bike-storage-0309.jpgPrompted by an email alerting us to the creation of a new Department of City Planning portal, we stumbled across an announcement from earlier this month of new regulations regarding bicycle parking in new building in the five boroughs. Citing a lack of adequate and safe parking as a major factor in people not biking to work, City Planning approved a text amendment on March 4 that would “require indoor, secure bicycle parking in new developments, substantial enlargements, and residential conversions.” In addition, “the regulations would apply to multi-family residential, community facility, and commercial buildings, including public parking garages, in all zoning districts.” For more details, check out the slide show presentation or the text amendment. As Streetsblog pointed out at the time, the City Council has until late April to vote on the measure.


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. “For one tiny example, for every biker on the “walk” of the Manhattan Bridge, there is a walker on the “bike” side. ”

    Kris, proportionately there are more walkers and the space is not fairly used if half is given to walkers, half to bikers.

  2. I’m all for bike lanes, but they need to be done proper.

    Removing parking spots/delivery zones and adding a bike lane (as has happened in Williamsburg) isn’t helpful, and it ads to the anti-cyclist cause.

    I think biking is great. Cars have a purpose. I think the animosity, from both sides, comes from the “our way or the highway” posturing and campaigning.

    Make it like China. Separate bike lanes. Lights for the bike lanes. Enforced rules and regulations. When I was in Beijing it was amazing to watch. Hordes of cyclists, all moving in unison, breaking off when needed, in their own lanes, not cutting off cars or pedestrians. It was like watching a symphony of people, cyclists, motorists…

    That would be cool…

  3. Chris: I’m far from an all-or-nothing person, I love driving, I just don’t want to do it for day-to-day errands, short trips or commuting. I agree, TA is somewhat one-sided.

    I’m perpetually surprised about the anti-cyclists. When 9th st bike lane was proposed, you should’ve seen them and hear them at the planning meeting. You’d think these people had never visited a bike-friendly city (many in Europe) or a country like India with millions of cycles everywhere. I can just imagine the cries of outrage by one of them in Madras: No bike lanes! They almost hit me! They intimidate cars! They have 2 helmetless kids on the rack with them!

  4. To toss a related log on the fire…
    … I mentioned, in one of my posts above, motorcycles and scooters and parking for them.

    If the city was really trying to reduce congestion, traffic, etc, why is there a big jump from the car to the bicycle? I would think getting a single person from a 5 passenger car to a 2 passenger motorcycle/scooter is a vast improvement and a great step forward. Sure it’s still a motor vehicle, but smaller in size, impact, etc.

    I think what annoys me the most about all this bicycle stuff is the all or none attitude of most of the proponents. I belong to a group that has had dealings with TA and they basically say “if it has a motor we want it off the road, it’s either bicycle or it’s wrong”.

    I think the bicycle initiatives, and traffic/congestion ones in general, would gain a lot more traction if there was consideration for the possible steps in between.

    (full disclosure – my main transportation is a Vespa, but I think my argument still has merits, my own bias aside 😉 )

  5. nsr, wpg et al: read up on why predictability is not necessarily a good thing in multi-modal situations (ie not just cars). read up on the shared streets movement, and Jan Gelb’s planning theories. You’ll find that the more interaction there is between peds, cycles and cars, the safer a zone becomes. This is not just my opinion, it’s implemented in many places.

    your statement that it’s harder to see a cycle than a car is difficult to swallow, it’s as if the eye had a lower limit of discernment (like, for example, an object 5ft tall and 4 feet long in profile). Yes, there may be SOME situations where this is true, but when a cycle basher says “I didn’t see the cyclist” that means “I was not paying any attention to vehicles who pose no threat to me.”

    So “more hazards” is really “more potential accidents,” not, “more dangerous?” OK, if you want to slice and dice language like that, I have to agree. But it’s misleading.

    Anyway, 1 more bike = 1 less [something], unless you postulate that the new biker wasn’t going anywhere before that; if it’s a car, your statement is clearly wrong; even if he were a ped, it’s not clear it’s “more hazardous”.

  6. But all this is noise compared to the rubbish about “more accidents and hazards” if there is more cycling.

    “Cars are much easier to see than bikes” Not if you opened your eyes maybe.
    —————

    I mean what I say and I mean it very simply. You don’t have to like it, but denying it makes me question your thought process.

    Cars are bigger than bikes. Thus they are easier to see. There is nothing to debate here. This is basic physics. More surface area = more reflected photons = greater likelihood of photos being captured by the eye.

    If there are 100 more bikes on the road today than last year there are absolutely more hazards (physics again) and almost certainly more accidents (this is not pure physics as the extra bikes do note REQUIRE more accidents but in this city the likelihood of them increasing accidents is 100%).

  7. “the city is certainly trying to curtail traffic. the goal is make it as painful as possible to get people to stop taking their cars to work unless they absolutely have to.”

    That’s horrible public policy and will be completely ineffective since the MTA is raising fares and cutting service.

  8. “For one tiny example, for every biker on the “walk” of the Manhattan Bridge, there is a walker on the “bike” side. ”
    — I really doubt it greatly but next time I’ll try to see if I notice any pedestrians over there.

  9. “The city is trying to increase bike traffic while not doing anything to curtail car traffic.”

    proposed east river tolls
    attempted congestion pricing
    crosstown thru streets
    pedestrian plazas

    i’m sure more that i cant think of off the top of my head..
    the city is certainly trying to curtail traffic. the goal is make it as painful as possible to get people to stop taking their cars to work unless they absolutely have to.

1 2 3 4 5