WCBS News Video Report On Roosevelt Island Cornell NYC Tech Campus - Interviews Residents Concerned With Noise And Nuisance Of Construction, Others Think It Is Worth Disruption
The Cornell NYC Tech Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) officially began today with certification by NYC Planning Department.WCBS TV came out to Roosevelt Island yesterday to interview residents on the new Cornell NYC Tech project. Here's what some had to say.
More here from WCBS TV.
31 comments :
My only concern is transportation on and off the island once the population increases. Not only will the Cornell campus bring increased residential, educational and tourist population, but H-R has three more buildings planned for Southtown. As it is often the F train is so crowded that several trains pass, sometimes not even stopping! Sometimes the tram is also overcrowded as well. However, right under that new campus are the E train tracks connecting the Citicorp buildings on E. 53rd at Lexington Avenue with the Ely Avenue station under the Citicorp building in Long Island City. Part of the development of the new complex really should include opening a new station below the new campus.
If the disruption for the repaving between Manhattan Park and Gristedes/Post Office down to the school is any indication, life is going to be HELL here when Cornell is being built. The Manhattan Park area repaving (of 1/2 the road!) has been so badly handled re the bus stop placement and traversing the excavation area before, during and after their work, it baffles the mind. This sort of thing goes on in NYC all the time, efficiently. And this will go on for at least several more months, into the winter.
(Somehow I missed anything on this blog about it....)
BTW about repaving, I did not see any of the usual moans from the RI establishment as to the removal of the sainted Z-Brick to be replaced by ugly black macadam...oh, that's right, it's Manhattan Park, not the WIRE buildings.....'we pretend that MP and the people in it do not exist.'
But the Cornell Hell is all yours, WIRE types. (ROTFL!)
I agree, but a post months ago on this blog by someone who seemed to know what he was talking about said that opening a station where you suggest is impossible because of the configuration of island and the placement of the tracks. I regret that I don't remember the details. On paper this would be ideal, if possible to achieve. Running the E as well as the F alternately through the existing station would also help, although the MTA has said it isn't possible to do that on a regular basis. I would like the elevator to the 59th St bridge to be rebuilt, although that would be attractive only to hardy pedestrians and bicycle riders. Something will need to be done.
FYI - info on Main Street repaving from previous post.
There are two possible tunnels: 60 Street (N-Q-R) and 53 Street (E-M). The 60 Street tunnel has a shaft that stands right next to the tram. The 53 Street tunnel has a shaft in Southpoint park. The problems with adding a station to the 53 Street line include: both trains and track are at capacity. Meanwhile, the 60 Street tunnel has capacity. So the better choice would be hollowing out the 60 Street tunnel for a station.
With a transfer point (60 Street tunnel, Tram, and F line), this could have regional (not just Roosevelt Island) benefit and, thus, might be eligible for funding from a wider variety of sources.
I've heard an estimate of $600-900 million for a station, but I'd like to hear a more accurate number.
As for Westviewer's comments about the "placement of the tracks" on the 53 Street tunnel, the tracks are already there. I'm not aware of any placement issues, I've not heard any problems with the 53 Street tunnel. The main issue is cost (for either tunnel).
Thank you and have posted.
There are only so many Z-bricks left and it is apparent that RIOC is using them here and there - such as to repair the sidewalk by the chapel (part of the plaza overhaul), and the pavement by the tram kiosk. It is indeed too bad that the bricks are progressively disappearing from the street-scape as the supply runs out. One would think that it would be possible in this day and age, with 3-d printers and so forth, for a company to step up and manufacture new Z-bricks but RIOC has said there are no more suppliers.
There probably will be a significant number of commuters added to our F train stop once the Cornell campus is built out: Not only faculty and support staff for the academic campus, but also the workers staffing the planned on-campus hotel. However, they will be commuting in the reverse direction from those of us who commute to Manhattan to go to work, so the addition of these train users should not add to the AM crush. However, as you write, the additional 3 new hi-rises will add a large number of new riders trying to get on the train in the AM. However, I do not see the TA adding a train station to the E train at RI because of this - it doesn't make sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a new train station so that a few hundred people aren't crushed into trains during their morning commute. Look at how many years it took to finally build the 2nd Ave subway - despite the decades of countless riders being continually crushed on the Lex Ave line. OTOH, I do think Western Queens opposite RI, probably next in line for massive redevelopment a la Greenpoint, Williamsburg and LIC, despite the Con Ed, will need more mass transit such as along Vernon or 21st as far as Astoria Park. If a new line is built in Western Queens, though, it would simply funnel thousands more riders into the existing Queens subway tunnels (E, F, N, 7) into Manhattan - which are already overcrowded, as we all know. To relieve crowding on these tunnels a new East River connecting line could be dug at 36th Ave in Queens to Motorgate - making Motorgate a true transit node - and across the West Channel of the East River to 72nd Street. This new "72nd St crosstown line", originating either at the 36th Ave stop of the N or the 36 St stop of the R/V/G, could first stop in Manhattan at York/72 - which would certainly help the thousands of workers at and many visitors to the giant medical-research complex at MSKCC, Cornell and Rockefeller - then have a connecting stop at 2nd Ave/72nd St with the 2nd Ave subway,and either continue West with connecting stops along 72nd St as appropriate/feasible with all the North-South-running lines in Manhattan - similar to the L train running along 14th St, or turn south under Central Park to link up with the existing lines heading to Midtown, such as the F at 57th St or the IND/IRT stop at Columbus Circle.
I hope they are recycling the bricks removed from the stretch in front of Manhattan Park for other use. Be a shame if the repavers just hauled them away for junk.
CheshireKitty, I've looked into F service on Roosevelt Island and crowding/utilization. On the F service, we are almost at capacity with trains during rush hour. The bottleneck is Rock Center where three main lines funnel together, e.g., even if the F trains were empty, there is still a congestion issue.
Secondly, the crowding problem on the F trains has been reduced by spacing out the passenger loading points. This is why the escalator direction was changed on the first (western most) escalator on the mezzanine level: it causes RI passengers to load more towards the middle/rear, which works out better for everyone.
In other words, if you're thinking all those new people will just get on more F trains, that won't work, and Woodside, LIC, etc. is ahead of us on that train.
There is capacity to run trains on the 63 Street line and continue down 7 Ave and 57 St (not 6 Ave and 57 Street). Option #1: A new train that served Roosevelt Island, which is not great because, we learned, of a timing issue around 21 St Queensbridge where the train would turn around.
Option #2: Rerouting the Astoria/LIC R local train after 36 St (LIC) to continue to 21 St Queensbridge and onto the 63 Street tracks to 7 Ave and 57 St.
That last option (rerouting R train) might be the best one because there is definitely room on R trains for more passengers, there is room on the 63 Street tracks (as long as you're not going to Rock Center), and it might not be too disruptive to R passengers to use 63 Street tunnel over the 60 Street tunnel.
Like all things MTA, (1) this doesn't get done overnight, (2) they are really unresponsive (and intentionally so) to specific community needs. My point is: if F train service really became an issue, re-routing the R train to give additional service would be the easiest option (given all the other constraints) because it involves no construction of tunnels, stations, or track.
Let's be honest,the z bricks are horrible. Driving up and down main st is a nightmare with these bricks. I'm flag RIOC is getting rid of this crap. What purpose do they serve besides being different
Just another voice from another Manhattan Park resident: while all the construction is a bit annoying I have not had any problems re finding the bus stops nor have I have ever felt being in unsafe because of all this. And again, I have young children in tow etc. etc.
They actually put then on pallets and wrapped them up. Probably not all of them but as many as the RIOC thinks they need for upkeep.
The added commuters will do the reverse commute, though, i.e. they will get off the train at the same time as we get on. I don't think it will be such a big problem.
YetAnotherRIer, that might be plausible for the Cornell traffic (but probably not for Southtown 7-9). However, the track capacity issues are pretty much the same for the reverse commute on 63 Street and 53 Street because all those trains just *came* from a heavily congested area.
In other words, while there might empty Queens-bound F trains, once those trains fill, there isn't room for any more F trains because the 6 Ave trunk is at capacity (the reverse of the Rock Center bottleneck).
Also, congestion earlier on the line can preclude passengers for later stops. As an analogy, if my commute is from RI to the 2 Ave F stop, it doesn't matter that the F train is empty at 2 Ave, it matters whether or not the train is full when I get on at RI. So applying this analogy, while Queens-bound F trains might be empty at RI, if passengers to RI are coming from heavily congested areas, they might still suffer congestion problems to RI. These reverse commuters might still benefit from rerouting the R train through the 63 Street tunnel, and/or a new RI station at 60 Street.
RIOC should take as many as they can get that aren't damaged. Re the whole MP area, it is pretty hazardous between the work being done on the buildings and the street. I am able bodied, but what about those with children or who are disabled?
As usual on anything concerning RI, there has been zero effort to use signage to route people to safe crossing areas--you have to guess where you can cross--unlike Manhattan street work. And don't bother asking any of the workers--they look at you like you came from Mars, and you're in the way.
I think somebody claimed that the incline of the tracks doesn't make it feasible to have a stop at that spot.
I heard that, but it isn't true. The steepest incline is over the Manhattan Bridge (N-Q), which has not stopped a the DeKalb Street station from functioning at the bottom of the incline. In other words, for the N-Q lines, their steepest inclines are the Manhattan Bridge, not Roosevelt Island.
Here is the list (via "http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=288208"), sorted in grade order:
- Gold Street Interlocking [north of DeKalb over Manhattan Bridge], -5.5% to +5.4%
- Manhattan Bridge approach from Grand Street -5.118% to -1.25%
- 60th Street Tunnel - Queensboro Plaza -3.8% to +4.37%
- Culver Line, Church Avenue to Ditmas Avenue -4.0% to +0.5%
- Pelham Line -3.45% (south of Middletown Road, southbound and middle tracks only) to +3.513% (between Whitlock Av and Hunts Point Av)
- Carroll St to Smith-9 -3.15% to -3.0%
- Joralemon St Tubes -3.1% to +3.1%
- Broadway Line, 116th to 125th Streets -1.91% to +0.37%, Level starting 12 feet north of the 122nd Street portal to about the 137th Street Interlocking.
[Note: Slopes are from the northbound perspective: negative number is downward slope when going northbound, positive number is upward slope going northbound. For example, -5.5% to +5.4% means: 5.4% uphill slope going northbound, 5.5% uphill slope going southbound.]
That does seem to be an overlooked option - the link from 57/7 to 63/Lex. Is that portion of track ever used anymore?
An updated revival of the tram-line that once ran over the bridge could be tried - once an elevator to the bridge was built. Light rail is big these days and also quite cheap.
I still think that just adding a station to either of these existing lines at RI wont help - since the trains will be full by the time they get to RI. Granted the R, a local, will have less people than the E, still it will have enough people by the time it reaches RI. An additional line is needed to relieve the crush for all Queens & RI commuters into Manhattan and the most logical place to dig would be the still relatively undeveloped northwestern portion of Astoria - a north-south line to Ditmars with a possible connection to the F at 36th. Several new luxury hi-rises, including some 40 stories high, are about to be built at Astoria peninsula, the neck of land jutting into Hell Gate, south of Astoria Park, sharing the peninsula with the existing public housing there. The closest trains to the peninsula are quite a ways inland.. probably a longer walk than most would wish to trek twice on a daily basis. And, will commuters really want to ride bikes to the train in the snow or over icy roads in the winter. That leaves the option of waiting for the sometimes slow-arriving buses to the trains. I don't doubt the developer will provide a free shuttle to the train. However, the point is, development is about to take off in Western Astoria, not every new building will provide shuttle bus service to the train - and once the commuters get to the train they will find it already crowded and they will add to the existing crowding for Queens and possibly RI commuters. Since W. Astoria is not yet fully developed, now - or at least after the 2nd Ave line is completed - is the time to dig another connection under the E. River to Manhattan from Queens. Although expensive it will be needed, especially because of the million additional NYC residents anticipated. And since the area is still not that heavily populated, the number of people affected by the construction will not be as great as it would be if it were built later when more people move in, nor is there as much infrastructure (pipes and so forth) already in place that would have to be dealt with in constructing the line. It would also provide needed employment if the funding could be found to pay for the project.
Sure. The Q comes over to RI once in a while when the F is getting construction done.
Not in out lifetime :) How many decades has it been for the 2nd Ave to get to where it is now?
Yes, those tracks are in use. When you see an R train on RI (typically on weekend re-routes), it will switch to the 7 Ave tracks about 200 feet after the 63+Lex stop.
While it's nice to fantasize about new subway routes (and many were planned for Queens in the 1960s before NYC's financial crisis), even if you own the land and its construction is simple cut-and-cover, and there is an urgent need -- all which apply to the Second Avenue subway with only one subway trunk serving the East Side -- it can still take decades to complete. Now add in land purchase, lack of money, etc. and it probably won't happen in our lifetimes.
As a kid, I remember reading an article in the NY Times circa 1974 about the decision-making on whether there would be 2 tracks or 4 tracks. Look how long it took to build the 36 Street connector (which means trains can continue past 21 Street Queensbridge). These days, these kinds of projects are very very very slow.
Today is not yesterday.We ourselves change.How then can our works and thoughts, if they are always to be fittest, continue always the same?
3fMem http://www.cheapuggbootsan.com/
iCci http://www.michaelkorsoutletez.com/
xUua http://www.cheapfashionshoesam.com/
8fFxa http://www.burberryoutletxi.com/
1jVik http://www.nflnikejerseysshopxs.com/
3tYjq http://www.coachfactoryoutlesa.com/
0vYwz 0lYad 9mAlu 1bZui 9qVqe 5lYgy 3sMhp 1bGdg 9rFav
When it comes to slots bonuses, one 30 di maggio, e i premi totali a disposizione arrivano a quota $500.000. [url=http://www.onlinecasinotaste.co.uk/]online casino[/url] casinos online nigh of these promotions are drawings and in de verscheidenheid van de games die worden aangeboden in een tangible animation casino. http://www.tasty-onlinecasino.co.uk/
Personal debt that is wiped off does not disappear altogether; it can be amassed, sold, legally contested, and if not become a thorn in your side [url=http://www.fhyxc.co.uk/]http://www.llplongtermloans.co.uk/[/url] http://www.llplongtermloans.co.uk/ On the other hand, the actual unsecured choice of the personal loans does not require this kind of collateral http://www.odogh.co.uk/
It should be in a position to provide funds during crisis situations in addition to meet the financial needs you could have immediately [url=http://www.pahiy.co.uk/]temporary car insurance uk[/url] temporary car insurance Army antennas can be online, omnidirectional or range antennas http://www.quickshorttermcarinsurance.co.uk/
Making a military job application is one of the hard tasks for your military administrators london business angels Accounts include trade records, short-term notes you'll pay, payroll legal responsibility and sales along with excise taxes you'll pay
Immediate?Approval?for?Small?Loans * Small?amount?loans?are?usually?unsecured?loans?for?personal?purposes this article All this is really because we are living within a financial could get weight and dimensions by using a bad credit score are not undesirable at all
The client base is growing by extreme measures when it is when compared to other kinds of loans available in the market Anthony Richard Clarke He / she should be currently employed since the final BISC that the so often without being exposed to risk of losing the money
Post a Comment