Skip to Content
Streetsblog New York City home
Streetsblog New York City home
Log In
Aaron Naparstek

Park Slope says: “One Way? No Way.” CB6 says: “Let’s Study It.”

9:24 AM EDT on March 19, 2007

In the aftermath of last Thursday's CB6 transportation committee meeting on the DOT's proposal to convert Sixth and Seventh Avenues in Park Slope, Brooklyn to one-way arterials, some observers are noting that the motion that came out of the meeting may not accurately reflect the input of the nearly 700 people who came out to oppose the plan. As Norman Oder points out at Atlantic Yards Report, the language voted on by the committee leaves the DOT plenty of leeway.

Judge for yourself. Here's the text:

Motion 1: CB6 thanks DOT for their efforts to improve pedestrian safety and facilitate the flow of traffic in and around Park Slope as dialogue and discussions are always beneficial; however, we request that DOT not proceed with their proposal to convert 6th and 7th Avenues from two-way to one-way streets at this time because there are too many questions about the impact of this change and how it would affect the neighborhood's traffic flow and pedestrian safety.

We further request that DOT continue to work with the Community Board and the Park Slope community in resolving Park Slope's very real traffic and pedestrian safety problems. For example, the perceived/actual high rate of speed of vehicles traveling on 8th Avenue and Prospect Park West, and the congested Union Street approach to the Grand Army Plaza . By working more closely with the Community Board and community we are committing to work with DOT to produce an improved set of remedies and actions designed to further enhance pedestrian safety and facilitate the safe movement of vehicles within our community.

Motion 2: CB6 would table making a recommendation on the 4th Avenue proposal until after such time as we have had a chance to engage DOT in a more comprehensive discussion of the traffic planning needs and challenges facing the Park Slope community.

Streetsblog's Aaron Naparstek (who, full disclosure, is a member of the committee) reported the next day that the committee "fully and unequivocally" rejected the DOT proposal. But AYR's Oder was correct when he wrote that things were a bit more complicated, and that what actually happened was that "the committee, expressing disapproval, voted to table discussion on the plans until further talks with DOT and implementation of community-requested changes." Watch video of the motion's passage by Kevin Burget here.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog New York City

Con Edison Cons Its Way Out of Paying Traffic Tickets

The massive energy company is bilking the city of tens of thousands of dollars in potential camera-issued traffic violations by obscuring its trucks’ license plates.

March 1, 2024

West Side Glory: State Begins the Process of Reimagining a True NYC Car Sewer

The state DOT will study the West Side Highway for "potential enhancements ... including [for] pedestrians and cyclists." West Side officials are cheering!

March 1, 2024

Friday’s Headlines: Closing the Bike Share Black Hole Edition

Council Member Lincoln Restler has negotiated with local religious leaders to add Citi Bike docks to south Williamsburg. Plus other news.

March 1, 2024

Manhattan Pol Upset at Delayed Rollout of Electrified Citi Bike Docks

"I urge the Department of Transportation and Con Edison to expedite the electrification of [Citi Bike] stations," Erik Bottcher wrote to the colossuses of conveyance and current last Friday.

February 29, 2024
See all posts