An exhaustive report published in the British Medical Journal found that traffic injuries declined in London's 20 mph zones and, to a lesser but still significant extent, on the streets immediately adjacent to the zones. Image: British Medical Journal

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.

Bus riders waited at least 15 minutes for this crowded B61 during the morning rush today. A practically empty B61 was bunched up right behind it. Photo: Ben Fried

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.

Service seems to be deteriorating. A November, 2010 New York City Transit study of the B61 found that 36 percent of buses were arriving outside the MTA’s service guidelines. While NYCT was looking at all buses, not just rush hour service, the authors of “Next Bus Please” say their measurements — 57 percent of rush hour buses failing to meet the guidelines — indicate things have gotten worse on the B61 since then.

They outline a package of improvements for the bus line, including additional peak-hour service, limited stop service for the most popular stops, real-time arrival info, and better contingency routes in the event that a ship passes through the Gowanus Canal at the 9th Street Bridge, a drawbridge that can delay B61s for up to 15 minutes.

Some of those recommendations should come at little or no cost to the financially strapped MTA. (One recommendation, for instance, calls for merging bus stops that are too close together, which could actually cut the cost of operating the B61.) While adding peak hour service won’t be free, the MTA has restored service on several lines since the 2010 cuts in response to rider demand and political pressure. “Next Bus Please” is, I believe, the most rigorous and thorough attempt to document why additional service would benefit a specific bus line.

Velazquez said that Red Hook’s dependence on the B61 justifies the increased service. “The MTA has to prioritize needs,” she said. “Red Hook suffers from a lack of transportation options.”

The authors have shown the report to the MTA and are awaiting a response.

Senator Chuck Schumer, a frequent cyclist, walks his bike by the Prospect Park West bike lane, which he told bike lane opponents he does not like. Image: Brooklyn Spoke.

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.

Weinshall, Hainline, and Jessica Schumer also tried to enlist a veteran of Chuck Schumer’s press shop. On July 12, 2010, Jessica Schumer reported on the latest ally her family had recruited in their fight against the bike lane: one of the state’s top media consultants. “My mom talked with Risa Heller on Saturday night – she used to do my dad’s press and then went on to work for the governor and now does PR work,” she wrote. “She said she would be willing to help us out a little – so I can get in touch with her if you would like.” Hainline said that she’d be interested, and Schumer agreed to contact Heller.

A few days later, Hainline proposed smearing Transportation Alternatives and Streetsblog for receiving funding from Mark Gorton, who at the time was enmeshed in a lawsuit with the record industry over his Limewire file-sharing software. “I’ll take a look at it this weekend,” Jessica Schumer told Hainline, copying Weinshall, “and will see what risa thinks of that angle as well.”

Nine days after Jessica Schumer first reached out to Heller, Hainline told two NBBL members: “We also have some advice from a media person who cannot be public but was recommending a press conference when we file the suit.”

Heller was the only media professional mentioned in the NBBL communications obtained by Streetsblog during this period, but she specifically denied that this email referred to her. “Iris reached out to me and as much as I love her I declined to get involved,” Heller told Streetsblog.

Schumer’s current staff appear to be keeping a close eye on reports that link him to the bike lane opposition. Of note is an email from Weinshall to two of Schumer’s top staffers, Martin Brennan and Mike Lynch. Brennan is Schumer’s New York state director, Lynch his chief of staff. The content of the email was of little consequence — a friend sent a clip from a Streetsblog article about the Schumer family to Weinshall, who forwarded it on to Brennan, Lynch and Jessica Schumer — but it was sent to their Senate email addresses, suggesting official business.

There remains much that we don’t know about Schumer’s involvement in the fight against the bike lane. We don’t know whether he played a role in convincing Gibson Dunn partner Randy Mastro to provide ample legal resources at no cost for the lawsuit backed by his wife and daughter. We don’t know what the senator said about the bike lane to City Council members or to Mayor Bloomberg. There is solid evidence, however, that Chuck Schumer, like the rest of his family, opposed the Prospect Park West bike lane, and that his political stature was vital to the fight against it.

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.

Photo copyright Dmitry Gudkov, used with permission

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.

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

No lawsuit will take away this bike lane. Photo copyright Dmitry Gudkov

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:

[T]he Borough President’s conclusory affidavit is devoid of detail and fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Moreover, the Borough President never mentioned in his December 9, 2010 testimony before the City Council’s Committee on Transportation that DOT had characterized the bike lane as temporary.

Walden issued a statement yesterday implying that the opponents are still considering an appeal, but it’s not clear they have any further legal path to eradicate the bike lane, now that their initial suit was deemed too late.

For months, the success of the PPW bike lane was overshadowed by the relentless campaign waged by politically-connected insiders against NYC DOT.

The legal victory for the redesign comes long after broad support for it had coalesced at the community level. In the latest community board vote on the PPW project, Brooklyn CB 6 voted unanimously to support several DOT-proposed modifications to the lane. The board first endorsed the design of the bike lane in May 2009, following a written request that DOT study the installation of a two-way separated bike lane in June 2007.

“I am proud of the community-driven process, through which neighborhood residents requested the bike path, suggested modifications, and approved the modified design this spring,” said City Council Member Brad Lander in a statement. “Ever since the bike path was first proposed four years ago by Park Slope’s representatives on Community Board 6, this has been an inclusive, transparent, and community-driven process.  While I respect those who do not like the bike lane, this is the way our government is supposed to work.”

The results of the redesign speak for themselves: The bike lane reduced injurious traffic crashes, speeding, and sidewalk riding, and led to big increases in cycling.

But the benefits have been overshadowed for months by the misinformation campaign waged by well-connected bike lane opponents, including former DOT Commissioner Iris Weinshall, who is married to Senator Chuck Schumer. It was an anti-bike NIMBY effort on a scale that New York is unlikely to ever see again, unless Kirsten Gillibrand moves to the city and watches in horror as DOT stripes a bike lane in front of her house. To recap:

• Weinshall and the bike lane opponents used political connections to garner white-shoe legal representation, given entirely pro bono, for a spurious lawsuit against the city.
• Using cherrypicked data, the lawsuit made easily refutable allegations about DOT’s evaluation process that were nevertheless picked up and broadcast by the city’s tabloid media.
• Weinshall and former Deputy Mayor Norm Steisel lobbied City Council Member James Vacca in the run-up to last December’s hearing on bike policy, a harbinger of last winter’s intense “bikelash.”
• Senator Schumer reportedly met with some City Council members himself.

Though unsuccessful in court, the bike lane opponents have inflicted damage that can’t be undone overnight. Even in the extremely unlikely event that papers like the Daily News and the Post decide to run full-blown mea culpas about their willingness to reprint falsehoods about DOT’s use of data, it will take time for the agency to recuperate from the opponents’ relentless media attacks. Since the PPW opponents launched their campaign, the expansion of the bike network has slowed and previously-approved projects have been scaled back. Perhaps with the shadow of this lawsuit no longer hanging over the department, the city’s street safety efforts can now continue with renewed vigor.

Photo copyright Dmitry Gudkov

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.

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.

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.

It's not a trial. Photo copyright Dmitry Gudkov

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.

Yesterday, as Transportation Nation’s Kate Hinds reported, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Bert Bunyan denied a request by Walden to put off a July court hearing until September. The next court date remains July 20.

The attempt to postpone the July court appearance was always on shaky ground. Walden’s argument for delay, which he said was needed in order to obtain more information under the Freedom of Information Law, rested largely on a New York Times article that at no point mentioned the Prospect Park West bike lane.

On Monday, Walden sent a letter to Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Bert Bunyan, citing a recent New York Times story on Bloomberg administration pilot projects to press his case for an adjournment until September 7. The hearing had already been adjourned from June 22 to July 20.

In response, city attorney Mark Muschenheim sent Judge Bunyan a letter [PDF] arguing that the Times story is irrelevant to the PPW case, and that Walden’s attempt to delay the hearing by asking for time to pursue additional FOIL requests (he’s already received hundreds of pages from DOT and Council Member Brad Lander) should be rejected.

Note the citation of actual cases in the city’s letter, including a 1984 decision that stated, “FOIL may be used during litigation for improper purposes, including harassment and delay.”

That Wednesday, Walden was in court arguing that the Prospect Park West bike lane was installed as a trial project last summer. He has to prove to Judge Bunyan that NYC DOT presented the redesign as an interim treatment, or else the anti-bike lane lawsuit has no standing in court. There is a four-month statute of limitations on the type of complaint filed by the PPW opponents, known as an Article 78, and the plaintiffs filed suit in March 2011, eight months after the city installed the redesign. So Walden’s shot at keeping the case alive hinges on convincing the judge that the city called the project a “trial,” and the installation itself did not set the four-month clock ticking. (Needless to say, we are deep in the legal weeds at this point, and far from the core contention in the lawsuit, that DOT acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner by installing the bike lane after years of public process.)

The problem for Walden is that bike lanes are not installed on a trial basis, and from the get-go, the city has not characterized the Prospect Park West project as anything other than a permanent redesign. In a sworn affidavit [PDF], DOT bike and pedestrian director Josh Benson said he publicly corrected the perception that the bike lane was a trial project at a Community Board 6 hearing last year. Walden has asserted that his “trial” theory will be borne out by documents he obtained from Council Member Brad Lander’s office through a freedom of information request. At the hearing last week, Judge Bunyan adjourned the case until July 20 to give Walden more time to review those documents.

Enter the New York Times. As luck would have it, the Times ran a story on page A1 this Monday — “‘Pilot’ Label Lets Mayor’s Projects Skip City Review” — about Bloomberg administration pilot programs, giving prominent attention to DOT initiatives under commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan. Curiously, the story repeatedly referred to bike lanes to illustrate its point, even though bike lanes are all presented to community boards and receive as much public review, if not more, as they did under previous mayors and DOT commissioners. The article erroneously stated that “painting bike lanes green” is a trial program.

Later that day, Walden sent a letter to Judge Bunyan, asking for the case to be adjourned until September 7 to give him more time to submit more FOIL requests. The primary basis for his request was the New York Times story:

I write on behalf of Petitioners Seniors for Safety and Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes (collectively “Petitioners”) to bring an article from today’s New York Times, entitled “‘Pilot’ Label Lets Mayor’s Projects Skip City Review” to the Court’s attention. The article, a copy of which is attached, highlights precisely the issue we raised on June 22: namely, that the City frequently presents new programs and initiatives as “pilots” and “trials” in order to avoid compliance with required legal processes and public reviews and to blunt potential criticism of the projects — only to make the projects permanent without any further review. Indeed, the article specifically notes that Respondents, “[t]he Transportation Department and its commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, have begun more than a dozen trial programs in recent years, like allowing pop-up sidewalk cafes or painting bike lanes green.”

Lucky or not, Walden doesn’t seem to be arguing from a position of strength here. The Prospect Park West redesign quite clearly did not skirt any stage of public review, with Community Board 6 having approved it in 2009, after asking the city to study a two-way protected bike lane in 2007. There’s no reference in Walden’s letter to any information from the piles of documents he’s already obtained from DOT and Lander’s office. Not even any citation in the Times story referring to the Prospect Park West project as a “pilot.” He’s leaning quite heavily on a misleading headline that happens to align well with his talking points, but does not reflect the actual subject of his lawsuit at all.

Below, the letter in full:

Walden New York Times Letter

Prospect Heights resident Steve O’Neill has been biking for most of the 15 years he’s lived in New York City. Steve commutes daily to Columbus Circle, and last year he added a new leg to his trip. Every day he drops his son Beckett off at school in Park Slope, and the new Prospect Park West bike lane helps him do that safely.

As a subway trip it took 30 minutes — including a transfer and going up and down nearly 200 steps. On the bike, they get to school in just 10 minutes. How does Beckett feel about the bike ride to school? “The last time I didn’t ride it was winter and it was really snowy and he was begging to go on the bike instead of the subway,” Steve said.

The plaintiffs are also asking for Judge Bunyan to grant discovery, which would permit them to depose people under oath. That could turn into another round of media spectacle for the case, but discovery is rarely granted in this type of legal proceeding, known as an Article 78.

From a legal perspective, the question of whether the PPW bike lane was a “trial” project has now become central to the case. Before the opponents can make their argument that DOT acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner by installing a bike lane that was requested and approved by the local community board, they have to demonstrate that the PPW redesign was a trial project installed on an interim basis. Otherwise, the case can be dismissed because the plaintiffs sued eight months after the lane was installed, and the statute of limitations to file such a suit expires four months after the completion of a permanent project.

DOT says the agency always presented the PPW project as a permanent redesign. In an affidavit [PDF] submitted with the city’s legal brief, bike and pedestrian program director Joshua Benson testified that he did not recall any DOT staff stating that the PPW bike lane was a trial project. He also pointed out that several DOT projects are identified as pilots or trials — examples include the Times Square pedestrian plazas and the expansion of pedestrian zones on Allen and Pike Streets — and that the PPW project was never designated as anything of the sort.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Jim Walden, hopes to use the documents obtained from Lander’s office to advance his argument that DOT said the bike lane was a trial project. At an open house on the bike lane in April, 2010, Lander told Streetsblog that “if we’re wrong in big ways” about the bike lane’s effect on safety and traffic, “we’ll have to reconsider.”

In his affidavit, Benson says he publicly corrected the “trial project” perception when it surfaced at a CB 6 transportation committee meeting later that month. Since DOT was the implementing agency and the plaintiffs are suing the city, not the City Council, it’s hard to see how the Lander documents will be relevant.

From a media perspective, it will be interesting to see whether NBBL and their PR firm are able to insert any material from the Lander FOIL in the press. So far they’ve been quite skillful at getting their point of view regurgitated by the media.

With a curb cut, surface parking along the street frontage, and no retail use on the ground floor, the pedestrian-hostile design for the "Le Bleu" hotel wouldn't cut it under newly proposed zoning rules for Brooklyn's Fourth Avenue. Photo: Ben Fried.

When the Department of City Planning put forward its rezoning of Park Slope in 2003, one of the earliest of the now 111 rezonings under Mayor Bloomberg and City Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden, it was intended to help turn Fourth Avenue into “a grand boulevard of the 21st Century.”

The sought-after residential development has started to take place, but at street level, there’s been widespread disappointment with the results. Instead of providing a healthy pedestrian realm, the ground floor of many new developments has been taken up by ventilation equipment and even a surface parking lot.

In response, the Department of City Planning has put forward a new set of rules intended to ensure that as Fourth Avenue develops further, it does so in a way that invites people to walk along the street.

At least half of the ground floor frontage of each new building along Fourth would be required to be retail, and parking wouldn’t be allowed anywhere along the ground floor street frontage. Requirements for a certain amount of glass storefronts would provide opportunities for window-shopping, while strict restrictions on curb cuts across Fourth Avenue sidewalks will give pedestrians more space and comfort.

With the endorsements of local Council Members Brad Lander, Stephen Levin and Sara González, the plan is likely to move relatively smoothly through the land use review process over the next few months.

The underlying zoning, including bulk, use, and parking requirements, will remain the same along Fourth. However, many of the worst offenders of the last development cycle would not be up to code under the new regulations.

The “Le Bleu” hotel, for example, includes a curb cut to a surface parking lot in front of the building, two would-be violations of the new zoning rules. Behind the parking lot is a lobby without any retail, another violation. If that project had been built under the proposed rules, the hotel could still have parking, but it would have to be structured parking, at least thirty feet back from the street or underground and accessed from a side street rather than Fourth.

It will be interesting to see how developers respond to the tighter restrictions on where parking can be placed. Building underground parking on Fourth is even more expensive than usual due to the subway tunnel that runs under the street, so it’s not unlikely that, on the margin, barring parking from part of the ground floor will result in less total parking being built along the street.

While parking requirements along Fourth generally require a parking space for 40 percent of the dwelling units, much of the parking built along the street was a result of developers’ profit motive. At the Novo, for example, the developer built 60 spaces when only 45 were required by zoning. At the Crest, a DCP spokesperson said, the developer was eligible to have parking requirements waived entirely. In buildings like those, neither of which engages the sidewalk, making it slightly more difficult to build parking could mean the developer would choose to build less parking altogether.

When DCP originally rezoned Park Slope, a department spokesperson told Streetsblog in 2008, it opted against retail requirements on the grounds that in a less-established commercial area, such requirements might inhibit development altogether or result in empty storefronts. That they are ready to put those requirements in place on Fourth — similar transparency rules are in effect on 125th Street and the St. George area of Staten Island, according to DCP — suggests that even in a downturn, the real estate market in that rapidly gentrifying section of Brooklyn is strong.

The lawsuit arguing for the removal of the Prospect Park West bike lane is back in court next Wednesday, and Kate Hinds at Transportation Nation has the legal brief in which the New York City Department of Transportation and the city Law Department respond to the charges leveled against DOT.

In new court papers, available above, the city lays out the reasons it decided to install a bike lane on Prospect Park West and proceeds to calmly dismantle the bike lane opponents’ lawsuit. The difference in tone between the city’s methodical argumentation and the insinuations of Gibson Dunn attorney Jim Walden, which were described by an NYU Law professor as “largely public relations,” is particularly striking.

Legally, the city’s lawyers point out that DOT need only have had some rational basis for installing the bike lane — a standard easily surpassed given the long history of public requests for traffic calming and better biking conditions on PPW — and that they ran afoul of neither environmental review regulations nor the city’s landmarks preservation process.

In addition to the legal arguments, the brief goes into detail about DOT’s data collection for the PPW project. From the beginning, the NBBL lawsuit has been used as a tool to undermine public confidence in how DOT selects and evaluates its street safety projects, and for the first time, you can see in this brief DOT’s official, comprehensive response to the allegations that the agency fudged data in evaluating the Prospect Park West bike lane. The brief elucidates in detail how, in fact, NBBL and Walden cherrypicked data to fit their narrative.

For example, when NBBL and Walden alleged that DOT counted crashes that didn’t happen on Prospect Park West, the city explains, they failed to understand how NYPD records traffic crashes at intersections. In those cases, police record one street as the “on” street and the other street as the cross street. Because most crashes occur at intersections, it is standard DOT practice to count a crash as occurring on a given street if it is listed as a “cross street” in the police report. NYPD may, for instance, record a crash that happened at the intersection of PPW and Third Street as happening “on” Third Street, with PPW as the cross street. When studying safety on the PPW corridor, DOT counts such a crash as happening on PPW, while NBBL would have disregarded such a crash, en route to compiling a dataset that doesn’t adhere to the methodology employed by DOT all over the city.

The city also notes that it is standard practice to use three-year averages to measure injury rates before a project is installed. This helps minimize the effect of statistical outliers that crop up when comparing smaller sample sizes.

Even if you only examine the crash stats from the last six months of 2009 and the last six months of 2010, as NBBL and Walden did, the most telling safety statistic — the number of crashes that cause injuries — dropped 50 percent. The plaintiffs never mention that statistic in their complaint. Instead, NBBL and Walden claimed the increase from four injuries on PPW in the second half of 2009 to five injuries in the second half of 2010 proves the lane to be a failure, but the brief explains that this was entirely due to a single crash in 2010 that caused four injuries.

In footnote after footnote, each argument is similarly dissected. As Streetsblog has already reported, because the bike lane is a “traffic control device,” it was specifically exempted from environmental review requirements, a case the city makes in great detail. With regards to the claim that the bike lane required landmarks review, the city shows that while either side of the street might be landmarked, the middle of it isn’t.

Technically, the city lawyers argue that this is all beside the point, in a strictly legal sense, because the bike lane opponents missed their chance to sue at the end of last October; by the time they filed, the city says, the statute of limitations had long passed.

These rational arguments contrast starkly with Walden’s hyperbolic, non-legal prose in his court papers. The city’s lawyers title their sections things like “DOT’s Determination to Install the PPW Project was a Rational Exercise of its Discretionary Authority.” The NBBL lawsuit includes a section titled, “The Ultimate Oxymoron: DOT’s Campaign to Justify the EBL As A ‘Traffic Calming’ Measure.”

Separately, City Council Member Brad Lander and former Brooklyn Community Board 6 Chair Richard Bashner each filed an amicus brief, available in full here and here, in support of the bike lane. Each presented the extensive public process that the bike lane went through before and after construction, stating that they believe the decisions reached by Community Board 6 represent the view of the majority of the area’s residents.

Brad Lander and Richard Bashner

In a statement, Lander, who served on CB6 when the board first discussed and voted on the redesign, and Bashner, who chaired the board at that time, rebut the central argument made by Gibson Dunn attorney Jim Walden on behalf of the bike lane opponents suing the city: that DOT’s installation of the PPW redesign was “arbitrary and capricious.” Citing public workshops going back to 2007, Lander and Bashner puncture the plaintiffs’ contention that the PPW project was imposed by DOT without broad community support.

“The process surrounding the installation of the Prospect Park West bike path has been inclusive, transparent, collaborative, and democratic,” said Lander. “The vast majority of Park Slope residents support the path, believe it makes the community safer, and want it to remain.”

Bashner joined the brief as a private citizen, not as a representative of CB6. He provided the following statement:

I am proud of the extensive democratic process that took place here. Community Board 6, heeding the calls of the community, requested traffic calming on Prospect Park West to eliminate dangerous speeding.  At our specific request, DOT studied the question of whether a two-way protected bicycle path could be installed on Prospect Park West, and developed a plan for implementation.  We approved the concept, provided extensive opportunities for residents to make their opinions heard at many public meetings, suggested changes to the design, and worked with DOT on modifications before and after its implementation.  DOT should be lauded for its collaborative community process, rather than being accused of making an ‘arbitrary and capricious’ decision. Thanks to this process, Prospect Park West – the street where I live – is much safer today.  Traffic is now much closer to the 30 mph legal speed limit, bicycles and cars are separated, and pedestrians have an easier time crossing the street because they now have to cross only two lanes of car traffic instead of three.

After the jump, read the full timeline of the Prospect Park West public process that Lander and Bashner compiled:

• March, 2007: At a Park Slope community meeting attended by hundreds, concerns about speeding and safety on Prospect Park West are raised, noting that cars exceed 60 MPH, and that many cars substantially exceed the speed limit.
• June, 2007: CB6 sends a letter to DOT, requesting study of a protected, two-way bike path on Prospect Park West as a way to reduce speeding and improve safety.
• April, 2009: DOT presents initial plan for parking-separated path to CB6 Transportation Committee, which unanimously voted to approve the plan.
• May, 2009: The full CB6 board votes to approve the plan, 18 – 9, with suggested modifications.
• April, 2010: CB6, Lander, DOT sponsor an open house, attended by hundreds, showing design plan for additional public comment.
• April, 2010: DOT presents the modified design (addressing many issues raised by CB6 and community residents) to CB6.
• June, 2010: Prospect Park West parking-protected, two-way bike path is installed.
• Summer, 2010: Lander meets with bike path opponents and supporters.
• July, 2010: Lander requests that DOT commit to provide data to community, after the path has been in operation for several months, on how the path is working.
• August, 2010: DOT commits to provide data, and report back to the community in early 2011.
• October, 2010: Lander, Councilmember Steve Levin, and CB6 conduct a detailed survey on the path, completed by over 3,000 Brooklynites, which reveals significant support for the path, and suggests some additional modifications.
• October, 2010: DOT releases first round of data, showing dramatic reductions in speeding and sidewalk cycling, and significant increases in cycling.
• January, 2011: DOT presents data to CB6 (at a meeting attended by hundreds) on the first six months of the path’s operation, showing speeding, accidents, and injuries are down, travel time remains constant, sidewalk riding is down, cycling is up.  DOT also proposes additional design modifications in response to community requests, including raised pedestrian islands and bike rumble-strips to improve bike/pedestrian interactions.
• March, 2011: CB6 holds public hearing (attended by hundreds), at which the significant majority of community residents present favor the bike path.
• April, 2011:  CB6 votes unanimously to approve the raised pedestrian islands, bike rumble strips, and other design modifications proposed by DOT (requesting that the design of the islands be contextual with Prospect Park West).

#3: Before NBBL was lobbying City Hall to remove the Prospect Park West bike lane, Marty Markowitz and Iris Weinshall were lobbying DOT to not even build the PPW bike lane (PDF). #4: NBBL has a U.S. Senator on their side.

If opponents of an effective street safety project repeat dishonest distortions about it often enough, does that make their position true? Apparently, the Daily News editorial board thinks so. An opinion piece they published over the weekend on the Prospect Park West bike lane might as well have come straight from the desk of Gibson Dunn lawyer Jim Walden, the corporate litigator, Chuck Schumer campaign donor, and rumored Brooklyn DA hopeful who’s now representing bike lane opponents “pro bono.”

A decade ago Daily News reporters were crusading for safety improvements on Queens Boulevard, leading to measures that prevented injuries and saved lives. Now, without any hint of skepticism, truthseeking, or other basic journalistic impulses, the Daily News editorial writers seem content to lift talking points straight from street safety opponents, aligning themselves with the goal of making New York more dangerous. They apparently believe the narrative spun by the anti-bike lane group known as “Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes” and their spin-off, “Seniors for Safety” — a story in which DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan is the only person in New York who wants safer streets for biking and walking, and the local community could, at any moment, “erupt into open revolt.”

It can be time-consuming to visit the neighborhood you’re opining about, do nuts-and-bolts research, or fact-check the faulty assertions in a lawsuit before you reprint them for hundreds of thousands of readers, so Streetsblog has compiled this handy list for the future reference of the Daily News editorial staff, or anyone who’s actually curious about how this project came to be and what the opponents are really after (hint: it’s not safety or “better bike lanes”).

The NBBL narrative obscures the following:

1. Community groups asked for the project

   One of NBBL’s basic tenets, unchallenged by the tabloid dailies, is that the city foisted the Prospect Park West redesign on the neighborhood. But the fact is that public pressure to tame traffic on Prospect Park West had been mounting since 2006, when the Park Slope Civic Council’s traffic and transportation forum highlighted rampant speeding on PPW as a major quality of life concern.

   Later that year, after holding a series of public workshops, the Grand Army Plaza Coalition produced a report including recommendations for better bike access to GAP, and in 2007, Brooklyn Community Board 6 asked the city to study the implementation of a two-way, protected bike lane on PPW. Park Slope Neighbors later gathered 1,300 signatures asking for a two-way bike lane and traffic calming measures on the street — all before DOT proposed the PPW redesign in 2009. No one had to convince people that their neighborhood streets could function a lot better.

2. DOT’s safety data is rigorous and honest

   Data collected from the six-month study period after implementation of the re-design clearly shows that the incidence of speeding on PPW has gone down significantly, and the early results indicate that crash and injury rates have declined. You can’t be “for safety” and oppose a project that produces these benefits, so NBBL has attacked the data and cherrypicked numbers to undermine confidence in DOT’s methodology.

   To do this, NBBL claimed that DOT typically doesn’t use multi-year averages of crash data to ascertain the effect of street redesigns, when the truth is that this is exactly how DOT and other transportation agencies measure safety effects, because that’s the statistically rigorous way to do it. As Gary Toth, a 34-year veteran of the New Jersey Department of Transportation, told Streetsblog: “It is the opponents’ lawyers who are grasping at aberrations and doing the very thing they accuse the DOT of — selectively picking data to stack the deck in their favor.”

3. Before NBBL was lobbying City Hall to remove the PPW bike lane, Iris Weinshall and Marty Markowitz were lobbying DOT to not even build the PPW bike lane

   From the beginning, the campaign against the bike lane has been spearheaded by opponents with political clout. In October 2009, after the PPW redesign had been approved by CB 6, Borough President Marty Markowitz wrote to Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, asking her not to install the redesign. “I am joined in this request by former DOT Commissioner, Iris Weinshall — who absolutely agrees that the installation of a two-way, barricaded bike lane would cause incredible congestion,” Markowitz wrote in a letter [PDF] obtained by Streetsblog through freedom of information requests. The attempt to perform an end-run around a multi-year community-led planning process had begun. Weinshall would later join Louise Hainline and Norman Steisel in penning a letter to the New York Times on behalf of NBBL, speciously claiming that the redesign increased danger on PPW.

4. They have a U.S. Senator on their side

   NBBL leaders have taken to saying that only “a small number” of their members are politically connected. But it only takes one former deputy mayor to go over the heads of the local community board and get direct access to City Hall. It only takes one former transportation commissioner to lend an air of legitimacy to spurious claims about a traffic-calming project increasing risk. And if that former DOT chief is married to a U.S. Senator, that’s all you need to enlist City Council members to start agitating against the current DOT and its projects to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

5. They have media access that would make Snooki jealous

   In the annals of NYC NIMBYism, NBBL may be the only neighborhood-level opposition group that has hired a PR firm to get its message out to the press. They’ve also received a helping hand from Marty Markowitz’s office, which offered to put members of NBBL in touch with CBS2 reporter Marcia Kramer last October, according to email correspondence obtained by Streetsblog. CBS2 aired a Kramer segment in February featuring Markowitz, NBBL member Steve Spirn, and video footage provided by NBBL. The coordination between all these parties is never revealed to the viewer, who sees a series of bike lane opponents that seem unrelated to each other. Kramer never mentioned NBBL herself during the segment; only after she kicked it back to the anchor did he say that a group called “Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes” planned on suing the city.

6. Most people like the redesign

   A phone survey commissioned by Assembly member James Brennan found a 3-2 margin of support for keeping the bike lane — and that was using a sample skewed heavily toward car owners. A web survey put out by City Council Members Brad Lander and Steve Levin and Brooklyn CB 6 received 3,000 responses and found 70 percent support for keeping the redesign. And at the last CB 6 hearing that invited public testimony on the bike lane, about eight times as many people signed up to speak in favor of the redesign as signed up to speak against it. The only way to set off a community “revolt” related to the bike lane would be to remove it.

7. NBBL is very upset about a single blog comment

   In the NBBL narrative, DOT conspired to, in the words of Gibson Dunn attorney Jim Walden, “enlist an individual (the ‘Blogger’) to wage a viral campaign against critics of the PPW configuration.” The “viral campaign” Walden refers to consists of a blog comment posted here on Streetsblog last April by Aaron “The Blogger” Naparstek (who had stepped down as  Streetsblog editor-in-chief about three months before posting the comment in question). The Blogger’s notorious comment was not, in fact, prompted by DOT overlords calling on him to attack opponents. It wasn’t even directed at specific individuals — all that was known at the time was that bike lane opponents had put up an anonymous flyer around Park Slope advertising an upcoming meeting. The comment was mostly a parody of that flyer. Yes, this is what all the fuss has been about.

8. The defense of the Prospect Park West bike lane came from the bottom up

   Picture this scenario: You’re engaged in the goings on in your neighborhood and involved with a local civic group, and about five years ago you participate in public forums and workshops where people talk about what needs to change to make the neighborhood a better place to walk and bike. The ideas coalesce into a vision. It can be tough to get the city to take a community-generated plan and run with it, but after a lot more organizing and signature-gathering, the city draws up an official plan based on part of this vision. The community board approves the plan, and then the following year the city implements it.

   This is the point in the Prospect Park West story when NBBL appeared on the scene, sending letters to deputy mayors and then threatening to sue the city for installing the PPW redesign. All those engaged neighborhood residents who put in the hours to brainstorm how to fix their streets and gather signatures in support of their ideas didn’t need any prodding from the city to defend the new bike lane. There was no DOT-orchestrated campaign to “collude with bike lobbyists to mislead the public and attack opponents,” as the NBBL lawsuit alleges. The defense of the PPW bike lane is the work of many engaged residents who want to preserve a hard-won safety improvement for their neighborhood.

9. The NBBL lawsuit is flimsy

   The NBBL complaint is “largely public relations, with no more law behind it than is minimally necessary to avoid sanctions for frivolity,” according to an NYU Law School professor who specializes in government law.

10. 

    Photo copyright Dmitry Gudkov, used with permission

Noah Kazis contributed reporting to this post.

New and expanded pedestrian islands and sidewalks on the north side of GAP will create safer and more direct connections to walk to the central plaza area. (This image comes from DOT's 2010 presentation on GAP and may not include minor changes to this part of the plan.)

Construction on a slate of pedestrian and bike improvements for Grand Army Plaza is scheduled to move forward this summer, NYC DOT announced this Saturday. The redesign includes a major expansion of the pedestrian islands at the north side of GAP and the addition of a two-way, protected bicycle connection linking Union Street to Eastern Parkway on the southern side. It does not include the two-way, protected bike lane on Plaza Street shown in DOT’s 2010 presentation on this same project, which Community Boards 6 and 8 both approved last year.

DOT made its revised presentation Saturday at the Grand Army Plaza Coalition‘s annual meeting. It was an anniversary of sorts for GAPCO, a partnership between the area’s major cultural institutions and neighborhood residents, which formed in 2006 to make Grand Army Plaza a welcoming public space instead of a traffic vortex. Since then GAPCO has put together several public workshops and site visits, producing a conceptual blueprint for city agencies to work from [PDF].

Image: Google Maps

The big difference between last year’s DOT plan and this year’s is that the two-way, protected bike lane on Plaza Street has been set aside until an unspecified date in the future. Plaza Street encircles most of GAP, and a two-way path would create a safe hub for cyclists to take the most convenient routes to and through the space. But after last year’s CB votes, some Plaza Street residents contacted the city saying the parking-protected bikeway would cause traffic back-ups, even though Plaza Street receives little traffic and is already just one lane wide.

So call it the NBBL effect: Despite the multi-year community-based planning process that informed last year’s presentation, and despite the community board votes in favor of it, DOT seems unwilling, for now, to stir the pot so close to the litigious and well-connected NIMBYs of Prospect Park West, who happen to have  U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer on their side.

The improvements scheduled for this summer are still significant, and they represent a major milestone in the campaign to make GAP more accessible to pedestrians and cyclists. Starting in June and wrapping up in August, the city plans to build out these improvements, which Streetsblog reported on last April:

• On the north end of the plaza, northbound traffic on Flatbush and southbound traffic on Vanderbilt will cross at a greatly simplified X-shaped intersection. The pedestrian spaces that define the boundaries of the “X” will be much more generous and well-defined than the mish-mash of poorly-connected islands and striping that people navigate now. Walking to the central public space will be safer and simpler, especially if you’re approaching from Park Slope.
• The area between the arch and the central plaza will be set off with DOT’s epoxy-and-gravel surface treatment, seen on Broadway and other pedestrian reclamation projects. Physical barriers will be added to keep cars from illegally cutting across.
• On the south side of the plaza, pedestrian islands will be expanded and crosswalks will be added, making it easier to walk between Union Street, Plaza Street, and the greenmarket area. The greenmarket area will also be set off with epoxy-and-gravel and have physical barriers from traffic.

The bike improvements to be built out this summer should greatly improve east-west connections on the south side of the plaza and create better transitions at the northern end of the Prospect Park West bike lane. A new two-way, separated bike path will run from Union Street to Eastern Parkway, making bicycle access to Prospect Park, the GAP greenmarket, and Prospect Park West much improved.

The south end of the GAP plan (looking south toward the Brooklyn Public Library) expands pedestrian space and clearly sets it off from the asphalt expanse of the roadway. It also includes a two-way connection for bikes between Eastern Parkway and Union Street. Photo: Amy Sara Clark/Patch

Without the two-way Plaza Street lane, however, GAP won’t be as useful and convenient a hub for bicycling as it could be, and it’s hard to say when that missing piece will get filled in. NYC DOT downtown Brooklyn coordinator Chris Hrones said outreach to Plaza Street residents would continue, and that the city intends to pursue the unfinished part of the project at a later, unspecified date.

No one from the PPW opposition attended the meeting, but their presence was felt nonetheless. “DOT is excellent about coming to the community, presenting to the community, working with the community, and getting the proper sign-offs from the community,” GAPCO coordinator Rob Witherwax said in his introduction, praising DOT for being engaged on the project from the beginning. “For people who after the fact don’t like the result to say the process was bad is patently false.”

DOT will be taking the revised proposal before CB 6 and CB 8 (again) in the next few weeks. The full presentation will be online then. In the meantime, Amy Sara Clark at the Park Slope Patch has some photos of the plan shown Saturday.