|
|
| Re: Staten Island Railway (489316) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
|
| (489896) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Thu Sep 13 22:22:41 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by DOB2RTO on Thu Sep 13 19:03:36 2007. Ditto. |
|
|
| (489897) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 22:26:23 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Nilet on Thu Sep 13 15:37:43 2007. Because it was part of NJ until they lost SI due to a boat race to the colony of NY in the colonial days [then again this maybe more a tall tale]. But still other than the Ferry and the Verrazano, SI is isolated from the rest of the city and would be better off served by NJT. |
|
|
| (489899) | |
Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 22:28:33 2007, in response to Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway, posted by Alex L. on Thu Sep 13 10:12:16 2007. That new SI station is a $400 million waste. It would've been cheaper to just extend the old platform to hold 10-car trains at a fraction of the cost. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (489902) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 22:35:40 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 13 19:37:53 2007. It would be better just to have an across the platform connection that way riders can still get a direct connection to the subway, but the SIR and the subway would not have to spread their schedules too thin so the SIR and subway can each keep their seperate headways intact. The SIR doesn't need that much service and teh subway cannot support the SIR as well as its own line. |
|
|
| (489903) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Alex L. on Thu Sep 13 22:38:31 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Sep 13 21:42:37 2007. Along these stretches of narrow roadway - no. |
|
|
| (489904) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 22:39:35 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 22:22:38 2007. The headways on the SIR doesn't support the need for a full time subway line to run on the SIR or for the SIR to be extended beyond SI. If you wanted a connection to 86th or 96th on the R, just have the SIR have an across the platform transfer to teh R then SIR riders can get off the R for the N or D. |
|
|
| (489905) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 22:41:26 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Sep 13 21:48:36 2007. Not to mention the 5 miles under the harbor would be overkill for just a borough when it would be better off just taking the free boat ride in the first place. |
|
|
| (489906) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 22:46:23 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 22:00:04 2007. "Same slow speeds"... hem I dunno maybe teh Ferry crash from a few years ago maybe a reason why they don't or shouldn't go too fast?? |
|
|
| (489908) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Sep 13 22:54:12 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 22:00:04 2007. Did you know that there are SPEED LIMITS in the harbor?5 Miles / 30 Minutes = 10 Miles Per Hour. Actually that is fairly fast for inside a harbor. An ocean liner seldom does more than 20 knots, most usually less. Naval Ships can go faster but very seldom faster than 30 knots. An Aircraft Carrier can get up to 40 knots, but it has four screws which are fairly huge. ROAR |
|
|
| (489913) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:01:45 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by R30A on Thu Sep 13 22:12:57 2007. The entire SIRT wouldnt be an issue, you could connect to what exists fairly quickly...Of course the platforms would have to be extended again to allow 10 cars..and I'm not quite sure how Tottenville Station would work out. Grant City & Jefferson Ave Stations would have to be replaced with one median station as would Atlantic & Nassau. And then, St. George Terminal would have to be replaced with a deep level station like Exchange Place on the PATH. To eliminate the transfer obviously! Staten Islanders have been transferring for decades now...and I frankly believe there are much more important things out there than rebuilding the entire SIR mainline just to get rid of a small transfer. The 1 is already pretty busy from Chambers on north, No need to focus the SI riders on it even more. ?? One doesn't have the least bit to do with the other. Lines such as the (F), (A), (2), (D), (4) do the same exact thing already, The SAS line would likely be more sensible, a B division width line, with what will likely be a comparatively less used south end. I agree with you on this one..but with the MTA..I can see them having a majority of the trains short-turning in Manhattan and sending trains down to Staten Island ever 15-30 minutes. |
|
|
| (489914) | |
Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:03:36 2007, in response to Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 22:28:33 2007. You still haven't gotten over that yet? They're on the last leg of construction already... An extension of the old platform wouldn't have done anything to help the current situation except tear up half of Battery Park. |
|
|
| (489915) | |
Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:07:06 2007, in response to Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:03:36 2007. It does nothing other than now allow 2 10-car trains to terminate at the station. The current loop had a train simply go thru the station then strait back north w/out much delay. It is slower waiting for a train to exit a station than to use the loop to go around and back north. |
|
|
| (489917) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:10:12 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:01:45 2007. Why extend a subway line down? Why not just send teh SIRT north then you won't have to extend any platforms and all that is needed is just an across the platform transfer to a subway line. Keep the SIR and subway seperate. |
|
|
| (489920) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:13:52 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 22:41:26 2007. What is overkill in your terms? (and what is "just a borough"?)A 5-mile subway tunnel to/from Staten Island and Lower Manhattan would do wonders for Staten Island. Firstly, it would allow the transportation infrastructure on the Island to grow even further. It would lessen the importance (and ridership) of the 26 express bus lines...and would finally allow Staten Island to be physically "connected" through the subway system. |
|
|
| (489921) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Sep 13 23:16:41 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:01:45 2007. Extending outdoor platforms really isnt that hard-- Just double the length(in some of the shorter stations youd have to make them a little longer) Tottenville does bring up an issue, the solution to which would probably be to extend the platform to the north, and move the switches north as well. |
|
|
| (489922) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Sep 13 23:17:26 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:01:45 2007. Also-- The headway issue could be easily solved by alternating trains to the northshore and southshore |
|
|
| (489923) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 13 23:17:43 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:01:45 2007. A (1) extension would probably require you to extend platforms as well... |
|
|
| (489927) | |
Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 13 23:19:01 2007, in response to Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:03:36 2007. And they're not tearing up Battery Park as it is now? The entire area has construction going on. |
|
|
| (489928) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:19:28 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:10:12 2007. I was saying the same thing from the start, it was R30A that brought up the whole connect the subway and SIR idea.Whether a subway line was brought down or the SIR was brought up..both should be kept separate. And you know..I never even considered the proposition of sending the SIR up, that actually seems to be a much better idea. |
|
|
| (489929) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 13 23:19:59 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:13:52 2007. Well, it's "overkill" if you're completely bypassing all intermediate locations... it would work much better as a Brooklyn trunk line INDEPENDENT of the 4th Avenue line (with fewer stops.) |
|
|
| (489931) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:20:43 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:13:52 2007. Assuming it is $1bil per mile then how would a 5mi tunnel from SI to Manhattan be worth the cost when the city can't even fund a stubway in the busiest area of manhattan - the upper east side?There is no need to connect a subway line to the SiR. The SIR should go to the subway and then ppl transfer across the platform for the subway. And the SIR would be better off going to Brooklyn to allow riders to take teh R then chose b/w the D or N lines. |
|
|
| (489932) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:21:36 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 13 23:17:43 2007. By (1) train extension..I was looking to have the SIR remain as-is, terminating at St. George. While the (1) train would terminate at a deep-level station at St. George. |
|
|
| (489934) | |
Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:23:02 2007, in response to Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 13 23:19:01 2007. Of course it is too late to stop, but $400 mil over just expanding the platform length along the loop - which is the better option? |
|
|
| (489936) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:25:47 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:19:28 2007. It would as it would be the SIR that would be going to the boroughs less often than the subways would [not to mention if the NYPD has to check each train car b4 going thru the tunnel]. And the subway line would not be taxed by having to cover an additional few miles to connect to the Sirt + having to extend St. George to allow a 10-car train to use the station. |
|
|
| (489937) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 13 23:36:06 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:21:36 2007. That's not doing much to solve the issue, though. You still have the transfer at St. George and the lower-capacity Division A trains will pose problems. |
|
|
| (489938) | |
Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 13 23:37:11 2007, in response to Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:23:02 2007. Extending the old platform is the better option, definitely. |
|
|
| (489939) | |
Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:37:49 2007, in response to Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 13 23:37:11 2007. Exactly. which would've been what $40-100 mil or less? |
|
|
| (489942) | |
Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 13 23:41:31 2007, in response to Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:37:49 2007. There'd still be the issue of creating a new station concourse, though. (Although if that were somehow worked into the new ferry building, that would save both money and space.) |
|
|
| (489943) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu Sep 13 23:43:43 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:20:43 2007. It would be a big waste of money. And how many people on Staten Island would even support it? |
|
|
| (489944) | |
Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:49:28 2007, in response to Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 13 23:41:31 2007. Sure, they can always tunnel a corridor or 2 [from the very front and back of the train] to go into the ferry terminal. |
|
|
| (489945) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:51:48 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Easy on Thu Sep 13 23:43:43 2007. Exactly, well I can't say if it is due to the lack of trains there, but I can't see them giving up their express buses or driving just to take the train to Manhattan.That 5 mi tunnel would be useful only during the rush hours and unless it was a $5+ surcharge to use teh SIR to go thru that tunnel then I doubt it would ever recover the $ for paying back the costs. |
|
|
| (489949) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Fri Sep 14 00:26:18 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Sep 13 02:28:33 2007. I think about how successful the cross-Hudson ferries are, and they aren't that cheap to ride. The rides are shorter too, mostly. But it's a better travel experience. I think S.I. could support some quasi-private ferry services. Like, boats from St. George or western Staten Island to Jersey City and Hoboken, or Brooklyn or the airports. |
|
|
| (489952) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Sep 14 01:03:00 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 23:21:36 2007. That's insanely stupid. You wouldn't fix anything, just go from a 25 minute ferry ride to a 20 minute subway ride. For upwards of 5 billion dollars you'd STILL have a transfer which would be an impediment to whatever good a fixed link with Manhattan would provide. |
|
|
| (489953) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Fri Sep 14 01:11:03 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by WillD on Fri Sep 14 01:03:00 2007. 20 minute subway ride for a 5 mile distance with no stops?The entire stretch on the (A) from JFK Airport/Howard Beach Station..down to Beach 67th St Station is a total of 5.6 miles and the (A) does that in 11 minutes total..with the Broad Channel stop in between. Being able to transfer to a frequent subway line, without a doubt allows for a better commute than transferring to a ferry line that runs at minimum..every 15 minutes, with a 30 minute ride following after that. |
|
|
| (489955) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Sep 14 01:17:46 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 13 22:00:04 2007. -The boats are too big...The Barberi-class seems to be the staple of this..as if you ever happen to ride the Newhouse/Barberi during the middle of the rush hour, you'll probably notice that's there's probably a 1000 seats left empty. ... We have these giant boats coming in every 15, 20, 30, and 60 minutes and only half of the boat gets filled, when what we really need is smaller trains traveling back and forth between SI and Manhattan with more frequent headways. Coast Guard certified captains are not cheap to come by. Upper New York Harbor is a very congested waterway and the only thing you'd do by going to a larger fleet of smaller vessels is increase the danger of a collision either between two passenger carrying vessels or between a ferry and a freighter. I can never understand how it's now 102 years later since it began, and the SI Ferry is still running at the same slow speeds..and it's still taking a whole 30 minutes to make a 5 mile journey. Fuel costs LOTS of money. Anything above 20knots with a non-planing hull and you'll be chugging fuel like its going out of style. The Navy may have cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and even a few freighters capable of 30+ knots, but they aren't exactly concerned with fuel economy or the costs accrued due to their apathy thereof. Large fast ferries have been a very hit or miss subject in this hemisphere. They've been relatively successful in Europe, but here the Pacificats, the Alaskan Highway Fast Ferry Program, the Washington State Ferry POFF program, and the Rochester-Toronto ferry have all met their end in the past 5 to 10 years. Still, it'd be interesting to see SIF operate a passenger only fast ferry in a for-profit or at least lower-subsidy operation. I think Washington State Ferries still has two 350 seat 40knot POFFs they haven't managed to unload yet, they might look nice in SIF's Orange and Blue. http://www.evergreenfleet.com/poff.html B&O used to run 7-8 boats simultaneously during the peak of the rush hour with 8-10 headways...what I'm wondering is where did that go wrong? See above. Fuel and personnel costs. |
|
|
| (489958) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Sep 14 01:25:04 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:20:43 2007. From a previous message:"Assuming it is $1bil per mile then how would a 5mi tunnel from SI to Manhattan be worth the cost when the city can't even fund a stubway in the busiest area of manhattan - the upper east side?" Could that be one of the major reasons why the Staten Island Ferry is still in operation after a couple of centuries of existence? Remember that the major period for subway building was from 1904-1930's (with smaller extenstions since). When the plans for the connection between the B&O Railroad and the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company fell through (the Malbone Crash simply did not help) - connecting the Staten Island rail system to the subway system at any point later was going to be very expensive. By comparison the cost of running the ferry system is so much cheaper. Subway construction is expensive - note that the plans for the #7 line expansion require that one station be built as a shell because they do not have the money to complete the work. Finding $ 5-billion dollars for a direct subway tunnel to/from Manhattan and Staten Island is simply not gonna happen. The federal government is simply not going to give up that kind of cash - all pipe dreams aside. It was a pretty map, but it is not gonna happen. Another advantage that the ferry has - is time. The ride is about 20-25 minutes long. Each of the various rail options have to "beat" that time. Since the R train can take 30 minutes or longer just to get from 95th Street to Whitehall Street, and a similar time frame exists for the N train as an express - just where is the benefit? At the current cost of a new pathway (separate rail tunnels, etc) the planners are going to want to make as many connections to other facilities. (See the various connections and options in the history and planning for the Second Avenue Subway as a guide.) High occupancy lanes and separate pathways on highways increase the frustrations of regular drivers who then plead for a relaxation of the restrictions. Travel through New Jersey to reach Manhattan. Well there is a rush hours only bus that most must travel west to meet, when they want to go east. After taking that bus there's the LRT to the Path trains, and then to use the Path trains to Manhattan. Just what are the time's savings? None. For the foreseeable future the Staten Island Ferry is the best option for a direct route to Manhattan. It works, it is cheaper than the other alternatives, and the time issue is tolerable. The ferry schedule - the frequency of boats is truly another matter. Mike |
|
|
| (489962) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Sep 14 02:00:11 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Fri Sep 14 01:11:03 2007. A small amount of hyperbole on my part, yes. But then the average speed for the NYCTA subway is around 15mph, and that'd make for a travel time of exactly 20 minutes, so that figure at least has to be included as a conservative estimate. Yes it'd be a crossing of a body of water, but it would be totally unlike the other crossings NYCTA has of the East River. Since it's fairly likely they'd do an immersed tube there wouldn't be a steep downgrade where NYCTA's anemic cars could pick up any sort of speed. It wouldn't surprise me if the trains barely managed a top speed of 30mph over the length of the tunnel.Being able to transfer to a frequent subway line, without a doubt allows for a better commute than transferring to a ferry line that runs at minimum..every 15 minutes, with a 30 minute ride following after that. Except that that would result in a lot of wasted vehicle hours as half full 1 trains ran to SI. Right now figure four 5000 passenger boats, the average of two 6000 passenger Barbieri and two 4000 passenger Molinari boats operate at peak hour. That's 20000 people per hour per direction. The 1 line operating with a 3 to 4 minute headway at peak hours has a capacity of between 30 and 40 thousand people. Either way you cut it running the 1 train to Staten Island would be a massive mismatch in capacity, with trains quite likely running half empty for the 10 miles to and from SI. You can't cut headways on the 1 because the folks north of 96th need the 1 train, so you have to run more trains which are underutilized for more than a quarter of their round trip. Not only have you spent upwards of 5 billion dollars on a subway line that will be lucky to break 150,000 riders per day, but you've increased the cost of operating the 1 train by a very large factor. One only has to look at the effect Midtown Direct had on traffic into Hoboken to see the impact a one-seat ride could have on the operation. It's quite likely that with the St George transfer maintained you'd attract the SI Ferry passengers and few others. OTOH a one seat ride would likely attract passengers from the Express buses and even more than a few folks who drive. Here you have otherwise compatible operations, yet you don't want to join them after you've built your 5 billion dollar boondoggle tunnel? It's somewhat a moot point, why would you dig a tunnel past the underserved population in Red Hook and extreme western Brooklyn when that could provide much needed turnover, ridership, and connectivity that a tunnel under the bay would not provide? With a tunnel under the bay you get the SI to Manhattan market. But by building a tunnel under the Narrows and a new subway built under say a rebuilt Gowanus highway including maybe three to six intermediate stops then you get the SI to Brooklyn market as well as the SI to Manhattan market. There is no way those potential 6 stops could in no any way increase trip times to the point that they'd make riders opt for other routes. |
|
|
| (489963) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 02:28:20 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Michael549 on Fri Sep 14 01:25:04 2007. Also $5 billion I am severly underestimating the costs. Of course the Ferry is still the best option right now as well as the cheapest being free. Like it or not the Ferry is the most direct and best option aside from the express buses via the Verrazano and BQE. |
|
|
| (489966) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Fri Sep 14 02:58:53 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 02:28:20 2007. Well I think it's getting very close to that point where something has got to give. The transportation situation on Staten Island is at a critical state right now. |
|
|
| (489967) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Fri Sep 14 03:29:31 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Fri Sep 14 02:58:53 2007. You should also definitely read this document...PRESENT PROBLEMS AND FUTURE SOLUTIONS FOR STATEN ISLAND’S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM and this too... Staten Island 2020 |
|
|
| (489983) | |
Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Sep 14 06:44:42 2007, in response to Re: Get Real; Staten Island Railway, posted by Alex L. on Thu Sep 13 16:47:06 2007. I am the "atypical" Staten Islander in my area. My wife and I are the ONLY people on our block that work in Manhattan.Here's the breakdown for SI, according to the 2000 census. Number of people residing on SI who are employed: 195K Number of people residing on SI who are employed in NYC: 171K Number of people residing on SI who are employed on SI: 85K Number of people residing on SI who are employed in Manhattan: 52K Number of people residing on SI who are employed in Brooklyn: 28K Number of people residing on SI who are employed in Queens: 5K Number of people residing on SI who are employed in the Bronx: 1K Number of people who work on SI: 117K Number of people who work on SI and live in NY: 106K Number of people who work on SI and live in NJ: 10K Number of people who work on SI and don't live in NY or NJ: 1K Number of people who work on SI and live in SI: 85K Number of people who work on SI and live in Brooklyn: 9K Number of people who work on SI and live in Queens: 5K Number of people who work on SI and live in Manhattan: 3K Number of people who work on SI and live in the Bronx: 2K Number of people who work in NYC and take ferry to work: 16K |
|
|
| (489995) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 14 08:11:59 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 02:28:20 2007. 'Of course the Ferry is still the best option right now as well as the cheapest being free.'It's free to the passengers. It is not free to the City of New York, which has to pay its costs. |
|
|
| (490001) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 14 08:56:14 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Sep 12 12:15:34 2007. 'However, even if ridership dips, I'm not sure it would be a bad thing, because it means less subsidy for SIR, and more money for everywhere else.'??? I don't understand that argument. If you go from a situation where x% of the ridership isn't paying anything, to one where ridership has dropped by x% because those people now aren't riding, (a) costs of operation are the same as now and (b) income is the same as now. O.K., if you shorten the trains you may save a bit of electricity and maybe a bit of maintenance cost, but the biggest cost element is wages, and you strengthen the argument of those who will say 'No-one rides the damn thing and it loses $$$$$$ per year, close the damn thing down!' |
|
|
| (490004) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Sep 14 09:07:42 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 14 08:56:14 2007. HOWEVER, the line is making back more of its revenue. The dip in ridership would be insignificant, and everyone would be paying...not just intermediate riders. Those who actually pay would go from about 20% of ridership to hopefully 100%, with strict fare enforcement by uniformed and plainclothes fare enforcement, |
|
|
| (490013) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 10:05:22 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 22:35:40 2007. Sounds very Madridian. |
|
|
| (490014) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 10:06:07 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 22:39:35 2007. If you wanted a connection to 86th or 96th on the R, just have the SIR have an across the platform transfer to teh R then SIR riders can get off the R for the N or D.That would be very slow. |
|
|
| (490016) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Fri Sep 14 10:22:21 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 02:28:20 2007. As cool as the Ferry is, if the entire borough of SI is that dependent on a single mode of transportation then there is a serious problem. If the Ferry had to shut down for any reason then the economy of SI would come to a standstill. The NJ Transit North Jersey Coast Line isn't too far from SI. Perhaps a shuttle bus can run from SI to the North Jersey Coast Line. |
|
|
| (490017) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 14 10:28:58 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by PATHman on Fri Sep 14 10:22:21 2007. 'As cool as the Ferry is, if the entire borough of SI is that dependent on a single mode of transportation then there is a serious problem'It isn't dependent on a single mode. Many people drive to work, over either the VNB or the Bayonne Bridge. There are many express buses to Manhattan. And there's the newly established MTA bus to NJ, connecting there with the HBLR. Admittedly if something stopped the ferry from running altogether, there would be a major capacity problem on the other modes, but then that is usually true of rush-hour transport service in any congested city if you take out one mode. |
|
|
| (490019) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Sep 14 10:32:39 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Michael549 on Fri Sep 14 01:25:04 2007. Agreed that a direct rail link would have to offer significantly better operating times to be worth it.Underwater rail has one other advantage: It keeps rolling regardless of the weather at the surface. |
|
|
| (490026) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 10:54:05 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:20:43 2007. Assuming it is $1bil per mile then how would a 5mi tunnel from SI to Manhattan be worth the cost when the city can't even fund a stubway in the busiest area of manhattan - the upper east side?Or in other words: it has to serve more than SI. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
