Bike-Share and the Mistake of Placing Too Much Stock in NIMBY Sentiment

The wisdom in Matt Flegenheimer’s bike-share NIMBY opus comes across nicely in the kicker:

Nearby, on University Place, Alfred Haffenden, 71, sat between a bike station and his table of available consumer items — two Al Franken books, a baby-care advice book, and VHS copies of “The Shawshank Redemption” and “Wuthering Heights.”

The stations would be a change, he said, but who would want to live in a New York that refused to try something new?

“There’s not much you can do about that type, my friend,” he said, leaning toward the kiosk. “Some people can’t see. Some people just don’t want to see.”

But long before readers get to that point, if they ever do, they’ll absorb the headline (“Bike Sharing? Sure. The Racks? No Way.”) and the lede:

Bike share was easy for New York City to love in the abstract. It was not about adding bike lanes at the expense of something else; it was about sharing something that did not yet exist.

But with the program two weeks away, many New Yorkers have turned against bike share, and for one simple reason: They did not expect it to look like this.

Have a significant number of New Yorkers “turned against” bike-share, though, or is the roll-out of the system just a good time for opponents to assert themselves? After all, 19 percent of New Yorkers thought bike-share was a bad idea when Quinnipiac polled people about it last summer (74 percent approved). That’s a pretty small percentage of New Yorkers, but it’s also nearly two million people.

Which pretty much encapsulates the pitfalls of placing too much stock in NIMBY sentiment: With so many people in the city, a few are guaranteed to feel intensely opposed to something big and new like bike-share, but you can’t use their complaints to draw any hard conclusions about how most people think or feel.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Judge Dismisses Brooklyn NIMBY Bike-Share Suit

|
Bike-share NIMBYs have lost another lawsuit. Owners of 150 Joralemon Street in Brooklyn Heights claimed that the siting of a bike-share station on the sidewalk outside the building was “arbitrary and capricious,” according to court documents, and that DOT exceeded its authority in doing so. They dumped their garbage on the station for good measure. Judge […]

Bike-Share NIMBY Flyer: Make Cobble Hill Great Again

|
A tipster spotted this flyer on Douglass Street in Cobble Hill, where Citi Bike will be expanding this year: Makes perfect sense. Keep bike-share at bay, and the neighborhood can be suspended in time. David Greenfield and the MTA won’t mess with F train service. Supermarkets will stay in business. The meddlesome construction of housing for other people […]

The Bike Share Criticism Challenge

|
Cross-posted from Brooklyn Spoke If you follow me on Twitter, you may have seen a few of my rather straightforward tweets in which I repeat some of the main criticisms of bike-share offered by NIMBYs as they fight tooth and nail to move Citi Bike stations from their blocks. These tweets are typically followed by pictures […]

Judge Rejects Plaza Hotel’s Citi Bike Lawsuit

|
It was fun while it lasted, but the era of NIMBY lawsuits against NYC bike-share stations has now run its course. Today a Manhattan judge rejected the Plaza Hotel’s suit seeking to remove the Citi Bike station across the street from its entrance. This marks the final court decision regarding the four lawsuits challenging bike-share […]

After Bike-Share Launches and the Dust Settles, Remember the NIMBY Frenzy

|
Last week, Columbia University professor David King ran a great response to the recent grousing about bike-share stations. He posted this graph depicting how public perceptions of congestion pricing programs change over time. An outfit called CURACAO (one of the weirdest, most tortured acronyms of all time — it’s short for “coordination of urban road-user […]