City Wants to Extend Amsterdam Avenue Protected Bike Lane, Add Bike Lane Around Columbus Circle

The city has a new plan to complete the Amsterdam Avenue protected bike lane, extending the current lane below 72nd Street. The extension would complete the network of bike lanes through the neighborhood and allow the UWS lane network to link up with protected lanes in midtown.

The city presented its proposal on Wednesday night to Community Board 4 in Hell’s Kitchen and Chelsea, but plans to show it to Community Board 7 on the UWS next month.

The plan is to reconfigure Amsterdam Avenue below 72nd from a four-lane avenue with parking on both sides to a three lane-avenue with a protected bike lane as seen below.

The configuration gets tricky at 71st Street, where Amsterdam crosses Broadway. Bikes in that area would briefly lose the barrier separating them from traffic. But otherwise, parked cars would keep vehicles away. In other parts of the city where there are protected lanes, pedestrian and motorist injuries have declined and bike-ridership has risen, according to city stats.

See the entire proposal here.

The city is also planning to change Columbus Circle to add more markings for cyclists. Right now, the circle is dicey as cyclists have minimal lane markings and direction to transition from midtown to Central Park West or Broadway. But the new plan would add markings, as seen below.

See the entire proposal here.

The city plans to bring the proposals before the Community Board 7 transportation committee on Tuesday, July 10 at 7:00pm at 250 West 87th Street. We’ll have more info on that as it approaches.

Images via city Department of Transportation.

NEWS | 74 comments | permalink
    1. Brandon says:

      Until that new tall building on the old synagogue site at 69th and Amsterdam is complete I don’t see how this can be accomplished. That construction is blocking a lame of parking and a driving lane on the west side of Amsterdam.

    2. KeepTrafficFlowing says:

      And people wonder why traffic is getting worse! Reducing a major avenue from 4 to 3 lanes will create more congestion. You can’t have parking on both sides AND a bike lane. Trucks, FedEx, UPS, etc double park to unload all day. They will block one of those 3 proposed traffic lanes. Keep traffic flowing – eliminate parking on one side of the street if a bike lane is that important to add.

      • Josh P. says:

        I’ve always thought that it was insane to have any parking at all on the avenues. They should be exclusively for travel, temporary stops and maybe deliveries (although preferably they would take place after hours.) We waste some of the most valuable real estate in the world letting people store their cars on public land for free.

        • KeepTrafficFlowing says:

          I’ve thought this too JohnP. Let’s face it, no one drives and parks to shop the neighborhood business. I am for a bike lane if parking is eliminated. I like that emergency vehicles can use them too.

        • Joey says:

          Josh P. I have been a lifelong (74 years) resident of this city and state. I pay real estate taxes and vehicle registration fees in this city and state. I’m entitled to park my cars on the street. What kind of real estate taxes or fees do these bicyclists pay.

          • Zulu says:

            Joey,

            What about people that do not pay real estate taxes, do not own a car and perhaps rent one from now and then. Can they not park on the street? Just wondering what you’re thoughts were.

          • Matt H says:

            You do come across as entitled; surely you got that part right.

            What makes you think someone living in this city who doesn’t own a car doesn’t pay real estate taxes? (Either directly or, for renters, indirectly through their landlord?) What about sales tax? City income tax?

            Registration fees that you pay on your car cover a minuscule portion of the public infrastructure that you use when driving. (Local roads, expressways, [otherwise untolled] bridges and tunnels, and indeed curbside parking spots) The payments for all this come from the general fund.

            Particularly about parking: building a single space in a surface-level parking lot costs $5000-$10000, depending on where in the US we’re talking. (Even more for spots in a parking structure, but let’s leave that aside. Source: http://cityobservatory.org/the-price-of-parking/) It’s NYC, but let’s be generous to you and say $8.5K.

            Curb weight of a Honda Civic is about 3000 pounds; registration fee for that weight of a car is $48.50 every two years. In NYC there’s another $80 in use taxes and supplemental fees every 2 years; that goes directly to the city.

            If we assume just the city fees go towards paying for a single curbside space, and there’s absolutely no overhead — silly, but I want to be generous — the city will break even after 212.5 years. Or let’s say we get to add in 100% the statewide fees too: that brings the timetable down to 132.296 years.

            In short, your argument is ridiculous and you should feel bad.

          • votruth says:

            oh real estate taxes? cool.

      • Mark Moore says:

        People said traffic on Columbus would get worse with the bike lane and you know what, it hasn’t. There was traffic before and now there’s still traffic. If anything it’s calmer now.

        • David says:

          Mark – do you consider one moving lane of traffic to be calmer? Try driving down Columbus between 100th and 96th Street. There’s trucks making deliveries, people double parking, buses going downtown, it’s a nightmare since one lane was taken away. Adding a bike lane to the advantage of a tiny minority of the city’s population which refuses to adhere to the rules of the road and does not contribute any $ in the form of licensing or registration fees for the upkeep of the road is unjust.

          • Sharon says:

            The problems on Columbus between 96th & 100th are due to taxis, trucks and cars double parking in front of Whole Foods and the other businesses there. That is NOT a good reason to not have a bike lane.

            Also, bike lanes are not just an advantage to a tiny minority of the population. In addition to benefiting the SIGNIFICANT number of people who ride bikes, they benefit all of us through cleaner air resulting from less use of cars, lower health costs borne by everyone because of more fit, healthier people, and don’t forget, less danger because there is much more danger to pedestrians and other motorists from another car on the road than from a bicyclist (even for those who would like to think otherwise!)

            Finally, anyone who says no one uses the bike lanes is spouting nonsense! Bike is the BEST way to get around the UWS. Tons of people use the bike lanes, and I always prefer to ride where there’s a bike lane. I probably wouldn’t ride to get around the City if we didn’t have bike lanes on North/South Avenues.

            • David says:

              Sharon, please quote the percentage of bike riders out of the total population that equals a “significant” number. In my opinion (and I am entitled to my opinion), bike riders are getting a hand-out from the city in the form of bike lanes. If you want separate bike lanes on bridges, bike riders should purchase an EZ Pass and pay to use the bridge. Bike riders, like non-city residents, are using the city’s infrastructure without paying for the privilege. It was wrong to repeal the non- resident withholding tax, and it is wrong for bike riders not paying to be licensed and registered, as a method of paying for the upkeep of the infrastructure.

            • Matt H says:

              David,

              This “bicyclists need to pay their fair share” canard is tired and lame.

              One car damages the road about as much as 9,600 bicycles. If bike riders had to pay a fee for their wear and tear on roads, they’d be writing checks for a few cents per year. Source here: https://bikeportland.org/2013/11/12/do-bikes-get-a-free-ride-advocates-infographic-shows-why-not-96950

              Or as an infographic: https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Road_Cost_Infographic_Corrected.png

              The main bullet point that Sharon missed is that taking away road space from cars on our massive Manhattan avenues and turning it into bike lane makes things safer for all road users. Pedestrians get shorter crossing distances. Cyclists get safer spaces to ride in. Excessive auto traffic speeds are curbed. Even vehicle-vehicle crash rates go down. It’s a win-win-win for everyone who doesn’t believe it’s their God-given right to tear around neighborhood streets at 40+ mph.

          • Rob says:

            I live on 96th and Columbus. The bike lane did not affect traffic in any substantive way. Traffic got worse as soon as a whole strip of suburban megastores (WF, Michaels, Modells, TJ Maxx etc.) opened and a slew of new car services (Uber, Lyft, Via etc) doubled the number of cars driving down those streets. Bike lanes have little to do with the traffic.

          • Mike says:

            Let’s not forget the added congestion caused by Ubers, Lyfts and yellow taxis stopping in a lane without any sort of telegraphing of their intentions to pick up and discharge passengers. It has gotten to the point where at least 50% of passenger vehicles at any particular moment are for hire, with little regard for safety, pedestrians or fellow motorists.

          • Margaret says:

            David, on Amsterdam Avenue at 77th, for example, bicycles are around 40% of the westbound traffic this evening. Count them if you don’t believe me. It can be surprising. That 40% may not be significant to you, but it is to me. Maybe people don’t always realize how many people are riding bikes because so much of the visual streetscape is cars.

            • David says:

              Margaret – Amsterdam Ave runs northbound. Please let me know how you came up with your percentage figure. Also, while walking my kids to school earlier this year, we saw a woman riding her bike eastbound on West 77 Street, which is a westbound street. Also on West 77 Street, We also saw a parent on a bike with a kid in the back traveling on the side of the street that was not the bike lane side.

              Matt H – “tired and lame”? Based on the examples I gave to Margaret (ask my kids, they remember these incidents), I believe that bike riders need to be licensed, whether or not it pays for road upkeep. They need to prove they are road worthy. The city has installed bike traffic signals, and I have witnessed cyclists breezing through intersections where cyclists had the red light and cars had the green signal to make safe left hand turns (I was a pedestrian at this intersection, Columbus and 72nd). And if there was an accident at this intersection involving the car and the bike, please tell me you wouldn’t be blaming the driver of the car…

            • Margaret says:

              Thats right, the 40% figure is westbound on 77th Street at Amsterdam Avenue. I counted the first 50 people I saw passing by yesterday evening. 22 bicycles, 26 cars, one sanitation truck, one UPS truck. So whether you personally deem cyclists significant or decide not to, in my brief & random period of observation bicyclists were 44% of the traffic.

              Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the woman on a bike and the parent bicycling with a child you saw on 77th! I can’t believe we started this conversation discussing whether or not the neighborhood cyclists exist or not. It would be great to get cyclist counters on our bike lanes so we don’t snarl that cyclists are insignificant when there are actually parents biking with kids everywhere you look.

          • Mark Moore says:

            They didn’t take away a lane. There were three lanes before the bike lane and still three lanes of traffic after. The traffic in that part of Columbus is because of development and the fact there’s no way to turn — once you enter going south you can’t turn until 97th.

      • Kevin says:

        Why in the world should be there be any parking on avenues. I don’t think the parking on streets should be free either. There’s someone on my block that has a barely functional car they use for storage because parking is free, they move it twice a week to avoid street cleaning. Meter or permit all the parking on the UWS, it makes absolutely no sense that we’re subsidizing such low value use of public space.

        Signed: an UWS resident that owns a car.

    3. Zulu says:

      Come on dannyzweig, do the right thing and approve this.

    4. AC says:

      I guess they haven’t studied this enough to realize that when sanitation trucks use the bike lanes during their route, they scratch up cars parked and make the lanes useless.

      • Zulu says:

        Quite the opposite.

        1. Having a protected bike lane eliminates the need for sanitation personnel to have to sling heavy garbage bags over car hoods which can scratch the car or in the case the bag rips, spill it’s juicy content all over the car (don’t ask me how I know this).

        2. Also reduces the workers’ physical effort by placing the truck much closer to the bags.

        3. Having a protected bike lane allows for the truck to get off the travel lane when picking garbage up which would otherwise impede traffic.

        All wins!

        And yes, they do temporarily block the bike lane. No big deal. Cyclists can carefully move onto the vehicular travel lane or walk the bike on the sidewalk to bypass the truck. Which takes less than 15 seconds.

        FYI protected bikes lanes are designed wide enough for emergency vehicles, so when the road is gridlocked an ambulance or fire truck can easily travel on the bike lane and not get bogged down in traffic.

        This post is just another thinly veiled attempt of NIMBYism.

        • AC says:

          I forgot to mention the classic bottle neck that occurs when a Bus fails to properly ‘pull in’ to its designated stop and a car is attempting to park or a delivery truck decides to unload. The three lanes narrow down to one lane. If you were ever want to see the effectiveness of these bike lanes, study Amsterdam Ave. between 79/80 streets.

          Ps: keep an eye out for the speedy biker going the wrong way in the bike lane.

          • Zulu says:

            I live in the area and I’m very aware.

            1. Ticket cabs and other drivers for stopping on the bus stop.

            2. Ticket cabs and other drivers for parking across from an already double parked vehicle. (Complete lack of common sense!)

            3. Dedicate more spaces for commercial vehicles to load and unload. The already cross hatched areas are obviously not enough.

            4. Take notice of how many TL&C plates are out on NYC roads. Every cab/uber/via equates to 10 private vehicles.

            If you want to point fingers start pointing them in the right direction.

            And I’m not bothered by speedy cyclists going the wrong way. The bicycle lanes are wide enough to accommodate both directions of flow. I’m frankly more concerned about the oblivious pedestrians standing on the bikes lanes or crossing against their light.

            • AC says:

              You solution is what I’ve been saying from the onset. Police should be enforcing the traffic laws and you wouldn’t need bike lanes! I totally agree with you – enforce the laws! Ticket the cyclist going the wrong way; ticket the pedestrian crossing the avenue between streets; and the speedy car!

            • Zulu says:

              “Police should be enforcing the traffic laws and you wouldn’t need bike lanes!”

              Yes police should, but the bike lanes afford safety for those that would otherwise not risk riding a bike amongst multi ton vehicles. Have you ridden a bike in traffic?

      • BillyNYC says:

        I seen a sanitation truck on W. 77th St. scrape the car and knocked off it’s rearview mirror, I called 911 on them the police came over and issued a report… no big deal, so sad, and that guy will get paid back for least year and a half.

        • Woody says:

          That’s not an emergency situation requiring use of the 911 system. I’m surprised the dispatcher even took your report without referring you to the local precinct.

          • Cato says:

            The destruction of personal property is a crime. The caller had just witnessed that crime being committed.

            According to 911.gov,
            “An emergency is any situation that requires immediate assistance from the police, fire department or ambulance. Examples include:

            — A fire
            — *A crime*, especially if in progress
            — *A car crash*, especially [but not only] if someone is injured
            — A medical emergency, especially for symptoms that require immediate medical attention”.

            https://www.911.gov/needtocallortext911.html

            911.gov also says:
            “If you’re not sure whether the situation is a true emergency, officials recommend calling 911 and letting the call-taker determine whether you need emergency help.”

            Sounds to me like the 911 call was appropriate under the circumstances.

    5. Margaret says:

      I’ve spent close to ten years watching bike lanes get debated at CB7. Framing the story like this, West Side Rag, I think is needless.

      You’ve presented it as a “bike lane invasion” and I think that does a disservice to what’s really going on here. After all this time and the neighborhood’s enthusiastic use of citibike, I hope you can find a more appropriate way to frame this than whipping up a divisive debate. You also did not even MENTION that drivers on the Upper West Side have already killed cyclists on Amsterdam at 72nd and at 55th, clearly showing that the street is not safe for cycling. Did you not consider two dead cyclists relevant to reporting on the need for a missing link bike lane on Amsterdam?

      From a loyal reader, I know you can do better than this. The community doesn’t really benefit from running these processes like hand to hand combat. We have a lot of people who need to safely bike up Amsterdam. Here’s how they’ll be able to do that.

      • West Sider says:

        Nor sure what you’re referring to. Framing it as what? The facts of the proposal?

        • Margaret says:

          Well, the deaths of two cyclists are certainly relevant.

          The process of presenting cyclist lives up for a vote at community board meetings, as if the existence of bicyclists is debatable in 2018, may have outlived its usefulness.

          Something that Michele Parker, who co-heads the Business & Consumer Affairs committee of the CB, said to me at a community board meeting about her philosophy has stuck with me. “If a change can save the life of one person, it is worth doing.” Strong words, and I wholeheartedly agree. I don’t think she was referring to cyclist lives when she said that, but there is plenty of data to look to and I’m sure she’ll stand by her incredibly commendable belief to support a bike lane here.

      • Safety for all says:

        While in no way minimizing the death of the cyclists, it’s difficult to endorse the addition of bike lanes when so many cyclists disregard the traffic laws, putting themselves and pedestrians at risk. And don’t say it’s just a rogue few, it isn’t, it’s probably at least 50% of the cyclists I see daily. If they want to be on the road, they should, at a minimum, stop at red lights. And, they should be licensed with plates so that they can be ticketed for violations just as motor vehicles are.

        • Woody says:

          That has been and always will be a defeatist and dumb argument against creating cycling lanes. Pedestrians are just as guilty for flouting laws that are meant to protect both them and others from dangerous situations. When a car or bicycle has to react in an unpredictable way to avoid a situation created by a pedestrian, that introduces an element of risk and danger to all involved. You can argue endlessly about how pedestrians don’t have the weight, size, or bulk of a vehicle/bike but that’s not the limiting factor when any dangerous circumstance is created. That comparison is be lame and ignorant.

          Before the proliferation of bike lanes, we always had cyclists who biked the same way as now but in every traffic lane and sidewalk. People complained about their behavior then, too. No one can argue that bike lanes have made cycling a more manageable and predictable behavior. Big deal that cyclists sometimes go both ways in a bike lane. That’s what goes on in most European sidewalk-level bike lanes without all this whining. The difference is that pedestrians stay out of the bike lanes. We even have some of those 2-way bike lanes in NYC – check out 1st Ave between 59th/60th Streets and 124th St between 1st/2nd Avenues. Not giving cyclists a safe and proper lane because of what you perceive to be their severe transgressions is an asinine response.

          • Safety for all says:

            I stand by my issues with cyclists. Yes, there are irresponsible pedestrians, but when I step off the curb when it says walk, I shouldn’t have to worry about some idiot wearing earphones blowing through a red light and knocking me down and acting as if I have no right to be in their way. I can’t avoid being in a bike lane if I have walk through one to cross the street.

            • Woody says:

              Do you think online commerce should be eliminated or not expanded because buyers don’t pay legally required sales taxes? That’s illegal and self-serving behavior, too…right?

        • Zulu says:

          Dear safety for all,

          How much money shall we deduct from the highway budget every time there’s an accident due to speeding or disregard of a traffic control device?

    6. Bill says:

      That’s fantastic. We should continue to eliminate free parking and use the roads for transportation. Cars should be parked in parking lots not on the roads.

      • There is virtually no free parking during the day on the UWS avenues. Without municipal parking facilities, metered parking is the only way to provide it where it is needed for local businesses.

        It is impossible to eliminate vehicles that supply local businesses with goods for sale. Amazon uses the post office to deliver its goods. The USPS is taking over many of the free parking spaces at night near post offices. Eliminating parking in the streets is the best way to reduce the congestion, but there is no smart parking policy to make this happen.

        Our street grid was planned in the 1830’s, a horse and buggy era. The one train was built for a subway designed 120 years ago. The UWS needs to be redesigned for the 21st century.

      • Cato says:

        — “We should continue to eliminate free parking and use the roads for transportation. Cars should be parked in parking lots not on the roads.”

        This is a great idea! Please identify the apartment houses and other buildings to be demolished in order to build those parking lots.

    7. Linda Allen says:

      AND WHEN WILL THERE BE A PROTECTED LANE FOR PEDESTRIANS TO SAVE US FROM THE BIKERS WHO IGNORE RED LIGHTS AND ONE-WAY STREETS AND RIDE ON THE SIDEWALK?!!?

      • BillyNYC says:

        Exactly what I’m talking about – below ! Thank You.
        I live on a narrow street on the upper West side and the bikers are always on the sidewalk and when I walked down on Columbus Avenue at the museum all the bikers use the sidewalk they don’t use the bike lane no one uses the bike lane !!!!!!!
        In the city will never enforce this – this mayor is one big joke just like that idiot in the White House !!!

    8. BillyNYC says:

      This is totally out of control no one uses bike lanes just a lot of paint on the street… this is so stupid.
      Do the research!!!!
      “no one uses the bike lanes” this is ridiculous.
      I’ve never seen so much paint that the city goes through… I traveled many cities throughout the United States and Europe never seen such waste in my life I’ve travels and how ridiculous the streets look .

      • Christian says:

        According to the article, the city has done the research you’re demanding:

        “In other parts of the city where there are protected lanes, pedestrian and motorist injuries have declined and bike-ridership has risen, according to city stats.”

        This agrees with my own observations as a cyclist who uses the lanes almost daily.

      • Woody says:

        You’ve clearly not traveled much in Europe in the past 15-20 years. Maybe Epcot?

      • Jay says:

        Where’s your research that shows that the bike lanes are not being used?

        If painting a section of pavement green that horrible a proposition to people, then I’d say we don’t have a lot of issues in the world.

    9. Ladybug says:

      Continuing the bike lane would just add to the existing disaster. Amsterdam Avenue from 72 north is now a disaster, becoming a ONE-LANE avenue when trucks are delivering either on one side or worse both sides of the Avenue completely blocking traffic.

      And many of the bikes either 1) ignore the bike lane 2) ignore the traffic signals installed just for that lane and 3) ignore pedestrians thinking they have the right of way and 4) travel the wrong way in the bikelane which is blatant disregard for the rules of the road.

      ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

      • Jay says:

        So, instead of being angry with the delivery trucks and the lack of enforcement you are angry at your neighbors using the road for it’s intended purpose…. That makes no sense to me.

      • Kevin says:

        I don’t follow your logic at all. There are illegally double parked trucks, so the bikers are to blame?

    10. Matt H says:

      This is a great development! The diciest part of cycling into the UWS from 8th Avenue was always negotiating the mayhem at Columbus Circle; this makes things insanely better.

      10th Avenue from the high 40s/low 50s then on into Amsterdam Ave is overbuilt for the amount of traffic it actually gets; fantastic place to extend the bike lane. Unfortunately 10th Ave is still a a mess from ~29th street to 34th due to Hudson Yards construction, so it’ll be a little hard to link up to the south end of that route conveniently.

    11. Judy G. says:

      This is great news. Now the ONE WAY traffic rule needs to be enforced.

    12. Roger Wolfe says:

      As a senior citizen, in good shape, I can not hear bikes coming at me; the cyclists frequently run red lights and ignore traffic regulations. In an accident with a bike I would wind up being hospitalized.
      I feel bikes should have license plates and the cyclists have both licenses and insurance-just as motorists are required to do so.

      • Arjan says:

        Where I’m from (the Netherlands), there are many more cyclists and things work out fine without license plates or registration of cyclists. I think such a measure would be disproportional to the problems that have to be solved, only thinking about the additional bureaucracy that such a measure would create…

        However, I’m curious about insurance, I’m not that familiar with how things are arranged over here. Cars have mandatory insurance, probably because when they cause an accident they will cause a lot of damage (both material and immaterial) and car accidents occur a lot. Back in the Netherlands, the liability insurance people have covers damage that you might cause to others when riding your bike. Isn’t this the case here in the US as well?

    13. michael stearns says:

      This is yet another proposal by the city to add to traffic congestion by cutting parking spaces and forcing trucks to block travel lanes to make deliveries. I fail to see why limited use of space by bicycle riders takes precedence over revenue-producing truck and car traffic.

      • Arjan says:

        What do you think people on bikes do? People commuting to/from work, delivery people, whats not revenue generating about that?

        Would you prefer all the people who are riding a bike to move into cars?

    14. George Teebor says:

      Amsterdam avenue is the only commercial northbound lane on the West side. Traffic is always heavy. To reduce its width by introducing a rarely used bicycle lane will aggravate the congestion even more.

    15. S. Goldberg says:

      Very much needed, from a frequent Citibike user who is nervous biking those streets.

    16. Kevin says:

      Excellent. There were so many naysayers before the Amsterdam Ave bike lane opened a few years ago, but it has been a nice improvement to the neighborhood. The Columbus Circle part looks kind of confusing, but honestly I don’t know how to make that any better.

    17. Sid says:

      Clearly, this awful (and daily occurence) of congestion is due to bike lanes:

      https://twitter.com/BrooklynSpoke/status/1010240071436591104

      Wait… there’re no bike lanes there?… are you saying cars cause traffic?

    18. cma says:

      On a slightly different note: while more safe bike lanes is good, I constantly see many cyclists NOT USING THE LANES up Amsterdam Avenue. They want to go fast, and perhaps are notable to do that in the lanes. It is extremely annoying to see more people not using the lanes than using them. And it is not the ‘delivery’ people all the time either. Maybe it’s time to give out tickets or fines for NOT using the Bike lane???

      Re: Columbus Avenue? Traffic IS WORSE, especially when delivery or other trucks are double parked on either side of the road a few lengths behind each other!

      Re: Bikers going both ways — I’m looking one way to check out if a biker is coming before I cross the street, and maybe almost get hit by a biker going in the other direction!

      What I really want to know?: Is there less pollution in the air (from gasoline vehicles) because we have bike lanes for pollution free cyclists?
      Blessings for all; it’s good to have debate as long as it’s not abusive.

    19. Jimbo says:

      The city is a circus. A few bike riders run roughshod over hundreds of drivers and businesses trying to deliver goods and services. And on top of it all bike riders don’t obey the rules of traffic and ride in the road anyway even if there is a bike lane. The lunatics are running the asylum.

    20. RK says:

      Go bike lanes go! Yay!

      They should leave Columbus Circle alone though. Getting from the 8th ave bike lane to the CPW bike lane around Columbus Circle is one of the most exciting adrenaline surges I’ve experienced. You get to stare down buses and taxis in ambiguous circular lanes while trying to navigate left from the curb side to the middle of the circle, agains the traffic navigating right looking to exit onto CPS, then scare the tourists trying to cross the lower part of CPW against the light. Somehow I always make it and emerge exhilarated. It would be a shame if the city were to ruin this great amusement park ride with a bike lane! I’ll have to resort to riding on the sidewalk and spooking all the senior citizens.

      • Matt H says:

        Lime scooters and similar are not actually street-legal on any public roads in New York State, city included. The law would have to change dramatically — and I don’t hear any state legislators itching to do this — before you have to worry about this happening.

    21. Jonathan Mohrer says:

      Columbus circle is currently a very dangerous free for alll with virtually no guidance for cyclists. Not to mention the hundreds of tourists on rented bikes headed for Central Park.
      Any protection would indeed be a welcome relief.

    22. Ellen says:

      I am against this idea, as the traffic congestion with Uber and some of the other car companies not to mention double parking of trucks create such clogged veins and arteries making navigation very difficult and no longer fun. I think that more bike lanes will only diminish easy access and not increase the number of bike riders significantly to warrant more lanes to be created.

      • Zulu says:

        So you recognize the problem/s are not the bike lanes yet you want to prevent them from getting installed?

    23. Construction Task Force for Gilder Center says:

      The Gilder Center Construction Task force has approved the shut down the bike lane between 81st St. and 77th Streets on Columbus Avenue while under construction for the next three years.

    24. Wendy says:

      Col Circle is deadly dangerous for cyclists. Not sure this inner circle lane, if it’s not separated, is going to do the trick. Nice that they’re trying to reconfigure it though… When coming north on 8th Ave I just ride right into the circle plaza and cross thru it to Broadway. That’s the safest way to avoid getting hit by a car . Then you have to fend with the traffic on Broadway from 59th St. to 72nd St. before you can find a protected bike lane. That area is a mess!

    25. Glenn says:

      Nothing wrong with your coverage west side rag. The trouble is in the comments section.

      Anyone who lives in NYC pays both income and real estate taxes to pay for our roads. It’s actually the people that drive into the City from NJ or LI or Westchester that are the freeloaders. They can’t spend enough money to make up for the pollution, noise, and damage they cause to our streets. This is why we need to charge them directly to drive into the densest part of the tristate area.

      NYC is still in violation of the Clean Air Act and as such has a responsibility to continue to shift modal share away from polluting vehicles to non-polluting ones. Focus on how we can move people not metal around our neighborhood.

      • Juan says:

        You clearly don’t leave Manhattan often. Most of the people from the suburbs already pay a small fortune in tolls when going across the bridges and tunnels. If you want to add tolls to the East River bridges, I’m all for that. I am also in favor of permit parking throughout the city so that residents pay a small annual fee and non-residents have to pay to park rather than taking spots for free. But congestion pricing is double taxing for them and is just going to cause more problems than it solves.

    26. Mike says:

      Great. Now when is there going to be any sort of effort to inform and enforce the fact that cyclists must be as beholden to traffic laws as cars and trucks?

    27. omegaman says:

      Great! It’s scary riding down into midtown when the bike lane ends. Bikes make sense for our health, wear and tear of the roads, the environment, and they’re fun. More Bikes. Start to cap the # of Ubers. They take up space and are unfair competition to the yellow cab business. If you still own a car and don’t use it much, I highly recommend Zipcar.