Today’s Headlines

  • Lazy, Dishonest Post Writers Can’t Be Bothered to Check Facts or Tell the Truth About 34th Street
  • Cap’n Transit: Fight for the 34th Street Transitway
  • Transit Know-Nothing Andrea Peyser Spews More Hate at JSK and the Transitway
  • Bike Registration Idiocy Spreads to Albany: DenDekker Wants Annual Fee for Every Bike in NY State (Post)
  • LaHood: Facebook and Twitter Don’t Belong on the Dashboard (NYT)
  • Afghanistan Veteran Killed By Driver After Leaving His Birthday Party in Smithtown (News)
  • One Dead, Three Injured After Driver Slams Into Utility Pole Off the Belt Parkway (News)
  • Passenger Hijacks Cab, Drives Like Maniac, Crashes Into Pole at Union Square (News, NYT)
  • Gotham Gazette Forgot to Interview Council Members Who Support Safe Streets for Biking
  • Pete Donohue Scorns MTA’s Legal Challenge to TWU Raises (News)
  • Steve “The Cuozz” Cuozzo Just Plain Hates People

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • eveostay

    Rainy Monday got you down? I recommend you skip Today’s Headlines.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Peyser may be a transit know-nothing, but she has correctly identified the implications for motorists.

    The 34th Street transitway plan is “meant to surrender that main Midtown thoroughfare” by “preventing passenger cars from traveling it from the Lincoln Tunnel to the Midtown Tunnel.” Full stop.

    Right now, in other words, one of the main streets in the heart of the city has been forcibly claimed by people who want nothing to do with it, and merely use it as a highway. Buses crawl. Shopping at the stores is unpleasant. Etc.

    But under the plan, the through travelers would be forced to “surrender” the street to people who are actually going there. Which is why local property owners are in favor.

    Meanwhile, compare the look on Peyser’s face upper left to the look on JSK’s face. Not to mention the tone when they speak. There’s some meaning there.

  • Moocow

    No mention of the Brazilian CM and the news is still this saddening.

  • BicyclesOnly

    Sometimes commenters here question whether Streestblog counts as serious journalism because of it’s editorial commitment to the livable streets agenda, or its supposed failure to properly moderate comments. But have we ever seen Streetsblog making fun of people’s names, fanning personal hatred and spewing demonstrably false lies like Peyser and her cronies at the Post?

    Honestly! My comment back in ’07 that prominent congestion pricing foes could benefit from some “quality time with a bike” back in 2007 was censured, and as I recall, removed. The Post allows comments by motorists vowing to strike cyclists stand. Streetsblog should not be pulling any more punches than it already does.

  • Joe R.

    I’m rapidly getting really tired of this continual assault on bicycles. Granted, a statewide registration law has about as much chance of passing as a tax on breathing, but it’s amazing we have legislators who actually think doing this would serve any real purpose. A license plate large enough to be easily identifiable from a distance just wouldn’t be practical. Where would you hang it (there isn’t room on “the back of the seat”)? Besides, I hate to think how much aero drag what is essentially a large flat surface (just about the worst shape for aerodynamics) is going to create. Really, really dumb. I blame the people though for electing clueless morons like this.

  • Well, Streetsblog has made fun of Lew Fidler and Anthony Weiner’s names, but in a fairly gentle way. Weiner has joked about his own name in a way that indicates he doesn’t really mind those jokes. Nothing like the viciousness coming out of Peyser, Cuozzo and friends.

  • Also, you missed another Post column that repeats lies about bike lanes.

  • ddartley

    Didn’t bike today, but, number of non-emergency vehicles I saw flagrantly violating red signals on my walk from 1st Ave. to Union Square: two.

    Also, about the current “Eyes on the Street:” do we really need to be publicizing that? We all acknowledge that it happens. There’s nothing disingenuous about not further publicizing it, and no good comes of it: it’s not going to shame that anonymous cyclist, and the rest of the world already talks about that practice ALL THE TIME–they exaggerate it, even. Do “we” really need to add to that?

  • Here’s Michael Gross in Crain’s New York Business, wishing New York was more dangerous, and getting the requisite sexist swipes in at JSK.

    He even gets a token biker to confirm the scofflaw cyclist meme.

    We don’t want safe. We sometimes like scary. We don’t even always want clean. We’re not afraid of what’s around the corner; we rush toward it. It’s a defining characteristic, even in our bikers—darting in and out of traffic, when they aren’t whizzing by you in the wrong direction on the rare day that they do use those bike lanes. “[We’re] skilled professionals, wild, hell-bent acrobatic messengers,” said Jeremiah Moss, the blogger at Vanishing New York, not “three-speed country tootlers decked out in color-coordinated bike gear.”

    Igree with BicyclesOnly: the bile that gets put into headlines and stories in mainstream media, not to mention the comments they allow on their websites, far surpasses the impact of even the most hostile comments here.

  • ddartley,

    I did ride this morning, and encountered 3 salmon on my ride from BedStuy to midtown. Two of those salmon were on the First Ave bike path between 14th and 34th. I don’t think the photo on Streetsblog indicates any exaggeration of a problem: the problem exists.

    Having said that, I also encountered — on the mere 20 blocks of protected bike path I rode this morning between 14th and 34th — individual pedestrians wandering in an out of the bike lane, mass pedestrians blocking the lane (near Bellvue), a car parked in the lane (no doubt because its owner wanted to run into a bodega), and a truck in the lane, unloading boxes. As I am sure anyone who regularly rides a bike in the city knows, this is everyday stuff — salmon, clueless peds, selfish drivers — and it sucks.

  • Brian

    This is exactly the kind of bile you get from people who have been backed into a corner and have nowhere else to go and nothing else to stand on. They don’t use facts or evidence to support their views because they don’t have any. It’s the oldest trick in the book (and a favorite for small children) – when you have no substance to support your case you resort to name calling and other logical fallacies and hope that if you yell loud enough and long enough you’ll win by intimidation, confusion, or pure annoyance.

  • Larry Littlefield

    I’ll bet that if someone ran a public opinion poll among those under 55 about using a bicycle for transportation, you’ll find that the number one reason people have not considered it is that they are afraid they will be harmed by motor vehicles.

    The question would have to be asked thoughtfully. Do you not consider traveling around by bicycle because you think it would be dangerous? What is the danger? Are you afraid you would fall off? That you would be hit by a pedestrian? What is it that you are afraid of?

    Less danger, more people traveling by bicycle. Some people who drive don’t want more people traveling by bicycle. They don’t want people traveling by bicycle to have anywhere to hide. That’s the way I interprent these people.

  • Chris

    Central park on Sunday was fun, stop-and-go to stop at the lights. I notice (in my own anecdotal NBBL-esque, not hard data-borne way) that this ticketing blitz has induced the following behaviors: a) looking around at a red light in the park to see if police are around, and b) “gunning it” when close to green light to ensure one can make it across in before the light turns red. Funny how this behavior mirrors motorists behavior? This ticking blitz is a failure also because I noticed that: if you’re a) not wearing spandex or b) a child you’re likely to get away with running a red light in front of the police.

    Also I noticed no police inner the upper north half of the park. Also I noticed plenty of tourists running lights and not getting tickets.

    The enforcement is so half baked its quiet laughable. Looking forward to the summer when it will be pure chaos.

  • Interesting Chris. I drew a lot of the same impressions. Did you actually see any cyclists get pulled over this weekend?

  • Joe R.

    I’m still scratching my head trying to figure out exactly what bought on this rash of bike hate. It isn’t the behavoir of cyclists because as a group, they’re no more ( or less ) annoying than motorists or pedestrians. The average person on the street probably doesn’t have much opinion one way or the other until they read the garbage spewing the media. Then all of a sudden every brush with a cyclist ends up being personal to them, and they’re a converted anti-bike fanatic.

    I think it’s fair to say the media started this for reasons I can only speculate. When one looks at who pays for much of their advertising, the answer becomes fairly clear. Bikes may not be a big threat to big oil or auto companies right now. However, those same companies are probably doing “what if” scenarios, seeing what happens if biking becomes 10% or 20% of trips. They’re worried that a good number of urban residents may one day wake and realize that they can live without a car. Biking will fill those niches where they used to drive. Add to that settlement patterns which long term see suburbs shrinking. It’s easy to see if the whole idea of sustainable transit catches on, there isn’t much of a future for big oil or big auto. They likely see this as their one last chance to reverse this trend before it’s big enough to have enough popular support so it’s unkillable. Their tactics now point in that direction. When one must resort to lies, half-truths, discarding data, and spewing rhetoric, this tells me they’re desperate. All we really need is to get one or two major news organizations solidly on our side, and it’s over for people like NBBL. Popular opinion will shift. Perhaps in a few years time we’ll be reading pages of car-hate from a populice who finally woke up to the fact that the auto is the real quality of life problem in big cities, not the bicycle.

  • Chris

    I was only on the loop for about an hour and maybe saw about a half-dozen cyclists pulled over. No clue if they actual got a ticket or just a warning though. At one light I observed two interceptors and a RMP parked side-by-side to block almost all the traffic so as to go through a choke point.

  • Moocow

    Brian and Joe R., just hoping you are right, just made my day a little better. Thank you.
    I was getting pretty down, thinking about my neighbors (and news media) and their desperate grip on their unsustainable cars and the excusing of damage those vehicles cause all of us.

  • Jay

    I particularly like this quote from the Post article:
    “Sadik-Khan came to the Department of Transportation from a nonprofit do-goodnik shop hell-bent on “reducing car dependency”

    I’ve never heard Parsons Brinkerhoff described quite that way before!!!

  • Jay

    Please post online and send them a list of all such factual errors, and publicly request that they print a full retraction.

    What the Post published does not even rise to their own standards.

  • Larry Littlefield

    “I think it’s fair to say the media started this for reasons I can only speculate.”

    I’ll speculate it is a desperate attempt to stir controversy to attract attention. They needed an acceptable group to demonize.

    Everything the media does has to be framed in a context of falling revenues and growing desperation. You have the worst cyclical downturn in 80 years combined with a painful adjustment to structural change — a shrinking share of a shrinking market.

    And some of those who work in it are locked into to an expensive lifestyle with a shrinking paycheck. Again, look at Peyser’s picture. I assume she chose it.

  • dporpentine

    I think this moment of bike hate is brought to us by a confluence of people’s hatred of the other and their hatred of anything perceived to be superior (anything, that is, that doesn’t come with late capitalism’s list of Accepted Reasons for Superiority–expense, class position at birth, etc.).

    I remember a commenter on a very liberal blog railing against bikers for passing him while he was stuck in traffic. This wasn’t a rant about running red lights, it was just spitting contempt for bikers because they ended up traveling faster than he did. But it was expressed as a hatred of bikers. This is that problem writ large.

  • NM

    Joe R., couldn’t agree more. I was just rereading these stories, trying to get my head around the ‘us v. them’ dynamic that has become incredibly salient and mostly media driven, and you raise a good point. Seems like the coalition on the side of having transportation options and safer would be a broad one: health insurers, children’s advocates, AARP, disabled advocates, transit advocates and cyclists (of course), the CDC and other public health groups, groups focused on balancing government budgets, most city planners,and probably several I’ve missed. But looking at the members/funders/partners of the Complete Streets Coalition, I’m struck by the narrow membership (and encouraged by participation of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota).

    How do we get all these people at the table? I would imagine the message about wastefulness of overspending on auto infrastructure would be particularly effective these days. In particular, the convergence of the insurance industry, AARP and budget hawks could be especially powerful here and really send the message that it isn’t so much about a ‘war on cars’ as about making a little breathing room on our streets for health and safety and reducing the tax and personal expense burden of pure auto reliance.

  • It’s also worth pointing out the Post’s apparent disdain for the tourists who contribute billions to the city’s economy, even during a downturn, insulting them as walruses.

    Take that, people who spend their money here!

  • fdr

    Before Parsons Brinckerhoff, Sadik-Khan worked at the Federal Transit Administration. Maybe that’s the nonprofit the Post was thinking of.

  • Thanks, Doug, for the insightful comment (no 22). Sorry for the lack of links, but I’ve noticed that a bizarre kind of nativism seems to infect the pages of a major tabloid daily. The only people whose opinions matter on any issue are “real New Yorkers.” I always liked how people from anywhere could come to New York and instantly become real New Yorkers, but sometimes I feel (pace Larry L.) that you have to be a city pensioner to qualify as a real New Yorker for the paper’s purposes.

    Part of the attraction of living in a global capital is that smart people come here from other places with smart ideas about how to do things, whether it’s how to build buildings, streets, or theatrical productions. In the best of worlds, that keeps the people who were already living here at the top of their game, because new ideas are always coming in. In the nativist world, however, all those new people (and new ideas) don’t count for scratch and New York should just do things the same way it’s always done them.

  • David_K, I didn’t say Streetsblog exaggerated the problem; I said the rest of the world does.

    I know exactly the street near Bellevue you’re talking about. It’s like that every single day.

  • dirtycrumbs

    I can’t help but think back to Peyser’s obscenely wrongheaded crusade against the Times Square pedestrian improvements. Everytime I walk through Broadway I marvel at what an unqualified success the new Times Square has become. The area is packed with people and energy at all hours of the day. Its glowing, positive example of the potential of big city urbanism.

    After being so laughably wrong about Times Square, you’d hope Peyser would temper some of her venom towards the current DOT administration and rethink things a bit. Unfortunately she refuses to exhibit any degree of introspection and continues to pen the most reactionary and mean-spirited pieces on the transformation of NYC streets. It’s a sad commentary on her character. But, I guess expecting humility and decency is asking too much from today’s media.

  • dirtycrumbs

    Larry is right about picture comment. Peyser’s weathered snarl contrasted against JSK’s sunny glow really says it all.

    It’s unfortunate the bike haters don’t get out there and ride. If Peyser only gave cycling a chance, you’d instantly see a brightening of that gloomy frown.

  • Shemp

    Larry, you’re wrong about 34th Street. Anyone who really wants to get from tunnel to tunnel and has been there before uses one of the parallel one-ways because they move much better than 34th Street. One left-turner on 34th brings the whole thing to a halt and the pedestrian crowding also affects the street throughput. 35th Street Westbound, 36th or 40th Eastbound are far more efficient for driving tunnel to tunnel.

  • Clarence Eckerson Jr.

    I agree with Shemp. I was out a few days ago getting some shots of cars driving to around the Midtown Tunnel. I was surprised to see almost no one comes from or goes down to 34th Street. They come from another point to access/leave Midtown. Just walk around the grid there.

  • J:Lai

    I think the “bike backlash” reaction is a logical response.

    The underlying sentiment comes mainly from people who travel mainly by car. They may live in NYC, or may live outside by commute into the city. Given the limited amount of total street space, and the current state where the vast majority is dedicated to moving or storing cars, it stands to reason that any improvements for other modes, like bikes, must come at the expense of drivers.
    Whether it is removing travel lanes, removing parking spaces (or charging for them), or just making it more difficult to double park, drivers stand to lose immediately from any re-allocation of street space.

    This, to me, explains the sense of outrage against bikers expressed by the car-owning, frequent-driving minority. The local media continues to run these stories because they do indeed generate a lot of interest. Even though not many people in the city are directly affected by something like a bike lane, there are a few people who have strong opinions. It doesn’t hurt that this is any easy issue to understand, well suited to short articles, unlike pension reform or finance issues.

    The entitled driver faction has been fairly successful at controlling the terms of the media debate on this issue. They have managed to associate themselves with “real” or “working class” people, and bike supporters with “hipsters”, “eco-terrorists”, and “scofflaws”. They have also managed to invoke an anti-Bloomberg populism to characterize bike infrastructure as another incursion by the freedom-restricting administration of the billionaire nanny.

    All this has been done largely without recourse to facts or any legitimate research. Whether this bike backlash will have any long-term impact on the City’s decision about developing bike infrastructure remain to be seen, but it has certainly been succesfful in shaping the media coverage.

    Further, I would be very surprised if the automakers or oil companies have anything to do with the media coverage of this issue. I doubt that bike lanes in NYC are even a blip on the radar of these companies, in terms of things they are worried about.

  • car free nation

    This Spring is a time for us to show our numbers. I’ve set a goal for myself to convince, either through example or gentle nudging, 10 people to commute by bicycle before the next winter. Ideally they all become committed bikers, but even if they just go irregularly, we’re on our way.

    If all the people who read this blog do this, then we can increase our numbers to the point where we are actually a political force, rather than a very small, but vocal, minority.

    All the rest of this – the press vitriol, NBBL – it’s all noise, if we can keep the numbers going up.

  • Joe R.


    It isn’t the bike lanes in NYC which might have auto or oil companies worried. Rather, it’s what they represent-namely the idea that you can live well without a car. Remember how ingrained the idea of driving is with upward mobility in the US. People who take public transit, especially buses, and also those who bike to get around ( not for recreation ) have been viewed as “losers” for a long time in popular opinion. Now the tables are starting to turn. A good number of those who choose to commute by bike in Manhattan could easily afford a car-if they wanted one. They’re actively shunning driving and car ownership. If this catches on (and it will because by most accounts because generation x and y at best view the car as transportation, not a status symbol as their parents did), then things don’t look good for those in the auto business. They didn’t care when mostly the very poor were riding buses or bicycles to get around. After all, this group couldn’t afford cars anyway. But now that groups who might have bought a car 20 years ago are shunning car ownership, they’re getting desperate. What better way to fulfill their goal than to demonize both cyclists and mass transit, with the idea of killing both through heavy-handed regulation bought on by mass hysteria? Except it won’t work. The public is better than that. Moreover, a lot of the public is going broke fast. They certainly don’t want less expensive transit options removed.

    As discouraging as these last months have been, I think in the long run we’ll be better off for it. The other side had more than a fair shot to make their case. If this is the best they can come up with, they’ll lose for sure. Eventually as NM said in post #22, you’ll bring many other groups to our side simply because it’s good policy for them. They may not care about cyclists perse, but if people cycling saves money on doctors, police, mass transit, etc. you’ll find a broad spectrum of support. The real message we need to get out more is the true cost of an autocentric society. We needn’t (in fact shouldn’t) demonize cars in the process. Just tell the truth, look better than the other side with these facts, and we’ll win for sure.

  • JamesR

    Looming in the background during all of the anti-bike hate is the potential for another 2008-style oil shock:

    Will the media haters like Peyser and Marcia Kramer change their tune if gas goes over $4.00/gallon again? My guess is that the vitriol will get worse before it gets better. It doesn’t have to be this way… sad.

  • Bolwerk

    So, is anybody expecting Willet’s Point to become the next auto utopia? Seth Pinsky’s at the helm of a $3B project. That doesn’t bode well for NYC.

  • J

    In national news, Chicago just announced its first cycle track:

  • J:Lai

    Joe R, while I agree with most of your points, these are things that might happen a generation from now. The leaders of GM have enough problems within a 12 month horizon that I highly doubt they spending any time or money worrying about such long term hypotheticals. I certainly don’t think they are actively supporting the anti bike movement in the Post.

  • Marty Barfowitz

    Will the media haters like Peyser and Marcia Kramer change their tune if gas goes over $4.00/gallon again?

    The answer is no.

    When gas prices spike this summer — almost a foregone conclusion at this point — the troglodytes like Peyser and Kramer and their friends in Council and the state legislature will push for gas subsidies and the elimination of gas taxes. They will protest ever more loudly at the (relatively small amounts) of money being spent on bike projects while drivers are suffering. They will go bonkers that the city would consider rolling out a public bike-sharing program (privately funded, though it will be) while drivers are paying $4.50 at the pump.

    None of this will make any sense at all, but that’s what they’re going to say.

  • dave

    I really like to point out that there are millions of New Yorkers, who work in the city of New York, pay taxes in NYC, that cannot ride a bike for what ever reason PERIOD!. Elderly, disabled, people who travel far distances, people who want to travel to New Jersey or the West Coast of the United states have to drive through Manhattan (some do not want to pay $13 to cross the Verrazano). That’s the problem. You took away space. My god, has anyone traveled down 9th ave lately? or 8th now? 9th ave was paradise. Now it’s just a congested mess of a mess. And for whom? so 1% of the population can enjoy a bicycle ride to work? I LOVE CYCLING! I ride every day. Just not in those “sheltered bike lanes”. Death traps.

    There needs to be more emphasis on how people should cross the street and follow the walk/don’t walk signs. Would eliminate most of pedestrians getting hit by cars. Should ticket jay walkers and people who cross against the light. Also, at major intersections, there should be just a crossing time so all traffic is stopped and people could cross. This eliminates cars turning into a busy street without having to avoid hitting people.

  • Ian Turner


    There are also plenty of people who cannot, should not, or simply do not drive cars in New York, including the blind, the deaf, the young, the elderly, the poor, and those who simply don’t have a driver license. Yet we allocate the vast majority of our public space to the use and storage of automobiles.

    If you are arguing that the allocation of space should match the abilities and preferences of the public, that would imply that we should give less space, not more, to the private automobile, and significantly allocate the amount of dedicated space for pedestrians and transit.

    Was that your point?


  • Ninth Avenue may have been paradise in a car, but for pedestrians it was hell before the bike lanes.

  • Joe R.

    “There needs to be more emphasis on how people should cross the street and follow the walk/don’t walk signs. Would eliminate most of pedestrians getting hit by cars. Should ticket jay walkers and people who cross against the light.”

    So now you want the NYPD to start ticketing pedestrians in addition to the cyclists they’re already ticketing? Try it and see how well that goes (hint-Guiliani did-for about 2 days, and gave it up). Pedestrians cross against the light because if they didn’t it would take forever to get anywhere. And crossing in the middle of the street is much safer because you avoid turning cars. The majority in Manhattan are pedestrians. They shouldn’t have to defer to or wait for the minority in cars at all.

  • Andrew

    Cap’n Transit:

    You should know better than that. Pedestrians don’t count. The only people in Manhattan who count are drivers who can’t afford $13 to cross the Verrazano. (It’s well known all drivers are working class New Yorkers, so pedestrians must be wealthy elitist hipsters who just got here from Ohio.)

    Motorists are also 100% law-abiding. I have never heard of a motorist who speeds or runs red lights or violates a pedestrian’s right-of-way (oh wait, I forgot, pedestrians don’t count). And when a motorist double parks and causes a traffic jam, it’s all because of the bike lane!

  • Larry Littlefield

    “I really like to point out that there are millions of New Yorkers, who work in the city of New York, pay taxes in NYC, that cannot ride a bike for what ever reason P That’s the problem. You took away space.”

    A relatively small amount of space, compared to that allocated to the automobile.

    The problem is that travel by automobile is incredibly space intensive. So drivers believe they “need” all the space, because they are stuck in traffic. Another answer is that you shouldn’t drive to places at times were space is the most valuable.

    In any event, the argument here is that those who work and pay taxes and don’t drive should have some of the space. And those who can’t ride a bicycle at the speed limit and/or would be afraid to do so, including women, children, the older people, and just normal folks should not be terrorized into not riding a bicycle. They should have a place of their own.

  • Joe R.

    “And those who can’t ride a bicycle at the speed limit and/or would be afraid to do so, including women, children, the older people, and just normal folks should not be terrorized into not riding a bicycle. They should have a place of their own.”

    Larry, the group who can’t ride a bicycle at the speed limit also includes me and just about every other cyclist (save those lucky enough to afford something like a Quest velomobile). Regardless of experience and/or fear of traffic, pretty much all cyclists are forced into that little space between traffic lanes and parked cars in the absence of protected bike lanes. Late nights and/or downhills are the only times that might not be true for myself personally. Yes, we should have a place of our own, just like autos and pedestrians already do.

  • eveostay

    Barfo —

    Good point. I’m looking forward to the Bike Share shit hitting the fan. (Provided the bastards aren’t able to actually kill it, of course.)

    Should only be superseded by the eventually and hopefully inevitable enactment of congestion pricing.

  • dave

    I guess I didn’t really state my argument. I am PRO bicycle lanes. I am ANTI sheltered lanes and so called “traffic calming”. I am PRO personal liability. I drive every single weekday in nyc ( I’m a taxi driver) so I see all the lanes, every day. And I’m sorry, not enough people use these lanes to justify what has resulted in MORE TRAFFIC!, A lot more. Parking spots gone and business’ suffering (This is FACT. sorry, but now people just can’t stop and pick something up.) I will tell you that the lanes north of 72nd st on 1st ave are the best ones. Space for all, everyone happy.

    I wonder how people will react when the Columbus Ave. bicycle section eliminate left turns for cars? So, yes, I will now have to go around to Amsterdam ave, over charge my passengers, waste time, for whom?..not the majority that’s for sure.

  • Joe R.


    Even though I couldn’t care less about inconveniencing car commuters in Manhattan(most have other options to commute), I am sympathethic to those who drive for a living like yourself. If you say traffic is worse and some businesses are suffering, I believe you since you see the roads every single day. The problem is finding the right balance of street space to satisfy all users. On that I’ll say the problem isn’t necessarily the sheltered bike lanes, but the presense of auto commuters who have other options, but refuse to use them. If we could get even 50% of the private cars off the streets in Manhattan, traffic would flow smoothly for those like you who drive for a living, even with the sheltered bike lanes. This is why I’m a big supporter of congestion pricing, with exemptions or reductions for commercial vehicles. Everywhere it’s been tried, it’s made traffic flow better for those who must drive. As a bonus, it could provide a sorely needed dedicated revenue source for mass transit.

  • Stan

    Dave, criticising bike lanes for underuse is like criticizing subways for being underused if they didn’t connect and only ran for a few blocks.

    I live on the east side, and there aren’t many places for me to safely bike. I can go down the east river esplanade, or down 2nd avenue to the Manhattan bridge. Any other destinations require mixing it up with the crazed NYC drivers.

    Given safe bicycling options, people WILL bike. The city will be much better for it.

  • Pete Louys

    The eco-sanctimony on display here is truly awesome. Why don’t you all just start fire-bombing cars? Better yet, nuke Detroit.