@L from Park Slope:
Where exactly in the survey are your concerns not covered?

I take it that you are one of the: "24% (688 respondents)" who "wish to keep the configuration, with some changes"

but not one of the 70% who: "feel that the project has very much or somewhat made Prospect Park West easier to cross".

Is your dislike of the survey due to an inability to reflect your opinion, or is it because your opinion did not prevail? It is always difficult in a multiple choice format for precision, but you seem to imply that there was no room for middle ground here, and there most certainly was. Yet still, a majority (54%) of all respondents want to "keep the configuration as-is".

http://bradlander.com/ppwsurvey

I only just heard this episode, as I'm a little slow listening to my podcasts this week.

I live in Park Slope. I took the survey put out by Councilman Lander. I like Brad Lander so much, but I felt that this was not a good survey.

My opinion about the bike lane is that it is a great idea if done correctly, but that this was not done correctly. I love the idea of a sheltered bike lane, but it needs to be moving as the traffic moves - in only one direction. It is counter-intuitive for people to look one way to cross the street and then both ways to cross the bike lane. It is dangerous for children, the elderly, and handicapped people, all of whom already have a very hard time crossing that busy street.

I came to the survey with these opinions. However, the multiple choice options left me no place to voice this opinion. My answers ended up sounding like I supported the bike lane in it's current form, which I don't. I did add a comment at the end, but I'm sure that is not what was tabulated when they declared that most people in Park Slope supported the bike lane on Prospect Park West.

I applaud Mr. Lander's attempt to get the opinions of the people in the immediate area, but this survey was very, very flawed and should not be used as proof of anything.

Local Resident said
"As an avid cyclist, car owner, and resident or Park Slope for 26 years, I am against the bike lane for the following reasons:

• it is redundant with the adjacent and superior lane in Prospect Park and provides little relative benefit to any cyclist commuting in/through Park Slope

The park road is hilly ONE WAY, and has ONLY 1 entrance between Grand Army Plaza and Bartel Prichard Square. Not an alternative for a commuter, but a great place to work out or recreate.

• it has increased traffic congestion in the area and has noticeably increased air/noise pollution

NO, it has not.

• it is dangerous to pedestrians crossing the street due two-way traffic on the bike lane

Why, did you notice the 2 to 5 food wide zone between the parked cars and the bike lane. Why should it be dangerous

• it is made it more dangerous to parallel park and exit a vehicle given insufficient shoulder width and increased traffic congestion

What?

• two lanes are insufficient on PPW given the volume of traffic. The lane cuts off optionality for drivers given temporary double parking needs on PPW (delivery trucks, school buses, snow plows, residents loading/unloading, emergency vehicles)

Then we should add loading zones. We should not be planning our streets around double parkers

• two lanes severely impairs emergency vehicle passage during stress periods

The same can be said for three lanes

• the reduced traffic flow and greater congestion during snow days makes it dangerous for people shoveling out their parked cars

It is actually saver to shovel out your car when traffic is moving slower.

• relative usage of the lane by cyclists is moderately low, particularly when compared to the number of cars that would use the lane instead

How many bikers have to used it for you to be happy?

• usage of the lane by cyclists is highly variable (more on a sunny day in the summer and less on rainy days, during the winter and during the evening) while car usage is fairly consistent

So

• the lane has diminished PPW’s aesthetic appeal

I think it looks better.

As an avid cyclist, car owner, and resident or Park Slope for 26 years, I am against the bike lane for the following reasons:

• it is redundant with the adjacent and superior lane in Prospect Park and provides little relative benefit to any cyclist commuting in/through Park Slope
• it has increased traffic congestion in the area and has noticeably increased air/noise pollution
• it is dangerous to pedestrians crossing the street due two-way traffic on the bike lane
• it is made it more dangerous to parallel park and exit a vehicle given insufficient shoulder width and increased traffic congestion
• two lanes are insufficient on PPW given the volume of traffic. The lane cuts off optionality for drivers given temporary double parking needs on PPW (delivery trucks, school buses, snow plows, residents loading/unloading, emergency vehicles)
• two lanes severely impairs emergency vehicle passage during stress periods
• the reduced traffic flow and greater congestion during snow days makes it dangerous for people shoveling out their parked cars
• relative usage of the lane by cyclists is moderately low, particularly when compared to the number of cars that would use the lane instead
• usage of the lane by cyclists is highly variable (more on a sunny day in the summer and less on rainy days, during the winter and during the evening) while car usage is fairly consistent
• the lane has diminished PPW’s aesthetic appeal

In my opinion, modifications to the lane will not resolve these issues and that the lane should be removed. I believe all issues are resolved by moving the lanes into Prospect Park West and returning PPW to its prior form.

While I’m an advocate of a greener NYC and greater bike lane availability, the PPW bike lane was ill conceived. As a cyclist in Park Slope for the past 26 years, I’ve never had a problem riding my bike anywhere in the neighborhood or around Brooklyn generally. I like bike lanes. I like the one on/in/along 3rd St, 2nd St, Boerum Place, Prospect Park, the Belt Parkway, Brooklyn Bridge and the West Side Highway. The lane on PPW is a poor location for the reasons described above. I’ve been riding my bike up and down the former PPW for years without a problem. It was wide, with a wide shoulder and rarely had traffic in all three. I don’t find occasional use of the wide sidewalk along PPW by cyclists as troublesome. There is plenty of precedence for shared pathways that work well (i.e., Brooklyn Bridge, Henry Hudson Parkway). Ultimately co-existence comes down to caution and respect, the breakdown of which can as easily happen on a bike lane as it can on a sidewalk.

So, everyone's talking about carbon footprints these days. People even buy "carbon offsets" to make up for things like flying on airplanes. If we think of the city as a living organism that has its own carbon footprint, people riding bicycles for transportation are an example of a carbon offset. Bike lanes support those cyclists, and by making cycling safer, allow more people to ride bikes for transportation. Rather than seeing it as cars vs. bikes, let's look at the bigger picture, and support cyclists as an important and hopefully growing part of our city that is helping to reduce our collective carbon footprint.

The sight lines across the bike lane are wide and vast. Carswell is entitled to her opinion, of course, but here's what she sees as she crosses Carroll Street near her house.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tFJ1WaC6eiI

The idea that a 2-way bike lane near 1 way car traffic is somehow treacherous doesn't hold water:

1. As BL mentions early on, "you can't get used to that?" The plaintiffs are publicizing the two-way thing like crazy!

2. Only a very small percentage of people will actually be "surprised" by the 2-way bike traffic. To be surprised by it, both of the following would have to apply to you: a. you'd have to have never heard about it (unlikely, thanks to the plaintiffs), and b. you'd have to be crossing TOWARDS the park, not away from it, because crossing away from it, you'd see the dashed yellow line on the bike lane, indicating bi-directional flow. How many people crossing PPW do both of those conditions really apply to? (I wish I could find out exactly how many people have actually been surprised WHILE CROSSING that the bike traffic is 2-way.)

3. The entire argument depends entirely on one absurd assumption: that cyclists going in the "unexpected" direction simply have no ability or will to try to avoid crashes. It assumes that northbound cyclists, but not southbound cyclists, are subject to some immutable physical force propelling them forward. It's one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard.

I find it quite interesting that anyone who is against the bike lane in its current configuration is immediately labeled as a wealthy and politically connected individual. If only it were true. There are so many things I would like changed. Such as all New Yorkers, drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians following the rules of the road.
I think it is very easy to say the bike lane is working great if you are someone who merely comes to ride your bike. It is not where you live so the impact of the bike lane on your life is quite different. Councilman Brad Lander and the man from his office always report that the majority of the respondents from their survey were satisfied with the bike lane. Although they did report at a CB6 meeting that the same survey did demonstrate that the majority of the people who lived on on PPW, 8th Ave and the sideying streets between them, responded they were dissatisfied with the bike lane. The people who are directly impacted by the new configuration of PPW on a daily basis. As an example try getting packages, children and yourself out of a car on the passenger side of a floating parking lane. The floating parking lane protects bicyclist from traffic but not you.
I found out about the PPW bike lane being proposed, as the result of an interview with Brooklyn Borough President, Marty Markowitz on the Brian Lehrer show. I attended a meeting that evening only to find out that it was a done deal.Where were the public notifications about the proposed bike lane made prior to this? It seems to me that getting more residents in Park Slope engaged in the process would have been a useful endeavor.

Carswell's argument that pedestrians cannot see through the parked cars to view the 2 way bike lane does not hold water. For anyone who has actually gone there they will see that at EVERY crosswalk there is a huge viewing area in front of bike lanes where cars are not parked and plenty of signage to indicate that it is there and that it is bi-directional. This is one of the most well marked bike lanes one is likely to ever lay eyes on! Certainly no one should be able to say that it is "obscured" unless they are illegally crossing at mid block. This is a bogus argument.

Time will tell who is on the right side of this argument. I'm fifty, in my eleventh month of daily bike commuting to work, thanks to bike lanes on Vanderbilt, Carlton, and yes, PPW. If it is up to me, bikers win. But it is not up to me, it is up to my kids. Livable streets is the next generation's fight.

@art525: "Uh Kate from Park Slope I'm afraid your argument is flimsy. Mr Walden is saying that the argument shouldn't be decided on the basis of a popularity survey if many (though a minority) feel that the lane is unsafe for them. Do you think that the concerns of a minority should be dismissed for the desires of the majority? I learned in my high school social studies class that while we have majority rule the rights of the minority are to be acknowledged.

Sorry, but Kate is right. A majority of people in the neighborhood feels that the lane makes things safer. Walden rightly responds that safety shouldn't be determined by a popularity contest, but by actual safety standards. If the majority's opinion on safety doesn't count, then the minority's opinion doesn't either.

"And secondly the bike lane supporters use a survey with statistics about improved safety as the basis of their argument for the bike lane however the DOTs methodology has been called into question. As Mr Walden put it they had their finger on the scale. If true that is a dangerous precedent when government fudges facts to get it's policies adopted. Do you want that to be a precedent?"

"If true" it would be bad. But the DOT followed the standard methodology used for transportation projects throughout the country (see http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/03/17/ppw-plaintiffs-cherrypicked-data-to-attack-dots-bike-lane-evaluation/). It's only been "called into question" by people who don't like the results.

"Mr Walden wants his day in court to have the DOT prove it's case. A case which they have not opened up to the opposition at this point. If they have a solid defense I would think they would want to put it out there."

The PPW bike lane was installed after a four-year process with plenty of input from the community -- including the opposition. The DOT has "put its defense out there" with statistics on safety, speeding and bike lane usage. And the community board has asked for some changes to the lane that would address many of the opponents' concerns. If your high school social studies teacher hasn't retired yet, he's probably using this as a case study in how the system is supposed to work.

PPW traffic slower? during the 30-45 mins that the study shows yes. That's good. However, the rest of the time speeding continues. (Also note that according to the DOT reports the accidents that they did count didn't take place during the congestion hours before or after).

Crashes/injuries down? I know I've seen incidents that were not included in the reports and continue to wonder what the definition is to have something counted as an accident.I've lived on PPW for many years and I've seen more fender benders & mirrors swiped since the installation than in the 20yrs before. Now bikes are safer from being hit by a moving vehicles and that is great but there are plenty of safety issues that remain.

Uh Kate from Park Slope I'm afraid your argument is flimsy. Mr Walden is saying that the argument shouldn't be decided on the basis of a popularity survey if many (though a minority) feel that the lane is unsafe for them. Do you think that the concerns of a minority should be dismissed for the desires of the majority? I learned in my high school social studies class that while we have majority rule the rights of the minority are to be acknowledged. And secondly the bike lane supporters use a survey with statistics about improved safety as the basis of their argument for the bike lane however the DOTs methodology has been called into question. As Mr Walden put it they had their finger on the scale. If true that is a dangerous precedent when government fudges facts to get it's policies adopted. Do you want that to be a precedent? Mr Walden wants his day in court to have the DOT prove it's case. A case which they have not opened up to the opposition at this point. If they have a solid defense I would think they would want to put it out there.

The NBBL people act as if there is no safety zone between the bike lane and the parked cars. Anyone crossing the street has plenty of room to see of a bike is coming.

I am a cyclist who uses this bike lane every day to commute to work. I am a driver who drives along Prospect Park West every day while working. The bike lane has made both driving and cycling this stretch of road much safer. Before the bike lane was installed, I was faced with being intentionally run off the road on my bike by drivers racing at 50 mph to make the next light while riding southbound, or forced to face the same situation on 8th Ave or ride on the sidewalk on PPW when heading northbound. As with cycling anywhere, I always make eye contact with pedestrians and yield to them when they are crossing the lane with the light. As a driver, the only frustration I have is the double-parked ambulettes at the corner of Union Street and delivery trucks along the whole stretch. Adding a 10 minute loading zone on the residential side of each block would allow deliveries without impeding traffic. Narrowing the buffer at Union St. and making that entire block a loading zone would likely address the bottleneck at the start of PPW.
Raising the pedestrian islands would probably stop trucks and the Midwood ambulance company from parking there. Installing "Look both ways" signs at the park entrances would be a good reminder for drivers.
Traffic is slightly slower, and safer, since the bike lane went in. Although I have mixed feelings about the Bloomberg administration as a whole, by vastly increasing the miles of bike lanes, they have made this a more livable city. And don't forget, those of us who choose bicycles over CO2-emitting cars for transportation are doing everyone a favor.

Carswell was mistaken or not telling the truth when she mentioned the bus on PPW. It was removed due to MTA budget cuts and had NOTHING to do with the DOT and CB6's years-long process of putting in a bike lane.

Clever reasoning, Lois, but not true.

The position that the bike lane be one-way on significantly distant avenues is a clever diversion. Bicylists will take advantage of the bike lane in both directions, whether marked one-way or two-way. They're not in motor vehicles, where driving a city-block's length to the "proper", one-way road that will send them in the right direction. It's not psychologically what you do on a bicycle. It's a hardship to people on bicyclists to design bikeways this way. The people behind this lawsuit know this, and proffer their "reasonable" proposal knowing that many will find it so, without looking beneath the the surface, at the same time that they know it's actually unreasonable and unworkable.

I live in Brighton Beach and have a beef with bike lanes everywhere, not particularly PPW. Kudos to those people who are able to organize and retain counsel so they can get their voices heard. It's high time any group other than Transportation Alternatives and its ilk gets some of the media's attention.

@Jesse. Ha! Yeah, Walden's call for heads to roll was out of leftfield. The dead silence after his comment was pretty funny.

I'll also confirm that the Kent Avenue bike lane has heavy foot traffic from the new high rises, street-level businesses and Bushwick Inlet Park.

Both bike lanes have made cycling, driving and walking a lot safer in my view.

I caught the second half of this, but the anti-bike lane argument is so flimsy. Here are just a few points:
1. If you’re going to complain about the city using a public survey in which people are asked how safe they feel (“it’s not a popularity contest”), don’t turn around and use that same survey to argue a significant number of people feel unsafe and that’s a reason to get rid of the lane.
2. If you’re going to complain that “in these hard times” the city is wasting money on construction like this (which creates construction jobs and makes it easier for bike commuters to get to the ones they have), don’t ask them to waste money in removing it, instead of just opposing future construction.
3. Personally, as a cyclist, I know I feel a lot safer on a bike lane that is separated from multi-lane traffic than on a three-lane street that has no bike lane. This is for reasons such as: I got hit by a car on the latter, and have not been hit by a car (or doored, or run over a pedestrian, etc.) on the former.

You know it's about getting a parking space, Stuart Pertz? How is it you know? I am against the lane and I don't have a car. But you know.

@Jesse HA! Well said.

I don't care what side of this debate you're on - the Bloomberg administration is simply out of control. They do whatever they like and they get the results they want no matter what. I, for one, do not trust them and what I've seen about the PPW bike lane makes me trust them even less. Wasn't this bike lane supposed to be experimental? And suddenly, it's not experimental? What gives? I'm glad somebody is finally holding this administration's feet to the fire.

It's unfortunate that no one is discussing the architectural impact of the Prospect Park bike lane. What was designed to be a wide, elegant boulevard leading out from the arch at Grand Army Plaza has become a narrow street with a lane of parked cars down the middle, lots of white cones, and a funny angle around the arch. The bike lane itself is unevenly paved and painted in a truly horrific green. I look with envy at the attractive bike lanes along The West Side Highway.

All one way main avenues were intended to allow as many cars as possible to travel, resulting in more and more congestion. If you want to calm traffic, make all avenues two way, with a protected bike lane in each direction.

bike lanes are great, they are good for everybody. this guy is such a hater.

The extraordinary coverage and response to this rather than to say, Atlantic Yards, where getting coverage and participation was so difficult,is interesting.
I can see the point about the pedestrian hesitation for two way bike traffic - but I also know it's really about loosing a parking space - a less worthy public benefit for sure.

Does Walden really believe that people should be punished solely as a result of his allegations, without having any sort of proceeding (like a trial) to determine what the facts are?

If so, I feel that he is clearly unqualified to be a lawyer, and I demand that his partners place him on immediate leave without bothering to investigate my claims.

It's ridiculous to suggest that a two-way bike line has introduced dangerous two-way bike traffic that wouldn't have existing otherwise. I regularly cross one-way streets in Brooklyn, some of which have one-way bike lanes. (Clinton, Court, Smith, etc.) I still have to look both ways to make sure someone (usually a delivery guy) isn't biking against traffic. A lack of a two-way bike lane hasn't eliminated that risk, and changing or eliminating the PPW lane wouldn't eliminate it either.

If anything, it makes it safer because it provides a designated zone for people to bike against traffic. You know where to expect them. You can change the bike lane, but you'll still face the risk of getting hit by someone biking in the opposite direction of the cars--plus you just eliminated your chance to see it coming!

@dudefromhudsonco-if your apology was directed at me thank you. Apology accepted. And to Christopher Kelley- thank you for a reasonable contribution to the debate.

There you go:

"These are very progressive people who support bike lanes and alternative transportation, but think this particular bike lane is flawed."

Let me guess, flawed because it's on their street? Classic NIMBYs.

Thank you for this rare reasonable discussion on this topic. It was refreshing. It seems to me that a case presented in an unbiased court should go a long way toward getting an honest solution. If the pro bike lane people are so confident about their statistics it seems to me that they would welcome the opportunity to finally settle the debate in an open and honest way.

I'm a cyclist that used the path everyday to drop me kid at school.

Presently the bike lane along PPW has yellow signals and signs that advise the cyclist to yield to pedestrians at the crosswalks--generally they don't (myself included). To increase safety why don't they just make the signal a standard red, yellow, green one and sync it with the one on the street? This would have the added benefit of training cyclists to also obey signals (which they generally don't).

I'm sick of whining car owners. Support the bke lane: https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=133290126693460

Chuck's wife IS part of the group NBBL. The only person lying about anything in this whole "controversy" is Walden himself. He wants DOT people dismissed over his frivolous lawsuit? I mean, come on. He talks in the kind of hyperbole that's usually reserved for bad law-tv shows.

Please ask how this attorney's work "pro-bono" when it is clearly in the service of a handful of disgruntled wealthy politicians and political patrons. A lot of people have questioned his involvement in this case, as a major donor to Senator Schumer, who's wife is the prime mover behind the lawsuit.

I am both a cummuting and recreational cyclist and I love and hate the bikelanes. They are great for slow moving novice bikers who need protection from traffic but more able cyclists are endangered by unaware pedestrians and obviosly the inverse is also a problem. I like the changes that the dedicated turning lanes have made, they are a great improvement, I I notice they are closely tied to the bikelanes, and I would guess that is a strong attribute of the project. I don't like them and try not to use them because, as I stated earlier, pedestrians walking into the lane pose a great hazzard to a fast moving biker

Doesn't matter which way bike lanes go, when so many cyclists go the wrong way on a one-way anyway. Plus, on the circular road inside the park, it's no holds barred. I've never seen a cyclist stop for a red light to allow pedestrians to cross. It's dangerous mess.

Doesn't matter which way bike lanes go, when so many cyclists go the wrong way on a one-way anyway. Plus, on the circular road inside the park, it's no holds barred. I've never seen a cyclist stop for a red light to allow pedestrians to cross. It's dangerous mess.

Thanks for the PPW Bike Lanes Bloomberg! Glad I voted for you the 3rd time around.

I use them every day and I'm careful to respect my pedestrian neighbors.

Before the lanes I feared for my life. PPW is calm yet uncongested now.

I think the lane is poorly designed and dangerous. I've heard the argument that it slows down the traffic, which now has even less space to maneuver. I wonder if that is true. Meanwhile, how are the bikes safer from getting 'doored' when plenty of driver's can open their doors into one of the bike lanes. People parking also potentially pose a threat. There is something unnerving about crossing two lanes of traffic to cross two more bike lanes before entering the park. I've got very little room
to get my 3 year old into and out of the park. And when I hear this cost $300,000, I wonder what the planners are thinking. Same thing with the proposed Ed Koch bridge. Or renaming Triborough. Aren't there MUCH MUCH MUCH better uses o the taxpayers money.

In response to Brad Lander's representative- Why not have a two way bike lane on the existing road in the park, AND have the cars which are currently allowed durning rush hour banned completely from the park.

Simple bloomberg is supreme egoist from root..so he bargaina wif white poor sutcom yuppies and gives them crap..making this city look horrible and so the rich smart jew goes in forever meanwhile the young poor ohio idiots are happy to get the scraps...what a worldddd

Nobody rides in that damn lane! It's always empty. There is no where all that interesting on either end of the park. It's a bike lane to nowhere.

The lawsuit tried to have it both ways: Its too dangerous crossing the bike lane, and few cyclists are using it. Doesn't add up.

Having a 2 way bike lane eliminates the need to ride on the sidewalk, where people spend most of their time walking!

Traffic speeds have been lowered on the roadway, making crossing safer for all!

This is an unethical lawsuit and is regrettable considering we need to expand options for sustainable transit in New York City, not limit options. If the group that is suing is so concerned about pedestrian safety, why don't they sue a public entity for allowing automobile traffic along Prospect Park? Automobiles are the real danger to pedestrians, not bikes or bike lanes.

There is an error in the reporting on the bike-lane, which is leaving out important information.

The configuration is sidewalk, bike-lane, parked cars, two lanes of traffic.

Cyclists are not free of the danger of being doored. There is a very small strip of asphalt between the cars and the lane. There is no hard divider. When I park my car I have to be very careful to watch for cyclists, who are often under a false sense of safety on the lane.

And my two cents: This lane is not necessary. The park is right there and this lane is not very utilized. We have lost parking spots, and a traffic lane (try negotiating when the Fresh Direct truck is delivering on PPW).

I simply don't believe this is about pedestrian safety. I don't live there, nor do I ride a bike, so I don't have a dog in this fight. But I happened to be by Grand Army Plaza yesterday. I think it's SAFER for pedestrians with the bike lane. You cross two lanes of car traffic rather than three, and then there's an island of space with the parking lane and an additional noman's-land zone before the bike lane. There is NO visibility problem seeing the bike lane. Crossing the Grand Army Circle, now THAT'S dangerous.

Very frustrating to listen to the first half of this segment. Any listener who has been on PPW knows that 2-way v 1-way is NOT what is bothering the guests. And senior safety is NOT what these people want. Can we please get to the real motivations whatever they are???

People like this are basically just on the wrong side of history. Gas prices aren't going down. People will be looking for different ways to commute when they can no longer afford to fill up their cars. Sounds like the city is keeping ahead and planning for the future. Sounds like the arguments against are weak at best.

Dudes, there have been bike lanes configured like this in Italy for many years. Padua, for example has a lot of elderly people, and has this type of bike lane. The cars protect the bike riders and the pedestrian. You just have to look.
There are a lot of big shots who live on the Slope who think they own the park and its environs.

I'm a cyclist and I'd really like to think that any bike lane is a good one. And maybe it's not the case--hard for me to have an opinion since I don't live in the neighborhood. I'm writing though because the spokesperson for the Seniors for Safety notes that people will have to look both ways due to the 2 way bike lane. The sad truth is this: It would be smart for any pedestrian to look both ways when any bike lane is present, even if it's one way, because too many cyclists ride the wrong way. Cyclists--we'd be way better liked by motorists and pedestrians alike if we ALL followed the rule of the road.

This is an unethical lawsuit and is regrettable considering we need to expand options for sustainable transit in New York City, not limit options. If the group that is suing is so concerned about pedestrian safety, why don't they sue a public entity for allowing automobile traffic along Prospect Park? Automobiles are the real danger to pedestrians, not bikes or bike lanes.

People are getting used to the lanes. The cross traffic into the park facilities should be signed.
Eliminate a few car spaces near intersections to improve visibility.

I walk up to the park everyday. Its working

Maybe if bikers could be relied on to yield to pedestrians, this problem would evaporate.

Brian has already misrepresented this as a bike lane that faces "neighborhood opposition" failing to mention that that there is overwhelming neighborhood, and community board support, but there is a noisy minority of wealthy connected NIMBYists who oppose the lane.

Also: their issue isn't whether or not it is two way, but rather that they don't think the lane should be separated from traffic, and they make the ludicrous argument that three lanes of speeding traffic are safer to cross than a bike lane. Their proposed "compromise" is to go back to the way it was--no bike lane on the edge of the park, three lanes of traffic.

Traffic deaths are at a 100 YEAR low.

fact check! kent ave is soooo not industrial these days. hello giant residential towers on the waterfront.....

No good reason? Interesting.

the lawyer says that there is only one other bike lane with one way cars and two-way bike lane...Untrue.
Tillary between court and Adams St also has this. though Tillary is two way, with a wide median in the middle with a two-way bike lane alone Cadman Plaza. There have been not major problems there

If the problem is that the two-way lane is unsafe, why are you suing to have it removed rather than suing to have it made one-way? Sounds like a smokescreen to me.

why did they put a bike lane on Prospect Park West when there already is one 50 feet away in the park?

Arguments against the bike lane are laughably bogus.

Who thought of pedestrian safety when they designed the traffic lanes around Grand Army Plaza?

Please.

I'm a bike commuter and ride this lane all the time with no safety problems. Love it! All that's missing is a sun roof.

Um, Kent Avenue industrial? Has the illustrious lawyer seen the 40 story high rises and new state park adjacent to the East River along Kent Avenue?

This looks like class warfare to me: The very rich against the middle class.

http://xoxosoma.com/ppw/

another analysis of the data.

ALL ACCIDENTS ARE DOWN.

That lane is a lifesaver.

After reading the comments I’m sickened. There are roads in this City crumbling from neglect and rich jerks are wasting the cities money over a quarter mile bike lane.
To quote a great story teller of our time “ FOR SHAME”.

NY bikers are obnoxious, do not follow the rules of the road that apply to them. They ride anywhere besides the bike lane, go the wrong way against traffic, whiz through red lights dangerously, and endanger pedestrians.

At the same time the bike lanes are very confusing and take away precious real estate from everyone else - the turning lanes are wasteful of space and very confusing, and dangerous. Usually you go past it before realizing that was a left turn lane.

i'm only extrapolating, what would seem to me, to be a reasonable conclusion, given the statements in your posting,but your point is taken,i apologize.

Walden and NBBL claim that a Class II bike lane would make pedestrians and cyclists safer.

How would a Class II bike lane that offers cyclists no protection from traffic make those cyclists safer than riding in a Class I bike lane where they are completely protected from moving vehicles?

How is it safer for pedestrians to cross three lanes of traffic and not two? Even if they have to stop and look both ways for bike traffic, the buffers along the bike lane are wide enough so that one can see for blocks in both directions.

How would pedestrians be safer if cyclists begin riding on the sidewalk again?

Seems as though New York needs bicycle lanes more than ever. In the good old days of inexpensive gas cyclists in New York were mostly professional riders IE; curriers. With the death of messenger services and the rise in popularity of bicycle as transportation there are large amounts of inexperienced riders at a greater danger to themselves and others.

Please ask Mr. Walden what harm his clients have actually suffered by the installation of the bike lane. I've read the entire complaint three times now, and all I see are lots of complaints about the process. Even assuming everything in the complaint is true (and most of it isn't, see http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/02/07/what-happens-when-senator-chuck-schumer-doesn%E2%80%99t-like-the-new-bike-lane/), what rights so the plaintiffs claim to have lost by the installation of the PPW bike lane?

Can you please ask Mr. Walden if he believes this lawsuit has any chance of winning? Streetsblog has asked a number of engineering and planning professionals who have verified DOT's methodology for analyzing accidents.

An NYU law professor just went on the record saying that the lawsuit appears to be "largely public relations, with no more law behind it than is minimally necessary to avoid sanctions for frivolity.” A Columbia law professor concurred. What does Mr. Walden have to say about this statement? Is this lawsuit a publicity stunt, at the expense of taxpayers?

@dudefrom hudsonco- that's pretty presumptuous of you to tell me how I feel about being a pedestrian.

Mr Haberman's comments about deligitimizing your opponents seems particularly apropo here.

Twice as much space devoted to PARKING on PPW as devoted to the Bike Lane. And it is one of few bike lanes in the city that doesn't fall into the one major pitfall of bikelanes which is that it makes it difficult for truck delivering to stores to park and unload quickly. The PPW bike lane is far and away the best bike lane in the city with the least impact on traffic. The lawsuit is absurd.

Hi - I bike, I walk, and yes, I drive. And I live in Brooklyn. Before the bike path, PPW was a three-lane drag race. It is so much calmer now, and the bike path path has been implemented without loss of usability for motorists or pedestrians.

Like other commenters here, I'd love it if the opponents of commuter cycling why they claim there was no due process in implementing the bike path. (Clearly there was). But as a neighbor and Brooklynite who uses PPW, I really want to know --- what is their beef? I don't get it. The road is unquestionably safer now. Would they really like to go back to the days when PPW was treated like an expressway?

"I take this complaint to be largely public relations, with no more law behind it than is minimally necessary to avoid sanctions for frivolity,” said Roderick Hills Jr., an NYU Law professor with a focus on local government law.

How does Mr. Walden respond to statements like that, and other similar sentiments reported by Streetsblog <http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/03/23/law-profs-ppw-lawsuit-unlikely-to-succeed>?

In New York Magazine, anti-bike lane fanatic Hainline was quoted saying that “The cyclists think that we’re a bunch of old, crotchety rich people that don’t understand that they deserve to have a bike lane on our street.“

She's mistaken. We all think that, not just the cyclists.

I drive a car and live between PPW and 8th Avenue in the Slope. I showed up at the first meeting of the anti-bike lane people, because I was sympathetic and wanted to hear them out. I left after two hours thinking they were clearly fanatics.

And now the fanatics have hired a lawyer. How nice! That always ends well.

The first anti-bike lane meeting was held in front of the Litchfield Villa, on 5th St. just inside the park. For an hour they were complaining about how the bike lane was slowing car traffic -- and during the ENTIRE hour the cars were flying by. This was about 6-8pm, peak hour for cars driving south in Brooklyn.

I live 60 feet from PPW and I've NEVER seen it clogged. There has been no serious obstruction. Perhaps when someone parks, traffic slows for 30 seconds. That's New York. And traffic is a bit calmer, but that is nice for everyone.

They made one reasonable argument -- that PPW looks worse with the bike lane. I liked the grand look and feel of a one way, three lane boulevard with the beautiful park as a backdrop. But they need to get over it. They can't keep their property values higher at the expense of the rest of the city.

I use the bike lane mostly on the weekends in the summer, when it is about a THOUSAND times safer for my kids to go to the farmers market on the lane rather than the street. PPW used to be unsafe for pedestrians and bikes both, it is now warmer and easier to navigate. Bikes are off the sidewalks, so it is better for the pedestrians too.

It is a big win for the neighborhood at the expense of a few parking spaces and their view of the park. Get over it and move on. It is anti-democratic for them to try and sue their way into legislation against the will of the public and the good of the greater Slope.

But I guess lawsuits are the favorite means of "old, crotchety rich people," as Hainline calls herself and her friends.

art 525- that's a false discussion. pitting bikes against pedestrians,with gas-burning metal leviathans, having free reign of the city streets. give me a break !!

What is it about lower traffic speeds, fewer accidents, safer street crossings, more pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, pleasant and safer cycling, and overwhelming community support that the lawyer and his clients hate so much?

it's pro bono millionaire style-"free" service now, with future political dividends. translation-one big ugly corporate whore.

Again the bikers cast aspersions on the anti bike lane people. Yes they are indulged rich people and yes they are car owners who are despoiling the world. It is only bikers vs cars. The pedestrian is given no acknowledgement because it is harder to demonize them. I live a half a block from the park (and no I am not "tony" as you often label us and I find I am much less comfortable crossing the street then I was before. I know I am supposed to believe your survey rather than my own experience. As Groucho said "What are you going to believe me or your own eyes?" And Brian take a look at the various sites that have had comment threads on the issue. Look at Gothamist where anti lane people were reffered to as old people who should be in a nursing home or maybe die. Look it up. Same with Brooklyn Patch and The Brooklyn Paper. I was accused of being a Republican and being of the same mind as racists in a diatribe that drew a parallel between being anti bike land and anti integration. My big problem is that bikers are dismissive of traffic laws and this PPW bike lane validates their behavior. There are red lights for the car lanes but not for the bike lane. I guess it goes without saying that bikers don't stop at lights. At first in this debate the bikers insisted they follow the traffic laws but lately they have dropped that pretense. In a column in the Daily News last week a bike lane supporter defended running red lights. The oft heard justification is that they have to get ahead of traffic. It is always them against cars but pedestrians are ignored in their argument.

Please have him explain how free legal service for millionaires can be considered "pro bono".

Why is this guy allowed to spout his nonsense, unopposed by anyone who represents either the city or the vast majority of Park Slope that strongly supports this incredibly successful street safety improvement? Equal time?

Your lawsuit accuses the DOT of acting in an "arbitrary and capricious manner" (quoted from the lawsuit).

The PPW bike lane was the product of 3 years of presentations, proposals, revisions, and community input through the local Community Board 6. Given the public nature of the process, how can you accuse the DOT of acting in an "arbitrary and capricious manner?"

Sorry! One more. Last one.

Did Jim Walden happen to visit Prospect Park West last weekend? The weather was beautiful and there were hundreds of children and parents riding on the new bike lane, co-existing quite happily and peacefully with pedestrians, motorists, dogs, squirrels and everyone else.

Why is Jim Walden, a former federal prosecutor, attacking a project that the community requested, that makes it possible for kids to bike safely to a city park, and that is working great and is overwhelmingly popular in the community?

As long as we're talking about PPW, let's talk about the fact that early yesterday morning, police set up biking speed trap in Central Park and handed out a slew of tickets to bikers going faster than 15 mph as they came down the hill!

Never mind that the speed limit is 25. At least, never mind until the evening, when the police went about making house calls to each cyclist to apologize and revoke each ticket.

This is the morning that the bill to change the lights in the park from red to flashing-yellow during no-car hours goes before the City Council.

i hate saying this, but maybe getting rid of bike lanes, is a good thing in the long run. the big picture endgame, is that we've got to stop genuflecting to automobile. bike lanes are inevitably, token concessions to the monsterous and insane urban car culture.

Jim Walden is also representing another very wealthy Brooklyn group, pro bono: The Brooklyn Heights Association, in its fight against St. Anne's Warehouse. What do Jim, Gibson Dunn and/or their allies want from Brooklyn's political class and moneyed establishment? Or does Mr. Walden simply have a soft spot for millionaires?

Doesn't the modification address the communities real concern about speeding traffic on PPW and bicycles on the sidewalk, while also providing a safe space for bicyclists?

Isn't he doing just what he accusing DOT of doing-playing with accident statistics to make them come out the way he wants? Isn't using a average over a longer period a better statistical practice to eliminate minor fluctuations.
Isn't it really all just too small a sample size to be significant anyway? It will take a couple of years to really see the impact on injuries but a reduction in speeding is clear now and it can reasonably be inferred that it will result in fewer serious injuries.

It seems like NBBL's real concerns are aesthetic-they just don't like the look of the reconfigured street-and everything else is just an attempt to find an angle to attack it.

I'd like to know why his clients sat out the initial community board meetings and discussions about this bike lane that date back to 2007. Why is NBBL now claiming that DOT did not take input from the community?

Please explain how a bike lane that keeps bikes separate from moving car traffic, calms motor speeds, and shortens crossing distances for pedestrians poses "unique dangers to pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists"? [Quoting from the NBBL lawsuit]

Ask him if he undestands that NBBL was counting bikes at 9 PPW, the extreme end of the bike lane, and DOT was counting at a midpoint. Most cyclists exit the bike lane at a bike lane that connects at 2nd Street as they head to Manhattan. There's no good connection at the end of the bike lane, so few bikers make it all the way down to 9 PPW on weekdays. That's why NBBL counted fewer bikes.

Interestingly, DOT and NBBL had the same counts weekends, when more cyclists went down to the farmer's market at Grand Army Plaza.

That shows that counting methods were not flawed.

Please ask him if he disputes the DOT data that car speeds are now lower on PPW than they were before. Should PPW return to having three car lanes?

Please, please ask him why he is representing these millionaires pro bono -- curious to know if it's related to his political donations to Schumer.

why are only the rights of greedy drivers to be protected.
don't bike riders pay taxes too?