Harlem Transportation Study

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Harlem Transportation Study Harlem/Morningside Heights Transportation Study DRAFT Technical Memorandum No. 1- Existing Conditions Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor The City of New York New York City Department of Transportation Iris Weinshall, Commissioner September 2005 Harlem/Morningside Heights Transportation Study Technical Memorandum No. 1 Existing Conditions 2003 PIN PTDT04G00.08 PIN PTDT05G00.05 PIN PTCP04G00.04 Contract No. D000642 D000641 The preparation of this report has been financed in part through funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration under the Federal Act of 1965, as amended, and the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. This document is disseminated by the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) and New York City Department of City Planning (NYCDCP) in the interest of information exchange. It reflects the views of the NYCDOT and NYCDCP which are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented. The report does not necessarily reflect any official views or policies of the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, or the State of New York. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Prepared by: DRAFT New York City Department of Transportation Iris Weinshall, Commissioner Judy Bergtraum, First Deputy Commissioner Michael Primeggia, Deputy Commissioner Naim Rasheed, Director Michael Griffith, Deputy Director Eva Marin, Project Manager Tiee-Gang Lee, Highway Transportation Specialist Ali Hamoudeh, Highway Transportation Specialist Rodulfo Buenafe, Highway Transportation Specialist New York City Department of City Planning Department of City Planning: Amanda M Burden, Director Richard Barth, Executive Director Sandy Hornick, Deputy Executive Director for Strategic Planning Transportation Division: Jack Schmidt, Director Kevin Olinger, Deputy Director Stratos Prassas, Team Leader Scott Wise, Team Leader Lise Dorestant, Co-Project Manager Alan Ripps, Co-Project Manager Kate Dyson, City Planner Technician Emilio Feliz, Highway Transportation Specialist II Angela Kelly, Highway Transportation Specialist I Manhattan Borough Office Edwin Marshall, Associate City Planner/Team Leader Nicole Ogg, Former City Planner DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ____________________________________________________________________________________ S.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………… S-1 S.1 Project Description………………………………………………………………. S-1 S.2 Demographics……………………………………………………………………. S-1 S.3 Land Use and Zoning…………………………………………………………….. S-2 S.4 Traffic and Transportation……………………………………………………….. S-2 S.5 Public Transportation…………………………………………………………….. S-3 S.6 Parking…………………………………………………………………...………. S-3 S.7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis…………………………………………………. S-4 S.8 Accidents / Safety Analysis………………………………………………............ S-5 S.9 Goods Movement…………………………………………………………............ S-5 1.0 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….............. 1-1 1.1 Setting the Context……………………………………………………………….. 1-1 1.2 Goals and Objectives……………………………………………………………... 1-1 1.3 The Study Area…………………………………………………………………… 1-2 1.4 Project Organization and Methodology…………………………………............. 1-10 2.0 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS………………………………………………….............. 2-1 2.1 Population Trends…………………………………………………........................ 2-3 2.2 Labor Force……………………………………………………………………….. 2-4 2.3 Household Characteristics…………………………………………...…………… 2-6 2.4 Median Household Income……………………………………………………….. 2-7 2.5 Vehicle Ownership………………………………………………...……………… 2-8 2.6 Travel Behavior……………...…………………………………………………… 2-11 2.6.1 Journey to work by Mode…………………………...…………………………… 2-11 2.6.2 Auto Travel Characteristics………………………………...……………............. 2-14 3.0 LAND USE AND ZONING………………………………………………........................ 3-1 3.1 Residential Zoning Districts………………………………………………………. 3-2 3.2 Commercial Zoning Districts………………………………………………………3-4 3.3 Manufacturing Zoning Districts……………………………………………………3-8 3.4 Areas of Rezoning……………………………………………………………….. 3-10 3.5 Residential Land DRAFTUse…………………………………………….......................... 3-15 3.6 Commercial Land Use……………………………………………........................ 3-16 3.7 Manufacturing Land Use…………………………………………........................ 3-17 3.8 Community Facilities…………………………………………………….............. 3-18 3.9 Recreational Facilities, Parks and Open Space ………………………………….. 3-21 3.10 Vacant Land……………………………………………………………………… 3-22 4.0 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION………………………………………………… 4-1 4.1 Existing Conditions……………………………………………………………….. 4-1 4.2 Activity Centers & the Transportation Network………………………………….. 4-4 4.3 Data Collection & Traffic Operations…………………………………………….. 4-7 4.4 Network Traffic Volumes………………………………………………………... 4-10 4.5 Street Capacity & Level of Service (LOS)………………………………………. 4-16 4.6 Existing Traffic Conditions……………………………………………………… 4-18 4.7 Vehicle Speeds…………………………………………………………………… 4-33 i 5.0 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION………………………………………………………… 5-1 5.1 Subway Service…………………………………………………………………… 5-1 5.2 Bus Service………………………………………………………......................... 5-22 6.0 PARKING………………………………………………………………………………… 6-1 6.1 Off-Street Public Parking…………………………………………………………. 6-1 6.2 Off-Street Accessory Parking…………………………………….......................... 6-1 6.3 On Street Parking and Issues……………………………………………………… 6-7 7.0 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ANALYSIS…………………………........................... 7-1 7.1 Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis…………………………………………….. 7-1 7.2 Pedestrian Corridors and Volumes……………………………………………… 7-11 7.3 Quality of Pedestrian Environment……………………………………………… 7-16 7.4 Pedestrian Accidents - Description of Accident Locations...……………............. 7-23 7.5 Community Concerns in Terms of Pedestrian Safety…………………………… 7-33 7.6 Bicycle Lanes and Paths - Network System and Use……………………............. 7-41 7.7 Bicycle Ridership Volumes……………………………………………………… 7-45 7.8 Proposed Bicycle Lanes and Routes……………………………………………... 7-46 7.9 Bicycle Accidents - Description of Accident Locations………………………… 7-47 7.10 Bridge Access to Bicyclists and Pedestrians…………………………………….. 7-53 7.11 Waterfront Access……………………………………………………………….. 7-62 8.0 ACCIDENTS/SAFETY ANALYSIS…………………………………………………… 8-1 8.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………. 8-1 8.2 Cost Analysis of Accidents………………………………………………………. 8-3 8.3 Frequency and Severity of Accidents……………………………………………. 8-5 8.4 Annual Accident Analysis……………………………………………………….. 8-7 8.5 Analysis of other factors that may cause Accidents at these……………............. 8-19 Locations 9.0 GOODS MOVEMENT………………………………………………………………….. 9-1 9.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………. 9-1 9.2 Truck Routes in the Study Area………………………………………………….. 9-4 DRAFT ii LIST OF TABLES Page _____________________________________________________________________________________ Table 2-1 Population by Area……………….......................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-2 Population by Area and Age Group………………………………………............ 2-4 Table 2-3 Labor Force Distribution…………………………………………………………. 2-6 Table 2-4 Household Characteristics………………………………………………………… 2-7 Table 2-5 Median Household Income by Area……………………………………………… 2-8 Table 2-6 Vehicle Ownership per Household (1990 and 2000)……………………............. 2-10 Table 2-7 Journey to work by Mode (1980)…………………………………………………2-12 Table 2-8 Journey to work by Mode (1990)……………………………………………….. 2-13 Table 2-9 Journey to work by Mode (2000)……………………………………………….. 2-13 Table 2-10 Auto Travel Characteristics……………………………………………………... 2-14 Table 3-1 Residential Zoning Districts located within the Study Area…………………….. 3-4 Table 3-2 Commercial Zoning Districts located within the Study Area……………………. 3-7 Table 3-3 Manufacturing Zoning Districts located within the Study Area………………… 3-10 Table 4-1 2003 Existing Conditions –Traffic Capacity Analysis for Signalized Intersection…………………………………………………………... 4-20 Table 4-2 LOS Summary for 3rd Avenue @ E 128th Street ……………………………….. 4-28 Table 4-3 Corridor Travel Speeds…………………………………………………………. 4-35 Table 4-4 Corridor Travel Speeds Summary………………………………………............. 4-40 Table 5-1 Subway Service…………………………………………………………………… 5-1 Table 5-2 Stairway Level of Service – Definitions………………………………………….. 5-5 Table 5-3 V/SVCD Ratio Definitions……………………………………………………….. 5-6 Table 5-4 Existing Conditions, 116th Street Subway Station (1 & 9)……………………… 5-12 Table 5-5 Existing Conditions, 125th Street Subway Station (1 & 9)……………………… 5-12 Table 5-6 Existing Conditions, 137th Street/City College Subway Station (1 & 9)……….. 5-13 Table 5-7 Existing Conditions, 116th Street Subway Station (B & C)…………………….. 5-14 Table 5-8 Existing Conditions, 125th Street Subway Station (A, B, C & D)……………..…5-15 Table 5-9 Existing Conditions, 135th Street Subway Station (B & C)……………………... 5-16 Table 5-10 Existing Conditions, 116th Street Subway Station (2 & 3)……………………… 5-17 Table 5-11 Existing Conditions, 125th Street Subway Station (2 & 3)……………………… 5-18 Table 5-12 Existing Conditions, 135th Street Subway Station (2 & 3)………………............ 5-19 Table 5-13 Existing Conditions, 116th Street Subway Station (6)…………………………… 5-20 DRAFTth Table 5-14 Existing Conditions, 125 Street Subway Station (4, 5 & 6)……………............ 5-21 Table 5-15 Average Frequency of NYCT Bus Service (in minutes)………………………… 5-23 Table 5-16a 2003 Existing Bus Conditions (AM-MD)..……………………………………… 5-30 Table 5-16b 2003 Existing Bus Conditions (AM-MD)……………………………………….. 5-31 Table 5-17a 2003 Existing Bus Conditions (PM-Sat MD)..………………………………….. 5-32 Table 5-17b 2003 Existing Bus Conditions (PM-Sat MD)…………………………………… 5-33 Table 6-1 Off-Street Public Parking
Recommended publications
  • Morningside Heights Upper West Side Central Park
    Neighborhood Map ¯ Manhattanville Salem United 601 Junior High School 499 431 429 401 305 299 Methodist Church 199 101 99 1 555 W 129 Street W 129 Street W 129 Street W 129 Street Harlem Village Manhattanville National Jazz Museum Green 556 Health Center St. Nicholas in Harlem Edward P. Bowman 2168 3219 Sheltering Arms 30 29 25 Park 368 369 Broadway 601 2401 2406 Amsterdam Bus Depot 2094 3200 Playground Park Rev. Linnette C. Williamson Metropolitan Church of Memorial Park St. Nicholas Baptist Church Jesus Christ of Collyer Brothers 401 Unity Park 12 439 399 301 Playground South 101 Latter-day Saints Park W 126 Street 567 11 St. Nicholas Houses Amsterdam Avenue Amsterdam W 128 Street W 128 Street W 128 Street Convent Avenue St. Nicholas Avenue Old Broadway Blvd Douglass Frederick 559 M2 1361 14 LTD M2 3181 M3 499 M10 LTD 5 6 Maysles 2066 M3 M10 348 M2 Documentary 2160 M2 St. Andrew’s 1 Center 125 St Bx15 Episcopal Church M104 M101 299 201 W 125 StreetBx15 LTD 401 399 363 357 349 301 199 101 99 1 LTD Terrace Nicholas St. M101 W 127 Street W 127 Street W 127 Street M11 LTD Bx15 M100 M104 Bx15 M101 439 LTD M11 04 1 501 M100 M M101 M7 M104 M104 M102 M7 167 166 327 332 2130 2133 2358 2359 Clayton M102 2050 George Bruce 499 3170 William B. Williams 8 Avenue 8 Library Avenue 5 Washington Community Avenue Lenox 401 399 349 Garden Garden 299 201 199 101 99 1 Malcolm X Boulevard W 126 Street W 126 Street W 126 Street Broadway General Grant Houses Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty-Seventh Annual Report
    ANNUAL REPORT- 2020 New Jersey Law Revision Commission Thirty-Fourth Annual Report – 2020 2 Please address comments and questions regarding this Report to: Laura C. Tharney, Executive Director New Jersey Law Revision Commission 153 Halsey Street, 7th Floor Box 47016 Newark, New Jersey 07102 Tel: 973-648-4575 Fax: 973-648-3123 Email: lct@njlrc.org Web: www.njlrc.org This Report is prepared for submission to the Legislature pursuant to N.J.S. 1:12A-9. The Report can also be found on the website of the NJLRC at: https://www.njlrc.org/annual-reports * The above photo of the Gibraltar Building located at 153 Halsey St. is provided by http://www.tysto.com/articles04/q2/jersey.shtml. Cover photo and photo appearing on pages 18, 29, 39, 47, and 63 are included pursuant to a licensing agreement with Shutterstock Inc. Any photos of the Commissioners and their representatives are included with the permission of the law firms and law schools with which each is associated. The remaining photos are included pursuant to a licensing agreement with Can Stock Photo, Inc. Thirty-Fourth Annual Report – 2020 3 The New Jersey Law Revision Commission Vision: To enhance New Jersey's long tradition of law revision and to support the Legislature in its efforts to improve the law in response to the existing and emerging needs of New Jersey citizens. Mission: To work with the Legislature toward the clarification and simplification of New Jersey’s law, its better adaptation to present social needs, and the better administration of justice. To carry on a continuous review and revision of New Jersey’s body of statutes, and engage in scholarly legal research and work, in order to enhance the quality of our recommendations to the Legislature and to facilitate the implementation of those recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Percent for Art in New York City
    Percent for Art in New York City 1965 Mayor Robert Wagner issues an executive order supporting the inclusion of artwork in City buildings. Few agencies take advantage of this opportunity. 1971-1975 Doris Freedman (1928-1981), founder of the Public Art Fund and Director of the Office of Cultural Affairs within the Department of Parks and Recreation and Culture, drafts Percent for Art legislation and begins to lobby the City Council. The City becomes immersed in a fiscal crisis and the legislation lies dormant. 1976 The Office of Cultural Affairs becomes a separate agency: The Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA). 1978 Edward I. Koch is elected Mayor of New York City. 1981 As the City emerges from fiscal crisis, the administration and City Council begin to contemplate Percent for Art legislation. Deputy Mayor Ronay Menschel and Chief of Staff Diane Coffey are key advocates. 1982 City Council passes Percent for Art legislation; Mayor Koch signs it into law. Percent for Art Law requires that one percent of the budget for eligible City-funded construction is dedicated to creating public artworks. 1983 The Percent for Art law is enacted. Overseen by DCA Commissioner Henry Geldzahler and Deputy Commissioner Randall Bourscheidt, the program is initially administered by the Public Art Fund (Director, Jenny Dixon). Jennifer McGregor is the program’s Administrator. Following the example of the City’s Percent for Art legislation, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) establishes a similar program for its capital construction projects. During the early years of its existence, the MTA’s art selection panels are chaired and coordinated by DCA’s commissioner.
    [Show full text]
  • Harlem Transportation Study
    3.0 LAND USE AND ZONING Zoning The city is divided into three basic zoning districts: residential (R), commercial (C), and manufacturing (M). The three basic categories are further subdivided into lower, medium, and higher density residential, commercial and manufacturing districts. Development within these districts is regulated by use, building size, and parking regulations. Here is a brief description of the three basic zoning districts according to the Zoning Handbook: Residential District (R) In New York City, there are ten standard residential districts, R1 through R10. The numbers refer to the permitted density (R1 having the lowest density and R10 the highest) and other controls such as required parking. A second letter or number signifies additional controls are required in certain districts. R1 and R2 districts allow only detached single-family residences and certain community facilities. The R3-2 through R10 districts accept all types of dwelling units and community facilities and are distinguished by differing bulk and density, height and setback, parking, and lot coverage or open space requirements. Commercial District (C) The commercial districts reflect the full range of commercial activity in the city from local retail and service establishmentsDRAFT to high density, shopping, entertainment and office uses. There are eight basic commercial districts where two (C1 and C2 districts) are designed to serve local needs, one district (C4) is for shopping centers outside the central business district, two (C5 and C6 districts) are for the central business districts which embrace the office, retail, and commercial functions that serve the city and region, and three (C3, C7, and C8 districts) are designed for special purposes (waterfront activity, large commercial amusement parks and heavy repair services).
    [Show full text]
  • In New York City
    Outdoors Outdoors THE FREE NEWSPAPER OF OUTDOOR ADVENTURE JULY / AUGUST / SEPTEMBER 2009 iinn NNewew YYorkork CCityity Includes CALENDAR OF URBAN PARK RANGER FREE PROGRAMS © 2009 Chinyera Johnson | Illustration 2 CITY OF NEW YORK PARKS & RECREATION www.nyc.gov/parks/rangers URBAN PARK RANGERS Message from: Don Riepe, Jamaica Bay Guardian To counteract this problem, the American Littoral Society in partnership with NYC Department of Parks & Recreation, National Park Service, NYC Department of Environmental Protection, NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, Jamaica Bay EcoWatchers, NYC Audubon Society, NYC Sierra Club and many other groups are working on various projects designed to remove debris and help restore the bay. This spring, we’ve organized a restoration cleanup and marsh planting at Plum Beach, a section of Gateway National Recreation Area and a major spawning beach for the ancient horseshoe crab. In May and June during the high tides, the crabs come ashore to lay their eggs as they’ve done for millions of years. This provides a critical food source for the many species of shorebirds that are migrating through New York City. Small fi sh such as mummichogs and killifi sh join in the feast as well. JAMAICA BAY RESTORATION PROJECTS: Since 1986, the Littoral Society has been organizing annual PROTECTING OUR MARINE LIFE shoreline cleanups to document debris and create a greater public awareness of the issue. This September, we’ll conduct Home to many species of fi sh & wildlife, Jamaica Bay has been many cleanups around the bay as part of the annual International degraded over the past 100 years through dredging and fi lling, Coastal Cleanup.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:57 13 August 2016 the HOARDING IMPULSE
    Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:57 13 August 2016 THE HOARDING IMPULSE There has been an increased awareness of hoarding in recent years, but clinical treatments aimed at helping people with this condition often have low success rates. In The Hoarding Impulse Renee M. Winters explores how depth psychology can enrich current conceptual models and treatment standards for compulsive hoarding. The book presents case studies of prominent sufferers including Edie and Edith Beale, the Collyer Brothers, and Andy Warhol and explores common themes of loss, shame and object clusters. Winters sets out to provide a clear understanding of a hoarder’s lived experiences and their core schemas of value, worth and personal identity, revealing a direct connection to excessive acquisition of objects. She illuminates the process of how objects can come to possess a hoarder and become not only their main source of happiness but also part of their identity and in doing so puts forward a new treatment plan based on providing a deeper understanding of and potent treatment approach to what is a core issue for hoarding individuals: the wounding of the soul. This new perspective to treating individuals who hoard helps them in the long term understand their processes, value system, and struggles with negative interpersonal relationships. Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:57 13 August 2016 Providing a fascinating insight into the psyche of people who struggle with hoarding, this book will be essential reading for depth psychologists, Jungian psychotherapists, psychiatrists, social workers, students of analytical psychology and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of this complex condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Congestion Pricing: a Step Toward Safer Streets?
    Congestion Pricing: A Step Toward Safer Streets? Examining the Relationship Between Urban Core Congestion Pricing and Safety on City Streets A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Architecture and Planning COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Urban Planning by Andrew Lassiter Advisor: Dr. David King | Reader: Dr. Floyd Lapp May 2016 Lassiter / Congestion Pricing: A Step Toward Safer Streets? (2016) 2 Key Words Congestion pricing, traffic safety, Vision Zero, transportation economics, street safety, planning discourse, London, Stockholm, New York City Research Question Is urban core congestion pricing understood to improve street safety? ● Is there evidence to indicate that congestion pricing implementation can improve safety? ● Is street safety a significant element of the congestion pricing discourse? ● If so, can we determine a consensus from that discourse as to whether congestion pricing reduces crashes and casualties on city streets? ● Are there opportunities to create an integrated framework that draws from both congestion pricing and street safety conversations? Abstract This thesis explores cordon-style urban core congestion pricing as a street safety mechanism. With a handful of cities around the world having implemented different versions of cordon-style pricing, and conversations about street safety growing through the increasing adoption of Vision Zero in the United States and Europe, is there a nexus between these two policies? This research examines case studies of congestion pricing in London, Stockholm and New York; and assesses the relationship, both real and perceived, that is present in each city and in the literature between pricing and safety.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Lien Sale 90 Day Notice List - Staten Island
    2020 Lien Sale 90 Day Notice List - Staten Island Tax Class Building Community Council House Water Borough Block Lot Code Class Board District Number Street Name Zip Code Debt Only 5 1 10 4 E1 501 49 139 BAY STREET 10301 NO 5 1 17 4 V1 501 49 BAY STREET 10301 NO 5 2 759 4 E1 501 49 7 BANK STREET 10301 NO 5 5 42 4 V1 501 49 CENTRAL AVENUE NO 5 5 87 4 O2 501 49 24 BAY STREET 10301 NO 5 5 120 2 C5 501 49 5 SLOSSON TERRACE 10301 NO 5 5 124 2 C5 501 49 13 SLOSSON TERRACE 10301 NO 5 6 138 4 V1 501 49 128 CENTRAL AVENUE 10301 NO 5 6 152 2 S4 501 49 37 VICTORY BOULEVARD 10301 NO 5 16 1 4 V1 501 49 MONTGOMERY AVENUE NO 5 16 15 4 G7 501 49 MONTGOMERY AVENUE 10301 NO 5 16 16 4 G2 501 49 115 MONTGOMERY AVENUE 10301 NO 5 16 22 4 V1 501 49 101 MONTGOMERY AVENUE 10301 NO 5 16 123 1 B2 501 49 438 ST MARKS PLACE 10301 YES 5 16 1002 2 R1 501 49 55 MONTGOMERY AVENUE 10301 NO 5 16 1003 2 R1 501 49 55 MONTGOMERY AVENUE 10301 NO 5 16 1004 2 R1 501 49 55 MONTGOMERY AVENUE 10301 NO 5 16 1005 2 R1 501 49 55 MONTGOMERY AVENUE 10301 NO 5 16 1007 2 R1 501 49 55 MONTGOMERY AVENUE 10301 NO 5 17 97 1 C0 501 49 86 MONTGOMERY AVENUE 10301 NO 5 18 90 2 C1 501 49 151 DANIEL LOW TERRACE 10301 NO 5 18 97 1 B2 501 49 137 DANIEL LOW TERRACE 10301 YES 5 19 33 1 C0 501 49 296 ST MARKS PLACE 10301 YES 5 19 35 1 C0 501 49 298 ST MARKS PLACE 10301 NO 5 20 8 2 D1 501 49 100 DANIEL LOW TERRACE 10301 NO 5 22 97 1 S1 501 49 11 PHELPS PLACE 10301 NO 5 23 1 4 V1 501 49 WESTERVELT AVENUE NO 5 23 5 4 G4 501 49 151 VICTORY BOULEVARD 10301 NO 5 23 17 4 P2 501 49 29 BROOK STREET 10301 NO
    [Show full text]
  • City-Owned Properties Based on Suitability of City-Owned and Leased Property for Urban Agriculture (LL 48 of 2011)
    City-Owned Properties Based on Suitability of City-Owned and Leased Property for Urban Agriculture (LL 48 of 2011) Borou Block Lot Address Parcel Name gh 1 2 1 4 SOUTH STREET SI FERRY TERMINAL 1 2 2 10 SOUTH STREET BATTERY MARITIME BLDG 1 2 3 MARGINAL STREET MTA SUBSTATION 1 2 23 1 PIER 6 PIER 6 1 3 1 10 BATTERY PARK BATTERY PARK 1 3 2 PETER MINUIT PLAZA PETER MINUIT PLAZA/BATTERY PK 1 3 3 PETER MINUIT PLAZA PETER MINUIT PLAZA/BATTERY PK 1 6 1 24 SOUTH STREET VIETNAM VETERANS PLAZA 1 10 14 33 WHITEHALL STREET 1 12 28 WHITEHALL STREET BOWLING GREEN PARK 1 16 1 22 BATTERY PLACE PIER A / MARINE UNIT #1 1 16 3 401 SOUTH END AVENUE BATTERY PARK CITY STREETS 1 16 12 MARGINAL STREET BATTERY PARK CITY Page 1 of 1390 09/28/2021 City-Owned Properties Based on Suitability of City-Owned and Leased Property for Urban Agriculture (LL 48 of 2011) Agency Current Uses Number Structures DOT;DSBS FERRY TERMINAL;NO 2 USE;WATERFRONT PROPERTY DSBS IN USE-TENANTED;LONG-TERM 1 AGREEMENT;WATERFRONT PROPERTY DSBS NO USE-NON RES STRC;TRANSIT 1 SUBSTATION DSBS IN USE-TENANTED;FINAL COMMITMNT- 1 DISP;LONG-TERM AGREEMENT;NO USE;FINAL COMMITMNT-DISP PARKS PARK 6 PARKS PARK 3 PARKS PARK 3 PARKS PARK 0 SANIT OFFICE 1 PARKS PARK 0 DSBS FERRY TERMINAL;IN USE- 1 TENANTED;FINAL COMMITMNT- DISP;LONG-TERM AGREEMENT;NO USE;WATERFRONT PROPERTY DOT PARK;ROAD/HIGHWAY 10 PARKS IN USE-TENANTED;SHORT-TERM 0 Page 2 of 1390 09/28/2021 City-Owned Properties Based on Suitability of City-Owned and Leased Property for Urban Agriculture (LL 48 of 2011) Land Use Category Postcode Police Prct
    [Show full text]
  • A Content Analysis of A&E's Hoarders
    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 8-2013 A Content Analysis of A&E's Hoarders Samantha J. Redwine East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies Commons, Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons, Social Psychology and Interaction Commons, and the Sociology of Culture Commons Recommended Citation Redwine, Samantha J., "A Content Analysis of A&E's Hoarders" (2013). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1208. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/1208 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact digilib@etsu.edu. A Content Analysis of A&E’s Hoarders _____________________ A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts of Sociology _____________________ by Samantha J. Redwine August 2013 _____________________ Dr. Joseph Baker, Chair Dr. Martha Copp Dr. Melissa Schrift Keywords: hoarding, hoarding disorder, medicalization, content analysis, television, deviance ABSTRACT A Content Analysis of A&E’s Hoarders by Samantha Redwine The interest in hoarding has peaked since its first clinical definition in 1996 and is evident by six television shows centered on the topic. This thesis reports the results a content analysis of two seasons (21 episodes) of the popular T.V.
    [Show full text]
  • Manhattan Community District 10 11 12 5 6
    8 12 7 10 MANHATTAN COMMUNITY DISTRICT 10 11 12 5 6 4 3 10 TOTAL POPULATION 1990 2000 2010 9 9 2 Number 99,519 107,109 115,723 10 1 11 % Change - 7.6 8.0 11 7 1 8 7 1 4 3 5 6 VITAL STATISTICS 2005 2010 2 4 2 3 1 5 6 8 Births: Number 1,659 1,716 1 Rate per 1000 15.5 14.8 DR. HARLEM IVER R HARLEM RIVER Deaths: Number 1,022 850 Rate per 1000 9.5 7.3 MBE GECOAVE. ED . Infant Mortality: Number 13 - E V A Rate per 1000 7.8 7.5 S A L O H IC N W. 123rd ST. T S CENTRAL . HARLEM VE FIFTH AVE. E A ID S G MO N UNT I MO RRIS PARK N R O M INCOME SUPPORT 2005 2012 CENT RAL PARK NORTH FIFTH AVE. Cash Assistance (TANF) 11,139 8,472 Supplemental Security Income 8,827 9,016 LAND USE, 2012 Lot Area Medicaid Only 28,503 31,911 Lots Sq. Ft.(000) % 1- 2 Family Residential 538 915.8 3.6 Total Persons Assisted 48,469 49,399 Multi-Family Residential 2,444 10,770.1 42.3 Mixed Resid. / Commercial 647 5,502.5 21.6 Percent of Population 45.3 42.7 Commercial / Office 156 1,271.1 5.0 Industrial 17 151.5 0.6 Transportation / Utility 18 212.0 0.8 Institutions 290 3,758.6 14.8 Open Space / Recreation 40 1,416.3 5.6 Parking Facilities 44 223.7 0.9 TOTAL LAND AREA Vacant Land 251 1,237.6 4.9 Miscellaneous 9 24.3 0.1 Acres: 897.0 Square Miles: 1.4 Total 4,454 25,483.5 100.0 New York City Department of City Planning Manhattan Community District 10 r.
    [Show full text]
  • Re:C Ons T R U C T
    RE:CONSTRUCTION Alliance for Downtown New York, Inc. 120 Broadway, Suite 3340 New York, New York 10271 The mission of the Alliance for Downtown New York is to provide service, advocacy, research and information to advance Lower Manhattan as a global model of the 21st Century Central Business District for the businesses, residents and visitors. www.DowntownNY.com RE:CONSTRUCTION Portrait of Progress in Lower Manhattan 2 From the Chairman and President Lower Manhattan is in a constant state of reinvention. It is a neighborhood synonymous with progress and renewal. More than 400 years of history have shown that Lower Manhattan is a wellspring of innovation, resilience, and resounding achievement. It has always creatively “reconstructed” itself as it adapts to new peoples, new challenges, new technologies, and the unforeseen. In the dozen years since September 11, 2001, Lower Manhattan is experiencing another renaissance. Over these last 12 years, private and public entities have invested $30 billion in Lower Manhattan. While this monumental investment is adding incredible dynamism to our already swiftly evolving neighborhood, it has also created a set of temporary challenges as 70 significant construction projects have been launched in a densely packed district. In response, the Downtown Alliance asked: how do we harness the tumult and create something positive and beautiful for the 60,000 people who call Lower Manhattan home, the hundreds of thousands who work here, and the millions who come and visit? The answer: Re:Construction, a groundbreaking initiative that recasts construction barriers as large-scale canvases for temporary public art. Amid the hustle and bustle of fast-changing Lower Manhattan, since 2007 the Re:Construction program has unveiled nearly 40 works of art—making our sidewalks more user-friendly, our streetscape more scenic, and integrating thought-provoking and delightful art into the pedestrian experience.
    [Show full text]