MINUTES:  December 1999

 

 

In Attendance

 

Rodney Chabot, Chairman                         Stephanie Harwood, Council Member

Jim Cameron, Vice Chairman                     Carl Leaman, Council Member

Edward Zimmerman, Secretary                  Jim Mohs, Council Member           

Jim Boice, CDOT                                         Peter Myers, Council Member

Lynn DiNallo, CDOT                                     Jeff Maron, Council Member

Ted Bowen, Metro North                              Josh Geballe, Council Member

Joseph Petrocelli, MTA East Side Access     John Hickey, Southwest Regional

Bruce Gambos, MTA/ESA – PB/STV             Planning Association

Leroy Josephs, MTA/ESA –Bechtel/URS     Dick Carpenter, CT Public Transp. Com.

Bob Hammersley, Governor’s Office          Jim McElroy, Fairfield commuter

Joe McGee, SACIA, Council Member       Michael Howerton, The Advocate

 

1.  Chairman Rodney Chabot called the meeting to order promptly at 7:30 p.m. 

Minutes of the November meeting were approved.  Refreshments were served.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

2.  Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Gambos of the East Side Access Project outlined

plans for giving the Long Island Railroad access to Grand Central Terminal

under a multi-billion dollar project utilizing the existing tunnel from the

Queens’ Sunnyside Yard to East 63rd Street in Manhattan.  Two options are now

under consideration, Mr. Petrocelli noted.  In the original plan, Option 1,

the new, five-track access would cross directly under Metro North’s Park

Avenue tunnel and then parallel its west side into the terminal, utilizing

existing Lower Level tracks 114, 115 and 116, rejuvenating unused track 117,

and as needs dictate, creating added platforms in an area west of track 117. 

 

This option would put LIRR tracks "just inches below Metro North’s" at some

points, Mr. Petrocelli explained, and would utilize the existing, but now

unused track loop to get emptied trains out of the terminal and back to

Sunnyside.  But it would require shoring up the foundations of many buildings

on the west side of Park Avenue, as well as those along the access from 63rd

Street and, if further platforms are needed, under buildings west of

Vanderbilt Avenue.

 

Option 2 would use a deep bore approach, tunneling up to 120 feet below

street level, and 65 feet below existing Metro North tracks.  It would

obviate the need for major support work under existing buildings, and bring

LIRR trains into the terminal at platforms far under the present Upper and

Lower Levels via two two-track tubes.  Under this option, Metro North cars

would be taken from the terminal to a new yard to be built at High Bridge on

the Hudson Line for storage and limited maintenance.

 

    Mr. Petrocelli said that upwards of 80,000 LIRR riders can be expected to

use Grand Central at the project’s completion in 2010, and that this number

would rise.  Penn Station cannot accommodate volume beyond current LIRR,

Amtrak and New Jersey Transit traffic, he said, but the ESA project would

make space available for direct Metro North service to Penn Station via the

Hell Gate Bridge and Amtrak’s through route.

 

Planning on Metro North’s part has contemplated needs to the Year 2020, Mr.

Petrocelli contended.  In addition to the MTA’s ongoing Major Investment

Study, ahead are the need for an environmental impact study and a public

hearing on the plans in March, 2000.  Replying to criticism that ESA planners

are ignoring the views and needs of Connecticut (as well as Westchester)

riders, Mr. Reidy conceded that CDOT has as yet had no voice in this

planning.  Mr. McGee urged planners to consider not just commuter access to

the city, but the whole Metropolitan area’s needs.  With Metro North service

into Penn Station and stations in Queens and at Co-op City, Long Island and

Bronx residents could travel in 45 minutes or less to jobs in Stamford and

Fairfield County which they now can fill only through tedious commuting on

crowded roads. 

 

    Mr. Gambos detailed planned terminal facilities for LIRR passengers under

both options, stressing that LIRR passengers would not measurably overcrowd

the present traffic and waiting patterns of Metro North riders.  Under Option

1, most debarking LIRR riders would access the terminal via escalators and

stairs leading into the Biltmore Room area.  Many of those walking to the

Lexington Avenue subway would use the now underutilized passageway from the

Shuttle area.  Under Option 2, a large, separate waiting, ticketing and

access area would be created to the west of the Biltmore Room.  For those

working north of the terminal, he indicated that several new street entrances

would be added to GCT’s North End Access under the two options.    

 

    Council members had many questions for the ESA delegation, which also

included Leroy Josephs, an engineer.  Mr. Myers wondered why, to avoid

adversely impacting an existing terminal, a separate LIRR terminal could not be

built near the end of the East River tunnel, with access to direct subway

service.  This triggered discussion of the adequacy of present subway

entrances and service at Grand Central, as well as the need for the

long-delayed Second Avenue Subway which, if it ran the length of Manhattan,

would reduce passenger load levels on the Lexington Avenue line.  The new

Second Avenue line could also result in upgrading under-developed areas of

the East Side north, but more importantly south, of 42nd Street.

 

(Footnoting the evening’s discussion, it was reported that Governor Pataki’s

plan for replacing the Tappan Zee Bridge incorporates a rail line across the

Hudson River into Rockland County -- a plan which would not only increase

Grand Central Terminal passenger volume, but perhaps facilitate rail freight

ser-vice into New England to slow the growth of I-95 truck traffic.)

 

3.  The agenda was amended to allow Mr. Boice and Ms. DiNallo to report on

plans of the Station Amenities Committee, of which Ms. DiNallo is chairman. 

They circulated a pictorial summary of kiosks, station colors, platform

layouts (with newspaper vending machines set back for passengers’ safety),

waiting benches, signage, clocks, railings and fences, trash cans, and

lighting.  Design takes into consideration the fact that some stations are

historic, others contemporary, suburban, or merely platform shelters. 

 

For a review of the presentation, click here.

 

Several Council members offered suggestions for improving lighting and the

legibility of signs. It was suggested that station signs on platforms be

located under lights, and that better signage be provided to guide riders to

commuter shuttle buses in Stamford.  Worried that the committee’s designs and

colors might at some point clash with residents’ plans for their stations,

Mr. Leaman questioned whether they would take precedence over communities’

wishes. 

 

    Mr. Myers stressed that Metro North riders attach more importance to

their practical needs than to appearances.  He and Mr. Mohs listed

deficiencies in maintenance at the Milford station (unlit areas, broken

lights not repaired, loose paving on walkways, flooding in the underpass,

outdated plumbing, etc.), and urged that these matters be addressed before

facilities are re-designed.  They also wondered what authority municipalities

which own stations would have in preventing the installation of designs they

might not like.

 

4.  In reviewing the growing volume complaints about the condition of the

Stamford station, Mr. Reidy reported that CDOT efforts to take over

station’s operations of are at an impasse.   Mr. Cameron suggested that the

Council stage a "Meet the Commuter Day" at the station in order to give

passengers an opportunity to voice their views on inoperative escalators and

long deferred station maintenance, which will ultimately cost millions of dollars.  

 

5.  Mr. Reidy reported that Stamford platform and station renovation is

now two thirds complete and on schedule for completion in early 2002.  He

said that with new platform contours taking shape, commuters can visualize

what the completed facility will look like.  For example, the new escalator

to the station from the former Track 3 is partially in place, and is enclosed

(unlike the current outdoor escalator from the track, which is consistently

out of service). 

 

6.  Addressing complaints regarding the short, overcrowded four-car platform

in Stratford, Mr. Reidy noted that lengthening the westbound platform poses

problems because track curvature prevents conductors operating doors from

seeing more than four car-lengths.  Also, he said, budget restrictions make

it impossible to add new projects to the workload.

 

7.  Mr. Chabot asked why opening of the new Viaduct Road railroad overpass to

cars is purportedly not scheduled until next spring.  The crossing drivers

are forced to use in its place was the scene of a recent car accident when a

woman driver tried to beat flashing lights.  CDOT is suing the woman for

equipment damages, Mr. Reidy said.  The winter closing of an asphalt plant

will not prevent cars’ use of the unpaved road, he said, and it will be

looked into.

 

8.  Mr. Reidy asserted the cleanup of trackside rubbish will be completed

soon.  The removal of rails has been delayed, he said, because the equipment

needed to pick it up has been unavailable.

 

9.  On the matter of the unmanned ticket window at the Noroton Heights

station, Mr. Bowen said that the previous agent was removed because of an

investigation.  Regrettably, a temporary replacement has been on duty only

on Mondays and at the beginning of months, but a permanent agent will be put

in place soon..  This is a much used station with a sizable parking lot, Mr.

Cameron stressed, and an agent should be there.

 

10. Holiday schedules will be available December 20, Mr. Bowen said. 

All-night ser-vice will be provided New Year’s Eve, he stated.  He will

advise Mr. Chabot whether all-night service will prevail on branch lines.

 

11. (The station kiosk and community map plan was covered in the Station

Amenities segment.) 

 

       

NEW BUSINESS

 

1.  Station Amenities (see Paragraph 3 above)

 

2.  Mr. Cameron asked if there were crossing gates at the site of the recent

Via-duct Road accident.  Advised that there were not, Mr. Cameron asked if

the state could require property owners with private crossings to install

gates,  It was indicated that there is no precedent for doing this.    

 

3.  Metro North and CDOT are thoroughly prepared for the advent of the new

millennium, Mr. Reidy indicated. 

 

4.  While the threat of a Metropolitan Transportation Authority strike has

not fully passed, the Council learned, security has been increased in Grand

Central Terminal and at other key sites, due both to the strike threat and

to the federal government’s warnings about terrorist activities.

 

5.  Asked the status of CDOT’s budget discussions with Metro North, Mr. Reidy

indicated that the outlook continues to improve through the role Metro North

President Peter A. Cannito is now playing.  Messrs. Chabot and Cameron then

asked why the recommendation was made that Shoreline East service be

abandoned under budget planning. 

 

Mr. Reidy said that CDOT was mandated to indicate how it could cut its budget

by 10 percent.  Mr. Hammersley explained that the Governor asked all

departments to suggest how they could comply with the required paring of the

state’s total budget.  Obviously, with its projected expenditures in

upgrading SLE service, Mr. Reidy explained, CDOT doesn’t plan to end SLE

service, but must work with the governor in exploring all options.  All

factors, including federal funding, must be weighed, he added.   

 

6.  Mr. Cameron cited CDOT’s installation of a new radio system on 1-95 and

the Merritt Parkway in Fairfield County, whereby signs advise drivers to tune

to a prescribed frequency (i.e., 530 am in the Stamford area) to get updated

traffic information and news of congestion ahead.  He wondered if the

messages delivered over these frequencies should not include advice to

drivers that they’d get there faster via the railroad paralleling these

highways.   

 

OTHER NEW BUSINESS.  Mr. Cameron asked Mr. Reidy about his report that 50 New

Haven Line cars were available to the MTA for use in the event of a strike. 

Would this not result in Connecticut standees, he inquired.  No, Mr. Reidy

replied, these 50 cars were M-2’s for which renovation is planned in the

future, and they were not to be taken from New Haven branch trains.  "They

work, but need to be upgraded," he explained.  All Metro North divisions

were ordered to supply equipment for expanded service in New York, he added,

and this would have been the New Haven Division’s contribution.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Edward H. Zimmerman

Secretary

 

Next Meeting:  Wednesday, January 19, 7:00 p.m., New Haven Station