You’d think Park Slope would be the kind of neighborhood that would universally embrace a bike lane. I mean, that’s the crunchy granola cliche about this lefty, progressive, eco-astute neighborhood, right?
Think again.
You know those people who REALLY hate the Prospect Park West Bike Lane? They’re calling themselves Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes (NFBBL) and members of this high powered group include Iris Weishall, former head of the DOT (and Chuck Schumer’s wife) and former Sanitation Commissioner Norman Steiser.
NFBBL is getting ready to sue the city. They say that the bike lane plan was based on incorrect data by an agency that is too bike-friendly.
The group says that the lane bike lane was supposed to be a one-way lane, and that the two-way version is dangerous to pedestrians. The group wants the lane moved into the park or re-designed
“the PPW bike lane has not taken anything away from motorists that they really needed. ” Disagree with you David. The new traffic configuration narrows the travel lanes so the motor vehicle traffic that is using the street has less room to manuever – at any speed – slow or fast. Feel free to call me entitled but I think that all users of PPW – cyclists, pedestrians and drivers could actually “need” adequate and safe space provided to them actually.
Also, there is less parking (you are very right people can certainly deal with changes but I think parking is a consideration that is currently important to any neighborhood – one way or another). Finally visibility has been changed and visiibility is another point that I think all users of PPW “need”.
The changed visibility coupled with less room for maneuver within the travel lanes and more congested traffic at certain times of the day has resulted in fender benders and incidents such as mirrors being knocked off cars (parked and moving). I know the DOT report says that the accidents have been reduced from pre-config levels — but I am not sure on what they actually accounted for as “accidents” — I know that I’ve seen more “incidents” — fender benders, side-swipes and mirrors hit – since the new configuration than I had seen in the entire 20 years before that I have lived on PPW. Doesn’t add up to me …if the incidents I saw were counted in the report then I saw a large majority of them – which seems very hard for me to believe. Possible I guess though.
It’s not about motorists vs. bikes in my view. Bikes and cars were safety issues before the new traffic configuration and remain so. The bike lanes have made it easier for bikes to travel and at a faster pace than before if they want to. That’s great – my family loves it too HOWEVER, people have to still watch out for the bikes and cars and vice-versa.
My main concern is the narrower traffic lanes and change in visibility for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers alike – it’s not safer in my view.
Peter Loffredo’s perspective on this issue is, frankly, bizarre and wrong-headed.
1. Sure, a majority of “homeowners” in Park Slope do own cars. But the majority of Park Slope HOUSEHOLDS do not own cars. Personally, I think renters are just as equal citizens in Park Slope as those who own their own property. And one of the great things about living in NYC, Park Slope included, is that you can live a full and complete life without ever having to own a car.
2. I own a car. I also use a bike for commuting, errands and taking my kids to school in Park Slope. PPW was impossible for bicycling prior to the redesign. I either rode on the sidewalk or risked my life on 8th Avenue.
The PPW redesign has made it all the more possible for me to use my bike and leave the car at home. If Peter must use a car for all of these kinds of trips — that’s fine. That’s his business.
But he should recognize that it benefits him if me and my kids are biking. When we are biking we are not in a car, clogging the street and creating traffic congestion, we are not hogging up parking on the avenues, we are not double-parking, we are not spewing exhaust and greenhouse gases into the air and burning oil from far-off lands. Is Peter so, self-centered and non-holistic in his view that he can’t see how it benefits him when I don’t need to use my car?
Moreover, the PPW bike lane has not taken anything away from motorists that they really needed. It has not hurt anything. PPW still moves along quite nicely for cars. There are still four southbound traffic lanes running along the edges of Prospect Park and two lanes dedicated to the storage of people’s private automobiles. That’s a ton of public space dedicated to free parking and the roadway capacity of an Interstate highway running between GAP and Bartel Pritchard Square.
Peter, however, seems to believe motorists are entitled to a 5th lane of traffic (or 7th lane if you count the parking) at the expense of one small bike lane. This is truly beyond me. I wish I could understand where this sense of entitlement comes from.
Peter presents himself as some sort of “holistic” thinker yet his view of the local transportation system seems to be remarkably selfish and non-holistic.
I find Peter Loffredo’s arguments worng-headed and narrowly (if oddly) self-serving. Emma is correct that the vast majority of Park Slope residents SUPPORT the bike lane. And as a driver who knows all too well the Indianapolis Speedwa/y/NASCAR chaos that was the three-lane PPW, I am really amazed at politically powerful types like Ms Weinshal and Norman Steisel arguing against this far safer alternative — safer for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. And — I suspect – also for the cars now parked next to TWO lanes rather than THREE.
I am a walker, car-owner, bicyclist and everyday user of mass transit. I live on Fifth Street and wonder why Mr Loffredo thinks mass transit is poor in this neighborhood. He DOES correctly point out that the cuts to buses were wrong. So fight THOSE cuts — we ALL should — but don’t attack a safer and greener alternate form of transportation. And here’s some advice for everyone: Drive and bike safely. Look both ways when you cross the street and the bikepath.
The idea that the bike lane was supposed to be “one-way” is curious. Which way? As anyone who bikes knows, the need is for a bike lane going north in the direction of Grand Army Plaza. Eight Ave. is not a safe option, and in Prospect Park, the park drive is one-way going south. A two-way bike lane on PPW makes sense. If someone can draw up a better idea, show it.
Another point: the city is right to encourage bicycling for more people than dare-devils in spandex. This is a worthy goal for many reasons, some of them even relevant to drivers and parkers of cars. When will our children be able to safely bicycle to school instead being shuttled by car or school bus? As we Baby-Boomers age, why can’t we have streets safe enough to bicycle on? Can the opponents of the bike lane concede that having more people bicycling than driving would make the neighborhood more pleasant?
Some people still want and need to use their cars. It’s a reality. Their monopoly of public streets, though, shouldn’t be assumed as a birthright.
By the way, whoever the imbecilic coward was who wrote this post, using my name, pretending to be me (clearly not happy being themselves) is pretty pathetic. Come forward and name yourself.
Here’s the false post:
“Plus like I say on my blog, I’m entitled to live a pleasure-filled, spontaneous life without guilt, shame or oppressive inner rules and prohibitions, no matter what the cost to other people. So when I’m in my car, you’d better get outta my way, losers.”
Emma – You must not ride the buses or subways. The 68 and other key bus routes have been cut dramatically, and the F train is basically out of service. Are you kidding? As I said, I would love to take mass transit instead of my car, but to get my kids to school, and to get to work without wasting half my day, I have to drive. There’s no need for speeding, I agree, but to answer that problem by cutting off the flow of a vital roadway is penny-wise and pound foolish, not to mention that the added exhaust from cars idling in traffic is deadly to our kids as well, isn’t it?
Peter: 80 percent of Park Slopers support the bike lane, but the vocal ones with money and political connections do not. There’s just no need for cars to be zooming down PPW, an area frequented by small children, at all. Cities are for people, not cars.
Meanwhile, how can you say that train service in Park Slope sucks? The area is surrounded by trains. If you think the service sucks, perhaps are expectations are way, way too high.
Plus like I say on my blog, I’m entitled to live a pleasure-filled, spontaneous life without guilt, shame or oppressive inner rules and prohibitions, no matter what the cost to other people. So when I’m in my car, you’d better get outta my way, losers.
Sorry, but I have to land on the side that is against the bike lane, too. The stats on decreased speeding and accidents are manipulative. If you closed Prospect Park West to traffic altogether, there would be an even greater decrease in speeding and accidents, wouldn’t there? Traffic congestion always decreases speeding. In fact, it often decreases movement altogether. A majority of Park Slope homeowners own cars, mainly because the bus and train service out here sucks. So, how does it serve the community to narrow one of the major thoroughfares? As always, though, that group of delusional, usual suspect Slopers want to imagine that this neighborhood is some idyllic haven that actually isn’t part of an urban environment. Hey, if the buses and subways were really great around here, I’d feel differently about the bike lane. But I have to get my kids to school, go to work, shop for food… and I can’t do any of that with my bike.