Sections

There’s a better path than this

for The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

Bike lanes improve the health, safety, and environment of the city. However, the two-way “parking-protected” bike lane on Prospect Park West has caused serious safety concerns and unnecessary inconvenience for local residents — especially senior citizens, people with disabilities, families with children and neighborhood businesses. To access the park, pedestrians must cross multiple lanes of one-way moving traffic. Then they must pass through a floating row of parked cars that obstructs their view of the two-way bike lane, which they must enter blindly, before reaching the curb.

Under the guise of “traffic calming,” and ignoring other viable alternatives, the city removed an automobile lane, thereby causing congestion as well as significant air and noise pollution. When drivers drop off elderly and disabled passengers and local businesses access customers on Prospect Park West, a busy thoroughfare is reduced to a single lane.

That is why we support moving the two-way bike lane to the “green-way” already on the West Drive of adjacent Prospect Park. In the alternative, the city could follow its own Master Bicycle Plan, approved by Community Board 6 in 2007, by changing the current configuration into a simple “Class II,” one-way southbound lane on Prospect Park West paired with a northbound lane on Avenue.

Last year, the Department of Transportation installed this two-way obstructed lane and has since converted this “pilot program” into a permanent fixture without properly evaluating it or addressing local residents’ concerns. And it has done so while relying on inaccurate and spotty data. As a matter of fact, the City Council just passed a package of legislation that, for the first time, requires the reporting of bike and pedestrian accidents. This means that there are clearly city-wide concerns; how can anyone assess the safety of any bike lane without this kind of critical data? This is exactly the kind of data that was missing in the Prospect Park West case.

Councilman Brad Lander claims that 75 percent of the community supports the lane. However, by his own admission, his survey was not a statistically valid referendum and was never intended as such. The survey did not mention our alternatives or any others, for that matter. We know that the hundreds of residents and neighbors of Prospect Park West, including many cyclists, who have been negatively affected by the lane, were never polled.

Supporters of the lane say that it has reduced the speed of cars and increased safety. But the pedestrians facing new dangers and the travelers who can no longer move efficiently should be given consideration as well.

We think our alternatives are sound and will make our beautiful, historic neighborhood an even safer and more pleasant place.

Louise Hainline is a member of Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes.

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

Mike Epstein says:
Hainline's problems with double parking aren't a reason to get rid of the bike lane. (Ironically, a prominent member of her NBBL group is on record as fighting for the right to illegally double park: Jasmine Melzer, NYT, March 31, 1984.) They may be a reason to institute loading zones, but don't punish cyclists for the illegal activities of motorists.

And the PPW lane is hardly obstructed. That's what those clear zones are for between the moving cars and the bike lanes at the crosswalks, and they work, unless, again, drivers illegally park in them.

Hainline misleadingly claims that the city hasn't presented data, but this is either a lie or a misleading mistruth. In fact, the city has presented a full set of its source data, on its website, as Hainline's group requested. She's apparently unhappy that the data don't support her side of the argument.

Why is the Brooklyn Paper beating this dead horse? The project is in. It's a clear success. It's reduced speeding and helped safety. We shouldn't keep talking about it ad infinitum.

NBBL is really "Neighbors for Double-Parking". They shouldn't take that out on their neighbors who are cyclists, or roll back important traffic calming that makes PPW a far safer street.
Feb. 25, 2011, 7:31 am
mike from GP says:
As has been meticulously pointed here and in other forums, almost everything the NBBLers stated here is false. You've lost the argument, you've lost (indeed, never had) public opinion, and you will certainly lose your wasteful lawsuit(s) against the City. Go find something else to do, and let us enjoy our safer Prospect Park West.
Feb. 25, 2011, 7:37 am
Frank from Furter says:
no one does she argue against the claim that the local community board asked for it and there were a number of public hearings before it was implemented. So they have some issues with how it works. DOT has promised some changes but the only change acceptable to this small group is its removal. Yes I agree it means that things have changed and that you have to change your mindset with the new bike path. I know personally when driving I look out for bike riders much more than I did in the past. It has changed the way I drive and the way I and my passengers open their doors(I look and check before any passenger opens a door). yes its harder but it makes me a better citizen among the various different changes that have taken place.
Feb. 25, 2011, 7:48 am
Jonathan from South Slope says:
I am not sure why anyone, especially senior citizens and those unable to move quickly, are crossing two lanes of moving traffic, that would be jaywalking. Also, if the sightlines are obscured looking for passing cyclists, we should remove more or the free car storage space next to the bike lane. Double parking is a problem that effects drivers, when other drivers commit that infraction, it is not a reason to remove a safety enhancement. DoT should make more drop off areas if people need to pick up right in front of a building.
Feb. 25, 2011, 9:25 am
Steven from O'Neill says:
Ms. Hainline,

This bike lane is important to me, as it allows me to commute to my child's school by bicycle. Real people's lives have been improved by this lane.

I'm still not sure what you feel you've lost, since injuries and crashes are down for all users and the time required to drive the length of PPW in a car has been slightly reduced.

I can understand that the change seems jarring to you, but please consider that not all change is negative. Better streets for ALL modes is a positive development, and I'm proud that Brooklyn is on the vanguard of this movement.
Feb. 25, 2011, 9:46 am
P from Kensington says:
Ms. Hainline-

Even a single standard bicycle lane would necessitate the removal of a lane of automobile traffic unless you reduce lanes to substandard, unsafe widths.

I'm afraid your 'compromise' proposal simply isn't workable.
Feb. 25, 2011, 10 am
T.R. from Red Hook says:
Simply ridiculous writing. Really. It's almost laughable. Everytime you guys open your mouths it's like watching a train wreck happen.

In one paragraph you pretend to care about the safety of pedestrians and complain that seniors have cross "multiple" lanes of traffic (uh, that would be two) to enter the park. Then some nonsense about obstructed views of a two way bike lane - really, this is about as silly as it gets and you are hiding behind stats that clearly show that PPW is safer for everyone now.

Then just a short while later you suggest putting PPW back to its original design with and added Class Two bike lane. If we put it back at three lanes that is far more dangerous to pedestrians. Even with the two lanes, I was out there a few days ago and couldn't believe the speeds cars were driving at times, but at least they aren't going 40 or 50 mph any more!!
Feb. 25, 2011, 10:10 am
Peter from Park Slope says:
The idea of putting a class II (e.g. a painted lane, no separation) bike lane on PPW based on it's old 3-lane configuration, with cars speeding by at 40 mph, is simply terrifying. I'm an adult with over 20 years of experience bicycling in NYC, and *I* wouldn't ride on that. And while I'm not a parent, I can't imagine any parent would let their grade-school-age child ride a bicycle on that lane either.

Compare that to the bike lane in its' current configuration, where you see families with small children, training wheels & all, happily riding up and down the bike lane all the time.

As others have said, let's be honest about what NBBL's real motivations are - it's now harder to illegally double-park on PPW because there's less room for cars. Fine, let's create more loading zones. As for reduced parking, there are plenty of garages in the neighborhood that will happily take your car.
Feb. 25, 2011, 10:26 am
Dave from Park Slope says:
If this is the quality of thought that comes from a Dean of Brooklyn College, you parents paying tuition bills there ought to seriously consider asking for a refund.
Feb. 25, 2011, 10:29 am
ilovebrooklyn from PPW says:
Prospect Park West resident here. I simply don't understand how parked cars "obstruct" people's view of the bike lane before they cross. There's a buffer there (one that will be raised at crosswalks if the planned improvements are made), and there is a clear, unobstructed view of the bike lane for blocks in each direction before you've stepped into it. The arguments against the bike lane all seem disingenuous to me.
Feb. 25, 2011, 10:49 am
brooklynite from sunset park says:
The writer is a dean at Brooklyn College??? That makes her fact-free column especially troubling!
Feb. 25, 2011, 11:14 am
Steve from PPW says:
Hainline is on record as lying about the positions of council members Vacca and Quinn who do not support a moratorium on new bike lanes. Her organization, NBBL, sent out a press release claiming that they did:

http://transportationnation.org/2011/02/22/prospect-park-lane-bike-opponents-support-moratorium-on-all-bike-lanes/

That NBBL lied or grossly misrepresented Vacca and Quinn's position is a fact. So why should anyone believe anything she says?

Brooklyn Paper, please change your note at the bottom. Louise Hainline is not just a "member" of NBBL. She is a principal. It has been her name on letters to the Times and other news outlets. It's disingenuous to reduce her to just a "member," as if all she is a concerned citizen. The organization solicits donations which can be sent to the penthouse of 9 PPW, which I believe is her home. As such, it is incorrect to describe her as a mere member.
Feb. 25, 2011, 12:11 pm
Mike from PPW says:
I am PPW dad w kids and (senior citizen) parents, and our business is in Brooklyn, so I fit three of the four categories NBBL purports to speak for. The bike lane improves safety for all and improves the quality of life. The facts speak for themselves. NBBL speaks for itself and itself only, and since it has no facts it ignores them and seems to just make stuff up.
Feb. 25, 2011, 12:38 pm
Steve B from Jackson Heights says:
Louise, please stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
Feb. 25, 2011, 12:46 pm
Brooklyn College Alum from Midwood says:
"the city removed an automobile lane, thereby causing congestion as well as significant air and noise pollution."

"...the pedestrians facing new dangers and the travelers who can no longer move efficiently should be given consideration as well."

Louise, if a student handed in a paper with these claim, but with no data to back them up, what grade would you give him?

The only verifiable fact in this piece is that, yes, when someone double parks, the reduce two lanes of traffic to one. That's an issue of enforcement or putting in loading zones, not a bike lane.

I give Dean Hainline an F.
Feb. 25, 2011, 12:48 pm
LOLcat from Park Slope says:
I want more space for my car. blah blah blah.

Brooklyn College should be ashamed to employ such an intellectually dishonest person.
Feb. 25, 2011, 5:25 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Louise Hainline mentioned that she prefers the bike lane on PPW to be moved over into an already existing bike lane in Prospect Park. How is that removing a bike lane when it's really relocating it? I can remember reading on Streetsblog people attacking Lew Fidler for doing a similar thing and taking what he said out of context. Seriously, why does she, along with the rest of NBBL, deserve to be attacked like this? She had just as much of a right to state her view as Brad Lander had to his. That is what a point/counterpoint is for, because it's about hearing from both sides of the argument, not just one that agrees with you.
Feb. 25, 2011, 6:34 pm
Ann from Park slope says:
Louise, thank you on behalf of the many residents (who actually live in park slope) and think the bike lane is unnecessary, unsightly and underused. There are a lot of us out here. We dont like being chased down the street after meetings by hipsters with cameras, or villified on web sites for having the temerity to disagree with said hipsters. We appreciate your willingness to question the wisdom of this project, and the way it was implemented.
Feb. 25, 2011, 7:30 pm
Steve from PPW says:
Hipsters with cameras, oh my!

Look at all the hipsters in this picture:

http://gothamist.com/2010/10/21/park_slope_bike_lane_protest.php#photo-0

There's a wide spectrum of people who support this lane: young and old, rich and poor, hipsters and "squares," you name it. Why stereotype anyone?

I actually live in Park Slope, too!
Feb. 25, 2011, 7:40 pm
Ann from Park slope says:
"why stereotype anyone?"
Pot, i'd like to introduce you to Kettle.
Feb. 25, 2011, 7:46 pm
mike from GP says:
"chased down the street after meetings by hipsters with cameras"?! Are you serious?! I knew the NBBLers like to make stuff up wholesale, but this is ridiculous.

Really, the recent string of outright lies and ad-hominem attacks by the NBBLers stinks like desperation. They know they've lost the debate on all merits, they know they will lose any lawsuit, and that they don't have the numbers or facts on their side. They're done.
Feb. 25, 2011, 7:48 pm
Ann from Park slope says:
Mike, calm down. i was there. It was juvenile. But who needs it?
I also recall a group of bikers outside 9 ppw, questioning people as they went in. They also wrote on the sidewalk with chalk. Babyish? Yes.
Take a look at streetsblog to see some real vitriol.
The fact is that the people who question this bike lane care about the neighborhood. Just as i'm sure you care about greenpoint.
Lighten up. It's ok if people disagree with you.
Feb. 25, 2011, 8:10 pm
Steve from PPW says:
Ann, who have I stereotyped? You seem to make a lot of general assumptions.
Feb. 25, 2011, 8:29 pm
mike from GP says:
Ann,

I am calm. And I am quite lightened up. From what I've personally witnessed over and over again, is that those opposing a safe PPW are the ones who are having difficulty handling disagreeing opinions, not to mention the basic facts of the situation.

Talk about juvenile.

One thing I also want to note about this whole thing, that I think speaks to the relative maturity of the various camps, is then openness, or lack thereof, of folks.

On one side, you have a series of open forums, due notification, public debates, proper and open government procedures, publicly-accessible research and clear knowledge of the motives and relationships between various supporters.

On the other hand, you have: secret memberships, private organizations, high-powered lawyers, unsubstantiated research, closed processes, lawsuits and big money political connections.

Now, tell me which side is behaving like adults and as citizens of a democracy? And which side is acting like... well, something else entirely?
Feb. 25, 2011, 8:41 pm
Ann from Park slope says:
Overwrought?
Feb. 25, 2011, 9:57 pm
Seth from Manhattan says:
Manhattan here. Please don't be foolish and fall for NBBL's proposal of a "class II" bike lane. "Class II" means two stripes of white paint on the pavement, sandwiched between a row of parked cars and lanes of moving traffic. It's what we have on CPW and it's not a pleasant or particularly safe option. As a cyclist, there is no protection from vehicles speeding by or car doors being flung open.

"Class II" lanes are easy to double-park in though and they take up less space so drivers have more freedom to speed. Both elements are probably appealing to NBBL. The increased speed will scare many cyclists away and the remaining ones will have miserable commutes swerving around double-parked Fresh Direct trucks, motorists yakking on mobile phones, livery drivers waiting their clients, etc.

If safety is the priority, which it should be, this would be a big step backwards.
Feb. 25, 2011, 10:02 pm
CITIZEN JAY from PSLOPE says:
MIKE, here you are running your mouth off calling people names from the "safety" of your keyboard AGAIN.
You claim to have knowledge of secret memberships and private organizations, where is your proof or are you committing libel?
High powered lawyer? So what you have a problem with someone because they are a lawyer and make money, what the hell does that have to do with a bike lane? Zero !
Feb. 25, 2011, 10:58 pm
mike from GP says:
Huh, I rest my case.
Feb. 25, 2011, 11:18 pm
Resident from PPW says:
For the record, I am also a resident of Prospect Park West and I agree with Ann.
Feb. 26, 2011, 5:39 am
Anne from PPW says:
We also live on PPW and are so happy with the changes. Reducing the number of lanes has slowed traffic and and reduced the number of cars speeding past our windows. We are so happy with the changes and feel like it's much safer crossing the street with our son.
Feb. 26, 2011, 8:59 am
Jonathan from Park Slope says:
Louise
I'm confused by your writing. You write that you are against losing a lane of traffic but you support "changing the current configuration into a simple Class II one-way southbound land on Prospect Park West". By current configuration do you mean what's currently there, or what was there before the current configuration? If the latter, do you understand that a Class II lane takes at least 5' out of the roadway? How would this be done without losing a lane? Please clarify.
Feb. 26, 2011, 9:58 am
Steve from PPW says:
Let's be clear: NBBL wants a bike lane that's just two lines of paint next to parked cars. They want three lanes of car traffic with the bike lane running in the same direction. They don't want any space taken out of the roadway for cars. The idea is to return PPW back to its 3-lane configuration. That is all.

This is a door zone lane or double-parking lane and no one would let their kids ride in it. It's totally unsafe and does nothing to slow down cars, which was the whole point of this project from the beginning.

It also would widen PPW and allow for the rampant speeding we saw before.

Fill in the bike lane with trees and park benches, for all I care. The bike lane is a red herring. Reducing PPW to two lanes of traffic has made it safer for everyone, even if no one were to ever bike on PPW again.

Louise simply wants her double parking back, that is all. NBBL is upset that it's slightly harder to park.

How interesting that the politician's essay is filled with facts and figures, but the college dean's essay is filled with speculation.
Feb. 26, 2011, 10:39 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Some of the statements made at Hainline and the rest of NBBL on their stance on bike lanes sort of remind of me of how Daniel Goldstein and the rest of the DDDB are being attacked for their stance on the Atlantic Yards. BTW, I have seen a lot of Atlantic Yards articles where Goldstein is slammed a lot by commenters here as well, not to mention making stereotypes and personal attacks at them. Also, I was attacked and slandered by supporters on this site for that project as I continue to be for this. Honestly, I think the best idea for roads to have bicycles is to have shared roadways. I say this because it won't involve taking away any lanes for traffic or parking hence no money has to be spent except for placing the signs. However, the only problem with that is it will recquire cyclists to actually follow the rules, which I know that there are those that don't want to.
Feb. 26, 2011, 6:53 pm
Mikes a Putz from Real PPW says:
Mike says the conversations over, Period! Everybody do what all the mikes and Steves command!
Your opinion doesn't count! Mike commands you to stop writing in with your lies! If Mike thinks otherwise you must be a liar! If steve gives you stats pulled out of thin air you must accept them as fact! If all the mikes and steves say they are real resident's of PPW and Park Slope you must believe them! Mike's l,ll,lll, and Mike from GP, and all the Steves command you to stop writing into The Brooklyn Paper if you don't agree with themm 100% !!!
Bow down to Mike! Mike commands you! Mike be thy name!!
Feb. 27, 2011, 12:57 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
I agree with what CITIZEN JAY mentioned. What does it matter what their occupations are? Does anyone actually care? Also, what makes their group part of some secret organization? I can say a similar thing about Streetsblog and TA being the same. Bloomberg and JSK have a history of making elitist decisions as well, but I don't hear anyone who supports the bike lanes complaining about that.
Feb. 27, 2011, 1:05 pm
Ann from Park slope says:
Now, now mike's a putz etc. Dont be too hard on the mikes and steves. After all, it must be hard for them, being republicans in a liberal neighborhood like ours.
Feb. 27, 2011, 10:02 pm
Gary from PPW says:
What is hard is watching a few members of what was once a proud progressive neighborhood acting like the Tea Party--ignoring the facts and the good of the community when it is inconvenient to their self-interested position.
Feb. 27, 2011, 11:50 pm
mike from GP says:
Gary,

The NBBLers' resemblance to the Tea Party was apparent to me pretty early on. Incredible!
Feb. 28, 2011, 12:30 am
Greenpoints not Park Slope from PPW says:
Said the hipster commies with the Che Guevara(murderer) t-shirts! I guess since you call everyone that doesn't agree with your narrow point of view a tea partier It might just be true. Be prepared PPW homeowner's who don't like the Bike Lane, The race card is about to be pulled! If it hasn't already!
You guys need to go to the corner for a time out!
Stereotyping Racist's!! There I pulled it first, I win!
Feb. 28, 2011, 12:59 am
Greenpoints not Park Slope from PPW says:
Ann, they're not Republicant's, they're Hipster commie invaders.
Feb. 28, 2011, 1:01 am
mike from GP says:
Yeesh, please note who's putting words in people's mouths. You might wanna calm down.

I was not referring to race when I mentioned the Tea Party. I was merely observing the similarity in tactics, hysteria, divisiveness and inability to grasp the basic facts of a situation.

So, I'm done engaging the crazies. You've lost, anyway. Perhaps it'll take a decade for you to realize this, but that's your issue, not mine.

See you on the new, safer Prospect Park West!
Feb. 28, 2011, 7:44 am
Ann from Park slope says:
My "self interested position" is that i dont see the necessity of changing the configuration of ppw when there were less drastic alternatives. It has nothing to do with liking cars or disliking bikers ( although i would be intersted to learn why someone would choose to ride his bike with the traffic all the way down ppw, while the pristine and decidedly empty bike lane is right there). It just doesnt seem necessary. Not sure why that makes me a tea partyish person. I just disagree with mikesteveand co.
Feb. 28, 2011, 8:27 am
Ann from Park slope says:
And i do hope at all those who are so generous with their opinions on what's good for this neighborhood will be equally generous with its wonderful institutions--i trust youve all either donated or volunteered your time to the prospect park alliance, the museum, the library, the botanic garden, etc...
Feb. 28, 2011, 8:32 am
wkgreen from Park Slope says:
I'm not sure how this northbound lane is supposed to work. Hainline says that a south bound lane on PPW would be "paired with a northbound lane on Avenue." Should that say "8th Avenue"? So if I get this straight, this wonderful 2 way protected bike path that benefits everyone (Yes! Even pedestrians.) would be replaced with 2 crappy - and dangerous - "Class II" bike lanes that benefit no one except double parkers.

So, if I understand, she proposes that PPW should have 3 narrowed car lanes with a bike lane shoe horned in while 8th Ave. should have 2 narrowed car lanes with another shoe horned bike lane. Is Hainline even aware that the new south bound PPW and north bound 8th Ave. now accommodate about the same width of car traffic?

PPW now works. Leave it alone!
Feb. 28, 2011, 11 am
Mikesa Putz from GP from PPW says:
Mike from GP Shut your big mouth and stop calling people names they don't like and we'll calm down!I can come on here once a month and see you've been on here every day endlessly bad mouthing people .
Stop telling people you don't know they're wrong because they have a different opinion than yours and we'll calm down! Miss Sadik-Kahn and her bike lanes will be gone as soon as Mayor Mike Retires to Dubai!
Feb. 28, 2011, 2:25 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Since when does opposing bike lanes put someone on the opposite of the political spectrum? You guys are aware that one of the members of NBBL is Schummer's wife, and Schummer himself is not a conservative the last time I checked. I am not a conservative either. As a matter of fact, I am a registered Democrat, and I too am pretty liberal. However, this has nothing to do with the political spectrum, this is about how some feel about bike lanes or other infrastructure, and that is not defined where one stands politically. Let's not forget that the most vocal opponents to congestion pricing were actually liberal, but you probably didn't think about that either.
Feb. 28, 2011, 2:29 pm
Paul from Park Slope says:
"...Then they must pass through a floating row of parked cars that obstructs their view of the two-way bike lane, which they must enter blindly, before reaching the curb."

Ummm...Louise, why don't they look both ways when crossing the street, like their mothers taught them? Or is that just too darn much trouble???
Feb. 28, 2011, 3:06 pm
Paul from Park Slope says:
Gosh, Ann, I guess you've missed all the posts that explain the bikeway in Prospect Park (which, you'll be happy to know, is also shared with joggers and 2-3 lanes of cars most of the time) is only ONE WAY and would require a 4 mile circuit to get from 12th Street to Grand Army Plaza. But now you know!

And I'm so happy that you've been donating to our cultural institutions, as have I. But I would never tie that activity to a person's right to express him or her self. It just smells so...Marie Antoinette!
Feb. 28, 2011, 3:12 pm
Gary from PPW says:
Ann,
Not everyone is going "all the way down PPW." Some of us live along the way and like to go to the wonderful institutions you mention. We like being able to do so safely without having to go way out of our way or having to take a car. Unfortunately, the three lane grand boulevard failed to function safely for those not in cars. It is really that simple. Now it works for everyone. Real people with families and children who live in your neighborhood ride bicycles and walk along PPW. The park loop is no substitute for a traffic-calmed bike friendly street.
DOT's proposal to add raised landscaped pedestrian refuges could go a long way to improving the aesthetics of PPW. I would love to see us all come together in support of that.
Feb. 28, 2011, 5:31 pm
Ann from Park slope says:
As far as i know, marie antoinette was not a very good park slope citizen. I never conditioned expression on donation, monsieur paul. My point was that there is a fair amount of lecturing going on here and elsewhere, as well as accusations that people who dont like the bike lane are selfish, car loving, tea partyiers who dont care about this neighborhood. (parenthetically, how excellent to live in a place where the absolute worst thing you can call someone is a tea partier). The fact is that we love our neighborhood.
And come one, if me shilling for the museum, the park, the library, and the garden will get some people to pony up, so much the better.
Au revoir!
Feb. 28, 2011, 7:03 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
For the record, I am not part of any car or oil lobby nor was I sent by them. If I was, I wouldn't still be living in my parent's home right now. Just because I oppose bike lanes doesn't mean that I am for getting bicycles as a whole off the road. All I am asking for cyclists to follow the rules, and I don't see why that is so hard. Ironically you ask for the rights to use the roads, but won't take any responsibilities for it. The main reason I oppose bike lanes in the first place is because for the most part they are hardly used, and that's even when there is good weather outside. Why spend so much to place lanes that are hardly ever used to begin with?
March 1, 2011, 8:44 pm
Mike says:
It's amazing how full of lies Tal's most recent comment is. Just staggering. I'd engage, but I'm really trying not to.
March 2, 2011, 9:59 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Mike, I would love to evidence proving what I just said, otherwise my statement will be upheld. Taking a cheap shot does NOT hold any ground to what you are making. The only reason why I mentioned why I wasn't part of any lobby was to disprove a stereotype that you and other rouge cyclists tend to make at those that are opposed. Just wait until you are recquired to start having your bicycle licensed, registered, and insured, because it's comming wheter you like it or not.
March 2, 2011, 6:04 pm
Mike says:
Thank god you said that, Tal, because that means it's not true.
March 2, 2011, 10:18 pm
Stall Barzilai from Unpleasantville, NY says:
Rouge cyclists? They're wearing makeup?
March 4, 2011, 11:54 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Still with the impersonations I see, because I wasn't even online this morning at all, and didn't even return to my house until almost 3 PM after going to get my blood test done earlier toady.
March 4, 2011, 8:59 pm
Jean from Park Slope says:
Wow, reading Tal's comments makes me think he should do a comedy routine! So unintentionally funny.

Anyway, thanks DOT for making my neighborhood safer! We need many more projects like this across the city.
March 7, 2011, 9:35 pm
Fred says:
Just a shotgun NIMBY response.
March 15, 2011, 8:20 pm
mt from Beorum Hill says:
-Explain how a "Class II" bike lane is safer for children riding bikes on PPW...

-Explain how peds are losing sight lines when every cross walk have a specific area for them to see traffic from either the roadway or bikeway?

-Double parking is illegal and zero thought should be given to it as a regular activity.

-Parking in PS is tough as is... 6 less spots makes no difference.

-A "Class II" bike lane is one way, suggesting bikers go miles out of their way is crazy, when there is plenty of room for the current two way config.

-Besides all the facts supporting the city's bike lane programs, (as someone who was a former delivery boy, and a sometimes commuter biker, im extremely happy to feel safer riding all over the city, not just PS) it seems insane to me that everyone doesn't see this as a great thing. For all the Slopers that find issue, I would like to know why this street should be treated any differently than the hundreds of other streets that are benefitting from these lanes. It truly seems like a lot of people just upset about the look of the thing, not the functionality.
April 11, 2011, 1:39 pm
David Byrne from Earth says:
Nipple
Dec. 6, 2011, 12:55 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.

Don’t miss out!

Stay in touch with the stories people are talking about in your neighborhood:

Optional: Help us tailor our newsletters to you!