BROOKLYN COMMUNITY BOARD 6
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING
DECEMBER 16, 2010
ATTENDANCE:
W. BLUM S. BURZIO N. COX
D. GIULIANO J. LEVIN T. MISKEL
G. REILLY R. RIGOLLI J. THOMPSON
EXCUSED:
D. ABRAHAM J. ARMER J. COHN
D. KUMMER H. LINK M. MURPHY
R. SLOANE
ABSENT:
J. IGNERI A. MCKNIGHT V. MILNE
R. OBERLENDER M. VERRET
GUESTS:
HON. LANDER – CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
L. DEPALMA - REP. FOR HON. MARTY MARKOWITZ, BOROUGH PRESIDENT
J. MELZER R. MELZER L. L. HAINLINE
M. TOMKIEWICZ J. OLTMAN SMITH D. GORDON
B. ALLEYNE C. AUYANG C. WILLIAMS
M. DOLPHIN J. MILKENS L. CARSWELL
C. CHRISTENSON T. ALBERTO J. GREIG
A. ERDE S. SILLS W. BAILEY
S. FRY J. BREIT E. MCCLURE
N. REYNOLDS L. SCHINDLER
***MINUTES***
Presentation and discussion with representatives for Council Member Brad Lander on the results of a recently administered community survey on the Prospect Park West bicycle lanes that were installed in June 2010.
Council Member Brad Lander presented an overview of the results of the recently administered community survey on the PPW bicycle lanes.
Overview: Goals of the survey were to provide area residents with the opportunity for meaningful input as well as to articulate concerns.
The survey is not intended as a referendum or a randomly sampled public opinion poll that included over 3,000 people who participated with over 2,000 contributing additional comments.
Findings:
Q1: Where do you live? 828 (PPW and side streets) – 8% of population of the area 1,137 (elsewhere in Park Slope) 1,186 (elsewhere in Brooklyn)
Q4: Did the project meet goals? 55% felt speeding was reduced very much. 73% felt it made it very much safer to bike. 41% felt it made it very much easier to cross the street on foot.
Goals and safety perception conclusion: Pedestrian/bike interface is problematic. People exiting cars feel vulnerable.
Q6: Parking On PPW: 47% felt it was harder. On streets: 31% felt it was harder.
Q8: What do you think of the current design? 43% of PPW and side streets wanted to go back to the way it was while a majority of elsewhere in Park Slope and elsewhere in Brooklyn wanted to keep it more or less the way it is.
Suggested modifications to project: A clearer yield was the only modification that got majority support. Implementation of rumble strips, red/yellow/green bicycle light, raised pedestrian island and greater viewing area around bike lane. Issues have also been raised about aesthetics including the flexi-bollards and the green bike lane color. Increasing enforcement and safety awareness is key to improving safety as well. Such enforcement issues – bikers yielding to pedestrians. With issues of street safety perhaps a safety forum could be convened to raise issues of safety while bringing each side together.
Floor questions:
Q1: Why not use the bike lane in the park? A. heading northbound on western end of the loop is prohibitive.
Q2: Why include respondents outside of Park Slope? A: People throughout the borough and within the surrounding neighborhoods utilize this bike lane.
Q3: Any comments on DOT study? A: DOT is still compiling data that will eventually be presented to CB6.
Q4: Could people who didn’t give address or name submit two surveys? A. Perhaps but the integrity checks to questions showed that percentages didn’t change more than 1% when the address is filtered out.
Q5: Who’s taking care of the bike lanes? Is it Parks? A: DOT is responsible for cleaning by way of Sanitation.
Q6: Why didn’t this survey take a wider vision of the purpose of this bike network. A: We tried to get as much of a sample and that meant keeping the survey length to a minimum to assure sufficient response rates.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was