LRG Posted January 25, 2010 Share #1 Posted January 25, 2010 With more than 3,700 members, The Train to Staten Island, a Facebook group pushing to resurrect plans to connect Staten Island to Brooklyn via subway tunnel, has plenty of people power behind it. But subway tunnels cannot be dug on dreams and enthusiasm alone. "It would be an amazing thing if that could happen," said the group's organizer, Stephen Flannery, 19, a lifelong Staten Islander living in Great Kills. "The idea came from just simply living here," and coping with a transportation system that requires lots of time, and transfers, to get where you want to go, he said. Flannery knows the tough commute firsthand, traveling from his home to class at Brooklyn College. Most days, he'll take the Staten Island Railway to the ferry and then the subway on the way to school. On the way home, he usually takes the bus over the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and the train home. Either way, one missed connection can mean a big delay. While talking with his grandmother one day, she told him about several proposals to connect the Island to Brooklyn, which sparked his interest in bringing the proposal back to the forefront. According to Advance archives, a subway connection to Brooklyn was first pitched in 1912 by then-Borough President George Cromwell. The line would have joined the then-Staten Island Rapid Transit tracks at the St. George Ferry Terminal with the 65th Street station in Brooklyn, via a two-mile underwater subway tunnel. Ground was broken on the tunnel in 1923, but the project didn't get very far. Construction stopped in 1924, and was briefly revived in the late 1930s, but the project has since been abandoned. MTA Board member Allen Cappelli said he was recently looking through old documents that showed the proposed subway routes. Though he said he hasn't seen Flannery's Facebook group, "I'm willing to consider any serious plan that gives us off-Island mass transit capabilities." But running trains through Brooklyn to get into Manhattan would take tremendously long, he said, and tunnel building is extremely expensive. He said he would prefer to see a subway tunnel running under the harbor and connecting to the No. subway line in Manhattan. Such a train could connect to the North Shore rail and West Shore Light Rail on Staten Island, if those projects continue to advance. Meanwhile, Richie Sorrentino, one of the group's officers, said he would like to host an outdoor dance music fund-raiser in both Staten Island and Brooklyn this summer to drum up support for the effort. "I think many people would take this train to and from work and on weekends to hang out with friends or travel," Sorrentino said. "A lot of Staten Island people don't get a chance to see the rest of New York." To join the group, visit http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=38429839600. View original article here: http://www.silive.com/news/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/1264329009316720.xml&coll=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted January 25, 2010 Share #2 Posted January 25, 2010 Staten Island is the abandoned red-headed stepchild of the city! It should stay that way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted January 25, 2010 Share #3 Posted January 25, 2010 They are right in terms of connecting it to Manhattan, but IMO not to the line. It should be to the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 25, 2010 Author Share #4 Posted January 25, 2010 Staten Island is the abandoned red-headed stepchild of the city! It should stay that way! And so we have another basher against the borough of Staten Island in our midst, who goes by the handle of SoSpectacular. Why is it so hard for you and others to understand that Staten Island is a borough of New York City, just like the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens, and that there are people in the Island who can't afford a round-trip of $11 over the Verrazano Bridge and have to resort to public transportation and take a half-hour ferry ride or even an express bus via another borough to even get to Manhattan through bad traffic, which results to the commuters having hardly any time at all using surface transit than the time a one-seat subway ride would save? Why did you find it necessary for you to say what you did? Staten Island is a borough too and it is sickening that they are treated like the forgotten one. I commute to school to Staten Island and it's appalling that the riders have little travel options to get around the place or even to another borough without taking a slow ferry ride to Manhattan, or even an hour ride from the mall to Bay Ridge. If it should stay as the stepchild of the MTA, then explain to me why in the past few years the MTA created the S93 for CSI students, the S89 for service to New Jersey, and are now considering Bus Rapid Transit along the Hylan Boulevard corridor of the Island. It's about time that Staten Island got media attention about the horrendous transportation options they have right now, and I commend the admin of that group for attracting media attention and the MTA in regards to the transportation they deserve to have: a subway to the rest of the borough, be it Brooklyn or Manhattan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted January 25, 2010 Share #5 Posted January 25, 2010 They are right in terms of connecting it to Manhattan, but IMO not to the line. It should be to the . The R/W line is directly in the path of the E, you can't extend the E any further. As for the Manhattan-SI tunnel, that's 5 miles long and SI doesn't even have the population to justify such a long and very expensive tunnel. If SI is to be connected somewhere, it should be Brooklyn. But the SIRT should be the one to run to Brooklyn with a platform transfer to the subway. Current subway headways can't support the added length. But an SIRT line can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted January 25, 2010 Share #6 Posted January 25, 2010 So now has a few billion dollars to make a blip of a connection, when the SIF connects people right to the ? - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 25, 2010 Author Share #7 Posted January 25, 2010 The R/W line is directly in the path of the E, you can't extend the E any further. As for the Manhattan-SI tunnel, that's 5 miles long and SI doesn't even have the population to justify such a long and very expensive tunnel.If SI is to be connected somewhere, it should be Brooklyn. But the SIRT should be the one to run to Brooklyn with a platform transfer to the subway. Current subway headways can't support the added length. But an SIRT line can. If a train peaks at 55 MPH, and the tunnel would be a projected five miles, it'd take roughly six minutes at most to get from Manhattan to Staten Island. Better that the 25 minute ferry ride if you ask me. So now has a few billion dollars to make a blip of a connection, when the SIF connects people right to the ? - A LOL, well it is something that would be have to be considered by the MTA first, and if something like this were to happen, it'd take a while to secure the funds to build the tunnel link between Manhattan and Staten Island, and if the train links to S.I., then the platforms would have to be lengthened to a ten car IRT train, and then the line in its entirety would have to be converted to subway use like the IND Rockaway Line was back in the 50s. It took roughly five years to convert the line to subway use after the city bought it. That time could be factored into converting the SIR to subway use in conjunction to building the tunnel link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w8Hou Posted January 25, 2010 Share #8 Posted January 25, 2010 Why did you find it necessary for you to say what you did? Staten Island is a borough too and it is sickening that they are treated like the forgotten one. I commute to school to Staten Island and it's appalling that the riders have little travel options to get around the place or even to another borough without taking a slow ferry ride to Manhattan, or even an hour ride from the mall to Bay Ridge. If it should stay as the stepchild of the MTA, then explain to me why in the past few years the MTA created the S93 for CSI students, the S89 for service to New Jersey, and are now considering Bus Rapid Transit along the Hylan Boulevard corridor of the Island. It's about time that Staten Island got media attention about the horrendous transportation options they have right now, and I commend the admin of that group for attracting media attention and the MTA in regards to the transportation they deserve to have: a subway to the rest of the borough, be it Brooklyn or Manhattan. Staten Island is always a stepchild. St George and Brooklyn Army Terminal, will be the best bet for the underground rail tunnel that people are proposing for the cross harbor freight tunnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted January 25, 2010 Share #9 Posted January 25, 2010 Nothing against SI, but I don't see the worth in connecting SI to Manhattan especially to convert the SIRT to accomdate the 1 line. It would also make more sense to build the SI-Brooklyn tunnel and maybe another Brooklyn/Queens to Manhattan tunnel for less than the cost of an SI-Manhattan tunnel. If SI was as densely populated like Brooklyn and closer, then yes, I would be for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted January 25, 2010 Share #10 Posted January 25, 2010 Nothing against SI, but I don't see the worth in connecting SI to Manhattan especially to convert the SIRT to accomdate the 1 line. It would also make more sense to build the SI-Brooklyn tunnel and maybe another Brooklyn/Queens to Manhattan tunnel for less than the cost of an SI-Manhattan tunnel.If SI was as densely populated like Brooklyn and closer, then yes, I would be for it. agreed. :tup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 25, 2010 Author Share #11 Posted January 25, 2010 Nothing against SI, but I don't see the worth in connecting SI to Manhattan especially to convert the SIRT to accomdate the 1 line. It would also make more sense to build the SI-Brooklyn tunnel and maybe another Brooklyn/Queens to Manhattan tunnel for less than the cost of an SI-Manhattan tunnel.If SI was as densely populated like Brooklyn and closer, then yes, I would be for it. So where would the connection feed into if it were to connect with the rest of the subway system in Brooklyn? At least if the line connects with the we already know it could be easily established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted January 25, 2010 Share #12 Posted January 25, 2010 The R line at either 95th or 86th St. I personally don't see the worth in merging the SIRT with the subway. They should remain isolated from each other. And how crowded is the SIRT? I don't think it needs more than the 4-car trains it runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted January 25, 2010 Share #13 Posted January 25, 2010 If they want to connect rail to staten island have it be a real rail link not subway. PATH would be better, but i think in the end it will be a simple shuttle service over one of the new bridges, especially to newark penn & the airport. - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishmech Posted January 25, 2010 Share #14 Posted January 25, 2010 If a train peaks at 55 MPH, and the tunnel would be a projected five miles, it'd take roughly six minutes at most to get from Manhattan to Staten Island. Better that the 25 minute ferry ride if you ask me. True, but 5 miles of tunnels UNDER THE CORE OF NEW YORK HARBOR would be expensive as *@#*%*^*#*^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted January 25, 2010 Share #15 Posted January 25, 2010 Exactly. SI is mostly residential. I could understand it if SI was more like Jersey City, but it's not worth the cost at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 25, 2010 Author Share #16 Posted January 25, 2010 True, but 5 miles of tunnels UNDER THE CORE OF NEW YORK HARBOR would be expensive as *@#*%*^*#*^ An immersed tunnel costs less than an undersea bored tunnel. The 63rd Street tunnel was built that way. Exactly. SI is mostly residential. I could understand it if SI was more like Jersey City, but it's not worth the cost at all. It all depends on the commuters and Staten Islanders. Take it from a commuter who travels to and from Staten Island half the days that make up the week, there needs to be a rail link of some sort. It would take too long to get to Manhattan if a rail link is made between Brooklyn and S.I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted January 25, 2010 Share #17 Posted January 25, 2010 I understand, but the MTA would never recover the money to justify a 5mile tunnel though. Even [the DOT] running the ferries every 15min would be 'cheaper'. The problem of SI is that it is so far away from Manhattan, you need teh ferry or must go thru either Brooklyn or New Jersey. As far as a 'rail link', Brooklyn right now is better than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted January 25, 2010 Share #18 Posted January 25, 2010 And so we have another basher against the borough of Staten Island in our midst, who goes by the handle of SoSpectacular. Why is it so hard for you and others to understand that Staten Island is a borough of New York City, just like the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens, and that there are people in the Island who can't afford a round-trip of $11 over the Verrazano Bridge and have to resort to public transportation and take a half-hour ferry ride or even an express bus via another borough to even get to Manhattan through bad traffic, which results to the commuters having hardly any time at all using surface transit than the time a one-seat subway ride would save? Why did you find it necessary for you to say what you did? Staten Island is a borough too and it is sickening that they are treated like the forgotten one. I commute to school to Staten Island and it's appalling that the riders have little travel options to get around the place or even to another borough without taking a slow ferry ride to Manhattan, or even an hour ride from the mall to Bay Ridge. If it should stay as the stepchild of the MTA, then explain to me why in the past few years the MTA created the S93 for CSI students, the S89 for service to New Jersey, and are now considering Bus Rapid Transit along the Hylan Boulevard corridor of the Island. It's about time that Staten Island got media attention about the horrendous transportation options they have right now, and I commend the admin of that group for attracting media attention and the MTA in regards to the transportation they deserve to have: a subway to the rest of the borough, be it Brooklyn or Manhattan. Hey hey, I don't hate Staten Island! Only joking! If they want a subway built to them, I'm all for it! Only a matter of having the time and resources! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w8Hou Posted January 25, 2010 Share #19 Posted January 25, 2010 The R line at either 95th or 86th St. I personally don't see the worth in merging the SIRT with the subway. They should remain isolated from each other. And how crowded is the SIRT? I don't think it needs more than the 4-car trains it runs. No, the closest one from St George and Brooklyn would be the 59th Street station on , lines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIR North Shore Posted January 25, 2010 Share #20 Posted January 25, 2010 I understand, but the MTA would never recover the money to justify a 5mile tunnel though. Even [the DOT] running the ferries every 15min would be 'cheaper'.The problem of SI is that it is so far away from Manhattan, you need teh ferry or must go thru either Brooklyn or New Jersey. As far as a 'rail link', Brooklyn right now is better than nothing. Things are in a deadlock situation. When it comes to Staten Island, no one wants to build a subway connection because of it's 500,000 population, yet that population WON'T rise until a rail connection is built. The borough is already overcrowded and it's number 1 issue is traffic transportation issues. A rail connection of some sort is necessary for Staten Island to grow. When the 8th St HBLR station opens up, it'll be right at the base of the Bayonne Bridge and the bridge itself is in dire need of replacement so hopefully we'll see a new HBLR SI extension in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted January 25, 2010 Share #21 Posted January 25, 2010 I say go for a tunnel between Staten and BK but why the train??? No one in Staten Island doesn't want to ride a Manhattan and Brooklyn Local train. If any train it should be the or trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishmech Posted January 25, 2010 Share #22 Posted January 25, 2010 I say go for a tunnel between Staten and BK but why the train??? No one in Staten Island doesn't want to ride a Manhattan and Brooklyn Local train. If any train it should be the or trains. The Bay Ridge line was DESIGNED to be extended out to Staten Island, as well as provisions made in existing stations and tunnels for four tracks, allowing express service on it. Any tunnel to SI would involve activating all of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted January 25, 2010 Share #23 Posted January 25, 2010 Building provision express tracks down Bay Ridge plus crossing to Staten Island connecting to Grasmere really isnt worth the millions or billions compared to branching off the express tracks between 59th and 65th Sts to St. George (or even beyond) where the transportation connections and populaton is higher. That's why I'm saying either the or trains (both runs express in Brooklyn) or even a new train service that could run express in BK cause the already runs local throughout its run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m7zanr160s Posted January 25, 2010 Share #24 Posted January 25, 2010 I agree with this 100%. Just extend the to, like, Grasmere train station. The connection's gotta be next to the Verrazano Bridge, that's the shortest distance between SI and another borough. Just check out Google maps with the transit overlay (most accurate NYC Subway map, man). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted January 25, 2010 Share #25 Posted January 25, 2010 I love how every person, like this 19 year old described as the "organizer" of this group, to suggest subway service to Staten Island, envisions a two track tunnel replacing the Ferry and providing faster service. Replacing the Ferry...Because a stub end terminal with departures every 5 minutes or so during the rush can really keep up with the hoardes of people who would board and exit the ferry. Just goes to show what can happen when someone with an idea decides to organize before they decide to work out the very important details of such an idea, which if you're going to propose in the middle of a recession, should probably give some idea of ways this might be paid for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.