Skip to content

Recent Comments



    the question was asked regarding loading a carry on on a Bike – the photos show this to be posdible and more.

    LGA Is a easy cycling trip from Much of the city. With a modest network of PBLs …



    Congratulations, but if you think 7% of passengers will do that you are deluding yourself. You are a minority of a minority of a minority. First, people cycling for transportation are already a minority. And then you are at the tiny intersection of people willing to balance huge loads with those who think that cycling for a rare trip to the airport is worth the trouble.

    I say that as someone who has cycled to train trips, going on moderately loaded shopping trips on a bike, and gone on camping trips on a bike, which I gets puts me in minority squared, but not minority cubed…



    Thanks for a good exchange, but now we are just repeating ourselves.

    James C. Walker, National Motorists Association


    Jonathan R

    Where are you drawing your observations about painted lanes from? The East 167th St lane between Clay and Morris in the Bronx was milled and paved in October of 2014 and the lane was painted back with the rest of the striping.

    I will interpret your request for me to denounce the plan at the CB as sarcasm, since being described as a delusional stooge by a soi-disant fellow advocate is pretty demotivating.



    Bike loaded up with baggage ready for ride to LGA !

    1 Big carry on
    1 massive Sports bag

    everything but the Kitchen sink ( teenager going away to Camp for 3 weeks )



    it Is a false Argument that commerce requires private cars. Every City that prioritizes Pedestrians Over private cars sees increased commerce, higher property values, and more happiness.

    Easy Example is Time Square. Since the modest pedestrian zones were created; Theater attendence has skyrocketed, property values explored, and merchants are estactic.

    Rid the City of Parking craters, Superhighways, motor sewers and observe increased commerce



    Coming up with a statistical value of life for cost benefit analysis is pretty common. Is that any different?



    Nice piece , BTW , you are requiring a WI 00-2011 , my business saw a blank document here



    And there it is: Commerce trumps human life.

    The only word I can think of for that is depraved.



    An enormous number of streets all over the USA and other parts of world operate perfectly safely with actual 85th percentile speeds well above 25 to 30 mph.

    Traffic engineering is a compromise between safety (particularly for the most vulnerable users) and efficiency of travel for commerce. Engineers do not and cannot set the compromise in favor the greatest safety for the most vulnerable users – at the expense of serious damage to commerce. That is reality.

    James C. Walker, National Motorists Association



    It’s mainly a cause in crashes only when drivers go fast enough for their stopping distance to exceed their recognition distance for an object. This is primarily a factor in night driving,

    Nope. It is also a significant factor in high-information, visually noisy urban environments, even in daylight.



    The mta has adjusted fares based on what they want the people to pay after they have the funds they need to partially cover for the fares, let the people pay their share, and still have the system at a loss but a profit to the city in form of property tax income and other tax incomes for the city and state, etc. I think the bigger focus is to put fares on the free bridges and to allow for digital proof of payment on the new and upcoming fare payment system.



    You yourself acknowledged that this was “physics.” Do traffic engineers not understand physics, or do they simply choose to ignore it?





    From a PA airport passenger survey about ten years ago:


    Simon Phearson

    It’s not part of any network. Yes, you should go back to the CB and tell them this is unacceptable. It’s just… nothing. It’s paint on the street that will be ignored shortly after it’s painted, forgotten when it’s faded, and lost completely when the street is repaved. This is not a “weak-sauce” proposal. This is a “get lost” proposal, and to characterize it as an incremental “win” is to delude yourself.



    streets should be closed off to motor traffic in Front of Every NYC school



    I remember a few years ago when there was some Community Board meeting about something to do with traffic on East 84th Street, and they were insisting that the street be closed during school drop off and pick up, lest their precious offspring get hurt by cars. I went to a private school on a side street on the UES, and the way we stayed safe was simply by learning not to play in traffic. Oy.



    Yeah Wrong Jebbie



    Perhaps you mean St. Ignatius? Those parents were particularly obnoxious at the meetings, as were the parents from Ramaz. No matter how many times someone would explain to them that bike lanes calm traffic and make those streets safer for their kids, they kept bleating “But what about the children???”



    St Xavier


    Jonathan R

    You have perceptively identified one of the chief problems with the process: DOT staff or consultants develop the plans, and then DOT staff vet them before presenting them to the CB. There’s no independent analysis. The residents get one proposal from DOT, no alternatives provided. Only in rare cases do they send along more than one design, for the redesign of West 181st St. there were three concepts presented.



    You just want FREE parking. You are too Cheap to Pay for Parking and expect others to subsidze your parking.

    BTW – NYC streets are paid for by property taxes, so your argument that Car owners deserve to own the roadway because Drivers Pay for the streets fails



    I’m disappointed they didn’t stick to their guns on all three lanes (purely personal interest: I live on East 85th and, as I told the CB8 meetings, I would have loved having my own personal bike lane). Still, good for DOT for ignoring at least _some_ of the NIMBYs. Anyone know why 84/85 wasn’t included? It seemed the least problematic of the pairs that were proposed.



    It’s hard for me to see these facilities as unattainable as they are never proposed, at least not publicly. This article itself said the CB requested a study of a protected lane. That study apparently never came, but we did get 10 feet of road width primarily devoted to yellow striping that no one can use.

    When all this stuff happens behind closed doors the rest of us can’t see the political context. Thanks for filling me in but I’d rather you didn’t have to.



    UPBL is a great designation!


    Jonathan R

    Well, if you put it that way, I would rather have some kind of unsanctioned-by-Phearson bicycle lane in my neighborhood instead of the status quo. Call Margaret and find out what it would take to get a protected lane on Dyckman Street. I’ve spent 7 years advocating for the Dyckman Greenway Connector, a true protected lane, and this weak-sauce proposal is what DOT is offering. And now you want me to go to the CB general meeting and complain that it’s not acceptable because it’s not part of a low-stress bike network?

    Your argument that we should hold firm for the unattainable in bicycle facilities in order to better serve people who are uninterested in bicycling is fairy dust. I agree that bicycle mode share will grow at a creeping pace, short the appearance of a deus ex machina like a ban on overnight parking, or peak oil. You seem ready to blame the delay in the onset of such a remarkable event on the lack of a low-stress bike network.



    paint should be labeled UNprotected bike lanes (UPBL) to contrast with Protected Bike Lanes ( PBL)





    Yes, about 3 inches farther on average, but still in the door zone, and the grouping was tigher so more were in the door zone. See reviews here, and here,


    Simon Phearson

    I don’t know why we draw a distinction between sharrows, wide parking lanes, and unprotected bike lanes any more. Everyone who uses them knows there’s no functional difference. I get the sense that we’d be celebrating those useless “signed routes,” too, if that was the best we could get.


    Joe R.

    The problem with compromises, which I’ve seen time and again, is that there often is never any improvement going forward. Yes, you may have tangible results here instead of nothing (and that’s a good thing BTW), but in the end you may never get anything more. The other side will often say things like “We gave you something. Be happy with it” or “Anytime we give an inch you bicycle advocates want to take a mile”.

    Even if we assume compromise is sometimes necessary to move forwards, I think it’s still good to mention to the other side repeatedly that what they gave you is a compromise but here’s what really should have been done. For example, in my borough the Queens Boulevard bike lanes seem a reasonable compromise for now given the political climate and budget. Long term, I would personally push for a full-on totally grade-separated bikeway there (or at least overpasses at major intersections). I even feel this may be realistic within a 5 to 10 year time frame.

    We need to keep the ideal in everyone’s mind even as we might occasionally need to accept compromises. BBnet3000 does a good job at that.


    Simon Phearson

    That’s just it, isn’t it? You (and other advocates) care more about “tangible results” than something that would actually, effectively, promote cycling modeshare. You’re someone who already bikes in the neighborhood; you advocate for a “place for bikes,” and now you have it. But what about the people who don’t bike in the neighborhood, but want to? They’ll try these lanes, find them to be unsafe, and then maybe think twice about it. They’ll tell their friends and co-workers that they tried it once upon a time but found it to be too unsafe. But actually addressing their concerns, actually giving them a reason to get out there and ride and keep riding. that’s just a subsequent step for you. A next step in decades of compromises.

    In the meantime, cycling modeshare will only creep up as a portion of the “interested but concerned” contingent converts to “road warrior” status in order to deal with this “tangible progress” you claim credit for. And those of us who already are “road warriors” – it’s our bodies that will be left in the streets.


    Jonathan R

    Fair question.

    I put Margaret’s name and number there because she can give you the best answer as to why the low-stress bicycling infrastructure you advocate for is not being implemented on Dyckman Street and elsewhere in Manhattan.

    In the meantime, you are purposefully ignoring the political context of these plans. As someone who David recognizes in the article above as having worked for better bicycle infrastructure on Dyckman Street for several years now, I am well aware of the political context. Your breezy dismissal of the DOT proposal as not meeting the high standards that New Yorkers deserve does not recognize that the plan put forward is a compromise.

    I live in the neighborhood. I go to meetings; I bring my kids to meetings. I would like to have some kind of tangible result to my advocacy so I can show my kids, ‘Hey, we went to that meeting, and we said, “Yes, we want somewhere for bikes,” and now we have it.’ I would also like to have some kind of tangible result so I can return to the meeting and say, ‘That bike lane on Dyckman is fantastic; I use it every week, but it could be so much better if it was on the other side of the parked cars.’

    Ultimately, I admire your consistent support of the low-stress bicycle network concept, but the negative comparisons you draw between the compromise results that Margaret is ready to build and your preferred concept come across as dismissive of the efforts of advocates, including me, and our desire for some actual tangible result we can point to.


    Jonathan R

    Where are those excess local automobiles being stored, if not on street or in garages? Your comment somewhat rebuts Joe R’s favorite policy of reducing on-street parking to reduce automobile density, as your conclusion is that such a policy doesn’t seem to have worked in Inwood.



    I take it you’re being sarcastic.

    I’ve seen a bunch of these “you don’t have the standing to comment” replies toward myself and others lately, and I find them pretty galling. Is there something in the content of my comment that you would like to address?


    Jonathan R

    How about you call Margaret Forgione at 212-839-6210 and tell her you’re
    a pseudonymous commenter on Streetsblog who thinks she’s wrong about
    Dyckman Street. Surely your voice of reason is the voice she has been
    waiting to hear.







    Unprotected bike lanes (UPBL) on crosstown streets only support the ‘interested but concerned’ people cycling..UPBLs are mainly to support drivers by reducing ‘owning’ the lane by people cycling.

    Applaud the DOT for pushing forward

    Agreed – DOT should add UPBL paint every time they repave any street


    Joe R.

    Your last sentence is pretty much my point. I’ve never said let’s not enforce speeding at all, but rather let’s put it down on the list. The big problem I’m seeing is even if we had gotten the additional speed cameras we asked for (which by the way I think are sorely needed) we would pat ourselves on the back and think this is enough. We would end up with a little more speed enforcement than we have now, but still virtually no enforcement of any other traffic laws.

    I wonder about the logistics of failure to yield cameras? If those legally can’t be regulated by Albany, NYC should put them up at as many intersections as practical.


    Joe R.

    How can you “carefully look” when crossing a street if a car parked next to a crosswalk blocks your view (and also blocks driver’s views of you)? Allowing parking right up to crosswalks is dangerous for everyone. It shouldn’t be allowed. And drivers have no right to curbside parking in this city like you seem to think, either.


    Sean Kelliher

    I was wondering that as well: why did DOT choose these particular streets? Was it due to road width or vehicular traffic volumes?

    Nevertheless, I see these as mainly hollow victories. I live on the far West Side of Manhattan and work on the far East Side. I have a lot of experience with these crosstown lanes. The ones in midtown are useless. They’re punctuated by sharrows and so parked and driven in that often it’s difficult to tell if and where they actually exist.

    The combinations on 20/21st and 9th/10th are a little better, but not good. There’s generally at least one driver parked in them each block (even when 9th becomes an upgraded curbside lane on Christopher), and you always need to pay attention for driving motorists passing too closely or parked motorists flinging their doors open.

    The block of Ninth Street around Seventh Avenue is particularly narrow and unnerving. I’ve taken photographs and written to DOT a number of times about it. Each time, they basically tell me to get lost: tell a Community Board; tell the NYPD; this design works great; it must be drivers parking too far from the curb (it’s not).

    DOT needs to push and install a protected by something crosstown lane prototype somewhere.Yes, some residents, or union members, or media outlets will throw a tantrum about the loss of free parking, but the lane will work well and give DOT evidence and public support to do the same elsewhere. Low-quality Class 2 projects like these for the UES aren’t going to help NYC become a “world class cycling city” or even a “Vision Zero” city.



    If we were discussing a motoring public that generally complied with driving laws that protect pedestrians – scrupulously yielding to pedestrians as the law requires, always being very careful to stop for every red light and stop sign, etc. – but found themselves speeding on a small number of streets, then, sure, maybe there’s something wrong with the speed limit on those streets. Because responsible people tend to be responsible. But we’re not. We’re discussing a motoring public that blatantly ignores all sorts of laws that protect pedestrians, because enforcement is so sparse that any rare ticket is chalked up to bad luck rather than a consequence of breaking the law. And irresponsible people tend to be irresponsible. They are not keeping pedestrians in mind while speeding any more than they are keeping pedestrians in mind while they fail to yield.

    Let’s stop missing the forest for the trees. If we want to persuade motorists to drive safely, we need to start enforcing the law as extensively as we possibly can, using whatever automated resources we have at our disposal (both because our police force has proven itself uninterested in stepping up to the plate and because even the best possible police force can’t be anywhere nearly as effective as a machine). Certainly, speeding can’t be the only violation that’s enforced, but it can’t be ignored, either.



    I have several ITE documents supporting the 85th methods. I have no tickets of any kind on my record since 2004 and none before that until within the NMSL era that ended December 1995.

    James C. Walker, National Motorists Association



    Actual speeds can be important for safety, speed limits are almost unrelated to the actual travel speeds for at least the upper half of the flow.

    I try to drive in the 80th-90th percentile range to have the lowest crash risk and an efficient travel speed. If the posted limit is set at the 24th percentile speed to define 76% of the drivers as violators, that has no influence on my choice of speeds – nor the choices of the great majority of other drivers.

    One collector in my town is posted at the 1st percentile speed with 99% above, including school buses with kids aboard. The limit is ludicrous, and almost every driver recognizes it as such. 85th = 40 mph and has been so for 20+ years, posted limit is 25.

    James C. Walker, National Motorists Association



    It is the way the stats are kept. Also note that pedestrians and bicycles can only crash with cars when cars are being driven.

    James C. Walker, National Motorists Association


    Manny Carvajal

    It’s hard enough as it is to find parking in NYC, the author is one sided in his argument here and doesn’t look at both sided of the coin. If pedestrians would carefully look when they are crossing the street in a cross walk their would be fewer accidents. I drive daily and see little kids getting out of school run right across the street when the light is green no parental supervision, crossing guards not doing there job and then something happens and it’s the motorist fault, that’s BS, motorist in NYC pay huge insurance premiums, tons in maintenance to there vehicles, also gas prices through the roof and still people complain about what parking, Jesus at least give us all the space we can get to park our vehicles in the cramped city, where we pay more in taxes as motorist than pedestrians do for just walking. More motorist means more revenue for the city, so try to appreciate the good motorist out there like me. I have my 6hr defensive driving course, and have never had a ticket, I’m always in my car with my two small children and parking is a nightmare in the city, so give us a break, just cross the street carefully, look both ways and you should be fine.



    The number of cars on the streets tells everyone that component is also important.

    James C. Walker, National Motorists Association



    There is nothing offensive about referring to sociopaths as sociopaths. And anybody who deliberately exposes others to unnecessary risk, in explicit violation of the law, in order to save a few seconds is a sociopath. That goes for motorists who cut off pedestrians in crosswalks and motorists who run red lights in the presence of pedestrians and – yes! – motorists who speed on streets that carry pedestrians.

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Institute of Transportation Engineers disagree with your safety methodology. And, more to the point, the law disagrees with your safety methodology. Whether or not you like the speed limit, it is the speed limit, and if you get a ticket for exceeding the speed limit (by more than 10 mph!), congratulations, you’ve earned yourself a speeding ticket. Don’t want speeding tickets? Then don’t speed.