Use of Class 2 bike lanes is generally more sensible where there are many intersections. Personally, even if a Class 2 bike lane were created on Houston, I'd still use the nearby one-way streets. Major arteries like Houston St. in Manhattan and Queens Blvd. in Queens will continue to be dangerous for peds and cyclists until speed limits are enforced.

1. Studies have shown that the more familiar motorists are with cyclists, the less likely they are to hit them. Elevated bikeways separate bikes from cars, removing this familiarity.

2. Bike lanes, if done right, have a traffic calming effect. Separated bikeways do not.

3. Elevated structures require a lot of maintenance.

4. Separated paths require extra policing.

I'd support an elevated bikeway in three circumstances: (a) an adaptive reuse of an existing structure, like the High Line, (b) a short connector between existing greenways or (c) converted automobile facilities. If you want to convert the BQE into an elevated bikeway you have my full support.

http://www.ci.la.ca.us/PLN/Cwd/GnlPln/TransElt/BikePlan/B3Study.htm
West Los Angeles Veloway
This Bicycle Plan designates Class I and Class II facilities in the vicinity of UCLA and the Veterans Administration complex in Westwood as an endorsement of the West Los Angeles Veloway. The ultimate alignment of this facility may vary from that shown on the Bicycle Plan map(s); final design is subject to the approval of responsible agencies. The elevated Class I portion of this bikeway would provide for direct bicycle access to and from Westwood Village/UCLA campus over Wilshire Boulevard, ultimately linking up with the Santa Monica Transit Parkway Bike Path at Sepulveda Boulevard.
Bicycle access to Major Economic Activity Centers requires particular attention regarding the mapped Bicycle Plan Citywide Bikeway System:

The proposed routes are less direct than straight-through on Houston St. - that's part of the tradeoff and why the CB was initially skeptical of the DOT plan, until hearing out the presentation.

For everyone that has been contributing to this thread - note that there is a public discussion at the CB2 Transportation Committee meeting on Tuesday, 4/10 - see the StreetsBlog calendar.

But the real disadvantage to Bleecker and Prince Street bike lanes is that neither street is truely a through street. Neither one begins or ends anywhere near the East Side or West Side greenways. Where are cyclists to go west of Sixth Avenue or East of the Bowery? We need safe routes that will actually take us somehwhere.

It will also improve the flow of traffic. With cars pulling in and out of parking spaces, things slow down considerably, and people are tempted to honk.

You can't pay me to ride on Houston more than a block as it is now. The road is in awful shape and it is THE major high speed cross town artery for car, and like it or not, that's not going to change, even if they finally finish fixing the road.

However, I was swayed a bit by the argument that people are going to ride on Houston no matter what and that the DOT has a responsibility to make it reasonably safe for bicycles. This makes a good deal of sense too, though it's a somewhat falacious argument since it would be wonderful to ride up West Street or Broadway, but no one is talking about putting protected bicycle lanes there. (Yeah yeah, I know there's the greenway path.) Also arguing that the DOT has to make Houston safe because it's on the bicycle map as a route is a ridiculous argument as well. Makes more sense to argue to change the map than the street.

Anyway, my thoughts are a little scattered, but in an ideal world, cast one vote for bike protections on Houston AND lanes on Prince and Bleeker. When could more bike lanes not be a good thing.

I am writing with regard to the Department of Transportation's proposal to put
a bike lane on Prince and Bleecker Streets instead of on Houston Street.

As a cyclist, I find that the Prince/Bleecker proposal is flawed for four reasons.
First, it is circuitous. Second, the official NYC cycling map, which is printed
and distributed by the DOT, clearly designates Houston Street as a proposed/planned
bike route. Neither Bleecker nor Prince Streets are designated bike routes on that
map. Because the DOT's map encourages cyclists to ride on Houston Street, I
believe the DOT has a duty to put a bike lane on Houston and take steps to prevent
additional fatalities and accidents on Houston. Third, a bike lane the entire length
of Houston from the FDR to the West Side Highway would provide cyclists a clear
shot all the way across Manhattan. Fourth, many cyclists will continue to ride
on Houston Street even if the DOT creates bike lanes on Prince and Bleecker Streets.
Thus, the DOT has an ongoing responsibility to make Houston Street a safer place
to cycle.

After studying the DOT plan and the CB2 bicycle subcommittee's proposal for
a Class I bike lane, I would recommend a compromise. Instead of the DOT's proposal
for Bleecker/Prince, a buffered bike lane similar to the one that presently exists
on Eighth Avenue should be created in one eastbound lane and one westbound lane
on Houston. In addition, the DOT could significantly enhance safety for both cyclists
and pedestrians on Houston by reducing the number of intersections where left hand
turns are permitted.

Thank you for considering my suggestion.

I'd rather just use Prince as is and ride down the middle of the street - you get some honking, but at least you are completely visible and not getting sideswiped.

You gotta buffer the lanes - which they will never do on the side streets. I personally hate riding on the Carlton and Dean st paths - cars act crazier on the side streets than they do on the big roads - at least on the big roads they are mostly going fast in their lane in a straight line. I'm smart at intersections and know to be on full alert.

The real solution of course is to stop turning the cross streets into mini-highways. DOT needs to slow Houston, but since that will never happen I'll settle for a buffered lane on Houston that will at least protect cyclists using that road.

DOT clearly doesn't want to do anything to offend the car people. So it will take a few more deaths i guess until they are completely embarrassed into changing Houston. Creating lanes on the side streets surely won't prevent more deaths from happening.

I was using "pigheaded" to refer to bikers who would insist on riding on busy streets to make a point about bikers' rights, even when a parallel route would serve their needs just as well.

I wasn't using the term as criticism; a certain amount of pigheadedness -- willingness to annoy the powerful and provoke confrontations -- is essential in any movement. The people who ride on busy streets to make a point are making an important point, and I'll defend their right to ride there, even if I think they're crazy to do so.

But if I had to ride in that neighborhood, I'd look for a less intense ride, a block or so away.

And yes, that is dreamlike.

I think it was a mistake to make those streets wide enough to accommodate so many cars, a mistake that should be rectified. I used to work on that part of Sixth Avenue, and it was very unpleasant to try to cross, compared with the narrow streets of SoHo. If that were made two-way it would be a big improvement for the neighborhood. Houston is two-way but it's even wider, which is why it's just as unpleasant if not more.

These are city streets, folks, not highways. City means people. These streets existed before cars did. There's no reason to assume high car speed is a right or a force that can't be altered.

I know, I'm dreaming. But I'm right, aren't I?