Stadium Discussion

[Statler]

For those interested, more (and recent!) information on the Lower Montauk branch, which is either on or closely adjacent to the required footprint if NYCFC were to build the Fresh Direct (or adjacent) site...

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/lower-montauk-rail-study-jan2017.pdf

 

[Statler]

You could reroute or just bury the tracks underground, but that would probably add significant cost to the project. And the LIRR might not have plans to reactivate them at any point in the near future, but at least one Council Member from the area wants to see them reactivated as a light rail line - and they get the final say on land use decisions for the site.*

*Note that it wasn't actually Jimmy Van Bramer, who represents the actual site, who said that the line should be reactivated - but it seems likely he wouldn't want the option permanently foreclosed, especially if developers are going to start looking at that area more.

Politics everywhere, but I think the cost comparison would be favorable for moving a few hundred feet of tracks over unoccupied waterway versus, say, moving the Hudson Line of Metro North to facilitate the GAL site [i.e., the push back over doing the work from hundreds of thousands of MNR riders inconvenienced for weeks/months, vs no riders].

Or better yet, trading some other developmental goody to the local councilman to simply close up shop on those lightly used lines (which probably have a hefty deferred maintenance tag associated with them as well).

 

[NickFromAstoria]

Politics everywhere, but I think the cost comparison would be favorable for moving a few hundred feet of tracks over unoccupied waterway versus, say, moving the Hudson Line of Metro North to facilitate the GAL site [i.e., the push back over doing the work from hundreds of thousands of MNR riders inconvenienced for weeks/months, vs no riders].

Yeah, that's certainly one reason that they'd likely to want to pursue that site over GAL. The logistics are tough but probably still less tough than trying to cantilever a stadium stand over an active commuter rail line. (Although this is still why I'll bet they're thinking about Willet's Point - you don't have to worry about rerouting services when you're just building on a parking lot.)

 

[Statler]

Yeah, that's certainly one reason that they'd likely to want to pursue that site over GAL. The logistics are tough but probably still less tough than trying to cantilever a stadium stand over an active commuter rail line. (Although this is still why I'll bet they're thinking about Willet's Point - you don't have to worry about rerouting services when you're just building on a parking lot.)

Fair point. I certainly could see from a $/sq ft standpoint Willets being the most cost conscious of the three. But Newtown is so superior from a midtown Manhattan proximity standpoint, what with being right next to the hub of the transit system, as well as from a potential view/cachet standpoint, it might justify a higher project cost.

I'll take a stadium anywhere, just trying to cling to the dream as long as I can.

 

[NYCFCfan]

You could reroute or just bury the tracks underground, but that would probably add significant cost to the project. And the LIRR might not have plans to reactivate them at any point in the near future, but at least one Council Member from the area wants to see them reactivated as a light rail line - and they get the final say on land use decisions for the site.*

*Note that it wasn't actually Jimmy Van Bramer, who represents the actual site, who said that the line should be reactivated - but it seems likely he wouldn't want the option permanently foreclosed, especially if developers are going to start looking at that area more.

From the few people I've spoken to with knowledge of the area, burying the tracks is a non starter. That spot is already prone to flooding from storms and burying the track would make it much more likely to happen unless the tunnel starts much further inland which would be immensely disruptive.

 

[Dnigly13]

From the few people I've spoken to with knowledge of the area, burying the tracks is a non starter. That spot is already prone to flooding from storms and burying the track would make it much more likely to happen unless the tunnel starts much further inland which would be immensely disruptive.

If the spot is prone to flooding wouldn't the tracks be useless? Would be an amazing spot if it could work. City should demand some major funds for cleanup and get it done.

 

[Ulrich]

If the spot is prone to flooding wouldn't the tracks be useless? Would be an amazing spot if it could work. City should demand some major funds for cleanup and get it done.

Not saying the tracks aren't useless, but it's one thing to be on grade with 6" of water as the tracks can have drainage - it's another to have a tunnel under the water table with the 6" datum of water 10-20' above the tracks.

Also, keep in mind how long it's taken to build the short 2nd Av subway. Tunnels aren't easy or fast no matter how little has to be buried.

 

[NYCFCfan]

If the spot is prone to flooding wouldn't the tracks be useless? Would be an amazing spot if it could work. City should demand some major funds for cleanup and get it done.

Ulrich is spot on with his assessment. At least, that's my understanding of it and I'm no engineer.

As for them being useless. Kind of, they're very rarely used, and never for passenger travel. It's exclusively freight.

You also have to take into account how polluted the water table near the creek must be given that the creek is a Superfund site.

Jesus, I just realized the top three sites are:

1) A warehouse next to a toxic creek
2) A polluted piece of land occupied by repair shops for decades with no plumbing, next to another polluted bay.
3) The site of a parking garage and elevator manufacturing plant next to a highway.

None of these options scream "safe and healthy place to bring your family"

 

[LionNYC]

None of these options scream "safe and healthy place to bring your family"

When you think about it, is any place within city limits really a safe and healthy place to bring your family?

Absolutely not, under de Blasio.

 

[adam]

Ulrich is spot on with his assessment. At least, that's my understanding of it and I'm no engineer.

As for them being useless. Kind of, they're very rarely used, and never for passenger travel. It's exclusively freight.

You also have to take into account how polluted the water table near the creek must be given that the creek is a Superfund site.

Jesus, I just realized the top three sites are:

1) A warehouse next to a toxic creek
2) A polluted piece of land occupied by repair shops for decades with no plumbing, next to another polluted bay.
3) The site of a parking garage and elevator manufacturing plant next to a highway.

None of these options scream "safe and healthy place to bring your family"

#2 is actually a clean parking lot west of Citi Feild and next to a park. (Willets Point West).

 

[mgarbowski]

#2 is actually a clean parking lot west of Citi Feild and next to a park. (Willets Point West).

Well it is both. For maximum confusion we sometimes speak of them as if they are variations of a single site, and sometimes as separate sites. I'm certain many people are unaware there are actually 2 sites there close by.

 

[Gotham Gator]

From the few people I've spoken to with knowledge of the area, burying the tracks is a non starter. That spot is already prone to flooding from storms and burying the track would make it much more likely to happen unless the tunnel starts much further inland which would be immensely disruptive.

Not sure why leaving the tracks in place and building over them with some flood mitigation wouldn't work, but I am hardly an expert.

 

[NickFromAstoria]

Well it is both. For maximum confusion we sometimes speak of them as if they are variations of a single site, and sometimes as separate sites. I'm certain many people are unaware there are actually 2 sites there close by.

Yeah, the part that actually needs the environmental work is east of CitiField. The parking lot west of CitiField was supposed to be the cash register that paid for it.

 

[Rimil]

Not sure why leaving the tracks in place and building over them with some flood mitigation wouldn't work, but I am hardly an expert.

Someone get me Renya on the phone now! I may have the solution to the track problem.

 

[100G and above]

When you think about it, is any place within city limits really a safe and healthy place to bring your family?

Absolutely not, under de Blasio.

 

[NYCFCfan]

Not sure why leaving the tracks in place and building over them with some flood mitigation wouldn't work, but I am hardly an expert.

It would, in theory. It would just be an added cost that constrains the size of the stadium they can build and if you're going to spend a few hundred million on a stadium you don't want it to have a weird angle. I mean, why leave one weird set up for another?

 

[LionNYC]

Get the City SuperPAC against her...

http://qns.com/story/2017/07/13/mus...ate-wants-community-weigh-willets-point-site/

 

[Taurus]

Get the City SuperPAC against her...

http://qns.com/story/2017/07/13/mus...ate-wants-community-weigh-willets-point-site/

Not opposed to the plan if NYCFC can assist and leverage and simultaneously build a stadium on Willets West.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Or if the free housing in Willets is partially funded with a stadium in Flushing.

 

[Statler]

Assuming you could get agreement to use the southernmost route of the existing tracks, you're talking about 800 feet of at-grade track re-routing.