For the first time since 2003, a non-Manhattan subway stop has cracked the MTA’s list of ten busiest. The folks in Flushing are patting themselves on the back as their station is the tenth busiest in the system. In fact, with this on-again, off-again popularity comes politicians who want more more more. In a profile of the 7 line’s eastern terminus and the area around it, Crain’s New York spoke with some politicians who want to “capitalize on their station’s exalted status.”
Both City Council reps and Community Board members want to see the MTA invest in the station. They are requesting a larger mezzanine space, bathrooms and a new look for the Flushing-Main Street LIRR station which is just a block away. “We have the potential to become the Penn Station of Queens,” Peter Koo, the City Council representative from the district, said.
It’s all well and good to want better transit, but as Stephen Smith noted on Twitter, that commitment should come with some urban policy changes. As Smith said, “If Flushing wants ‘the Penn Station of Queens,’ it should be forced to accept some upzoning.” Right now, development around the Flushing terminal isn’t primed for transit-oriented development. Buildings are stunted, and the area has too much parking. It’s a gateway to eastern Queens, but it should also become a beacon of TOD at the end of the 7. Only then could it become the “Penn Station of Queens.”
16 comments
Flushing is already relatively dense, but I agree it could easily support more density. Was out there this past weekend and honestly the sidewalks were simply packed in and around both stations. I’m not sure zoning precludes taller buildings and the large parking areas behind Roosevelt and Main to the NE are a great opportunity to plop several tall mixed use buildings, breaking up that superblock a bit.
The zoning code may allow dense buildings, but the parking minimums in that area makes any such buildings completely unprofitable, and thus they don’t get developed. As for the sidewalks, perhaps they need to widen them? Taking away a lane from drivers might be difficult politically, but it would barely cost a thing.
Too many buses in the area to do it. You can take a lane from the drivers but that means that the buses and their unbearable slowness along Main Street will only get worse.
Unlikely scenario. Taking away a lane would probably improve things in the long-run. An additional lane of traffic is an additional lane of confusion.
And regardless, it would be good for the 80% of street users who are pedestrians.
But that’s the point: A lot of those pedestrians are bus riders transferring to the (7) that would have to spend extra time stuck in traffic.
But they wouldn’t. One less lane is fewer people changing lanes, fewer people struggling to turn on and off the route, fewer people struggling to park, fewer people double parking, etc.. If anything, it would speed up bus travel.
Doesn’t he know that Jamaica is the “Penn Station” of Queens? Especially with the subway and the Airtrain having been added to it in recent decades?
How about extending the 7 train? or Baysiders dont want the animals of Flushing to get into their neighborhood? Or will someone point to Port Wash LIRR and say zero demand (cost and 60 min headways, which causes which?)?
If they couldn’t even manage to fund a 10th Ave./41st St. station, how are they supposed to extend the #7 from the OTHER end?
Dunno, but it should be cheaper than extending it on the west side. And, the costs are insanely inflated on the west side to begin with.
An underground conection between the subway and the LIRR station would be a good first step. Completing CBTC on the Flushing Line, which would allow for additional capacity, is another useful step.
Actually extending the Flushing subway would be very difficult, if not impossible, to pull off, when the MTA doesn’t even have the Second Avenue Subway funded.
Two things:
1. Bayside has the LIRR. The cost of S-Bahn-ifying the Port Washington Line is tiny; it’s an organizational problem, rather than an issue requiring pouring concrete. If you want to extend the 7 out, send it to College Point.
2. It’s always cheaper to extend lines out than to construct infill extensions in the CBD.
A true S-Bahn set up for NYC and inner burbs would be pretty awesome, complete with through routing, automated ticketing/turnstiles and increased frequencies. Honestly the ride out to flushing is nicer on the LIRR than on the 7 (when it doesnt run express).
But to make that setup work a few more trunk tunnels under manhattan would be necessary.
The existing infrastructure is enough for decent off-peak frequency. The peak is a problem, but an S-Bahn setup wouldn’t increase peak frequency; it would only rationalize it, making it easier to hop on a local train rather than having trains make three local stops and then express to Manhattan.
An underground connection to the LIRR elevators would be nice although I’m not sure what it does to handle crowds or system entry/exit.
The other thing the MTA could do if funding can be found (besides the proposed relay track extension at Great Neck which more or less is funded) is perhaps rehab the tracks at Mets-Willets Point LIRR.
At least one or two of the old track spurs there fold back into the Port Washington-bound track, and if my theory is right, could be used to “hold” local or express trains during PM rush hour while the other type of train goes through (and also to ensure that the west-bound trains get through the single-track stretch leading up to Great Neck before the east-bound express arrives).
That may resolve capacity issues for eastern Flushing and Bayside, before the MTA decides how many Grand Central trains would serve the branch if/when ESA is done.
How tall can buildings be in Flushing when it’s right next to LGA?