Much Sooner and at Much Less Cost
Why the “Streamline” is a Better Plan
More than half of LIRR's 115,000 weekday passengers arriving at Penn Station would have preferred Grand Central, saving an average of 15 minutes now required to walk, or to take the subway, to reach destinations on Manhattan's East Side. Not only is this an important benefit to commuters, it increases the economic competitiveness of the region and its core. That is why MTA has made the completion of LIRR access to Grand Central Terminal a key element of its system expansion program. The project would make use of an existing 1.6 mile tunnel segment under the East River - the lower deck of the 63rd Street tunnel - largely completed over thirty years ago.
With so many regional transit projects competing for limited resources, it makes good sense to consider simpler, more cost-effective ways to build these projects. The estimated cost for completing the LIRR East Side Access has risen from $4.4 billion to $6.3 billion, in just the past two years. An alternative plan, suggested by the Committee for Better Transit in June 1996, would reduce onstruction cost to only one billion dollars, saving 83% of project expense. This "streamlined" plan meets or exceeds the LIRR's operational requirements. It uses existing terminal infrastructure already in place, rather than building a costly new eight-track double-deck terminal deep below Grand Central. It has a negligible impact on Metro-North operations, both during construction and when in place. In Queens, a simpler two-track connection replaces MTA's five-track connection, reducing tunneling requirements through difficult soil conditions by 60%. The streamlined plan eliminates MTA's plan to build a costly new mid-day car storage facility at Sunnyside Yard, preserving land for more productive uses.
While Metro-North provides a reliable, high quality service, its 46 platform tracks at Grand Central Terminal, by far the world's largest train station, are underutilized. During the peak hour each platform track accommodates an average of one arriving train every 56 minutes. The streamlined plan envisions transferring five platform tracks and the upper level loop to the LIRR. Even with this loss, Metro-North would still average 50 minutes per inbound peak hour train per platform track. In contrast, the LIRR operation at Penn Station is far more efficient, with each platform track averaging one inbound train every 15 minutes. Metro-North makes little use of its upper level loop, typically operating only seven trains each way on an average weekday. In the streamlined plan, some 30 LIRR trains per hour would use this extraordinary, under-performing asset.
Exactly the opposite is the case. The five-track terminal leading to the loop has the potential for handling more trains per hour than the eight track stub terminal proposed by the LIRR. Though the existing loop track has a relatively sharp radius curve by railroad standards, it is well within the operational capability of LIRR electric rail cars. Metro-North cars are already using the loop. Speeds could be safely raised to 12 to 15 mph and LIRR third rail could easily be installed to replace Metro-North third rail.
The five tracks transferred to the LIRR can handle 12-car trains. Platforms are not encumbered with columns, providing a smooth channel for passengers boarding and exiting trains. At the south end, new escalators and elevators would enhance access for the short climb to street level. At the north end, space is available for additional stairways down to the 47th Street concourse, or up to the street. None of these access enhancements is costly. MTA argues that it must build its expensive midday car storage facility at Sunnyside, because the LIRR lacks capacity on its mainline to move equipment to existing yards further east. Yet, this capacity could be made available, by operating only two of its four tracks inbound in the morning peak instead of three, as it now does. This would provide ample capacity for projected growth beyond the mainline's current 31 Manhattan-bound peak hour trains.
With transport funds limited, and many competing projects stalled, MTA must gain solid support from many quarters to obtain the needed funding for its LIRR access to Grand Central. Therefore, elected officials, business interests and civic organizations must demand that MTA conduct an independent assessment of less costly options to its six billion dollar plan. Options that use the loop tracks at Grand Central take advantage of unique features of this extraordinary transportation facility. Building a new terminal deep below existing trackage wastes this obvious resource, and results in excess cost that should be avoided in this time of harsh fiscal realities. While the first phases of construction have begun, there is still time to transform this costly, and passenger unfriendly proposal into a much more desirable and efficient project.
George Haikalis, President, Institute for Rational Urban Mobility, Inc
One Washington Square Village, Suite 5D, New York, NY 10012
212-475-3394 geohaikalis@juno.com April 21, 2004
LOCALExpression.com -- 49 E. Houston St. NYC 10012 -- 212 431 0600 -- Meetme@TheAutomat.com