PM

'so a few people can ride bikes' Making the city more bike friendly encourages more people to ride. You have to start by giving people safer ways to navigate the city.

Posted by: rukiddingme at April 17, 2009 3:26 PM

Again, Etson, because your friend find the *commute* fine... doesn't tell me anything! He takes an off-peak moment to find his way to a parking spot in Manhattan...

It's the "plan the timing of your day" that is the problem!!! Not everyone has this luxury and delivery trucks have to get around the city at ALL times of the day. They are stuck in the muck.

I never said a bike lane or narrowing streets will cause less gridlock -- I was pointing out that the logical necessity you described is not the case!! It's not a bike lane *and* more gridlock. The latter doesn't necessarily follow. If it is done right and parochial concerns are ignored for the greater benefit, you can have a transportation infrastructure that OPERATES BETTER and serves the varied needs of MORE!

It's not just about bike lanes... it's about adding alternatives!! Those folks commuting from NJ by car... what if there was an alternative that brought them to their jobs just as quickly, but didn't have to deal with Manhattan traffic and parking? Better park-and-ride and better trains across the river, what if the trains from NJ accommodated bikes during rush hours?! .... guess what, then you colleagues that are still committed to driving would have an EASIER time of it.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 17, 2009 3:44 PM

Guess I just don't get how reducing road capacity would not worsen traffic flow, everything else being equal.
Also I don't see why the City is going out of its way to spend money to accommodate a small section of the population. Sure, if there are more bike lanes a few more people will ride but I find it hard to imagine the numbers being material to the overall transportation mix.
Rather it seems designed to placate a particular demographic (of which I am a member, in some ways) and check all the right politically correct boxes.

Posted by: etson at April 17, 2009 4:05 PM

The city's problem is that it never thinks things all the way through- and they're thinking more bike lanes will mean more people taking bikes or even mass transit if driving is made too inconvenient. But it's unrealistic to think people who drive will give up their cars when there is not enough mass transit in the first place,or accomodation for all the businesses that must depend on vehicles. Even doing errands like grocery shopping - we've been car-centric too long.

That said, Prospect Park should be restricted, and the traffic circle re worked- for everyone, not just those on bikes, but pedestrians too.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 17, 2009 4:38 PM

Bxgrl,
Until very recently, the DOT focused all its energies on moving cars around. When the DOT started putting in bike lanes, more people started riding. Not sure where you get the info that bike lanes don't encourage people to ride - they most certainly do, especially when they are protected lanes. W

hy is it unrealistic to think that people who drive will give up their cars when the individual cost of driving is made to more accurately reflect the social costs of driving? Higher gasoline costs alone significantly reduced driving last year. Let's try congestion pricing and see what we can accomplish.

Let's close the Park Drives to cars altogether. I have no doubt at all that not a few of those drivers have a time-competitive mass transit alternative and would be more likely to use it if they couldn't drive through the park. The extra five to eight minutes that driving around the park would cost might encourage a number of people to take the subway.

Let's take away parking privileges from all the civil servants who park for free all over the place. Most of them don't need it -- why does a judge working 9-5 in lower Manhattan, where every single subway line goes, need to drive to work? Did you know that 35% of the people who drive to work in Manhattan have parking placards? Don't you think if they had to pay for parking like everybody else, or look for street parking, they might take the subway instead???

Why do you think that because Americans are car-centric, we can't change? Especially in a city with an excellent mass transit system (yes, it is, compared to anywhere else in the country) and a climate and topography which allows people to ride their bikes a substantial portion of the year.

I just don't understand this idea that New York City is incapable of significantly reducing automobile traffic.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at April 18, 2009 10:11 AM

And Bob, I responded to you on the other thread, but the key point I would make to you, since you reiterated on this thread that you oppose banning cars from the Park, is this:

You are entirely missing the point when you say that the park drive is the least attractive part of the park to parents and children. I feel you are being deliberately obtuse.

The Park Drives are THE logical place for many thousands of parents to take their children to learn how to ride a bike. But NOT between 5 and 7pm. I guess the need of a few people to drive through the park takes precedence over teaching children to ride bikes. Anyone who would like to teach their kid to ride a bike early on a summer evening will just have to wait until the weekend.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at April 18, 2009 10:27 AM

>>>Especially in a city with an excellent mass transit system (yes, it is, compared to anywhere else in the country) and a climate and topography which allows people to ride their bikes a substantial portion of the year.<<<

Extra bike lanes are fine but riding a bike is not the solution for many. Some are over 50 or out of shape and would find a bike commute every day taxing or even dangerous. The ideal solution would be light rail or extra subway lines, but as we've seen, upstaters are in no mood to help subsidize the system we have now, much less build new lines.

Dedicate bus-only lanes on major thorofares like PPW, 4th Avenue and the numbered avenues in Manhattan. Build local and express bus lanes, it's much more affordable than subways. Have some bike lanes for people in shape enough to do that every day as well.

www.forgotten-ny.com

Posted by: Kevin Walsh at April 18, 2009 1:28 PM

southbrooklyn, while I agree that the park should be car-free, I also want to point out that there are already some areas that are car-free 24/7 and would be great for teaching people to ride a bike: the closed exit to Bartel-Pritchard Square, and the two transverse drives.

Posted by: zinka at April 18, 2009 3:44 PM

Southbrooklyn,

I guess you're unable to accept my agreement with you about these proposed bike lanes unless I agree with ALL your points. How pathetic!

Posted by: Bob Marvin at April 19, 2009 2:33 PM

Bob Marvin,

Until you make a convincing argument for why cars should be allowed to drive in Prospect Park, I will continue to disagree with you and to argue with you. So far, all you have had to say is that the park drive are not the part of the park that parents and children would use. This is obviously false, as I have pointed out.

I'm not sure why you find it pathetic that I feel strongly about this issue, or why it would be pathetic that I don't agree with you.

Do you think most people driving through the park have a strong need to do so? Do you think they don't have time-competitive mass transit alternatives? Do you think having to drive around the park would unacceptably increase drivers' travel time? Do you think the needs of a small number of people driving alone outweigh the needs of large numbers of people for fresh air, exercise, and respite from traffic?

I'm really unclear why you are opposed to banning cars from the park. I'm all for bike lanes, and I'm glad you are too, but I'm not sure what that has to do with our disagreement over cars in the park.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at April 19, 2009 10:33 PM

Thanks zinka. Sadly, once kids learn to ride, there's no safe place for them to ride on weekdays, except, I guess, in little circles on the transverse drives or the closed exits.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at April 19, 2009 10:34 PM

Southbrooklyn,

I imagine that , if I ever had the misfortune to meet you in person, you'd repeat your argument loudly and slowly, firm in the knowledge that doing so would finally penetrate my dense brain, since only poor benighted creatures like me could possibly fail to appreciate your wisdom. I assure you that doing so would work no better than writing the same thing over and over, ad infinitum. Clearly I'm not enlightened enough to agree with you. You seem to be incapable of realizing that anyone might differ with you in good faith, as your's is the only point of view that makes any sense. You are, of course, perfectly free to disagree with me about cars in the park, or any other matter, but we won't continue to argue that point because, as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing left to be said.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at April 19, 2009 11:10 PM

I wonder how this plan integrates with plans to re-do Grand Army Plaza? I have always thought that making PPW a 2 way street was a great ingredient in that plan. Seems to me that making PPW 2 ways ought to happen first, then perhaps a bike lane could be created.

Posted by: bel886 at April 20, 2009 12:35 AM

This is awesome. So happy that I'll be able to use this route both directions.

Posted by: Atomische at October 3, 2009 9:38 AM

« The Making of Google Streetview New Art Center Brewing on Bergen »

April 17, 2009

Two Lanes for Two-Wheelers on Prospect Park West

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions