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. 4 - Fall 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
Power for the Village Crosstown Trolley
Restore, Don't Scrap, Historic Union Square Trolley Tracks
Letter from the Editor
By William K. Guild
In our Summer issue we observed that some potential supporters of improved transit question why overhead wires are the mode of choice for powering a restored Village Crosstown Trolley. We reviewed briefly the history of streetcars, in New York and elsewhere, noting that when the 8th St. line was electrified nearly a century ago, an underground conduit transmission system was adopted. We also pointed out that, because of cost, only Manhattan and part of the Washington, DC trolley system held out against overhead wire during America's first great trolley age. Since the dawn of the second great trolley (or light rail) age, seventeen years ago in San Diego, virtually all new light rail transit (LRT) systems have employed wire-overhead contact systems or OCS to transit professionals. In this issue we will examine some of the concerns about this tried-and-true system of electrical transmission and various means of mitigating these concerns. We will then look at other, more radical, propulsion systems to see which may hold some promise for the future.
Early objections to overhead wires were based, at least in part, upon safety concerns, but a century of experience with trolleys around the world demonstrates that such worries were exaggerated, to say the least. For many years, opposition to overhead wires has been predicated mainly on aesthetic grounds, and here, too, we believe concerns have been exaggerated. Critics may point to a number of "horrible examples" of electric installations and collateral eyesores, even among some of the modern new light rail systems currently proliferating in North America. In older systems, complex OCS installations sometimes blackened the sky, especially at major junctions. In some new systems, massive poles and other structures have been installed along the route, more to draw attention to the transit line than to support the wire. Even worse are "triumphal arches" and other irrelevant structures, calculated to impart a "carnival midway" atmosphere to some transit malls.
VCTC categorically opposes such unnecessary and overbuilt structures in conjunction with light rail transit. In as charming and historic an area as the Village Crosstown corridor, tawdry and self-conscious embellishments are particularly offensive. Heavy support poles and complex wiring are equally inappropriate. They can and should be avoided. A permanent, visible presence is often cited as an advantage of light rail, tending to reassure the rider that a transit vehicle will be along soon, but the track itself best fills this function. Collateral structures--even elaborate shelters--are overkill.
A federally-sponsored 1995 report by the Transportation Research Board, Reducing the Visual Impact of Overhead Contact Systems, begins by observing, "The concept of OCS is unfamiliar to much of the U.S., population and is perceived as visually intrusive." The report includes numerous examples of both intrusive and nonintrusive installations, emphasizing overall visual impact and demonstrating that "what looks good and functions well in one setting may be completely inappropriate in another." The Sacramento pedestrian mall (see MAKING TRACKS, Fall 1997) is cited as a good example of nonintrusive OCS. Nonintrusive OCS is well integrated into the streetscape and takes the character of the neighborhood into account. Unnecessary poles are avoided, with joint use of street lights, traffic signals and other elements whenever possible (see photo on this page). Wire can also be suspended from eyebolts attached directly to buildings, a technique often used in Europe (see MAKING TRACKS, Spring 1996). It is imperative that the transitway be designed in collaboration with local planners and neighborhood groups, rather than by "experts" working in isolation. As a minimum, we hope that the Village Alliance BID will ensure that the new streetlights to be installed in its 8th Street sidewalk widening project be designed for joint use.
In our last issue, we referred to Seattle's "hybrid" trolley buses, rubber-tired electric vehicles that run under wire in the downtown "transit tunnel," but switch to conventional diesel engines for suburban and even interstate highway operation. Closer to home, NYC Transit and the NY Power Authority are collaborating on two projects. The first of 15 full-size low-floor electric buses, drawing power from batteries recharged by a small diesel engine running at constant speed, was delivered in September. These buses are expected to produce cleaner emissions and significantly improved fuel economy, but have fewer seats and less standing room than conventional 40' buses. Four of these vehicles are now in use and may be seen occasionally on 8th Street in M3 service. In lower Manhattan, eight mid-sized electric-only battery buses will soon take over on the NY Waterway loop linking ferry landings to destinations in the Financial District. Like their predecessors 70 years ago (see MAKING TRACKS, Summer 1998), battery-powered transit vehicles still have limitations. Despite years of research and development, motor vehicle manufacturers have failed to discover truly energy efficient storage batteries. These mid-sized buses represent the latest attempt. Because of the low mileage on the downtown loop, they are expected to run a full day without recharging.
More exotic power sources continue to be explored by the NYS Energy Research & Development Authority and other agencies. Advanced flywheels using new high-strength, lightweight carbon fiber materials show great promise. But heavy and cumbersome containment structures may be needed should these rapidly-spinning devices fly apart explosively. Hybrid vehicles, using natural gas-powered turbines coupled with flywheels, are being explored intensively. Fuel cells are also a possibility. Hydrogen fuel passing through a thin membrane produces a combustionless source of electric power that could power transit vehicles--bus or rail.
Across the "pond", two new British rail vehicles are being developed for urban transit. The "Parry People Mover" stores energy through use of a conventional flywheel, eliminating the need for a continuous supply of electricity or other external power. "Minitram" is an all-electric battery-powered vehicle. Both rail cars can be recharged at passenger stations and other suitable locations along the route. At present, maximum capacity for both is about 35 passengers, making them competitive with mini-buses and jitneys rather than with light rail vehicles or even conventional buses. Neither developer has yet found a customer willing to take a chance on its new technology.
We believe potential ridership on the Village Crosstown corridor will require an increase over existing bus capacity and that none of the experimental vehicles being developed, here or abroad, is ready for the challenge. Should any of these advanced systems meet with success, it would certainly have widespread application for light rail transit propulsion. Until then the baseline option remains electric current supplied through overhead contact wires. VCTC will continue to monitor developments.
The historic Village Crosstown corridor and its adjacent neighborhoods will benefit enormously from improved transit. We continue to believe the area can best be served by restoration of streetcar service, in the form of modern light rail transit, and that both residents and businesses will benefit most if much of the route becomes a substantially auto-free pedestrianized zone. Although we will continue to examine the alternatives, at present the best solution appears to be standard light rail using low floor vehicles and electric power supplied by a nonintrusive overhead contact system. This will combine a tourist attraction with the most efficient form of surface transit, an open-ended potential for ridership growth with low operating costs.
As noted in the Transportation Research Board report discussed above, it is possible to build an ugly, intrusive light rail system, but it is certainly not necessary. Street railway tracks from river to river are historically authentic, having been in place from 1873 to 1936, as the area was first being built up. A carefully designed overhead conductor system will not blemish the route, and will make the restored transit line both efficient and financially feasible.
By George Haikalis
At a recent community meeting, Parks Dept. landscape architect Lawrence Mauro confirmed that the city plans to remove historic street railway trackage to make way for the planned extension of Union Square Park. Mauro, a design consultant for the city agency, described the department's plan-to dig up the railway infrastructure that lies buried beneath the pavement just west of Union Square Park and to locate a children's wading pond in its place-at the November 9, 1998 joint Parks/Transportation Committee meeting of Manhattan Community Board Five. When constructed in 1891 the massive sub-surface structure supported a cable-powered street railway, not unlike the famous San Francisco cable car line that still operates today. Though lacking the hills that made San Francisco's cable cars essential, New York found that it made good economic sense to develop an extensive cable car system to replace its most costly to operate horse car lines.
The Broadway line, one the city's busiest, skirted the western edge of the then oval-shaped Union Square Park before crossing the 14th St. streetcar line and resuming its path straight south on Broadway. Known as "Dead Man's Curve", this trackage was among the most hazardous in the system to navigate, requiring great skill on the part of railway personnel. As described in Columbia University professor and historian Kenneth Jackson's Encyclopedia of the City of New York, cable car operators had to keep the cable engaged as they sped around the curve before reaching the straightaway, hoping to fit into gaps between streetcars on the busy 14th St. crosstown line. With the conversion of the Broadway line to electric propulsion some ten years later, this coasting maneuver was avoided. Conduits for the cable were adapted to house electrical power rails (see adjoining article). This elaborate, but efficient, street railway technology served the city well, until 1946 when all remaining conduit street railways were discontinued. The uncomfortable replacement buses quickly drove many travelers to cars and taxis.
To this day these noisy and polluting diesel buses, still operating on Broadway, are unwelcome and intrusive neighbors. To enhance the planned westward extension of Union Square Park, community activist Evelyn Strouse has championed the relocation of the terminus of the M7 Broadway/Seventh Ave./Columbus Ave. bus from Union Square West. This would allow this street segment, which currently serves as an alternate route for southbound Broadway motor vehicular traffic, to be narrowed and perhaps eventually closed as was agreed to in a 1987 plan. By directing all southbound Broadway traffic to the east side of Union Square, the busy pedestrian crossing at Union Square West, University Place and 14th St. becomes more tolerable. But business interests lining the street eventually opposed the plan, insisting on front door drop-off for their customers.
Not surprisingly, residents to the south reacted swiftly and forcefully to suggestions that the bus terminus be shifted to 13th St. and University Place. Two alternate locations, at 16th St. and Third Ave. and on 14th St. just west of Union Square West, are also being considered. Very few terminals for diesel buses work well in Manhattan and bus barns are even less considerate of their surroundings. Restoring modern light rail transit service to New York City would greatly reduce these negatives while providing an attractive alternative to car and taxi travel.
Long the location of great political debates and demonstrations, Union Square continues to be the focus of controversy--this time about its own character. The centerpiece of the conflict seems to be the size and shape of the Greenmarket. This unique "farmers' market" was launched over two decades ago by architect and urban planner Barry Benepe, who championed the need for New Yorkers to be able to purchase wholesomely produced fruits and vegetables from upstate farms without having to travel hundreds of miles to do so. Under Benepe's leadership the Greenmarket grew from a modest facility at the north end of Union Square Park to a network of 27 operations throughout the city. The Union Square market remains by far the largest and most popular. Opened in 1976 during New York City's long and gloomy recession, the market replaced a dreary parking lot at the north end of the Square. The Greenmarket sparked an economic revival of the neighborhood that culminated in the construction of massive high-rise apartment and commercial structures and the creation of many popular and upscale cafes.
The Park's Dept.'s plan to expand Union Square to the west, between 14th St. and 15th St., is part of a much larger plan to extend the park north and northwest as well. That plan has not been greeted warmly by friends of the Greenmarket. A broader view of the needs of this area is required. The centerpiece of such a planning effort should be the reduction, not just the redirection, of motor vehicle traffic in this crowded corner of the city. Pedestrians outnumber motor vehicles by a ratio of 9.2 to 1 at the southwest corner of Union Square according to counts taken for a recent City Planning Dept. study. The complex multi-level subway station at Union Square, now being extensively renovated by NYC Transit, is the system's seventh busiest.
The key to reducing motor vehicle traffic at this location is to cut back on the amount of street space allocated to moving vehicles and to re-use this space for pedestrian amenities and to re-introduce light rail transit. NYC Transit has developed plans for a Lower East Side light rail line from Union Square to the Battery along 14th St. and Avenue D as a less costly alternative to the long-promised Second Ave. Subway. One improvement to that plan would be to extend the light rail line westward to the Hudson River Park, completely replacing the 14th St. crosstown bus. Another light rail concept was developed in Transportation Alternatives' Greenwich Village Traffic Calming Study prepared in 1992. A Broadway trolley running the length of Community Board Two from 14th St. to Canal St. would operate in an auto-free street, much like VCTC's Village Crosstown Trolley proposal, which was also included in that study. The concept of a light rail line operating in a pedestrianized street has gained widespread popularity in European cities and has recently been put into place in seven U.S. cities--Dallas, San Diego, Sacramento, Buffalo, Baltimore, Memphis and San Francisco.
A comprehensive plan for light rail transit in Manhattan is needed. In the Union Square area the Broadway light rail line could be extended north along Broadway from 17th St. to 23rd St., possibly continuing north along Madison Ave. Mayor Lindsay proposed a "Madison Mall" busway, which given today's technology would be far more attractive as a light rail "mall". The Broadway light rail line in a pedestrianized street, proposed in the Village study, could be extended south from Canal St. to Battery Park.
With Broadway closed to traffic both north and south of Union Square, a considerably more attractive roadway pattern could be devised. Park Ave. South/Union Square East/Fourth Ave. would become the main north-south artery, allowing the southeast corner of Union Square Park to be extended eastward. Fourth Ave. would become two-way from 14th St. to Astor Place, freeing Broadway, a busy pedestrian street, of its unpleasant motor vehicle traffic load. 17th St. would be reduced to a one-way westbound crosstown street of conventional width. The pavement now used for eastbound (actually southbound Broadway) traffic could be released for park/Greenmarket use. Another possibility is to convert little-used University Place into a "greenway", linking Washington Square Park to Union Square.
Improving the setting for the Greenmarket is important, since its presence has been such an important factor in enhancing nearby property values. Since farmers are operating as small independent businesses they have had to economize, operating out of the back doors of conventional trucks and using temporary folding tables. A more attractive design is possible. Specially designed trucks, or towed vehicles, that convert into market display facilities are possible. If the added costs of these vehicles could not be recouped by the farmers, they might be considered neighborhood enhancements and paid for from other sources.
Linking the Broadway trolley north and south of the park becomes a key design consideration. Numerous examples of light rail lines passing through parks in attractive settings can found in Europe. Trolley trackage could incorporate paving designs reminiscent of an earlier era. A trolley stop for the Broadway line would be designed to harmonize with the westward extension of Union Square Park. One obvious option would be to place the light rail line in its original location, restoring the historic trackage through "Dead Man's Curve".
Letter From the Editor
Dear Reader,
This issue of MAKING TRACKS continues the discussion of how to power the Village Crosstown Trolley by examining the overhead contact system (OCS) which is used in virtually all new light rail transit systems. There are some legitimate concerns regarding this method of propulsion and the cover story describes ways to mitigate these concerns. The other story in this issue describes plans to remove historic street railway trackage at Union Square as part of a plan to extend Union Square Park. The photo on page 1 shows some of this transit infrastructure in use around 1900.
Michael Goodman, Editor
NY Today
TimeOut New York
CitySearch New York
