The heart of your frustration seems to be in the pillaging of traditional street types, both in name and function. For example, is Queens Boulevard really a Boulevard by type? No. Conventional traffic engineers have wielded the blunt tool of functional classification to reduce our formerly rich network of various street types into just three or four, regardless of context, detailing, and intent. It is indeed frustrating to see what was probably once a real boulevard retain the name, but be reduced to a “arterial” in detailing and function. We all know where the emphasis lies there.

They’re a bit more inviting than Mosholu and Pelham Parkways and Southern Boulevard in the Bronx, and have more green space than the Grand Concourse. They’re a lot better than the lousy excuses for boulevards we have here in Queens, like Queens, Northern and Astoria Boulevards. They’re a damn sight better than any of the limited-access highways.

Of course, the northern and western ends of those streets suck, but that’s not your point.

I don’t know the boulevards in Barcelona and San Francisco that you’re referring to, but I’ve heard about the car-bike conflicts on Octavia Boulevard.

As you mentioned, many multiway Parisian Boulevards aren’t always the best example because their original design was greatly compromised over the course of the 20th century, although some reclamation has taken place. Many feature Metro stops, bus lines, and wide tree-lined sidewalks, which certainly help, and provide a foil to the cranky, medieval pattern of the arrondisement neighborhooods. I agree that San Michel is a good one, albeit not a multi-way.

I enjoyed walking both the Paseig de Gracia in Barcelona, as well as the Avinguda Diagonal far more than some of the signature boulevards in Paris. Both could ne traffic-calmed more, but they serve an expressed purpose of being the dominant street type for their city. They accomodate pedestrians and bicyclists either in the medians, or along the slow-flow local lanes. Again, time has eroded these a bit too. That is not to say, however, that they couldn’t be restored or retrofitted in the future. Indeed, they should.

Octavia Boulevard in San Francisco is likely the most salient American equivalent to what may, or may not be appropriate in the Sheridan situation. It too was a freeway tear down. Its section is comprised of four lanes of thru-traffic, and two single lanes of north-south (I believe) local traffic, which feature sharrows for continuity in the bicycle network. Octavia added more urban housing, and tree-lined sidewalks that feature better pedestrian crossings. When those trees mature, the public realm will be further enhanced. I offer this example because it was a chance to right-size the section from the beginning, unlike the continuous meddling that has gone on to meet the needs of automobiles in some of Europe’s better cities. Moreover, it provides a gracious transition from the Central Freeway (it would be nice to remove more of it) to the more residential, and narrow Octavia Street.

Not being a San Fran resident, perhaps SB San Francisco could give us a more in depth perspective.

Staying in California, The Esplanade is another multi-way Boulevard that is quite pleasant, according to Allan Jacobs. It’s more residential in character, and surely less urban, but it does the job of moving people quite well. It also provides a signature element for what is otherwise a fairly unremarkable place.

Speaking of Allan Jacobs, I saw him speak last year where he mentioned that he was very proud of Boulevard he designed in Vancouver. I need to research that one some more.

Not a multi-way, but Commonwealth Avenue in Boston is great example,and a *few multi-ways work in DC.

Cap ‘n Transit, how do you feel along Ocean and Eastern Parkways? Those would be your most local examples. I am not as familiar with those as I should be.

The Boulevard Saint-Michel in Paris is a possibility, but it’s only four lanes wide, so I don’t think it’s the kind of boulevard you’re talking about. The Boulevard Saint-Germain is only five lanes wide, and already unpleasant.

However, all of the above is appropriate only if the NYDOT, and more importantly the residents of the area, decide that moving a large volume of people through the corridor is remains a priority. The boulevard simply offers a third solution.

The solution of de-emphasizing the use of the automobile as much as possible by breaking the site into small blocks, narrow streets, and mixed-use urban buildings that provide access to needed transit and commercial services is every bit as worthy, if not more so.