Today’s Headlines

  • NBBL Still Trying to Drum Up Bad Press for PPW Bike Lane (Bklyn Paper)
  • MNR Upgrades Safety Controls on Bridges and Curves (NYTWSJ) as Cuomo Talks Transit (CapNY)
  • Yunior Antonio Perez Rodriguez, 35, Killed by Hit-and-Run Driver in Woodhaven (TL, DNA, WABC, NY1)
  • Gloria Mabry, 74, Killed by Turning MTA Bus Driver in Co-Op City (News 12, News, WCBS, Post)
  • Funeral Held for Kalyanarat Ranasinghe, 71, NYPD Traffic Agent Killed in Midtown (DNA, Post, News)
  • Some Bicyclists on the UWS Are Riding the Wrong Way, and the Post Is On It
  • When It Snows, Citi Bike Will Move Bikes to Sidewalk and Plaza Stations First, Then Shovel Out (DNA)
  • NYPD’s New Crime Map: No More, No Less, Than What Council Required (DNA, News, Gothamist)
  • Recycling, Instead of Banning, Styrofoam? That’s 1,000 New Trucks on the Street (NYT)
  • News Interviews Anti-Bike Crank to Represent “Critics” of Atlantic Avenue Bike-Friendly Biz District
  • Invisible Visible Man Looks at the Failure of “Share the Road” and Victim-Blaming Education Campaigns

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Oh please

    Cuomo needs to put his money where his mouth is.

    Yet he steals money from the MTA budget in Albany, and vetoes the transportation lock-box bill. Then he plans to blow billions of extra money on a double-sized Tappan Zee Bridge that will only require taxpayer subsidies in the future. And when the Move New York (Sam Schwartz’) plan to fund transportation more effectively got unveiled a few weeks ago, Cuomo — pre-MetroNorth crash — was the first to throw cold water on it.

    Cuomo should just change his name to Christie and switch parties.

  • Bolwerk

    He’s in the right party. Democrats are often more defensive of suburban privileges than Republikans, at least when it comes to transportation. Expect similar from de Blasio.

    Hearing Cuomo talk about safety is what gets me. He fetishizes muscle cars, and the people who do that probably have similar standards about safety to Paul Walker. Meanwhile, while refusing to finance safety measures for transit users didn’t start under Cuomo, he never, ever has shown an inclination to care.

  • You have to love that Post story on the “chaos” caused by the Columbus Ave bike lane. The lane is so dangerous that a cameraman can stand right in the middle of it filming cyclists ride by!

    The Post’s commitment to absurdity is almost admirable.

  • Wilfried84

    But it’s true that salmon are a menace.

  • Wilfried84

    But it’s true that salmon are a menace, whatever the misguided agenda of the Post may be.

  • Jeff

    I also like how they discredit cyclists in general by interviewing one delivery guy riding the wrong way, and noting his rude response. I challenge them to approach any motorist who breaks a traffic violation, and do the same. Simply approach their window, and ask, “Excuse me, but I noticed that you opted to not yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk, and then make a loud honking noise when other vehicles were not moving as fast as you’d like to move your vehicle. Would you please explain your actions?” I’m sure you’ll get a calm, logically-constructed, level-headed response.

  • HamTech87

    Those protected lanes are really wide. I wish they would make them two way, like this one in Montreal. I know, I know, there is no door zone buffer, but since most cars are single-occupancy, it might not be a problem.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelmann/27473970/

  • Bolwerk

    It’s better than New York, but still wrong. The trees should be left the lane, and the lane should be contiguous with the sidewalk.

  • • I think it’s great that biking has doubled (per the subhed) or tripled (per the article) or whatever on PPW without increasing bike crashes. I wonder if the _Brooklyn_Paper_ could be bothered to tell us whether there’s anything like that going on for the cars that have seen a modest increase in crashes. Or what the greater context is for crashes in NYC, Brooklyn, or Park Slope.

    Oh, but that would be telling.

  • kevd

    Some are.
    Some aren’t. If they are paying attention and stay to the right in wide bike lanes, I don’t really care.
    Many of them could reasonably be 2 way.

  • kevd

    I would guess that is because the bike lanes were added long after the trees were planted.
    I’d take this configuration and not having to wait 30 years for new trees to grow!

    The cyclists in the door zone would be coming from in front of any possibly exiting passengers, and therefore would be very likely to be seen.
    NY drivers would just get out anyway, but Canadians are probably courteous enough to wait 3 seconds.

  • kevd

    Many of the protected bike lanes, not many of the salmon.

  • Bolwerk

    Obviously it was done in the name of expediency, but putting cyclists next to the cars is still probably the biggest sin in creating bike infrastructure. People need to stop settling for expediency as the permanent solution to everything. Cyclists matter.

    Pretty sure moving the trees is a few weeks of effort, not 30 years of regrowing them.

  • Joe R.

    Just to give you some idea of what moving a large, established tree entails:

    http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/CoopExt/4DMG/Trees/movetree.htm

    Probably way more than a few weeks of effort, plus a huge amount of money. If dooring is a concern, I’d just stick a fence next to the row of cars. Let everyone exit on the street side, and then walk in the street to wherever the next gap in the fence is to reach the sidewalk. Or better yet, let’s just finally start banning the practice of curbside parking as it’s an awful idea on many levels. If you do that, you can plant another row of trees where the parked cars are to serve as barrier protection for the bike lane.

  • Bolwerk

    I’m not saying there is no excuse to do something like the above, but it’s also not a particularly good model for bike lanes. It’s easy enough to avoid all the problems with that picture in NYC, where there typically aren’t trees or at least not sizable ones. And avoiding those problems is more important here because of higher traffic (pedestrian, bus, automobile, and cyclist).

    Still, those trees are a fraction the size of the one on that Colorado State page. I think you can see the full outline of the nearest one, and compare it to a nearby parked car. They are taller across the street, however, but even those are significantly smaller.

  • kevd

    Moving trees is a big effort. So much effort, that they would simply be cut down and replanted.
    I’ll take the shaded version in which the cyclists facing people in parked cars are in the door zone (so that both see each other coming).

    People need to stop thinking that funds and political will are limitless and that an ideal configuration that will never happen is preferable to a slightly less than ideal configuration that will be implemented.

    The real cardinal sin in bike infrastructure is having none at all, which is what happens when it is decided that the perfect should be the enemy of the good.

  • Bolwerk

    I said they could be moved, which would mean being dug up and replanted. I never said they should, once placed, be dug up and replanted, though depending on traffic patterns maybe that should be considered.

    As a model, the above is just a plain bad idea. That doesn’t mean it isn’t politically the only alternative, but people actually die because bike lanes are badly placed, and placing them correctly is usually not very expensive.

    (In any case, the cheap solution above: turn the sidewalk into a bikeway, and build a new sidewalk to the right. There is no need to move trees.)

    People need to stop thinking that funds and political will are limitless….

    Perhaps true, but I’m almost certainly the last person here who would ever think that. The more common problem with urban transport planning is being penny wise and pound foolish, which a bike lane contiguous to an automobile ROW certainly is.

  • kevd

    My contention is that what is pictured is almost certainly a MASSIVE improvement over zero bike lane. And, I don’t think this configuration is anywhere near as bad as many many NY City bike lanes because sight lines are quite good for the cyclists in the door zone, ie the cyclists can see people in the cars, and people in the cars can see the cyclists because they are facing each other – and those who can’t be seen are out of the door zone.

    “a bike lane contiguous to an automobile ROW certainly is…. pound foolish”

    A decent rule of thumb, but I’m not convinced that it is actually true in this case. I’d like some hard stats about the relative safety of this specific configuration before accepting your rule of thumb, especially as such a configuration could possibly be implemented in NYC somewhat widely.