Subject: Summary of May 19 Regional Rail Meeting
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 02:11:31 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <BAY2-F158lkag7KOOEj00026ea2@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 May 2004 02:11:32.0210 (UTC)
This month I'm adding the text to the body of the e-mail message. (If
anybody wants an MS Word attachment, please let me know.)
Paul
Regional Rail Working Group Meeting – May 19, 2004
Present: George Haikalis, Patrick Centolanzi, Bill Hine, Paul DiMaria, Phil
Strong, Herb Landow, John West, James P. O’Shea, Joseph M. Calisi, Richard
Gualtieri, Carl Perrara, Robert Toth, Jeanette Wolfberg, M. Frank, Arthur P.
Kirmiss, Tom Greenwood, David Kupferberg, Colin Wilson
Topics discussed:
A. Lower Manhattan Rail Access:
Most of the meeting was devoted to possible new rail connections to Lower
Manhattan, an issue that has become more urgent now that the Pataki and
Bloomberg administrations are supporting a rail line – the details of which
are still fairly vague (is it really a one-seat ride?) - between JFK Airport
and the Financial District.
1. John West presented a plan for a new East River Tunnel connecting the
Broadway BMT (an existing bellmouth near Whitehall Street) to the Court
Street/Transit Museum stub in Brooklyn. This would take advantage of
existing facilities as much as possible – the approaches to the new tunnel
are already in place. A preliminary step, which could stand on its own
merits, would be to connect the E train to the BMT near the intersection of
Vesey and Church Streets (for easy reference we can call this the E/R
connection).
A subsequent step could be to extend a branch of the Fulton Street IND from
East New York to Jamaica via the LIRR Atlantic Avenue branch. The LIRR west
to Flatbush Avenue would be abandoned, and the elevated structure in
Bedford-Stuyvestant would be demolished to allow for new development.
Overall, the plan would complete the four-track IND system that is now
narrowed to two tracks between Chambers Street (Manhattan) and
Hoyt-Schermerhorn (Brooklyn). It could function as a version of the
Pataki/Bloomberg JFK link, with airport traffic using the express tracks of
the underutilized Fulton Street subway from Howard Beach. Also, LIRR
passengers headed for Lower Manhattan would use this subway, transferring at
Jamaica, rather than at Flatbush Terminal for the final lap on the IRT
lines.
A question arises, however: it is good planning to eliminate the LIRR
branch? Are LIRR riders from the suburban counties willing to ride the
subway all the way from Jamaica? On the other hand, this plan does provide
benefits for neglected Brooklyn residents, and there is the option of
leaving the LIRR intact.
2. George discussed the Liberty Links plan. Some group members are already
familiar with this project. Briefly, it involves the following elements:
a. Conversion of the BMT subway from NYCTA operation to a through route for
regional rail trains.
b. A connection to the Metro-North system around 63rd and Park Avenue.
c. Conversion of the 60th Street tunnel to LIRR use, specifically the Port
Washington Branch.
d. A new tunnel from City Hall to Brooklyn, probably using the Court Street
stub, to bring the LIRR into Lower Manhattan. A new four-track station
around Liberty Street and Broadway would be built for this service.
e. A new Hudson River tunnel to Exchange Place and Hoboken, to handle NJ
Transit service.
f. Possibly a new kind of rail car, using an articulated body, could be used
on these lines. Presumably the interior arrangement would allow for
standees.
The point of this plan is to allow regional rail trains to flow through
Manhattan from all directions and to connect the four main business
districts (Midtown, Lower Manhattan, Jersey City waterfront, and downtown
Brooklyn). A problem may be that it would require a large displacement and
reorganization of NYCTA subway service. It is assumed that there would be
fare reciprocity between subways and regional trains in the future, which
would allow the displaced subway riders to use the Liberty Links services.
3. Several other Lower Manhattan concepts were briefly discussed, including:
a. A moving walkway could be installed in the 42nd Street shuttle tunnel
between Grand Central and 6th Avenue, to divert some Metro-North riders away
from the Lex. Avenue line.
b. The Second Avenue subway from East 96th Street could use 6th Avenue, then
8th Avenue lines rather than the Broadway line. The “E/R Connection” would
give access to most of the Financial District.
c. A route from Penn Station could use the High Line and West Street to the
Trade Center site. (The Lower Manhattan Access study once considered an
underground version of this route.)
d. Another LMA study option had a new regional rail tunnel connecting Grand
Central (or some other point on Metro-North) with the Brooklyn LIRR station.
This plan seemed to provide a lot of operational advantages, but the MTA
dropped it favor of the lower 2nd Avenue subway.
B. Carl reported on some issues from the Rockaway subcommittee. The group
is trying to “mend fences” with the communities along the cut-off route. (I
believe that opposition has historically been centered in South Forest
Hills, not Ozone Park.) We may be able to offer quieter rolling stock as an
incentive to the affected neighborhoods. Presumably a new kind of car would
have to be ordered anyway in order to fit on the AirTrain tracks.
There appears to be some danger of encroachment on the right-of-way. A
school bus company has a lease on a section at Woodhaven Junction. There is
also a proposal to build a parking lot blocking another location.
We agreed that the cut-off is important not just for airport service, but
also to provide better access to the Rockaway peninsula.
_________________________________________________________________
