But the point is - GAPCo freely admits that it hasn't done rigorous traffic flow analysis yet. This is not a city plan - this is a plan hatched and designed to date by private citizens, granted with the co-operation of a number of city agencies. So enough about "the city wants" a traffic nightmare. As you can probably tell, I drive A LOT around GAP - from Crown/Prospect Heights to 7th Avenue - and I walk a lot too, and I think this plan would make my life a lot easier

Anyway, a merge is one thing, crossing oncoming traffic is another. I'd rather have the merge. I know how to drive.

In fact, vehicles spinning around Grand Army Plaza from Flatbush or Eastern Pkwy to PPW actually have to merge into and cross over FOUR lanes of, very often, fast-moving traffic.

This move from Eastern Pkwy to PPW is one of the scariest and most dysfunctional aspects of Grand Army Plaza in its current incarnation.

The idea discussed above seems like it could be a whole lot better for motorists and the other users too.

Obviously, the city wants to create a traffic nightmare so as to reduce the number of vehicles that use GAP, which will just make the side streets worse.

Oh, OK, so your doctor is in Park Slope, too bad, take a subway. So you want to go to the new Whole Foods, too bad, that was built for Park Slopers only. OK, I guess for you, people don't count unless they DON'T drive?

They count, but not as much as people who don't pollute the air or put other people's lives at risk. Why should people who live in Park Slope make their neighborhood more dangerous because someone can't be bothered to get on a bus?

The harder it is to drive, the slower the cars go and the more the drivers are getting angry looking for the one opening where they CAN go a bit faster thus not really paying attention to the road because they are so wound up, anxious and stressed out because they have been sitting in a traffic jam for no reason except that they chose to drive to (insert Park Slope area business here).

Show me an arrangement where one person puts up with inconvenience and danger because the other person might get angry and hurt them, and I'll show you an abusive relationship.

The idea is, as I understand it, to transform what is now a roundabout into 3 major intersections: 1, where Union, PPW, and the Plaza traffic meet, 2, where Flatbush, Eastern Pkwy, and Plaza traffic meet, and 3, where Flatbush, Vanderbilt, and Plaza traffic meet.

By Plaza traffic I mean roundabout traffic, traffic flowing around the Arch/Fountain island.

Intersections 1 and 2 would be the confluence of 3 two-way roads, presenting a driver with 2 choices.

A driver westbound on Eastern Parkway could turn right onto Flatbush north bound, or left onto Flatbush southbound. A driver northbound on Flatbush could turn right onto Eastern Pkwy eastbound, or go straight on Flatbush northbound. A driver southbound on FLatbush (which in this plan runs EAST of the Arch Fountain, not west as currently) could turn left onto Eastern Pkwy east bound or continue straight on Flatbush southbound.

On the opposite side of the new green plaza, a driver northbound on PPW (currently impossible) could turn left down Union westbound or go straight northbound on roadway WEST of the fountain (this too is new: in the current configuration all northbound traffic runs EAST of the arch). A driver eastbound on Union Street could turn right onto southbound PPW or left onto northbound roadway. And a driver southbound through the Plaza could go straight onto PPW or turn right onto Union St eastbound.

At the 'top' of the Plaza, intersection 3, would be the confluence of 4 two-way roadways, each presenting the driver with 3 choices. A driver southbound on Flatbush could turn right WEST of the Arch toward intersection 1; go straight EAST of the arch toward intersection 2; or turn left onto northbound Vanderbilt Avenue (tho whether this is necessary remains to be seen). A driver on southbound Vanderbilt could turn right onto northbound Flatbush (again, maybe unnecessary); go straight WEST of the Arch to Intersection 1; or turn left EAST of the arch to Intersection 2. A driver northbound from Intersection 1 (WEST of the Arch) could turn right onto roadway EAST of the Arch toward Intersection 2; go straight onto Vanderbilt Avenue northbound; or turn left onto Flatbush Avenue northbound. A driver northbound from Intersection 2 (EAST of the Arch) could turn right onto Vanderbilt Avenue northbound, go straight onto Flatbush AVenue northbound, or turn left on roadway WEST of the Arch toward Intersection 1.

Is it complex? You bet. Especially when you write it our turn by turn like that. But when you think of it, it doesn't add any lights, it lets traffic stack up where it logically should, and it gives pedestrians clear, logical intersections to navigate. It doesn't lose a single piece of current 'functionality' for drivers. And it might even make more sense for drivers than what we have now!

Still, I have yet to see any data that says that by reducing the number of lanes will actually reduce the number of over all drivers through out the city. It will reduce the volume of vehicles on those streets (less lanes means less vehicles on those streets), but I think people will just drive elsewhere thuis causing gridlock and traffic on streets where there is none now.

To accomplish this will require reducing the volume of vehicles. C'est la vie.

Why don't you go stand at GAP and see how many cars go from Flatbush ave/Eastern Parkway to PPW. Heck, with the plan above you can't even go from Eastern Parkway to Flatbush ave southbound. I guess all that traffic will be "moved" to Washington Ave. which doesn't matter as it's not Park Slope.

So, the drivwers may not be going as fast but they will be twice as angry. Real good.

Last I checked, there were still plenty of Black, Latino and Orthodox people living in Park Slope. People from Crown Heights and Flatbush, of whatever ethnicity, are welcome to visit Park Slope by subway, bus, bicycle or foot. I guess for you, people don't count unless they drive?

Good plan.

And you don't think this new plan will cause any dangerous situations? Wake up.

My agenda is to have a civilized city where everything works. A city that realizess that it is growing that we need better traffic solutions, not just less lanes mean less traffic. I'd say there are better ways of reducing traffic then just making people's life while driving extremely unpleasant. I'd say put more tolls on the bridges, all of them! I'd say congestion pricing is a start. I'd say make it so no single occupancy vehicles could enter Manhattan.

It's OK, I know you never drive in NYC and despise anyone who does. I drive on the weekends sometimes but never during the week.

I don't see how this plan or any of these "traffic calming" plans will really work in the next ten years. Even in an area such as Park Slope there are more and more car owners than there were ten years ago.

NYC's traffic plan (as it always has been): Make traffic so bad in NYC, make the roads so full of potholes, etc, that no one will drive.

http://11215-cars.notlong.com/

It comes out to 57% of households with zero cars available.