In an emotional Community Board 7 meeting where multiple people spoke about losing loved ones to bike accidents in New York City, CB7’s Transportation Committee passed a resolution on Tuesday requesting a plan from the Department of Transportation to create a network of fully protected east-to-west bike lanes for all ages and abilities between 60th and 110th streets. The Transportation Committee voted 9 in favor with 2 opposed and 1 abstained on the resolution.
“I’m a CB7 resident for almost 40 years,” said Andrew Rosenthal during the public input portion of the meeting. A bike and automobile owner, Rosenthal also frequently attends CB7 meetings. “I was here in November when this virtually same resolution was presented and then kicked down the road to a joint Parks Committee and then kicked down the road again, and now here we are. Since we first met in November, there have been three people who have died in traffic fatalities within CB7 and 114 seriously injured.” Rosenthal called on the committee to pass the resolution, saying “Let’s start being proactive about protecting the lives of residents of CB7. We have failed in that duty. The five-month delay has caused us three valuable human beings. Please don’t fail again tonight and vote for this resolution.”
Advertisement
Upper West Side resident Dustin Levine pointed to statistics from the New York City DOT, saying “There’s been a 20% increase of community ridership from 2016 to 2021. And since 73% of households in Manhattan’s CB7 do not even own a car, especially since it’s a matter of life and death rather than just convenience, I think it’s very important to have the separate bike lanes.” Levine also cited a 2019 study by the University of Colorado which he claimed is the “most comprehensive study of bicycle and road safety to date,” saying it found that “building safe facilities for cyclists is one of the biggest factors in road safety for everyone.” Levine emphasized that building infrastructure, specifically protected bike lanes leads to fewer fatalities and better road safety for all road users, not just bicyclists.
The vast majority of community members agreed the time has come for building safe, protected bike infrastructure to connect the CB7 district with the rest of the city. Rachel Grosso, a new Upper West Side resident who works as an active transportation planner on the local, state and federal levels across the country, said this initiative “is of the utmost importance for our health, for our safety, for the climate resilience and for our economy.”
Sandra Voss, a member of Families For Safe Streets, spoke on behalf of her brother who died while riding his bike in 2020. “The fact is that the longer we wait, the more preventable deaths and injuries will occur.”
A resident of the Community Board 8 district, Nick Ross shared that his girlfriend Carling Mott was killed while riding her bike to work, traveling crosstown on East 85th Street in July 2022. “She was the light of my life and the lives of so many who had the good fortune to know her.” Ross noted that CB8 had previously rejected a proposal that would have placed a bike lane on the very street that Carling was riding before urging CB7 to pass the resolution. “We can always quibble later about specifics of where these lanes go, how they’re constructed, and all the minutiae.”
Advertisement
Community Board 7 member Erana Stennett took issue with the lack of pedestrian safety being discussed during the meeting. “Currently on the avenues, cyclists don’t stop for pedestrians. In fact, they don’t stop for pedestrians in Central Park, which is why the drive study is underway.” Stennett felt it was important to talk about traffic safety and regulation of cyclists and moving vehicles so the people who do not ride bikes or drive cars can “actually circulate and move across the community safely without being concerned about getting hit by a car or bicycle.”
Fellow CB7 member Sara Lind responded to Stennett’s statement, saying that “If no one talks about pedestrian safety I guess it’s probably because this is specifically a resolution directed at bicyclist safety, but just to put it out there, we’re all pedestrians. I think pedestrian safety is a top concern for everyone here, certainly for me as my kids walk to school alone now and I’m always concerned for their safety as pedestrians.” Lind expressed distaste at seeing pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers being pitted against each other while pointing out that there’s no guarantee any parking spaces would be lost in the proposed DOT plan if the board approved the resolution.
“It’s impossible,” said CB7 member Jay Adolf in reference to not losing any parking spaces for the proposed plan. “That essentially means two lanes to park, one protected bike lane and one lane where cars can actually move. It’s impossible to do that on side streets; it would be a disastrous mess.” Adolf claimed the nature of protected bike lanes would “require the loss of hundreds, if not more” parking spaces in the district.
Advertisement
Non-committee members voted 1 in favor with 3 opposed and 1 abstained for the resolution, which states, “This resolution requests a plan and proposal for the creation of a network of east-west protected bike lanes within CB7’s District. The proposal to install east-west protected bike lanes is limited to the mapped streets on the Upper West Side. It is not intended to address any actual or potential roads, paths or other routes in or through any mapped public parks in or adjacent to Community District 7/Manhattan (such as Central, Riverside, Dante, Verdi Square, Theodore Roosevelt or Straus Parks).”
A full Community Board 7 meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 4 for a final vote on the resolution. The public is welcome to attend to voice their input.
Another example of how CB7 doesn’t care about pedestrian safety.
Sara Lind is an employee of the bike lobby. Paid to make policy for the “Open Streets” conglomerate funded by an anti-car millionaire whose business ethics make donald trump look pristine (at least 200 million in fines and settlements for such as stock manipulation and copyright infringement since 2010). Yet she’s not barred from voting?
Others on this committee are activists in the anti-car group Transportation Alternatives, which is funded by the same millionaire and by both Uber and Lyft, who want people forced into using their cars.
And the “community speakers” include nonresidents who just show up on zoom and lie about where they live.
Jon, A recording of the meeting is online. There were 37 speakers in favor of the resolution. I was one and have lived in CB7 many decades. Many others said they travel through the district. Please identify by name, as everyone gave a name, any who you claim are lying or admit that you are wrong.
Agreed. No one with an interest in biking or does any form of advocacy for cycling should be voting on these proposals. At least half of the panel should be people who own a car and park on the street.
I was ALMOST hit by a bike just as I was typing this.
If “73% of households in Manhattan’s CB7 do not even own a car” why would 50% of votes be given to people who do?
While we are talking bike lines – why not put bicycle cops in loops around the existing avenue lanes to create more order?
There are no RULES or specified directions. and whatever those non-specific rules re, they are not enforced. So, that’s why bikers and mopeds going in the wrong/lanes – directions, putting walkers and other bikers at risk. i am a biker and I won’t ride on the streets, way too dangerous.
This is NOT Amsterdam, or Frankfurt where there are rules and all abide. This is NYC where NO-one has any accountability!
Supported by CB7 but NOT the community.
There has been enormous number of complaints about the bike lanes; accidents; unenforced regulations and no one listens or pays any attention to these matters on the Board.
More attention to providing bus service which is dire need of review and immediate action.
Seniors and disabled people do not ride bikes. They and also live in fear of crossing streets due to speeding bikes coming from all directions (even on the sidewalks) with no regard for people or the law. Children can’t get to school on time because public transportation is a challenge-often cannot even get on a bus because it is too crowded.
Are there any statistics on how many people (besides delivery persons) use these lanes? Can this be cmpared with people who rely on buses an other forms or public transportation? Why hasn’t this statistic been released?
You are very wrong. In fact, at least one of the CB7 supporters of this resolution is a senior who does bikes to Brooklyn every week to grocery shop.
As someone who was a long distance runner, I wish I and many of my dear friends who are over 75 could be as able to bike. We cannot.
Not a choice. A condition of health and/or aging for many.
I asked chatGPT to identify all these anti-bike arguments and rebut them because I don’t have energy for this and the results were delightful:
1. Sara Lind is an employee of the bike lobby, and the bike lobby is funded by an anti-car millionaire who has been fined and settled for illegal activities. This implies that the bike lobby is corrupt and cannot be trusted to make decisions that benefit the community.
Rebuttal: This argument is an ad hominem attack on Sara Lind and the bike lobby. It does not address the actual benefits or drawbacks of bike lanes.
2. The anti-car group Transportation Alternatives, which is funded by the same anti-car millionaire and Uber and Lyft, want people forced into using their cars. This implies that bike lanes are part of a larger conspiracy to eliminate car usage.
Rebuttal: This argument is a conspiracy theory and lacks evidence. It also ignores the many benefits of bike lanes, such as reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality.
3. There are no rules or specified directions for bike lanes, and bikers and mopeds often go in the wrong lanes or directions, putting pedestrians at risk. This implies that bike lanes are a danger to pedestrians and need to be better regulated.
Rebuttal: While it is true that some bikers may not follow the rules of the road, this does not mean that all bikers are reckless or that bike lanes are inherently dangerous. In fact, properly designed and maintained bike lanes can make roads safer for everyone.
4. The bike lanes are supported by CB7 but not by the community. There have been numerous complaints about the bike lanes, including accidents and unenforced regulations. This implies that the bike lanes are unpopular and ineffective.
Rebuttal: While there may be some opposition to bike lanes, surveys have shown that many people support them. Additionally, accidents and unenforced regulations can be addressed by improving infrastructure and enforcement measures.
5. Seniors and disabled people do not ride bikes and live in fear of crossing streets due to speeding bikes coming from all directions. This implies that bike lanes are discriminatory and do not take into account the needs of vulnerable populations.
Rebuttal: While it is true that not all people can or want to ride bikes, this does not mean that bike lanes are discriminatory. In fact, bike lanes can provide a safe and accessible form of transportation for many people, including seniors and disabled individuals who use adaptive bikes or e-bikes. Additionally, bike lanes can help reduce traffic congestion, making it easier for buses and other forms of public transportation to operate efficiently.
So you’re saying that ChatGPT doesn’t know what a conflict of interest is?
Sad.
This is because the community board doesn’t have the urban planning knowledge and experience that DoT does. The intent is to leave the design up to the experts and then they will come back to the community board for ultimate input. The resolution was to get the process started.
I have been trying for over one year to propose for discussion a 3-pronged comprehensive plan to deal with the threats posed to public safety by operators of e- and gas-powered bikes, scooters, mopeds, etc. on our streets and in our parks. That plan, in summary, proposes 1) registration of such transportation device, 2) the licensing of operators, and 3) the strict enforcement of our existing traffic rules by NYPD, targeting the most unsafe practices such as failing to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks, driving the wrong way on streets, driving on sidewalks, and other reckless behaviors. There is no reason that we can’t both protect the operators of commercial delivery services from fire and other hazards due to faulty batteries and also protect the public. Our public officials need to convene at task force of stakeholders and transportation experts to come up with a comprehensive solution to this growing public safety concern. Neil
I’m a resident of the upper west side. I commute to and from work on a bike. We are one of the few neighborhoods without protected bike lanes. We like to call ourselves progress until an issue impacts the status quo. It’s time for change to offer a safe commute for bikers.
I am the “Dustin Levine” mentioned in the article (my name is Justin). Just to be clear, I’m not saying it’s the “most comprehensive study of bicycle and road safety to date finds that building safe facilities for cyclists is one of the biggest factors in road safety for everyone.” That would be the summary in Science News [1]:
> The most comprehensive study of bicycle and road safety to date finds that building safe facilities for cyclists is one of the biggest factors in road safety for everyone. Bicycling infrastructure — specifically, separated and protected bike lanes — leads to fewer fatalities and better road-safety outcomes for all road users.
Every single of the naysayers above do not have a single citation. There’s a reason, because they don’t have any evidence or stats to back them up. Every single anecdotal “I almost got hit by a bike!” can be countered by a systematic study done by a university. Sure, it’s one study, but as noted, it’s the most comprehensive one to date.
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm
How can they vote to approve a vague proposal, that could be anywhere, any design, any street. The meeting before, they voted against a very specific charging kiosk.