Savino calls for subway, rail links for Staten Island with floating $3B

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Replies in bold.

 

 

 

When the subway expanded into the outer boroughs and caused development there, that wasn't considered overkill

 

 

 

In the studies for the North/West Shore Rail Lines, I'm sure they mention ways of developing the land surrounding the stations without completely urbanizing the area.

 

I was thinking about the West Shore and have been throughout this whole subway/light rail discussion. The West Shore is an area that is supposed to be the new spot to be developed in 20-30 years and so the North Shore rail rebirth is supposed to be included in that plan. However, what was also discussed was beefing up of more buses, not tons of light rails or any sort of subway. The consensus is that buses are the life line of Staten Island and are cheaper to implement than trains.

[B35 via Church]

But doesn't that take up more space? If space is an issue (as it is in most parts of NYC), you need to build it either above or below street level, even if it is only light rail.

No point in building a LRT system underground in NYC when we actually have an extensive subway system here.... Which narrows it down to street level, or above it....

 

...but to answer your question, Not necessarily.

 

 

When the subway expanded into the outer boroughs and caused development there, that wasn't considered overkill

Dude, there was much more land to work with in those days....

and here's a shock - there were much less people here too.

[Roadcruiser1]

Not in the long run, but will you Staten Islanders listen to me for once. Gasoline prices are going up they aren't going to go lower any time soon. What do you Staten Islanders think you can do when a half or more of the population of Staten Island can't afford to fill up the tank. In the future you can put solar panels, and windmills in Fresh Kills Park to power all these rail vechiles, but you can't power up every single car in Staten Island like that.

 

I am going in depth with my map from earlier so it would be easier for people to know instead of quick criticism.

The Hudson Bergen Light Rail would be extended across the Bayonne Bridge, and run down the West Shore to help populate, and develop the West Shore which would run on down linking the SIR to the light rail, and a North Shore Light Rail operated by the Hudson Bergen Light Rail company would help with the density of the North Shore, the North Shore Light Rail branches off the West Shore Light Rail around Fresh Kills Park, and run down to the Staten Island Mall helping people get to Mall with easier speed, and would then run on down to the SIR connecting them.

Regular SIR will remain intact

LIRR extension down the Staten Island Expressway. It would take cars off the road, and give people a second way to get to NYC. It would run on to NJ where it would terminate at nearby Newark Airport allowing Staten Islanders to have access to an airport. It would run there via in a tunnel across the Narrows. It would spend it's time running parallel to the SIE, and at times elevate itself.

[checkmatechamp13]

I was thinking about the West Shore and have been throughout this whole subway/light rail discussion. The West Shore is an area that is supposed to be the new spot to be developed in 20-30 years and so the North Shore rail rebirth is supposed to be included in that plan. However, what was also discussed was beefing up of more buses, not tons of light rails or any sort of subway. The consensus is that buses are the life line of Staten Island and are cheaper to implement than trains.

 

As far as rail vs. buses go, buses are cheaper when you are dealing with small numbers of people, but rail is much cheaper when you are dealing with large numbers of people.

 

When I go to school, I see crowded S46/S96 and S48/S98 buses going towards St. George (in the vicinity of Richmond Avenue, which becomes Morningstar Road). I would imagine that, by the time they get to St. George they are crushloaded and probably bypassed groups of customers because there wasn't any room. In addition, those routes take 30-40 minutes to run from Mariners' Harbor to St. George, whereas a rail line could make that trip in 15 minutes (no traffic lights, more room for accelaration, shorter boarding times).

 

That is already a corridor that has demonstrated that it would benefit from a rail line vs. bus routes. The MTA could probably cut half of the buses on the S40 and S46 and the remaining buses would still be less crowded than they are currently, and the people of the neighborhood would have much quicker travel times.

 

As far as other places go, maybe there isn't too much demand for rail service there. The West Shore may be able to be handled by frequent bus services-an extension of the S46 (or S40, which could be swapped with the S46) and a new bus route running via Richmond Avenue, the SIE service road, and South Avenue/WSE.

 

So, in the long run, if the population of SI is going to increase dramatically, rail expansion is the way to go. If everybody insists that they want to keep their low-density lifestyle, we will have to stick with buses.

 

Not in the long run, but will you Staten Islanders listen to me for once. Gasoline prices are going up they aren't going to go lower any time soon. What do you Staten Islanders think you can do when a half or more of the population of Staten Island can't afford to fill up the tank. In the future you can put solar panels, and windmills in Fresh Kills Park to power all these rail vechiles, but you can't power up every single car in Staten Island like that.

 

I am going in depth with my map from earlier so it would be easier for people to know instead of quick criticism.

fantasy map

The Hudson Bergen Light Rail would be extended across the Bayonne Bridge, and run down the West Shore to help populate, and develop the West Shore which would run on down linking the SIR to the light rail, and a North Shore Light Rail operated by the Hudson Bergen Light Rail company would help with the density of the North Shore, the North Shore Light Rail branches off the West Shore Light Rail around Fresh Kills Park, and run down to the Staten Island Mall helping people get to Mall with easier speed, and would then run on down to the SIR connecting them.

Regular SIR will remain intact

LIRR extension down the Staten Island Expressway. It would take cars off the road, and give people a second way to get to NYC. It would run on to NJ where it would terminate at nearby Newark Airport allowing Staten Islanders to have access to an airport. It would run there via in a tunnel across the Narrows. It would spend it's time running parallel to the SIE, and at times elevate itself.

 

It is physically impossible to develop the West Shore (as far as residential units go) for the simple reason that, in the northern portion, there is contaminated site from some type of oil company that was there, and in the southern portion there is the Fresh Kills Landfill (which is being turned into a park). The only development that could occur would be in the portions of the South Shore where the line runs.

[B35 via Church]

Not in the long run, but will you Staten Islanders listen to me for once. Gasoline prices are going up they aren't going to go lower any time soon. What do you Staten Islanders think you can do when a half or more of the population of Staten Island can't afford to fill up the tank. In the future you can put solar panels, and windmills in Fresh Kills Park to power all these rail vechiles, but you can't power up every single car in Staten Island like that.

 

I am going in depth with my map from earlier so it would be easier for people to know instead of quick criticism.

 

...............................

 

The Hudson Bergen Light Rail would be extended across the Bayonne Bridge, and run down the West Shore to help populate, and develop the West Shore which would run on down linking the SIR to the light rail, and a North Shore Light Rail operated by the Hudson Bergen Light Rail company would help with the density of the North Shore, the North Shore Light Rail branches off the West Shore Light Rail around Fresh Kills Park, and run down to the Staten Island Mall helping people get to Mall with easier speed, and would then run on down to the SIR connecting them.

Regular SIR will remain intact

LIRR extension down the Staten Island Expressway. It would take cars off the road, and give people a second way to get to NYC. It would run on to NJ where it would terminate at nearby Newark Airport allowing Staten Islanders to have access to an airport. It would run there via in a tunnel across the Narrows. It would spend it's time running parallel to the SIE, and at times elevate itself.

 

 

 

You can keep posting your map until you're blue in the face & your fingers get numb...

That's not going to get things done any sooner (or at all), or change the differing opinions of those who oppose the illustration of service on your map....

 

Furthermore, your car vs train arguments are very weak.... Worse, you keep repeating them.

 

You're not going to get the masses to abandon their personal vehicles in this city.... One car here, two cars there is a meager step, but it's insignificant to what ppl. to the likes of you, Mayor Bloomberg, and everyone else who wants to cram everyone onto trains is trying to accomplish in the grand scheme of things....

 

The idea that you're gonna get people in well off communities (2 car families at that) to solely consider public transportation is absurd.... Most of us on this motha' are pro-transit, but snap back into reality here... We are the small minority to a grandiose amt. of ppl. that could give a damn about buses, subways, LRT's, BRT's, ferries, whatever....

[Tokkemon]

The Hudson Bergen Light Rail would be extended across the Bayonne Bridge, and run down the West Shore to help populate, and develop the West Shore which would run on down linking the SIR to the light rail, and a North Shore Light Rail operated by the Hudson Bergen Light Rail company would help with the density of the North Shore, the North Shore Light Rail branches off the West Shore Light Rail around Fresh Kills Park, and run down to the Staten Island Mall helping people get to Mall with easier speed, and would then run on down to the SIR connecting them.

 

But..... people don't need to get into Bayonne and Hoboken. They need to get into Manhattan!

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Not in the long run, but will you Staten Islanders listen to me for once. Gasoline prices are going up they aren't going to go lower any time soon. What do you Staten Islanders think you can do when a half or more of the population of Staten Island can't afford to fill up the tank. In the future you can put solar panels, and windmills in Fresh Kills Park to power all these rail vechiles, but you can't power up every single car in Staten Island like that.

 

I am going in depth with my map from earlier so it would be easier for people to know instead of quick criticism.

The Hudson Bergen Light Rail would be extended across the Bayonne Bridge, and run down the West Shore to help populate, and develop the West Shore which would run on down linking the SIR to the light rail, and a North Shore Light Rail operated by the Hudson Bergen Light Rail company would help with the density of the North Shore, the North Shore Light Rail branches off the West Shore Light Rail around Fresh Kills Park, and run down to the Staten Island Mall helping people get to Mall with easier speed, and would then run on down to the SIR connecting them.

Regular SIR will remain intact

LIRR extension down the Staten Island Expressway. It would take cars off the road, and give people a second way to get to NYC. It would run on to NJ where it would terminate at nearby Newark Airport allowing Staten Islanders to have access to an airport. It would run there via in a tunnel across the Narrows. It would spend it's time running parallel to the SIE, and at times elevate itself.

 

But you also have to face reality.... If gas prices continue to go up, people will adjust and buy hybrids. I appreciate you suggesting these things, but I also know that they would involve massive changes at extremely high price tags. Judging on how little we invest in infrastructure as a country, the general attitude of public transportation here on Staten Island and the infrastructure problems we currently have, your ideas would be a real real long shot.

[Roadcruiser1]

Here is the slide show presentation on the West Shore

http://nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/west_shore/presentation_052010.shtml

[B35 via Church]

But..... people don't need to get into Bayonne and Hoboken. They need to get into Manhattan!

 

I think I made that same point like twice in this thread already...

They don't wanna hear it....

[checkmatechamp13]

I actually went to the meeting (it was held in 3 locations: Mariners' Harbor, SeaView Hospital and Eltingville, and I attended the one in Eltingville). That is where I actually heard that a good portion of the West Shore couldn't be used for residential purposes. The land can have commercial uses, though (in the Teleport)

 

I think I made that same point like twice in this thread already...

They don't wanna hear it....

 

That is the purpose of the line in the median of the SIE (though, like I said, there should be lower intra-borough fares to encourage intra-borough travel).

[Fresh Pond]

@Via Garibaldi: The reason that pedestrian walkways work on the East River/Harlem River bridges is for 2 reasons:

 

1) The short length of the bridge-the span of those bridges is only about a mile long....

 

Actually, the only bridge that is more than a mile is the VZ. The Bklyn, Manny, Willy B, & Qboro are from 1,300-2,000 feet long end to end.

 

Not in the long run, but will you Staten Islanders listen to me for once. Gasoline prices are going up they aren't going to go lower any time soon. What do you Staten Islanders think you can do when a half or more of the population of Staten Island can't afford to fill up the tank. In the future you can put solar panels, and windmills in Fresh Kills Park to power all these rail vechiles, but you can't power up every single car in Staten Island like that.

 

I am going in depth with my map from earlier so it would be easier for people to know instead of quick criticism.

 

map

 

The Hudson Bergen Light Rail would be extended across the Bayonne Bridge, and run down the West Shore to help populate, and develop the West Shore which would run on down linking the SIR to the light rail, and a North Shore Light Rail operated by the Hudson Bergen Light Rail company would help with the density of the North Shore, the North Shore Light Rail branches off the West Shore Light Rail around Fresh Kills Park, and run down to the Staten Island Mall helping people get to Mall with easier speed, and would then run on down to the SIR connecting them.

Regular SIR will remain intact

LIRR extension down the Staten Island Expressway. It would take cars off the road, and give people a second way to get to NYC. It would run on to NJ where it would terminate at nearby Newark Airport allowing Staten Islanders to have access to an airport. It would run there via in a tunnel across the Narrows. It would spend it's time running parallel to the SIE, and at times elevate itself.

 

Boy, you sure do know how to make a statement lol...

 

But seriously, how many times are you gonna post that same map and pitch that same idea. Your idea prices are estimates (as R32 3348 said), but in this day & age of the , prices are actually double and in some cases triple the original cost. Besides, I highly doubt that plan wil be done in 2019. Its 2011 (we still got about a week left in 2010 but you get the idea) and some projects that were supposed to be done years ago (and in the SAS case, decades ago) and now they won't be done for a long time

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I think I made that same point like twice in this thread already...

They don't wanna hear it....

 

 

Let's just build light rails because we don't have any... Kind of like roads to know where, which we have too many of already on Staten Island. A major problem on Staten Island as it is right now is everything transportation wise is cut so early, so as long as that continues, you won't be able to attract young people. That's one reason why I've argued that the X1 should run 24/7 because the demand is there and it would be a start in the right direction to expand service where there is a clear demand.

[checkmatechamp13]

To be honest, before we start expanding bus service into new areas where the demand may or may not be there, lets start with a couple of simple, low-cost expansions (at least in the short term):

 

Extend the S52 from the SI University Hospital North to Richmond Road (via Seaview Avenue): Why end the route at a hospital when you have a SIR station that you can serve, with other connections along the way?

 

Extend the S93 and the short-turn S62s from CSI to Richmond Avenue: Why end 1/2 mile short of a major transfer point? If nothing else, the buses that deadhead down the MLK can make an additional stop at Forest Avenue to serve the shopping district there, with zero additional operating cost.

 

Extend the S46/S96 to Victory Blvd to provide the Travis community with direct access to points on the North Shore.

 

For longer term expansions of bus service, we can provide a new route down the WSE to Bayonne (similar to the alignment the HBLR extension would take).

 

Once we establish a ridership base, we can decide on whether an HBLR and subway expansion is necessary (a North Shore Rail Line is a no-brainer)

[Roadcruiser1]

You know what I am now going to give every detail why rail is better then automobiles.

-Spurs economic development at areas that are served. For example before the Flushing Elevated was built the whole area was just farmland. Now it is a large economic zone with a Chinatown, and houses dot the region as far as the eye can see.

-Takes carbon footprint off the road more then buses do. One LIRR train capable of carrying 1,000 people would take about 250 cars off the road at peak traveling times.

-Would bring work during construction. People would build the tracks, lay the tracks, create the roadbed, and build the stations. People would basically be given jobs to operate the trains too, and the building of the trains, control room operators, and etc would provide jobs for a long time.

-Cheap operating cost. As long as the electricity is coming from green technology the technology is completely green.

-Rail is also comfortable without the heavy bumps on the highway, travels faster then automobiles as long as it has it's own right of way, reduces travel time, safer if it is kept maintained, and secure, and comes with a rate of frequency without the delays you would see on the highway.

-It would put a better option then traveling on a highway jamming traffic, and preventing accidents, because people drive less.

-Air quality is improved. Instead of choking an area with CO2, and CO you would have cleaner air.

-Traveling time is heavily reduced. For example lets say you are driving on a highway for 30 minutes with heavy traffic, and delays before you can get to your destination. Rail transit could cut that down to 15 minutes, and it can be even less.

 

This is my pro rail argument.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

To be honest, before we start expanding bus service into new areas where the demand may or may not be there, lets start with a couple of simple, low-cost expansions (at least in the short term):

 

Extend the S52 from the SI University Hospital North to Richmond Road (via Seaview Avenue): Why end the route at a hospital when you have a SIR station that you can serve, with other connections along the way?

 

Extend the S93 and the short-turn S62s from CSI to Richmond Avenue: Why end 1/2 mile short of a major transfer point? If nothing else, the buses that deadhead down the MLK can make an additional stop at Forest Avenue to serve the shopping district there, with zero additional operating cost.

 

Extend the S46/S96 to Victory Blvd to provide the Travis community with direct access to points on the North Shore.

 

For longer term expansions of bus service, we can provide a new route down the WSE to Bayonne (similar to the alignment the HBLR extension would take).

 

Once we establish a ridership base, we can decide on whether an HBLR and subway expansion is necessary (a North Shore Rail Line is a no-brainer)

 

 

Don't you think the S52 does enough as it is? How much more should that line meander?

 

Same thing with the S46, etc. And what sort of ridership numbers do you have to support these extensions?

 

I mean you argued numbers with the S60, S66 and S54 cuts...

[checkmatechamp13]

You know what I am now going to give every detail why rail is better then automobiles.

-Spurs economic development at areas that are served. For example before the Flushing Elevated was built the whole area was just farmland. Now it is a large economic zone with a Chinatown, and houses dot the region as far as the eye can see.

-Takes carbon footprint off the road more then buses do. One LIRR train capable of carrying 1,000 people would take about 250 cars off the road at peak traveling times.

-Would bring work during construction. People would build the tracks, lay the tracks, create the roadbed, and build the stations. People would basically be given jobs to operate the trains too, and the building of the trains, control room operators, and etc would provide jobs for a long time.

-Cheap operating cost. As long as the electricity is coming from green technology the technology is completely green.

-Rail is also comfortable without the heavy bumps on the highway, travels faster then automobiles as long as it has it's own right of way, reduces travel time, safer if it is kept maintained, and secure, and comes with a rate of frequency without the delays you would see on the highway.

-It would put a better option then traveling on a highway jamming traffic, and preventing accidents, because people drive less.

-Air quality is improved. Instead of choking an area with CO2, and CO you would have cleaner air.

-Traveling time is heavily reduced. For example lets say you are driving on a highway for 30 minutes with heavy traffic, and delays before you can get to your destination. Rail transit could cut that down to 15 minutes, and it can be even less.

 

This is my pro rail argument.

 

I don't think there are any problems with rail (as Via Garibaldi said, I am pro rail on most projects, so you don't have to convince me). I think the problem is getting the community to accept rail transit coming into their neighborhood (and the fact that you may not be able to establish the ridership base to support the service).

 

Don't you think the S52 does enough as it is? How much more should that line meander?

 

Same thing with the S46, etc. And what sort of ridership numbers do you have to support these extensions?

 

I mean you argued numbers with the S60, S66 and S54 cuts...

 

An extension of the line would actually cut out one of the turns-it would be able to go straight down Seaview Avenue to connect with the SIR.

On the North Shore, the S52 does get decent ridership, between riders living on the hills in Stapleton Heights and people living in Park Hill and Stapleton. However, south of the SIE, ridership goes down because there are more direct alternatives-the S51 and S78. This would allow it to get some ridership in the Mid-Island neighborhoods it serves.

 

As far as the S46 goes, Travis has no north-south bus line. The same logic applies in your area with the S54 and S66-you guys have east-west buses (the S48 and S61/S62, depending on which part of Westerleigh you are in), but no north-south service.

 

In any case, all of my ridership numbers come straight from the MTA. The cost-efficiency numbers came from the 2010 Service Reductions packet they gave out in March at the public hearing.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You know what I am now going to give every detail why rail is better then automobiles.

-Spurs economic development at areas that are served. For example before the Flushing Elevated was built the whole area was just farmland. Now it is a large economic zone with a Chinatown, and houses dot the region as far as the eye can see.

-Takes carbon footprint off the road more then buses do. One LIRR train capable of carrying 1,000 people would take about 250 cars off the road at peak traveling times.

-Would bring work during construction. People would build the tracks, lay the tracks, create the roadbed, and build the stations. People would basically be given jobs to operate the trains too, and the building of the trains, control room operators, and etc would provide jobs for a long time.

-Cheap operating cost. As long as the electricity is coming from green technology the technology is completely green.

-Rail is also comfortable without the heavy bumps on the highway, travels faster then automobiles as long as it has it's own right of way, reduces travel time, safer if it is kept maintained, and secure, and comes with a rate of frequency without the delays you would see on the highway.

-It would put a better option then traveling on a highway jamming traffic, and preventing accidents, because people drive less.

-Air quality is improved. Instead of choking an area with CO2, and CO you would have cleaner air.

-Traveling time is heavily reduced. For example lets say you are driving on a highway for 30 minutes with heavy traffic, and delays before you can get to your destination. Rail transit could cut that down to 15 minutes, and it can be even less.

 

This is my pro rail argument.

 

 

I don't disagree with any of that... However, as I said before you have to have realistic plans... All of this would have to paid for and you would have to ensure that it will be used. Checkmate pointed out that most of the areas on the West Shore may not be able to become residential due to the land issues there, so if you're going to have a light rail on the West Shore with minimal population growth, it would be a waste overall financially.

[Roadcruiser1]

I am just pro rail, and worries a lot about the future. Anyway the real West Shore Light Rail is almost the same as my map except it was upgraded a bit. The whole reason why they want to put the light rail on the West Shore Expressway was to allow people to take a park, and ride. They would drive up, and park there to use the light rail. Since Victory Boulevard is extremely crowded they decide to put it there to alleviate crowding. Also the proposal is to give it it's own right of way. If it runs by Victory Boulevard it would have to be elevated to be viable with the speed it needs or else it won't gain what they want.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I am just pro rail, and worries a lot about the future.

 

I'm with you on the need to expand transit and to think about the future. I think however, you first need to address the current problems effecting Staten Island... Express bus service needs to be extended. Limited stop service needs to be extended and expanded in some cases. These things will help get more people on public transit, but if these things aren't done, people will continue to use their cars here because it's quicker and more convenient.

[LRG]

Extend the S93 and the short-turn S62s from CSI to Richmond Avenue: Why end 1/2 mile short of a major transfer point? If nothing else, the buses that deadhead down the MLK can make an additional stop at Forest Avenue to serve the shopping district there, with zero additional operating cost.

 

Haven't you guys beat a deadhorse on this already? The S92/S93 is best terminating at CSI than Richmond Avenue. There's layover space for the buses at the college, there's no space to lay the buses over at Richmond Avenue.

[checkmatechamp13]

Some of the current problems could be solved by expansion of bus service (simple connectivity between neighborhoods). However, some problems warrant rail solutions (and it depends on whether or not the community will accept rail coming into their neighborhood)

 

For example, overcrowded buses on the North Shore is a problem that could and should be fixed by rail service ASAP. It has been shown that there is enough of a ridership base to build (or rebuild) the rail line.

 

About 15-20 express routes going over the VZ Bridge shows that there is demand for rapid travel to Manhattan, but with a premium fare keeping out all of the "riff-raff". Now, whether the people will accept running a commuter rail line into their neighborhood is a different story.

 

Long travel times for passengers making trips in the West Shore corridor is a problem that currently doesn't warrant a rail solution. It is a simple problem that could be fixed by expanded north-south bus service in the area.

 

In the future, as the population grow, yes, there will be more justification for rail transit, but at the current population, we have to be content with minor expansions in bus service. (not to mention rail projects take a long time to build, so they won't be ready for another 10-20 years)

 

Haven't you guys beat a deadhorse on this already? The S92/S93 is best terminating at CSI than Richmond Avenue. There's layover space for the buses at the college, there's no space to lay the buses over at Richmond Avenue.

 

There is layover space at Richmond/Victory. Buses could discharge on Richmond Avenue (at the southbound bus stop), and go on Clifton Street to layover. Then, they can turn around via Jones Street->Victory Blvd and start at the S62/S92 stop on the nearside of Richmond Avenue.

 

And if buses were extended to Forest Avenue, they could layover on Willow Road West on the southern side of Forest Avenue (though some buses are going straight to the depot, so they could just continue down Trantor Place to access the Castleton Depot)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I don't think there are any problems with rail (as Via Garibaldi said, I am pro rail on most projects, so you don't have to convince me). I think the problem is getting the community to accept rail transit coming into their neighborhood (and the fact that you may not be able to establish the ridership base to support the service).

 

 

 

 

An extension of the line would actually cut out one of the turns-it would be able to go straight down Seaview Avenue to connect with the SIR.

On the North Shore, the S52 does get decent ridership, between riders living on the hills in Stapleton Heights and people living in Park Hill and Stapleton. However, south of the SIE, ridership goes down because there are more direct alternatives-the S51 and S78. This would allow it to get some ridership in the Mid-Island neighborhoods it serves.

 

As far as the S46 goes, Travis has no north-south bus line. The same logic applies in your area with the S54 and S66-you guys have east-west buses (the S48 and S61/S62, depending on which part of Westerleigh you are in), but no north-south service.

 

In any case, all of my ridership numbers come straight from the MTA. The cost-efficiency numbers came from the 2010 Service Reductions packet they gave out in March at the public hearing.

 

 

I was too disgusted to even bother...

But I just wonder how much more ridership a line like the S46 would get in Travis. I mean there are areas over there that are literally just marsh land...

[checkmatechamp13]

The residential area of Travis is east of the WSE on either side of Victory Blvd. The S46 can be extended there in one of two ways:

 

1) Go straight down the WSE for one exit and then terminate on the Victory Blvd overpass. (It would still serve the West Shore Plaza)

 

2) Go onto Meredith Avenue, which feeds into Cannon Blvd, and then terminate on Victory Blvd before going back to on Glen Street->Cannon Blvd->Meredith Avenue.

 

And as far as the packet goes, I saw the online version at the end of January, and I wanted to know their logic in discontinuing the routes. Some routes I could understand being eliminated, but some caused too much inconvenience to be eliminated (for example, eliminating the Q76 on Saturday would increase the travel time of 2,000 customers by 30 minutes, and the Q76 only cost $2.70 per passenger. I think Eliot Sanders lives on that route because there was an article saying something to the effect of "Daddy, save my bus")

 

As you can see, I'm the type of person who likes to reason and use numbers in mya arguments. I wrote a letter saying my opinions of specific service reductions and my suggestions for improving the cost-efficiency of the service by restructuring lines with other, nearby lines.

[R32 3348]

LIRR extension down the Staten Island Expressway. It would take cars off the road, and give people a second way to get to NYC. It would run on to NJ where it would terminate at nearby Newark Airport allowing Staten Islanders to have access to an airport. It would run there via in a tunnel across the Narrows. It would spend it's time running parallel to the SIE, and at times elevate itself.

Where is this LIRR extension coming from anyway?? If it's going to accomplish the same exact thing as the subway (with the same speeds) then you might as well just extend the subway.

You know what I am now going to give every detail why rail is better then automobiles.

-Spurs economic development at areas that are served. For example before the Flushing Elevated was built the whole area was just farmland. Now it is a large economic zone with a Chinatown, and houses dot the region as far as the eye can see.

-Takes carbon footprint off the road more then buses do. One LIRR train capable of carrying 1,000 people would take about 250 cars off the road at peak traveling times.

-Would bring work during construction. People would build the tracks, lay the tracks, create the roadbed, and build the stations. People would basically be given jobs to operate the trains too, and the building of the trains, control room operators, and etc would provide jobs for a long time.

-Cheap operating cost. As long as the electricity is coming from green technology the technology is completely green.

-Rail is also comfortable without the heavy bumps on the highway, travels faster then automobiles as long as it has it's own right of way, reduces travel time, safer if it is kept maintained, and secure, and comes with a rate of frequency without the delays you would see on the highway.

-It would put a better option then traveling on a highway jamming traffic, and preventing accidents, because people drive less.

-Air quality is improved. Instead of choking an area with CO2, and CO you would have cleaner air.

-Traveling time is heavily reduced. For example lets say you are driving on a highway for 30 minutes with heavy traffic, and delays before you can get to your destination. Rail transit could cut that down to 15 minutes, and it can be even less.

 

This is my pro rail argument.

No one here is saying that cars are better than mass transportation. Via Garibaldi and B35 are saying that express buses can accomplish the same things that your planned subway extensions can do (which is true, for now).

I'm with you on the need to expand transit and to think about the future. I think however, you first need to address the current problems effecting Staten Island... Express bus service needs to be extended. Limited stop service needs to be extended and expanded in some cases. These things will help get more people on public transit, but if these things aren't done, people will continue to use their cars here because it's quicker and more convenient.

IAWTP. Fixing what is currently wrong is a good, realistic first step.

[Mark 1]

I am going in depth with my map from earlier so it would be easier for people to know instead of quick criticism.

 

The Hudson Bergen Light Rail would be extended across the Bayonne Bridge, and run down the West Shore to help populate, and develop the West Shore which would run on down linking the SIR to the light rail, and a North Shore Light Rail operated by the Hudson Bergen Light Rail company would help with the density of the North Shore, the North Shore Light Rail branches off the West Shore Light Rail around Fresh Kills Park, and run down to the Staten Island Mall helping people get to Mall with easier speed, and would then run on down to the SIR connecting them.

Regular SIR will remain intact

LIRR extension down the Staten Island Expressway. It would take cars off the road, and give people a second way to get to NYC. It would run on to NJ where it would terminate at nearby Newark Airport allowing Staten Islanders to have access to an airport. It would run there via in a tunnel across the Narrows. It would spend it's time running parallel to the SIE, and at times elevate itself.

 

Lets see, tweak the current bus network in SI or plan many unrealistic and unnecessary rail options to the island. The choice is easy here.....

 

All ideas by people on this board have to take in account the financial costs of how much such projects would cost. Any heavy rail project will be mostly underground and the cost will be in the billions while running buses is a fraction of the cost. We see you're enthusiastic about expanding on rail travel and is good but the only possible realistic extension is HBLR to SI and even then is not a real priority at this time.

 

LIRR to Staten Island? Keep dreaming. The cost of boring a tunnel for trains which won't even run frequently to Staten Island is grossly unnecessary and would go through years of drafts before a single drill is bored. You can forget about any move from Penn Station and while Flatbush Av would be the way to go, the distance alone would make this cost prohibitive.