That is such a stretch if the DOT is going to advertise that as a connector. Your comment about leaving Christopher Street to bike up Eighth is right on the money.

An idea then: what they should do is the following - have numerous short crosstown bike lanes every 10 blocks or so that intersect 8th Avenue from the Greenway. THEN, maybe you could claim it really is a connector. Now, it is not and they should know better.

As I understand it, the Eighth Avenue bike lane connects the Hudson River
Greenway to Central Park as follows: the Christopher Street bike lane
connects the Hudson River Greenway to the Hudson Street bike lane, and the
Hudson Street bike lane connects to the Eighth Avenue lane, which goes all
the way north to Central Park. Here's a map:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/bike/cwbm.shtml

- - -
As we know, the Eighth Ave. bike lane does not quite make it to Central Park, even after it is rudely interrupted at Port Authority. And the thought that someone would leave the greenway at Christopher Street to bike up Eighth Avenue to get to the park is pretty funny. Among many other things, what we could actually use is a connection from the greenway at W 59th Street to Central Park and all the way across to the Queensboro Bridge.

To the Editor:

Ryan Russo of the DOT boasted of the city's bike improvements, citing a new bike lane connection between Central Park and Hudson River Park. Did you fact-check that bit of information? If so, please tell me where exactly this connection exists, as I would love to know about it and would use it regularly. If not, you owe your readers a correction--and your letter-writer a scolding.

- - -
The last time I got a letter into the City section, I had to provide a ridiculous amount of information to back up what I was saying, which contradicted and clarified a published article. They should have made Russo jump through similar hoops.

The vast majority of Federal money that winds up in NYCDOT's hands is earmarked for the East River bridges. There is very little available for anything else. For the most part, the City is on its own financially for the sorts of issues we're talking about. This is one of the big differences between the U.S. and Europe. In Europe, cities are treated as national assets. Here, they're not.

"And one final point: the fact that many, many other cities around the country and around the world are doing things, things which do not cost that much money in the scheme of things (compared to transit, highways, bridges and tunnels), proves that NYC *could* do it if we wanted to."

I agree that there are relatively low cost things that the city could and should do more of. I just don't happen to think that three foot wide striped lanes on the left side of Manhattan avenues are a very good idea. From what others have written, some of the bike lane designs in other boroughs appear to work better. If so, great. However, I still think that enforcement and outreach are at least as important, and are not getting the attention they need. With this in mind, and knowing what I know about the budgets, I think it makes more sense to advocate for this than for a construction program that will never happen. I'm not saying "do nothing", I'm saying "do something more appropriate than what is being done now".

The cost is minimal: about $20,000 per mile (for traffic analysis, design and labor), 80 percent of which is reimbursed by the federal government. So there is a way for us to spend a little money and get the Feds to reimburse 80% and we are not doing more of this. Crap, we SHOULD redesign every street if only to get the 80% reimbursement from the Feds...

I also realize that money for the Second Avenue Subway is separate from the city budget. Most state and local capital investments use a substantial chunk of federal $. There are easy solutions at the federal level - can't FDOT/FHWA (if not FTA) allocate money for a comprehensive bicycle network project just as easily as for highway projects? And our state senators could earmark SAFETEA-LU funds for such a purpose as well.

But even at the city level, even if all of that $17 billion couldn't actually be redirected to a comprehensive streetscape project, there are certainly many ways money gets juggled around between the different agencies and jurisdictions. You work for the DOT, you know this.

And one final point: the fact that many, many other cities around the country and around the world are doing things, things which do not cost that much money in the scheme of things (compared to transit, highways, bridges and tunnels), proves that NYC *could* do it if we wanted to. Yes, our bureaucracy is tricky, but most things get done when the mayor or governor wants them done, and a project to overhaul a network of NYC's streets would be no different.

At a certain level of hard-nosed realism, you become just another bureaucrat adding to the institutional inertia.

To respond to "Someguy at DOT" I told a motorist the other day that he was not suppposed to park in a bike lane on this very same Clinton Street in bklyn...and guess what, he said he was sorry and he left! This has happened to me in Manhattan as well, although its true that they usually ignore you.

In terms of cars repecting Bike lanes, I ride 20 miles round trip every single day from bklyn to the upper east side, and I can say that except for double parked cars and the occasional cabbie - drivers actually DO respect the bike lane. I even saw a Pepsi delivery truck on 71st St month pulled over to make a delivery, but he did not block the bike lane (I thanked the driver).

"I would take issue with the idea that bike lanes are useless though. The buffered lane on Lafayette St. is great to ride on…"

It's better than the ones without buffers, but it still suffers from the double parking problem, the intersection problem, and the utility cut problem. Only marginally better than nothing IMHO.

"In addition, signage does make a big diiference."

I strongly disagree. NYC is overwhelmed with signage. There are far more sings at every intersection than drivers can read. Do honkers pay attention to the "don't honk" signs? Do litterers read the sign and hold onto their garbage? What makes you think that "Yield to Pedestrian in Crosswalk" signs are any more useful? Every driver knows the rules of the road. They just don't follow them, and/or they don't pay sufficient attention to driving carefully. Adding distractions in the form of (mostly cryptic) signs does not help.

"Reminding cars to yield to bikes, or to share the road…or in taxis, so passengers are careful about opening the doors."

I think a far more common reaction to constant reminders is to tune said reminders out, and I think there's a lot of research that bears this out.

At least with cabs, the dooring problem stems from flagrant violations of traffic rules -- stopping the cab away from the curb, and allowing the passenger to get out on the traffic side. Cabbies know they're not supposed to do this. They do it anyway because they want to be able to take off quickly after the fare gets out, and because they don't want to jeopardize a tip by telling the fare not to do something dumb and illegal (a form of jaywalking). This is an enforcement problem, not an information problem.

"These constant reminders will have an effect - and it will not break poor little New York City’s DOT budget."

I don't want to get into too much detail here, but the portion of DOT's budget over which its officials have any meaningful discretion is shockingly small. They idea that there is a signifcant pot of money available enhancements to the streetscape is way off.

Also, the money for the 2nd Ave subway and other transit projects is a completely different pot of money and is not fungible. If the State (which owns the MTA) spent nothing on subway improvements, that wouldn't free up a penny for street reconstruction or bicycle programs. The balkanization infrastructure funding and responsibility is also one of the underlying problems that gets insufficient attention.

As for Aaron's comments, I'm afraid I disagree. I think we would all like bike lanes to have these effects, but I think the reality is different. The majority of drivers either ignore bike lanes, or to the extent that they are aware of them, consciously refuse to alter the behaviors that encroach on them. I have seen no evidence that the bike lanes in NYC do anything to raise drivers' level of awareness of and consideration for bikes. Others' experiences may differ, but I've never had a positive outcome from saying to someone politely "excuse me, but do you realize that you're blocking a bike lane?".

And "regular" lanes in other sections can work well. For example, in Brooklyn between Carroll Gardens/Brooklyn Heights/Park Slope there are many lanes that work very well. For instance, I can remember Clinton Street before the bike lane went in. Cars would try to fit two abreast, would frequently be weaving all over the road, and when lining up for lights they would be idling all over the road at angles making it hard just to ride your bike up to get to the light. Now after the bike lane, the cars stay in one even path, and even when there are back ups, there is a place for the cyclist to smoothly sail by everyone and the cars are noticeably slower.

Painted bike lanes work in many areas, esp. neighborhoods with lesser traffic. I think the comments from "someone at DOT" are more directly applied to high-traffic areas or Manhattan in which case there is a point to be made for separating lanes where possible which I would be all for.

I quite agree with most of what "Someone at DOT" says about how, according to my liberal paraphrase, the bike master plan is sort of the wrong tree to bark up.

I have always thought that *SIDE-OF-STREET* bike lanes are a very sharp, double-edged sword. That's an improvement from my prior opinion that they were death traps.

One day when I'm not so lazy I will craft the most succinct explanation I can of my ideas for bike lanes. The ideas are somewhat unrealistic, but as "Someone" and others have pointed out, NYC makes almost all ideas for bike lanes unrealistic: I think mine have a little hope of getting somewhere one day.

Heck with it, here's just a quick blurb of one of them: a City-initiated publicity campaign that says, to all motorists, official and public, "if you MUST double park on an Avenue, DON'T pull into the bike lane. Stay in the car lane." (The idea is that pulling into the bike lane still obstructs the car lane, so it doesn't help anyone, but hurts everyone. Staying in the car lane only hurts one group, motorists, whom are already hurt no matter HOW you double park.)

I know, such a public information campaign is rather a longshot, but it's in line with the ideas you guys seem to be going for--that "education" is more affordable for the City than physical restructuring, and therefore a more likely strategy.

I somewhat disagree with your assessment of bike lanes. Painted lines are not always effective but they do work, especially when they are done with buffers. If we had a coherent network of buffered lanes connecting bridges and parks, cycling would likely increase dramatically. Painted lanes are a form of "education" for driver and cyclists. They advertise that "this is a street where people use bikes." They often help channelize and calm traffic on over-wide streets like Fifth Ave in Brooklyn. They reserve the space for future reconfigurations. And they make bike infrastructure a part of DOT's job.

Can you imagine what kinds of citywide improvements to streets could have been done with that extra $15 billion? Would it have been so unrealistic to have greatly expanded the amount of streets reconfigured to better accomodate bikes in that scenario?

I agree with Jason that the defeatist attitude is misplaced. I appreciate pragmatism but it is incorrect that the city does not have the money to make these kinds of investments. It's just a matter of where the money is allocated - when we're talking millions and billions of dollars, it's hard for the minds of mortals to keep it in perspective. There is a big difference between even $5 billion and $10 billion - that extra $5 billion can make a world of difference for other investments.

I would take issue with the idea that bike lanes are useless though. The buffered lane on Lafayette St. is great to ride on...
In addition, signage does make a big diiference.
Reminding cars to yield to bikes, or to share the road...or in taxis, so passengers are careful about opening the doors. These constant reminders will have an effect - and it will not break poor little New York City's DOT budget.

One more thing - the typical govt. attidute that 'its too hard, unless we do an entire overhaul' is the exact kind of thinking that makes situations grow much much worse over time

its tim to get moving DOT

First, let me say that I work for DOT, but in an area that has nothing to do with the bicycle programs, though I sometimes bend people's ears. My thoughts on this subject have zero impact on DOT's bicycle programs. So if you disagree with me, don't worry -- everyone here does, too, so there's no risk of me contaminating policy.

I'm a native NY'er and lifelong cyclist who has experienced every possible bike lane configuration the city has thrown at us. I've also travelled quite a bit in more bike friendly places, so I think I have a good sense for what works and what doesn't.

I avoid striped bike lanes. They are completely pointless. Every one of them is encroached upon by double parkers, obliterated by utility cuts and steel plates, too close to the parking lanes, and more dangerous than the middle of the street at intersections.

The so called "master plan" for bike lanes is utterly useless. The failure to implement it is of no consequence (or possibly even a blessing in disguise). Andrew Vesselinovitch is full of hot air on this subject. Casting him as some sort of whistle blower forced out by an evil commissioner is silly.

The problem is not that one commissioner does a better job than another of painting bike symbols on the street. It's more that almost everyone (including the bicycle "advocates") is working from the wrong paradigm on this issue. There are only two ways to make a street safer for cycling: completely reconfigure it so that cars and bikes are much more separated, or radically alter the behavior of all users of the street. Painting lines does neither of these things.

Realistically, massive reconstruction of the streetscape into something more bike friendly just is not going to happen. The city does not have the money for this.

This leaves behavior modification. In the long run, I think we should be pressuring officials to enforce laws that protect non-cars, e.g., those prohibiting double parking, dooring, dangerous construction conditions, failure to yield, etc. TA has been making noise about this and deserves credit.

We should also be clamoring for public education campaigns (e.g., pro-bike PSA's, changes in driver education curricula). As far as I can see, no one is really doing this.

How out of touch was the BICYCLING MAG article which Russo cites? The League of American Bicyclists has a Bicycle Friendly Communities program that awards Bronze, Silver, and Gold & Platinum status to cities for their efforts to promote cycling. The cities actually have to apply to the LAB to get considered. New York City is not ranked anywhere with other major cities. Has there ever been a conversation within DOT to apply for consideration for one of these LAB awards? I doubt it.

Rich

NYC DOT has 6 people working on bike planning. NYC population? 8 million or so.

According to the last statistic I read: Chicago DOT has 19 - 19(!) - NINETEEN(!) - staff persons working on bike planning. Chicago population? Almost 3 million.

Extrapolate:
Chicago: 19 for 2.9 million
NYC: 6 for 8 million
If we use that ratio - if Chicago DOT were in charge in NYC? There would be 54 people working on bicycling here.

Add in - it is far colder in Chicago in the winter so they have more obstacles to riding then we do. And NYC is the ONLY city in the U.S. where owning a car in your household puts you in the minority.

So how serious is DOT about bicycle planning?