Comments on: Details on East Side SBS Come Into Focus at CB 8 Meeting

By: BicyclesOnly

BicyclesOnly — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:53:36 +0000

I’m with you in spirit, Urbanis, but getting DoT merely to state in sigange what it agrees is the rule–bicyclists allowed use of full lane when lane is narrow=–seems to be taxing DoT’s ambition as it is. Here is the other sign shown to the DoT.

By: Urbanis

Urbanis — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:15:09 +0000

Given all the disruptions caused by Second Avenue Subway construction, why not run an ambitious experiment and completely close that section to automobile traffic? Let’s have bicycles, buses, and emergency vehicles only, and deliveries limited to special hours. It could be a little pedestrian oasis on the Upper East Side.

By: BicyclesOnly

BicyclesOnly — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:58:14 +0000

That’s exactly the sign shown at the mtg–right next to the lame side-by- side silhouette sign that DoT is still using to illustrate “sharing the road” in the narrow, congested lane of 7th Ave.that forms the major gap in the broadway cycle track, at 47th St. DoT guy said with apparent sincerity that the SF sign would be considered for use in NYC.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:51:30 +0000

The “change lanes to pass” sign idea is a very interesting one for taming drivers. Reminds me of San Francisco, where lots of places have signs saying “Bicycles allowed use of full lane / CVC 21202 / Change lanes to pass”.

Did you suggest this to DOT at any of the meetings? Any response?

By: BicyclesOnly

BicyclesOnly — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:30:28 +0000

Mike, in my experience, you’ve got to cruise at no less than 17-20 MPH to hold a traffic lane on First or Second, without some form of harassment–tailgating, honking, crowding or unsafe passing. My assumption is that the Design A and B portions of the SBS corridor are intended to provide a cycling facility for those who aren’t capable or comfortable with cruising at that speed while at the same time maneuvering around opening doors, turning vehicles, taxis pulling over, and other hazards likely to arise. In my opinion, the problem with the Design C and construction gaps in the SBS design is that it attracts novice and intermediate urban cyclists to this corridor and then dumps them without any protection in a scenario where they will almost certainly be pushed into sideswipe, dooring, and other risks at the margin of the roadway. I am not worried that experienced cyclists, who can already hold a lane on First or Second without any help from DoT, will be harmed by a false sense of security if sharrows are installed. I do think that the Design C areas of the corridor should be upgraded to Design B, for two reasons: because the DoT’s justification for Design C doesn’t hold water, and because Design C is patently unsafe for novice and intermediate cyclists under the conditions and in the locations in which DoT proposed to apply it. In the construction zone of Second Ave., where there is no reasonable argument for short-term installation of a cycle track, I think running sharrows up the middle of the left lane along with a 10 MPH limit on that lane and signs stating that bicyclists are allowed use of entire lane and motorists should change lanes to pass, would at least protect intermediate-experience cyclists, and possibly novices as well. This is the only scenario that satisfies the DoT’s apparently inflexible “four lanes of traffic” rule for the construction zone, while at the same time providing meaningful protection for the cyclists who will be drawn to the SBS corridor.

I agree with you that sharrows alone would do little or nothing. Sharrows alone may chill motorists out somewhat in turning, merging, or other low-speed scenarios, but they are not effective in getting motorists to drive patiently behind a cyclist at 10 MPH on a straightaway with fluid traffic.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:41:58 +0000

Cyclists already ride up the middle of the left lane on First and Second Avenues without harassment. This isn’t Bedford Ave we’re talking about here. I don’t see what sharrows provide that you don’t already have (besides perhaps a false sense of security).

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:58:03 +0000

I still think it’ll be massively cheaper to give SBS fare inspectors handheld card readers, which can check whether a card is valid. For an unlimited card, it would eliminate the need to swipe at an SBS validation machine. Since the majority of swipes in the city use unlimited cards, it would reduce the number of validation machines required.

By: BicyclesOnly

BicyclesOnly — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:01:26 +0000

The fact that cyclists are allowed use of the full lane does not mean they are required to do so, when circumstances allow safe passage otherwise. I think enabling cyclists to ride up the middle of the left hand lane on Second Ave. without harassment where no cycle track is provided improves the situation. it may the the only solution on the 40 block long construction zone on Second Avenue in CB8, where presently there is no plan for any bike infrastructure–not even sharrows–nor for any bus lane, separated, painted or otherwise.

By: Mike Epstein

Mike Epstein — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:41:43 +0000

There’s not much point to taking the full lane when traffic is stop-and-go. In the real world, cyclists will ride in the bus lanes in the sharrowed portions (assuming the bus lanes are kept clear for buses). That’s bad for bus passengers, and it’s a direct result of NYCDOT’s lack of reasonable provisions for cyclists in these sections.