Queens

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.

As Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s plans for a convention center in Ozone Park continue to draw headlines, more and more interested groups and interest groups continue to weigh on. Today, Charles Bagli of The Times checks in with convention experts, attendees and planners, and what they have to say deserves some serious consideration. Essentially, they say, poor transit access to Ozone Park and its out-of-the-way location make it ill-suited as a potential site for a massive convention center.

“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.

When Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced plans for an Ozone Park Convention Center, funded solely by Genting and with transportation improvements as well, Queens transit advocates had hoped for the best. With dreams of the Rockaway Beach Branch dancing in their heads, rail enthusiast reimagined the borough’s connections with hope. Alas, it is not meant to be.

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.

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.

This past weekend marked the first of many a circular ride for Queens commuters as the 11-weekend 7-line shutdown commenced. Due to work in the Steinway Tubes and on the communications-based train control system, the MTA isn’t running 7 trains between Queensboro Plaza and Times Square until baseball season. Instead, straphangers are urged to take the N or Q or find alternate routes. There will be no shuttle buses.

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.