A bike route on 91st Street would bring two kinds of bike traffic to the street that isn’t there already:

-Some portion of UES crosstown bicycle traffic composed of bicyclists who prefer to travel on designated bike routes will detour and use 91st because of the route.

-Some people who live near the 91st Street route (perhaps, the woman shown bicycling in circles in the video clip?) who may now feel uncomfortable bicycling amidst cars will be emboldened by the route, and start bicycling on 91st Street.

Your question is why the addition of this traffic wouldn’t result in the pedestrian mall being “greatly affected.” Here is why:

1. Bicyclists that prefer bike routes are only a subset, probably a minority, of the UES bicycle traffic. Even for many who prefer bike routes, it’s just not worth it to detour more than 5-10 blocks to access one. So it’s just not that many people who will be concentrated on an E. 91st Street bike route.

2. The bicyclists who will detour to 91st St. to use a designated bike route will be generally, if not exclusively, bicyclists who believe in following the traffic laws. This group will be composed disproportionately of beginner, senior, commuter, and family bicyclists. Ask anyone you know who bicycles regularly and they will tell you this is true.

3. Bicycle traffic detouring to use a 91st Street route will be eastbound uphill traffic (westbound downhill traffic will not detour to 91st because 90th Street is available). So any added traffic will be slowed to the point it presents no danger of serious collisions.

4. In judging whether the effect of this additional uphill bicycling traffic on the pedestrian mall will be “great,” one has to consider the now-existing traffic mix on the mall. I have on many occasions observed that there are bicyclists and skateboarders on the mall who are not law-abiding or safety conscious. Some may ride down the hill at unsafe speeds or on the sidewalk. I have observed small children, including my own daughter, put in potential danger by teenagers and tweens bicycling or skateboarding down the hill. In the context of that existing traffic, adding some additional law-abiding, uphill bicyclists into the mix will not cause any “great effect.” If anything, the designation of the uphill route will assist in communicating to downhill riders that what they are doing is wrong and unsafe.

5. As much as I’d like to believe in David Rosenstein’s (#38) fantasy that “if you build it they will come,” we are dealing with reality, not fantasy here. Large numbers of new bicyclists will not suddenly materialize due to the designation of this route. Those who are inspired to bike will be drawn disproportionately from Yorkville/Ruppert Towers because of the proximity, and will be definition be beginners and less likely to engage in high-speed, risky conduct.

6. A 91st Street route would not attract high-volume, high-speed, or unlawful bicycle traffic to the pedestrian mall, for the following reasons:

a. It is irritating and unsafe for bicyclists at higher speeds to use bike lanes, because of the risk of collision with pedestrians and others. Attempting to travel at high speed up that steep hill on the pedestrian mall (apart from being physically impossible for anyone but a professional athlete) would hold little attraction for any bicyclist (aside from someone deliberately seeking to menace pedestrians using the least efficient means possible).

b. It is true that occasionally bicyclists seek out a bike lane in which to travel counter to the flow of traffic. This sometimes happens with downtown bicyclists on First Ave., but that is because there is no designated downtown bike route in the area. You will not have a problem with eastbound bicyclists on a 91st Street route because those bicyclists can just as easily use 90th Street as an eastbound route.

c. Bicyclists who break the law to suit their convenience are not going to be drawn to E.91st Street by the bike route, they will do what is convenient, as they do now. The kids will continue to seek out the pedestrian mall because it is fun to ride skateboards and bikes down a steep hill at high speeds. The designation of a one-way, uphill route on the mall will not encourage them, and as noted above, may discourage them.

One question you do not ask, George, is what the effect would be of putting the bike route on E. 89th. The effect would be significantly increased danger for bicyclists, for two reasons:

1. A westbound 89th Street route would terminate at southbound 5th Ave, leading bicyclists seeking to continue into the park to ride against the flow of traffic or on the sidewalk to get to the 90th Street entrance, or detour onto 91 at Park or Madison where there would be no bike lane.

2. A westbound 89th Street route would force bicyclists to climb Carnegie Hill at its point of steepest grade--between Second and Third Avenue--amidst motor vehicle traffic instead of on the existing car-free space on 91st. Routing beginner, family and senior bicyclists onto 89th Street between 2nd and 3rd Aves will promote far more conflicts and safety issues (and more serious ones, because motor vehicles and higher speeds will be involved) than routing them onto the pedestrian mall.

As for the date of the video, George, it is stated on the YouTube page to which the video is linked--August 4. Of course many people go away for vacation during August. But I travel this block year-round often enough to know that even when the weather is nicer, there is room enough for uphill bicyclists and all manner of pedestrians to all share this block safely. To see what I am talking about, just visit John Finley Walk in Carl Schurz Park (three blocks away), where bicyclists proceed safely among kids, seniors, anglers, kite-fliers, and every other kind of pedestrian one might find on the pedestrian mall, in a very similar space. The fact that the pedestrian mall does not see much traffic during the summer is yet another reason to expect that conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians on a 91st St. bike route would not occur.

As for an environmental impact study, I don't think any is required, but if one were to be conducted I would expect it to reach the conclusions I have outlined above.

Finally, I’d like to hear the responses of opponents of the 91st bike lane who claim they are not anti-bike to the following points:

1. The city is installing these bike lanes because its is trying to encourage more people to bicycle in a safe and law-abiding manner. A bike lane on 89th Street that encourages bicyclists to ride against the flow of traffic or on the sidewalk does not further this goal.

2. To conclude that a one-way uphill bike route will attract downhill outlaw bikers or cause large masses of bicyclists to suddenly materialize, based on a cliché from a movie about fantasy baseball, is irrational and anti-bike (see comment #38).

3. This proposed bike lane is in fact a boon to Yorkville/Ruppert Towers residents. Using the new bike lanes, families from Yorkville/Ruppert Towers can bike to Central Park in about 10 minutes, or to Carl Schurz in about 3 minutes, without schlepping to or paying for the crosstown bus. One commenter (#19) makes the patently untrue assertion that the pedestrian mall is the “only place” for local children to play ball; even if that were true, the bike lane expands options for ball and other play.

Just check out 1st avenue in the upper 80's and lower 90's on any morning or afternoon.

The congestion fee pricing proposal will OF COURSE lead to traffic nightmares north of 86th street (and within this area WITH A CLOSED OFF STREET). This street needs to be opened to traffic. They have beautiful plaza's to sit it. Why block traffic flow. If they keep this street blocked there will be ** ADDITIONAL ** DOUBLE PARKING nightmares within a 4 block radius.

If bike traffic will not be greatly affected by installing a bike lane and as others have said there are already bikers there so it should'nt change anything,then I ask, why bother putting a bike lane there at all?

Also if anyone has seen the latest issue of Our Town Newspaper, the front cover has an article about how empty the city is in August.When was that video taken?

My final concern is ,if so many of you are so quick to say that there is no reason to have concern for the safety of our children or seniors with a bike lane in place.WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE D.O.T.'s ENVIORMENTAL IMPACT STUDY? WAS THERE ONE?

For how progressive NYers style themselves, there is such an unbelievable fear of change, progressive design, and the like. I am a strong rider when I ride, can go quite fast on flats and downhill, but am physically incapable of going up that hill with anything that even approximates real speed, or danger. And those same messengers on fixies (single speed bike without small gears) are certainly not going to go up that hill much faster than the kid (and will likely avoid it all together).

What we're doing with this issue and with many other transportation-related arguments in the city is fighting over the crumbs. Rather than looking upwards at the real problem--streets in NYC designed solely and myopically for the movement of private vehicles--we squabble like mutts for the scraps that might fall off the table.

Assuming that NYC and this DOT are able to achieve real progress--like many other large cities around the world--and reclaim space from cars (which have only been at the top of the food chain since the 50s--for the last 3,000 years, city streets have not been ceded to them), we will look back on this argument and think, god, what the hell was it like to live in a city like that! Thank goodness we're not back in the Stone Ages.

I live in the city, a short walk from from the closed off street, walk everywhere (unless I am taking public transportation) ... but I also understand the need for "streets" in "cities". I've always viewed the closed street as nonsensical.

BOTTOM LINE

- a closed street screws up traffic flow
and creates the problem of double parking.

SPEAKING OF DOUBLE PARKING

If I were mayor I would increase the fines for double parking to $500 per event - no excuses. Three strikes (tickets) and you loose your vehicle). That would eliminate MOST of the congestion nightmare and we could then abandon the congestion fee proposal which will OF COURSE lead to additional traffic nightmares north of 86th street (and within this area WITH A CLOSED OFF STREET).

Anyone want to guess the likelihood of taking the parking off of the east side of that block of Fifth Ave. and establishing a one-block contraflow bike lane?

All over the world, streets are closed to car traffic so that they may be used by pedestrians, bikes and even kids playing. A true bicycle-boulevard is exactly this model. Why are people so convinced that the UES can't handle something that is popular elsewhere? I really think the question should be, does the neighborhood want the bike lane striped so that bikes consciously have an area they should stay within, or no stripe to preserve the randomness as it currently exists.

WORTHY OF A REPEAT

Open the street back up to traffic.

The closing of the street added to congestion. Streets are for vehicles and bicycles. Parks are for kids. Go to Central Park or Carl Schurz Park. BETTER YET --- if you want to ride in the streets move to the quiet burbs.

GROW UP PEOPLE.

It is New York "CITY", not New York "Private PARK".

Open the street back up to traffic.

I was particularly struck by comments directed against Councilmember Dan Garodnick, one of the many elected officials who represent Community Board 8. This block is out of his district? In my city, neighbors work together. Do you think anything would get done in a legislative body if each representative selfishly ignored their neighbor's need for support, when facing an unwanted mandate from the Executive branch?

Just so you know, were it not for Councilmember Dan Garodnick, the subway entrance at 59th and Lexington Avenue, in the "Bloomberg" building, would still be closed and we would still be walking to 60th Street to enter the sole uptown entrance at the north end of the station. Dan Garodnick listened to subway riders "outside of his district" and negotiated a long-delayed opening of that vital subway entrance, closed since Alexander's was demolished. We, Community Board 8 and Community Board 6, worked together, with both councilmembers Lappin and Garodnick. So, thanks, neighbor.

There is no animus against cyclists, except for those who ride on sidewalks, so please, you know who you are, don't create divisiveness; it doesn't advance your "green" agenda. It just makes you appear mean. Today, a mom can sit on a bench on the play street and let a toddler wander 10-15 feet up or down the block in relative safety. Pre-teens come running out of Ruppert Park chasing a ball -- and don't get hit by the occasional bike that chooses to use the play street. We live with the occasional; it's the DOT-directed flow of bikes up the play street that is so upsetting the local community. "If you build it, they will come."

Please note: This is not an anonymous posting.
-- Dave Rosenstein
"Friends of Ruppert Park"

I would not be so sure about DOT. The odds right now are 50-50, but this is certainly not a done deal. I know that for a fact.

As far as those who are 'kvetching' and not doing anything else to help the neighborhood, I would beg to differ there as well. In fact, a new greenmarket was placed in the neighborhood on 93rd & 1st, only one year ago, and this very same board approved two new greenmarkets last year. Also, isn't the sole BRT pilot in Manhattan on First and Second Avenues?

If you do the math and note the large number of 30+ story buildings in a small radius, and the small number of garages above 90th, very few people who live in the immediate vicinity own cars relative to the population. So I don't think you would find large amounts of people in the 90s east of Lex complaining about parking spots being taken away for pedestrian improvements. I have lived here for 17 years and I don't know anyone in my immediate vicinity who owns a car. Certainly there are many people who do - but the vast majority of people up here east of the wealthy section of town do not.

DOT is going to go ahead and do their plan over all of your objections and Garodnick's ridiculous letter and you're going to have a chance to see what the effect of it is, and I would be willing to bet an entire year's salary that you will find that the block is made not one iota more dangerous or unpleasant by the addition of these two stripes of paint to the streets on the blocks beyond the pedestrian plaza.

DOT will do their plan. The kids will still be playing. The elderly will still be sitting. The cars will still be clogging streets elsewhere.

And here's another prediction: None of the folks who are kvetching about this project will lift a single finger to create new pedestrian plazas, bus rapid transit lanes, bike improvements, greenmarkets or more livable streets on the UES. But the next time someone else does try to bring these modest livable streets improvements to the neighborhood, the very same group of CB8 kvetchers will be kvetching, protesting the elimination of a parking space or the inconvenience that buses and bikes and pedestrian plazas cause to local motorists.

Mark my words.

1) Many people are not here in the summer, which means that their kids aren't either. Come back in the fall and view the street around 3:30, right after school, and then say the street isn't used by children.

2) My fear is not at all of the law abiding cyclists - it is of the delivery people. As someone noted above, this video showed a delivery person riding DOWNHILL. All the striping would do is make them think it is okay to do that, and there would be a lot more delivery people speeding downhill. Due to the large amount of 30+ story highrises in the area, there are a lot of delivery people in the area and many do not obey traffic rules. Speeding through lights, riding on sidewalks, going the wrong way, etc. There is a legit fear that the bike lane will help promote this rather than deter it.

3) As far as singling out Garodnick, the person who constructed this thread neglected to state that every other elected official on the Upper East Side who reps the district also wrote letters - so I'm wondering why there was selectivity in attempting to ding him for writing it. Especially when his district borders this one on the next block and his constituents use the street?

4) As also stated above, the board isn't anti-bike path, nor anti-cyclist in general, so painting it as bikes versus pedestrians is simply not true.

And BTW - anybody who thinks the issue with delivery people is a race one, is WAY OFF BASE. I am a middle class minority and understand that they need to make a living - I just don't want to get run over in the process...

don't just designate this street as a bike route. make a bike lane on it. that way seniors know to look out for slow-moving uphill bikes on one particular part of the street.

Can you give me an example of a street you know where routing of a bike lane increased bike traffic dramitically and created an unsafe environment? What about John Finley walk where bikes were introduced 4 years ago--do you consider that an unsafe enviornment for your kids?

I would like to applaud councilman Garodnick and the other elected officials for trying to find an alternate route for this bike lane and keep "play street" living up to its name.

Of any street in our community you will not find one with more children playing so care free than this one. Why change something so beautiful?