Sections

Car-free park? Council bill would ban behemoths among Brooklyn’s boughs

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

A Manhattan lawmaker wants to ban cars from Prospect Park — a plan that would tame the “hectic pace of city life,” its chief supporter says.

Councilwoman Gale Brewer (D–Manhattan) introduced a bill last week that restricts drivers from entering Prospect Park at all times, saying, “New Yorkers should be able to go to the park without worrying about motor vehicle traffic.”

Some Prospect Park devotees — well, the cyclists, dog-walkers, goose-watchers and pedestrians, at least — love what the bill would mean for the 585-acre oasis.

“If she gets this bill approved, I’ll vote for her for mayor!” said Bob Ipcar of the park’s esteemed dog group FIDO.

Cars in Prospect Park are currently restricted to the West Drive on weekdays from 5 to 7 pm; and the East Drive from 7 to 9 am. Motor vehicles can’t enter the park at all on weekends — which is when cyclists dream of wider restrictions.

“Parks should be a place where you can bike in peace,” said avid two-wheeler Johanna Clearfield.

It’s not the first time Councilwoman Brewer has pushed for car-free parks. In 2006, she introduced a nearly identical bill that died after the Bloomberg administration limited car hours to rush hour.

The same year, the Department of Transportation — then under the leadership of Iris Weinshall — announced a six-month pilot program to increase the number of car-free hours in Prospect Park.

The bicycle advocacy group Transportation Alternatives called the pilot program a success, and pushed for car-free parks. But that push caused a backlash from neighbors — many of them Winsor Terrace residents — who feared the plan would clog their streets.

Indeed, a 2007 city study of the pilot program revealed that banning autos from Prospect Park would increase traffic by 30 to 47 percent on Prospect Park Southwest and by 6 to 11 percent on Prospect Park West, between 7 am and 9 am.

And since that study, Prospect Park West has been narrowed to two lanes from three to accommodate the internationally controversial bike lane.

“It’s just too much,” said baseball mom-turned-team chauffeur Lisa Finshrom. “It will squish more cars onto narrow streets.”

And Borough President Markowitz thinks that the current limitations are fine.

“In many respects, the goal of having a car-free Prospect Park is a laudable one,” the Beep said in a statement, “However, as the borough president I must represent all Brooklyn residents, including those who drive through Prospect Park as well as those who reside near the park that may be negatively impacted by additional restrictio­ns.”

Markowitz said that the the current schedule was negotiated by a group that included himself, the borough’s Council delegation, the Prospect Park Alliance, the Department of Transportation and the NYPD.

“I believe that the existing limited access for automobiles in Prospect Park sufficiently balances the needs of all users,” he added.

The new bill comes at a time when neighbors, Weinshall among them, are hotly debating — and even suing over — the use of streets surrounding the park. (Weinshall didn’t return our calls, But Transportation Alternatives still trumpets the bill as nothing short of green space genius.

“Central and Prospect parks are New Yorkers’ backyards,” said spokesman Noah Budnick. “Just like someone with a house, we don’t want highways running through our backyards!”

Updated 2:57 pm, March 29, 2011: Includes a new comment from Borough President Markowitz.
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

Reader Feedback

Other Michael from Park Slope says:
"Indeed, a 2007 city study of the pilot program revealed that banning autos from Prospect Park would increase traffic by 30 to 47 percent on Prospect Park Southwest and by 6 to 11 percent on Prospect Park West, between 7 am and 9 am."

This deserves another study. Maybe the previous "pro car" Transportation Commissioner fudged the data
March 29, 2011, 6:11 am
jj from brooklyn says:
"tame the hectic pace of city life" ??

this is a city. it is THE city. we like it that way.

parks are important. we love parks. but cars are part of modern life and, as jane jacob said, they are part of the urban fabric and while neighborhoods should not be bulldozed for expressways, neither should car traffic be wiped off the urban landscape.
March 29, 2011, 6:22 am
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
JJ,

Nobody is trying to ruin your life.

According to the 2007 study it just might added 3 minutes to your daily commute. Maybe.
March 29, 2011, 6:27 am
Resident from PPW says:
Great idea! Ban cars from the park, improve the bike paths to accomondate both the average and above average bike rider and tear down the bicycle lane on PPW. A win win situation for everyone. BUT, our imperial mayor is against the idea because it would me more car traffic in and around his home near Central Park.
March 29, 2011, 8:38 am
ty from pps says:
jj -- are you being intentionally idiotic?
March 29, 2011, 8:51 am
Sally from PPW says:
People predicted doom and gloom when car traffic was limited to the time it is now. No measurable impact on the surrounding streets was found. People predicted doom and gloom when 3rd Street was closed to vehicles. No bad effects were measured.

Why not try it for a month or two, study the effects on surrounding streets, and go from there?

Putting cars in a park should be a move of last resort, not an accepted fact. So study it, and see if we can restore Prospect Park to the vision its designers intended. If it's not going to work, fine. But we need less pontificating and more measuring.
March 29, 2011, 9:01 am
Brent from Windsor Terrace says:
about time
March 29, 2011, 9:04 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
This is terrible. People should have the right to drive wherever they want whenever they want to because that is an American right. Bloomberg wants to put a bike lane in Prospect Park now? Who will use it? Drivers have more of a right to the park drives which is why they are called drives.
March 29, 2011, 9:10 am
Ann from Flatbush says:
I guess I have Jefferson and Madison to thank for my right to drive? Wait.

Anyone who thinks driving is an American right needs to reread the founding documents.
March 29, 2011, 9:25 am
Mike says:
They're called drives because they were open to horses and carriages when the parks were built, and the act of conducting one of those was also called driving. The parks were built before cars. They were never meant to be used as shortcuts by car drivers, because cars didn't exist when they were built. Commuters looking for shortcuts should not be destroying the otherwise pleasant and relaxing atmosphere in our parks. It's totally inappropriate.
March 29, 2011, 9:38 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
I could not have written the last comment at 9:10 because I was away from my computer cleaning my kitchen from breakfast. But I do agree that the park should be open for cars and bikes need to find another place to ride away from the park to keep people safe. Drivers are unfairly discriminated against if they can't ride in the park.
March 29, 2011, 9:56 am
Mike says:
Wow, now Tal wants to throw bikes out of the park to accommodate cars safely? Ludicrous. Which of the two is more compatible with outdoor recreation, the very purpose of parks?
March 29, 2011, 10:19 am
Lawrence from Park Slope says:
Owning a car in New York City is an unpleasant experience and it is going to get worse for drivers. There is no guarantee or right to automotive dominance of our roadways and parks.

Reducing the number of cars in NYC is an excellent idea whose time has come.

Maintaining a car free Prospect Park is the way to go.

Only emergency vehicles should be allowed to use the short cut through the parks.

Use buses, subways, bikes or walk.
March 29, 2011, 10:34 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
I actually don't think car drivers should be limited to the "drives" in Prospect Park. I have never actaully been in the park but I understand it as paved areas that you city people call "sidewalks". Car dirvers should get access to those serfaces as well.
March 29, 2011, 10:49 am
Joey from Clintons says:
It's hard to find parking in those 'hoods next to the park...how about metered parallel parking inside the park?
March 29, 2011, 10:57 am
Michelle from Park Slope says:
JJ,

Go back to work and stop trolling the blogs making trouble.
March 29, 2011, 11:26 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Frist of all I never said that even though some people want to say that I said what I never said. Making car drivers get out of the park is not right because that is where they are now. This is similar to how radical cyclists and also too Hamas.
March 29, 2011, 11:33 am
Peter from Windsor Terrace says:
Here's an indication of how stupid and out-of-touch Tal from Pleasantville is. He objects to the possibility of Prospect Park West getting bike lanes without realizing the park has had them for decades. Amazing!

Tal, do you ever have an opinion where you actually know what you're talking about? If you're going to comment on PPW, at least visit it once, dumb-@$!
March 29, 2011, 12:25 pm
CityPragmatist from Flatbush says:
The Paper's report --- and readers' comments --- fail to note that the 2007 DOT pilot program study examined Prospect Park-related traffic flow in the off-peak direction only.

In contrast, a DOT study from the '90s predicted AM rush hour peak-direction increases of 400-450 cars per hour on Parkside Avenue eastbound and PPSW northbound.

At the time, Community Board 14 expressed concern that exhaust fumes from idling cars backed up while approaching the Ocean Avenue intersection could add to the respiratory challenges faced by Parkside Avenue residents between Ocean Avenue and Parade Place.

Until hybrid and all-electric vehicles predominate, such concerns remain valid.
March 29, 2011, 12:30 pm
petunia from park slope says:
"Markowitz said that the the current schedule was negotiated by a group that included himself, the borough’s Council delegation, the Prospect Park Alliance, the Department of Transportation and the NYPD."

He neglects to mention that his role in the process was to stall and obstruct the changes from taking place. Central Park reduced its car hours weeks before Prospect Park, thanks to Marty. Check the archives. His opposition to the current proposal doesn't come out of any balanced study of the effects on park users vs increased congestion in WT - he's against anything that would in any way inconvenience drivers, no matter the benefit to the park and everyone using it.
March 29, 2011, 1:08 pm
Stew from Bay Ridge says:
Marty is against anything that would in any way inconvenience drivers, no matter the benefit to Brooklyn. Period.
March 29, 2011, 1:15 pm
t-1 from Park slope says:
ban cars from PP, Central, and Central Manhattan, health will start to break out and grow like great pink and green garden.

cars have been the ruination of the world...Don't forget, in 1984, they swear to "Our Ford".. Cars have been the bane of society, the ruination of the landscape, of social fabric, and the environment ever since they were invented.
March 29, 2011, 1:24 pm
Peter from Park Slope says:
Ah, Marty.

Let's be clear about Marty's stake in this - We, as taxpayers, spend $180,000/year so that Marty can have *three* full-time chauffeurs at his beck and call. Plus the cost of the vehicle and operating it.

No other BP has that, and at least one doesn't even have a car & driver.

Let's put this in perspective. 2 years of driving Marty around costs more than what it cost to put in the PPW bike lane.

Who benefits more?
March 29, 2011, 1:43 pm
Peter from Park Slope says:
Oh, and to back up the note on $180k/year, the story from the NYPost from the other day:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/driven_to_excess_JK3Hww4bDKlX0LJWQ2IDAJ
March 29, 2011, 1:44 pm
Steve from Park Slope says:
CityPragmatist quotes the old DOT study that "increases of 400-450 cars per hour" would occur if the park drive was closed peak hours.

This is one study I have to question the data. I have sat alongside the park drive and counted the number of cars passing during each 3 minute long traffic light cycle. There are normally no more than 11 cars passing on each cycle. One hour has 20 - 3 minute cycles, so no more than 220 cars are using the park per hour. It would be very hard to see how removing 220 cars from the park can create 450 car increases on the adjacent roadways!

This does not compute. Maybe we need another lawsuit against the DOT to force them to re-do the math. ;-)

In the 1850's. the park drives were for Pleasure Carriages, not commercial or commuting traffic. Ocean Parkway and Eastern Parkway were multiple use linear extensions of the park out into the City of Brooklyn, for use by horse drawn pleasure carriages, equestrians, bicyclists and walkers. Linear Parks, not highways with trees.

No Parking On The Driveway, and
No Driving On The Parkway.
March 29, 2011, 2:58 pm
Rob from Brooklyn says:
Funny how the Democrats, so bent on personal freedom, want to limit it at every oppurtunity.
And from Manhattan? Go home!
March 29, 2011, 3:09 pm
Steve from Park Slope says:
This is a quote from a stereotypical Soccer Mom:
“It’s just too much,” said baseball mom-turned-team chauffeur Lisa Finshrom. “It will squish more cars onto narrow streets.”

Soccer and baseball season will start soon, and you will be seeing Brooklyn Soccer Dads and Soccer Moms accompanying their team players on bicycles via the PPW bike lane. There were a lot doing this before the PPW lane, there will be a lot more now that there is a safe way to travel to and from the quiet side streets to the park.

Opponents of the PPW bike path keep saying that the park drive is all cyclists need, they don't need PPW.
Wrong.
First, the drive is one way southbound near PPW, there is no proper reverse lane for cyclists on the drive. And there are cars on the drive part time, and still some cars on the drives on weekends. Reverse flow can be unsafe.
Second, the drive is over 200 yards inside the park - effectively at 10th Ave - a full block east. Not at all close or convenient.
Third, there are only two legal bicycle entry points between GAP and Pritchard - at 3rd St and via the Litchfield parking lot. This is a 1-1/2 mile stretch of park with only 2 entry points for some 30 cross streets. Parents want to bring their kids up and down the quiet side streets to PPW and then can use the bike path. Without the path, they will be riding the kids along the sidewalk until they get to a bike safe entrance. I did it 25 years ago, and without the new PPW path, I would not hesitate to ride the kids on the sidewalk again.

Every player that arrives at the park by bike is one less car/mini-van/SUV not on the road and not trying to park at the park and again park at home. This is not a recreation bike ride - the recreation is the baseball or soccer game. The bicycle is the chosen transportation mode to and from the park.

There are alternatives to driving, and for sports in the park, the bicycle is one of the best of them.
March 29, 2011, 3:14 pm
Josh from BK says:
All those in favor of Gersh doing a story on "Tal Barzilai", say "aye"!
March 29, 2011, 6:13 pm
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
aye
March 29, 2011, 6:33 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
First off, I wasn't even on my computer this morning. Secondly, I wasn't back home today until after four 4 PM when I came home from my job, and I didn't even get to my computer until 6 PM today when my little brother didn't even let me use it. Whoever made those other posts were NOT done by me, but by some imposter, and my guess is that it has to be one of those that are attacking me, which are good suspects. Getting back to the subjects, I sort of think that it might be a bad idea to ban vehicles going through Flatbush Avenue in Prospect Park. If you look at Central Park, despit having the central drives closed off, the transverse roads are still used especially on the major streets. Parks this big cannot be superblocks, plus there is always the bridges to get over them. If vehicles must be banned from going through, then take away the bike lane over on PPW as Resident mentioned. On a side note, Louise Hainline does have video evidence on how much that bike lane really is used.
March 29, 2011, 6:55 pm
Steve from PPW says:
Aye. Would be the greatest story ever told because Tal Barzilai would comment on it and then the Internet would explode.
March 29, 2011, 7:11 pm
Mike says:
No one is proposing removing cars from the transverses in Central Park. Those were carefully designed to carry thru traffic and are fully grade-separated from walkways and the loop drive.
March 30, 2011, 1:16 am
jobkny from midhood says:
Tal, whats this all about?
March 30, 2011, 5:51 am
Tal for President from Long Island says:
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, Brooklyn Paper. Do a story on Tal Barzilai. Have a regular feature on your commenter of the week and launch it with him.
March 30, 2011, 8:48 am
Tal Barzilai's little brother from Pleasantville, NY says:
Tal, how many times do I have to tell you to stop using my computer! The doctor says it's not good for you.
March 30, 2011, 9:43 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Nice impersonations from you bike zealouts......NOT! I didn't even come to this website until just now. I am starting to see a pattern that the imposter posts at the same time every day in the morning around 9 AM. Those that tend to gang up on me such Mike, Other Michael, Steve (from PPW), Josh, and Peter (from Windsor Terrace), and jobkny are very good suspects seeing what they post at me. Real low for making the impersonations at me, which really shows how low you guys sink to know. For the record, I have alibies for where I was at those times at those days, so I can prove that they weren't done by me. On a side note, this wasn't the first time someone impersonated me on a message board, and I have been a victim of that before. Doing something like this gives me even more of a reason not to support the bicycle network.
March 30, 2011, 6:33 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Getting back to the subject, the tranvers roads in Central Park are designed just to allow traffic from both sides of the park especially since it goes for 51 blocks. I have at one time gone on Flatbush Avenue where it goes through Prospect and saw what it's like there. The only parking that is not allowed there is overnight parking, and I know that by the night regulation signs there, so anyone who has parked there durring the day has to remove their vehicles before it goes into affect durring the night. Similar signs like this I have seen on the northbound West Side Highway and even the middle of Houston Street has this. As for parking inside of parks, the only one I know in NYC that has this and requires payment is over at Tavern on the Green over in Central Park, which uses a vallet, and the parking isn't just for the resturaunt itself. Other than that, I don't know any other NYC parks that have parking lots in them besides the one I just mentioned.
March 30, 2011, 6:40 pm
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
Tal

Welcome to the show, but why are you talking about parking in parks. This is about driving.

And BTW, Tavern on the Green has been closed for about a year now so there is now more valets.

and how do we know this is you now?

Answer this question so we know you are not a robot.

What is five plus two?
March 30, 2011, 8:41 pm
joebkny from not parkslope says:
tal, im impersonating you? not unless you use the id, joebny. I wont rally for tal anymore. he lost my vote!
March 30, 2011, 9:05 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
The answer to that is seven, and I do know math. Would you like me to tell you where I was at those times when the imposter commented to know that it wasn't by me or do you believe that it wasn't done by me? How do I know that it wasn't you one of your friends here on Streetsblog that did the impersonations especially when some of your comments come not too long after them? The only reason I see you and your fellow bike zealouts as possible suspects, is because of the attitude expressed at me. For the record, I am not a morning person, so posts made before 11 AM are clearly NOT done by me. Also, I had work yesterday for much of the day, and I have no access to a computer, so how can those by me when I was away from my computer for that day? Also, I am not online 24-7, so I do have a life, so post done at the dead of night is also not done by me. Maybe you should answer where you were at those time those comments came, so I will know whether it was you or not.
March 30, 2011, 9:11 pm
trans alt from bike nation says:
Ban all private cars in NYC-NOW!
March 31, 2011, 1:47 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
I could not have written the comment at 9:11 PM because the Mentalist was on TV and I never miss it. Your terrorist tactics are not working Mike. I know that there is an office at Transportation Alternatives devoted to making imposter comments against me. Again this is a bad idea. Cyclists and pedestrians have sidewalks on every street in Brooklyn why do they need a park? Drivers have fewer places to go and so parks are necessary for them if they want to get to work on time or drive for fun. When Sadik-Khan is impeached they will finally reopen the parks to cars as they originally were meant to be. If anyone posts imposter comments again I will ask you all to state where you were and what you were doing when those comments went up so I can prove who did it.
March 31, 2011, 10:25 am
F L Olmsted from Central Park says:
.
No Parking On the Driveway
.
No Driving On the Parkway
.
Park drives are for "pleasure carriages" not commuting or commercial traffic.
Parkways are multiple user linear extensions of the parks out through the city. Again, not for commercial traffic and are not simply motor highways with trees.
March 31, 2011, 12:04 pm
joe from wb says:
Internet commenting has got me so upset! I must prove my point to nobody!!!!
March 31, 2011, 6:56 pm
jobkny from Bkny says:
I'm impersonating you?
March 31, 2011, 11:21 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
How interesting, a comment with my name comes up at 10:25 AM, but I was out of my house from 8 AM to 10 PM today, which was 14 hours, and I came home after seeing the screening of Hop. I have no access to a computer at my work. Whoever, that was, it wasn't me. As for talking about banning motor vehicles in Prospect Park, I still think that it's a bad idea. Flatbush Avenue is a major road for Brooklyn as it has been since the colonial days. It needs to be used by vehicles at all parts of the day, and cutting off the part where it runs through the park will hurt traffic, not help it. All this will do is cause for alternating volumes around Prospect Park, and I am sure that none of the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods want that. While the other park drives may stay closed to vehicular, Flatbush Avenue should remain open as it is a tranverse road for Prospect Park.
April 1, 2011, 12:08 am
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
Tal

How was Hop?
April 1, 2011, 6:32 am
Mike says:
WTF? Flatbush Avenue doesn't run through Prospect Park; it runs next to it. No one is talking about banning vehicles from Flatbush Avenue!
April 1, 2011, 9:47 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Mike, if you look at a map, Flatbush Avenue runs through the upper right hand portion. It doesn't run through the park completely. I did once remember taking Flatbush Avenue all the way from Marine Park to Fort Greene, and it does run through it even if it's not that much. Reguardless, it's a major thoroughfare that shouldn't be cut off to any vehicular traffic at anywhere or anytime. I suggest lookat at a map of Prospect Park, because I know it runs through part of it, which is why I said that. On a side note, I guess you and your fellow Streetsbloggers will not be doing anymore impersonations of me seeing that I started getting wise.
April 1, 2011, 4:28 pm
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
Tal

Are you for real? FLATBUSH AVE GOES ALONGSIDE OF PROSPECT PARK. Like 5th Ave and Central Park West in Manhattan.

This shows you have absolutely now idea what you are talking about. NOBODY is talking about closing Flatbush Ave to cars. NOBODY.

Look at a map. The other side of Flatbush Ave is the Brooklyn Botanical Garden.

Again, please go tell them how to paint the lines in the parking lots at the malls upstate. This has nothing to do with you.
April 1, 2011, 5:37 pm
Mike says:
Wow, Tal. You definitely get the dunce award for today. I suggest *you* try looking at a map.
April 1, 2011, 5:51 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
I was looking at Google Maps, and that part still has the green as if those are all part of the park. If anyone deserves a dunce cap, it's you guys. Many do consider the Brooklyn Botanic Gardens, Brooklyn Museum, and the central branch of the Brooklyn Public Library as part of Prospect Park. Grand Army Plaza isn't at the park itself and it counts, then so do those places. Also, many do associate Mount Prospect Park, which includes all those with Prospect Park, plus it predates the rest of the park, because that mound was already there. Despite the fact Mount Prospect Park counts as itself, many do not know that except for a few, so they do include with the rest. On a side note, maybe the Lefferts House shoudln't count either, because it was there before the park was also.

http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/B159/highlights/12472
April 1, 2011, 7:21 pm
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
Tal,

If you lived here you would know that EVERYTHING THE OTHER SIDE OF FLATBUSH AVE IS NOT PROSPECT PARK. We are talking about the roads in prospect park, not the roads on the outside of the park.

We don't have to look at Google Maps to know what we are talking about.
April 1, 2011, 8:51 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Other Michael, this still doesn't give you the right to bolster that ego of yours and make personal attacks at me. As much as you hate park drives, they are needed. In some cases, they can provide a cut through rather than just going around. It's sort of like the Panama Canal here. Why go around South America to get from the Altantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean when you have this? I will only that on the condition that the PPW bike lane gets removed. If not, then the roads in Prospect Park stay.
April 1, 2011, 10:14 pm
Mike says:
"Many do consider the Brooklyn Botanic Gardens, Brooklyn Museum, and the central branch of the Brooklyn Public Library as part of Prospect Park."

No, they don't. They are separate institutions.

But I suppose I shouldn't expect facts or logic to sway Tal.
April 2, 2011, 12:33 am
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
Tal, I a sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I am not typing this so that I feel better. I want to make sure the 2 or 3 people who are reading this know that you do not know what you are talking about.

No Tal you can't have it you way because you are wrong. Flatbush Ave would actually be considered the Panama Canal of shortcuts to get past the Park and the Garden. However, if you knew what the issues were you would know tat closing Faltbush Ave to cars is not on the table.

It is not about me, It is about you, Tal. I want to make sure that your uninformed, argumentative voice is not herd on this forum.
April 2, 2011, 7:50 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Here is a compromise that works well. If we drivers agree to let you cyclists have the park roads to you, then you guys have to agree to give up some nearby bike lanes. This will be a win-win for all. Why should only one group have to make sacrafices while the other one should not? I am sure that we can all agree to that. Then again, I doubt that you Streetsbloggers believe in fairness for everyone, especially when you put yourselves in front of everyone else and thinking that you are so special you can just outweigh them.
April 2, 2011, 4:07 pm
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
Tal, I know you are gonna say I am not willing to compromise but there is not need to.

Drivers did not loose anything when the PPW bike lane was added and we don't know if they will if the parks are made car free.

I would like to see some experimental weeks of car free parks and we can see if it is really a bad thing.
April 2, 2011, 6:40 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
You know Bloomberg doesn't like to do any experiments before actually trying anything. He never experimented what it would be like to take away Broadway from Times Square nor was he intending to test what it would be like going from the Queens-Midtown Tunnel to the Lincoln Tunnel without using 34th Street. To him, he gets either all or nothing. BTW, I wasn't just talking about giving up the PPW bike lane for a car free Prospect Park. If we give you something, then you should give something back in return for it. Why should it be one benefits and one burdens when I just stated a win-win for everyone?
April 2, 2011, 10:32 pm
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
Car drivers have lost very very little with the bike lane on PPW and they probably wound not lose much either if cars are finally banned from the Park itself.

Lives will be saved and maybe some drivers will have a minute added to their commute.
April 2, 2011, 10:57 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
I dare you to say that to the members of NBBL, because they will tell you otherwise.
April 3, 2011, 11:41 am
Mike says:
Now NBBL are the arbiters of truth? That's rich. They're suing their own neighbors because they can't double-park as easily anymore. They deny what's clear to everyone: that the new PPW is safer and provides more mobility to everyone. Tal's proposed compromise is ludicrous -- actually, most if not all of the NBBLers would support removing cars from the park, with no preconditions, because they live in Park Slope and don't have much need to drive to the far side of the park. The people who drive in the park tend to be long-distance commuters destroying the tranquility of the park by cutting through it to get to the unfortunately untolled bridges to Manhattan.
April 3, 2011, 5:59 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Mike, at least they would agree to that in a swap. They give you guys the park, you agree to give them back PPW. I find that very fair and works for both sides. Then again you bike zealouts are like the Palestinians here. We could give you more land and you will still make attacks at us drivers, who are like the Israelies, the next day and demand for more in the claim that you don't have enough land for your bikes. If anyone here is against making fair deals and compromises, it's you guys, not people like me who are more open minded compared to you.
April 3, 2011, 10:40 pm
Mike says:
Too funny.
April 3, 2011, 11:26 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Mike, you are just someone I cannot take seriously. If you read the news about the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, you would know exactly what I am talking about. Then again, you are probably too provincial and don't read anything past the local news like I do. Why should only one side have to make a sacrafice while the other side doesn't. I don't that fair at all. If you want your car free Prospect, you will agree to give up bike lanes and follow the traffic laws in return.
April 4, 2011, 3:21 pm
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
Tal

If you had a clue as to what these issues are about you would know that the "sacrifices" that car drivers tiny compared to those of people who want to enjoy the park as a park.

If the loop road in Prospect Park was never used as a short cut for commuters it would be lubricious to make it that now.
April 4, 2011, 4:58 pm
Mike says:
Hilarious, Tal. Yes, you clearly hold all the chips here to "bargain" with, since you live 50 miles away and have no positions of power or authority. You're just a guy who spends all his time commenting on blogs. Tell you what, why don't you designate a negotiator (maybe Jimmy Carter is free?) and we can get started.
April 4, 2011, 9:58 pm
Mike says:
Have you checked Jimmy Carter's schedule yet?
April 6, 2011, 7:44 pm

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not BrooklynPaper.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to BrooklynPaper.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.