Citi Bike Share Prompting Ire—And Vandalism

By on April 24, 2013 11:05 am in Brooklyn Heights, Government, Landmark Preservation, News, Other Brooklyn, Transportation, War On Fun

WINS-AM (1010) reported this morning from Brooklyn Heights that the newly installed Citibank-sponsored bike-share stands in the neighborhood are not only irritating residents—who voiced on-air that they don’t fit in with the historic tenor of the Heights—but have become a target for anti-corporate brouhaha throughout the borough.

The New York Post reports that in Fort Greene, flyers were plastered along a Citibike station saying: “Residential landmark blocks are not for advertising or commercial activity.” Similar messages have popped up in Clinton Hill.

Brownstoner notes that residents are complaining that they were not consulted about specific bike-share locations—also pointing out that advertising isn’t allowed on landmarked residential blocks.

In the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, residents of 150 Joralemon Street oppose a station installed in front of their building. Kenneth Wasserman tells the newspaper: “It’s inappropriate. This is a very busy block during the day and it’s very quiet at night. To have 25 docks out there without anybody notifying us beforehand really pisses us off.”

A Landmarks Preservation Commission spokeswoman told the NY Post, “We approved the plan for the installation of bike share stations in historic districts throughout the city because they have no effect on the historic fabric of those neighborhoods.”

Councilwoman Letitia James (D-Brooklyn), who supports the program, will host a town hall meeting Wednesday to address growing concerns about the new stations in Brooklyn. It will be held at 6:30 p.m. at the Benjamin Banneker Academy in Fort Greene/Clinton Hill, 71-77 Clinton Avenue.

In Brooklyn Heights, stands are now at the corner of Remsen & Hicks, Clinton & Joralemon and Clark & Henry (outside of the Hotel St. George), with soon-to-be locations at Clark & Montague and Borough Hall.

Share this Story:

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →
  • Julie

    The bike rack on Clark Street is not on the sidewalk but in the street–which is a narrow street to begin with. I hope some thought was given as to how this will interfere with traffic flow.

  • mucow

    The stations are designed to be no wider than a parked car, so I’d imagine the flow issues would be no worse than the parked cars that were there before…

  • DrewBurch

    I think that if free money fell from the sky someone in this neighborhood would complain about the litter. PS: I LOVE the “war on fun” tag. Perfect for our whiny neighbors!

  • MonroeOrange

    good luck in the snow and ice…

  • MonroeOrange

    wait unit bikes are parked there!

  • MonroeOrange

    actually that area was a no standing zone…no cars were parked there

  • MonroeOrange

    i wouldn’t complain about free money…i do complain, about the loss of FREE PARKING!

  • gerrymander

    Anyone who insists that the bike stands are inconsistent with the “historical” nature of the neighborhood must also insist that all cars be banned, and only horse carriages be allowed to park.

  • mucow

    That’s right — I had forgotten that. There’s definitely parking further down the block, though, and the road there isn’t any wider than the bit up by Henry, so it’s unlikely that the station would impede the flow of traffic any more than the cars parked further down the street.

  • Steve

    Something that is free is not something one generally has rights to.

  • Steve

    It was a no standing zone for pedestrian visibility purposes. The problem was that trucks and livery cars always parked or waited there, negating the visibility. The bike share station kills two birds with one stone: it keeps the trucks from illegally parking there and it allows pedestrians and drivers to see each other. A win for safety!

  • north heights res

    No, you didn’t. The area directly in front of the station was a no-parking zone. Which should not be read as an endorsement of any opinion or of jaywalking, but simply a correction.

  • mucow

    There’s still a fair amount of space — the bikes aren’t very wide: http://goo.gl/5VUJN

    …that’s in DC, which has been using the same technology (with great success!) for a few years now.

  • mucow

    Yeah, I stand corrected. That said, there were often cars parked there illegally, despite the restriction.

  • Pedestrianite

    I’m not sure you understand how bike share works. Most of the time there will be empty docks here and there, since A) people will take bikes out and B) people will need a place to return them. It’s possible there will be times when the station is 100% full, but probably not at peak times when pedestrian and commercial traffic is at their highest.

    So odds are there will be space. You should go outside and try it out.

  • Brixtony

    I think the bike-share is a great idea. I will use it! (and I’m 66, so stop with the silly “ageist” cr@p.) However, the big “but” is that some of the thinking that has gone into this needs revision. One example: I live at 101 Clark and teach in downtown Brooklyn. The rack outside 10 Clinton blocks emergency vehicles (this has already happened) people in wheel chairs, stroller pushers and ordinary pedestrians and…the bikes aren’t in place yet!!! I had to walk into the street this morning to let an even older person through the gap.
    It makes much more sense for the rack to be located across the street on Tillary, right outside the park on a very wide, not often used, sidewalk.

  • mucow

    I go by there pretty much every morning, and it doesn’t look like it’s getting in the way of pedestrian flow, but I’m guessing I’m missing something. Out of curiosity which way does it block? Fortunately the stations can easily be moved and re-tooled if they’re causing issues!

  • Brixtony

    I walk there every morning and walk to the left of the area that connects to the pedestrian crossing to the sidewalk by the library on Cadman. Many people go to and fro there at 7:30 and 5. It reminds me of snowy winters and the foot wide track through the snow. One good thing is that it will cut down on bike riders ignoring the lane and lights to get to the Bridge.

  • mucow

    I see. The station is too close to Cadman. It seems like there’s plenty of space in that striped-off area to shift it a bit towards Clinton, out of the pedestrian path, so hopefully they’ll tweak that soon.

  • MonroeOrange

    Safety? are you serious! i really hope that no one is hurt on a bike…but when someone (lets say a tourist) rents a bike, they are going to dart into the street, to test it out, not stay on the sidewalk…wait until a car or truck hits one of these people…and if not on clark st, then certainly on clinton street, which is the most dangerous place to put this…yes lets have people ride onto tillary street, with no helmet on…as most will not be carrying a helmet…i hope they ticket anyone without wearing a helmet, or riding the wrong way down clinton street, both of which will be a big problem for safety! Your safety argument does not hold water at all.

  • mucow

    I don’t see how, after taking a bike out of the dock, entering the flow of traffic is any more difficult than, say, exiting a parked car on the side facing traffic. Either way, you need to see if someone’s coming before entering the lane.

    Fortunately, Tillary has a great protected (concrete jersey barrier!) two-way bike lane on it, which is directly connected to the lane on Clinton, by the station. It’s a very convenient and safe way to get to the bridge.

    …and absolutely — if someone’s going the wrong way down a one way street, they should be ticketed. Pet peeve of mine. We’re in total agreement there!

  • Yosimite Sam

    Are you a seat-sniffer?

  • GHB

    I refuse to shovel horse manure!

  • mucow

    Also, there have been a number of studies done that look at how the number of cyclists on the road correlates with accident rates, and they all point to a strong “safety in numbers” effect, where despite having more bikes on the road, the number of injuries and accidents holds steady, or even declines as drivers become more generally aware of other people using the road. It’s been happening in NYC over the past 10 years or so, and has been observed elsewhere, as well — here’s a study done using data from cities in the US and Europe (http://goo.gl/WEhfj), which shows the relationship pretty clearly. So in all likelihood, over the longer term the additional people on the road will result in a safer environment for everyone, including drivers.

    (Sorry for the inundation, here — I’m a bit of a wonk when it comes to these things!)

  • MonroeOrange

    i must give you credit, you are a pleasure to debate with! unlike most, you admit when you are incorrect, and provide data, when you are indeed correct….welcome to the blog! :)

  • MonroeOrange

    ummmmm..no bikes are there yet?

  • mucow

    Thanks! I try.

  • http://justbeyondthebend.com/ Joe Dudas

    Correct. The program “officially” starts next month, I believe? This is just the infrastructure getting set up.

  • Wiley E.

    Got a helmet?

  • Pedestrianite

    What? Why would a person on a bike “dart out into the street”? Wouldn’t they look to see if any cars are coming?

    Riding without a helmet is not illegal, unless you are under the age of 14.

    I mean this nicely: you should read up on cycling issues before you opine so emphatically about them!

←  Older Comments
Newer Comments  →