DOT to Propose 2 way protected bike path on PPW

vidro3

From streetsblog.com and the Brooklyn Paper.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/16/dot-to-present-two-way-protected-bike-path-for-ppw-tonight/

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/32/15/32_15_bm_bike_lane_web.html

Community meeting tonight at John Jay High School on Seventh Avenue between 4th and 5th Street at 6:30.

homeowner

Why is a bike path necessary on PPW when there is a parallel path inside the park that one can use to get from the circle to 15th St? This just seems redundant. Any why two way on a one-way street?

vidro3

"Supporters say the narrowing of Prospect Park West, which has turned into a racetrack for speedy drivers, is an alternative to the recent calls to turn the road into a two-way street to calm traffic.
Mac Support Store

Biking advocates celebrated the city’s plan for the new lane.

“It’s a pretty good package,” said Transportation Alternatives spokesman 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.”

booklaw

Of course, that assumes that it is safer for pedestrians to cross through a bike lane than through a lane of automobile traffic.

I'm not confident that that is correct.

vidro3

well there will be less bikes than cars, moving at a slower speed, with a smaller mass. so yea, it's safer.

8thandprez

Great idea. PPW is waaaaaay too wide and cars go waaaaaay too fast. Can't wait for the usual Slope wackos (9th St residents, I'm looking at you) to crow about lost double-parking opportunities.

brooklyngigcenter

I don't understand why the speeding issue can't be resolved by better control of the streetlight timings. It doesn't seem like they've fully exhausted the possibilities with this cost-effective solution.

A two-way bike path is still a great idea, regardless.

meredithb

I like protected bike paths, but really, this bike path will go to a non-protcted bike path or even no bike path, so what's the point? A little safe haven for bicyclists (who would most likely rather use the park) or the continued creation of more and more traffic in NYC (that's right, the longer cars are in your neighborhood, making noise, spewing exhaust into your air, the more traffic there is). I do not think that any of this "traffic calming" has actually reduced the amount of cars on the street.

swngnmonk

BrooklynGigCenter wrote: I don't understand why the speeding issue can't be resolved by better control of the streetlight timings. It doesn't seem like they've fully exhausted the possibilities with this cost-effective solution.

If you read the article, the DOT tried that back in 2007, re-timing the lights. It didn't work.

brooklyngigcenter

I drove down PPW tonight...the lights are timed so that if you drive at about 30mph, you'll just about get a green as you approach each one. That's if you are leading the pack. If you are three or five blocks behind the leading pack, you can absolutely get up to 60, no problem. That's where the problem lies, and can be fixed. The lights should not be changing in rapid succession - they should be forcing a full 30-second stop every five blocks or thereabouts, so that the trailing cars can't get up to those high speeds.

If they narrow PPW to two lanes, there are going to be problems when a car double-parks on the street...now it's down to one lane, and that's dangerous as well.

I'm all in favor of bike lanes, but considering that there's a park drive that runs parallel to PPW, and that the sidewalk is very wide, I don't see any reason to over-engineer a solution and spend millions of dollars on a two-way bike path.

whynot_31

think of it as getting the bikes off of the sidewalk.

The old people and little people can walk without fear of bikes.

tybur6

The interesting thing about the Park Drive inside the park... is that it's officially one-way, only counter clockwise. And during rush hours when the road is open to cars, you pretty much have to obey that rule because the bikes/runner/rollerblades are filling the two tiny lanes on the inside.

I support the PPW bike lane -- though hopefully (as MeredithB mentioned) it's just part of a greater system of protected bike lanes... i.e., it connects to more (say Flatbush so you can get to the Brooklyn Bridge relatively safely!!)

If they don't ban cars altogether, the Park Drive should be a single car lane and TWO-way not car paths.... And when it's closed. It should be TWO-way. This one way traffic is silly.

vidro3

I would gladly trade the 2 way ppw bike path for a car free prospect park.

regarding the light timings, physical engineering would have a greater effect on speed than light timings ever could. you would either need to have very short cycles or add in more lights and put them on an alternating pattern.

as far as double parking goes - you're not allowed to do that anyway.

ringrunner

BrooklynGigCenter wrote:

I'm all in favor of bike lanes, but considering that there's a park drive that runs parallel to PPW, and that the sidewalk is very wide, I don't see any reason to over-engineer a solution and spend millions of dollars on a two-way bike path.

The sidewalks are not for bikes

and

I don't think the bike path will cost that much, it is just paint.

8thandprez

MeredithB wrote: I like protected bike paths, but really, this bike path will go to a non-protcted bike path or even no bike path, so what's the point? A little safe haven for bicyclists (who would most likely rather use the park) or the continued creation of more and more traffic in NYC (that's right, the longer cars are in your neighborhood, making noise, spewing exhaust into your air, the more traffic there is). I do not think that any of this "traffic calming" has actually reduced the amount of cars on the street.

Meredith, I don't think the goal is to reduce the # of cars, except maybe as a long long long term goal. The goal is to enhance the desirability and safety of bike transport and create a viable network of bike lanes. Just bc it doesn't tie in with a perfect network of protected bike lanes doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile... it's so unrealistic to expect a fully functioning bike network to instantly materialize. Plus, PPW DOES join a well-developed bike network at Grand Army and will tie into the bike lanes in the park as well.

Your comments re: traffic are, to be frank, ridiculous. Slowing traffic does not result in more traffic, or more exhaust and noise. Slowing traffic is just that: slowing traffic. I think it's safe to assume that New York has an endless supply of traffic to fill any available road space created. If PPW was 20 lanes, it would be full. If it was one lane, it would be full. If it had speed bumps every 50 feet, it would be full. A bike lane won't change that, but it CAN make PPW more appealing for pedestrians, residents, and bicyclists (and maybe even drivers).

vidro3

results of the community meeting, from streetsblog:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/17/two-way-protected-bike-path-sails-through-cb6-committee/#more-5914

meredithb

8thandPrez wrote: Slowing traffic does not result in more traffic, or more exhaust and noise. Slowing traffic is just that: slowing traffic. I think it's safe to assume that New York has an endless supply of traffic to fill any available road space created. If PPW was 20 lanes, it would be full. If it was one lane, it would be full. If it had speed bumps every 50 feet, it would be full. A bike lane won't change that, but it CAN make PPW more appealing for pedestrians, residents, and bicyclists (and maybe even drivers).

Let me explain it to you as you do not seem to get it: Slower cars means more exhaust, IMO. If you have 100 cars sitting with their motors on it creates more exhast then if those 100 cars were to be driving through that same hood. And it will create more noise, IMO (horns honking for double-parked cars, engine sound, etc.)

I do not think it is safe to assume anything. And I think your assumption is wrong. PPW is not filled with cars all the time! It is hardly ever filled with cars. So no, 20 lanes is not filled and not even three lanes is filled. The last time I checked, PPW looked nothing like Aveneue of the Americas at 52nd street at rush hour (or any hour).

PPW is already appealing enough. Traffic calming can be achieved through traffic light management and enforcement of laws. These bike lanes are nothing more than a waste of money, IMO, as they are not used as much as they shoudl be, they are not maintained and they are not enforced (by the police).

Your comments re: reality, to be frank, ridiculous, IMO.

meredithb

Since all these bike lanes are being built, maybe ticketing bicyclist who don't use them, will improve their usage.

ringrunner

MeredithB wrote:
I do not think it is safe to assume anything. And I think your assumption is wrong. PPW is not filled with cars all the time! It is hardly ever filled with cars. So no, 20 lanes is not filled and not even three lanes is filled. The last time I checked, PPW looked nothing like Aveneue of the Americas at 52nd street at rush hour (or any hour). .

That is why 3 lanes is to much. Since they are not filled. It is called "excess capacity". It leads to cars changing lanes too much and racing from red light to red light. That is why less lanes are safer. It will lead to saver driving. Safer for drivers and pedestrians. The bike lane is just a bonus

meredithb

ringrunner wrote: That is why 3 lanes is to much. Since they are not filled. It is called "excess capacity". It leads to cars changing lanes too much and racing from red light to red light. That is why less lanes are safer. It will lead to saver driving. Safer for drivers and pedestrians. The bike lane is just a bonus

Do you actually live in NYC? I'm starting to wonder.

Have you ever heard of double-parking?

It happens, frequently, and it's allowed.

And please do not think that the police will enforce double-parking rules.

Then I will know you have really lost touch.

ringrunner

MeredithB wrote: [quote=ringrunner]That is why 3 lanes is to much. Since they are not filled. It is called "excess capacity". It leads to cars changing lanes too much and racing from red light to red light. That is why less lanes are safer. It will lead to saver driving. Safer for drivers and pedestrians. The bike lane is just a bonus

Do you actually live in NYC? I'm starting to wonder.

Have you ever heard of double-parking?

It happens, frequently, and it's allowed.

And please do not think that the police will enforce double-parking rules.

Then I will know you have really lost touch.

I live on 8th Ave. A 2 lane street with a bus. Cars do double park and they do get tickets. I would rather have some congestion than the race track that is PPW.

Or would you rather live on Ocean Pky?

meredithb

Hve you heard of street lights? Guess what? They can set them however they want! Thus one can turn green and the next one turn red which will slow traffic without squeezing it.

With PPW 2 lanes it will actually be one lane most of the time.

A bit ridiculous IMO.

Maybe they should open the park to cars all the time to relieve some of the traffic that is bound to ensue?

And no, cars do not get double-parking tickets as much as they should and with this recession and NYC's budget deficit why spend money on crap like bike lanes when all it takes is tweeking what is already in place?

Do you actually believe the police can be everywhere all the time and that they actually do their job 24/7?

Please.

ringrunner

MeredithB wrote: Hve you heard of street lights? Guess what? They can set them however they want! Thus one can turn green and the next one turn red which will slow traffic without squeezing it.

With PPW 2 lanes it will actually be one lane most of the time.

A bit ridiculous IMO.

Maybe they should open the park to cars all the time to relieve some of the traffic that is bound to ensue?

And no, cars do not get double-parking tickets as much as they should and with this recession and NYC's budget deficit why spend money on crap like bike lanes when all it takes is tweeking what is already in place?

Do you actually believe the police can be everywhere all the time and that they actually do their job 24/7?

Please.

With an extra wide street, drivers race from red light to red light. They use all the extra with of the road to fill the gaps so they can be at the front when the light turn green.

and

I don't expect the cops to be everywhere at all times. But, I know that I can not double park for a minute on 7th Ave because Traffic Enforcement will issue a ticket real fast. People double park on PPW because they think it is OK because the road is so wide. There is not so much double parking in 1st Street.

and

This is not gonna cost a lot of money. It is just a tweeking. It is just a lot of paint and a few signs.

meredithb

ringrunner wrote: With an extra wide street, drivers race from red light to red light. They use all the extra with of the road to fill the gaps so they can be at the front when the light turn green.

So you didn't read the post about the lights, ok, well whatever. Believe what you want and that there is only one way to fix it.

ringrunner wrote: People double park on PPW because they think it is OK because the road is so wide.

No, they double-park because a) there is a big ass park that they want to unload people, and things into or vice versa and b) there is a school or two and they want to pick up their kids.

ringrunner wrote: There is not so much double parking in 1st Street.

That is because there is no reason to double-park on 1st st.

Duh.

ringrunner wrote: This is not gonna cost a lot of money. It is just a tweeking. It is just a lot of paint and a few signs.

No, this is a protected bike lane. They must install things and repaint all the current lanes. That costs money. Union money.

vidro3

MeredithB wrote:

Let me explain it to you as you do not seem to get it: Slower cars means more exhaust, IMO. If you have 100 cars sitting with their motors on it creates more exhast then if those 100 cars were to be driving through that same hood. And it will create more noise, IMO (horns honking for double-parked cars, engine sound, etc.)

I do not think it is safe to assume anything. And I think your assumption is wrong. PPW is not filled with cars all the time! It is hardly ever filled with cars. So no, 20 lanes is not filled and not even three lanes is filled. The last time I checked, PPW looked nothing like Aveneue of the Americas at 52nd street at rush hour (or any hour).

PPW is already appealing enough. Traffic calming can be achieved through traffic light management and enforcement of laws. These bike lanes are nothing more than a waste of money, IMO, as they are not used as much as they shoudl be, they are not maintained and they are not enforced (by the police).

Your comments re: reality, to be frank, ridiculous, IMO.

Let me explain it to you: Though each car might release a minuscule amount more exhaust because it is in the area longer the overall result will be a decrease in pollution because there will be fewer cars.
Yes there will.
You can't take the 1,100 cars per hour present with 3 lanes and assume they will all try to fit into two lanes. That has not happened in the history of traffic engineering and will not happen here.

The physical dimensions of a roadway have more impact on speeds than traffic light timing does.

The plan sets aside about 2 spaces per intersection as dedicated loading/unloading zones to help mitigate double parking, which should not be happening anyway.

vidro3

missed this nice little nugget in there too:

In addition to the Prospect Park West changes, DOT announced that it is planning to permanently close the 3rd Street park entrance to vehicles beginning next month. In conjunction with the closure, DOT will stripe new bike and pedestrian lanes into and out of the park at 3rd Street, with the intent of reducing conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians. DOT will also permanently close the vehicle exit at 16th Street and Prospect Park South, so that all cars entering the park at Grand Army Plaza will exit at Park Circle. The park's West Drive is open just two hours each weekday, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

whynot_31

I'll breathe exhaust. I'm tired of almost getting hit by idiots

vidro3

vidro3 wrote:
The plan sets aside about 2 spaces per intersection as dedicated loading/unloading zones to help mitigate double parking, which should not be happening anyway.

I might have made this up. Thought I read it.

ringrunner

MeredithB wrote: [quote=ringrunner]With an extra wide street, drivers race from red light to red light. They use all the extra with of the road to fill the gaps so they can be at the front when the light turn green.

So you didn't read the post about the lights, ok, well whatever. Believe what you want and that there is only one way to fix it.

Drivers treat each green light like a green at a funny car race; going at max speed to the next red.

ringrunner wrote: People double park on PPW because they think it is OK because the road is so wide.

No, they double-park because a) there is a big ass park that they want to unload people, and things into or vice versa and b) there is a school or two and they want to pick up their kids.

Double parking is not so much an problem on 5th ave along Central Park. People know they will get a ticket

ringrunner wrote: There is not so much double parking in 1st Street.

That is because there is no reason to double-park on 1st st.

Yes there is. But since it is narrow dirvers choose to find a spot or double park where they think it is ok

ringrunner wrote: This is not gonna cost a lot of money. It is just a tweeking. It is just a lot of paint and a few signs.

No, this is a protected bike lane. They must install things and repaint all the current lanes. That costs money. Union money.

I was at the meeting at John Jay last week, they are not installing anything, only paint. These Union employees are working anyway. They need to paint something.

You can beleive what you want.

meredithb

vidro3 wrote: You can't take the 1,100 cars per hour present with 3 lanes and assume they will all try to fit into two lanes. That has not happened in the history of traffic engineering and will not happen here.

The physical dimensions of a roadway have more impact on speeds than traffic light timing does.

The plan sets aside about 2 spaces per intersection as dedicated loading/unloading zones to help mitigate double parking, which should not be happening anyway.

So you are saying that PPW is so crowded with traffic that there will be less traffic. IMO it is not. It does not get bumper to bumper EVER! Buit now it will beacause the same amount of traffic will be in less space (because there is space to give) except that traffic will be angrier when they are stuck behind a coccer mom unloading or a truck or whatever.

Please show proof about your dimensions vs lights statement. Or is that just your opinion?

IMO double parking will happen, like it or not, and those loading spaces will become parking spaces, there will be justy as much traffic, more noise and more exhaust. This is New York City, not Portland Oregon.

vidro3

MeredithB wrote: [quote=vidro3]You can't take the 1,100 cars per hour present with 3 lanes and assume they will all try to fit into two lanes. That has not happened in the history of traffic engineering and will not happen here.

The physical dimensions of a roadway have more impact on speeds than traffic light timing does.

The plan sets aside about 2 spaces per intersection as dedicated loading/unloading zones to help mitigate double parking, which should not be happening anyway.

So you are saying that PPW is so crowded with traffic that there will be less traffic. IMO it is not. It does not get bumper to bumper EVER! Buit now it will beacause the same amount of traffic will be in less space (because there is space to give) except that traffic will be angrier when they are stuck behind a coccer mom unloading or a truck or whatever.

Please show proof about your dimensions vs lights statement. Or is that just your opinion?

IMO double parking will happen, like it or not, and those loading spaces will become parking spaces, there will be justy as much traffic, more noise and more exhaust. This is New York City, not Portland Oregon.

You completely missed the point of my statement.
The same amount of traffic will not be squeezed into a smaller space.
Fewer cars will be squeezed into a small space.

Because when something like this happens drivers change their behavior.
My source: Every construction project ever.