I would guess that many of those who are opposed to the bike lanes or who are skeptical about bicycling in general simply are not aware of the actual risks of bicycling compared to the perception. There is a definite lack of information, especially among many older residents who do not bicycle themselves, about the safety of bicycling and effects on traffic that bicyclists have. The important thing is not to alienate them, but to make them aware of the realities and bring them on board.

There is no sense in sending the proposal back to the CB6 Transpo Committee for further discussions with DOT. It’s a good plan, and the CB6 Transpo Committee approved it.

But CB6 Board will never approve this plan as long as it contains bike lanes, so there’s really nothing more to discuss. DOT should override CB6 and proceed with the plan.

Warning–many exclamation marks and capital letters follow:

First, I have not followed this 9th St. story closely; there’s a chance I’m overlooking something that might make my comment irrelevant.

BUT,

I so often feel this way–Why fight over a bike lane?!

If the bike lane in this case is ONLY for traffic calming and,–as DeBlasio and even Streetsblog(!) have hinted strongly–not going to be protected for cyclists, (and that’s even used as a selling point!) then WHY have a fight over it?

SCRAP the bike lane, and just reduce the speed limit! And yes, redesign the street so the speed limit is self-enforcing, but not with a bike lane, which become the subject of long, bloody and costly fights, and of course is a VERY imperfect solution for cyclists to begin with! With cars being slowed down enough (by law and layout), cyclists will finally have the confidence and the publicly-known right to TAKE A REAL LANE! Not the GUTTER, which is the dangerous trap that bike lanes AND convention offer to cyclists. Ay, dios mio!

I’m a total amateur and mere hobbyist in this stuff, and don’t know all that much–maybe there’s good reason that I don’t hear about any big movement to reduce the 30 mph speed limit, but over and over and over again, it seems that that is the one and only thing that could solve DOZENS of safety and fair-use problems.

Reduce the legal speed limit, physically change the street to self-enforce that limit (learned about that here!), but with less politically divisive things than bike lanes (e.g. widen sidewalk, etc., etc.)! And end up HELPING CYCLISTS MORE THAN A BIKE LANE WOULD!

(all this despite having recently finished my drawings for the Center-of-Avenue bike lane that I’ve long touted as a panacea. But really, if car speeds could be substantially reduced, then even my brilliant, Leonardo-like bike lane design would be useless, and that would be GREAT!)

In Berkeley, we have a “slow street,” a short stretch of street where speeds are reduced to 15 mph using speed humps. It makes the street significantly safer for bicycling (on the stretches where there are enough speed humps to actually keep the traffic to that speed), and it was supported by residents as well as by bicyclists.

For more info, see Clarence’s video about Berkeley’s Bike Boulevards.

Per my disclaimer above, it may be a truly great plan. If I had to choose between doing it or doing nothing, I would definitely be for it. I just think we can do even better than it, and save a lot of conflict.

I’m much more inclined to have faith in something like what Charles Siegel describes in 12 (and has been featured here). I just wish that in cities, streets of that kind were not known as “slow streets,” but just “streets!”

Aaron, I agree that street signs alone are probably useless, but I think that changing the law by reducing the 30mph speed limit would make a broad statement to our culture that would be an equally important and necessary factor in making entire cities safer. And yes, Class II lanes with big buffers are IMO the best they can be, but still not good enough. Maybe my wishes are just not realistic?

John, yes, drivers who park in bike lanes are a problem, and I used to try, like you, to advise them politely, but they are EVERYWHERE. I’ve discussed this with people here before, and I still think that if EVERY cyclist in NYC did what you do, it still wouldn’t be enough to make much of a difference. I think addressing people directly is always the best first approach, rather than trying to legislate them into compliance, but in this case, I just don’t think it will make a dent. So again, I say the city must legally and physically slow down cars, and obviate the need for bike lanes!! Or, if there are cetain Avenues that the City just won’t slow, then put a “car-crossable” (but not “travelable”), WIDE bike lane in the avenue’s CENTER, and give that bike lane a lead green light, so that bikes trying to get into the avenue from a side street, or out of the ave TO a side street, or just forward on the ave, can do so safely before the cars around them are allowed to move.

There are already cyclists on 9th St. I doubt they’ve aroused controvery or generated complaints. Resident motorists are afraid of increased parking enforcement and an end to the decades of wink and nod the cops give to double parking.

This plan is not very controversial from a traffic engineering perspective — far less than say closing a large arterial street like the Prospect Park Drive.

Some of the issue here is generational and the reality that public attitudes about the role of streets and that of the car in the city are changing. A lot of the folks who have trouble with this proposal grew up in a city where twice as many pedestrians were struck and killed and where there were far fewer cars and far less affluence. It was the norm then to aspire to have a car in Brooklyn and seek to use it. Things are changing and this is an example of the friction aroused by change. The community boards were established to help preserve neighborhoods from development — they are status quo protectors, not centers of dynamism or change. What’s happening here in CB 6 is the first sign of success: the DOT is proposing good changes. The next step will be when the CBs are proposing good changes to the DOT, and DOT listens. Which doesnt happen as much.

Be careful of what you ask for. I live in a Florida community where the mayor went crazy with “traffic calming.” On streets where there would be blocks of empty parking, essentially creating a bike lane, they threw in planters about every 100 yards, meaning that you now have to take the lane all the time to keep from popping in and out dodging the planters.

Streets that used to be wide enough for a car and a bike to comfortably share a lane were narrowed to where you have to take the lane and cork the roadway.

Fancy brick speed humps were installed. Yep, they force cars to slow down, but they’re slick and jar your teeth out on a high-pressure bike tire.

They built funky bike lanes – glorified sidewalks – out of the same brick. As if that wasn’t enough, they only put them on one side of the road, so folks essentially have to ride against traffic and be put at risk of being hit by drivers not expecting traffic from that direction.

The mayor spent ungodly amounts of money to build speed humps on streets that were so potholed that nobody could get up any speed anyway.

It wasn’t until the fire chief started showing up a planning meetings to explain how traffic calming slowed emergency response and meant that some of their equipment couldn’t go down certain streets because of narrow roundabouts that some of the madness stopped. Fortunately, we have a new mayor. Unfortunately, I suspect that my tax money will probably be spent a few years down the road to undo some of the calming that I paid for under the previous regime.

Miguel:
Did you pay ANY attention to the presentation? It seems not.

1) It is not busy. In fact, it carries too few cars for its width. It is dangerous because it is too wide. It is dangerous–all the more reason to make it safer for cyclists. It is dangerous–all the more reason to make it safer for pedestrians.

2) Guess what? Roads do not continue forever. Sometimes they end. Hence the bike lane ends. Rather than presenting this as a problem, why not come up with some solution that would discourage cyclists from entering the pedestrian path? I have a feeling, though, that they won’t design it in a way that encourages cyclists to do that.

3) The solution to the problem you present is fewer cars, not more lanes of traffic. Another solution is to change the parking regs adn or meter it as was mentioned before. Besides that, what’s more important, having double parking to pick-up/drop-off elerly people and disabled people or a street that keeps them from being hit by cars?

4) See the presentation. The volume isn’t there in the first place.

Your comments are a perfect example of why working with the so-called “community” is problematic. You only have a perception of problems that do not exist on a broad or long-term basis. Going to a small group of people who get involved and asking them to help design something like this comes up with solutions that benefit the small group, not necessarily the whole community. However, Aaron previously pointed to the CRISP process in London which sounds promising and interesting as a productive way to engage the community. I’d be very curious, as others have said, to see how it’s worked out there.

Of all the objections to these plans, the silliest has to be “DOT didn’t consult us first.” The one-way avenue plan died a deserved death because it was crass, deceptive and dangerous, not because DOT didn’t consult the community.

In this case, and unfortunately it seems fairly common, DOT came up with the plan in response to a request from one segment of the community (the Dizzy’s owners and customers), but the PSCC and the Ninth Street Block Association got upset because they weren’t consulted. Yes, maybe the pro-safety people could have built a broader coalition, and the DOT could have done more outreach, but I don’t think that counts as “the major failure” or a sufficient reason to reject the plan.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that the segment of the community that signed the petition was small or insignificant. I do think that they probably represent the majority opinion in the area.

As with the Houston Street plan, I think there’s a clear consensus in favor of traffic calming, and I hate to see it derailed by the perception of this being a “bicycle problem.” If the plan instead were to widen the sidewalks, wouldn’t there be a clear majority, leaving the double-parkers on the out?

9th Street Resident,

Talk about arrogance. A small group of your neighbors are trying to undermine a public process that has been underway since February 2004 when two little little boys were killed on your street at 3rd Avenue and three City Council members demanded that DOT make 9th Street safer.

That process gained urgency when an elderly woman was mowed down at 7th Avenue in August 2004. And the community process finally kicked DOT into action in August 2005 when a car slammed into Dizzy’s and 1200 people, perhaps yourself included, signed a petition, initiated by 9th St. businesses and residents, demanding DOT to plan a safer intersection.

You live on one of the most dangerous streets in Park Slope. People have been trying to get the city to do something about it for years.

DOT doesn’t do very many public planning processes. However, if you are or have been so interested in participating more fully in a public planning process then that is something that your block association could have started at any time. This blog covers numerous such efforts all around the city. We have known since at least the summer 2005 that DOT was working on this plan.

The people at DOT who developed this plan, you should know, are not the people who developed the 6/7 one-way plan. It is night and day the way these two proposals came together. We still don’t know what problem the 6/7 proposal was trying to solve (well, we do. Atlantic Yards). We know exactly what problems this plan is solving (too many crashes).

There is a reason why CB6’s rather conservative transpo committee voted in favor of this plan. It is really good. It makes our neighborhood streets — your street — safer and more functional. It accomodates all users, even cyclists. It has virtually no downside. It answers the community’s concerns expressed over and over again the last few years.

There are many places within a 15 block radius of your house where we need to fight very hard right now for better community planning processes and public participation. This is one of the few places where we don’t.

The concern that the bicycle lane should not terminate at a pedestrian entrance to Prospect Park seems like a red herring.

Last year, DOT installed class II bicycle lanes on West 77th and 78th Streets. The eastbound lane terminates at an entrance to Central Park designed for but closed to motor vehicles, which is commonly used by pedestrians. The westbound lane terminates at a pedestrian entrance to Riverside Park. I use these lanes all the time I have not experienced or seen any unusual pedestrian-bicyclist conflicts or safety issues.

dartley, I agree with you on the speed limits. While a proposed *citywide* reduction to 25 MPH is politically DOA at present, imposing lower limits on particular blocks is not. DOT frequently does it near schools. In fact, a DOT school safety reports issued last fall recommended installation of a bike lane to lower speeds on Parsons Blvd., without even discussing whether cyclists needed or wanted the lane (see pages 25-26 here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/pdf/qnbvm.pdf).

This demonstrates that DOT bike lane projects may be driven more by the need to install 200 miles of lanes by some deadline, or by local traffic calming issues, than the needs of bicyclists. The 9th Street lane discussed here has great merit from a bicycle infrastructure perspective because it connects Red Hook and Park Slope. However its value is undercut when it is delivered with assurances from the local city councilmember and precinct chief that the rules against double-parking in the bike lane will not be enforced, and even bicycling advocates attempting to soft-peddle the impact of the lanes on double parking. A Class II lane without enforcement can be more dangerous for bicyclists than no lane at all, because it concentrates bicyclists on a roadway where they will have to zip in and out of traffic to avoid parked cars.

I don’t live in the Slope anymore so I don’t have a vote to cast on this project, but as a general matter I think it would be better to push DOT to dig a little deeper in the traffic-calming toolbox for alternative approaches like lower speed limits, speed humps, and sidewalk widening, than propose bike lanes as a panacea for traffic calming.

9th St. res,

Arguments about “the process” are bogus. The process is what the process is; everyone agrees it could be improved. Sometimes we get a bad plan like one-way streets and we gag. Sometimes we get a good plan like 9th St. or GAP and we cheer. We should all try to improve “the process” but in the meantime we have to evaluate each plan on its merits.

According to you, we would have to reject the GAP plan too (and every DOT plan for that matter) because it was “prepackaged”. Do you reject the GAP changes on the basis of process?

Re: 9th St., “process” arguments aside, what is it specifically about the plan that you dislike?

The criticism about DOT not giving neighborhoods enough time to evaluate proposals is a good one.

Maybe it would make sense for DOT to send draft proposals via the internet for posting on community board websites much earlier. People could also sign-up for to receive proposals from DOT directly. Aaron essentially did this on Streetsblog, but not very far in advance of the meeting. DOT could solicit comments to their draft and attempt to address some with their presentation. This process would give DOT the chance to tailor their presentations to community concerns and react to new ideas in a much more efficient way then the standard community meeting.

Granted, there is a digital divide issue, but this would allow people to have more time to mull over and respond.

I’d be interested to hear what the ideal process would like from people like poster 23 who supports lanes on 9th. My guess is that DOT currently has about 1/100th of the people it would need to do the level of outreach most people on this blog seek. That’s why coming up with ways that use what they do have better is important.

Re: Bensonhurst

Here in Park Slope our Community Board votes down traffic calming and vehemently resists bike lanes in order to defend a “right” to double-park cars.

Meanwhile, today’s Brooklyn Paper brings news that Assemblyman William Colton (D-Bensonhurst) has proposed a bill that would ban plastic bags from grocery stores.

“These plastic bags are absolutely a grave threat to the community,” said Colton. “It makes no sense to use bags when we have the capability to do better for our environment.”

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/30/15/30_15bagban.html

Bensonhurst may be the new Park Slope (and vice versa).

As a resident of 9th Street who is strongly in favor of DOT’s plan, I am disappointed that a small group of my vocal neighbors are able to claim to speak on behalf of my neighbors and me.

I ride on 9th Street becuase i need to to leave my house, go to the Y, the Post Office, the library, CTown, the shoe repairman etc… when i ride on 9th street now (on a daily basis) it is always a bit chaotic – for me as a cyclist as well as for motorists and pedestrians. I think this plan would calm things down and increase safety for all invovled.

I am sure that DOT’s process was not ideal. It never is and that’s soemthing which should be addressed. City agenices, whether City Planning or DOT, all too often think they know what’s best for a community and draw up the plans with little knowledge of what’s best for a community. To me, though, this does not mean that a good, solid plan which will increase safety of motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists alike, should be shot down.

The speed limit should be lowered on 9th Street, and the speed limit should be enforced. If the current 30 MPH speed limit was enforced, that would be good. Many people fail to realize that the speed limit on all NYC streets is 30 MPH, because it is not posted. Many cars are travelling well over the 30 MPH speed limit as it stands now. Some states have passed laws against not only drunk driving, but Aggressive driving as well. Aggressive driving should be outlawed in New York. Aggressive driving includes any motorist who expects pedestrians and bicyclists to be frightened out of the way. You know what these aggressive drivers do, they “floor it”, meaning they push the accelerator pedal all the way to the floor, and the car will reach 50 or 60 MPH.
It’s about time the speed limit was enforced strictly. Maybe some of the bicycle messengers should recieve speeding tickets, because they are going 35 MPH, which is over the speed limit.
Speed bumps mean nothing to the SUV’s, which have off-road suspensions meant for driving over fallen trees and boulders.
People shouldn’t be afraid to walk, ride a bike, or drive a tiny car or velomobile. Pedicabs (bicycle rickshaws) are a realistic way to get around.
If you are incapable of walking the distance, you should tell your doctor that you want an electric wheelchair, the scooter kind with four wheels. Electric wheelchairs have a range of 12 miles on a full charge. Medicare will pay up to four hundred dollars ($400.00) so you can get an electric scooter, and you won’t be so dependent on cabs.