The city announced more news on Friday about the timing of the CitiBike rollout on the Upper West Side, saying that the program would come to the neighborhood “starting in the fall.” But the announcement included a big caveat: instead of the 39 stations that had been expected, only 21 will be placed this year, and they will stretch from 59th to 86th street, not all the way to 107th as under the prior plan.

Right now CitiBike mostly stops at 59th street on the West side, with one station at 61st.

Update: The Department of Transportation tells us the remaining stations above 86th will arrive in “early 2016.”

The city had previously left the timing very open-ended, saying at some meetings that the program could come to the neighborhood as August and as late as next year.

The list and location of the 39 stations has been finalized, and we have the map in this post. Check out all of our CitiBike coverage here.

Screen Shot 2015-07-24 at 1.01.51 PM

NEWS | 46 comments | permalink
    1. Craig says:

      So, does WSR have the list of the 21 that will be installed this year or not?

    2. Reader says:

      I don’t believe anything CitiBike says. It’s been terribly managed since the day one.

      • RK says:

        Agreed, until new management took over. The CEO is Jay Walder, who used to run the MTA.

        So far they’ve hit all their deadlines.

        I’m happy to take odds on whether Citibike will hit their UWS targets.

        • atamzarian says:

          I don’t know why people, including NYC’s new DOT commissioner, ooohh and aaaaah about Walder. He was forced out of NYC MTA and forced out of a Japanese transit company. The hucksters and incompetent managers at Alta who started citibike have been replaced by old school city bureaucracy types (Walder and Berlin)installed by the mercenary realty company (REQX) that now owns the nationwide chain… and they continue to fall behind their promises.

    3. Jeff says:

      Hmm, maybe this phased-in approach wasn’t finalized until now, but it doesn’t seem unexpected. Excerpt from WSR story three months ago:

      “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.”

    4. H says:

      Another reason why banks are too big to fail. Who else would sponsor these crappy bikes and eyesoar locations?

      • H says:

        Ooopz. Eyesore!!! Sorry

      • RK says:

        First: your statement is a non-sequitur.
        Second: The bikes aren’t crappy. The new bike was designed by one of the best bike designers in the world.
        Third: Any company that basically wants to identify its brand with the landscape of NYC would want to sponsor the “eyesore” blah blah.

        • H says:

          First: clearly you don’t understand sarcasm.
          Second: doesn’t matter if the best bike designer in the world designs them if they are not maintained well enough to enjoy they quickly become crappy.
          Third: obviously a company may think it’s a great way to market its name but they won’t want to pay for the upkeep (or do it on the cheap) and ultimately when enough people have issues with the crappy bikes, the problems with stations, and the overall experience the brand will suffer and back out as no company wants to be the face of that and eventually the city will be responsible for dealing with the whole program.

    5. robert says:

      Problems with Citibike that are on going:

      1)Membership down over 12% year over year

      2)Citi Bike last month grossed $405,878, down 4% from 2014, and annual membership purchases plunged 42%, to 1,589.

      3) Software glitch’s still not fixed. Even though that was promised as part of the deal to allow the new co.’s buying the remains of Citibike.

      4) Staff is about to unionize and numbers they are already asking for will hugely increase the costs of the new owners. Something their financing does not allow for and/or planed for, based on the numbers/projections they have made.

      5) Company is not been and doesn’t see a way to be profitable anytime soon.

      6) Citibank and other sponsors are already talking about bailing, as the bankruptcy of the original Citibike incarnation allows then an easy out at any time.

      • RK says:

        Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Just shows that you can gin up all kinds of data to support a viewpoint.
        July 25 2014- membership just under 120,000.
        July 21, 2015 – membership 136379.
        (Source: citibike data)
        Maybe you typed a minus sign by accident?
        4% income variance yoy seems like a rounding error, especially for a business dependent on weather and tourism. Annual sales “plunging” means that most people who became members, are members, which would explain the income stabilization. This is a good thing!
        3) They did not “fix a glitch”, they PORTED THE ENTIRE SOFTWARE SUITE TO A NEW PROVIDER’S SOFTWARE! They didn’t patch a hole, they moved house! To the software supported by a company who is still in business, and running many other successful timeshares in other cities. Which “glitch” is bugging you?
        4) Should the staff have a right to unionize? If so, their business plans will have to accommodate, whatever that means. I don’t understand how this is an indictment of Citibike.
        5) Sez who? Citibike’s investors are Related/Equinox and Goldman Sachs. You know, loser companies that don’t know what they’re doing, or have an ability to accurately predict future performance. The CEO of Citibike’s new CEO is Jay Walder, someone who used to run a small outfit called the MTA. Let me give my headline:
        “Citibike’s failed management replaced by top investors and leadership, paving the way to eventual profit on what is effectively a public utility”
        6) Please provide sources (factual not opinion), as well as why Citibank would want to distance itself from what is effectively a very successful ad campaign.

        • robert says:

          Try the bankruptcy court filings that’s where the actual info is, not the PR BS they keep putting out. Odd and sods of the info can also be found in FT, Maclean’s, NYT and Crain’s. The financials are numbers from the documents the company filed with the court, the info on the “bailing” of sponsors is also there. I warn you though, reading through the several thousand pages of “legalise” may cause you to fall asleep.
          I came across the doc’s while I was looking for something else down at the court.

          • RK says:

            Citibike did not go bankrupt. Bixi, the manufacturers of the bikes and software, did. Alta Bike Share, the owners of Citibike, were bought out by Related/Equinox and installed Jay Walder as CEO. This transition to seasoned management was the prerequisite the city placed on Alta before it was allowed to expand or raise the annual fees. So I’m not sure what bankruptcy documents you’re looking at??

            BTW my data comes from

            A few more things:
            – Citibike is essentially a QUANGO. It’s privately funded but was basically driven by the DOT
            As a result, Citibike really doesn’t have to be profitable, it needs to break even. I assume that Related is interested in investing because it raises the value of their real estate projects, especially the ones which are far from public transportation, but that’s just my conjecture.

        • Giovanni says:

          Sorry but your numbers are wrong This was in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. Revenue is up due to the steep price increase plus sponsoship money, but annual membership sigups were down 26% in June vs previous year, and total annual memberships are down 10%. The program has stalled since it’s peak in April/May of 2014 when the ongoing docking problems and software glitches became severe. That’s when the old company went bust.

          Now that a new company is running things they need to add more stations faster and make more bikes availablle, but that just adds additional cost while membership is falling. I dont know where you are getting your data but these numbers in the WSJ match CitiBikes reported numbers exactly:

          “Revenue rose 11% in the first half of 2015 to $11.4 million. That’s due to an increase in sponsorship funding, to $4.2 million, along with last fall’s price increase on annual memberships from $95 to $149.

          Despite the service improvements, demand has declined. In June there were 13,500 annual membership sign-ups and renewals, a 26% drop from the year before. The total number of annual memberships also fell, from 96,300 to 86,700.”

          Citi Bike spokeswoman Dani Simons says it might take a while for the improvements to generate more business. “It’s early days,” she notes.

          • robert says:

            “Revenue rose 11%”, but they are spending it faster, with no change in sight. They have a lot of $$$ to spend to fix things Revenue is what came in the door not profit. They have to make a profit to keep going. Don’t believe the PR hype all the time, look at the actual financial fillings (P/E ratios) they actually have reported, the last official filings they have made were for the first quarter and based on that WSJ article it looks like they are still shedding users at a good rate. For all the PR smoke and mirrors people are still complaining about bikes not being available and being charged for not returning bikes when they did due to the same old glitch’s. The problem is apparently in the docking stations. There PR people may say its “early days”, but we are entering Aug in a couple of days and if they can’t stop bleeding users they will have a great deal of trouble making it into next spring as ridership drops of in the fall/winter. Odds are for the program to survive it will require a lot of taxpayer $$$ from the city. Something which everybody pushing the program said would never, ever be needed as “everyone want to join”.
            Maybe they should stop expanding and fix what’s broken first, once it’s 100% then expand. You can expand all you want but if your not making a profit you don’t last, or you get a taxpayer bailout to save a program most people in the 5 boroughs do not support.
            Remember there are people that don’t live on the UWS and they vote as well.

            • RK says:

              They do not need to make a profit to keep going. They can operate at a loss for as long as investors will give them money, which is happening. The current management assumes they will turn a profit in the future, after a period of investment and growth, just like any other company. I assume those are based on projections, which must have been vetted by the investors who put their money up. Given the success of most other bike shares, and NY’s unique density, paucity of cars, and commitment to bicycle infrastructure (rated #1 by Bicycling Mag), I don’t see why Citibike won’t be successful over time.

              And if they do fail to turn a profit, the city will probably come to their aid. And it won’t be that much money in the scheme of things. Bloomberg created the bicycling momentum in NYC (both Citibike and infrastructure), and no progressive administration would turn it back. Do you see “anti-Citibike” or “anti-bicycle” being a pivotal campaign issue? I don’t think so.

              Why do you think that most people don’t support Citibike? AFAICS the boroughs that have poor public transportation are demanding it.

          • DMH says:

            my anecdotal experience: I signed up as an annual member in May 2013 and 2014, then let it lapse this May. The day we get docks on the Upper West Side, I’ll join up again. Have heard great things about the redesigned bikes and new software. I’ll put Robert down as a confirmed skeptic, but I’m excited for this public amenity.

            • robert says:

              I’m going to say this one last time unaudited “revenue” is NOT a profit.
              Take notice that there is no mention of expenses in what they call a financial report on page 5. There is no mention of them having to spend a dime on anything,
              they had to pay salaries, buy parts, rent trucks, do repairs, hire IT people etc. None of their costs show on this so called finical report.
              Also this is now an LLC (Limited Liability Corporation), which has somewhat different accounting standards than an average company.

            • Jay says:

              Robert, I’ll say this for everyone… So what?

              Does anyone really care that Citibike isn’t massively profitable? All that people care about it that it works and it seems like they are getting things on track.

              If you have a problem with the way the company is run, then don’t participate.

            • JFH says:

              Same here. I signed up at the beginning and let my membership lapse in May. When I see a station w/o walking distance from my apartment, I will buy another membership

    6. Wendy says:

      I find the placement of the stations to be oddly placed, with tons of gaps that leave one agog. The station on W. 90th between Amst. and Columbus is in the midst of a public housing project and I fear lots of vandalism in that spot. Not the safest place to be biking and walking in the evening. And if there is going to be a bike lane on Amsterdam, why aren’t there more stations on Amsterdam Ave? (duh!)

      • Kenneth says:

        That location on W90 between Ansterdam and Columbus is perhaps the most ill-thought-out if all. The concept of accessing a mid-block location to reach the bike rack is counterintuitive at best. It will also promote people riding the wrong way on 90th leaving with or dropping off their bikes. The number of individuals who will likely travel completely around the block to avoid going the wrong way I predict will be small indeed. The only thing I can figure is that they selected the location because they knew there would be little to no organized opposition from homeowners because the is only one owner-occupied residential property on the block. After Citi-bike goes bust – I wonder how long the rusting hulks of bike stations with stripped bikes trapped in the locking mechnisims will remain in the street. as long as the payphone stations that no one uses? Or perhaps the recycling barrels on the corner with the doors perpetually open in the container pulled out on the sidewalk as long as the payphone stations that no one uses? Or perhaps as long as the bottle recycling barrels on the corners of Columbus with their doors perpetually open and the container pulled out on the sidewalk?

        • dannyboy says:

          There’s money, graft, votes etc only in putting out the citibike racks. When it’s time to dismantle, not-so-much.

        • Mark says:

          Likely reasons for putting a station on NYCHA property:

          – Like Robert said, both NYCHA and DOT are City agencies, so we shouldn’t be surprised to see docking stations on City property. And as others have mentioned, hard to have NIMBY opposition. Plus, NYCHA complexes tend to have space for things like docking stations.
          – Why a NYCHA property? Citibike from day one has been marketing to NYCHA residents, especially with the steep discount they offer. Maybe even more importantly, I can only imagine that Motivate’s management is tired of reading all of the press from past 1-2 years about how Citibike is only used by 20- and 30-something year old rich white men (whether that’s an accurate perception or not, basically the press likes to make this into a 1% thing), so why not aim for housing projects?

          Plus, *knocks wood*, the west 80s and 90s really are not all that scary anymore, most of the time. They used to be, maybe 20 years ago. So usually you would be just fine walking down West 90th street, even near (!) a public housing complex.

      • robert says:

        It was put there as its city owned property and therefore no UWS NIMBY issues. This has been done all around town, NYU for example or public schools etc. Also anything north of 86th street if not even planned to be put in until late summer 2016, as per DOT.

      • lisa says:

        Perhaps situated there because 90th Street is less congested?
        And not unreasonable to assume that people who are healthy enough to cycle are able to walk a few blocks to a Citibike station….

        As for proximity to public housing, perhaps a way to encourage cycling?

        And regarding concerns about possible vandalism due to proximity to low-income housing, worth noting that throughout NYC there is, sadly, destruction and civic disregard at all income levels – for example, every weekend the East Village and Lower East Side are littered with vomit and trash left by the affluent 20-somethings who live and party there.

    7. dannyboy says:

      Iget the previous Post now It reads:”The Upper West Side is known as one of Manhattan’s most revered enclaves. It’s the perfect neighborhood for a calm Sunday morning at Zabar’s, an evening stroll through Central Park or perhaps a trip with the family to the Natural History Museum.
      However, those in the house hunting market are bucking the trend of buying local in this neighborhood, and many are taking note that Upper West Side residents are crossing the East River to DUMBO, Brooklyn. DUMBO”

      soooos…i sleep in dumbo and citibike back to my neighborhood?

    8. Aunt Renie says:

      I’ve read the company is not making a profit and accusations of poor management. Maybe they should try selling/renting bike helmets???

    9. Red Raleigh says:

      This is great. I will actually be able to bike commute to work from W 84th to 53rd & Madison. Finally!

    10. Chuck D says:

      disappointing, but not surprising. As soon as it gets to 96th street I’ll renew my subscription.

    11. Bill says:

      Just a matter of time, a financial bust and then the city is asked to foot the bill. Another Bloomberg boondoogle, btw does Citi Time now work?

      • robert says:

        Not sure, but there are a lot of folks that were involved with Citi time that are now listed as coconspirator, are at least should be considering the years and $$$ wasted.

      • Off Duty says:

        @ Bill – I’d like to get the numbers on how many of these bicycles are permanently missing. My hope is that they will all start missing and that whoever the next mayor is, he/she will decide to scrap this insanity and remove all the stupid bike lanes as well.

        • RB says:

          Right, because bike lanes are stupid. No one should have the option to ride a bike in a big city. We should just use large gas guzzling vehicles to congest the city and pollute our air further, while the lazy masses get fatter from less exercise.

    12. Concerned parent says:

      I’m still very concerned about safety of the W. 78th and Columbus Ave. location- this is a pedestrian-heavy location, with many small children due to nearby location of two nearby elementary schools. Am very worried about kids getting mowed down by bicyclists on their way to/from school. I think that Citibike should have to foot the bill for a school crossing guard at this location!
      Why was this put on a residential block with an elementary school instead of one block over by the Museum of Natural History? There is a regular bike rack on w. 77th, east of Columbus ave. Wouldn’t that have been a more sensible Citibike location? And it would have been more visible to tourists who would probably love to rent a bike to ride in Central Park. Chalk this location up as very poor planning. I don’t care that Citibike made a poor economic choice, but I really hope that kids aren’t endangered by these bikes.

      • dannyboy says:

        My guess is that those deciding found it easier to impact a school or two, rather than have to make the effort of dealing with the Museum contingent.

        You know, path-of-least-resistance and where do my political donations come in from?

      • DMH says:

        I’m asking this respectfully – are you more concerned about children’s safety from the cars driving by? A driver turning onto Columbus hit a boy in the crosswalk at 77th. Aren’t kids endangered by SUVs and taxis driving up to / past the schools?

        Citibikes specifically are very slow and sedate. They’re designed to be heavy, the riders sit pretty upright, and have much better vision for the streetscape around them than drivers do.

        • Zulu says:

          Since the critics of Citibike are not answering your questions I will. Unfortunately as humans we are naturally scared of the unknown. Since we’ve become accustomed of cars and desensitized to their onslaught on pedestrians it has been accepted as a way of life. Bicycles however, well that’s new and therefore scary so by all means they represent a risk to all who do not ride one. That’s just how the cookie crumbles I suppose.

      • Christina says:

        I went to what used to be I.S. 44 on 77th St. btwn Columbus and Amsterdam Ave. right across from P.S, 87. in the 1970’s and there was a lot traffic then. In fact, a friend got hit by a car right there after school, so I could just imagine now with more cars, a number of them being bigger, heavier SUV’s. I remember A Lot of messenger bikes and delivery bikes back then as well but always was more aware of the danger of cars than than bikes. Although it was a different time.

    13. Bike rider says:

      Here’s the real no-brainer. Kiosk should be near hotels, museums, cuny and NYCHA housing. The problem lies with Citibike staff who are politically connected or Daddy got them a job like Dan Doctoroff’s son and Justin Ginsberg who once worked as an alleged Chief of Staff for Empire State Development and then GM of Citibike where he put the company in bankruptcy. neither of these 2 ppl talk to the public, talk to the 2nd class citizens in NYCHA, therefore the ongoing problems of mis management.