158 replies to this topic

[BrooklynBus]

Brooklyn IRT:

Don't understand your question

[BrooklynIRT]

First you said the B49 should not be diverted from SB station because the B1 already gets hammered at Brighton Beach (BB) station. Then you said if the B49 were diverted from SB station there would be little protest. I was trying to put the two statements together.

After thinking it over I now assume that you meant there would be little protest from Manhattan Beach (MB) residents if the B49 were diverted from SB station, and that the B1 currently gets hammered by KCC students at BB station. I find this obvious though. Just documenting my train of thought. You also said most MB residents barely use the buses and nobody from MB would use the bridge over the Belt Pkwy to reach SB station.

But KCC students would use the Belt Pkwy bridge, provided MTA had proper signage and notification indicating that the B49 stops right there by Shore Pkwy/E 14. The B49 buses would probably spend less time going out of their way than they currently do if they followed my diversion and in the process would serve both KCC students going to/from the subway and students going to/from the B44 [SBS], as well as any other persons willing to use the Belt Pkwy bridge to get to/from the subway and any others who want the B44 [SBS].

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I asked you this on Sheepshead Bites, but you didn't reply there: How crowded were those late afternoon and early evening BM3's? Out of the 57 seats on each bus, how many were typically occupied? 50? 40? 30?

And just so you know, the Q has had only minor weekend service changes the month or two. This weekend, northbound trains are bypassing Neck and U. Otherwise, service is normal.

During the week they get good usage overall. On Saturdays they can get good usage as well. They had weekend numbers for the BM3 and they weren't terrible by any means. I see no point in having buses deadhead to the city not picking up anyone when they are making return trips back to Sheepshead Bay, so there is no point in cutting service down to 15:20 on Saturday afternoons.

As for the train after months of inconvenience with station rehabs, it is unacceptable to still have trains bypassing these stations, further inconveniencing passengers. They should've done track work with the rehab of these stations simultaneously... Utterly ridiculous.

[Lance]

I don't believe it was possible to rehab both the stations and the tracks at the same time. If I recall correctly, the temp platforms were on the tracks that are now being fixed.

[checkmatechamp13]

The only cut to the X27 and X28 was on weekends, when the direct operating cost per rider was $8.71 and $15.47, respectively. I'd suggest that the funds that could be used to restore the X27 and X28 on weekends - should they become available - be instead used somewhere that they would be of greater benefit to more potential riders. (It's not like X27 or X28 riders are stranded on weekends - X27 riders can use the B16, B4, B9, or B64 to connect to the R train, and X28 riders can walk or use the B82, B3, B6, or B8 to connect to the D train.) Restoring those lightly used, inefficient services would do a disservice to bus and subway riders who would be missing out on potential service improvements elsewhere.

I've asked you twice already about the BM3. When you used to ride it on Saturday afternoons before the span was cut back, how crowded were the 57-seat buses? Did they typically carry 50 riders? 40? 30?

The X28 I can agree with you, but the X27 was actually pretty efficient. If you think about it, the farebox recovery ratio is around 50% or so (the average fare paid on the weekends for express buses was $3.99, according to the MTA. Of course, they didn't break it down by express bus route, but it's in the ballpark of 50%) You could argue that the X27 riders are receiving a $4-$5 subsidy, but percentage-wise, it's not too bad.

For the BM3, you know the website capntransit.blogspot.com? Well, he made a spreadsheet of the data the MTA released (good thing, too, because the link to the data is now broken). Here: https://docs.google....WWc&hl=en#gid=1

The BM3 got about 7 riders per trip back when the cuts were being proposed and had a cost of $18.92 per passenger (not no, VG8, I'm not taking the stats as the Gospel. Only as a guide.) The thing is that the city supposedly has a blank check agreement, but apparently that's coming to an end or else they wouldn't have bothered to make any cuts. In any case, the X28 performed better than any of the BM routes on the weekends (and that's including the presumably less efficient Sunday service)

Personally, what I would do is bring back weekend service on the X27 (maybe reduce it hourly headways) and I'd eliminate Saturday service on the BM2, BM3, & BM4, and use the resources to beef up the BM1 to run on Sundays and also run every 30 minutes, to provide eastern Brooklyn with one good express route. Personally, I'd run some kind of local bus along Avenue K, but it looks like BM1 riders would still have the hardest time reaching the subway.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Rats, as I started reading that, I thought you were going to say that Golden and Cymbrowitz had found an ample, reliable source of funding for transit. It's a stable funding source that the MTA needs, not a letter.

Did you attend the meeting?? In any event, Golden has put up personal funds before to keep weekend service on the X27 and X28 when the wanted to cut it and I believe that if necessary he would be willing to do so again.

The only cut to the X27 and X28 was on weekends, when the direct operating cost per rider was $8.71 and $15.47, respectively. I'd suggest that the funds that could be used to restore the X27 and X28 on weekends - should they become available - be instead used somewhere that they would be of greater benefit to more potential riders. (It's not like X27 or X28 riders are stranded on weekends - X27 riders can use the B16, B4, B9, or B64 to connect to the R train, and X28 riders can walk or use the B82, B3, B6, or B8 to connect to the D train.) Restoring those lightly used, inefficient services would do a disservice to bus and subway riders who would be missing out on potential service improvements elsewhere.

I'm sorry but I disagree. There are plenty of elderly folks that use the express buses to get to and from Manhattan that would be stranded if service was cut. They are constantly overlooked not only with express bus service but with local bus service as well. Here in Riverdale a large percentage of riders are elderly, so the express buses are needed since many of them can't use the subway. The train stations are NOT accessible for elderly or disabled folks, which was one threat that Golden used against the to force them to restore the X27/X28 weekday service to the way it was before.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8, 23 May 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[BrooklynBus]

First you said the B49 should not be diverted from SB station because the B1 already gets hammered at Brighton Beach (BB) station. Then you said if the B49 were diverted from SB station there would be little protest. I was trying to put the two statements together.

After thinking it over I now assume that you meant there would be little protest from Manhattan Beach (MB) residents if the B49 were diverted from SB station, and that the B1 currently gets hammered by KCC students at BB station. I find this obvious though. Just documenting my train of thought. You also said most MB residents barely use the buses and nobody from MB would use the bridge over the Belt Pkwy to reach SB station.

But KCC students would use the Belt Pkwy bridge, provided MTA had proper signage and notification indicating that the B49 stops right there by Shore Pkwy/E 14. The B49 buses would probably spend less time going out of their way than they currently do if they followed my diversion and in the process would serve both KCC students going to/from the subway and students going to/from the B44 [SBS], as well as any other persons willing to use the Belt Pkwy bridge to get to/from the subway and any others who want the B44 [SBS].

Why should anyone from KCC bother with the stairways and the long walk over the Belt if they can get the B1 or their private yellow bus at Brighton Beach without any walking?

I drove your diversion today and here are the results: I started on Sheepsehead Bay Road just north of Emmons at the bus stop. The time to Nostrand and Shore Pkway north service road via the south service road was 3 minutes and 40 seconds. That was with virtually no traffic. The big problem is the red lights. The only green one I got was the one at Bedford. From Nostrand to Ocean along the service road, it took 2:30. and another 60 seconds to Avenue Z. That's a total of 7 minutes and 10 seconds. If a stop were made at Nostrand for a bus load of KCC students to get on or off, you would have to allow another minute or more likely 2 minutes. That's 9:10 without traffic. (I don't know what your prediction was. I think you said 5 and I said 8.) It sounds similar to what the current loop takes to go to the Station, which as I said could not be removed for all the buses. For half, maybe.

Edited by BrooklynBus, 23 May 2012 - 06:39 PM.

[AndrewJC]

Did you attend the meeting?? In any event, Golden has put up personal funds before to keep weekend service on the X27 and X28 when the wanted to cut it and I believe that if necessary he would be willing to do so again.

If he's offering to pay, I can't imagine the MTA will object.

I'm sorry but I disagree. There are plenty of elderly folks that use the express buses to get to and from Manhattan that would be stranded if service was cut. They are constantly overlooked not only with express bus service but with local bus service as well.

In what way are the elderly overlooked? The elderly get the same service as everybody else, for which they pay half fare. All of the buses and increasingly many subway stations are accessible to people unable to climb stairs.

If the point of express buses is solely to serve the elderly, then they should be funded by the Department for the Aging.

Here in Riverdale a large percentage of riders are elderly, so the express buses are needed since many of them can't use the subway.

Of course most of them can. The 231st Street station has elevators, as does the 207th Street station (for Bx7 and Bx20 riders who prefer the A train).

The Riverdale express buses - like all other express buses in the city - primarily serve commuters.

The train stations are NOT accessible for elderly or disabled folks, which was one threat that Golden used against the to force them to restore the X27/X28 weekday service to the way it was before.

They are accessible for elderly folks who can climb stairs. (I see plenty of elderly folks climbing stairs at subway stations all across the city.)

What kind of "threat" are you talking about? The city is full of non-ADA-accessible stations, and most don't have nearby express buses. The MTA is under no obligation to provide express bus service where some people can't use the subway.

The X28 I can agree with you, but the X27 was actually pretty efficient. If you think about it, the farebox recovery ratio is around 50% or so (the average fare paid on the weekends for express buses was $3.99, according to the MTA. Of course, they didn't break it down by express bus route, but it's in the ballpark of 50%) You could argue that the X27 riders are receiving a $4-$5 subsidy, but percentage-wise, it's not too bad.

I don't see why percentages matter. In absolute terms of subsidy per trip, it's still pretty bad.

For the BM3, you know the website capntransit.blogspot.com? Well, he made a spreadsheet of the data the MTA released (good thing, too, because the link to the data is now broken). Here: https://docs.google....WWc&hl=en#gid=1

The BM3 got about 7 riders per trip back when the cuts were being proposed and had a cost of $18.92 per passenger (not no, VG8, I'm not taking the stats as the Gospel. Only as a guide.) The thing is that the city supposedly has a blank check agreement, but apparently that's coming to an end or else they wouldn't have bothered to make any cuts. In any case, the X28 performed better than any of the BM routes on the weekends (and that's including the presumably less efficient Sunday service)

Thanks for the link! I've seen his link to the NYCT routes but somehow I missed the one for MTA Bus.

So the BM3 had 7 riders per trip, averaged over the entire day? That's pathetic, and if the late afternoon trips were canceled, that implies that ridership on those trips was even lower.

During the week they get good usage overall. On Saturdays they can get good usage as well. They had weekend numbers for the BM3 and they weren't terrible by any means. I see no point in having buses deadhead to the city not picking up anyone when they are making return trips back to Sheepshead Bay, so there is no point in cutting service down to 15:20 on Saturday afternoons.

I was asking for your experience, not for somebody else's statistics. As I said: "When you used to ride it on Saturday afternoons before the span was cut back, how crowded were the 57-seat buses? Did they typically carry 50 riders? 40? 30?"

But if you want to go by statistics, checkmatechamp13 found them. The BM3 carried 7 riders per bus, on average, over the course of the entire day. Inbound buses in the afternoon were presumably significantly emptier.

Deadheading takes less time than operating in service. If ridership into Manhattan was very low - and apparently it was - the savings can easily be worthwhile.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

In what way are the elderly overlooked? The elderly get the same service as everybody else, for which they pay half fare. All of the buses and increasingly many subway stations are accessible to people unable to climb stairs.

If the point of express buses is solely to serve the elderly, then they should be funded by the Department for the Aging.

Oh please... You feel so strongly about the elderly riding the subway huh? I'm sure you'd feel just fine with your grandparents riding the subway these days....

Of course most of them can. The 231st Street station has elevators, as does the 207th Street station (for Bx7 and Bx20 riders who prefer the A train).

The Riverdale express buses - like all other express buses in the city - primarily serve commuters.

Right because seniors should have to make two and three transfers instead of having the express bus...

They are accessible for elderly folks who can climb stairs. (I see plenty of elderly folks climbing stairs at subway stations all across the city.)

What kind of "threat" are you talking about? The city is full of non-ADA-accessible stations, and most don't have nearby express buses. The MTA is under no obligation to provide express bus service where some people can't use the subway.

Is that right?? Well then explain Senator Golden's lawsuit in which he threatened to sue the for that very reason...

So the BM3 had 7 riders per trip, averaged over the entire day? That's pathetic, and if the late afternoon trips were canceled, that implies that ridership on those trips was even lower.

Well I don't know where those stats are from but I would certainly disagree with them.

I was asking for your experience, not for somebody else's statistics. As I said: "When you used to ride it on Saturday afternoons before the span was cut back, how crowded were the 57-seat buses? Did they typically carry 50 riders? 40? 30?"

But if you want to go by statistics, checkmatechamp13 found them. The BM3 carried 7 riders per bus, on average, over the course of the entire day. Inbound buses in the afternoon were presumably significantly emptier.

Deadheading takes less time than operating in service. If ridership into Manhattan was very low - and apparently it was - the savings can easily be worthwhile.

Not necessarily true... The fact remains that those BM3 express buses should be restored and I'm determined to get them back regardless of what you say. You don't use them and you don't need them so what would you care? My commute has been elongated significantly without the BM3.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) What kind of "threat" are you talking about? The city is full of non-ADA-accessible stations, and most don't have nearby express buses. The MTA is under no obligation to provide express bus service where some people can't use the subway.

2) I don't see why percentages matter. In absolute terms of subsidy per trip, it's still pretty bad.

1) To be fair, the express service might be cheaper than serving those few seniors with Access-A-Ride. I think the average price for Access-A-Ride is something like $60 a person, so if the express bus costs less than $10 per person (and you have regular riders paying the full $5.50, plus the seniors pay $2.75 instead of $2.25), then it's cheaper to just give them the express service.

2) You could make that argument about Metro-North and the LIRR too, though. The farebox recovery ratio is reasonably high on some routes, but in terms of raw numbers, the passengers still receive a larger subsidy.

1) Oh please... You feel so strongly about the elderly riding the subway huh? I'm sure you'd feel just fine with your grandparents riding the subway these days....

2) Is that right?? Well then explain Senator Golden's lawsuit in which he threatened to sue the for that very reason...

3) Well I don't know where those stats are from but I would certainly disagree with them.

4) Not necessarily true... The fact remains that those BM3 express buses should be restored and I'm determined to get them back regardless of what you say. You don't use them and you don't need them so what would you care? My commute has been elongated significantly without the BM3.

1) My grandmother rides the subway, and like he said, there are seniors riding the subway nowadays. For all you know, his grandmother is riding the subway now.

2) A woman sued McDonald's because they didn't have a warning to tell her the coffee was hot. Not all lawsuits are reasonable.

3) I specifically stated where the data came from: "Well, he made a spreadsheet of the data the MTA released (good thing, too, because the link to the data is now broken)."

4) For somebody who doesn't use the S89, you sure had a lot to say about me moving it over one measly block to try and get more ridership (since the non-professional people who currently use it provide only a handful of riders on each bus).

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) My grandmother rides the subway, and like he said, there are seniors riding the subway nowadays. For all you know, his grandmother is riding the subway now.

Well good for her. That doesn't apply to all seniors or even the majority of seniors, not to mention that the BM3 helps seniors avoid having to make 2 - 3 transfers in some cases or walk far distances to reach a bus to even get to the subway.

2) A woman sued McDonald's because they didn't have a warning to tell her the coffee was hot. Not all lawsuits are reasonable.

Well this has nothing to do with McDonald's first off and second the restored the X27/X37 and X28/X38 because of the threatened lawsuit, so obviously it wasn't too "unreasonable".

3) I specifically stated where the data came from: "Well, he made a spreadsheet of the data the MTA released (good thing, too, because the link to the data is now broken)."

Well I don't care where they came from... I disagree with them. Always nice to have stats from a broken link...

4) For somebody who doesn't use the S89, you sure had a lot to say about me moving it over one measly block to try and get more ridership (since the non-professional people who currently use it provide only a handful of riders on each bus).

This has nothing to do with the S89, so save that for another thread. The BM3 serves a purpose. The S89 serves a purpose, whether you want to accept its purpose or not is another issue, which clearly you don't.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8, 31 May 2012 - 05:20 PM.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Well good for her. That doesn't apply to all seniors or even the majority of seniors, not to mention that the BM3 helps seniors avoid having to make 2 - 3 transfers in some cases or walk far distances to reach a bus to even get to the subway.

2) Well this has nothing to do with McDonald's first off and second the restored the X27/X37 and X28/X38 because of the threatened lawsuit, so obviously it wasn't too "unreasonable".

3) Well I don't care where they came from... I disagree with them. Always nice to have stats from a broken link...

4) This has nothing to do with the S89, so save that for another thread. The BM3 serves a purpose. The S89 serves a purpose, whether you want to accept its purpose or not is another issue, which clearly you don't.

1) Then fix the issues with local service in the area and you benefit everybody.

2) How do you know it was because of the lawsuit? People were complaining about crowded buses to Midtown and empty buses going Downtown before the change was made.

3) Well if you had bothered to take a copy of the material at the public hearing, you wouldn't have to worry about broken links because you'd have a paper copy.

4) My point is that you've never used the route (I don't care what you were "considering" doing) and you're arguing passionately with somebody who uses the route daily about what its purpose is and what the demographics of the riders are (hint: The reverse-peak buses aren't full of "working professionals" like you keep on suggesting). You're not bringing any sort of numbers (from either personal observations or from an official source) or anything into the argument to back up your logic, so it's complete BS. Now somebody comes in with backed-up arguments and you retort with "Oh, you don't use the route so what do you care?" He cares because his money is going to the agency to help run that route.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) Then fix the issues with local service in the area and you benefit everybody.

Uh no... There are no buses that run down Avenue X directly in Sheepshead Bay aside from the BM3, which is where many of the riders embark and disembark, many being seniors.

2) How do you know it was because of the lawsuit? People were complaining about crowded buses to Midtown and empty buses going Downtown before the change was made.

The report was on NY1 for starters and second of all I'm in contact with Senator Golden on a regular basis. In fact he just sent out an e-mail today on manufacturing jobs and what he's doing about that, but express bus service for the X27/x28 is a hot topic for the communities that he serves.

3) Well if you had bothered to take a copy of the material at the public hearing, you wouldn't have to worry about broken links because you'd have a paper copy.

Yeah yeah yeah...

4) My point is that you've never used the route (I don't care what you were "considering" doing) and you're arguing passionately with somebody who uses the route daily about what its purpose is and what the demographics of the riders are (hint: The reverse-peak buses aren't full of "working professionals" like you keep on suggesting). You're not bringing any sort of numbers (from either personal observations or from an official source) or anything into the argument to back up your logic, so it's complete BS. Now somebody comes in with backed-up arguments and you retort with "Oh, you don't use the route so what do you care?" He cares because his money is going to the agency to help run that route.

I know because I remember when the S89 was first put into service and the Borough President talked about THE PURPOSE of the route during the press conference, so I don't need to use the route to know what its purpose is for. The S89 had been worked on by politicians of Staten Island for YEARS with one purpose in mind and now suddenly you think you're going to come along and change things because you think the route should have more passengers. Good luck with that one... I've was living on Staten Island way before you came along back in the 90s, so I know what I'm talking about.

[NX Express]

Uh no... There are no buses that run down Avenue X directly in Sheepshead Bay aside from the BM3, which is where many of the riders embark and disembark, many being seniors.

So add one - I'm sure it would be cheaper than running empty BM3s.

The report was on NY1 for starters and second of all I'm in contact with Senator Golden on a regular basis. In fact he just sent out an e-mail today on manufacturing jobs and what he's doing about that, but express bus service for the X27/x28 is a hot topic for the communities that he serves.

Not answering the question...

What does that have to do with complaints about an imbalance of service to Manhattan? Nobody but the MTA knows why they did what they did. Maybe they changed it because they didn't want the hassle of the lawsuit, not because they knew they'd lose. Nobody knows.

Yeah yeah yeah...

Hard to argue with facts, right?

I know because I remember when the S89 was first put into service and the Borough President talked about THE PURPOSE of the route during the press conference, so I don't need to use the route to know what its purpose is for. The S89 had been worked on by politicians of Staten Island for YEARS with one purpose in mind and now suddenly you think you're going to come along and change things because you think the route should have more passengers. Good luck with that one... I've was living on Staten Island way before you came along back in the 90s, so I know what I'm talking about.

Shifting it by one block (I don't know exactly what he proposed, just going by what he said) is significantly changing things?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So add one - I'm sure it would be cheaper than running empty BM3s.

No it would be cheaper not to have BM3s deadheading to the city with no passengers.

Not answering the question...

What does that have to do with complaints about an imbalance of service to Manhattan? Nobody but the MTA knows why they did what they did. Maybe they changed it because they didn't want the hassle of the lawsuit, not because they knew they'd lose. Nobody knows.

It's not the first time that the lawsuit has been threatened before that's why and as I said before, the report was on NY1 about why the restored the service, so clearly somebody knows.

Hard to argue with facts, right?

No it's easier to just not bother with rhetoric.

Shifting it by one block (I don't know exactly what he proposed, just going by what he said) is significantly changing things?

Maybe you should know about the topic in question before you come in giving your two cents as usual half informed...

[NX Express]

No it would be cheaper not to have BM3s deadheading to the city with no passengers.

Instead of having to circle through Sheepshead Bay and then go up Ocean Av, a deadheading bus just goes right onto the Belt Parkway from the terminal. How is that not cheaper?

It's not the first time that the lawsuit has been threatened before that's why and as I said before, the report was on NY1 about why the restored the service, so clearly somebody knows.

If the lawsuit has been threatened more than once, that shows that it had little to do with the restoration of service. If it was important, service would have been restored the first time.

And if you mean the report from 4/14/11, the only source they give is a lawyer. Very reliable...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Instead of having to circle through Sheepshead Bay and then go up Ocean Av, a deadheading bus just goes right onto the Belt Parkway from the terminal. How is that not cheaper?

Uh no... I see plenty of express buses NOT IN SERVICE that take the normal route to the city. Aside from that if the bus gets caught in traffic on the Belt Parkway then it may be more costly to burn gas with no passengers on board as opposed to a bus in service.

If the lawsuit has been threatened more than once, that shows that it had little to do with the restoration of service. If it was important, service would have been restored the first time.

And if you mean the report from 4/14/11, the only source they give is a lawyer. Very reliable...

The lawsuit was threatened the first time when the tried to pull the service and that's why it was kept. This time around some service was restored. As I've said before I'm in touch with Mr. Golden's office regularly so I know the story.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8, 31 May 2012 - 07:06 PM.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Uh no... There are no buses that run down Avenue X directly in Sheepshead Bay aside from the BM3, which is where many of the riders embark and disembark, many being seniors.

2) The report was on NY1 for starters and second of all I'm in contact with Senator Golden on a regular basis. In fact he just sent out an e-mail today on manufacturing jobs and what he's doing about that, but express bus service for the X27/x28 is a hot topic for the communities that he serves.

3) Yeah yeah yeah...

4) I know because I remember when the S89 was first put into service and the Borough President talked about THE PURPOSE of the route during the press conference, so I don't need to use the route to know what its purpose is for. The S89 had been worked on by politicians of Staten Island for YEARS with one purpose in mind and now suddenly you think you're going to come along and change things because you think the route should have more passengers. Good luck with that one... I've was living on Staten Island way before you came along back in the 90s, so I know what I'm talking about.

1) They're within walking distance of the B49 & B44.

2) It still doesn't mean it was a justified lawsuit. It might've just been easier for the MTA to give in, especially since there were problems on the route anyway. And aside from that, I highly doubt that the primary purpose of having the X37 was for seniors. You're going to tell me more seniors rode the X37 than people who actually worked in Midtown Manhattan?

3) Make all the comments you want, but my point is it's a valid source. You don't want to believe the source, then fine, but don't say it's because the link is broken, because at the time he made the spreadsheet, the link was working.

4) Oh, so now you know more about the S89 just because you've lived in this borough longer than I have? And yes, the primary purpose was for commuters going to Jersey City and Hoboken, so by your logic the route shouldn't have any reverse-peak service in the first place.

Want proof?
http://blog.silive.c...on_the_way.html

"As New York City Transit's first interstate bus service, the long-awaited S89 service heralds the start of a more regional approach to mass transit for Staten Island. In response to a booming job market in Hudson County following the relocation of financial businesses after 9/11, residents had little choice but to take unreliable private bus lines, drive to work and pay for parking, or take a circuitous route using public transportation that would require trips into Manhattan to connect with the PATH train."

http://www.silive.co..._over_bayo.html

"The S89 service marks the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's first interstate bus service, to connect Staten Islanders with the booming financial district in Hoboken and Jersey City."

http://www.silive.co...rvice_to_b.html

The long-awaited bus service comes after years of requests from desperate commuters to Hudson County, N.J.'s booming financial district, who have coped with lateness to work and angry bosses, forced to rely on spotty service from private carriers. The borough's elected officials were also united in their calls for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to provide the service.

"The S89 will give our Staten Island customers a new, direct link to the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail line and the region's expanding job market," said MTA CEO and Executive

Now tell me where it mentions anything about reverse-peak riders. It's all talking about riders going to work in Jersey City and Hoboken, not people living in Bayonne who are working on SI.

And aside from that, they expected the route to carry 1,200 riders a day. As of now, it carries about 920. So yeah, it should get more riders.

Anyway, my point is that you come in going "Oh, you don't use the route, so you shouldn't be commenting because it doesn't affect you", and now here you are arguing with a daily rider about who the route does and doesn't serve. (And daily is more than the once every 2 weeks or however often you said you go down to Sheepshead Bay on the BM3)

1) Not answering the question...

What does that have to do with complaints about an imbalance of service to Manhattan? Nobody but the MTA knows why they did what they did. Maybe they changed it because they didn't want the hassle of the lawsuit, not because they knew they'd lose. Nobody knows.
2) Hard to argue with facts, right?

3) Shifting it by one block (I don't know exactly what he proposed, just going by what he said) is significantly changing things?

1) Exactly.

2) LOL. Where's that "thumbs up" icon when you need it?

3) I gave the details (and a map) in the SI proposals thread. Basically, that's what I'm doing and he keeps trying to blow it up into some sort of crazy extension or something. And aside from that, I gave an alternate plan which wouldn't involve rerouting the S89 at all, and would instead reroute the S44 & S59 (so instead of having all the buses running along the back part of Ring Road, they'd run along Marsh Avenue), but the problem is that the routes might be subject to more traffic because of the schools.

1) No it would be cheaper not to have BM3s deadheading to the city with no passengers.

2) It's not the first time that the lawsuit has been threatened before that's why and as I said before, the report was on NY1 about why the restored the service, so clearly somebody knows.

3) No it's easier to just not bother with rhetoric.

4) Maybe you should know about the topic in question before you come in giving your two cents as usual half informed...

1) If they could take a more direct route, it would be.

2) Yeah, a report by the media. I really trust that....

3) Sure you don't.

4) No, he's fully-informed. It would indeed involve shifting it over 1 block. Check my map if you don't believe me. And like I said, there's always the alternate proposal of having the S44 & S59 run along Marsh Avenue with the S89, but it might have the routes caught in more traffic (and it would be a little bit harder for mall patrons to access because they'd have to cross the street), though it would improve access for those living near the mall by saving them from crossing the same busy street.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) They're within walking distance of the B49 & B44.

Some of them have problems as it is getting on the bus and walking and you're going to say that they're in "walking distance" to the B44 and B49? Give me a break.

2) It still doesn't mean it was a justified lawsuit. It might've just been easier for the MTA to give in, especially since there were problems on the route anyway. And aside from that, I highly doubt that the primary purpose of having the X37 was for seniors. You're going to tell me more seniors rode the X37 than people who actually worked in Midtown Manhattan?

It was a justified lawsuit because 86th street is not ADA accessible for starters. Second off who said anything about seniors?

3) Make all the comments you want, but my point is it's a valid source. You don't want to believe the source, then fine, but don't say it's because the link is broken, because at the time he made the spreadsheet, the link was working.

Yeah it's a valid source because you say it is... Now the link is broken... Yeah right.

4) Oh, so now you know more about the S89 just because you've lived in this borough longer than I have? And yes, the primary purpose was for commuters going to Jersey City and Hoboken, so by your logic the route shouldn't have any reverse-peak service in the first place.

Yeah, because I was around when the route was worked on so I think I should what the purpose of it was. And not having any reverse peak-service... Uh yeah oookay..... Oh and yeah let's re-route it just because it doesn't have as many riders as was projected even though we're in a recession...

3) I gave the details (and a map) in the SI proposals thread. Basically, that's what I'm doing and he keeps trying to blow it up into some sort of crazy extension or something. And aside from that, I gave an alternate plan which wouldn't involve rerouting the S89 at all, and would instead reroute the S44 & S59 (so instead of having all the buses running along the back part of Ring Road, they'd run along Marsh Avenue), but the problem is that the routes might be subject to more traffic because of the schools.

I said it before and I'll say it again... You believe in it so much then go propose and see what happens... You know it doesn't have a fat chance in hell of passing. You really think the politicians on Staten Island care about these other commuters that you're so concerned about?

2) Yeah, a report by the media. I really trust that....

Yeah because they have a great reason to lie about it...

4) No, he's fully-informed. It would indeed involve shifting it over 1 block. Check my map if you don't believe me. And like I said, there's always the alternate proposal of having the S44 & S59 run along Marsh Avenue with the S89, but it might have the routes caught in more traffic (and it would be a little bit harder for mall patrons to access because they'd have to cross the street), though it would improve access for those living near the mall by saving them from crossing the same busy street.

On the basics of the plan maybe, but not on the background of the route or what it was created to begin with and apparently you aren't either, otherwise you wouldn't need to quote all of these articles about things that I already know.

[NX Express]

What is your problem with a one-block reroute? Would it magically erase all current S89 ridership?