|
I
Updated Route Map
(opens as 850kb PDF)
|
- the NEW BHRA STREETCAR PROPOSAL & ROUTE MAP
|
By popular request, here is
the New BHRA
Streetcar Proposal.
This route will run from Red Hook to
Downtown Brooklyn via the Atlantic Avenue Tunnel.
Purpose:
Provide quick and convenient rail transit to Brooklyn neighborhood far
from the existing subway / rail transit network: providing service to
Red Hook, Brooklyn Bridge Park and the Brooklyn Cruise Ship Terminal.
Route Location and Design:
The two major changes to the route from the older
maps shown on our ":maps" page (maps created in 2001 and earlier).
Are an extension of the former red hook terminus east towards
areas that have developed since 2001 (such as IKEA), and a bifurcated
route through part of Red Hook. The position of the track
loops, have also changed slightly.
Rationale behind
bifurcating the streetcar route through Red Hook (compared with
a double-track route on Richards St.)
:
1. The "down line" (Van Brunt St.) services the burgeoning commercial
strip, while the "up line" (Richards St.) serves a more residential
area.
2. Van Brunt Street is a little on the narrow and congested side, so
bifurcating the route would help ease vehicular traffic flow.
3. Bifurcating the route is highly cost effective, services the largest
catchment area, with the least amount of track.
4. Increases opportunity for community revitalization (see next section).
Columbia Street, Atlantic Avenue and Boerum Place- are the only streets
that are feasible, given the origin/destination points.
|
Modern Streetcar in Portland, Or
Vintage and Modern Streetcars Sharing Track in Portland, Or
|
Construction Cost Per Mile:
Again, as per the Portland, Or. model, construction cost is $12
million/mile. Our own "Brooklyn method" of track construction is of
exceptional build and design; while actually being less expensive to
build and maintain.
Economic Revitalization:
Again, our economic model is Portland, Or. Their 4 mile streetcar
line, built in a place similar to Red Hook, spurred $3.5 BILLION in
private revitalization investment, through a six block wide corridor,
centered along the streetcar route. Portland has become a model
"affordable," modern and efficient
streetcar system, they are currently expanding their system and other
American cities (such as Tucson, Az) have modeled their new urban rail
transit system after Portland's streetcar system.
Environmental Benefits:
As previously stated, anything that runs on rails, only requires 5% the
energy of anything that runs on rubber tires. Specifically, to move a 1
Ton load of passengers on a bus, requires 30 f.lbs of force. To move
the same 1 Ton weight of passengers on a streetcar, only requires 1-1/4
(1.25) f lbs of force. Click here for more detailed efficiency calculations
Furthermore, non-polluting electric streetcars have numerous other environmental benefits over other forms of transit. See this page for details.
|
|
|
|
STREETCAR BASICS - a brief overview of the benefits of a streetcar system
Modern streetcars (like those used in Portland) are
an evolution
of the "PCC" type streetcar that was designed in Brooklyn in the 1930s,
to meet
Brooklyn traffic conditions and street layout. Streetcars differ
from conventional "light rail" in many ways; such as: streetcars are
designed to stop and accelerate quickly, they are designed to operate
quietly and they can be constructed quickly with minimum excavation,
see more details in the bullets below:
|
Modern PCC Spec. Streetcar (Portland, OR)
|
Vintage PCC Streetcar
(still used for transit service in San Francisco, CA and Philadelphia, PA)
|
Passenger boarding area, Simplified track design and unobtrusive overhead wires
(Portland, OR)
The Portland Streetcar has proven so popular that they have ordered additional streetcars and are currently constructing an
extension to the Streetcar route.
Above 3 pictures taken by Brian Kassel on a recent trip to Portland, OR
|
- The Streetcar can operate in mixed traffic with other
vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. The Streetcar does not require
dedicated traffic lanes, and can easily keep up with
traffic. The use of
Passenger Boarding Islands eliminates traffic delays due
to alighting passenger.
- Due to its light weight, the Streetcar uses a simplified form
of track construction, which costs only a fraction of
conventional light rail track
- Streetcars
uses a simplified form of overhead wire construction, the cost of which
is only a fraction of conventional light rail catenary wires. Since
Streetcar wires are simplified, the visual impacts of the wires are
greatly mitigated over conventional light rail wires.
- Because Streetcars uses a simplified form of track
construction not requiring deep excavations, the need for
utility relocation is negligible.
- Because Streetcars can operate in existing city streets,
its rails are flush with the roadway and its turning radii
fits into existing street geometries, Streetcars will not
divide neighborhoods by presenting physical or psychological
barriers, as do both conventional light rail and divided
highways.
-
Because of Streetcars low weight and unique electrical
propulsion package, the Streetcar uses only uses a fraction of the
electrical power requirement of a conventional light rail
vehicle. In fact, the Streetcar spends most of its time coasting
and applying brakes. Streetcars do not require the same large
scale and costly power substations as do conventional light
rail vehicles.
|
|
|
Pre-Existing Design and Governmental Approval Documents, 1996- 2001, Pertaining to the
Red Hook To Boro Hall Streetcar Project.
Our updated plans for a streetcar line from Red Hook
to Downtown Brooklyn are an extension of a previously approved project,
rather than an entirely new undertaking. Below are links to 2 PDF
files (each file contains the documents listed below that hyperlink).
Part
1 of 2 Red Hook to Borough Hall Subway Nexus: Project Description,
Specifications, Circa 2001 - 3.8mb PDF file includes the
following documents:
- Service Description (2 pgs)
- Design Approval Document- (SDOT), May
1, 2001. (Contains much detailed project design
information, public hearing dates, various governmental actions,
project history, etc. (7 pgs))
- Project Construction And Operation
Plans We Used To Obtain ULURP, CEQR and all
other
approvals (7 pgs)
- Construction Methodology We Used
- Streetcar and Line Operating Characteristics (5 pgs)
NOTE: to maximize public safety, the operating characteristics,
especially acceleration and braking, of any newly built Brooklyn
streetcars, must meet or exceed those of the classic PCC streetcar.
Part 2 of 2 Pre-
Existing Governmental Approvals for a Street Running Streetcar
Operation in Red Hook Circa 1996- 2001 - 3mb PDF file includes the
following documents:
- Letter From CDOT to SDOT, regarding project local match, funding, etc., June 19, 1996
- City Planning (ULURP) Land Use Review Process Requirement Letter Aug 15, 1996
- NYS Dept of State- Coastal Zone Management Approval, Sept 9, 1996
- Project Notice To Proceed, Letter from SDOT to CDOT, Dec 19, 1996
- Contract Award Letter from CDOT to BHRA, June 6, 1997
- City Planning (ULURP) Application, Dec 29, 1997
- Fire Department Approval (FDNY), May 27, 1999 (2 pgs)
- CEQR- Negative Declaration (No Environmental Impact), June 14, 1999 (2 pgs)
- Division of Highway Design Approval (CDOT), June 19, 1999 (same Plans as in Part 1)
- City Planning Commission (ULURP) Land Use Approval, Oct 20, 1999, Calendar # 3, C980267GFK
(see Part 1, Design Approval Document)
- Sewer & Water Dept (NYC DEP) Approval, Feb 10, 2000
- Consent Agreement- CDOT, to Construct,
Maintain and Operate the Red Hook Streetcar along six
streets, Oct 17, 2000.
- OCMC- (CDOT) Approval (Joe Noto, etc), Oct 24, 2000
- NEPA- (SDOT) Categorical Exclusion Determination, May 1, 2001
- SEQR- (SDOT) Determination, May 1, 2001 (2 pgs)
- NYS DOT- Design Approval (PS&E), May 2, 2001 |
|
|
Other Materials from Prior Plans / Studies for Brooklyn Streetcar Lines
Attached as JPG files, are "example templates"- two pre- engineering
drawings I scanned from the circa 1985 Brooklyn streetcar study
by Urbitran, and STV. The first drawing, gives the diagrammatic plan for a new streetcar terminus at Atlantic Terminal, with provisions for an extension to Grand Army Plaza, via Vanderbilt Ave.
The second drawing, shows the diagrammatic plan for the streetcar turn from Ft. Green Pl. to Fulton Street. Note this drawing shows in detail, the proper use of a "passenger boarding island" which they refer to as "Platforms".
Also attached as a PDF file, is the Cover from a Brooklyn Streetcar planning document (PDF),
which I compiled and expanded upon back in 1989. If you can find a copy
of it, this document contains, among many other things, street by
street pre- engineering plans for all of the proposed Brooklyn
streetcar routes. Let me know if you cant find it. The numbers on the
Cover, reference ULURP and CEQR applications.
I'm hoping that URS will provide a similar set of drawings as part of their feasibility study.
|
BENEFITS OF A STREETCAR LINE: Land Use, Community Coherence & Economic Revitalization.
The following are selections from the book: Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities Design Strategies for the Post- Carbon World, by Patrick M. Condon, 2010:
SEVEN RULES FOR SUSTAINABLE, LOW-CARBON COMMUNITIES - Rule # 1: RESTORE THE STREETCAR CITY
The North American city was and is a streetcar city. Streetcar cities
are characterized by easy access to transit, a wide variety of house
types, and services and job sites very close at hand—the exact elements
of a sustainable city. We have largely ignored this fact. It needs
rediscovering. (pg 14)
THE STREETCAR CITY AS A UNIFYING PRINCIPLE
The streetcar city principle is not about the streetcar itself, it is
about the system of which that the streetcar is a part. It is about the
sustainable relationship between land use, walking, and transportation
that streetcar cities embody. The streetcar city principle combines at
least four of the design rules discussed in the following chapters: (1)
an interconnected street system, (2) a diversity of housing types, (3)
a five-minute walking distance to commercial services and transit, and
(4) good jobs close to affordable homes. For this reason, it is
offered as the first of the rules and as a "meta rule" for sustainable,
low-carbon community development. (pg 20)
CONTINUOUS LINEAR CORRIDORS, NOT STAND-ALONE NODES
Linear public space is the defining social and spatial characteristic
of the streetcar city This obvious fact has been ignored at best and
derided at worst. Most planning, urban design, and economic development
experts favor strategies that ignore corridors in favor of discrete
and identifiable places, key urban "nodes" in planning terms. Their
plans focus most often on an identified "downtown" or a key
transportation locus, while the thousands of miles of
early-twentieth-century streetcar arterials are either allowed to
languish or blithely sacrificed for parking lots. Yet, very few of us
live within walking distance of a "node," whereas most of us live
within a reasonable walk of a corridor, however gruesome it may now be.
(pg 25)
Getting people onto transit will not help defeat global warming unless we can find a way to
radically decrease the average daily demand for motorized travel of any
kind and the per-mile GHG consequences of each trip. Community
districts that are complete and that favor short trips over long ones
seem an obvious part of the solution. Inexpensive short-haul zero
carbon transit vehicles, such as trolley buses and especially
streetcars, are a likely feature of a low-energy, low-travel demand
solution. (pg 30)
Precious few cities seem to "get it" in this respect. Portland, again,
is the exception. Portland is the only U.S city to have made a serious
effort to restore its streetcar system. The results could not be more
promising. Jobs, housing, and new commercial services are flocking to
the line, making the community that much more complete and thus
incrementally reducing aggregate per capita trip demand. In Portland,
jobs, housing, clubs, and commercial services are coming closer
together A ten-minute ride on the Portland streetcar gets you where you
want to go. Its speed between these points is irrelevant.
STREETCAR AS AN URBAN INVESTMENT
Most discussions of streetcar focus solely on transit issues, but the
implications are much wider. Streetcars stimulate investment and buses
don't. This has been powerfully demonstrated in Portland, where the
introduction of a modern streetcar line spurred the high-density
development that helped the City of Portland recoup construction
costs through significantly increased tax revenues. Between 1997 and
2005, the density of development immediately adjacent to the new
streetcar line increased dramatically. Within two blocks of the
streetcar line, $2.28 billion was invested [Editor's Note: a total of
$3.5 billion through a six block wide corridor centered along the
streetcar tracks], representing over 7,200 [ibid 10,212] new
residential units and 4.6 million [ibid 5.5 million] square feet of
additional commercial [office, institutional, retail, hotel] space;
even more impressive, new development within only one block of the
streetcar line accounted for 55 percent of all new development within
the city's core. To put this in perspective, prior to construction of
the new streetcar line, land located within one block of the proposed
route captured only 19 percent of all development. (Pg 33)
Most attribute this impressive increase in investment to the presence
of the streetcar line. Developers for the new South Waterfront
development at the other end of the downtown from the Pearl District
would not proceed before the city guaranteed to extend the streetcar
line to the site. These developers, the same ones who had created the
highly successful streetcar serving Pearl District, knew from
experience how important the streetcar is to success. If the free
market tells us anything at all in this case, it is that the economics
of the streetcar, when the value of new investment is included, is much
more cost effective than an investment in rubber-wheeled diesel buses
or heavy transit. (Pg 34) |
|
The Basic Principals of Transit Oriented Development
Portland's
recent multi billion dollar streetcar line land development experience,
speaks particularly, about a concept known as "Transit Oriented
Development", or "TOD". Let's take a quick look at what "TOD-ness"
means, as well as the "TOD- Index". For this, we refer to
extracts from: TCRP Report 95, TRB, Chapter 17
Objectives of Transit Oriented Development (excerpts from TCRP Report 95, pg 17-2, 17-3):
TOD projects potentially involve a wider variety of stakeholders than
other development projects, reflecting in part the more extensive
involvement of transit agencies and government funding sources. TOD
stakeholders may have a wide range of complementary or competing
objectives. Travel-related objectives include:
- Increasing the opportunities for residents and workers to meet daily needs by taking transit or walking.
- Attracting new riders to public transit, including so-called "choice" riders—riders who could otherwise choose to drive.
- Shifting the transit station mode of access to be less reliant on park-and-ride and more oriented to walking.
- Reducing the automobile ownership, vehicular traffic,
and associated parking requirements that would otherwise be necessary
to support a similar level of more traditional development.
- Enhancing the environment, through reduced emissions
and energy consumption derived from shifts in commuting, other trip
making, and station access to environmentally friendly travel modes.
Non-transportation objectives may include providing desirable and
affordable housing choices, enhancing sense of community and quality of
life, supporting economic development or revitalization, shifting
development from sensitive areas, minimizing infrastructure costs, and
reducing sprawl.
Clich here for more information on Transit Oriented Development
|
|
|
The Environmental and Economic Advantages of a Streetcar line over other transit modes:
As stated in the Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities Design, we have already read (pg 30) that streetcars
have ZERO spot emissions. Furthermore, according to the graph on pg 37 entitled
"Life Cycle Carbon Emissions per Passenger Mile", the streetcar comes
in at the very lowest carbon lifecycle, of all transportation modes, at
32.59. Note that "Bus Rapid Transit" (BRT) comes in high, at 201.40. This is because the streetcar uses the least possible
amount of energy. Note that in NYC, streetcar carbon figures would be
even lower, as much of our power is derived from hydro-electric sources,
rather than coal.
Next, lets address an obvious question: Why Build A Streetcar line rather than a simple bus?
Many decision makers fall into the trap of thinking of a streetcar line
in terms of "existing ridership justification", and thereby not
understanding the basic underlying concept of what any railway does- A
properly placed and well designed streetcar line creates its own demand
!!
As the General Manager of the San Francisco transit authority "MUNI"
said it back in 2001, "People Who Wouldn't Ride A Bus Will Ride A
Streetcar"- (Michael T. Burns, quoted in Railway Age, May, 2001, pg 45). This comment was made regarding a San Francisco electric bus line that was converted to the Embarcadero Streetcar (F Line) circa 1995- the ridership instantly DOUBLED! (and ridership has kept increasing to the present !)
As for Capital Costs, according to the graph "Total Capital
Cost Per Passenger Mile" (pg 37), the streetcar comes in at a mere 71 cents ($0.71)
per Passenger Mile. Note that "Bus Rapid Transit" (BRT) comes in at a
hefty $1.12, fully 1.6 times greater than streetcar!
|
|
|
Streetcar Vs. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - results of an award winning DC streetcar study:
The recent award winning DC streetcar study states
that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) doesn't make the cut, The study
determined that the streetcar is far superior in terms of
cost-to-benefit ratio, and local economic development. The D.C.
study determined:
"In terms of taxpayers dollars, the “streetcar offers a better ratio of
benefits to costs compared to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Light Transit.
While BRT is less expensive to implement, it does not generate the real
estate investments to the same degree that streetcars can. While light
rail can produce similar benefits to streetcars, implementation costs
are many times more than that of streetcar.” Further details can be found here. A copy of the study can likely be obtained from the consultant Goody Clancy.
We sincerely hope that NYC DOT and URS, heed this study's findings. The
new Washington DC streetcar line added $10 Billion- $15 Billion to
their local economy. A great article on the new DC streetcar system can
found here.
|
|
|
Project Updates:
(9.11.2010) NYC DOT Announces Study To Determine Feasibility Of Streetcars In Brooklyn
Related News Articles:
9.11.2010) NY Post Article: "City revamping plan for Brooklyn streetcar line" (PDF)
(9.11.2010) NY1 TV News Report & article: "City Considers Plan To Revive Brooklyn Trolleys" (external link)
(9.11.2010) The Wall Street Journal: Red Hook’s Desire for a Streetcar Gets a Boost
(9.11.2010) Cobble Hill Association: Street Cars from the Past in Brooklyn's Future?
(9.30.2010) A Word on the DOT's Brooklyn Streetcar Study- We're Not Part of It, But We Hope It Works !
(10.23.2010) Bob Diamond's Notes from the Oct 18, 2010 Brooklyn Streetcar Study Community Advisory Committee (CAC):
(10.23.2010) Additional Info on Passenger Boarding Islands / Areas for Streetcars
(12.27.2010) BHRA's comments regarding NYC DOT's Red Hook Streetcar Study, CAC Meeting 2, Dec 13, 2010
|
(9.30.2010) A Word on the DOT's Brooklyn Streetcar Study- We're Not Part of It, But We Hope It Works !
We have a unique "once in lifetime" opportunity to get a Brooklyn
streetcar system totally for free- 100% Federally funded. We feel the
DOT should be marshaling all resources at its disposal, to get this
study done successfully, and speedily, before the political climate in
Washington changes again.
As we know, after a delay of five years, the DOT has now decided to
move ahead with the Red Hook Streetcar study- something which we
heartily applaud. This delay was largely due to the "bucking" of their
Brooklyn office for the past several years (see attached letter (pdf).
We know from experience, that the first order of business in any study,
is the review of all previous studies on the same subject. This
isn't happening with the DOT Brooklyn streetcar study, even though
"several feet" of prior studies are available. The Brooklyn office has
opted to not include us as part of the study team. Rather, they are
starting over from "square one".
The DOT Brooklyn office is causing the consultant, URS, to operate in
what we fear is a virtual "local information vacuum". The study will be
devoid of the unique, useful information, accumulated over 29 years of
experience in the specific field of resurrecting the Brooklyn streetcar
system, which we could have brought to bear for the benefit of the
project. The present modest level (under $300k) of available funding,
really does not afford the option of "starting over from scratch", and
we hope the result is not a study that concludes another study is
needed.
We truly hope that we are incorrect in our assessment of the situation,
and are looking forward to being proven wrong. We wish them all the
best of luck in their endeavors!
|
Bob Diamond's Notes from the Oct 18, 2010 Brooklyn Streetcar Study CAC (Community Advisory Committee):
Organizational Structure:
I think the composition of the "advisory board" is great.
Economic Concept:
The bottom line of building any functional streetcar line is financial
benefit to the community: the enabling and promotion of neighborhood
revitalization and development. Therefore, this study, however
preliminary, really needs to address opportunities for "Transit Related
Development" along the route. The word "Streetcar" must become
synonymous with the phrase "transit oriented development".
Pre- Engineering Considerations:
From group feedback at the meeting, another important topic to address
in this study, is the misconception that "the streetcar will only be
one slow and poorly operated mode of transportation replacing another-
the bus". There has to be a tangible and substantial improvement to Red
Hook's "lack of transportation dilemma". The study currently at hand,
needs to speak in terms of using streetcar to improve mobility between
Red Hook and other neighborhoods- transforming Red Hook from a "half
hour neighborhood (time needed to get to the nearest subway station)"
to a "seven minute neighborhood"- by using all available tools, such
as:
- preemptive traffic signals controlled by the movement of the streetcars.
- passenger boarding islands with right lane traffic bypass (as
per San
Francisco, upper Market Street) to expedite passenger loading and
unloading, while minimizing traffic delay. A functional boarding
arrangement (the traditional way to create boarding areas) is via a
designated passenger boarding island
in the center of the street (this is utilized in New Orleans and San
Francisco). These principles are explained in detail in the
section below entitled: "Additional Info on Passenger Boarding Islands / Areas for Streetcars"
- utilize new and/or refurbished streetcars that have acceleration and
braking performance comparable with that of the classic "PCC".
Essentially, use streetcars that can "keep up" with other traffic, and
not themselves become obstructions to the other traffic in the common
roadway they share. The PCC was developed with this specific goal in
mind, back in the 1930's, right here in Brooklyn.
Let's look at a side by side comparison of the performance
characteristics of an obsolete streetcar, which the PCC replaced, with
the performance characteristics of the PCC:
(Source: PCC The Car That Fought Back, by Stephen P. Carlson and Fred W. Schnieder III, 1980, pg 56- 57.)
Performance of an Obsolete Streetcar, Toronto 2700-2898
Acceleration Rate, MPHPS- 2.00
Service Braking Rate, MPHPS- 2.70
Emergency Braking Rate, MPHPS - 3.30
Balancing Speed, MPH- 30
vs. Performance of Brooklyn PCC 1001-1099
Acceleration Rate, MPHPS- 4.75
Service Braking Rate, MPHPS- 4.75
Emergency Braking Rate, MPHPS- 9.00
Balancing Speed, MPH- 42
Ridership Demand Estimates:
When using existing bus route data to estimate new streetcar demand,
certain parameters for estimating the lower and upper range must be
taken into account. First, lets look at estimating the lower limit.
According to Boris Pushkarev, past President of the Regional Plan
Association and author of Urban Rail In America: Exploration of
Criteria for Fixed Guideway Transit, when estimating new streetcar line
demand, existing bus ridership numbers must be increased by a "Rail
Factor" of at least 30%.
Pushkarev's "Rail Factor" theory is greatly expanded upon, by the
actual numbers experienced on San Francisco's (MUNI) Market Street "F"
line. The "F Line Streetcar" came about during the 1990's, when an
existing bus line was replaced by a streetcar. The ridership instantly
DOUBLED (100% increase) and has been steadily increasing every year
since. See Railway Age, May, 2001, for the explanation proffered at
that time by then MUNI General Manager Michael T. Burns "people who
wont ride a bus will ride a streetcar"(PDF)
. Therefore, the immediate demand (the day the line opens) for a new Red Hook streetcar should be
somewhere between a 30% - 100% increase over the existing bus route.
One "Fatal Flaw":
The one "fatal flaw" that I can see (with nearly 30 years of
hindsight), is the fact that a follow up- and currently unfunded-
"alternative mode analysis" would be required in order to get the
Federal construction $$. We have a very narrow window of opportunity to
execute this project, we need to strike while the iron is hot- while
the Obama administration and Transportation Secretary LaHood are still
in office!
My suggestion, was that URS, as a "super turn key contractor", should
consider providing that "Alternative Analysis" report ASAP at no up
front cost- initially on "speculation", or as a tax deductible donation
to a non- profit entity, as URS is potentially the overall project
contractor/developer.
|
Additional Info on Passenger Boarding Islands / Areas for Streetcars
On
NYC DOT's streetcar website, it mentions that "streetcars pick up
passengers curbside". If by curbside, they mean swerving the tracks
toward the existing curb, that isn't the best way of doing it. Here's
why:
Back in the 1930's the NYC Department of Traffic (DOT's predecessor)
did a study on Manhattan traffic congestion. What they found, was that
much of the congestion was caused by buses- because buses weave through
traffic, from the left lane, to curbside, and vice verse, in order for
passengers to board and alight. This "weaving motion" was found to
create "congestion waves" in the traffic behind the buses.
Further, a "buffer zone" consisting of a row of parked cars, separating
moving vehicles and pedestrians, has traditionally been used throughout
NYC. This so vehicles can travel at faster speeds, while having a
minimum potential impact on pedestrians.
If by curbside boarding however, they mean extending the curb into the street to form a passenger boarding area (as they do in Portland),
this is a much more practical approach. In this arrangement, also known
as "Bus Bulbs", the boarding area is a curb extension from the
sidewalk, through the lane that is typically used to park cars in, to
the streetcar tracks in the center of the street. This method of
passenger boarding, appears to work best on wide, one way streets.
The traditional way however, to create boarding areas, is to utilize
"Passenger Boarding Islands With Right Lane Traffic Bypass" to expedite
passenger loading and unloading, while minimizing or eliminating
traffic delay behind the streetcar. Such a functional boarding
arrangement, is via a designated passenger boarding island
in the center of the street. (Note the preceding linked image shows
this method in use on Brooklyn's Livingston Street, circa 1935. Note
the sign for Loeser's Department Store). This method is currently
utilized in cities such as New Orleans, Philadelphia and San Francisco.
Both Bus Bulbs and Passenger Boarding Islands, are also superior to
curb side boarding, as they allow the streetcar to maintain a
designated lane and straight track. This enhances ride comfort, and
minimizes wheel noise. While Bus Bulbs do not create a weaving
effect producing "congestion waves" like a city bus typically does;
however, on narrow streets, whenever the streetcar or bus stops at a
Bus Bulb, the traffic behind it has to stop too. In terms of
traffic operation, Boarding Islands With Right Lane Traffic Bypass, are
superior to Bus Bulbs, as the vehicles behind the streetcar on narrow
streets, do not have to stop when ever the streetcar stops.
Suggested Reading List:
The following books are available from the Transportation Research Board's on-line bookstore:
TCRP Report 95- Chapter 17- Transit Oriented Development
TCRP Report 33- Transit- Friendly Streets: Design and Traffic Management Strategies To Support Livable Communities
TCRP Report 65- Evaluation of Bus Bulbs
TCRP Report 100 2nd Edition- Transit Capacity and Service Manual
TCRP Report 137- Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments
TCRP Report 40- Strategies To Attract Auto Users to Public
Transportation (Note: May be out of print, can also be obtained through
Amazon.com or Ebay).
|
|
|
BHRA's comments regarding NYC DOT's Red Hook Streetcar Study, CAC Meeting 2, Dec 13, 2010
The reports generally look good, except for three major concerns:
1) The "Alternative Comparison with Bus Mode" needs to be done as part of this report. There
is no money on the horizon for any "follow up" studies. It's now, or
never.
2) The assumption
that streetcar will only cause a 12% increase in passenger usage is
unreasonably conservative. Based upon comparable precedents and studies
we believe that ridership should be (at the very minimum)
double within the first year or service and likely triple within the first five years of operation. For more information, refer to
written comments made previously by the Regional Plan Association's
former President, Boris Pushkarev, and the actual numbers experienced
on the San Francisco "F" streetcar line- who's ridership immediately
DOUBLED when converted from bus. for more info see: Charts & Data on Environmental and Economic Advantages of a Streetcar line (vs. other transit modes)
An Additional factor that will account for increased ridership are the
private bus shuttles that operate in Red Hook (ex. the IKEA shuttle),
the Streetcar will likely pick up riders that would otherwise take the
shuttle or drive to retailers like IKEA and Fairway.
Also comparisons with extensions to existing streetcar systems (ex.
Philadelphia) are not as comparable as the opening of the first line of
a new system - there will be a substantial ridership increase due to
the novelty draw of the first streetcar line in Brooklyn.
3) Finally,
the streetcar's operating speed is an important aspect of the project.
We completely disagree with the report, which says streetcar's have to
run at the same speed as buses.
Any number of traffic engineering tools can be used to increase the
streetcar's speed over the existing bus. For example, traffic light
preemption controlled by the movements of the streetcar, passenger
boarding areas or boarding islands with right lane traffic bypass
(reduces streetcar dwell time at stations), and many other methods can
be used. (from more details see: Additional Info on Passenger Boarding Islands / Areas for Streetcars).
Furthermore, even if the most bare-bones streetcar system
possible was built by merely laying down streetcar track that follow
the existing bus route (with no signal timing, traffic engineering,
boarding areas or pedestrian/ street improvements of any sort);
even this bare-bones streetcar line would run significantly faster that
the current bus that run that route. The reason for this is: NYC
Transit buses are purposely run at very
slow speeds, in an effort to make their pollution emissions seem lower.
Since streetcars
are electric and have no spot emissions, they transcend the whole bus
paradigm (of necessitated slow speeds to save fuel/ limit pollution)
and therefore can be run at faster speeds than buses, improving
commuting times over the buses they replace. (for more info refer to the Transportation Research Board's TCRP Reports 33 and 137). |
Map of potential routes from 2nd CAC Presentation (notice similarity to our various route designs featured on our maps page).
|
Here is a complete PDF version of the powerpoint presentation URS made
during the 2nd Streetcar Community Advisory Committee
Meeting (PDF)
|
|
BHRA
- The New Brooklyn Streetcar Plan
