PPW Bike Lane Foes Gearing Up to Sue the DOT?!
Good heavens, is it possible that the Prospect Park West bike-lane brouhaha is going to drag on longer than the Williamsburg one did? It sure is seeming that way. WNYC reports that “Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes,” a group that questions the city’s rationale for installing the lane, is not giving up. The article says…
Good heavens, is it possible that the Prospect Park West bike-lane brouhaha is going to drag on longer than the Williamsburg one did? It sure is seeming that way. WNYC reports that “Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes,” a group that questions the city’s rationale for installing the lane, is not giving up. The article says that in “late December, a lawyer working pro bono, Jim Walden, wrote a letter to transportation commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan asking for additional data, saying he hoped ‘this begins a constructive phase of dialogue between DOT and the affected community members’…there’s been no official legal action, though that’s expected to come next week.” One member of Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes says she thinks the lane should be moved into the park. Meanwhile, the Post reports that Sen. Chuck Schumer, despite being a cyclist, is not a fan of the Prospect Park West bike lane either: “Sources said Schumer — who has yet to take a public position on the 19-block bike corridor — shared his feelings privately with some members of the City Council. ‘He’s asked legislators what they’re going to do about [this and other] bike lanes,’ said one source.”
Residents Prepare Lawsuit on Brooklyn Bike Lane [WNYC]
Not in Chuck’s Back Yard! [NY Post]
Prospect Park West Bike Lane Back in the News! [Brownstoner]
Photo by swimfast.
“The goal of the bike lane objectors is to make PPW more dangerous?”
Sounds nutty, but yeah, it’s basic logic.
The street redesign has made the street safer. Opponents want to undo the redesign. Therefore opponents want to make the street more dangerous.
It is unbelievable, isn’t it? Too bad it’s true.
“Apparently many people believe that three lanes were not too many, including the original designers of of the park and PPW.”
What are you talking about? When PPW was built, it was absolutely NOT designed to carry three lanes of car traffic. For goodness’ sake, there are no streetlights or road markers, how could it carry significant traffic? There’s a 1915 picture linked above, and you can see its “historic” charm includes ZERO cars.
The thing they appear to have made room for on the road were lanes for TROLLEYS in both directions and what looks like a double-wide passing lane so that, I assume, horse carriages could pull over and let the trolleys get by.
And I do not understand how two lanes of parked cars flanking a 3 lane-wide street is an aesthetic marvel, but two lanes of parked cars flanking a 2-lane wide street is a visual abomination. Google street maps has the old view, it’s ugly.
Not to mention, the biggest visual offenders on these streets are all the signs and traffic lights, etc. Which, um, are pretty much all there to deal with car traffic. If you want PPW to be returned to its majestic state, what you should do is ban all cars, and then you can rip down all the parking and no-standing and bus stop and big yellow children-playing warning signs, and the one-way and no-right turn, and no entry signs, and all the big yellow boxes for pedestrian crossing and the gigantic “PROSPECT PARK SOUTHWEST KEEP LEFT” signs and the traffic lights. Those are far more visually assertive than a bike lane, especially when cute kids are pedaling down said bike lane.
I think it’s ridiculous to pretend the bike lane is some sort of eyesore and all this other stuff is majestic. Ah, the grandeur and majesty of the “PROSPECT PARK SOUTHWEST KEEP LEFT” sign!
Actually, there do seem to be parked cars towards the left side of the shot. Which is fine with me — without parked cars, I’d be much more afraid of moving cars going up onto the sidewalk, since unlike many European cities, we don’t seem to protect pedestrians with bollards.
And no parked cars… or any traffic to speak off. The “aesthetics” argument is total bullshit.
I agree, PPW would look a lot better with no parked cars! How do you think that would fly?
(Actually, among the folks suing and vocally bitchy about the bike lane, I’m sure they’d be happy with it. It wouldn’t affect them. They have private parking….)
Here’s a photo of PPW from 1947 showing the trolley right-of-way and lack of lane markings:
http://gowanuslounge.blogspot.com/2007/08/brooklyn-back-in-day-prospect-park-west.html
You’re right. It does make no sense that some seniors want to roll back this project. The problem is that they have a hard time dealing with change, even when it’s for the better. This is a stereotype (see grandpa on the Simpsons), but in this case it’s very true. However, many other seniors are in favor of this project, including several who spoke at the public meeting last month at the church on Carroll St.
You clearly have no idea about the history of PPW if you say that “the original designers of of the park and PPW” wanted it to have three lanes. In reality, there was really no such thing as a lane in the 1800s. Streets were not marked with lanes until well into this century, after massively increased auto traffic. Take a look at old photos if you don’t believe me. Plus, the park side of PPW used to be a two-way trolley right-of-way. Ditto, old photos. They’re out there. So, historically speaking, the area that is now the bike path plus the “floating” parking lane used to be a trolley right-of-way. If you’re so concerned with historical accuracy, it should absolutely not be used for car lanes today. But I haven’t made that argument, because it’s silly: our streets should change as our needs change, and today, what we need is safe, calm, efficient traffic combined with safe mobility for pedestrians and cyclists. That is exactly what this project has delivered.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; I think the street looks great now, and so do many other people. If that’s your best argument, at least admit that it’s an aesthetic, not a universal, judgment.
The bike path in the park serves entirely different needs than this one, and it’s not appropriate to substitute one for the other. Nor is it even separated from cars. And as I’ve said, this project stands alone even without the bike path. There were simply too many lanes for the street to be anything but a speedway.
I see no evidence whatsoever that the DOT has lied about its data. The burden of proof is on those who claim it has. Your ideological beliefs about Bloomberg, fair as they may be, seem to have blinded you to the fact that by any standard, save perhaps aesthetic (which, again, is in the eye of the beholder — I think it’s great), is a runaway success.
Zinka — it’s really you who seems to have only a tenuous grip on reality and logic. Tenuous might be too generous; minimal is more apt.
You clearly asserted that the anti-bike lane group wants to make PPW more dangerous. When I pointed the absurdity of your assertion, you change your tune. It makes no sense that seniors, who presumably would be most affected by PPW safety issues, would want to reverse the lanes project if it really posed the danger you state. they “hate” their neighbors? They’re selfish? Those are your illogical opinions.
It would make no sense to plant the roadway with trees; directly adjacent to PPW are plenty of trees. It’s called a park. Apparently many people believe that three lanes were not too many, including the original designers of of the park and PPW. Beautiful boulevards should be part of our borough, but the fanatical Sadik-Khan’s project (and those awful-looking pedestrian malls in Manhattan) destroys the beauty of PPW. Your main objection seems to be to people who have the nerve to want to drive in the city. Demonize them. Demonize people wo don’t agree with you. Whatever. You have a great, safe bike path in the park. Use it and stop trying to foist your bias on everyone else.
If you think that all the data (and accurate date at that) has truly been released by any Bloomberg entity), then you are really gullible.
You’re right — their threatened lawsuit makes little or no sense. But it’s not for data. That’s a smokescreen. It’s to have this safety project rolled back.
No, they don’t want it removed because they specifically want the street to be more dangerous. But that would be the effect if they won.
The real question is: why do they hate the results of this community-driven process so much? Why do they hate their neighbors? Why are they so selfish?
morralkan, you are totally missing the point here. Even if there were no bike path — even if the current bike lane were just a striped buffer, or were planted with trees — the new PPW would still be a safer, and more functional, street than the old PPW. Three lanes were simply too many, and resulted in crazy speeding and weaving. Now that that space has been taken away from irresponsibly fast drivers, it can be used as a bike path — a free bonus gift to the neighborhood.
bxgrl, we generally agree on lots of things, but here we part ways. I disagree for numerous reasons. High on my list is the question of aesthetics: it simply looks awful. PPW is a beautiful street and parked cars in the middle of the street, bikes going two ways down a one way street, lines … PPW looks like crap. There is a place for bike riding over there and it is in the park. Believe me, I ride bikes a lot, but I don’t see the need to demonize drivers or to take over a section of the road 12 months a year, 24 hours a day, when it will barely be used for a lot of that time.
zinka, no you have me thinking that YOU are the one who is getting paranoid or delusional. The goal of the bike lane objectors is to make PPW more dangerous? The objectors, who are generally characterized as old biddies, want to make PPW more dangerous so that they … will get run over and killed? For what purpose? So that their heirs can collect on life insurance policies? Or do they just have a death wish? Or maybe they want to stand at their windows watching people die or be maimed? As for the data, it makes little sense that they are threatening to sue for information which you maintain is completely available on the DOT website. Does that really make any sense to you? If so, then it appears that not only have you downed their Kool-aid, but you are peddling it also.