The Department of Transportation released its updated plan to transform Amsterdam Avenue from four lanes to three while adding a bike lane, turn lanes and pedestrian islands. The plan below was presented at the most recent meeting about this issue; at that meeting, the community board transportation committee was evenly split for and against the plan, leaving it up to the full community board to vote next month. This plan would affect Amsterdam north of 72nd street. The area from 59th to 72nd will be dealt with at a later date.
Among the changes to the plan are new parking regulations; after initially saying the entire East side of Amsterdam would be a commercial parking zone, the DOT’s new plan would create commercial parking zones at staggered intervals on either side of Amsterdam to address the needs of different businesses.
The vote is set to take place o the evening of Feb. 2 so clear your calendar if you’re interested. And check out the plan below:
Those who are concerned about the safety of bicycle lanes, please have a look at slide 10 of the presentation and post if you disagree and why? I find it pretty compelling but I try to keep an open mind.
Keywords are, “…even as bicycle volumes have dramatically increased…”
So yes, it means safer for bikes.
I think the Columbus data is compelling, but some of it isn’t helpful. For example, the midtown Broadway data represents a street that changed from a major thoroughfare to a dead-end one-lane road. Massive amounts of traffic swapped into 7th Avenue, and the data doesn’t control for that.
If they normalized the data by using injuries vs. throughput, that would be much more informative.
It’s definitely an improvement on the parking front, but it’s naïve to think that truck drivers are going to use metered commercial loading zones without additional enforcement. Anyone who lives up here is quite used to seeing trucks double parked in the street, even when there’s plenty of space at the curb.
It’s a waste to kill metered car parking to install metered commercial parking if nobody’s going to use it.
And good luck to the folks living in the neighborhood of 86th and Amsterdam – looks like your lives just got a whole lot honkier.
Can somebody please explain why on slide 15 we expect the number of vehicles to go down? Where will the vehicles go?
Anon, that slide It’s a 1% reduction in vehicle traffic. I’m not gonna lose sleep wondering where they will go.
they’re guessing that after the change 12 less drivers per hour will drive on Amsterdam, probably based on what they’ve seen at other complete street conversions.
the volume to capacity ratio is the metric they use to see if the road will be able to handle all the cars on it. A road is at max capacity when the v/c ratio is 1.0.
so at most intersections on the chart the fewer lanes means that it will be closer to being at full capacity, but that even after the change, none are at 1.0.
1.0 is the pretty conservative rate. At 1.0 traffic starts to form, but a lot of intersections in the city have ratios higher than 1.
DOT usually accepts any intersection that is below 1.0, even if it’s .98.
I’m not a traffic engineer but if you add the total vehicles/hour from the Existing chart and compare to the same matrix for the Proposed chart the delta is 76 less vehicles/hour from 6-7pm.
To answer your question, I don’t know where those 76 vehicles are going during that hour between 6 and 7 pm but if I had to guess I would say that since one side of the street will be commercial metered parking until 7pm, those 76 vehicles will not be in the area until they know they can park.
This is a terrible idea. It results in significantly increased congestion and pollution. Avenues where this is in place (like Columbus at 98th Street near Whole Foods and Broadway in SoHo)are often reduced to single lane traffic due to double-parked cars and trucks that are pushed further into the avenue due to bicycle lanes blocking the curb. Bicyclists consistently, willfully, and blatantly violate traffic rules and endanger cars, trucks, pedestrians, and themselves, and the police make absolutely no effort to deal with them. Pedestrians don’t pay attention when crossing or use common sense and cause many of the accidents themselves (you can’t protect people from their own stupidity).
More traffic speed and parking enforcement, especially targeting all of the out-of-control bicyclists, combined with pedestrian education and reminder signs at crosswalks, would be much better.
I’m no rocket scientist, but cars stuck in traffic emit only a fraction of what cars moving quickly at a steady flow do.
Also, can you name ONE city in the world where a vehicle lanes were added and it improved air quality (or vice versa, vehicle lanes removed and it worsened air quality)?
If we’re worried about pollution, let’s tighten up the enforcement of emissions on trucks & busses. I’m not sure why you think this will increase pollution, but that seems like a total red herring.
Baloney! The Whole Foods on Columbus and 98th has a large loading dock where all their deliveries take place. So does the Modell’s across the street. The trucks stop traffic for maybe a light cycle to backup into the dock but once they’re in they’re out of the way.
Columbus Av is so much better off now than before. Even when ConEd is doing repair work they mostly park their trucks on the bike lane and are completely out of the way of traffic.
Traffic flow is more consistent and if you keep to the speed limit (now 25 MPH) you make a bunch of green lights.
The argument that this creates more pollution has been debunked many times. Please look it up, and if you have conclusive evidence otherwise, please share it.
Also, cyclists are a danger to cars? That’s pretty funny.
Page 10 says it all for me. Fewer injuries and casualties all around. Parking spaces don’t matter, bikes dont matter, safety matters.
Good on em! Hopefully this is out of the hands of Dan Zweig and Andrew Albert and will be met with more enthusiasm from the full CB.
What is this, Russia?
My contacts in City Hall are telling me the pressure is on for this to pass at the Community Board level. Lobbyist are putting pressure on City Hall to green light this and the 2-0 & 2-4 are also getting pressure to crack down on speeders. It all trickles down from the top.
I don’t agree with THIS plan as it continues to punish the businesses on the West Side of the Avenue, but I also know you can’t fight City Hall. More studies and plans require to be considered/investigated. A plan that would address safety; allow businesses to thrive; and allow both bike and cars to exist is possible with additional work. Such studies and subsequent solutions take years to be implemented from concept through construction , , , the pressure for a ‘band-aid’ fix is sad.
Expect CB7 to cave and pass this plan.
Why is it caving if the majority of people support it? I haven’t seen any polls suggesting that the community is against it. So far all of the community meetings had a majority of constituents pushing for the bike lane and the board has generally voted at a higher proportion against it than the mood in the room.
Notice the survey showed 2% of people of people they talked to got their by car. 2%. This is a walking neighborhood first and foremost, and the benefit for me is safer streets for pedestrians. The bicycle component is a side benefit.
I wouldn’t put much stock in anything from AC. They have been proven to be incorrect on many occasions.
Can you explain how does “THIS plan […] continues to punish the businesses on the West Side of the Avenue?”
Thanks.
What is a LPl? Somehow both 96th and 79th crosstown streets will be sped up with the addition of a Split LPl.
The PDF does not show what that term is. Please explain?
Hi Mary,
LPI is Lead Pedestrian Intervals: pedestrian WALK signal starts 3-10 seconds before vehicular green signal.
Split phases: traffic in one direction of a street is allowed to go straight-through, right or left while traffic in the opposing direction waits (to allow for drivers to turn left without opposing traffic).
So a Split LPI combines these two principles: Allowing pedestrians and certain lanes of traffic to move at certain points during a cycle.
Hope this cleared it up.
So that speeds up vehicular traffic?
The turning lanes help traffic flow because the cars waiting to turn are not holding up the cars behind them.
The removal of parking spaces helps traffic flow because obviously parked cars are a lane of non-moving vehicles.
This particular feature is purely for safety, allowing pedestrians to begin crossing before cars make turns into their crosswalk.
Doesn’t necessarily make it any faster or slower, but merely changes the light cycle.
I think it does marginally improve traffic time going straight uptown.
Thanks for that answer.
I ask because the plan suggest otherwise. (page 15) It shows that the delay times will decrease in places — by more than half on 96th street — how is that possible? I’m not sure their numbers “add up”
Leading pedestrian interval (LPI). It gives pedestrians a lead time to start crossing the street before cars are given the OK to move.
The same idiots that created chaos with their changes to Lincoln Square and West End Avenue are now going to attack Amsterdam Avenue. Someone please put them in a straitjacket. Lock them up!
Oh god not these annoying bike lanes again, so now cars will triple park instead of double and cyclists will continue using the sidewalk instead of these lanes. How much money is all of this going to cost again? At least citi bike has been stalled so we won’t be overwhelmed by all of the changes at once.
Build it!
We need the full Community Board to approve this plan. Why?
After the tragic death of Thomas McAnulty last week at 96th & Amsterdam, the NYPD did a 72-hour crackdown at the intersection, issuing 131 summons to dangerous drivers, and arrested 7 drivers. That was in just a short period, at one corner! This dangerous driving happens everywhere, and the NYPD cannot enforce the law like this everywhere, all the time!
That’s why we need infrastructure changes like DOT’s proposal!
A summonsed driver is not necessarily a dangerous driver.
Tell it to the judge.
I am a mere pedestrian and have no ax to grind. But inasmuch I walk on Amsterdam Ave. every day and observe what goes on, I can tell you that with so much traffic already, losing 25% of the traffic lanes will make things much worse.
I want to get this improvement on Amsterdam asap – I’ll show up at the meeting and speak up in favor. I feel like every day of delay leaves the community at risk that we can’t accept. BUT – are you possibly the Mark Ettinger who performs with the Flying Karamazov Brothers?
No, Margaret. I’m not
doh!! Sorry about that. Guess I was wishing we had more acrobats at the cb meetings.
Mark, you’re probably one of the few people, other than those few on the transportation committee, who are looking down into the future. I agree. In the longggg picture, this plan will make things worse. And no one even talks about the other math: added congestion + added cars = more pollution.
My amateur assessment having lived at 79th and Amsterdam for over 30 years is that this plan will slow down traffic, and put pressure on trucks and speeding livery cabs to find alternate faster routes. Sounds like a win-win for safety.
Is it? Those trucks and livery drivers will go somewhere. Maybe WEA. It’s all the same neighborhood. Are we really making anything better for UWSers? We may be making things better for you and you have a right to be happy about that win. I’m not convinced it’s win-win.
Amsterdam Av is often used an alternative to the West Side Highway for drivers with no business in the neighborhood passing through at high speed. Keeping the status doesn’t benefit anyone on any UWS avenue.
I have no protests re: parking or reduced traffic lanes – what I dread is crossing the street and then getting hit/nearly run over by bikers riding through the lights on the bike lane. I hate crossing Columbus for this very reason now. If cars are stopped at the light I can’t see across the road to see if bikers are speeding up AND down (because they break that rule too) the bike lane and not stopping for the light. I’m happy to give bikers a protected lane but not if they won’t behave like traffic in a lane. I’ve been nicked by bikers going the wrong way (I’d paused to look in the direction the bikers should have been coming from then kept walking and got hit by a delivery guy biking the wrong way and through the light and I’ve seen this happen and almost happen to plenty others). If bikers won’t respect the rules of the road they should face stiff fines.
I’ve had the same experience with bike lanes. I think it’s ridiculous when bicyclists complain about dangerous pedestrians ‘stepping out’ and causing accidents. I’ve been hit twice when I had the green light, and I didn’t see the bicyclists coming or obviously I would have stepped out of the way. I really don’t understand this constant planning for street improvements. What ever happened to go on green and STOP on red? When did this become so complicated and why is it so difficult to enforce?
Westender posted this link the other day. Watch the intersection at 96th and Amsterdam. I’m look at 6:25 pm. It’s dark. The number of pedestrians walking out in front of traffic is astonishing.
https://nyctmc.org/google_popup.php?cid=739
That’s 96th and Broadway.
You’re right. My bad. It’s Broadway at the subway exit.
That subway station was a stupid idea.
I never understand this discussion.
1 Why do UWSers still have cars? What do you do with them? The UWS is narrower than the UES or Lower Manhattan. You are within one or two blocks of a bus or subway.
Where do you all work that you need a car?
If you need a car to get to your country house or LI beach house, can’t you take Uber?
2. To those who complain about “dangerous bikes”, do you not realize that once the lanes are built,they will be separated from the car lanes and thus won’t be a problem?
3. To those who just hate bikes – you are the same ones who say we need government polices like “single payer health care” because “Europe” has it. Well, they have bikes also and manage to use them very efficiently.
4. To those of you who hate the CitiBikes because you hate Citi Bank, fine, you hate the sponsor. Your are mad that they ignored the boycott of South Africa and made a mess of the mortgage industry. Fine. When the sponsorship is up, find a more acceptable one, but in the meantime, be thankful that they were willing to cover the cost of an expensive new system. New York is broke and we cannot afford to build it with public money.
5. You also say “no blood for oil” “no fracking” “no drilling” “man made global warming”. Aren’t bikes a good “green” solution? Don’t bikes mean less carbon pollution?
For the life of me, I cannot understand why a community that has such a conceit of intelligence and such a concern for the environment is not leading the charge for bike lanes and bike uses.
Is there anyone out there that can explain this to me?
Thanks.
I doubt anyone has much luck explaining things to you.
I don’t understand how this helps anything. We’ve already lost parking due to those idiotic citibikes that no one rides and now we should lose more parking? Does that make any sense? If people don’t need parking based on this completely unscientific survey cited here, then why are there never any available spaces? I’m not sure how anyone is assessing the value of a bike lane, but as far as I can tell, hardly anyone ever uses the one on columbus so why would they use another on amsterday?
You do realize that there were over 10 million Citibike rides in 2015, right? A bit foolish to say no one uses it.
What did you do when the Pope was in town this year?
MJ: ever notice the number of out of state cars parked on our side streets. What’s up with that?
Tourists love Citybike.
I never thought to consider that. Thanks for broadening my perspective.
Anytime.
Proofs? Where are the proofs to all your claims?
I am not a driver but given the increase in development on the UWS and the explosion of use of e-commerce/delivery etc, there has been a significant increase in vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic. And more to come as more development in the queue and instead of walking to a store, folks keep ordering their Fresh Direct or Amazon stuff etc.
Reducing a lane on Amsterdam Avenue will be a traffic nightmare. Especially bad for people who use the already pokey M7 and M11 buses.
Another forum about bike lanes on Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues:
https://pwpolicyforum.blogspot.com/2016/01/january-2016-forum-vision-zero-plans.html