Skip to content

Recent Comments



    There were parts of the path that were screwed up by Sandy (again according to the NYC bike map), but as of last summer they were working on them and had actually put asphalt detours over the grass around where they were working on them.



    Maybe there _is_ less congestion than in 1984, but it can still be reduced further? That is a good question.



    Levine’s idea of REDUCING density in the already-served bike share area is terrible. Bike share does not work unless the bikes are everywhere. There are already fewer stations than there should be in the already-served area. YES to expansion, but even expansion should be paired with increasing the density of the already-served area or the system will be far less useful and balancing problems will worsen.



    A few feet after the pavement ends heading east there’s a gap in the metal railing, there might be a fire hydrant there or something, or maybe there was at one point, the hole is in that sense ‘supposed’ to be there. And yea cyclists will take that onto the highway, most of the way to the Plum Beach exit is the exit lane for it, so it’s probably one of the better places to ride a bike on a highway I guess.

    I haven’t been around there in a while, there’s a gap east of the Verrazano from Sandy? Where? Before Sandy it didn’t continue past the Toys R Us if that’s what you meant.


    Bike rider

    I reported this to the Borough Chief for the Parks Dept. who happens to live not far from the location. I think my note to him went into another sink hole at the parks dept.



    The only hard numbers I know are NYMTC’s Hub Bound Statistics. It’s a cordon count for Manhattan south of 60th St. All vehicles are included. One measure is the number of accumulated vehicles ( garbage in minus garbage out.)

    One important aspect of this data is that the vehicle accumulation peaked in 1984. It’s down significantly (33% in 2012).

    There’s a lot less agreement on how to measure “congestion.” However, if congestion has persisted despite a 33% drop in vehicle volume, how is congestion pricing supposed to reduce congestion?



    I get as frustrated with the CBs as anyone. But you can’t just have someone at the top sweep in and gut them. That will only serve to alienate the people in those districts.

    As hard as it can be to stomach the anti-street safety votes coming out of various CBs, to say that they should just be ignored is incredibly myopic.



    I’m not an expert on lane width, but is 36′ for a moving/angled parking lane standard? That seems insane.



    Do you have a source for that? (I’m not doubting it, but I’d be interested in seeing whatever backup you have.)



    One of the measures being proposed is tolling Manhattan south of 60th St. I wonder what fraction of private car trips in that area originate in that area as opposed to the rest of Manhattan.

    Also, non-private vehicles would also have to pay, and they definitely contribute to congestion too. When I look at the streets of midtown during rush hour, most vehicles on the road seem to be “non-private” (mostly taxis and delivery vehicles). I’m curious what the hard numbers for that are.



    They say they are going to put a protected bike lane on 2nd ave once the subway construction is completed



    “The Bronx is plagued by motorists from well-off areas to the north of
    the borough who come in to Manhattan for various reasons. They sit on
    the Bruckner. They sit on the Deegan. They drive onto local Bronx
    streets to avoid the existing bridge tolls. They actually do contribute
    to the Manhattan and overall NYC economy, but for the Bronx, they
    contribute nothing.”

    That’s not borne out by NYMTC’s 2010-2011 Regional Household Travel Survey.

    42% of unlinked private car trips ending in Manhattan also originate in Manhattan.
    9.5% of unlinked private car trips ending in Manhattan originate in the Bronx.
    5.7% of unlinked private car trips ending in Manhattan originate in Westchester.
    Putnam, Fairfield and New Haven Counties account for less than 1% total.

    The majority of cars sitting on the Deegan and Bruckner on their way to Manhattan, originated in the Bronx.

    Similarly private car congestion in Manhattan is caused by car trips originating in Manhattan. Therefore, any “solution” designed to reduce Manhattan congestion by limiting cars originating from outside Manhattan is avoiding the principal source of congestion.


    Eric McClure

    Holy cow.


    Sean Kelliher

    When NYC’s DOT wins the prize for largest low-quality bicycle network in North America, I wonder what the trophy will look like?

    In the meantime, when Jon Orcutt visits maimed residents in the hospital or grieving families after a fatality has occurred he can explain how he wishes there was something that could have been done to prevent this, but “prohibitively high traffic volumes” just got in the way. Then maybe Seth Solomonow can jump in with the agency’s “safety is our highest priority” chestnut. I’m sure this will all provide some comfort in a time of need.



    My guess is that he is in “Driver World,” and seeing everything from the perspective of the put-upon driver. MoveNY is seen through the lens of Bronx Drivers vs. Manhattan Drivers, and he wants to even the score with those drivers in Manhattan with their fancy, and heavy, Range Rovers and chauffeured Suburbans.

    Politicians are now mainly drivers, or driven by chauffeur. Some academic needs to write a paper on how this skews their politics and worldview.








    Amsterdam Avenue should have this configuration instead of the sharrows at the most congested areas:

    And this is feasible between W 173rd to the W 180s on the east side of Amsterdam Avenue, since it is bounded by Highbridge Park. Granted, sharrows are better than nothing at all, but that is hardly adequate for such a busy vehicular junction such as W 181 and Amsterdam.



    8 feet? That has to be a joke. Take that 13 foot parking lane and make it a standard 9, and now your two way bike lane is a reasonable 12 feet.



    Here’s another thing.

    The Bronx is plagued by motorists from well-off areas to the north of the borough who come in to Manhattan for various reasons. They sit on the Bruckner. They sit on the Deegan. They drive onto local Bronx streets to avoid the existing bridge tolls. They actually do contribute to the Manhattan and overall NYC economy, but for the Bronx, they contribute nothing.

    Actually, that’s not quite right. For the Bronx, they leave a wake of asthma-afflicted kids in places like Hunts Point, Mott Haven, Highbridge, and University Heights. P.S. 154 at 135th & Alexander is right on the route you’d take to avoid the RFK Bridge toll, which is why it sits on a four-lane traffic sewer. I wonder what the asthma rate is like there.

    Under the Schwartz fair plan, the number of motorists passing through the Bronx and idling in traffic would be reduced. But anyone who wants to continue to drive through the borough would at least be contributing to the underfunded public transit system that Bronx residents rely on to get to work.

    B.P. Diaz should be fighting like hell to overturn the dysfunctional status quo that gives nothing but negatives to the Bronx. Instead, he’s actually defending it!



    I agree with other commenters that it is frustrating to see these subpar treatments trotted out.

    But there is so little bike infrastructure uptown that this is a win. And one that Brad Conover and BikeUp, and people involved in the livable streets group that predates Bike Upper Manhattan put a lot of work in to make happen. Without them, there would be exactly zero improvements proposed right now, and there would not be a longer list of asks from CB12 of DOT that Bike Upper Manhattan is responsible for putting on the table.

    I pointed out in the DNA info article comments that community members in attendance were in favor of the bike lanes 15 to 1. Thanks to the rollout of Citi Bike and the extension of the network in central areas of the city, bike infrastructure is increasingly seen as an amenity that neighborhoods outside that core *want*. So as laughable and sad as the sharrows are, please remember that it matters that most of the people at the meeting were in favor of the lanes by a significant majority. And even though the same CB12 transpo member still grubs about losing a few parking spaces, increasingly there is acceptance and, in the case of Citi Bike, demand. It is a start, and it’s not a terrible one by any means.


    midwood resident

    I just saw police officers from 61st precinct (license plate 4559-13) in Brooklyn harass a teenage boy for jay walking. This was on Kings Highway and E18th street. Their car was parked in the middle of a crosswalk so that all other pedestrians had to walk into an oncoming traffic to get around. Is that legal?? Not mentioning the fact that while they were “enforcing the law” many other people jaywalked right next to them. Since when do we get ticketed for that in NYC? Ridiculous.

    Also, one of the officers insinuated that the kid’s iphone was a weapon and should not be kept in his hand at the time. Are you kidding? This is a waist of taxpayers money.



    Please feel free to write Mr. Diaz on the issue:



    I actually give Diaz credit for sticking up for low-income New Yorkers most of the time. For example by demanding living wage for Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment. That’s why his stance on this is so baffling and disappointing.



    This alternative plan isn’t about helping the poor, it’s about appeasing the automobile owners in the Bronx (who despite their minority status, are more likely to vote and become involved in community affairs when compared to non-drivers in this borough).

    Politics, plains and simple.



    Wouldn’t this give a big break to out-of-state drivers? NJ would love it. Even if Diaz miraculously got the rest of NY State to hop on his bandwagon, good luck getting NJ to increase their registration fees and gift the money to NYC.



    Exactly. This is especially bad because we don’t have a continuous route by the river, unlike the west side, where people can use it as a safer alternative. It will be another 20-30 years before the UN moves and the East River waterfront has a continuous bike lane.


    Brian Van Nieuwenhoven

    One depressing angle: no one in government is willing to analyze the infrastructure costs of any transportation systems at all, so it’s literally impossible for a politician to justify mode shift with entitled voters/consumers

    I’m sure that, if the mismanagement of mode costs were really accounted for in a simple way (not that it’s even possible), voters would be even MORE unhappy with the job that government is doing with transportation systems.



    Not to mention Second Ave above 34th! No safe way to go south on the UES.



    Shifting costs to vehicle registration fees from tolls lowers the cost of marginal trips. Merely reducing car usage among existing car owners is a step in the right direction. This does the opposite.



    It’s a chicken and egg problem and the farmers are afraid of disturbing the hen house.

    There are prohibitively high car traffic volumes, so we can’t have separated bike infrastructure. But until we have separated bike infrastructure we won’t make a dent in car traffic volumes.

    So, sharrows.






    Two-way segregated lanes only make sense on flat roads. It’s just crazy to have someone descending at 25 mph sharing a narrow lane with someone climbing at 5 mph.



    Seriously. 8th Ave next to Port Authority, 1st Ave, btw 49th & 57th, 9th Ave at 14th St, Columbus Ave at 66th St. Broadway/7th Ave between 45th & 42nd. The worst places to bike have the worst gaps in bike infrastructure.



    Sure, a half-mile of protected lanes, but where? On one of the longest, steepest, hills in the entire city. This is one of the most egregious instances of poorly located infrastructure; infrastructure that is clearly not intended to help people get around the city by bicycle in a meaningful way. Meanwhile, the direct routes that would be most beneficial get sharrows because of “prohibitively high traffic volumes”. high volume locations are precisely where you need the MOST intense bicycle infrastructure. This project, however, is token bike infrastructure, and it needs to be called out as such.

    A view of the location:



    [Last year, DOT said the Amsterdam bike lanes may be interrupted where there are “prohibitively high traffic volumes.”]

    Ah, so we get the ol’ “sharrows at exactly the most critical location”.

    This is something that we really havent addressed yet in New York, and its a huge problem.



    So we have an excessively-wide parking lane, a ridiculously-excessively-wide parking/moving lane combo, and a comically-narrow bike lane? Would it really hurt motorists’ feelings that much if the bike lane were made wide enough to be usable?



    You should raise the MTA fares. If people can’t afford a $5 bus ride or $200 monthly, then give them some extra cash for transportation, spent however they want . Let the MTA focus on moving people around, not on being a welfare agency.



    the data needs to present the persons involved in a table format . right now you have to manually sum the data to find how many pedestrians were hit on the intersection or on the corridor.
    Similarly the contributing factors are not coded or in table format so they must be collated manually.
    Worse, in reviewing certain precincts, I discovered that only 60% of crashes involving vulnerable users had any mention of contributing factors leaving a huge gap in our understanding of most common causes.
    in contrast many crashes with only material damages had contributing factors . Seems that the procedures must be changed and ALL crashes with personal injuries or fatalities MUST contain contributing factors .


    Keegan Stephan

    Here’s a picture of the inside of the bike jail from August of 2012, just 2 months before Sandy. Something tells me they did not clear out all of these bikes in those two months.

    Photo taken by Barbara Ross



    …and this, 50 yards north of the sink hole taken at 8:30 am this morning. About 40 feet of water 10-12″ deep. These two problems may be related.



    Don’t consider this positive news or even a 1-week fix. I have been relentlessly pursuing this issue from day 1. Please keep all of your complaints coming into the DEP, Community Board 12, City DOT, state DOT and the Parks department. The Parks department probably submitted this news for some good PR on this embarrassing problem. This is the 3-4th time they have filled this hole with either top soil, sand or gravel. This fix will be completely washed away as soon as we get some good rainfall. As of last night’s rain, the sink hole has already continued to erode. I stepped on the gravel as I squeezed through the gates and my foot sank down about 6 inches as the ground gave way underneath me. Our only option has been reduced to riding through 5 inches of sticky, slippery mud. Wheel chairs, Rollerblades, jogging strollers and trikes may not be able to pass this section at all.

    Here is a letter I got from the Parks Department on April 4th.

    Dear ______,

    NYC Parks’ Interagency Division had called an all agency meeting out on site with the various agencies that have jurisdiction in the area: the State Department of Transportation, the City Department of Transportation, the city’s Department of Environmental Protection.

    Following the meeting the State Department of Transportation did an analysis and determined that they were not responsible for the repairs, that the source of the issue was not the state segment of roadway, rather it was the City given the apparent deterioration or break of the water line under the highway. Parks did interim filling of the sinkhole and placed barriers at site. Our Interagency Coordination Division has circled back to the city agencies and we will be identifying ways to have a more permanent repair. Potential lane closures for access and mobilization make it a somewhat challenging site to address.

    We will keep you updated on the progress.

    Jennifer M Hoppa
    Administrator Northern Manhattan Parks
    Executive Director Fort Tryon Park Trust
    Fort Tryon Park Cottage
    741 Fort Washington Avenue
    New York, NY 10040



    He’s taking the side of a certain group of drivers in the 1% demographic, the ones who turn The Bronx into Manhattan’s doormat. Many drivers sincerely benefit from the Schwartz plan.

    For strategic reasons, if nothing else, it might be good to make common cause with some drivers in this case.


    Larry Shaeffer

    actually, more vehicles can travel on a street at 20mph than can travel the same street at 30mph-less following space is needed for the lower speeds so more cars can fit into the space. In effect, the 20mph is Plenty strategy is raising the capacity of the streets and reducing congestion.



    Ruben Diaz Jr. evidently inherited that famous Ruben Diaz empathy.

    The only question is whether he is contemptuous toward or merely indifferent to the transit-dependent lumpen proles he is supposed to represent.



    Still no word on the busted bollards they removed along the two-way buffered path on South St between John St and Old Slip…have two 311 requests in on that (one is past due). At least it’s a paper trail for when a driver enters the bike way as a high-speed passing lane and maims or kills.



    Parks is starved for operating funds — including maintenance. Good bet Parks is waiting until they can fix the path crater as part of a capital project. Park’s budget is 1.8% of the city’s discretionary funds. ($426m of $23,767m 2014 “controllable expense” budget.) Out of those operating funds Parks not only has to maintain parks, is has to operate all of the pools, rec centers, maintain beaches, prune/plant street trees etc.



    Yeah, I don’t usually think of them as transit either, but have to admit it’s probably a gray area. The category of both those things is probably “demand response vehicle.” But things like paratransit and to an extent dollar vans also fall under that rubric too, and some people consider them transit.

    If anything, though, bikes are probably most likely to not involve another vehicle in the trip. A taxi to a train is probably pretty common in suburban areas. And another difference with CitiBike is it’s probably very likely to be used for leisure rather than for actually commuting or shopping.


    Robert Wright

    “I have a different definition of fairness than those proposing this scheme,” Diaz says. The problem is that those other people’s definition represents a fairer kind of fairness than his less-fair kind.



    What’s truly regressive, for hundreds of thousands of Bronx residents who can least afford it, is subway and bus fare hikes. I can’t fathom why Diaz would rather see more fare hikes, and keep the welcome mat out for Manhattan-bound Westchester and Connecticut drivers to cruise through his borough and cause asthma for low-income kids, than see tolls lowered on bridges that connect to his borough. Diaz must be out of his mind.

    Sigh. It’s just easier to say “no” to something than it is to get behind a transformative idea.

    The weird thing is that he’s usually very supportive of policies that help make things better for low-income constituents.*

    *Except for cars.