Re: (rshsdepot) East Williston, NY is still dead......

["Bernie Wagenblast" <brwagenblast_@_comcast.net>]

Without focusing on the particulars of East Williston, about which I don't 
know all the facts, I think there's a middle ground here which may be 
appropriate.

I agree with Alexander that the primary mission of a public transportation 
agency is to safely move people in a cost-effective manner.  In fact, the 
mission statement of the LIRR states:

The mission of the MTA Long Island Rail Road is to provide a safe, 
accessible, clean, cost-effective, customer-focused rail transportation 
system that runs on time, is comfortable, user-friendly and provides the 
region with a valued and indispensable service.

No where in that mission statement is historic preservation noted.

I'm sure the LIRR (and all other rail companies) could save great sums of 
money if they no longer had to maintain rail buildings which were 
constructed for another age of rail travel.  The MTA certainly could have 
saved a great deal of money if they had not restored Grand Central Terminal 
and many of the LIRR's outlying stations could be replaced with simpler 
shelters if cost were the only concern.  I don't think many would advocate 
cost-saving be the only driver when a railroad considers what to do with 
their historic properties.

There is a public trust public entities such as the MTA hold for the 
historic rail structures they inherited.  I should also note that the LIRR 
has restored quite a few historic stations.  I posted articles to the list 
from the LIRR employee newsletter about a number of these restorations.

In an age of shrinking public dollars a public railroad should balance the 
desire to save as much money as possible with the desire to maintain the 
history for which they are now stewards.

If immediate safety concerns are not an issue, as part of this stewardship a 
public railroad should provide adequate notice of plans to demolish a 
historic station and provide opportunities for both public comment and 
action.  One of my concerns with East Williston is that did not appear to be 
the case.  Web and news searches about East Williston did not come up with 
any indications such notice was provided and even a group such as this, 
which is focused on rail stations, appeared to be unaware of the plans till 
a few days before the demolition.

Bernie Wagenblast
Transportation Communications Newsletter
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/transport-communications/

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexander D. Mitchell IV" <LNER4472_@_bcpl.net>
To: <rshsdepot_@_lists.railfan.net>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 9:25 AM
Subject: (rshsdepot) East Williston, NY is still dead......


> Y'know, all this talk about "crime" and "death penalty" regarding the East
> Williston LIRR depot is, shall we say, WAY over the top.  It starts to 
> make
> us appear to have our sensibilities out of whack.
>
> Yes, it's a crying shame that the building wasn't saved.  On the other 
> hand,
> I am forced to ask how one can justify preserving a building that 
> apparently
> was so decrepit that it only took one bump in the right place to reduce it
> to kindling.
>
> Although at times we entrust them to the task, the role of transportation
> agencies is NOT preserving history--it is getting people from Point A to
> Point B, preferably in the most cost-effective manner possible.  Because
> much or most of the money that goes into public transit comes from tax
> coffers (i.e., it is money taken from taxpayers by coercion under threat 
> of
> imprisonment), it is ABSOLUTELY the fiduciary responsibility of the agency
> to operate in the most fiscally responsible manner possible.  Therefore, 
> if
> East Williston is better served by a $10,000 bus shelter, a $20,000 ticket
> machine, and $10,000 in machine service annually rather than a
> million-dollar restoration of a station, ten grand a year in overhead, and 
> a
> $50K annual salary for a ticket agent, it shouldn't even be a decision.
>
> Yes, it would be nice for us to be able to save old stations such as this.
> But unless you are personally ready to put your own money where your mouth
> is, calling station demolition "criminal" is nothing short of preposterous
> when the reality could be that spending gobs of taxpayer money on a 
> project
> that benefits only a certain privileged few can also be regarded as
> "criminal" in a much more actionable way.
>
> I can cite several examples--including ones in which I've had personal
> involvement--where towns "saved" their old stations, then had a devil of a
> time figuring out what the heck to do with them once they were saddled 
> with
> the insurance, overhead, repairs, etc.  In the case of a small town, the
> addition of the old station to the town's infrastructure can needlessly
> increase the city's insurance, overhead, etc. by up to 40%--numbers that 
> can
> be seen directly on the local tax bill and assessments.  And for what?  A
> "Museum" that's open twice a month?  A salt shed?  Sometimes, the town 
> would
> just as well have the parking lot, thank you.
>
> Alexander D. Mitchell IV
> Baltimore (another city stuck with a "now that we saved it, what the heck 
> do
> we DO with it?" station albatross)
>
>
>
> ================================
> The Railroad Station Historical Society maintains a database of existing
> railroad structures at: http://www.rrshs.org
>
> 

=================================
The Railroad Station Historical Society maintains a database of existing
railroad structures at: http://www.rrshs.org

------------------------------