T to Dyre Avenue Posted February 6, 2011 Share #126 Posted February 6, 2011 Why do that? Why not just hook it into an existing line, especially one that runs under the same street that many of the SI express buses use? It would be faster and less expensive to do it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Uhland Posted February 25, 2011 Share #127 Posted February 25, 2011 Moses was an overbearing, hateful narcissist, otherwise a great guy , wielded incredible NY political power. Failed to invite Verrazano builders to its opening. Gave us those wonderful projects, cuz he knew a socialist French architect who loved 'em. IIRC, V-NB's lower deck was supposedly built for subway trains. With current traffic, now no room, Narrows tunnel the most practical connection with SIR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share #128 Posted February 25, 2011 I don't know. I often don't trust people like Robert Moes, because they are jerks, and plain old bit*hes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 25, 2011 Share #129 Posted February 25, 2011 IIRC, V-NB's lower deck was supposedly built for subway trains. It was actually built to prevent them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share #130 Posted February 25, 2011 You can tell that Robert Moses didn't want trains using his bridge. If you were to use an existing line, and to send it across the bridge you would first need to get to the approach of the bridge, and boy is he sneaky. If you were to try first you would need to take down Fort Hamilton, and several buildings that are famous which would never happen. Robert Moses did that on purpose. Next if the train were to try to get on the bridge you would need to build several sharp turns along with a steep grade of nearly 5%. No train can make it onto the bridge with those sharp turns, and that steep grade. Again Robert Moses did that on purpose, and in case the train does make it up there Robert Moses was even more sneaky. He built the bridge to be extremely light to only handle automobiles. The bridge would to need to be retrofitted which would ruin the bridge's look, and it would be costly. The approaches on the Staten Island side is the same as the Brooklyn side so I don't need to go no farther to explain that. The only thing that is different is there are no famous buildings to block the way to build a Staten Island train approach, but the steep grades, and turns would scare away anyone trying to put trains on the bridge. PS I did my reading on the bridge, and had studied it so don't criticize me I am only telling the truth. PSS I think Robert Moses was arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted February 25, 2011 Share #131 Posted February 25, 2011 You can tell that Robert Moses didn't want trains using his bridge. If you were to use an existing line, and to send it across the bridge you would first need to get to the approach of the bridge, and boy is he sneaky. If you were to try first you would need to take down Fort Hamilton, and several buildings that are famous which would never happen. Robert Moses did that on purpose. Next if the train were to try to get on the bridge you would need to build several sharp turns along with a steep grade of nearly 5%. No train can make it onto the bridge with those sharp turns, and that steep grade. Again Robert Moses did that on purpose, and in case the train does make it up there Robert Moses was even more sneaky. He built the bridge to be extremely light to only handle automobiles. The bridge would to need to be retrofitted which would ruin the bridge's look, and it would be costly. The approaches on the Staten Island side is the same as the Brooklyn side so I don't need to go no farther to explain that. The only thing that is different is there are no famous buildings to block the way to build a Staten Island train approach, but the steep grades, and turns would scare away anyone trying to put trains on the bridge. PS I did my reading on the bridge, and had studied it so don't criticize me I am only telling the truth. PSS I think Robert Moses was arrogant. It doesn't matter… Tunnels enable trains to move faster anyway, so he probably did a good favor by forcing future trains underground to Staten Island. His intentions, though, make him a huge prick taller than the Eiffel Tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeGerald Posted February 26, 2011 Share #132 Posted February 26, 2011 The Toll Plaza of the VN Bridge is at the location where the subway tunnel entrance/exit would have existed - that was planned when the B&O Railroad and the BRT subway in the 1920's decided to join their transit systems allowing trains to/from Staten Island to use what is now the 59th Street-4Ave station, and the rest of the Brooklyn 4th Avenue line. About that time the BRT went bankrupt, and the BMT subway was born, but the BMT was too broke to be able to finish small amount of the subway tunnel construction that had been started. The building of the Toll Plaza at that location is more than enough of a symbol that subway transit directly between Brooklyn and Staten Island, decades later was probably not gonna happen. It still has not happened yet. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 26, 2011 Author Share #133 Posted February 26, 2011 I think light rail should be built to Staten Island instead. It can use the Verrazano Narrows Bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 26, 2011 Share #134 Posted February 26, 2011 What could be done to get more efficient use out of the bridge is turn one lane into a bus-only lane during rush hour, and try to offer service to places further out (say, an express bus to JFK Airport using the Belt Parkway (with a permit to go on the parkway) and/or its service roads) Of course, the current express buses and local buses would be able to use the lane. A light rail would be nice, but the bus lane is more realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted March 14, 2011 Share #135 Posted March 14, 2011 What could be done to get more efficient use out of the bridge is turn one lane into a bus-only lane during rush hour, and try to offer service to places further out (say, an express bus to JFK Airport using the Belt Parkway (with a permit to go on the parkway) and/or its service roads) Of course, the current express buses and local buses would be able to use the lane. A light rail would be nice, but the bus lane is more realistic. AGREED However to JFK it would be more economical to just charge local fare to allow interlining of several BK rtes to SI and SOME BK to queens and for superexpress service more like a JFK direct added after demand is determined that the overlapping rtes along the BRT can't handle SI to JFK traffic. For specific bus rtes I am still determining that. However the BRT needs to be on the BQE from williamsburg to jackson heights and LGA to allow for super express rtes and heavy interlining as far as nassau and even bronx to help ease LIE traffic via transit alternative parking is bad even in LI its horrifically expensive. plus LIRR doesnt reach NE queens from other lines. This allows long distance travel via MTA to be easy!!! reducing automobile dependance throughout the MTA region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share #136 Posted March 14, 2011 Still I am asking why a line to JFK when the nearest airport is Newark Airport, and the SIR North Shore Branch is so close to Newark that it is more feasible then any other airport expansion plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted March 14, 2011 Share #137 Posted March 14, 2011 AGREED However to JFK it would be more economical to just charge local fare to allow interlining of several BK rtes to SI and SOME BK to queens and for superexpress service more like a JFK direct added after demand is determined that the overlapping rtes along the BRT can't handle SI to JFK traffic. For specific bus rtes I am still determining that. However the BRT needs to be on the BQE from williamsburg to jackson heights and LGA to allow for super express rtes and heavy interlining as far as nassau and even bronx to help ease LIE traffic via transit alternative parking is bad even in LI its horrifically expensive. plus LIRR doesnt reach NE queens from other lines. This allows long distance travel via MTA to be easy!!! reducing automobile dependance throughout the MTA region. Obviously, the payment of the fare is an issue, being that it costs $5 to reach JFK, which is more than the local fare. Maybe, customers can tap in and tap out at their origin and destination, so they get charged bsaed on whether or not they are going to JFK. But the light rail would basically negate the need for a system of buses along the Belt Parkway. The light rail would connect to many routes in Brooklyn and Staten Island, meaning that it would make it more attractive to travel by transit (Remember, if the local bus service in the area is that bad, people can always park at the train station. The goal would be to make trips in this corridor attractive to make via transit, while reducing the number of automobiles in the corridor. A network a buses isn't necessary to accomplish this) As far as the BQE goes, if you can fit BRT or LRT into the roadway, I say go for it. Still I am asking why a line to JFK when the nearest airport is Newark Airport, and the SIR North Shore Branch is so close to Newark that it is more feasible then any other airport expansion plan. It would be covered by a Newark Light Rail extension to Staten Island. Then again, it would be cool to connect EWR and JFK via one rail system. It would definitely encourage people making these transfers to use transit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ymny123 Posted July 19, 2011 Share #138 Posted July 19, 2011 I think there is ample need to develop the railroads within Staten Island to better connect residents of one part of SI to another. Then and only then should we discuss expansion outwardly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Uhland Posted December 18, 2011 Share #139 Posted December 18, 2011 Today's SIR is totally isolated from the old SIRT North Shore line, its far half now used to haul trash and containers to NJ. Freight service ended in 1990 when Proctor and Gamble closed its Port Ivory plant. Per an SIR shop guy, unneeded SIR FRA regs were ended in 1988. Every time I read another story about megalomaniac Robert Moses, I shake my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerdodge9 Posted November 5, 2012 Share #140 Posted November 5, 2012 Could that send the MTA SIR over the Narrows bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveragejoe Posted November 5, 2012 Share #141 Posted November 5, 2012 Could that send the MTA SIR over the Narrows bridge? ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerdodge9 Posted November 5, 2012 Share #142 Posted November 5, 2012 Sorry, I meant "they" not "that". Damn typos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted November 5, 2012 Share #143 Posted November 5, 2012 Could that send the MTA SIR over the Narrows bridge? no need just make a tunnel to allow SIR to go over LIRR bay ridge branch and go to jackson heights or bronx as a crosstown or LGA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted November 5, 2012 Share #144 Posted November 5, 2012 Could that send the MTA SIR over the Narrows bridge? I don't think the bridge would be able to support heavy rail anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FamousNYLover Posted November 5, 2012 Share #145 Posted November 5, 2012 I also don't even think Parks Official and park lovers don't want subway station built on Governors Island, which is historical landmark, and it should be left alone as it is and ask to register into National Historical Register of Place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted November 5, 2012 Share #146 Posted November 5, 2012 I also don't even think Parks Official and park lovers don't want subway station built on Governors Island, which is historical landmark, and it should be left alone as it is and ask to register into National Historical Register of Place. true and it's not needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussieinuk Posted December 15, 2012 Share #147 Posted December 15, 2012 Is the population of Staten Island enough to justify a tunnel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted December 15, 2012 Share #148 Posted December 15, 2012 Is the population of Staten Island enough to justify a tunnel? This has been said over and over... if it wasn't, then the ferry wouldn't be crush loaded at all hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q10 Airport Posted December 15, 2012 Share #149 Posted December 15, 2012 I don't think the bridge would be able to support heavy rail anyway. You can thank Robert Moses for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted December 15, 2012 Share #150 Posted December 15, 2012 Is the population of Staten Island enough to justify a tunnel? YES!!!! and a new rail line can be done as a crosstown to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.