« Rosie Revisited Fireworks Backlash »

May 8, 2009

Could Streetcars Return to Brooklyn?

Streetcars were once a big part of Brooklyn life—could they play a role in connecting currently underserviced areas while enhancing the street-level experience? That's the theory being floated by some enthusiasts. And people are starting to listen. Most notably, DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Kahn who, noting the success of its streetcar system in generating economic developer, recently said “We need to rebalance the transportation network and make it as efficient and effective as possible.” (Midwood resident Arthur Melnick has been pushing this idea for many years, particularly for the waterfront areas of Red Hook and Brooklyn Heights, and the Brooklyn Historic Railway Association has even built a few tracks over near Ikea.) And while there are nostalgic and touristic reasons to consider the idea, blog The Transit Politic sums up the practical side of the issue:

Brooklyn is ideal for streetcars, and the city should be considering their widespread installation in areas where improved transit service is needed, because they’re effective in creating denser, more livable neighborhoods. The eastern half of Berlin is perhaps a good example for how Brooklyn could integrate streetcars into its existing transportation network. There, the 192 km collection of Straßenbahn lines run in areas that are not adequately served by the U-Bahn and S-Bahn rail services. The system runs mostly in areas that are less dense than Brooklyn overall, but it still attracts high ridership. (Berlin’s most central borough, Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg, has a density of 13,000 people/km2, equivalent to that of Brooklyn; the rest of Berlin, however, has about half that density.) Why not, then, envision a similarly ambitious program for transit expansion in Brooklyn?

Indeed, though streetcars have far lower capacity than subways, they’re far cheaper to build and they carry significantly more people than bus lines when they’re built close to light rail standards, with some of their own running way, high-quality stations, and extended vehicles. Because they’re electrically operated, they’re also pollution-free (directly, not necessarily indirectly). For a city that’s incapable of building a tiny two-mile extension of its subway system on time and on budget, a streetcar network might be the solution.

The blog highlights much of southeastern Brooklyn, Red Hook and parts of Bed Stuy as areas whose residents desperately need better access to existing public transit. Crazy, or so crazy it just might work?
Streetcars for Brooklyn: A New Life? [The Transport Politic]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9663

Comments

We already have a network of streetcars.

They're called buses.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 8, 2009 10:03 AM

We have streetcars that run in the summer in Philly....right past our house. Love the bells.

I also have an old tax photo of my house and you can see a streetcar on Halsey St in the corner of the photo.

The ones in SF on Market St are a big success. I know they have Philly and NYC original cars out there. Bring 'em back.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 8, 2009 10:05 AM

This is a giant waste of money. Maybe building some schools would be a better idea.

Posted by: billyboomer at May 8, 2009 10:15 AM

The money for this is coming from where exactly?

Posted by: TownhouseLady at May 8, 2009 10:16 AM

pipe dream.

You willing to pay higher taxes to subsidize this nostalgia?

Posted by: Petebklyn at May 8, 2009 10:17 AM

The raised hightway and raised train infrastructure provides perfect placement for streetcars- All along northern Atlantic Ave, for instance; park ave/wallabout area/gowanus/BQE/Prospect Expressway-

All of these existing corridors could be used to link up areas and subway lines that have traditionally been better at bringing commuters to brooklyn then bringing brooklyn residents to other parts of brooklyn-

Posted by: Park Place at May 8, 2009 10:17 AM

wow! streetcars! Back to the future.
What next? mule carts?
Way to go on the progress front Brooklyn!

This would be a good idea only if the streetcars conveyed all fresh direct deliveries.

Posted by: sam at May 8, 2009 10:20 AM

True, Snark, but the problem with buses is that they are subject to traffic, and a light rail line wouldn't be, so it's much faster. The main problem people have with buses is that they are slow. A trolley could be timed better, too, so, unlike a bus, you won't wait forever, only to see 3 of them bunched up, one behing the other.

This is a no brainer for public transportation, especially in the areas mentioned above, which are woefully underserved. Historically speaking, the advent of train lines, followed by the subways, opened up much of Brooklyn to its initial development. Trolley lines could expand that today, so that living so far out would not neccessitate having a car to get to work. A shorter, or easier commute would enable these areas to grow, improve, and be generally more desireable to more people.

Of course, being NYC, they will waste millions on studies, then get the process stalled in legislation, while people figure out the best way to make some money for themselves and friends, and after a generation, during which time the costs will triple anyway, due to inflation, they will finally announce this grand idea. Look for light rail to be around when most of you are eligible for a senior fare. I, hopefully, will be in heaven then.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at May 8, 2009 10:21 AM

Brilliant idea! Where do I send my cheque?

Posted by: the chicken at May 8, 2009 10:24 AM

this is a great, although unlikely idea.

if the city is able to remove the "privilege" from the cold dead hands of the car owners and dedicate lanes for this purpose it would be a huge win. economically, ecologicially, societally.

but that may be difficult.

when they reopened the girard line in philly recently it was stalled almost a year because some neighborhood at the end didnt want to give up 7 parking spots for a turnaround. and like most of west philly the neighborihood was, by the standards of this board, a shithole.

dont get me wrong, i love philly, but the end of the line there was truly "the end of the line."

Posted by: bkn4life at May 8, 2009 10:25 AM

Things like this make me wish I could designate how my real estate and income taxes are spent. I have no use for schools. I'm not saying they don't need more, bettter ones but I myself pay a lot of taxes in 3 states to fund schoools that I don't have any use for.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 8, 2009 10:27 AM

Toronto is the last North American city that kept most of its streetcar network. It works great, especially if you like autos backed up behind them wasting gas and spewing pollution.

Posted by: Suburbandude at May 8, 2009 10:28 AM

"Brilliant idea! Where do I send my cheque?"

Chicken, email me and I'll give you the address - or you can just hand it over at Sycamore.

Montrose Morris is unfortunately correct regarding the length of time this will take. The MTA (or whoever it is) is taking a year - a year! - to rebuild one of the stairways at the Ditmas station on the F. Or so says the sign on the stairway.

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at May 8, 2009 10:28 AM

oh wait - I think I need a self re-write:

"Cheque! Where do I send my brilliant idea?"

Posted by: the chicken at May 8, 2009 10:33 AM

Bob Diamond talks about street cars in his Atlantic Ave tunnel tour. Apparently after discovering the tunnel he was tapped to design a street car system. Needless to say, funding didn't pan out (with term limits and re-elections, the plan lost momentum).

I find the idea charming but not necessary.

Posted by: alsawo at May 8, 2009 10:34 AM

Montrose's post was on the money in all respects. Including calling it a lightrail instead of a trolley, which is what it would really be. Lightrails are obviously cheaper and easier to build than a subways, but, yeah, there'd still be a lot of bureaucratic red tape. Other cities (like Portland) have had success annexing lightrails onto existing freeways.

Posted by: Kris at May 8, 2009 10:35 AM

sixyears, it does seem pretty ridiculous how long some of these seemingly straightforward things seem to take.

I've often stood on the Cortelyou Rd station platform and wondered how long it would take to scrape off the peeling paint and redo it. I figured that a team of 10-15 people could get it done overnight.

Who wants to join me in some guerilla painting action???!!

Posted by: the chicken at May 8, 2009 10:38 AM

Bring on the streetcars! I commuted on one in Australia and it was awesome - they even had the honor system for tickets (I'd like to see that happen in NYC!). Streetcars used to be all over the place until the 1950s, when the auto and oil companies paid to have the tracks dug up. All kinds of cities and even suburban areas would benefit from streetcars. Won't happen in soon though, I agree....

Posted by: slopenick at May 8, 2009 10:38 AM

chicken, if it involves the MTA it is going to be

1. Mismanaged
2. Excessively costly
3. Slow
4. Bogged down by the most onerous of union bullshit.
5. Fugly

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 8, 2009 10:41 AM

> "the problem with buses is that they are subject to traffic,
> and a light rail line wouldn't be"

How would they not be subject to traffic? The green line trains in Boston, for example, certainly are. Will they build a series of overpasses to avoid traffic crossing the streets they traverse?

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 8, 2009 10:41 AM

Other cities use light rail systems very effectively and if you want to look at a waste of money, the new East side train line is a huge waste. One short straight leg east of Lex. For the amount of money they are spending on that, they could have spent on light rail to benefit a heck of a lot more people. the other problem with the new subway line is that it has driven a number of businesses out because of the street work. My uncle lives in a senior residence on 96th- they have blocked the sidewalk so that an ambulance cannot get close to the building in an emergency, and it is expected to stay tht way for months.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 8, 2009 10:41 AM

Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope for the MTA:

- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/nyregion/08mta.html

"On the same day that Gov. David A. Paterson signed a rescue bill for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, its executive director resigned on Thursday to allow the governor to take the agency in 'a different direction.'"

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 8, 2009 10:44 AM

We have a light rail in Jersey City. It is a huge success and connects many of the other neighborhoods together and provides mass transit to people living in those areas. Look at the 2nd avenue subway, it's going to costs billions to dig those tunnels as well as years to complete. The light rail in Jersey City/Hoboken was completed in a couple years and cost a fraction of a new subway tunnel.

Posted by: Adam Dahill at May 8, 2009 10:45 AM

Streetcars are NOT nostalgia... converting American cities to Bus-only transit systems was HUGE mistake.

Streetcars are both viable and effective!

They are NOT buses.

They create a sense of permanence and regularity for economic areas that buses do not. They are easier to navigate than buses. And there are MANY options that make streetcars either not subject to or less subject to traffic.

Posted by: tybur6 at May 8, 2009 10:49 AM

If the corrupt Jersey politicians can implement a light rail system in a couple of years what does that say about the MTA?

MTA more corrupt than a Jersey Politician.

Posted by: Adam Dahill at May 8, 2009 10:52 AM

DIBS taking another jab at the unions - instead of the well-funded corporate lobbying contract-overrun-producing currupt bidding procedures of capitalist corporate america and its leadership. Thats where the real money goes.

Posted by: Petebklyn at May 8, 2009 10:53 AM

adam- and this is a surprise to you? :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at May 8, 2009 10:54 AM

Yes, Snark, I saw that resignation story earlier in the Friday Links.

Pete...notice I put as the number one reason "Mismanaged" which would be management, not union.

Please, if you can, tell me of an industry that's been heavily unionized that is doing a really good job at things.

Steel, Airlines, Autos, any branch of the government, post office, transportation, construction???

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 8, 2009 10:58 AM

I bet there would be good profit to be made from building a streetcar system in Brooklyn.

If this were 2006 and I could lock in a decent amount of committed capital, I'd think about doing it myself...

DIBS, that's why I was suggested that we do it ourselves! Imagine people's surprise when they turn up for their morning commute and see a shiny freshly-painted platform!

Posted by: the chicken at May 8, 2009 10:58 AM

chicken- I'm in!

Posted by: bxgrl at May 8, 2009 11:01 AM

looking at the tiny map it looks like several lines would pass through Brooklyn Heights. I for one do not want trolleys on my street. The streets in the Heights are very narrow and the construction would be a nightmare. We already have seven subway lines in the neib, so I would fight against streetcars. Besides, by the time the TA gets its act together, levitating cars that run on recycled kitty litter will probably be invented.

Posted by: mcKenzie at May 8, 2009 11:02 AM

Streetcars, light rail, call 'em what you want, but they are subject to traffic. Indeed, if you've taken the Atlantic Tunnel Tour, you know that tunnel was built so as to take the trains out of the traffic (granted, those were real trains with limited brakes).

Aside from the complete clusterfuck the government would make of this -- when was the Second Ave subway line first planned? 1929 -- the truth is streetcars would end up being installed in areas where they aren't really needed (Park Slope, Cobble Hills, Boerum Hill) ... and not in the less dense or less well serviced areas where they would actually be useful.

Posted by: RaginCajun at May 8, 2009 11:03 AM

Also... It makes me ANGRY when I see phrases like "floated by some enthusiasts." Moving people is a SCIENCE.

Streetcars and other non-bus transportation is not all about good feeling and nostalgia and "enthusiasts." It's PRIMARILY about what is the BEST way to move people... to make the most enjoyable commuting experience so they *choose* public transportation... to make journeys quick and efficient... to have a positive impact on the community and it's economic areas... to reduce congestion and improve traffic for vehicles like delivery trucks and so on...

Public infrastructure isn't based on "enthusiasm" -- it's bases on real information and decisions. THOUGH, it does require enthusiasm to convince people to actually LOOK AT the data... and get past their hang-ups. Just because we haven't done it in a while (due to a poor decision based on short-term costs vs. long-term benefit), it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it again!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: tybur6 at May 8, 2009 11:04 AM

I love this notion that streetcars were eliminated in the 1950's because of a conspiracy with the oil companies and the car companies. Baloney! Go back to 1950 and try to find one person who was not happy to replace streetcars with buses.

Posted by: Suburbandude at May 8, 2009 11:05 AM

McKenzie -- the map shows the current *subway* lines.

Posted by: tybur6 at May 8, 2009 11:06 AM

McKenzie- the width of the street would probably determine which streets light rail would run, but given that, the fact that you have 7 subway lines in our neighborhood (I used to live there too, BTW) is an advantage most other neighborhoods don't have so if a light rail system improves public transportation all over brooklyn and they need to put it on your street- well, that's too bad. Yours is a very selfish, and shortsighted point of view.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 8, 2009 11:07 AM

> "MANY options that make streetcars either not subject
> to or less subject to traffic."

I'll bite. Name one.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 8, 2009 11:08 AM

bxgrl, we might be onto something...

Do you reckon we could round up a dozen people for this?

Posted by: the chicken at May 8, 2009 11:10 AM

suburbandude- what was the reason they changed over?

tyburg- agreed!

Posted by: bxgrl at May 8, 2009 11:10 AM

Snark, I'm sure someone smarter than I am, and well versed in this field could figure something out. Dedicated lanes in the street, something. Obviously, since they are using the existing streets, there will be stops for lights. I fully admit my thoughts on a system have not burst forth full grown from my forehead, I'm just thinking this could be a good idea.

I think the main advantage will be in places out in the hinterlands of the boroughs that may not be as built up, or where more construction for a lane could take place without harming too much of the existing neighborhood. The idea is to connect far flung parts of the borough to subway lines, not necessarily to take them from wherever to Borough Hall.

The idea is at least worth some serious thought from people in the position to affect changes. Something needs to be done.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at May 8, 2009 11:12 AM

> "MANY options that make streetcars either not subject
> to or less subject to traffic."

I'll bite. Name one.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 8, 2009 11:08 AM

EASY...they could just run the light like the buses do.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 8, 2009 11:14 AM

Why not? We restore brownstones. This would rock!

Oh wait! I drive. This would suck!

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at May 8, 2009 11:17 AM

"Please, if you can, tell me of an industry that's been heavily unionized that is doing a really good job at things.
" -
I'd be at a loss the name an industry doing good job at things unionized or not. Certainly not the mostly un-unionized financial industry.

Posted by: Petebklyn at May 8, 2009 11:17 AM

I have no idea what the map shows.
I am sure that if put to a brownstoner plebecite the results would be overwhlemingly to screw Brooklyn Heights.
It is where old people live -so screw them.
But in any case, the idea of clinkity clunkity streetcars anywhere downtown, Court Street, Atlantic Avenue, Joralemon Street, would be a disaster. Why do you think people got rid of them in the first place? Plus they are very dangerous, people got run over by streetcars every day. The Brooklyn Dodgers got their name for dodging streetcars. The whole idea is ridiculous. sorry. Just maintain the streets and keep them open and maintain the storm sewers and plow when it snows and I am happy.

Posted by: mcKenzie at May 8, 2009 11:21 AM

If the city can designate bike lanes, they certainly can designate street lanes for light rail. I'd rather see that, then bike lanes, actually.

The lightrail lane has to be kept clear of cars- so you won't be sitting behind a long line of cars making turns or backed up behind some driver texting a message.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 8, 2009 11:21 AM

I say bring back the Dodgers too. The hell with the Yankees and the Mets.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 8, 2009 11:25 AM

McKenzie- if you're thinking clinkity clunkity streetcars are what we're talking about here, you're in the wrong century. So explain to me, if they are so dangerous, how is it so many other cities operate light rail systems successfully? easy for you to say keep the streets open and maintained- if you have a car. That's not a good or green solution. Again, shortsighted and selfish.

Dangerous? You mean like cars and bikes? Which were much less when the dodgers got their name so what does that prove? Nothing.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 8, 2009 11:26 AM

Please tell me ONE advantage of streetcars over buses assuming they both have dedicated right-of-ways?

Posted by: fsrg at May 8, 2009 11:35 AM

Dollar vans are the de facto streetcars nowadays...

Posted by: infinitejester at May 8, 2009 11:37 AM

McKenzie... have you been to a city with streetcars?!?!?!

Talk about nostalgia.

So, buses are such a really great thing? They are moving people adequately? They maintain regular schedules? They don't get bunched up and stuck in traffic?

OK -- If you all hat street cars so much, how about bus lanes? And NOT the ones the city already has... REAL ONES! Ones that have a separation and delivery trucks can't park in. Some cities also allow taxi cabs to drive in those lanes because they are considered part of the "public transportation."

You keep trolleys and buses out of traffic by giving them their own (protected/separated) lanes and give them signal priority. It's called city planning and traffic science!!

Don't you think the city and state has dozens of highly qualified architects, planners, engineers and so on with degrees from MIT, CalTech and such.... BUT they are held back by political forces. They are held back by folks that remember things like "Brooklyn Dodgers" and have no real data to support anything... People are hit by BUSES too!!! People are hit by Cars!! People are hit by goddamn subways!! What the christ!!

Posted by: tybur6 at May 8, 2009 11:39 AM

Having just come back from my first trip to Rome, I suggest the MTA overlords go there for a visit (easy sell?) The transport there is awesome (if crowded). While only 2 subway lines, there are about a million bus/tram lines (a downside of having that many lines is that the bus map is incomprehensible; better to just jump on a bus which looks like it's going your way.) And the frequency is 5-8 minutes on all of them!

And they have a 1Euro ($1.30) ticket that's good for 75 mins on anything. Honor system, so no jam at the front door, you can enter anywhere.

btw, light rail/tram systems need dedicated lanes to work better than buses (and are equivalent to true bus rapid transit (BRT)) else they will be affected by traffic. And imo, a line of cars, honking or otherwise, behind light rail is just where we need to be.

Subarandude has an apt handle. Chill out, dude.

Well, we can dream.

Posted by: cmu at May 8, 2009 11:39 AM

tybur, go nuts dude.

Posted by: infinitejester at May 8, 2009 11:42 AM

fsrg: you are right there. There are few advantages if both have dedicated ROW. For an excellent example of Bus Rapid Transit check out Curitba in SA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curitiba#Public_transport

And BRT is cheaper but less sexy...buses?? I ain't riding no buses

Posted by: cmu at May 8, 2009 11:46 AM

fsrq... I already named several advantages Streetcars have over buses. But I will do it again.

** They create a sense of permanence and regularity for economic areas that buses do not.
** They are easier to navigate than buses (the tracks tell you what to expect)
** While streetcars have higher up-front costs, long-term maintenance is lower (train cars last longer than buses)
** Street cars are safer and less vulnerable to disruption in bad weather (especially ice and snowy days)
** The majority of people find trains more comfortable than buses because of the regularity of the surface and they are usually slightly roomier.
** Streetcars can be designed to provide different options for loading and unloading, fare taking and so on, to increase the speed of loading/unloading

Do you want more?

Posted by: tybur6 at May 8, 2009 11:47 AM

bxgirl, I don't know about other cities and streetcars, I'm not a know-it-all, or pretend to be one. I don't know what space-age streetcars look like. I just know that I am barely able to cope right now with the hassle and expense and overcrowding in my neighborhood and I don't think I could bear another huge problem. The street corner near my home at Joralemon and Hicks has been opened up and in a state of disaster for a month. Some days they close down HIcks STreet altogether. YOu know what they are doing? repairing a gas pipe. This has taken a month. four backhoes, truckloads of temporary asphalt goop, steel plates, giant concrete things on the sidewalk that they have to bury. it is a warzone. and it is all to repair a gas line. could you just imagine streetcars? they also would have to be handicap accessible and they would not be allowed to interfere with bicycles. The mind boggles. it would be a hundred-year construction project. I'm down today on public works in NYC. They never seem to run efficiently or to ever be finished.

Posted by: mcKenzie at May 8, 2009 11:48 AM

McKenzie, bxgrl is right. People get run over by cars every day too. At least with streetcars/light rail, you'd have A) drivers who are (in theory) competent professionals, and B) a limited and clearly defined area where it's unsafe to stand/walk (not much risk of a streetcar jumping up on the sidewalk).

That map pretty clearly shows that there are some areas that are underserved by existing transit options. (Yes, there are buses, but we all know how much those can suck.) Streetcars would certainly be more feasible than pipe dream plans I've heard floated to extend the L or the 2/5.

Posted by: hermanjoshua at May 8, 2009 11:54 AM

McKenzie- I hear you. I lived there until 2003 and yes, the overcrowding and the huge amounts of construction have really burdened the neighborhood. While I lived on Schermerhorn they begin putting up the Bklyn law dorm- right behind us. It was a nightmare. then there was all the construction on Court, and even more on Schermerhorn and then it seemed like the entire construction world discovered us and that was it.

Its a prime example of almost non-existent city planning- its all bits and pieces. The Heights is a transportation hub, its close to Manhattan - its a victim of its own success. I just believe that we need to rethink public transportation in a big way- and all of us will be inconvenienced but all of us will ultimately benefit. I love CHN, but we would love to have more public works going on. We need it- there is no such thing as "benign neglect"-

Posted by: bxgrl at May 8, 2009 11:59 AM

tybur6 your going to need more:

** They create a sense of permanence and regularity for economic areas that buses do not.

--How can this be measured and even if true, they also have FAR less flexibility, therefore if areas needs change due to economic, social or enviromental reasons - you can not easily accomodate these changes with streetcars....At best a tie

** They are easier to navigate than buses (the tracks tell you what to expect)

For whom? in reality buses are far easier to navicate (i.e. steer) than a train - making a train route turn a corner (which may be very helpful in creating the best route) is FAR easier and cheaper for a bus (with a dedicated ROW) then creating the same maneuver in tracks (which requires alot more space)...Advantage Bus

** While streetcars have higher up-front costs, long-term maintenance is lower (train cars last longer than buses) - lasting longer does not = lower costs and even if true the up front costs for a train are EXPONENTIALLY higher than a bus - not to mention that for streetcars you have to maintain an entirely different infrastructure (tracks and power delivery) whereas with a bus, the ROW will be the same basic upkeep that you are already providing to the regular roadway (i.e. economies of scale) thereby making buses far cheaper overall (which is why they replaced streetcars in the 1st place)....advantage bus

** Street cars are safer and less vulnerable to disruption in bad weather (especially ice and snowy days)

You have no empirical evidence of this, mainly because I would guess it is not true, and certainly anecdotal I do not see our current (non-light rail system) performing especially well in the snow, I can not recall the last bus accident fatality, nor do I see removing snow from a streetcar track being any easier then plowing a road...with out evidence - this one is a wash at best

** The majority of people find trains more comfortable than buses because of the regularity of the surface and they are usually slightly roomier.

Please direct me to the study on this - nor are streetcars inherently roomer than a bus - it all depends on how you build them. as for the comfort of the ride....is that really a major consideration anyway?? Ill give this to you as an irrelevat advantage for streetcars.

** Streetcars can be designed to provide different options for loading and unloading, fare taking and so on, to increase the speed of loading/unloading

Anything you can do in streetcar design - you can do for bus design ... tie again.

So yes you still need to show a relevant advantage for streetcars - because if you are designing a streetlevel mass transit with a dedicated ROW - I cant see a single legitimate one.

Posted by: fsrg at May 8, 2009 12:15 PM

It's seems like several posters here are saying "it sucks right now so let's just leave it alone." Which makes no sense.

And when you think about it, the subway is actually pretty amazing and comprehensive... and much of it was built over 100 years ago! That is a pretty good payback on the investment. Is the subway expansive enough to last the city another 100 years, as the city continues to grow and expand? No. That's why we need to think forward.

A well-designed lightrail that uses a special cordoned-off lane of a freeway is very fast. Lights can be timed for approaching trains, as they are in many other cities. Your metrocard offers you transfer to a bus or subway if needed. This would be a real, viable alternative to using a car. People will use it if it's faster and less of a hassle than driving.

Posted by: Kris at May 8, 2009 12:15 PM

The map on the Transport Politic blog indicates the existing subway lines in Brooklyn. The shaded colored areas around these existing lines indicates the distance from 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile. Just glancing at it, you can see most of the gray area is along the waterfront and in the Midwood/Canarsie area. The idea proposed from Park Place is logical since most of the underserved areas are cut off by existing highways. By burying the existing highways in Brooklyn and placing a light rail system over them this would be beneficial. It will be very expensive but the government should try to privatize the light rail and/or sell air rights to developers to build housing over them. They were able to do this for Grand Central Station.

Posted by: turcod at May 8, 2009 12:16 PM

PS - there's a really cool ongoing exhibit (multimedia presentation, actually) at the Museum of the City of New York. In 25 minutes, it takes you through the growth and history of New York from native American villages through the present day, including how the spread of public transit and commuter railways affected the growth.

I'm making it sound boring, but it's actually very, very cool. Check it out if you're ever in the vicinity of 5th Ave and 105th.

Here's a link: http://www.mcny.org/exhibitions/current/timescapes-a-multimedia-portrait-of-new-york.html

Bonus: the exterior of the museum doubles as the exterior of the school on Gossip Girl!

Posted by: Kris at May 8, 2009 12:21 PM

buses are dirty, overcrowded, uncomfortable and irregular. they get stuck behind cars because a bus lane is a fallacy in NYC. they are not really dedicated lanes. Buses take a beating every day in traffic. And I think we're confusing new light rail/streetcars systems with the old streetcar system. there are worlds apart.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 8, 2009 12:21 PM

fsrq... EVERYTHING i stated above is based on science and empirical studies.

You're "counter-arguments" are not supported, so why should I pull together the research? You can do this just as easily as me. I'm not saying that buses don't have positives -- but there are DEFINITELY areas of this city where the introduction of streetcars would be VASTLY better than buses.

Sticking with a *Bus-Only* approach requires JUST AS MUCH justification as an approach that involves adding streetcars or other forms of transportation that the city does not currently use. Just keeping on is NOT an option, the current transportation system is broken.

Posted by: tybur6 at May 8, 2009 12:24 PM

frsg, clearly you've never ridden on a lightrail.

Posted by: Kris at May 8, 2009 12:25 PM

Historical accounts always reference the huge number of people struck and killed by streetcars. It makes sense, they can't stop quickly, and they are on grade. They are much, much more dangerous to pedestians than either cars or buses.
I think that a system of light rail could make sense at various key nodal points to link up with the subways. The problem is that there are so many conflicting interests in the city from the bikers to the drivers to the tree-huggers etc etc that these sorts of projects have become very difficult. It is a miracle that the light rail system to Kennedy airport was ever finished.
Right now when the MTA's finances are down the toilet and many officials are privately saying that the whole system is not financially sustainable, I don't think we are going to see many mutli-billion dollar projects being proposed. At this point, Washington wants you to do your patriotic duty and BUY A NEW CAR!

Posted by: sam at May 8, 2009 12:38 PM

Many countries have been adding lightrail/trams/streetcars. The initial cost is high. NONE make money-they aren't designed too(BTW I know of no mass transit systems makes money either NY City's transit system is publicly run because all the private companies that owned them initially went bankrupt)

They do move lots of people relatively cheaply. The City is just beginning to try something called Bus Rapid transit where the buses have dedicated lanes and schedules...

Posted by: smeyer418 at May 8, 2009 12:39 PM

Food for thought:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Line_(MBTA)

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 8, 2009 12:44 PM

tybur6 who said anything about "Keeping on" I said that a streetcar is no better (and more expensive) than a bus with a dedicated ROW.

We do not have buses with a dedicated ROW - and I support that - I do not support spending extra billions on an unnecessary alternative that offers few if any advantages.

And yes I dispute that your points are supported by empirical studies (not sure how "science" plays into it), and I challenge you to cite a specific one. My points are not based on some non-existent science but rather common sense that anyone can see( i.e. streetcars are basically electric buses that run on a track). Give a bus a track (dedicated ROW) w/o the expense of the actual tracks, switches and power delivery and you get all the advantage and little of the expense.

Kris, clearly you do not know me or WTF you are talking about.

Posted by: fsrg at May 8, 2009 12:48 PM

I love the idea of using East Berlin as a model for Brooklyn. The steps to follow are the following:
1: be bombed to rubble by Soviet artillery and American air carpet bombing
2: be ocupied for about fifty years by a repressive totalitarian government.
3: be subsidized by West Germany when the totalitarian regime falls.

Posted by: sam at May 8, 2009 12:58 PM

Sam kinda hit on the head there in his 2nd & 3rd paragraphs from 12:38pm

Posted by: gemini10 at May 8, 2009 1:02 PM

It's true I don't know you, fsrg. But untrue that's there are no studies or science behind the light rail vs. fast bus debate. So maybe, just maybe, it is you that doesn't know WTF you're talking about.

Fast buses in dedicated lanes vs. light rails are a national debate. There are pros and cons for both and there's not a clear cut winner.

Here's an article from a Portland paper comparing both, and it even cites studies:
http://www.portlandtribune.com/sustainable/story.php?story_id=119463522630488700

Posted by: Kris at May 8, 2009 1:12 PM

The light rail system to Kennedy is a poster child of what NOT to do...start from the middle of nowhere so you have to take another mode of transit to get there, schelp yoou bags several 100 yds, then pay a lot to get to the airport. What a stupid planning idea.

SF took years, but finally (and with the same objecgtors, taxi/limo/bus services) just made the existing BART line loop thru the airport. What a brilliant success, it's so easy to reach SF or points south by BART now.

Posted by: cmu at May 8, 2009 1:14 PM

I disagree cmu, I think the light rail to Kennedy is pretty good. The A train to Howard beach is convenient for Brooklynites and the E out to Archer Avenue is convenient to folks along the E and F lines including midtown manhattan. The cost is another matter. We are not subsidized by the west german banks like the folks in East Berlin. We have to pay, and through the nose, for all these things. Really, the US government would prefer you to just buy a car leave them alone.

Posted by: sam at May 8, 2009 1:27 PM

Yeah, if you get to the A/C which does not stop at the obvious place, Atlantic. It's pretty inconvenient for me in PS.

And if they were thinking about it, looping the A/C to Kennedy at the current transfer point and adding additional service would've been a far better solution. Oh, no, we have to have yet another oddball made-only-in-Spain train system with all its overruns and quirks.

Posted by: cmu at May 8, 2009 1:36 PM

GUYS GUYS GUYS. Just take the PATH 1 stop from WTC and you can se how the light rail is a major success in Hudson County. It look them 6 years to complete. 6 years!!!

Take a look at the link below. It has pictures of the lightrail/streetcar, which is basically the subway above ground on the street. It works and nobody gets run over.

http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/JerseyCity/

If Jersey can do it, why can't Brooklyn.

Posted by: Adam Dahill at May 8, 2009 1:45 PM

Also, no fumes and no noise. These things are silent.

Posted by: Adam Dahill at May 8, 2009 1:47 PM

wasn't Jersey city fire bombed too?
Its easier when there is little there there.

Posted by: sam at May 8, 2009 1:51 PM

Kris nice op-ed piece, I mostly disagree and I see no citations

Posted by: fsrg at May 8, 2009 1:53 PM

Indeed Adam, it looks great.

Now let's get rolling with eminent domain, start knocking down houses, and widening the streets to make room for a light rail system.

May we start with yours?

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 8, 2009 1:54 PM

No wonder nothing ever gets done around here. Nay-sayers win the day. What f(89ing widening of the streets, Snarkslope? If you've been paying attention, the idea is to USE THE EXISTING ROW and dedicate a lane for BRT or light rail. Portland, San Francisco, Jersey City, Rome all put in light rail and didn't tear down 1 house.

Posted by: cmu at May 8, 2009 2:11 PM

Sorry, my building is historic snarky :)

As you can see it runs along major roads. Nothing was knocked down to run the tracks. Run it down major avenues not down some tiny 1 way side street. I'm not a City Planner but many neighborhoods are not served by the subways and or need more access.

Red Hook, Sheephead Bay, Dyker Heights, Bed Stuy, Canarsie, Mill Basin, Brooklyn College, Brownsville, etc....

And how about Queens? Connecting Brooklyn and Queens via a street car system would be great. I think Queens has it much worse than Brooklyn in terms of mass transit.

Yes, it would take some more thought and planning but I believe its a step in the right direction.

Posted by: Adam Dahill at May 8, 2009 2:12 PM

cmu - Yes, BRT will fit.

Light rail not so much.

Now if *you* were paying attention, you might have noticed that was topic of my comment.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 8, 2009 2:15 PM

So, which roads do we think are wide enough to accommodate a light rail system?

Fourth Ave?

Ocean Parkway?

Eastern Parkway?

Flatbush Ave?

I believe if a road is considered a highway, than the law prohibits putting rails in it. One could change the law, of course.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 8, 2009 2:20 PM

the other thing people are not considering is if there is a light rail built to service say, red hook, there will be an ecxplosion of new development. red hook will not be red hook with a light rail connection. Look at what happened to semi-rural Roosevelt Island after they created the F train stop.

Posted by: sam at May 8, 2009 2:22 PM

Fourth Ave? YES

Ocean Parkway? YES

Eastern Parkway? YES

Flatbush Ave? YES

Also, Greenpoint ave into Queens alogn with Grand Ave, Flushing Ave, maybe Linde Blvd, Ave D, Ave J, etc.

Not sure about Highways, but I would kill to take a street car along the BQE instead of sitting in traffic, maybe even over the Veranzano connecting Staten Island without taking a ferry.

One can only wish.

Posted by: Adam Dahill at May 8, 2009 2:32 PM

awesome... maybe the tracks can be put down in the idiotic bicycle lanes and actually be utilized by more than one person per hour

Posted by: illig at May 8, 2009 2:38 PM

In Portland, what they did was build the light rail next to the existing freeway, or in some places, kind of on top of it. Nothing had to be torn down, and in most places they didn't take away a lane of the freeway.

Here in NYC, I could see a light rail being useful in a similar way, like sort of a sidecar or a second story to an existing elevated freeway like the Belt or the BQE.

I don't think either BRT or a light rail is in NYC's foreseeable future, but my vote would be for light rail as long they could do it without having to remove an existing lane of traffic.

Posted by: Kris at May 8, 2009 2:45 PM

You know... if a light rail/trolley/streetcar just magically appeared overnight, all of the nay-sayers would be just as fucking fuming if someone proposed to remove it and replace it with buses!!

It's always fight any sort of change... because there's a slight possibility it might not be perfect for every situation. But, guess what, what we have now is NOT either. In fact, it sort of sucks if you live anywhere other than BH and Downtown Brooklyn.

Soooo ridiculous.

Streetcars won't work because the street I have pictured in my head is too small and the route I have invented in my head requires lots of hairpin turns! Are you fucking retarded?!?!?!

BRT? that would be great, but it's not the whole solution. Streetcars? Absolutely, but admittedly they are not perfect for everywhere... But stop just saying NO! This is stupid and unproductive. "I don't want streetcars because that would be different." That is what I am hearing!

Posted by: tybur6 at May 8, 2009 3:06 PM

Oh... and fsrq... Do you honestly think that cities around the world are building new streetcar systems and revamping old/existing ones because they "like trains"??!!

I am still resisting providing you with the scientific (traffic and movement) and empirical studies (economic impact and commute time changes)... because there are LOTS and LOTS of them. You can simply google and find plenty. YES, and some of it is in support of buses! and buses with ROW lanes! and so on.

Posted by: tybur6 at May 8, 2009 3:13 PM

I would be happy if they fixed the potholes on the BQE.
This is NY you gotta be realistic in terms of what you expect the gov. to do for you.

Posted by: mcKenzie at May 8, 2009 4:35 PM

mcKenzie... if there was a proper transportation infrastructure that favored moving people instead of expanding access to cars, then there would be FEWER potholes on the BQE. I'm not saying it wouldn't take a long to *fix* them, just that it would take a lot longer for them to form! Less traffic, roads last longer!!

Posted by: tybur6 at May 8, 2009 4:52 PM

tyburg, i don't know if you have noticed but there is a lot less traffic now than last year. I drive a lot and i find that on many days the streets of manhattan are fairly empty, the fdr is a dream lately, the recession has decreased traffic. i can really see it. hypothetically, an even worse recession could reduce traffic even more, and a really bad epidemic that kills tens of thousands could really clear out the bqe. but the thing is this, healthy cities have a lot of traffic. traffic is commerce, it's activity. nyc is not a maple syrup farm, it is a giant city with all kinds of activity and noise and traffic. when that is diminished, you should worry, not rejoice. forget light rails and other pipe dreams, if you are looking for a green utopia you should move. I hear east berlin is very green.

Posted by: mcKenzie at May 8, 2009 7:19 PM

I'm late to the party, but unlike everyone else here, I have many years of experience as a daily trolly rider, growing up in Philadelphia. Unless you take away two moving lanes of traffic to give them a dedicated right of way, which isn't going to happen, trollies are much worse than buses.
The down side of trollies is:

1) Fixed tracks. When a car or truck is double parked on the tracks, or there's an accident, you just sit. Unlike a bus which can maneuver around it. And when there's road construction, they have to suspend service. They can't just reroute it while National Grid digs up the street.

2) Steel wheels on steel tracks have LESS traction than rubber on asphalt, and have a very yard time getting through even the lightest snow.

3) Catenary wires are damn ugly.

Posted by: Sparafucile at May 8, 2009 8:52 PM

I agree that the bureaucratic red tape alone could snuff this idea, but I think it's worth supporting because certain neighborhoods in BKLYN and Queens have terrible subway and bus access. I rode the trolly for years when I lived in Boston, and it's far better than riding a bus. For one, it has its own dedicated lane in the middle of an avenue, and though it does have to stop at red lights, it goes much faster than cars and buses because it doesn't share lanes with them. The trolly cars are also much wider than buses, and the seating is set up more like a subway car, so you have more room to maneuver, even when carrying bags. It's kind of like having the convenience of a bus (in the sense you can catch one from a regular street corner, without having to go underground) with the space and (abbreviated) speed of a subway or train. Lastly, the more modern light-rail trains that exist in Europe (I rode one in Barcelona) are virtually like riding a new, above-ground subway car, and there is far less electrical wiring than older trollies. These are typically routed on wider avenues, not single-lane streets. Think about how useful it would be to have swifter public transportation again on streets like Myrtle Avenue!

Posted by: Inquisigal at May 9, 2009 1:31 AM

mcKenzie... I'm glad you've just decided NYC is a lost cause.

Posted by: tybur6 at May 9, 2009 1:49 AM

Generally sounds like an idea worth exploring (though the discussions of multi-million dollar research, legislative bureaucracy and threats of eminent domain do give me pause). Because I like the scenic route, I'd prefer buses over subways any day. To me, riding on the subway is like riding in a moving coffin.

However, practically speaking, buses are just slower than subways, and when I have to get somewhere, I hate to wait, so I end up on the subway.

A streetcar could provide the best of both worlds. Of course the streetcar probably wouldn't be quite as fast as the subway, but at least it could make above-ground transport a more viable option.

Posted by: Wont UB My Nabor at May 9, 2009 8:45 PM

Yes maybe they could get the same workers that are doing the refurbishment on the BQE and Gowanus. We might be able to see the first train car go by in 2090.

Posted by: hannible at May 10, 2009 4:08 PM

« Rosie Revisited Fireworks Backlash »

May 8, 2009

Could Streetcars Return to Brooklyn?

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions