Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[R68OnBroadway]

59 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

If you need a software to create a future subway map, use Google My Maps. Most on this forum use it to present their proposals. I, however, use Inkscape and will have a fantasy map coming out soon. 

Anyways: 

Definitely with you on the  to LGA and deinterlining Broadway. Transit planning today is extremely shitty (cough cough LGA AirTrain) and NIMBYs are so irritating. It's worth the risk to propose it once again. In 2003, the only reason why the NIMBYs won is because the city was in dire need in a post-9/11 state, and funds needed to be allocated to improve infrastructure in Lower Manhattan. Though the  could just be discontinued entirely to avoid redundancy. Another thing NIMBYs don't realize is that they only live mere yards away from Ditmars. Any effect the extension would have on communities would just be the same as the current Astoria line.

For your QBL deinterlining plan, does Parsons mean Jamaica Center? I almost thought you meant to terminate the  at Parsons Blvd itself (not Parsons-Archer) while the  goes to 179 St. Other than that, I do see the reasoning for deinterlining QBL, but IMO isn't needed. It could partially be solved by having the  run via 53rd and the  via 63rd. 

For Brooklyn, why would a line to Red Hook be needed? Reviving the B71 should do the trick, as well as improving bus service in the area. If not, then maybe a light-rail could be built. My proposal is similar to your (P), but it runs on Northern instead of the Port Washington Branch. It also involves the  instead of SAS. However, the (P) isn't necessary because the  could easily assume its role on the PW branch. 

I also agree with a Union Turnpike Line. It serves a large transit desert in Eastern Queens, though I would have provisions on the south end for potential further expansion south into Glendale, Bushwick, and Williamsburg. My short-term plan would involve the  being extended to Lakeview Rd, the  staying as-is (or extended to Laurelton/Springfield respectively), and the  goes to 179 St. 

I've looked at a similar idea of sending the  to College Point, though my  would kill two birds with one stone, serving both Whitestone/College Point. I do see the need for a subway extension to the latter though!

Overall, this is a good plan, but could use a few changes/corrections. 

When I mean Parsons, I mean Parsons-Archer (too lazy to type the full name).

Greater bus service might do well for Red Hook now, but sooner or later you will need to have rail service in the area- it will help develop the area and give greater access of the people there to jobs. Unfortunately, the only lines that you could extend without branching are the  and  , but the South Ferry station is too high and a  extension might be a problem in the long run. I suppose we could extend the tail tracks of the  at Broad south to a new tunnel to Red Hook with a stop at Governors Island. After that, it could run under Wolcott/Lorraine Streets with stops at Van Brunt and Clinton Streets. From there you could have it curve to Prospect Av, have it stop at Prospect Av  (new station will be called 4th Av- Prospect Av). After that it can run under Prospect and connect with the lower level express tracks before terminating at Church. I wouldn't advocate for this, but if you are going to build a subway to Red Hook, you might as well build it this way. 

[R68OnBroadway]

2 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Even under normal conditions, underwater tunnels are much more expensive than regular subway tunnels because of the ventilation requirements. 

If we were like all the other developed countries and used objective cost-benefit ratios to judge projects, I would find it very unlikely for SI-South Ferry to rank very high.

SI to Hanover may not seem beneficial now, but it most likely will be in the long run. We can't keep going on about how certain areas are too underdeveloped to justify service to, but most of the time lack of transit is what is truly holding that area back. It's about time we build a subway to a vast area with the purpose of transit-related development and improving traveling rather than just the latter. By building a subway to Staten Island, we can unlock the last borough and improve our housing crisis with a greater amount of viable land. We can also help people move from cramped areas to quieter ones similarly to how the  made Queens viable to live in. The subway itself has been built to seemingly-distant areas plenty of times only for those areas to have more people move there because the subway makes it now viable as a place to live. We should look to "unlock" other areas, but isn't Staten Island worth a shot?

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

SI to Hanover may not seem beneficial now, but it most likely will be in the long run. We can't keep going on about how certain areas are too underdeveloped to justify service to, but most of the time lack of transit is what is truly holding that area back. It's about time we build a subway to a vast area with the purpose of transit-related development and improving traveling rather than just the latter. By building a subway to Staten Island, we can unlock the last borough and improve our housing crisis with a greater amount of viable land. We can also help people move from cramped areas to quieter ones similarly to how the  made Queens viable to live in. The subway itself has been built to seemingly-distant areas plenty of times only for those areas to have more people move there because the subway makes it now viable as a place to live. We should look to "unlock" other areas, but isn't Staten Island worth a shot?

You're relying on appeals to emotion. There's no actual numbers here, because the numbers don't add up.

As the crow flies, South Ferry to St. George direct is 5 miles. Here's a list of extensions that are 5 miles long:

• Van Cortlandt Park to Yonkers
• Journal Square to Bayonne
• Jamaica to Valley Stream
• Jamaica to New Hyde Park
• Flushing to Little Neck
• 125 St to Fordham Plaza
• Queens Blvd Bypass from LIC to Forest Hills
• LIC to Flushing via Northern
• Astoria to Flushing via LGA
• Inwood-207 to Co-op City
• Flushing to Jamaica
• Triboro RX from Borough Park to Brownsville
• Triboro RX from Broadway Junction to Jackson Heights
• Lower East Side to Crown Heights via Williamsburg and Bushwick
• Utica from Crown Heights to Kings Plaza
• 145 St to Hunts Point and Clason Point via 161 St

You get the point. The major difference is that from St. George to South Ferry there's a whole lot of nothing; all those other lines have neighborhoods on the way that they can serve and densify. Might the line to Staten Island be worth it? Maybe one day. But I would definitely not put it in the first 50 miles of subway we should build next, or the next 50, or maybe even the 50 after that. There's just much better value-for-money projects available.

[KK 6 Ave Local]

My proposal for a Queens line: Two new SAS lines, the (P) and (U), part of my bigger plan for the SAS, branch off the main trunk line at 79th Street and land on Broadway in Queens.

At Steinway Street, they move up to 30th Avenue and run along that avenue until 54th Street and curve downwards to the one and only Northern Blvd (Or they can curve to Astoria Blvd at Steinway). Either way, at Union Street, the (P) curves up and serves Whitestone, then turning at 14th Ave and running there until 119th Street, and goes along there until Poppenhusen Ave, where it terminates. The (U) stays on Northern until the city line. For Utopia, Fresh Meadows, and Oakland Gardens, I propose an extension of the , and for south Queens, an extension of the  along Merrick Blvd.

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by KK 6 Ave Local

[KK 6 Ave Local]

I've put in one part of my plan, now here's the rest. It's the (P), , and (U), with the (U) running express and the (P)  local. The  starts off with the  at Bay Plaza, then runs along Gun Hill Blvd to 3rd Ave. They run down that until Manhattan where they join with the  125 Street crosstown. The  joins up with the (P) (U) at 72nd upper. The (P)  continue on to Brooklyn via Fulton, where the  runs to Laurelton via Merrick Blvd using the Atlantic Branch after Bway Junction and Fulton  south of that, and the (P) goes to Far Rockaway. The  would serve the RBB. I haven't decided the (U)'s route in Brooklyn/NJ/Staten Island. I was thing it could join up with an  extension at South Ferry, and run direct to Staten Island. 

 

[Wallyhorse]

14 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

Definitely with you on the  to LGA and deinterlining Broadway. Transit planning today is extremely shitty (cough cough LGA AirTrain) and NIMBYs are so irritating. It's worth the risk to propose it once again. In 2003, the only reason why the NIMBYs won is because the city was in dire need in a post-9/11 state, and funds needed to be allocated to improve infrastructure in Lower Manhattan. Though the  could just be discontinued entirely to avoid redundancy. Another thing NIMBYs don't realize is that they only live mere yards away from Ditmars. Any effect the extension would have on communities would just be the same as the current Astoria line

That may be true, but many NIMBYs are uninformed and are very selfish.  One reason instead of LGA I would extend the (in this scenario) to The Bronx similar to my  to The Bronx proposals where it goes to 20th Avenue, then over a bridge to Food Service Drive in The Bronx, then underground on a route that includes transfers at East 180th from the  and Elder-Westchester Avenue from the .  It would give Bronx riders looking for Queens a chance to do so without going through Manhattan. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Wallyhorse

[RR503]

The only reason the NIMBY shootdown of LGA  worked last time was because the city councilman from that district was the speaker. Now, with greater public attention focused on deficiencies in airport transportation and on the subway, I'd say its time we took another shot. We can't let events of twenty years ago rule us -- things have changed dramatically. 

[Coney Island Av]

44 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

That may be true, but many NIMBYs are uninformed and are very selfish.  One reason instead of LGA I would extend the (in this scenario) to The Bronx similar to my  to The Bronx proposals where it goes to 20th Avenue, then over a bridge to Food Service Drive in The Bronx, then underground on a route that includes transfers at East 180th from the  and Elder-Westchester Avenue from the .  It would give Bronx riders looking for Queens a chance to do so without going through Manhattan. 

But why Bronx-Queens over going to LGA? There's more demand for it to go the latter, as opposed to much less demand for the former. And exactly how many people are commuting from the Bronx to Queens on a daily basis? Not enough to justify building this IMO.

Even if people were going from the Bronx to Queens without backtracking, the Triboro RX would already accomplish it much better than the  ever would. 

17 minutes ago, RR503 said:

The only reason the NIMBY shootdown of LGA  worked last time was because the city councilman from that district was the speaker. Now, with greater public attention focused on deficiencies in airport transportation and on the subway, I'd say its time we took another shot. We can't let events of twenty years ago rule us -- things have changed dramatically. 

Fully agreed. We can't let MTA be an embarrassment because of two city blocks. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Coney Island Av

[RR503]

15 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Even under normal conditions, underwater tunnels are much more expensive than regular subway tunnels because of the ventilation requirements. 

If we were like all the other developed countries and used objective cost-benefit ratios to judge projects, I would find it very unlikely for SI-South Ferry to rank very high.

Most underriver transit tunnels use a combination of forced air ventilation and beside-the-trackway ducts to accomplish this. They do fine. Moreover, with the advent of sinkable tunnel sections, irregular cross sections -- ones that facilitate duct placement -- have become much easier to implement. In light of all this, and the fact that stations (which already exist in some form on SI/are not underground, making mods easier) are by far the largest cost factor on NYC transit projects, I wouldn't write off an SI tube as prohibitively expensive just yet. 

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

The only reason the NIMBY shootdown of LGA  worked last time was because the city councilman from that district was the speaker. Now, with greater public attention focused on deficiencies in airport transportation and on the subway, I'd say its time we took another shot. We can't let events of twenty years ago rule us -- things have changed dramatically. 

I remember saying something similar in my first post ever on these forums, but if we were to take another shot at it, then how would we do it? Would it be convincing the people at or would it be something else like protests against Cuomo's AirTrain?

1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said:

Fully agreed. We can't let MTA be an embarrassment because of two city blocks

The  already is an embarrassment, but I do see the point here.

 

Also on a side note (since i don't feel like bumping this post) heres my take on a Jamaica EL proposal: 

Manhattan:

 - Interlockings between Chambers Street are altered

 - Canal Street complex is renovated in a similar fashion to the Fulton Center. Local Tracks are in the middle, express on the side.'

 - Bowery is rebuilt with having only one island platform in the middle serving the inner tracks while the outer tracks bypass the station.

 - Interlockings between Bowery and Essex Street are altered

Brooklyn:

 - The curve between the Williamsburg Bridge and Marcy Avenue Station is widened by 15-30 degress

 - Marcy Avenue will have it's platforms adjusted to look like a peak express station. ( This could require decking part of BQE)

 - Union Avenue Station is built to replace Hewes and Loimer Street Stations to provide a better connection to the

 - Flushing Avenue Station is moved west by about 100-150' or so with its mezzanine adjusted

 - Myrtle Avenue/Broadway is moved west by about a few 100' feet or so to ease the curve from the Myrtle Viaduct used by the  . The southbound curve will come directly from Myrtle Avenue

 - The Upper Level has 3 options.

           1.  A curve can be built right after Flushing Avenue to allow trains to access the upper level

           2.  The upper level can be altered (similar Vanshnookenraggen proposed in his website)

           3.  (You guys decide cause I can't think of anything at the moment)

 - Broadway Junction Complex elevated Structure will be rebuilt (which I'll explain in another post - someone remind me to do so)

- A new Third Track will rise up and run above the current structure until reaching Crescent Street and run to Jamaica at 121st Street (the curve at Alabama Avenue will be widen by about 30 degress)

- Alabama Avenue - Crescent Street are all replaced With Stops in between them to create an even amount of spacing. (Pennsylvania Avenue, Ashford place and Logan Street.

- The Crescent Street curve will be widened on both ends of the EL. (This still requires the demolition of a few homes but won't be as impactful compared to the 1958 proposal) A new station called Ridgewood Avenue will be located here and the third track will descend to match the grade level with the current tracks. Interlockings in this area are removed

Queens:

 - A stop between Cypress Hills and 75 Street-Elderts Lane can be built to replace the 2 stops and therefore, create better spacing between stops

- Woodhaven Boulevard will be converted into a peak express stop. This can be very beneficial in the future as it provides a future express service  transfer to the Q52/Q53 SBS. Interlockings will be added in this area. 

- The interlockings at 111th Street remain unaltered. 

 - The Third Track ends after 121st Street, merging onto the local tracks and replacing the "X" crossover east of 121st Street

Any thoughts?

Edited July 13, 2018 by LGA Link N train

[officiallyliam]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

The only reason the NIMBY shootdown of LGA  worked last time was because the city councilman from that district was the speaker. Now, with greater public attention focused on deficiencies in airport transportation and on the subway, I'd say its time we took another shot. We can't let events of twenty years ago rule us -- things have changed dramatically. 

15 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

I remember saying something similar in my first post ever on these forums, but if we were to take another shot at it, then how would we do it? Would it be convincing the people at or would it be something else like protests against Cuomo's AirTrain?

I fully agree that it's time to take another shot at extending the Astoria line to LGA, but I'm skeptical many of the proposed routings that take the line over 19th or 20th Avenues, then back south into the airport. While that gets people to the airport, and likely avoids some opposition since 19th and 20th are more industrial, I think that we should build the line in a way that simultaneously adds transit to Astoria, and can be used better to bring transit to the neighborhoods around LGA. I'd have the line turn west on Ditmars (you'd have to take the corner building, but that's only a TD Bank), build stations at Steinway and Hazen Streets, then branch the line at 79th. One branch would go to LGA (staying on Ditmars, going underground somewhere around 81st, underground terminal under the central terminal). The other branch would run along Astoria Blvd through East Elmhurst and North Corona, go underground in Willets Point, and follow Northern Blvd as far as either Main Street or the Broadway LIRR station. If Broadway/60th Street are deinterlined as part of this, there should be enough capacity to serve both branches adequately, and CBTC will also help with that.

People might balk at the idea of more elevated trains near more people, but I'd say this: firstly, the elevated that would be built today would be nothing like the Astoria (or any elevated) that NYC knows today: much smoother and quieter, and far less obtrusive (see: JFK AirTrain, Vancouver Skytrain, Hong Kong MTR). And secondly, a line via Ditmars gives much more to Astoria - better connections to other neighborhoods in Queens - than a line that skips over much of the area by running on 19th or 20th Avenue. Yes, it might be harder to fight for, but if the goal is to improve transit connections around the city and not simply to ferry people to the airport and back, then a more "local" route is the superior choice.

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Most underriver transit tunnels use a combination of forced air ventilation and beside-the-trackway ducts to accomplish this. They do fine. Moreover, with the advent of sinkable tunnel sections, irregular cross sections -- ones that facilitate duct placement -- have become much easier to implement. In light of all this, and the fact that stations (which already exist in some form on SI/are not underground, making mods easier) are by far the largest cost factor on NYC transit projects, I wouldn't write off an SI tube as prohibitively expensive just yet. 

The only large underwater rail tunnel project we have a reference for is Gateway, where the tunnels alone cost $13B for 3 miles. $20B for a tunnel to St. George would be absolutely preposterous.

[RR503]

33 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The only large underwater rail tunnel project we have a reference for is Gateway, where the tunnels alone cost $13B for 3 miles. $20B for a tunnel to St. George would be absolutely preposterous.

Comparing Gateway to anything else is like comparing a dishwasher to Malaysia. Aside from the fact that the tunnel reconstruction effort is about 2 billion of that cost, I've heard (though take this with some salt, as this is basically just gossip) that a very large fraction of Gateway costs is contingency for political holdups and the fact that we have five or six major players (PANYNJ, Amtrak, NJT, USDOT, NYS, NJS, MTA (ish)) whose coordination skills have been shown to be about zero. I think that even the MTA can do better alone. 

[bobtehpanda]

6 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Comparing Gateway to anything else is like comparing a dishwasher to Malaysia. Aside from the fact that the tunnel reconstruction effort is about 2 billion of that cost, I've heard (though take this with some salt, as this is basically just gossip) that a very large fraction of Gateway costs is contingency for political holdups and the fact that we have five or six major players (PANYNJ, Amtrak, NJT, USDOT, NYS, NJS, MTA (ish)) whose coordination skills have been shown to be about zero. I think that even the MTA can do better alone. 

Unfortunately, multi-mile underwater urban rail tunnels are very uncommon, so there's not a lot of references that we could use.

The only other reference projects are ARC ($8B with projected cost blowout of $14B in the worst case scenario), which I can't really find information on for just the tunnels, and Lower Manhattan LIRR, which before it was killed was costed at about $6B for 3 miles of tunnel and a station. The same powers that made that cost estimate also told us that East Side Access would be $4B.

[Caelestor]

1 minute ago, bobtehpanda said:

Unfortunately, multi-mile underwater urban rail tunnels are very uncommon, so there's not a lot of references that we could use.

The only other reference projects are ARC ($8B with projected cost blowout of $14B in the worst case scenario), which I can't really find information on for just the tunnels, and Lower Manhattan LIRR, which before it was killed was costed at about $6B for 3 miles of tunnel and a station. The same powers that made that cost estimate also told us that East Side Access would be $4B.

The problem with any underwater tunnel project is that usually a hugely expensive dead-end station cavern is part of the plans. That's why ARC and Lower Manhattan LIRR were cancelled, why Gateway won't get out of planning, and why the SI-South Ferry tunnel won't be on the table for at least two generations.

On a final note, ESA is even worse because there's actually no underwater component (tunnel was already built back in the 1980s) and all the cost is the extravagant 8-platform station deep below an already existing 60+ platform terminal.

[RR503]

See page 9-13 here. (note that that is nine dash thirteen, not nine to thirteen). The standalone tunnel was to be about $2.5 billion, but then stations, consultants, ancillary facilities, etc made that into about 6.6. I'm sure you could cut almost all of the station cost there, along with the vehicle purchases, which gets you down to about 5 -- though in 2007 dollars. 

[bobtehpanda]

50 minutes ago, RR503 said:

See page 9-13 here. (note that that is nine dash thirteen, not nine to thirteen). The standalone tunnel was to be about $2.5 billion, but then stations, consultants, ancillary facilities, etc made that into about 6.6. I'm sure you could cut almost all of the station cost there, along with the vehicle purchases, which gets you down to about 5 -- though in 2007 dollars. 

Yup. And in 2007 East Side Access was $4B. We're at what, $12B and no completion date in sight?

[RR503]

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Yup. And in 2007 East Side Access was $4B. We're at what, $12B and no completion date in sight?

Fair point. ARC did blow its costs up before it was cancelled (though that had more to do with the midstream design change than w anything else). 

[Wallyhorse]

14 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

But why Bronx-Queens over going to LGA? There's more demand for it to go the latter, as opposed to much less demand for the former. And exactly how many people are commuting from the Bronx to Queens on a daily basis? Not enough to justify building this IMO.

Even if people were going from the Bronx to Queens without backtracking, the Triboro RX would already accomplish it much better than the  ever would. 

Fully agreed. We can't let MTA be an embarrassment because of two city blocks. 

Agree fully on not letting NIMBYs derial going to LGA, but some are stuck in their ways and feel they have to "defend" their turf or they somehow will be looked down upon by their parents in some cases, especially those who have grandparents who had to deal with Robert Moses.  

As for The Bronx, the line I proposed would actually go at least initially to Jacobi Medical Center, an area that has ZERO subway service at the moment and include the noted transfers at East 180 (from the and ) and Elder-Westchester Avenue (from the ).  This line I suspect would do much better than many think.  With Astoria expanding as both a residential and business district, I suspect such a line would enhance that growth, especially since it would be the only line to the Bronx that does NOT directly go to Manhattan (going to Queens first and then Manhattan), plus serve quite a few areas that don't have subways in The Bronx at the moment.  This also would provide some relief from the  that would be felt further south since some from the north who need the Broadway line once in Manhattan anyway would be transferring while still in The Bronx (same for those on the  and looking for Queens).   I suspect it would be much more heavily used than some think. 

[bobtehpanda]

8 hours ago, RR503 said:

Fair point. ARC did blow its costs up before it was cancelled (though that had more to do with the midstream design change than w anything else). 

Not a specific criticism of anybody, but in general I have a very dim view of viewpoints that consist of "but what if we built like a normal place?" Well, if we built like a normal place with normal costs, we wouldn't even be having these discussions about prohibitive cost. It's like how economics views all people as "rational"; just as humans in real life act very irrationally, our real life construction costs are very insane. And some people may be making a move to reduce those costs, but we have yet to see an actual example of someone successfully doing so and keeping costs sane from start to finish. It's a lot safer to judge those kinds of projects based on the context of today; in the best case scenario, we spend less money than we planned to and we shove it into something else. As opposed to how East Side Access's cost escalations have been handled.

[officiallyliam]

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Not a specific criticism of anybody, but in general I have a very dim view of viewpoints that consist of "but what if we built like a normal place?" Well, if we built like a normal place with normal costs, we wouldn't even be having these discussions about prohibitive cost. It's like how economics views all people as "rational"; just as humans in real life act very irrationally, our real life construction costs are very insane. And some people may be making a move to reduce those costs, but we have yet to see an actual example of someone successfully doing so and keeping costs sane from start to finish. It's a lot safer to judge those kinds of projects based on the context of today; in the best case scenario, we spend less money than we planned to and we shove it into something else. As opposed to how East Side Access's cost escalations have been handled.

But why should we resign ourselves to prohibitively high construction costs that others don't have? Why should we be content with the fact that we'll never be able to build as much infrastructure as other cities, only because we fail to reform the processes that drive our costs up from what they ought to be? The idea that the failure of East Side Access (and, admittedly, many other megaprojects) to keep costs under control should be something that keeps us from attempting other new builds (like tunnels to Staten Island) seems awfully pessimistic, especially given the current attitude towards reform of the MTA's construction and procurement methods.

[RR503]

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Not a specific criticism of anybody, but in general I have a very dim view of viewpoints that consist of "but what if we built like a normal place?" Well, if we built like a normal place with normal costs, we wouldn't even be having these discussions about prohibitive cost. It's like how economics views all people as "rational"; just as humans in real life act very irrationally, our real life construction costs are very insane. And some people may be making a move to reduce those costs, but we have yet to see an actual example of someone successfully doing so and keeping costs sane from start to finish. It's a lot safer to judge those kinds of projects based on the context of today; in the best case scenario, we spend less money than we planned to and we shove it into something else. As opposed to how East Side Access's cost escalations have been handled.

To add onto the above, even in New York, there’s a gradation of evil. SAS got done on its final budget (albeit way beyond schedule). ESA and ARC are special cases of extreme mismanagement imo — the complete lack of coordination between stakeholders, the sheer terror espoused towards community groups, and the lack of communication towards the one or two contractors actually qualified to bid on these things made their costs that much higher and much more uncontrollable. I think we’re allowed to lament that. 

Edited July 14, 2018 by RR503

[CenSin]

There is a difference between:

• Being realistic, which is what @bobtehpanda is being. It is absolutely true that with the current knowledge of our state of affairs that the probability of getting these projects done right (small budget, on-time, or quality) is unfathomably low. All the factors currently conspire against such projects.
• Fantasizing, which most of us do. Some of us have ideas that will never see the light of day even without the conspiring factors making these projects impossible. But for the smaller number of us who plan for a day when conditions return to a more build-friendly state: we have a pretty good point, and all those “but teh monies and nimby from 1990” are invalid arguments. Who is to say that another period of infrastructure expansion will never exist again?

On 7/13/2018 at 2:51 AM, bobtehpanda said:

You get the point. The major difference is that from St. George to South Ferry there's a whole lot of nothing; all those other lines have neighborhoods on the way that they can serve and densify. Might the line to Staten Island be worth it? Maybe one day. But I would definitely not put it in the first 50 miles of subway we should build next, or the next 50, or maybe even the 50 after that. There's just much better value-for-money projects available.

But if built to St. George, it might as well connect to the Staten Island Railway. There are factors to consider besides number of neighborhoods served:

• better mobility between Manhattan and Staten Island, opening up an entire borough to new opportunities that would have been retarded by poor transportation options
• reduction in vehicular traffic—especially traffic over the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, and thus reducing pollution (an externalized benefit with reduction in costs to health)
• reduction of expensive roundabout express bus service to Manhattan
• reduction in costs of operating a ferry

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, CenSin said:

But if built to St. George, it might as well connect to the Staten Island Railway. There are factors to consider besides number of neighborhoods served:

• better mobility between Manhattan and Staten Island, opening up an entire borough to new opportunities that would have been retarded by poor transportation options
• reduction in vehicular traffic—especially traffic over the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, and thus reducing pollution (an externalized benefit with reduction in costs to health)
• reduction of expensive roundabout express bus service to Manhattan
• reduction in costs of operating a ferry

"Better mobility" depends on context. "Roundabout" is only true if you're looking at a map.

Extrapolating travel times from Howard Beach - JFK to Beach, St. George to South Ferry is 15 minutes, compared to the ferry time of 25 minutes. Which initially sounds fantastic, except from most stations on SIR even that kind of time reduction would not beat the express bus, and if it did it'd be a total of like five minutes. And this is before the new express bus plan gets implemented, which is going to speed things up in favor of express buses even more. More importantly, express buses provide direct one-seat rides to either Downtown or Midtown, which a subway ride would not do; the only tracks with capacity in Manhattan are local tracks, which won't get you to 42 St as fast as a bus using the Lincoln tunnel would.

[RR503]

13 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

"Better mobility" depends on context. "Roundabout" is only true if you're looking at a map.

Extrapolating travel times from Howard Beach - JFK to Beach, St. George to South Ferry is 15 minutes, compared to the ferry time of 25 minutes. Which initially sounds fantastic, except from most stations on SIR even that kind of time reduction would not beat the express bus, and if it did it'd be a total of like five minutes. And this is before the new express bus plan gets implemented, which is going to speed things up in favor of express buses even more. More importantly, express buses provide direct one-seat rides to either Downtown or Midtown, which a subway ride would not do; the only tracks with capacity in Manhattan are local tracks, which won't get you to 42 St as fast as a bus using the Lincoln tunnel would.

Express buses aren’t a long term transportation solution for SI. Beyond the fact that they’re expensive — both to ride and to operate — they simply can’t provide the level of capacity necessary to sustain anything more than current population. Moreover, despite your claims otherwise, a tunnel would actually be significantly faster than the bus. 

I used Sycamore/Richmond in Eltingville as my starting point.

-Currently, it takes 1:19 on the X21 to do the trip from that spot to Midtown (42/6, for our purposes).

-In the AM rush, it’s a 9-minute walk to SIR, and then a 22-minute ride to St George. 

-The  takes 7 mins to go the 3.7 miles between Howard Beach and Broad Channel. St George to Hanover Square is 5.4 miles, so given similar speeds, that should be about ten minutes flat. 

-We’ll give SAS phase 4 trains 8 mins to cover the 1.5 miles between Hanover and Grand.

- to Bryant Park is then 12 mins. 

-Add this together, and you get (12+8+10+31) = 1:01, or 18 mins less than the bus.