This document first contains descriptions of several precedent projects, which will be shown in sidebars in this section of the report. It subsequently contains a look at the background and context for the Crossboro U project.

PRECEDENT PROJECTS – SIDEBARS WITHIN THIS SECTION

Hudson-Bergen Line

The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail (HBLR) line is a 20.6-mile, 24 station light rail system that connects the New Jersey cities of Bayonne, Jersey City, Hoboken, Weehawken, Union City, and North Bergen. IN 1989, then-Governor Thomas Kean announced the service, and projected that the HBLR would create 80,000 jobs and 50,000 new homes. The line’s first stations opened in April 2000.1 With regard to the Crossboro U proposal, the HBLR provides fine examples of diverse financing and funding strategies, strong economic development driven by a transit project, and the power of regional connections.

At a cost of $2.2 billion, the project was one of the most expensive public works endeavors in New Jersey’s history. Funding sources were indeed diverse, and included the Federal Transit Administration (New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreements), New Jersey Transit, and the New Jersey Department of Transportation (the State Transportation Fund).2 The original project contract, signed in 1996 alongside private partners URS Washington Division, Itochu Rail, and Kinkisharo, called for a 15-year, fixed price Design Build Operate Maintain (DBOM) to construct the line’s first minimum operating segment. The contract was later renewed to include the second segment.3

As service expanded, HBLR ridership steadily increased until 2009, at which point it began dropping, perhaps due to the country’s economic recession. By 2012, however, the line’s ridership recovered and reached 13 million by 2013, more than double the ridership in 2003. Currently, the most heavily-utilized stations offer transfer points to other regional transit systems.

Since the HBLR’s inception, both commercial and residential development has boomed in surrounding areas; by 2006, an estimated 22,000 jobs had been created as a result of increased office space, and nearly 6,500 homes had been proposed and approved.4 Nevertheless, the line has been losing money. As of 2010, the HBLR’s farebox recovery ratio reached just 31 percent of its $45 million annual operating cost.5

1 Kerr, “Kean Proposes Transit Plan For Waterfront”, New York Times, 19892 Department of Transit, Project Profile, 20123 Mallet, Public Transit Program Funding Issues in Surface Transportation Reauthorization, 20074 Fitzsimmons and Birch, 20065 The Jersey Journal, 2010.

Despite this major shortcoming, service is projected to expand north to Englewood in Bergen County through the addition of seven new stations.6 Several other proposed expansions, including one to extend light rail along Route 440 to serve a large development as well as New Jersey City University’s planned western campus, are also on the State’s radar.7

Graphic 1: New Jersey’s Hudson-Bergen Line. 8

Denver FasTracks

The Denver FasTracks project is one of the largest mass transit expansions in the U.S., and includes commuter rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, and a redevelopment of the city’s main rail terminal, Union Station. In particular, the revitalization of this latter landmark is intended to serve as a gateway for transit into downtown Denver and to spur economic development as well as sustainable regional transit connections throughout the area. Overall, the project serves as a strong guide on how to finance infrastructure during a mass recession, as well as on the importance of building local community support for an undertaking with tremendous regional economic implications.

In the 1990s, the Colorado Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC) was formed to open dialogues about issues that face the many communities in the Denver region.9 Growth projections for the Denver area indicated that roads and road construction would not be sufficient to meet future transportation demands. As such, the MMC ultimately supported a 0.4 percent sales tax increase as part of a mechanism to finance transit in the region. In November 2004, area voters approved of this tax as well as the FasTracks plan as a whole, which was sold as an economic development tool for the Denver region.10

Due to America’s most recent economic recession, not long after the 2004 vote, two unfortunate events transpired: costs associated with rail construction skyrocketed, and the sales tax revenue collected to fund FasTracks proved to be overestimated.11 The project total cost also rose to $7.4 billion, a step up from the original projection of $4.7 billion. As a result of these issues, although several of the FasTracks projects are currently underway, many have yet to reach completion. However, the Regional

6 Frasinelli, 2013. 7 McDonald, 2011.8 Petespix75. “Hudson - Bergen 2006 June - Tonnelle Av.” 27 July 2005. Flickr. Available https://www.flickr.com/photos/46633980@N04/4403947652/in/photolist-9yQFhZ-8zETbL-cbCNJN-8EgQfr-8EgQ3T-6YdnJ9-aTPA2i-7H6soX-7HaocW-7Han4C-7H6s2n-7Haor3-7H6rsn-dBp7FR-9eMXYo-aTPvZi-9eJQrH-9eMXpf-9eJQEn-9eMXab-9eJR6t-9eJQXF-9eMXE5-9eJQq6-9eJRhB-9eJQvF-9eMXBf-9eMXwG-9eJQLe-9eMXim-9eMXZJ-9eMXMh-9eMXsG-9eMXrj-9eMX67-9eJQBV-9eMXSb-9eMXy5-9eMXm9-9eJQMB-9eMXVw-9eJR2D-9eJQuT-9eJR1x-9eMXzN-hbfQ8w-8EgQ2t-8zBKjH-8EgPKg-8zET8Y/9 Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley, The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities and Metros are Fixing Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy (Washington: The Brookings Institute, 2013), 56.10 Ibid.11 Ibid., 59.

Transportation District of Denver posits that a significant portion of FasTracks will be completed by 2018. Union Station opened in May 2014.12

Graphic 2: Denver, Colorado’s FasTracks. 13

12 “Program Schedule,” FasTracks Regional Transportation District of Denver (RTD), Denver Colorado, Accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/main_31.13 Grudzielanek, Dan. “Denver Light Rail”. 25 May 2008. Available https://www.flickr.com/photos/dlanek/11358029085/in/photolist-yDCbK-PbFJ2-84ejfS-84bfqZ-4DdJxe-etNfGR-7qSYV-53x8Kn-53x95n-dMiHzL-4PyUW4-iiESkF-bm7xML-2PCAR-n7QJi1-rWnxz-bynv2D-35AR4S-rWnyb-7RP7Nu-7RKRqa-Dr66H-bynuUT-52o8hm-aLVU7i-9oYTxk-9k5JdW-84berX-5hySEo-bynv1P-8KwXjx-aLVSXt-4D4sxN-5F5swR-sub2o-5L4m8m-Hb437-8PCBW3-7uLyom-2xjdVX-2xoAVJ-2xjdYH-2xjdEF-2xje72-2xoC3S-2xjcPc-2xoBbw-2xjev6-2xoCN5-2xoCZ9

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

INTRODUCTION

Every large-scale infrastructure project has its own unique story. The Crossboro U was originally proposed in Regional Plan Association’s (RPA) 1996 Third Regional Plan. But the true inspiration for the project lies with London's Overground Railway, a grade separated, surface circumferential rail system providing mixed-use, freight and passenger rail operation through London's boroughs. In less than six years, the London Overground system has increased its ridership from 100,000 to more than half a million daily passengers, and is providing a broad range of mobility, economic development, congestion relief and other benefits to the entire London region.

This section discusses the background of the London Overground, drawing parallels between New York and London. In addition, it presents a closer look at the history of the Crossboro right-of-way, the origins of the Crossboro U concept, and New York’s current transportation and economic circumstances.

NEW YORK AND LONDON

In many ways New York and London are bookends. They both have approximately 8.5 million residents, are experiencing rapid immigration and population and economic growth and share a similar portfolio of industries. Both cities are also experiencing a growing gap between well-off communities at their core and a ring of poor, isolated communities in their outer boroughs. Both cities are also experiencing crush loads on their more than century-old transit systems, which were designed to get workers into and out of the central business district on a network of radial transit lines.

Both cities also face shortages of both market and affordable housing, creating both rapid increases in housing prices and a growing shortage of housing within the reach of low- and moderate income households. The London Plan -- the Greater London Authority's strategic plan -- calls for the construction of 42,000 units per year for the next twenty years, while only a little more than half this amount has been produced. Over the last decade, London’s housing stock has grown by about 0.8 percent per year, while New York’s has grown by approximately 0.5 percent annually; in both places current rates of production of both market and affordable housing cannot keep up with growing demand., To promote new housing development,, both cities are taking firm action to improve the amount of affordable housing.. For instance, the London Plan identifies 33 “Opportunity Areas” on which the GLA and London Boroughs will focus new housing development. New York City also recently released its own housing plan, calling for production of 80,000 new affordable units over a 10 year period, and the adoption of inclusionary housing requirements for the entire city.

In order to increase the accessibility of more housing units, the Greater London Authority and Transport for London (TfL, the GLA's regional transportation authority) are investing heavily in modernizing the existing underground and bus systems and in creating new transit capacity in the city. TfL's largest single investment is in Crossrail, a new $23 billion east-west underground transit line designed to increase capacity and reduce congestion throughout Central London's underground lines. At the same time, TfL created the London Overground by repurposing abandoned and underused railroad rights of way to provide new mobility options to Londoners. The Overground runs through many areas outside the central business district that previously had poor or overcrowded underground service. The Overground also provides a circumferential route linking London's boroughs with each other, shortening travel times between the boroughs.

THE LONDON OVERGROUND

The London Overground is a rail system that traverses the urban and suburban areas of London. Opened in 2007, the 53.4-mile network consists of 6 lines with 83 stations. As the most analogous example in the world of a circumferential surface transit system, London's experience in planning, financing, building and operating the Overground can inform New York's efforts to create a similar system here -- the proposed Crossboro U, which would be the initial link in the proposed ORBIT system.

Graphic 3: London Overground System highlighted on the London Transportation System Map 14

Development of the London Overground

In 2006, TfL pieced together a number of underused passenger and freight lines to create the Overground system. Portions of this system had been undercapitalized and disconnected from each other and from the rest of London's transit system. Other sections were totally abandoned. With decrepit stations and empty rail cars, the existing system was severely underutilized; in fact, many people living near former stations did not realize the system existed at all. From the start of TfL’s initiative, the goal was to transform a set of formerly disconnected and disused rights-of-way into a new circumferential network that could increase passenger and freight service, and revitalize London's relatively poor inner boroughs.

Throughout the project’s construction, general capital expenses were minimized; for example, the East London line (opened in 210) cost just £1 billion, a new fleet of trains cost £260 million, and the South London Line extension (opened in 2010) cost £75 million.15 However, given the amount of new infrastructure and station upgrades 14 Transport for London. “Tube Map”. Available https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/standard-tube-map.pdf

15 “The Story of the London Overground,” Transport for London, accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJzHXFsU8UQ&feature=youtu.be

needed, a substantial amount of additional money was required to complete the Overground.

Rail industry funds, central government grants, TfL’s general revenues (including fare revenue and investment bonds), Olympic-related investments, and private developers each played a role in financing the project.16 A relatively new tactic known as a “community infrastructure levy” also played a large role in financing the project. Moreover, a more recent trend of “devolution” or localization of rail services enabled local agencies to leverage and coordinate packages of investment based on new development at stations.

The Overground currently offers connections to seven of the city’s Tube lines, the Docklands Light Railway, Tramlink, the National Rail, and trains to the region’s airports. Transport for London (TfL) publicly owns the system, which is operated privately by London Overground Rail Operations Limited (LOROL), a joint venture of Hong Kong MTR and DB Regio UK. Daily and annual ridership numbers are respectively approximated to be 427,000 and 130 million, and daily ridership is expected to top one million by 2020.17 With the exception of one diesel-powered line, all Overground routes operate with electric, multiple unit trains.18 Additionally, most passenger trains in the network operate on dedicated tracks, with freight utilizing separated rail to minimize network disruptions. In certain sections, however, Overground passenger trains share tracks with freight operators. The gross cost contract between the concession operator (LOROL) and TfL has resulted in a very strong partnership that employs incentives and accountability to reduce fare evasion, improve overall relations, and evenly distribute risks.19 In fact, LOROL uses performance metrics – known as “key performance indicators (KPIs) to improve its quality; its customer satisfaction rate is currently 82 out of 100.

Since the opening of East London Line and the South London Line extension (neither of which was included in the original right-of-way), property values near three of the communities served by the Overground --Haggerston, Peckham Rye, and New Cross -- have increased 34 percent, 24 percent and 12 percent, respectively. As housing prices continued to rise in central London, and as these areas have become more accessible, young higher income professional families have gravitated to these and other Overground stations.20 In response to concerns about displacement of long-term residents, the GLA has promoted new housing development in areas served by the Overground. such as the recently-approved 34-unit affordable housing project in the

16 Stephen Joseph and Richard Hebditch, “Going Local: Lessons for rail policy from London Overground and Merseyrail,” Campaign for Better Transport. ASLEF, 3, accessed February 9, 2014.17 London Overground Rail Operations Limited (LOROL), "Company Fact Sheet 2013." LOROL, accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.lorol.co.uk/pdf/LOROL%20factsheet%202013.pdf.18 Transport for London. Accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/28399.aspx.19 Joseph and Hebditch, “Going Local,” 9, 10, 13-14, 16.20 The Economist. “London Overground - In the loop”. The Economist, accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21587223-how-one-railway-line-helped-change-way-londoners-commute-loop.

Richmond area.21 In addition, the East London Line and South London Line serve many of the most deprived boroughs in London, improving access for both current and new residents to jobs and services22.

By 2012, the Overground proved to be a success story in more ways than one. First, operating mainly with 15-minute headways, the system had three times the ridership level as when TfL initiated the Overground in 2006. Second, the line had served to improve economic development and support population growth in London. 23 Third, the Overground had demonstrated the viability of mixed-use passenger and freight rail service. Finally, the Overground had offered an excellent and attractive passenger service to many of the communities and their residents in London's inner boroughs.

LEARNING FROM LONDON

New York has much to learn from the London Overground experience. Both cities face the urgent need to expand the capacity and service areas of their century-old transit systems. And like London, New York also has a number of underutilized and abandoned and grade separated surface rail rights-of-way created from the mid-1800s to the early-1900s. Many of these existing rights-of-way can now be put back into productive use to service growing metropolitan populations.

The reuse of old, abandoned, or underutilized rights-of-way is the most cost effective means of adding mobility to existing regions. Many of New York’s and London’s recent infrastructure projects have involved large, expensive tunnels costing billions of dollars. By reusing existing surface rights-of-way, New York can create new transit services at a small fraction of the cost of expensive tunneling projects.

The London Overground has two fine examples of cost-effective reuse of existing infrastructure. First, the North London Line of the system was previously a poorly maintained and rather unpopular passenger rail line. By making service improvements, station improvements, and rolling stock improvements, TfL and LOROL (the line’s operator) were able to increase ridership as well as customer satisfaction. They also branded the line as part of a larger Overground system, integrated it into the rest of TfL's Underground fare system, and placed the line on the city’s well known transit map. These improvements, while relatively inexpensive, dramatically improved transportation in London. Second, the East London Line was a poorly used, poorly maintained and largely disconnected part of the Underground system. TfL closed the line in 2007 and completely rebuilt to become part of the Overground system by 2010. By reutilizing this right of way, TfL managed to better connect a fairly abandoned line to the larger transportation system in London in a short time at a quite low cost.

21 Richmond News. “Affordable homes plans approved by Richmond Council”. accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/richmondnews/10595156.Affordable_homes_plans_approved/?ref=rss.22 Transport for London. "London Overground Impact Study ." Transport for London, accessed February 9, 2014, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Item08-020212-Board-London-Overground-Impact-Study.pdf.23 “London Overground Impact Study.” Transport for London. 2 February 2012. p. i-20.

In addition to learning from London's successes in designing, financing, delivering and operating the Overground, New York can also learn from the mistakes London has made in building this and other infrastructure projects. While many of London’s transportation projects have proven huge successes, the city and its various entities have not always managed station area development perfectly. In the case of the London Overground, for example, no public entity managed to acquire large amounts of land adjacent to stations in order to capture the value from and direct its development. Although London did implement a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) value capture system, in which developers made a modest payment to help finance the Overground system), in reality, most of the development benefits resulting from the Overground were actually captured by private developers and could not help fund either the Overground or future transportation investments in London.

The East London Line in particular serves as a strong comparison with the Crossboro U line. The Crossboro U will be 25 miles and London’s East London line is 22 miles. Additionally, the Crossboro U will create 22 stations and the East London line contains 29.

Graphic 4: Similarities between the Crossboro U and the London Overground’s East London Line. 24

The Crossoboro U line and the proposed ORBIT system have a chance to build a transportation project that can create economic value and capture a portion of that value in the station areas while also providing the affordable housing that is needed in New York City. The following section touches on the history of the Crossboro right-of-way as well as the recent history of the Crossboro U concept in New York.

HISTORY AND OWNERSHIP OF THE CROSSBORO RIGHT-OF-WAY

The right-of-way that will be used to create the Crossboro U alignment dates back to the late 19th century. In 1876, The New York, Bay Ridge, & Jamaica Railroad opened the first segment of the Bay Ridge branch, which connected the 65th Street Dock (adjacent to the future site of the Brooklyn Army Terminal) to Parkville Junction, located near today’s Avenue I stop on the IND Culver line in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. Expansion of the branch continued until 1883, when the line reached its current terminus at Fresh Pond Junction in Glendale, Queens.

In 1916, construction was completed on the New York Connecting Railroad, a freight corridor built by the Pennsylvania Railroad, linking Fresh Pond to the Hell Gate Bridge—which spans the East River to the Bronx and serves as a vital rail connection between Long Island and the North American mainland. The following year, freight service commenced along the entire alignment, allowing cargo to traverse Brooklyn and Queens and continue either to New Jersey and points westward or the Bronx and points

24 Transport for London. “Overground Map”. Available http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/london-overground-network-map.pdf

northward. From 1927 until the late 1960s, the entire corridor was electrified; since then, however, all trains using the right-of-way have used diesel locomotives.

Graphic 5: Historic Freight Map of the right of way from 1912. 25

Today, the ownership of the right-of-way is distributed among multiple entities, including the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), the commuter rail operator controlled by New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA); CSX, the Class I railroad; and Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator.26 LIRR controls the Bay Ridge Branch, which connects the 65th Street Yards and float service docks to the Fresh Pond Yard. In 1997, the LIRR entered into a 20-year concession agreement with the New York & Atlantic Railway (NY&A) through which the latter became the sole operator of freight service along LIRR-owned trackage. The section between Fresh Pond and the Sunnyside Yard, known as the Fremont Secondary, was acquired from Conrail by CSX in 1997; in addition to CSX traffic, that portion of the right-of-way also accommodates freight service run by the NY&A, Canadian Pacific, and Providence and Worcester Railroads. The track section north of Sunnyside has been controlled by Amtrak since passage of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 and is currently used for Northeast Corridor service. The MTA is also now planning on using the Hell Gate Bridge to bring Metro-North commuter rail service into Penn Station using the northern section of this alignment.

Graphic 6: Ownership Map for the Crossboro Right of Way.

The idea of operating local or commuter passenger rail service along the existing Crossboro freight right-of-way has been discussed for decades. The first formal proposal for such an undertaking can be found in the Regional Plan Association’s (RPA) Third Regional Plan, A Region at Risk, which was published in 1996. At the time, RPA projected an increase in the number of work commutes into Manhattan from surrounding regions, including the outer boroughs. To meet the ensuing increase in demand for mass transit capacity, planners envisioned the construction of a new network of regional express rail, or ‘Rx services,’ along assembled freight rights-of-way and newly constructed track. Several of these projects are now being built, including the LIRR's East Side Access project, and the MTA's Second Avenue Subway and #7 Subway extension. A new Hudson River rail crossing, the Access to the Region's Core (ARC) project was under construction until it was cancelled by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in 2010. Amtrak is now proposing to build two new Gateway tunnels to take its place. The last of the 3rd Plan's proposed Rx lines was the ‘Triboro Rx.’27 Today, the need for such service has been revived in a new proposal, which is of course the focus of this plan.

25 Couper, William. History of the Engineering Construction and Equipment of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company's New York Terminal and Approaches. Pg. 32.26 New York State Department of Transportation, “New York State Rail Plan 2009- Strategies for a New Age”, February 2009.27 “A Region at Risk.” Regional Plan Association. 1996.

Graphic 7: Regional Plan’s Association’s 3 rd Regional Plan A Region at Risk describing the Triboro Rx project, including mingling passenger and freight services. 28

Graphic 8: TriBoro Rx concept conceived for Regional Plan Association’s Third Regional Plan. 29

NEW YORK CITY TODAY: POLITICAL CLIMATE AND EXISTING NEEDS

Shifting to the present, in 2013, New York City elected a new mayor, Bill de Blasio, with an overwhelming 73 percent of the vote. The first Democratic mayor elected since 1993, de Blasio largely ran his campaign on a platform of “rising together,” or ensuring that New York continues to grow and thrive while creating opportunity and upward mobility for all of the city’s residents. The mayor’s campaign encompassed a host of proposals aimed at reducing the severity of (and effects from) increasing wealth inequality, with particular attention to the city’s outer boroughs: Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island. The proposed Crossboro U line could play a vital role in meeting the new administration’s goal of improving transportation, housing and employment opportunities in the City's outer boroughs.

Graphic 9: New York City’s new mayor Bill de Blasio’s goals align with the Crossboro U project. 30

During his campaign, de Blasio made several proposals to generate economic development and ensure the provision of basic needs for residents of the outer boroughs. First, he called for creation of economic development hubs in neighborhoods across the city in order to spur job creation and wage growth for existing residents. Second, he outlined plans to preserve the integrity of current Industrial Business Zones and to provide revolving credit for neighborhood businesses in growing industry centers. Third, troubled by city’s the critical need for safe and decent housing for vulnerable New Yorkers, the Mayor made the construction and preservation of affordable housing throughout the boroughs a priority by vowing to build or preserve 200,000 affordable units in the next decade. In addition to providing a basic need for many of the city’s residents, de Blasio also suggested that housing be targeted to sites near transit hubs in order to increase density and provide greater access to employment in the outer boroughs.

In addition, Mayor de Blasio expressed support for transit infrastructure improvements, including targeted investments to increase the capacity and quality of the mass transit

28 Yaro, Robert and Hiss, Tony. A Region at Risk The Third Regional Plan for New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area. 1996. Available http://books.google.com/books?id=ew_C9etf-GgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false29 Regional Plan Association. “Regional Express Rail – Rx”. October 1996. Available http://www.rpa.org/pdf/rxnews.pdf

30 Case, Kevin. “New York City Mayoral front runner Bill de Blasio” 2 November 2013. Available https://www.flickr.com/photos/kevdia/10632385465/

system in the outer boroughs, improved subway and bus access along existing routes, and new rail connections, including the expansion of the MetroNorth regional rail service into the Co-Op City section of the Bronx. In order to alleviate traffic congestion and decrease harmful emissions, de Blasio also called for expanded rail capacity for freight transport, pledging to invest pension funds into projects that will support and facilitate this goal.

Mayor de Blasio’s priorities align well with the potential outcomes of the proposed Crossboro U project, as well as the entire Crossboro ORBIT system. In particular, many ofthe communities that would be served by the Crossboro have some of the region's longest commutes to job centers, and lowest household incomes. Further, many of these places are also experiencing rapid population growth. The Crossboro U project could address all of these needs.

Finally, according to projections, New York City’s population could grow by up to one million people by the year 2040. The Crossboro U line drawing on lessons garnered from London on population growth and immigration accommodation, could serve as a catalyst for new development in the outer boroughs.

CONCLUSION

In sum, as the two cities face similar challenges (particularly those regarding housing and population needs), New York has much to learn from London. These lessons should be taken into account when planning and implementing the Crossboro U line as well as the entire Crossboro ORBIT system.