OLD RAILS, NEW TRICKS: A RAIL-TRAIL PROPOSAL FOR QUEENS, NEW YORK

OLD RAILS, NEW TRICKS: A RAIL-TRAIL PROPOSAL FOR QUEENS, NEW YORK By Graham L. Cavanagh

©2013 Graham L. Cavanagh

A thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in City and Regional Planning School of Architecture Pratt Institute February 2014

OLD RAILS, NEW TRICKS: A RAIL-TRAIL PROPOSAL FOR QUEENS, NEW YORK By Graham L. Cavanagh

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Date -------Thesis Advisor --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date -------Thesis Advisor --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date -------Chairperson

Acknowledgements I would like to thank all the professors at Pratt Institute for their guidance and inspiration throughout the Masters of Science in City and Regional Planning program over the past few years. In particular, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis advisors: Eva Handhart and Beth Bingham for their constructive criticism and invaluable feedback throughout the dissertation process. The alumni theses of previous Pratt students also proved a great resource as testimony that it can be done; no matter how daunting the assignment may seem in the beginning. I would also like to thank the multitude of individuals who so kindly agreed to meet with me for interviews, including: Frank Lupo, Travis Terry, and Peter Beadle from Friends of the QueensWay; George Haikalis, President of the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility; Georges Jacquemart, transportation planner for BFJ; Jim Brown, from Rails-to-Trails Conservancy; Martha Sobhani, from DEP and Rego Park resident; and many others. Lastly, I would like to thank the Pratt Library staff for introducing me to resources that I would not have discovered without their assistance and for always greeting me with a smile. It has been a truly rewarding experience to absorb and share this knowledge with so many others. My hope is that this thesis will serve as a reference for those interested in Rail-Trail project conversions for the betterment of our environment, local economy, and social equity.

Tables of Contents Chapter I: Executive Summary a) Statement of the Issue …………………………………………………….... 5 b) Objectives of the Study …………………………………………………… 10 c) Methodology ……………………………………………………………… 10

Chapter II: Literature Review ………………………………………………….. 11 a) A Brief History of Rail-Trails …………………………………………….. 19 b) USDOT Rails-with-Trails Lessons Learned …………………………….... 20 c) The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy …………………………………………. 24

Chapter III: A Tale of Two Proposals a) Friends of the QueensWay ………………………………………………... 29 b) JFK Airport Express ………………………………………………………. 30 c) A Brief History of the Rockaway Beach Branch …………………………. 32 d) Study Area Existing Conditions …………………………………………... 38

Chapter IV: Precedent Examples of Rail-Trail Conversions a) Promenade Plantee – Paris, France ……………………………………….. 42 b) Atlanta Beltline – Atlanta, Georgia ……………………………………….. 45 c) The Bloomingdale Trail OR The 606 – Chicago, Illinois ……………...…. 49

Chapter V: Summary of Recommendations ………………………………………. 53 Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………. 57 Appendices ………………………………………………………………………….... 59

I. Executive Summary Statement of the Issue: Access to open space and public transportation are two of the most vital contributions to the livelihood of a metropolitan region. This is particularly evident for cities with greater population densities and traffic congestion issues resulting from the auto-centric planning popularized in the mid 20th century. Prior to the advent of the automobile, railroads were once the pinnacle of transit infrastructure engineering and provided an option for the mobility of people and goods. However, many railway systems were decommissioned following what later became known as the ‘Great American Streetcar Scandal’1, in which National City Lines, a private holdings company with equity from General Motors, Firestone Tires, Standard Oil and Phillips Petroleum, organized a lobby to dismantle many railroad systems across the United States.2. Combined with technical issues such as fires and escalating maintenance costs, many railway lines were eventually deemed economically unviable and replaced by buses and an auto-centric transit culture. Today, the question of how we may repurpose these defunct railways has become a popular topic of discussion in the fields of historic preservation, transportation planning, and landscape urbanism. There are several noteworthy examples of the adaptive reuse of railroad infrastructure as linear parks and green space corridors as well as some that have simultaneously maintained railroad activity. In this report, we will examine ‘Rail-Trail’ projects from land acquisition and funding models, to design and implementation, ownership and oversight, as well as the social, environmental, and economic impacts of these innovative projects.

1

"Paving the Way for Buses – The Great GM Streetcar Conspiracy Part II - The Plot Clots". Slater, Cliff (Summer 1997). "General Motors and the Demise of Streetcars" (pdf). Transportation Quarterly 51 (3): pages 45–66. Retrieved 2009-06-19. 2

In Queens, New York there is a mostly elevated 3.5-mile stretch of decommissioned Long Island Railroad (LIRR) that has lain dormant for over 50 years. This site, along with many other railroads, was shut down in 1962, shortly after the Federal Highway Administration Act was passed in 1956, which supplanted railroad services with trucking and automobile use as the dominant and more cost-effective means of shipping goods and transporting people. Railroads are particular examples of historic transit infrastructure that have the potential to be adaptively repurposed as linear public space corridors, for recreational and/or alternative transit uses, as ‘Rail-Trails’. Rail-Trails are “multi-purpose public paths created from former railroad corridors.”3 Rails-with-Trails are another more specific form of infrastructure adaptation that may describe “any shared use path or trail located on or adjacent to an active railroad corridor” according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.4 In 2005, a group of community members in the Rego Park neighborhood formed a coalition named ‘Friends of the QueensWay’ with the intention of advocating for a Railto-Trail conversion for this particular section of decommissioned railroad. The aim for this group is to repurpose the right-of-way (ROW) as a public park and open space – to include both active and passive recreational opportunities, arts, events, food, culture, and other programmatic activities to engage and revitalize communities along the corridor. The Friends of the QueensWay group in collaboration with Trust for Public Land has received a grant from the New York State Department of Parks and Historic Preservation for the amount of $467,000 to conduct a design and feasibility study for the intended railto-trail conversion. However, many community members in southern Queens and Far Rockaway neighborhoods would like to see the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) revitalized as a transportation corridor to shorten commute times to the Central Business District in Manhattan. It is noteworthy that these neighborhoods currently have the longest average

3 4

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy U.S. Department of Transportation, ‘Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned’ (August, 2002)

commute times of any other areas within the five-boroughs (See ‘Average Commute Time in New York City by Zip Code’ map in Appendix). Therefore, it has been proposed that the City conduct a feasibility study examining the cost-benefit of reactivating the railroad infrastructure to offer an extension of public transit within the region. Congressmen Gregory Meeks and Hakeem Jefferies along with Assemblyman Phillip Goldfeder recently signed a letter to U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood asking for the allocation of Federal Disaster Recovery Aid to be applied toward such a transportation revitalization analysis. In the past, the City of New York has conducted transit-revitalization studies for this corridor, but they had deemed the project financially unattainable at the time. This alternate proposal would include connecting the current A-train from the Northern sections of Queens to Far Rockaway as well as provide a one-seat ride (no transfer) between JFK Airport and the Central Business District of Midtown Manhattan, Penn Station and Grand Central Station. “If New York City wants to remain competitive on an international stage, it must create convenient and efficient transportation infrastructure for its residents, including the vital connection between major airports and other transportation hubs within the metropolitan region.” –George Haikalis, Institute for Rational Urban Mobility Furthermore, since the event of hurricane Sandy, elevated transit, as apposed to underground subways or at grade transit, has become increasingly advantageous for the purpose of mitigating flood damage while maintaining evacuation routes and providing access for shipping supplies that may be needed in an emergency response situation. In light of these circumstances, a Rail-with-Trail (RWT) proposal could be seen as an ideal compromise to address these various issues and meet both stakeholders’ needs. However, it currently remains uncertain as to whether or not this type of infrastructure treatment may be feasible in this particular study area. There are numerous benefits that may be addressed though the implementation of a Rail-Trail project, including: improved public health via increased access to open space for recreational activities such as biking and walking, improved environmental quality

such as combined sewer overflow (CSO) mitigation via stormwater sequestering, enhanced air quality through integrated vegetation, as well as local economic development opportunities through entrepreneurial incentives. “This project has the potential to revitalize the surrounding neighborhoods and serve as a connective pathway between communities that are currently disparate... The currently derelict and abandoned railway could be transformed into a well-planned public space for social interaction”. –Frank Lupo, Friends of the QueensWay There are a multitude of challenges and concerns from local community members regarding each of these proposals for adaptive reuse. Some local residents have expressed apprehensions surrounding issues such as: privacy, safety, impacts on property values, noise, sanitation, vandalism, and the general socio-economic disparities along the path of the ROW. Some fear that the Rail-Trail will be a catalyst for gentrification, increasing surrounding property values, attracting speculation for luxury developments, and displacing lower-income residents. “This is not Chelsea or the Meat Packing District… Homeowners directly adjacent to the right-of-way don’t want a High Line type project in our backyards.” -Martha Sobhani, Rego Park resident The possibility of adaptive reuse of the railway infrastructure in the form of Railto-Trail conversion would entail the railroad lines being converted into linear public parks and recreation corridors without reactivated public transit use. There have been numerous examples of these types of projects effectively implemented, where the railway is no longer required for its initially intended purpose yet the infrastructure may still serve as a platform for innovative and attractive public space. Some examples of this type of repurposing include sites such as: the Promenade plantée in Paris, France; the proposed Bloomingdale Trail or the “606” in Chicago, Illinois; the Atlanta Beltline in Atlanta, Georgia, and, likely the most well-known, the High Line in Manhattan, New York. Each of these precedent examples underwent unique processes of land acquisition,

funding, design, maintenance and oversight. All of these projects do exemplify the potential for creating active and lively public spaces for local communities. In this thesis dissertation, previously decommissioned railroad precedents will be discussed, as well as the economic and travel time benefits of potential reactivated transit projects. The implementation processes depend largely on coordinating partnerships with key stakeholders, including: community groups, public agencies, non-profits and private organizations. The former of whom may be particularly relevant toward sourcing project support through advocacy, which may then influence municipal approval for landuse/zoning legislation amendments and permits for construction. The latter groups may be more specifically oriented toward securing funding for feasibility studies, design and eventual implementation, maintenance, and oversight. Through an analysis of these various projects, the intended purpose will be to identify some commonalities in terms of challenges and best practices that may be applied toward informing recommendations of an equitable proposal for the adaptive reuse of a Right of Way in Queens, New York.

Flushing Meadows Cornona Park

Rego Park

Forest Hills

Forest Park Richmond Hill Woodhaven

Ozone Park

Objectives of the Study: In order to make informed recommendations regarding the future adaptation of this right-of-way in Queens, New York- the following objectives must be stated:

•

Research general history of railroad use, open space and adaptive RailTrail projects.

•

Explore history of railroad use and open space in the specific context of the study area in Queens, New York

•

Examine the currently existing feasibility studies regarding the adaptive reuse of railways as Rail-Trail projects

•

Evaluate the current demographics in the surrounding study area

•

Analyze challenges and opportunities of existing conditions of the proposed Rail-Trail site and surrounding context

•

Propose a conceptual plan for implementation based on the community’s needs which can revitalize the infrastructure as an open space and/or transit corridor that may contribute to improve public health, environmental quality, and local economic development opportunities

•

Address additional challenges and opportunities for the proposed conceptual plan

•

Make recommendations to the site, the plan and further research

Methodology For the purposes of this study, a feasibility analysis will be conducted for the adaptive reuse of a decommissioned right-of-way in Queens, New York. The ‘QueensWay’ and the ‘JFK Express’ proposals will both be considered within the framework of reviewing existing best practices of rail-trail creation in terms of ownership, funding models, policy and zoning, design, implementation, and oversight.

The potential impacts of a rail-trail will be examined through the lens of social impacts employing data from the U.S. Census Bureau and through interviews conducted with local residents and professionals. Demand for public open space and transit accessibility will be the primary considerations though which the proposals will be measured. Mapping the geographic area and identifying contextual characteristics will be essential in the initial phases of the process in order to better understand the existing urban design. Opportunities for local economic development initiatives through entrepreneurial incentives will also be integrated into the discussion as well as commercial, retail and real estate development that may result but still serve existing residents and mitigate the gentrification effect. Partnerships with key stakeholders, including: Community Board Organizations (CBOs) such as Friends of the QueensWay and the Trust for Public Land, public agencies such as the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, Department of Transportation, Department of City Planning, and other interest groups will be engaged in the process. A participatory planning approach may ensure the representation of the multitude of stakeholders regarding the adaptive reuse of this decommissioned LIRR.

II. Literature Review In Queens, New York, 3.5 miles of the Rockaway Beach Branch of the Long Island Railroad has lain dormant for over 50 years since its abandonment in 1962. Today the right-of-way is under the jurisdiction of the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) though it has not been maintained since its’ decommissioning and has become largely overgrown with vegetation over time. This section of track stretches from Rego Park in the north section, through Forest Park, to Ozone Park in the southern section. Friends of the QueensWay is a community organization in collaboration with the non-profit Trust for Public Lands who recently received a $467,000 grant from the New York State Department of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation to conduct a feasibility study for this project that will include a

community survey, environmental, engineering, and financial assessment of the project proposal. The QueensWay is currently being analyzed for its potential as historic preservation of transportation infrastructure through adaptive reuse, as well as the benefits of improved environmental quality, access to open space, improved public health, and economic development opportunities. In order to make determinations concerning the feasibility of this project we must consider the methods of land acquisition, opportunities for funding sources, designing and implementation, as well as the stakeholders involved that may lend to the successful implementation of this project. In order to approach the specific topic of research, it is important to first establish an understanding of the history and common notions regarding the organization and management of public parks as well as funding strategies, so that we may later apply this groundwork to how historic preservation of transit infrastructure came about as a new model for public space creation. PlaNYC2030, a long-term plan for New York City published by the office of the Mayor is 2007, established guidelines for creating a “greener and greater New York”. The chapter on Parks and Public Space aims to meet the goal by 2030 that all New Yorkers live within a 10-minute walk of open space and that the City increase the amount of public space to 2.5 acres for every 1,000 people. Since the opening of Willoughby Plaza in 2006, the New York City Department of Transportation plazas program has become part of the PlaNYC2030 ‘Open Space Initiative’.5 Through this initiative DOT seeks to repurpose underutilized street spaces in an effort to “re-imagine the public realm”. According to DOT, streets comprise about 80% of the public space in New York City, which translates to roughly 64 square miles of land for potential transformative projects. DOT may work in conjunction with other agencies to identify potential opportunities with the goal of targeting areas with lower ratios of open space to population. Since the 1980’s public-private partnerships have become an increasingly popular means of maintaining public space projects. The City is typically responsible for

5

Wade, Randy. New York City Department of Transportation, Pedestrian Projects Group.

the cost of construction, while non-profit partner organizations take on the responsibility for costs of maintenance over time. “As part of our comprehensive approach, we’ve made the creation of new public-private partnerships a top priority. Working closely with private donors, we’ve been able to direct more resources to parks in need of support, helping raise the standard for parks across the board.” -Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of the City of New York6 Park ownership is an important consideration throughout this process. The City may allocate tax dollars toward the design and implementation, but public-private ownership and maintenance models have become increasingly popular in recent history. “For the purpose of this discussion, it will be assumed that public ownership of parks will continue and that privatization entails the contracting out of support services to private firms operating for profit. By contracting out, the government unit does not shed its responsibilities for providing park services. It has, rather, by means of traditional contract law principles, allocated its tax revenue to a low-bidding private firm rather than to its own employees.”7 As a historic comparison, Elizabeth Blackmar and Roy Rosenzweig offer an account of Central Parks origination in ‘The Park and The People: A History of Central Park’: “…Although clothed in democratic rhetoric [Central Park] was fundamentally rooted in the interests of New Yorks wealthiest citizens—its gentlemen and ladies. Leading merchants and bankers and their families advocated creating a grand public park in order to promote their cities (and their own) cosmopolitan stature. They were joined by uptown landowners who wanted a park to enhance real estate values. But not all New Yorkers agreed that the city needed such an expensive public symbol of its grandeur, and 6

Smith, David. “City of Parks” Parks and Recreation, October 2009, pg. 35. Beckwirth, James “Park Property Rights, and the Possibilities of the Private Law.” The Cato Journal Vol. 1, No. 2, 1984

7

only after a three-year debate over the necessity, location, and financing of a public park was the site selected. Yet, despite the opposition, the park’s gentlemen advocates claimed to represent the entire ‘public’.”8 This perspective regarding the origin of Central Park may still hold resonance for some New Yorkers even today. In the implementation of public parks it is vitally important to consider social equity, participation, and democratic access to these spaces regardless of socio-economic determinants. Although, the term gentry class has fallen out of common use from contemporary vocabulary, the term has been appropriated and evolved into an issue coined ‘gentrification’ by which a wealthier class of people acquire or rent property in lower income or working class communities and force the displacement of lower income residents. As a result of rapid urbanization, the migration of populations from rural to urban areas and smaller cities to larger ones, New York City real estate is under ever-increasing speculation and in many cases properties go to the highest bidders. In an article from the New York Observer, David Freedlander discusses a sentiment reminiscent to that of Blackmar and Rosenzweig concerning political will and the allocation of funding for public parks, the High Line in particular: “…The celebrated rail trellis has come to be seen by some critics as a symbol of the new New York for the Bloomberg era, a place that privileges high-end enchantments and requires steady dollops of fashion, celebrity and financial philanthropy for anything to move the municipal bureaucracy.”9 Geoffrey Croft, the executive director of New York City Parks Advocates, expresses a similar sentiment of frustration:

8

Blackmar, Elizabeth and Roy Rosenzweig, The Park and The People: A History of Central Park, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1992 9 Freedlander, David “Living The High Line: Elevated Park Brings Big Business, But What’s Next?” (www.politicker.com) June 7, 2011.

“All the High Line really proves is that wealthy, connected people simply have better access to government and are able to do this kind of thing. I give everyone a lot of credit for seeing this through, but let’s be honest- I’ve been working for years and years to get a tiny piece of park land out in Maspeth, and these guys are able to get a $100 million in a very short period of time.” This is an important point to bring up as we consider the future development of the QueensWay project and how we may appropriately plan to protect the rights of the local communities through safeguarding real estate inflation that could potentially result from this project. In regards to the Blackmar and Rosenzweig account, some of these democratic promises evoked in the creation of Central Park have had a significant influence on parks management today. Facing a budget crisis in the 1970s, the Central Park Conservancy was established to help offset the costs of maintaining the park. The success of this model has led to an explosion of similar Conservancies and Park Friends Groups, assisting the diminishing budgets of parks with donations and volunteers. This idea has since expanded in New York City to many other smaller parks, and is now used by half the parks in the City.10 “It is becoming increasingly clear that government regulation of private projects is a questionable way to supply large numbers of people with large quantities of attractive usable open space.”11 Public-private partnerships can have advantages over the public sector in being separate from the management, budgetary or other bureaucratic constraints, thus decisions can be made quickly and more easily. As 501c3 nonprofits they are able to advocate for change and raise funds for themselves. Additionally, these groups may be more connected to the neighborhoods they live in than the public sector may be.

10

Murray, Michael. “Private Management of Public Spaces: Nonprofit Organization of Parks.” Harvard Environmental Law Review. 34. (2010): 190. 11 Project for Public Spaces. Public Parks, Private Partners. New York: PPS, 2000. P.31

Park Conservancies and Friends groups are nonprofit organizations committed to maintaining and enhancing parks. They are funded through donations, grants, and investments. The New York City Parks Department is an agency particularly vulnerable to budget cuts because it receives no funding from the state or the federal government. 12 In the 1980s, intended as an equitable way for city merchants to compete with suburban shopping centers, Business Improvement Districts began to provide services for particular set areas. Tax revenue made it possible to finance the services the BID provides, however in this reliance on tax revenue from business owners, the wealthier communities tend to benefit the most. Regarding the design aspect of a park or open space project, there are several encouraging perspectives in terms of the physical process of historic preservation through adaptive reuse in urban areas. It requires an equal balance of optimistic envisioning and nostalgic appreciation to manifest these unique and iconic projects. Without the support, old structures that embody our sense of history and symbolic personality of place would be lost altogether. “To restore a building is not to repair it, nor to do maintenance or to rebuild, it is to reestablish it in an ultimate state that never existed before.” – Eugene Viollet-le-Duc, 1855 “Landscape urbanist tendencies emerge within the discourse of architects in response to the economic, social, and cultural shifts surrounding de-industrialization. Practices of landscape urbanism emerge as a useful framework in these contexts, most appropriately adopted for sites experiencing the abandonment, toxicity, and social pathologies left in the wake of industry as it decamped for more favorable locations.”13 In the second half of the 19th Century, the development of urban parks in the U.S. became popularized as “the ideal antidote to the highly artificial American city“ and 12

Angotti, Tom. New York For Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2008 13 Waldheim, Charles, The Landscape Urbanism Reader, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006)

conceived as an escape for city dwellers to enjoy relaxation and recreation. Parks common functions were that of an open meeting place where any individual could choose to assume an anonymous public role that allowed for interaction and exchange with other players, often strangers, who coincidentally shared the space… However, what made a space truly public was the experience of the unexpected.14 In this line of thinking, the original intentions of public space were to serve the larger social purpose to “humanize the utilitarian form of American cities” and “foster civic pride [and] social contact, especially between people from diverse backgrounds”.15 This brings us to the question of ownership of the parks and the implementation of rules and regulations that may impact the users experience. “The current trend in public space is to reclaim the city for the people.”16 –Jan Gehl Galen Cranz identifies the evolution of five different park types from 1850 through present day. In 2004, the Sustainable Park was coined as the fifth and most contemporary model. Sustainable Parks may be maintained through community stewardship or public-private partnerships. The aim is to foster understanding of the natural environment and place importance on native plants and corridor species17

14

The Urbanist (January 2009) San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), ‘Secrets of San Francisco: where to find our cities POPOS – privately owned public spaces’ 15 Banerjee, Tridib, ‘The Future of Public Space: Beyond invented streets and reinvented places’ (2001) 16 Gehl, Jan ‘Public Spaces, Public Life’. Danish Architectural Press, 2004. 17 Cranz, Galen, ‘The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America’

(Image source: Cranz, Galen ‘The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America’)

In the mid-twentieth century, cities began offering incentives to contractors to include public space in exchange for permission to build larger developments. This practice became known as Privately Operated Public Open Space (POPOS), more commonly known today as Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS). This space was initially intended to be located on the site of the new development property and open for public use. However, these rules have become more lenient over time and many developers have been allowed to build the public space off site as well as regulate hours of operation and other rules with the use of private security.

(Image source: www.nyc.gov/dot)

A Brief History of Rail-Trails Rail-to-trail planning in the United States came about as a result of the decline of the railroad being used for commuter and freight transportation in the mid 20th century. Perhaps largely correlated to the Interstate Highway Act of 1956, in which the government subsidized and promoted automobile use at the expense of the railroads, such as the Long Island Railroad in New York.18 Yet as the automobile became king so the need for public space became more apparent in urban areas where streets covered the majority of land area and car exhaust deteriorated air quality. The Illinois Prairie Path (1965) and Wisconsin’s Elroy-Sparta Trail were two early examples of grass-roots railto-trail conversions. In 1976, the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act and 18

Caro, Robert. A. The Power Broker, New York, Random House Press, 1974

the Staggers Act of 1980 eased government regulations on railroads and allowed for the abandonment of many short-line railways. In 1983, the U.S. Congress authorized a process known as “rail banking” which allowed for the sale or lease of abandoned railways to state park agencies or private trail conservancies. The first example of this was in Missouri with the Katy Trail that spanned alongside the disabled MissouriKansas-Texas (MKT) Railroad line. In 1986, the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy was founded by David Burwell and Peter Harnik; an organization that has grown to become the leader in rail-to-trail and rail-with-trail conversions in the United States. Since their origination, the number of rail-trails has increased from 93 to over 1,000.19 In 1991, the Federal government passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) along with other subsequent omnibus transportation acts in 1998 and 2005 which allocated Federal funding toward transportation system improvements, including rail-to-trail projects as well as empowering Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) in the planning process. One of the original intentions for the ISTEA was to promote railroad improvements and cut dependence on the automobile for transportation.

USDOT Rails-with-Trail Lessons Learned “Currently, there are more than 1,000 RWTs throughout the United States, encompassing over 11,000 miles of rail-trails, including trails on both active and abandoned railways. The number of users for these sites is estimated at about 4.5 million annually” –U.S. Department of Transportation A Rail-with-Trail (RWT) describes any shared-use path or trail located on or directly adjacent to an active railroad corridor. Currently, about 65 RWTs encompass 385 km (239 mi) in 30 U.S. states. These trails that are located adjacent to active railroad 19

Brewer, Richard, Conservancy: The Land Trust Movement in America, UPNE Press, 2004

lines range from slow-moving short-haul freight trains that run weekly, to high-frequency Amtrak trains that travel as fast as 225 km/h (140 mi/h). Many RWTs are proposed and formally planned. However, most are located on public lands leased to private railroads, and many others are on private railroad property. RWTs are not just in the U.S., hundreds of kilometers of RWTs traverse Western Australia, Canada, and Europe. As once might expect, there are contrasting viewpoints between trail planners and railroad company representatives. Trails planners typically favor RWTs, often located in scenic areas with favorable topography, as safer and more comfortable conditions for biking and walking than trails or lanes on roadways. Railroad companies may oppose RWTs for the following reasons: these recreation trails are not directly related to railroad operations and generally do not directly generate revenue for the railroads. However, it may be argued that a RWT does draw positive public attention to the existing railway as a transportation option. There is also concern for poor design or maintenance of trails leading to trespassing or increases in injuries or deaths. This could be related to railroad companies having borne the burden of a litany of litigations for accidents on their property, even for crashes with at fault trespassers or automobile drivers who ignore warning signs. As a result, areas of designated crossing of active railroad right-of-ways are especially crucial in ensuring public safety measures, and reducing the frequency of these unfortunate instances. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has expressed their concerns for public safety in the implementation of RWTs. National railroads carry the highest percentage of freight of any other mode of transit per “tonnage times distance”. They may also do so at a lower cost than trucks in terms of transportation charges including fossil fuel use, and environmental impact externalities such as greenhouse gas emissions. It may be argued that no existing service railroad could replace the flexibility of trucking, however the railroad may continue to remain an essential component of the transit and shipping economy into the future.

According to Alta Planning + Design, a leading firm in RWT design and implementation, a feasibility review for a RWT project should include: description of the setting and locality, relationship to local planning documents and policy, land ownership, and railroad activity (including function, speed and frequency). Moreover, it is important to consider an assessment of the potential benefits of a RWT implementation for the existing railroad. Some of the benefits may include:

•

Reduced liability costs;

•

Financial compensation;

•

Reduced petty crime, trespassing, dumping and vandalism;

•

Reduced illegal track crossing through channelization of users to gradeseparated or well-designed at-grade crossings;

•

Increased public awareness of railroad company service;

•

Increased tourism revenue;

•

Increased adjacent property values;

•

Improved access to transit for law enforcement and maintenance vehicles.

Involvement of stakeholders may also prove vital for the successful implementation of a RWT project. The railroad and affected agencies should be involved in the early process, as affirmed through various surveys and interviews from existing RWTs across the country. Other stakeholders may include:

•

Railroad companies;

•

Railroad customers;

•

Utility companies;

•

Law enforcement officials;

•

Adjacent landowners;

•

Trail use groups;

•

Transportation, public transit, parks and recreation, and health departments.

There are no national standards or guidelines for the design of a RWT, and so these approaches are usually pieced together from documents related to shared-use paths, pedestrian facilities, railroad facilities, roadway crossings and right-of-ways. Some useful guides may include the Manuel on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) publications for trails and pedestrian facilities, and other Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) documents concerning safety measures for grade crossings and prevention of trespassing. Design issues may include:

•

Setbacks, separations, and crossings;

•

Utilities

•

Trestles, bridges, and tunnels;

•

Environmental constraints;

•

Trailheads, points of access, and parking facilities;

•

Landscaping and drainage;

•

Lighting, signs and markings.

Based on the lessons learned from the USDOT study, it may be stated that a welldesigned RWT can bring numerous benefits to both local communities and railroads alike. However, an RWT may not be appropriate in every context or situation, and therefore careful feasibility analysis should be performed in order to established informed recommendations for moving forward with a project.

The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy

(Image source: www.railstotrails.org)

The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) is an organization founded in 1986 precisely for the purposes of advocating and facilitating the conversion of deactivated railroads into active recreation corridors for public use. The primary missions of the RTC is to promote public health, improve environmental quality, transportation and economy for neighborhoods and people across the country through the proliferation of rail-trail networks. The RTC currently has over 100,000 members and supporters across the U.S. and has assisted in the development of over 15,000 miles of rail-trail, with thousands more miles of potential rail-trails that could be converted. The RTC conducted a survey of trails along active rail lines, or Rails-with-Trails in the state of California. These trails offer access to transit, as well as opportunities for recreation and exercise. Although, some major railroad companies are reluctant to embrace these types of conversions to their existing infrastructure, many rails have experienced increased ridership and reduced trespassing across tracks as a result of improved public awareness and attention to designing for pedestrian safety.

The RTC survey looks at 21 existing rail-with-trail projects in terms of growth and popularity, transit and open space benefits, safety, design, liability, and the process of collaborations with existing railroad companies. Important questions addressed within this survey include:

•

Are rails-with-trails safe?

•

How to determine if a RWT will work in a specific context?

•

How to best design a RWT?

•

How to work cooperatively with a railroad company?

•

How to address liability issues?

•

Who has experience with these various aspects of RWTs?

Rails corridors were developed for the purposes of forming linkages between areas of interest, vitality, and necessity; connecting urban downtowns to rural areas, along attractive waterfronts or to historical destinations. Many of these sites are also places that people may enjoy active recreation such as walking, jogging, and cycling. The ownership of RWTs may vary due to the fact that there are many shared uses. Of the twenty-one RWT sites surveyed, three of which were owned by cities, eight by transit districts for commercial rail, light rail, or bus rapid transit, and ten owned by private railroad companies. Furthermore, the survey showed that ten of the RWTs were granted easements from the corridor owner. Seven did not require easements (either because the owner also managed and maintained the trail or the trail itself was set back enough to be considered outside and adjacent to the property). The San Clemente Pedestrian Beach Trail did not get an easement but did enter into a license contract agreement to lease the land with the approval of the State Lands Commission. Easement information was unknown or unavailable for the remaining other four trails. Safety and design go hand-in-hand when considering the implementation of a RWT. Trail owners and managers go through great lengths to ensure that their RWT project will be as safe as possible for its users, for the responsibility toward public safety

as well as to avoid litigation. The most common feature of safe design is to provide adequate setback distance between the trail and the rail. Measurements for setbacks are taken from the center of the railroad track to nearest edge of the trail. Of the cases surveyed, the setback varied widely and averaged at 45 feet. As you can see in the graph below, the majority of setbacks fall between 21 to 50 feet. Only 5 percent of trails have setbacks between 2 and 7 feet, while some 12 percent have setbacks greater than 90 feet. Nearly 30 percent of trails have setbacks 8 to 20 feet and about 20 percent have setbacks 51 to 90 feet.

(Image source: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy ‘Rails-with-Trails: Design, Management, and Operating Characteristics of 61 Trails Along Active Rail Lines, November 2000)

Other safety design measures include: fencing, barriers, or grade separations between the track and trail when necessary. Other types of barriers may include vegetation, ditches, and concrete walls. Most crossings occurred at grade, through tunnels, or via overpasses. However, four of the trails surveyed did not have barriers, but included warning signs informing pedestrians to keep a safe distance. The existing decommissioned Long Island Railroad tracks that are the site in question for the QueensWay proposal may not provide sufficient setback distance for

optimal pedestrian safety. Due to the nature of the infrastructure being located within a densely residential urban area, where space is a premium, the mostly elevated tracks seem to leave little additional space to potentially accommodate both recreational trails/ open space as well as an active railway. Train speed and frequency of trains are other safety considerations when designing a RWT project. These are other factors that must be associated with risk management and mitigation. Types of trains may vary from slower-moving excursion trains to high-speed transit or freight trains. Of the 21 cases surveyed, the graphs below represent the findings for train speed and frequency.

(Image source: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy ‘Rails-with-Trails: Design, Management, and Operating Characteristics of 61 Trails Along Active Rail Lines, November 2000)

As you can see in the graph above, of the rail-trails surveyed for the purposes of this study, nearly 50% of trains traveled at a speed of 41-60 mph, nearly 35% of trains traveled at a speed of 21-40 mph, nearly 15% of trains traveled at speeds of 0-20 mph, and approximately 6% of trains traveled at speeds greater than 60 mph. These higher train speeds may be acceptable for a rail-trail with a greater setback distance between trail and pathway, but for the purposes of the study area in Queens, where the majority of the

tracks are elevated and at a width of approximately 50 feet total, the train speeds would have to be much slower to allow for safe cycling and walking along the pathways.

(Image source: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy ‘Rails-with-Trails: Design, Management, and Operating Characteristics of 61 Trails Along Active Rail Lines, November 2000)

In the graph above, it can be observed that nearly 40% of trains surveyed traveled at a frequency of 21-40 trains per day, a little more than 20% of trains traveled at a frequency of more than 40 trains per day and 0-5 trains per day, while approximately 16% of trains traveled at frequencies of 6-10 trains per day, and about 5% of trains traveled at frequencies of 11-20 trains per day. Although this statistic is relevant to the safety of a rail-trail, the train frequency must be subsidiary to train speed and setback distance, as these latter factors will have a much great impact on the user experience. Trail Funding can be a complex process. Rails-with-Trails may use a variety of sources to provide funding for service requirements such as planning, design, construction, which can include public or private sources. In California, for example, many jurisdictions have passed local sales tax legislations to support transportation funding programs. These funds may also be matched by federal and state transportation and parks grants. Some projects were also built using adjacent development funds or through impact fees of these projects. Another prominent funding mechanism is the

establishment of Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) in which a government or public agency authority collaborates with a private sector company to develop a contract that allows for the investment and funding of a particular project. The Atlanta BeltLine, for example, is funded through a PPP between the City of Atlanta and private investors to finance its multi-use rail-trail.

III. A Tale of Two Proposals Friends of the QueensWay Up until 1962, the corridor ran south from the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) Main Line, just west of Forrest Hills Station, to Rockaway Boulevard, as an extension of the LIRR Rockaway Boulevard Branch (RBB). The southern portion of the RBB, south of Rockaway Boulevard in Ozone Park, became merged with the MTA subway system as the A-Line, and therefore this portion is not considered in the QueensWay proposal project scope. The section north of Rockaway Boulevard is currently controlled by the City of New York, Department of Citywide Administrative Services, with the exception of the corridor that runs through Forrest Park, which was transferred to the jurisdiction of the NYC Department of Parks & Recreation. NYC Parks has expressed support for community meetings, design and feasibility studies to be conducted for the QueensWay proposal in the form of a $467,000 grant. The ‘Friends of the QueensWay’ non-profit has released an RFP and selected WXY architecture and dlandstudios landscape architecture for the design competition. The Trust for Public Land has also been brought on board to assist with securing funding and consulting for the creation of a linear park corridor from this decommissioned LIRR. TPL has worked on similar rail-to-trail conversion projects in the past, including: the Atlanta Beltline in Atlanta, Georgia; the Bloomingdale Trail in Chicago, Illinois; and the High Line in Manhattan, New York.

The Emerging New York Architects (ENYA) Committee of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) has recently released a design competition entitled ‘QueensWay Connection: Elevating the Public Realm’. This competition has been organized in support of the Friends of the QueensWay and Trust for Public Land in their efforts to transform the abandoned right-of-way into a greenway corridor that serves the diverse neighborhoods throughout central and southern Queens. The competition aims to supplement the ongoing feasibility study and envisions methods of activation for the potential future park. The overview emphasizes the importance of access points, programming and design to connect the streetscape onto the elevated railway. Hester Street Collaborative, a nonprofit group founded in 2002 that specializes in community design workshops and educational outreach, has joined Friends of the QueensWay in conducting ‘mobile outreach’ initiatives to measure public support for the project. Friends of the QueensWay has already facilitated several meetings with community boards, neighborhood associations, local resident associations, and schools including the Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School (MELS) which is located directly adjacent to the right-of-way in the Forest Hills neighborhood. At this meeting in particular, students showed enthusiastic support for the notion of a safe bicycle route to school and opportunities for increased access to green-open-space and urban agriculture projects. These hopes have originated from the schools efforts to promote outdoor education in an area where open space is at a minimum and bicycle lanes are limited.

JFK Airport Express NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service students have compiled a capstone study entitled ‘JFK Airport Express – Building World Class Airport Ground Access for New York City: A Study of the Reactivation of Long Island Railroad Rockaway Beach Branch’. The study has been prepared by the Queens Transit Advocates for the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility, Inc. The purpose of this report was to

conduct a feasibility study for the creation of a one-seat (no transfer) connection from John F. Kennedy International Airport to Midtown Manhattan via the reactivation of the disused section of the Long Island Railroad Rockaway Beach Branch. In summary, the study puts forth two proposals. The first option offers a more regional approach by providing the fastest service between JFK and Midtown with only one stop along the reactivated section of the right-of-way corridor. The second option suggests several more stations positioned along the reactivated right-of-way, which would create a modest decrease in travel time for passengers going the full distance from JFK to Midtown, but would enhance transit accessibility for the local Queens community. Both of these options propose the addition of noise reducing barriers and the integration of a two-way bicycle route along the transit line. Other more specific recommendations for this proposal include: the reconstruction of Aqueduct Station to provide greater connectivity, further research into economic and social benefits for multiple stations along the right-ofway, exploration for a long-term plan to expand rail service after the transit line is restored, and the creation of a public-private partnership for financing the reactivation. Primary recommendations include: •

Reactivation of commuter transit service on the Rockaway Beach Branch to enable a connection from JFK to Midtown Manhattan

•

Establishment of a bicycle-way along the right-of-way

•

Reconstruction of Aqueduct station to provide greater connectivity

•

Conducting further research into the economic and social benefits of multiple stations along the right-of-way

•

Exploration of longer-term plans to expand rail service once transit line is restored

•

Study of the creation of a public-private partnership for financing reactivation of the railway

A Brief History of the Rockaway Beach Branch

(Image source: www.lirrhistory.com)

The Rockaway Beach Branch opened to service in 1877 as an extension of the New York, Woodhaven, and Rockaway Railroad. The branch’s main line began at White Pot Junction, located in Rego Park, Queens, and continued south to Woodhaven and Ozone Park, and even further south ending on the Rockaway Peninsula. In 1904, the Rockaway Railway merged with the Long Island Railroad. In order for this connection to be made the Rockaway Beach branch line was electrified. This was a pivotal moment for the proliferation of transit connectivity but the electrification also added additional maintenance costs. In the 1940s and 50s, several fires broke out on the Jamaica Bay rail bridge which further complicated operations. As a result, in 1955, the Long Island Railroad sold the southern portion of the line to be incorporated into the City’s Independent Subway System (IND line), which is still currently in operation as the A subway line by the MTA from Howard Beach to the Rockaway Peninsula. The Northern portion continued to offer service, through a lease agreement with the City, where service continued along a truncated branch, terminating at Ozone Park. However, persistent low ridership made the line financially unviable and it was eventually closed in 1962. Today this portion of the branch is property of the City of New York, but has not been utilized or maintained since the termination of service. Internationally, it may be observed that major metropolitan cities establish transportation hubs that connect them with other major cities within the region. New York City gained its competitive edge in the 19th century with its active seaport connections to the nations interior via the Erie Canal. The railroads later took hold as the

dominant economic source of transporting goods throughout the county. New York City expanded around the development of the Pennsylvania Railroad at Penn Station and the New York Central Railroad at Grand Central Terminal. The JFK Airport Express would provide a one-seat ride (no transfer) connection for passengers from JFK Airport to midtown Manhattan (see Figure 1). The proposed lines would run along the right-of-way of the formerly deactivated Rockaway Beach Branch corridor. This transit connection would reduce travel times between JFK Airport and midtown Manhattan, and provide significant transportation improvements to communities in southern Queens, while reducing congestion on local roadways. Many of the world’s leading cities have already established one-seat rides from their major transit hubs to their central business districts. In order for New York to remain competitive in a global economy, New York must improve railway access to the major financial destinations within the metropolitan area. The JFK Airport Express is a proposal to invest in providing the necessary infrastructure to meet the current and future travel demands.

(Image Source: ‘JKF Airport Express’)

(Image Source: ‘JKF Airport Express’)

(Image Source: ‘JKF Airport Express’)

(Image Source: ‘JKF Airport Express’)

Study Area Existing Conditions

(Image source: personal photos taken during ‘Friends of the QueensWay’ walking tour)

The original Rockaway Beach Branch of the Long Island Railroad ran from the Main Line to the Rockaway Peninsula. The study area is comprised of a section of this line, from the Aqueduct Raceway and Casino to the Main Line connection. South of this section, the railway is still active with the New York City Transit Authority’s A train that runs from Howard Beach on the mainland of Queens down to the Rockaways. The study area runs through several neighborhoods and community districts, including: Community District 6, which is comprised of the neighborhoods of Rego Park and Forrest Hills; Community District 9 which is comprised of the neighborhoods of Woodhaven, Richmond Hill, and Kew Gardens; and the Community District 10, which is comprised of the neighborhoods of Ozone Park, Lindenwood, and Howard Beach. There are approximately 250,000 people who live within one-mile of the right-of-way, according to the Trust for Public Land.

(Image Source: ‘JKF Airport Express’)

The image above shows existing conditions at various points along the disused section of the Rockaway Beach Branch. While the right-of-way remains intact, the infrastructure has fallen into various states of disrepair over time.

(Image Source: ‘JKF Airport Express’)

(Image Source: ‘JKF Airport Express’)

In the previous map, one can see the average commute times (in minutes) for residents within the Borough of Brooklyn. The red color indicates average commute times of 46 to 60 minutes, which appear to be concentrated in southern Queens and Far Rockaway neighborhoods. This graphic provides supporting evidence for the reactivation of transit along the decommissioned right-of-way in order to provide more efficient transit accessibility for Brooklyn borough residents within the vicinity of the study area.

IV. Precedent Examples of Rail-Trail Conversions Promenade Plantee – Paris, France

(Image source: www.localnomad.com)

The Promenade Plantee or Coulee Verte in Paris, France is one example of public open space created from decommissioned urban infrastructure. This planted promenade provides a linear green space for eastern Paris via an historic aqueduct. The promenade consists of 3-miles of linear pedestrian park space linking to several gardens and crosses the entire 12th arrondissement from the Place de le Bastille to the Bois de Vincennes at the eastern edge of Paris.20 This project was inspired by an initiative to reclaim defunct industrial sites for mixed-use revitalization, often with parks and green space as the central focus. Other examples include the park at La Villette, which was originally an abattoir; the Parc Citroen site was an automobile manufacturing site, and the Parc de Bercy, which was once a wine depot. The ‘greening’ of eastern Paris was introduced as a political and planning policy initiative to establish more open space in areas west and south of the Bastille. In 1987, the council of Paris approved the adaptive reuse of the BastilleVincennes railroad infrastructure for an urban greenway project. Concurrently, the urban design agency of Paris, Atelier Parisien d’Urbanisme (APUR) produced a plan to create a new neighborhood on the site of an adjacent railroad yard, at Reuilly. The site consisted of a nineteenth-century railroad line, including viaduct, tunnels, cuts, and embankments. The decision to create a physical linkage between neighborhoods that had been traditionally separated by the rails, walls, and train trenches was a vision to alter the landscape from industrial to pedestrian use. Today, the Promenade Plantee brings people together to walk, bicycle, or simply enjoy the public space in an area that was not well known even to Parisians before the transformation. The promenade was opened in segments starting in 1988. Designed by architect Philippe Mathieux and landscape architect Jacques Vergely and Buily under the direction of the City of Paris Department of Parks, Gardens and Open Spaces. This project had set the precedent for similar adaptations in other cities, including a popular elevated railway on the west side of Manhattan known as the Highline. The Promenade Plantee sparked a

20

‘Landscape Architecture’: The Magazine of the American Society of Landscape Architects. (February 2000). P.58

wonderful precedent for many other ‘rails trail’ projects and has inspired advocates to pursue adaptive reuse of railway infrastructure as public green space projects. One of the major considerations of the Promenade Plantee is the respect for preserving the original infrastructure provides both aesthetic and economic benefits. The restored red-brick of the nineteenth century aqueduct sets a standard for design guidelines to follow suit in maintaining historic quality of the built environment. The plantings selected by the landscape architect were also specifically native to the region, which makes them easy to maintain in the local climate and again reinforces the sense of place within the area. The elevated tracks provide a unique vantage point atypical to urban environments, elevated above the streets, from which visitors may view the surrounding architecture as well as enjoy the natural plantings. “Here the ‘passengers’ are encouraged to linger… and adjacent residents look down on beautifully planted spaces rather than abandoned railroad tracks.”21 The park rests as the centerpiece within a 31-acre Zone of Concentrated Development (ZAC), which is the French planning equivalent to an urban sector plan or planned unit development. Planned by APUR, implemented by SEMAEST (a public private partnership employed directly by the City of Paris). The neighborhood was officially completed in 1992 and received national recognition as a successful urban neighborhood renewal project. The development included 1,040 new dwelling units, 75,000 square feet of commercial space including the archways underneath the aqueduct which have been converted into small shops and vendor opportunities, over 200,000 square feet of office space, as well as many examples of civic and recreational features.

21

‘Landscape Architecture’: The Magazine of the American Society of Landscape Architects. (February 2000). P.62s

Atlanta Beltline – Atlanta, Georgia

(Image source: www.beltline.org)

The Atlanta BeltLine Master Plan was adopted by the Atlanta City Council on December 6, 2010 as a land use, parks, and mobility initiative with developments distributed across an expanse of geographic area within the region of the city of Atlanta, Georgia. The Atlanta BeltLine will combine green space, trails, transit, and new development along 22 miles of historic railroad segments that encircle the central core of the city of Atlanta. The plan will connect 45 neighborhoods and impact more than 100,000 people who live within one-half mile of the corridor. The plan aimed to reflect local culture, site conditions, and neighborhood visions through a participatory planning process that engaged a multitude of stakeholders and user groups to inform city policy and project implementation.

Due to the large scale of the project, the Atlanta BeltLine has been divided into ten subareas to allow for more detailed evaluation and planning for the development phasing process. An inventory and assessment report has been prepared to identify existing conditions within these ten subareas and to evaluate issues such as demographics, housing, land use and zoning, urban design, historic characteristics, natural resources, and environmental quality. Other previously conducted relevant planning studies were reviewed in order to inform project efforts. Twelve guiding principles were also developed based on stakeholder feedback and comments during participatory meetings to establish a framework for project values. Principle 1 is to encourage economic development. The Atlanta BeltLine included both public and private investment with the intention of both meeting funding goals and also ensuring economic benefit for local residents and businesses. The ambition for this funding model is to create opportunities for local jobs and local economic development. Principle 2 is to preserve historic resources. This initiative highlights local architectural character and maintains historic structures as landmarks within their respective communities. Historic structures without current uses may be considered for adaptive reuse. Principle 3 is to connect neighborhoods across existing barriers. New Streets and bicycle or pedestrian pathways should be constructed to link existing neighborhoods that may have been previously separated by the railroad tracks. Principle 4 is to seek a balanced, connected, continuous, and redundant transportation system. A multi-modal transit system including public transit services, bicycles, cars, and pedestrians should be planned for with equitable measures that address not only modes of transit but also the variety of users, including: people of all ages, incomes, and abilities. Principle 5 is to ensure appropriate urban form. This initiative is to target smart growth and redevelopment in urban areas rather than suburban areas. Form and scale should also be considered to be appropriate to the variety of contexts. Principle 6 is to provide a balanced mix of compatible land uses. This may allow for existing industrial uses to continue however promotes that new developments focus on creating a mix of uses such as commercial and retail opportunities. Key nodes such as transit stations along the Atlanta BeltLine are also highlighted as priority destinations.

Principle 7 is to expand housing options. Displacement of existing residents should be prevented via the encouragement of a mix of new housing types and prices to accommodate a diversity of ages, family types, and incomes. Housing development should also be considered a priority in walking distance to destinations such as parks, transit, shopping, places of worship, and other amenities. Principle 8 is to provide a variety of public spaces. All residents should have access to public and private parks, plazas, greenways, and trails as places to connect neighborhoods and promote public health and recreation. Principle 9 is to promote sustainable living. This tenet includes promotion of local food production, farmers markets, new green spaces, and buildings that include efficient and responsible use of energy, water, and waste management. Principle 10 is to increase public safety through appropriate design. Open spaces surrounding developments should address streets, provide active frontages, and promote residential density to encourage informal supervision with the intent of increasing public safety. Principle 11 is to reuse existing buildings and focus investment on redevelopment. Buildings found to be vacant or derelict with historic merit should be rehabilitated to accommodate new uses. Investment should enhance the neighborhood fabric. Principle 12 is to enable incremental change. This final tenet outlines the necessary and appropriate phasing measures to achieve implementation of the Atlanta BeltLine. Land use is particularly emphasized as a long-term initiative for the project scope.

(Image source: www.beltline.org)

The Bloomingdale Trail OR ‘The 606’– Chicago, Illinois

(Image source: www.the606.org)

The Bloomingdale Trail in Chicago, Illinois proposes to reuse industrial infrastructure for the purposes of enhancing the quality of the urban environment. The trail will connect several communities and provide space to socialize, while also contributing to public health by encouraging walking and bicycling. The trail will connect to other existing transportation networks as an elevated green space that may lend to a more dynamic and vibrant urban experience. The Bloomingdale Trail values are outlined as follows, to be: •

Financially sustainable;

•

Environmentally sustainable;

•

Fully accessible for all types of users, with special attention to the varied needs of the most vulnerable – children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities;

•

Designed for durability and with a stewardship plan to ensure a high-quality, maintainable project; and

•

Developed with full community involvement.

The site of the Bloomingdale Trail project was previously an at-grade train track that ran a section of the length of Bloomingdale Avenue. This train was originally constructed in the late19th century and promoted the establishment of Chicago as the Midwest’s industrial capitol. Due to the tracks being at-grade level, many pedestrians were killed at rail-crossings. As a response, in 1910 the City passed an ordinance requiring 140 miles of railway, including the 2.7 mile stretch on Bloomingdale Avenue, be elevated above street grade by 1914. At the time, the elevation of Chicago’s railway system was an astounding feat of engineering – and was featured in many contemporary engineering journals. The project was undertaken with the aim of mitigating disruption to surface traffic and rail service. The line was raised 16 feet above street level onto a 30 foot-wide right-of-way. The structural framework is comprised primarily of oversized, reinforced, poured-in-place concrete boxes, filled with soil and crushed rock. The concrete walls are battered with seven-foot wide base that tapers towards the top. Each of the boxes are connected by bridges, also mostly constructed of reinforced concrete, with some steel reinforcements. The elevation of the Bloomindale line had long-lasting effects. Local manufacturers were connected to the rest of the world, as the line allowed for ease of shipping materials and products. Some of these contemporary manufacturers included: Schwinn bicycles, Hammond organs, Lincoln Logs, grain elevators, and musical instrument cases. The tracks were also sporadically used for passenger trains and the occasional circus troupe. However, the line also had unforeseen social implications, perceived as a barrier separating neighborhoods on either sides of the tracks (Logan Square and Bucktown to the north, and Humboldt Park and Wicker Park to the south). Furthermore, as Chicago’s industrial manufacturing sectors changed, so did the use of the railway – showing particular decline in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1998, the City conducted a “Cityspace” evaluation in which Logan Square community area was determined to have the highest “open space need”. Also during this time, the Bloomingdale Line was identified as holding potential for future integration into the City’s future network in the

“Bicycle Facilities Development Plan”. In 2003, the Friends of the Bloomingdale Trail advocacy group was founded. In 2004, the Bloomingdale railroad right-of-way was identified as an open space opportunity in the Logan Square Open Space Plan. By 2005, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation’s Logan Square and Humboldt Park “quality of life” plans expressed support for the creation of the Bloomingdale “bike trail and greenway”. In 2007, the Chicago Architecture Club produced a design exhibition, “Envisioning the Bloomingdale”, with Friends of the Bloomingdale Trail in collaboration with the Trust for Public Land. By 2008, the Friends of the Bloomingdale Trail had collected and released the results of over 600 surveys and community meetings in the “Community Visioning Update”. A total of 23 teams submitted proposals to the city of Chicago for the environmental and engineering review and preliminary design process for the Bloomingdale Trail. In 2010, the Bloomingdale Trail is a Burnham Plan Centennial “green legacy” project. At this time, the Trust for Public Land was contracted by the Chicago Park District to serve as project coordinator and published a “Public Space Use Along the Bloomingdale Trail” document in collaboration with the Illinois Institute of Technology. In 2011, community meetings and public feedback guided the design team toward crafting a draft framework plan for implementation and by 2012, the “Bloomingdale Trail and Park Framework Plan” in completed.

(Image source: www.the606.org)

Recommendations for future land use, parks, and mobility planning. The plan is a combination of the neighborhood vision and public policies, demographics, and other factors that may be subject to change. The plan is proposed for the year 2035 based on a variety of data including population projections, employment growth, economic conditions, travel patterns and behavior, as well as physical design challenges and opportunities. Railbanking (as defined by the National Trails System Act, 16 USC 1247 (d)) is a voluntary agreement between a railroad company and a trail agency to use an out-ofservice rail corridor as a trail until some railroad might need the corridor again for rail service. – Rails to Trails Conservancy Railbanked corridors are not considered abandoned, and therefore may be sold, leased or donated to trail managers without reverting to adjacent landowners. The railbanking provisions of the National Trails System Act was adopted by Congress in 1983 and has preserved 4,431 miles of rail corridors in 33 states that would have otherwise been abandoned. Opponents of railbanking have unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of the railbanking provisions of the National Trails System Act in the U.S. Supreme Court and continue their efforts to stop implementation through onerous legislative restrictions on trail development introduced in Congress. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy remains vigilant in monitoring legislative and legal assaults on railbanking and will continue to build support in favor of the railbanking statute in the future. The 4,431 miles of preserved rail corridor are a testament to the importance of the act.22 In Humbolt, Michigan for example the Department of Natural Resources approved a land transaction that allowed for a railroad spur turned trail to be reactivated for transit purposes. In this case, the return of the rail line was to be used to haul ore from a nearby mine. In this particular circumstance, the Lundin Mining Corp. agreed to pay for the relocation of the trail segment that had previously been instated for bicycling and walking. The right-of-way itself consists of roughly 2 miles of rail adjacent to Lake 22

Rails to Trails Conservancy

Superior and the transaction involves just over 35 acres of land. “Railroad corridors that would otherwise be abandoned can instead be railbanked, which allows the corridors to be used for trails on an interim basis, while preserving the rail lines for potential future use.” – Keith Creagh, Director for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Summary of Recommendations In formulating recommendations for the adaptive reuse of this 3.5-mile stretch of right-of-way, we must take into consideration the two competing proposals and ideally come to a compromise, inspired by best practices and specific context, that may include both transit and open space accessibility. In our case study review we have identified railto-trail conversions (i.e. the Promenade Plantee, the Atlanta Beltline, and the Bloomingdale Trail or ‘the 606’). In the particular case of the subject right-of-way, based on the supporting research, it seems that revitalized transit would have a greater benefit to New York City as a whole in comparison to the QueensWay park proposal. It is noteworthy that the existing Forest Park provides a substantial amount of open space to local Queens residents (538 acres of trees and fields)23, while commute times for southern Queens and far Rockaway remain the longest in comparison to all other boroughs in New York City as a whole. That being stated, with a transit revitalization project there are substantial opportunities for open space integrated coherently with environmental design, programmatic events and other cultural opportunities such as food, music, art and education initiatives along the corridor. Bicycle lanes and pedestrian walking paths may be designed into the infrastructure, although at-grade where elevated sections of the infrastructure may not contain the necessary width to accommodate all uses. An 23

http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/forestpark

acceptable setback distance would have to be verified by an engineer with regards to train speed and frequency to accommodate safe cycling and walking with active transit in those sections where train and bicycle/walking paths share the elevated ROW. Local economic development opportunities may be initiated underneath the elevated portions of the right-of-way, primarily in the southern sections, that could include food vendors, art, cafes, beer gardens, and light manufacturing for example. These types of uses could help transform the character of the corridor and convert the blighted infrastructure into a connective community hub. Events and programming could also be integrated to engage local residents, particularly senior citizens and school age children. There are several schools along the right-of-way, including the Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School (MELS) in Ozone Park, that have already expressed support for improved bicycle lanes and open space for their students. Environmental landscape design could include community gardens, urban agriculture projects, with educational opportunities and social clubs (e.g. gardening or community kitchens that offer cooking classes). Waste management facilities and programs including composting of organic materials using bio-digesters for energy production could also be installed in addition to solar panels and wind turbines to provide power to the site. Aquaculture for raising fish could offer rainwater collection and filtration opportunities while providing fertilizer for agriculture projects and fish to be sold at farmer’s markets and reducing combined sewer overflow (CSO) impacts. Urban art installations, particularly underneath overpasses, may provide unique and engaging opportunities for murals and to gather for live music, lectures, and other types of performances within this flexible and programmable space. Programs and physical design could highlight and acknowledge the history and character of the neighborhoods transitions over time to reaffirm and instill a vibrant sense of place within the community. The most considerable challenge would be: if the decommissioned railway is transformed into a linear park, can it ever be an active railway again? The QueensWay proposal may provide an exciting community amenity that could have an array of benefits from increased connectivity, promoted ‘active design’ for walking and bicycling,

environmental services, opportunities for social interaction, and local economic development initiatives, as discussed above. However beneficial a rail-trail may be on a local scale, the greater impact may be realized in revitalized transit. As New York City continues to grow in population, our infrastructure must also keep pace in order to accommodate the increased volume of users. Transportation connectivity is arguably more vital to the livelihood and success of a metropolitan area than an open space project, no matter how well designed. Based on the research conducted for this report, there have been many wonderfully implemented rail-to-trail conversions; however, for this particular study area the connection of transit infrastructure seems the more valid recommendation for adaptive reuse. A Transit Oriented Development (TOD) revitalization strategy could have the greatest impact toward initiating efficiency in commute times for existing residents of southern Queens and Far Rockaway, as well as create an express (one-seat ride) connection between JFK Airport and Midtown Manhattan’s Central Business District (CBD) including Grand Central Station and Penn Station. Many other major metropolitan cities around the world have established efficient and easy access to and from their airports to other systems of public transit. Based on the study conducted by NYU Wagner capstone, New York City has the slowest speed relative to distance with the highest cost of fare compared to Hong Kong, Tokyo, and London. If New York intends to remain competitive on an international scale, it must invest in these transit infrastructure improvements. All things considered, a railbanking strategy may hold the key to allowing for an interim use of the right-of-way as a recreation and open space corridor for bicycling and walking, as the QueensWay proposal advocates, while further design and feasibility studies be conducted for the reactivation of transit in the longer term. As one can imagine, transit reactivation would be the more costly and infrastructure intensive of the competing proposals and may require substantially more time and fund raising prior to the initial phases of implementation to begin. Although transit may be the proposed use with measurably greater benefit, the application of open space as a linear park could allow for a shorter-term use with significantly beneficial impacts at a more local scale in the meantime.

However, a railbanking approach with temporary community open-space would require subsequent urban design adaptations to be explored. Implementing open-space only to be removed would likely be met with community opposition. Therefore, future design innovations would be advantageous to preserve the presence of open-space along the restored railway, potentially at street level and into the surrounding neighborhoods. The initial implementation of the QueensWay could be a ‘soft plan’ with ‘flexible uses’ allowing for future adaptations to be made. The introduction of open space, programs, and other amenities could build community support for the corridor as a community destination and provide valuable opportunities for feedback and learning what aspects are successful and what may be revised in future phasing revision. This approach could allow for the future revitalization of transit to shorten commute times for the areas of New York City with the highest need as well as maintain the transformative character of the emerging cultural corridor throughout the surrounding communities.

Bibliography Angotti, Tom. New York For Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2008

Banerjee, Tridib, ‘The Future of Public Space: Beyond invented streets and reinvented places’, 2001

Beckwirth, James “Park Property Rights, and the Possibilities of the Private Law.” The Cato Journal Vol. 1, No. 2, 1984

Blackmar, Elizabeth and Roy Rosenzweig, The Park and The People: A History of Central Park, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1992 Brewer, Richard, Conservancy: The Land Trust Movement in America, UPNE Press, 2004 Caro, Robert. A. The Power Broker, New York, Random House Press, 1974 Cranz, Galen, ‘The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America’ Freedlander, David “Living The High Line: Elevated Park Brings Big Business, But What’s Next?” (www.politicker.com) June 7, 2011 Gehl, Jan ‘Public Spaces, Public Life’. Danish Architectural Press, 2004 ‘JFK Airport Express: Building World Class Airport Ground Access for New York City’ NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, Institute for Rational Urban Mobility

‘Landscape Architecture’: The Magazine of the American Society of Landscape Architects, February 2000 Murray, Michael. “Private Management of Public Spaces: Nonprofit Organization of Parks.” Harvard Environmental Law Review, 2010 "Paving the Way for Buses – The Great GM Streetcar Conspiracy Part II - The Plot Clots" Project for Public Spaces. Public Parks, Private Partners. New York: PPS, 2000 Rails-to-Trails Conservancy ‘Rails-with-Trails: Design, Management, and Operating Characteristics of 61 Trails Along Active Rail Lines, November 2000 Slater, Cliff (Summer 1997). "General Motors and the Demise of Streetcars" (pdf). Transportation Quarterly 51 (3): pages 45–66. Retrieved 2009-06-19 Smith, David. “City of Parks” Parks and Recreation, October 2009 The Urbanist, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), ‘Secrets of San Francisco: where to find our cities POPOS – privately owned public spaces’, January 2009 U.S. Department of Transportation, ‘Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned’, August, 2002 Wade, Randy. New York City Department of Transportation, Pedestrian Projects Group Waldheim, Charles, The Landscape Urbanism Reader, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006

Appendices

(Personal sketch concepts for placemaking design opportunities)

(Image source: JFK Airport Express)

Figure 6

Right-of-Way

16

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

17

Figure 7

18

Right-of-Way

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

19

Figure 8

Right-of-Way

20

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

21

c. Land Use The disused right-of-way is under ownership of the City of New York. The rail also runs through Forest Park. Forest Park is over 500 acres and includes hiking trails, a golf course, two private stables for horseback riding, as well as playing fields and courts for softball, baseball, tennis, bocce, and handball.2 Additionally, the right-of-way is surrounded by two major cemeteries.

Figure 10

Land Use Adjacent to Railway:

70% Residential 20% Industrial 10% Parkland Disused Right-of-Way

Prepared by the Queens Transit Advocates

22