Bike Lanes for New York City

General Design Considerations

Read the latest news on this subject.

In some European cities, bicycles are accommodated on specially-marked segments of sidewalk. However, in New York City space for pedestrians is already too scarce and should remain inviolable — indeed, it should be expanded. An effective and ambitious New York City bike-lane system should instead occupy street space now used for driving and parking autos.

Even minimal improvements and additions to existing bike lane networks would deliver a strong message that the city's transportation and environmental priorities are changing, and that priorities are shifting from “keeping the cars happy.” [27] In the Recommendations that conclude this chapter, we outline a phased scheme to make New York City streets bicycle-friendly, roughly corresponding to escalating government commitment to auto-reduction and “green modes” of transportation.

To construct an on-street bike lane network that can attract existing and potential New York City cyclists, the City will have to abandon its four-foot lane-width standard and test a number of innovations. It may also need to revise policies that bear on bicycle space, especially rules concerning on-street parking and taxis. What should not take place is extension of NYC bike lanes as presently configured — 4 feet wide, shoehorned between parked and moving motor vehicles. Planners have concluded that “It is usually more desirable not to construct a bicycle facility than to construct a poorly planned or designed facility.” [28]

According to standards developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and adopted by many state transportation departments, including New York's, bicycle lanes situated between traffic and parking lanes should be at least 5 feet wide. [29] Moreover, where the adjacent traffic lane is less than 12 feet wide — as is often the case on New York City avenues — 5 feet may not be wide enough. [30] City transportation officials should widen existing bike lanes to at least 5 feet, as necessary.

Specific Design Considerations

The City should also adopt these easy-to-implement measures to improve bike lane visibility and curb blockage by motor vehicles:

• Bike lanes should be painted a different color than the surrounding or adjacent pavement. The paint should be mixed with a texture-giving aggregate (as was recently done with paint used on the surface of the Williamsburg Bridge bikeway).
• To reinforce the sanctity and identity of the bike lane, painted lines delineating bike lanes should be several inches wider than regular lane stripes.
• Bike lanes should be clearly marked at frequent intervals with bicycle-profile stencils denoting their function directly, replacing the current enigmatic diamond markings.
• Frequent signs should be deployed on avenues and streets with bicycle lanes. Surrounding streets and avenues should have signs directing cyclists to lanes, denoting the lane's direction (i.e., up- or downtown in Manhattan, cardinal points in the outer boroughs).
• Bike lanes should continue through intersections (indicated with dashed lines).

Widening bike lanes to 5 feet and more may require narrowing adjacent “motor vehicle lanes” to substandard width. This should not be a binding constraint against creating or improving bicycle lanes. As noted earlier, motor vehicle space should be converted to bicycle space to further the linked goals of increasing cycling and discouraging urban motoring. [31] This could also serve pedestrians, as some of the freed space could become wider sidewalks.

Transportation Alternatives has also proposed bike lanes on the left side of both median-divided and paint-divided two-way roadways. Examples are egress routes from bridge cycle-paths (from the Manhattan-bound lanes of the Brooklyn and Williamsburg Bridges) where the T.A. proposals could reduce bicycle-pedestrian conflict and help cyclists merge with auto traffic. Bike lanes in the left lanes of median-divided Park Avenue would remove cyclists from the proximity of parked cars.

The City DoT rejected these proposals due to concerns about bicycles in the “middle” of streets or avenues, even where medians exist. Yet cyclists on the left side of motor vehicles are more visible to drivers and therefore less prone to be struck by turning motor vehicles, a major cause of cyclist injuries and fatalities. [32]

As part of a long-term reapportionment of street space, the DoT should consider and implement where appropriate the following alternative bicycle lane designs:

• 5-foot or wider lanes between sidewalks and parking lanes. Parking lanes would be moved inward to displace one motor vehicle lane and accommodate the bike lane.
• 5-foot or wider lanes next to center islands or medians, on two-way routes including Houston St., Delancey St., Park Ave., and Broadway north of Columbus Circle.
• 5-foot or wider curbside lanes displacing on-street parking lanes (with remaining new space applied to widen sidewalks).

The following auxiliary features should be implemented first on a pilot basis, later on a more widespread basis:

• Bicyclist waiting areas in front of motor vehicle stop-lines in front or behind crosswalks. These will help cyclists accelerate from stops without being shouldered aside by motorists, and help cyclists position for turns while discouraging waiting in pedestrian crosswalks.
• Slightly raised bicycle lanes across intersections without traffic lights. This is intended largely outside Manhattan, to mark the presence of bicycle through-traffic and as a speed hump to slow motor vehicles.
• Grade-separated curbside bike lanes. Employed in Copenhagen and other European cities, these provide cyclists with an extra buffer (a mountable curb) from motor traffic. The roadway is separated into 3 levels: sidewalk at highest level, then the bike lane, and motor vehicle roadway at lowest level.
• Curbside or median bike lanes with no grade separation from motor vehicle lanes. A line of paving stones or other tactile marker would alert drivers straying across the boundary, and also provide an effective visual marker.

NOTES: