Home Queens For convention center, Genting may fund ‘Train to the Plane’

For convention center, Genting may fund ‘Train to the Plane’

by Benjamin Kabak

New Yorkers of a certain age remember a then-ubiquitous television ditty from the early 1980s. “Take the train, take the train to the plane,” went the jingle. It was an advertisement for a supposedly super-fast airport subway service that ran express on the 6th Ave. in Manhattan, switched to the 8th Ave. tracks at West 4th St., made one stop in Brooklyn at Jay St.-Borough Hall and then bypassed the rest of the IND Fulton Line until Howard Beach.

By 1990, the Train to the Plane died. It was a slow and painful demise brought on in part because the service was ahead of its time. It wasn’t truly a train to the plane. Rather, it was a train to a bus to the plane, and no one wanted to wind up in Howard Beach still a significant ride away from any JFK Airport terminals. Today, with the success of the AirTrain and when a super-express to JFK from Manhattan would be worthwhile, ridership along the IND Fulton line has grown such that sacrificing regular service to bypass stops would create deep animosity in Brooklyn and Queens.

Yet, as plans for a convention center in Ozone Park take center stage, the Train to the Plane is back on the table. We first got wind of this idea yesterday when transit advocates expressed their lukewarm embrace of the plan. In a recent radio appearance, though, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said a super-express along the IND line is a big part of the plan and that Genting will pay for the servce, whatever that means.

“It’s a non-binding letter of intent,” Cuomo said of Genting’s proposal. “All that letter of intent means we have an intention to. It was a proposal I wanted to talk about in the State of the State — the terms, the conditions, Port Authority land, Genting would want to reinstitute the train to the plane, which they would pay the cost of. But the terms and conditions will be in a piece of legislation.”

Far from clearing up the matter, Cuomo’s statement simply leads to more questions. What did Genting volunteer to pay for? Will they fund restoration of a service that wasn’t ripe for the subway 20 years ago and isn’t a better fit today? Will they fund operating costs in perpetuity? Can they guarantee that a Train to the Convention Center that bypasses some crowded stops and used to rely on a key switch and a dead end at Queensbridge won’t have a negative impact on the 6th and 8th Ave. IND lines? What protections does the MTA have against being forced to spend any money on this new service?

On the one hand, if Genting were able to answer these questions and provide the money, a funding deal could provide the model for a so-called public-private partnership. On the other, it’s hard to see how this plan wouldn’t leave thousands of riders and the MTA holding the short straw. Redeveloping the Javits Center land is a fine idea. Having someone else pay billions to build a convention center isn’t a bad one either. But transportation planning must be a part of the process, and right now, all we’re getting are platitudes with few promises.

You may also like

55 comments

John-2 January 10, 2012 - 12:48 pm

With both the A and C using the same tracks between Canal and Hoyt-Schermerhorn, it’s going to be hard to see how you can shoehorn a super-express in, especially during the PM rush hour period and given the increase in the number of TPH on those lines compared with 25-35 years ago (and even if you routed the line down Sixth Avenue and through the Rutgers tunnel, you’d still have to merge it with the F and M trains between Rock Center and B’way-Lafayette and with the A/C between Jay and Hoyt). That doesn’t even get into the likely neighborhood protests if you’re bypassing just about every stop in Brooklyn and Southeast Queens in order to get people from Manhattan to Aqueduct faster.

The Rockaway Line option seems like the only one that would allow for faster access to Ozone Park without negatively impacting a huge number of riders elsewhere. Diverting the M or R away from 71st Continental would impact the last few local stops on the Queens Boulevard line, but a station east of Woodhaven at Metropolitan Ave. would probably draw off a number of riders who currently go over to Queens Blvd. However, my guess is Genting’s idea of a financial “contribution” to improving access to Aqueduct is about on line with HBO’s financial contribution this past fall to the MTA in funding the run of the the Low Vs to promote “Boardwalk Empire”, and not on the lines of the $$$ it would take to reactivate a rail line that’s been dormant for 49 years, either as a new subway or a revived LIRR series.

Reply
Marc Shepherd January 10, 2012 - 1:12 pm

I think Ben is being a little too hard on them: the ink hasn’t even dried yet. You wouldn’t expect a letter of intent to have a detailed operating plan. A letter of intent just expresses an idea. It doesn’t answer every question on every subject; otherwise, it would be as long as the Oxford English Dictionary.

It will soon become clear that the Rockaway Branch is the only plausible way of doing it. The Train to the Plane frequently got stuck behind regular express trains, and it frequently caused switching delays throughout the system. These were key reasons (besides lack of popularity) why it was discontinued. The switches at West 4th and Jay hold up service on BOTH Sixth and Eighth Avenues; that is why they are not used in regular service.

And as Ben noted, the northern terminal of the Train to the Plane is no longer available, so it would be impossible to offer this service without canibalizing other services.

Reply
Ray January 10, 2012 - 6:11 pm

I agree Ben is being to hard. We’d be screaming if something fully baked came out in the state of the state address. I also think the tone of recent posts reveals some animous toward Andrew Cuomo. It’s a posture that I would say is undeserved. So far, one should either be neutral or at least optimistic. I am the latter. I like the negotiating skill exhibited with suburban Republicans on the payroll tax. I believe the Governor will keep his promise to restore those funds. I love the dynamism coming from the Governors mansion. New fronts on BIG projects (Moynihan (revived), Javitz (rationalized), Aqueduct (conceptualized). I like the idea of Port Authority engagement and private-public partnerships. I like the idea of standing behind the existing MTA capital plan. He has a term in office to prove himself. He has his team in place. I’m watching.

Reply
Alex C January 10, 2012 - 6:18 pm

I want to be optimistic, but so far he’s done absolutely nothing to deserve it. Pushing for a rail-less Tappan Zee replacement. Allowing fracking, which however one wants to spin it regarding “We need the gas!”, poisons every damn thing for miles. Cutting payroll tax to appease the suburbs. And then on top of it all, taking $100 million from the MTA budget this year. And we’re supposed to believe he’ll reimburse the MTA next year. Not a bloody chance.

Reply
Evan January 16, 2012 - 12:53 pm

Hear hear! With his antics the past few months (no transit option at the Tappan Zee, the ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE idea to put a income-sucking casino near some of the poorest neighborhoods in Queens, among myriads of other things), the only thing Cuomo has earned from me is a boatload of skepticism.

Bolwerk January 10, 2012 - 6:35 pm

So, you like the way he screwed the transit system out of hundreds of millions of dollars so the Republikans’ constituents don’t have to pay for their own commutes? The city is probably going to be nickle-and-dimed even more now to make up the difference – or it will be covered with more debt.

I don’t get what you see in those three projects either. Moynihan objectively makes commuter and long distance rail less accessible/convenient, Javits isn’t getting anymore useful, and the only good that could possibly come out of Aqueduct is keeping gamblers from going to Atlantic City or Connecticut.

This goes to show that where Cuomo is unproven, he’s unproven – and in other ways he’s a failure whose failings are for some reason being spun as successes.

Reply
Ray January 10, 2012 - 9:59 pm

As a Democrat, I’d say we are our own worst enemies.

Benjamin Kabak January 10, 2012 - 6:38 pm

If we don’t hold Cuomo’s and Genting’s feet to the fire now when this project is still in the planning stages, what happens? We wake up and find out they’re opening a convention center with no transit access or with an onus on the MTA that it can ill afford. Now is exactly the time to be asking the questions I’m asking here.

Reply
Ray January 10, 2012 - 10:01 pm

Respectfully, and sincerely, no disagreement with questions only with what I surmise are pre-mature judgements.

Alex C January 10, 2012 - 1:16 pm

I’d do this: http://g.co/maps/rz6kc
1968 QB super express, connected to abandoned Rockaway ROW.
Add 10 Ave station on the 7, as the 7 is also involved with this because of the Javits Center.
If there was a time for backroom scheming, this is it, Prince Cuomo. Get us the transit expansions. Hopefully Lhota is savy enough to push for this, and hopefully he has enough on Cuomo to back him up. Here’s a classic comedy line: “Now you know the word for this, your honor: it’s called Blackmail.”

Reply
Bolwerk January 10, 2012 - 1:25 pm

Cute and probably cheap to construct.

Reply
Alex C January 10, 2012 - 1:32 pm

Seriously, the LIRR East Side Access work has already done the connection to 63 St tunnel. The only real “new” construction is down Yellowstone Blvd to Forest Hills – 71 Ave. Amazing that they never followed through on that 1968 plan.

Reply
Marc Shepherd January 10, 2012 - 1:34 pm

Cheap is relative. I’m guessing rehabilitation of the old Rockaway ROW would be a billion all by itself, if not more. That’s before you consider the costs of hooking it up to the existing network, purchases of rolling stock, and so forth.

Reply
Bolwerk January 10, 2012 - 1:43 pm

The existing surface ROW can’t be that expensive. It would only need tracks, signals, and stations.; no land condemnation, boring, cut and cover, or complicated grading. I don’t see a reason why it would need to be much more expensive per mile than the Port Jervis line rebuild – except featherbedding, of course.

Obviously they could totally screw the pooch on a new subsurface ROW. Indeed, that’s the only reason to think this is impractical at all.

Reply
Marc Shepherd January 10, 2012 - 2:01 pm

There are various bridges and viaducts on that line that have had no maintenance in over half a century. I would bet that some of those viaducts are no longer in safe condition and would need to be totally rebuilt.

Also, some parts of the ROW have become parking lots and ball fields.

Alex C January 10, 2012 - 2:03 pm

Yes, they have. That’s why it’s a good thing the city still owns the land.

Bolwerk January 10, 2012 - 2:07 pm

Even if those bridges and viaducts need to be replaced, a billion$ sounds awfully steep for what amounts to a mile or two of mostly at-grade track.

Marc Shepherd January 10, 2012 - 4:45 pm

Not convinced yet? Remember, the stations no longer exist. Several have been removed entirely, and the rest are empty shells. They would all need to be totally rebuilt to modern standards and made ADA compliant.

There are plenty of photos of the ROW online, and you can see for yourself how much work it would require.

Alex C January 10, 2012 - 6:10 pm

Forgotten NY has them, and they do need replacing. I don’t suggest it will be easy, but at least the ROW is there already, and the only significant tunneling needed would be cut-and-cover via Yellowstone Blvd to the Forest Hills-71 Ave station. LIRR ESA is already doing the work to get it connected to the 63 St tunnel. The remainder of the work will at least not be underground, so hopefully that could reduce construction time and cost.

Bolwerk January 10, 2012 - 6:41 pm

Okay, let’s say they need to build four stations. There is no need to condemn tens of millions of dollars of land, as is necessary at 41st Street. ADA compliance isn’t anywhere near as expensive in low-density developments as it is on 2nd Ave.

I know it will require work, but much of the initial work will be in letting landscapers sell the firewood and paying garbage companies to pick up the junk. It’s expensive, but it’s not aircraft carrier expensive.

This just isn’t the 7 extension, East Side Access, or SAS – all of which are several times more expensive than they have to be already.

jim January 10, 2012 - 8:01 pm

There are no stations that need to be rebuilt. This would be an express from Manhattan to the Convention Center/JFK. There would be, in the minds of those building it, no need for intermediate stops.

Bolwerk January 10, 2012 - 8:39 pm

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to have no intermediate stops. There should at least be one at Woodhaven Blvd.

Kai B January 10, 2012 - 9:19 pm

Yes, you need to give the residents of the area an answer to “what’s in it for me?”

Bolwerk January 10, 2012 - 9:43 pm

Well, why shouldn’t there be something in it for the residents? They’re citizens of the city too.

Alon Levy January 10, 2012 - 8:57 pm

Look at the Ammertalbahn photo here. Must have cost a billion to reactivate, too, I’m sure.

Alex C January 10, 2012 - 9:45 pm

Turns out rail construction doesn’t cost so much when you take out the kickbacks.

Alex January 10, 2012 - 1:39 pm

It’s worth noting that connecting the subway to the LIRR opens up a whole can of worms with the FRA. But I like the concept.

Reply
Alex C January 10, 2012 - 1:44 pm

Not connecting directly. The Rockaway branch adds two track spaces to the sides of the main line. If you look at the ROW west of the junction, there is room for six tracks, with space for a 5th and 6th north and south of the 4 main line tracks. A barrier separating the subway tracks would do, considering there is no freight service on the LIRR main line at that point. The FRA has appeared to be more sane recently, so I hope they would allow a simple barrier to “officially” separate the two.

Reply
Bolwerk January 10, 2012 - 1:50 pm

There was/is no plan to do that. As I remember it, the plan was a new single track along the LIRR Mainline for peak direction subway service. Obviously this would have to be somewhat modified for two-track service.

Reply
Bolwerk January 10, 2012 - 1:32 pm

Could Genting be interested in subsidizing gamblers’ trips? It makes sense why no one would say that is the real reason, but there is precedent for it. Vegas resorts aren’t beneath steep discounts on planes and hotel to get people to gamble. This could be the same principle, and it’s only a matter of getting people across Queens. Figure, if they pay their usual NYC Transit fare of $2.25, Genting will only need to pay somewhere south of a buck or two per rider to subsidize the service, an amount that could easily be returned in customer losses at the slot machine. So maybe this notion isn’t too absurd.

OTOH, there is precedent for failure. The NJT Atlantic City Express didn’t seem to work very well, but at least in that case there was faster, more direct bus service.

Reply
Chris January 10, 2012 - 1:38 pm

I think Genting “paying” for this service is probably pretty cheap. Since most existing riders will likely just wait and take the next, more crowded train (being inconvenienced, but paying the same fare), plus you get new airport riders, total ridership and thus fare collection probably increases. Especially since airport riders are more likely to be visitors and therefore less likely to be using discounted fare cards. You obviously add some costs by providing the service, but when offset against the new revenue, it’s probably not much.

Obviously, many non-airport riders on these lines would be inconvenienced with longer waits at some points in the day. However, sometimes local interests must be sacrificed for broader goods; creating deep animosity in Brooklyn and Queens isn’t in itself a reason for scrapping such a plan, anymore than deep animosity on 69th St. is a reason to scrap a subway entrance there.

Reply
Benjamin Kabak January 10, 2012 - 1:58 pm

It’s not NIMBYism to the extent we see on 69th St. It’s taking away useful service in exchange for the promise of a slightly faster ride to a convention center/casino operating by a private owner. One of the problems with the original Train to the Plane concerned empty trains zooming past stations with a lot of folks waiting for a subway.

Reply
al January 10, 2012 - 3:09 pm

Possible solutions:
1) During Peak Hrs, extend the C to Lefferts Blvd, and run A to Rockaway Park and Far Rockaway only. Offpeak, run several A from 145th St lower level middle track down 6th Ave to W4th, Downtown Manhattan, and Rockaway Park (or Howard Beach if you add switches to north to avoid fumigation issues and terminal facilities).

2) Move Transit Museum. Use it as peak hr terminal for C in Bklyn. Use WTC as terminal for C in Manhattan. Run some (7-10 TPH) E to Lefferts Blvd. A to Rockaways only. Offpeak, same as above or option (1).

3) Adjust schedules as needed. The NYCTA already runs special service to and from sporting events and special occasions (New Years Day). You could also run a frequent express bus service with commuter coaches during midday and evening hrs to augment trains.

Reply
AlexB January 10, 2012 - 2:25 pm

I think it’s pretty obvious that the US’s biggest convention center in the US’s biggest city at one of the busiest airports should have a great express service between all three, i.e. a branch off the LIRR using the abandoned Rockaway line making stops at Aqueduct and the Airtrain. Better yet, connect that extension with the Airtrain for a seamless service between the terminals, convention center and Penn Station or Grand Central. It would require new trains, but it’s very doable.

If that cannot be accomplished for whatever reason (or a similar version that uses the Queens Blvd subway instead of the LIRR), then the A train is the best option. There is a 3rd track on the old BMT structure east of Euclid that is already connected with the Rockaway Branch. The A could be relatively quick between Aqueduct and Manhattan: Aqueduct, Grant, Euclid, Broadway Junction, Utica, Nostrand, Jay St/Metrotech, High St (maybe this new express could skip High St?), Fulton, Chambers, Canal, West 4th, 14th, Penn, Times Square. That’s about 14 stops to Times Square (40 min) and about 8 stops to the World Trade Center (30 min or less). It’s not fast, but it’s faster than the existing. Maybe investing in some “branded” trains for the line would help. I think this won’t work as a new service, it is just a service variation on some of the existing A trains.

Reply
Nyland8 January 10, 2012 - 2:29 pm

OK … It’s clear that the success of any “train-to-the-plane” scheme is dependent on speed and reliability to JFK, so this transportation improvement can piggy back on the proposed convention center mass-transit upgrade. I’m pretty clear how, with the ESA on the threshold of completion, express service will be able to run out to the new Convention Center/JFK from both Penn and GCT – perhaps in 20 minutes if no local stops are added. But I’m unclear on how Atlantic Terminal makes the grade. Is there a viable transition from Atlantic Ave to the ROW @ 100th Street? Satellite view shows a curved ROW – now filled with what appear to be school buses – but isn’t there a grade problem in the transition?

Reply
Marc Shepherd January 10, 2012 - 5:56 pm

The connection to the Atlantic Branch formerly existed, so presumably the grade problem is not insurmountable. But that connection were demolished, and as you noted it’s now used as a school bus parking lot.

Reply
Walter January 10, 2012 - 2:38 pm

I never realized how good of a politician Cuomo is until this plan came out.

Remember how the Second Avenue Line won’t open until 2018 (and only a small stub at that)? East Side Access keeps getting delayed? The ceilings are collapsing onto the tracks? Service cuts? Garbage and rat infestations? No transit on the Tappan Zee?

Cuomo comes up with a plan for a convention center in Queens that no one wants and no one thinks we need, and dusts off a failed subway service from the past to service it. I bet he’ll use it as an example as how he supported “service expansion.” He’s changed the conversation from stuff that matters to fluff.

Cuomo is like a parent with a screaming baby who jingles his car keys to shut the kid up. And we’ve all stopped crying and are looking at the shiny, jingling car keys.

Reply
Jerrold January 10, 2012 - 3:25 pm

Ben, what is a “key switch”?

Reply
Marc Shepherd January 10, 2012 - 6:00 pm

I think all he means is that the Train to the Plane service formerly turned at 21st Street–Queensbridge. Those were the days before the 63rd Street Line was connected to Queens Boulevard. Service can no longer turn there, because you now have F trains running in both directions.

Reply
Christopher January 10, 2012 - 5:19 pm

Make it maglev like China connects Shanghai airport to the city. Be the first maglev project in the U.S. Get some DOT demonstration money. But on the old ROW. Make this project entirely new and different. I mean why not?

Reply
Alon Levy January 10, 2012 - 9:03 pm

Why not? Well, because the Shanghai maglev train underperforms so much that it’ll never make back its construction cost. China has given up on maglev both as a high-speed rail technology (current construction is conventional rail, and plans to extend maglev have been indefinitely postponed due to community opposition) and as an airport connector (Shanghai extended the subway from the maglev station, located halfway between the airport and the CBD, to the airport).

Reply
Larry Littlefield January 10, 2012 - 6:01 pm

Did someone mention to the Governor there are non-poor people living along the route of the A train now?

What’s next? Making all Lex line trains local south of 59th Street and cutting service in half, so the suburbanites at Grand Central can board an empty express train to Lower Manhattan?

Reply
Alex C January 10, 2012 - 6:14 pm

Hey, the less affluent folks living along the A didn’t donate to his campaign. The other guys did, so he’ll do what they want him to do.

Reply
Alon Levy January 10, 2012 - 9:07 pm

There already is a super-express train to the plane – in fact, there are two of them. One is the LIRR Main Line, which gets you from Jamaica to Penn Station in 20-odd minutes, and has reasonable frequency for American commuter rail since multiple branches interline. The other is the E, which makes very few stops in Queens, and gets you to the 50s in half an hour. They both connect to the AirTrain; the only drawback relative to Howard Beach is that the AirTrain ride takes a bit longer.

Reply
Kai B January 10, 2012 - 9:16 pm

Exactly. And unlike many other airports that might have “one-seat” rides to their terminals, JFK’s terminals are small enough that you don’t need to get on another “seat” once you’re in the terminal. So the net amount of seats is the same. The people movers after security at these “one seat” airports are always forgotten.

Reply
Eric January 11, 2012 - 5:10 am

After security you no longer have to drag your suitcases along, but your basic point stands.

Reply
Alon Levy January 11, 2012 - 6:42 pm

You know, you’re right, I wasn’t thinking of that. Heathrow, an airport with a very high mode share for local and regional trains (25%), has an internal people mover in Terminal 5, past security. In addition, although the Underground stops at every terminal, the Heathrow Express requires passengers to take a shuttle if they travel through Terminal 4. Finally, Terminals 1-3 get a combined station, with a lot of walking from the terminal to the station.

Reply
Frank B. January 10, 2012 - 9:10 pm

What would be the realistic cost of activating the Rockaway Line?

Largely untouched right of way, some stations intact; all surface line…

My guess is $400-$500 Million, including a short tunnel to the bellmouths at 63rd Drive on the IND Queens Boulevard Line.

Run the R Train run through there; make it run through the IND 63rd Street Line to the BMT Broadway Line; it’s only running 3 services at the moment. Make the R a 24 hour train, and the N a shuttle Late Nights.

Works fine; I just wish the bellmouths were AFTER 71st-Forest Hills to open up possibilities for express services along the Queens Boulevard line.

Overall, I like Alex C’s plan the best. It seems the easiest, cheapest, and best service to the Rockaways. If we could slap some intermediate stop somewhere around Rego Park, with moving walkways to the IND Queens Boulevard line for easier transfers, then I think that would serve Queens very nicely in general.

Reply
Marc Shepherd January 11, 2012 - 10:25 am

A couple of your assumptions are inaccurate. The original Rockaway Stations aren’t really intact. Some were removed entirely, and others are just empty concrete shells from which very little could be salvaged. Nor is the ROW entirely at-grade. There are numerous viaducts and bridges that haven’t been maintained in over half-a-century.

As a practical matter, I am not sure the service is viable unless it is an express, so the Rego Park bellmouths are not the answer. It has to be quite a bit faster than the current A Train service; otherwise, why not just use the A?

Reply
Evan January 16, 2012 - 1:58 pm

In response to Marc Shepard: the reason that the A wouldn’t work is that it takes a long and arduous route into Queens through Brooklyn. It can be slow just getting into Brooklyn; even longer to get into Queens. What is needed is a route into Queens directly from Manhattan.

There are several reasons why the Rockaway option should be considered in my opinion:
1. It provides a rail option to a part of Queens that is heavily reliant on bus service that seems to be cut more and more
2. It connects to one of the busiest rail lines in Queens (the IND Queens Blvd. line), which may open up prospects for business along the Rockaway route
3. It also connects to Central Queens, which is very busy due to Queens Blvd., and the numerous malls, restuarants and other small businesses that abound in that area
4. It gives a direct Rockaway Beach route to a significant part of Queens, and may lead to it becoming a Coney Island of sorts
5. Fill in anything else you can think of

All of these make the Rockaway line that should be reactivated; the pluses greatly outnumber the negatives (cost, etc.)

In response to Frank B.: I’d rather send the M down that way, and have it go through 53rd Street; the R is crowded as it is now.

Reply
paulb January 11, 2012 - 5:03 pm

Is it really true what Cuomo says, that all the financial risk is with Genting? If this thing doesn’t work out, we (taxpayers) won’t somehow be on the hook? Sounds too good to be true, even assuming a convention center is the best use for the property, which I’m not all that convinced.

Reply
ajedrez January 11, 2012 - 11:02 pm

Of course, it would be nice if the “train to the plane” were a reactivation of the LIRR Rockaway Branch. It’d be a win-win for everybody, but unfortunately we all know that’s not happening.

Reply
ajedrez January 11, 2012 - 11:07 pm

Sorry, for some reason, when I first clicked on http://bkabak.wpengine.com/201...../#comments it said there were zero responses rather than 49.

Reply
For convention center, Genting will fund A train ‘improvements’ only :: Second Ave. Sagas February 3, 2012 - 11:02 am

[…] heard rumblings in early January that Genting would fund a Train to the Plane-type service, and this week, the company confirmed as much. In an interview with Crain’s New York, the […]

Reply
My Nephew, The Chicken Palletizer | Affordable Palletizer July 14, 2012 - 8:09 pm

[…] investment could be a very effective way to trim down operating costs in your production facility.We just wrapped up a vacation where I spent some good quality time with my brother's family who I do…good old Michigan thunderstorm one night. My brother’s twin sons just graduated from high school […]

Reply

Leave a Comment