Let's roll on! helmet anyone?

Jim Walden's, and his clients', remonstrations would be entertainingly farcical if they weren't so cynically motivated and potentially dangerous.

Putting aside the fact that the redesign of Prospect Park West was the product of years of community process, requested and endorsed by the Community Board, and embraced by the vast majority of neighborhood residents, it's clear to anyone with at least one working eye that the project has made PPW a demonstrably safer street. Anyone who has ventured beyond Walden's walnut-paneled Park Avenue offices to actually spend a few minutes on PPW -- or who actually experienced the old PPW before filing a lawsuit -- knows full well that speeding has been reduced dramatically. The claim that it hasn't is made even more ridiculous by the concurrent claim made by Walden and his clients that PPW is somehow beset by gridlock and traffic jams. Speeding hasn't been reduced AND the street it overly congested? Huh?

Furthermore, the alleged data fudging is a blatant and easily refuted lie. Walden's "data" cherry picks crash reports to try to make DOT's data look bad. It eliminates crashes that occurred at intersections along PPW that the NYPD may have reported as occurring at "2nd Street and PPW" instead of "PPW and 2nd Street." DOT's data collection and analysis was meticulous; Walden's was motivated by chicanery.

Additionally, Walden's claim that DOT manipulated data to make the safety effects seem better than they are is nonsense. Ask any traffic engineer -- analyzing three years' data is standard industry practice. Claiming that the street is more dangerous because the number of traffic injuries increased from 2009 to 2010 from 4 to 5 is a joke. Did Walden mention that 4 of those 5 2010 injuries were in one crash? Of course not. Does Walden report the severity of the allegedly increased number of accidents? Again, of course not. Because they were by and large minor fender-benders resulting from the new traffic pattern, not at all unexpected.

Does Jim Walden mention the fact that the NYPD didn't record a single pedestrian injury on PPW during the six months following the implementation of the new design, versus an average of one every two months prior to the redesign? Take a guess. One needn't be a $1000 an hour Park Avenue lawyer to know the answer.

Any child could tell you that PPW is a markedly safer street thanks to the work of NYC DOT. Ask any of the hundreds of children who now ride their bikes safely along PPW each week.

Enough is enough. The people pushing this lawsuit should be ashamed. It's time for them to stop.

Not only stop, but shut up. Find something else to spend time on. The bike lane is a part of the neighborhood. Get over it!

I have to say that I like the bike lane, having been in car services both before and after I can say that the speed and driving does seem safer to me now.

Walden sent the letter to the press BEFORE he sent it to the DOT. That should tell you enough. The point is aggressive political posturing, not rational argument.

Hay Jim,

I gotta another lawsuit for you. The DOT is in the process of repaving Union St. They did not consult with me first. I want you to sue them and get them to put the old pavement back. I thought it was good enough.

So typical of Park Slopers to have some controversy in their lives.Arguement for arguement sake.A bike lane in a major city something proposterous? Spare me.There is a legitimate need for bike lanes and there should actually be more.The days of bikes on the sidewalk should end.That is the real problem.Oh and by the way, please lower the yield to pedestrian signs and blinking yellow lights to eye level.I can see why opponents to the lane are complaining regarding pedestrian safety.MANY,yesMANY, bikers are no abiding by the rules.Their is a sense of biker arrogance that is prevalent in the biking community.Perhaps taking it out on pedestrians when they are "dissed" by drivers?

Make that bike lane one way, going with the flow of traffic. On 8th ave make a land going the other way. It sucks for people having to look both ways for speeding bikes when that is not a normal way of crossing a street with car traffic only going one way. Why make it difficult. Also, when are we going to issue tickets for riding without helmets, lights, reflectors, and bells. We need to get licenses for these bikes and require adults to have insurance. I have been hit by a bike and it cost me 1200 to fix my broken tooth and he just rode off into the sunset scott free. I am tired of these jerks running lights, weaving around cars and general disregard for the rules of the road. I drive a car and ride a bike and I do not change my way of thinking about the rules of the road. These rules and laws apply to all wheeled traffic. GET WITH THE PROGRAM!

The data concludes it's not safer. As a resident-biker, pedestrian and car driver- I find the lane to be a nightmare-never knowing which way to look.
I don't care how many people were paid to design this-it's NOT an IMPROVEMENT and is not SAFER. If you want drivers to slow down -time the lights so they have to stop every few blocks or add a few more. And please- BIKES ARE STOLEN ALL THE TIME-regulating bikes would be a NIGHTMARE. Be careful what you wish for.More regulations, fee's, and enforcement are going to cost those that follow the rules and line the city's pockets while your maverick drivers will ride off into the sunset-stolen plates and all.

Julianne,

If the redesign of PPW turns out to be less safe, it will be major international news in urban planning and traffic engineering circles. If what you and Jim Walden are saying is true than this may very well be the first time in history that transforming a neighborhood street from a three-lane expressway where cars regularly travel 45 mph into a "complete street" where cars travel 30 mph, made a street more dangerous. The increased danger would also be big news to bike-riders, who previously found PPW so dangerous they either rode on the sidewalk or avoided the street (or avoided biking) altogether. If what you are saying is true then you and Louise Hainline should do an article for the "Journal of the American Society of Transportation Engineers" and "Injury Prenvention" to announce your findings.

All these folks that "don't know which way to look" probably shouldn't be allowed to go outside. Should think about getting home care. I'm sure your relatives will visit you. They won't have any trouble crossing the street.

Hey Chicken Underwear, I think we should remove all the pavement and bring back the dirt...much better for the horses and wagons (oh, did I forget to mention we should also eliminate all the cars?). While we're at it, those electric street lights just don't make it. Back to gas lamps. And women's rights? Rediculous!!!

;)

Tyler has it exactly right: if you can't remember to look both ways, maybe you shouldn't be allowed out alone.

I guess that they can drop the pretense of being "for better bike lanes" at this point, right?

And Julianne, you must have missed the comments posted earlier about the "data." Claims that the street is less safe are lies, and those making those claims are doing exactly what they accuse DOT of doing -- cherry-picking results.

I appreciate Jim Walden's novel legal and public policy concept that random groups of citizens who can afford to hire attorneys can demand removal of infrastructure as long as there's been "no final agency decision" to remove it. Based that, I'm working on my own letter to DOT...

“Dear Commissioner Sadik-Khan, As you are aware, the Decision establishes that, as of this date, DOT never made a final agency decision whether to remove the Brooklyn-Queens Expresway.

Thus, on behalf of Neighbors for Better Expressways and Seniors for Asthma and Global Warming, I now request a response to this letter providing DOT’s final agency determination whether to remove the Expressway.

Our organizations also demand that you tell us what your final agency decision is on the Brooklyn Bridge, the Holland Tunnel and Canal Street. We will give you until September 2nd to let us know whether DOT plans to keep or remove these Trial Projects based on data gathered during DOT evaluations and studies."

Do you know how many hundreds of people died on NYC streets over the past two years? When will these "pilot program" streets be redesigned? I plan to FOIL Mayor LaGuardia to find out if he ever referred to the Long Island Expressway as a "trial." I suggest converting all of our dangerous streets into bike lanes, since zero people have been killed by bikes this year, yet nearly 100 people -- mostly the elderly and young children -- have been killed by cars. With all the drivers ignoring the law, you never know which way to look, even on one-way streets!

As long as I have a group of well-connected neighbors at my side, along with Iris Weinshall and her husband Chuck Schumer to make a few calls, the city MUST do as I say.

Iris, can you give me a hook up with Jim Walden, please? From what I hear, he takes bogus cases for free!

Also, if the bike lane has increased the risk to everyone, why hasn't Jim Walden trotted out any bike accident victims for the media? It's been over a year since the bike lane was installed and nearly as long since his bogus "What the Data Show" charts were handed out at community board meetings, yet not a single person has been killed by a biker on PPW. That's because it's made it much safer - no more bikes on the sidewalk!

They lost their case! What rights do a group of random people have to ask the city to do the opposite of what a judge decides? If I sue someone for a million bucks and the judge throws my case, can I still write a letter demanding the guy give me a million bucks?

Seems like every kid knows the meaning of winning and losing. I wish Louise Hainline and pals would learn it too!

I just want to know if PPW' bike lane is exclusive for bikers since irunners, and skateboards seem to be using it on most nights and wkends. If so then why don't we let the traffic run thru the park since it's not being used for biker/running/rollerbladers. Excuse those racers. Has anyone using the PPW bike lane seen any rules?

There's only one solution: give everyone a horse and do away with all wheeled vehicles (except for the guys who will have to clean up after the horses...yuch). Can the City recoup court costs and legal staff time for continuous waste of time?

I posted a couple videos - one is just a regular ride down the bike lane, the other shows you a little of the gaping pot holes. Hit one of those and go flying into traffic, you're dead.

I cross PPW twice a day. The challenge, as I see it, is that current street protocol gives the pedestrian the right of way. The Manhattan avenues have bike-specific stop lights. No such absolute stops exist on PPW. When a person on foot approaches a biker in the lane, I believe the organic instinct on the part of the pedestrian is to stop and let the faster moving person on a bike have the right of way so they don't get hurt. Similarly, a person on a bike, whether pedaling at 5MPH or 20MPH (I've seen many bikers hurtling down the lanes) instinctively keeps on going less s/he be hurt. All of it makes sense in terms of behavior but it changes the dynamic of being a pedestrian, at least on PPW in my experience. Yes, bike riders are supposed to stop for pedestrians but the instinctual reactions of both rider and pedestrian dictate otherwise. This happens even if both rider and pedestrian are on the ball, which often is not the case. The questions becomes: Is the bike lane fairly placed to accommodate pedestrians, supposed-tos notwithstanding?

A six year old or an 86 year old should follow the same logical rule for self protection: look both ways before crossing. Whether there is a bike lane or not, whether there are traffic lights or traffic cops, whether there is car traffic or horse traffic (there are bridel paths in the park), if you are crossing a pathway/lane/sidewalk..look out for yourself and look both ways. And with food delivery guys riding electric bikes on the sidewalk these days, it's even more important. Is this too simple for everyone to understand? Let's not get so hung up on the absurdity of the lawsuit that we lose site of our own self preservation.

Janet, have you actually tried to cross the Bike Lane? It it busiest it is not that hard.

I can't think of a Class I bike lane in NYC that has red lights where there is no crossing car traffic. On 1st and 2nd Ave bikes have to stop at the corners when the light is red because there is crossing traffic.

But in places like the Hudson River Bike Path or along Columbia Ave in Brooklyn there are many "yield to ped" signs where there are crosswalks.

There is no reason to make bikers "practice" stopping at lights on PPW.

I agree Janet. I would even go as on to say that the fact that cyclist advocacy groups don't go far enough. There should be some reasonable enforcement of the law.

Janet: What you refer to as "playing chicken," many of us would refer to as two human beings using eye-contact, voices and hand gestures to negotiate safe passage with each other on the street. "You go." "No, you go ahead." "OK, thanks." It's really not a big deal. In fact, I find it to be kind of a nice thing. I much prefer for a street design to allow humans to communicate and negotiate with each other rather than all of us being regulated by big, ugly, expensive and mindless traffic signals. European urban planners and traffic engineers like Hans Monderman and Ben Hamilton-Baillie have found that this type of human-scale street design (They call it "shared space" or "naked streets" but I actually like your term -- let's call it "chicken-playing traffic engineering"), makes streets substantially safer. Google around for terms like "Drachten" and "Seven Dials" to see some similar chicken-playing streets at work.

Janet, there have been almost 100 people killed in car accidents on city streets so far this year and most of those dead were pedestrians. Cyclists have killed zero pedestrians this year. The last fatality as in 2009. Since that tragic accident, car drivers have killed around 500 people, yet there have been no calls to pull car lanes out if drivers don't learn to "respect the rules of the road."

Still, the idea that street users have to adhere to the "rules" 100% in order for it to be safe doesn't hold a lot of water. Yes, many cyclists don't yield to pedestrians crossing the bike lane, but that's preferable to the former situation, in which hundreds of cyclists rode on the sidewalk mixed in with pedestrians every day. If the bike lane comes out, you'll be trading one perceived danger for an actual one. Believe me, seniors don't want bikes on the sidewalk.

If you look up the Safety in Numbers Theory, cycling actually gets safer as more people take up cycling. The safety benefits extend to pedestrians as well.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm

The same can not be said for driving. The more car drivers a city has, the more dangerous and hostile it is to pedestrians. A three-lane road is more fitting for Atlanta or Houston, not a tree-lined street in the middle of a busy urban setting with plenty of foot traffic.

The bike lane is here to stay - that's what losing a court case means.

Read the polls - the majority of NYers are in favor of bike lanes. At worst, they're indifferent. Most of the bike hate you see out there is drummed up by tabloids, CBS 2 Marcia Kramer reports, and frivolous lawsuits. What's needed are more statistics and less hysteria drummed up from Iris Weinshall and Marty Markowitz.

What's unnecessary about statistics which "prove" that hundreds of people are killed and thousands more injured by heavy cars? Statistics are what the community used to measure traffic speeds on PPW which then lead them to ask the DOT to do something about reckless speeding drivers.

People who don't want to fear injury should be lobbying hard for this and other bike lanes. They make streets a whole lot safer. In fact, there are 40% fewer injuries to all users - drivers, peds, and cyclists - on streets with bike lanes, to use another statistic.

I can't argue with your perception of the situation and people's behavior, but statistics are more useful than anecdotes when it comes to city planning. Not that you ignore politics, but you can't be a slave to it either. There has to be a balance between the truth -- statistics -- and people's feelings. Due to this frivolous lawsuit, NBBL tipped the scales too far in the direction of paranoia.

Well, Senior, there you go again...confusing the issue with facts. This argument has NEVER been about facts. The Court recognized that, everyone whose head is not stuck in sand recognizes that. Of COURSE the new PPW is safer for everyone. This is about change and "not on my street." Eventually facts and logic will win out...always happens. But until then, we will have more angst, more sturm und drang, more absurd statements from money-motivated lawyers. You are, of course right. Just be patient and put up with this silliness a bit longer.

Howard, if I ever meet you I will buy you a drink. You are 100% correct.

Thanks Senior. In fact I live at 8th Avenue and President Street and, yes, I confess I do have a bike (though I haven't ridden in a while). But I do walk into the park often (I have a dog who takes me there), so I have to cross the bike lane...and the streets. About 60 years ago, my mother taught her young child to "look both ways.": Was I the only one?