New York Bicycling Coalition (NYBC) #2017bikesummit

1. PLANNING AND ADVOCATING
FOR PATHWAYS ON BRIDGES
LESSONS FROM THE
HARBOR RING CAMPAIGN
2017 New York Bicycling Coalition Summit
Paul Gertner, Chair, Harbor Ring Committee
Albany, NY September 15, 2017

2. 1.Pathwaywidth.
2.Design standards.
3.Cost.
4.Integration with pathway network.
5.Lessons for advocates.

4. Timeline for Verrazano Bridge Pathway Advocacy
2012: After nine months of Harbor Ring volunteer committee planning, the
campaign begins, with press releases, branding, website, social media and printed
map. Route benefits claimed for commuters, tourists and development.
Verrazano is the missing link.
2012-13: Demo rides.
December 2013: MTA awards pathway study to Parsons Brinckerhoff, now WSP.
Twelve month study, with no allowance for public input.
2014 and 2015: Rallies in SI and Bay Ridge, with neighborhood groups, elected
officials and press. Many other smaller public events.
2014: Breakout feature NYT Harbor Ring article on 50th
anniversary of bridge.
October 2015: Preliminary MTA plan released with $3-400 estimate, followed by
series of agency-selected focus groups. MTA plan starts Brooklyn approach at
Greenway, unlike previous AW plan.

5. Timeline cont’d
April 2016: TA hires bridge engineer who determines 1997 Ammann &
Whitney plan still viable at fraction of cost. Subsequently MTA refuses
multiple requests to meet and review design and cost with TA and our
engineer.
June 2017: MTA senior and consultant engineers agree to a one hour
meeting with TA and TA engineer. They reveal high cost based on design
requirement for two 14’ wide pathways capable of supporting a NYFD
fire truck. MTA engineer states that, at best case, once the plan is
released the bike path may be included in the MTA capital budget in 3-4
cycles (15-20 years) since they have to rebuild the car ramps first.
Engineer again states plan release is imminent.
Today: Plan has still not been released.

6. Assembly Member Michael Cusick, 2014
Rally

7. 2014 Rally in Staten Island

8. Senator Golden and Council Member Gentile
2015 Bay Ridge Rally

9. 2015 Rally in Bay Ridge

11. Museum City of NY 2016 Future City Exhibit

13. A & W Brooklyn Approach

15. Variance in Pathway Widths
Amman & Whitney (AW) 1997 lower roadway plan
One 14’ combined ped/bike, splitting into two 10’ separate pathways at east tower.
WSP/MTA plan
Two separate 14’ pathways, one for bikes and one for peds.
New Goethals Bridge
One 10’ combined use path
New Bayonne Bridge
One 12’ combined use path
Mario Cuomo Bridge
One 12’ combined use path
New Kosciusko Bridge
One 20’ combined use path
San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge
One 15’ combined use path

16. Variance in Bridge/Pathway Construction Costs
Plan or Project Construction Cost Cost/sq foot
AW 1997 Lower Roadway plan 25,600,000 137
AW recosted by TA consultant in todays $'s 67,500,000 361
AW recosted by WSP with MTA width and load specs 285,000,000 1,125
MTA/WSP 2015 plan 320,000,000 1,222
Mario Cuomo Bridge, total: vehicles and path 3,582,000,000 1,215
New Goethals Bridge, total: vehicles and path 750,000,000 824
New Kosciusko Bridge, total: vehicles and path 499,230,000 837

17. NYC Bike Map: Verrazano Brooklyn Approach

18. Tourism and Access as Design Considerations
A&W showed ped path close to subway and on north
side of bridge with views of Manhattan.
MTA engineers decided to place entry points on
Greenway rather than close to street network and
subway.
Greenway location necessitates large ramp structure
for bikes that could only be sited on north side of
bridge, relegating peds to south side without city
view.

19. NYC Bike Map: Goethals and Bayonne SI Approaches

20. Who Designs? Who Decides How Much to Spend?
AASHTO provides bike and pedestrian design guidelines and
principles, not minimum design requirements for all situations.
Interpreting AASHTO largely falls to agency engineers. This
gives them de facto control over budgetary outcomes.
Variables such as risk adversity and acceptable level of rider
comfort can lead to huge swings in cost and ultimately
feasibility.

21. Lessons for Advocates
1. Cost variance may be largely a function of risk tolerance, perhaps masked by
AASHTO interpretation.
2. Agency engineers generally keep these decisions out of public view.
3. Since cost is a big determinant in whether a pathway will be built, advocates
need to press to have these issues brought into public view.
4. Bridge pathways are much more expensive than on-road paths and are also
planned by separate agencies. Is this why they are not part of an integrated
planning process?
5. Agency bridge engineers should work with transportation engineers from sister
agencies and both should be working with elected officials, advocates and the
general public in a transparent open planning process.