Bill to ban cars in Central & Prospect Park Loops introduced.

Brooklynian » Forum » Park Slope »

Bill to ban cars in Central & Prospect Park Loops introduced.

Share this!

12 Next »

swngnmonk
getting it
Joined: Aug '08
Posts: 125

Council Member Brewer, who represents the Upper West Side, has introduced a bill to remove cars from the loops in both Central Park and Prospect Park. This does not affect the East/West Transverses in Central Park. The text of the bill is here:

http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=853084&GUID=6B7BC6AD-CB10-4B64-A4B4-4C699A6CBF2F&Options=Advanced&Search=

StreetsBlog has covered it here:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/03/23/gale-brewer-introduces-bill-to-make-central-park-prospect-park-car-free/

I'll bet some of the motivation has been the cyclist outrage in Central Park as the NYPD "crackdowns" have resulted in a series of absurd tickets, some of which required them going door-to-door yesterday to apologize to people they wrote bogus tickets to.

Regardless, grab the popcorn, this should be interesting. I can't wait to see what the NYPost has to say about this one.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
xlizellx
rocking it
Joined: Jul '08
Posts: 1,580

This sounds like a very excellent idea.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

This gets proposed every few years, and has always failed for various reasons.

Maybe the present DOT director will get it thru before being killed by the pro-car forces.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
swngnmonk
getting it
Joined: Aug '08
Posts: 125

whynot_31 said:
This gets proposed every few years, and has always failed for various reasons.

Maybe the present DOT director will get it thru before being killed by the pro-car forces.

Yes, it does.

Interestingly enough, the DOT is on the record as opposing this.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Piano
above average
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 402

It's ridiculous that the concept of a car-free park is even a concept. Whose idea of a park has cars barreling through it? Robert Moses is still dead, right?

# Posted 2 yrs ago
bklyn50
INTJ
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 96

I will work to see that this item fails. The traffic around the park is always snarled. I would like to see the park loop re-opened to traffic at all times. For those of you new to Brooklyn, this is the way it was, and there was peaceful co-existence between people using the park and traffic.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Boygabriel
M Train Devotee, G Train Appreciator
Joined: Nov '05
Posts: 4,431

this is the way it was

this settles it! things never change!

Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org

# Posted 2 yrs ago
swngnmonk
getting it
Joined: Aug '08
Posts: 125

bklyn50 said:
I will work to see that this item fails. The traffic around the park is always snarled. I would like to see the park loop re-opened to traffic at all times. For those of you new to Brooklyn, this is the way it was, and there was peaceful co-existence between people using the park and traffic.

[+] Embed this video

Text-Link:

HTML-Link:

BB-Code:

Embed:

Oh yea. Snarled. My god, how is anyone able to get anywhere?

Time to pave the park over entirely. This nature thing has got to go.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
WhyFi
I'm Urban - recognize!
Joined: Jul '05
Posts: 5,268

bklyn50 said:
I will work to see that this item fails. The traffic around the park is always snarled. I would like to see the park loop re-opened to traffic at all times. For those of you new to Brooklyn, this is the way it was, and there was peaceful co-existence between people using the park and traffic.

I love how some people, native NYCers or not, select a moment in their memories as being the definitive iteration of X or Y or Z. Never you mind that things were in flux before and after - my cherished good ol' days were THE good ol' days... now get off my lawn.

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

In this instance, I am prosegreation. Lets put the cars together on the streets, and leave the park to the bikers and pedestrians.

The two have never gotten along, and now is the time to make the park pure from the influences of cars. Those damn cars are nothing but trouble and should be given thier own places to drive.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

Note: Apparently "segregation" is to be spelled wrong even when supported by an intelligent person, such as myself.

Think about it.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
bklyn50
INTJ
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 96

To swngnmonk:
The circumference of Prospect Park is not limited to Prospect Park West.

As for segregation, in the "good old days", neighborhoods WERE segregated by the city by creating double fare zones with buses and trains. If you were lucky enough to have a car, getting to other areas in the borough using the park's interior roads eased travel time.

A viewpoint that sees things from only their perspective is typical of ugly american syndrome. There are many neighborhoods and communities bordering the park.

Just to add light to my viewpoint, "back in the good old days", I would workout by doing a minimum of 10 laps in the park, while sharing the roads with cars. On other days, I would cycle all over the borough. or up to the Cloisters in northern Manhattan. (never made it to Bear Mountain, unfortunately).

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

I loved my car. I sold it when I moved to NYC.

It just didn't make sense to have it here.

I hope the bill passes so I can lose my gut without having to watch for drivers like myself.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Boygabriel
M Train Devotee, G Train Appreciator
Joined: Nov '05
Posts: 4,431

As for segregation, in the "good old days", neighborhoods WERE segregated by the city by creating double fare zones with buses and trains. If you were lucky enough to have a car, getting to other areas in the borough using the park's interior roads eased travel time.

Hmm, I keep noticing the tense you're using.

It's almost as if it's in the past, and that maybe things change over time.

Hmm.

Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org

# Posted 2 yrs ago
bklyn50
INTJ
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 96

Congestion around the park is real-time, right now.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

Yes, we need fewer cars

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
bklyn50
INTJ
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 96

whynot_31,I believe that the people using their cars for transportation need them. How will your plan ease congestion and solve their transportation problems?

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

I believe the residents of NYC need and deserve additional times and places to recreate safely.

How will your plan meet our needs? Your plan seems seems to favor a small group of drivers (those who drive inside the park) over the masses who use the park, and would like it to be an oasis of green.

I'm a reasonable guy; you can keep your car and drive in the majority of the city.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
bklyn50
INTJ
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 96

I think you are underestimating the number of drivers who have to drive around the park. The park is a large green space; the roadways probably take up less than 4% of the total space, and the entire urban space was designed to be used with the park allowing for thru-flow.

You answered my question with a question, whynot_31. If you are going to debate, debate honestly.

The park's internal roads serve as a round-about; it serves to efficiently route traffic to All communities bordering the park.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

You asked me a question about how my plan "would address congestion and ease their transportation problems".

I again address you honestly:

a. It is not my plan.

b. The bill is not designed to address congestion; it is designed to improve the experience of people using the park.

c. Driving a car in NYC will always be miserable; perhaps by making the experience more miserable by banning cars from the park some people will get rid of their cars. This natural process will then reduce the misery of the people who continue to drive. Car drivers are a tough lot, I have no fear of this causing their extinction.

I believe the communities around the park have changed since Olmsted designed the Park, and thus find your reliance on history and your supposition of his intent to be curious.

I try to live in the present, and live in a city of 8 million people who have to deal with cars all day and are seeking an urban oasis. However, I do not feel empowered to speak for anyone but myself.

As a result, I support your desire to have the City Council hear your viewpoint, and we will both see whether your viewpoint represents the majority of persons in NYC ....or whether cars continue to be able to use the park, for some reason other than majority preference.

I do not support your wish that we live in the past, or return to it. There was less democracy is the past. I like the present system, wherein more and more viewpoints are heard.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
bklyn50
INTJ
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 96

Agreed; I will seek support for my view through the City Council. The park, and the area around, it is not the sole preserve of the Park Slope community. The democracy you speak of would include All persons affected.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

As someone who loves a good debate, I hope that you will be a formidable opponent. In that spirit, I give you the following advice:

Under estimating the strength of your opponent is a rookie mistake.

As someone who does not live in Park Slope, I am certain that "opposition to cars in the park" is not limited to that neighborhood.

Honestly.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
bklyn50
INTJ
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 96

The wheel, lever & fulcrum, incline, are all ancient tools devised by mankind. Just because they are ancient doesn't negate their worth.

The communities around the park have changed; the need of the people to traverse the borough hasn't. When all communities are economically equivalent, then EVERYONE will be able to (hopefully) walk to ALL the services and vendors that they need. I continue to do my small part in improving my community. Until the time comes when all resources are distributed evenly, I will attempt to maintain whatever institutions (infrastructure, etc.) that I believe still work for the good of all the people.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
bklyn50
INTJ
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 96

I didn't believe that winning my point would be easy.

I do not intend to watch change that I believe is wrong happen and not voice my disapproval. Even more, I will work to effect the change that I believe is correct.

Brooklyn is not Manhattan.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

For a man who likes history, I find it odd that you fail to mention that nature predates even ancient tools (such as the wheel, lever, fulcrum, and incline).

I believe other things can be inferred from your statements. I.E. You are wise enough to recognize that such inventions do not negate the worth of nature.

However, I am not certain you want me to focus on such positive aspects of your insights.

For example, you have yet to mention the simple fact that the existence of these inventions (especially as manifested in the form of private automobiles) in close proximity to nature actually mitigates everyone's potential welfare. Is this omission of the tradeoff between nature and the auto a simple error on your part, or is it due to space constraints?

I do not want to believe that omission is it willful. I want to believe I am engaging in a discussion with an honest debater.

Like you, I will make sure those who do realize the impact of cars on their ability to enjoy the park are heard. I am confident that we represent not only a cross section of the city's demographics, but also a numerical majority of the city.

I believe the body that will decide on this bill, the City Council, is composed of representatives from all over NYC: Brooklyn, New York, Queens, Staten Island, Bronx.

If the bill is approved by the Council, will you claim that you were not represented?

If the bill is not passed, I will make no such complaint.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
OpossumQueen
rocking it
Joined: Aug '07
Posts: 2,523

I'd love this bill to fly through, but just having police enforce traffic laws (speeding, running lights) in the park circle would be nice. (I'm only familiar with Prospect, not Central Park). I've witnessed several wrecks during the morning commute and have learned to avoid certain crosswalks b/c so many drivers just ignore the red lights without even slowing down.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Idlewild
rocking it
Joined: Sep '05
Posts: 2,795

As an automobile loving & owning, native Brooklynite, I support closing the loops off to traffic. These were meant for recreation, not freeway use. I doubt very much traffic will be affected more than it is with the ban. Accept for emergency vehicles and cars with permits, there's no justification for automobiles to cruise those loops. Open up all the whole blacktop to pedestrian and recreational bicyclists and horse drawn carriages (Central Park). I stress recreational bikes and not the speeding road bike/s. For which I would support a separate track and park all together.

"Clamato! Straight Up! No chasah!

# Posted 2 yrs ago
ringrunner
above average
Joined: Mar '08
Posts: 704

Why is everyone assuming that closing the park to cars 24/7 will cause traffic problems on the roads around the park.

Has there been a test. Why doesn't the city try if for a few days and see what happens.

Maybe it wont be the end of the world.

Don't get me started

# Posted 2 yrs ago
WhyFi
I'm Urban - recognize!
Joined: Jul '05
Posts: 5,268

They've been shutting down traffic in either direction, based upon the time of the day. No, the world hasn't ended.

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
ringrunner
above average
Joined: Mar '08
Posts: 704

I know. But what if they shut down traffic in BOTH directions.

Don't get me started

# Posted 2 yrs ago
mrs whynot
getting it
Joined: Oct '08
Posts: 66

WhyFi said:
I love how some people, native NYCers or not, select a moment in their memories as being the definitive iteration of X or Y or Z. Never you mind that things were in flux before and after - my cherished good ol' days were THE good ol' days... now get off my lawn.

If we are going to select a moment in the past to fixate on, let's pick the original decades of both parks. The loops were designed so that the wealthy could take a leisurely drive with their horses and carriages. They were places to see and be seen.

The loops were not designed to be transportation, but recreation. This design is in direct contrast to the traverses of Central Park that were intended as transportation corridors.

A big advantage to bringing back horses as the only types of motors for vehicles in the park is that no one's asthma will be set off by the pollution. No more jogging/cycling and choking simultaneously.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Idlewild
rocking it
Joined: Sep '05
Posts: 2,795

PETA is trying to get rid of the horse & buggy in Central Park and the whole of NYC as we speak.

"Clamato! Straight Up! No chasah!

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

If PETA gets their way, can we still ride horses without carriages, like we can in Prospect Park now?

I'd hate to be to have to tell the Mrs that horses aren't allowed, and to have to tell Bklyn50 that cars are not allowed.

It would mean that both Olmsted and Robert Moses had died, and we were now able to make decisions on our own.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
dixiecupdrinking
getting it
Joined: Feb '08
Posts: 79

Great idea. Should be passed. Jogging in PP anytime between 5 and 8 PM I never see more than a dozen or so cars using the southbound park drive, yet they relegate all the joggers and cyclists to the inner third of the road. At the very least, should give car traffic only one lane and dedicate the other two to non-motorized traffic.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Slope1980
Slope1980
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 28

Seems like we can solve all of Park Slopes problems in one stroke.

Keep the cars out of the park and get rid of the fucking bike lane. Now the park looks better with not cars and PPW looks better with no bike lane.

The bikers can have the park, as it should be. And that stupid lane will be gone and that will ease congestion. Problems solved, no?

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

Slope1980,
I'm under the impression that the main purpose of the bike lane on PPW was to achieve traffic calming by narrowing the street, and that getting a lane for bikers was a convenient side effect.

When one pursues traffic calming, the goal is to make it safer for pedestrians to cross the street, and force cars to go slower. Sometimes traffic calming is done by creating medians, by installing speed bumps, or adjusting the timing of traffic lights.

In this instance, DOT and CB6 decided to go with a green lane for bikes for the full length of PPW. As a result of some concerns with the initial design, I believe CB6 and DOT are presently pursuing plans to improve the bike lane by installing raised medians, rumble strips, flashy lights etc.

Those opposed to the bike lane (such as yourself) have filed a lawsuit because they believe that CB6 did not do its job and take everyone's view into account before it approved the lane. The court will decide the fate of the bike lane, however, its decision will not be based on a trade between "banning cars in the park, or getting rid of the PPW bike lane". The court will make its decision based on whether the DOT followed a complicated set of regulations known as ULURP.

"Banning Cars in the Central Park and Prospect Park Loops" is a completely different issue, and it is presently being considered by the City Council.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Slope1980
Slope1980
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 28

Why_not31, thank you for your completely condescending take on both issues on which I am already fully aware. I appreciate people whose efforts in snark and wit are fully intended to place themselves above other individuals in the arena that is their own mind. I know the ins and out of both issues and are well aware that the issues have no connection. I am not a part of the lawsuit, nor do I care to be. I was simply posting my off the cuff idea/remark on a message thread on a blog. Your aware that is what this is, right? Your aware that its just a place for ideas, conversation, etc, right?

Slope this is your one warning. No personal attacks. And play nice. See?

Thank you. - Moderators

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

[readers: The personal attack portion of the above post was deleted by a moderator]

Yes, I'm completely aware that this merely a discussion, and that a trade like the one you suggest is not possible, even if it were to be popular.

...there is no need to get upset, and I wasn't even being snarky. I was unaware you had been following the issues closely.

By the way, if CB6 didn't follow ULURP to the letter, I hope the court orders that the bike lane be removed and the director of DOT is fired.

....but let's return to talking about the bill to ban cars from the park.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Boygabriel
M Train Devotee, G Train Appreciator
Joined: Nov '05
Posts: 4,431

I'm dying for a poll to be done to see what % of New Yorkers, Manhattanites & Brooklynianers do or don't want cars in Central & Prospect Parks.

Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

Me too.

And regardless of the outcome of the poll, I hope that the poll is done so well that the politicians feel obligated to abide by the people's wishes.

In the event that the politicians decide to vote against the wishes of the people, well done polls tend to force politicians to explain WHY.

...such polls are a vital part of "good government".

In this instance, I'm pretty sure that the public would vote for cars being banned from the park, but the outcome is too early to call.

The pro-ban people (such as Transportation Alternatives) and the anti-ban people (such as AAA) are just getting started in their efforts to influence those who have yet to form concrete opinions on the issue of bikes in the park.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Piano
above average
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 402

I'd wager that the people who drive through Prospect Park never use the park in any other manner. That this is the way it was, only shows that it was wrong before. And since the park was built before automobiles were around, we know that Prospect Park was never meant to have cars driving through it. But Thank God for new blood to this city.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
WhyFi
I'm Urban - recognize!
Joined: Jul '05
Posts: 5,268

Wow, if that's viewed as a condescending post, someone's got some thin damn skin.

The Internets - they're not for everyone.

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Slope1980
Slope1980
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 28

Wow, if that's viewed as a condescending post, someone's got some thin damn skin.

The Internets - they're not for everyone.

Again, wtf is wrong with you people. Were you picked on in middle and high school so now you have to write quirky little posts under assumed names in order to reclaim your dignity?
And moderators, why the delete? In discourse, sometimes its appropriate to tell someone to F off. We aren't arguing before the justices here!!! And I thought Why_not's passive/aggressive: "[readers: The personal attack portion of the above post was deleted by a moderator]" was bad enough but really WhyFi? I agree, them Internets, they ain't for everyone. Did you type that, cackle to yourself and then post it on your facebook and mass email it to all your "friends" sitting at computers.
I'm sure the moderators will kick me off now but if you do, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I just happen to be overt in my distaste. Punishing me but allowing people to make snide comments is a double standard.

But....back to my original point I was making.....my hope is that a decision on either issue will be made soon. And that decision will spur the body making the second decision to act accordingly. For instance, it would be great if the decision was made to ban cars from the Park (having just returned from running around it, it would have been much nicer with out the cars). Following that decision, possibly a decision on the bike lane could be handed down because those people are aware that with cars banned from the park, bike riders have complete reign and do not need a bike lane across PPW.

Full disclosure - I own a truck but also own a bike. I love to run outdoors in the park and think cars don't belong there. I hate bike riders and their whining, sniveling demeanor towards autos and their belief that the rules of the road do not apply to them and I cheered when people involved in critical mass got arrested or clothes lined.)

# Posted 2 yrs ago
WhyFi
I'm Urban - recognize!
Joined: Jul '05
Posts: 5,268

Slope1980 said:Did you type that, cackle to yourself and then post it on your facebook and mass email it to all your "friends" sitting at computers.

No, I didn't find it to be particularly clever, but I did cackle when your hair trigger went off again. You should go back to the park and run a little more, 'cause you're doin' it wrong if you can run and still be in such a pissy mood over nothing, over imaginary slight. I just finished up about 30 miles on the bike, and I'm peachy. Finished up before the cars were let back in, which was nice, but some cops were parked in the same spot the whole time - took up both lanes, the bastards.

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

I continue to believe that the legislative and judicial branches of our government should remain separate, despite 1980s argument to the contrary.

The judge assigned to the PPW lawsuit should focus only on whether the applicable regulations in ULURP were followed.

On the legislative side, yes, I hope the City Council makes a quick decision on this bill. People are very interested in anything having to do with the parks, especially with the warm weather arriving.

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
dixiecupdrinking
getting it
Joined: Feb '08
Posts: 79

Went for a run in the park this evening. At around 6 PM, between GAP and Parkside Avenue (the section open to southbound traffic) I counted 24 cars. (Might be off by one or two, I got a little distracted.) I'd say this was over roughly 20 minutes.

Would adding 75 cars an hour to surrounding streets at the height of rush hour be disastrous? I'm no traffic engineer, but I doubt it. It would, however, probably add several minutes to the commutes of those driving through the park, who, as someone else pointed out, are probably very unlikely to be those who live near and use the park. Having the park open to traffic seems a complete and total win for southern Brooklynites and an unmitigated loss for locals.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
ringrunner
above average
Joined: Mar '08
Posts: 704

dixiecupdrinking; You hit the nail on the head. I don't think there will be a traffic problem. Just a few cars getting delayed by a few minutes. Maybe.

Don't get me started

# Posted 2 yrs ago
Piano
above average
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 402

Slope1980 <a href="http://brooklynian.com/forum/park-slope/bill-to-ban-cars-in-central-prospect-

The bikers can have the park, as it should be. And that stupid lane will be gone and that will ease congestion. Problems solved, no?

No. We seem to have to go over this a lot, but if we have to educate one person at a time so be it. A bicycle is a vital mode of transportation for a lot of people in this city, it's not just a mode of recreation. Therefore they need access to the roads that actually go places, not just go in circles. It's like telling someone they don't need to get to work, they can just ride around the park all day.

If you're on 9th street and need to get to Grand Army plaza by bicycle, you can't get there by riding in the opposite direction. It's just common sense.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
8thandPrez
Stroller Person
Joined: Sep '05
Posts: 1,274

I'm totally, 100% in favor of this bill to ban cars in the parks. Now, I'm saying this as both an avid park user as well as someone who drives through the park twice a week to get my kids to school.

I will not debate those who argue that having the park roads open eases congestion on the streets surrounding the park. I think it definitely pulls traffic off the surrounding streets. It's definitely a convenient route if you have to get around to the other side of the park in a hurry.

The reasons why I support a ban are the following:

1. 99% of the drivers that use the park road disobey the posted speed limit. Most of them treat the road as if it was a freeway and travel *at least* 40mph or greater speed. They also tend to ignore the stoplights in the park or treat them like stop signs.

2. Cars and bike/jogging lanes are just not compatible with one another. The exhaust is not healthy and has no business being inside a park, especially right next to people that are exercising. In my mind, the needs of the people that are actually USING the park for recreational purposes ALWAYS trump those that are using it as a convenient short cut in their cars.

3. Driving in NYC *should* be congested and difficult. There are too many people living too densely to make accommodating everyone's car realistic or desirable. If you want to drive in NYC, you'd better be prepared for traffic and slow going. That, or take public transit.

Now, if the ban passes, part of me will be sad to see my quick little shortcut around the park go away. But I'll be much, much more happy to know that the park is a safe, quiet and clean place to enjoy.

# Posted 2 yrs ago
whynot_31
Former Lurker
Joined: Mar '06
Posts: 16,076

It seems Bloomberg and Marty are both opposed to banning cars from the park.

http://prospectheights.patch.com/articles/borough-prez-rejects-prospect-park-car-ban-plan

For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.

# Posted 2 yrs ago