Minneapolis's bike-share system has only had two stolen bikes, and not just because people there are Minnesota nice. Theft and vandalism haven't been a problem for any American bike-sharing system. Photo: Kevin Jack via Flickr.

Even as bike-sharing spreads across the United States, it remains dogged by one persistent doubt. Critics, and even some boosters, fear that the bikes will be routinely stolen and vandalized. It’s time to stop worrying about crime, however. In America’s new bike-sharing systems, there have been essentially no such problems.

Fears that public bikes will be abused can be traced to Paris’s Vélib system, which while wildly popular has struggled with high levels of theft and vandalism. Take Michael Grynbaum’s write-up last week of New York City’s bike-share plans in the Times, where crime is portrayed as the only downside:

In Paris, the pioneer of bike-sharing, the bikes are used up to 150,000 times a day. But there has also been widespread theft and vandalism; bicycles have ended up tossed in the Seine, dangling from lampposts and shipped off to northern Africa for illegal sale.

The scenes of Vélib bike abuse replicate descriptions widely circulated in a 2009 BBC story about the system’s troubles. The problems with Vélib are real, if overhyped by the media. In 2009, JCDecaux, the advertising agency that runs Vélib, estimated that over 8,000 bikes were stolen and another 8,000 rendered unrideable and irreparable. It was a problem that had to be addressed.

Luckily for the rest of the world, it seems to have been an easy fix for other cities. Many now believe that the locking mechanism at Vélib’s stations was poorly designed. Systems that use a different method have successfully controlled theft to the point where the cost is negligible.

Vélib bikes lock on the side of the frame, as seen here. Other operators, including ClearChannel, B-cycle and the Public Bike System, have had dramatically lower rates of theft and use a different locking method, explained Bill Dossett, who runs Minneapolis’s new NiceRide bike-sharing system. “The ClearChannel systems had the locking mechanism built into the headset,” where the handlebars meet the bicycle frame, “and just has never had the same problems,” he said.

For example, Barcelona’s Bicing system, run by ClearChannel, has had about one-fifth the rate of stolen public bikes as Vélib, despite higher theft rates citywide, according to the New York Department of City Planning.

Stateside, the problems with crime have been smaller still.

“Theft and vandalism hasn’t been a big problem with either of our two systems,” said Jim Sebastian, who runs Washington D.C.’s bike and pedestrian programs. Under D.C.’s old SmartBike system, which opened in 2008, only one bike was ever stolen, and that was when a rider left it unsecured. Under the new and larger Capital Bikeshare system, which launched in September with about 1,100 bikes, they’ve lost fewer than five bikes, Sebastian said.

“We did have some vandalism at the beginning,” added Sebastian. “People test the limits at first, basically.” That’s died down now that the program is up and running, he said. “There’s nothing that hampers the operation of the system.”

Sebastian said there’s no trick to keeping the bikes safe. “Just making it difficult to get the bikes out of the rack,” is the key, he said.

In Minneapolis, again, theft and vandalism simply haven’t materialized as problems. The operators expected to lose around ten percent of their bikes to crime in the first year, but so far, that figure has only turned out to be 0.3 percent.

With 700 bikes on the streets since June, said Dossett, only two bikes have disappeared. Vandalism has been minimal: There have been a few bikes that were graffitied, a few tires slashed, and one incident in which a motorist hit a bike-sharing station and shattered some glass. “That’s been $5,000 worth of damage,” he said. “I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any system that operates any equipment in the public sphere with that low a damage rate.”

Dossett agreed that good locking mechanisms are key, and also urged New York to create some community pride in the bike-sharing project. “You want people to see this as a local initiative and as something that’s got everybody’s health in mind,” he said. “Then people won’t want to lash out against it.”

The story’s the same in Denver, where bikes are all equipped with a GPS device that can be used for tracking and security purposes. So far there hasn’t been much need to recover stolen bikes. “We’ve had one bike stolen since we launched on April 22,” said Parry Burnap, executive director of Denver Bike Sharing. “One bike damaged, someone tried to scrape the logos off.”

There was also one incident in which a number of bikes had their tires slashed, as did all the cars in the neighborhood. “And that’s it,” said Burnap. “We’ve made no claims on our insurance policy, so that’s really an indicator of the low level of damage we’ve gotten.”

Officers from the Ninth Precinct first came to Busy Bee in June of 2008 to buy bikes which they said would be used in special operations targeting bike theft, Malewich told Streetsblog. "They bought two bikes for $350, and we donated two bikes, so they got four bikes for $350, and they wrote us a check," he explained. "Then strange things started happening quite a while later."

Undercover officers started dropping by the store in October 2009, attempting to sell back the same bikes the precinct purchased. Store workers bought back the bikes, Malewich said, unaware of what had happened fourteen months prior.

According to Malewich, the NYPD affidavit states that undercover officers made it clear to Busy Bee employees that they were trying to unload stolen bikes, an assertion that he disputes. "What bike shop employee would say, 'Oh, okay, I'll buy the bike you just clearly described to me as stolen'?" he asked.

Since October 2009, three of Malewich's employees have been arrested for buying bikes from undercover officers. Two have since been cleared in court, Malewich said, but a third, arrested last Friday, still has a court date coming up.

Malewich contested the NYPD's grounds for arrest. "In one instance, the undercover officers claimed they described the bike they were selling as a 'hot bike,'" he said. "What bike lover hasn't used the term 'hot bike' to describe a bike that catches their eye, or that they're trying to sell?"

When officers from the Ninth Precinct came in to the Busy Bee with a search warrant on October 29, Malewich said they failed to turn up a single bike listed as stolen.

Streetsblog has a request in with NYPD to speak to Allison Arenson, the department's attorney handling the case.

Malewich added that after bikes are purchased, the store's policy is to put them in the front window, or on the sidewalk, so that if somebody has lost their bike, they'll see it and be able to get information about how the store acquired the bike. "We were being as careful as we could," he said.

The Busy Bee bike shop has been shut down for criminal possession of stolen property. Photo: Jack Savage.

Busy Bee Bikes, a familiar destination for local cyclists, was forced to close its doors last Friday for criminal possession of stolen property, according to Lt. Patrick Ferguson of the Ninth Precinct.

One Busy Bee employee was arrested at the store that day after purchasing stolen property from an undercover officer, Ferguson said, adding that the owners of Busy Bee will appear in civil court on Wednesday. We are awaiting further information from the police on how they determined that the shop intentionally dealt in stolen goods. We also have a request in with the Manhattan DA's office on the charges facing the store employees.

Ferguson told Streetsblog that another Busy Bee employee was arrested at the store last month, also for criminal possession of stolen property. A business will usually face closure by the city following two such arrests on the business's property, according to David Duhan, an attorney who specializes in civil enforcement cases.

Friday's arrest capped an ongoing investigation spearheaded by the NYPD's Ninth Precinct, Ferguson said. The operation had been in progress for months, first coming to Streetsblog's attention at a Ninth Precinct community council meeting in January, where police stressed the usefulness of having one's bicycle registered with the local precinct. NYPD serial numbers can help police recover bike frames lost to theft.

Photo: Wikipedia.

Thinking about street safety and traffic enforcement in New York City can get frustrating in a hurry, but there's a good way to bring these types of concerns to NYPD's attention: attend community council meetings, ready to ask questions. These are public meetings that every precinct in the city holds every month. Earlier this week, I went to one for the first time -- at my local precinct, the Ninth, in the East Village -- and it dawned on me that many more New Yorkers should be attending these crucial functions.

Here's a quick overview of what community council meetings are like, what happened at the first one I attended, and what to expect if you start going to meetings at your precinct.

What Do Community Council Meetings Have to Do With Livable Streets?

Reckless drivers are a constant threat in my neighborhood, and I wanted to learn how police were dealing with this important issue of public safety. Since red light cameras have been shown to reduce violent crashes at intersections, I asked if the Ninth Precinct would be assigned a camera at the intersection of East Houston and Avenue A, ranked one of New York's most dangerous.

Officers replied that red-light cameras were in use on East Houston Street, but an audience member disputed the existence of any cameras on Houston east of First Avenue, citing an online database which maps traffic cameras nationwide. The Traffic Intelligence Officer, Joe Simonetti, explained that two red-light cameras are operating on East Houston in the Ninth Precinct (at First Avenue and Allen Street), but he conceded no cameras were in use between First Avenue and Avenue D.

Who Can Attend?

You can attend any precinct's community council meeting. You don't have to live in the precinct.

Who's There?

At the Ninth Precinct meeting I attended, officers representing various departments introduced themselves to the crowd, as did civilian members of the community council. In attendance: the precinct's traffic intelligence officer, commanding officer, community affairs officer, and the lieutenant for special operations.

What Good Will It Do?

Attendees, many from the media, are taking notes, and the officers know this. A serious grievance voiced at the meeting is public record, and will garner attention. Community board managers often attend these councils and look for topics to discuss at their upcoming meetings, and you may be asked to discuss your concerns at a future CB meeting.

What Will I Learn?

You'll meet community leaders, and learn useful tips. With bicycle infrastructure exploding, officers in the Ninth seem to be taking bikes more seriously. After one man complained that cops couldn't do anything about his stolen bike, a lieutenant stepped forward to ask if the man had registered his bike with the precinct. Registering a bike with the precinct is free, the lieutenant explained, and the serial number engraved on the bike's underside will make the property easier to track, if stolen. If registered bikes became the rule, they would become much less appealing to thieves.

Today is a historic day for bicycling in New York City. Local Law 52, a.k.a. the Bikes in Buildings Law, took effect. People all over the city are talking to their bosses about bringing their bikes inside the workplace. And lots of those bosses will be talking to building managers about how to make bike access happen.

One of the biggest obstacles to bike commuting -- fear of theft -- is in the process of being surmounted. It won't happen overnight, but it never would have happened at all without many years of relentless work by Transportation Alternatives and strong support this time around from the mayor's office, City Council, and DOT.

Sure, there are gaps in the law -- like the fact that commercial buildings without freight elevators are exempt. But bike advocates went toe to toe with the real estate lobby and came out on top. As former TA director John Kaehny told us back when the law passed the City Council, a legislative victory like that matters for many reasons: "More than anything else, it validates bicycles as legitimate."

So a little celebration might be in order, and, if you're currently banned from bringing your bike inside, a little research too. Start with DOT's bikes in buildings page. You might also want to tune in to NY1 at 9:00 tonight. TA's Wiley Norvell will be fielding calls about the new law.

Streetsblog regular Glenn McAnanama sent in a flier from Columbia University police [PDF] alerting faculty, staff and students to a recent bike theft.

Video stills like the one at right appear to show a man -- pictured more clearly on the flier -- walking away with a bike after removing the front wheel. (Hal would probably give that lock job an "F.")

This is not a huge deal, but as Glenn points out, it's nice to see campus security treating bike theft as an actual crime worthy of its attention. "This is the second one of these [fliers] I've seen in as many weeks," he writes. "Imagine if NYPD were this concerned."

Of course, prevalence of bike theft also raises the issue of secure parking, or lack thereof, on campus. Any Columbia-affiliated folks care to weigh in?

The revised bill, which would require building managers to provide bicycle access to tenants who request it, divvies up responsibility for enforcement between DOT and the Department of Buildings differently than previous versions, Streetsblog has learned. Core provisions intended to expand bicycle access to buildings remain unchanged.

The bill, now supported by 35 co-sponsors, would come up for a vote at the council's next stated meeting,  scheduled for Wednesday, July 29.

The last time we checked in on the Bicycle Access Bill, it was still sitting in John Liu's Transportation Committee after other legislators, including sponsor David Yassky and 31 additional supporters in the City Council, had expected it to reach the full floor for a vote. Then came an outpouring of e-faxes from cyclists asking Liu to get behind the bill.

Today, a number of people have forwarded us an invitation from Liu's office to hear him explain his position this Friday. Read it after the jump.

Dear Fellow Cyclist:

Thank you for reaching out to me about your support for legislation in support of expanding bicycle access to buildings in our City. This is an issue I have fought for over the last couple of years and my position on it has been clear and consistent, notwithstanding recent efforts by some folks to misrepresent my actions and statements on this.

I wanted to take this opportunity to invite you to meet with me so I can give you the latest update on bike access legislation. Can you meet me at City Hall this Friday July 24 from 4:30-5:30pm? (to try to accommodate those who have regular work-hours). No need to RSVP (but you can if you’d like) and feel free to pass this along to others who may be interested.

John Liu
Member, City Council
Chairperson, Transportation Committee

We're hearing that Liu is now prepared to support the bill. An aide at his office said he would explain all at the Friday meeting.

Does anyone believe that John Liu's position on bicycle access to buildings has remained consistent since last September?

A cycling advocacy group has been flooded with e-faxes pushing Councilman John Liu to schedule a committee vote on a bill allowing bicycles in some office buildings. Transportation Alternatives has received more than 800 messages in four days. "We've never had anything like it, not even at the height of the congestion pricing drama," a TA spokesman says. The group is delivering the messages to Liu, who questions whether the bill would improve bicycle access. Bill sponsor David Yassky is running against Liu for city comptroller, but Liu says that has nothing to do with his position. He previously backed a stronger bike access bill that, unlike this one, lacked mayoral support.

Our calls to Liu's office have yet to be returned, so we can't expand on his rationale that the bill won't improve bike access to office buildings. At this point, Liu doesn't really need to explain himself. The fact that the committee chair with jurisdiction won't move a bill supported by the mayor, 29 other Council members, and the city's best-known advocates for cycling speaks volumes.

A few months ago, John Liu was all for bikes in buildings.

Danny Kanner, a spokesman for bill sponsor David Yassky, confirmed this afternoon that the landmark piece of legislation has yet to clear John Liu's transportation committee. "The bill has been laid on council members' desks for eight days, which is typically what is done before a bill comes before the full council," said Kanner. "That was done with the anticipation that it would be voted out of the transportation committee today."

Liu's office has not yet returned requests for comment. But here's what we know.

• When a previous version of this bill surfaced in the council in 2006, John Liu was a co-sponsor.
  
• Last September, Liu joined Yassky and Tish James on the steps of City Hall to call for better bike access to buildings. Rally speakers noted the odd aversion many building owners display toward letting bikes inside office buildings, and the manifold benefits of legislation to correct that bias.
  
• In March, Liu switched from the crowded public advocate race to the somewhat less crowded comptroller race, in which he faces two other candidates from Queens -- and Yassky.
• At the last transportation committee hearing on the bill, Liu started questioning whether DOT should have jurisdiction over bicycle access to buildings. No one else on the committee voiced similar concerns. DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and Buildings Commissioner Robert LiMandri assured Liu that their agencies would have it covered.
• Today, Liu's committee did not meet and advance the bill despite the widespread expectation that it would do so.
  

The next opportunity to move the bill will come in July, when the full City Council is scheduled to hold a stated meeting. "David and a variety of advocates have worked hard on this bill, a bill that will reduce congestion, carbon emissions, and improve public health," Kanner said. "It should pass."

Last September, John Liu stood on the steps of City Hall to support bicycle access to buildings. Will he follow through on that commitment?

We Are Not There Yet -- Bicycle Access to Buildings Bill in Jeopardy

Your voices are needed. Now! With the expected passage of the Bicycle Access to Buildings Bill slated to take place at tomorrow’s City Council meeting, we are concerned to learn that there still may be some strong opposition to the bill. Please immediately call Council Member John Liu, chair of the Transportation Committee, and let him know that you support this bill and that we need his support too!

Information:
Council Member John Liu
Chair, Transportation Committee
City Hall office: 212-788-7022
District office: 718-888-8747

Advocates have been fighting for this legislation for years. Its passage would make it much easier for thousands of cyclists to ride to work -- boosting bike commuting by as much as 50 percent -- and one last push from supporters can help put it over the top.

I did end up buying a folding bike this weekend -- a Montague DX -- and proudly carried it, folded in half, into 3 Times Square this morning, after having been told by a security guard that folding bikes were OK to bring in to the office. Except, it turns out, they’re not. The only way you’re allowed to bring a folding bike into the building, it turns out, is if it’s packed up into a bag. Otherwise, no dice.

I suppose my next hope is that NYC's bike-friendly new transportation commissioner will install some permanent bike parking in the acreage of Times Square she recently pedestrianized.

I'm sure the property managers at 3 Times Square have concocted some far-fetched safety-related pretense to explain why folding bikes have to be in a bag to get inside the building. But let's get real. This is about appearances. There's some notion of office building propriety that the mere sight of a bicycle would violate.

At this point, the best hope for Felix Salmon and other cyclists rests with the New York City Council, especially transportation committee chair John Liu and Speaker Christine Quinn. How much longer will thousands of New Yorkers have to wait before they can ride to work without worrying about theft?

Will the real John Liu please stand up? The councilman plays to the crowd at last year's Tour de Queens. Photo: qmaparks/Flickr.

Before I get to that, a little explanation is in order about the current status of the bill. This is the second committee hearing on Intro 871. It's been reworked substantially in the seven months since the first hearing, with both transportation advocates and the real estate industry weighing in. The bill has also been tweaked since Streetsblog posted the revised text earlier this month. I don't have the most up-to-date version available, but based on today's testimony, there are two notable changes:

• The bill now clearly states that building owners can claim an exemption if "secure" bike parking is available nearby. This should close a potential loophole in previous language, which granted exemptions for buildings near "sheltered" bike parking. That's the good news.
• The bad news: The bill no longer requires buildings that have a passenger elevator but no freight elevator to provide bicycle access. Previously, any building with a passenger elevator big enough to accommodate a bike had to comply.

The current legislation is still strong enough to merit the support of transportation advocates, but the loss of passenger elevator access is significant. Said bill sponsor David Yassky, "My hope is that at some point in the future, the bill will be amended to include passenger elevators." We have a request in with the Department of Buildings to determine how many buildings this exemption would affect.

Most of the questioning and testimony this morning centered around enforcement. Intro 871 relies on a "tenant-driven" process: Building owners have to provide bike access if a tenant requests it, and they may deny the request if their freight elevator can't accommodate bikes. Council Member Daniel Garodnick suggested that the final bill should spell out exactly how the city will determine whether building owners have legitimate reasons for denying access. Sadik-Khan agreed.

This addressed one of the major shortcomings Liu found in the bill, but the committee chair wasn't satisfied. In a long, combative exchange with Sadik-Khan, he questioned why DOT "is involved in this bill in the first place." Sadik-Khan and Buildings Commissioner Robert LiMandri had already explained that DOT and DOB would jointly monitor compliance with the bill. Undeterred, Liu launched into a digressive speech about the city's lack of enforcement of "stoop-side stand" regulations. Claiming that sidewalk vending stands present a pedestrian safety hazard, he accused DOT of "inconsistency" for proposing to inspect bicycle access to buildings while leaving stoop-side stands unmonitored. Liu, it should be noted, has vocally opposed the pedestrian safety improvements underway in Times Square.

While the committee chair was dragging out the proceedings, two bike commuters sitting next to me left the council chamber before they had a chance to testify in favor of the bill. They had to get back to work.

The last time we checked in, the bill had some worrisome provisions in its exemption mechanism. Building owners could skirt the requirement by providing "sheltered bike parking," which doesn't necessarily mean "secure bike parking."

The hearing gets underway at 10 a.m. at City Hall. If you'd like to speak up about the need to make this bill as strong as possible, Transportation Alternatives is organizing testimony. Check the latest issue of TA's StreetBeat for details.

This is a nice change of pace from all those evening news segments about how to beat parking tickets (some of which may have been written by this road-raging sociopath).

Howard Thompson, of "Help Me Howard" fame, filed an item on last night's PIX news about how hard it is to get the police to take bike theft seriously. The victim he profiles, Tadree Coppedge, was able to obtain security cam footage of the theft after cops at the 9th Precinct rebuffed her request for help. Now, Thompson reports, two detectives are looking into it.

Good to know those cams are trained at the right angle, since it seems no one on the street notices this stuff.

After an initial hearing in the City Council last December, the different parties -- including transportation advocates and the real estate industry -- headed to the negotiating table. The revised bill is now scheduled for a second hearing later this month, and you can peruse the latest version online.

This iteration of Intro 871 includes several new provisions, but the basics are intact: office building owners would have to grant access to bicycles if an employee or tenant requests it. Crucially, landlords won't be able to skirt the requirement simply because their buildings have only passenger elevators, not freight elevators. As long as the passenger elevator is big enough to accommodate a bike, cyclists would be able to bring their rides inside.

Mayor Bloomberg's office voiced support for the bill, which takes a page directly from PlaNYC. "It's something we want to see move forward very quickly,"  spokesperson Marc LaVorgna said. "We're working with the City Council on putting a final bill together that can be passed and that can work." LaVorgna confirmed that some aspects of the bill are likely to change before it comes up in committee, but declined to specify which provisions might be adjusted.

A spokesperson for Christine Quinn's office said it's too early for the Council Speaker to comment on the draft legislation.

One thing to keep an eye on as the bill progresses will be the exemption mechanism.

As Intro 871 is currently written, landlords don't have to comply if their building is within 600 feet or three blocks of "covered off-street or indoor no-cost bicycle parking." Depending on what that language actually refers to, large swaths of buildings could skirt the requirement while their tenants are left without adequate, secure bike parking. We have a request in with the City Council to clear up the definition. (One theory is that this language refers to bike parking in garages and attended parking lots, which would become much more common under Intro 780, sponsored by Council Member Oliver Koppell.)

Building owners can also obtain an exemption by providing "sheltered bicycle storage in public/private plazas," another hazy term that we're trying to pin down.

Hearings on both the Bicycle Access Bill and Intro 780 are scheduled for the Council's transportation committee at 10:00 a.m. on June 15.

Via the Facebook news service (subscription required), WNYC's morning radio host reports that thieves have spirited away his bicycle, and he's thinking about how to secure his next ride. If you're Brian Lehrer's Facebook friend, you can now follow what promises to be an encyclopedic discussion of bicycle locking. Do we sense an opening on tomorrow's show for the master of bike theft prevention, Hal Ruzal? Or perhaps a hard-hitting segment about why it's taking the City Council so long to move the Bicycle Access Bill?

With Bike Month well underway and lots of new cyclists hitting the streets, we need a sage to remind us how easy it is to roll your bike. So, once again, I'm pleased to present immortal Bicycle Habitat mechanic Hal Ruzal in the last chapter of his exclusive Streetfilms trilogy on proper bike locking. Hal is calling it "your final warning."

This time around Hal not only grades the ability of anonymous locker-uppers, but also shows you how he secures his own bike, so you too can score an "A" (or at least have a decent shot at an A- or B+). And if you can't get enough of Hal's stories and musings, don't miss our first two chapters: "Hal Grades Your Bike Locking" and "Hal (and Kerri) Grade Your Bike Locking."

Photo: Department of City Planning [PDF].

We've said it before and it's certainly worth repeating: This zoning change is a good step forward that will bear fruit in the long run; the missing piece -- and it's a big one -- is bike access to existing buildings. To that end, the Bicycle Access Bill (Intro 871) would provide a much more substantial and immediate benefit to bike commuters by allowing them to bring their rides inside the workplace, if their employer consents. The legislation aims to reverse the policies of New York City landlords and property managers, most of whom don't allow bikes inside. By drastically reducing the risk of theft, the bill could boost bike commuting by as much as 50 percent.

After holding a committee hearing on Intro 871 last fall, legislators are currently tweaking the bill's language. We have a request in with sponsor David Yassky's office to determine when the revised bill will come up in committee.

Intro 871 would make it much easier to -- gasp! -- bring your bike to work. Photo: Transportation Alternatives [PDF]

Should the zoning amendment pass, it would be good news for New York City bike commuters in years to come. The lack of a secure place to put your ride is one of the main obstacles to commuting by bike, and the zoning change will gradually alter the equation as new housing, workplaces, and commercial development get built. (The amendment now includes exemptions for low-income housing, but not the bike parking-for-car parking swap proposed at a previous hearing.)

A related measure, the Bicycle Access Bill (Intro 871), could deliver immediate benefits to nearly all bike commuters in the city by improving access to existing workplaces. As things stand, most landlords and building managers simply don't permit people to bring bikes inside. Intro 871, sponsored by David Yassky, would help remedy the situation and has already progressed through one hearing in the transportation committee. A revised version of the bill is expected to be released in the next few days, and Yassky's office is "very optimistic" that a second committee hearing will take place within approximately six weeks, according to spokesman Danny Kanner.

Intro 871 is one to keep a very close eye on. While a majority of the council has signed on as co-sponsors, the Real Estate Board of New York has signaled its opposition the bill. Not that the pro-bike side is without its own heavy hitters. A group of high-powered business leaders and lawyers sent this letter [PDF, or follow the jump] to Council Speaker Christine Quinn, asking her to continue the "championing of sustainable, healthy and cost effective transportation modes" (disclosure: Streetsblog publisher Mark Gorton is one of the signatories). Quinn's office has not returned inquiries about her stance on the bill.

Dear Speaker Quinn,

We write to you today as professionals and as cyclists. We are both business people and lawyers and we wish to be bicycle commuters. Many of our peers as well as employees of the companies we own, manage, and work for are discovering the physical, mental, and practical benefits that come with cycling. Yet there is a crucial inequity that separates us from those who commute by car: secure storage. It is not only this imbalance, but the opportunity for a solution, that prompts this letter. We urge you to continue your championing of sustainable, healthy and cost effective transportation modes by supporting City Council legislation Intro. 871, The Bicycle Access Bill.

When people drive to work they have several ways to store their cars. They can look for a curbside parking space, they can park in an off-street garage, or they may even have a parking facility in their destination building. Cyclists have to deal with issues of access, inconvenience, and security. Although the DOT and some BIDs have made great strides in providing curbside bike racks, supply has not kept up with demand in midtown and the financial district. Most riders have to chain their bikes to whatever sign, pole, scaffolding, or rack they can find in the vicinity.

A good bike is of value to both its owner and a thief, so many of us are reluctant to leave our bikes on the sidewalk even when racks are available. The better the bike, the more likely a theft. Some 70,000 bikes are stolen every year in New York City and less than 2% are ever recovered. Every time we ride to work, we gamble on whether or not our transportation will be there for the ride home, many of us will not cycle to work if we can’t park indoors.

Bicycle commuting is efficient in many ways. Riding to work allows people who are committed to fitness, but who work long hours, to combine transportation and exercise. More bicycle commuters mean fewer private and hired cars on the city’s clogged streets and fewer passengers on overcrowded subways and buses. Moreover, people who cycle to work have been shown to be more productive and happier on the job. And, as property owners and managers who permit access to buildings have already discovered, it will not increase operational or insurance costs.

PlaNYC 2030 calls for the promotion of cycling as a sustainable mode of transportation. Because Intro. 871 is an important step in achieving this goal, we urge you to support it.

The gathering threat.

The bill also includes language requiring bike parking in new buildings, mirroring a zoning amendment unveiled by the Department of City Planning earlier this week.

Yassky spokesman Jake Maguire stressed that the bill is about access. "It's a no-brainer that if you want people to stop driving and relieve crowding on subways, you need to allow people to bring their bikes to work," he said. "Hopefully this bill will have a speedy hearing and a speedy debate in the Council. With the support of 30 members we expect it to pass before the end of the year."

To review: The bill provides for bike access to existing buildings (which will constitute the vast majority of commuting destinations long into the future), and bike parking in new buildings. A few weeks ago transportation analyst Charles Komanoff gave us a quick-and-dirty estimate that bike commuting could rise up to 50 percent as a result of universal access to workplace buildings.

Crain's Insider has reported that the Real Estate Board of New York opposes the Bikes in Buildings Bill. REBNY President Steve Spinola sent a letter to Streetsblog Wednesday outlining his organization's stance, and confirmed his opposition to the new bill in a phone interview this morning. He questioned the city's legal authority to mandate bike access and cited concerns about liability, arguing that access should be expanded voluntarily by building managers. More on that exchange later.

Photo: kate at yr own risk/Flickr