Dean & Bergen Streets
Comments (1079)
Comments (1079)
New bike lines are fine, but bikes running red lights is a huge problem. pls find a way to ticket or deter this unsafe behavior in our neighborhood
New bike lines are fine, but bikes running red lights is a huge problem. pls find a way to ticket or deter this unsafe behavior in our neighborhood
New bike lines are fine, but bikes running red lights is a huge problem. pls find a way to ticket or deter this unsafe behavior in our neighborhood
So many people park in the bike lane here! It shouldn't be allowed. My roommate was also injured when someone opened their door into the bike lane here.
I use this bike lane a lot! Usually at night it is calm, but the width of the road also encourages drivers to speed. That's not good. If there is to be a protected bike lane here, please do NOT place it behind a row of parked cars at the interactions. That causes so much trouble with visibility, and will make Bergen feel like 4th Ave, which I do not feel as safe on. (On the other hand, 4th Ave is a multi-lane road, so I do appreciate the existence of a bike lane there.) There are a lot of people in the comments concerned that a bike lane will "cause bikes to go too fast." Maybe we should make the cars go slower? Cars do so much more damage at their velocity. Perhaps the best solution is to close an EW street around here entirely to car traffic if people are so concerned about speeding and safety. Then we can have a nice open street for cyclists and pedestrians alike.
I strongly oppose the proposed rerouting of the B65 bus. For many residents, the B65 is not simply a convenience—it is an essential transportation option that provides direct access to work, schools, healthcare, and other vital services. The proposed changes would force riders to rely more heavily on the subway or walk significantly farther to reach transit, creating unnecessary hardship for the community. This change would have a disproportionate impact on our most vulnerable residents, particularly seniors, families with young children, and individuals with mobility challenges. Longer walks to and from transit stops are not merely inconvenient; they create real accessibility and safety concerns. Parents traveling with strollers, older adults, and people carrying groceries or other necessities should not be expected to travel farther to access public transportation. The proposed reroute would also expose riders to greater risks during periods of extreme weather. During the summer, longer walks in extreme heat increase the risk of heat exhaustion and dehydration, especially for elderly residents and young children. In the winter, extended walks in freezing temperatures, snow, or icy conditions present additional health and safety hazards. Public transit should reduce these burdens—not increase them. The B65 plays a critical role in connecting neighborhoods and providing an accessible alternative to the subway. Reducing that accessibility undermines transit equity and places an unnecessary burden on the very residents who depend on reliable bus service the most. I respectfully urge the MTA to reconsider this proposal and preserve the current B65 route or identify an alternative solution that maintains convenient, safe, and equitable access for the communities it serves.
I strongly oppose the proposed rerouting of the B65 bus. For many residents, the B65 is not simply a convenience—it is an essential transportation option that provides direct access to work, schools, healthcare, and other vital services. The proposed changes would force riders to rely more heavily on the subway or walk significantly farther to reach transit, creating unnecessary hardship for the community. This change would have a disproportionate impact on our most vulnerable residents, particularly seniors, families with young children, and individuals with mobility challenges. Longer walks to and from transit stops are not merely inconvenient; they create real accessibility and safety concerns. Parents traveling with strollers, older adults, and people carrying groceries or other necessities should not be expected to travel farther to access public transportation. The proposed reroute would also expose riders to greater risks during periods of extreme weather. During the summer, longer walks in extreme heat increase the risk of heat exhaustion and dehydration, especially for elderly residents and young children. In the winter, extended walks in freezing temperatures, snow, or icy conditions present additional health and safety hazards. Public transit should reduce these burdens—not increase them. The B65 plays a critical role in connecting neighborhoods and providing an accessible alternative to the subway. Reducing that accessibility undermines transit equity and places an unnecessary burden on the very residents who depend on reliable bus service the most. I respectfully urge the MTA to reconsider this proposal and preserve the current B65 route or identify an alternative solution that maintains convenient, safe, and equitable access for the communities it serves.
I am firmly opposed to a bike boulevard on Bergen Street. The street is wide and has a bike lane already, and I have used it many times as a cyclist without feeling at all unsafe. So it is totally unnecessary and won't improve anything for cyclists, but it will make things materially worse by residents across Brooklyn by removing bus service. I use the bus to get my kids around and won't be able to do that without a bus. Our Mayor just won election promising improved bus service and attention to equity for underserved communities, and this goes against all of that for no apparent gain.
I am writing to express opposition to the Bergen St. Bike Boulevard project. Foremost, I am deeply unsettled with how the Bergen St. Bike Boulevard project has been initiated without ensuring the voices of the constituents that it will impact most are centered. In fact, in many ways it feels as if there are efforts to intentionally keep their voices out of the conversation. Folks were not equitably surveyed, details of the project are not transparent, and the survey itself is phrased in a confusing manner. Bergen St. is very safe for pedestrians, bikers, public transit users and drivers as it currently exists. There is a protected bike lane on a street that is wide. I use it often. The possibility of removing access to a critical mode of public transit - the B65 - which serves longstanding members of the community including seniors, disabled folks, working parents, and students to cater to needs of a small but influential/connected group of people is unfair. Our most vulnerable constituents rely on this public transit for everything from going to church to doctor's appointments to work and to school. Additionally, there are many neighborhood institutions here - the Brooklyn Children's Museum, churches, etc. that bring car traffic and reducing the amount of available parking is untenable for current residents who are car owners. The voices of the folks who live in this community must be included and centered for any transportation project that could could cause this level of disruption.
Both Bergen and Dean Street already have bike lanes. Bikers have zero regard for the rules of the road and instead of consistently catering to bikers, DOT should protect drivers and pedestrians from the recklessness of these individuals. There is absolutely no need for a bike boulevard on Bergen and Dean Streets!!!!!
Do you want to show us the area in StreetView before submitting?
Add comment
Comments should be related to the posted topic or specific project. The Projects and Initiatives website is not meant for comments that do not directly relate to the purpose or topic of the specific project. For general comments or communications concerning an agency, please contact the agency's Commissioner on www.NYC.gov. For service requests, please contact 311 Online.
Pan left or rigth to show the area you wish to comment on.
Submit comments
Return to map
To add your comments:
How do you want to submit your comment: