Crossboro u final by PennPlanning

o S

ES PL A N AD E

Q4 8

AV R

ST E HE

TC W ES

SI D

New Lots Av

L B15 JFK Airport

IL L

Lawrence Far Rockaway

Canarsie Rockaway Pkwy

CANARSIE

A• S

Jamaica Bay

SID

DR NN CH A

BL VD AY C KA W

TH U

N LA Y H

t en

BEA

9 Av m Pk ilto w n y Ha

HA M

FORT

LT DE R BI

VA N

BL VD

T S

i lw

N LI

Is l

Sta

E L IN

T S HO

W ES

RINE GIL PARK HODG WAY MEMO ES BRID RIAL GE

BREEZY POINT

D• F• N• Q

CONEY ISLAND

S56

Pleasant Plains Richmond Valley

Nassau

S74/84

TOTTENVILLE BEACH

Atlantic

S74/84

Tottenville S74/84

CROSSBORO Expanding Opportunity in the Outer Boroughs of New York City

JACOB RIIS PARK

LV D

S55 X17 X19

Prince's Bay

ROCKAWAY PARK

AC HB

S55

Huguenot

CHARLESTON

Eltingville Annadale WOODROW

FLOYD BENNETT FIELD

HW Y

ROSSVILLE

BRIDGE

NEW DORP BEACH VERRAZANO -NARROWS

GREAT KILLS PARK

Great Kills

S54 X7 X8

Bay Terrace

RE UT

RICHMONDTOWN

A RTH U R KI L L

R TH

ARDEN HEIGHTS

FO U

FRESH KILLS

A• S

AW AY

A• S

Beach 105 St

S EA

Beach 60 St A

D G I RT B L V

Beach 44 St

A• S

Beach 98 St

Rockaway Park Beach 116 St

Beach 67 St

Beach 90 St

GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA– JAMAICA BAY

W NE

Jefferson Av Grant City S51/81

S57

WS B RI D G

Old Town

Oakwood Heights

LA TOURETTE PARK

Grasmere

NO -N A RR O

Dongan Hills

New Dorp

STATEN ISLAND MALL

TODT HILL

SEA VIEW HOSPITAL

D N LA IS

Broad Channel

EN AT ST

ROSEBANK V ERR A Z A

ATL

K IN G S

D Y B LV VI C TO R

FOX HILLS

S WA Y

CASTLETON CORNERS

COLLEGE OF STATEN ISLAND

S51

RE S E XP

D AL N

CLOVE LAKES PARK

9 AV

NEW SPRINGVILLE PARK

Clifton

SILVER LAKE PARK

WESTERLEIGH

N D AV R I CHM O

BULLS HEAD CHELSEA

Beach 25 St Beach 36 St

JAMAICA BAY WILDLIFE REFUGE

REMS

Inwood

Far Rockaway Mott Av

B RO O K L Y N

STAT EN I SLAND

S RE FO

Stapleton

SNUG HARBOR CULTURAL CENTER

PORT RICHMOND

MARINERS HARBOR

RI C H RR M O ND TE

QU EE NS NA SS AU

R LIR

East 105 St

CH A

Cedarhurst

BE AC H

Woodmere

2/3

EAST FLATBUSH H

F O U RTH AV

St. George Tompkinsville

WEST NEW BRIGHTON

4 1 AirTrain stops/ terminal numbers

JFK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

HOWARD BEACH

A V

Y WA RK

PA ON

RO B I NS K IE

J AC

B Ju roa nc dw A • tio ay C• n

•

AIRTRA

Br Va iarw n oo W d yc k Bl

Pa o

–R Dr

av dh oo

67 P

ET TE

B • Av Q

Be rg en S 2• t 3 d A Pla rm z y 7 2• a

N • la R• y n LIR s R St R Ctr

–B

F• n S G t

F • St G

Gr Neand w Av to w n AV GRAND

Q47

V TA OIN NP EE GR

2• h H 3• a 4 • ll 5

2• 3

Air rk po rt

vd Bl en

rro

oo Ea 3 kly st n ern M P us kw eu y m 2

•

D Es ela se nc F • x S ey J• t S M t

Cla

FIFT H A V

Y ST

D • arc

St te et

af Av 2

J •L

S O U T H E RN B L V D AV

TC HE N BL S T E R VD

TH E R

SO U

L on g I sl a n d

Metro- No rth I

IN BA

AV JERO ME

GRAND CONCOURSE

Howard Beach JFK Airport

V UI T A

IN JFK

Y BA ’ OSS NS CR TERA AL ORI E VE MEM IDG BR

HE NR

GOVERNORS ISLAND

Shepherd Av

C OND

B15

Rosedale

Open 11am-7pm on racing days

Laurelton

Aqueduct Racetrack

BLV

OZONE PARK

BAY

FO U RT H AV

Botanic Garden

Aqueduct North Conduit Av

Euclid Av

RC Brooklyn Sterling St p St U H C Terminal 2• 5 ro th Market in BROOKLYN Av U W •5 h BOTANIC Prospect 2 PARK rc GARDEN Rd SLOPE Park Utica Av hu ly r C v 5 B• Q• S 9 ST + Farragut Rd A 2• eve e NIN T H ST PROSPECT k g t U ith ts v B e ir S 5 PARK 2• Av oll 7 A F• G Sm 9 S F• G wk –9 • G• R C h v e F N •5 us n St 4A 2 Parkside Av tb kly 15 Park• G Q Av FLATBUSH Fla roo·U PROSPECT AV F Prospect Av d F B •5 ct ch L A TB U 2 R ur pe S H AV yR os Rd Ch • Q erle FLATLANDS u Pr B v o a e ly z B H Fort Hamilton Q rte AV Pla 25 St Pkwy Co R irk d Q F• G N wk e H boun O GREEN-WOOD ST th Ne • Q enu R u CEMETERY AN B v so D A AV ald A v• G ·U on J QMIDWOOD ch F 36 St M cD ur ue AV D• N• R M v en Ch 39 ST A Av N W E S T E ND LI N U O E Q M F ST 45 St R MARINE AN ue D BOROUGH F SUNSET R PARK D en PARK PARK t Av D AV Q ch t F wy re d S 53 St t H U n D y U R gs a w 62 V y A in e B w F N K •Q N v+ e 59 St B u AU Pk D P Z y l en N• R U e m AV AV y Av enu Ar a 61 ST SEA BEACH LINE 63 ST NS ue O F v n min U M y en Hw A EM kly er Ba v Av F gs on Av N Av N Av Rd d oo T Q t A N St ilt wy N 8 N y Kin 18 ea Br ck 20 Bay Ridge Av ch F am Pk shSHEEPSHEAD 62 D kw N re Ne p U t R P e tr H Q U y BAY e ue w Fo gs y Ba Sh • Q en W Ne B Av Kin Hw N ES T D 77 St X F 8 BAY RIDGE BENSONHURST ST R ue Brighton Beach Av en B• Q Avenue U ne Av BRIGHTON D u t F 86 S T 86 ST BEACH 86 St N p D R Ne 86 St 25 Av Ocean Pkwy F D D N D Q Bay Ridge DYKER Bay 50 St 95 St BEACH R D PARK West 8 St NY Aquarium F• Q Coney Island Stillwell Av

BERGEN ST

UNION ST

104 St

Locust Manor

A• C

VD BL

CRO

2• 5

L K PI T

Kingston Av 3

Nostrand Av

President St

U TH

Alabama Av

Van Siclen Av V

Grant Av

Z rush hrs, J other times

Rockaway Av + Av D

111 St

ND LI

W RK

Cleveland St

Z rush hrs, J other times

Ozone Park Lefferts Blvd

O LT

BL VD

80 St

Crescent St

Sutter Av–Rutland Rd

Crown Hts Av

BL VD

88 St

Cypress Hills J

ER TS

Norwood Av

CROWN Utica v HEIGHTS 3• 4

LE FF

11 1

WOODHAVEN

Rockaway Blvd

J• Z

Rockaway Av Saratoga Av

n kli an • 5 Fr • 3• 4

75 St–Elderts Ln

Z rush hours, J other times

str

Z rush hours, J other times

111 St 104 St

R IC

E• J• Z• LIRR

121 St

RICHMOND HILL

Siclen Av Liberty Van C Av nt ic C VA EAST New Lots Av N Av NEW U SI 3 N r YORK D e ER t t Van Siclen Av EN Su v AV 3 A L Pennsylvania Av VA Livonia Av N SI PE 3 NN CLE OCEAN HILLU S NA BROWNSVILLE Junius St Livonia Av YLVAN V

LIR BE

A L tla

East New York

Av k St W · wic en L sh rde Bu be A

ck Ro v A

Sutphin Blvd Archer Av JFK Airport

on ils U

N TO

IT OL

AV A Z rush hours, IC A M J other times JA WO OD HAV EN BL VD

Woodhaven Blvd cD J• Z M v A 85 St–Forest Pkwy

t on g nt hin Cli as C N ST W L TO

USH

E TL

a ic Ut • C

Av G

n s to Av gs op Av Kin ro Th nd C ra st No • C Av D AV A in DFOR kl BE an Fr C• S

n Av

E• J• Z

Jamaica

–U

FOREST HILLS

L FU

BEDFORDSTUYVESANT

Jamaica Center Parsons/Archer M

AIN

KEW GARDENS

H C

Forest Hills

B R O A DW AY

so TB

BUSHWICK BUSHWICK AV

st B ra ed nd fo Av rd s

a k aic c E m Wy Ja an V

Kew Gardens

Myrtle Wyckoff Avs L• M

Myrtle Willoughby Avs

E•

JAMAICA

M JA

Parsons Blvd

Sutphin Blvd F

–L

Av 75 E• FQUE ENS B LV D

E•

LIR

TR AIR

s en e rd pk Ga T w ion Ke Un • F

169 St

RS ON

Central Av

Queens Village

Hollis

hin

lse HaL

SM IT H

HIC KS

Hoyt Schermerhorn

Myrtle Av

HOLLIS

Seneca Av

RIDGEWOOD

lb Ka De L

Lafayette Av C Atlantic Av–Barclays Ctr B• Q• 2• 3• 4• 5• LIRR Park Pl A

2• 3 • 4 • 5

A• C• G

rs ffe Je L

lse

DeKalb Av B• Q• R

QUEENS

N AV

GLENDALE

YR M

Nevins St

Hoyt St

2• 3 NEW YORK TRANSIT MUSEUM CARROLL GARDENS

RED HOOK

A• C• F• R

TTERY TUNNEL

FORT GREENE PARK

•

ls Hil st re v Fo 1 A• M• R 7 F

a on

Forest Av M

BROOKLYN

Av L

FOREST

Av g G in sh FluB EDF ORD

n to s in v Cl n A G to St ng n G lto Fu

rim lus Lo J• M F J• M

MASPETH

n se WYC KOFF AV tro orga on M L M WILSON AV Knickerbocker Av S er

Jay St MetroTech

Court St

FORT GREENE FL A

A• C

G IN

HILLCREST

Middle Village Metropolitan Av

J Av , s rs te hou s Gaush time r Z ther St Jo ko

High St

H US

JAMAICA ESTATES

Jamaica 179 St

KEW GARDENS HILLS

St J• M

FOREST PARK

OLI

I D GE TA N BR

LUTHERAN CEMETERY

Av • Z cy • M ar J

•

St ey rs, nc ou au sh h es ChZ ru er tim

a dw

P EX

a Gr L

BUS HW I

O NI

LV YB

am ah Gr Av L

I RD HA

REGO PARK

Fresh Pond Rd

•

A SB

rim Lo L

R HO

Metropolitan Av

MT OLIVET CEMETERY

PI RN

IS L

QUEENS VILLAGE

MIDDLE VILLAGE

JUNIPER VALLEY PARK

•

AIN

D Q U E E N S BL V

NEW CALVARY CEMETERY

NA SS AU EE NS

ST JAY

W AT

+ d an St Gr 9th 7

Y D EX P W IS LA N

BROOKLYN BRIDGE PARK

QU Y

FRESH MEADOWS

•

CUNNINGHAM PARK

DUMBO

PIA

A BL VD

Q10

Ro Jac os ks • • ev on • elt H • Av ts

tle yr M • M• Z

h ElmM• R ns ee Qu lvd B

47 t 3 Q or Q3 Airp R GA L

X EE ON

Q72 LGA Airport UN

s ur

90 St–Elmhurst Av J

11 2

M A N HA T

R S ST

ay id

NAVY YARD T GE

e id St ds 61 oo W St 52

B UR

6 7 9S

Junction Blvd

OO R

HE RT

Great Neck

WY EX P

FLUSHING MEADOWS CORONA PARK

KISSENA PARK

Mets–Willets Point

103 St–Corona Plaza

L IA

CL EA

Broadway

11 ST

L 7 ow St so

p Air

•

d M •

ER TH OR

–B

Av d or L

WIL

–J

Blv

B 46 7 liss St St

L SB

L O NG

in po

B’

IT E WH

NCE

Bayside

LIRR

QUEENS

KIS S EN

Flushing

7 • Q48 1 LGA Airport

BROOKL YN BRIDGE

BROOKLYN-BA

EAST RIVER PARK D B RI

N LO

111 St

Q3 ST

rth

ei ns ee a Qu laz P N

BROOKLYN HEIGHTS

sum me r on

St 36 M• R

TT A

RN HE RT

7 • Q48 LGA Airport

CORONA

STEINWAY ST

36 S T

VERNON BLVD

31 ST

21 ST

AD W A

BR O

B R O AD W A Y

n Is l a nd Ferry

TO ES IT H GE X-W RID B

t-R

Hunterspoint Av

St ate

AV AV

St s 3 ry’ 14 a E tM S

PECT

W PK

Metro- North

AY B ROAD W

PKW Y

S ON

YH UD

NR HE

Y H BR UD SO ID G N E

S IN H

DW AY

LA S

r te es S RDU ch IN rk P L A PaHITE

PR OS

Wall St

3 7 3S

7• LIRR

J• Z

S T NIC H O

AMSTERDAM AV

Hudson River

ALLEN

A• C• J• Z 2• 3• 4• 5 FINANCIAL DISTRICT

rth

M• R

LIRR

D EL A

FDR

LOWER EAST SIDE

1 AV

Auburndale

Mets–Willets Point

Roosevelt Av

EN Q UE

Little Douglaston Neck

LIRR

Q33

B ROAD WA Y

Hunters Point Av

2 AV

N• Q

WILLIAMSBURG

Broad St

South Ferry

Flushing Main St

Metropolitan Av

E 4 ST

3 0 AV

M• R

N • Av Q

Whitehall St South Ferry

4• 5

LIBERTY ISLAND

y er • Z Grand St B• D ow J East BCANAL ST CHINATOWN Broadway

2• 3

Manhasset

FLUSHING

JACKSON HEIGHTS

E 8 ST

Fulton St

Bowling Green

ELLIS ISLAND

F•

GREENPOINT

Chambers St

Wall St

L VD R IA B AST O

M60

E• M• R

J• Z

4• 5

T DI

N• Q

N 7 ST

Brooklyn Bridge City Hall 4• 5• 6

Rector St R

st Ea

Murray Hill

ASTORIA Astoria

30 Av

L NB

Av k oo R

Rector St

AIN

RIKERS ISLAND

N• Q• 7

Plandome

N • Av Q

Long Island City

TO ING

J• N• Q R• Z• 6

Cortlandt St

WTC

3 AV

E ST

Canal St

WTC Site 9/11 Memorial

Cortlandt St

•

6 LITTLE ITALY

Chambers St A• C Park Place City 2• 3 Hall

World Trade Center

PATH

T C HURC H S

1• 2• 3

Franklin St

Chambers St

BATTERY PARK CITY

A• C• E

Av 1 L

Spring St

SOHO

GRAND ST

Canal St

TRIBECA

iv tR

E• M

Vernon Blvd Jackson Av

EAST VILLAGE

HOUSTON ST

C• E

Canal St

HOLLAND TUNNEL

L A F A Y E TT

ICK

G ST SP RIN CANAL ST

Prince St Spring St N• R

R VA

Houston St

ON ST

2 AV

BLEECKER

S I X TH A V

PARK

HO UST

VER

GREENWICH VILLAGE

Av 3 L

NOHO

A• B• C• D• E• F• M

HUNTS POINT

Court Sq-23 St

QUEENS MIDTOWN TUNNEL

23 ST

•6 •5 •4 R Q• R • •Q N •N L• L

•

Astor Pl

W 4 St Wash Sq

er St toph Sq Chris eridan 1 Sh

Hunts Point Av + Garrison

21 St

THROGS NECK BRIDGE

G• 7

28 St

N• R

Port Washington

SOUNDVIEW

Queensboro Plaza

ROOSEVELT ISLAND

8 St-NYU

41 AV

UNITED NATIONS

33 St

WASHINGTON SQUARE PARK

Christopher St

PATH

W AD

9 St

C H PA AV W4 ST

EN W I

ON RI

HUDS

5 AV

Av 6 L

F• M

GRE

VI E W

Court Sq

S• 4• 5• 6• 7• Metro-North

PA RK AV S MADISON AV

SE V E N T H AV

14 St

1• 2• 3

BL EE

23 St

Broadway

21 St Queensbridge

1 AV

14 St

A• C• E

Longwood Av

E 149 St

QUEENSBORO BRIDGE

Grand Central except S 42 St

14 ST

14 St

TRAMWAY

59 ST

51 St50 ST

LONG ISLAND CITY

elt ev d os lan Ro Is F

66 ST 63 ST

3 AV

SIXTH AV

9 AV

10 AV

11 AV

N• R

YORK AV

14 St

N• R

23 St

F• M

18 St

28 St

33 St

23 St

23 St 1

EX ER

FIRST AV

EI GH TH A V

C• E

Castle Hill Av CR OS S B RON X E X P WY

OU ND

N OW

Westchester Sq East Tremont Av

Zerega Av

Astoria Blvd

Lexington Av/53 St E• M

5 Av 42 St Bryant Pk 7

T ON

M60 LGA AirportN• Q

72 ST

42 ST

B• D• F• M

B• D• F 1• 2• 3• LIRR 28 St M• N• Q• R 1 CHELSEA

L ET DD

Middletown Rd

Parkchester

Whitlock Av

86 ST

N• Q• R

B• D• F• M

N• Q

4• 5• 6

E• M

tra

M60 Q33 Q47 Q48 Q72

UPPER EAST SIDE

59 St

N• Q• R

47–50 Sts Rockefeller Ctr

34 St Herald Sq

OB E RT F K EN NE D Y BR I D GE

n-bound

34 St Penn Station

23 St

53 ST

5 Av/53 St

N• Q• R

N• Q• R• S• 1• 2• 3• 7 except S

A• C• E• LIRR

1 2 AV

A• C• E

49 St

42 St Port Authority Bus Terminal Times Sq-42 St 34 St Penn Station

R AV

•

Av 7 •E

57 St

S RI

Morrison Av Soundview S

Astoria Ditmars Blvd

Lexington Av/59 St

5 Av/ 59 St

SOUTH

N• Q• R

77 St

on gt t xin S Le v/63 A F

PARK

57 St-7 Av

50 St

C• E

SECOND AV

LEXINGTON A V

CENTRAL

A• B• C• D• 1

53 ST

Pelham Bay ParkRD Buhre Av

RANDALLS ISLAND

68 St Hunter College

60 ST

59 St Columbus Circle

79 ST

AV RK PA AMS BR IDG E

PARKCHESTER

Hunts Point Av

MOTT HAVEN

96 ST

CENTRAL PARK

southbound only

T HIRD AV

96 St

4• 5• 6

86 St

with railroad connections CITY ISLAND

LAGUARDIA AIRPORT

103 St PARK AV

FIFTH AV

Amtrak

B• C

66 ST

23 ST

MADISON AV

METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART

72 St

50 St

EAST HARLEM

110 St

2• 3

WI L LI

Elder Av

2• 5

E 13 8 S T

116 St

116 ST

2• 3

81 St–Museum of Natural History

66 St Lincoln Center

NJTransit• Amtrak

WEB S TE

116 St

Central Park North (110 St)

B• C

50 ST

Simpson St

3 Av 138 St BR UCKNER EXPWY

4• 5• 6

Harlem 125 St

B• C

CE NT RA L PA RK W E ST

COLUMBUS AV

BR OA D WA Y

END

E 169 S T

125 St

M A N HA T T A N

86 St

1• 2• 3

T HI RD AV

LaGuardia Airport

C ROT O

M60

103 St

72 St

JAVITS CENTER

St 1 um 16 tadi S

NIC

125 St

B• C

WEST

79 St

2• 5

MORRISANIA

2• 3 • M60

Cathedral Pkwy (110 St)

B• C

86 St

Freeman St

2• 5

4• 5

V NA

St Lawrence Av

2• 5

3 Av–149 St

135 St

Morris Park

NT AV

138 St–Grand Concourse

96 St

UPPER 1 WEST SIDE

T RE MO

Melrose Intervale Av 163 ST 2• 5 nd ra Prospect Av –G se St ur 2• 5 9 co Jackson Av 14 on • 5 C • 4 THE HUB 2• 5

2• 3

B• C

1• 2• 3

LINCOLN TUNNEL

116 St

96 St

WEST SIDE

M60 LaGuardia AirportHARLEM

B• D

174 St

125 St

AMSTERDAM

RI VE RS IDE DR

103 St

167 St

MA L C OL M X B LV D ( L ENO X A V )

ADAM CLAYTON POWELL BLVD (7AV)

ST NICHOLAS AV

135 ST

B• C

Cathedral Pkwy (110 St )

170 St B• D

145 St

A• B• C• D

M60 LGA 1 Airport

M60 LaGuardia Airport 1

rush hours

Harlem 148 St

145 ST

135 St

M60

B• D

B• D• 4

YankeesE153 St

rush hours

B• C

125 ST

TREMONT

174–175 Sts

167 St

A LL

BRONX Bronx Park W ZOO East 2• 5 E est Tr Fa em rm 1 80 S T on s S t q E 180 St 2 • Av Tremont Av Tremont 2•5 5

B• D

New York City Subway

Eastchester Rd - Morris Park

Pelham Pkwy

FREDERICK DOUGLASS BLVD

145 St

116 St Columbia University

B•

A• B• C• D BR OAD W AY

Fordham

182–183 Sts

HIGHBRIDGE

R IDE D

125 St

Gun Hill Rd

Pelham Pkwy

2• 5

B• D

170 St

2• 5

FORDHAM

176 St

v Ri

RI V E R S

SH FT WA

k Amtra E PARK RIVERSID

B• D

H AS

163 St–Amsterdam Av 157 St 1

137 St City College

Fordham Rd

Mt Eden Av

HAMILTON BRIDGE

A• C• 1 A• C

Burnside Av

WASHINGTON BRIDGE

168 St

145 St

U OL

183 St

Morris Heights

HIGHBRIDGE PARK

181 St

WASHINGTON HEIGHTS

RIVERBANK STATE PARK

D MR

DHA

Harlem

N TO

University Heights

Dyckman St 191 St 1

IN G

175 St

Fordham Rd

F OR

UNIVERSITY HTS BR

207 St

Allerton Av

B• D

2• 5

Kingsbridge Rd

THE B RO N X

CITY

BAYCHESTER

Gun Hill Rd

Norwood 205 St D Burke Av

B• D

2• 5

Botanical Garden

GE ID

BRO AD W

H FO RT WAS

181 St

GEO. WASHINGTON BRIDGE

Marble Hill 225 St

Metro- Nor th

E DG

Baychester Av CO-OP

219 St

Bedford Pk Blvd

190 St

WA AD

Bedford Pk Blvd Lehman College

2 25 S

Eastchester Dyre Av

ST 33

222 ST

2• 5

Williams Bridge

KINGSBRIDGE

215 St

INWOOD HILL PARK

Dyckman St

y Cit U

Inwood 207 St

FORT TRYON PARK

Marble Hill

Metro- North

231 St

K SO

Mosholu Pkwy

V AN CORT LAN DT

238 St

PA R

D OA

EN DE NCE AV

PAL I SA DE

EP IN D

Woodlawn

VAN CORTLANDT PARK

ST ER

2• 5

225 St

ORCHARD BEACH

-O

2• 5

IRW

EASTCHESTER

233 St

Woodlawn

RIVERDALE

Spuyten Duyvil

Nereid Av

Van Cortlandt Park 242 St

231 S T

Riverdale

PELHAM BAY PARK

Wakefield 241 St

Am trak

Wakefield WESTCHESTER THE BRONX

University of Pennsylvania | School of Design The University of Pennsylvania carries on the principles and spirit of its founder, Benjamin Franklin: entrepreneurship, innovation, invention, outreach, and a pragmatic love of knowledge. Franklin’s outlook of melding theory and practice has remained a driving force in the University’s academic and social mission. The University of Pennsylvania School of Design embodies these principles as well, linking a diverse range of disciplines through a design perspective. The School houses Architecture, City and Regional Planning, Landscape Architecture, Fine Arts, Historic Preservation, Digital Media Design, and Visual Studies. Within the School of Design, the City and Regional Planning program integrates academic planning theories with practical, client-based applications. During the program’s final semester, students participate in a capstone studio that serves as the culmination of their planning work at Penn. Incorporating the skills gained during two years of study, the studio project challenges a team of students, under the guidance of professional practitioners and faculty, to collaborate on a project that addresses a real-world planning problem. Previous studios have examined topics including high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor and the redevelopment of New York’s Penn Station. The 2014 studio. led by Marilyn Jordan Taylor and Robert Yaro, was tasked with developing a plan to convert one of New York City’s underutilized freight rail corridors into a new surface transit system that serves the City’s fast-growing outer boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. The students of this year’s studio would like to thank Dean Taylor and Professor Yaro for their assistance and direction throughout this semester. Without their guidance, this project would not be possible.

Ella Claney

Master of City Planning | Public-Private Development

Dana Dobson

Master of City Planning | Sustainable Transportation + Infrastructure Planning

Xiaoxia Dong

Master of City Planning | Sustainable Transportation + Infrastructure Planning

Katrina Flora

Master of City Planning | Land Use + Environmental Planning

Veronica Xin Ge

Master of City Planning | Sustainable Transportation + Infrastructure Planning

Margaux Elina Groux

Master of City Planning | Sustainable Transportation + Infrastructure Planning

Zhe Liang

Master of City Planning | Sustainable Transportation + Infrastructure Planning

Erin Lonoff Fritz Ohrenschall

Master of City Planning | Public-Private Development Master of City Planning | Sustainable Transportation + Infrastructure Planning

Jed Poster

Master of City Planning | Public-Private Development

Daniel Suh

Master of City Planning | Sustainable Transportation + Infrastructure Planning

Jeremy Strauss

Master of City Planning | Sustainable Transportation + Infrastructure Planning

Hiromitsu Takahashi

Master of City Planning | Sustainable Transportation + Infrastructure Planning

Hongmou Zhang

Master of City Planning | Sustainable Transportation + Infrastructure Planning

Studio team.

The Crossboro U studio wishes to thank the Daniel and Joanna S. Rose Fund, Inc., AECOM, and Parsons Brinckeroff for their generous contributions to the studio’s work by helping to make the London charrette possible. Furthermore, the studio would like to thank and acknowledge the following people – without whom this report could not have been completed – for their invaluable assistance and insight throughout the Spring 2014 semester:

INSTRUCTORS Marilyn Jordan Taylor Robert Yaro Billy Fleming

Penn Design | Dean and Paley Professor Regional Plan Association | President Penn Design | Professor of Practice Penn Design | Doctoral Fellow

PENN DESIGN STAFF Roslynne Carter

Penn Design | Administrative Assistant

Kate Daniel

Penn Design | Department Coordinator

Kait Ellis

Penn Design | Executive Secretary to the Dean

ADVISORY FACULTY MEMBERS Richard Barone Eric Beaton Armando Carbonell

Regional Plan Association | Director of Transportation Programs NYC Department of Transportation | Director of Bus Rapid Transit Planning Lincoln Institute of Land Policy | Chair, Department of Planning and Urban Form

Jennifer Cox

Long Island Rail Road | Manager, Strategic Investments

Emil Frankel

Bipartisan Policy Center | Visiting Scholar

Vincent Goodstadt Foster Nichols Howard Permut Mark Pisano Nicolas Ronderos Jonathan Rose David Seltzer Jackson Whitmore Jeffrey Zupan

The studio also extends its sincere gratitude to the London office of Kohn Pedersen Fox for hosting our weeklong charrette in March 2014. Lowri Banfield, Executive Assistant to the Chairman, was especially tireless in her efforts to facilitate our work throughout the week. In addition, the studio thanks the following individuals for providing insight and advice during the charrette:

LONDON CHARRATTE ADVISORS Hiro Aso

John McAslan + Partners | Director of Major Projects

Peter Austin

London Overground Rail Operations Limited | Managing Director

Simon Burns

Member of Parliament for Chelmsford former Minister of State for Transport

Ian Brown Robin Buckle Isabel Dedring Mark Eaton Dean Edwards

Geoff Hobbs

Transport for London | Head of Rail Planning

Peter Kalton

London Overground Rail Operations Limited | Head of Infrastructure and Projects

John Lett Jeremy Long John McNulty

Greater London Authority | Strategic Planning Manager Mass Transit Railway | CEO for European Business John McNulty Integrated Transport Consultancy | Director

Ben Rogers

Centre for London | Director

Nicola Shaw

HS1 Limited | Chief Executive Officer

Howard Smith

Transport for London | Operations Director, Crossrail

Emma Spieren

Transport for London | Urban Designer

Julian Ware Alex Williams

Transport for London | Principal, Corporate Finance Transport for London | Director of Borough Partnerships

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. BACKGROUND + CONTEXT

1 21

New York and London The London Overground Learning from London History + Ownership of the Crossboro Right-of-Way New York City Today: Political Climate + Existing Needs

22 22 25 29 31

3. GOALS

1. Improve New York’s Rail Transit System + Enhance the Viability of Short-Haul Freight Service 2. Use 21st Century Opportunity to Increase Social Inclusion for Lower-Income Neighborhoods 3. Leverage CrossBoro Investment to Create Economic and Social Value 4. Promote Resilience and Long-Term Sustainability Throughout the New York Region

34 35 36 36

4. TRANSPORTATION VISION

Existing Transportation Conditions Transportation Proposal Regional Vision

5. HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Existing Conditions Station Development Station Plan Implications

40 43 65

71 74 116

6. SUSTAINABILITY + RESILIENCE

119

7. PROJECT DELIVERY

127

Setting the Framework for Smart Growth Resilient Infrastructure Systems Providing Critical Redundancy + Flexibility Sustainable Station Area Strategies Development Project Delivery: Creating Space for Growth Transportation Project Delivery: Overseeing Entity + Implementation Gaining Political Champions

120 121 122 124 128 133 136

139 9. NEXT STEPS 153 10. APPENDIX 157 8. FINANCING + FUNDING

Conventional Financing + Funding: Transit Value Capture + Other Financing Tools: Transit and Housing

140 145

Methodology for the Estimation of the Commute Area of Crossboro Stations Station Analysis Table FRA Track Classification Ridership Forecast Methodology Operating Cost Estimates Table

158 161 162 163 166

11. SOURCES

169

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Many post-industrial American cities are now home to underutilized, grade-separated rail rightsof-way that do little or nothing for the communities through which they pass; New York City is no exception. These rail corridors are the vestiges of a bygone era in which New York was the world’s leading manufacturing center, and large portions of the city’s outer boroughs were thriving industrial zones. Today, virtually all of the manufacturing activity has disappeared, leaving behind vast areas of derelict industrial land and auto-oriented development that are incompatible with smart, sustainable urban growth. In the Spring of 2014, the Regional Plan Association (RPA) sponsored a graduate planning studio at the University of Pennsylvania School of Design to investigate the opportunity to repurpose one of these underutilized rights-of-way - the Bay Ridge Line and New York Connecting Railroad - as a mixed-use passenger and freight transit route running through Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. The studio envisions that this route as a coordinated development and transit revitalization effort, dubbed the “Crossboro U.” This project would catalyze new development and economic hubs along its transit corridor, and drive new commute patterns. The Crossboro U can act as a case study, a launching point for what a region-wide network of repurposed transit lines could become; an orbital network – entitled the ORBIT system. This report aims to address nearly every aspect of the Crossboro U line, offering a comprehensive look at the past and future of this project. First, this proposal outlines a vision for both passenger and freight rail service along the Crossboro U alignment. Next, it explores the potential for housing and economic development along the right-of-way, illustrating five examples of transit-oriented development around strategic station areas that will foster both mixed-income housing and new job opportunities. Third, the proposal outlines the sustainability and resilience advantages that would result from the Crossboro U project, touching on concepts like service redundancy during disaster events and decreased emissions from reduced truck traffic. Finally, the proposal outlines strategies for pursuing the project’s implementation, as well as securing the necessary funding to underwrite proposed transportation and economic development investments.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

BACKGROUND + CONTEXT A Tale of Two Cities

Median Gross Rent

110 105 100

Median Renter Income

95 90

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 YEAR

Wage stagnation vs. rent increases, 2005 - 2012.

“Housing New York: A Five-Borough, Ten Year Plan,” City of New York, May 2014.

As New York City continues to grow and population forecasts project an additional one million residents by 2040, it has become clear that despite the high-density of Manhattan and the new development in portions of Brooklyn and Queens, New York City needs to tap the outer boroughs to meet the demands of the long term. In fact, based on growth trends, while Manhattan and Staten Island are expected to absorb the fewest of the additional population at a 6.7% and 6.8% respective increase, the Bronx is expected to grow by 14%, Brooklyn by 11.3%, and Queens by 7.2%. In general, while household rents are lower in the outer boroughs, the outer boroughs also have higher unemployment, lower incomes, and longer commutes to job centers. Despite the high density of New York City, the high housing demand has priced many out of the market, pushing them out of the city, to face longer commutes. Additionally, there is a growing gap between median gross rent and median renter income in the city. With the rise of gentrification, income inequity and housing affordability have reached a peak, becoming a major challenge for the city, and at the forefront of politics and housing reform. In 2013, New York City elected a new mayor, Bill de Blasio, with an overwhelming 73 percent of the vote. The first Democratic mayor elected since 1993, de Blasio largely ran his campaign on a platform of “rising together,” or ensuring that New York continues to grow and thrive while creating opportunity and upward mobility for all of the city’s residents. The mayor’s campaign encompassed a host of proposals aimed at reducing the severity of (and effects from) increasing wealth inequality, with particular attention to the city’s outer boroughs: Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island.

The proposed Crossboro U line would: 1) Create an efficient passenger rail service that traverses Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx while connecting with nearly every MTA subway line in New York. 2) Expand freight rail capacity and reduce truck traffic, air pollution and roadway congestion across New York City. 3) Bolster the city’s efforts to promote social inclusion as the city grows. 4) Create accessible locations for tens of thousands of mixed-income housing units. 5) Dramatically improve access to jobs across the region and create thousands of jobs in neighborhoods served by this new transit route. 6) Provide additional resiliency and redundancy to the city’s transit network.

The Crossoboro U offers a unique opportunity to both guarantee and protect affordable housing in neighborhoods, while creating new economic hubs that can encourage economic development, enabling these outer borough communities to “rise together.” The proposed Crossboro U line lies within a mile of one-quarter of the city’s population. The proposed Crossboro U line could play a vital role in meeting the new administration’s goal of improving transportation, housing and employment opportunities in the City’s outer boroughs. By catalyzing inevitable development, this new service has the potential to create new mixed-income housing along the corridor and improve the lives of the millions of residents currently with inadequate transit service. The Crossboro U vision is to align the city’s transportation system with the economic, housing, and mobility needs of its future.

Learning from London As a key part of the project’s initial research, the studio traveled to London for a week-long investigation of the new London Overground system. Similar to the proposed Crossboro U, the London Overground made use of abandoned and underutilized rail lines to create a new surface transit network that could complement the city’s existing Underground system. The development of the London Overground transformed mobility, housing markets, and economic development in the city’s inner boroughs (which are the equivalent of New York’s outer boroughs). In only six years, the Overground’s ridership increased from less than 100,000, to more than half a million daily passengers, and is expected to surpass one million daily passengers by the end of the decade. The studio met with the individuals that planned, financed, built, and currently operate the Overground system. Together, these advisors provided a unique perspective of how a similar strategy could prove just as successful for New York’s outer boroughs.

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

POPULATION DENSITY Population per mile2

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME Median Income <$30,000

<30,000

$30,000 - $45,000

30,000 - 50,000

$45,000 - $60,000

50,000 - 70,000

$60,000+

70,000+

Population density within one mile of the right-of-way, by census tract.

Median income within one mile of the right-of-way, by census tract.

RENT BURDEN

AVAILABLE FAR

Rent Burden 0-35% 35-45% 45-55%

2012 American Community Survey Data

FAR AVAILABLE

2010 U.S. Census Data

> -0.11 -0.11 - 0.5 0.5 - 1 1 - 1.5

co-op city south

BRONX

1.5 +

park chester

55% +

hunts point

DS ON

RIV ER

above 31st st

EAST RIVER

northern blvd roosevelt ave QUEENS fresh pond junction myrtle ave wilson ave

BROOKLYN

broadway junction livonia ave east new york brooklyn army terminal

brooklyn terminal market brooklyn college

Portion of households whose rent exceeds 35% of their annual income within one mile of the right-of-way.

Floor area ratio available for development under current zoning, by parcel. New York City Primary Land Use Tax Lot Output (PLUTO) data.

2012 American Community Survey Data.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014 In many ways New York and London are bookends. Both New York City and London, have approximately 8.5 million residents, are experiencing rapid immigration; population and economic growth; and share a similar portfolio of industries. As a part of this growth, both cities are also experiencing a growing gap between well-off communities at their core and a ring of poor, isolated communities at the outskirts. With this growing gap of inequity, these two cities face shortages of both market and affordable housing, creating both rapid increases in housing prices and a growing shortage of housing within the reach of low- and moderate-income households. To promote new housing development, both cities are taking firm action to improve the amount of affordable housing. For instance, the London Plan identifies 33 “Opportunity Areas” on which the GLA and London Boroughs will focus new housing development. New York City also recently released its own housing plan, calling for production of 80,000 new affordable units over a 10year period, and the adoption of inclusionary housing requirements for the entire city.

London Overground System highlighted on the London Transportation System Map

EAST LONDON LINE

CROSSBORO U LINE co-op city morris park parkchester hunts point av 6

astoria

N Q

northern blvd jackson heights 7 E F queens blvd grand av metropolitan av

M R

myrtle av

Finally, both cities are also experiencing crush loads on their over a century-old transit systems, which were designed to get workers into and out of the central business district on a network of radial transit lines. In order to provide more housing and increase the accessibility of existing (and new) housing units, the Greater London Authority and Transport for London (TfL, the GLA’s regional transportation authority) are investing heavily in modernizing the existing underground and bus systems and in creating new transit capacity in the city. TfL’s largest single investment is in Crossrail, a new $23 billion east-west underground transit line designed to increase capacity and reduce congestion throughout Central London’s underground lines. At the same time, TfL created the London Overground by repurposing abandoned and underused railroad rights of way to provide new mobility options to Londoners. The Overground runs through many areas outside the central business district that previously had poor or overcrowded underground service. The Overground also provides a circumferential route linking London’s boroughs with each other, shortening travel times between the boroughs.

wilson av east new york L livonia av L 3 brooklyn army terminal

rockaway av + avenue d

N R

brooklyn terminal market utica av - farragut rd

broo 1 klyn new m 6th st colle ge utrec cdonal - aven ue H 2 ht av d av 5 /62 B Q nd st F D

Similarities between the Crossboro U and the London Overground’s East London Line. (Transport for London. “Overground Map”. Available http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/ static/cms/documents/london-overground-network-map.pdf)

The London Overground is a rail system that traverses the urban and suburban areas of London. Opened in 2007, the 53.4-mile network consists of 6 lines with 83 stations. As the most analogous example in the world of a circumferential surface transit system, London’s experience in planning, financing, building and operating the Overground can inform New York’s efforts to create a similar system here -- the proposed Crossboro U, which would be the initial link in the proposed ORBIT system.

Existing Infrastructure

Radial

Orbital

The ORBIT routes would reuse little-known assets to transform the accessibility and economic opportunities for millions of residents living in some of the most disadvantaged areas of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. By establishing a new circumferential transit line, modeled after the London Overground, and new radial routes across these poorly served neighborhoods, the ORBIT network would reconfigure New York’s existing transit system. Originally designed to shuttle commuters in and out of Manhattan’s central business districts, the system would be transformed into a grid-based network that better serves the entire city. This studio focused primarily on the first phase of the proposed Crossboro U, which would run from the Brooklyn Army Terminal in Brooklyn to Northern Boulevard in Queens. A subsequent phase of this project would extend the Crossboro U line across the Hell Gate Bridge to Co-op City in the Bronx and enable transfers to Metro-North’s proposed Penn Access line. This completed

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY project would become a key link in the larger ORBIT system. The Crossboro U is a proposal to repurpose underutilized freight rail rights-of-way in New York’s outer boroughs into a viable, efficient transit service that connects with nearly every subway line in the existing network while supporting the viability of short-haul freight rail. The existing infrastructure that the Crossboro U would expand upon is owned by three entities: the LIRR, CSX, and Amtrak. Most of the first phase of the Crossboro line would be built and operated on the Bay Ridge Branch, a right-of-way owned by the MTA’s Long Island Rail Road (LIRR). This segment runs from the Brooklyn Army Terminal to Fresh Pond Junction. Through a 20year concession agreement signed in 1997, the New York & Atlantic Railway operates all freight service on LIRR-controlled trackage, including the Bay Ridge Branch. From the Brooklyn Army Terminal to Utica Avenue, there is only one continuous track, with very few sidings. More loop sidings or single-ended sidings appear between Utica Avenue and Fresh Pond Yard, mainly to provide services to NY&A’s customers along that segment, such as the Brooklyn Terminal Market and Gershow Recycling.

The Crossboro U Right-of-Way.

CSX owns the right-of-way segment between Fresh Pond Junction and a point that is a half-mile north of Northern Boulevard, near St. Michael’s Cemetery in Queens. While there is only one track along most of the segment, which is also known as the Fremont Secondary, there is one siding between Roosevelt Avenue and Northern Boulevard. The tracks climb up to an elevated structure along the Fremont Secondary, and the viaduct extends all the way across the Hell Gate Bridge to the south of the Oak Point Yard in the Bronx. Amtrak owns the segment to the north of the CSX territory. Two Amtrak tracks merge with the CSX track on the viaduct near St. Michael’s Cemetery, handling passenger service along the Northeast Corridor route. At present, there are only three tracks on the viaduct, but the rightof-way is wide enough to accommodate a fourth track. As tracks have been removed for much of the corridor, and are in poor condition at that, additional tracks will be required to provide frequent, high-quality passenger service and accommodate freight operations at the same time, a sufficient number of tracks must be constructed along the right-of-way.

Tunnel along Right-of-Way.

The Crossboro U line could be the first phase of a system that would transform the City’s transit system from a set of radial lines subject to disruption from flooding events and other natural disasters to a more resilient, circumferential route that would provide greater convenience and redundancy in the event of man-made or weather related disruptions to other transit lines. This is of special relevance to New Yorkers in the aftermath of the transit disruptions caused by Hurricane Sandy, and more recent closures of the R and G train services. In the absence of a redundant circumferential line like the Crossboro U, many R and G train passengers lack a convenient transit alternative.

View towards New Jersey at Bay Ridge along the Right-ofWay.

Investment in new tracks, switches, signals, control systems, and related infrastructure will expand New York City’s freight rail system’s capacity to transport goods. Not only will this provide a much-needed boost to the region’s manufacturing and logistics sector, but it will help to reduce truck traffic on the roads through the city. The Crossboro U line creates an unparalleled opportunity to leverage this investment as a broader, transformative economic development, revitalization, and resilience strategy for some of New York’s most underserved neighborhoods.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

BRONX

AMTRAK oak point yard CSX

HUNTS POINT YARD

OAK POINT YARD

MANHATTAN

MANHATTAN QUEENS

MASPETH YARD

CSX

BUSHWICK YARD

fresh pond junction MTA + LIRR

BROOKLYN

QUEENS

FRESH POND YARD

BROOKLYN

65th street yard CITY OF NY

65TH STREET YARD

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL

LONG ISLAND RAILROAD

VOLUME OF FREIGHT ACTIVITY AT YARD

Rail yards by capacity for Brookyn, Queens, and the Bronx. Data from NYC DCP

YARD

owners current operators daily operations total width

total length

ANNUAL ACREAGE CARLOAD/ CARLOAD ACREAGE

HUNTS POINT

3,000

329

OAK POINT

18,000

360

FRESH POND

15,000

1,500

BROOKLYN TERMINAL

500

65TH STREET

4,000

121

Carloads of selected yards in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. NYMTC

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT GOALS

The Crossboro U plan represents an integrated strategy to tackle a wide variety of challenges, including: transportation, land use, economic development, social equity, and long-term sustainability. Designed as an infrastructure and development project to prepare New York City for future growth, the Crossboro U strategy is based on the following goals:

1 Improve New York’s Rail Transit System + Enhance the Viability of Short-Haul Freight.

Inspired by the London Overground system, the Crossboro ORBIT aims to modernize New York’s radial subway system by creating new circumferential routes that respond to – and create the opportunity for – changing development patterns. The Crossboro U is intended to be the first phase of a long-term strategy that will drastically improve rail transit service not only between the outer boroughs and Manhattan, but also between outer borough neighborhoods that lack connectivity to one another. At the same time, the proposed ORBIT system (of which the Crossboro U would be a part) would support the original function of its underutilized rights-ofway, providing efficient rail freight service to and from the outer boroughs.

Expand Economic Opportunity.

The Crossboro U proposal also includes economic development proposals centered on communities served by this large-scale transit investment. A special focus of these efforts should be to provide opportunities to low and moderateincome households and the business owners living in these communities. The establishment of a new passenger rail service will be complemented by equitable station area revitalization in a wide variety of communities, improved access to jobs through improved transit connections, job creation in underserved areas, and development of mixed-income housing. Moreover, the improvement of short haul freight service in the corridor will help to significantly grow and diversify the city’s economy. These economic development goals can best be achieved through partnerships with the network of community residents and organizations in neighborhoods along the Crossboro U line.

Resilience: the capacity of a system to survive adapt and grow in the face of unforeseen changes, even catastrophic incidents.

Sustainability: meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Adaptation: the ability of a system to adjust to climate change in order to reduce its vulnerability, and enhance the resilience to observed and anticipated impacts of climate change.

Mitigation: any strategy or action taken to remove the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, or to reduce their amounts. Definitions

(Center for Resilience; Report of World Commission on Environment and Development; http://know.climateofconcern.org)

Leverage Investment and Creating Value through Economic Development.

The Crossboro U has the potential to serve as a driver of revitalization and value creation for the neighborhoods through which it passes, stimulating real estate development on vacant and underutilized land. Instead of merely connecting residents along the alignment to more prosperous districts, the new line holds the potential to bring revitalization and economic development to many of New York’s forgotten destinations. Reliable transportation service could help to transform vacant lots and dilapidated industrial zones into affordable, transit-oriented, residential communities, accessible education centers, and vibrant manufacturing centers.

4 Promote the Resilience of the New York Region.

The Crossboro U will improve the city’s resilience in the face of man-made and natural disasters by expanding rail-based mobility and creating redundancy for both passenger and freight service. Additionally, by offering a viable and efficient alternative to passenger automobiles and commercial trucks in New York, the Crossboro U will reduce the city’s number of annual vehicle miles traveled, thus decreasing carbon emissions and air pollution in the outer boroughs. Finally, on both the transit system itself and related economic development projects, this project could encourage the incorporation of innovative green technologies, including regenerative braking, wayside energy storage, alternative energy, smart and micro-grids, and smart growth development strategies in conjunction with the adjoining station development.

Superstorm Sandy Storm Surge

(Data: New York City Department of City Planning)

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

TRANSPORTATION co-op city morris park parkchester

hunts point av

astoria northern blvd jackson heights queens blvd grand av metropolitan av myrtle av wilson av

Along with the Second Avenue Subway, the East Side Access, and the Gateway projects, the Crossboro U could be one of the most significant rail infrastructure projects in New York over the coming decades. This plan proposes constructing 25 miles of new tracks and an advanced signaling system in order to facilitate a mixed-use rail corridor along the entire 15-mile phase one alignment. The new two-track line would allow for efficient passenger service while creating a sufficient number of freight “slots” to accommodate increasing goods movement by rail related to proposed expansion of cross-harbor freight connections. Infrastructure investments along the right-of-way will provide increased rail freight capacity in the by modernizing the corridor and expanding the number and concentration of freight rail using industries and customers, whose choice of modes will improve both the cost-effectiveness and viability of rail freight.

east new york livonia av

Efficient + New Passenger Service

rockaway av + avenue d

brooklyn army terminal

brooklyn terminal market utica av - farragut rd

broo 1 klyn new m 6th s c utre cdonald t - aven ollege ue H cht a v/62 av nd s t

Phasing Plan.

co-op city morris park parkchester hunts point av 6

astoria

N Q

northern blvd jackson heights 7 E F queens blvd grand av metropolitan av

myrtle av

M R

For many residents living along the Crossboro U right-of-way, commuting is a lengthy and perhaps even painful experience. Although most commuters hold jobs in New York City’s major employment centers, including Midtown and Lower Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn, Flushing, and Jamaica (all of which house MTA subway stops), existing radial transit routes to these destinations from the outer boroughs are inefficient, and often require that travelers make several transfers and go miles out of their way. As a legacy system, all but 2 of New York City’s subway lines pass through Manhattan on their routes from one outer borough location to another, adding travel time upon travel time between origins and destinations on an everyday basis. While the majority of the Manhattan residents can travel from home to a workplace in less than 30 minutes, and the average commute time for the entire city is 45 minutes (the longest in the country), as this map shows, residents of some neighborhoods along the Crossboro right-of-way are using about one hour of their day traveling each way to work by bus, subway, and on foot. In particular, the triangular area between Nostrand Avenue (which is served by the 2 and 5 subway lines) and Livonia Avenue requires strikingly long commute times for inhabitants. At present, it takes at least 1 hour and 40 minutes (plus 2 transfers) to travel from Co-Op City in the Bronx to the Brooklyn Army Terminal. With the Crossboro line, it will take as little as 47 minutes to traverse the whole line.

wilson av east new york L livonia av L 3 brooklyn army terminal

rockaway av + avenue d

N R

brooklyn terminal market utica av - farragut rd b 16th rooklyn new m c s utre cdonald t - aven ollege ue H cht a 2 5 v/62 av F B Q nd s t D

Station selections and connecction to other services.

The passenger service proposal calls for high-frequency service, with headways that are slightly longer than those of typical subway service, but shorter than regional rail timetables. The Crossboro U will operate from 4:00 A.M. to 1:00 A.M, with 10-minute intervals between trains during peak demand hours (7:00-9:30 AM and 4:30-7:30 PM) and 15-minute intervals during off-peak service. Based on this service plan, the Crossboro U will accommodate roughly 200 passenger trains per day. A detailed ridership projection model was constructed to determine passenger demand for the Crossboro U service upon its inception. That model accounts for ridership generated through diversion from other commuting modes, like buses or private automobiles; for current subway riders who might use the Crossboro U to trace a more efficient route to their destination; and for the additional demand that will arise from new housing and commercial development along the right-of-way. Based on these components of demand, ridership for the Crossboro U is expected to fall within the range of 130,000-260,000 daily passengers.

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TOTAL ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP 130,000 - 260,000 DAILY TRIPS

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP 00 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 260,000 DAILY TRIPS

diversion from current community boards origin-destination trips along right-of-way

diversion from current community board origin-destination trips from right-of-way community boards to major employment centers

additional ridership from projected population growth

Diversion from Current Trips Along Right-of-Way (105,000)

Manhattan Central Business District (36,000) Downtown Brooklyn (2,400) Jamaica (1,100) Flushing (650) Additional Ridership from Projected Population Growth (14,000) Brooklyn Army Terminal (8,500)

projected ridership from new developments

Brooklyn College (4,200) Brooklyn Terminal Market (15,000) Livonia (3,000) East New York (650) Northern Boulevard (3,000)

Ridership projections for the Crossboro U by origin.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Revitalized + Expanded Freight Service The Hudson River not only serves as the border between New York and New Jersey, but also presents a physical boundary that constrains the capacity of New York City’s freight rail network. On the New Jersey side of the river, there are multiple large rail yards for freight train sets located in the “North Jersey Terminal Area”, all of which are connected to the dense national freight network. By contrast, on the New York side of the river, there are far fewer freight facilities.

New York and Atlantic Railway freight train.

Anacostia & Pacific Company, Inc., NYA, <http://www.anacostia.com/nya/ nya.html>.

Adjacent Freight Yard

Because of this disparity, there are only two entry points for freight cars destined for Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island: the Hell Gate Bridge in northern Queens (whose trackage rights are owned by Amtrak) and the float dock at the 65th Street Rail Yard in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. Cargo destined for 65th Street must be loaded onto barges at the Greenville, NJ rail yard, ferried across the river, and transferred back to rail cars at the dock. Capacity at this terminal is therefore constrained by the transfer capacity of the float dock, as well as by the terminal’s limited capacity to shepherd large amounts of cargo through the barge-rail transfer. Freight destined for the Hell Gate crossing has an even more arduous journey. The closest freight rail bridge traversing the Hudson is located in Selkirk, NY, a town located just south of Albany, and 140 miles north of the Hell Gate. Because of the so-called Selkirk Hurdle, freight cars that remain intact (i.e., that are not shipped via barge) must travel an additional 280 miles to access Long Island. This inefficiency has stunted New York’s overall freight capacity—and by extension, its manufacturing and food distribution networks. The ownership structure of freight rights-of-way also constrains freight train service on the eastern shore of the Hudson. Large portions of the trackage are owned by passenger train operators like Amtrak and Metro North; in order to protect their service, these entities impose limits on the operating hours and the number of cars for freight trains. By contrast, the tracks on the New Jersey side are mainly owned and operated by freight companies themselves. These factors have combined to create a large disparity of rail freight movement between the two sides of the river, the freight tracks along the New Jersey side of the Hudson River are reaching their capacity, while those on the New York side are becoming obsolete. As a result, in the NYMTC region (which includes New York City, Long Island, and counties in the lower Hudson valley), 90% of the freight is moved by trucks, while only 3% is moved by rail—compared to the national average for rail of 7 - 8%. This is causing traffic congestion and environmental problems in the region. At present, the New York & Atlantic Railway, a short-haul carrier operating through a twenty-year concession agreement (since 1997) with the Long Island Rail Road, carries the bulk of the freight that traverses the corridor. Because of the limitations posed by the current track infrastructure, some sections of the right-of-way only handle one or two trains per day. The Crossboro line can increase the capacity of freight rail operations by installing additional tracks, upgrading the quality of the trackage, implementing advanced signaling and scheduling systems, and expanding freight infrastructure. Revitalization of freight-oriented, light industrial development along the corridor combined with the freight infrastructure investments, the Crossboro U project has the potential to significantly expand freight rail’s role in New York’s goods movement system.

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

LOCATIONS ACCESSIBLE BY TRAINS WITHIN: 1/2 HOUR 3/4 HOUR 1 HOUR

BEFORE

AFTER

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET

NORTHERN BOULEVARD

30min/45min/60min commute area for Brooklyn Army Terminal and Brooklyn Terminal Market in current conditions.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The Crossboro U proposal adopts an innovative, integrated approach to tackling transportation In general, the communities surrounding the proposed Crossboro U alignment are characterized by low household incomes, long commute times, and relatively rapid population growth. Today, the study area in Brooklyn accounts for over 11 percent of the entire City’s population, while the Queens and Bronx study areas account for nearly seven and eight percent of the city’s population, respectively. Population density along the U Line averages roughly 140 people per acre in Queens and the Bronx, and 79.6 people per acre in Brooklyn. In order to meet increasing population growth and demand for job access over the next few decades, the outer boroughs will require efficient transit service, connections to employment hubs, and a strong housing stock.

Brooklyn Army Terminal Building

New York Economic Development Corporation.

Currently, there are 175 vacant acres or two percent of the total land within a mile of the corridor in Brooklyn. In Queens, there are 69 acres, or one percent of the total land, and 244 acres or three percent of the total land within a mile of the corridor in the Bronx. Beyond simply vacant land, there is a great deal of land that has, under current zoning, the potential for more growth. There are a variety of FARs and densities allowed by right near the stations along this line, some areas with great potential for growth without zoning changes and some that would necessitate re-zoning.

Convenient transit connection and vibrant commercial activities in this area foster a dynamic walking environment.

Northern Boulevard Station U

The Crossboro U Line entrance at 64th Streeet and Northern Boulevard.

The Crossboro U proposal adopts an innovative, integrated approach to tackling transportation and land use challenges. In addition to providing high-quality transit service, the Crossboro U aims to pursue housing and economic development initiatives that can catalyze mixed-income, transit-oriented neighborhood development. Through development on these abandoned, underutilized parcels, and strategic interventions to existing land use patterns, the Crossboro U can create over 15,000 new housing units, many of which will be reserved for low and moderate-income families. The project also aims to spur long-term economic growth through the development of new employment centers for commercial and light industrial uses, education facilities, and workforce development centers. These interventions can create up to 16,000 new permanent jobs, not including the employment opportunities created during the construction phase of the project. The studio examined five case studies for different types of station area development envisioned – Brooklyn Army Terminal, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn Terminal Market, Livonia Avenue, and Northern Boulevard. These locations were chosen because of several criteria, including the amount of surrounding vacant and underutilized land, the proximity of housing and community institutions, and the potential ability to easily transfer to other subway lines or transit, following the Crossboro U’s construction. The development plans, while maintaining sensitivity to each station’s unique character, promote a number of different goals including vibrant commercial corridors, attractive and connected affordable and market rate housing, as well as local industrial and business ventures. At these sites alone, the proposed interventions would create 5,125 new housing units, 1.48 million square feet of new retail space, 924,000 square feet of new office space, and 2.64 million square feet of new industrial space. The Crossboro economic development plan seeks to build affordable and mixed-income housing, create jobs, and generate sustainable, transit-oriented communities.

4T HA VE NU E

WA NU S

RECREATIONAL + PROTECTIVE SOFT INFRASTRUCTURE

EX PY

2N DA VE N

1S TA VE

NU E

EX IST

IN G

EI G HT

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1ST FLOOR RETAIL W/ RESIDENTIAL ABOVE

5T HA VE N

ARMY TERMINAL 3.1M SF OF EXISTING OFFICE SPACE

7T HA VE N

6T HA VE NU E

FUTURE HOME OF 25 CROSSBORO TRAIN SETS

PLATFORM

55 TH ST RE ET

BELT P KWY

PARKING STRUCTURE TO REPLACE LOSS OF CAPACITY ON SITE

60 TH ST RE 61 ET ST ST RE ET

Existing Open Space Proposed Open Space Existing Bus Route Existing Bike Lane Proposed Infrastructure N 0 ft

1,000 ft

Development plan for the Brooklyn Army Terminal Station.

64 TH ST RE 65 ET TH ST RE ET

68 TH ST RE BA ET YR ID GE AV EN UE

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

325,000 sf

waterfront landscaped open space

1,620 sf

new residential units

369,000 sf

715 units

new commerical space

new housing

401,000 sf

new office, classroom, and retail space

BROOKLYN COLLEGE

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL

BOROUGH PARK BENSONHURST

SUNSET PARK BAY RIDGE DYKER HEIGHTS

EAST FLATBUSH FLATLANDS

FLATBUSH MIDWOOD

REMSEN VILLAGE CANARSIE

ABOVE STREET GRADE

CROSSBORO U LINE

infrastructure +neighborhoods in section BIKE LANE INTERSECT

SUBWAY STATION

TRAIN TUNNEL (OF NOTE)

SUBWAY INTERSECT

AT OR BELOW STREET GRADE

bus bus bus bus X27 X37

X27

B9 X17

X17 X28 X38

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL

bus B70

N bus B16

D bus B9

NEW UTRECHT AV / 62ND ST

bus bus bus B8

B11

MCDONALD AV

B Q bus B68

2 5 bus B49 BM1 BM3 BM4

16 ST-AVENUE H

bus

B6 B11

bus bus B44

B41 Q35

BROOKLYN COLLEGE

bus B6 BM2 B103

bus bus B46

UTICA AV-FARRAGUT RD

bus B47

bus B17

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET

bus B60

ROCKAWAY AV

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5 acres

of rooftop farming

1M sf

of new light industrial space

1,300 units

761 units

of new housing

386 units

proposed residential

6,760 jobs

493 units

proposed residential

45,000 sf

proposed residential

4 connections

proposed retail

created

428,750 sf

additional units

122,500 sf

education + job training facility new pedestrian pathways

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET NORTHERN BLVD

LIVONIA AV

BROWNSVILLE NEW LOTS

V-AVENUE D

OCEAN HILL BROADWAY JUNCTION EAST NEW YORK

L 3

L bus B15

AC J

L bus

B14

HIGHLAND PARK

TRUCK ROUTE

MIDDLE VILLAGE

EAST NEW YORK

WOODSIDE JACKSON HEIGHTS

Q39

Q24

B13 B20 Q55

LIRR bus Q38 Q54 Q67

bus

Q67

bus

Q38 QM24 QM25

bus

Q58 Q59

TRUCK ROUTE bus QM 1-12 QM 15-21 QM24 QM25 X63 X64 X 68 BM 5

WILSON AV

MYRTLE AV

METROPOLITAN AV

ASTORIA HEIGHTS BROOKLYN QUEENS EXPY

7 E F

bus bus

LIRR

LIVONIA AV

MASPETH

bus bus bus B25 B20 B12

RIDGEWOOD GLENDALE

GRAND AV

bus LIRRLIRR TRUCK Q47 ROUTE bus Q60 QM1 QM4 QM5 QM6 X 63 X64 X68

QUEENS BLVD

bus Q32 Q47 Q53 Q70

JACKSON HEIGHTS

N Q TRUCK bus ROUTE Q66 QM2

QM3 QM20

TRUCK bus ROUTE Q101 bus M60 Q19

NORTHERN BLVD

ASTORIA

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Rolling Stock

ROW Civil/Structural Work 3% Mainline Trackwork 11%

Design, Construction Mgmt. & Project Administration

21%

Signaling & Communication 11%

$1.1 Billion TOTAL CAPITAL COST FOR PHASE 1

Rail Freight Facilities 4%

Electrification 21%

Fleet Storage & Maintenance Facilities 5% Stations 14%

Capital Cost of Crossboro U for Phase 1.

General and Administration 14 %

Vehicle Operations 40 %

$120M - $190M Non-Vehicle Maintenance

TOTAL OPERATION COST FOR PHASE 1

40 %

Vehicle Maintenance Operation Cost of Crossboro U for Phase 1.

17 %

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project Delivery A project on the scale of the Crossboro U line requires a cohesive implementation plan to achieve its transportation, land use, social equity, and sustainability goals. In order to craft an integrated action plan that will pursue this proposal’s objectives, a few key steps should be pursued. First, the Crossboro U and the entire ORBIT system would benefit greatly from a political champion (or champions) who would speak and act on behalf of the project. In New York, this vision begins with Mayor Bill de Blasio, who has sought to make improving outcomes for the City’s underserved ISLAND RAILWAY population a hallmark of his administration. In addition to City Hall, a variety ofMTA: citySTATEN agencies and their leaders – including the Department of Transportation and its commissioner, Polly Trottenberg -- could offer key political and logistical support for this project. The project could be undertaken by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in much the same way that the MTA was responsible for building the #7 subway extension, with funding provided by the City. The MTA could also build the project as part of its own capital program. Alternatively, a new entity, operating as a subsidiary of the MTA, the Empire State Development Corporation, or the NYC Economic Development Corporation could be established to coordinate land use, development, and transportation decisions associated with the Crossboro U project. This new entity could be structured in much the same way that the Hudson Yards Development Corporation was established to coordinate financing, development plans and approvals, and transit development on Manhattan’s far West side. This structure also resembles the model established by the Denver Union Station redevelopment project and its implementation agency, the Denver Union Station Project Authority (DUSPA).

TRIPS (in millions)

$190 $120

$46 $40

PROJECT ANNUAL UNLINKED TRIPS 92 83

PROJECT

ANNUAL VEHICLE REVENUE MILES

MILES (in millions) 5

PROJECT

London’s experience in financing and building several transportation megaprojects demonstrates a new approach to financing large projects of this kind. London has used a range of innovative financing techniques for these projects, including a citywide surcharge on commercial property taxes and a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) similar to the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts used to finance similar projects in a number of U.S. cities. As shown in the matrix on this page, in order to finance and fund expenses related to transit, economic development, housing, and resilience, the Crossboro U project will likely need to draw from a variety of conventional and alternative sources including state capital programs, the MTA Capital Program, federal grants, federal programs, and a special assessment or TIF district. The availability of funds generated by these programs will depend on a variety of factors, including political backing for the project, the state of federal grant programs, and support from affected residents. So as not to limit financing and funding possibilities, a menu of options that lays out a variety of potential sources is provided in this report to guide future implementation agencies tasked with executing the Crossboro U’s financing strategy. In all likelihood, this project will require some combination of these techniques.

OPERATION EXPENSES $941

DOLLARS (in millions)

Constructing the first phase of the Crossboro U line, will require a large capital investment on the order of $1.1 billion. Traditionally, conventional infrastructure finance methods such as local, state, or transit agency capital programs have formed the core of similar transit expenditures. As conventional funding strategies are becoming less politically feasible in the United States, however, more innovative methods for financing and funding infrastructure projects are on the rise, including value capture schemes, tax surcharges, or area developer fees.

CROSSBORO U (HIGH CASE) CROSSBORO U (LOW CASE) PATCO MTA: STATEN ISLAND RAILWAY MTA: METRO NORTH RAILROAD

TRIPS (in millions)

Funding + Financing

PROJECT

IMPLEMENTATION

4 2 61

OPERATING EXPENSES PER UNLINKED TRIP $2.00 $2.56 $4.32 $6.24

$11.36

OPERATING EXPENSES PER VEHICLVE REVENUE MILE $22.59 $28.89 $10.40 $16.86 $15.38

Comparison of Operation Cost.

Data Source: The National Transit Database

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

ORBIT

FUNCTION

LINE OPERATION

INFRASTRUCTURE OWNER

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LAND USE

MTA PRIVATE OPERATOR

TRANSPORTATION

ROW OWNERSHIP

OPTIONS

MTA

RESPONSIBILITY

DESIGN BUILD FINANCE OPERATE MAINTAIN

DISPATCH FREIGHT/PASSENGER RELATIONS

NYCEDC

SITE ASSEMBLY

ESDC CDC

ASSEMBLE LAND PROMOT VALUE CAPTURE

NYCHA

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HPD CDC

ZONING INCENTIVES

Possible project delivery structure through a new entity.

DCP

BUILD OR COMMISSION NEW AFFORDABLE OR MIXED-INCOME UNITS ENCOURAGE DENSITY PLAN FOR TOD

Next Steps

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There are several next steps following this studio work, foremost, it will be important to engage affected communities in preparing detailed plans, in order to gain their input and support for this project. Productive community engagement and backing could enable the Crossboro U to absorb the new generation of growth and development in large areas of New York City. Including community outreach, a coordinated effort between agencies and project action plan will need to be developed to further this project. The studio envisions the next steps to include:

° ° ° ° °

Strengthen the Plan Vision through Community Outreach Define the Project Champion + Leadership Build Political Consensus Solidify Financing + Funding Strategies Define Implementing Entity

BACKGROUND + CONTEXT Every large-scale infrastructure project has its own unique story. The Crossboro U was originally proposed in Regional Plan Association’s (RPA) 1996 Third Regional Plan. But the true inspiration for the project lies with London’s Overground Railway, a grade separated, surface circumferential rail system providing mixed-use, freight and passenger rail operation through London’s boroughs. In less than six years, the London Overground system has increased its ridership from 100,000 to more than half a million daily passengers, and is providing a broad range of mobility, economic development, congestion relief and other benefits to the entire London region. This section discusses the background of the London Overground, drawing parallels between New York and London. In addition, it presents a closer look at the history of the Crossboro right-ofway, the origins of the Crossboro U concept, and New York’s current transportation and economic circumstances.

Left Photo: The London Overground.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

New York and London In many ways New York and London are bookends. They both have approximately 8.5 million residents, are experiencing rapid immigration and population and economic growth and share a similar portfolio of industries. Both cities are also experiencing a growing gap between well-off communities at their core and a ring of poor, isolated communities in their outer boroughs. Both cities are also experiencing crush loads on their more than century-old transit systems, which were designed to get workers into and out of the central business district on a network of radial transit lines. Both cities also face shortages of both market and affordable housing, creating both rapid increases in housing prices and a growing shortage of housing within the reach of low- and moderate income households. The London Plan -- the Greater London Authority’s strategic plan -- calls for the construction of 42,000 units per year for the next twenty years, while only a little more than half this amount has been produced. Over the last decade, London’s housing stock has grown by about 0.8 percent per year, while New York’s has grown by approximately 0.5 percent annually; in both places current rates of production of both market and affordable housing cannot keep up with growing demand., To promote new housing development, both cities are taking firm action to improve the amount of affordable housing. For instance, the London Plan identifies 33 “Opportunity Areas” on which the GLA and London Boroughs will focus new housing development. New York City also recently released its own housing plan, calling for production of 80,000 new affordable units over a 10 year period, and the adoption of inclusionary housing requirements for the entire city. In order to increase the accessibility of more housing units, the Greater London Authority and Transport for London (TfL, the GLA’s regional transportation authority) are investing heavily in modernizing the existing underground and bus systems and in creating new transit capacity in the city. TfL’s largest single investment is in Crossrail, a new $23 billion east-west underground transit line designed to increase capacity and reduce congestion throughout Central London’s underground lines. At the same time, TfL created the London Overground by repurposing abandoned and underused railroad rights of way to provide new mobility options to Londoners. The Overground runs through many areas outside the central business district that previously had poor or overcrowded underground service. The Overground also provides a circumferential route linking London’s boroughs with each other, shortening travel times between the boroughs.

The London Overground The London Overground is a rail system that traverses the urban and suburban areas of London. Opened in 2007, the 53.4-mile network consists of 6 lines with 83 stations. As the most analogous example in the world of a circumferential surface transit system, London’s experience in planning, financing, building and operating the Overground can inform New York’s efforts to create a similar system here -- the proposed Crossboro U, which would be the initial link in the proposed ORBIT system.

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND + CONCEPT

CASE STUDY Hudson-Bergen Line

The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail (HBLR) line is a 20.6-mile, 24 station light rail system that connects the New Jersey cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, Hoboken, Weehawken, Union City, and North Bergen. IN 1989, then-Governor Thomas Kean announced the service, and projected that the HBLR would create 80,000 jobs and 50,000 new homes. The line’s first stations opened in April 2000.1 With regard to the Crossboro U proposal, the HBLR provides fine examples of diverse financing and funding strategies, strong economic development driven by a transit project, and the power of regional connections. At a cost of $2.2 billion, the project was one of the most expensive public works endeavors in New Jersey’s history. Funding sources were indeed diverse, and included the Federal Transit Administration (New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreements), New Jersey Transit, and the New Jersey Department of Transportation (the State Transportation Fund).2 The original project contract, signed in 1996 alongside private partners URS Washington Division, Itochu Rail, and Kinkisharo, called for a 15-year, fixed price Design Build Operate Maintain (DBOM) to construct the line’s first minimum operating segment. The contract was later renewed to include the second segment.3 As service expanded, HBLR ridership steadily increased until 2009, at which point it began dropping, perhaps due to the country’s economic recession. By 2012, however, the line’s ridership recovered and reached 13 million by 2013, more than double the ridership in 2003. Currently, the most heavily-utilized stations offer transfer points to other regional transit systems. Since the HBLR’s inception, both commercial and residential development has boomed in surrounding areas; by 2006, an estimated 22,000 jobs had been created as a result of increased office space, and nearly 6,500 homes had been proposed and approved.4 Nevertheless, the line has been losing money. As of 2010, the HBLR’s farebox recovery ratio reached just 31 percent of its $45 million annual operating cost.5 Despite this major shortcoming, service is projected to expand north to Englewood in Bergen County through the addition of seven new stations.6 Several other proposed expansions, including one to extend light rail along Route 440 to serve a large development as well as New Jersey City University’s planned western campus, are also on the State’s radar.7

New Jersey’s Hudson-Bergen Line Petespix75. “Hudson - Bergen 2006 June - Tonnelle Av.” 27 July 2005. Flickr. Available https://flic.kr/p/7HaocW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Kerr, “Kean Proposes Transit Plan For Waterfront”, New York Times, 1989 Department of Transit, Project Profile, 2012 Mallet, Public Transit Program Funding Issues in Surface Transportation Reauthorization, 2007 Fitzsimmons and Birch, 2006 The Jersey Journal, 2010. Frasinelli, 2013. McDonald, 2011.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Development of the London Overground In 2006, TfL pieced together a number of underused passenger and freight lines to create the Overground system. Portions of this system had been undercapitalized and disconnected from each other and from the rest of London’s transit system. Other sections were totally abandoned. With decrepit stations and empty rail cars, the existing system was severely underutilized; in fact, many people living near former stations did not realize the system existed at all. From the start of TfL’s initiative, the goal was to transform a set of formerly disconnected and disused rights-ofway into a new circumferential network that could increase passenger and freight service, and revitalize London’s relatively poor inner boroughs. Throughout the project’s construction, general capital expenses were minimized; for example, the East London line (opened in 210) cost just £1 billion, a new fleet of trains cost £260 million, and the South London Line extension (opened in 2010) cost £75 million.1 However, given the amount of new infrastructure and station upgrades needed, a substantial amount of additional money was required to complete the Overground. Rail industry funds, central government grants, TfL’s general revenues (including fare revenue and investment bonds), Olympic-related investments, and private developers each played a role in financing the project.2 A relatively new tactic known as a “community infrastructure levy” also played a large role in financing the project. Moreover, a more recent trend of “devolution” or localization of rail services enabled local agencies to leverage and coordinate packages of investment based on new development at stations. The Overground currently offers connections to seven of the city’s Tube lines, the Docklands Light Railway, Tramlink, the National Rail, and trains to the region’s airports. Transport for London (TfL) publicly owns the system, which is operated privately by London Overground Rail Operations Limited (LOROL), a joint venture of Hong Kong MTR and DB Regio UK. Daily and annual ridership numbers are respectively approximated to be 427,000 and 130 million, and daily ridership is expected to top one million by 2020.3 With the exception of one diesel-powered line, all

London Overground System highlighted on the London Transportation System Map

1 “The Story of the London Overground,” Transport for London, accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJzHXFsU8UQ&feature=youtu.be 2 Stephen Joseph and Richard Hebditch, “Going Local: Lessons for rail policy from London Overground and Merseyrail,” Campaign for Better Transport. ASLEF, 3, accessed February 9, 2014. 3 London Overground Rail Operations Limited (LOROL), “Company Fact Sheet 2013.” LOROL, accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.lorol.co.uk/pdf/LOROL%20 factsheet%202013.pdf.

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND + CONCEPT Overground routes operate with electric, multiple unit trains.4 Additionally, most passenger trains in the network operate on dedicated tracks, with freight utilizing separated rail to minimize network disruptions. In certain sections, however, Overground passenger trains share tracks with freight operators. The gross cost contract between the concession operator (LOROL) and TfL has resulted in a very strong partnership that employs incentives and accountability to reduce fare evasion, improve overall relations, and evenly distribute risks.5 In fact, LOROL uses performance metrics – known as “key performance indicators (KPIs) to improve its quality; its customer satisfaction rate is currently 82 out of 100. Since the opening of East London Line and the South London Line extension (neither of which was included in the original right-of-way), property values near three of the communities served by the Overground --Haggerston, Peckham Rye, and New Cross -- have increased 34 percent, 24 percent and 12 percent, respectively. As housing prices continued to rise in central London, and as these areas have become more accessible, young higher income professional families have gravitated to these and other Overground stations.6 In response to concerns about displacement of long-term residents, the GLA has promoted new housing development in areas served by the Overground. such as the recently-approved 34-unit affordable housing project in the Richmond area.7 In addition, the East London Line and South London Line serve many of the most deprived boroughs in London, improving access for both current and new residents to jobs and services8. By 2012, the Overground proved to be a success story in more ways than one. First, operating mainly with 15-minute headways, the system had three times the ridership level as when TfL initiated the Overground in 2006. Second, the line had served to improve economic development and support population growth in London. 9 Third, the Overground had demonstrated the viability of mixed-use passenger and freight rail service. Finally, the Overground had offered an excellent and attractive passenger service to many of the communities and their residents in London’s inner boroughs.

Learning from London New York has much to learn from the London Overground experience. Both cities face the urgent need to expand the capacity and service areas of their century-old transit systems. And like London, New York also has a number of underutilized and abandoned and grade separated surface rail rights-of-way created from the mid-1800s to the early-1900s. Many of these existing rights-of-way can now be put back into productive use to service growing metropolitan populations. The reuse of old, abandoned, or underutilized rights-of-way is the most cost effective means of adding mobility to existing regions. Many of New York’s and London’s recent infrastructure projects have involved large, expensive tunnels costing billions of dollars. By reusing existing surface rights-of-way, New York can create new transit services at a small fraction of the cost of expensive tunneling projects. 4 Transport for London. Accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/28399.aspx. 5 Joseph and Hebditch, “Going Local,” 9, 10, 13-14, 16. 6 The Economist. “London Overground - In the loop”. The Economist, accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21587223-how-onerailway-line-helped-change-way-londoners-commute-loop. 7 Richmond News. “Affordable homes plans approved by Richmond Council”. accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/ richmondnews/10595156.Affordable_homes_plans_approved/?ref=rss. 8 Transport for London. “London Overground Impact Study .” Transport for London, accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Item08020212-Board-London-Overground-Impact-Study.pdf. 9 “London Overground Impact Study.” Transport for London. 2 February 2012. p. i-20.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014 The London Overground has two fine examples of cost-effective reuse of existing infrastructure. First, the North London Line of the system was previously a poorly maintained and rather unpopular passenger rail line. By making service improvements, station improvements, and rolling stock improvements, TfL and LOROL (the line’s operator) were able to increase ridership as well as customer satisfaction. They also branded the line as part of a larger Overground system, integrated it into the rest of TfL’s Underground fare system, and placed the line on the city’s well known transit map. These improvements, while relatively inexpensive, dramatically improved transportation in London. Second, the East London Line was a poorly used, poorly maintained and largely disconnected part of the Underground system. TfL closed the line in 2007 and completely rebuilt to become part of the Overground system by 2010. By reutilizing this right of way, TfL managed to better connect a fairly abandoned line to the larger transportation system in London in a short time at a quite low cost. In addition to learning from London’s successes in designing, financing, delivering and operating the Overground, New York can also learn from the mistakes London has made in building this and other infrastructure projects. While many of London’s transportation projects have proven huge successes, the city and its various entities have not always managed station area development perfectly. In the case of the London Overground, for example, no public entity managed to acquire large amounts of land adjacent to stations in order to capture the value from and direct its development. Although London did implement a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) value capture system, in which developers made a modest payment to help finance the Overground system), in reality, most of the development benefits resulting from the Overground were actually captured by private developers and could not help fund either the Overground or future transportation investments in London. The East London Line in particular serves as a strong comparison with the Crossboro U line. The Crossboro U will be 25 miles and London’s East London line is 22 miles. Additionally, the Crossboro U will create 22 stations and the East London line contains 29. The Crossoboro U line and the proposed ORBIT system have a chance to build a transportation project that can create economic value and capture a portion of that value in the station areas while also providing the affordable housing that is needed in New York City. The following section touches on the history of the Crossboro right-of-way as well as the recent history of the Crossboro U concept in New York.

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND + CONCEPT

EAST LONDON LINE

co-op city morris park parkchester hunts point av 6

astoria

N Q

northern blvd jackson heights 7 E F queens blvd grand av

CROSSBORO U LINE

metropolitan av

M R

myrtle av wilson av east new york L livonia av L 3 brooklyn army terminal

rockaway av + avenue d

N R

brooklyn terminal market utica av - farragut rd

broo 1 klyn new m 6th s c utre cdonal t - aven ollege u d av cht a 2 eH 5 v/62 B Q nd s F t D

Similarities between the Crossboro U and the London Overground’s East London Line.

(Transport for London. “Overground Map”. Available http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/london-overground-network-map.pdf)

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

CASE STUDY Denver FasTracks

The Denver FasTracks project is one of the largest mass transit expansions in the U.S., and includes commuter rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, and a redevelopment of the city’s main rail terminal, Union Station. In particular, the revitalization of this latter landmark is intended to serve as a gateway for transit into downtown Denver and to spur economic development as well as sustainable regional transit connections throughout the area. Overall, the project serves as a strong guide on how to finance infrastructure during a mass recession, as well as on the importance of building local community support for an undertaking with tremendous regional economic implications. In the 1990s, the Colorado Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC) was formed to open dialogues about issues that face the many communities in the Denver region.1 Growth projections for the Denver area indicated that roads and road construction would not be sufficient to meet future transportation demands. As such, the MMC ultimately supported a 0.4 percent sales tax increase as part of a mechanism to finance transit in the region. In November 2004, area voters approved of this tax as well as the FasTracks plan as a whole, which was sold as an economic development tool for the Denver region.2 Due to America’s most recent economic recession, not long after the 2004 vote, two unfortunate events transpired: costs associated with rail construction skyrocketed, and the sales tax revenue collected to fund FasTracks proved to be overestimated.3 The project total cost also rose to $7.4 billion, a step up from the original projection of $4.7 billion. As a result of these issues, although several of the FasTracks projects are currently underway, many have yet to reach completion. However, the Regional Transportation District of Denver posits that a significant portion of FasTracks will be completed by 2018. Union Station opened in May 2014.4

Denver, Colorado’s FasTracks

Grudzielanek, Dan. “Denver Light Rail.” 25 May 2008. Available https://flic.kr/p/iiESkF

1 Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley, The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities and Metros are Fixing Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy (Washington: The Brookings Institute, 2013), 56. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid., 59. 4 “Program Schedule,” FasTracks Regional Transportation District of Denver (RTD), Denver Colorado, Accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/ main_31.

History + Ownership of the Crossboro Right-of-Way

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND + CONCEPT

The right-of-way that will be used to create the Crossboro U alignment dates back to the late 19th century. In 1876, The New York, Bay Ridge, & Jamaica Railroad opened the first segment of the Bay Ridge branch, which connected the 65th Street Dock (adjacent to the future site of the Brooklyn Army Terminal) to Parkville Junction, located near today’s Avenue I stop on the IND Culver line in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. Expansion of the branch continued until 1883, when the line reached its current terminus at Fresh Pond Junction in Glendale, Queens. In 1916, construction was completed on the New York Connecting Railroad, a freight corridor built by the Pennsylvania Railroad, linking Fresh Pond to the Hell Gate Bridge—which spans the East River to the Bronx and serves as a vital rail connection between Long Island and the North American mainland. The following year, freight service commenced along the entire alignment, allowing cargo to traverse Brooklyn and Queens and continue either to New Jersey and points westward or the Bronx and points northward. From 1927 until the late 1960s, the entire corridor was electrified; since then, however, all trains using the right-of-way have used diesel locomotives. Today, the ownership of the right-of-way is distributed among multiple entities, including the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), the commuter rail operator controlled by New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA); CSX, the Class I railroad; and Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator.10 LIRR controls the Bay Ridge Branch, which connects the 65th Street Yards and float service docks to the Fresh Pond Yard. In 1997, the LIRR entered into a 20-year concession agreement with the New York & Atlantic Railway (NY&A) through which the latter became the sole operator of freight service along LIRR-owned trackage. The section between Fresh Pond and the Sunnyside Yard, known as the Fremont Secondary, was acquired from Conrail by CSX in 1997; in addition to CSX traffic, that portion of the right-of-way also accommodates freight service run by the NY&A, Canadian Pacific, and Providence and Worcester Railroads. The track section north of Sunnyside has been controlled by Amtrak since passage of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 and is currently used for Northeast Corridor service. The MTA is also now planning on using the Hell Gate Bridge to bring Metro-North commuter rail service into Penn Station using the northern section of this alignment.

Regional Plan’s Association’s 3rd Regional Plan A Region at Risk describing the Triboro Rx project, including mingling passenger and freight services. Yaro, Robert and Hiss, Tony. A Region at Risk The Third Regional Plan for New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area. 1996. Available http:// books.google.com/books?id=ew_C9etf-GgC&printsec=frontcover&source=g bs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

TriBoro Rx concept conceived for Regional Plan Association’s Third Regional Plan. Regional Plan Association. “Regional Express Rail – Rx”. October 1996. Available http://www.rpa.org/pdf/rxnews.pdf

Historic Freight Map of the right of way from 1912.

(Couper, William. History of the Engineering Construction and Equipment of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company’s New York Terminal and Approaches. Pg. 32.)

10 New York State Department of Transportation, “New York State Rail Plan 2009- Strategies for a New Age”, February 2009.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014 The idea of operating local or commuter passenger rail service along the existing Crossboro freight right-of-way has been discussed for decades. The first formal proposal for such an undertaking can be found in the Regional Plan Association’s (RPA) Third Regional Plan, A Region at Risk, which was published in 1996. At the time, RPA projected an increase in the number of work commutes into Manhattan from surrounding regions, including the outer boroughs. To meet the ensuing increase in demand for mass transit capacity, planners envisioned the construction of a new network of regional express rail, or ‘Rx services,’ along assembled freight rights-of-way and newly constructed track. Several of these projects are now being built, including the LIRR’s East Side Access project, and the MTA’s Second Avenue Subway and #7 Subway extension. A new Hudson River rail crossing, the Access to the Region’s Core (ARC) project was under construction until it was cancelled by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in 2010. Amtrak is now proposing to build two new Gateway tunnels to take its place. The last of the 3rd Plan’s proposed Rx lines was the ‘Triboro Rx.’11 Today, the need for such service has been revived in a new proposal, which is of course the focus of this plan.

BRONX

AMTRAK oak point yard CSX

MANHATTAN QUEENS

total length

CSX fresh pond junction MTA + LIRR

total width BROOKLYN

owners

current operators

65th street yard CITY OF NY

LONG ISLAND RAILROAD

operations 30

11 “A Region at Risk.” Regional Plan Association. 1996.

New York City Today: Political Climate + Existing Needs Shifting to the present, in 2013, New York City elected a new mayor, Bill de Blasio, with an overwhelming 73 percent of the vote. The first Democratic mayor elected since 1993, de Blasio largely ran his campaign on a platform of “rising together,” or ensuring that New York continues to grow and thrive while creating opportunity and upward mobility for all of the city’s residents. The mayor’s campaign encompassed a host of proposals aimed at reducing the severity of (and effects from) increasing wealth inequality, with particular attention to the city’s outer boroughs: Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island. The proposed Crossboro U line could play a vital role in meeting the new administration’s goal of improving transportation, housing and employment opportunities in the City’s outer boroughs.

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND + CONCEPT

New York City’s new mayor Bill de Blasio’s goals align with the Crossboro U project. Case, Kevin. “New York City Mayoral front runner Bill de Blasio” 2 November 2013. Available https://www.flickr.com/photos/kevdia/10632385465/

During his campaign, de Blasio made several proposals to generate economic development and ensure the provision of basic needs for residents of the outer boroughs. First, he called for creation of economic development hubs in neighborhoods across the city in order to spur job creation and wage growth for existing residents. Second, he outlined plans to preserve the integrity of current Industrial Business Zones and to provide revolving credit for neighborhood businesses in growing industry centers. Third, troubled by city’s the critical need for safe and decent housing for vulnerable New Yorkers, the Mayor made the construction and preservation of affordable housing throughout the boroughs a priority by vowing to build or preserve 200,000 affordable units in the next decade. In addition to providing a basic need for many of the city’s residents, de Blasio also suggested that housing be targeted to sites near transit hubs in order to increase density and provide greater access to employment in the outer boroughs. In addition, Mayor de Blasio expressed support for transit infrastructure improvements, including targeted investments to increase the capacity and quality of the mass transit system in the outer boroughs, improved subway and bus access along existing routes, and new rail connections, including the expansion of the MetroNorth regional rail service into the Co-Op City section of the Bronx. In order to alleviate traffic congestion and decrease harmful emissions, de Blasio also called for expanded rail capacity for freight transport, pledging to invest pension funds into projects that will support and facilitate this goal. Mayor de Blasio’s priorities align well with the potential outcomes of the proposed Crossboro U project, as well as the entire Crossboro ORBIT system. In particular, many ofthe communities that would be served by the Crossboro have some of the region’s longest commutes to job centers, and lowest household incomes. Further, many of these places are also experiencing rapid population growth. The Crossboro U project could address all of these needs. Finally, according to projections, New York City’s population could grow by up to one million people by the year 2040. The Crossboro U line drawing on lessons garnered from London on population growth and immigration accommodation, could serve as a catalyst for new development in the outer boroughs.

GOALS The Crossboro ORBIT system is a multifaceted project that seeks to create a more equitable New York City. At the core of this proposal is an infill urban rail line in the United States’ most populous (and most prosperous) city – a line that repurposes an underutilized right-of-way in the city’s outer boroughs to bring reliable, efficient mass transit link to disconnected neighborhoods. What makes the project potentially transformative is its broad vision of accomplishing diverse goals that meet the needs of the 21st century New York: expanding transportation access, encouraging social inclusion, generating economic value for all New Yorkers, and promoting resilience and sustainability. A smart plan requires thoughtful goals that inform its objectives, shape its site-specific interventions, and produce measurable outcomes to monitor its success. This section will outline how the Crossboro can be the vehicle for a host of strategic interventions that will support many of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s aspirations and generate lasting value for the residents of the city’s outer boroughs. It will also discuss a range of metrics for evaluating the project’s progress towards achieving these goals.

Left Photo: Aerial view of Manhattan from Brooklyn.

Source: Katy Silberger. Flickr. March 22, 2009. https://www.flickr.com/photos/katysilbs/3411660103/

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Radial network.

Improve New York’s Rail Transit System + Enhance the Viability of Short-Haul Freight Service

For residents currently living along the future U alignment, traveling via the existing subway network can be a challenge. New York’s subway lines were originally laid out in a radial configuration, in order to facilitate movement in and out of Manhattan’s central business district. During the early 20th century, development across the outer boroughs was largely driven by this model, leaving wide swaths of land for industrial use or, later, auto-oriented residential development. As the city has grown and its manufacturing industry has steadily declined, the passenger rail network has not been reconfigured to promote smart, sustainable growth. As a result, residents of many neighborhoods throughout the outer boroughs lack efficient, reliable transit service to connect them with employment, educational, social, and recreational opportunities. The Crossboro U is intended to be the first phase of a long-term strategy that will:

° ° Orbital network.

Apply the London Overground model to assist in converting New York’s rail transit system into an orbital rather than a radial network; and Drastically improve transit service in the outer boroughs both to and from Manhattan as well as between the boroughs, allowing for decreased travel times and making employment, educational, recreational, and social trips more direct.

Freight rail service along the Crossboro corridor has stagnated for decades. In 1961, New York was one of the world’s leading manufacturing centers; today, the city’s output has largely vanished, while freight service has been replaced by noisy, emissions-heavy trucks for transporting goods. By providing for necessary track improvements and system capacity, the Crossboro U will:

° ° °

Do no harm’ to existing freight operations and promote increased short-haul freight in place of goods movement by truck; Assist in a collaborative scheduling process that allows passenger and freight trains to operate harmoniously on the right-of-way; and Assist in expanding freight train yard capacity that could generate additional clients for operators.

New York and Atlantic Railway freight train.

Anacostia & Pacific Company, Inc., NYA, <http://www.anacostia.com/nya/ nya.html>.

Measuring Success The Crossboro U will contain several metrics to assess newfound passenger and freight service. On the passenger side, these will include:

View towards New Jersey at Bay Ridge along the Right-ofWay.

° ° °

Ridership figures for the new line (described in Chapter 4), as well as diversion rates from other modes of transportation such as cars; Average journey to work or school time reduction for residents living in the study area; and Air pollution reduction rates resulting from increased transit usage in the outer boroughs.

CHAPTER 3 GOALS On the freight side, evaluation metrics will include: Number of trains added per year as a result of better tracks, increased yard capacity, or other factors;

° ° °

Revenue gained via new goods movement clients resulting from the aforementioned factors; and Degree of content among freight operators with the scheduling system alongside passenger train operators.

Use 21st Century Opportunity to Increase Social Inclusion for Lower-Income Neighborhoods

The Crossboro U intends to expand economic and social opportunities for outer borough residents and business owners. This goal stems from the implications of the city’s projected population growth of up to one million people by 2040: how can New York accommodate new residents while also honoring its commitment to spur economic growth in its underserved communities?

Tunnel along Right-of-Way.

Many of the households along the Crossboro right-of-way – who arguably live in New York’s “other” city – earn lower incomes than the rest of the city, are overly burdened by housing expenses, and lack access to employment and educational opportunities. The Crossboro U project will pursue several initiatives to promote social inclusion in the outer boroughs:

New development alongside the Crossboro U will help to absorb population growth in New York City by establishing of livable, mixed-income neighborhoods, as well as new destinations that appeal to all residents;

These new neighborhoods can create space for Mayor Bill de Blasio’s ambitious target for new affordable housing units largely by revitalizing vacant and underutilized land along the Crossboro U alignment; and

The project will commence with an extensive community engagement process that will ensure that input from residents of neighborhoods along the right-of-way informs the proposed interventions.

Vacant land in Brooklyn.

“596 Acres Helps NYC Communities Reclaim Vacant Lots and Transform them into Gardens,” Inhabitat New York City, Feb. 16, 2012. < http:// inhabitat.com/nyc/596-acres-helps-nyc-communities-reclaim-vacant-lotsand-transform-them-into-gardens/>.

Measuring Success This goal will be evaluated based on the following metrics:

° ° °

Number of affordable housing units created within a reasonable vicinity of the Crossboro U line; Via the usage of a survey and additional outreach, an assessment of how well the needs of affected communities were met following construction of the project; and Before-and-after levels of diversity among income, race, population density, and housing type, and housing tenure in affected communities.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Leverage CrossBoro Investment to Create Economic and Social Value

Instead of merely connecting the residents of communities along the Crossboro U alignment to more prosperous districts, the new line holds the potential to bring revitalization and economic development to many of New York’s forgotten destinations. The addition of reliable transportation service has the potential to transform vacant lots and dilapidated industrial zones into affordable, transit-oriented, residential communities, accessible education centers, and vibrant manufacturing centers.

Rendering of New York’s Via Verde, an affordable housing development and winning entry of the 2004 New Housing New York Design Ideas Competition. “Strategy of the Month: Healthy Living at Via Verde,” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Oct. 2011, < http://www.huduser.org/ portal/rbc/strategy/vol10_issue5.html>.

As New York continues to grow, the city’s already scarce land supply is at an ever-increasing premium. By attracting development capital to neighborhoods that have often been overlooked, the Crossboro U will unlock the value of neglected blocks and underutilized parcels. The city’s tax base will expand, enabling City Hall to pursue the transformative policy initiatives that will ensure a higher quality of life for all New Yorkers. Because New York’s transportation agencies face crippling debt burdens and shaky revenue streams, the Crossboro U proposal outlines several value capture tools that will allow the project to partially fund its own construction, including:

Borrowing from the precedent established by similar projects elsewhere (such as the London Overground), the de Blasio administration has the opportunity to pursue the Crossboro U project not simply as a new transit line, but rather as an integrated land use and transportation investment;

Linked with neighborhood and citywide initiatives, the Crossboro U will create substantial economic value that can accrue to the city, neighborhood residents, and private investors; and

For City Hall, the Crossboro U presents an unparalleled opportunity to build a business case for financing infrastructure projects as a strategy to generate economic development.

Measuring Success These economic development measures will be evaluated through the following metrics:

4 36

° ° °

Local revenue dollars gained as a result of the integrated transportation and land use investment, including new property and other tax revenue; Number of new developments created through the usage of vacant or underutilized parcels; and Property value in areas surrounding the Crossboro U line.

Promote Resilience and Long-Term Sustainability Throughout the New York Region

Over the last decade, New York has pursued several initiatives to protect itself from the unpredictable effects of a changing global climate. In 2007, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration released PlaNYC, a vision for how the city would balance the demands of one million projected new residents with its commitment to conserving the environment and

CHAPTER 3 GOALS improving quality of life for all New Yorkers. That vision combined the resources of twenty-five agencies to develop a comprehensive game plan for minimizing the city’s environmental impact and promoting sustainable development patterns to prepare for an uncertain future. In the wake of the catastrophe wrought by Superstorm Sandy in October 2012, Mayor Bloomberg convened the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR) to craft a longterm plan that focuses on protecting the city from the effects of climate change. Released in June 2013, the SIRR report outlines a wide variety of resiliency interventions intended to harden the city’s shoreline, protect its critical systems and infrastructure, and better prepare its homes and businesses to recover from future climatic events. Mayor de Blasio has already begun to confront these pressing issues head-on by creating the Office of Recovery and Resiliency to spearhead the implementation of SIRR’s initiatives.

Developments Along Metro in Arlington County, VA.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arlington_County_-_Virginia.jpg>.

The Crossboro U line and the ORBIT system fit well into this long-term vision of a resilient, sustainable, responsible New York City:

° ° °

° °

The Crossboro ORBIT system will redouble New York’s sustainability efforts by catalyzing smart, transit-oriented development patterns that decrease auto dependency in neighborhoods currently lacking transit options; The Crossboro U line will create a new, reliable connection through the outer boroughs that can serve as a redundant passenger and freight network during severe weather events. When New York faces the next storm, its many neighborhoods and communities will have access to the critical resources they need;

Aftermath of Superstorm Sandy in New York City.

“Crippled NY Subways Spark Infrastructure, Climate Questions” CNN. com, Nov. 3, 2012 <http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/03/travel/new-yorksubways/index.html>.

The Crossboro U line will revitalize an underutilized freight artery, linking many of New York’s key manufacturing and food distribution nodes. By shifting cargo traffic from trucks to railcars, the Crossboro U will help reduce harmful air pollution and create a healthier New York; The Crossboro U’s construction will direct targeted investment to vulnerable neighborhoods, thus reinforcing the initiatives outlined by the SIRR report; The long-term vision for the Crossboro ORBIT system addresses issues of regional connectivity, helping New York City lead the way in creating a sustainable future for the entire Tri-State area.

Flooded subway station during Hurrican Sandy.

“How To Get Around New York City in the Aftermath of Hurricane Sandy” ABC News, Oct. 30, 2012 <http://abcnews.go.com/US/transportation-york-cityopen/story?id=17600758>.

Measuring Success The initiatives put forth in this section will be evaluated by way of the following metrics:

° ° ° °

Number of residents switching to or beginning to utilize more environmentally-friendly transportation mode shares for commuting or social purposes; Quantifiable reduced air pollution as a result of decreased automobile or freight truck emissions; Whether the Crossboro system proves to be a viable transportation alternative during a large storm or catastrophic event; and How well the Crossboro U meets the goals outlined specifically in the SIRR report.

TRANSPORTATION VISION The Crossboro U -- and the ORBIT system of which it forms an initial link -- holds the potential to be one of New York City’s most significant rail transit infrastructure projects. The completion of this 25-mile transit route will effectively improve job access and shorten journey times for commuters by providing direct linkages across three of New York’s outer boroughs, the areas in which much of the growth of New York in the first half of the 21st century will be absorbed. The Crossboro ORBIT will improve access and expand travel options for Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx residents by linking transit nodes along existing subway lines and commuter rail lines, bus routes and bicycle networks and providing quality transit service to neighborhoods that currently have some of the region’s poorest service. In addition to passenger service, infrastructure investments along the right-of-way will provide increased rail freight capacity in the by modernizing the corridor and expanding the number and concentration of freight rail using industries and customers, whose choice of modes will improve both the cost-effectiveness and viability of rail freight. This section outlines a vision for a mixed-use passenger and freight rail service in a shared use corridor: the Crossboro ORBIT system. Each element of the proposed transport system, including passenger station selection, expected passenger ridership, plan phasing, multimodal transit connections, freight service options, and a full scale, regional vision for transit service throughout the New York region, is addressed in this section of the report.

Left Photo: New York & Atlantic Railway train along the Right-of-Way

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

The Crossboro U Right-of-Way.

Existing Transportation Conditions For many residents living along the Crossboro U right-of-way, commuting is a lengthy and perhaps even painful experience. Although most commuters hold jobs in New York City’s major employment centers, including Midtown and Lower Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn, Flushing, and Jamaica (all of which house MTA subway stops), existing radial transit routes to these destinations from the outer boroughs are inefficient, and often require that travelers make several transfers and go miles out of their way. As a legacy system, all but 2 of New York City’s subway lines pass through Manhattan on their routes from one outer borough location to another, adding travel time upon travel time between origins and destinations on an everyday basis. Additionally, while bus connections certainly serve the outer boroughs, this mode of transit cannot match the reliability and efficient connectivity that rail transit brings. This section will describe these existing transportation conditions along the Crossboro right-of-way, and detail how the project can address these deficiencies.

Commute Time While the majority of the Manhattan residents can travel from home to a workplace in less than 30 minutes, and the average commute time for the entire city is 45 minutes (the longest in the country), as this map shows, residents of some neighborhoods along the Crossboro right-of-way are using about one hour of their day traveling each way to work by bus, subway, and on foot. In particular, the triangular area between Nostrand Avenue (which is served by the 2 and 5 subway lines) and Livonia Avenue requires strikingly long commute times for inhabitants. Consider the residents of Sunset Park, a neighborhood in southwestern Brooklyn. Using the current transit network, it would take 30 minutes or more to travel from the Brooklyn Army Terminal to Downtown Brooklyn, and 45 minutes or more to reach Manhattan. Arriving in Midtown Manhattan from Sunset Park would take an hour or more. Transit routes to outer borough destinations are similarly long or convoluted; a journey without the use of a car from Sunset Park to Brooklyn College, for instance, would require much planning in advance. The reach the Brooklyn Terminal Market, a similar transit desert persists; pedestrians must walk more than 30 minutes to reach a subway station.

Commute Mode Share New York City has the highest percentage of transit commuters in the country, with a 56% transit modal share. Along the Crossboro U right of way, the transit mode share (60 percent) is even higher than the citywide average, because of low rates of automobile ownership. Thus, transit improvements – rather than increased automobile-oriented mobility – in the outer boroughs will be essential to reduce commuting times and improve access to jobs, schools and services. However, new subway lines are prohibitively expensive, and proposed SBS bus routes will be slowed by congestion on heavily trafficked city streets. For these reasons, new transit services using existing rail rights of could provide a cost-effective and short term solution to mobility needs of outer borough residents. The proposed Crossboro U transit service could address these needs.

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION VISION

Map of commute time. Drive [alone or carpool]

brooklyn queens bronx nyc

28%

Transit [bus, train, etc...]

Other [walk, taxi, bike,etc...]

58%

14% SUBWAY

25%

65%

10% SUBWAY

26%

61%

13% SUBWAY

28%

56%

16% SUBWAY

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

LOCATIONS ACCESSIBLE BY TRAINS WITHIN: 1/2 HOUR 3/4 HOUR 1 HOUR

BEFORE

AFTER

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET

NORTHERN BOULEVARD

30min/45min/60min commute area for Brooklyn Army Terminal and Brooklyn Terminal Market in current conditions.

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION VISION

Transportation Proposal Phasing Plan The project will be implemented in two phases. The first phase focuses on services between Brooklyn Army Terminal and Northern Boulevard so as to provide convenient and efficient connection between Brooklyn and Queens. The second phase focuses on services between Northern Boulevard and Co-Op City so as to complete the direct connection all the way from Brooklyn to the Bronx.

co-op city morris park parkchester hunts point av

astoria

The phasing plan divides the project into two manageable pieces so as to speed up the opening of the U Line services along the southern segment. The components of the second phase proposal aligns very well with the Metro-North Penn Station Access plan. The four stations proposed in the Bronx by Metro-North on their New Haven Line are exactly the same stations proposed in this project. In another word, if Penn Station Access plan were to be implemented, it would be unnecessary for the U Line trains to run beyond Northern Boulevard into the Bronx; instead, interchange facilities will be provided for passengers to transfer from the U Line to the New Haven Line. Beyond the second phase, regional connections could be created to further expand the territories accessible to passengers on the U Line. The regional vision is discussed in a later section.

northern blvd jackson heights queens blvd grand av metropolitan av myrtle av wilson av east new york livonia av rockaway av + avenue d

brooklyn army terminal

brooklyn terminal market utica av - farragut rd

broo 1 klyn new m 6th s c utre cdonald t - aven ollege ue H cht a v/62 av nd s t

Phasing Plan.

Station Selections Stations for Phases 1 and 2 of this project were selected as follows. To begin, stations originally proposed by RPA were ranked based on accessibility, existing transportation considerations, and development potential criteria.

co-op city morris park parkchester hunts point av 6

Transportation-related factors included subway and bus connections, nearby transfer stations, connecting subway ridership and MTA ridership ranking (if available), connections to regional lines such as the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North, and freight operations in the area. Following these criteria, the stations were ranked from 1 (low level of connection) to 3 (high level of connection); scores were then added, multiplied by three to be weighted against development potential criteria, and ranked accordingly. When choosing final selections for transportation, places with freight and major regional connections were qualitatively determined. Another determination was the distance between stations to ensure that the stations were not too far apart from each other. On the development side, criteria included vacant land availability, commercial development potential, and industrial, residential, and industrial development potential. Each of the development potentials as well as the vacant land availability was scored from 1-3. WalkScore. com, a service measuring accessibility of destinations within walking distance, was also considered.

astoria

N Q

northern blvd jackson heights 7 E F queens blvd grand av metropolitan av

M R

myrtle av wilson av east new york L livonia av L 3 brooklyn army terminal

rockaway av + avenue d

N R

brooklyn terminal market utica av - farragut rd b 16th rooklyn new m c s utre cdonald t - aven ollege ue H cht a 2 5 v/62 av F B Q nd s t D N

Station selections and connecction to other services.

After examining total scores, five stations from RPAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s original list were removed. Between Phase 1 and Phase 2, the Crossboro U line calls for 22 stations in all.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Line Proposal The proposed Crossboro right of way was built to accommodate three or four tracks for its entire length. Unfortunately tracks have been removed for much of the length of the corridor, leaving only one poorly maintained track in most of the corridor. Additional tracks will be required to provide frequent, high-quality passenger service and accommodate freight operations at the same time, a sufficient number of tracks must be constructed along the right-of-way.

Existing Conditions Most of the first phase of the Crossboro line would be built and operated on the Bay Ridge Branch, a right-of-way owned by the MTA’s Long Island Rail Road (LIRR). This segment runs from the Brooklyn Army Terminal to Fresh Pond Junction. Through a 20-year concession agreement signed in 1997, the New York & Atlantic Railway operates all freight service on LIRR-controlled trackage, including the Bay Ridge Branch. From the Brooklyn Army Terminal to Utica Avenue, there is only one continuous track, with very few sidings. More loop sidings or single-ended sidings appear between Utica Avenue and Fresh Pond Yard, mainly to provide services to NY&A’s customers along that segment, such as the Brooklyn Terminal Market and Gershow Recycling. CSX owns the right-of-way segment between Fresh Pond Junction and a point that is a half-mile north of Northern Boulevard, near St. Michael’s Cemetery in Queens. While there is only one track along most of the segment, which is also known as the Fremont Secondary, there is one siding between Roosevelt Avenue and Northern Boulevard. The tracks climb up to an elevated structure along the Fremont Secondary, and the viaduct extends all the way across the Hell Gate Bridge to the south of the Oak Point Yard in the Bronx. Amtrak owns the segment to the north of the CSX territory. Two Amtrak tracks merge with the CSX track on the viaduct near St. Michael’s Cemetery, handling passenger service along the Northeast Corridor route. At present, there are only three tracks on the viaduct, but the rightof-way is wide enough to accommodate a fourth track. Although Amtrak owns this segment, it leases the trackage right for the southernmost track to CSX so that it, along with Canadian

Metro-North Penn Station Access plan.

MTA Metro-North. http://web.mta.info/mta/planning/psas/.

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION VISION Pacific Railway and the Providence and Worcester Railroad, can continue operations from Fresh Pond Junction to Oak Point Yard and beyond. The majority of the right-of-way in the Bronx has only three tracks. The width of the right-of-way along the line was measured based on the boundaries of the properties owned by the three entities discussed above. According to industry standards, a 91-feet-wide right-of-way can accommodate four tracks and an island platform. Although most the right-of-way along the proposed Crossboro alignment is wider than 90 feet, there are several choke points, especially on the undergrade bridges and on the viaduct, which range between 55 to 90 feet in width. The ROW’s bridges—55 feet wide—can only accommodate three tracks, and the viaduct after the Amtrak merge—60 feet wide—can only accommodate four tracks with a 13-foot distance between the track centerlines.

Proposed Track Configuration Initial Improvements The proposed first phase of the Crossboro service would extend from the Brooklyn Army Terminal to Northern Boulevard. Upon completion of Phase 1 improvements, the Crossboro line will have two continuous tracks with additional sidings along the alignment, as shown below.w Each of the two continuous tracks will accommodate both passenger and freight traffic in one direction. The loops and sidings will provide space for trains to pass each other if needed, and also allow for freight trains to access their customers without interference from the passenger service. This track configuration, combined with the service plan as discussed above, will ensure that freight trains can successfully operate in mixed service with passenger trains. The two initial tracks will be built along the northern side of the right-of-way, so as to leave the southern portion open for future construction of additional tracks to accommodate increasing freight operations. Island platforms will be constructed for most of the stations except for Northern Boulevard. At that station, the right-of-way is on a 40-foot-wide viaduct, with shoulders extending to 90 feet in width adjacent to the intersection between Northern Boulevard and the Crossboro U. Side platforms can be built on these shoulders to accommodate passenger service. To comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations, elevators (and ramps, where possible) will be constructed in all new stations. Escalators will be installed at selected stations with higher projected ridership or major development proposals nearby. Future Expansion As discussed earlier, the right-of-way is, for the most part, wide enough to accommodate more than two tracks. Therefore, if the intensity of freight operations were to increase to a point at which freight and passenger services must be operated on separate tracks to guarantee service frequency, an additional track (or two) could be constructed along the southern side of the alignment to significantly increase capacity along the line. To build the third continuous track, only the viaduct near Northern Boulevard would require widening. To further the freight infrastructure expansion into double-track freight mainline service, some under-grade bridges would also need to be widened to 60 - 65 feet. This is the only scenario in which additional land acquisition would be required to successfully operate mixed passenger and freight service along the Crossboro alignment.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

PROPOSED TRACK CONFIGURATIONS Manhattan Beer Distributors

200FT NEW UTRECHT AV / 62ND ST

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL

0FT

16 ST-AVENUE H

MCDONALD AV

BROOKLYN COLLEGE

Manhattan Beer Distributors

TRACK CHART

ROW boundary Platform Overhead bridges Undergrade bridges

200FT

NEW UTRECHT AV / 62ND ST

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL

BAY RIDGE YARD Mile 0

RIGHT-OF-WAY OWNERSHIP

MCDONALD AV

16 ST-AVENUE H

BROOKLYN COLLEGE

UTICA AV-FARRAGUT RD

NYC Transit Authority

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET

ROCKAWAY AV-AVENUE D

LIVONIA AV

200FT

BAY RIDGE YARD Mile 0

Mile 5

Favorite Brooklyn Brooklyn Plastics Resources Terminal Market LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD OWNED

Mile 5

PARKCHESTER

HUNTS POINT

EAST NEW YORK

WILSON AV

MYRTLE AV

Favorite Brooklyn Brooklyn Plastics Resources Terminal Market

METROPOLITAN AV

LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD OWNED

FRESH POND YARD

Mile 10

MORRIS PARK

CO-OP CITY

HUNTS POINT COOPERATIVE MARKET

OAK POINT YARD

AMTRAK OWNED

Mile 20

Gershow Recycling

Long Island Rail Road, CSX, Amtrak, Metro-

LIVONIA AV

ROCKAWAY AV-AVENUE D

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET

0FT ROW WIDTH

ROW WIDTH

200FT

mapping passenger+ freight service Existing track Proposed track Potential Extra Sidings

UTICA AV-FARRAGUT RD

NYC Transit Authority

Mile 25

GRAND AV

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION VISION

LIVONIA AV

Gershow Recycling EAST NEW YORK

WILSON AV

MYRTLE AV

METROPOLITAN AV

QUEENS BLVD

GRAND AV

JACKSON HEIGHTS

NORTHERN BLVD

ASTORIA

FRESH POND YARD Mile 10

Mile 15

CSX OWNED

INDUSTRY STANDARDS According to industry standards, the NEW UTRECHT AV / 62ND ST BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL distance between track centerlines is usually 13-15 feet. The distance between a track centerline and the 0FT physical obstruction along the righ-ofway must be greater than 10 feet. An BAY island platform is usually 26 feet wide, RIDGE YARD and a side platform is typically 15-22 200FT feet wide. 200FT

TRACK CHART

mapping passenger+ freight service Existing track Proposed track Potential Extra Sidings ROW boundary Platform Overhead bridges Undergrade bridges

RIGHT-OF-WAY OWNERSHIP

ROW WIDTH

NYC Transit uthority

Mile 0

Long Island Rail Road, CSX, Amtrak, Metro-

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Platform Typology The tracks run above grade, at grade, and below grade with roads along different segments of the alignment. The diagrams below show different types of platform configurations and vertical circulations accordingly. Island platforms are proposed for all the stations in Phase 1 except for Northern Boulevard. All the platforms are furnished with canopies, benches, windscreen shelters, public address systems, CCTV surveillance systems, passenger call aid systems, static signages, variable train information signages, and sufficient lighting to provide a safe, comfortable, and convenient environment for passengers to enjoy high quality of services.

ABOVE GRADE

AT GRADE

BELOW GRADE

ACCESS CROSSBORO RAIL FREIGHT RAIL

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION VISION

AT GRADE

ACCESS CROSSBORO RA FREIGHT RAIL ACCESS CROSSBORO FREIGHT RAIL

AT GRADE

BELOW GRADE

ACCESS CROSSBORO RAIL FREIGHT RAIL

ACCESS CROSSBORO RAIL FREIGHT RAIL 49

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Service Plan A primary goal of the Crossboro Line is to encourage more New Yorkers to choose public transit over private vehicle travel. This can only be achieved if the line provides high quality, efficient, and safe service. Residents and workers along the Crossboro alignment will be able to reach their destinations much more quickly than with existing subway or bus service. In order to reinforce this perceptionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; regularly scheduled service should be provided at no less than four trains per hour, with more frequent service during peak travel periods. This would mean that that timetables would not be needed.

Efficiency At present, it takes at least 1 hour and 40 minutes (plus 2 transfers) to travel from Co-Op City in the Bronx to the Brooklyn Army Terminal. With the Crossboro line, it will take as little as 47 minutes to traverse the whole line. A train performance calculator was constructed to model how travel time along the line will vary under different conditions. Total run time is affected by several factors, including rolling stock type, track speed limit, and schedule pad (also called recovery time). First, different rolling stocks have different acceleration and deceleration rates, which affect the time it takes for a vehicle to enter and exit a station. In general, an electric multiple unit (EMU) has higher acceleration and deceleration rates than does a diesel multiple unit (DMU). Different EMU vehicles have different performance capabilities, as lighter EMUs can accelerate and decelerate faster than heavier EMUs can.

TRAIN TYPE

SPEED TOTAL RUN TIME (w/scheduled pad) LIMIT

EMU higher performance

50mph 60mph

50min 47min

EMU M8

50mph 60mph

52min 49min

DMU all cars powered

50mph 60mph

52min 49min

Different results of total run time (with schedule pad) when different vehicles and speed limits are adopted. Data source for acceleration and deceleration rates of different rolling stocks: Alstom TGV simulation.

Second, speed limits along the different segments of the line can vary based on three factors: speed regulations, curvature of the segment, and the signaling system. As for regulations, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has developed a system of nine track classes based on quality of tracks, which determines the maximum allowable running speeds for both passenger and freight trains (see appendix). Class 3 provides the ideal speed conditions for the Crossboro U Line: 60 mph for passenger trains and 40 mph for freight trains. As for the geometry of the tracks, a train must limit its speed to a certain level if running on sharp curves so as to avoid derailing. For instance, if a train runs on a curve with a radius less than 1,430 feet, it must run at a speed lower than 50 mph; otherwise, the increasing centrifugal force caused by undue high speed will cause the train to tip over or derail. As for signaling system, basically the more advanced the system is, the higher operating speed it is likely to allow. More discussion about signaling systems and Positive Train Control (PTC) can be found in the freight section. Third, a schedule pad, also called â&#x20AC;&#x153;recovery time,â&#x20AC;? should be incorporated for contingency purposes. In transit operations, short delays are liable to occur frequently. For instance, a train might wait at a station for slightly longer than its scheduled dwell time to accommodate a passenger with special needs. The schedule pad for the Crossboro U Line is assumed to be 7% of the travel time; in other words, if the minimum travel time for a segment is 1 minute, the service schedule will budget 1.07 minutes to accommodate contingencies. Modeled results of run time (with schedule pad) vary when different vehicles and speed limits are considered. A lighter EMU (like some European trains) will provide the highest efficiency with the shortest travel time.

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION VISION

Frequency A commonly accepted notion among transit operation planners is that people can comfortably ignore timetables when service headways are less than 15 minutes. This proposal outlines two scenarios with different headways, both of which aim to provide service with such frequency that New Yorkers previously reliant on private vehicles would be comfortable relying on the Crossboro service. Frequency in Phase 1 Phase 1 calls for 10-minute headways during peak hours, 15-minute headways during offpeak hours and weekends. The morning peak hours will be from 7:00 am to 9:00 am, and the afternoon peak hours will be from 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm. The time-distance string chart - String Chart 1.0 - illustrates how all of the train sets for the Crossoro U Line could be scheduled in the morning from 6:30am to 10:30am. The portions with higher string density depict more frequent services during peak hours (7:00 am – 9:00 am). Correspondingly, portions with less density correspond with service during off-peak hours (6:30am – 7:00am, and 9:00am – 10:30am). On the string chart, never will three lines intersect at the same point, except for the two ends. This means that never will three trains appear at the same location at the same time, except for at the terminals. Whenever two trains do appear at the same location at the same time, they can always pass each other on two separate tracks, such that, two continuous tracks are sufficient for supporting passenger services with such frequency.

In total, 8 train sets will be needed to support the services in Phase 1.

String chart 2.0 illustrates the first two trains during off-peak morning hours from both ends of the line. For instance, Train Set 1 starts at 6:30am from the Brooklyn Army Terminal, travels for 32 minutes, and arrives at Northern Boulevard at 7:01am. The train remains at the Northern Boulevard terminal for 9 minutes, and heads back towards Brooklyn Army Terminal. After the train returns to the Brooklyn Army Terminal at 7:42am, it stays there for another 8 minutes, and departs again for Northern Boulevard at 7:50am. Train Set 1R, which starts from Northern Boulevard at 6:30am, follows the same pattern. Other train sets throughout the day follow a similar operational pattern, but the dwell time at either terminal can be adjusted for different runs so as to guarantee the 10-minute or 15-minute headways.

Lesson from London Overground When the London Overground designed their service frequency, the decision was not contingent upon estimated ridership. Instead, the approach was to provide services that were frequent enough to attract more riders and to induce demand.

String chart 3.0 shows how four trains run before peak hours at 15-minute intervals, and increase frequency to 10-minute intervals during peak hours, and how the frequency is lowered again to 15-minute intervals after 9 am. Freight operations can easily be fit in between passenger trains during off-peak hours, as illustrated above. A freight train can operate at a speed that equals the average operating speed of the passenger train (31.5mph), so that the freight train will not interfere with the preceding or subsequent passenger train, and it can run along the corridor with green lights all the way. This arrangement will make sure that even if freight trains were added in between passenger operations, never will three trains appear at the same location at the same time. Therefore, two continuous tracks will be sufficient to support not only passenger, but also freight operations. In case that freight trains need to slow down and pull into customers’ yards to complete pick-up or delivery services, sufficient sidings are provided at appropriate locations to support such needs without interfering the operations of the passenger trains.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014 Under this arrangement, even if the freight operations follow demand instead of schedule, the Morning Services (6:30am - 10:00am) operators will only have to wait for 15 minutes at most if they need to ship goods during off-peak 7am - 9am: one train every 10 minutes hours, and the maximum waiting time is 2 hours even if they receive requests from customers 6:30am - 7am one train every 15 minutes during peak hours. In this scenario, four freight trains can be operated every hour during off-peak 9am - 10am hours and weekends if needed.

16.00 14.00

Distance (miles)

This section only explores the physical feasibility of mixed operations of passenger and freight 12.00 services. 10.00 More discussion on regulatory and technical solutions can be found in the freight 8.00 section. 6.00 4.00

Morning Services (6:30am - 10:00am)

2.00

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

10:00

9:30

7am - 9am:

one train everySERVICES 10 minutes MORNING

7am - 9am: 1 train every 10min

0.00

6:30am - 7am 6:30am 7am:every 1 train every 15min one-train 15 minutes 9am - 10am 9am - 10am: 1 train every 15min

10:30

Time

Morning Services (6:30am - 10:00am)

one train every 10 minutes

16.00

Northern Boulevard

14.00

6:30am 7am Set- 1R one train every 15 minutes 9am - 10am Set 2R

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3

Set 3R

Set 4

Set 4R

12.00

Metropolitan Ave

10.00

East New York 16.00 Livonia

8.00

14.00

6.00

Brooklyn Terminal Market Brooklyn College

Distance (miles)

12.00 10.00

4.00 2.00

8.00 Brooklyn Army Terminal 6.00

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

2.00

7:30

8:30

8:00

9:00

Train sets start from 7amthat - 9am: Northern Boulevard

Set 3

Morning Services (6:30am - 10:00am) Train sets that start from 7amBoulevard - 9am: Northern

Set 4

one train every 10 minutes

6:30amSet - 7am 1R one train every 15 minutes 9am - 10am Set 2R

Set 1 Set 2

10:30

Time

Train sets that start from Brooklyn Army Terminal

10:30

Morning Services (6:30am - 10:00am)

Train sets that start from Brooklyn Army Terminal

0.00

10:00

9:30

10:00

9:30

0.00

Time

4.00

String chart for high-performance EMUs with 60 mph speed limit in Phase 1.

Set 3R Set 4R

16.00

one train every 10 minutes Northern Boulevard

14.00

1R 6:30am Set - 7am one train every 15 minutes Set 2R 9am - 10am

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3

Set 3R

Set 4

Set 4R

12.00

Metropolitan Ave

10.00

Morning Services (6:30am - 10:00am)

East New York

16.00Livonia 7am - 9am: one train every 10 minutes

8.00

14.00Market Brooklyn Terminal 6:30am - 7am

6.00

10.00

Distance (miles)

one train every 15 minutes Brooklyn College 9am - 10am 12.00

2.00

16.00

8.00Terminal Brooklyn Army Northern Boulevard

6.00

6:30

7:00

8:00

8:30

9:00

10:00

9:30

10:30

Time

12.00

East New York Livonia

7:30

8:00

Brooklyn Terminal Market

8:30

9:00

Brooklyn College

9:30

8.00

0.00

10:00

10:30

6:30

Set 17:00 Set 2

7:30

8:00

Set 8:30 1R Set 2R Set 3R

Set 3 Set 4

Set 4R Train sets that start from Brooklyn Army Terminal

Freight trains

2.00

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Northern Boulevard

9:00 Time

Set 3R Set 4R

16.00 14.00

0.00

10:00

9:30

Set 2R

Set 3 Set 4

one train every 10 minutes

6:30am - 7am one train every 15 minutes Set 1R 9am - 10am

Set 1 Set 2

4.00 Train sets that start from Northern Boulevard

7amthat - 9am: Train sets start from Northern Boulevard

Train sets that start from Brooklyn Army Terminal

6.00

Time

Train sets that start from Brooklyn Army Terminal

Distance (miles)

10.00

2.00

Brooklyn Army Terminal

7:30

14.00

0.00

4.00 for the first two trains during off-peak morning hours from both ends of theMorning String chart line. Services (6:30am - 10:00am)

Metropolitan Ave

7:00

4.00

10:30

12.00

Metropolitan Ave

10.00 East New York

8.00

Train sets that start fromLivonia Northern Boulevard Brooklyn Terminal Market

6.00

Set 2R

4.00

Set 1R College Brooklyn Set 3R

2.00

Set 4R

0.00

Brooklyn Army Terminal

6:30

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

Time

Compatibility with freight operations in Phase 1. Train sets that start from Brooklyn Army Terminal

Freight trains

Train sets that start from Northern Boulevard

Set 1 Set 2

Set 1R Set 2R

Set 3

Set 3R

Set 4

Set 4R

10:00

10:30

Distance (miles)

7:00

Distance (miles)

Train sets that -start from 7am 9am: Northern Boulevard

Distance (miles)

Train sets that start from Brooklyn Army Terminal

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION VISION Frequency in Phase 2 Ultimately, the team envision services with higher frequency for Phase 2 because of anticipated increases in population, demand for transit, and popularity of the U Line among New Yorkers in the long term. Phase 2 assumes a 5-minute headway for peak service, and 10-minute headway under off-peak and weekend schedules. String chart 4.0 illustrates how all the train sets for the Crossboro U Line could be scheduled in the morning from 6:30am to 10:30am under this scenario. The lines are markedly denser as compared to the Phase 1 string chart.

In total, 23 train sets will be needed to support the services in Phase 2, the higherfrequency service from Brooklyn to the Bronx.

String chart 5.0 shows how freight trains can be operated in between passenger trains during off-peak hours in the higher frequency scenario. This scenario provides capacity to operate six freight trains every hour during off-peak periods.

Morning Services (6:30am - 10:00am) 7am - 9am:

one train every 5 minutes

MORNING SERVICES

7am - 9am: 1 train every 10min 6:30am - 7am: 1 train every 15min 9am - 10am: 1 train every 15min

6:30am - 7am one train every 10 minutes 9am - 10am

Morning Services (6:30am - 10:00am)

30.00

7am - 9am:

one train every 10 minutes

Set 1

25.00

6:30am - 7am one train every 15 minutes 9am - 10am

Set 2

Set 3 Set 4 Set 5

Set 6

20.00

Set 7 Set 8

Distance

Set 9

15.00

Set 10

Set 11

16.00

Set 1R Set 2R Set 3R

Northern Boulevard

14.00

Set 4R

10.00

Set 5R Set 6R Set 7R

Set 9R Set 10R

10.00

Set 11R Set 12R

0.00 6:00:00

7:12:00

East New York 9:36:00 Livonia

8:24:00

Time

String chart for high-performance EMUs with 60 mph speed limit in Phase 2.

10:48:00

8.00

12:00:00

6.00

Brooklyn Terminal Market Brooklyn College

4.00 2.00

Morning Services (6:30am - 10:00am) 7am - 9am:

0.00

Brooklyn Army Terminal

6:30

one train every 5 minutes

7:00

7:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

Time

6:30am - 7am one train every 10 minutes 9am - 10am

Freight train off-peak Train sets that start during from Brooklyn Army Terminal Freight trains

Set 1R Set 2R

Set 1 Set 2

30.00

Set 3R

Set 3 Set 4

25.00

Train sets that start from Northern Boulevard

Set 1

Set 4R

Set 2

Set 3 Set 4 Set 5

Set 6

20.00

Set 7 Set 8

Set 9

Distance

Set 10 Set 11

15.00

Set 1R Set 2R Set 3R Set 4R

10.00

Set 5R Set 6R Set 7R

Set 8R Set 9R

5.00

Set 10R Set 11R Set 12R

0.00 6:00:00

7:12:00

8:24:00

9:36:00

10:48:00

12:00:00

Time

Compatibility with freight operations in Phase 2.

Distance (miles)

Metropolitan Ave

5.00

12.00

Set 8R

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Ridership Projection Diversion from Current CB Origin-Destination Trips along ROW The logic of diversion forms the basis of our ridership forecast. First, we applied the diversion rates to the CB origin-destination pairs along our right of way, that is, trips currently originating in a CB district in our ROW and ending in a CB district in our ROW. The low scenario assumes 10% diversion rate for auto trips and 20% for transit trips. The high scenario assumes 20% and 40% for auto and transit diversion rates, respectively. Higher diversion rates are applied to transit trips under the assumption that people who utilize transit are already open to the idea of transit. It is also reasonable to believe that people who drive in a transit-rich city like New York have reasons to drive that wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be easily altered with the introduction of another transit service.

Diversion from current CB Origin-Destination Trips from ROW CB to Major Employment Centers Second, we captured additional riders that will use the Crossboro line to connect to existing subways and journey into major employment centers. Community Boards containing these major

Lesson from London Overground Ridership models are important to the extent that they help guide service planning and delivery. The 15-minute headways on the London Overground, for example, were not supported by any preliminary ridership forecast, but were instead implemented in an effort to attract riders to a service with high frequencies and top quality. In reality, over the years since the serviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s initiation, ridership far exceeded original forecasts. As the Crossboro U line unlocks the potential for development, it could also experience a similar growth in ridership.

employment centers are considered to be destinations in the CB origin-destination pairs. Although more granular identification of employment centers would provide more precise ridership data, the limitation of data geography means that the major employment areas are used to capture the bulk of the potential transfer trips. These areas include Manhattan CBD, Jamaica, Flushing, and Downtown Brooklyn. OD trips from one of the Community Boards along the right of way to one of these employment centers are given varying diversion rates depending on the number of stations and the proximity to the transfer station. For example, for an interchange station where both the existing subway and the Crossboro line services are concurrently provided, diversion rate is assumed to be low because people would use the existing subways directly. The surrounding stations are given higher diversion rates because people are more likely to use the Crossboro line to journey to an interchange station along the right of way and transfer to a subway line to travel into one of these major employment centers. We recognize that there are areas besides these major employment centers in the outer boroughs that are expected to experience employment growth in the future such as Long Island City. However, it is not feasible to incorporate such growth explicitly into our model because our model is based on the current commuting patterns. This is not to say that our model is insufficient. We believe that the additional ridership from projected population growth discussed in the subsequent section would serve as a rough but reasonable estimate that lumps these wayward ridership elements.

Additional Ridership from Projected Population Growth (2040) As New York City is projected to experience continued population growth, our model needs to consider the effect the growth will have on ridership. The Department of Planning for New York City projects 15%, 7%, and 11% population growth by 2040 for the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn, respectively. Although it is evident that population growth will not be uniform throughout each borough, we applied the population growth rates to each boroughâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CB district in the current commute data to estimate additional ridership due to projected population growth. This works as a good shorthand way of covering missing ridership categories. The same processes from previous steps for trips along the right of way and into major employment centers are repeated for these additional trips generated by population growth.

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION VISION

TOTAL ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP 130,000 - 260,000 DAILY TRIPS

ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP 00 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 260,000 DAILY TRIPS

diversion from current community boards origin-destination trips along right-of-way

diversion from current community board origin-destination trips from right-of-way community boards to major employment centers

additional ridership from projected population growth

Diversion from Current Trips Along Right-of-Way (105,000)

Manhattan Central Business District (36,000) Downtown Brooklyn (2,400) Jamaica (1,100) Flushing (650) Additional Ridership from Projected Population Growth (14,000) Brooklyn Army Terminal (8,500)

projected ridership from new developments

Brooklyn College (4,200) Brooklyn Terminal Market (15,000) Livonia (3,000) East New York (650) Northern Boulevard (3,000)

Ridership projections for the Crossboro U by origin.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

PROJECT

Projected Ridership from New Developments There are many areas along the Crossboro line where new developments can happen. We have identified six potential development sites in particular where large scale developments can happen. They are Brooklyn Army Terminal, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn Terminal Market, Livonia, East New York, and Northern Blvd stations. These developments will have substantial impact not only on where people will live and work but also on how people travel.

CROSSBORO U (HIGH CASE) CROSSBORO U (LOW CASE) PATCO MTA: STATEN ISLAND RAILWAY MTA: METRO NORTH RAILROAD

$190 $120

TRIPS (in millions)

DOLLARS (in millions)

OPERATION EXPENSES $941

$46 $40

PROJECT

TRIPS (in millions)

ANNUAL UNLINKED TRIPS 92 83

Based on the available land space and our development goals, we calculated preliminary square footage numbers for each type of new development including residential, retail, office, industrial, and park. The New York City Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office of Environmental Coordinationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CEQR Technical Manual contains trip generation rates based on each land use type and square footage . By applying these trip generation rates to our development square footage, we calculated weekday daily person trips. Although these developments happen in close proximity to our stations, we applied more conservative diversion rates of 15% and 30% for low and high scenarios, respectively. There are competing thoughts on the types of trips these new developments would create. There is a perspective that these new developments would increase the share of transit use due to the fact that they are so closely located around Crossboro stations. On the other hand, there is an argument that these trips will primarily be local trips and will not increase the share of transit use as much. We believe that our diversion rates of 15% and 30% are more on the conservative side and will serve as a baseline estimate to build upon.

PROJECT

ANNUAL VEHICLE REVENUE MILES

MILES (in millions) 5

PROJECT

Capital Cost Estimates

4 2 61

OPERATING EXPENSES PER UNLINKED TRIP $2.00 $2.56

The capital cost of the first phase of Crossboro U is estimated to be 1.9 billion. Several cost categories are taken into consideration, including right-of-way civil/structural work, mainline trackwork, signalling & communication, electrification, stations, connection to other stations, fleet storage and maintenance facilities, rail freight facilities, and soft costs (design, construction management and project administration), and rolling stock. The costs are estimated based on comparable projects in the previous years and market price for the sub-items.

$4.32 $6.24

RAILWAY

$11.36

OPERATING EXPENSES PER VEHICLVE REVENUE MILE $22.59 $28.89 $10.40 $16.86 $15.38

Comparison of Operation Cost.

Data Source: The National Transit Database

Operating Cost Estimates The operating cost of the first phase of Crossboro U is estimated to fall between $120 million and $190 million, depending on ridership. As mentioned earlier, daily ridership figures are estimated to be between 130,000 (with 4-car trains) and 260,000 (with 8-car trains). Under either scenario, headways, daily train operation hours, and peak hours would not change. The operating cost is comprised of the following components: vehicle operations, vehicle maintenance, non-vehicle Maintenance, and general administration. The percentage of each of these categories to be attributed to operating cost is shown in the chart. Costs per vehicle mile are $22.59 and $28.89 for the low and high ridership scenarios, respectively; costs per passenger are $2.00 and $2.56 for these two scenarios, respectively. As compared to other systems around the region, cost per vehicle mile is relatively high, while cost per passenger is relatively low.

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION VISION

ROUTE MILES

STATIONS

Rolling Stock $100million

ROW Civil/Structural Work $33 million Mainline Trackwork $115 million SignalingÂ & Communication $122 million

Design, Construction Mgmt. & Project Administration

$418 million Electrification $226 million

$1.9 Billion Rail Freight Facilities $42 million Fleet Storage & Maintenance Facilities $55 million

TOTAL CAPITAL COST FOR PHASE 1 Stations $297 million

Connection to Other Stations $504 million

Capital Cost of Crossboro U for Phase 1.

General and Administration 14 %

Vehicle Operations 40 %

$120M - $190M Non-Vehicle Maintenance

TOTAL OPERATION COST FOR PHASE 1

40 %

Vehicle Maintenance Operation Cost of Crossboro U for Phase 1.

17 %

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Bike, Pedestrian, and Bus Circulation Methodology In addition to providing high-quality, efficient passenger rail service to the outer boroughs, the Crossboro U line will also create opportunities to strengthen New York’s multimodal transportation network. In order to convince New Yorkers that walking or biking are viable solutions to the “last mile” problem, it is essential that pedestrians and cyclists feel secure in the neighborhoods surrounding Crossboro stations. This section will outline a variety of interventions that will enhance the bicycle and pedestrian experience—making residents feel safe from vehicular traffic and the threat of crime. Many of the proposed improvements were inspired by the Street Design Manual published by the New York City Department of Transportation.

Bike Facilities At present, the bicycle infrastructure surrounding many of the proposed stations is underwhelming. Many neighborhoods lack bike lanes and basic bike facilities (like racks), thus discouraging neighborhoods residents from relying on two-wheeled transportation. This proposal aims to improve the biking conditions around stations by recommending targeted interventions that remedy these deficiencies. In many places, new bike lanes would be suitable along streets that have the potential to be reconfigured or repainted to accommodate bike traffic. Some of these bike lanes will serve to connect Crossboro stations with the existing bike networks. To bolster these connections, new bike racks should be installed near the entrances to the Crossboro stations. For streets that have the potential to become essential links in the biking network around stations but are too narrow to accommodate separate bike lanes, “share the road” (sharrow) signs and warning signs should be installed along the streetscape. Together, these measures will help create a safer and more accessible cycling environment around Crossboro stations.

Pedestrian Improvements Although sidewalks exist in the immediate vicinity of most of the proposed station locations, many are in poor condition. Further, some sidewalks lack ADA-compliant features, thus compromising accessibility for senior citizens and passengers with special mobility needs. To encourage neighborhood residents to rely on the Crossboro U as a key transit connection, it is essential to cultivate a safe pedestrian environment around the station locations. New sidewalks will be installed in areas where they are currently lacking or insufficient. Some stations will also require sidewalk reconfiguration, such as curb extensions at vital intersections, to make passengers feel protected from vehicular traffic. Proper maintenance and upgrade of existing sidewalks to ADA standards will ensure better accessibility for passengers with specials needs, while street plantings would make for more welcoming streetscapes.

Wayfinding and Enhanced Connectivity In order to handle the projected ridership demand, it is crucial that the Crossboro U stations facilitate safe, efficient travel experiences for their passengers—particularly at interchange stations between the Crossboro and existing subway lines. This can be accomplished at relatively low cost with the installation of well-designed way finding features that clarify the connections between Crossboro stations and other transit modes, major streets, institutions and landmarks. These features could help passengers save travel time by allowing them to make informed decisions on route selection and transfer options. In addition, amenities like street lights,

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION VISION benches, and trash cans would enhance the walking and biking conditions around stations. If implemented, these measures could foster user friendly environments around stations for pedestrians and cyclists. They could also reduce parking needs and reduce congestion around stations by encouraging walking and biking as alternative travel modes. These aims are crucial as population densities around stations are likely to increase as a result of organic population growth and new development activities.

Multi-Modal Improvements In addition to improving rail service, this proposal aims to connect passengers to stations with a variety of multi-modal forms including improvements for pedestrian, bicycle, and bus access. Mayor de Blasio’s Vision Zero Plan, along with New York’s complete street policies and transportation guidelines incorporate many of these elements into their plans.1 Below are some different elements to create a safe, friendly environment for passengers accessing stations:

Wayfinding Signage, or signs with geographical locations for pedestrians or bicyclists, should be found around station areas. These can have information such as directions to subways, buses, nearby institutions. They can also include a locator map of the area

Bus Shelter and Other MTA Transfer Enhancements. Station locations should incorporate MTA planning efforts to facilitate connections with the bus network. While some stations would have designated bus areas, such as in the Brooklyn Army Terminal plan, others would require safe connections to bus stops. Stations without designated bus terminal areas would be suggested to create passenger bump outs (sidewalk curb extensions) with covered bus shelters. These shelters would preferably include a bench, space for wheelchairs, lighting, and deliver real time arrival information, and printed route information, such as a route map and time tables.

The Crossboro would also work to create transfers to the MTA subway stations that are easily accessible. While some transfers are easier than others, clear wayfinding signage and safe crosswalks, lighting, and sidewalks would be created or enhanced in order to make these connections as simple as possible.

Clear Station Signage. In addition to clear wayfinding signs, readable and easily comprehendible signage should be used throughout the station. Station signage should also be uniform and follow its own signage policies, similar to the MTA design guidelines for the subway system.2 Pedestrian-Scale Lighting and Additional Street Furniture. Pedestrianscale lighting helps to improve light quality and allow for a more human scale when comparing to more traditional cobra head lights. Additionally, features such as benches, trees and plantings, recycling and garbage cans, and additional signage can enhance the pedestrian experience around the station.

1 City of New York. “Vision Zero Action Plan”. 2014 Available http://www.nyc.gov/html/visionzero/pdf/nyc-vision-zero-action-plan.pdf 2 Shaw, Paul. The (Mostly) True Story of Helvetica and the New York City Subway. 2008, November 18. Available: http://www.aiga.org/the-mostly-true-story-ofhelvetica-and-the-new-york-city-subway/.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Ample and Safe Bike Parking. At most stations, bicycle racks can be installed in front of the station. As the station expands, additional bicycle parking areas can be added. While bicycle racks will likely be enough for many of the stations, at large stations, safe, secure bicycle parking can be created. This would improve the experience for cyclists traveling to the station. Precedents for this strategy include the Washington, D.C. Metro system and San Francisco’s BART network, both of which include secure bicycle parking at subway stations. A mix of paid bike parking spots and free-to-use spots can be created at Crossboro stations.

Integrating Bicycle Infrastructure on Rail Cars and at Stations. Incorporating bicycle hooks on Crossboro U trains would offer a substantial improvement for cyclists. These rail hooks exist on Metro North cars, as well as on MAX light rail cars in Portland Oregon.

The Crossboro would also work to create transfers to the MTA subway station that are easily accessible. While some transfers are easier than others, clear wayfinding signage and safe crosswalks, lighting, and sidewalks would be created or enhanced in order to make these connections as simple as possible.

Freight + Vehicle Choice Freight Rail Network in New York & New Jersey The Hudson River not only serves as the border between New York and New Jersey, but also presents a physical boundary that constrains the capacity of New York City’s freight rail network. On the New Jersey side of the river, there are multiple large rail yards for freight train sets located in the “North Jersey Terminal Area”, all of which are connected to the dense national freight network. By contrast, on the New York side of the river, there are far fewer freight facilities. Because of this disparity, there are only two entry points for freight cars destined for Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island: the Hell Gate Bridge in northern Queens, whose trackage rights are owned by Amtrak, and the float dock at the 65th Street Rail Yard in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. Cargo destined for 65th Street must be loaded onto barges at the Greenville, NJ rail yard, sailed across the river, and transferred back to rail cars at the dock. Capacity at this terminal is therefore constrained by the transfer capacity of the float dock, as well as by the terminal’s limited capacity to shepherd large amounts of cargo through the barge-rail transfer. Freight destined for the Hell Gate crossing has an even more arduous journey. The closest freight rail bridge traversing the Hudson is located in Selkirk, NY, a town located just south of Albany, and 140 miles north of the Hell Gate. Because of the so-called Selkirk Hurdle, freight cars that remain intact (i.e., that are not shipped via barge) must travel an additional 280 miles to access Long Island. For example, cargo originating in Long Island and destined for southern Pennsylvania must cross the Hell Gate, transit 140 miles up the eastern shore of the Hudson, cross the Selkirk bridge, and then travel another 140 miles back down the river’s western shore. This inefficiency has stunted New York’s overall freight capacity—and by extension, its manufacturing and food distribution networks.

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION VISION The ownership structure of freight rights-of-way also constrains freight train service on the eastern shore of the Hudson. Large portions of the trackage are owned by passenger train operators like Amtrak and Metro North; in order to protect their service, these entities impose limits on the operating hours and the number of cars for freight trains. By contrast, the tracks on the New Jersey side are mainly owned and operated by freight companies themselves. These factors have combined to create a large disparity of rail freight movement between the two sides of the river, as illustrated by the figure on the page to the left. Paradoxically, the freight tracks along the New Jersey side of the Hudson River are reaching their capacity, while those on the New York side are becoming obsolete, except for those which are shared with passenger trains. As a result, in the NYMTC region (which includes New York City, Long Island, and counties in the lower Hudson valley), 90% of the freight is moved by trucks, while only 3% is moved by railâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;compared to the national average for rail of 7 - 8%.3 This is causing traffic congestion and environmental problems in the region.

Major freight rail corridors by volume and traffic patterns serving the NYMTC region. NYMTC

New York & Atlantic Railway system map. New York & Atlantic Railway

3 NYMTC 2-12.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Freight Rail Network in Long island The freight rail service in Long Island is mainly operated by the New York & Atlantic Railway (NY&A), which has operated under a 20-year concession agreement from the Long Island Rail Road since 1997. Under that agreement, NY&A has the exclusive right to operate freight service along LIRR-owned tracks, including passenger routes along the Port Jefferson, Ronkonkoma, Montauk, Babylon, and West Hempstead branches. NY&A handles roughly 28,000 cars per annum. YARD

ANNUAL ACREAGE CARLOAD/ CARLOAD ACREAGE

HUNTS POINT

3,000

329

OAK POINT

18,000

360

FRESH POND

15,000

1,500

BROOKLYN TERMINAL

500

65TH STREET

4,000

121

Carloads of selected yards in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. NYMTC

NY&Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cargo is loaded and unloaded at transload facilities and yards along Long Island. Bushwick Terminal and Maspeth Yard in Queens, and 65th Street Yard and Brooklyn Terminal Market in Brooklyn are the major rail yards on the west side of Long Island. Most freight is carried to these loading points by trucks, except for those arriving at the 65th Street Yard by ship and at the Fresh Pond Yard by train. NY&A operates one train per day on average between Fresh Pond Yard and 65th Street Yard. The freight trains coming into Fresh Pond Yard are operated by CSX, Canadian Pacific (CP), and Providence and Worcester (P&W). Those trains cross the Hell Gate Bridge to the north, running along the CSX owned right-of-way (known as the Fremont Secondary) to Fresh Pond Yard. CSX operates one train every weekday, while CP operates two to three trains per week and P&W operates three trains per week from April to November.4 The Fresh Pond Yard is the only classification yard for the freight rail operations in Long Island. Therefore, most of the NY&Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s freight trains are built at Fresh Pond, making it one of the busiest yards along the Crossboro U alignment as show in the table below. The small volume of freight traffic currently traversing the Crossboro U alignment makes the implementation of passenger service much more feasible. However, since the Crossboro ORBIT vision also seeks to expand freight capacity in the New York region, this proposal will outline several interventions that can help NY&A expand its operations.

Freight Cooperation Strategy The Crossboro line can increase the capacity of freight rail operations by installing additional tracks, upgrading the quality of the trackage, implementing advanced signaling and scheduling systems, and expanding freight infrastructure. Increase track capacity As detailed in the Line Proposal section, the Crossboro alignment would traverse two tracks with additional sidings along the route. Doubling the number of tracks would significantly increase the capacity for both passenger and freight trains. The CSX- and NY&A-owned segments are wide enough to add extra tracks when demand for freight and/or passenger service increases in the future. Upgrading the quality of the rail could also increase the capacity of the right-of-way. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) classifies track quality according to a scale that ranges from Class 1 to Class 9. Trains running on Class 1 rail are allowed a maximum speed of 10mph and 15mph for freight and passenger trains respectively, while Class 6 permits both types of service to travel at 110mph. Class 3, which allows 40mph for freight and 60mph for passenger trains, would be ideal for the Crossboro U alignment. The northern part of the Amtrak-owned right-of-way is

4 Kampermann

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION VISION also currently restricted by height and weight. Although the other parts of the alignment can accommodate 286,000-pound cars with a height of 17 feet, the Amtrak portion can only handle 263,000-pound cars with a height of 15 feet, 6 inches. Upgrading the entire alignment to allow for 286,000-pound cars with a height of 17 feet would improve the flexibility of freight service in the region. Improve and Expande Signaling and Scheduling Systems

Signaling. Implementing advanced systems technology will increase train capacity along the alignment without compromising safety. Currently, there are no signal systems along the NY&A tracks; according to FRA regulations, freight and passenger trains are allowed to run at up to 49mph and 59mph, respectively, when signaling systems are absent. Basic signaling and train control systems, including Automatic Block Signals (ABS), Train Control System (TCS), and Automatic Train Stop (ATS) would allow trains to run at 80mph or more. By controlling the speed of individual trains via communication with the signaling system, Positive Train Control (PTC) also enables safer, more efficient train operations. Enacted following the 2008 collision between a Metrolink passenger train and Union Pacific freight train in Los Angeles, the U.S. Rail Safety Improvement Act mandated the installation of PTC for all major train operators nationwide. As the Crossboro U alignment will accommodate mixed passenger and freight traffic, it is realistic to assume that PTC would be a requirement for the system.

Scheduling. The FRA requires passenger train cars that share track with freight traffic to meet stringent crashworthiness regulations. Trainsets operating regional rail service, like the LIRR and Metro-North, fulfill this requirement by installing additional equipment that would protect passengers in the event of a collision with other trains. This fortification makes the train cars heavier and diminishes the train’s ability to accelerate, which causes it to lose time when stopping at a station. For regional rail lines that service stations several miles apart, this time loss can be negligible; for services that accommodate many stations in close proximity to one another, this loss proves to be particularly significant. For this reason, many operators across the country have implemented light rail vehicles that are not required to adhere to the same crashworthiness regulations.

The ideal way to operate mixed passenger and freight service along the same rightof-way is to separate the services spatially by using different tracks for freight and passenger trains. If spatial separation is not possible, usually temporal separation is employed to limit freight operations to the hours during which there is no passenger rail service—typically overnight. Temporal separation therefore constrains both passenger and freight volume, and is not the most efficient way to use the track capacity. Short line railroads like the NY&A operate largely in response to customer demand, and would be affected significantly if their operations were limited to overnight hours. [Table 2 shows the use of tracks by freight and passenger trains in the selected systems around United States.] Among passenger operators in the New York region, Metro-North has devised the most efficient system to accommodate freight service.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

SAN DIEG O SALT LAKE CITY TREN TON -CAM DEN OCE ANS IDE E SCO NDID MET O RO N ORT H

PASSENGER: 74:1 79:1 FREIGHT RATIO

23:1

32:1

14:1

1-2

15-30

TRACKS

HEADWAY (MIN) 7-30 15

BLUE + RED

# OF PASSENGER TRAINS

360

250

ESTIMATED FREIGHT TRAINS

FREIGHT/ PASSENGER OPERATION

TEMP TEMP TEMP SEP SEP SEP

*TEMP SEP: temporal separation Daily passenger to freight train count ratio (TRB, 52), (USDOT, PANYNJ, 10)

TEMP COSEP MINGLE OP

Precedents from Other Regions. The FRA’s approach to regulating mixed freight and passenger service focuses on safeguarding passengers in the event of a train collision at the expense of service efficiency. In the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, regulation has instead consisted of “collision-avoidance” initiatives that mandate advanced signaling and other systems to prevent train collisions from ever occurring. This approach allows for co-mingled service with lighter, more efficient passenger trains.

There are indications that the United States is moving towards the European approach. Caltrain is currently implementing a major electrification initiative that calls for the use of non-compliant electric multiple unit (EMU) vehicles. The FRA has recommended temporal separation for the new service, but Caltrain has explored the possibility of comingled service through advanced signaling and PTC systems. Unlike the NY&A trackage, California’s freight network currently handles heavy volume, while demand for intercity passenger trains has been increasing. If this project successfully establishes the precedent for more European-style service, it is reasonable to expect that the Crossboro line could operate in a similar fashion. Expanding Freight Yards Expanding freight yards along the Crossboro U alignment would afford NY&A the opportunity to dramatically increase its freight capacity. The Fresh Pond and Maspeth yards are already operating close to their capacities, limiting NY&A’s expansion potential. Phase one of the Crossboro project would expand both rail yards by repurposing underutilized land adjacent to the existing facilities. At Fresh Pond, there is roughly 30 acres of land currently occupied by warehouses that could be razed to make room for additional train capacity. The smaller Maspeth Yard does not have the same flexibility, but there is some room to add extra sidings to increase its throughput. In the second phase of the project, it will be a priority to make space for NY&A at the Oak Point Yard in the Bronx. With that additional capacity, NY&A would be able to operate trains from the Fresh Pond Yard over the Hell Gate Bridge to Oak Point, potentially sharing that route with CSX. However, the land around Oak Point is currently fully developed, making additional (and potentially costly) land acquisition necessary for expansion. Further down the road, if the Cross Harbor Tunnel were to become operational, NY&A could utilize the Greenville Yard in New Jersey, handling all the freight coming into Long Island. Business Opportunity The Crossboro U project could enable the NY&A’s ability to expand its reach. While the proposed freight infrastructure improvements would organically increase the number of trains coming in and out of Long Island, it is also important to strengthen relationships with local communities and businesses. The development plan for the Brooklyn Terminal Market calls for additional sidings that would increase the volume of traffic to that destination.

Long Range Planning (Cross Harbor Tunnel) The Crossboro U line will serve as the first component of a more efficient regional freight rail network. As described earlier, there is a large disparity between the freight infrastructure on the east and west sides of the Hudson River. As much of the rail freight traffic along the Hudson River transits between Selkirk and New York City area, it would be reasonable to strategically divide the

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION VISION freight rail service between the two shores. As the tracks along the New Jersey side are mainly dedicated tracks for freight, there are incentives for freight companies to invest in rails that can accommodate heavier and larger cars. Since the tracks on the New York side would be mainly shared with passenger trains, their freight capacity should be targeted to lighter, shorter freight trains that can share trackage with passenger vehicles. Two options for expanded cross-Hudson rail freight service are now being examined by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. These are an expanded float bridge service between the Greenville Yard in New Jersey and the NY&A’s 65th Street Yard in Brooklyn and connecting to the Bay Ridge Branch. The proposed Crossboro U service has been designed so as not to limit freight use in this corridor, regardless of which trans-Hudson crossing option is selected by the Port Authority.

Regional Vision Although the New York metropolitan area is the largest in the country, its public transportation network is not growing to meet the needs of its population. The physical extent of rail

CO-OP CITY

transportation connections in the New York Region has remained largely unchanged for more than a half-century. The network that served 12 million inhabitants5 of the region in 1950 now serves a more dispersed 22 million in the expanded combined statistical area today. But the existing transit network was designed principally to get workers into and out of the Manhattan Central Business District. Transit expansion projects now being build --including the LIRR East Side Access Project, Second Avenue Subway, the #7 Subway extension to Manhattan’s West Side and the proposed Gateway tunnel under the Hudson will all add significant new capacity to the region’s transit system, but since these are all radial lines they will not address the growing demand for transit services that run between outer borough and suburban centers.

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL

CROSSBORO U

The ORBIT System.

EXISTING LINES PROPOSED ORBIT LINES IMPROVED COMMUTER LINES

The Crossboro line would be the first link in a proposed ORBIT system that could transform the existing regional transit system from a radial system into a network. The system consists of two parts. The Orbital Regional and Borough Integrated Transit (ORBIT) will transform abandoned and underutilized rights of way in order to create a circumferential network that provides new connections both to Manhattan and secondary employment and other activity centers. This could also be complemented by a set of improvements to the regional transit system that would better serve existing and new markets across the region,by using increased capacity to provide higher frequency, through-running trips and reduce travel times on the region’s commuter rail service.

The ORBIT System The backbone of this vision is the ORBIT, a regional system that connects with the current radial subway network to create new opportunities for mobility in the New York region. The lines will be a mix of existing, lightly used passenger lines, abandoned freight and commuter rail corridors, and new construction which will aid in creating new connections and reducing trip times for residents currently underserved by public transportation. The ORBIT has the potential to transform the existing hub-and-spoke transportation system into a grid network of multimodal transportation possibilities. Instead of funneling everyone 5 http://www.peakbagger.com/pbgeog/histmetropop.aspx

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014 into Manhattan through a system that results in poorly utilized capacity at the extremities and crowding near the center, the grid network provides a wider variety of transportation options, making it possible to avoid more of the choke points in the system. New connections are especially important for trips to destinations outside of Manhattan’s central business district. A trip from two growing outer borough employment centers --Hunts Point in the Bronx to the Brooklyn Army Terminal, for example --current requires riding the 6 subway service through Manhattan along the congested Lexington Avenue Line, then transferring to the R service at Cortlandt Street. In addition to necessitating an onerous transfer, the trip would also utilize scarce capacity on the nation’s busiest subway line, forcing more passengers to deal with the effects of overcrowding. With forecasted growth in trips taking place between areas outside of Manhattan,6 it is important to create a system that can accommodate growth while not adding further stress to the network that provides access to jobs in Manhattan. The services will connect the inner rings of job and population centers around Manhattan both in the outer boroughs of New York City and in New Jersey.

The first component of the project is the first phase of the Crossboro line, which will connect the Brooklyn Army Terminal to Northern Boulevard in Queens, where an easy transfer could be made to Metro-North’s Penn Access service from there to Coop City and several intermediate stations in the Bronx.

° ° °

A separate Lower Montauk Orbit line would also connect Long Island City in Queens with JFK Airport and the transit-poor neighborhoods of Laurelton, So Ozone Park and other nearby locations in Southeast Queens.

It might also be possible to design a new cross harbor rail tunnel to provide both transit and rail freight service. It might be routed to connect to the Staten Island, where it could connect with both the Staten Island Railway and a new North Shore Orbit Line.

This route could also provide a link across the Bayonne Bridge connecting to the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail and extend north beyond Tonnelle Avenue in North Bergen to a new terminus near Fort Lee in Leonia, NJ.

This line might also reuse the abandoned Rockaway Beach Branch ROW in South Queens to provide much improved transit service to Howard Beach and the Rockaways. The LIRR’s Atlantic Branch could be converted into an Orbit line providing improved service from Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn to transit deserts in South Brooklyn and South Queens.

These lines will support a variety of service configurations. While some of these are evident from the lines themselves, other services can operate on multiple lines. The best example of this may be the connection to JFK Airport, which would be designed to provide access both to ORBIT services and Long Island Rail Road commuter rail services exiting the Main Line near Rego Park, Queens. Interoperability, wherever possible, is desirable, although allowances will need to be made for systems using the variety of technologies that precede the ORBIT.

6 “Plan 2040: Regional Transportation Plan: A Shared Vision for a Sustainable Region.” New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. September 4, 2013. p. 2-21

CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION VISION

Branches

° ° ° ° ° °

Crossboro (LIRR Bay Ridge Line, Fremont Secondary, Hell Gate Line) BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL

Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Atlantic Branch

CROSSBORO

Staten Island Railroad

CO-OP CITY LAGUARDIA AIRPORT SPUYTEN DUYVIL

Cross-Harbor Rail Tunnel (connects Crossboro U to the Staten Island Railroad and North Shore Line) An interim ferry connection could provide a temporary low-capacity connection between Brooklyn and Staten Island

Along with building new orbital connections, the region’s hub and spoke system must be strengthened. As the outer boroughs and inner suburbs of New York City grow, they need faster, more frequent commuter rail access. Looking at how increased service on the innermost commuter rail connections will be essential to improving radial capacity that will need to accommodate riders transferring from ORBIT services. The above graphic provides a sketchlevel idea of what existing rail routes currently used by commuter and intercity trains should be targeted for improved service.

LONG ISLAND CITY

LOWER MONTAUK JFK AIRPORT LAURELTON

ATLANTIC TERMINAL

ATLANTIC BRANCH JAMAICA

LINDEN CO-OP CITY

NORTH SHORE CROSS HARBOR BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL

LONG ISLAND CITY

HUDSON-BERGEN-STATEN ISLAND LIGHT RAIL

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL

JFK AIRPORT LAURELTON

CROSSBORO U

EXISTING LINES PROPOSED ORBIT LINES IMPROVED COMMUTER LINES

TOTTENVILLE

STATEN ISLAND RAILROAD ST. GEORGE

Enhancing commuter rail connections.

HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT In addition to creating efficient passenger rail service, the Crossboro U aims to stimulate economic development and promote social inclusion in New York City’s outer boroughs. The Crossboro economic development plan seeks to build affordable and mixed-income housing, create jobs, and generate sustainable, transit-oriented communities. The plan calls for the development of 15,200 housing units, many of which will be affordable, in order to leverage the vacant and underutilized land alongside the proposed alignment. This affordable housing will offer low- to moderate-income families a high-quality place to call home, as well as access to jobs and transportation. The project also aims to spur long-term economic development through the development of mixed-use communities, employment centers for commercial and light industrial development, education facilities, and workforce development centers. The economic development section of this report examines the potential for development along the right-of-way, the means through which the desired outcomes can be reached, and the impacts of this growth on the entire City of New York.

Left Photo: Flatbush Avenue near Brooklyn College.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

POPULATION DENSITY Population per mile2

Median Income

<30,000

<$30,000

30,000 - 50,000

$30,000 - $45,000

50,000 - 70,000

$45,000 - $60,000

70,000+

$60,000+

Population density within one mile of the right-of-way, by census tract. 2010 U.S. Census Data

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Median income within one mile of the right-of-way, by census tract. 2012 American Community Survey Data

Existing Conditions

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

In general, the communities surrounding the proposed Crossboro U alignment are characterized by low household incomes, long commute times, and relatively rapid population growth. In order to meet increasing population growth and demand for job access over the next few decades, the outer boroughs will require efficient transit service, connections to employment hubs, and a strong housing stock. Further, in order to support the revitalization of moribund industrial centers, some of these neighborhoods require upgraded and expanded freight rail service. This section examines in more detail the existing conditions along the right of way as a base for much of the recommendations and plans for the station development plans. In order to calculate socioeconomic indices for the study area population, a one-mile buffer was drawn on either side of the proposed U Line. Data were collected at the tract level, while data for the entire city City were used as a reference point for comparison. The study area was subdivided by borough, so unless specified otherwise, text references in this section to any of these three designations refers to the portion of that borough within the U Line buffer, not the borough as a whole.1

Population As of 2010, New York City had a population of 8.18 million people. The Crossboro U Line could positively affect a large portion of New York: 2.1 million people, more than one-quarter of New York’s total population, currently lives within one mile of the proposed alignment.2 Today, the study area in Brooklyn accounts for over 11 percent of the entire City’s population, while the Queens and Bronx study areas account for nearly seven and eight percent of the city’s population, respectively. Population density along the U Line averages roughly 140 people per acre in Queens and the Bronx, and 79.6 people per acre in Brooklyn.3 Based upon the New York State Department of Labor’s population projections by borough for 2040, share population projections were developed for each borough portion of the study area. By borough, the study area’s tracts were assumed to maintain the same population share of the entire borough, as was the case in 2010. Based on this assumption, Queens is projected to grow by 11 percent from 2010 to 2040, the Bronx will grow by 12 percent, and Brooklyn is projected to increase its population by just four percent.4

Median income Median income is calculated on at the Census tract level and at the city-wide level. Along the U alignment, there is a range of median incomes. Portions of the East New York neighborhood contain some of the poorest communities, while portions of Queens and the Bronx contain the wealthiest census tracts. The citywide median income is $51,865. The average median income for Brooklyn is $43,885; that figure for Queens is $51,686; and for the Bronx is $32,038. These data demonstrate that while the Crossboro U Line traverses an area with a diversity of income levels, the line would bring transit access to some of New York’s poorest areas.

1 2 3 4

Census data utilized for this project were derived from both 2010 SF1 data and 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) data. 2010 Census SF1 U.S. Census SF1 Data, 2010. New York State Department of Labor, 2010.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Housing At a citywide level, approximately 68 percent of non-vacant units are occupied by renter households. Within the study area, while Queens and Brooklyn’s percentages hover around this mark, in the Bronx, the figure reaches 83 percent. Moreover, within each of the boroughs, the percentage of renters with a gross rent burden of 35 percent of their income or greater is slightly higher than the citywide figure of 42 percent. In addition, while average median gross rent is roughly equivalent in Brooklyn and Queens, it is slightly lower in the Bronx, perhaps indicating a poorer demographic profile.

Rent Burden 0-35% 35-45% 45-55% 55% +

In New York City, the vast majority of housing structures – over 83 percent – are multifamily. At the study area level, this percentage is again highest in the Bronx, the borough that also holds the largest percentage of renters. Finally, while Brooklyn maintains the largest number of vacant units, vacancy percentages in each of the boroughs hover around seven percent, slightly below the citywide figure of 9.14 percent.

Unemployment

Portion of households whose rent exceeds 35% of their annual income within one mile of the right-of-way. 2012 American Community Survey Data.

The unemployment rate for New York City is 6.4 percent of the labor force population, as of 2012. In general, the population that lives within one mile of the proposed line has an unemployment rate of 11.1 percent. In the Brooklyn portion of the study area, the unemployment rate is 10.7 percent of the workforce. Queens and the Bronx both have higher unemployment rates than the rest of the City, with 8.3 and 14.4 percent, respectively.5 The service industry accounts for the plurality of workers at 29 percent, with management and office rounding out the top three industries by total employment.6

Opportunities for Development 32%

31%

17%

32%

Within one mile of the proposed Line are vacant and underutilized parcels of land, which present opportunities for new development to occur. Currently, there are 175 vacant acres or two percent of the total land within a mile of the corridor in Brooklyn. In Queens, there are 69 acres, or one percent of the total land, and 244 acres or three percent of the total land within a mile of the corridor in the Bronx.7

68%

69%

83%

68%

Beyond simply vacant land, there is a great deal of land that has, under current zoning, the potential for more growth. There are a variety of FARs and densities allowed by right near the stations along this line. Assuming no changes in zoning, these stations present different opportunities for growth. There are several areas surrounding stations where further densification of development could occur assuming that there is no change in zoning.

BROOKLYN

QUEENS

BRONX

ALL NYC

Portion of renters versus owners within one mile of the right-ofway. 2012 American Community Survey Data.

17%

92%

85%

83%

15%

BROOKLYN QUEENS

BRONX

84%

16%

ALL NYC

Portion housing units that are multifamily versus single family within one mile of the right-of-way. 2012 American Community Survey Data.

5 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) data. 6 U.S. Census SF1 Data, 2010. 7 Pluto database data.

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

AVAILABLE FAR

0 - 0.6

MAX FAR

0.7 - 0.9 1 1.1 - 1.3

co-op city south

BRONX

1.4

park chester

1.5 - 2.0

FAR AVAILABLE

MAXIMUM ALLOWED FAR

> -0.11 -0.11 - 0.5 0.5 - 1 1 - 1.5

BRONX

1.5 +

park chester

hunts point

2.1 - 2.4

co-op city south

hunts point

2.5 - 4.0 4.1 - 9.0

RIV ER

above 31st st

DS ON

RIV ER

above 31st st

northern blvd roosevelt ave

QUEENS

EAST RIVER

northern blvd roosevelt ave

QUEENS

fresh pond junction

myrtle ave

wilson ave

BROOKLYN

wilson ave

BROOKLYN

broadway junction

livonia ave east new york brooklyn army terminal

brooklyn terminal market brooklyn college

Maximum allowed floor area ratio given by current zoning by parcel. New York City Primary Land Use Tax Lot Output (PLUTO) data.

livonia ave east new york brooklyn army terminal

brooklyn terminal market brooklyn college

Floor area ratio available for development under current zoning, by parcel. New York City Primary Land Use Tax Lot Output (PLUTO) data.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Station Development This section examines five station locations with signficant land development potential in their surroundings: Brooklyn Army Terminal, Brooklyn Terminal Market, Brooklyn College, Livonia Avenue, and Northern Boulevard. These locations were designated because of several criteria, including the amount of surrounding vacant and underutilized land, the proximity of housing and community institutions, and the potential ability to easily transfer to other subway lines or transportation networks following the Crossboro U’s construction. On the transportation side, these station development plans aim to expand transit connectivity, revitalizing communities and linking them with New York City’s most prominent employment and educational centers. Additionally, the plans incorporate improved pedestrian, bus, and bicycle infrastructure in an effort to promote the creation of multimodal environments.

BROOKLYN COLLEGE

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL

BOROUGH PARK BENSONHURST

SUNSET PARK BAY RIDGE DYKER HEIGHTS

EAST FLATBUSH FLATLANDS

FLATBUSH MIDWOOD

REMSEN VILLAGE CANARSIE

ABOVE STREET GRADE

CROSSBORO U LINE

infrastructure +neighborhoods in section BIKE LANE INTERSECT

SUBWAY STATION

TRAIN TUNNEL (OF NOTE)

SUBWAY INTERSECT

AT OR BELOW STREET GRADE

bus bus bus bus X27 X37

X27

B9 X17

X17 X28 X38

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL

bus B70

N bus B16

D bus B9

NEW UTRECHT AV / 62ND ST

bus bus bus B8

B11

MCDONALD AV

B Q bus B68

2 5 bus B49 BM1 BM3 BM4

16 ST-AVENUE H

bus

B6 B11

bus bus B44

B41 Q35

BROOKLYN COLLEGE

bus B6 BM2 B103

bus bus B46

UTICA AV-FARRAGUT RD

bus B47

bus B17

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET

bus B60

ROCKAWAY AV

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

On the development side, maintaining sensitivity to each stationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unique character, the plans promote a number of different goals including vibrant commercial corridors, attractive and connected affordable and market rate housing, as well as local industrial and business ventures. For example, while some station areas, such as Brooklyn College, contain existing, concentrated development, other areas, such as Livonia Avenue and Brooklyn Army Terminal, depict a more typical snapshot of much of the outer boroughs: large quantities of vacant or underutilized land and poor connections to public transportation. These station area plans seek to remedy existing issues with a comprehensive glance toward the future of each neighborhood. Finally, although not fully addressed here, these plans set the stage for an extensive community engagement process that will permit affected residents to incorporate neighborhood goals, concerns, and priorities into a final vision.

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET NORTHERN BLVD

LIVONIA AV

BROWNSVILLE NEW LOTS

V-AVENUE D

OCEAN HILL BROADWAY JUNCTION EAST NEW YORK

L 3

L bus B15

AC J

L bus

B14

HIGHLAND PARK

TRUCK ROUTE

MIDDLE VILLAGE

EAST NEW YORK

WOODSIDE JACKSON HEIGHTS

Q39

Q24

B13 B20 Q55

LIRR bus Q38 Q54 Q67

bus

Q67

bus

Q38 QM24 QM25

bus

Q58 Q59

TRUCK ROUTE bus QM 1-12 QM 15-21 QM24 QM25 X63 X64 X 68 BM 5

WILSON AV

MYRTLE AV

METROPOLITAN AV

ASTORIA HEIGHTS BROOKLYN QUEENS EXPY

7 E F

bus bus

LIRR

LIVONIA AV

MASPETH

bus bus bus B25 B20 B12

RIDGEWOOD GLENDALE

GRAND AV

bus LIRRLIRR TRUCK Q47 ROUTE bus Q60 QM1 QM4 QM5 QM6 X 63 X64 X68

QUEENS BLVD

bus Q32 Q47 Q53 Q70

JACKSON HEIGHTS

N Q TRUCK bus ROUTE Q66 QM2

QM3 QM20

TRUCK bus ROUTE Q101 bus M60 Q19

NORTHERN BLVD

ASTORIA

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL STATION

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Brooklyn Army Terminal Building

New York Economic Development Corporation.

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL The Brooklyn Army Terminal is ready for a comprehensive redevelopment plan that leverages the size, flexibility, and waterfront location of its existing facilities. Connecting the Brooklyn Army Terminal complex to the new Crossboro service presents an excellent opportunity to create a mixed-use, multimodal neighborhood with strong connections to the waterfront. Situated in the South Brooklyn neighborhood of Sunset Park, the Brooklyn Army Terminal is a flexible leasing space occupied predominantly by commercial and light industrial tenants and operated by the New York Economic Development Corporation (EDC).8 Spaces in close proximity to this site, which overlooks the New York Harbor, hold the key to Sunset Park’s potential as a mixed-use development hub with excellent passenger transit, multimodal freight service, and green infrastructure that bolsters New York’s coastal resilience efforts. The plan for this station envisions new waterfront park space, a maintenance and storage yard for Crossboro U passenger trains, and new mixed-use residential and commercial development both on-site and along adjacent blocks.

8 “Brooklyn Army Terminal.” Available http://www.bklynarmyterminal.com/.

3,100,000 sf

office space in the army terminal

324,570 sf

waterfront parking lots

47,000 residents within 1/2 mile of station

9,500 jobs

within 1/2 miles of station

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

CURRENT LAND USE

1-2 Family Building Multi-Family Walk Up Multi-Family Elevator Commercial + OfďŹ ce Public Facilities + Institutions Mixed Res. + Comm. Bldgs Industrial + Manufacturing

N 0 ft

1,000 ft

Station area land use plan NYC Pluto Data

Open Space + Outdoor Recreation Transportation + Utility Parking Facilities Vacant Land Unknown

Context

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Brooklyn Army Terminal The Brooklyn Army Terminal is most prominent feature along the South Brooklyn waterfront. The set of large-floorplate commercial buildings housing light industrial and a variety of tenants, including a healthcare apparel company, a trucking business, and a small cellular provider. The 95-acre site was originally commissioned in 1918 as a U.S. Army military depot and supply base and has undergone several renovations in nearly a century to evolve into its current state. EDC currently manages and leases the four million square feet of commercial space, and the building remains one of Brooklyn’s most prominent waterfront landmarks.9

Population, Land Use, and Zoning The population of the area surrounding the development site – an approximate half-mile buffer – is nearly 47,000.10 Zoning around the Bay Ridge terminus of the current underused rail right of way is quite mixed; while areas such as the BAT are zoned industrial, large swaths of land are designated as residential, with several others marked as park space. A relatively small section of land within the half-mile zone is zoned for commercial. Land use is also mixed: the BAT and its immediate proximity maintain a “Transportation and Utility” land use (to the north of the BAT, for example, sits a Ford dealership). The region also contains much residential and open space land uses.

Employment Recent figures indicate that nearly 9,500 workers hold jobs within a half mile of the proposed station. The majority of these jobs – nearly 57 percent – fall within the NAICS “Health Care and Social Assistance” category. Indeed, just south of the BAT sit several health care providers, including a foot specialist, a neurologist, and a Quest Diagnostics lab. Second to the health care industry is “Transportation and Warehousing.” Notably, a large majority of workers – just over 90 percent – are employed around Sunset Park but do not live in the community.11

Transportation Four buses currently serve the area within a half mile of the proposed Crossboro station: the B9, B11, B63, and B64. However, these buses are neither connected with one another nor with existing MTA subway lines. Sunset Park is also not a cyclists’ paradise; although there are trail connections within Owl’s Head Park and adjacent to Shore Road along the Upper Hudson Bay, above the Gowanus Expressway, only one bike connection exists along 7th Avenue, while another runs along 62nd Street from 7th to 5th Avenue.

9 Ibid. 10 U.S. Census. SF1 100% Data. 2010. 11 U.S. Census. OntheMap Analysis. 2011.

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL CONCEPT DIAGRAM

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Vision Today, a substantial portion of the site is covered by parking lots – including an 187,000 square foot strip along the shore and an 1,250-foot long pier jutting out into the New York Harbor – and a substantial portion of its commercial floor space is vacant. With thoughtful planning and strategic investments, the Terminal has the potential to become a destination in its own right, as well as a live-work center with a diversity of commercial tenants and residents from across the socioeconomic spectrum. This plan’s vision for the site encompasses large and small-scale transportation and development interventions that are intended to both increase the Terminal’s overall capacity and also improve its walkability and livability. While many of the existing parking lots provide an opportunity for denser residential development, the wider site approach will focus on creating pedestrianfriendly plazas within the Terminal site. Finally, in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, New York City has invested heavily in resiliency initiatives that will protect the city from a changing climate and enable it to recover more quickly following catastrophic climatic events. Fortunately, resiliency does not preclude waterfront development – in fact, the redevelopment of the Terminal waterfront creates the perfect opportunity to strengthen the South Brooklyn shoreline and fortify the entire Terminal site.

Transportation Plan Crossboro U The Brooklyn Army Terminal will serve as the southern terminus of the Crossboro U’s phase one alignment. As with all of the other phase one stations, service headways will be every ten minutes during morning and evening rush hour, and fifteen minutes during off-peak times. The service will operate for 21 hours each day, from 4:00am to 1:00am, including weekends and holidays. By adding rail transit to the Terminal complex, daily workers will have efficient, reliable access from points across the outer boroughs. Although the N and R subway lines currently provide service to the 59th Street station a half-mile from the Terminal, those lines only connect the Terminal to a limited number of destinations in Brooklyn before traversing the East River to Manhattan. Improved rail access to the Terminal could reduce auto dependence for workers and visitors, facilitating the redevelopment of several surface parking lots on site.

Improved Freight Connections In addition to the commercial, residential, and open space developments on the Terminal site, the reconfiguration of the rail infrastructure creates a substantial opportunity to invest in improved freight connections. The float dock directly to the south of the Terminal buildings already serves as an important connection between freight rail and shipping barges; an expanded rail yard facility and increased track capacity could boost the site’s throughput and strengthen the city’s manufacturing sector.

Adjacent Freight Yard

Moreover, an existing freight line serves the area directly between the two main Terminal buildings, and could see increased usage were the Crossboro U to be constructed. In fact, many freight trucks currently serving the Terminal could potentially be replaced by trains.

WA NU S

EX PY

2N DA VE N

RECREATIONAL + PROTECTIVE SOFT INFRASTRUCTURE

4T HA VE NU E

1S TA VE

NU E

EX IST

IN G

EI G HT

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

1ST FLOOR RETAIL W/ RESIDENTIAL ABOVE

5T HA VE N

ARMY TERMINAL 3.1M SF OF EXISTING OFFICE SPACE

7T HA VE N

6T HA VE NU E

FUTURE HOME OF 25 CROSSBORO TRAIN SETS

PLATFORM

55 TH ST RE ET

BELT P KWY

PARKING STRUCTURE TO REPLACE LOSS OF CAPACITY ON SITE

60 TH ST RE 61 ET ST ST RE ET

Existing Open Space Proposed Open Space Existing Bus Route Existing Bike Lane Proposed Infrastructure

N 0 ft

1,000 ft

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL SITE PLAN

64 TH ST RE 65 ET TH ST RE ET

68 TH ST RE BA ET YR ID GE AV EN UE

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

CENTRAL BUS TRANSFER STATION To address the lack of connectivity among existing bus lines, our plan proposes the rerouting of all lines to meet at a central bus transfer station coinciding with the Crossboro U terminus. To execute this concept, which is illustrated in the graphic on this page, the B63 would change to 5th Avenue by running along 60th Street. The B9 and B64 would make loops along 4th and back down 2nd, each of which would allow for operation close enough to currently-served areas to avoid disrupting existing accessibility. The B11 would be rerouted down First Avenue, along 63rd, and additionally serve the theoretical bus transfer area at the proposed Crossboro station. In sum, the notion of this designated bus transfer area would require relatively unsubstantial bus route realignments as well as improve connectivity to other bus routes, existing subway stations, and of course, the Crossboro U station.

BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS

4T HA VE NU E

WA NU S

EX PY

2N DA VE N

1S TA VE

NU E

EX IST

IN G

EI G HT

The bicycle infrastructure vision, although relatively brief, seeks to address the lack of bike facilities in this region. To begin, in order to fill in rather significant gaps and promote bike transportation, a new bike lane should be created on 53rd Street and on 59th Street from 2nd Avenue to 7th Avenue. Additionally, 5th Avenueâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing bike infrastructure should be converted into a full bike lane. Moreover, a bike land should be placed on 2nd Avenue from 39th Street to an existing connection on Wakeman Place that runs adjacent to Shore Road.

7T HA VE N

6T HA VE NU E

5T HA VE N

BELT P KW

55 TH ST RE ET

60 TH ST RE 61 ET ST ST RE ET

Existing Open Space Proposed Open Space Existing Bus Route Existing Bike Lane Proposed Infrastructure

N 0 ft

1,000 ft

BROOKLYN ARMY TERMINAL BIKE PLAN 82

64 TH ST RE 65 ET TH ST RE ET

68 TH ST RE BA ET YR ID GE AV E

NU E

Development Plan

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Station Complex + Outdoor Plaza The Brooklyn Army Terminal’s four million square feet of existing commercial floorspace represent built-in demand for expanded street-level commercial opportunities. To that end, the Crossboro station would anchor a two-story retail complex fronted by a landscaped pedestrian plaza. Residents throughout Brooklyn would be a short ride via the U line from the shopping and dining opportunities presented by the new BAT Market. Meanwhile, office workers at the Terminal would enjoy the short walk from their desks to grab a cup of coffee, meet clients for lunch, or shop for groceries on their way home. The outdoor plaza would serve as a meeting point for neighborhood residents to gather and for tourists to take in the view of the Bay.

Crissy Field | San Francisco, CA

http://www.presidio.gov/PublishingImages/Crissy%20Picnic%20Area/ crissypicnicarea1_620x390.jpg

Residential Development The 215,000 square foot parking lot fronting onto 2nd Avenue would be the ideal footprint for an array of four-story mixed-income housing developments encompassing 1,620 new units. New residents would be served by excellent transit connections, as well as by new retail opportunities on the buildings’ ground floors and along 2nd Avenue. Walking paths would connect the new building with the offices in the Terminal buildings, as well as with the new waterfront parks, and connections to the neighborhood’s bike paths would provide recreational activities. Because the EDC already owns the parcel beneath the proposed development, high land cost would not preclude a meaningful affordable housing component to the Brooklyn Army Terminal development plan.

325,000 sf

waterfront landscaped open space

1,620 sf

new residential units

369,000 sf

new commerical space

Waterfront Parks + Resiliency Initiatives Today, 385,000 feet of waterfront space is occupied by hardscape parking lots. As part of the Crossboro investment, these lots can be reconfigured as waterfront open space that would be open to the public. In particular, the 1,250 foot pier that juts out into the Upper New York Bay— currently used as a parking lot—has the potential to become a landscaped recreational space with spectacular views. In addition to creating space for recreational use, the waterfront parks would create space for green infrastructure that would help to harden the shoreline and protect the Terminal from future climatic events.

Increased Neighborhood Density One of the primary obstacles to densification in neighborhoods throughout New York is opposition from existing residents. Because of the Sunset Park waterfront’s history as an industrial manufacturing zone, there is substantial opportunity to apply higher-density zoning overlays to several of the blocks to the north of the terminal. Future residential development would benefit from the connection to the Crossboro—as well as the existing N line stations—in addition to the placemaking activity on the Terminal site.

Brooklyn Heights Promenade | New York, NY

http://th01.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2012/310/4/0/brooklyn_promenade_ panorama_by_eligit-d5k8ia5.jpg

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

BROOKLYN COLLEGE STATION

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

A variety of commercial activities at the intersection between Flatbush and Nostrand Avenues.

BROOKLYN COLLEGE Brooklyn College, a 26-acre campus educating 17,000 students – all of whom commute to school – within the City University of New York system, serves as the main anchor for the proposed Brooklyn College Crossboro station.12 Residentially-zoned neighborhoods with medium-density housing units surround the area within a half mile of the proposed Brooklyn College station location. This region is also home to a large number of low-density single family detached housing as well as several high density apartment buildings. Approximately 20,000 residents inhabit this neighborhood, around 42 percent of them foreign-born.13 Commercial and retail activities are mainly concentrated in the commercial zone at the intersection of Flatbush and Nostrand Avenues. The opening of the Target store – a three-story shopping center with 250,000 square feet of retail space and an attached five-story parking garage – at the intersection of Flatbush Avenue and Avenue H further enhances the commercial vibrancy in this area and serves as a powerful retail anchor for the community.14

20,000 residents

within 1/2 mile of the station

42% foreign-born residents

40% of households don’t have a car

17,000 students

are enrolled at Brooklyn College

Nearly 40 percent of the households within a half mile of the Crossboro station do not own a car, whereas 42 percent own one vehicle. In a trend similar to Brooklyn in its entirety, public transit is the main mode of commuting in this area; 54 percent of the workers in this area ride transit to their place of employment. In addition, 37 percent drive alone or carpool.15 The mean commute time to work ranges from 33 to 48 minutes, depending on Census Tract.16 12 13 14 15 16

“2013-14 Fact Book”. Brooklyn College. Available http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/web/abo_misc/140303_FactBook_Fall_2013.pdf U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 5-year American Community Survey DP02: Selected Social Characteristics in the United States. New York City Department of City Planning , Transportation Division, Flatbush Avenue Pedestrian Study Final Report, May 2008. U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 5-year American Community Survey DP03: Selected Economic Characteristics in the United States. U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 5-year American Community Survey S0801: Commuting.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Context A Hub of Mixed-Use + Transit

The Brooklyn Junction Target Shopping Center opened in 2008.

Brooklyn College station enjoys a diverse mix of institutional, residential, and commercial activities within its vicinity. Local residents and the large number of students enrolled in the higher education institution provide a steady consumer base for the great variety of businesses and retailers in this area. Served by the 2 and 5 subway lines as well as seven bus lines, the area enjoys and indeed utilizes excellent transit connectivity; with an annual ridership of 3.1 million, Flatbush Avenue station ranked the 153rd busiest station of the 468 operating within the New York subway system.17 This relatively strong transit service, coupled with retail activities, has fostered a vibrant walking environment.

Neighborhood Context Despite these strengths, the neighborhood suffers from its share of transportation constraints, including relatively large traffic volume and awkward street configurations at two major intersections – Flatbush and Nostrand Avenues and Flatbush Avenue and Avenue H – that elicit pedestrian safety concerns. In addition, the lack of bike lanes undermines the bikeability in this area.

Convenient transit connection and vibrant commercial activities in this area foster a dynamic walking environment.

Furthermore, only a few vacant or underdeveloped lots are available in this area, posing a challenge for future large scale station area commercial or residential development. However, as many buildings in the commercially-zoned districts are currently well below the maximum floor area ratio, the potential for new growth in this area – on certain properties – is great.

17 Metropolitan Transportation Authority, http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub_annual.htm#top

CURRENT LAND USE

1-2 Family Building Multi-Family Walk Up Multi-Family Elevator Commercial + Ofﬁce Public Facilities + Institutions Mixed Res. + Comm. Bldgs Industrial + Manufacturing

Open Space + Outdoor Recreation Transportation + Utility Parking Facilities Vacant Land Unknown

N 0 ft

1,000 ft

The predominant land use type in the Brooklyn College station area is single family residential, with commercial activities concentrated along Flatbush and Nostrand Avenues. NYC Pluto Data

Vision

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Already a certainly utilized region, the area surrounding the proposed Crossboro station has the potential to become even more vibrant, diverse, and attractive to future residents and visitors. The vision for this station area encourages the neighborhood to tap into the existing strengths – such as its stable consumer base and outstanding transit connectivity – to further enhance its vitality and to build a vibrant “college town” street. Through zoning revisions, business regeneration, and various incentives, the community’s two main thoroughfares, Flatbush and Nostrand Avenues, will become major commercial corridors that will provide students, local residents, and visitors with a wide variety of activities involving shopping, eating, the arts, and entertainment. In accordance with this vision, several opportunities for enhanced development exist within this study area. First, the current residential and commercial mixed-use district along Flatbush Avenue between Farragut and Glennwood Roads consists mostly of three-story buildings with commercial activities on the ground floor and housing units above. These properties can be upgraded to accommodate more housing units as well as commercial activities that cater to the needs of local residents. Second, the parking lot along the west side of Nostrand Avenue between the Crossboro right-of-way and Avenue H should be utilized for future retail or office development. Third, although commercial uses along the west side of the Nostrand Avenue and south of the Target store have historically neither lived up to their potential nor persisted as attractive or welcoming storefronts, a potential upgrade of these developments (as well as their connection to an existing commercial corridor) provides a chance to build on and enhance commercial uses that serve students and local residents.

This currently underutilized parking lot has the potential to become the site of a commercial, office, and institutional mixed use building.

Together, these developments will extend the commercial activities at the intersection of Flatbush Avenue and Avenue H further south to form a continuous and vibrant commercial corridor. In turn, diverse retail activities at the intersection of Flatbush and Nostrand Avenues will offer more options for consumers and improve the quality of life for all who pass through. Finally, educational and job training facilities, perhaps dispersed throughout the region, could present supplementary services to students at Brooklyn College or others in need.

BROOKLYN COLLEGE CONCEPT DIAGRAM

Through planning interventions and incentive, the area surrounding the proposed Crossboro station has the potential to become even more vibrant, diverse, and attractive to future residents and visitors.

NUE OCEAN AVE

ALBANY AVENUE

BROOKLYN AVENUE

E NU

E NEW YORK AVENU

E AV

E NOSTRAND AVENU

2 5

ROGERS AVENUE

SH BU AT FL

ENUE BEDORD AV

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

FARRAGUT ROAD

1ST FLOOR RETAIL W/ RESIDENTIAL ABOVE

GLENWOOD AVENUE

AVENUE H

1ST FLOOR RETAIL W/ INSTITUTIONAL USE ABOVE BROOKLYN COLLEGE

AVENUE I

PLATFORM

TARGET

AVENUE J

AVENUE K

Existing Open Space Proposed Open Space Existing Bus Route Existing Bike Lane Proposed Bike Infrastructure N

0 ft

1,000 ft

BROOKLYN COLLEGE SITE PLAN

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

IMPROVING THE BIKE NETWORK As stated, the station’s area’s bike lane network, currently operational only along Bedford Avenue, leaves much to be desired. In addition, on-street bike routes or shared-use arrow indicators (“sharrows”) are only available along segments on Avenues I and H. This plan suggests two bikerelated interventions: bike lanes along Nostrand Avenue and bicycle-friendly routes along several streets. At 45 feet wide, Nostrand Avenue currently has one vehicle travel lane and one parking lane on each direction. Notably, as shown in the Bedford Avenue precedent, the addition of bike lanes to this thoroughfare will not require street widening and will thus be a relatively low cost undertaking. Additionally, bike-friendly routes along Kenilworth Place, Hillel Place, and Campus Road will promote safe bike connections around the station area while requiring minimal funding for implementation.

VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS Moving to a vehicle and pedestrian perspective, since the opening of the Target at the intersection of Flatbush Avenue and Avenue H, the crossing has experienced increased pedestrian traffic as well as a greater number of conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles.18 Therefore, this plan proposes an intersection reconfiguration that merges the northwest corner sidewalk with an existing triangular island, and subsequently converts Flatbush Avenue’s outer southbound travel lane into a ‘right turn only’ route to accommodate vehicles turning from Flatbush Avenue onto Avenue H. Moreover, the addition of bulb-outs will further improve safety conditions for pedestrians by shortening the street crossing distance. Finally, via streetscaping improvements such as tree planting along sidewalks and with repainted pedestrian crossings, a safer and more friendly pedestrian environment will be fostered. To conclude, with seven different bus lines and two subway routes within a quarter mile of the proposed Crossboro station, this area is currently well-served by public transit. The addition of the Crossboro U line will only continue this trend and offer a much-needed connection to Outer Borough destinations.

Bike lanes can be found on both directions on the 45 foot-wide Bedford Avenue. Google Maps Streetview

18 New York City Department of City Planning , Transportation Division, Flatbush Avenue Pedestrian Study Final Report, May 2008.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

e Av sh tbu

Fla . Extended sidewalk Bulb out â&#x20AC;&#x153;Do not block the boxâ&#x20AC;? Repainted pedestrian crossing

Avenue H

Street planting

The proposed interventions at the Flatbush Avenue/Avenue H intersection.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN Building off existing strengths, this development plan seeks to further enhance the commercial and retail diversity as well as the economic vitality of this area. It also promotes the establishment of facilities to accommodate educational and institutional activities.

ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT First, arts and entertainment activities should thrive alongside the current mix of commercial activities at the intersection of Flatbush and Nostrand Avenues to better serve the needs of students at Brooklyn College. For example, the addition of businesses as bookstores will provide students and local residents with wholesome, artistic options. A strong precedent, containing several bookstores and other arts establishments, Harvard Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts has proven to be a vital commercial and cultural attraction, and is also well-served by rail and bus transit.

MAJOR DEVELOPMENT SITE

715 units new housing

401,000 sf

new office, classroom, and retail space

Second, the parking lot along the west side of Nostrand Avenue between the Crossboro right-ofway and Avenue H should be used to accommodate future commercial and educational activities such as a coffee shop, office space, or an educational center. Specifically, a multistory building with retail on the ground floor and offices or classrooms above will make the most of this excellent space. Additionally, along the west side of the Nostrand Avenue south of the Target store, the neighborhood can attract more consumers and improve its current retail corridor through enhanced additional commercial development such as restaurants. Finally, better landscaping along sidewalks on both sides of Nostrand Avenue will ameliorate the walking environment of this crucial corridor. Main Street in Ann Arbor, Michigan provides a successful precedent for the potential development along this corridor.

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

REVITALIZED COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR Third, the segments along Flatbush Avenue between Farragut and Glennwood Roads as well as between Avenue I and Avenue K maintain the potential to form a continuous, revitalized commercial corridor. Currently the commercial establishments along this corridor fall within a C2-2 overlay zone. These establishments have FARs of one or two, depending on the zoning category of the residential district on which the overlay is mapped. Five to six story buildings with residential housing units above commercial activities on the ground floor could help accommodate the projected population growth in the city expected to take place in the next few decades. In addition, through incentive programs, the commercial corridor could be further diversified, providing local residents with more retail options. Such improvements will however require zoning revisions to permit higher FARs along the corridor.

Served by convenient transit services and a variety of commercial and cultural activities, Harvard Square has become a vital commercial and cultural attraction among students and local residents. http://anthonyjohncoletti.photoshelter.com/image/I0000uWUthrg69o0

NEW HOUSING UNITS When realized, this area will see a total of 715 or 695,000 square feet of new residential housing units. These housing units will be able to accommodate approximately 1,967 new residents, assuming the average city household size does not experience a dramatic change from its current level. There will also be 401,000 square feet of new office, classroom, and retail space.

The vibrant Main Street in Ann Arbor, MI provides a successful precedent for Nostrand Avenue.

http://www.med.umich.edu/intmed/med-peds/Resident%20Life/LifeinAnnArbor. html

Current condition at the Nostrand Avenue and Avenue H intersection (left) and envisioned improvements (right).

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET STATION

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Brooklyn Terminal Market

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET The area near the proposed Crossboro Brooklyn Terminal Market station contains 129 acres of manufacturing zoned land, with many parcels utilized as scrap yards and parking lots. As part of the greater vision for the U Line, this area could serve as a new economic hub and landmark for job creation and growth. One of the main draws of this area today is the Brooklyn Terminal Market, which opened in 1942. Today, nine one and two-story buildings with a total of 221,000 square feet comprise Market.19 It contains 33 wholesale and retail vendors that sell produce, plants, and paper goods.20 In 2010, the buildings and land were sold by the City to the Merchants’ Association so that the Merchants Association could upgrade the facility and improve its business activities.21

32,035 population within a 1/2 mile of the station

8,229 jobs

within a 1/2 mile of the station

305 manufacturing jobs within a 1/2 mile of the station

33 vendors

at Brooklyn Terminal Market

19 NYC Planning Commission, Disposition of City Owner Property at 8201 Foster Avenue. July 14, 2010. 20 http://www.brooklynterminalmarketonline.com/default.aspx?pageId=3 21 NYC Planning Commission, Disposition of City Owner Property at 8201 Foster Avenue. July 14, 2010.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Context The area surrounding the proposed Brooklyn Terminal Market station in its current state is surrounded by underutilized land with limited access to transit. The area’s greatest strength is the Brooklyn Terminal Market and the potential for job growth on these currently underutilized lots.

Demographics + Housing The current population within a half mile of the proposed Crossboro station is 32,035. Single family homes dominate the housing landscape, making the station area one of the least dense areas along the Crossboro U line.22

Employment

Right-of-Way at Brooklyn Terminal Market.

The area within a half mile of Brooklyn Terminal Market currently contains 8,229 jobs, with the largest employment sectors being health care and social assistance, retail trade, and wholesale trade, which comprise of 30% (2,449), 18% (1,471), and 11% (887) of the workers employed in this area, respectively.23 There are currently only 305 manufacturing jobs, which account for 4% of the area’s employment.24 Today, 7,996 employees commute into this area for work, 233 live and work in this area, and 14,679 residents live here but work elsewhere.25

Transportation

Roof of Brooklyn Terminal Market Google Maps

Currently, the area is lacking in transit options. While it is connected by some bus routes, (the B8 and B47), the terminal L stop – Canarsie-Rockaway Parkway – sits slightly more than a mile from the proposed U Line stop. In addition, the area is characterized by a poor pedestrian environment, giving it a great deal of potential for urban design improvements in both the commercial and industrial use areas.

Zoning The current condition of the streetscape is in part due to the zoning in the area. The land immediately adjacent to the right of way is zoned as M-1. Nearly all industrial uses are allowed within this district; however, it is generally used for light industrial and manufacturing, and often serves as a border between heavier industrial uses and residential uses.26 Although residential uses are not permitted in this district, retail, office and even hotels are allowed.

22 23 24 25 26

U.S. Census SF1 100%. 2010. On the Map, 2011 All-Jobs Data On the Map, 2011 All Jobs Data On the Map, 2011 Inflow-Outflow Data http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_m1.shtml

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET STATION CURRENT ZONING NYC Planning GIS Files

CURRENT ZONING

Residential Commercial (C8-1) Manufacturing (M1-1) Park | Open Space

MAXIMUM ALLOWED FAR UNDER CURRENT ZONING IN AREA. NYC Planning GIS Files

MAX FAR ≤1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 4 >4

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Vision In conjunction with the proposed U Line station, the Brooklyn Terminal Market area has the potential for improved and more active light industrial and manufacturing uses that better utilize freight in the area and build off of improved access to employees and new customers. The Brooklyn Terminal Market will become the â&#x20AC;&#x153;faceâ&#x20AC;? of freight in a community through economic development, job growth, and the making of a destination. Industry will be able to utilize the freight line by bringing raw materials in, manufacturing goods, and then either selling them in the new retail spaces in this neighborhood or shipping them out to other markets using the freight line. The vision for Brooklyn Terminal Market Station is for it to be a culinary and food incubator of Brooklyn brand goods. In keeping with existing zoning, to the west of Ralph Avenue will sit more manufacturing uses. The east of Ralph Avenue and south of the proposed station with be a mixed use light manufacturing and retail corridor, which will serve as the gateway for visitors to the Brooklyn Terminal Market. This area will have a new, pedestrian friendly streetscape with Brooklyn goods and foods sold on the first floor of these buildings. To the northeast of the station will be densified mixed-use office and residential with ground floor retail space. Office space already exists here, but there is a good amount of surface parking that has the potential for more development. Finally, Brooklyn Terminal Market will see a revitalization and intensification of business as it becomes a destination not just for those who live in the area, but for residents of the greater Brooklyn area.

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET CONCEPT DIAGRAM 96

Transportation Plan

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development will help this area attract more residents and tourists. It is thus crucial to provide safe and convenient connections to and within this area to allow people to access and navigate through the Market with ease. The area surrounding the proposed Crossboro station currently does not have an attractive walking environment. This proposal intends to improve the walking condition to provide safe and comfortable pedestrian connections in this area. The improvement includes repairing and upgrading existing sidewalks to meet ADA standards; building new sidewalks along streets where they are currently missing; and introducing way-finding features and street plantings. Currently, bike lanes are only available in both directions along Clarendon Road. There is, however, great potential for bikeability improvement in this area. As the primary access to this area, Foster Avenue can accommodate buffered bike lanes in both directions because of it wide street configuration, however, it will require the street median to be removed. The 44 foot wide Ditmas Avenue currently does not have clear demarcation. We plan to repaint the street with

Preston Court at 83rd Street.

bike lanes in both directions to enable this corridor to accommodate both auto and bike traffic. These bike lanes will connect to the existing lanes on Clarendon Road and form a continuous bike corridor. In addition, we propose to improve the biking condition by transforming 83rd Street into a bike friendly corridor. Currently, 83rd Street has on street parking on each side of road. We propose to add a sharrow to its existing vehicle travel lane to make biking a safe and viable transport option for local residents. Along with a variety of bus transit options, the proposed transportation improvements will help complement the planned development by transforming this area into a well-connected local attraction.

Chase Court at Ralph Avenue. Google Maps Streetview.

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Development Plan The plan for development of the Brooklyn Terminal Market station builds off of existing light manufacturing uses, and seeks to enhance and improve the economic conditions in this area. The plan seeks to bring in businesses such as food production for sale and distribution, custom furniture, hand crafts, and workspaces like a workshop or a culinary incubator for entrepreneurs. Precedents throughout the U.S. were used as guides for this development plan. The following discusses a few of these examples. Brooklyn Grange Farms | Brooklyn, NY www.brooklyngrangefarm.com

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET The Brooklyn Terminal Market currently has 6 acres of underutilized roof space. Looking to other examples in Brooklyn, like the Brooklyn Grange Farm, Gotham Greens, and the Eagle Street Rooftop Farms, the Brooklyn Terminal Market is a prime candidate for urban, rooftop farming. Produce grown here could be sold in the Market, and the space itself could act as a destination for the area. Current rooftop farms in Brooklyn sell to retailers like Whole Foods and FreshDirect, which could be another source of revenue for the Brooklyn Terminal Market.27 The nine roofs would be connected by small pedestrian footbridges, and there would be outdoor space for customers of the Brooklyn Terminal Market to sit outside and enjoy their food and the view.

A GROWING DESTINATION Union Market | Washington, D.C. foodcraveblog.blogspot.com

Pearl District | Portland, OR

https://plannersweb.com/2013/08/reflections-on-portland-part2/

5 acres

of rooftop farming

1M sf

of new light industrial space

1,300 units of new housing

6,760 jobs created

At the center of this station area plan is its focus on creating a vibrant retail corridor amongst light industrial and manufacturing. The plan envisions a center like Union Market in Washington, D.C., which has become a destination for gourmet foods. Longer term development plans include residential buildings.28 The developer views the Union Market as the catalyst for change in the neighborhood. While the Brooklyn Terminal Market station plan does not include residential spaces in the first phase, it is possible that as this area becomes a popular destination that demand for more than the existing single family housing will grow. A zoning change for the M1-1 district will be necessary to accommodate this growth. Currently, the M1 district only allows a maximum FAR of one. The building density in the area will need to be increased in order to accommodate retail and increased manufacturing. To the west of Ralph Avenue, the zoning should be converted from M1-1 to M1-5 to allow for increased building densities. In order to accommodate potential residential growth, the area between Ralph Avenue and 83rd Street should be rezoned to M1-5M, which will allow for light industrial, but now with an FAR of five. Residential uses are allowed with a special use permit.

MAKING AN IMPACT If this ambitious plan is fully realized, the following could be the effects of these changes: There will be a total of 617,000 square feet of new retail space, which could equate to over 1,000 new jobs. The nearly 600,000 square feet of office space could equate to 2,600 new office employees. If there is 1.3 million new square feet for industrial land, this could mean 1,914 new industrial employees in the area. Finally, with 185,000 square feet being dedicated to the rooftop farm, this could equate to approximately 125 employees.29 If fully developed, the area could see nearly 6,760 new employees.

27 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/nyregion/in-rooftop-farming-new-york-city-emerges-as-a-leader.html 28 http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/new_apartments_specialty_grocery_approved_for_union_market/7822 29 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/nyregion/in-rooftop-farming-new-york-city-emerges-as-a-leader.html

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

RALPH AVENUE

H 7T

R ST T EE

E 56TH STREET

1ST FLOOR RETAIL W/ RESIDENTIAL ABOVE

PLATFORM

URBAN ROOFTOP AGRICULTURE

E ST

N VE RA

D CLARENDON ROA

AVENUE D

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET

EXPANDED FREIGHTORIENTED BUSINESS

E8 D 3R

RE ST

Existing Open Space Proposed Open Space Existing Bus Route Existing Bike Lane Proposed Bike Infrastructure N 0 ft

1,000 ft

BROOKLYN TERMINAL MARKET SITE PLAN

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

LIVONIA AVENUE STATION

100

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

A variety of commercial activities at the intersection between Flatbush and Nostrand Avenues.

LIVONIA AVENUE (BROWNSVILLE AND EAST NEW YORK) The Livonia Avenue corridor area runs through the Brownsville and East New York neighborhoods of Brooklyn. The proposed Crossboro U line â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which will run along Van Sinderen Avenue â&#x20AC;&#x201C; currently acts as a transit spine between these two neighborhoods. With the proposed station acting as

35 muders

the epicenter of a half-mile station area, exactly half of the station area falls in each of these neighborhoods.

5,302 units

Brownsville and East New York are commonly thought of as some of the most crime-impacted and poverty-ridden neighborhoods in New York City. In fact, Brownsville contains the highest concentration of public housing in the nation. Within the station area, Brownsville largely consists of public housing structures, vacant city-owned land, and underutilized retail spaces.

26% children

in 2013

of public housing under 14

While the Brownsville/East New York area already offers subway connections to the L and R lines, the addition of the Crossboro Line will significantly aide in connecting residents to employment centers and economic hubs throughout the outer boroughs and beyond. The residents of this region have long since lacked excellent economic and employment opportunities, and the opportunity for connectivity throughout the area could act as a catalyst for positive neighborhood change and revitalization.

101

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Context Public + Affordable Housing

Existing pedestrian exit underneath the L Station. Google Earth.

Brownsville has more concentrated public housing in one square mile that anywhere else in the United States. In total, the area within a half mile of the proposed station is home to 5,302 public housing units throughout seven spate projects owned and operated by NYCHA. 761 additional affordable units have been planned on the east side of the line through the Livonia Commons development. A majority of the existing public housing stock was built in 1948, and the newest building was constructed in 1981, illustrating the need for a fresh, new batch of housing that will be affordable to existing and new residents.30

Crime The proposed Crossboro station would link two of the most dangerous precincts in New York City. Brownsville (73rd Precinct) and East New York (75th precinct) have the highest crime rates in the city, and the highest murder and rape numbers in Brooklyn. While East New York is in the midst of a redevelopment plan, both communities merit serious crime preventative measures. Urban

Along our ROW dividing Brownsville and East New York.

design techniques as well as an increased police presence could assist in making surrounding streets, corners, and transit stops as safe as possible.31

Google Earth.

CURRENT ZONING

Residential (R7-A + R6) Commercial (C4-4L + C4-3) Manufacturing (M1-1 + M1-4) Park | Open Space

N 0 ft

LIVONIA ZONING MAP NYC Pluto Data

102

1,000 ft

CONCENTRATION OF PUBLIC HOUSING AT LIVONIA STATION NYC Pluto Data

30 NYCHA, <http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/home/home.shtml> 31 NYC Crime Map, http://maps.nyc.gov/crime/

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Vision New York City recently broke ground on Phase 1 of an exciting economic development and affordable housing project on the eastern portion of Livonia Avenue. This multi-phase project is expected to provide an additional 791 affordable housing units in East New York along the Lavonia Corridor. The key stakeholders in the Livonia Commons project have also included programing space for organizations such as East New York ARTS and The Boys Club to provide community programs in both arts and athletics for neighborhoods residents. Requests for Proposals for Phase 2 of this project are currently being accepted by the city.32 In Brownsville, just outside half mile station buffer, demolition on the former Prospect Plaza NYCHA site is currently underway for redevelopment into townhomes and low-rise apartments. These units are being privately developed and will house 80 public housing units and 284 affordable units for families making 60 percent the AMI, which is relatively high for currently Brownsville residents. This three phase development will also include retail space, a greenhouse area, a 30,000 square foot community center for Brownsville as well as a new supermarket. 33

Planned future development - Livonia Commons Urban Quotient

Both of the projects are positive steps in redeveloping these two neighborhoods and creating opportunities along the corridor. By focusing on an urban design approach to connect the two neighborhoods bisected by Van Sinderen Avenue, more opportunities will be created for retail space, institutional, and more affordable or mixed-income housing. As shown, several sites remaining vacant or underutilized (and not yet designated for development) could help to realize this vision.

LIVONIA CONCEPT DIAGRAM 32 “Mayor de Blasio Joins Dunn Development, Arts East New York and Partners to Break Ground on Livonia Commons,” April 7, 2014. http://www1.nyc.gov/officeof-the-mayor/news/130-14/mayor-de-blasio-joins-dunn-development-arts-east-new-york-partners-break-ground-livonia#/0 33 “NYCHA, HPD Announce Developer for Prospect Plaza”, http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/news/nycha-hpd-announce-developer-for-prospect-plaza.shtml

103

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Transportation Plan The Crossboro U Improvements The installation of a Crossboro U station at Livonia Avenue will facilitate connections to two existing MTA rail transit lines: the L and the 3. Each of these lines runs to popular destinations – including employment hubs – in both Brooklyn and Manhattan.

Improving Bicycle Connections One of the major deficiencies in this area is the connection – or lack thereof – between the East New York and Brownsville neighborhoods, which are each bounded by Van Sinderen Avenue. This circulation plan proposes to overcome this deficiency by creating connections between the two neighborhoods through sky bridges and tunnels along Livonia, Dumont, and Riverdale Avenues. These connections will help facilitate pedestrian movements between the two sides of Van Sinderen Avenue and improve the accessibility for the proposed developments. In addition, currently, few bike lanes or markings of bicycle infrastructure are available within half a mile radius around the proposed Crossboro station. Many streets in this area, however, are wide enough to accommodate bike lanes or bike-friendly routes. This plan proposes bike lanes in both directions on Mother Gaston Boulevard and a southbound bike lane on Snediker Avenue to provide safe north-south connections for cyclists. The street width for Mother Gaston Blvd. ranges from approximately 44 feet to 74 feet. Street reconfiguration, including narrowing parking lanes and vehicle travel lanes, will certainly be needed in order to accommodate a five-foot wide bike lane on each direction. Snediker Avenue, a southbound one way street parallel to Van Sinderen Avenue, will require less intervention in this respect. Running through a residential district, this 30-foot wide street has historically seen relatively low traffic volumes, making it a strong, viable option for cyclists. A bike lane on this street will enhance safety conditions for cyclists and improve bikeability along this corridor. In addition, many streets in this area, especially those in the residential districts, have the potential to become more bike-friendly with the addition of facilities such as signage and bike racks. Together, these interventions will improve the biking environment around the station area and encourage biking as a viable travel alternative.

Pedestrian skyway connections.

Minneapolis Skyway system, Nicolette Mall | Minneapolis, MN

104

AVENUE PITKIN

SUTTER

AVENUE LVANIA PENNSY

UE A AVEN

IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY

AVENUE

VENUE BLAKE A

T AVEN DUMON LIVONIA

GEORGI

E AVENU DEREN VAN SIN E U N E ER AV SNEDIK

STREET JUNIUS

STREET

POWELL

U AY AVEN ROCKAW

N BLVD R GASTO MOTHE

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

PLATFORM

LOCAL EDUCATIONAL + TRAINING CENTER

CURRENT LIVONIA COMMONS PROJECT

AVENUE

NUE ALE AVE RIVERD

T NEWPOR

UE EN AV OTS L W

MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

STREET

EN LOTT AV

Existing Open Space Proposed Open Space Existing Bus Route Existing Bike Infrastructure Proposed Bike Infrastructure

L N AN AVE HEGEM

N 0 ft

1,000 ft

LIVONIA SITE PLAN

105

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Development Plan A key component of this development plan is the identification of underutilized and vacant parcels that have not yet been purchased for development. While many of these lots are privately owned, the potential exists for one developer to purchase multiple lots at once in an effort to develop a larger land area. Alternatively, an entity such as the Empire State Development Corporation could create a subsidiary for the areas to acquire land and issues RFPs to developers.

Phase One: Building Connections Proposed S.T.E.M. facility.

Delaware County, Community College

As construction begins on the Livonia Commons development, the first phase of this planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development vision would be focused on creating pedestrian and bike connections over Van Sinderen Avenue, the stark dividing line of this study area. According to this plan, pedestrian skyways will allow Crossboro U riders or passerbys to easily access the amenities on either side of the tracks. Such a connection will be critical to creating fluidity along our corridor and providing Crossboro access to both neighborhoods.

PHASE TWO: STRENGHTHENING AMENITIES Vibrant retail and housing.

Washington City Paper. Rhode Island Aveneu | Washington D.C.

761 units

proposed residential

493 units additional units

45,000 sf

education + job training facility

4 connections

new pedestrian pathways

106

Once the Crossboro station is completed and safe, attractive, and accessible connections have been forged, developments such as Livonia Commons should be completed or well underway. Taking community revitalization a step further, this plan promotes the establishment of a vibrant mixed-use residential and retail corridor on the west side of Van Sinderen Avenue. Additionally, a new S.T.E.M. high school or continuing education technical institute would assist local residents in gaining useful employment skills and connecting to job training programs. Surely, once Livonia Commons is underway or completed, the redevelopment of Brownsville will be crucial to this project.

PHASE THREE: EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY Phase Three of this plan calls for the identification vacant, abandoned or underutilized sites father along the Livonia Corridor as well as along Van Sinderen Avenue. The sites should also be mixed-use commercial and residential; community input will inform the process of what uses are most necessary. This land should be acquired in an earlier phase by the primary development entity so as to avoid price speculation once development is underway. These sites will be in a good position along the Crossboro line to take advantage of the transit-oriented density bonuses and to build higher story residences along the rails.

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Livonia Commons Rendering. Urban Quotient.

107

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

NORTHERN BLVD STATION

108

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

A view of the visibly auto-oriented Northern Boulevard.

NORTHERN BOULEVARD The proposed station at Northern Boulevard will be the northernmost terminus of Phase 1 of the Crossboro U line. Located in the middle class neighborhood of Woodside, the goal for this station area is to unlock development potential along Northern Boulevard while preserving the high-quality residential stock in surrounding blocks. At its widest point, Northern Boulevard is a seven-lane roadway which carries a substantial flow of automobile traffic. Both sides are lined with car-oriented businesses including a plethora of car dealerships, auto body shops, gas stations, and drive-through restaurants. Most development along the corridor contains just one or two floors and several businesses have street-facing parking lots. While the boulevard is lined on both sides with fourteen-foot sidewalks, the high volume of traffic creates a hostile environment for pedestrians. In fact, there have been so many pedestrian deaths along the corridor that Queens councilmember Danny Dromm once referred to the corridor as a “boulevard of death.”

The area within a half mile of the proposed station contains the Queens neighborhoods of Woodside and Jackson Heights, with populations of 45,099 and 108,152 people respectively.35 These neighborhoods are generally middle class and include some of the most diverse swaths of population in New York -- including a range of first and second generation immigrant communities. The neighborhoods of Woodside and Jackson heights are divided by the massive overpasses of the Crossboro right of way and the Brooklyn Queens Expressway. While the area is certainly accessible by car, transit access is relatively poor. Connections to the E,M,F,R, and 7 trains exist on the periphery of the area, but are quite far from several residential clusters.

34 Aaron, Brad. “Streetsblog New York City.” Doctors Relate the Horror of Traffic Violence at Pedestrian Injury Summit. Streetsblog NYC, 13 Dec. 2013. Available http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/12/13/doctors-relate-the-horror-of-traffic-violence-at-pedestrian-injury-summit 35 “Neighborhood Tabulation Areas.” Department of City Planning (New York, NY). 2010. Available http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/census2010/t_pl_ p1_nta.pdf

15 car dealerships

along Northern Blvd (56th to 72nd St)

8 fast food restaurants within 1/2 mile of station

7 driving lanes

at widest point of Northern Blvd

120 feet

width of elevated Brooklyn-Queens Expy

109

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP TYPE NYC Pluto Data T 71ST STREE

T 69TH STREE

T 68TH STREE

T 62ND STREE

T 60TH STREE

T 58TH STREE

57TH STREET

T 56TH STREE

EVARD

T 55TH STREE

OUL RTHERN B

T 70TH STREE

AVENUE

UE 32ND AVEN

UE 4TH AVEN ARD N BOULEV NORTHER

35TH AVE

NUE

34TH AVE BR OA DW AY

NUE

City Other Public Mixed Other Unknown Private

ARD N BOULEV NORTHER ARD N BOULEV NORTHER

BR OA DW AY BR OA DW AY

34TH AVE

NUE

34TH AVE

NUE

35TH AVE

NUE

35TH AVE

NUE

UE 32ND AVEN

N 0 ft

1,000 ft

N BOUL NORTHER

34TH AVE BR OA DW AY

CURRENT LAND USE 1-2 Family Building CURRENT LAND Multi-Family Walk UpUSE

1-2 Family Building Multi-Family Elevator Multi-Family Up Commercial +Walk Office Multi-Family Elevator Public Facilities + Institutions Commercial Office Bldgs Mixed Res. ++Comm. Public Facilities + Institutions Industrial + Manufacturing Mixed Res. + Comm. Bldgs Industrial + Manufacturing

110

T 71ST STREE

OWNERSHIP

T 70TH STREE

T 68TH STREE

T 62ND STREE

T 58TH STREE

T 60TH STREE

57TH STREET

T 55TH STREE

1,000 ft

T 56TH STREE

UE 32ND AVEN

T 69TH STREE

LAND USE MAP OF STATION AREA NYC Pluto Data UE 32ND AVEN

N 0 ft

35TH AVE

T T 71ST ST 71RSETESTREE

City Other Public Mixed Other Unknown Private

T REET REHEST 70TH ST 70T

T T 69TH S6T9RTEHESTREE

T T 68TH S6T8RTEHESTREE

REHEST TREET 58TH S5T8T

TRTEHEST TREET 60TH S60

TREDEST TREET 62ND6S2N

OWNERSHIP

NUE

0 ft

1,0N00 ft

0 ft

1,000 ft

NUE

35TH AVE

Open Space + Outdoor Recreation Transportation + Utility Open Space + Outdoor Recreation Parking Facilities Transportation Vacant Land + Utility Parking Facilities Unknown Vacant Land Unknown

EVARD

NUE

CURRENT LAND U

1-2 Family Building Multi-Family Walk Up Multi-Family Elevator Commercial + Office Public Facilities + Ins Mixed Res. + Comm. Industrial + Manufac

0 ft

Context

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Land Use The parcels which front Northern Boulevard are predominantly commercial lots which make up a high-traffic retail corridor. Just beyond the boulevard, the area is surrounded by residential uses. While single family structures dominate the landscape, some multifamily units exist as well.

Ownership With the exception of PS 152 Gwendolyn Allyeyne, all of the land around Northern Boulevard is privately owned. While this certainly presents an obstacle for station area development, land owners can be incentivized to participate in the plan through density bonuses or they can sell their property as land values increase.

Paragon Honda is one of several car dealership along the boulevard.

Zoning The zoning for the area is primarily residential, consisting of R4 and R5 districts. Single family and two family houses are the dominant residential type of dwelling unit in the area. The corridor along Northern boulevard, however, is zoned as C1-2 and C2-2 commercial districts. The maximum allowable FAR in the area ranges from 1 to 2 in most places. The zoning has not been updated in the past decade, which will provide a greater impetus to rezone in accordance with the Crossboro station area development. In order to build a higher density corridor here, this area should include a mixed use district with a higher allowable FAR.

Northern Boulevard contains seven lanes of traffic at its widest point, creating long crossing distances for pedestrians.

70th Street, like many of the blocks surrounding Northern Boulevard, contains high quality residential stock.

NORTHERN BOULEVARD CONCEPT DIAGRAM The BQE and Crossboro right-or-way cast large shadows on the street level.

111

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Vision Care Dealership in the Urban Context

BMW of Manhattan urban showroom. forum-auto.com

According to research from the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), many car companies are moving to a more urban model for their dealerships, in an attempt to remain viable in an urbanizing economy.36 Instead of the traditional giant, suburban-style dealerships with all inventory on site, a new urban model can utilize valuable land and much more efficiently. These new dealerships, which draw heavily from European examples, can occupy one to two stories of street-facing retail with limited showrooms, while the inventory can be stored offsite at less valuable land.37 In an attempt to maximize land use efficiency, a mix of car dealers can share an off-site inventory. By moving the sprawling inventories of these businesses to a different location, Northern Boulevard could free up several blocks of space for new mixed use development. This scenario would also benefit the business owners who could retain their central locations for showrooms, while moving their inventories to cheaper land on the periphery of the city.

Improvements to the Pedestrian Realm The urban showroom model makes use of technology rather than extensive on-site inventories to showcase product features. Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023 04450904579364833799765354

Broadway Malls at 89th Street in Manhattan Google Earth Street View

Drawing on the successful example of the Broadway Malls in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the station area plan for Northern Boulevard could include a linear park or landscaped median in the middle of the corridor. In an area which already sorely lacks green space, this median could also reduce the amount of impervious surfaces, calm traffic, and provide a safe space for crossing pedestrians. Northern Boulevard is bisected by both the Brooklyn Queens Expressway and the Crossboro right-of-way which run overhead. These overpasses create a 120-foot shadow on the street level, exacerbating already unfriendly pedestrian conditions. In order to make walkers feel more comfortable as they pass under these structures, LED lighting can be added. Drawing on the example of JFK Boulevard in Philadelphia, this sort of lighting can double as a safety feature and art installation.38

Multifamily Residential Development With the restructuring of automobile retail, more land could be freed up for retail and residential development along Northern Boulevard. Though there are many single family homes in the area, Northern Boulevard provides an ideal location for three to four stories of multifamily units above ground floor retail.

LED Lighting at JFK Boulevard Underpass | Philadelphia, PA

112

36 Mercer, Glenn. Factories Facilities Program - Phase 2. NADA/CADA, 2013. Available http://www.glennmercer.com/NADAFacilitiesProjectPhase2.pdf 37 Ernst, Kurt. “Audi Launching New ‘Audi City’ Retail Concept In London.” Motor Authority. High Gear Media, 16 July 2012. Available http://www.motorauthority. com/news/1077730_audi-launching-new-audi-city-retail-concept-in-london 38 Center City District. Office of Communications. New Lighting Makes JFK Underpass Safer, More Attractive. Central Philadelphia Development Corporation, 2 Mar. 2011. Available http://www.centercityphila.org/pressroom/prelease030211.php

Transportation Plan

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The Crossboro U Under Phase 1 of the Crossboro U, Jackson Heights station would be just one stop south of Northern Boulevard. At Jackson Heights, passengers could potentially transfer to five rail transit lines: the 7, E, F, M, and R. As such, the Crossboro U would help facilitate this excellent transit connection.

Auto Currently, Northern Boulevard is predominately oriented towards automobile traffic. With four to seven lanes of traffic, depending on the section of the corridor, Northern Boulevard is designed to accommodate a high volume of automobile traffic. It intersects with the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, a major north-south highway in the outer boroughs.

Sidewalks are wide and in good condition, but most businesses are auto-oriented.

Pedestrian Environment Though there are ample sidewalks along Northern Boulevard, the current retail mix does not cater to pedestrian traffic. With the abundance of drive-through restaurants and car dealerships, there are relatively few occasions for trips made by foot. Moreover, pedestrian safety is a serious issue on this busy thorough fare with seven lanes of traffic at some points. Because of a series of pedestrian deaths in the area, local Queens leaders have called on Mayor de Blasio to focus some of the resources of the Vision Zero campaign on Northern Boulevard.39

Bicycle lane on 34th Street, which runs parallel to Northern Blvd one block south. Google Earth Street View

Bus Connections Within this area, there are seven different bus lines that serve passengers within Queens: Q32, Q33, Q53, Q18, Q47, Q49, and Q66. The Q66 is the only line that actually would be able to directly transfer to our new station, however, five other routes are within a half mile walk and a passenger could make the connection. Northern Boulevard Subway Station for the M and R trains.

Bicycle Connections

payphone-project.com

The area currently has limited bike infrastructure connections. 34rd Avenue is currently the only street that has a bike lane in the study area. 30th Avenue near St. Michael’s Cemetery and St. Michael’s playground is a “bike friendly” street bus does not include sharrows. Additionally, 59th, 60th, 74th, and 75th Streets (all one way streets) are bike friendly streets that currently contain sharrows. At this station, we propose creating sharrows along 74th and 75th Street to connect the 43rd Avenue bike lane and the 30th Street bike friendly street to one another. Additionally, a bike sharrow is proposed on 43rd Avenue. The area could benefit from the creation of a short bike lane on 62nd Street to connect to the new Crossboro station to the 34th Street Bike lane. At this station, there can be a secured bike parking area that would provide easy access for cyclists to the station as well as safe bike parking.

39 Altamirano, Angy. “Pols Call for Northern Boulevard to Be Included in Mayor’s Vision Zero Initiative.” Queens Courier 6 Feb. 2014.

Q66 bus which runs along Northern Blvd from Long Island City to Flushing

113

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Development Plan

386 units

proposed residential

428,750 sf

proposed residential

122,500 sf proposed retail

Station area development will be concentrated along Northern Boulevard proper, drawing on the potential of one of New York’s most trafficked corridors. The three prongs of development include the actual physical station structure, mixed use development of underutilized parcels, and streetscape improvements to the boulevard.

STATION STRUCTURE Riders on the Crossboro U line will be able to access the Northern Boulevard Station via two sets of stairs or an ADA accessible elevator. Given the number of families in the area, this level access will greatly enhance the mobility of parents with strollers and young children. Both the stairways and elevator will be located on the west side of the right-of-way, just north of Northern Boulevard. In accordance with the success of MTA’s “Arts in Transit” program, this station will feature art relevant to the Woodside and Jackson Heights neighborhoods. An art competition could be held in partnership with a community organization to select work from local participants. This art competition could help establish community buy-in to the project while also improving the station aesthetic.

CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS Transit access alone will not transform this corridor into a safe, walkable environment. In order to better accommodate pedestrians and enhance overall safety, physical improvements will be made along Northern Boulevard––namely the addition of a landscaped median and LED lighting underneath the BQE and Crossboro overpasses. The lighting should be teal in order to tie into the Crossboro identity and subtly remind people that a station is nearby.

MIXED USE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT As mentioned in the Vision section, car dealerships along the boulevard can consolidate their inventories and store a majority of the vehicles off site. This allows the dealers to maintain valuable real estate along the corridor while renting or selling the rest of their parcels for denser, more efficient land uses. New development along Northern Boulevard will include a mix of ground floor retail and office or residential units on the higher floors. This combination of uses will generate a greater amount of pedestrian traffic during the day and night, thus adding more “eyes” on the street for increased safety. The plan for this area includes an estimated 122,500 square feet of ground floor retail, some of which could be used for auto dealership showrooms. Above this retail, three to four stories of multifamily residential units are planned. With an estimated 428,750 additional square feet of residential space, approximately 386 new units could be added to the area.

114

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Northern Boulevard Station U

Looking East down Northern Boulevard towards the Crossboro U Station.

The Crossboro U Line entrance at 64th Streeet and Northern Boulevard.

NORTHERN BOULEVARD SITE PLAN T 71ST STREE

T 70TH STREE

T 69TH STREE

T 68TH STREE

T 62ND STREE

61ST STREET

T 60TH STREE

T 58TH STREE

57TH STREET

T 56TH STREE

T 55TH STREE

MULTI-PURPOSE GREEN MEDIANS

PLATFORM

W NE

UE EN V SA LOT

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY LED LIGHTS URBAN CAR SHOWROOMS + OTHER REATIL

1ST FLOOR RETAIL W/ RESIDENTIAL ABOVE

UE 31ST AVEN

UE 32ND AVEN

ARD N BOULEV NORTHER

R M

34TH AVE

F E

BR OA DW AY

NUE

NUE 35TH AVE

Existing Open Space Proposed Open Space Existing Bus Route Existing Bike Infrastructure Proposed Bike Infrastructure N 0 ft

1,000 ft

115

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Station Plan Implications The real estate development and economic revitalization that are envisioned around the five “focus” stations would not be possible without the addition of Crossboro U service. The following section outlines the estimated impact of the five proposed station-area plans, as well as broader projections for neighborhoods along the entire corridor. The development plans described earlier for the five focus stations along the Crossboro U alignment represent a great deal of development potential. In all, these site plans created 5,125 new housing units, many of which will be reserved for low- and moderate-income families. The plans also create the potential for 1.48 million square feet of new retail space, 924,000 square feet of new office space, and 2.64 million square feet of new industrial space, as well as new open space and freight rail yards. The total number of new permanent jobs estimated to be created based upon these commercial and manufacturing square footages is 9,700 new jobs. This was estimated by applying industry averages of square footage per employee by sector to the proposed development site plans.40

Housing and Job Estimates Although site plans were created for only five of the 17 Phase I stations, further development is likely to take place along the corridor as a result of the Crossboro U. The following describes estimates for further housing development and job creation based upon available land. To estimate the potential growth in housing, the total unused floor-area ratio—i.e., the built square footage permitted under current zoning, but not yet built—was calculated for all parcels, including vacant land, within a half-mile of the right-of-way. Parcels containing single and two-family homes were excluded from this analysis, because the Crossboro U plan seeks to preserve these existing uses. From the remaining land within residential zones, it was assumed that half of the remaining allowable square footage would be developed. This model indicates that 10.5 million square feet exists for future housing development, which equates to approximately 10,500 new housing units. Combined with the 4,700 units envisioned through the proposed station area developments, there is the potential for 15,200 total new housing units to be constructed within a half-mile of the right-of-way.

Remaining FAR A similar methodology was used to calculate the potential for new jobs near the right-of-way. First, the total remaining square footage for manufacturing and commercial land, including vacant land, was calculated. From this, it was assumed that only 30% of this area would be developed and be used for new jobs. This results in a total square footage of 3.65 million square feet available for commercial and industrial uses. Assuming an average square footage per employee ratio of 550 square feet, standard for light industrial jobs, an estimated 6,600 new jobs can be created within a half-mile of the right-of-way. Added to the new jobs that were estimated to have been created through the station area development plans, a total of 16,300 new jobs can be created along the Crossboro U corridor.

116

40 “Building Area per Employee by Business Type.” U.S. Green Building Council, May 13, 2008. <http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs4111.pdf>

CHAPTER 5 HOUSING + ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

<0 0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.5 0.5 - 1

BRONX

DS ON

RIV ER

northern blvd roosevelt ave EAST RIVER

FAR AVAILABLE

FAR AVAILABLE ANALYSIS AT A 1/2 MILE BUFFER NYC Pluto Data

QUEENS fresh pond junction myrtle ave wilson ave

BROOKLYN

broadway junction brooklyn army terminal

livonia ave east new york brooklyn terminal market brooklyn college

117

SUSTAINABILITY + RESILIENCE Underutilized or abandoned rights-of-way present unique opportunities to expand a city’s transportation infrastructure system in a resilient and sustainable way. The twenty-five mile Crossboro U alignment allows New York City to transform a deficiency into a strength--to recycle and upgrade a piece of infrastructure that currently does nothing for the communities through which it passes. Realizing the Crossboro U corridor’s full potential as a key mitigation and adaptation strategy in post-Superstorm Sandy New York City will be crucial to the success and value of this project. Indeed, as the first piece of a network of critical redundancy for transportation and utilities during disaster events, the Crossboro option is one of resilience. It is also an environmentally-sensitive choice that will make use of green and innovative technologies in conjunction with transportation, economic development, and land use decisions. Finally, the U line will facilitate the development of suitable locations for recovery investment. The initiatives put forth in this section will serve both the New York Citywide visions of resilience and smart growth as well as this plan’s station area visions for sustainable development.

Left Photo: Protecting a NYC subway station during Hurricane Sandy.

119

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Resilience: the capacity of a system to survive adapt and grow in the face of unforeseen changes, even catastrophic incidents. Sustainability: meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Adaptation: the ability of a system to adjust to climate change in order to reduce its vulnerability, and enhance the resilience to observed and anticipated impacts of climate change. Mitigation: any strategy or action taken to remove the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, or to reduce their amounts. Definitions

(Center for Resilience; Report of World Commission on Environment and Development; http://know.climateofconcern.org)

Setting the Framework for Smart Growth Many cities across the world have dealt with population growth by expanding outwards, leading to sprawling, low-density development patterns. As New York has already reached what some consider “maximum capacity” within Manhattan, the City’s four other boroughs have increasingly been accommodating population and economic growth. This project reexamines the radial growth that New York has undergone in the past century to focus on not only relieving stressed infrastructure systems, but also the suitability of current and future investments. For instance, rising sea levels and increasing storm events have placed numerous coastal cities – and billions of dollars of real estate – at a tremendous risk. In New York, where Superstorm Sandy pushed the topic of resilience to the forefront, this risk is all too familiar. Following Sandy – which,flooded transit tunnels, destroyed buildings, temporarily crippled utility infrastructure, and led to loss of life – local governments, communities, and companies sought to define “resilience” in an effort to take stronger preventative measures. One such measure was former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR), which convened in December 2012. The SIRR’s June 2013 report, A Stronger, More Resilient New York, laid the foundation for resilience thinking in New York City, especially with regard to future urban growth, infrastructure, transportation capacity, and climate change.1 Through its economic development and transportation components, the Crossboro U proposal encourages safe, sustainable investments in low-risk areas, improves the redundancy and efficiency of alternative transit, and facilitates the strategic development of post-Sandy communities. In short, the project provides an excellent opportunity for the City to address several of the SIRR’s recommendations, given that it:

1 2

Creates a resilient infrastructure system to act as a location for recovery investment as well as a corridor for redundant systems and bundled infrastructure; and Promotes sustainable station-area strategies that focus on meeting needs locally and more efficiently to minimize the ecological footprint of new development.

PlaNYC SIRR Report (www.scapestudio.com)

120

1 NYC Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency. PlaNYC: A Stronger, More Resilient New York. 2013. Available http://www.nyc.gov/html/sirr/html/report/report. shtml.

Resilient Infrastructure Systems

CHAPTER 6 SUSTAINABILITY + RESILIENCE

Forecasted sea level rise – along with climate volatility – has placed many U.S. coastal communities in danger, particularly the large urban centers along the eastern seaboard. New York City’s coastal areas fall predominantly into two categories: 1) well-established business zones such as Wall Street, which the City cannot afford to relocate but must instead finance large infrastructure investments in order to protect; and 2) less-established, poorer, and underserved outer borough communities whose residents cannot relocate, rebuild, or protect themselves from potential catastrophes without substantial financial assistance. Indeed, a large portion of these outlying, working class communities are within floodplains and composed largely of affordable or lower priced, market-rate housing. Because of its proximity of many of these at-risk communities, the Crossboro U corridor could act as an anchor for reinvestment and for the relocation of individuals from danger zones. Sites adjacent to the transit line, currently largely underutilized or vacant, could absorb displaced communities after (or ideally, prior to) natural coastal disaster events. In addition, given the proper incentives, the city could utilize the Crossboro U corridor as a catalyst to jumpstart the process of gradual reinvestment away from coastal areas. In coordination with the state and federal governments, the City has several programmatic options that could assist in achieving these goals. Options include: Superstorm Sandy Storm Surge

Transfer of Development Rights

(Data: New York City Department of City Planning)

Create a transfer of development rights (TDR) program with the sending sites located in the most at-risk and neediest areas, and with the Crossboro U corridor acting as the receiving area. This program would be used primarily to redirect medium to large scale development projects away from the coastline. If such a program were established, the City itself might also consider participating, as many of its coastally-situated affordable housing projects were damaged during Superstorm Sandy.

Buy-out or Life Estate Program Enact a buy-out or life estate program to directly aid individual low- to moderate-income homeowners, many of whom could not afford to rebuild after Superstorm Sandy and are unlikely to be able to afford increased insurance rates. Many of these homeowners will not be able to afford moving or remaining in their domiciles. As recommended by an Urban Land Institute panel report entitled “After Sandy,” such a life estate initiative would be modeled after a ‘green acres’ program.2 Life estate programs are often well received publicly, as they entitle homeowners, to funds for rebuilding after a disaster, allowing them to continue the use of their property.. In that case, the title would pass to the state for enrollment in a conservation program. As the city continues to grow and risks associated with real estate investment rise, these two initiatives could provide smarter, more sustainable ways of investing for both the city and individuals.

2 “After Sandy: Advancing Strategies for Long-Term Resilience and Adaptability.” Urban Land Institute. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 2013. Available http:// www.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/AfterSandy.pdf.

121

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

FREIGHT MODAL SHARE IN THE NYC REGION

Providing Critical Redundancy + Flexibility The creation of redundant, flexible transportation systems in New York will be vital to address the limits of infrastructure capacity, as well as the increased frequency of catastrophic climatic events.

Freight

truck (89.2%)

Due to the increasingly large distance between the origin and destination of manufactured products, freight transportation has become an increasingly carbon-intensive process. The movement of freight in the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) region (which includes Bronx, Kings, Nassau, Manhattan, Putnam, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester counties) alone totaled 405 million tons in 2007. Of this, just 2.5 percent was carried by rail, whereas 91 percent was hauled by trucks, which emit a relatively greater quantity of greenhouse gases. In an effort to reduce truck traffic, carbon emissions, and transportation distances through increased short-haul freight rail, the Crossboro U holds the potential to transform New York’s freight market. Given that freight tonnage is estimated to increase 46 percent by 2040, without major interventions on a regional scale, the aforementioned existing truck-train freight mode split is unlikely to change.3 Roadways, bridges, tunnels, and supporting transportation infrastructure, already heavily congested and in need of constant maintenance, would not benefit from an increased number of trucks. Certainly, as trucks take a disproportionately high toll on roadways due to their mass, under a business-as-usual scenario, future roads allowing truck traffic would only require more frequent maintenance and more funding, as well as propagate continued and sustained air pollution. Alternatively, an increasing amount of freight traffic could be diverted to a more environmentally sustainable and high-capacity mode option: rail.

water (9.7%) air (0.89%) rail (0.13%) Current Goods Movement Mode Split | New York, NY (Data: New York Metropolitan Transportation Center)

For example, the proximity of Hunts Point Cooperative Market – the largest food distribution center in the world – to the Crossboro U right-of-way presents an excellent opportunity for synergy between the rail line, modern urban industry, ports, and goods markets. Currently, only 3 percent of food at Hunts Point’s produce division arrives by rail; the remainder arrives predominantly by truck. Put in perspective, a diversion of just 6 percent of this truck traffic to rail transport would eliminate 58 million truck miles every year, or the equivalent of 76,000 tons of CO2 emissions.4 Increased access to terminal markets such as Hunts Point would not only make the transportation of goods more efficient, but it would also offer a mechanism of redundancy within the critical food supply system. In addition, during any major storm, the redundancy and protection of transportation systems is imperative for both emergency response and public health and safety reasons. Storm surge flooding from Superstorm Sandy, for instance, nearly cut off Hunts Point’s food supply. Thus, in the face of increasingly catastrophic storm events, a more secure and redundant transportation system is highly critical to developing a more resilient city.

Hunts Point Market | Bronx, NY

(http://media.ny1.com/media/2010/11/23/images/huntspointmarket234614988-5048-4631-a825-5119315b3c61.jpg) 3 NYMTC Regional Freight Plan Update 2015-2040 Interim Plan Task 2.2.1 Commodity Flow Analysis, 2014. Available http://www.nymtc.org/files/RTP_ PLAN_2040_docs/Public%20Review%20Drafts/Freight%20Modal%20Reports/TM2-2-1_NYMTC_Commodity%20Flow%20Analysis_FINAL.pdf. Pages 2-12; Figures 2.1-2.2. 4 “Food Works A Vision to Improve NYC’s Food System.” The New York City Council. Page 46.

122

Passenger Transportation

CHAPTER 6 SUSTAINABILITY + RESILIENCE

In addition to the city’s freight network, the Crossboro U’s passenger transit component will contribute to a redundant and flexible network while promoting more sustainable transport modes.

Mode Shift Within a mile of proposed Crossboro stations, approximately one-quarter of residents currently drive to work (including 28 percent within Brooklyn, 25 percent within Queens, and 26 percent within the Bronx).5 The Crossboro U holds the potential to significantly shift commuting preferences towards transit and non-motorized modes, markedly reducing carbon emissions and increasing accessibility in the process. Indeed, once constructed, New Yorkers living near proposed Crossboro stations will be able to take the train to a host of destinations previously inaccessible by transit or only so by way of slow and inconvenient routes. In addition, transit vehicles create excellent economies of scale; in terms of CO2 emissions, it is five times more efficient for one rail car to move fifty people than for fifty individuals to drive their own automobiles.6

Last Mile Connections The Crossboro U can also encourage bicycling and walking for completion of the “last mile” of a journey, promoting utilitarian exercise in the process. In other words, instead of driving to final destinations, residents living near the Crossboro U could easily walk or bike short distances to the stations and subsequently transfer to a rail line.

Microgrid Deployment + Resilient Energy Systems The Crossboro U corridor provides a prime opportunity for utilizing flexible energy sources through the deployment of microgrids. While traditional energy infrastructure systems rely on a few large power plants that serve vast networks of consumers, microgrids allow for the decentralized dispersion of energy production. The more power produced on a local level, the less a community will need to import from outside power plants or leech off of the existing network.7 Moreover, in the event of a centralized power plant failure, blackouts can incapacitate an entire electricity system, especially during summer months when energy use peaks. In contrast, microgrids, which can draw from a variety of power sources, are relatively much more resilient in the event of such a failure.

Renewable Energy Sources Microgrids also lend themselves well to the incorporation of renewable energy sources such as wind or solar. If, for example, a single building adds solar panels to its roof, those panels can both serve that particular building and direct any excess energy back into the grid for sale. Along the Crossboro U line, outdoor, aboveground station structures with much access to wind and sun will provide ideal locations for solar panels and small wind turbines.

Metro-North Station Solar Panels | Westport, NY

(http://cdn.westportnow.com/ee/images/uploads/solarlook11261201pop.jpg)

5 American Community Survey, 2012. 6 “How Low-Carbon Can You Go: The Green Travel Ranking.” Sightline Institute. Sightline Institute, 8 Feb. 2008. Web. <http://www.sightline.org/research/ graphics/climate-co2bymode/>. 7 Lamb, Robert. “How a Microgrid Works.” HowStuffWorks. Discovery Communications, 17 Aug. 2009. Available http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/microgrid1.htm.

123

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Regenerative Elevators Additionally, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), all of the proposed stations along the Crossboro U line must provide level access for passengers, including a minimum of one elevator. While traditional elevators are expensive and consume much electricity, Crossboro elevators could make use of an innovative “ReGen” technology that captures heat energy that would normally escape into the air and inserts it back into the building’s electrical grid. 8

SEPTA Wayside Energy Storage | Philadelphia, PA (septa.org)

While this technology’s implementation would require a relatively high initial capital cost, the return on such an investment would ultimately prove to be significant, as “ReGen” can reduce energy use by up to 75 percent and therefore drastically lower electric bills.9 As an added bonus, such a system could meaningfully reduce the problem of heat in stations during summer months.

Regenerative Braking Finally, in addition to the inclusion of renewable energy sources at station areas, the Crossboro can contribute to the grid through its electrified rails by way of regenerative braking. Several transit agencies, including SEPTA in southeastern Pennsylvania, currently utilize this technology, a which recovers the energy created when trains brake as they enter stations. By way of this process, which is most suitable for a system in which trains make frequent stops, regenerated energy can be stored in wayside batteries and sold back to the grid or saved for later use during peak periods.10 Not only does this technology reduce dependence on already overburdened power plants, it also maintains the potential to save significant operating costs.

Sustainable Station Area Strategies The Crossboro U will leverage its stations as smart growth hubs along a connected line. Each station will cater to the local conditions and strengths of the site to minimize its ecological footprint. While the notion of “green building” has come a long way with regard to energy and resource efficiency, buildings remain responsible for the largest portion of energy consumption in America. Even when built to the highest standards, buildings can improve:

Building management and tenant behavior After a construction, there are often little to no measures in place to ensure that the building management and tenant behavior stays “green.” Encouraging “smart systems” and management or user incentives can enhance the overall efficiency of a building throughout its lifespan.

Integrating with the Local Context & Surrounding Systems How can developments best fit into the larger context of their neighborhood? Even the most “green” buildings can fail to address items such as by which transport mode users arrive or from where water and energy is sourced. While certifications such as LEED or the Living Building Challenge have begun to address issues regarding energy, waste, and water, room for improvement still exists on this front.

124

8 “Otis ReGen Drive.” ReGenDrive. Otis Elevator Company, 2012. 9 “Leading to a Green Future.” OTIS Gen2. Otis Elevator Company, 2007. 10 “First-in-the-World” Project Unveiled.” SEPTA Sustainability. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 06 July 2012. Available http://www.septa.org/ sustain/blog/2011/07-06.html.

CHAPTER 6 SUSTAINABILITY + RESILIENCE Much like an Eco-District, Crossboro station areas hold the potential to act as hubs for incentivizing and testing sustainable practices related to sectors such as transportation, waste, water, and energy. In short, the Crossboro U transit line as well as surrounding developments can set an example for sustainability in transit and economic development, capitalizing on items such as existing green technologies, building certifications, and innovative strategies whenever possible. Engaging in such initiatives would not only promote ecological wellness, but also save investors in the project (from the public or private sector) a great deal of capital in the long term.

Food Systems Security In conjunction with the increasing interest in and appreciation for locally-grown and distributed food, the Crossboro U could serve as a catalyst for developing urban agriculture, promoting light manufacturing of food products, and connecting to existing marketplaces. Select stations provide prime sites for enhancements to New York’s food network – both in terms of production and distribution. By expanding the capacity of the Hunts Point market to accept shipments from other parts of the country by rail, the Crossboro U could help to secure the regions food supply. In the case of major storm events, access to additional food sources can mitigate potential disruptions to supply chains. The Crossboro U could also connect to proposed urban rooftop farming at Brooklyn Terminal Market. Drawing on the successful precedent of Brooklyn Grange, an agricultural production center atop the Brooklyn Navy Yard, the Brooklyn Terminal Market can utilize ample rooftop space for growing produce. There has also been a renaissance in the production of artisinal prepared foods. For example, a locally-sourced bouillon and soup stock business, Brooklyn Bouillon, has seen growing success in their industrial kitchen adjacent to Brooklyn Army Terminal.11 Other examples of food manufactured in the area include Better Off Spread’s line of craft peanut butters, McClure’s pickled vegetables, and an increasing number of microbreweries. With the addition of the Crossboro U, this trend towards local food production could gain further momentum with better connections to customers and access to raw materials.

11 Guia, Liza De. “Video: Brooklyn Bouillon.” The New York Times., 21 Apr. 2014.

Brooklyn Bouillon | Sunset Park, Brooklyn, NY (www.seriouslysoupy.com)

125

PROJECT DELIVERY A project on the scale of the Crossboro ORBIT requires a cohesive implementation plan to achieve its transportation, land use, social equity, and sustainability goals. Specifically, the project must be backed by political champions as well as any entities that will support its creation or even manage day-to-day operations. This section provides a menu of potential project delivery options for the Crossboro ORBIT, and its first phase, the Crossboro U. It will outline possible development and land use mechanisms that could ensure that station areas are developed in a responsible way that is consistent with this planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic development and social inclusion frameworks.

Left Photo: Denver Union Station, part of the FasTracks light rail project that utilized a new ETOD fund. CP Realty. www.cprealty.com.

127

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Development Project Delivery: Creating Space for Growth An outside entity or two will likely be required in order for much of the development proposed for this project to be implemented. This entity will be tasked with acquiring land along the corridor and then through various means, selling it or ground leasing it to developers. A variety of existing entities in New York and throughout the U.S. have used (or have the capability of using) tools that would aid in implementing portions of this proposed development. This section will discuss these existing entities, explain what their role could be with the proposed Crossboro line, and assess the feasibility of their role in this development. These entities include transit authorities in New York, including the MTA and its subsidiary agencies, the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), and city housing agencies. This list of potential land acquisition partners could also include the creation of a community development corporation or a community land trust organization.

Menu of Options MTA The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is the public benefit corporation chartered by the State of New York to manage the public transportation systems in and around New York City. Through its subsidiary agencies, the MTA is responsible for the New York City subway and bus networks, nine intracity bridge and tunnel connections, and the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North commuter rail services. Metropolitan Transportation Authority logo. MTA. www.mta.info

In addition to managing these transportation operations, the MTA also administers a sizable real estate portfolio. A significant portion of its real estate activity is dictated by service demands, as network expansion or systems upgrades require the acquisition or disposition of land holdings. But more importantly for the Crossboro ORBIT project, the MTA (specifically LIRR) also maintains site control over many of the right-of-way (and their attendant air rights) traversed by the U line alignment, as mentioned in Chapter 2. In recent years, the MTA has been involved with several notable land transactions that paved the way for large-scale private development projects. In 2004, the Authority sold the development rights to the Vanderbilt Rail Yard in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn to the Forest City Ratner Companies (FCRC) for $100 million. That holding would later be assembled with numerous adjacent parcels to form the site for the Atlantic Yards project, a multi-phase development anchored by the Barclays Center arena, which opened in 2012.

Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project on the West Side of Manhattan. Hudson Yards. www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com

128

The MTA also played a crucial role in championing the Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project on the West Side of Manhattan. The 12 million square foot mixed-use development, which is currently in the early stages of its construction phase, will be constructed over the MTA-owned 26-acre active rail yard just a few blocks from Penn Station. In conjunction with a 60-block rezoning plan implemented by the Department of City Planning and the city-funded extension of the 7 subway line, the MTA entered into a 99-year ground lease for the yardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s air rights with a joint venture led by the Related Companies. Related and its partners will construct a massive platform over the yard in order to accommodate its current use for storing Long Island Rail Road vehicles. The platform will underpin an estimated 26 million square feet of Class A office space, 20,000 housing units, one million square feet of retail floorspace, and more than 20 acres of

CHAPTER 7 PROJECT DELIVERY public open space.1 The MTA currently controls nearly 80% of the right-of-way that will comprise the first phase of the Crossboro U line’s alignment. By selling or leasing the development rights above the tracks, the MTA can play a key role in enabling the transit-oriented mixed-use development this proposal envisions. Given the MTA’s current $17 billion of debt obligations2, proceeds from land transactions associated with the Crossboro can help reduce the Authority’s budget shortfalls, while attractive lease terms could entice private developers to enter into a joint venture with the MTA.

New York City Economic Development Corporation The New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC) is a not-for-profit organization that, operating under a contract with the City, is New York’s primary economic development corporation. The EDC works to promote economic development throughout the City, with a particular emphasis on strengthening businesses and neighborhoods, and assisting in the development of affordable housing and public spaces. The EDC implements their goals through strategic investments that spur private sector growth, by managing certain city-owned properties, and forging partnerships between public and private entities.3 The EDC’s Board of Directors is appointed by the Mayor of New York and Borough Presidents. The Corporation is required to submit annual reports to the City, as well as receive approval from the City on its various initiatives.

New York City Economic Development Corporation logo. NYCEDC. www.NYCEDC.com

One of the ways the EDC helps to promote economic development is through the acquisition, leasing, and disposition of land throughout the City. Often the sale and leasing of EDC land is proceeded by a Request for Proposals (RFP) process as a way to obtain tenants or buyers who will put land to its highest and best use and carry out EDC’s mission for economic development. If EDC wishes to sell any of its land, it must be sold at fair market value.4 EDC may also purchase real estate if it is seen as a way to further the organization’s mission. Land may be purchased at fair market value, and if necessary, above fair market value. Although the EDC itself does not retain the power of eminent domain, the City of New York can intervene to condemn and acquire properties for EDC projects. EDC states that it prefers to limit eminent domain takings, reserving its use for situations in which property owners refuse to voluntarily sell their land for a market value offer. In order to acquire privately owned land, the City must submit an application to the New York City Supreme Court for permission to use eminent domain for any given project.5 A recent example of a comprehensive redevelopment project spearheaded by EDC can be found in Willets Point, Queens, adjacent to Citi Field. Through an RFP process, EDC formulated a threephased redevelopment plan to repurpose a neighborhood dominated by auto body shops into a mixed-use neighborhood that will include a hotel, retail space, public space, housing, and a school.6 Working with EDC, the city was able to acquire all but nine of the required parcels for this plan, while local residents and politicians have strenuously objected to the use of eminent domain to condemn the remaining land. Rendering of Willets Point Redevelopment. NYCEDC. www.NYCEDC.com 1 “Rezoning Will Allow Railyard Project to Advance.” The New York Times. 21 December 2009. 2 Verification/source needed 3 http://www.nycedc.com/about-nycedc 4 “New York Economic Development Corporation Policy Regarding the Acquisition and Disposition of Real Property,” <http://www.nycedc.com/about-nycedc/ financial-public-documents>. 5 New York City Administrative Code, Title 5, Budget, Capital Projects, § 5–301 Definitions <http://72.0.151.116/nyc/adcode/Title5C3_5-307.asp>. 6 “The End of Willets Point” Nov. 22, 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/nyregion/the-end-of-willets-point.html?_r=1&gwh=4A1310DE41B2584ECA 4F38B07148FB03&gwt=regi&>.

129

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014 The Willets Point project highlights the contentious political and community engagement processes that accompany the use of eminent domain. As a result, the City and EDC prefer to limit its use. EDC could legally champion many of the station plans proposed by this project, although the size and scope of this project may be too large for the EDC to completely undertake alone. The EDC would best be suited to champion some of the station plans that focus primarily on job creation and place-making, like those for the Brooklyn Terminal Market or he Brooklyn Army Terminal.

ESD

Empire State Development logo.

Empire State Development. http://www.empire.state.ny.us/index.html

While EDC is the primary economic development agency for the City of New York, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESD) occupies the same role for New York State. ESD’s mission statement closely aligns with the goals of the Crossboro project in that it aims to promote new job and economic opportunities, diversify local economies, and ultimately increase the State’s tax base and revenues. The ESD promotes private investment in the State and utilizes funding sources like loans, grants, and tax credits to invest in its projects. When undertaking major development projects, the ESD creates independent project and location specific subsidiaries for which it acts as the parent corporation. The ESC has a land banking program that was established under Article 16 of the New York State Not-for-Profit Corporation Law. This act allows entities approved by the ESD to acquire vacant, abandoned, and tax delinquent properties as a way to transform them into productive uses for communities. A potential land bank must go through the ESD application and approval process, and as of 2012, no more than ten land banks in New York State are to be operating at any time. In order to qualify as a land bank, a Foreclosing Governmental Unit must propose and enact into local law the new corporate structure, including the name, governing members, participating parties (including school districts where applicable) and their statutes. An applicant must provide the ESD with information regarding the prioritized proposed uses for land, the range of economic development goals potentially achieved through the use of the land bank, the projected inventory of identified real property to be acquired, and the management and disposition strategy for the land bank itself.7 The ESD should be a champion for our project, aiding in the creation and approval of a new land bank along our line. We envision the ESD working alongside the EDC or a new community development corporation to enhance economic development opportunities in our station areas.

NYCHA

NYCHA Van Dyke Public Housing. Brownsville, New York. Andrew Theodorakis, New York Daily News.

130

New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) is the government agency in New York City responsible for providing affordable housing to low- and moderate-income households. It is the single largest public housing authority in North America. At present, NYCHA owns 334 public housing developments throughout the five boroughs, which house over 400,000 New Yorkers. NYCHA is also responsible for overseeing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 housing assistance program throughout the city—most commonly known as the voucher system—that subsidizes rental units for low- and moderate-income families living in privately-owned rental units. Roughly 235,000 New Yorkers currently receive Section 8 assistance.8

7 http://www.empire.state.ny.us/CorporateInformation/Data/112111_LandBankGuidelines.pdf 8 NYCHA, <http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/about/about.shtml>

CHAPTER 7 PROJECT DELIVERY NYCHA, like most public housing agencies nationwide, has seen declines in government funding for the development and operation of their housing units. As a result, NYCHA has begun to look for alternative financing methods to pursue its mission of providing safe, quality, affordable housing to New Yorkers. Through partnerships with non-profit and private developers, NYCHA aims to also provide social services for their residents such as job readiness, community and educational programs. 9 As of March 2014, there are 247,262 families on the waiting list for traditional public housing units and 121,999 families waiting for Section 8 vouchers. These numbers illustrate the drastic need for more affordable housing for the city’s residents. The expansion of affordable housing is a top priority for NYCHA and they partner with the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and Housing Development Corporation (HDC) to capitalize on their vacant and underutilized land. NYCHA-owned land can be used for affordable rental housing, affordable homeowner housing, retail that will enhance and serve the local community. or schools or community facilities. NYCHA typically releases RFPs for city-owned sites that are ripe for redevelopment. These RFPs generally include the specifications of the site, a vision for the project and a list of requirements. They also indicate which sites have been or will be acquired by the NYCHA under an approved redevelopment plan through the city. As a city agency, NYCHA has the authority to purchase or acquire land in the designated area and is responsible for providing compensation to owners and relocating displaced residents.

NYCHPD The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development is the largest municipal housing development and preservation agency in the United States. Through a variety of mechanisms, HPD seeks to preserve and expand affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income families. Funded primarily by the State and City of New York, HPD leverages extensive public/private partnerships as part of its initiatives to promote economic vitality and create homeownership opportunities in many of the city’s most underserved neighborhoods. At present, HPD is charged with implementing the New Housing Marketplace Plan, which aims to finance the construction of 165,000 new affordable units by the end of 2014.

New York Department of Housing of Preservation and Development logo. NYC.gov

HPD works with a variety of city agencies to craft a multi-pronged approach to expanding the city’s supply of affordable housing units. The Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) is responsible for managing the portfolio of city-owned land; parcels that are designated for future housing development are turned over to HPD, which spearheads the formulation and implementation of strategies to redevelop the often-blighted parcels as affordable rental and ownership units. Parcels currently used as municipal parking facilities, for example, require collaboration between HPD and DOT for their redevelopment as housing units. Many of the vacant parcels identified along the Crossboro U alignment are already in city ownership, while many of the others would be suitable for condemnation and eminent domain takings by the State or City. Those which are earmarked for affordable housing development would be conveyed to HPD, which could work in tandem with the DOT and NYCEDC to craft transitoriented, mixed-use development proposals that leverage the addition of new transit service.

9 NYCHA, <http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/about/about.shtml>

131

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Community Development Corporation Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are locally or neighborhood based nonprofit or not-for profit organizations that focus on economic, human, and public realm development. CDCs partner with local residents, businesses, and nonprofits to help to achieve their neighborhood development goals. Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative logo. www.dsni.org

The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) in the Roxbury and North Dorchester neighborhoods in Boston serves as a good precedent of a community development corporation for the Crossboro U Line. The DSNI is a, “collaborative effort of over 3,000 residents, businesses, non-profits and religious institutions members committed to revitalizing [a] culturally diverse neighborhood of 24,000 people and maintaining its character and affordability.”10 This nonprofit was established in 1984 because of the area’s poor economic conditions, which included large amounts of vacant land. Among other efforts, DSNI has led long-range community planning and also has a land trust that helps to realize the goals of the DSNI’s comprehensive plans. The City of Boston gave DSNI authority to use eminent domain to obtain vacant and abandoned parcels within its district boundaries. With this authority, the DSNI established a land trust which allows it to direct and implement the kind of development it wants to see in the area. According to its website, DSNI is the only community-based nonprofit in the United States that has the ability to use eminent domain for acquiring vacant land.11 Today, the land obtained through the use of eminent domain now contains 400 affordable housing units, schools, community centers, and public spaces.12 While there are many different CDCs throughout the Boroughs, DSNI provides a good example of the potential effects a CDC can have if equipped with the right tools. A CDC like DSNI in New York would require authority given from the City for the use of eminent domain on abandoned properties. While this could serve as an effective tool for some portions of the Crossboro U Line, it could not be implemented across the entire Line because key to the success of this type of CDC is the community’s involvement. This type of CDC would be most effective if its scale were the extent of perhaps one or two station development areas. Key to the success of this type of CDC for the Crossboro U Line is the existence of a great deal of vacant and abandoned land near a proposed station. Although there are vacant parcels scattered along the Line, there is no one station that has the kind of vacancies seen in the Roxbury and North Dorchester neighborhoods to necessarily warrant a CDC of this type. So while this type of CDC could be beneficial to community development, the conditions in New York may not warrant this type of intervention.

Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Fund

The Urban Land Conservancy logo. http://www.urbanlandc.org/

132

In conjunction with the development of the 122-mile FasTracks light rail system, the City of Denver collaborated with numerous partners to establish the nation’s first Equitable TransitOriented Development Fund. The fund is intended to underwrite the strategic acquisition of parcels adjacent to the future light rail service that will be reserved for future affordable housing development. By purchasing low-cost land before expanded transit service increases their value, the fund effectively “land banks” the parcels for future conveyance to private affordable housing developers who can capitalize on the low cost of land acquisition. 10 Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, <http://www.dsni.org/history>. 11 Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, <http://www.dsni.org/history>. 12 Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, <http://www.dsni.org/history>.

CHAPTER 7 PROJECT DELIVERY The Denver fund is managed by the Urban Land Conservancy, a local non-profit organization that seeks to ensure that the benefits of land value creation equitably accrue to the surrounding neighborhoods. Initially capitalized with a $15 million contribution assembled by Enterprise Community Partners, a national non-profit that invests in public/private affordable housing development, the revolving fund currently holds approximately $30 million in total loan capital.13 The fund is designed to finance acquisition and a five-year hold period for low-value parcels in neighborhoods that are ripe for economic development and workforce expansion. By paving the way for investment from for-profit affordable housing developers and Community Development Corporations, the fund is able to leverage each dollar raised into many more in value creation. As of April 2013, the fund has been drawn down by roughly $15 million, underpinning nearly $200 million in local economic development activity.14 The Denver fund provides an encouraging case study for how non-profits, local governments, and private investors can combine forces to create substantial economic value that is retained on the neighborhood level. By earmarking loan capital for mixed-use, transit-oriented projects along the Crossboro alignment, an ORBIT ETOD fund could create unparalleled benefits for lowincome New Yorkers. An ETOD, combined with zoning overlays that incentivize affordable housing development through density bonuses, has the potential to build successful public-private partnerships that provide much-needed affordable housing and community investment in some of New York’s most underserved neighborhoods.

Transportation Project Delivery: Overseeing Entity + Implementation For the Crossboro U plan to become a reality, it will require logistical, legislative, technical, and political support. As a result, identifying a potential “project champion” is essential. One potential project delivery option involves the creation of a new MTA entity comprised of both transportation and land use experts that would develop and operate the project. In theory, combining transportation and land use expertise under the umbrella of a transit agency would present a unique opportunity to tackle two critical areas for a large-scale infrastructure project like the Crossboro U. The image below (shown in book) offers a graphical representation of several possible ownership and operation structures for this unique entity. Depending on which option is chosen, this new entity would oversee several key responsibilities, including any combination of: serving as the face of the project publicly;

°° °° °°

track ownership and maintenance; transportation investments as necessary; station area, transit-oriented investments in development along the Crossboro right-ofway; community engagement and planning at the neighborhood and borough level to ensure that the needs and goals of residents living along the right-of-way are somewhat met.

13 http://www.urbanlandc.org/denver-transit-oriented-development-fund/ 14 http://www.urbanlandc.org/denver-transit-oriented-development-fund/

133

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

ORBIT

FUNCTION

LINE OPERATION

INFRASTRUCTURE OWNER

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT LAND USE

MTA PRIVATE OPERATOR

TRANSPORTATION

ROW OWNERSHIP

OPTIONS

MTA

RESPONSIBILITY

DESIGN BUILD FINANCE OPERATE MAINTAIN

DISPATCH FREIGHT/PASSENGER RELATIONS

NYCEDC

SITE ASSEMBLY

ESDC CDC

ASSEMBLE LAND PROMOT VALUE CAPTURE

NYCHA

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HPD CDC

ZONING INCENTIVES

Possible project delivery structure through a new entity.

134

DCP

BUILD OR COMMISSION NEW AFFORDABLE OR MIXED-INCOME UNITS ENCOURAGE DENSITY PLAN FOR TOD

Train Coordination

CHAPTER 7 PROJECT DELIVERY

Given that a majority of the Crossboro U line is owned by the LIRR and Metro-North (both subsidiaries of the MTA), it would be most efficient for the MTA to purchase the remaining section of the line, which CSX currently owns and operates. Indeed, this will be no easy task; CSX utilizes this portion of the right-of-way for its freight operations and is unlikely to initially agree to such a purchase and loss of control. Nonetheless, as shown in the case of the London Overground, having a single track owner significantly streamlines daily operations as well as scheduling between passenger and freight trains. While freight operators would continue running privately and independently under this arrangement, they would also sign on as partners with the new MTA entity, easing the process of schedule creation and facilitating a harmony involving rapid freight transport, timely passenger service, and overall efficient operations. The new entity would also assist in dissolving operating tensions between the LIRR and Metro-North, each of which operate trains along the line.

Integrated Transportation and Land Use Approach In addition to the purchase of CSX-owned section of the line and subsequent coordination of trains, the new entity could serve as a rather revolutionary paradigm for an integrated transportation and land use approach. While the MTA, LIRR, Metro-North and the Port Authority of NYNJ all currently have separate real estate departments, this new entity would manage real estate development in areas surrounding the 21 miles of Crossboro U track, seeking to develop properties in accordance with the overall mission of the project. Novel land use controls, zoning incentives and site assembly are just some of the potential tools at its disposal. Economic development and station area development will surely be a challenge, as New York City restricts the assembly and holding of land for economic development purposes. To adapt to this challenge, the new entity could explore the idea of creating a new community development corporation or partnering with the ESD or the NYCEDC to capitalize on their existing land bank structures. Ideally, the new entity would purchase and hold vacant or underutilized land while track and station infrastructure construction is underway. Then, the entity would release RFPs directed at private developers, ultimately forming public-private partnerships to aid in the financing of development projects. Economic opportunities, affordability, and access to transit would remain priorities throughout this process. The entity could impose restrictions on land use as well as affordable housing requirements. Offering land to developers below market prices, along with zoning incentives, can lead to progressive, transit-oriented development. Finally, this process â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and particularly, the affordable housing component â&#x20AC;&#x201C; must be coordinated with both NYCHA and HPD. Both of these entities hold title to much of the vacant land along the Crossboro right-of-way and are responsible for issuing RFPs to develop the sites. For example, near the proposed Livonia Avenue Station, Phase 1 of the Livonia Commons housing development is currently under construction, and city agencies have issued an RFP for Phase 2. Surely, the partnering of the new MTA entity with NYCHA and HPD can ensure that the land around Crossboro stations is earmarked for sound, transit-oriented uses.

135

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Train Operation While the MTA would own and control the Crossboro track under this arrangement, several potential entities could operate daily trains. First and foremost, the new MTA entity up for discussion in this section could act as an operator. Second, as is the case in London, where LOROL (a private company) operates trains in a public-partnership with TfL, the MTA could locate a private entity to enter into a contract in which one of the responsibilities is train operation. Under such an agreement, much like the London Overground, the private company would have financial incentives to improve and maintain a high level of performance. Third and perhaps most traditionally, the LIRR or Metro-North could operate trains in addition to their own existing cars.

Gaining Political Champions In order to ensure successful execution, the Crossboro U and the ORBIT system will need support from key political stakeholders, beginning with New York City’s current mayor, Bill de Blasio. As mentioned earlier, the goals of the project – which seek to dissolve the stark divide between the “two New Yorks” that currently exists – align well with several of de Blasio’s political agenda items. If plan supporters and relevant implementing agencies can gain the support of the mayor, this plan’s delivery will run all the more smoothly. Mayor Bill de Blasio on Monday delivering his State of the City address at LaGuardia Community College in Queens. AP/Photo/ Mark Lennihan

MTA Capital Construction President Horodniceanu accompanied Mayor Bloomberg on the ceremonial 1st ride along the 7.

Pix 11. http://pix11.com/2013/12/22/behind-the-scenes-at-mayor-bloombergsride-to-the-new-7-train-station-2/#ixzz31XBAXf7L

First, the mayor has already proposed a new tax hike on vacant properties being held by speculative or absent land owners. Second, he has committed to the enhancement of the city’s public school system, arguing that more S.T.E.M educational and job training facilities should be available for residents. Conveniently, this plan identifies prime locations for such sites in several station areas. Third, de Blasio has supported the creation of 50,000 new affordable housing units the preservation of 150,000 units. With space both scarce and expensive in Manhattan, the outer boroughs are the obvious choices for such new developments. Locating these new units along the Crossboro U line – alongside proposed economic hubs and mixed-income, diverse neighborhoods – will spur opportunities for the New Yorkers that need them most. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s recent support of the 7 subway line extension to the Hudson Yards development serves as an excellent precedent for this project. Thanks in large part to the mayor’s support for that project, the city footed virtually the entire $2.4 billion project cost. Just as Mayor Bloomberg believed in the economic development potential on Manhattan’s far West Side, Mayor de Blasio believes firmly in expanding opportunities to underserved areas, especially the outer boroughs. Thus, the stage is set for the Crossboro U to be de Blasio’s signature venture.

Housing New York: A Five-Borough, Ten-Year Plan The Crossboro U project has the potential to create a myriad of real estate development opportunities along its proposed alignment, particularly for affordable and mixed-income housing. This housing will be transit-accessible and thus well-connected to economic and educational opportunities not only in Manhattan, but also throughout Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. In his successful mayoral campaign, Bill de Blasio pledged that his administration would construct or preserve 200,000 affordable housing units throughout the city. In May 2014, the office of the Deputy Mayor for Housing and Economic Development released a report entitled, “Housing New

136

CHAPTER 7 PROJECT DELIVERY York: A Five-Borough, Ten-Year Plan.” The plan takes a critical look at New York City’s current housing supply, highlighting the mismatch between the growth in housing costs and stagnating household income. The plan describes the extreme rent burdens many New Yorkers across the socioeconomic spectrum face, finding that 55 percent of rental households were rent burdened in 2012.15 The plan also notes that while nearly one million households earn less than 50 percent of the area median income (AMI) for a family of four, there are a mere 425,000 housing units suitable for those income levels. Mayor de Blasio’s goal is simple, yet ambitious: to create new affordable housing for all New Yorkers. In order to accomplish that goal, however, the city will need to refine and expand funding sources and financing tools to generate the capital necessary to construct or preserve affordable units.

Unlocking Development Potential Of Underused Public and Private Sites City Hall’s housing plan aims to create suitable sites for affordable housing through targeted infrastructure investments in underdeveloped neighborhoods. These investments would unlock the development potential for these sites, as well as encourage publicly-funded community facilities and services. The plan suggests that the City survey all vacant and underutilized parcels in the five boroughs and use incentives for developers to build both market-rate and affordable housing units. The City will also create the Neighborhood Construction Plan (NCP), which will be aimed at assembling small vacant parcels for infill affordable housing units, in partnership with local non-profits and CDCs. Many of of the proposed Crossboro U station locations would qualify for this initiative.

Additional Funding and Incentives The plan also proposes expanding the fiscal year 2014-2015 budget allocation for the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), as well as issuing a series of loan securitizations that will maximize the resources available at the Housing Development Corporation (HDC). The plan proposes that the current voluntary inclusionary zoning program— through which developers can receive density bonuses for constructing a predefined number of affordable units—become mandatory for development projects citywide. That initiative dovetails with the Crossboro proposal’s suggestion that density bonuses be given to development projects along the U alignment to ensure that units targeted to low- and moderate-income families are included all new housing construction.

Housing New York: A Five-Borough, Ten-Year Plan.

The City of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office of Housing & Economic Development.

What this means for the Crossboro The Crossboro proposal aims to unlock the physical space needed to develop these new units, as well as reinforce several of the proposals outlined in the Mayor’s Housing Plan. Many of this proposal’s recommendations address several of the issues highlighted by the Mayor—and do so in the context of a tangible, relatively inexpensive project with many ancillary benefits. The Crossboro planning process incorporated an analysis of vacant and underutilized land; considered incentive-based development approaches; and geared itself towards community engagement at every stage of its proposed implementation timeline. The Crossboro U would serve as a catalyst 15 Spending over 30% of their income on rent

137

FINANCING + FUNDING The Crossboro U will require a significant investment, but far less than that demanded by other urban infill transit projects like the Second Avenue Subway or East Side Access. By traversing an existing right-of-way and incorporating simple station plans, the new alignment will avoid several significant expenses: land acquisition, excavation and tunneling, and relocation of existing homes and businesses. As a result, the cost per track mile of $40 million will compare favorably to the Second Avenue Subway’s estimated $2 billion or the 7 train extension’s $2.25 billion. Nevertheless, the estimated $1 billion expenditure for the Crossboro will necessitate a creative approach to funding and financing. While other projects have historically been funded onbalance-sheet by the City of New York or the MTA, budget shortfalls and political considerations could preclude that possibility. Nationwide, more innovative value-capture schemes have received greater attention; through a host of mechanisms, a municipality can borrow against some of the future value created by new transportation projects to create revenue streams that underwrite a signification portion of construction costs. The following section will outline a variety of different financing and funding strategies to tackle both the transportation and development components of the Crossboro U project. Some of these mechanisms can be used to finance either component, or perhaps both; more over, it is likely that the Crossboro U will require a combination of several of the options described. The final funding and financing structure will depend on a variety of factors, including the political and legislative environment; legal considerations; changing project costs; and the magnitude of potential revenue streams. For these reasons, no single preferred option is selected at this stage of the planning process.

Left Photo: Construction of the Second Avenue Subway.

Source: “Major Progress for New Second Avenue Subway Line and East Side Access,” Feb. 25, 2013. <www.nydailynews.com>.

139

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Conventional Financing + Funding: Transit Historically, transit investments have been financed in large part by local, state, or transit agency capital programs, or through the issuance of municipal bonds. While these instruments remain feasible and are described below, they are becoming increasingly less politically palatable in the United States. As discussed further in the Project Delivery section of this plan, use of city or MTA funds would likely require the support of a political “champion” to shepherd the project through the bureaucracy., Mayor Bill de Blasio, for example, campaigned on a platform of promoting the interests of the city’s poorest and underserved residents. If Mayor de Blasio were to support this project, the city’s capital budget could play a larger role in the infrastructure investment. This section will also touch on several federal grant programs commonly utilized to finance transit investments. Unlike capital programs, federal grants offer “free money” that need not be funded through a new revenue stream. However, the amount provided through these initiatives is often markedly less than could be supplied via a city or state budget.

The Crossboro U will require the support of a project champion within the City of New York to shepherd the project through the bureaucracy.

“Major Progress for New Second Avenue Subway Line and East Side Access,” Feb. 25, 2013. <www.nydailynews.com>. Caption for Graphic: Construction of the Second Avenue Subway.

Municipal Bonds + Local and State Capital Programs Municipal Bonds Municipal bonds have long been the de facto tool for financing infrastructure development and expansion in the United States; in fact, the construction of the national railroad network in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was financed primarily through bond issuance. In New York State, hundreds of municipalities and agencies are authorized to float bonds for a wide variety of projects. In addition to the City of New York, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) have bonding capacity that can be used to raise funds for critical transit projects across the city. Municipal bonds generally come in one of two different flavors: general obligation (GO) and revenue bonds. GO bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the borrowing authority; those issued by the City of New York, for example, are secured by the city’s tax ratables and other revenue streams. Revenue bonds, on the other hand, are issued against the future cash flows emanating from the project to be underwritten; for example, revenue bonds issued for a new highway would be secured by future toll revenues. Both types of bonds are generally exempt from Federal and State income tax on the part of the bondholder, thus reducing the cost of issuance for the borrower. Revenue bonds, however, require a higher interest rate to compensate for their higher risk of default. Regardless of their type, municipal bonds are subjected to rigorous legal scrutiny before they are issued. For revenue bonds in particular, a qualified bond counsel must determine that the designated future cash flows will be sufficient to support the volume of the bond issuance. That burden would be difficult to overcome in the case of the Crossboro U. Because the new line will be integrated into the existing MTA subway network, it would be difficult to delineate those farebox revenues which should used for repayment of the bonds. Further, because the line’s future ridership is difficult to predict, revenue bond capacity would be unnecessarily limited. For these reasons (and others), GO bonds are the most likely borrowing mechanism for the project.

140

CHAPTER 8 FINANCING + FUNDING

State + Local Capital Programs At the state level, in 2011, Governor Andrew Cuomo created ten Regional Economic Development Councils -- including one for the New York City region -- to develop strategic plans for economic growth. Based on these plans as well as the state’s own priorities, money is allocated to finance various investments, including large infrastructure projects.1 In May 2013, the Governor’s released its most recent Statewide Capital Plan, which detailed the process by which infrastructure investments should be made. This procedure includes a statewide infrastructure evaluation, assessment of regional needs, and budget allocation based on potential and ongoing performance of a particular project.2 At the city level, New York City’s own capital budget offers funding for city construction and repair, as well as purchases of land, buildings, and equipment. Capital commitments peaked in 2008 at $11.7 billion, but fell to $7.1 billion by 2012. The capital budget includes a Ten-Year Capital Strategy document (prepared every two years) and a Capital Commitment Plan (prepared three times per year) to provide an expected implementation schedule for projects planned within the next three years.3 As expected, the amount of dollars available differs by level of government. In the Statewide Capital Plan, $63.45 billion, or over 75 percent of the New York City region’s capital investments, is designated for transportation programs.4 In contrast, the city’s 20132016 Capital Commitment Plan $5.1 billion for transportation.5 Each of these amounts surpasses our estimated project cost for the Crossboro U. Thus, if both federal and local officials were to champion the project, the potential for tremendous funding exists. An appropriate precedent for a local capital investment funding a transportation infrastructure project can be found in the Crossboro U’s own backyard: the 7 Subway Extension. The 7 Train, operated by the MTA and currently running from Times Square in Manhattan to Willets Point in Queens, will soon open an extension to the Hudson Yards development project on Manhattan’s far West Side. Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg championed the project, persuading the city to fully foot the $2.4 billion bill by floating general obligation bonds before leaving office.6 In recent decades, the national political climate has towards an ideal of minimal government spending, and the potential for large infrastructure investments has suffered as a result. Nonetheless, the aforementioned paradigm of the 7 Subway Extension offers hope for the future of the Crossboro U. If Mayor de Blasio rightfully becomes convinced that the project presents a victory for the city’s neediest and is indeed a driver of productive economic development, the city could serve as a champion and finance the investment. De Blasio could also convince the state to play a role as well, contributing at least some of the money designated for transportation capital programs in the region to the outer boroughs’ most promising project.

1 2 3 4 5 6

“Regional Councils.” The New NY Works Task Force. Available http://regionalcouncils.ny.gov/content/new-york-city. “Statewide Capital Plan.” The New NY Works Task Force (State of New York). Pgs. 15-20. “Understanding New York City’s Budget: A Guide to the Capital Budget.” NYC Independent Budget Office. Pgs. 1-16. “Statewide Capital Plan.” Pg. 281. “Understanding New York City’s Budget.” Pgs. 5-16. “Mayor Bloomberg Gets Ride on No. 7 Subway Extension He Championed.” NY Daily News. 20 Dec. 2013.

Construction of the Second Avenue Subway

“Major Progress for New Second Avenue Subway Line and East Side Access,” Feb. 25, 2013. <www.nydailynews.com>.

The 7 Train extension will run to the development taking place at Hudson Yards.

“Hudson Yards Finally Breaks Ground” New Construction Manhattan, Dec. 5, 2012. <www.newconstructionmanhattan.com>. Caption for Graphic: The 7 Train extension will run to the development taking place at Hudson Yards.

141

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

The MTA Capital Program Since 1981, a year during which the New York State Legislature authorized the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to issue bonds for necessary funding, the MTA Capital Program has allocated money for transportation infrastructure improvements, maintenance, and expansions within its network. Generally, the agency, a public benefit corporation, floats bonds against its own revenue, which comes from myriad sources including the farebox, dedicated taxes, state and local subsidies, and tolls. Funding for the Capital Program has historically come largely from the Federal Government, with some state and local grants interspersed.7 The MTA’s 2010-2014 Approved Capital Plan Amendment proposed approximately $5.8 billion for network expansion projects, and a nearly equal amount for Superstorm Sandy mitigation initiatives. Arguably, the Crossboro U could fall in each of these categories. In addition, in recent years, the MTA Capital Program has been involved in a variety of initiatives, including the Second Avenue Subway, a long awaited underground train along Manhattan’s East Side, and Fulton Center, an essential transportation hub at the crossroads of eleven lines in Lower Manhattan.8 9

Rendering of Fulton Center.

“The Plan for Lower Manhattan,” Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. <www.renewnyc.com>.

As with traditional state and local finance methods, although the MTA Capital Program offers a simple solution to the issue of paying for the Crossboro U, it only does so in theory. Indeed, dedication of a portion of this money to the Crossboro U would be dependent on several factors. For such an option to be feasible, the MTA would have to champion the project and agree to operate it, neither of which is a certainty. Even if the Crossboro U had the MTA’s full support, obtaining the capital to build it would require that many political and stakeholder opinions align perfectly. Moreover, in recent years, as a result of several factors, the MTA Capital Program has struggled to maintain steady sources of income. A few generally reliable city tax revenue sources, including the mortgage recording tax, the corporate franchise tax surcharge, and the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility tax, offered an underestimated level of income, perhaps in part due to the financial crisis of 2008 and beyond.10 This level of unpredictability has rendered the MTA perhaps more stringent with its issuance of capital funds, and has served as a reminder of ongoing debt service obligations.

Federal Grant Programs for Transportation New Starts The Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants program, commonly known as “New Starts,” is the Federal Transit Administration’s (a division of the Department of Transportation) primary grant initiative for capital transit investments. State and local governments as well as transit agencies are eligible for funding. The program predominantly prioritizes projects operating at least ten percent of their runtimes in fixed guideways, or grade-separated rights of way. Project sponsors must undergo a multi-year process to gain eligibility for funding. Indeed, the New Starts program contains myriad application requirements including an environmental review and alternatives analysis, and is a rigorously competitive procedure. The New Starts program also includes a “Small Starts” initiative for projects requiring relatively less federal grant funding.

142

7 “The Road Back: A Historic Review of the MTA Capital Program.” Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA. Pgs. 1-22. 8 “MTA Capital Program: 2010-2014.” MTA. Pgs. 5-8. 9 “Transportation 101: What’s Up with the MTA?” Tri State Transportation Campaign. Available http://www.tstc.org/101/mta.php. 10 “The Road Back.” Pg. 31.

CHAPTER 8 FINANCING + FUNDING The maximum federal share of a project cost through New Starts is currently 80 percent.11 Sample projects include the Southeast Extension (a light rail project) in Denver, Colorado, which obtained a $92 million federal grant (approximately 43 percent of the project cost)12, and the Maryland National Capital Purple Line, which received a $900 million grant (approximately 38 percent of the project cost).13 Given the importance of the Crossboro U to the New York region, a case could certainly be made for an application for New Starts grant funding. Certainly, the Crossboro U will be as important a transit project as any across the country in the near future. Additionally, as described here, if utilized to its full extent New Starts funding could potentially finance a relatively large portion of the project.

TIGER The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grant program provides grants for transportation projects that intend to advance national objectives. The program was created in 2009 as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Through a fairly competitive application process, TIGER provides capital funding to virtually any public entity. Notably, TIGER rewards projects that achieve long term, desirable outcomes, including economic competitiveness, quality of life, environmental sustainability, and safety. Each of these would be enhanced via the implementation of the Crossboro U. On the scale of infrastructure investments, the amount achievable from a TIGER grant is unfortunately relatively small, and in the millions rather than the billions of dollars. Indeed, the entire program allocates just $1.5 billion. In February 2014, 51 TIGER awards were announced, with an average award size of $30 million and a high of $105 million for an interstate freight rail investment14

Rendering of the Maryland National Capital Purple Line, which received a $900 million New Starts grant.

“O’Malley Announces Funding for Purple Line, Transit, and Road Project,” Aug. 5, 2013. <www.justupthepike.com>.

TIGER projects span virtually all aspects of transportation, and are not limited to transit. Relatively recent projects that perhaps relate most in subject matter to the Crossboro U include a $47.6 million grant to construct an east-west streetcar in Atlanta, Georgia, and a $15 million grant for rail improvements in Oakland, California.15 The Crossboro U is an inherently innovative project that advances such national and local objectives as economic development and competitiveness, sustainability, and improved access for disadvantaged or underserved populations. While the project would thus likely be a strong candidate for TIGER grant funding, grant applicants would be naive to assume that all project costs would be accounted for via such an award. Instead, if received, a TIGER grant would cover a relatively small percentage of capital costs necessary to construct the Crossboro U.

11 12 13 14 15

The Atlanta east-west streetcar received a $47.6 million TIGER grant.

“Atlanta Streetcar Project Underway,” Feb 1, 2012. <http://www.bizjournals.com/ atlanta/news/2012/02/01/atlanta-streetcar-project-under-way.html>.

“Fact Sheet: Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants.” Federal Transit Administration. Pgs. 1-2. “Denver Southeast Extension Profile.” Federal Transit Administration. Pg. 1. “Maryland Purple Line Profile.” Federal Transit Administration. Pg. 1. “TIGER Discretionary Grants.” Federal Highway Administration. Available http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Freight/infrastructure/tiger/index.htm. “TIGER Program.” U.S. DOT. Available http://www.dot.gov/tiger

143

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Federal Grant Programs for Housing Choice Neighborhoods The Choice Neighborhoods program, a part of the White House Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative which is administered by U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD), prompts the transformation of struggling neighborhoods with particularly high concentrations of public or HUD-assisted housing that is in distress. At its core, Choice Neighborhoods is a housing initiative designed to replace decrepit or failing public or assisted housing with vibrant, mixed income dwelling neighborhoods. Additionally, the program aims to improve educational outcomes, promote youth services, and create conditions necessary for both public and private reinvestment in struggling communities. Under the program, city governments, public housing authorities, organized area residents, nonprofits, developers, or other coalitions of stakeholders apply first for a planning grant, which, if approved, is used to form a comprehensive neighborhood revitalization document, or a “Transformation Plan.” In the past, private companies have also often signed on as key partners. Following the development of this plan, applicants are then eligible to solicit an implementation grant to actually realize the strategies in their plan.16 In 2013, HUD awarded planning grants to nine communities across the country; no grant exceeded the $500,000 amount. 17 With regard to implementation grants, the government has been far more generous, and necessarily so: funding appropriated via this facet of the program goes toward actually altering affected neighborhoods. In the past, implementation grants have traditionally ranged from $20 to $20 million.18 A neighborhood such as East New York, which contains one of the highest concentrations of public housing in the country, would serve as a strong candidate for Choice Neighborhoods planning and implementation grants. In order to qualify, the community would need to find a series of champions for the program to spearhead the application process. Judging from previous years, neighborhoods that qualify for this program have traditionally included both public and private partners.

Community Development Block Grants One of the oldest HUD-implemented programs, Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs) offer communities resources to meet myriad different needs. Overall, HUD describes the goals of the program as to provide affordable housing, services to struggling or vulnerable residents, and job creation through the addition of new businesses and maintenance of existing ones. Indeed, CDBG funds can be utilized for items such as housing, infrastructure, public services, and economic development. In the case of the Crossboro U, CDBG funds would most likely be allocated toward affordable housing. In reality, the CDBG program has many facets and is quite complex by nature. For example, while one aspect of the initiative – “Entitlement Communities” – grants funding to large metropolitan cities, State Administered CDBGs present states with funding to be funneled into smaller

144

16 “Choice Neighborhoods.” U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Available http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/cn. 17 “FY13 Planning Grant Award Information: Choice Neighborhoods.” HUD. Available http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/ huddoc?id=fy13plangrantprojsum.pdf. 18 “Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grants.” HUD. Available http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=implementgrantlist.pdf.

CHAPTER 8 FINANCING + FUNDING communities. Other areas of the program support communities in need of disaster recovery, insular areas, and neighborhoods hit particularly hard by the foreclosure and abandonment crisis. As such, with regard to the Crossboro U project, depending on the context, CDBGs could be administered at a state level or at a federal level, and passed on to the entire city of New York or a smaller, station area community along the right of way.19 Reports from 2011 indicate that approximately $230 million in CDBG funding was expended in New York City, with around 34 percent of that money – a plurality – going toward housing projects. Remaining funding supported such activities as public facilities improvements, economic development, acquisition, and general administration and planning.20 With respect to the Crossboro U project, communities, the city, or the state of New York could apply for CDBG funding and tremendously transform and improve particularly impoverished station areas if funding were granted. This process would likely merit a coordinated effort among the applicant group, developers, and the transit operator to ensure that the best possible outcome is achieved.

Value Capture + Other Financing Tools: Transit and Housing The strategies in this section are considered alternative or relatively unconventional with regard to transit or housing funding and finance. In short, while these methods do not have the established history of their aforementioned predecessors, as the Crossboro U will likely require a series of funding sources, each could potentially be a valid option. While some of the following innovations fall into either the transportation or development category, as will be discussed, several could be used for both categories in tandem.

TIFIA Authorized in 1998, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) provides Federal credit assistance by way of direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit to finance transportation infrastructure projects. Put simply, the Federal Government provides three potential types of assistance to implementing agencies that apply: secured, direct loans, loan guarantees, or standby lines of credit. Applying projects should be of regional and national significance, and should be listed on the State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to be eligible.21 The program’s ultimate goal is to leverage Federal funds through the attraction of private and non-Federal investment in critical improvements to America’s surface transportation. Although implementing agencies receiving the loans are expected to repay them, because the Federal Government acts as a guarantor through credit assistance and loan guarantees, TIFIA protects against the uncertainties of potential variable revenue streams, such as those from the farebox or from a TIF district.22

19 “Community Development Block Grant Program.” U.S. HUD. Available http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programs 20 “Program Year 2011 Funds: 2011 CDBG Allocation.” U.S. HUD. Available http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=cdbg_pp_fy2011_ny.pdf. 21 “TIFIA Defined.” Federal Highway Administration. Available http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/defined/index.htm. 22 “Guidance and Applications: TIFIA.” Federal Highway Administration.

The Tappan Zee Bridge obtained the largest TIFIA loan ever awarded.

“Tapan Zee Bridge Rendering,” Journal Star, Feb. 27, 2013. < http://journalstar. com/tappan-zee-bridge-rendering/image_1d137061-dca4-5e7d-8851-f13bbad36ac6.html>.

145

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014 The TIFIA program purports that “each dollar of Federal funds can provide up to $10 in TIFIA credit assistance and support up to $30 in transportation infrastructure investment.” Depending on the size of the project, TIFIA loans are generally in the tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars range. Rather significantly, the program maintains that the amount of credit assistance may not exceed 33 percent of anticipated project costs. Relevant projects include the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Orange Line Extension, which received a direct TIFIA loan of $120 million, and the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project (a light rail project) in Los Angeles, which received a direct TIFIA loan of $160 million.23 Although some TIFIA loans are quite large by absolute value standards, TIFIA cannot fund more than a third of expected project costs. As such, TIFIA could prove to be a worthy funding source for a small or relatively large portion of this project.

Tax Increment Financing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) refers to a value capture strategy employed primarily by local governments. Under a TIF, a certain corridor, area, or entire city is designated as a TIF district.

VALUE PREMIUM FROM TRANSIT + DEVELOPMENT

new transit announced

VALUE CAPTURE TIME

Tax Increment Financing Graph

Within that district, assuming a coordinated development strategy to improve the area is on track, property values are expected to increase over the duration of the TIF district’s existence. During this time, the government assesses property values in the district and captures a portion of the gradual increase in property taxes. Assuming the municipality has issued bonds against the TIF value, this new revenue stream is designated for a specific project, such as a transportation infrastructure investment or the creation of affordable housing. As such, a value capture scheme such as a TIF could work to finance a transit investment, a housing investment, or both. In New York, TIF districts must be authorized by the state before they may be enacted. Among other criteria, TIF’s can be granted based on their capacity to eliminate “blight,” which is largely defined by the municipality itself. Additionally, municipalities can only engage in redevelopment that would be otherwise be reasonably accomplished by the private sector. Interestingly, debt service for TIF-specific bonds does not count against a municipality’s constitutional debt limit. New York State does not impose a size limit on TIF districts. In general, TIFs are implemented for projects on a smaller scale than that of the Crossboro U. While many have been successful across the country, expected and final revenue streams have admittedly not come close to the total cost of this project. Estimated revenues from example projects are in the tens of millions or at most, hundreds of millions of dollars. In Chicago, for instance, a TIF district generated about $50 million per building to finance the construction of two schools in the early 2000s. On the higher end, in 1995, Indianapolis gained $187 million from a TIF to finance the construction of a downtown mall.24 The creation and success of a TIF district for the Crossboro U project would depend on a variety of factors. First, the district would need be designated, a process requiring decisions on the its size. For example, will the TIF cover one station area, multiple station areas, or the entire corridor? Second, the TIF would require state legislative approval. For this to occur, the city would likely need to successfully show that many areas within the district can be defined as blight, and should thus be redeveloped.

146

23 “TIFIA Defined.”; “Project Profiles.” Federal Highway Administration 24 “Learning from Experience: A Primer on Tax Increment Financing.” New York City Independent Budget Office. Sept. 2002.

CHAPTER 8 FINANCING + FUNDING After the TIF’s theoretical creation, the city would need to garner how much revenue it expects to gain as a result of the new district. Finally, even with an approved TIF, the initiative is most certainly a gamble, and depends on value capture based on periodic property assessment. If the areas fail to improve, or improve only marginally, the revenue stream from a TIF could be quite low. Moreover, property tax increases, even if an area is improving, are often understandably unpopular among area residents, business owners, and politicians. For a TIF to come into existence, city officials must effectively sell the initiative to a large constituency. Economists posit that homes located near transit tend to have higher values than those not located near transit for two reasons. First, households that live near transit are “able to spend less on transportation and thus can afford to spend more on housing.”25 Second, households located near transit can save time commuting; the value of that saved time accrues to value of those homes. As Keith Wardrip from the Center for Housing Policy describes in his literature review of research on the effects of new transit infrastructure on home values, there are also additional costs to living near transit. Nevertheless, he concludes from that research that the benefits tend to outweigh these nuisance costs and that “proximity to public transit does lead to higher home values and rents in many cases.”26 The likelihood of a transit project having a positive effect on home values, in part, depends upon area demographics and attitudes towards transit. For example, people who work in congested central business districts are more likely to value transit than those who work in suburban locations. Other examples of individuals who place premiums on transit include the elderly, individuals with disabilities, and low-income households who either cannot drive or cannot afford the costs associated with driving.27 Those who live in urban settings often see the value of transit as a time- and cost-saving tool. Given that the characteristics of those living near the Crossboro U corridor tend to align with those who place a premium on transit, is likely that the new service will, in fact, have a positive effect on surrounding home values. The magnitude of this effect, however, is unclear. The bulk of research on property value changes resulting from new transit infrastructure tends to focus on single-family home values, though some studies have found a slight premium on capitalization rates for multifamily properties.28 One study by Robert Cervero, Professor of City and Regional Planning at UC Berkeley, uncovered an increase in home values of up to 45% resulting from new transit service.29 A relevant case study is the Atlanta Beltline, which converted a freight rail line into light rail and generated a 15 to 30% increase in property values within a quarter-mile of the line.30 Although a comprehensive study of property values has not been conducted for the London Overground, there has been anecdotal evidence of property value increases. According to an article in the London Evening Standard, home values are “soaring” in East London neighborhoods

25 Wardrip, Keith, “Public Transit’s Impact on Housing Costs: A Review of the Literature.” Insights from Housing Policy Research, Center for Housing Policy. August 2011. p. 1. 26 Wardrip, Keith, “Public Transit’s Impact on Housing Costs: A Review of the Literature.” Insights from Housing Policy Research, Center for Housing Policy. August 2011. p. 2. 27 Duncan, Michael, “Comparing Rail Transit Capitalization Benefits for Single-Family and Condominium Units in San Diego, California”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2067, 2008, p. 121. 28 Duncan, Michael, “Comparing Rail Transit Capitalization Benefits for Single-Family and Condominium Units in San Diego, California”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2067, 2008, p. 121. 29 Wardrip, Keith, “Public Transit’s Impact on Housing Costs: A Review of the Literature.” Insights from Housing Policy Research, Center for Housing Policy. August 2011. p. 2. 30 Wardrip, Keith, “Public Transit’s Impact on Housing Costs: A Review of the Literature.” Insights from Housing Policy Research, Center for Housing Policy. August 2011. p. 2.

147

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014 served by the Overground.31 For example, between 2007 and 2012, property transactions near the Haggerston station on the East London Line demonstrated a 34% increase over preOverground values, outpacing the citywide property value increase of 25%.32 Michael Duncan, Professor of City and Regional Planning at Florida State University, in 2008 summarized the many empirical studies on the home value increase due to transit by stating that, “the most that one might safely generalize from the body of literature is that properties near stations sell at small to modest premiums (somewhere between 0% and 10%).”33 Although relevant case studies have found larger home value increases, it is nonetheless difficult to estimate the true value increase the Crossboro U Line could add to real estate. Despite this, we conclude that a value capture method will be important for the implementation of this project as a way to capture growth in the area.

Haggerston Station Overground Sign

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3636/4564656164_464025ba19.jpg

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) A Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a one-time developer fee imposed on all new real estate development projects in order to finance the construction of new community infrastructure. First authorized for use in the United Kingdom in 2008, the tool was designed to provide cities with a predictable revenue stream that can be allocated to projects that address critical needs identified by previous planning efforts. Because each municipality has the latitude to determine how the funds ought to be disbursed, a CIL has the potential to underwrite community facilities that foster sustainable growth patterns and improve quality of life for all residents. In so doing, a CIL can also accrue value to the development projects from which the fee was exacted in the first place.

Logo for London’s Crossrail, the largest infrastructure project currently underway in Europe.

“Elizabeth’ to start Crossrail tunneling in east London,” Just Engineers, Oct. 26, 2012. <http://www.justengineers.net/>.

The Greater London Authority (GLA), which exercises control over the whole of Greater London, implemented a CIL in mid-2012 to provide a new source of funds for Crossrail, the largest infrastructure project currently underway in Europe. The £14 billion ($23.65 billion USD) project will construct a new 73-mile rail line, including 26 miles of new tunnels, to connect Central London with its suburbs and boost the entire system’s capacity by 7%. London’s CIL, which is levied on all new development (except for affordable housing and certain other exempted categories), imposes a fee on a per square meter basis that varies based on the projected value of the completed project. For example, a development projected to fall within the highest of the three “bands” will result in a £50 per square meter (roughly $8 per square foot) exaction; overall, London’s CIL is estimated to add roughly 1% to total development costs for new construction. The GLA hopes to contribute £300 million ($500 million) to Crossrail through its CIL by 2019; in just under two years, it has already raised £45 million. In theory, a CIL provides for the type of strategic public investments that produce real benefits for residents, municipalities, and private developers. Although this type of levy has not been used in the United States, it resembles the impact fees already implemented by municipalities across the country. Impact fees are generally assessed on new developments that necessitate the expansion of public infrastructure (like sewer or utility service) because of the additional demand they impose on the existing network. These fees are widely used by municipalities to promote

148

31 “House prices soar as East London line opens up ‘isolated’ areas of the capital.” London Evening Standard, Aug. 23, 2010. < http://www.standard.co.uk/news/ house-prices-soar-as-east-london-line-opens-up-isolated-areas-of-the-capital-6505837.html> 32 “In the Loop: How One Railway Line Helped to Change the Way Londoners Commute.” The Economist, Oct. 5, 2013. < http://www.economist.com/news/ britain/21587223-how-one-railway-line-helped-change-way-londoners-commute-loop>. 33 Duncan, Michael, “Comparing Rail Transit Capitalization Benefits for Single-Family and Condominium Units in San Diego, California”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2067, 2008, p. 121.

CHAPTER 8 FINANCING + FUNDING smart growth by expanding community facilities in tandem with new development. The challenge presented by such a mechanism is the assessing authority’s legal obligation to surmount the rational nexus test, which requires that impact fees be assessed in proportion to the demand generated by a new development, and that the benefits created by the fees flow back to the entity who paid them in the first place. A CIL has the potential to create a substantial source of funding for the Crossboro project, as well as establish a novel precedent for financing the construction of new mass transportation projects in the United States. In order to be successfully implemented, however, the CIL would have to be carefully structured in order to withstand legal challenges. Perhaps the most important factor for consideration is the geographical extent of the CIL zone. Because the benefits of the investment funded by the CIL must flow back to those who paid the exaction, it would be incumbent on the City of New York to demonstrate that transportation benefits would accrue throughout the zone. For the CIL to reach its full funding potential, it would ideally be exacted on all new development throughout the city. Because the Crossboro will not directly service the most valuable real estate in the city—Manhattan— a direct connection between the new capacity created by the Crossboro

Rendering of Crossrail Station at Canary Wharf.

“Signs of Construction Recovery as Kier Builds Healthy Profits,” Mail Online, Jul. 12, 2010. <www.thisismoney.co.uk>.

and the quality of service system wide must be established for the CIL to play a key role in funding the Crossboro.

Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax The Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax is a payroll tax imposed on certain employers (those employers required to withhold state income tax and with payroll expenses exceeding a specific amount) and some self-employed individuals operating within the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District (MCTD). The MCTD includes the five counties in New York City, as well six counties on Long Island and in the northern suburbs. The tax is primarily intended to provide funding to the MTA. For employers and the selfemployed, the tax rate is 0.34 percent of (respectively) payroll expenses or net earnings.34 35 The dedication of revenue from an increase or surcharge on the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax to a new infrastructure project would be unprecedented, and could be used to finance both a transit and housing investment. Since it is a mobility tax, dedicated revenues could be used to finance an MTA-specific capital project, or perhaps a cityfinanced project. Such a scheme could work in any number of ways, including the following:

1 2

The tax could simply be increased, and much like a TIF district, a portion of the the increased revenue could be dedicated toward the Crossboro U.

A combination of options 1 and 2 could be implemented progressively, meaning that those employers and self-employed in the city center (Manhattan) would pay more of the tax than those in the outer boroughs. As such, those in more wealthy regions of the city would play a larger role in financing the mobility tax dedicated portion of the Crossboro U.

A surcharge could be placed on the tax, and the revenue from the surcharge could be dedicated toward the project.

34 “Guide to the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax.” New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. May 2012. 35 “Employers: Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax.” New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. Available http://www.tax.ny.gov/bus/ mctmt/emp.htm.

149

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014 Of course, raising a tax rate or implementing a tax surcharge is likely to be unpopular among a large portion of employers, and perhaps politically unfavorable. Additionally, as this tax is imposed by the state rather than the city, adjusting its rate or adding a surcharge could prove all the more complex.

Real Estate Transfer Tax While many of the taxes levied on New York City residents are controlled by the state legislature in Albany, City Hall does have the authority to generate additional revenue through certain strategic tax increases. The Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT) in particular has the potential to serve as a funding source for the Crossboro project. At present, the city operates under a two-tiered tax structure for both residential and commercial property transactions. For residential transactions in which the value of the transferred real property is less than $500,000, the City imposes a 1% tax on the selling party; for transactions above $500,000, an additional 0.425% is imposed. For commercial transactions exceeding $500,000—the vast majority of all commercial property—a 1.625% tax flows to the city’s general ledger, while an additional 1% flows directly to the MTA.36 Given the explosion of real estate values in New York City, particularly in Manhattan, it would be appropriate to reconfigure the city tax code in order to increase the burden on sellers of residential property above a certain threshold. Just as the 1% commercial tax flows directly to the MTA, a 1% surcharge on residential transactions exceeding $2.5 million could provide a substantial source of funds to the MTA: based on 2013 data, this structure would generate nearly $80 million in additional tax revenue from transactions in Manhattan alone. Unlike impact fees, new taxes are not subjected to the rational nexus test. Rather, the primary obstacle to tax increases is strictly political, and would not ignite a lengthy legal battle. Because the constituency that would be affected by this tax proposal is relatively small—namely, those who are selling residential units whose value exceeds $2.5 million—the political effects are potentially minimal. In fact, given Mayor de Blasio’s platform of closing the gap between the richest and poorest New Yorkers, a tax proposal of this ilk could even generate political capital for City Hall.

REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX LEVIED ON THE SELLER TRANSACTION CLASS Residential Sales $500,000 or less Residential Sales over $500,000; and Commerical Sales $500,000 or less Commercial sales, more than $500,000 PROPOSED Residential sales execeeding $2.5 million

STATE TAX CITY TAX NYS General NYC General MTA Fund Fund

Combined Tax

0.4%

1.4%

0.4%

1.425%

1.825%

0.4%

1.625%

3.025%

Real Property Transfer Tax and Mortgage Recording Tax Rates, by Type of Property.

“Commercial Property Sales Are a Key to Revenues from Property Transfer Taxes,” New York City Independent Budget Office, January 2012 <http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/rpttjan2012.pdf>.

150

36 “Real Estate Transfer Taxes: New York.” National Conference of State Legislatures. Available http://www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-policy/real-estate-transfertaxes.aspx.

CHAPTER 8 FINANCING + FUNDING

Promise Zones

If selected as a Promise Zone, the federal government partners with the local community and invests in job creation and attempts to leverage private investment, increase economic activity, reform educational institutions, and render neighborhoods safer.

FEDERAL SOURCES FEDERAL SOURCES

DOLLAR VALUE

The Promise Zones program, like Choice Neighborhoods, seeks to address communities where extreme poverty is the norm. Executed by HUD, the program is a relatively recent initiative of the Obama administration and thus does not have much history associated with it. Under the program, communities – including cities, city agencies, and community development organizations – apply to the federal government and must indicate their willingness to revitalize and transform existing neighborhoods.

LIKELIHOOD

While the Promise Zones program is perhaps too new to offer funding estimates in this plan, the city, relevant agencies, or community organizations are encouraged to designate particularly impoverished or suffering areas suitable for this program. Needless to say, selection as a promise zone could promote the creation of revitalized, mixed income neighborhoods along the Crossboro

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS OPPORTUNITY ZONE TIGER

U line.37

STATE + TRANSIT AGENCY SOURCES

CDBG LIHTC/NMTC TIFIA

NEW STARTS

This section has presented a wide variety of funding and financing options available for the Crossboro U. Each of these options has a range of magnitudes in terms of the total dollar value available and the likelihood of securing funding. Figure X compares the relative magnitudes of each of these sources, broken down by the jurisdiction that supplies the financing option. For example, on the Federal level, the TIFIA loan program has the largest amount of financing available, and is easier to obtain than other programs. On the state level, although the MTA Capital Program has historically proven to be a reliable source for large-scale projects, it is less likely that this will be used for the Crossboro due to the MTA’s budget shortfall. On the local level, a general obligation bond issuance could provide a significant amount of financing and would be less difficult for the Crossboro U to obtain.

DOLLAR VALUE

Conclusion

LIKELIHOOD COORDINATED TRANSIT RESILIENCY PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS STATE BONDS ESD GRANTS + TAX INCENTIVES

NYS CAPITAL PROGRAMS MTA CAPITAL PROGRAM

DOLLAR VALUE

LOCAL SOURCES

LIKELIHOOD

37 “Promise Zones.” U.S. HUD. Available http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/economicdevelopment/programs/pz.

NYC REVENUE BONDS PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS INCLUSIONARY ZONING FEE-IN-LIEU

CIL REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX INCREASE NYC GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS

151

NEXT STEPS This plan outlines an ambitious vision for transportation, economic development, housing, sustainability, and resilience in New Yorkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s outer boroughs. However, several actions remain to drive the plan to realization. This section briefly outlines the next steps for the Crossboro U and the entire ORBIT system.

Left Photo: NYC Community Board Meeting at Jackson Heightsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Diversity Plaza.

Source: Is This the First NYC Community Board Meeting Held in a Public Plaza? http://www.streetfilms.org/is-this-the-first-nyc-community-board-meeting-in-a-public-plaza/.

153

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Strengthen the Plan Vision through Community Outreach First, this plan must be revised to include the goals of each of the communities along the Crossboro U line. While the existing plan outlines a detailed vision for this project, it incorporates neither neighborhood concerns nor community goals. Going forward, plan implementers should modify the Crossboro U vision, in particular, the portion addressing station area development, so as to simultaneously satisfy the stated project goals and complete the visions desired by area residents.

Define Project Champion + Leadership Second, as mentioned in the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Project Deliveryâ&#x20AC;? portion of this assessment, the Crossboro will require a champion (or champions) to support the project publicly and ultimately propel it forward. Project champions could come from a variety of sectors, including New York City agencies like the Department of Transportation or the EDC, or from the MTA, a quasi-public entity. Mayor Bill de Blasio could also champion the Crossboro U, as well as the ORBIT system. In addition, area organizations such as the Regional Plan Association and other community leaders could continue to sustain the project, mobilizing support city-wide.

Build Political Consensus Third, project champions and leaders should seek political consensus in order to gain the favor of City councilmembers and the City Planning Commission as a way to move the project forward. Once enough political support is obtained, the project will truly pick up speed.

Solidify Financing + Funding Strategies Fourth, this plan identifies several potential funding and financing strategies through which to pay for the Crossboro project. Once cost estimates are modified, project implementers will need to firmly identify which specific grants and programs can be used to fund various project initiatives. This should be done in a detailed manner that prices each potential contribution and develops contingency plans should funding or financing schemes fall through.

Define Implementing Entity Finally, this plan identifies one potential implementation entity operating as a subsidiary of the MTA that would coordinate station area and transportation initiatives. Once implementation is imminent, this entity should be formalized, either in its current form or using some variation on the structure proposed in this plan.

154

CHAPTER 9 NEXT STEPS

155

APPENDIX

Left Photo: View from Queens. Source: Distribution Center, Queens, NY. http://www.suncappg.com/files/AF5BD7C1-06C2-42AA-8DD7-2C84D530F71E/CBE23F6D-75CA-4E1D-BDF6-20D9E937B4BB.jpg

157

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Methodology for the Estimation of the Commute Area of Crossboro Stations This appendix explains the methodology of the generation of commute areas of the Crossboro stations, which are used for the analysis of station development. All the works in this part is done with ArcGIS 10.1 and its extension Network Analyst. The official tutorial of Network Analyst showed an example of how to make a multimodal network with this toolbox, illustrated with a simplified Paris’ transportation network. The work demonstrated in this appendix is based on the tutorial, but is more complicated and sophisticated in both the comprehensiveness and the accuracy of the data.

Build the Multimodal Network

As the basis of all the following calculation, a network of New York’s transportation system is needed. We built the network dataset that can be used in the Network Analyst based on the existing shapefiles of New York City Subway (Romalewski, 2010) and New York City‘s street network (NYC Planning, 2014), including both the lines representing the alignment of the subway lines and the streets, but also the points representing the subway stations and the road junctions. The road junctions as a single point layer are needed because not all the intersections of street lines on the map are actual road junctions—a lot of the intersections are grade separation.

1. Break the lines into segments by stations and intersections

The polylines of the subway lines and the streets are broken into segments with the ArcGIS tool Split Line At Point in the Data Management Toolbox. This step help and the next step help assign travel times for each segment, so that later when calculating the service area, the calculation can be performed on a time-constrained basis.

2. Assign travel time for each segment

As the lack of accurate of specific schedules and for the simplification of model, we used constant speeds for both subways and walking. We used the total length of Subway Line 1 (about 14 miles), overall running time provided by MTA (2014)1 for Subway Line 1 (58 min) as the average speed of all the subway lines, which is about 14.5 miles per hour, this did not include the stop time at stations. But for only rough estimation of commute areas, this estimation will suffice. Similarly, we used the length of each street segment divided by the average walking speed (3 miles per hour) as an estimate of the travel time for each street segment.

3. Bridge the gap

Because the data of subways and the data of streets are coming from different sources, they could not match up perfectly. The points of subway stations in the subway dataset locate well on the subway lines, but not exactly on the street. So if we need to connect the two networks and build connections between them, we need to bridge the gaps. The approach to accomplish it is to build short “connectors” between each station and the corresponding closest street junction(s). Each station could be linked to several street junctions. These connectors can be regarded as the “entrances” of these subway stations. The tools used for this step are the “Select By Locations” in the “Selection” toolbox to select the road junctions around each station, within a 0.1 mile radius, the “Spatial Join” tool to assign the coordinates of the corresponding station to each road junction selected. And “XY To Line”

158

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/bytes/applbyte.shtml#lion

CHAPTER 10 APPENDIX tool to create the shapefile of the connectors based the coordinates the stations and the street junctions.

4. Build the network dataset

The network dataset is built when all the shapefiles are ready: the polyline shapefiles of the subway lines and the streets, the points that represent the stations, and also the connectors. We built two networks, one with the Crossboro U Line, and the other without it. We used the two networks to compare the accessibility of each station. To build the network, an important detail is about the “Connectivity Group” which defines the possibility of “transfers” among the networks. Each line shapefile is assigned to only one connectivity group, while a point shapefile can be assigned to more than one group. So the traveler in the system can only transfer from one system, e.g. the subway, to another system, e.g. the streets. In our networks, the stations are naturally the transfer points that connect these connectivity groups. The following picture shows the configuration of connectivity group for the network with the Crossboro U Line.

Configuration of Connectivity Groups.

Perform Service Area Calculation

After the network is built, it will be automatically added to the workspace. In the toolbar “Network Analyst”, the network just built will show up. We used the function “Service Area” of the Network Analyst to calculate the commute shed of the study stations. So we imported the shapefile that contains only the six points of the stations as the “facilities” in the Network Analyst Window. And in configuration window of Service Area Property, the “Impedance” is set to be the travel time. We used the break values 30, 45, and 60 to calculate the corresponding commute area from these stations, illustrated below.

Impedance and Break Settings.

159

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014 In the panel Accumulation, the travel time is selected to be accumulated, so the travel time in the two networks will be added to meet the value of the defined breaks. After everything is set, the Network Analyst helped solve the service areas for each station, showing in polygon shapefiles.

Final outputs.

160

CHAPTER 10 APPENDIX

Station Analysis Table Weighted MTA Connection (*3)

Proximity to Subway Connections

Walk Score

Walk Score Normalized

Vacant Land

Commercial Development

Residental Development

Co‐Op City Morris Park Parkchester Hunt's Point Astoria

Bus: Bx28, Bx30, Bx26, Bx29, BxM7 Bus: Bx31, Bx21, BxM10 Bus: Bx22, Bx39,Bx40, Bx42 Subway: 6 Bus: Bx5, Bx6, Bx19 Subway: N,Q Bus: Q69

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 151 3,204,779 84 5,233,305

3 2 2 1 1

1 1 1 2 3

4 12 3 9 3 9 3 9 4 12

3 2 1 0 0

62 83 91 98 94

1 2 2 3 3

3 1 2 2 1

2 2 2 1 2

3 1 2 1 2

1 10 25 1 7 18 1 9 19 2 9 18 1 9 21

Northern Boulevard

Northern Blvd

Bus: Q66, Q18

N/A

1 10 20

Roosevelt Ave

Jackson Heights

Subway: 7,E,F,M,R Bus: Q32, Q33, Q47, Q49, Q53, and Q70

14 16,366,669

Queens Blvd / nr 73 or 74th St.

Queens Blvd

Bus: Q60, Q47

Grand/79th St. Metropolitan Av. Myrtle Av.

Grand Ave Bus: Q58, Q59, Q47 Middle Village‐Metropolitan Ave Subway: M Bus: Q54, Q38, Q67 Myrtle Ave Bus: Q55, B20, B13

N/A

Wilson Av.

Wilson Ave

Bus: B20, B60

Van Sinderen Ave/Atlantic Livonia Ave

East New York Livonia Ave

Subway: A,C,J,Z,L Bus: B12, B20, B25, B83, Q24, Q56 167 2,862,830 Bus: B14 368/398 902860/660013

Rockaway Ave/AveD Ralph Ave/Chase Ct Utica Ave/Farragut Rd

Rockaway Ave‐Avenue D Brooklyn Terminal Market Utica Av‐Farragut Rd

Flatbush /Nostrand

Brooklyn College

Ave H/E16th St Mcdonald Ave New Utercht Ave/62st

Ave H‐E16th St Mcdonald Ave New Utercht Ave‐62 St

4th Ave

Brooklyn Army Terminal

Bus: B60 Bus: B47 Bus: B6, B103, BM2 Subway: 2,5 Bus: Q35, B44, B41, B11, 103, BM2 Subway: Q Bus: BM1, BM3, BM4, B49, B68 Subway: F Bus: B8, B11 Subway: D, N Bus: B9 Subway: R Bus: X17, 27, 28, 37, 38, B9, 64, 70

Ridership at subway

Development (Out of 15)

Subway Connection

Co‐Op City South Eastchester Rd ‐ Morris Park Parkchester Hunts Pt Av/Garrison Above 31st Street

MTA Subway Ranking

Total Score

MTA Connections

Industrial Dev

Crossboro U name

MTA Connections (out of 6)

Exisiting RPA name

Bus Connection

Station Analysis for Crossboro Stations using RPA proposed stations

6 18

7 25

N/A

8 18

N/A

9 20

329 1,189,616 N/A

2 1

4 12 2 6

0 1

72 78

1 2

1 1

5 17 9 16

N/A

8 16

3 1

3 3

6 18 4 12

1 0

83 78

2 2

2 3

2 4

1 4

3 10 29 1 14 26

N/A N/A N/A

2 1 3

1 1 1

3 9 2 6 4 12

2 2 1

85 78 69

2 2 2

2 3 3

2 2 2

2 1 2

3 11 22 4 12 20 3 12 25

153 6,384,496

6 18

377 823,237 391 684,241 241 1,931,306

2 1 1

3 2 3

5 15 3 9 4 12

1 0 0

92 86 86

3 2 2

1 2 2

1 1 3

1 1 4

1 7 23 1 7 16 1 12 24

183 2,522,369

6 18

1 10 28

N/A N/A N/A

N/A

9 28

Stations Eliminated: 8 Ave + 62St Ave H + Albany Ave New Lots 25th Ave and 47th St 25th Ave/47th St 4th Ave

161

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

FRA Track Classification FRA has developed a system of 9 track classes based on quality of tracks, which determines the maximum allowable running speeds for both passenger and freight trains. Class 3 provides the ideal speed conditions for the Crossboro U line, that is, 60 mph for passenger trains and 40 mph for freight trains. Track type

Freight train

Passenger

Excepted

<10 mph (16 km/h)

not allowed

Class 1

10 mph (16 km/h)

15 mph (24 km/h)

Class 2

25 mph (40 km/h)

30 mph (48 km/h)

40 mph (64 km/h)

60 mph (97 km/h)

Class 4

60 mph (97 km/h)

80 mph (129 km/h)

Class 5 [us 3]

80 mph (129 km/h)

90 mph (145 km/h)

Class 6

110 mph (177 km/h)

Class 7 [us 4]

125 mph (201 km/h)

Class 8 [us 5]

160 mph (257 km/h)

Class 9 [us 6]

200 mph (322 km/h)

[us

Class 3 [us 2]

FRA Track Classifications.

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

162

Ridership Forecast Methodology

CHAPTER 10 APPENDIX

Given the scope of the studio, our ridership forecast model builds on several assumptions that enable us to estimate a reasonable range of future ridership numbers without conducting more detailed modeling work.

Data The most readily available travel data for the study area is the 2010 CTPP commuting data for existing work trips. The data contains aggregate commute totals for each unique origin and destination pair by travel modes. These trips represent work trips, generally considered as morning peak hour trips. Origin and destination zones are based on Community Board (CB) districts in New York City. These districts are more crude geographic delineations than the typical Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) used in most professional travel demand models. Although this imposes limitations on the level of detail required for this type of projections, we believe that this is the best available data.

Methodology For the purpose of devising a reasonable range of ridership for the Crossboro line, we built our ridership projection model on several assumptions about the future trip-making patterns resulting from the introduction of the Crossboro line. First, we believe that some of the current trips along our right of way would divert to our line because our line will provide faster, more convenient mode of travel. Second, some of the current trips from CBs along our right of way into major employment centers will most likely utilize the Crossboro line. Currently, these employment centers are served by subway lines but the areas with easy access to these subway stations are limited. By providing connections to the subway stations along the right of way, we believe that the Crossboro line will attract riders commuting into these major employment centers. Third, we need to take into account the projected population growths in the outer boroughs and the subsequent increase in ridership. Lastly, we believe that the proposed new developments along the right of way for residential, retail, office, industrial, and park will generate new trips for all modes including the Crossboro line. The fact that the CTPP commuting data represents morning peak hour trips necessitates converting them into daily ridership. The conversion rate is calculated from the existing ridership information on New York City subway systems. We assumed that work trips generally happen from 7am to 10am and calculated the weighted average of the share of 7am-10am ridership out of total daily ridership for each of the three outer boroughs (33.042%). We applied this rate to convert the peak hour ridership into daily ridership. Data mining for each of these assumptions was carried out using SQL functions in R (sqldf). Automation and flexibility of R and SQL allowed for expedient application of changing assumptions and inputs as the project continued to develop.

163

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Ridership projection summary table.

164

CHAPTER 10 APPENDIX

Inflation (2010‐ 2014 dollars)

Capital Cost Estimate Summary Unit Cost in 2010

Unit

Quant

Cost

ROW Civil/Structural Work Earthwork and Sitework Clearing, Grubbing and Demolition Bridge Rehab Retaining Wall Rehab ROW Fencing

$ 5,000,000.00 LS $ 10,000,000.00 LS [By others as required] [By others as required] $ 37.63 LF

158400

$5,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 $0 $5,960,592

Mainline Trackwork New track Crossover, #20 Turnout, #20

$ 360.35 TF $ 720,811.00 Ea $ 411,893.00 Ea

158400 20 4

$57,079,440 $14,416,220 $1,647,572

Railroad Systems Signaling and Communications ‐ Line Signaling and Communications ‐ Interlocking Overhead Catenary System ‐ Line Overhead Catenary System ‐ Turnout/crossover Electric Traction Substations Control Center

$ 300.00 $ 2,500,000.00 $ 684.00 $ 212,332.00 $ 30,000,000.00 $ 5,000,000.00

TF Ea TF Ea LS Ea

158400 10 158400 24 1 1

$47,520,000 $25,000,000 $108,345,600 $5,095,968 $30,000,000 $5,000,000

Stations Basic Station, Island Platform Basic Station, Side Platform Major Station, Island Platform Major Station, Side Platform

$ 10,000,000.00 $ 15,300,000.00 $ 15,400,000.00 $ 20,000,000.00

Ea Ea Ea Ea

10 0 6 1

$100,000,000 $0 $92,400,000 $20,000,000

Fleet Storage and Maintenance Facilities Storage Yard Maintenance Facility

$ 10,000,000.00 LS $ 25,000,000.00 LS

1 1

$10,000,000 $25,000,000

Rail Freight Facilities Sidings and Industrial Tracks Turnouts, #10 Classification Yard Expansion

$ 360.35 TF $ 150,000.00 Ea $ 20,000,000.00 LS

10000 20 1

$3,603,500 $3,000,000 $20,000,000

Connection to Other Stations Vertical Connection and Pedestrian Bridges

$ 40,000,000.00 LS

$360,000,000

1 1

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

$32,929,341

$115,253,000

$248,694,191.46

$99,477,677

$348,172,000

32 8

$80,000,000 $20,000,000

$212,400,000.00

$84,960,000

$297,360,000

$39,392,808.35

$15,757,123

$55,150,000

$29,942,473.63

$11,976,989

$41,919,000

$144,000,000

$504,000,000

$254,537,663

$1,394,882,000 $418,465,000

30%

$ 2,500,000.00 Unit $ 2,500,000.00 Unit

Total Cost $33,028,000

$82,323,352.01

$636,344,156

Design, Construction Management and Project Administration ‐‐

Rolling Stock Revenue trainsets (8 4‐car trains) Spares (2 4‐car trains)

1.12550881 40% Subtotal Contingency (40%) $23,591,330.96 $9,436,532

$100,000,000

$1,913,347,000

165

5 ‐

MARC COMPREHENSIVE STUDY

166

$0.00

0.0 $0.00

Morning Peak Overlay Daily Units Annual Units Annual Cost

Evening Peak Overlay Daily Units Annual Units Annual Cost

Evening Peak Overlay Weekend Daily Units Conversion to Annual Equivalent Annual Cost

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF

Hiro's Assumption operation hour Number of Cars Headways Peak Headways

$0.00

All-Day Service Daily Units Annual Units Annual Cost

number 21 4 15 10

0.0 $0.00

$0.00

Daily Train Crews

Cost Parameters (1994 $)

2-Person Train Crews $550,244.91

3-Person Train Crews $825,367.36

Operating and Maintenance Cost

Unit hours cars per hour per hour 4am to 1am

cost/passenger cost/vehicle mile

$2.56 $28.89

$7,267,889.56

$0.00

Track Maintenanc Car Maintenance Passenger relatedCintigency $29,376,714.02 $7,267,889.56 $51,765,366.71 $17,648,860.71 24% 6% 43% 15%

$8,660,440.52

Train Crew $15,406,857.43 13%

$0.00

$1,362,729.29

$19,485,991.16

0.0 0.0 $0.00

2,160.0 788,400.0 $1,623,832.60

$1,362,729.29

$4,542,430.97

120

Trains

Daily

Total Daily Trains $37,853.59

$15,406,857.43

0.0 $0.00

2,160.0 788,400.0 $1,623,832.60

7,200.0 2,628,000.0 $5,412,775.32

Daily Vehicle Miles

Car Miles $2.06

0.0 0.0 $0.00

540.0 197,100.0 $3,653,623.34

0.0 $0.00

Daily Train Miles

Non-Electric Train Miles $11.26

0 0.0 $0.00

$2,200,979.63

540.0 197,100.0 $3,653,623.34

1,800.0 657,000.0 $12,178,744.48

40 $11,004,898.16

Daily Train Miles

Electric Train Miles $18.54

Daily Train Crews

1-Person Train Crews $275,122.45

$121,465,688.42

Total Annual O&M Cost

$0.00

$8,841,164.86

$86,134,497.98

$103,816,827.71 $12,458,019.33 $5,190,841.39

$1,230,282.34

15.0

Mainline Track Miles

Total Annual Cost

Annual O&M Cost 12% Overhead 5% Contingency

$1,860,346.00

Stations

Stations $109,432.12

Mainline Track Miles $82,018.82

File: O-M Cost Template (Triboro Lower Case) 5/14/2014 4:37 PM Page 1 of 1

$49,905,020.71

130,000 47,450,000.0 $49,905,020.71

Daily Passenger Boardings

Passenger Boardings $1.05

EVALUATION OF MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

Operating Cost Estimates Table

Lower estimates scenario.

MARC COMPREHENSIVE STUDY

$0.00

0.0 $0.00

Morning Peak Overlay Daily Units Annual Units Annual Cost

Evening Peak Overlay Daily Units Annual Units Annual Cost

Evening Peak Overlay Weekend Daily Units Conversion to Annual Equivalent Annual Cost

PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF

Hiro's Assumption operation hour Number of Cars Headways Peak Headways

$0.00

All-Day Service Daily Units Annual Units Annual Cost

number 21 8 15 10

0.0 $0.00

$0.00

Daily Train Crews

Cost Parameters (1994 $)

2-Person Train Crews $550,244.91

3-Person Train Crews $825,367.36

Operating and Maintenance Cost

5am to 1am

Track Maintenance $38,037,154.53 20%

Train Crew $15,406,857.43 8% Unit hours cars per hour per hour

$19,485,991.16

0.0 0.0 $0.00

540.0 197,100.0 $3,653,623.34

$15,406,857.43

0 0.0 $0.00

$2,200,979.63

540.0 197,100.0 $3,653,623.34

1,800.0 657,000.0 $12,178,744.48

40 $11,004,898.16

Daily Train Miles

Electric Train Miles $18.54

Daily Train Crews

1-Person Train Crews $275,122.45

Car Maintenance $7,267,889.56 4%

$0.00

0.0 $0.00

Daily Train Miles

Non-Electric Train Miles $11.26

$7,267,889.56

$0.00

$1,362,729.29

$4,542,430.97

120

Trains

Daily

Total Daily Trains $37,853.59

cost/passenger cost/vehicle mile

$2.00 $22.59

Station & Passenger Boar Cintigency $101,670,387.41 $27,604,989.12 54% 15%

$17,320,881.03

0.0 0.0 $0.00

4,320.0 1,576,800.0 $3,247,665.19

14,400.0 5,256,000.0 $10,825,550.65

Daily Vehicle Miles

Car Miles $2.06

$189,987,278.05

Total Annual O&M Cost

$0.00

$10,464,997.46

$141,452,294.01

$162,382,288.93 $19,485,874.67 $8,119,114.45

$1,230,282.34

15.0

Mainline Track Miles

Total Annual Cost

Annual O&M Cost 12% Overhead 5% Contingency

$1,860,346.00

Stations

Stations $109,432.12

Mainline Track Miles $82,018.82

File: O-M Cost Template (Triboro Upper Case) 5/14/2014 4:39 PM Page 1 of 1

$99,810,041.41

260,000 94,900,000.0 $99,810,041.41

Daily Passenger Boardings

Passenger Boardings $1.05

EVALUATION OF MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 10 APPENDIX

Higher estimates scenario.

167

SOURCES

169

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT “A Region at Risk.” Regional Plan Association. 1996.

Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley, The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities and Metros are Fixing Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy (Washington: The Brookings Institute, 2013), 56. Department of Transit, Project Profile, 2012. Fitzsimmons and Birch, 2006. Frasinelli, 2013. Joseph and Hebditch, “Going Local,” 9, 10, 13-14, 16. Kerr. “Kean Proposes Transit Plan For Waterfront”, New York Times, 1989. “London Overground Impact Study.” Transport for London. 2 February 2012. p. i-20. London Overground Rail Operations Limited (LOROL), “Company Fact Sheet 2013.” LOROL, accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.lorol.co.uk/pdf/LOROL%20factsheet%202013.pdf. Mallet, Public Transit Program Funding Issues in Surface Transportation Reauthorization. 2007. McDonald, 2011. New York State Department of Transportation, “New York State Rail Plan 2009- Strategies for a New Age”, February 2009. “Program Schedule,” FasTracks Regional Transportation District of Denver (RTD), Denver Colorado, Accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/main_31. Richmond News. “Affordable homes plans approved by Richmond Council”. accessed February 9, 2014. Available http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/richmondnews/10595156.Affordable_homes_plans_approved/?ref=rss. Stephen Joseph and Richard Hebditch, “Going Local: Lessons for rail policy from London Overground and Merseyrail,” Campaign for Better Transport. ASLEF, 3, accessed February 9, 2014. The Economist. “London Overground - In the loop”. The Economist, accessed February 9, 2014, http:// www.economist.com/news/britain/21587223-how-one-railway-line-helped-change-way-londonerscommute-loop. “The Story of the London Overground,” Transport for London, accessed February 9, 2014, http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=mJzHXFsU8UQ&feature=youtu.be Transport for London. Accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/28399.aspx. Transport for London. “London Overground Impact Study .” Transport for London, accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Item08-020212-Board-London-Overground-ImpactStudy.pdf.

SECTION 4: TRANSPORTATION VISION

City of New York. “Vision Zero Action Plan”. 2014 Available http://www.nyc.gov/html/visionzero/pdf/nycvision-zero-action-plan.pdf. “Historical Metropolitan Populations of the United States.” Available http://www.peakbagger.com/pbgeog/histmetropop.aspx. “Plan 2040: Regional Transportation Plan: A Shared Vision for a Sustainable Region.” New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. September 4, 2013. p. 2-21 Shaw, Paul. The (Mostly) True Story of Helvetica and the New York City Subway. 2008, November 18. Available: http://www.aiga.org/the-mostly-true-story-of-helvetica-and-the-new-york-city-subway/. “Transportation.” Chapter 16. CEQR Techincal Manual. Available http://www.nyc.gov/html/oec/downloads/pdf/2012_ceqr_tm/2012_ceqr_tm_ch16_transportation.pdf.

170

CHAPTER 11 SOURCES

SECTION 5: HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT VISION

“200 Apartments, Specialty Grocery Approved Near Union Market.” Available http://dc.urbanturf.com/ articles/blog/new_apartments_specialty_grocery_approved_for_union_market/7822. “2013-14 Fact Book”. Brooklyn College. Available http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/web/abo_ misc/140303_FactBook_Fall_2013.pdf Aaron, Brad. “Streetsblog New York City.” Doctors Relate the Horror of Traffic Violence at Pedestrian Injury Summit. Streetsblog NYC, 13 Dec. 2013. Available http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/12/13/doctorsrelate-the-horror-of-traffic-violence-at-pedestrian-injury-summit. Altamirano, Angy. “Pols Call for Northern Boulevard to Be Included in Mayor’s Vision Zero Initiative.” Queens Courier 6 Feb. 2014. “Arts East New York.” Available http://artseastny.org/?page_id=36. “Brooklyn Army Terminal.” Available http://www.bklynarmyterminal.com/. “Brooklyn Terminal Market: About Us.” Available http://www.brooklynterminalmarketonline.com/default. aspx?pageId=3. Center City District. Office of Communications. New Lighting Makes JFK Underpass Safer, More Attractive. Central Philadelphia Development Corporation, 2 Mar. 2011. Available http://www.centercityphila.org/ pressroom/prelease030211.php. “De Blasio Breaks Ground on Livonia Commons in East New York.” The Epoch Times. 7 April. 2014. Ernst, Kurt. “Audi Launching New ‘Audi City’ Retail Concept In London.” Motor Authority. High Gear Media, 16 July 2012. Available http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1077730_audi-launching-new-audi-cityretail-concept-in-london. Foderaro, Lisa. “To Find Fields to Farm in New York City, Look Up.” The New York Times. 11 July 2012. “Mayor de Blasio Joins Dunn Development, Arts East New York and Partners to Break Ground on Livonia Commons,” April 7, 2014. Available http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/130-14/mayor-deblasio-joins-dunn-development-arts-east-new-york-partners-break-ground-livonia#/0. Mercer, Glenn. Factories Facilities Program - Phase 2. NADA/CADA, 2013. Available http://www.glennmercer.com/NADAFacilitiesProjectPhase2.pdf. Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Available http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_ sub_annual.htm#top. “Neighborhood Tabulation Areas.” Department of City Planning (New York, NY). 2010. Available http:// www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/census2010/t_pl_p1_nta.pdf. New York City Department of City Planning. Transportation Division, Flatbush Avenue Pedestrian Study Final Report, May 2008. New York City Department of City Planning. “Zoning Districts: Manufacturing Districts.” Available http:// www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_m1.shtml. New York City Housing Authority. Available http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/home/home.shtml. “NYC Crime Map.” New York City Government. Avaialable http://maps.nyc.gov/crime/. “NYCHA, HPD Announce Developer for Prospect Plaza.” New York City Government. Available http://www. nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/news/nycha-hpd-announce-developer-for-prospect-plaza.shtml. NYC Planning Commission, Disposition of City Owner Property at 8201 Foster Avenue. July 14, 2010. U.S. Census. 2012 5-year American Community Survey: Selected Characteristics in the United States. U.S. Census. OntheMap Analyses: Inflow-Outflow; All Jobs Data. 2011. Available onthemap.ces.census. gov. U.S. Census. SF1 100% Data. 2010.

171

PennDesign Planning Studio 2014

SECTION 6: SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE VISION

“Adaptation and Mitigation.” Know Climate Change. Available http://know.climateofconcern.org/index. php?option=com_content&task=article&id=143. “After Sandy: Advancing Strategies for Long-Term Resilience and Adaptability.” Urban Land Institute. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 2013. Available http://www.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULIDocuments/AfterSandy.pdf. “First-in-the-World” Project Unveiled.” SEPTA Sustainability. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 06 July 2012. Available http://www.septa.org/sustain/blog/2011/07-06.html. “Food Works A Vision to Improve NYC’s Food System.” The New York City Council. Page 46. “How Low-Carbon Can You Go: The Green Travel Ranking.” Sightline Institute. Sightline Institute, 8 Feb. 2008. Available http://www.sightline.org/research/graphics/climate-co2bymode/. Lamb, Robert. “How a Microgrid Works.” HowStuffWorks. Discovery Communications, 17 Aug. 2009. Available http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/microgrid1.htm. “Leading to a Green Future.” OTIS Gen2. Otis Elevator Company, 2007. NYC Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency. PlaNYC: A Stronger, More Resilient New York. 2013. Available http://www.nyc.gov/html/sirr/html/report/report.shtml. NYMTC Regional Freight Plan Update 2015-2040 Interim Plan Task 2.2.1 Commodity Flow Analysis, 2014. Available http://www.nymtc.org/files/RTP_PLAN_2040_docs/Public%20Review%20Drafts/ Freight%20Modal%20Reports/TM2-2-1_NYMTC_Commodity%20Flow%20Analysis_FINAL.pdf. Pages 2-12; Figures 2.1-2.2. “Otis ReGen Drive.” ReGenDrive. Otis Elevator Company, 2012. “Our Common Future,” Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. March 1987. UN General Assembly. A/42/427. Available http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm. U.S. Census. 2012 5-year American Community Survey: Selected Characteristics in the United States. “What is Resilience?” Center for Resilience. Available http://resilience.osu.edu/CFR-site/concepts.htm. American Community Survey, 2012.

SECTION 7: PROJECT DELIVERY

“About NYCHA.” New York City Housing Authority. Available http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/about/ about.shtml. “Denver Transit Oriented Development Fund.” Urban Land Conservancy. Available http://www.urbanlandc. org/denver-transit-oriented-development-fund/. “Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative: History.”, Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative. Available http:// www.dsni.org/history. “Economic Development Corporation.” Available http://www.nycedc.com/about-nycedc. “Land Bank Guidelines.” State of New York. Available http://www.empire.state.ny.us/CorporateInformation/Data/112111_LandBankGuidelines.pdf. New York City Administrative Code, Title 5, Budget, Capital Projects, § 5–301 Definitions available http://72.0.151.116/nyc/adcode/Title5C3_5-307.asp. “New York Economic Development Corporation Policy Regarding the Acquisition and Disposition of Real Property.” Available http://www.nycedc.com/about-nycedc/financial-public-documents. “Rezoning Will Allow Railyard Project to Advance.” The New York Times. 21 December 2009. “The End of Willets Point” Nov. 22, 2013. Available http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/nyregion/theend-of-willets-point.html?_r=1&gwh=4A1310DE41B2584ECA4F38B07148FB03&gwt=regi&.

172

CHAPTER 11 SOURCES

SECTION 8: FINANCING AND FUNDING

“Choice Neighborhoods.” U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Available http://portal.hud.gov/ hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/cn. “Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grants.” HUD. Available http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/ huddoc?id=implementgrantlist.pdf. “Community Development Block Grant Program.” U.S. HUD. Available http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/ program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programs “Denver Southeast Extension Profile.” Federal Transit Administration. Available www.fta.dot.gov. Duncan, Michael, “Comparing Rail Transit Capitalization Benefits for Single-Family and Condominium Units in San Diego, California”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2067, 2008. “Employers: Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax.” New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. Available http://www.tax.ny.gov/bus/mctmt/emp.htm. “Fact Sheet: Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants.” Federal Transit Administration. Available www.fta.dot.gov. “FY13 Planning Grant Award Information: Choice Neighborhoods.” HUD. Available http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/ documents/huddoc?id=fy13plangrantprojsum.pdf. “Guide to the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Mobility Tax.” New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. May 2012. “House prices soar as East London line opens up ‘isolated’ areas of the capital.” London Evening Standard, Aug. 23, 2010. Available http://www.standard.co.uk/news/house-prices-soar-as-east-london-line-opens-up-isolatedareas-of-the-capital-6505837.html. “In the Loop: How One Railway Line Helped to Change the Way Londoners Commute.” The Economist, Oct. 5, 2013. Available http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21587223-how-one-railway-line-helped-change-waylondoners-commute-loop. “Learning from Experience: A Primer on Tax Increment Financing.” New York City Independent Budget Office. Sept. 2002. “Maryland Purple Line Profile.” Federal Transit Administration. Available www.fta.dot.gov. “Mayor Bloomberg Gets Ride on No. 7 Subway Extension He Championed.” NY Daily News. 20 Dec. 2013. “MTA Capital Program: 2010-2014.” MTA. Pgs. 5-8. “Program Year 2011 Funds: 2011 CDBG Allocation.” U.S. HUD. Available http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=cdbg_pp_fy2011_ny.pdf. “Promise Zones.” U.S. HUD. Available http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/economicdevelopment/programs/pz. “Real Estate Transfer Taxes: New York.” National Conference of State Legislatures. Available http://www.ncsl.org/ research/fiscal-policy/real-estate-transfer-taxes.aspx. “Regional Councils.” The New NY Works Task Force. Available http://regionalcouncils.ny.gov/content/new-york-city. “Statewide Capital Plan.” The New NY Works Task Force (State of New York). Pgs. 15-20. “Understanding New York City’s Budget: A Guide to the Capital Budget.” NYC Independent Budget Office. Pgs. 1-16. “The Road Back: A Historic Review of the MTA Capital Program.” Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA. “TIFIA Defined.” Federal Highway Administration. Available http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia/defined/index.htm. “TIGER Program.” U.S. DOT. Available http://www.dot.gov/tiger. “TIGER Discretionary Grants.” Federal Highway Administration. Available http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Freight/ infrastructure/tiger/index.htm. “Transportation 101: What’s Up with the MTA?” Tri State Transportation Campaign. Available http://www.tstc. org/101/mta.php. Wardrip, Keith, “Public Transit’s Impact on Housing Costs: A Review of the Literature.” Insights from Housing Policy Research, Center for Housing Policy. August 2011.

173

CROSSBORO Expanding Opportunity in the Outer Boroughs of New York City

Access this full report online at: www.design.upenn.edu/city-regional-planning/graduate/work/cross-rail-report