UPDATE: Friday, July 17 at 10:30 a.m.: Hartley Bernstein, the lawyer who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the disabled residents of West 72nd Street, also filed a suit in a New York State court on behalf of the 72nd Street Neighborhood Residents and Business Association, as first reported by AMNY.
The judge in that case, Dakota Ramseur, has ordered a pause on any installation of the 72nd Street bike lane until the cases can be argued at an August 25 hearing.
By Gus Saltonstall
A group of disabled residents living on West 72nd Street filed a lawsuit against the city over the weekend to stop the New York City Department of Transportation from building a two-way, protected crosstown bike lane on 72nd Street.
“This civil rights case, brought by disabled residents of West 72nd Street, challenges the West 72nd Street Plan, and asserts that it unlawfully discriminates against them as disabled individuals because it bars them from and impairs their access to West 72nd Street and all streets that intersect with West 72nd Street,” reads the lawsuit filed on Saturday in New York’s Southern District Court against the city of New York, the New York City Department of Transportation, and DOT Commissioner Mike Flynn.
The suit argues that the new bike lane would restrict the six plaintiffs’ safe access to vehicles along West 72nd Street, including ambulances, private car service, taxis, and buses, and that it would impede their ability to cross the street, which it says it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Laws.
“Because of these dangers, the West 72nd Street Plan will have a chilling effect on Plaintiffs making them virtual shut-ins,” reads the suit.
West 72nd Street currently has four lanes of vehicle traffic, two in each direction, and two lanes of parking. The DOT plan would reallocate the roadway’s 60 feet, giving approximately nine feet to a two-way bike lane on the north side of the road. If implemented, the 72nd Street corridor would then have two parking lanes, two traffic lanes (one in each direction), and the new bike lanes.
According to the DOT, installing bike lanes reduces injuries, particularly among seniors.
Patrick Kennedy, an urban planner at the DOT, told an UWS Community Board committee in April that the proposal would create a safer environment 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.
The DOT provided the following statement when asked by WSR about the lawsuit.
“Protected bike lanes have been shown to support local businesses and enhance safety for everyone, including pedestrians, cyclists and people traveling by car. 72nd Street connects across Manhattan and multiple parks, making it a great location to fill a critical cycling network gap in Manhattan and enhance safety for families accessing these green spaces,” a DOT spokesperson wrote to the Rag in an email. “Our proposed non-final design will provide parking on both sides of the street and update curb regulations to better accommodate deliveries and passenger pick-ups and drop-offs. We look forward to defending the proposal in court.”
The six plaintiffs on the suit, all of whom live along the West 72nd Street corridor, include Pamela Greitzer, a Juilliard-trained cellist who was hit by an electric moped in 2024 while she was leaving Lincoln Center, which left her paralyzed on the right side of her body. Other plaintiffs include a woman who is blind and a man with multiple sclerosis.
“The dangers to disabled people are exacerbated by the proliferation of e-bikes, e-scooters, motor bikes, mopeds, and other e-vehicles and devices that will utilize West 72nd Street’s protected bicycle lanes,” the suit adds. “Speeding along curbside, these vehicles pose an additional obstacle and safety hazard.”
The lawsuit asks the judge to stop the city from constructing the new two-way bike lane on 72nd Street from Riverside Drive to the East River, and as well as for the following monetary amount of damages to each plaintiff.
- On the Fourth Cause of Action, awarding Plaintiffs damages in an amount of at least $100,000 each; preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from implementing the West 72nd Street Plan.
- On the Fifth Cause of Action, awarding Plaintiffs damages in an amount of at least $125,000 each; preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from implementing the West 72nd Street Plan.
Both the fourth and fifth cause of actions relate to whether the judge deems that different sections of the New York State Human Rights Law has been violated in the 72nd Street bike lane proposal.
Most recently, Upper West Side’s Community Board 7 passed a resolution in support of the new 72nd Street bike lane proposal. The timeline, though, remains unclear on when the city will make its final decision on moving forward with the proposal.
Read More:
- DOT Proposes Major Redesign of 72nd Street, Including New Two-Way Bike Lane
- Opposition Group Schedules UWS Rally Against New 72nd Street Bike Lane Proposal
- Proposal for New 72nd Street Bike Lane Sparks Protest and Some Support During UWS Rally
- UWS Community Board Votes to Support New 72nd Street 2-Way Bike Lane at Lively Meeting
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
Great article, thank you!
Finally an attack on this astroturfed ableist transplant agenda supported by big tech money.
Is this the way that you speak in real life?
yeah the agenda supported by the oil gas and auto industries is really crushed by the transplant agenda. never could have imagined a few transplants had more say that the billions in lobbying spent by archaic industry over the past bunch of years.
anyone who make the point you are making has been fooled.
lol – this is the second reference to the evil “oil gas and auto industry” that I’ve read from you in as many minutes. Whether they have the ear of lawmakers or not, they certainly live rent-free in your brain.
Hear hear!
The person being fooled is the one that doesnt realize that the tech companies donating to politicians, funding Trans Alt, open Plans etc, making sure community boards are filled with lifetime appointments of supporters, and building bike lanes used by only 2% of residents are the same ones that also put 100K dangerous Uber and Lyft cars on the streets while destroying hard working yellow cab drivers.
There is zero need for this project
Don’t forget StreetsPAC, the actual funding arm of the bike lobby, which is the group that actually puts the money in the pockets of our elected officials.
They would love to put money in the pockets of and control block associations if they could. Open Plans recently hired Andrea Fondulas, the former co-president of the West 71st Street Block Association (that block association also is an EVSA partner group) to be the StreetopiaUWS community organizer.
This oarticular fight isn’t about cars vs bikes. It is about will the redesign make accessing buses more difficult for the disabled and, if so, if that is legal under the ADA.
There’s nothing stopping bikes from biking on West 72nd right now.
Apparently it’s been legal on every other street where there are new bike lanes including Columbus Avenue all of Amsterdam Avenue etc. The idea that a bike lane that includes bump outs and new shorter crosswalks violates the ADA is laughable.
On Amsterdam the bike lane is on the west side. The bus stops are on the east side. This doesn’t make public transit less accessible for the disabled.
The bike lanes on Amsterdam and Columbus are one-way, traveling with traffic, unlike the 2-way bike lane putting east-bound bike traffic between west-bound bike traffic and west-bound buses, taxis, and other vehicles. A similar setup on Vernon Boulevard has resulted in large numbers of cyclists riding on the sidewalk to avoid the dangerous, 2-way bike lane and dangerous counter-flow buses, taxis, and other vehicles. The main losers, in all these cases, are pedestrians.
I bet you never even heard of the word ablest until someone used it to try to shoot down this bike lane and now you’re all over it.
“Ableist” has been around for a very long time. It’s like the word ageist. Young people and the middle aged never realize that someday they will grow older and parts of their bodies that weren’t injured before will start to creak up. It’s almost as if you expect to remain young and very healthy (and delusional) your entire life. Of course, one can be handicapped or creaky at ANY age, including as a little child. If you never heard the word before consider yourself lucky. Unlike the handicapped or impaired, you had your life trouble free. The cripple must be invisible to you and others. It’s a common problem in America.
“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.
And exactly how is he (or the City) going to “enforce behavior?” Bicyclists already ride on sidewalks and VERY unpredictably even where protected bike lanes exist. So how will simply providing this infrastructure “force” bicyclists (to say nothing of e-bikes) to obey the laws and actually use the bike lane? They don’t now; why would this be any different?
This is a solution looking for a problem.
I was about to say the same thing. “Allocating space for bikes would make cyclists less likely to ride in the street or sidewalk,…” They do as they please now, and they will continue to do as they please. Less likely HA! There needs to be enforcement and consequences or nothing will change the aggressive and reckless behaviors of the cyclists. Ik from experience> I had the right of way, looked in both directions and still was hit by a cyclist while on the sidewalk. Less likely HA!
Has anyone imvolved in the decision-making process actually LOOKED at 72nd Street recently? Full of double-parked trucks and vans, bikes going the worng way and ignoring the lights, often leaving barely one lane open to traffic. And does anyone actually remember how much better it worked when there were three lanes open to the mostly heavy traffic?
I can’t believe that you could possibly believe what you have just written. The data is extremely clear – the presence of safe cycling lanes reduces sidewalk riding as cyclists use the new safe cycling lanes.
Hilarious! I cannot even count how many times the street and bike lane are right beside me as I walk on the sidewalk, and yet a bike going in the same direction zooms past me ON THE SIDEWALK. Bikers do whatever they want regardless of how much infrastructure is put in place. THE MORE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE MORE THE LAWS ARE BROKEN. The problem gets worse, not better. Figure that out!! AND, the statistics from the hospitals PROVE that.
And do you know who provided that statistic about the presence of bike lanes reducing sidewalk riding? A bike lobby group called PeopleForBikes.
Research and sourcing go a long way to providing accurate information.
I wish someone would tell the cyclist speeding down the sidewalks about this.
Can you link us to this data? Specifically I would like to see data about bidirectional bike lanes that people have to cross to access a bus. I’m not sure where that dsign exists in the city.
I found two studies in less than 2 minutes, both contend that protected bike lanes are safer for pedestrians, bikers, and viechles. While they do have different results as to say which is better a one-bike lane or a bi-directional set up. All bike lanes reduce sidewalk usage, but as noted in the Barcelona study (the more compensive one,) injuries on one-way bike lanes increase when the actual usage inls bi-directional, though the injures to bicyclists and pedestrians are still lower than either of those modalities with cars. Particularly pertinent in a city that already limits car access to major sections of the city. Study One: Two-way Bike Lanes Really More Dangerous? Study Two: Study: Two-Way Bike Lanes Produce More Injuries — Streetsblog USA.
Note that the Streetblog study suggests the safest type of bike lane is a sidewalk level protected bike lane. Which wholy defeats your emotional jargon. Any allocation of designated space will reduce conflict. That does not mean there won’t be erratic actors. We constantly in this city have people driving down the wrong street, driving way to fast, and most dangerous for all double parking and parking in bikelanes, all of which are enforced at far fewer rates than bike violations in this city and that says A LOT. A protected bikelane does not eliminate those but reduces the injures related to those hazardous actions.
Neither of these studies address the issue at the crux of this lawsuit. Disabled people — visually impaired or using wheelchairs or walkers or anything else — who want to use the bus will have to leave the sidewalk mid block or cross a bidirectional bike lane to stand on the pedestrian island.
You could say they should go to the corner, use the crosswalk to cross the bike land, get onto the pedestrian island, move down to where the bus stop is, I assume that would be possible but is more difficult than waiting on the sidewalk today. And that’s the issue. Government is supposed to protect the disabled. The ADA ensures it. They can’t make accessing the bus more difficult and dangerous than it is today.
ROFLMAO! So you are citing “data” from the primary bike lobby group in NYC in order to “prove” your claims? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
NYC bikers are entirely different from European bikers. Nowhere in Europe do you see the entitlement and disregard for the law or for pedestrians. The problems in NYC will not be solved by bike lanes. Bikers are already using existing lanes to go against traffic and run the light. S culture change is needed.
Having lived, and biked, in Switzerland (and other European countries) can attest. It’s because they have cycling laws and they’re enforced. It’s apple to giraffes.
They also strictly enforce pedestrian rules, careful what you wish for
I’d like to see the data supporting that this plan is necessary on W72nd Street between CPW and WEA specifically and/or any other stretch of NYC streets that are identical or even substantially similar. As the other commenter wrote, this seems like a solution in search of a problem.
It exists in other parts of the city.
Where specifically? As I said I’d like to see safety data where people have to cross a bidirectional bike lane when getting on or off a bus. Because most of our streets are one way most of the bike lanes can be on one side while the bus stops are on the other. The buses can pull to the curb.
I’m sure this will all come our as part of the lawsuit. To my untrained self it seems making buses less accessible to the disabled violates the ADA. Do we really expect visually impaired people to step into the bike lane to get to the bus stop? Given that they can wait on the sidewalk today this seems wrong.
Dyckman Street in Manhattan and Cresent Street in Queens have had two way bike lanes nearly identical to the proposed West 72nd project for many years. The M100, Q102 and Q104 boarding islands are similar to what DOT is proposing.
We have 50 crosstown streets and 165 lanes dedicated 100% to cars in CB7 despite only 25% of households owning a car. Can’t bicyclists have ONE lane out of the 165? ONE? Did you all skip kindergarten the day they taught sharing?
They aren’t dedicated to cars, they’re multi purpose. We share traffic lanes with bikes all day long! You just want all transportation needs to be forced neatly into a box where you can control people’s movement!
I live on Central Park West. There is a bike lane on Central Park West. Why am I dodging bikes in front of my building?
It’s because we have a one way bike lane on a major two way street. Also, as a father who has to ride with my nine year old daughter, I am so mad that that not only is that bike lane one way, it is not protected from speeding cars and the buses have to stop in the bike lane to pick up drop off., forcing cyclists into traffic.
To imply that cyclists, (INCLUDING YOUNG CHILDREN) do not deserve equal protection is absurd and selfish. I am all for balancing the needs of all users, especially the disabled, but to vilify all cyclists because of bad actors is insulting and dangerous. If anyone thinks NYC has gone too far in bike infrastructure, go to Montreal to see how woefully behind we actually are.
There are far more dangerous drivers that should be reigned in, and a great many irresponsible pedestrians who look at their phones and think they have no duty to share space safely.
How dare you put your 9 year old in harms way on a bike in NYC
How about you not be forced into traffic. But stop. Anyone riding with young children is out of their minds anyway. The fast moving e-bikes are so dangerous. Some delivery guys are ok. But many and also commuters disobey rules left and right. And Montreal is Canada right? I’m guessing those folks don’t behave like New Yorkers. As a pedestrian yes I jaywalk. But I’m only risking my own safety. After I get a ticket. I’ll deserve it. And I’ll stop.
Bike lanes go with traffic on every darn avenue. Are you too lazy to take the bike lane on Columbus or Amsterdam?
You don’t HAVE to ride with your 9-year old, you CHOOSE to.
This is exhausting. Yes, we parents would like to teach our children skills that will serve them well in the future, and we’d like to have spaces to do so. A protected lane shared with other cyclists is far better than a.) throwing my kid in the middle of the street, or b.) never having her learn how to bike in shared spaces at all.
+1 to more bike infrastructure . I agree the city needs to add a real bike lane for southbound traffic on Central Park west. They also need to add a bidirectional bike lane the full length of the park on 5th avenue.
Because those bikes are going downtown and the bike lane is for uptown traffic. This isn’t hard
Because you have spidey-sense and you’re actually Spider-Man. Which is what we all need to be because of bikers and joggers being completely oblivious and reckless. The data about bike lanes reducing crashes is true for cars hitting pedestrians. Meanwhile, DUH, bike on pedestrian crashes / injuries are skyrocketing!
Someone called Sherlock Holmes to solve this case but he said it was too easy. “Doy,” he said. “It was the bikes.”
Amen. I am glad they organized and have a plan. Hopefully they will be successful. I like bikes but the whole situation has gotten out of control. If the bike lanes were being done in conjunction with doing something about the dangerous e-bike riders it might be more palatable, but the bikers have gotten out of control and should not be enabled further.
Doing this on a major crosstown street is just dumb. I am curious to know the qualification of the “urban planners” who wasted tons of our money creating this recommendation. In the spirit of compromise (which no one else in this neighborhood seems to understand), I would suggest doing a one way lane on 71, 73, or 74, for example. But the pro-bike people and anti-car whiners scream much louder than me and refuse to compromise and/or consider anyone else.
Have you ever ridden a bike in NYC Leon? If you did you’d know it’s dangerous to get to Riverside Park from Central Park.
For what reason do you need to get from one park to the other? Picnic in one or the other. Then Shakespeare in the other. Nice life. Slow down.
It would probably be less dangerous to do so on a bike lane located on a less commercially-busy street that isn’t a major thoroughfare hosting 3 bus routes and feeding directly into a highway.
Have you ever walked on NYC? Equally dangerous.
I go from Riverside Park to (or towards) Central Park all the time. Just not by bike. (Or by car, for that matter.). Sometimes you just can’t adjust the world to the exact way you want it to be.
I agree with Leon. Well said.
I hope they win. If there’s a petition against this ill-conceived project, please show me where to sign.
There is a petition. SIGN HERE!!
https://www.change.org/p/citizens-in-opposition-t0-the-west-72nd-street-bike-lane-proposal
Thank you for the link
There was a petition and a group, but they aren’t organized and want to pick and choose who’s in their coalition.
I’m sorry, disregarding opinions on the redesign, they are suing for 125k each in damages… which haven’t even occurred as of the time of filing?
What are they seeking relief from? The possibility of a bike lane?
The one in federal court was filed for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. There are always dollar amounts associated with alleged violations of that. There’s nothing untoward about that. It’s just the way the act is structured. And while it’s true that there has been a great deal of abuse of this aspect of the remedial part of the act, this isn’t the case here. In order to have the claims in state and federal court (no doubt to take advantage of the differing natures of each and to increase the likelihood of a successful outcome), the plaintiffs had to seek damages that each provides. This wasn’t clear in the article.
Legal complaints often contain monetary amounts that are placeholders due to customary or statutory requirements. They are just that- placeholders – and do not necessarily bear on the potential outcome of the proceeding.
Did you read the article? The monetary amounts relate to potential human rights violation in the proposal.
You cannot obtain damages for an injury that has not yet occurred. This is a basic legal premise. You can seek an injunction if there is a significant risk of irreparable harm, meaning harm that cannot be remedied with money. But you cannot get damages before you’ve been injured.
New York’s human rights law prevents the city from building a bike lane? Hard to believe this isn’t a parody, these are not serious people….
I read the court filing, thanks. I’m no lawyer, but I fail to see how you can claim relief from damages that -have not occurred-. Appears frivolous to me, or at best, a weak threat.
Patrick Kennedy, an urban planner at the DOT, does not address or acknowledge the issues the disabled residents are raising. He talks about crossing the street but not about how they will get to a bus or car or Axcess A Ride. It is also false that it shortens the distance from one side of the street to the other. Somehow he isn’t counting the bike lane or the pedestrian island as distances to be crossed when crossing the street.
All he does is hope that people will follow the laws. It’s so naive. He said in the meeting that he knows there is not strong enforcement and they are “working on that.” Yeah right. And that double parking will end when they see how it inconveniences people. It’s a joke.
This is bonkers, making disabled people squeeze through parked cars is good but it’s discriminatory to build a bike lane?
We can’t run a city like this and I hope this suit fails and doesn’t delay things. Just build the bike lane. Been waiting for a rethink of this block (my block) for years.
Diaabled people use the wheel chair in the bike lane over the sidewalk whenever there is a bike lane. Why is that? The bike lane must not be that unsafe if the people using their wheelchair in the bike lane safely over the sidewalk.
Never seen that happen. Disabled people are not suicidal.
That’s not happening in the age of e-bikes.
I’m 79 and ride Citi Bikes on 72nd Street regularly. Plenty of space for safe biking in both directions. And crossing 72nd Street on foot is also safe, which it would cease to be for me if I had to cross bike lanes on foot. I find those are dangerous. As plaintiffs here seem to attest.
The proposal has crosswalks, where people are supposed to cross. A bike lane doesn’t change the utility of a crosswalk.
From reading the compliant, the plaintiffs want the right to enter the street Mid-Block because of their status.
But bicyclists don’t stop for crosswalks.
No the disabled need access from their buildings to accessible rides, which they will not be able access. We are talking about people who are in wheelchairs, or use walkers. Who are disabled.. . Parkinson’s, strokes, TBi’s, paralysis, blindness…
All need to be able to access getting into a handicapped van, or taxi to get anywhere. Doctors appointments, classes, concerts. Why should the able bodied only be allowed to live in NYC
If you really believe this you should be advocating for a ban on on-street parking which the city had before the 1950s. That would make it much easier for the classes of people you say you care about. But, I don’t hear any of the bike haters suggesting that.
They have to enter the steeet midblock, as all of us would, to get to a bus. Or will everyone be expected to go to the corner, cross to the pedestrian island, and go down to the bus stop? And what about getting in a cab?
Thanks for addressing the concerns regarding Transportation Alternatives and the Community Board 7 process. One issue that deserves greater public attention is the conflict of interest when individuals serve in decision making roles with both Transportation Alternatives and Community Board 7 while voting or advocating on projects that Transportation Alternatives actively supports. When board members have dual roles, they should recuse themselves Community Board 7’s primary responsibility is to represent and protect the residents of the Upper West Side. That includes the thousands of people who live on or near West 72nd Street, as well as the tens of thousands of residents who cross the street to reach doctors’ offices, schools, houses of worship, restaurants, grocery stores, public transportation, work, and neighborhood businesses.
I am a cyclist, and I support bike lanes. However, not every street is the same, and West 72nd Street presents unique challenges for everyone including bikers with one of the highest density of seniors on any Manhattan streets. The City should prioritize enforcing existing laws and Accountability must apply to all.
Wayne, There is not a single member of CB7 who is employed by TA or has a “decision making role” at TA . Please stop with the alternative facts. TA is the group that got cars out of Central Park and has been the thought leader in bringing pedestrian deaths in NYC down from 200/year to 100/year. They have literally saved 100 lives every year.
https://transalt.org/staff
Now the bus comes right up to the curb. The bus can then put down the platform if needed and the process is as easy as we can make it for those using a wheelchair or walker. With the proposed redesign these residents would have to go from the curb across a bidirectional bike lane to a pedestrian waiting platform. Lets assume there are appropriate curb cutouts. The cyclist would stop when someone wants to cross because….I guess there would be a button to push that would give the cyclists a red light. Do you really think they will stop?
Who would be responsible for cleraring the snow on the curb cutouts and bikelane and pedestrian waiting area?
That’s a good point about snow clearance…and what about the accumulated slush and rain? I am sure there will be puddles at street level.
We have bike lanes with crosswalks all over the city for pedestrian crossing and bus boarding. It works fine.
The bus is to be located in the middle of the street! That is not like most of the city. And in the one place I’ve seen it-it’s awful!
I wish I could laugh at this comment. Once bikes and e-bikes start obeying traffic lights perhaps I will take you seriously.
Second!
Where? I’m not disagreeing I am honestly asking where I can see a bidirectional bike lane wirh a pedestrian island where bus riders wait.
Dyckman Street in Manhattan and Cresent Street in Queens have had two way bike lanes nearly identical to the proposed West 72nd project for many years. The M100, Q102 and Q104 boarding islands are similar to what DOT is proposing.
Dykeman Street and Sherman Ave. DOT explicitly said in their presentation that they modeled this after that example.
I’ve been there. It’s a plenty busy cross street with lots of business, cars, busses, bikes, etc. It works well.
It’s a pretty funny complaint and they’re actually asking for money for something that hasn’t even happened yet what a joke
But by the time the case goes to judgment, the plan may already have been implemented , causing plaintiffs the stated damages. Not a joke at all.
I think this means the city can’t move ahead with the plan right now. Hearing at the end of August.
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=P2lMaxPRjhTPJ4fn9if18Q==
Thanks for posting that! For those who haven’t looked — and this is not mentioned in the main article — the court has temporarily enjoined implementation of the plan pending the hearing Alice mentions. (It’s an application for a “TRO” in common, as well as legal, parlance.)
It’s absolutely a joke on the rest of us but this lawsuit is just NIMBYs trying to delay the inevitable
Plus, litigation in itself is expensive. And $125,000 for six people is not a lot of money for the hardships they’ll experience if the plan goes into effect.
People get so emotionally worked up about bikes. They are distracted from the actual, _daily_, measurable, fatal damage caused by cars and trucks on our city’s streets. It’s understandable and yet it’s also so very misguided. “What a piece of work…”
Yes, because most cyclists behave like a pack of arrogant, entitled, rude, impatient, dangerous scofflaws!
House fires kill more people than kitchen knife cuts. That doesn’t mean knife safety isn’t the more common problem while you’re cooking dinner. Severity and frequency are different dimensions of risk.
The relevant comparison isn’t ‘Which mode kills more people?’ It’s ‘What hazards am I exposed to in this environment?’
Um, respectfully, the context here is West 72nd Street, one of NYC’s major roads on which autos injure and kill people with breathtaking regularity. It’s the cars and trucks and buses we are dodging every time we cross it. And yes, sometimes bicycles and e-bicycles too. But we’re accustomed to the cars, buses and trucks. We somehow accept that multiple people (many of them bicyclists) die _every_ week_ on our streets at the hands of their drivers. But the recent rapid increase of bicycle traffic is unfamiliar. To some, this change is scary. Fear leads to anger, etc. To many, it’s an encouraging, welcome transition _away_ from autos. Bikes and e-bikes certainly bring their own problems. People are getting injured. Tragically, a small number have even been killed. We can do a better job on regulation and enforcement, not only for e/bikes, but also for the autos, which continue to maim and kill with breathtaking regularity and with surprising impunity in most cases . This redesign will absolutely make W72nd safer, for everyone, including the disabled plaintiffs. No traffic expert has disputed this. Some people sadly are not interested in expertise anymore. Everything is political and emotional and conspiratorial. Some people want to ignore the objective fact that this type of design has already improved safety all over the city. This court case will (and should) go nowhere. People need to try to get beyond knee jerk responses and conspiracy theories. Yes to this redesign _and_ we can always do better.
This is very well said.
This redesign does nothing to reduce cars on the street. The fact is W72nd is one of the few places to emter the West Side Highway. It will continue oi have all that traffic as well as local traffic to shops and apartments
Whoa! This is a complete waste if time and money. The same people claiming bikes are ableist but driving is not ableist. The bike lane is both not used and too busy to cross. I hope the judge puts an end to this laqsuit abuse. The worlds not going to wnd because the bikes will mostly use the bike lane to organize the street and make it safer.
This is truly shocking. Over five years ago, the Community Board asked the DOT to improve safety on West 72nd Street. The DOT finally came up with a plan which significantly improved safety in other neighborhoods – particularly for senior citizens. Then, the Transportation Committee of the CB carefully considered the plan and approved it with minor suggestions. Then the full Board did the same thing. It is so discouraging that five people seek to undo all of the hard work city employees and neighborhood volunteers did over all of these years and particularly discouraging that each seeks to grab $225,000 in the process.
Howard- allegedly – 7 new board members came on board the day before the vote. What was the vote difference 7? Also is it really fair that a member of the CB7 board is on the Transportation Alternatives board and attended the TA gala the night before ? Is that not a conflict of interest? Also wasn’t a board member removed for conflict of interest some years back?
Howard,
Were you involved in the CB planning or discussion?
Yes. Please see my new comment to Anon’s post.
Five people!!!?:? Oh that’s rich! Try thousands of people who have made it very clear to the Trans Alt Lobby captured CB7, it’s Trans Alt Board Member Transportation Chair (!) and the correlating City Council Members that they are adamantly against these bike lanes. How about all the shop keepers who are against it??? What utter nonsense!
The DOT was in favor of the reconfiguration, the safety data supported the reconfiguration, the comments the CB received supported the reconfiguration, and the majority of the comments at our CB meeting supported the reconfiguration. TA had a lot of good company. These five people didn’t.
Howard,
Perhaps the CB does not realize that the CB meeting was full – and many people outside not allowed in.
Also, Transportation Alternatives did social media messaging to encourage people from all over NYC to attend
Where else in NYC do we have bidirectional buke lanes that have to be crossed to get to a bus stop? Posters keep saying this is safer but I have seen no data either here or when CB7 was discussing it. How is this safer for the disabled vs waiting on the sidewalk at the bus stop? That is what this lawsuit is about. The rights of disabled people.
Below is an incomplete list of bi-directional bike lanes against a curb in just Manhattan. The NYPD crash data shows a marked decline in crashes after such lanes are put in. This is part of what we relied on at the CB in approving this plan.
Chrystie Street (East curb from Houston St to Canal St)
Amsterdam Avenue / Fort George Avenue (East curb from W 188th St to St. Nicholas Ave)
Park Row (Concrete-barrier protected from Spruce St to St. James Pl)
Lafayette Street (Runs against the curb from Chinatown up to Union Square)
Astor Place (Between Broadway and Lafayette St)
Canal Street (East of Broadway and extended through Sixth Ave to Hudson St)
Howard,
Please know that bicylists on Lafayette don’t stop for red lights.
It is bad for pedestrians especially elderly in Chinatown area
I’m sick of the disabled and old demanding we care about them. Don’t they understand this is for bikes? Bikes, bro! Everybody else be damned. This bustling metropolis must cater to the bikers. And when we say bikers, we don’t mean people actually peddling. We’re talking about the motorized bikes that are equivalent to mopeds. Those bikers need the right to speed around the city without obeying laws terrorizing people on two legs.
PS People with cars suck and are somehow responsible for everything. I hope the sarcasm throughout comes through loud and clear.
Every year, motor vehicles kill hundreds and maim tens of thousands on our streets, but a plan to open a street to safer modes is met with a lawsuit. These disabled plaintiffs would prefer to continue taking their chances navigating a street filled with double-parked cars and trucks, and cross intersections as 3,000-pound vehicles whip around corners? Is it too late to file a lawsuit against the geniuses who contrived the current deadly conditions on W. 72nd?
Congratulations on discounting legitimate complaints and arguments with hyperbole.
How does the redesign stop 3,000 pound vehicles from whipping around corners?
Concrete pedestrian islands at the corners narrow the street and force drivers to make wider and slower turns rather than cut the corners at speed.
It should at least make dangerous and illegal U-turns difficult if not impossible.
I don’t know. There is that yellow striped lane in the middle. That gives you 3 lanes to use for your U turn.
What *is* that yellow striped lane? And the design sketch shows only one bus. What about a bus going the other direction? I’m so confused.
There is no bus lane. The buses will travel on the same lanes cars use. Prumably there are cutouts in the pedestrian island at the stops but that isn’t shown in the picture. What that yellow striped lane will become (as anyone who drives or bikes or walks on Riverside Blvd can tell you) is a place to either drive around a double parked car or Uber or cab. Or for the UPS trucks to park while making deliveries.
Literally every disability rights advocate I’ve met loves protected bike lanes and other projects like this but sure, a safe streets project that has, amongst other things, bus stop islands and dedicated cab pick-up zones not blocked by cars that haven’t moved in weeks will be the death of accessible mobility. A deeply serious position not informed by drastic levels of internet brain rot.
Name these disability rights advocates who think making buses harder to access is not only leagal but a good idea.
It’s ones probably getting donations from certain groups!
As a car owner and biker, if anywhere makes sense to put the bike lane it’s 72nd Street. Not a lot of vehicular traffic, connects both parks, and doesn’t take away as much parking as a bike lane on a narrow street would. I can see the anxiety about a 2 way lane on the northbound side though.
What’s is the importance of connecting the two parks?
I see mostly delivery guys in the bike lanes. And now in the park too . But I live downtown. The bike lanes usage is soooo low.
To say that 72nd Street does not have a “lot of vehicular traffic” is not true or is partially false, at best. 72nd Street between Broadway and Riverside is heavily trafficked and is often congested because of cars and trucks double parking. I think the idea of the protected bike-lane on 72nd is a good idea to improve safety, I just don’t think the one-size fits all approach for 72nd Street works, especially without enforcement.
As a disabled person I applaud this action. The bicycle lobby is one of the most Ableist groups that lobby the government. Their vision of NYC as a cyclist utopia excludes and endangers many people including seniors, children and the disabled. Let’s not sacrifice our most vulnerable citizens for the convenience of an elitist group that shields their quest for privilege in the guise of doing good for the environment. The only good TA is interested in is what makes it easier to fly around the city on their 10K dollar carbon fiber toys.
This lawsuit should never have been necessary.
BUT CB7 MADE IT NECESSARY
BRAD HOYLMAN-SEGAL MADE IT NECESSARY
GALE BREWER MADE IT NECESSARY
When government repeatedly dismisses the voices of disabled residents, mobility-impaired people, seniors, and others who depend on safe curb access and reasonable accommodations, it stops being inclusive planning and starts looking like institutional exclusion.
Here, on the Upper West Side, a neighborhood with one of Manhattan’s largest populations of older adults, the concerns of those most affected have too often been treated as obstacles to overcome rather than constituents to serve. If your mobility depends on Access-A-Ride, paratransit, a walker, a wheelchair, a caregiver, or simply the ability to be dropped off safely at the curb, your daily reality deserves the same consideration as every other transportation user.
Instead, many they’ve been talked over, marginalized, and forced into court because they couldn’t get a meaningful hearing through the political process. THAT is a troubling outcome regardless of where one stands on bike infrastructure. This lawsuit argues that the proposed redesign violates protections for disabled New Yorkers and seeks to halt construction while those claims are considered.
Transportation policy cannot become a contest where the loudest advocacy organizations prevail while seniors, people with disabilities, and long-time residents are expected to accept whatever is decided for them. A city that claims to champion equity must demonstrate that accessibility is more than a slogan. If the people most affected believe they have no choice but to seek judicial intervention, policymakers should ask themselves why the public process failed to earn their trust—not dismiss those concerns as resistance to change.
What a ridiculous take.
No special interest in Manhattan is coddled quite like the private car owner. Just over 20% of households in Manhattan own a car, yet an extraordinary amount of public street space is exclusively dedicated to moving and storing private vehicles. The city essentially hands out 3 million free parking spots citywide just to make things even cushier for this highly privileged minority. Meanwhile, essential city services and modern infrastructure—like sanitation containers, delivery zones, protected bike lanes, and outdoor dining—are forced to fight for scraps so we can continue giving away free storage to people who refuse to pay for their own garage space. To frame a basic reallocation of public land as an “attack” on vulnerable groups is a joke.
Let’s look at the actual safety numbers: hundreds of New Yorkers are killed by drivers every single year, while fatalities caused by bikes can typically be counted on one hand. A redesign that calms traffic and shortens pedestrian crossing distances actually makes the Upper West Side safer for seniors and residents with mobility impairments.
Just admit what this lawsuit is really about: maintaining a monopoly on public space for drivers at the expense of everyone else.
I don’t understand how “outdoor dining” would be considered a City service or an entitlement?
Many people can’t afford to eat at any restaurant.
Also IMO delivery zone for ecommerce basically privileges big corporate Amazon and hurts local stores.
Private car owners aren’t coddled. They didn’t hire Bolton St. John’s, Kasirer and donate tons of money to NYC and NYS candidates the way urbanists do. You don’t want garage space either with the way you’re pushing the restrictions on developers building parking.
Define “urbanist.”
Yes, please. The word “urbanist” gets tossed around a lot in these comments and it seems to be a shortcut term for whatever the commenter is against at the moment. Dictionary.com simply defines it as a person involved in city planning.
A disproportionate amount of “livable street” and “safe streets” advocates call themselves urbanists! But here are some definitions
https://www.theurbanist.org/about-us/
https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/6/18/what-the-heck-is-an-urbanist
Urbanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanism
Tactical urbanism is a derivative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_urbanism
City and transportation planning has become so regulatory captured by anti-car and pro overdevelopment advocates that they all overlap with urbanists. But I fear that this is an attempt to silence criticism of urbanists, or livable streets advocates or whatever you want to call them by trying to create a permission structure to ban the term urbanist as an overarching definition for them and instead gaslight us into thinking they are well meaning neighbors when they really see people who think and see the world differently than them as beneath them and are authoritarian at their core.
Thank you very much for this absolutely true and clear headed statement. Those of us who have lived up here for years know the deal. The pols you point out and the community board have been captured by the Trans Alt lobby!! I suspect they like the campaign cash they are given by them. It seems it doesn’t take much to blow off your constituents because that’s what they have been doing for years now!! It is very sad.
Not to mention CB7 who did a fast number by admitting 7 new members the night of the 72 Street vote (without so much as introducing them) who had been picked for their Trans Alt advocacy or membership (by Brad Hoylman and Gale Brewer) and all voted except perhaps 1 for the 72 St. bike lanes. That is egregious. But so is the Co-Chair of the Transportation Committee being a LONG TIME BOARD MEMBER OF TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES!!! Conflict of interest or what!!?
There needs immediately to be some resignations on CB7 who frankly have embarrassed themselves by such behavior. We need an honest board representing their community not one promoting the private interests of powerful and monied lobbies.
The opponents to the bike lobby haven’t been successful at hiring their own lobby. Which lobbying firm actually takes them is the question.
For commenters who think that bus stop “islands” are a positive thing, I guess I would ask 1) if you are regular bus riders and 2) an example of a bus stop “island” that you think was better than waiting at a bus stop on a sidewalk?
There are some bus stop “islands” around the City (and apparently more to be constructed as the Mayor believes this will speed bus transit).
In my experience waiting at a bus stop “island” is pretty horrible – not enough space, being in between two “roadways” (vehicles and/or bicycles).
Even worse when waiting for a bus in the rain or cold weather or a bus that is not frequently scheduled.
Waiting on a bus stop ‘island’ is like standing on the subway platform at 72nd and B’way. No safety on either side of you, especially if it’s someone with a disability or if you’re toting kids in or out of strollers.
“Cars are great but bikes are ableist”?!! The desperation here is so absurd its laughable! Other peer cities around the world are eating our lunch when it comes to making streets more people friendly – and this is what the redesign will do – it will slow down the killer cars burning rubber to beat the lights and encourage walking (note to business-owners: it’s walking humans who are your customers).
People drive cars and it is cars and other vehicles that bring supplies, workers who don’t have the privilege of living on the UWS among other things.
There is a privilege to be able to live close by to everything you want and bike everywhere! There is a privilege to be able to use uber and lyft at your convenience or citibike if you don’t feel like using transit.
Beth,
Anyone getting Amazon or ecommerce is utilizing a vehicle.
Major increase in vehicles due to huge use of ecommerce
So all those gas-powered conveyances I see parked on every tree lined street in my neighborhood are e-vehicles delivering my Amazon packages?? Wow they aren’t moving much product just sitting there. Do you think maybe those are private vehicles?
What MSA is saying is that not every vehicle is a private vehicle (because there are many that are not). That’s very different from saying that every single vehicle is not a privately owned vehicle.
In other words, you’re disputing (and sarcastically, to boot) something that no one said.
Good! Sue and halt this ludicrous re-design. The DOTs and Trans Alts corruption, tricks and denial of NYers concerns are udeniable. It’s EMBARRASSING!
So these proposed bike lanes are no longer for “ bicycles”, but for e-vehicles! Let’s call it for what it is. These are electric motorcycles and the lanes should be called electric motorcycle lanes. These vehicles do not resemble any kind of regular pedal bike. They go up to 40mph, are heavier, and do NOT follow traffic laws. These lanes will do 0 for anyone’s safety. Especially the e-vehicle riders who will be using them. As proven over and over again with serious injuries and fatalities like the 2 young men who died trying to cross each other on the 59th street 2 way “bike” lanes. The very same lanes they want to have on 72nd St.
These lanes will block traffic, but also block quick ambulance and fire truck access, and continue with no safety for all. Instead of what the DOT wants you to believe. Our streets continue to be unsafe for all who use them.
Plaintiffs cite the dangers posed by the bike lanes. Why not simply shut down the entire road to traffic, or sue the Dot for allowing cars in the city in the first place? The existing conditions are far more dangerous to folks who are blind or confined to a wheelchair. No, I suspect this is much more about nimbyism and car-centric thinking than it is about making things safer or more accessible. Case dismissed.
This is a great point.
Absolutely. What they really want is free parking.
Ulrika,
Am a pedestrian, bus and subway rider.
I oppose the bike lane
I don’t even own a car and I oppose this proposed plan. Same with other neighbors who I know opposing the plan. I oppose it based on my experience as a pedestrian walking these specific blocks for the past 20+ years.
Suing to keep a four-lane stroad dangerous is the real abelism.
This plan is based on flawed assumptions. The planner Patrick Kennedy says “allocating space for bikes would make cyclists less likely to ride in the street or sidewalk,” This is not true now. Bikes ride down streets willy nilly regardless of established bike lanes. Stand at the corner of Columbus and 72nd and watch for just 3 minutes. You’ll see bikes in the middle of traffic; bikes on the sidewalk; bikes crossing the intersection diagonally; etc. And you’ll see a few bikes in the bike lane. This is what will happen with the proposed plan.
I feel like I can guess the age of each vommentor rather accurately based on their stance…some folks just need to be dragged kicking and screaming into modernity.
GFS,
Parents with small children concerned about being hit by Citibikers and racing bicyclists
Tell that to your disabled grandmother, kiddo.
You may be right. The posters concerned about safety when crossing a 2 way bike lane to stand on a concrete island waiting for a bus are like my to be older and more likely to be disabled. I’m surprised it took you so long to figure this out since it is the entire basis of the lawsuit. The government is supposed to protect the elderly and disable.
Although if the people wanting a bike lane are too weak or lazy to ride to say 73rd to get a new bike lane, what does that say about them?
A two-way bike lane seems dangerous for both pedestrians and bike riders. Although I’m a biker who would like a one-way bike lane, navigating our chaotic streets (speeding e-bikers flaunting all rules and no enforcement) is that much worse for disabled people.
I love to see the cult of bicyclists crashing out (mentally, not literally.)
I do think it’s clear the City Council cares way more about moving forward with getting people on bikes than they do about children seniors and the disabled. Their actions over the past number of years certainly reinforce this.
I live at 71st and Broadway.
I’ve never seen bike riders using West 72nd street.
I also live on W71st and my head is on constant swivel for bikes and e-bikes flying through red lights and violating other traffic laws around the 72nd Street intersections.
I just came in from a walk and counted about 8 between Amsterdam and Columbus on 72nd. And it’s a heat wave!
lmao I use west 72nd to get to work on my bike almost every day. I’m guessing you don’t get out much.
Yes many of us avoid west 72nd because its dangerous and has no bike lanes.
Best thing – walking, bus and subway
Many of you will not be happy until Uber or Lyft are the only cars around!
I would find the redesign proposal more inviting if it provided for drop arm gates across the bike lanes like those used at railroad crossings. That would help to ensure pedestrian safety from all bicyclists both at crosswalks and also down-stream for bus stops, taxi access and so on.
Pedestrians would have to wait for the light – and for the crossing gate to drop across the bike lanes – but that’s better than the current proposal, which asks pedestrians only to trust the bikers to stop. We know from experience that some/many/most won’t, and the risk to pedestrian safety is just too high.
Bravo to the Plaintiffs, and good luck with your suit. For the record, the CB7 vote won to move forward with this by one vote. It’s a 50-member board.
Not true. The vote was 26-19 with one or two abstentions.
I frequently need to ride my bike on 72nd Street and can attest that it is dangerous for riders and pedestrians. Currently, people must cross the road with bikes coming from both directions in an uncontrolled situation. Adding a protected bike lane will make the street safer for everyone. Sure, not every cyclist or e-biker will obey the rules. Adding the bike lane will not make that worse, it will likely make it better. If access to cabs or other ride services needs to be improved, then make some adjustments to the plan. Do not eliminate the bike lane and make travel for cyclists dangerous.
Agree with them. Cars will have no assess to the curbs. Don’t know why we are supporting bikes over cars, deliveries, pedestrians, disabled. The bikes don’t obey traffic laws.
“I am request that the DOT reconsider the proposed bike lane on West 72 Street. This specific corridor has heavily utilized commercial loading zones/high truck volumes, which frequently result in vehicles needing to double-park. Introducing a bike lane here would force a severe bottleneck, creating unsafe conditions for both cyclists and drivers. Additionally, there is a designated, protected bike lane just 7 blocks over on West 79th Street connects directly to the Hudson River Greenway, which runs north and south right along the water which safely handles the existing micromobility traffic without compromising the flow of West 72 Street.”
“there is a designated, protected bike lane just 7 blocks over”. -This from the people who claim to need free parking on every block.
I find it curious that your replies are about cars and parking in response to so many comments that are about pedestrian safety and impact on business without even mentioning the loss of free parking spaces. There are so many other variables at play here. Also W72nd currently has parking meters.
Because the bike advocates are obsessed with disliking cars more than they are making streets safer for all!
I am for policy that benefits families, disabled and those actually in need. not able bodied people. when did we become a society that focused on the latter. so much for DEI eh
I hope they win. The proposal will make life difficult for those with a disability and will likely create more e-bike accidents that could result in disabilities or worse for others. Even when no accidents occur, people have to cross the bike lanes with trepidation due to many riders who could care less about traffic regulations and public safety. We’ve all seen and experienced this every day on other streets so why add more stress by making one more major street a cause of concern for pedestrians and those with disabilities who simply want to cross a street without fear? Of course, once politicians propose something, they rarely want to admit it’s a mistake and back off so the only hope may be this court case.
Spoiler alert: this case will be dismissed in short order
I would not count on that. Have you read the complaint? How is it deficient legally? Please give us your legal reasoning for concluding that it will be “dismissed in short order”.
Because whatever your feelings around bike lanes, the premise is ludicrous.
Care to make a wager? Loser donates to the WSR? I’m game if you are!
Sorry WSR team, I would love for someone to take me up on this bet, but so far no takers. Put your money where your mouth is cowards!
UWS Dad,
We have older relatives on the West Side and certainly worried about them.
Of course so many suburban transplants have their older relatives back in the burbs.
Nothing like a group of entitled rich car users grabbing onto the disabled because they couldn’t make their argument any other way. This would obviously make it easier to cross 72nd St, easier to get to a bus or a ride. What it does is encourage slower traffic speeds and encourage healthier transport options.
Please explain how crossong the bidriectional bike lane to stand on a pedestrian island to board a bus is easier than waiting on a sidewalk. Do the same for cab/Uber and Access a Ride and estimate how much traffic will back up waiting for the disbaled to get into or out of these.
Don’t own a car. Strongly oppose this proposal.
Why are you telling me not to own a car? Do you think no one should own cars?
And, while I oppose the proposal, why do you think I should oppose it? Just because you say so?
Just another attempt at keeping cars out of the city 72nd street is one of the busiest east/west roads and is the only way to get E/W for about 30 blocks and your going to jam it up by taking two lanes away…. FOR BIKES. Nope not seeing it The cyclists have and will be fine AS IS .
.
what do you mean? you can go across at 66th, 79th, 86th, and 96th, as well as anywhere below 59th. these are all within 30 blocks.
the more people are involved in micromobility, the easier it is for cars to travel too, because there’s less hunks of metal clogging up everything all the time.
it’s also interesting how upset people are at bikes and buses and not cars when cars are much more dangerous, have lax enforcement, and drivers don’t get any consequences for running people over.
There is no 72nd Street car or bus transverse across central park. The closest transverses are 79th and 66th, or about 6-7 blocks north or south.
However, pedestrians and bikes can cross Central Park at 72nd. This plan normalizes and directs the extensive pedestrian and bike traffic.
I would hope, and like to see, many others join this lawsuit. In fact, I may do so myself, being partially disabled. Would WSR provide contact info for someone involved in it?
A prior comment gave a link to the order setting a hearing on an application for a TRO. https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=P2lMaxPRjhTPJ4fn9if18Q==
According to that order, the counsel for the petitioners is Hartley T. Bernstein of Bernstein & Cherney LLP. Google suggests that his contact is found at https://www.bernsteincherney.com/attorneys
Good luck!
In some places, median islands are accessible, wide bus stops. They are places where one can pause while crossing a broad street.
If the issue is that e-bikes are dangerous, it feels like the solution is to regulate e-bikes, no? Because if they are as dangerous as people claim, if it’s a human rights violation to have bike lanes near the sidewalk because of e-bikes, then that’s true everywhere in the city that there are bike lanes. I’m not saying that the bike lane on 72nd can’t pose issues — it just seems like this is a much bigger issue than the flow of traffic on 72nd St. It’s hard for me to believe the people fighting the bike lane on 72nd would be passionate about disability justice if this were happening anywhere else in the city.
I also live with MS, but when you’ve met one person with MS, you’ve met one person with MS. I wish the city would stop pitting everyone against each other. I’m not opposed to this project, but more so that there is ZERO cycling enforcement. Fix that first before expanding bike lanes.
Are they accepting donations for legal fees? Please let us know!
Good luck and God’s speed to the six plaintiffs.
If only the laws about bicycles and scooters of all kinds were enforced: not going through red lights, not going the wrong way, and not riding on the sidewalk.
WSR readers may wish to contribute to the GoFundMe of the woman who is in a coma after being by a bike in Central Park.
See WSR article with GoFundMe info
This is a terrible, dangerous idea for anyone disabled or elderly. I hope the plaintiffs win.
Having aa two way bike lane would be a big mistake. Bikes do not respect traffic rules and crossing 72nd street would become very dangerous. We need to crackdown on reckless bikes and especially the e-vehicles and there is no enforcement of traffic rules.
What an incredible nightmare. Bikers ignore all traffic laws because there are zero repercussions for doing so, and they continue to ignore laws even with bike lanes. A double-width bike lane would make an already calamitous situation for pedestrians even more dangerous.
out of curiosity, do you have data on how other double width bike lanes existing in the city have fared so far?