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.

Not so fast. (Getty)

While it seemed like the bicycle backlash of a year ago had finally cooled off, and those larcenous lanes were here to say—won't someone think of the motorists!—the cold war is back this winter. The Columbus Avenue bike lane expansion was rebuffed by the local community board, bike share has been delayed a few extra month, Steve Cuozzo thinks bikes are a cancer on the city (O.K., so what else is new?), and now opponents of the Prospect Park West bike lane have finally won a court case.

After complaints over the lane were ignored in court in the spring, Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes appealed the results to a higher court, which today ruled that the lower court had to reconsider the case on technical grounds. The Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court ruled unanimously that judge Burt Bunyon erred in dismissing the case as lacking merit, and now a hearing must be held over the lane (you can read the one-page decision here).

The politically connected Neighbors group, which counts Iris Weinshal, Chuck Schumer's wife and the former DOT commissioner, and Borough President Marty Markowitz among its backers, argued that the lane was a trial until last year, and thus there was time for the group to file a challenge to the lane. Judge Bunyon, however, found that the statute of limitations for the suit had lapsed. The appellate court found that time was not up for a legal challenge, but neither did the judges rule that the lane was wrong, simply that hearings as to its appropriateness had to be heard.

Indeed, the city's Department of Transportation is holding today's decision up as much as a victory for itself. "We’'re confident that the Prospect Park West bike lane is here to stay," spokesman Seth Solomonow said in an email. "We'’re very pleased that three of the four causes of action were dismissed by the Appellate Court, which also returned to the trial court one claim for a limited finding on a technical issue. We are fully confident that the trial court will decide that there is absolutely no merit to what is left of this case."

Opponents of the lane have been calling for legal discovering all along, insisting the city was hiding something—without any proof, but the suggest that something was being hidden creates an implication that is hard to deny. Now, they may get their day in court, but it still does not ensure a victory.

Still, the group remains undeterred.

“We are gratified by the Court’s decision, and we look forward to finally forcing the truth from the Department of Transportation,” Jim Walden, the Neighbors' attorney, said in a statement. “As we have maintained all along, DOT broke the rules, fudged the data, and orchestrated actual harassment against people who disagreed with its tactics. It is just shameful."

Or delightful, if you're a cyclist. "In the meantime, local residents will continue to enjoy the safety that this community-requested and supported lane has provided every day for the last two and a half years," Mr. Solomonow said.

Repeatedly, the lane has been overwhelmingly supported in local surveys and community board votes.

Ride on! (Paul Steely White)

Maybe it was just the shortest route home.

Over the weekend, Chuck Schumer was spotted in the most unlikely place one might expect him, even though it is right outside his door. Senator Schumer has generally eschewed the controversial Prospect Park West bike lane, which his wife, former Transportation Commissioner Iris Weinshall, vociferously opposes in lawsuits and op-eds. An avid cyclist, the state's senior senator has neither supported nor opposed the lane. Perhaps he is now voting with his feet?

Bike advocate extraordinaire Paul Steely White, head of Transportation Alternatives, saw the senator coming at him on the bike lane this weekend and knew there was but one thing to do—take a picture and post it online. Mr. White told us that he never intended this to be a sensational moment, though.

"To me it wasn’t a ‘gotcha’ moment at all," he wrote in an email. "It was more a validation of my ideal Chuck Schumer, the one who supports biking and transit."

It's true, Mr. Schumer has been a fierce advocate of projects ranging from Moynihan Station to the recent reinstatement of the commute tax credit, and he has opposed the crummy transportation bills to come out of both houses of Congress this year.

That said, on this one tiny nine-tenths-of-a-mile bike path, he remains mum. A spokesman for Senator Schumer declined to comment on the sighting.

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

Keep on rolling... for now. (Getty)

It may not be the best weather for cycling, but the Prospect Park West bikelash is heating up again.

On Friday, Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes, the cleverly named community group opposing the lane alongside Prospect Park, appealed an August decision in Brooklyn Supreme Court not to hear its legal challenge against the city. The group still contends that the bike lane was an experiment, a trial never completed with community consultation, one that persists without community support—despite widespread polling and surveys to the contrary.

Now add to that the issue that, in the appellants' view, the court dismissed the prior claim by using the experimental timeline when Justice Burt Bunyan ruled that the case could not proceed because the community groups waited too long to file their claim after the lane was installed in the summer of 2011.

“We filed our suit well within the appropriate time frame," attorney Georgia Winston said in a press release. "The lawsuit clock started running only after the Department of Transportation made a final decision to permanently install the lane, in January 2011.  Before that—throughout the summer and fall of 2010—the lane was repeatedly described as a 'trial,' including by the lane’s most fervent supporters."

The group still wants its day in court, and is hoping the Appellate Court will provide it, so that it might perform discovery—something Justice Bunyan forbade repeatedly during the prior case—and thus prove the apparent conspirings of the city, local elected officials and bike zealots. "We still want to have a full hearing on all the issues raised by the DOT’s failure to conduct a proper safety study and collusion with pro-lane advocates," Ms. Winston said.

Update: Michael Murphy, communications director for Transportation Alternatives, points out the timing of the appeal, which coincides almost to the day with the initial suit a year ago, during the doldrums of winter, when local media is almost as slow as traffic on the bike lane.

"It's like complaining about the cost of a school cafeteria in July," Mr. Murphy said. "It's clearly a well-oiled publicity machine they've got going on, but it's become a sad joke at this point.:"

He said the group's appeals has nothing new to it and is "the legal equivalent of 'Nuh uh!'"

Meanwhile, one city official said the appeal had no merit, adding that "We're confident the city will prevail. Again."

Update 2: "We are confident that the trial court's decision in our favor will be upheld on appeal," Mark Muschenheim, a senior counsel in the city's Law Department, said in a statement. "The popular bike path continues to enhance the safety of all who use Prospect Park West."

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Rumble strips? More like grumble strips? (Brooklyn Paper)

Hasn't the Department of Transportation had enough headaches on Prospect Park West?

The new bike lane was at the center of the bicycle backlash over the past year, even leading to a lawsuit against the city (an appeal was recently filed after the city saw the case soundly dismissed). Obviously, the Department of Transportation is attempting to tweak the plan and make it less controversial, but really, it just seems like the new proposals, for pedestrian islands with relocated walk signals, is picking at a fresh scab, as The Brooklyn Paper makes clear:

“Why do it?” said James Bernard, a longtime bike lane opponent and board member. “We’re supposed to be preserving the street’s character — and we’ve already been the guinea pig enough.”

And lane supporters joined Bernard, though for a different reason: The bike lane has been so successful in reducing accidents, that making changes to the “Walk/Don’t Walk” signs is “unnecessary.”

The board — which proposed the controversial bike lane as a traffic-calming measure in 2008 — did ask the Department of Transportation for some minor tweeks such as rumble strips to alert cyclists to slow down, a Ninth Street drop off area reconfiguration, more light signals along with raised pedestrian islands.

Just look at the big plans for Times Square, plus all those filled potholes. Maybe Janette Sadik-Khan is addicted to shovels in the ground.

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

All clear. (Photo via Flickr)

If it's true that the city's cyclists are a bunch of self-important nudniks who think they rule the roads, it did not take long for them to start taking victory laps around the pelaton after the city prevailed yesterday in the Prospect Park West bike lane lawsuit.

StreetsBlog founder, Park Slope Neighbors co-founder, bike lane local, Weinshall-Schumer-bird-flipper, Morgan Freeman fan Aaron Naparstek:

This is a resounding and definitive victory for the neighborhood, for the Department of Transportation and for advocates of safer more livable streets. We are pleased that Justice Bunyan specifically reaffirmed the legitimacy of the lengthy community-driven process that led to the redesign of Prospect Park West (pages 7 through 14 of his ruling).

We encourage the individuals who filed this law suit to join with Park Slope Neighbors and organizations like the Park Slope Civic Council, the Grand Army Plaza Coalition and Community Board 6 in the ongoing work of making Brooklyn's streets safer and more accessible for everyone.

Transportation Alternatives executive director Paul Steely White:

This decision is not just a victory for Park Slope, it’s a victory for all New Yorkers’ safety. This project is a great example of how neighborhoods can get relief from dangerous traffic: the community asked the DOT to fix a dangerous street, the DOT's proposal went through an intehttp://www.observer.com/wp-admin/post-new.php?post_type=postnse community process and, by all measures, it is extremely popular and has made Prospect Park West safer for everyone of all ages. The demise of this farcical PR stunt confirms what the vast majority of New Yorkers already know: bike lanes are good for New York. Let this victory mark the end of the misguided war on safe streets.

The response on Twitter has been robust.

Brooklyn Spoke: I am on #PPW bike lane right now with #bikenyc radicals. It's like Tahrir Square up here. Come sue us!

Times magazine editor Adam Sternbergh: "I am trying to decide which Judge I'd most like to imagine dismissing the PPW bikelane lawsuit: Wapner, Judy, Reinhold or Dredd." As for the potential for an appeal: At a certain point you have to look in the mirror and ask 'What am I doing with my life?'"

Brownstoner: Bam!

Gothamist editor John Del Signore goes for a highbrow lowbrow reference: "And the Eye of Sauron falls into the fires of Mordor!"

Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson announced he's taking a celebratory ride to work. (Watch him ride here!)

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Role on. (Streetsblog)

Let the good times roll.

The city just announced that Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Burt Bunyan ruled in the city's favor, following an Article 78 challenge filed by two neighborhood groups. There had been some question during the latest round of hearings as to whether a full case would proceed or if the judge would simply dismiss the case. Now we know it's the latter.

"This decision results in a hands-down victory for communities across the city," Transportation czarina Janette Sadik-Khan said in a release. "The plaintiffs have been dead wrong in their unsupported claims about the bike path and DOT’s practices. This project was requested by the community, they voted repeatedly to support it, and their support has registered in several opinion polls. Merely not liking a change is no basis for a frivolous lawsuit to reverse it.”

The case largely focused around whether the bike lane was requested and built in consultation with the community, or whether it was "an experiment," as the judge's decision puts it, that was inappropriately left in place after locals had rejected it. Justice Bunyan found that the petition lacked merit it so he has dismissed it.

How did this whole fight get started? Blame the bike lames!

The Obsever has reached out to Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes, one of the petitioners, for comment. It is not clear if they will appeal the decision. The decision seems pretty damning, though. "The threshold issue is whether petitioners' bikeway claim is timely." Hard to turn back the clocks on that.

From Justice Bunyan's decision:

First, it cannot be disputed that the bikeway had an impact on petitioners who obviously were aware of it, as evidenced by their complaints to DOT. Second, petitioners were on notice that DOT had no intention of removing the bikeway, since DOT was merely enhancing it following  its construction in June-July 2010. Third, DOT never stated to CB-6 that it would remove the bikeway should its January 2011 implimentation results prove to be adverse to the community. Lastly, if, as petitioners allege, DOT’s plan to construct the bikeway  had a “predetermined outcome,” then DOT never had any intention of removing the bikeway, regardless of the outcome of its implimentation study. Thus, the relevant statute of limitations  began to run in June-July 2010, at the latest, when the actual onsite construction began and was completed. The statute of limitations expired,  at the latest, in November 2010, at which point no further event needed to take place  in order for petitioners to claim to be aggreved by the bikeway’s presence.

So, it would appear, in complaining early and often, bike lane opponents sealed their fate.

With surging poll numbers in support of bike lanes and now this, is the bicycle backlash maybe finally over? Well, not if the Daily News has its way.

Update 9:17: NBBL attorney Jim Walden released the following statement, making no indication of whether or not there will be an appeal, though more information could be revealed tomorrow.

We respectfully disagree with the Court’ determination.  There is little doubt that, had the Court permitted our discovery motion (which we believe the law requires in these circumstances), we would have proved that DOT specifically sought to present the bike lane as a pilot/test project which, based on the results of its safety study, might be removed.  Thus, there was no “final” agency action.  This is exactly what the DOT Commissioner told the Borough President in no uncertain terms.  We expect to appeal this decision and are confident we will prevail.

Update 10:15: Councilmember Brad Lander, who represents most of Prospect Park West, is out with a statement echoing his previous support for the lane. Here's part of it:

“The installation of the Prospect Park West bike path has been a huge success, making the boulevard safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers alike.  Most residents of Park Slope have indicated that they like the new, safer Prospect Park West and want the bike path to remain.

“I don’t think any of us – on either side of the debate – thought we would be spending so much time debating one mile of green paint, inside or outside of a courtroom.  I am glad to put this behind us, and I look forward to working together to find common sense ways to make our streets safer, our neighborhoods more livable, and our city more sustainable.”

NBBL also sent along an amended statement, after it had more time to review the decision:

The Judge had a very different and very independent view of the facts—different, in fact, than either party.  He dismissed our Petition without prejudice to us, held that DOT never made a decision concerning removal of the bike lane, invited us to demand that from DOT, and then re-file if DOT refuses to remove it.  At the same time, he granted our long-standing demand for public documents, which DOT wrongfully withheld.  Although we respectfully disagree with the Court's determination on the statute of limitations, we will need time to review his comprehensive analysis before deciding on our options.

Note that the group has now stridently taken the decision dismissing its claim and is now stridently spinning it in its favor.

This post has been updated an expanded from its original version.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Is that a bike or a bulldozer? (Brooklyn Politic)

Yesterday, we brought you the interminable-seeming-even-if-it's-only-been-a-few-weeks story of the Prospect Park West bike lane lawsuit. The case essentially revolves around whether or not the lane was built with community consent, and to some extent whether or not it was simply a trial and never meant to be permanent (nevermind all the support for bike lanes, belated or otherwise).

Aaron Naparstek, Streetsblog founder and ardent bike advocate, sent over an email with his rather arch take on these proceedings.

You'd think this would be a pretty easy question to resolve, right? Either a bunch of people from the community were involved in a lengthy and legitimate public process or they weren't and the Imperial mayor and his transportation Czarina came and dropped a bike lane on their heads. Either the community asked DOT to come and fix speeding, unsafe ped crossings and lack of bike access on PPW or it didn't.

You'd think that if a community process took place then there'd be a timeline of public events you could point back to and there'd be a record of Community Board meetings and votes. If the community process was ridiculously extensive and public and inclusive there might even be online video of community workshops that you could look at on the Internet! Maybe you'd even find a former Community Board chair and current City Council member willing to vouch for all of this in an affidavit

If you've been following along, you know that the City Council member in question is Brad Lander, also a strident defender of the lane, and that the community process Mr. Naparstek refers to is indeed well-documented. The Observer has reached out to Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes, the community group that brought the lawsuit against the lane, for a response.

Update: Added links to community input.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC