Leo Moskowitz, who lives in Schaefer Landing, said he has young children whom he frequently ferries around town by car. “Before, there were 100 parking spaces...and now there are none,” he said. “I drop my children off three blocks away if I’m lucky enough to find a space.”

But I am confused, is this off topic? I don't see what any of this has to do with a bike lane.

Big families and carpooling. You never see just one Hasid in a car. The Orthodox even have their own bus system running from Williamsburg to more affluent Boro Park, where there are more jobs. (The buses seem a little weak on the air pollution rules, though).

The issue here may not be who gets to drive around by themselves in a car everywhere. It may be who is in charge, who gets the parking and loading that are needed, whose dress code is followed, etc. My guess is there is a lot more common ground between the average bike commuter and the average Orthdox than bike commuter and the average state legislator.

Like I said in response to the assertion that the city zoning "requires" as opposed to "permits" accessory parking, just look at the new Hasidic developments moving south down Bedford/Nostrand/Franklin to see how much parking you find. Not so much. But those cars owned by 20% move lots of folks around.

As for reality, it is just a plaything of time. The new bicycle lanes don't clash with reality: they are reality. The car parking that was in them—that is history. And most New Yorkers, accustomed to scurrying out of paved-over public spaces that a motorized class forcefully occupies, have only just begun to "covet" their street space. I'm heartened that the paper may cover this progress more thoughtfully in 2009.

Send this info to Yassky, Reyna, and Markowitz so they can know whose voices they represent. Will they really choose an angry 15% with a poster over a 39-2 community board vote?

The results are, by household:
tract 547, South side: 84.4% car free.
tract 553, North side: 81.1% car free.

(547 is south of the Williamsburg bridge, closest to the river; 553 is my approximation of the tract that includes the Bedford Ave. Subway stop.)

These data are from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-reg=&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-gc_url=&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_H044&-tree_id=403&-redoLog=true&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=14000US36047054700&-geo_id=14000US36047055300&-search_results=14000US36047055300&-format=&-_lang=en

You can add another parameter to the end of the above URL (such as "&-geo_id=14000US36047055400" would be tract 554) if you are inclined to improve upon my "study".

The census tract map I used is here:
http://www.unhp.org/pdf/maps/tract_bk.pdf

It would not surprise me if auto ownership, and use of the auto to travel to work, is very low in Hasidic communities relative to others.

Remember the major factor that drives where the orthodox choose to live -- the fact that they do not drive on Saturday. That induces them to cluster in pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods.

I'd bet auto ownership is higher in Northside.

You've always got some great comments and a wealth of transportation knowledge but i have to disagree here. Yes, a big family is important to the Orthodox community, but i don't think the minivans are status symbols at all. and if they were, it'd be casting deity like importance on vehicles... pretty ironic considering the whole 'thou shalt have no there g-d before me.'

I don't think its a status symbol, but rather a close knit community that's conservative not just in faith, but in notions of livable streets. And that's a problem that's realistically still apparent in many neighborhoods where people haven't had strong bus, train, or bike options for a while.

clashed with a long-entrenched reality — New York is a crowded, congested urban landscape where every patch of asphalt is coveted

It hasn't clashed with that reality, it's part of it. Some people (not all of them cyclists) are sick of drivers coveting the vast majority of asphalt (including many sidewalks) and are now getting enough power to covet their own. The drivers are losing power, and striking out in rage. Colin Moynihan totally missed that angle to the story.

I think the next question is looking at why people still choose to drive in these areas-- it must be easier and less expensive in some kind of way--

It's true that Kent Avenue is pretty far from any subway stations, and thus inconvenient to get around unless you have a car or a bike. That's why Schaefer Landing was such a bad idea. They promised a water taxi, but that didn't take residents anywhere in the neighborhood, and it's gone now anyway.

The impression I have is that that's not why the Hasids drive, though. I think it's simply that cars are a strong status symbol in that community. Also, a lot of value is placed on having a big family, so the bigger the car you drive, the bigger your family must be.

If we want to be serious about promoting bicycle infrastructure, we need to be serious about not just promoting, but in some cases even requiring it's use it's use for daily activities such as dropping one's kids off at school. This is necessary not only for practical reasons but political reasons as well.

There is a psychological trick here as well. When we are forced to only one option which is permanent (to bike kids to school) we will enjoy and support it far more than if we had to make a reversable decision between 2 or more options. Choice induces doubt, which results in both options being viewed less favorably.

The city can deal with this by designating a schoolbus drop off area in front of or adjacent to the school, and routing the on-street painted bike lane around it. Take the space needed to do this from either or both of (a) the traffic lane or (b) the sidewalk. Put in speed humps, signage, a 15 MPH limit and other controls so that motor vehicles passing the resulting pinch point are slowed to a crawl. Viola, everyone's safer.

the number of people who, compelled by a desire to preserve the environment or preserve their bank accounts, have taken to getting around on two wheels.

Are those the only two reasons why someone would bike around the city? This, to me, speaks to one of the reasons cyclists so often lose the PR battle and why a group can get away with posting a sign such as this. Cyclists are often seen as cash-poor eco-freaks who ride either because other means cost too much or because we're making a political statement.

I ride because it's fun, fast, and easier than a lot of alternatives. I like being outside. I like the exercise. I like the fact that I am not beholden to a bus route or finding a parking spot if want to stop during my commute.

I'm sure there are as many reasons for riding as there are riders. Until we're seen as a broad constituency with a broad array of interests we'll be relegated to being seen as less-than-deserving of city resources.

I believe the objection is to the removal of standing/loading zones nearby Hasidic schools, which are on Kent in the vicinity of S6th, if I recall correctly. (Over and above the scantily-clad-hipsters 'problem'.)

Frankly I think they've a valid objection.

Their protest method, however, is not valid; like Avi said, they need to be ticketed. They could've made this case at any of the number of public airings and board meetings that preceded installation.

The solution is a separated greenway... which is what's planned, yeah?

I bike use Kent regularly, and south of Grand, it's just an awful place to ride, even with the bike lanes. It is the only place where I am legitimately afraid of being hit from behind by a speeding car.

It sounds like the DOT has put in a loading zone and they are even going to add some parking (never a fan of more parking, but the DOT can appear to be tine deaf) -- so compromise is happening. That's good.

I think the next question is looking at why people still choose to drive in these areas-- it must be easier and less expensive in some kind of way-- what can be done to reach out to people so they have more alternatives and don't feel boxed in to having to drive everywhere?