NYC Bike Share

NYC Bike Share Designed by New Yorkers

159 DOT’s multi-year public planning process for Citi Bike included 159 public bike share meetings, presentations and demonstrations since September 2011, plus another 230 meetings with elected officials, property owners and other stakeholders.

10,000 DOT’s interactive station planning map (nyc.gov/bikeshare) received over 10,000 station suggestions, and over 55,000 “supports” for these suggestions.

2,881 In total, DOT planners presented the public, Community Boards and other stakeholders with 2,881 technically viable options for the 600 bike share stations; almost 5 options for each station.

74% 74% of New Yorkers support bike share (August 2012 Quinnipiac poll)

2

NYC BIKE SHARE: Designed by New Yorkers

Inside this Report Letter from the Commissioner Planning New York’s Newest Travel Option long-term public dialogue Reaching the public Bringing in all new yorkers putting it all together APPENdix A: Community Planning Workshops APpendix B: Bike Share Station Siting Guidelines Appendix C: Planning Partners Appendix D: In the News

3


Letter from the Commissioner In just the last five years, New York City has made huge strides in creating modern, safer streets. Drawing from Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s PlaNYC sustainability agenda, we’ve established more than 300 miles of bike lanes, 30 plazas and made expansive street safety redesigns to accommodate all street users citywide—all while recording the five safest years in city history and logging remarkable economic gains in corridors where projects were implemented. Citi Bike presents a new way for New Yorkers to get around that takes advantage of these changes to our streets, and it also marks a new standard for public participation in planning. Behind every planned station on the street there are thousands of suggestions, handwritten notes on maps and direct comments to system planners and online from a vast spectrum of New Yorkers. The station locations are a result of this multi-year public planning process, the most extensive ever undertaken for a transportation project in New York City—and surpassing community participation for any other public project undertaken anywhere. Citi Bike was literally designed by New Yorkers for New Yorkers and tailored to meet New York’s specific needs, block by block. While the resulting system is a testament to public involvement and to this agency’s dedication over 18 months, the benefits of Citi Bike will continue to be enjoyed for years to come, and even beyond the millions of people who will use the system.

Janette Sadik-Khan Commissioner

4


Planning New York’s newest travel option New York is a biking city. Bike ridership has grown fourfold in the last 10 years and biking is the city’s fastest growing transportation option for New Yorkers looking for a fast, safe, convenient and affordable way to get around. Polls released by Quinnipiac University’s Polling Institute in October 2011 and August 2012 found that more than 70% of New Yorkers support Citi Bike, New York City’s proposed bike share system. These findings are the culmination of growth in innovative, community requested and supported infrastructure, from the nation’s first protected bike paths to bike parking corrals. With bike safety remaining at the same high levels as a decade ago, despite 75% more riders on the street,

cycling as a means of transportation continues to become a more attractive transportation option for New Yorkers. Enthusiasm for Citi Bike is also reflected in numerous independent polls that show broad and sustained support for bike facilities. Communities across the city are increasingly requesting that lanes and other bike infrastructure be built in their neighborhoods. New York City, with its flat geography and high density, is perfectly suited to bike riding. Citi Bike will take advantage of these strengths by offering an unlimited number of affordable, short bike trips—provided to New Yorkers without using any public funds.

Over 70% of New Yorkers support New York’s proposed bike share system.

5


Another reason for the strong public embrace of bike share is the exhaustive and highly participatory planning process used to develop Citi Bike station sites within the system’s initial service area. This report describes and documents the process from 2011 to 2013. Bike share lends itself to a community planning process. Successful bike share systems rely on an effective density of stations in a network, rather than on the specific placement of any single station. It was essential to cast a very wide outreach and communication net to introduce a new transportation system that many New Yorkers had not experienced before.

Choosing sites for 600 bike share stations across a wide area of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens has been one of New York’s most participatory planning undertakings.

6


Choosing sites for 600 bike share stations across a wide area of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens has been one of the most participatory planning processes ever undertaken in New York. The effort encompassed close to 400 meetings with a wide variety of stakeholders, an innovative online portal for gathering input (which has since been emulated across North America), dozens of demonstration events, hands-on community planning workshops, and an extended dialogue and set of meetings between the New York City Department of Transportation (NYC DOT), community boards and members of the NYC City Council.

Long Term Public Dialogue The rhythm of bike share planning in New York followed a pattern of DOT engagement, feedback from stakeholders, synthesis by DOT of many and diverse sources of input, and a return to stakeholders to discuss results. The work and process included these main steps:

Discussion with NYC City Council about the bike share program and planning process Announcement of bike share program Briefings for City Council members Discussions with business improvement districts and major property owners Briefings for community board leaders Briefings for state and federal elected officials Presentations to community board committees and full board meetings nyc.gov/bikeshare website allows all New Yorkers to suggest bike share station sites Demonstrations, open houses and exhibits Discussions with civic organizations, block associations, city agencies and public authorities Receipt of written input from many stakeholders Presentation of maps with potential station sites to elected officials, community boards and other stakeholder groups 14 community planning workshops to provide hands-on forums for New Yorkers to discuss and suggest station sites. Receipt of detailed feedback on potential station sites from all stakeholders Planning work to synthesize specific input from all sources Presentations and briefings to all stakeholders on draft final station site plan On-line posting of draft final station site maps Follow-up briefings for City Council members Receipt of detailed feedback on draft station maps Adjustment of sites and maps to reflect additional feedback and input

7


Mar

Feb

Jan

Dec

Nov

Oct

Sept

Aug

Jul

Jun

May

2013 Apr

Mar

Feb

Jan

Dec

Nov

Oct

2012 Sept

Aug

Jul

Jun

STEPS

2011

Reaching the Public The planning process for the Citi Bike program established an open door policy, encouraging input early and often from the citizens of New York City. Beginning in the fall of 2011, DOT staff met repeatedly with bommunity boards at the leadership, committee, and full board levels, elected officials, leaders of business improvement districts, and other business and civic organizations.

2012, DOT staff met with the 15 Community Boards in the program area 39 times. In addition, over the same time period, DOT staff hosted 31 meetings with business improvement districts (BIDs) and other neighborhood and civic groups, and conducted 25 briefings for City and State elected officials.

Early meetings explained the bike share concept, outlined the upcoming public process and gathered input on suggested sites. From the announcement of Alta Bicycle Share (known in New York as NYC Bike Share) as the New York City bike share operator in September 2011 to the end first phase of public outreach in February

At each initial meeting, DOT staff provided stakeholders with maps showing a wide range of options for where bike share stations could be placed. DOT requested direct input on which locations might be desirable and which should be avoided. The maps showed three to five times the number of stations that would ultimately

Public Meetings

“… it’s going to be a great program for the city. [DOT has] spent a lot of time qualifying these sites and getting feedback from residents.” Manhattan CB3 committee chair David Crane (The Villager, April 19th, 2012)

8


be necessary, allowing for a significant degree of public influence from the earliest planning stages. In total, stakeholders considered 2,881 options for the 600 bike share stations. At each meeting, DOT provided maps showing the universe of possible station locations based on physical space and other technical criteria (see Appendix B) and invited participants to select where the stations should go in their communities or districts. Stakeholders were asked to take the maps for close review and return them to DOT at their convenience. Locations flagged as undesirable were removed from consideration. Community boards, BIDs and community groups were also involved in suggesting potential station locations. Some organizations, especially Manhattan community boards, set up internal task forces to scout additional sites for consideration. Each site suggested by any source was subjected to a rigorous vetting process to ensure it met

basic technical criteria (Appendix B). Qualifying sites were added to the map of options for further review. In addition, DOT staff and organizations such as the DUMBO BID, Flatiron/23rd St Partnership, Union Square Partnership and the Hudson River Park Trust conducted numerous site visits to review potential locations and find new ones.

Demonstrations Public outreach to announce the proposed system and its planning process went well beyond meetings. Following the announcement of New York City Bike Share (NYCBS) as New York’s bike share operator, NYCBS and DOT staff embarked upon a heavy schedule of bike share equipment demonstrations. The teams conducted twenty-one field demonstrations in six weeks, to introduce the public to the program and its planning process.

“Beginning with the initial planning session and throughout all of the community meetings, there was ample opportunity for our concerns to be heard.” Grand Central Partnership

9


The demonstrations also provided an important distribution point for information. Over the course of nine months, DOT distributed thousands of wallet-sized cards asking New Yorkers to “Help plan the system” by directing them to the DOT bike share Website and interactive Suggest-a-Station map, videos and more information. The schedule of demonstrations was widely distributed via social media and print outlets. DOT added events to the schedule throughout the month to respond to community requests. Hundreds of New Yorkers came to the demonstrations to ride the bikes. Thousands more stopped by for information and to ask questions. The demonstrations showcased key system features such as the ease of installation and the durability of the bikes, stations, and docks. New York is a four-season city, and the highly variable weather combined with intense use made durability of Citi Bikes a critical selling point for New Yorkers. The demonstrations also

let New Yorkers see first-hand just how easily the no-excavation installation was completed. For each demonstration, staff arrived about an hour in advance to install a fully functioning station. This simple display of the sophistication of the bike share equipment helped allay fears that the deployment of bike share stations would disrupt traffic or that station locations, once selected, were set in stone.

Targeting Diverse Populations As part of the demonstration series, DOT engaged specific non-native English speaking constituencies. At the request of Manhattan Community Board 3, DOT hosted two Spanish language presentations and one joint Mandarin and Cantonese presentation in the winter of 20112012. DOT developed these presentations in close coordination with local service organizations such as the Grand Street Settlement, El Puente, and the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association. In addition to online and print-media outreach,

DOT hosted Spanish, Mandarin, and Cantonese presentations. 10


publicity for these events involved heavy flyering and postering in local businesses and housing developments. DOT also developed an open-house series which included bike share bicycles and a short video of bike share system features, which allowed handson outreach to continue on into the colder months. Open houses at places like the Whitehall Staten Island Ferry terminal and the Port Authority Bus Terminal allowed DOT to reach other audiences of potential bike share users who might work but not live in the bike share program area.

Public Exhibits and Events As word spread about Citi Bike, DOT began to field requests from civic organizations, elected officials, private companies and property owners to present information about bike share. From September 2011 to August 2012, the DOT hosted, presented or attended 155 events. These included presentations at the New School, REBNY (Real Estate Board of NY), the 6th Avenue Association, the Brooklyn Heights Association, FXFowle Architects, the Turtle Bay Association, Stuyvesant High School, the Grand Central Branch of the NY Public Library and others, as well as a month long exhibition called Two Wheel Transit: NYC Bike Share at the AIA Center for Architecture. More than 2,700 visitors attended the exhibit during its month-long duration. The dialogue about Citi Bike also spread beyond

Two Wheel Transit: NYC Bike Share On January 11th, 2012, the widely-attended Two Wheel Transit: NYC Bike Share exhibit opened at the AIA Center for Architecture on LaGuardia Place. The opening included a standing-room only presentation about Citi Bike with DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan. The exhibit featured graphics showing size and density of bike share systems around the world, comparing travel times in New York City on bike, subway and car, and had a computer so visitors to the show could suggest a location on the nyc.gov/bikeshare Website. As a further attraction, a demonstration bike share bike was mounted to the wall so that visitors could spin the wheels and see the front and rear lights automatically illuminate. Over 2,700 visitors came to see Two Wheel Transit during its month-long run.

11


DOT-organized events. In October 2011, the Park Slope Civic Council organized its own roundtable event to discuss opportunities for bike share station sites in Park Slope and feedback from the event was passed along to DOT for inclusion in the planning process.

nyc.gov/bikeshare On the virtual side, nyc.gov/bikeshare offered New Yorkers who might otherwise be unable to attend a community board meeting or community planning workshop an easy way to make their voices heard in the planning process. Launched in September 2011, nyc.gov/bikeshare combined a highly interactive “Suggest-aStation” map with a regularly updating list of events, informational blog entries and videos explaining the planned New York system.

12


Constant activity on the site ensured a steady stream of visitors and kept the site fresh and engaging. At the site’s peak in September 2011 it received 1,200 visits per hour. Since its launch, almost every other US city looking to introduce or expand bike share – Chicago, Washington DC, Portland - has replicated New York’s Website. At the core of the Website was the interactive “Suggest-a-Station” map which was live from September 2011 to May 2012. Visitors were invited to place pins on the map identifying locations where they would want to see bike share stations, provide comments on why they thought a particular location was good and then share their suggestion via Facebook, Twitter and other social media. Visitors were also invited to support suggestions made by other visitors. The “Suggest-a-Station” feature was widely publicized online, and the AIA Two Wheel Transit

show featured a computer set-up so visitors to the show could access the site while attending the exhibit. In total, New Yorkers placed over 10,000 suggestion pins on the map and “supported” already-placed pins over 55,000 times. The nyc.gov/bikeshare site served as a two-way conduit to keep New Yorkers involved in the planning process. DOT staff used the suggestions from the Website to identify locations they might have missed in initial siting work, adding sites to the planning maps presented to community boards and other stakeholders. In addition, everyone who suggested a station location was invited to provide their e-mail address and zip code. Throughout the process, DOT used this information to notify interested individuals about nearby community planning workshops. The site also included a “contact us” feature. DOT staff

13


responded to hundreds of questions regarding everything from job opportunities to suggestions for and concerns about specific stations sites.

Bringing in all New Yorkers Ensuring access for lower-income residents is a challenge that all American bike share systems have had to address. Two issues – a credit card requirement, needed to ensure that each bike rental can be linked to a specific person, and placement of bike share stations – have typically been the main barriers for low-income would-be users. Low-income people are less likely than middle- and upper-income people to have a credit card. Unlike the heavily subsidized European and Chinese bike share systems, American bike share programs to date have been small, only covering downtown areas and immediately adjacent residential neighborhoods. This often means that stations are not located in lower-income neighborhoods. In Washington DC, a special discount program developed with select “Bank on DC” credit unions has attempted to address the credit card and financial access issues. However, use of this program is limited and the lack of stations in lower-income neighborhoods still depresses Capital Bikeshare use among lowincome residents.

14


In New York City, DOT chose to address issues of equity and access from both a siting perspective as well as affordability. DOT, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), community boards, and NYCHA Resident Advisors found locations for bike share stations in and around NYCHA housing campuses. At launch, there will be Citi Bike stations within one block of all 29 NYCHA properties in the program area. In addition, the DOT contract requires NYCBS to ensure that the Citi Bike program area cover a number of lowerincome New York City neighborhoods. To address financial access, DOT created two discounted annual memberships programs. The programs, one for NYCHA residents and the other for members of Community Development Credit Unions, offer annual Citi Bike memberships for $60, an almost 40% reduction in price. To develop these programs, DOT planners worked closely with NYCHA and the Department of Consumer Affairs Office of Financial Empowerment, the Nation Federation of Community Development Credit Unions, and community organizations such as Bed-Stuy Restoration, El Puente, and the Local Spokes Coalition.

Putting it all together Synthesizing YEARS of input and discussion Hands-On Planning Fourteen community planning workshops— hosted from January to May 2012—formed the second phase of the outreach process. Borrowing from DOT’s experiences with other participatory planning projects such as the Select Bus Service community advisory committees, the workshops were an opportunity for both community groups and individual New Yorkers to weigh in directly on where stations should and should not go. The workshops were designed to elicit both general and specific input, ranging from overall street or sidewalk preferences, and details of specific sites. This range of feedback allowed DOT to eliminate specific locations and develop a stronger understanding of the types of locations that each neighborhood preferred.

Workshops elicited both general and specific input, from general street vs. sidewalk preferences and details of specific sites. 15


In total, more than 250 organizations, publications, community groups and elected officials participated in the 14 workshops. These participants were important resources to help to get out the word to their communities. The workshops used interactive exercises and visual aids to stimulate in-depth conversations on transportation needs, how bike share could meet those needs, the program itself, safety, and station locations. Participants worked on table-sized maps showing all the technically qualified sites in their neighborhood and provided comment on specific locations. Each workshop map offered a wealth of information for participants to use as they made

Below are samples of the table-sized maps used at public workshops showing all the technically qualified sites in a neighborhood. Station options that received significant negative comments were removed from the plans.

Map 1 Map of all possible options (3-5 times more station locations than necessary)

Map 2 Locations with numerous “no” votes at the workshop

Map 3 Proposed plan presented to the Community Boards

16


their decisions about what stations they might want to see in their neighborhoods. Each station was assigned an ID number, color, and shape. Colors identified the location’s recommendation history – red for sites recommended by the community board or elected official; purple for sites suggested by a local business, BID or local institution; blue for sites identified through the Website. Shapes indicated location in the streetscape – squares for street sites, triangles for sites on the sidewalk and circles for all others. Workshop participants then were able to place green, red and black stickers on the maps to indicate likes, dislikes and brandnew station suggestions. The map was overlaid with a 1,000-square-foot grid, with three to five options in each square. Selecting one station in each grid roughly corresponded to the desired bike share network density. A DOT moderator and note-taker were at each table to record comments and facilitate a conversation about the sites participants had chosen.

Workshops were organized in close coordination with community boards, elected officials and civic groups.

17


Each workshop was organized in close coordination with community boards, elected officials and local civic groups to determine dates, times and locations that would work best for as many people as possible. Business improvement districts such as the Downtown Alliance generously promoted workshops via their e-mail lists. In addition, DOT sent targeted e-mails to all the people who had submitted station suggestions and support messages via the Website to invite them to the workshops in the areas where they had placed stations on the online map. Newspapers like El Diario and popular blogs like Streetsblog ran listings of upcoming workshops. DOT also posted all upcoming events prominently on its Website and alerted local blogs and publications.

Synthesizing the data Eighteen months of meetings, demonstrations and discussion, 14 community planning workshops, and more than 10,000 online suggestions produced a vast quantity of information on where New Yorkers wanted to see Citi Bike stations. DOT’s first task was to code and synthesize the workshop results from nearly 3,000 possible station locations. Locations that received red “No” arrows during the workshops were removed and locations that received significant numbers of green “Yes” votes were highlighted.Suggestions for other stations not depicted on the maps were vetted by DOT staff to ensure they met the technical criteria. Comments received via the Website or recorded by note-takers at the workshops were added in. Stations that received votes via the Website were prioritized over stations that had not. DOT planners then used a Geographic Information System (GIS) program to create a predictive model for how big each individual station would need to be. The model analyzed the surrounding land use (residential, commercial, parkland, schools, etc.), population, tourism rates and subway turnstile counts and other transit use throughout the program area. The model also made use of newly available taxi GPS data on origins and destinations of trips, as well as durations and times of day throughout the city. The next step was to marry the public opinion information gathered in the workshops, through the Website, and through months of conversation with stakeholders to the overall map of technically viable locations and the station size model. DOT planners combined all the comments received over the multi-year process with the technical information in order to select one station within each grid square. A wide array of factors – specific requests or comments, neighborhood preferences, proximity to transit and other destinations, distance from other stations, access and proximity to bike lanes, station size in relation to the demand model – were all considered.

18


Predictive model for bike share station size

DOT staff matched the overall community request profiles also generated in the workshops. For example, in Manhattan, Community Boards 2, 4, and 5 stated strong preferences that stations not be sited on sidewalks, while Brooklyn’s Community Board 3 and Queens Community Board 2 preferred locations on sidewalks. Stations selected in these areas were matched to these preferences. In addition, following lessons learned in other bike share cities, DOT worked to meet the basic rules of station spacing, making sure that stations would be placed approximate 1,000 feet apart – a 3-5-minute walk. In areas where a lot of activity could be expected, for example around Penn Station or Grand Central Terminal, DOT also made sure to site adjacent stations that were larger than the average or placed additional stations in that area to meet the expected demand. Constant dialogue with community groups, stakeholders and elected officials continued as DOT was analyzing input and developing draft network plans. DOT staff also responded to hundreds of comments and queries through its [email protected] e-mail and through the nyc.gov/bikeshare Website.

19


Finalizing station sites As the draft station plan for each neighborhood was completed, DOT returned to the community boards for further comment and review. Meetings were again held with BIDs, elected officials and other stakeholders for additional comments. At each community board meeting, DOT planners showed the full initial range of options, highlighted stations that had received significant support or disapproval, and presented the draft plan. Once DOT had presented the station siting plan to each community board, the full citywide proposed plan was posted on nyc.gov/ bikeshare. The Website featured the plan in both a Google Maps version and as a printable PDF. Both formats clearly indicate the size of each station and its location in the streetscape. In the months that followed, DOT worked closely with all the stakeholders to make adjustments to the plans. In total, 43% of the stations proposed in the draft plans were moved due to community request. Perhaps the greatest testament to the effectiveness of bike share planning in New York is the degree of emulation seen around the country as bike sharing proposals proliferate. Chicago,

Portland, Columbus, and other municipalities have largely replicated the approach documented in these pages. In New York, the Citi Bike planning process will continue as city government, the program sponsors and NYC Bicycle Share seek to expand the system to the projected level of 600 stations and 10,000 bikes. The expansion will lead to detailed station siting work in the Upper East and Upper West Sides, Park Slope, and Crown Heights. With the very high pre-launch approval rating noted at the outset of this report, and the high usage, demand, and popularity that bike

One testament to the effectiveness of bike share planning in New York is the degree of emulation seen around the country.

20


share systems have seen in other large, transitbased cities, demand to expand the system even further is very likely. DOT’s proven outreach and participatory planning will allow additional parts of the city to adopt and take full advantage of this latest addition to New York’s rich menu of transportation choices.

APPENDIX A Community Planning Workshops The community planning workshops helped elicit feedback on where bike share stations should be placed in the New York City streetscape. The workshops rooms were set with 8 - 10 tables, each seating 8-10 people including a moderator and note-taker. Each workshop started on a rolling basis; as soon as a table filled with people, the session would begin. A Citi Bike was brought in to each workshop so that participants could check out the equipment while waiting for their table to fill. The three main sections of the workshop are as follows: • Introduction • Getting to know bike share board exercises • Community map

Renderings of sidewalk and curb lane Citi Bike stations.

21


Introduction What is Bike share? In order to ensure that everyone had the same base level of knowledge about bike share, the workshop began with a 10 minute presentation discussing the planning process, features of the program, types of station locations, safety, and maintenance. The presentation was followed by 10 - 15 minute question and answer period.

Getting to Know Bikeshare Board Exercises: Using a large “board game” style table graphic, DOT moderators led participants through three exercises. 1. How Would You Use Bike share? Participants were asked to place an arrow on a trip type (work/school, recreation, shopping etc) which they would consider making via bike share and then discuss their choice. This conversation helped to facilitate a discussion about the usefulness of bike share. Participants were then encouraged to place additional arrows on all types of trips for which they would use bike share. The note-taker recorded all the different types of trips and destinations suggested, and made special note of trips where multiple people placed flags. The exercise served as an ice-breaker. 2. Where Should Stations Go? The moderator asked participants to look at renderings of different types of station locations; sidewalk, curb lane, park verges, private property, etc. The moderator then facilitated discussion

22


about the different station typologies and asked participants to think about where they would like and expect to see stations around the city. The note-taker distributed a short survey which participants were asked to fill-out identifying station typology preference and some use generator preferences. Surveys were collected, and the note-taker recorded the total on a tally sheet. The moderator then led the table in a discussion of why participants selected the types of sites they did. The purpose of the location exercise was to solicit participant feedback on generally preferred station locations in each district. 3. What Features Should Bike share Have? Using the large table graphic, the moderator was able to show participants images of the kiosk, membership key, smart phone apps, and more. The features section allowed DOT to solicit participant options on the usefulness of these features, and collect suggestions for additional features.

NYC Bike Share CommuNitY WorkShop

Pedestrian Plazas APPS

Work

Parks

n/

ol le

C

Bu

s

ore dm ...an

Locations

Tr i

p

s

T

ism

KIOSK

Tou r s rk Pa

Lu n

Plazas cPedestrian h

OTHER

KIOSK

Features

Shopping

Parks

APPS Wide Sidewalks

WEBSITE

Pedestrian Plazas


Workshop table graphic.

23

Sidewalk Verges

OTHER

ps

nt


Parking Lanes

Features




ai Tr

ge ri

rfro

e Wat

Sidewalk Verges

Parking Lanes

M u seu ms

T r i ps


Wide Sidewalks

NYC Bike Share CommuNitY WorkShop NYC Bike Share CommuNitY WorkShop

Locations

The Community Map After the board game exercises were completed, participants were shown a table-sized map of the community board which depicted all the technically qualified sites. The map was overlaid with the 1,000 square foot grid and each site was assigned an ID number, color, and shape. Colors identified the location’s recommendation history - if it was recommended by the community board, elected official, local business, business improvement district, local institution, or if it was identified by the general public through the web portal tool. Shape indicated location in the streetscape - if the station was to be located on a sidewalk, street, or “other” location. The map included three to five times more stations than would ultimately be necessary, giving participants ample choice for each grid square location. Participants placed stickers on sites to indicate their preferences: green arrows

24


for stations they liked, red arrows to indicate dislike and black arrows on locations where they wanted to see a station but one was not already depicted. Throughout the placement of the arrows, the table moderator conducted a lively conversations asking participants to explain their thinking as they placed their respective arrows. The participants were able to continue to place arrows on sites and have discussions with others at their table and the moderator for as long as they wished. The note-taker recorded participant’s statements about site locations.

RE

ET

D E

EN

REE T

AD

Y ALLE Y

ALLE

REET

REET 36 ST

REET

38 ST

39 ST

39

34 ST

REET 35 ST

ALLE Y

39 PL ACE

40 ST REET

ALLE Y

Y

ALLE

PA TH E BIK

ILL BO UL EV AR D EL H

ET RE 43

T ST REE

BROOKLYN CB1 Bike Share Community Workshop

T EE STR 48

E NU AV E Y RC UR

G

BR

MA AM LI IL W E BQ

ET

RE

Y

W ES

HE

Local Businesses and Business Improvement Districts

Community Board

Public (via the website)

Suggested by:

On-sidewalk Station

LEGEND

On-street station

Type of station:

ET

Y

LE

AL

LM

AVENUE

ET

RE

K

PORTER AVENUE

*There are 4 times more sites proposed on this map than will be installed. ST

STEWART AVENUE

GARDNER AVENUE

DE

UNION AVENUE

CE AN TR EN EB

RE ST R YE ME HA VE

ST

ST

NEW MONTROSE

E

NU

E AV

TEN EY

RE

ST

PE

HO

ST

JOHNSON AVENUE

QU LY N OO K BR

T

EE

TR

SS

WE

D AR YW

T

EE

GE

ED

ET

RE

ST

ET

RE

ST

ON ET

ET

RE

ST

DL

MID

HE

ST W

ES

T

CH

N LY

ET

RE

ST

ET

RE

ST

ON LT WA

UT

BO

LA

L WA

ST

UR G

WARSOFF PLACE

WALWORTH STREET

SPENCER STREET

SKILLMAN STREET

TAAFFE PLACE

NUE CLASSON AVE

FRANKLIN AVENUE

MS B LIA WIL

GRAND AVENUE

RYERSON STREET

37 ST REET

REET

REET

33 ST

STRE DAM

ET RE ST G

ST

RG

BU

IA

MS

SW AY

ILL

W

ES PR EX NS EE

NG RO WELDI

ENUE WASH INGTO N AV 14 AV ENUE

HALL STREET

SB

EET

INE STR

LIN EB RO

EA

HUMBOLDT STREET

E PL AC ER N M SU

ET

ET STRE

OLIVE

ACE K PL WIC

MANHATTAN AVENUE

ET RE ST ES W

ROAD MBLY

WAVERLY AVENUE

CLINTON AVENUE

ET

REET

31 ST

ST VAN DAM STREET

ALLEY

APOLLO STREET

HAUSMAN STREET

MORGAN AVENUE

SUTTON STREET

ET

DP OO

RE

RR Y BE

CATH ER

UNION AVENUE

EN EB E BQ

UE

KAY AV EN

WARSOFF PLACE

WALWORTH STREET

9 AVEN

LA UR

MONITOR STREET

KINGSLAND AVENUE

RUSSELL STREET

NORTH HENRY STREET

AD RO OIN

T

IL W CE AN TR

ET RE ST R YE ME

HE

BUSHWICK AVENUE

BUSH

E

ASSE

NU

UE

SPENCER STREET

FRANKLIN AVENUE

SKILLMAN STREET

TAAFFE PLACE

ST

W

E NU YA VE RC MA

BR G UR SB

LIA

M

ET RE ST G LIN EB RO

HA VE ST EA

ST RG BU MS IA

SW AY

ILL

W

ES PR EX NS EE QU N

KLY OO BR

T WES G ST UR WIL LIAM SB E

E

NU

B AL

T

Y

LE

AL

ET

RE

T AR

H

E AV

CLASSON AVENU

FF

KO

YC

A YD

UE

GRAND AVENUE

W

M

VIN IR

EN AV

ET

E NU E VE ENU N A G AV

ER

RYERSON STREET

GRAHAM AVENUE

ET RE ST RR Y BE

NG RO AD

NUE N AVE INGTO

NORTH HENRY STREET

E ES PLA NA DE

WELDI

LO

Other

PROVOST STREET

FRANKLIN STREET

WEST STREET

31 PL

VAN

RIV ER ST EA

E DRIV FDR

D

AC E

NU AV E

PL

D OL SZ

EA ST RIV ER

DRIVE FDR

WASH

UG

E

NUE

NU

E AV

ISO

14 AVE

S

LA

HO

Y

EE

LE

AL

E

NU

E AV

HO ET CK SU AN O RE RE than will ST ST be installed. ST *There are 4 times more sites proposed on this map ST NN PE E

HALL STREET

E

NU

E AV ST

HB

TR

E

S Y

LE

AL

ET

RE

R

ET

1S

NU

T

AR ST

H

E AV

T

ES

RR

CK

T

EE

R ST

RE

NK

DO

EE

EE

PR

ROAD

ER

ND

O

2S

TR

CY

MBLY

E

NU

ASSE

E AV

NUE

NK

DO

KAY AVE

T EE

ER

3S

NIC

NUE

R ST

EET

47 STR

ND

H

ST

HA

O

NU

WAVERLY AVENUE

14

AD

UT

AVENUE

9 AVE

T

E RE

EET

ST

RO

SCOTT

UT

RB

E AV

CLINTON AVENUE

15

H RT NO

56

O

H

RE

TR

TR BIN S DOB

ET

H RT

T EE

ET

M

N

ER

OP

HO

AN

ST

O

TR

SO

KE

FF

JE

T

EE

TR

S AP

ET

RE

R

ST

T TREE

STRE T

T EE

M ET

RE

ST

ST

ST

UT

ET

*There are 4 times more sites proposed on this map than will be installed. UE


R AVENUE

RE

N

O

S ER

KE IC

E

RG

EO

G

ST

KN

ST

ET

R

SE

D

SO

TR

SO

ET

Y LE

SO

UTH ST Local Businesses andREET Business Improvement Districts

Other

GARDNE

ET

RE

LL

NO

HE

AL

Community Board

E RE

R ST RE

ST

T EE

RO

STRE On-sidewalk Station ET


UT

EET

T

EL

DING

Suggested by:

AN

EE

TR

RE

UE

BORINQUEN PLACE

PH STR

AIN

ST

AVEN

GR

SO

T

L UT

SS

WE

HE

ITAN

VE EA

ER

OP

EET

RANDOL

ET

HO

S STREET

SCHOLE

STR

EE

RE

ST

AVENUE

PE

EET

T

YS

NE

LE

Y AP

ST R ST

9 ST

TR

IL W

RO

ES

UE EN AV

LE AL T

KE

T EE 6

4S

On-street station

PAUL

AVEN

H

N

D RO

R ST H RT

T

R

E DN

GRAND

OPOL

LE STR

DW AY

D RO

EE

R

R

FO

T EE

NUE

FORRES

EE

TR

S EY

TH 2

MESERO

EE

THAMES STREET

L RA NT

EET T STR

BQ

HO METR

W

ROCK STREET

T

T YS

ET

ST

IL

CE

ET

RE

E ENUE

LEGEND

ET

RE

ST

ET

GEE AV

MARType of station: KET ST REET

N

ET RE ST SS STREET RO MONTIETH T

ST

Y FA

AVENUE

MOORE STREET

EE

R

S

5S

GRATTAN STREET

RE

ST

10 H RT NO

ET

R ST

E AV

NU

WIL

EN

E AV

E NU

S

ON

D AR

E

L Bike Share Community Workshop BROOKLYNAY CB1 T

G

E

T ET

BE

C LA

ST

T

EE

TR

H

HARRISON PLACE

R

P HE

T

E RE

STREET

SOU

INGRAHAM STREET

UE

SO

DEBEVOISE STREET

ET

ET

STREET

STREET

UT

TR

SEIGEL STREET

WIL

RE

ST

RE

STREET

STAGG

SO UT

BOERUM STREET

E TR

S

T WY

AD UE RO EN IL AV RA

ON NT

OR

TH

MEADOW

SCHOLES

EEN AVE EVERGR

ST

RAMP

STREET

COOK STREET

EY

ET

RE

LE

IPP

WH

OR

TEN EYC

AVE N

L AL

ET

RE

ST

FLUSHING AVENUE

HOPKINS STREET

EET K STR

MC KIBBIN STREET

COOK STREET

E

TT

STREET EMAU ETJER

VARET STREET

NU

GE

ST

OA

VE PA

E

TR

YS RR

YL TA

VARET STREET

OO

MO

ET

T AVENUE STEWAR

OR

ET

RE

ST

LE RT

E AV

PARK

ON RT

BA

EE

Neighborhood map from Brooklyn Community Board One

O

AB

LL WA

G

*There are 4 times more sites proposed on this map than will be installed. E

AVENU

T

EE

TR

S UT

Y JA

SO

UTH STR Local Businesses and EET Business Improvement Districts

*There are 4 times more sites proposed on this map than will be installed.

Community Board

Other

EY


H

NC

LY

ALL

Suggested by:

ET

RE

ST

T

EE

R ST

D

E

M

JOHNSON AVENUE

ET

RE

ST

MOORE STREET

R TH

ON LT WA

NG

STREET Station On-sidewalk

M

AV E

NO

MID

HE

ST

On-street station

PAULDI

ST

ER

SCOTT

SH

RU

ALLEY

YM CL

R AVENUE GARDNE

ET

RE

ST

ET

RE

ST

E AV

GS

G RI

EY

VE HA

E

PE

TR

BOGART STREET

REE

N TO

DLE

MC KIBBIN STREET

N TO OR

T

PL

HO EET

REWE STR

WHITE STREET

D

AR YW

T

ES

HEW

ET

RE

ST

T EE

ST

PEDESTRIAN PATH

E

NU

ER

H AVENUE

MASPET

T

BR ION

E RE

RE

EE

MESEROLE STREET

MC KIBBIN COURT

ER

OP

E RE

5S

BOERUM STREET

TR

ES

DG

TLE

RU

T

HO

T

ET

UE

D

O

AC

SO

REE

TRE

EN

NU

GRAND

SCHOLES STREET

9 ST

AD

IVE

AV

E AV

57

ET

MEADOW

ET

R ST

HE

ET

RE

ST

H

Y

DIVIS T EE

T

T

TRE

7

ST

EE

UT

ET

RE

E S WE

E

PE

JOHNSON AVENUE

RE

ST

11 S

NU

NU

AP

KE

NN

TH

TR

SO

VE EA

EY

RE

ST

RE

ST

SOU

ET

10 S

RO

DR

RE

M

AVENUE

OP

HO

LE

ALL

ET

ER

ET

TH

MONTROSE AVENUE

55

58 ROA

LL

VARICK

K

4S

STAGG STREET

TH

SOU

AVENUE

H

REE

SOU

NEW MONTROSE

E

CE

RO

ET

RE

ST

NU

T

P EA

VE NA

LA

E RE

ISO

T

YS

8 ST

BE

ROAD

DN

RO

ET

E DN

TH

STREET

ET

S EY

E AV

E

TR

RE

ST

SOU

FI

ALLEY

LE

TEN EYCK WALK

2S

SO SHAR UTON STREET H 3S TR E

AVENUE

AL

TEN EYCK STREET

T

ET

PA TH

MAUJER STREET

EE

W

TR

VIE

3S

T

E

54

D

OR

DF

SZ

CIU

IVY HILL

H

T

BR

E

NU

RE

UT

SALLEY TR IAN

EET

EET

SO D STR UT H

UNNAME

EE

EE

STREET

WITHERS

TR

DE

POWERS STREET

AV E

ST

SO

PE

54

5

T

T

1S

TR

TR

T

UE

UT

BR

AV E

Y STREET

H RT

2S

RR

EP

E

LEGEND

EY

DN

H

ET

T

NO

ST

ET

NUE

RO

RE

H

HA

TH

SS

RO

GEE AVE

MARK Type of station: ET STR EET

EE

ST

UT

EE

DW AY

E RE

RE

ST

SO

UT

EE

H RT NO

N

WY

NU

E

NU

E AV

N

4S

D

BORINQUEN PLACE

SO TR

T

O ILS

T EE

E

EY

AD

E AV

RO

EE

IL

G

RA

E

NU

E AV

ET

SO

WIL

H

AN

ET

EE

STREET

AVEN SKILLMAN

SO RG

51

ANTHON

STREET

ET

ALL

Y JA


YLO TA

GR

STRE

UE

W

RE

ET

AVEN

YLO TA

ET

E TR

ST

RE

STAGG STREET

TR

RS

MO

ST

IT 16

EET

N STR

ORIENT

BU

Y

GE

ID

KO

STREET

LE

BOGART

ET

TR

CLY

MO

R

5S

PE

MS

6S

AINSLIE STREET

RE

ST

H

EX

SON STR

EET

T

EE

S

HO

OA

R

ME

R ST

BR

ET

ET

DEVOE STREET

LIA

ND

E NU

S KO

T

STRE

RU

ON RT

H

TR

ION

TR

H2

UT

UT

ET

RE

WIL

UT

OU

54

STREET

JACKSO

METROPOLITAN AVENUE

SO

STB

W

STREET

CHERRY

NUE

SO

STRE

DIVIS

S SH

ET

AL

AVENUE

RE

SOUT

SO

ET

ST

CONSELYEA STREET

ET

VOORT VANDER

RAMP

ET

STRE

ON RT

SKILLMAN AVENUE

ENUE

PLACE

RICHARD

URY STR

H 11

ST

HE

E AV

Y

LE

RE

E AVE VARICK RE ST 4 H RT NOPORTER AVENUE

T EE

ST

TR

WATERB

H 10

SOUT

JACKSON STREET

50 AV

NUE

T

STRE

H9

SOUT

O

TB

ES

W

E

BQ

1S

FROST

FROST STREET

DIVISION

ISE AVE

EE

8

R ST

H8

SOUT

GE

EET

WITHERS STREET

B

RE

3

TR

H RT NO

PE

T

T

H

STREET

SOUT

ID

32

IT

EX

D UN

ST

AL

DY STR

LOMBAR

ET

DEBEVO

EE

EE

UT

JUDGE

5S

Y

ET

LE

STRE

AL

H

REET

UT

JEWEL

SO

ND ST DIAMO

PA TH

ET

N

WITHERS STREET

BR

EY

VE HA

HO

T

L STRE

RIA

3S

EE

ARD ULEV S BO

ST

H

TR

4S

NEWE

H

TR

DE

INNES

PE

MC GU

BR

ET

UT

RG

T

UT

SO

BU

EE

STRE

MS

ORD

IA

TR

RG

M

PL

E

TR

SO

ILL

6S

ER

RE

AC

2S

ECKF

H

ET

W

UT

BU

T

O

H

E

ME

MS

E RE

LM

UT

SO RICHARDSON STREET

E

VE RA

EK

LIA

T

SO

ST

BEADEL

NU

WIL

FIL

SO

ET RE ST

H

EE

ID

GE

14

BR

ET STRE

H RT

RG

NSEY GUER

NO

BU

1

RE

E

E AV

ER

ME

PT

ET

MS

ET

WA TE

THOMAS

Y STREET

HERBERT STREET

EK

D

RE

TR

WIL

ET

T

PE

ST

1S

RE

NU

ND

6

H

H

STRE

E RE ST

EA

H RT

UT

PT

G

WE

YT

EXIT 34

TBOUND

ANTHON

BAYARD STREET

BIK

NO

D

IN DOBB

15

ET

ET

BR

ST

WTO

E AV

S

IG

ET

SO

PE

REET

RE

RE

ND

ER ST

ET

RE

ST

ST

EA

NS

RT H

NE

E NU

DR

ET

BIK

BANK

ST

9

7

RG

RE

BR

ET STRE

PLACE

ET

12

H RT

H RT

BU

D

T

EE

TR

E AV

B

ST

RG

STRE

ORD

RE ST

H RT

ET NO

E

NU

RD

O

E NU

THOMAS

BQE WES

NO

AN

ENGERT AVENUE

NO

BU

LIA

PARK

GR

GE

R

RE

ET

RE

S

BROOME STREET

F ED

5

Y

LE

AL

E AV

ET

ST

NASSAU AVENUE

ST

RE

HE

MS

RE

1

ST

ET

4

RT H

RE

ID

ET

E TR

ER

YT

H RT

H RT

NO

ET

RE

ST

BR

V RI

W

NO

ST

D

NORMAN AVENUE

10

ST

3

MS

E AV

NT

KE

H RT

8

H RT

NO

AN

NO

NO

H RT

RIV

GR

Y

LE

LIA

ST

ER

13

ET RE ST

NO

E

NU

AL

WIL NO

BROOKLYN CB1 Bike Share Community Workshop LIA

T

CLIFF

H RT STREET GEM NO

11

E

NU

E AV

NT

KE

E RE

H RT NO

H RT

K

RO MESE

NO

W AL

QUAY STREET

ENUE

LE AV

ER LORIM


ET

CALYER STREET

LIE

13

E

Y

EA

5

E

L BRIDG

RIA MEMO

NU

NOBLE STREET

RE

UE

H RT

LE

EN

NU

ET

RE 37 ST

MILTON STREET

ET

ET

AV

ENUE

GREENPOINT AVENUE

RE

OAK STREET

ST

EN

12

AL

NE

JJ BYR

RE

ST

RD

NT AV

NPOI

GREE

H RT NO

10

KENT STREET

RD LEONA

ST

BO

NO

JAVA STREET

REET RIE ST MOULT

EA

EA

REET

35 ST

H RT NO

ET

NU

NO

RE

ST

AV E

REET

H RT NO

ST

13

T

T EE

11

ST

ET

IN

UE

ET

ET

EA

RE

PO

35 ST

15

R ST

ST

EXIT

11

12

S

E

ND

34 ST

H RT NO

RE

REET

TBOU

AVEN

ST

ST

ER

WES

GALE

K

ET

REET

35 ST

ET STRE

W AL

RE

NT

34 ST

MED

14

15

LIE

31 PL

T

UNNA

ST

INDIA STREET

5

HU

REET

ACE

GUE

SW AY

GREEN STREE

EA

ST

30 PL

ES

REET

HURON STREET

ST

16

ACE

REET

PR

34 ST

EA

EA

ST

ACE

30 ST

EX

UE AVEN

P

32 PL ACE

ST

29 ST

ER S

PULASKI BRIDGE BIKE PATH MC GUINNESS BOULEVAR D

REET

E

BANK

NA DE

N

NU

GEM

LA

TO W

AV E

48 AV ENUE QUAY STREET

MID

UE AVEN

ES P

NS

E PLAC

EE

GE

GALE

DUPONT STREET

EAGLE STREET

QU

PA ID

EY

ORD

CLAY STREET

ALL

PLAC *There are 4 times more sites proposed on this map than will be installed. E

47 AV

UE CALYER STREET

27

UE

44

T ST REE

UE

EN

LEY BRAD

LO

O

EA

WIL

UE

AV

ENUE

C

RE

ST

EN

UE

R AV STAR

E

ST

25

BOX STREET

T

REE

L ST

CIA

ER

MM

CO

PATH NU

EA

9

RD

EN

ASH STREET

AV E

ST

ST

BO

AV

EN

25

PU LASK I BR IDG E

EN UE C

AV

AV EN U

SZ OL D ET

49

AV

On-street station

RE

50

EN

On-sidewalk Station

ST

AV

LEGEND

9

51

Type of station:

ST

ET

FREEMAN STREET

EA

ST

RE

CLIFF

On-street station

AN

ET

STRI PEDE

RE

On-sidewalk Station

AN STRI

Public (via the PATHwebsite)

ST

DE Community Board PE

20

Suggested by:

ST


Other EA

ET

NOBLE STREET

Y OAK STREET

ST

EA

LEGEND

RE

10

LE


*There are 4 times more sites proposed on this map than will be installed. ST

Type of station:


23

AL

Community Board

ST

ST

ET

Suggested by:

EA

EA

PL AC E

RE


ST


11

Other

T


AS

FL

B

Appendix B Bike-Share Station Siting Guidelines The following are the siting criteria for bike share stations.

General Requirements

On-Street Site Requirements

• Sites must have unrestricted, 24/7 public access.

• Sites must meet DOT safety criteria.

• Sites should ensure maximum visibility and access.

• Sites may not be in bus stops.

• Sites must not impede the use of any existing facilities, such as bus stops or fire hydrants.

• Sites may not be in lanes that become driving lanes at certain times (e.g., rush- hour lanes).

Sidewalk Site Requirements

• Stations may be placed in non-parking areas in curb lanes, such as locations that have been “daylighted” to enhance safety and improve visibility.

• Preferred minimum sidewalk width: 16 feet. Medians may be considered. • Sites should not interfere with existing pedestrian travel patterns.

Parks, NYCHA, and Other City Property

• Lateral measurements for sidewalk sites shall not be:

• Sites may be on Parks Department property or on other City properties at the discretion of the relevant agency.

• Within 15 feet in front of the opening of subway stairs or subway elevators; • Sited on a sidewalk less than 15 feet from a bus stop shelter entrance; or • Directly in front of the main entrances to major buildings (e.g. Empire State Building)

26

• Minimum allowable curb-lane width: 8 feet.


Private Property • Sites may be on private property at the property owner’s discretion. • Sites on private property must have 24/7, unrestricted public access.

Appendix C Planning Partners Over the multi-year station siting process, DOT worked with the following partners:

133 Lafayette Corporation

CodeGreen Real Estate

GreeNYC

23rd Street Partnership/Flatiron BID

Columbus Ave BID

GrowNYC

34th Street Partnership

NYC Comptroller Liu

59 Maiden Lane Management Corporation

Concord Village Tenants Association

Heart of Brooklyn Cultural Association

Confucius Plaza Co-op

Hines Realty

5th Ave BID

Continuum Health

Hospital for Special Surgery

5th Avenue BID

Cooper Union

Hudson River Park Trust

5th Avenue Park Slope BID

Deutsche Bank

Hudson Square Connection BID

Adelphi University

Diamond District BID

JRT Realty

AIA Center for Architecture

Downtown Alliance

JSRE LLC Realty

Avenue of the Americas Association

Downtown Brooklyn Partnership

League of Conservation Voters

Bank of New York Melon

DUMBO BID

LES BID

Basketball City

Durst Realty

LES Credit Union

Battery Park City Authority

East Midtown Partnership

LIC Partnership

Battery Park Conservancy

East River Ferry

Lincoln Center BID

Bed-Stuy Restoration

EWVIDCO

Lincoln Square BID

Bicycle Habitat

El Puente

Local Spokes

Bike & Roll

Essex Street Market

Bike New York

Fashion Center BID

Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center

Borough of Manhattan Community College

The Fashion Institute of Technology

Boston Properties

Madison Square Garden

Flatiron/23rd Street Partnership

Manhattan Borough President Stringer

Forrest City Ratner

Manhattan Community Board 1

Foursquare


Brooklyn Brewery

Friends of Duane Park


Brooklyn Community Board 1

Friends of the High Line



Friends of Petrosino Square



Ft. Greene Park



Fulton Area Business Alliance



Fulton Ferry Landing Association



FX FOWLE Architects

Marriott

Brooklyn Heights Association

Goldman Sachs

Memorial Sloan Kettering

Brooklyn Navy Yard

Google

MiMA

Central Park Conservancy

The Gotham Organization

MoMA PS1

Chelsea Improvement Company

Governors Island

Montague BID

Chinese Chamber of Commerce

Graham Avenue BID

MTA

Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association

Grand Avenue BID

Municipal Arts Society

Grand Central Library

Myrtle Avenue BID

City University of New York

Grand Central Partnership

Natural Resources Defense Council

Clinton Hill Apartments

Grand St Settlement

Brookfield Properties Brooklyn Borough President Markowitz

27

Fischer Brothers Realty

Madison Ave BID


Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project

NYC Department of Sanitation

Related

NYC Economic Development Corp.

Rockefeller Foundation

The New School

NYC Office of Economic Empowerment

Rockrose

NYCHA Resident Leaders

New York City Fire Department

Seward Park Co-Op

NYS Assembly Member Brennan

New York City Housing Authority

Silverstein Properties

NYS Assembly Member Camara

New York City Police Department

SL Green

NYS Assembly Member Glick

New York Presbyterian Hospital

Stuyvesant High School

NYS Assembly Member Gottfried

New York Public Interest Research Group

Sutton Area Community

NYS Assembly Member Jeffries

TF Cornerstone

New York State Department of Transportation

NYS Assembly Member Kavanagh

Times Square Alliance

NYS Assembly Member Kellner

Tishman Speyer

New York University

NYS Assembly Member Lentol

Transportation Alternatives

New York’s Waterfront Bicycle Shop

NYS Assembly Member Lopez

Turtle Bay Association

Nicholas & Lence

NYS Assembly Member Millman

Two Trees Management Company

NOHO BID

NYS Assembly Member Nolan

Union Square Partnership

North Flatbush BID

NYS Assembly Member Quart

U.S. Representative Clarke

Northside Merchant Association

NYS Assembly Member Robinson

U.S. Representative Nadler

NY Waterway

NYS Assembly Member Rosenthal

U.S. Representative Rangel

NYC & Co

NYS Assembly Speaker Silver

U.S. Representative Towns

NYC Council Member Brewer

NYS Assembly Member Towns

U.S. Representative Velasquez

NYC Council Member Cabrera

NYS Senator Adams

U.S. Representative Maloney

NYC Council Member Chin

NYS Senator Dilan

Village Alliance

NYC Council Member Comrie

NYS Senator Duane

Vornado

NYC Council Member Garodnick

NYS Senator Espaillat

Woodhull Hospital

NYC Council Member James

NYS Senator Gianaris

NYC Council Member Lander

NYS Senator Krueger

NYC Council Member Lappin

NYS Senator Montgomery

NYC Council Member Levin

NYS Senator Squadron

NYC Council Member Mark-Viverito

NYU Polytechnic

NYC Council Member Mealy

Pace University

NYC Council Member Mendez

Park Slope Civic Council

NYC Council Speaker Quinn

Park Slope Food Co-op

NYC Council Member Reyna

Partnership for NYC

NYC Council Member Rose

Partnerships for Parks

NYC Council Member Vacca

Pier 79

NYC Council Member Van Bramer

Port Authority Bus Terminal

NYC Council Member Vann

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

New York City Department of Environmental Protection

NYC Department of City Planning NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services

28

Public Advocate de Blasio Queens Community Board 2

NYC Department of Health

Real Estate Board of New York

NYC Department of Park and Recreation

Recycle-a-Bicycle Red Lantern Bicycles


Rodale Press

Appendix D In the News From the very beginning, Citi Bike planning was heavily reported which ensured widespread participation.

29


Acknowledgements Planning and conducting a broad and inclusive public process for North America’s largest bike share system was a large scale undertaking that required the hard work and talent of dozens of people at the NYC Department of Transportation. Kate Fillin-Yeh and Jon Orcutt were the architects of both the planning and engagement efforts and deserve special mention and thanks for their skill and dedication.

Citi Bike engagement and planning Ruchita Acharya Keith Bray Colleen Chattergoon Carly Clark Kate Fillin-Yeh Margaret Forgione Neil Freeman John Frost Hillary Gietz Nina Haiman Jennifer Harris-Hernandez Chris Hrones Audrey Koh Mike Lenore Robin Lester-Kenton Stephanie Levinsky Maura McCarthy Devin McDowell Laura MacNeil Kate Mikuliak Jon Orcutt Joe Palmieri Suchi Sanagavarapu Al Silvestri Seth Solomonow Andrew Watanabe David Woloch

Demonstrations and other events Onyinye Akujo Linda Bailey Andrea Baskerville Jacob Bogitsh Patricia Bryant Nick Carey Will Carry Sophia Choi Maria Cruz Alex Engel Michael Flynn Elizabeth Franklin Nicole Garcia Sheila Grant Nathan Gray Naomi Iwasaki

30

Ed Janoff Cheryl Johnson Preston Johnson Altagracia Jorge-Smith Keith Kalb Michelle Kaucic Patrick Kennedy Inbar Kishoni Vaidila Kungys Jessica Lax Jennifer Leung Hayes Lord Kim Lua Alan Ma Jeff Malamy Brooke McKenna Eric Miu Wallace Murray Zephreny Parmenter Nick Peterson Ed Pincar Sean Quinn Kimberly Rancourt Taylor Reiss Matthew Roe Sandra Rothbard Krzysztof Sadlej Julie Schipper Joan Scholvin Dan Scott Lacy Shelby Karin Sommer Aaron Sugiura Joyce Tam Anthony Taylor Robert Thompson Malina Tran Keri Tyler Charles Ukegbu Steven Waters Emily Weidenhof Ron Whittaker Kim Wiley-Schwartz Ted Wright Jessica Wurwarg Jin Yang Kelley Yemen Ellen Zielinski


designed by New Yorkers report team Carly Clark Kate Fillin-Yeh Stephanie Levinsky Jon Orcutt Seth Solomonow

Michael R. Bloomberg Mayor

Janette Sadik-Khan Commissioner Lori Ardito First Deputy Commissioner

NYC Bike Share

Recommend Documents