Upper West Side Envisioned as "Sustainable Streets"

^ Less than two per hundred thousand residents. It's tragic that anyone gets killed but NYC seems pretty much in line with other cities.

As I said, I didn't have time to do much of a hunt for similar numbers for other cities and couldn't find them conveniently. I still haven't heard any reasonable explanation of why we should be OK with the fact that over a hundred pedestrians die every year after being hit by cars.

No, you can't, but I didn't compare two cities to one another. 136 and 167 are New York in 2007 and 2006; I'm sorry if that was not clear. (I couldn't readily find statistics for other cities.) I simply don't see why we should consider over a hundred of our fellow New Yorkers killed every year to be an acceptable component of the "cost of doing business" when there are perfectly reasonable ways that can be cut down.

There was no confusion. You cited NYC statistics then wrote, "The world's best walking towns, places like Copenhagen and Amsterdam and Portland, would never accept that kind of carnage." Yet you left that hanging without backing it up. Just what are their statistics and how does that compare in terms of population and mileage per walker? You can't make a blanket statement like that without backing it up. Despite what some would have you think, Amsterdam and Copenhagen metro areas both have less that 1/3 the population of NYC metro area. Portland far less than 1 million. And the last is hardly one of the "best walking towns," according to the comments in this article. And yes, NYC is a great walking town. You seemed to have latched onto only the pedestrian death statistic, ignoring other things like the density, places to rest, alternative transportation if you get tired, etc.

#16 We look like the injured party because usually we're dodging your doors, almost getting hit by drivers that don't know how to use a turn signal, and merging into traffic because some driver decided it would be super awesome to park in the bike lane even though there's an actual parking spot 20 feet away. (Although there's no excuse for biking the wrong way down a street. That's a pet peeve of mine as well.)

But in all honesty, this kind of seems unnecessary. More money should be spent on programs like this in poorer neighborhoods like the South Bronx where bikes could actually be used for transportation and not something to do on a Sunday afternoon. The bike lanes in Sunset Park are a perfect example of what the city should be doing.

#27- Since I work in the area, I know firsthand how bad traffic has become (and it was already bad) since they implemented the bike lane.

But according to some fine folks here and on streetsblog, I apparently don't understand how great this bike lane is, especially since (as I stated earlier) this thing stops @ Chrystie. I still see the small handful of cyclists riding in the *middle* or on the left-hand (north) side of the street, completely disregarding the bike lane.

Whenever Transportation Alternatives barks, the autocrats at DOT and their hippy commissioner jump.

#15 is right. The recent Grand Street bike lane is an abomination. Fire trucks get stuck in traffic. Someone is going to die. For more info: http://sohopolitics.blogspot.com/2008/11/mean-streets-of-soho.html

#17, I'm with you. Light rail down Columbus and Amsterdam is the way to go. There's too many people to fully accomodate everything but a lot of them would rather ride a tram than a bus or ride their bikes everyday.

Actually the greater Copenhagen and also greater Amsterdam are not that much less in population to NYC. But then again you have intelligent Europeans versus the typical American asshole. So it's not fair to compare statistics.

I haven't the courage to be a NYC cyclist myself.

Still, no matter how many times I encounter a rude cyclist (alot) and how I curse them, I am still on their side. I think 80% of their aggression comes from the danger having to negotiate automobiles.

When the roads are safer for cyclists, I will be one too. I hope this happens soon.

No, you can't, but I didn't compare two cities to one another. 136 and 167 are New York in 2007 and 2006; I'm sorry if that was not clear. (I couldn't readily find statistics for other cities.) I simply don't see why we should consider over a hundred of our fellow New Yorkers killed every year to be an acceptable component of the "cost of doing business" when there are perfectly reasonable ways that can be cut down.

JMH, that's a deceptive statistic. A meaningful figure would be deaths per pedestrian mile. You can't just take two cities with vastly different populations then compare raw numbers of deaths.

#19, you're right that other areas should be more of a priority. However, UWSers are very organized and vocal about problems in the neighborhood. Maybe if the policitians in Queens and the Bronx weren't too busy getting sweetheart deals for baseball teams, they would pay attention to residents.

That Post article is ridiculous. "New York is already the world's best walking town"? Does Cuozzo have any idea how many pedestrians are killed by cars in NYC every year? In 2007 there were 136; in 2006, 167. The world's best walking towns, places like Copenhagen and Amsterdam and Portland, would never accept that kind of carnage.

And no, Snoopy, most people aren't going to bike from Far Rockaway to Midtown in January. But check it out - there's this new-fangled thing called the "sub-way"? You may have heard of it? I'm not clear on the details, but as I understand it, it's an underground train that brings people to and from many parts of the city. You should check it out.

Agreed. UWS is already a pretty darn safe place to bike and walk. Why are they not doing something about Queens Blvd. or the South Bronx? I'm not familiar with Queens personally, but I know in the South Bronx, there are areas that don't even have crosswalks.

Doesn't it seem like everything Transportation Alternatives puts out is related to either Park Slope, the Upper West Side or some hipster slum? This has to be the most lilly white advocacy group of all time.

Oh man, I would love to see a light rail!

Bikes may pollute less than cars but bicyclists are a friggin' menace. I've lost track how many times I've seen one came whizzing the wrong way down a street nearly slamming into someone or riding on the sidewalk. Then they look all sanctimonious as if they are the injured party.

Ah, DOT.

Same geniuses who implemented a "east-to-west" bike lane on Grand St. (disregarding the community's wishes), thereby bottlenecking it even MORE than it already is, and then stopping said "east-to-west" bike lane @ Chrystie.

A bit far from the east river, eh?

Come on people. The populace of the late 1850's decided they needed relieve from all the traffic on Broadway. Therefore, after long discussion and debate, a sidewalk bridge was constructed over Broadway at Fulton Street that took years to be approved and a year after it was constructed it was removed.

So much for the amateur city planners.

#7, I am aware of all the hazards in that area. I lived off west 105th street and my kids go to school at the most crowded school in the area off west 70th. Part of the problem is that overdevelopment was ignored, resulting in overcrowding. Shutting off a few lanes to install a bike line or to expand sidewalks will make traffic and resulting pollution ridiculous. It is a city and this should have been anticipated sooner. To retrofit the area now isn't prudent.

Alex I read the transalt statement and it is all fluff and no content. What next, plans for a "light rail" system? Monorails? Pedicabs? Heated toilets? What? Tell me what will actually work? Better bike locks? Thermal underwear? NYC is not Amsterdam or some other small city that people can go from the Far Rockaways to downtown Manhattan by bike in the middle of January.

More bike lanes, less car lanes. Just great. Are you saying that you can fit five pounds of shit in a two pound bag and not see a difference?

referring to the editorial posted by TJ, btw

oh man, that Post article is absurd. My favorite part is where he calls the pedestrian plazas "skanky" ...skanky? That and his biggest suggestion to make the city more "pedestrian friendly" is to do something about "sidewalk bridges" because they cast too much shade. Huh?

Did you realize that Senator Roscoe Conkling died after falling ill from walking in a blizzard in New York City, in 1888 So much for walking as an alternative to driving.

A statue of him stands in Madison Square Park in New York City.

Pete, see this link. I think it very much shows the other "non bike" forms of transportation that TA works on: http://www.transalt.org/campaigns/pedestrian

#4, the proposal shows a concern for the safety of walking pedestrians, including ideas for wider sidewalks and more room at crosswalks. Parts of Broadway and some of the major streets like 72 and 96 are a bit dangerous (obviously not to the level of Queens Blvd) and can be updated. Again, I doubt this will be a priority with all of the other problems right now.

Actually Pete, they do advocate other forms of transportation. Check your facts.

This "plan" is great to line the litter box with. Is this the same city council that turned a deaf ear to area residents who protested the new skyscrapers that sprouted up like weeds? Please stop with the transformation of the city into an urban paradise, complete with bike paths and promenades.

Keep buying the spin of the bicycle manufacturer lobby (AKA Transportation Alternatives, you'll note they never advocate anything except bicycles).

I like the proposal but I doubt many of the ideas will be carried out given the budget deficit.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11132008/news/columnists/idiotic_dot_takes_a_walk_on_the_wild_sid_138505.htm

rush hour will be crazy…motorists have right, too

I love when people start throwing the word "rights" around. What right is it exactly that a bike lane is infringing upon?

I would love to see this plan go through.