New Scheme By The Meter Maids !!!

homeowner wrote: [quote=Boygabriel][quote=homeowner]This is what gets me. The number of people using bike lanes Nov-Mar is going to be relatively few, especially in the outer boroughs. While bike messengers may use them in the city, only the hardcore bikers are biking through a NYC winter. Think back to the subway strike of a few years ago. Even then, the numbers of people biking to work didn't appreciate significantly. More people walked and carpooled, simply because riding a bike in 10 degree weather isn't the most fun thing, and add in rain and snow and its downright miserable. Why then take a street like Bedford Avenue which was a heavily used truck route and put a bike lane on it, squeezing all the existing truck traffic from three lanes to two. It just doesn't make sense when there are weeks were there are only a handful of bikers using the lane. As a taxpayer, why aren't my tax dollars being spent on mass transit which has a much larger usage than on bike lanes which are used on a regular basis by a very tiny minority of residents?

First of all, a lot of people still bike in the winter. Especially short distances around Brooklyn because we all know buses and the G train don't run that frequently.

Second of all, I find the 'my tax dollars' argument to be very troublesome. Do you actually know what the funding looks like for biking versus, say, highways and roads? Beyond that, I almost never ride in a car (not taxis or anything), so why should MY tax dollars go to repairing roads that are partially worn down by people who drive to work or drive to the grocery store?

I really don't like the 'my tax dollars' argument, especially for something that's as relatively small budget as painting bike lines on roads.

Bike lanes are being sold as an alternative to the use of cars. The transportation alternative folks tout them as being another way to reduce the amount of car traffic currently clogging streets. Why then is it troublesome to ask whether or not the money would be better spent on another type of transportation alternative such as mass transit? It seems to me that there are plenty of people (elderly, disabled, parents with multiple small children) for whom the addition of buses or bus routes would be preferred over bike lanes. For me its not a car vs. bike argument, its what is the best use if you are looking for non-car alternatives. The decision to go with bike lanes means money is not being spent on other things, and I simply wonder if there is any logic behind why the decision for bike lanes has been pushed in a place where public transportation alternatives could be expanded or further developed?

As for the "a lot of people bike in the winter", I'd suggest to you that there is a pretty narrow demographic of people who bike year-round (young, mostly male, single, with no kids). Bike lanes are supposed to encourage people who don't actively bike to feel safe to use it as an alternative means of transportation. Among that group I don't think that biking in the snow or the rain is a realistic option such that they'll opt to hop on their bike in February to run the kids to the museum or library.

Your premise is incorrect. Biking increased dramatically during the 2005 transit strike. According to transalt bike traffic across the east river bridges increased 500%.

To your first point, the amount of money spent on bike lanes is a small fraction of what is spent on roads and mass transit. With a system that has a budget in the billions, the marginal difference of $10 or $20 million won't do much and you get more bang for your buck allocating it to bike lanes.

supreme_ian wrote: ahahahahaa first off let me say

some great essay's have been written here. we should print some and mail em to what ever fool is in charge of the nyc dot.. now as for the bike lanes more ppl drive and take mass transit than bike. to hell what what ever indy survey you try and show me and what ever else thats just proven fact.

so how does the city cry broke and the mta is a pile of shit factor into bad placement of bike lanes and wasting MY tax dollars !!

bike lanes CREATE more traffic than reduce when you turn a huge 2 lane street into a 1 lane with a bike lane that is barely used that creates TRAFFIC.. as stated in my FACTS see fact #4
last i saw a bike didnt get a $65 parking ticket or a $125 Crosswalk ticket bikes basically generate 0 revenue for the city.. no $ from the gas tax no $ from tolls nothing !

and you living on the G train know better than most that your train line SUCKS and has needed improvement for over 15 years !

hahaha. you called your statements FACTS.

That's awesome.

I bike around the park at midnight, that's about it.

I fall into the "pro-bike lane" group because I am "anti car".

Its kind of like recycling. It never makes money for the city, Its a pain it the ass that forces the average person to sort their trash. I still like it, because it forces people to look at and touch their trash. ...maybe they will use less stuff as a result.

The bike lane analogy: Maybe it will force people to take transit because they no longer have two lanes on every street and a free parking space at the expense of those of us in the city that don't own cars and want some open space.

homeowner wrote: The average daily ridership of NYC MTA is 6.4 million people. Using Transportation Alternatives numbers the average numbers of daily bikers in NYC is 120,000. Again I ask, why are we putting money into bike lanes instead of improving mass transit?

ETA: Also, I think you guys are grossly understating the cost of bike lanes and the associated work (traffic medians, road repaving, etc) that comes with it. Here is a link on the Sand Street bike path which is currently under contract for $4.6 million for a two to three block stretch of lanes)

Manhattan Bridge Bike Path construction issues

Also interesting to note that the article states that currently only about 1500 bikes cross the bridge daily

I think the sands street path and others such as Kent ave and all of the greenways are paid for by a $61million federal grant. It's in the City's Bike Master Plan. Most of the bike lanes do not get the same treatment as Sands St. or the 9th ave track in manhattan. Most bike lanes are simply painted lines on the street and that is the type the original poster was complaining against.

You are posing a false choice. It is not, Fund Mass Transit or Fund Bike Lanes. We already fund mass transit a lot. and funding bike lanes could actually improve mass transit. How? More bike lanes will result in more bikers - it's an "if you build it, they will come" scenario as evidenced by the huge increase in biking during the transit strike and during the summer streets events.

more people bike, less people drive, your bus runs faster.

If you want to know whats wrong with the MTA, read larry littlefield's blog.
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/larry_littlefield/the_2008_13_mta_capital_plan_our_sold_out_future_is_here.html

It has nothing to do with a small amount of money spent on bike lanes, or phony waterfalls, or changing the name of the Triboro bridge.

sweet tea wrote: i never ride my bike in the city because the traffic scares the crap out of me. if bike lanes were separated and dependable, i would give you my seat on the rush hour 4, at least when it isn't sleeting.

This, totally.