New York City is saying that when it came to putting a bike lane in Park Slope, it couldn’t have located the Prospect Park West bike lane anywhere else.

In court papers filed in response to a lawsuit that seeks to remove the bike lane, New York provides the first substantial look at its defense. The suit was filed by Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes/Seniors for Safety (NBBL) earlier this year.

The 39-page document (see end of post) lays out the city’s case along these lines:  we located the PPW lane in the best location, in accordance with accepted industry guidelines; we had the right to do so, because street management and bike lanes are our purview; our analysis was and is sound; and anyway the statute of limitations has expired. From the filing:

On why the city located the lane on Prospect Park West:

p. 7: “While 8th Avenue has two northbound traffic lanes that bicyclists can ride on, it has numerous intersections that increase the potential for conflicts and crashes among motorists and bicyclists, thereby decreasing the desirability and use by bicyclists. Moreover, 8th Avenue does not connect directly with Prospect Park entrances, meaning a more circuitous route to and from Prospect Park would be required….DOT also considered and rejected Park Drive, a roadway located within Prospect Park. Park Drive does not provide the connectivity to the street network that a PPW bike path would (since bicyclists could only access Park Drive in three locations), and it is also an indirect (and thus inconvenient) route for local trips. Moreover, Park Drive’s two traffic lanes are used by motor vehicles at certain times, and there is insufficient space to add an unprotected bike lane going against the flow of traffic while at the same time providing for the existing walking/running lane, bike lane and two traffic lanes.”

On NBBL’s contention that the city didn’t accurately analyze crash data:

p. 13: “Petitioners, and their purported expert, accountant Eric Fox, take issue with DOT’s use of three-year averages in its crash analysis. ..
Petitioners, however, fail to square their assertions with the accepted industry practice of using three years’ worth of data when performing before and after crash comparisons….For this reason, DOT typically uses three years of before-crash data when evaluating traffic improvements (and indeed, used three-year data in April 2009 when it originally presented the PPW Project plan to the Community Board)…And even if there were any validity to petitioners’ criticisms of DOT’s use of three-year-average data, the most relevant indicator — crashes involving injuries — dropped by 50 percent between 2009 and 2010, and dropped by 33 percent in the same period if “side street” crashes are omitted.”

On why NBBL’s case  is just too late:

p. 18, p. 2: “In an apparent effort to skirt the statute of limitations, petitioners attempt to characterize the PPW Project as ‘experimental’ or as a ‘trial’…Petitioners, two unincorporated associations led by individuals who live on PPW, commenced this proceeding in March 2011, months after the expiration of the Article 78 statute of limitations (which began to run at the latest when the PPW Project was installed). Consequently, petitioners’ claims relating to the PPW Project are time-barred.”

The next court date in the case is scheduled for next Wednesday, June 22nd.

You can read the city’s filing below.
Respondents’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Petition