By Scott Etkin
The New York City Department of Transportation (DOT) unveiled a plan Tuesday night to add protected bike lanes to West 72nd Street from Riverside Boulevard to Central Park West, drawing strong reactions from members of the community.
After more than two hours of presentations and public discussion at Community Board 7’s Transportation Committee meeting – approximately 150 people signed up to speak – the committee passed a resolution in support of the redesign, which would also create loading zones and pedestrian islands along the route. The resolution will be reviewed again and voted on at CB7’s full board meeting on May 5th. CB7’s role in the process is advisory only; any final decisions about design and implementation will be made by the DOT.
Currently, West 72nd Street has four lanes of vehicle traffic, two in each direction, and two lanes of parking. The plan reallocates the roadway’s 60 feet, giving approximately nine feet to a two-way bike lane, which would run along the north side of the curb. The plan also adds loading zones for delivery vehicles and concrete platforms where pedestrians can wait to cross the street and exit and enter the M72 and M57 buses.
The proposed new corridor would then have two parking lanes, two traffic lanes (one in each direction), and the new bike lanes. There would be approximately 25 fewer parking spaces, with those spots redesignated as loading zones and pedestrian islands.
A primary goal of the redesign, as stated by the DOT, is to improve safety for all users of the roadway, including cyclists and pedestrians. Patrick Kennedy, an urban planner at the DOT, told the committee that the plan would accomplish this by organizing the roadway and shortening the distance pedestrians have to walk to get from one side of the street to the other. Allocating space for bikes would make cyclists less likely to ride in the street or sidewalk, and having bikes “in a predictable space in one side of the roadway” should make it easier for pedestrians to cross the street, he said.
Community reaction was mixed about whether the design would actually make the street safer. While people who ride bikes in the area largely applauded the measures, many members of the public said that the proposal would make them feel less safe as pedestrians. Some said that installing bike lanes next to traffic lanes would, in effect, require them to cross the street twice, and that the new arrangement would be particularly challenging to navigate for seniors and people with disabilities.
According to the DOT, the installation of bike lanes leads to fewer injuries, particularly among seniors, and bike lanes are especially effective at reducing accidents on streets that have a high concentration of accidents (crashes on West 72nd Street and Riverside Boulevard are in the top 10% of Manhattan streets). But several people questioned the accuracy of the DOT’s data, which relies on statistics from the NYPD, because many accidents involving e-bikes go unreported.
Business owners were another constituency that raised concerns, particularly with regard to the management of delivery trucks serving stores along West 72nd Street. Lester Wasserman, owner of Tip Top Shoes, Tip Top Kids, and West NYC, said that his businesses get four deliveries from FedEx and UPS per day, each taking up to an hour to unload. Removing lanes of traffic would be “totally stifling and bottlenecking [to] 72nd Street,” he said.
The DOT’s plan would require deliveries to take place at designated loading zones, which would be located in the parking lane. DOT would also add neighborhood loading zones in non-commercial areas and update curb regulations to encourage turnover of parking spaces in high-demand areas. There was skepticism among the public speakers, however, about the chances that these new rules would actually be enforced.
The DOT plan calls for extending the two-way bike lane to West 68th Street along the west side of Riverside Boulevard, enabling access to Riverside Park. Members of the board and public voiced concerns that a significant amount of double-parking already takes place outside of the Islamic Cultural Center on West 72nd Street and Riverside Drive, and that adding a bike lane would only increase the congestion.
Among critics of the design, a point of frustration was whether the board’s vote was just a formality, and that the DOT would move ahead with the plan regardless of the community’s feedback. The committee’s resolution asks the DOT to consider the community’s concerns, including those around safety and the flow of traffic, in its final plans.
The discussion of this redesign dates back to 2020, when Community Board 7 asked the DOT to consider adding a bike lane to West 72nd Street. The current plan is also part of DOT’s larger vision to link, via Central Park, this proposed bike lane with a similar project on the East Side, allowing cyclists to get crosstown and have continuous connections to NYC’s Greenway, the bike path that goes around the perimeter of Manhattan. The DOT has not yet made a proposal to Community Board 8, which covers East 72nd Street.
If the DOT moves ahead with the West 72nd Street redesign, construction could begin later this spring or in the early summer.
To watch a recording of the Community Board committee meeting, click – HERE.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
Watch the urbanists boycott businesses opposed to this!
You constantly use URBANIST as a slur. I don’t think you actually know what the term means.
Urbanists use NIMBY as a slur. They use crank as a slur.
Caso and Nickerson? Seriously? My money is on your being the same person. Perhaps you’re also Margiotta, reply a few inches below. I get the joke, but it’s not really good faith replying.
I doubt it! I do believe the pro bike lane replies are some of the same people.
I’ve heard from other commenters that you live on Long Island, Eugene. Nice name by the way, how old are you? And yes, I’m extremely disappointed in Tip Top Shoes for their vocal opposition to this much needed improvement. I probably will take my business elsewhere.
Whatever Eugene’s age, he doesn’t live on the UWS and only cares about our streets in order to facilitate his car-based commute, so regardless of his age, his perspective should not guide this redesign and thankfully DOT is doing this project despite all the squawking from the NIMBYs
What difference does Eugene’s age make. Having these meetings is an exercise in futility as DOT does whatever it wants to and that usually is to the detriment of those of us who commute by auto.
Eugene H. Nickerson was a prominent, late-20th-century Nassau County politician and federal judge. Maybe that’s what UWSYIMBY was referring to.
Eugune’s age could be relevant. Who has trouble crossing streets? Seniors. Who is most likely to be seriously injured if hit by an eBike? Seniors. Who needs, needs not wants, for hire vehicles to transport them door to door? Seniors
Seniors want safer streets. Society should be protecting them.
I think the point is that the claim of the bike crowd to lump itself with pedestrians & transit users, cars being the ‘enemy,’ is totally false.
I do both – ride & drive. I see dumb and obnoxious from all sides (and yes, bad driving is my enemy whether I’m walking, riding, or in a car).
But contrary to what the bike lobby claims? Most who do neither are as or more likely to hate the two wheeled as the four.
Why?
Perceived danger and, on an absolute level? Disorder.
The urbanist crowd has done nothing but co-opt actual riders voices for their own gain.
Most of NYC’s population lives on Long Island! Brooklyn and Queens are on Long Island! Be careful with that!
No one, and I mean no one, considers Brooklyn or Queens to be part of Long Island, despite the geographic certainty.
Long Islanders say they live “On Long Island”. No one lives “On Brooklyn or On Queens”
Akin to Canada being an America, because it is part of North America.
For 68 years my husband & for 84 years, my mother, have replied “In Brooklyn”, when asked where they were born.
Similar to “The City” being thought of as the boro of Manhattan, not Staten Island despite the obvious facts.
Au contraire! I was born in Queens which is on Long Island. It was the norm to write your address giving the town you lived in in Queens followed by Long Island, New York, Ie. street address, Elmhurst, Long Island, New York. Eventually the Long Island was dropped not only in Brooklyn and Queens but also in Nassau and Suffolk towns.
The Revolutionary War Battle of Long Island was fought in Brooklyn on Long Island.
You can’t argue with geographic facts. Do you argue with the weather?
His age has everything to do with it. Take a seat. You’ve ruined our country 20 years too long, sit down, and let younger generations actually do things to improve this city for one single momentary second.
UWSYIMBY,
So you are saying my older relatives (born and raised in NYC) should just leave NYC?
They use bus and subway, they shop locally, little use of corporate uber and food delivery, they’ve worked in non-profit/arts/government, they volunteer….
They’ve ruined the country?
A waay bit ageist you sound. People of all ages do thing that are beneficial and harmful. “Good actions” do not come only from the younger generation.
Your initial retort was funny and on point. The name used is that of a long dead politician/judge from Long Island (and he was a very good judge). And the term “urbanist” is absurd (from any perspective).
Sorry you ruined it with your bigoted sur reply.
Tell us your credentials, how old you are, how many kids you have, what your job is, if in fact you feel qualified to tell us how to live.
OK?
They call themselves urbanists, what else are we supposed to call them? Bike bros?
Preach!!
If they do this on East 72nd Street, this would further slow down the BxM6, BxM7, BxM8, BxM9 and BxM10 buses which have already gotten slower since the lights have been retimed to 15 mph on 3rd Avenue.
If any street in the entire neighborhood can accommodate a big bike lane it’s 72nd.
It being 85 today the trusty 21 speed is out of mothballs, gears lubed, tires inflated, and on the Greenway. I write from Ganesvort Pier.
Surprisingly (/s) I remain one of about 2% of the riders who observe the injunction to yield to pedestrians and am among the 5% who actually stop pedaling as I approach a red light.
And unlike most bike lanes the greenway has few e-bikes and delivery workers.
Carry that over to a street like W72 and you’ll get an idea whether safety will be enhanced.
Looks incredible!! I absolutely cannot wait for this to be implemented.
The new DOT commissioner is doing a phenomenal job, miles and miles ahead of the Adams and BDB administration (ok low bar but still).
Iris Weinshall was the last good DOT commissioner! Make of that what you will!
This is very exciting! Nice to see DOT being a little more ambitious with its projects to make things safer for everyone not in a car (all of us)
YES! As an avid cyclist and urbanist, I’m 110% for this! This is exactly the kind of project NYC should be doing more of, not less. A protected, two-way bike lane on 72nd finally creates a safe, continuous crosstown connection between the Hudson River Greenway, Central Park, and the East Side. This is something advocates have been asking for for years.
Right now, 72nd is chaotic. Double parking, blocked intersections, wasted space, and dangerous crossings are already the norm. The redesign actually organizes the street by separating bikes from cars, shortening crossings, and making it safer for everyone, including drivers. Similar street redesigns in NYC have reduced serious injuries and deaths by around 30%. Who can’t get behind that?
And let’s get ahead of the inevitable hysteria, WSR comments are typically full of pro-car, anti urbanist “concerned citizens”. This is not the apocalypse! It’s a strip of asphalt being reallocated so thousands of people can move safely instead of a few dozen cars sitting in traffic or idling in illegal double parking zones.
The loudest opposition always comes from people who treat free curb storage and unlimited car throughput as a constitutional right. It isn’t. Streets are public space, and in Manhattan, where the majority of people walk, bike, or take transit, designing streets primarily around cars is the actual radical position.
If anything, this project is overdue. A dense neighborhood next to one of the busiest parks in the world shouldn’t feel like a highway crossing just to get across the street.
Amazing work DOT!
This is the most divisive issue I’ve seen in my almost 50 years living in the neighborhood. Yes, I am a Boomer and am very concerned about the zealousness here to not care about anyone else but a few bikers vs the rest of the neighborhood.
@UWSYIMBY: Here’s the thing: Public streets are used for many different things, and nobody uses them for every possible purpose. You don’t get to say that any given use should be prohibited because you don’t use them in that particular way. One of those usages is parking. Even if you don’t own a car, parking spots benefit you. Where is your cab/Uber going to pull over when they pick up/drop off ? With the proposed plan, they have no option but to use the one and only traffic lane going in their direction. Same with trucks unloading merchandise for local stores. How is it good for anyone to have 100% of the traffic lanes in a given direction blocked for any amount of time?
Now let’s talk about bike lanes. Who benefits from these? Bikers, and no one else. You might be tempted to say that they improve safety for pedestrians, but if bikers obeyed traffic laws, didn’t ride on sidewalks, etc, the threat to pedestrians would be minimal. I don’t see anything right about rewarding bikers with dedicated real estate for breaking the law. You might also say that delivery app people use bike lanes, and you’d be right. But again, what’s the value to the people of NYC? I don’t know how long you’ve been living here, but I’ve been a New Yorker for my entire life, and before the delivery apps, there was basically nothing I couldn’t get delivered and there was rarely a fee (other than the tip). Now we have middlemen who charge the vendor up to 30%, charge the customer a delivery fee, and pay their delivery people substandard wages for the privilege of risking their lives and the lives of others. Where’s the value?
“ You don’t get to say that any given use should be prohibited because you don’t use them in that particular way.”
Ok, excellent. We agree! Why do cars currently get 100% of this space? We are literally moving toward shared space for pedestrians, cars, and bikes! A win-win-win!
Your argumentation clearly needs work: “ Now let’s talk about bike lanes. Who benefits from these? Bikers, and no one else”
How about I change that to: “ Now let’s talk about car lanes. Who benefits from these? Car drivers, and no one else.”
See my point?
Further, nobody should be parking on a thoroughfare like 72nd St. If a delivery is being conducted, there will literally be designated unloading zones for them based on the redesign.
“Bikers” are no more a category of people distinct from you and me than “cabbies” or “truckers” are in this case. Bikers are human adults, children, and workers.
I think you’re dead wrong about who benefits from bike lanes: it’s not only bike riders themselves, but also those who receive things by bike (I understand a few commentators receive bicycle delivery of food, say? or amazon packages?). And the people in cars have less traffic because someone is on a bike, not in a car in front of them.
And even if YOU do not directly benefit from bikers getting bike lanes, remember that it is not just about YOU. It is about the safety of those bikers.
The advocates do not speak for the majority. Even the majority who does not drive, they do not care about transportation much until something negative happens to them.
That’s true, that the advocates (and the opponents) are always more outspoken than most people. Short of doing representative surveys on every policy proposal, it is not clear how to avoid that problem.
Also, when someone gets hit by a bike they become an instant opponent of all bike measures, including those likely to reduce the chance of people getting hit (like this proposal).
The one thing that is clear is that more cars will not solve any of the city’s problems and forcing bikes to mix with either cars or pedestrians will increase accidents.
Cars are an important safety valve to make sure our transportation network works.
Most goods and a lot of people do come by vehicle. Even if it is not the majority, it is a sizable number once you look at the actual numbers and not the percentages. “Car infrastructure” is multi purpose as it accommodates trucks, vans, buses and bikes. Ed Koch removed bike lanes when they became a problem, as it is there are a lot of bike lanes that are a problem.
Buses and subways are vehicles. That’s what most Manhattanites use to get around. Personal cars are not what most people use, though of course most goods are delivered by truck.
And by the way, “most” means a majority or more.
What’s more than a majority?
A polity.
UWSYIMBY,
Wondering – do you use the bus?
parent,
Yes.
You’ve set up a false dichotomy, like you either love bike lanes or you’re obsessed with cars and free parking everywhere. People can have other objections, you know. I hate parked cars but I also hate manic cyclists who think they’re in the Tour de France and never stop for red lights.
I propose we stop it with the bike lanes AND the parked private cars. Give the city over to pedestrians and public transport.
There is a reality that the MTA exists to make hard decisions no elected official wants to be held directly accountable for. NYCDOT was in charge of buses and didn’t want to be in the transit oversight role and treated the private companies that had franchises insincerely. What would be hypocritical is if we subsidized Citibike, which is what urbanists want, and then NYCDOT treated Lyft better than it treated Liberty Lines or Green Bus Lines.
what do you mean by “urbanists?” I think all New Yorkers are urbanists, that’s why we live here!
Which is it – “a few dozen cars” or a “highway ?”
Also West 72nd street is metered not “free car storage “
It is whatever suits their agenda at their moment.
Yes, because having one lane for cars and busses to share seems really efficient, especially in a neighborhood with many senior citizens. So cars will be stuck behind busses as people are getting on and off. I’m not against this plan entirely, but there are aspects that are not thought out. Why not have an indent at the bus stops for the busses to pull into? Oh wait, because it might negatively impact the bikers. This isn’t about free curb storage (whatever that means)… it’s about looking at the needs of the community and making tweaks to the design. There are particular needs on each block.. Where will the cars park for the Islamic Cultural Center? It’s a double and often triple parking nightmare now. They block people in, leave their cars in the middle of the street, and we are supposed to hope that all of a sudden they will care about inconveniencing people? I doubt it. They will likely all park on the south side of 72nd with this redesign (avoiding the bike lane) but then making busses and cars driving east on 72nd have to drive in the lane heading west. That seems safe. Or they will double park on Riverside Dr. or W. 73rd St. making those streets impossible. This isn’t about hysteria, it’s about taking into consideration the actual needs of actual people who live on this very block. So unless the people who designed this can camp out on W. 72nd between West End and Riverside and see what actually goes on, they shouldn’t be doing this one size fits all approach.
You’re describing the current chaos as if it’s a fixed demand problem when it’s actually a design problem.
We’ve already tried optimizing 72nd for cars. What we got is double parking, blocked buses, and constant conflict. Adding more space or flexibility for cars doesn’t fix that, it invites more of the same behavior. That’s induced demand.
The flip side is also true. When you give people a safe, direct bike route and better crossings near Central Park and Riverside Park, more trips shift out of cars. That reduces pressure on the street overall.
So the real question isn’t “what happens if cars are constrained,” it’s “what happens when you finally give alternatives enough space to actually work.”
You really think that people who use cars to traverse 72nd Street are going to trade them in for bicycles?
We have given the “alternatives” enough space to work. All we got is e-bike traffic violence and more congestion. You’re trying so hard to induce demand for bikes and not only bikes, demographic change so that only people that fit a certain lifestyle can live here and afford to do so.
We never optimized 72nd Street for cars, we optimized it so that vehicles have adequate space and pedestrians have adequate space and it works out decently well, much more than the urbanists want to admit.
People aren’t shifting from cars to bikes. There are people shifting from transit to bikes. People who drive cars also use transit at their discretion, but you have to leave it to people’s discretion and not force people’s hands. You cannot force people’s hands when transit policy is at the hands of an agency that by nature shields elected officials from direct accountability and one where Riders Alliance is controlled rider advocacy rather than a group that really deals with the nuts and bolts of transit issues.
If you want fewer out-of-control e-bikes and less truck congestion, don’t order things for delivery.
And ensure that deliveristas get paid a solid living hourly wage, not by delivery, so they do not have an incentive to rush like mad everywhere they go.
Delivery workers work multiple apps to make as much money as possible, a “livable” wage will not address that. Deliverista is such a patronizing name for them too.
How about Deliverables?
UWSYIMBY:
In NYC, bicycling does not reduce car use – bicycling siphons from mass transit use.
Yes in some places with favorable terrain and weather but without decent mass transit, bicycling infrastructure has meant shift to bicycling from cars. I can think of a few small university towns for example.
But not NYC.
I am surprised you make no mention of Amazon-ecommerce and Uber as they clearly have resulted in many more vehicles on NYC streets.
And it is not just UPS or FedEx or Amazon trucks, there are also many gig delivery workers using private cars – meal kits, fresh dog food, instacart to mention a few
Perhaps WSR can query DOT for data on gig delivery workers using private vehicles?
Have you not seen the many Amazon micro delivery vehicles that use the bike lanes and would otherwise be done with trucks?
How much do you order!?!
Amazon are still taking up parking lanes and traffic lanes for deliveries while the designated Amazon microhub sits empty! Maybe actually go to a store or maybe have a store accept deliveries on behalf of customers, that would also cut down on package thefts. The Amazon micro delivery vehicles are of no help. Leaving things the way they were before Janette Sadik-Khan became commissioner would be a lot better.
Thank you for posting this perfectly concise response!
I couldn’t help but laugh when I read through the messages, because clearly no one who in favor of this existing design actually lives on 72nd or is witness to what goes on on a day-to-day basis.
Yes so the e-bikes can get a super highway!
The only reason why urbanists are the “experts” here is because no one cares about transportation issues that much unless they have to. “Free curb storage” is something that is already paid for by license, registration fees, etc. It’s a public good just as much as public transportation and public schools are.
Speaking of constitutional rights, there may be a constitutional right here if you look at it through the commerce clause (and even the equal protection clause when you do good lawyering).
The crosstown streets are wide and are like this by design, but urbanists want to change that for no good reason and induce more congestion.
“The crosstown streets are wide and are like this by design, but urbanists want to change that for no good reason and induce more congestion.”
Not really by design. Wherever Broadway crosses an avenue you get a commercial street because the corners were good for business. Because of this, there were often ferries at the ends of these cross streets (East and West sides). That led to more commerce on the Broadway crossing streets, which meant more traffic and wider roads.
Point is that Urbanists want to create traffic and then complain about it.
I hate hearing that license, registration, insurance, etc. is car owners paying for ____. In this case, parking. License and registration fees do not even fully fund the operational costs of the DMV, the governmental agency that is responsible for those fees. Money from the NYS General Fund (aka sales and income taxes) supplements the operating budget. We also pay additional costs for road upkeep with the gasoline tax, which you forgo to mention. BUT, the money raised from the gasoline tax is also not enough to fully cover road repairs and upkeep and these are also heavily subsidized by the General Fund. While you didn’t say insurance, it is usually included in this argument. But insurance is 100% paid to a private company that has nothing to do with our covering our way. So in short, all the fees, taxes, and costs we as drivers pay do not fully cover the costs that we create with the usage of our cars, such as the upkeep of the roads and the administrative management of our licensing and registration.
Aren’t we all urbanists? That’s why we live in New York!
And no, free parking in Manhattan is absolutely NOT paid for by car registration fees, which happen to go to the state, not the city. Haven’t you ever been to the DMV? It’s a state agency. And people who pay for their parking also pay all of those fees.
If car owners paid for street parking it would cost at least as much as private parking. The fact that they don’t have to pay for it is why people choose to park on the street instead of in a garage. The costs of paid parking is a minimum estimate of the costs that free street parking are imposing on the rest of us. Though you might also take into account that we have to put trash in bags on the street instead of using curb space for rat-proof bins, that traffic is crazily congested because half of most streets is devoted to free parking, that bike accidents occur as people pull out of parking spaces without looking, and many other costs.
You call yourselves urbanists and then do a whataboutism once you get called that by those who disagree with you.
Car garages on the UWS are closing and it is hard to open up a new car garage here. Let’s face it, you want parking to be prohibitively expensive. If you see it as a subsidy, it is a subsidy for transit the MTA is unwilling to or unable to provide. It is much needed competition to the MTA and other agencies as it helps keep these agencies honest. It is also a release valve to allow transit agencies to focus resources on those who need it most and can benefit from it most as resources are always limited, even when “fully funded”, MTA Bus Company which NYC fully pays for is an example.
If we have the threat of people leaving the system into their private cars, that will push the system to work for everyone in this region, not just Manhattan. Now you are taking that threat away so the result is that Manhattanites can Citibike or use Lyft to avoid poor MTA service, while those without the privilege of being in trendy neighborhoods are out of luck and are slowly being restricted to things that are local to them, without it being openly stated.
It is all an ecosystem that has a natural balance for a reason and urbanists are trying to upset that and when you upset that, you end up with other problems, we are seeing that now.
Bike and street safety is important, but the thing is that bike riders don’t want to be responsible for their own safety and their own responsibility as well, we have seen this with e-bikes as this has exposed the fundamental truth with urbanism and this has destroyed all urbanist credibility on street safety.
About time DOT fixed this. I love that we can fonally do stuff again in NYC.
I will make the same argument all of the car haters make – why are we giving away so much free space for the movement of bikes? Their lobby is clearly ridiculously strong. 72nd Street is already a mess and this will just make it worse. I will only be remotely supportive of something like this if e-bikes are completely banned. Sorry if you have to wait longer for your wonton soup. Deal with it.
One area of street space permits far more bikes to move than cars. They are far more efficient than cars.
Banning e-bikes will lead deliveries to be made by cars or regular bars. Ban deliveries, if you don’t want the traffic problems they cause.
And given your views, I certainly hope you never order anything for home delivery.
Banning e-bikes might actually lead to deliveries being made by mopeds, which have licenses and registered and can use a general use traffic lane.
Amen!
I hate both cars and bikes. Users of both display shocking selfishness in how they interact with their environment and fellow New Yorkers. I wish the city would stop pandering to both interest groups.
This will lead to more drivers who want to get on the WSH going on 66th Street and up Riverside Blvd. That’s problematic due to the volume of double parked delivery vehicles and Ubers on that street.
The only cars urbanists want on the street are their donors Uber and Lyft. Watch all the Waymo opposition disappear once TransAlt gets $100k from them.
Currently, W 72nd is slow and dangerous for all users thanks to double-parking. This redesign should go a long way towards reducing that dangerous double-parking on W 72nd itself, which is caused by businesses being blocked from the curb by parked cars, thus reducing 72nd street to two lanes most days. Businesses on the south side will only benefit from this change, since they will get increased access to the curb through improved meters and loading zones. And businesses on the north side will get the same increased in loading zones and metered spaces, though of course they hopefully will be good neighbors and not block the bike lane as frequently as they currently block the travel lane.
The exact opposite. Cars and buses will now be completely blocked if someone is stopping or parking. If you want traffic to move, add lanes, not take them away.
This doesn’t make sense. You say 72nd St is slow because double parking reduces it to two lamres. How will officially reducing it to 2 lanes speed things up?
no one is going to double park int he single lane
Wanna bet?
If you’re bringing 2 dozen boxes of shoes to Tip Top or 15 cases of wine to Acker and there’s no curb space, what’s going to happen?
So you can travel in the center most lane. Just like you can today when double parkers use the lane closet to the parked cars. The difference with the new design is cars will have to wait for buses to unload and load at bus stops.
It happens on East 79th Street where a similar treatment exists!
so there should be enforcement. automated enforcement would be best
It’s already a bus corridor along with the rest of the M79!
Who wants to cross the street twice? Most of West 72nd Street is metered parking anyways! If you are a business, you do have people who park in the meters, not just to shop or patronize but for other purposes too. This is a mistake!
Agree!
pretty sure it says 1 space is lost.
Is says “There would be approximately 25 fewer parking spaces, with those spots redesignated as loading zones and pedestrian islands.”
I’m not taking a side.for or against metered parking spots but lets all agree to the same facts.
sure. 72nd street loses 10. i had a typo sorry.
the entire corridor from CPW down riverside blvd loses 25.
It’ll turn into a far more pleasant street for everyone. DOT recently did road diet on 3rd Avenue and it’s actually nice to walk there now. Businesses are hopping. Few car lanes and slower cars result in a more inviting pedestrian experience. And two way bike lanes are becoming more common, such as on Broadway and around Union Square. They work. People cross. It’s all fine.
Janet,
Third Avenue was OK for pedestrians before the DOT “road diet”
(It is overdevelopment, Amazon, Uber and so on that has caused more traffic over the years)
Bus travel is worse now with the “road diet”.
And as a pedestrian I don’t think it is any better.
In your opinion what “businesses are hopping”?
I don’t see that at all as related to “road diet”?
on what planet was 3rd avenue OKAY
If you rode a bus to the Bronx on 3rd Avenue, it was much better before.
That road diet coupled with the retiming of traffic signals to 15 mph has made traffic much worse, even for buses, on a road that not only serves 4 Manhattan local bus routes, but 7 express bus routes to the Bronx north of 59th Street and 8 express bus routes to Queens and 1 express route to the Bronx south of 59th Street and also Hampton Jitney
I can’t believe a sane person thinks this is a good idea. It does not serve the area residents and effectively dissects the neighborhood at 72nd St. , making all travel more dangerous. Further, the serious issues regarding West 72nd Street at Riverside Drive and the entrance to the West Side Highway were given little attention, to be considered later. Lastly, the disruption to Riverside Blvd, to provide access for a small number of bike riders to the Greenway, shows little regard for the residents living there and clearly displays how elitist bike zealots are in their quest to ignore every one else.
this is some grade a hyperbole
As an area resident, let me unequivocally state that this serves me and makes my travel safer.
Again the few vs the many
Indeed – the few drivers will be upset by this and the many local residents, pedestrians and bus riders will benefit
Pedestrians do not benefit
Citation needed!
As someone who walks 72nd a ton, often taking my kids either to Riverside or Central Park and patronizes a bunch of the businesses on 72nd regularly (shout out Shinbashi 72!), this will massively improve my experience as a pedestrian.
How so? When you go to Central Park or Roverside Park you cross mostly avenues whoch aren’t being changed.
I’m happy I don’t own a store on the North side of this street.
Deliveries will become difficult if not impossible. And costs will rise accordingly.
I’ll still ride 73 and 74, in safety. Away from the e-bikes and the interruptions for deliveries.
72 is one of the few streets with real stores do t make it harder for those businesses.
If safety were the top issue for anyone, anywhere they would start enforcing traffic laws for bikes (running lights, going the wrong way on one-way streets, riding on sidewalks). Cars stop because they fear enforcement or killing someone – bike riders don’t care about the danger they pose, don’t realize it or some combination of both (and this applies too all of them from delivery riders to “banker bros” on Citibikes).
They want subsidies for Citibike.
By the time DOT puts a “proposal” in front of the Community Board, the decision to go forward has already been made. At best, community input will lead to insignificant changes in the plan. The article notes that the Community Board’s role is “advisory only” In reality, it’s even less than that.
Community boards are for political cover
All these wonderful new proposals would be fine if there was enforcement to the rules/laws, but there will be ZERO, so no one will care and it will now be worse than ever.
Enforcement is the key. All the “Bus Only” lanes become useless unless there’s enforcement. The new bus-mounted summons cameras are helping.
In this redesign, it will be critical for cyclists to STOP at red lights, because they are traveling in two directions in one bike lane, something not common elsewhere, so pedestrians won’t be looking for them. Traffic cops have to start ticketing them…
Well said, Lizzie. Enforcement is needed, not just on 72nd Street, but citywide. That’s why we need the City Council to pass Int 0802-2026, Priscilla’s Law, which requires registration of, and readable license plates on, all electric-assist vehicles. Then the existing cameras can capture the license information and the cops can track down the reckess riders. Right now the cops don’t have the tools they need to do this job. Please contact your City Council Member and ask them to push for Int 0802-2026 to be brought to a vote, and to vote for it.
An unpoliced twoway “bike” lane, what could go wrong?
These things follow such predictable institutional mistakes as to be almost comical, or at least should provide fantastic material for a Broadway playwright looking for material for a comedic play about fractious city planning meetings and neighborhood associations. (See, The Minutes, Eureka Day, and currently at the MTC, The Balusters.)
What started out as a proposal to install a (sensible, to this writer) mid-block crosswalk between Broadway and Columbus Ave — admittedly, a long block — has taken on such giant leaps of mission creep that the DOT felt compelled (I don’t think they can control themselves) to completely “redesign” the entire street and upend the entire neighborhood.
First of all, West 72nd should be viewed as four separate sections, each with its own needs and modalities. It is important to note that, for the most part, West 72nd is not a thoroughfare of cross traffic (on one end it dead-ends in Central Park). Traffic between CPW and Broadway is local in nature. Broadway to WEA has very few cars because it is nearly impossible to get to this section (going WB) from anywhere except the SB lane of Broadway. And the section between WEA and Riverside Blvd. Is unlike any of the others. Currently, it serves as a loading dock for Trader Joe’s. Finally, the section between WEA and the WSH is a transit street leading to and off the West Side Highway and should be treated accordingly.
Please, let’s not even mention EAST 72nd Street because its connection to the issues here is not salient at all.
In brief, why does everything the DOT touches have to become a complete redesign? They seem to be the Rube Goldberg of agencies, creating “solutions” to problems that do not exist. Their fancy PowerPoint presentations are full of inaccuracies, faulty data, wishful thinking, not actionable plans, and, inevitably, always involve MORE bike lanes.
BTW — a two-lane, opposite direction, bike path with no dividers between them seems to be very dangerous to me. That should include an ambulance loading zone for the inevitable bloodbath that will occur there.
The problem is that they never take detailed feedback like this from actual residents that know the intricacies of a system like West 72nd into consideration. A suggestion is never implemented unless it comes from Trans Alt/DOT
TransAlt has infiltrated the West 72nd Street Block Association, this is also a factor in why this is being pushed.
This group of elitist tech and hedge fund guys is going to destroy what little is left of small businesses! Just understand folks less than 1% of New Yorkers commute by bike to work! That leaves a majority of New Yorkers who do not want our streets destroyed to accommodate this over accommodated group! It’s all the work of the lobby Trans Alt. Millions of tax payer dollars spent on bike lanes while there is no regulation at all of e-bikes that so often ignore all traffic laws.
show up at the restaurant for your meal. or eat at the tables outside the restaurant. or eat in the street at the sheds. you can do that. helps digestion. do that and there will be less delivery bikes to complain about. you create a problem and then complain. makes no sense to me.
So people who work at home or are sick or not mobile, they should all be deprived of deliveries because some tiny percentage of the local population wants to use public space for their exercise and travel needs?
Or restaurants can open elsewhere?
I turned off my content blockers and prepared a big cold lemonade to come and read the comments.
A two-way bike lane becomes even more of a disaster than a one-way bike lane, it becomes nearly impossible to cross it as a pedestrian. In a neighborhood full of kids and seniors, it becomes a major hazard.
I’m working with the federal government to have NYCDOT designated a terrorist organization.
This is absolutely horrible. Bus and car traffic would move at a snail’s pace or worse come to a standstill. Why are we favoring single occupancy bikes over multiple occupancy cars and buses that move multiple people and products quickly?
Three buses load and unload passengers on 72nd Street and Broadway. Tons of people with groceries, baby carriages, in wheel chairs and using walkers. We all have to cross the 2-way bike lane (without getting hit by a biker). This does not seem like a very smart idea. Has anyone actually spent time on that corner when trucks, the M 57 bus and pedestrians are trying to cross the street?
I find a lot of these comments really sad and depressing. We have a major problem in our community with bikes haphazardly going on sidewalks, weaving in between vehicles and increasing chaos in our streets. The DOT, after a request from the Community Board, has come up with a plan to impose some order on our streets. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it is an attempt to reduce the chaos that is troubling so many people (myself included).
The alternative is to either simply give up on the problems we face or wait for what everyone will agree is the perfect solution (something that will never happen). Neither is acceptable to me and neither should be acceptable to the community.
Mr. Yaruss,
I am certain CB 7 is well aware that (among other concerns) this plan only benefits bicyclists (Citibike, racing etc) while creating a street situation that will make life harder and more dangerous for the many older residents.
The City should be focusing resources on improving and expanding core MTA bus and subway – not bicycling.
Reminder: bicycling siphons from bus and subway usage.
This is truly unbelievable.
I fear for my older family
How does a street redesign that, in other parts of the city, reduced serious injuries for pedestrians by 29% (and for senior pedestrians by 39%) “only benefit bicyclists”? Maybe the numbers will be lower on West 72 Street (maybe higher), but to complain about safety and refuse to make changes that have proven to greatly improve safety elsewhere is simply not responsible. And if for some reason the experience on West 72 Street is different from everywhere else, it would be equally irresponsible not to come up with a new plan. Simply accepting unsafe conditions is not acceptable to me.
Spot on Howard, thank you.
What’s sad and depressing is that we have given all this space to bikes in this city and made it harder for other vehicles and all we have gotten is more chaos and disorder on our streets. Nothing will make bike advocates happy. At this point at least we can stop trying to appease them. At least car drivers were content with a status quo before.
There are 51 cross town streets on the Upper West Side. The total amount of dedicated space for bikes on these streets is exactly zero. How can zero be too much?
Zero can be plenty! There’s 6 avenues on the UWS and 3 of them which are major thoroughfares have bike lanes and you’re still not happy. Before gentrification, bikers made do with it. Ed Koch used to remove bike lanes that became an issue! Bike advocates are so condescening and arrogant that what they really deserve is the streetscape returned back to the way it was before Jeanette Sadik-Khan became commissioner of DOT in 2007.
The avenues on the UWS head north-south, and we can debate whether there is too much space on the avenues dedicated to moving bikes north-south. On the other hand, again, there is exactly zero space dedicated to moving bikes east-west, and I don’t think we can debate whether zero space for that purpose is too much.
77th and 78th streets, as well as 90th and 91st, have bike lanes
With the exception of 66 & 65, almost every one way crosstown street between 59 & 110 is quiet enough to allow safe riding.
I’ve been doing it for 30 years and the only times I’ve had issues were when riders going against traffic tried to force me off my pathway and, possibly, into an overtaking vehicle.
Can you explain why a person operating a throttled ebike has to ride the wrong way on a one way street?
Pedestrian safety is paramount. The fact that bikes can ride on crosstown streets does nothing for, again, pedestrian safety. At the Community Board, we constantly hear complaints about ebike riders going too fast, not stopping for pedestrians, darting our of nowhere, etc. The goal of the plan is to put these bikes in one particular place and improve safety for pedestrians (and, as you note, also for bikers).
Your use of the word “disorder” is 100% on point.
People like “law and order.” Too many think disorder means lawlessness (thereby thinking that crime today is worse than 30 years ago under Giuliani, and that is simply not true.
But disorder is its own issue. And yes, the proliferation of unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured, and unaccountable two wheeled motor vehicles adds to disorder. Those in denial love to blame “car owners” and “lovers of free parking” for the backlash to this (they call it ‘bikelash’) but the fact is that most people do not like it and do not want to see it further encouraged.
Another thing to note about the mosque is that the majority of the patrons of that mosque and the one on 96th Street on the east side are mostly cab or uber drivers. Not many Muslim UWS residents go there. The Muslim UWS residents tend to be secular. Those mosques get so busy that you have people that actually stop to pray at the few remaining gas stations in Manhattan.
During the election Mayor Mamdani understandably had strong support from the South Asian and Muslim community many of whom work as taxi and Uber drivers.
Yet the Mayor’s priority in transportation – expanding bike infrastructure and closing and shrinking streets – is absolutely hurting taxi and Uber drivers, particularly taxi drivers.
Wow
I think Uber, and now Waymo, are way more of a threat to the community then busses and trains, which have been around decades longer than either
There’s a reason why we ripped up street cars for buses and we got rid of at grade trains in Chelsea.
Isn’t it nice to see a politician serve the whole city instead of narrow interest groups?
The Mayor happily accepted their support and messaged that he “supported” taxi/Uber drivers.
The honest thing would have been to be clear with them about his transportation priorities.
Rest assured, like any politician he is serving narrow interest groups on various matters. Depending on the topic, those matters may be something you favor – or not.
Safer is good. Love safer. Bike riders absolutely need safety. It’s also not remotely going to magically make the trucks not unload packages on the street. They’ll stop, even in a single lane road. And it’ll stop traffic, drivers will try to go around and the street will be in a constant snarl. And hey, let’s add frustrated horn honking to it all. We absolutely need to dedicate a safe crosstown path for bikes. So use a residential street. Two way bike lane, minimally used, no businesses, no trucks to double park. Plus it’s quiet and tree lined and a nice ride.
There is a certain logic to putting bike lanes on a street that ISN’T a retail-lined commercial road with trucks loading and unloading, as well as a major crosstown bus route, as well as an exit from the West Side Highway. Seems too much for one street.
The side streets are safe enough to bike on without any bike infrastructure.
This is a terrible plan. I live on 72nd Street and don’t own a car, but I know how to drive and occasionally rent them. The first thing I think of when I see this plan is that if somebody is looking for parking — say because they live in one of the buildings on 72nd or are going to a store there or visiting somebody who lives there — and they’re driving along and they see somebody get into their car. Do you honestly expect them not to stop and wait for the space to open up, even it it takes 10 minutes? Even if the 72 bus wants to get by?
Plus delivery people, Ubers/Lyfts waiting for riders, car breakdowns, emergency vehicles…it’s never going to work.
So yeah, you can go around into the big middle yellow lane that doesn’t seem to be accounted for anywhere except in the pictures, but that tactic will stop working when somebody stops on the other side of 72nd street, forcing traffic in the other direction into the yellow lane and tying up all of the lanes.
The fact is that double parking is a necessary evil. The bike lane is not. If bikes can’t operate in the regular traffic lanes following the same rules as powered vehicles follow, then they don’t belong on the city streets. I bet if you stationed cops at 72nd and Amsterdam and 72nd and Columbus and at the mid-block crossing and if they ticketed bicyclists for not stopping on red, bike riders would avoid 72nd Street like the plague.
I guess WSR comment reviewers will be busy tonight.
To ensure we are on the proper path, A Modest Proposal for any of us bicyclists.
Going forward to pledge:
No more use of ecommerce, dump Uber, replace any of our doctors and dentists who drive, vet our kids’ friends to make sure their parents don’t drive, lobby our suburban relatives to give up their cars, no more vacations unless via train or bike transportation, protest movies especially action movies that glorify driving and cars…..
I’m all for the bike lanes as long as cyclists obey traffic laws and stop at red lights.
I like extending it to 68th Street for bikes to enter the greenway. Right now, they use the same busy path through the park as the pedestrians going to the river, kids going to the sports fields and dogs going to the dog park, and it is very dangerous. Would love to see the bikes rerouted through a less busy path.
Not sure what you are referring to. 68th and Riverside Blvd is where that inclined path down to the Pier i cafe is. Bikes are not supposed to be on it at all. How will this plan change the way bikes get from the city streets to the greenway?
Has anyone from the DOT been to Amsterdam, NL to see how it’s done there?
I always feel like NYC goes it alone without seeing how other cities have successfully done it.
Yes they have and I encourage DOT to look to international best practices in London and Paris for future street redesigns.
Amsterdam is a small city with small old buildings and virtually no high-rise buildings.
It is also not easy for pedestrians as bicycles are everywhere and bicycles have right of way.
It should also be noted that there have been cuts in Amsterdam public transit (bus, tram, metro) over the years – not good.
No more dangerous bike lanes! Make the bikers follow traffic rules bef causing more problems for businesses and pedestrians!
Would be nice if they had more buses running in addition to this plan
Another travesty for pedestrians.
“Riverside Boulevard”? I’ve heard of, and traveled on, Riverside Drive. But Riverside Boulevard is new to me. Where is THAT?
Riverside Boulevard is a short avenue south of 72nd Street and west of West End Ave – luxury buildings that were put up by Trump
This will be fought and if an ADA lawsuit needs to be filed it will be. Please look around at what the wealthy corrupt bike lobby is doing to our streets! Transportation Alternatives and DOT dont have correct stats in how dangerous e- vehicles are. They use NYPD crash reports when 90% of time nypd isnt at scene and doesnt report. FDNY and EMTs are at scene. Bellevue Hospital sees an average of one admission per day. That is only ONE of FIFTY FOUR ER Hospitals in NYC. DOT has about 10% of e vehicle crash data on record, yet they are designing our streets around those fake stats. STOP redesigning our streets with false study information. Everyone must fight this ageist and ableist W 72nd street redesign http://www.nycevsa.org
Filing a lawsuit to prevent the city from improving safety and imposing order on our streets is doomed to fail. The only thing it will accomplish is increasing the city’s budget for defending frivolous lawsuits.
We need to support safety improvements on our streets, not fight against them.
Here we go again…. more evidence ESVA just cares about protecting space for cars despite the fact that cars kill way more NYC residents than ebikes…
Exactly. Their leadership fought congestion pricing too: all they care about is more space for cars.
You accuse them of hiding behind another issue but on the question of injuries from bikes she is 100% correct, and you’re denying reality.
The fact is there are more injuries from bike riding than reported because without recourse and insurance why bother?
And?
Because every car crash invites a claim against an insurance policy it’s overwhelmingly likely that there are fewer real injuries from car crashes than are reported.
This is long overdue and will save lives. Let’s get it done!
(and do 96th Street next)
You already got a bus lane on 96th Street.
I don’t see a dog walking lane…..
UWSYIMBY, asking someone’s age is a sign of ageism—discrimination based on age. I presume you wouldn’t ask someone to justify their opinion based on their race, religion or gender so why is it alright, in your view, to ask someone their age? Is one person’s opinion more valid than another person’s because of their age? This is outright disinformation and it should stop.
I love this! More bike lanes, please. More bus lanes, please. And yes, I drive a car, too. I’m happy to sit comfortably in my heated/air conditioned car for a few extra minutes if it helps bikers, walkers, and bus riders.
You realize there will be no bus lane on 72nd, right? This street has 3 different busses on it (57, 72 and 5) and all will be sharing one lane with cars.
Major crosstown streets are an extremely limited and valuable public resource and should not have parking. Leave them for buses, thru-traffic, and loading/unloading only.
Designating certain non-major crosstown streets for bike lanes (no parking; again, just loading/unloading) is an interesting idea.
I’ll speak only to the aspect of the plan that concerns the stretch of W. 72nd Street between West End and Riverside. I have lived in a building on the south side of this part of 72nd for nearly 19 years. As such, I know from first-hand experience that if the plan is implemented as proposed it will make a chronically bad situation significantly worse. As it stands now, cars are routinely double- and triple-parked on this stretch. And I don’t mean for four or five spaces along either side of the street. The double and triple parking is up and down the entire stretch on the south side and most of the north side (the exception being the bus stop area). There has been ZERO parking enforcement done on this stretch during the nearly 19 years I have lived here. The city clearly has no intention of ever doing so. It is obvious why this situation has been taking place unabated. That the draw for the parked cars is the Islamic Cultural Center isn’t the point. It could just as easily be a VFW hall, a synagogue, a church, whatever. The reason for the cars being on this stretch isn’t the issue. The issue is the lack of parking enforcement, and because that isn’t going to change, DOT shouldn’t under any circumstances exacerbate an already chaotic situation. And this isn’t something that happens sporadically. It is daily and made worse certain times of the year. When attendees at this meeting brought these concerns to DOT’s attention (as many did), DOT’s response can be summed up as people will self regulate or park elsewhere. That is simply absurd. There is NO chance that the level of parking will decrease just because lanes of traffic are eliminated. NONE. And to suggest otherwise is short sighted and silly. DOT has also said essentially that it will implement changes now and adjust going forward. How dumb is that? It’s simply a massive waste of taxpayer resources when it is so readily apparent that the aspect of this project, regardless of how commendable the project is in theory, will only cause a bad situation to get markedly worse. The result will be a worse bottleneck for east/west traffic that includes the M5. I can’t tell you how many times I have had to navigate this stretch while driving while being literally an inch or two from a car or bus coming in the opposite direction. And that’s the way it is now. I can’t even imagine how much worse it will be if this project is implemented.
Brandon, most people want safer streets, not just seniors.. People with young children who take longer to cross because the child naturally walks slower and needs more time. Not everyone with a disability is a senior and not every senior needs more crossing time. Many people of all ages have complained that the crossing time is not sufficient. We have an organization that assists the blind in our neighborhood and they serve people of all ages. Seniors are just one group of neighborhood residents who are interested in safer streets along with young families, all those with disabilities, the many concerned with bicycle accidents, and those with enough foresight to understand that, if lucky, they will one day be seniors benefiting from safer streets.
It is wrong to put a 2 way or even a 1 way bike lane between the sidewalk and the bus stop. A woman who was disembarking from a bus was runover and killed by e-bike riders in Brooklyn because of a design just like this. why are they doubling down on a bad idea?
As a bus rider, I would prefer to board from the sidewalk. If I see the bus coming and I’d like to catch it, but I cant because the bike lane activity inhibits my capacity to reach the bus stop, or if I think it’s safe to cross but a bike runs a light or is riding so fast I didn’t realize they were coming or I just make a miscalculation or am distracted in my efforts to get where I’m going…… Or how about this- there’s a large crowd, maybe school has let out, or maybe it’s a herd of parents with strollers, so that the little island they give for people to stand on has an overfill issue; what then?
and one other thing that I have noticed is that a lot of times you see cyclists riding in the street on streets with protected bike lanes (of the parked car variety). This infrastructure was created especially for them but they do not use it because to access and use it is actually awkward and inconvenient for them.
roadways are about maximizing flow and that should be the focus. pedestrians have the right of way in nyc and that should be respected in all aspects.
lots of people come to the UWS daily to work here and they come from transportation deserts or they are carrying supplies and heavy equipment or they work long and odd hours and they drive here and need to park. parking and driving isn’t just something the “elite” do on their way in and out of town to go to their country houses. We shouldn’t allow this to become some sort anti/pro/car fanatical argument.
Ease of roadway and movement affect us all and allow all of us to get where we are going and do what we want to do. Traffic calming increases congestion, which in turn drives up the cost of doing business, which in turn drive up the cost of living. so there’s that too.
cyclists also deserve to bike in safety.
It might be time to get rid of parking lanes. Make them drop-off/pick-up lanes. Why are a handful of people entitled to take up all that space?
You would really hurt the local businesses if their customers and workers couldn’t park on the streets.
Just leave the streets as is!
Can they put back the mailbox on the corner of Columbus and 72nd?
This will attract more bike traffic to W72 St. What will be done to enforce the traffic laws so bike riders don’t race thru crosswalks when pedestrians have the green light?
This will decidedly not “shorten the distance pedestrians” will have to cross 72nd St. In other areas of the city, the island spot besides the two-lane bike paths are treacherous places to wait for the walk signal. Why? Kamikazee bikers of all kinds that thread in and out with total disregard for a red light.
This will make people cross the street twice, once for the road and the other for the e-bike superhighway.
How about not ordering restaurant food delivered by bike? Then there’d be less bikes zipping around.
I’m waiting for the day when a drone will politely knock on my window with my pizza.
As an 84 year-old who rides a bike on the streets of our city and walks the streets of our city, I questioned the right of anyone to not have to look for traffic when crossing the street.