<brad@...> wrote:
> From my understanding, the Blueprint was funded by a coalition of residents
> and businesses on upper Westside. I believe the email from Tilia that I
> forwarded sometime ago about "tips for business outreach" addresses how it
> was funded. The group has, or had, a TA leader so some money may have come
> from, or through, TA.
>
> FYI, last year, the TA Eastside Comm. group also was excited about doing
> something similar to the WS "Blueprint" for the Eastside, but at some point
> we realized it was not necessary. We offered the Westside Blueprint to the
> CB8 members who said they had read it already. The work had been done. What
> was necessary was for the Eastside Comm and other residents to stand up to a
> lot of resistance from CB 8 and tell them that we also wanted protected bike
> lanes.  We identified the best avenues for the protected bike lanes, tied it
> to the rapid bus plan, and circulated a petition with 3 priorities,
> protected N/S bike lane connected to network of painted bike lanes and
> closing the greenway gap .  The politicians backed us a the bike forum, and
> with no further study, CB8 voted to ask DOT to study it and make a plan for
> consideration.
>
> I am not sure the Inwood/WH group needs to replicate the WS Blueprint, but
> it does need to 1) decide protected bike lanes are a goal, 2) decide on best
> proposed placement, and 3) then speak up to CB 12 and elected officials with
> a unified voice.  When and if you need to replicate a similar
> study/blueprint I guess is a function of where you are in steps 1, 2 and 3.
>
>
>
> Bradford D. Conover

>
> ________________________________
> From: Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D. [mailto:mclarke@...]
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 12:30 PM
> To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@...
> Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] Robt Jackson will meetwith
> us
>
> I particularly like the graphic in the Upper West Side blueprint showing
> footprint for a person that commutes by walking, 2.6 square feet, and
> footprint given to people who commute by car, 594 square feet.  Now That is
> good info!  And 10% of residents in the upper west side commute by car.  I
> wonder what it is for our areas.
> Also: 900,000 pounds of pollutants are spewed into Manhattan’s air every day
> by motorized vehicles.
> There are so many pie charts.  How did they get this data?  Can we get data
> like this?  Is this something we ask Jackson or Schneiderman for funding
> for?  (BTW I have not heard back from Martha Demos / Schneiderman about a
> meeting date)
>
> And pages 30 -41 are a true works of art with the bike lane embedded at the
> sides of the Broadway mall.
> This is the kind of help we need.  Everyone should look at this upper west
> side document.  I keep running into people who say they can help with
> graphics or this or that, and then lose track of them.
>
>
>
> At 11:15 AM 1/15/2010, you wrote:
>
> Brad,
>
> First and Second Avenues are one-way. As you can see from the
> renderings at the Upper Green Side site:
> http://www.uppergreenside.org/2010/01/15/nyc-dot-rolls-out-bus-and-bike-improvements-for-east-side/
>
> in simple terms, DOT proposes to put bike lane on the left side of the
> street and the bus lane on the right side of the street.
>
> As I mentioned in this morning's post, we don't have one-way avenues
> in our neighborhood, so we can't just rubber-stamp the UES blueprint
> on our neighborhood for our own advocacy.
>
> I would prefer to have medians on the avenues, because it would cut
> down on illegal U-turns. Something like Vanderbilt Avenue in Brooklyn
> (Dean to Prospect), where there are left-turn bays in the median and
> buffered bike lanes on both sides, might work on St. Nicholas, but the
> M3 on St. Nick is much more frequent than the B69 on Vanderbilt.
>
> I looked at the UWS renderings:
> http://transalt.org/files/newsroom/reports/UWS_Blueprint.pdf
> and I see what you mean about having the bike lanes on either side of
> the median.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Bradford D. Conover
> <brad@...> wrote:
>> 1st and 2nd ave also have busses and the concept being floated in CB 8 is
>> to
>> try to work in protected bike lanes within a rapid bus line. How that can
>> be
>> engineered, I do not know. DOT is studying idea. St Nich appears to me to
>> have potential for something like that.  Further south Broadway has a
>> center
>> isle, see Upper Westside "Blueprint" proposal.
>>
>> I think the discussion should be clarified and then shelved for now. It
>> makes no sense to continue to suggest specifics for protected bike lanes
>> in
>> an advocacy effort with electeds if the group itself is not already
>> interested and fully behind the concept. I was trying to discern if the
>> group was behind the idea, but for strategy reasons did not want to raise
>> it
>> now, or was not behind the idea.  From the responses, I do not think it is
>> behind the idea and that is fine.
>>
>> Personally, I believe that if biking is to ever become a mainstream,
>> respected, and safe way to commute in NYC, protected bike lanes within the
>> fabric of the city is a must, not just on the outskirts along the river.
>> As
>> I commute 130 blocks south, I might still elect to ride along river, but
>> my
>> interest was not just focused on my own best route but on encouraging safe
>> biking everywhere in the city. It is a cheap, environmentally friendly
>> transportation alternative.  With all the road and sidewalk footage
>> devoted
>> 100% to cars and peds, one bike lane running NS is not too much to ask,
>> and
>> as this administration appears receptive, why not ask. Ultimately, it may
>> mean some sacrifice and it would  be a transformative change, not just
>> patch
>> work maintenance   Downtown, Brooklyn and both the upper West and Eastside
>> CBs are behind that effort, at least for now.  What, if anything, will
>> come
>> of it we will see. However, if even the bike advocate group is not behind
>> the concept, it will be a hard sell in Northern Manhattan.
>>
>> The same goes for the rapid bus protected lanes. Perhaps the pilot
>> projects
>> scheduled for the City will need to be completed downtown before "Inwood
>> and
>> Washington Heights" will get behind the idea. Hopefully when that happens,
>> there will be a like minded city administration.
>>
>>
>> Bradford D. Conover
>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D. [ mailto:mclarke@...]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:45 PM
>> To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@...
>> Subject: RE: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] Robt Jackson will
>> meetwith
>> us
>>
>> At 02:44 PM 1/14/2010, you wrote:
>>
>> On Broadway where there is a center median, I would not think a narrow 3
>> ft'
>> bike lane going each way would add much to the existing congestion.
>>
>> But what would it do to the plantings in the median?  That's another part
>> of
>> our mission; I wouldn't want to see the greenery  (or potential for same)
>> to
>> be sacrificed.   How wide are the travel lanes on each side?  Is parking
>> necessary?  We really need some traffic counts...
>>
>> How much
>> might come out of the median and what impact it would have on traffic
>> would,
>> of course, need to be studied. On St Nich, as there are already bike
>> lanes,
>> the lanes could be moved to the inside, rather than outside, of parked
>> cars
>> without a significant impact on traffic, such as the protected lanes
>> downtown.
>>
>> Bradford D. Conover
>> Conover Law Offices
>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Rabinowitz [ mailto:jonathan.rabinowitz@...]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 2:18 PM
>> To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@...
>> Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] Robt Jackson will
>> meetwith
>> us
>>
>> St Nick goes up to 193rd St, and then it meets Ft. George Hill, which
>> connects with Nagle Avenue and Dyckman in Inwood. It has no center median,
>> however, and it isn't part of Jackson's district north of 158th St.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D.
>> <mclarke@...> wrote:
>>> St. Nick is already a bike lane south of the hospital.  How far north
>>> does St. Nick even go?
>>>
>>> At 01:50 PM 1/14/2010, you wrote:
>>>
>>> Based on traffic congestion, Broadway would be a poor option - St.
>>> Nicholas is pretty clear, and Amsterdam would be a possibility, though
>>> going all the way east, one might as well use the Harlem River path.
>>>
>>> R
>>>
>>> RoughAcres/RL McKee
>>> 447 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 63
>>> New York, NY 10033
>>> M: 917.526.0050 • E: rlmckee@...
>>> W: http://www.roughacres.us
>>> __________________________________
>>> Principal, RLM Marketing & Advertising Member, Community Board 12
>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 14, 2010, at 1:33 PM, Bradford D. Conover wrote:
>>>
>>> That is something to discuss.  I would think, ideally, if feasible, it
>>> should be same avenue running the entire length of Manhattan.  I do
>>> not think CB7 has progressed enough so that we know what avenue will
>>> end up with protected bike lanes to our south in CB7. We could reach
>>> out to them for an update. That would need to connect through Harlem
>>> as well. I believe Broadway center isle was part of the upper westside
>> groups "Blueprint"
>>> proposal.
>>>
>>> Based on my own observations in WH, I would think Broadway (on both
>>> side of center isle) and Amsterdam (already has painted lanes both
>>> ways) would both be candidates. However, I have not studied or lived
>>> in area long enough to know best option. Right now, it is the Concept
>>> that I am pushing. The proposed CB12 workshop would explore concrete
>>> alternatives for location and type of protected lanes as well as other
>>> traffic calming measures. And if the community was behind it,
>>> ultimately it would be DOT that would probably dictate which avenue
>>> and what type of protected lane. The Hudson Greenway is great, but
>>> pushing the only protected bike lane to the outer edges of the city is
>>> not really incorporating biking within the city as a viable means of
>> commuting.
>>>
>>> Same for rapid bus service, I think the concept is important to drum
>>> up support for and which avenue might best accommodate a rapid bus is
>>> something to be explored.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bradford D. Conover
>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D. [ mailto:mclarke@...]
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:59 PM
>>> To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@...
>>> Subject: RE: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] Robt Jackson will
>>> meetwith us
>>>
>>> What I mean is, which north south corridor, what arrangement on the
>>> street, and which corridor for rapid transit.
>>>
>>> At 12:43 PM 1/14/2010, you wrote:
>>>
>>> I am suggesting that we get CB12, and the local politicians, including
>>> Jackson, to support the same kind of motions that both CB 7 and CB 8
>>> passed recently asking DOT to study the feasibility of a protected
>>> bike lane on a N/S ave. (CB8 also asked that the bike lanes be
>>> incorporated in rapid bus transit plans for 1st and 2nd ave.).
>>> I have raised this with CB12 Trans comm and reported on it in other
>> emails.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bradford D. Conover
>
>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D. [ mailto:mclarke@...]
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:05 PM
>>> To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@...
>>> Subject: RE: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] Robt Jackson will
>>> meetwith us
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you be more specific about what you're asking for?
>>>
>>> At 11:19 AM 1/14/2010, Bradford D. Conover wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a section in Dist 7 that covers Broadway, so I would think
>>> Jackson's support would be necessary eventually, particularly if the
>>> upper Westside proposal to DOT ultimately selects Broadway as the
>>> location for the protected lane. I am not sure it needs to be specific
>>> at this stage, just find out where he stands on the issue, and if he
>>> opposes, why?  The idea is to plant and reinforce the seed, that this
>>> is the direction many CBs in NYC are headed and that a bike lane to be
>>> effective needs to be a complete network.  If DOT moves forward with
>>> such improvements enhancing the livability (and market value) of other
>>> neighborhoods, CB12 should not be left out. I also think an express
>>> bus running n/s in a protected lane on Westside is an idea which
>>> should be encouraged, particularly in view of DOT's planned one year
>>> shut down of the no 1 subway for major repairs. The issue of bus
>>> congestion at the end of the line, is a related, but separate issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bradford D. Conover
>
>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jonathan Rabinowitz [ mailto:jonathan.rabinowitz@...]
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:34 AM
>>> To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@...
>>> Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] Robt Jackson will
>>> meetwith us
>>>
>>> Brad, look at Jackson's district at this site:
>>> http://gis.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap/
>>>
>>> Use the "show additional data on map" feature to see the city council
>>> districts. The seventh (Jackson's) district's EASTERN boundary between
>>> 178th St and 170th St is Haven Ave. It's a shame, but Jackson will
>>> likely just punt to Ydanis on your proposal as it covers Washington
>> Heights.
>>>
>>> District 7 does cover Broadway between 159th and 125th however
>>>
>>> Rita, do you have a bicycle educator in mind?
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Bradford D. Conover
>>> <brad@...>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Unless I am misreading them, except for crosswalk, the proposals
>>>> relate mostly to Inwood.  How about his participation/support and/or
>>>> hosting of the traffic calming workshop in spring with CB12 to
>>>> consider asking DOT to study/construct a protected bike lane on an
>>>> avenue running N/S to connect WH/Inwood to proposed bike lane on
>>> avenues on upper west side?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D. [ mailto:mclarke@...]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 11:36 PM
>>>> To: inwood-livable-streets-discussion@...
>>>> Subject: Re: [Inwood Livable Streets discussion] Robt Jackson will
>>>> meetwith us
>>>>
>>>> Looks like a good list.  Let's get a little more specific on some.
>>>> What repairs on the Greenway?  What exactly are we asking him to do
>>>> about the summertime auto rallies?  Also, I think we want a couple of
>>>> speed bumps on Dyckman west of Henshaw.
>>>>
>>>> At 11:13 AM 1/13/2010, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So there we go!
>>>>
>>>> 1. Build a separated bike lane along RSD between Dyckman St (RING
>>>> Garden) and the N-bound onramp to the highway as part of the DGC;
>>>>
>>>> 2. Fix the perennial crummy condition of pavement on Broadway with
>>>> concrete;
>>>>
>>>> 3. Ensure access to the Henry Hudson Bridge bike path;
>>>>
>>>> 4. End the summertime auto rallies on Dyckman St near the Marina;
>>>>
>>>> 5. Repair the Greenway between West 181st St and Dyckman St;
>>>>
>>>> 6. Add a crosswalk on Bennett St. at the IND 190th St Station.
>>>>
>>>> Anything else?
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D.
>>>> <mclarke@... > wrote:
>>>>> The only hitch is that Jackson's district is northeast of Broadway
>>>>> and doesn't cover Dyckman between Broadway and Nagle. Ydanis
>>>>> Rodriguez has the rest. IIRC, the Greenway connector should go along
>>>>> RSD between the RING Garden and the Greenway, yes?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Riverside Drive is often forgotten, but it is a speedway and
>>>>> part of the proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Things on Jackson's side of the neighborhood include the Bx12 idling
>>>>> on Isham St,
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought that was east of Broadway.
>>>>>
>>>>> the auto rallies held on Dyckman near the marina, access to the
>>>>> Henry Hudson Bridge bike path, the crummy condition of the Greenway
>>>>> between West 181st and Dyckman, and the lack of a crosswalk on
>>>>> Bennett St at the 190th St IND station.
>>>>>
>>>>> yes and the crummy condition of Broadway.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Aaron Wolfe <aaronewolfe@...
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Let's make sure he knows about all of our goals, but I think we
>>>>>> should focus on the Dyckman connector because of the momentum that
>>>>>> project seems to be gaining.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aaron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Jonathan Rabinowitz <
>>>>>> jonathan.rabinowitz@...> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dr. Clarke,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would have responded earlier were I living in Jackson's district.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest meeting him in February. That gives us an entire month
>>>>>>> to get the word out, and we can set the agenda at the January
>>>>>>> meeting (Tuesday 19th, at the yoga studio).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D.
>>>>>>> <mclarke@... > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Good question.  I'm stymied at the lack of response (other than
>>> yours).
>>>>>>>> My first thought is to have our meeting start 45 minutes before
>>>>>>>> we tell him to show up, but we also need to have a decent showing.
>>>>>>>> How do we do this other than make phone calls.  But we don't have
>>>>>>>> phone numbers.  We need to get this!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At 07:52 PM 1/10/2010, you wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK, when?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>> <mclarke@... > wrote:
>>>>>>>> A quick note on my way out (again).  Ran into Robert Jackson at
>>>>>>>> RING this morning (our electronics recycling day, which he
>>>>>>>> sponsored) and I said we want to meet with him, do we need an
>>>>>>>> appt on a Friday.  He said he'd come to meet us wherever we meet.
>>>>>>>> Let's set up a time.  So we need to get our "asks" in a row and
>>>>>>>> get this going!