Staten Island Division: 2010 and beyond

[SIR North Shore]

I disagree. I think the current setup is working fine. There is a local and a limited-stop route along the full length of Richmond Avenue with the current setup.

 

Also part of the reason why the S89 only has 1,000 riders is because it runs rush hours only. If it ran more frequently reverse-peak and had off-peak service, you would see a big shift in ridership from the S59 to the S89.

 

Also, unless the S58 ran rush hours only, this would result in an increase in operating costs.

 

It wouldn't necessarily increase costs because it would be offset by the S44/S94 having less travel time, S89 being cut to 8th St and the S59 and S58 running at steady 20 minute headways.

 

My main point is that there should be some kind of 7-day service between 8th St & Staten Island. Expanding the limited S89 to run all day and on weekends would be a waste of money because there's no guarantee that ridership would be there. While at the same time the S59 still needs to serve Port Richmond and can't be diverted to NJ either. That's how I got the S58 (or S59A) idea. It's not as-far fetched as it may seem, its just making the S89 a local and having the S44 which does have a lot ridership become the limited. Or if anything, just have 3 locals. There's really no need for a limited between the SI Mall and Hylan/Richmond

[checkmatechamp13]

Maybe the solution is to have the S89 run between the 8th Street/HBLR station and Richmond Avenue/Forest Avenue off-peak (it can layover on Monsey Place or Sanders Street near P.S.22)

 

As far as your plan goes, I still think the S89 needs to remain a limited-stop route. Part of the thing that is luring people to the route is the fact that it runs quickly down Richmond Avenue, making very few stops. Also, if the S59 and S89 were both locals down Richmond Avenue, that would be redundant, as they would be making the same exact stops south of Forest Avenue (and Forest Avenue-Hylan Blvd is 90% of the S59's route).

[Santa Fe via Willow]

@Santa Fe:

 

I definitely don't think that an Amboy Road bus route should be the top priority, for the simple reason that the SIR is a much faster alternative, and there doesn't seem to be much demand at the moment. As you can see, routes that go on the South Shore tend to be really expensive to operate. (The S55/S56 got only 1,800 passengers combined on an average weekday, and cost an average of $6.58 per passenger to operate, prior to June. The Staten Island average on weekdays was $2.53 per passenger. This might change a little bit because of the elimination of school bus service for 7th and 8th graders, but they are still basically low ridership routes)

 

In any case, if there was a demand for service along Amboy Road, there should be 2 conditions that should be met:

 

a) The route doesn't have to go the full length of Amboy Road-2 routes serving different portions of Amboy Road should serve ridership needs better than one along the full length of Amboy Road. The reason goes back to one of the arguments that you listed against it-paralleling the SIR.

 

The route doesn't have to run on Amboy Road-for example, a route along Drumgoogle Road would serve the same general area as Amboy Road, while not entirely duplicating the SIR.

 

That being said, I think a good idea for the short term might be the following:

 

-Extend any S74s that currently start/finish at the Eltingville Transit Center down to Tottenville via Drumgoogle Road-Bloomingdale Road-Amboy Road. (covering the western portion of Amboy Road). Alternatively, you can make that route a seperate route and have it run from Tottenville to the SI Mall.

 

-Extend alternate S51s down Richmond Road and Amboy Road to Tottenville High School.

 

I think that those routes, while not ideal, would get more ridership than an Amboy Road through-route. You would probably only be able to afford to run these routes with the S55/S56's operating hours-6AM-7PM weekdays, but at least they would provide better access to bus service on the South Shore, to more popular places, at a cheaper cost than an Amboy Road through-route.

 

This Amboy Rd/SIR talk is reminding me of a horrific plan (NYCT) allegedly had in the 1970s. Apparently they had planned to discontinue the Tottenville/St.George SIRT.

 

Thank God that didn't happen.

[checkmatechamp13]

I think what happened was that the city owned the SIR and they wanted it to be operated by the MTA. I wasn't around back then, but I could believe that the MTA didn't want to take it over and was content to abandon it.

 

If that happened, we might have overcrowded buses on the South Shore as well as the North Shore. Boy, would that be fun. :tdown:

[Santa Fe via Willow]

I think what happened was that the city owned the SIR and they wanted it to be operated by the MTA. I wasn't around back then, but I could believe that the MTA didn't want to take it over and was content to abandon it.

 

If that happened, we might have overcrowded buses on the South Shore as well as the North Shore. Boy, would that be fun. :tdown:

 

Good thing the North Shore Line's infrastructure didn't go the way of the South Beach Divisions.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well then say that in your original reply, instead of having people trying to figure out what the hell you're conveying...

"after CSI" (that's exactly why I had it in quotes in my last post) could mean in either direction....

 

 

Yeah, and I'm not one of those folks who say it SHOULD terminate at Richmond, so you're preaching to the choir w/ that one....

 

Furthermore, this isn't about the MTA doing nothing... The point is, you don't send buses miles away from a specific destination just to terminate... I don't see how difficult a concept that is to grasp... People complain about their routes being late &/or unreliable enough as it is....

 

Now you bring up the DMV out there & the SI Mall as possible places to send the 93... sometimes I wonder if some of you actually sit & think about the pros & cons of your ideas, or is it just... a spur of the moment thing....

 

Speaking of the S93, why doesn't the MTA provide limited stop service for S53riders past Victory & Clove Rd? I know that the S93 serves CSI and all, but the ridership is certainly there for them to run it. They could have maybe 2 limited stop buses an hour during rush hour going towards Bay Ridge and vice versa. From Broadway near the SI Zoo to Hylan Blvd and Clove it's a good 20 - 25 minutes with all of the annoying stops that bus makes, so factor in the rest of the commute to Bay Ridge and you're talking a good 45 minutes at least total if not more.

[checkmatechamp13]

The problem with 2 buses per hour is that it really wouldn't make a difference in people's commutes, because people simply won't wait for it. In order to be effective, the limited should run at least every 15 minutes.

 

If the S53 had a rush hour-only limited, I would say that the stops should be as follows (reverse going to Brooklyn):

 

All local stops in Brooklyn, then

Narrows Road/Fingerboard Road

Narrows Road/Hylan Blvd

Narrows Road/Targee Street

Narrows Road/Richmond Road

Clove Road/Howard Avenue

Clove Road/Victory Blvd

Clove Road/Bement Avenue/Bard Avenue

Broadway/Forest Avenue

Broadway/Cary Avenue

Broadway/Castleton Avenue

then all local stops to Richmond Terrace/Park Avenue

 

This way, the limited-stop bus picks up passengers along in Port Richmond, West New Brighton, and Sunnyside and gives them a quick ride to Brooklyn, while the local will be geared for people in Concord, Grasmere, and South Beach, giving them an emptier bus (since people further north will be on the limited-stop bus)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The problem with 2 buses per hour is that it really wouldn't make a difference in people's commutes, because people simply won't wait for it. In order to be effective, the limited should run at least every 15 minutes.

 

If the S53 had a rush hour-only limited, I would say that the stops should be as follows (reverse going to Brooklyn):

 

All local stops in Brooklyn, then

Narrows Road/Fingerboard Road

Narrows Road/Hylan Blvd

Narrows Road/Targee Street

Narrows Road/Richmond Road

Clove Road/Howard Avenue

Clove Road/Victory Blvd

Clove Road/Bement Avenue/Bard Avenue

Broadway/Forest Avenue

Broadway/Cary Avenue

Broadway/Castleton Avenue

then all local stops to Richmond Terrace/Park Avenue

 

This way, the limited-stop bus picks up passengers along in Port Richmond, West New Brighton, and Sunnyside and gives them a quick ride to Brooklyn, while the local will be geared for people in Concord, Grasmere, and South Beach, giving them an emptier bus (since people further north will be on the limited-stop bus)

 

I only ride until Forest whenever I have taken the S53, but yes, these stops are perfect, and you could run limited stops in both directions every 10 minutes until at least 7pm and then every 15 minutes until 10pm. Believe me they would be used.

[checkmatechamp13]

Since the MTA usually doesn't go for anything that adds significant operating costs to their budget (I'm just stating a fact. I'm not saying that I 100% agree with their philosophy-after all, the goal of any public agency is to benefit the people), I think the only thing the MTA wold agree to would be to have the following:

 

-A local S53 running from Victory Blvd/Clove Road to 4th Avenue/86th Stree every 15 minutes during off-peak hours and every 12 minutes during weekday rush hours (from 6AM-10AM daily)

-A limited-stop S53 running from Richmond Terrace/Park Avenue to 4th Avenue/86th Street every 15 minutes during off-peak hours and every 12 minutes during weekday rush hours (from 6AM-10PM daily)

 

Whenever the MTA changes an all-local route into a local/limited-stop route, the only thing they do is change a couple of local buses into limited-stop buses, so they definitely would apply that rule here as well (again, I'm just being realistic).

 

When I take the S53 towards Brooklyn at about 3:40PM, the bus usually has some seats left in the back at the point where I get off, which is near the YMCA on Broadway. Since (from my experience) there usually aren't a lot of people waiting along Clove Road (between Broadway and Victory Blvd), the limited-stop S53 should be going over the Verrazanno-Narrows Bridge at capacity (so crowding would increase slightly, but the reduced trip time would make up for it). The local S53 would probably experience a similar situation-reduced frequencies, but less crowding on the bus.

 

In a perfect world, the MTA would already be running more freqent service on the S53, so the buses wouldn't be as crowded. However, limited-stop service is the best of the situation we have.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Since the MTA usually doesn't go for anything that adds significant operating costs to their budget (I'm just stating a fact. I'm not saying that I 100% agree with their philosophy-after all, the goal of any public agency is to benefit the people), I think the only thing the MTA wold agree to would be to have the following:

 

-A local S53 running from Victory Blvd/Clove Road to 4th Avenue/86th Stree every 15 minutes during off-peak hours and every 12 minutes during weekday rush hours (from 6AM-10AM daily)

-A limited-stop S53 running from Richmond Terrace/Park Avenue to 4th Avenue/86th Street every 15 minutes during off-peak hours and every 12 minutes during weekday rush hours (from 6AM-10PM daily)

 

Whenever the MTA changes an all-local route into a local/limited-stop route, the only thing they do is change a couple of local buses into limited-stop buses, so they definitely would apply that rule here as well (again, I'm just being realistic).

 

When I take the S53 towards Brooklyn at about 3:40PM, the bus usually has some seats left in the back at the point where I get off, which is near the YMCA on Broadway. Since (from my experience) there usually aren't a lot of people waiting along Clove Road (between Broadway and Victory Blvd), the limited-stop S53 should be going over the Verrazanno-Narrows Bridge at capacity (so crowding would increase slightly, but the reduced trip time would make up for it). The local S53 would probably experience a similar situation-reduced frequencies, but less crowding on the bus.

 

In a perfect world, the MTA would already be running more freqent service on the S53, so the buses wouldn't be as crowded. However, limited-stop service is the best of the situation we have.

 

Actually, I think they would be wise to just turn a few S53 into limited-stop buses. The key thing on that line is to try to avoid bunching, because overall the service is decent when compared to other lines on Staten Island, especially the wait times. Granted people are usually standing, but that's normally the case on most SI lines.

[checkmatechamp13]

I had 2 options that could be used.

 

The first one was mentioned here:

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=354462&postcount=358 (a rush hours-only limited)

 

The second one was the one with the short-turn locals.

 

The reason why a limited-stop S53 would only work during rush hours would be because that is the only time when frequencies are high enough so that local passengers get decent service. During rush hours, the S53 runs every 8 minutes, meaning that, if every other bus became a limited-stop bus, the frequencies for local customers would be 16 minutes. (The limited should be able to run at 11 minute frequencies because of the reduced run times, or you can split it by having both buses run at 13 minute frequencies)

 

When the S53 runs every 12 minutes, you are leaving local customers with 20-24 minute waits (depending on how you distribute the buses), which is way too much.

 

That is why the only 2 options are a rush hour-only limited or a short-turn local strategy at least (at the current frequencies)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I had 2 options that could be used.

 

The first one was mentioned here:

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=354462&postcount=358 (a rush hours-only limited)

 

The second one was the one with the short-turn locals.

 

The reason why a limited-stop S53 would only work during rush hours would be because that is the only time when frequencies are high enough so that local passengers get decent service. During rush hours, the S53 runs every 8 minutes, meaning that, if every other bus became a limited-stop bus, the frequencies for local customers would be 16 minutes. (The limited should be able to run at 11 minute frequencies because of the reduced run times, or you can split it by having both buses run at 13 minute frequencies)

 

When the S53 runs every 12 minutes, you are leaving local customers with 20-24 minute waits (depending on how you distribute the buses), which is way too much.

 

That is why the only 2 options are a rush hour-only limited or a short-turn local strategy at least (at the current frequencies)

 

I think that would be a good start quite frankly. They could then see how the service ran and look to expand if the demand was there, which I'm sure it would be.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

IIRC & AFAIK the (S53) has the highest frequency of all mass transit on SI. Even during the overnight its frequency is every 40 minutes.

[SIR North Shore]

The S53 could definitely use a limited. It has enough ridership to warrant one and would cut down the time it takes to travel during rush hours but ridership-wise the weekends are busier than weekdays for the S53.

 

With Castleton and Yukon having more space for local buses come next year, there should be no reason why they can't have the S53 running as frequently as it should be. Locals should begin at Victory/Clove while a 7-day limited runs down to Port Richmond, both running every 10-12 minutes. This would even out the ridership and crowding for sure.

 

Up until 2006, the S53 used to run every 15 minutes to Victory/Clove and every 30 to Port Richmond. And the S93 only had 4-5 runs in each day. How did people manage that?

[checkmatechamp13]

You could definitely make the argument for a rush hour-only limited, as other routes with less ridership have them (the S53 has the highest ridership and second highest farebox recovery ratio of all SI routes)

 

When did the S53 have 30 minute headways north of Victory Blvd? During all off-peak hours or during weekends only?

 

That must've been rough-I took the S53 on a recent Saturday and it skipped almost every stop after the Grasmere SIR station (though there would've been room if more people moved to the back)

[SIR North Shore]

You could definitely make the argument for a rush hour-only limited, as other routes with less ridership have them (the S53 has the highest ridership and second highest farebox recovery ratio of all SI routes)

 

When did the S53 have 30 minute headways north of Victory Blvd? During all off-peak hours or during weekends only?

 

That must've been rough-I took the S53 on a recent Saturday and it skipped almost every stop after the Grasmere SIR station (though there would've been room if more people moved to the back)

 

Exactly, even the Q6 has less ridership than the S53 and that line received a limited earlier this year. The S53 should receive a 7-day limited running similar to the Q58, on weekdays it runs from 5am to 10am & 3pm to 8pm and on weekends from 10am to 7pm.

 

 

The S53 used to run like the rest of the ferry routes back in the day.

 

AM Rush.. a bus every 20 minutes north of Victory & every 10 minutes for the rest of the line

:tdown:

VS every 5-7 minutes now for the whole line.

 

Middays.. the S53 ran between Brooklyn & Victory Blvd every 15-20 minutes & between Brooklyn & Port Richmond every 30 minutes.

:tdown: :tdown:

VS a steady 10 minute headway now.

 

PM Rush.. it was every 15 minutes and started running every 30 minutes around 10pm

 

VS every 5 minutes now and 15 minutes at 10 pm.

 

Weekends.. it used to run every 12-15 minutes and now runs every 8-10 minutes.

 

And this is 2006, back in the earlier 2000s the s53 used to short-turn all day and on weekends but OTOH, the s46 used to run frequently like how the S53 does now.

[checkmatechamp13]

You can't really compare the S53 to the B82 or Q58, since they have over twice the ridership of the S53 (but it is pretty similar to the Q6-the reason why the Q6 is more cost-efficient is probably because it has a shorter run time-45 minutes vs. 56 minutes in the PM rush)

 

Still, I do agree 100% that there is the demand for a limited at least during rush hours. Since the MTA would try to make this "cost neutral", which of the following do you think would be better?:

 

Option 1:

-A local S53 running from Victory Blvd/Clove Road to 4th Avenue/86th Street every 15 minutes during off-peak hours and every 12 minutes during weekday rush hours (from 6AM-10AM daily)

-A limited-stop S53 running from Richmond Terrace/Park Avenue to 4th Avenue/86th Street every 15 minutes during off-peak hours and every 12 minutes during weekday rush hours (from 6AM-10PM daily)

 

Option 2:

-A local S53 running from Richmond Terrace/Park Avenue to 4th Avenue/86th Street every 13 minutes during rush hours

-A limited-stop S53 running from Richmond Terrace/Park Avenue to 4th Avenue/86th Street every 13 minutes during rush hours.

(this local/limited-stop pattern would only operate rush hours because, during off-peak hours, the headways would balloon to 18-20 minutes for passengers waiting at local-only stops)

[SIR North Shore]

You can't really compare the S53 to the B82 or Q58, since they have over twice the ridership of the S53 (but it is pretty similar to the Q6-the reason why the Q6 is more cost-efficient is probably because it has a shorter run time-45 minutes vs. 56 minutes in the PM rush)

 

Still, I do agree 100% that there is the demand for a limited at least during rush hours. Since the MTA would try to make this "cost neutral", which of the following do you think would be better?:

 

Option 1:

-A local S53 running from Victory Blvd/Clove Road to 4th Avenue/86th Street every 15 minutes during off-peak hours and every 12 minutes during weekday rush hours (from 6AM-10AM daily)

-A limited-stop S53 running from Richmond Terrace/Park Avenue to 4th Avenue/86th Street every 15 minutes during off-peak hours and every 12 minutes during weekday rush hours (from 6AM-10PM daily)

 

Option 2:

-A local S53 running from Richmond Terrace/Park Avenue to 4th Avenue/86th Street every 13 minutes during rush hours

-A limited-stop S53 running from Richmond Terrace/Park Avenue to 4th Avenue/86th Street every 13 minutes during rush hours.

(this local/limited-stop pattern would only operate rush hours because, during off-peak hours, the headways would balloon to 18-20 minutes for passengers waiting at local-only stops)

 

Option 1 is better because the S53 isn't as busy north of Victory Blvd. But I would still have the s53 local run every 10 minutes. The limited stop S53 running every 12-15 minutes would be perfect though for the north shore.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Option 1 is better because the S53 isn't as busy north of Victory Blvd. But I would still have the s53 local run every 10 minutes. The limited stop S53 running every 12-15 minutes would be perfect though for the north shore.

 

I think the big question is how much improvements in service on Staten Island can we expect to see once Charleston opens? That remains the big mystery.

[SIR North Shore]

I think the big question is how much improvements in service on Staten Island can we expect to see once Charleston opens? That remains the big mystery.

 

Exactly, that's my question as well. The longstanding answer for why service on SI is lackluster was because the depots were overcrowded. With 4 depots now, things better change!

[checkmatechamp13]

In the short term, I really can't see any real improvements.

 

Maybe once the MTA can get into decent fiscal shape, we can see some of the improvements mentioned in this thread.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

:cool:In the Advance of Friday 12/10/10 it said buses used from the 60s are being re-used for nostalgia during the Christmas season:tup:

 

Anyone ride any of these antique buses?

[Santa Fe via Willow]

:cool:In the Advance of Friday 12/10/10 it said buses used from the 60s are being re-used for nostalgia during the Christmas season:tup:

 

Anyone ride any of these antique buses?

 

I hope I get to ride one of these.

[LRG]

I had a discussion with a few posters on the "other board" earlier in the week and we were talking about the S54. We also discussed what can be done with the S54 because of it's awkward ridership. There was already talk about the S54 here a few months back and to this day I really have no words for the fate of the route. If another round of cuts were to come then the S54 could either be cut back to Seaview Hospital all day on weekdays, and maybe be extended to Eltingville during the rush hours, but that's it. I would hope that it doesn't get cut to run during rush hours only but that's what it looks like where it's heading to.

 

The route was formerly called the R110 before it was renamed in the 1990s. It ran between Richmond Terrace and Seaview Hospital; it did not run to Eltingville. I do not know when it was extended, however. It's hard to come across old bus maps of the different boroughs and I haven't had much luck yet. But anyway, the problem with the S54 is that it it's main audience is school kids for Susan Wagner High School. The same can be said for the S55 and S56 which serves Tottenville High School students. These three routes are basically school buses that ordinary people can happen to pay their fare and ride. I've been on all three routes during midday hours back in May and they were basically empty. When the S55 was extended back in September of 2007 along Bloomingdale Road it gave more school students who live along that street better access to Tottenville but that's it. Normal people don't really ride those routes. Busfans, maybe, except busfans in S.I. are scarce. I've probably done more robust S.I. busfanning than anyone else on here. But I do notice that it's a huge problem.

 

I've heard ideas about extending the S54 to Saint George, absorbing the S42's route if an extension were to ever happen. That is not a bad idea. But will that help make the S54 become a "successful" route? Would it give off some sort of feedback as to how awkward the S54's ridership is?

[checkmatechamp13]

An extension to St. George would help along the northern portion of the route (along Manor Road), but that wouldn't do anything for ridership on the southern portion.

 

That beng said, in the next round of service cuts, if the S42 still survives (remember that the only portion of the route where it is by itself is west of Jersey Street), the following could happen:

 

S42: St. George to SeaView Hospital weekdays. Rush hours, extended to Hylan Blvd/Richmond Avenue.

 

If not, the S54 can be extended to St. George via Richmond Terrace, if, as SIR North Shore says, the layovers are 30-40 minutes.

 

The thing about Staten Island is that ANY route that doesn't serve St. George or Bay Ridge will be very inefficient and have high student ridership. The S54, S55, S56, S57, and S59/S89 all fit this desciption. (The S59/S89 to a lesser extent-the excuse can be made that they compete with the S44 and S79 for passengers. The S59 isn't too bad on the weekends, but that is because Richmond Avenue is a corridor with relatively high ridership).