NYC DOT Response Re Queensboro Bridge Access

It appears that if a NYC DOT representative does attend tomorrow night's Community Board 8 Meeting regarding Roosevelt Island transportation issues they will have nothing to say other than they received the April 2007 CB8 Resolution, that they undertook no feasibility study regarding access to the QB bridge, and the benefits of such access are not worth the funds needed to create such access. Nothing new here. This is basically what they told CB8 before the resolution was passed.

The below e-mail was sent to me today by the NYC DOT in response to my April 28, 2008 FOIL requests regarding the status of the DOT's response to the April 2007 CB8 resolution.

Pretty much everything in the below letter has been stated to me before including by our own Stephen Shane, President of the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation. I am not disagreeing with the concepts that the benefits may be exceeded by the costs but I still believe any additional access is better than the status quo.

-----Original Message-----
From: dot.nyc.gov
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:20:22
To: RooseveltIsland360@gmail.com

Dear Roosevelt Island 360:

We received your email regarding your question about the Community Board 8 resolution to conduct a feasibility study to determine access for the Roosevelt Island community to the 59th Street Bridge. Your request was forwarded to our Freedom of Information Office for review and consideration.

The Department of Transportation had addressed this issue to the Board, prior to them passing the resolution, that the installation of any kind of access was unfeasible for several reasons. The installation of a stairway would require meeting ADA requirements. An elevator installation would require the removal of a lane of traffic from one of the busiest bridges in NYC. Also of major concern are the security, maintenance, access, and Landmark issues. Additionally, the cost would be extraordinary yet the value would be extremely limited, particularly as compared to the existing and significantly greater capacity of existing alternates to the tram such as the subway and, most importantly, the Roosevelt Island Bridge.

Thank you for your interest in this matter.

Sincerely,

Margaret Forgione,
Borough Commissioner

CCU-08-2898
Man. Log #9159

-----Original Message-----
From: rooseveltisland360@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:36:09
To: dot.nyc.gov
Subject: Re: Access to QB Bridge

Dear Ms. Forgione:

Thank you for your response. I greatly appreciate it. I understand your points although I do respectfully disagree with some of them.

The one point I am continually confused by is the statement that a lane of traffic would be impacted by an elevator. Is the DOT counting as a lane of traffic the outer pedestrian walkway?

I would think an elevator if built would connect to the pedestrian wakway and not an actual lane of traffic. Perhaps this option was not considered.

In closing I wanted to ask if a representative of your office will be attending the Manhattan Community Board 8 meeting tomorrow evening at 6:30 pm where transportation issues affecting Roosevelt Island are being discussed. It is my understanding that a representative of the NYC DOT was to be invited.

Thank you again for your response and time.

NYC DOT re CB8 Request for Roosevelt Isle Queensboro Bridge Access: No Way

According to Manhattan Community Board 8 Co-Chair Jonathan Horn the NYC Department of Transportation response to CB8's April 2007 resolution calling for a study to look at access to the Queensboro Bridge was in summary "No Way". Mr. Horn was unsure when the DOT response was received but believes it was only in the last few weeks. He admitted that publicizing DOT responses to CB8 resolutions is sometimes slow but in this case I am amazed that the DOT responded at all given the fact that the resolution was passed over one year ago.

This coming June 24, 2008 the DOT and the MTA have been invited to a joint CB8 meeting of both the Roosevelt Island and Transportation Committees where several issues will be discussed including access to the Queensboro Bridge as well as the F Train, the Tram, and the ongoing process, as noted in the news this week, of bringing ferry service to Roosevelt Island. I was unclear as to where this meeting would be held but one would presume it would be on Roosevelt Island.

When I asked Mr. Horn if the physical DOT response could be made public he indicated that I needed to contact the CB8m office to make that request.

In the end the DOT response was not surprising. Mr. Horn indicated that while representatives of both DOT and the MTA are being invited to the planned June 24th meeting it is not guaranteed that they will attend. I would expect and suggest that if enough constituents contact our elected officials (Maloney, Serrano, Kellner, and Lappin) that we would see not only the elected officials but more likely the DOT and MTA will attend as well. Again nothing is a sure thing but at least we can gripe to the elected officials with the hope they can lobby both of these organizations as responses to average Joes and Josephines are virtually nonexistent. Heck it took a year for CB8 to get a response.

For prior media coverage regarding Queensboro Bridge access: NY Times and Streetsblog.

Roosevelt Crusoe: What Happened to the CB8 Requested Study re QB Bridge Access?

Today I posted the below post on the Roosevelt Crusoe blog regarding last year's Community Board 8 Resolution regarding pedestrian access to the Queensboro Bridge.

Do you have any information I can follow up on?

"Eleven months ago a proposal was put before NYC Community Board 8 regarding direct pedestrian access to the Queensboro Bridge from Roosevelt Island. The central reasons behind this request were the possible ramifications of Roosevelt Island's access off the island in case the tram, subway and RI Bridge were all non-operational or inaccessible.

At the close the CB8 meeting it was resolved that a study should be commissioned to determine the needs and possibility of such access. While the Streetsblog article pictured, and linked here, does indicate that a DOT spokesperson Kay Sarlin, knocked down the proposal citing security and landmarked status issues it is unclear whether the DOT was ever formally requested to commission a study or whether it issued a formal response to the CB8 resolution.

I hope to contact CB8 and learn more what happened subsequent to the resolution being adopted."