Lawsuit to remove the PPW bike lane

Idlewild said: Now, can we get back on the retro-subject of double-wide mommy strollers?

Good lord, are they making those monstrosities for mothers too? It's bad enough they put their kids in these things. A mommy stroller is going to be massive!

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Those strollers belong on the roads and streets with the other SUVs.

Screw that this is how I roll

Plus I got the Spirit Dog to guide me Hoo rah

No comment

....and, with that, I believe we have now reached the point in the thread when it is time to predict what will happen next.

As you may (or may not) be aware, tonight (Thursday) there will be a CB6 mtg at John Jay HS and all of the supporters of the bike lane are gearing up for it.

Via public testimony, signs and perhaps shouting, they will tell CB6 that:

a. They were fully informed when they approved the DOT sponsored lane.

b. They made the right decision when they approved the DOT sponsored the lane.

c. They should make the lane permanent by giving it raised medians and better signs.

Here's where you can view some of the pre-mtg plans:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/03/04/thursday-march-10-is-cb6s-prospect-park-west-bike-lane-finale/

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=133290126693460

http://www.facebook.com/transalt

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=168480233204666

I expect it to be a media frenzy. However, I do not expect anyone from the opposition to attend. ...and, as someone who thinks the bike lane is now in the hands of the court system, I won't be going anywhere near that mtg.

So, how crazy will it be?

...will everyone fit into the meeting room?

Will the supporters shout down anyone who dares

express doubt about the lanes, thus alienating the moderates?

Will this manage to get the silliness of the

Prime 6 debate out of the news?

Will some people be dressed in spandex

racing gear, unaware that a portion of the population genuinely hates them?

Will the news coverage depict the event as

being like a Jerry Springer show?

Will completely normal people be there,

who present themselves as professionals

and calmly and rationally discuss the lane?

Please use the space below to predict and discuss. Thank you

catwalkertexasranger said:

I can't wait to bring this up at the meeting

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRjN6YtTV8

Try again - that URL is broken.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/03/tragedies_commons

When Mr Cassidy drives, he imposes a small congestion cost on those around him, drivers and cyclists included. Because he and others do not consider this cost, they overuse the roads, creating traffic. Mayor Michael Bloomberg had hoped to address this problem by adopting a congestion pricing programme in Manhattan, but he was unable to generate the necessary support. As a result, there are too many cars on New York's streets. From an economic perspective.

Cars also release several harmful pollutants. Ozone is produced when vehicle exhaust reacts with sunlight, and breathing of ozone "irritates the respiratory tract and causes health problems like asthma attacks, coughing, wheezing, chest pain and even premature death". The problem is particularly acute in big cities in the summertime. Cars also emit carbon dioxide, which contributes to climate change (an issue of some concern to a city composed primarily of a series of islands). Interestingly, New York City's per capita transportation emissions are remarkably low among American cities, largely because it has the lowest share of commuters in personal automobiles of any large American city. It would be possible to account for these pollution externalities, to some extent at least, by taxing them. But at the moment, fuel taxes are too low to cover road maintenance, to say nothing of the costs of automobile pollution. As a result, there are too many cars on New York's streets. From an economic perspective.

And of course, surface parking in Manhattan takes up some of the world's most valuable real estate. Mr Cassidy complains that it used to be easy for him to find free on-street parking in Manhattan during the dinner hour but isn't any longer. To give away valuable parking spaces for free is hugely inefficient. It encourages too many people to drive, and it encourages people to stay in free spots longer than the welfare-maximising amount of time. Economist Donald Shoup has written quite a famous book on this topic; I'm surprised Mr Cassidy isn't familiar with it. Mr Shoup explains that in addition to inefficient use of space, free parking encourages drivers to circle as they wait for a new spot to open, thereby adding to the congestion problem. And indeed, Mr Cassidy explains that he does just this, heedless of his impact on the traffic around him. To the extent that New York City still has free on-street parking, there are too many cars on New York's streets (from an economic perspective). Giving free spaces over to bike lanes helps rectify this situation.

Now, if drivers paid for all the costs they impose on others, then it might be worth asking what the optimal level of bike lanes to have is and discussing whether the lanes themselves are subject to rising congestion and need to be priced. Of course, if drivers paid for all the costs they impose on others, there would be fewer drivers complaining about bike lanes and more people using them. As things stand, given that cyclists help alleviate some of these externalities (a cyclist takes up dramatically less road space than a car, doesn't use on-street parking, does not emit ozone, and does not contribute to climate change) it seems quite sensible to allocate a larger share of New York's roadways to lanes for cyclists. From an economic perspective.

I hope they remove the bike lanes and give Brooklyn back to the people. It will be poetic justice for all the yuppies that have caused sky high rents to be unaffordable to the natives of this once great borough. I do think if the lanes are removed this would make the hipsters angry. I want them to be angry like you have made most of Brooklyn angry with your whining and destruction of urban life. $10 chocolate? Who the hell do you think you are? What balls you have charging that much in an economy like this. Stop over charging and overpaying!

Boygabriel said:

When accidents do happen, they can generate as much vitriol as concern, as drivers circle their station wagons and trot out now familiar arguments: that the roads are meant for cars, or that cyclists don't pay for the roads—a particularly unwarranted charge, given that local streets are paid for primarily by sales and property taxes.

http://outsideonline.com/adventure/travel-ga-201103-new-york-bike-commuting-sidwcmdev_154507.html?page=2

Regardless of fault, there's another twist here. As various studies have found, the more cyclists and cycling infrastructure a town has, the safer it becomes statistically, not just for cyclists but for drivers and pedestrians alike.

Oh, stop it with your "facts" - I find that very hard to believe and I don't care who reports it.

from a very nerdly perspective, i don't think this is going to be resolved by the courts. this is an article 78 proceeding that really has an extraordinarily thin basis, but is brought by powerful people. bloomberg will be living in fear that some state court judge trying to make a name for himself and to make some powerful friends will let it get past the initial stages and onto trial. afraid because once that happens, and the bad law is on the books, the floodgates will be open and every city agency that makes unpopular decisions (school closures, anyone?) will face massive litigation on these same or analogous arguments. it doesn't take the mustachioed geniuses of gibson dunn to write an article 78 petition (pro bono or otherwise).

nope, it will be a settlement that gives shumer's wife some kind of victory, but carefully timed and crafted to avoid any creation of precedent.

That Cassidy piece was one of the most uninformed op-eds/blog posts that I've read in some time

indeed

Boygabriel said:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/03/tragedies_commons

When Mr Cassidy drives, he imposes a small congestion cost on those around him, drivers and cyclists included. Because he and others do not consider this cost, they overuse the roads, creating traffic. Mayor Michael Bloomberg had hoped to address this problem by adopting a congestion pricing programme in Manhattan, but he was unable to generate the necessary support. As a result, there are too many cars on New York's streets. From an economic perspective.

Cars also release several harmful pollutants. Ozone is produced when vehicle exhaust reacts with sunlight, and breathing of ozone "irritates the respiratory tract and causes health problems like asthma attacks, coughing, wheezing, chest pain and even premature death". The problem is particularly acute in big cities in the summertime. Cars also emit carbon dioxide, which contributes to climate change (an issue of some concern to a city composed primarily of a series of islands). Interestingly, New York City's per capita transportation emissions are remarkably low among American cities, largely because it has the lowest share of commuters in personal automobiles of any large American city. It would be possible to account for these pollution externalities, to some extent at least, by taxing them. But at the moment, fuel taxes are too low to cover road maintenance, to say nothing of the costs of automobile pollution. As a result, there are too many cars on New York's streets. From an economic perspective.

And of course, surface parking in Manhattan takes up some of the world's most valuable real estate. Mr Cassidy complains that it used to be easy for him to find free on-street parking in Manhattan during the dinner hour but isn't any longer. To give away valuable parking spaces for free is hugely inefficient. It encourages too many people to drive, and it encourages people to stay in free spots longer than the welfare-maximising amount of time. Economist Donald Shoup has written quite a famous book on this topic; I'm surprised Mr Cassidy isn't familiar with it. Mr Shoup explains that in addition to inefficient use of space, free parking encourages drivers to circle as they wait for a new spot to open, thereby adding to the congestion problem. And indeed, Mr Cassidy explains that he does just this, heedless of his impact on the traffic around him. To the extent that New York City still has free on-street parking, there are too many cars on New York's streets (from an economic perspective). Giving free spaces over to bike lanes helps rectify this situation.

Now, if drivers paid for all the costs they impose on others, then it might be worth asking what the optimal level of bike lanes to have is and discussing whether the lanes themselves are subject to rising congestion and need to be priced. Of course, if drivers paid for all the costs they impose on others, there would be fewer drivers complaining about bike lanes and more people using them. As things stand, given that cyclists help alleviate some of these externalities (a cyclist takes up dramatically less road space than a car, doesn't use on-street parking, does not emit ozone, and does not contribute to climate change) it seems quite sensible to allocate a larger share of New York's roadways to lanes for cyclists. From an economic perspective.

Boygabriel said:

...2) closer to home, Vanderbilt points out that, since the implementation of New York’s Ninth Avenue dedicated bike lane, pedestrian injuries have gone down by 29 percent. That’s not accidents between bikes and people; that’s between cars and people.

http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/i-was-a-teenage-cyclist-or-how-anti-bike-lane-arguments-echo-the-tea-party/?src=me&ref=magazine

I do think that the PPW bike lane would benefit from one thing that the 9th Avenue bike lane has which PPW does not, mainly separate signals for bikers. This would allow pedestrians to safely cross from curb to curb without floating in the parking lane waiting for a break in traffic and would take away the arguement that crossing the bike lane is dangerous.

Signals don't seem to have a negative impact on the bikers on 9th Ave and make it easier for everyone.

I'm glad I have a convert. Welcome to the Fold, Brother Theodore.

There would be far fewer injuries to bicyclists if they would just stay off the roads in a city that is obviously designed for motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic only. Walk your bike to the park and ride it there where it belongs.

And yes, get the cars out of the park.