DOT to Propose 2 way protected bike path on PPW

ringrunner wrote:
Maybe we can continue the less pollution trend

I was alarmed to hear on NPR recently, (I think it was Mark Bittman on Lopate) that LIVESTOCK produces even more greenhouse gases than autos! I wonder: if motorists could cut back on their daily hot beef injections, would it help calm the traffic down? Will bike lanes and tofu dogs save humanity?

It's been reported bovine flatulence creates 18% 0f greenhouse gases , if this is true, how much is created by humans and is it time to tax the sale of beans

ringrunner wrote: But, it is not just about more bikes. It is about traffic calming.

Wrong. IMO, traffic calming - the slowing of traffic - does not reduce emissions. After all, the cars will still get to where they are going but just slower.

But know I see where you are coming from, you want to force people who are driving, through wahetver means, to ride a bicycle. Guess what? That doesn't work.

In NYC, if you want people to ride tehre bicycles, especially from Brooklyn or Queens to Manhattan, then pave the East River (or at least put flat or flatter bridges over it such as in Chicago, London, Paris, etc.

What facts? I see you haven't provided any links or facts either. Please enlighten me how Traffic calming actually reduces emissions and cars on the road and forces people to use bicycles.

Carnivore wrote:

If the cows are producing all those greenhouse gases, clearly we aren't eating them fast enough!

Hee hee hee, hoo hoo hoo....haa haa....huh........uh-oh.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment

Subject: I know I'm going to regret entering the fray....

I know I'm going to regret entering the fray....But I can't help myself.

MeredithB wrote: What facts? I see you haven't provided any links or facts either. Please enlighten me how Traffic calming actually reduces emissions and cars on the road and forces people to use bicycles.

I think you're missing one of the critical points of the phrase - traffic calming.

It's well-known that drivers on PPW go way too fast - it's a function of the fact that the road is significantly over-capacity for the amount of traffic that it serves. Noone drives looking at the speedometer (unless there's a cop nearby), you go at what you believe is your 'reasonable' speed. Unfortunately, on an empty PPW, that means that people end up going 45-50+ without even realizing it.

Witness the changes made on Vanderbilt in the last few years - another road that had people driving way too fast, and it wasn't safe for bicyclists or pedestrians. The new design doesn't impact drive-times much if at all, and the road is safer for all involved.

Don't fixate on the bike lane. Think about it objectively. PPW is a residential road, in a residential neighborhood. It's not designed to be a highway. You can't re-time the lights, because it doesn't work for several reasons:

1. Too few corners have signals
2. Signal timing only affects drivers at the head, not at the tail.

So what do you do? re-engineer the road to get drivers to unconsciously slow down - reduce the over-capacity to a level that matches the current traffic. Make it easier for people to cross the street. Encourage an environment where people are more closely interacting, rather than playing a game of frogger (on both sides).

The bike lane? That's just feature-itis. What if the sidewalks were just expanded on both sides to take away the same amount of real estate? Yes, the city is trying to encourage people to ride bicycles as a matter of public policy, and that makes sense - more people on bicycles means fewer unnecessary car trips, which means less traffic. Which should make it easier for you to get where you're going.

I'm going to stop here, before I blow my entire day on this. Look - in the end, you can't put everyone in a car - the city simply doesn't have the capacity for it. Will people drive? Sure. But if we put everyone in a car, we turn into Phoenix, or LA, which noone here wants - hell, LA doesn't have winter & yet has better snowboarding nearby. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, but compromises have to be made.

Subject: Re: I know I'm going to regret entering the fray....

swngnmonk wrote: You can't re-time the lights, because it doesn't work for several reasons:

1. Too few corners have signals

So add lights to teh corners that don't have them.

swngnmonk wrote: 2. Signal timing only affects drivers at the head, not at the tail.

Huh? What does that mean. Signal timing can effect everyone if done right.

IMO, what you do is try other solutions before you squeeze traffic. Yeah sure, many people do drive to fast on PPW. But now you're just going to get a) angry drivers b) people still driving too fast (especially late at night as you mentioned) and c) probably more accidents.

vidro3 wrote: I can't teach you traffic engineering on this message board. You can either believe someone who knows what he is talking about, or continue to cling to your own opinions, which you have not shown any evidence for, by the way.

so there,
neener neener neener.

Whatever. You are an expert, I forgot, you have read books obviously because you can provide links to books on Amazon.

Blah, blah, blah.

Yawn.

Um, but if you are at the back and there is a car ahead of you that can't go any faster than the timing of signals lets it, then the car in the "tail" can't go faster.

I'd say change the lights and put up some cameras to fine people for running red lights and possibly speeding. Once they know the cameras are there, they will drive slower. Plus it will bring in some much needed revenue.

From what I read about traffic calming on Wikipedia it states, "it is stressed that the most effective traffic calming plans will entail all three components (engineering, education, and enforcement), and that engineering measures alone will not produce satisfactory results.

Well we all know NYC and that enforcement is basically non existent so therefore teh results will be unsatisfactory.

cameras will at least provide some enforcement. I'd say see how that goes before a unneeded bike lane is built. But I still believe this is more about being anti-car than about being pro-bike.

MeredithB wrote:
Whatever. You are an expert, I forgot, you have read books obviously because you can provide links to books on Amazon.

MeredithB wrote:
From what I read about traffic calming on Wikipedia it states, "it is stressed that the most effective traffic calming plans will entail all three components (engineering, education, and enforcement), and that engineering measures alone will not produce satisfactory results.

So academic textbooks covering traffic management theory in depth are not worth anything, but Wikipedia is authoritative, eh?

swngnmonk wrote: Noone claims that PPW is at capacity - in fact, it's significantly under-capacity. As a result, drivers at the back have noone in front of them slowing them down.

So then they are drivers at the front if no one is ahaed of them, right?

MeredithB wrote: You're now worrying about frustrating drivers?

Trust me, there will be plenty of them when PPW is reduced to one lane.

There is no proposal to reduce PPW to one lane. Enough with the straw man.