Second Ave. Sagas

Daily News: For Queens, prioritize rails over trails

Written by

Benjamin Kabak

in

Hot on the heels of the news last week that a group of Queens College students and professors will be assessing the best uses for the Rockaway Beach Branch ROW, the Daily News editorial board comes out roundly in favor of rail.

At first blush, it sounds terrific: transforming a fallow old stretch of train tracks on the Rockaway Beach Branch of the LIRR into a park for families to enjoy. But there may well be a better use for this resource: for trains. Call us old-fashioned, but some parts of New York City — and Queens especially — need reliable public transportation more desperately than they need public space…

Build another High Line, right? Maybe not. It happens that the Rockaways (pop.: 130,000, and many more visitors) are starved for good, fast transit to Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn and all the other places the railroad could take them. So are Kennedy Airport (where 35,000 people work and 49 million travel in and out a year), Ozone Park, Hamilton Beach and Aqueduct race track and racino, all of which are near the rail line.

So, before going too far down the track of parkifying the path, it’s worth a serious look at whether it can be rescued and revitalized for its original use. Unlike with the High Line, where the choice was demolition or repurposing, the Rockaway Beach Branch could carry passengers again. Nelson Rockefeller had a plan for just that in 1968. Ditto for Pat Moynihan decades later. Frankly, it would have made more sense for a one-seat JFK link than running an elevated line down the Van Wyck.

The News goes on to praise Assemblyman Phil Goldfeder for leading the charge to produce a non-biased study on possible uses for the disused rail line, and it’s important to stress that this step is key. Rail may ultimately not be the best use of the ROW. Maybe rail isn’t feasible. Maybe it’s too expensive, and ridership would be too low to support the infrastructure New York has in place for rapid transit.

But we can’t cede the land to parks advocates because the ROW hasn’t been used for rail lately. We live in a different city today than we did 15, 20 or 30 years ago. Once we give up on rail, that option is gone forever, and the stewards of today’s New York City owe it to future generations to be 100 percent certain that the Rockaway Beach Branch could never support rail again. That’s what Goldfeder’s study will do.

Comments

39 responses to “Daily News: For Queens, prioritize rails over trails”

  1. anon_coward

    i would rather they build new subways under woodhaven blvd and extend the E/F to the nassau border

    Reply
    1. Joseph Steindam

      Routing a subway under Woodhaven Blvd between the Queens Blvd line and the present start of the Rockaway Line requires roughly 4 miles of subway construction. Considering that the Rockaway Branch ROW is generally less than a half mile from Woodhaven, the quick observation suggests there’s little reason not to use the existing ROW instead of an expensive subway construction project under Woodhaven Blvd. Without knowing more about the surrounding communities, particularly population density and vehicle ownership, we might be able to project higher ridership for a routing beneath Woodhaven Blvd instead of using the ROW, and again, we’d have to balance the potential difference in ridership against the higher cost of subway construction vs reactivating the ROW.

      I wish people were talking about extending the E and F further into Queens, but sadly no one is talking about those extensions these days, likely because they would be costly if done as subways.

      Reply
      1. anon_coward

        that’s the whole point
        a lot of the eastern communities are car heavy and little access to mass transit. running the subway there will decrease the amount of people driving into manhattan

        Reply
        1. Bolwerk

          Why would people ride a subway but not an at grade train? You aren’t making a great case for spending orders of magnitude more for the same basic service.

          Reply
          1. anon_coward

            if there is no parking at the LIRR station, how do you get there? running subways along the LIE or union turnpike or some other street in the area will get car commuters to use the train

            Reply
            1. Bolwerk

              Rail along highways would also keep non-motorist commuters from taking it. It’s better to build transit to where people live, rather than where cars go.

              I would guess car commuters are least likely to want to take a subway or bus anyway.

              Reply
              1. anon_coward

                i said LIE because it runs in the middle of a huge stretch of land between the queens blvd line and the 7 with no rail transit and lots of single family homes all along the sides.

                Reply
                1. Bolwerk

                  Running a train along a highway makes it inaccessible to pedestrians. People aren’t going to want to cross a highway to use the train, and driving just isn’t going to attract that many users.

                  Reply
                  1. Henry

                    The big fish when it comes to Eastern Queens is the connecting bus routes; most people transferring in Flushing are not coming from Bayside, Douglaston, Bay Terrace, and Whitestone. Instead, most of the transferring passengers are coming from north-south bus routes along Main St, Kissena, 164th, 188th, and Springfield. In this regard, it would be much like the Dan Ryan corridor in Chicago; while there is not much surrounding the highways themselves, bus transfers are so numerous that they make up for it and then some.

                    The LIE is also generally better for this than the Dan Ryan corridor is; the LIE is a sunken highway that has very compact diamond interchanges, and there are hubs of commercial activity around the highway as well as large educational campuses (Queens College and Francis Lewis High School). These commercial hubs also are easily modifiable to become pedestrian friendly; auto parking is in the back, facing away from the highway and its cross streets (usually accessed via residential side streets). From personal experience, it’s not that intimidating to walk across as other suburban highways throughout the nation; it might be windy, but it’s certainly friendlier than, say, Jericho Turnpike.

                    Reply
            2. Alon Levy

              By walking there or taking a connecting bus, same way people get to Jamaica Center.

              Anyway, if the point is to serve Eastern Queens better, scarce tunneling dollars should go to areas far from surface rail routes, like Cambria Heights or College Point.

              Reply
              1. Henry

                The problem with College Point is that you’d need to hook a transit line from Flushing back west to reach the built up areas of the neighborhood.

                As for other eastern extensions, from the 1929 plan it appears there were plans to use the Port Washington ROW (either tunneling under or building alongside it) to extend the 7, and there exist abnormally wide intersections such as at Springfield/Hillside, which were probably going to be suburban subway termini had the city built further extensions of its train lines (there were no plans for highway corridors along these routes.) The intersections are so wide that using them as a launch box site for a TBM would not be particularly difficult and would require minimal land taking.

                Reply
              2. anon_coward

                what scarce tunneling dollars? MTA spent almost $10 billion in the last decade on two huge projects and there are calls to spend even more on more tunnels under manhattan

                Reply
                1. Henry

                  Have you ever considered the fact that 1. The SAS will be sucking all the money the region can get for the forseeable future and 2. The extensions proposed in the past five years are completely unfunded?

                  Reply
                  1. anon_coward

                    which is why people are going to continue to drive in from long island and easter queens and brooklyn

                    Reply
        2. Joseph Steindam

          My point is that the community is still well served by the ROW, even if they have to walk across Woodhaven Blvd to reach the train. You would likely need population densities west of Woodhaven that are order of magnitudes higher to justify the expense of the subway vs using an existing above ground right of way, even considering the necessary reconstruction of the Rockaway Branch ROW.

          Reply
      2. R. V.

        The Rockaway ROW runs almost next to Woodhaven Boulevard for quite a long portion. I think this would decrease traffic significantly on Woodhaven given this would connect the middle of Queens to all the Malls located on Queens Boulevard.

        Reply
        1. anon_coward

          i haven’t driven that way during rush hour for a long time, but from what i remember all the woodhaven traffic spills onto the LIE or queens blvd. you need a line along the entire blvd to get all the people living along it not to drive

          Reply
          1. Mike

            You can potentially have that kind of a rail service. By extending the M or R lines onto the Rockaway r.o.w., you would have a rail line that would parallel Woodhaven Blvd all the way. And it would connect into the Queens Blvd subway just east of the 63rd Drive station. There are turn-outs in the subway tunnel walls just east of that to station that make it possible.

            Reply
    2. Mike

      I would too, but all three of those extensions would have to be built from scratch, which would cost billions upon billions of dollars. Not to mention that Woodhaven Blvd is one of the least pedestrian-friendly streets in all of New York and getting to stations located on Woodhaven, would be quite the ordeal.

      At least, with the Rockaway branch, there is already an existing right-of-way. It may not be in the best shape, but it’s certainly possible to rehabilitate it. We won’t really know unless the possibility of doing so is studied and that’s what the Queens College professors and students are doing. I salute Assemblyman Goldfeder for all the work he’s been doing toward restoring rail on this r.o.w. and I applaud the Daily News editorial board for supporting their efforts.

      Reply
      1. anon_coward

        if there is almost $10 billion to dig a few miles of tunnel under manhattan, there should be that much for queens, brooklyn and the bronx. and a rail connection to SI as well if the residents finally agree to it

        Reply
        1. William Ma

          Why does this need to be a park? There are already two parks near the proposed Queensway which would be Forest Park, and the old World’s Fair Ground. They are only blocks away from the proposed Queensway. It makes no sense that this should be a park. The only reason that the residents would want a park is to prevent a rail option, and that is due to racism. They don’t want poor Rockaway residents walking around their neighborhood. That is why……….

          Reply
          1. Bolwerk

            What makes Central Park and Prospect Park so successful is their accessibility by train. Not all parks have that potential, but I suspect in park-starved Queens a park as spacious as Forest Park does.

            The rail trail people really don’t want parks to work either. They just want to keep people out.

            Reply
          2. anon_coward

            i don’t see the point of reactivating that rail line. there are already half a dozen east/west subway and LIRR lines going through queens and brooklyn in that area.

            the E/F line is over crowded and needs either more trains or another east/west line to take up the slack. adding more trains at 63rd and a switch would make things slower

            rockaways already have A and LIRR service. and this does nothing to add transit to car heavy neighborhoods where people have no choice but to drive to work

            Reply
            1. Henry

              That’s exactly the point. Adding Woodhaven Blvd service would provide a north-south route in Queens that isn’t the G, which is too far west for most people actually trying to commute between Brooklyn and Queens.

              If most of the people from the Woodhaven corridor are trying to drive to Queens Blvd, then a lot of them would use a train to Queens Blvd, wouldn’t they?

              Reply
              1. anon_coward

                they are driving to queens blvd to get to the bridge to go to manhattan or take the LIE to the tunnel. digging a subway underneath there would stop a lot of car trips in a big part of queens and in manhattan

                the rockaway line, not so much

                Reply
                1. Henry

                  Are you arguing that moving a train line a distance of four blocks east makes it useless? If there was a lot of commercial activity on Woodhaven itself I would buy this, but there isn’t. The Rockaway Line has bellmouths at its end for a never-completed connection to Queens Boulevard Line.

                  Reply
                  1. anon_coward

                    rockaway line would be good for going to the east/west running subway lines that are faster. why would anyone travel the length of the line unless you don’t mind spending 2 hours each way to go to work?

                    woodhaven line would serve people going to work every day and clogging the roads with cars

                    Reply
                2. Mike

                  Yes it would! Subway on the Rockaway Line would do the same thing, but at a price that’s billions of dollars cheaper than building a brand-new underground subway under Woodhaven.

                  Reply
        2. Alon Levy

          Sure, but within the Outer Boroughs, too, there are priorities. Utica and Nostrand subways would be great. Triboro would also be great, since it can be done on existing ROW relatively cheaply. Queens doesn’t have linear corridors with the bus ridership of Utica or Nostrand, so it’d be lower priority.

          Reply
  2. John

    How about tunneling in the existing alignment and placing a park on top. It could be a cut and cover deal. Just a thought.

    Reply
    1. Nyland8

      If the park is such a concern, building an elevated train – a la the AirTrain – along that ROW would cost a fraction of tunneling, the cost of maintaining it would be less in perpetuity, and you could still have a greenway/rail-trail underneath.

      The disruption would be less, the time to construct would be less, and the construction could be staged right from the ROW itself.

      Reply
  3. Michael K

    It seems that that these communities complain about sending the 7 to Secaucus but throw transit away when it goes to them.

    Reply
  4. EgoTripExpress

    IMO the idea of reconnecting it with LIRR is ammunition for the Queensway folks. Pushing for a subway connection will appeal to Queens more. After all isn’t that what the IND bellmouths at 63rd Drive are for.

    Reply
    1. Joseph Steindam

      I think the hope is to make use of the IND bellmouth and build a small section of tunnel to connect the Rockaway Branch ROW to the subway system. I suspect that most people are not that supportive of reactivation as the LIRR, especially since it wouldn’t help folks in the Rockaways, because LIRR and the NYC subway can’t run together on the same tracks (FRA regulations bar such activities). I think all transit advocates agree that any reactivation of the Rockaway Branch would connect into the subway network, and help riders reach the Rockaways quicker.

      Reply
      1. Bolwerk

        I find a lot of advocates seem to want to turn it back into part of the LIRR.

        Of course, I detest the idea and am generally somewhat adversarial with transit advocates who are eager to waste more money for inferior service, so maybe I am overplaying that as popular sentiment. :-\

        Regardless, priority #1 should be defending future riders: if it becomes part of the LIRR, at least it keeps the park revanchists from hurting the city.

        Reply
  5. BBnet3000

    Would this actually be a better way to the Rockaways than the A train?

    Reply
    1. Bolwerk

      If you live along Queens Blvd, yes.

      If you live along Fulton Street in Brooklyn, no.

      Moral of the story: there is no better or worse transit. Only better or worse applications of transit.

      Reply
  6. Vinny O’Hare

    I like the idea of covering up the ROW with a subway and a park above it. They should also do it to parts of the Sea Beach line come to think of it.

    Think you don’t need more subway access to the Rockaway look at this http://66squarefeet.blogspot.c…..ayhem.html

    Reply
  7. John C

    Reinstate the Rockaway Line as LIRR , including the Rockaway portion AND put ALL the original stations back in service. Combine that with the CiyTicket program they presently only grant on weekends and you would have the MOST HEAVILY used LIRR branch period. With the LIRR also going to Grand Central soon it’s a bet I’d make anyone.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts