Streetsblog NYC - Latest Comments

Re: How Bike-Share Stations Stack Up Against Other Curb Consumers

Anxiously Awaiting Bike Share — Wed, 16 May 2012 16:18:53 -0000

RE: Car free Nation- It might actually be a good anti-car strategy to buy up a lot of junky cars and park them in various free spaces around the city. This would make parking for drivers harder and show how nonsensical it is to have free spaces.

Re: How Bike-Share Stations Stack Up Against Other Curb Consumers

Car Free Nation — Wed, 16 May 2012 16:14:11 -0000

Wow! This is an excellent explanation for why people should get rid of their cars. If you own a car you're part of the space problem. Parking is always an issue, and you fear density because of it. Once you are car free, there's a big perception switch.

I had no idea about the curb-cuts, although I suspect they are in the type of low-density neighborhoods that are not getting bike share.

Re: The Spatial Payoff of NYC Bike-Share

Stacy Rosenstock — Wed, 16 May 2012 16:07:52 -0000

HamTech87When I said "spread them out" what I meant was limit the number of bikes to, maybe, two parking spaces, and then place another BikeShare Station a block or two away. Not only would that create greater density and give users better access to bikes, it would also give motorists less to whine.

Re: How Bike-Share Stations Stack Up Against Other Curb Consumers

fj — Wed, 16 May 2012 16:04:33 -0000

One question: Is there a special place for bikeshare heaven?

Re: How Bike-Share Stations Stack Up Against Other Curb Consumers

Bicycles Only — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:59:14 -0000

Thank you Streetsblog for this smart, in-context reporting that I won't find anywhere else! Time for another contribution to your $30K fundraising drive.....

Re: How Bike-Share Stations Stack Up Against Other Curb Consumers

HamTech87 — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:58:32 -0000

Great piece! Is the curb cut allocation for the whole city or just for the area of BikeShare?

Re: The Spatial Payoff of NYC Bike-Share

Parallel Parker — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:34:21 -0000

Greg, regarding #2, cars are also "deposited" and "removed" into the direction of the street. In fact, waiting for someone to back into or exit a spot is a big source of congestion on narrow streets. The concern about bike share may be legitimate, but it should not be greater than the existing conditions as they apply to private cars.

Re: MTA Chooses Busway For Possible Staten Island North Shore Transit Line

Anon256 — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:26:43 -0000

Rather than building BRT in the old rail right-of-way on the north shore, how about building BRT in old car right-of-way along the Staten Island Expressway (and Gowanus and BBT)? That would actually get Staten Islanders to Manhattan faster than they currently can by driving. By contrast, the above proposal seems unlikely to attract many riders with alternatives, given the ease of driving and parking for trips within Staten Island. It would also mess up a right-of-way that would be better left preserved for now until upzoning and the sort of rail service Alon Levy refers to become feasible.

Re: The Spatial Payoff of NYC Bike-Share

Greg — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:21:53 -0000

Two comments:

1) I find statements of the form "I'm concerned that the bike station at location X takes away n units of parking" incredibly frustrating, since every single bike station is *adding* significant amounts of parking, and these statements show no consideration for the fact that some people want to get around the city and make use of its parking spaces in vehicles that aren't cars. I know these statements aren't malicious, but they make me feel marginalized as a non-automobile-using neighborhood resident, who would gain great value out of this major addition to our parking infrastructure.

2) I think there is a reasonable theoretical concern about on-street stations on narrow streets. The stations may not be wider than vehicles, but, as I understand, bicycles will be deposited and removed into the direction of the street. So when people are coming and going, the "width" will expand beyond the station itself. Practically, I don't think this will create problems at all, but I think the basic concern is legitimate. And it seems to me one of the best responses to concerns such as these is the portable nature of the stations; the ability to adjust/move them if any problems actually happens brings the risk factor down to zero.

Re: The Spatial Payoff of NYC Bike-Share

Linda Robinson — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:01:13 -0000

Montague St BID: These are the same folks who think they improve business when they close the street in the summer to ALL car traffic on "Summer Space" days. Are cars good or bad for business, guys?? We've got a long ways to go...merchants in Portland ask the city to remove on-street parking and replace it with bike racks because they know it improves business. And I live in Brooklyn Heights...wake up, smell the coffee neighbors, and say "Yes!" It feels really good, I know you can do it! The NIMBYs need to move to the 'burbs.

Re: EDC Wants 500 Parking Spots at Long-Awaited Lower East Side Development

fj — Wed, 16 May 2012 14:42:31 -0000

The image is hilarious in a sick sort of way, evacuating 500 cars from subterranean parking in downtown Manhattan with a major storm on the way . . . to who knows where?

When Global Warming Hits Home (Literally)
"
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
"

. . . not to mention dramatic changes in flood insurance most likely in the pipeline (pardon my pun)

. . . on further thought, as hilarious as having an emergency command center in the World Trade Center.

Re: The Spatial Payoff of NYC Bike-Share

HamTech87 — Wed, 16 May 2012 14:12:06 -0000

Stacy Rosenstock In my opinion, the most important factor in the success of BikeShare is the density of stations. The more of them, and the closer they are to each other, the better. This way a user is never "stuck" with a bike, unable to find a station.

Montreal's Bixi BikeShare is one of the most successful in North America because of its density. It has a lot of stations, and they are within 2-3 blocks of each other. When I used Bixi there, and a station was full or malfunctioning, I could go 3 blocks to another one and still not be close to my destination.

Re: The Spatial Payoff of NYC Bike-Share

Wed, 16 May 2012 14:06:50 -0000

This business district has no vision. Give it a few months and they'll be thanking their lucky stars that they have a convenient bikeshare station and don't have to wait for the next expansion. Pedestrians are the drivers of NYC retail, and like subway entrances, bikeshare stations are pedestrian generators. Parking spaces, however, are not at all the same, and study after study shows that people who arrive by bike stay longer and spend more money.

Re: The Spatial Payoff of NYC Bike-Share

Streetsman — Wed, 16 May 2012 13:46:26 -0000

Also factor in how often those 29 bike docks will be used. The parking spaces on Clinton are alternate-side parking, for just 90 minutes one day per week. Those 5 cars in those 5 spaces might sit there, parked, unused, as a personal storage space for their 5 owners, for 99.9% of the week. Even assuming just half the 29 bike docks to go there were utilized just twice a day, in a week 200 people have utilized that same street space. And the actual number could turn out to be 10, 20, or 50 times that much turnover. The number of citizens benefiting from that use of that public space compared to residential parking is beyond comparison - it's a landslide of efficiency and equity for bike share.

Re: The Spatial Payoff of NYC Bike-Share

dporpentine — Wed, 16 May 2012 13:40:42 -0000

Mark Walker Another good thing about bike-share infrastructure for pedestrians is that it's a lot easier to see over and around parked bikes than parked cars, trucks, etc. Boom: instant daylighting.

Re: The Spatial Payoff of NYC Bike-Share

Mark Walker — Wed, 16 May 2012 13:35:26 -0000

As someone who is neither a cyclist or a driver -- that is, a pedestrian -- I welcome the repurposing of public space from cars to bikes. It means less room for the street users who are most likely to injure or kill me.

Re: Traffic Pricing Is Evolving. Can Its Opponents?

Alex Matthiessen — Wed, 16 May 2012 13:19:24 -0000

Another excellent piece by Mr. Komanoff. Particularly important is his illustration of why a congestion pricing plan is not as regressive as detractors would like to believe it is -- and certainly no more than a thousand other charges NYers are faced with everyday. And most important, major new investments in our regional road and transit system would benefit the vast majority of New York area residents -- rich and poor alike.

Re: The Spatial Payoff of NYC Bike-Share

Stacy Rosenstock — Wed, 16 May 2012 13:17:43 -0000

I noticed recently 'someone' has been bulldozing a portion of LaGuardia Gardens - maybe in preparation for the Bike Station slated for that location?

My understanding is that only about half of the currently planned bike stations will be placed in the street replacing parking spaces. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing. 5 parking spaces is a lot and after attending one of the initial press conferences I was under the impression bike stations would take up considerably less space with fewer bikes. Maybe spreading them out even further, with less bikes per station, would help avoid a BikeShare Backlash from frustrated motorists trying to park?

Re: EDC Wants 500 Parking Spots at Long-Awaited Lower East Side Development

Streetsblog_org — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:49:35 -0000

Hmmm, would the underground spots in SPURA preclude the possibility of having a "Lo-line" park? Isn't some of the Lo line space under the SPURA lots?

Re: Traffic Pricing Is Evolving. Can Its Opponents?

Larry Littlefield — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:45:03 -0000

I don't know what happened to my comment, but I have a hard time taking concern about "a pricing mechanism that allocates access to public places on an ability to pay" from a Westchester rep. Westchester parks not only charge for access, but also exclude non-residents. Compare that with Central Park.

People from Westchester don't want people from NYC in their communities. People from NYC welcome people from Westchester. The motor vehicles, not so much.

Re: Traffic Pricing Is Evolving. Can Its Opponents?

Aidry — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:27:40 -0000

Starting off by quoting John Maynard Keynes and calling his work "groundbreaking" probably wasn't the best lead in to this article. His ideas weren't new, or groundbreaking at the time, and despite repeated attempts have never quite worked as intended if at all.

Re: Traffic Pricing Is Evolving. Can Its Opponents?

Brodsky District Guy — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:06:44 -0000

Brodsky's context was representing a district of liberals that is heavily car-dependent. It is very hilly, and spread out. Even getting to MetroNorth commuter rail is difficult without a car, and parking at these stations is limited and relatively costly. Transit, in the form of bus service, is infrequent with spans that don't go too far beyond rush hours; bus stops are often isolated and unsheltered.

Fortunately, for the reasons often discussed here at Streetsblog, people are realizing that we need better transit. Many town boards in Brodsky's district voted for Transit on the TZ Bridge resolutions. Older residents of the district are confronting a phase of their lives where they can no longer drive. Younger residents want to stop driving so much. And people are starting to "see" all the residents who cannot afford a car.

The already built-out towns are clogged with cars, especially at rush hour and on weekends. Sidewalks are sporadic or non-existent, placing pedestrians and bicyclists on narrow roadbeds with high-speed cars. Places with good bicycle infrastructure, like the South County Trailway, are virtually unreachable except by car in towns like Ardsley and Irvington. So the teens of these communities can't get there unless their parents drive them.

Hopefully, the Schwartz Plan will garner the support of the legislators in Brodsky's former district, Tom Abinanti and Andrea Stewart-Cousins. If they do support it, they will need a lot of help from political donors in the city to withstand the backlash.

Re: Traffic Pricing Is Evolving. Can Its Opponents?

JK — Wed, 16 May 2012 11:48:40 -0000

Nice piece Charlie. Shoddy work there Mr. Brodsky. Let's also not forget that bus and subway riders are already paying to cross these free East and Harlem River Bridges. How is it fair that pedestrians and cyclists are banned from vast, expensive, swaths of transportation infrastructure that they pay for with their income and sales taxes ---- when's the last time somebody biked to work on the LIE, BQE or Grand Central?

Re: Today’s Headlines

Stacy Rosenstock — Wed, 16 May 2012 11:32:02 -0000

As a frequent visitor to Fort Washington Park, it seems, at least to me, the two things this park needs most are lighting between 163rd and 172nd sts and better access at 177th street. Improving wheelchair access at Dyckman Street might seem like a good idea but where are the the disabled going to go south of 181st Street? Even if they can make it safely down the hill to the Little Red Lighthouse they'll have a hell of a time trying to make it back. They'll have to go all the way down to the ramps at 155th for an accessible exit.
On the other hand, park goers further south, around Columbia Presbyterian, shouldn't have to cross entrance and exit ramps, or navigate unlit dirt paths just to access the waterfront. Giving everyone better access around 177th St and lighting should be a priority.

Re: Today’s Headlines

Larry Littlefield — Wed, 16 May 2012 11:27:35 -0000

Felix is also failing to understand the financial constraints on NYC. It has one of the highest combined state and local tax burdens in the country, and much higher debt and pension costs than the cities mentioned.

He is thinking of bikeshare as a public service. Well, New Yorkers can't expect to get public services. Just pay taxes.