Subway tunnel to SI: political power?

[Vistausss]

I know the idea is busted before and I'm not vouching for building it, but according to someone over at Sheepshead Bites (http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2014/02/how-transit-riders-continually-get-screwed/#comment-1251445476) it seems like there's political power at SI which will get the tunnel done anyway. Is that true or is he just making up stuff?

[Tokkemon]

Lots of rich Republicans tend to have power.

So to suburban housewives and city employees. Firefighters and Police have a lot more political power than anyone gives credit. 

[TeeLow]

Some history about the Narrows/Staten Island/Varrazano Rail Tunnel.

http://www.brooklynrail.net/verrazano_rail_tunnel.html

http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/opinion-never-mind-bikes-subways-staten-island-2013-04-08-162000

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2013/06/11/revisiting-a-subway-connection-for-staten-island/

 

I haven't found anything to substantiate Allan's claim; not to say it's simply him grandstanding. I don't live in SI so my 'political connections' are sorely limited. He might have some insight into the borough's political thinking. Using common sense and convoluted logic...it's not gonna happen. Political will in SI vs political will in MTA, Mayor's office, Albany and Washington? SI doesn't stand a chance...IMO. Too much upheaval, too many NIMBY arguments, other proposals on where the tunnel should go (Manhattan, New Jersey,etc).

 

Any new transit funds will/should go towards completing existing projects, not starting new 'tunnels to nowhere'. Last night on PBS I was watching American Experience, the building and destruction of Penn Station. True, it was private money that built the station, and the tunnels beneath both rivers. Alexander Cassat wanted it done, he had the money and the will to get it done and despite numerous setbacks (including his death) the job was completed on time. Of course, that was a totally different era.

 

Today there's neither the funds nor the political will to START, much less complete, the project. It ain't gonna happen. IMO. I would love to see it happen, though.

 

[bobtehpanda]

I know the idea is busted before and I'm not vouching for building it, but according to someone over at Sheepshead Bites (http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2014/02/how-transit-riders-continually-get-screwed/#comment-1251445476) it seems like there's political power at SI which will get the tunnel done anyway. Is that true or is he just making up stuff?

 

Staten Island has political power, but it doesn't have that much political power. A tunnel across the Narrows would cost billions and probably fail a FTA cost-effectiveness analysis (and the organization is already biased against major transit-dependent metro areas, so that they don't end up handing all of their money to Chicago and New York). There are also too many operational difficulties; the express tracks do not run to Bay Ridge, and the 4th Av local is slow as hell, so a subway would be, in all likelihood, slower than a ferry ride.

 

Does Staten Island hold a lot of political power compared to its size? Certainly. (As far as I'm concerned, the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn are punching below their weight, especially Queens.) Does it have enough to start a multi-billion dollar tunnel of limited use, without the other three outer boroughs complaining about how useless it is? Probably not.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

But after 2nd Avenue Phase 1 and East Side Access, what's next? Can we get funding and political will to complete the rest of SAS and possibly continue it into the Bronx? Or would it be better to focus on other parts of the city (Utica Ave subway, Queens Super Express, Hillside Ave extension, etc)? Is there enough political clout and will in the Bronx, Brooklyn or Queens to get long-proposed lines and extensions constructed in any of those boroughs? Or can SI finally muster up enough clout to put forth a serious proposal to extend the subway there, perhaps from the 4th Avenue Express tracks, so that the subway trip might not be slower than the ferry?

[Vistausss]

Lots of rich Republicans tend to have power.

 

So to suburban housewives and city employees. Firefighters and Police have a lot more political power than anyone gives credit. 

 

I m familiar with that, thanks. But that wasnt my question. My question was about political power forcing the building of the subway tunnel to SI after all.

 

Staten Island has political power, but it doesn't have that much political power. A tunnel across the Narrows would cost billions and probably fail a FTA cost-effectiveness analysis (and the organization is already biased against major transit-dependent metro areas, so that they don't end up handing all of their money to Chicago and New York). There are also too many operational difficulties; the express tracks do not run to Bay Ridge, and the 4th Av local is slow as hell, so a subway would be, in all likelihood, slower than a ferry ride.

 

Does Staten Island hold a lot of political power compared to its size? Certainly. (As far as I'm concerned, the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn are punching below their weight, especially Queens.) Does it have enough to start a multi-billion dollar tunnel of limited use, without the other three outer boroughs complaining about how useless it is? Probably not.

 

Thanks, that answered my question along with Teelow's answer

[bobtehpanda]

But after 2nd Avenue Phase 1 and East Side Access, what's next? Can we get funding and political will to complete the rest of SAS and possibly continue it into the Bronx? Or would it be better to focus on other parts of the city (Utica Ave subway, Queens Super Express, Hillside Ave extension, etc)? Is there enough political clout and will in the Bronx, Brooklyn or Queens to get long-proposed lines and extensions constructed in any of those boroughs? Or can SI finally muster up enough clout to put forth a serious proposal to extend the subway there, perhaps from the 4th Avenue Express tracks, so that the subway trip might not be slower than the ferry?

 

Time will tell. The SAS will likely not be the end of it; there are provisions for extensions to the Bronx, a cross-river tunnel to Brooklyn, and a connection to Queens via 63rd St (which won't be initially utilizable due to capacity constraints on Queens Blvd; the original plan included a Queens Blvd Bypass to alleviate that problem)

 

At the very least, the MTA has indicated that it considers maintenance more of a pressing need (which is just as well, since they're not a planning organization but a service provider; all new projects, including SAS, have been initiated by outsiders). The one thing it has indicated it is willing to consider is a grade separation of Nostrand Junction, similar to the reconfiguration of DeKalb way back in the MTA's early days.

[Jsunflyguy]

I think the concerns really should be what service can/should be created using the tunnel. If a subway were to use the Narrows pathway the trains would be on the 4th Ave line (likely local) or create a new subway route (which would be the most useful). Then how would these trains get to Manhattan, not over the bridge. The Montague tunnels would limit these trains.

 

Ideally the tunnel would use a Manhattan crossing to connect to the SAS.

[cl94]

At the very least, the MTA has indicated that it considers maintenance more of a pressing need (which is just as well, since they're not a planning organization but a service provider; all new projects, including SAS, have been initiated by outsiders). The one thing it has indicated it is willing to consider is a grade separation of Nostrand Junction, similar to the reconfiguration of DeKalb way back in the MTA's early days.

 

Needs to be done. That area is often backed up to Atlantic (or further). Only then could they think of a Nostrand Avenue extension.

 

I think the concerns really should be what service can/should be created using the tunnel. If a subway were to use the Narrows pathway the trains would be on the 4th Ave line (likely local) or create a new subway route (which would be the most useful). Then how would these trains get to Manhattan, not over the bridge. The Montague tunnels would limit these trains.

 

Ideally the tunnel would use a Manhattan crossing to connect to the SAS.

 

It would be an awfully long local (even longer than the is it was to go anywhere on SI) and 4th Avenue doesn't really have the express capacity north of the West End Line. I do like the idea of an SAS connection though. At the risk of sounding like a crazy foamer, build the tunnel from Hanover Square to Brooklyn, have the do its thing, and build a line through Red Hook that cuts the corner and runs under the 4th Avenue Line from wherever it comes in to the Narrows, possibly running super-express on 4th with stops only at 36th and 95th. If they ever got their act together and build the Queens Boulevard super-express, have the SI route head to Queens at 63rd Street and run on that. Really crazy, but combines a few long-desired options into one plan.

[Kamen Rider]

There are simpler ways.

 

When most people talk of extending the subway to Staten Island, I hardly ever see them go outside the box without climbing into the "Crazy" box.

 

The simplest answer is a one stop extension of the 4th ave line to a transfer station with SIRTOA.

 

For the record, the Montague tube isn't as crowed as it once was, and that's when it's open and working. No south Brooklyn Ms. No Ws. There is actually some space on Broadway and in the tunnel for more service, even though it's probably being reserved for whatever they end up doing when SAS opens.