Presentation to Community Advisory Committee April 14, 2011 CAC - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation to Community Advisory Committee April 14, 2011 – CAC Meeting #3

Outline • Study Overview Study Overview • Recap of Interim Reports • Feasibility Analysis F ibilit A l i • Short-Term Non-Streetcar Transit Improvements • Next Steps p 2

Study Overview Study Purpose y p • Determine the feasibility of a streetcar linking Red Hook with surrounding areas linking Red Hook with surrounding areas Goals: � Identify potential alignments � � Identify unit costs and potential impacts Identify unit costs, and potential impacts (e.g. construction, utilities, traffic) � Determine the feasibility of a streetcar in y the Focus Area with connections to the larger Study Area 3

4 Red Hook / Focus Area Study Overview Study Area y

Study Overview Schedule October November December January February March April May Existing Conditions Existing Conditions & Case Study Report Identify Potential Potential Routes Cost Estimating, Construction Issues and Alignment and Alignment Evaluation Work Feasibility Evaluation Completed To Date Final Report CAC CAC CAC Public Meeting Meeting Meeting Meeting 5

Recap of Interim Reports Existing Conditions -Focus Area Transit Service g • High percentage of households with no vehicle (81.5%) • Transit Service � B61 bus � 11 013 Average Weekday 11,013 Average Weekday Riders � 8 Minute AM Peak Headway Red Hook � Nearby Subway station at Smith/9 th Street (F G) Smith/9 th Street (F, G) • Transit Issues � No subway service within Smith/9 th Focus Area Subway Station (F,G) � Long travel time to Downtown Brooklyn � Perceived lack of bus Perceived lack of bus reliability 6

Recap of Interim Reports Transit Demand Analysis y Transit Ridership Existing Study Area % Increase Ridership New Riders With Streetcar Transit Ridership Due to Streetcar with Streetcar 16,631/day 14,809/day 1,822/day 12.3 % Additional Trips from Ridership with Committed Development Future Development 1,592/day 18,223/day (23% increase) (23% increase) 7

8 Philadelphia, PA SELECTED SYSTEMS SELECTED SYSTEMS Seattle, WA Recap of Interim Reports Portland, OR Case Studies

Recap of Interim Reports Case Studies–Key Findings y g • Early utility coordination with public/private entities is a key factor • Integration with existing bus and subway network is critical • Increased development can occur with complementary incentives (Portland and Seattle); Streetcar alone will not result in additional development (Philadelphia) • Streetcar ridership can build from first year (Portland and Seattle); Not all streetcar systems yield ridership increases (Philadelphia) a st eetca syste s y e d de s p c eases ( ade p a) • Streetcar tracks can pose bicycle safety concerns; Design should minimize impacts on bicycle lane network minimize impacts on bicycle lane network 9

Feasibility Analysis What would What would What would b be the th be the issues and benefits? constraints? constraints? What would What would the optimal it cost? Decision on route be? route be? Pursuing Streetcar in the Study y Area 10

Feasibility Analysis Alignment Options g p Red Hook Inset Meets major Downtown Brooklyn transit hub at Borough Hall, via loop or terminus, or continues to Atlantic Travels mixed-use Van Brunt Terminal corridor, but width may require pair with Richards Smith/9 th Subway Station (F,G) Station (F,G) Atlantic Terminal Various possible connections to Columbia Street and portions of Red Hook Connects Smith/9 th subway, Red Carroll Gardens not served by subway Hook Houses, IKEA, Fairway, and other waterfront destinations 11

Feasibility Analysis Selected Goals, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria j Goal/Objective Evaluation Criteria Improve Transportation Mobility p p y Provide transit accessibility Population within 1/3-mile of alignment Provide Economic Opportunity and E h Enhance the Community Character th C it Ch t Serve propose/projected development Future development within 1/3-mile Maintain Traffic and Delivery Access y Maintain Curb Access Minimize changes in linear-feet of access Minimize Impacts on Built/Natural Environment E i t Minimize traffic impacts Minimizes negative impact on traffic flow Minimize Streetcar Capital and p Operating Costs Avoid or minimize utility relocation Maintain access to utilities 12

Feasibility Analysis Borough Hall Terminus Optimal Route p Van Brunt - Van Brunt President & North & South Carroll Sts. Centre Mall 13

Feasibility Analysis Optimal Route: Centre Mall and Lorraine Street p • Centre Mall – fewer Centre Mall fewer obstacles than narrow Lorraine Street • Red Hook Housing T Tenant’s Associations t’ A i ti - concerns about Centre Mall alignment Centre Mall alignment 14

Feasibility Analysis Optimal Route: Van Brunt Street / Richards Street p • Two-way Van Brunt Two way Van Brunt Street route reduces total curb conflicts • Utility and right-of-way width concerns remain idth i 15

Feasibility Analysis Optimal Route: Borough Hall p g • Borough Hall terminal Borough Hall terminal station provides most streamlined connection to Downtown Brooklyn 16

Feasibility Analysis Key Issues y • Roadway constraints Road a constraints • Utilities • Land use and economic development p • Bicycle interaction • Bicycle interaction 17

Feasibility Analysis Roadway Constraints y • Streets as narrow as 38 feet present challenges for streetcars • As in Philadelphia, double- parked or improperly parked cars can cause service delays • Lack of space for bicycle travel between track and parking lanes • Roadway changes may be required • • Parking bans or sidewalk Parking bans or sidewalk Not to scale reductions on Columbia and Van Brunt Streets Typical Cross Section: Van Brunt Street at Hamilton Avenue • Reconfiguration of intersections to intersections to accommodate streetcar turns 18

Feasibility Analysis Roadway Constraints y • 82 foot turning radius is streetcar standard; 50 foot streetcar standard; 50 foot radius possible with some vehicles • Even smallest radius would require parking removal and/or sidewalk reductions at certain constrained intersections • • Streetcar turns may also Streetcar turns may also result in property impacts at certain locations 19

Feasibility Analysis Utilities • Known utility obstacles include 48 inch water include 48-inch water mains and various private utilities under Atlantic Avenue and Atlantic Avenue and Van Brunt Street • Potential obstacles include sidewalk vaults and Hamilton Avenue subsurface conditions Typical Cross Section: Atlantic Avenue at Clinton Street • Significant utility relocation required along portions of route l ti f t 20

Feasibility Analysis Land Use/Economic Development p • A successful Red Hook A successful Red Hook streetcar project would require changes in City development policy p p y • Philadelphia: No comprehensive development plan = No streetcar-induced development • DCP: No planned changes to industrial zones in Red Hook or up zoning of Hook or up-zoning of residential areas 21

Feasibility Issues Street Operations p Portland Streetcar Station Stop and Signage • Several intersections would require Several intersections would require an additional phase to accommodate exclusive streetcar movements • Accommodating existing bicycle routes would require parking removal (e.g. Columbia Street) (e g Co u b a St eet) • Potential bicycle safety concerns � Narrow tires can get caught in track gap g g g p � Station bulb-outs present obstacles 22

Feasibility Analysis Benefits • A 12% increase in Red Hook transit ridership under current conditions; greater increase expected if paired with future development t utu e de e op e t • While Streetcar speeds would be similar to bus, higher capacity and smoother ride could increase passenger capacity and smoother ride could increase passenger comfort • Economic development benefits could be realized if City policy were to change in the future 23

Feasibility Analysis Costs: Capital (in Millions) p ( ) Total Capital Cost: $176 million ($26 million x 6.8 miles) 15% Contingency - $22.7 Vehicles - $36.1 Stations - $3 ROW/Land - $10 Facilities - $13.3 Design- Engineering - $21.1 Road/Sidewalks - $16.4 Track/Guideway - $19 2 $19.2 Utilities - $16.8 Signals/Power - $17.4 24

Feasibility Analysis Costs: Operating Costs p g • Annual Streetcar Operating and M i t Maintenance (O&M) Costs (O&M) C t o $6.2 Million - $7.2 Million City O&M Costs per Vehicle Annual O&M Costs Revenue Mile Tampa $31.95 $2.4 Million New Orleans $24.00 $10 Million Seattle Seattle $39 35 $39.35 $2 4 Million $2.4 Million New York (projected) $41.66 $6.2 Million - $7.2 Million Source: National Transit Database (2009) ( ) 25