|
|
| Re: Staten Island Railway (489316) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
|
| (490027) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Fri Sep 14 10:54:58 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 14 10:28:58 2007. No one remembers how Staten Island was for the few months following 9/11? The SI Ferry service was canceled indefinitely, and St. George (and the ferry terminal) looked like a ghost town. The buses were inevitably empty, the SIR had little ridership...everything was all jacked up. There was no other way to get out of the Island besides using the 3 express bus lines via NJ or the S53/S79 to the (J) train at 86th St. |
|
|
| (490029) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Sep 14 10:57:56 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:20:43 2007. Transferring to the (R) (D) or (N) lions is STOOPIT.THAT *would* take longer than transferring to a boat! A Short tunnel under the narrows but closer to St. George would enter Brooklyn around the south end of Bush Terminal area. LION would use LRV equipment, and would USURP traffic lanes on the BQE and the BBT making a loop in lower Manhattan and returning whence it came. HERE is LIONs idea: 1) Convert SIR to LRV 2) Tunnel under bay as shown (3 Tracks) 3) 1 Track = FREIGHT 4) New routes as shown. 5) the red line ties all of the other lines together in the west and brings the SI Mall into the picture, also serves as an alt route via Jersey.  
|
|
|
| (490030) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 10:58:09 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 13 23:36:06 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.A division trains are not *that* low capacity! And most routes would have to transfer at St George in any scenario. And the SIR doesn't need longer trains -- at a higher frequency, they'd most likely be even shorter. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (490032) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 11:01:59 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 23:10:12 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.With stubby trains, you might as well connect it to the HBLR. |
|
|
| (490034) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 11:05:27 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 13 23:19:59 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.)Keep it deep. Bored tubes. Have stations directly under 36/4 and 59/4, then swerve off to more direct routes at either end. |
|
|
| (490035) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 11:08:36 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by R30A on Thu Sep 13 23:17:26 2007. Also-- The headway issue could be easily solved by alternating trains to the northshore and southshoreYou've got the scale all wrong. The SIR runs 4tph local and 4tph express tops, using 300' trains. Assuming that the North Shore has the same level of demand, if you doubled the train lengths, you'd still be left with 8tph tops. It's just nowhere near enough to justify that tunnel on its own. |
|
|
| (490037) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Fri Sep 14 11:16:43 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 11:08:36 2007. The SIR only has long headways because of the ferry scheduling. If it ran to Manhattan directly, then there would most definitely be the justification for more frequent service as it would attract a lot more riders...particularly express bus riders. |
|
|
| (490039) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Sep 14 11:23:51 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 13 00:15:01 2007. Just one revision...it would be best if the line fed into Brooklyn from the Grasmere station (descending into a tunnel just beyond). The Fourth Avenue line to 95 Street south of 59 has the provisions for a third and fourth track. The wall on the N/B 4th Avenue looks like a false wall, but I am sure of the provision. Peak, the line can run straight. OFF PEAK, there can be a connection at 86 Street for the R line. |
|
|
| (490050) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 12:02:41 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Fri Sep 14 11:16:43 2007. The SIR only has long headways because of the ferry scheduling. If it ran to Manhattan directly, then there would most definitely be the justification for more frequent service as it would attract a lot more riders...particularly express bus riders.How big do you think the buses that run in the same corridor are? |
|
|
| (490051) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 12:04:30 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Sep 14 11:23:51 2007. Just one revision...it would be best if the line fed into Brooklyn from the Grasmere station (descending into a tunnel just beyond).That would really screw over the bus (and North Shore Line) riders. |
|
|
| (490053) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Sep 14 12:10:25 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Fri Sep 14 10:54:58 2007. From a previous message:"No one remembers how Staten Island was for the few months following 9/11?" Actually do remember that period very well. The ferries were not "jacked up for months", and were not "canceled indefinitely". While in the couple of initial hours/days (at most a week) after the disaster - attack, ferry service was sporadic it soon resumed regular service. And some boats were used to assist in the recovery effort. Regular passenger service soon continued after that period. I do remember being off of work for that week (the whole campus was closed), and the way to get to work is regulary by the ferry. When we returned to work I traveled by the ferry. Yes since I've lived on Staten Island, there were a couple of bomb scares that interrupted service (one late evening getting home from school was really bad). Every now and then there is the occasional "nor'easter storm" that interrupts ferry service, or a boat crashing into the pier by a sick pilot, or some mechanical issue with the boats. More often the problem concerns an hourly boat taken out of service (which really sucks) or a missed boat. In the 17 years that I have lived on Staten Island - there has been nothing like "months without service." I do ride the boats on a regular almost daily basis. There has not been a time when the Ferry was out of service for "months at a time." Particular boats maybe, the whole service - nope. Mike |
|
|
| (490054) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Sep 14 12:14:17 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Sep 14 10:57:56 2007. Something like a Staten Island subway-surface? |
|
|
| (490062) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Sep 14 12:30:49 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 12:04:30 2007. It would also be incredibly pointless.Really the only way one could justify such a service would be to provide both north and south shore service, as well as service to Red hook, and other underserved areas of western brooklyn. |
|
|
| (490064) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Fri Sep 14 12:33:06 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 12:04:30 2007. That's exactly what I was thinking. If it were connected at Grasmere..then North Shorers and Mid-Islanders would be better off with the ferry then, as there wouldn't be any time saved. |
|
|
| (490066) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Sep 14 12:35:55 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Fri Sep 14 10:54:58 2007. From a previous message:"No one remembers how Staten Island was for the few months following 9/11?" Actually do remember that period very well. The ferries were not "jacked up for months", and were not "canceled indefinitely". While in the couple of initial hours/days (at most a week) after the disaster - attack, ferry service was sporadic it soon resumed regular service. And some boats were used to assist in the recovery effort. Regular passenger service soon continued after that period. I do remember being off of work for that week (the whole campus was closed), and the way to get to work is regulary by the ferry. When we returned to work I traveled by the ferry. Yes since I've lived on Staten Island, there were a couple of bomb scares that interrupted service (one late evening getting home from school was really bad). Every now and then there is the occasional "nor'easter storm" that interrupts ferry service, or a boat crashing into the pier by a sick pilot, or some mechanical issue with the boats. More often the problem concerns an hourly boat taken out of service (which really sucks) or a missed boat. In the 17 years that I have lived on Staten Island - there has been nothing like "months without service." I do ride the boats on a regular almost daily basis. There has not been a time when the Ferry was out of service for "months at a time." Particular boats maybe, the whole service - nope. Mike |
|
|
| (490067) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Sep 14 12:38:20 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Michael549 on Fri Sep 14 12:35:55 2007. You guys are lucky the harbor doesnt freeze solid in most winters.I have no such luck where I live. |
|
|
| (490069) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 14 12:41:02 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 11:05:27 2007. I would skip 59/4. No sense serving both. |
|
|
| (490072) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 12:49:43 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Sep 14 12:41:02 2007. I would skip 59/4. No sense serving both.You're probably right. All 59/4 achieves is a little less backtracking for anyone who wants to get between parts of southern Brooklyn and SI, and they'd probably ride a bus anyway. |
|
|
| (490080) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 13:28:36 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 11:01:59 2007. Like I said, better to extend the SIR than it is the subway. You can always combine 2 SIR trains and then send them to Brooklyn. Being the rush hour run 2 trains as closely as possible since they won't have to revolve around the ferry's schedule. |
|
|
| (490081) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 13:31:10 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 10:06:07 2007. But more practical than a 5 mile tunnel from Si to Manhattan. |
|
|
| (490082) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 13:31:51 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 14 08:11:59 2007. Right for the passengers, but cheaper than building a 5 mile tunnel. |
|
|
| (490083) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 13:33:04 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 10:54:05 2007. In order to recoupe the immense cost to building it, yes. |
|
|
| (490086) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 13:36:27 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 10:58:09 2007. He means an A division car can't hold as many ppl as a B division car can. |
|
|
| (490087) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Fri Sep 14 13:37:55 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 14 08:11:59 2007. It's free to the passengers. It is not free to the City of New York, which has to pay its costs.If you want to get technical, it is only free to the passengers that do not pay city taxes. |
|
|
| (490088) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Sep 14 13:39:09 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Sep 14 10:32:39 2007. Underground has been less reliable then elevated in inclement weather. |
|
|
| (490092) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Sep 14 13:46:22 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by R30A on Fri Sep 14 13:39:09 2007. Not true for deep-bore tubes. In New York the problem has been with shallow cut and cover lines. |
|
|
| (490093) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Sep 14 13:46:47 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by mambomta on Fri Sep 14 13:37:55 2007. Good point. |
|
|
| (490115) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Sep 14 15:09:58 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 13:31:10 2007. Not really.Neither makes any sense. |
|
|
| (490116) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Sep 14 15:14:16 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Thu Sep 13 22:39:35 2007. That may be true, but if any of the subway lines were to be extended into SI then there would probably be sufficient rdership to warrant increased service on what would become the former SIR. |
|
|
| (490176) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 18:14:00 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 13:28:36 2007. Like I said, better to extend the SIR than it is the subway. You can always combine 2 SIR trains and then send them to Brooklyn. Being the rush hour run 2 trains as closely as possible since they won't have to revolve around the ferry's schedule.I'm not convinced by LRT through Brooklyn, but I do like the idea of a trolley subway from Liberty State Park to the WTC. |
|
|
| (490177) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 18:14:47 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 13:36:27 2007. He means an A division car can't hold as many ppl as a B division car can.I know. It's not as significant as he wants it to be. |
|
|
| (490180) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 18:16:34 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 13:31:10 2007. But more practical than a 5 mile tunnel from Si to Manhattan.I disagree. Something slower than the ferry is even less practical than a non-stop South Ferry to St George subway. |
|
|
| (490182) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Sep 14 18:17:45 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 13:31:51 2007. Not neccesarily. The current yearly operating cost of the Staten Island ferry is 88,087,753 dollars. If you figure that cost will increase by 5% per year then by 2047 NYC will have spent 10.6 billion dollars on the ferry's operating costs alone. |
|
|
| (490184) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 18:19:22 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by WillD on Fri Sep 14 18:17:45 2007. Not neccesarily. The current yearly operating cost of the Staten Island ferry is 88,087,753 dollars. If you figure that cost will increase by 5% per year then by 2047 NYC will have spent 10.6 billion dollars on the ferry's operating costs alone.So what would the operating costs of eight miles of subway be? |
|
|
| (490185) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 14 18:21:40 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 18:14:47 2007. These cars could hold yet more. (Nice Testagrose pic.) |
|
|
| (490186) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Sep 14 18:23:42 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 18:19:22 2007. And that is where things get interesting, because the city has slashed its subsidy of the NYCTA to close to nothing. |
|
|
| (490190) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri Sep 14 18:40:27 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 18:16:34 2007. well maybe if the tunnel is used for more than just SIR service like freight, then maybe it would be worth the costs by reducing the need for truck traffic to go thru the BQE to go b/w SI and Manhattan. |
|
|
| (490195) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by jb on Fri Sep 14 18:59:53 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Wed Sep 12 10:50:37 2007. I would imagine if new cars were in the works the free system would end. |
|
|
| (490252) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Sep 14 23:43:09 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Michael549 on Fri Sep 14 12:10:25 2007. Not the first time he's been countered by other SIers, probably not the last time either. |
|
|
| (490271) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Sat Sep 15 00:45:16 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 13 00:15:01 2007. Sweet map. |
|
|
| (490274) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 15 00:53:36 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by ntrainride on Sat Sep 15 00:45:16 2007. That's a very very long ride to Secaucus Yunction on that, though. Going via Ridgefield Park, Little Ferry, Moonachie and Carlstadt to get to East Rutherford and Secaucus? I think not.Not to mention, you ain't getting any non-FRA rail onto the former New York & Long Branch in Elizabeth. |
|
|
| (490278) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat Sep 15 01:11:52 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 13 23:36:06 2007. From a previous message:"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." I hope that you are not suggesting that a 3 or 4-car train consisting of Division B type subway cars holds more passengers than a 10-car subway train of Division A type cars? While Division A type subway cars are "smaller" than Division B type subway cars - the difference generally is not overwhelming. Go to the Transit Museum lower level at any time if you want to see some of the neglible size differences between the subway cars. Frankly it is not like the Division B subway cars hold hundreds of passengers more than Division A subway cars, they do not. Mike |
|
|
| (490283) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Sat Sep 15 02:00:43 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 15 00:53:36 2007. Well, I like the idea of a commuter rail cutting straight across Staten Island, and the locations of the two island stops make sense. Looks like it would use a new Goethals Bridge, and Carteret is a good geographical location for rail service within the region. The idea of a commuter train using the Fourth Avenue tracks is interesting. A real "metro" train service. In a universe without cars, say, rail lines would be using routes like that one.The north/south S.I. to Hoboken and the World Trade area line is a good concept too. |
|
|
| (490286) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Sat Sep 15 02:20:50 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Nilet on Thu Sep 13 15:45:34 2007. Aww, Newark's a nice place...got potential too, ba-ro. Superb local bus system, ding-donging streetcars, terminal and junction of four types of dedicated r.o.w. railroad services. Great central station too. A true Union Station. |
|
|
| (490288) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Sat Sep 15 02:48:26 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 14 12:49:43 2007. No, a station at 59th for a Staten Island line makes sense. Gives more people in southern Brooklyn a chance to get on a "super subway" to Manhattan for a larger portion of their commute. I'd say eliminate the 36th Street station instead. Also, any subway line to the island would have an effect on the ridership of the two bus routes going over the bridge in any case. |
|
|
| (490314) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Sep 15 10:19:44 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Sep 15 00:53:36 2007. That's a very very long ride to Secaucus Yunction on that, though. Going via Ridgefield Park, Little Ferry, Moonachie and Carlstadt to get to East Rutherford and Secaucus? I think not.Well, no-one would ride from end to end. But then, no-one would ride from Hoboken to Elizabeth via Eltingville and St George. There are useful intermediate journeys. Not to mention, you ain't getting any non-FRA rail onto the former New York & Long Branch in Elizabeth. I wasn't. I was thinking of using Broad Street. |
|
|
| (490323) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Sep 15 11:15:19 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by ntrainride on Sat Sep 15 02:00:43 2007. Well, I like the idea of a commuter rail cutting straight across Staten Island, and the locations of the two island stops make sense.The idea was of course to keep the number of stops down to the minimum to make the line attractive enough to riders from NJ to relieve the NEC, whilst still giving a two-seat ride to Manhattan from virtually all locations on SI. Looks like it would use a new Goethals Bridge, I don't really know whether a bridge or a tunnel would be best from SI to Carteret. (Or, in other words, where the portal should be -- the obvious choices are (1) somewhere alongside the NJ Tpk, (2) somewhere north of Industrial Av, (3) between Richmond Av and Fresh Kills, (4) east of the Mall (with the Mall station elevated)). and Carteret is a good geographical location for rail service within the region. Exactly. Between the Chemical Coast and Port Reading lines, it's possible to run trains through to a wide range of destinations. As you probably could tell from the big arrow, I haven't worked out which destinations would be best. The idea of a commuter train using the Fourth Avenue tracks is interesting. I'd pictured them as having the RER platforms an escalator ride down from the subway -- not least to keep the FRA happy... A real "metro" train service. In a universe without cars, say, rail lines would be using routes like that one. I don't think that the abolition of the internal combustion engine is necessary for this regional metro line to work. It would radically reorder travel patterns in any event. The north/south S.I. to Hoboken and the World Trade area line is a good concept too. Well, I'm not entirely convinced that the tunnel to the WTC isn't overkill, but it's otherwise a fairly obvious corridor (and good luck to the S89!). |
|
|
| (490324) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Sep 15 11:22:43 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by ntrainride on Sat Sep 15 02:48:26 2007. No, a station at 59th for a Staten Island line makes sense. Gives more people in southern Brooklyn a chance to get on a "super subway" to Manhattan for a larger portion of their commute. I'd say eliminate the 36th Street station instead. Also, any subway line to the island would have an effect on the ridership of the two bus routes going over the bridge in any case.It would be really fun to model how useful the transfers at 36/4 and 59/4 would be. It almost tempts me to finally read that immensely tedious book. |
|
|
| (490490) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Sun Sep 16 00:19:43 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Sep 14 18:21:40 2007. Ahhh. |
|
|
| (490511) | |
Re: Staten Island Railway |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Sun Sep 16 02:55:28 2007, in response to Re: Staten Island Railway, posted by Michael549 on Thu Sep 13 13:04:57 2007. Barring a new tunnel to Brooklyn or Manhattan, Staten Island will always be New York City's bastard child. There's no getting around the geography. Here's an idea: clear the whole damn island and revert the land to farms.Only kidding. Actually, Staten Island needs to strengthen its transit links to New Jersey. (I'm thinking ahead like, 50 years) Run a North Shore line into Newark Airport, re-start the Tottenville/Perth Amboy ferries (or some point down the line build a new Outerbridge Crossing with rail and extend the SIR mainline), build an HBLRT extension over the (new) Bayonne Bridge down Richmond Avenue to Eltingville. AFA better connections to N.Y.C., finally build that extension to the Fourth Avenue tracks. But location-wise it seems more efficient to look to New Jersey connections. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
