2023 Prospect Park Drive Safety Study Feedback Form Prospect Park Alliance, the non-profit organization that operates Prospect Park in partnership with the City, commissioned a safety study of the Prospect Park Drive by leading traffic consultancy Sam Schwartz, in partnership with NYC Parks and NYC DOT, to address safety issues on the Park Drive, which was never fully redesigned after the Park closed to outside vehicular traffic in 2018. Those issues have intensified with the significant increase in usage of the Park Drive by pedestrians, walkers, runners and cyclists in recent years. This safety study was funded through Participatory Budgeting in District 39 of the New York City Council, which includes Prospect Park. Visit our website to review the safety study: www.prospectpark.org/drive-safety-study. Once you review the study, please share your feedback on this form. Questions? Please contact us at community@prospectpark.org. Question Title * 1. Design Changes: Modify Lane Design (Option A)Note: NYC DOT is piloting a version of Option A with pedestrian space on both sides of the drive. Conversion of outer vehicle lane into fast bike/vehicle lane to calm speeds and more formally separate fast and slow cyclists (note: while the Drive is closed to public vehicular traffic, it is still utilized by field operations staff) Both options create additional pedestrian space, with Option A adding space on far side of Drive. Both options take into consideration stopped vehicles (adequate passing width) Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Question Title * 2. Design Changes: Modify Lane Design (Option B) Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Question Title * 3. Please provide any specific feedback on these recommendations. Question Title * 4. Design Changes: Increased Crosswalk Visibility Use high visibility paint or consider asphalt art Better placed markings before crosswalks, sized for cyclists (e.g. “PED CROSSING AHEAD”) Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Question Title * 5. Design Changes: Physical Barriers at Crosswalks Consider placing sturdy barriers such as large planters at key crosswalks to narrow roadway and slow traffic. While stanchions are currently in place at key crosswalks, consider adding barricades, which were removed after opposition, to make more effective and less easy to move. Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Question Title * 6. Design Changes: Modifying Crosswalk GeometryMake crosswalks shorter by extending pedestrian area into bike lane Vehicle/Fast Bike lane traffic merges into Slow Bike lane Accompanied by better signage leading up to crossing Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Question Title * 7. Please provide any specific feedback on these recommendations. Question Title * 8. Design Changes: Removal of Traffic Triangles to Widen Usable Road Space Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Question Title * 9. Design Changes: Widening of Drive + Drainage Improvements (Park Circle Entrance) Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Question Title * 10. Please provide any specific feedback on these recommendations. Question Title * 11. Operational Changes: Educational Signage Add signage to the Drive with expected yielding behavior, lane designations, what types of devices allowed in park Add crossing-specific signs (e.g. “approaching active bike lane,” “look both ways,” “cyclists must yield to pedestrians” Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Question Title * 12. Operational Changes: Community OutreachFoster a “culture of communication” through distribution of materials (leaflets, flyers) containing information on yielding behavior and park rules to visitors, community groups, organizations utilizing the park, social media, etc. Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Question Title * 13. Operational Changes: Slow Hours Fast/training cyclists must operate at lower speed (e.g. 10 mph) at certain times of day Precedent: NYCC Cycling Protocol for Central Park: “Training rides should be limited to times when the Park is least crowded (i.e., weekdays before 7am and after 8pm/6pm in winter)” Precedent: “Off-Leash” hours for dog owners (knowing what to expect in the park at certain times) Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Question Title * 14. Operational Changes: Signage Accompanying Signals Explore sign options to increase awareness and compliance with traffic signals Consider bicycle signal heads Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Question Title * 15. Please provide any specific feedback on these recommendations. Question Title * 16. Policy: Electric DevicesWe recommend that NYC Parks and NYC DOT work to create a thoughtful and comprehensive electric vehicle policy that balances park patron safety with the interconnections between the Park Drive and the city greenway system; as well as addresses the growth in e-bikes, including the Citi Bike fleet at park entrances, which has resulted from new, environmentally focused transportation policies. Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Question Title * 17. Please provide any specific feedback on these recommendations. Question Title * 18. Eliminated Options: Please provide any feedback on recommendations that were eliminated from the study (page 15) Vertical elements (speed humps, rumble strips, etc.) Temporary traffic calming (removable speed humps, etc.) Conversion to two-way traffic Reversal of drive direction (to prevent issues at steeped grade hill at Vanderbilt Entrance drive crossing) Changes to signalization of Park Drive Question Title * 19. Additional Feedback: Do you have additional ideas or recommendations you would like to share? To gain a better understanding of user feedback, please answer the following questions: Question Title * 20. Do you live in a neighborhood surrounding the park? Please provide your zip code: 11215 11217 11218 11225 11226 11238 Elsewhere in Brooklyn Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island or The Bronx Outside New York City Question Title * 21. How often do you visit the park? daily several times a week several times a month several times a year once a year seldom or never Question Title * 22. What mode(s) of transportation do you use to visit the park? walking/running/on foot traditional (non-motorized) bike e-bike/e-scooter/other e-device automobile wheelchair Other (please specify) Question Title * 23. Which of these Park Drive safety issues concerns you the most? excessive speed on Drive failure to stop at red lights people traveling against traffic bikes on pedestrian paths Other (please specify) Question Title * 24. Would you like to receive news from Prospect Park Alliance? Please submit your contact information below. First Name Last Name ZIP Code Email Address Done