Comments on: Unwarranted Traffic Chaos in Red Hook http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/07/11/red-hook-traffic-chaos/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:07:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: StreetsBlog » Traffic Engineering by Body Count http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/07/11/red-hook-traffic-chaos/comment-page-1/#comment-1275 StreetsBlog » Traffic Engineering by Body Count Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:15:44 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/07/11/red-hook-traffic-chaos/#comment-1275 [...] At the end of May, DOT Commissioner Iris Weinshall found time between Fairway shopping trips to tell NY1, "We wanted the store to open up, we wanted to see people develop their traffic patterns, and then we'll be back here in the fall, we'll put our counters down, and we'll see if any of the corners will meet warrants to put up traffic lights." [...] [...] At the end of May, DOT Commissioner Iris Weinshall found time between Fairway shopping trips to tell NY1, "We wanted the store to open up, we wanted to see people develop their traffic patterns, and then we'll be back here in the fall, we'll put our counters down, and we'll see if any of the corners will meet warrants to put up traffic lights." [...]

]]> By: Aaron http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/07/11/red-hook-traffic-chaos/comment-page-1/#comment-567 Aaron Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:47:48 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/07/11/red-hook-traffic-chaos/#comment-567 Anon, I'd be curious to see the rest of your posting. I hope the WordPress system didn't cut you off. I think I characterized the Forgione quote accurately. She says, "We comply with... a federal guideline." I say that she tells the community "federal guidelines prevent the city..." Fortunately, it's the Internet so I can fix that if people think it's unfair. But I think there is a much bigger and more interesting point that your comment touches on: In lots of great cities around the world a street like 17th between Park and Bway wouldn't even be open to regular traffic. The street would be a formal part of Union Square. It is not hard to imagine Union Square extending all the way to the front step of B&N and the relatively small amount of traffic that crosses the north side of the square making its way across town via other routes. The midblock crosswalk was actually a pretty small item on the community's list of requests. A number of folks were pushing for 17th Street to be made one-way with east-bound traffic eliminated altogether. Lots of people liked the idea of pedestrianizing 17th Street but in the current transpo/land use climate no one felt it was at all realistic. So, the community ended up fighting for a midblock crosswalk. Some of these ideas may be good, some bad. The point is: We could be thinking a lot bigger about how we use our public space and our street space in NYC. But when DOT traffic engineers are in the room the answer always seems to be, "No." Even for the small ideas. Anon,

I'd be curious to see the rest of your posting. I hope the WordPress system didn't cut you off.

I think I characterized the Forgione quote accurately. She says, "We comply with... a federal guideline." I say that she tells the community "federal guidelines prevent the city..." Fortunately, it's the Internet so I can fix that if people think it's unfair.

But I think there is a much bigger and more interesting point that your comment touches on: In lots of great cities around the world a street like 17th between Park and Bway wouldn't even be open to regular traffic. The street would be a formal part of Union Square. It is not hard to imagine Union Square extending all the way to the front step of B&N and the relatively small amount of traffic that crosses the north side of the square making its way across town via other routes.

The midblock crosswalk was actually a pretty small item on the community's list of requests. A number of folks were pushing for 17th Street to be made one-way with east-bound traffic eliminated altogether. Lots of people liked the idea of pedestrianizing 17th Street but in the current transpo/land use climate no one felt it was at all realistic. So, the community ended up fighting for a midblock crosswalk.

Some of these ideas may be good, some bad. The point is: We could be thinking a lot bigger about how we use our public space and our street space in NYC. But when DOT traffic engineers are in the room the answer always seems to be, "No." Even for the small ideas.

]]> By: annonymous http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/07/11/red-hook-traffic-chaos/comment-page-1/#comment-566 annonymous Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:30:12 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/07/11/red-hook-traffic-chaos/#comment-566 You really undermine the credibility of the good work you do here by featuring a video in which B/C Forgione says one thing and then in your text is quoted as saying something else. She never says that MUTCD is a requirement that DOT must adhere to. She says that DOT complies with the guidlines set forth by MUTCD. Therefore, she is not being contradicted when Mr. Primeggia answers a later question - and answers it in a way that leaves some room for flexibility in dealing with an immensely complicated tangle of conflicting street use priorities. Anyway, think about, if there is only 317 feet between corners then by adding a mid block crossing, you now have two sections of less than 150 feet each bookended by complex and unique intersections. The disruption caused at these intersections by spillback of cars stopped at the new mid-block intersection is an undesired effect that ought to be considered by mid-block crossing proponents. Compare the You really undermine the credibility of the good work you do here by featuring a video in which B/C Forgione says one thing and then in your text is quoted as saying something else. She never says that MUTCD is a requirement that DOT must adhere to. She says that DOT complies with the guidlines set forth by MUTCD. Therefore, she is not being contradicted when Mr. Primeggia answers a later question - and answers it in a way that leaves some room for flexibility in dealing with an immensely complicated tangle of conflicting street use priorities. Anyway, think about, if there is only 317 feet between corners then by adding a mid block crossing, you now have two sections of less than 150 feet each bookended by complex and unique intersections. The disruption caused at these intersections by spillback of cars stopped at the new mid-block intersection is an undesired effect that ought to be considered by mid-block crossing proponents. Compare the

]]> By: columbia street http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/07/11/red-hook-traffic-chaos/comment-page-1/#comment-564 columbia street Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:18:05 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/07/11/red-hook-traffic-chaos/#comment-564 I ride my bike all the time in Red Hook, and I honestly don't think a traffic light will work. I don't think it would have prevented the girl from getting hit, but I don't know for sure. What Van Brunt Street needs is a bike lane, although that won't happen, because the street is too narrow. The next best option is a stop sign. Everyone, hopefully, will stop at a stop sign. Traffic lights usually make people drive faster to beat the light. Columbia St. I ride my bike all the time in Red Hook, and I honestly don't think a traffic light will work. I don't think it would have prevented the girl from getting hit, but I don't know for sure. What Van Brunt Street needs is a bike lane, although that won't happen, because the street is too narrow. The next best option is a stop sign. Everyone, hopefully, will stop at a stop sign. Traffic lights usually make people drive faster to beat the light.

Columbia St.

]]> By: AD http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/07/11/red-hook-traffic-chaos/comment-page-1/#comment-559 AD Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:44:05 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/07/11/red-hook-traffic-chaos/#comment-559 Kudos to Bluesage for managing to score that photograph. I was just at the Red Hook Fairway on Sunday to enjoy a meal out back while looking out to the bay and the Statue of Liberty. While waiting (for an hour) for the Water Taxi, I went out front to snap a few pictures for a blog post I was thinking about writing on multi-modal transportation planning. I took some photos of the well-used bike racks installed in front of the Fairway, and of the ferry dock out back (adjacent to Bob Diamond's unused trolley connection), and of the parking lot. Parking was just one of the many modes people were using to get to the Fairway. I was preparing to write a laudatory post in favor of balanced multi-modalism. To round out the blog post that was forming in my mind, I thought I'd take the picture that Bluesage took above. That was until a beefy security guard comes over and says, "No pictures." I walked three feet over onto the sidewalk, and asked, "How about now?" "You can do whatever you want, but no pictures of the store." "Why not?" "It's against the law." Of course it isn't against the law, but I decided not to mess with this guy. I also put the kibosh on ever writing anything praising Fairway. Transportation issued aside for a moment: The store is a fantastic adaptive reuse of what had been a marginally used if not vacant building. It is so much more pleasant to be in there than in a typical newly built big-box supermarket that you find out in the suburbs and exurbs. So what is Fairway ashamed of? Kudos to Bluesage for managing to score that photograph.

I was just at the Red Hook Fairway on Sunday to enjoy a meal out back while looking out to the bay and the Statue of Liberty. While waiting (for an hour) for the Water Taxi, I went out front to snap a few pictures for a blog post I was thinking about writing on multi-modal transportation planning. I took some photos of the well-used bike racks installed in front of the Fairway, and of the ferry dock out back (adjacent to Bob Diamond's unused trolley connection), and of the parking lot. Parking was just one of the many modes people were using to get to the Fairway. I was preparing to write a laudatory post in favor of balanced multi-modalism.

To round out the blog post that was forming in my mind, I thought I'd take the picture that Bluesage took above. That was until a beefy security guard comes over and says, "No pictures." I walked three feet over onto the sidewalk, and asked, "How about now?"

"You can do whatever you want, but no pictures of the store."

"Why not?"

"It's against the law."

Of course it isn't against the law, but I decided not to mess with this guy. I also put the kibosh on ever writing anything praising Fairway.

Transportation issued aside for a moment: The store is a fantastic adaptive reuse of what had been a marginally used if not vacant building. It is so much more pleasant to be in there than in a typical newly built big-box supermarket that you find out in the suburbs and exurbs. So what is Fairway ashamed of?

]]>