Comments on: Roosevelt Islanders Denied Overnight Bike Parking [Updated]

By: Det

Det — Sat, 23 May 2009 10:21:29 +0000

Maybe you couldn't get the bike registered because there is no security office.

By: LN

LN — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:51:20 +0000

Who commutes TO Roosevelt Island?

Another example of how Roosevelt Island deals with bikes. Most of the older Rosey Isle buildings have bike rooms. Last year residents got a letter that unless their bikes were registered with the security office, the bikes would be removed. But security office was never able to register the bikes, we tried daily for a month and finally gave up.

By: Josh

Josh — Sat, 16 May 2009 13:39:07 +0000

Orwellian doesn't seem like the right word; this is just vague (a quality-of-life issue how?) and nonsensical.

By: zach

zach — Sat, 16 May 2009 07:21:35 +0000

Yes Capn! Weekly, or even monthly, cleaning/clearing of racks! It's equally absurd to have no overnight parking altogether, and to have unused bikes sit there for months and even years taking up useful rack space.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:17:15 +0000

Even if the aims of the policy are good, the implementation is terribly backward. So great, RIOC is concerned about abandoned bikes. Their solution is to tell everyone to take a hike? That's moronic.

I see that Steve Shane has contacted Streetsblog. I hope he's bothered to read the comments here too. The ideas here are far better than his half-baked non-solution.

By: Dan Berkman

Dan Berkman — Fri, 15 May 2009 21:46:23 +0000

The problem here is that the policy is more reactive than constructive. Obviously abandoned bikes and bike racks that aren't working for the community is a problem for everyone, but the policy in place here makes it very clear that the RIOC isn't isn't interested in building consensus for good bike policy in a situation in which it would have been very easy to do so. These kinds of policies that make owning a bike a hassle do so much damage. How many buildings won't let me bring my bike the lobby? How many buildings prohibit bike storage in common areas or have made bike storage massively inconvenient? Would it have been that much harder to adress this issue in a more constructive manner? Probably not. It doesn't matter if the DOT is putting down bike lanes on every street if every tenants association, co-op board and two bit government agency isn't going to engage cyclists in a meaningful way.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 15 May 2009 21:27:26 +0000

It's amazing how you get dozens of sensible and creative solutions when you put the ideas out there on the blog like this for public discussion. It's a far cry from the "all or nothing" choices we get from public officials.

If Streetsblog readers can come up with these ideas in mere seconds, how long did it take the powers that be on Roosevelt Island to come up with the least sensible idea imaginable?

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Fri, 15 May 2009 21:13:11 +0000

They could even institute a version of alternate-side parking: paint half the racks one color and the other half another color, and say that on Wednesdays the blue racks will be cleared for "cleaning" and on Fridays the red ones.

By: Brooklyn

Brooklyn — Fri, 15 May 2009 20:10:41 +0000

@ Roosevelt360: that does make sense. Abandoning bikes on racks is the height of stupidity, and is indeed a quality of life issue, just like broken windows. Shame on Islanders who don't care enough about their surroundings -- or their bikes -- to properly care for either.

Anywhere else in the city, and I might spread blame on outsiders, vagrants, delivery people etc. But who, other than people who live there, would ride all the way over R.I. just to dump a bike?

By: Eric McClure

Eric McClure — Fri, 15 May 2009 20:05:15 +0000

I am 100% in favor of this policy — but only if it's coupled with a parallel rule that cars in New York City may no longer be parked on public streets overnight.

By: gary fisher

gary fisher — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:48:08 +0000

I can think of another good solution. More bike racks!

By: Stacy

Stacy — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:45:21 +0000

This could become as tedious as Alternate Side of the Street Parking where commuters run downstairs to move their bikes before the authorities arrive.

But if cyclists have to bring their bikes inside at night then what's the purpose in having bike racks? Are they for guests who don't plan to stay for dinner?

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:39:30 +0000

Some logic, but it's limited. What about offering secure long-term bike storage in the Motorgate for a monthly fee? Then you can have a no-overnight-parking rule.

By: J. Mork

J. Mork — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:39:09 +0000

Mark Walker -- it looks like they are already offering to store your bike for free overnight in the public safety office.

Just leave in on the rack overnight and make you pick it up in less than 48 hours.

By: Gargamel Tralfaz

Gargamel Tralfaz — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:38:09 +0000

They should be tagged and after a month if they aren't moved then removed, that's fair enough game for me. Something should be done, but this is the incorrect policy.

What if they started towing cars in those ugly parking lots and if the owner didn't come and pick up within 2 days they got donated to the thrift store?

By: Roosevelt Island 360 (Eric)

Roosevelt Island 360 (Eric) — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:26:53 +0000

What I have been told is that the complaint has been that the racks are being used as long term storage by residents who don't want to take their bikes inside and that those bikes are preventing commuters and others from using the bikes on a daily short term basis. There is some logic to this.

By: gary fisher

gary fisher — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:03:11 +0000

I think a better solution, if that is the problem, would be to put a sign on bikes that have been there for a while telling people they will be removed if they are still there in 3 weeks. Not every night.

By: Streetsman

Streetsman — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:00:54 +0000

Hang on. I think the problem here is that there are bikes that are parked there for months without being used, taking up valuable bike parking space from regular users. We have the same problem in the small bike parking facility in the building where I work - people leave bikes there forever and then the rack runs out of spaces. This is not necessarily the correct approach by the RIOC, but how would you address the problem? You don't want to get into an Amsterdam train station problem where there are piles of abandoned bikes locked to racks, and nowhere to park.

By: gary fisher

gary fisher — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:58:48 +0000

Stacy, the sad part is that the island is not really part of the city, the land is owned by the city but leased to the state and RIOC which runs the island is owned and operated by the state not the city.

It is an utter disappointment that the island is not more bike friendly because of its limited and contained environment it could easily be a model of progressive transportation and planning policy. I don't think either of those are goals of RIOC(if they have goals). The only development that happens on the island is Le Corusierian upper/middle income projects.

By: Stacy

Stacy — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:50:20 +0000

As a car-light community I was surprised Roosevelt Island isn't oarticularly bike friendly. The 36th Avenue bridge doesn't allow cycling on the sidewalk and the roadway is a real danger to narrow tires. And the roadways leave much to be desired.

Now the idea that cyclists can't use the bike racks overnight makes absolutely no sense. Why should Roosevelt Island cyclists have fewer rights than other cyclists throughout the city?

This would seem like a prime environment for various forms of bicycle parking, from indoor garages to the various individual bike enclosures we've seen elsewhere, or even Bike Shelters. Wouldn't it be better to resolve whatever problem might exist with a carrot instead of a stick?