As A Cyclist, He Likes It. As A Driver, Not So Much.

An article about a bike lane in Reno, Nevada invoked, however briefly, a suprisingly-rarely heard perspective.

As if I weren't enough of a minority (ya know, being transgender and all), I am in an even smaller community, at least here in the US:  a cyclist who doesn't drive.

There are a fair number of us here in New York City--at least in neighborhoods like mine, which are in or close to the central districts of Manhattan and the Queens and Brooklyn waterfronts.  I suspect that there are more than a few of us in other relatively compact cities like Boston and Philadelphia and cities full of young, educated residents like Portland and San Francisco.  But in most of the rest of the United States, nearly all cyclists are also drivers.

About the new bike lane, Reno resident Michael Leonard said, "As a car driver maybe I'm not as in favor but as a cyclist I like it."  The lane in question winds from Midtown to the University area and is intended for people traveling by bicycle and scooter through the downtown area.  

As a driver, Leonard probably has one of the same objections drivers often have:  a traffic lane was taken from them, effectively making a one-way street for drivers, in order to physically separate them from cyclists and scooter riders.  Also, others--mostly business owners like Jory Mack, whose family has operated Palace Jewelry and Loan at the same location since 1958--have complained about significant losses of customers along with the parking spaces.  

Although I am not a driver, I can understand their points of view, though I suspect Mack has misplaced some blame on the city's casino owners.  Now, it's been a long time since I've been to Reno or any casino, so perhaps the demographics of casino clientele have changed:  Are cyclists clamoring to throw away their hard-earned money?  Thus, I have to wonder whether or why casino owners would advocate for bike lanes.

Whatever the answer to that may be, I understand their complaints.  For one thing, Reno, like most US cities away from the coasts, is auto-centric. (At least it was when I last saw it.)  Also, I suspect that the customers of businesses like Mack's--ironically, like those of casinos--tend not to get around by bicycle or scooter.   

But there is one facet of the lane that endangers both cyclists and motorists, if not equally:  the traffic signal for cyclists.  Apparently, it's not very conspicuous.  "A couple of times I didn't notice it and I pulled out and cars were turning," Leonard explained.  "I had to quickly stay out of their way."

I have ridden on lanes where there was a relatively easy-to-see signal. Sometimes it's not synchronized to allow cyclists to cross through an intersection ahead of turning cars--or trucks or buses.  Worst of all are the ones on lanes where cyclists ride in the opposite direction from motorized traffic: If cyclists and scooter-riders get the "go" signal at the same time as drivers, it's all too easy for a left-turning driver to hit us. 

So...While I applaud cities like Reno for trying to make cycling safer--or, at least doing what they think will make cycling safer--they need to be more cognizant of the actual conditions both cyclists and drivers face. 

I Should Be Happy For This, But...

This is what I see, now, outside my window. 

It's an urban millennial's dream.  I'm supposed to be happy. 

I'm not the only one who isn't--and not only because I'm not a millennial.  Some of my neighbors hate it. I can't say I blame them, even if their reasons are very different from mine.

A few weeks ago, the Crescent Street bike lane "opened for business," if you will.  On paper, it sounds like something every cyclist in northwestern Queens (and, probably, other parts of this city) dreamed of:  a direct bike route from the Robert F. Kennedy to the Ed Koch (or Triborough to 59th Street, to old-time New Yorkers) Bridges.  

Now, if I were still riding to the college every day, or I were still working in Midtown or Downtown Manhattan, I might have welcomed the lane--had it taken a different route and been constructed differently.

One common complaint was that drivers on Crescent routinely exceeded the speed limit by a lot.  It's not hard to see why:  This stretch of Crescent is a long straightway not unlike some race tracks.  And, as I mentioned, it connects the two bridges--as well as the Grand Central Parkway (which goes to the airports) to the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and, in effect, four of the city's five boroughs.  That is one reason it was so much used by taxi and car-service drivers, many of whose "home" offices and garages are near the RFK Bridge.

Even so, I didn't mind riding on Crescent:  Because the street sliced through the neighborhood like an exclamation point, and I knew the drivers' habits, traffic was predictable.  Plus, the drivers who regularly used Crescent knew that the neighborhood is residential and  we--cyclists and pedestrians--also used the street.

But now there's only one traffic lane, so drivers can't maneuver--and become very short-tempered and resentful, sometimes endangering cyclists out of spite. Worse, they can't see you behind the row of parked cars.  These are  real problems when taxis, livery cars and other "work" vehicles pull into the lane to discharge or pick up passengers, as they often do by the hospital.  If you're riding down from the RFK bridge, and you don't run into red lights, it's easy to build up speed. When an ambulance or truck pulls into the lane, you have no choice but to take a hard right into the traffic lane--or to end up in back of the ambulance!

One more thing:  When cars parked along the curb, where the lane is now, they served as a buffer between traffic (bicycle and motor) and pedestrians crossing the street. Even if a careless pedestrian wandered, mid-block, into traffic, he or she had to cross through the parked cars.  Now, those same pedestrians step directly into the bike lane as they're looking at their screens, oblivious to their surroundings.  

Some of my neighbors would love to see the lane removed.  I agree with them, almost.  They complain that it's less convenient, or even "impossible" to park.  To me, it's more dangerous--for me, for them and for pedestrians.  The Crescent Street lane, I believe, would be better on another street:  one that parallels Crescent (28th or 30th come to mind) from the RFK Bridge to Queensborough Plaza, where it's easy to access the Ed Koch Bridge.