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. 4, No. 3 - Summer 1998
Entire contents of MAKING TRACKS is copyright © 1998 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
LRT for the Village: Why Overhead Wires?
City's Traffic Study: 8th St. Sidewalk Widening a Winner
Pedestrian and Vehicle Counts on 8th St.
Market Study Supports Sidewalk Widening
Letter from the Editor
By William K. Guild
Light rail transit (LRT) generally refers to a system of modern electric traction vehicles receiving power from overhead wires and operating along fixed trackways, in both city streets and off-street or "private" rights-of-way. This versatility is often cited as one of the chief advantages of light rail. Yet a precise definition of LRT is elusive because major light rail systems have incorporated significant exceptions to each of the features mentioned, including how they are powered. A few systems, planned or in operation, employ alternative power sources. "Diesel light rail", developed in Europe, has been selected for a new system being built in southern New Jersey. Vintage streetcars in Galveston, TX and Denver, Co use diesel-powered rail cars operating on street railway trackage. Also, the storage battery, never quite perfected for electric traction, has never quite disappeared, either.
The transit line proposed by VCTC for the 8th St. corridor would operate exclusively in local streets using standard LRT technology, with the latest low-floor vehicles for fast and convenient passenger boarding--powered by overhead wire. Yet some have asked why we must have overhead wire, especially in Manhattan where this nearly universal power supply system has never been used, even in the heyday of electric trolleys. This is a valid question that should be addressed. We intend to do so here and in the next issue of MAKING TRACKS.
The street railway industry began in New York in 1832 with horsecars operating on a regular schedule along the Bowery and Fourth Avenue. Despite obvious sanitation problems and other limitations, such vehicles operated here for 85 years, with the last horsecars removed from Bleecker St. in 1917. Efforts to develop a cleaner, more efficient substitute led to the next major innovation, the cable car, in the early 1870s. Developed in San Francisco, where they are still in use on the steep slopes of Nob and Russian Hills, cable cars soon spread to 27 North American cities, with extensive routes in Chicago and New York. Cars were moved at speeds of 6 to 8 miles per hour by means of a "grip" extending through a slot between the running rails to engage a continuous cable, carried by a system of wheels and pulleys through a massive vault beneath the tracks. The growth of cable car lines, with their underground vaults, was especially important to New York.
Except in a few cities where steep hills were a factor, the reign of the cable car was relatively brief. In 1888 an electric streetcar line, powered by overhead wire, was installed successfully by Frank J. Sprague in Richmond, Virginia. By the turn of the century this type of electric trolley dominated urban transit in nearly every city and town, including the formerly independent city of Brooklyn and the other "outer boroughs" incorporated into Greater New York in 1898. In the entire United States, only Manhattan and downtown Washington, D.C. held out against the overhead wire.
With the city's extraordinary density, overhead wires--telephone, telegraph, electric utilities--had become a hazard as well as an eyesore during the latter part of the 19th Century and the infamous Blizzard of 1888 did nothing to improve their image. An ordinance forbidding any further use of live overhead wires in Manhattan meant that another transmission system must be found if electric traction was to be introduced here. The Metropolitan Traction Co. responded by studying and adapting an underground conduit system developed in Budapest and its first electric streetcar began operation on the new Lenox Avenue line in 1896.
On the surface, the conduit system adopted in New York closely resembled the slotted cable car tracks still used in San Francisco--indeed, the Lenox Ave. contract made provision for conversion to cable operation if the electric conduit did not meet expectations. The massive underground structure, previously described in MAKING TRACKS, Fall 1997, was also quite similar to a cable car vault, but contained a double contact rail rather than moving cable, with the streetcar drawing electric power by means of a "plow" extending through the central slot to contact the rail. This system proved so efficient that all of the city's cable operations were quickly converted for electric operation and electric conduit replaced horses on most of Manhattan's other streetcar lines, including the 8th Street crosstown.
For technical as well as esthetic reasons, electric conduit operation was--and is--superior to overhead trolley wires in virtually every aspect except cost. This is a huge exception, however, since the excavation needed for the structure housing the conduit means a per mile cost at least five times that of conventional trolley tracks with overhead wire. Conversion of the 8th St. line for conduit operation at the turn of the century cost ten times as much as the original horsecar line 30 years earlier! With the multiplication and complexity of underground utilities in Manhattan, the cost of new conduit lines today would almost certainly be prohibitive. It is a shame that New York's traffic planners were permitted to rip up and destroy most of the conduit which criss-crossed Manhattan at the height of the streetcar age, obliterating this invaluable and irreplaceable civic asset.
Because of the high capital cost of electric conduit operation, battery-operated streetcars replaced horsecars on some routes. Between 1912 and 1916 more than 100 low floor storage battery cars were placed in service by New York Railways, operator of the Green Lines. Other battery cars continued to serve, on the Lower East Side and elsewhere, until 1932, when buses finally replaced them. While proposals for battery operation predated the first successful electric traction, this power source was never really satisfactory for heavily traveled lines. For much the same reasons that electric automobiles have yet to achieve wide acceptance, modern battery operated transit vehicles are still in the experimental stage.
New York was also a pioneer in deploying the "trackless trolley" or trolley bus, a rubber-tired vehicle drawing electric power from a two-wire overhead system. While this technology was used in Hollywood, California as early as 1910, the first true commercial network in this country was established on Staten Island in 1921 and trolley buses were soon running from St. George to Tottenville. Combining the quiet, efficient, pollution-free operation of the streetcar with the maneuverability of the bus, by the early 1950s more than 7,000 of these vehicles were in service from Brooklyn to the west coast, but they too disappeared except in a few cities, notably San Francisco. As we shall see, however, trolley buses, including modern "hybrids" in Seattle, have made a comeback and must be considered in the overall transit picture.
The demise of streetcars in New York has been described in past issues of MAKING TRACKS. In the Village, the 8th Street crosstown was converted to a bus line (now the M8) in 1936, shortly before the Green Lines went out of business, and the last streetcars in Manhattan rolled across 42nd Street in 1946. The same pattern was followed in city after city across America, as buses replaced streetcars--and automobiles often replaced transit altogether--turning the old trolley cars into museum pieces. One of the few holdouts is just fifteen miles west of the Village, in New Jersey, where 50-year-old PCC cars, drawing power from overhead wires, still provide the rolling stock for the Newark City Subway.
Almost extinct in this country, streetcars continued to provide essential transportation in most cities of Europe and the rest of the world. European builders also continued not only to manufacture trolleys based upon the PCC car, first tested in Brooklyn in 1936, but also to advance the technology, developing the modern light rail vehicle (LRV). Virtually all of today's LRVs are produced by European (or Japanese) rail car builders--or assembled by their North American affiliates. Fortunately, the "old fashioned" trolley, in modern dress, is finding its way back into the American urban transit picture as cities across the country build new light rail systems, or restore and expand existing facilities. The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail line, complete with low floor LRVs, is expected to be operating to the New Jersey waterfront, barely a mile from lower Manhattan, in less than two years.
New York has been a pioneer in urban surface transit, introducing the horsecar in the 1830s and the PCC in the 1930s. We were not the first to embrace either cable or electric traction, but eventually caught up and built systems that were second to none. History can be repeated here if New York will recognize the potential of light rail transit as a solution for the urban traffic mess, with its increasing congestion, pollution, economic and public health problems.
In earlier eras this city developed enormous streetcar systems based upon animal power, cable and electric traction--supplied by overhead wire, underground conduit and storage batteries. What VCTC now proposes is a Village Crosstown Trolley employing state-of-the-art LRVs--low floor cars drawing electric power for traction from overhead wires. In this article we have attempted to trace the development of traction from the earliest streetcars to date, focusing on power sources and transmission. In the next issue we shall look at the advantages and disadvantages of overhead wire, as compared to alternative methods of power supply, in the context of the most modern light rail vehicles.
By George Haikalis
The New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) has released its traffic feasibility study assessing the impact of the proposed sidewalk widening on 8th St. between Sixth Avenue and Broadway. The long-awaited study shows that narrowing the 40-foot roadway by six feet, and widening each sidewalk by three feet, produces no significant decline in the level of service for motor vehicles, but that pedestrian service levels would improve at the most crowded locations.
The study was requested by Manhattan Community Board Two after an animated series of public meetings and hearings (see "Sidewalk Widening Plan Stirs Hopes and Fears" in MAKING TRACKS, Spring 1997). The Village Alliance Business Improvement District (BID) initiated the proposal, based on advice from retailing consultants that widening the sidewalks would improve the shopping environment. (see "Business Group Proposes Wider Sidewalks on 8th St." in MAKING TRACKS, Winter 1997). The study was good news to pedestrian advocates because it showed that the city's most ardent defender of motor vehicular space--NYCDOT--was willing to sacrifice a few feet of roadway in order to improve the city's livability.
The study considered two sidewalk widening alternatives--adding three feet on each side and adding five feet on each side. The latter option, narrowing the roadway to thirty feet, was found to produce substantially lower levels of service to motor vehicles, unless parking was eliminated on one side of the street.
VCTC is on record solidly supporting the Village Alliance BID's plan for three foot widening and is heartened by the NYCDOT study. This is a first step toward VCTC's broader vision of a river-to-river light rail line operating in a pedestrianized street. We urge Community Board Two to request that the City begin the next step-conducting an engineering feasibility study. That study would examine the street's drainage and utility infrastructure, describe the construction work needed, and estimate the cost to relocate curbs and widen the sidewalks. VCTC urges the City, as part of its engineering study, to conduct a thorough inventory of the remaining streetcar infrastructure buried beneath the pavement on 8th Street (see "Just Below the Surface--8th Street's Hidden Treasure" in MAKING TRACKS, Fall 1997). This double-track, conduit street railway, that was an essential element in the development of the Village, is a priceless historic artifact. It should be treated with the same respect as the landmarked buildings which grew up around the trolley line.
The currently accepted practice for traffic engineering studies, followed diligently by NYCDOT, produced the desired findings in the case of the proposed three foot widenings. But these techniques are inappropriate for dealing with broader traffic planning concepts such as our Village Crosstown Trolley proposal. Rearranging a fixed amount of motor vehicular travel on a limited street system is simply not the way traffic behaves. Villagers demonstrated this in the 1950s when they challenged Transportation Czar Robert Moses' plan to widen roadways in Washington Square in order to speed travel to his urban renewal projects to the south of the park. Instead, community leaders called for closing the park to traffic. Though city engineers predicted traffic chaos, the opposite occurred. Traffic on nearby streets declined. The truth is that motor vehicular traffic flow is malleable, and the location and amount of traffic on individual street segments is largely a function of the desires of the local community.
The City's traffic study shows how unfairly pedestrians are treated on this busy segment of 8th St. The table below, derived from NYCDOT data, compares pedestrian and motor vehicular volumes at five locations along 8th St. The greatest inequity occurs just East of 6th Avenue where over 5,000 pedestrians are trying to use the narrow sidewalks in the evening peak hour. Less than 400 motor vehicles are using the lion's share of the street space that the City has set aside for their benefit. The ratio of pedestrians to vehicles is 13.2 to one at this location. Even where traffic volumes are higher, and pedestrian volumes are lower, just East of Fifth Avenue the ration is 4.2 to one in favor of people over vehicles. While pedestrian and motor vehicular traffic counts are not available on Christopher St. and St. Marks Place, a casual observation indicates that these are primarily walking streets.
Early indications are that the same battle between residents and the BID will occur again over the sidewalk widening. While much of the discussion is focused on the accuracy of the traffic study, the underlying issue is really much more complex. Understandably, any change is resisted, especially by the many long-term residents who live above the stores on 8th St. Widening the sidewalks and improving the livability and attractiveness of 8th St. will certainly attract more visitors. But that does not necessarily lead to more disorder and lawlessness. VCTC believes that better local transit service, particularly the crosstown trolley, and a civilized auto-free street--free of blaring car horns or car-borne boom boxes--would go a long way toward making life easier for residents. While the sidewalk widening is a step in the right direction, VCTC sees a need to begin planning for a more fundamental change on the 8th Street corridor, including Christopher St. and St. Marks Place.
| Hourly Volumes | |||||
|
East of |
West of |
East of |
West of B�way |
East of B�way |
|
|
Weekdays, 5-6pm |
|||||
|
pedestrians |
5,032 |
2,236 |
2,328 |
n/a |
n/a |
|
vehicles |
379 |
318 |
551 |
495 |
410 |
|
peds./veh. |
13.2 |
7.0 |
4.2 |
n/a |
n/a |
|
Saturday, midday |
|||||
|
pedestrians |
5,580 |
3,088 |
2,740 |
4,800 |
4,564 |
|
vehicles |
456 |
364 |
648 |
604 |
470 |
|
peds./veh. |
12.2 |
8.5 |
4.2 |
7.9 |
9.7 |
Ms. Honi Klein, the energetic Executive Director of the Village Alliance Business Improvement District (BID), has released the "Market and Urban Design Study" for 8th St. from 6th Ave. to Broadway. The study enthusiastically supports the BID's plan to widen the sidewalks on the busy pedestrian corridor by three feet on each side. The study was prepared by two prominent urban planning firms, Abeles Phillips Preiss & Shapiro, Inc. and Norman Mintz Associates, and Transportation Consultant Jeffrey Zupan. Surveys conducted as part of the study indicate that area residents avoid 8th Street because of the narrow sidewalks and the lack of convenience stores and upscale shops. The three consultants propose an urban design vision, depicted above, incorporating a canopy of street trees, attractive light posts and contextual paving materials to create a more pedestrian-friendly image. Zupan suggested other traffic changes besides the widening, including restoration of two-way traffic on University Place and eliminating right turns from 8th Street onto Broadway. VCTC commends the consultants for the very positive study that supports the sidewalk widening--a first step toward achieving VCTC's plan for a crosstown trolley in a full pedestrian street. Perhaps this same consultant team can be enlisted in the future to carry out a planning study for the trolley.
Letter From the Editor
Dear Reader,
This issue of MAKING TRACKS contains the first of a two part series on propulsion-what makes light rail vehicles move. All major methods are discussed in the historical context of surface transit in NYC. The second part, in the next issue of MAKING TRACKS, will concentrate on the method most frequently used in modern light rail systems--overhead wire--and issues raised by its proposed adoption here. Our other cover story provides an update on the 8th Street sidewalk-widening proposal initiated by the Village Alliance BID and supported by VCTC.
Michael Goodman, Editor
NY Today
TimeOut New York
CitySearch New York
