The Green Lane Project will provide financial and technical assistance for cities to develop physically protected cycling infrastructure. The six to-be-determined cities will then serve as models for other American cities looking to incorporate street designs that make cycling appealing to residents of all ages.

A few major cities including New York and Washington DC have implemented protected bike lanes, but the designs are still “When a city is out on the front like this and they have a problem, it’s not always clear where they go. We’re trying to help those cities figure it out,” said Green Lane Project Director Martha Roskowski. “So they don’t have to go to Copenhagen to see how these things work.”

Bikes Belong is looking for cities that have political support for creating world-class bike infrastructure, as well as a plan in place. The organization also wants to include three “emerging cities” outside the superstars like New York and Portland, Roskowski said.

“We’re looking for six cities where they have elected officials that are on board with this,” said said. “They’ve gone through some type of a planning process. They get it. They want to do these things.”

Bike Belong sent out invitations to 33 cities that have fairly developed cycling transportation programs. Those include Houston, Memphis, Los Angeles and Columbus, Ohio, as well as San Francisco, according to Roskowski. But any city can apply, whether it was invited or not.

One city that has already been chosen is Chicago. The city’s DOT chief, Gabe Klein, is serving as an adviser on the project, as is New York City Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan. Roskowski said Bikes Belong has not determined what New York City’s role in the program will be, whether strictly as an adviser or as a participant.

The Green Lane Project will build on the work done by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) to create a design guide for a new generation of cycling infrastructure. The Bikes Belong Foundation will be focusing most of its resources on the six chosen cities over the next two years, Roskowski said. They hope the results will be instructive to cities everywhere.

“We’re focusing on putting resources into six cities,” said Roskowski, “the other half is trying to capture what’s happening and share it with all the other cities.”

Applications for the program are due by March 9.

NYC DOT's screenline bike count has doubled since 2007. Full graphic available in this PDF.

The New York City Department of Transportation recorded an eight percent increase in the number of people biking into Manhattan below 50th street this year. The bike count has now doubled since 2007, when the city’s first on-street protected bike lane was installed on Ninth Avenue.

This year’s increase is less than the double-digit increases of recent years, and it appears to have been hampered by construction work on the Manhattan Bridge, which has forced cyclists to detour onto the Bowery, with all its barreling truck traffic, on inbound trips. The city released a preliminary bike count in the spring that found a bigger increase — 14 percent — before the construction detour took effect.

NYC DOT’s screenline count measures cyclists crossing the four East River bridges, the Hudson River Greenway at 50th Street, and riding the Staten Island Ferry. It’s the best hard count of cycling activity available but doesn’t capture bike trips outside the city core.

In addition to the new bike count, NYC DOT announced that it is expanding its program to convert defunct coin-slot parking meters into bike parking. The department has transmogrified 175 meters so far and plans to convert thousands more. They are currently reviewing responses to an RFP seeking to repurpose 6,000 meters as bike racks.

“Our infrastructure needs to keep pace with new demands on city streets,” transportation commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan said in a statement. “By transforming obsolete parking meters into off-the-rack bike parking, we are recycling old facilities to meet this growing need.”

An additional 6,000 bike racks would represent nearly a 50 percent increase over the current total of 13,000. While the number of racks has skyrocketed in the last few years, DOT needs to make up for the loss of tens of thousands of decommissioned parking meters that functioned as de facto bike parking spaces.

With today’s announcement, DOT seems to have hit one of the benchmarks in its Sustainable Streets strategic plan, which set out to double bicycling rates compared to 2007 levels by 2012. The next target: Tripling the 2007 baseline cycling rate by 2017.

Plans for a new set of fences at the base of the Williamsburg Bridge will slow down cyclists exiting the bridge and push them towards taking Clinton Street rather than Delancey. Image: NYC DOT via Gothamist

Three concrete walls will soon surround the Manhattan entrance to the Williamsburg Bridge, as reported in Gothamist and the Villager. The construction, already underway and due to be completed at the beginning of next year, is part of a Department of Transportation effort to force cyclists coming down the ramp from the bridge to slow down and choose to ride on quieter side roads rather than dangerous Delancey Street, which will remain unchanged.

The redesign of the bridge approach, set in place with concrete barriers and metal fencing, is built to last. Does the project signal that DOT isn’t planning to take action to calm down the deadly traffic on Delancey?

Under the new design, three-foot concrete walls will surround the median at the foot of the Williamsburg bike and pedestrian path. Small gaps in the wall will provide access to crosswalks and bike lanes, but the narrow openings will compel cyclists coming off the bridge to slow down considerably, if not stop completely.

DOT wants cyclists heading east-west to take Stanton, Rivington, or Grand Street rather than Delancey, which is one of the most dangerous streets in the city and does not have a bike lane. Image: NYC DOT

In addition, a curved fence will guide cyclists headed into Manhattan north onto Clinton Street. From there, cyclists can connect to bike lanes on Rivington and Stanton Streets, one and two blocks north of Delancey. Less traffic, slower vehicle speeds, and painted bike lanes make those streets safer to ride on.

In contrast, Delancey is one of the most dangerous streets in the city. A pedestrian and a cyclist have been killed on Delancey already this year, according to Transportation Alternatives, and 134 pedestrians and cyclists were hit by cars on the street between 2008 and 2010.

Helping cyclists find the safest route off the bridge, even nudging them towards that route, is all well and good, but it’s likely that many cyclists will still end up on Delancey. “People want to take the most direct route to where they’re going,” said Caroline Samponaro, the director of bicycle advocacy for Transportation Alternatives. “Even though there are currently markings sending people to use Clinton Street, people continue to use Delancey Street.”

And even if every cyclist detoured onto Clinton, the wide expanse of Delancey would remain a mortal threat to pedestrians. A safety fix for Delancey itself remains necessary, with or without the latest construction at the bridge. The area’s entire political delegation — Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, State Senator Daniel Squadron, Borough President Scott Stringer and City Council Member Margaret Chin — have requested that Delancey be made safe for Lower East Siders.

Said a DOT spokesperson over e-mail:

“This railing is being installed to guide bikers to the lanes on Clinton Street – where they can connect to east-west routes – before they reach the crosswalk. A similar design has been in place on the Manhattan side of the Manhattan Bridge for several years and has proven very effective at separating bikes coming off the bridge from pedestrians on the local sidewalk. The concrete barriers are being installed to prevent unauthorized vehicle access to the pedestrian and bike path, and similar steps have been taken on the other side of the bridge and at other East River bridges. Countdown signals were recently installed along Delancey to help pedestrians cross the street safely, while a network of bike lanes has been installed on Suffolk and Clinton streets (north-south), Rivington and Stanton streets (east-west), and on Grand Street (east-west), providing convenient, direct and safer access to and from the bridge for bike riders.”

A redesign of the actual street, not just the approach to the bridge path, would have to grapple with the fact that Delancey Street is overrun with Williamsburg Bridge traffic. Four motor vehicle lanes in each direction lead to and from the untolled bridge, which also sees more bike traffic than any other bridge in the country. “It’s not a unique problem. Every bridge point is a vital, high-demand corridor,” said Samponaro, who pointed to Canal Street and Queens Boulevard as other wide, dangerous roads leading into bridges. Hoping that all pedestrians and cyclists will simply leave Delancey to motor vehicles, however, isn’t a solution. Said Samponaro, ”You can’t will people away from a street.”

The first cable-stayed bridge of any kind in the state, it’s breathtaking, even to the people who have been riding it for years. It provides a safe, continuous crossing and offers up a glorious view of the downtown skyline (especially at sunset!). The sleek Hiawatha light rail line runs beneath it, and there are benches to sit on and take everything in.

Used by an average of 2,500 riders a day, peak use can hit 5,000 to 6,000 per day on some gorgeous summer weekends, according to Shaun Murphy of the Minneapolis Department of Public Works.

The bridge was named in honor of Minneapolis’ Martin Olav Sabo, a former U.S. Representative from the 5th District who helped secure much of the $5 million needed to build it. Thanks to the Bikes Belong Foundation for enabling us to feature this majestic piece of bike architecture and to show that investing is cycling and walking is well worth every penny for our communities.

This old steel industry bridge in Pittsburgh was transformed into a bike-ped bridge using $6.5 million in federal money from Transportation Enhancements, a dedicated pot of money for biking and walking. Photo: National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse

From what we hear from Sen. Barbara Boxer’s staff, the EPW bill includes dedicated funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. The House bill does not, though it does say that bike-ped projects will still be “eligible” for various pots of funding.

But “eligibility” is virtually meaningless without a federal mandate for spending. As the League of American Bicyclists points out in a new fact-sheet on eligibility, history shows that if the federal government tells states they “can” spend money on bike-ped – but they don’t have to – they don’t.

Indeed, all 50 states together spent just $40 million on bike-ped programs in the 18 years leading up to the passage of ISTEA in 1991, which created the three major sources of bike-ped funding. The states had complete freedom to use federal funds – with no state match – on bike-ped projects, but they simply didn’t.

Even today, programs that would appear to be tailor-made to fund bicycle and pedestrian projects – like the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) – are rarely used on biking and walking. Only five percent of CMAQ money has gone toward biking and walking, despite their “eligibility” and obvious fit. When advocates talk about “dedicated funding,” they’re usually talking about three other programs, which spend more on bike-ped: Transportation Enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and the Recreational Trails Program.

What’s more, states tend to spend bike-ped money slowly, holding onto those funds until rescission time, when they’re asked to send money back to the federal government. Last year, Transportation Enhancements and CMAQ bore 44 percent of the rescission cuts nationwide – although those programs represent just 7.3 percent of total federal-aid highway funds.

Many states continue to express distaste for the federal mandate for bike-ped spending. Some states-rights supporters say states should be able to spend money on the programs they want, and not be forced by “Washington bureaucrats” to pay for projects their states don’t need.

But state DOTs can be just as bureaucratic and unaccountable to local-level needs as the feds.

“Many state DOTs are stuck in the 1950s,” said Darren Flusche, policy analyst at the League. “Without this kind of federal guidance, they’ll continue to be out of touch with the transportation needs of the 21st century.”

Besides, he added, the federal transportation bill isn’t about local control — it’s about setting federal transportation policy in accordance with national transportation priorities.

And even where state DOTs are pooh-poohing bike-ped projects and refusing to spend money on them, the cities inside those states are hungry for them. Indeed, according to the League report, 60 percent of the nation’s mayors want more bike-ped funding to help fight congestion and to improve livability and economic competitiveness.

Given the high demand for bicycle and pedestrian improvements – and the tight fist of state DOTs – funding for these programs has had to come from other sources. Those sources have included Congressional earmarks (now banned), the stimulus (now over), and TIGER grants (thankfully, onto its third round).

In the wake of its long-planned bike lane forum, Manhattan Community Board 12 has finalized a resolution calling for a major study of bike infrastructure of Upper Manhattan, available in full above. Overall it’s a strong demonstration of support for the expansion of bikeways in the area.

Perhaps most importantly, the resolution, which passed by a unanimous vote of 33-0, makes clear that there is broad community support for new bike infrastructure in the area. “Residents of CB12 suggested ways to improve current bike lanes and paths within our community’s parks and streets enjoyed the support from those in attendance in addition to a petition signed by 1,300 residents of CB12,” reads one clause. Given the near-inevitable complaints from some quarter or another that accompany any significant change to the street, such a record of grassroots support is quite valuable.

Based on suggestions, the resolution puts forward a list of bike projects that CB 12 would like DOT to study and report back to them about.

First among them is a safe bike connection between the Hudson and Harlem River Greenways, on or near Dyckman Street. Community members have long proposed that this be a separated bike path. CB 12 also asked for studies of how to improve bike and pedestrian access to the George Washington, Henry Hudson and Broadway Bridges, as well as the West Side Greenway at 181st Street, which currently lets cyclists off at a one-way highway on-ramp, forcing them onto the sidewalk.

Upland from the greenways and bridges, CB 12 urged DOT to study how cyclists can safely move uptown, downtown, and crosstown. Those lanes, they hope, would be integrated with the Parks Department’s long-term plans and connect to bike routes in parks.

CB 12 is famously loathe to lose any parking, and this resolution is true to form. The board urges DOT to search for new parking spots near where bike lanes might remove them, a potential flashpoint if DOT presents specific plans.

Local livable streets activists are pleased with the progress. “Bike Upper Manhattan is glad to see the Community Board as a whole and the Traffic & Transportation Committee reflecting the strong community support for safer bicycle facilities,” said Jonathan Rabinowitz of Bike Upper Manhattan, “and we look forward to the results of the study the board asked for from DOT and its quick implementation.”

A high number of schools in Queens, outer Brooklyn, and Staten Island are inaccessible from existing bike lanes. A Hunter College team recommends linking bike network expansions to a more robust Safe Routes to School program. Click to enlarge.

Unless the city devises a successful strategy to build bikeways in neighborhoods where bike infrastructure is scarce, the Hunter team writes in “Beyond the Backlash” [PDF], many parts of the city may get left behind for years to come. “A lot of the city isn’t served as well by the bicycle network as the central business district and Downtown Brooklyn,” said group member Jennifer Harris-Hernandez in a presentation at NYU on May 6. “This has reinforced transportation inequalities around race and class.”

The Hunter team notes that the pattern of building the best cycling infrastructure near the city core may inadvertently give ammunition to opponents of bike infrastructure by overlooking the full breadth of New Yorkers. “Counting [working-class, outer borough] cyclists and planning with them in mind will create a more equitable and relevant network while countering recent claims that bicycling in New York City is for the privileged,” they write.

To that end, the Hunter team proposes a geographic shift in focus for the DOT’s bike program, paired with more intensive public outreach at the local level. At a moment when the city’s tabloid press is launching weekly attacks on bike projects and local politicians seem to think they’re doing constituents a favor by blocking plans for bike lanes, the Hunter team’s report offers a thoughtful and constructive critique intended to strengthen the city’s bike program.

The accelerated expansion of the bike network has built new bikeways in every borough and brought safer conditions to some low-income neighborhoods, but overall the city’s bicycle planning has concentrated the most and best bike infrastructure in close-in, affluent neighborhoods. The bike network is at its densest and most interconnected in downtown Manhattan and northwest Brooklyn, and the overwhelming majority of the new protected lanes are located in high-income neighborhoods. While bike lanes serve many people who ride from outside the immediate vicinity, neighborhoods like Chelsea, the Upper West Side, and Park Slope are so far the primary beneficiaries of protected lanes and the robust pedestrian and cyclist safety improvements they produce.

There are good reasons for the bike network to be expanded this way. The roll-out of new bike lanes has tended to follow the path of least political resistance, at least in the short run. The Hunter team notes that the neighborhoods that have received the most bike infrastructure are the same ones that already had bike-friendly community boards or strong local advocates.

There are also technical explanations for DOT’s current strategy. In explaining to East Harlem’s Community Board 11 why that neighborhood wouldn’t be receiving protected bike lanes last year, for example, DOT reps emphasized the importance of an interconnected bike network, which argues for extending bike corridors from the inside out. The city calculates that a bike-share program can succeed without subsidies if the stations are densely clustered in the central city, but a profit-turning system won’t reach areas where bike-sharing can be most useful to low-income New Yorkers, the Hunter students note.

At a certain point, the Hunter team says, the lack of bike infrastructure in many parts of the city feeds into a vicious cycle. The full picture of the city’s bicycle network “reinforces the impression that gentrification follows bicycle planning, and vice versa,” they write in the report. “This practice, in turn, makes it more difficult for DOT to build outside the most bicycle-friendly community districts.”

To escape this cycle, the Hunter students offered DOT a range of suggestions. Building local bike networks oriented around transit hubs mitigates the need for new bike lanes to be connected to the Manhattan network, for example. Integrating bike planning into a strengthened Safe Routes to School program could help spread safer infrastructure across the city while addressing the particular needs of young people and families.

They also urged DOT to change the tools it uses to measure cycling. The agency’s focus on the screenline count, which measures the number of cyclists entering the Manhattan CBD, quantifies certain trips but ignores others (an issue which has also come up in the context of the screenline’s divergence from Census counts). The screenline is “legitimating DOT’s siting choices, so there’s a cycle of counting and building in the same places,” said team member Sam Stein.

The Hunter team tried out ways to supplement the screenline count by surveying cyclists in Flushing, Corona, and Jackson Heights. One survey was placed on the handlebars of parked bikes in those neighborhoods. The respondents mostly did not bike into Manhattan, so they would never turn up in the screenline count. A majority responded in either Spanish or Chinese. These cyclists had a serious need for safety improvements — 43 percent had been doored and 28 percent hit by a car — especially on popular routes like Roosevelt Avenue.

Cyclists in Flushing, Corona, and Elmhurst filled out surveys describing their daily routes. Roosevelt Avenue is widely used to get from one neighborhood to another. Click to enlarge.

Separately, the Hunter team recommended that DOT build stronger support for cycling by changing the way it integrates local groups, especially community boards, into the planning process. This call didn’t come with any rose-tinted glasses about the current failings of some community boards. “Community boards can often be parochial, short-sighted, and not truly representative of the full breadth of the local community,” they wrote in their report.

Even so, they argued, engaging more with community boards is necessary, especially given the strong likelihood that the next mayor will be more hesitant to support the expansion of the bike network. There is a need “to think beyond this administration and find community support for bicycle infrastructure,” said Harris-Hernandez. Despite the anti-bike impression you might get from some southern Brooklyn community board votes, the Hunter team notes that there are plenty of local groups outside the central city who want to bring safer cycling to their communities.

There are already some good examples of innovative agency outreach for DOT to build on. The Hunter students point to the relatively smooth rollout of a transportation plan for Jackson Heights, arguing that the steady, long-term public outreach that accompanied that project paved the way for its success so far.

Part of the current problem, they say, stems from a lack of capacity at the community board level. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer has proposed providing every community board with a trained urban planner, but in the absence of that, the Hunter team recommended that city agencies at least provide board members with regular trainings. “While this kind of work was begun with the ‘DOT Academy’ program,” they note, “it seems to have fallen by the wayside.”

The report suggests that bringing in community board members early on in the process, by inviting them to collect transportation data with DOT, for instance, can help overcome parochial concerns that too often obstruct change. Perhaps most importantly, Hunter identified groups like Make The Road New York, Desis Rising Up and Moving, and Queens Community House as eager to work with DOT on bike planning in their communities.

Bike and pedestrian advocates are urging supporters to contact Senator Barbara Boxer today to tell her to retain dedicated funding for active transportation in the Senate transportation bill. Photo: CNN Politics

Advocates are rallying supporters to contact Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-California), and urge her and other senators to retain federal funding for bike and pedestrian programs.

Jeffrey Miller, president of the Alliance for Biking and Walking, says this marks an urgent opportunity to preserve funding for those important programs. “Senator Boxer is frankly our last hope,” said Miller. “If we don’t act now, dedicated funding for biking and walking programs may be written out of our transportation system for the next six years.”

The Senate occupies the key middle ground between the House GOP and the White House. House Transportation Chair John Mica (R-Florida) has indicated his desire to eliminate the federal commitment to bike-ped funding. While the Obama administration has repeatedly signaled its support for bike-ped programs under the banner of livability, if dedicated funding for bike and pedestrian projects isn’t preserved in the Senate version of the bill, there is little hope that they will reemerge in the conference committee process and get into the final bill, Miller said.

Biking and walking advocates are concerned that Boxer, who has generally been supporter, is being pressured to compromise and eliminate the programs, said Miller. Both the Alliance and the League of American Bicyclists are calling on their members to email Boxer, thank her for her past support and urge her to continue federal support for bicycle and pedestrian programs.

“At this very moment, she is negotiating with other senators who don’t think bicycling and walking are an important part of the transportation bill,” said Miller. “She needs to know we have her back on this issue and she shouldn’t give up on these crucial programs.”

“Transportation Enhancements, Safety Routes to School, and Recreational Trails are important programs for transportation, safety, and health that have a huge impact on the funding available for bicycling and walking projects,” said Bike League director Andy Clarke. “It is critical that these programs are included in the Senate draft. Otherwise, it will be nearly impossible to add them later in the process.”

Why is Montreal outshining every U.S. city on cycle tracks? Photo: Richard Layman/RPUS

Though the debate has grown bitter at times, neither group has had much in the way of rigorous peer-reviewed research to argue their case through the years. However, in the last decade a small but energetic group of academics has started to publish regularly on the topic.

The latest salvo, published online in February and in the current edition of Injury Prevention, comes from Harvard University researcher Anne Lusk. Her study compares crash rates at six cycle tracks in Montreal to nearby streets that had no bicycle facilities, and bolsters the argument that cycle tracks are safer. Lusk found that relative risk of injury was 28 percent lower on cycle tracks compared to the on-street routes.

In addition, she found that about 2.5 times as many cyclists used the cycle tracks than the on-street routes. The finding agrees with the conclusions of a number of other recent studies that show protected bicycle lanes improve safety and help attract new riders.

While cycle tracks are common in European countries, they remain rare in America due to institutional inertia. That inertia was not countered effectively enough by a bicycling movement divided over anti-cycle track arguments made by vehicular cycling advocate John Forester, author of Effective Cycling, in the 1970s and 1980s.

As Jeff Mapes recounts in Pedaling Revolution, Forester helped codify and popularize the idea that cyclists fare best when they are treated as “drivers” of vehicles. He encouraged riders to take the full lane when needed, avoid riding on sidewalks, and move with the flow of traffic.

He also vigorously opposed bike infrastructure, fearing that bike lanes and cycle tracks would give authorities an excuse to ban recreational riders from the road. And he argued cycle tracks and other types of bike infrastructure were more dangerous than on-road riding.

Ninth Avenue cycle track in New York City. Photo: Beyond DC

Though a shrill and controversial figure, Forester had an undeniable influence on cycling standards in the United States. He served as the President of the League of the American Wheelman (now the League of American Bicyclists) beginning in 1979, and developed a training program called Effective Cycling that the League adopted.

Within a few years, however, the League warmed to bike infrastructure and he was pushed out. Much to his chagrin, the League started using a slimmed-down version of his training program.

Despite the constant controversy surrounding Forester, one organization that wholeheartedly embraced his ideas was the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO’s influential design guide, which serves as the blueprint for most of the nation’s bike infrastructure, echoes many of his arguments about bicycle infrastructure.

The guide, last updated in 1999, recommends strongly against putting separated bike paths near roads for safety reasons, though it doesn’t mention cycle tracks explicitly. And it leaves out many of the more innovative and promising types of infrastructure — such as buffered contraflow lanes — entirely.

This has led, Lusk argues, to the widespread installation of standard bike lanes rather than separated cycle tracks in the United States, an approach that has reduced the number of people — especially women, children, and seniors — who find cycling safe.

Lusk notes, for example, that due to more than 29,000 kilometers of cycle tracks in the Netherlands, 27 percent of trips made in that country are made by bicycle, 55 percent of riders are women, and the injury rate is low. In the United States, in contrast, just one-half of one percent of commuters bike to work, only 24 percent of adult cyclists are women, and the injury rate is at least 26 times that of the Netherlands.

AASHTO began circulating an updated draft of its guide in February for comments. Unfortunately, the updated draft, though somewhat more inclusive, still leaves out critical life-saving types of infrastructure — notably cycle tracks and buffered bike lanes.

According to Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling, AASHTO has already received more than 1,500 comments on the revised guide and hopes to produce a revised draft by May or June.

Leaving cycle tracks out of the guide would alienate most cycling advocates. Some American cities have already started installing cycle tracks, and an alternative guide produced by the National Association of City Transportation Officials includes many of the same promising types of infrastructure that AASHTO continues to omit.

Though AASHTO has taken some positive steps to create national bicycle routes, the group recently raised the ire of cyclists for arguing that state DOTs shouldn’t be required to adhere to a new federal policy that puts pedestrians and cyclists on a more equal footing with motorists. They’ve reversed that policy. Here’s hoping they reverse their aversion to cycle tracks as well.

The block of the bike path directly to the east of the Queensboro entrance has been paved. Photo: Clarence Eckerson

Clarence sends along a few more shots from the beginning of construction season. These come from Queens Plaza, where the two-way bike approach to the Queensboro Bridge is extending eastward.

The bike approach, part of a package of public space improvements to Queens Plaza, will eventually connect Vernon Boulevard and Northern Boulevard. The segment between the bridge entrance and Northern Boulevard is well on its way to completion.

Looking east toward Northern Boulevard, one block of the path has yet to be paved. Photo: Clarence Eckerson

The eastern end of the path. Photo: Clarence Eckerson

Biking to the bridge. Photo: Clarence Eckerson

New and expanded pedestrian islands and sidewalks on the north side of GAP will create safer and more direct connections to walk to the central plaza area. (This image comes from DOT's 2010 presentation on GAP and may not include minor changes to this part of the plan.)

Construction on a slate of pedestrian and bike improvements for Grand Army Plaza is scheduled to move forward this summer, NYC DOT announced this Saturday. The redesign includes a major expansion of the pedestrian islands at the north side of GAP and the addition of a two-way, protected bicycle connection linking Union Street to Eastern Parkway on the southern side. It does not include the two-way, protected bike lane on Plaza Street shown in DOT’s 2010 presentation on this same project, which Community Boards 6 and 8 both approved last year.

DOT made its revised presentation Saturday at the Grand Army Plaza Coalition‘s annual meeting. It was an anniversary of sorts for GAPCO, a partnership between the area’s major cultural institutions and neighborhood residents, which formed in 2006 to make Grand Army Plaza a welcoming public space instead of a traffic vortex. Since then GAPCO has put together several public workshops and site visits, producing a conceptual blueprint for city agencies to work from [PDF].

Image: Google Maps

The big difference between last year’s DOT plan and this year’s is that the two-way, protected bike lane on Plaza Street has been set aside until an unspecified date in the future. Plaza Street encircles most of GAP, and a two-way path would create a safe hub for cyclists to take the most convenient routes to and through the space. But after last year’s CB votes, some Plaza Street residents contacted the city saying the parking-protected bikeway would cause traffic back-ups, even though Plaza Street receives little traffic and is already just one lane wide.

So call it the NBBL effect: Despite the multi-year community-based planning process that informed last year’s presentation, and despite the community board votes in favor of it, DOT seems unwilling, for now, to stir the pot so close to the litigious and well-connected NIMBYs of Prospect Park West, who happen to have  U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer on their side.

The improvements scheduled for this summer are still significant, and they represent a major milestone in the campaign to make GAP more accessible to pedestrians and cyclists. Starting in June and wrapping up in August, the city plans to build out these improvements, which Streetsblog reported on last April:

• On the north end of the plaza, northbound traffic on Flatbush and southbound traffic on Vanderbilt will cross at a greatly simplified X-shaped intersection. The pedestrian spaces that define the boundaries of the “X” will be much more generous and well-defined than the mish-mash of poorly-connected islands and striping that people navigate now. Walking to the central public space will be safer and simpler, especially if you’re approaching from Park Slope.
• The area between the arch and the central plaza will be set off with DOT’s epoxy-and-gravel surface treatment, seen on Broadway and other pedestrian reclamation projects. Physical barriers will be added to keep cars from illegally cutting across.
• On the south side of the plaza, pedestrian islands will be expanded and crosswalks will be added, making it easier to walk between Union Street, Plaza Street, and the greenmarket area. The greenmarket area will also be set off with epoxy-and-gravel and have physical barriers from traffic.

The bike improvements to be built out this summer should greatly improve east-west connections on the south side of the plaza and create better transitions at the northern end of the Prospect Park West bike lane. A new two-way, separated bike path will run from Union Street to Eastern Parkway, making bicycle access to Prospect Park, the GAP greenmarket, and Prospect Park West much improved.

The south end of the GAP plan (looking south toward the Brooklyn Public Library) expands pedestrian space and clearly sets it off from the asphalt expanse of the roadway. It also includes a two-way connection for bikes between Eastern Parkway and Union Street. Photo: Amy Sara Clark/Patch

Without the two-way Plaza Street lane, however, GAP won’t be as useful and convenient a hub for bicycling as it could be, and it’s hard to say when that missing piece will get filled in. NYC DOT downtown Brooklyn coordinator Chris Hrones said outreach to Plaza Street residents would continue, and that the city intends to pursue the unfinished part of the project at a later, unspecified date.

No one from the PPW opposition attended the meeting, but their presence was felt nonetheless. “DOT is excellent about coming to the community, presenting to the community, working with the community, and getting the proper sign-offs from the community,” GAPCO coordinator Rob Witherwax said in his introduction, praising DOT for being engaged on the project from the beginning. “For people who after the fact don’t like the result to say the process was bad is patently false.”

DOT will be taking the revised proposal before CB 6 and CB 8 (again) in the next few weeks. The full presentation will be online then. In the meantime, Amy Sara Clark at the Park Slope Patch has some photos of the plan shown Saturday.

What’s a road diet? Quite simply, traffic-calming expert Dan Burden told Streetfilms, “A road diet is anytime you take any lane out of a road.”

The first time people hear about a road diet, their initial reaction likely goes something like this: “How can removing lanes improve my neighborhood and not cause traffic backups?” It seems counterintuitive, but taking away lanes can actually help traffic flow smoother while improving safety for everyone.

Road diets are good for pedestrians: They reduce speeding and make vehicle movements more predictable while shortening crossing distances, usually through curb extensions or center median islands. They’re good for cyclists: Many road diets shift space from car lanes to create bike lanes. They’re good for drivers: Less speeding improves safety for motorists and passengers, and providing left-turn pockets allows through traffic to proceed without shifting lanes or waiting behind turning vehicles.

And here’s something to keep in mind during this era of lean budgets: Road diets are a highly-effective infrastructure improvement that can be implemented quickly and at low cost.

Streetfilms would like to thank The Fund for the Environment & Urban Life for making this series possible.

But last year, US DOT gave that requirement some teeth, issuing a directive specifying that “due consideration” should include “the presumption that bicyclists and pedestrians will be accommodated” in project designs paid for with federal government dollars.

AASHTO's John Horsley has complained that a new US DOT directive would make it too hard for state DOTs to ignore the needs of cyclists and pedestrians. Photo: Flickr, Commission for Environmental Cooperation

Well, surprise! State DOTs aren’t happy about it. In a supplement [PDF] to a letter [PDF] to US DOT yesterday, John Horsley, executive director of the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, urged federal officials to reconsider the requirement. “This regulation presents an undue burden on states to justify exceptional circumstances when not including provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians in a project,” he said.

Someone should tell Horsley — that was sort of the point. US DOT is trying to make it hard for state DOTs — using money from both taxpayers who drive and those who don’t — to completely ignore the needs of non-drivers.

In its directive, USDOT states that walking and bicycling should be considered equal to other modes.

“The establishment of well-connected walking and bicycling networks is an important component for livable communities, and their design should be a part of Federal-aid project developments,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Transportation programs and facilities should accommodate people of all ages and abilities, including people too young to drive, people who cannot drive, and people who choose not to drive.”

When asked about AASHTO’s objection to the new rule, spokeman Lloyd Brown said it was part of a list of recommendations that came from the organization’s members: state DOTs.

(Thanks to the Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling Blog for alerting us to this story.)

This bike box in New York gives cyclists more visibility at intersections -- a design treatment recommended by NACTO's new Bikeway Design Guide. Photo: Cities for Cycling

The guide is the result of months of study by engineers, planners and academics from fifteen major U.S. cities. It offers comprehensive design instruction on the latest in cycling infrastructure innovations from Europe and stateside, such as bike boxes, bike signals and separated cycle tracks.

“NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide gives American planners and designers the tools they need to make cycling accessible to more people,” said Janette Sadik-Khan, New York City transportation commissioner and president of NACTO. “These guidelines represent the state of the art and should be adopted as the new standards around the country.”

Planners hope their recommendations will be incorporated into the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials’ design guidelines. Design manuals by these standard-bearing organizations thus far ignore some of the cutting-edge bike treatments that have been adopted in cities like Portland and New York, as well as European cities. As we reported earlier this week, this makes funding and planning for these potentially life-saving projects difficult and time consuming, particularly for smaller cities, NACTO officials said.

In the meantime, Cities for Cycling is encouraging local communities to adopt its recommendations. Already, the states of Washington and Texas are looking to make NACTO’s standards official, sources say.

“NACTO’s Cities for Cycling Urban Bikeway Design Guide is perfect for any city looking to start a bike program at the highest level,” said Boston Transportation Commissioner Tom Tinlin.

The Bikeway Design Guide offers four different treatments for bike signals, three physically-protected cycle track designs, four types of striped bike lanes and a variety of intersection treatments and signage recommendations. Guidelines are divided into three categories: required, recommended and optional.

Design guidance on one-way cycle tracks, for example, would require a symbol and arrow marking as well as “preferential lane” status, as defined by the guide. Colored pavement for the track is considered optional.

The guide was developed with input from transportation officials from Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C.

Don’t look to AASHTO’s manual for advice about bike boxes. The organization’s guide, which often dictates whether projects get federal funding, does not incorporate the latest developments in cycling infrastructure. Photo: World Changing

We’ll be covering the Bike Summit like other Washington reporters cover the State of the Union. For people who care about sustainable transportation, this event is a high point of the year.

As bicycling infrastructure improves, advocates refine their demands. These days, the call is not just for bike lanes, but separated bike lanes. Bike Summit attendees are sure to be talking about it. Yesterday, Streetfilms released a new video about floating parking and separated cycletracks. And last month, Harvard’s School of Public Health released a study about the superior safety of separated bike tracks.

So why does the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials still advise against cycle tracks on safety grounds? AASHTO’s design manual is the “bible” used by traffic engineers and planners around the country, and it can be hard for localities to get approval — or funding — for projects that deviate from AASHTO’s prescriptions.

A group of urban transportation officials, called Cities for Cycling, has been working to update AASHTO’s bikeway design standards for years. Eric Gilliland, executive director of the National Association of City Transportation Officials, the sponsoring organization for Cities for Cycling, says the Harvard study confirms the benefits of separated bike lanes. “The trend, it seems, in bikeway planning is to provide more of a buffer between bicycle traffic and main street traffic, from a safety standpoint but also from an encouragement standpoint,” Gilliland said.

Portland, in particular, has latched on to the concept of separated bike infrastructure, hoping it will attract hesitant cyclists, Gilliland said.

The problem with AASHTO’s Bikeway Design Standard Manual, Gilliland said, is that it is not updated very often and it does not consider European innovations. Cities for Cycling has been working to lobby the organization to adopt some of the more cutting-edge innovations being put in place in trailblazing cities.

AASHTO’s standards do allow for some interpretation by engineers. Places like New York, San Francisco, Portland and Washington have “really been pushing the envelope,” he said. But it can be tricky to use federal funds for projects that are not in the design manual. In the absence of federal design guidelines for roads and bikeways, states and localities adhere to AASHTO’s guidelines in order to show that they’re using “best practices” and to avoid liability.

Cities that choose to pursue avenues that are not specifically sanctioned must also undergo a time-consuming approval process. This can be difficult for smaller cities.

“If your budgets are small and you don’t have the research staff, trying to innovate is just a very difficult process,” Gilliland said. “It’s not helping advance the cause of bicycling.”

Cities for Cycling is working on an alternative to AASHTO’s guidelines. The Cities for Cycling manual will include the latest design innovations being adopted by American cities. Many of these practices have their orgins in Europe, Gilliland said, such as colored bike lanes, bike boxes and cycle signals. The group is hopeful their recommendations will be adopted for use by AASHTO.

Photo from Zagasi

Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee even has all its members named (that should happen in the next day or so, according to Sen. Boxer), it held a hearing to get the ball rolling on a new transportation bill.

“China is building railroads that will be going hundreds of miles an hour,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), “while America retreats more towards the rickshaw.”

Top committee Republican James Inhofe is all in favor of a big infrastructure bill, but his brand of support includes limiting the scope of the bill. “Our problem in getting the bill we need to get is really not as much the Democrats as it is the Republicans,” he acknowledged. “‘Cause I can hear it right now. They will get it to the floor and say, wait a minute, we’ve got museums in here and these other things.”

Later he clarified that “these other things” are “state capitol domes and bike trails,” which let loose a flurry of trash-talking about bike trails. “I wasn’t aware there were things in the infrastructure bill that aren’t real infrastructure,” said Raymond Poupore of the National Construction Alliance, who was testifying before the committee. “I always thought it was just highways.” And Bill Dorey of the Associated General Contractors of America added, “It’s hard for me to defend a bike path.”

Inhofe suggested that getting back to a meat-and-potatoes highway bill was the key to Republican support. “The best way I can get the full cooperation of the Republicans is if we took this back to the way it was originally, when we had the highway trust fund and the people who paid to use our highways would confine it to maintenance, new construction, bridges, highways then that would be sellable to the conservative community,” he said.

Some Democrats did rush to cyclists’ defense. Boxer herself let it be known that “to me, a bike path is a way of transport; a lot of my people use it to get to work.”

And Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin “took issue” with Inhofe’s dismissal of transportation enhancements. “We need to look at multimodal transportation. Yes, the overwhelming amount of dollars that are reauthorized are going to be for the traditional types of transportation, whether they be roads or bridges or conventional transit. But we need to look at smarter ways,” he said. Baltimore’s designer, he said, tried to connect communities through greenspace.

We’re looking at ways of trying to connect communities again so they don’t have to use our roads! So we don’t have to build so many roads! To me, that saves money in our transportation! And it’s the right investement for our nation. Every dollar that we authorize needs to be spent efficiently and appropriately for transportation in this country. But let us not be afraid to look at alternative ways that can save money, create jobs, and then have more dollars available for the expensive projects that we know we need to build such as high speed rail.

Other Democrats, while not exactly taking up the bike trail issue, declared their love of asphalt. Montana Senator Max Baucus, who chairs the Finance Committee and sits on EPW, celebrated the fact that Montana has more highway miles per capita than any other state. “We love our highways,” he said.

Another theme that came up was the possibility of selling infrastructure investment as a jobs bill for veterans. Susan Martinovich of the Nevada DOT and AASHTO said the unemployment crisis in the construction sector hits home for her on a personal level. “My son is a sergeant in the US Marine Corps, recovering from serious wounds,” she told the committee. “He and many of his fellow Marines spent time in Afghanistan building infrastructure. Transportation is an industry that could provide jobs for these warriors. And they’re jobs that they’re skilled to undertake, but they’re not assured to be there.”

Sen. Boxer was intrigued by the idea. Poupore added that his organization has a Helmets to Hard Hats program that could be a model. Look for more talk of this in the future.

Normally, one angry editorial in the city’s News Corp. tabloid wouldn’t be cause for concern. But this one came complete with a companion news piece, in which City Council members, including Transportation Committee Chair James Vacca, piled on. And it’s also the latest and loudest salvo in what can only be described as a multi-pronged assault waged by local media and politicians on the city’s bicycle program.

John del Signore at Gothamist ran a good piece exposing the Post’s shoddy case against Sadik-Khan, calling the paper’s focus on one city official a “disingenuous” attempt to “score cheap political points.”

I’d like to focus on one particular rhetorical tactic favored by the Post’s editorial staff: the name-calling.

The Post refers to Sadik-Khan as “Deputy Mayor for Bicycles” and, a few paragraphs later, “Bicycle Lady.” As astute observers will know, if the writers had been paying attention the past three years, they would have come up with a more accurate nickname, like “Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Bus Lady.” Or, to really cover the full extent of what’s been going on, “Safer, More Efficient Transportation Lady.”

We’re living in a golden age for improvements to bus corridors, expansions of public space, engineering that prioritizes pedestrian safety, and yes, more efficient streets for motorists. The recent progress of the city’s bicycle program has been stupendous too, opening the door for many more New Yorkers to feel safe riding on city streets. But with so much else going on in NYC DOT’s transportation modernization effort, it’s telling that the Post singled out bike policy for derision.

No matter how much evidence piles up that more people are riding and fewer pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists are getting hurt, in some people’s view, bike infrastructure will never be legitimate. The message comes through loud and clear in the editorial pages of the Post. You can sense it when national Republicans threaten federal bike-ped funding before taking aim at any other transportation programs. It seeps into public hearings in NYC, like when the Democratic chair of the City Council Transportation Committee says that bike policy is “all about trade-offs” with motorists, not about protecting New Yorkers who ride or extending access to an affordable mode of transportation.

If you want to see NYC keep making strides toward becoming a bike-friendly city, it’s gut-check time. Community boards need to hear from residents that safe streets for cycling matter (Brooklyn CB 6 folks can get going on that this Thursday). Council members need to hear from their constituents that bicycling and bike policy matter. At your local precinct community council, cops need to hear that smart, targeted traffic enforcement matters.

And the Bloomberg administration needs to hear from New Yorkers who want to see the progress of the past few years continue. Here’s a good place to get that message out loud and clear.

Hundreds of cyclists and pedestrians — and more than a few elected officials — turned out on Friday afternoon last week to cut the ribbon on an impressive piece of infrastructure for human-powered travel — the long-awaited Cal Park Tunnel in Marin County, California.

The project has been talked about since the late 1970s and in active development for the last 12 years. For Marin cyclists, the 1.2 mile path/tunnel combo adds a critical, safe link to the north-south bikeway that will eventually run from the Golden Gate Bridge to Cloverdale in Sonoma County.  It is expected to shave nearly 15 minutes off of trips and serve up to 800,000 riders a year. And just as important: The rail right-of-way has been maintained so that in the future, SMART light rail vehicles can use the tunnel too.

The Cal Park Tunnel has some top-notch features: ample lighting, cell phone reception, emergency phone call boxes, a ventilation system and smooth pavement.  To read up on loads more history of the tunnel and information, check out Streetsblog SF’s great recap from last week.

Even historic bridges like this one can be retrofitted to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. Image: www.pedbikeimages.org / Dan Burden

With one out of every four U.S. bridges deemed deficient, obsolete, or inadequate, a spate of bridge reconstruction is already overdue. And as planners start engineering the improvements, pedestrians and cyclists have to make sure they’re part of the process. Advocates should remember that the USDOT requires bike accommodations on bridges built with federal funds.

That’s the call from the League of American Bicyclists and the Alliance for Biking and Walking. The two groups released a report this week called Bridging the Gaps in Bicycling Networks: An advocate’s guide to getting bikes on bridges [PDF].

The Bike League and the Alliance walk advocates through the most common obstacles to gaining bike-ped access on bridges and shows how other groups have been successful. For example, “Advocates in the San Francisco Bay Area got a bike path included on the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge by using bike counts on the Golden Gate Bridge: 220-250 bikes per hour.”

South Carolina cyclists famously won a bridge-access campaign for the Ravenel Bridge over the Cooper River in Charleston. State officials came at them with every excuse in the book from cost to low usage estimates to suicide risk from jumping. Officials scoffed at the idea, asking “Why not allow horse-drawn carriages on the bridge?”

That’s when their campaign kicked into high gear behind the slogan, “Can’t wait to bike and walk the new bridge!” They printed it on hundreds of T-shirts and thousands of bumper stickers… Thirty thousand postcards were sent. The Mayor’s secretary complained that she had never seen so many cards and letters about one issue… Within a few weeks, SCDOT got behind the idea, too. What convinced them? [Advocate Don] Sparks says, “It became obvious that this was something they couldn’t fight” because the public supported it. When it appeared that the politicians were becoming amenable to including a bike and pedestrian path, Charleston Moves took out a half-page ad in the local newspaper thanking the DOT – even before the deal was done!

The resulting 2.7 mile long, 12-foot-wide, bi-directional, shared-use facility was named Wonders Way in honor of Garrett Wonders, who had been killed while riding his bicycle.

Bicycle and pedestrian access on the bridge isn’t much help if there’s no access to the bridge. “But as transportation engineer Anthony Powers says, ‘This is a design problem, not a reason for not providing accommodation.’ The design and engineering of the approaches require at least as much attention as any other component of the project.”

Naysayers will try to discourage advocates by saying it costs too much to include non-auto modes, or it’s a threat to national security (come again?), or the bridge can’t support the weight of an extra lane.

How can cyclists and pedestrians counter those arguments? Build coalitions. Make your voice heard. Find friendly elected officials who will press your case. Be strategic about who you’re trying to influence and how to get to them.

And start early. Take a look at the bridges in your area. If they’re in disrepair, there might already be plans to start upgrading it. The earlier you intercede in the design process, the better your chance of getting accommodations.

Transportation Committee Chair James Vacca, far left, puts a question to DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, seated at the far table in the center. Photo: Ben Fried

The line to testify at today’s Transportation Committee hearing on New York City bike policy was snaking outside into the biting cold well before the 10:00 a.m. start time. More than 70 people signed up to speak, filling up two hearing rooms at 250 Broadway.

The first few hours of the hearing, however, belonged to committee members, who peppered Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan with questions about an exhaustive array of bike-related topics: how DOT decides to install bike lanes, how they measure the success of bike lanes, how much bike lanes cost, how the city intends to discourage rule-breakers on bikes, and yes, whether cyclist registration should be required.

“Nobody disagrees that using more bicycles is a good thing, but in a city where traffic is horrendous and finding a parking space is difficult, bike policy is all about tradeoffs,” committee chair Vacca said in his introduction. “Too many people are starting to get the impression that bike policy is about getting them to give up their cars.”

All of Streetsblog’s editors and reporters are gathering for our annual strategy session this afternoon, so unfortunately I couldn’t stay for the full hearing. But here are a few quick hits that will hopefully give a sense of where certain Council members stand on bike policy:

• Vacca had the mic longer than other committee members and had the longest exchanges with Sadik-Khan. One question about the cost of building bike lanes yielded an answer that will be of particular interest to Streetsblog readers. All of the current DOT’s bike projects combined have cost a total of $8.8 million, including analysis, design, outreach, and construction, Sadik-Khan said. When you factor in the 80 percent federal match, the city has spent less than $2 million from its own coffers on the major expansions to the bike network we’ve seen the last few years.
• Queens representative Peter Koo, who represents Flushing, said, “In my experience, I hardly see any people using the bike lanes. Meanwhile, the motorists have no place to park, and business people have no place for deliveries.” Statistics laying out the substantial bicycle volumes on certain streets — in the range of 10 to 20 percent of peak hour traffic on several corridors, Sadik-Khan said — did not sway him. “Some parts of the city, downtown areas, don’t need bike lanes,” he said. “They should go in suburban areas.”
• Southern Brooklyn’s Lew Fidler said residents in his neighborhoods will not commute by bike and questioned the utility of long-term planning when it comes to bike infrastructure. He professed not to understand the DOT priority on building bike lanes that would yield a more connected, cohesive network of safe cycling routes. He also asked DOT to come back and install a bike lane along recreational routes by the water in his district.
• Tish James asked DOT to expand the bike network in Brooklyn beyond the downtown core and neighboring communities, into central and southern Brooklyn. “The objections of my colleagues notwithstanding, I can think of no better way of addressing the sedentary lifestyle than expanding the bicycle network.” She also asked for more physically protected lanes in Brooklyn.
• The first and, I believe, only council member to bring up the idea of mandatory registration for cyclists was David Greenfield, a freshman who represents parts of Borough Park, Midwood, and Bensonhurst.
• East Side representative and occasional cyclist Daniel Garodnick asked how pedestrians’ perception of safety on streets with new bike lanes can be addressed. “Even before bike lanes, the number of complaints about riders who do improper things is high,” he said. He welcomed DOT’s new “Don’t be a jerk” education campaign, but he’d like to see more from the police. “I hope DOT will encourage NYPD to do proper enforcement of the rules, so that as we expand the bike network, people will use it properly,” he said.
• Another East Side rep, Jessica Lappin, took a harder line on cyclist enforcement. “What people are doing is breaking the law and putting lives at risk,” she said. “I’ve heard countless stories of people who’ve been hit, killed, the list goes on and on.”

There were several camera crews in the cramped hearing room. Can’t wait to see how the coverage shakes out from this one.

If you want to report from the latter parts of the hearing or you have testimony that you’d like to share, drop us a line in the comments or send us an email at tips@streetsblog.org. You can also get lots of good snippets of testimony from the Twitter feed of Streetsblog reader BicyclesOnly.

With the hearing room full, lots of people were still waiting outside 250 Broadway when the Transportation Committee got started this morning.