NY Wiki: Greenlawn Archives

January 19, 2004

LIRR Huntington yard: benefits

A new yard with more tracks would mean better and faster service -
- nine trains every morning by 2012, for commuters who sometimes
endure waits of nearly 30 minutes between trains.

Previously: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

THE CURRENT NUMBERS

14: Number of peak a.m. trains on the LIRR's Huntington line each weekday.
14,150: Number of passengers serviced on the line each weekday morning.

THE FUTURE PICTURE?*

3: Number of a.m. peak trains that likely will be added each weekday if the yard is built by 2011.
9: Total number of additional a.m. weekday peak trains after completion of East Side Access in 2012.

BY COMPARISON
17: Number of tracks in the yard that services Babylon line.
36: Number of peak a.m. trains on the Babylon line each weekday.
26,270: Number of passengers served each weekday on peak a.m. trains.

*Future ridership projections depend on final location of rail yard.

SOURCE: Long Island Rail Road

LIRR Taking Yard Flak
AFter public hearings, LIRR plan riding on strong opposition

By Joie Tyrrell, Staff Writer

2004 January 11, 9:11 PM EST

The signs and petitions started to pop up throughout Huntington Village last fall,
on light posts, the counter of a local bookstore and throughout the shops of Main
Street.

"Stop the LIRR Yard," they read, arguing that a proposed 16-track railroad
storage yard would harm the community.

At the same time, the Long Island Rail Road was preparing for the first of four
public meetings on the proposed yard for the Port Jefferson line with color
brochures and detailed signs touting the service additions and benefits a train
yard would bring.

The pitch is simple, LIRR officials say. A new yard with more tracks would mean
better and faster service -- nine trains every morning by 2012, for commuters
who sometimes endure waits of nearly 30 minutes between trains.

Now, the first phase of the public comment period has ended and the railroad is
preparing to move ahead with the selection of a site from among a field of six in
Huntington and Smithtown. Railroad officials say the public comment period
achieved its goal, garnering much-needed input into the site selection. But
residents of both communities say the railroad should be prepared for a fight.

"It's going to be a huge challenge," said Beverly Dolinsky, executive director of
the Long Island Rail Road Commuter's Council, a transit riders' group.
"Overwhelmingly, people want service but they don't want a yard, and you can't
have one without the other."

There are six sites the railroad is considering for a yard: two in Huntington and
four in Smithtown. In Huntington, the sites are land next to the state armory and
a parcel west of Bread and Cheese Hollow Road south of Pulaski Road. In
Smithtown, potential locations are two sites in Kings Park near a sand mine; a
parcel at the Kings Park Psychiatric Center; and land next to St. Catherine of
Siena Medical Center.

The sites will be evaluated on the basis of a number of factors, including land-use
issues, noise considerations and impact on natural resources.

A new yard would mean electrifying the Port Jefferson line east of Huntington to
where the new yard is located.

The Federal Transit Administration will review the findings of the environmental
study and issue a decision on the site. A final environmental impact statement,
which will identify a preferred site, is scheduled to be finished by the end of next
year or early 2006. The railroad then needs approval from the Federal Transit
Administration before starting design work.

The railroad now stores equipment on a siding east of the Huntington Station with
a three-train capacity. Also, the railroad operates several morning rush-hour
trains to Huntington from its West Side Yard, about 37 miles away.

A 16-track yard would mean an additional three trains in the morning by the time
it is built in 2011. When the East Side Access, which will connect the LIRR to
Grand Central Terminal, is complete in 2012, it will mean six more trains,
bringing a total of at least nine more trains each morning. Currently, there are 14
trains each morning rush hour, some with nearly a half-hour gap in service.

"Huntington is very restricted as to what you can do," said LIRR president James
Dermody. "There is an overwhelming need."

Since the railroad falls under federal authority, it does not require village, county
or state approval. In an effort to get public input, the railroad hosted four
meetings in November in Huntington and Smithtown, attended by hundreds -- the
majority against the project. Politicians at the state, county and town level have
voiced objections as well.

"There were a lot of people who were very vocal shouting their opposition. They
were not there to participate in the process, just to say no, without really
learning about it," said Commuter's Council chairman James Govern, one of the
few speakers at a Kings Park hearing in favor of the proposal.

Civic groups have collected thousands of signatures against the project. Just
this last week, the Kings Park Civic Association, as well as other civic groups in
Smithtown, sent a letter to Gov. George Pataki detailing their opposition to the
Smithtown sites. They are worried about the environmental and economic
impacts a rail yard would have on the community.

"What we are doing now is we are amassing all the people," said Kings Park Civic
Association president Gregory Szurnicki.

Civic leaders as well as local politicians said they would be willing to go to court
to fight the yard. Four years ago, residents strongly opposed a yard in
Greenlawn. That site was eliminated due to an environmental impact study that
showed the proposed yard was in close proximity to homes.

The site in Huntington Station is also too close to homes, opponents said. "This
yard, this is really a stopgap," said Eileen Darwin, a Huntington resident who
helped form the Stop the LIRR Yard committee. She said the railroad should
approach the yard regionally, placing it closer to Hicksville where several lines
converge. "Every single person we have approached has been against this. I
don't know anybody who has said it should be here."

Next, the railroad will evaluate all the comments received. In total, the railroad
received 88 e-mails, 103 letters and had 1,646 people sign in at the meetings. A
total of 12,500 informational packets were sent from the railroad to town leaders,
civic groups and residents.

Dermody said the six sites could be limited to three or four by the end of this
year. "People can't say they weren't aware of the yard. They can't say the
railroad never told me," Dermody said.

But could overwhelming public opposition kill the project and jeopardize the
railroad's future plans, including a yard constructed east of Ronkonkoma near
Yaphank?

"You can't tell what public opposition is going to do for you," Dermody said. "We
are subject to public funding. We have to justify it for that arena.. . . We are
going to do the best job we can answering concerns."

Posted by dc at 01:07 AM | Comments (0)

November 21, 2003

LIRR Huntington Yard 5

State Senator Carl Marcellino was the first to the microphone where he insisted
that the LIRR should look into better utilizing the Oyster Bay Line to help alleviate
traffic on the eastern parts of the Port Jefferson Line. Marcellino argued that
infrequent timetables are among a host of reasons that make riders from
neighboring towns travel to Huntington Station.

“These people would prefer to stay closer to their homes,” he said. “Take those
facilities and put them to better use.” He added, as many after him did, that
electrification to Port Jefferson station would be “a solution to a whole number of
problems,” and offered to lead the charge to obtain the proper funds.

...

Other topics brought up by speakers included the diesel exhaust, especially its
effect on young athletes at Manor Field Park; the fact that the Huntington Station
site is the most congested of all the six preliminary sites; that electrification to
Port Jefferson should already have been included among the other large railroad
projects listed earlier; pre-existing parking issues that will worsen with the
addition of a rail facility; and the fact that electrification to Port Jefferson would
be much cheaper if done now than in another 20 years, should the LIRR later
decide the public is right.

Previously: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4.

longislandernews.com
The Long-IslanderRecordHalf Hollow Hills NewspaperNorthport Journal

Huntington Station residents Maureen Ramirez (left) and Mary Feldman look over
maps and information provided by the Long Island Railroad during its information
session last week.

Long Islander Photo/Brian Ferry

HUNTINGTON STATION
Residents Bombard Railroad With Questions

By Brian Ferry

Some may wonder if the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) knew what they were
getting themselves into when they hosted a string of four public meetings over
the past two weeks.

The agency is required to hold such meetings as part of the development of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which will narrow down six potential sites
to one preferred site for the construction of a 16-track electric car storage,
cleaning, and maintenance facility. At the final meeting held November 13 at
Huntington Intermediate School, hundreds of Huntington Station residents turned
out to tell LIRR officials the site located in their backyards — adjacent to Manor
Park fields — is out of the question.

Like the meetings before it, the one at Huntington Intermediate started with a
two-hour information open house, where residents could speak with a dozen
different LIRR officials who were on hand (including LIRR President James
Dermody); view maps, photos and descriptions of each site; and watch a
seven-minute video about the agency’s intentions and desires for establishing the
rail yard.

“We’re interested in what may be built in the community,” said South Huntington
resident Mike Mifsud, who was attending the open house portion with his wife
Anna. They also attended an anti-railroad facility rally held at Manor Field Park on
October 8. “Also, our son plays football in Manor Field Park, so there’s an interest
of ours too.”

In fact, shortly after railroad officials opened the public hearing portion of the
meeting, a parade of Bulldogs youth football players and cheerleaders marched
into the auditorium and took seats front and center.

Once inside for the public forum, officials from the LIRR and AKRF (an
independent consulting firm assisting with the EIS) gave short presentations.
LIRR Chief Planning Officer Elisa Picca explained how the Port Jefferson Branch
rail yard is one of a number of projects that the agency and the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) are working to complete over the next 10 years
or so. Those other projects include the Brooklyn Atlantic Avenue Terminal, the
Jamaica AirTrain, the new M-7 Rail Car, and the East Side Access project at
Grand Central Station. She added that today, there are 87,000 commuters who
travel to Penn Station on the Port Jefferson Branch during the four-hour morning
rush. They estimate that this ridership, with the second terminal at Grand Central
Station, will increase to 128,000 by 2020.

But as soon as the microphone was handed over to the crowd, a barrage of
arguments were thrown at the officials and at the unfortunate stenographer
designated to take the minutes of this meeting.

“This site is clearly located in the midst of a residential neighborhood,” said State
Assemblyman James Conte. “It is adjacent to Manor Field Park where these guys
play every weekend,” he said, as he motioned to the Bulldog contingent in the
audience. “I firmly believe that all of the reasons not to build in Greenlawn firmly
apply to this site only a half-mile away.”

Among local officials who spoke, Town Councilwoman Susan Berland claimed that
the Huntington Station site is topographically unsuitable, requiring over 500,000
cu. yards of fill to bring the property up 15 feet and equal to the grade of the
track. She added that a developer is in the final approval stages for building 109
new homes on this land.

Gerard Brindman, a town resident and vice president of the LIRR Commuter
Council, drew a Bronx cheer from many in the crowd when he stated that the
Council favors building the facility, though they have no preference as to the site
chosen. He argued, “If we get a yard built, we can add three more peak trains.”
At the end of his three minutes, Brindman added his personal opinion, saying,
“Myself — and I am not saying this so I can get to my car safely — I’d like to see
this facility put as far east as possible.”

Pat Boucher, a Huntington Country Farms resident, first pointed out that all of the
roads in the Huntington Country Farms development were left off the LIRR maps
included in the mailed information packets and map boards in the other room.

“It is beyond comprehension how this property could have passed the initial list of
considerations,” she said. She argued that with a facility here or anywhere else in
the towns of Huntington or Smithtown would mean that the railroad tracks across
Park Avenue would be closed much more often, creating more gridlock and
cutting off the only direct route to Huntington Hospital from areas south of the
tracks. She added that with this development in the final stages of approval is a
designation to reserve 2.9 acres for parkland.

“This is a far superior plan for this land,” she concluded

� 2003 Long Islander Newspapers, Inc.
(631) 427-7000
322 Main Street
Huntington, NY 11743

2003 Nov 20

Posted by dc at 11:43 PM | Comments (0)

October 30, 2003

Huntington Station LIRR yard, 2

An afternoon train, seen from the rooftop of Blackman Plumbing Supply Company,
as it passes the potential Huntington Station site. Kevin Gary, a Greenlawn resident,
sent a scathing letter to the Long Island Rail Road, explaining why their interest in
building a train facility in Huntington Station would be an unfair burden on the
communities in that area, and a violation of numerous federal laws.

Update: 2003 Nov 04.

longislandernews.com
The Long-IslanderRecordHalf Hollow Hills NewspaperNorthport Journal

An afternoon train, seen from the rooftop of Blackman Plumbing Supply
Company, as it passes the potential Huntington Station site. Kevin Gary, a
Greenlawn resident, sent a scathing letter to the Long Island Rail Road,
explaining why their interest in building a train facility in Huntington Station would
be an unfair burden on the communities in that area, and a violation of numerous
federal laws.

Long Islander Photo/Brian Ferry

GREENLAWN-HUNTINGTON STATION
Past Comes Back To Haunt The LIRR

Greenlawn man involved in 2000 fight sides with Huntington Station

By Brian Ferry

When officials of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and Long Island
Rail Road (LIRR) informed the public that they were interested in hearing
opinions regarding their plans to build an electric train facility somewhere in the
towns of Smithtown or Huntington, they opened a door that will be difficult to
close. Many people are content with simply showing up to the public scoping
meetings and saying a few words. Others may opt to fill their three-minute time
allotment with a prepared speech or letter. Still, others have done their
homework and have prepared a packet to hand to LIRR and MTA officials while
being forced to cut their speech short once their time is up.

Here�s where Kevin Gary comes in. A Greenlawn resident, Gary was a vocal
dissenter to the MTA and LIRR�s idea to place a similar facility south of the LIRR
right-of-way and north of Pulaski Road � where Harborfields� Estates are now
being planned for construction. He and fellow Greenlawn resident Gary Schoer
brought a lawsuit against the LIRR asserting that the railroad had failed to
comply with the environmental procedures in the scoping process. Thanks to
their work, in conjunction with the work of Town Councilman Mark Cuthbertson
and State Senator Carl Marcellino, the result was a total withdrawal by the MTA
and a promise that the Greenlawn site wouldn�t be considered in the future.

Now, Gary has joined the unhappy citizens of Huntington Station in their fight to
keep the facility from being built on a site between the LIRR right-of-way and
East 5th Street.

On October 2, the two agencies sent out a package to media outlets and
residents who have attended past public meetings concerning these sites. In this
packet, they explained the environmental review process, attached maps of all
the sites still under consideration, and gave dates, times, and directions to all
public scoping meetings in November. Gary obtained one of these mailings,
which is the basis of a seven-page letter that he sent to Peter Palarmo, editorial
officer of the LIRR public affairs department.

The letter lists three primary concerns. The first is called �environmental justice.�
Gary cites various federal laws, including the 14th Amendment of the
Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Executive Order 12898. Through
these laws, Gary insists that plans to build the facility in Huntington Station would
imply a discriminatory impact on the residents. He cited demographic studies and
census numbers of Huntington Station and the other communities along the Port
Jefferson Line, and it shows a staggering difference in ethnicity. According to US
Census information listed in his letter, the African-American population in
Huntington Station is 1,500 percent greater than in any other area being
considered. Similarly, the Hispanic population in Huntington Station is 750
percent greater, and the non-English-speaking population 240 percent greater.
The number of people living in poverty in Huntington Station is 300 percent
greater than in these other areas.

�I find it interesting that they had considered several locations in the Huntington
area and all the ones in white neighborhoods, including my own, were excluded,�
Gary said, adding that he believes that the Huntington Station site is the real
focus of the MTA and LIRR efforts. It was reported that extending the
electrification east of Huntington Station would cost the agencies millions of
dollars per mile. �It would seem to me that this was their primary focus based on
economics. Obviously, from a cost-benefit analysis, the railroad believes it
should be the first choice.�

His second argument delves into the reasons why other sites were excluded, or
deemed �fatally flawed� by the MTA. Thirteen sites were excluded from further
investigation under this circumstance, due to their proximity to parks,
businesses, residential communities, schools, and more. Gary argues that the
Huntington Station site neighbors public parks (including Manor Field Park and
Fair Meadow Park), residential communities (including Huntington Country Farms
and Winoka Manor apartments), and is a very short distance (approximately
2,000 feet) from Washington Drive Primary School. For these reasons alone, he
says, the Huntington Station site is fatally flawed.

Finally, he ties back into the non-English-speaking population in Huntington
Station and the method the agencies have chosen to present public scoping
meetings. Gary says that the scoping process itself is riddled with flaws,
providing only documents written in English for the public to analyze after the
first scoping meeting in June. He also argues that the maps provided in the
mailed scoping document are vague, failing to list the location of surrounding
housing and apartment complexes, Washington Drive Primary School, and other
major landmarks, which �seriously calls into question its ability to convey to the
reader, who may not even be able to read English, where the proposed site is
located in relation to landmarks in the surrounding area.�

Gary said that because of his involvement in the Greenlawn fight, he started
receiving letters and documents from the MTA and LIRR concerning these sites
long before such information was made public to most residents. Based on the
information they have provided him, Gary feels the agencies have not proved to
him that the rail yard is necessary.

�It would seem to me that the sum of the other five sites that they are
considering are better suited for a rail yard. I also note� that when they were
previously considering the Greenlawn site, they were also considering the Cerro
Wire site,� Gary said, referring to the Syosset property proposed for
development as a regional shopping mall. Referring to a civic group�s vocal
opposition to the shopping mall plan, Gary said, �I read in the newspaper that at
least one of those individuals said they would rather see the rail site than the
mall.�

�We have received Mr. Gary�s letter,� said Sam Zambuto, spokesman for the
LIRR. �It has been entered as part of the record for the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and we will be responding to his letter.�

�I think he was a very effective advocate in the past and this letter shows that he
will continue to be, Cuthbertson said of Gary. The councilman said that he
anticipates Gary will follow through on his commitment until the situation in
Huntington Station is resolved. �He is a very committed community activist.�