Aaron is right – that is the point that DOT made at the meeting when they were pressed with that question.

They cited studies from Idaho (yes, Idaho – we got a laugh out of that) that said that more than 8 “crossings” per mile would be unacceptable for a Class I bike lane. We questioned that applicability of that study, but their general meaning was that bikes in a protected lane would tend to “surprise” motorists at intersections more so than cyclists that were more obvious to the driver in an unprotected (Class II) lane. Thus, there could be considered to be MORE danger at intersections. Ryan Russo and Josh Benson went to great lengths to point out that all three of the Houston St. bike fatalities occurred at intersections, and that as many as 90% of bike/vehicle crashes occur at intersections, where the “protectedness” of a Class I lane offers little benefit.

Additionally, they pointed out that the pleasant “greenway” effect is lost with too many breaks in the continuity for cyclists. As it is, the Hudson Greenway averages slightly less than 8 crossings per mile. They cited the Ocean Parkway greenway as less-than-ideal for the very reason that there are so many car crossings, with the potential for conflicts.

Much of the committee believe that the safety issues could be addressed through creative design solutions, but that sentiment did not seem to resonate with DOT.

I agree with the DOT people about the element of surprise. I don’t know how John Forester is viewed at TA, but I found his arguments pretty convincing:

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/facilities.htm

I’m a major fan of parallel streets as bicycle routes, but the planners should not write off Houston St. completely. Even if Prince St. and Bleecker St. are turned into bicycle paradises, some bikers will insist on staying on Houston St. — some because they’re pigheaded, others because they have destinations on Houston St. The presentation says Houston St. has “limited destinations,” but some blocks have places where many bikers will want to go; after all, Times Up is located on Houston St.

It’s good to encourage bikers to use alternatives to Houston Street, but no attempt to do so will be 100% effective.

As former resident of downtown and someone who used to ride on a regular basis on all three of the streets discussed, I do not believe bike lanes on those narrower streets would be that enticing to cyclists. I prefer wider, faster streets like Houston because of the better timing of the lights, and the lesser chance that pedestrians step off the curb without looking. Prince and Bleecker have so much foot traffic and parked cars that I would not feel as though I would be able to ride at my preferred speed.

And, Mitch, why would a cyclist be pigheaded if they chose to ride on an un-bike laned street? Is a cyclist pigheaded if they don’t ride on the greenway because an avenue is more convenient for them?

Excellent point ddartley- why do DOT and NYPD allow so many streets to run far above the speed limit? Are they so desperate to get cars through Manhattan that they will ignore the obvious safety risks of cars travelling at high speeds in highly crowded pedestrian corridors?

crzwdjk- very good point. navigation cues will make side street lanes more palatable.

I think the reason cyclists would continue to use Houston instead of Prince/Bleeker is because unlike Bergen/Dean routes, Prince and Bleeker streets end at Bowery. Prince and Bleeker aren’t convenient if you’re trying to get across town. Did they talk about that in their presentation?

Nobody is going to use the route on slide 23 – they’ll never follow it, they’ll have no idea that if they go south down Bowery they will later be able to hook up with a cross town route after Houston. So that is just unrealistic.

I’d rather just use Prince as is and ride down the middle of the street – you get some honking, but at least you are completely visible and not getting sideswiped.

You gotta buffer the lanes – which they will never do on the side streets. I personally hate riding on the Carlton and Dean st paths – cars act crazier on the side streets than they do on the big roads – at least on the big roads they are mostly going fast in their lane in a straight line. I’m smart at intersections and know to be on full alert.

The real solution of course is to stop turning the cross streets into mini-highways. DOT needs to slow Houston, but since that will never happen I’ll settle for a buffered lane on Houston that will at least protect cyclists using that road.

DOT clearly doesn’t want to do anything to offend the car people. So it will take a few more deaths i guess until they are completely embarrassed into changing Houston. Creating lanes on the side streets surely won’t prevent more deaths from happening.

I think I agree with John. Houston is too much of a wide-open, sunny gem that’s lovely to cyle on (when you’re not intimidated) for it to be allowed to move more towards all-car. Prince and Bleecker move so slowly as it is, do they really need a lane?

I wasn’t at the meeting so my comments are based solely on what’s posted here. However, as a long time crosstown bicycler, I was initially impressed by the DOT idea of using Prince and Bleecker as bicycle arteries. These are my primary routes already, so the idea of making them more bicycle friendly is very appealing. They’re not bad now, the biggest risk is probably being doored. The intersections are all pretty manageble if you’re not running red lights.

You can’t pay me to ride on Houston more than a block as it is now. The road is in awful shape and it is THE major high speed cross town artery for car, and like it or not, that’s not going to change, even if they finally finish fixing the road.

However, I was swayed a bit by the argument that people are going to ride on Houston no matter what and that the DOT has a responsibility to make it reasonably safe for bicycles. This makes a good deal of sense too, though it’s a somewhat falacious argument since it would be wonderful to ride up West Street or Broadway, but no one is talking about putting protected bicycle lanes there. (Yeah yeah, I know there’s the greenway path.) Also arguing that the DOT has to make Houston safe because it’s on the bicycle map as a route is a ridiculous argument as well. Makes more sense to argue to change the map than the street.

Anyway, my thoughts are a little scattered, but in an ideal world, cast one vote for bike protections on Houston AND lanes on Prince and Bleeker. When could more bike lanes not be a good thing.

According to DOT’s presentation, one of the advantages to a Bleecker Street bike lane is that Bleecker Street is said to have no bus traffic. This is simply not true. Bleecker Street is overwhelmed with tour busses, both single and double decker, as well as a bevy of chartered busses with out-of-state or Canadian plates. As a resident cyclist I’d much rather contend with city bus drivers who are aware of, and accustomed to sharing the road with cyclists.

But the real disadvantage to Bleecker and Prince Street bike lanes is that neither street is truely a through street. Neither one begins or ends anywhere near the East Side or West Side greenways. Where are cyclists to go west of Sixth Avenue or East of the Bowery? We need safe routes that will actually take us somehwhere.

An elevated bikeway should work very well on Houston; especially over the median.

Can I just nip this idea in the bud? Here are a few reasons why elevated veloways are a bad idea:

1. Studies have shown that the more familiar motorists are with cyclists, the less likely they are to hit them. Elevated bikeways separate bikes from cars, removing this familiarity.

2. Bike lanes, if done right, have a traffic calming effect. Separated bikeways do not.

3. Elevated structures require a lot of maintenance.

4. Separated paths require extra policing.

I’d support an elevated bikeway in three circumstances: (a) an adaptive reuse of an existing structure, like the High Line, (b) a short connector between existing greenways or (c) converted automobile facilities. If you want to convert the BQE into an elevated bikeway you have my full support.

A Class 1 bike path on Houston is less than worthless. It won’t protect you at intersections, which is where you’re most likely to get seriously injured. Worse, it will probably increase the risk of accidents at intersections because you will be only slightly more visible to motorists than if you were riding on the sidewalk.

Use of Class 2 bike lanes is generally more sensible where there are many intersections. Personally, even if a Class 2 bike lane were created on Houston, I’d still use the nearby one-way streets. Major arteries like Houston St. in Manhattan and Queens Blvd. in Queens will continue to be dangerous for peds and cyclists until speed limits are enforced.