Comments on: Citizens Propose Cycle Track Greenway Connector in Inwood http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Sun, 06 Jul 2008 09:52:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Brook Whitman http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-51193 Brook Whitman Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:28:20 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-51193 I stand corrected; the bike path does continue to Dyckman Street after the ramp at about 184th street. The path is still is a pain once you reach Dyckman street because of the stairs you have to haul your bike up unless you're a glutton for pain. (They are ridable.) By the way, who would expect to find a bike path that starts from an on-ramp to an expressway that is underneath an overpass? One would assume that the path is alongside the water like it is for most of the Hudson Greenway. I still maintain that they should work on a path the truly goes to the tip of northern Manhattan alongside the waterfront, including both the Harlem and Hudson Rivers and not truncate the path on Dyckman Street. This idea was floated in the Times when they were writing about the organized walk around the edge of Manhattan a few weeks ago and the difficult stretches of it. I stand corrected; the bike path does continue to Dyckman Street after the ramp at about 184th street. The path is still is a pain once you reach Dyckman street because of the stairs you have to haul your bike up unless you're a glutton for pain. (They are ridable.) By the way, who would expect to find a bike path that starts from an on-ramp to an expressway that is underneath an overpass? One would assume that the path is alongside the water like it is for most of the Hudson Greenway.

I still maintain that they should work on a path the truly goes to the tip of northern Manhattan alongside the waterfront, including both the Harlem and Hudson Rivers and not truncate the path on Dyckman Street. This idea was floated in the Times when they were writing about the organized walk around the edge of Manhattan a few weeks ago and the difficult stretches of it.

]]> By: Maggie Clarke http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-45389 Maggie Clarke Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:40:15 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-45389 I agree with much of what Jackson has said... yes Dyckman St traffic is a nightmare. That's mainly because the 34th precinct does not enforce traffic laws up here. Not double-parking, not even running of red lights at Dyckman and Broadway (which happens every single light cycle). Venting aside, the idea of going to 3 traffic lanes was my plan B and I suggested it at the Community Board 12 transportation committee meeting Feb 4 when the idea that 11 feet travel lanes are now the minimum width. I like calling it a Road Diet. It would become so much more obvious if someone double-parked in the only traffic lane going in a particular direction, and I have a feeling that this would reduce all the double-parking. The hedgerow would prevent jay-walking. And in those parts of Dyckman where no south-turning is possible (Vermilyea and Post, as well as all the area on Riverside) perhaps additional narrow green dividers could be used to snake back and forth. But striping Dyckman Street would increase double-parking. Even if the stripes were only 4 feet wide, that's been more than enough to encourage double-parking on 6th avenue downtown. I agree with much of what Jackson has said... yes Dyckman St traffic is a nightmare. That's mainly because the 34th precinct does not enforce traffic laws up here. Not double-parking, not even running of red lights at Dyckman and Broadway (which happens every single light cycle). Venting aside, the idea of going to 3 traffic lanes was my plan B and I suggested it at the Community Board 12 transportation committee meeting Feb 4 when the idea that 11 feet travel lanes are now the minimum width. I like calling it a Road Diet. It would become so much more obvious if someone double-parked in the only traffic lane going in a particular direction, and I have a feeling that this would reduce all the double-parking. The hedgerow would prevent jay-walking. And in those parts of Dyckman where no south-turning is possible (Vermilyea and Post, as well as all the area on Riverside) perhaps additional narrow green dividers could be used to snake back and forth.

But striping Dyckman Street would increase double-parking. Even if the stripes were only 4 feet wide, that's been more than enough to encourage double-parking on 6th avenue downtown.

]]> By: Jackson http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-45261 Jackson Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:52:50 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-45261 Nice idea but won't work between Nagle and Broadway where Dykman is thick with traffic of all kinds and beleaguered by rampant double parking. The 9th ave 'cycletrack' is cool because it is novel. It works because 9th Ave is one way and more importantly because that particular section is heavily underutilized by both peds and cars... there is a ton of excess capacity. The 'cycletrack' design, as implemented by DOT on 9th Avenue, is not easily exported to other streets in other parts of the City. The solution worth seriously considering is putting that section of Dykman on a 'road diet'... a three lane section... one lane in each direction with dedicated left turns at the intersections. This will allow the striping of buffered on-street bike lanes each way. Nice idea but won't work between Nagle and Broadway where Dykman is thick with traffic of all kinds and beleaguered by rampant double parking. The 9th ave 'cycletrack' is cool because it is novel. It works because 9th Ave is one way and more importantly because that particular section is heavily underutilized by both peds and cars... there is a ton of excess capacity. The 'cycletrack' design, as implemented by DOT on 9th Avenue, is not easily exported to other streets in other parts of the City. The solution worth seriously considering is putting that section of Dykman on a 'road diet'... a three lane section... one lane in each direction with dedicated left turns at the intersections. This will allow the striping of buffered on-street bike lanes each way.

]]> By: Hilary http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44882 Hilary Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:30:28 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44882 RBA is about to begin (or has already begun) a feasibility and planning study for completing the gap in the Hudson River Greenway between Dyckman and Yonkers. The hope of the earmark's sponsors was that this would result in an all-river route, using the Amtrak Bridge. The Parks Dept. had recently completed its own study and secured funding for a route that would use the Henry Hudson Bridge. This Dyckman-across-Manhattan route would succeed in connecting the circumferential greenway and linking it to the Putnam Trail via the Broadway Bridge. Hopefully all of these routes can one day be implemented, but this one is by far the most bang for the buck in terms of connectivity, cost, potential users, and neighborhood transformation. Just my two cents. RBA is about to begin (or has already begun) a feasibility and planning study for completing the gap in the Hudson River Greenway between Dyckman and Yonkers. The hope of the earmark's sponsors was that this would result in an all-river route, using the Amtrak Bridge. The Parks Dept. had recently completed its own study and secured funding for a route that would use the Henry Hudson Bridge. This Dyckman-across-Manhattan route would succeed in connecting the circumferential greenway and linking it to the Putnam Trail via the Broadway Bridge. Hopefully all of these routes can one day be implemented, but this one is by far the most bang for the buck in terms of connectivity, cost, potential users, and neighborhood transformation. Just my two cents.

]]> By: Maggie Clarke http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44878 Maggie Clarke Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:14:08 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44878 I am assembling a list of and letters from stakeholders and supporters of this project. If you would like to help, I would appreciate it greatly. I can be contacted at the RING garden link (click on my name). I am assembling a list of and letters from stakeholders and supporters of this project. If you would like to help, I would appreciate it greatly. I can be contacted at the RING garden link (click on my name).

]]> By: Maggie Clarke http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44877 Maggie Clarke Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:08:49 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44877 No, I haven't done research on this, as I'm not a full-time transportation, landscape architect firm, but living here I do know that at least the folks who park west of Broadway already have to use the whole area - Broadway to the river, Riverside, Dyckman points inbetween. As far as Dyckman is concerned, I would strongly wager that most people who shop on Dyckman and nearby are doing so on foot, not by car. Maybe if there was a lane and bike parking, there might be more bicycling trips to shop. There is one garage and 2 parking lots on Dyckman in this stretch. No, I haven't done research on this, as I'm not a full-time transportation, landscape architect firm, but living here I do know that at least the folks who park west of Broadway already have to use the whole area - Broadway to the river, Riverside, Dyckman points inbetween.

As far as Dyckman is concerned, I would strongly wager that most people who shop on Dyckman and nearby are doing so on foot, not by car. Maybe if there was a lane and bike parking, there might be more bicycling trips to shop. There is one garage and 2 parking lots on Dyckman in this stretch.

]]> By: Maggie Clarke http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44753 Maggie Clarke Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:12:50 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44753 I have to admit that I am not a full-fledged landscape architect / transportation firm, and have not spent lots of time making drawings / researching and writing reports on this. I do know that those who live on Riverside (5 buildings) and those who live on or near Dyckman west of Broadway have quite a few cars. I also know, being the occasional renter of cars myself, that it is nearly impossible to find a space west of Broadway coming back late at night. As for the congested part of Dyckman, I do know there are 3 parking lots/garages in that stretch. I also strongly suspect, though I don't have the data, that the vast majority of shopping that takes place on Dyckman street is done on foot. WHo knows, if there were a bikelane and bike parking stands, maybe more would be done by bike. Likewise, though I have not gone to the east end of Broadway to do measurements, I wouldn't be surprised if angle parking could not also be accommodated out that way as well if the sidewalks are as wide as they are on Dyckman west. I have to admit that I am not a full-fledged landscape architect / transportation firm, and have not spent lots of time making drawings / researching and writing reports on this. I do know that those who live on Riverside (5 buildings) and those who live on or near Dyckman west of Broadway have quite a few cars. I also know, being the occasional renter of cars myself, that it is nearly impossible to find a space west of Broadway coming back late at night. As for the congested part of Dyckman, I do know there are 3 parking lots/garages in that stretch. I also strongly suspect, though I don't have the data, that the vast majority of shopping that takes place on Dyckman street is done on foot. WHo knows, if there were a bikelane and bike parking stands, maybe more would be done by bike. Likewise, though I have not gone to the east end of Broadway to do measurements, I wouldn't be surprised if angle parking could not also be accommodated out that way as well if the sidewalks are as wide as they are on Dyckman west.

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44743 Jonathan Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:47:08 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44743 Maggie, I appreciate the emphasis on maintaining the number of parking spaces in your plan, but as a motorist myself I have to wonder if creating satellite parking up to a half-mile away is really an answer that is going to satisfy a lot of people. Have you done any research on who exactly is parking on Dyckman, where they come from, where they are shopping, and how long they are staying? Maggie, I appreciate the emphasis on maintaining the number of parking spaces in your plan, but as a motorist myself I have to wonder if creating satellite parking up to a half-mile away is really an answer that is going to satisfy a lot of people. Have you done any research on who exactly is parking on Dyckman, where they come from, where they are shopping, and how long they are staying?

]]> By: Maggie Clarke http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44741 Maggie Clarke Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:19:37 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44741 This morning I realized that the plan C I mentioned would not work so well, at least in maintaining a separated bikepath. Having cars parallel park next to a hedgerow would require drivers either to walk to the end of the block between the parked cars and traffic or push through the hedgerow and cut across cyclists' path. Neither would be good. In the quest not to reduce neighborhood parking (so that parkers would not rise up in protest of the greenway), we have located an easy way to add some parking to replace that which would be taken away on the north sides of Riverside and Dyckman. On the west end of Dyckman St between Henshaw and Staff there is a great deal of sidewalk for very little foot traffic. West of Staff the sidewalk narrows, and 90 degree angle parking exists on the north side, and at the last community board meeting (same one we made the Greenway proposal at) we recommended 45 degree angle parking only for small cars on the south side of Dyckman west of Staff. That will add several spaces for starters. On the north side between Henshaw and Staff, the curb could afford to sweep in a few feet to accommodate 45 or possibly 90 degree angle parking and sweep back out around the lampposts, sweeping back in. That would add back quite a few spots. The south side in that block has two small industrial facilities. Cars from those working at the business park illegally on the extremely wide sidewalk already. More spaces and angle parking could exist on the south side of that block as well. FYI, another blog exists on this topic and has some of our artwork: http://poopcity.typepad.com/inwoodite/2008/02/inwood-livable.html?cid=103048372#comments This is the local Inwood blog with more local points of view. I hope that people will be willing to write in support of the idea. More on that later. This morning I realized that the plan C I mentioned would not work so well, at least in maintaining a separated bikepath. Having cars parallel park next to a hedgerow would require drivers either to walk to the end of the block between the parked cars and traffic or push through the hedgerow and cut across cyclists' path. Neither would be good.

In the quest not to reduce neighborhood parking (so that parkers would not rise up in protest of the greenway), we have located an easy way to add some parking to replace that which would be taken away on the north sides of Riverside and Dyckman. On the west end of Dyckman St between Henshaw and Staff there is a great deal of sidewalk for very little foot traffic. West of Staff the sidewalk narrows, and 90 degree angle parking exists on the north side, and at the last community board meeting (same one we made the Greenway proposal at) we recommended 45 degree angle parking only for small cars on the south side of Dyckman west of Staff. That will add several spaces for starters. On the north side between Henshaw and Staff, the curb could afford to sweep in a few feet to accommodate 45 or possibly 90 degree angle parking and sweep back out around the lampposts, sweeping back in. That would add back quite a few spots. The south side in that block has two small industrial facilities. Cars from those working at the business park illegally on the extremely wide sidewalk already. More spaces and angle parking could exist on the south side of that block as well.

FYI, another blog exists on this topic and has some of our artwork:

http://poopcity.typepad.com/inwoodite/2008/02/inwood-livable.html?cid=103048372#comments

This is the local Inwood blog with more local points of view.

I hope that people will be willing to write in support of the idea. More on that later.

]]> By: Hilary http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44721 Hilary Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:33:17 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44721 Maggie, Congestion pricing should act as a deterrent to the toll-dodging behaviour you're talking about, since it will credit all drivers who are CBD-bound (or coming from) for the HH Bridge tolls. I also believe that CP in general will reduce the overall traffic coming into the city from upstate, resulting in a net loss of traffic on the parkway in both the Bronx and upper Manhattan. We know that that will be very good for bicyclists on the greenway who ride cheek by jowl with the motorists. Maggie, Congestion pricing should act as a deterrent to the toll-dodging behaviour you're talking about, since it will credit all drivers who are CBD-bound (or coming from) for the HH Bridge tolls. I also believe that CP in general will reduce the overall traffic coming into the city from upstate, resulting in a net loss of traffic on the parkway in both the Bronx and upper Manhattan. We know that that will be very good for bicyclists on the greenway who ride cheek by jowl with the motorists.

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44718 Jonathan Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:09:47 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44718 Maggie, every TBTA crossing except the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge has two-way tolls. Maggie, every TBTA crossing except the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge has two-way tolls.

]]> By: Maggie Clarke http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44715 Maggie Clarke Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:44:17 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44715 Thanks for the comments. Interesting dissonance at DOT. I would greatly appreciate peoples' help on trying to get to the bottom of this. The fellow who came to the CB12 meeting is Maurice... I forgot the last name and (unfortunately) never got his card. He suggested that I send him a list of design requirements and he would tell me what the numbers are. I have not followed up, but would be grateful if people here could. I gave him two copies of our handout. Is there a way to get that on this blog as an attachment or something? We adapted the 9th ave drawing and listed bullet points for Dyckman Greenway. I suppose a plan C (if the truck deliverymen get upset with this) is to have 3 lanes and keep parallel parking on both sides (but the north parking / loading lane, which would have a space here and there strictly for loading/unloading, would be on the traffic side of the hedgerow divider. Traffic is slow on Dyckman St. When people turn onto Dyckman pretty much from anywhere, it is one lane at a time. When people drive onto Riverside from the HH highway, it is one lane. So keeping it one lane in many places should not impact traffic. The main places you get two lanes is when people are waiting at a light somewhere. The entire length of Riverside up here has a park on the south side. No turning is necessary until you get 5 blocks east to Broadway, so one lane on Riverside going eastbound ought to be enough. The main exception that I can think of is summertime weekend late afternoons when traffic volume is at its highest. But an important part of the traffic puzzle west of Broadway on Riverside up here is that the HH bridge has a toll to leave Manhattan. It has always been the case that many drivers choose to avoid the toll and clog our local streets to get to the Bronx. (Broadway north of Dyckman is a mess too, and I just heard that the East Coast Greenway is slated to come into the neighborhood from the north via the Broadway Bridge.) Back to the HH bridge, instead of a heavy toll inbound as with all the other bridges, TBTA chose to split the toll each way. I'd like to either get rid of the toll on that bridge altogether (and release local streets here and in the Bronx from the extra traffic) or at least get rid of the northbound toll. That would allow the eastbound Riverside drive to be one lane all the way to Broadway without disrupting traffic. It would also help reduce air pollution. Thanks for the comments. Interesting dissonance at DOT. I would greatly appreciate peoples' help on trying to get to the bottom of this. The fellow who came to the CB12 meeting is Maurice... I forgot the last name and (unfortunately) never got his card. He suggested that I send him a list of design requirements and he would tell me what the numbers are. I have not followed up, but would be grateful if people here could. I gave him two copies of our handout. Is there a way to get that on this blog as an attachment or something? We adapted the 9th ave drawing and listed bullet points for Dyckman Greenway. I suppose a plan C (if the truck deliverymen get upset with this) is to have 3 lanes and keep parallel parking on both sides (but the north parking / loading lane, which would have a space here and there strictly for loading/unloading, would be on the traffic side of the hedgerow divider. Traffic is slow on Dyckman St. When people turn onto Dyckman pretty much from anywhere, it is one lane at a time. When people drive onto Riverside from the HH highway, it is one lane. So keeping it one lane in many places should not impact traffic. The main places you get two lanes is when people are waiting at a light somewhere. The entire length of Riverside up here has a park on the south side. No turning is necessary until you get 5 blocks east to Broadway, so one lane on Riverside going eastbound ought to be enough. The main exception that I can think of is summertime weekend late afternoons when traffic volume is at its highest.

But an important part of the traffic puzzle west of Broadway on Riverside up here is that the HH bridge has a toll to leave Manhattan. It has always been the case that many drivers choose to avoid the toll and clog our local streets to get to the Bronx. (Broadway north of Dyckman is a mess too, and I just heard that the East Coast Greenway is slated to come into the neighborhood from the north via the Broadway Bridge.) Back to the HH bridge, instead of a heavy toll inbound as with all the other bridges, TBTA chose to split the toll each way. I'd like to either get rid of the toll on that bridge altogether (and release local streets here and in the Bronx from the extra traffic) or at least get rid of the northbound toll. That would allow the eastbound Riverside drive to be one lane all the way to Broadway without disrupting traffic. It would also help reduce air pollution.

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44711 Jonathan Tue, 19 Feb 2008 03:03:08 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44711 <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/uppertruckroute.pdf" rel="nofollow">According to DOT</a>, Dyckman St is not a truck route. Truck drivers-slash-Streetsbloggers, take 207th instead. According to DOT, Dyckman St is not a truck route. Truck drivers-slash-Streetsbloggers, take 207th instead.

]]> By: flp http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44707 flp Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:16:32 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44707 yaknow, i always wonder whether so many of the avenues actually need to be used as truck routes. crap, it sure is not a coincidence that the avenues that are NOT truck routes are the ones that tend to be the poshest: East End, Park, 5th, (CPW??), West End, and Riverside (officially for the latter, but i have seen trucks make late night passes through there..)! meanwhile, the nabes with the highest asthma rates are the ones with truck filled expressways and avenues! as for dyckman, i think it may be a truck route, but could be wrong about that. however, that is no excuse for having a proper cycle path, lane, track, whatever put in place. yaknow, i always wonder whether so many of the avenues actually need to be used as truck routes. crap, it sure is not a coincidence that the avenues that are NOT truck routes are the ones that tend to be the poshest: East End, Park, 5th, (CPW??), West End, and Riverside (officially for the latter, but i have seen trucks make late night passes through there..)!

meanwhile, the nabes with the highest asthma rates are the ones with truck filled expressways and avenues!

as for dyckman, i think it may be a truck route, but could be wrong about that. however, that is no excuse for having a proper cycle path, lane, track, whatever put in place.

]]> By: Adam K http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44705 Adam K Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:16:35 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44705 Most or all of the major Manhattan avenues are truck routes and many or most of them have 10' lanes. And DOT is actively, <b>currently</b> implementing projects with 10' lanes - obviously there is some kind of policy dissonance going on there. I would be interested to see a generalized study of comparable Manhattan avenues (controlling for traffic volumes & 1-way vs 2-way) with different lane widths comparing crash data. Could be tough to get reliable results though with all the variables. I really doubt that wider lanes will improve safety - they will only make drivers feel ever more comfortable going faster than they should be in a dense urban environment. Most or all of the major Manhattan avenues are truck routes and many or most of them have 10' lanes. And DOT is actively, currently implementing projects with 10' lanes - obviously there is some kind of policy dissonance going on there. I would be interested to see a generalized study of comparable Manhattan avenues (controlling for traffic volumes & 1-way vs 2-way) with different lane widths comparing crash data. Could be tough to get reliable results though with all the variables. I really doubt that wider lanes will improve safety - they will only make drivers feel ever more comfortable going faster than they should be in a dense urban environment.

]]> By: Larry Littlefield http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44704 Larry Littlefield Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:43:45 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44704 (DOT's rules for lane width increase over time. They are now a minimum of 11 feet for a travel lane.) The standard for highways is 12 feet. Wider lanes are required for trucks. Are the streets in question truck routes? (DOT's rules for lane width increase over time. They are now a minimum of 11 feet for a travel lane.)

The standard for highways is 12 feet. Wider lanes are required for trucks. Are the streets in question truck routes?

]]> By: Aaron Naparstek http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44700 Aaron Naparstek Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:04:20 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44700 Maggie, We had a DOT guy in Brooklyn recently come to a Community Board meeting and he was talking about 10 foot wide travel lanes as a possibility for a busy avenue where some residents would like to see a cycle track built. If the lane width issue is important, you should view DOT traffic engineering standards and mandates with healthy skepticism. Find out what the source is for the standard (probably the Green Book, as Adam pointed out). Give a call to Transportation Alternatives or Project for Public Spaces and ask them what they know about the source and the standard. Maggie,

We had a DOT guy in Brooklyn recently come to a Community Board meeting and he was talking about 10 foot wide travel lanes as a possibility for a busy avenue where some residents would like to see a cycle track built.

If the lane width issue is important, you should view DOT traffic engineering standards and mandates with healthy skepticism. Find out what the source is for the standard (probably the Green Book, as Adam pointed out). Give a call to Transportation Alternatives or Project for Public Spaces and ask them what they know about the source and the standard.

]]> By: Adam K http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44698 Adam K Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:48:16 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44698 Maggie - what the DOT guy said sounds suspicious to me. The AASHTO "green book" says down to 10' is fine for urban environments, plus that is non-binding guidance and many major streets in NYC work just dandy with 9' moving lanes. Fundamentally, though, as you said it's a question of politics and building support both within the community and with DOT, so use your own judgment. Maggie - what the DOT guy said sounds suspicious to me. The AASHTO "green book" says down to 10' is fine for urban environments, plus that is non-binding guidance and many major streets in NYC work just dandy with 9' moving lanes. Fundamentally, though, as you said it's a question of politics and building support both within the community and with DOT, so use your own judgment.

]]> By: Maggie Clarke http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44695 Maggie Clarke Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:36:15 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44695 Lots to address here. Thanks for the support and questions. I'll start with a few items. First, the NYC DOT fellow at the community board meeting told us even before I started to talk that DOT's rules for lane width increase over time. They are now a minimum of 11 feet for a travel lane. I didn't know that when we first decided on our plan. We'd measured the width of Dyckman and of Riverside with our feet (63 and 61' respectively). I knew that to sell the idea, the least disruption to the status quo would be the best. I also knew that our biggest adversaries would be car parkers from the neighborhood IF (and only if) our plan reduced the number of parking spaces. Knowing that painted lanes don't do that much good, and being the founder and president of a large garden in the neighborhood, I wanted to integrate more green into the bleakness of Dyckman St. So I quickly went to plan B during the meeting - reducing 4 lanes to 3, since it was clear that DOT would not go for narrower lanes (we had figured 9.5 to 10 feet in our plans). In reality, I rarely see more than 3 cars in the travel lanes at any particular point on Dyckman, and that's a slower street anyway. Riverside might be more of a challenge since it is 2 feet narrower and is, in essence, the on and off ramp to the Henry Hudson parkway, so cars go faster. How can you all help? The Community Board said the most important thing they needed to hear was that all stakeholders are on-board with this. I believe that the money will flow if we get all the stakeholders. That would be letters from businesses and tenants associations in the immediate area stating how such a facility would either help or at least not change their business / quality of life. I've put in a link to the RING garden (www.ringgarden.org). If you want to join the Dyckman Greenway connector group, please go to the website and email me. Thanks! Lots to address here. Thanks for the support and questions. I'll start with a few items. First, the NYC DOT fellow at the community board meeting told us even before I started to talk that DOT's rules for lane width increase over time. They are now a minimum of 11 feet for a travel lane. I didn't know that when we first decided on our plan. We'd measured the width of Dyckman and of Riverside with our feet (63 and 61' respectively). I knew that to sell the idea, the least disruption to the status quo would be the best. I also knew that our biggest adversaries would be car parkers from the neighborhood IF (and only if) our plan reduced the number of parking spaces. Knowing that painted lanes don't do that much good, and being the founder and president of a large garden in the neighborhood, I wanted to integrate more green into the bleakness of Dyckman St. So I quickly went to plan B during the meeting - reducing 4 lanes to 3, since it was clear that DOT would not go for narrower lanes (we had figured 9.5 to 10 feet in our plans). In reality, I rarely see more than 3 cars in the travel lanes at any particular point on Dyckman, and that's a slower street anyway. Riverside might be more of a challenge since it is 2 feet narrower and is, in essence, the on and off ramp to the Henry Hudson parkway, so cars go faster.

How can you all help? The Community Board said the most important thing they needed to hear was that all stakeholders are on-board with this. I believe that the money will flow if we get all the stakeholders. That would be letters from businesses and tenants associations in the immediate area stating how such a facility would either help or at least not change their business / quality of life.

I've put in a link to the RING garden (www.ringgarden.org).

If you want to join the Dyckman Greenway connector group, please go to the website and email me. Thanks!

]]> By: Adam K http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44684 Adam K Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:15:32 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/02/15/citizens-propose-cycle-track-greenway-connector-in-inwood/#comment-44684 1) Let's get our nomenclature straight. As far as I know, a "cycle track" is a European-model, sidewalk-grade bike lane, not an "on-street" separated bike path. In other words, the distinction is that a cycle track is at sidewalk level (or somewhere between sidewalk and roadbed) and a physically separated lane is at roadbed level. 2) The deputy Manhattan Boro Commish was happy b/c the community's proposal would widen moving lanes? Since when does DOT have an official policy favoring wider lanes? 3) Any proposal that would remove parking would have to be approved by the community board? May be politically that's how they feel, but that's certainly not a rule, and DOT has done projects that removed parking without CB approval in the past. 1) Let's get our nomenclature straight. As far as I know, a "cycle track" is a European-model, sidewalk-grade bike lane, not an "on-street" separated bike path. In other words, the distinction is that a cycle track is at sidewalk level (or somewhere between sidewalk and roadbed) and a physically separated lane is at roadbed level.
2) The deputy Manhattan Boro Commish was happy b/c the community's proposal would widen moving lanes? Since when does DOT have an official policy favoring wider lanes?
3) Any proposal that would remove parking would have to be approved by the community board? May be politically that's how they feel, but that's certainly not a rule, and DOT has done projects that removed parking without CB approval in the past.

]]>