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

Talking Headways Podcast: Details of Development Reform in Minnesota, Part 1

Jim Kumon of Electric Housing discusses his work as a developer and urban policy educator in the Twin Cities.

April 25, 2024

Thursday’s Headlines Don’t Like Riding on the Passenger Side

Can you take me to the store, and then the bank? I've got five dollars you can put in the tank.

April 25, 2024

Study: When Speed Limits Rise on Interstates, So Do Crash Hot Spots on Nearby Roads

Rising interstate speeds don't just make roads deadlier for people who drive on them — and local decision makers need to be prepared.

April 25, 2024

Calif. Bill to Require Speed Control in Vehicles Goes Limp

Also passed yesterday were S.B 961, the Complete Streets bill, a bill on Bay Area transit funding, and a prohibition on state funding for Class III bikeways.

April 24, 2024

Under Threat of Federal Suit (Again!), NYC Promises Action on ‘Unacceptable’ Illegal Police Parking

A deputy mayor made a flat-out promise to eliminate illegal police parking that violates the Americans With Disabilities Act. But when? How? We don't know.

April 24, 2024
See all posts