i
Preface Our vision for Staten Island began as a response to the inquiry, “How can NYC support a population of 9 million by 2040?” After identifying that with a strategic and careful plan, Staten Island would be poised to handle this population growth, our working group began to brainstorm how to accomplish this strategy. However, further examination of the islands’ characteristics, morphology, and current trajectory highlighted a need for further analysis of the island. CetraRuddy’s Staten Island design team discovered that this is an island that faces much opportunity, but also potential obstacles that may arise in the coming years. With development already beginning on the island’s north shore, the island’s current trajectory may strain its existing systems, eliciting our response to recommend a holistic vision for the future of the island. A proactive and cohesive approach for the benefit of the island as whole, the plan identifies the advantages of synergies over disconnected, haphazard developments, establishing an advantageous path for the island’s future.
Contents
01 02 03 04
05 06 07
Introduction Summary: Preparing for 9 Million
04
Context and Vision Preparing for another million Why Staten Island? Demographics + Needs Design Vision
09 10 12 14
Current Trajectory What’s Happening on Staten Island
18
Establishing Connectivity Challenges to Growth Addressing the Challenges Proposed Solutions Existing Transit Network Proposed Transit Network Multi-Modal Transit Network Ferry Train Bicycle Gondola Why the Urban Gondola
25 26 29 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 43
Strategic Development Live Work Play Opportunities for Development Creating Diverse Communities Expansion Opportunities A Vision for Staten Island’s Future Staten Island City Cultural Hub Tech Campus Great Creek Resort
46 48 50 52 55 56 58 60 62
Conclusions The Borough of Opportunity The CetraRuddy Working Group
69 71
Appendix New Ideas for Transportation Integrated Mobility Plan Current Staten Island Projects Reference Projects Sources
74 77 117 123 135 1
01
introduction
Staten Island can grow to benef residents and the region while p charming neighborhoods, impro and creating new jobs. A
unique borough of New York City in its composition, atmosphere, and abundance of open space, Staten Island has served as a treasured home for many longtime residents of the Island. Nevertheless, the borough as a whole is often overlooked in New York City’s greater city planning efforts, creating a precarious path for the island’s future. Development is currently underway on the North Shore, leading to questions regarding a more holistic approach to the island’s future. How will the new developments connect to the overall island? What is the islands current trajectory? How can the island accommodate its current aging population while becoming a dynamic destination that realizes all that it has to offer? How can the island retain its characteristic charm while improving accessibility for its residents?
tecture to evaluate Staten Island’s identity within the local context, and examine strategies for the island to benefit from New York City’s projected growth to 9 million residents by 2040.
Recognizing the characteristic qualities of Staten Island and its current trajectory as a borough, CetraRuddy has identified the need for a critical examination of the island in order to develop a strategic and holistic plan for its future. The firm has led a new study that identifies the challenges facing Staten Island’s future, convening a working group to conceive a cohesive, long-range vision for its potential and improvement. A holistic approach for the benefit of the island as whole, the plan identifies the advantages of synergies over disconnected, haphazard developments, establishing an advantageous path for the isAsking these vital questions has land’s future. led CetraRuddy to build on its 30year history of leadership in New CetraRuddy’s working group for York City development and archi- the Staten Island research and charrette includes urban design4
ers and architects with extensive experience tackling a wide range of ambitious projects in New York City and abroad, as well as a transportation consultant, Arnd N. Bätzner, who presents a comprehensive knowledge of transportation systems throughout the world, specializing in the alignment of multi-modal transit systems with the built environment and strategic land use planning. The team also includes longtime and native residents of Staten Island who are actively involved in their communities. The team has emphasized the power of collaboration with various stakeholders, including the community and governing bodies. Through this collaboration, the team seeks to bridge gaps between stakeholders and build
fit its preserving its oving transit,
Rendering of the $40M New York Wheel located at the Staten Island Ferry Terminal. Image courtesy New York Wheel
paths forward.
Arnd N. Bätzner believes that Staten Island has a latent capability of CetraRuddy believes that, while becoming a “model for the 21st Staten Island becomes a more century transit system” in the task livable community for current res- of improving the efficiency of its idents, it would also benefit by transportation infrastructure. absorbing a substantial portion of New York City’s growth with a The vision for the advancement careful, holistic plan of strategic on Staten Island outlined in this density and an upgraded public white paper is modeled on its histransportation network internally toric context, as well as the opporwithin the island, as well as exter- tunities shaping the 21st century. nally with neighboring boroughs. The top-level goals are to faciliAmong the results of CetraRud- tate economic growth, provide dy’s work is an initial diagram for diverse housing opportunities, an expanded and connected tran- capitalize on the experience marsit network that links new com- ket, and improve mobility while munity centers, or nodes of new encouraging an active lifestyle. higher-density development and Among the more comprehensive mixed uses, leveraging underde- ideas is a new commercial cenveloped areas. ter, ‘Staten Island City,’ to serve as a catalyst for economic growth The transportation consultant, and contextual density adjacent to
the currently inactive North Shore railway. In order to prepare New York City and its communities for a population of 9 million residents by 2040, leaders in various disciplines must consider and develop new paths to the future. These include new ideas for infrastructure, housing, and job creation. In the past, Staten Island has been known as a place often left to the side -- ‘The Forgotten Borough,’ as some have said -- but the future offers ways for Staten Island to gain access to city services and government funding. With projected growth and Staten Island’s considerable resources, we see its larger role in the economic and infrastructural growth of the city. 5
02
context & vision
8
Preparing for a million more New Yorkers New York City Population Growth, 1910-2040 (projected) 9,000,000
7% Staten Island 8% Queens
7,000,000
7% Manhattan
5,000,000
13% Brooklyn
3,000,000
1,000,000
A
s the greater New York City region reaches a projected 9 million people over the next decade, a critical issue the region will face is the lack of developable sites and land. Staten Island, the third largest borough with the smallest population by far, has a projected growth of 7% (or 32,000 new residents) by 2040 for a total population of just over 500,000 people. However, with the right overall vision and planning, the borough has the potential to absorb upwards of 400,000 residents without losing its distinctive suburban character.
At left: New York’s borough of Staten Island, in blue. Sources, this page: [1] U.S. Census Data + NYC Department of City Planning
40
30
20
20
20
10
20
00
20
90
20
80
19
70
19
60
19
50
19
40
19
30
19
20
19
19
19
10
14% Bronx [1]
% Growth 2010-2040
emphasize that the island requires a strategic and comprehensive plan for growth. CetraRuddy’s vision for future coordinated development on Staten Island draws on a strengthening of existing communities and networks, as well as the tactical implementation of new transportation infrastructure across the island, enhancing connectivity among Staten Island’s communities and with neighboring boroughs.
By strategically planning and building new nodes at key transit netFor this reason, Staten Island is work intersections, Staten Island poised to take advantage of its can play a larger than projected underutilized land and economic role in New York City’s growth potential. Area experts consulted while retaining its cherished suburby the CetraRuddy working group ban charm. 9
Why Staten Island ?
R
ecent discussions of New York City’s population growth often omit or marginalize Staten Island. Reasons include assumptions regarding access to the island and the legacy of transportation issues within the borough. Yet, there are compelling reasons to look again. Staten Island offers great unrealized potential including underutilized sites. Attractions and commercial development are currently underway, and the New York City Economic Development Corporation is seeking creative solutions for value-oriented redevelopment. A strategic and comprehensive plan for growth is warranted. The
10
island’s unique character provides ample space for strategic development and an experience-based economy while maintaining the suburban charm its residents cherish. Our vision for future development on Staten Island draws on strengthening existing networks and implementing new infrastructure. The approach will effectively reconnect existing communities and define areas for new and graduated higher-density development. With these optimized networks, Staten Island can grow efficiently and create economic opportunity for existing and future residents.
15 min to Newark Airport via Goethals Bridge
Least dense borough
Revitalized public beachfront
STATEN ISLAND
Highest median household income of all boroughs
CHARACTERISTICS + MERITS
Lowest average market-rate rent Lowest average land costs
1/3 of Islands area is protected parkland
11
Demographics + Needs S
taten Island’s demographic makeup is unique in New York City. It is a largely aging population, with a higher median age than other boroughs in part due to the challenges of transit as well as the attractive housing and entertainment options available in other boroughs. Studies show these factors have led to an exodus of young adults from the borough for lifestyle reasons, many of them attracted to the destination areas and vitality of Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Median Household Income
Staten Island’s ethnic makeup is dominated by those of Italian origin, representing roughly 36% of the population, and more than twice that of any other group. These demographic factors may be valuable in assessing potential strategies for development that meet current needs and aspirations, while allowing for new population growth. The working group recommends careful assessment of the resident population’s concerns and goals.
Where SI Residents Work (2008)
Median Resident Age 40
$70,000 35
$50,000 $30,000
30
$10,000
St at
I 9 sla % % nd 18 Ma Oth % nh er O at th tan er N YC 26
at en St 47 %
St at en M Isl an an h d Br atta o n N Q okly at u n io na een l A Br s ve on ra x ge 12
en M Isla an n ha d Br ttan oo Q klyn ue en Br s on x
25
0
2030 1970
Increase Employment Opportunities Improve Mobility
DENSITY
Attract More Multi-Generational Residents
Provide Diverse Housing Opportunities
Create More Local Destinations Maintain Suburban Neighborhood Character
In order to facilitate new development that stimulates successful growth and flourishing communities, the goals of existing residents should be addressed first. These goals range from physical and programmatic fixes to maintaining cultural values. Among those identified by CetraRuddy’s working group include: privacy and security, which are seen as an essential benefit of life on Staten Island; a suburban character, which is a predominant aesthetic in many areas; destinations and entertainment, in-
cluding retail, restaurant, cultural and recreation amenities; improved commuting and transportation systems, including better or more transit options; a reduced reliance on automobiles and increased safe routes for bicycles; increased levels of city-provided services, including roadway maintenance, snow removal, and streetscape enhancements; better public amenities, including lighting, park furniture, plazas, and other areas.
13
Design Vision: Networks + Nodes T
he existing developments of Staten Island are singular and disconnected - mainly concentrated on the north and east shores. Current development on the island is focused around the St. George area with other activity in dispersed locations around the rest of the island. These developments are primarily focused on the traffic generated by the north shore ferry from Manhattan, and most do not take into account the existing inefficient transit system. With even modest projected population increases, infrastructure will present a real barrier to continued growth. CetraRuddy envisions a more interconnected diverse system of “Networks and Nodes” with some of the highest-density possibilities concentrated on the underutilized west shore. The optimized CetraRuddy strategy of establishing new Networks + Nodes capitalizes first on the development potential of the West Shore area adjacent to Goethals Bridge, which we have called Staten Island City. This presents a prime location for higher-density residential development in part due to its job-creating potential, its adjacency to New Jersey, and proximity to portside functions. It would attract both blue- and white-collar jobs. This and other new urban centers (Nodes), will absorb population in alignment with the island’s current morphology, accommodating a sustainable diversity of people and living connections to other Nodes through an expanded transit Network ultimately creating a unified and holistic plan for the island’s future.
14
2016...
2040...
15
03
current trajectory
Residential Institutional Recreation
Cultural Commercial Industrial
1
2 4
6 11 5
3 7
9
10
13
8
14 15
17
12 20 19
16
18
21 22
23 24
What’s Happening Today... 18
1
New York Wheel
630-foot-tall Ferris wheel (1,440 people per ride)
2
Empire Outlets
340,000 square feet of outlets & 190-room hotel
3
Lighthouse Point
65,000 square feet of retail, 180-room hotel & 116 luxury rental units (3 acres)
4
National Lighthouse Museum
2,350 square feet of single-story development
5
New Courthouse in St. George
182,00-square-foot, 14 courtroom complex
6
New Brighton Sanitation
114,700 square feet, via RFP to replace outdated garage
7
URBY Staten Island
30,000 square feet of of retail & 900 apartments,targeting millennials (20% of units will be below-market rates)
8
Mount Manresa Housing
250 townhouses on15.4 acres
9
Landmark Colony
300-unit senior housing complex. Five of 11 historic buildings on site to be rehabilitated for occupancy
10 Brielle at Seaview
188-bed assisted living and memory care residence, with 114,500 square feet of living and recreational space
11 Marine Development
676-acre former NASCAR site, being remediated for industrial use
12 Freshkills Park
2,200-acre project, transforming what was the world’s largest landfill into an expansive park with a variety of natural spaces, recreational opportunities, and cultural facilities (See Appendix)
13 Staten Island Mall Expansion
427,000 square feet of expansion including new fashion retailers, restaurants, movie theater, and public plaza
14 Ocean Breeze Athletic Complex
8 lane track, two long jump pits, pole vault, high jump and weight throwing area in a 135,000-square-foot complex
15 Therapeutic Horse-riding Arena
Indoor physical and occupational therapy center
16 Fantasy Shore Amusement Park
Beachfront amusement park with Staten Island’s only roller coaster
17 Midland Beach Childrens Park and Plaza
Park with water sprays, fountains and small children’s rides, hosting summer concerts
18 LNG Tank site
366,000 square feet of retail & outlet stores with restaurants and 16plex movie theater
19 Broadway Stages
5 sound stages on 69-acre site, estimated to create 1,500-plus jobs
20 The Boulevard
356,000-square-foot shopping center
21 Mixed-use Development (Charleston)
88-acre 180,000-square-foot retail, senior housing, school, public library and park complex
22 Riverside Galleria
457,000 square feet of retail, waterfront dining & cinema
23 Athur Kill Train Station
Full-time passenger train station, 150-vehicle parking lot
24 Living Breakwaters
Coastal resilency project and recreation (see Appendix) 19
1
2 4
6 11 5
3 7
9
10
13
8
14 15
17
12 20 19
16
18
21 22
23 24
20
7
1
5
16
13
2
3
17
14
22
23
10
21
4
20
04
establishing connectivity transit for the 21st century
Transportation is among the most urgent issues facing Staten Island and a linchpin for its economic growth. Image sources: Staten Island Live [top right]; Forgotten-NY.com [top left]; Staten Island Live [left].
24
I
Challenges to Growth
f Staten Island is to benefit from and play an instrumental role in the future growth of New York City, its lack of a diversified transportation system requires close examination. Two general areas must be addressed according to transit experts: The Regional Connections to other areas, as well as the connectivity within its own communities, or Connections Within. Currently, Staten Island relies on personal automobiles more than any other borough.
More than 60% of residents depend on their cars to get to work. Although it is the least dense of all the boroughs, automobile reliance has led to high degrees of congestion. Further, Staten Island is the only borough without a subway connection to Manhattan, forcing residents to take two or three modes of transportation to simply leave the borough. Staten Island residents continue to suffer from the longest commutes in the metro region.
For the residents who live and work on the island, driving is one of few answers for the transportation challenge, even with current congestion issues. The existing roadways are heavily used and underdeveloped. Revitalizing and redefining existing roadways to function more efficiently and agreeably to pedestrians is a critical step to accommodate economic and population growth.
25
Addressing the Challenges I
n order for Staten Island to evolve into a dynamic, 21st century live/work/play destination, a strategic plan for the future of its transportation systems ought to be developed. To develop a stronger understanding of the borough’s viable transportation potential, CetraRuddy has collaborated with a leading transportation consultant to achieve this holistic vision. Specifically for use in this white paper, CetraRuddy’s transportation consultant, Arnd N. Bätzner, has conducted an analysis and produced a report (see Appendix) that outlines an integrated mobility plan for Staten Island. The report presents a holistic multi-modal approach conceived specifically for Staten Island and its opportunities, integrating all elements into a long-term vision for the Island. Due to Staten Island’s intrinsic and physical characteristics, it offers unique opportunities to serve as a model case for a quintessential 21st century transit system that integrates mass transit and autonomous vehicles, while largely disincentivizing private automobile ownership and its associated external costs.
26
The conceived transportation system connects all modes of transportation with one another both physically as well as in its fare system. Following a “Mobility as a Service” approach, the proposed system raises the purchasing power of residents by reducing the need for individual automobiles. The plan presents pragmatic approach, based on affordability and expeditious time to completion, while optimizing the effectiveness of the overall network. This fully integrated approach to urban mobility generates future-proofed solutions with a planning horizon of 2030-2040, as well as well-balanced investments in heavy infrastructure (including roadways, railways, interchanges) that are designed in line with an expected availability of shared fleets of autonomous vehicles (SAVs) by 2025.
Means of Transportation To Work For Workers 16 Years And Over Who Did Not Work At Home, Staten Island 2014 0.8% Taxicab, Motorcycle or other means 2.6% Walked
29.9% Public Transportation
7.6� Carpooled
59% Drove Alone Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates
Increase in Vehicle Registrations between 1991 and 2010, by far the largest percentage increase of any borough
minutes Average Commute time for Staten Islanders who rely on Public Transportation Source: Staten Island: Then and Now, Center for an Urban Future
27
Decentralized 28
-
Multi-Modal
-
Transit Network
Proposed Solutions In three distinct phases, the conceived approach prioritizes areas where infrastructure is needed most, based on current mobility demand, while aligning with the overarching land use and development goals defined by the City of New York and the Staten Island Chamber of Commerce. Every suggestion is technically feasible within a timespan of less than 5 years, while requiring only minor adaptations to transportation policies. The distinct phases are summarized as follows: PHASE ONE brings a North Shore Rail on existing right-of-way, a West Shore Rail, supplemented by a Bus Rapid Transit corridor, and an express high-capacity Gondola One to Brooklyn. PHASE TWO brings an extension of PATH into Bloomfield via Newark Airport, and a high-capacity express Gondola Two to Southern Manhattan via Liberty State Park. The completion of these allows for a renovation and upgrade of the existing Staten Island Railway without major disruption, since alternative links into Manhattan are then available. PHASE THREE brings an upgraded, accelerated Staten Island Railway service fully integrated with last-mile autonomous shuttle (SAV) service: Parking lots at Staten Island Railway stations are replaced by loading and unloading bays for SAVs that are dynamically routed to pick up and drop off passengers outside the door of their home or work place. By providing last-mile connections to/from mass transit, as well as local service in a 3-mile radius, these fully accessible SAVs can be used to maximum efficiency, allowing them to operate at fares comparable to current bus fares. While they would not be suitable to provide direct service to neighboring boroughs, their assignment to first- and last-mile service and proximity transportation allows for full replacement of current bus services on Staten Island.
29
Existing Transit Network
30
S
taten Island currently lacks existing effective transportation infrastructure. Current residents regularly face heavy traffic and inefficient transit systems. Through cohesive local and regional planning, the borough will benefit from repaired existing infrastructure, as well as incremental offerings of supplemental forms of transportation. Both will help prepare for the future, ensure viable economic growth, and accommodate a growing population. 31
Proposed Transit Network
32
I
nterconnected systems of ferry stops, gondolas, trains, bicycles paths, and existing road systems will serve destinations now only accessible by car. These areas are new candidates for growth, becoming places in their own right. By optimizing and enhancing the island’s transit network, more transverse connections and lively streetscapes will result. Revitalizing existing networks and building sensible new options will bring Staten Island new and varied modes of transit that are built upon an existing framework, fueling the economic and social benefits of strategic growth on this attractive and promising borough. 33
Multi-Modal Transit Network
34
Existing Transit Network
Proposed Transit Network
35
Ferry
36
Existing Ferry Service
Proposed New Ferry Service
37
Train
38
Existing Train Service
Proposed New Train Service
39
Bicycle
Existing Primary Roadways
Richmond Ave
40
Proposed Enhanced Primary Roadways
Richmond Ave
41
Gondola
42
Proposed Gondola Routes
Why The Urban Gondola? The urban gondola is a mode of transit that has been gaining momentum as a transportation option in cities throughout the world. Its various unique features have been harnessed for a number of communities that face challenging barriers to developing transit. The gondola has particularly been considered an effective strategy in tackling challenging topography such as mountainous areas and bodies of water. Its cost of construction ranges between $3 million -$12 million per mile (subway construction costs $400 million per mile and light rail systems cost $36 million per mile). An alternative lower cost option to land and below-grade transit, the gondola has many uniques features that deem it an appropriate and advantageous option for Staten Island. Some characteristics of Doppelmayr’s 3s gondola lift that is proposed in this study include: • • • • • • • • •
Speed up to 30mph Capacity of up to 5,000 passengers per hour and direction Cabin capacity of up to 35 passengers “No wait” operation - one gondola arrives and departs every 15-20 seconds, less in off-peak times Lateral wind resistance of up to 60 mph (two support cables, one traction cable) A tower height of up to 550 ft Free cable length of up to 2 miles, allowing for crossing sea arms/ harbor basins without towers inhibiting commercial vessel movements Noiseless, zero-emission, fully electric operation Option for air conditioning in cabins
43
05
strategic development
LIVE
C
ommonly referred to as the “Borough of Parks,” Staten Island is currently recognized as a low density, residential, car dependent community, with numerous small, local businesses, and an abundance of open space.
WORK
mind, CetraRuddy’s plan approaches the island’s opportunities with a carefully delineated focus on community concerns. This awareness will help avoid common issues of high-density development by generating an initial development character based on surrounding context and the needs of the community.
Introducing increased density to any area is a challenge; therefore, planning for an established suburban zone such CetraRuddy’s approach anas Staten Island calls for care- alyzes and complements exful consideration. With this in isting street and neigh46
PLAY
borhood conditions. The new development areas are proposed in incremental phases, creating a contextual density with a controlled positive effect on the preexisting neighborhood. The perimeter of each new development is built as a porous threshold, inviting the community to benefit from the new opportunities, including amenities, jobs, schools, and more.
47
Opportunities for Development T
he Master Plan developed for Staten Island by the CetraRuddy group envisages multiple nodes for growth -- diverse, connected, and varying in scale. The proposed nodes include opportunities for controlled density and opportunities for new development. The resulting network of densified points along the transit network will fuel economic growth and decrease the historic reliance on Manhattan for Staten Islanders. By focusing on underdeveloped tracts, Staten Island can make more efficient use of its resources and land, while still
Expand Staten Island City for high density residential and create new ferry stop
Expand Travis Community Broadway Stages Development
2016
Rebuild + reactivate West Shore Rail Line 48
Expand College of Staten Island and develop stronger Tech + Biology programs with administration
Create Cultural Hub within Freshkills Park 1
Downtown St. George development continues
respecting the suburban character of its existing neighborhoods. By connecting the nodes and existing communities along a revitalized transportation network, the plan works to activate hotspots for economic growth within the borough that honor the broader goals of Staten Island and the city as a whole. The concurrent development of the node varieties and transit network will produce a synergistic effect, increasing accessibility through improved infrastructure, while simultaneously establishing destinations.
2
3
Begin Staten Island City and create industrial jobs for existing residents
4
5
6
Create clean energy farm
Optimize existing transit network
4
2 7
6 1
3
5
13 8
9 12
11 10 14
Current Proposed Developments New Developments Revitalized Infrastructure Expansion, Enhancement, Rehabilitation
Staten Island Dreamline
An idealized timeline for the development and growth of the borough. The timeline is organized to foster stable, incremental growth by integrating the recommended developments and expansions amongst the developments that have already been determined.
Create Huguenot Gardens community center
Make existing streets more pedestrian friendly
Create Community Centers along existing Staten Island Rail Road line
Freshkills Park completed 7
8
9
Extend ‘greenway’ connecting Great Creek Marina to Staten Island City Create Tech Campus adjacent to Staten Island City
Expand Staten Island Shopping District
10
11
Hudson Ring completion + Verrazano Bridge Bike Path
Extend Ferry + Rail south to Broadway Stages
12
13
14
2040
Create cultural + educational centers at the shoreline
Create Great Creek Marina and new ferry stop 49
Res ide nt i
al
l a r tu l Cu
C
om
50
t utio n al
In s ti
al
Industrial
Create Diverse Communities m
e rc
ial
re Rec
a
ti o
n
S
taten Island currently features exciting developments that are in progress. These developments are singular in their use, however, and tend to be disconnected from one another. CetraRuddy’s vision strives to identify opportunities for strategic density of diverse mixed-use development, tying the island together and enhancing existing communities, while increasing connectivity to the other boroughs of New York City.
51
2 1
3
Expansion Opportunities M
uch of any new density on Staten Island can be absorbed by the proposed nodes of development. As a result of CetraRuddy’s analysis, three locations stand out as promising candidates for expansion, enhancement, and rehabilitation. The three locations will reinforce the
52
connections to new developments and assist in strengthening the existing communities. These zones also allow for outward expansion while transitioning to medium-density development, keeping the character of the existing neighborhoods intact.
1 Travis Expansion • New restaurants + shops for an existing flourishing community • Access to expanded public transportation • New light industrial jobs through a clean energy farm • Creation of strong new connections to Fresh Kills Park
2 CUNY Expansion • New student housing • Upgrades to existing facilities • Expand tech + biology programs • Create partnerships with new Tech Campus • Reinforce an active lifestyle with bike share • Redefine campus identity
3 Huguenot Gardens • New transportation hub for a sense of arrival • Bridge boundaries between communities made by existing streets • Facilitate growth of local retail • Create a public plaza and walkable streets 53
AV
54
Vision for Staten Island’s Future
T
he proposed new developments on the island are strategically positioned and characterized to establish a vitalized network with attractive, accessible destinations. 55
Staten Island City The vision for a new urban locus -- Staten Island City -- offers a catalyst for revitalizing an existing rail line along the north and west of the island. By focusing the majority of any new density to this area of the borough, views to Manhattan, and the notably suburban character of the East and South Shores, remains intact. This area alone could create an additional 150,000 residential units that could accommodate more than 300,000 new residents. The new commercial center will provide new jobs for the borough, ranging from blue collar industrial and manufacturing jobs, to new offices for white collar business, creating a diverse range of opportunities. This will help bring a new style of living for a diverse community, taking advantage of the cultural capital it offers. Ultimately, Staten Island City would provide the island as a whole with new job opportunities, more diversified and affordable housing options, more local amenity type destinations, quicker connections to Manhattan and the other boroughs as well as the rest of the world, through its proximity to Newark airport ---all with view of the water and the great cities beyond.
Characteristics • High density + medium density development • Mixed use / residential rental and condominium options • Commercial development + industrial jobs • Shipping access via port • Blending with existing scale at edges • Bisected by, reacts to and makes use of raised highway
56
• Quick access to Newark (15 minutes) • High density does not negatively affect views • Multi-modal access points (ferry, rail, car, bike) • Hospitality district (adjacent to preserved wetlands) • Carbon Neutral City
Staten Island City
57
Cultural Hub The development of Fresh Kills Park, which will ultimately be three times the size of Central Park, with its proximity to the expanded retail of the Staten Island Mall, presents an opportunity to create a world renowned cultural center that would be vital to the overall vision of Staten Island as a cultural destination for events and the arts. Fresh Kills Park offers Staten Islanders and other borough residents a way to escape the hustle and bustle of city life. This magnificent park deserves a cultural hub that can help create opportunities for concerts and events, similar to the Frank Gehrydesigned Pavilion at Chicago’s Millennium Park. The cultural hub will provide a focal point at the tip of the water inlet, creating a space for celebration while demonstrating the cultural values of New Yorkers. With the revitalized and expanded transportation network, access to these new amenities will be made easier for residents of the island, as well as the rest of the city.
Characteristics • Attract tourism through outdoor event space for concerts, shows, and festivals • Create a culturally kinetic space that adapts to allow for maximum flexibility • Develop an architectural language that reflects the culture of Staten Island • Provide space for wildlife education and community outreach
58
• Offer a hub for bike share and park wide activities • Provide retail space for gift shops and site specific retail and dining • Provide playgrounds and activity spaces for families • Create a space that provides a sense of place for picnics and outdoor recreation, even when not in use for concerts or other events
Cultural Hub
59
Tech Campus It is no surprise that high-tech industries are considered a linchpin for metro area growth, including local job creation and institutional growth. By introducing new and high-paying technology jobs to Staten Island, local leaders will use its position between the manufacturing industry on the West Shore and The College of Staten Island located to the east to create new synergies. This partnership will provide the diversity lacking from many technology hubs around the globe, fueling innovation here. With quick connections to Newark Airport, Fresh Kills Park, the Howland Hook container port, and the nearby CUNY college campus, the highlighted location, which would expand upon an already existing business district, is prime real estate to create a Tech Campus. With $20/SF rent prices, Manhattan and Brooklyn cannot compete with the benefits of creating a “tech mecca” within Staten Island. This would generate the desired high paying jobs that would attract new and existing residents alike.
Characteristics • Highly flexible, customizable spaces that can accommodate growth and turn-over • Plug-and-play capabilities • Flexible leasing options that provide incentives to start-ups • Walkable/bike-friendly campus with cohesive public space • New public library • Recreational and entertainment amenities spread through the campus to encourage collaboration
60
• Center for new, high-paying jobs • Create partnership with The College of Staten Island • Quick access to manufacturing + shipping located in Staten Island City • Adjacent to Freshkills Park • Facilitate island’s ecological, transportation & energy sustainability through R&D • Proximity to new 855,000 SF Amazon warehouse
Tech Campus
61
Great Creek Marina The Great Creek marina will offer an attractive new resort community along the Eastern Shore, providing restaurants and leisurely beach activities for islanders and tourists alike. This unique land formation and marina could be reimagined as a destination that would anchor the development that works its way down the east shore from the north, with new hotels, restaurants, retail, recreation, and housing. This “Resort Community,” with the addition of a high speed ferry stop along the east side of the island, would increase tourism and cut commute times for the residents of the entire area. By introducing the tourism market to Staten Island, it no longer is merely a place to live, but becomes a location to live, work, and play. Ultimately Staten Island can become the Coney Island of the 21st century, not with amusement parks, but rather by offering unique experiences based on an active and outdoor lifestyle.
Characteristics • Facilitate tourism within the island • Provide beachfront hub along the East Shore • Create “Coney Island Effect” (a place to escape the hustle and bustle of Manhattan) • Allow for unobstructed views of the bay and ocean • Create a “downtown” restaurant / retail space, located mid-island
62
• Utilize greenway connection to midisland parks • Provide extended beach, harbor, and indoor amenities • Direct connection to Manhattan via new ferry terminal • Develop and nurture a broad resort community
Great Creek Marina
63
64
65
06 conclusions
68
The Borough of Opportunity A
unique island of charm, history, and open space, Staten Island has the potential to become a 21st century paradigm of a livable and alluring urban system by fusing innovative transportation with dynamic communities. Careful analysis of existing conditions coupled with holistic thinking and anticipative planning will allow the island to not only address potential concerns that may arise with its current trajectory, but also treat its existing situation as an opportunity for reflection, rediscovery, and progressive planning into the future.
of New York City with distinctive characteristics, Staten Island can embrace its unique make-up, learn from the current transit situations in neighboring boroughs, and realize its opportunity to develop a forwardthinking, comprehensive vision for its future.
Retroactively addressing discrete components of an urban system does not have the same net effect as careful and holistic long-range planning. Thus, Staten Island faces an additional opportunity to serve as a model for the process of bigpicture planning for the future of Staten Island can become the model urban systems. As an island that faces for a 21st century urban system much opportunity, Staten Island can that is designed with multi-modal become a pioneering borough in connectivity, and with the well- New York City that fuses innovations being of its diverse stakeholders in with its characteristic features. mind. An often overlooked borough
69
70
The CetraRuddy Working Group Principals: Eugene Flotteron, AIA Theresa Genovese, AIA LEED
Project Team: Ruben Cabanillas Jason Cadorete Jordan Caylor Meredith Cocco
Jared Eisenhower Miguel De La Ossa Nate Roberts Reia Tong
71
07 appendix
New Ideas for Transportation As the current state of Staten Island’s transportation infrastructure is calling for improvement, several interesting proposals have been shared for its future. Currently, the New York MTA is investigating the viability of a rapid-transit bus line along the north shore. Larger proposals lay out strategies to connect the city’s boroughs with a 50-mile bike path called the Harbor Ring -- an existing pathway that requires a few critical links for completion, notably a connector at the Verrazano
74
Bridge. Investigations and proposals offer insight into how a bike path could be integrated into the Verrazano Bridge, though initial cost estimates reach $300 to $400 million. Other proposals to connect Staten Island with New Jersey and the surrounding areas have been reviewed, including a lifted cable-car system adjacent to the Bayonne Bridge. Although such a project may never be realized, it is evident that there is a greater interest in creating mass-transit solutions.
Image sources: http://harborring.org/ [left] and www.big.dk [bottom right]
Examples of large-scale interventions that connect regions beyond traditional boundaries have surfaced all over the globe. Recent models include Bjarke Ingles Group’s proposed “Loop City” hybrid of infrastructure, commercial, and residential work to connect Copenha-
gen’s Oresund region. These projects demonstrate a likely trend of future urban expansions that traverse state and national lines to create more interconnected, efficient, and convenient lifestyles for all.
75
Integrated Mobility Plan 21st Century Integrated Mobility-as-a-Service for Staten Island Arnd N. Bätnzer
77
21st Century Integrated Mobility-as-a-Service for Staten Island
MEDIUM-TERM VISION FOR A STATEN ISLAND INTEGRATED MOBILITY PLAN
79
About the Author Based in Zurich / Switzerland, Arnd N. Bätzner is a transportation consultant specializing on the alignment of multi-modal transit systems with the built environment and strategic land use planning. A particular focus of his work is on the integration of future autonomous and demandresponsive transport with high-capacity modes. Arnd is a member of the Standing Committees on Rail Transit Systems, Passenger Intermodal Facilities and Emerging Ride Sharing Solutions of the Transportation Research Board of the U.S. National Academies. He is an executive planning committee member of the leading global conference on demand-responsive transit, and a frequent keynote speaker at major industry conferences around the world. Since 2011, Arnd is a board of directors member of Switzerland’s nationwide Mobility Car Sharing system. Holding a master in physics with minors in transit management from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, Arnd is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the University of St.Gallen's Institute for Systemic Management and Public Governance: His academic research at the Future Cities Laboratory in Singapore focuses on elevated walkability enhancers such as skybridges, ropeways and people movers for last-mile station linkage and access.
2
80
Contents 1.
Abstract and Introduction
2.
Current State of Staten Island Transportation Planning
2.1. 2.1.1. 2.1.2. 2.1.3. 2.1.4.
Previous Considerations Subway Tunnel to Brooklyn Bayonne Bridge Gondola Extension of Hudson-Bergen Light Rail West Shore Rail Line
2.2.
Critical Comments
3.
An Integrated Mobility Plan for Staten Island
3.1. 3.2.
Current State of Transport Infrastructure on Staten Island Reasons for a New Approach
4.
Three Proposed Phases of Development
4.1.
Phase 1: North Shore Rail, West Shore Rail, Bus Rapid Transit Corridor and Gondola to Brooklyn, Local On-Demand Shuttles Replacing SI Local Bus Service Important Remarks
4.2. 4.3.
Phase 2: PATH extension EWR-Bloomfield, Gondola to Manhattan and Staten Island Railway Renovation Phase 3: Two Express Gondola Lines, New Staten Island Rail and On-Demand SAV fleets
5.
Further Research
6.
Terminologies
7.
References
3
81
1. Abstract and Introduction Staten Island, especially if compared to the other NYC boroughs, currently offers subpar transportation offers for its residents and businesses. Improving those offers is crucial for unlocking the economic potential that Staten Island offers. With regard to the current NYC strategy of actively reducing the use of private vehicles due to their negative externalities on many levels - emissions, use of roadway and parking space, relative inefficiency especially when compared to modern public transportation whatever measures are taken for Staten Island need to fit the overall NYC transportation strategy. At the verge of an age of autonomous vehicles, next-generation public transportation gets strong “on-demand� components, with the capacity to serve residents and business at their doorstep. Advanced modelling in the US, Germany, Switzerland and Singapore has shown that such systems can provide formerly unknown levels of comfort to public transit, smartly connecting automated door-to-door shuttles with updated, modernized, performant and comfortable rail infrastructure. At a time where a vehicle congestion charge for NYC is again debated, these systems that largely blend the advantages of private vehicles with those of transit, have shown to be so performant that the very need to own a private car is largely eliminated. This helps to greatly reduce the number of vehicles in the streets, accelerating traffic and turning former congestion zones into attractive, healthy and liveable environments with highly positive outcomes for the overall quality of living and for real estate values. The suggestions in this paper focus on a carefully balanced approach seamlessly integrating the different transportation modes to maximize user comfort while minimizing negative impacts of mobility and while mitigating costs. The vision combines an entirely renewed and expanded rail infrastructure with autonomous last-mile shuttles, upgraded bus rapid transit on its own right-of-way, bikeability and walkability. New, fast intra-island connections and links to Brooklyn and Manhattan are established through urban gondolas, an attractive high-capacity, 100% emission-free technology that is fully integrated with the other modes. Urban gondolas, unlike utopian concepts of a Hyperloop kind, provide the required capacities. If properly networked, they offer smooth, fast and comfortable connections, are popular with users and comparably quick and cheap to build and operate. 4
82
They are a robust, proven and certified technology, and do not inhibit, in a more distant future, a rail tunnel to Manhattan to become a reality should the budgets to build it can be found. The present report is thus based on two key paradigms: First, only a fully integrated approach to urban mobility will generate truly future-proof solutions. Then, a planning horizon 2030-2040 requires well-balanced investments in heavy infrastructure – roadways, railways, interchanges – that are designed for in line with an expected availability of shared fleets of autonomous vehicles (SAVs) by 2025. The approach chosen here follows to core ideas: • assigning every mode of transport to the role in which it fits best, defined by its capacity to contribute to overall system efficiency • designing for and building transport systems in which all elements work together and are conceptualized to fit into a long-term vision, rather than isolated, standalone projects • having all modes fully integrated with each other both on physical and fare levels, switching to a “Mobility as a Service” concept ultimately making car ownership in Staten Island redundant for local travel and commuting, raising the buying power of residents • provide new, previously unknown levels of comfort through performant local Mobilityon-Demand services fully integrated with rail and other mass-transit modes such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or networked Gondolas • wherever possible, make best use of available rights-of-way. New links possibly conflicting with the existing environment are to be built in a way to offer the required capacities lowest construction cost and highest construction speed. In this case, a network of Due to its physical enclosure on an island, the borough of Staten Island can serve as an ideal model case for a 21st century transit system integrating mass transit and autonomous vehicles, while largely dis-incentivizing private automobile ownership and its massive external costs. Three distinct phases, each building upon the previous one, are defined in order to bring 5
83
the current sub-par transport infrastructure of Staten Island to a level that allows for the economic (jobs, housing) and social (culture, recreation, communication with other boroughs) potential of Staten Island to unfold as an integral part of the City of New York. The priority is given to providing infrastructure first to where it is most needed, based on currently visible mobility demand: Connections to Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Newark, with a focus both on rapid implementation and long-term functionality on par with the overarching land use and development goals, as defined by the City of New York and the Staten Island Chamber of Commerce. A particular emphasis has been given to a pragmatic approach: Under ideal conditions, every single suggestion advanced in this White Paper is technically feasible within a timespan of less than 5 years, while requiring minor adaptations of transportation policies. Also, the suggested interventions are comparably affordable, maximizing the use of existing assets such as former or existing rights of way. While visionary, a strong focus of the proposed plan is on affordability and time to completion. As previously discussed, three distinct phases, each building upon the previous one, are defined in order to bring the current sub-par transport infrastructure of Staten Island to a level that allows for the economic (jobs, housing) and social (culture, recreation, communication with other boroughs) potential of Staten Island to unfold as an integral part of the City of New York. These phases are defined as follows.
6
84
Phase One brings a North Shore Rail on existing right-of-way, a West Shore Rail, supplemented by a Bus Rapid Transit corridor, and an express high-capacity Gondola One to Brooklyn. Phase Two brings an extension of PATH into Bloomfield via Newark Airport, and a highcapacity express Gondola Two to Southern Manhattan via Liberty State Park. The completion of these allows for a renovation and upgrade of the existing Staten Island Railway without major disruption, since alternative links into Manhattan are then available. Phase Three brings upgraded, accelerated Staten Island Railway service fully integrated with last-mile autonomous shuttle (SAV) service: Parking lots at Staten Island Railway stations are replaced by loading and unloading bays for SAVs that are dynamically routed to pick up resp. drop off passengers outside the door of their home or work place. By providing last-mile connections to/from mass transit, as well as local service in a 3-mile radius, these fully accessible SAVs can be used to maximum efficiency, allowing them to operate at fares comparable to current bus fares. While they would not be suitable to provide direct service to neighboring boroughs, their assignment to first- and last-mile service and proximity transportation allows for full replacement of current bus services on Staten Island. Ultimately, Staten Island, from a cutting-edge transport infrastructure and operational model point of view, becomes a bit of a “Singapore of New York City”: Reversing a trend where Staten Island tended to fall behind other boroughs when it came to connectivity, it now emerges as the pioneering place for applying the latest innovation and technology: Instead of a “catching up” approach simply bringing Staten Island to the level of the other NY boroughs, it rather gets a 21st century infrastructure instead: Radically citizencentered innovations that could be rolled out in other boroughs at a later stage are first introduced here.
7
85
Picture 1:
6
86
Overview of suggested transport interventions in Staten Island
2. History and Present: Brief Look at Staten Island Transportation Planning The transport interventions proposed in this white paper suggest a fully integrated, medium- and long-term mobility plan based on land use and development goals as defined by the City of New York. Other than previous approaches focusing on specific geographical areas or addressing singular sub-problems, the current approach is based on an overarching vision. All proposed elements are relying on and fully completing each other. 2.1. Previous Considerations A great number of suggestions have been made in previous years on how to improve transportation to and within Staten Island. In a non-exhaustive overview, the following shall be briefly mentioned: 2.1.1. Subway Tunnel to Brooklyn A project almost a century old, the construction of the subway tunnel connecting today’s 95St station in Brooklyn, currently the end of the R train, was halted in1925 and never resumed. The Verrazano Bridge was, due to opposition of Robert Moses, structurally never designed to eventually carry rail service [1]. While from a long-term perspective, the subway tunnel remains a desirable and efficient solution, current cost estimates make a realization in the near future appear as challenging. Still, it is important to note that both the upgrading of the Staten Island Railroad as suggested below as well as the proposed Gondola One (see 4.1.2.) are fully in line with the long-term strategy of ultimately seeing a subway tunnel to Staten Island realized: The establishment of a new major interchange hub in the Clifton area triggers land use development in a way compatible with a future rail tunnel, upon completion of which the Gondola One could easily be dismantled and its components used elsewhere. It is to be noted that the comparably rapid and advantageous construction - and deconstruction - of urban gondolas, together with their minimal surface consumption, is one of their main assets. 2.1.2. Bayonne Bridge Gondola This project [2], first put forward in 2014, has two major drawbacks in its currently projected form: It is isolated, literally going from anywhere to nowhere, which incurs a strong risk of staying behind patronage expectations. A recent, negative example of how isolated “landmark� transportation projects stay behind expectations it the Detroit Q Line Streetcar that largely lacks integration with other modes, with the result of ridership and farebox revenue largely falling short of expectations [3]. Global experience from projects of the past decade shows that seamless integration with other modes is crucial for success.
7
87
Second, the proposed Gondola’s link to Bayonne (and further on by light rail to Jersey city) would establish a journey implying a minimum of 3 transfers, if not 4 or 5, on a typical commute from Staten Island to Manhattan. Transfers are known to be one of the main factors of users’ dissatisfaction with public transit (‘transfer penalty’), significantly disincentivizing its use [4]. At an age where SAVs can provide local door-to-door service, such a solution does not appear to be in line with customer expectations or future-proof, attractive transit. 2.1.3. Extension of Hudson-Bergen Light Rail The current bus routes on the proposed extension of the Hudson-Bergen light rail currently carry about 900 passengers per day [5]. Even if, with a “rail bonus” due to higher quality of service, this can be expected to multiply by a factor three or four, ridership still is nowhere near the 70’000 daily passenger movements via the SI Ferry route into Manhattan [6], or the daily 36’000 riders on MTA express buses between Staten Island and Manhattan [7]. A much better option, mirroring the real mobility needs, would be an extension of the planned Newark Airport PATH train [8] into the Bloomfield Station of a projected West Shore Rail Line. While transport needs between Staten Island and Jersey City can well be served by future upgraded bus service, the major demand for transportation is to Brooklyn/ Manhattan destinations on one side and to Newark Airport/New Jersey on the other. These are thus to be addressed with priority. 2.1.4. West Shore Rail Line Several previous studies suggest to re-use the defunct right-of-way of the former North Shore rail line and to extend it along the West Shore. As a second mass transit axis and given the infrastructural corridor already partly in place, this makes sense. Note: A southern extension of the West Shore Rail Line can be provided by a highcapacity, fully electric bus rapid transit (BRT) system. The technology to be used can be either classic trolleybus technology, or opportunity charging of vehicles [9]. Both have proven their robustness and feasibility, and provide zero-emission vehicle operation. In case of heavily limited budgets, the West Shore Rail Line could also be introduced as a BRT with the option to later upgrade it to Light Rail or Heavy Rail - a common procedure that is heavily promoted by the World Bank [10]. 2.2. Critical Comments The current transportation options on the routes in highest demand, both from Staten Islands into Brooklyn/Manhattan and into Newark/New Jersey, are grossly unsatisfactory, heavily impacting Staten Island’s potential for development. A key burden is the fragmentation of previous Staten Island transport interventions, often unconnected to other modes and largely lacking coordination between them. These initiatives could not provide
8
88
the necessary, full-scale solution needed to bring Staten Island to a competitive level in line with the other four boroughs of New York City. Despite the distinct three phases of redevelopment of Staten Island’s transport infrastructure suggested in this white paper, reliable, long-term financing covering all of them needs to be secured. The long-term economic benefits for Staten Island resulting from a significantly better connectivity with surrounding areas can and will only be enabled if core elements from all three phases are ultimately realized and play together.
9
89
3. An Integrated Mobility Plan for Staten Island The measures in this white paper are designed to act as an incubator for future Staten Island developments, defining spinal axes for development as per 21st century adoptions of transit-oriented design (TOD), for short intro see [11]. Also, the distinct three phases building upon each other, with regard to limited public budgets, allow for a sequential financing. This plan is designed to be compatible with forms of public-private partnership inspired by Hong Kong MTR’s ‘Rail & Property’ model [12], in which Staten Island’s land value capture can pay back large parts of the infrastructure setup costs. 3.1. Current State of Transport Infrastructure on Staten Island Staten Island residents currently have commutes of an average 42.5 minutes [13], they are among the longest in the country. This is due to decades of under-investments and severe infrastructural deficits resulting from there: The Staten Island Railway (SIR) is comparably slow, with many of its stations undersized, thus inadequate to serve a higher number of users especially at peak times. Especially, platform width and station access are below the reference values recommended by the FTA [14] and by international standards. These design features create significant level of discomfort and can be seen as major factors preventing more potential customers living within station catchment areas from using the SIR for their commutes.
Picture 2:
10
90
Extremely narrow, sub-standard platform on Staten Island Railway
Picture 3:
Potentially dangerous crowding on narrow platform of Staten Island Railway. Note that the picture has been taken at off-peak time.
Picture 4:
Non-standard platform on Staten Island Railway
11
91
12
92
Picture 5:
Subpar, non-ADA compatible platform access stairs on Staten Island Railway
Picture 6:
narrow, non-standard platform access on Staten Island Railway
Picture 7:
standard-size subway platform, approx, 10ft / 3m to allow for sufficient levels of passanger flow (AMT MontrĂŠal, Canada)
The north shore freight line and ROW are currently not used for passenger transportation and in partial state of abandonment. The Brooklyn/Manhattan-bound express buses provide unreliable service, being victims of frequent road traffic disruptions [15]. Their service model is a fragile equilibrium between too little and too many stops, a tradeoff between high-enough average travel speeds and a sufficient granularity in stops served. The MTA has changed service models several times in the past years, without ever getting to results in line with current passenger expectations.
Pictures 8, 9:
MTA Staten Island Express Bus service to Manhattan without proper ROW
The result of these deficits is a heavy reliance on private automobiles, with household car ownerships ranking among the highest in the City, up to 5 times the rate in Manhattan [16].
13
93
Without serious, well-concerted transport infrastructure investments, the vicious circle driven by all negative externalities of car ownership on land use, society and transportation efficiency cannot be overcome. Especially, an elimination of direct and indirect subsidies for car use such as artificially low parking charges at SIR stations and St. George Ferry terminal are in the interest of authorities and users alike. 3.2. Reasons for an Integrated Mobility Approach The core ideas behind the concept presented in this white paper draft are • to use transportation planning as an integral part of spatial planning, based on long-term land use and urban planning paradigms. A double approach is suggested: -
defining development axes through bus and BRT corridors along which future densification can happen,
-
preserving the required flexibility for further residential and commercial development, supported by door-to-door SAV service
-
making transit options cheaper, more comfortable, more reliable, more accessible and fully independent of car ownership
Picture 10:
14
94
Paratransit vehicle (AMT MontrĂŠal, Canada). This type of transit vehicle is suitable for door-to-door service and last-mile service from and to mass transit stations before SAV fleets are legal to operate. Once SAVs are available,
• to use the island situation of the SI borough as an asset by implementing novel transportation concepts in a three-phase approach, gradually eliminating the need for private auto ownership by providing intuitive-to-use island-interior mobility and outbound/inbound commuting options with a level of service previously unknown. This “Lab” approach makes Staten Island eligible for special funding programs on state and federal level, such as the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 2017 “Sandbox” program [17]. • to replace previously fragmented planning in transportation projects by an overarching, medium- and long-term concept embracing the latest technological developments, latest research and based on realistic assumptions. This includes a combination of Mass Transit and SAVs for last-mile and point-to-point services, i.e. planning for an SAV age where fleets of centrally dispatched robo-taxis provide on-demand, transversal interior door-to-door connections perpendicular to rail and BRT corridors, and last-mile door-to-hub service complementing high-capacity transit modes • to support citizens’ mobility through transportation that is affordable, reliable, accessible and of high comfort and safety. A focus will be on improving service levels trough - demand-responsive door-to-door service at a local level - reduced travel times by faster service especially for rail and BRT services - a novel approach to transit interchanges doubling as local urban nodes, with safe, sheltered, comfortable and information-supported boarding and transfers Transfers are among the worst enemies of transit, severely reducing its attractiveness with customers. In the present concept, service integration becomes most visible by focusing transfer activities on a half a dozen major transfer hubs across the island: These terminals • are set up to become urban development incubators, • combine rail, BRT, gondolas, buses and SAVs , • will be new or rebuilt, • are fully accessible and offer, at their main access points, escalators complementing stairways to enhance comfort • integrate services such as pick-up points for pre-ordererd groceries • are as compact as possible to minimize surface consumption • are safe, attractive, climate-controlled spaces with sheltered SAV docking sites The interchange terminals’ layout and operation significantly enhance their attractiveness as ‘citizen interfaces’. They support a new concept of integrating travel into daily life routines. Materials used are upscale, with a general spirit resembling airline lounges much more than current transit intermodal facilities.
15
95
4. Three Proposed Phases of Development The three phases as described below are incremental and build on each other. Besides allowing for a rapid phasing-in of innovative technologies and testing models to get away from car dependency, the phases are planned to allow for major renovation works of existing infrastructure: if new solutions are already in place at the moment when an existing infrastructure undergoes upgrading, the impact of disruption on users is limited since the new services can take over part of the load. A situation comparable to the one faced by the temporary L train outage should be avoided. Every phase can be expected to take between 3 and 8 years maximum to implement once all required permissions have been granted. It seems important to have the different elements as proposed here phased in comparably rapidly: They are core tools to support the land use and redevelopment goals defined for Staten Island as part of a future New York City development.
16
96
4.1. Phase 1: North Shore Rail, West Shore Rail, Bus Rapid Transit Corridor and Gondola to Brooklyn, Local On-Demand Shuttles Replacing SI Local Bus Service Element 4.1.1: North Shore Rail Line, West Shore Rail Line Pleasant Plains- Victory Boulevard Bloomfield Exchange - St.George • using existing right-of-way along the North shore and corridors in line with spatial development goals along the western shore. This rail link would provide the triple use of serving out-of-borough commuters, local commuters (see below), and recreational visitors • can be implemented either as light rail (budget version) or with PATH technical norms (not historical or current SIR norms) - the latter is strongly recommended since it would allow, in Phase 2, to run direct PATH trains via the Bloomfield exchange (see 4.2.1.) • closure of parking lots at stations, except for a few bays dedicated for special use/ maintenance vehicles). Instead of using private cars, TNC-(Transportation Network Company)-inspired dial-a-ride pickup services carry residents to/from their homes or work places to stations The southernmost part of the West Rail Line is suggested to meet the Staten Island Railway in the Pleasant Plains area, creating new fast links in the Southwestern part of the Island. West Rail Line trains can also provide a direct connection to Newark airport and further to Manhattan via Bloomfield exchange, putting the West Coast of Staten Island less than an hour from Midtown.
Element 4.1.2.: Gondola One, SI City - Bloomfield - Graniteville/CUNY) - West Brighton - Clifton SIR - Bay Ridge (BK) The gondola replaces the missing rail tunnel linking the SIR to the MTA rail network of Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and the Bronx. It starts inland at one of the major activity hubs of Staten Island, with intermediate stations at West Brighton and the Clifton SIR station. From there, it crosses the water parallel to the Verrazano Bridge and ends at the MTA Bay Ridge / 95th Street Station (R Train). It is crucial to have a highly comfortable customer interchange process to maximize attractiveness and usability of the system. An advantage of this solution is that the R train is currently not identified as critical in terms of capacity obstacles [25], offering one-seat rides into Brooklyn and Manhattan with excellent connections. The possibility of introducing an R express service is to be investigated, analogue to an existing MTA study for the F train [19].
17
97
Picture 12:
Proposed Gondola One line and terminal location on the Brooklyn Side (above Bay Ridge R Train station). Verrazano Bridge is visible on the right. Train and Gondola stations form a single complex. Inside, direct connections within the paid area are provided by escalators and elevators.
The gondola itself is of the “Flying bus” type, a “3S” gondola system with the following properties: • cabins for up to 35 passengers • “no wait” operation - one gondola every 15-20 seconds, less in off-peak times • capacity of up tp 6’500 pphpd (passengers per hour and per direction) • travel speed of up to 30 mph • lateral wind resistance of up to 60 mph (two support cables, one traction cable) • tower height of up to 550 ft • free cable length of up to 2 miles, allowing for crossing sea arms/harbor basins to be crossed without towers possibly inhibiting commercial vessel movements • noiseless, zero-emission, fully electric operation • air conditioning of cabins is possible All indications and preliminary calculations as above have been cross-checked for feasibility with a major leading ropeway manufacturer, Doppelmayr Inc., [26].
18
98
Picture 13:
High-Capactiy 3S Gondola, Boarding Station (Koblenz, Germany). Vehicles (cabins) rotate in a continuous flow, which can be adapted to current demand by adding or removing vehicles from revenue service at certain times intra-day.
Picture 14:
High-Capactiy Gondola, Urban Configuration Interior. One vehicle carries up to 35 pax
The gondola can be easily insert itself into the existing urban topology once the locations for the intermediate and end stations have been defined: The only ground surface the system needs is the surfaces on which the supporting towers stand. With a possible clearance above ground of 520 ft, the ropeway will not be an obstacle to shipping (vertical clearance of Verrazzano Bridge: 215 ft).
19
99
Furthermore, the free cable length allows crossing the sea next to the Verrazano bridge without any towers in the sea. With its elevated travel speed, “crossing the bridge” by gondola does take approx. 5 minutes, the ride over the full system length around 16 minutes including two intermediate stops.
Picture 16:
Length Profile of Gondola One (not to scale), approx. height category and possible location of towers
Per unit of track length, gondola systems have the lowest construction costs among modes offering a comparable capacity in terms of passengers per hour per direction. Another advantage is a gondola’s comparably short timescale for construction - even with towers near on in the sea, less than 12 months are required from start of construction to beginning of revenue operation. Also, in case the gondola system would eventually become redundant e.g. in case the subway tunnel between Brooklyn and Staten Island were to get built, it can be easily dismantled within months and the great majority of parts sold for re-use in another location.
20
100
Picture 17:
Symbolic disposition of 3S Gondola System: Every sub-section has its own traction cable and can operate independently from neighboring segments. Vehicles in normal operation transfer from one section to the next automatically and at slow motion, while passengers can board or disembark. Passengers wanting to continue their journey to further stops remain on the vehicle. The transfer process from one segment o the next, fully automated, takes between 30-60 seconds, depending on the exact system layout.
Similar high-capacity, high-speed Gondola systems have not only been built in mountainous and dense urban terrain, but also travelling across open sea over several miles, in Southeast Asia. Element 4.1.3: Staten Island Express (SIC) Gondola, SI City - Bloomfield - Graniteville/CUNY - West Brighton This Gondola provides an express connection between high-frequency locations on the North shore of Staten Island, especially the projected new developments around Staten Island City and Bloomfield Exchange. Independent from conditions affecting surface transportation, it fulfills both local transportation needs as well as providing connections to Manhattan and Brooklyn, its vehicles continuing travel seamlessly on the Gondola One and Gondola Two lines. To riders, the SIC appears as part of the same infrastructure network as the two other gondolas.
21
101
Element 4.1.4.: BRT Corridor Eltingville - Heartland – Westerleigh/CUNY - Bayonne Bridge – 8 Av NJ This BRT corridor provides upgraded fast, comfortable bus service largely on its own ROW, complementary to rail service. Only major stops are served, either in walkable communities or with SAV docking bays for last-mile service. As explained in 2.1.2. and 2.1.3., this is currently a low-demand route. Strong growth in demand can be expected as a result of • service upgrades, broad system visibility, branded and with a significantly higher level of service • a strongly reduced necessity for car ownership for Staten Island residents as a result of the combined measures of the Integrated Mobility Network as suggested in this white paper • connection to Hudson-Bergen-Light Rail, allowing for a one-transfer connection to Eastern New Jersey area
Element 4.1.5. On-Demand Shuttle Service to/from Staten Island Mass Transit Stations Parking lots at stations are closed, partly transformed into loading/unloading bays for ondemand shuttles. This on-demand, dial-a-ride pickup service is like a TNC/e-hailing service operating with 15-25 seat vehicles. They carry residents and other users to/from their homes or work places to stations, with no more than 5-10 minutes’ notice required ahead of pickup at homes or workplaces (outbound) and immediate connection after train arrival (inbound). The zones for last-mile transportation to/from each rail station are pre-defined to optimize fleet allocation. For on-demand shuttle service to be efficient, it is crucial to • extensively run agent-based simulations upfront of the introduction of this service to optimize fleet sizes and operational models • to fully ban private cars from accessing stations, and strongly discourage and disincentivize their use for private commutes. Key reason is that for the on-demand services to operate in an efficient way and to users’ greatest satisfaction, a certain density both on the demand side as on the supply side are required. The goal is that this service be available to the user at the same cost or less of a previous bus ticket, including transfers to/from other modes, while providing vastly superior service
22
102
Picture 11:
Unsatisfactory local bus transfer situation at Staten Island Railroad station. Future SAV fleets will require weather-protected curbside or docking bay space to provide an attractive level of comfort for last-mile service. Interchanges are to be made easier by minimizing walking distances, providing shelter from the elements, and making platform access more comfortable by means of escalators and elevators
• have this service seamlessly integrated with rail, BRT and gondolas, not only on an infrastructural side, but also in terms of fare integration Vehicles used for the door-to-door service will be replaced by self-driving shuttles as soon as these are available and legal to operate (see picture 10). Phasing-in of autonomous lastmile SAV shuttles replacing the manually-driven vehicles happens as soon as they are available, affordable and robust enough to operate under 24/7 transit conditions. On-demand shuttle services offering some communalities with the one suggested here have, among others, been tested in Helsinki (Kutsuplus) [20], Boston and Kansas City [21]. A key reason for their failure, in the mentioned and other cases, can be related to insufficient density of service.
23
103
Important Remarks: Opportunities and Limits of SAV fleet operations in Mobility-as-a-Service concepts Remark 1: For capacity and speed reasons, it is not possible to use the SAV fleets for a replacement of mass transit (rail/BRT/gondola) modes on Staten Island. While SAV fleets can provide greatly superior service on the first and last miles, especially when compared to today’s local bus operations, they are for density reasons not suitable for a replacement of the suggested mass transit modes. Since the concept suggested here builds on a full replacement of today’s local and express bus services (excepted for the BRT into 8 Av/NJ) and private car fleets, SAV service into Brooklyn or Manhattan would, despite a significantly better use of road space, result in congestion and delays, both within the Staten Island road network and at bridge crossings. Many recent suggestions that attracted significant media attention, such as Elon Musk’s proposed tunnels for self-driving cars [20], fail to address this capacity aspect under realistic – not lab – full-scale operating conditions. Congestion of self-driving, electric vehicles remains congestion – with all inconveniences for riders and environment. Only at times of particularly low demand (such as 1 a.m. to 5 a.m.) SAVs could replace parts of the rail, BRT and gondola services, allowing for maintenance windows on the transit infrastructure. Remark 2: This report intentionally focuses on passenger transportation. Transportation of commercial goods into and within Staten Island, including e-commerce delivery logistics, can also be expected to switch to autonomous vehicle operations on a 2025-2030 horizon. The main driver here is the cost of labor involved in trucking and deliveries. On an infrastructural side, such operations require standardized interfaces for automated interchange of merchandise both at shippers and recipients locations. While the details of future Staten Island cargo logistics are not be discussed in this report, it is important to note that they share the same available road space with passenger operations. A strong rise in short-time delivery services (food, merchandise such as ‘Amazon Prime 1-Hour’) is expected with further replacement of location-based retailing by e-commerce [23], [24], resulting in even more vehicular movements on limited road space, eventually offsetting efficiency gains through fleet use optimization algorithms. As a consequence, these considerations support the need for using less, but larger vehicles on their on right of way wherever possible, especially for passenger transportation – which is exactly what the mass transit solutions suggested in this report do.
24
104
4.2. Phase 2: PATH extension EWR-Bloomfield Exchange, Gondola to Manhattan, Staten Island Railway Renovation Element 4.2.1.: PATH train extension from Newark Airport to Bloomfield With the PATH train extension into EWR expected to open in 2026, a further 8-mile extension into Bloomfield is to be projected, starting immediately. On the first 4 miles, following a to-be-built tunnel out of the airport site, it can use either existing Conrail Shared Assets (CSAO) ROW, by adding an extra double track for which room exists - or circulate on an elevated double track above the I95 median. On the second stretch of the line between Bayway and Bloomfield, the existing Arthur Kill railroad bridge can be used, requiring some retrofit in order to run PATH trains on the single track over the bridge. On the Staten Island side, a final junction with the West Shore Rail line needs to be built, there required land reserves are available. Note that a PATH extension past and beyond EWR terminals could also replace the existing EWR people mover, a monorail currently nearing its end-of-life and due for replacement.
Picture 18:
Proposed PATH extension from EWR. It uses existing Conrail ROW, including the bridge over Elizabethport Reach, on approx. 80% of the proposed route, while the first and last sections (tunnel under EWR airport to terminal, connection from existing cargo rail tracks on Staten Island into Bloomfield exchange) are to be built from scratch.
25
105
The charm of this solution is that it creates a win-win situation: • Western Staten Island gets a one-seat rail service to EWR Airport, downtown Newark (interminal connection to Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor in Newark Penn Station) and Midtown Manhattan. The latter is particularly important since this direct link takes substantial load off other connections, e.g. via Brooklyn, and does not add extra passengers to the partly overloaded MTA Subway segments in Lower Manhattan [25]. Also, previous research shows that travel options minimizing the need for transfers are preferred by customers, even at the expense of longer travel time. • Western Staten Island gets a single-transfer rail link to Northern New Jersey (in Hoboken / Exchange Place) • New businesses opportunities (retail, hospitality…) in Western and Northern Staten Island arise due to the direct link to EWR airport • 80% of the line can built on existing railway ROW or co-use existing rail infrastructure, making it quicker and financially more advantageous to build Note: an alternative to PATH extension would be a fourth gondola from Bloomfield to EWR. The main difficulty with this solution resides in the layout of a future arrival terminal that would need to be placed on the other side of I95, a crossing of the airport runways by a gondola system being impossible. Element 4.2.2.: Gondola Two (Graniteville/CUNY - ) West Brighton - St. George - Liberty State Park / NJ Transit Terminal - WTC / Lower Manhattan This Gondola, with a total system length of about 10 miles and a trip time of around 22-25 minutes including three intermediate stops, will have the same technical system properties as Gondola One (see 4.1.2.) and SIC Express Gondola (see 4.1.3.), making operation and maintenance easy to integrate. To facilitate its introduction in the PANYNJ harbour site, all towers will be placed on land with sufficient vertical clearance for normal harbour operations (cargo and cruise) to continue, unaffected by the gondola.
Picture 19:
Length Profile of Gondola Two (not to scale), approx. height and location of towers
On the last section of the line, the gondola doubles as a link between the NJ Transit Terminal and Lower Manhattan, offering another new connectivity option. It is technically feasible to offer a higher capacity on this part of the line than on the connection to Staten 26
106
Island. Some gondolas would circulate between New Jersey and Manhattan only, while gondolas bound for Staten Island provide through service to Manhattan without a need for passengers to transfer.
Picture 20:
Gondola One and Gondola Two suggested trajectories
27
107
The protected site around the Statue of Liberty is not impacted by the Gondola. A site for the arrival terminal, with direct connection to the Subway in the same building and sufficient capactiy reserves resp. expandable capacity, needs to be carefully chosen. Building time is estimated to 12-18 months once detailed planning is completed. Element 4.2.3.: Full Renovation and Future-Proofing of Staten Island Railway (SIR) As soon as Gondola Two and the PATH train are in operation, the existing Staten Island Railway is to be closed entirely for a 12-18 months full renovation period: • Full rebuilding of track and signalling to allow for higher commercial speeds • Retirement of MTA’s ageing R44 fleet of subway cars • Layout for new rolling stock and operational model: - either Light Rail vehicles (limited to St.George, which will provide Gondola Two connection) - or (better) PATH-compatible subway cars (allowing for all rail operations on Staten Island to be compatible with each other). The latter solution allows a one-seat service to EWR - Newark - Hoboken (and on to Manhattan, albeit with longer travel times than via the gondolas) via North Shore Line and PATH extension as per 4.2.1. Since PATH’s newest cars (PA5 stock) is technically based on MTA’s R142A fleet, this solution leaves the future option of through trains from Brooklyn in case the rail tunnel as mentioned in section 2.1.1. were to get built • Full rebuilding of stations (wider platforms, new ADA-compatible access, weatherprotected curbside docking installations for SAVs integrated) • Major stations to be expanded into regional hubs, served by SAVs providing 24/7 stationto-door service
28
108
Picture 21: Typical residential Staten Island Street. The Suburban-type pattern is inadequate for bus service, only SAVs (automated on-demand door-to-door service) can compete with the comfort of a private car
• Dismantling of parking facilities and replacement by SAV docking bays, with weatherprotected access from stations • New track layout to provide for express train service serving only major hubs, significantly raising commercial travel speeds. Destination of these trains are Clifton (the second major interchange for Brooklyn / Manhattan - bound traffic, via Gondola One) and St.George (Gondola Two to New Jersey and Manhattan) Element 4.2.4.: Ferry Service around Staten Island A fast ferry service, operated with smaller vessels than the current Staten Island ferry, operates on the lines shown in Picture 1. These ferries serve commuter as well as tourist/leisure function, and beside travelling the shore provide connections where no bridges exist or are slower to use. The ferry lines link all Staten Island coastal areas to the new developments in Staten Island City, and provide strategic connections to other modes. They combine a leisure and peak hours functionality. On the West Side, they intentionally serve the NJ Side at two points. As an added value, in Tottenville, Ferries provide an enhanced link to NJ Transit’s Perth Amboy Station, creating new car-free links to Jersey for the full North Coast of Staten Island.
29
Picture 21: Typical residential Staten Island Street. The Suburban-type pattern is inadequate for bus service, only SAVs (automated on-demand door-to-door service) can compete with the comfort of a private car
• Dismantling of parking facilities and replacement by SAV docking bays, with weatherprotected access from stations • New track layout to provide for express train service serving only major hubs, significantly raising commercial travel speeds. Destination of these trains are Clifton (the second major interchange for Brooklyn / Manhattan - bound traffic, via Gondola One) and St.George (Gondola Two to New Jersey and Manhattan) Element 4.2.4.: Ferry Service around Staten Island A fast ferry service, operated with smaller vessels than the current Staten Island ferry, operates on the lines shown in Picture 1. These ferries serve commuter as well as tourist/leisure function, and beside travelling the shore provide connections where no bridges exist or are slower to use. The ferry lines link all Staten Island coastal areas to the new developments in Staten Island City, and provide strategic connections to other modes. They combine a leisure and peak hours functionality. On the West Side, they intentionally serve the NJ Side at two points. As an added value, in Tottenville, Ferries provide an enhanced link to NJ Transit’s Perth Amboy Station, creating new car-free links to Jersey for the full North Coast of Staten Island.
29
109
Resulting from ferry service is not only the activation of Staten Island’s West Coast for recreational activities, but also new links to New Jersey that enhance walkability and bikeability, helping reduce car use for leisure purposes. A network of bike paths is envisioned to complement the transportation upgrading measures; bikes can also be taken on the ferries by passengers.
4.3. Phase 3: Two express Gondola Lines, New Staten Island Rail and SAVs operational This phase is marked by • both high capacity gondolas (One and Two) in operation, connecting Staten Island with Manhattan 24/7, replacing ferry and express bus service • borough-wide operating SAV fleets operating on-demand, but fully integrated into transit fares, take commuters and other passengers from their home or business door to the nearest rail, BRT or gondola station. For local Staten Island destination pairs where no rail service exists, direct SAV service is provided. Local MTA bus service is fully replaced by SAV fleets. • BRT buses operate as a central island link and over Bayonne Bridge into New Jersey. They connect to Gondola One and Two at CUNY and to rail at Elm Park. • the rebuilt Staten Island Railroad provides rapid and comfortable links to the gondolas, to the North and West Shore, to EWR airport, Newark and Manhattan • Ferry service is phased out of its 24/7 service between South Ferry and St.George. The main load is now carried by the Gondolas. The ferries serve as peak hour supplement on the Manhattan route, possibly with a new, additional terminal in Midtown, or as backup in case of planned maintenance or other service disruption of the gondolas. It is important to note that for current Staten Island out-of-borough commutes, the modal split of the car is 60%, and for current intra-borough commutes 75%, by far the highest in the City of New York. The implementation of an Integrated Mobility System for Staten Island as described here decreases, if not in many cases eliminates, the need for residents to own a car. This will result in overall frequencies on public transport to multiply by a factor of 2.5. This capacity can only be provided by all measures here taken together - two Gondolas, upgraded Rail, BRT and ferries as a supplement.
30
110
5. Further Research The present suggestions represent a draft based on existing, publicly accessible research and data. A more fine-grained measurement of commuting patterns resulting e.g. in decisions on the exact design and local implementation of terminals (e.g. for the Gondolas) has to be based on more detailed research. All measures suggested in this white paper build upon one another. To make them work, their full integration into the NYC MTA fare system and the inclusion of on-demand transport into the fare system is required.
6. Terminologies BRT
Bus Rapid Transit, Express Buses circulating on their own right-of-way and delivering a high average commercial speed. BRT is often used as low-budget alternative to light rail.
DRT
Demand-Responsive Transport, flexible public transportation that adapts to user demand in near real-time. Includes ride hailing and paratransit services.
MaaS
Mobility as a Service, integration and retailing of mobility services in a way that puts the customers’ journey at the center, and not individual modes or operators. Designed to make consumption of mobility easier by customizing products to consumer demand and fully integrating fares.
MTA
New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority
PATH
Port Authority Trans Hudson, subway system operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ)
SAV
Self-Driving Automated Shuttles
SI
Staten Island
SIR
Staten Island Railway
NYC
New York City
NJ
New Jersey
BK
Brooklyn
31
111
7. References [1] Williams, K. (2014), The Planned Subway Lines that Never Got Built - and Why, Curbed NY, available at https://ny.curbed.com/2014/5/22/10096344/the-planned-subway-linesthat-never-got-built-151-and-why, retrieved Oct 3rd, 2017 [2] Staten Island to Bayonne Aerial Gondola, Staten Island Economic Delevopment Corporation, available at http://siedc.org/signature-projects/aerial-gondola-designcompetition, retrieved Oct 3rd, 2017 [3] Bliss, L. (2017), Enough With the Streetcars Already, Citylab / The Atlantic, available at https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/09/enough-with-the-streetcarsalready/541365, retrieved Oct 3rd, 2017 [4] Guo, Z. (2003), Assessment of the Transfer Penalty for Transit Trips in Downtown Boston, Master Thesis, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston [5] Gordon, C., Bajrami, B., Tabori S. (2013), A Bridge Too Far? The Staten Island/ Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Missed Connection. Journal of Public Transportation. 16. 10.5038/2375-0901.16.3.1. [6] Rizzi, N. (2016), Staten Island Ferry Had a Record 23.1M Riders Last Year, DNA Info, available at https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160921/st-george/staten-island-ferryridership, retrieved Oct 3rd, 2017 [7] MTA Average Weekday Bus Ridership, compiled from http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_bus, retrieved Oct 3rd, 2017 [8] Kofsky, J. (2017), PATH Expansion Would Provide Direct Access Between Newark Airport and Manhattan, available at https://jerseydigs.com/path-train-newark-airportexpansion-plan, retrieved Oct 3rd 2017 [9] For an overview, see: Philatie, M. (2016), Electric High Power Charging, EVE eMobility Infrastructure Seminar, available at https://tapahtumat.tekes.fi/uploads/8bf12378/Pihlatie_Mikko-5755.pdf, retrieved Oct 3rd, 2017 [10] Menkhoff, G. (2006), World Bank Guidelines for the Inclusive Design of Bus Rapid Transit, European Conference of Ministers of Transport / CODATU, available at http://www.codatu.org/wp-content/uploads/MENKHOFF.pdf, retrieved Oct 6th, 2017 [11] Steuteville, R. (2017), Great Idea: Transit-Oriented Development, Congress for the New Urbanism, available at https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2017/03/15/great-idea-transitoriented-development, retreived Oct 6th, 2017 [12] Leong, L. (2016), The Rail Plus Property Model: Hong Kong’s Successful Self-
32
112
Financing Formula, McKinsey Industry Insights, McKinsey, Inc., available at https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-infrastructure/our-insights/therail-plus-property-model, retrieved Oct 7th, 2017 [13] Barone, V. (2015), Staten Islanders have one of the Country’s Longest Average Commutes, silive.com, available at http://www.silive.com/news/2015/09/staten_island_keeps_spot_among, retrieved Sept 27th, 2017 [14] TCRP (2003), Transit Capacity and Quality of Service, TCRP Report #100, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. [15] MTA New York City Transit (2017), Staten Island Bus Study - Reimagining Express Buses, p.4 ff, available at http://nymta.civicconnect.com/sites/default/files/Final%20Report%20May%2031%202017. pdf, retrieved Oct 3rd 2017 [16] New Yorkers and Cars (2012), New York City Car Ownership Rates, NYCEDC, available at https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-cars, retreived Oct 5th 2017 [17] FTA (2017), Mobility-on-Demand Sandbox Program, available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/mobility-demand-mod-sandbox-program, retrieved Oct 3rd, 2017 [18] NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey (2017), NOAA Chart 12334: New York Harbor - Upper Bay and Narrows Anchorage Chart, available at http://www.charts.noaa.gov/BookletChart/12334_BookletChart.pdf, retrieved Sept 25th, 2017 [19] MTA New York City Transit (2016), Feasibility and Analysis of F Express Service in Brooklyn, available at http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/F_express.pdf, retrieved Oct 5th 207 [20] Sulopuisto, O. (2016), Why Helsinki’s Innovative On-Demand Bus Service Failed, Cityscope, available at http://citiscope.org/story/2016/why-helsinkis-innovative-demandbus-service-failed, retrieved Sept 25th 2017 [21] Aloisi, J. (2017), Lessons from the Collapse of Bridj, Commonwealth Magazine, available at https://commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/lessons-from-the-collapseof-bridj/, retrieved Sept 7th, 2017 [22] Marshall, A. (2017), Elon Musk’s Boring Company Just Hit the Boring Part, Wired, available at https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-boring-company-tunnels/, retrieved Sept 5th 2017 [23] see deadmalls.com
33
113
[24] Thompson, D. (2017), Sears Was the Amazon of Its Time - Until It Made Preventable Mistakes, Citylab, available at https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/10/sears-was-theamazon-of-its-timeuntil-it-made-preventable-mistakes/542043/, retrieved Sept 12th 2017 [25] MTA Board Presentation (2013), Looking Ahead - A Context For the Next 20 Year Needs Assessment, NYC Metropolitan Transit Authority, available at http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/docs/TYN_Vision_7-22-13.pdf, retrieved Sept 12th 2017 [26], Doppelmayr Garaventa Group, A 6922 Wolfurt, Austria, www.doppelmayr.com
34
114
115
Current Staten Island Projects Freshkills Park Living Breakwaters
117
Freshkills Park Field Operations At 2,200 acres, Freshkills Park will be almost three times the size of Central Park and the largest park developed in New York City in over 100 years. Formerly the world’s largest landfill, this enormous park will one day host a variety of natural spaces and cultural facilities. The NYC Department of Parks and Recreation is implementing the project using Field Operations’ award-winning Draft Master Plan as a conceptual guide. The basic framework of the plan integrates three
118
separate systems—programming, wildlife, and circulation—into one cohesive and dynamic unit. The park is scheduled to be developed in phases through 2036. In addition to providing a wide range of recreational opportunities, including many uncommon in the city, the park’s design, ecological restoration and cultural and educational programming emphasize environmental sustainability and public concern for human impact on the earth.
119
Living Breakwaters SCAPE
SCAPE’s layered approach overlays coastal resiliency infrastructure with habitat enhancement techniques and environmental stewardship models, linking in-water protective interventions to on-shore resiliency and community engagement.
Sources: [1] http://www.scapestudio.
com/projects/living-breakwaters-competition/ 120
oysters, and other organisms. This living infrastructure is paired with social resiliency frameworks in adjacent neighborhoods on-shore to help increase awareness of risk, empower citizens, and engage local schools in waterfront education. The proposal was awarded to New York State and Proposed for the South Shore of Stat- is currently being implemented by the en Island, Living Breakwaters employs Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery a necklace of breakwaters to buffer with $60 million of CDBG-DR fundneighborhoods from wave damage ing allocated for this project, currently and erosion while providing a more in the schematic design process. biodiverse habitat for juvenile fish,
121
Global Reference Projects
123
Project References
SONGJIANG INDUSTRIAL CAMPUS -Rafael Vinoly -Shanghai China
UNIVERISTY OF TEXAS @ AUSTIN -Sasaki -Austin, Texas WYLY THEATER -REX + OMA -Dallas, Texas
124
HORSHOLM MASTER PLAN -Snohetta -Horsholm, Denmark
MCCORMICK TRIBUNE CAMPUS CENTER -OMA -Chicago, Illinois
AMAGER RESOURCE CENTER -Bjarke Ingles Group -Copenhagen, DK 125
Staten Island City Global Reference Projects
SOUTH SEAPORT -WS Development (with KPF, NBBJ, and others) -Boston, Massachusetts
126
NANJING ZENDAI HIMALAYAS CENTER -MAD Architects -Beijing, China
127
Cultural Hub Global Reference Projects
PINES PAVILION -HWKN -Fire Island, NY
128
GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM -Frank Gehry -Bilbao, Spain
129
Tech Campus Global Reference Projects
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK -Grimshaw -Research Triangle, North Carolina
130
GOOGLE CAMPUS -Bjarke Ingles Group + Heatherwick Studios -Mountain View, California
131
Great Creek Marina Global Reference Projects
THE INTERLACE -OMA, Ole Scheeren -Singapore
132
JNAH MARINA RESORT -JDS -Beiruit, Lebanon
133
134
SOURCES 1. Center for an Urban Future, “Staten Island 2020” 1-24, April 2007 2. The City of New York Ma yor Bill de Blasio, “housing new york, A Five-Borough, Ten-Year Plan” 1-117, 2012 3. The City of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, “One New York, The Plan for a Stong and Just City” 1-354, 2013 4. College of Staten Island, “Proposed Expansion Plan to Establish a Satellite Campus in St. George” 1-15, May 2015 5. E.B. Solomont, “Developers wade into Staten Island’s Waterfront” 1-3, September 2015 6. Field Operations & New York City Department of City Planning, “Fresh Kills Park: Lifescape, Staten Island, New York Master Plan” 1-66, March 2006 7. Jesse M. Keenan & Vishaan Chakrabarti, “NYC 2040: Housing The Next One Million New Yorkers” 1-150, 2013 8. Michael Minn, “Staten Island North Shore Railroad” 1-2, 2014 9. New York City Planning Comission & Langan Engineering, Environmental, Surveying and Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. “Bay Street Corridor Rezoning and Related Actions, Borough of Staten Island” 1-147. May 2016 10. NYEDC, “North Shore Transportation Improvement Strategy” 1-22 11. NYEDC, “Staten Island: Then and Now” 1-48 12. NYEDC, “ Borough Trends & Insights, Analyzing New York City’s Local Economies”, 1-10 13. NYEDC & NYC Department of City Planning, “North Shore 2030” 1-56. December 2011 14. NYEDC & NYC Department of City Planning, “Working West Shore 2030, Creating Jobs, Improving Infrastructure, Managing Growth” 1-52. June 2011 15. Staten Island Economic Development Corporation, “Staten Island West Shore Transportation Project” 1-15 16. http://www.amny.com/real-estate/city-living/staten-island/city-living-dongan-hills-is-a-waterfront-staten-islandnabe-with-easy-transportation-1.10688122#1 17. http://www.archdaily.com/422470/ad-classics-the-guggenheim-museum-bilbao-frank-gehry 18. www.big.dk
19. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/dashboard/ INC110214/36085,00 20. http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/13/business/skypods-gondolas-urban-transport/index.html 21. https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150713/stgeorge/timeline-ferris-wheel-sparks-huge-staten-islandresurgence 22. http://www.fieldoperations.net/project-details/project/ freshkills-park.html 23. www.grimshaw-architects.com 24. http://harborring.org/ 25. www.i-mad.com 26. http://media.silive.com/latest_news/photo/nws-traffi-0ca448eac6632027.jpg 27. http://www.melk-nyc.com/work-portfolio/songjiang/ 28. http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ street-design-elements/sidewalks/ 29. http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2016/09/aerial_ gondola_between_bayonne_and_staten_island_w.html 30. http://www.nycedc.com/project/st-george-waterfront 31. www.oma.eu 32. http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/381-13/ mayor-bloomberg-city-s-largest-solar-energy-installationbe-built-freshkills-park#/0 33. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/20m-plan-convert-s-prison-movie-lot-article-1.1619048 34. www.rex-ny.com 35. http://www.sasaki.com/project/317/university-of-texas-at-austin-master-plan/ 36. http://www.scapestudio.com/projects/living-breakwaters-competition/ 37. http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/05/delays_ cloud_future_of_broadwa.html 38. http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/a_map_ of_staten_island_develop.html 39. http://simd.com/simd-development-plan/ 40. http://sirealestatenews.blogspot.com/2009/02/reduce-uncertainty-by-controling-your.html 41. http://www.vb-architects.com/the-landmark-colony 42. www.wsdevelopment.com 135
A Vision for Staten Island Development and Transportation Planning (c) CetraRuddy 2018