Those poor emergency vehicles are always conscripted into battle against livable streets! What I causally propose, as we judiciously slim down the personal vehicle transportation system over the next few decades, is that we let snow and ice do a little fast-forward a few days of the year. We know that snow clearing operations are massively expensive. In a fiscal crisis the city could decide to clear just enough lanes for buses and bikes, saving—who knows?—50% of the cost. In such conditions it would be unsafe to operate personal vehicles, and so they would be forbidden in affected areas until the snow could be more easily cleared at above freezing temperatures. Emergency vehicles would do much better under that scheme than last week's disorganized mess. I realize it isn't going to happen this winter, but that's no reason to release the emergency vehicle road-widening bugaboo from its cage. If cycling participation increases and sticks this summer as much as last, and if the financial crisis worsens, I don't think that a strategy of people-first traffic triage so unfeasible for next winter.

"Clearing the pedestrian ways next also makes sense to me."

Ah, but which one? I would say the Brooklyn Bridge shared path, given everything reported here. The criticism is not that the MB southern path is a pedestrian path, but that it's the least used of any traversal and that no one knew to take it. Yes, signs would not be amiss. A web site with all street and path conditions, too? (I was going to mention these practical things, but was having too much fun waving the pitchfork.) Broadcasting all transport conditions goes hand in hand with the idea that the city is not going to clear all lanes for personal bicycles or cars, but that it's going to clear what it can afford to clear and let people know the deal, precisely, before they set out. And if everyone has to take buses and subways some days, I'm fine with that as long as I know when I'm leaving.

"... but, instead, an application of a cost-benefit analysis in a sort-term crisis."

Ha. I'd love to see that spreadsheet. Yes it's more offensive when official vehicles park in bicycle lanes with impunity, but I wouldn't elevate to cost-benefit analysis what can be explained by habit and unpreparedness. The city's cycling constituency is growing and changing quickly; in years past marginalized cyclists seemed almost glad to prove they could survive government neglect and outright hostility. But in 2008 the DOT let the genie out of the bottle by facilitating mainstream cycling, and over the next few years other departments—or sub-depts of the DOT, whoever failed to keep any east-river-bridging bicycle routes open last week—are going to have to treat these noisy, organized voters fairly whether they like it or not.

Rode over the Brooklyn Bridge last night. It was still rutted ice over most of the span, but the bridge was absolutely loaded with pedestrians, including tourists, from end to end anyway. I was amazed.

In the middle of the span there was an ice free lane on the bike side, which I rode down ringing my bell as pedestrians moved aside. A couple yelled that it was unfair that the bike side was plowed and not the pedestrian side. But having ridden over in the storm on Friday, I know that the ice-free lane was created by the bridge structure, which blocked the sleet blowing down from the north.

no studded tire (or chains) for me here in NYC. They don't seem cost effective for the three weeks per year that might warrant them. When i lived in Minneapolis, well, that was a different story.

Fendergal:

they were plowing the West Side path when i was riding home Friday. Yesterday, it had clear conditions from Warren to 34th, and my experience in years past has been that the West Side path is generally cleared from Warren to at least 59th as the snow is falling. In the past, the path has been sketchy downtown of Warren, but the area that is under the auspices of the Hudson River Park people has always been good.

Re: the priority of clearing:

As much as i'd love to wave my pitchfork, heat the tar, and cut open some down pillows, i think that i have to side with the DOT's bridge-clearing priorities -- even though it did mean walking my bike over the MB. Call me a stooge of the car culture if you'd like, but years of living in Montana and Minnesota have me convinced of the greater good of clearing major throroughfares of snow first. Yes, gridlock happens, and cars backup, but it is still a heck of a lot easier to get a line of cars to move out of the way of fire engines than it is to get miles of foot-deep snow to move. Even if the order was set in place to let the Larrabees get to their LI estate, the net result is that emergency vehicles have a chance to get around to where they are needed.

Clearing the pedestrian ways next also makes sense to me. In the first place, that's all of us. In the second place, as most of us who crossed with our bikes on Monday can attest, cyclists can pretty easily become pedestrians. Sure, it means that we have to allot some extra travel time, but it isn't like we are suddenly stranded. Third, if the bike paths on the bridges are cleared before the pedestrian paths, the bike paths will *become* pedestrian paths. Anyone who doubts this just needs to cross the Brooklyn Bridge on days like Monday.

I am opposed to *never* clearing the bike paths on the bridges. I'm opposed to salting 100 feet up either end, whether claiming to have done the entire path or not. But, in the grand scheme of things, this isn't like using the bike lane next to City Hall as squad car parking, the Grand Street lane as limo parking, or the 2nd Avenue lanes as turn lanes: this is not a case of actively trying to generate Ghost Bikes, but, instead, an application of a cost-benefit analysis in a sort-term crisis.

That said, i think putting up a warning sign at the entrances to the Manhattan Bridge would not have been an excessive burden for the DOT. Knowing in advance that the bike path was untended would at least have give cyclists a chance to investigate an alternative, such as walking the pedestrian side.

Just my $0.02, and probably not even worth that.

Mitch--I know bike commuters in the Chicago area who ride all winter thanks to the studded tires. I have exactly the same misgivings about buying them as Larry Littlefield mentions for cold weather gear: I don't know how many days I'd actually need them. Also, right now money is tight. But I'm pretty sure they work as promised, within reasonable expectations, and would have made the bridge ride pretty safe.

I don't have any, since they don't make them in a size that fits my old 3-speed (and anyway they're kind of pricey), but the people around here who have them say they make big difference in terms of safety and confidence for winter bikers. Of course, they may be more cost-effective in our climate than in New York's; when the snow turns into rutted ice in the Upper Midwest, it stays like that for a long time.

I am not sure what is the most infuriating aspect. Is it that the cold and the wind that I feared Monday morning were a trifle compared to iced over bridges? That there are no alternatives to bridges, that we are cut off by bicycle from Manhattan right now? That bridge toll opponents think that having a charge for autos is what being cut off is? That even with their bone-dry streets, motorists were typically dysfunctional tonight, blocking each other's boxes, blocking crosswalks, honking ineffectually, and generally going nowhere while managing to ruin things for everyone in open air as well? That I probably still beat anyone stupidly driving from soho to downtown Brooklyn, even though I had to walk the bridge and get around a hundred camera tripods? That the headlights on the BQE were moving more slowly than I was walking? That the first non-auto bridge path the city bothered to clear (and the only one that isn't encased in ice as a result) is probably the least used one, the pedestrian side of the Manhattan Bridge?

Next time it snows, how about we save a million dollars and take care of bike and bus lanes only, and tell car commuters to go to hell the same as the city did cyclists this holiday week.

Ice is the problem, not snow. Once they let ice form, it's all over. We have a good neighborhood, so everyone got out and got the slush off the sidewalk before it froze, but I'll bet there are some bad sidewalks out there somewhere.

Why ride this time of year? To deal with all those extra calories!

Because if you do, there is always a change that BikesOnly will be out with his camera.

Truthfully, though, riding on snow days is bad, because it ruins the other days. It's like riding the free-flowing Manhattan Bridge all summer, and then having to fight the Brooklyn Bridge mob; or like riding Grand Street and then having to ride Canal. On snow days, the relative difference between my speed and that of the cars is much lower. Even the 4WD drivers are moving with more caution, and giving me more space, than on normal days. Sure, there are exceptions, but, in general, towncar drivers are less willing to try to make that tire-spinning left turn in front of me.

Plus, being out in nasty weather makes me grin.

Broadway between 42nd street and 59th was pretty horrible to ride in today, and the bike lane on 1st avenue up until about 99th street is almost impassable in many places.

A few years ago, on a snowy day, I decided to take the bus. But I was told the buses weren't running on my route, because they couldn't make it up a hill along the way. So I went home, got my bike, and rode to work. I had to go a little slower than usual, but it wasn't too bad.

Oh, you were asking about the weather and road conditions? That was fine.