http://www.centralparknyc.org/virtualpark/thereservoir/EngineersGate

Robert Moses put parkways through existing parks and also created parks for them. The first is what we want to avoid and the latter something worth emulating.

Therefore, we should use the opportunity of this new greenway segment to improve a bad street. I haven't seen the alternative streets being considered, but can't help imagining it be a better outcome if the neighborhood ended up with the existing "play street"/public square AND a block of a bike greenway -- landscaped and protected?

Why settle for one, when there could be two improvements?

You raise a point that is very important--the notion that "bikes and pedestrians don't go well together." Whether that is true depends on the details--the space, the uses to which it is put, and the presence or absence of design elements to harmonize uses. I recall one commenter using the example of the West Side bike path at the 79th Street Boat Basin as an example of bicyclist-pedestrian conflict, and that point is well taken. But the car-free block on East 91st Street is nothing like that spot on the West Side bike path.

Instead, the proper comparison is to John Finley Walk, a stretch of the East Side greenway running from 82nd to 90th Streets on the East River. That is a Class I bike lane and a true promenade filled with pedestrians, including lots of seniors and children (including kids being taught to ride their bikes one of the most disruptive forms of traffic there is), dog walkers, skaters, joggers, kite-flyers, anglers casting with long fishing poles, and every other type of traffic and activity you can imagine. The space is about 40' wide and is lined with benches on either side--just like East 91st Street.

I ride there quite a bit and have never seen a pedestrian-bicyclist collision. There is a certain level of chaos to be sure, but everybody co-exists peacefully. (Clarence, if you are ever up that way with your camera, please try to document this!)

Creating an uphill bike route on East 91st cannot possibly create even the same minimal level of pedestrian-bicyclist conflict on the car-free block as that now seen on John Finley Walk, for the following reasons:

1. John Finley Walk has much more traffic of all types than the car-free block on East 91st ever will, and as a part of the Class I greenway network it has a greater proportion of bicyclists in the traffic mix than East 91st Street ever will.

2. John Finley Walk is divided up into two painted lanes each of which is shared by pedestrians and bicycles, while the East 91st Street car-free block would have at most a single, one-way painted lane for bicyclists, minimizing conflict.

3. John Finley Walk has a hill at its northern terminus almost as steep as the East 91st St. car-free block, with extremely limited sight distance due to a curve around the Gracie mansion retaining wall. Thanks to signage warning downhill bicyclists to proceed slowly, there do not appear to have been any pedestrian-bicyclist collisions on this hill. (At least, I have not heard of any, and if collisions had occurred one would expect the opponents of the West 91st Street bike lane, who live three blocks away from that hill, to be raising them.) In contrast, establishing a one-way bike route that included the steeply uphill car-free block of 91st Street would not pose anywhere near the collision risk than that posed by the current design of John Finley Walk does.

It is inconceivable to me that the incremental addition of eastbound, uphill cycling traffic to the mix on the car-free block of 91st Street would materially increase the risk of collisions. The bicyclists who use class II bike lanes tend to be less aggressive than average. Any aggressive bicyclists channeled onto East 91st Street by the proposed eastbound route will be "tamed" by the steep uphill. As Mike K. points out, the westbound bicyclists will choose the downhill route on the westbound 90th Street route. As Aaron suggests, the handful of bicyclists who might inexplicably be tempted to go out of their way and ride downhill on East 91st Street will not be noticed amidst the substantial, already existing downhill traffic on this block that is composed of (a) the kids whose play opportunities are the supposed rationale for keeping out the bike route--I assure you their play would be greatly diminished if downhill bicycling or skateboarding were banned on this block;--and (b) the many bicycle delivery guys who are summoned to this block nightly by the residents of residents of Yorkville/Ruppert Towers.

No one's proposing taking away park space. I'll repeat what's been said many times already: the DOT doesn't want to put a bike lane on that block.

The lane would be on the rest of 91st St. leading to and from that block. Otherwise, the "play street" block will remain as is. Children will still be able to play on it and cyclists will still be able to ride on it. Not a whole lot will change, since these two actions both occur already legally and there haven't been any terrible accidents between a cyclist and a 4 year old as far as I know.

Then what's the point of the bike lane, you may ask? To make the rest of 91st St. safe for bicyclists travelling the corridor between the Central Park Entrance and the East Side Greenway. The bike lane might even make that block safer for kids (it's an east-bound uphill route) -- cyclists who might bomb down the hill might be funneled to west-bound 90th St. lane instead.

ALL. THE. TIME.

You can't really do that many places in the city. This block is an exception (today, even prior to any stripes of paint on non-stripes of paint).

Seems like _play_ and _bike_ go together quite well, naturally.

Community opponents and these articles make it sound like the City wants to make physical design changes to the block that will result in taking away the community's "park" and "play street." I think that characterization is inaccurate and unsupported and not at all reflective of the presentation DOT gave at the CB8 meeting the other night.

That's all I'm really saying.

I'm sure you're right about bike traffic increasing on the street. I figure bike traffic will increase on pretty much every street in New York City in the coming years, especially streets with bike lanes on them.

First off, yes, those articles do say that the City wants to stripe or install a bike lane or path along that car-free block of 91st:

The Sun: "Next month, the city is planning to install a bike path along the car-free street."

Curbed: "now the street is being considered for a possible bike lane... The problem? Residents don't want to give up their "park"... Should the bike path be granted on 91st?"

Second, I don't think it's accurate to say that the City is "considering" a bike lane for that block. At the CB8 meeting DOT said repeatedly that they'd prefer not to stripe or mark that block and that they see the primary function of the block as a "play street" or park-like environment.

It's totally inaccurate, I think, to say that the City is asking residents to give up their park, as Curbed says.

But, blah, media criticism. Sorry to even get into it.

When I spent seven years commuting to work by bicyle, it usually felt more like a form of transportation than like a recreational activity - particularly on rainy days.

I guess I would have been much more "legitimate" if I had driven to work.

You seem to be saying there will be no increase. I don't see how you can say that. I know for a fact that my family will use this lane (including the car-free block between Third and Second) to travel west from the East Side greenway to our home. In the past, we have tended to use other streets in the East 90s to do so, but I always prefer using bike lanes when traveling with kids. I can't believe I'm the only one who will do so, and I will certainly be encouraging my bicycling neighbors to do so. So the bike traffic on 91st is going to increase with the installation of the lane. That's the whole point. Hopefully the increase will be significant and there will be an added "safety in numbers" effect.

If you are advocating a strategy of downplaying the impact of bike lanes as a way of getting communities to accept them, I don't agree with it. (The impact should not be overplayed, either, it should just be accurately described.) The people who live on East 90th and 91st streets should expect to see more bikes as a result of the lane, and should expect the possibility of a ticket if they block the lane. Bicyclists should use the lane when available and safe, use care not to endanger pedestrians (especially on the car-free block), and show courtesy and patience when they remind motorists to exit the bike lane. The goal should be to foster expectations on the part of all that will minimize friction in the long run--not to smooth over opposition in the short run.

Like the neighborhood opponents, I think you are working under the assumption that there are no bicyclists using this street currently. That's not accurate. Cyclists use this street, as is.

If it changes anything, I think DOT's plan takes the most dangerous cyclists -- the guys traveling eastbound in the downhill direction -- and suggests that they move over to 90th Street.

We ran across a similar thing on 9th Street in Brooklyn. Neighborhood people were screaming, "You can't put cyclists on this street!"

But the cyclists were already there and had been there for years.

On 9th Street, as I think is happening on the UES, the neighborhood powers-that-be were fighting a DOT plan that, in many ways, was nothing more than an official acknowledgement of cyclists' presence.

I mean jeeze, I even got quoted in the Times because the community board granted a request from the 6th Pct. to remove some overnight parking spots to better monitor "sketchy activities." That's news?

I think the message of proponents has to be that bikes, pedestrians, kids and seniors curently coexist peacefully in this space, there is no reason to think that will change with an increase in bicyclists in the mix, John Finley Walk (just a few blocks away) demonstrates peaceful co-existence of the same groups in a comparable space.