Staten Island Division: 2010 and beyond

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) Your S97 would be good as a supplement to the S51 and S52/S78 (it would probably be a lot quicker to get to Tompkins Avenue via Bay Street rather than going over all of those hills that the S52/S78 go through), but I can't really see too much demand for St. George-Bay Ridge travel.

 

2) There is no need-there are already a bunch of express buses along Father Capodanno Blvd a couple of blocks away. For Todt Hill residents, since they all own cars, any people who want to take the express bus will probably drive over to Narrows Road South or Hylan Blvd, where the buses run more frequently, and offer a greater variety of routes (East Midtown, West Midtown, Downtown)

 

3) The S52 could probably go a bit further to serve the Berry Houses and connect with the S74/S76.

 

4) I think New Dorp Lane/Cedar Grove Avenue is better. Under your plan, people at the southern end of New Dorp Lane would still be left with no service.

 

5) Agreed with the S99, S42, S52, S89, and S93 ideas.

 

 

 

1) I don't think Great Kills/Eltingville warrant 12 minute headways at any time.

 

2) That loop would add on too much time to be worthwhile (You have to think of people west of New Brighton). You'd be better off going straight down Lafayette Avenue.

 

1. S97: I agree w/checkmate about the S97. If anything extend the S53 to the Ferry and make a LTD of it. The St. George-Bay Ridge idea would see more ridership on the S53 based on the demographics.

 

2. X33: Interesting idea... I wonder how that would work... I agree w/checkmate... There's already enough service in Midland Beach and Todt Hill residents probably would want to keep their exclusivity. Most of them just drive to the X10 and board at Slosson Ave, which is right before the SIE in the morning rush and the first stop off of the SIE in evening.

 

3. I don't know checkmate... I think the S52 is stretched enough as it is and meanders way too much. NX Express, I say keep the loop because I'm sure the elderly are the ones being thought of there.

 

4. I agree w/checkmate and that route is closer to the beach and Miller Field...

 

5. Agree w/the S89, S99 and S93... Disagree with the S42 /S52... That S52 just goes all over the place as if it is in some sort of need to go everywhere possible to pick up passengers. Too much meandering. I also never understood the point of having the S42 running to Forest Ave...

 

Quite frankly both routes S42/S52 should be better streamlined. I do know that the S42 covers some hills but if they can do anything to eliminate so much and meandering that would be better.

[B35 via Church]

Routes connecting two major hubs usually work, no? Or is this an exception?

 

This is clearly/easily the exception.

 

There is virtually zero demand for St George-Brooklyn travel.... has been for the longest.

Brooklynites aren't really looking to backtrack up there (st george), to hop on a ferry to manhattan (as slow as the is, most people pretty much gut it out)... or to catch any of SI's north shore routes (this is pretty much what makes the S53 useful, serving Brooklyn).... doesn't make all that much sense....

 

say a SI-er needed the S46... unless that person loves self inflicting torture (lol), why would that person subject himself in traveling from brooklyn to st george to catch the 46 there... when the option of the S53 (which gets to the north shore fairly quick then most would expect) is available.... you'd save yourself at least 15 minutes....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

This is the exception.

 

There is virtually zero demand for St George-Brooklyn travel.... No one's looking to backtrack that deep into SI (from Bay Ridge, I mean), to hop on a ferry to manhattan... or to catch any of SI's north shore routes (this is pretty much what makes the S53 useful, serving Brooklyn)....

 

 

You have to remember the areas near St. George... I see a lot of people transferring from the S48 to the S53...

[B35 via Church]

You have to remember the areas near St. George... I see a lot of people transferring from the S48 to the S53...

 

What about em....

 

They're not nearly enough to justify having a route pan from St George to Brooklyn....

 

I'm tellin you now, brooklynites aren't looking to travel northwest of the VZ like that (stapleton, rosebank, clifton, tompkinsville, etc).... which would leave those SI-ers that reside in those areas you're speaking of...

 

You can take all the riders you'd like, emanating/xferring off the S46 & the S48 (coming from the east) that take the S53 into Brooklyn.... you can even throw in riders coming off the S74 & the 78 coming from the north, that xfer to either the 53 (or the 79, if it's the 78)... tally those riders up, and you'd be hard pressed to find a consistent, duly, steady, moderate riderbase enough to keep such a route (like this "S97" or w/e) around...

 

I know you like to be argumentative for the sake of doing so, but a few riders here & there doesn't equate to a high enough demand.... never has, never will....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What about em....

 

They're not nearly enough to justify having a route pan from St George to Brooklyn....

 

I'm tellin you now, brooklynites aren't looking to travel northwest of the VZ like that (stapleton, rosebank, clifton, tompkinsville, etc).... which would leave those SI-ers that reside in those areas you're speaking of...

 

You can take all the riders you'd like, emanating/xferring off the S46 & the S48 (coming from the east) that take the S53 into Brooklyn... and you'd be hard pressed to find a consistent, duly, steady, moderate riderbase enough to keep such a route (like this "S97" or w/e) around...

 

I know you like to be argumentative for the sake of doing so, but a few riders here & there doesn't equate to a high enough demand.... never has, never will....

 

If anything, I'd extend the S53 to St. George and make it LTD. I'm not sold however that enough ridership would warrant a route via Bay Street. Those people down by St. George could avoid a transfer. What I'm referring to is the areas along Richmond Terrace. I could see it getting some ridership to Brooklyn with all of the projects there. The West Brighton houses where the S53 passes apparently has quite a few Brooklyn transplants or at least people with family in Brooklyn.

[B35 via Church]

If anything, I'd extend the S53 to St. George and make it LTD. I'm not sold however that enough ridership would warrant a route via Bay Street. Those people down by St. George could avoid a transfer. What I'm referring to is the areas along Richmond Terrace. I could see it getting some ridership to Brooklyn with all of the projects there. The West Brighton houses where the S53 passes apparently has quite a few Brooklyn transplants or at least people with family in Brooklyn.

 

Then you pretty much do agree with the general premise/point of such a route like the S97...

 

I don't...

I see it more as nothing more than a waste of resources.... If a route like that were to exist, and given what you're trying to portray to me (about there actually being a high [enough] demand for that type of route), than you'd see less riders on the S53... less riders on the S53 in the longrun can equate to higher headways in the future... which I'm sure no S53 rider (coming from the east or the west) would sacrifice for a St. George/Brooklyn route.... That's if I take what you're telling me, wholesale...

 

We're just gonna have to disagree on this.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Then you pretty much do agree with the general premise/point of such a route like the S97...

 

I don't...

I see it more as nothing more than a waste of resources.... If a route like that were to exist, and given what you're trying to portray to me (about there actually being a high [enough] demand for that type of route), than you'd see less riders on the S53... less riders on the S53 in the longrun can equate to higher headways in the future... which I'm sure no S53 rider (coming from the east or the west) would sacrifice for a St. George/Brooklyn route.... That's if I take what you're telling me, wholesale...

 

We're just gonna have to disagree on this.

 

 

I don't see the need for the S97... This is more about the demographics of people that live near St. George than it is about St. George itself. I'm saying keep S53 but just make a LTD version and extend it to St. George making two stops along Richmond Terrace and then it resumes the normal S53 route, but running limited. :cool: Not that big of a deal in terms of headways either if you run it limited. You could keep the normal S53 as is finishing at the Port Richmond Terminal.

[checkmatechamp13]

1. S97: I agree w/checkmate about the S97. If anything extend the S53 to the Ferry and make a LTD of it. The St. George-Bay Ridge idea would see more ridership on the S53 based on the demographics.

 

2. X33: Interesting idea... I wonder how that would work... I agree w/checkmate... There's already enough service in Midland Beach and Todt Hill residents probably would want to keep their exclusivity. Most of them just drive to the X10 and board at Slosson Ave, which is right before the SIE in the morning rush and the first stop off of the SIE in evening.

 

3. I don't know checkmate... I think the S52 is stretched enough as it is and meanders way too much. NX Express, I say keep the loop because I'm sure the elderly are the ones being thought of there.

 

4. I agree w/checkmate and that route is closer to the beach and Miller Field...

 

5. Agree w/the S89, S99 and S93... Disagree with the S42 /S52... That S52 just goes all over the place as if it is in some sort of need to go everywhere possible to pick up passengers. Too much meandering. I also never understood the point of having the S42 running to Forest Ave...

 

Quite frankly both routes S42/S52 should be better streamlined. I do know that the S42 covers some hills but if they can do anything to eliminate so much and meandering that would be better.

 

1) I really doubt the S53 would work if it were extended to St. George from Port Richmond. Even if there is a demand for Bay Ridge-St. George travel, nobody is going to want to travel through half of the North Shore to reach St. George.

 

3) IMO, the S52 is a route that picks up excess ridership from other nearby routes (like the S51 and S78). The reason why it meanders so much is because its core ridership is in the hilly areas of New Brighton (after it was restructured) and Stapleton. As far as extending it goes, the purpose would be to provide a boost in ridership south of the SIE (to get from St. George to points south of the SIE, you are better off taking the S51 or S78), from riders who are traveling between the areas south of Rosebank.

 

5) Now that I think about it, I see the logic of the S89 running down Marsh Avenue. The reason is simple-for the entire AM rush, the SI Mall isn't open, so it is better to serve a school and a residential area rather than the mall.

 

It would definitely help in the PM, though. All of the Richmond Avenue routes would be placed together.

 

As far as the S52 going via Victory Blvd, the point would be to make it less circuituous, since the S42/S54 would be covering the hilly part of New Brighton.

 

I don't see the need for the S97... This is more about the demographics of people that live near St. George than it is about St. George itself. I'm saying keep S53 but just make a LTD version and extend it to St. George making two stops along Richmond Terrace and then it resumes the normal S53 route, but running limited. :cool: Not that big of a deal in terms of headways either if you run it limited. You could keep the normal S53 as is finishing at the Port Richmond Terminal.

 

See my first response.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) I really doubt the S53 would work if it were extended to St. George from Port Richmond. Even if there is a demand for Bay Ridge-St. George travel, nobody is going to want to travel through half of the North Shore to reach St. George.

 

3) IMO, the S52 is a route that picks up excess ridership from other nearby routes (like the S51 and S78). The reason why it meanders so much is because its core ridership is in the hilly areas of New Brighton (after it was restructured) and Stapleton. As far as extending it goes, the purpose would be to provide a boost in ridership south of the SIE (to get from St. George to points south of the SIE, you are better off taking the S51 or S78), from riders who are traveling between the areas south of Rosebank.

 

5) Now that I think about it, I see the logic of the S89 running down Marsh Avenue. The reason is simple-for the entire AM rush, the SI Mall isn't open, so it is better to serve a school and a residential area rather than the mall.

 

It would definitely help in the PM, though. All of the Richmond Avenue routes would be placed together.

 

As far as the S52 going via Victory Blvd, the point would be to make it less circuituous, since the S42/S54 would be covering the hilly part of New Brighton.

 

 

 

See my first response.

 

It would run just like the S93 over the Verrazano and then continue limited on the service road only making limited stops, which would be about the same as the current local run, if not quicker. :cool: Now I'm not totally sold on the whole Bay Ridge-St. George connection, but I would test it as an experiment, like they did with the S89.

 

 

Regarding the S54 taking over the S42, I actually had the S54 just taking Richmond Terrace... What's the problem with leaving the S42 as its own route?

[S78 via Hylan]

Regarding the S54 taking over the S42, I actually had the S54 just taking Richmond Terrace... What's the problem with leaving the S42 as its own route?

 

The current (S42) now pretty much duplicates the (S52). I honestly the S42 should be canned. That should not really affect anyone since the S44 and S52 are close to Clyde Place.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The current (S42) now pretty much duplicates the (S52). I honestly the S42 should be canned. That should not really affect anymore since the S44 and S52 are close to Clyde Place.

 

If the S52 is fine, which was re-routed to pick up some of the S42 route, why were was there such an outcry to keep it? I think I know why. Just wondering if you do...

[SIR North Shore]

People were riding the S42 before the cuts and still are now. No route on SI needs to be canned.

[BJC]

I understand you but it makes sense to have the service loop through New Brighton rather than bypass those stops. They wanted to eliminate the S42 altogether so it doesn't hurt to have the S54 loop via new Brighton.

 

But you already have the S 52 doing the same exact job.It doesn't make any sense to have two bus routes over there....MTA should send the S 42 somewhere else....beside I don't think there ridership over at the new s54 route via S 42.

[LRG]

But you already have the S 52 doing the same exact job.It doesn't make any sense to have two bus routes over there....MTA should send the S 42 somewhere else....beside I don't think there ridership over at the new s54 route via S 42.

 

Just send the S52 back to its original routing.

[checkmatechamp13]

Weekend service would have to be restored, then.

[LRG]

I know. With the S54 extenstion to the ferry terminal the route would run on weekends, but would it run all the way to Eltingville or short-turn at Seaview Hospital during weekends is something I'm still debating.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

But you already have the S 52 doing the same exact job.It doesn't make any sense to have two bus routes over there....MTA should send the S 42 somewhere else....beside I don't think there ridership over at the new s54 route via S 42.

 

The S52 is not doing the exact same run. It picks up part of the S42... The S52 should take back its old route as should the S42, minus its occasional "extension" to Forest Avenue, which I never got.

[checkmatechamp13]

I think he is talking about our plan to combine the S54 and S42. If the new route ran with 7-day service, there would be no need for the S52 to run on St Marks Place.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I think he is talking about our plan to combine the S54 and S42. If the new route ran with 7-day service, there would be no need for the S52 to run on St Marks Place.

 

That's not a good idea at all. S54 riders wouldn't want to meander through the hills. Just restore the S42 as is. It had enough ridership from what I always saw. Let the S54 run down Richmond Terrace from Broadway.

[SIR North Shore]

The S42 wasn't efficient when it was running just like the S54 isn't efficient now.

 

They would have a bus layover for 30 minutes at Clyde/Arnold, then that bus would leave and another would show up and layover for 30 minutes. And even on 30 minute headways the S42 just barely had ridership. The current S52/S42 route is fine because the S52 now covers the busiest part of the old S42 route.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The S42 wasn't efficient when it was running just like the S54 isn't efficient now.

 

They would have a bus layover for 30 minutes at Clyde/Arnold, then that bus would leave and another would show up and layover for 30 minutes. And even on 30 minute headways the S42 just barely had ridership. The current S52/S42 route is fine because the S52 now covers the busiest part of the old S42 route.

 

When I used to take the S48, it always seemed to be crowded?? But you're right... It must've laid over because it was always the first bus to show up. If it has such low ridership, why not just get rid of it then and let another route pick up the route?

[checkmatechamp13]

But that is the idea of combining it with the S54.

 

The only other route that could pick up the S42 route is the S44, but that wouldn't make any sense. It is already long enough as is (and for a lot of areas on the North Shore, it is the quickest route to St. George (quicker than the S46 or S48)

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Re: the 42-

It's THE HILLS! Who in their right mind wants to walk up those hills? Keep the 42, or a gestalt of the 42 & 54, for that very reason.

 

Re: the 74-

Now that the Charleston Bus Annex is finally open, or quasi-open, some Ferry bound (74)s should start from CBA or Bricktown.

 

With CBA open, I see no reason why serving Bricktown can't be part of the 74's route. At least part-time anyway.

 

Re: the 55-

With CBA open, they should extend the 55's route to Bricktown.

[SIR North Shore]

Ok, so I've been riding the buses all this week and I can honestly say that service has improved! The long headways suck, but the buses are showing up on time and I haven't really had a problem getting around.

 

That said, the MTA should combine the S40 and the S51 to create the S41! Both routes aren't too busy or long and it would only be for the benefit of the riders. It would mean a one seat ride from Richmond Terrace to Bay Street, only making a loop around St. George instead of terminating there.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Ok, so I've been riding the buses all this week and I can honestly say that service has improved! The long headways suck, but the buses are showing up on time and I haven't really had a problem getting around.

 

That said, the MTA should combine the S40 and the S51 to create the S41! Both routes aren't too busy or long and it would only be for the benefit of the riders. It would mean a one seat ride from Richmond Terrace to Bay Street, only making a loop around St. George instead of terminating there.

 

A lot of it has to do with the newer buses. The MTA stuck those new second generation hybrids in so that they could repair many of the older buses that were breaking down. Now there are less hybrids around than say back in 2008 or 2009 when we had a good amount of hybrids at Yukon and Castleton but since some of the older buses have been fixed reliability is better.

 

Regarding your idea of the "S41", I don't think it's a good idea. I can see the S41 getting caught up in traffic near St. George on both Richmond Terrace and Bay St.