|
|
| Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) (307131) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Thu Aug 27 03:29:25 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Aug 26 18:39:21 2015. "...So for a net total of 4 buses, you're providing direct local service from Hylan Blvd to both the SI Mall and Brooklyn...."But it still duplicates the S78 and S79. Plus, it would confuse current and prospective riders. "...Keep in mind that from all this, Grymes Hill & Jewett Avenue get their weekend service restored...." As I stated before, Jewett Ave weekend service would only get 2 to 3 passengers per trip. This is why weekend service was eliminated in 1995. Ditto for Grymes Hill. This is why it was eliminated in June 2010. And your "compromise"?! You can't propose adding additional layers service without proposing to eliminate some service. But, at the same time, the service planners don't use these routes, and are, therefore, either unaware of, or don't care about, a specific community need. That being said, there is no need to create an S58 when the S54 could operate, more efficiently and cheaply, via Richmond Ave and the SI Mall between Rockland Ave and Arthur Kill Rd. The rerouted S54 would have less route mileage than the current routing. Hence, the argument that the S54 would become unreliable falls flat. The S54, therefore, is the superior choice to make LaTourette less of a barrier between the North Shore and the South Shore. But what about the rerouted New Brighton service to St. George? I think that your proposed route via Watchogue Rd is great, but if and only if the S57 is rerouted in this area. That got me thinking: I want to combine these ideas into something that the service planners would approve. But I don't want it's western terminus in the middle of nowhere, and only a half-mile from a movie theatre. This new route, which would replace the S42, would be called the S47, and operate as follows: Westbound: From St. George, Richmond Terrace, Lafayette Ave, Castleton Ave, Broadway, Clove Rd, Victory Blvd, Watchogue Rd, Deppe Pl, Richmond Avenue, Goethals Rd North, South Ave, Arlington Pl, and Holland Ave to Richmond Terr. Eastbound: From Richmond Terr-Holland Ave, Richmond Terr, South Ave, Fahy Ave, Lamberts La, Richmond Ave, Deppe Place, Watchogue Road, etc. Yes, there's duplication via Castleton Ave and Clove Rd. But this route would serve new and different markets, a significant cross-section of riders, and would be a success from day one. Tourists in Midtown Manhattan would be able to travel to the Staten Island Zoo on one fare. Wow! What a boost that would be for Staten Island! As part of the new S47, the S44 would have a minor reroute in both directions as follows: Current route, Henderson Ave, Lafayette Ave, Prospect Ave, Franklin Ave, and Richmond Terr to St. George. (The S94 routing and stops would remain unchanged.) As stated above, I want the S57 rerouted as part of the proposed S47. This would be the best time to reroute the S57 via the College of SI. It would operate in both directions as follows: Current route, Bradley Ave, Victory Blvd, College of SI, Victory Blvd (not a typo), Willowbrook Rd, Watchogue Rd, and Willowbrook Rd (not a typo) back to current routing. Operating the S57 via the College of SI would boost ridership and reduce transferring. This reroute would, at least, pay for itself. Hence, in this case, route duplication isn't counterproductive. |
|
|
|