Staten Island Division: 2010 and beyond

[Santa Fe via Willow]

(NYCT) Alternatives Analysis Study Public Meeting TONIGHT, Wed 2/16/11, at 7:30pm in Snug Harbor's Botanical Garden Building P.

 

Bus Rapid Transit among the topics.

 

s40/(90) goes there.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

It's possible that in the future, the 59, at maximum length, will stretch from the Ferry to Bricktown. I'm guessing the 59 too, will probably be extended in the future to/from Bricktown ala the 78's extension.

 

Relevant thread:

http://nyctransitforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27069

[checkmatechamp13]

I doubt it. A route that long would be very unreliable. The way to get Richmond Avenue-Tottenville/Bricktowne service would be to extend the S89, while cutting the S59 back to Eltingville.

 

On the maps they presented, they proposed splitting the S59 into the S59A and S59B, and sending the S59A to St. George, which would basically split the route in half. I asked them where the southern terminal for the S59A would be, and where the northern terminal for the S59B would be, and they reponded that they were still hammering out the details, which would explain why they didn't use another number, like S69 or something, to show that the route would be split). (I think this was the plan for expanded service, without use of the ROW)

 

Personally, I think having the S59 run from Eltingville to St. George wouldn't make it too unreliable. Traffic can be bad in some parts of Richmond Avenue during rush hour, but generally, the buses manage to break through and get back on schedule.

[SIR North Shore]

I doubt it. A route that long would be very unreliable. The way to get Richmond Avenue-Tottenville/Bricktowne service would be to extend the S89, while cutting the S59 back to Eltingville.

 

On the maps they presented, they proposed splitting the S59 into the S59A and S59B, and sending the S59A to St. George, which would basically split the route in half. I asked them where the southern terminal for the S59A would be, and where the northern terminal for the S59B would be, and they reponded that they were still hammering out the details, which would explain why they didn't use another number, like S69 or something, to show that the route would be split). (I think this was the plan for expanded service, without use of the ROW)

 

Personally, I think having the S59 run from Eltingville to St. George wouldn't make it too unreliable. Traffic can be bad in some parts of Richmond Avenue during rush hour, but generally, the buses manage to break through and get back on schedule.

 

I wish I could say that about the S44. I think having the S59 run to St George would definitely take some of the crowds off the S44 though.

[LRG]

I still think it would be a better idea if the MTA extended the S56 to Bricktown Center instead of shaving back a route and extending another...since someone here said that most service increases are done by cutting service on other routes, just have the S74 and S78 operate every 20 minutes instead of every 15, and have all the buses go to Tottenville instead of short-turning at Richmond Avenue. Those two buses off the road an hour (one from the S74, the other from the S78) could be placed on the S56's route on weekends, with service operating every 30 minutes.

[checkmatechamp13]

I wish I could say that about the S44. I think having the S59 run to St George would definitely take some of the crowds off the S44 though.

 

Right now, during off-peak and reverse-peak times, the S44 and S59 are scheduled so that the S59 comes first, so it shows that they are attempting to balance the loads.

 

But you're 100% right. Extending the S59 to St. George would allow for the loads to be balanced, while keeping the headways even (when I take them in the PM rush, both routes run every 15 minutes going northbound, but you'll see an S59 come, and then an S44 will come 2 minutes later).

 

I still think it would be a better idea if the MTA extended the S56 to Bricktown Center instead of shaving back a route and extending another...since someone here said that most service increases are done by cutting service on other routes, just have the S74 and S78 operate every 20 minutes instead of every 15, and have all the buses go to Tottenville instead of short-turning at Richmond Avenue. Those two buses off the road an hour (one from the S74, the other from the S78) could be placed on the S56's route on weekends, with service operating every 30 minutes.

 

The idea of rerouting the buses to Bricktowne is to place them closer to the Charleston Bus Depot, so they save on the costs of deadheading both the S74/S84 and S78.

 

I think the S56 should be rerouted to Bricktowne (with some runs starting from Tottenville High School during school hours). If weekend service is added, I think it should only run every 60 minutes, not every 30 minutes.

[LRG]

The idea of rerouting the buses to Bricktowne is to place them closer to the Charleston Bus Depot, so they save on the costs of deadheading both the S74/S84 and S78.

 

I think the S56 should be rerouted to Bricktowne (with some runs starting from Tottenville High School during school hours). If weekend service is added, I think it should only run every 60 minutes, not every 30 minutes.

 

That is what I'm not necessarily buying in...yeah I understand that the S74/78 are right by Charleston depot but how much time would really be wasted if the S74 were to be rerouted via Bricktown? Five minutes at most? Buses west of Richmond Avenue are empty during the majority of the day.

 

Here's the thing with extending the S56...right now the route has half-hour service during the hours that it operates...with the school runs, there's a period where the S56 has 12-15 buses an hour. If the route were to be extended to Bricktown, the route would be linking riders between two shopping districts in Staten Island...why would you give the route hourly service for a route to have ridership potential?

 

The extension of the S55 (using an example here) really provided network coverage per se...I believe prior to the extension of the S55, the S74 provided school runs to Tottenville H.S. (not entirely sure about this). But with the extension of the S56 the route would be linking riders between two shopping districts on Staten Island

 

That's why I stated to reduce the frequency of the S74 and S78 from 15 minutes to 20 minutes...in this way those two buses an hour could be placed on the S56's weekend run between the mall and Bricktown...the short-turns would no longer exist, therefore meaning that service east of Richmond Avenue would be cut, but service west of Richmond Avenue would be increased, as well as giving riders close to these bus lines in the South Shore of Staten Island more travel options.

 

On another note, I wouldn't mind routing the S56 away from Tottenville High School during middays, as the S55 could pick up the slack during that time, or students who leave early could walk to Hylan Boulevard for the S78 or walk to Foster/Amboy for the S56...but during rush hours, in conjunction with the school runs that serve Totenvile H.S., normal S56 service should have 15 minute frequency, with service alternating to Tottenville H.S. every half hour just like it does right now.

[checkmatechamp13]

Do you mean 12-15 buses per hour (headways of 4-5 minutes) or headways of 12-15 minutes?

 

Realistically, nobody is going to be riding the route to go between 2 shopping districts. If you live in Arden Heights, Greenridge, Eltingville, or New Springville, you'll be going to the SI Mall, while if you live in Woodrow or Pleasant Plains, you'll be going to Bricktowne.

 

You are correct that the purpose of the S55 extension was to provide network coverage. However, prior to that extension, the only routes that had "trippers" to Tottenville High School were the S55, S56, S59, and S78.

 

I'm not sure if the South Shore warrants that increased service. True, there will be additional ridership generated by Bricktowne, but I don't know if it will warrant 20 minute headways at the expense of customers east of Richmond Avenue (also, you would be messing with the coordination of the buses and ferry)

 

I don't think there needs to be additional service to Tottenville High School-it is a school, which means that most of the ridership generated by it is concentrated into a few short periods of time, that can be handled by extra buses at those periods of time.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Regardless of possible future 59As & Bs, the 59 MUST run 24/7/365, & overnights serve ALL of Richmond Ave.

 

Future Ferry extensions of the 59 shouldn't affect overnight full coverage of Richmond Ave service, which is needed now.

[checkmatechamp13]

Hence why it is a good idea to split the S40 into two portions, with the S59 covering the eastern portion. It would give the S59 the ridership to justify its 24/7 existance, and give transit access to portions of Richmond Avenue that are very from other transit service.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

After rereading some posts & looking it over, thinking about it:

 

* Make the (89) a FULLTIME route, & extend it to/from Main Street as cc13 suggested. This new 89 should run 7 days. I say extend this new 89 to/from Bricktown via the 78's extension. Or at least some of them anyway.

 

* Make the 59 cover ALL of RICHMOND AVE during the OVERNIGHT.

 

* SOME (44)s & (59)s ending/starting from CSI-Victory Blvd. Going in BOTH directions. Readdressing this idea here. Schedule & terminals TBD.

 

* Make the (93) a FULLTIME route. This new 93 would run Mon-Fri all day, & on the weekend too if needed. Route changes as suggested by cc13 & others should be examined & implemented.

 

Meredith Depot:

 

I finally saw Meredith Depot earlier tonight for the first time:) Drove by there. Interesting. It's a cardinal sin the 46/(96) & 62/(92) aren't based out of there. Well, SOME 46s. 46 should be split between Meredith & Castleton.

 

Prior to Charleston, it even made/makes sense for SOME 59s, 74, 78s, & (84)s to come, have come, out of Meredith.

 

Plus, Meredith would be a short walk from a future West Shore Lightrail station.

[checkmatechamp13]

Unfortunately, NJT increased weekend headways on the HBLR from 15 minutes to 20 minutes, or else I would say to have the S89 run every 30 minutes, so it connects with every other HBLR train.

 

If the MTA did decide that there was demand for weekend S89 service, it should start out running from Forest Avenue/Richmond Avenue to the 8th Street HBLR station. There really isn't much ridership along Richmond Avenue on the weekends.

 

But as far as the S44/S59 buses going to CSI, I think a better idea would be to extend some S62s up the MLK Expressway to Innis Street/Trantor Place. It would exit the MLK at Forest Avenue and run along Trantor Place, with transfers available to the S48, S44, and S46, in that order. Buses would then return via Morningstar Road, Forest Avenue, and Willow Road West.

 

That way, you have the S62 and S92 actually serving different destinations. Currently, the S62 usually comes right behind the S92 along Victory Blvd, so it is basically just for people who missed the S92.

 

This reminds me of a friend who asked me how to get to CSI from his home. I said: You can take the S48 to the S44/S59 to the S62, and he just said "Forget it".

 

Southbound, I think a couple of S44s can run from CSI to the SI Mall, via Richmond Avenue, since there isn't any easy north-south service from CSI (You have the S61/S91, but those are at the other end of the campus)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

After rereading some posts & looking it over, thinking about it:

 

* Make the (89) a FULLTIME route, & extend it to/from Main Street as cc13 suggested. This new 89 should run 7 days. I say extend this new 89 to/from Bricktown via the 78's extension. Or at least some of them anyway.

 

* Make the 59 cover ALL of RICHMOND AVE during the OVERNIGHT.

 

* SOME (44)s & (59)s ending/starting from CSI-Victory Blvd. Going in BOTH directions. Readdressing this idea here. Schedule & terminals TBD.

 

* Make the (93) a FULLTIME route. This new 93 would run Mon-Fri all day, & on the weekend too if needed. Route changes as suggested by cc13 & others should be examined & implemented.

 

Meredith Depot:

 

I finally saw Meredith Depot earlier tonight for the first time:) Drove by there. Interesting. It's a cardinal sin the 46/(96) & 62/(92) aren't based out of there. Well, SOME 46s. 46 should be split between Meredith & Castleton.

 

Prior to Charleston, it even made/makes sense for SOME 59s, 74, 78s, & (84)s to come, have come, out of Meredith.

 

Plus, Meredith would be a short walk from a future West Shore Lightrail station.

 

 

No local buses are based out of Meredith. Just express buses and the main reason for that is simple... No space...

[Santa Fe via Willow]

But as far as the S44/S59 buses going to CSI, I think a better idea would be to extend some S62s up the MLK Expressway to Innis Street/Trantor Place. It would exit the MLK at Forest Avenue and run along Trantor Place, with transfers available to the S48, S44, and S46, in that order. Buses would then return via Morningstar Road, Forest Avenue, and Willow Road West.

 

That would be great. 1 of the CSI based/oriented bus routes I made up a long time ago now was similar to this. I named it the s47.

 

That way, you have the S62 and S92 actually serving different destinations. Currently, the S62 usually comes right behind the S92 along Victory Blvd, so it is basically just for people who missed the S92.

 

True.

 

This reminds me of a friend who asked me how to get to CSI from his home. I said: You can take the S48 to the S44/S59 to the S62, and he just said "Forget it".

 

LOL!

 

Southbound, I think a couple of S44s can run from CSI to the SI Mall, via Richmond Avenue, since there isn't any easy north-south service from CSI (You have the S61/S91, but those are at the other end of the campus)

 

And some 59s running southbound from CSI-Victory Blvd to Main St, if not Bricktown. *crosses fingers*

 

No local buses are based out of Meredith. Just express buses and the main reason for that is simple... No space...

 

Damn shame son! The 46/(96) is RIGHT THERE, a STONE's THROW away. And the 62/(92) 2 STONE THROWS away.

[S78 via Hylan]

That's why I stated to reduce the frequency of the S74 and S78 from 15 minutes to 20 minutes...

 

During weekday midday hours, The S74 already has 20 minute headways. I think they should be reduced to 15 since the would be serving Bricktown. As checkmatechamp13 stated, 20 minute headways would result in people missing connections to the Ferry and other bus routes.

[SIR North Shore]

You know, running some S44s to/from CSI is not a bad idea at all as long as those are additional runs to the existing schedule.

[checkmatechamp13]

During weekday midday hours, The S74 already has 20 minute headways. I think they should be reduced to 15 since the would be serving Bricktown. As checkmatechamp13 stated, 20 minute headways would result in people missing connections to the Ferry and other bus routes.

 

You're right, though I don't know if Bricktowne is really going to generate that much ridership. But I think weekend headways should remain at 30 minutes.

 

By the way, I think there should still be some direct route from Tottenville to the Eltingville Transit Center on weekdays. The S56 could be rerouted to serve Bricktowne and Tottenville by going via Foster Road->Amboy Road->Bloomingdale Road->Englewood Avenue->Veterans Road West->Arthur Kill Road.

 

I don't know if it is better to go down Amboy Road or Drumgoogle Road. Drumgoogle Road is more direct, but Amboy Road offers an easier transfer to the S55 (and combines the frequencies for people going to the SI Mall, or between Amboy Road/Foster Road and Bloomingdale Road/Englewood Avenue)

[Santa Fe via Willow]

You know, running some S44s to/from CSI is not a bad idea at all as long as those are additional runs to the existing schedule.

 

That would be the way to do it:tup:

[LRG]

You're right, though I don't know if Bricktowne is really going to generate that much ridership. But I think weekend headways should remain at 30 minutes.

 

By the way, I think there should still be some direct route from Tottenville to the Eltingville Transit Center on weekdays. The S56 could be rerouted to serve Bricktowne and Tottenville by going via Foster Road->Amboy Road->Bloomingdale Road->Englewood Avenue->Veterans Road West->Arthur Kill Road.

 

I don't know if it is better to go down Amboy Road or Drumgoogle Road. Drumgoogle Road is more direct, but Amboy Road offers an easier transfer to the S55 (and combines the frequencies for people going to the SI Mall, or between Amboy Road/Foster Road and Bloomingdale Road/Englewood Avenue)

 

I would have the S56 extended along Amboy Road ...at Foster Road (the S56 makes a left and a right on Amboy and a quick left onto Seguine (currently Bayview Avenue due to the road construction)...just have the S56 continue along Amboy Road as it would parallel the X22 route and also offer a connection to the Staten Island Railway at the Richmond Valley station en route to Bricktown.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

I would have the S56 extended along Amboy Road ...at Foster Road (the S56 makes a left and a right on Amboy and a quick left onto Seguine (currently Bayview Avenue due to the road construction)...just have the S56 continue along Amboy Road as it would parallel the X22 route and also offer a connection to the Staten Island Railway at the Richmond Valley station en route to Bricktown.

 

:cool:That would be great:tup:

 

Plus this nu56 would serve the Pleasant Plains SIR station & Waldbaum's.

[LRG]

:cool:That would be great:tup:

 

Plus this nu56 would serve the Pleasant Plains SIR station & Waldbaum's.

 

Exactly!!!

 

In addition, I'm debating if the S56, under this new routing, should have increased frequency during the rush hour, with frequency increased to 15 minutes...the catch here would be that every other bus would serve Luten Avenue while every other bus would bypass the school...these "Luten Av" rush hour buses would probably add five minutes max to the S56's run, serving the Tottenville H.S. every half hour during rush hours, whereas the Luten Av bypass buses would operate normally. I would be perfectly fine if the S56 via Tottenville High School were eliminated with the exception of the school runs, in addition to keeping the frequency at 30 minutes at all times of the day, even during rush hours.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

This might seem like a cynical suggestion, but if the Teleport gets no buyers, might the spot work for a 5th Depot?

 

And maybe also a railyard &/or lightrail facility if/when the North & West Shore rails &/or lightrail are built? IIRC & AFAIK the Resurrected North Shore SIR's "supposed" to run up South Avenue(?).

 

Is the Teleport's property big enough to maybe build Castleton's replacement garage there?

 

Or, on a total tangent, a new SI hospital on the property? Call it Teleport Hospital & Medical Center.

 

Just some thoughts on the subject.

 

Teleport best if it succeeds in what it's intended to be & be used as, for.

[checkmatechamp13]

There is already the Meredith Depot a few blocks from the Teleport, so rather than building another one, it would best to just expand Meredith.

 

I believe the plan for the West Shore light rail is to have a Phase I up to Bloomfield, with a yard just south of the station (Phase II would go to Pleasant Plains).

 

A hospital actually wouldn't be a bad idea. The problem is accessability from the surrounding community.

 

Hopefully, though, the location of the Teleport makes it attractive to buyers looking to relocate from Manhattan's high real estate prices. If you think about it, it is a good location-near Newark Airport, near the West Shore Expressway (and the bridges it leads to) and (hopefully) near a rail line.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

There is already the Meredith Depot a few blocks from the Teleport, so rather than building another one, it would best to just expand Meredith.

 

Ironically I was thinking of Meredith when I wrote that. I figured a Teleport Depot would greatly aid diminutive Meredith garage.

 

I believe the plan for the West Shore light rail is to have a Phase I up to Bloomfield, with a yard just south of the station (Phase II would go to Pleasant Plains).

 

That must be what I was thinking of.

 

A hospital actually wouldn't be a bad idea. The problem is accessability from the surrounding community.

 

I didn't think that part through. Access from right in front on South Avenue, the SIE & WSE, & from Travis Avenue.

 

Hopefully, though, the location of the Teleport makes it attractive to buyers looking to relocate from Manhattan's high real estate prices. If you think about it, it is a good location-near Newark Airport, near the West Shore Expressway (and the bridges it leads to) and (hopefully) near a rail line.

 

:tup:

 

Exactly WHY it's best if the Teleport stays on the path it was on, & is presumably, still on.

 

Another possible use for the Teleport property could be for a new city/public high school. Just a thought.

 

Personally, I'd leave it as it`s been, & probably will be again, office space.

[checkmatechamp13]

There is a school in my neighborhood that is relocating along South Avenue (I don't think it is actually in the Teleport complex though)

 

The problem with the hospital is that there are too few access points. If somebody living near Richmond Avenue gets sick, they couldn't go straight into the Teleport-they would have to detour through either Victory Blvd/Travis Avenue or Goethals Road North/South Avenue.

 

In addition, people living in the surrounding neighborhood can't access it easily by walking/public transportation (assuming the injury is minor enough), due to the lack of through-routes from the surrounding neighborhoods. If this problem were fixed, it would be a good idea.