Skip to content

Recent Comments



    The orthodox traffic planning belief is that more lanes ? more per-lane throughput.

    That is likely not the case. Fewer lanes may actually improve per-lane throughput. It may very well be that bus lanes are good for other vehicles that aren’t even allowed to enter the bus lane. But, parking. And me-me-me-me-me.





    Right. Either a bus was going to be in the same lane in mixed traffic, or the bus lane is clear of non-buses…. unless there is an epidemic of vehicles… illegally parking in bus lanes?


    Richard Garey

    Please keep trying to convince yourself that North Brooklyn gets resources diverted to the neighborhood because it is more “friendly” and “enthusiastic”. How far do you all have your heads up your own asses out there?



    Curious to how a dedicated bus lane hurts emergency response times considering they could just use said lane.



    I think it’s more a factor of north Brooklyn politicians and communities being more friendly and enthusiastic about biking and bike share.

    Consider also how much street space is given over to car parking, even in poor neighborhoods where the majority of households do not own cars. Now tell me again which program is bigoted.


    Richard Garey

    Do you really think Citibank has zero say in where their advertising dollars go?




    Kevin Love

    Here’s a contender for “Best NYPD quote of the year.” From the Post article on Manhattan gridlock, an anonymous (of course) police source complains:

    “I have a difficult time even finding an illegal spot to park”



    Citibank (Citibike)

    Wrong. Citibank doesn’t run the New York Mets either.



    North Brooklyn is much closer to the CBD than the Bronx. There’s no current infra that makes it comfortable to cycle 80+ blocks on the Manhattan grid.


    Richard Garey

    Citibank (Citibike) has already communicated to the Bronx public officials that they have ZERO intent of ever funding a bike share program in the Bronx. If Bronxites want it, the City of New York can pay for it. This is very similar to the public private partnerships that occur with the parks department. Certain neighborhoods get the lion’s share of the resources while others are neglected. Considering we have a mayor who campaigned on a tale of two cities platform, he has done very little to address this divide. In fact, his housing program will only result in further racial and economic segregation by warehousing low income New Yorkers in East New York and immediately adjacent to a dark, dirty and noisy el that runs through a stagnant valley in the Bronx. Again hipsters are too ignorant to comprehend why blight exists outside of their little bubble AND real estate schiesters know that they can literally run buildings and neighborhoods to the ground and still cash their government checks. This is the reality but at least streets in Greenpoint in industrial areas with ZERO residents have Citibike racks.



    Jackson Heights is the only outer borough Zip Code that is more dense than 10453 – and it is not slated to get CitiBikes…. ever.
    Dense places should be getting bike share regardless of how expensive, or hip or white they are becoming – yes it needs to radiate out from the CBD, but not to favor whiter, hipper, gentrifying areas over denser, less white areas.


    Greg Costikyan

    Don’t rule out bike share in Staten Island. My sweetie grew up there, and as an adolescent, biked all over the Island. The central hills are challenging, but the cost is flat, there are plenty of streets with low-speed traffic, and while it’s less dense than most of New York, its denser than,say, Boulder, CO, were I now reside, which has a strong biking culture and its own modest bike share system. Sure, neighborhoods in Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens should come first… but don’t write off Staten Island.


    Miles Bader

    Hey, but the NYPD gets to enjoy a bit of look-ma-imma-soldier! fantasy on the public dime… ><


    Miles Bader

    Yeah, if you look at private-sector workers in similar roles, they’re equally lazy / incompetent (in the states, YMMV in other places).


    John Maier

    Phase 2 should have Bushwick and Ridgewood ahead of the M Train shutdown in 2017/2018. We need it now, not yesterday



    I’ll add the anecdotal evidence of one that bike share can drive bike sales. Citi Bike opened up the possibility of riding a bike to get around, just the idea that it was possible. But Citi Bike by itself is not enough. Directly as a result of Citi Bike, I now own two bikes. And I still have a Citi Bike membership.

    Where I live, Citi Bike isn’t really reliable for daily commutes. In the warm months, all too often, there are no bikes in the morning, and no parking in the evening. Bikes have become almost my sole mode of transportation, and I go places well outside the Citi Bike footprint. I also go on long recreational jaunts you can’t do on Citi Bike. Citi Bike is indeed a gateway drug that opened a whole new mode of transportation to me, and prompted me to pump a some bucks into the bike economy, far beyond my Citi Bike membership.

    The Citi Bike area also covers the most expensive areas of the city, where mom and pop businesses of all kinds have closed. Correlation is not necessarily causation, so I ask as a genuine question, was Citi Bike a factor that caused these bike shops to close? Since you’re in the business and I’m not, you might know better than me. I don’t have any real evidence to show that Citi Bike has or has not caused bike shops to close, but I can see how it’s at least possible that Citi Bike drives bike business more than it takes away from it.



    The NACTO report was based off of more than population density.

    Note on page 132 you see the projected use of phase 1 at ~23 million trips a year. Citibike including NJ had 10 million last year.

    Operating costs for citibike aren’t exactly clear, but the costs for other systems are listed at $1200-1944 per bike per year. Capital costs listed are $3000-4500 per bike. The other day citibike said expansion would run at $6k per bike. An updated feasibility study based on experience so far would be nice to see.



    I would honestly love to see taxpayer-funded Citibikes on Staten Island. I’m happy to have public investment support it across all five boroughs, but I would love to start with Staten Island. The borough feels so inaccessible unless you’re in a car.



    Meh, I wouldn’t reflexively assume public sector employees are the lazy ones. IIRC ConEd, National Grid, and Verizon can’t even share the same hole, and that cost is passed onto utility customers. One public agency could coordinate that work.

    Though perhaps the sane thing to do would be to make holes obsolete by making it possible to lift street sections by crane.


    Nathan Rosenquist

    How have your own businesses fared, being located exclusively within Citibike’s service zone? Extreme rents notwithstanding, of course.


    Richard Garey

    North Brooklyn being a more central or more important neighborhood than Queens, Upper East Side, Upper West Side, Harlem, South Bronx, etc. is completely absurd. That is a lie perpetuated by ignorant hipsters and real estate schiesters. 10453 is more densely populated than every single Brooklyn zip code and most of Manhattan for the matter. Bottom line Citibike is racist, elitist and ageist. Their service area is a direct reflection of that. The City of New York either needs to define a more equitable relationship or cease endorsement of this bigoted program.


    Joe R.

    It looks like they’re just going by local population density, and ignoring the fact that you might get a fair amount of bike share use in less dense areas in between denser ones. If I designed the expansion, I might look at where buses currently run and passenger volumes. Heavily used bus lines would probably merit bike share along their length, even if the local population density indicated otherwise.



    Why are big chunks of the Brooklyn waterfront left out? Industry City and Red Hook are the most striking. Also, that area just to the left of the southern end of Flatbush Ave. is totally dense enough.


    Joe R.

    Same reasoning for me. I’d be more than a little concerned chaining up my own bike for errands given that it cost me over $1200 used on eBay (and probably would be over $4000 new). I have two other lesser bikes, but it would still hurt losing them. That’s exactly why I would use bike share for errands if it became available in my area. It would replace a lot of trips I currently do by walking (or just don’t do at all because the walk is too long).


    Kevin Love

    I have owned my own bike since I was four years old. I also am a bike-share subscriber. Primary motivation for that is because I have secure parking at work, but for other trips I am a little nervous about leaving my nice Dutch bike parked on the street for more than a very short period of time.



    This was an old complaint when the original install began in 2013. It didn’t happen. In fact arguably the opposite has happened. private bike usage has surged in the Citibike service area, because more bikes, and better bike infra – which tends to precede or follow Citibike installation – spurs greater bike usage overall. Also, since Citibike’s rental scheme is for short trips, not touring, the changing bike scene has spurred quite a bit of bike tourism and local shops are able to do an increasing bit of business in rentals. Also you will find that plenty of people who regularly use their own bikes, like me, still have Citibike memberships. You don’t always have your bike handy. In fact, I’ve used Citibike to get to a bike shop to pick up my own bike which I had left earlier for repairs, and I had selected that bike shop in part because it was near a Citibike dock. So I really doubt there would be any damaging effect on small bike shops.


    Joe R.

    You could give bicycle shops contracts repairing Citibikes. Also, I tend to think of bike share as a “gateway drug” of sorts. It gets people interested in using bikes without the bother of owning a bike. I might guess those who start to use bike travel a lot would eventually want to get their own bikes, if for no other reason than to go to areas not covered by bike share (and also because they can customize their own bikes to suit them).


    Charles McCorkell

    I support Citibike, but I fear the expansion will have the unintended consequence of killing off neighborhood bicycle stores. The internet and high rents have already begun taking a toll, Citibikes’ will add one more stores lose repair business and new sales as Citibike is embraced.

    Since September, 6 bike stores have announced they are closing or have closed All of them are in Citibike areas. Outside of Citibike areas, to my knowledge, no shops have announced closing. Going forward It would be great if bike shops could somehow be integrated into the expansion program Full exposure I own Bicycle Habitat.


    Joe R.

    Cool! Phase 3 would get bike share in my neighborhood (just barely)


    Joe R.

    Interestingly, the recently repaved section of Jewel Avenue from 164th Street to Utopia Parkway is on that protected list. It’s now a mess of patches, both parallel and perpendicular, thanks to recent water main work (which started less than a year after it was repaved). Apparently, the system isn’t working. The patches are pretty lousy quality as well. Honestly, the street needs to be be paved again, but who knows when that will occur? The city’s records may well still show Jewel Avenue as a recently repaved street in great condition.



    And at the LIRR stations in Eastern Queens, which serve to fill in for the absent subways.



    I notice this 5-month old map misses the new PBL’s along 20th Ave in Astoria and the Elmhurst half of the Queens Blvd PBL. (And that’s just in my neighborhood, the only area I really know well.) Progress, my friends.


    Joe R.

    The fixed cost for breaking up a street also removes incentives for utilities to repeatedly dig up and patch the same street.



    I think that’s total costs, which are now covered entirely by user fees & sponsorship. The question is whether the public should pick up some or all of this to expand the bikeshare system to areas which would not be self supporting, as the current high-density, affluent area system is.


    Joe R.

    I’ve had that utility conduit idea for a long time. It’s incredibly dumb that we never take the opportunity to rebuild streets so they never need to be dug up again for utility work.



    There really is nothing better than a smart and competent optimist that has a proven track record. Way to keep it real Veronica!



    That’s a great system (and a relatively recent one iirc?), but doesn’t really cover what Joe R. said. It seems like enforcement is very weak or non-existent against utilities putting in horrible quality patches on streets that they are allowed to dig up.

    For example see 5th Avenue in Park Slope (this street can be cited for virtually any problem) and Bergen St, where the patches over replacement utility laterals have left drops every 25 feet right in the bike lane. Ironically this may have increased safety because people avoiding these holes will also be avoiding the door zone!



    It’s long past time we had some sort of system to keep contractors from tearing up roads and then putting really lousy repairs in place.



    So the comparison to Christie isn’t really apples to apples, as the Christie bike lane is next to the park/promenade (an “edge condition” in planner speak) which limits points of conflict and there aren’t businesses that need deliveries, etc.

    The best idea I can come up with is to continue the design from Nagle the whole way, but shift the traffic into what is now the parking lane when approaching the intersections to accommodate the turn lane, and put loading zones and parking between those sections. Though, again, engineers hate doing that since drivers may not realize they have to get over. Shy of that idea, take the whole parking lane and have generous bike lanes and buffers, and maybe even a sidewalk extension.



    If speed limits were set correctly, people would obey them. You then need a pad over that to be fair, and cameras need to be accurate, which they are not in many cases. You can deny the truth, but it is what it is. The current system is causing problems.


    Jeffrey Baker

    It doesn’t matter if it’s contracted out or in-house. I suspect that contracting out to construction experts makes more sense, but I don’t really care. What makes this scheme work is that you just charge a rack rate for demolition and repairs, such that the utilities can’t escape the cost by doing a bad job.



    The other thing that gets me is that an entire street will be torn apart for utility replacement and rebuilt (DDC projects I think), but then everything just gets buried in dirt again instead of putting it in underground utility conduits with access hatches that would eliminate the need to tear up the street for future repairs.



    Well actually I think we need some facts here. Obviously non-city utilities and under-street infrastructure operators do not use city employees, but I don’t know how much DEP and other city agencies contract out as-is. I think they should be doing all their own work in-house barring overwhelming emergencies to avoid getting screwed, so if they’re not now, that would be the place to start.



    Since utilities are already doing exactly that themselves, and the results are inferior to what we’d get from a city squad with actual standards, I don’t see the problem.



    I think your faith in city employees to not be lazy and do what they can get away with is misplaced.


    Jeffrey Baker

    Easy way to solve the utility repairs problem is to have a government squad with the exclusive ability to demolish and repair streets. Utilities would be obligated to contract with this group for all road work. This removes the incentive for the utility to cheap out and do a bad job.



    Re: Ferry boarding: LONG overdue. The additional “security personnel” crap is of course insult to injury. There are already USCG and NYPD speedboats with goddamn machine guns escorting the ferry a lot of the time, wasting an enormous amount of fuel and money for the near-zero chance of a USS Cole-style attack that would kill perhaps a few dozen at most, which relies on the boats making the judgement call to open up .50 cal rounds on a speedboat that may be driven by a confused retiree. Hey, they could have been way off-course Iranian pirates.

    Then there are the bomb-sniffing dogs in the terminal, and the army of poorly trained unarmed security guards on the lower levels on both terminals already, plus all the NYPD cops on board all day. But somehow more, smaller, less popular ferries are going to be economical. OK, whatever. It’s been 11 years of even more harassment for people trying to use public transit, I’m glad it’s finally over.


    Brian Van Nieuwenhoven

    Boards should absolutely be notified so they can at least monitor the situations. You would be surprised how much city agencies balk, hard, against providing any such notifications unless an ironclad law compels them to do so. (Often such regulations aren’t even enough, either)