The worst part of their pedestrian safety plan for Queens Boulevard in Community Board 2 (Sunnyside, Woodside and Elmhurst) was the "Z crossing" intended for the 61st Street crossing, by the Big Six towers. That's exactly the "feature" described by M: it would force pedestrians to walk half a block out of their way and cross the boulevard in two cycles. The last time I was out that way it hadn't been implemented, and we can hope that they were persuaded to ditch it.

Precisely. They have almost identical barriers here in Herald Square and around Madison Square Park, and they do all the harm you describe in your comment. Sure enough, they look kind of nice, and well, "English" looking, but they create a (positively charming) pedestrian ghetto.

________________
______________

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

where xxxx are the sidewalks. So you have to cross once, walk all the way around the next barrier, by which point (not kidding) the light is no longer green, wait for the next green phase. So you need two green phases to cross the road! this is v frequent.

All this leads to is extreme inconvenience to peds and more speeding cars, who feel safe from peds stepping out into the street. Moreover, the barriers are very dangerous to cyclists in case they get the left-hook (U.S. right hook), i.e. vehicle turning across their path, e.g. a truck, one of the leading causes of cyclist fatalities in London. When there's a barrier, there is no escape route to the sidewalk -- the barriers are too high to jump over from a bicycle.

I really think slowing down traffic and giving peds simply more space in relation to cars is the answer. Barriers alone often do more harm than good by giving cars the perception that they are in their own well cordoned-off racetrack and causing them to speed accordingly.

If they make walking less convenient for pedestrians, they will also lead to fewer pedestrians and more cars, which in turn will lead to a more dangerous road environment.

"Research and practice, both here
and abroad, suggests that fewer signs
and less control by authority allows social
and cultural constraints to be more
effective. Drivers become politer and rely
more on eye contact to avoid other drivers."

I have heard some comment that stop signs are preferable to traffic signals for exactly the reason stated above. That makes sense to me. However removal of all traffic devices at Park Ave. intersections would, at least in the near term, result in more collisions, injuries and deaths. Here's a grim reminder I spotted yesterday:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43954081@N00/365974322/

Talk about looking backward. In the UK which has always loved barriers and the separation of vehicles and pedestrians many roads are being reconfigured to allow crossing at any point, removal of barriers and blurring the pavement (sidewalk) and roads. The effect is astounding. In West London, the RBK&C removed most of the boundaries between pedestrians and cars on Kensington High Street and saw a 69% reduction in accidents. This is not an isolated example. Just check out google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=nxS&q=barriers+pedestrians+kensington+remove+accidents+fatalities&btnG=Search

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43954081@N00/

(just start with the photo of the granite tablet first and work your way to the most recent photo).

Google up Brian Ketcham at Community Consulting Services for a Brooklyn list. Should be on their web site. Kind of odd that such a list can't be found on an NYC.gov City Planning web site, eh?

I suspected something like that would happen, based on past experiences with community boards. Very unfriendly rooms, no matter what the subject.

It's very difficult when you've lost a loved one in a preventable crash to argue with people whose objections to prevention efforts are so incredibly petty. Some people don't understand the weight of these issues until, God forbid, it hits too close to home.

MLG

maybe one day park ave can get some bollards and be as ugly as paris.

I think the modernist bollards in your picture of the Brooklyn museum are sterile and ugly - but I suppose that is a matter of taste.

Ed, thanks for the link--I live just yards from this little patch of green and have used it with my kids (although not since it was refurbished) last year. It never occurred to me that it reflect the former street design (I always assumed it was somehow made necessary due to the emergence of Metro North trains across 97th Street from the space).

This park never got much use historically, but one of the key attractions had always been the swarms of pigeons attracted by a handful of neighborhood residents that liked to feed the birds. The pigeons were always there and my kids liked to observe and chase them around. Now my kids are too old to be interested in pigeons, but the refurbished park has very stern signs against pigeon feeding and many other activities that seem to have worked (the old laminated signs were ignored). I'm not necessarily advocating pigeon-feeding in parks, but it does seem to have cut down on park use.

This little park could become a popular destination with the installation of train-themed features for kids apropos of the Metro-North trains that emerge from the ground on 97th Street. one block north. Many, many parents with little kids like to hang out on the sidewalk on 97th between the northbound and southbound lanes of Park Ave., watching the trains come and go all the way up to the distant 125th Street Station. You could erect a modest platform at the northern end of the little park that allowed you to see the action north of 97th Street; maybe add some benches so the parents could sit while the kids watched; even put in one of those fixed binoculars on a pedestal like they have on the Empire State building Observation Deck; and perhaps add a small train shaped climbing structure in the park for toddlers. This would turn the Metro North emergence point at 97th Street into an even greater attraction, perhaps please those who view that emergence point as merely an eyesore, and at least conceptually provide a link between heavily divided Carnegie Hill and Harlem. But it might be too much of a stretch for the "aestheticians of Park Ave" to celebrate/accentuate what lies to the dreaded north of 96th Street.

The aesthetics issue is a dodge, the worst kind of NIMBYism. There are hundreds of examples of well-designed barriers. Maybe we can put Tom Otterness sculptures there and keep everyone happy. The resistance to any change -- even one so modest and seemingly obvious as sidewalk bollards -- is a symptom of snobbery.

The "cost" argument raised by B is a dodge too, or at least a bad-faith argument. He's assuming a zero-sum game where there is none. In fact, Transportation Alternatives and the broad coalition around bike/pedestrian safety has focused a lot of attention on Queens Boulevard, not to mention Houston St, Shorefront Parkway, the West Side greenway, Fifth Ave in Park Slope, and dozens of other spots.

Oooh, Google Image search turned up a few pix. Better get there soon, looks like NYC Parks has a capital project scheduled to completely rehab the area:

http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/parks_divisions/capital/pd_proj_month_feb_05.html