Prospect Park West Reconfiguration Community Survey Results

8/8/2019 Prospect Park West Reconfiguration Community Survey Results

1/47

Prospect Park West ReconfigurationCommunity Survey Results

Councilmember Brad LanderCouncilmember Stephen LevinBrooklyn Community Board 6

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2010


2/47

2

Contents1) About the Survey

2) Summary of Findings

3) Suggested Modifications

4) Appendix

Methodology Notes

Survey Instrument


3/47

ABOUT / FINDINGS / SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS / APPENDIX

3

Goals of the SurveyProvide area residents with an additional

opportunity for meaningful input on a

controversial neighborhood issue

Give as many people as possible across

the array of stakeholders the chance toexpress their opinions

Identify concerns with the project

Identify potential modifications


4/47


4

Caveats Not intended as a referendum or a randomly-

sampled public opinion poll

- Goal was to provide an additional opportunity for input toas many people as possible

Survey was used as an organizing tool bysupporters & opponents

- Still, over 3,000 people participated, far beyond organized

networks

Risk of duplicate surveys

- We took substantial steps in post-survey data analysis to

conduct integrity tests -- duplicate surveys that were likelyfrom the same individuals were eliminated

- 227 Non-Brooklyn respondents and 93 suspicious responseswere removed from final results


5/47


5

Key Points

Among respondents from Park Slope (beyond PPW)and elsewhere in Brooklyn, there is broad supportfor the project

Among respondents living on PPW, there is aroughly even split between those wishing to keepthe bike lanes & those wishing to eliminate them

Important concerns emerged, especially around

pedestrian/bike interactions, as well as parking andaesthetics

Modifications could address many of the mostpressing concerns

Responses highlight a wider need for enforcement,education, and culture to address expansion ofcycling


6/47


7/47

ABOUT / FINDINGS / SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS / APPENDIXDEMOGRAPHICS

7

Q1: Where Do You Live?

828

11371185

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

PPW & Sidestreets Elsewhere in Park

Slope

Elsew here in

Brooklyn

Broad cross-sectionof geography

3,150 Valid,

BrooklynRespondents

PPW & Sidestreets= People who live

on PPW, 8th

Avenueand streets inbetween(these are broken outwhere relevant)

227 Non-Brooklynrespondents were excludedfrom results, as wereanother 93 suspiciousresponses


8/47

ABOUT / FINDINGS / SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS / APPENDIXDEMOGRAPHICS

8

Q2: Uses of PPW, by Place of Residence Access to Park &

Greenmarketmost popular

Recreation very

popular --Boulevarduses, especiallyamong nearbyresidents

Nearby residentsvery likely topark car on PPW

Biking morepopular for ParkSlope andresidents ofotherneighborhoods

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Access to Prospect Park

Bike for exercise along

street

To go to my home

Jog/walk along street

Commute to work by bike

Park car

Walk dog along street

Commute to work by car

PPW & Sidestreets Park Slope Brooklyn


9/47

ABOUT / FINDINGS / SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS / APPENDIXGOALS AND SAFETY

9

Q4: Did the Project Meet Goals?1. Reducing speeding

2. Creating a safe place to

bike

3. Making it easier to cross

the street

DOTs

StatedGoals


10/47


10

Very

much

55%

Not at all

14%

Somewhat

30%

Q4: Did the Project Meet Goals?

DOT Stated Goal

Reduce Speeding


11/47


11

Very

much

73%

Not at all9%

Somewhat

18%


DOT Stated Goal

Create a Safer Space to Bike


12/47


12


Make it Easier to Cross Street on Foot

Very much

41%

Not at all

31%

Somewhat

29%


13/47


13

0.0

0.5

1.0

Reduced Speeding Created Safe Space to Bike Easier to Cross

PPW & Sidestreets Elsewhere in Park Slope Elsewhere in Brooklyn

Q4: Meeting Goals by ResidenceUsing an Average Score Method

Very Much

Not at all

Somewhat

DOTStated Goal

DOTStated Goal


14/47


14

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Walking Biking Driving Parking

Q5: Change in Safety PerceptionUsing an Average Score Method

More SafeThan Before

Less Safe

Than Before

No Change

From Before


15/47


15

Q5: Change in Safety Perception by ResidenceUsing an Average Score Method

( 1.00 )

( 0.75 )

( 0.50 )

( 0.25 )

-

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Walking Biking Driving Parking

PPW & Sidestreets Elsewhere in Park Slope Elsewhere in Brooklyn

More SafeThan Before

Less SafeThan Before

No ChangeFrom Before


16/47


16

Q7: Do You See More or Less of the Following?

Much Less Bicyclists riding on sidewalk Bicyclists riding against traffic in moving lanes

Drivers speeding

Somewhat Less Double-parked vehicles

Bicyclists crossing against light

About the Same Pedestrians crossing mid-block

Pedestrians crossing against light Pedestrians waiting for light off of curb Bicyclists failing to yield PPW residents say somewhat more


17/47

17

Goals & Safety Perception Conclusions

Pedestrians & bikers

report overall safetyimprovements

Bikers feel much safer

with physicallyseparated lane

Crossing at signalized

intersections feels saferbecause of slowerspeeds and narrowedtraffic lanes

Improvements in Perceived Safety

"It is finally safe to ride a bike on PPW. You no longerhave to bike on the sidewalk or ride on 8th Avewhere two cyclists have been killed in the last couple

of years."

I liked driving fast on PPW and now I have to go alittle slower, but it's not a major difference. Two lanesis plenty to handle the traffic there.

"My kids have become more interested in biking! Thebike path has given a certain respect to bikers that I--

and my children--really appreciate."

Photo: NYC DOT


18/47

18

Pedestrian/Bike interface is

problematic

People exiting cars feel

vulnerable

Perceived Safety Issues Highlighted by Survey

Some cyclists may not be aware or considerate about

yielding to pedestrians and that needs to be enforced.

Signals are not clear. If the light is red and the bike lane

signal is yellow, am I supposed to go slowly or yield to

pedestrians?

"[I] nearly got clobbered by a bicycle the other day when I

accidentally stepped back into the bike lane after strapping

the baby into her car seat."

[My] biggest area of concern is pedestrians not looking for

bikes coming when crossing. Bikers need to be more aware

of pedestrians."

Goals & Safety Perception Conclusions


19/47

ABOUT

/ FINDINGS

/ SUGGESTED

MODIFICATIONS

/ APPENDIX

PARKING

19

Q6: Parking

Approximately 25 of323 parking spaceson PPW wereremoved for project

Most PPW residentsreport parking isharder than before

Unclear if this wasinterpreted as askingif it is more difficult tofind a space, or a

more difficult task topull into parkingspaces, or both

On PPW

On SidestreetsNo

Change65%

Easier

4%

Harder

31%

Harder

47%

Easier

7%

No

Change

46%


20/47

ABOUT / FINDINGS / SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS / APPENDIXWHAT DO YOU THINK?

20

Q8: What do you think

of the current design?

We should keep the current design more or

less as it is

We should keep the current design withsome changes to make it work better

We should go back to how it was beforewith no bike lane and three lanes of traffic

Options


21/47


21

Elsewhere in Brooklyn

63%

27%10%

Q8: What Do You Think?

By Place

Keep it more or less as isKeep it with changes

Go back to how it was 1,047 Note: Responses may not total100% because of rounding

777 1,049

PPW & Sidestreets

37%

20%

43%

Elsewhere in Park Slope

19%24%

57%


22/47


22

272

505


Local Detail

Keep it more or less as is

Keep it with changes

Go back to how it wasNote: Responses may not total100% because of rounding

PPW Only

50%

18%

31%

Sidestreets Only

38%

21%

40%

777

PPW & Sidestreets

37%

20%

43%


23/47


23

All of Park Slope

29%

Go Back530

22%Keep w/Changes

408

49%Keep It

888


Note: Responses may not total100% because of rounding


24/47


24

All Respondents

22%

Go Back633

24%Keep w/Changes

688

54%Keep It

1,522


Note: Responses may not total100% because of rounding


25/47

ABOUT / FINDINGS / SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS / APPENDIXOPEN-ENDED RESPONSES

25

Open-Ended ResponsesShown as % of all open-ended responsesLikes that there is a separated lane because it is safer / two-ways 26%

Likes the slower traffic 19%

Need bike enforcement / bikers don't yield to pedestrians 17%

Traffic is more congested 13%

Need double parking enforcement / double parking is causing more problems now 12%

Pedestrians need to look both ways / stay out of bike lane 10%

Yield to pedestrians at crossings needs redesign / lights are too high for bikers 9%

Likes that it encourages biking 7%

Good for kids and families riding bikes/skating/running etc. 5%

It is dangerous exiting the passenger side of your car on PPW now 5%

Need better bike extensions / connections at either end 4%

Loading zones need redesign 3%

Prefer to have 2-way lane in park 3%

There are blind spots for bikers and pedestrians at intersections 2%

Need biker education about use of lane 2%

Blind spots for drivers turning out of park 1%

Mid-block crossing is problematic 1%

Put bike lanes on sidewalk instead 1%

All 4,263

open-endedresponsesfrom 2,296

respondentswere read and

coded


26/47


26

Suggested Modifications to Project

1) Enhance safety (esp. pedestrian)

2) Address aesthetics

3) Improve parking & loading

4) Enforcement/culture


27/47


27

Q10: If Kept, How Should the

Design be Modified?53%

38%

31%

29%

26%

25%

20%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Clearer yield

Increase visibility at

blind spots

Keep cars out of

pedestrian areas

Make buffer into raised

islands

Make design moreattractive

Raised pedestrian

islands

Make design more

historically compatible

No change

Clearer yield

Increase visibility atblind spots

Keep cars out ofpedestrian areas

Make buffer intoraised islands

Make designmore attractive

Raised pedestrian islands

Make design morehistorically compatible

No change


28/47


28

Modifications to Enhance Safety

Redesign of pedestrian crossings of

bike lane Many think that traffic lights still governbike traffic

Yield order remains unclear

Consider signalizing, rumble strips, better

signage

Implement raised pedestrian refugeislands at signalized intersections

Improve sight lines between pedestrianislands and southbound bike lane

Address Litchfield Villa driver sight lines

Pedestrian safety items were highest priority


29/47


29

Modifications to Enhance Safety

Find ways to widen parkinglane where possible

Area around President St haswider buffer than elsewhere

Explore designs for raised bufferbetween bike and parkinglanes

Constrained by maintenanceneeds, buffer width & cost

Bike lane needsresurfacing, especially

near curb Enhance connections

at path ends


30/47


30

Modifications to Improve Aesthetics

Granite curbed pedestrian islands

with surface designed to matchhistoric sidewalk Allows removal of plastic flexi-bollards

Planters or other greenery onpedestrian islands

Changing paint color or leavingsections of bike lane unpainted

Explore ways to better reflect design & character of PPW

Brussels, Photo: Bike Gallery via flickr

Vancouver, Photo: Paul Krueger via flickr


31/47


31

Modifications to Address

Parking & Loading Issues Conduct area survey to identify

opportunities to replace lost parkingspaces Discontinued bus stops

Other spaces on PPW, 8th Ave, sidestreets

Add or improve function of loading /drop-off zones at congestionhotspots Madonna Residence

Poly Prep

Other residential blocks with heavyloading needs

Park entrances at 11th, 9th, 3rd & Garfield


32/47


32

Increase Enforcement & Safety Awareness

Enforcement is key Bikers must yield to pedestrians and stay off sidewalk

Double parking should be enforced Cars must not park in ped areas, bike lanes, or loading zones

Expand and enforce loading zones where needed toaccommodate demand at hotspots

Convene neighborhood town halls on street safety

Need to reinforce rules and do more to educate, expect,and enforce compliance especially for cyclists, as wellas street safety in general


33/47

33

Conclusion

Among respondents, there is broad support

While there is a notable minority that strongly disagrees,most respondents believe the project has met its goals, andfeel that it has made them safer

There are meaningful modifications that canimprove the project and address concerns

Improve safety, especially pedestrian-bike interface

Improve aesthetics

Address parking & loading

Enforce rules of the road

There are deep and passionate feelings that extend

beyond the most committed activists We need to address bike enforcement/practice & safety aswell as a broader dialogue about improving street safetyfor everyone


34/47

34

Thanks To Michael Freedman-Schnapp

Maeve Johnston

Maulin Mehta Rachel Goodman Michael Curtin

Jonah Blumstein

Fabiola Augustin

Stan Sorokin

Craig Hammerman Daniel Kummer

Hope Reichbach

Amy Tse Amy Varghese

All photos courtesy of Maulin Mehtaunless otherwise noted

Photo: NYC DOT


35/47

ABOUT / FINDINGS / SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS / APPENDIXMETHODOLOGY

35

Appendices

Methodology Notes

Open Ended Responses

Addressing Survey Integrity

Survey Instrument


36/47


36

Methodology Notes 3,470 total responses submitted

Surveys collected online and in person10/15/10 10/29/10

Survey referral links distributed through CM

Lander, CM Levin & CB6 email lists +4 news stories (NY Times, NY1, Brooklyn

Paper, Downtown Star) and many blogs


37/47


37

Q4, Q5 & Q7 Average Score Method Each response was assigned a numerical value on

a scale and then all were averaged together to

produce an average score

Q4: Goals Very Much = 1.0

Somewhat = 0.5 Not At All = 0.0

Q5: Safety Perception

More Safe = 1.0 No Change = 0.0 Less Safe = -1.0

Q7: Behavior Change Less = 1.0

No Change = 0.0More = -1.0


38/47


38

Coding Open-Ended Responses

2,296 respondents wrote open-ended

comments 4,263 total open-ended comments,

every one of which was read

Coded by 6 staff members over aperiod of two weeks

19 most frequent responses werecoded


39/47


39

Addressing Integrity

No significant differences in results when cross-tabbed overallresults are compared to those where individuals providedname, address, or where duplicate IPs are removed

Removed all identifiable non-Brooklyn respondents (227) Removed inconsistencies between Place of Residence

answer & zip code/address (42)

Removed duplicate names (5) Investigated and reviewed source of all duplicate IPaddresses

Removed suspicious surveys (46) Surveys submitted (1) close to same time (2) from same home IP

address that (3) didnt give separate names and (4) hadsubstantially similar responses

Total Not Included: 320 surveys


40/47


40

Addressing Integrity: Duplicate IPs IP Address is the unique internet address of every

device on the web

Computers on home and corporate networks oftenshare the same external IP address

792 duplicate IPs:

412 Corporate & Municipal IPs 372 Home/Small Business IPs

Many duplicate IPs from home addresses wereseparate people in the same household or smallbusiness

46 suspicious responses removed

Add i I t it


41/47


41

Addressing Integrity Few changes in survey results when duplicate IP addressesare excluded or only including responses with names or

addresses included Suggests minor amount of multiple submissions on each side

that essentially balances out

*2,87322.0%23.9%54.0%Final Cut of Responses

2,94221.8%23.9%54.3%Brooklyn only

3,06621.0%24.0%55.0%Without suspicious submissions

Responses to Q8 Shown With Integrity Checks

Keep It

Keep w

Changes

Go

Back Total

Raw Data 55.3% 23.9% 20.7% 3,139

Taking out all duplicate IP addresses 55.3% 24.3% 20.4% 2,374

Counting only first submission from duplicate IP 55.7% 23.8% 20.4% 2,643

Gave name 53.4% 23.3% 23.3% 1,340

Gave address 54.2% 21.8% 24.0% 1,193

*Only 266 excluded responses answered Q8


42/47


METHODOLOGY

42

Addressing IntegrityChange in percentage points shown

Ultimately 320 surveys removed from finalanalysis 46 suspicious responses

47 inconsistent addresses & duplicate names 227 non-Brooklyn responses removed

The resulting 3,150 surveys were used forall data analysis shown in report


43/47


METHODOLOGY

43

# of Responses by 12 Hour Period

Survey was closed as responses dwindled

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

10/15/20

10

10/16/20

10

10/17/20

10

10/18/20

10

10/19/20

10

10/20/20

10

10/21/20

10

10/22/20

10

10/23/20

10

10/24/20

10

10/25/20

10

10/26/20

10

10/27/20

10

10/28/20

10

10/29/20

10

10/30/20

10

S I t t


44/47


SURVEY INSTRUMENT

44

Survey Instrument


45/47


SURVEY INSTRUMENT

45


46/47


SURVEY INSTRUMENT

46

ONLINE-ONLY OPEN-ANSWER QUESTION 7a:Are there other positive or negative behaviors that you have seen more or less of?

(Question was held from hard copy survey for lack of space)

OPEN ENDED RESPONSES


47/47


SURVEY INSTRUMENT

47

AN

SWERORDERSRAND

OMIZED

OPEN ENDED RESPONSES

Prospect Park West Reconfiguration Community Survey Results

Documents

Transcript of Prospect Park West Reconfiguration Community Survey Results