The Role Of Mass Transit In Brooklyn's Renaissance

[Ocklawaha]

New York City did indeed have surface streetcars + EL's + Ferries +


Here is the Brooklyn System.


TIMES SQUARE - STREETCARS


CABLE CARS

[thelakelander]

The last couple of pages







Great renderings Jason.  Ock, any idea of how much it would cost to construct a ground level Skyway platform at the Skyway's Operations Center?

[Ocklawaha]

Yes using an industry cost guide of $250,000 for a BRT station or $500,000 for light rail, I'd say we'd be in for at or under the BRT station cost. Reason? The stop in Brooklyn will not need the elevators, escalators and overhead cross walks used in many light rail stations. Staying with the minimalist concept would serve us well, the largest cost for the Skyway System is likely to be in the automatic train stop linked to the safety fencing. The butterfly roof would hopefully set a standard for all future Skyway stations.

[tufsu1]

btw....as for NYC subways, check out the Second Avenue project.

It has been bantered about for over 80 years....and finally the first phase (covering 33 blocks) is under construction...at a cost of over $1 billion!

http://www.mta.info/capital/future/avenue-subway.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway

and yes, while NYC finally moves ahead on heavy-rail subway expansion, they are also doing commuter rail, light rail, and BRT.

[JeffreyS]

I think elevated platform in Brooklyn is best simply for aesthetics and we may extend it a bit in the future. After that concentrate on streetcar and the existing rail lines ROW and there best use. If we can make some of that happen Skyway to San Marco. 

[Ocklawaha]

I think elevated platform in Brooklyn is best simply for aesthetics and we may extend it a bit in the future. After that concentrate on streetcar and the existing rail lines ROW and there best use. If we can make some of that happen Skyway to San Marco.

I'm curious why the modern minimalist station is less aesthetically pleasing to the eye then the half block long monstrosities JTA built in the original rounds of Skyway 101. Fact is if we don't do this, we won't do anything at all, the funds to build that elevated station are some years in the future. Meanwhile this station could establish the importance of the Skyway as an urban circulator by linking it with large scale residential, retail, and even more office development. Do this and San Marco, Shand's and a Fairfield/Stadium lines won't look so hopeless.

We have another Brooklyn story in the works and I've been working with Jeffery as he models the design, hopefully it too will meet with some enthusiasm. 

[JeffreyS]

Now I will be perfectly happy if it is at grade but I personally like elevated.   Streetcar is my true love however.

[Ocklawaha]

That's cool Jeffrey I don't believe ANYONE in Jacksonville would question my love of streetcars and light-rail.

The concept for this station is that it is temporary. Hopefully some time in the fairly near future we can seek proper funding to move on with the Skyway and build a station such as JTA conceptualized for Brooklyn.

[thelakelander]

Yes.  The hope of a no-frills ground level station would be that it could be up and running by the time these Brooklyn developments are completed in 2014.

[Coolyfett]

Very interesting thread...even more interesting commentary...lol
Would this station be called Brooklyn Park Station?

[Captain Zissou]

So this at grade approach would be temporary, but an elevated station could be added later as described by the JTA ROW?

Would the end goal be an intermodal station of sorts at Park and Forest that ties the streetcar to the Skyway?

[Ocklawaha]

So this at grade approach would be temporary, but an elevated station could be added later as described by the JTA ROW?

Would the end goal be an intermodal station of sorts at Park and Forest that ties the streetcar to the Skyway?

If the will and the $ is there to extend to Forest the interchange station would probably be at Forest and Riverside. You are correct that this would NOT cause us to forego an elevated or a more complex terminal at ground level, in fact we purposely curved the line around in our rendering to allow space for a future elevated station.

I would think if the streetcar uses the Myrtle Avenue Subway to access Riverside, rather then a new bridge at the Lee Street Viaduct, there would be a slightly greater likelihood of the Skyway going to Forest. If the Streetcar uses a new bridge at Lee Street and head's down Park, then the Skyway is probably going no further into Brooklyn.

[thelakelander]

^Pretty much.  A streetcar installed on Park would likely offer more redevelopment potential in Brooklyn but kill a Skyway extension to Forest because there are only 0.15 miles a part. 


Park Street with viaduct in the background.

The cost of a new bridge would be irrelevant because it would be built regardless for auto traffic.  Not having Park Street connected to the Northbank would isolate Brooklyn from downtown more than it already is.  However, the reality is no replacement or elimination of street connectivity involving Park Street is officially proposed at this point.  Everything being discussion on this forum is pure speculation.


Myrtle Avenue Subway


On the flip end, a streetcar down Myrtle loops you around the heart of Brooklyn and includes a nice historical element by reusing the old streetcar subway. Plus, since it doesn't parallel Riverside Avenue, a Skyway extension to Forest would make sense.

[Ocklawaha]

To me the premiere reasons to go with the Myrtle Avenue Route are:

It aligns the Streetcar to go north into Durkeeville at a future date.

Places the Streetcar right next to the JTA maintenance yard.

Such a reconstruction (Myrtle) could FIX the flooding problem on Myrtle, and maybe some of the clearance for trucks.

It would place new development in a massive transit friendly district, if BRT used LEE-PARK, then add streetcar and Skyway, Brooklyn could become the new 'CITY' someday. 

Oh and for the record, does ANYONE know why or when they decided that the historic Lee Street Viaduct after being torn down and completely bumfuzzled is now 'Park Street?'

[thelakelander]

^I'd say because the creation of the Water Street intersection created an easy identifiable terminus point for each street.  Park, south of Water and Lee, North of it.

There are some great reasons for a streetcar for both corridors.  For Park, they would include it being a more direct route between Riverside and downtown, more economic development in Brooklyn (aka. more property tax revenue and job creation), and the killing of two birds with one stone (no need to extend Skyway), which reduces the overall capital costs for implementing fixed transit in this particular area.  The money saved could be used to extend the Skyway to another spot, like San Marco. 

All in all, both options have great benefits, which would be further evaluated in an alternatives analysis study, whenever it gets to that point.