Our goal is to create safe paths so everyone in our communty can travel to their destination unharmed. We are interested in partnering with everyone on this shared goal, but unfortunately some groups are activity working to make the neighborhood more dangerous for our kids.
We were forwarded this letter from the Bayside Hills Civic Association (BHCA) from August 6th, 2024 which is fighting against a class 2 (unprotected bike lane) that would go reasonably less then half a mile. The group claims this would eliminate parking, but anyone who lives here, visits this street, or even looks at Google maps can easily see that no one regularly parks here since the road is too narrow due to the center median. Every so often a delivery driver will park on the sidewalk (yet BHCA has no complaints when pedestrians areas are blocked).
Interesting enough, just a block away we’ve seen many drivers double parking. So if no one is legally parking here, deliveries block the sidewalk, and drivers would rather double park then park here, then why is Bayside Hills fighting this so hard?
Every one the houses has a driveways and/or garage. Every house with a center median also has frontage on a side street that has ample parking. But more importantly, BHCA’s goal of downgrading the safety of this bike lane doesn’t even save any parking:
- there is no real parking here now
- DOT’s class 2 (unprotected bike lane) doesn’t allow for any more parking
- BHCA’s proposal of a class 3 lane (sharrows) doesn’t allow for any more parking
The only way to create parking on this strip is to remove the grassy mall in the middle of the street, something we would strongly oppose.
One of our readers also sent in pictures of a recent curb cut project on a neighboring street with the same geometry. The construction took over the same amount of space as the DoT’s proposed bike lane. There were no problems with traffic during this project and no complaints from BHCA.
From the above pictures it’s clear that this route has more than enough space for a traffic lane and a bike lane, but not enough room for a traffic lane and a parking lane. So why is the Board of Directors of Bayside Hills Civic Association fighting this safety improvement for our kids?
We’d like to partner with everyone in the neighborhood since we feel protecting our kids is a goal we can all share. We’re disappointed that BHCA says that it supports bike lanes, but in reality it fights EVERY cycling safety improvement in the neighborhood and has proposed no lanes that it would consider acceptable. We don’t think they’re being honest or representing the communty, many of which rely on the currently poor infrastructure we’re given by the DOT in Eastern Queens.
We look forward to the end of this “culture war” against cyclists and instead we want to work with all our neighbors to create safe streets for everyone, not just fast streets for a few drivers.
Eastern Queens Greenway 
In a recent editorial (https://easternqueensgreenway.com/2024/08/26/we-need-to-talk-about-bayside-
hills-civic/) the Eastern Queens Greenway (EQG) criticized the BHCA for opposing a bike lane on the
narrow, grass median bifurcated segment of 56th Ave between 211th and 217th streets. The article was
replete with factual errors and misrepresentations of our position. The BHCA is painted
as a small-minded, dishonest organization. Our response can be found here:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:667225c2-6c8e-4420-a916-9e477c7366c9
https://www.baysidehills.info/
LikeLike
Your position appears to be “we’re not against bikelanes in theory, but we will try to block or water-down any bike lanes in our area.” If that’s a misrepresentation, then please tell us the streets you’re asking for physically protected bike lanes on and we’ll probably support your efforts.
LikeLike
BHCA is having technical problems so asked for their reply to be added directly. They’d like to say:
The BHCA was specific about the segment in our comments. The statement that we will try to block or water down any bike lanes is simply wrong and would be evident had our response been published and given equal space to your criticism of the BHCA. It would also be clear that the segment in question is simply unfit for a bike lane as installed. It crosses directly over several longitudinal storm drain grates that are extremely hazardous to bicyclists. The segment is sub-federal standard in width, and, contrary to your claim, cars park on this segment regularly. Examples were provided in our original response. Here’s another photo taken on 11/26/2024:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/SRBPpmZ9MLWWmNwK9
A better safer option for this segment would be a shared lane as is seen on many streets throughout the city or safer yet, install a fully protected lane on the grassy median malls from 211th Street to 217th street.
Here’s our original full response:
We need to talk about the advocates’ criticisms of the BHCA’s position on bike lanes Recently, advocates for the Queens Greenway criticized the Bayside Hills Civic Association (BHCA) for opposing a bike lane on the six-block narrow, grass median bifurcated segment of 56th Ave between 211th and 217th streets. The article was replete with misrepresentations of our position. The BHCA considers the safety of its 1200 homeowners and families a prime responsibility and goal. The recent article accusing the BHCA of making the neighborhood more dangerous for our kids was disingenuous and wrong on several counts. The BHCA boundaries are bordered by 211th St and Springfield Blvd on the west and east and 48th Ave and the Horrace Harding Expressway on the north and south. It is important to note that the advocates have never approached the BHCA to collaborate on a shared safety goal for complete streets. Homeowner input was not sought. Instead, they have embraced a flawed unilateral plan for the expansion of bike lanes in an inherently unsafe six block narrow corridor where the road width is sub-Federal DOT standard for a vehicle/bike lane. When we pointed this out to NYC DOT in our position paper, their original design for separate vehicle and bike lanes was changed to a shared lane. (NOTE: the BHCA position paper can be viewed at the end of this newsletter). The advocates further state that parking is not an issue on this segment, since cars infrequently park on this reduced width road that separates east and west traffic with a grass median. Untrue. Cars regularly park there especially on Sundays during church services, youth sports activities at the gym which borders the segment between 213th and 214th streets, and during PS390Q school drop-off and pick-up hours. And yes, the road and sidewalks are further unsafely narrowed by cars parked partly on the sidewalk. This behavior is unlikely to stop when parking is prohibited. The BHCA agrees that parking on this six- block narrow segment is ill advised. Our statement simply pointed out that it is allowed now, contrary to the DOT proposal that stated it was prohibited. We made this point because homeowners, despite the access to side streets and driveways, object to the removal of parking in front of their homes. This was reinforced several years ago when DOT erected no parking signs along 51st Ave. between Bell Blvd. and 216th Street. The homeowners objected vehemently, and the signs were removed within six months. That two- block segment is identical geometrically as the six block segment in question. It has a similar grass median separating east and west trafficways. The BHCA is not alone in objecting to this proposed prohibition. St Roberts Church objected to prohibited parking regulations on this segment and CB11shared our objections with DOT. The congestion on this segment along with partial sidewalk parking would continue to worsen along this roadway. False too is the claim the BHCA has never complained about blocked pedestrian paths and sidewalks. Our objections to cars parked on the sidewalks, illegal curb cuts to create extra driveways, and lampposts positioned on sidewalks obstructing safe passage are longstanding. Our recent objection to the DOB and 311 re the blocked sidewalks adjoining the Adonai tire store on 210th Street and Horace Harding are further evidence is one more example. We share a common concern here about the blocked sidewalks that create a fire and pedestrian safety hazard. The advocates further criticized the BHCA for not complaining about the DOT work to update the corners to make them American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. The BHCA applauds the DOT for making our sidewalks more accessible to all. Surely, the advocates agree that the ADA work was worth the temporary inconvenience caused by the construction. Finally, the advocates accuse the BHCA of being dishonest. If there is any razzle-dazzle and misrepresentation going on, it is by the advocates. We have not objected to every cycling safety improvement. Our objection centers on a six-block segment that is unfit for a bike lane. The revised shared lane is better than DOT’s first proposal thankfully but still is sub-standard. Fast streets? NO! We would like to see everyone slow down – cars, scooters, e-bikes included. Speed humps? Yes. Daylight our corners – Yes. There is no culture war on these issues. Just a failure to communicate. Collaborate and partner? Yes. Here is our invitation: Come to our next General Membership meeting on November 26th at the Colonial Church at Luke Place and 217th St. at 7:30p. Ask questions and engage in a dialogue on complete streets for Bayside Hills. Or if you wish, we can meet at another time. Simply respond to baysidehillscivic@gmail.com BHCA Board of Directors NOTE: Readers may follow this link to our folder of 53rd Ave. and tire shop photos that were used in our communication with our representatives, CB11, DOT, Buildings Department, and 311: https://photos.app.goo.gl/4c35FV6ZDn5De2a16 NOTE: The BHCA position paper which includes ouhttps://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:667225c2-6c8e-4420-a916-9e477c7366c9r analysis of 56th Ave. can be found here:
LikeLike