Lawsuit to remove the PPW bike lane

Idlewild, are you saying there should be sign so drivers getting out of parked cars know there is 2 way bike traffic? No, there are no signs there, there are signs at the crosswalks. I don't think we can plan a world around jay walkers.

But, there is a 2 to 5 food "safety zone" between the parked cars and the bike lane. There is also a line in the middle of the bike lane. I don't think that is is problem. I think people getting out of parked cars and walking towards the park can figure it out.

I think it is way to much to ask a commuter biker to enter the park at 9th St. They are REQUIRED BY LAW to walk their bike there. It is a side walk from PPW to the park road. The Park road is also one way. Commuter bikers want to get from point A to point B. That is why a network of bike lanes are being laid out.

Idlewild said:

Sorry, but it is. My examples prove it. A two way bike lane on PPW is just stupid. Pedestrians and bikers alike are going to get into accidents. The bike lane on 5th Ave is suicidal. How many have been seriously injured because of the lack of maneuverability space? Then there's the lanes where it's appropriate like Clinton Street and Bergen Street where the lanes are hugging the passenger side of the cars.

No, you claimed the lanes are put down without any foresight or community input, which is completely and categorically false.

If you'd like to make a losing argument against the PPW lane on the grounds of safety, be my guest. But don't misrepresent the extremely fair way in which DOT proposes and installs bike lanes.

WhyFi said:

Huh, that's funny - I never would have thought that 100% of the traffic that I see every day is vehicles delivering our goods. Maybe there's more to these SUV clubs than I'd thought...

ding ding ding.

city roads for commerce and shipping are one thing. personal-car-thoroughfares on literally almost every block in the city, including public space being devoted to FREE PARKING all over the place, is quite another.

Cool The Kid said:

If more bike lanes were done like the one on 1st Av, it would be OK. But even that is riddled w/pedestrians, and the traffic lights really kill flow. Plus even without that, there are so many real world issues that kill bike lanes for me. I've heard of cases of cops parking in bike lanes and ticketing cyclists for riding out of them, and of course people double parking in them, pedestrians jumping out, etc. Certain parts of the strategy need to be addressed

I'm not sure what your argument is or what you're alternate proposal is.

You're against bike lanes because...

... of that incredibly idiotic cop who blocked a bike lane and then ticketed bikers for riding around it?

... because people who double park no matter what are doing so with bike signs painted under their cars instead of simply extra road space?

... jaywalking pedestrians?

Idlewild said:

Why? Car owners pay more than their fair share of taxes for "free parking". We also kick in for the MTA. In fact, NYS has some of the highest tax rates across the board. How much more should anyone pay to use public services? Should bicycles be "chained" taxed for the luxury of locking up on the street racks or posts?

Car owners pay more than their fair share of taxes

This is actually completely unproven, and in many other municipalities is demonstrated to be false.

Should bicycles be "chained" taxed for the luxury of locking up on the street racks or posts?

Come on dude. Are you honestly equating the public space used to chain one bike up to a sign post on a sidewalk to that devoted to an entire car on a street?

Actually, DOT must comply with ULURP, which (among other requirements) involves convincing the local community board that its changes are in the public interest.

After hearings and research, the folks at CB6 approved it.

In this case, a group of citizens feel that CB6 was misled, not that the ULURP procedure was not followed. As a result of a lawsuit filed by those who do agree with the decision of CB6, the courts will now decide whether the suit has merit.

....so far, to my knowledge, no members of of CB6 have stated that they were misled ....and they are now prohibited from weighing in on the matter as a result of the pending lawsuit.

Here's more than you ever wanted to know about ULURP:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/luproc/ulpro.shtml

whynot_31 said:

Boygabriel and CTK,

The first steps to getting a more efficient transit system is to get more the cars off the road, when this is not possible, they should at least be slowed them down. This is done by improving public transit, via options such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and creating (gasp) more bike lanes.

....in conjunction with enforcing the existing traffic laws on the books, these steps would allow our network to be used by car who can not "be gotten" off the road because public transit still does not provide an alternative.

Here's more than you ever wanted to know about BRT:

This I agree with (without clicking on the url). I'll take it one step further and say the MTA needs a shake up. It's way too corrupt. In between all the service delays and the filth, who in the hell wants to ride it except that you're forced to because you don't have a car, or the traffic is so insane on the streets, you're scared of biking on them?

Drivers need to retake the road and written test at least every five years, and uninsured vehicles need to be impounded. It'll be messy and bottlenecked at first, but everything would flow smoothly once the kinks are ironed out.

Idlewild said:I will clarify on the safety. A two way bike lane on PPW, the way it is now is kinda dumb.

And the basis of your argument is:

Pedestrians have to look both ways. And people exiting on the passenger side of cars need more than 3 feet of space in order to be aware of bike traffic passing them in the same direction they would be driving?

Is this correct?

You think that is worse than a dramatic reduction in accidents and speeding cars? Not to mention the benefits of, you know, a very good bike line and connecting thoroughfare for bikers between north and central brooklyn?

Give me a break.

Idlewild said:

Yes I am equating a fairness tax.

You equated the public space needed to lock up a bike to a sign post (on a preexisting sidewalk, rarely majorly inhibiting pedestrian traffic (a separate topic I'm happy to discuss)) to that of parking a car on a street.

That is a farce.

Boygabriel said:

And the basis of your argument is:

Pedestrians have to look both ways. And people exiting on the passenger side of cars need more than 3 feet of space in order to be aware of bike traffic passing them in the same direction they would be driving?

Is this correct?

You think that is worse than a dramatic reduction in accidents and speeding cars? Not to mention the benefits of, you know, a very good bike line and connecting thoroughfare for bikers between north and central brooklyn?

Give me a break.

I said more signs. I believe I have stated this more than three times. Where have I said I think that less accidents and speeding cars is not good if it means having a bike lane in place? Show me where I even make this as an innuendo. I have also said, a few times, that I am for bike lanes. And yes, I agree with you on the thoroughfare practicality. Again,show me where I have said different.

Idlewild,

boygabriel may be desperately seeking people like those who filed the lawsuit against the bike lane.

....part of him may be disappointed you are not one of them.

However, fear not: The rest of him likes that you are not them.

(boygabriel, am I correct?)

P.S. I'd be ok with requiring bicycles to be registered, or their drivers lic'd, but I don't know if it would be worth it financially to do so. The financial costs of collecting and enforcing the fees may be more than the sum total of the fees themselves.

Idlewild said:

Nope. Just the fairness of it. If you're going to make the argument about motorized vehicles needing to pay more then why should everyone else in a vehicle (with the exception of baby carriages, wheelchairs and the like) not pay a little some thing as well?

Pretty sure my taxes cover my share of sidewalks, street signs, and the wear and tear that 1" rubber tires and 200 lbs cause on roadways.

(Unless WF31 has a link proving otherwise)

My point is that the amount of public space (square footage) devoted to free street parking might, just might, be disproportionate to the necessity of every. single. person. owning a car who wants or can afford one.

BG,

Despite being familiar with the topic at hand, I am not familiar with any reputable research that states bikes and pedestrians consume more than the share of the transportation network than they actually pay for.

However, I was able to find research that politely stated the contrary.

http://www.tstc.org/issues/bikingandwalking.php

Significant federal funding is available for pedestrian safety programs and projects. While nearly all federal “highway” funding can be used for bicycle and pedestrian projects, three federal funding programs specifically list improving the walking and bicycling environment as eligible activities — Transportation Enhancements, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, and the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Unfortunately, few states have taken full advantage of these federal programs for bicycling and walking projects, instead spending much of the funding on traditional transportation projects.

To boost state funding for bicycling and walking projects, Tri-State is pushing Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey to follow the Virginia DOT’s lead and pre-designate 10 percent of federal apportionments under those programs for pedestrian and bicycling projects.

.

.

.

And, yes, perhaps it is needless to say, one should be very knowledgeable about the requirements of ULURP before one states they are weak.

...especially given the expertise of some of the posters on this board.

piano wrote: The important thing is the bike lane is still there, and it's not going away. This lawsuit doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

Don't be so confident.

If the plaintiffs can show that CB6 was misled,

OR

get a few of the members of CB6 to testify that they do not feel they were provided with complete information during the course of the review,

OR

show collusion between DOT and pro bike lane groups that affect the objectivity of the CB6 decision

....that bike lane will be history.

DOT better have followed ULURP to the letter, because the plaintiffs have good lawyers and the money to find any weakness in DOT's actions.

While I would love for folks like Transportation Alternatives to be able to advance their cause to things "like getting the cars out of the park", they have now been forced into the position of having to defend a prior achievement.

Bad sports analogy: One can't play offense when the other team has the ball.

...to continue this analogy, let's hope the judge takes the ball from the plaintiffs and tells them to go home, so our city can continue to reduce its dependence on the automobile.

True, only fools attempt to predict the actions of a judge.

I am willing to amend my prior statement of "that bike will be history" to read "bad things will happen".

If I do my research and come to the conclusion that ULURP was followed, I am also willing to send money to those defending the bike lanes.

I do not want to live in a society in which the subjective opinions of a few are able invalidate actions that were legally taken.

If the advocates for that bike lane played by rules, that lane should stay.