You will still have 4 lanes of cars coming from the South East (through the Park and along. Flatbush). Those four lanes will be squished into 2 lanes in Flatbush.

If both routes are really used at capacity, this can only mean traffic jam. The bottleneck is not the park, it is Flatbush.

To eliminate this jam there are a few options: reducing Flatbush East and the Park both to one lane, or closing one of both streets.
Alternatively, you could ban parking along Flatbush.

As the lane coming through the Park and the Flatbush East serve the same neighbourhoods, they do not really speed up the average traffic during rush hours, nor they make a difference during slow hours. To make GAP safe for cars and eliminate traffic jam. Closing the Park would be the best option for cars. Individual drivers might have the illusion they are faster, but the average car does not benefit fro the creation of bottlenecks and jams.
Imagine the eastetic advantages on the map, and the simplification of the design (leading to more safety) when the traffic from the Park would stop.

Is the relative conservatism of the community board a worthwhile check on populist excesses, or an attempt to better reflect the power structure in the neighborhood and avoid situations where powerful groups are not given a proportionate say and extract revenge on politicians?

Is Markowitz adequately fulfilling his duty to represent the people of Brooklyn by appointing a community board that reflects the community? If not, is there anything that can be done about this?

A real plan for bicycling, guaranteeing safe passage from Prospect park to Central Park is what is needed. Remodeling Grand Army Plaza should be part of this. If this passage should exist, cycling becomes an alternative commute.

In general, Brooklynites rely on public transport and less on cars for their mobility. They could rely on cycling. However Alternatives for cars are not feasible because cars kill all alternatives(bikes and so). In most places, the streets are more than wide enough to get safe bicycle lanes in both directions, even with a concrete border, if only the wrongly parked cars and bad irregular borders would be addressed.

I could see that potentially making it take a little bit longer to get from Flatbush to destinations north and west, but I don't think it's significant.

If it is significant, however, I can understand your frustration, but I feel that the benefits of increased safety and a more accessible, usable public space are more than worth it. Any plaza with six lanes of traffic in each direction is going to be highly unpleasant for pedestrians, and it's just too much for that part of Brooklyn.

There are two good train lines that can take people from Flatbush to Park Slope, and that far out they're not particularly crowded.

BTW, the Arc de Triomphe in Paris does have pedestrian underpasses, and they're just as unpleasant as they sound.

Maybe you can tell us a little more about how close or far apart GAPCO and the community board are on GAP improvements.

I don't think the fountain/arch area could be all that much more deadened than it already is.

If the park were closed to cars and the space between arch and park were one contiguous plaza, immediately the weekend greenmarket would expand into the new public space. They are bursting and want more space.

Likewise I imagine all kinds of new uses and activities would spring up around the arch and fountain if it were "attached" to the park and more accessible to the public.

I know gapco has referred to the arc de triomphe in the past but the arc is actually kind of a horrible traffic maelstrom as well. Probably not the best example.

I am in favor of closing all of Prospect Park to cars, but I don't know if it is practical to do that as part of the planning to redesign Grand Army Plaza, since they are two different issues. It would be easier just to close one entrance to cars as part of the Grand Army Plaza planning

I don't know what the current situation is, can someone give us an update?

The westbound lane should be right next to the eastbound lane, so it meets Flatbush Ave. at a right angle. They should widen and landscape the sidewalk north of the street, instead of putting this landscaped island in the middle of the street (where the striped area is currently in the middle of the street).

If Eastern Parkway contines to meet Flatbush at the same wide angle that it does today, traffic will continue to go as fast as it does today. Making them meet at a right angle forces cars to slow down to make the turn. And pedestrians will benefit more from a widened sidewalk than from an island in the center of the street.

The same is true of the southbound traffic on Flatbush Ave. The traffic island gives them a wider turning radius and encourages them to speed. Instead, move the southbound lane so it is next to the northbound lane, and give them a sharper turn that slows them down.

This would also give more land to the plaza with the arch in the center of the street, so more people could use it.

The model is Columbus Circle. It used to have wide turning radiuses to speed up traffic. Now it has tighter turning radiuses that slow traffic, and it has a larger, more usable plaza in the center of the street.

Across the city we see sharply different perspectives between civic groups, parents and activists on one side and the community boards on the other. As is the case at GAP, more often, the boards, which are referred to as the "community" by city agencies, seem to put a premium on the convenience of motorists.

A two-way PPW wouldn't make that much difference for pedestrians or autos, but it would be great if the B68 were extended to Grand Army Plaza in place of the less frequent B69.

Moreover, cyclists now have two southbound options, PPW and the park, but have a theoretical choice between circling the park and climbing the hill or riding on 8th Avenue northbound.