Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Porter]

Oh... Never mind, then. I've never actually been to Staten Island, but from the way you describe it, it sounds just like the BART-resisting Marin County of the California Bay Area. They want their ferries and buses, but absolutely no more, especially anything involving construction.

[checkmatechamp13]

I'd like to note that the (brown M) was moved to Bay Parkway shortly after and then to the local track because it caused congestion

 

Not sure how that ended up reducing the congestion. When the (brown M) became local, the became express, so you still had that switch north of Pacific, and then on top of that, an extra conflict was introduced south of 36th with the .

 

There was so little ridership that the terminus was changed to Bay Parkway a year later.

 

Back in 1987, SI's population was 373,232 according to census estimates. In 2013, it was 472,621. To give you an idea, the only bus route connecting Staten Island to Bay Ridge (and the train) was the R7 (present-day S53). Now you have 3 routes, with a combined ridership of almost 25,000 weekday riders. Obviously, not all of them are transferring to the subway, but still.

 

This also has a very big downside, in that once you get to Clifton there isn't a lot you can do. Staten Island is not very dense at all; even if you were to through-run trains to the SIR, you wouldn't get much ridership, because the SIR is a sleepy commuter line with no major ridership generators except the St. George Ferry Terminal. Given that Staten Islanders riot the moment you so much mention building a townhouse, increasing density is out of the question.

 

TL, DR; It's still slower, Staten Island will never be developed enough to justify it, it's a giant waste of money that could be spent elsewhere for better results.

 

Oh... Never mind, then. I've never actually been to Staten Island, but from the way you describe it, it sounds just like the BART-resisting Marin County of the California Bay Area. They want their ferries and buses, but absolutely no more, especially anything involving construction.

 

As a Staten Islander, I can say that's a stereotype. We have plenty of townhouses out here, and if there was better-planned development, we would support it. Building these little developments on cul-de-sacs, compared to a nice grid layout makes a world of difference.

 

I will say that the ferry sucks due to its infrequency and (lack of) speed. My go-to options are either the local bus over the VZN Bridge to the , or the express bus. If there were a bus lane on the bridge for local and express buses (I think the one they're building might just be for express buses), I would be happy. 

There was so little ridership that the terminus was changed to Bay Parkway a year later.

 

[RR503]

To answer your bolded question, yes. Clifton - WTC by express bus is 43 minutes, even with a local bus transfer. In a best case scenario this makes it there in 43 minutes even with express tracks, given that 43 minutes is how long a trip from Cortlandt to Bay Ridge would take.

 

This also has a very big downside, in that once you get to Clifton there isn't a lot you can do. Staten Island is not very dense at all; even if you were to through-run trains to the SIR, you wouldn't get much ridership, because the SIR is a sleepy commuter line with no major ridership generators except the St. George Ferry Terminal. Given that Staten Islanders riot the moment you so much mention building a townhouse, increasing density is out of the question.

 

The local buses that exist on the island today do not connect with SIR, and even rejigging them to do so wouldn't achieve much, because express buses that run already, today, run much faster than this proposed train connection. Heck, they run faster even at the stop most convenient to your extension. Even if they did, you would be asking a lot for a person to do local bus + SIR + subway, for... what, exactly? This extension terminates downtown, so you get a one-seat ride to a whole lotta nothing. Even if you could beat today's travel time of Clifton-Rockefeller Center of 1 hr, you would be asking someone to make SIR + subway + additional subway transfer over a one-seat ride, and this is before we talk about destinations that are not on SIR.

 

Because of geography and the express bus lanes, the only way to beat express buses from Staten Island and the Ferry from the North Shore would be to build a direct tunnel to the Battery, with maybe a stop at Governor's Island or Red Hook. However, because Staten Island is so anti-development, this kind of investment will never pencil out. This kind of pricey extension (even at normal world prices) would also be at the expense of much more deserving extensions in the rest of the city.

 

TL, DR; It's still slower, Staten Island will never be developed enough to justify it, it's a giant waste of money that could be spent elsewhere for better results.

Express bus is a lot slower than scheduled. There's a thing called traffic that ties them up, so they're late across the board. I'd estimate travel time to be closer to 1:15. Express bus lanes don't exist on the BQE, so that's moot.

[abneric]

wouldnt that (brownK) stop at clifton be crazy crowded? must have a second station in SI for the terminus to alleviate.

[bobtehpanda]

Express bus is a lot slower than scheduled. There's a thing called traffic that ties them up, so they're late across the board. I'd estimate travel time to be closer to 1:15. Express bus lanes don't exist on the BQE, so that's moot.

 

The subway is also late all the time, especially lines running through DeKalb, so it's not like you gain a lot in terms of reliability by running a train from Nassau to the 4th Av Express via Montague (and gumming up DeKalb every time a train passes through).

 

If you're going from SI to Downtown, the SI Expressway and the Gowanus all have HOV lanes; the only places that they don't exist in are the bridge and Battery Tunnel.

[pringle5095]

The subway is also late all the time, especially lines running through DeKalb, so it's not like you gain a lot in terms of reliability by running a train from Nassau to the 4th Av Express via Montague (and gumming up DeKalb every time a train passes through).

 

If you're going from SI to Downtown, the SI Expressway and the Gowanus all have HOV lanes; the only places that they don't exist in are the bridge and Battery Tunnel.

Would my proposal routing (brownK) service through Brighton be a problem?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobtehpanda]

Back in 1987, SI's population was 373,232 according to census estimates. In 2013, it was 472,621. To give you an idea, the only bus route connecting Staten Island to Bay Ridge (and the train) was the R7 (present-day S53). Now you have 3 routes, with a combined ridership of almost 25,000 weekday riders. Obviously, not all of them are transferring to the subway, but still.

 

Bus volume across the Verrazano doesn't make the train any faster. All this tells me is that the bus is the best way to get to Southern Brooklyn (duh) but that travel market alone isn't worth blowing a couple billion on a subway for.

Would my proposal routing (brownK) service through Brighton be a problem?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There's nothing wrong with Brighton, the question is... why?

[RR503]

The subway is also late all the time, especially lines running through DeKalb, so it's not like you gain a lot in terms of reliability by running a train from Nassau to the 4th Av Express via Montague (and gumming up DeKalb every time a train passes through).

 

If you're going from SI to Downtown, the SI Expressway and the Gowanus all have HOV lanes; the only places that they don't exist in are the bridge and Battery Tunnel.

HOV lane isn't much faster. And are you sure there is one? I don't seem to remember it...

 

Also, granted, subway reliability is a problem, but Dekalb et al will not eat up 1/2 hr of time savings; 5-10 min at most. And anyway, the / (brown K) don't have to interact directly with any other line while going through Dekalb.

Edited December 26, 2016 by RR503

[Porter]

wouldnt that (brownK) stop at clifton be crazy crowded? must have a second station in SI for the terminus to alleviate.

 

Perhaps not crazy crowded, considering the ferry service not too far away, but I agree that it would be beneficial to have at least one more station somewhere along Bay Street, Staten Island's "hippest street."

 

I think we also might be assuming that Manhattan will be the primary destination for Staten Islanders for the foreseeable future. What if downtown Brooklyn and the surrounding area explodes in popularity as a business, shopping, education, and residential district?

[bobtehpanda]

HOV lane isn't much faster. And are you sure there is one? I don't seem to remember it...

 

Also, granted, subway reliability is a problem, but Dekalb et al will not eat up 1/2 hr of time savings; 5-10 min at most. And anyway, the / (brown K) don't have to interact directly with any other line while going through Dekalb.

 

There's a one-way HOV from the Bridge to the Tunnel, and there's a two-way one for most of the length of the SI Expressway now; it opened between Slosson and Victory last year.

 

The SI Expressway one used only to be a bus lane, but b/c of the construction to extend it it was opened to HOV part of the time, then all of the time because opening a bus lane to HOV is a slippery slope.

Perhaps not crazy crowded, considering the ferry service not too far away, but I agree that it would be beneficial to have at least one more station somewhere along Bay Street, Staten Island's "hippest street."

 

I think we also might be assuming that Manhattan will be the primary destination for Staten Islanders for the foreseeable future. What if downtown Brooklyn and the surrounding area explodes in popularity as a business, shopping, education, and residential district?

 

Manhattan still accounts for a third of jobs in the entire metropolitan area stretching over NY-NJ-CT-PA. You would need quite a significant change in job and shopping distribution for that to occur, and it's doubtful that it will simply because of where Downtown Brooklyn is located (inconvenient for those coming from the north and west, but still ridiculously expensive).

 

More plausible future back-office job hubs (like Exchange Place in New Jersey) would be places like East New York, Jamaica, Flushing, or Fordham because of how cheap space there is and the wealth of transit connections, but that would be very far in the future, and it's impossible to make non-car travel competitive to those areas, except maybe ENY if Triboro ever gets built, but that's an even smaller market we're talking about.

Edited December 26, 2016 by bobtehpanda

[Lance]

From Wikipedia:

 

 

There was so little ridership that the terminus was changed to Bay Parkway a year later.

I'd be careful there. The   was always supposed to run to/from Bay Parkway in '86 as part of the Manhattan Bridge-related service changes as evidenced in these brochures hosted on thejoekorner.com. That blurb is referencing information from ERA Bulletin, which is posting internal service patterns in this instance. While the map showed the Bay Parkway   service, those trains and runs were usually clumped with the Nassau St , which also ran from Metropolitan Av, sometimes in service, and shared fleets with the  .

 

I'd like to note that the (brown M) was moved to Bay Parkway shortly after and then to the local track because it caused congestion

Actually, the was a 4th Avenue express for years after shifting from the Brighton line. The Nassau St ran as a 4th Avenue local until the line's discontinuation in '87. The wouldn't switch over to the local tracks until '94 when it swapped with the for the latter to become the 19/7 express.

 

According to the quote from above, the   was moved from the Brighton Line due to its reconstruction, and eventually ended up on the West End Line. However, these days, people never really consider sending their brown or whatever down Brighton. Would it really be that much of an issue to have it down there?

There's no reason for another line to run down the Brighton. When the ran down the Brighton, it was the normal hours local. Remember, the   was a rush hour only route that ran in the peak direction until '86. Now, with the as the primary line and Brighton local and the as the part-time supplement and Brighton express, there is little use for a Nassau St line anymore.

[pringle5095]

I think there should be a from Metropolitan Av to Broad St then it would go through a Staten Island tube and go to St George through a stop at Governors Island and take over the SIR. Also the could be extended to the Governor's Island station from South Ferry and follow a route roughly corresponding to the N Shore Branch, including RCB Ballpark. It would then go to Eltingville and then terminate at Hylan Blvd. Then the could be extended to either follow the current Staten Island SBS or to St George via the Verrazano Narrows Line

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Can't we just extend the  /  on this said Staten Island tube? I think that would be much simpler and more convenient than creating a second service that will confuse  line riders in Queens and North Brooklyn who rely on the current  service to get to Midtown Manhattan, especially given that the second M service won't be able to run as frequently as the combined J and Z do, because it will have to share tracks not just with the J and Z, but also with the existing 6th Ave M train (please don't say eliminate the current  and bring back the !). 

[pringle5095]

Can't we just extend the / on this said Staten Island tube? I think that would be much simpler and more convenient than creating a second service that will confuse line riders in Queens and North Brooklyn who rely on the current service to get to Midtown Manhattan, especially given that the second M service won't be able to run as frequently as the combined J and Z do, because it will have to share tracks not just with the J and Z, but also with the existing 6th Ave M train (please don't say eliminate the current and bring back the !).

That will do. Let's extend the down the tube. stops at all stations, stops at St George, New Dorp, Great Kills, then all stops to Tottenville.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danielhg121]

Great! Now who's providing the funds for the tunnel to staten island?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Lance]

I thought you were. You mean to tell me you're not sitting on a couple billion dollars? 

[pringle5095]

I thought you were. You mean to tell me you're not sitting on a couple billion dollars?

Erm what's with these funding questions?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobtehpanda]

Erm what's with these funding questions?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Proposals are open to criticism. One of those is cost-benefit analysis. A tunnel to Staten Island has a fairly low cost-benefit ratio given how anti-development they are and how much easier it is to build subway connections to places that are already dense and are not anti-development.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Agreed! If so many SI'ers want to be pains in the ass about the subway and act like the rest of NYC is just as bad - or even worse - than in 1975, then don't bother with them. We have plenty of other areas in the city that are crying out for subway service that currently don't have it.

Edited December 30, 2016 by T to Dyre Avenue

[pringle5095]

Agreed! If so many SI'ers want to be pains in the ass about the subway and act like the rest of NYC is just as bad - or even worse - than in 1975, then don't bother with them. We have plenty of other areas in the city that are crying out for subway service that currently don't have it.

Then closing the loop seems great, as it could provide service to Maspeth. Also, reinstate as QB Lcl and have it divert to Rockaway Beach line to Rockaway Park, replacing service.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RR503]

QB has -1 capacity available to add , and providing riders with shorter trains for increased patronage is a bad idea. The Rockaway Beach line should be LIRR, or be part of a second IND trunk in Queens/Manhattan.

 

As for SI, I think that you are being too negative. First of all, the line will be underground until it merges with the SIR, so aside from construction, there should be little surface disturbance. Secondly, development will definitely follow the construction of the subway. All the SIers who are complaining will shut up when they see seven figure offers for their houses.

 

But yes, in general I agree. SI should not be priority #1 (nor 2 or 3 or 4).

[bobtehpanda]

QB has -1 capacity available to add , and providing riders with shorter trains for increased patronage is a bad idea. The Rockaway Beach line should be LIRR, or be part of a second IND trunk in Queens/Manhattan.

 

As for SI, I think that you are being too negative. First of all, the line will be underground until it merges with the SIR, so aside from construction, there should be little surface disturbance. Secondly, development will definitely follow the construction of the subway. All the SIers who are complaining will shut up when they see seven figure offers for their houses.

 

But yes, in general I agree. SI should not be priority #1 (nor 2 or 3 or 4).

 

Realistically speaking, you could divert the or to Rockaway Beach and it wouldn't be a problem; one local serves Forest Hills and one serves Howard Beach (probably), eliminating the fumigation problem, and only two stations lose local service (67 Av and Forest Hills).

 

You can have a subway without development and still have seven figure offers for houses. See: Sunnyside

[RR503]

Yes, but then you're committing commuters from the Rockaways to both a long ride across Queens, and then local service along QB until at least Roosevelt, at which point the exp trains are quite crowded. I agree it's the most realistic solution, but I don't think it's a great one.

 

I do agree with the fumigation thing though.

 

As for development, Sunnyside is attractive because of its building stock, and even then, that's irrelevant as they are building things there. SI has very run of the mill, low density building stock (nothing crazily special) and therefore would be extremely susceptible to development.

 

Also, I don't really see your point. All you're proving is that subways raise real estate prices, which is....exactly what I'm saying will happen.

Edited December 31, 2016 by RR503

[bobtehpanda]

Yes, but then you're committing commuters from the Rockaways to both a long ride across Queens, and then local service along QB until at least Roosevelt, at which point the exp trains are quite crowded. I agree it's the most realistic solution, but I don't think it's a great one.

 

I do agree with the fumigation thing though.

 

As for development, Sunnyside is attractive because of its building stock, and even then, that's irrelevant as they are building things there. SI has very run of the mill, low density building stock (nothing crazily special) and therefore would be extremely susceptible to development.

 

Also, I don't really see your point. All you're proving is that subways raise real estate prices, which is....exactly what I'm saying will happen.

 

The first thing is that the Queens Blvd express is not actually that much faster than the local, and a one-seat local ride is still faster than the Q53. Plus, as part of any reactivation project you would probably have to rebuild Woodhaven as an express stop, since Roosevelt can barely handle the crowds it deals with today as it is. There is also very little chance of doing this before the Queens Blvd Bypass is built.

 

My point is that SIers don't need development to raise their property values next to a subway; indeed, they can make much better money if they block out as much new development as possible since no increase in supply means no dent in demand. Sunnyside used to be worse for the wear than it is today before its historic designation, and if you really want to see the supply restriction demand applied to its extreme, just look at San Francisco.

Edited December 31, 2016 by bobtehpanda

[RR503]

OK that I agree with.

 

Thanks for clarification.