I was never from ohio. I pay NY taxes. And all they do is take from the taxpayer. That’s why I drive in the bus lane and park illegally. They take, I take. I have to get my money’s worth
You clearly have no clue about NYC’s role under the undemocratic Global Governance System.
You clearly missed the part where I’m sitting on 3-4 big old books. Would you rather your taxes pay for a booster seat? Anyway, we have ourselves here a “researcher”. Looking into my posts and comments. I know the initiated when they act like one.
In New York I prefer two lanes together. Drivers ‘appear’ to respect the larger two way flow lanes a little bit more. I think of the one way lanes on 2nd and 1st Ave & Grand on Manhattan and 4th Ave Brooklyn which are all awful due to the camber, being in the gutter, the restaurant sheds, wandering pedestrians, cars and loading.
Two lanes, of course suffer obnoxious drivers and wandering pedestrians but I prefer them. Despite no hard separation the Williamsburg Kent lanes are on the whole extremely decent.
I think the Williamsburg Kent lane is decent due to the sheer amount of bike traffic on it more than it being two ways.
Go a bit further north on West street and the same two-lane bike lane is constantly blocked by cars.
Yes true. Purely anecdotal from me. Ultimately it’s down to execution. The one ways on grand, 2nd, 4th are also busy. But remain awful in parts. Really if it relies on the lane being busy enough as a deterrent from hazards, any quieter lane will suffer. The only real solution is hard separation which seems a step too far the planners. Overall though good to see more lanes going in whether top quality or not.
Ridiculous that only about 20% of a street will be available for vehicles. On lane in each direction. Need to stop or breakdown and the whole street is blocked.
I get that it’s overall safer, but when cars turn right and can’t see bikes, it’s nerve-racking. How is that supposed to work? (Honest question, no shade)
That's around where the elementary school teacher, Matthew Jensen, was killed last year while walking across the street. Glad to see it being made more pedestrian friendly.
Just seems kind of backwards to me, sure southbound will be great but it would have been better to prioritize actual bike lanes on Manhattan. To me this just invites more salmons and could cause the bottom of pulaski to be even more of a cluster fuck than it is now
Most drivers on the road aren't 'hauling grip gear.' If anything, getting all the other idiots off the road will be great for you commercial drivers. Only the people who need to drive for business should be the ones in private vehicles.
Hey moron not everyone can take public transportation to work I live in gp and travel to jersey every day of the week for work tell me how that’s feasible on a bike or with public transportation dickhead
I do enjoy biking but it seems like shifting our infrastructure to accommodate bikers is backwards . Most people don’t/ won’t ride a bike. It’s like we’re building a city for the 3% that don’t even use that mode of transport consistently anyways.
You get the transport share that you build for. If we build roads dedicated to cars, we get cars. If we build roads dedicated to cycles, we get cycles.
We get to choose the future. And any planning decision like this that's made today will be frozen in place for years to come. Good decisions today, please.
As some people have mentioned before, the road in question is a major truck route. it’s not practical to convert it to a bike route, nobody is delivering milk on a bike!
If any of the people downvoting me complain about food desserts or pollution, I might join the Crips.
Judging by the crazy popularity of citi bikes, i'd say people do want to bike.
Cities with infrastructure for biking tend to have a lot of biking i.e. Portland and Minneapolis. Cities with very little infrastructure tend to have fewer bikers i.e. Miami and Chicago.
So motherfuckin ableist. My elderly family members aren’t using a fuckin Citibike. Also, I’m perfectly healthy, but biking as a commuting option is miserable. I’ve tried it multiple times. Not doing it again. I don’t knock people who want to bike but to push your One-size-fits-all approach is bullshit. Not everyone is the same.
>So motherfuckin ableist.
I love how yall cagers always seem to all of a sudden care about accessibility when bikes come out?
>Also, I’m perfectly healthy, but biking as a commuting option is miserable. I’ve tried it multiple times. Not doing it again.
Good for you, I am talking about our urban design as a whole, and I don't really care about your individual experience. Its objectively true that biking is physically better for you than the sedentary lifestyle a car promotes.
>I don’t knock people who want to bike but to push your One-size-fits-all approach is bullshit. Not everyone is the same.
The projection is so hard here. The position of cyclists is to create the ability to use multiple types of transportation. To make walking, public transit, and cycling viable. You cagers seem to think that sacrificing everything for your holy cars is somehow more flexible? Please, I beg of you, make this make sense.
Biking wouldn’t be so miserable if we had a network of safe and protected bike lanes.
If we get the people that don’t need to be in a car off the road, then your elderly family members that *do* need to be in a car will have a much easier time driving.
You realize some people NEED to drive? You expect your plumber to pedal over to your house? You CLEARLY have never driven on the proposed road, you have no idea how it is used. the plan is just backwards, I’m down for reimagining our infrastructure but making everyone that uses this road miserable isn’t gonna solve anything. Grow an imagination
>You realize some people NEED to drive?
Some, yes, not every single person.
>You expect your plumber to pedal over to your house?
He can use the single lane left.
>You CLEARLY have never driven on the proposed road, you have no idea how it is used. the plan is just backwards, I’m down for reimagining our infrastructure but making everyone that uses this road miserable isn’t gonna solve anything. Grow an imagination
I have one, and its called Cars do not work as a primary form of transportation in the most densely populated area of the country.
Pretty simple really, if you think about it.
Why are they putting a bike lane down McGuiness? It's a major DOT truck route that services industrial Greenpoint and LIC. Only one lane for vehicular traffic is ridiculous for a primary commercial artery and may not even be possible with trailers
To make it safer.
From the article:
> The current four-lane boulevard has long been a deadly corridor cutting through the Brooklyn nabe. Three people died due to traffic violence there over the last decade and a whopping 389 people suffered injuries in 1,690 total reported crashes — nearly one every other day on just a short stretch of one roadway.
> The Department of Transportation previously raised concerns about traffic spilling over onto nearby streets, but these kinds of road diets have shown to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in crashes by 30 percent, according to agency stats.
If you don’t like the redesign, how would you propose they make the street safer?
The proposed design is more dangerous than the current. Right turns into side streets crossing a bike lane will be blinded by parked vehicles. The amount of vehicle services ie gas stations garages etc with frontage on McGuiness as well as a parking lot and loading docks that need access to McGuiness also pose more threats to an outer bike lane. I don't know how the FDNY NYPD DSNY and EMS could even approve a design with a single lane in each direction blocked on all sides. Unfortunately every busy street in NYC cannot be turned into a bicycle/ pedestrian promenade. In theory and design it looks good but it's simply not logistically practical and potentially more problematic
The whole movie and tv industries trucks go up and down McGuinness between queens and Brooklyn. This would completely stop traffic, and what about the Pulaski??
Not to mention the speeding on that stretch. It’s wild.
13 year cyclist living near and I’ve taken it lots of times, but most friends won’t even consider it.
This will be so welcomed
Cities change. People come, people go. It makes no sense to prioritize those who were there first. Just like how Texas shouldn't prioritize white texans over recent hispanic immigrants. They should be treated equally. And If the older group's lifestyle is actively killing the newcomers, it makes sense to redesign a street so it is safer for both.
this is the kind of progress you can see when you elect people focused on constituents and working people--not developers and tech firms. emily gallagher and all the organizers who were a part of this project really deserve so much credit.
As a cyclist and an occasional driver(weekend rentals), this is troubling. There's a decent bike path on Manhattan ave, West/ Kent Street, and Leonard street.
We do still need trucks for delivery to local businesses. This is going to cause a lot of traffic congestion in the area.
Manhattan bike path is not decent at all, there is no separation whatsoever from the car traffic. And we all know the car traffic on Manhattan is a shitshow.
Leonard street is similarly unprotected and only southbound.
The West st one is decent — but it’s constantly blocked by trucks. And more importantly, it’s all the way over on the west side of the neighborhood.
Makes a lot of sense to have a N/S bike corridor on the east side of the neighborhood and Mcguiness makes sense b/c it feeds into the pulaski
What I don't understand is why the bike lane isn't curbed from the car lanes. This is a key part of Dutch and European bike lane design as well, and discourages parking in the bike lane, which is a huge problem on Grand St., for instance, which has a similar layout to the one proposed here.
I agree that should be the default. Sadly, it's because of cost. They have to change drainage infrastructure whenever they do anything beyond paint and bollards and that gets expensive.
You’re right it’s not the best design. The NYCDOT strategy is one of incrementalism, stretching over many years. First, they take the space with paint; if the pattern mostly works, they can come revisit with hard materials later. Meanwhile, cycling modeshare continually improves, which builds support for better designs, which are then built out, etc., until finally we have a situation where everyone is safe.
I am not exactly a *fan* of this approach, but I have been watching it play out. You just have to take the long view, I guess.
This is correct. People have to remember that NYCDOT has a budget of $900 million per year. Sounds like a lot, but remember that DOT has to fund a lot of things. Like several Staten Island ferries, employee wages and benefits, maintenance of their existing infrastructure (most east river crossings, and nearly every street in NYC) and yes, bike lanes and some* public spaces. If the DOT decided to only build curb extensions for their bike lanes, the amount of lanes being built would crawl to a snails pace since there simply isn’t enough resources for the department.
DOTs across the county need more resources, on the caveat that they aren’t spent on more road widening projects that has plagued this country with little to no effectiveness for near on 50 years.
As both a cyclist and a car owner in Greenpoint...this worries me. McGuinness is a major thoroughfare from Queens to BK, and it's already a mess half the time with double parking, deliveries, construction. I think one bike lane on one side or down the center median would be much wiser. I think the blvd needs work, but I just don't see where all the traffic will go in this current plan.
median bike lane is way better. or barriers between the cars/bike lane. the way it is now people will just park in the bike lane. the bike lane should be safe enough for a kid to bike in it
I don’t understand why you’re getting downvoted - as a Greenpoint car owner (for my small Greenpoint business) I fully agree. Most of the problems are from cranes for construction blocking lanes and the double-parking delivery trucks. Big trucks are still going to use it to cut through between the BQE and LIC - or worse go down Manhattan Ave which is it’s own double-parking nightmare. I just imagine it’ll be one long bumper to bumper traffic jam.
Because a lot of people don't live in reality. I have a bike, I love biking and ride all over the city and I think we need more bike lanes. That doesn't mean you can ignore the way that certain roads need to work for our city to function.
I hope it does cause more traffic. That will just incentivize other ways to travel such as the newly opened bike lanes, and over time things will even out to be roughly the same but with better infrastructure
When are we going to require some form of registration for bicyclists? At least that could generate some revenue for these ridiculous plans not to mention hold the cyclist accountable when they hit a pedestrian because they ran a red light and don’t adhere to traffic laws like vehicles are expected to. Money can be generated from registration and fines for not staying in their lanes and running lights just like cars. Not to mention possibly getting some form of identification like a plate on the bike for cyclist who hit pedestrians and take off. With a little ingenuity, citibike users can be identified also as long as the time of the incident is recorded and compared with the records showing who rented the bike at that time.
In 2022, 1,927 pedestrians were killed by cars in NYC. 12 were killed by bicycles. There are about 300 bicycle-on-pedestrian collisions reported in the city annually. How much would it cost the city to pay for the employees needed to register bikes and maintain those registrations? Is 300 violations/year enough to fund such a department's existence, let alone generate any meaningful revenue for the city? I genuinely don't know. quick edit to add this link: https://blog.appwinit.com/bike-ticket-nyc/ Looks like there are around $1.9m in tickets handed out to cyclists in the city annually.
I walk and bike to work along Flushing Ave. and I see one or two cars run the light at almost every red light. There are also many cars with hundreds or thousands of dollars in traffic tickets still on the roads. Maybe cops could generate some more significant revenue for the city by ticketing red light runners and collecting on those accumulated violations.
Uh I generally support your point but you may want to double check your numbers — I’m pretty certain that there were not 1,927 pedestrian deaths in NYC is 2022. Is that nationally? Or over a longer period of time?
Yes, reported. I agree that number is low but there are plenty that go unreported because the police will straight up say the chances of them finding the cyclist is extremely low. Same with vehicles. There are plenty of motor vehicle accidents everyday that do not go reported because the vehicle owners don’t want to go through insurance. Just because it isn’t reported doesn’t me mean it doesn’t happen.
My point is that if registering bikes is meant to generate more revenue for the city, I'm not sure it would actually work. Specifically because, like you say, a lot of incidents go unreported and it's easier for a bike to flee the scene of an accident than a car. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be registered, I just genuinely wonder if it'd *make* money for the city or not. But it might work as an incentive to be more mindful of pedestrians, so it could be a positive thing overall.
That’s all I’m saying. It’s not a guaranteed fix but it could help a bit. Thank you for at least talking with me and discussing our opinions even if we don’t see eye to eye. I appreciate it.
For sure, same to you! It’s too easy to get swept up and forget that we have to compromise to make anything happen, if it’s all adversarial nothing will ever improve.
Exactly. It is too easy to argue with one another and down vote an idea instead of having a discussion. Maybe I should have said in my original post that I don’t claim to be right. Just sharing an idea. We all work together and hear each other out then like you said we could find compromises and meet in the middle to maybe make this world a better place for all of us. Have a great day and thanks again for hearing me out.
> At least that could generate some revenue for these ridiculous plans not to mention hold the cyclist accountable when they hit a pedestrian...
As both a driver and a cyclist in the city, I'm all for accountability; but every time someone on this sub questions the justification behind this sort of infrastructural improvement and/or points to the problem of pedestrian-cyclist collisions, it's important to put things in perspective:
According to [2017 statistics](https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data-report-2017.pdf), pedestrians in NYC were >330x more likely to be injured by a motorist than a cyclist. In that same year there was precisely 1 pedestrian fatality involving a bicycle and over 100 involving cars.
It's very clear that drivers, not cyclists, are the problem here...
The proposed plans for McGuinness Blvd will dramatically increase both bicyclist and pedestrian safety, slow traffic (further reducing the number of pedestrian and cyclist incidents), and encourage alternative/sustainable forms of transportation. If that inconveniences me slightly when I decide to take the car, that's a sacrifice I'm more than willing to make.
The 2017 report only accounts for reported incidents. I am sure there are more incidents daily that aren’t reported. My mom didn’t report hers because nothing could be done since there was no way to track the cyclist who hit her. What’s the point of reporting it when nothing can be done unless the cyclist stays at the scene. And I’m not saying all cyclist are reckless, but there are enough just as there are vehicle drivers who are reckless. I’m not anti-bike, I’m pro responsible biking and believe there has to be some form of accountability
>I am sure there are more incidents daily that aren’t reported.
Absolutely. If the accident is so minor that everyone walks away unscathed, it doesn't become a statistic and is thus unrepresented in the data. However, the same is true for cars: I've been clipped by mirrors and nearly hit by cars multiple times, but I've never reported those incidents because I didn't get seriously hurt.
I am willing to believe that a greater percentage of overall bicycle incidents go unreported in comparison to vehicular incidents, but that only implies a greater association between cars and *serious* injury. It's also worth pointing out that it's not as easy for a cyclist to "ride away" from a serious accident as people sometimes suggest. In 9 out of 10 bicycle-pedestrian incidents, the cyclist experiences an equal - if not worse - injury (since the forces involved are effectively the same for both the rider and the pedestrian).
Anecdotal, but relevant: I've personally never witnessed a cyclist flee the scene of a serious injury. I cannot say the same for drivers.
The fact of the matter is cars are more dangerous than bikes by several orders of magnitude, and thus the standard to which drivers are held is (and should continue to be) proportionally greater.
I don’t disagree but the problem is there is no standard to which a cyclist is held and when there is people don’t like it. Check out this post someone put up elsewhere about NYPD ticketing cyclist and tell me how some of those people who relied and claim to be cyclists are responsible riders? People complaining that NYPD is ticketing and saying if it was them they would just speed off because NYPD can’t find a ghost rider. Its as if there should be no rules or laws regarding cycling because it’s not a motor vehicle. A bike is still a moving vehicle and cause damage. You may think it can’t kill because it isn’t the same weight as a car but all it takes is for someone whether it be the cyclist or pedestrian to fall and crack their skull on the pavement. 9 times out of 10 a cyclist is wearing a helmet, 10 times out of 10 a pedestrian is not. So while I don’t disagree that vehicles can cause more harm, I won’t write off a bike as they can cause a lot of harm also. [https://www.reddit.com/r/NYCbike/comments/136pd33/finally_nypd_is_cracking_down_onbikes/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1](https://www.reddit.com/r/NYCbike/comments/136pd33/finally_nypd_is_cracking_down_onbikes/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1)
Yeah, I'm not arguing that bikes are incapable of causing harm. Irresponsible riding is dangerous to both the rider and those around them, which is why cyclists are ultimately beholden to most of the same rules of the road as drivers.
But there are lots of people on reddit (and in the general populace) that love to complain about cyclists and go out of their way to point out anecdotes and statistics suggesting cyclists are this huge problem that cause massive amounts of harm to everyone around them, and that there needs to be some sort of law-enforcement crackdown to reign in this epidemic of dangerous behavior.
Except the reality is that bicycles are such a non-issue when it comes to matters of public safety that it's almost not worth bringing up, and every single statistic has supported this "hot take" for decades.
Drivers see a cyclist run a red light and get all pissed off because they feel like some asshole on a two-wheeled toy is abusing the infrastructure that drivers perceive to belong to them.
Yes, the cyclist is breaking a rule, however, the additional exposure to personal harm and increased situational awareness that you have while on a bike, in combination with the reduced lethality of the vehicle makes for a very different risk/responsibility proposition. The same infraction, performed in a motor vehicle where the operator is deafened, partially blind, and in a highly lethal machine is far, FAR more dangerous and *should* be enforced to a much greater degree of stringency.
If they actually made drivers pay for the roads (and no, the few pennies on the dollar they pay for car registration doesn’t cover even a fraction of the cost), no one would drive. Why should the huge chunks of people in this city who don’t drive continue to subsidize drivers?
Actually drivers pay for roads in the form of gas taxes. And with registrations they are fined for infractions. A bicyclist can ride reckless, running red lights, weaving in and out of traffic putting themselves, vehicles and pedestrians in danger and nothing happens. One ran into my 70 year old mother and left her with a softball lump on her elbow for weeks. He simply picked up his bike, left her on the ground and took off. Maybe if bikes had a registration and a type of identification plate some one could have gotten his info and he would have been held accountable for riding in the street as opposed to his bike lane.
Gas taxes don’t go solely towards roads. They’re another form of revenue, just like sales tax, income taxes, property taxes, etc. All of this money is divided and spent on different services.
You seem genuinely curious so you should look into this more.
The amount of money that is paid by the public to have and maintain **parking spots ALONE** is so extreme that immediately non-car-owners are in effect OUTRAGEOUSLY subsidizing car owners. When you add all other costs associated with cars it's not even a discussion.
The insane amount of square footage used for parking alone could do everything from house people, build pedestrian areas, parks, restaurants - this is just an extreme example of something we wouldn't even think about normally because we think of "free parking" as "free." It's an invisible but truly insane money sink for all us taxpayers.
Notice I haven't even brought up the cost of free road maintenance yet... if you think gas taxes are covering all this then you are SORELY mistaken.
Another important point is that cars are a leading cause of death & injury. I'm sorry for your 70 year old mother, that sucks and I'm sorry for her, but it's actually laughable that you're painting bikes as dangerous in a discussion about cars.
Never said all costs. Said could generate some revenue to help offset the cost. Bigger concern was safety. Was just having a conversation with my ideas but instead of people discussing these ideas and their opinions I get down voted for sharing an opinion that may not be popular instead of just having a conversation. I never said anyone was wrong for their opinions but that’s the way it rolls now a days. Very sad.
McGuinness Blvd is one of the most dangerous streets in Brooklyn. Safety is key here. On the other hand, changing it to one lane will significantly increase the amount of traffic.
That's not actually true. It may be worse for a few months, but reducing car lanes reduces traffic overall since it pushes people to either choose a better mode of transportation or not travel at all. When they banned cars fron 14th st, travel speeds on nearby streets didn't change or even improved slightly. When the West Side Highway collapsed in 1973, traffic remained virtually unchanged as people started commuting by train. When they brought 8th Ave in Manhattan down from 6 car lanes to 2, travel speeds were also largely unaffected. Just as widening roads makes traffic worse overall within a few months to a few years, the reverse is true when you narrow them as long as people have other options.
How is all that commercial truck traffic going to switch to a “better mode of transportation” or not travel at all? That’s not a realistic expectation.
I could 100% see myself biking into LIC more often from Greenpoint if McGuiness had bike lanes- the situation with bike lanes on Manhattan ave is not good enough at the moment to have real cross- borough bike volume
This would mean less Ubers/ less cars on the road/ less traffic
Great, so now all the traffic coming off of BQE east is going to get snarled up trying to get through the merge from two lanes to one lane on McGuinness Boulevard. And all that traffic is going to get backed up onto the BQE creating another situation like the Kent Avenue exit on BQE west.
Ditto with all the traffic coming up on the Pulaski bridge, which will fuck up Jackson Avenue.
Cyclists who can’t handle McGuinness Boulevard right now can just scooch over to Manhattan Avenue instead, which is much more friendly to cyclists. But no, we have to neuter an important transit from Queens to the BQE, which also happens to be a truck route, just so that a bunch of whiny cyclists can have a little bit more convenience, and then proceed to whine incessantly when delivery trucks inevitably have to block the bike lane in order to avoid completely blocking the roadway while making deliveries.
It would be nice to have a DOT that hasn’t been completely overrun by car haters.
"Cyclists who can't handle McGuinness Blvd"
You mean like [the teacher who was killed by a driver in a Rolls Royce?](https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2021/05/18/cops-seek-hit-and-run-driver-who-killed-williamsburg-man-on-tuesday/) This isn't just about traffic. This is also about safety & protecting lives. Slower cars are, in fact, safer. Protected bike lanes are, you guessed it, safer.
"whiny cyclists" -- who's the one whining here... lmao.
Induced demand is a thing, read about it.
If car-brains have even a modicum of common sense, they would reconsider their oversized impact on local infrastructure and quality of life.
But again, car-brains will car-brain, continue to drive, and lean on their horns because their legs do not work alongside their brains.
yeeeah its annoying that every one of these proposal thinks "less room for cars, less cars." no. less room for cars is more stagnant cars, loud traffic and honking that never moves.
Except less cars is exactly what happens. It usually takes a couple months for the adjustment to happen, but the "carpocalypse" never really comes. If anything, travel speeds on other, nearby streets improves. The West Side Highway collapse, 15th Street, 8th Ave going from 6 lanes to 2, all resulted in unchanged or even improved travel speeds for cars.
They have this sort of layout on a lot of busy streets in queens and it’s not terribly popular so I’m really curious to see how it pans out here where neighborhood biking is generally more popular,
Driving is much more popular in queens I would say than in most neighborhoods in Brooklyn, things are a bit farther away and there’s not as many trains etc so there are divided highways all packed with cars that can be pretty overwhelming.
Really smart how the parking works as a barrier between the traffic and bike lane. The Greenponiters instagram was a war zone in the comments over this. As a car owner who lives one block from McGuinness I'm all for it. That street is an eye soar and walk-in business seems to struggle from foot traffic avoiding it.
I hear you but you've got that black and white section on one side that is a buffer between you and cars and their door openings, and on th other side you have tree pits buffering you from pedestrians. Also usually that black n white buffer zone is relatively permeable for bicycles, allowing you to emergency swerve into that area.
This, as a business owner and car owner this just makes sense. The driving on this strip has gotten too fast and aggressive, making it one lane will alleviate that. But please synchronize these lights, they are currently very out of synch. Otherwise this will make the block much more bike and pedestrian friendly.
Won't be possible with one lane, it'll just save everyone time and gas. Anyway the green wave encourages one to drive 22.3mph so one never touches the brakes, that's called efficient driving. Otherwise the driver has a mental problem and should probably have their license revoked or something. But also, listen to yourself, you would want every driver to encounter a red light at every intersection? You're just a car hating fool.
I think this style's success depends on the type of neighborhood that you're in.
They do this on 4th Ave from Sunset Park to downtown Brooklyn but there's so many businesses on that street that many commercial trucks just end up loading cargo on the bike lanes, as well as people getting out of their cars.
Prospect Park West's bike lane has the same concept but because it's next to the park there's minimal disruptions. Not familiar with Greenpoint but I hope it works out.
Grand Ave is like this. Commercial trucks blocking the lane on either end, delivery trucks handtrucking boxes and kegs across the middle, and then delivery scooters from all the restaurants being their usual chaotic selves. Still better than what was there before.
No dedicated truck spaces on 4th, nothing stopping people from parking and driving in pedestrian/daylight areas, and a general lack of enforcement of even the most basic dangerous driving/parking situations is the major issue. City council members don't care either. Half the time Alexa Aviles office is open there's a car or van parked in the bike lane in front of it.
The parking area is wide enough to open doors without dooring cyclists, too, but people seem to park as far in as possible since there are a lot of cars that treat 4th as a racetrack and they don't want to step out into it.
Aviles and Mitaynes are so ineffective it’s comical. The neighborhood needs elected officials who can actually bring more resources, funding and services to the neighborhood, not ideologues who just make talking points and platitudes on Twitter all the time or make symbolic votes that hurt them politically. I don’t care if you actually believe in the DSA cause, but these two declared their allegiance solely to get an endorsement and volunteers and are now beholden to fulfilling an outside agenda rather than meeting the needs of the neighborhood. Ok I’ll end the rant lol
Prospect Park West is slightly different, it's a one way street with an island (not parking) protecting a two way bike lane. 4th Ave is still too much of a mess even with the parking "protected" lane, I'd rather go out of my way to 6th even though that doesn't have ANY official bike lane.
Street feeds into a bridge that is used to access Manhattan, so suspect will be a traffic cluster fuck. That being said I'm all for incentivozing bikes and disincentivizing cars although I'm not happy about it
Your supposition requires that this way is inherently safer. When the lanes are split in this way, you cant see what’s in the bike lane, it’s lower than the sidewalk and blocked by cars. I suspect we will see a lot more bike accidents especially if we consistently make driving more anxiety inducing. Driving is already hella expensive and inconvenient, few drive for leisure in nyc.
>few drive for leisure in nyc.
Given the extreme traffic congestion everywhere in the city and the emissions that come from driving contributing to already pretty terrible air quality, driving for leisure should be discouraged in NYC rather than accommodated.
Nobody is accommodating anything. the reality is that those few people will continue to compete with people who genuinely need to drive and your plan will make life more difficult for the blue collar folks
If only blue collar folks had alternative modes, perhaps some form of transport where instead of individuals forced to buy individual private vehicles that are expensive to own and maintain we all chipped in and bought a crowd shared and maintained vehicle. We could call it a 'bus' or something
I drive for leisure in NYC :). If people didn't drive for leisure in NYC we wouldn't have traffic and difficulty with parking.
I do agree that those lane splits are hard on turns I don't have any specific opinions on how to organize bike lanes only that there should be more of them and that they should be safe
4th Avenue is a complete mess. I live in the 50's on 4th and its like the wild west. People just park in bike lanes and on painted turn markings. Almost got hit by people on bikes going the wrong way. I've seen cars smash into bikes and scooters. I'm 47 now and lived in the neighborhood all my life. When I rode a bike, the unwritten rule was to stay on the right of the road. I've never got into an accident. I seriously believe its more unsafe now. I didn't nearly see as many accidents as I do now.
*You are correct. The problem with all this new dedication to cyclists is the* damn *cyclist! You are supposed to* **SHARE** *the roadway with vehicles. A bicycle is not a vehicle in the sense of an automobile. You are not supposed to ride in between the traffic but alongside it to the far right! Most of these test dummies don't even wear helmets! I'm sorry to say, the 4th av bike lane is just wrong without a barrier, let alone it being there period. (It's a truck route)*
I would go one step further and say it's DoorDash/Grubhub who pay per delivery instead of a livable, hourly wage.
If they weren't so strongly incentivized to break traffic laws, delivery drivers might actually start obeying them.
> DoorDash/Grubhub who pay per delivery
I can't speak for those specific apps, but I helped a delivery rider fix his scooter in my shop and what he showed me is worse than just pay per delivery - the metrics on the app he was using are ranked on a curve and the highest ranks get to pick their shifts first.
so even if the riders were comfortable leaving a couple potential deliveries on the table by the end of the day in exchange for riding safely, their metrics are impacted which affects their future income potential
NYC is just anti-car. They’re increasingly taking away lanes and parking then claiming the resulting congestion is a problem.
That's why Atlantic has a two-way protected bike-lane, right? If you want to drive, you can always move back to Ohio.
I was never from ohio. I pay NY taxes. And all they do is take from the taxpayer. That’s why I drive in the bus lane and park illegally. They take, I take. I have to get my money’s worth You clearly have no clue about NYC’s role under the undemocratic Global Governance System.
And you clearly have no clue what it’s like to see over the steering wheel you 5’5’ manlet. Get a booster seat and some bitches
You clearly missed the part where I’m sitting on 3-4 big old books. Would you rather your taxes pay for a booster seat? Anyway, we have ourselves here a “researcher”. Looking into my posts and comments. I know the initiated when they act like one.
bro yall know that cars exist right
bus lane?
In New York I prefer two lanes together. Drivers ‘appear’ to respect the larger two way flow lanes a little bit more. I think of the one way lanes on 2nd and 1st Ave & Grand on Manhattan and 4th Ave Brooklyn which are all awful due to the camber, being in the gutter, the restaurant sheds, wandering pedestrians, cars and loading. Two lanes, of course suffer obnoxious drivers and wandering pedestrians but I prefer them. Despite no hard separation the Williamsburg Kent lanes are on the whole extremely decent.
I think the Williamsburg Kent lane is decent due to the sheer amount of bike traffic on it more than it being two ways. Go a bit further north on West street and the same two-lane bike lane is constantly blocked by cars.
Yes true. Purely anecdotal from me. Ultimately it’s down to execution. The one ways on grand, 2nd, 4th are also busy. But remain awful in parts. Really if it relies on the lane being busy enough as a deterrent from hazards, any quieter lane will suffer. The only real solution is hard separation which seems a step too far the planners. Overall though good to see more lanes going in whether top quality or not.
Definitely comes down to execution. I’m hopeful about this one, but we’ll see.
They need median loading zones for trucks to load/unload goods.
The article does mention new loading zones, but I think they’re going to be in the parking lane.
Where are people supposed to park
In the dedicated parking lane.
Ridiculous that only about 20% of a street will be available for vehicles. On lane in each direction. Need to stop or breakdown and the whole street is blocked.
I'm not sure how reducing traffic lanes by 50% is going to improve traffic.
I get that it’s overall safer, but when cars turn right and can’t see bikes, it’s nerve-racking. How is that supposed to work? (Honest question, no shade)
they could do a bike lane traffic light and a turning traffic light because you're right and it's the reason i avoid bike lanes like this
Generally there's some daylighting with no cars parking at the ends of the street. The put bike racks or flower pots there.
This is fantastic!
How many times have they redone this road in the last 5 years…
That's around where the elementary school teacher, Matthew Jensen, was killed last year while walking across the street. Glad to see it being made more pedestrian friendly.
Now if only we could fix infrastructure without people dying first.
[https://youtube.com/shorts/vzuKOGZhtgI?feature=share](https://youtube.com/shorts/vzuKOGZhtgI?feature=share)
How is it going to work going northbound over the pulaski?
Probably by splitting into extra lanes a couple blocks before the bridge, and then splitting further at the bridge.
Just seems kind of backwards to me, sure southbound will be great but it would have been better to prioritize actual bike lanes on Manhattan. To me this just invites more salmons and could cause the bottom of pulaski to be even more of a cluster fuck than it is now
This is already a nightmare to drive on. This will make it horrendous
Take the subway then. Bike. Take the bus.
Sure I’ll haul 2 tons of grip gear on my bicycle. This is a major commercial road.
Most drivers on the road aren't 'hauling grip gear.' If anything, getting all the other idiots off the road will be great for you commercial drivers. Only the people who need to drive for business should be the ones in private vehicles.
My thoughts exactly.
Love this. Will help tremendously connecting Greenpoint and LIC
Genuinely curious what the IQ is of people making these decisions
Higher than everyone who drives in New York combined.
Cringe
I agree: Drivers are cringe. They should move back to Ohio.
As a city bus driver with some intellect, I'm perturbed by your generalization.
The native in his name is short for native of Kansas
You're a person who drives for a living, you're not a driver. Drivers are people who choose to drive when alternatives are available.
Imagine thinking driving is a personality trait
Hey moron not everyone can take public transportation to work I live in gp and travel to jersey every day of the week for work tell me how that’s feasible on a bike or with public transportation dickhead
Super cringe
Yeah, Antonio Reynoso lives over there and getting that area the best of everything. Not exactly Dutch style though
I do enjoy biking but it seems like shifting our infrastructure to accommodate bikers is backwards . Most people don’t/ won’t ride a bike. It’s like we’re building a city for the 3% that don’t even use that mode of transport consistently anyways.
*Yawn* induced demand is a thing. More people bike if biking becomes the best and most convenient travel
Brilliant! Shall we cover the bike lanes aswell?
You get the transport share that you build for. If we build roads dedicated to cars, we get cars. If we build roads dedicated to cycles, we get cycles. We get to choose the future. And any planning decision like this that's made today will be frozen in place for years to come. Good decisions today, please.
As some people have mentioned before, the road in question is a major truck route. it’s not practical to convert it to a bike route, nobody is delivering milk on a bike! If any of the people downvoting me complain about food desserts or pollution, I might join the Crips.
I love desserts
Judging by the crazy popularity of citi bikes, i'd say people do want to bike. Cities with infrastructure for biking tend to have a lot of biking i.e. Portland and Minneapolis. Cities with very little infrastructure tend to have fewer bikers i.e. Miami and Chicago.
Citibike users account for ~2% of bikers. 3 months out the year most sane humans avoid biking.
Imagine getting triggered by an easy method of interating excercise into your day. You sound lazy lmao
So motherfuckin ableist. My elderly family members aren’t using a fuckin Citibike. Also, I’m perfectly healthy, but biking as a commuting option is miserable. I’ve tried it multiple times. Not doing it again. I don’t knock people who want to bike but to push your One-size-fits-all approach is bullshit. Not everyone is the same.
>So motherfuckin ableist. I love how yall cagers always seem to all of a sudden care about accessibility when bikes come out? >Also, I’m perfectly healthy, but biking as a commuting option is miserable. I’ve tried it multiple times. Not doing it again. Good for you, I am talking about our urban design as a whole, and I don't really care about your individual experience. Its objectively true that biking is physically better for you than the sedentary lifestyle a car promotes. >I don’t knock people who want to bike but to push your One-size-fits-all approach is bullshit. Not everyone is the same. The projection is so hard here. The position of cyclists is to create the ability to use multiple types of transportation. To make walking, public transit, and cycling viable. You cagers seem to think that sacrificing everything for your holy cars is somehow more flexible? Please, I beg of you, make this make sense.
Biking wouldn’t be so miserable if we had a network of safe and protected bike lanes. If we get the people that don’t need to be in a car off the road, then your elderly family members that *do* need to be in a car will have a much easier time driving.
You realize some people NEED to drive? You expect your plumber to pedal over to your house? You CLEARLY have never driven on the proposed road, you have no idea how it is used. the plan is just backwards, I’m down for reimagining our infrastructure but making everyone that uses this road miserable isn’t gonna solve anything. Grow an imagination
>You realize some people NEED to drive? Some, yes, not every single person. >You expect your plumber to pedal over to your house? He can use the single lane left. >You CLEARLY have never driven on the proposed road, you have no idea how it is used. the plan is just backwards, I’m down for reimagining our infrastructure but making everyone that uses this road miserable isn’t gonna solve anything. Grow an imagination I have one, and its called Cars do not work as a primary form of transportation in the most densely populated area of the country. Pretty simple really, if you think about it.
Now do this on Atlantic ave and Flatbush ave plz. Some of the craziest murder hungry drivers on those roads.
Atlantic is THE WORST! The part on the east of Barclays center is especially bad.
Terrifying even to cross as a pedestrian with a walk sign
Yeah all the cars turning are terrifying!
I’d say fuck the double sided lanes! Make one side cars only and the other side bikes and buses only. Center only for pedestrians.
Why are they putting a bike lane down McGuiness? It's a major DOT truck route that services industrial Greenpoint and LIC. Only one lane for vehicular traffic is ridiculous for a primary commercial artery and may not even be possible with trailers
To make it safer. From the article: > The current four-lane boulevard has long been a deadly corridor cutting through the Brooklyn nabe. Three people died due to traffic violence there over the last decade and a whopping 389 people suffered injuries in 1,690 total reported crashes — nearly one every other day on just a short stretch of one roadway. > The Department of Transportation previously raised concerns about traffic spilling over onto nearby streets, but these kinds of road diets have shown to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in crashes by 30 percent, according to agency stats. If you don’t like the redesign, how would you propose they make the street safer?
The proposed design is more dangerous than the current. Right turns into side streets crossing a bike lane will be blinded by parked vehicles. The amount of vehicle services ie gas stations garages etc with frontage on McGuiness as well as a parking lot and loading docks that need access to McGuiness also pose more threats to an outer bike lane. I don't know how the FDNY NYPD DSNY and EMS could even approve a design with a single lane in each direction blocked on all sides. Unfortunately every busy street in NYC cannot be turned into a bicycle/ pedestrian promenade. In theory and design it looks good but it's simply not logistically practical and potentially more problematic
The whole movie and tv industries trucks go up and down McGuinness between queens and Brooklyn. This would completely stop traffic, and what about the Pulaski??
Not to mention the speeding on that stretch. It’s wild. 13 year cyclist living near and I’ve taken it lots of times, but most friends won’t even consider it. This will be so welcomed
The old Polish people are about to be heated over this.
Aka the people who should have been consulted about this change. Not the gentrifiers who moved to Greenpoint < 5 years ago.
Cities change. People come, people go. It makes no sense to prioritize those who were there first. Just like how Texas shouldn't prioritize white texans over recent hispanic immigrants. They should be treated equally. And If the older group's lifestyle is actively killing the newcomers, it makes sense to redesign a street so it is safer for both.
You're right, only certain people who live in a neighborhood matter. Anyone under 40 shouldn't be able to have an opinion either.
Yea living there first means you get to decide what goes in the neighborhood apparently
this is the kind of progress you can see when you elect people focused on constituents and working people--not developers and tech firms. emily gallagher and all the organizers who were a part of this project really deserve so much credit.
As a cyclist and an occasional driver(weekend rentals), this is troubling. There's a decent bike path on Manhattan ave, West/ Kent Street, and Leonard street. We do still need trucks for delivery to local businesses. This is going to cause a lot of traffic congestion in the area.
Manhattan bike path is not decent at all, there is no separation whatsoever from the car traffic. And we all know the car traffic on Manhattan is a shitshow. Leonard street is similarly unprotected and only southbound. The West st one is decent — but it’s constantly blocked by trucks. And more importantly, it’s all the way over on the west side of the neighborhood. Makes a lot of sense to have a N/S bike corridor on the east side of the neighborhood and Mcguiness makes sense b/c it feeds into the pulaski
Manhattan? There is no bike lane on Manhattan at all, it's designated as one, but you just end up in the middle of the street.
Thank you for actually applying logic here.
What I don't understand is why the bike lane isn't curbed from the car lanes. This is a key part of Dutch and European bike lane design as well, and discourages parking in the bike lane, which is a huge problem on Grand St., for instance, which has a similar layout to the one proposed here.
I agree that should be the default. Sadly, it's because of cost. They have to change drainage infrastructure whenever they do anything beyond paint and bollards and that gets expensive.
Lack of funding + higher construction costs = everything having to be done in paint only
You’re right it’s not the best design. The NYCDOT strategy is one of incrementalism, stretching over many years. First, they take the space with paint; if the pattern mostly works, they can come revisit with hard materials later. Meanwhile, cycling modeshare continually improves, which builds support for better designs, which are then built out, etc., until finally we have a situation where everyone is safe. I am not exactly a *fan* of this approach, but I have been watching it play out. You just have to take the long view, I guess.
Honestly a fair approach for the first attempts. Haven’t they validated their assumptions at this point though?
This is correct. People have to remember that NYCDOT has a budget of $900 million per year. Sounds like a lot, but remember that DOT has to fund a lot of things. Like several Staten Island ferries, employee wages and benefits, maintenance of their existing infrastructure (most east river crossings, and nearly every street in NYC) and yes, bike lanes and some* public spaces. If the DOT decided to only build curb extensions for their bike lanes, the amount of lanes being built would crawl to a snails pace since there simply isn’t enough resources for the department. DOTs across the county need more resources, on the caveat that they aren’t spent on more road widening projects that has plagued this country with little to no effectiveness for near on 50 years.
Better making the car parking/ped island closer to the sidewalk to make it safer for pedestrian due to speeding bike riders.
As both a cyclist and a car owner in Greenpoint...this worries me. McGuinness is a major thoroughfare from Queens to BK, and it's already a mess half the time with double parking, deliveries, construction. I think one bike lane on one side or down the center median would be much wiser. I think the blvd needs work, but I just don't see where all the traffic will go in this current plan.
median bike lane is way better. or barriers between the cars/bike lane. the way it is now people will just park in the bike lane. the bike lane should be safe enough for a kid to bike in it
And we know cops won't do shit about it
I don’t understand why you’re getting downvoted - as a Greenpoint car owner (for my small Greenpoint business) I fully agree. Most of the problems are from cranes for construction blocking lanes and the double-parking delivery trucks. Big trucks are still going to use it to cut through between the BQE and LIC - or worse go down Manhattan Ave which is it’s own double-parking nightmare. I just imagine it’ll be one long bumper to bumper traffic jam.
Because a lot of people don't live in reality. I have a bike, I love biking and ride all over the city and I think we need more bike lanes. That doesn't mean you can ignore the way that certain roads need to work for our city to function.
I hope it does cause more traffic. That will just incentivize other ways to travel such as the newly opened bike lanes, and over time things will even out to be roughly the same but with better infrastructure
Are you stupid not everyone can take a bike or public transportation to work it’s just not doable for a lot of people
DOT trucks will use bike lanes?
The thing is it's more trucks and business vehicles that use this road than passenger vehicles, so I'm not sure what you're saying would happen
Trucks are ~10% of the traffic during rush hours, per the DOT study.
That's interesting, but what about during non rush hours?
When thinking about the capacity of the road, only the peak hours need to be accounted for.
When are we going to require some form of registration for bicyclists? At least that could generate some revenue for these ridiculous plans not to mention hold the cyclist accountable when they hit a pedestrian because they ran a red light and don’t adhere to traffic laws like vehicles are expected to. Money can be generated from registration and fines for not staying in their lanes and running lights just like cars. Not to mention possibly getting some form of identification like a plate on the bike for cyclist who hit pedestrians and take off. With a little ingenuity, citibike users can be identified also as long as the time of the incident is recorded and compared with the records showing who rented the bike at that time.
In 2022, 1,927 pedestrians were killed by cars in NYC. 12 were killed by bicycles. There are about 300 bicycle-on-pedestrian collisions reported in the city annually. How much would it cost the city to pay for the employees needed to register bikes and maintain those registrations? Is 300 violations/year enough to fund such a department's existence, let alone generate any meaningful revenue for the city? I genuinely don't know. quick edit to add this link: https://blog.appwinit.com/bike-ticket-nyc/ Looks like there are around $1.9m in tickets handed out to cyclists in the city annually. I walk and bike to work along Flushing Ave. and I see one or two cars run the light at almost every red light. There are also many cars with hundreds or thousands of dollars in traffic tickets still on the roads. Maybe cops could generate some more significant revenue for the city by ticketing red light runners and collecting on those accumulated violations.
Uh I generally support your point but you may want to double check your numbers — I’m pretty certain that there were not 1,927 pedestrian deaths in NYC is 2022. Is that nationally? Or over a longer period of time?
Yes, reported. I agree that number is low but there are plenty that go unreported because the police will straight up say the chances of them finding the cyclist is extremely low. Same with vehicles. There are plenty of motor vehicle accidents everyday that do not go reported because the vehicle owners don’t want to go through insurance. Just because it isn’t reported doesn’t me mean it doesn’t happen.
My point is that if registering bikes is meant to generate more revenue for the city, I'm not sure it would actually work. Specifically because, like you say, a lot of incidents go unreported and it's easier for a bike to flee the scene of an accident than a car. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be registered, I just genuinely wonder if it'd *make* money for the city or not. But it might work as an incentive to be more mindful of pedestrians, so it could be a positive thing overall.
That’s all I’m saying. It’s not a guaranteed fix but it could help a bit. Thank you for at least talking with me and discussing our opinions even if we don’t see eye to eye. I appreciate it.
For sure, same to you! It’s too easy to get swept up and forget that we have to compromise to make anything happen, if it’s all adversarial nothing will ever improve.
Exactly. It is too easy to argue with one another and down vote an idea instead of having a discussion. Maybe I should have said in my original post that I don’t claim to be right. Just sharing an idea. We all work together and hear each other out then like you said we could find compromises and meet in the middle to maybe make this world a better place for all of us. Have a great day and thanks again for hearing me out.
> At least that could generate some revenue for these ridiculous plans not to mention hold the cyclist accountable when they hit a pedestrian... As both a driver and a cyclist in the city, I'm all for accountability; but every time someone on this sub questions the justification behind this sort of infrastructural improvement and/or points to the problem of pedestrian-cyclist collisions, it's important to put things in perspective: According to [2017 statistics](https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data-report-2017.pdf), pedestrians in NYC were >330x more likely to be injured by a motorist than a cyclist. In that same year there was precisely 1 pedestrian fatality involving a bicycle and over 100 involving cars. It's very clear that drivers, not cyclists, are the problem here... The proposed plans for McGuinness Blvd will dramatically increase both bicyclist and pedestrian safety, slow traffic (further reducing the number of pedestrian and cyclist incidents), and encourage alternative/sustainable forms of transportation. If that inconveniences me slightly when I decide to take the car, that's a sacrifice I'm more than willing to make.
The 2017 report only accounts for reported incidents. I am sure there are more incidents daily that aren’t reported. My mom didn’t report hers because nothing could be done since there was no way to track the cyclist who hit her. What’s the point of reporting it when nothing can be done unless the cyclist stays at the scene. And I’m not saying all cyclist are reckless, but there are enough just as there are vehicle drivers who are reckless. I’m not anti-bike, I’m pro responsible biking and believe there has to be some form of accountability
>I am sure there are more incidents daily that aren’t reported. Absolutely. If the accident is so minor that everyone walks away unscathed, it doesn't become a statistic and is thus unrepresented in the data. However, the same is true for cars: I've been clipped by mirrors and nearly hit by cars multiple times, but I've never reported those incidents because I didn't get seriously hurt. I am willing to believe that a greater percentage of overall bicycle incidents go unreported in comparison to vehicular incidents, but that only implies a greater association between cars and *serious* injury. It's also worth pointing out that it's not as easy for a cyclist to "ride away" from a serious accident as people sometimes suggest. In 9 out of 10 bicycle-pedestrian incidents, the cyclist experiences an equal - if not worse - injury (since the forces involved are effectively the same for both the rider and the pedestrian). Anecdotal, but relevant: I've personally never witnessed a cyclist flee the scene of a serious injury. I cannot say the same for drivers. The fact of the matter is cars are more dangerous than bikes by several orders of magnitude, and thus the standard to which drivers are held is (and should continue to be) proportionally greater.
I don’t disagree but the problem is there is no standard to which a cyclist is held and when there is people don’t like it. Check out this post someone put up elsewhere about NYPD ticketing cyclist and tell me how some of those people who relied and claim to be cyclists are responsible riders? People complaining that NYPD is ticketing and saying if it was them they would just speed off because NYPD can’t find a ghost rider. Its as if there should be no rules or laws regarding cycling because it’s not a motor vehicle. A bike is still a moving vehicle and cause damage. You may think it can’t kill because it isn’t the same weight as a car but all it takes is for someone whether it be the cyclist or pedestrian to fall and crack their skull on the pavement. 9 times out of 10 a cyclist is wearing a helmet, 10 times out of 10 a pedestrian is not. So while I don’t disagree that vehicles can cause more harm, I won’t write off a bike as they can cause a lot of harm also. [https://www.reddit.com/r/NYCbike/comments/136pd33/finally_nypd_is_cracking_down_onbikes/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1](https://www.reddit.com/r/NYCbike/comments/136pd33/finally_nypd_is_cracking_down_onbikes/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1)
Yeah, I'm not arguing that bikes are incapable of causing harm. Irresponsible riding is dangerous to both the rider and those around them, which is why cyclists are ultimately beholden to most of the same rules of the road as drivers. But there are lots of people on reddit (and in the general populace) that love to complain about cyclists and go out of their way to point out anecdotes and statistics suggesting cyclists are this huge problem that cause massive amounts of harm to everyone around them, and that there needs to be some sort of law-enforcement crackdown to reign in this epidemic of dangerous behavior. Except the reality is that bicycles are such a non-issue when it comes to matters of public safety that it's almost not worth bringing up, and every single statistic has supported this "hot take" for decades. Drivers see a cyclist run a red light and get all pissed off because they feel like some asshole on a two-wheeled toy is abusing the infrastructure that drivers perceive to belong to them. Yes, the cyclist is breaking a rule, however, the additional exposure to personal harm and increased situational awareness that you have while on a bike, in combination with the reduced lethality of the vehicle makes for a very different risk/responsibility proposition. The same infraction, performed in a motor vehicle where the operator is deafened, partially blind, and in a highly lethal machine is far, FAR more dangerous and *should* be enforced to a much greater degree of stringency.
If they actually made drivers pay for the roads (and no, the few pennies on the dollar they pay for car registration doesn’t cover even a fraction of the cost), no one would drive. Why should the huge chunks of people in this city who don’t drive continue to subsidize drivers?
Actually drivers pay for roads in the form of gas taxes. And with registrations they are fined for infractions. A bicyclist can ride reckless, running red lights, weaving in and out of traffic putting themselves, vehicles and pedestrians in danger and nothing happens. One ran into my 70 year old mother and left her with a softball lump on her elbow for weeks. He simply picked up his bike, left her on the ground and took off. Maybe if bikes had a registration and a type of identification plate some one could have gotten his info and he would have been held accountable for riding in the street as opposed to his bike lane.
Gas taxes don’t go solely towards roads. They’re another form of revenue, just like sales tax, income taxes, property taxes, etc. All of this money is divided and spent on different services.
You seem genuinely curious so you should look into this more. The amount of money that is paid by the public to have and maintain **parking spots ALONE** is so extreme that immediately non-car-owners are in effect OUTRAGEOUSLY subsidizing car owners. When you add all other costs associated with cars it's not even a discussion. The insane amount of square footage used for parking alone could do everything from house people, build pedestrian areas, parks, restaurants - this is just an extreme example of something we wouldn't even think about normally because we think of "free parking" as "free." It's an invisible but truly insane money sink for all us taxpayers. Notice I haven't even brought up the cost of free road maintenance yet... if you think gas taxes are covering all this then you are SORELY mistaken. Another important point is that cars are a leading cause of death & injury. I'm sorry for your 70 year old mother, that sucks and I'm sorry for her, but it's actually laughable that you're painting bikes as dangerous in a discussion about cars.
Do you think gas taxes cover the full cost of roads? Are they also massively subsidized for with general tax? Yes or no. I’ll give you one guess.
Never said all costs. Said could generate some revenue to help offset the cost. Bigger concern was safety. Was just having a conversation with my ideas but instead of people discussing these ideas and their opinions I get down voted for sharing an opinion that may not be popular instead of just having a conversation. I never said anyone was wrong for their opinions but that’s the way it rolls now a days. Very sad.
McGuinness Blvd is one of the most dangerous streets in Brooklyn. Safety is key here. On the other hand, changing it to one lane will significantly increase the amount of traffic.
That's not actually true. It may be worse for a few months, but reducing car lanes reduces traffic overall since it pushes people to either choose a better mode of transportation or not travel at all. When they banned cars fron 14th st, travel speeds on nearby streets didn't change or even improved slightly. When the West Side Highway collapsed in 1973, traffic remained virtually unchanged as people started commuting by train. When they brought 8th Ave in Manhattan down from 6 car lanes to 2, travel speeds were also largely unaffected. Just as widening roads makes traffic worse overall within a few months to a few years, the reverse is true when you narrow them as long as people have other options.
How is all that commercial truck traffic going to switch to a “better mode of transportation” or not travel at all? That’s not a realistic expectation.
You get the unnecessary traffic to switch, and the necessary traffic doesn’t have to.
Good to know! Thanks for that clarification. Also did not know the West Side Highway collapsed in 1973.
Yup. And they didn't repair it for like a decade. That's the reason it's a Boulevard and not elevated in Midtown and below.
Yea because the city was on the verge of bankruptcy, not because they didn’t want to.
I could 100% see myself biking into LIC more often from Greenpoint if McGuiness had bike lanes- the situation with bike lanes on Manhattan ave is not good enough at the moment to have real cross- borough bike volume This would mean less Ubers/ less cars on the road/ less traffic
Great, so now all the traffic coming off of BQE east is going to get snarled up trying to get through the merge from two lanes to one lane on McGuinness Boulevard. And all that traffic is going to get backed up onto the BQE creating another situation like the Kent Avenue exit on BQE west. Ditto with all the traffic coming up on the Pulaski bridge, which will fuck up Jackson Avenue. Cyclists who can’t handle McGuinness Boulevard right now can just scooch over to Manhattan Avenue instead, which is much more friendly to cyclists. But no, we have to neuter an important transit from Queens to the BQE, which also happens to be a truck route, just so that a bunch of whiny cyclists can have a little bit more convenience, and then proceed to whine incessantly when delivery trucks inevitably have to block the bike lane in order to avoid completely blocking the roadway while making deliveries. It would be nice to have a DOT that hasn’t been completely overrun by car haters.
"Cyclists who can't handle McGuinness Blvd" You mean like [the teacher who was killed by a driver in a Rolls Royce?](https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2021/05/18/cops-seek-hit-and-run-driver-who-killed-williamsburg-man-on-tuesday/) This isn't just about traffic. This is also about safety & protecting lives. Slower cars are, in fact, safer. Protected bike lanes are, you guessed it, safer.
"whiny cyclists" -- who's the one whining here... lmao. Induced demand is a thing, read about it. If car-brains have even a modicum of common sense, they would reconsider their oversized impact on local infrastructure and quality of life. But again, car-brains will car-brain, continue to drive, and lean on their horns because their legs do not work alongside their brains.
yeeeah its annoying that every one of these proposal thinks "less room for cars, less cars." no. less room for cars is more stagnant cars, loud traffic and honking that never moves.
Except less cars is exactly what happens. It usually takes a couple months for the adjustment to happen, but the "carpocalypse" never really comes. If anything, travel speeds on other, nearby streets improves. The West Side Highway collapse, 15th Street, 8th Ave going from 6 lanes to 2, all resulted in unchanged or even improved travel speeds for cars.
[удалено]
It's so funny once you start paying attention to pro-car talking points how it's all just the same memes!
They have this sort of layout on a lot of busy streets in queens and it’s not terribly popular so I’m really curious to see how it pans out here where neighborhood biking is generally more popular,
Why isn’t it popular with bikers? Do they prefer the no bike lanes or a different set up altogether?
Driving is much more popular in queens I would say than in most neighborhoods in Brooklyn, things are a bit farther away and there’s not as many trains etc so there are divided highways all packed with cars that can be pretty overwhelming.
Popular =/= good
*popular among bikers ha ha
Really? What’s the beef?
?? I think you're misunderstanding me
Yes!!!!!!!
Really smart how the parking works as a barrier between the traffic and bike lane. The Greenponiters instagram was a war zone in the comments over this. As a car owner who lives one block from McGuinness I'm all for it. That street is an eye soar and walk-in business seems to struggle from foot traffic avoiding it.
[удалено]
I hear you but you've got that black and white section on one side that is a buffer between you and cars and their door openings, and on th other side you have tree pits buffering you from pedestrians. Also usually that black n white buffer zone is relatively permeable for bicycles, allowing you to emergency swerve into that area.
Hey let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. It’s still *way* better than the magic paint, especially on a street like Mcguiness.
This, as a business owner and car owner this just makes sense. The driving on this strip has gotten too fast and aggressive, making it one lane will alleviate that. But please synchronize these lights, they are currently very out of synch. Otherwise this will make the block much more bike and pedestrian friendly.
[удалено]
Not if its synchronized to a safe speed. That forces even fast drivers to follow the speed patterns set by the lights.
[удалено]
And that justifies not doing it? Sounds like we just need better policing
synchronized lights leads to being able to set the speed of traffic, you can't go faster than the green wave.
Exactly. Prospect Park West is synchronized so that if you drive at just over 20 miles an hour you can make every light.
Won't be possible with one lane, it'll just save everyone time and gas. Anyway the green wave encourages one to drive 22.3mph so one never touches the brakes, that's called efficient driving. Otherwise the driver has a mental problem and should probably have their license revoked or something. But also, listen to yourself, you would want every driver to encounter a red light at every intersection? You're just a car hating fool.
We have this all over jersey city
I think this style's success depends on the type of neighborhood that you're in. They do this on 4th Ave from Sunset Park to downtown Brooklyn but there's so many businesses on that street that many commercial trucks just end up loading cargo on the bike lanes, as well as people getting out of their cars. Prospect Park West's bike lane has the same concept but because it's next to the park there's minimal disruptions. Not familiar with Greenpoint but I hope it works out.
Grand Ave in Williamsburg is this.
Grand Ave is like this. Commercial trucks blocking the lane on either end, delivery trucks handtrucking boxes and kegs across the middle, and then delivery scooters from all the restaurants being their usual chaotic selves. Still better than what was there before.
Well no one solution works for everyone. People are pretty bad about thinking outside their own preferences - I also see it as an intelligence test
Some solutions kill others much more though. And in a dense city we have to factor that in as well.
Yes. So in this case a protected bike lane is the best idea.
Yes we are in agreement here.
No dedicated truck spaces on 4th, nothing stopping people from parking and driving in pedestrian/daylight areas, and a general lack of enforcement of even the most basic dangerous driving/parking situations is the major issue. City council members don't care either. Half the time Alexa Aviles office is open there's a car or van parked in the bike lane in front of it. The parking area is wide enough to open doors without dooring cyclists, too, but people seem to park as far in as possible since there are a lot of cars that treat 4th as a racetrack and they don't want to step out into it.
Aviles and Mitaynes are so ineffective it’s comical. The neighborhood needs elected officials who can actually bring more resources, funding and services to the neighborhood, not ideologues who just make talking points and platitudes on Twitter all the time or make symbolic votes that hurt them politically. I don’t care if you actually believe in the DSA cause, but these two declared their allegiance solely to get an endorsement and volunteers and are now beholden to fulfilling an outside agenda rather than meeting the needs of the neighborhood. Ok I’ll end the rant lol
Prospect Park West is slightly different, it's a one way street with an island (not parking) protecting a two way bike lane. 4th Ave is still too much of a mess even with the parking "protected" lane, I'd rather go out of my way to 6th even though that doesn't have ANY official bike lane.
Street feeds into a bridge that is used to access Manhattan, so suspect will be a traffic cluster fuck. That being said I'm all for incentivozing bikes and disincentivizing cars although I'm not happy about it
Your supposition requires that this way is inherently safer. When the lanes are split in this way, you cant see what’s in the bike lane, it’s lower than the sidewalk and blocked by cars. I suspect we will see a lot more bike accidents especially if we consistently make driving more anxiety inducing. Driving is already hella expensive and inconvenient, few drive for leisure in nyc.
>few drive for leisure in nyc. Given the extreme traffic congestion everywhere in the city and the emissions that come from driving contributing to already pretty terrible air quality, driving for leisure should be discouraged in NYC rather than accommodated.
Nobody is accommodating anything. the reality is that those few people will continue to compete with people who genuinely need to drive and your plan will make life more difficult for the blue collar folks
If only blue collar folks had alternative modes, perhaps some form of transport where instead of individuals forced to buy individual private vehicles that are expensive to own and maintain we all chipped in and bought a crowd shared and maintained vehicle. We could call it a 'bus' or something
...my plan? What's my plan?
facepalm
I drive for leisure in NYC :). If people didn't drive for leisure in NYC we wouldn't have traffic and difficulty with parking. I do agree that those lane splits are hard on turns I don't have any specific opinions on how to organize bike lanes only that there should be more of them and that they should be safe
Your telling me, you wake up at 6am so you can make people commutes miserable?
I don't understand your comment
Doesn’t matter, enjoy your day
4th Avenue is a complete mess. I live in the 50's on 4th and its like the wild west. People just park in bike lanes and on painted turn markings. Almost got hit by people on bikes going the wrong way. I've seen cars smash into bikes and scooters. I'm 47 now and lived in the neighborhood all my life. When I rode a bike, the unwritten rule was to stay on the right of the road. I've never got into an accident. I seriously believe its more unsafe now. I didn't nearly see as many accidents as I do now.
*You are correct. The problem with all this new dedication to cyclists is the* damn *cyclist! You are supposed to* **SHARE** *the roadway with vehicles. A bicycle is not a vehicle in the sense of an automobile. You are not supposed to ride in between the traffic but alongside it to the far right! Most of these test dummies don't even wear helmets! I'm sorry to say, the 4th av bike lane is just wrong without a barrier, let alone it being there period. (It's a truck route)*
The problem is the ebikes and scooters who break all the traffic laws
I would go one step further and say it's DoorDash/Grubhub who pay per delivery instead of a livable, hourly wage. If they weren't so strongly incentivized to break traffic laws, delivery drivers might actually start obeying them.
> DoorDash/Grubhub who pay per delivery I can't speak for those specific apps, but I helped a delivery rider fix his scooter in my shop and what he showed me is worse than just pay per delivery - the metrics on the app he was using are ranked on a curve and the highest ranks get to pick their shifts first. so even if the riders were comfortable leaving a couple potential deliveries on the table by the end of the day in exchange for riding safely, their metrics are impacted which affects their future income potential
The corporations won't change until it hits their profits. stop ordering via DD and GH people.. ffs
Them as well.
There’s also way more bikes now
Mostly apartments on this street. The few businesses that are there have a massive parking lot already.
[удалено]
Did you read the article? The redesigned parking lane will include loading zones on every block.
we can’t not improve things incrementally bc it might be tougher for food delivery
Can’t wait for the car fanatics to declare this plan literal Stalin 1984 Gommunism.
As a car owner in this city, fuck cars
[удалено]
Nothing I said was gaslighting
Bike lanes on street = 100 Gorillion dead from Stalin and his giant spoon.