Tuesday, March 8, 2016

[Updated] CB3 to hear plans tonight for protected bike lane on Chrystie Street

[Image via DOT]

Tonight, CB3's Transportation & Public Safety/Environment Committee is meeting... and among the agenda items: Department of Transportation (DOT) presentation on upgrade of two-way protected bicycle lane on Chrystie Street from Canal Street to Houston.

And Gothamist has an in-depth preview of the proposal...

Since unprotected bike lanes were added to [Chrystie Street's] north and south-bound lanes in 2008, cyclists have argued that the painted lines have faded, and serve as little protection from rogue drivers. Southbound cyclists enjoying the protected bike lane on Second Avenue also get a rude awakening at 1st Street, where they are forced to cross three lanes of traffic in order to enter the southbound painted bike lane on Chrystie south of Houston.

The DOT's proposal ... establishes a two-way protected bike lane on Chrystie Street from Houston Street to Canal Street, running along the full length of Sarah Roosevelt Park. The southbound lane will extend a few blocks farther, to 2nd Street and Houston Street.

The DOT says the lane could be installed as soon as Fall 2016. Southbound cyclists on Second Avenue will have a safe path to the Manhattan Bridge, and northbound cyclists will be able to turn right off of Chrystie to merge onto the protected northbound lane on 1st Avenue.

Tonight's meeting is at Grand Street Settlement Cornerstone at Seward Park Extension, 56 Essex St. between Grand and Broome.

Updated 3-9

BoweryBoogie was at the meeting... despite overwhelming support for the measure, things got political with the committee ... read the coverage here.


Michael Ivan said...

I am not a fan of two-way biking that close. We all know the heroes out there who swerve around, and the sunday riders who ride next to each other. I am a big fan of getting the 2nd ave crossing sorted out for bikers though. Perhaps just re-paint the one way lines? If you want to get moving, go to Allen.

Anonymous said...

Ugh - I agree. That becomes a bit too chaotic for my taste.

I also love the pic of that street - where are all the potholes, ConEd metal plates, etc.? Fix those, then we'll talk.

Anonymous said...

We need good bike infrastructure on Chrystie, but with heavy, heavy bike traffic during much of the day, I wish it could be wider.

Anonymous said...

Enough with the bike lanes.

First off why all this money to them when bikes collect ZERO revenue for the city?

You wanna ride a bike around the city? Okay, one time $20 fee for a license plate, $5 a month or $50 a year ($10 off) insurance. You get ticketed and your licenses revoked just like drivers.

You bikers especially those who think the city revolves around you as much as drivers (which is most of you) want to be treated as drivers' equals? Then you get a license plate, insurance, ticketed, fined, and punished like drivers. You wanna tell me the punishments are unequal fine, they're always open to revision.

Living proof of how most bikers are entitled punks is that stupid "race" on Avenue A and a recent commercial where it's a bunch of hipsters heading to a soccer meetup where one of them is riding a bike where he pounds on a taxicab. Motherfucker you pound on my car I will catch up to you and fuck you up.

Anonymous said...

@12:24pm: I agree with you about licensing, insurance and ticketing for bike riders.

My spouse was hit by a bike this weekend - by a bike rider going the WRONG WAY down a one-way street. My spouse had waited for green "WALK" light to cross; after hitting my spouse (who told the biker he was injured) the bike rider went his merry way by turning & riding the WRONG WAY on a major avenue. Spouse has filed a report with the precinct, but other than possible NYPD record-keeping, who is going to pay for any medical bills??

Makeout said...

Speaking of bike lanes who won Monster Track?

Anonymous said...

12:24pm here again I meant non-CitiBike bikes collect zero revenue for the city.

Btw the more bike lanes the more pedestrians have to watch for bike assholes who run red lights.

blue glass said...

fault insurance takes care of cars hitting pedestrians and hit and run accidents
it isn't much but it takes care of immediate medical bills while attorneys (of course attorneys) deal with the usual lawsuits that follow
you need a police report number and probably a trip to the hospital

at the very least there should be some kind of accident insurance for bikes

Anonymous said...

I'm usually the last guy to encourage the city telling people what they can and can't do, or to charge fees for the right to do things, but I completely agree with the idea that bikes should have license plates, be subject to tickets, and need to carry insurance.

It would also be a good idea if a license of some sort was required with some kind of test. Obviously, the city would need to charge fees for doing all this, which would be fair. Some of these riders do crazy shit and people have been getting hurt.

Anonymous said...

Licensing all cyclists is a good idea.

But think of the manpower required, from the administrative to the enforcement level.

Probably not gonna happen. Is there even a precedent for such a practice? Probably not, because in most communities, cyclists and people figure out how to co-exist. Agree that it is a problem around here. Cyclists of all stripes act like assholes, from the stereotypicalest citibike rider to even little old ladies pedaling through red lights and cutting off walkers at the nose who have right of way. No one on a bike is exempt from lapsing into douche behavior. I say this as a biker myself. I think after a while, unless you constantly remind yourself that you are sharing the road, it's easy to lapse into it. When you bike you enjoy a lot of freedom on the road, eventually that freedom goes to your head and soon enough you become an asshole about it. Same thing that happens with people and jay-walking. Most people walk like assholes too. News flash, this is an asshole city.

Anonymous said...

@6:33pm: But assholes on foot don't usually injure or maim people, and assholes driving motor vehicles are usually traceable. It's the bikers who want all the freedom but none of the responsibility - which is why I see bike riders (as a group) as being very immature, heedless of the safety of others, and in some cases absolutely reckless.

If you're killed by a bike, you're just as dead as if you were killed by a truck or car, BUT the bike rider will probably get away scott-free.

Anonymous said...

Bikers don't kill pedestrians, we know that from the official city stats, whereas cars do every month by the dozen.

Jill W. said...

anon 9:24 PM,

Yes, pedestrians do cause accidents that injure people. A pedestrian who runs out into the street without looking can hit a bicycle causing injury to both parties. If the cyclist falls in this scenario, their injury may be as severe or worse than the pedestrian. Pedestrian entitlement can cause cars and bikes to swerve, endangering everyone including bystanders.

6:33 is correct about the asshole city. There's no innocent group here. If anything, cyclists are often also pedestrians, so we do get it. Motor vehicles are by far the bigger issue.

Regarding the original story, 2 way bike lanes are really common in Amsterdam, and solve many traffic problems. We just need to solve the asshole problem.

anon 12:24 "all this money"? I'd guess autos take a lot more than they contribute.