Today’s Headlines

  • Crain’s: Citi Bike to Launch Memorial Day Weekend, and Some Businesses Are Pumped
  • Bike-Share Sense (WNBC, Guardian, MTR) and Nonsense (Post, News)
  • 7 Year-Old Struck by SUV Driver on Gun Hill Road in Norwood, Bronx (News 12)
  • Woman Injured in Clinton Hill Bike Crash (DNA)
  • Driver Careens Through Brighton Beach Shop; Bklyn Daily Calls It “Vehicular Mannequin Slaughter”
  • Placard Parking Puts Squeeze on Street Spaces in St. George (Advance)
  • Scofflaws in Williamsburg, College Point Make Their Own Parking Regulation (Times LedgerPost)
  • Jamaica Surface Parking Lot Set to Be Replaced With Department Store, Plus Parking Garage (News)
  • West 44th Street Residents Upset That Street Is Used as De Facto Bus Parking Lot (Post)
  • Crain’s Profiles NBBL Lawyer Randy Mastro; And NY Mag Explains Mastro’s Taxi E-Hail Suit
  • Stringer, Kavanagh Unveil Blueprint for East River Waterfront Below 34th Street (Crain’sPost)
  • Developers Create Apps at MTA “Hackathon” Event (NY1)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • carma

    i got to preview ride one of the citibikes at the bike expo this weekend. it rides smooth, and despite being heavy, you can put on some nice speed onto these bikes.

    im so happy that it is finally coming to fruition at the end of the month

  • Anonymous

    I was heartened to see that one of the objections to Citibike was the corporate advertising. Let’s channel this objection by banning all cars and trucks with corporate nameplates showing! All cars and trucks parking or driving through these neighborhoods must have special logo “covers” hiding the brand names. Could be a great market, like IPhone accessories!

    😉

  • Anonymous

    Ok, seriously, what is the response to the “emergency vehicle access” argument against certain bikeshare racks? Nothing dismissive, please; I’m going to be addressing people who may live in buildings where they truly do feel that emergency vehicles are impeded, and dismissively blowing off their concerns would be very unhelpful. Thanks.

  • Anonymous

    Isn’t the basic one that bike share can’t present any greater impediment than car parking? Then there’s this:
    http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/05/03/fdny-we-havent-had-any-issues-with-bike-share-locations/

  • Anonymous

    The first argument doesn’t quite work for stations placed on former no-parking or no-standing zones (of course under the assumption that nobody parked in those places!)

  • Anonymous

    What exactly is the critique?

    That ambulances/fire trucks are unable to pass through? Or that they’re unable to pull up in front of the bldg?

  • Anonymous

    It’s good to see a boosterish article from Crain’s, hardly a starry eyed, tree hugger, whoowhoo publicati to counter all the alarmist Sturm und Drang, saying that landlord want stations near their building, businesses see it as helping the bottom line, and newbie commuters are excited to try it.

  • Anonymous

    I guess my thought was that it’s a one-two punch: if the first doesn’t answer the objection, the second should, since the fire department has presumably reviewed those instances where no parking zones have been converted to bike share stations. (And are there examples of no standing zones becoming bike share stations? Just asking, since I’ve not heard of it.)

  • Anonymous

    Neither have I. And if they are, then it seems FDNY does not have a problem with those locations. And if it turns out they do, then those locations can be changed within a matter of hours.

    Additionally, people keep seeming to think that if there is a 40 bike station, that means there will be 40 bikes at all times. If that is indeed the case it would represent a major failure in the way bikeshare should operate. If there are 40 bike docks, on average probably only half would be occupied. Which would mean there is a lot of room for fire trucks etc. to do their thing, when in the past they may have had to deal with cars completely cutting off those areas.

  • Daphna

    The article in the Post about the buses double parking on West 44th Street shows more than anything the dysfunction of NYC’s curbside regulations. Those buses need a place to be. Having free or under-priced curbside parking, plus huge amounts of parking placard abuse (with both fake and real placards) means that vehicles needing short term curb space can not find it (even if they are willing to pay). Commercial vehicles, buses, and others need curbside restrictions that prioritize them ahead of private cars; also curbside space should be charged at a premium rate higher than garages to encourage turnover. Parking placards should be ended. Everyone should have to pay. Those who are deemed special enough to warrant free parking should then be reimbursed by whichever city agency is granting them free parking.

  • Anonymous

    The article in the Post about the buses double parking on West 44th Street shows more than anything the dysfunction of NYC’s curbside regulations. Those buses need a place to be.

    Isn’t Port Authority Bus Terminal just a few blocks away?

  • guestnyc

    Memorial Day!

  • Daphna

    Many appear to be tour buses rather than transit buses so they would not use the Port Authority.
    Also, since Governors Cuomo and Christie ran to the “rescue” of drivers and lowered the port authority toll increases of the bridges from what they should have been, there is no longer the funds to build the second Port Authority bus terminal in Manhattan that had been planned based on the original toll increase. As it is, the current Port Authority bus depot is at full capacity and can not meet the demands of all the bus lines that would like gates.

  • Anonymous

    These stupid fucking politicians. They think they’re doing their constituents a favor by lowering gas taxes, tolls and the like. Rather, they’re like drug pushers. Getting you hooked on the notion of cheap and convenient, when really it’s not in your interest to drive into the City.

  • No, they’re just doing themselves a favor – the favor of improved reelection chances.