Remnants of the old LIRR Elmhurst station remain. Queens politicians want to revive the stop.

A few months ago, Queens representatives gathered with MTA officials to discuss the old Elmhurst LIRR station. Shuttered in 1985 due to declining ridership, politicians want to reopen the station with the neighborhood booming, and the MTA isn’t opposed to the project. With a population increase of 45 percent between 1980 and 2010, the neighborhood, currently served only by the M and R trains, is at least a 30-minute train ride away from Midtown and could use speedier transit.

Recently, a Wall Street Journal article offered up a summary of things:

The R and M subway lines that currently stop in Elmhurst take between 30 and 40 minutes to reach Manhattan during peak hours—on crowded trains. The LIRR train from Elmhurst would arrive at Manhattan’s Penn Station in roughly 15 minutes. “If people are given the opportunity to shave off about half an hour from their commute, that’s an enormously valuable product,” said Mr. Crowley, adding that the move would also open up Elmhurst as a neighborhood for additional people to explore.

LIRR officials say they are giving the issue “serious consideration.” Improvements being made on the Port Washington line will add capacity, according to Helena Williams, president of the LIRR. The project would cost between $20 million and $30 million, she said The next step, Ms. Williams added, will be a ridership study to be conducted in the next year or so, that will analyze the potential market for the LIRR in Elmhurst.

Robert Valdes-Clausell, an Elmhurst resident since 1966 and treasurer of the Newtown Civic Association, said residents are “already being exposed to the rumbling of the [LIRR] train and there is a tremendous increase in population density.” With the number of residents “expected to grow even further, this is a great opportunity to accommodate and serve the people,” he said.

The costs depend upon accessibility. With an elevator, the project would likely reach its $30 million estimate; without, it could afoul of ADA regulations and cost $20 million. That’s not the real issue though.

The biggest problem, as reports from earlier this year noted, is the cost of a ride. A subway swipe from Elmhurst Ave. costs, at most, $2.25 — and no one really pays that much on a daily basis. An LIRR monthly pass starts at $163, and individual peak rides run upwards of $7. The $3.75 City Ticket is good only on Saturdays and Sundays. Why?

The MTA has long treated its sub-agencies as separate fiefdoms that don’t play well with others. While back-office functions have been combined in recent years in an effort to eliminate redundancies, fare policies have remained stubbornly separate, much to the detriment of transit usage. It shouldn’t cost that much more to take the LIRR from Forest Hills than it does to take the E or F trains, and if the MTA is seriously about adding another LIRR stop in Queens or Metro-North access in the Bronx, the fare policies should be better unified. Otherwise, missed opportunities will abound.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

A schematic shows the Rockaway Beach Branch service from 1955 until it was shuttered in 1960. (Courtesy of Railfan.net)

After a flurry of activity this winter concerning the reactivation of the LIRR’s Rockaway Beach Branch line and some Queens residents’ calls to turn the right-of-way into a park, news concerning the rail line’s fate has died down. Recently, though, local politicians have thrown their voice behind the rail line.

In mid-March, Community Board 14 voted to voice its approval for reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Branch spur. It’s unclear what, if anything, anyone will do with this non-binding vote, but the role this old rail spur could play in improving intra- and inter-borough transportation in Queens is tremendous. Recently, Vincent S. Castellano took to the Queens Courier to outline exactly why this rail line should be reactivated, and his argument deserves a look.

Castellano offers up both a history lesson and an argument for better rail service. The history is important though because it sets the stage for today’s depart. Essentially, in 1962, the then-privately operated LIRR shut down the 3.5-mile stretch of the Rockaway Beach Branch between Queens Boulevard and the Aquaduct now under the microscope. The A train started using the southern portion out to the Rockaways at a tremendous cost to mobility.

“By disconnecting the northern part of the Rockaway Beach Branch,” Castellano wrote, “the powers that be severed train service between south and north Queens. Have you ever wondered why a Rockaway train has to go through Manhattan to go to Flushing? This is why.”

After some good old bashing of local politicians who have failed to solve traffic and transportation problems for decades, Castellano gets down to the crux of his argument:

Let me suggest that the best plan for the future of Queens is the original one from 1952. Re-establish the connection between the existing A train at Aqueduct and White Pot Junction in Kew Gardens. This can be done simply by adding new NYCTA tracks on the 3.5 mile northern branch thereby making the connection to Queens Blvd. There the old Rego Park Station (near 63rd Drive) could be rebuilt as a transportation hub providing transfers between the subway and the LIRR mainline. The Rego Park Station is less than 10 minutes from Penn Station.

This short 3.5 mile stretch of track effectively connects the A, E, J, M, R and Z subway lines to the LIRR. In addition, it runs parallel to Woodhaven Blvd so it will reduce congestion there. It also crosses Jamaica Avenue, Atlantic Avenue and Metropolitan Avenue and terminates in the vicinity of Junction Blvd, Queens Blvd and the LIE. If you had to create this right of way today the cost would be staggering. Yet this priceless public asset (paid for with taxpayer dollars) just sits there collecting rust for the last 50 years. Have we elected the wrong people to manage public assets?

Making the new Rego Park Station a transportation hub in the center of Queens also makes other transportation options possible. Limited/Select bus services could be established from the Rego Park Station to LaGuardia Airport, Citifield, Queens College and Flushing. This would be a one transfer, one fare connection between north and south in Queens. It would finally make Queens College accessible in practice and not just in theory. Re-establishing the Rockaway Beach Branch would also reduce vehicular traffic and congestion since this plan is cheaper, faster and more efficient than existing mass transit plans and current vehicular options within Queens.

Castellano ends his piece proclaiming this spur to be “shovel-ready,” and I’m not so sure I’d go that far. Nothing in New York City without a time-consuming environmental review process is truly shovel-ready. Plus, to reactivate the rail line would require extensive testing and cleaning up of the preexisting infrastructure. Some parts of the right-of-way have been encroached upon, and the MTA would have to deal with those who need to be moved. It’s not quite as easy as a snap of the fingers.

This project, however, is one that merits serious consideration. Much of the infrastructure is there, and construction costs would pale in comparison with, say, Phase II of the Second Ave. Subway. It would truly right a transportation wrong and ease congestion and traffic throughout parts of Queens. With bits and spurts of momentum behind it, this project should stay on the front-burner until it moves forward. It makes too much sense for the region for it stall out.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

Earlier this week, construction crews finished up the work at Court Square. (Photo via @NYCTSubwayScoop)

Earlier this week, long-time SAS reader Bill sent me the following query:

Court Square’s 7 Station is supposed to re-open on Monday, but judging from the looks of it today, they are WAY behind schedule. Large sections of the platform are missing and they haven’t even started putting the windguard back up on the Flushing-bound side. I’m not a betting man, but if I were, I’d predict that either it will be delayed by a week, possibly two or three—or, they will literally use plywood to hold it together come Monday morning.

I haven’t taken a ride on the 7 in a while and wasn’t in a position to assess the construction. I’d heard some good reports, some bad, but the reopening of the station — and the end of weekend shutdowns for the Flushing line — loomed. Today, Transit announced that Court Sq. would indeed open on time.

“Returning Court Square station to revenue service will once again allow our customers to take advantage of the recently completed in-system free transfer, and with full rehabilitation work nearly complete, the fast-growing area of Long Island City will have a refurbished and updated complex that will be fully accessible,” NYC Transit President Thomas F. Prendergast said in a statement this morning.

The station will reopen at 5 a.m. on Monday morning after a closure that began on January 21. New work included replacement platforms and windscreens as well as enhanced accessibility features. The entire station will be ADA-compliant come June.

In announcing the reopening of the station, Transit noted that the new platform relies on a new construction technique. It is not traditional concrete, but rather a composite of fiberglass and resin formed into panels. The composite are manufactured into 2×12-foot panels, bolted together and fastened to the platform support steel. It is modular station construction.

According to Transit, this composite is corrosion-resistant and will not be affected by de-icing salts. It will not crack during freeze/thaw cycles either. It is also lighter and faster to install. Thus, the new station will indeed be ready, 11 weeks after it was shuttered, come Monday morning.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

“The industry is skeptical about the viability of the Aqueduct site,” Jeff Little, a trade show organizer, said to The Times. “It has the potential to be a big white elephant. It’s true that there are large shows that can’t go to the Javits, but that doesn’t mean that they’ll go to a large facility at Aqueduct.”

Bagli summarizes the skepticism surrounding the proposed plan:

Conventioneers and other visitors come to New York expecting to see Broadway shows during their down time, eat in famous restaurants and shop on Fifth Avenue, trade show managers and hotel operators say. None of that exists at the relatively remote Aqueduct racetrack in Queens, where the Malaysian company, Genting Group, hopes to build a 3.8-million-square-foot convention center and 3,000 hotel rooms and enlarge its existing gambling hall.

More to the point, they add, Aqueduct is a 60-minute subway ride from Times Square. They fear that some conventions, trade shows and conferences will decide to go elsewhere…

Mr. Little’s view was amplified a week ago at a meeting of the New York chapter of the International Association of Exhibitions and Events in Manhattan. After listening to a presentation by a top Genting executive, Christian Goode, one trade show manager jumped up and asked the crowd, Who wants to see the Javits closed? Not a single hand shot up in assent from the 125 people in attendance.

With the Cuomo Administration noting that nothing has been set in stone and any convention center plan will include “a comprehensive master plan reflecting community and shareholder input,” the Ozone Park plan continues to suffer from a lack of integration into the aspects of New York City that make it New York City. While it may be close to JFK Airport, it simply isn’t near the attractions of the Big Apple.

“We know that Javits is the most successful convention center in the country in terms of bookings,” Mark Schienberg, head of the Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association and host of the annual auto show, said. “But people want to be in the heart of Manhattan. Do they want to be on the fringes of Queens?”

Even more practical, though, are the concerns about access. Genting has not indicated it will do much more than fund a super-express A train, and based on recent history, that idea appears to be a non-starter. A comprehensive plan involving the reactivation of the LIRR’s Rockaway Beach Branch line could cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. Furthermore, if a new convention center does not lead to the redevelopment of the current Javits Center, support from groups such as the Regional Plan Association may dry up as well.

Ultimately, this convention center plan, which came out of left field during the Governor’s speech, has a long way to go, but stakeholders are making appropriate noises early on. Better and faster transit access that doesn’t rob riders further down the line of train service must be a part of the equation, and as the convention industry and regional transit advocates voice these concerns, hopefully someone in Albany is listening.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

Recently, two Assembly representatives from Queens, Phil Goldfeder and Michael Miller, announced their support for a rehabilitation and reactivation of the Rockaway Breach Branch line. The two envision this routing as a faster way for people from Ozone Park and the Rockaways to reach Manhattan. With the convention center, Goldfeder said, “the commute for people here is only going to go from bad to worse. You can’t talk about a convention center without talking about transportation.”

Activists for the so-called QueensWay, a rails-to-trails project that would forever sacrifice the rail option for the Rockaway Beach ROW, had a different take, and it is probably the group’s most out-there statement yet. “The building of a new rail line in this economy and the destruction it would cause into adjacent neighborhoods including Forest Park is not feasible,” Andrea Crawford of Friends of QueensWay said. Reactivating an old rail line certainly is feasible, and it would not cause destruction of any neighborhoods. Ultimately, the stumbling blocks will not be quasi-NIMBYism from QueensWay supporters but Genting’s reluctance to spend too much money and a lack of any other funding source.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

Transit officials announced the start of a $24.7 million project that will see the installation of elevators from street level at Continental Ave. to the station platforms along the IND Queens Boulevard line in Forest Hills. The project is due to wrap up by October of 2013, and renovations to this dilapidated but popular station will also include staircase work, signage upgrades, tactile warning strips along the platform edge and some communications and signal upgrades.

Politicians praised the work. “The renovation will greatly increase train accessibility for residents of our community, while also providing more neighboring residents access to the shops in Forest Hills,” Forest Hills’ Assembly rep Andrew Hevesi said. With the MTA on track to make 100 of its 468 stations accessible by 2020, the authority will have technically fulfilled its mandate under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The agency deserves its accolades, but the system remains frustratingly inaccessible for thousands of disabled riders who must cater their routes to this list of stations.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

We 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 company’s senior V.P. for development spoke about the company’s needs if they are to operate at a profit. Essentially, they would require a larger slice of the revenue pie from the convention center and an expected boost of traffic to the racino next door. They also won’t do much for transportation.

Jeremy Smerd reported:

Genting will pay for upgrades to the Aqueduct subway station and for direct A-train service to take passengers from Fulton Street in Manhattan to the site—with a stop in downtown Brooklyn—in half the 35 minutes it takes now. The company won’t fund a new AirTrain spur from John F. Kennedy International Airport. It also will not pay for street upgrades.

That simply will not cut it. Based on past experiences without new trackage, such a service won’t cut travel time from 35 minutes to 17 minutes. Rather, these super-express trains will end up stuck behind regular express trains, and straphangers who live along the IND Fulton will find their service less frequent.

Genting won’t like the reality of this situation, but they’re going to need to find a better transit solution that doesn’t rob service from areas with rapidly growing populations and transportation needs. If increasing capacity is not in the cards, this convention center, already a fairly bad idea, will just look worse.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

A schematic shows the Rockaway Beach Branch service from 1955 until it was shuttered in 1960. (Courtesy of Railfan.net)

Before Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced plans to build a convention center in Ozone Park, Queens residents were gearing up to square off over a decommissioned bit of former LIRR tracks. Park advocates with some vague stirrings of NIMBYism wanted to turn the rail right-of-way into a park while rail advocates rightly objected. The convention center proposal, complete with a vow by the developer to fund transit to the area, has thrust this small section of rusted rail tracks back into the spotlight, and now the trail advocates are fighting back hard.

In The Daily News today, Carl Perrera, David Krulewitch and John Rozankowski put forward a compelling argument for reacativating the Rockaway Beach Branch line, and they put forward various solutions for such a reactivation. Krulewitch and Rozankowski are no strangers to this issue, and Perrera has been advocating for rail use for years. Now, they offer up this argument:

Some have suggested the revival of the JFK-Super Express service. Since there are more A trains running today than in the 1980s, a service conflict would be created and the needs of the convention center would not be met. Fortunately, there is a better alternative: the revival of the northern section of the old Long Island Rail Road Rockaway branch. The Regional Rail Working Group Rockaway Subcommittee and other transit advocates have studied this line and offer the following options:

The Railroad Option would have the LIRR resume operations between Penn Station and Aqueduct. Two stations would be built — at Rego Park and at Aqueduct. The latter would allow transfers to the A train and to the Air Train (if it were extended from Howard Beach). If rail cars are developed with the ability to operate on both lines, a one-seat ride from Midtown to JFK would be created.

The Subway Option would divert the M or R subway line east of 63rd Drive (via an already built connection) to the northern section of the Rockaway line. The subway would converge with the A train north of the Aqueduct Station and continue into the Rockaways. At Rego Park, two stations would be built, one for the subway and one for the LIRR mainline to permit transfers between the two services.

This would allow Rockaway riders a quick trip to Midtown or to eastern points in Long Island. Under both options, additional stations can be added after consultation with the affected communities.

The trio note that, if the MTA is not interested in such a proposal, the city could, as it has done with the 7 line, foot the bill since it is the legal owner of the right-of-way. In fact, for any rail development along the Rockaway Beach Branch to see the light of day, someone else — the city, the state or Genting — will indeed have to foot the bill.

Furthermore, the three authors parry with neighbors who claim a rail line would have a negative impact on their quality of life. Perhaps noise for a few would be an issue, but an electric train line would not impact pollution levels. Plus, the increased transit access would lead to a jump in property values as well.

They end with a call for a Rockaway Line Reactivation Task Force: “Does CB9 want to be the spoiler conducive to the inundation of Ozone Park with traffic, thus continuing transit misery for Rockaway riders and to block a chance to link Queens in an effective crosstown service? Or does CB9 prefer to be a good neighbor and support a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve mass transit for everyone’s benefit?” The choice, to me, is an easy one. If the state is going to build a convention center in Ozone Park, they must do everything right, and that includes rail access.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

That shuttle bus piece, you see, ended up becoming something of an explosive issue today. MTA refuses free money! MTA turns down shuttle buses! Outrage! Drama! That, in a nutshell, is what this teeny tiny article from The Post hath wrought.

To summarize, Jimmy Van Bramer, a Queens City Councilman, offered to give the MTA $250,000 out of his discretionary funds while the MTA engaged in this 11-week project. The authority turned him down, and thus Queens commuters who are bound for Grand Central must take the 7 to Queensboro Plaza, the N or Q trains to 59th St. and the East Side IRT to 42nd St. It is a roundabout way to go all of four stops on the 7.

Queens residents weren’t too pleased with the MTA for turning down the free bucks, and after numerous inquiries, Transit released a statement late in the day on Monday: “While we understand the Councilman’s attempts to mitigate the effects of work on the No. 7 line, the proposal to run a bus shuttle between Long Island City and Grand Central would be operationally inefficient, requiring long lines of idling buses and limited curb space to stage them. E, N, Q and R train service all link LIC with midtown Manhattan and these subway trips promise to be faster than a bus ride, which would be subject to traffic congestion and would still require a transfer to the subway for destinations beyond Grand Central.”

So what’s really going on here? Essentially, the MTA is turning down the money for a variety of interrelated measures. First, the MTA has learned over the years that, due to surface congestion, running a bus from Queensboro Plaza to Grand Central via the tunnel doesn’t save on travel time. They claim that due to traffic, the three-train route is just as efficient (or inefficient) as a shuttle bus.

Second, the MTA points to the 42nd Street area as one not geared for such an influx of automobiles. There isn’t enough available street space around 42nd St. on the East or West Sides to serve as the staging grounds for 5-10 buses that are required for a given run of a shuttle. That is the so-called operational inefficiency.

Third, it has long been MTA policy to provide shuttle buses to the nearest station in service, and it is my understanding that the MTA does not wish to break that policy every time a City Council member dangles a few bucks for a few weekends of buses. Fourth, and similarly, Transit seems to recognize that work on the 7 line is going to last longer than through early April. The CBTC project will require numerous segment shutdowns over the next few years, and the authority is concerned that Van Bramer’s well of discretionary funds may dry up. Furthermore, selective shuttle busing based on the whims of the area’s council representative could create inequities as other areas suffering from weekend outages do not enjoy such bonus shuttle service.

Some transit advocates in Queens have not been satisfied with the MTA’s answers. Ahead of the 7 line work, Angus Grieve-Smith urged the MTA to run buses to 34th Street instead. This, he claimed, would solve the staging problem while improving traffic times and providing the necessary subway connections. Service though would be fairly redundant, and the MTA has been hesitant to embrace this idea.

So I live it to you, dear reader: How do you solve this problem? Is the MTA acting foolishly as it rejects free money? Are these concerns valid? Such are the questions of a 24-7 transit system with an aging and technologically out-of-date infrastructure.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.

Speaking with reporters earlier today, Cuomo said in a reponse to a question on mass transit, “The MTA is working on additional transit applications.” He touted the fact that Genting will pay for the construction of the convention center and will carry the costs of some transportation-related aspects of the project as well.

Admittedly, it’s still early in this process, but early is when key decisions are made. The MTA, governor and Genting must be as transparent and inclusive as possible in this process. A successful convention center will incorporate increased transit access without taking frequency away from popular stops further down the line, and the MTA should not be expected to cover the operating costs of increased service or the capital costs of building out a rail extension or new station stops. Now is the time for these concerns to see the light of day and not when the shovels are entering the ground.

©2012 Second Ave. Sagas. All Rights Reserved.