As regular readers know, community boards often represent the front lines in the battle for livable streets, and our neighborhoods desperately need more progressive voices at the board level -- ideally, enough of them so that something like this doesn't happen again.

Follow the jump for more dates and application links. Best of luck. 

Bronx

• Deadline: February 6
  
• Information
• Application [PDF]
  

Brooklyn

• Deadline: February 14
  
• Information
• Application [Word]

Manhattan

• Deadline: January 15 
• Information
• Application [PDF]
  

Queens

• Deadline: Through January
  
• Information
• Applications must be picked up at 120-55 Queens Boulevard, Kew Gardens, NY 11424
  

Staten Island

• Deadline: TBD ("Sometime in May")
  
• Information
• Application [PDF]

Next Monday, November 24, TA will host the "Community Board Join-Up Jammy-Jam" at the offices of The Open Planning Project. There will be snacks, drinks, and short presentations on community board membership (and "why it rocks"). TA staffers will be on hand to field questions, along with a notary to make your app official.

RSVP (through Monday) to Elena at volunteer[at]transalt[dot]org or 646-873-6036.

WHAT: Community Board Join-Up Jammy-Jam

WHERE: The Open Planning Project, 349 W 12th St, #3 (1st Floor), Manhattan

WHEN: Monday, November 24, 6:00-9:00 p.m.

If you can't make the party, or want to get a head start, application info for all boroughs is after the jump.

Bronx

• Information
• Application [PDF]
  

Brooklyn

• Information
• Application [Word]

Manhattan

• Information
• Application [PDF]
  

Queens

• Information
• Applications must be picked up at 120-55 Queens Boulevard, Kew Gardens, NY 11424
  

Staten Island

• Information
• Application [PDF]

For the third time this year, residents of Inwood and Washington Heights Monday night presented the Community Board 12 Traffic and Transportation Committee with a vision for a traffic-calmed Dyckman Street. One with a separated bike lane connecting the Henry Hudson and Harlem River bike paths, sidewalk bulbouts, leading pedestrian intervals, and street trees. A destination corridor where people can shop, stroll and mingle without constantly feeling under siege by untamed auto traffic.

And for the third time this year, the committee asked these residents to come back when they have a better idea of what they want.

Members of Inwood and Washington Heights Livable Streets were hopeful that an audience with Paimaan Lodhi, urban planner with Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's office, would help the case for the Dyckman Greenway Connector. But after distributing copies of "Sustainable Streets" guidelines to committee members (it was hard to tell if any of them had heard of the DOT program), Lodhi deflated those hopes. Any action by Stringer's office, he said, would require consensus from CB12.

Just how likely is consensus to emerge that an innovative, people-friendly design for Dyckman, similar to the Ninth Avenue bike path, would be a boon to Upper Manhattan, where just 20 percent of households own a car? To get an idea one only has to tune in to Jim Berlin, the most outspoken member of the transpo committee, if not the whole of CB12. Last night a neighborhood mom told the committee that she feared a pedestrian bridge over Dyckman at Tenth Avenue, used by students at her child's elementary school, was unstable. Berlin, minutes after declaring that any plan to alter Dyckman should not impede auto traffic, agreed that the condition of the bridge is a concern, as it "keeps kids away from a ridiculously dangerous intersection where a school should never have been built in the first place."

In other words, to Berlin and other CB12 members, Dyckman Street is already a connector -- between the West Side Highway and the FDR. Its function as a neighborhood street, used by school children and hundreds of thousands of other non-driving Upper Manhattanites, is purely incidental.

But uptown livable streets advocates have two things working in their favor. One is that Dyckman Street is already slated for new bike lanes, which will presumably connect existing lanes on its east and west ends. Another is that, according to DOT's Josh Orzeck, an unrelated study of Dyckman intersections is currently underway, which Orzeck said would "greatly affect" any redesign plans. Committee members lit up at the mention of the study (which, oddly, Orzeck had apparently not referenced before), for it gave them the perfect opportunity to put off the Greenway connector plan until at least next spring.

Which brings us to another CB12 transpo committee trait. To be fair, chairman Mark Levine -- who is far and away the most enlightened member when it comes to livable streets issues -- had to leave the meeting early, but there was barely a single issue discussed Monday night on which the committee did not delay, defer or deflect. ("Have you spoken with the precinct?" "Isn't that up to DOT?" "Shouldn't the parks/safety/some other committee be involved in this?" "Asking the MTA/NYPD for anything is useless.") Granted, I have only covered CB12 for a short time. But I've attended enough board, commission and committee meetings to recognize a do-nothing body when I see one, and I have to say the CB12 Traffic and Transportation Committee bears a striking resemblance to a do-nothing body.

If the Dyckman Greenway Connector and September's Greenmarket fiasco, which originated with the transpo committee, weren't enough evidence, consider last night's deliberations concerning Bennett Avenue. A handout circulated by Inwood and Washington Heights Livable Streets highlighted seven issues that contribute to dangerous conditions on Bennett, which runs parallel to Broadway for approximately a dozen blocks north of 181st Street in Washington Heights. Among those issues was poor visibility at intersections, where drivers park close enough, sometimes illegally, that other drivers and pedestrians have trouble seeing oncoming traffic.

Berlin, having already given a confounding speech about how infrastructure should not be used to accomplish what the police should be (but, conveniently, are not) doing, allowed that DOT may want to "daylight" intersections on Bennett to improve safety, rather than installing what the committee deemed to be prohibitively expensive bulbouts. However, he said, daylighting would be a "problem" -- particularly at night -- as it would eliminate on-street parking spots. After a modicum of back and forth, mostly regarding the hopelessness of accomplishing much of anything, the committee handed Bennett Avenue off to Orzeck with no clear direction or recommendations.

And thus, the circuit of inaction was again completed.

A car-free park "could have a major environmental impact," said Brennan, who co-signed a letter with the CB chairs asking DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan for the EIS. Similar use of environmental regulations have postponed the development of San Francisco's bike lane network for three years.

In the midst of calling for the environmental impact study, typically a lengthy and expensive process, Peers made clear that he had already reached his own conclusion. "Closing the park to traffic is unacceptable even for a trial period," he said.

The Car-Free Prospect Park Campaign is a decades-long volunteer advocacy effort led by Transportation Alternatives, a member-driven organization with a strong base of support in the neighborhoods around Prospect Park. Two weeks ago, youth advocates delivered 10,001 signatures to City Hall in support of a car-free park. During the summer of 2002 a volunteer effort organized by T.A. produced approximately 15,000 signatures, a 400-person town hall meeting and the support of all five Council members with districts abutting the park. Subsequent expansions of car-free hours in Prospect Park have repeatedly failed to validate dire predictions of traffic cataclysm outside the park.

Nevertheless, Peers finds these community organizing efforts despicable. "We abhor the tactics of the bicycle advocacy group," he said. "They tried the same tactics when they tried to shove Residential Parking Permits down our throats. They're a well-financed advocacy group representing a minority view."

Assemblyman Jim Brennan can be reached here:

416 Seventh Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11215
718-788-7221
brennaj [at] assembly.state.ny.us

Photo: Randy Peers (with green sheet), flanked by Assemblyman Jim Brennan (beige suit) and Alvin Berk (bearded).

Citing fears that it would disrupt the neighborhood and rouse illegally parked motorists from their beds on Sunday mornings, Community Board 12 Tuesday night tabled a recommendation for a new Greenmarket in Washington Heights. Minutes later, without discussion, the board unanimously approved a feasibility study for additional parking on Dyckman Street in Inwood.

About a dozen residents turned out in support of the 185th Street Greenmarket resolution, which was the product of a citizen-generated petition with 1,000 signatures. But since the petition was circulated at a time when Bennett Park was thought to be the top choice for the market location, rather than adjacent 185th Street, CB12's Traffic and Transportation Committee dismissed it, and declined to issue a recommendation earlier this month. Still, the chair of the board's parks committee, Elizabeth Lorris Ritter, said a new petition had 42 signatures from those in favor of a 185th Street market, in addition to 32 e-mails indicating support.

But the three residents who spoke against the market carried the night, conjuring visions of 6 a.m. tow truck sweeps, vendor vehicles snapping tree limbs, and rats descending on 185th to feed on discarded produce. The market would hurt nearby businesses, they said, disturb nearby apartment-dwellers, and force motorists who chose not to obey "No Parking" fliers to get up early to move their cars from 185th Street's 19 parking spots. One was "offended" that the market would operate on the Christian sabbath, while another said that, though "chic and trendy," the market would, in reality, "not serve anybody."

Though Ritter and Greenmarket staffer Cathy Chambers had an answer for each of those claims (the market could start at 9 a.m., the day could be switched from Sunday to Friday, vendors don't use street trash bins, shops near Greenmarkets normally see an increase in business, etc.), board members would have none of it. Jim Berlin, the most outspoken critic on the CB12 transportation committee, characterized Ritter's rebuttals as "inexcusable," and accused Chambers of trying to deceive the board. Other locations -- involving the sacrifice of fewer, or no, parking spaces -- were suggested, but the board ultimately tabled the resolution on the grounds that more time should be devoted to fleshing out the proposal. The parks committee has been working on the Greenmarket issue since February.

In contrast, a resolution calling for a DOT study on adding angled parking to the west end of Dyckman Street passed unanimously. Dyckman Street, particularly west of Broadway, has been a primary source of "tons" of recent noise complaints, according to CB12 District Manager Ebenezer Smith. In addition, plans to revive the now-shuttered Dyckman Marina, including three food venues with combined seating for 300, have not taken into account the potential subsequent increase in car traffic. At a recent hearing, according to neighborhood newspaper Manhattan Times, would-be marina developers said it is up to the police and DOT to handle congestion caused by their project. For their part, they plan to use car services to ferry customers to and from area garages. 

CB12 members asked no questions before approving the Dyckman Street parking resolution.

Photo: Brad Aaron

From Transportation Alternatives' Queens Committee Chair Mike Heffron:

At the Queens Community Board 2 general meeting on Thursday, May 1, with no vote by board members, Chair Joe Conley delayed the board's input on the Department of Transportation's planned pedestrian and cyclist improvements to Vernon Boulevard, an important link in the proposed Queens East River Greenway. DOT can move forward with the Greenway plan with or without CB 2's approval.

The DOT plan [PDF] calls for removal of the majority of parking along the East River side of Vernon from 45th Ave to its termination at Main St. In place of parking the DOT plans to put down a painted bike lane in both directions, with painted buffers between the lanes and auto traffic. Also proposed are additional traffic calming improvements along Vernon and a pedestrian relief Green Street to be installed at Queensbridge Park. Two weeks prior the proposal was unveiled to CB 2's Land Use Committee, which voted unanimously in favor.

Community board members had a lot of questions, and there was a lot of confusion about where parking would be removed. There also seemed to be confusion about the actual widths of streets, as well as thoughts that the bike lane be placed on 11th St., farther from the river. One member wondered if there was a need to provide anything for cyclists at all. There was also concern that the crossing along Jackson Ave. is "too dangerous" and that cyclists should instead be routed down to the river and back up Borden Ave. to access the Pulaski Bridge. Conley had issues with double parking in the Hunters Point commercial area -- an area where parking will not be removed and no bike lane is proposed. Because of the parking issue and "congestion" in the area Conley felt that it would be too dangerous to suggest cyclists ride with traffic there.

DOT's Ryan Russo pointed out that removing parking now, before zoning changes bring in new residential buildings, will encourage new residents to move to the area without their cars. He also noted that cyclists, like most commuters, will take the path that best serves them, that DOT can't dictate that riders take an out of the way route because it may or may not be safer, and that DOT can best serve everyone by improving safety on presently favored routes. He also repeated several times that parking will not be removed in the Hunters Point commercial district. But Russo had no one from the community to back him up, as the public input period was held at the beginning of the meeting, over an hour before his presentation.

With the hands of several community board members still in the air, Conley decided to table the proposal because "parking is an issue still in Hunters Point." And with no vote, he unilaterally ended discussion and requested that DOT come back with a revised plan. This despite the earlier unanimous vote by the Land Use Committee supporting the proposal and the fact that Community Boards only have "advisory" power over decisions such as these.

The first half of this project, which runs through CB 2's jurisdiction, was slated to begin in June. TA's Queens Committee will continue to fight to make sure it starts as close to June as possible. This is a speed bump, not a dead end, but it is another important lesson on the power community boards hold over livable streets initiatives.

Almost six months after DOT installed "controversial" new cross-town bike lanes on the Upper East Side, Manhattan's Community Board 8, which opposed the city's plan for lanes on 91st Street, has formed a "91st Street Task Force."

Of particular concern last year was the feared intrusion of cyclists into a section of 91st Street, between Second and Third Avenues, that has been closed to cars for decades. When the Task Force held a meeting earlier this month, item one on the agenda was: "The different designations available for streets that are closed to traffic, with their precise legal definition."

Streetsblog called CB 8 to ask about the committee but did not get a call back.

In other news, a centuries-old chunk of Antarctic ice shelf seven times the size of Manhattan disintegrated today. Scientists cite "rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica" as the cause of the collapse.

Photo: bicyclesonly/Flickr

Community Board 2's Traffic & Transportation Committee heard specifics last night on a DOT pilot project that would open a segment of Prince Street to pedestrians 14 days a year. And as expected, the committee and DOT heard from residents who want the pedestrian-heavy thoroughfare to continue to accommodate cars 24/7/365.

The city proposes to close Prince to cars from Lafayette to W. Broadway on Sundays from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. The project would last from Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day weekend.

According to surveys cited by DOT:

• Eighty-five percent of people travel to Prince Street by subway, on foot, by bike or on a bus.
  
• Eighty percent of pedestrians interviewed on a Saturday "experience the street as being crowded."
• Expanding pedestrian space would attract people to come to Prince Street more often, where they would spend "about five times as much money" in neighborhood shops and restaurants.
• On a typical weekend, 200 vehicles travel Prince Street in an hour, compared to 4,500 pedestrians.
  

While some members of the public spoke in favor, they were easily outnumbered by opponents. "There was a lot of screaming about an out of control street vendor problem that the City seems unwilling or unable to address," one Community Board member said.

For an idea of the tenor of the debate, one supporter of the plan who pointed out that pedestrian streets work in London and other cities was rebutted with cries of "This is New York City!"

...And this is Paris. Does this look like a horrible street to live on?

A key complaint of opponents is that the city doesn't do enough to enforce rules against sidewalk vending, prompting fears that Prince Street "Open Sundays" would become, in essence, noisy street fairs crowded with kiosks. But one attendee picked up on another strain of contention:

It was clear from last night's meeting that many of the people against the car-free Prince proposal want fewer pedestrians in the neighborhood, not more. In a sense, they concede that a car-free Prince would be more appealing to outsiders. It's just not what they want.

Still, the committee ultimately adopted a resolution that, according to committee member Ian Dutton, acknowledges the merits of DOT's plan but says it is unacceptable because it was proposed and developed without enough community input. While we have yet to see the actual wording, Dutton says the resolution proposes "forming a neighborhood stakeholders group to come up with a more comprehensive plan that the community can accept."

The resolution leaves open the possibility that the project is still alive, perhaps with community activists like Sean Sweeney of the SoHo Alliance -- currently, a vocal opponent -- working with the city to make it more palatable to all.

Graphics: NYC DOT

If you read the comments on the previous post, then you know something interesting is in the works for Prince Street. Next Tuesday, Community Board 2's Transportation Committee will consider a proposal to turn a six-block stretch of Prince Street, from Lafayette to West Broadway, into a car-free zone on Sundays from 11am to 6pm. The pilot project would likely run from Memorial to Labor Day. The idea for this long-sought reallocation of street space emerged from discussions between DOT and the SoHo Partnership, the neighborhood's innovative welfare-to-work program.

Not surprisingly, an opposition movement has already sprung into action. Faithful Streetsblog readers will recall the SoHo Alliance as the neighborhood group that seems to specialize in fighting street vendors, new bike lanes, sidewalk widenings and, generally, any livable street improvement that threatens to diminish long-time SoHo residents' access to on-street parking.

A tipster reports that the Alliance is papering the neighborhood with flyers arguing against the pilot project. Here's a sample bullet point from the flyer, which can be found in its entirety, below:

The current do-wop group will attract other noisy street performers to entertain the increased crowds of tourists. Food vendors will likely spring up. Will Jugglers and mimes be far behind?

Though the specter of mime-filled streets truly is terrifying (and quite politically savvy -- I mean, who's going to speak up for the mimes?) does a bad case of coulrophobia outweigh the potential benefits of car-free Sundays?

As it is, Prince Street is jam-packed with pedestrians and vendors on the weekend yet the majority of the public right-of-way is hogged up by a horn-honking, exhaust-spewing, barely-moving armada of SUV's and luxury sedans. When London pedestrianized some of its most popular shopping streets, it led to a bonanza for local businesses, a PR coup for the city's sustainability agenda and a generally nicer, more pleasant public realm for residents and tourists to enjoy.

If you want to help make a car-free Prince Street a reality, then speak up at Community Board 2's Transportation Committee meeting next Tuesday, March 11 at 7:30pm. The meeting will be at the NYU Silver Building, 32 Waverly Place, room 713. You can be sure the other guys will be there.

The Soho Alliance flyer can be found after the jump...

Earlier this week, Community Board 2 in Greenwich Village held a public meeting to get feedback on NYU's proposal to pedestrianize Washington Place, part of a larger plan to improve public space in the school's core campus. Nearby residents aren't happy with the number of cars that park in the area now, but (surprise!) they don't want to do what's necessary to improve things, either. A tipster sends along this recap:

Tuesday night's CB2 meeting on pedestrianizing Washington Place turned nasty. There were about a dozen or so residents speaking decidedly against restricting car access, including a couple folks who infused a lot of hostility to the entire discussion. Even though residents complained that it was being used as an NYU parking lot, they also loved the fact that you can always make great time speeding down this incredibly wide street.

Even the idea of taking away parking to plant trees seemed controversial to this crowd; they preferred the space to be taken from pedestrians. They were very hostile to the NYU presenters, and belligerent to the half dozen or more folks who thought more space for pedestrians was a good idea.

I hope this was simply a case of them hating the messenger (NYU) but not necessarily the idea of giving more space to pedestrians. Still, there were a lot of motorheads in the room. There was, however, a good showing on the pro-pedestrian side: George Haikalis, Barry Benepe, T.A. and a few others were there to fly the flag. Still, it's disappointing to think that this is the community that closed the leg of Fifth Avenue that used to run through Washington Square Park many years ago. Seems like the Jane Jacobs legacy was lost on this crowd.

The full plan, called NYU Plans 2031, consists of an array of measures intended build the school's central campus within its existing footprint, while simultaneously improving the public environment. A full, up-to-date explanation, with renderings, is available in this PDF.

"NYU realizes that the pedestrian experience in their core area is not very pleasant," says Ian Dutton, vice-chair of CB2's transportation committee, who spoke favorably of the pedestrianization plan. He notes that most of the cars on this stretch of Washington Place are usually circling for parking, and that if full-on pedestrianization doesn't happen, NYU will most likely take other measures to improve the streetscape, like a greening program and adding street amenities.

Image courtesy of NYU

Tonight, Community Board 2's Transportation and Institutions Committees will hold a joint meeting to hear proposals from NYU to reclaim road space for pedestrians in the campus core area.

Details have not been announced, but a tipster tells Streetsblog that possible proposals range from removal of parking spaces to allow for wider sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities to the complete pedestrianization of Washington Place between Broadway and Washington Square Park.

Reviving memories of last year's protest of a Village crosstown bike route, we're told that opposition to whatever emerges is already mounting.

The Bronx Times reports that a new four-story building on the corner of Herschell Street and Westchester Avenue, with apartments and a ground-floor medical facility, will be exempt from parking requirements.

Neighbors of Zerega were riled up over the Herschell project and fearful that another medical facility would eat up even more parking spaces in an already congested area.

[T]he good news for Zerega residents is that the Herschell facility shouldn't be opening anytime soon. According to the Department of Buildings, construction is in the very early stages.

According to data from the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, about 70 percent of households in the vicinity own at least one car. It's also the district represented by state senator and congestion pricing editorialist Jeff Klein, who believes charging 4.9 percent of his constituents to drive into Lower Manhattan "threatens to cut into the very heart which defines the culture of this city."

Not far to the southwest, the tenants association of Sound View Houses is fighting the development of a 124-space parking lot for private apartments. At a CB 9 meeting last November, according to the Daily News, "Tenants and community leaders shouted down the plan."

Though HA officials say the parking lot is underutilized, tenants insist it is sorely needed.

"If you don't get to the parking lot at a certain time, you don't get a spot," said Mary McGee, president of the tenants association.

Area residents say parking is a challenge even on a good day on streets around the development and throughout the community, which has alternate-side-of-the-street parking rules.

Nobody wants this in Sound View," said Shirlee Evans, president of the 43rd Precinct Community Council. "We're going to need more officers and firefighters."

On Monday, July 9 the transportation committee of Community Board 8 on Manhattan's Upper East Side took up the issues of congestion pricing and a new pair of crosstown bike lanes.

Congestion pricing, it turns out, was the evening's non-controversial issue. Even after a series of impassioned speeches against Mayor Bloomberg's traffic reduction plan the committee voted to support it, 10 to 4 with one abstention.

"You've treated us to quite a debate," Dept. of Transportation Bike Program Coordinator Josh Benson said as he stood up to present the 90th and 91st Street bike route plan (download it here).

"You haven't heard anything yet," heckled one member of the crowd.

Ryder Pearce sells DOT's Upper East Side bike route plan to a skeptical Community Board 8.

Benson then introduced DOT staffer Ryder Pearce, a youthful member of the City's Urban Fellows program, making his first-ever Community Board presentation.

As a part of the City's ongoing bike network build-out, Pearce said, DOT plans to stripe new, Class II bike lanes along E. 90th and E. 91st Streets with a small segment running along E. 89th Street near the East River and a special treatment for the pedestrian-only block of 91st Street between Second and Third Avenues.

"As you can see there are no crosstown routes on the Upper East Side right now," Pearce said, pointing to the New York City bike map. The new lanes would connect the East River Greenway directly to Central Park's 90th Street entrance, also known as the Engineer's Gate. Along the way, the bike route would link Carl Schurz Park, Gracie Mansion, Asphalt Green and the Guggenheim Museum and "would provide for the growing residential population" living in new towers around York and East End Avenues, a long walk from the nearest subways.

Controversy over the bike route centered around the one-block stretch of 91st St. running through the Ruppert Yorkville Tower Condominiums. The block has been closed to motor vehicle traffic since the 1970s and is considered by many to be a neighborhood "play street."

Recognizing the community's concerns, DOT presented the Board with four different design options for the pedestrian street: no markings, a marked bicycle lane, directional pavement markings and signs. DOT's preference, Pearce said, is "to keep the residential feel" of the "shared space" by not putting down a bike lane or any other markings. For a number of people in the room, none of the options were good.

"There are children and elderly who consider that street a park," one Yorkville Tower resident said. "People want to walk there without having to look both ways and worry about getting run over. I am absolutely opposed to this bike path."

Pearce pointed out that cyclists on the westbound street would be traveling up a rather steep hill. He observed the street during several site visits, noting, "You don't see cyclists shooting through. You don't see them running people over." An older man in the crowd shouted back, "Oh, yes they do!"

Four or five community members stood to speak on behalf of the bike route plan. As seems to be the case in most New York City bike lane battles these days, supporters had youth on their side, opponents had New York City accents.

Glenn McAnanama, president of the Upper Green Side said he thought DOT had chosen the ideal crosstown bike route. "Ninety-first Street is the natural connection from the Greenway to the Park," he said. "If you go too much further north you're getting into a lot of traffic at 96th and further south, you're not connecting to the Central Park entrance."

"The fears are overblown," McAnanama said. He pointed to the new bike route running through Carl Schurz Park at East End Avenue and 86th Street as an example of "shared space" working in the neighborhood. "People were very afraid before the lanes were put in, but there haven't been any problems," he said. "Cyclists know and sense a shared space.

Members of the Community Board weren't convinced. One Board member said, "I for one believe bicycling is a recreational activity. I don't believe that it is a legitimate mode of transportation."

As the meeting wound down and it became clear that DOT's plan wasn't going to gain CB8's blessing on this night, a man in the crowd began dictating a motion to committee chair Chuck Warren:

Whereas illegal biking is found more often than legal biking; Whereas biking causes danger to children and old people; Whereas bicyclists should be licensed in the City of New York and an extensive education program should be inaugurated and the bicycle laws strictly enforced at all times so that they obey the traffic laws…

The committee's final resolution didn't include this language. It rejected DOT's plan and asked the agency to go back to the drawing board. Community Boards, it is important to remember, only have "advisory" power over city agencies and City Hall has said that it would go forward with its bike network build-out over Community Board objections.

In order to foster ideas on how to reclaim 9th Avenue from Lincoln Tunnel traffic, the Clinton/Hell's Kitchen Pedestrian Safety Coalition (CHEKPEDS) sponsored a six month community input process designed by Project for Public Spaces. The process began with a design workshop in January, and has evolved into an impressive final report (PDF). Some highlights from the report:

When asked to describe the issues facing Clinton/Hell's Kitchen, local residents and business owners identified safety, traffic congestion, and lawlessness as their top challenges. These problems hamper the access of many user groups and diminish the identity of 9th Avenue. Unchecked traffic and congestion are the root of each problem identified.

Resident survey questions asked users to indicate their primary means of mobility. Despite the fact that 25% of Community District 4 residents own a car, survey responses show that very few residents use private automobiles as their primary mode of transportation. 

Short-term improvements can be accomplished with little cost and within one year or less. Immediate action needs to be taken to improve public safety and reduce traffic congestion. Each short-term action should be treated as an learning opportunity that will inform future streetscape designs, public policies and the allocation of the public right of way.

Community Board 4 will hold a vote tonight on adopting report findings as "the official community vision." If that happens, the report will be incorporated as community input in the federally funded engineering study of entrances to the Lincoln Tunnel. The meeting is at Roosevelt Hospital, 10th Ave. and 58th St., at 6:30 p.m.

Monday night I attended Manhattan Community Board 8's pedestrian and cycling safety forum. There was an All-Star cast of panelists. Former DOT Commissioner Sam Schwartz, Manhattan DOT Commissioner Margaret Forgione and Director of Street Management and Safety Ryan Russo, Matthew Bauer of the Madison Ave BID, Traffic Enforcement Agents as well as other transportation experts.

There were the usual complaints about cyclists running red lights or riding on the sidewalks and the level of enforcement that should be put forth, but generally the conversation was more directed at making people safe from automobiles in the district. Almost everyone was supportive of bike lanes as a way to provide cyclists with a safer place on the road and minimize conflicts with other street users, but there was an exchange between one of the Community Board members and Mr. Russo that brought up something fairly fundamental to me.

The Community Board member stated that she saw biking as purely recreational, not for commuting or running errands, which just sounds crazy but, hey, when you want to keep all residential and commercial zoning completely separate to the point where you won't site a greenmarket in a school playground, why not extend that to every aspect of life. She added that bike lanes should be built for the recreational user in mind as opposed to the commuter.

Mr. Russo vigorously defended the idea that bikes are currently and will increasingly be used across the city for everyday commuting and local errand running where good bike lanes and bike parking make that possible. He then repeated the Mayor's pledge to build out the bike lane network by several hundred miles over the next few years and set up more city racks for parking. He then added that in the Upper East Side that they are considering some bike lanes to connect the East River Greenway to Central Park.

In some strange twist of logic, even though DOT disagreed with the concept of biking as only for recreational users, the DOT's bike lane network extension in my area seems to be mostly geared toward recreational users. I fully support the idea of integrating the greenways with the Central Park loop, but if the DOT's goal is to increase the number of commuter cyclists on the Upper East Side, the bike lanes that would make much more sense are extending the current Second Ave bike lane north from 14th Street to 125th Street and the existing First Avenue bike lane south from 72nd Street down to Houston. This would increase the number of cyclist commuters on the Upper East Side and East Harlem dramatically. It would also provide commuter cyclists coming over the Queensboro bridge access to a good North/South bike lane network.

But number of biking commuters doesn't seem to be the measurement the DOT is working toward. Their primary measurement is the number of directional bike lane miles they lay each year. A more meaningful and ambitious goal would be to set a target to double or triple the number of commuting cyclists in the city. Here on the Upper East Side, a goal like that would mmediately change DOT's mindset from increasing lane miles to using bike infrastructure to help relieve overcrowding on the Lexington Avenue subway line.

If increasing the number of bike commuters was the metric by which DOT measured the success of its bicycling program, the alignment of future bike lanes and the sensitivity toward making biking accessible to the average commuter would be much different.

Photo of First Avenue Bike Lane at 85th Street - Glenn

At last night's Community Board 6 meeting in Brooklyn DOT Deputy Commissioner Michael Primeggia's "One Way? No Way!" proposal was shot down decisively, the Grand Army Plaza bike and ped improvements passed unanimously, and the 9th Street pedestrian safety, traffic-calming and bike lane project was, after a lengthy discussion, sign-waving and a split vote, "tabled" for further discussion with DOT. Members of CB6, apparently, prefer to maintain 9th Street's status as the neighborhood street with the most appalling number of car crashes, injuries and fatalities.

The quote of the evening came from Bob Levine, head of the Ninth Street Block Association when he said -- and to fully appreciate it read it using your best 1940s movie German accent -- "We need to find the best Solution to the Bicycle Problem." (E-mail Transportation Alternatives for your free copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Cycling).

The animosity on display last night against bicyclists was intense. One could have left the meeting thinking that New York City's crushing traffic congestion, parking angst, endless horn honking, pedestrian injuries and fatalities, asthma- and cancer-causing particulate matter, greenhouse gas emissions, high automobile insurance rates, the $3 gallon, and addict-like dependence on oil from countries that hate America must be the fault of Park Slope residents who would like a safe way to ride a bike to the 9th Street YMCA. Fortunately, we got most of the discussion on video tape so you'll be able to see the profound dysfunction of New York City governance on the local level for yourself.

In honor of last night's meeting we've created a new category here at Streetsblog called "Community Board Reform." This is the first post. Here is Gowanus Lounge's coverage of the meeting:  

During a nearly 3 1/2 hour meeting last night in Park Slope, Community Board Six disposed of the one-way proposal for Sixth and Seventh Avenues that had sparked an outpouring of neighborhood opposition. It also decided not to act on a surprisingly controversial plan to install bike lanes and other "traffic calming" measures on Ninth Street. (Contrary to an incorrect NY Sun headline proclaiming a victory for the plan.)

Council Member Bill DeBlasio arrived while the meeting was underway and spoke in support of the proposals, noting that he'd gotten a commitment from the Police Department not to ticket cars that are double-parked in the bike lanes and from DOT to continue the bike lane down Prospect Park West so that bicyclists would enter the park at 15th Street rather than 9th Street. (The double parking issue emerged as the crux of neighborhood opposition to the plan, with residents fearing that a bike lane would interfere with their ability to double park while picking up people or running into a store.) The board, meanwhile, said it had gotten about 140 emails and faxes in favor of the proposal and 80 opposed. The Board's Transportation Committee had voted in favor of the plan.

Board Member Bob Levine, who also heads the Ninth Street Block Association, led opposition to the plan, saying that steps needed to be taken to address the "bicycle problem" and that the plan was "idiotic and asking for trouble." Several members, however, spoke strongly in favor of the proposal. One noted that "bike lanes will make cycling much safer" and that "If I were parking my car on Ninth Street, I'd rather step out into a bike lane than speeding traffic." Another said that bicyclists are a public safety threat and that "bicyclists should be licensed."

"I thought if there is going to be a good place for a bike route, this is it," said member Louise Finney, who is also a Trustee of the Park Slope Civic Council. "This would be a great traffic calming device."

Board Member Anthony Pugliese, who is an organizer with the District Council of Carpenters, got a laugh from crowd, speaking in favor of the proposal and saying, "What is this, Bensonhurst? These are bicycles.

In the end, the Community Board voted to send the proposal back to its Transportation Committee for further discussion with DOT and to ask DOT not to act until the discussions are completed.

The Board also voted unanimously to support significant traffic and pedestrian improvements to Grand Army Plaza.

Photo: Robert Guskind

While I haven't managed to get a look at DOT's proposal, we know a few things about it: It will include some pedestrian improvements at Grand Army Plaza, new bike lanes for Red Hook and a new design for 9th Street. The Grand Army Plaza changes, supposedly, include some of the improvements that the community has been advocating via the Grand Army Plaza Coalition. The Red Hook bike lanes sound pretty straightforward. As for 9th Street, DOT wants to do the following:

• Install two bike lanes heading in each direction.
• Stripe a median down the middle of the street with left-turn bays for cars at the intersections.
• Eliminate one travel lane in each direction.

Not surprising -- it's Brooklyn, folks! -- there is some opposition brewing to the 9th Street changes, the bike lanes in particular. Below is a discussion thread I found on the Brooklynian web site. Fans of MyBikeLane.com will have to wrap their heads around the idea that their bike lanes are actually blocking motorists ability to double-park. Is it only a matter of time before someone starts MyDoubleParkingSpot.com?:

Ninth Street Residents and Businesses

The Mar. 29, 2007 meeting of the Transportation Committee of Community Board 6 will discuss adding a painted centerlane (similar to Prospect Park SW) for left turns, AND bicycle lanes.

That will mean there will be only one lane for driving, and NO ability to stop your car to drop off/pick up at anytime because you will be blocking the bike lanes.

Please come out to the meeting to voice your opinion/opposition to these changes

Transportation Committee of
Community Board Six
Mar. 29, 2007
6:30 PM

Old First Reformed Church
729 Carroll Street
(Corner of 7th Avenue)