As you can tell from my previous comment I agree with your point, but MBMO is right that we should not get caught in the "either/or" box. I would be the first to protest against any attempt to kick bicyclists off roadways and into bike lanes. Current NYC rules allow bicyclists to use a traffic lane rather than a bicycle lane in virtually every circumstance where that choice would be reasonable.

As far as continued advocacy for a Houston Calss I after a Class II is installed on Prince/Bleecker--DOT would try to resist on the ground that the Class II obviates the Class I. But that is ridiculous. If there were serious momentum for a Class I on Houston, all DOT would need to do is remove the thermoplast on Bleecker/Prince and the supposed reduncancy would be cured. And if there was a viable design for a Class I on Houston that was truly safe, I would support that project at the cost of removing the Class II, because of the practical and symbolic significance of a Class I crosstown route on Houston.

I used to be a fast, fit, commuter cyclist.

Now I'm a slow, out-of-shape, father of two cyclist.

It's remarkable how much that life change has changed my outlook on the kind of bike facilities that I'd like to see in NYC.

What the typical bike advocate or "hardcore daily cyclist" wants, isn't necessarily the thing that's going to enable me to ride a kid to school on the bike or allow an older person to pick up groceries on a bike.

I think our ultimate, long distance goal in NYC should be to have a city where your granny feels safe riding her bike. I saw it in Copenhagen. I know it can be done...

And, yeah, physically separated lanes are a part of that vision for sure.

Even if that's the case, you are talking about EXISTING bikers, not new POTENTIAL bikers. Do you want more people to bike or not? If so, you have to face the fact that the reason most people who are not regular bikers don't bike more is because the safety issues frighten them (especially in NYC), not because it isn't fast enough for their purposes.

Your language exhibits the same spandex-jock-biker mentality that is currently holding back biking from being a legitimate and widespread form of transportation in this city.

That doesn't help people making non-river-to-river trips on Houston Street, which I think constitute the vast majority of Houstin St bikers.

Houston will always be the big prize, because big arterials have better light progressions and are much faster cycling routes. When given the choice most cyclists pick faster over safer.

I dont accept an either/or alternative. Why not bike lanes on Houston, Prince and Bleeker? I support all and more bike lanes! Bike lanes on Houston would save lives and bike lanes on the side streets that are already easily transversed by cyclists are great but avoid the real issues on Houston.

Its a life or death decision here. Will the DOT and CB2 put up signage on Houston telling cyclists to move off that road because it will never become safe? I dont want to shed more tears for dead cyclists on Houston St. Do you?

It seems that a number of the hard-core "Class I Houstonites" are not just trying to win optimal bicycling infrastructure but also trying to achieve other goals, such as pedestrian safety, general traffic calming, traffic reduction, and even (reading between the lines) a symbolic victory over the forces of motoring. I sympathize with all those goals. Often, bike infrastructure projects are a great way of dovetailing them into a single agenda. But it seems like that is no longer the case with this particular project, based on the comments of those somewhat inside the process (see comments of Ian D. and Aaron).

Will (#3) says bicyclists will "automatically" choose Houston. I think that's too simple. I have taken Houston cross town when I am alone, and found it full of aggressive, impatient and poorly-skilled motorists who think they are on a controlled access highway. Yeah, it would be great to "calm" (i.e., "tame") this roadway by taking some lanes away, but short of that, it's going to remain stressful and dangerous for bicyclists.

Even with a Class 1 bike lane, I don't think I would ever take my kids on Houston (and yes, #15, I am a "daily hardcore cyclist" but I am also a parent and usually have at least one child with me). I would always stick to Prince Street or its equivalent. I doubt there are many parents that would disagree.

I understand (even from a "pure" bike infrastructure perspective) that Houston has advantages over the side streets. There is too much competition on side streets, not only with double parked cars but also with pedestrians who are far more inclined to cross mid-block. If the Prince/Bleecker option is taken, the bicyclists who use that route will have to persistently and endlessly remind other road users of the bike lane rules. But the trade-off for this inconvenience is the superior safety and reduced stress the side streets offer. There are many bicyclists (both hard-core daily bicyclists and occasional bicyclists who might step up to daily bicycling) who are willing to make this trade-off. And the experienced urban cyclists will still have available to them the superior speed (and, let's face it--the thrill) of Houston when they want it.

1. Only accept Houston St bike lanes now and reject the Bleeker/Prince solution.

Success would be many years away even if the stars align as Aaron points out. And then it would be over the objections of the traffic engineers who would consider it an orphan, let it fail and then say "I told you so".

I truly believe Ian and everyone else has done yeoman's work in trying to make this happen. But there comes a point where advocates need to recognize a relatively good deal on the table and take it.

2. Get behind Russo and Benson's plan and let them own it and make it work.

If it fails, it puts more pressure on a Houston St. lane down the road or for them to not use bleeker and Prince as through streets for cars. This would be around the same time as a new Mayor would be taking office anyway.

If it is a success, this could be a model for the rest of the bike network.

In terms of time, I don't think we are losing anything by taking a chance on the Bleeker/Prince solution.

That will go an enormous way of helping alot of people beyond the CB2 area and thus is why I could be convinced this is the best choice right now and since the turnaround on this would seem swift, I'd take it.

DOT's Ryan Russo and Josh Benson made a strong case for solving the Houston Street safety problem by using Prince and Bleecker as parallel routes. I was impressed by the thoughtfulness of their plan and the clear understanding of cyclists' needs that went into their planning. I think it's a good plan and it could work well.

DOT has made clear that it will not put a bike facility on Houston Street at this time. They are convinced that a Class I facility on Houston Street is not safe. It doesn't seem to me that any amount of public pressure will move them from that decision or convince one of their engineers to sign-off on the idea.

Personally, I don't want to wait 1,000 days until the end of the Bloomberg Administration and who knows how long after that for safe cycling across Lower Manhattan. So I'm willing to give this plan a shot. Russo and Benson are both daily bike commuters, smart guys and up-to-date on the latest urban planning thinking. I trust that they have cyclists' best interest in mind.

I think the cycling community's efforts would be better spent moving on to the next bike lane battle and fighting the opposition that's going to show up when neighborhood residents and merchants find out that they are losing nearly 200 on-street parking spaces.

just checkin' to see where the division in the ranks may lie.

I attended the committee hearing with the DOT presentation of the alternate Bleecker/Prince routes, and I must say that the DOT changed many minds that evening with all of the specifics as to why West Houston is not a good option for a protected bike lane. It is not a flip-flop if you research an issue, gain more information, and change your mind.

The Bleecker/Prince alternate route is a viable option, and if the cycling community attacks each other from within, we may lose our opportunity to make improvements to the DOT's proposal.

Let us learn a lesson from the Democrats and not eat our own for lunch.

I do see a pressing need for traffic calming and human-scale streetscapes on Houston Street, both for cyclists and pedestrians. The proposed Houston Street bike lane seemed like a possible way to do this.

If the DOT won't do it, my question is not, "well, where can we put the bike lane?" but "how else can we calm Houston Street?" If they won't do anything about that problem, I see nothing wrong with saying, "well, then we won't support any of your alternatives."

The only advantage I can see to the Bleecker/Prince plan is the removal of parking, but in that regard it has the potential to alienate motorists without much benefit to cyclists, and it could encourage motorists to speed as well.

My understanding about the Bike Boulevards in Berkeley was that one key feature is that in particular areas, the street is closed to motorized through traffic, with a barrier or a change of direction, but cyclists are allowed to continue through. Can anyone confirm this? And am I right that the DOT plan for "bike boulevards" on Prince and Bleecker streets involves no such restriction on auto travel?

in case you have not been following, it is in the hands of cb 2 now to decide on what options to consider, so what is wrong with contacting them? also, ian dutton did do a big flip flop on the houston street bike lane issue, and this is a big reason why cb2 and DOT are entertaining the ridiclous bleecker/prince streets option! just look at the name of his domain in his e-mail address. he should change his viewpoint and NOT compromise. his (and many others') compromise simply falls in the hands of the DOT and city's attempt to pander to motorists and truckers!

DEMANDING a bike lane for houston is what cyclists want. cyclists are the ones to be considered here! a bike lane on houston sreet will benefit local residents and pedestrians because it will provide a modicum of traffic calming!

btw, just saying, are you willing to divulge your contact on this page for all to write you and complain what a short sighted point of view you appear to be taking? probably not. for the record, i am not willing to divulge mine, thank you very much!

Just to realize where they are now, lets recall where they were at the end of August
http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/31/houston-street-bike-lane-rally/

Many elected officials rallied around making Houston Street safe for cyclists and pedestrians. Review them here find their contact information and call them on it!

It is not acceptable to accept DOT's view that they cannot make a street safe!

Where might we reach you to express our dissatisifaction?

Contact Ian Dutton, CB2 member and founder of Bike Houston Street info@bikehoustonst.net and ask him to change his mind about removing his support for a Houston Street Bike Lane.

Contact TA info@transalt.org and tell them how you feel about changing their stance on a Houston Street Bike Lane.