NYCDOT proposes changes to 4th, 6th, 7th avenues
Comments
-
8thandPrez wrote: If the parking lanes were given over to truck loading, this buffer would be eliminated.
How? There'd be trucks parked there instead of cars. What? Trucks aren't buffers?8thandPrez wrote: 7th Ave actually has a great street life
I'm not saying 7th avenue, but perhaps Flatbush, Atlantic, 4th ave, etc.8thandPrez wrote: I just don't think it's such a bad idea to eliminate ONE parking lane to widen the median for pedestrians.
Pedestrians don't want to be walking up and down a median.
Fourth ave has 4 lanes now. 3 for traffic one for parking although really one is for double parking. If you cut this down to one for parking and 2 for traffic you're really just turning it into another Flatbush Ave and I can attest that the traffic on Flatbush ave is horrible especially during rush hour. If you really want to keep the cars out of Park slope you will give them a viable alternative to trying to cut through the slope. -
Oiseau wrote: Fourth ave has 4 lanes now. 3 for traffic one for parking although really one is for double parking.
There are 3 traffic lanes and one parking lane in each direction. Just clarifying. -
Carnivore wrote: [quote=Oiseau]Fourth ave has 4 lanes now. 3 for traffic one for parking although really one is for double parking.
There are 3 traffic lanes and one parking lane in each direction. Just clarifying.
yeah many times one of those three lanes has a dfouble parked car/truck in it which is expected. -
Oiseau, what I'm saying is that there is so much retail along these streets that you would need many loading lanes for trucks. This would eliminate parking spaces and introduce truck in/outs right next to the sidewalk. Idon't think that's a good thing. Also, I think it would be a bit oppressive to have trucks constantly parked next to the sidewalk.
I get as frustrated as anyone when I'm driving by all the double parking that slows up traffic. But when I'm a pedestrian, I'm thankful that traffic moves slowly and more carefully because of these obstructions. -
Oiseau wrote: [quote=8thandPrez] 7th Ave actually has a great street life
I'm not saying 7th avenue, but perhaps Flatbush, Atlantic, 4th ave, etc.8thandPrez wrote: I just don't think it's such a bad idea to eliminate ONE parking lane to widen the median for pedestrians.
Pedestrians don't want to be walking up and down a median.
(1) The sidewalks are narrow as it is -- in many places, from the fence of a house or building, they're not as wide as a parking lane.
(2) The issue with the medians is not the ability to walk up and down them, but the safety of standing on them in the middle of the crosswalk, which people regularly do when crossing because the lights change very quickly. For the left turn lanes as they exist, the medians are cut in so that you have maybe a couple feet width of concrete. It's like standing on a ledge.
Bottom line, though I own a car, I think the concerns of pedestrians should trump the convenience of drivers in NYC. As you said, rightly, people will drive regardless. They'll just drive slower. (Like on Flatbush, which you noted is terrible yet people still drive on.) The idea that 4th Avenue will become a "parking lot" is hyperbole. (As is the idea that 7th and 6th will suddenly become death traps -- in 15 years in Park Slope, I've never heard people talk about the blocks near the Park as "pedestrian-unfriendly" until now, despite the one-way streets.) As it is now, the biggest problem on 4th Avenue is cars driving dangerously fast and crashing or flipping.
You also noted correctly that people moving to apartments on 4th Avenue knew what they were getting into. Well, so do people who choose to drive a lot in NYC--because of personal preference, the neighborhoods they choose to live in, what have you--they're relying on cars in a city where it sucks to drive. -
linusvanpelt wrote: As it is now, the biggest problem on 4th Avenue is cars driving dangerously fast and crashing or flipping.
And decreasing the traffic lanes to two will help this how?
Better timed traffic lights would solve this.
I just think there are better things to spend our taxpayer money on then making a section of 4th avenue more pedestrian friendly. -
Personally, I'd much rather see traffic improvements like these:
Credit: Streetsblog
Credit: Streetsblog
-
Subject: Pro-Fourth, but Anti-Everything Else
Fourth Avenue is a ridiculous street, you have to agree, with its bizarre half-ass turning lanes and the here-it-is-there-it-isn't median. So it's hard to argue against doing something to it. ...It is creepy, though, to consider that these changes are probably being driven by the Atlantic Yards project.
However, it seems like if you make Sixth and Seventh one-way streets, it would encourage people to use them as through streets. It would certainly make intra-Slope driving even more of a nuisance. Are those streets so pedestrian-unfriendly that change is necessary?
That being said, I am doubly glad I sold my truck last year.
-
8thandPrez wrote: Personally, I'd much rather see traffic improvements like these:
Those aren't the only Amsterdam-like changes I'd like to see ;-) -
Oiseau wrote: [quote=linusvanpelt]As it is now, the biggest problem on 4th Avenue is cars driving dangerously fast and crashing or flipping.
And decreasing the traffic lanes to two will help this how?
Better timed traffic lights would solve this.
I just think there are better things to spend our taxpayer money on then making a section of 4th avenue more pedestrian friendly.
Unless I'm reading you wrong, you believe the change will make traffic on 4th Ave much slower. Ergo, fewer cars driving dangerously fast.
I'm all for better-timed traffic lights too, tho, depending how you define better.
As for taxpayer money, I'm not sure of the cost here, but given that 4th Avenue is going to get a big influx of new pedestrians (many of whom will live on the west side of 4th and probably will want to walk over to 5th Ave, etc., regularly), I can think of worse uses.
Even now--before any of the bigger buildings are occupied--I see far more people crossing 4th Avenue into the Slope from the R train at rush hours than I did just 2 or 3 years ago. -
Subject: Re: Pro-Fourth, but Anti-Everything Else
Username: * wrote: However, it seems like if you make Sixth and Seventh one-way streets, it would encourage people to use them as through streets. It would certainly make intra-Slope driving even more of a nuisance. Are those streets so pedestrian-unfriendly that change is necessary?
I'm all for discouraging intra-Slope driving. How badly does someone really need to drive a car from one point in the Slope to another? If you're doing it, it's probably for personal convenience, which I just don't see as the biggest public priority. (I do it sometimes myself, to make a big purchase or something, but I don't think DOT's planning should revolve around making it easier to drive a mile to get a case of wine or something.)
However, and I'm not an expert, I can't imagine that the reason is to make 6th and 7th more ped-friendly. The impetus, I'm guessing, is to make 4th more ped-friendly (to accomodate the coming population boom?), and to speed up 6th and 7th to compensate. Not defending that part of it, just guessing at the reasoning. -
Oiseau wrote: Those aren't the only Amsterdam-like changes I'd like to see ;-)
First two are Copenhagen, actually, but I'm right there with you on the Amsterdamization of Brooklyn. -
I have a feeling this has more to do with Gowanus than it does PS.....
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/05/01/gowanus_village.php -
I'd say 90%+ of the car traffic on 4th avenue is not from Park Slope. I think this change will make more cars stuck in traffic emitting more pollution in the area (good luck to those tress they want to plant on the median) and more pissed off drivers who will clog up 3rd and 5th avenues as well. And the pedestrians who actually stroll down 4th ave wil breath pollution and hear a shitload of street noise and horn honking. Sure we could use better timed lightd to slow down trafiic is that's the problem. No matter how bad traffic gets, it will not force the majority of drivers to use mass transit. Plus they'll we'll need more room for cars once that Whole Foods gets built.
Fix the schools, fix the potholes, fix the subways, build bike lanes first. Anyways, aren't there blighted areas of Brooklyn that need a make-over far more than fourth avenue? -
Honestly, if they make all the streets one way, I think it's highly unlikely that they'll change the lights to try to slow down traffic. Quite the opposite. I bet they'll make sure that the lights change in sequence to increase the bandwidth of those streets (in terms of throughput per hour, not actual physical width).
-
Oiseau wrote: I'd say 90%+ of the car traffic on 4th avenue is not from Park Slope.
...and that about says it all for me. Likewise, 90% of the disgruntlement from the change to 4th Avenue will be from people outside Park Slope. And they're welcome to protest it, since that's in their self-interest--but as someone who lives near though not on 4th Avenue, I'd say someone who lives there will benefit more from having a more walkable avenue than from ensuring that regular car drivers from outlying areas of Brooklyn don't get "pissed off."
Exhaust, honking--you're going to have those on 4th Avenue either way. (I'm not like one of those realtors who claims that 4th Avenue is ever going to turn into the Champs-Elysses.) That's why the city plants hardy street trees. But on balance people who actually live here will benefit the most from a plan that encourages pedestrian crossings and pedestrian traffic on 4th. -
You have to wonder how much of this is the run-up to Atlantic Yards. Clearly the major concern of transportation planners, under the Ratner regime in Brooklyn, will be to funnel traffic in and out of the arena area as efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, Park Slope is sort of in the way....
By the way, you can still contribute to the ongoing court fight that can stop this whole nightmare before it starts: http://dddb.net/php/donate.php -
rogersma wrote: You have to wonder how much of this is the run-up to Atlantic Yards. Clearly the major concern of transportation planners, under the Ratner regime in Brooklyn, will be to funnel traffic in and out of the arena area as efficiently as possible. Unfortunately, Park Slope is sort of in the way....
yeah but what they are creating by narrowing Fourth ave is going to create a traffic nightmare. The subways are already packed. Maybe they should put in a tram line instead.
With Atlantic Yards, Whole Foods and who knows what else, I can only forecast a traffic distater.
Why not make it easier for everyone? -
Here's a guess: They may be throttling 4th Avenue since Ratner plans to divert 4th Ave traffic before it reaches Flatbush--in his plan, all 4th Ave. traffic will have to turn right at Pacific, then left on Flatbush. See map below:
http://www.nolandgrab.org/archives/2006/08/fourthtoflatbus.html
That, clearly, will create major chaos, so perhaps the idea is to put some of the Arena traffic over onto 6th and 7th.
All of this--and there's undoubtedly more to come--is another good reason for Park Slopers to support the legal efforts to stop the Arena. It may not be in the backyard, but it's going to have enormous traffic implications for residents a couple hundred nights a year. -
rogersma wrote: Here's a guess: They may be throttling 4th Avenue since Ratner plans to divert 4th Ave traffic before it reaches Flatbush--in his plan, all 4th Ave. traffic will have to turn right at Pacific, then left on Flatbush.
That is a totally insane plan. -
Oh man, I knew it was just a matter of time before this post morphed into another anti-AY topic...
I'm actually 100% for some creative solutions to alleviate the nightmare of traffic at Flatbush and 4th. If it means routing 4th Ave traffic onto Pacific, I'm willing to listen. Traffic is a mess there today, it will be a mess with AY. At least AY may provide the impetus to fix or alleviate some of the traffic problems in the area. -
Lets see what people think of this... :twisted:
Use the 2 middle lanes on 4th ave for parking and eliminate 50% of the left hand turns...This slows down traffic, which is good for pedestrians and bad for people just passing through...
Adds many parking spaces (Good for local drivers and businesses)
Improve the local highways so cars don't use 4th ave to pass through... -
Anonymous wrote: Use the 2 middle lanes on 4th ave for parking
That is a totally insane plan. -
Great plan. Way to fuck over the local business owners on 7th Avenue. Way to ruin the community feel of the neighborhood. What a disaster AY is gonna be.
-
linusvanpelt wrote: [quote=Oiseau]I'd say 90%+ of the car traffic on 4th avenue is not from Park Slope.
...and that about says it all for me. Likewise, 90% of the disgruntlement from the change to 4th Avenue will be from people outside Park Slope. And they're welcome to protest it, since that's in their self-interest--but as someone who lives near though not on 4th Avenue, I'd say someone who lives there will benefit more from having a more walkable avenue than from ensuring that regular car drivers from outlying areas of Brooklyn don't get "pissed off."
Exhaust, honking--you're going to have those on 4th Avenue either way. (I'm not like one of those realtors who claims that 4th Avenue is ever going to turn into the Champs-Elysses.) That's why the city plants hardy street trees. But on balance people who actually live here will benefit the most from a plan that encourages pedestrian crossings and pedestrian traffic on 4th.
But, 4th Avenue was built and designed as commercial, industrial and light manufacturing space and the traffic design was commisurate with those uses. Then as the neighborhood starts to grow, developers are building residential housing there, and all of a sudden it should become a pedestrian friendly street? If you move onto (or just off of) a street that was never designed for high-density residential living, why is it the problem of the people who are using the street as it was traditionally intended?
I'm all for greater protection for people crossing busy streets, but when so much of city living is based on the need to bring trucks into the city to deliver goods, reducing the streets that are designed for heavy truck traffic and as an alternative to a major north/south highway is just dumb. 5th Avenue and 7th Avenue can exist because delivery trucks can go down 4th Avenue quickly and the wide streets mean less manuvering around double parked cars and the like. Traffic calming to support safety crossing the street is a fine idea, but why should you be able to "piss off" the rest of Brooklyn, and create gridlock for people making the reverse commute to Sunset Park, Bay Ridge, and Staten Island or businesses that rely on truck traffic to survive? -
homeowner wrote: ....5th Avenue and 7th Avenue can exist because delivery trucks can go down 4th Avenue quickly and the wide streets mean less manuvering around double parked cars and the like. Traffic calming to support safety crossing the street is a fine idea, but why should you be able to "piss off" the rest of Brooklyn, and create gridlock for people making the reverse commute to Sunset Park, Bay Ridge, and Staten Island or businesses that rely on truck traffic to survive?
I don't think the point of reducing the number of lanes on 4th Ave is traffic calming or to turn it into something that looks like a residential side street. I think the main driver is to improve the turning lanes. What happens in rush hour is that the turning lanes get backed up with trucks and cars trying to cross traffic in the other directions and the left most lane gets blocked. I don't know if I agree with them, but the traffic engineers seem to think that by eliminating a lane of traffic in both directions and improving the turn lanes, that traffic flow could increase and everyone would be safer. -
My first thought when I read this wasn't as either a pedestrian or a driver - but as a New York runner....
I know it's only 1 day a year, but the NYC Marathon covers about 6 miles on 4th Avenue, and is incredibly crowded as 38,000+ runners begin their journey and gradually spread out, before being channeled into narrower streets.
NYC is already known as a tough marathon because of the crowded, somewhat hilly course. Narrowing 4th Avenue would definitely make it a tougher, slower slog than it already is. Since the Marathon is such a huge money-spinner for New York, I would imagine New York Road Runners (amongst others) would be keen to have their say in prospective changes.... -
homeowner wrote:
Because things change over the decades in NYC and no one who lives in this city is entitled to stasis simply because they got used to things the way they were. You may not like it, but 4th Avenue is changing from "commercial, industrial and light manufacturing space" and it makes perfect sense that the avenue be altered accordingly.
But, 4th Avenue was built and designed as commercial, industrial and light manufacturing space and the traffic design was commisurate with those uses. Then as the neighborhood starts to grow, developers are building residential housing there, and all of a sudden it should become a pedestrian friendly street? If you move onto (or just off of) a street that was never designed for high-density residential living, why is it the problem of the people who are using the street as it was traditionally intended? -
FurryGreyBOy wrote: My first thought when I read this wasn't as either a pedestrian or a driver - but as a New York runner....
If I'm not mistaken, the "narrowing" consists of filling in the cut-in left turn lanes in the medians at the intersetions. Unless you are used to weaving in and out of the cut-ins (which as a marathon runner I don't see people doing), I don't think this will be an issue.
I know it's only 1 day a year, but the NYC Marathon covers about 6 miles on 4th Avenue, and is incredibly crowded as 38,000+ runners begin their journey and gradually spread out, before being channeled into narrower streets.
NYC is already known as a tough marathon because of the crowded, somewhat hilly course. Narrowing 4th Avenue would definitely make it a tougher, slower slog than it already is. Since the Marathon is such a huge money-spinner for New York, I would imagine New York Road Runners (amongst others) would be keen to have their say in prospective changes.... -
linusvanpelt wrote: If I'm not mistaken, the "narrowing" consists of filling in the cut-in left turn lanes in the medians at the intersetions. Unless you are used to weaving in and out of the cut-ins (which as a marathon runner I don't see people doing), I don't think this will be an issue.
Ah ha - looks like I had a knee-jerk reaction and didn't read it properly. Thanks for the clarification!
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