Newsletter |
« Open Thread Fulton BID: The Other Side of the Story »
36

Flushing Avenue Bike Lane Plans Revealed

Categories: Clinton Hill, Fort Greene, Streets

Flushing-bikeway-031810.jpg
The Department of Transportation presented its plans to remake Flushing Avenue as part of the ongoing master-planning of the 14-mile Brooklyn Greenway. Streetsblog, where this image first appeared, summed up the plan this way:

The Flushing Avenue project would construct a two-way bike path from Williamsburg Street West to Navy Street, separated from traffic by a nine-foot planted median. Vehicle traffic would travel in one westbound lane, between two lanes of parking. Only three curb cuts providing vehicle access to the Brooklyn Navy Yard would interrupt the bike path along the length of the project. Passengers on the B69 and B57 would disembark at bus bulbs constructed in the center median, with eastbound bus routes diverted to Park Avenue.

We're still not used to those weird parking lanes over on Kent, but hopefully that planted median will make this one work better. There's a planning workshop for the Greenway at Borough Hall on March 25th. You can also support the non-profit Greenway by attending the fundraiser tonight at ñ in Dumbo from 6 to 8 p.m.
Flushing to Get Two-Way Protected Bike Lane [Brooklyn Paper]
DOT Proposes Flushing Ave Bikeway [Streetsblog]



By Brownstoner at March 18, 2010 9:30 AM | Comments (36)

36 Comments

By cmu on March 18, 2010 9:34 AM

let the haters begin...

By dirty_hipster on March 18, 2010 9:36 AM

good - that part of flushing is pretty treacherous.

is there a way to cut thru the navy yard when going from North to South Brooklyn?

By cmu on March 18, 2010 9:37 AM

Actually, after looking at the dimensions, even I think this is overkill. This could easily be a two way street, particularly as bus traffic is involved.

We should adopt the Parisian system of combining bus and cycle lanes, makes so much sense given the infrequency of buses.

By daveinbedstuy on March 18, 2010 9:38 AM

"You can also support the cause by attending the fundraiser tonight at ñ in Dumbo from 6 to 8 p.m."

A fundraiser for a municipal project????

By brownstoner on March 18, 2010 9:48 AM

for the Greenway not DOT

By zinka on March 18, 2010 9:54 AM

The fundraiser is for the Brooklyn Greenway Initiative, a nonprofit that advocates and plans for the greenway.

By zinka on March 18, 2010 9:55 AM

Great project - traffic calming and shorter crossing distances are benefits for pedestrians, safe bike path for cyclists.

By BSD on March 18, 2010 9:56 AM

As an avid cyclist, I think this is putting bikes above cars a little too much. Is Flushing a busy street? If so, one lane for driving with parking on both sides sounds like a nightmare in the making.

By zinka on March 18, 2010 10:08 AM

It's already one lane each way, and there's hardly any eastbound traffic. So what's the problem?

It's hardly "putting bikes above cars" when 2/3 of the road width is still being exclusively devoting to the movement and storage of cars.

By dittoburg on March 18, 2010 10:09 AM

This part of Flushing only gets really busy if the BQE is blocked up and people use it as a shortcut through to DUMBO to join the BQE at Atlantic.

I think the parking lanes on Kent are working fine. If only we could ban drivers who can't park without taking up three spots things would be peachy.

By Sparafucile on March 18, 2010 10:10 AM

"a nightmare in the making"

That's the whole point. This is about scoring anti-car points, not about providing real benefits to real road users, whether motorists, cyclists, or pedestrians.

By benson on March 18, 2010 10:13 AM

Will there be a lane for topless bike riders?

By dittoburg on March 18, 2010 10:19 AM

That median better be a vegan-median or there'll be hell to pay.

By tybur6 on March 18, 2010 10:24 AM


This honestly sounds like a big improvement to the road. It's not just the bike path -- which I wholly support -- but it's also the Planted Median which will make the street more pleasant and welcoming, as well as clearly demarcated areas of the road... bus stops, parking, bike traffic, motor vehicle traffic, etc etc.

By WBer on March 18, 2010 10:25 AM

As a bike lane supporter, I gotta say Kent Avenue is pretty lame. Driving feels unsafe (the travel lanes are very constricted), and there is still no safe way for anyone (car, bike, ped) to cross Kent.

At least this plan has a planted median. That should make the green part nicer and provide a better idea of the road as a road.

By lalaland on March 18, 2010 10:50 AM

awesome. the bicycle bridge between hipster and bouxie brooklyn. Coming to love the dot although flushing passes through some orthodox areas - hoping they don't steamroll this too...

By BGGB on March 18, 2010 11:21 AM

This is a good plan.

Basically instead of having two parking lanes and a lane in each direction, one of which is dramatically underused, we'll now have 2 parking lanes, a vehicle lane and a 2-way bike lane.

Flushing is a useful bike artery between North and Central Brooklyn and to get to the bridges, meanwhile there's very little car traffic that travels West to East.

This is good urban planning that was presented to and approved by the community.

By bkre on March 18, 2010 11:42 AM

Is there really that much deman for street parking there? Most people who drive to the Navy Yard actually park in the yard, where there is plenty of parking. These people don't need to park on the street. And there aren't many other generators of traffic on the other side of the street. I sa get rid of one of those lanes of parking and keep it a 2-way street. Otherwise I love it. Go Greenway!

By Minard Lafever on March 18, 2010 11:42 AM

I find this kind of silly. With the Boro gaining in population and becoming more crowded, main thoroughfares are being narrowed resulting in more traffic congestion not only for cars but also for ambulances, fire trucks, police trucks, buses. Meanwhile, when the weather is bad, and the weather is often bad in NYC, the bike lanes will be hardly used. I suppose the police or emergency vehicles may be able to use them in a pinch. Don't know. Bottom line to me is that cities, especially big successful cities, are all about traffic. If you want wide open streets to ride your bike in peace go to a dying city like Detroit or Buffalo or Camden.

By Butterfly on March 18, 2010 11:49 AM

lol. it's so funny when the city caters to moon-faced midwesterners who like to peddle around the city at .1 MPH in flip flops and f@ggy tote bags.

*rob*

By TD on March 18, 2010 11:54 AM

That's an odd comment. It's exactly the opposite. Traffic is the death of cities. Studies have shown time and again that more and wider roads lead to more traffic and congestion, not less.

By Butterfly on March 18, 2010 12:00 PM

quote:
Studies have shown time and again that more and wider roads lead to more traffic and congestion, not less.


the same thing with wider asses.

*rob*

By squaredrive on March 18, 2010 12:10 PM

"Bottom line to me is that cities, especially big successful cities, are all about traffic."

I don't understand, so you're saying that big successful cities are all designed around accommodating cars?

If that's what you're saying, I strongly disagree. See amsterdam, barcelona, berlin, copenhagen for a few examples of cities which balance car, bike, pedestrian traffic extraordinarily well.

By tybur6 on March 18, 2010 12:14 PM

Asses become less wide with more bicycling!

Minard -- "Meanwhile, when the weather is bad, and the weather is often bad in NYC, the bike lanes will be hardly used." That's simply not true. When weather is bad, there is a reduction in biking... yes. But it doesn't disappear. It's the same reduction you see in walking. Should we reduce sidewalks because "weather is often bad"??

By tybur6 on March 18, 2010 12:17 PM

Squaredrive is right -- take Amsterdam (where the "weather is often bad"), there are about a dozen streets total with multiple lanes for cars. There is a great balance there. People use the *best* mode of transport, not defaulting to the car!

By dirty_hipster on March 18, 2010 12:33 PM

let me just throw in the obligatory

"THIS ISN'T EUROPE - THIS IS AMERICA BITCHES!"


continue...

By dittoburg on March 18, 2010 12:49 PM

if you saw the prices of petrol in Europe you wouldn't be surprised people are using bikes

By bkrules on March 18, 2010 12:52 PM

This looks great. And it's not putting cyclists above cars--there's three freaking car lanes! Yes, two are for parking, but drivers really seem to love free parking.

Those turning bays make a huge difference when it comes to keeping traffic moving. Without sacrificing safety of other cars and of pedestrians!

Nice work.

"Bottom line to me is that cities, especially big successful cities, are all about traffic."

No, they're not. It's people like you who argued there was no point fighting crime, because big, successful cities are all about crime. But it turns out that with less crime, our city became bigger and more successful. Crime is a bug, not a feature. So is traffic.

Successful cities enable efficient transport while preserving a decent quality of life. Part of making a successful city is catering less to the preferences of drivers passing through neighborhoods and more to the needs of the people living and working in them. Because dense, productive neighborhoods are what make cities work.

This design allows people to pass through this neighborhood pretty efficiently in a car, but more importantly, it significantly enhances and supports the quality of life for people in the neighborhood while giving them transport options more suited to a productive, liveable city. That's really important. If you don't live near Kent street, you might just care how long it takes you to get through Kent street. But the reality is that the pedestrians and shops and offices on Kent Street are what make the city successful, not the road through Kent Street.

Cities don't depend on cars for efficient transport--they are so dense that walking or biking or mass transit become more efficient than driving in most cases. This is a good thing. Supporting this density allows us to create an economic region that is far, far more productive than one where the most efficient mode of transportation is putting people in cars.

If most of the time your best transport option is to drive, you either don't live in a city, or you live in a city that is foolishly squandering its productive capacity.

By Sparafucile on March 18, 2010 12:54 PM

"Traffic is the death of cities."

Dead cities don't have traffic. Traffic is a consequence of commerce, activity, and life in general.

By tybur6 on March 18, 2010 12:57 PM

FYI: European gasoline prices are approximately 2 to 2.5 times that of the U.S. average, depending on the country/region. Diesel fuel has a slightly lower premium in comparison.

By tybur6 on March 18, 2010 1:00 PM

bkrules -- Here Here!!!

By Butterfly on March 18, 2010 1:00 PM

people who use things with wheels (bikes, cars, rollerblades) are just so primitive and lame.

*rob*

By bkre on March 18, 2010 1:34 PM

I'm surprised to hear that kind of backward thinking coming from Minard, who usually expresses a more nuanced understanding of how cities work. I'm not at all surprised to hear the comments coming from Rob.

By dirty_hipster on March 18, 2010 1:42 PM

bkrules - respekt

By dittoburg on March 18, 2010 2:05 PM

"shops and offices on Kent Street are what make the city successful"

kent st- not a good example for 1) shops 2) offices 3) a successful city. But point taken.

By zinka on March 18, 2010 2:20 PM

Well said, bkrules.

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Related Posts with Thumbnails