A local Yiddish newspaper, is railing against the new online service, which erroneously identifies a bike lane on Bedford Ave that was sandblasted in December. The publication, Vos Iz Neias, identifies “potentially fatal flaws” which sends cyclists to “Central Park’s treacherous tranverse roads” (which really aren’t that bad) and “steer[s] cyclists to truck-riddled thoroughfares” (whatever that means).
The worst part is the newspaper doesn’t even send a reporter to test out the new system, but instead relies upon a reporter’s firsthand account from the NY Post (bastion of journalistic integrity).
It’s easy to find flaws in any new system, especially one that tries to tackle such a difficult challenge. Shrilly reports from conservative sources aren’t going to stop people from using innovative tools to bicycle more often to more places.
At least according to this op-ed from the editorial board of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Citing a recent report by the William Penn Foundation, Philly is read for a 1,700 bicycle system, putting it on par with Boston and Minneapolis.
It’s refreshing to see an local newspaper supporting cycling, especially after the misguided bicycle crackdown that happend in the city a few months ago:
“Bike sharing in European cities links commuters to mass transit and also provides tourists an inexpensive way to explore… There are a lot of possibilities for some creative thinking. The bike-sharing program seems like a good idea in need of some leadership to help make it happen.”
We’re all for innovation here at the CityBike Project. It’s obvious that building the bicycle of the twenty-first century, one that fulfills the transportation needs of cities, will require contributions from designers, engineers and bike advocates alike. Students at MIT recently demonstrated this type of innovation by creating a bicycle hub that captures energy and reports stats to the user.
The hubless bicycle wheel, a product of a group of Yale Mechanical Engineering students, by contrast does not meet the criteria for useful innovation. While I don’t intend to set off some type of East Coast engineering face-off, the Yale team has built something that offers nothing to the cyclist. Instead, it plays to the proclivities of designers who design fantastic machines in CAD programs that have no hope of coming to fruition, much less improving upon existing standards. A couple ridiculous examples (i.e. concepts):
While the technology necessary for a hubless bicycle wheel surely has some value, it is not, ironically enough, in the realm of the bicycle. Spoked wheels are light, durable and inexpensive. The opposite is true for the Yale team’s concept-made-real (They ran out of funding before they could build a second wheel).
This holds especially true when we’re talking about a solid CityBike, which is used for transportation and utilitarian trips. The bicycle is already an incredible machine that is hard to improve upon. It’s not impossible (as demonstrated by MIT), but energy needs to be put towards meaningful improvements, and not just to chasing design pipedreams.
A few days after the epic Snowpocalypse of ‘10 dumped over a foot on snow on New York, all streets were more or less clear and passable. The city’s bike lanes, unfortunately, did not receive the same treatment.
Yesterday, I was unable to travers the Tillary Street bike lane (normally a haven for double-parked cars) do to the untreated and icy conditions.
Now normally I try to be the stoic cyclist who takes the good with the bad, assuming that in the end it will all even out. Still, after almost having wrecked multiple times on this ride because of ice patches, it was really a slap in the face to be confronted with this neglected path.
With all of the improvements to cycling infrastructure over the last few years, the city could do a better job maintaining the facilities; especially if they want to ensure the popularity of a bike share system in the winter months.
Here’s a bit of feel-good news on a cold February Day: according to a DOT report, cyclist fatalities were down 50% in 2009 compared to the year before. While 12 deaths in this past year is too many, it’s reassuring to send the trend going the right way.
Surely the recent increases in cycling rates (26% from 2008-2009) is leading to more awareness and safer behavior on the part of motorists. It’s also no coincidence that
Last night, Pete’s Candy Store in Williamsburg was ground zero for the on-going Hipster vs. Hasidism Bedford Bike Lane Debate. All eyes were on Issac Abraham, the sole dissenting voice on the five member panel, who made frequent (and accurate) reference to his being the proverbial lamb in the lions den. While there were multiple pro-cyclists on the panel, only Caroline Samponaro of Transportation Alternatives offered the convincing and well reasoned arguments.
The debate centered around three main issues: the bike lane makes the street more dangerous, the Hasidism are culturally opposed to cycling and the DOT never asked for community input and . Abraham cited anecdotal evidence that bikers are dangerous to pedestrians (noting his wife’s cyclist-collision and subsequent hospital visit), while Samponaro countered with DOT statistics on increases in pedestrian safety on streets with bicycle facilities. Abraham could only counter with a bad joke about statistics and gynecology.
Baruch Herzfeld, renowned Jewish orthodox rabble-rouser, provided the only real humor on the night. He maintained that the Hasidism are against bicycles on cultural issues, a charge Abraham flatly denied.
The low-point came over the issue of community involvement. Samponaro maintained that the Hasidic community had been given notice of these proposed changes, during the development of the original 1997 NYC Bicycle Master Plan. Abraham rather curtly played the “you’re just an outsider” card, questioning for how long Samponaro had been in the neighborhood and whether or not she was really a member of the community. It was a low blow that side-stepped the question and drew particularly negative response from the audience.
In the end, nothing was really resolved. Samponaro tried to reach a hand across the gap, suggesting a campaign for school bus stops along Beford Ave, which Abraham refused to engage. Abraham also expressed his reservations about being “rail-roaded” into supporting a bike lane.
Last night was perhaps a preview. With all the bike lanes popping up all over the city, there might be more opposition coming.
More descriptions can be found at Gothamist, who also made a quickie video summary:
In contrast to the Kafka-eque absurdity of the last post, Copenhagenize offers an assessment of a new and practical piece of street furniture. It’s an integrated foot and hand rest that is being strategically installed at different intersections throughout the city. This low-profile infrastructure allows cyclists to stop for the light without having to dismount their bicycle.
This is the kind of utilitarian design that benefits cyclists and sends a clear message to the bicycle community that the government is interested in supporting their transportation choice. As with most types of cycling infrastructure, the investments are super low-cost, highly visible to the greater community and can be installed immediately.
There’s no need for flying bicycle lines when quick and cheap additions to the urban landscape can be more successful at accommodating cyclists.
There seems to be more than a few folks who are totally enamored with Designer Martin Angelov’s Kolelinia elevated bike lane. After winning an international award in the first Line of Sight Competition, design, green, architecture and tech blogs have been falling over-themselves with praise (labeling it “fresh“,”ingenious“, “funky“, and “cool“).
While recognizing the importance of design concepts for helping to develop innovative products, the Kolelinia is a text-book example of design run amok. This system illustrates the inventor’s complete lack of understanding about urban transportation issues and simple bicycle physics. It’s obvious that the selection committee for the competition was voting based off a” wow” factor more than anything else.
Everyone praising this idea seems to ignore that all most urban cyclists want is protected space on existing streets, rather than segregated, implausible paths that go to limited destinations. The fact that bicycles are only stable when the front wheel can move independently of the frame has also been overlooked. Angelov’s concept would surely make the bike jittery and prone to toppling, which is why he includes a mountain-climbers harness (which is also conveniently ignored by most blogs).
Nothing says ease and convenience like strapping on a mountain-climbing harness!
Design can be successfully employed to seamlessly integrate cyclist into existing urban transportation networks. One need look no further than Copenhagen, where innovative infrastructure is conceived and installed on the scale of the bicycle rider (which Copenhagenzie has done a phenomenal job of documenting).
It would have been better to see the selection committee reward a design concept that would be just as useful as it was practical. Bike shares and other infrastructure (like automated parking systems) meet this criteria. It would be better to see more energy put into designing useful solutions, rather than absurd, ignorant, and “wow factor” concepts that will never get built.
Hey guess what? It’s still January and still cold out there (though temperatures are looking to be in the 40’s this weekend).
Many riders hibernate during this time of year, dreaming of warmer spring days and fingers that don’t suffer from frostbite. Others on the more extreme end of the spectrum geek out on winter-specific gear like studded tires.
Bike Culture blogger Copenhagenzie points out that it is possible to ride comfortably in the winter, without resorting to unnecessary upgrades. Or, as he put’s it, using the same “squeaky, wobbly and half-flat tires as the rest of the year.” He’s even put together a video of Copenhageners, or rather the 80% or so who continue to ride bicycles, even in the frigid winter (where highs average 36 in January).
The racks are stacked around a central transporter which can park or deliver a bike in less than 30 seconds. The smallest units hold 200 bicycles and is 7 meters in diameter and 15 to 16 meter-high. This is the same for above and below ground models. The entrance to an underground installation needs only 2 to 3 meters in diameter.. The largest underground installation to date, which is made up of several silos, each with their own entrance/exits hold 9,400 bicycles.
It’s great to see such a high degree of innovation and engineering skill applied to bicycles. I’d love to see one built in New York.
