- Brooklyn Bridge access
- Manhattan Bridge access
- Verrazano-Narrows Bridge access
- Other issues
1. Brooklyn Bridge Access
1.1 Current Access.
1.1.1 The main Brooklyn approach to the Brooklyn Bridge footpath
is the pathway running in the middle of Adams Street. In addition, there
are stairs leading from the footpath to Washington Street (Cadman Plaza
East). The pathway ends at a crosswalk on the north side of Tillary
Street. Both Adams and Tillary Streets are wide and not readily crossed
by bicycles or pedestrians. The vehicular traffic is heavy, and the
traffic signal at Tillary Street is timed for separate left-hand turns.
The approach from Tillary Street to the Washington Street stairs is
narrow, not being wide enough for two bicycles to ride abreast.
1.1.2 The main Manhattan approach is the pathway starting in
the middle of Centre Street at the Municipal Building. In addition,
there are two stairways, one leading to William Street and the other
to the Brooklyn Bridge subway station. From the William Street stairs
to the Municipal Building the pathway narrows until, at the end, it
is wide enough for only one cyclist and one pedestrian. Cyclists going
to Manhattan, and heading uptown, frequently merge with moving traffic
on Centre Street, creating a hazardous situation.
1.1.3 The narrowness of the pathway at either end of the bridge,
and obstructions in the pathway, lead to slow transfers between street
and pathway for many cyclists. This is particularly the case at the
Manhattan end on a busy day.
1.2 Plans for New and Changed Approaches
1.2.1 GENERAL. The subcommittee has met with Konheim and Ketcham
(K&K), which is the consulting firm working with the New York City Department
of Transportation (DoT) on new bicycle and pedestrian approaches at
either end. The plans which K&K has drawn up have been reviewed, and
strategy discussed on how to push these plans forward (see ¦1.4).
1.2.2 MANHATTAN APPROACH. Plans drafted by K&K call for the
creation of a "Market Square" to the east of City Hall and the old Tweed
Court House, in what is presently an open area with a few trees and
the main entrances to the Brooklyn Bridge subway station. This area,
which would be given new paving, plantings and lighting, would be extended
to include the space now taken up by the southbound lanes of Centre
Street below Chambers Street. The Brooklyn Bridge footpath, which now
curves toward the north at Centre Street, would widen at the end rather
than narrow, and would go straight into the new Market Square.1
This plan will result in major changes to the vehicular traffic flow
in the City Hall area. The Market Square would eliminate the southbound
lanes of Centre Street below Chambers Street, including the access to
the bridge from Centre Street. Chambers Street would become one-way
westbound. The current intersection of Broadway, Park Row, and Barclay
Street would be redesigned to improve vehicular flow and to include
a "refuge zone" for pedestrians walking on the east (park) side of Broadway,
crossing Park Row.
Cars now entering the Brooklyn Bridge from Centre Street would now
go all the way around City Hall Park and enter the bridge from Park
Row. The present express bus staging area on Park Row (park side) would
probably be moved to Chambers Street, by the Tweed Courthouse.
1.2.3 BROOKLYN APPROACH. Both of the present approaches -
the pathway from Tillary and Adams Street and the stairs from Washington
Street - are uninviting, inconvenient and hazardous. K&K has developed
an ambitious plan to create an entirely new access to the bridge by
building a flyover from the footpath, across the Brooklyn-bound vehicular
lanes, into Cadman Plaza. The optimum placement of this flyover would
be to Cadman Plaza East. This would bring more people into the park
area, and as Cadman Plaza East has only light vehicular traffic, it
would be a logical place for cyclists to enter or leave the bridge.
This plan also includes pedestrian access across Adams Street from Concord
Village (the high-rise houses on the east side of Adams Street) to the
Cadman Plaza park, and some modifications to the park itself to facilitate
both pedestrian and bicycle access to Brooklyn Heights.
There are many collateral benefits to this plan. The Fulton Ferry
and Dumbo areas will be much more accessible from the bridge for both
pedestrians and cyclists. The underutilized north end of Cadman Plaza
park will be accessible directly from the bridge and from Concord Village
for the first time, which should encourage organized activities and
casual use. Moving the bridge access to Cadman Plaza East would bring
bicycle traffic directly down that street, past the General Post Office
and the Federal and State courthouses, to Borough Hall and Fulton Mall.
This would give a nearly traffic-free route from City Hall to Borough
Hall and on to Flatbush Avenue.
1.3 Cost Estimates. This subject remains to be explored, but
the total cost of the project should be modest. The Market Square may
be the more costly of the two parts of the project because of the work
involved to create an attractive plaza. The new Brooklyn approach is
structurally simple, though the Parks Department and (perhaps) the Landmarks
Preservation Commission would have a say in its design. The passage
from Concord Village to Cadman Plaza park could be in a well-lit underpass;
this would be better utilized than an overpass, but an underpass may
be more costly.
1.4 Plan of Action.
1.4.1 The subcommittee will continue to meet with K&K; they
are a valuable and well-connected resource, and to the extent they are
involved they will be willing to help. (Not to overdo this, though;
they have done a lot of pro bono work already and they, as all of us,
need to pay the bills.)
1.4.2 The subcommittee is scheduling meetings with the Brooklyn
Heights Association, Brooklyn Community Board 2, the Brooklyn office
of the City Planning Commission, and the Parks Department to discuss
these plans, to get T.A. known to them as an interested player, and
to get these organizations interested in pushing the issue. A report
on these meetings will be given at the next Brooklyn Committee meeting.
The second round of meetings will be scheduled with City Councilman
Kenneth Fisher and with the office of the Borough President. It is important
that they be contacted only once the first round of meetings has taken
place, so that there is a source of support besides T.A. Finally, there
are organizations such as the Brooklyn Marriott Hotel, now under construction,
which have a vested interest in easy access for its guests or clients
to Brooklyn Heights and the Brooklyn Bridge, and which may be able to
help.
1.4.3 The T.A. Manhattan committee should undertake a similar
campaign if it is not already doing so, and the subcommittees in Brooklyn
and Manhattan should coordinate activities.
1.4.4 T.A. should not begin mass activities (tabling, leafleting,
or rallies) at this time. The proper strategy at this point is to be
proactive but not noisily so, to work with community organizations and
city agencies from the ground up. Once there is a groundswell of support
for the new approaches and the related improvements, then mass activities
can start.
1.5 Potential Pitfalls. In Brooklyn, the design of the new
flyover, and the improvements to Cadman Plaza park, will be significant
issues. Design considerations may be mitigated by a bit of history:
until 1944, elevated tracks crossed the bridge, and there was a massive
elevated station at Sands Street. In Manhattan, vehicular traffic flow
and bus parking will be the primary issues. Manhattan Community Board
1 needs to be engaged early on this issue.
2. MANHATTAN BRIDGE
With the footpath on the south side of the Manhattan Bridge scheduled
to open in 1998, T.A. needs to coordinate with DoT to ensure that there
is adequate signage in both Brooklyn and Manhattan to direct pedestrians
and cyclists to the bridge.
3. VERRAZANO-NARROWS BRIDGE
In previous Brooklyn Committee meetings, the subject of pedestrian/bicycle
access to the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge has been raised. This is a worthwhile
goal, and the best way to approach this may be for T.A. to work with
the local Congressional delegation to seek funding from the U.S. Department
of Transportation under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA) or its successor. Obtaining capital funds directly from
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority or the State of New York has
a low probability of success.
This said, Verrazano Bridge access should not be the focus of the
Brooklyn Committee at this time. For all the legwork that remains to
be done regarding Brooklyn Bridge access, that project is much farther
along in the planning stage and needs well-planned, concerted advocacy.
T.A. does not have the resources to wage more than one of these battles
at once.
4. OTHER ISSUES
There are three other water crossings lying partially or entirely
within Brooklyn, that carry varying degrees of bicycle traffic.
4.1 The Metropolitan Avenue Bridge is in East Williamsburg and carries
substantial bicycle commuter traffic, mostly of people living in the
neighborhood going to and from work, but also of this writer (from home
in Park Slope to work in College Point). This has merging and diverging
traffic (Metropolitan Avenue and Grand Street) at either end and rough
pavement at the east end. There is ample room for a bicycle lane in
both directions. This and repaving the approaches, especially at the
east end, is a worthwhile project for T.A.
4.2 The Grand Street Bridge is approximately one-half mile east of
the Metropolitan Avenue Bridge. It is a narrow swing span, barely two
lanes wide with two narrow sidewalks, dating from 1908. This bridge
has some commuter bicycle traffic. The pavement on Grand Street approaching
the bridge from the west, and the pavement at the east end, are in poor
condition. There are generally few conflicts with vehicular traffic
because cars, trucks and buses need to slow down to approach and cross
the bridge. A cyclist can take a lane easily. The action to be coordinated
with DoT is repaving the approaches.
4.3 The Greenpoint Avenue Bridge carries significant pedestrian commuter
traffic and light bicycle traffic. This bridge is wide enough for a
bicycle lane in either direction. The pavement on Greenpoint Avenue
from the western end of the bridge to Manhattan Avenue is seriously
deteriorated, and vehicular traffic is heavy and fast. Repaving this
section of Greenpoint Avenue, and including a bicycle lane in at least
one direction, will create a viable route for local bicycle commuting
and other travel. Moreover, this can be a logical extension of the Bedford
Avenue bicycle lane: continuing from its present terminus at Bergen
Street to Kent Avenue, then along the waterfront in Williamsburg and
Greenpoint to Greenpoint Avenue.
1 The design of the new approach must include some way to reduce the
speed of cyclists going down the footpath into Manhattan, otherwise
the conflict between foot and wheeled traffic could be worse than it
is now with the existing approach.
