CB2 is working with Parks on a redesign of Petrosino Sq., where Centre and Lafayette split just below Spring. Because of the geometry of the streets and pedestrian ramps, it's very inviting for cars from eastbound Kenmare to drive right up into the park (esp. when the park reconstruction is complete).

Parks' design included bollards (nice ones, I might add), but the Arts Commission vetoed them. The CB2 reso strongly calls for them to be restored to the design. We'll see where it goes from here. I think the Arts Commission prefers those movable bollards - you know, people.

OK, that is harsh, and i don't *really* mean that. you get my drift, though, yes?!

Good design happens at the outset. So does good government. The rest is Rube Goldberg.

Why the art commission feels that decorative bollards to protect pedestrians are a sign of blight, while ugly bollards to protect fire hydrants and telephone booths are OK, is beyond me, but there you go.

As on Broadway, the timing of the lights on Park Ave. often prevents slower pedestrians (disabled, elderly, little kids) from making it across in one go. Slower pedestrians are stranded on the malls, waiting for the light to change so the can make it across, and they are vulnerable to the traffic while waiting there (benches or no).

I agree that Park Ave. South appears to be a greater priority. I suspect the higher collision rates there reflect the fact that commercial traffic is allowed.

You are correct that the CB8 Transportation Committee's vote last January against exploring bollards for the Park Avenue malls was a recommendation that is not binding on DoT. however, as a practical matter, under the Weinshall administration that recommendation virutally ensured that the the DoT would not examine the issue and develop the statistics that would help make an informed decision. Possibly, the current DoT administration would take a different approach.

Just a correction to the post by "Sproule Love" of 12/3, who posted a link to a 1922 photo of the Park Ave esplanade, and said, "great irony here that Park Ave. used to be a park, totally car free..." Wrong.

After the railroad yards north of Grand Central Sta. were platformed over, Park Ave. and the cross streets were constructed, elevated above the yards. New construction, e.g., the Waldorf, St. Bart's et al. were built, all on "stilts" above the yards. (FDR's private train could pull up under the Waldorf, giving him elevator access directly to the hotel.)

Back to Park Ave: Traffic was much lighter in 1922 and the central green mall was two lanes wider, hence the appearance, when photographed from ground level, that there was no north and southbound traffic lanes to either side. There were lanes, of course, just not as many as today.

As traffic increased, the park in the middle of Park Ave. was cut down to add more lanes and it became the median green strip we have today, covering access to and ventilation for, the railroad underneath.

As for the Community Board's recommendation to the DOT regarding bollards, the city has traffic engineers who can evaluate the dangers. The Board simply offered it's judgment as a recommendation. No statistics were offered justifying the proposed barriers. The only "witness" spoke of a fatality to someone hit stepping onto Park Ave. from a median strip, not on the median.

Broadway's median, in contrast, is wider, and actually functions as a string of mini-parks, with benches at each intersection that entice the public to sit there, unlike Park Ave.

Note that today's news (12/4) reported Park Ave. South at 33rd Street is the most dangerous intersection in the city. Those tiny, 3-foot wide strips separating north and southbound traffic lanes are truly a danger, supported by hard data.

Finally, the "detective" who unearthed the "horrible" motor vehicle record of that limo driver demonstrated only that limo drivers get parking tickets... Gee, who woulda thought?

Dave Rosenstein
Yorkville

In my experience, however, the box-blocking rule is only enforced when there is a traffic cop -- sometimes two -- actively directing traffic in the intersection, and even then it's hit-or-miss. There is something to be said for designing streets that disperse traffic evenly.

Still, you've got a good point on the two-way street. I'm not a traffic engineer, but it seems to me that you could let a block of lights (say, ten intersections' worth) turn green simultaneously, but limit the size of the block so that a motorist would not be "rewarded" by being able to proceed further by speeding through the ten intersections faster than 20 MPH. Some motorists would nonetheless race through the block of lights thus timed, even though they gained no advantage, but taxis generally wouldn't (they would anticipate the timing) and they would tend to control the overall flow. In any event you can't stop motorists from doing stupid things without a cop on every corner. But by adjusting the timing of lights you would eliminate the reward for speeding.

I'm pretty sure that this is the old 10021, before it was split into smaller zip codes, but I didn't do any research to back that up.

http://10021-cars.notlong.com is the source (redirects to census site).

(You can check other zip codes -- follow the notlong link above, then look for a string like "geo_id=86000US10021" in the URL. You can see the zipcode 10021 there. Change it to whatever you want.)