Jump to content

can a link be built between North Shore Branch and the Triboro RX

kingal11234

By kingal11234,
in New York City Subway

Recommended Posts

kingal11234

kingal11234

Posted
Posted

I heard of proposals to rebuild the North Shore Branch of the SIR. I also heard of plans to build the Triboro RX. But to me it seems to make more sense to build one line from Staten Island to the BX. This line would operate along the North Shore Branch in SI, the Bay Ridge Branch in BK. The NY connecting railroad branch in Queens and Port Morris Branch in the BX. Tell me what do you think of this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lance

Guest Lance

Posted
Posted

Maybe because there are no serious plans for a Triboro RX in the first place. Maybe because the North Shore hasn't been used in nearly 60 years. Maybe it's because there aren't any serious proposals for any type of Staten Island to Brooklyn subway service.

 

I'm not trying to knock anyone's ideas; it's just this screams fantasy idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kingal11234

kingal11234

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Maybe because there are no serious plans for a Triboro RX in the first place. Maybe because the North Shore hasn't been used in nearly 60 years. Maybe it's because there aren't any serious proposals for any type of Staten Island to Brooklyn subway service.

 

I'm not trying to knock anyone's ideas; it's just this screams fantasy idea.

 

I cant understand why it would be much easier than building any other subway extension or new line except reactivating the Long island Railroad Rockway beach Branch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Threxx

Threxx

Posted
Posted

I cant understand why it would be much easier than building any other subway extension or new line except reactivating the Long island Railroad Rockway beach Branch

 

 

It's just that, well...

 

300px-RBB_above_Metro_Av_jeh.JPG

 

Source

 

There'd be so much work to do to fix it, you might as well build a new line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kingal11234

kingal11234

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's just that, well...

 

300px-RBB_above_Metro_Av_jeh.JPG

 

Source

 

There'd be so much work to do to fix it, you might as well build a new line.

 

It's just that, well...

 

300px-RBB_above_Metro_Av_jeh.JPG

 

Source

 

There'd be so much work to do to fix it, you might as well build a new line.

 

Thats on the LIRR Rockaway Branch the Bay ridge Branch does not have that many problems
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kingal11234

kingal11234

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's just that, well...

 

300px-RBB_above_Metro_Av_jeh.JPG

 

Source

 

There'd be so much work to do to fix it, you might as well build a new line.

 

It's just that, well...

 

300px-RBB_above_Metro_Av_jeh.JPG

 

Source

 

There'd be so much work to do to fix it, you might as well build a new line.

 

Thats on the LIRR Rockaway Branch the Bay ridge Branch does not have that many problems

 

It's just that, well...

 

300px-RBB_above_Metro_Av_jeh.JPG

 

Source

 

There'd be so much work to do to fix it, you might as well build a new line.

 

It's just that, well...

 

300px-RBB_above_Metro_Av_jeh.JPG

 

Source

 

There'd be so much work to do to fix it, you might as well build a new line.

 

Thats on the LIRR Rockaway Branch the Bay ridge Branch does not have that many problems
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Far Rock Depot Conductor

Far Rock Depot

Posted
Posted

lets say, just for debate sake, that the North Shore line and the TBRX both get the green light. There's still one problem connecting the two, and it's not so much The Narrows. They build the English Channel tunnel. It's more like the cost of connecting the two. The connection alone will cost more than both lines combined!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kingal11234

kingal11234

Posted
  • Author
Posted

lets say, just for debate sake, that the North Shore line and the TBRX both get the green light. There's still one problem connecting the two, and it's not so much The Narrows. They build the English Channel tunnel. It's more like the cost of connecting the two. The connection alone will cost more than both lines combined!

 

Like I stated earlier the Bmt already started building a tunnel under Owl's Head Park in 1923. This tunnel was stopped for political reasons. The city should just pick up from there. The Brooklyn Army terminal is just 2 blocks from the park so building a connection should not be that expensive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kamen Rider Conductor

Kamen Rider

Posted
Posted

the tunnel would be probibly be one of the most expsive things the MTA will have ever built. the approch to such a tunnel would probibly need to start atleast at 4th ave ont he BK side. It would be the longest underwater tunnel in the metro area (a full half mile longer than the Battery Tunnel)

 

this operation would need to be built to Railroad standards, as subway service on the Bay Ridge, Freemont and NEC ROWs is forbidden as long as the railroads are using it. also there are long sections were they would never be able to hold both at the same time. as the property is WAY too narrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Concourse

Grand Concourse

Posted
Posted

lets say, just for debate sake, that the North Shore line and the TBRX both get the green light. There's still one problem connecting the two, and it's not so much The Narrows. They build the English Channel tunnel. It's more like the cost of connecting the two. The connection alone will cost more than both lines combined!

 

Which was my point in a different SIRT thread, but people are still going to advocate for an SI rail tunnel to another borough... Even the ARC would have a better chance of getting revived as that involves 2 states (which could/should get some federal assistance) vs 2 boroughs.

Being that such a connection would be connecting one MTA service to another, it'll all fall on the MTA, which just can't afford to be left footing the bill. I just can not justify such an astronomical cost for a connection when there are stations in the system that needs to be brought to 'decent' shape before more expansions should be done. The SAS hasn't even finished and it'll be a miracle if they can start on just phase 2.

 

And even if such a tunnel were to be built, would it end the need for all or most of the express buses on SI? I don't think many SI'ers are going to be that willing to lose their one seat ride to take a bus to train and deal with standing, beggars, 'uncleaned seats'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kingal11234

kingal11234

Posted
  • Author
Posted

the tunnel would be probibly be one of the most expsive things the MTA will have ever built. the approch to such a tunnel would probibly need to start atleast at 4th ave ont he BK side. It would be the longest underwater tunnel in the metro area (a full half mile longer than the Battery Tunnel)

 

this operation would need to be built to Railroad standards, as subway service on the Bay Ridge, Freemont and NEC ROWs is forbidden as long as the railroads are using it. also there are long sections were they would never be able to hold both at the same time. as the property is WAY too narrow.

 

Which was my point in a different SIRT thread, but people are still going to advocate for an SI rail tunnel to another borough... Even the ARC would have a better chance of getting revived as that involves 2 states (which could/should get some federal assistance) vs 2 boroughs.

Being that such a connection would be connecting one MTA service to another, it'll all fall on the MTA, which just can't afford to be left footing the bill. I just can not justify such an astronomical cost for a connection when there are stations in the system that needs to be brought to 'decent' shape before more expansions should be done. The SAS hasn't even finished and it'll be a miracle if they can start on just phase 2.

 

And even if such a tunnel were to be built, would it end the need for all or most of the express buses on SI? I don't think many SI'ers are going to be that willing to lose their one seat ride to take a bus to train and deal with standing, beggars, 'uncleaned seats'...

 

Why would have to start at 4 ave? Plans were made back then (in 1912) to include both freight and subway service so this the city obviously concluded that the narrows could have both. In regards to ARC those funds were canceled so the city could lobby for them to go to the project. The Arc does not stand a better chance because it is longer and would cost more to build. Plus it would require more cooperation with the different Govt agencies( governors, mayors, Mta, Port Authority) thus bringing in more red tape. The Staten island project would be better because it would not go under any private property and would not cause any major traffic disruptions
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Concourse

Grand Concourse

Posted
Posted

The point is the MTA would probably be left footing the whole bill as this would connect both MTA services. There are many other projects that needs to be finished first. An SIRT connection to any borough is just that, a fantasy. When the SAS is done and 90% of the stations are up to basic standards, then maybe they could do some planning for such a tunnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NYCRailfan523

NYCRailfan523

Posted
Posted

The point is the MTA would probably be left footing the whole bill as this would connect both MTA services. There are many other projects that needs to be finished first. An SIRT connection to any borough is just that, a fantasy. When the SAS is done and 90% of the stations are up to basic standards, then maybe they could do some planning for such a tunnel.

 

I agree with you Grand Concourse - before they do other projects, they should do their current projects first.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept