Streetsblog New York City

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.

Read more…

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.

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.

Read more…

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.

Last week I took my first cab ride in recent memory, from Midtown home to Inwood. It was Thursday night, and pretty early -- around 10:00 -- when we exited the West Side Highway onto Riverside Drive and made the left to Dyckman/200th Street. As we passed the bustling Mamajuana Cafe, near the corner of Seaman Avenue, its outdoor tables packed as usual, and the cab driver inched among revving motorcycles, honking livery cabs and boom-car drivers who seemed to have no purpose there other than to cruise the block, I muttered something to the effect of "I'm glad we don't live down here."

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.

Read more...

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."

Read more...

Pedestrians and cyclists should again have access to the Henry Hudson Bridge walkway this summer, almost three years after it was closed for construction.

A spokesperson with MTA Bridges and Tunnels told Streetsblog Monday that, barring further weather delays, work started on the lower deck of the bridge in 2007 should be complete by the middle to end of June. This will be welcome news for commuters and recreational users who were re-routed to the Broadway Bridge to cross the Harlem River between the Bronx and Manhattan.

"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.

For years, the New York City Economic Development Corporation intended to have the Sherman Creek area in eastern Inwood rezoned for higher-density residential and commercial development. That effort was ultimately abandoned when stakeholders couldn't come to terms, but as the Manhattan Times reports, plans survive for a waterfront esplanade along the Harlem River between Academy and W. 208th Streets.

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.

Read more...

Is the city finally taking action on a citizen proposal to connect Manhattan's east- and west-side Greenways with a safer Dyckman Street?

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.

After almost two years of waiting for DOT analysis of a proposed cycle track for Dyckman Street in Upper Manhattan, advocates this week were promised ... more waiting.

At Monday's meeting of the Community Board 12 Traffic and Transportation Committee, bike path supporters expected a short update on the citizen-generated plan to link Manhattan's east- and west-side Greenways through Inwood, to be followed by a more detailed report in January. What they got, however, was news that action is on hold pending the completion of a neighborhood traffic study, with a vague pledge to gather stakeholders afterward, possibly next spring.

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.