Today’s Headlines

  • Wider Sidewalks Now! (NYT) …the 8th Ave Bike Lane Depends On It (Gothamist)
  • Porsche Driver Jumps Sidewalk and Kills Woman in Elmhurst, Flees Scene (News, Post)
  • Ridership on the B44 Up 10% With Bus Lanes and Off-Board Fare Payment (AMNY)
  • Select Bus Service on the B46 Launches This Weekend (DNA)
  • Cuomo Trying to Bully NYC Into Covering Albany’s Share of Expensive BQE Repairs (Bklyn Paper)
  • Three More BQE Meeting Stories From the Brooklyn Paper
  • Is Today the Day New Jersey Raises Its Gas Tax? (MTR)
  • Gia Morris’s Ruling Affirms the Daily News Campaign Against the Right of Way Law
  • Advocates Sue MTA for Failing to Make Stations Accessible to the Disabled (NY1)
  • Queens Lawmakers Want to Mandate Insurance Discounts for Drivers With Dashcams (NY1)
  • Port Authority Has Come a Long Way on Transparency, Say Port Authority Bosses (Politico)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • BBnet3000

    On the 8th Ave bike lane, to repeat a common refrain here: “It’s Better Than Nothing!” (although at the most critical points such as in front of the Port Authority and at Columbus Circle, it IS nothing)

  • Vooch

    the Times article Is a good signal, suggests wider sidewalks and increasing ped plazas is going to be agenda item next Year. This Time last year some old Out of touch crank was trying to Remove Times Square so his motorized escort could get doughnuts faster. This year, the narrative Is different.

  • Kevin Love

    How about the common message, received loud and clear: “Good enough for the likes of you.”

  • Reader

    It’s honestly incredible that the Times story on crowded sidewalks doesn’t mention all the space taken up by parked cars that could be repurposed to alleviate the problem.

    The only time cars in Manhattan are mentioned is in the context of daring pedestrians walking in traffic:

    “Veteran pedestrians have tried to adapt. They shoulder their way into bike lanes or walk purposefully on the street alongside cars — eyes ahead, earphones in — forming a de facto express lane.”

  • I wonder if Streetsblog is meant to be read only by bicyclists?

    The headlines on ” more pedestrian space” was big enough by itself . There was no need to add ” the 8th avenue bike lanes depends on it ” which implies that the readers care only about cycling, and do not care about pedestrians.

    Unless indeed it is the case that pedestrians are second class citizens on STreetsblog as well.

  • This is a collection of today’s headlines from other sites for people to read … that was a succinct way to tie together two of today’s related headlines.

  • kevd

    Did you look at the second link?
    Its about crowded pedestrian spaces forcing peds into a bike lane, making it unusable.
    Maybe it is simply poor readers who are second class citizens on Streetsblog.

  • ahwr

    pedestrians are second class citizens on STreetsblog

    Much of the safe streets movement has grown out of the bike activist movement. Or at least many safe streets activists started out as bike activists. TransAlt included. Focus can be expanded from cycling to include pedestrian and transit accommodations, but cycling is still treated as first priority. You might do well to read through some old city cyclist newsletters.

    8th avenue bike count 4-7pm weekday counting salmon from most recent hub bound: 624 cyclists. 8th avenue most recent weekday pedestrian count 4-7pm: 16529

    Here is a story about improving pedestrian accommodations in a park. The headline says it all.

  • BBnet3000

    The point here is that there isn’t enough space for either mode because they’re fighting over the scraps. One of those modes is on the endangered list, the other is not.

    Why does it make “pedestrians” into “second class citizens” to point out that narrow sidewalks have had an impact on the bike lane?

  • Simon Phearson

    I don’t know why you think pedestrians are “second class citizens” relative to cyclists. Pedestrians already have physically separated infrastructure on nearly every street in the city. When politicians talk about “Vision Zero,” they are primarily concerned with reducing pedestrian deaths and injuries. When community boards oppose bike lanes, they cite risks to pedestrians at least as often as they cite traffic concerns. The tabloids almost never go on the warpath against “scofflaw walking,” with the occasional exception of the iZombie. Pedestrians are very well-embraced by the existing powers-that-be, even if they still prove to be under-protected by our politicians and police.

    That’s not to say they shouldn’t be part of the concern for any site dedicated to smarter thinking about our streets and land use decisions. But Streetsblog writes and cites stories about these issues all the time, To complain about this particular headline, which quite accurately links over-capacity sidewalks to unsafe conditions in bike lanes, as demoting pedestrian concerns is behavior more befitting a driver.

  • Wow, calling me a driver ! The ultimate insult… 🙂

    You make many good points. Still Jaywalking is a pedestrian insult. No jaybiking .
    But I was talking more about perception by STreetsblog readers…as a walker
    I’d like see more articles written from a walking standpoint, about walklanes including ped crossings, about walking issues and infrastructure and announcing and celebrating walks, just like rides are announced…

    I am part of the tribe, but sometimes I feel a bit on the side..walk.

  • mmmm…. Never got so many replies to a post…
    Glad I did. I love STreetsblog and cannot function without it. But We need to have this conversation.

  • HamTech87

    We need a billboard on the BQE explaining Cuomo’s withdrawal of repair funds.

  • Simon Phearson

    Well, I would suggest you re-read the site with a more objective frame of mind.

    There are eleven headlines here. Three of them are pedestrian-relevant stories. One of them relates partly to cyclists. Four are transit related; four relate to cars and driver-serving infrastructure. But you chimed in to say – on this one headline partly referring to cyclists! – that the way it was presented subjected pedestrians to “second-class” status.

    The pattern continues as you flip through past posts. For every post about bike lanes, there’s at least one about transit, or about a pedestrian death, or the ROW law. The Headlines posts are similarly well-distributed amongst maybe four core issues, with cycling-related headlines representing only one or two on a typical day.

    I think that the commenters tend to be cyclist-focused because, through cycling, you become intensely attuned to the ways that our streets function (or not). As a pedestrian, you might think about traffic while you’re standing at a corner, waiting to cross. But a cyclist constantly has their finger on the pulse of the street, from edge to edge, including what’s happening on the sidewalks, in the parking lanes, and in the main traffic lanes. I think that’s what brings so many of us here, while pedestrians are maybe a little less plugged in and so perhaps less aware of the forces at work.

  • ohnonononono

    There is practically no on-street parking for personal vehicles during the daytime in the areas of Manhattan that the article references, so I don’t know what space “taken by parked cars” could be repurposed. The article references pedestrians walking in traffic because when you step off the curbs of the Avenues in Midtown, you’re stepping into a travel lane, not a parking lane. Most of what little parking is allowed is for commercial/special vehicles that are supposed to be loading, on business, etc.

    I think the sidewalks in Midtown should be widened by taking vehicle travel lanes. I’m not sure street parking space would yield much since there’s already so little there.

  • ahwr

    Well, I would suggest you re-read the site with a more objective frame of mind.

    Does this count as objective? Articles this year by streetsblog nyc as categorized by streetsblog nyc, not counting links to streetsfilms/streetsblog usa:
    Transit: 6
    Bicycling: 61
    Walking: 6 (Including a story entitled ‘Levine to CB 7: Support the Amsterdam Avenue Protected Bike Lane’)
    Public Space: 2

    But a cyclist constantly has their finger on the pulse of the street, from edge to edge, including what’s happening on the sidewalks, in the parking lanes, and in the main traffic lanes. I think that’s what brings so many of us here

    Like I said below. A lot of safe streets activists start out as bike activists. You might expand your focus to support improving walking and transit, but your core interest is likely to remain bike oriented. That’s where TA and streetsblog are. Are they doing enough to bring non cyclists into the fold? Checkpeds doesn’t seem to think so. And neither do I. Maybe you prefer the bike oriented focus. Maybe it’s better for TA and streetsblog. Maybe there’s room for a more pedestrian and transit oriented activist group.

  • JudenChino

    What a stupid comment. There were two articles about 8th ave. One was about the sidewalks. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. It doesn’t need to be spelled out. And there was a separate article about the 8th ave bike lane being useless, in part because of pedestrians spilling out into it because the sidewalk is too crowded/not big enough.

    But instead, you choose to comment in bad faith, while trying to shame a bunch of livable street types, into being “weak” on peds, so as to smugly signal your self-righteousness. Bravo!

  • Joe R.

    From where I stand them majority of the focus should in fact be on bike infrastructure simply because we started from essentially zero only a decade ago. Consider what we have for the other two modes:

    Motor vehicles:

    1) Streets with a reasonable amount of on and sometimes off-street parking so you can reasonably be assured of finding somewhere to park at most destinations in NYc.

    2) Traffic signals which primarily exist solely to prevent motor vehicles from colliding with each other, but which are often highly detrimental to cyclists and pedestrians from a travel efficiency standpoint.

    3) Most street space devoted to motor vehicle travel lanes or parking.

    4) Highways which enable motor vehicles to avoid congested, slow local streets with traffic lights and stop signs for parts of their trips, often even most of a trip.


    1) “Protected” infrastructure on virtually every street.

    2) Long traffic light cycles to allow crossing wider streets.

    3) Stop signs almost everywhere traffic signals don’t exist which at least legally give pedestrians the right-of-way, even if they often aren’t respected by motorists.

    4) Pedestrians usually given right-of-way priority even when crossing the relatively few decent bike routes which exist, such as the Hudson River Greenway. I could argue that at least in these places cyclists are the ones would should get priority since they have it virtually nowhere else.

    Now let’s see what cyclists have (or rather don’t have):

    1) Only a handful of mostly nonstop bikeways which might be analogous to motor highways. However, even those often have shared spaces and/or traffic signals or crossings where pedestrians have priority. I have yet to see anything which is bikes only, and which has no crossings of any kind over its entirety.

    2) Protected bike lanes on relatively few streets but these often end up functioning as loading zones or sidewalk extensions. Even when they’re not, the frequent traffic signals make for very slow, tedious travel (or conversely encourage rampant red-light running by cyclists).

    3) A larger number of door-zone bike lanes or wide parking lanes, neither of which enhances safety by much.

    4) Poor pavement conditions where cyclists are often expected to ride.

    5) Lack of decent, safe bike parking both on streets and in or near stores.

    I could go on, but I hope you get the point. There’s a reason only “road warriors” rode in the city until fairly recently. It’s great we’ve increased the numbers cyclists but I suspect it might be a short term trend as these people realize their safety and travel time just doesn’t matter. I won’t ignore the fact we can also do much better in the pedestrian area also, but at least we’re starting off with something which is mostly decent (other than the excessive number of traffic signals pedestrians encounter thanks to optimizing the streets mostly for large numbers of motor vehicles).

  • JudenChino

    There is practically no on-street parking for personal vehicles during the daytime in the areas of Manhattan that the article references, so I don’t know what space “taken by parked cars” could be repurposed.

    Another casualty of: Didn’t click on the link.

    Check out the 43 second mark of the video.
    You can also see the parked cars here:,-73.989356,3a,43.1y,12.63h,85.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8u0oy4oNcQuBZy9SaSJ9rQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

  • Simon Phearson

    No, I’d call it “cherry-picking.” There’s a lot of pedestrian-focused coverage that doesn’t get picked up under the categories you’ve chosen (see, e.g., “Transportation Alternatives”); Vision Zero picks up a significant number of posts that you’ve neglected to mention; you discount “walking” posts that are also about “cycling,” but you don’t discount “cycling” posts that are also about pedestrians; and your decision to exclude Streetsblog posts that are not centered on NYC issues is arbitrary and unexplained.

    It’s also evident that Streetsblog has no consistently reliable method for applying categorization tags to posts, as some labels have clearly been deprecated, while others apply to some posts but not others that we might intuitively expect them to. For instance, “Public Space,” “Shared Space,” and “Times Square” do not pick up the same posts, while “Schools” doesn’t pick up a single speed camera story. It just doesn’t give us an accurate picture of what Streetsblog publishes. You’ve basically found one very broadly applied label (“Bicycling”) and compared it to a few very narrowly applied labels. You’re being intellectually dishonest here.

  • BBnet3000

    I’m not sure if I’d go by those categories. For instance, a lot of the Vision Zero category would also fall under walking. Also, I don’t see the stories about recently pedestrian deaths and the related legal implications under either category, but I’d put those under walking too.

  • ahwr

    There’s a lot of pedestrian-focused coverage that doesn’t get picked up under the categories you’ve chosen (see, e.g., “Transportation Alternatives”); Vision Zero…

    Lots of bike focused articles in those categories too.

    you discount “walking” posts that are also about “cycling,” but you don’t discount “cycling” posts that are also about pedestrians;

    The Amsterdam protected bike lane post seemed miscategorized. Just skimming through none of the bike categorized posts seemed to be almost completely not about cycling the way that post was almost completely not about walking. I didn’t mention ‘ 3 Ways NYC Can Avoid Future Snow Removal Travesties for Peds and Cyclists ‘ which had a heavy bike focus, because it was also about walking.

    your decision to exclude Streetsblog posts that are not centered on NYC issues is arbitrary and unexplained.

    The alleged bike focused orientation of Streetsblog NYC is what I was commenting on. Articles written by their sister groups like streetsblog usa aren’t relevant.

    It’s also evident that Streetsblog has no consistently reliable method for applying categorization tags to posts

    Probably true.

    You’ve basically found one very broadly applied label (“Bicycling”) and compared it to a few very narrowly applied labels.

    I just picked the labels featured on the top of the page. Then stopped before vision zero because I got tired of counting posts.

    Not sure I’d ever noticed the pull down menu on the side that you probably got the transportation alternatives label from. I didn’t know they had so many tags.

    If you have a better way to quantitatively analyze streetsblog NYC’s work to determine editorial focus, feel free to share it.

  • ahwr

    There were two articles about 8th ave.

    The nytimes article was mostly not about 8th avenue.

  • JudenChino

    Yah, sorry I was way off. It just happened that the first picture in that article was of 8th ave with a caption about how peds walk in the street because the sidewalk is too small. Obviously, Streetsblog and its readership do not care about pedestrians.

  • ahwr

    Streetsblog and its readership do not care about pedestrians.

    No, I wouldn’t go that far. But I would say for this blog, its commenters, and TA cyclists are the top priority.

  • Simon Phearson

    Yes, you entered into a conversation about Streetsblog and chose to focus your analysis on Streetsblog NYC, a narrowed focus that just-so-happened to help prove the point you’d wanted to make, in the way you chose to make it. You cherry-picked at every point.

    The onus is not on me to come up with a satisfactory way to use Streetsblog’s chosen categories to quantitatively assess its editorial bias. I only need to demonstrate how the method you’ve chosen is inadequate, which I’ve clearly done. You’ve failed to prove your point.

    The category labels that Streetsblog NYC serves up on its front page do not provide an accurate summary of its coverage. Do you disagree?

  • ahwr

    Cycling advocates can support transit and walking while still prioritizing bicycling.

  • ohnonononono

    What? Not sure if we see the same things. There are no parked personal vehicles there. I see vans aka commercial vehicles. The parking regs for that block are “No standing except commercial vehicles” 7am-7pm. That’s what I meant when I said “what little parking is allowed is for commercial/special vehicles that are supposed to be loading.”

    Those are vans that are supposed to be unloading things. If you want to tell businesses they can’t get deliveries there, that’s a whole other conversation.

    I agree that we shouldn’t have personal car parking there, but I think you’re failing to see that there already is no legal daytime personal car parking there.

  • completely agree that we need to build the bike infrastructure and I have been instrumental in making it happen.
    the pedestrian infrastructure is not “mostly decent”.
    There is no protected infrastructure: At every corner every 200ft we are put in deadly conflict with turning cars , and the city and business use the sidewalk for furniture and advertisement. So although there is a sidewalk , it is not usable for walking
    Vision zero articles should not be classified in “Walking” category” . our blog classifies this as “traffic justice”.

    Still does not address the point of having specific walking articles about walking infrastructure , walking events, walking stats, walking to school, walking as health etc.. and about article of which the only subject is walking and pedestrians- nothing about cars, nothing about bikes…

  • I am so grateful that the cyclists took up the fight .
    but I am begging for a little more focused attention.

  • Joe R.

    Really, the problem you describe is one of both infrastructure and lack of enforcement. We rarely enforce failure to yield. And we allow way too much motor vehicle access. If it were up to me we would allow turns in a lot fewer places than we do now. We would also have superblocks which limit motor vehicle streets to a 1/3 or 1/4 mile gird. There’s little reason motor vehicles need easy, convenient access to every square foot of the city. I would still keep the finer grid intact but solely for cyclists and pedestrians. I would also have cameras to record failure to yield violations.

    I’d like to see more walking specific articles myself. I probably spend more hours walking in any given week than I do riding. The reason I said the pedestrian infrastructure is mostly decent is because I can go for walks of nearly any length most times of the day, get where I’m going fairly efficiently (i.e. at an average speed close to my walking speed), and more importantly have these walks be enjoyable, or at least tolerable. My primary sore point is when I need to cross major arterials, especially if I can’t cross without waiting for a long light cycle. However, these arterials are typically spaced 7 to 10 minutes apart at my normal walking speed.

    Contrast this to the situation riding my bike. Riding any time between about 7 AM and 9 or 10 PM is almost guaranteed to be stressful, slow, and unenjoyable. I need to have eyes in back of my head to see potential conflicts, I have to deal with stupidity like vehicles double parking, or suddening turning or stopping in my path. I have to deal with traffic signals. Often that might entail stopping after riding only 20 or 30 seconds. The only time I enjoy riding is late nights when the streets are empty and I just need to slow down at red lights to see if anything is coming. I almost never can ride uninterrupted for 7 or 10 minutes without encountering cars but I can usually experience this walking most times of day. I’ll grant the walking experience is far less pleasant in Manhattan, but it’s still not as bad as cycling the same streets at the same times.

  • “it’s still not as bad as cycling the same streets at the same times.”

    I do not know where you walk, but I live and work in west midtown. and I can tell you walking is not enjoyable; I have to deal with traffic signals every 200 ft much shorter for pedestrians than cars – I have a to check over my shoulder for turning vehicles every 500 ft, most of the time the crosswalks are blocked by cars or buses that are gridlocked, the traffic agents wave cars in my way even when have the walk sign and the ped ramps or the crossings have pot holes where i turn my ankles or fall. on 8th avenue and 9th avenues the sidewalk is so encumbered and crowded that I walk on the bike lane buffer in the middle. print eh street ( never on the green!) . I usually end up angry and fighting some cars or some cops … not a good way to start the day …
    There is much less crowding in a bike lane but when I use a city bike in a protected bike lane, pedestrians and turning cars adn pot holes are totally scary ..

    we are all victims of the car infrastructure and ruling culture and both categories walkers and cyclists deserve a lot better. My point is each category deserves its own focus and perspective

  • Joe R.

    I mostly walk and ride in eastern Queens. No argument from me that walking in Manhattan is usually not even remotely enjoyable for all the reasons you say. I think getting rid of as many motor vehicles as possible would help both cycling and walking. No reason we should be fighting for scraps from the king’s table.

  • Hear, Hear.. happy 4th of July

  • Joe R.

    Thank you! Same to you!

  • Anything that benefits bicyclists also benefits pedestrians.

    Indeed, anything that benefits cyclists benefits society as a whole, as bicyclists’ interests are equivalent to the common good.

  • Andrew

    I have to deal with traffic signals every 200 ft much shorter for pedestrians than cars

    You realize that your proposal would lead to even shorter walk intervals for pedestrians than we have now – perhaps as short as 4 seconds?

    Would you strictly respect the pedestrian signals, never stepping off the curb except during the brief walk interval? Do you think all pedestrians would strictly respect the pedestrian signals, never stepping off the curb except during the brief walk interval? Thinking about the crush of pedestrians on the sidewalks that we’ve been reading about today, do you think a brief walk interval of perhaps only 4 seconds would even be sufficient to clear the crowds that will build up during the pedestrian clearance interval (the blinking red hand, when it’s illegal to enter the crosswalk) and the vehicular intervals for both east-west and north-south traffic?

    I don’t think it would be. I don’t think most pedestrians on the busy Manhattan avenues would respect pedestrian signals that only gave them a few seconds to enter the crosswalk – I don’t think they could, given pedestrian volumes, since there simply isn’t enough space on the sidewalk to handle the queues that would result or in the crosswalk for the surges that would have only a few seconds to scurry across in each cycle.

    So pedestrians would, in practice, cross against the light, far more than they do now, out of necessity. Except that turning motorists would no longer be required to yield to them. And while pedestrians understand currently that a red-hand usually means that there may be cross traffic, under your proposal a red-hand would mean that there’s either cross traffic or parallel traffic – an ambiguous message that will change, without warning to the pedestrian, midway through the cycle.

    There is already a law requiring drivers making turns across active crosswalks to yield to pedestrians. Because it is largely unenforced, many drivers ignore it, creating the safety problem that rightly troubles you (and me as well). Do you expect there to be robust enforcement of red lights during the exclusive pedestrian phase? If not, why do you assume that drivers would respect that law any more than the law they currently ignore?

    You’ve been advocating for a simplistic solution that I fear might be seriously detrimental to safety. Have you discussed it with a competent traffic engineer?

  • Andrew

    bicyclists’ interests are equivalent to the common good.

    A little over-the-top, don’t you think?

  • Andrew

    Just to insert my own impressions, without taking any counts – as a pedestrian / transit rider / non-cyclist, I don’t find the coverage here unbalanced. Maybe it’s a little heavy on cyclist issues, but certainly not to an extreme degree. The coverage of pedestrian and transit issues is top-notch, so I don’t mind reading or skipping over the bicycle articles (I read most of them) that aren’t as directly relevant to my own experience. The issues are often intertwined, in any case.

    I don’t follow TA as closely, largely because I’ve always seen it, unlike Streetsblog, as a cyclist advocacy group that dabbles in pedestrian and transit issues. I don’t disagree with its basic objectives but the focus is less of interest to me personally.

  • Andrew, I am not sure what proposal you are talking about.
    My post does not include any proposals but rather today’s reality. On an avenue there is a crossing every 200 ft , the length of a block between two streets, and therefore a signal.
    The pedestrian green cycle is way shorter than the car green cycle .

  • MatthewEH

    The north side of the Manhattan bridge and the Williamsburg bridge are dedicated routes for cyclists with no legal crossings for other modalities. Fort George Hill in Washington Heights? That’s really all I can thitk of.

  • JudenChino

    I just watched the video again. You’re 100% wrong. It’s tons of parked personal vehicles. Starting around 42 seconds. It’s not that long of a video. You can’t miss them. Just tons of personal parked cars. Maybe just a few delivery vehicles at most.

  • No. Bike infrastructure calms traffic, which helps protect pedestrians. And it also works in favour of drivers by reducing car crashes and thereby sparing drivers some quantity of injuries and repair expenses.

    Therefore, improvements that are meant for bicyclists are in fact in everyone’s interest.

  • ahwr

    Bike infrastructure calms traffic

    Is this true? If you take seven feet of sidewalk space to put in a bike lane do the benefits materialize? Or only when taking space from autos do you calm traffic? If there is political will to narrow the portion of an avenue given over to autos by ten feet was it better for pedestrians to use it for a bike lane that will get hundreds, maybe a thousand people during peak periods? Or would pedestrians have benefited more if it was used to expand the sidewalks, alleviating crowding for well over 10k during peak hours? Would transit riders have benefited more if the space was used instead for a barrier protected bus lane?

  • ahwr

    walking stats

    I don’t know what data NYC collects, but they may be worse about publishing walking counts than they are at publishing the bike counts they have. It’s possible they’re worse at collecting walking data too.

    Comparable stories about walking could be written. Maybe they have and I missed/don’t remember them.

    walking to school

    Not sure how well streetsblog has ever covered that.

    This could have gotten a different headline if there was more focus on walking.

    I sometimes feel like usa streetsblog is better at walking stories than the NYC site.

    walking events

    Did you have anything in mind for this?

    I haven’t generally been thrilled with the larger bike rides I’ve been to in NYC. I split time between here and Portland. One bike event they have that I’ve enjoyed is Sunday Parkways.

    A group is trying to put together a walking equivalent this year.

    Both might be able to translate well to the outer parts of NYC that generally don’t seem to get as much focus from this site/livable streets activists. Speaking of which…

    I wonder what ever happened with this? An update might be nice.

  • Vooch


    Left my bike locked up in Front of Grand Central 5 days & 4 Nights ago. What are odds it will still be There when I return this Evening ?

  • Elizabeth F

    Something will probably still be there; I’d be interested to know what. Why didn’t you just bring it on the train (assuming you were taking the train at GCT?)

  • Vooch

    1) Too Cheap to spend the $5 for the metro north bike pass

    2) Thought was only staying one night

    3) not so smart

  • Elizabeth F

    In all my decade+ riding Metro-North with a bike, I’ve only been asked for a bike pass ONCE. Since I didn’t have mine with me (it’s never used), the conductor sold me one on-the-spot for $5. The only downside is it only lasts 1 year.

    Next time, just take your bike on the train.

  • Elizabeth F

    I agree, that story is an embarrassment. When I first started using Riverside Park on bike soon after it opened, it was clear sailing — especially compared to Central Park at the time, when bikes got just 1/2 lane on the loop, which was often covered with overflowing peds. Things have changed for the better overall, and now the Hudson River path is getting crowded. As bikers, we need to take the big view and support the proposed detours, for the safety of everyone. We should be celebrating that people like this park for so many reasons that it’s becoming more crowded — and that bike traffic is increasing as well. Pedaling to the top of the rotunda (15′ high?) is a small price to pay for that success.