Transportation Alternatives Cycles Case, but Board 7 Fears Chaos
By Harold Egeln
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
WINDSOR TERRACE — A controversial proposal to eliminate all cars — now only seen on park drives during rush hours — from Prospect Park was hotly contested before Community Board Seven.
Transportation Alternatives, a citywide 35-year-old bike and mass transit nonprofit advocacy organization, made a presentation at a board transportation committee meeting on Tuesday evening at its office. Chairing the meeting was Fred Xuereb, a retired Transit Authority traffic manager opposed to the proposal.
Committee members and guests intervened frequently, objecting to the group’s proposal for a three-month-long trial period for an all-car free park and a study of its affects. The board’s chief bone of contention was the democratic process involved in determining the need for a study and the proposal.
Over the last 30 years, car traffic in the city’s second largest park has been cut back. Now Prospect Park Loop Drive is open for commuters only during weekday rush hours, in the mornings from 7 to 9 a.m. on West Drive (southbound) and evenings between 5 and 7 p.m. on East Drive (northbound).
“Safety on the Prospect Park Drive is a daily concern to recreational users,” said Lindsey Lusher Shute, Transportation Alternatives’s director of environmental campaigns, stating the issues for zero car traffic in the park. Most cars, a study by the group showed, often exceed the 30-mph speed limit, going up to 50 mph.
The traffic, bike and pedestrian lanes, in that order, are very close, and that is a safety concern, she said, especially with fast cars. Enforcement by the 78th Precinct is necessary, said Walker Blankinship, a member of the Prospect Park Alliance and a park carriage driver.
Windsor Terrace Claim Disputed
“There would be minimal impact on neighborhood traffic, traffic experts told us,” Lusher Shute said, citing Daily News “Gridlock” Sam Schwartz columnist and three former city Department of Transportation commissioners. Also, Councilmembers David Yassky and Letitia James, and State Senator Eric Adams, are backers. Council Member Bill de Blasio supports the 3 month pilot to assess the impact of the ban.
Board members strongly disagreed. “There are not a lot of streets between the park and Green-Wood Cemetery,” said John Davenport about Brooklyn’s largest green spaces. “There’s not much room. You’d be compressing traffic, making it worse.” It would also slow B68 bus travel time on Prospect Park SW, said Xuereb.
“Right now during rush hours, Seeley Street and the dangerous Park Circle are jammed solid with cars from traffic light to traffic light,” said board member Charlie O’Donnell. “We already have cars shooting across the smaller side streets to Seeley and down Windsor Place. If cars are banned during rush hours, you’d be putting then all on the already clogged streets outside the park.”
Between 7 and 8 a.m., 603 cars travel the park drive, and 642 cars travel between 8 and 9 a.m., according to a NYC Department of City Planning study made in 2003. Between 5 and 6 p.m. 563 cars were clocked and 514 between 6 and 7 p.m.
“When traffic is bumper to bumper along Prospect Park West to 16th Street, and carbon dioxide rises and traffic noise gets louder, what does that do to our neighborhood? We are the ones who live here, and we know best,” said board member Joan Botti of Windsor Terrace.
10,000 Names for Car-Free Prospect Park
To get signatures on 10,000 postcards this past summer for its proposal, the organization, with Bikes Belong’s financial support, hired four Brooklyn high school students during the summer: Kelena Matthews, 15; Oswald Bowman, 16; Michael Cheng, 17, and Farah Karimova, 17, dressing themselves as cardboard trees to attract interest.
“The DOT has a history of not consulting with the community. We will not allow DOT to run roughshod over us. The advocacy group has the DOT’s ears,” said Board Chair Randy Peers, noting “the DOT reduced Prospect Park SW lanes in 2002 without community input.”
He emphasized that the process is the issue, and, by law, an Environmental Impact Statement process is required. “We all deserve and demand an EIS by an independent party,” Peers said. “This is what Community Boards 7 and 14 require.”
“I fully support community-based planning,” said Lusher Shute about process and community input “to seek consensus. But I don’t support an EIS. Environmental statements have been used to block bike lanes in other cities.”
Peers asked that a study be made before any car bans are done. “Is there really an issue? I’m not so sure there’s an issue here,” he asked, saying that Transportation Alternatives is “chipping” away at opposition to its proposal “without room for compromise.” A compromise trial period would be to reduce car traffic to one lane, said Lusher Shute.
————————
© Brooklyn Daily Eagle 2008
All materials posted on BrooklynEagle.com are protected by United States copyright law.
Just a reminder, though -- It’s not considered polite to paste the entire story on your blog. Most blogs post a summary or the first paragraph,( 40 words) then post a link to the rest of the story. That helps increase click-throughs for everyone, and minimizes copyright issues. So please keep posting, but not the entire article. arturc at att.net
