Brooklyn Bridge Park Transportation Study, 3/2008

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SAm SChwARTz PLLC hDR-DANIEL FRANkFURT Community Comments At the December 5, 2006, community charrette, many comments were provided regarding bus route modifications. There was consensus that existing bus service did not adequately meet the needs of the Park and its waterfront location. Nearly all participants agreed that selected bus routes should be extended to directly serve the Park. The following consistent themes were noted: • • • • Minimum of two routes serving different areas of Brooklyn should be extended to Furman Street Extend B61 and/or B63 north along Furman Street from Atlantic Avenue Modify bus schedules based on peak Park visitor hours Use the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) vent building for bus circulation and movements Criteria Bus route extensions may be feasible to NYCT if incremental operating costs associated with the additional mileage are offset by increased ridership revenue as a result of the route modification. Therefore, any route modification would not likely occur until rider demand increases due to Park development. For meaningful Park access, candidate routes would need to have high existing rider volumes and frequent service. For reliability, candidate routes should currently offer service with minimal delays. Running times and terminal layover times in the existing schedules may allow some routes to be extended more economically than others. Route extensions serving the Park will need safe and adequately sized termination areas, while providing feasible turnaround locations and amenities (for example, bathrooms) for the bus operators. Recommendations As discussed with the Park designers and in keeping with comments from the community, the roadway circling the MTA vent building (at Furman Street, below the Promenade near Montague Street) provides a central, off-street, pedestrian-friendly location for a NYCT bus pick-up/drop-off location within the Park, as shown in Figure II- 4. This would allow buses to use Furman Street without stopping on Furman Street and negatively impacting the traffic flow. Since the vent building will remain in the plans for the Park, it offers the opportunity to deposit park-goers in the center of the Park without actually intruding into it. As shown in Figure II-5, the roadway surrounding the vent building could be established as a bus pick-up/drop-off location for extended bus routes, as well as for potential shuttle service. Buses should operate counter-clockwise to preclude pedestrian movement in front of buses, and to allow passengers to board and alight from the sidewalk. The future two-way operation of Furman Street is a critical component of any bus extension, but on-street stops along Furman Street are not recommended due to pedestrian safety concerns and roadway constraints. Figure II-4 MTA Vent Building BROOKLYN BRIDGE PARK TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS STUDY 10 Figure II-5 MTA Vent Building with Southbound Bus Turning Maneuvers Shown MTA FAN PLANT
SAm SChwARTz PLLC hDR-DANIEL FRANkFURT Feasible route extensions were based on the criteria described previously. Certain types of routes were eliminated immediately as infeasible. Based on these criteria, the following two routes were identified as having the greatest short-term potential to be extended. B63 Route Extension The B63’s existing terminus at Atlantic Avenue and Furman Street could be extended approximately ½-mile to the MTA vent building turnaround. This route would provide direct access to the Park from southwest Brooklyn. The current terminus—a U-turn at the western end of Atlantic Avenue—will not be possible once the Park is developed. The vent building turnaround would solve an operations problem for NYCT while improving Park access. Downtown Brooklyn/Cadman Plaza West Routes With the exception of its part-time service into DUMBO, the B25 currently terminates at Fulton Ferry Landing, adjacent to the Park. It would be logical to extend this to the MTA vent building turnaround. The B25 runs through Bedford-Stuyvesant and central Brooklyn, as far as East New York. As demand grows for the Park, the B26, B38, or B52—all of which terminate nearby at Cadman Plaza West—could be other candidates for extension. While all three travel east and offer frequent service, the B38 bus may be favored as its route varies considerably from the B25, and it covers the largest area of the three routes, reaching to Ridgewood, Queens. The fourth candidate route at this location, the B41, is not recommended for consideration. It is plagued by delays, and NYCT previously scaled back the route from Fulton Ferry to Tillary Street, substituting the B25. It is unlikely that NYCT would be willing to revisit an extension of the route. The following section provides a summary of other routes that were not recommended for extension. Atlantic Avenue/Union Street Routes The B61 currently serves the southern end of the Park. Extending this route would inconvenience existing riders by bypassing Downtown Brooklyn, a major destination for current riders. The B61 has frequent headways and already stops a short distance from the southern end of the Park, at Furman Street and Atlantic Avenue. Another route near this area is the B71, which does not offer much potential for extension. This route currently operates infrequently, has low ridership, and Park users could access the Park more quickly by using other nearby routes and transferring to or from the B63. Additionally, it is being considered for extension to the south, which would preclude extension to the Park. BROOKLYN BRIDGE PARK TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS STUDY 11 High Street Station/York Street Station Routes Three routes currently terminate in the Pearl-Jay-High Street area: B67, B69, and B75. Although temptingly close to the Park and offering a potential link from the subway and DUMBO to the Park, it is not likely that any would be extended. DUMBO is characterized by narrow, often impassable streets arranged in a one-way pattern that limits throughmovement. Sharp turns, circuitous routing, and blocked streets are not conducive to bus operations or attractive to passengers. As all three candidate routes arrive from the south, Park-bound passengers would be required to ride north through Downtown Brooklyn and then double-back to access the Park. Extensions of these routes are unlikely to attract riders to the Park or be attractive to Park users. Although bus route extensions in this area are not attractive, improvements should be made to the High Street and York Street subway stations serving the DUMBO area to encourage the use of these stations for Park visitors and to provide better service to existing station users. Appropriate signage should be located within the stations to direct visitors to the Park and waterfront. Additional wayfinding signage at street level would provide a further improvement. The wayfinding plan created by the DUMBO Business Improvement District (BID) for the Brooklyn Bridge area to improve wayfinding for pedestrians traveling between the bridge, Downtown Brooklyn, DUMBO, and the Park could logically be expanded to include the High Street and York Street station area. It should be noted that the DUMBO BID has currently recommended the extension of the B25 within DUMBO to run along Front and York Streets. Conclusion In order to properly serve the Park via new, extended bus routes, it is critical that Furman Street be converted to two-way traffic, as indicated in the FEIS. The MTA vent building should be used as a new bus turnaround and pick-up/drop-off location within the Park. The B63 route should be extended north from Atlantic Avenue and Furman Street to the new turnaround to provide direct transit access into the Park. In addition, the B25, which, except for its part-time service into DUMBO, terminates at the Fulton Ferry Landing, could also be extended south to the vent building turnaround. The B26, B38, and B52 all terminate at Cadman Plaza West and are additional candidates for future extension into the Park, particularly the B38. The recommended route extensions are shown in Figure II-6. Extending these routes would provide a variety of neighborhoods with direct access to the Park and would be logistically feasible.
Page 1 and 2: Sam Schwartz PLLc hDr-DanieL FrankF
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Executive Summary
Page 5 and 6: SAm SChwARTz PLLC hDR-DANIEL FRANkF
Page 9: Figure II-3 Potential Extensions of
Page 15 and 16: Figure III-4 Old Fulton Street at W
Page 31 and 32: VI. Waterborne Transport SAm SChwAR
Page 45: Sam Schwartz PLLc © Sam Schwartz P

Brooklyn Bridge Park Transportation Study, 3/2008

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?