Jump to content

North Shore Rail Discussion


checkmatechamp13

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The North Shore Rail Line wouldn't be as expensive as you think: It is a capital project, which means that the MTA can apply for federal funding. As far as operating costs go, a train can carry much more people than a bus, which means that, if it has sufficient ridership, it is much more cost-effective than a bus.

 

The North Shore Line would get about 11,000 riders per day. Lets assume that this is as a result of running at the same frequency as the current SIR (trains are timed to meet the ferry, and run at roughly the same frequency as the SIR). Lets also assume that a train operator and bus operator are paid roughly the same wage (if there are any transit employees out there, feel free to post the actual wages).

 

This means that, running at a lower frequency as the local buses in the area (remember, they are currently supposed to run every 15 minutes off-peak, and have limited-stop service during peak hours, which means they still run twice as frequently as the train), the North Shore Line can get twice the ridership of the nearest local bus line (S40/S90), and the labor cost is actually less because the MTA only has to pay 1 T/O and 1 conductor to transport a whole train full of people, as opposed to paying a bus driver to transport a bus full of people.

 

If the frequency is 15 minutes all day, the ridership will probably be closer to 15,000 (ridership estimates for the line are 11,000-15,000, so I’m assuming that those 4,000 people will be attracted or discouraged based on the frequency). That is more than the ridership of the current S40/S90 and S46/S96 combined. Again, the cost per-person is much lower than a bus.

 

The amount of time it will take to get the rail service up and running. The MTA is notorious for delaying capital projects and I don't see this being any different. In the meantime, while they figure out what they're doing they can at least give us quicker bus service with some form of limited stop service outside of the crap they give us during rush hour. Why don't they apply for federal funds for that?

 

What we current have just doesn't cut it in terms of the local service here. And folks shouldn't be held hostage by having to pay $5.50 so that they can have a somewhat normal commute to and from work and school like the other outer boroughs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but being an urban planner for New York City and on Staten Island, for the past 25 years, and involved with transportation issues among other issues - leaves me with the ability to say that there are NO PLANS TO USE SIR trains or tracks for freight operation, now or at any point in the near future.

 

Yes, there is a freight operation on Staten Island that uses part of the right of the very old B&O railroad along the west shore of Staten Island - it is for moving garbage trains from the Staten Island Transfer station. The North Shore section of trackage has been in places removed, submerged, encroached upon, built-upon, and otherwise rendered useless for any train usage without major infusions of cash and major renovation/restoration work.

 

The one stated reason for the sizes of subway cars originally used on the IRT elevated and subway lines (the earliest and oldest lines in the city), was to be sure that there would not be any freight operations along those lines. One effort behind many of the changes on the Long Island Railroad was to remove all freight operations on LIRR trackage. Needless to say, but the BMT, and IND subways were built without any freight operations in made. Freight operations on the SIR ceased decades ago, and the along the North Shore and last bit of the trackage for freight usage near St. George was removed after laying fallow for a decade, and the land turned over for the building of the stadium for the Staten Island Yankees and a park about a decade ago. Metro-North has also given up freight operations a long time ago. So no, as is very clear the MTA has no plans for freight and at the same time passenger operations along the same tracks on its trackage.

 

People who have wild dreams where they wake up with wild schemes for transit, seem to forget that their dreams if they are ever to be realized, have to exist in the real world. If folks just want to keep their discussions of transit issues purely on the level of fantasy where anything can happen - than it helps to label their messages as fantasy- so I can skip them entirely.

 

Whether or not the SIR carries freight, that fact is not determinative of whether the whole operation is a railroad or not. The purpose of the MTA and its operating units to is move PEOPLE where they need or what to go over its railroad systems.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SIR will never carry freight again besides garbage trains along the tip of the West Shore. The SIR used to carry freight at heavy amounts when there were shipyards, airports, light, and heavy industry on the island. They all left. You know NJ's Chemical Coast. Most of those industries were once on Staten Island. During this time the freight was shipped in, and out by two railroad companies. They were B&O, and Conrail. They both no longer exist, because they merged to form CSX, and they have no use for Staten Island. Just face the facts the SIR, and Staten Island will never be a heavy freight demand area ever again, and with no or low demand for freight no railroad company would use it, because they would lose a lot of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of time it will take to get the rail service up and running. The MTA is notorious for delaying capital projects and I don't see this being any different. In the meantime, while they figure out what they're doing they can at least give us quicker bus service with some form of limited stop service outside of the crap they give us during rush hour. Why don't they apply for federal funds for that?

 

What we current have just doesn't cut it in terms of the local service here. And folks shouldn't be held hostage by having to pay $5.50 so that they can have a somewhat normal commute to and from work and school like the other outer boroughs.

 

I know that, but limited-stop service isn't all its cracked up to be. The S96 shows up just as crowded in Mariners' Harbor as the S46, and the crowding can become so bad that the buses bypass the people just where the limited-stop service is most useful-traveling from Mariners' Harbor to St. George.

 

But limited-stop service is a good short-term solution. But I think that giving the S46 and S48 traffic signal priority would speed the buses up just as much, and at a lower long-term cost (I think DOT pays for the cost of that program)

 

What I think they should do to economize is to use the buses that are deadheading to/from the Castleton Depot as local S46s. The current S46s would be converted into S96s. If there are enough buses, they could do something similar on the S48/S98 (locals starting at Richmond Avenue).

 

But I can't figure out how they can save money on midday limited-stop service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that, but limited-stop service isn't all its cracked up to be. The S96 shows up just as crowded in Mariners' Harbor as the S46, and the crowding can become so bad that the buses bypass the people just where the limited-stop service is most useful-traveling from Mariners' Harbor to St. George.

 

But limited-stop service is a good short-term solution. But I think that giving the S46 and S48 traffic signal priority would speed the buses up just as much, and at a lower long-term cost (I think DOT pays for the cost of that program)

 

What I think they should do to economize is to use the buses that are deadheading to/from the Castleton Depot as local S46s. The current S46s would be converted into S96s. If there are enough buses, they could do something similar on the S48/S98 (locals starting at Richmond Avenue).

 

But I can't figure out how they can save money on midday limited-stop service.

 

 

When are they going to implement that out here? They've been doing nothing but talking about it for ever. Even that would be a big help as you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did implement it on Victory Blvd between Forest Avenue and Bay Street.

 

I think the only other corridor they would've implemented it would be on Richmond Terrace, which, in my opinion, doesn't need it. (This article doesn't list any other corridors on Staten Island: http://www.govtech.com/e-government/NYC-Transit-Signal-Priority-Program-Speeds-Bus_Service_to_Ferry_Terminals.html).

 

I find it odd that they picked Richmond Terrace when Forest Avenue and Castleton Avenue (Forest Avenue especially) could use it more. Buses fly down Richmond Terrace anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When are they going to implement that out here? They've been doing nothing but talking about it for ever. Even that would be a big help as you said.

 

See page 43 of this document: http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/sbs/docs/intro_to_brt_phase2.pdf

 

I looked up ForgottenNY's SIR North Shore page. Are the tracks closer to St. George THAT close to the water that they were slowly beaten away by the water?

 

I believe they are. The line runs right next to the waterfront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did implement it on Victory Blvd between Forest Avenue and Bay Street.

 

I think the only other corridor they would've implemented it would be on Richmond Terrace, which, in my opinion, doesn't need it. (This article doesn't list any other corridors on Staten Island: http://www.govtech.com/e-government/NYC-Transit-Signal-Priority-Program-Speeds-Bus_Service_to_Ferry_Terminals.html).

 

I find it odd that they picked Richmond Terrace when Forest Avenue and Castleton Avenue (Forest Avenue especially) could use it more. Buses fly down Richmond Terrace anyway.

 

 

Forest Ave. could use it especially... B)

 

Smart move putting that down there by Bay St. I used to hate getting caught up down there at those two lights along Victory by Bay Street. What a pain in the @ss. You get there and you're thinking "Yeah, we'll be fine for the ferry". Then you get all of these idiots running for the bus at those two stops not even a block apart and all of a sudden panic sets in because now things are getting tight time wise to catch the boat. I wonder how much time this technology is saving time wise for commuters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article says that it saves two minutes on average. However, I'm sure there are buses that save closer to 5 minutes using this system (if a bus comes in first, it will probably get most of the people waiting at the bus stop, so I'm sure this system has allowed those buses to make lights they would've otherwise missed)

 

And all of those traffic lights along Forest Avenue are the reason why I'm so relieved whenever an S98 shows up. On the S48, the bus will stop, pick up and drop off the passengers, and then barely miss the light, repeating the same process at the next traffic light. That is probably the reason why it is the slowest bus on Staten Island this year (According to the Straphangers Campaign) At 8.2 miles per hour, it is still faster than some of the routes in the other boroughs, but still, they should try to make it faster.

 

Time-wise, it is only 5-10 minutes tops that the S98 saves (I go from Broadway to either Richmond Avenue or Union Avenue, depending on what I am doing that day), but psychologically, it is stressful to have to make all of those stops. That's why I would lean towards TSP rather than expanded limited service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if the MTA were to give the S40, S46, S48, & S62 bi-directional limited service, that ridership would increase on those routes by a good amount. Just look at the S53, ridership has never stopped rising since they made all the buses run to Port Richmond and the headways just keep getting shorter every year. The scheduling for the St. George routes hasn't changed more or less since 2006 because of the depot overcrowding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article says that it saves two minutes on average. However, I'm sure there are buses that save closer to 5 minutes using this system (if a bus comes in first, it will probably get most of the people waiting at the bus stop, so I'm sure this system has allowed those buses to make lights they would've otherwise missed)

 

And all of those traffic lights along Forest Avenue are the reason why I'm so relieved whenever an S98 shows up. On the S48, the bus will stop, pick up and drop off the passengers, and then barely miss the light, repeating the same process at the next traffic light. That is probably the reason why it is the slowest bus on Staten Island this year (According to the Straphangers Campaign) At 8.2 miles per hour, it is still faster than some of the routes in the other boroughs, but still, they should try to make it faster.

 

Time-wise, it is only 5-10 minutes tops that the S98 saves (I go from Broadway to either Richmond Avenue or Union Avenue, depending on what I am doing that day), but psychologically, it is stressful to have to make all of those stops. That's why I would lean towards TSP rather than expanded limited service.

 

 

If they added both I would think there would be a significant difference in time savings, even if it's just 10 - 15 minutes.

 

It's interesting that the S48 is the slowest bus. I would've thought it would've been the S53 with all of those stupid stops it makes... :mad:

 

But the thing is they have all of those lights on Forest and I don't think they've changed the headways in terms of the time it takes to get from say Richmond Ave to Broadway. It's no wonder the S48 and S98 still bunch up in the morning. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if the MTA were to give the S40, S46, S48, & S62 bi-directional limited service, that ridership would increase on those routes by a good amount. Just look at the S53, ridership has never stopped rising since they made all the buses run to Port Richmond and the headways just keep getting shorter every year. The scheduling for the St. George routes hasn't changed more or less since 2006 because of the depot overcrowding.

 

 

Those lines run along main corridors that a lot of young folks use that either are going to the city and don't want to drive or don't have a car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they added both I would think there would be a significant difference in time savings, even if it's just 10 - 15 minutes.

 

It's interesting that the S48 is the slowest bus. I would've thought it would've been the S53 with all of those stupid stops it makes... :mad:

 

But the thing is they have all of those lights on Forest and I don't think they've changed the headways in terms of the time it takes to get from say Richmond Ave to Broadway. It's no wonder the S48 and S98 still bunch up in the morning. :)

 

Both would be nice, but, given a choice of one or the other, and considering their limited funds, TSP would be a better choice.

According to that report, buses spend about 22% of the time at the bus stop and 21% at red lights (I don't know what it counts as if a bus is able to pull into a bus stop at a red light and pick up/drop off its passengers). If TSP works as planned, you can shave 21% off of the travel time, the same as limited-stop service (again, both would be nice if the MTA could afford it).

 

These traffic lights are probably the main reason why the S53 is faster than the S48-the stops are closely spaced, but there aren't many traffic lights, especially between Victory Blvd and Castleton Avenue. (I think the S53 moves at 10.8 MPH)

 

Those lines run along main corridors that a lot of young folks use that either are going to the city and don't want to drive or don't have a car.

 

-I'm going to disagree with the S40. It is very fast during the off-peak hours. It doesn't have many traffic lights on the route and the passengers get on and off fairly quickly.

 

-The S46 and S48 are possibilities (you can reduce the costs by using buses that were deadheading to/from the Castleton Depot anyway).

 

-The S62 can have a limited by converting S61s into S91s when the headway is 15 minutes or less. Ridership would be higher if the CSI Shuttle wasn't running, so you could make more of an argument for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both would be nice, but, given a choice of one or the other, and considering their limited funds, TSP would be a better choice.

According to that report, buses spend about 22% of the time at the bus stop and 21% at red lights (I don't know what it counts as if a bus is able to pull into a bus stop at a red light and pick up/drop off its passengers). If TSP works as planned, you can shave 21% off of the travel time, the same as limited-stop service (again, both would be nice if the MTA could afford it).

 

These traffic lights are probably the main reason why the S53 is faster than the S48-the stops are closely spaced, but there aren't many traffic lights, especially between Victory Blvd and Castleton Avenue. (I think the S53 moves at 10.8 MPH)

 

 

-I'm going to disagree with the S40. It is very fast during the off-peak hours. It doesn't have many traffic lights on the route and the passengers get on and off fairly quickly.

 

-The S46 and S48 are possibilities (you can reduce the costs by using buses that were deadheading to/from the Castleton Depot anyway).

 

-The S62 can have a limited by converting S61s into S91s when the headway is 15 minutes or less. Ridership would be higher if the CSI Shuttle wasn't running, so you could make more of an argument for it.

 

Wasn't really referring to the S40 on that one... The others as you say are probabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just returned from the meeting.

 

In the beginning, there was a period where the people could ask questions that everybody could hear. They limited the people to one question, but one woman spent a good 10 minutes talking about how the Alaska Street Bridge (if the busway alternative were chosen) would negatively impact residents of the surrounding neighborhood, and another person started talking about how it would impact "pristine land" in the area.

 

But as far as the alternatives being discussed, the items I remember were as follows:

 

Simple expanded bus service:

Extending the S53 westward to Arlington (and creating a new S83 route)Extending the S57 and S59 to St. George (there were S57A/S57B and S59A/S59B plans that I found confusing). The S40/S90 would be eliminated and replaced by these alternatives.

Creating an S99 that would run from St. George to the West Shore Plaza via Forest Avenue and South Avenue.

Creating a new express route called the X21 (I know it used to be a short-turn variant of the X22, but this is different) that would run via the SIE and go down South Avenue to the West Shore Plaza (Personally, I think that route would get extremely low ridership. They are better off adding South Avenue to the X19 and X22 routes)

A North Shore Transit Center at South Avenue/Brabant Street

 

For all plans below this, the North Shore buses would be restructured as follows:

S40/S90 eliminated

S46/S96 cut back to Walker Street/Morningstar Road

S48/S98 rerouted to Goethals Homes

 

A busway along the current ROW:

The S54, S57, and S59 would be extended to St. George via the busway

The S53 would be rerouted down Broadway to access the busway, and terminate at South Avenue/Brabant Street

Two new routes called the S1 and S2 would be created. The S1 would run from St. George to the West Shore Plaza via the busway and South Avenue. The S2 would run to Holland Avenue/Benjamin Place via the busway and the current S48 route

 

Light Rail Transit on the current ROW:

The route would follow the current ROW, loop around onto South Avenue and continue to the Teleport, with intermediate stops.

 

Heavy Rail Transit on the current ROW:

The same thing as the light rail transit option, except that it could only run to Arlington.

 

I'm too tired to comment any further. The only thing I can say is that, to avoid losing all local service in Mariners' Harbor, the S46/S96 should retain its current route on Walker Street (or be rerouted to Richmond Terrace to cover the S40/S90 route)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also attended the meeting this evening, and found it informative.

 

I'm not really liking the #40/90 bus being eliminated in almost all of the proposals since that affects me (personally) directly, and most of the replacement stations are some distance from where I live. It also eliminates my direct route to the movies via the #40 bus, which is actually a very speedy trip at nights and weekends. The traveling trip is speedy, waiting for the #40 bus is not speedy, there is a difference. However there is the "greater good" to consider when looking at all of the plans and alternatives.

 

The planners of the study said that in a few days, the maps and presentation material that was shown will be available on the following website:

 

http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/nsaa

 

All in all the meeting was good.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.