Getting cars out of Prospect Park would definitely make the traffic patterns at Grand Army Plaza that much simpler. Among other things, they could get rid of that extra roadway on the east side of the arch. The area would still be full of cars, its position as a major road junction guarantees this, but at least it will be a mostly pedestrian space cut up by streams of cars, rather than a sea of cars with tiny unprotected islands for pedestrians.

So DOT is essentially greening the existing configuration and striping a few crosswalks? Seems like a typical quick-fix. It’s a shame they don’t put a little creativity into solving the traffic circus! The proposed changes may appear better in plan, but the bicycle and pedestrian experience is still disappointing for such a “grand plaza”.

I agree with CF- to me, the core of this is that it seems designed to be painless to motorists. Removing a short segment of travel lane from a 6 lane expanse is a nifty little change, but I am quite certain that these alterations have been well studied to have minimal impact on auto traffic. The impression of the proposed configuration is still a concrete mess with a couple of green blotches where now there are striped voids. I don’t see anything in the plan that I project would reduce traffic on any significant level.

CF and Brent, two things:
1) There is a difference between short-term and long-term; and
2) Small steps work: setting precedents clears the way for more innovative things in the future. NYC has a long way to go – how about a little support for positive progress?

It’s a lot easier to critique than to propose.

This seems like a good incremental step that should be cheered.

Though, I completely agree that if DOT was willing to reduce capacity, or even road space, just a little more, they could get a more rationale design that might improve traffic patterns: fewer little islands and choppy merges.

In the past DOT traffic engineers have supported pedestrianizing B’way between Times and Herald Squares because it actually improves vehicle throughput at 34th and 42nd. So, seconding the above comments, I bet GAP would work much better for everyone if Prospect was car-free.

JK and others,

At the meeting the Transportation Committee’s overwhelming concern was with the potental traffic impacts. There was little concern for pedestrians or the pedestrian experience.

In fact, DOT was pressed to commit to restoring the old (current) GAP if the new (proposed) plan ended up not working and delaying too many motorists.

Getting DOT to be more radical at a minimum requires the local/parochial interest to be clearly in favor of peds/place over traffic. I don’t think the CB even plans on officially reacting to the plan before its built.

Boon, are you talking about the Arc de Triomphe in Paris? Bad model; that’s a horrible pedestrian space.

I’m not sure Paris has any good models for this kind of thing; I’m racking my brains and coming up with nothing appropriate. Maybe the Porte Dauphine? But it has a four-lane through roadway under the square – and of course the eight-lane Periph. Don’t give the DOT any bad ideas.

In the diagram, it almost looks like northbound traffic is entering the plaza from Prospect Park West. Could that be true?

A two-way PPW wouldn’t make that much difference for pedestrians or autos, but it would be great if the B68 were extended to Grand Army Plaza in place of the less frequent B69.

Moreover, cyclists now have two southbound options, PPW and the park, but have a theoretical choice between circling the park and climbing the hill or riding on 8th Avenue northbound.

Amber (#13)thank you for the reality check about the community board’s traffic flow first perspective. It’s not a surprise but it’s important. Why hasn’t the GAPCO consensus building, and concern about pedestrians, had an effect on the community board?

Across the city we see sharply different perspectives between civic groups, parents and activists on one side and the community boards on the other. As is the case at GAP, more often, the boards, which are referred to as the “community” by city agencies, seem to put a premium on the convenience of motorists.

I agree with PP who states that ending car traffic in Prospect Park should be an integral part of redesigning GAP. Not to highjack the thread, but cars in the Park really make my blood boil! Especially now that it’s light in the early evening and more and more people are taking their exercise exactly when cars are allowed to drive through. I simply cannot fathom why a shortcut for a relatively small number of automobile commuters takes precedence over cyclists, runners, walkers, skaters, etc etc etc.

It is a mistake to have the landscaped island that divides Eastern Parkway into two where it meets Flatbush Ave.

The westbound lane should be right next to the eastbound lane, so it meets Flatbush Ave. at a right angle. They should widen and landscape the sidewalk north of the street, instead of putting this landscaped island in the middle of the street (where the striped area is currently in the middle of the street).

If Eastern Parkway contines to meet Flatbush at the same wide angle that it does today, traffic will continue to go as fast as it does today. Making them meet at a right angle forces cars to slow down to make the turn. And pedestrians will benefit more from a widened sidewalk than from an island in the center of the street.

The same is true of the southbound traffic on Flatbush Ave. The traffic island gives them a wider turning radius and encourages them to speed. Instead, move the southbound lane so it is next to the northbound lane, and give them a sharper turn that slows them down.

This would also give more land to the plaza with the arch in the center of the street, so more people could use it.

The model is Columbus Circle. It used to have wide turning radiuses to speed up traffic. Now it has tighter turning radiuses that slow traffic, and it has a larger, more usable plaza in the center of the street.

We could simplify traffic patterns at Grand Army Plaza and make more room for pedestrians, if we simply close this one Prospect Park entrance to cars.

I am in favor of closing all of Prospect Park to cars, but I don’t know if it is practical to do that as part of the planning to redesign Grand Army Plaza, since they are two different issues. It would be easier just to close one entrance to cars as part of the Grand Army Plaza planning

I like Charles idea alot, can we start a campaign to just close the Grand Army Plaza exit into the Park for the time being? We all know the Park is going to be closed some day, why not do something now that continues the progress towards a car-free park and will allow the money and investment being spent on all these improvements be spent the right way and not have to be re-done when the Park does get closed?

Boon,

I don’t think the fountain/arch area could be all that much more deadened than it already is.

If the park were closed to cars and the space between arch and park were one contiguous plaza, immediately the weekend greenmarket would expand into the new public space. They are bursting and want more space.

Likewise I imagine all kinds of new uses and activities would spring up around the arch and fountain if it were “attached” to the park and more accessible to the public.

I know gapco has referred to the arc de triomphe in the past but the arc is actually kind of a horrible traffic maelstrom as well. Probably not the best example.

CM (#18) and Gary (#20), I don’t think anyone’s suggesting eliminating the ability to drive from Flatbush Avenue to Union Street or Prospect Park South. The DOT plan proposes to eliminate a single lane east of the arch, but not the entire roadway.

I could see that potentially making it take a little bit longer to get from Flatbush to destinations north and west, but I don’t think it’s significant.

If it is significant, however, I can understand your frustration, but I feel that the benefits of increased safety and a more accessible, usable public space are more than worth it. Any plaza with six lanes of traffic in each direction is going to be highly unpleasant for pedestrians, and it’s just too much for that part of Brooklyn.

There are two good train lines that can take people from Flatbush to Park Slope, and that far out they’re not particularly crowded.

BTW, the Arc de Triomphe in Paris does have pedestrian underpasses, and they’re just as unpleasant as they sound.

Why should we forget about getting cars out of the park?

There’s a clear disconnect between the priorities of the community board and those of GAPCo, TA, Park Slope Neighbors and other organizations. Which is closer to being representative of the “true” feelings of area residents?

Is the relative conservatism of the community board a worthwhile check on populist excesses, or an attempt to better reflect the power structure in the neighborhood and avoid situations where powerful groups are not given a proportionate say and extract revenge on politicians?

Is Markowitz adequately fulfilling his duty to represent the people of Brooklyn by appointing a community board that reflects the community? If not, is there anything that can be done about this?