Amsterdam Ave Protected Bike Lane Finally Happening After 28-13 CB 7 Vote

Hundreds of people packed into Goddard Riverside Community Center last night to speak out in favor of DOT's proposed redesign of Amsterdam Avenue. Image: Luke Ohlson/Transportation Alternatives" width="529" height="397" /></a> Hundreds of people packed into Goddard Riverside Community Center last night to speak out in favor of DOT's proposed redesign of Amsterdam Avenue. Photo: Luke Ohlson/Transportation Alternatives
Hundreds of people packed into Goddard Riverside Community Center last night, most to speak in favor of DOT’s proposed redesign of Amsterdam Avenue. About a hundred more were denied entry because the venue reached capacity. Photo: Luke Ohlson

By a count of 28 in favor and 13 opposed, Manhattan Community Board 7 voted last night to endorse DOT’s plan for a protected bike lane along Amsterdam Avenue from 72nd Street to 110th Street. The vote affirmed a safety project that Upper West Siders have worked toward for several years, but the meeting itself devolved into farce, with some board members making a last-minute attempt to stop the redesign despite the long public process, endorsements from major elected officials, and the large crowd who turned out to support it.

More than 200 people packed the meeting room at Goddard Riverside Community Center, the vast majority in favor of the project. With a larger meeting room, the crowd would have been a lot larger — at least 100 people were denied entry after the room reached capacity.

DOT’s plan would calm traffic on Amsterdam Avenue by replacing a general traffic lane with a parking-protected bike lane and concrete pedestrian islands [PDF]. With four northbound moving lanes, Amsterdam’s current design leads to dangerous speeding and higher-than-average injury rates. The bike lane would provide a safe northbound complement to the southbound protected lane on Columbus Avenue. The project is on track to be implemented in the spring.

Local City Council members Helen Rosenthal and Mark Levine spoke in favor of the project last night. But some board members appointed by Rosenthal and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer did their best to stop it.

In a ploy to prevent any change, former CB 7 Chair Sheldon Fine proposed a substitute resolution that called on DOT to address safety on Amsterdam Avenue without the protected bike lane. The resolution requested that DOT instead make the Columbus Avenue bike lane two-way, a design that doesn’t exist on any wide NYC avenue with frequent intersections and would introduce new conflict points between turning drivers and northbound cyclists. Fine argued that this wouldn’t amount to tossing several previous CB 7 votes out the window, but most people on the board weren’t buying it.

“This conversation has been going on for five years,” board member Mel Wymore told Fine. “What you’re proposing is first of all sandbagging a two-year process and secondly, the DOT had already told us that what you’re proposing would not be the safety improvements that we’re asking for here. We need a good bike lane not for the bikes, but to calm the traffic and save lives.”

DOT’s plan for Amsterdam Avenue between 72nd Street and 110th Street will install a protected bike lane and concrete pedestrian refuges.

CB 7 first requested protected bike lane designs for Amsterdam Avenue and Columbus Avenue in 2009. It took DOT several years to build out a protected lane on Columbus, and in 2013, prodded by local advocates, the board began another series of meetings and votes again asking for a lane on Amsterdam. Last summer, the board flat-out endorsed a protected lane, requesting that DOT “immediately” install traffic-calming measures on the corridor.

Upper West Side residents took turns at the mic for nearly two hours before the board went into its session, with most supporting the redesign. The process wasn’t set up to reflect the overall turnout at the meeting, since the board had groups of five supporters alternate with groups of five opponents. When time ran out, supporters who signed up but didn’t get a turn to speak outnumbered opponents 15 to 1. In addition, most of the people shut out of the room were supporters of the bike lane.

The children of Thomas McAnulty, the 73-year-old sculptor who was killed at Amsterdam Avenue and 96th Street on January 18, started off the session with other members of Families for Safe Streets. “We’ve always known Amsterdam has been crazy,” Caroline McAnulty said. “Something has to be done. If it’s not done, more people are going to die.”

Both Rosenthal and Levine spoke publicly last night in favor of the redesign, but Borough President Brewer declined to comment until after the vote. Brewer was about to say something at the beginning of the board debate, but held back when Fine proposed his competing resolution. When she eventually spoke, she limited her comments to congratulating the board for a respectful meeting.

Speaking after the meeting, Families for Safe Streets’ Mary Beth Kelly said she was “elated” by the vote. “I’m thrilled. I’m proud that this is a community that could make this happen,” she said. “There are few things that could possibly make me happier.”

  • Brian Howald

    Despite the fact that it shouldn’t take monumental effort to convince people to make their neighborhoods safer, a tremendous amount of thanks goes to Families for Safe Streets, TA, elected officials who supported this, CB members who defended it, and all the people who advocated on behalf of it for years and who showed up last night to ensure that it happened.

  • “The process wasn’t set up to reflect the overall turnout at the meeting,
    since the board had groups of five supporters alternate with groups of
    five opponents.”

    Taking a cue from modern media, where both sides deserve equal time and weight regardless of actual merits or support. A complete farce,

  • HamTech87

    I’m sure the crafty members of CB7’s anti-safety contingent will find a way to outlast supporters and eventually kill the redesign. With their lifetime appointments to the CB, they will be there long after the elected leaders are gone.

  • Bobberooni

    To beat a dead horse, why is a 2-way bike lane on Columbus Ave such a bad idea?

    1. It would leave an obvious imbalance of uptown vs. downtown automobile lanes on the UWS. (i.e. it just makes no sense).

    2. When you’re biking in NYC and the bike lane is blocked, you… move into general traffic lanes and drive around the obstruction. When you’re biking on a contra-flow bike lane an the bike lane is blocked, you… play in traffic? But seriously, this isn’t a big deal because bike lanes are NEVER blocked or obstructed.

  • Bobberooni

    Not quite. Each side in court deserves equal time and weight as well, even if one of the is dead wrong. When people are saying stupid things, sometimes the best way to convince the world of that is to let them talk.

  • Eric McClure

    Just want to underline what @brian_howald:disqus wrote – all those who helped make this happen deserve our great thanks, especially those tireless volunteers who rallied support, spoke out, and wouldn’t let the but-where-will-grandma-park crowd stand in the way of saving lives. Well done!

  • JudenChino

    Did anyone make this argument:

    (i) This will increase congestion,
    (ii) which will increase exhaust in our streets,
    (iii) QED, Your bike lane ==> give children Asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

    Also, mad respect to TA and everyone else out there who made this happen. I recognize these incremental changes are necessary, but, as this pace, I fear that I’ll be dead by the time we actually have a proper livable city. Like, I have to consult the actuarial tables to see if I’ll ever ride HSR in Cali. Perhaps I’m jaded by having a Dutch partner (so I go there every year or so for the holidays), because from that perspective, the real story here, is wow, boy is the NYC’s bike networking process completely and totally fucked up.

    Frankly, this is malpractice by the DoT that they delegate so much authority to Zweig. Why are they afraid of him? He’s not elected. No significant power base, right? Rosenthal and Brewer wanted this bike lane too. So why do we all have to kiss the bloody fucking rings of these local community members? We have the guy who opposed the bike lane on RSD b/c he feared it’d delay his drive to his VT cottage!?!?

    So yes, nice, we finally get some nice things. But the real story, should be, this shit shouldn’t be subject to a local veto absent compelling reasons. I can understand not wanting a bike lane (though you really need protection) on 2nd ave through portions of midtown. But there’s simply no excuse for delaying such infrastructure through heavily dense residential areas such as this portion of the UWS. Oh, and seriously, fuck these dinosaurs. I have so much contempt for these people.

  • Maggie

    I actually think two-way bike lanes on Columbus and Amsterdam both would be great. But the fact would remain that Amsterdam needs a protected bike lane. A two-way on Columbus alone is a terrible and unacceptable substitute for the existing need to bike safely on Amsterdam.

    Was just trying to remember whether Gale Brewer had actually spoken in support like Mark Levine and Helen Rosenthal did. I am so disappointed in her for not standing up on this.

    Also, thank you Mel Wymore and Mark Diller, and Elizabeth Caputo for bringing this ahead for the vote.

  • Mike

    Right on.

  • When did Gale get so weak? Safe streets used to be one of her stronger issues.

    Well done to the tireless community members who made this happen!

  • AMH

    When I was at an uptown bike and ped safety improvement focus group with DOT last year, Brewer sent a staff member to make sure that no parking spaces were sacrificed to save lives, at to ensure that nothing would slow down her taxi ride to work.

  • BBnet3000

    In the legal system frivolous cases can sometimes be dismissed and vexatious litigants can be curtailed.

  • Mark Walker

    I look forward to safer crossings at Amsterdam Avenue. Many thanks to those who made it possible. And to those who obstructed — shame on you!

  • DRDV

    Rosenthal might say she wanted the bike lane, but by reappointing Zweig it’s clear she no friend of safe streets and should not be regarded as such. You can say you favor gun control, but if you appoint Wayne LaPierre to your community board gun policy committee, you should be judged accordingly. She’s an enemy of safe streets. And she should be seen as such in the next election.

  • Joe Enoch

    A 2-way bike lane isn’t an awful idea but what that fails to do is make Amsterdam Ave safer. It’s a deadly highway and the proposal will make it safer for bicyclists and pedestrians.

    Also, don’t kid yourself into thinking that that option was proposed because the person who proposed it actually likes the idea. It was simply a magician’s distraction. That same person would then propose an uptown amsterdam ave bike lane during talks about a two-way columbus ave lane.

  • Reader

    “What happens is traffic creates pollution,” said Joseph Bolanos, a community advocate and longtime resident of 76th Street. “You’re going to have slower traffic and more pollution air and noise.”

    “Filing out of the meeting after 10:00 p.m., Bolanos, who earlier predicted the changes would result in more congestion, called the decision “a victory for pollution.”

    One would think this man has never visited Columbus Avenue.

  • rao

    Contra-flow bike lane blocked? You stop and walk your bike on the sidewalk.

  • Maggie

    Yep, opponents rolled all those out, plus their inexplicable argument that delivery cyclists aren’t people.

    “Nobody uses the bike lane on Columbus. It’s just delivery cyclists.”

  • Tyson White

    The answer is a lot simpler than the way you put it: The reason a 2-way Columbus Ave bike lane is a bad idea is because it doesn’t make Amsterdam any safer – it just make Columbus more dangerous!

  • Tyson White

    She’s moved on to other things like ferry transportation. Something that doesn’t rock the boat (pun) with the parking lobby. Maybe she’d support a bike lane for water bikes:

  • kevd

    Well, to entrenched UWS “liberals” immigrant delivery people are expendable.

  • Bobberooni

    I disagree on the purpose of bike lanes. Yes, they make life safer for everyone, and that’s been a big justification for them in NYC. But for those of us on bikes, we perceive the purpose of bike lanes as to actually get from point A to point B.

  • Bobberooni

    I’m tired of officials expecting us to do that. My bike is heavy, when it has all my stuff on it. Lifting it over curbs can be difficult. When was the last time you saw a sign telling you to get out and push your car?

  • AnoNYC

    Happy to hear but I hope that the DOT converts one of those moving lanes into a bus only lane.

  • AnoNYC

    Those are not liberals, those are elitist.

  • Tyson White

    But for a person not willing to ride with cars and trucks (most people), is it even an option without a segregated bike lane?

  • Kevin Love

    Also, ADA fail. Lots of disabled people get around by cycling.

  • rao

    I understand what you’re saying, but I view being able to walk the bike as an advantage. I do it all the time when I’m riding crosstown and the street is blocked by double-parked trucks. Can’t do that with a car. Of course, it would be better if we could actually ride on the sidewalk.

  • walks bikes drives

    I have numerous back and forths with him on DNAinfo article comments. He is one of those who believes that he speaks for the majority when he voices his opinion because the majority must agree with anything he says. They used to quote him as being the president of his block association, but I think that block association is now defunct and never was much of a block association to begin with, from what I have been told.

  • walks bikes drives

    I am totally against the idea of allowing biking on sidewalks. But I do the same when the road is blocked, which makes cycling more convenient. Also, when I come to an intersection where the light just turned red and I want to make a turn, I hop off, walk my bike onto the sidewalk, turn the corner, put the bike on the street, get on and ride off. Adds 5 seconds on to an Idaho stop, but 100% legal. Had the cop on traffic duty at 96 and Amsterdam watch me do this a dozen times…

  • Bobberooni

    Before the advent of the protected bike lane, my conclusion was that the one-way NYC avenues are simply not safe for bikes. And that’s coming from someone who has used a bike for transportation for many years in many places, most of them without bike lanes.

  • Bobberooni

    What does walking you bike get you that riding it doesn’t? You’re wider once you get off and walk it.

  • Bobberooni

    And during non-peak hours?

  • Reed Rubey

    Now that the Safe Street design has passed the CB review process I look forward to more improvements. Given the 2:1 vote in favor it follows that there is an appetite for positive change. I encourage those who proposed better bus service to follow up with leadership on this topic. (The president of the Douglas Houses made it clear at a recent forum that current bus service is not acceptable.) Otherwise it would look like they used this concept simply as a diversion to kill a Safe Street design proposal and some of the descriptive language in other posts describing these opponents would be well deserved.

  • It might be better for bicyclists to be able to ride on the sidewalk; but such a policy would be worse for pedestrians.

    The sidewalk in New York City is for pedestrians alone (and children on bicycles); we as adult bicyclists shouldn’t favour an intrusion by bicycles into pedestrian space, which would make pedestrians’ quality of life worse.

    (Preemtive comment: the fact that, in some sections of Queens, sidewalk riding seems harmeless is irrelevant. Such a policy is not appropriate for New York City.)

  • Walking the bike means that you’re going more slowly and in a more controlled fashion. This is the appropriate way to transport a bicycle in pedestrian space.

  • A two-way on one side of a street or on a street with one-way vehicular traffic (contra-flow) is quite dangerous. Many drivers look ONLY in the direction that cars are coming from. If all cars are coming from their left and you from their right then you stand a good chance of being hit. This is why they have largely been eliminated in Europe.

    Following on that, one-way streets for auto traffic have proven less safe than two-way streets and no more efficient from a congestion standpoint. Many cities have realized this and are converting all of the one-ways they created in the 60’s and 70’s back to two-way (and increasingly with a protected bikeway on each side).

  • Bobberooni

    That’s my point. The “walk your bike” suggestions are made for the amateur hour on the bike path. Experienced bikers can balance at a standstill and control the bike at low speed.

  • Bobberooni

    I agree. If you allow bikes on the sidewalk, many bikers will ride carefully at pedestrian speed. But some idiot will also charge full speed ahead, ruining it for everyone else.

  • Joe R.

    Putting aside the fact there are virtually no pedestrians on a lot of Queens sidewalks for large parts of the day, walking the bike just isn’t practical if the street is unusable for a long stretch. Getting around a one or two car length blockage is fine, but what about when they cut streets for repaving and you don’t really have a viable alternate route? I’ve had to take to the sidewalk for a mile or more in those cases. Walking the bike at 3 mph means 20+ minutes to do the mile. Riding carefully on the sidewalk, averaging about 10 mph (a perfectly safe speed on most Queens sidewalks for most of the day), cuts 14 minutes off that, or nearly half an hour round trip. I already have a major incentive to avoid sidewalk riding, namely that best case it’s still a lot slower than street riding. That means I won’t do it unless I really have little choice.

    One side fits all rules are bad for exactly that. My general consensus is that sidewalk riding should be thought of the same as shared use paths, since they’re both essentially the same thing. I’m not a big fan of shared use paths, but they can work just fine if the volume of both bikes and pedestrians is low. That’s the case in large swaths of the outer boroughs. If either becomes high, then they become increasingly stressful, especially for the group in the minority. If both are high, then the concept is totally unworkable (i.e. look at the epic fail on the shared parts of the Hudson River greenway). I’d rather we take this on a case by case basis. An outright ban on sidewalk cycling from lower to midtown Manhattan during business hours probably makes sense. Everywhere else you can allow it at least during off-peak hours. In quite a few cases you can allow it 24/7.

  • Joe R.

    My take on this is faster riders tend to prefer the street. When I do see someone riding too fast on a sidewalk, more often than not it’s a delivery guy on an e-bike. If we changed the pay structure of delivery people to hourly instead of per delivery, the incentive to cut corners like that would be gone.

  • There is always an alternate route here in New York when a street is cut up for repaving. It may not be as convenient or direct (as I found when I had to avoid the highly convenient Johnson Ave. in Brooklyn for more than a month); but it will exist. You will never have to walk for a mile, or even for a quarter of a mile.

    Look, if the sidewalk is completely empty, such as during late nights or overnights, and you need to get around an obstruction or an impassible spot in the street, then even I cannot complain too much over a ride on the sidewalk of just a few yards. But that is a contingency, not a policy.

    The rule forbidding riding on the sidewalk is a good one which must remain. For pedestrians anywhere in the vicinity — even across the street on the other sidewalk — bicycles on the sidewalk negatively impact them. It is important to note that a bicyclist doesn’t need to actually crash into any pedestrians in order to adversely effect them; the mere sight of bicycles on the sidewalk increases pedestrians’ stress and lessens their sense of security. We as bicyclsts should not be doing that.

    Sidewalks are not shared-use paths.

  • Joe R.

    I was coming back into the city on Hillside Avenue once and a one mile plus stretch was cut for repaving. In that case there really wasn’t any viable alternate route. Jamaica Avenue is nearly a mile south in that area. Going north anywhere to try and hook up to Union Turnpike (and you can only do that via Winchester Blvd. or Springfield Blvd.) meant climbing that awful hill, and I would have had to stay on Hillside Avenue for a while anyway to reach the aforementioned cross streets. And coming back on Union would mean climbing another awful hill (the one under the GCP). I was on Hillside Avenue coming back in expressly to avoid those two scenarios. I go north when I hit Midland Parkway. That’s the place I avoid hills. When you get further into the city you’ll often have an alternate route only a block or two away. On the fringes you really don’t. Or if you do the route is often too hilly to be viable.

    The rule forbidding riding on the sidewalk is a good one which must remain. For pedestrians anywhere in the vicinity — even across the street on the other sidewalk — bicycles on the sidewalk negatively impact them. It is important to note that a bicyclist doesn’t need to actually crash into any pedestrians in order to adversely effect them; the mere sight of bicycles on the sidewalk increases pedestrians’ stress and lessens their sense of security.

    We can only make policy based on actual probability of danger, not on someone’s feelings. Large numbers of cars on the streets negatively impact MY stress level, both as a cyclist and a pedestrian. And yet I don’t see any politicians seeking to reduce motor traffic because of this. In situations where sidewalk riding obviously presents a danger, then yes, I favor banning it. In situations when it doesn’t, it should be allowed, although mainly as a contingency. Ideally there should be good, safe bike infrastructure on every street where motor traffic makes riding too stressful. If you do this, then the only times you’ll get bikes on the sidewalk, even if it’s legal, is merely to pass a temporary obstruction.

    Sidewalks aren’t shared use paths, but the reason they often get used as such is due to lack of proper bicycle infrastructure. If we’re unwilling to put decent bicycle infrastructure where needed (and provide alternate routes when construction causes disruption) then NYC policy should allow careful sidewalk riding on an as needed basis. Unless of course sidewalks are so crowded as to make that unfeasible.

  • ahwr

    Some cities let people bike on the sidewalk. There are rare injuries, almost always minor. The worst offenders (fastest riders, least considerate of pedestrians) when I’m in west coast cities where it’s permitted are people trying to make a transit connection, not delivery people. While not all that dangerous, it makes walking far more stressful. Instead of conflicts at the occasional intersection conflicts on the sidewalk become continuous. It doesn’t matter if there is a law that says cyclists have to ride at an ill defined appropriate speed, give an audible warning before passing, yield to pedestrians etc… Following those laws makes cycling on the sidewalk too inconvenient when you do so for a mile, as in your scenario, or if the rest of their route was stressful, enforcement is negligible, so many people bike on the sidewalk however they want. Just like people drive however they want, the law be damned. Why discount the stress that results? Cycling in the street is very safe – I’ve often had cyclists point out to me that it’s safer than walking – but there are frequent calls for better accommodations anyway. Given how safe it is it seems the best argument for those accommodations is that cycling with traffic is stressful and at times slow. Should those calls for improved facilities be ignored?

    One bike on an empty sidewalk in eastern Queens late at night isn’t an issue. You think so because you never see conflict. But it doesn’t scale. If there are thousands of people riding like that it produces too much conflict. Want to expand cycling as a mode of transportation? It can’t be done on the sidewalk. Want to carve out an exception in the law that better accommodates your late night hobby? That seems an inappropriate use of the city council’s time.

  • Joe R.

    I never said it did scale. Shared facilities work fine when the volume of pedestrians and cyclists are both low. That’s currently the case for large parts of the outer boroughs. Should cycling become a lot more popular, then you’re going to need cycling facilities. Right now cycling in places like where I live seems to be on a small enough scale that we can turn a blind eye to sidewalk cycling. Whether or not it’s worth the City Council’s time codifying this into law is a separate matter entirely. If police use common sense discretion enforcing the law then it’s not necessary. Then gain the City Council had time to contemplate giving themselves a ridiculous salary increase, so perhaps they need a few more things to keep them busy. That’s doubly true if the increase passes.

  • ahwr

    Right now cycling in places like where I live seems to be on a small enough scale that we can turn a blind eye to sidewalk cycling.

    NYPD already does. When they stop someone riding decently it’s almost always someone they would have wanted to stop anyway.

    If you want the council to take up a bike issue – and there are plenty that they should – this shouldn’t even make the list of things to discuss.

  • I was coming back into the city on Hillside Avenue once and a one mile plus stretch was cut for repaving. In that case there really wasn’t any viable alternate route.

    I grew up in QV; so I know that area well. (All too well. I was happy to escape it.)

    Going north anywhere to try and hook up to Union Turnpike (and you can only do that via Winchester Blvd. or Springfield Blvd.) meant climbing that awful hill…

    Wrong on two counts.

    First: at 234th Street, Union Tpke. is only a couple of short blocks from Hillside Avenue.

    Second: the hill is not bad. I did this many, many times as a kid in order to get up to Alley Pond Park. I am very hill averse, probably as a consequence of frequently going north up Francis Lewis Blvd. from Hillside Avenue, and of feeling cursed by what I later understood to be the Terminal Moraine. So believe me when I tell you that the hill going north at 234th St. is not at all a severe one.

    Jamaica Avenue is nearly a mile south in that area.

    So then you go a mile south. Problem solved.

    I’m afraid that you have not made the case that there was no other route which forced you to ride on the sidewalk. Clearly, in the situation you mentioned, Jamaica Avenue was the alternate route to use. A one-mile detour in each direction to get to the next best through street is but a minor inconvenience in a trip that must have been in excess of 25 miles.

    Even if parts of Queens can seem disturbingly suburban-ish, the fact remains that this is a city, with a network of streets that offers multiple routes to any conceivable destination. Thus there is no justification for long-range sidewalk riding. If the street you want is ripped up, just pick another one.

  • Joe R.

    Honestly, I had no idea of the length of the cut pavement when I hit it. I may have sought an alternate route just to save time, since sidewalk riding is kind of slow, had I known I would be on the sidewalk for over a mile but I didn’t.

    First: at 234th Street, Union Tpke. is only a couple of short blocks from Hillside Avenue.

    Union Turnpike wasn’t an option here at all because of the hill near the GCP. I take Union going out of the city but Hillside or Jamaica Avenue going back in. My only option then was Jamaica Avenue, but as I said I wasn’t about to do a long detour like that because I didn’t know how long the cut pavement was going to be. It could have only been a few blocks. Also, not being familiar with the cross streets in that area, I wasn’t sure which streets I needed to take to reach Jamaica Avenue.

    Thus there is no justification for long-range sidewalk riding. If the street you want is ripped up, just pick another one.

    And I did exactly that the next time I headed out that way. I took Jamaica Avenue all the way, but that’s a slighty different, somewhat longer ride than what I did on the day I mentioned. I usually do one of two rides out of the city. Going out both involve going out of the city on Union Turnpike till it ends at Marcus Avenue, then taking that to Hillside Avenue. The shorter version involves going right on Hillside Avenue and coming back into the city on that. That longer version is where I go left on Hillside Avenue, take that to Glen Cove Road, go right until I hit Jericho Turnpike, then take Jericho Turnpike/Jamaica Avenue back into the city.

    My usual way of dealing with cut pavement is to just ride on the sidewalk the first time I come upon it, then seek alternate routes next time once I know how long the part under construction is. At the time I ride sidewalk riding is a complete nonissue. That night I didn’t see one pedestrian on the sidewalk.

  • It might greatly help both cyclists and drivers if construction crews would post signs in advance of sections of cut road detailing where they begin and end. It’s far easier to do alternate routes when you know exactly where you can get back on to the street you were originally on.

    I definitely agree with that. I actually ran into this problem in Philadelphia during one of the two three-day stays that I did in that city last summer. One day I found Broad Street south of City Hall ripped up; but I couldn’t tell for how long. I dealt with it for a block or two before I bailed out.

  • Alicia

    There’s still room for it.


This Week: Amsterdam Ave Bikeway, Broadway Road Diet

Two redesigns of major Manhattan avenues are on community board agendas this week. Tomorrow, a resolution calling on DOT to immediately install a protected bike lane on Amsterdam Avenue goes before Manhattan Community Board 7 (the transportation committee voted for it last month). Bike-share is coming to the neighborhood soon, and Amsterdam could fill a void as its […]

Majority Favor Extending Columbus Bike Lane, But CB 7 Fails to Advance It

Despite a strong majority who turned out to support safer streets on the Upper West Side and conclusive evidence that pedestrian injuries have dropped thanks to the Columbus Avenue protected bike lane, Manhattan Community Board 7’s transportation committee failed to advance a resolution to extend the Columbus redesign beyond its current one-mile stretch between 77th and 96th Streets. […]