By Sasha Pezenik
Community Board 7 backed a resolution Tuesday night calling for the city to install a northbound bike lane on the Upper West Side similar to the southbound lane on Columbus. The board prefers putting the lane on Amsterdam Avenue, but is open to other ideas from the city. Although the resolution was approved, there was extended disagreement over the proposal, similar to some of the grumblings about the rollout of Citibike on the UWS.
Many present said they felt extremely unsafe whenever biking on Amsterdam, especially given the high volume of trucks, restaurant deliverymen, and drivers who race up the avenue — or tell their cabbies to — because they know the stoplights sync. One woman who recently biked across the United States shared a heart-rending anecdote about her cousin, killed in a Boston cycling accident.
“Cyclists deserve the room to be safe,” one community member exclaimed, “It’s just a question of vision and political will.” Another speaker said after pushing the Department of Transportation for over two years, “they still haven’t gotten back to us, and they need to stop dithering.”
A DOT spokesperson told us they’re examining possible Amsterdam Avenue safety improvements, which the community board first asked them to review in late 2013. The spokesperson noted that the DOT has introduced several other street safety initiatives over the past year and a half, including changes near 96th street and Broadway and a redesign of West End Avenue.
Councilwoman Helen Rosenthal has thrown her support behind an Amsterdam Avenue lane, recently sending a letter to the Department of Transportation saying it would go a long way towards ensuring greater safety for all.
Some concerns were raised by Community Board members, however, on how a bike lane might negatively impact traffic flow for pedestrians and motorists alike. Board member Jay Adolf cited a potentially dangerous situation for those exiting taxis onto the street, that might block the new bike lane.
“This will be more than just paint on the ground,” one board member noted, emphasizing the need for and ensuring the benefit of the bike lane’s separation from traffic.
Another Community Board member expressed concern that Amsterdam is gridlocked enough as it is, that a bike lane would only further clog the avenue’s commerce. “Traffic should slow as the road narrows,” board member Jeanette Rausch said, “but it doesn’t.” Another board member noted further blockage of the traffic might create a cloud of pollution, as more vehicles caught in congestion labor in place. “I’m all for safety,” he said, but worried about car exhaust.
Some cyclists use the Columbus Avenue lane for northbound biking, defeating the lane’s intent. One board member was dubious that the “clear laziness” of these bikers would change if there was an Amsterdam lane too. Board members opposed to the resolution recommended a “Feasability Study” of Amsterdam, rather than an immediate implementation of the lane: “This will not be a unanimous vote,” Jay Adolf said.
Indeed a unanimous vote it wasn’t, but the resolution passed with strong support — there 34 in favor, 5 opposed, and 1 member abstained.
Well, that’s great news!
Not sure what passing a resolution does, but OK.
Also pretty sure that a northbound lane on Amsterdam isn’t going to keep the delivery guys from going the wrong way on either Amsterdam or Columbus, even with their too-fast electric bikes. Seems like most regular bikers follow the rules.
I don’t have an issue with the delivery guys. They’re doing a pretty thankless low paying job that almost every New Yorker takes advantage of.
Its the ‘Arrogant Morons’ that speed through the park like its the tour de france every morning i have an issue with.
Everyone complains about the riding habits of the delivery guys (and I agree that many of them can be reckless), yet heaven forbid their beloved lo mein is 2 minutes late, they will berate the restaurant for having slow delivery.
Re: “Seems like most regular bikers follow the rules.”
REALLY ?!!?
Then how come almost every biker blows through red lights as if they didn’t exist!
It’s especially bad on CPW, an avenue where pedestrians who even THINK of crossing against the light can become road-kill.
And even if you obediently wait for the walking man while standing on the Central Park side at W. 69th you had best be careful.
Step gingerly from in front of that parked car, BUT LOOK LEFT before going any further, because, sure as kittens become cats, SOME ARROGANT MORON ON AN EXPENSIVE BIKE (NOT a deliveryman, but the usual entitled Me-First type) IS SURE TO BE COMING AT YOU, WITH ZERO REGARD FOR YOU OR ANY LIGHT!
Hear, hear!
Sure, some cyclists glide through red lights and many pedestrians jaywalk and cross streets at the corner without waiting for the light to change. Why do you care if I am blowing through a light unless you are also ignoring traffic rules and crossing my path?
Re: “Why do you care if I am blowing through a light unless you are also ignoring traffic rules and crossing my path?”
To REPEAT what you obviously DID NOT BOTHER TO READ: “And even if you OBEDIENTLY WAIT for the walking man while standing on the Central Park side at W. 69th you had best be careful.
Step gingerly from in front of that parked car, BUT LOOK LEFT before going any further, because, sure as kittens become cats, SOME ARROGANT MORON ON AN EXPENSIVE BIKE (NOT a deliveryman, but the usual entitled Me-First type) IS SURE TO BE COMING AT YOU, WITH ZERO REGARD FOR YOU OR ANY LIGHT!”
And as far as “…some cyclists glide through red lights….”
GLIDE ?!?!?!
How’s about RACE LIKE MANIACS !!!
Let’s call it as it is…blatant contempt for laws and for other people !
I was referring to the content of the article which was about protected bike lanes.
Most regular bike riders follow the rules and go in the proper direction on the protected bike lanes. Many delivery people do not.
I would also say that fewer bike riders blow through red lights than the number of pedestrians who cross mid block suddenly appearing on the street from between parked cars or trucks or those who think it is OK to jaywalk because only a bike is coming down the street.
Also, I think yellow cab drivers get a bad rap. I think most of them are aware of bikes, certainly more than the average person form NJ or CT driving their SUV into “the city” for the day.
Thanks for the hysteria, ScooterSam, but here are the facts:
So far in 2015, 62 pedestrians — including 7 children — have been killed in the five boroughs. All due to motor vehicles; none due to bicycles. In Manhattan those numbers are 15 pedestrians killed, including a 12-year-old boy. Again, none due to bikes. Despite Vision Zero, motor vehicles are still killing better than two pedestrians *per week* in our beloved city. If you include the deaths of passengers, motorcyclists, and bicyclists, NYC motor vehicles kill more like 5 people per week.
Why all the anger toward bikes?
Protected bike lanes will make it safer for bikers, but people are concerned about bike usage and its affect on pedestrians. A protected lane going uptown is definitely needed, but Amsterdam Avenue, a commercial street is not the place for it. We already know Columbus Avenue has problems. Bikes need to be counted to get real usage numbers. Some traffic cameras on Columbus Avenue would be the first step towards getting usage statistics. Arguing that bikes kill less people than motor vehicles does not prove there is a need for a bike lane on Amsterdam Avenue.
I think there’s so much animosity towards cyclists because they’re generally so *deliberate* about running the lights and riding on sidewalks. Drivers are for sure guilty of inattention and bad judgment, but cyclists typically are quite aware (and often a bit sanctimonious) about the way they blow through pedestrian right-of-ways.
The cyclists who break red light laws are very deliberately making choices to be antisocial, and seem to make justifications rather than apologies for that behavior.
Honestly, your response encapsulates it – a community member is upset about the danger and disruption of cyclists running red lights, and instead of acknowledging the issue, you point at cars and try to ignore the very real concern expressed by your neighbor. Cyclists don’t kill a lot of people, but they kill some, and injure a bunch. Reducing that impact is worthy of its own discussion.
Progress in this city would be brought to a standstill (and frequently is) if every community member that is upset had their concerns satisfied. You can’t argue with crazy – some of ScooterStan’s concerns are valid, but I doubt he could be mollified. Just ‘pedal’ on.
On the “Menace to Society” scale of (1) to (10) where (1) is jaywalking and (10) is a car running a redlight, a bicyclist running a redlight is much closer to a (1) than (10). And its common sense to look both ways and step “gingerly” whether you have the light or not. I have no problem with a bike coasting through a red light at a slow pace/recognizing pedestrian right of way… much the same I have no problem with jaywalking. Research traffic calming – we should be doing this on the Amsterdam freeway – a bike lane is a good start.
As a pedestrian, I disobey “don’t walk” signs all the time. I look both ways, determine whether I can make it across without getting in the way of a car or bike, and if so, quickly cross. Anyone who says they would wait for the “walk” sign to cross a single-lane numbered street, with no visible cars coming, is probably lying. Most of the time this “law-breaking” is a matter of common-sense and completely harmless. Of course there will always be bad apples who don’t exercise common sense, push it too far, and endanger others. This is true of bikes, cars, and pedestrians. However, you could assign every cop on the force to writing tickets for jaywalking, bikes passing through red lights, or cars making u-turns or blowing through lights, but you will never stop this behavior. The minute a cop isn’t there, people will go back to what they were doing before.
From a policy perspective, if your goal is truly increasing public safety then cracking down on violations, many of which were committed using common sense, is very ineffective. You would probably get much more bang for your buck trying to focus on measures that get the reckless group to behave more like the “common sense” group. One possibility would be speed bumps at lights, which would not only get bikers attention but force the reckless ones to slow down to a point where they can better assess the potential danger. If some still insist on rolling through the light, ignoring pedestrians, at least they won’t be doing 35mph.
Nicely said. They’re also downright scary, even if most pedestrians can, most of the time, avoid being injured. Why should we have to?
Exactly!
This is really great news. I can understand why some folks would oppose the expansion of bike infrastructure until the city becomes stricter with enforcement of vagrantly offensive lawbreakers on bicycles, but a “road diet” (however it’s achieved) is long overdue. I’m done with this highway going straight through the neighborhood.
That was me speaking about my cousin. He was killed in Boston, at Huntington Ave and Forsythe. More here, after another cyclist died at the same spot, by the MFA and Northeastern University. I always wonder how many lives could be saved with protected bike lanes. Thank you to the CB and Helen Rosenthal for supporting this.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/06/02/bicyclist-killed-after-falling-into-traffic-huntington-avenue-friday-night/KTCc97wo1HcRobnKuZPijJ/story.html
But we already have very active northbound bike lanes on every UWS Avenue! They’re called ‘sidewalks’.
Why not use Central park.
Because it’s impractical. Here’s an example: Suppose I live on Amsterdam and 62nd St. and I want to commute to Broadway and 96th St. If I go through the park as you suggested a quick 10 minute trip is now three times as long. Having a protected bike lane on Amsterdam provides the safe passage to northbound destinations like the one on Columbus does for southbound destinations.
It’s pretty simple really. You wouldn’t walk up Broadway when the place you want to go to is on 5th Av. right?
Its not impractical, its only inconvenient if you are riding a bike. Adding additional time to your ride versus safety should be an issue. Yes if you are really lucky riding 10mph non stop, you might make it to your destination in 10 minutes, but how many traffic regulations are you violating? You are not stopping for red lights, riding or stopping in a crosswalk and hazarding pedestrians. What kinds of chances are you taking in your safety? You and the rest of us are better off if you took the train and did a little walking.
Nevermind, I looked it up again. It says 15 min not 10min. However, my argument still stands.
Bud, that’s what Google Maps said it would take ok.
leave the streets for cars and let the bikes use the bike paths in Central Park and along the Hudson. The truth is that on the UWS the majority of cyclists simply don’t use the bike lanes. Just the other day, I counted six bikes in walking two blocks, including four on Columbus–none were using the bike lanes. I don’t understand the big push for bike lanes when most cyclists don’t use them. If the concern is for the safety of the cyclist, the safest approach would be to use the bike lanes in the parks. On the UWS we have Central Park and Riverside–those are the safest, fastest, and most reliable places to ride a bike, particularly heading north or south. Compressing cars on busy avenues into fewer lanes to accommodate bikes that don’t even use the bike paths makes no sense. It seems politically wise on paper, but in practice it just creates congestion and makes it difficult to hail a taxi.
The problem with making an anecdotal argument is that you could have found facts with about 30 seconds of googling. DOT did a study, including counts taken from April to October in the year before the Columbus bike lane was built and again 3 years after. Usage of the bike lane represented a 51% increase over the counts done 3 years prior. Additionally, crashes resulting in a reported injury (to the pedestrian or biker) decreased by 27%. Even more problematic for your argument, various analyses conducted on traffic showed no significant change in average car speeds for that stretch of Columbus. Of course, like all research, I am sure we can find all kinds of caveats or nit picks with the way the data was collected but unless there is a more robust study that finds differently which I haven’t seen, the research seems to undermine all of the major complaints that are leveled against building a bike lane.
Much of the rhetoric on both sides of the pro- and anti-bike camps seems more concerned with “winning” or at least sticking it to the other camp than making smart policy decisions that properly maximize public utility.
I have a hard time reconciling your proposed solution for increased bike safety (bikers diverting into the parks for all northbound trips) with your view that bikers would be unwilling to go 3 feet out of their way to utilize a bike lane.
Fortunately not a single statement made in your post is factual. Your observations, at best are anecdotal.
Zulu, Of course my description of what I’ve observed is by definition anecdotal. What are you trying to accomplish by saying my comments aren’t factual? If you want to disagree with me, why not make a point rather than trying to call into question my point. For example, you claimed that going from Amsterdam to Central Park and then to Broadway would add 20 minutes to your trip. If I wanted to attack your comment, I’d say that’s gross hyperbole since you’re claiming it takes you ten minutes to travel 34 blocks and 20 minutes to travel less than one fifth that distance. Is there something I said that you can point to like that–something that is just plain wrong or unsupported by facts or are you just tagging comments you don’t like with disparaging remarks?
I did not employ hyperbole I used Google Maps. A trip from 62nd and Amsterdam to 96th and Broadway is less than 2 miles. If you routed through Central Park it’s exactly 4.8 miles. The travel times were also taken from Google Maps I didn’t pick them out of the air.
“Is there something I said that you can point to like that–something that is just plain wrong or unsupported by facts or are you just tagging comments you don’t like with disparaging remarks?”
To answer your question, yes I can. You stated this: “The truth is that on the UWS the majority of cyclists simply don’t use the bike lanes. ”
Your above statement is simply not the truth. By simple reasoning of the hundreds of bicyclists that ride on Columbus everyday the majority use the bike lane. I for one do so and witness how many others do as well. Having witnessed six cyclists on a given opportunity out of the lane does not make your observation a truth nor does it qualify as a majority. That in fact is hyperbole.
Also, refuting your postings with appropriate qualifiers does not make my comments disparaging. Accusing me of using hyperbole without being able to prove otherwise is in fact disparaging.
As a constant biker, I do ride Amsterdam uptown, but with consistent terror at the triple parking and speeding. Why not Central Park West, where there is an uptown (unprotected) lane, no legal truck traffic and the big advantage for bikes A LEVEL PATH UPTOWN? (Not true on Amsterdam, Broadway, West End, or Riverside Drive)
Dr. Dave, While I agree that CPW is flatter than Amsterdam, the flattest path would definitely be the path along the Hudson. There are no trucks or triple-parked cars or speeding vehicles. You could ride terror-free and have very few traffic lights, too.
Sure the greenway along the Hudson is a great place to ride without the risk of death or injury, but how do you propose I get to points between Central Park and the Hudson greenway?
The same way you do now using crosstown streets.
This isn’t necessarily true. You can’t enter/exit the parks at any cross street. If you have to get to 83rd, you will have to ride north/south on one of the avenues at some point. There are actually fairly long stretches of the bike paths in both parks where you can’t enter/exit freely. This also ignores the fact that steering all bike traffic into the parks would greatly increase the risk of pedestrian injury. The only two NYC bike accidents that ended in pedestrian death that I can recall happened in the park.
Your recommendation basically boils down to either bikers or pedestrians having to accept increased risk of personal injury so that it doesn’t become “more difficult to hail a taxi”. From a public policy perspective, that doesn’t seem like a very well balanced recommendation.
Exactly!
Zulu, you may want to try a street that heads east or west in order to access points between Central Park and Riverside. How else would you think to do it?
In fact, this is what you said: “leave the streets for cars and let the bikes use the bike paths in Central.”
So what is it? Can I or can I not use the streets? I’m confused (BTW I’m employing sarcasm now).
Well sure, but that’s not what you said before.
how about a lane to protect pedestrians from bikes?!
If you believe the prevalence of bikers riding on the sidewalk is a significant public safety concern, I trust you are an avid supporter of the bike lane? It seems like the best outcome for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians would be for each to have a clearly delineated space (street/cars, bike lane/bikes, pedestrians/sidewalks). This would increase clarity on where each party should be and reduce the number of dangerous encounters with bikes on sidewalks, pedestrians/cars in unprotected bike lanes or traffic shoulders, and bikes/pedestrians in traffic. It also would make it easier to enforce infractions of already existing cycling laws, such as riding on the sidewalk.
Its called a sidewalks and crosswalks which are supposed to be off limits to bikers.
Right — “supposed to be”. The point is that those suppositions just don’t turn into reality, and pedestrians need protection from the vehicles (motorized and non-motorized) that threaten our safety.
Pedestrians deserve the room to be safe, too, and what is this fascination with the rights of bikers? Before the DOT does anything to appease the biking community, it needs to address pedestrian safety first and that includes getting the Parks Department to specifically identify where bikes may be ridden (which right now appears to be anywhere the rider wants to go). Sick and tired of the Community Board’s sucking up to the interests of a few in the face of what unfortunately may be a silent majority.
Pedestrians absolutely deserve safety which is why the DOT’s fascination with pedestrian safety FAR outweighs any fascination with cyclist safety. However, the massive efforts to increase pedestrian safety are largely focused on the cause of most pedestrian injuries/deaths, cars. Note the massive amount of work that has been done to re-design traffic patterns that have resulted in high numbers of pedestrian accidents. You could argue that the bike lanes themselves are part of this fascination with pedestrian safety. Their research shows that all of the protected bike lanes that they have built have led to dramatic reductions in pedestrian/bike collisions.
If you are seriously concerned about pedestrian safety please support a protected Amsterdam bike lane. If you really just don’t like cyclists and want to keep them from being “validated” or getting something nice, carry on.
The protected bike lane on Amsterdam Ave polled ahead by 30 percentage points on West Side Rag. 65% approval. :). Also, bicyclists are just trying to get from point a to point b in a safe, sustainable, efficient way.
Rob, I suggest you go to the next CB meeting. You will be surprised by how many make up what you perceive as the minority.
They are better organized to show up at a meeting.
Bike enthusiasts might argue that the reason there are few bikers is that there is nowhere safe for them to ride and the creation of a bike lane would increase bike traffic, justifying its existence. But based on my observation of the bike lane on Columbus, there are still not enough bikers to justify shutting down a lane of car traffic for the occasional bike that uses the lane.
Yes, exactly! People don’t use the bike lanes. Advocates claim they do, but every time I pass them, they’re empty, but there are plenty of bikes elsewhere.
And everytime I’m using the bike lanes I’m never alone. More and more do I see people riding and not just for pleasure but for transportation and from all walks of life.
Upon the arrival of citibike to the UWS the Columbus Av bike lane will get a lot more use and a similar lane on Amsterdam will be needed to handle northbound flow.
Do delivery people wear vests that clearly mark their restaurant, company affiliation, etc.??? Why can’t at least commercial delivery bicycles have special license plates at a nominal fee. The city would get a little extra revenue and maybe….maaaaybeeee those traffic cameras could ticket/photograph anyone causing an accident…like maaaybeeee going the wrong way in the bike lane.
Carving off one lane of Amsterdam, already jammed with heavy traffic including two bus routes and heavy trucking, is a really bad idea. It would result in even more clogging and bottlenecks than occur now. The further points made at the meeting about taxi exiting and increased air pollution are also valid. P.S.: The bike lane on Columbus sees little use except for pizza/chicken/sushi delivery guys. DON’T DO IT.
Can you say extra traffic and a commuter’s nightmare on Amsterdam Avenue?!?The congestion the bike lanes have caused on Columbus Avenue are the result of total lake of foresight, and have made morning commutes, and most commutes a nightmare! It is a great idea to have protected bike lanes, but the avenues were not built to accommodate so many lanes and barriers (let alone the delivery trucks that now triple park because of the bike lane, and then parked cars). I have nothing against bikes or bicyclists, but making the avenues even more narrow is a big mistake–in fact, they should undo what was done to put the squeeze Columbus Avenue!
“Clear laziness”?? Are you kidding me?
How much you want to bet that board member doesn’t ride a bike?
If I’m looking for a place to grab a coffee and a sandwich or a bathroom, am I supposed to do that on CPW?
Amsterdam is a death trap on a bike.
How about doing something about the delivery guys with the motorized bicycles??????
I just want to add that I am a very conscientious rider. I always stop at red lights, pause for pedestrians even when they are jay walking, I don’t speed and I have good bike etiquette. Every now and then I find myself in a situation where I briefly have to go north in the south lane.
I have a great idea, and a way for the city and state to make money…what if the bicyclists who use city streets have to have license plates (those in the park, or just recreational bikers do not). That way, the bicyclists who use the avenues and streets to commute alongside cars and buses must adhere to driving regulations/speed limits/red lights or theyay be subject to formal ticketing, red light cameras etc. Also, they can be reported by drivers and pedestrians if they are in violation. I think this idea would keep the “lawlessness” part of the cyclists more in check. I’m very serious about this…what do you all think?
I don’t think this is a bad thought, but licensing schemes for bikes are extremely difficult to implement, end up being costly (contrary to popular belief, auto registrations and licensing aren’t typically a source of revenue), and the return ends up being minimal.
Regarding the latter point, I think many license schemes that have been considered were abandoned due to the realization that they would not generally accomplish what they were intended to, reduce unlawful cyclist behavior. It is more likely that law enforcement would end up spending an inordinate amount of time tracking down stolen bike plates, or in court trying to uphold difficult to defend tickets. In addition, bike theft would have to be considered a much more serious crime. The overwhelming amount of bike thefts that are currently not investigated due to resource constraints, would likely need to be treated more seriously.
Additional issues to consider: 1) Bike size licenses would be difficult for pedestrians to see or traffic cameras to pick up. 2) Traffic cameras for bikes require bike lanes, but likely have the unintended consequence of driving more traffic on to restricted areas such as sidewalks 3) plates would be easy to hide from pedestrians and traffic cameras but quickly uncovered if stopped by law enforcement 4) plates would be very easy to steal or swap compared to car plates 5) all the data systems that track vin numbers and auto plates would need to be duplicated for bikes and maintained 5) Visitors and non-NYC commuters would have to be prohibited from using their bikes unless a nationwide licensing scheme was instituted.
In the end, having a license wouldn’t really affect law enforcement’s ability to punish law-breaking cyclists. You mention that citizens could “call in” infractions but, to my knowledge, this doesn’t even happen with cars. An officer (or camera) generally needs to witness a traffic violation for a ticket to be issued. The same would be true for bikes.
The only time licenses come into play is tracking down hit and runs, stolen vehicles, and vehicles used for more serious crimes. They are also useful for tracking parking infractions where the driver is not present to be issued a ticket. Judging by the numbers, there aren’t many bicycle hit-and-runs that result in reported injuries, they are rarely used as getaway vehicles in more serious crimes, and bike parking hardly seems like a serious enough issue to institute a license scheme.
Much obliged.
Instead of a dedicated bike lane they should build an express lane for pedestrians that forbids people looking at their phones, dogs and strollers (note that I am a frequent stroller pusher but still would want this).
A few years back someone did this as a practical joke, if I recall. They painted special tourist lanes on some of the sidewalks in midtown or something.
Danny, in your response to Posting 2 above, you quote statistic to ScooterStan. I’d like to know what the *proportions* are. There is far more vehicular traffic in all five boroughs than bike traffic.
Moreover you state *fatality* figures only. How about those of us who are “just” injured — some bearing the pain and disability for the rest of their lives?
This is why we need bike lanes.
https://gothamist.com/2015/07/13/barclays_cyclist_crash.php#photo-1
Also this, both in the last 12 hours..
https://www.westsiderag.com/2015/07/13/couple-flips-car-on-71st-walks-away
How would a bike lane have helped?
“One board member was dubious that the “clear laziness” of these bikers would change if there was an Amsterdam lane too.”
Stereotyping? check
Name calling? check
Speculation? check
Bizarre logic? check
Classy way to make decisions by a “representative of the community”. Good thing we can simply vote them out. Oh wait, we can’t. [facepalm]
You can’t have it both ways: a community that wants protected bike lanes but no citibikes.