Southwest corner of Park Terrace West and W. 218th Street. Photos: Brad Aaron

The city recently replaced four parking spots at Park Terrace West and W. 218th Street, in Inwood, with a no standing zone. The 34th Precinct reportedly requested the change to give drivers exiting Park Terrace West, a northbound one-way street, a better view of east-west traffic on 218th.

Inevitably, car owners accustomed to parking at the intersection complained, and those complaints, many of which were posted on a neighborhood email list, led to a story by DNAinfo. Here’s a taste:

At least seven residents said they were ticketed or towed after the new signs went up late last month.  Local parenting email list InwoodKids was recently flooded with parent complaints about the new parking regulations.

Inwood mother Beth More said she and her husband were ticketed and towed in the new zone on Jan. 5 after arriving home from the holidays.

“We had no idea the new signs were posted,” she told DNAinfo. “In fact, we were sure our car was stolen at first and never even thought to look up.”

The couple has appealed the $75 parking ticket and will fight for reimbursement of the $185 tow charge.

“I, like many others in the neighborhood, question if this really was a matter of safety or simply an opportunity for the city and police precinct to ticket more,” she said.

Several city and police sources said summonses issued just days after the new signs were installed are likely to be dismissed.

In case the no standing signs still don’t get the message across — a possibility, considering the illegally parked car out of frame in the above photo — on Sunday I saw a couple of homemade posters warning drivers not to park near the intersection.

I have driven this corner. I also walk it regularly. As a driver it was very difficult to detect whether cars on 218th were approaching without either inching into the Park Terrace West crossing or nosing into cross traffic. As a pedestrian I also appreciate that drivers have better sightlines. While it’s understandable that some were angry about being caught off guard, the idea that the city would look to raise revenue by clearing four parking spots at a blind intersection — and installing the proper signage, no less — smacks of Agenda 21-level paranoia.

Southeast corner, with no standing sign in the background.

How’s this for DIY messaging: Summons for parking in a no standing zone: $115. Fee to park almost anywhere else in Inwood: $0. Preserving life and limb through improved visibility: Priceless.

Hint: There's no rack for the bike.

A few weeks ago muni-meters began popping up on the streets of Inwood. Naturally, this made me wonder if the city had considered turning the neighborhood’s defunct coin-op meters into bike racks.

DOT has converted discarded meter poles into racks in other parts of the city, and livable streets advocates have long noted Inwood’s lack of bike parking. According to the CityRacks map, there are 19 racks in Inwood, all of them on or within a block of Broadway. (The disappearing shelter, as far as I know, has not resurfaced north of Dyckman Street, though after it was removed DOT said it would seek another location nearby.)

We queried DOT on the possibility of Inwood meter conversions in mid-November, and again this week. We’ll update this post when we hear back.

After a dozen years of waiting, what's a couple more, give or take? Photo: Brad Aaron

It was supposed to happen circa 2005. Then in 2009. Now the city says the restoration of a crumbling block-long staircase that serves as a pedestrian-only street in Inwood will be finished by summer 2013.

The 215th Step-Street connects Broadway to residential blocks at Inwood’s northern end. For years its cracked stairs and broken lamps have posed a hazard — neighborhood residents have been asking the city to rebuild it since at least 1999. In 2007 a woman tripped on a hole in the stairs, cutting her legs and face, prompting renewed calls for action.

In 2008, DOT officials and then-Assembly Member Adriano Espaillat announced that a reconstruction project would be completed the following year. Instead, in the summer of 2009 the city backed off its pledge.

Now the Department of Design and Construction says plans are moving forward.

“The project is in Final Design and that phase is scheduled to be completed by July 2012,” a DDC spokesperson told Streetsblog. “The project is scheduled to begin construction in FY 13.”

While the news is promising, Inwoodites could be forgiven for not holding their breath.

In the wake of its long-planned bike lane forum, Manhattan Community Board 12 has finalized a resolution calling for a major study of bike infrastructure of Upper Manhattan, available in full above. Overall it’s a strong demonstration of support for the expansion of bikeways in the area.

Perhaps most importantly, the resolution, which passed by a unanimous vote of 33-0, makes clear that there is broad community support for new bike infrastructure in the area. “Residents of CB12 suggested ways to improve current bike lanes and paths within our community’s parks and streets enjoyed the support from those in attendance in addition to a petition signed by 1,300 residents of CB12,” reads one clause. Given the near-inevitable complaints from some quarter or another that accompany any significant change to the street, such a record of grassroots support is quite valuable.

Based on suggestions, the resolution puts forward a list of bike projects that CB 12 would like DOT to study and report back to them about.

First among them is a safe bike connection between the Hudson and Harlem River Greenways, on or near Dyckman Street. Community members have long proposed that this be a separated bike path. CB 12 also asked for studies of how to improve bike and pedestrian access to the George Washington, Henry Hudson and Broadway Bridges, as well as the West Side Greenway at 181st Street, which currently lets cyclists off at a one-way highway on-ramp, forcing them onto the sidewalk.

Upland from the greenways and bridges, CB 12 urged DOT to study how cyclists can safely move uptown, downtown, and crosstown. Those lanes, they hope, would be integrated with the Parks Department’s long-term plans and connect to bike routes in parks.

CB 12 is famously loathe to lose any parking, and this resolution is true to form. The board urges DOT to search for new parking spots near where bike lanes might remove them, a potential flashpoint if DOT presents specific plans.

Local livable streets activists are pleased with the progress. “Bike Upper Manhattan is glad to see the Community Board as a whole and the Traffic & Transportation Committee reflecting the strong community support for safer bicycle facilities,” said Jonathan Rabinowitz of Bike Upper Manhattan, “and we look forward to the results of the study the board asked for from DOT and its quick implementation.”

Dyckman at Broadway and Riverside Dr. Photo: Brad Aaron

After years of delays, a citizen-generated plan for a separated bike path in Upper Manhattan will get an audience tonight.

The Dyckman Greenway Connector would, as the name suggests, link the east- and west-side Greenways a short distance from the northern tip of Manhattan, in Inwood, completing an uptown circuit for commuters and recreational riders. It would also help bring order to what is now a chaotic environment for area cyclists and pedestrians.

The bike path concept was first proposed to Community Board 12 in early 2008, and for the last three years has languished. At various times, advocates were told by CB 12 and DOT that each was waiting on action by the other. Proponents were repeatedly assured the connector would be addressed in a long-awaited neighborhood traffic study, but after the study was released with no mention of bike facilities, DOT told Streetsblog that CB 12 had asked that the project be excluded. Last winter, the CB 12 transportation committee turned away residents who had come out to endorse the proposal, and refused to reschedule discussion until the spring on the grounds that cold weather would keep seniors from attending.

Nevertheless, CB 12 has formally asked DOT for a feasibility study, and tonight’s “Bike Lane Forum” will ostensibly be dedicated at least in part to the Greenway connector concept. Along with residents of Inwood and Washington Heights, representatives from DOT and Transportation Alternatives are scheduled to attend.

If I might break character for a minute: July will mark my fifth year living in Inwood, and based strictly on personal observations, this spring has already brought a noticeable uptick in the number of cyclists on the streets, despite the fact that bike facilities — lanes and racks — are virtually non-existent here. I don’t bike myself, but as a pedestrian I would spend a lot more time and money on Dyckman, along with Broadway and other streets for that matter, if they were more pleasant places to walk. It’s entirely conceivable that, combined with changes in the works for the intersection of Dyckman at Broadway and Riverside Drive, a Greenway connector could supplant the summertime hordes of cruising motorists and motorcyclists with activity that’s more conducive to a livable neighborhood.

Tonight’s forum will be held at ARC XVI Ft. Washington Senior Center, 4111 Broadway, at 6:30 p.m.

Dyckman Street at Broadway and Riverside Drive: In the few minutes before and after this photo was taken, in addition to innumerable pedestrians, nearly a dozen cyclists passed through. About half were delivering food; others appeared to be students, or adults commuting or running errands. Will the city heed repeated requests to tame Dyckman, for cyclists and pedestrians alike, with a separated bike path? Photos: Brad Aaron

It’s been over three years since residents of Inwood first proposed a separated bike path for Dyckman/200th Street, one that would link Manhattan’s east- and west-side Greenways and help foster a safer and more humane environment for neighborhood cyclists and pedestrians. So persistent are advocates of the project, known informally as the “Dyckman Greenway Connector,” that they persuaded the notoriously auto-centric Community Board 12 to ask DOT for a feasibility study.

That was in late 2008. Since then, things haven’t moved an inch.

According to DOT personnel, an analysis of the connector was to be included in the Sherman Creek-Inwood traffic study, unveiled in the spring of 2010. However, though it outlines a number of planned improvements — including what looks to be a significant redesign of the hellish interchange at Dyckman, Broadway and Riverside Drive — the study makes no mention of bike infrastructure, on Dyckman or anywhere else.

“It is hard to understand how the DOT decides to put in protected bicycle facilities in some neighborhoods but continues to deprive Inwood of any such facility, and declines even to study the Dyckman Greenway Connector,” says Maggie Clarke, longtime Inwoodite and a chief proponent of the plan. To Clarke’s point, it’s difficult not to notice the fact that Inwood joins East Harlem among Northern Manhattan neighborhoods to explicitly, and to this point unsuccessfully, request the city’s help in improving cycling conditions.

A traffic island separating Dyckman from Riverside serves as a cyclist and pedestrian refuge -- sometimes.

Not that there is any reason to believe whatever DOT may someday come up with would get the blessing of CB 12. The full board did pass a resolution requesting a study — but the transportation committee did not endorse the concept, and committee members loaded the reso with conditions. The transportation committee has also repeatedly stalled discussion of the project. Last November, it abruptly canceled a scheduled hearing on district bike facilities, closing the agenda to advocates who were poised to present hundreds of signatures in support of safe cycling infrastructure in Northern Manhattan. The committee then said it would not reschedule during the winter, as cold weather would suppress senior turnout.

Finally, a CB 12 bike forum was set for June 16, where safe streets backers hope to make their case.

“All bicycle infrastructure in [the district] is apparently waiting on the forum,” says Jonathan Rabinowitz of Bike Upper Manhattan. “Once that’s done, we will press the CB to endorse our petition, which calls for the Greenway connector.”

Just to keep it interesting: A DOT spokesperson told Streetsblog that CB 12 asked the agency to consider the Dyckman lane separately from the Sherman Creek-Inwood study. But like everyone else, the agency is waiting for the June forum, where, the spokesperson said, “we plan to discuss bike facilities for the neighborhood” with the community board. Streetsblog will have more details as this elusive event draws closer.

Nagle Avenue at Dyckman Street is one of eight Inwood intersections that could see safety improvements this summer. Image: NYC DOT

It’s no exaggeration to say that, by and large, the streets of Inwood are a free-for-all. With its two free Harlem River bridges, the neighborhood is a prime cut-through for toll-shopping drivers passing to and from the Bronx and Westchester, and is a seasonal haven for preening boom-car owners and speeding motorcyclists. Wide intersections and streets meeting at odd angles make for perilous crossings. Bike lanes are extremely scarce.

Inwood’s main thoroughfare is Broadway, where according to Transportation Alternatives’ CrashStat five pedestrians and one cyclist were killed between 1995 and 2005. Since that time, the sole nod to the neighborhood’s car-free majority has been six blocks of Select Bus Service — unless, of course, you count the disappearing Dyckman Street bike shelter.

That’s about to change. A little over a year ago, NYC DOT announced the results of its Sherman Creek-Inwood traffic study [PDF], which recommended improvements to many Inwood intersections. As DNAinfo reports, this week the city presented its plan to reallocate space for pedestrians at some of the most hazardous. On the whole, these changes, concentrated on Broadway and parts east and slated for the summer, should make walking a noticeably less harrowing experience for many endangered Inwoodites.

Image: NYC DOT

For example, between March of 2008 and March of 2011, 11 pedestrians and three cyclists were injured at Dyckman and Nagle Avenue, which meet under the elevated 1 train, while 30 vehicle occupants were hurt. (It’s telling that drivers whip through Inwood fast enough to cause so many injuries to themselves and their passengers — 111 during the same three-year period at the eight intersections selected for retooling.) DOT would alter the intersection with bumpouts, pedestrian refuges, new markings and left-turn restrictions, leading to fewer conflict points and easier access to the train.

At 10th Avenue and W. 201st and 202nd Streets, an existing lane for drivers would be removed to shorten pedestrian crossing distances, while a speed-inducing “Y” intersection at 201st would be straightened to a right angle. Pedestrian signals would be installed for a bus stop island at 10th at W. 218th.

Other improvements consist primarily of left-turn bans and new markings, and don’t offer much in the way of adding square footage for the roughly 75 percent of Inwood residents who don’t own cars. Also, it appears that any benefits to cyclists will be incidental (see the DNAinfo slideshow for a quick rundown). All of which may explain why the proposal gained the approval of the car-crazed Community Board 12 transportation committee.

More upgrades are in the works, however. DOT says construction plans will be unveiled in September for six additional Inwood intersections, including the mess that is Broadway at Dyckman and Riverside Drive, where safe streets advocates have for years proposed the incorporation of a separated bike lane connecting east- and west-side Greenways.

Upper Manhattan needs more bike infrastructure, including a safe connection between the Hudson and Harlem River Greenways.

Build bike lanes? Manhattan’s Community Board 12 doesn’t even want to talk about bike lanes.

When members of the Inwood-Washington Heights Livable Streets Group showed up with local bike lane supporters to what was supposed to be a public hearing on the issue Monday night, the transportation committee chair informed them that there wasn’t any space on the agenda for the group to make their presentation, much less hear public testimony, according to a report on DNAInfo. That public hearing has now been pushed forward indefinitely.

The procedural controversy stems from a petition started by the Livable Streets group to improve the bike infrastructure of Upper Manhattan. They’re asking for designs like a protected lane along Dyckman Street, connecting the greenways on the west and east sides of Manhattan, and bike lanes over the area’s bridges. You can add your name to the current 826 signatories here.

The livable streets activists were first invited to present their petition to the community board last month. “It was a long discussion that first time, and a very hostile reaction,” recalled Brad Conover. Three of the four members of the Transportation Committee in attendance came out against bike infrastructure, arguing that cyclists don’t deserve new lanes because they don’t follow the rules of the road, and that any lane that took away parking was a non-starter.

At that point, the Community Board decided that it needed to hear from the community, said Conover, and scheduled a public hearing on the issue for this past Monday, November 1. That was confirmed by DNAinfo as recently as last week.

Cycling in Upper Manhattan never was discussed on Monday, however. When Conover and other activists showed up, they asked to make a ten-minute PowerPoint presentation explaining their proposal. The committee said there wasn’t time, setting off a lengthy argument over whether or not to allow the presentation. “At the end of half an hour, they said no,” said Conover.

The public never got a chance to speak either. It was a “miscommunication” that there would be a public hearing on Monday, said the committee; rather, there would only be a discussion of when to hold a public hearing.

Conover said that he thinks the public hearing was cancelled because the anti-bike lane members of the committee felt outnumbered. “The fear in the room was palpable,” he said. “They keep adjourning and delaying until somebody shows up who will speak in opposition.”

The public hearing may take place at November’s meeting of the full community board, or may be put off until the January transportation committee meeting, said Conover.

The four Democrats running to replace Eric Schneiderman in the State Senate - Miosotis Muñoz, Mark Levine, Anna Lewis, and Adriano Espaillat - met last night to debate transportation policy. They were joined by Green Ann Roos, not pictured.

Five candidates vying to become Upper Manhattan’s next state senator met in the 168th Street Armory last night to make their case to the car-free voters of Riverdale, Inwood, Washington Heights, West Harlem, and the Upper West Side. At a debate sponsored by Transportation Alternatives and WE ACT for Environmental Justice, important differences emerged over how best to solve the MTA’s budget crisis and make streets safe for pedestrians and cyclists.

Democrats Adriano Espaillat, Miosotis Muñoz, Mark Levine, and Anna Lewis were joined last night by Green Party candidate Ann Roos. Whoever wins, the victor’s first term will be dominated by the ongoing budget crisis afflicting the state of New York, which affects transit quite directly. State legislators made the MTA’s funding crisis even worse last December by stealing more than $100 million in dedicated transit taxes to plug gaps in the general fund. The debate began with a revealing discussion of how each candidate would secure adequate funding for transit given the current fiscal climate.

Assembly Member Espaillat, considered the front-runner due to an advantage in name recognition, strong fund-raising and prominent endorsements, began with a warning: “It would be irresponsible of me to say there’s not a deficit that’s going to hit across the board,” he said. Without new revenue, the legislature will be forced to make impossible choices between priorities like education, health care, and transportation.

Though he didn’t make a specific revenue proposal during the debate, afterwards Espaillat told me that “congestion pricing is certainly something that we must bring back to the table.” He argued against cobbling together a piecemeal funding scheme for transit, saying that “the main engine of economic development in our community” needs a “solid revenue stream.” Even so, he maintained his opposition to any tolls over the Harlem River bridges, which carry torrents of toll-shopping drivers through the district.

Mark Levine, considered to be a close second to Espaillat, also argued that congestion pricing would be the best solution. “I also support, short of that, a plan to toll the East River bridges,” he explained. Harlem River bridge tolls were conspicuously absent, however, a stance that he earlier explained to Streetsblog by characterizing those bridges as essentially local streets.

The other two Democrats, Muñoz and Lewis, each suggested reinstating the commuter tax to raise revenue.

While each candidate disregarded moderator instructions to offer transit solutions aside from the standard calls to better manage the MTA, Lewis was particularly vociferous in her denouncements of the authority. “I don’t believe it’s because they’re underfunded,” she argued in response to Espaillat and Levine. “What they’ve done is, for the most part, cooked their books. It’s all a lie.”

Roos rejected any attempt to balance the budget that would affect working- or middle-class New Yorkers — which, in her view, even encompassed road-pricing solutions that would benefit lower-income residents. “I am opposed to fare hikes,” she said. “I am opposed to service cuts. I am opposed to borrowing. I am opposed to congestion pricing. I am opposed to tolls on the East River Bridges. I am opposed to a commuter tax.” What isn’t Roos opposed to? A more progressive income tax and a stock transfer tax, she said, could fund transit and more.

In contrast to some other districts, none of the candidates here dwelled on the most recent round of service cuts. Instead, they emphasized the need for more capital improvements. With tiles falling from station ceilings and broken elevators making it difficult to reach the deeply-buried stations uptown, poor maintenance seemed to be a higher priority than lost bus lines.

After station repairs, though, each had a different priority for improving local transit. Levine would restore lost bus services, while Lewis would work on accessibility for the disabled. Espaillat suggested adding two new Select Bus Service routes to the district — which includes the Fordham Road SBS — one along 181st Street into the Bronx and one connecting to downtown.

When it came to improving street safety, each candidate promised to support the construction of more protected bike lanes, to the extent that they could as a state representative. Levine, who began his remarks by noting that he is a T.A. member and that his whole family bikes, praised the bike lanes on Ninth Avenue and Broadway, saying they’ve “proved the fears of local businesspeople to be unfounded. I think this is ultimately economic development.”

Other suggestions varied widely, however. Lewis put the burden of safety on the victims, pushing helmet laws for cyclists and suggesting that when walking down poorly lit streets, “perhaps we need to ask ourselves to wear protective outerwear to make it easier to see people.” The latter suggestion drew some muffled laughter from the audience.

Levine laid out a laundry list of improvements, including narrowing lanes, expanding medians, and installing countdown clocks at every pedestrian crossing. “Enforcement of the current laws is unacceptably weak,” he said, arguing that police in Upper Manhattan were even less attentive to traffic safety than in the rest of the borough. Overall, he suggested, “I don’t think that motor vehicles should have a monopoly on our streets.”

Muñoz suggested increasing penalties on unsafe drivers. “You’re in a vehicle, you’re in a weapon,” she said.

Espaillat began by calling for lower speed limits, “because it is often speed that leads to these very tragic accidents.” He spent the bulk of his time, though, proposing a comprehensive traffic study of the area. The study would focus on the prevalence of two-way north-south avenues, he suggested, saying that the pedestrian crashes he heard about usually involved cars turning off of those avenues. The DOT’s recently-released pedestrian safety study backs up Espaillat’s intuition, finding that almost half of all pedestrian fatalities in the borough occur on major two-way streets.

In a lightning round of questions at the end of the debate, each candidate promised to support a residential parking permit program and bike/ped access on the state-run Henry Hudson Bridge.

Voters will choose between the four Democrats soon: Election Day is less than a week away, on Tuesday, September 14.

Candidates for the 31st Senate District: Miosotis Muñoz, Mark Levine, Anna Lewis, and Adriano Espaillat. All except Lewis have confirmed they will attend tonight's debate to talk transportation.

Labor Day and the Jewish high holidays make this an abbreviated week, but with the critical primary elections just seven days away, the state’s political world is going full-tilt. Tonight, at least three of the four candidates running to replace Eric Schneiderman in the State Senate will meet at a debate co-sponsored by Transportation Alternatives, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, and the Upper West Side Streets Renaissance to talk about how they plan to provide for the transportation needs of the Upper West Side, West Harlem, Washington Heights, Inwood, and Riverdale.

Whoever wins the seat will be replacing one of the more pro-transit members of the State Senate. Before entering the Senate, Schneiderman represented the Straphangers Campaign as a private attorney, and in office he publicly embraced PlaNYC. However, even Schneiderman remained out of sight during the most recent fights over MTA financing.

The three candidates expected to show up tonight are Adriano Espaillat, Miosotis Muñoz, and Mark Levine. Espaillat currently serves in the Assembly representing an overlapping district; Muñoz was an aide to Congressman Charlie Rangel and Manhattan borough presidents C. Virginia Fields and Ruth Messinger; Levine was chair of Community Board 12′s transportation committee and founded a credit union for low-income Upper Manhattanites. A fourth candidate, Anna Lewis, has not yet confirmed whether she will attend, according to a DNAinfo report.

Streetsblog last looked at the race in June, noting that while each of the candidates to represent this largely car-free constituency expressed strong support for transit, none would support tolling the free Harlem River bridges that run through the district. Plenty of other revenue sources got the thumbs up: Espaillat was a vocal congestion pricing supporter, Muñoz wanted to reinstate the commuter tax, and Levine was even willing to toll the East River bridges on top of a commuter tax. But when it comes to new tolls inside the district, these candidates seemed to draw the line.

To find out where they stand on transit funding, what they’d do to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety, or to pose your own question, show up tonight at 7:00 p.m. at the Armory Foundation, located at 216 Ft. Washington Ave., between 168th and 169th Streets. The debate will be moderated by West Side Spirit reporter Dan Rivoli and Columbia urban planning prof David King.

Mamajuana Cafe. Photo: The Streets Where We Live

Right now, Mamajuana is at the center of a long-standing dispute over the proliferation of restaurants and bars -- those with outdoor space in particular -- on Dyckman and the immediate vicinity west of Broadway. Residents who live nearby say the crowds drawn by these establishments have commandeered the area, clogging sidewalks and streets and generating excessive noise at all hours, and are calling on Community Board 12 and area officials to encourage a more balanced mix of "daytime" and "nighttime" businesses.

Mamajuana's owners, who operate several other restaurants along the Dyckman corridor, counter that they are providing jobs and bringing much-needed street life to the neighborhood. The restaurateurs have repeatedly claimed that most of the noise comes from vehicle traffic, which they have no control over.

The issue could be coming to a head soon. In the last few weeks, CB 12 committees have passed a resolution against an expansion of Mamajuana's sidewalk cafe and tabled a vote on the renewal of its liquor license, pending a succession of upcoming neighborhood meetings.

CB 12 has expressed its discontent with the Dyckman scene before, but DNAinfo reports that the 34th Precinct and Assembly Member Denny Farrell have also come out against renewing Mamajuana's liquor license, a decision that ultimately rests with the State Liquor Authority. Outcry over Mamajuana has prompted to the SLA to conduct an examination of the Dyckman corridor. At the same time, residents are opposing the issuance of new sidewalk cafe permits, claiming that current outdoor dining space already constitutes an "attractive nuisance."

No one at this point seems to dispute that noise and traffic on Dyckman are out of control (see lede paragraph), and Mamajuana's owners have a history of hostility toward neighborhood concerns. But take a look at the above video shot by Maggie Clarke, a member of local advocacy group Inwood and Washington Heights Livable Streets and a leader in the effort to curb nighttime noise on Dyckman.

How many of the horn-honking, crosswalk-hogging, box-blocking drivers, and motorcyclists with illegal mufflers driving and parking on the sidewalk, are these businesses responsible for? And if you take them away or get them under control, how much "nuisance" would there be?

At a Monday night meeting with the transportation committee of Manhattan Community Board 12, DOT rolled out a slew of much-needed street improvements for Washington Heights and Inwood. Several are still in the preliminary stage, but one major intersection in the Heights is slated for an overhaul this fall.

The crossing of St. Nicholas and Amsterdam Avenues, at W. 162nd Street, is a hub of neighborhood activity, with access to the C train, four bus lines, a grocery store and other retailers, as well as the Morris-Jumel Mansion. It's also a confusing, hazardous mess. From 2006 to 2009, according to DOT, 23 pedestrians were injured there, while CrashStat shows scores of collisions and one pedestrian fatality between 1995 and 2005.

DOT plans to clean up the area [PDF], replacing asphalt with green space, shortening crosswalks, adding a protected bike lane segment, shifting bus boarding areas, and improving commercial loading access.

Specifically, an existing Greenstreets triangle at W. 161st Street will be expanded into what are now auto lanes, and will stretch to W. 162nd Street. Northbound cyclists in the adjacent bike lane on St. Nicholas will have to contend with only one lane of drivers between W. 160th and W. 162nd. After a dogleg through the intersection, the lane picks up on the north side of 162nd as a parking-protected segment for one block. As Brad Conover of Inwood and Washington Heights Livable Streets points out, while southbound cyclists should benefit from the replacement of northbound car traffic with back-in angled parking on the 162-163 block, only northbound cyclists will have a protected bike lane.

"I am happy that DOT is redesigning this dangerous intersection and is including a protected lane," Conover told Streetsblog, "but my preference would be for protected bike lanes running north and south for the entire length of either St. Nick or Amsterdam so that a biker could ride safely from Inwood or Washington Heights to the Upper West Side or Central Park."

As for pedestrian amenities, the aforementioned swath of expanded green space will include a bus stop. And two additional new spaces are planned: a Greenstreets triangle north of W. 162nd and a pedestrian refuge in the center of Amsterdam, also on the north side the intersection. St. Nicholas will also be resurfaced from W. 155th to W. 168th, making for a smoother ride for cyclists and bus riders.

Up in Inwood, the results of the Sherman Creek traffic study are in [PDF]. Conclusion: Inwood is flooded with auto traffic (particularly around the "free" University Heights bridge) and is a dangerous place to walk. The study contains recommendations for improvements to many neighborhood intersections, but since they are expected to be revised we'll forgo breaking them down for now. One corridor to keep an especially close eye on is Dyckman Street, where advocates hope that any overhaul will include a separated bike lane connecting east- and west-side Greenways -- infrastructure that IWHLS members believe would spark a virtuous cycle in Upper Manhattan.

"The 'corridor treatment' for Dyckman Street from Riverside Drive to the Harlem River Drive will (I'm hoping) build momentum for a north-south bike lane," says Jonathan Rabinowitz. "Vigorous advocacy and the help of real-world examples in our own neighborhood will lead to more improvements and a safer Washington Heights and Inwood."

Photo: Jo Sef Gray/Flickr

"The Inwood Hill Runners are planning a celebratory crossing to Riverdale on the first Saturday of its re-opening," says Tamara Ewoldt, a running group organizer and Inwood resident who first alerted Streetsblog to the bridge closure two-and-a-half years ago. "The availability of this route will improve our safety because it will allow us to avoid running through traffic elsewhere. We have waited a long time for this and look forward to a modernized pathway."

Tangentially, when researching potential links for this post we found a 2003 New York Times article that recalls how the tolled Henry Hudson Bridge, constructed in the 1930s, came to divide Manhattan's last remaining natural woodland in the first place. In light of Pedro Espada's proposal to toll East River bridges but put no price on "free" Harlem River crossings, it's a story that still resonates:

Robert Caro's biography ''The Power Broker,'' published in 1975, outlines the characteristic [Robert] Moses ingenuity at getting things done. Moses was allowed to use free federal labor on ''park access roads,'' which is how he designated his highway through Inwood Hill Park. The park site also provided land at no cost.

Furthermore, the bankers who issued bonds looked skeptically on the prospect of a toll bridge built close to an existing free bridge, the Broadway Bridge. Thus, he was bound to the Inwood Hill Park route, even though it would destroy the ancient silence of the place, as well as despoil the sleepy neighborhood of Spuyten Duyvil.

Photo via NYCEDC

East of 9th Avenue the five blocks between W. 202nd Street and W. 206th Street fall into the river. It is here that the Parks Department has built small pockets of green space with access to the river, barbecues and benches.

"The idea is to develop a feature that connects them," Alejandro Baquero-Cifuentes, EDC vice president for development told the Community Board 12 Parks and Recreation Committee Tuesday night.

[The project], if it ever becomes a reality, represents a significant amount of new public space in Northern Manhattan, where potentially someone could walk half the length of Inwood from Swindler Cove Park via a pedestrian trail and then the esplanade to the [University Heights] bridge.

Though a funding source for the project has yet to be identified, this weekend NYCEDC will hold a public workshop on the esplanade master plan. Details follow the jump.

WHAT: Public Workshop, Sherman Creek Waterfront Esplanade Master Plan
WHEN: Saturday, March 20, 2 - 5 p.m.
WHERE: Manhattan Christian Academy, 3816 Ninth Ave between W. 204-205th St.
RSVP: Barbara Patrick, 212-312-3673 or via email. Space is limited.

Proposed Dyckman Street redesign presented by residents to the CB12 transpo committee in February '08

In December, Upper Manhattan advocates were disappointed to learn that DOT had no plans to study a cycle track-equipped Dyckman Greenway Connector, first suggested in early 2008, until it completed a neighborhood traffic study focused on Inwood's Sherman Creek area. This news contradicted an earlier indication to chair Mark Levine that the agency planned to issue a report on the connector idea to the Community Board 12 transportation committee this month. The committee formally asked DOT to explore the concept in November 2008.

Streetsblog made repeated attempts in December to obtain details on what, if anything, was in the works for Dyckman Street, but DOT would not answer our questions.

Last night, however, DOT's Josh Orzeck announced that a Dyckman corridor charette would be held in March or April, reports Levine, "to present a number of possibilities and seek input from local residents." According to Levine, Orzeck said the connector proposal "has gained quite a constituency within the agency."

A spring charette jibes with last month's update, and seems to represent the most solid commitment DOT has offered Dyckman Connector proponents to this point. But the requested CB 12 report has yet to take shape, and the pending Sherman Creek analysis is at least the second study DOT has held up as a precursor to further action (Orzeck cited a Dyckman intersection study in October 2008).

Still, if the charette does in fact occur, it will be the first tangible sign that the city is at last paying attention to a major safe streets proposal that Upper Manhattanites have doggedly pursued for the past two years.

Dyckman at Nagle Ave. Photo: Dry Fly Guy/Flickr

Jonathan from Inwood and Washington Heights Livable Streets posted an account of the meeting. "The only person who said anything about the Dyckman Greenway Connector was the DOT rep," he says.

Though CB 12 members have nothing to say lately, things were looking better a year ago, when the committee formally asked DOT to explore the connector concept. Without a study to hang its hat on, the board has shown little if any inclination to follow other Manhattan CBs in adopting a preemptive resolution in favor of major cyclist-pedestrian improvements. And 'round and 'round it goes.

DOT, meanwhile, didn't exactly help the cause when it removed a bike shelter from Dyckman, reportedly because it was underused.

We have messages in with DOT and CB 12 about this week's meeting and the city's apparent lack of interest in the project.

Impromptu bike parking on Dyckman Street after the de-installation of a bike shelter, which for a year stood on the fresh patch of concrete in the background. Photo: Brad Aaron

Anecdotal evidence suggests the shelter was popular among local and visiting cyclists -- and we referred before to the symbolic significance of the Dyckman site. But, assuming it will in fact be installed elsewhere in the neighborhood, what locations might be better?

Now you see bike infrastructure, now you don't. Photos: Brad Aaron

According to a blurb in the Manhattan Times, a spokesperson with DOT said the shelter was removed due to lack of use. Though there are three "U" racks on the same block, this doesn't make a lot of sense in light of agency efforts to encourage cycling by making bike parking more accessible -- especially considering the relatively short span of time the shelter had been in place.

One rumor swirling about the neighborhood is that a Dyckman Street restaurateur desirous of sidewalk cafe space had a hand in the shelter's banishment, as it was situated in front of his newest location, now under construction. But even if that were true -- we've seen no evidence to support such a theory -- it's hard to imagine DOT would uninstall a piece of infrastructure at the request of a single business owner.

Community Board 12 wasn't consulted on the change, transportation committee chair Mark Levine told Streetsblog.

Given Inwood's general lack of bike racks, and with livable streets advocates about to embark on the third year of their campaign for safer cycling conditions on Dyckman, we're extremely curious as to why this shelter was taken away. As of this writing, however, two queries to DOT have brought no response.

Among the items on Community Board 8's October agenda is a resolution in support of protected bike lanes on the Upper East Side. As we heard from Transportation Alternatives yesterday, neighborhood involvement has propelled this once-unlikely measure to this point, and friendly voices will be needed to bring it home. The CB 8 meeting starts at 6:30 at the Ramaz School Auditorium, 125 E. 85th Street.

Tonight in Upper Manhattan, Inwood and Washington Heights Livable Streets will hold a regular meeting to discuss, along with other topics, the proposed Dyckman Street Greenway Connector. Thanks to the consistent work of its core members, this group is starting to get attention from local electeds. A good showing tonight can only help build momentum. Meeting details and other discussions can be found on the IWHLS Livable Streets Community page.

This was the scene at Seaman Avenue and 207th Street in Inwood at around 6:15 p.m. Wednesday. It appeared that the cyclist -- a white male in his 40s or 50s -- was doored by the driver of the Toyota 4Runner. The cyclist was elevating his hand, which was bleeding pretty heavily, before medics arrived. Police on the scene were talking to the woman in the photo after the jump, so I assume she was the driver. I'm no lip reader, but she looked none too thrilled with being held up, or having her picture taken.

I never saw the cyclist emerge from the ambulance, which departed after about 20 minutes. While I was trying to get a clear shot of the SUV, the bike disappeared from the street. Once NYPD and FDNY left the scene, the woman walked south on Seaman, leaving the SUV parked.

I called the 34th Precinct this morning to verify that the cyclist was transported and to ask if the driver received a summons. The officer I spoke with first told me I would need to come down to the station if I wanted information, then said no one on duty during the day would know anything about an incident that happened in the evening. This is typical of how the 34th Precinct interacts with the public.

Seaman Avenue is a pretty busy cycling street. If anyone saw what happened, please let us know in comments. And if you're the cyclist, we'd love to hear how things turned out.