But I think you have your danger antennae waving at the wrong threat. According to the US DOT's Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, crashes involving "cars desperately looking for more precious parking spaces" are not particularly deadly, and certainly not the most dangerous driver, as you assert (that would be drivers turning, I believe).

As the researcher says, "For the few (n=10) crashes of this type, the vast majority involved a motorist pulling out from a parking space....This crash tended to be less severe than the average. There were no fatalities."

This 'alternative bike lane' will NOT prevent deaths and injuries on Houston St. and we will continue to hold the DOT responsible until they do the right thing and give us safe passage on Houston street.

Few will use these bike routes. Especially if the routes are full of cars desperately looking for more precious parking spaces --the most dangerous driver to pedestrians and bikers.

And you know what, a class I bike lane would be one of the best traffic calming devices here to protect everyone not on bikes on Houston as well.

why does the map above not have a red bike lane line ON bleecker between carmine and hudson/9th? instead the lane goes from clarkson to carmine to bleecker. that is not a direct link from 9th-hudson

as for fighting over the houston vs. bleecker/prince, the point is the DOT reneged on a long standing plan and there is absolutely NO excuse for that (a "promise" is a "promise" plus houston needs traffic calming!)! perhaps, if they had been A LOT more honest about it from the get go, many of us may feel better about it. as it stands, they screwed up royally, and i am not ready (if ever) to forgive them for that.

The seven turns is over-stated. Even the Bowery/2nd jog is quick, and almost always an easy dodge (assuming, yes, you run the light), and the 'turns' west of there are the same as a straight line when riding.

They should reverse flow on 2nd to B -- that's a little tricky because it would increase traffic. The 11/28 fire house rarely seemed to utilize 2nd heading West. I don't know what the is the western border of their coverage, but aside from that, I can't see a good reason of the reverse flow at 1st.

flp, agreed, it ought to connect to 9th Ave via Hudson & Bleecker Streets. That's an oversight.

Just to point out, they *DO* all connect - that's the beauty of it (or, they will when the paint is dry). I think it's really the first real integrated network. You can start at Ninth Ave. and 22nd St., ride down Ninth Ave. to Hudson to Bleecker and continue all the way to the end of Bleecker at Bowery. Then there is a zig-zag at Bowery onto E. 2nd St. you go all the way to First Ave. And just like things are still developing on Ninth Ave., I think we're going to continue seeing improvements such as signage even after the lane is painted.

Besides the link to the Hudson River Greenway via Clarkson and Carmine, there are also other uptown/downtown routes that will now interconnect (likewise with the E. 1st St./Prince/Charlton St. links). Downtown bike lanes are going to start to look tied together on the 2008 Bike Map. Not to say that there's not more to be done...

As to your "time is of the essence" point, I used to commute homewards in the evening via 9th Ave, Hudson, Bleecker, Mott, Spring, Bowery and Delancey to the Williamsburgh Bridge, and never thought it was particularly time-wasting. Maybe conditions have changed; I wouldn't know.

More generally, I would prefer a policy of developing bike lanes on lower-density commercial streets that could get people doing errands out of taxis and onto bikes. I feel that this plan supports such a policy.

but yeeeeshhhhh, who the f wants to make all those damn turns to follow the bike lane? for many bike commuters, time is of the essence, and they don't want to do people watching especially if a good 1/4 or 1/3 of them end up jay walking.

it all would so much simpler and more effective if the lane were on houston street ALL the way (heading west at least). OK heading east from the west side would require a slight divergence, but it does not need to continue on bleecker. instead, after clarkson direct the lane down varick to king, then onto 6th to houston - only 4 turns rather than 7!

In addition, there are obvious congestion and safety problems created by some reckless cyclists speeding down busy Prince in their own private lane, running red lights, and hitting unwitting tourists and residents.

Gee, the proposed Carmine Street lane is just a few blocks from where a reckless motorist sped down busy Sixth Avenue and killed an unwitting resident. Maybe motorists don't deserve their own private lanes.