Staten Island (was: Re: Save the NYC Subways!)
Colin R. Leech
>In light of the fact that the R train is a local train through Brooklyn,
An extension to Staten Island could switch to the B express tracks at
36 St for a faster trip.
>and that the SIRT is a two track railroad, that it an 45-60 minutes for an
>[etc]
Assuming the major potential transit market is for travel to Manhattan,
perhaps the better soluton would be to upgrade to high speed ferries and
more frequent service. This in turn would spin off into more frequent
operations on SIRT - more like a regular subway or LRT line.
There are Staten Islanders travelling to New Jersey and Booklyn. A single
solution will not serve everybody well. Given financial realities, it is
just a question of where to invest first in improvements.
--
Colin R. Leech |-> Civil engineer by training, transportation
ag...@freenet.carleton.ca |-> planner by choice, trombonist by hobby.
Nepean, Ontario, Canada |-> "I'd like a penny." - Tom Downs, Amtrak.
My opinions are my own, not my employer's. You may consider them shareware.
Rob110178
Happen In All Likelyhood Because Of The Fact That The Staten Islanders
Dont Want Connections To The Island To Be Easy Because Of The Type Of
Personalities That It Tends To Bring
Why Do You Think That Noone On The Island Wanted The Verranzano
Robert A. Wukich
Railfan By Choice Student By Law
Mckee Vocational Technical And Curtis High School Staten Island NY
Reach Me At The Following Email Addresses
Rob1...@AOL.COM (dont expect a fast response that box is permantly
sloshed)
ROBB...@DELPHI.COM Best Bet
Michael549
once.
In one message, a writer suggested that NYC would be a lot healthier if
there were tolls on all of river-crossing bridges in NYC. We would have
less air pollution and congestion, and city finances would be better, he
said. In addition, he said that the solution is not to lower tolls on the
Verrazano Bridge, but to install tolls on the other bridges, and to use
the funds to increase transit service, eliminate two/three fare zones, or
even to lower the sales tax.
My response is simple. I truly doubt that the city populace is going to
agree or love or accept tolls on bridges and passageways that were
formerly thought of as "free". Even if the revenues are devoted solely to
the roads. The cynics will respond that somehow the funds will be used
for other purposes, for example, Off-Track Betting was originally planned
soley to be used for educational purposes.
In addition, a lot of the hue and cry over the tolls on Staten Island is
that the money raised is used to pay for services that few Staten
Islanders use such as Metro North and LIRR. This is an equity/fairness
issue, and strikes many as unfair. While there is merit to seeking the
broadest base as possible to fund government services, there is a point
where the payers feel that they're not getting what their money suggests
they should be getting.
Even if two/three fare zones are removed, the MTA still needs money to
fund its operations. How to fund the needed services is the major
question. In light of the proposed fare increases, there is a debate
about the proportionality of the higher transit fare increases across the
various services. The setting of the fare and tolls is in part a
political decision. The "resident discount" on the V.Bridge, or transit
subsidies, is all a political decision, it is just a question of who's ox
is gored.
2. In another message, a writer wrote that the isolation of Staten Island
has shaped its development, and the transit policies/politics. "Its an
island after all." (As if Manhattan is not an island??) Both public and
auto access is poorer because the island is "so different" than other
communities, he wrote.
My response. Simply increasing the frequency of ferry service would
benefit ferry riders all year long, every day. About 55 percent of island
workers work off of Staten Island, that's a lot of people who are paying a
lot more in commutatin costs (car, ferry, bus) than their co-workers for
the privilege of working in Manhattan or Brooklyn. For most of the day,
and on weekends a ferry leaves every 30 or 60 minutes. That often means a
wait of 20-30-45-60 minutes to simply board the ferry for the half-hour
trip. Add in the additional time spent taking a bus, the SIRT or the
subway to the ferry or to the final destination - many ferry riders can
spend 90 minutes to 2 hours or more "in transit". One benefit of
increased ferry service - riders would enjoy more time during the day and
on weekends to enjoy their pursuits. How many times have friends from the
other boroughs said they would visit except that the travel time is so
long?
The ferry is the only "vital link transit service" to the rest of New York
City that operates on an hourly schedule. For example, during the
"midnight hours" even Far Rockaway (a distant section of Queens) has train
service every 20 minutes. The PATH trains to New Jersey operate every 30
minutes during these hours also. Only ferry riders have to wait up to 60
minutes to board the boat, and our "midnight hours" extend until almost
noon the next day!!
Plans to provide private ferry services to midtown Manhattan, increase
rush hour service, but offer much less utility for night-time and weekend
riders. Some may claim that since rush hour service is "plentiful" (in
comparison), or it is common knowledge that "all" Staten Islanders have
cars - why worry about day or night-time service? There are important
public policy reasons to support and to make mass transit as effective as
possible. In addition, toll fares are the higher for Staten Island
drivers, than anywhere in the region.
During the early 1970's day-time boats left every 20 minutes, and during
midnight a boat every 30 minutes. During Mayor Koch's first term ALL
"midnight hour" ferry service was eliminated for several months. It was
thought that a once hourly 52-passenger buses across the Verrazano Bridge
was sufficient. (They never had to ride the buses to Brooklyn!!!)
Daytime service was cut by 1/3 to 2 boats per hour. Several months later
late night service was restored but was cut by half to 1 boat per hour.
The ferry schedule has remained essentially the same since then. The
buying of larger boats simply meant more passengers could be carried,
while decreasing the frequency of boats. Smaller boats would be used for
nights and weekends, with the half hour schedule.
According to the 1990 Census, 24,000 households, a quarter of all Staten
Island households do not own a car, they depend upon public transit. The
transit needs of these and many households do not always neatly coincide
with rush hour schedules. As the population increased on the island, "no
car" households will also increase. In light of the traffic situation on
the island should more cars on the streets be encouraged? Staten Island
is the only borough of the city to have had its population increase, now
up to almost 400,000 folks.
Some would claim that ferry boats are not filled at night or on the
weekends making longer waiting times justifiable. The fact that the
subways or buses in Manhattan are never filled to capacity at nights or
during the weekend is simply not a compelling reason to make riders wait a
30 or 60 minutes. It would be considered simply too much time to pay for
an almost daily trip or a twice a day trip.
By increasing the number of boats from 1 or 2 an hour to 3 boats per hour
- ferry riders will be able to get to their destinations quicker -
reducing the travel time penalty of living on Staten Island; connections
between subway, bus and SIRT would be less "hit or miss";, and ferry
ridership might increase. Once the ferry schedule is increased, the bus
and SIRT schedules can be increased, so that Staten Island transit riders
no longer have to wait 20-30-40-60 minutes for a bus or freezing weather,
in the blazing sun, or in stormy rain.
If you have ever arrived at the terminal 1 minute after the boat has left,
you know that most buses and the SIRT have also left the terminal -
there's no transit to ride for the next 30 or 60 minutes. Staten Island
is the only borough where during the day or night, all transit run every
30 or 60 minutes on a regular basis.
Some public officials will object to such service increases in a time of
tight budget deficits or that the "time savings" would not "amount to
much". Rarely do such officials have to wait 20-30-40-60 minutes a day,
often twice a day to simply board a boat, and then possibly ride a bus or
the SIRT after the ferry.
In light of the upgrading of the St. George Terminal, and the rebuilding
of the Whitehall Terminal to a 21st Century modern facility, it would be
beneficial to bring the level of ferry service to 21st Century levels.
Kenneth Lin
**************
CRL>Subject: Staten Island (was: Re: Save the NYC Subways!)
CRL>Assuming the major potential transit market is for travel to Manhattan,
CRL>perhaps the better soluton would be to upgrade to high speed ferries and
CRL>more frequent service. This in turn would spin off into more frequent
CRL>operations on SIRT - more like a regular subway or LRT line.
**************
There are plans afoot to do just that... institute high speed ferry
service from St. George to Midtown (via the Hudson River, with Midtown
distribution via dedicated shuttle buses).
The ferry operator claims to be able to make the St George to Midtown
trip in only 18 minutes (or about what the present ferry to Battery Park
takes).
Also proposed in a recent report assessing SI's future transit needs is
increased SIR frequency, and the idea of using higher performance
SIR railcars, timed intermodal transfers (ie. SIR to bus), and possible
North Shore line reactivation.
---
* OLX 2.1 TD * If this were an actual tagline, it would be funny.
Paul Heymont
as well as genuine insularity) that Staten Islanders can exhibit, but I do
want to point out that the "Noone On The Island" who opposed the coming of
the Verrazano was a quite small group of people compared with the huge
population that subsequently crossed it to settle on and totally change the
Island.
There's some irony in the idea that many of the new settlers were fleeing
what they perceived as "them" (black citizens) by crossing what many Staten
Islanders referred to as the "Guinea Gangplank"...
It's worth remembering that Moses' original plan for the bridge and
expressway did not include entrance/exits on the Island...
.....Paul
Rob110178 (rob1...@aol.com) wrote:
: The SI Extension Into Brooklyn Exists Partly In Brooklyn But Isnt Going To
--
==========================================================================
Paul Heymont...Mail ph...@panix.com...Voice 718/941-4548...Fax 718/462-2910
==========================================================================