Making Bikes a Key Part of New York's Transportation Mix
Tens of thousand of bikes could be headed to city streets, making New York City New Amsterdam all over again. That’s the message some advocates see in "Bike-Share: Opportunities in New York City," a study released yesterday by the Department of City Planning.
The report, a 142-page tome designed “to consider bike-share program models and assess their potential for New York City” reads like a step-by-step guide to implementing a bike-share program that would function as a legitimate part of the public transportation network. The report’s authors examine existing bicycle conditions in the city, estimate the number of New Yorkers who might use a bike-share system, discuss various funding models and strategies for execution, offer cost and revenue estimates, and compare and contrast all of this data with information collected by other cities that have launched bike-share programs.
It’s an impressively comprehensive report that suggests the Department of City Planning and the Bloomberg administration are seriously considering bike-share. So, how would it work? What would it look like? And can bikes really become a part of New York City’s public transit network?
Bike-Share Basics
Large, modern bike-share networks, like those that operate in Paris and Barcelona, consist of automated, self-service kiosks where users can pick up and return bicycles. In the most successful systems, the kiosks are distributed at a density of approximately 28 per square mile in and around city centers, often stationed near transit hubs, busy commercial areas and popular destinations.
Using a credit card or through a pre-established account, users can unlock a bike from the kiosk, ride it for however long they wish and then return it to another kiosk, at which point they will be charged for the amount of time they have had the bike. Most systems have an upfront fee (a little more than $1 for a day, less than $100 for a year) and are free for the first 30 minutes to encourage short, transit-replacing trips. After that, the bike-share programs charge around $1.50 for the first additional half-hour and a bit more (between $2 and $5) for subsequent hours. A staff of mechanics keeps the bikes and kiosks clean and in working order.
Most cities contract out their programs to street furniture companies, who run newsstands public toilets and the like. They recoup their expenses through a combination of user fess and advertising. In some cities, like Montreal, which will open its program this spring, user fees, sponsorship and government support fund bike-share programs. Because of existing street-furniture contracts and regulatory hurdles, if New York City were to implement a bike-share network, the report suggests it should start as a city-built program in areas where density and demand are highest (Manhattan south of 60th Street) and then expand to other areas (first Manhattan south of 81st Street and parts of downtown Brooklyn, then northern Manhattan, western Queens, The Bronx and central Brooklyn) using a franchise model.
Would People Really Use It?
Of course, not all New Yorkers fancy themselves cyclists and not everyone can bike, but most cities that have installed large-scale, modern bike-share programs have seen a huge surge in the number of people willing to ride, in part because bike-share negates a few of the main concerns of would-be cyclists.
The cost of becoming a bike-share member is negligible compared to the upfront expense of purchasing a bicycle. There are no maintenance expenses, no storage concerns, and the fear of theft, which according to a 1999 Department of City Planning study is the number one obstacle to would-be cyclists, is all but neutralized.
According to the report, “despite seasonal temperature changes, bike-share programs seem to be used throughout the year” and “are used by a wide variety of people of all ages. Commuters, recreational-errand riders and tourists are the three main groups. Most reports [from other cities] emphasize that most bike-share users are not competitive or recreational cyclists.”
What this last statement suggests is that the 21,000 daily commuter bicyclists estimated in 2006 and the 131,000 daily cyclists estimated in 2007 would not give up their bikes to use bike-share. Instead, they would be joined by thousands of new cyclists taking advantage of the inexpensive, flexible transportation option offered by a modern bike-share program.
The Nitty-Gritty for New York City
The Department of City Planning’s report states, “Small pilot programs do not work. Successful bike-share programs that produce real and demonstrable transportation, economic and health benefits depend on a high density of kiosks and widespread program coverage. Often, financial viability increases with larger programs.”
With this in mind, the study suggests that New York start a bike-share program with anywhere from 6,500 to 10,000 bicycles stationed throughout the central business district and parts of downtown Brooklyn. A rollout of that size calls for between $26 million and $40 million in capital costs. Membership and use fees would cover the $15 million to $22 million in estimated annual operating costs.
From there, ensuing phases, paid for through franchise contracts, would expand the program to between 49,000 and 60,000 bicycles, covering significant parts of four boroughs and serving two thirds of the city’s population, about 5.2 million people. Cost estimates for a program of this size, the largest in the world, are roughly $200 million in capital and $100 million in annual operating expenses, offset entirely through ad revenues and membership and use fees.
Although these costs estimates are nothing to sneeze at, they are, considering the numbers being bandied about in the MTA bailout debate, a drop in the bucket. With a mere $26 million to $40 million in initial capitol investment, the city could establish a self-sufficient bike-share system able to service tens of thousands of people each day.
That said, comparing a bike-share system to a regional transit authority is like comparing a creek to an ocean: Sure they’re both filled with water, but after that the analogy falls apart. A bike-share system, even one the size of what the Department of City Planning has suggested, is not a comprehensive public transportation system. It is, however, a very sensible part of a much larger network.
Bike-share is cost-efficient, self-sustaining, environmentally sound, healthy and has proved itself successful in cities all over the world. London -- the city most often seen as similar to, and in competition with, New York -- will launch a 6,000-bicycle program in 2010.
Although when dollars are tight and times are tough, many critics see little sense in spending money on something as out-of-the-box as bike-share, there is a strong argument that difficult moments require creative steps. Perhaps this logic, and the City Planning Department’s thorough report, will help push New York City toward bike-share.
Graham T. Beck is the managing editor of Transportation Alternatives' StreetBeat and a freelance writer. He lives in Brooklyn.
Making Bikes a Key Part of New York's Transportation Mix
Tens of thousand of bikes could be headed to city streets, making New York City New Amsterdam all over again. That’s the message some advocates see in "Bike-Share: Opportunities in New York City," a study released yesterday by the Department of City Planning.
The report, a 142-page tome designed “to consider bike-share program models and assess their potential for New York City” reads like a step-by-step guide to implementing a bike-share program that would function as a legitimate part of the public transportation network. The report’s authors examine existing bicycle conditions in the city, estimate the number of New Yorkers who might use a bike-share system, discuss various funding models and strategies for execution, offer cost and revenue estimates, and compare and contrast all of this data with information collected by other cities that have launched bike-share programs.
It’s an impressively comprehensive report that suggests the Department of City Planning and the Bloomberg administration are seriously considering bike-share. So, how would it work? What would it look like? And can bikes really become a part of New York City’s public transit network?
Bike-Share Basics
Large, modern bike-share networks, like those that operate in Paris and Barcelona, consist of automated, self-service kiosks where users can pick up and return bicycles. In the most successful systems, the kiosks are distributed at a density of approximately 28 per square mile in and around city centers, often stationed near transit hubs, busy commercial areas and popular destinations.
Using a credit card or through a pre-established account, users can unlock a bike from the kiosk, ride it for however long they wish and then return it to another kiosk, at which point they will be charged for the amount of time they have had the bike. Most systems have an upfront fee (a little more than $1 for a day, less than $100 for a year) and are free for the first 30 minutes to encourage short, transit-replacing trips. After that, the bike-share programs charge around $1.50 for the first additional half-hour and a bit more (between $2 and $5) for subsequent hours. A staff of mechanics keeps the bikes and kiosks clean and in working order.
Most cities contract out their programs to street furniture companies, who run newsstands public toilets and the like. They recoup their expenses through a combination of user fess and advertising. In some cities, like Montreal, which will open its program this spring, user fees, sponsorship and government support fund bike-share programs. Because of existing street-furniture contracts and regulatory hurdles, if New York City were to implement a bike-share network, the report suggests it should start as a city-built program in areas where density and demand are highest (Manhattan south of 60th Street) and then expand to other areas (first Manhattan south of 81st Street and parts of downtown Brooklyn, then northern Manhattan, western Queens, The Bronx and central Brooklyn) using a franchise model.
Would People Really Use It?
Of course, not all New Yorkers fancy themselves cyclists and not everyone can bike, but most cities that have installed large-scale, modern bike-share programs have seen a huge surge in the number of people willing to ride, in part because bike-share negates a few of the main concerns of would-be cyclists.
The cost of becoming a bike-share member is negligible compared to the upfront expense of purchasing a bicycle. There are no maintenance expenses, no storage concerns, and the fear of theft, which according to a 1999 Department of City Planning study is the number one obstacle to would-be cyclists, is all but neutralized.
According to the report, “despite seasonal temperature changes, bike-share programs seem to be used throughout the year” and “are used by a wide variety of people of all ages. Commuters, recreational-errand riders and tourists are the three main groups. Most reports [from other cities] emphasize that most bike-share users are not competitive or recreational cyclists.”
What this last statement suggests is that the 21,000 daily commuter bicyclists estimated in 2006 and the 131,000 daily cyclists estimated in 2007 would not give up their bikes to use bike-share. Instead, they would be joined by thousands of new cyclists taking advantage of the inexpensive, flexible transportation option offered by a modern bike-share program.
The Nitty-Gritty for New York City
The Department of City Planning’s report states, “Small pilot programs do not work. Successful bike-share programs that produce real and demonstrable transportation, economic and health benefits depend on a high density of kiosks and widespread program coverage. Often, financial viability increases with larger programs.”
With this in mind, the study suggests that New York start a bike-share program with anywhere from 6,500 to 10,000 bicycles stationed throughout the central business district and parts of downtown Brooklyn. A rollout of that size calls for between $26 million and $40 million in capital costs. Membership and use fees would cover the $15 million to $22 million in estimated annual operating costs.
From there, ensuing phases, paid for through franchise contracts, would expand the program to between 49,000 and 60,000 bicycles, covering significant parts of four boroughs and serving two thirds of the city’s population, about 5.2 million people. Cost estimates for a program of this size, the largest in the world, are roughly $200 million in capital and $100 million in annual operating expenses, offset entirely through ad revenues and membership and use fees.
Although these costs estimates are nothing to sneeze at, they are, considering the numbers being bandied about in the MTA bailout debate, a drop in the bucket. With a mere $26 million to $40 million in initial capitol investment, the city could establish a self-sufficient bike-share system able to service tens of thousands of people each day.
That said, comparing a bike-share system to a regional transit authority is like comparing a creek to an ocean: Sure they’re both filled with water, but after that the analogy falls apart. A bike-share system, even one the size of what the Department of City Planning has suggested, is not a comprehensive public transportation system. It is, however, a very sensible part of a much larger network.
Bike-share is cost-efficient, self-sustaining, environmentally sound, healthy and has proved itself successful in cities all over the world. London -- the city most often seen as similar to, and in competition with, New York -- will launch a 6,000-bicycle program in 2010.
Although when dollars are tight and times are tough, many critics see little sense in spending money on something as out-of-the-box as bike-share, there is a strong argument that difficult moments require creative steps. Perhaps this logic, and the City Planning Department’s thorough report, will help push New York City toward bike-share.
Graham T. Beck is the managing editor of Transportation Alternatives' StreetBeat and a freelance writer. He lives in Brooklyn.
Punishing Drivers Who Kill
Photo (cc) amalthya
"If you ever need to kill someone in New York City, do it with a car," Aaron Naparstek recently advised on the urban planning news site Streetsblog.org.
Rather than offering a tip to murderers, Naperstek was making a rhetorical point. He is one of many livable streets advocates who have started to see traffic laws, and their prosecution and enforcement, as the next front in the sustainable-transportation fight -- and with good cause. Since the start of this year, a spate of high-profile pedestrian crashes has grabbed headlines, irreparably altered the lives of those close to the victims and gone all-but-unpunished.
Unsafe Streets
On Jan. 6, 9-year-old Ibrahim Ahmed was killed in a crosswalk in Ozone Park, Queens. Alexander Aponte, who hit the boy, was driving City Council candidate Mike Ricatto's campaign bus and had a suspended license. He raced to beat a red light and struck Ibrahim in broad daylight. Aponte did not face charges in the boy's death. He was arraigned for driving with a suspended license.
Two weeks later, preschoolers Diego Martinez and Haley Ng were killed on a Chinatown sidewalk while walking with chaperones and classmates. A delivery van left unattended and in reverse by its driver, Chao Fu, hopped the curb killing the two children and injuring 11 others. Chao was not charged.
Even when drivers who kill pedestrians are prosecuted, sentences are often little more than a slap on the wrist, according to many of the victim's families and safe-streets advocates. They cite the case of George Andersen, the CEO and founder of a software technology company. In January, he received a 16-day weekend jail sentence, 250 hours of community service and a $350 fine after killing Florence Cioffi with his Mercedes SUV. Anderson was driving at 60 mph through the narrow streets of downtown Manhattan when he struck Cioffi. He fled the scene. When he eventually returned, he refused a breathalyzer. Hours later, when an intoxication test was finally administered, it confirmed that Anderson had been driving drunk.
"The city doesn't take traffic enforcement seriously enough," said Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives. "The Bloomberg administration is doing a great job building bike lanes and pedestrian spaces, but without real efforts from the NYPD, the district attorneys and legal reform from Albany, changes to the built environment can only do so much to keep New York City pedestrians safe."
Weak Enforcement, Weak Prosecution
Advocates see the steps for reducing the deaths as bound in a circle: Tougher laws would allow prosecutors to do more in the courtroom, which would motivate police to investigate aggressively, which would give prosecutors more to work with, which would validate and inspire tougher laws, which would empower police, and so on. Accordingly, these advocates want to address each component of the problem in hopes of affecting the entire issue.
Steve Hindy, who became an advocate for street safety after his son was killed in a cycling crash in 2007, cites the 2008 investigation of Rasha Shamoon's death as illustrative of shortcomings in police procedures. In an open letter to Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, Hindy wrote, "When she was struck and killed by an SUV traveling northbound on Bowery, police interviewed the 21-year-old driver and his two young passengers who blamed the unconscious and dying woman. No other witnesses were interviewed, even though several people reported the crash to 911. No skid marks were measured. Remarkably, although the SUV driver had six prior motor vehicle convictions, he was allowed to leave the scene after giving a statement."
Hindy's letter goes on to ask for a more comprehensive accident-report form that would prompt officers to thoroughly investigate such incidents. He believes that if prosecutors had additional information, they could bring more appropriate charges against drivers who kill. The police department has yet to respond to his letter.
Even when there is enough evidence to charge a driver involved in a fatal crash, prosecution can be difficult, according to a 2004 interview with Maureen McCormick, who now leads the Vehicular Crimes Unit in Nassau County, but was in the Brooklyn district attorney's office at the time of the interview. According to McCormick, under current laws, "a criminal prosecution requires showing that the motorist ran the red light because of more than carelessness or inadvertence." This requires determining the driver's state of mind, and that, she said, "is a difficult thing to prove. They don't generally yell out 'I'm going through this light on purpose.'"
Peter Goldwasser, general counsel at Transportation Alternatives said that proving criminal negligence, then, often involves applying the 'rule of two' to show that a driver acted with a sufficient disregard for the safety and well-being of other road users. "An assistant district attorney believes that in order to convict a driver of criminally negligent homicide, that person must have committed at least two simultaneous and unrelated traffic violations, regardless of how dangerous one violation may be. Now, it's my opinion that this is case law based on an incorrect reading of a 50-year-old court decision, nonetheless it has guided prosecutors for some time," Goldwasser said.
Changing the Laws
In addition to protesting at the district attorney's offices and peppering district attorney candidates about these issues, the families of victims and advocates have started pressuring lawmakers in Albany to reform the legal system so that drivers who kill pedestrians can be charged more easily.
Paul Steely White, Transportation Alternatives executive director has cited Oregon's "vulnerable user law that 'requires the court to impose sentences of traffic safety course, community service, fines of up to $12,500, and suspension of driving privileges for one year," if a driver injures or kills a pedestrian or cyclist while driving carelessly.
At the behest of his constituents and in the wake of Ibrahim Ahmed's death, Assemblymember Robert Sweeney introduced legislation that would "penalizes crimes of vehicular assault and vehicular manslaughter as felonies when such crimes are committed while driving with a suspended or revoked license."
Advocates insist that these and other reforms, like more comprehensive analysis of traffic violations and legislation similar to Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's proposal for installing speeding and red light enforcement cameras throughout the city, also are essential to making streets safe for pedestrians.
Still Struggling
Although efforts are underway on many fronts, that's hardly a salve for those most-affected by unsafe streets. Earlier this month, about 70 New Yorkers joined the families of Hayley Ng and Diego Martinez, the two preschoolers killed struck and killed by the van in Chinatown, to demand that the Manhattan district attorney's office convene a grand jury to fully examine what happened on the tragic morning of Jan. 22 when these two youngsters lost their lives.
It was a tear-filled gathering rife with emotional pleas. "Accidents happen, but someone still bears the burden of responsibility," Lauren Ng, Hayley's cousin, said to the morose crowd. "What kind of city is this that does not protect its most vulnerable citizens?" she asked.
Jon Adler, speaking on behalf of the victims' families, demanded that the district attorney find something, "even if it's a misdemeanor, something to charge this man for making that decision, to leave that vehicle on."
It seems that no one could understand how justice had been served.
Haley's aunt, Sui Der, told CBS News, "This will haunt us for the rest of our lives. The happiness in our family is totally gone. We were a happy family."
Speaking on the phone a few weeks after the rally, Adler said, "Unfortunately, there has been no immediate sign of progress among those who claim to be concerned. Hopefully, working with groups and those who truly are concerned, we'll be able to bring about real change."
Certainly, families and friends who have lost loved ones agree.
Graham T. Beck is the managing editor of Transportation Alternatives' StreetBeat and a freelance writer. He lives in Brooklyn.
|
Tweet |
