Go ‘West,’ young cyclist! City plans major bike lane on Greenpoint’s waterfront

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

The city plans to turn West Street, a pockmarked 12-block truck route on the Greenpoint waterfront, into a one-way northbound street while adding a bike lane and removing half the parking spaces.

City officials last week revealed the $10-million project, which would include new pipes, a full repaving and a new bike lane connected to the existing two-way lane on Kent Avenue.

But some residents are demanding that all parking spaces be retained, and that making the street one-way will force traffic onto surrounding streets.

“West Street is still heavily industrial — if the city makes West Street one-way, it will have a ripple effect to Franklin Street,” said Community Board 1 Transportation Committee Chairwoman Karen Nieves. “And cyclists won’t take West Street — Franklin is going to be the most direct route for cycling commuters.”

The project is the first significant step in constructing the Brooklyn Greenway — a 14-mile bicycle path that will someday run the entire Brooklyn waterfront from Bay Ridge to Newtown Creek — and the first significant reconstruction of the roadway between Eagle Street and Quay Street in decades.

The area was rezoned for residential development in 2005 — but little housing has yet been built on the waterfront.

Instead, West Street has remained quiet, but primarily industrial, used by trucks moving heavy cargo to the street’s factories, warehouses and construction materials yards.

The city’s plan resembles street reconstructions of Kent Avenue, where a two-way truck route was reduced to a one-way street.

Department of Transportation planner Ted Wright acknowledged that some trucks would take Franklin Street after the proposed conversion, but he said that Franklin could accommodate more traffic.

“We’re really excited about developing substandard West Street, and creating a better bicycle and pedestrian stream along the waterfront,” said Wright.

Cyclists are excited, given that currently, they have to look out for trucks and couch-sized potholes.

“It’s kind of bumpy and badly paved — the southern end is horrendous,” said West Street resident Jochen Hellbeck. “I love that the city is thinking about connecting the waterfront and making it accessible to bikes.”

Drivers have been a menace in the industrial-residential neighborhood, killing four cyclists in nearby Williamsburg since August, including Mathieu Lefevre, killed last month after a truck ran over him on Meserole Street.

But even some bike lane supporters said that the protected path could wait.

“West Street will become more important [as a bike lane] when it is connected to Commercial Street and when the area becomes more residential — but not now,” said Milton Puryear of the Brooklyn Greenway Initiative. “They could have waited a couple of years. But to do it now is not a bad thing in the larger scheme of things.”

Reach reporter Aaron Short at or by calling (718) 260-2547.
Updated 4:29 pm, November 2, 2011
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reasonable discourse

Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
This IS good news. The best news will come in the future when automobiles will a relic of a fossil-fuel past, and the entire width of the street will be split between new land development and cyclists [or, in the far-flung, teleportation chambers!]. Really, think into the future about what you want for your grandchildren on the streets, because as finite fuels disappear, so will the automobile's design radically change, and so will street designs in turn--leaving a tremendous amount of space for creativity.
Nov. 1, 2011, 6:25 am
G from Brooklyn says:
Cyclists often go out of their way to take a safe, protected route. Putting a bike lane here just makes sense. It will be safer for everyone, drivers included.
Nov. 1, 2011, 7:31 am
ty from pps says:
(Preemptive note: Before commenting on the "$10 million bike lane" -- please re-read the article.)
Nov. 1, 2011, 7:56 am
Mike says:
Also, the greenway is MUCH more than a bike path. It'll be a recreational amenity for everyone, much like the one on the Hudson.
Nov. 1, 2011, 8:20 am
Billy Gray from Greenpoint says:
From the peanut gallery: As a resident living on Franklin St who cycles and owns a car, I'd rather see this on Franklin. Makes far more sense, and even with a protected bike path and one way traffic, I can't imagine West getting much safer, the morning truck traffic down there is insane and very dangerous. No way I'm riding down there instead of Franklin, and who would? I also don't want yet more tractor trailers screaming down Franklin St. Franklin could use major improvements, especially means of slowing down us drivers (since the cops don't care) and making more room for cyclists who heavily use the street. Put a real bike lane on Franklin, forget West St.
Nov. 1, 2011, 8:34 am
Joe from Crown Heights says:
To put the issue to bed, you really can't put a two-way separated bikeway on Franklin - that's a two-way street with parking and shops on both sides, and an intersection every 200 feet. It's not safe with all the turning conflicts and probably doesn't have enough width without converting to one-way anyway. The reason it works on West and Kent is because the intersections are dead end streets that carry very little traffic and there are three stretches where you'll go two blocks without an intersection (if the bikeway runs along the west side of the street). A big part of the attraction is that a greenway generally has the right of way without traffic signals so you don't have to stop at red lights thus it can save time and be safer. In Williamsburg there are bike lanes on Berry and Whythe but the vast majority of riders choose the greenway on Kent instead, even if it is a little less convenient. The same will be true here
Nov. 1, 2011, 9:04 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
What is it with all the bike lanes? I think there should be a halt on new bike lane construction until all bikers shape up and obey the law and stop killing people. Plus the city is closing firehouses and schools but it has $10 to build a bike lane that only covers 12 blocks? That's almost $1 million for each block so the paint must be very expensive. If cyclists want special lanes they should learn to ride in traffic but you zealouts from Transportation Alternatives don't want that and so the city has to do exactly what Paul Steely White says all the time. I expect this bike lane to not be used even with all the cyclists not obeying laws anyway.
Nov. 1, 2011, 9:44 am
Ben from Greenpoint says:
$10-million project, what a shame....
Nov. 1, 2011, 10:13 am
Billy Gray from Greenpoint says:
> I think there should be a halt on new bike lane construction until all bikers shape up and obey the law and stop killing people.

I think there should be a halt on new road and highway construction until all the motorists shape up and obey the law and stop killing people.

There, fixed it for you.

> To put the issue to bed, you really can't put a two-way separated bikeway on Franklin - that's a two-way street with parking and shops on both sides, and an intersection every 200 feet. It's not safe with all the turning conflicts and probably doesn't have enough width without converting to one-way anyway.

What's wrong with making it just like Kent Ave? I agree Franklin St isn't safe. As a regular ped in the neighborhood, I'm very nearly run over all the time crossing Streets like Java and Kent because motorists make the turns at high speeds without slowing down to look for people crossing the street at all, and then they don't yield. One direction traffic would be just fine with me, or the loss of parking on one side (again, I've got a car, I know it will be tough to lose all that parking for us drivers, but I'd prefer a safer street).
Nov. 1, 2011, 10:16 am
Billy Gray from Greenpoint says:
The point about interrupted travel on the greenway is well-taken, btw, I just don't know that you'll really get that on West. The street is literally a shambles from the truck traffic, not going to be easy to keep a greenway in shape there.
Nov. 1, 2011, 10:19 am
David from Greenpoint says:
When cyclists start paying insurance and registration fees, then they can talk. 10mm for 12 blocks is absurd. And people wonder why this country is broke.
Nov. 1, 2011, 10:23 am
SHK from Wallabout says:
Just to be clear and to repeat a point made above, according to the article, the city is not spending $10 million on green paint alone. A lot of that funding is going to subsurface infrastructure and a "full repaving." Whether or not West Street gets a fashionable green stripe, it definitely needs to be repaved. The cost of installing the bike lane is only a fraction of the $10 million cost. The state of extreme disrepair of West Street is not the result of years of destructive bicycle traffic, so the argument about bicyclists paying registration fees in order to repair the street is moot.
Nov. 1, 2011, 10:35 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Come on SHK, we all know that the bike lane will cost $10 million and that's before they do anything else to the road. So I bet the real cost of this 12 blocks of construction will be 20 or 30 million before the bike lane is finished. Plus the city uses the most expensive paint it can find and pays too much for it in order to pacify bike zealouts. Bike riders don't pay taxes or have jobs so they don't contribute to society and don't deserve anything, especially since none of them are going to jobs that help the city.
Nov. 1, 2011, 11:34 am
Kevin from Flatbush says:
The reading comprehension of Tal from Pleasantville and David from Greenpoint is just sad.
Guys, the $10 million is not for the bike lane. The bulk of that is for new underground infrastructure and repaving.
If the bike lane costs 2% of that, I'd be very surprised.

Read the article again, then please make a different uninformed comment.
Nov. 1, 2011, 11:50 am
Kevin from Flatbush says:
And why should anyone from Pleasantville have any say on what happens on local streets in Brooklyn?

Oh yeah, he doesn't. He just gets to make the same tired, ill-informed comments on forth rate "newspapers."
Nov. 1, 2011, 11:52 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Kevin, my opinion is just as valid as yours. Flatbush is not Greenpoint so why should you get more of a say than I do? You bike zealouts never want to let anyone else have a say and are undemocratic when you aren't mean. This is America, not Russia although I do find it interesting that bike lanes are like socialism. You can not trust Sadik-Cohn to release true numbers. She may be saying $10 million and the bike lane could cost half of that or two times that or more. If the Brooklyn Paper says that it's this much money, why shouldn't we believe them over the DOT which has proven to be liars with the Prospect Park lawsuit they lost. David is right that the bike lane is going to get so worn out from all the trucks driving on it that I don't see how they can keep it up and make it nice without a lot more money.
Nov. 1, 2011, 12:04 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Fellas, fellas--there is some truth to all your comments. I personally find it difficult to believe that anything in a $10 million dollar budget is ever completely on the up and up. But I'm not sure how the city's perceived mismanagement [or not] of funds should prevent a bike lane from being laid down on West Street--why should the perceived arrogance of any individual cyclist or cyclists trump the value of bike lanes for all of us as a whole?

Actually, the arguments for putting the lane on Franklin than West make much more sense. The fact that bike lanes are being put on West instead of Franklin indicates how much more the agencies and bodies involved value the newer agents of gentrification over long-time residents [because, c'mon, when we speak of West over Franklin, we're really speaking of, simplistically, gentrifiers vs. locals, while not necessarily precluding the residence of agents of gentrification on Franklin or traffic by locals on West].
Nov. 1, 2011, 12:12 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
The fact that West is in such awful disrepair is much more the fault of industry there than anything else. And that industry will likely transition into gentrification-friendly development--it's these guys that go into the supposed and dubious "open processes" and dominate the action. Why should city and taxpayer funds go to further their agenda? The positive outlook is that it is a cyclist lane, which is great, but again, Franklin would have been a better choice.
Nov. 1, 2011, 12:15 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Oh, and by the way, Joe, the conditions you're describing about Franklin once existed for Kent Ave, except for the lack of shops. Nevertheless, it was once two-way, with no lights from Williamsburg Street West on, and hellacious truck traffic. If it "worked" or "works" on Kent, then it should work on Franklin--however, noting your argument, there should be some consideration as to how the small business owners there feel about it.
Nov. 1, 2011, 12:19 pm
manhatposeurq from manhatland says:
Bikes rule! All you crumedgoens should get off your fat lazy unhealthy A$$es and learn to ride bikes.
Nov. 1, 2011, 12:46 pm
Gary from Carroll Gardens says:
FYI - there is a very persistent parody troll on this thread. And EVERY bike lane thread the Brooklyn Paper has had fir the last year or more.

It is pointless to engage it. DNFTT!
Nov. 1, 2011, 12:47 pm
Kevin from Flatbush says:
Tal, I'm neither in favor of nor against this project.
I may have never been on West St.
And the concerns of Greenpoint residents SHOULD be taken into consideration. More so that the concern of Flatbush residents.

However, I resent outsiders (Flatbush IS part of the Borough of Brooklyn and the City of New York, Pleasantville is part of neither) repeating falsehoods in order to support their arguments. You repeated a lie that the bike lane will cost more the $10 million.
Please stop. It is not true.

If you have concerns about this project, those may be entirely valid, but you should not try to convince others through intentional deceptions.
Nov. 1, 2011, 12:50 pm
Kevin from Flatbush says:
Also Tal, "If the Brooklyn Paper says that it's this much money, why shouldn't we believe them."

The Brooklyn Paper very much DID NOT say that the bike lane would cost that much. The Brooklyn Paper said that the repaving (not for the bike lane), underground pipes (again, not for the bike lane) and the bike have a total budget of $10 million.

Please return to 6th grade to work on you reading comprehension.
Nov. 1, 2011, 12:53 pm
Kevin from Flatbush says:
"bike lane"

I should return to 9th grade to work on my typing....
Nov. 1, 2011, 12:55 pm
Kevin from Flatbush says:
Gary, what is the difference between a parody troll and a regular ole troll? I know I've engaged a troll, I'm just not sure of the distinction.

Nov. 1, 2011, 1:09 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
CORRECTION: Oops, just realized, after re-reading the article, that the impetus for the bike lane along West than Franklin has less to do with the input and influence of Industry there or Real Estate interest than it has to do with the mandate to apply bike lanes all along the Brooklyn waterfront from north-to-south, though the influence of those interests remain significant. Excuse me. So I guess Brooklyn pols will have to raise more millions to get it on Franklin, and everywhere else, for that matter.
Nov. 1, 2011, 2:02 pm
Ryan from Albany says:
"When cyclists start paying insurance and registration fees, then they can talk. 10mm for 12 blocks is absurd. And people wonder why this country is broke."

One lane mile of freeway (which cyclists cannot use) costs 200 times as much as one mile of local road. Heavy motor vehicles do billions of dollars of damage to roads and bridges every year. Municipal parking facilities for motorists-- street spaces, lots, garages, and meters-- cost billions more. Oil imports (used mostly for automobile fuel) are half of the $500 billion U.S. trade deficit.

Cyclists contribute little or nothing to these problems and expenses, but we are taxed (heavily) to pay for them. The absurdity is that most motorists still think they are subsidizing cyclists.

Motorists are required to have licenses, registration, inspections, and insurance because they crash an average of 10 million times per year, killing 40,000 people, injuring millions more, and causing hundreds of billions of dollars in property damage. Cyclists require no special regulation, because they've never been a serious threat to lives and property, either today or 120 years ago, decades before cars first appeared on paved roads that were built for cyclists.
Nov. 1, 2011, 2:16 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Homeboy/girl Ryan from Albany nailed it.
Nov. 1, 2011, 3:08 pm
josh from greenpoint says:
I live right around here and jog every other day from Greenpoint past Williamsburg. I watch as bike riders break far more laws along here than cars do. The police know that bike riders run red lights so they are lax with their policing. Just walk onto Franklin ST. and watch someone riding his bike on a cell phone, holding an ice coffee, whatever.
Generally, as I jog I get nasty looks when Im in the bike lane but really there is nowhere else to go! It's tight here in this neighborhood and Franklin needs two way traffic, otherwise it will all be diverted onto the more residential streets. We haven't reached the world where cars are obsolete and fossil fuels are extinct. Maybe it's coming but its not here yet. If they do make the bike lane on West, someone is going to back out of the warehouses facing the water onto the street, like they were designed to do, and someone WILL be hit. These neighborhoods were traditionally industrial and just because Khan has fashioned herself a revolutionary doesn't mean that all the working people have left.
In addition, if all the bike riders want to really have a say, they should WANT to register and pay dues to the state. You'll get the politicians you want and more bike lanes. That's the way the world is. Pay up and you get a stronger voice.
Nov. 1, 2011, 3:12 pm
G from PPW says:
josh, since about 20% of the drivers on today's roads are unlicensed or do not hold the proper license, most of the cars you see are also breaking the law. you just can't see how they are breaking it.

If there's no where else for you to jog but in the bike lane, maybe joggers should register with the state, pay a fee, and get jogging lanes.

I bike and I pay taxes. I'm subsidizing drivers everyday.
Nov. 1, 2011, 3:35 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Anyone have actual stats/analysis on violations, infractions and accidents comparing cars and bikes that we can resolve this issue with?
Nov. 1, 2011, 4:41 pm
BB from North Greenpoint says:
If they are spending money in GP on a bike line it should be over the Pulaski bridge! Not virtually empty West st. Those ahole cyclists (probably only about 1 in 2) who hurtle along the skinny sidewalk over the Pulaksi -you know where there are signs saying SLOW and YIELD to PEDESTRIANS, flip people off and cut close enough to knock you out and generally act as if pedestrians just shouldn't be there. Whats worse is that the southbound Pulaksi is never full of traffic - the city could easily give up a lane to bikes and keep everyone happy. That sidewalk is the cause of untild animosity between GP residents and cyclists. This is shortsighted, lipstick on a pig.
Nov. 1, 2011, 4:48 pm
BB from North Greenpoint says:
"I bike and I pay taxes. I'm subsidizing drivers everyday"

Oh - so you did an analysis as to the amount of taxes cyclists pay the city, state and Fed. Gov. versus the amount of taxes car owners and truck-using-corporations pay did you? Yea, like to see the results of that one.
Nov. 1, 2011, 4:52 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Just when you thought the issue was put to bed, BB brought it back with some relevant arguments. Just so you know, BB, I feel you on why West St is getting this bike lane--my initial impression was, why West? why not Franklin? Well, the city is following a mandate to stretch a bike lane across the Brooklyn waterfront. That's why it's on West St.

Nevertheless, if it is a largely untrafficked street, how would this increase the discourtesies your describing? I mean, bikers can't flip pedestrians off if they're biking somewhere pedestrians aren't, right? Still, I feel you on these arguments that sound anecdotal but lack statistical analysis or corroboration. I believe there have been public forums on the issues you're describing. Maybe we should look out for them and attend and, egad, participate. But commenting here is a good start to air grievance!
Nov. 1, 2011, 5:16 pm
ty from pps says:
Wow! Even my preemptive note didn't prevent SEVERAL folks from saying, "A $10 million bike lane!"

AARGH! How can anything be discussed when the discussants are such dummies?

The SECOND SENTENCE of the article... read it again. Here, I'll cut-and-paste it for you: "City officials last week revealed the $10-million project, which would include new pipes, a full repaving and a new bike lane connected to the existing two-way lane on Kent Avenue."

Hmm... new pipes and a complete repaving of the street. I'm thinking the paint and markings for the bike lane will probably be about 1% (or less) of the costs here. So, stop being dummies and read.
Nov. 1, 2011, 5:18 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Don't be unfair. It's true, some of us got that mistake, but we're past it now to other issues.
Nov. 1, 2011, 5:25 pm
Taxpaying cyclist from Brooklyn says:
Roads do not pay for themselves:

According to the report, the amount spent on highways, roads, and streets has exceeded the amount raised through taxes, tolls, and other “user fees” by $600 billion since the interstate highway system was first built in the 1950s—”a massive transfer of general government funds to highways.” Moreover, the report points out, most states exempt gas from state sales taxes, diverting those tax revenues to highways in the form of gas taxes. (This situation is even more pronounced in states, like Washington State, where gas-tax revenue can only be spent on highways.) As the report notes, “the shuffling that allows drivers to shift a part of their tax burden to a fund that largely benefits themselves is something extremely rare in our tax system. It is an exception—not the realization of some universally accepted principle of public finance.”

In reality, user fees pay only about half percent of highway costs, down 10 percent in the past decade. The reason for this gap is that because state and federal gas taxes haven’t grown at the rate of inflation, the total amount of gas taxes collected shrunk 32 percent between 1998 and 2009.


Without massive subsidies from all taxpayers, including those who don't drive or who drive very little, everyday drivers would find it too expensive to drive everyday.
Nov. 1, 2011, 7:06 pm
henry ford from bay ridge says:
It's quite simple to attach an e-z pass to your front handlebars. Just sayin.....
Nov. 1, 2011, 9:43 pm
Fred from Victorian Flatbush says:
The City schools have larger classes, the police has a smaller class, library hours are cut, yet we have $10 million for a bike lane, and $300,000 for a study for a subway to serve NJ commuters? Is the Mayor kidding?
Nov. 1, 2011, 11:09 pm
ty from pps says:
Hey Fred. Apparently I have to repeat myself.

Wow! Even my preemptive note didn't prevent SEVERAL folks from saying, "A $10 million bike lane!"

AARGH! How can anything be discussed when the discussants are such dummies?

The SECOND SENTENCE of the article... read it again. Here, I'll cut-and-paste it for you: "City officials last week revealed the $10-million project, which would include new pipes, a full repaving and a new bike lane connected to the existing two-way lane on Kent Avenue."

Hmm... new pipes and a complete repaving of the street. I'm thinking the paint and markings for the bike lane will probably be about 1% (or less) of the costs here. So, stop being dummies and read.
Nov. 2, 2011, 7:55 am
ty from pps says:
Yes, but TY, it's quite clear that whereas the numerical fraction of the budget is 1% for the lane, the point that SEVERAL people are making that YOU'RE not understanding is that clearly, whatever is done under the ground infrastructure-wise, the bike lane is clearly the impetus for the project. Not new pipes. Not the complete repaving. THE BIKE LANE. Ok? So please stop it. Fred from Victorian Flatbush's point is actually well-taken: there are indeed several items in desiderata all over the City, and even though I enjoy and support bike lanes, one must pause considering the budget gaps for those essential items and the budget consideration for this non-essential items. And please don't give us nonsense that the infrastructure work is essential--West St is pure gentrification-ville and, outside of industry, the rest of its traffic is pure conspicuous leisure.
Nov. 2, 2011, 9:04 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Excuse me, ty from pps, I have no idea why that response seems addressed FROM you. It's from me.

And to the rest of you with your anecdotal nonsense of "seeing cyclists violate more than cars" [!], do you have stats to back your arguments up? Because I can also supply anecdotes that are as telling about auto-drivers: like the multitude of automobiles I see entering the bike lanes, or the time when the lanes were first being laid down by the city, and deep and hard automobile skidmarks were etched into the lanes to sabotage their application [truly the sign of a disturbed and wretched mind[s]], or that automobiles pass my home every friggin day blasting their radios in the middle of the night at slow motion, or, if I wanted to go back to when I was a kid and refer to sheer waste--I had friends who purchased automobiles to drive around the same blocks dozens of times a day to impress their adolescent female friends.

All of this I say with no statistics or analysis whatsoever to back it up, and I don't expect any of it to be taken with any certainty or authenticity--the same way your silly and ridiculous anecdotes should mean nothing at all to a rational and discerning eye.
Nov. 2, 2011, 9:10 am
Kevin from Flatbush says:
Ty, you got it backwards.
The necessary road work improvements are the impetus for the street design improvements.
The same is true on Eastern Parkway by G.A.P.
They needed to repair underground infrastructure, so the tack on the cost of painting a bike lane.
Nov. 2, 2011, 10:38 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
That wasn't Ty, that was me. I'm not sure why it posted like that, but I immediately followed it up with a correction.

As to the impetus issue, I'm not convinced. Further elaborate on why the impetus is switched and is similar to Eastern Parkway by G.A.P. I would say you're ignoring some innate differences between West Street and Eastern Parkway. Sure, "infrastructure" is a common denominator, but "infrastructure" is a common denominator for the entire civilized world, my friend. What distinguishes here is the difference between value and utility, and the space between those two are very different between the two locations.
Nov. 2, 2011, 10:53 am
Kevin from Flatbush says:
The reports of commenters above seem to indicate the West St. needs repaving, regardless of whether or not a bike lane is painted on top of that new asphalt. I've only been there a couple times, and not very recently so I can't confirm those reports.

But by their accounts, it is a mess.

And yes, Eastern Parkway and West St. are obviously very different. What unites them is the way that bike lane opponents make the mistake of attributing the entire cost of a very large project to the very small component of putting green paint on a street.
Nov. 2, 2011, 11:18 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Kevin, I am not a bike lane opponent. On the contrary, ban automobiles for all I wish and make the entire width of the street bike and pedestrian lanes. But you are confusing "cost" with cause, a basic and widespread fallacy that the most consequential items of any activity period are those with biggest price tags. My opposition is not that the lane and its attendant beneath-the-surface works is $10 million--that is a pittance in savings in health and the real value is if it in any way shape or form contributes to our move away from a fossil fuel society. But simultaneously I must oppose ——--there are many different streets and corners and avenues and sewers and light poles and electrical cabling and reservoir water works that need infrastructure work all over North Brooklyn--the reason why this one gets the nod is because it's West Street, and that is a value and conspicuous leisure determination [consider Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class]. The sheer traffic on Eastern Parkway necessitated its infrastructure changes--a utility-based determination. Let's keep that in mind--the fact that the paint on the lane is inexpensive in terms of dollars belies its much more significant worth as an item of gentrification.
Nov. 2, 2011, 12:22 pm
ty from pps says:
Dennis -- You're being ridiculous. If you honestly think they are repaving West Street and replacing the underground infrastructure *because of* the proposed bike lane... you are CRAZY. Bats--t crazy.

They could patch a few of the divots and apply green paint if it was *all about the bikelane* -- but, guess what, it's NOT. It's about fixing a road and underground infrastructure... and, as a side benefit, they will be outfitting the road as a bike-friendly street when they complete the project.
Nov. 2, 2011, 1:44 pm
ian from bushwick says:
I don't think I'd ever need to bike on this street.
Nov. 2, 2011, 1:45 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Look, let's agree on supporting the lanes and leave the rest at that, because we don't agree on those issues. Sorry.
Nov. 2, 2011, 1:49 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Excuse me, ty, there is one thing I must clarify, I am not say they are repaving West Street and replacing the underground infrastructure because of the proposed bike lane--you don't summarize nor understand well. What I am saying is that they are repaving West Street and replacing the underground infrastructure despite exigencies elsewhere, essential items, as Fred from Victorian Flatbush was pointing out, because of the gentrification of North Brooklyn. Bike lanes, as much as I support them, signify that--its utility notwithstanding.
Nov. 2, 2011, 2:24 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
First off, I wasn't even online yesterday. Also, how could I have been making posts durring the day when I was at work where there is no computers there at all? One other thing, I lost all internet yesterday even after comming back home when a generator for my area went at. Whoever it was, that wasn't me, but someone using my name. Anyway, I can't believe how much was spent for making this lane when there is more important things that it can be used for such as keeping the number of teachers that were laid off recently or even saving hospitals and firehouses that were forced to closed down due to lack of funding. Who would ride their bicycles through an industrial area anyway when it's probably not safe for them to do so?
Nov. 2, 2011, 4:54 pm
jay from bed-stuy says:
this is one time i am glad the city is deficient in doing the hood the same way. keep your pedestrian/bike plazas and the money, thx.
Nov. 10, 2011, 10:02 am

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: