[*BCM*] NYTimes: "Rolling Thunder" bikes/peds

[Jeff Rosenblum]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 5, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Rolling Thunder
By SAMUEL I. SCHWARTZ
EVEN my own daughter, Deena, complains to me: “Dad, I know you’re a big
fan of bikes but you’ve got to do something about them. I almost got run
over by a woman on Second Avenue!”

About 300 people are killed each year in traffic accidents in New York
City, about half of them pedestrians hit by cars. On average, one
pedestrian dies each year after being struck by a bike. But if one were
to measure the complaints I get, one would imagine the statistics were
reversed.

What is it about the conflict between bike riders and pedestrians that’s
got so many people riled up and what can be done about it? It’s
important to look at this historically.

The complaint meter first began to rise after the 11-day transit strike
in April 1980. The bicycle messenger industry, which started in earnest
in the 1970s, had hit its stride by 1980 (before the widespread use of
e-mail or even faxes). During the strike, New Yorkers discovered bikes
as a great way to commute. Then there was an awful six-week period
starting in June when three women died after being struck by bikes.

I was the Department of Transportation’s assistant commissioner under
Mayor Ed Koch, who, buoyed by a visit to Beijing, where he saw bike
lanes used by tens of thousands, envisioned a network of physically
separated bikeways up and down Manhattan.

In the summer of 1980, the mayor directed the department to install
bikeways. From Washington Square Park to Central Park, the curb lanes of
Fifth Avenue, Broadway and Seventh Avenue were separated from traffic by
asphalt islands, giving bikers a lane of car-free roadway all their own.

Within days the complaints started to pour in. Most of the grumbling was
from pedestrians concerned about reckless cyclists coming close to
knocking them down (the three deaths were fresh in their minds). Some
were from drivers who felt there was more congestion because of the loss
of a lane.

The department’s investigation found that pedestrians considered the
bike lanes to be extensions of the sidewalk; they stood in the lanes
waiting for the lights to change, where bikers often yelled at them.
(The conflict between bicyclists and pedestrians is much more visceral
than any between car drivers and pedestrians. You can see a biker’s face
and hear his words.)

Mr. Koch made his own observations and found many bike riders traveling
outside the lanes. He had us install traffic signs along the bike lanes
in typical Koch-ese — “Use it or Lose it.” But even though the lanes
were largely successful — and car traffic didn’t slow nearly as much as
people thought — criticism mounted.

During a limousine ride up Avenue of the Americas with Mr. Koch and
President Jimmy Carter, Gov. Hugh Carey pointed out the bike lanes to
Mr. Carter and joked, “See how Ed is wasting your money.” Within weeks,
the mayor directed us to remove the barriers separating the lanes, which
afterward were designated only by painted lines.

I think we made a mistake. We succumbed to the emotions of the moment.
Had we kept the bigger picture in mind, we could have produced a network
of separate bike lanes, a widespread public education program and tough
enforcement that would have combined to promote good transportation
policy and safety.

Now what do we do in 2006?

First, we need to establish a clear hierarchy for the use of city
streets. Pedestrians come first; we started out as a walking city and it
will be our greatest strength going forward. This means bikers must
yield to pedestrians — even errant ones. Biking is a superb form of
transport we should encourage. Drivers must yield to bike riders — even
errant ones.

Second, we must enforce the rules. Police officers should write
summonses specifically for “failure to yield” by bike riders (and car
drivers). When you ask the Police Department to write summonses
generally, they’ll do just that — produce lots of summonses, including
many for minor infractions like not having a reflector. In fact, the
Police Department has so far written 40,000 summonses to bike riders in
2006; no one I’ve spoken to has noticed better behavior. Instead, let’s
focus on what really matters — making sure bicyclists respect the right
of way of pedestrians — and crack down on bike riders who don’t.

Third, let’s advance the network of bike lanes citywide. I’d even
re-introduce physically separate bike lanes. This program needs to be
communicated in a mass campaign explaining rules of the road and each
group’s responsibility. For example, drivers need to know they are
forbidden to enter a bike lane to turn; bikers need to know that they
must not block crosswalks; pedestrians must learn they can’t use bike
lanes as sidewalks.

Finally, we need to recognize that our economic and physical well-being
are advanced when more people are able to enjoy our streets. Car traffic
must be reduced and more room made for pedestrians and bike lanes.
London and Stockholm understand this — that’s why they introduced
congestion pricing and sharply reduced car traffic.

Our time has come.

Samuel I. Schwartz is the president of a transportation consulting
company and a transportation columnist for The Daily News.