Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
Aaron Naparstek

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

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 USA

The Shocking Untold History of America’s Rails-to-Trails Movement

Some of the fiercest battles for the future of public space in America have happened on abandoned railway corridors — and the battles aren't over yet.

October 7, 2025

Tuesday’s Headlines Take It Back

Withholding transit funds is just one aspect of the Trump administration's campaign to reshape the federal bureaucracy during the shutdown.

October 7, 2025

Commentary: Speed Cameras are a Good Start for Safe Streets

But *all* tools must be used to achieve Vision Zero —  not just speed cameras.

October 6, 2025

Under Pressure: Uber’s Navigation System Endangers the Public With Reckless Driving Directions

An Uber driver made an illegal u-turn and hit someone, but the in-app navigation told him to do it and the company won't give up the code.

October 6, 2025

Likely NYC Mayor Mamdani Supports Daylighting

But the next mayor will have to overcome a deeply entrenched bureaucracy opposed to the common-sense policy.

October 6, 2025

As Portland Fights ICE With Land-Use Regulations, Will Zoning Survive Trump?

Portland's attempt to rein in ICE could trigger a battle over the constitutionality of zoning.

October 6, 2025
See all posts