Relatedly, do you happen to know how extensive the surface construction will be for SAS? I was under the impression that, aside from the station caverns and the launch box, there wouldn’t be a whole lot of disruption to the surface. In between those locations, would there be room and opportunity for bike lanes? Or am I totally wrong?

That’s why sharrows were invented. Ideally, they’d be matched with signs that say “Cyclist may take full lane” (this is an approved sign). The whole point of a sharrow is to say “This lane is too narrow to pass, but is a busy cyclist route. Cyclists: Take full lane. Cars: Be aware that cyclists are entitled to take full lane”

As for road rage, again, the sharrows are supposed to help that. A driver stuck behind a bike is less likely to yell “get off the road” if a sharrow makes it very clear that the bike is exactly where he should be.

“I’m not defending the drivers here, I’m just saying it’s a unrealistic scenario for that particular avenue given its narrowness, and that cyclists would be better off finding a wider avenue. I’m constantly going slightly out of my way in favor of a safer route. It’s worth it.”

For you it may be worth it, but how about a cyclist with business on that street? Bike infrastructure should be on every street, not just along the river, or where it happens to fit. If a sharrow was put in that street, it says that cyclists use that route for whatever reason. That’s not going to change by removing the markings.

In reality, where traffic is stop-and-go in the sharrowed lane and there is a relatively clear bike lane, there is no question that most cyclists in the real world will ride in the bike lane. That’s bad for everyone cyclists and bus riders alike. And that’s the direct consequence of DOT’s failure to provide reserved street space for cyclists in these heavily congested areas.

It’s especially bad that the approach to the Queensboro Bridge on First Ave won’t have any meaningful provision for bicyclists. Cyclists will still be funneled into a dangerous roadway that alternates between stop-and-go and aggressive driving (depending on the time of day), with no meaningful bike accommodations.

It does seem that the sharrows go in where the traffic is most intense, but I think that may merely reflect the fact that sharrows are used to provide some minimal degree of protection to cyclists in intense traffic situations where there is simply not enough lateral space for a motorist and a bicyclist side by side (about 15 feet). But when the sharrow is off center and there is no explicit statement as to what sharrows mean (or even worse, the posting of the side-by-side sign linked in my comment above), the motorists think “sharing the road” means the cyclist must ride to the right of the motorist in whatever space s/he finds there, and cannot impede the motorist by taking the lane.

I agree that a sharrow up the middle even with explicit signage that cyclists should occupy the full lane still is not enough to embolden many novice or timid cyclists, but I would take such a lane when escorting my kids, and I think the majority of cyclists would. and remeber that we are talking about a gap in an otherwise continuous cycling track running from Houston to 125th–novice cyclists may well learn to feel comfortable taking such a lane if they see experienced cyclists right there doing it.

As for the cyclists’ ability to both take a lane or to manuever around the motor vehicle traffic in a lane at will, there’s no reason to think that sharrows, wherever placed, limit cyclists’ options.

It will be dangerous and unfortunate if timid or novice cyclists use the bus lanes. The best answer is to have a continuous cycle track with no gaps, but for the area from 69th to 100th Streets on Second Avenue, it’s hard to justify building a cycle track when the street is going to be dug up for the SAS. One person at the CB proposed using orange traffic barrrels to create a temporary protected lane, as on Centre street by the courthouse. However DoT at present seems unwilling to give up any of the lanes in the Second Avenue construction zone to create a protected space for cyclists. doT representatives even claimed last night that there could be no painting of bus lanes in the construction zone. I think a low-speed turning lane painted green with a 10-15 MPH limit, sharrows up the middle, and signage allowing cyclists the use of an entire lane may be the best feasible interim solution in the construction zone.

I’m not defending the drivers here, I’m just saying it’s a unrealistic scenario for that particular avenue given its narrowness, and that cyclists would be better off finding a wider avenue. I’m constantly going slightly out of my way in favor of a safer route. It’s worth it.

The real problem here, in my opinion, is that the places where DOT proposes to put sharrows are areas with huge traffic backups. In reality, bikes won’t take a lane when taking a lane means being stuck behind stop-and-go traffic. They’ll do what they do today: lane-split, merge with abandon, etc. That’s fine for expert riders, but really hard for timid riders or kids. And a lot of riders will end up riding in the bus lane to avoid battling with cars, which will slow down buses and cause dangerous situations by mixing with theoretically fast-moving traffic in the bus lane (assuming the bus lanes are actually kept clear somehow).