Today’s Headlines

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Glenn

    Eric’s quote in Park Slope Patch is apt:

    “It’s a real shame that two groups that claim a total membership of 215 people would go to such extraordinary lengths to try to eradicate a bike path that’s used by 10 times that many people on a nice day, that’s contributed to a 75 percent reduction in speeding, and is supported by the vast majority of people in the neighborhood,” said Eric McClure, a co-founder of Park Slope Neighbors and advocate of the lanes.

    Best outcome would be for the judge to throw the lawsuit out and NBBL can re-join the ongoing community discussion on how to actually make the neighborhood safer and more sustainable.

  • Be sure to take the PPW poll included with the Daily News story.

  • Number of non-emergency vehicles I saw flagrantly run red lights during my bike commute this morning: 2.

    And Eric McClure, re your related comments yesterday, I don’t know man, you and I surely must be seeing things. The NY Times clearly proclaimed that aside from cyclists, “everyone else” follows the rules:

    But seriously folks, this log, which is an ongoing response to that Times editorial, will move next week to my Twitter acct @ddartley.

  • TKO

    Hard to believe that the fellow in the Daily News photo is 43. He needs to get out of that SUV and walk and ride more often.

  • car free nation

    Took the PPW bike lane today, as I often do to drop my kid at school. It’s a tremendous resource, and I’m mystified at the opposition. I guess their 1 second of time is worth more to them than the health and safety of my daughter and me.

  • dporpentine

    car free nation: their sense of what a pleasing street *looks like* is also more valuable than your safety–or your daughter’s.

    Life as a little person . . .

  • Omri

    Now that spring is here, perhaps it’s time to put cameras on the lane to record where lane usage is going.

  • Larry Littlefield

    I wonder how the process to install this bike lane, from petition to installation, compares with the process of installing through streets in Midtown and iron fences to prevent pedestrians from crossing on 5th Avenue?

  • Great point, Larry. NBBL should be forced to explain why procedures and environmental reviews unheard of under its member and the former DoT Commissioner Iris Weinshall should suddenly constitute the standard by which the current administration is judged. No doubt, their answer is that even Iris (and Norm himslef) were lulled into a false sense of security by the tricksters at DoT, so they reasonably assumed that CEQRA and SEQRA review of the PPW bike path was going on behind the scenes at DoT the whole while. These poor, innocent former NYC Commissioners got duped by that slippery JSK!

  • I still assert that the months of video NBBL supposedly has of PPW demonstrate nothing beyond the ambulance in the bike lane, which is as much an argument for the bike lane as against it. I skimmed the lawsuit filing papers and found no other mention of “caught-on-tape” moments that would bolster their case.

    If they had more incendiary footage, why not include that info in this filing? My guess is they have nothing beyond a collection of insults on a few blogs.

    Release the tapes, NBBL!

  • Joe R.

    “Hard to believe that the fellow in the Daily News photo is 43. He needs to get out of that SUV and walk and ride more often.”

    Yeah, I saw that, then saw the guy’s age, and I was like holy cow (pun intended). People that look like him are exactly why we need to integrate walking and cycling into our daily lives.

  • NM

    Bring it. I welcome validation by a court that this project is a very reasonable means for DOT to make the city’s public land serve the most users with the least harm.

    A car is too expensive to be a condition for access to our public land, and long-term car storage and fast driving effectively exclude the rest of us. Bravo to DOT for letting us back on our land. And for you NBBL readers: No one is trying to exclude cars, we just don’t want to be excluded by them. If anyone wanted to entirely ban cars, I’d oppose that too. So let’s be clear: this is not an attack on cars. Non-drivers would just like the same right to travel safely and efficiently. Based on the data, there is room for all of us to do that.

  • Larry Littlefield

    The auto industry is coming up with an answer for the bicycle for those who don’t want exercise, and mass transit/carpooling for those who don’t want to share space with other people. It also isolates the user from the natural environment.

    Perhaps if you are feeling unhealthy and lonely, you could drive it over to the climate controlled health club.

  • Larry, thanks for sharing that bubble-car article. I particularly liked reading the comments, particularly hearing from the commenter who asked how big does a car need to be to deliver a pizza. Apparently the idea that a car is actually not necessary for pizza delivery has yet to cross the minds of the folks who comment on Economist articles.

  • Joe R.

    Larry, I’ll be more than happy if we replaced gas-guzzling behemoths with smaller electric-powered vehicles like those, even if the overall number of cars in the city remained the same. Not smelling exhaust fumes would make the city 100 times more liveable. I’m glad to see automakers are reconsidering the basic premise that all vehicles need to be designed with intercity capabilities, even though many are rarely used outside of cities. Honestly, for intercity travel high-speed rail makes worlds more sense than car anyhow, so why design most cars so that they can go hundreds of miles at 100+ mph in the first place? My second take on those is that they offer the same range/speed as a decent velomobile (which incidentally can also be totally enclosed), so why not try to get anyone physically able into velomobiles instead? Save the motorized transport for those who are old or frail.

  • NM

    I’m with you, Joe R. These babies could double and triple park on the current PPW. 🙂

  • Sour Grapes!!

    It’s Iris the Grinch! How dare young families have fun on my street! Get offa my lawn!

    Total sour grapes from a transportation commissioner who did jack for 8 years combined with a few of the usual rich nimbys.

  • NattyB

    Re: the Article 78 hearing on PPW Bikelane.

    Don’t the petitioners have a Standing issue?

    They’re not a party to the matter. On what basis are they able to sue?

  • J:Lai

    regarding the “bubble cars” — this sounds like it would be an excellent way to replace traditional cars for many people. There should be a continuum of size, power, and cost for vehicles ranging from large trucks down to bicycles or other human-powered vehicles.
    Cars are an important part of our transportation network, even in big cities, and it is much more realisitc to think that we can replace larger cars with smaller ones than to attempt to remove cars altogether.

  • At a glance, I think bubble cars are a hell of a lot better than regular cars: Four seats full of nothing, designed to do 100mph while weighing 2000 to 12000 lbs, with needless front and rear ends sticking out? I’d love to see bubble cars right now, if they’d replace a lot of jerks’ mean machines. I might get one myself! (But mine would be human powered.)

  • (the “four seats/12000 lbs.” bit refers to current conventional cars, not bubble cars)

  • Josh

    The Daily News link about the PPW lawsuit appears to be broken.

  • fdr
  • j

    I’m definitely not a lawyer, but from what I’ve read, you need to show that you have been somehow suffered “environmental harm” as a result of the action in order to have standing. I’m not sure what exactly that means, though.