|
|
| Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) (306746) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (307088) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Mon Aug 24 22:36:35 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'm not extending the S66. The S66 would be roughly the same length as it currently is, requiring 3 buses to operate during off-peak times (90 minute cycle time, 30 minute headways).The S53/83 has absolutely nothing to do with the S66. The S66 reroute would cost nothing, and the purpose is to resolve an entirely different issue compared to what an S53/83 extension would resolve. If you're against the S66 proposal, it must be debated on its own merits. But since you brought it up, I disagree with any extension of the S53 westward. If you want to extend the S83 westward, I'll begrudgingly agree, but having the S53 deal with the narrow streets in Mariners Harbor on top of the narrow streets in Grasmere, on top of the general busy-ness of the route is just asking for trouble. Have you ever rode the S40? Very few people transfer from the S40/90 to ANY bus line, let alone the S54. The few people I see getting off at Broadway coming from the west walk straight into those Markham Gardens apartments, which indicates that they live there, and are not interested in transferring to the S54. Riders who live in Mariners Harbor who are looking to transfer to other routes generally take the S46 or S48. At best, maybe 1 or 2 people per trip get off in Port Richmond to take the S53, and a couple of people get off by Borough Hall to take a bus down Bay Street. (The rest of those people getting off by Borough Hall are conducting business in the St. George area). There's literally a handful of people who make that S40-S54 transfer every day. Meanwhile, you do realize that the zone for I.S.61 goes all the way up to Richmond Terrace, right? So right there, you have a couple of hundred students who could use the direct ride to school, plus all the workers and patients at RUMC who now have direct access to their homes in New Brighton and along Manor Road. I think the benefits of the tradeoff are pretty obvious, don't you? That's why I'm saying to label it as the S77, so people don't get confused. You want local service along Richmond? Take the S59. You want local service on Giffords? Take the S77. You're waiting at a local stop on Hylan and you want a one-seat ride to the SI Mall? Take the S77. You're riding between a local stop in Dongan Hills and a local stop in Great Kills? Take the S77 or S78. You want a quick ride between Grasmere and the SI Mall? Take the S79. Like I said, you don't want to create any more super-long routes if it's not necessary. The S44 runs from St. George to the SI Mall via the North Shore, and it has its reliability issues. Having the S54 do something similar, and on top of that, continue down to Eltingville via Great Kills would just be asking for trouble. And the S52 would only get straightened out if there was an S77 along Reid Avenue/McClean Avenue. That's the whole purpose behind having the S77 along McClean, rather than just sending it up Steuben Street. |
|
|
| (307092) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Tue Aug 25 00:46:05 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Mon Aug 24 22:36:35 2015. NYCT policy is running time plus 10% minimum recovery time per direction. I have no doubt that it would work during the weekday peak, but would it add a bus during the off peak based on NYCT policy? If so, the planners will not allow the S66 be diverted at all. As long as Grymes Hill service is maintained, and the S57 routing in the North Shore is kept as is.OK, so you wish to change the S54 and merge it with the S42 to become the S77. You have convinced me that the S77 should operate via Castleton Ave, Brighton Ave, Lafayette Ave, Prospect Ave, Franklin Ave, and Richmond Terrace to St. George. But, you will have to convince the service planners. They will believe that those handful of S40 transfers, and eliminating Broadway service north of Castleton Ave and eliminating Brighton Ave service between Lafayette Ave and Jersey St, are far more important than bringing better service to New Brighton. And they, generally, have the final say. |
|
|
| (307093) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Aug 25 03:10:37 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Tue Aug 25 00:46:05 2015. It wouldn't add an extra off-peak bus. I did the calculations myself and wrote up a sample schedule. Also keep in mind that there is additional ridership to be gained: You're tapping into a community with a lot of townhouses and garden apartments.Nope, you're still misunderstanding me. There would be two routes: * S42: St. George - Seaview Hospital (via the routing you stated) * S77: SI Mall - Bay Ridge via Great Kills & South Beach Remember that S70-series routes tend to focus on the South Shore. This route would focus on the North Shore and would thus receive an S40-series number. As for what the planners will think, we'll just have to wait and see. |
|
|
| (307108) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Tue Aug 25 18:29:04 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Aug 25 03:10:37 2015. The S77 is a non-starter, as that it duplicates the S78 in Staten Island. Besides, local ridership within the Hylan Blvd corridor isn't high enough to allow for two local services AND limited-stop service. (S59 Tottenville service, on the southern side of Hylan Blvd, was implemented in the late 1980's to appease the south shore communities when the S79 was diverted to the SI Mall. S59 Tottenville service was eliminated outside of the weekday peak in the early 1990's due to low ridership.)I also want to make LaTourette less of a barrier between the north and south shores. This is why the S54 to absorb the S42, via the routing I stated in New Brighton, and have the S54 operate via the SI Mall is a slightly better alternative. So, how would your S66 operate? (Remember that the S57 routing north of Victory Blvd and Grymes Hill service, regardless of route, must be maintained. And, your S66 should minimize duplication with other local services as much as possible.) |
|
|
| (307116) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Wed Aug 26 02:06:20 2015, in response to Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Jul 29 18:36:11 2015. What are your thoughts regarding express bus routings in the Annadale/Huguenot areas? I think that it's a antiquated patchwork that should be rationalized.Here's what I think should be done: X17 - X17J south shore passengers should not endure a long trip via the north shore. The X17J should be split into two routes--one would operate to/from Huguenot via Arden Heights and the West Shore Expressway, the other would operate to/from Annadale via Richmond Ave. Possible reduction of service along Huguenot Ave during the weekday peak due to the addition of the new X20. Due to the split, Arthur Kill Rd service during the weekday peak in the peak direction would be discontinued. (Current passengers would use the X23.) No other X17 routings would be affected. X20 - New route. Operates weekday peak, peak direction only. Operates to/from Hylan Blvd-Huguenot Ave via Huguenot Ave and West Shore Expressway. (I prefer that it follows the X17 routing in Manhattan.) X23 - No longer operates on Huguenot Ave and Hylan Blvd. (Use the new X20.) This way, routings in Staten Island are simpler and easier to understand. |
|
|
| (307126) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Aug 26 18:39:21 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Tue Aug 25 18:29:04 2015. It was eliminated in 1995, along with the overnight service from Forest & Willowbrook to Hylan Blvd. In any case, it doesn't matter because service south of Richmond Avenue is an entirely different animal than service north of Richmond.In any case, it's busy enough that an additional bus every 30 minutes isn't going to be totally unjustified. And consider that the S54 south of Seaview Hospital requires 2 buses on its own. The S77 would require 6 buses off-peak for 30 minute headways. So for a net total of 4 buses, you're providing direct local service from Hylan Blvd to both the SI Mall and Brooklyn. Well, you should've been able to see the route from my map, but I'll verbalize it anyway. Westbound: Regular route to Victory & Jewett, then right on Watchogue Road, continue to Deppe Place, left on Richmond Avenue, right on Goethals Road North, terminating at South Avenue. Eastbound: Left on South Avenue, left on Fahy Avenue, left on Lamberts Lane, left on Richmond Avenue, right on Deppe Place, continue to Watchogue Road, left on Victory Blvd, and regular. As stated, the layover on the western end would be the minimum 10% layover (with the primary layover being at St. George). Run-ons would start at Goethals Road North & Richmond Avenue, while run-offs would terminate at Lamberts Lane & Richmond Avenue. The S57 would cover Jewett Avenue. As far as the portion along Willowbrook Road, and along Decker Avenue, Decker Avenue is a short walk from the rerouted S57 along Jewett Avenue. Willowbrook Road riders are a short walk from either the S59 on Forest, or the S66 on Watchogue. Keep in mind that from all this, Grymes Hill & Jewett Avenue get their weekend service restored. The new S66 would generate enough ridership to justify the 3 buses it would take to provide weekend service. Now, if you're going to insist that service along Willowbrook Road and Decker Avenue be maintained (and Decker Avenue especially is a really poor argument, considering that it's a block away from Port Richmond Avenue on top of being close to Jewett Avenue), I'll propose a compromise. S58 from Hylan & Richmond to Port Richmond via Giffords Lane & Willowbrook Road. Northbound: Start from Hylan & Richmond, take Hylan Blvd to Nelson Avenue to Brower Court to Giffords Lane to Arthur Kill Road to the ETC to Richmond Avenue to Platinum Avenue to Marsh Avenue to Richmond Hill Road to Forest Hill Road to Woolley Avenue to Watchogue Road to Willowbrook Road to Forest Avenue to Decker Avenue to Post Avenue to Port Richmond Avenue. Southbound: Same route in reverse. This would also address the lack of service between both sides of LaTourette, which means there would be absolutely no reason to send the S54 past Seaview Hospital. |
|
|
| (307127) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Aug 26 19:45:28 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Wed Aug 26 02:06:20 2015. I agree with the X17J being split in the manner you described.The X20 is unnecessary. Especially with the X17J being restructured, you don't want to sabotage the ridership on the southern part by having all the Huguenot Avenue people take the X20. And then on top of that, the X24 already competes for riders along Arden Avenue. I will say that Huguenot Avenue does need a local bus route, and I would do that by simply having the S59 go to Tottenville full-time, and sending the S78 to Arden & Arthur Kill. (Turnaround would be to make a left on Arden, left on the WSE service road, and then a left onto Arthur Kill Road to come back around on Huguenot Avenue). The S78 would go down Luten Avenue to serve Tottenville High School. To cover the portion between Bricktown & Tottenville, I would have the S74 travel via Woodrow-Bloomingdale-Englewood-Veterans Road West-Arthur Kill Road, and then turnaround at the old terminal. Service along the part of Arthur Kill west of Bloomingdale is literally just going through the woods, aside from the portion by the Tides development (which has very expensive townhouses and mandates that the residents have a car. I know somebody who lives there). |
|
|
| (307131) | |
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. |
|
|
| (307137) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Thu Aug 27 10:08:53 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Wed Aug 26 02:06:20 2015. The X17J should be split into two routes--one would operate to/from Huguenot via Arden Heights and the West Shore Expressway, the other would operate to/from Annadale via Richmond Ave.Long overdue and it seems NYCT is moving in this direction by starting X17Js at ETC. The next logical step is to reverse the southern portion and operate it every 15-20 minutes. The planners take baby steps with these things. Old Academy had the best route structure in the area and NYCT should restructure the entire area and hand off one or two routes to Academy so that the network is integrated. Right now, the X21 is quietly carrying the X23/X24 overflow. The services should be planned together to reduce travel time and costs. I want the X17T out of the Arden Heights loop. This isn't a serious service until they do that. They can redeploy the savings into three evening trips spaced one hour apart. |
|
|
| (307145) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Thu Aug 27 21:26:07 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Thu Aug 27 03:29:25 2015. Jewett Avenue would be the corridor being traveled by all the people traveling to Forest Avenue and points north. Buses would be carrying a lot more than 2-3 people, I'll tell you that much. And also consider that the whole reason Grymes Hill ridership was so low was because it forced everybody to transfer (and backtrack if they wanted access to St. George). Weekday ridership from Grymes Hill residents doubled when the S66 replaced the S60. I'm sure the effect would be even more pronounced on weekends considering how ferry-oriented the ridership is."Layers"?? What area is getting layers of service? The same Richmond Avenue corridor that you want the S54 to run down? A couple of blocks of Forest Hill Road that happen to be near a major college campus? And what is your S57 doing if not "layering" itself onto Victory Blvd? An extra 2 buses per hour down Hylan Blvd is a big no-no, but an extra two buses per hour down Victory Blvd is such a great idea? The S54 is being extended to St. George via New Brighton. How can it possibly be any shorter than it is now? What tourists are going to bother schlepping out to the Staten Island Zoo when the Bronx Zoo is much bigger and offers much more? And any tourists who want to save a fare can either walk from the S48, or take the (R) train to the S53 (which would have the S83 running as well). The purpose of terminating at South Avenue is to make it easier for people who live on the opposite side of the expressway. People on the north side of the SIE have easy access to the ferry, and people on the south side of the SIE have easy access coming home from the ferry. |
|
|
| (307147) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Thu Aug 27 22:44:48 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Thu Aug 27 21:26:07 2015. As I stated before with putting the S57 on Jewett Ave, robbing Peter to pay Paul is counterproductive.Besides, the service planners don't want it. And they call the shots. The duplication claim will be used as to why there would be no S77. Yes, it's hypocritical. But, again, they call the shots. You have to propose ideas that the service planners would like, not what we, as transit advocates, would like--to serve new markets, and service opportunities that would, most likely, pay for itself without the elimination of essential corridors. Currently, the S54 meanders mid-Island with little purpose other than to duplicate the S57. The S54 via the SI Mall and Richmond Ave between Rockland Ave and Arthur Kill Rd would boost ridership on the S54, as that it would serve a neglected market with the possible restoration of weekend service. Believe me, the S57 and S74, in Richmondtown, could handle the relatively few riders in this area without changing the bus schedules, as that the empty seats on buses would be filled. In other words, high seat turnover makes routes more productive and efficient. Which make this simple reroute the superior choice. But I don't want us to compare. I want others to compare, and let them decide if the rerouted S54 would mean Better Service for Staten Island. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The surrounding communities near the College of SI actually want a cross-island route to serve it. But the service planners balked, claiming that bus service would have to be removed from Watchogue Rd. Doing so is what the neighborhood of Westerleigh didn't want; the proposal was dropped. My proposed S47 would allow the S57 to be diverted without the elimination of Watchogue Rd service. In this scenario, everybody wins by making the borough more accessible by mass transit. You would be surprised as to how many tourists want to go to the Staten Island Zoo. But they don't, because it's relatively inaccessible by mass transit. My proposed S47 corrects this injustice. The western terminus of your proposed Watchogue Rd route, at South Ave-Goethals Rd North, is in the middle of nowhere. My proposed S47 allows for multiple transfer opportunities in this area. And that's why my proposed S47 is one route that is far more superior than all of the routes that you are proposing combined. But I don't want us to compare. I want others to compare, and let them decide if the S47 would mean Better Service for Staten Island. |
|
|
| (307159) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Fri Aug 28 12:28:03 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Thu Aug 27 22:44:48 2015. Why does the S54 operate the way it does mid-island?It is my opinion that when the service planners decided to restructure Staten Island bus service in the mid 1980's, they wanted the S54 to operate via the SI Mall, as that this would be a bigger trip-generator than Richmondtown. But Rockland Ave between Brielle Ave and Forest Hill Rd, at the time, didn't exist. When this part of Rockland Ave was finally created in the late 1980's, NYCT largely forgot about the S54 routing. It is time to correct it. |
|
|
| (307167) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 29 01:00:24 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Thu Aug 27 22:44:48 2015. The surrounding communities near the College of SI actually want a cross-island route to serve it.I live in one of those neighborhoods, and there already is a cross-island route serving us: The S59. In any case, if you were so familiar with what those neighborhoods want, you'd know that Willowbrook Road south of Watchogue is a narrow residential street. In fact, they've removed the double yellow line that used to be there. I highly doubt those people would be too happy about a bus route running down their street (especially in both directions). And on top of that, Willowbrook Road north of Watchogue lines up with Stewart Avenue south of Watchogue, which is again, a narrow residential street. The only street wide enough to accommodate bus service is Woolley Avenue. And for the amount of trouble to detour the S57 all the way to CSI and back, you might as well create a new route to cover the Willowbrook Road corridor (which, as I said before isn't even that crucial considering there's many other routes in the general area). And on top of that, you're going to have all the riders going to Port Richmond (or for that matter, Westerleigh) having to sit through that long CSI detour. And do you realize that the wait to turn left into CSI can back up all the way down to North Gannon Avenue, right? So you could easily be adding 20 minute to the trip of those in Westerleigh & Port Richmond. My original Watchogue Road route did terminate in Arlington, so your idea is nothing new. But after some thought, I decided that it would be better for Bulls Head/Graniteville residents, and more efficient for the MTA to have the same configuration that they have for the LGA routes, where the buses take their primary layover at the opposite end. |
|
|
| (307168) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Sat Aug 29 02:12:26 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 29 01:00:24 2015. The S59 does not serve the College of SI. The only bus routes that serve the college are the S62/92 and the S93.For the Watchogue Rd route in the Bulls Head/Graniteville area, point taken. NYCT could have its western terminus at South Rd-Goethals Rd N, with a possible extension at a later date, depending on ridership. BTW, what are your views on the current X12/42 routing? Do you think that it should be split in SI during the weekday peak, with west-of-Richmond-Ave service heading directly onto the SIE? Do you think that NYCT should add service during the midday weekday? |
|
|
| (307169) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 29 04:19:44 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Sat Aug 29 02:12:26 2015. So then you shouldn't be mentioning the surrounding the communities, if your concern is serving the college itself.In any case, I stand by my point that it would not be worth the time penalty for S57 riders on the northern portion of the route. Not to mention the potential for delays for riders on all sides of the route. A southbound bus gets stuck in the 8AM traffic heading into the gate, and boom, anybody headed to New Dorp is screwed. An issue that has irked me and many riders for a long time is the lack of an eastbound stop at Victory & Bradley. Riders coming from the S62/92/93, looking to transfer to the S57 have to go all the way to Jewett and walk back. That should not be the case. As for the X12/42, rush hour service is fine as is. There's not enough riders west of Richmond to sustain the route on their own. If you need super-express service from Mariners Harbor or Graniteville, take the X17 or X30. For middays, I wouldn't run the X12, but I would consider it reasonable to send alternate X10s to Mariners Harbor. Not saying it should necessarily happen, but I wouldn't be against it. |
|
|
| (307179) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Sat Aug 29 22:09:23 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 29 04:19:44 2015. For the S57, NYCT and NYCDOT have to partner to minimize delays along Victory Blvd, in general. They should have traffic cops directing traffic at College of SI entrance, i.e., if the NYPD doesn't already do this. Nonetheless, S57 service would be a boon for cross-island riders headed for the College of SI.I agree that there should have been a northbound/eastbound S57 bus stop at Victory & Bradley since the S57 was created. Remember that NYCT and NYCDOT don't act unless there's constant and consistent pressure, e.g., the B44 SBS stops added for Gates Ave and Ave L. And don't let up until the you and the riders win! For the X12/42 split, point taken. I would prefer adding X12 midday weekday service over sending alternate X10's to/from Mariner's Harbor, as that this service pattern may be confusing to riders. But, the latter could be done, initially, in order to gauge ridership. Let's see what happens. |
|
|
| (307180) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 29 23:01:41 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Sat Aug 29 22:09:23 2015. They already have a smart light at the CSI entrance, which adjusts the light cycles based on the traffic flows. While it certainly does help, there's only so much you can do. In the AM rush, you have a ton of cars heading eastbound to the SIE, while there's a ton of cars headed westbound turning into CSI.I'm telling you this as somebody who would benefit from rerouting the S57 to CSI: It's not needed. My little brother went to Susan Wagner HS, and the S57 would've been a direct ride. But how much good does it do if he's standing at the stop for 10 minutes watching the S57 wait to turn into the CSI loop (while an S92 or S93 passes by in the meantime, headed towards Jewett where he would also have the option of the S61)? And remember that you're screwing over everybody in Westerleigh and Port Richmond who isn't heading to CSI. Even with no traffic, they still have to sit through a 10 minute detour. And I'm referring to the eastbound stop for the S62/92/93. The S57 already has stops in both directions. The problem is that the MTA officials will lie to your face and tell you they'll look into it, and then ignore your follow-up calls. For the X10/12, point taken. |
|
|
| (307181) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Sun Aug 30 00:29:29 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Aug 29 23:01:41 2015. "...The problem is that the MTA officials will lie to your face and tell you they'll look into it, and then ignore your follow-up calls...."So true. |
|
|
| (307183) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sun Aug 30 06:03:40 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Sun Aug 30 00:29:29 2015. Definitely.In any case, I assume there's nothing more to be said about be said about the S57. Now what do you think about the proposal to reroute the S78 down Huguenot Avenue? There is a very high density of townhouses in Arden Heights up along Huguenot Avenue, which means there's a lot of high school students trying to get down to Tottenville High School, as well as potentially some commuters who would like to use the SIR at Huguenot . To reiterate, the S59 would be extended to Tottenville full-time, the S78 would be rerouted to Arden & Arthur Kill full-time, and the S74 would be rerouted to take Woodrow-Bloomingdale-Englewood-Veterans Road West-Arthur Kill Road to terminate in Tottenville (this would also allow stops to be placed on Veterans Road West for easy access to the South Shore Commons). For service along the northern part of Arthur Kill Road, limited S74 trips would be sent down to provide basic coverage. I'm not sure whether extending the ETC short-turns (which generally operate every 30 minutes for much of the day) would be overkill for such a lightly-used portion, though they do provide the added benefit of adding more frequent service in Arden Heights. |
|
|
| (307202) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Sun Aug 30 21:40:25 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sun Aug 30 06:03:40 2015. That whole area, generally, hates trunk-line local bus service. In fact, they hated the S74/84 diversion off of Arthur Kill Rd onto Bloomingdale Rd, Woodrow Rd, and Rossville Ave. And they still hate it today.How virulent is their hatred for trunk-line local bus service? Rumor has it that it was neighborhood residents who took down S74/84 signs soon after the change was implemented. These people were never arrested and brought to justice. But, these same residents demand express service like they have holes in their heads. Which means that they tolerate the S55 and S56. Some think that the S55 should no longer operate on Bloomingdale Rd north of Englewood Av. They prefer the S55 use this street and Veterans Rd West to serve the Bricktown Mall instead. But the service planners have balked, citing coverage in the area. The service planners also balked at the idea of the S55 simply serving the Bricktown Mall, leaving the rest of the routing as is, citing distance and the increase in operating costs. However, with this study, you never know what the service planners would do. They may change their minds. In other words, I'm afraid to propose anything that would bring trunk-line local bus service into the area, because I don't want to be booed out of the neighborhood. And the residents prefer it that way. |
|
|
| (307204) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Mon Aug 31 00:16:43 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Sun Aug 30 21:40:25 2015. And this happened 20 years ago. Around the time I was born, so literally, an entire generation has come into existence since then. On top of that, the area has literally doubled in population since then with all the construction of new townhouses.And you know what else people hated? The S61 being created back in the 1980s, because they wanted to keep themselves isolated from the North Shore. And yet you look at the routes today, and they get decent ridership, consisting primarily of local residents. In my endeavors to get better bus service in Bulls Head/Graniteville, I have met many people from the South Shore who have expressed the need for expanded coverage, in some cases, quite vocally. So it is no longer safe to generalize "the whole area" as hating local bus service. Are there individuals who are against expanded local bus service? Yes. Do they constitute the majority of neighborhood residents? Absolutely not. If nothing else, parents with schoolchildren and neighbors of said schoolchildren know that having bus service is a necessity to get them to school safely. As for the S55, I actually do agree with it being rerouted to the Bricktown Mall via Englewood (and ultimately extended over the Outerbridge Crossing and into NJ). But not because of anything regarding resident complaints, but for the sake of improving ridership on the S55 and opening up additional opportunities to access shopping and employment. |
|
|
| (307206) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Mon Aug 31 03:01:57 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Mon Aug 31 00:16:43 2015. I actually like the idea of the S78 operating up Huguenot Ave.But, I would operate the S59, operating all times, via the current S78 routing in Tottenville to the Bricktown Mall. (I like the current S78 routing, as that residents from southern Tottenville now have access to the SIR, thereby reducing travel times and encouraging ridership.) In this scenario, the S74/84 would still terminate at the Bricktown Mall. This would be no different than what the Bx4/Bx4A does in Parkchester. However, I would have the Englewood Ave branch operate weekdays only, initially, in order to gauge ridership. The service planners would like this, as that the S74 weekend routing would remain unchanged. (They may not want weekend service, initially, as that it this would require the extension of the short trips.) I only see S74 service growing in this scenario, encouraging ridership that would fill currently empty seats. Do you think that Englewood Ave branch service would grow to the point where hawk service would be switched to this branch? Nowadays, I don't know how current residents, or the service planners, would react to the expansion of South Shore trunk-line local bus service. But it doesn't hurt to try. |
|
|
| (307207) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Mon Aug 31 08:24:44 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Mon Aug 31 03:01:57 2015. In all my times taking the S78 out there, I don't think I've ever seen anybody from southern Tottenville transfer to the SIR. In any case, the S59 zooms along Hylan Blvd, so anybody from southern Tottenville who doesn't want to walk to the SIR can simply take the S59 to Eltingville.Access to points along Arthur Kill Road is the more pressing issue. They said approximately 200 riders were forced to transfer from the S74 to the S78. They didn't mention how many would benefit from better access to the SIR, but I promise it's less than 200. My intention is to make the Englewood branch the primary branch. I see much more potential ridership compared to the current Arthur Kill routing, both in terms of better accessing the residential areas, as well as offering a quicker routing to Bricktown & Tottenville. On top of that, if you consider that the S74 would be taking a quicker routing to get to Bricktown, and the fact that the Arthur Kill branch could bypass Rossville entirely, it might end up being cost-neutral compared to the current setup. The Arthur Kill branch would be the current short-turns. |
|
|
| (307209) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by Q23 on Mon Aug 31 12:24:59 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by JAzumah on Thu Aug 27 10:08:53 2015. So this essentially would halve service to Richmond Avenue, and there would obviously be a decrease in the Arden Heights X17J. However, I don't think there should be two X17J's labeled as such if they follow different routings.If this is done, the X17S should be the Arden Heights Super Express (from 42 to Arden Heights). The X17J would originate in Annadale as mentioned. So, this is how I would structure the branches of the X17 X17A- Annadale to Downtown X17C- Combined X17J- Annadale to Midtown via New Jersey X17S- Arden Heights to Midtown Super Express X17T- Tottenville New numbers could also be given to these routes, the X17S could be the X20, and the X17T could be either the X18 or given an X22B notation. |
|
|
| (307210) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by Q23 on Mon Aug 31 12:38:17 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by Q23 on Mon Aug 31 12:24:59 2015. I forgot to add stuff I would in addition have the X17J/S like that during the height of the rush hour. From 5:30 AM to 7:30 AM, and from 4:30 PM to just about 6 PM. The X17S during the PM would operate every 12 minutes, and the X17J every 10 minutes. The same amount of bph would be maintained in this scenario. During AM rush hours, here would be the new headways X17A- as is X17J- Every 5 minutes (every other bus to Annadale during height of rush hour) X17S- Every 10 minutes Other times during the rush, the X17J should just serve both Arden Heights and the Richmond Avenue corridor. There wouldn't sufficient ridership to have two buses, IMO. |
|
|
| (307211) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Mon Aug 31 12:58:40 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Mon Aug 31 08:24:44 2015. The service planners would do double-branch service if and only if it would minimize or reduce operating costs, like the Bx4/Bx4A. The service planners didn't want to restore the Bx24 to Parkchester, instead, citing the need for a dispatcher at Hugh Grant Circle, increasing operating costs. But this is a moot point, as that the Bx24 was recently extended to the Hutchinson Metro Center.Bear in mind that when the S74's and S78's terminals were shifted to the Bricktown Mall, the location of the dispatcher, if there was one, was also shifted. In my scenario, the dispatcher, if there is one, would remain at the Bricktown Mall. In your scenario, a dispatcher would have to be added at Main St & Amboy Rd, which would actually increase operating costs, as that a dispatcher would have to remain, at least part-time, at the Bricktown Mall. Which scenario would win out? It all depends on what the service planners want. |
|
|
| (307213) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by caine515 on Mon Aug 31 13:40:30 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Mon Aug 31 12:58:40 2015. There is a schedule issue with the S78 Bricktown mall issur.i found put from drivers if they are late to bypass Bricktown mall and start at Amboy road -main street. Is their delay a fault of traffic or are they interline with the express runs? |
|
|
| (307214) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by caine515 on Mon Aug 31 13:40:46 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Mon Aug 31 12:58:40 2015. There is a schedule issue with the S78 Bricktown mall issue.i found put from drivers if they are late to bypass Bricktown mall and start at Amboy road -main street. Is their delay a fault of traffic or are they interline with the express runs? |
|
|
| (307217) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Mon Aug 31 21:33:36 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by Q23 on Mon Aug 31 12:38:17 2015. The X17S should receive its own route number (X18) because the service pattern is very different. It should be integrated into the X24 schedule, with the X18 and X24 operating every 7.5-10 minutes on Huguenot Avenue. There is not enough demand to run the X18 every 10 minutes in the AM. |
|
|
| (307218) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Mon Aug 31 21:34:35 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by Q23 on Mon Aug 31 12:24:59 2015. There are not enough X17Ts to give it its own route number. |
|
|
| (307219) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Mon Aug 31 22:36:24 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Mon Aug 31 12:58:40 2015. I know, the goal should not be to MINIMIZE operating costs, but to MAXIMIZE operating efficiency.However, bus routes sharing a common area, where dispatchers could easily manage bus service, usually does both. This is something that makes the service planners and the budget people, i.e., those who hide behind the ledgers, very happy. |
|
|
| (307220) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Sep 1 01:20:11 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by caine515 on Mon Aug 31 13:40:46 2015. A fault of traffic. The S78 is actually longer than a few express routes, being the longest local route in the city. |
|
|
| (307221) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Sep 1 01:37:09 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Mon Aug 31 12:58:40 2015. First of all, who says anything about needing dispatchers? There's areas like the Port Richmond "terminal" where you have 4 routes terminating and 1 more passing through and I've never seen a dispatcher there. Meanwhile there's areas like Richmond & Forest where no buses terminate, and yet I've seen dispatchers there on numerous occasions.Aside from that, with BusTime and BusTrek, dispatchers should be able to alert B/Os of any actions they need to take to keep themselves on or close to schedule. And if you read my post closely, I said the S74A would terminate in Tottenville (which, need I remind you is where the S59 currently terminates during rush hours). |
|
|
| (307222) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Sep 1 01:47:27 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by Q23 on Mon Aug 31 12:24:59 2015. Richmond Avenue service would be nowhere near being halved. Remember that half the service terminates at the ETC already, and the buses that start in Huguenot still pick up a significant number of passengers along Richmond. So it would be more like 3/4 of its current service, at the peak-of-the-peak.So service at the peak-of-the-peak would run every 15 minutes on (what you designated as) the X17S, and every 5 minutes on the X17J. |
|
|
| (307223) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Tue Sep 1 03:01:06 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Sep 1 01:37:09 2015. I see your point.Nonetheless, based on the success of the Bx4/4A in Parkchester, I think that having both S74 branches, as well as the S59, terminate at the Bricktown Mall would make the routes relatively more manageable and less expensive to operate than in your scenario. The service planners should look at both of our ideas regarding the S55, S59, S74/84, and S78 in the South Shore. They should analyze them qualitatively and quantitatively in order to determine which is the best. You stated that you have a map of your proposal for Staten Island online. Where can I find it? |
|
|
| (307224) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Sep 1 05:21:00 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Tue Sep 1 03:01:06 2015. Right here. As a matter of fact, you signed it when it first came out: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/restore-restructure-the-s67.html |
|
|
| (307226) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Sep 1 11:00:39 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. What was the overnight service from Forest / Willowbrook to Hylan? Where on Hylan did it end? Was it S57 or S59 or something else? |
|
|
| (307227) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Tue Sep 1 12:18:03 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Sep 1 11:00:39 2015. It was the S59, as that traveling further north would have made service go beyond the 60-minute cycle time; NYCT refused to add, or waste our tax dollars for, another bus overnight. |
|
|
| (307228) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Tue Sep 1 13:00:32 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Sep 1 05:21:00 2015. I only signed it in principle. After all, I didn't think that you wanted to eliminate Decker Ave and Willowbrook Rd service.The North Shore would claim class discrimination and racial discrimination under your proposal, because you wish to have fewer bus routes in predominantly transit-dependent areas, where minorities generally live, and add service in more affluent areas. When I propose service, I wish to avoid this controversial topic. Besides, the S66 had only averaged 2-3 passengers per trip on weekends in 1995, when weekend service was eliminated. There would have to be, at least, a five-fold increase in ridership along Jewett Ave. I honestly don't think that this could occur. And Grymes Hill ridership was worse than Jewett Ave on weekends. 'Nuff said. |
|
|
| (307234) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Sep 1 22:49:55 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Tue Sep 1 13:00:32 2015. Have you looked at an actual demographic map, or are you just going off stereotypes that you heard?Willowbrook Road south of Forest Avenue is an upper-middle class white neighborhood (roughly 80%). Decker Avenue is a diverse upper-middle class neighborhood (roughly 50% white). Both of those areas have median incomes of over $80,000. It's only once you cross Post Avenue where it becomes the "stereotypical" North Shore. Compare that to the Bulls Head/Graniteville area which is a middle class, diverse neighborhood. Median income of around $70,000, and about 50% white. So if anything, if your concern is serving "transit-dependent" populations, my proposal actually does a better job. Not that any of this would be a concern, considering that I regularly attend the community board meetings in Port Richmond and know the members there. Not to mention tons of signatures from Port Richmond residents themselves, who know I have their best interests at heart (especially considering I attended high school there and still go to the neighborhood regularly) And as I've stated before, the S57 would carry a lot more than 2-3 riders per trip along the Jewett Avenue portion. It would basically get all of the current S57 riders north of Forest Avenue, along with most of the riders between Forest & Victory, with a few former S54 riders tacked on for good measure (remember that Jewett Avenue is only a few blocks from Manor Road, compared to Willowbrook Road which is over a mile away) on top of the 2-3 riders riding within Jewett Avenue itself. So no, it's actually not too far-fetched that a bus could be rolling down Jewett Avenue with 10-15 people on board. Grymes Hill ridership was worse than Jewett because the S60 didn't actually connect to anyplace people want to go. It didn't go to the ferry, and it didn't connect to the shopping district by Victory & Manor. You do realize that the number of people boarding the S66 within Grymes Hill is over double the old S60's ridership, right? Aside from that, a 5 minute diversion is completely different than having a dedicated route for the neighborhood. You put 3 buses on the route, and you're providing access to a whole swath of the North Shore, which happens to include Grymes Hill. |
|
|
| (307236) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Wed Sep 2 00:07:58 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Sep 1 22:49:55 2015. OK. You convinced me.I'm dropping my S47 proposal, and rallying to yours. I guess that those who wish to travel to the Staten Island Zoo will just continue doing what they're doing now. But you don't have to convince me. You have to convince the service planners by using the same argument you just gave to me about weekend service via Jewett Ave and Grymes Hill. But, I do think that having S74/84 service, both branches (like the Bx4/Bx4A in Parkchester), and the S59 terminate at the Bricktown Mall is better. I think that it would make service for these routes, at least theoretically, more manageable compared to your proposal. For the S55 via the Bricktown Mall to Perth Amboy, making only one stop at the NJT Rail station, is a great idea. But, as I stated above, you have to convince the service planners by telling them that this is only one stop in New Jersey, i.e., no worse than the S89 via the Bayonne Bridge. As well as the operation of the S54 via the SI Mall with partial restoration of weekend service, and the S57 extension via Mill Rd, instead of the S76/86, in Oakwood Heights. And, of course, an S83 based on the North Shore Alternatives Analysis (NSAA) TSM alternative, but would operate via Narrows Rd instead of operating via Grasmere/South Beach. The S77, however, would be harder to sell. The service planners could easily claim duplication and that ridership doesn't support two local routes AND an SBS route, in order to kill such an idea before you could convince them otherwise. BTW, I found your map on the petition site, but it doesn't show the S48/98 extension via the Goethals Bridge. How would the route operate? And, if you had to favor an alternative in the NSAA, with modifications if necessary, what would it be? (I'm sure that you know that under all of the rail-based alternatives, NYCT claims that the S40/90 would have to be discontinued. I'm sure that the North Shore communities have made it abundantly clear that the elimination of this route won't be tolerated, maybe the elimination of the S90, but definitely not the S40 also.) |
|
|
| (307242) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Sep 2 15:35:43 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Wed Sep 2 00:07:58 2015. The S55 extension is two-fold: Provide access to NJ, while also boosting the ridership of an underperforming route.Remember that under my proposal, the S54 would be combined with the S42 and terminate at Seaview Hospital. I strongly believe that the ridership generated from better connectivity to St. George would be higher than the ridership generated from better connectivity to the SI Mall. Under my proposal, riders heading to the SI Mall would have to continue to make their way to the S44 or S61, depending on where they live. I will say that routing the S54 via the SI Mall is significantly better than the current configuration, I think that much we can agree on. Also remember that something should be providing 7-day service to the neighborhood by the S42 terminal, and the S44 has enough on its plate without having to go up and down those hills and narrow streets. Remember that the purpose of the S77 is to allow the S54 to be cut back to Seaview Hospital, and to allow the S52 to be straightened out in South Beach, both of which would free up resources to use on the S77. Although one thing I've wanted to do with the S52 is extend up Seaview Avenue to end at Richmond Road. That would provide better connectivity for hospital visitors/workers in the opposite direction, as well as provide an additional route serving the Berry Houses. The map only refers to the S57/66 restructuring. The S98 is a separate proposal. As for the routing, I'm debating as to whether Jersey Gardens, Midtown Elizabeth, or Newark Airport is the best choice. As for the routing on Staten Island, the westbound S98 would take Forest-South-Goethals Road North, and then enter the SIE that way. Eastbound buses would simply get off at the Forest Avenue exit, and then continue down Forest once they pass South Avenue. My preference is for heavy rail to Arlington. The Teleport honestly isn't that busy to the point where it justifies a rail line serving it (which is why they took that option off the table). NYCT doesn't realize (or doesn't want to realize) that the elimination of the S40 would put many areas beyond coverage guidelines. Certain sections of Mariners Harbor would be over a half mile from any type of transit service, and many areas would be over 1/4 mile. At the very least, service on the western portion should be maintained. Maybe if the S98 went straight down Forest, the S83 could be extended to Arlington via Richmond Terrace (allowing people who don't live near the rail line in Mariners Harbor & Elm Park to transfer at Port Richmond). |
|
|
| (307245) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Wed Sep 2 20:03:17 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Sep 2 15:35:43 2015. I forgot about mentioning the S52 extension to Richmond Ave in my previous post. I have been wanting this for years.If the Arrochar community wants the current S52 routing in their area maintained, it would put your proposed S77 in jeopardy. If so, then the S54 should operate, south of the Seaview Hospital, via Brielle Ave, Rockland Ave, Richmond Ave, the SI Mall, Richmond Ave (not a typo), Arthur Kill Rd, and Giffords/Nelson to Richmond Ave-Hylan Blvd. But if they are willing to sacrifice service, and have the S52 operate straight down Sand La, then the S77 should be implemented. In this scenario, the S54, renumbered to either the S41, S43, S45, or S47 in order to maintain the current numbering convention (I prefer the S47, but any one would work), would be cut back to Seaview Hospital. For the S48/98, it could only have one stop in New Jersey so that the MTA doesn't need a license to operate point-to-point in the state, if it's necessary to have it and the MTA doesn't have it already. (I don't know the laws in New Jersey, so don't take it out of context.) For the proposed S40 elimination in the NSAA, don't let the community bow down to the MTA, or NYCT's service planners. Only constant and consistent pressure will make them back down. And I'm sure that the MTA got an earful already. |
|
|
| (307251) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Sep 2 23:21:22 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Wed Sep 2 20:03:17 2015. Part of the logic behind the S52 straightening was so that the S52 wouldn't have too many turns. You'd have ferry-bound buses making the turns around the hospital (since Seaview Avenue is a very wide street, which may be difficult to cross for elderly/disabled patients), and then on top of the turns in Stapleton and New Brighton, you'd have the turns in South Beach.As for South Beach, I don't think that would be an issue. Remember that I know the community board members from all 3 boards. (As a matter of fact, I've even been offered a position on the Transportation Committee for the Mid-Island community board, which represents South Beach. Unfortunately, I had to decline due to other obligations). Like I said, as far as convincing any residents that a certain proposal would be beneficial to them, that wouldn't be an issue. And the S54 could just be renumbered S42. Remember that we're basically talking about an extension of the S42 down to Seaview Hospital, with the goal of providing Manor Road with direct service to St. George, and providing certain neighborhoods of the North Shore and Mid-Island with weekend service. I'm only referring to the S98 to NJ. The S48 would continue to serve Arlington. The S98 would provide 7-day limited-stop service along Forest Avenue. And point taken regarding the fact that they can only serve one point (assuming this to be true. After all, I'm pretty sure NJT has multiple stops in Downtown Philly, and then there's the 196 & 197 to Greenwood Lake & Warwick.) As for the S40, we'll cross that bridge (or train trestle) when we get to it. Honestly, I let the community board know that I'm displeased with the MTA's decision to make it a busway in the first place. The community board meeting where the MTA is going to discuss this with us is going to be held in mid-October as far as I heard (or at least, as far as the North Shore community board is concerned) |
|
|
| (307252) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Thu Sep 3 02:57:10 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Wed Sep 2 23:21:22 2015. As stated in a previous post, the S52 runs the way it does in Arrochar are for coverage and to have appeased neighborhood residents at the time. If the ridership in this area no longer justifies this expense, as you claim, then it should be eliminated; good riddance to bad rubbish.Besides, travel times would decrease for SI Hospital North and South Beach Psychiatric Center riders. And, cycle times may not change at all, as that the S52 would be extended to Richmond Rd. I would still change the S42's route number, as that it would follow a different route path in St. George and New Brighton. Confusion among occasional and discretionary riders would be minimized. For the S98, the service planners will claim that current S48 service operates every 12-15 minutes on midday weekdays and Saturdays and every 15 minutes, at best, on Sundays. And, based on ridership at these times, though there would be riders who would benefit, there isn't enough of these riders in order to justify the expense of daily S98 service. You could counterclaim that Staten Island bus service doesn't follow the policies used in the other boroughs, but I don't think that's strong enough. After all, you have to convince the service planners. |
|
|
| (307260) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Thu Sep 3 15:35:04 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Thu Sep 3 02:57:10 2015. Alright, so we've basically agreed on what should be done with the S52.With the S42, I still think it should maintain that route number, but it's not a big concern either way. As long as the physical route runs in the path I described, the route number is only of secondary importance. The argument could be that the expense of the additional S98 buses would be (at least partially offset) by increased ridership coming from Forest Avenue, compared to Richmond Terrace. Additionally, with the S40's ridership being so ferry-centric (as opposed to the S48/98, where you have many riders traveling within Staten Island), it could be argued that it prevents the S40 from being caught in delays on the Goethals Bridge, thus causing ferry riders to miss their connections. At least with the S98, if a bus gets delayed, you have the S48 for ferry riders to use. |
|
|
| (307263) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Thu Sep 3 20:38:04 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Thu Sep 3 15:35:04 2015. Based on what you stated, the S48/98 is a more productive route than the S40/90, as that the former has higher seat turnover than the latter. High seat turnover is something that the service planners and the accountants love. Don't be surprised that may wish to keep it that way.If the service planners are persuaded with your argument, however, the S98 would have the bare minimum of service, i.e. half-hourly service, on midday weekdays and Saturdays. The S48 would then have to have service reduced during the midday weekday and Saturdays from every 12 minutes to every 15 minutes, based on projected ridership, to maintain a guideline-level of service. Besides, 15-minute local service would coordinate well with the Staten Island Ferry. The service planners may not want to have S98 service Sundays, at least in the beginning, because I don't think that projected ridership and frequencies would be high enough, yet. As you know, there is precedent for six-day-a-week limited-stop service. The B6 limited and Bx1 limited are the only NYCT routes to have such a service pattern. |
|
|
| (307290) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Fri Sep 4 18:20:34 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Thu Sep 3 20:38:04 2015. Your statement about the S40/90 vs. S48/98 is correct. The S48/98 is the most cost-efficient route on Staten Island as per the MTA's own numbers, and the turnover is higher based off my own observations (and I'm sure the MTA's on/off counts)In any case, I'm not sure what that has to do with which one being the better one to extend. The S40 is a quicker route to the ferry, but the S98 is easier to access for most North Shore residents. Yes, I would be content with that, to start the S98 running weekdays and Saturdays and seeing how it goes from there. |
|
|
| (307347) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by dkupf on Thu Sep 10 13:09:28 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by checkmatechamp13 on Fri Sep 4 18:20:34 2015. I talked to someone on the inside about your proposals. He thinks that most are good except one, the S77. His concerns regarding this route were the same ones I had.Currently, all limited-stop and SBS routes are submissive to the corresponding local route. The S77 would, for the most part, be the converse. I think you have to emphasize that most planning and scheduling policies currently in place have been thrown away with Staten Island services. And, for the last study, done in the late 1980's, the service planners dared Staten Islanders to be different; they responded in kind. The results of this new study should be no different. With the S78 via Luten and Huguenot Aves, you should stress, in relation to the incidents after the S74/84 were diverted to operate into Rossville, that times have changed, and that South Shore residents are now demanding as much local mobility as the people who live in the North Shore. Otherwise, I think that your proposals, when you have a chance to submit them, would be well-received. Let's hope for the best. |
|
|
| (307355) | |
Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive) |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Thu Sep 10 21:30:51 2015, in response to Re: Study to Improve Staten Island Bus Service (Source: SILive), posted by dkupf on Thu Sep 10 13:09:28 2015. Fair enough about the S77. I will say that if it's brought to their attention what I intend to accomplish with that route (providing service in Great Kills, and providing service in South Beach to allow the S52 to be straightened out), maybe they can think of an alternate plan.For SBS routes, I'm not sure if that's necessarily the case. The M15 & Bx12 run much more frequently than their local counterparts. If the MTA really wants to improve the service, they won't be using an incident from 20 years ago as an excuse not to do anything today. But if they do use that as an excuse, I will make sure to point that out. As for how I plan to submit them, first and foremost, I will focus on getting them to agree to the proposal that will benefit my neighborhood. Considering that they couldn't come up with any solid objections the last time I spoke to Operations Planning, this shouldn't be an issue. I don't want them somehow confusing that proposal with any of my other proposals. Once that is done, I will be more than happy to submit the rest of the proposals. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||