"It would create a continuous protected path on the avenue...and makes a shorter pedestrian path for those crossing Second Avenue who might need to walk a little slower," DOT spokesperson Patrick Kennedy said last night during a CB6 committee meeting.
The full CB6 Board will vote on the proposed plan next week, per DNAinfo. Read the article here.
20 comments:
Great news. That stretch can be dicey for cyclists, since motor traffic moves extremely fast and there's always a few delivery trucks, ambulances and other vehicles pushing them out into traffic. Given the volume of bikes at rush hour, they really oughta give bikes a whole lane.
very happy about this. this is a main route for a LOT of people heading home from work across the bridges
Just what we don't need. More "dumbing down" of NY streets to accommodate the suburban transplants and tourists who are afraid to cycle the way everybody always did.
Bike lanes = 7 Eleven.
If you don't like our streets, GTFO!
Great!!! More self righteous eco terrorists on the road!
Car culture is all about the 7-11 and suburbia...how do you think suburbia works? Cars! At the expense of all other modes of transportation! (jeez, its like talking to tea partiers).
Yea, you don't ride bikes in suburbia. You drive cars everywhere and get fat.
But the streets must be safe for the Joshs and Meghans to ride their CitiBikes to work! And don't dare speak critically of the bikes because they're green! You must hate the earth! Shame on you for hating the earth...
Back to our regularly scheduled program.
You want to ride a bike with a picnic basket attached to it to work? Move to France!
Riiiight, only theyunnies ride the bankbikes because the REAL salt-of-the-earth New Yorkers who were here since the dawn of time and still have three-figure rent-control apartments in the East Village all tool around the island of Manhattan in cars, amirite? Or else they bike in traffic because macho arglebargle. Also, Josh.
Anonymous 10/8 5:24,
Your arguments sounds like those against seat belts. Since 2000, there has been a 73% decrease in the average risk of a serious injury by cyclists in NYC. The primary reason is the bike lanes.
I'd like to know what the figures are for the past year or so. Putting regular riders and a large influx of newbies on a stroll in tiny lanes that nearly share the same space as pedestrians is dangerous. I see accidents frequently.
"The City reached the goal of doubling bicycle commuting in 2011, a year early."
So what? It's not like there's less cars on street because of it. All they've done is congest the streets further with bikes.
I don't buy that crash data at all. Are they really expecting us to believe everyone injured riding a bike filed a report? The NYPD don't want to file police reports anymore and they don't.
What's interesting about the crash data is that the number of injuries/fatalities are extraordinarily consistent in absolute numbers (disregarding the increased volume of bikers) which suggests that something else is going on. In fact, since 2004, car crashes have also been extraordinarily consistent in absolute numbers, but the Bloomberg's bike risk metric doesn't bother to include motorist data at all.
I don't like social control and what it attracts. It's all to serve gentrifiers who are here to transform the city in their privileged image and not mix in. I bike on 3rd, Mad, 7th, 10 and 11th Aves just to avoid the bike lanes and enjoy a rewarding experience mixing with traffic. I don't begrudge the bicyclists who appreciate the lanes. Enjoy their lanes! Each to his or her own! But remember that the bike lanes also correlate with gentrification.
Anti-bike sentiment is understandable, but do you people even bother to read? I wonder sometimes. Because if you did, you might realize that this proposal seeks to benefit everyone. Cyclists, pedestrians, the struggling retail businesses there, motorists who need to park their cars--everyone except those who like to drive way too fast on that stretch of 2nd ave that is. And maybe if you actually bothered to know about things before poo-pooing them, maybe you would know that 2nd ave is a big downhill as it approaches 23rd street, which results in cars driving at highway speeds. Bikes or no bikes, that is not good.
That's nothing like the hill coming down to 34th, Legitimate Golf- much faster, steeper, longer. I loooooove that stretch! Best rush in town.
rob makes a good point about social control. That's why when I drive my car, I drive on the sidewalks, or the grassy areas of parks. Stop lights, speed limits, one way streets, they're all pernicious forms of social control.
@ 8:45 -- you might consider safety. I do not ride against traffic because it endangers motorists and pedestrians. I constrain my riding with only two principles: the safety of others and consideration for them -- I will never impede anyone's way (regardless of stoplights); that's my only rule; those are my moral principles and believe it or not, they are constantly on my mind on the road -- that's what it means to engage with your context (rather than being given a lane all your own, or a neighborhood all to your own kind where you are protected and sheltered). Following the law for its own sake is for nazis.
Unlike you, I don't ride my bike on the sidewalk because, unlike you, I consider balance and the limits of social control and respect the culture of New York.
rob,
I think you misunderstood me. I agree with you. I am safe. If I were reckless, if I were hitting people, I'd be in jail, not at home typing to you.
Being given a lane all your own is and staying in it is, as you said, for nazis. Cars, pedestrians, bikers, none of them should stay in the lanes created for them. We're in agreement on this.
11:21 -- Your sarcasm glosses over lots of distinctions. Children ride bikes not cars for a reason. There was a time when NYC pedestrians regularly j-walked and motorists had to be more watchful and careful. I see pedestrians now waiting for lights where there is no sign of traffic as far as the eye can see. That's a culture shift from the New Yorker of my childhood.
It's been shown that motorists drive more carefully next to a bicyclist without a helmet. And btw, the DoT's risk metric doesn't correlate with bike lanes at all. The decline in risk began in 2001, long before the bike lanes were installed. That risk metric measures the wrong factor -- only bicyclists. Consider if you have a serial murderer, murdering once a month (hiding in between), and the local population doubles, you'd get a 50% reduction in the per capita murder rate. But that actual murder rate is unrelated to the population. The per capita rate is just a deception, suitable for some agency's propaganda. The DoT bicycle risk metric is just that kind of propaganda -- they implemented the bike lanes. Let us not be naïve. The reason the absolute numbers of crashes are consistent across the years is likely because of absolute conditions on the road and among motorists who cause crashes.
When the DoT closed off Times Square, a month later DoT proudly announced that the pedestrian walkways on Broadway hugely increased the auto safety by some percent (I forget the number) fewer crashes, not mentioning that they'd simply eliminated cars in the Square.
NYC DOT has started marking up 2nd Ave to put in the parking and protected bike lane. Saw them yesterday start on it and now you can see where the markings will go.
Post a Comment