Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

checkmatechamp13

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    10,733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

checkmatechamp13 last won the day on April 24 2018

checkmatechamp13 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,008 Excellent

3 Followers

About checkmatechamp13

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Planet Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

4,410 profile views
  1. @Lil 57 @BM5 via Woodhaven Numbers up for weekday/weekend. Multiply by approximately 3 for all routes except the SIM9 (which started later so multiply by 4)
  2. @Lil 57 @XcelsiorBoii4888 Here's the thing with fare evasion: Supposedly these numbers don't include farebeaters (even if the B/O pressed F5). A few years ago they mentioned something about it only including people who dipped a valid pass (honestly I think it might've even excluded their own employees who ride for free) In any case I remember back in 2010 they released the 2009 ridership numbers and the S46/96 showed 8600 riders (in the booklet where they described the reductions they would make) Then on that spreadsheet on the website (the one @Lil 57 posted) they showed 7200 riders. Maybe that means there were 1400 farebeaters, or maybe that means they were just sloppy with their numbers. So always take these stats with a grain of salt. Exactly. With all of the routing and scheduling changes made between August and December 2018, the SIM ridership numbers are meaningless. (Especially since between August and October the schedules were an absolute mess, forcing people to take routes they wouldn't normally take, even after August there were many issues) In any case, if any type of comparison is to be made, it should be weekday ridership vs. weekday ridership and weekend ridership vs. weekend ridership (problem is that as you said, the average includes timeframes when the route didn't run because it didn't exist) But for the weekday routes you can count the number of weekdays (or better, the number of days a weekday schedule was operated, so it excludes holidays like Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc) and divide annual ridership by that. The problem with the SIM4/8 is that the SIM4 numbers include SIM4C riders (and the SIM4C covered some X10 riders). And some X17 riders in Arden Heights were covered by the SIM2. The SIM2 saw a huge increase but the question is, how many were from the Hylan Blvd portion and/or off-peak compared to the original rush hour X19 service area (Arden Heights and Travis)?
  3. So the Jewett Avenue, Howard Avenue, Arden Avenue, Foster/Seguine, and Manor Road corridors lack weekend local bus service, Mosel Avenue, Huguenot Avenue, Fahy/Lamberts/Goethals corridors lack a local route entirely, we have one measly rush hour route to NJ, but we need only "minor" changes..... Yeah I'd like to have some of what you're smoking...
  4. The only one where that is the case is the 5:10pm departure from St. George (but of course, keep in mind that if you're eliminating the S94, that may impact crowding on the S90 a bit (though I would expect it to impact the S96/S98 more), which would make more trips warrant a second bus. But I disagree with the primary purpose of the S94 being to provide a quicker route for Richmond Avenue riders (keeping in mind that I live off Richmond Avenue. As I said, most Manhattan-bound riders in this area take the express bus....I'm a cheapskate and would love it if the local bus-ferry was a better alternative, but it simply isn't). Most of the ferry-bound ridership comes from north of Forest Avenue. So there would still be a lot of people along the rest of the route (Post/Cary, Henderson, etc) who would be negatively impacted by having to take the all-local S44 to the ferry during rush hour (not to mention, a lot of those S94 trips would have to be converted to S44 local trips anyway, which costs money because of the increased runtime of a local vs. limited trip). As I mentioned before, it only impacts one single stop along Brighton Avenue (the one at Webster Avenue), and that is on relatively level ground with the two stops in either direction (either Brighton/Lafayette for my proposed S42, or Jersey/Brighton for the S52). The topography of the surrounding area is important to consider (for example, Cottage Hill is uphill from both the S44/94 and S52, so that is why I was so adamant about a route serving that area). Think of it as similar to your S74 routing in Stapleton (which I agree with 100%). The Broad/Gordon stop loses service, but riders can either walk to the Tompkins/Broad stop, or Targee/Broad (or Van Duzer/Broad for southbound service) stops to catch an alternate route. In any case, look at the routing of your proposed S49 vs. sending the S44 to CSI...the concept is very similar (CSI-St. George via the North Shore). In order for it to be worth it, you'd have to be really confident that there is a market for North Shore-Bayonne service, to warrant sending the S44 over there as opposed to CSI. And then if you take into consideration what I said (Cottage Hill needing service moreso than that small stretch of Brighton Avenue), I think it would be better to have the S42 run up Cottage Hill full-time, and leave the S52 covering Jersey Street. Again, keep in mind that the S93 would replace the S62 overnight (so the S93 would run to Brooklyn, not to the ferry). So between Clove & Bradley the S61 would serve those who prefer taking the ferry, while the S93 would serve those who prefer taking the (R) train. I think the S61 would get similar overnight ridership to the present-day S62 (considering their ridership numbers during the day are comparable). I don't think the S77 would have enough ridership to run frequently enough to warrant short-turns (the other thing is, as big as the Bricktown/South Shore Commons area is commercial-wise, I don't think it's quite that big that it warrants a one-seat ride from every single area near it). I think it would be better to have the resources used for your proposed S67 (St. George-Port Richmond via Jewett) used to provide limited-stop service along the S66 (Arlington-St. George via Watchogue). That Grymes Hill detour can add a lot of time on days when there's an issue on the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge and traffic gets backed up along Clove Road, and while it's better than having no ferry-bound service (the current situation with the S57 along Watchogue), that situation can still be made better. The way I see it, with travel patterns in and out of Port Richmond being different, I don't think a "Port Richmond-St. George via Victory" route is necessary anymore. That's good in that it restores service along Foster/Seguine, but I think the whole South Shore portion of your plan still needs some work. I do think there is merit to a bus route running the length of Woodrow Road (if you think about it, it's one of the bigger residential corridors down on the South Shore, unlike along Arthur Kill or Hylan, where development is more spotty/clustered and you'll see townhouse developments, followed by empty land, followed by single-family homes and then more empty land, etc) If you think about it, where are some major destinations that people in Rossville are trying to get to? The ETC, Bricktown, the SIR, Tottenville High School, etc The S74 (your proposed S73) brings them to the ETC, and (via a circuitous route) to Bricktown, but it doesn't bring them to the SIR or Tottenville High School. If you had the S56 run straight across Woodrow, it would still get them to the ETC and Bricktown. Then you need something running north-south to get them to/from the SIR and Tottenville High School (And logically, that north-south route can continue down Foster/Seguine). The question is, is there enough demand to sustain north-south routes along both Bloomingdale and Rossville, or might it be necessary to run a sort of "compromise route" (e.g. Seguine/Foster-Woodrow-Rossville-Correll) The industrial part of Arthur Kill Road should just have service that connects to the ETC and to Tottenville. No need to divert to Bricktown or via Rossville. Actually, my comment was directed towards Orion6025, which suggested having it run over the Goethals Bridge (for your proposal, you didn't mention whether the S89 would take the Goethals Bridge, or whether it would be extended from Bayonne). But yes, my stance is that if a bus route is created over the Goethals Bridge, the first corridor that it connects with on Staten Island should be Forest Avenue. Once Forest Avenue is connected with, then we can discuss having other routes over the Goethals Bridge to corridors like Richmond Avenue. Yeah, I definitely agree with having a local route run the length of Huguenot Avenue, but the question is, where to terminate it? To go up to Arthur Kill Road only to come back down (even if it's highway mileage) is too circuitous. I'm not super-wild about having a local bus route along the West Shore Expressway, because of the dead mileage and variable traffic conditions involved (to be honest, I'd rather have the SIM2 and SIM26 run off-peak and call it a day (and if anybody needs to travel, they pay the express bus fare). The off-peak SIM26 would be rerouted to operate via South Avenue-Forest Avenue to serve the Graniteville area, as well as any reverse-peak commuters heading to/from the Teleport). But in any case, I'm still not wild about ending service at the Teleport coming from the south, but perhaps if it ran up to Arlington (and if the S46 were truncated to Forest & Grandview), that could provide enough ridership for it. (I also think that the S66 should run to the Teleport instead of Arlington. The Teleport is still missing connections heading to the east, and right now people have to backtrack all the way up to the North Shore for any connections they may be trying to make).
  5. Seems reasonable. Only thing is, you might want to run a few S90 trips to/from Matrix Park around shift change times (The S90 used to be pretty crowded, but ever since Amazon opened up and it was extended to serve it, some of those trips have gotten jam-packed, for example the 5:30pm out of the ferry). On your map, it shows the bus going up Westervelt to St. Marks Place and then using Hamilton Avenue/Wall Street to get down to Richmond Terrace to reach the ferry, with the S42 using Jersey Street to Brighton Avenue to Castleton Avenue. If that's the plan, then it is unacceptable because it doesn't restore full-time service to the Cottage Hill neighborhood. That area is just as hilly as the areas on the other side of Jersey Street (Westervelt Avenue, St. Marks Place, etc) and should have a full-time route. The S42 as it is (with all of its twists and turns) gets decent ridership in that area...and I'll put it to you this way: I was on an S44 that was rerouted through that area and 5 people got off along that portion of Lafayette Avenue (think about it, 5 people on a midday bus that was unexpectedly sent through that area...now imagine how many people that would be on a rush hour bus where the service was planned to go through, and then you have the people getting on heading towards the ferry that wouldn't have to walk down the hill to the S44). As a school route....fair enough...but that's all Decker Avenue should get is a school route. You can't tell me that it's OK to leave Foster/Seguine with no bus route, leave the southern end of Lafayette Avenue with no bus route, leave Jewett Avenue and Grymes Hill with weekday-only service, leave my neighborhood with a rush hour route, and then say Decker Avenue needs a full-time bus route. That's going way too far into NJT territory, especially considering it will be a local fare. For what you're trying to accomplish, it would be better to just offer a free transfer to the HBLR and call it a day. If you do want to send the S89 deeper into NJ, Newark Airport would be a better bet. It could be open-door (remember, NJT doesn't have a route from Bayonne to Newark Airport either. The whole point of closed-door service is so you don't compete with the other carrier...for example the S40/90 competing with the NJT #58 if they were to go to Elizabeth. That's why the Bee Line #60/61/62 operate open-door along Boston Road). Since you have a Staten Island route serving Newark Airport, you can just have the S98 serve Elizabeth, and alternate S48s serve Jersey Gardens, and call it a day. As I said, I disagree with the need for a route linking Bayonne to the eastern part of the North Shore. For CSI, students living on the North Shore, that would be better than nothing. For starters, it only directly serves the northern side of the campus...for the southern end you still have to transfer to the shuttle bus (after possibly having already made a transfer coming off another North Shore route). Also, it only really serves students living on the western end of the North Shore...if you live around Port Richmond/West Brighton, you're still basically packing onto the same overcrowded S93). That being said, that route really wouldn't be ideal from a traffic perspective: When I used to work in Grasmere, there would be days where instead of walking to the S93 and taking that to Targee Street (to either catch the S53 or walk) I would see the traffic backed up so much on the SIE that I would take a local bus to Forest Avenue, take the S98 to Tompkinsville, and then the SIR to Grasmere just to avoid all of that traffic (Forest Avenue got backed up in a couple of spots, but not nearly as bad as some of the areas near the SIE) My personal plan for the S93 would be to have 3 branches (I haven't updated my plan on CartoDB, but it's something I thought of after the fact) Travis - Bay Ridge (via Victory/via Narrows, 24/7 service) CSI - Bay Ridge (via Victory/via Narrows, runs weekdays/Saturdays) CSI - Bay Ridge (via Staten Island Expressway, AM westbound, PM eastbound). Stops at Building 1A, then the front gate, then nonstop to Brooklyn and vice versa in the morning) The S61 would run overnight to provide service along the eastern portion of Victory (and also the Meiers Corners/Heartland Village/New Springville area). The S62 would be eliminated (I'm debating as to whether or not the S92 should run some rush hour service, because there are a lot of days where traffic near the SIE makes it quicker to take the S92 to the ferry as opposed to the S93 to the train for those seeking service to Manhattan, or if a 3-legged transfer to the S91 would be sufficient). The S44 has low ridership in the evenings in this area and it goes to/from the ferry. There's been times I've been the last one off the bus (and I get off around the SIE). Honestly most people in this area take the express bus if they're coming home late at night. It's a lot faster than the ferry and then a local bus (even though the local bus is pretty fast, the ferry always takes that same slow 23-25 minutes to get across) The S61 would serve the Heartland Village area, and both it and the S79 would serve the New Springville area (with the S79 providing a connection to/from the train). So most people south of say, Rockland Avenue are still fairly close to an overnight route that connects to either the ferry or subway, and then people between say, Signs Road and the SIE are fairly close to the S93 (which again I would have replace the S62 at night). So it's a relatively small area (the area around Deppe Place, and the area between Signs Road and Rockland Avenue) that is a bit far from a direct route to the ferry (and also keep in mind, I would also have a SIM4N that would run via Richmond Avenue & Gannon Avenue to Downtown Manhattan). Also, keep in mind that the overnight S59 did not run all the way to Richmond Terrace. It ended at Forest & Willowbrook (which is where anybody coming from the ferry would transfer, and is definitely safer than waiting by Richmond Terrace or Castleton Avenue). I have a second job near there and often get out late (and sometimes walk back if I miss the bus...or if it's after 1:30am and the bus stopped running). You're making the assumption that every single trip would pull in/out of the depot. What if the driver has to do 2 round-trips, then gets a meal in the field, and does another 2 round-trips before they clear? Then they're only pulling in/out of the depot once to make those 4 round-trips. Also, Bricktown is close to Charleston, but it's not like the Yukon Depot which is literally right at the S44/61/91/94 terminal so there is still extra mileage involved (since the drivers have to turn up Veterans Road to get to/from Bricktown as opposed to running straight down Arthur Kill to reach Tottenville)
  6. That was the original plan for the SIM33C and then at the last minute they added back the Narrows Road stops. I would tend to agree with having it bypass Narrows. The next time you're on the SIM3 (or any bus that passes through the Forest & Richmond intersection) take a look at the crowd of people waiting for S48/98 buses heading westbound or getting off eastbound buses. I'd say ridership in Arlington is evenly split between the S40/90 and S48/98 (the S40/90 may get more people boarding each bus in that area, but that's because they run less frequently). Between the commercial areas along Forest Avenue (Arlington really doesn't have much besides a couple of delis...it's not like say Port Richmond or West Brighton) and the local bus connections (e.g. the S44/89/94 being available instead of just the S59 heading towards the mall), a lot of people in Arlington depend on the S48/98. Not to mention at night, I wouldn't want to walk from South Avenue to Holland Avenue... And yeah, making the routes straight and more direct attracts ridership if they go directly to the places where people actually want to go. The S55 runs straight down Annadale Road and is one of the least-efficient and lowest-ridership routes in the whole system. It only really gets riders during school times, and even with how straight it is, even some of the Tottenville HS kids take the SIR to the S59/79/89 if they're trying to reach the SI Mall. Running the S55 up Arden Avenue would provide residents with a direct connection to the Annadale SIR station (circuitous routes aren't too good right? Taking the S56 to Princes Bay to catch an eastbound train to St. George is pretty circuitous, isn't it? Giving them a direct route to Annadale should boot ridership, and if anybody is going to Princes Bay to catch a westbound train, the Annadale station is still a pretty direct shot). Also, for people working in that shopping center along Arden Avenue, that connection to/from the SIR would help them a lot. As you can see in my proposal, I do believe the SIR should be leveraged better than it is: If you don't live directly on the SIR, and the express bus system screws up (because of highway traffic or an incident in Manhattan), you're basically screwed. It is a long walk from the SIR up to Arthur Kill Road (a shorter walk to Hylan Blvd, but even then it's pretty long). Getting people to the SIR would at least provide some sort of redundancy in the event of express bus delays. That is what I take issue with....not in significant enough numbers to run the service past Tottenville. Again, the assumption that direct = higher ridership is not always true. Those who want a (relatively) quick ride to the ferry are already on the S78. You're literally changing the whole route just to essentially give one stop at the top of Ward Hill/Stapleton Heights a quicker route to the ferry (and even then, if they're in a hurry they can walk down the hill to Victory & Cebra Avenue where there are a ton of local buses along Victory Blvd going towards the ferry. You're also taking away the direct connection from the Jersey Street corridor to points south...so now if anybody on Jersey Street wants to catch the S61/62, they have to ride all the way down to Victory & Manor instead of going to Cebra & Victory and taking the S61/62 diagonally across. Not to mention those heading south (for example, to Stapleton to catch the S74/78) have to backtrack to the ferry. Again, more direct for whom exactly? As for the S42, have you ever been to the area by the last stop? It's one of the hilliest areas on Staten Island. The next time you take the S44/94 coming home from the ferry, look straight ahead at Lafayette & Henderson. There is a long, steep hill that stretches all the way up to Prospect Avenue, and then as you go up Prospect (or especially up Arnold) you go up even more hills until you get to the last stop. If anything, the area along Brighton Avenue (between Lafayette & Jersey) is where you can remove service. That area is downhill from Castleton, but it's on (fairly) level ground with the Brighton & Lafayette & Brighton & Jersey stops. I don't know if I told you this, but I live near the SIE, and I proposed exactly that (send some S61/62 trips up Watchogue and up Goethals/Fahy/Lamberts) during rush hour as a temporary measure to at least get us some local service without having to do a major restructuring just yet. However, that should not be a permanent solution. This area needs a full-time bus route. I started a petition back in high school (I have about 1500 signatures sitting in a desk at home) and have the backing of some local community groups, and we intend to push until we receive full-time service. That being said, one of the things to consider is that people may be boarding a bus at a particular stop because it just so happens that that is where the stop is located (if that makes sense). As an example, back when the old system was in place, I would board the X30 at Goethals Road North, and then take that to Bryant Park for the train to get to Queens. Now that the SIM system is operating, I take the SIM8, but I don't board at South Avenue, I board along Richmond Avenue because I live closer to Richmond Avenue. But under the old system, I took the longer walk to the X30 because that bus went directly to 42nd Street (which saved me a little bit of traffic and also saved me from having to take another subway line to reach the ) Now that the SIM4X/8X stop at Lamberts Lane, I sometimes board the bus at Lamberts Lane. There's other stops that are closer to me, but I walk the extra distance to give myself the option of the SIM4X/8X instead of just the regular SIM4/8. So what I'm saying is that those riders that board the S57 in that area may be able to just as easily catch it if it ran along Jewett Avenue. When I presented the idea, there were some people who lived in the Westerleigh area who had that exact issue (either they caught the S66 along Jewett to reach the ferry, or they caught the S57 along Watchogue to reach the New Dorp area, and I basically told them that they would just catch the bus on the opposite street). So yes, if somebody lived directly by Port Richmond Avenue (if they were walking to Decker) or Willowbrook Road, then yes they would have to transfer to reach the S57, but most of the riders would be able to catch the S57 at a different stop. (For riders transferring to/from the S48/98, they would just make the transfer at Jewett instead of Willowbrook. Matter of fact, Jewett is a little bit easier because the S98 stops there in both directions, instead of having to backtrack to Decker if you just missed the S48 and want to try for the S98 in the PM). To be honest, I think the S89 is enough for Bayonne-bound service. The S44 should focus on getting North Shore residents down towards the Mid-Island (it doesn't necessarily have to be the current route to the SI Mall via Richmond Avenue. It could be to CSI via Willowbrook Road/Woolley Avenue for example) No problem. With the S45/95, notice that under that proposal, I have the S46/96 ending at Port Richmond High School. That part of the proposal needs work (keep in mind I made this over 3 years ago, so I needed to refresh my memory. I forgot I made that proposal TBH). But basically, what I was thinking with this is that the western part of Mariners Harbor needed a quicker route to St. George for those who weren't near Richmond Terrace. So I cut back the S46/96 to Port Richmond High School (for reliability purposes and also to save resources) and created a route that served Mariners Harbor and then went straight to Richmond Terrace. I also know a lot of people take the S46/96 (or S48/98) to connect with the S53, so I extended the limited-stop version of the S53 into Mariners Harbor/Arlington to provide that direct service. So most of the present-day S46/96 riders still have a one-seat ride. There is definitely demand for better connectivity to CSI from both the North Shore and South Shore. Both of us agree that the S56 should be extended to CSI to provide the South Shore connectivity, but there is still a need for better North Shore connectivity. Even if there aren't too many riders using it along the residential portions of the route (Willowbrook Road/Woolley Avenue), I can definitely see a lot of riders taking it to connect to the North Shore routes. Think of it this way, there's actually a lot of people taking the S93 for trips in a roundabout way. For example, I've met people who live in Port Richmond and take the S53 to Clove & Victory for the S93 (and make that annoying transfer that involves walking a few blocks because of how the bus stops are placed). But what's the alternative? Take the S59 to Christopher Lane and then walk down to CSI from there (because the S62 is too infrequent and traffic is too heavy along Victory during certain times of day)? Take the S57/66 to Jewett...for the S93...that's part of the reason the route is so crowded, we have one public college on Staten Island and that's the only bus that directly enters the campus (the S62 is only good for reaching the northern end, and even then, CSI has a ferry shuttle, so even most of those riders use the S62 and S93 interchangeably). So yeah, weekdays there should definitely be a route (doesn't necessarily have to be my S58. You can have the S44 run to CSI and then instead run the S89 on weekends to the ETC). The S59 would provide the overnight service along the southern part of Hylan Blvd under that proposal. So riders would either take the S52, S79, or S59, depending on where they live.
  7. As a general rule, you are much more likely to get a "ghetto" passenger on a local bus than on an express bus. There have been incidents where B/Os have been killed over the fare (and personally, even if I were an express bus B/O I wouldn't challenge anyone over the fare). Wouldn't that increase in runtime cost more money? On the S44, not enough of the ferry-bound ridership comes from points south of the SIE (Trust me, I'd love to save money and take the ferry, but the express bus gets me to Manhattan in the time it takes a fast local bus driver to get me to the ferry....time is money and that is the one reason I stick with the express bus)
  8. What was your plan once you got on the Q20A? To connect with the Q50?
  9. A few comments (keep in mind I have my own proposal available as well. Obviously it was before the Amazon warehouse was the big thing that it is now). While I do agree with extending the Forest Avenue buses across the Goethals Bridge, I don't agree with extending every single one over there. It isn't like the S53/79/93 where the peak load point is traveling over the bridge. In other words, you can send the S98 to one destination in NJ (either Elizabeth, Newark Airport, or Jersey Gardens), and send half of the S48 buses to the other one, but half of the S48 buses should remain going to Arlington. A lot of those residents need that connection to Forest Avenue (and all the major transfer points like Forest & Richmond and Forest & Broadway). If you want to cover the third destination, then perhaps a route from the Mid-Island/South Shore (e.g. Richmond Avenue corridor) can be created. Generally speaking, you still leave too many coverage gaps on the South Shore. I like that you filled the gap on Huguenot Avenue, but it came at the expense of service along Arden and Foster/Seguine. I've always thought that the northern part of Arden should be covered by the S55 (thereby connecting those residents to the Annadale SIR station). There's no need for a local bus along the northern part of Annadale Road, since it's fairly close to either Woodrow Road or Richmond Avenue, depending on where exactly you are. Anything that passes through Tottenville should be ending there. Most of the S78 riders who take it to Bricktown are from Tottenville itself, and running the Arthur Kill Road bus down to Tottenville would give residents access to both Hylan Blvd and Arthur Kill Road. The portion of the S42 that needs the service is up around Arnold Street. To bypass that area to place the S42 on Jersey Street so that the S52 can run straight up Victory does a disservice to those living in the hills west of Jersey Street. At a minimum, the S42 should run up Lafayette Avenue while the S52 covers Jersey Street and St. Marks Place (to go up Franklin Avenue and go a little higher into the hills is optional, but to at least go up Lafayette Avenue is a must). I like that you included a route along Goethals Road North/Fahy Avenue, but it should be a 7 day route. Having Jewett Avenue and Fahy/Goethals receiving weekday-only/rush hour-only service while Willowbrook Road & Decker Avenue receive 7 day service doesn't make sense (even if that is the way it is today)
  10. If the runtimes are too long, they should be shortened. It's no secret that buses are generally able to complete their trips quicker in the summer. That being said, I would agree past a certain point (e.g. Jewett on the Victory Blvd routes, since if you miss one bus, there's likely another bus of a different route coming along shortly anyway). You can set the cutoff differently for each route for where they're allowed to run early (it doesn't necessarily have to be where more routes overlap, but it should be reasonably close to the ferry. e.g. Broadway on the S46/96 and S48/98). But the runtimes should be addressed where possible first, so a driver traveling at a quick pace is actually on schedule. Having that cutoff too early in the schedule basically means B/Os can do whatever they want, which can lead to bunching and so on, so you don't want to get carried away with that. The problem is some routes are just too long and delay-prone. Take a long route like the S74: It could be scheduled to meet the 8am ferry, a quick driver gets your there in time for the 7:45am ferry, and a slow driver gets you there in time for a 8:15am ferry. Many routes run more frequently than the ferry (e.g. Every 8, 10, or 12 minutes when the ferry is every 15). Considering the headways aren't always a factor of 15, it's harder to do than you think (also, you don't want every single bus scheduled to arrive at exactly the same time...that'll cause backups getting into the ramps and people will be scrambling for their ferries anyway).
  11. I agree. However the dispatcher might have the 6:03pm trip load up and leave first and then have the 6pm trip load up with those who couldn't fit onto the 6pm trip, plus those traveling south of the SIE (or he might just make it a limited anyway). As for the Q111/114 the new schedule is on Trip Planner and on the GTFS feed. The interesting thing is that it says Q114-LTD for the entire schedule, which implies that it runs overnight as a limited.
  12. Most of the time I just go up to them, start talking, and exchange numbers if they are interesting enough to meet again. Sometimes I do chicken out though, sadly.
  13. Supposedly the little black box above the door is only supposed to count actual people entering/exiting, but who knows?
  14. Seems like the program didn't last long. I checked the NICE website and couldn't find it (and when I Googled it, I got a 404 error when I reached that page).

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.