Skip to content

Recent Comments

  1.  

    dolo

    how would you cross over from the bronx river to the greenway. i know the concrete park side of the brucnker leaves you adjacent to the hunts pt station . i guess cyclists will cross over at hunts pt ave?

  2.  

    chekpeds

    I am relieved that the electric assist bill did not pass at this time.

    There are too many open questions and risks that this move will hurt the expansion of cycling, rather than help.

    How do you distinguish between electric bikes and electric assisted bikes (some models do both) for the NYPD to know which cyclists are supposed to wear a helmet ? Who will decide which electric powered cycle can use the bike lane ? Will bikes with higher electrical cc start using them?

    Then there is the issue of safety: should we let a motorized engine be driven without driver’s training and license by a 16 years old? This category of motor cycle is the most dangerous in all countries ( more deaths than pedestrians) because it is driven by young inexperienced drivers. Will more injuries and fatalities at the hand of “cyclists” will help the cause?

    Currently in Manhattan electric bicycles are mostly used by delivery personnel, who are disproportionally inclined to ignore the rules, barrel down the bike lane , going the wrong way , and turn into the pedestrian crossing at full speed. With electric bikes, these behaviors will certainly appear more dangerous due to the higher speed and lesser control.

    The most fundamental risk is that once you add a motor – electric or otherwise, the bicyclists become part of the motorized culture.

    The highest priority should be to complete the network of protected bike lanes so that everyone can safely use current bicycles as a mode of transportation.

  3.  

    Kevin Love

    So where do you think bike-share stations need to go?

  4.  

    Kevin Love

    “My focus is to make 111th Street one hundred percent safe.”

    Kevin’s comment:
    100% safe means a car-free street.

  5.  

    Eric McClure

    Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope Park Slope

  6.  

    Ben Fried

    Ignore the Motivate quote.

    Read Moe’s comment. The squabble itself is less of a problem than DOT’s handling of it.

  7.  

    Andrew Balmer

    These subsidies you describe are minuscule.

    When you consider externalities, it’s simply no contest. Every mile biked is a net economic gain to society, while every mile driven is an economic drain on society.

    In effect, cyclists are the ones subsidizing the City — not the other way around.

  8.  

    Andrew Balmer

    Current plans only call for two bike share stations on 2nd Avenue, and both of them are on the roadbed rather than the sidewalk.

    Yes, Second Avenue is currently a mess due to Subway construction, but there is room for bike share stations in other parts of the UES.

  9.  

    steely

    julisSAFERreras

  10.  

    J_12

    I don’t think it’s revolutionary, but it is a significant incremental improvement. Areas that are hard to get a cab from, like the south bronx, are still hard to get an uber car. The difference is that you know right away whether any driver is responding, and approximately how long before he shows up. Dealing with the dispatchers at local car services can be very frustrating, so it’s definitely an improvement over that.
    Also, the standardization of fares is a big improvement. Trying to negotiate fares with local services is always a big headache, and drivers would often try to pad the bill if they thought they could get away with it.
    So from the consumer standpoint, uber definitely offers a better service than the alternative of local radio dispatchers, or taking your chances standing on the street. However, it’s not qualitatively different than the existing cab/FHV network. If there were no cabs before, there still aren’t many now.

  11.  

    ahwr

    If the damage goes up as the fourth power of vehicle weight then car and SUV payment damage is a drop in the bucket next to large trucks and buses.

    No cost from you riding your bike on a street? Does the street have a bike lane? If not then increasing bike traffic slows cars considerably.

    http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/real-talk-bikes-cant-reduce-congestion-without-bike-lanes

    Say the city puts in a bike lane. The city isn’t asking cyclists to pay for the real estate, and only asks bike share to pay the pittance paid by drivers who park at meters if a station eliminates metered spots. Bike share is already subsidized. Just not as much as you’d like.

  12.  

    ahwr

    Some of the initial docks eliminated metered spots. Citibike is reimbursing the city for the lost parking revenue, effectively paying the heavily discounted real estate price that drivers pay.

    http://observer.com/2014/11/citi-bike-share-to-pay-city-5-m-annually-for-parking-not-much-else-at-the-moment/

  13.  

    jamieob256

    Indeed I have. It would be be nice to have the thing you suggest, but with Second Avenue being torn up the way it is, there is simply no room for those things.

  14.  

    HamTech87

    Lost parking revenue? Most of the UES and UWS parking is free.

  15.  

    Joe R.

    Second Avenue has at least three travel lanes, and sometimes parking lanes. Make it a bus lane and a bike lane only. That gets rid of 1.5 travel lanes. Use that extra 16 or so feet to widen the sidewalks by 8 feet on each side. Problem solved.

    The issue isn’t that the space doesn’t exist. It’s that we choose to give it over to mostly private autos and taxis.

  16.  

    Moe

    Guys, it’s not UES vs UWS. Read the article. There are hundreds of stations in play over a multi-year expansion. DOT sites the stations and presents at the CB meetings about where they go, and then issues permits for Motivate to install them. Motivate owns and operates the system. Because of its permitting power, DOT holds all the cards in this dispute, but is ham-handedly threatening to screw everyone with a low-density system instead of putting Motivate over a barrel by dictating location and pace of expansion via its permitting power. Motivate needs the expansion for its business model to work.

  17.  

    Kevin Love

    Unicameral like in Nebraska is good. But I really want the full Westminster-style package like in Ontario. Complete with the ability to pass a non-confidence motion to replace the government or call another election. And an election happens automatically if they can’t pass a budget.

    Amazing how the politicians suddenly learn how to compromise when the alternative is to face losing their jobs in an election.

  18.  

    Kevin Love

    Then I don’t understand the squabble. What is the disagreement between DOT and Motivate?

    Is it that Motivate wants to install more stations and DOT will not give them enough locations? That seems to be supported by the quotation from Motivate that reads:

    “We are trying to work with DOT to ensure that we have the density needed there to meet demand. That’s the next challenge to be solved and that’s where we’re focused right now.”

  19.  

    Kevin Love

    Because the damage and resulting maintenance requirements of a road surface go up as the fourth power of vehicle weight. Which is why car-free greenways don’t have potholes due to bike traffic.

    Motor vehicles destroy road surfaces, but the cost imposed by riding my bike on a street is essentially zero. So there is no subsidy for bike riding.

  20.  

    vnm

    If we are going to talk about reducing the size of the geographic footprint in order to increase density, we could also reduce it to a particular cross street on UES & UWS, like 86th Street.

  21.  

    Kevin Love

    There is plenty of space. We just need to get cars off of it. Like they do in the rest of the world. See:

    http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/10/our-streets-are-too-narrow-for-cycle.html

  22.  

    Doug G.

    Given your concerns about narrow, crowded sidewalks and a general lack of green space, surely you’ve been in touch with Ben Kallos’ office about turning some of your neighborhood’s free, on-street parking into parklets or expanded sidewalks.

  23.  

    cjstephens

    Are we sure that Motivate is just being, well, cheap, by having lower density? When I went to their presentation before the CB8 Transportation Committee, I was impressed by how much thought went into the placement of each station, and how many prohibitions there are on locations where they cannot place stations (curb cuts, bus stops, etc.). In other words, could it just be that the reason there are no stations in those orange dots on the map is that there are no viable locations?

  24.  

    Simon Phearson

    Fortunately, it looks like most of the planned locations in Yorkville put the stations in the street, not on the sidewalk.

    If space is an issue on the UES, a dense Citibike network will help do a few things: it will reduce the need for residents to own cars that they park on the streets; it will reduce the need for visitors to the neighborhood to bring their own cars and park on the street; and the stations to do all this will serve a greater number of people than the parking spots they might otherwise have been could have. Fewer cars also means, incidentally, safer street crossings, particularly when people jaywalk.

    I don’t think many transportation advocates would defend a plan that usurps pedestrian space in order to plant bike-share stations. That’s why it’s good that the current plan wouldn’t do that. But let’s be real here – are you concerned about pedestrians, or parking?

  25.  

    Ben Fried

    So put the bike-share stations in the parking lane, like they do in the rest of Manhattan.

  26.  

    Aunt Bike

    Amen.

  27.  

    jamieob256

    Speaking as one of Ben Kallos’ s constituents who lives in Yorkville on the UES, in the midst of the Second Avenue subway construction, I can tell you we shouldn’t have Citibike in this area and it has nothing to do with parking. With all the building going on and the aforementioned subway construction, our sidewalk space has been severely impacted to the point that pedestrians come to near standstills because our movement is so restricted. When it comes to crossing the street, it is not unusual to see us standing in line to do so. Of course, many do not wish to stand in line to cross the street, so much jay walking abounds. Besides the lack of sidewalk space in this most-densely populated area of New York City — yes, this is a fact — studies have shown this — we also have the least green space of any area in New York City as well. So if we seem unreceptive to having Citibikes or any bikes in our are, it is because we don’t have the space to spare and what teeny amount of space we do have, we don’t want to give up.

  28.  

    Ari_F_S

    That would eliminate the ability to ride across town, which there is demand for.

    Even though I live in the Brooklyn part of the Phase II zone (and anxiously await Citibike’s arrival there), I think the UWS and UES should probably get bikeshare first.

    Darn.

  29.  

    ahwr

    A lot of those subsidies for drivers are free or discounted public land to park or drive on. Bike share at most reimburses the city for lost parking revenue right? Why do the streets you can bike on and cheap/free station locations not count as bike share subsidies?

  30.  

    Bob Gunderson

    Yes! Please visit Golden Gate Park(ing) – rest for the weary motorist http://dearestdistrict5.blogspot.com/2015/05/golden-gate-parking-rest-for-weary.html

  31.  

    Bob Gunderson

    Please, dear motorists, come visit SF’s Golden Gate Park where the only thing banned here is those damn bicycles. The real scourge of an urban park.

  32.  

    NYer

    From my understanding it’s both. Motivate is not obligated to add more than 378 stations in the expansion zone, which falls short of the NACTO density recommendations. DOT, while aware of this, is opting to continue with expanding service to all the slated areas, and choosing the option of less overall density in the expansion zone rather than delaying a certain region until further notice.

    DOT is definitely between a rock and a hard place in this situation… if the two organizations chose to expand into one region (ex. only UWS, no more UES) at proper density, then the side getting short-changed would undoubtedly complain and say they are being neglected. This would become a more touchy issue if say for example Harlem was pushed while the UES/UWS wasn’t. I presume that as such, DOT is moving with the option of less density, which is less discriminatory, but at the cost of overall system efficacy.

    Motivate should be implementing more stations as per the NACTO guidelines, but DOT does not have much leverage as the city does not fund Citibike at all.

  33.  

    Andrew Balmer

    It sounds like it’s mostly a financial issue. Which leads me yet again to question why it’s acceptable that the program receives no public funding.

    Bike share is a transportation system. Drivers, subway riders, bus riders, ferry riders and more are subsidized by the government. Why aren’t cyclists?

    This is especially egregious when you consider that, relative to all of the other aforementioned modes, bike share is far and away the most efficient, cost-effective, congestion-friendly, healthy, happiness-boosting mode of travel. Take some of the subsidies towards drivers and shift them to bike share. The city should be paying New Yorkers to have Citi Bike memberships.

  34.  

    Kevin Love

    I see that the man who got a parking ticket and punched the Traffic Agent in the face was charged with second degree assault. How foolish of him! He should have ran the Traffic Agent over and killed him. Then it would have been “no criminality suspected.”

  35.  

    Mesozoic Polk

    From San Francisco, we send our condolences for the grave loss of motor vehicles in Central Park. We know it will be difficult for New Yorkers to weather the loss of these dangerous, loud and polluting machines from an idyllic oasis. Should you find yourself pining for cars in parks, we encourage you to visit Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, where motor vehicles are welcomed with open arms and cyclists are shunted off to the side.

  36.  

    Ben Fried

    They are both screwing it up. DOT decides where to put stations, and Motivate decides how many stations above the minimum 378 will be at DOT’s disposal.

  37.  

    Kevin Love

    I don’t quite understand from the article if it is DOT or Motivate that wants to install less stations than necessary.

    The article says, “each orange disc represents a zone that should have a bike-share station in DOT’s plans but doesn’t.”

    And also,”DOT’s reluctance to go with the NACTO-recommended station density…”

    Which lead me to conclude that it is DOT that wants to install less stations than necessary.

    But then the article writes about “…Motivate’s desire to avoid spending on additional stations…”

    So which one is it? It is DOT or Motivate that is trying to short-change the expansion?

  38.  

    neroden

    Just tax the billionaires, we can fund the whole thing pretty easily. Unfortunately they seem to own too much of the government.

  39.  

    neroden

    Police who break the law should be executed by firing squad or guillotine. It is unfortunate that this does not happen. Very unfortunate.

  40.  

    chris

    This is all about parking, right? More stations equal less spots. All thos old timers one the CB aren’t going to like that one bit.

  41.  

    neroden

    I’m pretty sure the PA collects fees from the ships, but I suppose the fee is the same for a ship docking in NJ or docking in Brooklyn.

  42.  

    Nemo

    Or, expand only to the Upper West or Upper East, at the proper density, and not to both.

  43.  

    neroden

    With proportional representation, too.

    At the very least we need a unicameral legislature like Nebraska has. There is no reason to have two houses in the state legislature.

  44.  

    neroden

    Have we got the name of the criminal who’s being protected by the corrupt NYPD yet? Or at least his cab license number?

  45.  

    neroden

    Exactly.

    Our laws make it very clear that this was criminally negligent manslaughter.

    But what do we have to do to prosecute it? Citizen’s arrest? Private prosecution?

    We have corruption in the NYPD and corruption at the DA’s office.

  46.  

    neroden

    Bingo. This. Jail is not necessary. Revocation of driving privileges IS necessary, and it’s not happening.

  47.  

    neroden

    Actually, I would arrest the bear and lock it up, but I’d treat it as having “diminished capacity”. I’d arrest you too.

  48.  

    neroden

    In order to be very legally precise, I usually call it manslaughter.

    Because it’s manslaughter.

  49.  

    qrt145

    The other day we were discussing whether Uber drivers are more likely to cruise around or double-park between fares (in the Manhattan CBD at least, curb space is rare. Even at fire hydrants…) I’m still curious what the answer is. Uber must have the data, but I doubt they’d care to share.

    There’s obviously some concern about distracted driving by Uber drivers, but on the positive side they don’t have the yellow cab driver’s incentive to perform reckless maneuvers to snatch a fare. One thing I’ve learned cycling in the city: standing between a cab and its potential passengers is like standing between mama bear and its cubs.

  50.  

    stairbob

    The point is that it’s another option with a cost in the same ballpark as transit. It’s also much more reliable than a bus (based on a sample size of 3 trips).