|
|
| Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) (306746) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
|
| (306779) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Fri Jul 31 18:27:07 2015, in response to Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Jul 29 18:36:11 2015. My two cents ---- A Great Kills express 'terminal' on Hylan Blvd & Nelson Avenue, similar to the X2-X3-X9 New Dorp 'terminal' on Mill Road. - Express bus routes along Hylan Blvd and Richmond Avenue to Jersey City and Hoboken. Many finance jobs have moved to those cities, with more to follow. - An east-west 'crosstown' route across Staten Island serving the South Avenue / Teleport area. Tricky because Travis Avenue is very narrow and floods quite easily. - Better service to Staten Island University Hospital. Extend the S57 up Hylan Blvd to Seaview Ave & Mason Avenue. |
|
|
| (306781) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Fri Jul 31 20:53:23 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by Dan on Fri Jul 31 18:27:07 2015. Which routes would you terminate at Great Kills? I think the reason for the terminal at New Dorp is because that's a cut-off point where demand drops off. There's nothing major about Great Kills that would justify terminating buses there (keeping in mind that you already have the express routes splitting over there)I think an expansion in S89 service would be better (in addition, we need routes across the Goethals & Outerbridge) I don't think the Teleport is that big of a ridership generator that it should have a route running along Travis Avenue to access it. Maybe a branch of the S62 might work, though. I always thought the S52 should be extended to Richmond Road. (Additionally, I think the loop through South Beach should be covered by a local branch of the S79, which also serves Great Kills instead of Richmond Avenue) |
|
|
| (306783) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by B49 Limited on Sat Aug 1 08:44:34 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Fri Jul 31 20:53:23 2015. I agree with the S89 more service should be added and maybe extend it to NJ Southbound via Outerbridge. I think when the MTA agree with the S 89 idea they just left it as it is without looking into the future which is a disappointment.Also a North Shore BRT plan should also be in the study... Finally Brooklyn is also a growing direction for S.I, extending the S79 or S 93 out of the crowded 86 St terminal to at Sunset Park - 36 St would open new opportunities as well with the development of Sunset Park and more connection to the D and N lines (In addition would be a better option to the R since it would be running limited and exclusive stops) |
|
|
| (306784) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Aug 1 11:27:43 2015, in response to Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Jul 29 18:36:11 2015. One thing that needs to be considered is service from Staten Island to Elizabeth, the Amboys, and Woodbridge and Edison (Raritan Center). That would fill in a major gap in the transit network, and could actually generate new ridership that would otherwise drive.Some ideas to think of: S99: Eltingville Transit Center via New Springville, Richmond Avenue, and Forest Avenue to IKEA and Jersey Gardens, daily service. S97: Eltingville Transit Center via the same routing, but to downtown Elizabeth, weekdays only, via Bayway Avenue and Lincoln Highway. Three that would be contracted, but for which the MTA would provide the buses: X25: Staten Island Mall P/R to Metropark: 5 AM trips to Metropark and 5 PM trips to Staten Island. Pickup (to NJ) and drop-off (from NJ) at SI Mall, Eltingville TC, Arden Avenue, Huguenot Avenue, Foster Road, Bloomingdale Road, and Outerbridge P&R, then via 440 and the GSP to Metropark at Exit 131 off the GSP. The Metropark station would be served so that commuters to New Brunswick could then transfer to NJT trains. X26: Staten Island Mall P/R to Raritan Center and (3 trips) ti Piscataway. This route would have seven trips each way the same stops in SI as the X25, but via Route 440 straight to Raritan Center and loop through the center, following the same general pattern as the NJT 813 does on its trips through the Center. The trips that then serve Piscataway would then get on the Turnpike to Route 18 and follow Route 18 into Piscataway to serve the office parks there. X40: Eltingville Transit Center to Newark Liberty International Airport, hourly service, via Richmond Avenue in Staten Island and via South Are, Central Terminals, and North Area at the airport, terminating at the North Area bus stop. |
|
|
| (306785) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by Joe on Sat Aug 1 11:34:06 2015, in response to Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Jul 29 18:36:11 2015. As of noon August 1, 2015, there are 77 comments on the Advance site. |
|
|
| (306786) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Aug 1 12:11:31 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by Dan on Fri Jul 31 18:27:07 2015. What about routes to central Jersey or Newark Liberty as well? That is a transit desert at this time. |
|
|
| (306787) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Sat Aug 1 12:40:19 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Aug 1 12:11:31 2015. EWR will be solved this fall. |
|
|
| (306788) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 1 15:46:36 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by B49 Limited on Sat Aug 1 08:44:34 2015. Outerbridge service should be covered by the S55 and/or S56. They could certainly use the ridership boost.For the North Shore BRT, as I've said numerous times at the meetings, that should be heavy rail (for better compatibility with the existing SIR, and on top of that, it opens up the possibility (however slight) of an extension to Brooklyn or Manhattan. They're obsessed with serving the Teleport, and that's why it's BRT. As for the extension of the routes to 36th Street, I think 59th Street is sufficient. While it would definitely be nice (and definitely benefit me), I think the (N) express connection is enough. |
|
|
| (306789) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 1 15:53:03 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Aug 1 11:27:43 2015. This is how I think NJ should be served:S98 all-day service to Downtown Elizabeth. S55 rerouted to take Bloomingdale-Englewood-Veterans Road West-Route 440-Convery Blvd-Main Street-Woodbridge Center Drive-Gill Lane, terminating at Metropark. (Not sure if buses should loop to serve the Woodbridge NJT station, or if passengers should just walk from Convery Blvd. Probably the former). 7 day service added as well. The South Shore is in dire need of better coverage. The S74 would be routed to take Bloomingdale-Englewood-Veterans Road West, and then replace the S78 to its old terminal in Tottenville. |
|
|
| (306790) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by Dr. Casca on Sat Aug 1 16:46:00 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 1 15:46:36 2015. As for the extension of the routes to 36th Street, I think 59th Street is sufficient. While it would definitely be nice (and definitely benefit me), I think the (N) express connection is enough.I totally agree. |
|
|
| (306792) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Sat Aug 1 19:41:12 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Fri Jul 31 20:53:23 2015. The uncomfortable S89 is not suitable for what is a commuter run, not a local run. It dumps everybody out at the Bayonne light rail station. One-seat express services to the financial districts of Jersey City and Hoboken is more appropriate.I used the Teleport area as an example of where an east-west route could terminate, there are office buildings out there. I thought the S52 was supposed to be extended via Seaview Avenue / Garretson Avenue to Richmond Road years ago. It would pass by the ADA compliant Dongan Hills station. Perfect for a service to a hospital. |
|
|
| (306793) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Sat Aug 1 19:43:49 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by JAzumah on Sat Aug 1 12:40:19 2015. How? Helicopter service? Blimps (I'd love that!)? ;) |
|
|
| (306794) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Sat Aug 1 20:42:58 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by Dan on Sat Aug 1 19:43:49 2015. Teleportation from the Teleport, naturally.3-4 trips/day to/from EWR 7 days per week will start in September. |
|
|
| (306795) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 1 21:04:02 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by Dan on Sat Aug 1 19:41:12 2015. Keep in mind that the S89 provides local service within SI as well, which an express bus wouldn't do.Honestly, I'm not seeing too much demand for such a route through the Greenbelt. Remember that taking the S79, while longer, is much more frequent, and travels the full length of the East Shore. And then you connect to the S44/59, which travel up the West Shore. And then of course, you also have the S54 & S57 going through the Greenbelt already. And yeah, that S52 extension is long-needed. I'm sure there's potential riders from the hospital who would like the easy transfer to/from the S78/79 and S74/76. (Both patients and workers) |
|
|
| (306801) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 2 14:11:24 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 1 15:46:36 2015. Wouldn't it be better, though, to get people to both the Broadway and 6th Ave services? That's what you would get if you extended the line to 36th St. I'm also assuming the bus would make next to no stops along the way. |
|
|
| (306807) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Mon Aug 3 16:49:07 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 2 14:11:24 2015. Of course it would be better, but you have to consider that there would be an associated cost, and to extend a frequent route like the S79 for an additional mile would probably be fairly expensive, even if there's very few stops. |
|
|
| (306824) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Thu Aug 6 13:20:49 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by JAzumah on Sat Aug 1 20:42:58 2015. Who is providing the service, route info, etc? |
|
|
| (306825) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Thu Aug 6 13:24:35 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 1 21:04:02 2015. The S59 will remain as the local service. Express service to Jersey City or Hoboken would be for people commuting to their jobs in NJ in the same way that the current SI express routes bring people to their jobs in Manhattan. |
|
|
| (306826) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Thu Aug 6 13:33:55 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by Dan on Thu Aug 6 13:20:49 2015. JAzumah it would seem. |
|
|
| (306827) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Thu Aug 6 16:03:50 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by Dan on Thu Aug 6 13:24:35 2015. I'm just saying that the S89 provides an additional 2-4 buses an hour down the Richmond Avenue corridor, which is convenient for intra-SI riders. Converting the S89 to a direct express would lose that advantage. |
|
|
| (306884) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Tue Aug 11 21:43:09 2015, in response to Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Jul 29 18:36:11 2015. The reason the S66 weekend service was eliminated in 1992 was extremely low ridership. In fact, the net annual cost at the time, i.e., factoring in ridership AND revenue, was around $100,000 per year per weekend day!So, do you think that weekend service would be restored via Jewett Avenue in the future? Don't you believe it. I think that there are good ideas out there that could be implemented in the long term. But what about those that would be easy to implement in the short term? -- Extend S62 to West Shore Plaza, -- Divert the S54 via the Staten Island Mall, -- Operate the S57 south of Tysens Lane instead of the S76, -- Operate the S44 overnight and extend it at these times to Hylan Blvd/Richmond Aves, and -- Possible Saturday operation of the S93 (This wouldn't work unless S53 and S62 service would be reduced when the S93 operates). What do you think? |
|
|
| (306885) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Aug 12 02:12:50 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Tue Aug 11 21:43:09 2015. For starters, it was 1995, not 1992.Second of all, the dynamics are completely different now compared to back then. 3 buses (meaning, there would be three buses labeled S66 operating at a given time) worth of weekend service shouldn't be considered a "long-term" proposal, especially considering that those areas used to have weekend service. In any case, the West Shore Plaza is basically a strip mall that happened to be built in the middle of nowhere. Leave it as is with the S46. Like I've said previously, the S54 should avoid touching any part of Rockland Avenue. But I would agree that routing it via the SI Mall would be better than the current routing. For a few blocks, it wouldn't make a big difference whether it's the S57 or S76 that serves that area. I'll agree with the S44/59 combo. For the S93, I think the S53 should have its own dedicated limited, and have that run 7 days a week. (Also, restore that three-legged transfer of (R)-S53-S62. Those idiots took it away when they expanded the S93 to run middays and evenings, forgetting that people living west of CSI might want to travel to/from Brooklyn as well). |
|
|
| (306913) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Fri Aug 14 18:35:50 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Aug 12 02:12:50 2015. For the date of the S66 weekend elimination, thanks for the correction.However, based on the monetary figures (approx. $100,000 (1990) per weekend day), the S66, along Jewett Ave, was probably only getting 2-3 passengers per trip. Honestly, I don't think, especially with rise in ridership associated with the implementation of Metrocard, would make that significant enough of a dent to have any form of weekend service restored. Regarding an S62 extension to West Shore Plaza, WSP is a trip generator, the Travis is not. 'Nuff said. For the S57 to serve Oakwood Beach instead of the S76, having the S57 serve the neighborhood would be a faster trip for riders, especially for those going to/from the Staten Island Railway and cross-island. Based on the current SIR schedules, the riders could leave their homes in Oakwood Beach 10 minutes later, and still catch the same train to St. George. Though, they would board the train at Oakwood Heights instead of New Dorp. This would make bus service that much more convenient and efficient. As part of the TSM Alternative for the North Shore Alternatives Analysis, S83 limited-stop service is only feasible to operate to Brooklyn during the Weekday AM Peak and to Staten Island during the Weekday PM Peak. Based on the current S53 schedule, this claim is believable. |
|
|
| (306922) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 15 16:49:43 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Fri Aug 14 18:35:50 2015. I want you to rephrase my S66 proposal in your own words so I'm sure you're understanding it. The S66 would not run along Jewett under my proposal.I want you to tell me what's so special about the WSP that makes it such a trip generator. You have the DMV (which almost by definition, people are going to be driving there. Unless your license got suspended or something, there's very few people who would be taking a bus to get there). Then you have the Burlington Coat factory (which isn't anything you can't get at JC Penny or Macy's at the SI Mall), a little overpriced supermarket (again, nothing you can't get in a more easily accessible neighborhood), a Chuck-E-Cheeses (again, there's arcades all over the place), and a gym. Meanwhile, you're going to subject the S62 to the delays of the WSE (which, even if it's only for one exit, are going to have an impact). Aside from that, you're underestimating how many people use it in Travis. I've seen plenty of SRO buses west of Richmond Avenue, especially when school is in session. For the S57, fair enough. For the S83, you're assuming the local and limited would run at the same frequencies, and run the full route from Bay Ridge to Port Richmond. That's not what I had in mind. You can do it one of two ways: Run the S83 every half hour, and Brooklyn-bound riders would try to time themselves for the S83. (So instead of 6 buses per hour, run 5 buses per hour on the S53, and 2 buses per hour on the S83, keeping in mind that the time savings would result in cost savings). Alternatively, run the S83 to Port Richmond, and cut the S53 back to either West New Brighton (S54 terminal), or Victory Blvd, and run them each at 12-15 minute frequencies. |
|
|
| (306934) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Sun Aug 16 19:45:37 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 15 16:49:43 2015. If the S66 won't operate via Jewett Ave, what would?For the S62, I think that a WSP extension would still yield more riders than the Travis. The question is: will it maximize operating efficiency? Let's allow the service planners analyze this extension by comparing current ridership and revenue with PROJECTED RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE. Will such an extension pay for itself? The planners must also take into account those riders that would have less/additional transfers, additional/less walking time, and additional/less travel time. If extending the S62 would pay for itself and yield an overall net positive community benefit, then it should be implemented without hesitation. If the extension doesn't pay for itself and yields an overall net negative community benefit, then it shouldn't be done. But what if it's somewhere in between? Then, I think that there should be a public hearing BEFORE the route is extended, but the service planners should be MORE OBJECTIVE in this case, taking public opinion into account BEFORE a determination is made. According to the North Shore Alternatives Analysis, as part of the TSM Alternative, the S83 would operate every 15 minutes to Brooklyn during the Weekday AM Peak, as well as to Staten Island during the Weekday PM Peak. At these times, the S53 would operate every 7.5 minutes in the peak direction. This means that there would be a combined 12 trips per hour, instead of 10, in the peak direction, on Clove Rd north of Victory Blvd. Frequencies during the weekday AM and PM reverse peak WOULD NOT CHANGE. |
|
|
| (306935) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sun Aug 16 23:21:31 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Sun Aug 16 19:45:37 2015. You tell me: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zlRfMEZyDLOI.kUNROdz8N3Zc&msa=0&ll=40.610304,-74.099693&spn=0.153514,0.308647There's no such thing as "the Travis". It ends at the Con Edison plant in the neighborhood of Travis. In any case, I assume that the route it would take to get from Victory Blvd over to the WSP would be the West Shore Expressway (rather than Travis Avenue, which would basically leave an entire neighborhood isolated and without local transit service). I'm telling you, as somebody who is familiar with the area, that if such an analysis were to be done, it would show that it is not worth the additional cost (both financial, and in terms of service reliability) to extend the S62 over there. But you can feel free to suggest it to them if you want. You do realize that "analysis" was a half-assed job, right? I asked them "Since the S57A/B and S59A/B signify that those routes would be split somewhere down the middle, where exactly would that split occur?", and they said they hadn't figured that out yet. (And it is obvious that they would require a split, since a rush hour S59 from Tottenville to St. George via Richmond Avenue is just asking for trouble. The S44 is unreliable as is, and that just goes to the mall). Aside from that, they didn't consider the fact that they could significantly increase the time savings by having the S83 bypass the Grasmere/South Beach area entirely. That would save you 10 minutes right there, for everybody west of Targee Street. You don't think that would increase ridership? |
|
|
| (306943) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Tue Aug 18 00:26:57 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sun Aug 16 23:21:31 2015. The service planners usually refuse to split service, unless splitting the route would be more productive, e.g. the Bx4/Bx4A.The S44 would operate all times and only be extended, south of Independence Av, to Richmond Av/Hylan Blvd when the S59 does NOT operate. After all, having bus drivers drive to work in order to get to the the Yukon Depot is counterproductive and hypocritical. For the S83, the Grasmere/South Beach's main gripe about the S93 is that it doesn't serve the area. However, the S93 serves SI College riders. The NSAA's proposed S83 routing would satisfy Grasmere/South Beach's, as well as northern SI's, needs. |
|
|
| (306945) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Tue Aug 18 09:23:14 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Tue Aug 18 00:26:57 2015. The S44 would operate all times and only be extended, south of Independence Av, to Richmond Av/Hylan Blvd when the S59 does NOT operate. After all, having bus drivers drive to work in order to get to the the Yukon Depot is counterproductive and hypocritical.This has been a big issue that NYCT has been advised to solve for years. I would guess that the cheapest way to extend the S44 is to run it with express bus equipment between 1-4am and interline it with the X10 or X12. |
|
|
| (306946) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Tue Aug 18 09:30:13 2015, in response to Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Jul 29 18:36:11 2015. I would like to see a streamlined X17T operate every 60 minutes off-peak and bypass Arden Heights. The savings can be reinvested in three shoulder X17Ts at night. |
|
|
| (306955) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Tue Aug 18 20:22:29 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by JAzumah on Tue Aug 18 09:30:13 2015. I think that X22 midday weekday service, instead of the X17T, is far superior and far more efficient, especially for the riders. |
|
|
| (306964) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Aug 18 23:56:55 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Tue Aug 18 00:26:57 2015. Tell me where service is being split. I see an S66 running from Graniteville to St. George via Watchogue Road and an S57 running from Port Richmond to New Dorp via Jewett Avenue. Where is this "split" you're talking about?You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm talking about the general attitude of the people making the NSAA analysis. They were just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what stuck. I have no objection to a combined S44/S59 during the overnights (though I would prefer it just take Forest Avenue and alternate with the S48). So you live in Grasmere/South Beach now? You've been to community board meetings and spoken to bus riders? If so, you would know that the main problem isn't the few minutes that a limited-stop bus would save. It's the fact buses are often too crowded with North Shore riders to be able to stop in South Beach. And you'd also know that North Shore riders hate having to crawl their way through South Beach on their way to Brooklyn, and some have resorted to transferring to the S93 to bypass South Beach, even if it uses up their transfer for another line (e.g. S48). |
|
|
| (306965) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Aug 19 00:01:11 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by JAzumah on Tue Aug 18 09:30:13 2015. I will say that anything is better than having the X17 make 50 million loops around the South Shore. Later service down to that part of the South Shore is definitely needed. |
|
|
| (306966) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Aug 19 00:03:00 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Tue Aug 18 20:22:29 2015. It definitely wouldn't be more efficient, I'll say that much. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it's definitely not more efficient than branching a few X17s out there. |
|
|
| (306967) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Wed Aug 19 00:17:43 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Tue Aug 18 20:22:29 2015. Technically, yes.However, the South Shore will have to generate enough boardings to make such a service cost effective. The X17T is the cheapest way to serve the area right now. |
|
|
| (306979) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Wed Aug 19 18:41:45 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Aug 18 23:56:55 2015. ..."I see an S66 running from Graniteville to St. George via Watchogue Road and an S57 running from Port Richmond to New Dorp via Jewett Avenue."...As I stated in an earlier post, there is no need for weekend service via Jewett Ave due to extremely poor ridership. Leave the current S57 and S66 routings NORTH OF VICTORY BLVD alone! ..."It's the fact [S53] buses are often too crowded with North Shore riders to be able to stop in South Beach."... The proposed S83 would add service in Grasmere/South Beach area. The NSAA states that the Clove Rd corridor would go from 10 buses/hour to 12 buses per hour during the weekday peak. (S53 down to 8 buses/hour, and S83 would have 4 buses/hour.) If S53 service is as crowded with North Shore riders during the weekday peak, then the S83 should operate via Narrows Rd instead, but at 5 buses/hour, yielding 13 buses/hour via Clove Rd. Unfortunately, the schedulers usually refuse to use the "ahead of the curve" approach. In other words, they usually demand hard evidence that the extra bus per hour would be needed, i.e., after South Shore riders endure more overcrowding. |
|
|
| (307000) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Thu Aug 20 17:33:46 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Wed Aug 19 18:41:45 2015. So basically, you're saying screw you to myself and all the people who attended that public hearing last year. You're obsessed with providing two bus routes to a little strip mall in the middle of nowhere, but a neighborhood with 17,000 people can go without east-west local service (or in some cases, no service period).You know why the S66 had poor ridership along Jewett? Because who in their right mind would loop around the whole North Shore to get to St. George, when there's more direct, more frequent routes that take you straight there? Depending on intra-Jewett Avenue riders to sustain the route is obviously going to lead to low ridership. Just so you know, the S53 isn't just crowded during rush hour. I've seen South Beach riders get flagged on Saturday mornings and afternoons. |
|
|
| (307024) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Fri Aug 21 19:11:16 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Thu Aug 20 17:33:46 2015. "...You know why the S66 had poor ridership along Jewett? Because who in their right mind would loop around the whole North Shore to get to St. George, when there's more direct, more frequent routes that take you straight there? Depending on intra-Jewett Avenue riders to sustain the route is obviously going to lead to low ridership...."Remember what happened to the S67? This route had poor ridership during the weekday peak for the same reasons. No wonder why it was eliminated during the June 2010 service cuts. In other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul is counterproductive. As I stated, leave the S57 and S66 routings north of Victory Blvd alone. -------------------------------------------------------------- "...Just so you know, the S53 isn't just crowded during rush hour. I've seen South Beach riders get flagged on Saturday mornings and afternoons...." That's believable. However, I don't know if the S53 Saturday schedule is slated to be changed. If so, it has yet to be determined. The only way is to check the New York City Transit & Bus Committee Meeting agendas on the MTA website and hope for the best. (FYI, there will be no meetings for August.) I also think that overcrowding was occurring on Sunday mornings as well. This was why, effective June 28, 2015, the S53 went from every 15 minutes to every 12 minutes during these times. Before the service increase, based on ridership counts, Sunday morning ridership was 121% of Loading Guidelines. Now, it's 97% of Loading Guidelines. (Unfortunately, these counts don't factor those who were getting flagged.) I can only see S53 weekend ridership growing in the short term. But, as I stated, the schedulers want hard evidence while the people endure more overcrowding. |
|
|
| (307027) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Fri Aug 21 21:03:17 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Fri Aug 21 19:11:16 2015. Hmmm, and what do the S66 & S67 have in common? Oh, right, they both traveled from Port Richmond to St. George via Victory Blvd. With everybody north of Forest having much quicker, more direct, and more frequent options for reaching the ferry.Do you know why there's so many routes ending in Port Richmond? There used to be a ferry terminal in that area that was closed over 50 years ago. Do you know why there's no local route running along Goethals Road North/Lamberts Lane? Because that area was farmland until the late 1960s. So in other words, you're advocating for planners to operate based on ridership patterns of 50 years ago. Tell me your plan to provide the Bulls Head/Graniteville neighborhood with better service. Go on, I'm all ears. As far as the S83, I guess there's nothing more to say. But I think we can at least agree that the service is needed outside of rush hour, and there's potential ridership to be gained from a limited-stop service bypassing Grasmere/South Beach. |
|
|
| (307036) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Aug 22 13:04:09 2015, in response to Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Jul 29 18:36:11 2015. How about this for an idea: Make the designation of Limited routes consistent with that of other boroughs (S94 becomes S44 Limited, etc). Limited routes which follow a path different from its parent will keep its designation (e.g. S93 from Bay Ridge to CSI, S89 from Eltingville to Bayonne)This would free up route numbers in the 80s and 90s for further expansion of the bus network. S80 routes would go to New Jersey (e.g. S88 Eltingville TC to JC Exchange Place, S87 to Newark Airport, S86 to IKEA). |
|
|
| (307042) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 22 15:30:55 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Aug 22 13:04:09 2015. Honestly, while I do think that there needs to be better service to NJ, I don't think we need to go overboard with a bunch of new routes. The S88 is basically duplicative of the S89 (if the fare is an issue, the MTA & NJT can work something out). The S98 can go over the Goethals Bridge to IKEA and Newark Airport. (Either that, or have a new route to IKEA and EWR, while the S98 ends in Downtown Elizabeth). |
|
|
| (307043) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Sat Aug 22 21:20:32 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Fri Aug 21 21:03:17 2015. For the North Shore, I would use the North Shore Alternatives Analysis as a guide.I prefer the Light Rail Alternative while maintaining the S40 route, the TSM Alternative (which maintains the S40/S90 route couplet), and the BRT Alternative while maintaining the S40 route, in that order. |
|
|
| (307045) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Aug 22 22:12:14 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 22 15:30:55 2015. Okay, but at least ditch the current S80/S90 segregation and fold the limited routes into their parent routes (except where there's a significant difference). |
|
|
| (307047) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sun Aug 23 00:32:51 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Sat Aug 22 21:20:32 2015. Not good enough. It leaves many residents beyond 1/2 mile from transit service. The only route that can fill that gap would be a local route running along Goethals Road North/Fahy Avenue, and I don't see anything mentioned in the NSAA about that corridor.I honestly don't even think they noticed the gap before I brought it up to them. They were so focused on the areas along the waterfront that they failed to notice the lack of service just a little bit further inland. And it's not like it wasn't in the study area either: The study area included everything north of Victory Blvd. If they wanted to focus on the areas north of Forest Avenue, they should've defined the study area as such (even then, they missed a spot. The whole area up in the hills by Prospect Avenue is left without weekend service because the S42 is also an outdated route). |
|
|
| (307059) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Mon Aug 24 03:08:35 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sun Aug 23 00:32:51 2015. Local service, unfortunately, is not conducive along Goethals Road North/Fahy Avenue area due to the street layout and the SIE being a barrier in the area.In reference to the S42, perhaps the S44 could be rerouted from St. George as follows: Richmond Terrace, Jersey St, Brighton Ave, Lafayette Ave, Henderson Ave, to current routing. The S42 would be discontinued. The S94 routing, in this scenario, would not change, though it would have to make stops along Lafayette Ave between Henderson Ave and Richmond Terrace. And, trips would have to be added during the weekday rush. There are, obviously, pros and cons. The pros are that most people in the New Brighton area would see their service improve. This neighborhood would become more accessible to the rest of the island, and would have weekend service. (The S44 would have overnight service added whether or not this occurs.) The cons are that Prospect Ave service would be eliminated and most current S44 riders would see their travel times increase. As that I'm not familiar with the area, I'm sure that you probably have a better idea than mine. I'm all ears. |
|
|
| (307065) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by caine515 on Mon Aug 24 09:03:12 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Mon Aug 24 03:08:35 2015. Isn't the main problem with S44 service according to drivers is lack of people who actually pay on the line? |
|
|
| (307076) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Mon Aug 24 17:27:30 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Mon Aug 24 03:08:35 2015. I guess the Q30 shouldn't run along the HHE service road, then. Heck, look at the Bx5: The Bruckner is a barrier, and not only do you have the Bx5 running there, but you have the Bx8 on one side and the Bx24 on the other. Maybe we should get greedy and ask for two separate routes for each side of the expressway. One covering the north side and ending by the School of Civic Leadership, and the other covering the south side and ending at Felton & Fahy.Or, how about we be more reasonable, and ask for one route? The same way Bx6 & Bx46 riders can stay on board to travel around the Hunts Point Loop, or the same way LGA riders can ride through the loop at LGA, we can have the S66 end at Goethals & South, have a brief 3-5 minute layover, and then go back to St. George where the drivers can take their main layover. As for the S44, the (daytime) route is long and delay-prone enough as is, and should not be touched. (Aside from that, the two local stops along Lafayette Avenue serve a senior housing complex, where most of the riders travel middays). On top of that, Prospect Avenue is on a hill as well, so it doesn't fully solve the topography issue. My solution for Prospect Avenue is as follows: Combine the S42 with the S54. The S54 would start at Seaview Hospital, take the regular route to Castleton & Broadway, then continue along Castleton to Brighton Avenue (providing additional service for riders seeking RUMC and I.S.61 in both directions). It would then go up Brighton Avenue to Lafayette, then Lafayette to Prospect, Prospect to Franklin, and then Franklin to Richmond Terrace to St. George. Not only would this provide a quicker route to St. George for Hamilton Park residents, but it would also provide them with service heading west, rather than just towards St. George. Additionally, this would relieve overcrowding on the S46, and provide Manor Road with a direct bus to St. George. For the southern portion along Giffords Lane, I would create a local branch of the S79 (maybe call it the S77). It would serve Great Kills instead of Eltingville, and also run down McClean Avenue to serve the South Beach Houses and also supplement the S53. (The S52 would be straightened out to run straight down Sand Lane). Great Kills residents generally prefer to go to the SI Mall, or shopping along Hylan Blvd, rather than go to points on the North Shore. They'd also benefit from the direct connection to Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (307077) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Mon Aug 24 17:32:25 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by caine515 on Mon Aug 24 09:03:12 2015. That's hyped up, and I can say that as a regular rider of the line. The only time there's any significant fare evasion is during school hours, and it's no different than any other line on Staten Island. (It happens down on the South Shore too). The drivers don't care, because if a full load of schoolkids is waiting at the stop, it's not worth the increase in dwell time from having everybody dip a pass, when most of them get free rides anyway. (Of course, back in HS, I would still dip, but try to be the last one on the bus so I don't hold it up by dipping). |
|
|
| (307082) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Mon Aug 24 21:11:58 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Mon Aug 24 17:27:30 2015. I know the service planners well enough to know that they will not extend routes in such a way that it would duplicate other routes. Unless, of course, doing so would reduce operating costs or implementing such duplication as part of a study, e.g., the NSAA. (In fact, under the LRT and BRT alternatives, but not the TSM alternative, the S40 is proposed to be eliminated, which, as the planners now know, would not fly in SI.)So, I don't think that the service planners would not allow an S66 extension, because, as part of the TSM and BRT alternatives, they wish to extend the S53/S83 during the weekday peaks. It seems, to me, that an S53/S83 extension is a much stronger alternative, as that it would provide more service in SI, as well as Brooklyn, for a stronger cross-section of riders. For an S54 via the S42, your proposed routing would hurt riders who currently transfer to/from the western part of the S40. After all, they matter too. Taking a cue from the S66 diversion via Grymes Hill, perhaps an S54 extension via Richmond Terrace, Franklin Ave, Prospect Ave, Lafayette Ave, Brighton Ave, Jersey St, and back on Richmond Terrace to St. George would work. I know that a local branch of an SBS route would confuse riders. This is why the Bx12 SBS to Orchard Beach was discontinued after one Summer of operation. So, forget about an S77. This is why operating the S54 via SI Mall is a slightly superior alternative. You can also forget about operating the S52 via Sand Lane, as that it would eliminate service via McClean Ave/Norway Ave/Olympia Blvd. (This was done to appease the community when the S2 (now S51) branch was eliminated, and the S104 (now S52) was removed from Reid Ave & Hylan Blvd and put onto Father Capodanno Blvd.) |
|
|
| (307083) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Mon Aug 24 21:35:41 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Mon Aug 24 21:11:58 2015. I meant "So, I don't think the service planners would allow an S66 extension..."My bad. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|