I got hit by a BLACK SEDAN WITH TINTED WINDOWS on sixth ave and Berkeley three nights ago. It was doing 60 and swerved right at me. I was only a step off the curb. Miraculously I only broke my foot. A friend informs me that a car of the same description swerved at her and her little girl on seventh ave a week ago. Watch out for this car.

Jeff Kahn

The relationship between CBs and civic groups is complicated and challenging. They do not always agree --- especially when it comes to livable streets issues. In the Slope and brownstone Bklyn, the civics have pushed much more aggressively than the CBs for traffic calming and traffic reduction.

Context Sensitive Solutions is great. However, I would like to see a process that works well in places like the Slope with high population density. The Slope is 30k people/mile versus your average mid-size US city with densities of 3 to 5K. The complexity of finding consensus with these higher densities is much higher than in places dominated by single family, owner, homes.

There are 59 community boards and 8.2million NYC residents. That's an avg of 140k people per CB. That mean's every NYC CB is "bigger" than Ft Collins Colorado (pop 128k)--- which is one of the 200 biggest cities in the US.

To do CSS citywide, NYC DOT needs at least two planner/outreach people per CB. (59x2=118)They probably currently have about 20 people in local outreach.

Given the scarcity of their outreach resource, it would not be "more efficient" to do intense CSS style consensus building for things like this Slope traffic plan. Most efficient from DOT's perspective is to pitch something and see what the community reaction is. If Park Slope hates it, so what? DOT can move along to a less contentious neighborhood. It probably didnt take DOT engineers too long to come up with this plan.

It's a "takes money, to make money" problem. The level of community involvement and consensus building called for on this blog simply does not jibe with the reality that the mayor and council have not been interested in investing in the significant planning infrastructure needed to create community level consensus. Way too much time is spent here busting on DOT, when it's the political masters that need to be pressed for action.

I'd want to see them grounded in a more democratic process (however that happens) before they get any more control. Otherwise I'd rather that the advice and control be vested in elected officials like the city council representative.

If the charter were revised (everyone's favorite topic!) to give the community boards some veto power, or to mandate that they be materially involved earlier (in the analysis phase?) of proposed alterations like this, I think you would see a lot more grass-roots community based design around this city.

And I don't think the wheels of the bureaucracy would grind to a halt: don't tell me that a process where traffic engineers and CB members work side-by-side to analyze problems and design solutions is slower or less efficient than presenting a scheme like this and then reworking it in the face of public pressure. I don't think the city would lose sight of the broader view, and get stuck in neighborhood minutiae, either.

This energy exists all around Park Slope and as the video shows, residents would be more than happy to help plan a better traffic flow and work with a group of engineers who really don't know much about the "real" state of how the neighborhood works.

Check it out, the kind of valuable (and FREE!) input DOT is ignoring on a daily basis.

http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/grand-army-plaza-traffic-survey/

What world is the DOT living in, where a narrow lane is enough to enforce a speed limit?

And then we have Weinshall at last week's hearings asking for political cover from the City Council on biking, parking reform and pedestrian improvement. Well, reform should start at home.