CITIBIKE TO ROLL OUT ON UWS IN SECTIONS, STARTING AS EARLY AS AUGUST

citibike2

CitiBike could start rolling out stations on the Upper West Side from 59th to 86th street as soon as August, a representative for the Department of Transportation said Monday night.

The stations would roll out in two sections, said Margaret Forgione, the DOT’s Manhattan Borough Commissioner, who was speaking at a Town Hall held by Council member Helen Rosenthal Monday night.

The first section, stretching from 59th street to 86th street, would be placed this summer, opening in August or September. The second section would come after the winter — “probably in March” — and stretch to 110th street. Right now, CitiBike mostly stops at 59th street on the West Side, with one station on 61st. There will be dozens of stations in the neighborhood — you probably wouldn’t have to walk more than five blocks to find one, no matter where you are. Locals got a chance to weigh in on where the stations will be placed at a meeting in January.

The docking stations can be placed on sidewalks, streets, or in other areas like pedestrian plazas; they tend to be different sizes to conform to the location and can stretch as long as 90 feet — that equates to four to five parking spots.

The Department of Transportation will present a list of “semifinal proposed sites” to the community board next month. We’ll have more on that meeting soon.

While it’s unlikely Upper West Siders could stop CitiBike from coming here, we have heard considerable opposition, which could slow the process. One audience member at the Town Hall even let out an audible “Uggh” upon hearing the news. One local who emailed us wrote that “The Upper West side is overcrowded enough without having bike stations blocking and impeding people in their daily and necessary pursuits.”

The Coalition for a Livable West Side has been urging members to send emails and make calls to demand several conditions on CitiBike that could limit the number of stations in the neighborhood (if historic blocks can’t have CitiBike, most of West End Avenue, Central Park West and Riverside would not have the stations, and several other large chunks of the neighborhood too). The coalition’s positions are below:

If Community Board 7 approves the Bike Share expansion, Coalition believes that there should be no Bike Share Stations:
• On any Historic Block.
• In front of any landmarked building.
• On any major crosstown street where DOT may install Select Bus Service.
• On West 96th Street from Riverside Drive to CPW.
Coalition believes that:
• Building residents/owners must have the right to say NO to stations in front of their building.
• Bike share stations must not block entrances to buildings.
• Docking stations must contain no more than 10 bikes.
• Bike share stations must be monitored every 6 months for usage – underutilized must be removed.
• Each bike must contain laminated, clearly printed, non- removable biking rules and regulations.
•  Bikers must wear helmets.
NEWS | 164 comments | permalink
    1. UWSer says:

      I should think the “Coalition for a Livable West Side” would be in *favor* of an increased bicycle presence. Bikes reduce the need for cars, lessening road noise, improving air quality and lowering the possibility of traffic accidents.

      Nothing more than basic NIMBYism would find negatives in an expanded bike share program that makes it easier to get around town without taxis or mass transit.

      • WS Rider says:

        exactly.“Coalition for a Livable West Side” defines “liveable” from a very narrow perspective and yes, it is NIMBY all the way. Let’s make the UWS accessible and welcoming to all.

      • Pedestrian says:

        It is astonishing that residents are not supposed to voice their opinions about what is going to happen in their own neighborhoods with out being attacked as NIMBY. NIMBY is the way the powers that be demean the rights of residents.

        Of all the things the UWS needs like street drains that work and street side trash receptacles that close, this is what our council member thinks is a priority. It is amazing.

        • Jay says:

          Street drains and trash receptacles are completely unrelated to Citibike.

          If your concerns were logical you might not be called a nimby; but if you agree with the statement put out by this ‘coalition’ then the label would fit.

          • Pedestrian says:

            Street Drains and trash recepticals are very relevant. Our council member has been focusing on bikes and bike paths instead of city services that are already in crisis.

            As to your continued desire to label anyone who disagrees with you as NIMBY, you are mistaken but its still a free country, so enjoy!

            • AlexWithAK says:

              I love it when:
              – NIMBYs insist they are not NIMBYs.
              – People do not understand the basics of something they are criticizing like how CitiBike and street drains are handled by completely different groups, one a private contracted company and the other a city agency.

            • Nathan says:

              What systems are in “crisis,” exactly? Besides the MTA’s budget of course.

            • Tyson White says:

              The council member is focusing on making streets safer (not “bike paths” actually), probably because no one has yet drown in the puddle caused by a clogged drain. A bunch of pedestrians have, though. Priorities, priorities…

      • West of Amsterdam says:

        I agree with all your points. Many of the coalition’s requirements are ridiculous and self-serving.

        Incidentally, W. 96th Street is exactly where I’d want to pick up a Citibike. So often I am stuck at the 96th Street subway station waiting for a local. With Citibike, I’d have the option of biking the last few blocks home.

        Still, given the past incompetence of the management of the Citibike program, it’s good to see some community input.

        • RSBer says:

          I’m sympathetic to the “no stations on 96th” comment (as well as the comment about crosstown bus routes). The rest of the “Coalition” comments are fairly pure NIMBYism, or attempts to changes the basic ways Citibike works, in a way which would frustrate expansion in the neighborhood. As a Citibike member since its inception, I am really looking forward to having stations near me again (having moved out of “Citibike land” a year or so after it opened, I use it much less than I once did). I don’t sense a lot of good faith in their efforts.

          With respect to 96th and the other major crosstown streets, they may have hit on a valid point, though. I am concerned about introducing a lot of bike traffic into the mix on those streets. I don’t care if you are a pedestrian, a car or a bus – 96th is simply too chaotic as it is, especially between West End and Amsterdam. The DOT and Citibike should work on promoting crosstown bike routs and bike lanes which are on separate streets from the major crosstown routes (for instance, promoting and expanding the existing bike routes on 90th and 91st, and 77th and 78th). Bike stations should be emphasize surrounding those routes, and drivers should be reminded by clear signage to expect additional bike traffic on those streets. It’s probably a bridge too far for the residents, but I’d love to see discussion of the possibility of removing curb parking on one side of the street on those routes to permit installation of protected bike lanes.

          • Josh says:

            The problem with emphasizing routes like 91st is that they are not true crosstown routes, they are just cross neighborhood. I bike commute daily from the UWS to the UES. I have to take 96, and the 97 transverse, because it is the only crosstown option.

            Besides, greater bike presence on 96 could help to make it less chaotic rather than more. This has been the experience through most of the citibike zone since its inception.

          • Guest says:

            How is 96th St any more chaotic than the Avenues or 42nd Street and other crosstown arteries with Citi Bike?

        • Giovanni says:

          This is the most uninformed list of demands this group could have come up with, and does not really address one of the real issue with CitBike which is the huge number of parking spots the stations take up and the resulting increase in traffic by drivers searching for fewer parking space.

          The ideal location for docking stations is on the sidewalks whenever practical, which is not a problem in park areas on CPW and Riverside Drive as well as at the Museum of Natural History and near public schools. This way there are less issues with garbage, parking space loss and snow removal.

          The docking stations need to be located on major streets like 96th St. and also wherever there is Select Bus Servce because many people use the bikes as the next link in their commute. Moving them to side streetes or away from SBS stops defeats that purpose.

          Having only 10 stations per rack just makes the system even more unusable since rebalancing bikes in empty and full stations is still a major issue. You need racks of 25-50 bikes to make both bikes and empty docking stations available at all times.

          Requiring helmets will defeat the program and is not a requirement in any other neighborhood where CitiBike exists, plus there is no way to enforce such a rule as the rental process is automated.

          These demands are not serious and are just a roadblock to implementing the program correctly. The main issues are having the proper locations to minimize impact on parking and to maximize bike availability.

        • Tyson White says:

          96th St. is also very wide with ample space for Citibike racks.

        • joey says:

          west of amsterdam – isn’t what the pro citi bike people people want self serving???

      • Jon says:

        NIMBY is exactly right. I am far far more concerned about my kids getting hit by bikes than by cars. Either the police need to rigorously enforce traffic laws for cyclists, or we need to do everything possible to keep fewer bikes on the streets. (I’d prefer the former, but have seen no evidence that it’s likely to happen.)

        • Pedestrian says:

          Let me see. You want to see fewer bikes but you support CITIBike expansion. You think people who don’t agree with you are NIMBY but you want more enforcement of traffic rules or remove the bikes. I am confused.

          • Jon says:

            To clarify: I would support Citibike expansion if the police enforced traffic laws against cyclists. Because I do not believe they will, I am against it.

            I am not using NIMBY as a slur. I am embracing it… I don’t want more cyclists in my back yard.

            If cyclists start stopping at red lights, or the cops cite them when they blow through them, I’d probably change my mind.

            • AlexWithAK says:

              It’s truly astonishing that anyone can possibly believe that bikes pose a bigger threat to safety than cars.

            • JL says:

              Cognitive dissonance in full glory.

            • Tyson White says:

              If I had a nickel for every time a motorist on the UWS took a red light (aka “catching the light”), AND exceeding the speed limit by over 10 MPH while doing so…

        • AlexWithAK says:

          Wait, you’re more concerned with bikes hitting your kids than cars? Are you serious? You’d rather a 4000 lb vehicles with a powerful engine would hit your child than a 30 lb bike? That’s absolutely insane. Cars are infinitely more dangerous than bikes, especially the way people drive in this city. In the past 5 years, 2 people have been killed by bikes in all of NYC. Meanwhile, cars have killed more than 1000 in the same span of time. I fear for your children’s safety if you are this oblivious to the danger cars pose.

      • Tyson White says:

        Should actually be named the Coalition for Car Owners Who Want More Parking Spaces. Their mission is to have Central Park be used as a parking lot at night…

      • John says:

        Bikes do not reduce the need for cars, most UWS traffic is through traffic. All you’ll accomplish with Citi Bike is more meat in the bag. Not a healthy choice. Know of what you speak.

        • Zulu says:

          It is a healthy choice even if it does not reduce the need for cars. CitiBike provides cheap transportation alternatives and it was never meant to replace cars. With CitiBike in the UWS people can now choose between walking, taking the train, the bus and now riding a bike. With the application of a few road diets on Amsterdam and cross streets your proverbial “bag” will be able to handle all the additional users. Please do take on your own suggestion and learn what you’re talking about first.

          • John says:

            Actually, it’s you my frient who is lacking in clearity.
            You’ve just said if you have 20 cars in the road andthen you add to the 20 cars 10 bikes the dymanic of the system will not be slower. Your thinking, oh gosh, they’ll be a bike lane. Well if there is a bike lane the lanes that the cars are in will be compressed – right? But, yeah, the results are the same there is a slow down because … there is less space. Now I understand, you must be a scientist, thanks.

      • carljoe says:

        Not in rain or snow or when it’s freezing cold and icy – useless many months of the year genius. Here’s some reasons, in addition to the profiteering, why this is poor planning:
        The Upper West side is overcrowded enough without having bike stations everywere.

        The bike stations are unsightly and look like rows of tin cans that detract from the grace of our residential community, most are 75 feet long and six feet deep; blocking side walk space and if in the roadway impeding traffic and deliveries.

        Walking is far better and more fluid than biking, as well as a better option from an exercise prospective.

        Continued unfair loss of even more parking resulting in more cars circling and circling and increasing pollution.

        Only a small minority of people in the community use these bikes, the 28 – 38 year old group. They will become an unnecessary burden to the rest of us.

        And here is something even you will find daunting – if it craps out financially the city will try and tax us to keep it going even though it’s counter productive. Stick with mass transit – put the dollars it improving it even more.
        It’s not NIMBYism, it’s good old fashion common sense.
        Go and play on your tricycle in the park.

        • Zulu says:

          Here are some counter points to your misguided and lame excuses:

          1. Alternate side parking was suspended for weeks this last winter (almost two months in fact)and cars remained encased in snow an ice for even longer than that. How is that any different than snow covered bicycles, genius?

          2. THe UWS is not any more crowded than midtown, and CitiBike works great there.

          3. Unsightly and detracting of grace you say? I feel the same way about cars, scaffolding, garbage bags, unkept properties, etc. My point is that as opinions go that has to be the lamest of them all. It’s a city and it comes with the territory. A bike station with neatly arranged bikes docked on the side of the road is no more a detractor of grace as all the other elements of common city dwelling.

          4. CitiBike is not selling fitness, it’s selling transportation. So what if walking is a better exercise than bicycling. “Walking is more fluid than biking” you’re kidding right?

          5.”Continued unfair loss of even more parking…” It’s not unfair if you were never entitled to it. Parking like driving, is a privilege and not a right. We should really have it like Japan where you have to show proof of having a paid parking space before you can buy a car.

          6. FYI the 28 to 38 age group is the largest group in the UWS as per the most recent demographics study. So far the so called “burdened” by CitBike are the misinformed minority.

          7. CitiBike IS public transportation silly! For less than what you pay for an unlimited monthly MetroCard you can ride a full year.

          Unfortunately in this case common sense has eluded you. Ding ding!

          • carljoe says:

            Zulu, everyone is entitled to their opinion, America right. However, I intend to be blunt; I found your counter points, not to put too fine a point on it, both sophomoric and disappointing, Your observations and intuitive understanding of the issue and factions at odds seems driven by a sophistic premise rather than real perspective, not unlike an child who wants their cookie unconditionally. There are other people involved in the consequences of bike share and they have their concerns as you do yours. This was all I had intended to write with the thought that this is sufficient elucidation as to the validity of your unilateral counter points. But, in respect for the passion and time you took to rebut my points, I offer a counter to your counter, while I’m actually at a counter at a diner where I am eating, and I really hope this helps you.
            1] Vehicles (which cars are) can function in snow, just like the buses do and did, bikes cannot, especially given the ability of most citi bike users that I’ve seem riding them. The point is, this makes bikes useless where cars are not if the owner digs them out. I am not anti bike, I am anti the citi bike program.
            2] Not any more crowded than midtown – you are correct. BUT, midtown is not a residential neighborhood – that was the point. And, I agree it has value there, but not on the UWS.
            3] You really missed the mark on this point. If cars and scaffolding are unsightly to you then why add more space hoggers like docking stations (which will look bad after a few years like old trash cans do)? Get a bike and keep it home? Cars are neat enough in their spaces, wouldn’t you say some cars are real works of art – can’t say that for bikes they are very pedestrian. Same is so for the scaffolding. This opinion may not be your favorite, as you stated, none the less, it’s just another straw on the horses back, or should that be the cyclist’s seat. What I hear you saying is things in the street are unsightly – ??
            4] Yes, walking is more fluid than biking, I won’t waste time explaining the kinesiology to you – googling may better serve you here.
            5] Maybe you’d be happier in Japan? Motorists, of which I am not – surprised to hear that, pay registration fees and licensing fees. What is it again that bicyclist’s pay? … you can google that as well.
            6] Where did you get your information? I refer you to google, yet again. My lord!
            7] Ride all you want, but keep you own bike, in your home and that’s even cheaper.
            Ding Dong was it, best you could procure? Please do not reply I’ve tired of this nonsense, my thesis advisors were right –“ better off in the lab, you’ll find people out there very disappointing.”

    2. DMH says:

      Thrilled to hear Citibike is finally – FINALLY – getting to our neighborhood! Thank you West Side Rag for covering this! I personally don’t agree with the oppositions listed above by the Coalition. Seems like they would also apply to all onstreet car parking, no?

      • jerryo says:

        Actually, on that car part, NO. You really don’t get it.

        • DMH says:

          I’m pretty sure I do. Cars are often underused, waste street space for a small minority, are extremely dangerous, poison our air, often block building entrances, and last I checked they don’t require helmets or even have laminated, clearly printed, non-removable rules and regulations.

    3. Jay says:

      The Coalition for a Livable West Side also demands that you get off their lawn!

    4. Randi says:

      How and where can UWS resident lodge their opposition to CitiBike in the neighborhood?

      • Tyson White says:

        The same place they can lodge their opposition to cars idling engines on the UWS. We’ve already been rated the neighborhood with the worst air quality, it’s already illegal to idle engines and punishable with a $1,000 fine. Yet ZERO tickets were given this year (and last year). Where do I lodge my complaint??

        • jill says:

          Hey Tyson – the air quality will get far worst when you put bikes in the street and slow down all the trucks and cars – and if your thinking bike lanes will help, well they will not – bike lanes squeeze traffic lanes (dangerous) and of course slow down traffic which means more pollution. Simple science.

          • Zulu says:

            The science you speak off has actually shown to be quite the opposite. Road diets and modal share have shown to increase safety, decrease accidents, provide a healthier environment to the adjacent community, and they do all this while maintaining trip travel times or sometimes even decreasing it. It’s a win-win for all. Please do the research before falsely using science as your excuse for opposing a better neighborhood.

          • BMAC says:

            Slower traffic also means fewer accidents, including those involving pedestrians. Simple science! 🙂

          • Tyson White says:

            Simple science, or simpleton science?

    5. Gabrielle says:

      Im excited for this to finally happen, but how functional will the roll out be if each docking station is limited to 10 bikes?!?!?

      The Coalition for a Livable Upper West Side sounds like a ball of fun – limiting roll out wont be benefitial for anyone.

      • AlexWithAK says:

        Not to worry. This faux organization has no power over the CitiBike roll out. The only reason their crazed manifesto is getting any press is because it’s, well, a crazed manifesto. Even the community board’s input is advisory. People will always oppose progress, but in the end CitiBike is coming to the UWS and the neighborhood will benefit immensely from it. And, just like in every other neighborhood that’s already gotten CitiBike, the backlash will die down and life will go on, only with better transportation options.

        • Tyson White says:

          Who are they anyway? It’s pointless to even spend time discussing it. They have a cheap website that lists Gale Brewer as a “council member”. It’s probably a small group of people who sit home all day and “kvetch”

          • DMH says:

            Really, Gale Brewer??! She’s lost my vote if she’s standing with NIMBY cranks like these. While we’re fretting over whether there’s ‘enough’ room for bikeshare usable by all in the UWS, where’s her position on all the out-of-state cars parked overnight on UWS streets?

            • Tyson White says:

              No, Gale Brewer is not with them. They just list elected officials on their site. In fact, Gale Brewer is a supporter of the protected bike lanes, and other traffic safety measures. I think someone in her family was killed by a driver.

            • DMH says:

              That’s reassuring and I’m very, very sorry to Gale Brewer for her family’s loss. Thanks Tyson.

          • Lynn says:

            Their website needs to be updated. Gale Brewer was our Councilwoman for many years and now is the Manhattan Borough President. She may have supported a constructive council initiative years ago when she represented the neighborhood but I seriously doubt that she supports this anti bike invective.
            Helen Rosenthal is our council rep now. She bikes to work.

    6. Wilhelm says:

      Do you know where people can call/email to opposite the citi bike rollout?

    7. Noreaster says:

      ATTENTION COALITION FOR A LIVABLE WEST SIDE:

      YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.

    8. Lisa says:

      Most of the Coalition’s requests are untenable. We can’t have bikes anywhere near any major street where people may want to have bikes available? Riders must wear helmets? So we should all carry helmets around every day in case we need to use a CitiBike to get from point A to B? And I’ll bet the Coalition is also first and foremost complaining about vehicular traffic. As UWSer said, it’s a classic case of NIMBYism.

      I welcome the expansion of CitiBike to the UWS and hope the community board maintains a common sense approach to this expansion.

    9. jill says:

      more chances to get hit by a bike.
      new yorkers are walkers.

      • Lance A. says:

        Apparently New Yorkers havent gotten that memo. Numbers for cyclists keep rising. And have risen consistently year to year. This trend isnt going away.

        Having everyone have access to (moderately) affordable, healthy transportation sounds like a win.

        As to the idea that New Yorkers are walkers? Sure. For short distances. Bicycles arent walkers biggest danger. Those same people who ride bikes have to walk from where they leave them.

        Its the cars that are consistently injuring or killing cyclists and pedestrians without any consequences.

    10. Chris says:

      I agree very much with the PRO comments in favor of the CITI bikes. Can’t wait. I hope the “coalition” doesn’t hamper the installation of this program.

    11. Kay says:

      Great news re the CitiBikes! Have been eagerly awaiting its arrival on the UWS. Coalition for a Livable West Side is missing the mark on this. How about focusing on the food trucks with the neon crawl? Now there’s a quality of life issue!

    12. Joe says:

      enough already with choking down traffic for little used bike lanes. and citibike, leave the UWS alone

    13. UWS Walker says:

      More bikes, just what we need:
      Teens On Bikes Attempt to Mug Jogger in Central Park (http://www.westsiderag.com/2015/04/28/teens-on-bikes-attempt-to-mug-jogger-in-central-park)
      Please don’t add more bikes to the UWS which has too many bike riders who pay no attention to traffic signals/signs or pedestrians.

      • Chris says:

        Muggers also come by foot. We should ban walking on the UWS, too!

      • Woody says:

        Please don’t add more pedestrians to the UWS which has too many pedestrianss who pay no attention to traffic signals/signs or bikes.

    14. prof malcontent says:

      Pls exempt W. 72 park block – we have a crosstown bus, tour buses, all deliveries to south side of street are made on south side of street – including removal of construction/renovation debris. There is no appropriate place on either side of street for bike stations. We are sidewalk and curb space challenged!

      • Tyson White says:

        I measured 72nd St on google satellite view. It’s 99.7 feet across. Sounds like plenty of space.

    15. Steve J says:

      I haven’t ridden a bike in years (though, of course, one never forgets how) but am looking forward to CitiBike. I may or may not use it but like having the option. I am one who gets around almost exclusively by foot or subway and welcome another inexpensive alternative (I never take cabs).

      I remember seeing bike stations all over Paris about 5 years ago and wondered what it was. I’m glad that New York is finally catching up.

    16. Paul RL says:

      I live on West 96th Street and since I have my own bike, I don’t need to use the program. However, I would welcome a station on my block – I think this is a great program and it’s exactly the type of thing that’s needed to help make the UWS more livable.

      • joey says:

        I hope your not an attorney Paul, your reasoning is undefined (livable)and your certainly not a scientist. The entities you introduce to a system the more you degrade it … get it. Nothing else is going away because bikes are coming, everything else will still be here. You want to breathe better don’t slow down the cars you’ll never get rid of. The people making these decisionsare of very mediocre intelligence and their motivations are not for improving your health, this I think you do know.

        • Zulu says:

          Have you gone below 59th St. in the past year? How is adding a cheap mode of transportation in a city like this degrading it? Do yourself a favor and get yourself a yearly membership with Citi Bike once they place a station on your block. You can thank me later.

    17. Brian says:

      This is great! I look forward their installation. Just like the lower half of Manhattan and some of Brooklyn have embraced Citibike, the UWS will too. And those not interested will get used to seeing the blue bikes and docking stations soon enough.

    18. Pedestrian says:

      Did you know that the man running CITIBike used to be the head of the MTA.

      Here is something from Crane’s to fill you in.
      The MTA job appeared to gradually wear down Mr. Walder, who was demonized by the Transport Workers Union during testy contract negotiations that he could not bring to fruition. Some said his frustration with the chronically underfunded and politicized MTA led him to accept an offer to become CEO of Hong Kong’s Mass Transit Railway Corp., where projects are well capitalized and his salary was a reported $1.6 million, about four times his MTA compensation.

      But controversy followed him to Asia, where cost overruns on an inherited high-speed rail project linking Hong Kong to mainland China led to his resignation after three years. Mr. Walder received a $2.02 million “golden parachute” upon leaving last August, according to the South China Morning Post.

      Wonder what he is getting paid at CITIBike. Before he was at the MTA he was in London. JUST FYI.

      • Jay says:

        So what?

        If you don’t like Citibike, don’t use it.

        Is there some reason you don’t like freedom?

        • Pedestrian says:

          Now I don’t like freedom! Interesting. Since when did CITIBike become the symbol of “freedom”.

          If I don’t like CITIBike don’t use it..sounds like a great idea. I still have to look at it. The trash all over the stations and the broken bikes. Did you know there actually used to be small businesses that had the freedoms to make money renting bikes. But then that kind of freedom, well, just doesn’t matter. Small businesses who needs them.

          • Jay says:

            You can’t be serious, can you? Are you trolling?

            Is this the extent of your opposition to Citibike?

            If you had any logical arguments against it, you might not get labeled as a nimby. With arguments like these, that label is going to stick.

    19. Ted says:

      This is excellent!!! Now delivery people (pretty much the only bikers on the UWS) will be able to have spare bikes. Whew! I was worried I might miss a Patsy’s delivery. It will also be great for tourists who ride on the sidewalk, have no idea where there going and are more concerned with their map than what’s in front of them. I think we should have them on every block because for sure anyone who has access to a Citibike is going to give up their car. That is why there are no cars anymore in lots of parts of the city. The elderly in our neighborhood are supper psyched for Citibike’s because they don’t have enough pedestrian hazards and they will toss their walkers to the side and cruise carefree on their citibikes as if it were Cocoon 7: Back On The Bike!!!

      • BMAC says:

        Sweet Cocoon ref, Ted. Very hip and now. Let us know how the Miami Vice season finale is.

        • whatsupduck says:

          Who shot JR?

        • Ted says:

          I’m just looking forward to seeing you in the neighborhood rockin’ that Sonny Crockett (Colin Farrel) edition cheesy mustache. Oh sorry, gotta go time to put my drum break through the talk back compressor.

    20. Norma Schreier says:

      I am against Bike Share stations on the west side. The sidewalks are too narrow as they are now. The streets are too crowded with delivery trucks and heavy traffic. No parking spaces should be taken away from residents by the Bike Share program. The west side is badly congested as it is now.

      • Tyson White says:

        I agree we need more parking for residents. That’s why it’s a good idea to replace 1 parking spaces with 7 bike parking spaces for bikes that get used multiple times a day.

        • clay says:

          Mr. White – that could be the the most distrubed comment I’ve seen here. Get unselfish and get real. More bikes have never ment less cars – wake up – these people promoting this bike crap know that – they have no idea how yo get a handle on the number of vehicles – adding bkie will make things worst – buy a metro card.

          • Tyson White says:

            You probably want to look at the actual data of how many times each CitiBike is used a day, multiply it by the number of bikes that can fit in a single car parking space.

            I understand you are “disturbed” over the loss of a single parking space on a block. It’s the typical reaction of people who enjoy free parking in public spaces. Overreaction? Nah! I was only talking about just 1 or two parking spaces on a single block, and that’s the most disturbing thing you’ve heard?

            Let me give you another scenario: The typical UWS building has at least 50 residents, and only 2 or 3 parking spaces at the curb in front. So less than 10% of residents get to keep a car out by the curb (visitors? fuggedaboudit!). If I need a piece of furniture delivered, or UPS comes, there’s nowhere to park but double park. Then an ambulance trying to get through is delayed by however long it takes for the driver to come downstairs and move the vehicle. Car owners in the neighborhood (less than 15% of residents) consider curbside parking a birthright despite how chaotic it makes the neighborhood, or how irrational it is. They actually believe the problem is that there isn’t ENOUGH parking out there. Go figure!

    21. Wendy says:

      Those restrictions are by and large mostly ridiculous. The UWS at its worst. Yes, don’t block building entrances – duh. But there are plenty of large sidewalk areas on the UWS that can accommodate bike stations. Amsterdam bet. 79th and 79th on the west side; W. 72nd Street near Riverside, The Trump building area; W. 79th Street west of Broadway; 79th Street and Columbus along the museum; Lincoln Center has tons of room; W. 86th St west of Broadway near Gristedes; all the closed off lanes on Broadway in the 90’s; Columbus Ave between 90 and 91st on west side of street; Central Park West which has a mile of underutilized sidewalk by the park – and that’s just off the top of my head – there are many many others!. And I would argue that 10 spaces is too few for any location. You are going to see a tremendous amount of usage once these are installed. And how about a station at the 110th Street area near the Lasker Pool? Where tons of folks go to use the pool in the summer?

      • Tyson White says:

        The UWS isn’t anywhere as congested as Midtown and Midtown is doing just fine with the Citibikes. People were up in arms when it was about to roll out, but now they don’t even notice it. A co-worker said to me recently in a conversation, “do they still have those Citibikes?”

    22. Concerned says:

      The bikes we already have are a danger to life and limb. They disregard the traffic ordinances, go the wrong way on one way streets and ride on the sidewalks. Central and Riverside Parks are NOT Tour de France routes. If the bike were required to observe the rules, I’d be in favor of CitiBike; but until then NO.

    23. Doug G. says:

      Wait. So bikes aren’t okay on historic blocks with buidings dating from the 1800s, but cars from the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s are? Is this coalition willing to ban cars from interfering with the historic character of the neighborhood?

    24. Chuck D says:

      Please! Please! Get them up here as fast as possible!

      • Bike Commuter says:

        Long overdue. The DOT has done a fantastic job for pedestrians and cyclists, but not above 59th St. This is great news for safe livable streets on the upper west side. Cannot wait to finally sign up!

    25. Richard says:

      Wait… more room for bikes, less room for cars? Sign me up!!!

    26. lisa says:

      Very unhappy that Citibike will be coming to UWS. At this point really feel that NYC cyclists are more dangerous to pedestrians. NYC cyclists routinely go through red lights though green for pedestrians.

      • Chris says:

        At what point do people like you finally bother to look at statistics and realize how tiny a threat cyclists are? Yes, there are scofflaws. Yes, perhaps you almost got hit once by a bike. I almost got hit by a taxi tonight who didn’t yield to me in a crosswalk. What is more of a threat? Discouraging cycling in a dense neighborhood is the OPPOSITE of what we should do if we’re looking to avoid pedestrian deaths like the tragic incidents that happened last year.

        Cars have killed dozens on the UWS over the last decade. Enough whining about bikes being a safety threat, and a little more perspective, please.

      • Woody says:

        Very unhappy that pedestrians will be coming to UWS. At this point really feel that NYC pedestrians are more dangerous to cyclists. NYC pedestrians routinely go through red lights though green for cyclists.

    27. Mark says:

      If old people ruin CitiBike for me, there will be retribution.

      CitiBike will not infringe on anything you do. No bike stations on historic blocks? What about all these modern cars parked there – you are a (worthless) NIMBY. Require helmets? What I wear does not impact you – you are a (worthless) NIMBY. The list is a joke. Benefits far outweight negatives. I have faith that the DOT will ram this through your complete and shameful ignorance.

      As for discussion on dangerous bikers – how many pedestrians have been killed by bikers in this city? One lady in Central Park in the last year. Please please please look beyond the narrow world in front of your up-turned nose.

      • Pedestrian says:

        Gee Mike you sound like a “nice”guy. First what makes you think that only old people oppose CITIBike? Second what do you intend to do start knocking over people with your bike? Retribution, indeed.

        • James says:

          Yeah Mike – Many of us above the UWS average age of 28-38 are offended by your “old people” comment. Of course we love Citibike and you can drop one of those stations right in front of my WEA building. My blue key is waiting.

    28. witness says:

      I work in the Garment District which is now full of hotels and CItibikes (or whatever they’re called now) and the racks are a blessing in disguise. They help stop busses and from laying-over on the side streets to avoid paying berth fees at the Port Authority. The down-side is that they leave the bikes out all winter and all the snow and ice that is shoveled is dumped on top of the bikes. I can’t imagine any building wanting to lose parking and drop-off space in front of their building, sidewalk space, or have an unsightly area where all the snow is dumped.

      The Community Board should add to their list that the footprint for the racks be re-examined and made more compact and that the bikes be takes off-site from November to February.

      As to the Collations’ suggestions — good luck with that…

    29. Christina says:

      I think we should stop saying NIMBY! We don’t have backyards in the city or at least most of us don’t. I know it’s just an expression but if one is going to be used it should be NOMB ( Not On My Block)!! 🙂

    30. 9d8b7988045e4953a882 says:

      I support the expansion of Citibike into the UWS. Biking is a great way to get around the city. The streets are for all users, not just those who can afford to own a car or take cabs.

      • gnat says:

        No they are not – vehicles have insurance and pay fee’s. Maybe when the cyclists do they same they can share the road. If someone owns a car and you can’t afford one why should you get use for free when the car owner has to pay?? Are angry or worse yet prejudice because the other guy mat be more well off than you, are you jealous maybe and think it’s OK to take a free ride on his back.Maybe he worked a bit harder to get where he is. People get jay-walking tickets for randomly drifting in the roadways – you’v heard of that haven’t you.

    31. Lori says:

      As a long-time bicycle commuter, I have mixed feelings about CitiBikes. Most importantly, I would like each of their stations to be required to provide bike parking for 4 privately-owned bikes. I encourage FAIR and CONSISTENT policing of bike riders. I don’t want too many car parking spaces removed, not sure what the limits should be. Community input about locations and numbers of stations is great, and not everybody will ever be pleased. More good bikers are great for the neighborhood.

      • Guest says:

        NYC has way too much free street side parking.

        Any lost spots are good for the city, it’s time to move away from that unsustainable mode of transportation in urban areas. Neighborhoods like the Upper East and West sides especially benefit, the vast majority of residents do not even drive here.

    32. Nathan says:

      While I can understand some reasonable opposition, I’d be curious to hear the rationale for not allowing stations on historic blocks or landmarks buildings. This screams irrational NIMBYism more than all the other ridiculous demands.

      • Christina says:

        NOMBism is a more relevant term.

      • anonymous says:

        Mos landmarked buildings house plenty of rent-stabilised delusional/entitled renters. They have already fought tooth and nail to keep their apartments off the market and out of the grubby paws of anyone who moved to the city after 1995 so it’s no surprise they also want to make sure no one under the age of 40 lays any sort of claim to “their” sidewalks in front of “their” homes.

        • Tyson White says:

          I have to disagree. The cyclists are disproportionately over the age of 40. The “coalition for doing nothing on the UWS”, or the “don’t move my cheese coalition” have more serious problems than just old age.

    33. Lucien Desar says:

      The bikes coming to the UWS is a great idea, it might ease up congestion of the commute during peak hours. As far as the dangers with bicycles, these bikes are heavy and very slow. Most pedestrians will see them a block away approaching them. The ones that you have to watch out for are private bicycles that zip past a red light and sometimes travel against a one way street.

      As far as where these stations are, most all of the UWS is historical and no blocks or streets should be excluded.

    34. caitlin says:

      Not in favor of Citibike on UWS. (Also seems ironic that just after subway/bus fare increase, there is expansion of bicycling infrastructure.)

    35. Jose Habib says:

      Great! Can’t wait for this to finally happen. These proposed restrictions are all ridiculous.

    36. Stephen says:

      Perhaps the Coalition NIMBYS should also require only vintage Cars to be parked on historic blocks or in front of landmarked buildings. Or maybe the pony and trap.

    37. Lori says:

      Everyone on this comment site, please separate Citibikes on the UWS with bicycles in general. All bikers should ride safely, lawfully and respect pedestrians. If you never ride a bike, but jay-walk, you should be ready to get the same ticket as a red-light runner. If you cross the street while texting, you are a hazard. We all need to slow down and pay attention. As far as Citibikes, they really need to expand to areas in Queens where there is bad mass-transit. And Upper Manhattan, especially weekends when the subways are under repair.

      • Zulu says:

        I disagree, pedestrians should be allowed to cross the road anywhere not just at intersections. It’s irrational to expect people to walk to the end of a block to simply go to the opposite sidewalk. That’s why the speed limit in cities is lower (or should be lower) so people driving cars can stop quickly in the case a person walking comes across their path of travel. Naturally I’m not advocating for irreverent street crossing but mindful look-both-ways before crossing the street. Cross when you can and if you feel unsafe then proceed to the nearest controlled intersection.

    38. Setting restrictions to the CITI bike locations is definitely something to be considered. I would not follow the proposed Coalition list with the exception of limiting sites to 10 bikes each. Large sites should be travel destinations like the Museum of Natural History, Lincoln Center, Columbia University, Fordham University and St John the Divine Cathedral. All of Central Park West would also qualify for large sites. A dedicated bike lane would need to be built here for the purpose of utilizing the bike resource. Columbus Avenue would also be a location for large sites. Historic districts should not be exempt if small sites are used. All bike path streets and routes should have sites with case by case determinations for larger capacity. Finally Amsterdam Avenue should remain as is without a dedicated bike lane, especially if Central Park west becomes the uptown dedicated bike lane route. Strict policing will be necessary in order to maintain some sort of order. Unfortunately due to increased bike use there will be an increase in the number of injuries to both pedestrians and bike riders. Stopping for red lights will be necessary for both cars and bikes. It won’t work any other way.

      • Zulu says:

        The proof is in the pudding an the numbers show that the introduction of bicycles (citi bike)and bike lanes decrease the number of so called “accidents” on the roads. A dedicated bike lane on Amsterdam will not only benefit bicycle users but the rest of the citizens as well. Amsterdam is in dire need of a road diet and a bike lane is the perfect solution. Rosenthal requested and it’s moving forward. Stop the fear mongering, just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s bad.

        • A Central Park West dedicated bike lane is a better solution. It is not a commercial street and there are no conflicting uses. The Columbus Avenue dedicated bike lane clearly shows the problems that a commercial street pose on a bike lane. It will not have the issues of crossing Broadway that the Columbus bike lane has at Lincoln Center. Its proximity to the park would provide a northbound route on the west side of the park. It would be safer for bikers not having to deal with as many cars making left turns. It would not have the problems that commercial use along the lane have on Columbus Avenue. Central Park West is also a logical route to continue the lane into Upper Manhattan. It provides gentle changes in altitude and a more scenic and natural setting. It passes numerous subway stations for those wanting to continue their trips in a different mode. The subway stops would be places for CITI Bike to be located. If you want a bike lane, it is the best and smartest compromise for getting a north bound bike lane on the UWS.

          • Tyson White says:

            You have a very valid point. They should convert CPW to a one-way street and put in a 2-way bike lane like the one on Prospect Park West. I’ve heard this suggestion only once before.

            Amsterdam, however, is very wide and has a lot of speeding. Like Columbus, they can fit in a bike lane with the same number of traffic lanes. It’s also very soft in elevations like CPW. But getting a protected bike lane on CPW seems like an uphill battle right now (no pun…).

            • Every time I’ve used the Columbus Avenue dedicated bike lane, it has been an unpleasant experience. Deliveries to stores blocking the lane a big issue. Pedestrians walking in the lane heckling me for riding in the lane as a safety hazard. Bike riders going the wrong way and not knowing the rules of the road. Shopping carts and debris from stores left by shoppers in the lane. Having to be on the lookout for left lane turning cars. Vehicles still speed on Columbus Avenue. Amsterdam Avenue would just be more of the same. If they want a usable bike lane, bike riders should push to get a Central Park West dedicated lane and it works well with CITI bike.

      • Bob says:

        Ah, the old “let them bike somewhere else” trope! Just see how silly it sounds if you substitute “car”: “people don’t need to drive cars on Amsterdam Avenue; they can take the West side highway”.

        People who make this silly argument seem to assume that people on bikes are only going out on a ride for fun. What if you are actually trying to get somewhere? What if you are trying to get from somewhere on Amsterdam Avenue to somewhere else on Amsterdam Avenue? People won’t detour all the way to Central Park to do that. We need bike lanes on every avenue.

    39. Bike Me says:

      Very excited to have Citibikes uptown!!!

      But the rules should be the same as for elsewhere in the city.

    40. Red Raleigh says:

      The “Coalition for a Livable West Side” demands are absurd. I hope the Community Board ignores them. I have lived on the UWS for over 36 years. There are PLENTY of places to put Citibikes that won’t interfere with anything (unless, of course, you are a self-centered Luddite). As someone who recently sold their car I applaud the city’s attempt to encourage pollution-free, physically-healthy bike riding.

    41. Jeff says:

      Placing these bikes on residential blocks (like 73rd between WEA and Riverside) would not only be unsightly but invite unknowns into these areas. Shouldn’t these bike stations be a bit more prominent in appearance and more convenient for users by having them on a commercial street like 72nd street? Also, I might suggest they put a station on 73rd and Broadway where that squatters currently occupy and peddle their dozens of filthy book tables spanning 73rd street to 72nd street. Would be much nicer to look at Citibikes than his book and miscellaneous tables.

      • Zulu says:

        I find cars unsightly that invite unknowns into my block. I believe cars should only park on 72nd street not residential streets. I mean, they leak oil and dangerous fluids. They make noise, and they block building entrances all along the block. I’m not against cars I just don’t want them on my block.

    42. Zulu says:

      Well, if CB7 wants “bikers” to wear helmets I think pedestrians should wear reflective vests at all times. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. After all we are ALL people.

      This whole biker vs. pedestrian vs. driver just segregates citizens into antagonizing bands.

      CB7 you are a self serving, self entitled bunch in pursuit of your own agenda and not the common good.

    43. Zulu says:

      AWESOME!!!!

      Bring the Citi Bikes to the UWS and please follow through with a protected bike lane on Amsterdam as well as more bikes lanes on cross streets from WEA all the way to CPW.

      • Guest says:

        I agree about parking protected bicycle lanes on Amsterdam Ave but how about slow zones/bicycle boulevards along low traffic cross streets rather than painted bicycle lanes? Camera enforced speed limit around 10 MPH or so and traffic calming at these locations like in other advanced global cities.

    44. Tyson White says:

      – “On any historic block”
      Should we also ban non-historic looking cars from parking on those blocks?

      – “In front of any landmarked building”
      Ok, we can have them put in the street instead of the sidewalk.

      – “On any major crosstown street where DOT may install Select Bus Service”
      It takes between 1 to 2 hours to move a Citibike rack. It takes several years of haggling to get SBS bus approved. We’re good.

      – “On West 96th Street from Riverside Drive to CPW”
      Why?

      – “Building residents/owners must have the right to say NO to stations in front of their building”
      Should we also give them the right to decide who parks in front of their buildings?

      – “Bike share stations must not block entrances to buildings”
      But a row of parked SUV’s is ok…

      – “Docking stations must contain no more than 10 bikes”
      LOL

      – “Bike share stations must be monitored every 6 months for usage – underutilized must be removed”
      Fine. As long as you agree that those stations that are OVER utilized must be doubled in size.

      – “Each bike must contain laminated, clearly printed, non- removable biking rules and regulations”
      Have you ever been below 59th St? Have you ever seen a Citibike up-close?

      – “Bikers must wear helmets”
      Blow me!

    45. bill says:

      Great news I can’t wait.

    46. Guest says:

      Wait, 110th St? I thought they were going far north as 140th this year? They must at least touch the 125th St subway stations.

    47. Rob says:

      Let me make sure I under stand the opposition’s argument: bicycles in all cases (historic block, etc) = bad
      trucks and cars in all cases = good

      The hypocrisy is mind-blowing.

      • John says:

        Rob, with citi bike you have bikes and cars and trucks sharing the road, traffic will slow, thereby increasing pollution. AND the docking stations are ugly and space invasive.
        There are people, and I think you’re one, who thinks every time they see a cyclist it means one less car on the road. That, my friend, is unsubtantiated bull crap. You’ll only be doing the two pounds of fat in a one pound bag gig. Most traffic is through traffic and one is going to reduce that – it’s called business. These jackass citi share advocats don’t care how unpleasant our streets become they just want to look good – look green – this ain’t goin green this is oversaturation and enviromentally counter productive.

    48. John says:

      This plan is a profit motivated invasion of residential neighborhood, and should not be allowed. It serves a tiny minority of people and will encrouch on everyone else. The city should not be allowed to force this on any neighborhood.
      We have four months of winter (33% of the year) with snow and icing conditions, either these bikes will not be used OR there use will be dangerous for the user as well and more so for pedestrians.
      The bike stations are unsightly and look like rows of tin cans that detract from the grace of our residential community, most are 75 feet long and six feet deep; blocking side walk space and if in the roadway impeding traffic and deliveries.
      Continued unfair loss of even more parking resulting in more cars circling and circling and increasing pollution.

      • Zulu says:

        Riiiight…tin can you say? So by the same logic, cars look like tin coffins? NIMBYism at its best! Unfair loss of parking to the very minority that own cars in the city. If you can’t find free street parking pay for a garage. Bring on the Citi Bikes!!!!

      • Chris says:

        There is nothing “unfair” about losing free parking. If you want to guarantee yourself a space, buy one in a garage at market rates. The street is public space, paid for by city taxes, and it belongs to everyone, not just drivers.

        I bet you’re also the type of person who calls cyclists “entitled” while your statement is the very embodiment of entitlement.

    49. gnat says:

      The Coalition is right on EVERY point. I’d however like to simplify things: NO CITI BIKES AT ALL, most do not want them any ony few relative to our populus will use them AND they’ll be no air quality improvement because will still have just as many vehicles.
      For Citi Bike to be a viable alternate choice of transportation that also reduces over crowding on public transportation you’d need a great – great – great deal more bikes to accomplish that goal – so many, I think, that this in itself defeats the purpose. And please try to envision the mess this would be. Right now it’s someone out to make money with benefit to very – very few. This is NOT responsible nor good city planning.

      • Zulu says:

        Too bad, they are still coming and it’s going to be great!

      • Rob says:

        By your reasoning, you can also argue that the City has turned vast acreage of public streets to enrich private companies (Toyota, Honda, Ford, etc.). Also, they’ve allowed private citizens to store their property (cars) on public streets for free. Who is getting enriched here?

    50. Safecrossings says:

      Can building residents/owners say no to vehicle parking in front of our buildings too?

    51. Guest says:

      I am very optimistic for Citi Bike taking into consideration increased interest in bicycle share systems here and internationally, increased congestion among our other transportation modes, new software, investment and management.

      Expanding coverage into the Upper East and West Sides of Manhattan will finally enable alternatives to the slow and overcrowded cross town buses. They will also better connect areas like York Avenue to the subway and provide an alternative mode for shorter trips.

      Most importantly, this is yet another step towards citywide coverage.

    52. Guest says:

      Anyone that says Citi Bike is unpopular must not get out much. Usage is much higher than can be currently sustained during peak periods (rush hours). Demand is enormous citywide.

      • Chris says:

        I wouldn’t be surprised if most of Citibike’s detractors in these comments never venture south of Lincoln Center, given that they’re repeating the same tired arguments about the system that were proven wrong in barely a month’s time in Midtown and Downtown.

    53. Christina says:

      Hey, how about garages for the Citibikes. That way they won’t be parked on the street. I guess just a pipe dream though. No space for that either. Oh well, just an idea.

      • Chris says:

        How about garages for cars? Why are drivers entitled to use a public good — street space — for free to store their private possessions? Citibike compensates the city for the street space they use. Can’t say the same for drivers.

    54. Myrtle Guy says:

      “Bikers must wear helmets.” Please stop this attempt to legislate your own particular health standards.

      Why not add that bikers will not be smokers and they must eat two servings of kale every day?

      • Bill says:

        I’m on board with the Kale requirement! 😉

      • Richard says:

        “Bikers must wear helmets.”

        Great suggestion, but if you really want to make the UWS better, don’t let cyclists on our streets and avenues UNLESS each cyclist is preceded by a pedestrian carrying a “Caution: Bicycle Approaching” sign no more than 10 feet in front of each and every cyclist.”

        That’s just as reasonable, and even safer!!!!

    55. prof malcontent says:

      Let’s see. CPW has: north and southbound city buses, tour buses, pedicabs. Tourists by the hundreds. There are bus stops on CPW Should we remove the buses so that Citibikes can put stations in them? Non bikers are doing their best to stay safe on the streets with the existing traffic. And of course, senior pedestrians do not deserve consideration -they should be banned from the streets at all times. And do not think that two-way east/west streets are so wide they can accommodate curbside bike stations – do building entrandes, garage entrances, service entrances, and bus stops present any space issues? Ok – you want to ride a bike – ride over to the streets where you wuld have bike stations installed and take a good look at the existing curb usss you so readily dismiss as NIMBY. People live on these streets, and not all of us own cars. Should we ban tourists and tour buses? Tourists are major contributors to the city’s economic viability. Please take a moment to accept that many others use the streets in addition to bikers.bu I guess it depends on whose ox is being gorted.

      • Zulu says:

        Bike lanes and bike use has shown to decrease the amount of collisions on a given road. Having CitiBike stations on CPW would be a benefit for all your listed concerns.

        Having Complete Streets with multi modal access is a good thing…you’ll see.

    56. Jared says:

      I’m already always having to dodge bicycles from almost hitting me when I have the right-of-way in the crosswalk. Now I can only assume it’s going to be even worse if they install CitiBike stations.

    57. Stu says:

      People worried about losing their street parking spot is what the opposition boils down to- we all know it

    58. Lynn says:

      Yes, bicyclists should wear helmets. But any crowding problem is due to car storage taking up valuable space along two sides of our streets.
      So I would suggest being generous with the placement of citibike stations, and revise the the suggested rules to say no parking cars or vans
      –on any historic block,
      — in front of any landmarked building
      — on any major crosstown street where DOT may install select bus service
      — on west 96th street between CPW andRiverside Drive
      Building residents should have the right to say NO to parking cars in front of their building
      — parked cars should not block entrances to buildings

    59. Andrew Gold says:

      In general I favor CitiBikes but the 59th Street area already has them. We are flooded with rental bikes in the vicinity of Central Park so the area is thick with cyclists. I’ve stopped riding in the Park on weekends it is so crowded. It is not NIMBY since we are already well supplied in the Lincoln Square area. North of that I assume there are useful places for them but please, not south of Lincoln Square. BTW, one ought to post rules of riding around the area.

    60. John McCabe says:

      1.) And let’s not forget NANNYISM – “bikers must wear helmets” – there is no citywide requirement and none should be required on the UWS. The point of bikeshare is to be able to hop on a bike at 80th St and ride down to Lincoln Center for a performance UNENCUMBERED by a bike helmet (sanitation issues for shared helmets are likely insurmountable).

      2.) NIMBY-ism is 100% accurate, but in this case it’s “Not In My Line of Sight.” These people want the convenience of bikeshare, but that they should be available just around the corner, out of their line of sight. BALDERDASH! There are VERY LIMITED options due to bus stops, exposure to sunlight year-round(since Bike Stations are solar powered), clearance from hydrants, etc.

      The following are INSANE requests for a public accommodation on city streets and sidewalks:
      • No Bike Share Station on any Historic Block
      • No Bike Share Station in front of any landmarked building
      • Building residents/owners must have the right to say NO to stations in front of their building
      • Bike share stations must not block entrances to buildings (on the face of this, it makes sense, but the devil is in the details … what do they want, a 10′, 25′ or 50′ clearance?) It’s a given they won’t block the sidewalks.
      • Docking stations must contain no more than 10 bikes (This is tantamount to saying, we’ll let you have enough parking space for 2 cars, but no more!) There are economies of scale that must be achieved plain and simple.

      HERE’S AN IDEA: WHY DON’T THEY REPLACE ALL OF THOSE UNSIGHTLY, DIRTY, BROKEN ***AND MOSTLY EMPTY*** DISTRIBUTION POINTS FOR FREE PUBLICATION WITH BIKE SHARE STATIONS? (AND LET THEM SET UP INSTEAD WHEREVER BIKE STATIONS ARE PROSCRIBED?)

      John

    61. Phkl says:

      If the same rules would be applied to on street car parking it might be worthwhile.

    62. Sarah says:

      If UWS residents are worried about the appearance of Bike Stations in front of historic buildings or within historic districts, what about street parking of cars and other vehicles? Those should be disallowed as well as being inconsistent with the historic tenor of the building or area.