DOT to Propose 2 way protected bike path on PPW
Comments
-
ringrunner wrote: 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.
So that four foot buffer on the diagram on the streetblog site is just paint? Hmmm, it looks raised to me? Like they are actually going to build something.
They can paint the old bikes lanes, most of them are non-existent, especially in high traffic areas NOT in Park Slope.
I'm getting a lot of NIMBY from this thread. -
I think most of us are YIMBY. you seem to be the only one against the idea.
-
vidro3 wrote: I think most of us are YIMBY. you seem to be the only one against the idea.
Yes. PPW is one block from me. I probably cross on foot 5 times a week and drive on it as often.
I don't think this is a huge sacrifice -
vidro3 wrote: I think most of us are YIMBY. you seem to be the only one against the idea.
And what thy sow thy shall reap. Good and bad. -
Let's keep everyone who is not from Park Slope out of Park Slope or make them ride a bicycle there or take mass transit, even if they aren't going to Park Slope, if they are going through Park Slope, let's make it as horrible an experince as possible for them so they never do it again!
Good idea! -
As shocked as I am to say this I actually agree with Meridith B that this is a bad idea. Look at what happened on DeKalb. They created a protected bike lane which 1) reduced on street parking 2) turned a bus route that was 2 lanes into effectively a one lane street and 3) now causes greater hazzards for pedestrians as drivers are constantly trying to jockey for position to get around buses at intersections.
People who have to drive will continue to have to drive. My SO was a commercial banker in a past life. This job involved going to see multiple clients every day. So one day could result in stops in Bay Ridge, Gowanus, Prospect Heights, Williamsburg, and Bed-Stuy. There was no way to perform this job taking public transportation. Now the SO runs a bar/restaurant. Days are filled with trips to suppliers. Either the folks from the business drive, or they hire someone to bring the goods to them, but either way the trip isn't going to be made on public transportation.
Assuming that jacking up city streets will result in frustrating people to the point where they leave their cars home, just doesn't take into account the reality of life in the city. Most people don't drive for commutation, just ask anyone who's trying to find an parking space on ASS days. Cars get parked in the city and they sit. Drivers within the city drive because they have to, not because they want to. The exceptions are those folks who get free parking (cops, firefighters, doctors, judges, etc). The simple way to reduce their driving? Take away their parking priviledges. -
MeredithB wrote: [quote=vidro3]I think most of us are YIMBY. you seem to be the only one against the idea.
And what thy sow thy shall reap. Good and bad.
It is paint! If you are correct and all the traffic engineers are wrong, they they can undo it. -
My point was not that PPW is jammed bumper-to-bumper. I, surprise surprise, have lived w/in two blocks of PPW for the past 6 years, so I'm familiar enough with how it operates. My point was, reduction of traffic lanes will not necessarily lead to jamming and stopped cars. Making PPW less of a freeway for drivers will change the nature of the road in drivers' minds... some may try to find an alternate (ie faster) route while others may choose to walk or bike. Consequence: less traffic (ie, total throughput) on the road.
As for double-parking, the solution is not to design streets to accommodate it. Makes a lot more sense to improve our streets and then educate/punish people into obeying traffic laws rather than doing nothing.
It's about being proactive and trying new ideas. I'd personally be in favor of a fully protected lane, separated from PPW with landscaping. Yes, it would cost money (the horror, spending money on our public spaces) but it's the type of investment we should be willing to make. -
Sunday 90 degrees out, 6PM. Driving down PPW. At least a dozen double parked cars, most waiting for people to comeo out of the park thus reducing the usuable lanes to two. If there were only two lanes this would be one lane. And since PPW is a used for buses, quite possibly no lanes.
Then from Bartel Pritchard SQ to the Coney Island traffic circle it took 15 minutes. I'm so sure all those people living on PPSW loved all that traffic, especially the guy three cars behind cranking his car stereo so loud I thought there was a concert in the park.
Real good. But this is what you have to look forward to. -
the double cars won't affect me in the protected bike lane.
If double parking is a problem then people should stop doing it. -
vidro3 wrote: I think most of us are YIMBY. you seem to be the only one against the idea.
No she's not. -
I'm against it.
-
MeredithB wrote: Sunday 90 degrees out, 6PM. Driving down PPW. At least a dozen double parked cars, most waiting for people to comeo out of the park thus reducing the usuable lanes to two. If there were only two lanes this would be one lane. And since PPW is a used for buses, quite possibly no lanes.
The proposal calls for extra no parking zones for drop off/pick up.
Then from Bartel Pritchard SQ to the Coney Island traffic circle it took 15 minutes. I'm so sure all those people living on PPSW loved all that traffic, especially the guy three cars behind cranking his car stereo so loud I thought there was a concert in the park.
Real good. But this is what you have to look forward to.
and
Double parking should not be tolerated. We should not plan around illegal activity. -
Should we plan for greater enforcement of existing regulations (whether double parking or red light-running) by police officers? It will never happen on any sustained basis.
To make policy based on incorrect assumptions is much worse than "planning around illegal activity". -
...enforcement of traffic and parking laws always increases when there is a budget shortfall.
-
booklaw wrote: Should we plan for greater enforcement of existing regulations (whether double parking or red light-running) by police officers? It will never happen on any sustained basis.
To make policy based on the excesses of a few people to the detriment of everyone else is much worse.
To make policy based on incorrect assumptions is much worse than "planning around illegal activity".
Because 100 cars double park no improvements can be made for anyone else?
If every project were so easily defeated nothing would ever get done. -
If there is a protected bike lane (which I, as a bicyclist, would prefer over an unprotected bike lane), then there is only one lane left for automobile traffic (again, given the double parking, which as a practical matter ain't gonna go away). As a driver, I find that intolerable, and I agree with the other posters that the residents of PPW will not enjoy the resulting carbon monoxide and frequent honking.
If there is an unprotected bike lane, then riders will die as frustrated drivers completely ignore the painted stripes. -
booklaw wrote: If there is a protected bike lane (which I, as a bicyclist, would prefer over an unprotected bike lane), then there is only one lane left for automobile traffic (again, given the double parking, which as a practical matter ain't gonna go away). As a driver, I find that intolerable, and I agree with the other posters that the residents of PPW will not enjoy the resulting carbon monoxide and frequent honking.
yes, but it is a logical fallacy to blame the bike riders for motorists bad behavior. if double parking is a problem it is no one's fault besides the double parkers'.
If there is an unprotected bike lane, then riders will die as frustrated drivers completely ignore the painted stripes. -
I'm not blaming the bike riders for anything.
-
perhaps blaming isnt the right word. and i shouldnt have directed it at you specifically. but generally speaking, the argument against the bike lane is that the creation of the bike lane will result in the double parking/one lane problem on ppw, which is not accurate.
-
whynot_31 wrote: ...enforcement of traffic and parking laws always increases when there is a budget shortfall.
Don't count on it. You can't teach an old pig new tricks. -
vidro3 wrote: perhaps blaming isnt the right word. and i shouldnt have directed it at you specifically. but generally speaking, the argument against the bike lane is that the creation of the bike lane will result in the double parking/one lane problem on ppw, which is not accurate.
Well, let's see. Now we have three lanes one for double parking, the other for buses and cars which is two lanes. So if there are only two lanes, one for double parking, that doers leave only one lane for buses and cars.
Makes sense to me.
Yes, that one lane is not specifically for double-parking, but let's be real, double-parking is not going away. Even wit the loading areas or whatever. And the police can not be counted on to enforce teh double-parking laws, especially on Sundays when the park is used the most, double-parking is the worst, and the police are practically invisible.
Now, maybe if that 20 foot wide sidewalk were reduced some... -
MeredithB wrote: [quote=vidro3]perhaps blaming isnt the right word. and i shouldnt have directed it at you specifically. but generally speaking, the argument against the bike lane is that the creation of the bike lane will result in the double parking/one lane problem on ppw, which is not accurate.
Well, let's see. Now we have three lanes one for double parking, the other for buses and cars which is two lanes. So if there are only two lanes, one for double parking, that doers leave only one lane for buses and cars.
Makes sense to me.
Yes, that one lane is not specifically for double-parking, but let's be real, double-parking is not going away. Even wit the loading areas or whatever. And the police can not be counted on to enforce teh double-parking laws, especially on Sundays when the park is used the most, double-parking is the worst, and the police are practically invisible.
Now, maybe if that 20 foot wide sidewalk were reduced some...
Another way to look at it is that there are 5 lanes. 2 for legal parking and 3 for traffic. Selfish motorists have grown accustomed to taking a third lane for parking despite its illegality. Vidros' point is that reserving a lane for illegal double parking is not a valid argument against a bike lane. 2 lanes for parking and 2 for driving should be enough for the cars. Leave one lane for bikes. -
I say get rid of the parking lane by the park. It's not used by people who go to the park that often.
To deny that double-parking is not going happen and not figure it into any plan is living in a fantasy world (or maybe L.A., same thing?).
Two lanes for cars and buses is ridiculous. Especially with that school and all the double-parked moms picking up their kids. Now try and get the police to do something about that.
Yeah, right.
Why not try the traffic light thing?
Or is the objective to get rid of cars, not just slow them down? -
MeredithB wrote: I say get rid of the parking lane by the park. It's not used by people who go to the park that often.
I'd put parking meters along the park for whole length: GAP all the way to 12th St.
That way people who wanted to get a space near the park to unload their stuff (bikes, coolers, toddlers, etc) would have chance at getting one.
...it sucks that the spaces are taken by people who live nearby, when so much more utility could be gained. (that's right, I referenced Kant) -
MeredithB wrote: I say get rid of the parking lane by the park. It's not used by people who go to the park that often.
That seems fair. One lane for bikes, one lane for legal parking, and 3 lanes for car traffic, one lane of which will often be blocked by illegal double-parkers. I doubt you'll find much support for this from the local drivers though, since it would mean losing a lane of free legal parking. The main point here is that it's wrong to act like the bikers are trying to take one of 3 lanes currently allocated for cars when in fact it's one of 5 lanes. If the drivers can't give up their double parking, then it should be at the expense of a lane of free legal parking, not at the expense of a bike lane.
To deny that double-parking is not going happen and not figure it into any plan is living in a fantasy world (or maybe L.A., same thing?).
Two lanes for cars and buses is ridiculous. Especially with that school and all the double-parked moms picking up their kids. Now try and get the police to do something about that.
Yeah, right.
Why not try the traffic light thing?
Or is the objective to get rid of cars, not just slow them down?
Whynot- MeredithB's idea, combined with actual enforcement of double-parking regulations would definitely generate more revenue than a lane of metered parking. -
Carnivore wrote:
I wouldn't do it for the revenue. (Parking meters often cost more to maintain than they genereate. Securing $ on a daily basis is expensive, even with muni meters)
Whynot- MeredithB's idea, combined with actual enforcement of double-parking regulations would definitely generate more revenue than a lane of metered parking.
I'd do it so people who live in area would park elsewhere, thus freeing up the spots for Park goers -
whynot_31 wrote: [quote=Carnivore]
I wouldn't do it for the revenue. (Parking meters often cost more to maintain than they genereate. Securing $ on a daily basis is expensive, even with muni meters)
Whynot- MeredithB's idea, combined with actual enforcement of double-parking regulations would definitely generate more revenue than a lane of metered parking.
I'd do it so people who live in area would park elsewhere, thus freeing up the spots for Park goers
That's a pretty good idea. I think it would get a lot more support from the community if the meters were only in effect on weekends during the day. That way ppl can still park there over night for asp or whatever, and during the busiest times there will be turnover of the parking spaces.
next we tackle all the police parking their private cars on PPSW last weekend. -
Drivers will not just "give up" double parking. It will take constant enforcement, and although that would make revenue, try telling that to a PO. PO's don't care about revenue, they care about their pension, that's it.
We can not deny what is the nature of this city. Double-parking is unfortunately, the natural way. And if the police can't stop double-parkers in front of Wing Wagon, whose to think they will stop them near Prospect Park?
Maybe just getting rid of the bus that goes down PPW is not a bad idea either. People do park in bus lanes making the bus stop in a lane of traffic. No buses, no buses stopping and more parking spaces.
Plus that bus has like 3 people on it at one time max. -
MeredithB wrote: Drivers will not just "give up" double parking. It will take constant enforcement, and although that would make revenue, try telling that to a PO. PO's don't care about revenue, they care about their pension, that's it.
Getting rid of the bus is a terrible idea. Access to the park that doesn't require a car should be maximized.
We can not deny what is the nature of this city. Double-parking is unfortunately, the natural way. And if the police can't stop double-parkers in front of Wing Wagon, whose to think they will stop them near Prospect Park?
Maybe just getting rid of the bus that goes down PPW is not a bad idea either. People do park in bus lanes making the bus stop in a lane of traffic. No buses, no buses stopping and more parking spaces.
Plus that bus has like 3 people on it at one time max.
With the reality that drivers won't "give up" double parking, what I am saying is that this double parking should come at the expense of lanes otherwise allocated to cars (the left legal parking lane), not at the expense of a bike lane. Drivers can't have it all. Don't pout and say a bike lane will cause too much traffic when the bike lane isn't the problem, the fact that 3 out of the 5 lanes are being used for stationary cars is the problem.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds