at any rate, why not use the design that is working in the cities with the world's highest rates of cycling? we will never get those numbers here until people feel safe on bikes, and i for one will never feel truly safe with parked cars on one side of me (threatening to pull out or open their doors) and moving cars on the other. those white lines on the road are pretty meaningless to most drivers, whether they are at an intersection or in the middle of the block.

which brings up another point: the intersections would be much safer for bikes if drivers were trained to look for them, as they are in cities with really significant numbers of cyclists. we need safe lanes to get the numbers, and we need the numbers to truly influence behavior of drivers.so let's start with the lanes.

this is the design used in european cities with very high rates of cycling, and makes the lane much safer by eliminating this conflict between parked/parking cars and bikes. why not make 9th street the first one in NYC?

As a practical matter, this simply means that cars should stay out of the bike lane until actually ready to turn, then, if there are no bicyclists proceeding, cross the bike lane and make the turn. This presents no great obstacle to motorists, and certainly is less of a burden than yielding to the pedestrians who will be in the crosswalk at a slower speed than bicyclists, and in greater numbers, with the right of way, in the same turning scenario under discussion.

In addition, since the bike lane markings are removed in intersections, and motorists have to use due care to avoid hitting bicyclists in any event--bike path or no--the bike path does not add any restriction on the turning motorist. NYS VTL § 1146.

When you consider how few bicyclists there are, how many pedestrians there are, the relative speed of the two in clearing an intersection, and state law requiring motor vehicles to yield to both, you can't credibly argue that a bike path will increase waiting times for vehicles to turn, even if it results in a doubling or tripling of cyclists using the route in question.

Glad you clarified DiBlasio's support.

However, cops or parking agents can't be expected to interpret what things like "excessive" ticketing means. The message that goes to them from management is to avoid 9th Street. Why should they bother with the hassle of getting the boss pissed when there are so many other places to ticket.

If there really is room for load/unload then DOT should sign-it to allow that. It remains bad policy to have a hodge podge of unwritten understandings about enforcement. It's also fundamentally unfair. Why for instance do 9th Street motorists get this and Bedford Ave or Vanderbilt Ave motorists don't? It's hard enough getting the cops to take bike lanes and bus lanes seriously without councilmembers telling them not to --- especially ones with a reputation for being thoughtful. So good for DiB for supporting the overall plan but not good on selective enforcement.

I believe that he has asked the local police precinct not to do excessive ticketing of cars loading and unloading on the residential blocks of 9th Street. I don't think that's unreasonable and, politically, I think it helps move this plan forward.

Bill now has a professional urban planner on staff and I really think that that has helped a ton in this case.

...I have been proven wrong. I am sorry all.

You do a public service by highlighting this story in such an insightful way. Keep this pieces coming. This is a great microcosm of the larger transportation reform debate.

Thing I dont fully understand is why Eric Adams, DiBlasio and other electeds are so convinced that Bob Levine and friends can help them more at the polls than Aaron Naperstek and friends. Does Bob know how to make his vote count more than livable streeters? Does he get 1000 votes?

DiBlasio should be embarassed for supporting a double parking waiver. It is such atrocious public policy to arbitrarily declare de facto double parking zones. Either the law applies to all or to none. If true, the precinct captain (I assume the police kind, not political) should be called on the carpet about this. All and all, really sordid and particularly sorry effort by the electeds.

It's as ridiculous as saying that there should only be one-way streets because having to wait for traffic in the opposite lane means you can't make a left turn.

Levine specializes in "not fully accurate." That's his whole thing.

Slick: Levine and all Community Board members are appointed, not elected. Sorry.