Comments on: No Bike-Ped Overhaul in Brooklyn Bridge Reno Plans [Updated]

By: Chris Mcnally

Chris Mcnally — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:29:52 +0000

I witnessed a crash, a tourist stepped into the path of a cyclist going very fast. She was over 60 and it seemed she had a severe injury. i put her in a cab after waiting 45 minutes for an ambulance with her. It was both their faults really, but she spoke no English and I’m sure that fat white painted line is not the international symbol for “cyclists traveling 15 mph wearing headphones and no brakes right next to you”

By: Ace

Ace — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:12:13 +0000

no bicycles on the Brooklyn Bridge between 7am and 7pm?

By: beng722

beng722 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:26:46 +0000

thanks for all the thoughtful comments. 2 practical points that are clear:
1. the brooklyn bridge is no longer an option for runners – however the manhattan bridge, only a couple of blocks away on the brooklyn side is ideal.
2. ANY kind of vending on the brooklyn bridge needs to be banned ASAP (and the ban needs to be ENFORCED) before they cause the tragic accident the DOT seems to imply they need to make genuine changes.
unfortunately since i come from midtown west and travel to downtown brooklyn in my commute i really have to use the brooklyn bridge otherwise i’m stuck in a lot of car/bus/taxi/truck traffic crossing manhattan to get to the manhattan bridge. on the few days when my destinations allow for the manhattan bridge i feel enormously blessed (and much less stressed) although the construction around the bike paths on each side is starting to get annoying.

By: Ian Turner

Ian Turner — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:55:47 +0000

Rex, right, but unlike automobile traffic, cycling is beneficial for the environment and for public health and cycling infrastructure can be provisioned at low cost. I hope we induce lots of cycling demand, it can make the city a quieter, cleaner, healthier, and wealthier place.

By: rex

rex — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:52:08 +0000

Ian that was my point. Induced demand works for both bicycles and cars. If you create infrastructure for bikes, they will come – just like cars.

By: archie

archie — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:27:18 +0000

“…the agency does say it will act accordingly if a crash proves that safety enhancements need to be made.”

Where can we go to provide feedback to NYC DOT letting them know that this is not an acceptable solution??? There is clearly a pedestrian/biker/runner demand that should be nursed, not inhibited. They should be addressing the bridge’s currently maxed-out capacity for these modes. Don’t stop making noise on this!

By: Ian Turner

Ian Turner — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:50:50 +0000

Rex,

Given that it’s a good thing if people are switching trips from automobile to bicycle, it’s not clear why induced demand would be a problem. There are plenty more auto lanes to swap to bicycle use…

By: JoAnn Fleming

JoAnn Fleming — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:42:29 +0000

I am tired of worrying about the pedestrians. It is time to look how dangerous it is for cyclists. This past summer, I hit a pedestrian & I went flying off my bicycle. I suffered a concussion with a helmet on!! The pedestrian walked away!!!

The pedestrians are oblivious to the bike lane!! It is worse than ever. I have been riding over the Bklyn Bridge everyday since 2002, but I can’t take it anymore. I ride my bike to relieve my stress and enjoy my commute. I now have to use the Manhattan bridge to commute because I don’t want more stress in my life.

By: rex

rex — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:18:43 +0000

There is a really good reason to increase the bike capacity of the Brooklyn bridge: Induced demand. How many people skip the bike ride because they don’t feet like dealing with the turons or riding out of their way?

By: Bill from Brooklyn

Bill from Brooklyn — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:14:01 +0000

Maybe they need the two lanes to accommodate the future toll plaza. Well I can dream.

By: er

er — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:55:24 +0000

@Larry: I thought trucks weren’t allowed on the Brooklyn Bridge (Weight and height limits)? I understand if it’s for the BQE, but if it’s an on-ramp/off-ramp issue for the BB, then local and regional truck/freight shouldn’t be a top reason to justify this, or any reason at all.

Should we be writing to our reps in Congress on this one, or are there additional key people we can write to in reference to this project?

By: J:Lai

J:Lai — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:38:58 +0000

The DOT claim that they will act accordingly if a crash occurs is transperently sweeping the issue under the carpet. Adding space for non-motor vehicle users of the Brooklyn Bridge is clearly not a priority.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:37:24 +0000

Following up, I’m not sure that not widening the exit ramp, and thus having one of Brooklyn’s most important freight routes obstructed more of the time, is the right thing to do.

The again, perhaps more people would just switch from the tunnel to the bridge, changing nothing for the road, and cutting MTA revenues.

By: Clarence Eckerson Jr.

Clarence Eckerson Jr. — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:32:57 +0000

As a runner who used to use the bridge back in the 90s and early 00s – until it got too crowded – I have no idea why people try to run on the Brooklyn Bridge during rush and busiest hours. It is not a pleasant experience and there are so many other places to run (DUMBO, Heights Promenade, Manhattan Bridge, BB Park, just about all of Brooklyn Heights is low traffic, or can run to P’Park if a longer run.) Common sense dictates not running there. The last time I tried a few months ago (8 AM on a Saturday) I even thought it was too crowded.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:31:12 +0000

“Is there a good explanation for this?”

There’s an explanation, but you aren’t going to like it.

In order to get around all the toll shoppers backed up in the right lane of the northbound BQE heading for the Brooklyn Bridge, other tolls shoppers ride down the middle and left lane and try to merge in at the last minute.

This backs up the whole road, often all the way back under the promenade and through the Cobble Hill Trench to the diverge from the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel entrance (where the road is backed up by toll shoppers squeezing from four lanes down to two, also to avoid the tunnel). It’s one of the biggest bottlenecks in Brooklyn.

The theory is that having a second lane on the ramp would allow more riders to queue for the free Brooklyn Bridge there, making it more likely that at least one lane of the northbound BQE would get by, at least some of the time.

I’m not sure what that time would be, however, and am not willing to take the risk of finding out. The only time I take that road is when I’m leaving before 7 am on a weekened to drive out of the city. Even then, I’ve often been nailed by a back-up from that exit.

Absent toll shopping, this problem would probably not exit.

By: vnm

vnm — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:29:35 +0000

Did you say widen the automobile approaches? Shouldn’t they have to do an EIS for that?

By: Nathan H.

Nathan H. — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:28:05 +0000

If DOT action is only motivated by the aftermath of deadly crashes, that puts automobile infrastructure upgrades at a decided and morbid advantage. Of course, that is not their only motivation and this is just a recycled excuse for why any DOT in the country is not doing whatever it is that some citizen wants done (and it’s always a disappointment to hear it coming from our progressive DOT).

How about this, DOTers: every car crash in the bridge’s history “proves” that a certain “safety enhancement” needs to be made, which would be to shift lanes back from inherently dangerous conveyances (amateur automobile driving) to those that are, by established records, hundreds of times safer. Cars dramatically flying into the east river is not an actual problem deserving of our limited millions of dollars; rather, our problem is cars crashing into each other and people on and around bridges, killing us in the most mundane ways. This renovation is a step sideways, if not backward.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:22:38 +0000

At a minimum, I think the DOT owes the community a feasibility analysis of different options. Totally new bike path, taking away one lane from cars, two lanes.

The real beneficiaries of a separate bike lane would be lots more pedestrians.

By: SCL

SCL — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:21:09 +0000

The group of people that lose out on this is the runners. On weekends, pedestrian side is too clogged to run, and the bikers on the bike side are too crazy to share.

By: Jason A

Jason A — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:13:48 +0000

“Arguing that the on- and off-ramps for car traffic are too narrow, the city will widen many of them from one lane to two.”

Am I the only one outraged by this? Is there a good explanation for this? Why in the world would you want to recreate the race track conditions that already exist for the other East River Bridges?