Central Park To Try New (VERY SLOW) Transverse Bike Lanes

Via bicyclesonly's Flickr

Normally, if you're a bike-wielding terrorist bent on destroying the acorn reserves of Central Park squirrels (trust us) you don't have many options for cutting through the park. Either you bike to 60th street for a roundabout trip north, use the crosstown street at 72nd that only goes east to west or brave those narrow, dicey transverse roads. However, it appears that the Poltiburo of the Parks Department and the Central Park Conservancy will permit cyclists on two pedestrian paths as part of a trial run that could begin as soon as this month. The catch? Really, really, really, really, slow pedaling.

The paths are at W. 97th street and W. 102nd street and cut across the park, and cyclists would have to maintain a speed of 5 mph. A member of the hiking group Shorewalkers, who supports the measure, reasonably tells the Times, "Every square inch of the city is fought over, and unfortunately there has to be some sharing." But this is a bike story, so "reason" be damned: UES vs. UWS cage match! Though the UWS's CB 7 hasn't endorsed the project yet, the board has said that it seeks "a solution for cyclists to be able to cross Central Park unencumbered by automobile traffic." Meanwhile, CB 8, which represents the Upper East Side, voted 31-13 against the trial.

Nevermind that cyclists and pedestrians already share paths peacefully, bring on the rage! "You always have to look out for cyclists—you can't hear them, like cars," says one CB 8 member. "If you try to explain to them that it's illegal, you learn a lot of four letter words." A parent and Transportation Alternatives member who lives on the UES confirms that using pedestrian paths with his son on the way home from school is "an experience of constantly being scolded by strange adults."

While the Parks Department and the Conservancy should be applauded for testing a controversial policy before implementing it, what's remains puzzling is the DOT's flat refusal to of a trial period to ban cars from the park "loop," despite unanimous support from both sides of the park. It must have something to do with losing out on all that red light ticket revenue.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Christopher Robbins in News on July 9, 2011 1:30 PM

Comments [rss]

qrt145

I cycle through central park several times a week and, while I agree that it would be great to have better ways of crossing the park, I'm astonished that in all the discussions I've seen about this people neglect to mention the other option that cyclists have: walking their bikes across the park. OK, it's slow and annoying, but it's legal and probably faster than taking a 3+ mile detour (which is the often-mentioned alternative.)

The park is 0.5 miles wide. Walking across it can't take more than 10 minutes.

Jay Kauffman

I'm happy about this but they'll need to go all the way. There should be places for bikes to cross wherever cars also cross. Why should bicycles only be able to cross the park safely and legally at one 5 block strip....97 to 102? Sorry, genteel upper-east-side park lovers, but Central Park is not your back yard. It's right smack in the center of Manhattan and needs to be crossed many times a day by people who actually have jobs to do on both sides of the park. And some of them ride bicycles, myself included. I'm a tutor and I cross the park several times a day on my bike and have to choose several times a day between risking my life in the cramped, curvy, pothole-ridden, shoulderless transverse lanes or risking a the dreaded $270 ticket that I hear is so popular these days. I ride exceedingly carefully and respectfully when around people and their pooches, keep a watch out for children, and choose paths that are not as heavily travelled, when possible. But I won't resign myself and the growing numbers of bicycle riders to limbo between those two untenable choices. We're not out to injure you. We're fellow park lovers, AND we need a safe and legal and respectable way to commute across the park, which is OUR park as well as YOURS. Please understand that we are not going away and this issue is not going away.

smalll

I'm a bicyclist, so I'm on that side of the bike wars, but there is ONE thing I would be cool with: not licenses or registration (or insurance) -- and CERTAINLY not the ticketing for going through red lights. I could, however, get behind a law requiring bicycles in the city to be equipped with some kind of noisemaker that would make a noise while in motion equivalent to, say, the old card in the spokes.

I think almost all of the pedestrian fear and loathing of bicycles really does come down to not being able to hear them. I'm a careful rider, and stay aware of traffic and pedestrians around me, and have never grazed a pedestrian, but I imagine they don't realize that when I ride by near them, it wasn't a "near miss" -- I saw them, they just didn't hear me! (And don't ask us to ride around shouting at people and ringing bells - that's all-around annoying.)

Aren't there places now that are trying to require electric cars so make some kind of noise when in motion for safety reasons? I could get behind the same thing with bikes.

guestymcspanky

Just ring your bell. It isn't rocket science. Noise makers?! Lunacy.

moocow

Just ring your bell as a "here I come and I don't want to startle you" and not a "get out of my way" and you will be fine. Because having some spoke card thing clacking all the time, will very, very annoying, for everyone. Or just say quietly, just loud enough, you are looking to pass them. It's really not that bad.
If you don't believe me about the bell, this would be another good reason to visit Amsterdam.