Staten Island Division: 2010 and beyond

[checkmatechamp13]

According to this article, the AE7 only has 175 daily riders: http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/atlantic_express_is_pulling_th.html. That puts it below all of the NYCT routes that have already been eliminated. I guess some passengers were lost to the SIR while others saw that the X22 nearby offered free transfers and heavier discounts.

 

Here is a summary of my ideas for SI Bus service in the current state (without any train lines to feed into except for the SIR

NOTE: Operating hours are the same unless otherwise noted.

 

S40/S90: St George-Eltingville via Richmond Terrace, South Avenue, West Shore Expressway, and Arden Avenue.

 

Rush hours, S40 runs to Arlington Place and S90 runs full route.

 

S44/S94: St George-SI Mall via Henderson Avenue and Richmond Avenue.

 

Rush hours, S44 runs to Jewett Avenue and S94 runs the full route.

 

S46/S96: St George-Arlington via Castleton Avenue

 

S48/S98: St George-Newark Airport via Forest Avenue.

 

Rush hours, some buses terminate at Richmond Avenue.

 

S51: St George-Grant City via Bay Street and Father Capodanno Blvd.

 

S52: St George-Dongan Hills via Tompkins Avenue and Seaview Avenue.

 

S53: Bay Ridge-Port Richmond via Clove Road.

 

S54: St George-Eltingville via Henderson Avenue, Manor Road, and Clarke Avenue.

 

Serves New Dorp SIR station.

 

S55: SeaView Hospital-Perth Amboy via Annadale Road and Bloomingdale Road.

 

S56: SI Mall-Hugenot via Woodrow Road and Foster Road.

 

S57: Port Richmond-New Dorp Beach via Watchogue Road, Bradley Avenue, and Rockland Avenue. Serves New Dorp SIR station.

 

S59: Port Richmond-Eltingville via Richmond Avenue.

 

24/7 service.

 

S61/S91: St George-SI Mall via Victory Blvd and Forest Hill Road.

 

Weekdays and Saturdays, S91 limited-stop bus replaces S61.

 

S62/S92: St George-Travis via Victory Blvd.

 

Rush hours, S62 only runs to/from College of Staten Island.

 

S66: St George-Port Richmond via Victory Blvd, Howard Avenue, and Jewett Avenue.

 

7-day service.

 

S74: St George-Tottenville via Richmond Road/Arthur Kill Road.

 

S76: St George-New Dorp Beach via Vanderbilt Avenue, Richmond Road, and New Dorp Lane.

 

S78: St George-Tottenville via Hylan Blvd.

 

S79: Bay Ridge-SI Mall via Hylan Blvd and Richmond Avenue.

 

S93: Bay Ridge-West Shore Plaza via Clove Road, Victory Blvd, and Fahy Avenue/Goethals Road North.

 

Runs all day weekdays.

 

Red and Tan #10: Extension of #10 over S89 route. Runs 7-day service.

 

Express routes:

 

The only route changes are:

 

X17J: Rerouted Forest Avenue-South Avenue-Fahy Avenue PM rush hours.

 

X19: Rerouted SIE-South Avenue-WSE

 

X24: Cut back to Richmond Avenue.

[checkmatechamp13]

The logic behind each of the following proposals:

 

S40/S90: They would be transformed into a north-south route entirely dedicated to the West Shore (running South Avenue from end-to-end before running down the WSE).

 

S46/S96: Since the S40/S90 would be serving the West Shore, the S46/S96 would terminate at Holland Avenue. The S40/S90 are faster and more reliable and therefore suited for a longer route.

 

S48/S98: This would provide a direct route to Newark Airport from the busiest section of the North Shore (Forest Avenue), as opposed to the S40/S90, which would only serve Richmond Terrace.

 

S51/S81, S74/S84, S76/S86: I recall S78 via Hylan saying that they only get crowded until the Park Hill neighorhood, and, after observing these routes for a few months, I decided it would be best to just eliminate the limited-stop versions of these routes. Long-distance customers can take the SIR and transfer at a later time.

 

S52: This would provide a direct connection to Midland Beach for residents of Dongan Hills, as opposed to having to go to Grant City for the S51. This also serves as a feeder to the SIR.

 

S54: This would take over the S42 route weekdays only. This would at least serve the New Brighton area on weekdays (as SIR North Shore said, the layover is pretty long, so there should be enough time to complete the route)

 

S55: The weekday-only extension would provide a fast ride to Manhattan for those willing to pay the extra money ($9.75 for a one-way ticket to Penn tation), and, at the northern end, it would provide a link from the SI Mall to SeaView Hospital, for those coming from the South Shore.

 

S57: The extension would give S76 customers an option of taking the S57 to either the S78/S79, SIR, or S74.

 

S59: The extension to Tottenville was cut back due to low ridership and replaced with less-frequent #10 service.

 

S61/S91: This would provide a faster trip to customers further west. The S62/S66 would provide local service.

 

S66: This provides 7-day access to Grymes Hill and Westerleigh,and supplements S62 local service.

 

S93: This would give Brooklyn residents access to the Teleport, as well as expand network coverage on the West Shore on weekdays.

 

Red and Tan #10: This would provide a direct service between SI and the west side of Jersey City.

 

X17J: This provides access to people on South Avenue coming home from Midtown.

 

X19: South Avenue is less delay-prone than the WSE and there is a chance to serve stops at the hotels there.

 

X24: There are more frequent choices in the opposite direction (X1-X9)

 

Comments?

[S78 via Hylan]

I give the (S51), (S52), (S54) (S74), (S76) two tumbs up! :tup::tup:

[Santa Fe via Willow]

The logic behind each of the following proposals:

 

S40/S90: They would be transformed into a north-south route entirely dedicated to the West Shore (running South Avenue from end-to-end before running down the WSE).

 

S46/S96: Since the S40/S90 would be serving the West Shore, the S46/S96 would terminate at Holland Avenue. The S40/S90 are faster and more reliable and therefore suited for a longer route.

 

S48/S98: This would provide a direct route to Newark Airport from the busiest section of the North Shore (Forest Avenue), as opposed to the S40/S90, which would only serve Richmond Terrace.

 

S51/S81, S74/S84, S76/S86: I recall S78 via Hylan saying that they only get crowded until the Park Hill neighorhood, and, after observing these routes for a few months, I decided it would be best to just eliminate the limited-stop versions of these routes. Long-distance customers can take the SIR and transfer at a later time.

 

S52: This would provide a direct connection to Midland Beach for residents of Dongan Hills, as opposed to having to go to Grant City for the S51. This also serves as a feeder to the SIR.

 

S54: This would take over the S42 route weekdays only. This would at least serve the New Brighton area on weekdays (as SIR North Shore said, the layover is pretty long, so there should be enough time to complete the route)

 

S55: The weekday-only extension would provide a fast ride to Manhattan for those willing to pay the extra money ($9.75 for a one-way ticket to Penn Station), and, at the northern end, it would provide a link from the SI Mall to SeaView Hospital, for those coming from the South Shore.

 

S57: The extension would give S76 customers an option of taking the S57 to either the S78/S79, SIR, or S74.

 

S59: The extension to Tottenville was cut back due to low ridership and replaced with less-frequent #10 service.

 

S61/S91: This would provide a faster trip to customers further west. The S62/S66 would provide local service.

 

S66: This provides 7-day access to Grymes Hill and Westerleigh,and supplements S62 local service.

 

S93: This would give Brooklyn residents access to the Teleport, as well as expand network coverage on the West Shore on weekdays.

 

Red and Tan #10: This would provide a direct service between SI and the west side of Jersey City.

 

X17J: This provides access to people on South Avenue coming home from Midtown.

 

X19: South Avenue is less delay-prone than the WSE and there is a chance to serve stops at the hotels there.

 

X24: There are more frequent choices in the opposite direction (X1-X9)

 

Comments?

 

I agree the x24 should end/begin from Richmond & Hylan. I never understood beginning/ending from Hylan & Keegans.

[checkmatechamp13]

I have some thoughts regarding the Goethals Bridge replacement:

 

When it is rebuilt, there should be a higher ratio of public transportation lanes to car lanes. I believe the current plans call for 3 car lanes and 1 lane for public transportation (either a bus or rail lane). I think that instead of a 1:3 ratio, it should be a 2:2 ratio.

 

Just the fact that there are 2 car lanes instead of 3 means that car travel is that much less convenient. When people see that buses are passing them in bus lanes, the might decide to switch to public transportation to cross the bridge. When you add in the space for the rail line, there is even more of an incentive to switch to public transportation. This website has interesting thoughts regarding cars v. mass transit: http://capntransit.blogspot.com/

 

There are several ideas for buses that can use this lane. One is an extension of the (S98) over the Goethals Bridge to connect with NJT's go28. This would give SI residents a one-seat ride, not just to Newark Airport, but to Downtown Newark, and all of the connections available there. The (S98) would operate 24/7 as along Forest Avenue, as a limited-stop bus during the day, and as a local bus at night. The (S48) would run 7-day service from 5:00 AM- 1:00 AM and terminate at Holland Avenue/Richmond Terrace.

 

There are several issues with the length of the service. The line would use the go28’s bus lanes in New Jersey, the Goethals Bridge bus lane, and bus lanes on Forest Avenue at points where there is traffic (parts of West New Brighton and Mariners’ Harbor), so reliability issues would be minimized. Also, there should be a decrease in the amount of traffic on Forest Avenue, since it would basically have its service doubled during off-peak hours (there would be 3 (S98)s per hour in addition to the current 4 (S48)s per hour). As a result, there should be an increase in ridership on Forest Avenue and slightly less traffic for the buses to get caught in.

 

The reason that the (S98) would receive 7-day service is so the line wouldn’t become too long (time-wise). It is also possible to have the (S48) serve the route, without running the (S98), if cost is an issue. (The service pattern would be the one I mentioned before, with the (S46) going to Holland Avenue and the (S40) going down South Avenue)

 

Other users of the Goethals Bridge bus lane could be the NJT #37, #40, and #58, which can be extended down Richmond Avenue to terminate at the Eltingville Transit Center, or can terminate at Richmond Avenue/Lamberts Lane, just off of the Staten Island Expressway.

 

This would provide options for commuters over the Goethals Bridge besides Newark Airport and downtown Newark.

 

The (S55) could also be combined with the NJT #813, to provide an additional one-seat ride to commuters.

 

There would, of course be issues with fare payment, but it could work on the current NJT fare zone system (once the MTA rolls out the SmartCard). The issues with unions going into each other’s territory (SI drivers going into NJ and vice versa), I think that could be resolved by simply paying drivers for the amount of time they are on the job. My logic is that, if they are driving a bus, it doesn’t matter if it is in NY or NJ.

 

Comments?

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Thinking about using dollar vans & minibuses on SI, they could navigate & go places conventional buses can't. But, where do you park them when they're not in service?

 

Too bad too. Dollar vans &/or minibuses could possibly have saved the 60, & have other bus transit uses on SI.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

I have some thoughts regarding the Goethals Bridge replacement:

 

When it is rebuilt, there should be a higher ratio of public transportation lanes to car lanes. I believe the current plans call for 3 car lanes and 1 lane for public transportation (either a bus or rail lane). I think that instead of a 1:3 ratio, it should be a 2:2 ratio.

 

Just the fact that there are 2 car lanes instead of 3 means that car travel is that much less convenient. When people see that buses are passing them in bus lanes, the might decide to switch to public transportation to cross the bridge. When you add in the space for the rail line, there is even more of an incentive to switch to public transportation. This website has interesting thoughts regarding cars v. mass transit: http://capntransit.blogspot.com/

 

There are several ideas for buses that can use this lane.

One is an extension of the (S98) over the Goethals Bridge to connect with NJT's go28. This would give SI residents a one-seat ride, not just to Newark Airport, but to Downtown Newark, and all of the connections available there. The (S98) would operate 24/7 as along Forest Avenue, as a limited-stop bus during the day, and as a local bus at night. The (S48) would run 7-day service from 5:00 AM- 1:00 AM and terminate at Holland Avenue/Richmond Terrace.

 

There are several issues with the length of the service. The line would use the go28’s bus lanes in New Jersey, the Goethals Bridge bus lane, and bus lanes on Forest Avenue at points where there is traffic (parts of West New Brighton and Mariners’ Harbor), so reliability issues would be minimized. Also, there should be a decrease in the amount of traffic on Forest Avenue, since it would basically have its service doubled during off-peak hours (there would be 3 (S98)s per hour in addition to the current 4 (S48)s per hour). As a result, there should be an increase in ridership on Forest Avenue and slightly less traffic for the buses to get caught in.

 

The reason that the (S98) would receive 7-day service is so the line wouldn’t become too long (time-wise). It is also possible to have the (S48) serve the route, without running the (S98), if cost is an issue. (The service pattern would be the one I mentioned before, with the (S46) going to Holland Avenue and the (S40) going down South Avenue)

 

Other users of the Goethals Bridge bus lane could be the NJT #37, #40, and #58, which can be extended down Richmond Avenue to terminate at the Eltingville Transit Center, or can terminate at Richmond Avenue/Lamberts Lane, just off of the Staten Island Expressway.

 

This would provide options for commuters over the Goethals Bridge besides Newark Airport and downtown Newark.

 

The (S55) could also be combined with the NJT #813, to provide an additional one-seat ride to commuters.

 

There would, of course be issues with fare payment, but it could work on the current NJT fare zone system (once the MTA rolls out the SmartCard). The issues with unions going into each other’s territory (SI drivers going into NJ and vice versa), I think that could be resolved by simply paying drivers for the amount of time they are on the job. My logic is that, if they are driving a bus, it doesn’t matter if it is in NY or NJ.

 

Comments?

 

:cool: That would be awesome. And the same or something similar on an Outerbridge replacement.

 

In addition to mass transit, these bridges should also have sidewalks for runners, walkers & cyclists.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

I'll explain these thoughts more in the future but I think bus routes {& other mass transit} could or should be composed of the Primary Route, & 2 or more "isotopes". Really just 2 "isotopes".

 

What I mean is there would be the main local route, a limited stop version of it, & an express shuttle {not X-bus} version of it.

 

IE: s78 local, (s78-A) LTD, & (s88) SHTL

 

My LTDs go LTD all the way.

 

SHTLs aren't subway &/or SIR station shuttle buses.

 

Another area concerning bus services is Amboy Road. I have many thoughts re: Amboy Rd & (NYCT) bus services.

 

I need to explain all this more, much more, in detail in the future.

[checkmatechamp13]

:cool: That would be awesome. And the same or something similar on an Outerbridge replacement.

 

In addition to mass transit, these bridges should also have sidewalks for runners, walkers & cyclists.

 

Agreed.

 

The problem is that there isn't anything really scenic to look at, so you wouldn't get a lot of people walking/running/bicycling for recreation. The Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Williamsburg Bridges all have New York Harbor and the skyscrapers in Manhattan to look at. The only thing that the Goethals Bridge has are factories on the NJ side and wetlands on the SI side. Hopefully, though, the Teleport gets expanded and Fresh Kills Park is built, so there would at least be some scenery.

 

The Outerbridge doesn't seem like its being replaced anytime soon, but there should definitely be some provision for mass transit if/when it is. I don't think a rail line is necessary, though-just a bus lane should do nicely. I don't think there are a whole lot of plans for residential development in that part of the South Shore, to the point where it would need a whole train line to connect with NJ.

 

Thinking about using dollar vans & minibuses on SI, they could navigate & go places conventional buses can't. But, where do you park them when they're not in service?

 

Too bad too. Dollar vans &/or minibuses could possibly have saved the 60, & have other bus transit uses on SI.

 

Over in Queens and Brooklyn, the dollar vans that were meant to replace the (B23), (B39), (B71), (Q74), and (Q79) aren't doing to well, he last time I heard. Part of it could be advertising that they are running and another part could be the fact that they don't accept transfers.

 

Any dollar van route could not be operated by the MTA. The introduction of a new vehicle into their fleet would be more expense than it is worth. A dollar van would have to be operated by a private company specializing solely in dollar van operations, and they would require subsidies.

 

As far as which routes it would work on, the problem is that no route is always empty. I'm sure even the (S55)/(S56) get crowded at some points of the day, and, once that happens, you have the logistical nightmare of swapping the fleets. Maybe the dollar van can run on the route (subsidized, of course) and pick up regular people, and regular MTA buses can have a few runs after schools let out.

 

What dollar vans are really meant for are to run right on bus routes, like they do in parts of Brooklyn and Queens. They go to popular bus routes and pick up a bunch of people waiting at a stop for a bus. Some people say that they steal ridership from the buses, and some say that the increased frequency the provide (perhaps a bus every 15 minutes, coupled with a dollar every 15 minutes) actually benefits the ridership of the buses.

 

I'll explain these thoughts more in the future but I think bus routes {& other mass transit} could or should be composed of the Primary Route, & 2 or more "isotopes". Really just 2 "isotopes".

 

What I mean is there would be the main local route, a limited stop version of it, & an express shuttle {not X-bus} version of it.

 

IE: s78 local, (s78-A) LTD, & (s88) SHTL

 

My LTDs go LTD all the way.

 

SHTLs aren't subway &/or SIR station shuttle buses.

 

Another area concerning bus services is Amboy Road. I have many thoughts re: Amboy Rd & (NYCT) bus services.

 

I need to explain all this more, much more, in detail in the future.

 

I don't really see a need for a super-express version of any route (If I understand correctly). Just the local and limited should be enough. The thing is that, on a lot of SI routes, ridership goes down as you go further away from hubs, so a super-express really wouldn't benefit too many people.

If fast service is a priority, that corridor should have +SBS+, not super-expresses. The only corridors with excessive travel times are the North Shore (mostly Forest/Castleton Avenues) and, to an extent, Richmond Avenue. All other corridors either don't have enough ridership or have a parallel service in the neighborhood for +SBS+. +SBS+ should combine the accessability of a limited-stop bus (stops relatively cloe together) with the speed of a super-express.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Agreed.

 

The problem is that there isn't anything really scenic to look at, so you wouldn't get a lot of people walking/running/bicycling for recreation. The Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Williamsburg Bridges all have New York Harbor and the skyscrapers in Manhattan to look at. The only thing that the Goethals Bridge has are factories on the NJ side and wetlands on the SI side. Hopefully, though, the Teleport gets expanded and Fresh Kills Park is built, so there would at least be some scenery.

 

The Outerbridge doesn't seem like its being replaced anytime soon, but there should definitely be some provision for mass transit if/when it is. I don't think a rail line is necessary, though-just a bus lane should do nicely. I don't think there are a whole lot of plans for residential development in that part of the South Shore, to the point where it would need a whole train line to connect with NJ.

 

 

 

Over in Queens and Brooklyn, the dollar vans that were meant to replace the (B23), (B39), (B71), (Q74), and (Q79) aren't doing to well, he last time I heard. Part of it could be advertising that they are running and another part could be the fact that they don't accept transfers.

 

Any dollar van route could not be operated by the MTA. The introduction of a new vehicle into their fleet would be more expense than it is worth. A dollar van would have to be operated by a private company specializing solely in dollar van operations, and they would require subsidies.

 

As far as which routes it would work on, the problem is that no route is always empty. I'm sure even the (S55)/(S56) get crowded at some points of the day, and, once that happens, you have the logistical nightmare of swapping the fleets. Maybe the dollar van can run on the route (subsidized, of course) and pick up regular people, and regular MTA buses can have a few runs after schools let out.

 

What dollar vans are really meant for are to run right on bus routes, like they do in parts of Brooklyn and Queens. They go to popular bus routes and pick up a bunch of people waiting at a stop for a bus. Some people say that they steal ridership from the buses, and some say that the increased frequency the provide (perhaps a bus every 15 minutes, coupled with a dollar every 15 minutes) actually benefits the ridership of the buses.

 

 

 

I don't really see a need for a super-express version of any route (If I understand correctly). Just the local and limited should be enough. The thing is that, on a lot of SI routes, ridership goes down as you go further away from hubs, so a super-express really wouldn't benefit too many people.

If fast service is a priority, that corridor should have +SBS+, not super-expresses. The only corridors with excessive travel times are the North Shore (mostly Forest/Castleton Avenues) and, to an extent, Richmond Avenue. All other corridors either don't have enough ridership or have a parallel service in the neighborhood for +SBS+. +SBS+ should combine the accessability of a limited-stop bus (stops relatively cloe together) with the speed of a super-express.

 

Could NYCDOT &/or NYSDOT run minibus and dollar van routes & services? And have them accept transfers? I'm picturing dollar vans & minibuses with DOT insignias & coloring on them. Maybe SI Ferry colors.

 

+SBS+ is a very interesting concept, & now reality. +SBS+-On-Steroids, as I think of it, might be a good thing in places earmarked for lightrail. Such a Super-+SBS+ might be a good fill-in until the actual trains were running.

[checkmatechamp13]

I was thinking more along the lines of a private company, like the ones that operate dollar vans around the city in places like Flatbush and Jamaica, since they already have experience running dollar vans, unlike DOT. I'm sure there are always ways to install any bus/van with a farebox that accepts MetroCards, so it wouldn't really matter who runs the service.

 

The reason that I said that the MTA couldn't run them was because they get their buses in bulk, by the hundreds, so the per-unit cost of a few dollar vans that can only be used on a few routes would probably be close to or equal to that of a regular bus. That, and they probably need a whole division dedicated to the minibuses, and they would have to train mechanics and workers on how to maintain them.

 

That is why I suggested a private company run the service because there is less of a bureaucracy involved. If Atlantic Express or another Staten Island-based company could just store them in their depot, that would probably work.

 

As far as +SBS+ goes, you can consider it like a "cheapskate's light rail". It doesn't have the capacity, but it has less capital costs involved.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

I was thinking more along the lines of a private company, like the ones that operate dollar vans around the city in places like Flatbush and Jamaica, since they already have experience running dollar vans, unlike DOT. I'm sure there are always ways to install any bus/van with a farebox that accepts MetroCards, so it wouldn't really matter who runs the service.

 

The reason that I said that the MTA couldn't run them was because they get their buses in bulk, by the hundreds, so the per-unit cost of a few dollar vans that can only be used on a few routes would probably be close to or equal to that of a regular bus. That, and they probably need a whole division dedicated to the minibuses, and they would have to train mechanics and workers on how to maintain them.

 

That is why I suggested a private company run the service because there is less of a bureaucracy involved.

 

If Atlantic Express or another Staten Island-based company could just store them in their depot, that would probably work.

 

As far as +SBS+ goes, you can consider it like a "cheapskate's light rail". It doesn't have the capacity, but it has less capital costs involved.

 

Atlantic Express would be a good company to operate dollar vans & minibuses on SI.

 

Re: +SBS+-

"Cheapskate's Lightrail" is a dead on assessment.

[checkmatechamp13]

I have something that irks me, but I'm not sure how to fix it. It is the way the X23 goes all the way east down Arthur Kill Road to Woodrow Road, then all the way west to Foster Road, then south and back north to the Hugenot train station. I can't think of a way of fixing it without cutting service to part of the route, though.

[B35 via Church]

I agree the x24 should end/begin from Richmond & Hylan. I never understood beginning/ending from Hylan & Keegans.

 

Hylan/Tysens...

 

but yeh, I also agree that the x24 doesn't really need to cover Hylan Blvd in the magnitude that it does...

of the fair amt. of times I've taken the route over the years, I notice one thing always remained constant - the lack of x24 riders that actually use the route on hylan, itself...

(believe me, I've gotten scowls (and attitudes) from about a handful of x24 drivers, when I would take it to Tysens.... there's no subsitute for 1st hand knowledge... lol...)

 

Soon as buses turn off arden, you start to see a noticable difference as to how many people are actually left on the bus...

 

as to why they pan up there, I'm assuming it's a coverage issue... guess they felt it stopping dead on richmond av, wouldn't provide for near as many SI-ers, as it would, having it pan all the way up to New Dorp...

 

^^^ problem with that (line of thinking) in 2010 is, that ideology done phased out... everyone's taking x1's, 2's, etc.... they (the bulk of potential riders) aren't thinking twice about taking the x24 on hylan....

[Santa Fe via Willow]

I have something that irks me, but I'm not sure how to fix it. It is the way the X23 goes all the way east down Arthur Kill Road to Woodrow Road, then all the way west to Foster Road, then south and back north to the Hugenot train station. I can't think of a way of fixing it without cutting service to part of the route, though.

 

It is a circuitous pretzel. Seems to sort of bend around & trip over itself.

 

Hylan/Tysens...

 

but yeh, I also agree that the x24 doesn't really need to cover Hylan Blvd in the magnitude that it does...

of the fair amt. of times I've taken the route over the years, I notice one thing always remained constant - the lack of x24 riders that actually use the route on hylan, itself...

(believe me, I've gotten scowls (and attitudes) from about a handful of x24 drivers, when I would take it to Tysens.... there's no subsitute for 1st hand knowledge... lol...)

 

Soon as buses turn off arden, you start to see a noticable difference as to how many people are actually left on the bus...

 

as to why they pan up there, I'm assuming it's a coverage issue... guess they felt it stopping dead on richmond av, wouldn't provide for near as many SI-ers, as it would, having it pan all the way up to New Dorp...

 

^^^ problem with that (line of thinking) in 2010 is, that ideology done phased out... everyone's taking x1's, 2's, etc.... they (the bulk of potential riders) aren't thinking twice about taking the x24 on hylan....

 

The x24's even longer than I thought. Tysen's? Jeesh!

 

AE'd $ave ga$ money trimming the x24 back to the (S54)/(S59)/((S78))/((S89)) turnaround terminal at Hylan & Richmond.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

I don't understand why overnight (S51)s terminate at Kiswick instead of just going the whole route.

 

?

[checkmatechamp13]

All late night (S51) buses go to Lincoln Avenue/Richmond Road. See the schedule: http://mta.info/nyct/bus/schedule/staten/s051cur.pdf (they show Kiswick Street as a stop and Richmond Road as a stop, and all late night buses run to Richmond Road).

 

I'm not sure when they decided to extend them from Kiswick Street to Richmond Road. I have a 1993 map that shows the overnight terminal as Kiswick Street. I think they extended it back in 2002. I'll have to check, though.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

All late night (S51) buses go to Lincoln Avenue/Richmond Road. See the schedule: http://mta.info/nyct/bus/schedule/staten/s051cur.pdf (they show Kiswick Street as a stop and Richmond Road as a stop, and all late night buses run to Richmond Road).

 

I'm not sure when they decided to extend them from Kiswick Street to Richmond Road. I have a 1993 map that shows the overnight terminal as Kiswick Street. I think they extended it back in 2002. I'll have to check, though.

 

That's good. I'm glad (NYCT) made the right call regarding overnight (S51)s.

[B35 via Church]

It is a circuitous pretzel. Seems to sort of bend around & trip over itself.

 

 

 

The x24's even longer than I thought. Tysen's? Jeesh!

 

AE'd $ave ga$ money trimming the x24 back to the (S54)/(S59)/((S78))/((S89)) turnaround terminal at Hylan & Richmond.

 

lol @ how you define the x23 route.... I agree, it is circuitous... but by hook or by crook, it works... that's the most important thing.

 

and yup, the x24 heads all the way up to tysens... I hate when they drop you off on the NE corner, where I have to cross hylan to catch a brooklyn bound S79... I guess it's easier for the drivers to head back to the garage out there in port richmond (north st)...

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Service road local route ideas:

 

First off I wish all of SI's service roads were extended & connected intelligently & efficiently so you could completely circumnavigate the KWVM Pkwy, WSE {440}, SIE {I-278} & Dr.MLK Jr Expwy via service roads.

 

That being said, with how things are right now, I made up 2 local routes which are service road routes. One for the North Shore & one for the South Shore.

 

The idea of these routes is to cover the entirety of the service roads in continuous loops. No set true terminals like conventional bus routes. Maps/schedules would say Toward X for direction, stops & times.

 

North Shore

 

s41 -

Would cover & serve EVERY North Shore service road paralleling the SIE & the Dr.MLK Jr. Expwy.

 

South Shore

 

s71

This would cover & serve the Drumgooles & Veterans Road West. The only conundrum here is Pleasant Plains's South Service Road. It must be served, but doing so creates a pretzel route problem:( So, maybe there'd be 2 71s. The main one making continuous loops from the Eltingville Transit Center to Bricktown & back via the Drumgooles & Veterans Rd W. And an "isotope" making continuous loops between the Pleasant Plains/Outerbridge Park'n'Ride & the ETC via the South Service Rd & the Drumgooles. Or the "isotope" could operate between Waldbaum's in PP & the ETC, serving the PP/Outerbridge Park'n'Ride in between, covering the South Service Rd & the Drumgooles.

 

I'll try & find a way to make the 71 cover & serve the Drumgooles, the South Service Rd {& the PP/Outrbrg P'n'R} & Veterans Rd W all the time. Work out the route quandary.

 

Actually, the 71 would go down Drumgoole into Gurley Ave, then left on Getz Ave, then left on Arthur Kill Rd to the ETC, & back to Drumgoole W to Bricktown.

 

I guess the 71 would be a CBA & Yukon route. The 41 Castleton & Meredith.

 

If/when SI has continuous interconnected service roads:

 

Then you could have one local service road route for the entire island:

 

s101

 

Well, the nu101 as the original 101 was the ancestor of the deceased (S42). Along with the 5. The (S42)'s ancestor were the 5/101 bus routes.

 

^Some paleotransitology there.

[checkmatechamp13]

I just have a general comment:

 

I think this thread could be broken down into 3 categories:

 

-The changes that have the ridership to warrant them right now, and could be accomplished right now, with a minimal amount of money.

-The changes that could be accomplished if/when there was a massive construction of bus hubs and/or an expansion of development in certain neighborhoods (either new train lines, or new residential/commericial developments). *

-The changes that are nice to have, but aren't likely to get high ridership, regardless of whether or not new development comes to Staten Island.

 

* Planned developments like the North/West Shore Rail lines, Fresh Kills Park, and anything else that is planned for Staten Island.

 

Service road local route ideas:

 

First off I wish all of SI's service roads were extended & connected intelligently & efficiently so you could completely circumnavigate the KWVM Pkwy, WSE {440}, SIE {I-278} & Dr.MLK Jr Expwy via service roads.

 

That being said, with how things are right now, I made up 2 local routes which are service road routes. One for the North Shore & one for the South Shore.

 

The idea of these routes is to cover the entirety of the service roads in continuous loops. No set true terminals like conventional bus routes. Maps/schedules would say Toward X for direction, stops & times.

 

North Shore

 

s41 -

Would cover & serve EVERY North Shore service road paralleling the SIE & the Dr.MLK Jr. Expwy.

 

South Shore

 

s71

This would cover & serve the Drumgooles & Veterans Road West. The only conundrum here is Pleasant Plains's South Service Road. It must be served, but doing so creates a pretzel route problem:( So, maybe there'd be 2 71s. The main one making continuous loops from the Eltingville Transit Center to Bricktown & back via the Drumgooles & Veterans Rd W. And an "isotope" making continuous loops between the Pleasant Plains/Outerbridge Park'n'Ride & the ETC via the South Service Rd & the Drumgooles. Or the "isotope" could operate between Waldbaum's in PP & the ETC, serving the PP/Outerbridge Park'n'Ride in between, covering the South Service Rd & the Drumgooles.

 

I'll try & find a way to make the 71 cover & serve the Drumgooles, the South Service Rd {& the PP/Outrbrg P'n'R} & Veterans Rd W all the time. Work out the route quandary.

 

Actually, the 71 would go down Drumgoole into Gurley Ave, then left on Getz Ave, then left on Arthur Kill Rd to the ETC, & back to Drumgoole W to Bricktown.

 

I guess the 71 would be a CBA & Yukon route. The 41 Castleton & Meredith.

 

If/when SI has continuous interconnected service roads:

 

Then you could have one local service road route for the entire island:

 

s101

 

Well, the nu101 as the original 101 was the ancestor of the deceased (S42). Along with the 5. The (S42)'s ancestor were the 5/101 bus routes.

 

^Some paleotransitology there.

 

To be honest, I don't really see the need for bus routes running in loops. It seems like a pretty good idea to run a route along Drumgoogle Road/Veterans Road West, I think it is best to leave them as seperate routes. The same applies to the SIE/MLK service roads

 

With little modifications to the road network, such as connecting a few dead end streets, we can run a direct bus network between neighborhoods, instead of having to kill ourselves figuring out routes for streets (I mean, if you plan to create a bus route that costs a few million dollars a year, you might as well make sure it is useful)

 

One idea in my neighborhood is to connect Union Avenue and Amity Place with Arlene Street. You can't have a bus line running down Union Avenue and Amity Place because it would be too short for anybody to ride. If you connect these streets to Arlene Street on the other side of the SIE, however, you can offer people in Mariners' Harbor a direct ride to the SI Mall. (Though some houses might be in the way of the connection. I guess that is the price of progress, though). The best way would probably be to extend Amity Place southeast a little bit until it hits Elson Court, and then extend Elson Court over the SIE and into Fahy Avenue, which would be realigned into a 2-way street (something would have to be done about the SIE off-ramp), and then go into Arlene Street.

 

It might not be worth the cost now, but in the future, this could help create a good bus route from a new Mariners' Harbor station (on the North Shore Rail Line) to the SI Mall.

 

Another idea is to build a short road between the Pleasant Plains Park and Ride and the Bricktowne Shopping Center, so that the Drumgoogle Road bus can serve the Park-and-Ride and the shopping center. No houses would have to be demolished, but a section of forest would have to be removed.

[checkmatechamp13]

On a side note, I saw an X19 on South Avenue after I got off of the S96 today (under the SIE), at about 5:30PM, so that is definitely proof that South Avenue is favorable to the West Shore Expressway.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

I just have a general comment:

 

I think this thread could be broken down into 3 categories:

 

-The changes that have the ridership to warrant them right now, and could be accomplished right now, with a minimal amount of money.

-The changes that could be accomplished if/when there was a massive construction of bus hubs and/or an expansion of development in certain neighborhoods (either new train lines, or new residential/commericial developments). *

-The changes that are nice to have, but aren't likely to get high ridership, regardless of whether or not new development comes to Staten Island.

 

* Planned developments like the North/West Shore Rail lines, Fresh Kills Park, and anything else that is planned for Staten Island.

 

 

 

To be honest, I don't really see the need for bus routes running in loops. It seems like a pretty good idea to run a route along Drumgoogle Road/Veterans Road West, I think it is best to leave them as seperate routes. The same applies to the SIE/MLK service roads

 

With little modifications to the road network, such as connecting a few dead end streets, we can run a direct bus network between neighborhoods, instead of having to kill ourselves figuring out routes for streets (I mean, if you plan to create a bus route that costs a few million dollars a year, you might as well make sure it is useful)

 

One idea in my neighborhood is to connect Union Avenue and Amity Place with Arlene Street. You can't have a bus line running down Union Avenue and Amity Place because it would be too short for anybody to ride. If you connect these streets to Arlene Street on the other side of the SIE, however, you can offer people in Mariners' Harbor a direct ride to the SI Mall. (Though some houses might be in the way of the connection. I guess that is the price of progress, though). The best way would probably be to extend Amity Place southeast a little bit until it hits Elson Court, and then extend Elson Court over the SIE and into Fahy Avenue, which would be realigned into a 2-way street (something would have to be done about the SIE off-ramp), and then go into Arlene Street.

 

It might not be worth the cost now, but in the future, this could help create a good bus route from a new Mariners' Harbor station (on the North Shore Rail Line) to the SI Mall.

 

Another idea is to build a short road between the Pleasant Plains Park and Ride and the Bricktowne Shopping Center, so that the Drumgoogle Road bus can serve the Park-and-Ride and the shopping center. No houses would have to be demolished, but a section of forest would have to be removed.

 

Way back when when they built SI's highways & service roads they should've made it, built it, so all the service roads are connected & interconnected. Would help in traffic jams & in other ways.

 

What you say about removing a patch of woods reminds me of when they extended Forest Hill Rd by clearing the woods in between FH Rd/Yukon Ave & Platinum Ave/FH Rd. They can do it there, they can do it in Pleasant Plains.

 

On a side note, I saw an X19 on South Avenue after I got off of the S96 today (under the SIE), at about 5:30PM, so that is definitely proof that South Avenue is favorable to the West Shore Expressway.

 

(NYCT)/SI Division could easily make South Ave part of the 19's route.

[checkmatechamp13]

Actually, they are doing the opposite-they are actually planning to dismantle the overpass on the SIE between Clove Road and Slosson Avenue that was supposed to lead into an extension of the Richmond Parkway (AKA Korean War Veterans Memorial Parkway).

 

This is all a part of the SIE widening project, which I disagree with, as it will only encourage people to drive. The $75 million for the project would be better spent on mass transit projects. I actually emailed a letter to the SI Advance (you can see it here: http://www.silive.com/opinion/letters/index.ssf/2010/11/transit_should_take_precedence.html) that said that the money should be used for mass transit expansion projects, even if the projects are little extensions of bus routes.

 

As far as an extension of the Richmond Parkway, I feel that any improvements in the road system should be made with transit expansion in mind. If I were to design the road, I would build a road with 1 lane in each direction, with both local and express buses using it as a shortcut between the southwest and northeast portions of SI. The fact that it is limited to one lane would decrease costs (remember, you are building on wet, marshy soil, so you need a very strong foundation), and encourage people to use mass transit.

 

An express route could be run from the Pleasant Plains park-and-ride to Manhattan via Drumgoogle Road and its extension (we'll just call it Drumgoogle Road for simplicity's sake). The path the road would follow would be pretty much south of all of the woods that you see on Google Maps (the LaTourette Golf Course, and the Greenbelt) and then merge onto Todt Hill Road (to avoid tearing down any homes on Todt Hill), and then go onto that overpass and onto the SIE.

 

As far as local routes go, I would say to cut the S74 back to the Eltingville Transit Center and run a route from Tottenville to St. George via the following route:

S74 route between Tottenville and Eltingville then Drumgoogle Road-SIE-Clove Road exit-Narrows Road-Targee Street (Richmond Road southbound)-S76 route to St. George.

 

Either that, or the route could run to Brooklyn via the SIE, as a faster alternative to the S79 (mostly for people in Eltingville, and people on the South Shore using the S74 to transfer to the S53 or S79 to Brooklyn)

 

As far as the MLK Expressway goes, I would just let it end at Victory Blvd. People going towards the Greenbelt can just go through CSI and Forest Hill Road, and people going towards the Richmond Parkway can take Richmond Avenue.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Actually, they are doing the opposite-they are actually planning to dismantle the overpass on the SIE between Clove Road and Slosson Avenue that was supposed to lead into an extension of the Richmond Parkway (AKA Korean War Veterans Memorial Parkway).

 

This is all a part of the SIE widening project, which I disagree with, as it will only encourage people to drive. The $75 million for the project would be better spent on mass transit projects. I actually emailed a letter to the SI Advance (you can see it here: http://www.silive.com/opinion/letters/index.ssf/2010/11/transit_should_take_precedence.html) that said that the money should be used for mass transit expansion projects, even if the projects are little extensions of bus routes.

 

As far as an extension of the Richmond Parkway, I feel that any improvements in the road system should be made with transit expansion in mind. If I were to design the road, I would build a road with 1 lane in each direction, with both local and express buses using it as a shortcut between the southwest and northeast portions of SI. The fact that it is limited to one lane would decrease costs (remember, you are building on wet, marshy soil, so you need a very strong foundation), and encourage people to use mass transit.

 

An express route could be run from the Pleasant Plains park-and-ride to Manhattan via Drumgoogle Road and its extension (we'll just call it Drumgoogle Road for simplicity's sake). The path the road would follow would be pretty much south of all of the woods that you see on Google Maps (the LaTourette Golf Course, and the Greenbelt) and then merge onto Todt Hill Road (to avoid tearing down any homes on Todt Hill), and then go onto that overpass and onto the SIE.

 

As far as local routes go, I would say to cut the S74 back to the Eltingville Transit Center and run a route from Tottenville to St. George via the following route:

S74 route between Tottenville and Eltingville then Drumgoogle Road-SIE-Clove Road exit-Narrows Road-Targee Street (Richmond Road southbound)-S76 route to St. George.

 

Either that, or the route could run to Brooklyn via the SIE, as a faster alternative to the S79 (mostly for people in Eltingville, and people on the South Shore using the S74 to transfer to the S53 or S79 to Brooklyn)

 

As far as the MLK Expressway goes, I would just let it end at Victory Blvd. People going towards the Greenbelt can just go through CSI and Forest Hill Road, and people going towards the Richmond Parkway can take Richmond Avenue.

 

6, 7 years ago I had similar thoughts regarding the unfinished highway from Greenridge to the SIE. I thought it'd be good for solely commercial & civil service traffic, HOV only, taxicabs, buses, bikes/runners, a trolley &/or light-rail line & like things.

 

But so much for that. It's a shame they're tearing down the SIE overhangs. They've become unofficial landmarks.

 

That unfinished highway could've been a great thing for SI, used right.