The Times' City Room blog will host a reader Q&A with Sadik-Khan on Monday. Here's a great opportunity to address your skepticism and concern directly to her:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/ask-the-transportation-commissioner/

However, keep in mind that the congestion pricing proposal is consuming all of their resources at the moment. This is a critical period -- this week, especially (though the fight will probably go on until July 16).

After July 16, when congestion pricing will either happen or will be dead, is when we can legitimately turn to the DOT and demand concrete evidence of the agency's new direction.

Amazing!

Closing some sidestreets to car traffic would be a tremendous boon as well. The IRUM plan for a car-free 42nd street would be a beautiful thing . . . but closing off Prince Street, or even Spring Street, as examples, on weekends would be incredible. Especially from April to October.

Just one of many benefits: wider sidewalks would counteract the side effect I worry that congestion pricing might bring: I fear that the pricing will result in motorists having wider open street space--and that, coupled with the same old bloody speeding-inspiring traffic lights, will cause even more illegal and dangerous speeding. I often bring up the idea of reducing the speed limits on the books, but significantly widening sidewalks might actually be easier, politics and all else considered.

I do hope NYCDOT is still tuned into these pages...

Yes, it is dangerous on many streets, but many cycling routes on the DOT map are acceptable and are chosen as such because they are less dangerous. Even in Manhattan you can find streets that are okay to ride on: Hudson Street, Lafayette, 8th Avenue in spots, crosstown bike lanes, etc. If you can find enough streets like that, utilize the Hudson greenway, and streets with wide, buffered bike lanes it is worth an attempt to ride. The more of us, the more ammenities, the more mass, the more comfortable we'll get.

But we need to do more always to encourage those who might consider it but still think it is too scary.

If Salud is interested in what Streetsblog has to say about pedestrian safety, here is a list of posts in that category. One in particular is this post about sidewalk conditions in Midtown.

Rather than fighting each other, pedestrians and cyclists should turn with a united front against autos, which devour the large majority of street space and render it dangerous for everybody else. (Not to mention that autos use that space inefficiently by requiring many square feet to transport just one person, whereas the throughput density of pedestrians and cyclists is much greater.)

In fact, it was a study done by no less a cycling-friendly organization than T.A. that made me first realize that pedestrians don't just deserve "better conditions," they arguably deserve primacy of public space, since as a segment, they are the biggest contributors to the City's economy.

And finally, conflict between pedestrians and cyclists can be ugly and very ire-inspiring, but it's ill-begotten and shouldn't exist: those two groups have been left to fight over the scraps of publicly-owned space left by motorists, the far more destructive hogs of public space. This movement also seeks to correct that problem by unifying the two would-be (and should-be) allied communities.

It's refreshing to see decision(place)makers like JSK and AB to make time to learn from examples worldwide and apply them in a way that is unique to NYC. It is also imperative to remain open minded and take small risks. But they should not go about it alone and should involve community members every step of the way as they can enhance proposals in meaningful ways. The only way to deal with naysayers is open communication and providing grounds for tests that can provide measurable results.

Can anyone even IMAGINE Weinshall having these ideas?

Let's salute Sadik-Khan and the bright, green future.