CPW Protected Bike Lane Approved At Impassioned Meeting; Work to Begin Immediately, With 400 Parking Spaces Eliminated

By Carol Tannenhauser

In what Chairperson Roberta Semer called “the rudest meeting I have ever presided over,” Community Board 7 approved the Department of Transportation’s plan to create a northbound protected bike lane on the east side of Central Park West, from 59th Street to 110th Street. In the process, it will eliminate 400 parking spaces.

The vote at Tuesday night’s Full Board Meeting, held at Goddard Riverside Community Center, was 27 in favor, 7 opposed, 5 abstentions. So ended two hours of impassioned rhetoric by the community, punctuated by angry outbursts, constant interruptions, boos and jubilation. According to Semer, it’s a done deal, and according to representatives from the DOT, implementation will begin right away. They expect to be halfway finished by the end of the year.

The details of the plan are here. The only change to the original resolution was that the DOT will conduct quarterly assessments of the new bike lane, and report data back to CB7.

The meeting revealed deep wounds and passions. A grandmother held a laminated photograph of her 12-year-old grandson, who, she said, might be alive today had there been a protected bike lane on the street where he was killed. And there was a photograph of Madison Jane Lyden, the 23-year-old Australian tourist who was killed last August on the current unprotected CPW bike lane, galvanizing CB7 to go to the DOT and request a plan for a protected one.

‘But who does it protect?’ those on the other side demanded. Not pedestrians, they argued, not children, old people, the disabled, who, they said, are terrified of “deranged” bikers, who “disregard the rules of the road,” and, besides, already have access to the Amsterdam Avenue northbound bike lane. “Why not make the bike lane in Central Park two way?” several people demanded.

And there was the issue of parking. Where would those 400 displaced cars go; cars owned by middle class workers, one testified, who couldn’t afford garages; cars that would flood the neighborhood with congestion and exhaust, leading to rancor, one opponent warned, such as was on display at the meeting. Board members expressed sympathy, but in the end, the fear of another death—in a week when three cyclists were killed throughout the city—won out.

Central Park West, referred to as “iconic throughout the world” by one opponent of the bike lane, is about to undergo a major change.

NEWS | 213 comments | permalink
    1. Bruce says:

      Thank goodness safety won out over parking.

      • Paul says:

        Safety for whom?
        I ride, regularly. I walk, daily, and I drive (and park).

        Without doubt the riders and walkers ignore rules and common sense approaches to safety far more often than drivers.

        Far more.

        The tragedy in East Williamsburg two days ago was solely the bike rider’s fault. She blew through a light, while riding on a sidewalk. Tragic, sad, and not a reason to be angry about cars and trucks.

        My safety as a rider is endangered far more often by other riders either speeding past me or riding the wrong way (forcing me out of the bike lane) and by pedestrians simply walking in front of me (usually without looking) than it is by drivers.
        Because as I drive defensively I know to bike defensively as well. Been doing it for 60 years,

        And I highly recommend it. Frankly, it would have saved Jane Lyden’s life.

        • UWSreader says:

          More infrastructure for bikes leads to greater safety for pedestrians and bikers. It’s pretty straightforward. With more developed, more protected bike lines, bike specific lights and traffic signals, better upkeep of bike lanes (with frequent retouching of paint), and greater coverage area, you will get more adherence to rules and less intermingling of pedestrians/cars/bikes. Why is it that people concerned about bikers behaving unsafely are always arguing AGAINST bike lanes? This says to me its more about spite and anger than it is about safety. If you honestly care about increasing pedestrian safety from bike traffic, it’s a very clear cut case for more bike lanes.

          • John says:

            No pedestrians are going to be at increased risk. The electric scooters and bikes can not stop quickly and they do not obey red lights. Will be very difficult to cross the street
            We need bikers to carry liability insurance and register there vehicles just like cars since they will be on publicly owned streets

            • UWSreader says:

              Data says thats just not true. Bike lanes have reduced pedestrian/bike collisions.

          • Alfonse says:

            Bikes are a greater risk to pedestrians than vehicles in the city.

            • Stephen says:

              And you have data to back that statement up?

            • Paul says:

              Stephen; here’s the reason some people feel more threatened by bikes than cars.
              Cars leave pedestrians lots of room. Car drivers rarely get within inches of pedestrians while driving at speed. Some do, but it’s pretty rare.

              Riders get within inches of pedestrians all the time. On shared paths, in intersections, while running stop signs and red lights, etc.
              it happens all the time and it’s unnerving.

              People don’t like it and if bike riders continue to do this non-riders will continue to dislike them.


            • Jon says:

              He does not. People driving motor vehicles have killed hundreds of pedestrians in NYC over the past 5 years. People riding bicycles have killed a few pedestrians. Obviously both numbers need to be as close to zero as possible, but there will always be both inconsiderate people driving cars and inconsiderate people riding bikes. And the former will always cause more carnage than the latter.

          • Paul says:

            As I noted, I’m frequently forced out of bike lanes by people biking the wrong way and I’m forever vigilant lest a pedestrian just walk in front of me because they see the bike lane as just another place to walk and get a head start for a jaywalk.

            And this isn’t going to change on account of last night’s action.

        • Lori says:

          My exact sentiments

      • lmn says:

        I’m not against bike lanes but what would be great is if they installed bike traffic lights, similar to what the bike path adjacent to the West Side Highway has. Little bikes with red lights and green lights. Now is that going to stop everyone from ignoring them? Of course not. However I often think many bikers are ignorant that they even have to follow traffic laws. A reminder that they do couldn’t hurt–plus some actual monitoring and ticketing from traffic police. Rack up a couple fines and perhaps people will get the hint. And have the delivery bikers’ fines be greater so that establishments have to pay more and teach their deliverymen the rules.

    2. FinanceBro says:

      It still blows my mind that people think that they’re entitled to park on the street at zero cost to them, while blindly ignoring that the rest of us pay for the negative externalities. And this isn’t Houston, this is a city with an extensive 24-hour mass transit system. A handful of middle-class outliers who live on the UWS but have to visit a sickly relative in Ozone Park or wherever do not present a countervailing interest over minimizing congestion (via disincentivizing car ownership) and protecting cyclists. And the arguments that it’s the cyclists who are the real menace would be a lot stronger if they had any empirical support, but they don’t. Motorists kill and injure pedestrians and cyclists on a scale that’s orders of magnitude higher. If you want a car, fine, but my streets, health and safety shouldn’t subsidize it.

      • Jen says:

        Second that.

      • Wags says:

        I believe vehicle owners pay registration fees to the state that funds the DOT that does in fact cover this cost you refer to. I do believe the bikers should also pay their fair share and let’s get a bike registration system in place so they pay their fair share of this construction and let’s get a system of license plates on bikes to capture all the red light runners. Cannot wait until the colder months when we all see how idiotic this decision is with zero bikes using the lane. PS I don’t even own a car so don’t have any bias, just find comments like this above funny. Let’s have a walking tax for folks who dare to use the sidewalk. And while I am on this rant, here is a novel idea, let’s have the subway riders fund their own repairs by increasing fares rather than looking to dump the burden on to others, this city is amazing how everyone wants everything but wants others to pay for them. Let’s stick a toll on absolutely everything (sidewalks, parks, restrooms, etc) I say and be a user pays city versus a vote to find a sucker to pay for us city.

        • UWSreader says:

          Registration fees don’t cover much more than the administrative costs for registering and licensing cars/drivers and do very little to build or maintain streets. We all pay for things that we may or may not use ourselves, that is the nature of our form of government. The city government has to make a cost/benefit analysis of how money and other resources such as space can be utilized to create the greatest public utility.

          In this case, you have a strip of street that can be put to a use which will almost certainly save some lives and prevent a number of injuries over the next decade, and may encourage more bike commuting, which could help reduce overcrowding on mass transit, reduce congestion and pollution from cars (even if only marginally), and increase public health.

          Used as a parking lane, ~400 people per day will receive a heavily subsidized parking space. This may also marginally reduce pollution (if cars aren’t idling looking for spaces for as long) assuming there is no change in behaviour due to lack of spots (IE people deciding to park in a garage, outside the city, or even deciding not to drive) and could marginally decrease public transportation use as well (assuming drivers are regularly using cars to commute, and would switch to public transportation, but this is a stretch. I think and there would be much less of a substitution going on than with bikes.)

          All the issues about enforcement and licensing and bikers putting pedestrians in danger by breaking rules are fine discussions to have, but should be separated from determining the best use of this strip of asphalt.

          As per the OPs comment, I think it is fair. For all the examples you cite, there isn’t really a close private market substitute. For parking, if I don’t have a free street space, I can pay to park in a garage. IF I don’t have a public bike lane, or a public street to drive on, or a public side walk to walk on, I can’t pay to use private version of these things. This is why I think it is fair to characterise the parking spaces provided by the city as more of a subsidised benefit (with much fewer benefactors I might add) than public utilities like streets, sidewalks, or bike lanes.

          • BB says:

            Used as a parking lane, ~400 people per day will receive a heavily subsidized parking space. This may also marginally reduce pollution (if cars aren’t idling looking for spaces for as long) assuming there is no change in behaviour due to lack of spots (IE people deciding to park in a gar

            It’s 40O spaces, not 400 people. More than one person uses a “space” in the course of the day. There will be more pollution as people look/idle for fewer spaces.

        • Confused says:

          That’s the first true definition of “fair” I’ve seen proposed in UWS Rag. Kudos to you!

        • Michael says:


        • Ish Kabibble says:

          Thanks you, Wags! Amazing how selfish, shortsighted and myopic people’s viewpoints can be. Very well said!!

        • FlamencoSpaghetti says:

          If you had only done a few minutes of research, you would have found out that cyclists already pay taxes that pay for roads, e.g., sales taxes, property taxes, and levies. I recommend going to Google and typing in, “Should cyclists be licensed?” and look at one of the myriad results that say exactly what I have already said.

        • Kindly Dr Dave says:

          Restrooms??? WHAT restrooms?

        • H says:

          Nice post. Add in that cyclists and walkers need to purchase and insurance policy

          • uws reader says:

            That is a fine discussion to have if you want. But it doesn’t seem to have any bearing on whether this strip of asphalt should be used for a bike lane or parking.

            • H says:

              Building bike lanes on roads designed for cars is the stupidest idea. So no, the land should not be used for that purpose. I’m neither pro car, pro cyclist, or prob pedestrian. I am pro-common sense. If we were building a city from scratch it would make sense to build bike lanes. We are not doing that. We are retrofitting poorly designed roads to make room for lanes. And the result is more accidents between cyclists and pedestrians. How do those accidents get resolved?

            • Woody says:

              In reply to the comment above, were these roadways really designed for use by cars or does their use predate cars? Non-motorized means of transportation came before the motorized ones. One could argue that bicycles aren’t a new phenomenon and have a rightful place in the transportation scheme.

            • H says:

              @Woody…we all have rights to do some things at some times when it does not endanger others. My point is not that cyclists should not be allowed to ride. It’s just common sense that mixing cars, pedestrians, and cyclists in small spaces separate by a white line is a recipe for disaster. Every day I see a near collision between pedestrians and cyclists (at times it is the pedestrians fault and at times the cyclists). Even if we eliminated cars on certain blocks and it was just for pedestrians and cyclists, we will see accidents…think west side path and how many accidents or near accidents occur. Humans have a selfish trait and often believe their right to exist and how they exist supersedes others rights to exist. What seems like a good idea can often lead to unintended consequences but in a world of pandering we get these types of decisions.

            • Woody says:

              @H…people are going to ride bikes whether or not they have bike lanes or have to use the roadway. People have been screaming about bikers’ behavior for as long as I can remember especially during the days of the bike messengers who were infamous for their riding styles. Somehow we all managed to live.

              Cyclists’ behavior shouldn’t have an effect on decisions to expand and maintain a viable cycling infrastructure. Those are two separate issues. No one would advocate for taking away vehicular lanes because some drivers break the laws. It’s sophomoric that some are against bike lanes because they want to punish all cyclists for some cyclists bad behavior.

              I can’t take a ride without having to navigate obstacles created by pedestrians in the bike lanes, jaywalking, and crossing against the light. If they don’t care about their safety, I’m not that motivated to worry about it either.

            • H says:

              @Woody…Yes people will ride wherever. And bless their peddling legs. And some are better at riding than others. The point is that these bike lanes are not really viable cycling infrastructures. They are makeshift obstacles at best “built” into an existing infrastructure, all poorly designed to handle the convergence of people using various modes of transport. Human behavior should impact decisions such as these. It’s the reason they changed the lights and lane turn options on 96th street and Broadway. They realized the human behavior was such that people would walk into the crosswalk as one light turned red but their clearance to walk was not justified due to a left turn for vehicles. They eliminated that left turn as it was a dangerous situation. As one who pays particular attention and only cross into “bike lanes” when I have the right of way, I have have had to wait as it was clear some cyclists would not be able or desire to stop at their red light. So just as you are not concerned about pedestrians getting in your way, I too am not bothered when said cyclists decides they do not need to respect my path forward and if any cyclist ends up face down on the ground because of it, so be it.

            • Stephen says:

              @woody. Roads are designed for moving cars/bikes/trucks/horses not parking them. Garages are designed for parking cars not moving them.
              Retrofitting for more moving and leas parking is a great idea.

        • Carter says:

          Brilliantly said Wags… I have a car ride, ride a citibike and walk all while living within feet of CPW so I can speak unbiased. Unfortunately, when a baby stroller is slammed by one of the many reckless bikers or tourists, there will be a 180 on this issue and we will be eliminating the “protected bike lane”
          I’m accountable as a driver.
          I have a registered vehicle with insurance. When I get on a bike I am not.

        • Stephen says:

          Yes let’s put the cost of the subway on the user’s. Then the drivers and truck will be stuck in gridlock as people migrate to cars and $ busses.
          Car drivers forget that they can drive in the city because mass transit exists.

      • robert says:

        If you actually knew what you were talking about you would know that part of EVERY car registration fee goes to the municipality the person lives in for street up keep.
        And before you start yelling I don’t own a car and do not take uber etc I take a bus/subway or walk. The extra 100K cars are one of reasons for the midtown congestion getting worse recently. You can got back in the media archives 50 or more years and find articles about traffic congestion. I fully expect the regular self appointed community leaders that pushed this to start complaining about buses nearly hitting a biker.
        One thing DOT did not address at any of the meetings was how when the said that this plan could not be done safely just a short time ago to today sayings its ok.

        • UWSreader says:

          I do know what I am talking about. If new car fees are right around 200 dollars (obv depending on certain aspects of the car, but your typical Honda Civic would probably be around 200) and there are about 8000 cars owned on the UWS, that is about 1.6mn EVEN IF every car on the UWS were being newly registered every year. With even a large percentage of that going to local infrastructure, that’s still peanuts. Sales taxes on cars should be considered part of the general tax revenue pool, just like sales tax on any other purchase. Regardless, cash is fungible no matter what it is earmarked for. It doesn’t change the fact that these parking spaces are a subsidy (given that they save garage cost every month) that benefit a very small handful of residents.

    3. There was no attempt to create a real working solution, so a bad and unimaginative design choice was made. If the bike lane were moved onto the current sidewalk and the current five foot bike lane space added as new sidewalk, parking would still be in place. Benches would be moved closer to the street. This would have fixed the long stretches of damaged sidewalk. Pedestrians would not have to cross a bike lane to get to the sidewalk. No special traffic lights for the bike lane would be needed. There would be long stretches of high speed bike lane without red lights or pedestrians in the bike lane. Bikers would not wind up in crosswalks making pedestrians feel threatened. It would have cost more, but everyone could have been happier.

      • Jen says:

        That is the most ignorant proposed solution I have ever heard. We barely made Riverside somewhat safe by separating bicycles from pedestrians, and the proposal is to put them together next to Central Park?!!

        • You obviously do not understand the proposal. The park is not harmed. The bike lane would be separated from the pedestrian portion of the sidewalk by physical barriers. These barriers would include trees, fences and redesigned seating areas. Sidewalk space would be reclaimed by adding the five foot street portion of the bike lane. Space between trees on the sidewalk side would also contain seating and other activity areas. This is a win-win proposal that will solve the problem and serves all users of CPW.

          • UWSDrew says:

            No we understand this. Just like Amsterdam. The problem is you crazy bikers think that protected lane is now your personal race track and come burning down it so fast people trying to cross the street don’t have a chance to get themselves, children, and dogs out of the way!! It’s not like you will EVER stop for a light.

            Here is the fix – require a hefty bike permit to own and ride a bike in the city. This will lower the desire to want to ride a bike here and will be a good source of revenue for the city which will incentivise the police to enforce traffic rules on cyclists.

            Part 2 – Put hefty licence fees on the bike rental companies to cut down on all the tourist who insist on getting a bike when they are here! (why on earth cant they just walk?? Why would anyone want to have to lock a bike up every time they go in a place??!)

            • I’m not a crazy biker, but I do ride a bike. CPW should have been the first bike lane to have been built before Amsterdam or Columbus Avenues. Not having off street municipal parking, removing the street parking has seriously affected businesses on the UWS.

              In recent years, CB7 has made decisions that are contributing to the prevalence of empty storefronts and the closing of small businesses. People need places to park their cars. The malls on Exterior St in the Bronx and Pleasant Avenue in Manhattan are good examples how parking benefits a community. I agree we should “do the right thing”, redesign the CPW proposal.

      • pookie says:

        good idea!

    4. Trixie says:

      Amen! Long live the bikers! Let freedom ring!

    5. Billy Amato says:

      This is not a bike friendly city…
      This city is not designed for bikes and there will be more deaths and more and more and more.
      Getting rid of parking spaces it’s not the answer, it’s ridiculous.
      What is the answer? There is no answer!

      • Arjan says:

        The fact that it isn’t a bike friendly city doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t become a bike friendly city.

        The answer to your question of how to prevent more and more cycling deaths? I think the CB found it, create a protected bike lane and turn this place into a bike friendly city

        • Billy Amato says:

          New York City is not designed for bikes in this fashion.
          The city is taking too much away trying to make this happen and it’s only going to hurt itself and hurt the stores and vendors…In the long run everyone loses.

          • Kevin says:

            In the long run cars will drive themselves and there will be absolutely no need for street parking at all. So bike lanes, standing zones, and trash pickup will replace subsidized parking.

            • Brandon says:

              Where will the people getting on and off buses be? Do they walk across the bike lane to stand in the 7ft. buffer? How would this work for people in wheelchairs? Likewise where do people getting in and out of cabs or Ubers exit?

            • Mattw81 says:

              Not in your life buddy!!!! LOL

        • H says:

          If the cost to redesign streets and eliminate a lot of parking that have negative economic impacts on businesses in certain areas actually makes it so perhaps making the city a bike friendly city is not the answer either. I get a lot of cyclists like that idea but others do not. I’m going to guess the majority of people in this city are not cyclists or have a desire to cycle on city streets. These decisions should be made with the financial cost and impact those decisions have rather than some special interest group wanting something their way.

      • Chris says:

        Um, I think we heard yesterday that protected bike lanes improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. So yes, there is an answer, it’s protected bike lanes, more and more and more, until NYC’s design is indeed for bikes, as well as for pedestrians and cars.

      • UWSreader says:

        This seems like extremely circular logic.

    6. Laura manheimer says:

      What about us, the majority of people, the pedestrians? Do we have to live in constant fear of crossing the street because bikers ignore traffic lights? Do cyclists need to be killed because they dont look behind them before turning? Do not signal when they turn by putting their arm out? It is an education to ride a bike in the city. bikes should be registered and attached with the registration, there should be one hour of education on safe behaviour on a bike,INCLUDING STOPPING AT TRAFFIC LIGHTS . With the registration, would come the ability for the police to enforce the law . If they want to take over our streets, cyclists have to OBEY the LAW of the road. And this would drastically reduce the injuries to all involved.

      Ps: i am a seasoned city biker.

      • Anda Peatón says:

        Question: Does this mean that cyclists will have to stop at traffic lights along CPW?

        Or will they continue to be allowed to plow through intersections at 25 mph among elderly pedestrians, young children, parents pushing strollers, dogwalkers, and dogs? Will they continue to be allowed to bike against traffic? Will they continue to be allowed to make left turns against traffic mid-block through a pedestrian crosswalk at high rates of speed?

        You want “empirical data”? Go stand by the 90th Street entrance to the park and count the number of near misses caused by that bottleneck of a traffic barrier that funnels bikes and pedestrians through an 8-foot opening, with pedestians harried and threatened by cyclo-terrorists who scarcely deign to brake.

        This city continues to feed the self-entitled mentality of cyclo-terrorists, who show little regard for their own safety, and even less regard for the safety of others. The ever-expanding dedicated bike lanes and the ridiculous Citibikes programs have made every idiot in the city feel entitled to threaten the lives of others, heedless of basic safety principles.

        There will come an accounting, sooner or later.

        • Arjan says:

          25 mph? Really? I would guess that less than 1% of the cyclists reaches that speed.

          Cyclists threatening the life of others? Really? How many people on the UWS were killed because of cyclists?

          Just stick to the facts if you want someone to take your complaints seriously, by exaggerating and ranting in this way your complaints loose their credibility.

          • Gary Watkins says:

            Arian, on a day, April 8th, 2019, when the district police Chief, and DOT has a no record of biker/pedestrian incidents, two children and one adult were treated in the hospital ER from being hit by irres-ponsible speeding bikers in RSPark (one biker observed speeding in excess of 25 miles an hour. You may want to get your facts straight before opining!

            • Arjan says:

              I don’t want to sound harsh and diminish what happened there, but they were not killed… And that is what Anda was referring to with the comment of “threatening lives”.

              And I also stated that there is a very low number of cyclists actually making it to 25 mph, opposed to what she is suggesting, that “plow(ing) through intersections at 25 mph among elderly pedestrians, young children, parents pushing strollers, dogwalkers, and dogs” is normal. Riding 25 just isn’t normal, so this is also exaggerated.

              Using these kind of phrasing works counter productive in my opinion, if you keep on using such hyperbolas, no cyclists will take your complains seriously and we’re getting nowhere.

            • H says:

              Actually could be life threatening for an elderly person or child. But yes most people getting hit by cyclists (and it’s not always the cyclists fault) will get hurt in some manner less than death. But many accidents or near accidents between pedestrians and cyclists do occur. Obviously there is never going to reliable data because unless it does result in death or serous injury, all parties will likely walk and ride away within filing a police report.

        • Chris says:

          You talk about empirical data, but only provide a made-up anecdote. The empirical data I heard at the meeting yesterday, from the Department of Transportation and the NYPD, is that protected bike lanes improve safety for BOTH pedestrians and cyclists.

      • Chris says:

        I agree that cyclists must obey the traffic laws. I am a bike commuter. I stop at all red lights and bike in the correct direction. But I also appreciate that it will take some time for the bike culture to shift from one where cyclists are left to fend for themselves in extremely unsafe and unaccommodating circumstances, to one where cyclists live up to the standards of a proper cycling infrastructure. Broadly speaking, the root of anti-social behavior is disenfranchisement. Cyclists have been disenfranchised so routinely for so long that to many people the idea of accommodating them seems outrageous. It is a familiar story.

      • Joan says:

        Thank you and ditto.

      • Doglover says:

        I agree completely. and I really fear for the dogs. They are the most at risk by being hit and killed by these crazy cyclists. Of course people and children too will get hurt. There is no good solution except to ban cyclists except for designated areas. Or really crack down on these cyclists with tickets which the city will never have the money to enforce.

      • pqdubya says:

        I agree. Why do bikers get favorable treatment?. I have had more close encounters with bikes than cars. Mostly because they ride the wrong way down streets and ignore traffic signals. and good luck on Riverside park where they bomb along at excessive speed. I don’t bike, I use public transportation – why favor bikers who are mostly younger over cars anyone else?. Cars are a fact of life, trying to force them out of the city will just create more problems elsewhere

        • UWSreader says:

          It seems like “close encounters” is an operative word here. The fact is bikes are lighter, and can maneuver and stop much quicker than cars. That isn’t to say that collisions will never happen. But on all these blogs people are constantly commenting about how dangerous bikes are and how they have come so close to gettin hit. But when you look at the statistics very few people do relative to cars, and the damage is much less. Even still, if you are still concerned about safety, more and better bike lanes empirically increase pedestrian safety and reduce collisions. You should be a huge proponent of bike lanes if these are your concerns.

    7. Nick says:

      This is as bad as it gets and serves only a fraction of the NYC citizens—the bikers. I would rather have the city invest in bus lanes that would streamline the traffic and get EVERYONE—elderly, disabled, kids, professionals, etc—to their destinations in a safe and pleasant way. What will the disabled, little kids, women with small children do with the bike lane?? How is that going to benefit them?? Wake up UWS!

      • UWSreader says:

        Why are bike lanes and bus lanes mutually exclusive? I doubt the space used for a bike lane is actually wide enough for a bus lane. Seems like you are arguing more for a removal of parking on the other side of the street, or of traffic lanes. Are there bus lanes on any other two way streets? This seems tough actually unless you just choose one direction to get a bus lane and not the other.

    8. Gary Watkins says:

      On the day after a Bushwick biker became the 15th biker to die in a bike lane accident, like funneling innocents to the slaughterhouse, despite the DOT and district police official repeatedly describing CPW and “extremely” dangerous biking corridor for pedestrian and bicycle safety, the cheerleaders to put more lives at risk by inviting more bicyclists into a dangerous traffic environment. No less appropriate than the half baked board solution to pedestrian safety by separat-ing speeding bikers by a mere 11 blocks, on one path, 72-83rd street, while the public safety is threatened on miles of paths throughout Riverside Park, and “speed bumps” regulating safety features on every speeding bike pathway “threat-ened” by irresponsible speeding bikers would save children’s lives and injuries. Exposure to an “dangerous” physical environment and adding more dangerous public safety to it is beyond, “stupid”! But then repeatedly exposing oneself to more “death”, than is currently occurring in two active American war zones, like how intelligent is that!

      • GG says:

        I think I had a brain aneurysm trying to read that. Haha!!

        And I’m still not sure if you are for or against these things….maybe it’s because I haven’t had my coffee yet. I’ll come back and give it another shot later.

        By the way, I love the bike lanes. Safer for everyone and people who live on CPW with cars can afford garages.

    9. yoyomama43 says:

      Why couldn’t the city just flip the parking and bike lanes so that the bikes would ride next to the sidewalk and the parked cars would be next to moving traffic?

      That way, all they’d have to do is re-paint the lines. The parked cars could have acted as safety buffers.

      Now we’re going to have 60 blocks (3 miles) of a useless empty lane?

      • RosieUWS says:

        Exactly! The solution you suggest is the one that I believe to be the simplest, least disruptive and least expensive.

      • FlamencoSpaghetti says:

        What do you mean, “useless empty lane”? Cylists will be using it, and it will be orders of magnitude safer for them to do so.

        The entitlement is very strong in this comment section. Let’s face it, the majority of residents do not own a car, and get around by other means. Perhaps you’ve heard of the subway?

        • yoyomama says:

          You’ll see what I mean by the “useless empty lane” if you look at the bottom picture (aka the proposal). It shows a 7-foot wide lane of stripes (aka the “buffer”) next to the 6-foot wide bike lane. As far as I can tell, nothing’s in those 7 feet except for posts and junk.

          • Woody says:

            A 7-foot buffer lane is needed so that emergency vehicles and street sweepers can travel there when necessary. It also protects cyclists from getting doored by vehicles.

      • Snm says:

        I totally agree. This seems like a logical solution that protects cyclists and preserves the parking spots

      • ScooterStan says:

        Re: “Why couldn’t the city just flip the parking and bike lanes so that the bikes would ride next to the sidewalk and the parked cars would be next to moving traffic?”

        WHY, you ask?

        These are all qualities sorely lacking at the DoT, whose motto should be: ‘Ask Us If We Care!’

      • Effy says:

        Great idea!

      • Mark P says:

        Because the existing lane is too narrow. It would be too dangerous to have that narrow of a lane between the curb and parked cars. Because people don’t look when they get out of their car and cyclists get doored. Yes. Bikers will stop “blowing” through intersections when peds stop “throwing” doors open and “waltzing” across streets mid block. (See how that works? Hyperbole doesn’t help your cause.) Neither is likely to happen so it’s best to design around it.

      • EBurg says:

        YES! YES! YES!

    10. Lawrence B. Ross says:

      I am a cyclist and car owner who drives into the city every weekend from CT to our apartment at 106 and CPW. The arguments here on both sides are valid. When I walk in the park and return to cross the street the at 106, I cannot assume that because the walk signal is on, I am safe, the current bike lane is well used and cyclists just do not stop for red lights. I gingerly step into the line of parked cars and peer to my left to make sure that no bike will come hurtling through the intersection and take me out. I, myself, am guilty of this poor etiquette as well. The loss of parking will be a huge inconvenience for me, it is one of the joys of UWS residency. I am surprised that no one thought of trying to use one of the many, many walking trails in the park as an alternative to north bound bike traffic instead of tampering with CPW.

      • Evan Janovic says:

        What about the terrifying motor bikes? Not the motor assisted, but the high speed ones. Who will check on them? Why aren’t they licensed? Just because the UWS has an Amsterdam Avenue does not make it the Netherlands.

      • Evan Bando says:

        Mr. Ross, surely you meant something else when you wrote: “I am surprised that no one thought of trying to use one of the many, many walking trails in the park as an alternative to north bound bike traffic instead of tampering with CPW.” Do you know the layout of the walking trails in CP? Please.

    11. Margaret says:

      “Raucous” isn’t wrong exactly, but it doesn’t do justice to the acrimony, disrespect, know-nothing fake newsishness, and ugliness that CPW bike lane opponents came riled up and eager to use. I’ve been to a ton of CB7 meetings and that was without question the ugliest one I’ve ever seen. I wish everyone had attended ready to be more rational and neighborly.

      I’m apologizing to the DoT rep who had a red-faced man get up and scream obscenities in his face about how he thinks bike lanes hurt the environment. And I’m thanking everybody on the CB – with one exception – for modeling how a respectful discussion should go. That exception is Andrew Albert. I’ve NEVER EVER heard him speak up for simple basics like elevators at Central Park west subway stations, and unless he’s using them as a cudgel against bicycling I doubt I ever will. It’s like he’s on the CB to represent parking spots alone. It is shameful, the UWS is worse off for it, and there isn’t a lot of time left to correct this.

      I’ve been attending CB meetings for about 8 years, but the length of time in the past really shouldn’t matter. We’re facing climate deadlines in the near future. I really walked away with a question. WHY do bike lane opponents think they’re justified to call safe streets advocates “selfish”? Do they hear themselves? How dare they? Do they need a refresher on what selfish actually means? I listened to a CB member describe having a motorist deliberately run her over while she was in the CPW unprotected bike lane, with her 12 year old kid. Someone still called ME selfish for supporting a protected bike lane to protect people like her, and sounded like they didn’t even care about her safety. It’s not selfish to suggest that DOT to finally fix the awful, deadly conditions on CPW, by dedicating one of the current six car lanes to safe bicycling. It’s just not.

      • Chris says:

        I agree. I was struck by the stark difference in civility between those in favor of the protected bike lane and those against. Each side cheered for their advocates, but only the naysayers booed, jeered, heckled, interrupted, and yelled. I guess that’s the difference between fighting for one’s rights vs. protecting one’s privilege.

    12. tnic says:

      Where are the street parking permits for residents? Isn’t it time to start that conversation?

      Congestion pricing promises to flood the UWS with out-of-city vehicles cruising our streets for free parking. Can we just say not to that and give this ever dwindling benefit to tax paying residents…and cut the overall volume of cruising polluting vehicles at the same time?

      • Jay says:

        No, it won’t. There are no parking spaces to be had. Anyone coming to the UWS for a parking space is wasting their time; congestion pricing or not.

    13. BWC says:

      Very excited about the protected bike lane! I also hope that cyclists and motorists can learn to live together in peace.

    14. Jay says:

      This is obscene. The law-ignoring bicyclists are destroying our city and endangering the lives of everyone they encounter. Move the car parking spaces away from the curb and let the bikers’ lane be along the curb, protected by the parked cars. They get their protection, car owners keep their access to parking. There’s no need to eliminate 400 parking spaces.

      • W says:

        And where, pray tell, is the M10 bus supposed to be? I know, let’s just eliminate the bus, so car owners can continue to store their private property in the public space. Let’s persist in encouraging MORE PRIVATE CARS to congest and gridlock the entire island until we all choke to death, no?

    15. geno says:

      One of the most idiotic plans ever and sure to increase congestion on side streets. The main problem is the obvious one: the park is right there. This will be a severely underused bike lane and traffic will be worse.
      Sad story for all.

    16. Jerome Krase says:

      Traffic fatalities need a comprehensive plan for amelioration (there will never be ZERO fatalities). The mayor so far, as was true of previous mayors, tried and failed by taking a piecemeal approach. In other words, lets look at the behavior of ALL those who use our streets and discover what it is that each of us engage in that creates danger to EACH OTHER. In my longish life on and off wheels: I have been hit twice by cars by darting into traffic in mid-block; almost been run over by a truck on a shared bike lane— crashing into a metal rimmed sidewalk curb; almost hit pedestrians by speeding on the Brooklyn Bridge; been hit by a biker as I went to enter my car on a “protected” bike lane; almost been hit by speeding electric bikes on two-way protected bike lanes; almost hit by truck at an intersection as I tried to get through the intersection without looking since I had “THE RIGHT OF WAY’ to kill myself; sped through stop signs and red lights because I was on a bike and felt I had the right to do so— which I didn’t; ad infinitum. LET’S BE REAL AND TRY TO PROTECT EACH OTHER, RATHER THAN BLAME EACH OTHER OR OUR HAPLESS MAYOR.

    17. Spence says:

      I live near CPW, own a car, and support this initiative. However, the NYPD must step up enforcement of bike traffic rules, and the City Council must strengthen penalties for bikers who do not obey those rules. I see ZERO enforcement in the area right now.

    18. Vivian says:

      I believe that is it NOT entirely the cars that are causing this congestion, but the building of the bike lanes, thus eliminating so many lanes so that traffic can flow. Columbus used to be such a beautiful avenue, now, with the bike lanes and the “floating parking” it looks a mess, especially when those trucks park to make deliveries to stores and restaurants and block not only the traffic, but the bus lanes as well. I sit on the bench waiting for the bus and still see a lot of bikers just dashing in between cars and curving around pedestrians, can count the times I’ve said, I wish I had taken a picture of that – those lanes DO NOT WORK! I also don’t understand why they cannot drive up or down through Central Park, they have removed the drive for them there as well. Or why don’t they take a bus and do their exercise in a gym or at the park or even at home or at the Y. So many options, other than taking away the parking spaces, making so many other cars park in our neighborhood from people who come to eat or drink in the restaurants or bars. The majority of the bikers truly do not care for the pedestrians, and I, for one, am more afraid of crossing because of them than the cars!

    19. Gail Dedrick says:

      I barely see bikes in the bike lanes we have NOW. I can’t stand the bike lobby. I really can’t. At least the cars stop for pedestrians trying to cross from the park. The bikers NEVER do.

    20. Michael says:

      If you’re seeking to protect the bikers then, for their own good, enforce the laws they are expected to obey. I’ve experienced near-hits in multiple occasions by bikers and delivery people with no regard for safety or responsibility. Just yesterday, I narrowly missed running over a biker with zero regard for the red light in his direction and apparently zero ability to ride in a straight line. Between cars, bikes and pedestrians increasingly believing lights are merely a suggestion, without some levels of enforcement there will be more grave injuries.

    21. Gail Dedrick says:

      Bikers have ruined NYC for me. I feel more threatened by bikers day in and day out than I ever have cars in the 28 years I have lived here.

      • UWSreader says:

        Also, just pointing out, a few comments up you say you never see bikes but then say you are threatened by bikers day in and day out.

        • Brandon says:

          He said he rarely sees bikes “in the bike lanes”. Not the same as rarely seeing bikes.

    22. UWS_lifer says:

      Do people really expect us to feel sorry for wealthy people who live on Central Park West and own cars while regular folks and institutions in this city are suffering economically in so many ways. Barely surviving, forget about quality of life…

      Do you really think car owners on CPW deserve our attention and sympathy?? I wonder if those poor folks over on 5th Ave are doing OK.:)

      If this saves ONE life of one tourist on a CitiBike or a one neighborhood kid on his way to school or one delivery guy trying to send a few bucks back to his family… I’m more than good with losing these spots forever.

    23. Zanarkand says:

      Just other day I was walking with my 6 year old across Amsterdam at 88th and a Tour De France wannabe goes zipping by through the red light on the opposite side of the bike lane, east side of the street. No regard for pedestrians even though we clearly have the right of way. I had to grab my son from being hit. Gotta love those “share the roads” signs because clearly they should be aimed at bikers. I’m tired of bike lanes not being used while parking is being taken away. I park in a garage but I know many can not and for the city to be taking away parking for bikers and they aren’t even following the rules, its sad. You want to be a part of the road way? Follow the rules like everyone else. Stop at red lights. Go with the correct way of traffic and USE YOUR LANE!!

    24. Patty Saidenberg says:

      I would like bike safety signs up as well. The rules of the road. I’ve been hit by cyclists and so has my dog. These people MUST respect the rules of traffic.


    25. Barry says:

      The biggest concern and where money must be spent is educating bikers on the rules of the road, a resident in my building was badly hurt by a cyclist who ran a red light causing him severe injuries. I too have been hit three times by cyclists who have no concern of their actions and usually are aggressive and extremely rude. Who pays for the health insurance when one sustains a broken hip, fractured ribs, and a broken arm.

    26. Stef Lev says:

      CB7 is way overboard about bike lanes. I’m not sure if they really care about CB 7 residents.

    27. bill Williams says:

      Do you know how many cyclists have been killed by cars in that bike lane over the last 6 years? ONE.

      This is not about parking. It’s about impact to an entire community and it is justified by stats that any college freshman in a statistics class would recognize as statistically meaningless.

      Tragic accidents happen and it is a natural instinct to want to do something Yet CB7 reacts to every one of these as if it is preventable without any regard to whether their solution will actually work or the impact their solution will have on the community.

      My neighborhood on West End Avenue was ruined by CB7’s redesign in reaction to the Conor Strock accident. The result Is excessive traffic and noise and air pollution with a solution that did not reduce accidents or make pedestrians safer. The health and well being of hundreds has been impacted. Stress and pollution KILL!

      There are two obvious solutions that should have been studied before another protected bike lane is installed. The lame excuse by DOT that CB 7 only asked to study a two way protected bike lane solution and so they didn’t bother looking at other alternatives is inexcusable. Is there no motivation to solve problems by these people? It’s no wonder the West Side has become a traffic nightmare filled with aggressive drivers. There is no holistic approach and zero creative thought.

      Central Park is now closed to automobiles. Make the roadway two way.

      The sidewalk on the east side of CPW can be used as a bike lane or it can be divided in half and used as a bike lane and a sidewalk.

      If the city is serious about Vision Zero then let’s start nighttime truck deliveries. Let’s start educating, ticketing and enforcing traffic laws on cyclists and pedestrians! Let’s post warnings and instructions at every Citibike station.

      Three cyclists were killed by trucks in the city this week running red lights and riding outside existing protected bike lanes.

      How many of you walk across red lights, jay walk and step off curbs and stand in the street endangering yourselves and drivers and cyclists

      The members of CB 7 are not elected and do not represent anyone and they need to be reminded of that. The dishonest way they snuck this through leading up to a holiday week is despicable.

      • Read my comment #3 as a possible solution. DOT probably spent 10 minutes cutting and pasting their graphic for their presentation. It is unacceptable that the officials in CB7 and DOT did not do their job.

      • Derek Bern says:

        We could start by enforcing traffic laws on cars, which the NYPD has entirely abdicated their responsibility. Empirical evidence shows that cars are without any debate the lethal weapon and what are responsible for killing and wounding both pedestrians and cyclists. I walk between 40-80 blocks a day across Manhattan… I have close calls with cars and trucks EVERY DAY and no, they absolutely do not stop at stop signs, crosswalks, or even red lights. If you are a rational person who believes in math and science, please wake up and smell the statistics, because it is categorically false that 1.) bike lanes increase pollution 2.) bikes/bike lanes are more of a safety risk to pedestrians and 3.) that NYC was “built for cars, not bikes.” None of this is factually true, point blank. Please do not conflate your personal opinion or what you believe based on your own limited personal experience with actual proven facts.

        Anyone who refers to cyclists as “cyclo-terrorists” or who suggests the city should actively discourage people from cycling in order to preserve free parking for a select group of beneficiaries perhaps may want to consider moving somewhere else with less clogged roads and less traffic. The era of limitless motor vehicle traffic in Manhattan has long since waved all of us bye-bye.

      • Lunabee says:

        @Bill Williams. Of all the comments here I agree with you 100%. I am a pedestrian, a cyclist and auto owner. I choose my transportation method based on weather, distance and purpose. UWS folks have to work together to make the city work for all residents. Yes to nighttime deliveries. Why are these trucks allowed to double park with idling engines for hours? Yes, to licensing bicycles and implementing a mandatory safety course to cyclists. They have to adhere to traffic rules. If they have never owned a car how can they know what the rules are. Do they know they must yield to pedestrians? Stop at a red light and stop signs? The number of car owners on the UWS pales to the number of commuters coming in for work or leisure. Their share to congestion and pollution is far greater. I am tired of hearing these circular arguments.

    28. Evan Bando says:

      So, now, how do you create a buffer zone between the reasonable cyclists and the dangerous juvenile fools who think they’re at the Tour de France?

    29. T says:

      Virtually no one uses these bike lanes. Mainly food delivery guys going the wrong way. Taking away parking isn’t the answer

      • Woody says:

        They’re used more throughout the year than the city pools that close during the Fall/Winter. should the pools be eliminated?

    30. Frank says:

      I’m all for dedicated bike lanes with some enforcement of rules and regulations. So many people on bikes simply do not stop at pedestrian crossways. There’s “yield to pedestrian” signs all over but most of these people just ring their bell or if they’re the “power cyclist” type going for their best time, they’ll just yell “watch out!”. This happens so often. And I get it, you’ve built momentum and don’t want to stop. But you need to.

      Can we begin to police this type of thing more? Same with cars – so many streets on the UWS people just fly through stop signs. The city could make enough money to fund these bike-lanes if they’d cite bikes and cars.

      A plain clothes spotter and a uniformed officer down the path with radio communication and a camera would pay for themselves.

    31. Scott says:

      What’s wrong with the Amsterdam bike lane? What a joke, more tax dollars thrown away so a bunch of liberals can pretend like they are saving the environment. Meanwhile all the pollution from the extra traffic and cars circling will more than offset the emissions saved from some delivery guys speeding up CPW. See ya NYC.

      • Deb says:

        Please provide data showing that most cyclists are liberals. Did you take surveys on the street?

        • Lunabee says:

          I am sure there is no empirical evidence to that comment as much as there is no evidence to “only rich people own cars”. Or car owners can afford garages. Or those rich people on CPW. The UWS is still a diverse neighborhood. However, these quality of life debates are becoming notoriously assumptive and rude.

          • Margaret says:

            Yes you’re in luck, the census tracks and reports this every year, down to the zip code level! Here’s the latest.

            ‪but first, quick rant. People like the speaker who live at 64th and Central Park West and say that they’re middle class and deserve free parking, may not understand how they’re coming across. Pay the market price for storing your car, live without it, or I’m sorry: just like absolutely everyone else, you will need to pick a place to live within your means. There are literally thousands of households who would live at 64th and CPW, without a car, in a heartbeat. And the charm of 64th and CPW only exists because it was built in a time before cars. So we all have to make choices, set our priorities, and decide between trade offs. You know this at some level.

            ‪10023: median income is $104,000. Median income of those who drive their own car to work is $163,000. And 22% of those who drive their own car to work, work within Manhattan. ‬

            ‪10024: median income is $84,500. Median income of those who drive their own car to work is $125,000. ‬

            ‪10025: median income is $67,000. Median income of those who drive their own car to work is $95,000. ‬

            Two more points I want to make from the census data: first, the share of residents who commute by their own car is around 5% of UWS commuters. Second, car-free households are around 70% of the UWS. It’s long overdue for the community board members to look like the neighborhood they represent.

    32. Eric says:

      Let’s have a Stand Up for Pedestrians Day on the UWS. For one day, we will man the bike lanes, blocking them when the light is red and standing aside when the light is green. Then all will be able to see firsthand the outrage of the cyclists when they are confronted with having to actually obey the law.

      • Ish Kabibble says:


      • FlamencoSpaghetti says:

        As a cyclist who follows all the rules of the road (stopping at red lights, yielding to pedestrians, EVEN IF THEY ARE JAYWALKING), go right ahead. I’ll be enjoying my new protected SAFER bike lane. 🙂

      • Ellen Schreiber says:

        Good idea. I attended last nights meeting. No data was presented concerning people who were hit by bikes but not killed. The injuries can be life changing. Broken knee caps, hips, femurs, severe concussion, etc. no one may have been killed by a bicyclist (yet ) but life changing injuries have occurred. Bikers have to be licensed and educated. One person at the meeting loudly shouted that pedestrians should get out of the way—it is the law that bikers and drivers must yield to pedestrians.
        The pro bikers last night were very well organized. We now need a very active watch dog group to monitor bike riders who break the law.

      • Stephen says:

        If you have a stand up for pedestrians day can we have a stand up for bikers day when bikers man the pedestrian crossings preventing pedestrians jaywalking.
        Let’s see how long that lasts without a pedestrian punching a biker in their face for preventing them blowing through their red person stop sign.
        People in glass houses and all that.

        • Eric says:

          I’m 100% with you on that. Pedestrians must “Cross at the green, not in-between”.

    33. MelTer says:

      I’m a car owner and I make my modest living using it. I am a very careful, rule abiding driver. When I’m in the city I keep my car parked on same street as my building and walk everywhere. I’m too scared to ride a bike around town. Bikers be crazy. Who’s being fair to me and people like me when you take away our parking spaces. I am terrified of these bicyclists. They do not abide by the rules of the road. My friend was knocked down by one of these bicyclists. Why are we catering to them? Maybe city cyclists need mandatory bike insurance to cover the cost of the damage they do.

    34. Adam says:

      There is no “right” to park. My guess is the opponents were the same people who spend two days a week for 90 minutes leaving their cars double parked, creating even more congestion. Take your car off the road and that will not be a problem.

      • Liza says:

        But there’s a “right” to bike? You can’t have it both ways. We have to share the roads. My complaint, which I share with many others here, is that the majority of the cyclists ignore the traffic laws and the pedestrian rights of way. Yes, cyclists should be protected, but if they want to be on the road, they should be licensed and registered and obey the traffic laws, and the police should step up enforcement efforts. And parking should be allowed on the streets, perhaps with a permitting system for neighborhood residents. The people who park on the street aren’t wealthy, wealthy people park in garages. Many are middle and working class people who need their cars for work or other important obligations. NYC public transportation is great, but it doesn’t go everywhere for everyone, and is only minimally accessible to people with mobility and other disabilities. And, just for the record, I’m not a car owner.

        • Woody says:

          All you’re doing is repeating what 100’s of other posts have said already. There’s nothing new in what you said. So instead of constantly rehashing the same complaints and tossing around descriptives like Lance Armstrong wannabes, Tour de France maniacs, etc., maybe everyone should focus more on what the alternative would be if the bike lanes didn’t exist. Before bike lanes, cyclists rode in the main roadway and endured a lot of harassment from vehicles who didn’t want them there because they were in their way. That’s where I ride when pedestrians, food cart vendors, and vehicles block the bike lane. So to those who want to put bikers back in the roadway, be careful what you wish for. You just might see large groups of cyclists riding across avenues while your vehicle is stuck behind them.

    35. Robert Sheridan says:

      Gonna be a lot more injuries because many (most) bikers do not observe traffic signals – red lights and more. Because of the nature of CPW – different from more “business zone” avenues like Amsterdam & Columbus – people going to Museum of Natural History, etc – with kids/young families will step off curb and get creamed by bicyclers. This is a safety disaster.

      Meanwhile CPW is inundated on weekdays with parked school buses near same museum. They once parked on North side of museum, on that campus, but those spaces disappeared with creation of Rose Center. Not just cars going to have parking problems. This will be a congestion nightmare compounding bottlenecks already created by bike lanes on Columbus.

    36. Chuck says:

      I hate the bike lanes. Not because it takes away parking. They are dangerous. Face it, we are a city with cars. Driving on Columbus is horrifying. The lanes are narrow. Plus, all of the delivery trucks, Uber’s, taxis’s etc all double park, thus reducing the flow even more and creating even greater congestion. As for a bike lane on CPW, why? What’s wrong with the bikers using the park??? I wish either Bloomberg or DeBlasio, whomever authorized these bike lanes in the first place, had never done so.

    37. Chrigid says:

      I’ve been noticing that, on Columbus Ave, bikers are avoiding the green bike lane and riding instead in the striped car-door lane. What is this about?

      • Mark P says:

        Often the green part of the lane, closest to the curb, is obstructed by trash, puddles, and or broken pavement. Thanks for asking instead of assuming!

    38. Chris says:

      A lot of passion here, but little mention of the park road, open to cyclists 18 hours a day that parallels CPW barely 50 feet to the east.

      • Mark P says:

        Not a northbound lane. Also quite hilly in parts.

      • UWSreader says:

        Also far from parallel (very windy, rather than CPW’s straight shot) and it has very few legitimate entrances/exits for bikes.

    39. Chuck Lipson says:

      Maybe they could take the bike racks off the side streets and put them on the Park side where they belong so that at least some parking spaces could be reclaimed. Meantime the already outrageous cost of parking garages on the UWS will go up dramatically

    40. Christine E says:

      I wish I could post a picture here. I took one yesterday when biking in the bike lane up CPW and had to stop due to a car parked in and fully blocking the bike lane. With no driver inside. This was a minute or 2 after another car tried to stradddle the bike lane and a bus stop, and myself and 3 bicyclists screamed at that driver that the bike lane is not a parking lane and she should instead legally park elsewhere in an actual parking spot. Of which several were available. So in a span of only 5 blocks, my safety was compromised twice. A protected bike lane is desperately needed. If there is to be a bike lane, it must be a protected one. Drivers cannot be trusted and their deliberate or inadvertent ignorance is literally killing people.

      • Chris says:

        I bike up CPW regularly as part of my commute. It is a dangerous obstacle course of trucks, taxis, cars, pedestrians, and yes, the occasional wrong-way biker. If I were not a defensive biker I would be injured or killed nearly every day. Cyclists deserve a well-designed, well-maintained, and safe infrastructure every bit as much as drivers and pedestrians. It is only because we have been denied it for so long that it seems like favoritism for us to have it. It’s not. It’s social justice.

      • Gary Watkins says:

        Christine E.,I would speculate that you are either, less than 40,do not have children, and likely, not having ridden a bike in NYC for at least five years…however, perhaps I’m wrong on every point, and you’re just extremely lucky, because you seem to not have figured out that, biking NYC streets isn’t just, inconvenient, but extremely dangerous. There are numerous reasons, besides, annoying drivers and pedestrians that can cause any unsuspecting bicyclist to jam a front wheel and flip the bicyclist over the handle bars, into moving traffic lanes, causing catastrophic injuries or death and the choice you make to ride a bike on NYC streets, in a protected, unprotected, or no bike lane, is fraught with inherent danger and hopefully you figure that out before NYC’s streets figures it out for you or any of the other unsuspecting,”freewheeling”, bubble cruising, defying common sense NYC bikers, unexpectedly, crash over to that darkness, that the DOT, or CB7’s, false promises of, “biking safety” on NYC streets don’t always apply!

        • Christine E says:

          Hi Gary, actually the opposite: >50, with kids, and ride at least 2x weekly.

          I use Citibike and find it cost effective and incredibly convenient versus bus/subway or taxi transport. The exercise is a bonus.

          I do ride cautiously and slowly because one must stop frequently and unexpectedly. I often dismount, for example to walk the bike across an intersection (to turn right from a left hand bike lane) or up a large hill (like the new crazy Riverside bike bypass). And yes I do stop for red lights, including those in parks.

          This board is full of assumptions and proclamations, most of them wrong. I hope that we learn from each other instead of demonizing one another and “those” unlike “us.” It is simply untrue that “all” bikers and “all” drivers are terrible. I feel sorry for those who think otherwise, as they probably also fail to notice any of the good all around us in this beautiful city we are fortunate enough to call home.

          • Gary Watkins says:

            Christine E,Thanks for your polite, care-ful reply to my silly profile of a fellow New Yorker. From your post, I recognize that you are aware of the many NYC foibles that a NYC resident juggles each day on NYC streets (almost 30 years your senior), my wife and I can testify to the vast improvements in public safety, which I’m sure you’ve heard have been implemented since 1970s, however, deaths and injuries, of pedestrians from bike accidents, wheth-er, rider or pedestrian, are significantly greater than 30 years ago and every time I see bikers, even carefully adhering to the “rules”,(I personally was flipped over my handlebars, peddling maybe 10 mph, going north, in front of Lincoln Center, and landed on my back in front a a cab stopped at a traffic light, because my front tire picked up a small object and jammed my front tire…no time to react or avoid serious injuries had not traffic been stopped; wisely observing every law at that moment wouldn’t have been helpful if all traffic was going legal limits; why add that level of exposure to risk that would be devastating to you, your family and friends, when you would be aware of safer alternatives. My wife, 80 on her next birthday, has walked every where she goes in a 40 block circumverance since ’70s, her MTA Senior card was charged $35 total for the last 3 months, and she’s physically in top shape…one can make a case for choosing, “safety”, over exped-iency on NYC streets, that’s one of the lifetime benefits of living in NYC…

    41. Seniormoment says:

      As a senior citizen I am infinitely more fearful of getting run over by a biker than getting hit by an automobile. So many times these riders think they own the road, and come flying by without regard to pedestrians. They ring their little bells to ‘get out of the way’ while zooming through traffic lights, stop signs and even going the wrong way. Keep bicycles in the park and off the roads! They don’t belong on our congested streets. These so called bike lanes only add to this dangerous problem.

      • BG says:

        Statistically, your fear is misplaced. Of course this is human nature (it’s like how people are more scared of sharks or airplanes than riding in a car) but please realize that the greater statistical threat to your life is a car.

    42. yay says:


    43. Emily Horowitz says:

      war on cars is on! completely ridiculous that this was approved! bikes do not follow the rules of the road… i’m so sick of bikes getting everything they want in this city!

    44. R. P. Scheindlin says:

      Every change is hard on someone. As a car owner, I wonder where those car owners will find parking. As a biker, I am glad for the new bike lane. As a resident of the UWS, I wish that the traffic rules were enforced against bikers like me. That meeting might have been less contentious if we didn’t frighten pedestrians by crossing against the light and riding on the sidewalk; or frighten drivers by riding after dark without lights.

    45. ST says:

      CB7 does not represent the residents of the UWS. They cave to special interests over and over. Not a single person with backbone on the board.

    46. Juan says:

      I am a casual weekend biker – I ride very slowly, usually in Riverside Park. So I understand the needs of bikers but I am generally against this bike lane.

      If there is going to be a bike lane, there needs to be enforcement. How about the first week it is open, there is a strong police presence every few blocks to show that they mean business about enforcing the rules?

      Someone (it might have been me) suggested a while ago that there be some kind of a swinging arm mechanism (like at parking garages) at lights that comes down when the light is red, forcing bikers to stop. Figure out which intersections have the worst problem of bikes running lights and put these in. Or pay local kids a small amount to occasionally stand there and slide something in front of the bike lane when the light turns red, preventing the bikers from going through (or at least slowing them down).

      I think it is too narrow, but could the buffer zone be used for Citibike? If it could, some of the Citibike stations in the neighborhood could be moved here, freeing up some other parking spots?

      Or every 10 blocks or so eliminate the bike lane and put in some parking or Citibike stations. This will restore a few spots and force bikers to dismount and walk a block, which will slow them down a bit.

      Just trying to be creative and find some win-win solutions. Not that there needs to be winners and losers but it seems like the bikers are the only ones winning lately…

    47. Wendy says:

      This sounds like rule by mob and whoever screams the loudest wins. What studies have been made in regard to who benefits from having a bike lane and does that serve the greater number of people. I could see having a dedicated lane for more buses as something that would serve many more people than bicycles . How does this help seniors, families, commuters when it’s too hot, cold inclement to ride. I think the bicycle riding is being expanded as if it’s a substitute for reliable and adequately located public transportation. There is increased construction of residences and commercial space without the corresponding increase in transportation .
      As an alternative for bicyclists in CPW, why not make the Central Park Drive a two way bike road , now that it is car free. Pedestrians can go on the walkways .Motor vehicles are being squeezed into one lane where there was three, and people are using car services because there is not adequate ate public transportation Tragically there will continue to be more accidents and fatalities if bicycling continues to be over-promoted and the issue of transportation for the majority of people us not addressed.

    48. JS says:

      Really shocked by the lack of discussion of impact on 1) buses/bus riders; and 2) the transverse.

      Hard to believe that this will not be really bad for bus transportation:
      This will slow traffic generally including slowing the M10 and M20 buses.
      Buses will be slowed trying to pull into/ out of bus stops.
      Buses will have difficulty getting to the curb to accommodate handicapped.

      Also as bicyclists mostly blow through red lights, am assuming this will be a dangerous situation at the transverses.

      Incredible the amount of support given to the bicycle infrastructure while bus service, frequency, routes are reduced and fares increase.

    49. Keith says:

      If we are discussing cyclist behavior, maybe we should look in the mirror. Who are the worst offenders? They definitely are the motorized delivery bikers, who are rushing, at the speed of cars, to get you your meal on time. Maybe we should stop ordering out.

    50. Bärli says:

      How does this plan address the bus stops currently on the east side of CPW?

    51. stu says:

      The hyperbole being thrown about is amazing, and not at all helpful. “Blowing red lights”, “near-death” and “speeding devils.” I am first a pedestrian, but also a daily bicycle commuter. I have experienced both sides of the coin. I think much of the fear (hatred?) of cyclists boils down to unfamiliarity. I understand how a pedestrian can feel fearful when a cyclist passes close to them (the so called “near death”). But what most pedestrians do not comprehend is that cyclists are at high risk of injury, and, accordingly need to be incredibly vigilant. A motor vehicle driver who hits a pedestrian (or cyclist) has almost no risk of injury to themselves. On the other hand, a cyclist who hits a pedestrian is at almost equal, if not more, risk of injury than the pedestrian. Simple physics. That is why almost all cyclists ride with extreme caution (though it doesn’t appear that way to non-cyclists). Yes, they may ride through a red light, and yes they may pass right by you — but they are doing so really carefully because THEY don’t want to get hurt. That is why there are statistically so few pedestrian injuries from bicycles. There is a reason why most cyclists dont come to a full stop at red lights. Its incredibly tiring to have to stop completely and then restart every few blocks — regular bicycles dont have motors and accelerators. Also, having to wait for the light to turn green is dangerous when the motor vehicles behind you accelerate much more quickly. [I am not commenting on the delivery guys – they are a problem for other reasons I concede — although there is no evidence that they have caused more injuries].
      However, I tend to agree that this plan is ridiculous. The CPW bike lane is indeed very dangerous in its current state, but this plan will cause traffic on CPW to crawl. What they should do is remove the Columbus avenue bike lane, opening up that entire Avenue to southbound traffic, and then convert the entire CPW to a one-way, uptown Avenue (similar to 5th Avenue which is downtown one way), and then create a protected 2-way bike path on CPW – like they have in Park Slope along PPW.

      • Bz says:

        Stu…you seem like a reasonable WSR poster. But i take issue with your comment that the reason cyclists go thru red lights is because it’s too difficult to stop and start up again. That does not give cyclists the right to blow red lights. As difficult as it may be.. Cyclists must obeyr traffic laws.

        • Woody says:

          As pedestrians must obey the laws that pertain to them. How can anyone breaking a law criticize another for breaking a law?

          • Bz says:

            Woody…if cyclists are blowing red lights they are breaking the law..not the pedestrian who has the right of way.

      • stevieboy says:

        This could actually work. Good comment.

      • Keith says:

        Yes,bike lanes should only be on one-way streets. Its *so* obvious! Why don’t DOT and CB7 understand this?

    52. Gerald Sider says:

      there was a much simpler and better solution that would have satisfied just about everyone — change the direction of the bike road in Central Park to clockwise. Presently along CPW it goes from North to south. Make it go from south to north and the bikes can use that so no parking places are lost.

      • Woody says:

        You’re just rehashing what many others have already said and ignoring the replies made by people explaining why such an idea won’t work. No cyclist is going to substitute a hilly winding path in Central Park filled with other park users/vehicles for a protected bike lane in the street. Bike commuters will not use it and they’ll just ride in the traffic lanes on CPW as they’re entitled to.

        • Practical UWS says:

          This is silly. I have never seen heavy use of the north bound Amsterdam bike one. It is perfectly reasonable for folks who can’t be bothered to use Amsterdam to use cpw with a new northbound lane. What entitles bikers to a new one that so impacts the not-rich-can’t-afford-pgarage-parking folks? Added to this is the tiny demographic benefitting from this silly bike lane proposal. I am a mom with young kids. Not one person in our large social circle of young families bikes – can’t manage with young kids and groceries. My elderly parents can’t bike ether. My husband can’t get to work sweaty. Am sure there exceptions in other circles by be reasonable. Most folks who bike don’t bike regularly. Even for the rugged 30 somethings or otherwise Tour de France types, will you be biking in the winter? In the rain? In the summer when it’s boiling? No, judging from the totally empty bike lanes on Amst (NORTH BOUND) and Columbus in such weather. This is an emotionally driven real estate grab for a tiny demographic in a narrow usable sliver of the year.

          • Alex says:

            As an UWS mom too, whose rather small social circle includes many adults who bike in these lanes, children who bike in these lanes, and adults who ride bikes with children on them in these lanes, I am impressed at your inability to imagine a world beyond your large social circle.

            I don’t happen to share a bike with my child, but even if there were only one family who would be made safer by this bike lane, I’d support it. And there are many. Look beyond your own belly button.

            • H says:

              Reality is bike lanes on Amsterdam and Columbus are underutilized. And cycling is seasonal to some degree. Whether the under- utilization is a result of cyclists using any road to cycle OR people who cycle feel “safer” away from automobiles. The bike lanes in all reality seem like a waste of money. And I will admit that perhaps they are ahead of their time in the sense that the approach may be one of “build it and they will come”. If people have more ways to cycle to places they may decide to opt to cycle beyond the #’s that cycle now. But both things are true…some of these bike lanes are not fully utilized and at times they have introduced dangerous scenarios to pedestrians. As I read some of these comments (and as a non-cyclist) I do see that perhaps the cyclists get the short end of the stick and have always gotten it. They have had to deal with cars and still do. Now they have to deal more and more with pedestrians not paying attention. As I think about this, I am more driven by the economics or cost of some of these projects. And, as someone who works in a government agency, costs usually balloon beyond what is sensible with these projects. Many city projects go without maintenance making them further under-utilized and in need of major repairs that are also full of bloat.

    53. Joey says:

      More lunacy from a lunatic administration. This lifetime Queens resident will no longer be visiting the Upper West Side to take advantage of a possible free parking spot, support the museums and patronize the usinesses there. In fact I am seriously considering leaving this over taxed city and state. I hope whoever buys my home uses it for a religious purpose and has it removed from the inflated tax role.

      • Sean says:

        Use mass transit.

        • UWSHebrew says:

          agreed sean!

        • Anon says:

          How will the disabled and seniors use mass transit on CPW? The subways have no elevators and I don’t see a plan for busses with the new bike lane. Busses need to pull to the curb for people using wheelchairs and walkers to use them.

    54. Nostalgia Queen says:

      Don’t cross the street in the middle in the middle
      In the middle in the middle in the middle of the block

      Don’t cross the street in the middle in the middle
      In the middle in the middle in the middle of the block

      Use your eyes to look up!
      Use your ears to hear!
      Walk up to the corner when the coast is clear
      And wait
      And wait
      Until you see the light turn green

    55. Carol says:

      What happens to bus stops?

    56. Marie says:

      No one has mentioned what this will do to traffic on CPW which is pretty bad now especially going north from 59th St to the 65th Street transverse. I don’t own a car but I do take buses. I was sitting in traffic yesterday for 15 minutes until we got past 65th St…buses idling, trucks idling and many, many cars, if you are concerned about pollution…all this without a lane taken away for bikers. NYC is not Amsterdam which is a biking city. We have bikes. pedi bikes, tour buses, our own buses some of which are double
      in length and, now, electric scooters, as well as 8 million people.

    57. David says:

      I don’t understand why the existing parking lane and bike lane can’t simply be swapped with each other. Bikers would be protected by the parked cars, and no parking spaces would be lost.

    58. MFBikes on the MFRoad says:

      The bike hate on this thread is pretty astounding. The crazy thing is that i have been confronted twice lately by drivers on side streets with no bike lane, honking at me and telling me to ride in the bike lane.
      This seems to mean that they think since there are now a few bike lanes here and there we are now required to use those and stay off of their streets?
      And yet, the news that another street is gettng a bike lane is greeted with howls as if they’ve been invaded by the Russians.

      I have news for you, people. We are here, we deserve to be here, we deserve respect, and we deserve safety, and we deserve more bike lanes.

      • ADA says:

        The disabled are here, deserve to be here, and need a safe way to get on a bus. How will that be accomplished with this plan? It seem this is worse for the disabled, I don’t know where the buses will be stopping. If it is on the west side of the bike land that mist violate some ADA law. You don’t get to make bike lanes by stripping accessibility to public transportation from the disabled.

      • H says:

        Everyone deserves something but sometimes people have to take an L. Such is the life of living in a large city with competing interests and where some solutions create problems for others. Sure there is a compromise to be had which will still leave someone taking that L. Such is life. Ride/walk/drive and live life.

    59. max deleon says:

      this is making my decision much easier…should I stay in NYC in my large rent controlled apt or continue to spend several months down in my 8 room pool home in Fla…. status quo, need the laughs to tell my friends in Fla. about the madness up here.

      • Reluctant SnowBoid says:

        Oh, DEFINITELY do Florida, and enjoy:
        1. Stifling summers;
        2. mosquitoes;
        3. tornados;
        4. stifling boredom;
        5. zero-diversity of people;
        6. talking about nothing with the same people every single day;
        7. living without FreshDirect or PeaPod for food deliveries;
        and more, much more……

        • Reluctant Snowboid says:

          Ooops, sorry:

          Should have written “Hurricanes”, not “Tornadoes”.

          Also should have added: incredible “nothing-to-see-here” blandness of look-alike condo developments filled with red-spanish-tile roofs (except for one daring-developer who used BLUE-spanish-tiles), beige stucco walls, and gated entrances, many with splashing fountains!

    60. Zac & Spike says:

      Why can’t the people of the Upper West Side vote on this. For what I’m reading here the majority of the people who live on the Upper West Side do not want the bike lane on Central Park West.

      Why isn’t CB7 hold a special voting (For or Against)???

      This is a democracy!!!
      Or is CB7 board members beginning to think like the Trump ways of life???

      • Jay says:

        You would be very surprised by a vote of all UWS residents. Most of us are not knee-jerk NIMBYs. Most of us welcome new people and ideas.

    61. UWS Craig says:

      The solution for increased parking is simple – remove parking from the right side of all side streets and make the left side parking where you come in at an angle. This will double the amount of cars that can park on any given street. It’s simple geometry and I’m surprised nobody has thought of it.

      • Zac & Spike says:

        That is a great solution and why has no one thought of this because the people at CB7 don’t know how to think! CB7 is in embarrassment to us and New York City. The people should be able to vote on this who live on the Upper West Side especially by the people who will be affected by it.

      • Mark P says:

        Please. Backing out works in a parking lot, not against traffic on a through street. Next…

        • UWS Craig says:

          Just have the diagonal face the other way. People back into the spot – just like they do now when you parallel park – should that be banned, too? Parallel parking? And seamlessly exit the space facing forward. It is a beautiful solution and is used in Chicago.

          • Mark P says:

            OK, I didn’t think of that, I’m interested. But still seems dangerous, you have to pull out quite a bit before you can see oncoming traffic, no? Which again, obviously happens in parking lots, but that’s different than through streets. With parallel parking, the obstruction of the car in front of you makes it quite difficult to exit quickly, even accidentally. Which is good for safety.

          • Mark P says:

            OK, I agree – if the street is wide enough, I think this is indeed a better solution, and I apologize for dismissing it! Would require some adaptation, but it’s not like parallel parking is easy without practice either.


          • Woody says:

            How would street sweepers be effective if they have to leave a wide berth when navigating around diagonally-parked cars that haven’t moved on street cleaning days.

        • HELLO!! says:

          Pardon me….have you been uptown above 96 street off of CPW on all the side streets? All the way up to 124th St. Have a look….it’s all back in Parking at a 90° angle. Or don’t you travel beyond your block like many Westsiders with blinders on.

    62. Sean says:

      On the UWS these bike lanes are much desired by tourists. I suspect that the demographic of people on CPW who actually live here do not ride bikes.

    63. S. Hayes says:

      The potential for any additional loss of life vs. loss of parking is what was decided. And the CB7 approved the DOT plan. If it was your daughter or grand daughter would it have possibly affected your mindset? Assuredly. But since it did not affect us directly, the decision was inconvenient, a do-good for the greater population’s safety. Please remember why this meeting and the DOT decision took place. Unpopular to some, obviously. But this is exactly why we have the CB7, to act as our better selves, even when it feels inconvenient. The choice should be easy.

    64. Al Zimmerman says:

      Hooray! Car owners should not feel entitled to store their private property at little or no cost on public property. Calling it “parking” does not alter that fact. Less street area devoted to parking would speed up deliveries and allow emergency vehicles to attend to their life-saving missions faster.

      • H says:

        Theoretically you are correct. In reality you are not.Those doing deliveries will park where convenient for any delivery – double/triple park, park in bike lanes, park in cross-walks.

    65. Al Zimmerman says:

      Hooray! Car owners should not feel entitled to store their private property at little or no cost on public property. Calling it “parking” does not alter that fact. Less street area devoted to parking would speed up deliveries and allow emergency vehicles to attend to their life-saving missions faster.

    66. KB says:

      How about we get some of these ubers off the street- congestion goes down less accidents win win

    67. UWSWasp says:

      I think we should have an elevated bike lane along with a pedestrian area for passeggiata, and leave the current parking lane below it.

      • Nice idea. The lane could snake in and out of the park. Would cost a lot to build. See what it costs Seattle to build bike lanes:


      • Joe R. says:

        I’ve been pushing this idea for a long time. A lot of the complaints about bikes involve them not stopping at red lights. As a cyclist, this is perfectly understandable given that obeying red lights often means stopping every 2 or 3 blocks, and waiting 30 seconds or more. This not only uses a lot more energy to go any given distance, but it cuts average speeds by half or more.

        Elevated bike lanes would neatly solve that problem, as well as all the other complaints about bikes. They would be up and out of the way of everyone else, while getting a fast, non-stop trip. The only obvious downside is cost. Right now NYC is unable and/or unwilling to spend large amounts of money on bike infrastructure, even though elevated bike lanes would cost a fraction of what car highways cost.

    68. Joe R. says:

      Of course the comments section is filled with the usual anti-bike tropes but let’s make one thing clear. Equating not encouraging and/or subsidizing car use with being anti-car is being disingenuous at best. For example, taking away parking spots isn’t being anti-car. That space never belonged to car owners in the first place, even though many act like it does. It belongs to NYC, which was gracious enough to let car owners store their private property there, often for free, for decades. Now we finally realize there are better uses for it. Apportioning lanes for things other than private automobiles isn’t being anti-car, either. It’s just dividing space more fairly. A bus carrying 75 people should certainly get priority over single occupancy cars. The time of 75 people is worth more than the time of one. The bottom line is we’re going to gradually stop intentionally making driving easier than using other modes so everyone is on a level playing field, like it should have been all along.

      Street space needs to apportioned according to the number of people using it, NOT the number of vehicles. In many cases that means taking away car lanes or parking lanes not only bike and bus lanes, but also for wider sidewalks. Some of the comments here mentioned pedestrian intrusion into curbside bike lanes. Yes, it’s a problem, but one which is easily fixed by building wider sidewalks.

      I’m also tired of hearing about people complaining they can’t afford garages. If you can’t afford a garage in NYC then you can’t afford a car. There’s no reason NYC has to provide free parking for car owners. Doing so provides no public benefit. Any benefits of driving accrue solely to the car owner, while the negatives affect everyone else. The negatives greatly outweigh the positives. That’s why NYC should get rid of free curbside parking altogether. Use the space for bus lanes, bike lanes, loading zones, trash pickup, wider sidewalks, outdoor cafes, even micro housing. Those all benefit far more people than using the space for private automobile parking.

      • Paul says:

        Some points to consider:
        1. You say that street space has to be apportioned to use.
        Is there a study of use justifying the CPW bike lane?
        If not, why not?
        2. You omit the fact that streets are used for police, fire, and ambulance emergencies.
        Take away too many traffic lanes and they can’t get around.
        3. “If you can’t afford a garage you can’t afford a car” is pure nonsense. The city is full of reverse commuters in jobs like teaching, and they can’t afford garages. Moreover, if there’s no street parking, then the garages, already $700+/moth, double their charges.

        • Joe R. says:


          Here’s my response on your points:

          1) The issue with bikes is that many people won’t ride until they feel safe, so by definition there can’t be a study like you mentioned. What we can do instead of estimate potential ridership if there was a bike. Also, let’s look at this from another angle. Sidewalks are installed on pretty much all city streets by default. Many of those sidewalks aren’t heavily used and would be removed if you only looked at numbers. However, they exist to allow a complete sidewalk network for a mode (walking) which is incompatible with the streets. Cycling is somewhere in between. On side streets with low traffic you don’t need bike lanes. On major arterials you do for safe passage. That’s why by default bike lanes should exist on streets with heavy and/or fast motor traffic, regardless of how much use they might see.

          2) Curbside bike lanes can provide a perfect place for emergency vehicles to bypass traffic, so they actually help response times, not hinder them. Cyclists can easily get out of the way of such vehicles by just picking up their bikes and putting them on the sidewalk until the vehicle passes.

          The second issue is induced demand. More traffic lanes means more people drive. Fewer traffic lanes means fewer people drive. That’s why taking away traffic lanes doesn’t increase congestion over the long run. That’s a myth.

          3) If someone chooses to live in the city and has a job which can only be easily reached by car it’s not the city’s problem to subsidize their car ownership by giving them free curbside parking. They should either move closer to their job, or get a different job. Even if the city doesn’t charge directly for parking, it should send car owners who don’t have proof they have an off-street parking spot a 1099 with the fair market value of that parking so they’re taxed on it. This would range from perhaps $5,000 in the outer boroughs to as much as $20,000 in midtown. The car owner would have to pay income taxes on this amount. We should also send 1099s to anyone with a parking placard. Or the city could just meter every curbside parking spot. As I said, there’s no public benefit providing car owners with free parking. The benefits of owning a car accrue solely to the owner. The problems accrue to everyone else.

          • Paul says:

            1. Then survey how many people would bike if there were more bike lanes.

            2. Now you’re just making up Stuff. The notion of a fire truck in a bike lane is not close to serious.

            3. Government subsidizes bus and subway rides, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. you favor issuing 1099s for those? I agree with a permit system that would generate fees for on street parking, by the way. That makes sense. The subsidy is the foregoing of fees for a valuable product. Charge the fee. (Your pricing, by the way, belies an irrational bias).

            • Joe R. says:

              1) On the Manhattan Avenues with protected bike lanes, up to 40% of the vehicular traffic is bikes. That gives some idea of the numbers we can expect if we build more bike lanes. Even more people would ride with a continuous network. And as I said, the goal is access, just like sidewalks. That means in less dense parts of the city you still need bike lanes on streets where car traffic is too heavy and/or too fast, even if they aren’t heavily used (neither are the sidewalks on many of these streets). One of my ideas is a network of elevated bikes. This neatly solves all the issues but it would cost more than NYC is currently willing to spend. However, if losing parking spots or traffic lanes to bikes concerns you, then you should advocate for elevated bike lanes. Maybe charge cyclists $50 or $100 annually for a card which gives them access. With at least 2 million people in the city willing/able to use such a thing, we could get $100 million or more annually to maintain the elevated lanes and build new ones.

              2) I have seen ambulances in protected bike lanes. If we made them wide enough to match world standards, a fire truck could use them also.

              3) Charging for curbside parking makes more sense than issuing 1099s but we should do one or the other. My prices are based on the real estate taxes and other taxes the city forgoes if that space were to be used for buildings. However, the price of local garages is a good barometer for what the value is. If a local garage costs $500 a month, then the value of that parking is $6000 annually.

              As for subsidies, the government generally uses them to encourage more desirable behavior. For example, we give subsidies for solar power to help get off fossil fuels. We subsidize trains because they have less impact on the environment, and can move millions of people unobtrusively in a dense urban environment. Private automobiles offer no such public benefits, at least in big cities. We heavily subsidize roads in rural farm areas, but that’s OK because the public benefits from a reliable food supply. We shouldn’t however subsidize car travel in cities, or roads to suburban housing tracts or office parks. Again, no public benefit. 100 years ago when the free market determined such things, only the rich and/or farmers could afford to live in the country. It would still be that way if those living in less dense areas paid the true cost of that arrangement.

      • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

        response to Joe R:

        In general, i agreed with everything Joe said, and found it thoughtful. But i was intrigued and, frankly, stumped by the final remark. Replace curbside parking with “micro housing”? Is this actually a proposal?

      • The bike lane on CPW could meet all users needs.


        A wider separate bike lane. Parking could be metered during the day and the sidewalk widened. DOT needs to be told to reconsider their design.

    69. Danard says:

      All for the bike lanes BUT congestion pricing should start at 110th street then to avoid the UWS from becoming a FREE parking lot to NON-residents.

    70. J says:

      This is going to be a negtative impact on buses and bus riders.
      Why no discussion of bus riders/bus transportation?