Residents of Brooklyn Heights and Downtown Brooklyn gathered at Long Island University's Brooklyn campus on Tuesday night to express their frustration with Mayor de Blasio’s proposed $2.5 billion Brooklyn-Queens Connector (BQX). This was one of a series of community outreach meetings the city has set for this month, with stops in Sunset Park, Red Hook, Astoria, and Long Island City planned.
From its inception in January, the streetcar plan had been a lightning rod for criticism, with concerns in different communities including potential economic displacement and gentrification to its vulnerable location along high-risk floodplains. One criticism, though, stands above all others: that it's a waste of money.
The Downtown Brooklyn residents at the meeting invoked the specters of gentrification and flood risks exacerbated by climate change, but their main concern was the apparent shift in the proposed direction of the route.
They noted that earlier renderings and route proposals placed the streetcar closer to the waterfront, while the most recent batch are focused on centralizing the streetcar to prioritize subway and bus connections.
Residents complained that a plan that was originally sold to them as benefitting the waterfront was now being altered to accommodate transit needs, which they said would make already-crowded streets even more congested with no clear benefit for the area.
"When you're getting the subway connections, you're moving away from the waterfront," said Community Board 2 Transportation Committee member John Quint. "Aren't you losing the whole concept which was to serve the underserved community?"
Adam Giambrone, director of the BQX initiative, said the decision, based on community input, was made to capture the largest number of potential riders within a quarter- to half-mile walking radius of streetcar stops. The waterfront plan had placed stops farther out from higher population density areas.
A study done by the city in April showed that demand for light rail along the proposed waterfront line was low. Giambrone argued that the new plan "maximized utility" with necessary transit connections, since "a lot of Queens and Brooklyn residents are going into Manhattan."
The focus on connecting transit options rather than invigorating the waterfront community fueled the fire of the community board's discontent. The project had lost community focus, they argued, instead pivoting towards development interests. Meanwhile, they said, many middle- and low-income residents the project purports to help would face the threat of displacement from increased real estate prices in the area. According to the report, the proposed route is home to nearly 40,000 NYCHA residents, while 56 percent of rental stock in the corridor is "public, rent-controlled, rent-stabilized, or income-restricted."
"We're trying to connect to places that are already congested," said CB 2 member Doreen Gallo. "It sounds like it's the developer saying 'We've got to connect DUMBO.'"
Transportation Committee member Brian Howald agreed. "This is not being built for these 40,000 [NYCHA] residents," he argued, noting the proliferation of development land in the corridor. "This project is being pushed by the development community."
The city said it had distanced itself from the original designers of the plan, Friends of the Brooklyn Queens Connector, a group filled to the brim with prominent developing interests. Yet the original renderings from the group appeared in the city's presentation, a fact a number of committee members noted.
Proposed streets for streetcar installation in the DUMBO and Borough Hall corridor. (NYC EDC)
Residents also argued about potential street placement, with each route seemingly painted as worse than the last. Atlantic Avenue is wide enough, but too commercial and a loss of traffic lanes would worsen congestion. Willoughby Street is less commercial, but too narrow and sees a lot of building access activity that might interfere with the streetcar. Historic Vinegar Hill should be off-limits. And so on.
"You said you looked at the maps from 150 years ago. You are aware, those street grids have not changed," said Vinegar Hill resident Linda McAlister, railing against the city's plan. "How much has this little exploration into the realm of the absurd cost the taxpayers of New York City?"
Cadman Plaza East, thought to be one of the least-congested corridors of entry into the Borough Hall area, was nixed by committee members who weren't looking forward to an uphill battle with the federal government to cede control of the street.
"We're not here to talk about dreams, we're here to talk about reality. Cadman Plaza East is not going to be a reality in 15, even in eight years from now," said Quint. "That you put that up there as a possibility suggests you're dreaming and not giving us concrete and reasonable alternatives."
Proposed streets for streetcar installation in downtown Brooklyn. (NYC EDC)
Residents also expressed fear about losing sidewalks along Atlantic Avenue and street parking on many other busy corridors. Transportation Committee member William Harris noted that a plan for a streetcar on an Atlantic Avenue-sized street in Dublin, Ireland allowed only one lane per direction for driving, and a total of one lane of parking for the whole street.
"You cannot maintain all the lanes of traffic, maintain all the sidewalk width and current forms, any bike lanes, any parking lanes, and of course add two streetcar lanes," Giambrone conceded. "That's not possible. So there will be tradeoffs that have to be made."
This statement produced a massive groan from the committee.
"When you say tradeoffs like it's not a big deal, you're talking about sidewalks, you're talking about bike lanes, taking parking, stopping stores from getting deliveries," said committee member Sandy Balboza. "Tradeoff means you get some, you lose some. It sounds like for Atlantic Avenue it's a loss."
