« Checking In On 587 Washington Avenue New Barclay's Center Design Revealed »

September 9, 2009

Possible Perils of the Sands Street Bike Path

The Sands Street bike bath, the slick new route for bicyclists entering or exiting the Manhattan Bridge, only opened this summer, and already there are problems. Last week, Gothamist rreported that the raised portion of the bike bath between Navy and Gold has proven to be irresistible to illegal parkers; in addition, Transportation Alternatives notes bicyclists often make dangerous diagonal crossings when dealing with the double crosswalks at Sands and Jay where the bridge path lets out. The project isn't complete yet, and the DOT told Streetsblog that they are working on both of these issues. GMAP
Double Parkers Gravitate into Sands Street Bike Path [Streetsblog]
New Sands Street Bike Lane Perfect for Cable Guy Parking! [Gothamist]
Photo by Gothamist

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11339

Comments

unfortunately there doesnt look like there is anywhere else to unload what the people in that van are trying to unload, so unfortunately it just comes with the territory. people need to just be happy there ARE bike lines available, unfortunately, they cant be perfect in a city this dense. people just have to deal sometimes.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at September 9, 2009 11:18 AM

Yeah - this isn't cool. The bike line is great, but traffic goes way too fast for a cyclist to be able to swerve around a parked car and not get smacked by a vehicle.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 9, 2009 11:19 AM

The raised bike lane is stupid and dangerous. It has signifcantly narrowed a road that feeds both the brooklyn bridge and the BQE. This is a major traffic thourogh fare that now feels like an obstacle course of parked cars, trucks, cars, emergency vehicles and now a raised platform that just squeezes it all together.

Posted by: bedstuy11216 at September 9, 2009 11:48 AM

bullsh•t. look in the picture- there is an identical truck parked in what appears to be a legal space across the street. you can't blame people's laziness on the bike lane. the bottom line is that new york city drivers are selfish and dangerous and really don't think of the fact that messing with bikers only results in one thing- killing someone.

Posted by: Randi banned at September 9, 2009 12:00 PM

The city should provide every cyclist with a taser to zap lesser, un-evolved mortals who do not have the comfort and happiness of bicylce riders foremost on their minds every waking moment.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 9, 2009 12:19 PM

Randi-

That's funny, that's exactly what I think of most bikers. "selfish and dangerous"

Posted by: bedstuy11216 at September 9, 2009 12:28 PM

hey jagoffs bedstuy11216 and minard, how many bikers have killed drivers? thats what i thought. stfu.

Posted by: Randi banned at September 9, 2009 12:35 PM

Seems to me that we are in a transitionary time vis a vis biking in NYC. Enough bike lanes and riders to make biking far more of an issue to traditional transit, but not enough to result in a shift of mindset of both bikers and non-bikers to taking their rights and responsibilities seriously. Seems to me they are going to have to put in metal (or plastic) columns to protect the bike lane there. And maybe get rid of the street parking.

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at September 9, 2009 12:36 PM

If you are going to put a bike lane there, then you cannot allow parking in the right lane. At least one lane needs to be for loading/unloading and commercial vehicles.

It would help if planners would take a holistic approach to transportation needs rather than just shoving bike lanes where ever it looks like they can squeeze them in and hoping for the best.

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 9, 2009 12:38 PM

issue a couple of pricey tickets and the double parking will decrease

Posted by: more4less at September 9, 2009 12:40 PM

What the hell is around Sands street that commercial vehicles would need to have parking?

Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 9, 2009 12:40 PM

dh -- looks like a residential building, so if the people living there want things like cable, telephone, internet access, plumbing, etc., then commercial vehicles need access.

m4l -- it is LEGAL for commercial vehicles to double park in the city.

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 9, 2009 12:43 PM

Cool - so it's okay to put someone's life in danger so someone can watch True Blood on HBO and surf the internet for porno.

If you have bike lanes, no parking them
If they are in a bad spot - take them out.

Seems pretty clear cut to me

Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 9, 2009 12:47 PM

dh -- I agree. The bike lane is in a horrible spot and should be removed.

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 9, 2009 12:52 PM

The horror! The inhumanity! A bike might have to actually stop! All streets with bike lanes shall have no parking whatsoever and just to be safe no other vehicles or pedestrians.

Posted by: edifice rex at September 9, 2009 12:57 PM

NSrenter, really legal for them to double park? I always thought otherwise and hence why they have tons of parking tickets in dash and/or put a bogus one on windshield to throw off ticket agents

Posted by: more4less at September 9, 2009 12:58 PM

Who is in charge of deciding where to put these bike lanes - and what would be a good alternative place to put it, to provide cyclists with a safe route to the Manhattan/Brooklyn bridge?

Lots of stupid bike lanes in the city (Grand St Manhattan, Kent Ave in Williamsburg, Prince St Manhattan) but this one seems to cut thru the projects. aren't there internal parking lots where parking should be set aside for commercial vehicles?

Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 9, 2009 12:59 PM

agreed with NSR
take out the bike lane
they never should have put one there
Just b/c a bike lane sprouts up out of nowhere doesn't really mean drivers will respect it I certainly wouldn't if I was a delivery dude just trying to make delivries in this city.

Posted by: gemini10 at September 9, 2009 1:00 PM

hey randi how many bikers obey traffic laws? That's what I thought. stfu.

I nominate for worst bike lane in the city: 9th street in vicinity of 3rd/2nd ave. Just retarded.

Posted by: woodys at September 9, 2009 1:05 PM

m4l -- yes, commercial vehicles are really allowed to double park.

They are not allowed to block bike lanes when they double park though, so technically the van should double park in the vehicle lane and force other vehicles to drive in the bike lane.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/motorist/parktruck.shtml

----------------------
"Under what circumstances are commercial vehicles allowed to double park?

In most situations, a person may stand a commercial vehicle alongside a vehicle parked at the curb at such locations and during such hours that stopping, standing, or parking is not prohibited, while expeditiously making pickups, deliveries or service calls, provided that:

* there is no unoccupied parking space or designated loading zone on either side of the street within 100 feet that can be used for such standing, and;

* provided that such standing is in compliance with the provisions of Section 1102 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law.

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 9, 2009 1:07 PM

hey woodys - as a pedestrian, ever jaywalk or cross against a light when no cars are coming? When driving do you pause at a stop sign for the mandatory 3 seconds? Always signal? Tailgate?

I love non-cyclists thinking it's unsafe for people on bikes to cross through red lights. I treat red lights as stop signs/yield signs. it keeps me ahead of the flow of traffic so you don't have to constantly swerve around me as you pass. it also gives me ample reaction time thus you decide it's appropriate to swing your door open, not looking to see if anyone on a bike is coming.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 9, 2009 1:12 PM

The bike lane is fine. The van is probably delivering to a place on the right, otherwise they would have been on the other side of the meridian. So it would have been better to double park on the right. Now they hinder traffic on all sides.

Posted by: coopfornow at September 9, 2009 1:13 PM

There is nothing on the right, it is the entrance to the BQE. If they double parked on the other side they would block traffic since the street has been reduced to one lane.

The need to take out the bike lane. It does not make sense on this block

Posted by: bedstuy11216 at September 9, 2009 1:22 PM

I see cars parked on the right. Looks like there is enough space for a car to double park with room for a car to slow down and pass while using maybe getting slightly into the striped dividing area, whatever that is called. we have to learn how to accommodate all needs, what is wrong with cars giving up some space?

Posted by: coopfornow at September 9, 2009 1:38 PM

they need to do something about the manhattan side of the bridge, now THERE's a shitshow.

Posted by: CG_ups at September 9, 2009 1:39 PM

> Just b/c a bike lane sprouts up out of nowhere doesn't
> really mean drivers will respect it

And the winner of the "Who is more Self-absorbed, Bicyclists or Drivers?" award goes to...

Posted by: DitmasSnark at September 9, 2009 1:55 PM

why did the make the new route slick? to make it more dangerous for cyclists?

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 9, 2009 1:55 PM

The whole idea of bicycling in NYC is really overblown. One has to place it in its proper perspective. On pleasant dry days on the weekends cycling can be fun and a good way to get exercize. But as a daily thing or an alternative to cars or mass transit it is impractical. For one thing, NY has lousy weather most of the time. It's rainy or icy or freezing when it isn't humid and unbearibly hot. It is also one of the most crowded cities in the world so it can be a dangerous activity. Not just for the cyclists but also for pedestrians or for people doing nothing more than trying to exit a cab. We need to put ideology at bay and re-think, in a dispassioned and rational manner, how cycling does and does not fit within the rest of this crowded and hectic old city.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 9, 2009 2:26 PM

Funny, ML, much of Europe has similar climatic conditions if not worse and cycles are integrated into the traffic flow. In fact Copenhagen is considered the most bike-friendly major city in the world.

Posted by: denton at September 9, 2009 3:11 PM

That street is the major feeder into the Manhattan Bridge north side bike path. Without safe access to the bridge, many cyclists choose to take the Brooklyn Bridge, which has a much safer approach. Cyclist should avoid the BB if possible.
Sands street rarely has much vehicular traffic on it, but because of the on ramps for the BQE, is very, very dangerous for bikers on the road. This bike path is very useful.
Additionally, there is room to double park on the road. It's just not as room as a beautiful new bike path.

I and thousands of New Yorkers ride every day of the year to work. It's thousands of less people in our subway every day. Enjoy the space anti-bike curmudgeons.
I was recently in Munich and saw the city entirely by bike. No one wears a helmet, including the many older women who ride. The major difference - respect for bikers. In America we're still digging out of the hole we created in the car-centric 20th century - both with design and people's attitudes.

Posted by: lincolnlimestone at September 9, 2009 3:40 PM

Amens to denton and lincolnlimestone.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at September 9, 2009 3:44 PM

Another thing why push for more car purchases(cash 4 clunkers) then throw in all these new bike lanes? just plain dumb to me.

Posted by: jack slade at September 9, 2009 4:10 PM

Cash 4 clunkers had nothing to do with NYC.

NYC is one of the few places in America where you can live a comfortable modern lifestyle without a car.

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 9, 2009 4:13 PM

Ummm... Hey everyone!

Do you know WHY the DOT built this bike lane!? Have you ever stopped to think about it?!

It's because they conducted a TRAFFIC STUDY and COUNTED the number of bicycles using the bridge. Using it for EVERYDAY COMMUTING, not for "happy sunny Saturday exercise." The DOT determined that the bike lane would improve access to the bridge for bicycles... improve safety, traffic flow, etc.

This was posted not that long ago on THIS blog: "Manhattan Bridge bicycle commuters have increased from 829 in 2005 to 2,232 currently."

Or is 2,232 not a significant amount of traffic?

Posted by: tybur6 at September 9, 2009 4:46 PM

Tybur - there's no place for research and facts when blogging about cyclists. this bike lane sucks and all cyclists are self entitled assholes.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 9, 2009 4:53 PM

Ditmas:
seriously dude how many cyclists respect the rules of the road???
I mean really?!?!?!
how many times do you see some silly cyclist go through a red light, not stop at a stop sign, or just travel the wrong way up the avenue/street?

not saying drivers respect every rule
but you will be a lot more hard-pressed to find a driver deliberately going through a red light b/c he feels "well, no one is really coming, I can make it"....

Posted by: gemini10 at September 9, 2009 5:40 PM

g10 - You're already snagged the award. No need to keep ranting.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at September 9, 2009 5:52 PM

PS: ;-)

Posted by: DitmasSnark at September 9, 2009 6:06 PM

Randi,

Bikers may not kill drivers by their selfishness and disregard for the laws and rules of the road... Statistically, most bikers killed by drivers are killed by their own negligence.
Now the driver must live with the fact that they have killed someone. I bet they are real happy about it.
Perhaps they should sue that idiots estate for pain and suffering...
Cars have to live with a$$hol@ bikers. Only fair for bikers...

Posted by: pig three at September 9, 2009 8:26 PM

Oh yeah,

Has anyone figured out how many tax dollars were spent creating all these new bike lanes?
Just wondering.

Posted by: pig three at September 9, 2009 8:33 PM

pig: Sorry, where are those statistics from? Did you have to stand up to pull them out?

And I suppose bikers don't pay taxes, then? And that the decreased traffic doesn't help keep the cars flowing on the bridges, the subway cars a bit less crowded, your air cleaner, etc. No common good, clearly.

sigh.

As a near-daily rider (in all types of weather, ML, thanks- it's not that bad, really. If you got out of your taxi you might notice that pedestrians also travel year-round, without a metal and glass bubble to protect them) I can say that I bike sensibly, follow rules, and am nearly involved in a collision at least three or four times a month.

Because some car didn't signal. Because they're parked in my lane. Because a pedestrian steps out into the lane talking on the phone and not paying attention. Because nobody ever looks before they pull out/over/through. Or somebody throws a cigarette/hawks a loogie/tosses their drink out the window and nails me. Because they just can't be bothered to pay attention.

All these bike lanes that are 'bad'... how so? Did NYC eminent-domain a bunch of townhouses to build them? Did they cut off waterfront access? Did they remove a bunch of sidewalks or subway stops to make new bike lanes?

Oh, right, they took out some parking. Or a lane of traffic. Or caused you to need to look wtf you were going before you stepped into the street which is somehow a new thing for you.

Hold on, let me find the hanky... hunh. must have left it on the bumper of the minivan that was running me off the road the other day.

Yes, there are asshole bikers. And they have probably killed someone, somewhere, at some point. But most bikers are just normal commuters. And we need all the lanes we can get.

Posted by: bfarwell at September 9, 2009 10:11 PM

and, fwiw, this jagoff could have double-parked next to the existing cars, leaving enough of a space that passing vehicles would have grazed the striped area, but not actually hit the bike lane.

Posted by: bfarwell at September 9, 2009 10:12 PM

Heard near Brooklyn Hospital, police car loudspeaker to two bikers likely coming home from Manhattan:

Police: Stay in the bike lane, stay in the bike lane. Stop at the red light.

(Bikers and police stop. Very few pedestrians cross, then quiet. First biker attempts to go over crosswalk line)

Police: You gotta stop at the red light.

(No more pedestrians. First biker puts feet back on pedals)

Police: Stay until light changes.

(light changes, all head to DeKalb)

Posted by: FiredUpReadyToGo at September 10, 2009 8:53 AM

bfarwell,

You bring up some good points, but they don't stand alone.
The economic cycle of our city and country are just a little more complicated than your elementary model of A+B=C.
How long can city, state and the federal government continue to subsidize the pay role and pensions of the labor unions with tax dollars?
Bikers pay tax. What would be your estimate of the percentage of bikers tax dollars contributing to the overall cost of the bike lanes?
The city is not ticketing bikers for fineable infractions. No money for the city there. Less cars is good for all! Less income for the city there. Fewer tickets, fewer traffic agents. Layoffs? Unemployment?
Less crowed subways? Lower revenue for the MTA. Services cut? Layoffs?
Bikers make the demand that cars stay out of their bike lanes... why don't bikes stay out of car lanes?? Bikers say drivers are lazy and don't pay attention. Bikers do? Not all bikers are a holes... Are all drivers a holes?
As far as stats, lets pay attention to the Driver bias media and send each other the report on driver/biker related accidents. Keep tabs so to speak from this point on?
And...IMO if you really want to save the world - go buy an electric car (help lower tax dollars needed to keep the auto industry afloat), set up your bike so you can generate the electric need to charge your car (no additional drain on the overtaxed electric grid) Bonus (less of a need for nuclear power plants or fossil fuel run power plans). Drive to work (clean air... your exhales are recycled a bit in the car). Get some tickets (revenue for the city) Let them pile up and get towed. Take a taxi or subway to get your car out (revenue and tax, revenue and tax). Now there are fewer bikes. Less need for bike lanes. City uses union labor to change all the roads back. More jobs, more money, less tax subsidy.
Now I know my economic model is not spot on, but it is closer to reality than yours.
One more thing. I think you might be a poopie face?

"Because they're parked in my lane. Because a pedestrian steps out into the lane talking on the phone and not paying attention."

Me,me, me, My,my,my. Why are you so entitled?

Posted by: pig three at September 10, 2009 11:44 AM

ps.

I should also say I am not anti bike. Thinks they are great. Just anti obnoxious sense of entitlement that I see and hear from so many bikers.

Posted by: pig three at September 10, 2009 11:46 AM

« Checking In On 587 Washington Avenue New Barclay's Center Design Revealed »

September 9, 2009

Possible Perils of the Sands Street Bike Path

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions