Armandito

Could the B8 benefit from LTD service?

But despite those cuts, the B9 recently saw a spike in ridership as a consequence of the closing of stations along the line. Now this rather becomes a question of how much service would be needed, as existing bus service has failed to address this growth.

When buses are not in service deadheading all the way to the end of the route, that's time unnecessarily wasted for certain commuters who could benefit from what could otherwise be more frequent trips. From personal experience I can tell that it's very intimidating to be waiting for a bus in below-zero weather when all of a sudden you see one coming, only to feel disgusted to view the dreaded "NOT IN SERVICE" sign at the front. A decade ago when I lived along Cross Bay Boulevard it was quite common to see four, even five out-of-service buses passing by my stop when I'd already be waiting well over half an hour--isn't that insane!

I forgot to mention that I'm also considering short-turns at Bay Ridge Avenue/Fifth Avenue (near the station) during early morning hours to allow buses from the Jackie Gleason Depot to run straight to Kings Plaza as opposed to deadheading westward toward Shore Road. (Some early morning B9 buses already do this at 60th Street/Fifth Avenue.)

Here are my proposed schedules and frequencies for my other route ideas borrowed from BrooklynBus: B66: follows more or less the current B16 schedule. Rush hours: every 8-10 minutes; middays, evenings, and weekends: every 15-20 minutes B72: similar to the current B64 schedule, with frequencies closely mirroring the current B70.

For my revised B79 route, the schedule would more or less follow the same frame as the present-day B64, albeit with slightly more frequent service (every 4-6 minutes during rush hours, every 12-15 minutes during midday and evening hours, and every 15-20 minutes on weekends). I personally wouldn't suggest running overnight service since there wouldn't be enough demand to justify it.

Your holding lights proposal certainly sounds like an excellent idea, as it discourages missed transfers and gives commuters more time to connect. For your new Bay Ridge-Kings Plaza bus proposal, would you run all buses along the full route? (The B9 short-turns at Avenue L/Flatbush Avenue during early morning and late evening hours). And if you plan to run it overnight, I'd end overnight service at the station at 62nd Street as opposed to running it toward Shore Road.

Those were similar ideas proposed by BrooklynBus yet there's a lot of people here who disagree with the suggested changes. In an article about the 1978 Brooklyn route restructuring I read that the MTA rejected a route proposal along 65th Street because it ran too close to the B9 five blocks to the north. On the other hand, running the B79 via Bay Ridge Avenue and 70th Street would reduce redundancy to the B9 yet still provide direct access to the train at 71st Street which has no crosstown bus; the train can be served at the Bay Parkway station. I cut back this route to Kings Highway in response to some members claiming that Kings Plaza doesn't need a second bus route to Bay Ridge and that the B2 should be left alone. Bay Ridge to Kings Plaza is already sufficiently served by the B9.

On my map I now extended the B66 toward Canarsie Plaza, and the route along Avenue P and Bay Ridge Avenue has been renumbered as the B79 and cut back to the station at Kings Highway. Though I live in the Bronx and use their buses pretty frequently, I opted not to do a route restructuring there because I have a feeling that all of the Bronx routes should stay the way they are--besides, I'm looking to move out of that borough soon after graduating college.

Not really, I'm only volunteering with the police force to move out of my comfort zones by being a more active contributor to the city we live in.

I know, it's a vicious cycle that seems to have no end in sight.

Which brings me into the MTA's old idea of cutting service on one end to help the other--like the train forcing the to be cut to Court Square on weekdays after the 63rd Street Connector opened in December 2001.

Either way you still have to spend money. Since the S98 operates rush hours only, any difference in budgeting between an S98 extension to EWR and a new bus route would be minimal; if both routes operated 7 days a week it's a different story. If such a plan goes ahead, it's likely the MTA would look to a third party to help with funding for Staten Island-EWR service (possibly the Port Authority).

The S98 already serves a purpose--to provide commuters living in Mariners Harbor and along Forest Avenue fast rush-hour service to and from the ferry at St. George, as I discussed with Lil 57. Could you clarify what you meant by what I highlighted in bold?

Which once again justifies my idea of a St. George-EWR route running along Forest Avenue instead of Richmond Terrace, as well as my choice to operate it as a separate route as opposed to operating service to the airport as an extension of the existing S90 and S98 routes.

Except for the Port Richmond terminal at Richmond Terrace and Park Avenue, where four buses begin and end their trips (S53, S57, S59, and S66). The North Shore rail line isn't that far from it.

The S40 is already an infrequent route along that corridor, and Richmond Terrace is too snaky of an artery to operate a Staten Island-EWR route, hence why I chose Forest Avenue instead. It's straighter and busier than Richmond Terrace, as evidenced by the relatively more frequent S48/98 routes as well as the presence of a few express bus routes along it.

How about installing bike racks on the Q44 and S79 SBS as well? Both of those routes also cross the same bridges as the three routes that already have the racks.

Have a question, if the Q50, S53, and S93 buses got bike racks, is it because a lot of riders on those routes own bikes?

Thanks for the correction. If the S99 ever comes to life, the most logical plan would be to start it as a one-year pilot program jointly funded by the MTA and the Port Authority of NY & NJ--a potential partner the MTA can look up to given their constant shortage of funds and the fact that the PA owns and operates EWR (along with JFK and LGA). If the pilot program proves successful (which is also likely) the route becomes permanent.

Never knew the S53/93 had buses equipped with luggage racks. I know they have bike racks, but luggage racks? What for?

I would leave the S98 alone, as that route and the S99 would serve different purposes. While the S98 would concentrate on getting rush hour commuters along the corridor to and from the ferry as quickly as possible, the S99 would specialize in transporting airline and airport employees living there as well as potential air travelers. Passengers along Forest Avenue east of South Avenue can reduce their waiting time by taking either bus. Aside from being the sole LTD route in the borough to operate 24/7, the S99 would also be the first and only Staten Island route to feature buses equipped with luggage racks. Once Castleton Depot gets new buses, a select number would be fitted with racks to run exclusively on the S99.

That sounds ideal. If the S99 ever comes to life, I would envision it starting service as a temporary pilot program that eventually becomes permanent after it proves successful. My revised S99 service frequencies: AM: every 10 minutes Noon: every 15 minutes PM: every 10 minutes Eve: every 20 minutes Nite: every 60 minutes Weekend: every 20 minutes

If you read the description of the route on the map, it's supposed to be a 24/7 route running every 30 minutes during the day and evening hours and every 60 minutes overnight.

The following stops have been added: Forest Avenue/Van Pelt Avenue westbound Forest Avenue/Maple Parkway eastbound