The video that they just posted here very clearly shows cars reaching into the 40 mph range. The video also appears to be shot during a rush hour period when there is actually quite a bit of traffic on 8th. At night and at times when there is less traffic, cars really fly on 8th and regularly hit speeds in the high 40′s (I drive there and, yeah, it’s easy to find yourself going that fast to keep with the flow). 25 mph is generally considered the speed where ped injuries become fatalities and neighborhood streets become through-streets.

But “highway,” to my mind, doesn’t only refer to travel speeds. A highway is a place where a vehicle gets to drive straight and fast and unimpeded for a lengthy stretch. 8th Ave, with its blocks of green lights tempting drivers to floor it, is currently engineered to do function like a highway.

The community has repeatedly asked DOT to change the signal timings to change that. They did some tweaks around 9th Street after a car went through the front door of Dizzy’s last year. But they refuse to slow down 8th. They say, “Call the NYPD” if you have a speeding problem there.

So, hyperbole? No. 8th Ave’s highway-like funciton is one of THE major issues in the neighborhood.

But on this point we’ll agree: These horrors are pretty typical driving patterns for Brooklyn.

The speed gun in the video now posted on the front page here shows cars going 30mph.

Those are not highway speeds.

So yes, it is hyperbole to call it such.

If you want to argue that 30mph is too high a speed limit and advocate for a lower “neighborhood” speed limit of say 20-25 i can get behind that.

These horrors seem to be pretty typical driving patterns to me.

There is no question that the self-marginalizing in this particular episode has been done by DOT Deputy Commissioner Michael Primeggia. People in his own agency — his own employees — refuse to back him up on this plan. He is out there all by himself on this one. It’s virtually impossible to find anyone to speak up for it.

There is no question who has been marginalized here.

I don’t want to put words in Nic’s mouth though. My point is that this sort of breathless exaggeration doesn’t help.

#9 made some intelligent points don’t seize on three words and dismiss it entirely.

I cross 8th ave and PPW twice everyday. I wait for the light to change. It’s not the end of the world.

It is hard to imagine that the poster of this comment lives in Park Slope. Do you have children who go to the PS Dance Studio, play soccer at St. Francis Xavier? Attend PS 39, 321, 107? Do the guys at La Bagel Delight know how you like your coffee? Do the sales people at Living on 5th and 7th call you when something you like goes on sale? Did you buy your children’s birth announcements at Lion in the Sun?

Do you live in our COMMUNITY?

The families we know in the neighborhood are pretty upset about this plan. A smoother driving experience — not at the top of the list.

Having to cross the highway that is 8th Avenue on the way to the Park is not something we look forward to on our way to the 9th Street playground. And then doing it again on PPW, with the playground in sight, not so terrific.

This traffic plan looks a whole lot like folks trying to solve the disaster that will be the traffic problem when AY and the stadium are complete in 2010. And we would prefer that folks fix that problem elsewhere. Of course we would prefer that problem did not exist altogether but it seems too late for that.

For now, we would like the City to take responsibility and not create further unintended consequences of an already highly questionable project.

And as for a smoother driving experience, to your point, perhaps that is something one should expect in a quiet suburban street somewhere other than Brooklyn.

It is clear that you were not wrapped up in the debate because your observation is not matched by the reality of what happened.

At every official public meeting, the yelling and screaming came from the Ratner-funded BUILD, Acorn and union guys. Sure, there were some irrational arguments on the other side and no real message control (it’s a community not a corporation after all). But it eventually began to seem like a fault of the neighborhood people that they weren’t rowdy and unreasonable enough. The kinds of public meetings that were set up for this process weren’t good for anything but yelling.

There was a ton of excellent, top quality testimony submitted at the EIS hearings by civic groups and individuals living around the Yards project, many of whom were professionals with valuable in put to provide (http://www.nolandgrab.org/archives/2005/10/public_hearing.html). There were a number of organizations who were not trying to stop or kill the project but were ready to work with the city, state and developer in a cooperative, collaborative fashion to make sure the project worked for all parties. But the neighborhood quality of life interests were shut out and shouted down again and again. Tish James was the only political power on our side.

In the end, the project and Brooklyn are going to suffer profoundly because jobs and housing were the only community interests deemed politically necessary to deal with. And because the project will fail on so many levels, the jobs and housing people are going to suffer too — and probably a whole lot more than the brownstone Brooklyn residents who are relatively well off either way.

It’s a shame too because the enviro and quality of life issues effect the jobs and housing people just as much if not more than the Brownstone civics. Who suffers from the traffic-induced asthma, the crowded schools, the broken down sewage systems more than poor and middle class people? Rich people escape this crap. If we had real leadership in Brooklyn then all of these interests could have worked together and gotten a lot more out of the developer and the state. DeBlasio and Markowitz are the two who could have done the most to broker a deal by getting Bertha Lewis to go in the right direction, but they were all bought. Bertha will, ultimately, come down as the biggest villain of the story.

There are other development projects I too would have preferred. But thats not the way it works in the Capital of the World. What distinguishes NYC from the suburbs is that these planning decisions are made in consideration of the whole. I fight a lot of these fights and lose often.

If I had my way I would close of my street to through traffic. But the people in Park Slope would really hate it. So would the people who try to avoid the backups on the Gowanus. So what? I don’t get that sort of juice in traffic planning. Same with the AY opposition. They were simply not empowered to veto the project. Participate yeah, they participated. Bitch and moan, yeah they bitched and moaned. Cried when the rich and powerful got their way, that happened too.

Let the court cases roll if you want. I might even contribute to the legal fund. But in the end AY is going through. Wake up and smell the construction site.

The goal here isn’t to facilitate a smooth drive. It’s to keep our neighborhood as OUR NEIGHBORHOOD and not merely a throughfare for massive volumes of AY traffic.

First of all, with regard to danger from turning vehicles, a pedestrian is probably in more danger from left turning vehicles on a 2-way (where drivers are more focused on finding gaps in opposing traffic) then they are on right turns or left turns from 1-way streets (where the only conflict that drivers must watch out for are pedestrians). One-way operation would reduce the need for separate left turn phases and thus provide more time in the signal cycle for a leading pedestrian interval.

Secondly, one-way streets would provide a more smooth driving experience, which will irritate the drivers less. A driver is much more likely to run red lights when irritated by having to jockey around left turning vehicles and double parked cars. One-way streets could ostensibly reduce this delay and cause drivers to be less irritated.

Third, one-way streets, if designed correctly would not necessarily become arterial mini-freeways. They could be more like through traffic streets that correctly handle the present traffic load. For instance, Lee and Bedford Avenues in Williamsburg are one-way streets that have 2 travel lanes. This provides for a relatively smooth drive. Think how much worse these streets would be if they were 2-way. 6th and 7th avenues are wide enough for 3 travel lanes (which would be a mistake and too inviting for traffic) but they are also wide enough for 2 travel lanes and a wide bike lane if it was designed properly. You can’t expect to have a quiet suburban street in the middle of Brooklyn.

And the comments really haven’t addressed how positive the changes to 4th Avenue would be. In fact, the changes the DOT would make to 4th Avenue would be a real boon to pedestrians, since it would make the median a lot wider, providing a safer refuge area, while at the same time providing adequate space for turning cars. The DOT is taking away 2 travel lanes and this treatment should be encouraged so that the DOT can replicate the treatment in other places as well (like Houston Street in Manhattan).

Another idea that is unfortunately not on DOT’s radar is that the new wider median can provide space for a physically protected bike lane. A bike lane placed in the median would have no conflicts with parallel traffic or with traffic that wants to turn in to driveways. The left turn pockets and the bikeway can be easily accommodated when DOT takes away the two travel lanes that they propose. If protected left turn arrows were placed along the corridor as well (left turn only on green arrow), then the bicycles would be fully protected from automotive traffic as well. Many light rail systems across the country are designed in the median with protected left arrows and there is no reason a bikeway could not be designed in a similar fashion.

The neighborhoods around Downtown Brooklyn could not have been LESS included in the AY development planning. The process was designed specifically to avoid, at all costs, serious discussion about the project’s quality of life, environmental and city service impacts — the issues most important to the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the project. “Jobs, Housing & Hoops,” remember? You don’t see anything about Schools, Traffic and Air Quality in there, do you?