Bill to ban cars in Central Prospect Park Loops introduced.

If PETA gets their way, can we still ride horses without carriages, like we can in Prospect Park now?

I'd hate to be to have to tell the Mrs that horses aren't allowed, and to have to tell Bklyn50 that cars are not allowed.

It would mean that both Olmsted and Robert Moses had died, and we were now able to make decisions on our own.

Seems like we can solve all of Park Slopes problems in one stroke.

Keep the cars out of the park and get rid of the fucking bike lane. Now the park looks better with not cars and PPW looks better with no bike lane.

The bikers can have the park, as it should be. And that stupid lane will be gone and that will ease congestion. Problems solved, no?

Why_not31, thank you for your completely condescending take on both issues on which I am already fully aware. I appreciate people whose efforts in snark and wit are fully intended to place themselves above other individuals in the arena that is their own mind. I know the ins and out of both issues and are well aware that the issues have no connection. I am not a part of the lawsuit, nor do I care to be. I was simply posting my off the cuff idea/remark on a message thread on a blog. Your aware that is what this is, right? Your aware that its just a place for ideas, conversation, etc, right?

Slope this is your one warning. No personal attacks. And play nice. See?

Thank you. - Moderators

I'm dying for a poll to be done to see what % of New Yorkers, Manhattanites & Brooklynianers do or don't want cars in Central & Prospect Parks.

I'd wager that the people who drive through Prospect Park never use the park in any other manner. That this is the way it was, only shows that it was wrong before. And since the park was built before automobiles were around, we know that Prospect Park was never meant to have cars driving through it. But Thank God for new blood to this city.

Wow, if that's viewed as a condescending post, someone's got some thin damn skin.

The Internets - they're not for everyone.

Again, wtf is wrong with you people. Were you picked on in middle and high school so now you have to write quirky little posts under assumed names in order to reclaim your dignity?

And moderators, why the delete? In discourse, sometimes its appropriate to tell someone to F off. We aren't arguing before the justices here!!! And I thought Why_not's passive/aggressive: "[readers: The personal attack portion of the above post was deleted by a moderator]" was bad enough but really WhyFi? I agree, them Internets, they ain't for everyone. Did you type that, cackle to yourself and then post it on your facebook and mass email it to all your "friends" sitting at computers.

I'm sure the moderators will kick me off now but if you do, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I just happen to be overt in my distaste. Punishing me but allowing people to make snide comments is a double standard.

But....back to my original point I was making.....my hope is that a decision on either issue will be made soon. And that decision will spur the body making the second decision to act accordingly. For instance, it would be great if the decision was made to ban cars from the Park (having just returned from running around it, it would have been much nicer with out the cars). Following that decision, possibly a decision on the bike lane could be handed down because those people are aware that with cars banned from the park, bike riders have complete reign and do not need a bike lane across PPW.

Full disclosure - I own a truck but also own a bike. I love to run outdoors in the park and think cars don't belong there. I hate bike riders and their whining, sniveling demeanor towards autos and their belief that the rules of the road do not apply to them and I cheered when people involved in critical mass got arrested or clothes lined.)

I continue to believe that the legislative and judicial branches of our government should remain separate, despite 1980s argument to the contrary.

The judge assigned to the PPW lawsuit should focus only on whether the applicable regulations in ULURP were followed.

On the legislative side, yes, I hope the City Council makes a quick decision on this bill. People are very interested in anything having to do with the parks, especially with the warm weather arriving.

dixiecupdrinking; You hit the nail on the head. I don't think there will be a traffic problem. Just a few cars getting delayed by a few minutes. Maybe.

I'm totally, 100% in favor of this bill to ban cars in the parks. Now, I'm saying this as both an avid park user as well as someone who drives through the park twice a week to get my kids to school.

I will not debate those who argue that having the park roads open eases congestion on the streets surrounding the park. I think it definitely pulls traffic off the surrounding streets. It's definitely a convenient route if you have to get around to the other side of the park in a hurry.

The reasons why I support a ban are the following:

1. 99% of the drivers that use the park road disobey the posted speed limit. Most of them treat the road as if it was a freeway and travel *at least* 40mph or greater speed. They also tend to ignore the stoplights in the park or treat them like stop signs.

2. Cars and bike/jogging lanes are just not compatible with one another. The exhaust is not healthy and has no business being inside a park, especially right next to people that are exercising. In my mind, the needs of the people that are actually USING the park for recreational purposes ALWAYS trump those that are using it as a convenient short cut in their cars.

3. Driving in NYC *should* be congested and difficult. There are too many people living too densely to make accommodating everyone's car realistic or desirable. If you want to drive in NYC, you'd better be prepared for traffic and slow going. That, or take public transit.

Now, if the ban passes, part of me will be sad to see my quick little shortcut around the park go away. But I'll be much, much more happy to know that the park is a safe, quiet and clean place to enjoy.

I just realized how stupid it was of me to think a plan would get passed that might effect traffic on some of the wealthiest blocks in Manhattan and Brooklyn..

I never should have gotten my hopes up.

Hopefully the city council, which represents more than the wealthy privileged, pushes it through.

So, will the City Council pass a bill that Marty and Bloomberg dislike?

If it passes, but without a super majority, do we think Bloomberg will veto it?

Piano, no, it frustrates me as well and if I have to educate one me-first individual at a time, I will.

A bicycle is a recreational vehicle. Just because you make the choice not to own an automobile or use the public transportation provided by the city in which you live DOES NOT mean that your will must be bent to.

This is the issue many people have with the bicycle contingent, please please get over yourselves.

Slope1980 said:

A bicycle is a recreational vehicle.

Again, you're simply wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion. As a matter of law a bicycle is a legal form of transportation and has as much right to be on NYC streets as a car. Just because you can't ride one, doesn't mean it's not. It sounds like you're the one who wants the will of the city to bend to your whim.

And talk about me first. Wow. I don't even use a bike to commute. But I am capable of seeing things from a point of view other than my own. It helps when you live in a big city.

Slope1980 said: please please get over yourselves.

WhyFi said:

](*,)

I don't even HAVE a bike.