official North Shore Rail Discussion

[checkmatechamp13]

Everybody, the meeting's tonight at 6:30PM in the P building at Snug Harbor.

[checkmatechamp13]

Did anybody go?

[Amtrak7]

Rail is no more, an elevated busway will be built:

 

http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/NSAA-Presentation.pdf

[Threxx]

Couldn't they just build the light rail on the viaduct?

[checkmatechamp13]

Couldn't they just build the light rail on the viaduct?

 

 

They could, but there's no reason it shouldn't be heavy rail (the way it used to be)

[Roadcruiser1]

Here is the decision.

 

North Shore Alternatives Analysis calls for SI BRT

 

By Benjamin Kabak 5/14/2012

 

 

For the past few years, I’ve been following along as the MTA, at the behest of local Staten Island politicians, has reexamined the fallow right-of-way on Staten Island’s North Shore. When last we checked in on this story, the MTA had narrowed the choices considerable and seemed to be deciding between a light rail option and a truly dedicated bus route. Predictably and to my chagrin, the MTA has decided to endorse a bus route over the old rail right-of-way.

 

In a study unveiled to the public last week and obtained by Streetsblog on Friday [PDF], the authority delved into its thinking behind endorsing a bus rapid transit line. Overall, the Alternatives Analysis tried to meet three goals. It had to identify an option that improved mobility while preserving and enhancing the environment, natural resources and open spaces and also maximizing the MTA’s limited financial resources. With the right-of-way already secured, the authority had to identify something then that wouldn’t cost a crippling amount to implement while still providing the other benefits identified. Light rail would have allowed for a potential spur over the Bayonne Bridge and into New Jersey while a true bus rapid transit route would better distribute current and future riders throughout Staten Island.

 

So how did the BRT option win? The numbers, as identified in the study, seem to make it a winner. According to the MTA’s report, a bus rapid transit line would allow for a 23-minute trip from West Shore Plaza to the Ferry Terminal. That’s two minutes slower than the light rail option, but the authority estimated that, with additional bus lines using the ROW, estimated AM peak ridership would reach 12,100 with the bus line and just 10,590 with a light rail. Operating costs for a bus line would be around $500,000 per year less than light rail, and the capital costs pale in comparison. Light rail would cost $645 million while installing the infrastructure for true BRT would cost $371 million.

 

 

Should we be satisfied by this answer though? I am a bit skeptical of the ridership estimates. By including bus lines with stops outside of the busway — including preexisting lines that would be rerouted — the MTA has seemingly inflated the number of bus riders who would take advantage of the busway. This is the so-called “open” busway model that would include exit points from the dedicated ROW for routes heading to other points on Staten Island. Still, considering how light rail can run higher capacity vehicles more frequently, it’s tough to see how exactly a bus lane would carry more passengers than a properly designed and integrated light rail system.

 

Meanwhile, the study seems to give short shrift to environmental concerns as well. Only a box of checkmarks notes that BRT could have a high impact on air quality. Light rail would be a far cleaner transportation option, and if environmental concerns were truly on the table, it wasn’t weighted too heavily here.

Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised though. New York City has been singularly hesitant to embrace any sort of light rail. A 42nd St. proposal that would reshape midtown has gained no traction, and alternatives for Brooklyn and Queens have never been regarded as realistic options for underserved areas. Staten Island has a dedicated right-of-way and an easy connection to a preexisting light rail line, albeit one in another state, but this option too was left on the table.

 

Ultimately, though, as Noah Kazis noted, this entire discussion may be a moot one for the foreseeable future. Even at a modest cost of a few hundred million dollars, the MTA can’t yet afford to do anything here, and it still would have to send this project through an engineering and environmental review process. Right now, the North Shore Alternatives Analysis is nothing more than a thought experiment that deserves a better future. When the money is there, perhaps the rail option will be as well.

 

http://secondavenues...lls-for-si-brt/

[checkmatechamp13]

Well, I'm not going to discuss the heavy rail again because I've already made my case, but even with the busway, they could make improvements. West of Port Richmond, the ROW gets further away from Richmond Terrace, so there should definitely be a bus along that section. They should either extend the S66 to Arlington (and bring back weekend service) or have the S46 go up Nicholas Avenue and Richmond Terrace (either terminating at Arlington or Forest & Grandview).

 

Aside from that, I wonder how frequently buses will operate along the ROW.

[Roadcruiser1]

I don't really like this. Buses aren't going to help with anything. All they do is continue to damage the environment in some way or form.

[qjtransitmaster]

s46 yes sad they chose bus option this corridor did not need buses!!!

[checkmatechamp13]

s46 yes sad they chose bus option this corridor did not need buses!!!

 

 

Wait, what does the S46 have to do with anything?

[RailBus63]

I don't really like this. Buses aren't going to help with anything. All they do is continue to damage the environment in some way or form.

 

 

Power plants which generate electricity for light or heavy rail service aren't 100 percent clean either.

[VWM]

 

 

Power plants which generate electricity for light or heavy rail service aren't 100 percent clean either.

 

 

If they are a renewable source they could be close to it...

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Wait, what does the S46 have to do with anything?

 

They were talking about buses and the enviorment

[checkmatechamp13]

Since we were talking earlier about how we'd restructure service when the North Shore Rail Line comes in, I figured I'd make a few changes based on some new ideas I came up up (mostly related to the restructuring in the Westerleigh area)

 

If all they're going to do is make a St. George-Arlington rail line (whether it's light rail or heavy rail), I would have the buses restructured as follows:

 

* S53 receives S83 limited as discussed in other proposals.

 

* S54 extended to St. George via Richmond Terrace (as stated in the SI Proposals thread, I might decide to have it take Bard Avenue to Richmond Terrace instead of Broadway, to serve St. George and provide additional help for the S46 along Castleton Avenue)

 

* S57 rerouted to Jewett Avenue, as in my SI plan. I would also extend it to South Avenue & Arlington Place. I was considering extending the S83 to that area, since I mentioned before that it would be nice to have service to Brooklyn from the Mariners' Harbor area. However, I decided against it, since it could potentially delay the S83. Then again, Richmond Terrace doesn't have that much traffic (though it does hit occasional bottlenecks at traffic lights), so it might still work. (I would also try to time S57 buses to meet St. George-bound trains at Port Richmond, which puts it in favor of the S53 being extended, since it's more frequent)

 

* S67 revived and rerouted via Watchogue Road, Deppe Place, Richmond Avenue, SIE service road, and South Avenue. Service would terminate at the Arlington rail station (So it would act as a feeder to the new rail line. In addition to providing direct access to St. George, it would give people living west of Richmond Avenue the option of using the rail line at Arlington)

 

* S98 has most runs sent to Elizabeth (probably the NJT station, but I haven't ruled out the Jersey Gardens Mall) and is expanded to run off-peak. This also covers Forest Avenue west of South Avenue.

 

If the busway is built (which means that some existing routes could use it), this is how I'd run the service:

 

* Planned S1 & S2 routes use the Busway. The S1 would use the Busway from St. George to Arlington, and then loop around the neighborhood the way the S48 does. The S2 would use the Busway from St. George to Arlington, and then go south and serve the Teleport & West Shore Plaza.

 

* S46 rerouted to Goethals Homes (S2 covers South Avenue service)

 

* S53/83 extended to Arlington via Busway (they'd go straight up Broadway and access it by some ramps near Alaska Street)

 

* S57 rerouted to Jewett Avenue and extended to St. George via Busway

 

* S59 extended to South Avenue & Arlington Place via Richmond Terrace

 

* S67 revived and rerouted via Watchogue Road, Deppe Place, Richmond Avenue, SIE service road, and South Avenue to Arlington.

 

* S98 expanded to run off-peak, and sent to Elizabeth.

 

Of course, my preference would be that the route be a heavy rail line and eventually connect to the subway lines in Manhattan. When that occurs, the pattern should be:

 

* S57 rerouted to Jewett Avenue & extended to South Avenue & Arlington Place via Richmond Terrace

 

* New S58 route created between Port Richmond & CSI. The route would travel via Port Richmond Avenue, Willowbrook Road, Watchogue Road, Woolley Avenue, and Victory Blvd (either that, or it could come in through the back entrance and continue down Woolley Avenue to Forest Hill Road). The route would connect the Willowbrook Road area to the rail line, and combined with the S59, would provide people living near Port Richmond Avenue with frequent service to the rail line. The thing is that the only way I think it would get enough ridership would be if the rail line went directly to Manhattan, and ran at subway-level frequencies.

 

* S67 revived and rerouted via Watchogue Road, Deppe Place, Richmond Avenue, SIE service road, and South Avenue to Arlington.

 

* S98 expanded to run off-peak, and sent to Elizabeth.

 

* A while back, a user named Anthony Brancato mentioned rerouting the S46 to cover Richmond Terrace in Mariners' Harbor, by having it take Castleton Avenue-Nicholas Avenue-Richmond Terrace. The Walker Street area is within walking distance of the rail line (closer than Richmond Terrace is in that area), but still not too close. However, if it had to be done as a cost-saving measure, I would be alright with doing that over extending one of the routes that ends in Port Richmond into Arlington. Here is the discussion: http://www.nyctransi...-to-some-buses/

 

* Also, this wouldn't fit in with the current street network, but if there was a connection between both sides of the SIE (between Richmond Avenue & South Avenue), this would work. There is a chance that the North Shore Rail Line would spur just enough development to justify creating the connection, and so a route would be able to travel over it. You could call the route the S50, and have it run from the Mariners' Harbor station at Van Pelt Avenue, then follow the S46 routing to Union & Brabant, continue down Union Avenue to Forest. Then it would take Forest Avenue to Amity Place, go over the SIE continue down Fahy Avenue & Arlene Street (of course, the exit ramp for the SIE would have to be reconfigured), and then take Signs Road to Richmond Avenue and continue to the SI Mall.

 

Also, I was browsing through some old threads and figured I'd respond to a few comments, but instead of bumping a couple of threads, I figured I'd add it into this one.

 

From this thread: http://www.nyctransi...ederal-funding/

 

My beef was that they gave the (S96) later limited stop runs while we'd get two (S48)s for the 21:30 boat. Whatever the (S96) gets the (S98) should get and then some. Forest Ave is just as important of a main avenue and a connector, as Castleton Ave. is and I'm certain from my observation that the ridership is there.

 

 

The S98 got AM service way before the S96 did.

But imagine the uproar if those projects were just rammed right into the nice parts of Canarsie. Believe me, the people there would be pissed. You see that's what happened here in West Brighton. Before you had all home owners and a very quiet area. Then with no planning, the projects were rammed right in and families were uprooted and for a while white flight happened in the immediate area surrounding the projects. Then the SI Mall came about which saw that immediate area further surpressed and the area down there went to the dogs. It has gotten a bit better of late, but still has problems.

 

 

Yeah, OK. Back in 1990, the area by the West Brighton Houses was 47% White, whereas the rest of the city was 40% White. The problems had nothing to do with a lack of White people. Not to mention that when built, the projects were originally occupied by White people working at the docks on the waterfront.

 

From this thread: http://www.nyctransi...ay-to-brooklyn/

 

Well if that's the case then that subway wouldn't do much for most areas of Staten Island, so express buses wouldn't be going anywhere.

 

 

LMAO@ You switching your logic. First you say "Oh, people won't want the trains in their neighborhoods", and then you say "Oh, it won't do anything because it doesn't serve their neighborhoods". Aside from that, the point is that it would be accessable enough to help their commute if they want to use it, but not so accessable that it completely changes the character of their neighborhood.

 

And this has nothing to do with "express buses going anywhere".

 

Oh and you keep saying "subways" as in plural, so that's why everyone is confused. If you're advocating for "a" subway then make it clear.

 

 

No I don't, and you're the only one who's confused.

[Threxx]

*big plan*

 

 

That sounds good, though I'd extend the S58 down to SI Mall via Wooley Avenue and Forest Hills Road.

 

As for the Manhattan end of the possible subway extention, here's how it could work:

 

The current main line is relabeled as a subway bullet to an (SM). The North Shore line is labeled as (SN). Headways are increased to 12 TPH on each line. Service patters would work as follows:

 

(SM): 6 express trains, 6 local trains. Every other train (regardless of local or express) would terminate at St. George to meet with the ferry. The other 6 trains (half local and half express) would run to Midtown (57th Street-7th Avenue) via 4th Avenue Express, Bridge, and Broadway Express.

 

(SN): 12 local trains, 6 meeting with the ferry and 6 running to 57th Street the same way as the (SM).

 

On 4th Avenue:

Local: , , 20 TPH.

Express: , , 20 TPH

Super-Express, SIR, 12 TPH

 

If it's possible, the SIR trains would bypass all stations until Pacific Street. Hopefully a lower level could be built which would connect at Dekalb Avenue, but that would cost $$$$, so trains making all express stops is a decent compromise.

 

On Broadway:

Local: , , 20 TPH

Express: SIR, , , 24 TPH.

 

This would work more comfortably, as SIR trains would make all express stops in Manhattan.

 

Obviously, this plan would cost $$$$$$, so your busway plan is more feasible.

[checkmatechamp13]

Well, just to be clear, I oppose the busway plan completely. The reason is that if they ever decide to convert it to rail, it'll be a PITA because they've already made it a busway. That's why I'm sticking to my guns about having heavy rail in case they ever want to hook it up to the subway system. I mentioned that argument at one of the actual meetings, and they did what VG8 always does and tried to change the topic to avoid answering my questions, because there really was no good answer.

 

But I figured I'd put it out there because they probably will end up making it a busway, and so that would be the best of a bad situation.

 

I mean, that's the thing: People keep saying "Oh, we should just go with the cheapest solution because it'll be quickest and easiest to implement" without realizing there are long-term consequences to that thinking. That's why when me & you make proposals like reactivating the Rockaway Branch, we get labeled as foamers and everybody starts talking about "We have no money" and yadda yadda yadda. Obviously if you can get a quick and easy fix like +SBS+ up, then by all means do so, but don't sit there and make it seem as if you just solved all your problems.

 

In any case, I was thinking of a tunnel straight to Manhattan, eliminating the need to transfer to the ferry. (You could still keep the ferry as a tourist attraction or maybe make a ferry to Jersey City or Downtown Brooklyn or something, but most SI-Manhattan commuting would be handled by the rail line instead of the ferry. In a perfect world, it would be linked up with the Second Avenue Subway.

 

What I would do is have the run every 5 minutes during rush hour, and you would have the following:

 

Main Line local every 12 minutes

Main Line express every 12 minutes

North Shore local every 10 minutes

 

Maybe call them the , <T>, & (U) or something like that.

 

The ride from St. George to Arlington would only be about 15 minutes long, so I don't think you would need an express for the North Shore Branch. Also, the SIR is only 2 tracks, so if you ran it more frequently, you'd have problems with the local & express bypassing each other. This could be remedied by building a few passing sidings along the route. So that means you have 10 TPH on the Main Line, and 6 TPH on the North Shore Branch. Add in say, 7.5 TPH on the at the height of rush hour, and that's 23.5 TPH on the Second Avenue Line, which leaves plenty of spare capacity for some error.

 

Off-peak, I'd have the trains run every 12 minutes each (no express service). Also, I'd change up the express stops a little bit. Instead of having trains run nonstop from St. George to New Dorp (Great Kills in the PM), I'd have express trains stop at St. George, Grasmere, New Dorp, Great Kills, and then go local to Tottenville.

 

The would make the most sense because it would be by itself for most of the line, except of course where it merges with the on the northern end. I guess if you wanted to, you could build a connection to the Broadway Line and have the North Shore Line take over the old route.

 

On a side note, there's still the issue of the SIR not having turnstiles, but I guess if we were to actually connect SI & Manhattan, the cost of adding turnstiles to the SI stations would be small compared to the cost of the tunnel. In the meantime, I think the SIR should go on a POP system instead of having fares just collected at St. George.

[Threxx]

Nonononononononono....

 

The cannot go to SI. That line would be slammed. No matter how you work it out, SI'ers would be too eager to use it. Plus, the would be better off going to 3rd Avenue in the Bronx, and such a line from the Bronx-SI would be too long/crowded.

[checkmatechamp13]

Well, I don't really see any other good options. I mean, if you run it through Brooklyn, Lower Manhattan riders don't really save any time. Let's just figure the time from St. George to Whitehall Street. If you get a train that runs express up 4th Avenue, you'll spend 10 minutes between 59th Street & Pacific Street, and 10 minutes between Pacific Street & Whitehall Street, assuming the is right across the platform. Add in the 5 minute trip from St. George to 59th Street, and you're at 25 minutes, which is the same amount of time the ferry takes. Granted, you have more frequent service and you don't have to worry about an additional transfer on top of that, but how much benefit did you really provide? (But then again, you did say some trains would meet the ferry at St. George, so I assume a lot of Lower Manhattan riders would still take the ferry)

 

Aside from that, you'd really be cutting it close with the express tracks along 4th Avenue. The runs every 6 minutes at the height of rush hour, and I think the runs every 8. So that's 17.5 TPH, leaving you 12.5 TPH for the SI trains. With all the merging going on, you'd be cutting it close because you'd need at least 10-12 TPH to handle the SI riders.

 

(BTW, when you did your calculations, you had the listed as running down 4th Avenue)

 

I still think the best solution would be a straight connection from St. George to Lower Manhattan. If you don't want to hook it up with the SAS, you could try sending the Main Line up to Astoria via the Broadway Line, and then North Shore Branch up the line. Of course, the problem is that the Nassau Street Line doesn't go to Midtown (that, and aside from the skip-stop and Marcy-Myrtle run, it would be an all-local run from Arlington to Jamaica)

 

But I dunno. I still don't see the problem with going up the SAS (assuming it gets built). I mean, Bronx riders would be riding it northbound, and SI riders would be headed southbound. It just seems like a waste to end a main trunk line in Lower Manhattan like that.

[Threxx]

But I dunno. I still don't see the problem with going up the SAS (assuming it gets built). I mean, Bronx riders would be riding it northbound, and SI riders would be headed southbound. It just seems like a waste to end a main trunk line in Lower Manhattan like that.

 

Ok, here's a good SAS idea that just spawned:

 

: Euclid Avenue-205th Street via Fulton Street, 2nd Avenue and Fordham/3rd Avenue Local.

(U): Avenue X-205th Street, via Fulton Street, 2nd Avenue, and Fordham/3rd Avenue Express.

(H)/(I): SIR-12th Avenue-125th Street, (I) via local, via express.

: Hannover Square-Rockaway Park, B.116th Street, via local, <V> via express.

 

The would be express north of 72nd Street. This way, ^ we don't have any Bronx-SI monstrosities. Well, we do have the , which is worse than a Bronx-SI , I guess it is a possibility, as long as there was a line serving Brooklyn some how...

 

ONLY 7.5 TPH on the ? Lol, with a plan like this, the line would have to be four-tracked...

[checkmatechamp13]

The thing is that the SAS would only be 2 tracks. Yeah, it should be 4 tracks, but it's only going to be built as 2, and that's what I want to base the service patterns off of.

 

I mean, now that I think about it, the is definitely going to go up Second Avenue anyway. If you're worried about the being too crowded from both Bronx & SI riders, send the to The Bronx & the to 125th Street.

[Grand Concourse]

I just don't see the justification of a 5 mile tunnel from SI to Manhattan when even the ARC project got shut down and that would've connected 2 states. SI just doesn't have the population to justify such a long tunnel. The best option is either connect the SIRT via Jersey or via Brooklyn. And for Brooklyn, I still think it makes more sense if it was the SIRT as a separate branch going into Brooklyn as opposed to a subway line being sent down to SI. Outside of rush hours, is there a need for a 600' train running down the line? I just don't see any reason to expand all the platforms to hold a 600' train while the is still using only 4-car trains.

 

What SI need are high speed ferries that can cut the ride time of the current boats. That would be much more cost effective than such a tunnel between 2 boroughs.

[checkmatechamp13]

The ferry gets 65,000 riders a day and it's slow as molasses and requires a transfer to reach it for 90% of the riders. Not to mention the 36,000 riders who take the express buses, a good portion of whom are doing it to avoid said ferry. Add in the increased development you'd see around the stations and you could be talking a good 200,000 riders a day using that tunnel. As of now, Arlington is an hour from Lower Manhattan, assuming you make your connections right. Reactivating the North Shore Rail Line & connecting it to Manhattan would cut that down to less than 25 minutes. You don't think developers will want to take advantage of that?

 

Aside from that, SI isn't as sparsely populated as you think it is. It's population density is higher than the entire city of Baltimore, and that's taking into account a ton of parkland and "affluent" lower-density areas like Todt Hill.

[Grand Concourse]

Maybe so, but unless the state foots the bill and nothing is taken out of the MTA's funds, then maybe. But places in Queens could use a new subway line for the cost of that SI to Manhattan tunnel. I'm sorry, but I just don't see a 5 mile subway tunnel ever getting built. The costs just doesn't justify it. You would be able to get a new Hudson river tunnel built before an SI to Manhattan tunnel ever happens.

[B35 via Church]

The best option is either connect the SIRT via Jersey or via Brooklyn. And for Brooklyn, I still think it makes more sense if it was the SIRT as a separate branch going into Brooklyn as opposed to a subway line being sent down to SI.

 

.......

 

But places in Queens could use a new subway line for the cost of that SI to Manhattan tunnel. I'm sorry, but I just don't see a 5 mile subway tunnel ever getting built.

 

Clarify something here....

 

You say you don't see a 5 mile subway tunnel to SI being built & that places in Queens could use a new subway line......

But the best option for SI is to connect the SIRT to NJ or Brooklyn? Better for who....

 

People bring up extending the SIRT to Brooklyn or whatever - all that would accomplish is taking ppl off the local buses.... Those riders would still have to put up w/ the 4th av line if they're traveling to/from manhattan.... In the grand scheme of things, not really solving all that much - you make their commute to brooklyn quicker, but that's about it.....

 

You build a subway tunnel b/w SI & Manhattan & you impact way more riders than if you were build a tunnel (or bridge/causeway) connecting SIRT to Brooklyn or Jersey..... No one can honestly sit here & tell me that the majority of SI-ers would rather have rail service directly to Jersey or Brooklyn, over Manhattan....That is a crock, I'm sorry.....

 

Yes, SE & NE Queens could use a subway line, and so can Staten Island..... Why does it have to be one or the other.... SI is still part of NYC; this isn't like that (unfounded) 7 extension to some Secaucus which benefits a whole 'nother state moreso than it would our own..... I mean, something is just off when you have college-aged kids (for example) flooding x1's, 10's & 17's (point being, these aint all south shore residents w/ cash out the behind like that either) to Manhattan just to go out & unwind in the city for the weekend like any other college-aged kid in the other boroughs......

 

I say, How about the MTA address both issues (I'm not talking about concurrently either).... or continue to address none like they been doing..... All or nothing.

[Grand Concourse]

I'm not saying for SI riders to be stuck with backtracking via Jersey (Jersey for a possible link to the HBLR or something) or taking the SIRT to Brooklyn as the only option. I did say they should have faster ferries to cut down on the time it takes the current ferries to get b/w boroughs. I still don't see justification for an expensive river tunnel between 2 boroughs for that length not to mention the nightmare it would be if a train got stuck in the middle of that stretch. It's not like the chunnel b/w England and France where you have support from 2 countries. This would be a huge burden on the MTA as it would connect the subway to the SIRT.

 

I'm sorry if I come off as 'anti-SI', but it's not my fault SI was geographically spaced far away from the other boroughs. And people in the past chose to move to SI because they wanted to get away from the other 4 boroughs. I think if they allow those express buses to be loaded onto the boats, they could help keep some of them out of Brooklyn, but I would rather keep the buses as they are over a 'strait shot' rail tunnel b/w SI and Manhattan.

 

As for the actual topic of the North shore line, I am in favor of it as they should have another rail service as opposed to just the current line. I just don't see the justification of the long river tunnel. I mean how many express riders would give up their buses to ride this service? I think some are getting way ahead of themselves about this tunnel when the SAS hasn't even made it to Lower Manhattan via 2nd av and possibly Water st.