Making Tracks Through Cyberspace
Village Crosstown Trolley Coalition
Making Tracks through the Village.Greenwich Village, New York City
Become a Member
Contact VCTC
The 8th St. Corridor
GV Transit
Newsletter
Questionnaire
Board of Directors
Volunteers Wanted
Calendar of Events
Transit Links
MAKING TRACKS - Vol. 3, No. 3 - Summer 1997
Entire contents of MAKING TRACKS is copyright © 1997 by Village Crosstown Trolley Coalition,
but may be reproduced either in whole or in part with a clear acknowledgment of the source.
Please report any errors to us at VCTC. Thanks.
Inside this Issue
Village Corridor: A Modern Path Between the Rivers
Keeping the 'Park' in Hudson River Park
Trolley Topics
Letter from the Editor
By William K. Guild
The Village Crosstown route has been proposed by VCTC for reconversion to light rail transit, primarily because modern LRT would radically improve access and mobility, both for those who live at the extremities of the corridor and for those who work, shop, study and relax in its commercial and cultural core. With ferries and other passenger vessels staging a comeback in New York waters, VCTC also sees an opportunity to recover, in modern form, two proven and complimentary transit modes which were abandoned decades ago in favor of the automobile.
When the original 8th St. crosstown streetcar line began operations in 1873, it ran from the Hoboken Ferry, on the Hudson River at Christopher Street, to the Greenpoint Ferry, on the East River at East 10th St. As yet there were no rail or road crossings of either river. In addition to reaching destinations along the route, commuters and other travelers from New Jersey and Long Island could transfer easily to the 9th Ave. El at Greenwich St. or to one of the many north-south streetcar lines serving other parts of the city. By 1880 three more elevated lines had opened, with stations along the crosstown route at 1st, 3rd and 6th Aves. And before streetcars were "modernized" into oblivion in 1936, all of the subway stations now clustered near the center of the corridor--Astor Place (IRT), 8th St. (BMT), West 4th St. (IND) and Christopher St. (IRT)--were in operation.
The Greenpoint Ferry closed in 1914, overwhelmed by competition from the new East River bridges and subway tunnels. The 8th St. line continued to serve riders from Brooklyn as well as New Jersey, however, providing direct service across the Williamsburg Bridge for several years and, later, to the Manhattan end of the bridge, at Delancey St. The Hoboken Ferry outlasted the streetcar, but by 1967 all cross-river ferry service was terminated, apparently forever.
For nearly two decades the city-owned Staten Island Ferry remained the only water-borne transit operating in the harbor, even though it was--and is--the most heavily-used ferry in North America. By 1986, however, conditions in the trans-Hudson vehicular crossings had become so appalling that privately-operated passenger ferries were able to make a come-back and even turn a profit.
In just over ten years, private-sector ferry services have developed commuter routes criss-crossing both the Hudson and East Rivers and, by high-speed catamaran, serving distant points in Monmouth County, NJ. New routes serving suburbs along the Hudson and on Long Island Sound are being planned. More than 25,000 daily riders currently use the private commuter ferries operating to Manhattan landings at West 38th St. and Battery Park City on the Hudson, Wall St. (Pier 11) and 34th St. on the East River, and the Whitehall terminal at South Ferry. Even the Staten Island Ferry now has a high-speed competitor running directly to East 34th St.
Delta Airlines' "Water Shuttle" will also have major competition starting next year, the LaGuardia Express Ferry from Wall St., East 34th St. and East 62nd St. to a new Port Authority terminal in Flushing Bay. By 1999 stops will be added at East 74th St. and East 90th St. as well as Battery Park City. "Yankee Clipper" service now offers fans round trip service to the Stadium from South St. Seaport, East 34th St., East 90th St. and, weekends, Weehawken, NJ. And since May 1997, New York Water Taxi has linked a number of Hudson River piers from midtown to Battery Park City with the South Street Seaport and Brooklyn. Intended primarily for tourists, this new service also offers commuter fares for rush hour travelers.
Thus, in addition to cross-river (and cross-harbor) ferries, a market is emerging for water-borne commuter service along New York's waterways. While the transit-starved Upper East Side may be the most obvious candidate for such service, much of the West Side has also been isolated since the demise of the 9th Ave. el in 1940. Such operations have long provided an attractive alternative to buses and other over-crowded land-based transit in waterfront cities around the world.
Unlike Venice, where vaporetti provide regularly-scheduled public transit through the canals and between the islands of a truly auto-free city, New York business destinations often are some distance from the waterfront. Thus ferry services here must be supplemented by ground transit. In the earlier ferry age this role was filled by the world's greatest network of streetcar lines, which converged at the dozens of ferry landings surrounding Manhattan. Sadly, these streetcar lines have long since vanished, like the boats they met, and the former landing sites have been cut off by marginal highways designed to speed the commutes of motorists.
The modern ferry operators have been left to create their own system of land access in the midtown and downtown business districts. The largest carrier, NY Waterway, provides free shuttle buses for ferry riders across several midtown streets, linking the East 34th St. and West 38th St landings. Downtown, a "jitney" loop links the Battery Park City landing with office buildings and hotels in the Financial District. There are also connecting bus routes on West St. and, during rush hours, along Broadway, 6th Ave., 23rd St. and Houston St. as well. Of course, the planned 42nd St. light rail line will sharply reduce the need for shuttle buses, and other motor vehicles as well, in the midtown area, while the "Liberty Loop" (New York Streetcar News, Jul/Aug 1995) would completely replace the "jitney" with a light rail line, vastly improving mobility--and the value of commercial and residential space--throughout the downtown area.
Not surprisingly, the burgeoning new ferry services have concentrated their Manhattan operations in the midtown and downtown areas, the first and third largest Central Business Districts (CBDs) in the country. With new business and commercial tenants rapidly filling the "valley" between these districts, it is time to consider additional docking sites which can be linked to landside transit in this area. The 8th St. corridor, midway between the CBDs and with ready-made access to existing transit infrastructure, is the ideal location for such facilities.
For the time being the new Water Taxi, while making other stops every half mile or so along the Hudson River waterfront, is bypassing the Village completely. With the old Hoboken Ferry piers at the foot of Christopher St. gone and the adjacent Pier 45, long a recreational favorite of West Villagers, in need of "stabilization," the closest landings will be at the Chelsea Piers and at North Moore St., in Tribeca. More serious than the present condition of the piers, however, is the debate over whether and how the Village waterfront is to be developed (see article below, Keeping the 'Park' in Hudson River Park).
Concerns that a ferry landing will increase pressure for commercial development at the water's edge are valid. Both ferry landings, at the Hudson River and the East River, would be in parks. The landings themselves should be simple structures emphasizing efficient transfer between the ferry boats and the crosstown trolley, a tourist attraction in its own right as well as the best way to reach 8th St. and St. Marks Place. Christopher St. is the natural site for a ferry landing and modern "intermodal" transfer point between water and land transit in the West Village area.
The eastern terminus of the Village Crosstown corridor would be an ideal site for a restored East River ferry landing, especially with a modern intermodal transfer available. Currently there is no passenger landing facility between South St. Seaport and 34th St., a stretch in which rapid transit stations are located unusually far from the waterfront. In addition to service along the river, a return of direct ferry service between the Village and the rapidly-changing neighborhoods of Greenpoint and Williamsburg would be a welcome development on both sides of the river.
Ferries and streetcars, both products of 19th Century technology, were unwisely and prematurely written off in favor of automobiles, but both can play vital roles in the 21st Century. It is increasingly apparent that the automobile cannot be the sole or even the primary mode of urban transportation. Modern streetcars--light rail vehicles--are making a comeback from California to New Jersey, even as ferries stage a comeback in our own harbor. These complimentary transit modes have worked superbly together in the past and can do so again, helping to solve New York's congestion, pollution and mobility dilemma. The Village Crosstown Corridor would be a good place to start.
By George Haikalis
Plans for constructing a new Hudson River Park, at the western terminus of VCTC's Village Crosstown Trolley line, are beginning to take shape. Eagerly awaiting completion of the park are Village residents who must rely on the perennially overcrowded Washington Square Park as their only available public open space. VCTC's proposed crosstown trolley would provide a convenient way for central and east village residents to reach the park. West Village residents would find the pedestrianized Christopher St., an integral part of the trolley project, a pleasant path to walk to the park.
Traditionally, urban parks and trolleys enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship. Trolley operators found that parks were attractive generators of off-peak riders (and fares). And parks needed trolleys to bring users from distant points, since other modes were not available. Streetcar technology fitted well into park design, and took little space compared to parking and roadways now required for auto access. Even the space between the trolley rails could be used for planting grass. And getting to the park by trolley became part of the recreational experience as trolley operators discovered the popularity of open air trolley cars for summertime use.
Over a century ago many American cities created the great urban parks that provided much needed "breathing room" for the nation's densely populated industrial cities. But these parks were also important to the financial well-being of these cities. Property values of adjacent land soared as the amenity of parks and open space were appreciated. The public funds spent creating these parks were quickly recouped from the greatly increased real estate taxes that resulted. No park was more successful in this regard than New York City's Central Park.
This concept seems to be missed by the public agencies planning the much needed Hudson River Park. Instead of considering the park an enormous opportunity to create public open space and boost the livability of crowded upland areas in the Tribeca, Village, Chelsea and Clinton neighborhoods of Manhattan and thus increasing tax revenues to the city, the park authorities see the derelict strip of city and state-owned waterfront property as their own self-contained (though publicly-subsidized) real estate venture.
No where is this misguided policy likely to cause more permanent damage than in the West Village with the reuse of Pier 40, only a short walk from our proposed Christopher St. trolley terminus. New York City completely rebuilt the pier in the 1960s in a last ditch effort to save the fast disappearing ocean liner trade. Several piers were consolidated and a large "footprint" of decking, supported by piles, was constructed to facilitate truck access to the liners. The City built a two story concrete "headhouse" along the entire periphery of Pier 40. This effort failed when the last liners departed over 20 years ago, leaving the pier "temporarily" used for parking, with capacity for 2,000 cars.
Many park advocates would like to demolish the headhouse, transforming the entire pier surface into a traditional urban park with open space, grass, trees and outdoor recreation. The Empire State Development Corporation's Hudson River Park "Conservancy", designated by the Mayor and the Governor as the park's developer, would like to reuse the structure as a revenue-producing commercial building, saving 600 parking spaces for drive-in customers. They argue that this "cash cow" is needed to help pay for the rest of the park. With $200 million in public funds already ear-marked for the park many Villagers question the need to sacrifice the largest, and most modern pier, for commercial development.
This debate continues the acrimonious 26 year struggle for Manhattan's West Side waterfront. In 1971 City and State officials advanced a plan to construct a waterfront highway--the infamous Westway--in a land fill along the Hudson. The plan would have placed the highway under an 82 acre park, but most of the landfill would have been used for new development. Deception was the hallmark of Westway's planning process nurturing the great mistrust of public agencies that exists to this day. When time ran out for the project in 1985 state officials were caught without a contingency plan. Instead, the debate has raged on, as various Task Forces and Panels have prepared a series of plans. Thanks to public pressure, each plan has called for less development and more park.
The city has yet to frame the issue in a straight-forward way--would it be better off with a waterfront that is mostly park or mostly development? In narrow financial terms, this means: would tax revenues grow faster with an amenity, or with (subsidized, as it turns out) development? While our hunch is that parks would win, particularly in the case of Pier 40, we would welcome an honest, even-handed appraisal of these options. Don't count on this coming from a Development Authority that continues the time-honored tradition of governmental deception on the West Side waterfront--calling itself a Park Conservancy.
In response to a question at the June 23, 1997 Auto-Free New York meeting guest speaker Peter Cafiero explained why MTA is advancing a new light rail line on the "Lower", but not the "Upper", East Side. Residents along the MTA's proposed Avenue D and East Broadway line have a long walk to existing subways, or even to the long discussed Second Avenue subway, even if it were built anytime soon, which seems unlikely. Upper East Side residents favor early construction of at least a short segment of the 2nd Avenue subway north from 63rd St. toward 125th St. The MTA's proposed LRT line would cross VCTC's crosstown trolley at Avenue D and East 10th St. For info on the MTA plan call Adrienne Taub at 718-694-5164.
A team of industry experts, with recent experience in the design and construction of light rail systems in Sydney (Australia) and St. Louis, as well as the Hudson-Bergen project now being built in New Jersey, has been called in to examine key issues delaying the 42nd Street trolley. Following a city DOT report which put a high price tag on utility relocation, one City Hall insider said, "there are still subsurface engineering considerations and construction issues which need to be addressed." Reportedly, City Hall remains very interested in alternative forms of transportation, including light rail. The new industry team, noting similarities between 42nd Street and other modern LRT projects, expects to have answers to these questions by Fall.
Letter From the Editor
Dear Reader,
This issue of MAKING TRACKS has a nautical theme. One of our cover stories discusses the "intermodal" transfer--trolley to ferry--which existed in the Village for many decades and how the ferry services are making a comeback in the 1990's. The other cover story talks about a very current issue--the proposed Hudson River Park and why it should be more "park" and less development. Send us your thoughts by e-mail or using our web site. We'd love to hear from you!
Michael Goodman, Editor
NY Today
TimeOut New York
CitySearch New York
