Upper Level Loop Alternative How to Save $2 Billion from the Costs of The

Upper Level Loop Alternative How to save $2 billion from the costs of the LIRR East Side Access project, and make a better station for passengers too A proposal from the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility, Inc. New York, N.Y. October 2004 Upper Level Loop Alternative TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY.................................................................................................. 1 2 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................... 2 3 SCHEME DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 4 4 MTA CRITICISMS OF UPPER LEVEL LOOP SCHEME............................ 5 4.1 Metro North Operations 5 4.2 LIRR Operations 6 Train movements.......................................................................................................7 Passenger Circulation to Platforms ...........................................................................8 Platform Capacity......................................................................................................8 Demand .....................................................................................................................9 4.3 Costs 9 4.4 Implementation Schedule and Risks 10 5 SAFETY AND SECURITY ........................................................................ 11 Upper Level Loop Alternative 1 Summary The Institute of Rational Urban Mobility, Inc, has developed plans that could save $2 billion from the cost of the MTA’s East Side Access project. IRUM’s scheme would also provide more efficient and potentially safer passenger handling facilities, and may allow completion of the project up to three years earlier. MTA’s current proposal is to deliver LIRR passengers to four new platforms in deep caverns 13 stories under Park Avenue, with long escalator journeys to the surface. Partly because of the complexity of building so far underground, the MTA does not expect completion before 2012. The cost estimate has already increased to $6.3 billion. From experience, this sort of project usually ends up costing more than projected, and is rarely finished on time. IRUM is proposing instead that MTA bring LIRR trains into existing platforms on the “loop” tracks in the westerly upper level of Grand Central terminal. This was originally proposed as part of the Apple Corridor scheme developed in 1996 by the Committee for Better Transit. In its Final EIS, MTA gave various reasons why it did not select the Apple Corridor loop scheme. IRUM has retained Delcan Corporation, international consultants with experience in similar projects, to review the Manhattan portion of the loop scheme now called “The Upper Level Loop Alternative” (ULLA). Based on their assessment of the ULLA, the following key conclusions are evident: Use of the loop platforms would save at least $1.2 billion. Given the potential for more delays and increased costs with MTA’s Deep Cavern scheme, possibly as much as $2 billion could be saved, net of all other cost differences. The loop platforms would provide more convenient and efficient passenger handling, with shorter distances between trains and street level. In an emergency when escalators could be inoperable, ULLA passengers would exit to the surface by several routes from platforms located two stories below the street. This compares with a 13 storey climb for passengers evacuating from the Deep Cavern scheme. Construction of track connections into the loop platforms would be simpler and could be completed more quickly than the Deep Cavern scheme, even allowing for preparation of a further Environmental Assessment. There will be some disruption to Metro-North services during construction, but this could be managed to an acceptable level. LIRR trains could run into Grand Central Terminal by mid-2009, three years earlier than in to the Deep Cavern scheme. Use of the loop platforms would require some modifications to Metro-North operations, but would not jeopardize current operations or reasonable future capacity increases. The loop tracks could accommodate 21 trains in the morning peak hour compared with the 24 trains per hour that is possible with MTA’s Deep Cavern scheme. There is no absolute requirement to provide for 24 trains per hour. It is not worth spending $2 billion, and possibly delaying completion of ESA by three years, to accommodate three extra peak hour trains. Money saved could help fund other badly needed capital projects, including the Second Avenue Subway and proposed JFK - Lower Manhattan rail scheme. Reducing the Page 1 Upper Level Loop Alternative cost of the scheme would also increase the likelihood that the ESA will itself be funded and built to completion. Detailed conclusions are set out in Delcan’s technical report1, and summarized below. While resources for our work have not matched the millions that MTA has spent preparing its plans, we are nevertheless confident of our conclusions. Figure 1 Cross Section showing Deep Cavern and ULLA platforms and access (from Delcan technical report) 2 Background MTA has developed the East Side Access project to provide a direct route for Long Island Railroad passengers to the east side of Manhattan, avoiding the need to travel via Penn Station. More than half of LIRR commuters arriving at Penn Station would have a shorter journey using ESA. It will utilize the empty lower level of the 63rd Street rail tunnel, built in the 1960s for this purpose. New facilities are required in Queens to connect into the 1 See Assessment of the Upper Level Loop Alternative for the Manhattan Portion of the East Side Access Project, Final Report, prepared for Institute for Rational Urban Mobility Delcan Corporation, Toronto October 2004. Page 2 Upper Level Loop Alternative LIRR and provide train storage, and in Manhattan to allow trains to run south from 63rd Street to Grand Central Terminal (GCT). One of the most expensive and complex parts of the ESA scheme is the provision of terminal facilities at GCT. Originally, MTA planned to run LIRR trains into platforms on the site of the “Madison Yard”, the western lower level tracks within GCT. In preparation, MTA built a new yard at High Bridge in the Bronx, so Metro-North would no longer need the Madison Yard to store and service trains. MTA’s original scheme required tunneling under office towers on the west side of Park Avenue, to connect the 63rd Street Tunnel into the Madison Yard. In 1996, the Committee for Better Transit (CBT) put forward a scheme to make use of the existing upper level platforms and “loop track” in GCT as the terminal for ESA trains. The CBT’s “Apple Corridor” scheme also included proposals to operate direct trains from JFK Airport over the ESA route. MTA rejected the proposal. During preparation of the Final EIS in 2000, MTA chose a very different scheme involving the construction of eight tracks with four platforms in new caverns 13 stories below Park Avenue (the lower platforms would actually be about 155 feet below street level). The Madison Yard area would be used as an intermediate passenger concourse, with large amounts of retail space and offices for LIRR staff.2 Tunneling under existing office buildings on Park Avenue would not be required. There would also be fewer impacts on Metro-North operations during construction, although Metro-North would still lose the use of the Madison Yard. Capital costs were estimated, initially, at $4.3 billion. Since the FEIS was published, MTA’s estimated cost to complete the project has increased almost 50%, to $6.3 billion. The MTA and other government agencies are struggling to fund ESA and other capital projects, including the Second Avenue Subway, a single-train service from JFK Airport to lower Manhattan, as well as ongoing renewals and modernization of the existing subway and commuter rail systems. All of these must compete for scarce federal and state funding. Any savings in the cost of one scheme can improve the prospects of it and the other schemes progressing to completion, and reduce the pressure to raise transit fares. In view of the rising costs of the project, IRUM, a not-for-profit public interest group, has revisited the CBT proposals. IRUM retained Delcan to review the Manhattan portion of the earlier CBT proposal, to estimate the potential savings and any other implications from using the loop platforms and to review the reasons given in the Final EIS for rejecting CBT’s proposals. Delcan is a multi-disciplinary engineering firm based in Toronto, Canada, with expertise in design, construction and implementation of similar urban commuter rail and urban transit projects. This paper summarizes key findings of the Delcan technical report, to which readers should refer for further details. We are sharing our findings here and urge the MTA to revisit its analysis before committing to what we think is unnecessary and indeed counter-productive expenditure of $2 billion. 2 The area of the proposed concourse is 350,000 square feet, equivalent to the total floorspace of a typical 25 story office tower. Page 3 Upper Level Loop Alternative 3 Scheme Description MTA proposes to extend the 63rd Street tunnel south, in the bedrock about 100 feet below Park Avenue. The inbound tunnel would widen out and connect into four platforms on two levels, which would be constructed in two large caverns deep under Park Avenue. Tail tracks for reversing and storing trains would extend south to 38th Street. Escalators would take passengers from the platforms to deep level cross passages, which would

Load more