By Scott Etkin
The ongoing competition for space on city streets took a turn in favor of pedestrians with the recently completed redesign of West 103rd Street from Amsterdam to West End avenues. The project adds colorful murals to sections of the street and expands the edges of the curbs with pylons, large planters, and stones, in order to create more space for pedestrians at busy intersections.
But in the zero-sum game of street-space allocation, one side’s gain is another’s loss. In this case, that means fewer parking spaces – and some car owners are protesting.
The project is the joint effort of the West 103rd Street Open Street Community Coalition – a group of some 30 local organizations, businesses, and volunteers – and the New York City Department of Transportation. It aims to make the street safer by giving pedestrians more room at the curb. The changes also shorten the distance across the street, giving people who might move slowly (such as kids and seniors) more time to make the light. It also carves out more space along the block and serves to slow traffic.
The exact number of parking spaces that the redesign eliminates is hard to pin down, since the amount of parking available on a block fluctuates depending on factors such as the status of construction projects or whether a restaurant dining shed has gone up or come down. On one recent morning, an informal count showed that there were 37 cars parked on 103rd Street from the west side of Amsterdam Avenue to the east side of West End Avenue. Over the same stretch on 104th, 102nd, and 101st streets, there were 55, 59, and 58 parked cars, respectively, suggesting about 20 parking spots have been lost on 103rd.
Years of Debate
The plans for the redesign date back to 2019, when local residents started Park to Park, an initiative to remodel West 103rd Street from Central Park to Riverside Park – a stretch that has the Frederick Douglass New York City Housing Authority facility in the middle – to create more space for pedestrians.
The plans brought intense debate about how to balance the need for parking spaces with the needs of pedestrians. Local resident Maxine DeSeta, 84, a former teacher, artist, and activist, started UWS4Parking, a private Facebook group with 100 members, and created a petition against the removal of parking spaces, which has received more than 500 signatures.
“Many of us are retired with physical limitations, but still use cars to leave the city,” reads the cover letter of the petition that was submitted to DOT and Community Board 7. “We have no public transportation options. Families with children and dogs also need their cars, not [to] mention the workers who maintain our buildings.”
And cars need parking spaces, was her point — especially free street parking, which for many is the only affordable option.
According to the Department of Transportation, about 27% of households on the Upper West Side own a vehicle. Lisa Orman, co-executive director of Open Plans, a nonprofit organization that advocates for more pedestrian-friendly streets, told West Side Rag by phone that “though [opponents of the project] were vocal, they were a vast minority of the people on those blocks.”
Accessibility Questions
Since the pandemic, West 103rd Street has participated in the Department of Transportation’s Open Streets program – an initiative that temporarily closes off a stretch of blocks to traffic in order to make room for programming and activities.
While the extra breathing room seemed justified during the pandemic, in the years since, some people have complained that the program creates an accessibility problem – for example, closing an avenue blocks a bus route that a senior or person with disabilities might rely on to get around.
In April, 2023, 12 New Yorkers filed a lawsuit in a Brooklyn court alleging that Open Streets violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. One of the plaintiffs is a resident of West 103rd Street who says his condition requires him to drive to medical appointments and on errands. (While the 103rd Street redesign project is in the same spirit as Open Streets and has many of the same supporters, it is different in the sense that it does not fully block off the street to traffic.)
Matthew L. Berman, who is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, wrote in an email to WSR that the litigation focuses on Open Streets, and that the 103rd Street project is not affected by it. “Our clients’ case is limited to the harms they are suffering from the Open Streets program and, at least at this time, we aren’t challenging other city programs allocating the use of public space between cars, pedestrians, and [other] vehicles,” he wrote.
In fact, one of the reasons West 103rd Street was chosen for the redesign was its proximity to the Marseilles, a senior housing facility on 103rd and Broadway. “There are a lot of seniors in that building who are using wheelchairs and other devices to move around,” said Orman, speaking about the range of people who could benefit from the additional curb space.
Leon Robinson, 59, a resident at the Marseilles, said on a call with WSR that he liked the changes, but he’s also heard about the drawbacks. “I like the colors. I don’t have far to go, so I can [spend time] out there near the rock with my scooter. I see a lot of people using it,” he said. “But then you have people who’ve got cars who can’t park in the neighborhood. So it’s a toss up.”
Response to the Redesign
Construction on the project began this fall. In October, DeSeta was arrested when she refused to move out of the way to let the work proceed.
Emotions were running high as construction continued in early November, when a group of teenage students from nearby West Prep Academy lent a hand in painting the murals. Some passersby yelled negative comments about losing parking spaces, according to Cidalia Costa, a magnet school specialist at West Prep Academy who chaperoned the students. “I was appalled, but the kids were really mature about it,” she said. “They just kept working.”
The students were involved in the mural’s design, which follows the DOT’s guidelines, as well as in soliciting feedback from locals, and thinking through how the changes would impact the neighborhood. “I think it was a great lesson in civics, because they got to see, ‘oh, if I want to make a change in my community, here are some different ways and things I can do,’” said Costa. The benefits are already being felt by those with young children. “It’s safer for teachers to cross the street with younger students than it was before,” said Elaine Karas, executive director of Purple Circle Early Childhood Center on Broadway and West 103rd.
The West 103rd Street redesign is the first project of its kind on the Upper West Side, and it appears there are some early challenges. A tipster recently sent a picture to the Rag of garbage piled up for collection in the painted areas meant to be used by pedestrians.
Editor’s Note: the word competition has replaced the word contest in the first line.
Subscribe to WSR’s free email newsletter here.
Probably a bad idea to paint it multiple colors. We shall see how well maintained it will be going forward. What does it do in terms of building’s responsibility to keep the curb clean 18” for those 2 hours a day? Just curious how they are going to enforce clean up and where does the street sweeper go down the street, is it no longer going along the curb?
In the 140s they placed plastic dumpsters in the street between broadway and amsterdam where it is a mess for clean up, street sweepers no longer go along the curb.
Regardless of one’s opinion here, for background it should be noted that the bicycle lobby Transportation Alternatives/Open Plans (Lisa Orman mentioned here) has been the “driving” force LOL in getting streets closed throughout NYC.
Also should be acknowledged that the bicycle lobby has been wiling to sacrifice essential mass transit for the purpose and the City Council allowed – hence bus rerouting all over as DOT has implemented various Open Streets on bus routes.
Occasional bus rerouting is a minor inconvenience and the open streets are usually full of people enjoying the space.
Transportation Alternatives also spearheaded banning car traffic from Central Park which has been a huge success.
Really? And then Trans Alt spawned a plan to bring e-vehicles that ride 30 mph back to Central Park along with scooters otherwise known as mopeds. And now they not only ride on the loop but on the pedestrian paths too! Have there been accidents? You bet there have been.
Trans Alt is a LOBBY backed by a hedge fund. Who are the contributors to Trans Alt? Lyft who owns Citibike. Billion dollar corporate delivery companies like Grubhub. And car share companies like Uber. What Trans Alt May have been years ago they aren’t now. They envision a city where the public spaces, streets and sidewalks are wholly owned by private companies. The middle and working classes are exiting NY. Big time. That’s certain to continue with a government run by lobbyists.
Yes I’m glad there’s a lobby that advocates for pedestrians , cyclists and public transportation. The annoying mopeds are a result of lack of NYPD enforcement of laws that are already on the books, so your gripe is with the Adams administration not TA.
UWS Dad,
As a pedestrian and bus/subway rider – no the bicycle lobby does not represent or advocate for me and my family at all.
The bicycle lobby cares about bicycles – not about mass transit or pedestrians.
your comment above suggests little interest in bus mass transit and needs of bus riders,
Exactly Susan I agree 200%
Where are all these closed streets?
Seems like 103rd is now better for the community, while still allowing for publicly subsidized free parking.
Do you refer to the parks and paths all over the city as “publicly subsidized free biking and walking?” You anti-car nuts are too much
Not better for the community in a tangible way. Nobody is subsidizing parking, it’s free!! Meanwhile we are subsidizing some paint and boulders in the middle of the streets to take away badly needed parking! So backwards….
The Open Plans conglomerate uses multiple entities- all commonly funded and controlled – to create an appearance of a movement.
The appropriate name for this is “astroturfing.” Since the UWS is an epicenter of their activities I’m surprised that the Rag bought into the idea that a large number of organizations were behind this.
This is so ugly. The painted street looks terrible and cheap. And the areas are already filled with garbage and graffiti
Agreed. The corner changes are good enough, but the ones in the middle of the street are just pointless. Further, the paint in all of these islands are juvenile, unsophisticated and ultimately ugly. The paint is unsustainable in the long run, will fade and be useless. I don’t own a car, and parking isn’t the problem here.
The supers on W103 have become much better about leaving the curb-sides clean in the mornings after garbage pick-up, That pic was taken in the early going.
I agree.
I totally agree with Will. Looks horrible. The City has turned into a circus. Nothing is
Consistent.
We like the graffiti
Clearly they need to work on the aesthetics, and make the space more welcoming to pedestrians. Why not push the sidewalk out, rather than just pretending it is a functional space with ugly paint?
The main issue is that if you move the sidewalk out, you have to relocate the storm drains to be at the new curb ($$$). I
Cheaper to just paint it.
Pretty strange to frame this as a “contest” when the outcome affects how many kids (and people of all ages) die on our streets. The vast majority of people want safer streets and less car violence and some people apparently don’t mind a couple kids getting hit by cars now and then. Weird contest.
Non-driver and parent here,
Actually I’d like not to be nearly hit daily by Citibike user and racing bicyclists.
Until Bloomberg started Citibike and the bike lane infrastructure, Manhattan was a great place for pedestrians.
I even miss the bike messengers compared to Citibike and racing bicycles.
Yes vehicles are inherently more dangerous but most drivers follow rules – but most bicyclists ignore rules.
I get steamed about cyclist misconduct almost daily, but there is really no room for doubt about cars being more dangerous to pedestrians!
I know people have a perception of fear from people bicycles. First, one problem is that people lump the motor scooters and mopeds, both gas and electric, in with bicycles; they are not bicycles, they are actually motorcycles. Secondly, both my wife and I have both been hit and sent to the hospital in ambulances. Both of us were hit by motor vehicles. Neither of us were hit by bicycles. I have witnessed a very large number of crashes with pedestrians over my 20+ years on the UWS. While I know they do happen, I have never personally witnessed a person being hit by a bicycle. (I did see it happen on the UES – the pedestrian got up, yelled at the cyclist, then walked away). I personally feel very unsafe with the motor scooters and mopeds that are electric and/or gas powered motorcycles that use bike lanes, go against traffic, and run red lights. I don’t fear cyclists because I haven’t seen the same carnage that I have seen with motor vehicles.
NYC-EVSA Video Dangers of E-Vehicles and Mopeds https://vimeo.com/881857690?share=copy
My husband was hit by a bicycle going against the traffic so he didn’t’ look in the direction of the upcoming bike. He fell and hurt himself. The bikes are dangerous because the cyclists often don’t follow the rules and even ride on sidewalks. Of course, electric mopeds and scooters are even more dangerous. For defenders of bikes: you have to visit Amsterdam where the number of bikes greatly exceeds the number of cars in the streets. I have never felt so unsafe and in constant danger as in that city because herds of cyclists are charging at you at great speed and in total disregard of tragic lights. I have heard that from many folks. What I am trying to say is that before we implement any changes, we should use common sense as real adults, consider consequences and come up with rules and teach people to follow them. Simply increasing number of bikes and decreasing number of cars, may be good for environment and inspiring to its enthusiasts, but we seem to have moved in this direction without giving much thought of what it may entail. I feel the city has become more dangerous.
There is no way that there are more bikes than cars on Amsterdam. I will grant that bicycles — e bike or unpowered are a problem on Amsterdam but there are definitely not more than cars here in the 80s. The bikes, e or otherwise, go against traffic and on the sidewalks which is doubly dangerous. People look in the direction of traffic not contra traffic. Something needs to be done about them. Cars? That is a whole other issue separate from the bike and scooter issue.
She referred to the City, you’re referring to the Avenue.
Anyone remember Emily Litella?
I’ve also been hit with a vehicle – not fun at all. Two broken tibial and fibula. I welcome anything that makes our streets safer…and I am a car owner, parent and pedestrian.
If bicycles on the street make you feel less safe than cars then I’m not going to change how you feel. But I didn’t mention bicycles. I’m merely commenting on describing daylighting vs free car parking as some sort of trivial contest where the winner gets a ribbon and a set of steak knives. I hope no one would say that their free car parking can “win in a contest” against the life of my children or yours. There’s multiple daycares and schools on this block as well senior living facilities. Safety of all of them trumps anything else. Adding visibility for drivers on the corner where lots of children stand will save lives. I don’t think any of this should be controversial.
It’s not just “on the street.” I have friends who are selling their UWS apartment because the wife is using a walker and is afraid to walk on sidewalks by herself.
Daylighting makes sense in many cases. But doing so to promote the ability of a bike rider to run a light isn’t a good reason. And on the UWS violators of daylighting include restaurant sheds (look at Broadway, at 84th) and not-for-profits (86th, at West End).
Daylighting is about improving driver visibility of pedestrians crossing the street (and vice versa), nothing to do with bikes. So often I have to peak around cars parked right against the crosswalk to check if there are cars coming, which is especially nerve racking with a stroller.
I totally agree, but at least half the daylighted areas shown in the diagram of Amsterdam and 103 and the photo of the intersection at B’way & 103 are unnecessary and don’t serve that purpose.
Most drivers follow rules? Thats just not true, I watch drivers burn lights, speed, drive recklessly, make rights on red, fail to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, and gridlock streets on a minute by minute basis. Tell that to the man and baby who were struck by a car last week on Riverside. Or the mother of Cooper Stock.
According to DOT, close to 3 in 4 people in the UWS don’t own cars. There is no reason to offer free parking to the 1 in 4 people who do, it’s inherently unequal. It is amusing to hear folks like DeSeta talk about needing free parking in order to have a car to drive outside the city as if this is an inherent right. What about the 75% of people who can’t even afford a car? How do they leave the city? The shocking answer: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
The same could be said about public schooling. I don’t know the exact stats, but I’d be willing to bet at least 3 out of 4 UWS residents don’t have children, yet 1 out of 4 get free schooling for their children. Isn’t this inherently unequal too? The reality is that not everyone is going to “benefit” from all the tax dollars they pay, whether it’s because you don’t have children or don’t have a car. As a side note, needing a car to leave the city is an actual requirement for some people since public transportation only goes so far. My partner has to travel to Philly, MD, southern NJ, etc for his work and there is no way he could do all that via public transportation. So we’ll gladly accept the “free” parking (which we actually pay for via our tax dollars).
I have lived here my entire life, not planning to have kids, but I am always happy for my tax dollars to go to education–it’s in my own best interest to live in an educated community. Giving a kid an education isn’t like giving them a pony, we all benefit. I’ve also never owned a car and I don’t care about public parking at all, and comparing educating a child to parking a car is pretty messed up
When people “do the right thing” and use public transportation, these urbanists complain about the fact that they’re not using the routes they want them to use or complain about high subsidies for certain transit services. They call commuter rail “a luxury service”. Even if only 1 and 4 UWS residents own a car, there’s area workers, businesses, etc. that drive here and add to the total of those needing parking. But the urbanists don’t care, they want Manhattan and “their” neighborhoods to be a feudal manor where they live the dream and others be damned.
If you don’t live in NYC, you don’t pay taxes for the upkeep of those parking spaces or city roads and highways. You can call me an urbanist if you want, but city residents really don’t have any sacrosanct obligation to offer free parking privileges to suburban visitors. Just about everyone in NYC has to make difficult financial choices about their lives, insisting that your choices are harder than others is more than a bit presumptuous. If you read the UWSRag consistently, you will know that many local residents are concerned about affording their next meal, not where to park their SUV. They are perhaps the only ones who have the right to call Manhattan a “feudal manor.”
Camille, are you really comparing free parking to free education? Education is a right, parking is not.
I was simply calling out your statement of “There is no reason to offer free parking to the 1 in 4 people who do, it’s inherently unequal” and the fact one may not always benefit from the tax dollars they pay to the city. This applies to any service the city provides using our tax dollars. I agree education is a right, but the reality is that I and many others will never benefit from this. The amount of taxes I pay to this city is insane, so I will gladly take one of the few benefits that apply to me, which is “free” street parking for a car that is absolutely necessary for my partner’s job. Just because a benefit doesn’t apply to 100% of the UWS population doesn’t make it unequal. That’s just the nature of how our tax dollars are spent.
Technically education isn’t a right. Also worth noting is that “subsidizing” “free” car storage is like subsidizing bus routes or trains you’ll never use. Just because you won’t use it doesn’t mean it’s unequal.
Technically education is a right under the State constitution. And yes, the argument that free parking is “subsidized” and “unequal” parking is nonsense.
“Pedestrians vs Cars?” Really?
This is an absurdity combating a nonexistent windmill.
The fact is there are NEVER enough pedestrians walking east and west along 103rd to overwhelm the sidewalks, and there is no need to pit pedestrians against cars on these blocks.
What makes sense? The mid block narrowing, cutting out a parking space on each side, to cut the travel lane to about 9 feet. That slows traffic, a great move. Ought to be adopted in many of our side streets.
What doesn’t make sense? The rest of this.
Oh, if you want to cap a power walk in the neighborhood, start at the Hippo Playground in Riverside Park and walk, fast, to the corner of 103 and West End. Straight up hill, best workout around for those of us who, for reasons of age, knee replacement, etc, who can’t run or jog.
Why do I note this? Because the blocks in question on 103 are on a real hill, thus totally unsuitable for children’s play. Any missed ball on those blocks will run downhill onto either Riverside or Broadway, and any child running after it will be endangered.
It’s literally the last place in the City for a “play street.”
Narrowing an already narrow street makes it dangerous for fire trucks and other large vehicles. Eliminating parking makes it harder for our older and disabled residents to find parking near their home. This “plan” only happened because a weathy man, Peter Frishauf, on W103 wanted it and DOT the puppet of Transportation Alternatives wants to do away with private car ownership.
What an eyesore this “beautification” is. The murals clash with the architecture, are constantly filled with giant piles of garbage, and the purpose of the ugly rocks I could not tell you. It all seems designed to spite people with cars rather than actually improve the vibe of the neighborhood.
The purpose of the rocks is to keep cars from parking there illegally. Judging from the amount of illegal parking that is rampant on the UWS, we could use some more of those ugly rocks around here!
It is much easier to mitigate illegally parked cars (tow them) than to mitigate an accumulation of trash which cannot be effectively or consistently maintained because street sweepers can’t access the area.
I agree it would be better to have effective NYPD enforcement of illegal parking & then the rocks would not be necessary, but NYPD can’t seem to be bothered to consistently tow/ticket illegal parking
This is repugnant, making the UWS increasingly like some Third World barrio.
Interesting choice of words.
The UWS was more grimy back then, but at least no one complained about people parking.
I’m all for making streets friendlier to pedestrians, but this project isn’t the answer.
The whole Park to Park thing itself is dopey: why would anyone go out of their way to use 103rd Street to cross the West Side, when it’s really no different than any other tree-lined cross street? If you’re on a bike, you have 106th Street already with a designated bike lane. And it’s wider! And who goes from Riverside Park to Central Park anyway?
As far as the half-moons of color, they already look crummy, and even with the boulders and planters and color swirls, you’re still sitting in the street (which, yes, is often full of trash; the street sweepers can’t enter these areas).
Making curbs safer for pedestrians is a worthy cause, but it can be accomplished by pushing back parking spaces to clear sight lines without this overkill.
And until the city starts seriously ticketing scofflaws who run red lights, speed, and double park, none of this decor will help.
I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how 103rd goes Park to Park. (cuz it doesn’t)
Completely agree. The only thing I can add is this: if you want to save sidewalk space let’s start with getting rid of unused dining sheds and revisiting local 11 required sidewalk sheds.
Much improved – I would love to volunteer my block for this sort of intervention.
I completely agree, and would like to volunteer your block as well!
I am happy to see that building maintenance staffs on the block between Broadway and West End Avenue are using the carveout spaces to pile bags of trash. This means that on the nights before trash collection, the sidewalks are not obstructed by trash bags. This is one of the pedestrian benefits that the carevouts provide.
Less Parking. Another reason for people from the outer boroughs, L.I., upstate and out of state not to come the Upper West Side to patronize cultural institutions and local businesses.
I don’t think our cultural institutions and businesses are really hurting from a few parking spots on 103rd st being repurposed to benefit the neighborhood.
It’s not like public transit is really hard to come by around the city’s businesses and cultural hotspots.
W103 subway stop has no elevator. It does not benefit the neighborhood. An already narrow street makes it more difficult for fire and oil trucks to navigate the street. We don’t even have sheltors for most of our bus stops. While schools, libraries and the police force budgets are being cut, $400 million is being allocated to redesign our streets!
Wow.
That is a good point – that so much money being used for non-essential street design – yet essential schools, trash and library services are being cut.
The same folks making it harder to drive call the LIRR and MNR a luxury service.
Prior to moving here 6 months ago, I lived in downtown Brooklyn. The streeet painting on W103rd st is exactly the same as was done in downtown Brooklyn where I lived. After a few months, it looked dirty, and very sloppy. I have no idea what it looks like now, but it doesn’t take that long to realize this was not the best idea for streets. Certainly hope this is not permanent in either area
It is really ugly and a waste of space! Between sheds and scaffolding the cities appearance and dignity is disappearing. Space needs to be shared not wasted ! Personal responsibility although hard to come by needs to be taken by peds, bikes , and autos. Autos are not the enemy. If it becomes impossible to park, those people who work outside the city in regular jobs will choose to live elsewhere and those who would like to come in and dine , visit friends, shop , stroll etc will take it elsewhere as well. The cities viability is based on being welcoming to full time, part time , and visitors. One without the other will leave the city nonviable.
The West 103rd Street Open Street Community Coalition – does not exist. Only the Marseille , & Purple Circle, renters in the same building, including the Bosino Restaurant (the owner did not know parking was being eliminated supported this project. Lisa Orman, of Open Plans is a paid officer of Transportation Alternatives, a multimillion dollar lobby that want the elimination of private cars in order to make us dependent on for profit carshares & citbikes owned by Lyft. Both Mark Gorton and Peter Frishauf, wealthy funders of this group live on the UWS. Peter Frishauf of W103 initiated this project for DOT, during the pandemic. DOT presented the project on zoom, not in Spanish in September 2022 to the CB7 board. The survey to the community was limited & never mentioned loss of parking which is sorely needed by residents and workers since 700 garage spaces were eliminated on W108th St. Needless to say, many of our buildings have have seniors & people with disabilites who still use cars and are discriminated against with this redesign. It adds value to the The Rockwell, a luxury building with no tenants, at the time this project was initiated, and the Columbia U building for students.
The anti-car crowd is just insufferable. Either they a) never leave the island of Manhattan, which is truly sad and narrow-minded, b) are very selfish, and/or c) still bitter that daddy didn’t buy them a Miata when they turned 17, they need to get over themselves.
Parking spots are part of the economic engine of the city. People need cars for various reasons. Many of them are far from rich. And it allows those of us who have friends and family who live outside of the city to visit more easily (and pay tolls to get into the city, and support our local businesses).
I am willing to support an argument that we should have local residents and those who work in the neighborhood be required to pay a nominal amount for parking permits. But these no-car absolutists are just being pig-headed.
Resident permits will be a transalt wet dream. Today they want paid permits, tomorrow they’ll hike the prices, the day after that they’ll argue people who use curbside spaces are privileged and shouldn’t park on the street at all. The anti-car crowd doesn’t know or care about NYC outside gentrified Manhattan and gentrified Brooklyn. Even the ones in Brooklyn, ask them to go to Canarsie, marine park or Gerritsen Beach, they won’t.
Parking Space is needed. Convert parallel parking to diagonal,.. WITH painted white lines, in order to keep order ! Do so on Riverside Drive (the Boulevard, not the single lane next to the apartments). Many cities have painted white lines to designate parking spots.
I think the design is unattractive, and pointless. Idiocies abound, like the fact that without the street cleaning machine being able to access the curbside there should be other forms of cleaning – but aren’t. Or the fact that the planter at 103 and WEA is to about four feet from the fire hydrant – somehow that’s against the law for cars but ok for a permanent, heavy, planter?
Yes. I’ve often wondered what would happen if a few fire trucks and several ambulances were needed in a life-or-death emergency on the western corner of 103td and WEA.
For those who claim that cars are bigger & heavier than bikes…um…duh…
When an e-biker or moped riding on our ‘re-envisioned(!) public streets/Open Streets et al hits an elder at 25MPH on a sidewalk or running a red light on a street-that victim’s gonna’ be dead- at 2 tons or 300 lbs. Oh-and if they’re unlicensed (unlike a car) they do so with impunity as they flee!
For those who claim protecting children and yes, bikers is more important than protecting the rights of vulnerable elders and the disabled residents living on West 103rd and other CLOSED STREETS aka ‘Open Streets’ who rely on unfettered car access & door-to-door mobility -let’s call them out for what they are: ageist , condescending and mean.
The so-called numbers of the ‘community’ claiming to LOVE IT-are social media savvy-connected with the TransAlt propaganda outreach and intentionally EXCLUDE all those who’d otherwise object IF THEY were conversant with on-line propaganda narratives -as the younger spandex biker crowd does with aplomb.
For the moralizing biker bro crowd…I’d urge you to open the link…maybe take some introspection time to think about whether that might be you-or a loved one. https://vimeo.com/881857690?share=copy
Free street parking should be very limited. Let car owners purchase their own private parking. The streets are for driving not parking.
Do I also hear you advocating for municipal parking garages–constructed and maintained by the city?
This is an infuriatingly terrible idea that is just meant to spite drivers yet has no tangible benefit. Shame on all who allowed it. It already looks like crap after a month, just give it a year. No people are gonna go sit on those stones in the middle of the blocks. It’s just ridiculous what is happening to this city. They spent taxpayer dollars to make life worse for residents! How pathetic.
Hooray! The primary reason for this Open Street is that it is now a Safer Street. Drivers are supposed to proceed at a slow speed, and the mid-block neckdowns reinforce this. Infrastructure like this is the standard in residential neighborhoods all over Europe. It should be replicated on EVERY UWS cross street. Preserving free parking, which subsidizes driving while the planet cooks, is a terrible reason not to have safe and livable streets.
Well put Ken!
Preserving free parking isn’t a bad idea. You all talk about livable streets, but livable for who, those who can afford an arm and a leg to live in gentrifying neighborhoods. The UWS the way it was decades ago when it was more diverse wasn’t livable for you?
Instead of so much focus on open streets making it safer for pedestrians why not focus on all the reckless e-bike and moped riding which are reckless and dangerous. These vehicles will ride on those beautiful murals making them even more dangerous.
Trans Alt ie. the biker lobby and Open Streets working hand in hand are in no uncertain terms coming for your rights. Your right to own a car which just might be essential to your livelihood, your health or the health of your family. The right to have access if you are elderly or disabled to be able to get in a car, taxi or access-a-ride in front of your building without walking 2 blocks to do so. I’m amused by those who claim you should use a parking garage if you own a car. How chivalrous of you when there are very few of them and they charge $900 per month in many cases. NY is abysmal in providing municipal parking lots for its citizens. And now the places where one can park are disappearing for bike lanes and open streets.
But have no fear. The working class and middle class are leaving New York as exposed in an article in the NY Times this week-and the millionaires are coming back. (New York’s Millionaire Class is Growing. Other People Are Leaving). After all they can afford a parking garage and like to ride around in chauffeured gas guzzling SUV’s anyway.
When lobby’s like Trans Alt direct City Hall as they increasingly do in NY, the rich get richer. That is the point-the main thrust behind all the well-funded efforts coming for your rights as citizens and trying to convince you to be happy about it.
Just another reason for visitors, tourists, not to come to the city, spend money, or come back to work. No parking, clogged streets, congestion pricing. No wonder why business are struggling and closing. There is only so much foot traffic.
This is someone’s fantasy that is not improving the neighborhood. We are surrounded by parks. It is not enabling use of the street. It is inhibiting it.
I live near there, and I have not yet seen these carve outs being used at all. I like the concept, but the reality they just painted the street and gained nothing.
my first thoughts were 1) it’s pretty the way it’s painted, and 2) people (deliverymen, etc) on bikes/e-bikes etc. will ride right through there going north on Amsterdam and n/s on Broadway if there are not boulders blocking it off. I think it’s a bad idea because it’s the anomaly. Anomalys create uncertainty and more propensity for accidents to happen. It will be a trash accumulator and who will be responsible for cleaning it up? Weird idea and why 103rd Street?
Because a wealthy donor to transportation Alternatived, Peter Frishauf who lives on W103rd St initiated this project during the pandemic when people were dying. The project was, then, presented to DOT and CB7. There is only one advocate for the residents of the UWS on the board. The rest of the members represent citibikes, restaurants, Transportation Alternatives, and, of course the real estate interests. This is not even a thru street. Our group UWS4parking could not even present our concerns to CB7. Be well.
Cobblestones. Or if that’s too expensive, then come up with something that mimics the effect of a street being paved with cobblestones. Have you ever noticed how drivers naturally slow down when they get onto cobblestones?
On a related topic, really concerned by the comment about bus rerouting.
“Occasional bus rerouting is a minor inconvenience and the open streets are usually full of people enjoying the space”
Mass transit is the lifeblood of NYC. People need and are entitled to reliable accessible mass transit especially now as fares have risen.
It is unacceptable for DOT to close streets with bus routes for “Open Streets”.
Inconceivable that DOT is prioritizing brunch or my dog having a meet-up over essential bus transit.
It looks awful.
I love it. It doesn’t look perfect, but it’s a lot more attractive than wall-to-wall cars, and the extra space is sorely needed, particularly on the block between Broadway and West End, where the sidewalks are quite narrow. I live on W 103rd and own a car but I’m all for initiatives that slow down traffic and discourage car ownership in Manhattan. There are a lot more people who don’t own cars than do, and streets should be designed to encourage walking. I just hope they put in more rocks, especially between Broadway and Amsterdam – the make the bump-outs look nicer and more permanent, and they do a great job of blocking cars, which encourages pedestrians to actually use the extra space.
Parking is sorely needed especially when there’s no confidence in our transit system.
Trains are moving faster than ever, this is right next to a major train station and one station away from a major express station.