Streetsblog New York City

The Brooklyn Paper ran one of its trademark neighbor-vs.-neighbor stories today, turning a weekend public workshop about implementing a 20 mph zone in Park Slope into an occasion for more conflict-driven reporting:

Greenwood Heights activists claim drivers heading south on Sixth Avenue already speed up once they cross the Prospect Expressway and hit a five-block stretch between 20th and 25th streets with no stop signs.

“It’s already treacherous,” said resident Sarah Raskin. “This would divert unsafe driving from one neighborhood to another.”

Sounds like streets in Greenwood Heights need traffic calming too. And in fact, the Greenwood Heights residents quoted in the Brooklyn Paper seem to be saying they’d welcome a slow zone that encompasses their neighborhood.

It would be great to see a blanket 20 mph speed limit — pioneered by NYC DOT in the Bronx neighborhood of Claremont — extend to many neighborhoods at once. But if Park Slope gets a slow zone before Greenwood Heights, or if Greenwood Heights gets a slow zone before Park Slope, research suggests both neighborhoods will still be better off.

The definitive piece of research on 20 mph zones was published in the British Medical Journal in 2009. Reviewing 20 years of data, researchers found that London’s 20 mph zones, a patchwork of neighborhoods that expanded gradually over many years, prevent 27 traffic deaths and serious injuries annually. Within the zones, serious traffic injuries and deaths fell 46 percent, and children sustained 50 percent fewer casualties.

Significantly, the authors reported that the data “suggests that casualties inside 20 mph zones are not being displaced to nearby roads.” And on top of that, they found a spillover effect, with traffic injuries and deaths declining eight percent in areas adjacent to the slow zones (within 150 meters, or about two NYC blocks).

Adding slow zones is not a zero-sum game.

Toward the end of a press conference at the corner of Fourth Avenue and 9th Street this morning, Council Member Brad Lander remarked that not a single B61 bus came by during the 15-minute event. This was only fitting, since Lander was unveiling a new report from his office that found most rush hour B61 buses don’t arrive within the guidelines established by the MTA.

During rush hours, the B61 is supposed to arrive every eight to ten minutes, but the service is anything but reliable, according to the report, “Next Bus Please.” Fully 57 percent of buses are either spaced at least three minutes farther apart than they’re supposed to be, or bunched at least three minutes tighter together. For straphangers this translates into long waits, crowded buses, and the frustration of watching an empty B61 pull up right as you’re boarding that jam-packed bus.

“It gets really packed every morning,” said Vian Hernandez, a senior at South Brooklyn Community High School in Red Hook, who transfers from the train to the B61 to get to school. “Sometimes it comes really late.”

The current B61 route is the byproduct of the 2010 MTA service cuts (themselves a byproduct of Albany budget raids, the mounting cost of MTA debt service, and the collapse of the real estate market). The line was extended east from Red Hook to Park Slope and Windsor Terrace, absorbing passengers who used to take the now-defunct B75 and B77. The nearby B37 and B71, which served parallel routes, were also eliminated, and the Smith-9th Street subway stop has been closed for maintenance since June, further increasing reliance on the B61.

A year and a half after the cuts took effect, the study from Lander, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, and City Council Member Sara Gonzalez documents the strain on the riders who depend on this line, which is now the only bus or subway route that directly serves Red Hook.

Read more…

This is the third installment in a series of posts examining the tactics employed by opponents of the Prospect Park West redesign. Read the first post and the second post.

Throughout the Prospect Park West bike lane saga, intense speculation has surrounded New York’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer. Both his wife, Iris Weinshall, and his daughter, Jessica Schumer, played leading roles in the fight against the redesign, but Schumer’s office remained studiously silent throughout. “I am not commenting,” Schumer repeatedly told the New York Times when asked about the bike lane this March; in later press conferences, his staff barred reporters from asking about it.

Despite his public attempt to remain neutral, Schumer told opponents of the bike lane that he personally opposed it, according to correspondence obtained by Streetsblog via freedom of information request.

Members of the anti-bike lane group “Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes” also attempted to use the senator’s political power and network of contacts to their advantage. They exploited his connections to get access to top political consultants and hoped to use his clout to pressure local elected officials. David Seifman at the Post has reported that Schumer asked City Council members what they would do about the bike lane. Schumer may also have discussed the project with Mayor Bloomberg himself, according to a message from one leading bike lane opponent.

Schumer apparently revealed his opposition to the bike lane to NBBL leader Louise Hainline, who lives in the penthouse of the same Prospect Park West apartment building the senator calls home. “Schumer can’t help much with this issue, but I have seen him and he doesn’t like the lane,” wrote Hainline to two bike lane opponents on June 29, 2010. Though Hainline said Schumer “can’t help much,” NBBL repeatedly attempted to use his connections and clout to aid their efforts.

Bike lane opponents sought to wield the senator’s political influence to pressure local elected officials. Specifically, Hainline believed that she could leverage her Schumer connection to win the backing of City Council Member Steve Levin.

In an e-mail to a personal friend on December 24, 2010, Hainline reported on her recent meetings with members of the City Council. She came away believing Council Member Brad Lander wouldn’t turn against the lane, but that Levin might. Wrote Hainline: “Stephen Levin is a protégée of Vito Lopez, who if you are reading the papers is in some hot water, so Levin’s looking for some god father, and may want Vacca or Schumer to protect him, maybe both.”

It’s not clear whether Hainline’s plan for Levin was based on her recent conversation with him or was simply wishful thinking. Levin has not taken a public position on the bike lane, even when asked about it directly.

No written evidence of Schumer’s direct lobbying on the bike lane has surfaced, but one email is quite suggestive. On December 3, 2010, bike lane opponent and former deputy mayor Norman Steisel wrote to Weinshall: “Also heard abt a purported conversation betwn the mayor and our sr. senator you might find of interest.” In all the documents obtained by Streetsblog, the extent of Steisel and Weinshall’s communications was limited to the Prospect Park West bike lane, suggesting that the conversation “of interest” between Schumer and Bloomberg was likely about the same topic.

Read more…

They’re back.

Opponents of the Prospect Park West bike lane filed an appeal in their unsuccessful lawsuit against the city yesterday, hoping for a second chance to rip out the safety-enhancing redesign or, perhaps more likely, attract a few more months of headlines. As Streetsblog previously reported, the bike lane opponents will have even lower odds of winning at the appellate level than they did with their initial lawsuit, which never had much of a shot of victory in the first place.

The motion from pro bono attorney Jim Walden, who despite representing a group called “Neighbors For Better Bike Lanes” is giving quotes to Reuters about why bike lanes aren’t ever practical in big cities, focuses on the legal argument why his clients have a right to appeal and can be read above.

Said city attorney Mark Muschenheim in a statement, ”This development isn’t surprising. We are confident that our win will be upheld on appeal. The lawsuit was untimely to begin with, which the Court clearly recognized in dismissing it. The bike path’s installation was an entirely proper, thoroughly considered project that continues to enhance the safety of PPW and remains widely enjoyed by the community.”

We’ll have continuing coverage of the lawsuit as it again winds its way through the court system.

The decision issued by Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Bert Bunyan Tuesday dismissing the Prospect Park West lawsuit should reverberate in a few ways. Among them: The storyline probably doesn’t have as much allure to the press as it used to. And without the PR value, the opponents’ legal challenges lose a lot of their fundamental purpose.

NBBL could appeal Bunyan’s ruling, but they would have to convince the appellate court to overturn a decision that hinged on a finding of fact, which, our sources in the legal profession tell us, would have even lower odds than the initial suit, in all its flimsiness. They could also file a new suit to stop adjustments to the lane that haven’t been built yet, like the addition of granite pedestrian refuges to PPW, but only after “exhausting administrative remedies” by appealing to DOT first. A separate suit could not undo the basic geometry of the bike lane, given Bunyan’s ruling.

So any future litigation from NBBL, it seems, would be an even more obvious exercise in scorched earth tactics. NBBL lawyer Jim Walden appeared to acknowledge as much when he told the Brooklyn Paper, “This is just the first battle in what is inevitably going to be a longer war.”

The quote drew this response from Bill Carey of Neighbors for Better Neighbors:

Our community is not a battlefield and the work of making our streets safer does not “inevitably” have to be a “war.” Mr. Walden’s clients can graciously accept Judge Bunyan’s decision and move on. We look at the bike path as a place to come together, not a line of division in this great neighborhood.

We encourage the plaintiffs to drop the martial language and the legal crusade, and join with their neighbors to continue the work of making our streets calmer and safer. There’s still much to be done, and we extend our hands to all those who want to take part in a positive and constructive effort.

It’s been nearly a year since we first ran Robin Urban Smith’s Streetfilm on the Prospect Park West redesign. A lot has happened since then, but the lane is working as well as ever and I can’t think of a better way to wrap up this important day for NYC street safety policy than to have another look at this video of DOT’s work in action.

After the jump, a reminder of Prospect Park West’s prior incarnation as a three-lane speedway…

Read more…

Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Bert Bunyan dismissed the lawsuit seeking to reverse the redesign of Prospect Park West yesterday, putting an end to a protracted, ugly chapter in the annals of NYC street safety improvements. The lawsuit, brought this March by a group of politically-connected opponents who failed to participate in the years of public process that preceded the redesign, had no standing because it was filed after the statute of limitations expired, Bunyan ruled.

Official word of the decision came down last night and set off a round of jubilant tweeting from project supporters, celebrating what should be the last gasp of an extended PR attack that opponents waged against the PPW bike lane, NYC DOT, and street safety advocates. With the apparent end of the legal threat to the redesign, Brooklynites can rest a little easier knowing that the improved conditions for pedestrians and cyclists on PPW are here to stay. There will be no return to the old three-lane speedway configuration.

Bunyan’s ruling [PDF] is a major vindication for Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and NYC DOT’s bike and pedestrian program. “This decision results in a hands-down victory for communities across the city. The plaintiffs have been dead wrong in their unsupported claims about the bike path and DOT’s practices,” Sadik-Khan said in a statement. “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 legal issues in the case hinged on two main questions: 1) whether the city, in responding to community requests for traffic calming and better bike connections on PPW, had acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner by installing the bike lane, and 2) whether the plaintiffs filed suit before the four-month statute of limitations had expired. Judge Bunyan’s decision rests squarely on his answer to the second question.

The city implemented the redesign in June and July of 2010. The plaintiffs and their attorney, Jim Walden, claimed this installation was a “trial” that did not become permanent until DOT presented data from a six-month evaluation period at a Community Board 6 hearing this January, about two months before they filed suit the first week of March.

But Bunyan rejected this argument, concluding that Walden and the bike lane opponents “presented no evidence that DOT viewed the bikeway as a pilot or temporary project.” He determined that the city committed to a permanent installation of the redesign as soon as the bike lane was built last summer, so the four-month window for opponents to file suit expired in November.

Because Bunyan dismissed the suit on statute of limitations grounds, he had no need to weigh in on the “arbitrary and capricious” question, and his decision does not address that aspect of the suit. From the outset, however, opponents had made the “trial” or “pilot project” issue a pillar of their argument, and Bunyan demolished it. He reserved his harshest rebuke for Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, who filed an affidavit at the eleventh hour alleging that DOT told him the redesign would be a trial in March 2010:

Read more…

Here’s the latest on the Prospect Park West bike lane case: Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Bert Bunyan has again rejected an attempt by NBBL attorney Jim Walden to issue subpoenas without approval from the court.

Last week Bunyan urged Walden to withdraw a round of subpoenas issued to several people, including members of Community Board 6 and Transportation Alternatives director Paul Steely White. Today Bunyan recommended that Walden withdraw subpoenas he had issued last month to Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, City Council Member Brad Lander, and DOT officials. Walden complied and agreed not to issue more subpoenas unless the court decides to allow them first.

While the rejection of those subpoenas was undeniably a setback for NBBL, remember that the very act of issuing them produced all these headlines in the first place, so you can’t really say the whole gambit was a loss for bike lane opponents.

“We are pleased with today’s developments, which will go a long way toward ending the harassing theater that has surrounded this case,” said attorney Karen Selvin of the NYC Law Department 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.”

There is no date scheduled for the next hearing in the case. Judge Bunyan may issue a decision at any time. It’s also still possible that he may decide to allow discovery in the case, which would open the door for subpoenas again.

Meanwhile, Park Slope residents and other Brooklynites will continue to reap the benefits from a project that was requested by the local community, approved by Community Board 6, and has met its goals of slowing traffic, reducing dangerous crashes, and encouraging cycling.

The post has been updated with a statement from the NYC Law Department.

Gibson Dunn attorney Jim Walden grabbed headlines earlier this month after issuing a flurry of subpoenas to city officials in the Prospect Park West case. Streetsblog reported at the time that the subpoenas were not yet sanctioned by the court and were unusual for the type of suit, known as an Article 78 proceeding, filed by opponents of the PPW redesign. Before Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Bert Bunyan decided whether to allow those subpoenas, Walden issued another round of subpoenas last week to at least six people, including Council Member Steve Levin, Transportation Alternatives director Paul Steely White, and Community Board 6 District Manager Craig Hammerman.

Today, at the urging of Judge Bunyan [PDF], Gibson Dunn withdrew the second round of subpoenas. City attorneys had gone to court seeking a temporary restraining order against the plaintiffs for trying to subpoena more people. After Bunyan recommended that Gibson Dunn withdraw the subpoenas, the city stopped pursuing the restraining order.

“The judge called the petitioners’ counsel out on this harassing strategy in court today,” said city attorney Karen Selvin, “rebuking them and prompting them to withdraw all the subpoenas issued under the petitioner’s direction over the last week.”

In response to the attempt by the plaintiffs’ attorneys to drag more people before the court, including CB 6 members Richard Bashner and Tom Miskel, Park Slope residents announced the formation of two YIMBY counterweights to the bike lane opponents. The new groups are known as “Neighbors for Better Neighbors” and “Seniors for Civility.”

“These subpoenas were clearly meant to silence and intimidate good, hard-working neighborhood advocates,” said NBN member and PPW resident Bill Carey. “I believe community members ought to talk to each other and work together rather than using a $700/hour corporate attorney to beat each other up.”

TA’s White called the lawsuit “not only frivolous, but reckless.” He added, “Removing the street safety improvements on Prospect Park West would put local residents in harm’s way. Streets with protected bike lanes have about 40 percent fewer crashes ending in death or serious injury for all street users: drivers and pedestrians included. The opponents of this bike lane are playing a dangerous game with people’s lives for the sake of a PR stunt.”

Bunyan is scheduled to decide on August 3 whether to allow Walden’s first round of subpoenas, issued to NYC DOT staff and Council Member Brad Lander.

You can read the full “Neighbors for Better Neighbors/Seniors for Civility” press release below:

Noah Kazis contributed to this post.

We are now well into the fifth month of the attack on street safety improvements known as the Prospect Park West lawsuit. There was no conclusion in court today, so the Jim Walden media tour will go on at least a little while longer.

Transportation Alternatives Executive Director Paul Steely White had this to say in a statement released this afternoon:

By any reasonable measure, this charade is over. The City set hard data against fact-free grandstanding to defend commonsense street safety improvements that the vast majority of neighborhood residents love and asked for in the first place. Any concerns about these improvements have been exhaustively addressed and it’s time to move on. The people of Park Slope deserve better than to have their time wasted by a puffed-up PR stunt.

Here’s a little more on the integrity of DOT’s data versus the cherry-picked numbers used by opponents to sow doubt about the project.

For those following the legal developments in the case, here’s the affidavit submitted by Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, claiming NYC DOT told him the PPW project was installed on a trial basis [PDF] — and our analysis of Markowitz’s impeccable timing.

And here’s the response from DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, explaining that adjusting the construction timetable and evaluating the project does not make it a trial [PDF].

Regardless of how the judge interprets the two statements, the multi-year process leading up to the PPW redesign — and the safety benefits it has produced — should withstand the assault by opponents who are trying to circumvent all the public meetings, hearings, and votes that preceded this project.

Said city attorney Mark Muschenheim:

The Prospect Park West project is not a pilot — and never was. However, we won’t let this issue be used as a sideshow to delay this case from being resolved on the merits themselves. The key issue is whether there was a rational basis for this project, and the record is clear that the community requested the project to improve safety, and the data show that it’s done the job it was intended to do. Thus, we are willing to forego the statute of limitations defense if it means speeding up the resolution of this case on the merits.