Vanderbilt Ave. Bike Lanes, Landscaped XWalk, RAISED Median?

Think the planters on Adams Street across from the Mariott.

arches wrote: Sounds interesting...does anyone know what "landscaped pedestrian crossing" means?

Whenever I've encountered "landscaped" in this town, it's invariably been as a fancy word for a slab of concrete.

I'm sure there would be a crosswalk, it just wouldn't be landscaped at Prospect. What raising the median would achieve would be preventing people from making crazy u-turns and driving outside their lanes to make the light.

I already have plans, but if someone is going, let me know--maybe I could give you a letter to drop off with DOT.

Medians are a bad idea, especially on a one lane road. Of course, if you want more traffic, more fumes, more noise, more accidents then by all means support the median idea.

It's one thing to have a median on Adams Street or Fourth avenue which is three lanes each direction but another on Vanderbilt. Plus, medians make jay walking dangerous. It won't be NYC if one can't jay walk where they please.

I like this idea.

On a separate note, how can I find out more about CB8 meetings and issues? How do I find out who's on the board, even? Is there a mailing list?

The pdf basically proves that:

a) traffic calming has had little to no effect on traffic from 2005 - 2007

and

b) that the median WILL cause more traffic because now, if there is a double-parked car or truck then people can at least drive around it on the painted median. With the concrete median, people will just have to wait, because guess what? commercial vehicles are allowed to double-park! (I guess they will be parking in the bike lane, huh?)

And even so, it's not like the police will be there to ticket or move traffic.

Totally bad idea. Great for everyone who just walks to the subway, yeah, but IMO traffic calming is total bullshit. It's the ANTI-CAR people's way of trying to eliminate traffic by squeezing it. The philosphy being: one lane of traffic is less than two lanes.

But guess what? It doesn't stop people from driving (see page five) It just makes those who do drive angrier and more aggressive.

I love it the title to page five by the way, "Successful 2006 traffic calming" Bullshit. Traffic even increased during some hours.

And btw I'm was for the congestion plan.

The "Successful 2006 traffic calming" claim was that speeding vehicles were reduced from 76% to 27% - how can you dispute that???

MeredithB wrote: IMO two lanes are better than one.

By that logic, three would be better than two. Lets see what we can do about making the sidewalks into driving lanes. That'd be progress!

The chart showing no change to traffic volume is meant to illiustrate that people don't drive to nearby streets to avoid the new "calming" efforts. Same cars number of cars go by, just a little slower and - since speed is inextricably linked to traffic deaths - safer.

Sekuba wrote: From Atlantic to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, Vanderbilt is a slow, one lane each way residential street - what's the point of maintaining a 7-block super highway between Ft Greene and Prospect Park?

Super highway? Yep, two lanes is a super highway to anti-car people. The key is that Vanderbilt is not a residential stret between Atlantic and GAP. Infact, it opens up into three lanes at GAP. What's the point of having one lane when it's just going to open up into three (or two)? But I know the anti-car people are already looking to squeeze GAP traffic.

Hey, why not make Flatbush avenue one lane? And all Avenues in Manhattan two lanes, there are pleanty of speeders there.

And perhaps, since the population of Brooklyn/Greater NYC, has increased since 2005, there are just more cars on the road. Thus the cars that did drive on nearby streats did not effect the amount driven on Vanderbilt since there were just more cars. The only way to prove that people don't drive to nearby streets is to have traffic data from those nearby streets instead of making assumptions.

Sure, traffic has been slower on Vanderbilt, that is a good thing.

But bike lanes are ridiculous in NYC. Have you seen www.mybikelane,org? Take a look. It shows that bike lanes are nothing more than double-parking lanes for commercial vehicles and rude people. Cops rarely ticket them and that won't change.

Anyway, bicyclists ride where they want, not where there are bike lanes. How many bicyclists ride down Flatbush ave every morning and then turn onto Bergen St just to ride in a bike lane instead of staying straight on Flatbush to the bridges, which is the more direct route? Not many.

And then you've got bike lanes that get painted and forgotten about. Sorry, but if there are to be bike lanes, IMO, they should be maintained and enforced.

I'm all for protected bike lanes, but obviously that would cost more money that this city can afford. Instead it's looking for the simple way out. But, unfortunatly, IMO, that short changes bicyclists, cars and every taxpaying citizen in this city.

Vanderbilt is a mixed-use street – there are plenty of people living above those ground floor storefronts and there are several blocks that are strictly residences. The point, though, is that it is a neighborhood street and not a major traffic artery critical to the overall economic health of NYC. Adding bike lanes and a few trees is not going to greatly impair the ability of the people of Brooklyn driving from point A to point B.

What I don’t understand are why there should be such objections to something that makes a street safer and more attractive. What part of trees and bikes don’t people like?

i don't see any indication that the cars are being "gotten rid of". if cars will have to share the road slightly more, well, i think that's okay. i don't think roadways are sacred space for cars only.

i like the new plan. even if it isn't perfect, i think it's a big improvement over what we have now, with few downsides. it will look better and hopefully also be safer for everyone, including drivers.

The changes already made to Vanderbilt are a huge improvement over the four lane highway we had before.

I support this proposal.

If car are getting squeezed out, all the better. They are oversubsidized already and we waste far too many precious resources at the altar of automobile worship. Taxes, registration and tolls should be based on the size and fuel efficiency of the car, with larger, more polluting ones bearing the major share of the expense.

Driver education and repeat classes / testing every 5 years should be mandatory. Enforcement of driving regulations should be increased, with severe penalties for dangerous behavior. Licenses should be revoked when necessary.

Impossible, you say? This is the reality in Japan.

MeredithB wrote: Actually I believe there is a rush to get this done before the Atlantic Yards stadium is built. I doubt that anyone who was for the reduction of lanes and is for the medians on Vanderbiilt is for the Atlantic Yards project.

But if, when, the Atlantic Yards gets built, and it's most likely when, do you really want traffic jams on Vanderbilt, especially late at night? Horns honking, etc. It's probably better to get these folks, who have chosen to drive, out of the neighborhood as swiftly as possible.

Wasn't the whole justification for this location the accessibility to mass transit? They certainly don't seem to planning on accommodating many cars with parking. If assholes insist on driving, they're most likely to take a different route (Flatbush) if Vandy is down to one lane.

Do people drive into MSG for a game or concert despite it being close to many subways, trains, buses, etc.?

Sure they do.

Are they assholes?

Who knows, maybe they plan on staying in the city past 1AM when most trains to the suburbs stop running?

As for making it harder for people to drive, I doubt that discourages people from driving. The study states that despite Vanderbilt ave becoming a one lane road, there are still just as many cars. Sure, you don't want them going 40 mph, understandable. But making it harder for people to drive is only going to make more noise and pollution for all you anti-car hipsters.

Tks for the recap. So what's the next step? Is there some sort of approval required or does the project already have the green light?

I noticed the DOT was already busy resurfacing Vanderbilt this morning, but maybe there are two distinct projects.