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

[Roadcruiser1]

There is no need for a subway extension to Staten Island. The population once again isn't dense enough. If my map was implemented onto Staten Island tomorrow morning, and my ideas for improvements to the ferry was added it would stop complaints on the tracks. Subway extension takes decades and cost millions. The light rail would use the Staten Island Expressway under it's own ROW, and would literally avoid car traffic through most of it's way. It would also use the Verrazano Narrows Bridge. The only place the Brooklyn-Staten Island light rail meet any traffic might be on the Brooklyn side to Bay Ridge-95th Street which is just several blocks, and Richmond Avenue to the Staten Island Mall which is just several blocks too. Most of the time that line would be almost like a subway line.

 

The West Shore Light Rail uses the West Shore Expressway, and would do almost the same thing from 8th Street-Annadale. The SIR extension to Newark Airport with transfers to Amtrak/NJT Trains, and to Newark Airport would be good too. So would the high speed, and slow ferries which would create local, and express ferry service to Midtown, Lower Manhattan, Hoboken Terminal, Fulton Slip, and Coney Island, and would solve all problems that we know.

[2Line1291]

:eek: You and your light rail.... stop being so cheap and short-sighted it's making me laugh. You do know soon Staten is gonna be like the rest of NYC anyways. It's not like I'm asking for the down 13th Ave to the Verrazano and the down the channel like you did LMBO. The West Shore is good for light rail, but leave the SI-Brooklyn-Manhattan primarily for the subway.

There's a Facebook group for that? Esh.

Yeah.... http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=38429839600&ref=ts#!/group.php?gid=38429839600

[Roadcruiser1]

I am not being cheap. I am also trying to shave as much time as possible. You know how long subway extensions take. We can barely have the Second Avenue Subway done, and we are doing Staten Island already?. The thing here is you have to be realistic too. That is the thing.

[Roadcruiser1]

You know there are NIMBY's that object to any subway connections to their island right, and you also know that the island isn't really dense so the subway stations even if connected to their island would have very low riderships for a long time, and you also know that most Staten Islanders that live there don't want to see the island developed. They want it to be quiet.

[CenSin]

You know there are NIMBY's that object to any subway connections to their island right, and you also know that the island isn't really dense so the subway stations even if connected to their island would have very low riderships for a long time, and you also know that most Staten Islanders that live there don't want to see the island developed. They want it to be quiet.

I know a lot of Staten Islanders myself, and they don't appreciate the time it takes to get anywhere off the island. A native always knows better than someone who pretends to know what's best for them. First of all, why light rail instead of SBS? It's additional infrastructure and equipment that can't be reused; with SBS or a subway, all the existing vehicles and equipment would be compatible. People have to transfer anyway, because the same reasons that block light rail from being implemented in the other 4 boroughs will block the extension of any light rail across the bridge to Brooklyn. And does Brooklyn want a light rail to be extended to them from Staten Island? What do Staten Island NIMBYs say about building light rail right in their back yard? What kind of quiet do you think they want from: noisy people coming to the island because there is a subway connection; the one-time process of building a subway; or the buses and light rail that run on the surface which are very audible?

[2Line1291]

I'm sorry your SI subway extensions were heavily shot by critical forum members but I'm telling you as a member who weighs his pros and cons on a long-term range.... light rail isn't the best option of handling the SI-Brooklyn volume when most of Staten Islanders commute to Manhattan. Did you ever factor in the future growth in Staten???

 

You know there are NIMBY's that object to any subway connections to their island right, and you also know that the island isn't really dense so the subway stations even if connected to their island would have very low riderships for a long time, and you also know that most Staten Islanders that live there don't want to see the island developed. They want it to be quiet.

A subway line spurs development especially if it gives riders a one seat ride to Manhattan. This is a pic of the Flushing Line when first built. Then looking at the Flushing now you really gonna tell me that just because somewhere isn't "dense" that it's doesn't warrant a subway.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/Jun09_7LineConstruction.jpg/800px-Jun09_7LineConstruction.jpg

[R68 Subway Car]

I think an Train extension to St. George would be smart.

[Roadcruiser1]

How it's a local train, and the would end up being slower then it is now. I think we should link some Second Avenue service to Staten Island if it's a subway connection. Or we could extend the to Staten Island. The World Trade Center station would be perfect to dip underneath the harbor without getting in the way of things.

[CenSin]

You seem to be confused here…

 

How it's a local train, and the would end up being slower then it is now. I think we should link some Second Avenue service to Staten Island if it's a subway connection. Or we could extend the to Staten Island. The World Trade Center station would be perfect to dip underneath the harbor without getting in the way of things.

I thought you just said the shouldn't even be a consideration because it's nowhere near completion.

 

We still can't consider a Second Avenue Subway extension to Staten Island, because that is so far into the future we won't even talk about it. Phase 4 of the Second Avenue Subway if it's ever done would most likely be completed in the late 2040's to early 2050's. That is going to take a long time. Plus the tunnel to Staten Island either to Manhattan or Brooklyn would take at least a decade or two to be completed. It would be 2060 or 2070 by then. Most Staten Islanders are complaining for a fast solution right now. If it takes that long for a solution then I don't know what to say.

 

 

And you also agreed in another post that tunneling would be too expensive.

 

 

Judging by your tone:

It is not a little tunnel. It would be 5, and half miles long, and would take at least three decades to build considering how long it takes the Second Avenue Subway.

…but here you said it explicitly:

The problem is a tunnel between Manhattan and Staten Island isn't really short. It's about six miles. The Staten Island Ferry makes it look like a short journey because it travels about 20 knots or 18 mph. A subway train would be faster. On average it could travel 45 mph or 47 knots. If it's a direct route it would take about 6-8 minutes to reach Lower Manhattan rather then the ferry which takes 30 minutes. If it gains a stop at Governor's Island it would take 15 minutes. There's a problem. The tunnel would turn twice one when leaving St George and one before South Ferry. It won't be cheap. It could come with delays, problems, cost. It just isn't viable. We also would have to wait for Second Avenue to be completed. The cheapest and fastest option would be a tunnel from Brooklyn to Staten Island. There is a service that could be used the Crosstown

. That's why if you look at my earlier post you would understand.

 

 

So do you want Staten Island to "be like Brooklyn" (which is developed and full of subway lines), but you just like it better when it's developed because of light rail.

 

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.

See that is the thing. I want Staten Island to get some sort of mass transit during the 2020's, and see the borough become similar to Brooklyn by the 2040's. It doesn't matter if it's light rail or the NYC Subway just some sort of mass transit that allows people to get to work.

You know there are NIMBY's that object to any subway connections to their island right, and you also know that the island isn't really dense so the subway stations even if connected to their island would have very low riderships for a long time, and you also know that most Staten Islanders that live there don't want to see the island developed. They want it to be quiet.

 

 

 

You've reversed positions many times on different aspects of Staten Island transit development in the span of a small number of posts. I think you'll see a lot less criticism and more people supporting your ideas if you backed it up solidly. Problems like the transit situation in Staten Island are rarely simple enough that you can look at one aspect of the problem, propose a solution for it, and have that solution be accepted.

[Roadcruiser1]

The is nowhere near completion. That is, and when the Second Avenue Subway would be completed which I am trying to say here, and I am saying tunneling is expensive, but however these are ideas for the future not now. I think for now light rail, and high speed ferries would be a good solution. That is why a few pages ago I mentioned it was a temporarily solution. The subway would be built in the next century or so. Light rail, and SBS are just temporarily solutions. Of course they would still be kept even after Staten Island is developed, because they would need ways to get off the island.

[Roadcruiser1]

So of course with the temporarily solutions now we can come up with something in the next century or so. Among these are sending the to Staten Island by having it go underneath the harbor along with a Second Avenue Subway service, and much more.

[CenSin]

The is nowhere near completion. That is, and when the Second Avenue Subway would be completed which I am trying to say here, and I am saying tunneling is expensive, but however these are ideas for the future not now. I think for now light rail, and high speed ferries would be a good solution. That is why a few pages ago I mentioned it was a temporarily solution. The subway would be built in the next century or so.

Problems are rarely simple enough that you can look at one aspect, find a solution for that, and have the solution be accepted. You have to look backwards and forward in time and assess the impact of your "solution" (because it may cause additional problems).

 

Light rail: if it's a temporary solution as you say, why bother with it at all? The right-of-way has to be developed, roadwork must be done, rails have to be laid, equipment must be bought—and most of this isn't reusable by buses nor subways. I have serious doubts that they would consider light rail a short term solution and sink money into it knowing the real solution is around the corner.

 

So of course with the temporarily solutions now we can come up with something in the next century or so. Among these are sending the to Staten Island by having it go underneath the harbor along with a Second Avenue Subway service, and much more.

The hits a dead end because of the Broadway line.

The is too close to the harbor (or you'd have to truncate the line from South Ferry).

The is far off.

[Roadcruiser1]

Though it is kind of complicated if they do bring any other Fourth Avenue Local service the Fourth Avenue line would be too crowded for any other train service. So part of the reason why is it is very complicated to pick a subway line to go on to Staten Island. The problem is I am looking all over the place, but yet I can't find any solution. Every time I look for a specific subway line there is a dead end. Even the with a similar car length to the subway cars on the SIR is far off. Either the lines are just too damn far or it might block other services using the line. It seems like light rail might end up being the permanent solution here.

[CenSin]

Though it is kind of complicated if they do bring any other Fourth Avenue Local service the Fourth Avenue line would be too crowded for any other train service. So part of the reason why is it is very complicated to pick a subway line to go on to Staten Island. The problem is I am looking all over the place, but yet I can't find any solution. Every time I look for a specific subway line there is a dead end. Even the with a similar car length to the subway cars on the SIR is far off. Either the lines are just too damn far or it might block other services using the line. It seems like light rail might end up being the permanent solution here.

Is it really crowded? Routes are not permanent, and can be changed to accommodate. Light rail, however, is more or less permanent, and considering the general consensus that subway service should be the ultimate goal, light rail would not assist with, but derail that effort by deterring subway from gaining any sort of foothold on the island. An established route can be changed on a whim compared to established infrastructure and sunken investments.

 

And all of the reasons for not extending 4 Avenue to Staten Island have—so far—not been insurmountable roadblocks. I'll agree that the circuitous route isn't the optimal solution, but it satisfies the needs that really matter: long term, high capacity, fast, integration with the main transit option (subway, in this case), and low cost (in the long term). Ideally, it would be a subway connection directly between Manhattan and Staten Island, but it would have a much higher initial cost.

[Roadcruiser1]

Well there would certain benefits to the light rail. It could be compatible with the HBLR. It could also cross the bridge. It could travel down the highway to avoid most traffic on local streets. It is cheaper, and faster then subway construction, but on the other hand subways have their own benefits. Although they are more expensive, and slower to construct they have a higher capcity, and directly avoid traffic by going underground. Yet they need their own infrasturcture to make it there unlike light rail which can use existing infrastructure.

[CenSin]

Well there would certain benefits to the light rail. It could be compatible with the HBLR. It could also cross the bridge. It could travel down the highway to avoid most traffic on local streets. It is cheaper, and faster then subway construction, but on the other hand subways have their own benefits. Although they are more expensive, and slower to construct they have a higher capcity, and directly avoid traffic by going underground. Yet they need their own infrasturcture to make it there unlike light rail which can use existing infrastructure.

Keep in mind that Staten Island joined New York in hopes that it would get subway service. New Jersey and New York both fought for "ownership" of the island. In my opinion, not only will light rail undermine the long term goal of bringing a subway into Staten Island, but it'll widen the rift between Staten Island and the other boroughs. Compatibility with the HBLR is not important; readiness for integration with the rest of New York City's transportation is. Does it make sense to prioritize making New Jersey more accessible to Staten Islanders than New York? How does this solve the Staten Island–Manhattan transportation problem?

[Roadcruiser1]

Though I am most certain that light rail, and the NYC Subway to Staten Island if built could coexist together in the future.

[CenSin]

Though I am most certain that light rail, and the NYC Subway to Staten Island if built could coexist together in the future.

I didn't say it was impossible for them to coexist, but existing infrastructure will decrease the likelihood that overlapping infrastructure will be built and likely push plans to build higher capacity transit further into the future.

 

And as mentioned before there is no justification for light rail when buses exist:

• Buses use existing infrastructure; the roads are already there, and the bridges are built. Light rail, on the other hand, require additional things be built (rails, signaling system, etc.). It's one tunnel or grade-separated structure short of becoming a subway.

• You argue that light rail would be fast because it'd be mostly grade-separated. What about grade-separated buses?

• Buses have similar capacity to light rail cars; light rail does not have capacity advantages over bus service.

• Bus routes are not physically fixed; light rail routes are more or less constrained by where the rails are laid.

• Buses can use existing equipment. Light rail, by design, require specialized vehicles to run on the rail.

• Light rail is unlikely to make any connection with the subway system. For Staten Islanders heading to Manhattan, they will have to make two transfers minimum to reach Manhattan. Currently, it's Bus/SIR → Ferry → Subway/Bus or Bus → Subway. With light rail, it will most likely look like this: Light rail → Bus → Subway, Light rail → Ferry → Subway/Bus, or Light rail → PATH → Subway/Bus.

 

 

As I see it, you appear to want to make a smooth eventual transition to subway service, but it does not work that way because you would have an incompatible, incumbent transit system to deal with. I imagine anyone seeking to expand subway into light rail territory would have to make a strong case for building a redundant (but better) system overlapping the light rail one and possibly dismantling parts of the light rail system and claiming right-of-way to make way for the subway.

[Roadcruiser1]

The light rail idea is to give them some sort of transit for now. That way while the subway is under construction they have some way to get off the island. Once the subway is completed the light rail will not leave. Instead it would work along with the subway to bring people on, and off the island. Plus right now there are no proposals to link the island with the NYC Subway. The high speed ferries along with the light rail are to provide relief, but again not the permanent solution. The subway line would come later, and would coexist with the light rail. You know how long it takes to get a subway line done, and you know how much it would cost. The light rail, and the high speed ferry would be like giving water to someone with Cholera it would make them feel better. The subway line would be the final pill (final blow) to the island.

[CenSin]

The light rail idea is to give them some sort of transit for now. That way while the subway is under construction they have some way to get off the island. Once the subway is completed the light rail will not leave. Instead it would work along with the subway to bring people on, and off the island. Plus right now there are no proposals to link the island with the NYC Subway. The high speed ferries along with the light rail are to provide relief, but again not the permanent solution. The subway line would come later, and would coexist with the light rail. You know how long it takes to get a subway line done, and you know how much it would cost. The light rail, and the high speed ferry would be like giving water to someone with Cholera it would make them feel better. The subway line would be the final pill (final blow) to the island.

So how is it better than bus service (and at what cost)?

[Roadcruiser1]

The spacing for the stations are farther apart, and it uses electricity which is greener then burner gasoline. Unless if you have some idea for a trolleybus SBS on the bridge, and on the expressway that would use the same route as on my map.

[CenSin]

The spacing for the stations are farther apart, and it uses electricity which is greener then burner gasoline. Unless if you have some idea for a trolleybus SBS on the bridge, and on the expressway that would use the same route as on my map.

And a limited or express bus route shadowing a local bus route could not do that? There are hybrid electric buses already too. Keep in mind that buses area already much more environmentally friendly than 40 individual cars. Keep in mind the expense of building and maintaining extra infrastructure for light rail at a marginal benefit over buses which have the ability to share the infrastructure with cars.

[Roadcruiser1]

Well SBS would work. You could make the Orange Light Rail Line on my map an SBS line, but you can't change the West Shore Light Rail Line, because it is a real proposal, and thus will not be subjected to any changes. I still didn't change my SIR extension or the high speed ferry idea. The only thing I might be confirming and changing due to your idea is the Orange Line which would become an SBS line.

[CenSin]

Well SBS would work. You could make the Orange Light Rail Line on my map an SBS line, but you can't change the West Shore Light Rail Line, because it is a real proposal, and thus will not be subjected to any changes. I still didn't change my SIR extension or the high speed ferry idea. The only thing I might be confirming and changing due to your idea is the Orange Line which would become an SBS line.

My goal isn't to foist my suggestions onto your map, but to generate discussion—because debating is fun. And whether an idea is a real life proposal or not isn't important. The transit forum is for discussing ideas, and proposals that have caught the attention of people in charge don't make them any more sensible than proposals like yours; people in charge can be have stupid ideas too (like the extension to New Jersey).

[Roadcruiser1]

The extension to NJ is a real proposal. It's a pet proposal by Bloomberg. So if you hate it bring it to Bloomberg, and scream at his face.