Updated Route Map
(opens as 850kb PDF)

• New Streetcar Possibilities for Brooklyn – 2013 Presentation (3.3mb PDF)
  

• STREETCAR BASICS – a brief overview of the benefits of a streetcar system
  

• Pre-Existing Governmental Approval Documents for the BHRA Streetcar Project.

• Other Materials from Prior Plans / Studies for Brooklyn Streetcar Lines
  

• NEIGHBORHOOD BENEFITS OF A STREETCAR LINE: (excerpts from the book: Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities Design Strategies for the Post- Carbon World (2010)
  

• The Basic Principals of Transit Oriented Development
  

• Charts & Data on Environmental and Economic Advantages of a Streetcar line (vs. other transit modes)

• Streetcar Vs. City Bus Cost Comparison (Includes Official FTA 2007 Operating Ratios spreadsheet) (PDF)

• Streetcar Vs.  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – results of an award winning DC streetcar study
  
• A 2011 NYC DOT Streetcar Study
  

Vintage and Modern Streetcars Sharing Track in Portland, Or

Again, as per the Portland, Or. model, construction cost is $12
million/mile. Our own “Brooklyn method” of track construction is of
exceptional build and design; while actually being less expensive to
build and maintain.

Economic Revitalization:

Again, our economic model is Portland, Or. Their 4 mile streetcar
line, built in a place similar to Red Hook, spurred $3.5 BILLION in
private revitalization investment, through a six block wide corridor,
centered along the streetcar route.  Portland has become a model
“affordable,” modern and efficient
streetcar system, they are currently expanding their system and other
American cities (such as Tucson, Az) have modeled their new urban rail
transit system after Portland’s streetcar system.

Environmental Benefits:

As previously stated, anything that runs on rails, only requires 5% the
energy of anything that runs on rubber tires. Specifically, to move a 1
Ton load of passengers on a bus, requires 30 f.lbs of force. To move
the same 1 Ton weight of passengers on a streetcar, only requires 1-1/4
(1.25) f lbs of force. Click here for more detailed efficiency calculations

Furthermore, non-polluting electric streetcars have numerous other environmental benefits over other forms of transit.  See this page for details.

Vintage PCC Streetcar
(still used for transit service in San Francisco, CA and Philadelphia, PA)

The Portland Streetcar has proven so popular that they have ordered additional streetcars and are currently constructing an
extension to the Streetcar route.

Above 3 pictures taken by Brian Kassel on a recent trip to Portland, OR

• The Streetcar can operate in mixed traffic with othervehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. The Streetcar does not require

  dedicated traffic lanes, and can easily keep up with

  traffic. The use of

   

  Passenger Boarding Islands eliminates traffic delays due

  to alighting passenger.

• Due to its light weight, the Streetcar uses a simplified formof track construction, which costs only a fraction of

  conventional light rail track

• Streetcars
  uses a simplified form of overhead wire construction, the cost of which
  is only a fraction of conventional light rail catenary wires. Since
  Streetcar wires are simplified, the visual impacts of the wires are
  greatly mitigated over conventional light rail wires.

• Because Streetcars uses a simplified form of trackconstruction not requiring deep excavations, the need for

  utility relocation is negligible.

• Because Streetcars can operate in existing city streets,its rails are flush with the roadway and its turning radii

  fits into existing street geometries, Streetcars will not

  divide neighborhoods by presenting physical or psychological

  barriers, as do both conventional light rail and divided

  highways.

•  Because of Streetcars low weight and unique electrical

  propulsion package, the Streetcar uses only uses a fraction of the

  electrical power requirement of a conventional light rail

  vehicle. In fact, the Streetcar spends most of its time coasting

  and applying brakes. Streetcars do not require the same large

  scale and costly power substations as do conventional light

  rail vehicles.

Attached as JPG files, are “example templates”- two pre- engineering drawings  I scanned from the circa 1985 Brooklyn streetcar study by Urbitran, and STV. The first drawing, gives the diagrammatic plan for a new streetcar terminus at Atlantic Terminal, with provisions for an extension to Grand Army Plaza, via Vanderbilt Ave.

The second drawing, shows the diagrammatic plan for the streetcar turn from Ft. Green Pl. to Fulton Street. Note this drawing shows in detail, the proper use of a “passenger boarding island” which they refer to as “Platforms”.

Also attached as a PDF file, is the Cover from a Brooklyn Streetcar planning document (PDF),
which I compiled and expanded upon back in 1989. If you can find a copy of it, this document contains, among many other things, street by street pre- engineering plans for all of the proposed Brooklyn streetcar routes. Let me know if you cant find it. The numbers on the Cover, reference ULURP and CEQR applications.

I’m hoping that URS will provide a similar set of drawings as part of their feasibility study.

The following are selections from the book: Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities Design Strategies for the Post- Carbon World, by Patrick M. Condon, 2010:

SEVEN RULES FOR SUSTAINABLE, LOW-CARBON COMMUNITIES – Rule # 1: RESTORE THE STREETCAR CITY

The North American city was and is a streetcar city. Streetcar cities are characterized by easy access to transit, a wide variety of house types, and services and job sites very close at hand—the exact elements
of a sustainable city. We have largely ignored this fact. It needs rediscovering. (pg 14)

THE STREETCAR CITY AS A UNIFYING PRINCIPLE

The streetcar city principle is not about the streetcar itself, it is
about the system of which that the streetcar is a part. It is about the
sustainable relationship between land use, walking, and transportation
that streetcar cities embody. The streetcar city principle combines at
least four of the design rules discussed in the following chapters: (1)
an interconnected street system, (2) a diversity of housing types, (3)
a five-minute walking distance to commercial services and transit, and
(4) good jobs close to af­fordable homes. For this reason, it is
offered as the first of the rules and as a “meta rule” for sustainable,
low-carbon commu­nity development.  (pg 20)

CONTINUOUS LINEAR CORRIDORS, NOT STAND-ALONE NODES

Linear public space is the defining social and spatial characteris­tic
of the streetcar city This obvious fact has been ignored at best and
derided at worst. Most planning, urban design, and economic development
experts favor strategies that ignore cor­ridors in favor of discrete
and identifiable places, key urban “nodes” in planning terms. Their
plans focus most often on an identified “downtown” or a key
transportation locus, while the thousands of miles of
early-twentieth-century streetcar arterials are either allowed to
languish or blithely sacrificed for parking lots. Yet, very few of us
live within walking distance of a “node,” whereas most of us live
within a reasonable walk of a corridor, however gruesome it may now be.
(pg 25)

Getting people onto transit will not help defeat global warming unless we can find a way to

radically decrease the average daily demand for motorized travel of any
kind and the per-mile GHG consequences of each trip. Community
dis­tricts that are complete and that favor short trips over long ones
seem an obvious part of the solution. Inexpensive short-haul zero
carbon transit vehicles, such as trolley buses and especially
streetcars, are a likely feature of a low-energy, low-travel­ demand
solution. (pg 30)

Precious few cities seem to “get it” in this respect. Port­land, again,
is the exception. Portland is the only U.S city to have made a serious
effort to restore its streetcar system. The re­sults could not be more
promising. Jobs, housing, and new com­mercial services are flocking to
the line, making the community that much more complete and thus
incrementally reducing ag­gregate per capita trip demand. In Portland,
jobs, housing, clubs, and commercial services are coming closer
together A ten-minute ride on the Portland streetcar gets you where you
want to go. Its speed between these points is irrelevant.

STREETCAR AS AN URBAN INVESTMENT

Most discussions of streetcar focus solely on transit issues, but the
implications are much wider. Streetcars stimulate invest­ment and buses
don’t. This has been powerfully demonstrated in Portland, where the
introduction of a modern streetcar line spurred the high-density
development that helped the City of Portland  recoup construction
costs through significantly in­creased tax revenues. Between 1997 and
2005, the density of development immediately adjacent to the new
streetcar line in­creased dramatically. Within two blocks of the
streetcar line, $2.28 billion was invested [Editor’s Note: a total of
$3.5 billion through a six block wide corridor centered along the
streetcar tracks], representing over 7,200 [ibid 10,212] new
residen­tial units and 4.6 million [ibid 5.5 million] square feet of
additional commercial [office, institutional, retail, hotel] space;
even more impressive, new development within only one block of the
streetcar line accounted for 55 percent of all new development within
the city’s core. To put this in perspective, prior to construction of
the new streetcar line, land located within one block of the proposed
route captured only 19 per­cent of all development.  (Pg 33)

Most attribute this impressive increase in investment to the presence
of the streetcar line. Developers for the new South Wa­terfront
development at the other end of the downtown from the Pearl District
would not proceed before the city guaranteed to extend the streetcar
line to the site. These developers, the same ones who had created the
highly successful streetcar serv­ing Pearl District, knew from
experience how important the streetcar is to success. If the free
market tells us anything at all in this case, it is that the economics
of the streetcar, when the value of new investment is included, is much
more cost effective than an investment in rubber-wheeled diesel buses
or heavy transit.  (Pg 34)

Next, lets address an obvious question: Why Build A Streetcar line rather than a simple bus?

Many decision makers fall into the trap of thinking of a streetcar line
in terms of  “existing ridership justification”, and thereby not
understanding the basic underlying concept of what any railway does- A
properly placed and well designed streetcar line creates its own demand !!

As the General Manager of the San Francisco transit authority “MUNI”
said it back in 2001, “People Who Wouldn’t Ride A Bus Will Ride A
Streetcar”- (Michael T. Burns, quoted in Railway Age, May, 2001, pg 45). This comment was made regarding a San Francisco electric bus line that was converted to the Embarcadero Streetcar (F Line) circa 1995- the ridership instantly DOUBLED!  (and ridership has kept increasing to the present !)

As for Capital Costs, according to the graph  “Total Capital Cost Per Passenger Mile” (pg 37), the streetcar comes in at a mere 71 cents ($0.71) per Passenger Mile. Note that “Bus Rapid Transit” (BRT) comes in at a hefty $1.12, fully 1.6 times greater than streetcar!