|
|
| Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike (514319) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (515293) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Nov 10 23:27:40 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sat Nov 10 16:56:59 2007. My proposal only involved sending the (1) line to St. George and that's where it would terminate, with the possibility of further extensions.So no, send the SIR to SF instead. |
|
|
| (515294) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Nov 10 23:28:39 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by R30A on Sat Nov 10 20:00:58 2007. IAWTP |
|
|
| (515306) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Nov 11 00:13:47 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sat Nov 10 04:13:09 2007. Yep. I hope Broadway Lion sees this. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (515320) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 00:41:30 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Nov 10 23:27:40 2007. The (1) train is already underground in Manhattan. The SIR is not-so in SI. And then that would still require 3 transfers for most coming to/from SI (Bus->SIR across water->Subway). |
|
|
| (515322) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 00:45:32 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Nov 10 21:26:47 2007. I definitely agree, even listening to this sound clip (recorded by Trevor Logan) of an (N) train heading down Brooklyn is dreadful. |
|
|
| (515325) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Nov 11 00:50:00 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 00:41:30 2007. At least you won't need the ferry. Again, no need to send an IRT train to SI, send an SIRT 'shuttle' to Manhattan instead.All that matters is the train over ferry afterall. You can't have everything. |
|
|
| (515337) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 01:16:10 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Nov 11 00:50:00 2007. Why is there no need to send an IRT train to SI? Because you said so?It would eliminate one transfer and bring it down to only two different modes of transportation (or one in some cases). Sending an SIRT shuttle to Manhattan would cost a heck of a lot more, to have to dip into a tunnel before Tompkinsville...then rebuild Tompinsville, build a subway station at St. George and then tunnel it to NYC where you would then have to build new infrastructure. While with the (1), all you do is terminate it right on the other side at St. George (separate from the SIR). |
|
|
| (515345) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Nov 11 01:30:41 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by R42 4787 on Sat Nov 10 02:42:12 2007. Apples and oranges. The San Fran Bay is deeper around the Transbay tube than the Narrows between SI and Brooklyn. This means that there's little or no need for the San Fransisco Bay to be dredged to accomodate larger ships. OTOH the NYC area's very viability as a port rests on its ability to to dredge the harbor to accomodate the ever-growing container ships. Building a cross-harbor tunnel as an immersed tube would effectively put a stranglehold on Port Newark, Bayonne's container port, Howland Hook, and any other remotely useful upland site because they'd never be able to dredge over it.There'd also be a major issue with possible interference with the proposed NJ-LI Port Authority Tunnel. Getting two immersed tubes to cross in the middle of the bay would be an incredible nightmare. So not only do you now have the useful port areas in NJ restricted to their current 45 foot soundings, but you've effectively killed any chance that Brooklyn can ever make up for that handicap. In one fell swoop you spent at least 5 billion dollars and killed NYC's viability as an import/export center for the near future. All that to give a whole 450,000 people their precious "express" subway line because they feel they're too good to go through Brooklyn. If the little whining babies on that trash heap otherwise known as Satan Island have to have their subway then lets extend the R via a deep bore and tell them to shut the fuck up. |
|
|
| (515346) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Nov 11 01:30:52 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 01:16:10 2007. Because it is a 5mi long tunnel and why do you want to fuck up the 1 line when you can run the SIRT to Manhattan w/an across the platform [well turnstyle entrance] transfer to the 1.A B division car can carry a lot more ppl plus a 'shuttle' would not be restricted by time since it runs from only 2 points just over a longer distance. You said it yourself you don't want a ferry, but you can't just screw up the 1 train as well as having a direct train connection to SI. You have to have compromises. Plus do you seriously believe the SIRT would be converted to IRT specs just so the 1 can run all the way down to Tottenville? Leave the 1 line alone and just send the SIRT up to Manhattan instead. |
|
|
| (515353) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Nov 11 01:35:46 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by WillD on Sun Nov 11 01:30:41 2007. Well that would not be fair to the R - it has bad enough headways as it is, sending it down to SI would make it worse.Maybe a better idea would be for either the SIRT to have a connection to transfer to the R from a lower level platform under 86th or such or run up Nassau and terminate at Chambers St [M would then either terminate at Essex or Broad St rather than Chambers]. |
|
|
| (515356) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Nov 11 01:41:33 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 00:41:30 2007. The (1) train is already underground in Manhattan.OK, but that's no big benefit. The SIR is not-so in SI. It's pretty darn close. And then that would still require 3 transfers for most coming to/from SI (Bus->SIR across water->Subway). The issue is you not f*cking up the IRT. By sending the SIRT under the water, you avoid f*cking up IRT service in any way due to any problems that arise. Give SIRT more trains, new trains even, and let them run from SI to Lower Manhattan. But I of course think that idea is NUTS. IF anything, the connection would be to Brooklyn, a bottomless pit (source) of money is found. |
|
|
| (515364) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Nov 11 01:45:48 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Nov 11 01:41:33 2007. Exactly, this is merely entertaining the idea of such a 5mi tunnel going to Manhattan. Any such plans to extend the 1 train to SI is stretching such a fantasy idea.If anything it should be the SIRT that is sent beyond SI. The current subways are 'barely handling their own riders' and an extension beyond their limits would really mess up service. |
|
|
| (515372) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 01:54:06 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by WillD on Sun Nov 11 01:30:41 2007. If the little whining babies on that trash heap otherwise known as Satan Island have to have their subway then lets extend the R via a deep bore and tell them to shut the fuck up. Staten Islanders have every right to complain as you wouldn't save any damn time riding through Brooklyn. You might as well keep the ferry then.... The SIR saw the second biggest jump in ridership in the entire nation because of one little schedule change that added more express trains. When actions are made, people will respond. We don't need to ride through Brooklyn if that's not where the bulk of the commuters want to go as that's what the S53/S93 and S79 is there for. And btw if you're going to talk crap about a borough, at least get your facts right. Staten Island's population is at 477,000 and is the only borough that STILL has the potential to grow further, neverminding the fact that it's already the fastest growing county of NY State. SI's population won't always remain the way it is, and can easily jump higher again as soon as a new commute alternative is introduced as history dictates: (B&O RR/SIRTOA (late 1800s, early 1900s), Outerbridge/Gothaels/Bayonne (1930s), Verrazono Bridge/SI Expressway (1960s), NYCT SIR (1970s, 1980s), Express Bus Network (1990s), More/New ferry/bus/SIR service (2000s)..) |
|
|
| (515374) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 01:58:28 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Nov 11 01:30:52 2007. How would the (1) line be messed up by terminating 5 miles south of where it is now? |
|
|
| (515377) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 02:02:20 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Nov 11 01:41:33 2007. That whole "fucking up (1) train service" is a very moot point.You people said it yourselves that the (1) doesn't see too many riders south of 14th St. All it'll be doing is terminating right in Staten Island..which is the same difference as terminating at South Ferry. |
|
|
| (515381) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Nov 11 02:09:35 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by WillD on Sun Nov 11 01:30:41 2007. You know..that was a very crude statement.Is that your response to everything you don't see eye to eye with"shut the fuck up...?" How about some of the SI residents tell You to STFU...? You don't deserve the expansive subway/bus network that you have the pleasure of using whenever you feel like it.... Where do you get off feeling like you are BETTER than someone else? STATEN ISLAND IS PART OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK..and SHOULD be treated as such..with a wide aray of options JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.. It's folks like YOU that give PEOPLE a bad name. Now from ALL SI folks EVERYWHERE...to YOU.. STFU! |
|
|
| (515383) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Nov 11 02:10:34 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 02:02:20 2007. Not moot at all. The (1) is a good line, for the most part. No reason to extend it. You want Manhattan access? Then extend YOUR line. |
|
|
| (515384) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Nov 11 02:10:54 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 02:02:20 2007. Yes not many south of 14th, but that is only one part of the 1 line. The 1 services all the way up to 242nd. It is not like the 1 only goes to 14th and returns back to South Ferry, there is a whole segment above that requires the 1 to remain as close to schedule as possible. That is why it should be the SIRT that is sent to Manhattan and not the 1 to SI.Besides you'd get your train over ferry that you want so much. |
|
|
| (515385) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Nov 11 02:11:13 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by WillD on Sun Nov 11 01:30:41 2007. Good post. |
|
|
| (515386) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Nov 11 02:12:14 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 01:54:06 2007. Staten Island's population is at 477,000 and is the only borough that STILL has the potential to grow further, neverminding the fact that it's already the fastest growing county of NY State.Congratulations, I live in the Town of Hempstead next to Queens and we have 750K residents, IIRC, we're roughly the same size. Your point again? Given the vast majority of the island has been built over, and what's left constitutes industrial property, LaTourette Park, Fresh Kills, and swamps, I'd like to see how Staten Island is going to add more people? The only way that can happen is via densification of existing properties, and given that the island is zoned for low density and the relatively young age of the housing stock, especially on the South Shore, I don't see the population exceeding 500K anytime soon. The buses and expanded SIR service are more so reactive to the growth that was induced by the last big transport project on the Island, the Verazzano-Narrows Bridge. |
|
|
| (515389) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Nov 11 02:13:25 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by WillD on Sun Nov 11 01:30:41 2007. Why don't you tell me the proper depth of the Narrows Channel...and the center of the Upper NY BAY?I know them..but I want You to tell me just so we have our facts right.. By the by..did you KNOW that the TA/MTA Wanted to build a DIRECT route to Staten Island from Manhattan...? Can You tell me WHY it never made it past the drafting board? |
|
|
| (515390) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 02:13:32 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Nov 11 02:10:34 2007. WTF kind of reason is that? |
|
|
| (515392) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 02:16:46 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Nov 11 02:10:54 2007. I would understand that if the (A) train didn't exist. |
|
|
| (515395) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Nov 11 02:26:02 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 02:13:32 2007. The kind that preserves the (1) and get your a line to Manhattan. |
|
|
| (515396) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Nov 11 02:26:22 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 02:13:32 2007. The kind that preserves the (1) and gets your line to Manhattan. |
|
|
| (515398) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Nov 11 02:32:19 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 01:16:10 2007. The BEST objective is a Brooklyn connection. |
|
|
| (515399) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Nov 11 02:34:56 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 01:58:28 2007. A lot can go wrong on a 5 mi stretch.. that is why it would be best if only the SIRT makes the trip, NOT THE 1 TRAIN! |
|
|
| (515401) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Nov 11 02:37:58 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Edwards! on Sun Nov 11 02:13:25 2007. Why don't you tell me the proper depth of the Narrows Channel...and the center of the Upper NY BAY?I know them..but I want You to tell me just so we have our facts right.. No need to debate the depth: http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/12327.shtml New York Harbor Chart http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/18650.shtml San Francisco Harbor Note that where the San Francisco Bay shipping channel crosses the BART tube the soundings are more than 30 feet greater than those found in the Verrazano Narrows. At the current rate of ship draught growth that provides the southern San Fran Bay upland facilities with many years of handling the largest ships in the world before the immersed tube BART line becomes a limiting factor. Even then at least San Fran has decent upland area in Oakland which would be unaffected by the BART tunnel and could be dredged below 75-80 feet. I know them..but I want You to tell me just so we have our facts right.. By the by..did you KNOW that the TA/MTA Wanted to build a DIRECT route to Staten Island from Manhattan...? Can You tell me WHY it never made it past the drafting board?, No you don't. You're such a raging egotist and attention whore that if you did you'd lord it over my head as some sort of pathetic attempt to show someone you percieve as Brian's supporter wrong. I'm sorry your world works in such a black and white manner, but that doesn't change the fact that a tunnel under upper NY Harbor for SI is perhaps the worst idea since a screen door on a submarine. |
|
|
| (515403) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Nov 11 02:48:10 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Edwards! on Sun Nov 11 02:09:35 2007. Calm down. Maybe read what Larry wrote above the "Post" button. You said the EXACT same thing I said in the third paragraph here without the language. I was arguing that the best option for SI is to extend some subway line from Brooklyn using a deep bore tunnel. The nearest line and thus the most logical choice is to extend the R train from 95th St. You said "The BEST objective is a Brooklyn connection," which is essentially the same thing. |
|
|
| (515405) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Nov 11 02:59:36 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by WillD on Sun Nov 11 02:48:10 2007. "The nearest line and thus the most logical choice is to extend the R train from 95th St."That would likely be my choice too. |
|
|
| (515408) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 03:07:23 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by WillD on Sun Nov 11 02:48:10 2007. I wholefully disagree. The absolute BEST objective is a New Jersey connection. At least it would be faster than the 4th Avenue BMT which is an outrageously slow line with long headways. |
|
|
| (515409) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Nov 11 03:24:33 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Nov 11 01:35:46 2007. You do realize that line extensions have no effect on headways if done with enough trains? |
|
|
| (515429) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Nov 11 08:09:55 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 03:07:23 2007. The absolute BEST objective is a New Jersey connection. At least it would be faster than the 4th Avenue BMT which is an outrageously slow line with long headways.Don't be so sure about that; I'm certainly not. In terms of more frequent service, my guess is that this objective would likely be better met via NYCT extension than via NJT extension. (Of course there are always other objectives to be met, and their priority balanced). |
|
|
| (515432) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Nov 11 08:19:42 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by WillD on Sun Nov 11 02:37:58 2007. [B]ut that doesn't change the fact that a tunnel under upper NY Harbor for SI is perhaps the worst idea since a screen door on a submarine.I'm wholly persuaded by this point, although maybe not quite to THAT level of rhetoric.... But to flesh out why it's a valid point, one needs to consider what the population of SI is, and why SI should have a direct, non-stop ride to Lower Manhattan. In essence, that should be the political deal-killer, because why should anyone who's not a property-owner on SI want to devote appropriations for such a project? The only way, politically speaking, for SI to get their Downtown Direct tunnel, as it were, is if SI pays for it; I don't see that happening. So this idea of a direct tunnel between NY and SI for that reason, among others, is simply politically dead in the water. |
|
|
| (515437) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Nov 11 08:24:06 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 01:58:28 2007. How do you politically justify, and pay for that extension of, the West Side IRT Local Line via the political process? |
|
|
| (515440) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Nov 11 08:27:31 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 02:02:20 2007. You people said it yourselves that the (1) doesn't see too many riders south of 14th St. All it'll be doing is terminating right in Staten Island..which is the same difference as terminating at South Ferry.You're reading more into that point about RELATIVE ridership than is warranted; the argument, which is correct, which we all reached consensus on because it's the truth, is that relatively more ridership on the 1 route is north of there. That's not the same thing as saying that the trains run empty south of there..... |
|
|
| (515468) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Nov 11 10:26:11 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by WillD on Sun Nov 11 02:37:58 2007. LOL |
|
|
| (515498) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Nov 11 11:08:51 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by WillD on Sun Nov 11 02:37:58 2007. Nice chart work, Will and the commentary is spot on, too. All in all a good day to be alive :Dyour pal, Fred |
|
|
| (515512) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Nov 11 11:30:15 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Nov 11 01:45:48 2007. Since this is a fantasy idea, I'd rather leave the current subways alone. If there was the money - and I could dream up the several billion dollars it would cost, I would simply extend the SIR to Manhattan in a long 5.5 mile tunnel. I would run the trains at a much greater headway than once every 20 minutes, or 30 minutes and never ever again once every 60 minute trains!. In fact built into the bonding contracts, and the authority that builds the tunnels - I'd stipulate that no passenger trains can run with headways of greater than 15 minutes 24/7/365 - period - or the city government would have 24-hours to return all of the money spent on the tunnels and the entire project. I am simply tired of waiting for that damn boat 30 and 60 minutes - when others get home quickly.I'd have the trains scheduled to arrive on Staten Island once every 5 or 10 minutes during the rush hours, and at 15 minutes all other times - days, evenings, weekends, midnight hours. Of course there is the travel time involved for the trip, but that becomes much more tolerable when there is frequent service. The main station on Staten Island would be the St. George terminal allowing connections to buses, further SIR trains, taxis, etc. The buses would have greater frequencies and fewer folk would miss their connections since the trips to Manhattan are more frequent. If the North Shore LRT or the SIR were also extended along that route, the riders would have more options. In Manhattan, I'd have a separate multi-platform terminal for the SIRT trains - that would have direct underground connections to the #1 at the new South Ferry, #4 and #5 at Bowling Green and the R and W at Whitehall Street. No more trugging through all kinds of weather and crowded streets to reach the trains. Purely for nostalgia and the tourists, I'd keep the Staten Island Ferry running - 1) as a backup to the subway tunnel, and 2) as a tourist attraction. In addition there would be regular service to/from Governor's Island after its renovation. Maybe by then there would be some decent shops and customer facilities which the ferry terminals used to have. I know that this my fantasy, and some may not agree. Mike |
|
|
| (515528) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Nov 11 11:56:50 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Nov 10 23:27:40 2007. Why would anyone want to take SIR to San Francisco?ROAR |
|
|
| (515613) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Pablo M 201 on Sun Nov 11 15:10:04 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Sun Nov 11 03:07:23 2007. HBLR to SI! Plain, simple concept. |
|
|
| (515616) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Nov 11 15:15:01 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Pablo M 201 on Sun Nov 11 15:10:04 2007. I like that idea.SI should have rail connections to both the rest of NYC and to NJ. |
|
|
| (515631) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Nov 11 15:38:17 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by R30A on Sun Nov 11 03:24:33 2007. Fine, but is there a need for a full 600' train running on the entire SIRT? If not then why extend the R train? Why not just send the SIRT to Brooklyn and transfer to the R? |
|
|
| (515634) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Pablo M 201 on Sun Nov 11 15:41:32 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Nov 11 15:15:01 2007. Also makes the connection to Manhattan from SI via NJ alot faster. |
|
|
| (515638) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Nov 11 15:49:29 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Nov 11 15:38:17 2007. Fine, but is there a need for a full 600' train running on the entire SIRT?In 2007, probably not. Once such a train begins to operate, real estate development will kick in and it will eventually be such a need. If not then why extend the R train? St. George to 95 St is unnecessarily long and expensive. Connecting the SIR to the 4th Av line south of 59th St seems to make more sense to me. Why not just send the SIRT to Brooklyn and transfer to the R? In order for the SIR to be a realistic alternative to the ferry, express buses and cars, riders should have a one seat ride into the CBDs. This might initially appear like overkill, but ridership will grow to make it worthwhile. |
|
|
| (515641) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Nov 11 15:51:32 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Edwards! on Sun Nov 11 02:32:19 2007. NO. The FERRY BOAT is a better choice than that!The (R) from Whitehall to 59th Street is 23 minutes. The ferry boat is 25 minutes. From Whitehall to Clifton via Ferry and SIR is 38 minutes. ROAR |
|
|
| (515642) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Nov 11 15:52:33 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Nov 11 02:59:36 2007. The (R) train from Whitehall to 95th is 31 minutes. Plus whatever you want to ADD to it... THE FERRY IS FASTER!ROAR |
|
|
| (515646) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Nov 11 15:55:34 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Pablo M 201 on Sun Nov 11 15:41:32 2007. True! |
|
|
| (515648) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Nov 11 15:58:52 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Russ on Sun Nov 11 15:49:29 2007. Because the Ferry from St. Geo to Whitehall is 25 minutes,and the (R) from 59th to Whitehall is 23 minutes. ROAR |
|
|
| (515652) | |
Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Nov 11 16:06:51 2007, in response to Re: SI residents on MTA Fare Hike, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Nov 11 15:58:52 2007. It would be a longer trip if the SIR was made a part of the R than if it was connected to the express portion of the 4th Av line just south of 59th St. A connection could be made to Hoyt-Schemerhorn, followed by a stop at Court St and through a new tunnel to Hanover Square.Now we've got the T versus the R for the SIR. The T would be faster. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
