That's true, in some metropolitan areas. This practice doesn't work when applied to all cities or locations, however. Driving attitudes are different in City A as opposed to in City B. Street geometries are different too.

Sharrows work really well in Portland (Oregon), for example, because they're often used in conjunction with some other type of traffic calming and/or "road diet". The signal timing on downtown Portland streets also allows drivers to make all the green lights if they progress at a steady 13.5 mph (plus or minus 1mph; I don't remember the exact number right now). Once drivers know the trick, they're no longer so impatient to be behind a cyclist. Honking there is really rare compared to honking in Brooklyn and the other boroughs, and that makes being outdoors and in vehicles (cars or otherwise) less stressful for everyone.

There are a lot of wide-roads in suburban areas where cars drive quite fast and cyclists are (rightfully) afraid to ride. These are other areas where cyclists shouldn't be expected to participate in traffic as the cars do. It's dangerous and frightening.

it just doesn't make sense. and you and the woman who owns that restaurant are going to have to face, at some point, that bike lanes aren't the problem, car parking -is-.

Also, if the problem is that trucks can't unload, why not eliminate 2-3 parking spaces per block on a commercial strip and make them standing-only loading & unloading zones? I'd support that whether there's a bike lane on the street or not!

"Perhaps a compromise could be to permit trucks to park in front of hydrants to unload during business hours." See, that's another good idea, too! Just make the law that the driver has to be there the whole time.

The problem here is double parking. I don't understand how lowering fines for double-parking will eliminate the _problem_ of double-parking. You need to create dedicated spaces for delivery guys to load and unload their trucks. That's got ZERO to do with cyclists and everything to do with the cars parked at the curb.

Actually, I believe I'm on the mark, because making Sixth Avenue one-way, even a narrow one-way with bike lanes, would still increase the amount of driving in the neighborhood, since drivers, in many instances, would have to cover more ground to get to their destinations. One-way networks also increase turning movements, leading to more vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. Making Sixth Avenue one-way would also shunt more vehicles on to Fifth and Seventh Avenues, thus exacerbating the double-parking problems.

They weren't planned to account for automobile traffic, either, when they were built. Yet somehow now most of the space on them is dedicated to automobiles.

The "perfect solution" was mentioned early in the thread- truck loading zones. Add intelligent scheduling- let's say, 6 am-10 am- to avoid conflicts with shoppers and give trucks an incentive to get to their destinations before rush hour.

I re-read all of the comments. I find the tone of this discussion to be pretty rational and respectful overall. I do not see any example of "moral superiority" in the comments of those who advocate safe bike transportation on 5th Avenue. Perhaps you could point to a specific example. In general, I am skeptical of the cyclist-as-elitist critique. Many of the people I see on bikes, particularly in well-heeled Park Slope, are young renters in their 20's and immigrant delivery guys. These people are by no means an "elite" when it comes to personal wealth or local politics.

My wife and I had a fancy dinner at Applewood the other night up on 11th Street. One of the things we like about the restaurant is their support for local farmers, sustainable agriculture an5 the neighborhood as a whole. We mainly went ther because the food is great. But these "political" factors also played some role in our choice to bike over and spend (too much!) money there. So, I think it is entirely reasonable for consumers to boycott Aunt Suzie's if they feel that the work Irene is doing in the community is harmful to their interests or the community as a whole.

I also agree with Erin that the 5th ave BID needs to put forward a more rational argument about their problem. And they need to come to thw table with more open-mindedness about potential solutions. It is not at all clear how these two stripes of Thermoplastic bike lane are harming local businesses. However, if there's a delivery truck problem, let's talk about that and solve it. Let's not scapegoat cyclists.

I don't think they care if Aunt Suzie is proven right in that aspect, I think it's more important to them that they don't support someone who is acting like a tool and not realizing that there are plenty of cyclists who need a safe passage through and into a commercial area.

Give delivery trucks priority to use that space and that gets some trucks off the street.

Of course, large trailers like the ones that stop in front of supermarkets won't fit but many arrive during the street cleaning period in the early mornings to unload.

There is no perfect solution. The avenues were not planned to account for bicycle traffic. They are too narrow, or in the case of 4th Avenue, too highly trafficked. But I think bicycle riding should not be discouraged.

In this case unless she doesn't reverse her rhetoric, I'd say yes. My few trips per year over there to eat are in jeopardy. There are plenty of other businesses that could use my $$$.

For all you who say you need a bike lane instead of sharrows, have you forgotten that "bicyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"?

Honestly!

Well we both can fully agree on that.

As regards businesses, I believe we do have evidence that merchants are concerned. Irene Lore is not acting solely in her capacity as one merchant but as part of the 5th Avenue BID. I think they need to be heard and treated with dignity and respect, just like I think bikers should also be heard and treated with dignity and respect. I would respectfully ask you to re-read the responses in this thread and ask if you don't think that the tone of many (that word again, I do not mean all) smacks of an almost taken for granted moral superiority, hubris or are dismissive of any legitimacy regarding the merchants concerns.

And BTW, personally I am for significant expansion of bike lanes and policies that encourage biking, but the expansions should be done openly and listening to objections and concerns from segments in the community and then trying to reach the best available compromises.

I wish I had more time to spend on this topic, because I think it is vital that bikers engage and recognize legitimate concerns raised in good faith by communities and merchants. But I better go work.

Regarding your dismay ("I am dismayed that people who do like her food indicate they will not patronize her establishment because she has raised what the merchant community finds as a legitimate issue. That is what strikes me as a kind of hubris and moral superiority.")

What is the problem with those people who do like the food at Aunt Suzie's, but also like to couple their gastonomical delight with an evening whereby their chances of getting mowed down my a car/truck is diminished by the presence of a dedicated bike lane --- what is the problem with such a person foregoing the pleasure of a dinner at an establishment whose propietor wants to eliminate said bike lane? In a word, it's not just about the pasta --- if Aunt Suzie's isn't supportive of our community's need for safe cycling infrastructure, I sure as hell ain't gonna patronize that restaurant. And I'll talk it up with all my friends, too.

You offer no real solutions.

In the image above, how could a truck like that even get on a sidewalk?
Blocking bike lanes is not a solution because it puts cyclists toe to toe with traffic, and makes bike lanes useless.

One solution is IN the image above - the Manhattan Beer truck is parked outside the bike lane, allowing cyclists to pass through - however slowly.

I don't dismiss it, necessarily, especially since we don't yet have any evidence that the majority of business proprietors on commercial streets like 5th Ave. are concerned about negative impacts due to the bike lane.

"I am dismayed that people who do like her food indicate they will not patronize her establishment because she has raised what the merchant community finds as a legitimate issue."

Some people in the business community, sure. But how many is that? We don't know. We shouldn't assume that most of the business owners in the community are concerned about this, as I stated above, unless we have some evidence. Arguments without evidence are at best misleading.

I think that someone's views, especially those of someone in political power in the community, are great reasons for supporting their business or not supporting their business. We're not so starved for choices that we can't find equally good food elsewhere... We vote with our dollars, and we should be aware of and care about what we're supporting.