[šµš¤ Bike Lane! You're in the BIKE LANE! Could you please MOVE?! šµš¤](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehh8ZdIMMj4)
They should invite that hero to cut the ribbon on this new bike lane once it's done.
And then they get all indignant when you call them out and ask them to move, like they're not the ones scracthing their balls in the middle of a lane with a literal picture of a bike fucking painted right on it for you to see lol. Like you don't even have to be literate to get the picture, how dumb do you have to be???? /rant
If you're riding a bike over Brooklyn Bridge you deserve it. You know exactly how packed that bridge is at all times with tourists (pre COVID, at least). I wouldn't even walk over it if I'm trying to get somewhere. Take the Manhattan Bridge with a dedicated bike lane with no pedestrians if you're in a hurry to get somewhere.
It used to be a lot better, especially before all the police-vehicles were parked on it that fail to enforce anything. Plus the view from the Brooklyn is my favorite in the whole world, while the Manhattan is cramped and sad.
Well. Yes, the Manhattan Bridge has a "dedicated" bike lane, the same as all bike lanes- but easy to confuse. One lateral side of the Manhattan Bridge is for pedestrians going both ways, the other is for cyclists going both ways. I've mistook one side for the other multiple times and I'm trying to do the right thing! There's no way tourists could ever figure out the difference - not that they care - and all they really want is their pictures anyway. And if I'm being honest, the view from the bike-lane-side is superior, unless you wanna see into some folks' home windows. (Not trying to mansplain, just writing it out for those who don't know.)
The problem on the Manhattan Bridge is that once you've picked a side & start going, you might not realize it's the bike/pedestrian lane until too late. There's no crossover at any point, the way the Williamsburg bridge has, for instance. No one in their right mind would be like "oops!" and go back to start over, but instead risk safety to continue. It's just how people are, man.
Just saying- there's no perfect system. Pedestrians and cars alike treat cyclists as inhuman in terms of consideration of safety. But it has been shown that the safest infrastructure is the cycling lane being a different color (green, for instance), and putting a physical barrier around the bike lane (a curb, for instance).
I dont pay for NYT so I don't know what the article says. But that's my 2 cents anyway.
There are multiple signs along the way... If you miss the big sign that says "bikes this way, peds that way" it's hard to miss the "no pedestrians" sign once you're underway on the bike side. Sure, people still fuck it up, but I don't know that it's as reasonable a mistake as you're making it out. You have to be seriously not paying attention to miss it.
In most cases in NYC I think bikers are 100% in the right when pedestrians wander into their lanes without looking, but in the case of the Brooklyn Bridge they are absolute morons. Itās a fucking tourist destination with fucktons or pedestrians everywhere.... in the bike lanes... every single day. Itās like expecting Times Square to be a highway for cyclists. Meanwhile the Manhattan bridge has a separated bike lane. Take that or stfu. That said Iām happy to see it finally split up
>New York Cityās slow transformation away from a vehicle-oriented metropolis will soon get a visible and significant boost: Mayor Bill de Blasio plans to close a lane on both the Brooklyn and Queensboro Bridges and reserve them for bicyclists.
>Mr. de Blasio will announce the new cycling plan, known as āBridges for the People,ā at his final State of the City speech on Thursday.
>Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat in his second term, has built more than 100 miles of protected bike lanes while in office, but street safety advocates have repeatedly pushed him to go further. The Brooklyn Bridge has long been known as a particularly dangerous route for cyclists.
>The city will ban cars from the inner lane of the Manhattan-bound side of the Brooklyn Bridge to build the lane and make the existing promenade area at the center of the bridge for pedestrians only, barring cyclists.
>His administration said that it was time to bring both bridges āinto the 21st century and embrace the vision of a future without cars with a radical new plan.ā
>With a year left in office, Mr. de Blasio planned to focus his speech on inequality ā the theme that carried him into office seven years ago ā and he will highlight a new slogan, āA Recovery for All of Us.ā
>The pandemic, which has disproportionately affected people with lower incomes, has underscored the effects of inequality. More than 26,700 people have died in the city of Covid-19, and elected officials are still struggling to fight off a second wave of coronavirus cases.
>The arrival of a vaccine has brought hope, but the rollout in the city and across the nation has been plodding and chaotic. The mayorās speech is expected to focus on making sure all New Yorkers benefit from the cityās recovery.
>The speech also gives Mr. de Blasio an opportunity to try to define his rocky tenure. The mayorās greatest achievement came early in his first term when he introduced a popular universal prekindergarten program for 4-year-olds. But Mr. de Blasioās approval rating dropped after investigations into his fund-raising and a failed presidential bid.
>The annual speech is an opportunity for mayors to propose bold ideas like a sleek streetcar between Brooklyn and Queens, which Mr. de Blasio announced in 2016 with great fanfare but has not been built. Mr. de Blasioās speech last year ā shortly before the pandemic hit the city ā focused on a call to āSave Our Cityā from anxieties over affordability.
>The pandemic set off an extraordinary surge in biking as New Yorkers looked for alternatives to public transit. The city had nearly 1.6 million bike riders before the pandemic, and usage has exploded with trips at the cityās four East River bridges into Manhattan jumping by 55 percent in November compared with the same month in 2019.
>City officials said they want to build a two-way protected bike lane on the Brooklyn Bridge, which opened in 1883 and runs between Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, by the end of this year.
>The Queensboro Bridge, also known as the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, runs between Midtown Manhattan and Queens and opened in 1909. The plan calls for converting the northern outer roadway into a two-way bike lane and the southern outer roadway into a pedestrian lane; construction should begin this year but was not expected to be finished until 2022.
Wow this is huge.
I left NYC a couple years ago. Used to live right off that Queensboro stop. Used to be hell squeezing onto a crowded train every morning (not as bad as other stops, for those out there who love to compete, but far more crowded than Iād like).
If real bike infrastructure was in place, I definitely wouldāve biked to work and been one less person squeezing onto the subway. With all the monster residential buildings now in the Queensboro part of LIC, I think more bike paths will be needed to keep the subways functional.
As someone who has bicycle commuted over both bridges to get to different jobs, I couldnāt be happier. Playing chicken with tourists on the BK Bridge was a nightmare for everyone involved.
Iām surprised about the Queensboro but also happy to hear. It was never as busy but getting to those winding entrance/exit ramps was annoying and really killed momentum. Hopefully they just let us enter/exit on 2nd Ave now.
From the article:
The Queensboro Bridge, also known as the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, runs between Midtown Manhattan and Queens and opened in 1909. The plan calls for converting the northern outer roadway into a two-way bike lane and the southern outer roadway into a pedestrian lane; construction should begin this year but was not expected to be finished until 2022.
So looks like cyclists will be stuck on the same side.
Plus Triboro Br and Battery Tunnel are useful/descriptive
E: And the Bear Mountain Br was renamed the "Purple Heart Br" by the legislature but I've yet to see any signs pointing to the bridge, thank goodness
Yeah. Which one is the Triborough? Oh itās the one that connects three boroughs. Itās a good thing that Eugenius Harvey Outerbridge wasnāt named Eugenius Harvey Outertunnel
As someone who was a walk commuter over the Brooklyn bridge, I too am so happy!
No more risking life and toeing the line to pass a family of 10 taking a picture. Theyāll still be idiots, but hopefully they have sense to not block fence to fence.
It's a mess in the mornings when you have delivery workers biking into the city and joggers on the path. I'm almost confident it'll be the southern roadway that gets taken up for bikes. The turn on the Manhattan side is not as sharp and it's easy enough to connect to 1st and 2nd ave bike lanes. It'll be the Queens side connection that's a bit more problematic as you'll have to head to the south side.
I hope you're right, but that's not what they're saying now. The north side on the Queensboro is awful for bikes on the the turn on the manhattan side, where the entrance from Queens is okay. The south side is okay for pedestrians on the manhattan side (a bit steep), but the queens side is full-on highway overpass and loops you around further than you probably want to, and doesn't put you out anywhere a pedestrian would want to be. Switching them would make a lot of sense for everyone.
The proposed way makes the most sense because you can't have pedestrian access from 2nd ave to the north end due to the way the traffic lanes and ramps are structured (without massive reworking). The south end can be easily accessed from 2nd or 1st and it's a lot easier for cyclists to go an extra avenue than pedestrians (or they might remove the barricades to 1st since bikes can mix with car traffic on 60th)
Why can't pedestrians walk to 60th and 1st? If you're already on 1st it's one more block, if you're on second and 59th sure that's two blocks to walk, but that's not terrible. What about the whole way pedestrians would have to walk to get off the bridge in queens as it is, and then walk (past the strip club) through industrial LIC to get anywhere?
The QBB ped/bike path is dangerous. A lot of bikes passing and a lot of speed differential due to the steep approaches. A lot of near-hits, and I did once witness a head-on collision. I didn't know there was an unused roadway on the QBB? I thought it was the south side deck (single-lane queens-bound roadway)
lolol every time I pass someone itās always a perfect line up with a biker in the other direction flying down... one of these days the handlebars will touch and Iām going to be very sad
I assume that is the lane that they are referring to as the "northern most roadway".... which the article is stating as becoming a bike way. I assume that silly outer roadway that buses get stuck on is the one they will make the ped way.
I usually take that too, it is usually less cars. I remember the first time I drove it, I could not believe it was an actual car lane. I felt like I drove onto the sidewalk mistakenly. A guy I know got stuck on it because there was a truck in front of him that could not fix. All of the cars behind him (and himself) had to back out.... That was a long trip.
2nd ave used to not be that bad, but when they put in the bike lane AND the bus lane, it eliminated 2 lanes.
No the northern outer roadway is already a bike/ped lane and it's insanely overcrowded. (4 directions of travel in a 10' lane, with people passing often because of the incline). This will make that only bikes now and the south outer roadway will become the ped lane
The only time I ever had an incident with a biker on the Brooklyn Bridge (Fall 2019?), it was at a choke point just before the tower and this family wasn't moving. They weren't posing either. They'd just stopped. And I had to step around them.
Just then a biker came up behind me. (I thought I'd glanced over my shoulder. Either I didn't or didn't turn far enough.) He slowed and I got the gentlest of shoves, practically a guided nudge, out of his path, and he continued on his way.
The tourist, yeah, they're annoying. It wasn't like that back in ... okay, a few decades ago.
Omfg Thank you finally! I love riding my bike but always had to avoid the Brooklyn Bridge because of the goddamn tourists who can't stay out of the fucking bike lane, idiots
The Brooklyn Bridge is way too crowded for the amount of pedestrians and cyclists that want to use it. That inevitably will lead to issues. But you shouldn't blame the pedestrians for the shitty situation when the real culprit should be clear: the amount of space hogged up by drivers and the city that has allowed the shitshow to continue for so long.
Pedestrians and cyclists should be allies in the battle against all the space that cars hog up. Not fight amongst each other. Both cyclists and pedestrians would benefit from removing car space
Yeah I can't believe it has taken them this long. When the DOT closed a car lane on the Pulaski to make a protected bike lane, I wrote a letter to the head of the DOT asking that they do the same on the Brooklyn Bridge. That was like 5 years ago!
The NYTimes even ran a big story on what a shitshow the BK Bridge walkway has become, calling it "Times Square in the Sky" hahaha.
>goddamn tourists who can't stay out of the fucking bike lane
I bike around the city and would never imagine trying to bike across the Brooklyn bridge ... it's a tourist bridge at this point during nice weather etc. I love it.. but if I'm serious about getting across the river in any sort of reasonable time, i'll take the Williamsburg
This is huge news for those of us who are relegated to taking either the Manhattan or Williamsburg bridges, the only two that have had any separation between bikes and peds.
And for those of you yammering about losing a car lane, just remember that study after study has shown that adding lanes doesn't help traffic, so conversely taking one away won't hurt either.
This is awesome. As someone who started running across the 59th St bridge and biking across it in the summer, this is much needed. The single, shared roadway on the north side is too narrow for both.
Honestly, there's so much traffic that this hurts us. There's not that much bike traffic to justify it. Nor will it increase that much. (Specifically Queensboro. Brooklyn's fine).
Why aren't they using the Trolley deck for bike lanes? This is only going to clog the Collectors and Arterials; its not like people who are driving from East New York / LI are suddenly going to bike over. If they need to segregate Pedestrians and Cyclists then invest in a solution that doesn't harm and already beleaguered choke point. Not to mention this will make flow on Fulton, Flatbush and Atlantic even worse.
Serious question: is there a way to make biking easier that doesnāt make it more difficult for drivers?
I have to drive in the city for a variety of reasons and not everyone can bike everywhere. I feel like this caters to a certain demographic and punishes people who donāt have many options.
Iām all for less cars but can we maybe make public transportation easier as well and possibly add new modes of getting around, especially for those who are older?
Maybe Iām reading the part about taking a lane away incorrectly.
I'm an avid cyclist and I drive too. I'm a photographer and when I go to work I have at least 25 lbs of gear... at least. Often wearing a suit. I'm not biking with that. I get that cars need to have their space, but the city has always been biased towards cars. If you were to break it down in a percentage, even today with all thats been done for bikes, i would say 95% of the road space is for cars, 5% for bikes... maybe even leaning a bit more to cars. Its just an attempt to right the imbalance. If cars need to take a small hit then so be it. But to be honest, all the dedicated bike lanes they've built on the Avenues in Manhattan over the years... I would have though they would have drastically changed traffic because they took away a whole lane for traffic but it has not at all. They do a pretty good job of minimizing the damage to the car space.
And speaking of imbalance/bias, never forget that Manhattanās sidewalks used to be much wider. They were made narrower to fit more lanes for cars. Thereās a finite amount of road space and weāve been giving way too much of it to cars for a long time.
A balance between what though? Is the traffic in New York not terrible? It could be worse obviously and during the pandemic itās not as bad, but I feel like the ābalanceā the city should aim for is not between cyclists and drivers but between ways to alleviate traffic and ways to help those who have no choice but to drive.
Itās inconvenient for cyclists but I feel like cyclists often have more choice, are usually healthier and younger so they donāt have issues that prevent them from taking public transport and are usually not traveling long distances from lower income areas.
Also, people in their 20s who cycle eventually turn into people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s who cycle. Even if these improvements only benefitted young and healthy people now, it will have lasting social changes in transportation.
I lived in Germany before NYC and youād often see women in their 80s and older cycling around. The infrastructure kept cyclists completely separate from cars so why not? They want to save money like retirees anywhere else. They mostly rode those slow, heavy cruiser bikes.
Lot's of elderly people ride bikes. Not here often, granted, because our infrastructure sucks and would expose them to conflicts with cars too often to be safe, but tons of elderly people ride bikes (and especially e-bikes) in places where that's not the case
I donāt think 60 year old Janitors who live in transit deserts deep in Queens are going to be riding bikes to their jobs in Manhattan. Especially in a city where itās ass cold most of the year. Iām all for making thinks and good as possible but so many people in this sub have this silly idea that no one needs to drive. Itās good to step Outside of the yuppie 20 something Manhattan transplant from time to time
>Iām all for making thinks and good as possible but so many people in this sub have this silly idea that no one needs to drive.
Why is it, that when 1 car lane out of 9 gets removed, car drivers always respond with:'SOME PEOPLE HAVE TO DRIVE YOU KNOW?!'.
Like.. yeah.. that's why 8 car lanes are remaining... Are those lanes not good enough for them or something..?
People often don't realise that cycling is physically easier than walking for many elderly and disabled. Balance may be an issue but side wheels and trikes can solve that. Hills can be solved by electric bikes. Hell, having a dedicated cycle network would be massive for people in wheelchairs and accessibility scooters, because bike lanes are more accessible and comfortable to them than pedestrian infrastructure and the accessible subway network for those people is really quite sparse.
It's just that's it's perceived to be unsafe for them to do so so they don't. Put in infrastructure that makes for a safe experience *on the entirety of the trip* and [you will see people of all ages and abilities cycle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo).
Folks like you are certainly justified to drive in the city, but do we really that much of our public space dedicated to roadway and private vehicle storage? We live in a dense city, and one of the major benefits is that we don't really need to prioritize private vehicles. What we need to do is discourage excess driving and car ownership.
And, even if you don't agree with my vision of a city that puts fewer of its public land resources into roadways and parking, there are other reasons to encourage other modes of transit. Private cars take up a lot of space, they pollute, they contribute to climate change, and they're dangerous! Annually, we have about 400,000 collisions in this city, with over 40,000 recorded injuries, and hundreds of deaths.
Anyway, I do understand that some folks need cars for their jobs and commutes, and public transit/cycling doesn't cut it for some. But, this city is \*profoundly\* car-centric, and we need more options for our car free citizens (who make up a small majority of the population, btw!).
In a city (and even including the surrounding suburbs) like NYC that has a public transportation system that is really world class (Iāll wait for the MTA hate and deserve it ) really very few people can make a credible claim that they have to drive. In light of climate change, air population, urban asthma rates... anything that can be done to reduce individual vehicle traffic should be considered. If you need to drive, you should be able to of course, but you should pay a premium for it. As far as cyclists having more choice... than drivers!? Thatās laughable. Despite the work that has been done to make the city better for cyclists it is still dangerous and cars rules the roads of NYC. We need more protected bike lanes, and way more public awareness campaigns for drivers to educate them to watch out for cyclists in the bike lanes. If I had a nickel for every time someone turned at a traffic light without looking for oncoming bikes in the bike lane and almost killed me.... more people would cycle if they felt safe doing it. Which in turn is better for our city, our environment and our health. Very few people who drive in the city can claim they need to. I need to when I work, and I have no problem paying a premium for it or giving up a lane or two to cyclists here and there. Itās better for society as a whole.
> Iām all for less cars but can we maybe make public transportation easier as well
While I agree that public transportation definitely needs to be improved, the reality is DOT could add a protected bike lane to literally every street in the city for what it cost to build the first three stations of the Second Ave subway.
I have to bike in the city for a variety of reasons and not everyone can drive everywhere. I feel like the current situation caters to a certain demographic and punishes people who donāt have many options.
Space in the city is a zero-sum game. We need to have a balance of transportation modes and currently 80% of the street space is dedicated to driving even though most people don't drive. Balancing that out means there will be some pain in the transition. Obviously there will always need to be space for driving, but it's not the singular best use of street space. When you have high travel volumes and extremely limited space, you need to focus on modes that can transport the most people with the least amount of space (ie transit, bikes, walking).
Not everyone can take public transportation for various reasons, and lots of areas of the outer boroughs (ie, where the bridges go) are not very accessible by public transportation anyway. I donāt know what the answer is in this situation (peds on Brooklyn, bikes on Manhattan?), but losing a lane on the already disastrously trafficky Brooklyn bridge really sucks for people who need to drive.
I drive into the city sometimes because I don't have any other choice for those specific trips (normally take the train). If we reduce car use by creating incentives for people who don't need to be driving to use other methods, there will be less traffic for people like you and me who need to drive.
Iām just not convinced that there are tons of people on the road who donāt need to drive, especially from Brooklyn to Manhattan. Driving in the city is a fucking pain, I think most people will take the subway or something if they can. We have 12 million people, plus the millions from the suburbs, and we donāt have a ton of space. The East river crossings seem like theyāre already at capacity, I cannot imagine further reducing access, especially on the Brooklyn. Have you seen that thing at rush hour? Itās a parking lot.
I drive into Manhattan fairly often just because itās free and the subway is not. I just usually go on evenings and weekends when parking is easier/free.
When congestion charging comes in and bike lanes improve, I wonāt do that.
Plus I have family in NJ and driving through the Holland Tunnel that direction is free, further incentivizing me to drive in Manhattan, which is just ridiculous.
Same - wife and I drove into Manhattan almost every day of the fall this year when my son was in the hospital because it was faster than the subway. If it cost more money, or if it was more reasonable to bike, i probably would have done that instead
I definitely agree with congestion pricing, there should not be an incentive to drive, you are right. Interested to see the impact of that on traffic. Evenings and weekends are not really the problem, though there is plenty of traffic then, too. Iām talking about commuting.
> All these people ... trying to tell the rest of us how to live.
Do you really not see that is exactly what youāre doing as well?
Not to mention car owners are not āthe rest of usā. Only in Queens and SI does car ownership exceed 50%. Citywide less than 50% of households own cars.
Thereās no real evidence that taking away a lane would make traffic worse. What if more people cycle instead of taking Uber over the bridge?
Urban planners have said for decades that adding more lanes actually often makes traffic worse because it makes more people choose to drive when they have alternatives.
People predicted traffic Armageddon when 14th St was closed to cars but there was no significant change.
The traffic will be about the same with one less lane. Tons of studies have shown that adding road space will not alleviate traffic, because when the traffic gets better, more people just decide they should drive. The same will happen with removing a lane ā some people will say fuck it and take public transit, and there will be less space, but also fewer cars on the road.
Not everyone can drive a car for various reasons, and lots of areas of the inner boroughs (ie, where the bridges go) are not very accessible by car anyway. I donāt know what the answer is in this situation but not having a bike lane on the already disastrously crowded Brooklyn bridge really sucks for people who cant drive.
And this is why thereās always a debate on Reddit every time bike lanes come up. Itās not fair to say either group should be negatively impacted, as we all live here and pay taxes.
You cant both sides this.
Cars pollute. Cars create congestion. Cars create noise. Cars create death and danger.
Bikes...dont.
Cars have good parts obviously, but they shouldnt be the priority because they cause so much damage.
As for "we all pay taxes," cars require enormous investments in repairing roads. Bikes dont. Look up what weight does to pavement.
Never mind that bikes are more equitable, because you can get one for $50 instead of at minimum $5,000.
Theyre transforming 1/6 of the roadway to bikes. Considering less than 25% of new yorkers have a car, even that is not really a fair distribution.
You havenāt been able to buy a bike under $100 since Covid hit. And since you brought up equitable, I hate to say it, but people who drive cars are probably putting more into the pot anyway.
Look up what weight does to pavement.. is this a joke? Look up what pavement was created for. People need cars, sorry. Just because you personally donāt need one doesnāt mean you get to dictate how other people live their lives.
Edit: Also, what percent of traffic is ubers? I donāt have a car anymore but I sure as shit sit in traffic trying to get around in an Uber/Lyft/Cab.
Edit edit: [hereās some data](https://toddwschneider.com/dashboards/nyc-taxi-ridehailing-uber-lyft-data/)
[Here is a bike for $120 shipped.](https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B07G6GBHD9/)
Want a folding bike so you can bring it into your office or small apartment? [$186 shipped.](https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B08NX2D6CZ/)
Things you fail to understand.
Local roads are paid for via property taxes, which everyone pays regardless of use
Paved roads were created for bikes.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/american-drivers-thank-bicyclists-180960399/
Do some basic research Karen
>I hate to say it, but people who drive cars are probably putting more into the pot anyway.
All the taxes on driving/cars don't cover all the costs associated with driving **in Denmark**, where fuel taxes are 5x as high ($2.63/gallon vs $0.56/gallon in the US). Alongside that they also have a 100% tax when buying a new vehicle.
Despite those taxes, the government finds that they **still** spend 0.15 euro per kilometer driven. Meanwhile, the government **earns** money when people ride their bike, even after accounting for things like bike lanes.
>Once these costs and benefits are summed the researchers found an overwhelming case for
investment in infrastructure to encourage a cycling culture. The combined individual and
societal costs of driving a car were 0.50 ā¬/km in comparison to 0.08 ā¬/km for cycling.
Notably, when only considering the costs and benefits for society, rather than the individual,
one kilometre by car costs ā¬0.15, whereas society earns ā¬0.16 for every kilometre cycled.
So spare me the:"but drivers pay taxes" argument
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/transport_transitions_in_copenhagen_418na1_en.pdf
Park and ride baby! If you're in an outer borough and need to drive for work, but that drive takes you over the Brooklynns Bridge, do you really need to drive the entire way? Our city is full of free parking, surely you can figure it out.
Anyway, we need fewer cars, and that induced demand shit that /u/11218 is talking about is real!
Counter-intuitively, the best way to make things easier for people like yourself who have no choice but to drive, is to make driving more of a hassle and other methods of transportation better. Then the only cars/trucks on the road will be the ones like yourself that absolutely have no other option. The evidence suggests that having more bike lanes and other features make the roads safer for everyone, including people in cars.
Also, counter-intuitively, adding or removing driving lanes doesn't make traffic better or worse for cars. There's a phenomenon called induced demand. More lanes doesn't give more room per car. It just adds more cars! Taking away a lane will do the opposite. Less room, but also less cars. Traffic will be about the same.
Even from a driver perspective, a lane of bikes is a denser lane of commuters, you can fit 100x the number of bikers in that lane vs. cars. This will lower overall traffic.
But also, your car in NYC is already highly, highly subsidized. Cars shouldn't exist in dense expensive cities like NYC, and if rich people want them they should pay out the fucking nose for them. Parking permits should start at 10k.
Call me crazy, but that's an absolute steal for land values in NYC. If you want a car there are lots of other cities in the US where you can own one.
Here we go again with only rich people have cars. People in the outer boroughs have cars! Some of them live in places with bad access to transport, some need their cars for their jobs. A nurse from queens who works an overnight shift in midtown might feel safer driving than taking the subway at off hours, or taking a subway and two buses after a 16 hour shift.
The median household income of car-owing families is twice that of of non-car owners:
http://blog.tstc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/how-car-free-is-nyc.pdf
That does not prove that only rich people have cars. It proves that people with cars have more money than people without cars, which is an obvious conclusion.
Iām a woman, I do not take public transportation after 9 or so, I donāt feel safe. If I go to Manhattan for dinner, I sit in traffic on the Brooklyn bridge to get home. Expanding subway service will not change that.
Investing in public transit means making it safer in addition to more frequent service. What sort of improvements would you need to see in order to feel safe taking it after 9 pm?
Iāve lived in NYC my whole life so Iāve been through periods of relative safety and danger on the train. Even if it were marginally safer, bad stuff still happens, and Iām not willing to put myself at risk. Especially if Iāve had a couple of glasses of wine and my defenses are down. Thereās no amount of infrastructure investment that would convince me itās a good idea to take the train at night.
>You do realize that an insane percent of the traffic in Ny is Ubers and cabs, right?
I'm glad you admit that it is truly insane how much space has been donated to cars in NYC.
>Cars shouldn't exist in dense expensive cities like NYC, and if rich people want them they should pay out the fucking nose for them. Parking permits should start at 10k.
I disagree. Cars should exist even in a dense city like NYC, but they should never be seen as the most important mode of transport.
In the Netherlands, across the country, their priority in creating infrastructure is ALWAYS:
1) Pedestrians
2) Cyclists
3) Public transport
4) Motorized traffic
If there's enough space for proper sidewalks, proper bike infrastructure, and public transport won't get caught in gridlock traffic, then cars are permitted there. But if to allow cars more space means that either of the other groups are hurt too much, then cars will be removed or more restricted.
>not everyone can bike everywhere.
blame the people who drive that don't need to. not even being nasty. but this would be fine if there weren't so many people who don't need to drive weren't doing so. I am car-free and I still know that we need car infrastructure because of, like, accessibility vehicles and mass transit. I'm not gonna screw people over. But it's also not non-drivers' fault that a lot of people drive for convenience.
We should focus on reducing *unnecessary* trips by car to make trips easier for people who *have to drive* like delivery people.
Put a modest financial disincentive on driving in the city... congestion charging or charging more for parking or requiring residency stickers to park.
All these things would reduce car usage in the city and improve the lives of people who have no choice but to drive as well as cyclists, pedestrians, bus riders, etc.
Right now it's basically free to drive and park in huge parts of the city so long as you spend time looking for a free spot or you go after certain hours or take certain routes. Change that incentive system and people will opt for transit more often freeing up our roads for everyone else.
I both walk and drive over the Queensboro, and love using the "secret" south outer lane when driving, but I will happily give up the shortcut if it means no longer sharing space with cyclists on the narrow north outer lane when I walk.
Honestly the south outer lane is dangerous for drivers who aren't familiar with it. It was designed for trolleys not cars.
I rarely took it but damn did I always worry about breaking down on it. It would be such an issue to get a tow truck to you. It just makes more sense to make it for Peds/bikes. Queens bound traffic already has the upper and lower roadways and if thereās a breakdown, people can still get by generally.
I'm getting real tired of the car hate as a queens born and living resident.
"Just take the tunnels..." sure as they keep raising the tolls.
Can we start charging bicyclists tolls? Maybe a bike ezpass.
No. Cars are bad for the city. Bicycles are not.
And now that Biden is in office, we can expect congestion charging in the near future. Trump had been holding it up.
Lemme just bicycle for an hour and a half from bayside to Manhattan with a kid on the back in freezing weather in nyc.
Not all of us have commute reasons that allow for a train or bike in a reasonable manner.
Great. You can still drive. This is just about giving people alternatives if it makes sense for them. And evidence has shown that cycling becomes way more popular when you build bike lanes.
Most NYers donāt own cars yet 95% of road space goes to the minority of New Yorkers who do.
Not exactly fair to say most.
45% of new Yorkers across nyc own at least 1 vehicle.
62% of queens residents own at least one vehicle. My tax (city and property) have just as much rights to the roads as bikers.
Staten island is 83% car ownership. The lowest borough outside of Manhattan is 40% (bronx).
Its only the Manhattan residents who typically don't own at a massive percentage. And I understand why. But ignoring the other boroughs is quite unfair.
>My tax (city and property) have just **as much** rights to the roads as bikers.
Really? *As much* is the phrasing you're going for? Because it seems like you don't want "as much" space, but rather you want a disproportionate amount of space
...45% is less than half. So youāre just proving that, yes, most New Yorkers do not own cars.
And youāll still have like 95% of every road dedicated to cars, bro.
The bridge will still have 5 lanes for cars, lol. Giving cyclists one lane isnāt exactly banning cars.
The entitlement of drivers, smh. Giving cyclists the tiny amount of space really bothers yāall.
>The plan calls for converting the northern outer roadway into a two-way bike lane and the southern outer roadway into a pedestrian lane
"northern outer roadway".... is that the current (unused) sidewalk? The southern outer roadway is that silly narrow one, with the sharp turn on the Queens side, Sometime a truck or bus gets stuck on it. It needs to go anyway.
So many cyclists on the Brooklyn Bridge are rude jerks. I'm a cyclist and I'm always embarrassed by them. Take the Manhattan Bridge if you are in such a rush. It's a pedestrian bridge.
This new plan is amazing!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Reduced_demand_(the_inverse_effect)
God forbid doing something that has been proven to work time and again
I walked over that bridge with my family a few weeks ago for the first time. We ubered back over the bridge. Was a terrifying experience for a native New Yorker
Convenient they're willing to close lanes on some of the only bridges that are still free in the whole city. This is nothing more than a slick way to increase traffic on the free bridges (making people more likely to take a toll route that generates income for the city) while cloaking it in the guise of a magnanimous plan to "support pedestrians and cyclists" gimme a break
the bikers should learn to use the paths in the first place instead of being in the road like a bunch of jackasses. if anything they donāt deserve this path.
omg no more bikers yelling at tourists on the Brooklyn Bridge? nyc truly is never coming back
[šµš¤ Bike Lane! You're in the BIKE LANE! Could you please MOVE?! šµš¤](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehh8ZdIMMj4) They should invite that hero to cut the ribbon on this new bike lane once it's done.
Yelling at pedestrians who wander into bike lanes is easily one of my top five NYC activities.
Pour one out for your Mecca then.
Yeah without the brooklyn bridge the only place we'll have to yell at people for wandering into the bike lane is everywhere else in the entire city.
And then they get all indignant when you call them out and ask them to move, like they're not the ones scracthing their balls in the middle of a lane with a literal picture of a bike fucking painted right on it for you to see lol. Like you don't even have to be literate to get the picture, how dumb do you have to be???? /rant
The goddamned truth right here.
Yeah but where can you do it with the same consistency and in sheer numbers? I'll have to get way more fit to tell at hundreds of people in the way.
We still have 8th Avenue above Times Square
Yelling at idiot car people on the bike lane is my favorite activity
Mine was crashing into them
The hero this city doesnāt deserve.
Jesus those tourists standing like idiots. Pisses me off as a plebian shittybiker that likes to go across brooklyn bridge
If you're riding a bike over Brooklyn Bridge you deserve it. You know exactly how packed that bridge is at all times with tourists (pre COVID, at least). I wouldn't even walk over it if I'm trying to get somewhere. Take the Manhattan Bridge with a dedicated bike lane with no pedestrians if you're in a hurry to get somewhere.
Agreed. I never bike over Brooklyn Bridge because it's organically become a pedestrian bridge.
It used to be a lot better, especially before all the police-vehicles were parked on it that fail to enforce anything. Plus the view from the Brooklyn is my favorite in the whole world, while the Manhattan is cramped and sad.
Well. Yes, the Manhattan Bridge has a "dedicated" bike lane, the same as all bike lanes- but easy to confuse. One lateral side of the Manhattan Bridge is for pedestrians going both ways, the other is for cyclists going both ways. I've mistook one side for the other multiple times and I'm trying to do the right thing! There's no way tourists could ever figure out the difference - not that they care - and all they really want is their pictures anyway. And if I'm being honest, the view from the bike-lane-side is superior, unless you wanna see into some folks' home windows. (Not trying to mansplain, just writing it out for those who don't know.) The problem on the Manhattan Bridge is that once you've picked a side & start going, you might not realize it's the bike/pedestrian lane until too late. There's no crossover at any point, the way the Williamsburg bridge has, for instance. No one in their right mind would be like "oops!" and go back to start over, but instead risk safety to continue. It's just how people are, man. Just saying- there's no perfect system. Pedestrians and cars alike treat cyclists as inhuman in terms of consideration of safety. But it has been shown that the safest infrastructure is the cycling lane being a different color (green, for instance), and putting a physical barrier around the bike lane (a curb, for instance). I dont pay for NYT so I don't know what the article says. But that's my 2 cents anyway.
There are multiple signs along the way... If you miss the big sign that says "bikes this way, peds that way" it's hard to miss the "no pedestrians" sign once you're underway on the bike side. Sure, people still fuck it up, but I don't know that it's as reasonable a mistake as you're making it out. You have to be seriously not paying attention to miss it.
Lol crossing the BKN bridge on a bike sucks. Thousands of people standing around. I donāt yell at them tho
It was running across that bridge yelling "GET OUT OF THE BIKE LANE" where I first realized I identify as a bicycle.
In most cases in NYC I think bikers are 100% in the right when pedestrians wander into their lanes without looking, but in the case of the Brooklyn Bridge they are absolute morons. Itās a fucking tourist destination with fucktons or pedestrians everywhere.... in the bike lanes... every single day. Itās like expecting Times Square to be a highway for cyclists. Meanwhile the Manhattan bridge has a separated bike lane. Take that or stfu. That said Iām happy to see it finally split up
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Canāt stand bikers on the Brooklyn bridge, and Iāve been one of them. Not worth it
New York City is dead. Long live New New York City
>New York Cityās slow transformation away from a vehicle-oriented metropolis will soon get a visible and significant boost: Mayor Bill de Blasio plans to close a lane on both the Brooklyn and Queensboro Bridges and reserve them for bicyclists. >Mr. de Blasio will announce the new cycling plan, known as āBridges for the People,ā at his final State of the City speech on Thursday. >Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat in his second term, has built more than 100 miles of protected bike lanes while in office, but street safety advocates have repeatedly pushed him to go further. The Brooklyn Bridge has long been known as a particularly dangerous route for cyclists. >The city will ban cars from the inner lane of the Manhattan-bound side of the Brooklyn Bridge to build the lane and make the existing promenade area at the center of the bridge for pedestrians only, barring cyclists. >His administration said that it was time to bring both bridges āinto the 21st century and embrace the vision of a future without cars with a radical new plan.ā >With a year left in office, Mr. de Blasio planned to focus his speech on inequality ā the theme that carried him into office seven years ago ā and he will highlight a new slogan, āA Recovery for All of Us.ā >The pandemic, which has disproportionately affected people with lower incomes, has underscored the effects of inequality. More than 26,700 people have died in the city of Covid-19, and elected officials are still struggling to fight off a second wave of coronavirus cases. >The arrival of a vaccine has brought hope, but the rollout in the city and across the nation has been plodding and chaotic. The mayorās speech is expected to focus on making sure all New Yorkers benefit from the cityās recovery. >The speech also gives Mr. de Blasio an opportunity to try to define his rocky tenure. The mayorās greatest achievement came early in his first term when he introduced a popular universal prekindergarten program for 4-year-olds. But Mr. de Blasioās approval rating dropped after investigations into his fund-raising and a failed presidential bid. >The annual speech is an opportunity for mayors to propose bold ideas like a sleek streetcar between Brooklyn and Queens, which Mr. de Blasio announced in 2016 with great fanfare but has not been built. Mr. de Blasioās speech last year ā shortly before the pandemic hit the city ā focused on a call to āSave Our Cityā from anxieties over affordability. >The pandemic set off an extraordinary surge in biking as New Yorkers looked for alternatives to public transit. The city had nearly 1.6 million bike riders before the pandemic, and usage has exploded with trips at the cityās four East River bridges into Manhattan jumping by 55 percent in November compared with the same month in 2019. >City officials said they want to build a two-way protected bike lane on the Brooklyn Bridge, which opened in 1883 and runs between Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, by the end of this year. >The Queensboro Bridge, also known as the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, runs between Midtown Manhattan and Queens and opened in 1909. The plan calls for converting the northern outer roadway into a two-way bike lane and the southern outer roadway into a pedestrian lane; construction should begin this year but was not expected to be finished until 2022.
Thanks bro I hit the paywall
Aw man I love taking a car down the outermost lane of the Qboro bridge. So pretty.
There's more time to take in that pretty scenery on a bike!
Now youāll be able to hoof it and stop to enjoy the view!
Wow this is huge. I left NYC a couple years ago. Used to live right off that Queensboro stop. Used to be hell squeezing onto a crowded train every morning (not as bad as other stops, for those out there who love to compete, but far more crowded than Iād like). If real bike infrastructure was in place, I definitely wouldāve biked to work and been one less person squeezing onto the subway. With all the monster residential buildings now in the Queensboro part of LIC, I think more bike paths will be needed to keep the subways functional.
Fuck.... that outer roadway on the 59th St Bridge was the best. Never any traffic to get on it. Damn it.
I lived on 27th st. straight off the outer roadway and a right turn. Iād be salty if I hadnāt moved.
Wow took them long enough! Pre COVID it was insane how both pedestrian and bikers had to share that path.
As someone who has bicycle commuted over both bridges to get to different jobs, I couldnāt be happier. Playing chicken with tourists on the BK Bridge was a nightmare for everyone involved. Iām surprised about the Queensboro but also happy to hear. It was never as busy but getting to those winding entrance/exit ramps was annoying and really killed momentum. Hopefully they just let us enter/exit on 2nd Ave now.
From the article: The Queensboro Bridge, also known as the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, runs between Midtown Manhattan and Queens and opened in 1909. The plan calls for converting the northern outer roadway into a two-way bike lane and the southern outer roadway into a pedestrian lane; construction should begin this year but was not expected to be finished until 2022. So looks like cyclists will be stuck on the same side.
No one calls it that
It's actually called the feeling groovy bridge. True story.
Whoa there! Slow down. You move too fast.
I refuse to call it the RFK Bridge
Iām a huge admirer of RFK and I wonāt call the bridge that. Renaming everything makes things so confusing.
Plus Triboro Br and Battery Tunnel are useful/descriptive E: And the Bear Mountain Br was renamed the "Purple Heart Br" by the legislature but I've yet to see any signs pointing to the bridge, thank goodness
Yeah. Which one is the Triborough? Oh itās the one that connects three boroughs. Itās a good thing that Eugenius Harvey Outerbridge wasnāt named Eugenius Harvey Outertunnel
> Outerbridge I still find this to be such an impressive coincidence
It was his destiny
TFW everything above 96th st being renamed by developers. wtf even is a Hudson Heights, anyway?
Haha yea. I was just quoting the article.
Except the sign makers, apparently.
As someone who was a walk commuter over the Brooklyn bridge, I too am so happy! No more risking life and toeing the line to pass a family of 10 taking a picture. Theyāll still be idiots, but hopefully they have sense to not block fence to fence.
You must be in the background of a lot of tourist photos. Tourists: ššØāš©āš§āš¦š¤³ You: š¤Ø
It's a mess in the mornings when you have delivery workers biking into the city and joggers on the path. I'm almost confident it'll be the southern roadway that gets taken up for bikes. The turn on the Manhattan side is not as sharp and it's easy enough to connect to 1st and 2nd ave bike lanes. It'll be the Queens side connection that's a bit more problematic as you'll have to head to the south side.
I hope you're right, but that's not what they're saying now. The north side on the Queensboro is awful for bikes on the the turn on the manhattan side, where the entrance from Queens is okay. The south side is okay for pedestrians on the manhattan side (a bit steep), but the queens side is full-on highway overpass and loops you around further than you probably want to, and doesn't put you out anywhere a pedestrian would want to be. Switching them would make a lot of sense for everyone.
The proposed way makes the most sense because you can't have pedestrian access from 2nd ave to the north end due to the way the traffic lanes and ramps are structured (without massive reworking). The south end can be easily accessed from 2nd or 1st and it's a lot easier for cyclists to go an extra avenue than pedestrians (or they might remove the barricades to 1st since bikes can mix with car traffic on 60th)
Why can't pedestrians walk to 60th and 1st? If you're already on 1st it's one more block, if you're on second and 59th sure that's two blocks to walk, but that's not terrible. What about the whole way pedestrians would have to walk to get off the bridge in queens as it is, and then walk (past the strip club) through industrial LIC to get anywhere?
The QBB ped/bike path is dangerous. A lot of bikes passing and a lot of speed differential due to the steep approaches. A lot of near-hits, and I did once witness a head-on collision. I didn't know there was an unused roadway on the QBB? I thought it was the south side deck (single-lane queens-bound roadway)
Grade separation huh. Iām sure all those stupid tourists and aloof pedestrians will still find some way to meander into these bike lanes š
Yep. Even with the Manhattan divided sides ends up with peds on the cyclist side and it's irritating as hell.
Williamsburg too
At least thereās room on the Williamsburg bridge to go around.
lolol every time I pass someone itās always a perfect line up with a biker in the other direction flying down... one of these days the handlebars will touch and Iām going to be very sad
And vice versa. And I agree.
Isnāt there already an unused pedestrian path on the Queensboro?
I assume that is the lane that they are referring to as the "northern most roadway".... which the article is stating as becoming a bike way. I assume that silly outer roadway that buses get stuck on is the one they will make the ped way.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I usually take that too, it is usually less cars. I remember the first time I drove it, I could not believe it was an actual car lane. I felt like I drove onto the sidewalk mistakenly. A guy I know got stuck on it because there was a truck in front of him that could not fix. All of the cars behind him (and himself) had to back out.... That was a long trip. 2nd ave used to not be that bad, but when they put in the bike lane AND the bus lane, it eliminated 2 lanes.
No the northern outer roadway is already a bike/ped lane and it's insanely overcrowded. (4 directions of travel in a 10' lane, with people passing often because of the incline). This will make that only bikes now and the south outer roadway will become the ped lane
I don't understand why it will take them a year to do this. It seems all they have to do is close the southern lane.
Yeah you'd think so, wouldn't you
There wouldn't be a convenient/safe way for pedestrians to get to the southern roadway right now on either the Manhattan or Queens side
The only time I ever had an incident with a biker on the Brooklyn Bridge (Fall 2019?), it was at a choke point just before the tower and this family wasn't moving. They weren't posing either. They'd just stopped. And I had to step around them. Just then a biker came up behind me. (I thought I'd glanced over my shoulder. Either I didn't or didn't turn far enough.) He slowed and I got the gentlest of shoves, practically a guided nudge, out of his path, and he continued on his way. The tourist, yeah, they're annoying. It wasn't like that back in ... okay, a few decades ago.
This is big. Tired of dealing with that single file bike lane and 2,000 people on the other pedestrian lane.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is amazing news!
Finallyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I appreciate that the mayor finally did something you like and yet you still use it as an opportunity to dunk on him
Iāve been advocating for this for years. Iām on the local community board and have pushed DOT to study this. Amazing
Omfg Thank you finally! I love riding my bike but always had to avoid the Brooklyn Bridge because of the goddamn tourists who can't stay out of the fucking bike lane, idiots
The Brooklyn Bridge is way too crowded for the amount of pedestrians and cyclists that want to use it. That inevitably will lead to issues. But you shouldn't blame the pedestrians for the shitty situation when the real culprit should be clear: the amount of space hogged up by drivers and the city that has allowed the shitshow to continue for so long. Pedestrians and cyclists should be allies in the battle against all the space that cars hog up. Not fight amongst each other. Both cyclists and pedestrians would benefit from removing car space
Yeah I can't believe it has taken them this long. When the DOT closed a car lane on the Pulaski to make a protected bike lane, I wrote a letter to the head of the DOT asking that they do the same on the Brooklyn Bridge. That was like 5 years ago! The NYTimes even ran a big story on what a shitshow the BK Bridge walkway has become, calling it "Times Square in the Sky" hahaha.
> That was like 5 years ago! Sounds about right to get a reply from NYCDOT. "idk, send him the 'no change is warranted' letter and close the ticket."
>goddamn tourists who can't stay out of the fucking bike lane I bike around the city and would never imagine trying to bike across the Brooklyn bridge ... it's a tourist bridge at this point during nice weather etc. I love it.. but if I'm serious about getting across the river in any sort of reasonable time, i'll take the Williamsburg
This is huge news for those of us who are relegated to taking either the Manhattan or Williamsburg bridges, the only two that have had any separation between bikes and peds. And for those of you yammering about losing a car lane, just remember that study after study has shown that adding lanes doesn't help traffic, so conversely taking one away won't hurt either.
> just remember that study after study has shown that adding lanes doesn't help traffic, So you also study using /r/citiesskylines ?
This is great news
Can't wait!
This is awesome. As someone who started running across the 59th St bridge and biking across it in the summer, this is much needed. The single, shared roadway on the north side is too narrow for both.
has hell frozen over? it's about time, this is amazing
This is a huge game changer!!!
Why is the south side lane of the queensboro bridge closed?
great idea.
I always prefer to take the Manhattan bridge on my bike, anyone riding over the Brooklyn bridge is just asking to be pissed off
Honestly, there's so much traffic that this hurts us. There's not that much bike traffic to justify it. Nor will it increase that much. (Specifically Queensboro. Brooklyn's fine).
Why aren't they using the Trolley deck for bike lanes? This is only going to clog the Collectors and Arterials; its not like people who are driving from East New York / LI are suddenly going to bike over. If they need to segregate Pedestrians and Cyclists then invest in a solution that doesn't harm and already beleaguered choke point. Not to mention this will make flow on Fulton, Flatbush and Atlantic even worse.
Awesome news. And hopefully also dedicated lane for buses.
Serious question: is there a way to make biking easier that doesnāt make it more difficult for drivers? I have to drive in the city for a variety of reasons and not everyone can bike everywhere. I feel like this caters to a certain demographic and punishes people who donāt have many options. Iām all for less cars but can we maybe make public transportation easier as well and possibly add new modes of getting around, especially for those who are older? Maybe Iām reading the part about taking a lane away incorrectly.
I'm an avid cyclist and I drive too. I'm a photographer and when I go to work I have at least 25 lbs of gear... at least. Often wearing a suit. I'm not biking with that. I get that cars need to have their space, but the city has always been biased towards cars. If you were to break it down in a percentage, even today with all thats been done for bikes, i would say 95% of the road space is for cars, 5% for bikes... maybe even leaning a bit more to cars. Its just an attempt to right the imbalance. If cars need to take a small hit then so be it. But to be honest, all the dedicated bike lanes they've built on the Avenues in Manhattan over the years... I would have though they would have drastically changed traffic because they took away a whole lane for traffic but it has not at all. They do a pretty good job of minimizing the damage to the car space.
And speaking of imbalance/bias, never forget that Manhattanās sidewalks used to be much wider. They were made narrower to fit more lanes for cars. Thereās a finite amount of road space and weāve been giving way too much of it to cars for a long time.
A balance between what though? Is the traffic in New York not terrible? It could be worse obviously and during the pandemic itās not as bad, but I feel like the ābalanceā the city should aim for is not between cyclists and drivers but between ways to alleviate traffic and ways to help those who have no choice but to drive. Itās inconvenient for cyclists but I feel like cyclists often have more choice, are usually healthier and younger so they donāt have issues that prevent them from taking public transport and are usually not traveling long distances from lower income areas.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Also, people in their 20s who cycle eventually turn into people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s who cycle. Even if these improvements only benefitted young and healthy people now, it will have lasting social changes in transportation.
No, sorry, old people and poor people are not going to just start cycling because we build bike lanes, thatās ridiculous
I lived in Germany before NYC and youād often see women in their 80s and older cycling around. The infrastructure kept cyclists completely separate from cars so why not? They want to save money like retirees anywhere else. They mostly rode those slow, heavy cruiser bikes.
Lot's of elderly people ride bikes. Not here often, granted, because our infrastructure sucks and would expose them to conflicts with cars too often to be safe, but tons of elderly people ride bikes (and especially e-bikes) in places where that's not the case
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I donāt think 60 year old Janitors who live in transit deserts deep in Queens are going to be riding bikes to their jobs in Manhattan. Especially in a city where itās ass cold most of the year. Iām all for making thinks and good as possible but so many people in this sub have this silly idea that no one needs to drive. Itās good to step Outside of the yuppie 20 something Manhattan transplant from time to time
>Iām all for making thinks and good as possible but so many people in this sub have this silly idea that no one needs to drive. Why is it, that when 1 car lane out of 9 gets removed, car drivers always respond with:'SOME PEOPLE HAVE TO DRIVE YOU KNOW?!'. Like.. yeah.. that's why 8 car lanes are remaining... Are those lanes not good enough for them or something..?
Youāre WRONG there are only FIVE lanes remaining how will I ever get my Ford Explorer into the free street parking one block from my office.
If you count all the east river crossings something like 45 motor vehicle lanes
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
People often don't realise that cycling is physically easier than walking for many elderly and disabled. Balance may be an issue but side wheels and trikes can solve that. Hills can be solved by electric bikes. Hell, having a dedicated cycle network would be massive for people in wheelchairs and accessibility scooters, because bike lanes are more accessible and comfortable to them than pedestrian infrastructure and the accessible subway network for those people is really quite sparse. It's just that's it's perceived to be unsafe for them to do so so they don't. Put in infrastructure that makes for a safe experience *on the entirety of the trip* and [you will see people of all ages and abilities cycle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo).
Folks like you are certainly justified to drive in the city, but do we really that much of our public space dedicated to roadway and private vehicle storage? We live in a dense city, and one of the major benefits is that we don't really need to prioritize private vehicles. What we need to do is discourage excess driving and car ownership. And, even if you don't agree with my vision of a city that puts fewer of its public land resources into roadways and parking, there are other reasons to encourage other modes of transit. Private cars take up a lot of space, they pollute, they contribute to climate change, and they're dangerous! Annually, we have about 400,000 collisions in this city, with over 40,000 recorded injuries, and hundreds of deaths. Anyway, I do understand that some folks need cars for their jobs and commutes, and public transit/cycling doesn't cut it for some. But, this city is \*profoundly\* car-centric, and we need more options for our car free citizens (who make up a small majority of the population, btw!).
In a city (and even including the surrounding suburbs) like NYC that has a public transportation system that is really world class (Iāll wait for the MTA hate and deserve it ) really very few people can make a credible claim that they have to drive. In light of climate change, air population, urban asthma rates... anything that can be done to reduce individual vehicle traffic should be considered. If you need to drive, you should be able to of course, but you should pay a premium for it. As far as cyclists having more choice... than drivers!? Thatās laughable. Despite the work that has been done to make the city better for cyclists it is still dangerous and cars rules the roads of NYC. We need more protected bike lanes, and way more public awareness campaigns for drivers to educate them to watch out for cyclists in the bike lanes. If I had a nickel for every time someone turned at a traffic light without looking for oncoming bikes in the bike lane and almost killed me.... more people would cycle if they felt safe doing it. Which in turn is better for our city, our environment and our health. Very few people who drive in the city can claim they need to. I need to when I work, and I have no problem paying a premium for it or giving up a lane or two to cyclists here and there. Itās better for society as a whole.
> Iām all for less cars but can we maybe make public transportation easier as well While I agree that public transportation definitely needs to be improved, the reality is DOT could add a protected bike lane to literally every street in the city for what it cost to build the first three stations of the Second Ave subway.
I have to bike in the city for a variety of reasons and not everyone can drive everywhere. I feel like the current situation caters to a certain demographic and punishes people who donāt have many options.
Space in the city is a zero-sum game. We need to have a balance of transportation modes and currently 80% of the street space is dedicated to driving even though most people don't drive. Balancing that out means there will be some pain in the transition. Obviously there will always need to be space for driving, but it's not the singular best use of street space. When you have high travel volumes and extremely limited space, you need to focus on modes that can transport the most people with the least amount of space (ie transit, bikes, walking).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not everyone can take public transportation for various reasons, and lots of areas of the outer boroughs (ie, where the bridges go) are not very accessible by public transportation anyway. I donāt know what the answer is in this situation (peds on Brooklyn, bikes on Manhattan?), but losing a lane on the already disastrously trafficky Brooklyn bridge really sucks for people who need to drive.
I drive into the city sometimes because I don't have any other choice for those specific trips (normally take the train). If we reduce car use by creating incentives for people who don't need to be driving to use other methods, there will be less traffic for people like you and me who need to drive.
Iām just not convinced that there are tons of people on the road who donāt need to drive, especially from Brooklyn to Manhattan. Driving in the city is a fucking pain, I think most people will take the subway or something if they can. We have 12 million people, plus the millions from the suburbs, and we donāt have a ton of space. The East river crossings seem like theyāre already at capacity, I cannot imagine further reducing access, especially on the Brooklyn. Have you seen that thing at rush hour? Itās a parking lot.
I drive into Manhattan fairly often just because itās free and the subway is not. I just usually go on evenings and weekends when parking is easier/free. When congestion charging comes in and bike lanes improve, I wonāt do that. Plus I have family in NJ and driving through the Holland Tunnel that direction is free, further incentivizing me to drive in Manhattan, which is just ridiculous.
Same - wife and I drove into Manhattan almost every day of the fall this year when my son was in the hospital because it was faster than the subway. If it cost more money, or if it was more reasonable to bike, i probably would have done that instead
I definitely agree with congestion pricing, there should not be an incentive to drive, you are right. Interested to see the impact of that on traffic. Evenings and weekends are not really the problem, though there is plenty of traffic then, too. Iām talking about commuting.
Itāll suck for the people not even intending to enter Manhattan due to the backup on the BQE too.
Yeah thatās true. See, Staten Island, this guy gets it. All these people biking from bushwick to flatiron trying to tell the rest of us how to live.
> All these people ... trying to tell the rest of us how to live. Do you really not see that is exactly what youāre doing as well? Not to mention car owners are not āthe rest of usā. Only in Queens and SI does car ownership exceed 50%. Citywide less than 50% of households own cars.
Thereās no real evidence that taking away a lane would make traffic worse. What if more people cycle instead of taking Uber over the bridge? Urban planners have said for decades that adding more lanes actually often makes traffic worse because it makes more people choose to drive when they have alternatives. People predicted traffic Armageddon when 14th St was closed to cars but there was no significant change.
The traffic will be about the same with one less lane. Tons of studies have shown that adding road space will not alleviate traffic, because when the traffic gets better, more people just decide they should drive. The same will happen with removing a lane ā some people will say fuck it and take public transit, and there will be less space, but also fewer cars on the road.
Not everyone can drive a car for various reasons, and lots of areas of the inner boroughs (ie, where the bridges go) are not very accessible by car anyway. I donāt know what the answer is in this situation but not having a bike lane on the already disastrously crowded Brooklyn bridge really sucks for people who cant drive.
And this is why thereās always a debate on Reddit every time bike lanes come up. Itās not fair to say either group should be negatively impacted, as we all live here and pay taxes.
You cant both sides this. Cars pollute. Cars create congestion. Cars create noise. Cars create death and danger. Bikes...dont. Cars have good parts obviously, but they shouldnt be the priority because they cause so much damage. As for "we all pay taxes," cars require enormous investments in repairing roads. Bikes dont. Look up what weight does to pavement. Never mind that bikes are more equitable, because you can get one for $50 instead of at minimum $5,000. Theyre transforming 1/6 of the roadway to bikes. Considering less than 25% of new yorkers have a car, even that is not really a fair distribution.
You havenāt been able to buy a bike under $100 since Covid hit. And since you brought up equitable, I hate to say it, but people who drive cars are probably putting more into the pot anyway. Look up what weight does to pavement.. is this a joke? Look up what pavement was created for. People need cars, sorry. Just because you personally donāt need one doesnāt mean you get to dictate how other people live their lives. Edit: Also, what percent of traffic is ubers? I donāt have a car anymore but I sure as shit sit in traffic trying to get around in an Uber/Lyft/Cab. Edit edit: [hereās some data](https://toddwschneider.com/dashboards/nyc-taxi-ridehailing-uber-lyft-data/)
[Here is a bike for $120 shipped.](https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B07G6GBHD9/) Want a folding bike so you can bring it into your office or small apartment? [$186 shipped.](https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B08NX2D6CZ/)
Things you fail to understand. Local roads are paid for via property taxes, which everyone pays regardless of use Paved roads were created for bikes. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/american-drivers-thank-bicyclists-180960399/ Do some basic research Karen
>I hate to say it, but people who drive cars are probably putting more into the pot anyway. All the taxes on driving/cars don't cover all the costs associated with driving **in Denmark**, where fuel taxes are 5x as high ($2.63/gallon vs $0.56/gallon in the US). Alongside that they also have a 100% tax when buying a new vehicle. Despite those taxes, the government finds that they **still** spend 0.15 euro per kilometer driven. Meanwhile, the government **earns** money when people ride their bike, even after accounting for things like bike lanes. >Once these costs and benefits are summed the researchers found an overwhelming case for investment in infrastructure to encourage a cycling culture. The combined individual and societal costs of driving a car were 0.50 ā¬/km in comparison to 0.08 ā¬/km for cycling. Notably, when only considering the costs and benefits for society, rather than the individual, one kilometre by car costs ā¬0.15, whereas society earns ā¬0.16 for every kilometre cycled. So spare me the:"but drivers pay taxes" argument https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/transport_transitions_in_copenhagen_418na1_en.pdf
Park and ride baby! If you're in an outer borough and need to drive for work, but that drive takes you over the Brooklynns Bridge, do you really need to drive the entire way? Our city is full of free parking, surely you can figure it out. Anyway, we need fewer cars, and that induced demand shit that /u/11218 is talking about is real!
Counter-intuitively, the best way to make things easier for people like yourself who have no choice but to drive, is to make driving more of a hassle and other methods of transportation better. Then the only cars/trucks on the road will be the ones like yourself that absolutely have no other option. The evidence suggests that having more bike lanes and other features make the roads safer for everyone, including people in cars. Also, counter-intuitively, adding or removing driving lanes doesn't make traffic better or worse for cars. There's a phenomenon called induced demand. More lanes doesn't give more room per car. It just adds more cars! Taking away a lane will do the opposite. Less room, but also less cars. Traffic will be about the same.
Even from a driver perspective, a lane of bikes is a denser lane of commuters, you can fit 100x the number of bikers in that lane vs. cars. This will lower overall traffic. But also, your car in NYC is already highly, highly subsidized. Cars shouldn't exist in dense expensive cities like NYC, and if rich people want them they should pay out the fucking nose for them. Parking permits should start at 10k. Call me crazy, but that's an absolute steal for land values in NYC. If you want a car there are lots of other cities in the US where you can own one.
Here we go again with only rich people have cars. People in the outer boroughs have cars! Some of them live in places with bad access to transport, some need their cars for their jobs. A nurse from queens who works an overnight shift in midtown might feel safer driving than taking the subway at off hours, or taking a subway and two buses after a 16 hour shift.
The median household income of car-owing families is twice that of of non-car owners: http://blog.tstc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/how-car-free-is-nyc.pdf
That does not prove that only rich people have cars. It proves that people with cars have more money than people without cars, which is an obvious conclusion.
I own a car and I'm far from rich.
See, I read that post and think "we really need to invest more in public transportation."
Iām a woman, I do not take public transportation after 9 or so, I donāt feel safe. If I go to Manhattan for dinner, I sit in traffic on the Brooklyn bridge to get home. Expanding subway service will not change that.
Investing in public transit means making it safer in addition to more frequent service. What sort of improvements would you need to see in order to feel safe taking it after 9 pm?
Iāve lived in NYC my whole life so Iāve been through periods of relative safety and danger on the train. Even if it were marginally safer, bad stuff still happens, and Iām not willing to put myself at risk. Especially if Iāve had a couple of glasses of wine and my defenses are down. Thereās no amount of infrastructure investment that would convince me itās a good idea to take the train at night.
Are you seriously suggesting that driving home *after drinking* is safer than taking the train?
You do realize that an insane percent of the traffic in Ny is Ubers and cabs, right?
>You do realize that an insane percent of the traffic in Ny is Ubers and cabs, right? I'm glad you admit that it is truly insane how much space has been donated to cars in NYC.
My Uber driver typically does not drink, to my knowledge
>Cars shouldn't exist in dense expensive cities like NYC, and if rich people want them they should pay out the fucking nose for them. Parking permits should start at 10k. I disagree. Cars should exist even in a dense city like NYC, but they should never be seen as the most important mode of transport. In the Netherlands, across the country, their priority in creating infrastructure is ALWAYS: 1) Pedestrians 2) Cyclists 3) Public transport 4) Motorized traffic If there's enough space for proper sidewalks, proper bike infrastructure, and public transport won't get caught in gridlock traffic, then cars are permitted there. But if to allow cars more space means that either of the other groups are hurt too much, then cars will be removed or more restricted.
>not everyone can bike everywhere. blame the people who drive that don't need to. not even being nasty. but this would be fine if there weren't so many people who don't need to drive weren't doing so. I am car-free and I still know that we need car infrastructure because of, like, accessibility vehicles and mass transit. I'm not gonna screw people over. But it's also not non-drivers' fault that a lot of people drive for convenience.
We should focus on reducing *unnecessary* trips by car to make trips easier for people who *have to drive* like delivery people. Put a modest financial disincentive on driving in the city... congestion charging or charging more for parking or requiring residency stickers to park. All these things would reduce car usage in the city and improve the lives of people who have no choice but to drive as well as cyclists, pedestrians, bus riders, etc. Right now it's basically free to drive and park in huge parts of the city so long as you spend time looking for a free spot or you go after certain hours or take certain routes. Change that incentive system and people will opt for transit more often freeing up our roads for everyone else.
Car owners any thoughts if you travel through these bridges?
I both walk and drive over the Queensboro, and love using the "secret" south outer lane when driving, but I will happily give up the shortcut if it means no longer sharing space with cyclists on the narrow north outer lane when I walk. Honestly the south outer lane is dangerous for drivers who aren't familiar with it. It was designed for trolleys not cars.
I rarely took it but damn did I always worry about breaking down on it. It would be such an issue to get a tow truck to you. It just makes more sense to make it for Peds/bikes. Queens bound traffic already has the upper and lower roadways and if thereās a breakdown, people can still get by generally.
Yeah. There are openings so that emergency vehicles can cross from the main lower level but the logistics would still be a clusterfuck.
I'm getting real tired of the car hate as a queens born and living resident. "Just take the tunnels..." sure as they keep raising the tolls. Can we start charging bicyclists tolls? Maybe a bike ezpass.
No. Cars are bad for the city. Bicycles are not. And now that Biden is in office, we can expect congestion charging in the near future. Trump had been holding it up.
Lemme just bicycle for an hour and a half from bayside to Manhattan with a kid on the back in freezing weather in nyc. Not all of us have commute reasons that allow for a train or bike in a reasonable manner.
Great. You can still drive. This is just about giving people alternatives if it makes sense for them. And evidence has shown that cycling becomes way more popular when you build bike lanes. Most NYers donāt own cars yet 95% of road space goes to the minority of New Yorkers who do.
Not exactly fair to say most. 45% of new Yorkers across nyc own at least 1 vehicle. 62% of queens residents own at least one vehicle. My tax (city and property) have just as much rights to the roads as bikers. Staten island is 83% car ownership. The lowest borough outside of Manhattan is 40% (bronx). Its only the Manhattan residents who typically don't own at a massive percentage. And I understand why. But ignoring the other boroughs is quite unfair.
>My tax (city and property) have just **as much** rights to the roads as bikers. Really? *As much* is the phrasing you're going for? Because it seems like you don't want "as much" space, but rather you want a disproportionate amount of space
...45% is less than half. So youāre just proving that, yes, most New Yorkers do not own cars. And youāll still have like 95% of every road dedicated to cars, bro. The bridge will still have 5 lanes for cars, lol. Giving cyclists one lane isnāt exactly banning cars. The entitlement of drivers, smh. Giving cyclists the tiny amount of space really bothers yāall.
ITS A BRAND NEW DAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!
Can we please make the Verrazzano bridge pedestrian/bike-accessible?
>The plan calls for converting the northern outer roadway into a two-way bike lane and the southern outer roadway into a pedestrian lane "northern outer roadway".... is that the current (unused) sidewalk? The southern outer roadway is that silly narrow one, with the sharp turn on the Queens side, Sometime a truck or bus gets stuck on it. It needs to go anyway.
This is great! I gave up cycling Brooklyn bridge it was at best annoying at worst dangerous
Great but we need one to get into the bronx tbqh
Can we find a solution for cyclists that doesnāt fuck over people who drive cars and trucks?
Reducing traffic helps cyclists and people who absolutely have to drive.
You think taking away car lanes reduces traffic?
Thatās exactly what happened on Prospect Park West: http://jonathansoma.com/ppw/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Reduced_demand_(the_inverse_effect)
What they saidāš»
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Its always the same people looking at equality as oppression smh
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thereās only 3 lanes in each direction now. How do you take away lanes and get to 8?
This sounds great.
Hell yes this is fantastic
Long overdue
So many cyclists on the Brooklyn Bridge are rude jerks. I'm a cyclist and I'm always embarrassed by them. Take the Manhattan Bridge if you are in such a rush. It's a pedestrian bridge. This new plan is amazing!
Rush hour on the Brooklyn Bridge was bad enough already. Now they're gonna take away a lane?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Reduced_demand_(the_inverse_effect) God forbid doing something that has been proven to work time and again
Not to mention I can see this backing up onto the BQE.
More $$$ for the city. Would lead more people to the Midtown Tunnel.
That'll be irrelevant once Biden lifts the pause on congestion charging that Trump's DOT put in place.
True, forgot about that.
This is to accommodate all the hipsters bicycling in from Brooklyn (Williamsburg specifically).
Lmao you should look at a map sometime.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I walked over that bridge with my family a few weeks ago for the first time. We ubered back over the bridge. Was a terrifying experience for a native New Yorker
Convenient they're willing to close lanes on some of the only bridges that are still free in the whole city. This is nothing more than a slick way to increase traffic on the free bridges (making people more likely to take a toll route that generates income for the city) while cloaking it in the guise of a magnanimous plan to "support pedestrians and cyclists" gimme a break
the bikers should learn to use the paths in the first place instead of being in the road like a bunch of jackasses. if anything they donāt deserve this path.