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

[Tokkemon]

I am not small brained, nor am I stubborn. The only thing I am trying to do is connect the island to some sort of mass transit. Yet every time I try something you guys have to come, and criticize it. Would you people stop with the criticisms damn it. Keep in mind that at least I have ideas while you guys just have nothing, and just scream at everything.

 

My idea:

 

 

• Build a new tunnel under the New York Harbor from South Ferry/Whitehall St area to St. George.

• Send the down the tunnel from a connection at WTC to a new line along Victory Blvd. Will probably require converting a piece of the BMT lines down there or a new tunnel underneath them.

• Send the down from the Chrystie St. Connection to a new line along Forest Ave. Replace the on the Culver line with a new service from the 2nd Ave line, probably the .

• To compensate for the construction, expand Express Bus and ferry service.

• Eventually convert the SIRT and North Shore lines to be compatible with B Division Subway service so it can use the new SI tunnel have direct service to Manhattan. At that point, the ferry would likely be eliminated or drastically reduced.

 

 

Forget the Verrazano. It was built as a car bridge and as a car bridge it shall stay. Blame Robert Moses for that one. Going to Brooklyn is a waste of money anyway.

[Roadcruiser1]

Not really the subway tunnel from Manhattan to SI is more complicated. You know that it is 5.5 miles from there, and back. The engineering costs, and the long amount of construction. Plus the affects of ships in the harbor just complicate things. Also my math teacher with a masters in engineering, and I can prove it. Mentions that light rail is feasible on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge. It isn't so steep that the angle to the bridge is like 12%. The Bridge's ramps are only at a 5% grade. Too steep for a subway car which can only use a 3% grade, but not too steep for a light rail car to cross. Plus the light rail cars are also lighter then subway trains, and thus the Verrazano Narrows Bridge can support light rail, and this is coming from my former math teacher an engineer with a masters from college.

 

Unless if you can bring an engineer that mentions that light rail is impossible on that bridge, but he has to have a masters in engineering. Or else your point is moot. Also don't forget the raised Bayonne Bridge would also have a 5% grade. If this grade is impossible then tell me why the West Shore Light Rail Line is even proposed. Thus light rail can cross a 5% grade on a light bridge. Due to the fact that the Bayonne Bridge uses light steel.

[Roadcruiser1]

Also there is no way the can go to Staten Island from what was explained earlier. The would get in the way of the Broadway Line . Won't work.

[NX Express]

RC1, you've reversed positions so many times it's impossible to classify you as anything but a foamer.

 

I think that the CAN be connected to the SI tunnel. Where it goes below the line south of Canal Street, it can be built to go still lower instead of coming back up for WTC station.

[Roadcruiser1]

That is, because it's not so easy to make a decision when there are just so many options. Though I don't know. The Broadway Line is really close to the World Trade Center station only 3 or 4 blocks to Wall Street. Plus if you dip too far it would interfere with the Cranberry Tunnels which carry the , and .

[NX Express]

That is, because it's not so easy to make a decision when there are just so many options. Though I don't know. The Broadway Line is really close to the World Trade Center station only 3 or 4 blocks to Wall Street. Plus if you dip too far it would interfere with the Cranberry Tunnels which carry the , and .

 

The Cranberry tunnels carry the , not .

 

Also, have you ever looked at a map at least when thinking of your proposals/objections?

[Roadcruiser1]

Damn I shouldn't be using the (MTA)'s map, but I keep doing that when I should be using Google Earth. I meant the Clark Street Tunnel.

[Tokkemon]

*facepalm*

 

Let me help you out here:

 

[Tokkemon]

As you can see, the Clark St. tunnel is a non-issue since it's *above* the 8th Ave Line.

[Roadcruiser1]

Still it is going to take a long time to reconfigure the WTC Station, and to drill the tunnel. The light rail, and the high speed ferry along with SIR extensions with the North Shore Branch reactivation would help the island until the extensions happen.

[CenSin]

Still it is going to take a long time to reconfigure the WTC Station, and to drill the tunnel. The light rail, and the high speed ferry along with SIR extensions with the North Shore Branch reactivation would help the island until the extensions happen.

Pending reply:

That is why it is a solution till the subway comes. Until then light rail would work on the island. It isn't meant to last forever. The light rail, and the SBS along with high speed ferries are suppose to help them get to work. Though they would still be kept once a subway goes to the island.

 

You completely missed what I said before. Building a competing system reduces the incentive to extend another overlapping system into the area.

Knowing the slow pace of development, you must understand that building light rail will hinder the expansion of subway into Staten Island, because light rail will solve a small part of the mass transit problem, but not all of it, destroying the synergy needed to push for the full solution. In other words, Staten Island will be left with low capacity light rail for a long time.

 

In more concise generic terms: when you have problems A, B, C, D, E, and F which are reasons to support solution X (which requires heavy, but worthwhile investment), and then you come along with solution Y (which is cheaper) that solves problems A, B, and C, you leave D, E, and F as the only sole reasons to support solution X, which combined isn't strong enough to get it implemented because solution Y took problems A, B, and C away. The people are thus left with a half-assed solution.

[Roadcruiser1]

Actually my idea is to plan and construct the subway tunnel, light rail, SBS, SIR extensions with the reactivated North Shore Branch, and high speed ferries all at the same time. The subway tunnel would still be under construction by the time everything else is complete, and would be completed last, but now do you see what I mean. Everything is going to be planned and built at the same time. However everything else would be done before the subway tunnel is completed. The idea is just in case the subway tunnel isn't completed like back in 1929 with the IND Second System we would have something to back it up which is unlike 1929. The subway tunnel can always be completed it isn't just a temporarily thing. It is something to back up the subway even if it's done.

[Tokkemon]

Soo... if you're building it all at the same time, you're going to get a total of maybe one to three years of solid use out of the light rail? How does that justify the expense? Are you out of your mind?!

[checkmatechamp13]

Actually my idea is to plan and construct the subway tunnel, light rail, SBS, SIR extensions with the reactivated North Shore Branch, and high speed ferries all at the same time. The subway tunnel would still be under construction by the time everything else is complete, and would be completed last, but now do you see what I mean. Everything is going to be planned and built at the same time. However everything else would be done before the subway tunnel is completed. The idea is just in case the subway tunnel isn't completed like back in 1929 with the IND Second System we would have something to back it up which is unlike 1929. The subway tunnel can always be completed it isn't just a temporarily thing. It is something to back up the subway even if it's done.

 

Rather than go through the entire thread and quote everything, I'm just going to state my comments here:

 

-Roadcrusier: When you design your proposals, what CenSin is trying to tell you is to make sure that whatever solution you have is going to be a good permenant solution. If you can't build the subway, don't just say "Let's build light rail because it will be cheaper and quicker" because, once you build it, there is even less incentive to build the subway line. If you really want a fast solution, try implementing +SBS+ in some corridors, rather than a light rail line.

 

Allow me to give my thoughts on your proposal (Keeping in mind that this is a fantasy map, my ideas may be a bit much). I have a complete fantasy map proposal, but I'll just show this for now.

 

As a long term plan, I would have the following:

 

An extension of the AirTrain along the Belt Parkway and SIE to Bloomfield (or possibly Newark Airport) as a light rail line.

 

A connection between the SIR (North Shore and Main Line) and the rest of the subway system in Manhattan (possibly the or Nassau Street Line)

 

An extension of the HBLR down Richmond Avenue to the SIR at Eltingville.

 

You can see that the Staten Island-Brooklyn, Staten Island-Manhattan, and intra-Staten Island needs are fullfilled by this plan. LRT would be sufficient for the HBLR extension down Richmond Avenue, as ridership wouldn't be that high for intra-Staten Island travel (even if it does promote increased density)

 

LRT would be sufficient for the cross-Staten Island line (on the SIE), as, again, intra-Staten Island ridership would be relatively low.

 

The North Shore and Main Line branches should definitely be heavy rail, as they would connect to Manhattan (without the detour through Brooklyn)

 

You shouldn't fall into the trap of planning LRT for the North Shore Line simply because, when the city does expand (as the trend is towards expansion of urban areas), the subway connection will be able to be built, and you will be able to take full advantage of it.

 

BTW, as far as NIMBYs go, although the areas near the Main Line may oppose the increased density that would come as a result of being connected to Manhattan, there would still be places where they could move to in order to maintain the suburban lifestyle. The northern portion of the West Shore is contaminated, and the southern portion is to become Fresh Kills Park, but there are still areas where they could move:

 

South Shore areas such as Tottenville, Huguenot, Eltingville etc that are near the SIR, but are still to far away to ever become truly urban.

 

Areas that are bus-dependant on both sides of Staten Island (Rossville, Charleston, Richmondtown, northern Eltingville/Great Kills on the South Shore, as well as Westerleigh on the North Shore). Buses are slower and leave neighborhoods more isolated, but, in this case, they want a bit of isolation.

 

All of these areas would still see increases in density, walkability, and transportation, but would still retain a suburban feel. With oil prices going up, more and more people are willing to embrace a more urban lifestyle, but may not want to go all the way. Those South Shore areas may become what the North Shore is today, as far as walkability is concerned: Families would have 1 car rather than 2 or more, and they would use public transportation (as well as walk) more.

[Roadcruiser1]

Again I said the light rail would be kept even after the subway connects to the island, and no I am not out of my mind.

[Roadcruiser1]

So it seems like in the end SBS is the way to go. I guess I am going to make the Orange Line an SBS Line along with the Hylan Boulevard SBS. The only light rail on my map is the West Shore Light Rail.

[qjtransitmaster]

Rather than go through the entire thread and quote everything, I'm just going to state my comments here:

 

-Roadcrusier: When you design your proposals, what CenSin is trying to tell you is to make sure that whatever solution you have is going to be a good permenant solution. If you can't build the subway, don't just say "Let's build light rail because it will be cheaper and quicker" because, once you build it, there is even less incentive to build the subway line. If you really want a fast solution, try implementing +SBS+ in some corridors, rather than a light rail line.

 

Allow me to give my thoughts on your proposal (Keeping in mind that this is a fantasy map, my ideas may be a bit much). I have a complete fantasy map proposal, but I'll just show this for now.

 

As a long term plan, I would have the following:

 

An extension of the AirTrain along the Belt Parkway and SIE to Bloomfield (or possibly Newark Airport) as a light rail line.

 

A connection between the SIR (North Shore and Main Line) and the rest of the subway system in Manhattan (possibly the or Nassau Street Line)

 

An extension of the HBLR down Richmond Avenue to the SIR at Eltingville.

 

You can see that the Staten Island-Brooklyn, Staten Island-Manhattan, and intra-Staten Island needs are fullfilled by this plan. LRT would be sufficient for the HBLR extension down Richmond Avenue, as ridership wouldn't be that high for intra-Staten Island travel (even if it does promote increased density)

 

LRT would be sufficient for the cross-Staten Island line (on the SIE), as, again, intra-Staten Island ridership would be relatively low.

 

The North Shore and Main Line branches should definitely be heavy rail, as they would connect to Manhattan (without the detour through Brooklyn)

 

You shouldn't fall into the trap of planning LRT for the North Shore Line simply because, when the city does expand (as the trend is towards expansion of urban areas), the subway connection will be able to be built, and you will be able to take full advantage of it.

 

BTW, as far as NIMBYs go, although the areas near the Main Line may oppose the increased density that would come as a result of being connected to Manhattan, there would still be places where they could move to in order to maintain the suburban lifestyle. The northern portion of the West Shore is contaminated, and the southern portion is to become Fresh Kills Park, but there are still areas where they could move:

 

South Shore areas such as Tottenville, Huguenot, Eltingville etc that are near the SIR, but are still to far away to ever become truly urban.

 

Areas that are bus-dependant on both sides of Staten Island (Rossville, Charleston, Richmondtown, northern Eltingville/Great Kills on the South Shore, as well as Westerleigh on the North Shore). Buses are slower and leave neighborhoods more isolated, but, in this case, they want a bit of isolation.

 

All of these areas would still see increases in density, walkability, and transportation, but would still retain a suburban feel. With oil prices going up, more and more people are willing to embrace a more urban lifestyle, but may not want to go all the way. Those South Shore areas may become what the North Shore is today, as far as walkability is concerned: Families would have 1 car rather than 2 or more, and they would use public transportation (as well as walk) more.

 

I have to say airtrain to SI via belt would be brilliant but you will need stops to connect to several bus lines or just make a BRT and allow for extreme interlining between buses throughout SI and BK and queens to reduce car usage and increase bus usage. But there is no need for a direct subway to Manhattan when the express buses already do this. If that isn't enough add service or cut the $5.50 fare down. that would allow X17 to extend and replace S56 and X2 or a few replace S55 other than that it would allow EXP buses to board more than once. However what is needed is BRT on belt from JFK to 86th street like pittsburgh's BRT system. Even at the expense of motorists. Then a restoration of the North shore rail to NJ. And service enhancement on the S89 via extention of S79 to bayonne with timed connections to HBLR via HOV lane that's cheaper and allows for a more balanced network overall. The BRT would allow the MTA to have a higher yield on their buses and reduce operating expenses. But for this to work trips on the BRT would need the speed limiters disabled or increased to 70MPH!!!! However if Buses can already use the entire length of belt from JFK to 86th street brooklyn then they need a HOV lane that runs from 4am to 11pm.

[Roadcruiser1]

Why not just extend the North Shore Line to Newark Airport. That is an existing airport, and is way closer then JFK.

[qjtransitmaster]

Why not just extend the North Shore Line to Newark Airport. That is an existing airport, and is way closer then JFK.

 

I already said that when the north shore should extend to NJ but I didn't specify. But that is also a good idea but My idea is more about increasing connectivity and rendering automobile use irrelevant while shaving costs in the process. That extention would just complement my plan as it would benefit southern brooklyn as well as indirectly affect nassau service as well as service to long beach. It will also affect NJ travellers as well and allow NJT and MTA to streamline their services. No NJT buses will not be needed in BK but the 81 can have a stop in SI that allows easy access to SI rtes also pickups so it can carry perth amboy bound ppl or go super express via 287 to somerset county. while the train will be at the airport for everything else.

[checkmatechamp13]

Again I said the light rail would be kept even after the subway connects to the island, and no I am not out of my mind.

 

You're totally missing my point. You can build light rail on the other side of Staten Island, but you can't build it where you eventually plan for heavy rail to go. Once the light rail is there, there is a drastically reduced incentive to provide heavy rail in the same corridor.

 

So it seems like in the end SBS is the way to go. I guess I am going to make the Orange Line an SBS Line along with the Hylan Boulevard SBS. The only light rail on my map is the West Shore Light Rail.

 

I didn't necessarily say to make the Orange Line +SBS+: It can be light rail as well (as long as you move it onto Richmond Avenue like I told you so)

 

I have to say airtrain to SI via belt would be brilliant but you will need stops to connect to several bus lines or just make a BRT and allow for extreme interlining between buses throughout SI and BK and queens to reduce car usage and increase bus usage. But there is no need for a direct subway to Manhattan when the express buses already do this. If that isn't enough add service or cut the $5.50 fare down. that would allow X17 to extend and replace S56 and X2 or a few replace S55 other than that it would allow EXP buses to board more than once. However what is needed is BRT on belt from JFK to 86th street like pittsburgh's BRT system. Even at the expense of motorists. Then a restoration of the North shore rail to NJ. And service enhancement on the S89 via extention of S79 to bayonne with timed connections to HBLR via HOV lane that's cheaper and allows for a more balanced network overall. The BRT would allow the MTA to have a higher yield on their buses and reduce operating expenses. But for this to work trips on the BRT would need the speed limiters disabled or increased to 70MPH!!!! However if Buses can already use the entire length of belt from JFK to 86th street brooklyn then they need a HOV lane that runs from 4am to 11pm.

 

1) BRT or LRT doesn't really make a difference. The point is that there should be a southern Brooklyn crosstown line providing east-west access to underserved neighborhoods on an exclusive lane.

 

2) I don't see the need to have the buses travel 70MPH. They wouldn't even be able to accelerate and decelerate in time.

 

3) There is absolutely no reason to extend the S79 to New Jersey. It would become ridiculously unreliable no matter how many bus lanes there are. Just keep the S89 as is (or if you feel you must, reroute a Port Richmond bus over the Bayonne Bridge)

 

Why not just extend the North Shore Line to Newark Airport. That is an existing airport, and is way closer then JFK.

 

Thw Newark Light Rail possibly could be extended over the Goethals Bridge, so there would also be a line to JFK Airport (my original intention was to serve southern Brooklyn, but then I realized that I might as well send it to JFK Airport)

[Trainmaster5]

I'm no expert but I wouldn't propose using the Belt Parkway-VZ corridor for any type of elevated construction. You've seen what the salt water and elements have done to the Belt Parkway through the years. You can also see what the elements have done to the FDR during it's existence. I think a heavy rail solution, no matter it's routing, is the way to go here. S.I.- Manhattan, S.I.-Brooklyn, S.I.-NJ, whatever. As was pointed out earlier make it a permanent solution the first time. A stop-gap solution only impedes the construction of a real solution. BTW for those considering a S.I. connection to the BMT 4th Ave line, has anyone suggested using Bay Ridge Ave as the connecting point instead of a point further south. I bring this up because I remember riding the ferry from about there (69th St?) to S.I. years ago and I assumed it was the closest point between the two boroughs. Just my opinion. Carry on.

[CenSin]

BTW for those considering a S.I. connection to the BMT 4th Ave line, has anyone suggested using Bay Ridge Ave as the connecting point instead of a point further south. I bring this up because I remember riding the ferry from about there (69th St?) to S.I. years ago and I assumed it was the closest point between the two boroughs. Just my opinion. Carry on.

From the maps, it would appear that the closest distance between Brooklyn and Staten Island is spanned by the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. A link from 59 Street would hypothetically continue down 4 Avenue (possibly as an express) make a final stop in Brooklyn at 86 Street before diving into the depths and running to Grasmere. There is definitely a bridge built over the freight line south of 59 Street that has room for 4 tracks, but it currently carries only the 4 Avenue local tracks on the western two trackways. I'm not sure if the designers intended to provide two expansion options (to Staten Island via the freight right-of-way or express to 86 Street) or for service to both run down 4 Avenue as an express and connect to Staten Island. There are so many obvious options for connecting the 4 Avenue line to Staten Island, which makes it so appealing.

 

To Roadcruiser1: A direct Manhattan–Staten Island link should still be the eventual focus of connecting Staten Island to New York City. But because the options come with varying levels of feasibility and involving more or less engineering work to get a tunnel through a maze of existing tunnels in a highly developed area and under the water, I'd rather have an indirect connection through Brooklyn instead. It might seem hypocritical that I say not to establish long-lasting transportation systems that don't achieve all of the desired goals, but from the standpoints of cost, necessity, long-tern usability, integration, expandability, reusability, and flexibility, an initial subway connection to Brooklyn instead of Manhattan makes sense:

1. connecting Brooklyn to Staten Island is cheaper than connecting Staten Island to Manhattan
   
2. a Brooklyn-Staten Island link is needed anyway
   
3. it satisfies the goal of providing high capacity mass transportation to Manhattan from Staten Island, even though it's lacking in speed (but probably faster than bus service)
   
4. it brings a highly-connected transportation system that's already established in 4 boroughs to Staten Island
   
5. if the subway system expands in Staten Island before a direct connection to Manhattan is made, Manhattan can still be connected to any of the existing subway lines in Staten Island without building redundant infrastructure
   
6. routes can be readjusted after new physical connections are made to provide optimal service

Light rail is unable to meet at least 4 of the above points if not all of them.

[Tokkemon]

The problem here is that the SI Ferry would be faster (not to mention cheaper ) than the Subway. This is an unacceptable drawback to the incredible cost of even building a Brooklyn-SI tunnel.

 

Specific responses in red below.

 

1. connecting Brooklyn to Staten Island is cheaper than connecting Staten Island to Manhattan
   True. That's really the only major positive I see.
   
2. a Brooklyn-Staten Island link is needed anyway
   Is it? We have one via the bridge. Do we *really* need a direct subway connection? Its like connected Queens and the Bronx.
   
3. it satisfies the goal of providing high capacity mass transportation to Manhattan from Staten Island, even though it's lacking in speed (but probably faster than bus service)
   See above. If its slower and more expensive, people will *still* take the ferry.
   
4. it brings a highly-connected transportation system that's already established in 4 boroughs to Staten Island
   
5. if the subway system expands in Staten Island before a direct connection to Manhattan is made, Manhattan can still be connected to any of the existing subway lines in Staten Island without building redundant infrastructure
   Good point, but a SI Subway system will be built either way.
   
6. routes can be readjusted after new physical connections are made to provide optimal service
   Well duh.
   

 

 

 

[Roadcruiser1]

So?. There are demands for a Bronx-Queens line. Not everyone has an automobile. You can't have people ride in a circle to work. A Bronx-Queens Line would be the same as the Staten Island-Brooklyn Line. Just because you have a car doesn't mean a person that works have one. Plus the ferry doesn't need to be removed. Just add high speed ferries, and if people don't like the subway they can use that.

[Trainmaster5]

@CenSin I was actually thinking of connecting the BMT line to whatever finally gets built at the St George Ferry terminal. West Shore, light rail or bus and the SIRT which is already there. In other words, heavy rail-heavy rail and other options. Use the existing railroad trackage south of 59th St, Brooklyn and build a tunnel ala the 63rd St LIRR subway combo. Kill 2 birds with one stone if feasible.