Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Topics

Topics

Biking It


The deaths of three bicyclists in traffic accidents in June brought renewed attention to bicycling -- not only as a form of recreation but also of transportation in New York City.

The deaths illustrated the variety of cycling trips in the city and the range of dangers facing cyclists. Derek Lake, a 23-year-old filmmaker, was crushed beneath the wheels of a tractor-trailer on Houston Street in Manhattan as he biked to work on a rainy Monday, June 26, apparently after slipping on a steel plate covering a construction trench. Dr. Carl Nacht, a 56-year-old physician, was hit by a police department tow truck as he rode with his wife along the Hudson River Park bike path near 38th Street on Sunday, June 25. Donna Goodson, 41, was killed on Rockaway Parkway in Brooklyn on Monday evening, June 5, when a truck turned in front of her onto Avenue D.

Clearly, cyclists face danger whether they ride on a street like Houston without even a bike lane marked on the pavement, or on bike paths separated from the flow of traffic. Except for a few bike paths along parkways, nearly all bike paths and lanes in the city require bicyclists and motorists to watch out for each other.

Not Less Safe

Coming in close succession, these accidents might lead New Yorkers to believe that bicycling is becoming less safe. But this is an incorrect conclusion. The number of traffic accidents involving cyclists has declined by about 40 percent in the last decade, even as the number of people cycling has increased by 40 percent, according to the advocacy group Transportation Alternatives. This group believes that the decline in accidents shows that there is safety in numbers; when motorists see more bicyclists they are more likely to watch out for them.

Other cities are experimenting with ways to improve bike safety that go beyond the standard public education. Chicago, which recently announced plans for a 500-mile bike network that would put a bike lane within a half-mile of every resident, plans to try raised bike lanes; this would dissuade motorists from veering onto the bike lane. (Chicago also plans to install showers and bike lockers at a commuter train station on the edge of the Loop.)

More Bicyclists, And More Bike Lanes (Though Not Enough)

How many people bicycle in New York City? Transportation Alternatives estimates that 120,000 bicyclists make 400,000 bike trips per day, at least in the warmer months. That is twice the number of daily riders on the PATH system, and equivalent to the number on the ten most popular bus routes in the city.

The increased popularity of cycling has been spurred by an expansion in bike lanes around the city. The Hudson River Park path, which is shared by bicyclists, in-line skaters and (on some portions) pedestrians, means that one can now cycle from the Battery to the George Washington Bridge with only a brief detour onto city streets around West 130th Street. Along the East River are traffic-separated paths from 125 Street to the Battery except for a detour onto city streets in Midtown. Other boroughs also offer excellent cycling options. These include, in Brooklyn, traffic-separated paths on Ocean Parkway and next to the Belt Parkway and on-street bike lanes on Dean and Bergen Streets and Bedford Avenue. Other boroughs also offer a mix of on-street and traffic-separated bike lanes and paths, as shown in the city’s bike map. Connecting the boroughs, all four of the East River bridges, as well as the Triboro and George Washington bridges, have bike access.

Even with this progress, however, cycling advocates point out that the city is only slowly moving to complete its 1997 master plan that envisioned a citywide network of bike facilities. Indeed, the lack of progress is one of the factors cited by Andrew Vesselinovitch when he quit his job earlier this month as the Department of Transportation's bicycle program director.

Off-street paths have increased from 51 miles in 1997 to about 100 miles today and on-street bike lanes have increased from 41 miles to about 90 miles, according to Transportation Alternatives. These figures put the city about one-fifth of the way toward the master plan goal of 909 miles.

The city has not set a schedule for completion of the master plan network. As a result, while there are attractive bike lanes around the city, it can be hard to get to them. For example, a cyclist like Derek Lake who bikes over the Brooklyn or Manhattan bridge and heads uptown needs to travel on city streets for a number of blocks before reaching even an on-street bike lane.

Barriers To A Bike-Friendly New York

The need for a true network of bike lanes is not the only barrier to making New York City truly bike-friendly. The city’s master plan noted that potential cyclists want three things:

*on-street bicycle lanes
*secure bike parking
*facilities to shower and change clothes.

A 1990 survey conducted by the city’s transportation department found that nearly 50 percent of Manhattan office workers surveyed who live within 10 miles of work would cycle to work if provided these facilities. Yet how many employers offer bike parking or showers for their employees?

Biking Elsewhere

How does New York City rank among other cities as a place to bike? According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau on how people travel to work, 0.4 percent of workers in the New York metro area biked to work in April 2000. This figure is on a par with other major cities such as Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and Los Angeles. However, the bike-to-work rate in these cities is only about one-third of the rate in San Francisco (1.4percent bike to work), Madison, Wisconsin (1.7 percent) and several Canadian cities -- Vancouver (1.9 percent), Ottawa (1.9 percent) and Montreal (1.3 percent), according to a study by John Pucher at Rutgers University. European cities have achieved far higher levels of cycling -- 25 percent of all trips nationally in Denmark are by bike, as are 18 percent in the Netherlands and 11percent in the former West Germany. London, the city that most closely resembles New York, is spending ÂŁ24 million annually (about $44million) in cycling infrastructure, training, promotion and education.

Cycling in London has increased by 72 percent overall and 100 percent in summer months since 2000, according to Transport for London.

New York City has every reason to aspire to the levels of bike usage seen in the most bike-friendly cities. The Pucher study, comparing Canada and the United States, found that higher rates of cycling in Canada are attributable to such factors as higher urban densities, more mixed-use development, shorter trip distances, lower incomes, and higher costs of driving a car. Sounds a lot like New York – except that the study also found that higher cycling rates are also due to more extensive cycling infrastructure and safer cycling conditions.

Bruce Schaller, who has been in charge of the transportation topic page since its inception in 1999, is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faster Buses?


While most industries in New York place a premium on using time efficiently, bus service in New York City has only become a slower and less efficient way to get around. What will be required to make buses move faster, reduce the waits at bus stops and make the entire experience more comfortable and reliable?

That’s the question now being considered for 15 bus routes scattered throughout the city that are being looked at for “bus rapid transit” (BRT) service by the city’s Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). This month, the two agencies released concept plans for the 15 routes and held public workshops in each borough to gather feedback. They plan to choose five of the 15 by the end of the summer for development and implementation of the services by 2008, which would replace the current “limited stop service” on the selected routes. Local service would be continued.

How Slow Are They?

There is no question about buses being too slow. Buses spend only 54 percent of their time actually moving; the other half of their time is split between waiting at traffic signals and boarding passengers at bus stops. According to my 2002 report, buses travel on average only 7.5 miles per hour. Just as frustrating is the fact that buses often bunch up, making for long waits at bus stops and increased crowding on the buses that lead the pack.

BRT aims to solve these problems. There is not a standard solution for all 15 routes, however; each would employ measures tailored to its particular situation.

Creating A Bus New Lane, Away From The Curb

On some of the corridors, such as First and Second Avenue in Manhattan, Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, Union Turnpike in Queens, and Webster Avenue and the Grand Concourse in the Bronx, bus lanes would be set up in the second lane from the curb instead of the curb lane, as is currently the case. That would allow space for truck loading, vehicles making turns and parking – uses that currently slow down buses trying to use curbside bus lanes. At stops, the sidewalk would be extended to meet the bus lane. That provides more space for riders, and means that buses would merely stop at each stop rather than having to merge back into traffic at the end of each stop.

BRT lanes would be painted a bright color to discourage drivers from clogging up the lane.

Paying In Advance

Traffic is not the only reason that buses are slow, however. Other measures are designed to improve how quickly passengers board and alight, such as having riders pay their fares before boarding the bus at selected highly used bus stops. That would also allow passenger to board in the rear door, further reducing time spent at bus stops.

Greater Central Control

Another step being discussed is installing automated vehicle locator (AVL) systems on buses, which allow a central bus control center to chart where all buses are at a given time and better manage bus movements. In Los Angeles, bus managers have successfully used an AVL system to even out the spacing between buses, and thus reduce bus bunching, excessive waits at bus stops and crowding on buses. Currently, the MTA has a much-delayed program to install AVL along First and Second Avenue in Manhattan that, if proven successful, could be expanded.

Keeping The Traffic Light Green

Buses might also be coordinated with traffic signals. If a bus is running late, the green light would be held for a few extra seconds to allow the bus to proceed through the intersection before the light turns red. “Signal priority” is suggested for intersections on Tenth and Eleventh Avenue in Manhattan, Flatbush Avenue and Nostrand Avenue in Brooklyn, Horace Harding Expressway, Merrick Blvd. and Hillside Avenue in Queens, Hyland Blvd. on Staten Island and Webster Avenue, the Grand Concourse and Pelham Parkway in the Bronx.

New York BRT planners also envision buses coming every five to eight minutes, stops every one-half to 1 mile, larger shelters at major stops and specially marked buses and bus stops to help riders identify BRT services. The fare would remain at $2.

How The Plans Stack Up

BRT measures successfully used in Los Angeles, Boston and other cities, such as well-marked bus lanes, frequent service, pre-boarding fare payment and vehicle location technology, are all at least mentioned in the concept plans for New York. New York planners have foregone only one major BRT element: exclusive lanes from which other vehicles are physically barred from entering. Whether that is a good choice depends on how well the New York plans keep bus lanes clear of other vehicles.

The New York plans are thus a good start, but to borrow from Churchill, they are merely the end of the beginning. Whether the plans will come to a good end depends on how aggressively the measures are implemented. How many locations will get pre-boarding fare payment?

Key questions also surround the bus lanes. How much of the corridors will get the one-lane-out treatment that gives trucks a place to park for deliveries? How many parking spaces is the community willing to give up for bus lanes and truck delivery spaces? How much police enforcement will there be to keep other vehicles out? Will the MTA and City Hall get the state Legislature to authorize putting cameras on the front of buses, with pictures of license plates used to issue tickets to vehicles that block the bus lane? Will painted bus lanes help keep out other vehicles?

The current concept plans do not contain enough details to answer these questions. The staff at the two agencies say they are looking for community feedback before deciding how far to go with the measures. It will be up to each community to advise the agencies on how to balance the goals of bus rapid transit with car speeds, truck deliveries and other needs for street space.

How Will Drivers React?

Another unknown is how drivers and others will react to well-marked bus lanes. The experience with the numerous bus lanes that are currently around the city is not encouraging, as a bus driver at the Manhattan workshop on June 8 pointed out. This driver said that the police enforce bus lane restrictions on First and Second Avenue for only an hour and a half in the morning rush hour. The driver said that without constant enforcement, BRT will not work. Whether bus planners can find some combination of physical markings and sustainable enforcement levels remains to be seen.

Given all the uncertainties, it might be wise for bus planners to ease away from trying to make a comprehensive plan that foresees the future. It has been a time-consuming way to approach the problem – the study is already two years old and implementation is not expected for at least two more years.

Sooner Rather Than Later

Staff from the two transportation agencies have mentioned the possibility of experimenting with bus rapid transit measures in a few locations sooner rather than later. This idea has two important benefits. First, planners can see how some of these ideas work in practice. They can apply to more routes those ideas that prove to work well and make changes in ideas that do not prove out.

Second, the public can start to see the benefits of bus rapid transit. Los Angeles’ experience suggests how important that can be. In L.A., BRT was put on two routes. Buses sped up by about 30 percent, ridership ballooned, and people throughout the city clamored for BRT in their neighborhoods. L.A. is now implementing the most ambitious network of BRT routes in the country, involving 28 corridors and 450 miles of service, to be completed in 2008.

If it could happen in L.A., could it happen here too?

Bruce Schaller, who has been in charge of the transportation topic page since its inception in 1999, is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University. 

Staten Island's New Decongestant Plan


While New York City is known as the transit capital of the country, sections of the city are primarily dependent on the automobile. This is most notable in Staten Island, the eastern half of Queens, the northern half of the Bronx and sections of Brooklyn that are beyond subway lines – all areas where (as Census data show) the majority of workers commute by car.

No borough of the city is more car-dependent than Staten Island. Rapid population growth has combined with high rates of car use to create traffic congestion that rivals northern New Jersey and other areas around the country where traffic congestion has become a political issue. Staten Island’s congestion is made worse by a confluence of unfavorable forces. Among these is a lack of new roadway capacity despite population growth and the borough’s position as a through route for trucks and autos traveling from the mainland to Long Island. Thus, drivers can run into traffic jams not only at rush hour, but almost any time day or night, weekday or weekend.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in his State of the City speech earlier this year, charged his commissioners of transportation and of city planning to report back with a plan within 60 days to tackle Staten Island transportation needs. In March, the mayor announced 40 recommendations to relieve congestion bottlenecks, improve traffic enforcement, move forward with construction projects, improve mass transit and strengthen cooperation between city and state agencies.

Short-term steps, to be completed within a year, include:

  • adjusting signal timings
  • increasing turn-on-red opportunities
  • reducing parking at intersections
  • completing construction projects at two key intersections
  • adding limited stop bus service
  • increasing frequency on the Staten Island railway
  • reactivating a north shore rail track to remove trucks from roadways

Longer-term plans include considering bus rapid transit on Hyland Boulevard – part of a citywide bus rapid transit study – as well as road widenings and realignments and new park and rides and stations for the Staten Island railway.

The Bloomberg transportation plan for Staten Island reflects the consensus for addressing traffic congestion that is seen both inside and outside of New York. There is a strong emphasis on public transportation as well as traffic-related initiatives. The traffic aspects of the plan emphasize operational improvements -– getting better use of existing lanes -– rather than building new highway or street capacity. The plan thus considers numerous steps that each have fairly small impacts but together can noticeably improve traffic flow.

There is also an emphasis on community involvement and consensus building. The mayor acknowledged in announcing the plan that the “lack of community consensus” had stymied previous attempts to deal with transportation needs. To help get everyone on board, the mayor’s task force included elected officials and community boards as well as city and state officials. Implementation of the proposals will depend on a continued high level of involvement and engagement by the local communities.

The plan also perhaps inadvertently underscores that just as there has been a neglect of elements of the physical infrastructure ranging from potholed streets to the obsolete Goethals Bridge, so has the operational infrastructure been neglected. Why, for example, are there so many major intersections in need of re-timed signals? Why is it novel for the City Planning Department to coordinate adjacent parking lot designs to allow cars to move between parking lots without re-entering the roadway?

In pledging that city agencies will focus on ensuring that capital projects proceed on schedule, the plan acknowledges that without special attention, project schedules may easily lag.

The plan also puts off some very contentious issues. Reconstruction of the Goethal’s Bridge, first recommended in a 1987 study conducted for its owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is listed as a long-term goal.

The mayor’s plan lightly touches on transportation impacts of land use decisions, a hot topic in much of the country. A short term goal is for the city Transportation Department to be consulted “early in the process” when builders apply for permit waivers –- presumably to look at traffic impacts of larger-scale developments.

Finally, it is notable that while promising action, the mayor’s plan does not promise results. There are no estimates of how much congestion will be reduced or traffic speeds increased –- no doubt at least in part due to how rapidly the plan was put together. Staten Islanders and others traveling into or through the borough can only wait to see how the administration’s new focus on transportation improvements will bear fruit.

Bruce Schaller, who has been in charge of the transportation topic page since its inception in 1999, is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University. 

 



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years