BRT + bike: East Side avenues have enough space for physically separated busways and protected bike lanes.

Sometime next month, reports Pete Donohue in today's Daily News, DOT intends to release detailed plans for First and Second Avenues. So far, we've only seen what an "off-set" bus lane configuration would look like, but DOT and the MTA are still considering a range of options. It's pretty clear that off-set bus lanes, placed between curbside parking and traffic, won't qualify as world-class.

Unlike separated lanes, off-set lanes require camera enforcement -- and state legislation -- to function properly. Albany rejected bus cams last year, and even if legislators suddenly change their minds, a camera-enforced off-set configuration invites conflict. Buses would have to contend with cars and delivery trucks trying to access the curb. Separated lanes eliminate that conflict and, paired with protected space for cyclists, invite more biking and walking.

So what would real-deal BRT look like on the East Side? The image up top is one of two options that Transportation Alternatives is backing to deliver the maximum benefits for transit riders, cyclists and pedestrians. The window of opportunity to get these ideas out there won't stay open much longer.

"We are pushing for a visionary design that's going to catalyze thousands of pedestrians, cyclists and bus riders, and turn them into champions of BRT," said TA's Wiley Norvell. "We know there will be opposition to change on First and Second Avenues, regardless of what is proposed; what is critical is that the design delivers the kind of new mobility that will build its own constituency of ardent supporters." Each option is projected to reduce the 70-minute travel time along the whole M15 bus route down to about 40 minutes, Norvell said. Implementing the same improvements applied to the Bx12 route on Fordham Road would only bring travel time down to 60 minutes.

Follow the jump for the other preferred design, showing a center-median bus-and-bikeway.

A center-median BRT configuration, with a protected bike lane similar to the new path on Allen Street.

Keep in mind that these are conceptual plans, and there's a great deal of flexibility in the details. In both configurations, local buses would operate in the separated busway, with smaller local stations placed in the median. Correction: In the first configuration, local bus service continues unchanged along the curbside. In the second, local buses would operate in the separated busway, with smaller local stations placed in the median. The second design can accommodate either two bus lanes in between stations, so BRT buses can pass the locals, or bays spaced at intervals for local buses to pull over and allow BRT buses to pass. Elements like bikeway design, curbside parking, and turning restrictions on vehicles could likewise vary within the framework of these plans.

Also, don't forget that BRT enhances service mainly by reducing the amount of time buses stand still or get bogged down in traffic. Average speeds improve dramatically, but these buses won't be zooming down the avenues.

Organized support for a multi-modal solution for the East Side is starting to coalesce. "If the DOT doesn't put bikes in their BRT designs, they're missing an opportunity," said Kurt Cavanaugh, managing director of the East Village Community Coalition, a local advocacy group. "Planning for buses and bikes together makes it as sustainable as possible."

Second-rate design is really not an option on this one. We have a mayor who's gone to the mat for congestion pricing, a DOT commissioner committed to safer, greener streets, and an MTA chair who's made better bus service priority number one. If New York can't pull off a visionary design for sustainable transportation now, maybe we never will.

We have been considering ways to incorporate bike facilities and expect to be reporting back to stakeholders soon.

Not a whole lot to go on there, but it's good to hear that DOT is looking into the possibilities. The recent organizing around this issue has been formidable. Community Board 8 passed a resolution last month favoring protected bike lanes for the East Side. And last week, Transportation Alternatives delivered more than a thousand letters to transportation commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan asking for protected bike lanes on First and Second.

East Side residents sign on for safer, greener streets.

"We're really hoping to put a finger on the scales, and push for fully-protected bike lanes while the DOT and East Side communities work on improving the M15 corridor," said Transportation Alternatives' Wiley Norvell. "To not address the huge demand for biking on First and Second avenues, something the DOT pledged to do as step number one in its 1997 Bicycle Master Plan, would be a huge missed opportunity."

TA counted 3,356 cyclists on the First and Second Avenue corridor during a 12-hour stretch last month, a figure that far exceeds the DOT's 2008 screenline count at 59th Street, Norvell said. All those cyclists are a fearless bunch -- braving rivers of traffic and some of the city's most intimidating cycling conditions. Imagine how many more New Yorkers would bike down the avenues if they didn't feel they were risking life and limb.

Norvell says TA staff and volunteers have been gathering letters from East Harlem down to the Lower East Side in support of protected bike infrastructure. Yesterday's delivery put hundreds of letters in the hands of East Side electeds, including City Council Members Rosie Mendez and Daniel Garodnick.

"The meetings were very positive," said Caroline Samponaro, director of TA's bike program. "Their staff agreed that we shouldn't redesign First and Second avenues without including provisions for cyclists and pedestrians."

Active support from East Side representatives will be critical as plans for the corridor advance. "Every project is about political will," said Samponaro. "What these projects need is political leadership from the electeds. They need to be the spokespeople for their constituents."

The optimal re-design of First and Second avenues would give buses and cyclists "space that allows them to travel safely and efficiently without having to compete with each other," she added. "These corridors can serve the non-driving majority and set a standard for how other major avenues will be treated."

On Wednesday night, Manhattan Community Board 10 voted not to approve a buffered bike lane along Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. Boulevard but left the door open for a second vote and a different outcome. The decision followed a unanimous vote by the board's transportation committee in favor of the new lane. For the time being, at least, a major addition to Harlem's bike network is on hold.

Shin-pei Tsay of Transportation Alternatives attended the meeting and views the vote as a request for more information, not a rejection of the proposal. She writes:

My impression is that it was primarily because the majority of the board was unfamiliar with the specifics of the project. The board didn't have a full set of facts to work with -- confusion about the configuration, where it started and ended, or even why the Transportation Committee voted unanimously to support the bike lane (only one member of the Transportation Committee was present).

I actually thought the tide was turning during the public comment period -- people said they thought there could be more cycling and the community would benefit. When the issue turned to the board (and closed to public comment), the majority of the board didn't know the details of the plan, what was up for discussion, or what a yes or no vote would really mean on this project. The DOT said that if it didn't pass this time, the agency would work with the community and come back with the proposal again. That basically allowed the board members to make up their mind about the plan -- vote no this time and have the DOT come back.

Given the history of the board, this is a very odd vote -- they voted unanimously in support of Safer Streets and Sidewalks [PDF] a couple of months ago. They voted in support of the Harlem River Park Task Force's work to provide safer access to the Harlem River Park. They voted to remove parking in front of an assisted living senior center. This board supports safer streets.

DOT will not be making a presentation, though reps will be on hand to field questions. Come out and give some support if you can -- particularly if you live in the area.

Earlier Streetsblog coverage of the ACP project is here. 

WHAT: Community Board 10 General Meeting
WHEN: Wednesday, May 6, 6 p.m.
WHERE: Adam Clayton Powell Jr. State Office Building, 163 West 125th Street, 2nd Floor Gallery

Image: DOT

The plan received a favorable resolution from the CB 10 transportation committee, though reaction so far from the community at large has been mixed. So, as always, the more voices the better.

Though DOT won't be making a presentation, it's important that the full board hear from the public on how valuable this project will be for cyclists and pedestrians. Area residents are especially encouraged to come out and show their support.

WHAT: Community Board 10 General Meeting
WHEN: Wednesday, May 6, 6 p.m.
WHERE: Adam Clayton Powell Jr. State Office Building, 163 West 125th Street, 2nd Floor Gallery

Perspectives on the proposal tended to hinge on this question: Are bike lanes scarcer uptown because Harlemites prefer it that way, or is the area overdue for some critical safety improvements?

Oye Carr, owner of Mod Squad Cycles on Frederick Douglass Boulevard, spoke in favor of the new lane. "Folks don't want to feel like people from outside the community are dictating what goes on in the community," he told Streetsblog. "But this impetus for bike lanes isn't just coming from outside of Harlem."

While some speakers associated the lane with re-zoning and development that they view as symptoms of City Hall's heavy-handedness, others welcomed the added safety and called on DOT to go further. Gwen Kash of Community Pride -- a program of the non-profit Harlem Children's Zone -- asked DOT to couple the bike improvements with pedestrian safety measures like LPIs and longer crossing times. (In January, CB10 passed a resolution calling for such improvements at dangerous intersections throughout the district.)

Carr, who opened his shop last November and says sales have been good so far, hopes his testimony helps people see the bike lane as a family-oriented amenity and a boon for locally-owned business. "The parents who come to my shop are concerned about the traffic," he said, noting that it's common to see kids biking in Morningside Park, but rare to see them riding in the street. "We're talking about being able to take their 8-year-old and ride with them. The idea that I could see Harlem on a safe and dedicated area is great."

Two Manhattan community boards are meeting Tuesday evening to discuss new bike routes planned by DOT. If you'd like to support the proposals, and perhaps nudge DOT to beef up some of the provisions for cyclists, here are the details.

At 6:15, CB2's Transportation Committee will consider two routes: one linking the south end of the Fifth Avenue bike lane to the Grand Street lane, creating a route from Midtown to the Manhattan Bridge, and another linking the Hudson River Greenway with the crosstown routes on 9th and 10th Streets. A source informs us that parts of the proposals rely heavily on sharrows instead of dedicated space, so you may want to encourage alternatives that afford cyclists greater safety. This one is happening at NYU's Silver Building (32 Waverly Place, Room 411).

At 6:30, DOT will present plans for a buffered bike route on Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. Boulevard [PDF] to CB10's Transportation and Parks and Recreation committees. Head to the Oberia Dempsey Center (127 W. 127th Street) to learn more and give your feedback.

Also tomorrow night, DOT will present its Broadway pedestrian plan -- officially called "Green Light for Midtown" -- to CB7. The meeting starts at 7:00 at 250 W. 87th St. (at Broadway), on the second floor.

Streetsblog reader Richard Conroy sends along these photos and writes:

Yesterday there was an article about Randi Weingarten saying teachers don't abuse parking permits. I found that amusing since my daily commute takes me past P.S. 161 in Harlem where there are numerous vehicles parked on the sidewalk every school day. This school is on Convent Ave.

In her letter to the Mayor, United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten claimed that "teachers are not abusers of parking permits, and to publicly suggest that they are is deeply troubling." The letter was a response to the Mayor's plan to reduce the number of city government parking permits and prevent unions from printing their own placards. 

At least they're not parking on the playground, I suppose.

As usual, traffic was heavy on 125th Street outside the Alhambra Ballroom in central Harlem, Wednesday evening, where the Department of Transportation held its fourth of seven planned workshops to discuss parking strategies in neighborhoods bordering the City's proposed congestion pricing zone.

According to Bruce Schaller, Deputy Commissioner for Planning and Sustainability at the DOT, the workshops have two goals. First, DOT is listening to concerns residents have about the parking impacts of congestion pricing. Residents' are worried about "park and ride" commuters who currently drive into Manhattan's Central Business District, but with the advent of an $8 pricing fee might park just outside the pricing zone and take transit to their final destination.

Second, DOT is suggesting possible parking strategies -- "Just ideas," says Schaller -- for addressing those impacts and gauging community reaction to them. Schaller emphasizes that DOT wants to get residents of potentially affected communities involved as early as possible.

The Harlem workshop, much more sparsely attended than the one in Park Slope, Brooklyn the night before, drew about thirty neighborhood residents and representatives of numerous local organizations. It was heavily staffed by DOT and its outreach consultant, Howard Stein Hudson. Though Harlem has among the lowest car-ownership rates in the nation, only 20 percent of households have a vehicle, all but a handful of the residents in attendance were car owners and frequent drivers. One contrarian, a long-time local, showed up on a beat-up bike sporting a weathered Transportation Alternatives sticker.

Participants and moderators gathered at three tables to discuss concerns and options. Many were adamant that a motoring lifestyle was the neighborhood norm. Said one woman, a low-income housing developer and trained city planner: "Everyone in my building owns a car."

Said another, also a professional planner: "Harlem has poor services and everyone needs a car to access better services." A friend added that 125^th street was a regional shopping and driving destination and more parking was badly needed. In a nod to Yogi Berra, she added "Harlem is a giant, crowded, shopping mall, but there is no parking, so no one comes here anymore."

Participants agreed that Harlem's streets are already a daily disaster of double parking, endless cruising, placard abuse, and unfair enforcement -- especially the wrath-provoking ticketing of double parked church goers and during street cleanings. They also cited concerns about asthma and air pollution and the need to reduce car-use (that is, car-use by outsiders and infidels). At one table, participants also acknowledged that parking on business streets should be treated differently than on residential streets.

DOT presented participants with two main options for addressing parking shortages: charging more for on-street parking in metered areas, and Residential Parking Permits in unmetered areas. Though participants complained about cruising for short-term parking on business streets, they recoiled at having to pay more at the meter even if it saved them time and improved their chance of finding a spot.

Residential parking permits drew widespread support, though exactly how they would work was controversial. "I like them, but DOT seems to be really pushing these RPPs." Said a long-time resident who said she saw RPP's work in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Most of the car owners liked the idea that RPP's were a chance to improve their chance of getting free parking, but didn't like the idea of paying much for them. Other, more tech-oriented ideas like smart parking meters, that can detect feed-the-meter types and alert police, and in-car GPS chips that can alert drivers to open spaces, were met with skepticism.

DOT's Schaller says that comments will be compiled after the initial round of meetings and incorporated into a larger study of parking trends. The study will help inform a second round of workshops in January at which alternatives will be introduced.

Additional reporting by Erik Shilling. Photo: in2jazz on Flickr

This is an artist's rendering of what West 125th Street would look like after Columbia University's expansion is completed more than a decade from now.  (It is included in an overview of the plans that appears in the print edition of Columbia magazine, which, um, hasn't updated its web presence in a while.)  Regardless of whether you're in favor of or against the expansion, it is clear that Columbia is trying hard to persuade skeptics and opponents that the expansion will be a good thing for this part of Harlem.

Toward that end, the image grossly underestimates the amount of traffic on West 125th Street.  You see two taxis in the foreground that seem to be barely moving, and the faint outlines of a car or maybe two in the distance.  Then there's 46 pedestrians and a dog on the sidewalk, another 10 to 12 people inside a cafe, a bunch of vivid trees and some buildings.

Three or four cars on 125th Street?  125th Street leads to the Henry Hudson Parkway, and is the major river-to-river crosstown link north of Central Park.  There are never that few cars on it during daylight hours.  The street is packed all day long, buses inching along amid the plodding, throbbing or stifling traffic.

I don't mean to single out Columbia. It is common for architectural renderings to minimize the traffic. And why shouldn't they? Everybody hates it, even the people who are sitting in it and helping to create it. In the idealized image of a city, there is a lot less traffic. That's why community board meetings are dominated by complaints that this or that development will increase traffic. The perplexing thing is that community board meetings are also dominated by complaints that ample cheap parking, the greatest cause of heavy traffic, is somehow being threatened.