Staten Island Division: 2010 and beyond

[checkmatechamp13]

This is how I would do it if I had to extend each of those routes to Bayonne:

 

(S53)/(S66): Castleton Avenue-Port Richmond Avenue-Walker Street-Trantor Place-Route 440 entrance ramp.

(S57)/(S67): Post Avenue-Port Richmond Avenue-Walker Street-Trantor Place-Route 440 entrance ramp.

(S59): This would have to be rerouted away from Port Richmond Avenue entirely, and would have to be replaced with (S57) service (rerouted from Decker Avenue). It would go from Richmond Avenue-Morningstar Road-Walker Street-Trantor Place-Route 440 entrance ramp.

 

Out of all of these, I think the (S59) is the most feasable. The problem is the low frequency of the (S57) and the fact that the (S57) doesn't connect to Richmond Avenue. I guess short-turns to Forest Avenue/Richmond Avenue would have to be used (bus turns around via Monsey Place, Sanders Street, and Forest Avenue)

[Santa Fe via Willow]

The X24 uses Woodrow Road between Arden Avenue and Hugenot Avenue.

 

Hopefully, the rail system gets expanded so that these bus lines can feed into a station, as an alternative to park-and-rides.

 

By the way, where is Amundsen Circle?

 

Amundsen Circle's a small circular island park on Amboy Rd, in between Clarke & Guyon Aves.

 

Of course if you, or anyone else, wants to run this route longer, say, to/from New Dorp or someplace, that's :cool:

[Santa Fe via Willow]

This is how I would do it if I had to extend each of those routes to Bayonne:

 

(S53)/(S66): Castleton Avenue-Port Richmond Avenue-Walker Street-Trantor Place-Route 440 entrance ramp.

(S57)/(S67): Post Avenue-Port Richmond Avenue-Walker Street-Trantor Place-Route 440 entrance ramp.

(S59): This would have to be rerouted away from Port Richmond Avenue entirely, and would have to be replaced with (S57) service (rerouted from Decker Avenue). It would go from Richmond Avenue-Morningstar Road-Walker Street-Trantor Place-Route 440 entrance ramp.

 

Out of all of these, I think the (S59) is the most feasable. The problem is the low frequency of the (S57) and the fact that the (S57) doesn't connect to Richmond Avenue. I guess short-turns to Forest Avenue/Richmond Avenue would have to be used (bus turns around via Monsey Place, Sanders Street, and Forest Avenue)

 

Objectively, or ridership-wise, the 59 seems to be the practical, maybe most democratic choice to go to/from Bayonne.

 

The (89) is, sort of, can be thought of, as a LTD "isotope" of the 59 that goes to/from Bayonne.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

I also thought it would've been great if (NJT) extended bus routes 81, the (81)WX {Weekday Express}, & bus #10, into SI.

 

This, in conjunction with say, the 53 & 59 being extended into Bayonne.

[checkmatechamp13]

Amundsen Circle's a small circular island park on Amboy Rd, in between Clarke & Guyon Aves.

 

Of course if you, or anyone else, wants to run this route longer, say, to/from New Dorp or someplace, that's :cool:

 

I would definitely extend it to connect with the (SIR). It should probably be extended down Guyon Avenue with the (S57)

 

Objectively, or ridership-wise, the 59 seems to be the practical, maybe most democratic choice to go to/from Bayonne.

 

The (89) is, sort of, can be thought of, as a LTD "isotope" of the 59 that goes to/from Bayonne.

 

Technically, the (S89) is the limited version of the (S59). When the MTA presented the ridership and cost-efficiency data, they listed the it as "S59/89" (and you can also see that the S59 matches the S89).

 

The advantage of the (S59) going to Bayonne is that Morningstar Road would get the option of both the (S44)/(S59).

 

I also thought it would've been great if (NJT) extended bus routes 81, the (81)WX {Weekday Express}, & bus #10, into SI.

 

This, in conjunction with say, the 53 & 59 being extended into Bayonne.

 

That's a pretty good idea, but keep in mind that whatever route is chosen would have to bypass the southern portion of the route (West 7th Street and points south) in order to get onto the Bayonne Bridge, so maybe the buses should alternate between a southern terminal in SI and Bayonne.

I would say that a good place to terminate would be the College of Staten Island. The buses could get off at the Richmond Terrace exit (to connect with the (S46)/(S96), continue down Morningstar Road to Forest Avenue (to connect with the (S48)/(S98), and then get back on Route 440 at the Forest Avenue entrance and go nonstop to CSI.

As far as extending an SI route to Bayonne, I would probably leave it as the (S59) only. Between the NJ buses and (S59), anybody who wants to travel between Bayonne and SI would have very frequent service. (I think the #10 is run by Red and Tan, not NJT). See the schedule: http://www.coachusa.com/CoachUsaAssets/files/96/route1099Ssched.pdf.

 

I guess the advantage of the light rail system would be that there would be one fare system instead of 3 (MTA, NJT, and Red and Tan, though I think Red and Tan has the same fares as NJT).

[Santa Fe via Willow]

I would definitely extend it to connect with the (SIR). It should probably be extended down Guyon Avenue with the (S57)

 

 

 

Technically, the (S89) is the limited version of the (S59). When the MTA presented the ridership and cost-efficiency data, they listed the it as "S59/89" (and you can also see that the S59 matches the S89).

 

The advantage of the (S59) going to Bayonne is that Morningstar Road would get the option of both the (S44)/(S59).

 

 

 

That's a pretty good idea, but keep in mind that whatever route is chosen would have to bypass the southern portion of the route (West 7th Street and points south) in order to get onto the Bayonne Bridge, so maybe the buses should alternate between a southern terminal in SI and Bayonne.

 

I would say that a good place to terminate would be the College of Staten Island. The buses could get off at the Richmond Terrace exit (to connect with the (S46)/(S96), continue down Morningstar Road to Forest Avenue (to connect with the (S48)/(S98), and then get back on Route 440 at the Forest Avenue entrance and go nonstop to CSI.

As far as extending an SI route to Bayonne, I would probably leave it as the (S59) only. Between the NJ buses and (S59), anybody who wants to travel between Bayonne and SI would have very frequent service. (I think the #10 is run by Red and Tan, not NJT). See the schedule: http://www.coachusa.com/CoachUsaAssets/files/96/route1099Ssched.pdf.

 

I guess the advantage of the light rail system would be that there would be one fare system instead of 3 (MTA, NJT, and Red and Tan, though I think Red and Tan has the same fares as NJT).

 

I really like your SI Railmap. Very interesting:tup: Has a Long Beach (CA) charm to it:cool:

 

Speaking of CSI, that's the first place that always came to mind anytime I heard about the HBLR being extended into SI.

[checkmatechamp13]

By the way, the schedule says that the #10 charges a local bus fare and the #99 and #99X charge an express fare. What is the local fare and what is the express fare? Also, where do the #10/#99/#99s have their local express run?

 

I wonder if there would be some way of having Red and Tan do one simple route from the Port Authority Bus Terminal to Staten Island. They could be reimbursed by NJT for the New Jersey section and by the MTA for the Staten Island section. This offers the following advantages:

 

1) One fare system for the whole line, so passengers between Bayonne and Staten Island get charged one fare. (Especially with the SmartCard being implemented, the card could be programmed to accept free transfers from SI local buses on one end, as well as half-fare transfers from NJT buses, with the corresponding agency reimbursing Red and Tan)

 

2) A reduction in the number of non-revenue runs, which means that the people get more service and the operator gets more money from fares.

 

3) One-seat access between points in Staten Island and points in northern Bayonne/Jersey City, as well as the Port Authority Bus terminal, if any Staten Islanders find that this is faster than the SI Ferry.

 

Under this plan, alternate #10 buses could terminate in Staten Island (half would continue to serve the southern part of Bayonne) 7 days per week. Either this would be able to expand weekend limited-stop service on Richmond Avenue (basically, expanded (S89) service), or this would involve my plan to restructure the (S57)/(S59) to send the (S59) to Bayonne. Or this route could be extended via my proposed (S73) route to the South Shore.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

By the way, the schedule says that the #10 charges a local bus fare and the #99 and #99X charge an express fare. What is the local fare and what is the express fare? Also, where do the #10/#99/#99s have their local express run?

 

I wonder if there would be some way of having Red and Tan do one simple route from the Port Authority Bus Terminal to Staten Island. They could be reimbursed by NJT for the New Jersey section and by the MTA for the Staten Island section.

 

This offers the following advantages:

 

1) One fare system for the whole line, so passengers between Bayonne and Staten Island get charged one fare. (Especially with the SmartCard being implemented, the card could be programmed to accept free transfers from SI local buses on one end, as well as half-fare transfers from NJT buses, with the corresponding agency reimbursing Red and Tan)

 

2) A reduction in the number of non-revenue runs, which means that the people get more service and the operator gets more money from fares.

 

3) One-seat access between points in Staten Island and points in northern Bayonne/Jersey City, as well as the Port Authority Bus terminal, if any Staten Islanders find that this is faster than the SI Ferry.

 

Under this plan, alternate #10 buses could terminate in Staten Island (half would continue to serve the southern part of Bayonne) 7 days per week. Either this would be able to expand weekend limited-stop service on Richmond Avenue (basically, expanded (S89) service), or this would involve my plan to restructure the (S57)/(S59) to send the (S59) to Bayonne. Or this route could be extended via my proposed (S73) route to the South Shore.

 

Direct access to/from PABT from SI would be :cool: Help folks going Upstate & elsewhere via Greyhound. Trailways or other bus companies.

[checkmatechamp13]

It would also help out people not going to destinations not served by the HBLR, like Journal Square, as well as all other points along JFK Blvd.

 

As far as passengers going to Manhattan, I'm sure they would prefer to stick to their express buses, especially during rush hours. When the express buses start to run with higher headways, that might be a different story.

 

What could be done (until the HBLR is extended) is the following:

 

The #10 runs via the (S73) route I described, as the primary SI-NJ route

The #81 runs to the College of Staten Island.

As far as limited-stop service on Richmond Avenue goes, the (S89) could be rerouted to run entirely with the (S59), with local service along Port Richmond Avenue.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

It would also help out people not going to destinations not served by the HBLR, like Journal Square, as well as all other points along JFK Blvd.

 

As far as passengers going to Manhattan, I'm sure they would prefer to stick to their express buses, especially during rush hours. When the express buses start to run with higher headways, that might be a different story.

 

What could be done (until the HBLR is extended) is the following:

 

The #10 runs via the (S73) route I described, as the primary SI-NJ route

 

The #81 runs to the College of Staten Island.

 

As far as limited-stop service on Richmond Avenue goes, the (S89) could be rerouted to run entirely with the (S59), with local service along Port Richmond Avenue.

 

:cool:That would be great.

 

It would be great if the present Powers That Be in NJ are more open to extending (NJT), & other bus routes, into SI. Over 6 & a half years ago, maybe 7 now?, I sent (NJT) a letter asking them about extending the 81, (81)WX & #10 into SI. They sent me back a letter basically saying "No", & how I should contact (NYCT) about extending an (NYCT) SI bus route over to Bayonne instead. They pointed out to me, as you mentioned above, how #10 is R&T.

 

But that was over 6 & a half years ago. I'd like to think NJ's present PTB are open, more open, to extending (NJT) & other NJ bus routes into SI.

 

IIRC, back then, the idea that there would ever really be an (89) was an abstract desire. Wishful thinking by SIers, forever hampered by interstate redtape & other bureaucratic rubbish.

 

Well the fact the (89) exists at all is a good omen. (NYCT) finally made the right call. Maybe, now, (NJT) & other NJ bus providers, will do the same:)

[checkmatechamp13]

You know what? I think I'll write a letter to NJT explaining the advantages of a route connecting SI-Jersey City. Like you said, its a good sign that the (S89) was created, so maybe they'll listen, especially, if the extension might not even cost them anything (since the SI portion of the route could be funded by the MTA).

 

I'll get back to everybody on how that turns out.

[B35 via Church]

**public service announcement**

 

 

18 pages of SI bus ideas to this point.. good general points & ideas in here... I'm impressed....

most boards, you're lucky to get 18 posts about anything staten island, period....

 

Props to you (checkmatechamp), santa fe, s78/hylan, and sir north shore for keeping this going...

 

 

**now back to your regularly scheduled programming**

[LRG]

**public service announcement**

 

 

18 pages of SI bus ideas to this point.. good general points & ideas in here... I'm impressed....

most boards, you're lucky to get 18 posts about anything staten island, period....

 

Props to you (checkmatechamp), santa fe, s78/hylan, and sir north shore for keeping this going...

 

 

**now back to your regularly scheduled programming**

 

Hey, Staten Island IS a part of New York whether people like it or not, appreciate it or not. I treat it as equal as any other borough of NYC, sometimes giving it more props

[Santa Fe via Willow]

You know what? I think I'll write a letter to NJT explaining the advantages of a route connecting SI-Jersey City. Like you said, its a good sign that the (S89) was created, so maybe they'll listen, especially, if the extension might not even cost them anything (since the SI portion of the route could be funded by the MTA).

 

I'll get back to everybody on how that turns out.

 

:cool:Good luck!:tup:

 

Hopefully now they're more open to SI/NJ bus routes from their end than in the past.

 

:cool: B35, LRG

[checkmatechamp13]

I sent the letter to NJT, Red and Tan, and the MTA, so if one thinks it is a good idea, maybe they can persuade the other ones.

 

I have a couple of new ideas:

 

-Reroute the (S54) to run via Arthur Kill Road-Clarke Avenue-Amboy Road-Richmond Road-Rockland Avenue (it would also serve the New Dorp (SIR) station with the (S57))

-If Todt Hill residents acually wanted a bus, this is how I would give it to them:

(S77): New Dorp SIR station-Port Richmond

New Dorp Lane-Richmond Road-Todt Hill Road-Slosson Avenue-Martling Avenue-Manor Road-College Avenue-Willowbrook Road-Port Richmond Avenue.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

I sent the letter to NJT, Red and Tan, and the MTA, so if one thinks it is a good idea, maybe they can persuade the other ones.

 

I have a couple of new ideas:

 

-Reroute the (S54) to run via Arthur Kill Road-Clarke Avenue-Amboy Road-Richmond Road-Rockland Avenue (it would also serve the New Dorp (SIR) station with the (S57))

 

-If Todt Hill residents acually wanted a bus, this is how I would give it to them:

 

(S77): New Dorp SIR station-Port Richmond

New Dorp Lane-Richmond Road-Todt Hill Road-Slosson Avenue-Martling Avenue-Manor Road-College Avenue-Willowbrook Road-Port Richmond Avenue.

 

Hopefully NJ will be more SI friendly this time:)

 

Your (S54) idea would help with SIR connections.

 

Re: Your s77 idea-

LOL! I also made up a 77:) I'll have to post about it in here in the future.

 

I like your 77's route. Todt Hill Rd would be an interesting street to ride an (NYCT) bus on.

[checkmatechamp13]

Another idea for the current service:

 

The (X19) only serves the South Shore of Staten Island. My plan would help it serve part of the North Shore:

Manhattan-bound: Current route-West Shore Expressway-South Avenue-Fahy Avenue-Lamberts Lane-Staten Island Expressway-Current route.

Staten Island-bound: Current route-Staten Island Expressway-South Avenue (Exit 6)-West Shore Expressway.

 

This would bring an express bus to the hotels along South Avenue (I'm sure that they can advertise that guests can take an express bus to Manhattan and sightsee, and then take it back in the afternoon).

 

It would also bring an express service to Lower Manhattan to the people living near South Avenue/Goethals Road North. Currently, in order to get to Lower Manhattan, they have to go over to the (X12) on Forest Avenue or on Richmond Avenue, and the (X12) doesn't go express until Slosson Avenue. (Or they could take the (S96) to St. George for the SI Ferry). This way, they get a route that gets right onto the Staten Island Expressway.

 

Another idea to expand service to the area is to reroute (X17J) buses to take Forest Avenue-South Avenue-Fahy Avenue instead of having them stay on the Staten Island Expressway.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Another idea for the current service:

 

The (X19) only serves the South Shore of Staten Island. My plan would help it serve part of the North Shore:

 

Manhattan-bound: Current route-West Shore Expressway-South Avenue-Fahy Avenue-Lamberts Lane-Staten Island Expressway-

 

Current route.

Staten Island-bound: Current route-Staten Island Expressway-South Avenue (Exit 6)-West Shore Expressway.

 

This would bring an express bus to the hotels along South Avenue (I'm sure that they can advertise that guests can take an express bus to Manhattan and sightsee, and then take it back in the afternoon).

 

It would also bring an express service to Lower Manhattan to the people living near South Avenue/Goethals Road North. Currently, in order to get to Lower Manhattan, they have to go over to the (X12) on Forest Avenue or on Richmond Avenue, and the (X12) doesn't go express until Slosson Avenue. (Or they could take the (S96) to St. George for the SI Ferry). This way, they get a route that gets right onto the Staten Island Expressway.

 

Another idea to expand service to the area is to reroute (X17J) buses to take Forest Avenue-South Avenue-Fahy Avenue instead of having them stay on the Staten Island Expressway.

 

^ These things would be great:cool:

 

(NYCT) fails to utilize the WSE & SIE's potential regarding its bus services. Especially with all the hotels SI has now.

[checkmatechamp13]

As I've said before, the SIE service road could really use a local bus, at least during rush hours. I've mentioned extending the (S93) further west to South Avenue.

 

Which of the following seems like the most feasable plan?

 

Extend the (S93) to the West Shore Plaza via Richmond Avenue, Fahy Avenue/Goethals Road North, and South Avenue (so it would be next to the Meredith Depot)

 

Extend all (S48) buses that terminate at Forest Avenue/Richmond Avenue to South Avenue/Goethals Road North via Richmond Avenue and Fahy Avenue/Goethals Road North.

 

Extend all (S46) buses that terminate at Forest Avenue/South Avenue to Lamberts Lane/Richmond Avenue via South Avenue and Fahy Avenue/Goethals Road North.

 

Create a new route called the (S58) to run from SeaView Hospital to South Avenue/Richmond Terrace via Brielle Avenue, Rockland Avenue, Richmond Avenue, Fahy Avenue/Goethals Road North, and South Avenue.

 

*Obviously, I doubt this will happen anytime in the near future, but in maybe 5 years or so when they think up some new ideas, which do you think would be mot likely to be implemented?

 

^ These things would be great:cool:

 

(NYCT) fails to utilize the WSE & SIE's potential regarding its bus services. Especially with all the hotels SI has now.

 

The good thing about the hotels is that they are all have the capability to be served by some express routes (or are presently served). The soon-to-be Crowne Plaza Hotel is near the X10/X17, and the Hilton Garden Inn and Hampton Inn have the capability to be served directly by the X19 to Lower Manhattan and either the X22, X23, X24, or AE7 buses to Midtown Manhattan. The Comfort Inn in Travis is currently served by the X19/AE7, as well as the X11.

 

I'm sure that, business travelers would consider staying out in Staten Island if they rerouted some express routes to South Avenue, since they would have a direct ride to their place of business.

 

As far as rerouting the X19 to South Avenue, that might be a very worthy decision to make for another reason-the traffic on the West Shore Expressway can get pretty bad, and South Avenue bypasses a portion of that traffic. The MTA might realize that South Avenue can end up beig the quicker route, and decide to reroute the service. Then, they'll realize that there are potential customers in that corridor and my plan could potentially come to fruition in the near future.

[checkmatechamp13]

:cool:Good luck!:tup:

 

Hopefully now they're more open to SI/NJ bus routes from their end than in the past.

 

:cool: B35, LRG

 

NJT just responded to my email. They said that I should contact Coach USA (which I aready did), so I'm still waiting for a response from Red and Tan (which is a subsidiary of Coach USA) and NYCT.

[SIR North Shore]

I'll scratch the idea of combining the (S42) and (S54), instead I would like to see the (S54) simply extended to St George via Richmond Terrace.

 

Yesterday, I had to be in Lower Manhattan by 12 but I found myself waiting for a S40 from 11am to 1135am and there should be about 2-3 40s in that time and only one crowded NG shown up and of course I missed the ferry. I couldn't even count on my fingers and toes how often this happens.

 

The (S54) B/Os lay up at North Burgher Ave & Richmond Terrace for about 20-30 minutes anyway and it's only 10-15 minutes away from the ferry at that point. This would also have the benefit of helping out S46 riders as well and fill in the void left by the re-routed S52.

[checkmatechamp13]

Damn. I didn't realize that they had a 20-30 minute layover.

 

I can definitely see West Brighton riders using the (S54) if it ran on Richmond Terrace, since now it would definitely be faster than the (S46). Good news for riders in West New Brighton (faster trip), and good news for all of us in points further west (less crowded buses, since people west of Broadway might start walking to Richmond Terrace, since it is a faster ride with a better chance of catching a bus).

[SIR North Shore]

Yeah, and the layover for the S54 on weekends was even longer than that.

[S78 via Hylan]

I just thought of this new idea:

 

The (S59) eliminated

 

 

And it's replacement:

 

The (S89) would be extended from Richmond Av/Hylan Blvd to Tottenville all day weekdays to supplement the (S78). As a result of the (S59) elimination, the (S89) would run daily from about Weekdays 5AM-11PM, Saturdays 6AM-10PM, and Sundays 7AM-9PM. The (S89) would make all stops between Hylan Blvd and Tottenville.

 

The (S78) would run between St. George and Hylan Blvd/Richmond Av during the day and would be extended to Tottenville during the late night hours while the (S89) is not operating. This would avoid duplication. The reason I propose this is because the (S78) has low ridership South of Richmond Av.

 

For passegers who need to go to Port Richmond, then can take the (S89) to Richmond Av near the Staten Island Mall and transfer to the (S44). To avoid overcrowding, the (S44) will have shorter headways and extended hours of operation. As for Port Richmond Av, the (S57) would be rerouted from Post Av/Decker Av and instead run on Port Richmond Av to Forest Av and then continue it's regular route.

 

 

Comments?

[SIR North Shore]

I just thought of this new idea:

 

The (S89) would be extended from Richmond Av/Hylan Blvd to Tottenville all day weekdays to supplement the (S78). As a result of the (S59) elimination, the (S89) would run daily from about Weekdays 5AM-11PM, Saturdays 6AM-10PM, and Sundays 7AM-9PM. The (S89) would make all stops between Hylan Blvd and Tottenville.

 

From the times I rode the S78 past Hylan & Richmond, it was probably just me and 1 other person on the bus, the other person being the bus operator lol.

 

The (S78) would run between St. George and Hylan Blvd/Richmond Av during the day and would be extended to Tottenville during the late night hours while the (S89) is not operating. This would avoid duplication.

 

This seems a bit unnecessary, it would probably come down to ridership needs. The S78 has been running to Tottenville 24/7 for as long as anyone can remember, I don't see why the MTA would change that. The S59 running to Tottenville is mainly for students.

 

For passengers who need to go to Port Richmond, then can take the (S89) to Richmond Av near the Staten Island Mall and transfer to the (S44).

 

This would leave a portion of Port Richmond Avenue without any local bus service, and the S44 has shorter hours than the S59 so this would be a service cut in some people's eyes. The S44 would then be even more crowded and would require either more service or artics to handle the Richmond Av local stops by itself. That would ultimately negate the point of eliminating the S59. (Which I assume would be to save money.)

 

What I would do is wait until the HBLR 8th Street station opens, because it's located at the very first exit off the Bayonne Bridge instead of traveling miles in NJ to 34th St. The current S89 should then become a full-time route, since less buses would be needed.