I've Heard Some Rumors...

[Dasglion]

Ive also heard of a past proposal to extend the (and at the time the ) under Upper NY Bay to the St. George Station and rename the entire SIRR and . Pretty bold if you ask me. But it would make more revenue in the long run compaired to the VN tunnel.

[Queens Surface]

Huh? SIR uses the same car dimensions as IND. And why would they use R44 if the SIR was IRT. A tunnel is complicated as well because of the height of St.George compared to 95th St. on the . It would be too much tunneling. And the VNB is able to be expanded , just need more support suspender cables because the two towers can hold more weight.

[Y2Julio]

I love how everyone here are engineers and that adding trains to the VZ Bridge is as simple as adding more cables.

[MTR Admiralty]

If the TsingMa bridge in Hong Kong can hold two tracks for the MTR Airport Express, then so can the Verrazano Bridge. The two are constructed with similar designs and it was the TsingMa Bridge that exceeded the Verrazano in length.

 

1. The Tsing Ma was built much later than the Verrazano Narrows, in the 1990s to connect Kowloon with the anticipated airport then being built at Lantau Island (today's Chek Lap Kong International Airport). The VNB was built in the 60s.

2. Originally the VNB was to have tracks for rail service, but Robert Moses was a champion of the automobile, thus he would not let a subway through his bridge.

3. The function of the Tsing Ma bridge in Hong Kong is much different than of the VNB, they knew what the demand would be like, and the British colonial government (at that time) then wanted a rail link from Lantau into Kowloon and Hong Kong island. The bridge would carry automobiles as well as the MTR lines. The demand was expected to be much greater than the VNB.

 

The merger of the SIR and the NYCT subway into the MTA Subway was part of this legislation to simplify the operations of the MTA. The LIRR and MNR would have merged to become the MTA Railroads. All of the buses run by the MTA would be vested into the MTA Bus branch.

 

There are many issues with this merger, considering that the SIR is considered a railway by definition and has to follow FRA regulations. And consider the signalling used by the SIR, if the subway does run on SIR trackage, there would have to be a new signalling system that is based off of the NYCS signalling.

 

Digging a tunnel under the harbour would be nice, and personally I favour the cause. But consider the length and the approaches necessary. A new tunnel in Istanbul is currently under construction. The project is called "Marmaray", when finished trains on the European side of the city will run to the Asian side of the city under a new tunnel that will take trains under the Marmara Sea. We could adopt a similar scheme for a "Transbay" tube between Manhattan and Staten Island, however, the approaches to this tunnel in Manhattan would be very difficult. The approach must be more inland in Manhattan than South Ferry in order to achieve an operable grade. And also, consider the entangled web of subway lines in Lower Manhattan.

A tube under the harbour to Brooklyn does sound good, but again, there are issues. Do people, en route to Manhattan, want to pass by Brooklyn?

 

The bridge option sounds feasible, however, one must consider the position of the tracks in the bridge and how that might affect the load. One must also consider the subway approach to the bridge on the Brooklyn end and how it will connect to the SIR. Talking is easy, but implementing it is another story.

[Dasglion]

I love how everyone here are engineers and that adding trains to the VZ Bridge is as simple as adding more cables.

 

Theres only one person that thinks that and its him.

[Y2Julio]

Theres only one person that thinks that and its him.

 

Are you referring to me?

[Dasglion]

Are you referring to me?

 

no. if i responded to you then i am obviousky ot talking about you. I am talking about the person who sugested the VNB be reenforced

[Maserati7200]

There is something no one has considered: trains would have to climb a very steep hill to cross the VNB. It is quite high off the ground, much higher than the Manny B. In fact, it was the biggest bridge in the world until the 1980's when beaten by the Humber bridge in England. My solution is a water tunnel. I say make 2: one connecting the in bay ridge, and one connecting the at whitehall.

[MTR Admiralty]

One must also consider the subway approach to the bridge on the Brooklyn end and how it will connect to the SIR. Talking is easy, but implementing it is another story.

 

There is something no one has considered: trains would have to climb a very steep hill to cross the VNB. It is quite high off the ground, much higher than the Manny B. In fact, it was the biggest bridge in the world until the 1980's when beaten by the Humber bridge in England. My solution is a water tunnel. I say make 2: one connecting the in bay ridge, and one connecting the at whitehall.

Heh, I kind of mentioned it already. Exactly, such a higher ground will mean that the line must go on a steeper grade. Tunnels are another story, they must be set further back than Whitehall.

[Queens Surface]

But then tunneling would basically go under the narrows , since its so close to 95th St. on the , so it doesn't make sense , might as well just make go over the bridge.

[MTR Admiralty]

But then tunneling would basically go under the narrows , since its so close to 95th St. on the , so it doesn't make sense , might as well just make go over the bridge.

 

But consider the approach.

[Queens Surface]

That's also another problem but then that could be solved by making the connection at Stapleton.

[Y2Julio]

 

But then tunneling would basically go under the narrows , since its so close to 95th St. on the , so it doesn't make sense , might as well just make go over the bridge.

Sure. Let's do it your way. Oh by the way, do you have the $1 billion + that it would cost to retrofit the VZ bridge for rail traffic?

[MTR Admiralty]

That's also another problem but then that could be solved by making the connection at Stapleton.

 

I mean the Brooklyn approach, there's such a huge difference in altitude. It requires a steep grade.

[Queens Surface]

Oh sure lets do tunneling which will cost way more than 5 Billion dollars.

[Y2Julio]

 

Oh sure lets do tunneling which will cost way more than 5 billion.

and where, might I ask, are you getting that figure?

[MTR Admiralty]

Oh sure lets do tunneling which will cost way more than 5 Billion dollars.

 

It depends on what islands you are connecting. Remember, the distances on the subway map are grossly exaggerated. Manhattan is much further away from Staten Island, Staten Island is actually much more closer to Brooklyn than to Manhattan.

[Queens Surface]

Im getting my figures from http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/30/44/30_44fidlersfolly.html which are very accurate.

[Y2Julio]

Im getting my figures from http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/30/44/30_44fidlersfolly.html which are very accurate.

 

um, that's for a project that includes OTHER things, not JUST for the tunnel.

In addition to a transit tunnel, Fidler supported a cross-Harbor freight tunnel and burying the BQE to open up the Sunset Park waterfront to parkland and economic development —Â both dreams of transit wonks.

Read whatever you quote better next time.

[Queens Surface]

But for just the tunnel its around 5 billion.

[Y2Julio]

But for just the tunnel its around 5 billion.

 

Where in the article did you read that? They give a cost estimate of 10 billion for the WHOLE project. They don't go into detailed breakdown of the cost for each part of the project. I'm still waiting on where you got the 5 billion cost estimate for the SIRR tunnel.

[MTR Admiralty]

Im getting my figures from http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/30/44/30_44fidlersfolly.html which are very accurate.

 

No, I do not recall seeing "$5 billion" as a price for anything on this article.

[Queens Surface]

Here is a basic estimate price of the tunnel sections http://www.tbmexchange.com/pages.php?page=579-tunnel_forms times that by the distance underwater, next you have to bore between the areas on land. You need to rent TBM equipment. Depending on the Dirt Condition determines what TBM and prices vary http://www.tbmexchange.com/pages.php?page=boring_machines . Now we need a loco + temporary tracks

http://www.tbmexchange.com/pages.php?page=571-locomotive. So the total price will vary due to so many variables to include that I can't make. Note , that this is just used equipment and new equipment will cost more money.

[Y2Julio]

Those figures have NOTHING to do with the cost of the tunnel. The MTA will NOT be buying any equipment. All of this is done by contractors that bid on projects which already own the necessary equipment to get the job done or sub-contract it to someone else that does. Admit it. You have no real source of that 5 billion dollars.

[MTR Admiralty]

Here is a basic estimate price of the tunnel sections http://www.tbmexchange.com/pages.php?page=579-tunnel_forms times that by the distance underwater, next you have to bore between the areas on land. You need to rent TBM equipment. Depending on the Dirt Condition determines what TBM and prices vary http://www.tbmexchange.com/pages.php?page=boring_machines . Now we need a loco + temporary tracks

http://www.tbmexchange.com/pages.php?page=571-locomotive. So the total price will vary due to so many variables to include that I can't make. Note , that this is just used equipment and new equipment will cost more money.

 

Labour costs, ventilation, power... you have more than that... the price tag can't be $5bn.