Brad Lander, a rational thinker and relative newbie to elected politics, has come out with some pretty basic, logical, constructive comments on the Prospect Park West Bike Lane. He continues today, in the Brooklyn Paper, citing his own survey:
“But it’s time to accept the facts: Extensive data show the project is a success. The community board asked for it. The vast majority of neighborhood residents support it. The Department of Transportation is proposing a few modifications to make it work even better. Prospect Park West is safer for pedestrians, cyclists, and even drivers.”
Of course, the Brooklyn Paper would be remiss if they didn’t talk about the massive uprising of popular angst over the bike lane (read: a few old, rich people on prospect Park West who must have had neck surgery keeping them from looking left and right. One wonders if they can cross any street safely), in an opposing view point article:
“Bike lanes improve the health, safety, and environment of the city.” Ok, great start! What next?
“To access the park, pedestrians must cross multiple lanes of one-way moving traffic. Then they must pass through a floating row of parked cars that obstructs their view of the two-way bike lane, which they must enter blindly, before reaching the curb.”
:-( I was unaware they were issuing horse blinders to all pedestrians crossing PPW.
“Under the guise of “traffic calming,” and ignoring other viable alternatives, the city removed an automobile lane, thereby causing congestion as well as significant air and noise pollution.”
Willfully ignoring the FACT that removal of a travel lane has caused a decrease in the number of accidents and average speed of vehicles traveling on PPW, fewer cars somehow equals more air pollution to NBBL.
“Last year, the Department of Transportation installed this two-way obstructed lane and has since converted this “pilot program” into a permanent fixture without properly evaluating it or addressing local residents’ concerns.”
One assumes that NBBL were either not present or not well represented at the numerous Community Board 6 meetings where the bike lane was discussed, where the ONLY (asinine) objections that were raised were about the loss of a few parking spaces. “We think our alternatives are sound and will make our beautiful, historic neighborhood an even safer and more pleasant place.”
Their alternatives are to add back a lane of traffic, and to move bike traffic into the park, where the City refuses to completely ban cars, creating no barriers between bike and car movements. Seems like NBBL would be very happy with completely separate paths for all different modes of transit (a Segway path, perhaps), since we can not interact with each other. Maybe they want PPW to look like this.
Turns out, in the shock of shockers, slower traffic and a mix of uses creates a more dynamic and safer streetscape. Who would have thought? From StreetsBlog, news of the Prospect Park West Bike lane’s results, and proposed safety modifications:
“The proposed modifications should make the new Prospect Park West even friendlier to pedestrians. At intersections, the tan paint marking the pedestrian zone of the median will be replaced with raised islands. That should keep parked cars from intruding on pedestrian space. Along the bike path, DOT wants to install “rumble strip” markings to alert riders that they’re approaching an intersection. DOT also suggests rearranging the loading zones at 9th Street and narrowing the bike lane buffer at the very northern end of Prospect Park West in order to better transition into Grand Army Plaza.”
The Brooklyn Paper (briefly) reported what is by far the most important fact of the whole bike lane “controversey” - it’s safety effects.
“• Crashes are down from an average of 30 in six months to 25, or 16 percent. • Crashes that cause injuries are down from 5.3 in six months to two, a whopping 63-percent drop. • Before the project, a crash was twice as likely to include an injury. • Injuries to all street users dropped 21 percent.”
But Community Board 6 is the bastion of progressive bike thought. From the Brooklyn Paper comes this month’s worst idea ever:
“Nica Lalli, a writer and member of Community Board 6, said her plan makes cyclists as accountable as motorists — and makes it a cinch for cops to ticket two-wheeled scofflaws.
“Making it easier to give people tickets with bikes will be good revenue for the city,” said Lalli, who admitted she is not a “bike person,” but that she holds no prejudice against cyclists — including her husband.”
Since when does making it HARDER to bike in the city make sense? All of this backlash against cyclists is the result of rich, connected car owners making a stink. Here is one fact that should end any debate, as if the safety improvements aren’t enough: In Brooklyn, car owners are a minority.
Turns out that sometimes, Community Board 6 CAN make a progressive decision. From Streetsblog:
“Last night, the committee voted in favor of expanding the Park Smart area and the time that peak hour rates are in effect. The resolution did not touch on increasing the peak meter rate to $2.25 per hour but rejected the idea of extending the time limit at curbside spaces from one hour to two hours…
The interesting exchange of the evening happened when one committee member raised the prospect of extending the time limit from one hour to two hours.
Extending the time limits could wipe out the gains that the higher peak hour rates have achieved, explained DOT Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller. “The combination of the rate and one-hour time limit is affecting turnover,” he said. “If you relax one of them, you have to make up for it with the other.””
Recently, some money was found for the 4th Avenue/9th Street Subway Station rehab. From the Brooklyn Paper:
“The Beep said this week that he has set aside $2 million for improvements in and around the station, which critics say shares the same aesthetic of a Turkish prison.
“This $2 million will showcase the potential to create safer conditions all along this roadway and make it a beautiful thoroughfare that better serves us,” he said.
The station — once targeted for a grand facelift as part of the $250-million reconstruction of the elevated tracks between the Carroll Street and Fourth Avenue — has been in limbo since MTA budget cuts delayed the lofty plan.”
Seems that the Park Slope Civic Council agrees that the rehab will be in the best interests of safety and aesthetics as well. Unfortunately, they can’t do that without whining about development. From the Brooklyn Eagle:
“A renovation would eliminate thousands of pedestrian trips across Fourth Avenue, one of the city’s most dangerous streets. Earlier this year, the NYC Transit Authority estimated that a renovation would cost about $3.5 million, according to Cairl. The Brooklyn Paper recently reported that Borough President Marty Markowitz is willing to use about $2 million of his office’s capital budget.
While there may be money for rehabilitating subway stations, several development projects have stalled on the corridor because of the credit crunch. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, at least for the time being, Cairl said. Most recent development on the corridor left neighborhood advocates wanting something better. Citing ugly design and structures too often out of scale with the surrounding community, the Park Slope Civic Council would like developers to take a more organic approach.
“New development is great but it needs to relate to the community,” said Cairl, citing the “unfriendly street presence” of so many buildings. “You can’t just sit at a drafting table and not come and walk the ground.” S.J. Avery joined the council because she perceived that type of development insensitivity, but it originated from city government, she said, noting that the way the city handled the eventual condemnation of historic P.S. 133 upset her so much that she had to get involved.”
A more appropriate villain than “developers” might be the high-density zoning that has been a failure. Until the City changes the zoning codes to allow a great mix of uses within the high-density FAR, and does something to slow down traffic on 4th, there will be no streetscape to speak of.
The few Park Slope residents who drive cars (let me make that clearer: the MINORITY of drivers) want to make it tougher for everyone else to live. From the Brooklyn Paper:
“Park Slope community leaders (ed. self-declared) continue to slam the brakes on a scheme that would jack up the price of parking in the spot-challenged neighborhood by a whopping 33 percent, and stretch the hours when those rates are in effect.
Last week, Community Board 6 tabled the two most contentious aspects of a plan to extend “Park Smart,” a controversial city initiative that frees up parking spaces by making it pricier to park during peak hours, from noon to 4 pm.”
This is in sharp contrast to a city with progressive, liveable streets, like Seattle, which is embracing change for the better:
“Mike McGinn, the bicycling mayor, is counting on cars to salvage the city’s transportation fund. His budget proposals, released Monday, would affect anyone who drives into downtown and the other busiest neighborhoods, through higher taxes and meter fees of $4 an hour in and near downtown. Even the residential parking zone fee would increase for street parking in certain neighborhoods. And that’s in addition to a likely $20 car-tab fee.
Why look to parked cars for money in a weak economy? Because people have been quite willing to put up with parking-fee boosts the past few years — and the city sees a potential gain of at least $20 million next year.”
First CB6 went wild about the potential loss of a few spaces for massive progress on Prospect Park West, and now this. I feel sad for anyone on CB6 with any knowledge of transportation.
The Park Slope Civic Council is hosting a forum on November 6th to try and wrap their heads around the current situation that is 4th Avenue. No need for discussion, guys, the WSJ hit it right on the head.
“While the 2003 rezoning resulted in 859 new apartments—either built, under development or in planning—the design of many of the new buildings have come under attack. They’ve done little to improve the character of the neighborhood or make it more pedestrian friendly because they have parking garages, air vents or concrete slabs at street level rather than shops and cafes, critics say.
The result is that Fourth Avenue remains relatively desolate, attracting little of the street activity that has made Park Slope one of the most desirable neighborhoods in the city.”
The solutions to 4th Avenue’s problems are simple; eliminate a lane of traffic, expand pedestrian and bike space and change the draconian zoning regulations that dis-incentivize (made up word, yes) the creation of mixed-use development and instead result in a plethora of “community facilities” (read: “Commercial space limited to medical uses”) which do nothing to the streetscape (second made up word).
Marty Markowitz’ shamefulexample has apparently emboldened a few people who still think that having an expressway through Park Slope and next to the biggest city park in the borough is a good idea. Maybe Marty wants a speedier trip home to Kensington from Borough Hall? From the Brooklyn Paper:
“Since the bike lane was first proposed last year, it has been one of the most controversial issues in Park Slope.
Many cyclists and pedestrians hail the lane as a safer path that has reduced the well-documented speeding on Prospect Park West by eliminating one lane of car traffic. But drivers and other locals say the lane is ugly, has exacerbated traffic, reduced parking, and increased the danger for pedestrians who must dodge cyclists traveling in both directions.
Department of Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan has said that the agency will finish compiling data on Prospect Park West traffic by January.
Dueling bike lane protests on Thursday, Oct. 21. Supportes gather at Grand Army Plaza on Thursday, Oct. 21 at 8 am. For info, e-mail rsvp@parkslopeneighbors.org. Antis gather at Prospect Park West and Carroll Street at 8:30 am. E-mail ppwbikelane@gmail.com for info.”
Don’t either the supporters or opponents of the lane have any place to be at 8 or 8:30 on a Thursday? Jobs? Kids to care for? Or is it just a convenient time for some yentas who think cameras might come out at that time?
Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz is a hell of a nice guy from what we can all tell. he’s open, energetic and entertaining. However, sometimes his stances could use some rethinking. Witness his objections to the Prospect Park Bike Lane. With word coming that DOT Commissioner Janet Shadik-Khan will plow ahead with the bike lane, Marty is supporting the minority of Brooklynites that own a car, and protesting the bike lane, with some help from CBS.
“”We all don’t live on 42nd Street and Seventh Avenue in Manhattan. We don’t all have on every corner a subway stop, a bus. We don’t. So it has to be is a balanced approach responsive to the conditions in each borough,” he said.
Markowitz was upset by a plan to install a bike lane along Prospect Park West that would affect traffic in an already congested area. One lane of traffic would be eliminated for a bike lane and the parking lane would be moved over one lane, reducing the number of traffic lanes on the street to two, according to Markowitz.”
No Marty, we don’t all live on 42nd Street. But most of us, who you represent, do not own cars.
Numerous neighborhood blogs and advocates have bellowed far and wide about the supposed developer-friendly bias of the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals (from Brownstoner today: “a group that historically has bent over back to accommodate developers.”). What they fail to note in their complaints, however, is the fact that the BSA is legally bound to reach their decisions based on the laws of New York City, specifically the Zoning Resolution (a ridiculously complex document if there ever were one). And, those laws must recognize the United States’ laws about private property rights, which tend to lean heavily toward property owners (in these cases, developers).
Given the uproar that we saw regarding BSA decisions such as 360 Smith Street and the Williamsburg “Finger” building, the silence about the BSA’s recent decision to NOT grant extra townhouses to 580 Carroll Street is deafening. In what is being termed as a “death blow” to the project, the BSA basically told the developers that they should have done more due diligence before their construction, which would have made their claimed “unforeseen circumstances” clear. The BSA should be applauded for seeing through this argument, but alas, there was scant coverage of the decision, sharing a post at Curbed:
“The BSA took some time to think about it, but came back earlier this week with another unanimous no for the developers. And it sounds like this one might be final.”
Benjamin Kabak at Second Avenue Sagas recently penned a good summary of the situation surrounding the latest round of MTA service cuts. But, of course, this blog is about Carroll Gardens, so we care about how they will affect us, right?
“I’ve looked at the B71 elimination and determined that, by and large, walking to Carroll Gardens from Park Slope will serve me better than taking bus routes along Bergen or 9th Sts. would. The revenue loss along these bus routes could be quite significant.”
Although the distance used in this example is very small, Mr. Kabak does have a good point in that a) Bergen and 9th Streets, as the East-West travel routes, are relatively far apart, and b) the existence of the Gowanus Canal and industrial area in between the two neighborhoods creates a psychological barrier to walking for some.
