Dare ya! (Getty)

It is clear by now, if it has not always been, that the opponents of the Prospect Park West bike lane do not trust the city's Department of Tranportation.

They have insisted the project was "trial" with virtually no proof that this was ever the city's position. They have dismissed city-run studies of traffic data that show the lane has improved traffic flows and reduced injuries. And they have sneered at the considerable majority of their neighbors who have voted time and again in favor of the project. Still, the efforts of Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes persist, especially now that their lawsuit against the lane has been returned to court on a technicality. The group's response has been to offer the city a settlement that essentially amounts to little more than a barroom dare.

In a letter to the city Law Department shared with The Observer, attorneys for the Neighbors group offer to drop all charges if a "fully independent, mutually-agreed-upon expert," paid for by DOT, will produce an "objective study" of the bike lane's traffic and safety impacts, and this expert finds, through "scientifically accepted standards and the resulting raw data," that conditions have indeed improved. Because clearly the city's own study was not objection.

But here's the kicker. "If, however, the study demonstrates that traffic or safety conditions have not improved, or have worsened, then DOT will concede that the Bike Lane has failed to achieve its stated objective (calming traffic) and will remove it."

In the annals of transportation chest thumping, this is almost as good as the time MTA chief Joe Lhota got in a fight with one of his fellow board members and told him to "be a man" and stand up to him.

The greenway gauntlet has been thrown.

"My clients have offered a completely reasonable mechanism to resolve the claims in the lawsuit, about which DOT has so bitterly complained," Neighbors attornewy Jim Walden said in an email. "Hundreds of community members earnestly believe the bike lane has compromised safety, so the Independent safety study my clients propose represents sound public policy."

He said that paying for the study would be cheaper than continuing litigation. But what would be even cheaper would be just dropping the suit outright.

The city said the so-called settlement is nothing more than yet another media blitz from the bike lane opponents, and they could not take it anyway, as it would cede all legal authority, which the city not only must maintain for reasons of responsibility, but the city also fully believes it will prevail in the case.

"This offer—designed to maximize press coverage by rehashing their prior distortions—is rejected," Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo said in a statement to The Observer. "The Prospect Park West bike lane has already been subjected to the most thorough analysis and review of any bike lane in history. The petitioners simply reject and misrepresent the results of these reviews, and are now seeking to move the goal posts yet again."

The Department of Transportation study in dispute found that the lane, which cut traffic lanes on Prospect Park West down from three to two while eliminating some parking spots along the mile-long stretch, found that traffic accidents had gone down 63 percent and speeding had been reduced by 74 percent. Bicyclists riding on the sidewalk had fallen by 46 percent, while the vehicular throughput, or amount of cars traveling the stretch without traffic, remained unchanged. Meanwhile both a poll by the city and local Council Man Brad Lander found that more than 70 percent support the new lane.

Opponents counter that there is data from the local precincts that demonstrate an increase in accidents as a result of the lane. Perhaps they should bring it with them when they are next in court.

"We remain confident that, just as was the case with the three other claims in this lawsuit, the court will see through the petitioners' one remaining claim and again dismiss the remnants of this lawsuit," Mr. Cardozo said.

With all that money, maybe they could afford a new coat of paint. (Getty)

If brownstone neighbors thought challenges to the Prospect Park West bike lane were a nuisance—they point to community board votes and supportive surveys—it has turned out to be an expensive one at that. According to documents obtained by The Brooklyn Paper, the riotously named Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes has so far cost the city $140,000 in legal fees defending the lane, a price that will no doubt rise now that the suit has been appealed.

Just as NBBL believes it is its right to have the bike lane removed from "its backyard," it believes it has a duty to spend the city's money.

Jim Walden, a lawyer for the bike lane opponents, says critics of the Prospect Park West path have the right to appeal — and the case is more than worthy of one — because they aim to expose a government agency of wrongdoing.

He described criticism of the appeal as Kafkaesque.

“This is America,” said Walden. “Get real.”

Ironic for a group stocked with current and former politicians.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

BOOOO-IKES! (Gothamist)

Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes and Seniors for Safety keep spinning their wheels on the bike lane lawsuit.

The groups just sent a letter to the Department of Transportation and Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan demanding the Prospect Park West bike lane be removed. This despite the fact that on Tuesday a Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice dismissed NBBL's Article 78 challenge, arguing the community groups had missed the window in which to file a petition against the lane.

It seemed like that would be the end of the line for the challenge, though the possibility remains for an appeal. Instead, NBBL's clever attorney Jim Walden has seized on the details of the judge's decision to gin up bad press for the bike lane yet again.

“We’re pleased the Court saw through DOT’s efforts to stonewall the community, as we have contended all along," Mr. Walden said in a statement. "We have little doubt that DOT, if it follows Sadik-Khan’s prior pattern, will continue its bob-and-weave strategy, rather than complying with the Court’s order.  But, we also have full confidence that Justice Bunyan will not tolerate more of her antics."

The groups' "demand" letter (below) actually appears to be a technical formality. It is a careful parsing of the decision by Justice Bert Bunyon, which charged the groups with exhausting all other administrative remedies before they can pursue further court action.

One of these is the demand letter, traditionally a quiet, technical affair. In this case, the letter was also sent to the press. This would not be the first time negative attention was drawn to the DOT its beloved bike lane through Mr. Walden's legal wranglings. He subpoenaed a handful of DOT officials earlier this summer, including Commissioner Sadik-Khan, though the court later determined the opponents had no cause to do so and asked the subpoenas be withdrawn.

On Tuesday night, after the decision was handed down, Mr. Walden also released two differing statements, the first one cautious, the latter more insistent, that nothing had actually been lost in the judge's dismissal. Keep hope alive.

In its demand letters, the groups also seek to FOIL the department for a cache of documents they hope will prove their case, that the lane was always intended as a impermanent pilot program that never had full community support. They had hoped to discover this information through depositions and discovery during their trial, but the judge forbade any such fact-finding at the time.

Update 5:55: Transportation Alternatives executive director Paul Steely White released the following statement condemning the letter:

“In their desperate quest for headlines, the opponents of the street safety improvements on Prospect Park West continue to ride roughshod over the wishes of local residents. These malcontents had their day in court, and their groundless case was dismissed. The people of Park Slope have endured this reckless PR stunt long enough.  It’s time to move on.”

Update 6:21: According to a city official, DOT has yet to receive the letter, underscoring the impression that Jim Walden's real target here is not the city but the media. The letter was promptly emailed to newsrooms and assignment desks across the city earlier today, but has been sent to DOT via snail mail.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Bike Lane Charts for Demand Letter

PPW Demand Letter - FINAL 8-19-11

Slow down or speed up? (Park Slope Neighbors)

Opponents of the Prospect Park West bike lane have had their day in court—a couple of them, actually—over the past two months. Yesterday may have been their last.

Mostly these court dates were concerned with whether or not the petitioners, two community groups known as Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes/Seniors for Safety, could engage in discovery, such as subpoenaing witnesses and depositions and document. An attorney for the petitioners, Jim Walden—who has been ridiculed by the bicyclists for taking time out from his work at white shoe law firm Gibson Dunn—had already filed a dozen subpoenas in July, and among the questions being discussed in Brooklyn Supreme Court yesterday was whether or not he should have. Among those targeted were DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, local Councilman Brad Lander and, in a follow-up round, community board members and bike advocate Paul Steely White.

City officials argued that this was little more than a fishing expedition, though there was also another purpose—news of the subpoenas made it into the papers and blogs, after Mr. Walden notified the press. At yesterday's hearing, Justice Burt Bunyan asked that the first round of subpoenas be withdrawn, following a similar action the week before when the petitioners withdrew their second round of subpoenas. The petitioners must now get the court's consent to file new ones.

The city and the petitioners dispute whether the judge was displeased with these subpoenas, and it is impossible to know because, as with the previous court appearances, all of the action took place at the bench, with the attorneys and the judge talking in private, their discussions only occasionally audible from the gallery. These differing opinions are also why the future of the case is in doubt.

After yesterday's hearing, city officials said they expect a decision in the near future—the court is headed for a three-week recess, but anything could be issued after that. "We are pleased with today's developments, which will go a long way toward ending the harassing theater that has surrounded this case," Assistant Corporation Counsel Karen Selvin said in a statement. "We look forward to the judge's decision and are confident that we will prevail on this important New York City project."

The petitioners, however, believe these pre-trial stages are merely the beginning of the process and that they expect the judge to grant discovery and for a full trial to ensue. "There are issues of fact, so a court needs to hold a hearing to explore all the issues," Mr. Walden said. "There is going to be discovery. The city has information that is material to this case, and the city desperately wants to withhold it."

As the case drags on, polls continue to climb in favor of bike lanes, but Norman Steissel, one of the NBBL members, said the two have nothing to do with each other. “This is not a popularity contest,” he said. “This is about how the Bloomberg administration operates, not who likes the bike lanes.

While waiting the two hours for oral arguments to commence yesterday, The Observer could not help but notice an odd symmetry here, like that of the spokes on a bike wheel. In their critique of the lane, the petitioners see an imperial mayor acting overnight without local input while bike lane proponents and the city claim a years-long process with the backing of the community board. When it comes to the case, the positions are mirrored: the petitioners seem to be expecting a protracted trial, while the city wants swift justice. Whether this has any bearing on the case, who knows? But it’s fun to think about the next time you go for a ride or a stroll along Prospect Park West.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC