Staten Island Division: 2010 and beyond

[checkmatechamp13]

I noticed that as well, but I figured somebody would've mentioned it.

 

That error's been on the buses since they came out in April (I forget exactly when they came out)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

lol... So they don't have Castleton abbreviated anyone on the S46 signage? I'll try to see if I can catch one passing when I'm on the X30 sometime.

[LRG]

On the Orion 5s and 7s, I think Castleton is abbreviated as "CASLTN".

[Via Garibaldi 8]

On the Orion 5s and 7s, I think Castleton is abbreviated as "CASLTN".

 

Yeah, I've always saw that also...

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Anyone see the Sunday Advance's cover article about Access-A-Ride?

[checkmatechamp13]

Anyone see the Sunday Advance's cover article about Access-A-Ride?

 

Yeah, I saw it. They've got to expand their definition of "disabled" to include people who physically can't stand on those buses (and if the route they are feeding into is known to have standees, then they should just take them the full route on Access-A-Ride).

 

I do agree with them trying to cut down on costs. $59 per rider is pretty high.

 

I wonder if they could give each of those riders a wheelchair if they can't walk more than a few feet. It would be cheaper to pay the money for an electric wheelchair and have them use the regular buses.

[qjtransitmaster]

Yeah, I saw it. They've got to expand their definition of "disabled" to include people who physically can't stand on those buses (and if the route they are feeding into is known to have standees, then they should just take them the full route on Access-A-Ride).

 

I do agree with them trying to cut down on costs. $59 per rider is pretty high.

 

I wonder if they could give each of those riders a wheelchair if they can't walk more than a few feet. It would be cheaper to pay the money for an electric wheelchair and have them use the regular buses.

 

brilliant but that would be too smart we are dealing with MTA ya know

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Yeah, I saw it. They've got to expand their definition of "disabled" to include people who physically can't stand on those buses (and if the route they are feeding into is known to have standees, then they should just take them the full route on Access-A-Ride).

 

I do agree with them trying to cut down on costs. $59 per rider is pretty high.

 

I wonder if they could give each of those riders a wheelchair if they can't walk more than a few feet. It would be cheaper to pay the money for an electric wheelchair and have them use the regular buses.

 

Not a bad idea. It's amazing what some of the electric wheelchairs can do. Some of the ones I've seen people using at various doctor's offices & medical centers on SI are very impressive.

 

But I'm sure electric wheelchairs vary in quality, from awesome to lemon, depending on who makes them.

 

brilliant but that would be too smart we are dealing with MTA ya know

 

LOL!B)

[SIR North Shore]

IMO, it's been an awful month for the SI Division. The Hybrids are breaking down at an alarming rate, the maintenance is deteriorating especially over at Charleston and service is going downhill as well. I'm beyond happy that I go for my road test next month because as soon as that comes around I think I'll be done with the MTA like most Staten Islanders provided the tolls don't go up to $15.

 

There's so many things the MTA can do with the SI Division that it should make anyone question what is going on in their offices as it is taxpayer money going to waste. Staten Island has the most cars per houses out of all the 5 boroughs and traffic is rather heavy out here so there is a lot of potential transit ridership on Staten Island. It's just that it takes entirely too long to travel anywhere. A simple trip to Pathmark or the SI Mall for example by bus could take up to 45 minutes but by car it's only 10-15 minutes. To reach Bay Ridge from West Brighton by the S53 is about 50 minutes to an hour while by car it's only 15-20 minutes even with traffic.

 

What Staten Island needs is more Q58 and B46-type routes where you can just go to the bus stop and there are no indefinite wait times or buses so crowded that they have to pass you up and wait another 15-20 minutes for the next one. The S53 is the only route that has this sort of model and it's apparent that it works because it's ridership continues to rise by a considerable amount every year. If routes such as the S44, S46, S48, S62, & S74 were run this way as well I believe that the ridership levels would rise dramatically. Unfortunately, the MTA has never experimented with this and kept service levels at the same level since the 1990s more or less.

 

Another problem is that MTA is not dynamic with the way they run local/limited services on Staten Island.

 

-There should be a limited bus meeting every ferry during weekdays between 5am & 10pm on all the busier routes.

 

-The S40 should have short-turns from Richmond Terrace/Clove Rd by placing some deadheading buses into service.

 

-The S44/S94 should be extended to the Eltingville Transit Center and run hourly overnight.

 

-The S46 should run half-hourly overnight as there is plenty of intra-boro ridership on that line.

 

-When the S42 is running, have the S52 run limited along that portion of the line.

 

-S53 should end at the S54s terminal in West Brighton and have S83s extend down to Port Richmond and/or Mariner's Harbor. When the S83 is not running, have the S53 run it's normal route. Also the S53 should run every 30 minutes overnight.

 

-S79 and X1 run every 40-60 minutes overnight weekdays & weekends.

[checkmatechamp13]

Just a couple of points:

 

- There are other areas where the service is frequent enough that you can just walk up to the stop and only have to wait a few minutes for a bus. Most notably Hylan Blvd and Richmond Avenue (and to a lesser extent Richmond Road). Ridership is increasing on Hylan Blvd (mostly on the S79), but not really on Richmond Avenue. So this model doesn't always work because you need the base ridership to be high.

 

- Disagree on having it on all of the busier routes. Just start out on the S48 and see how it goes. As of now, ridership isn't too high reverse-peak on any of those lines.

 

- Agreed on the S40 comment.

 

- Disagree on the S44/S94 comment. I'd rather just see overnight S59 service. If you extend the S44/S94 to the ETC, you'll have overcrowded S44/S94 buses, and S59s with room to spare, which will result in bunching and all sorts of other problems.

 

My S46 split plan would work much better.

 

- Which stops would the S52 skip?

 

- My S53/S83 plan would do that, except that the locals will go to Port Richmond. If the MTA gets back to me and says that I have to find a way to cut costs, I'll suggest cutting the locals back to West Brighton (I was torn between West Brighton and Port Richmond for the locals, but I think Port Richmond would be cost-neutral)

 

- The problem with running the S53 every 30 minutes is that it wouldn't be able to meet up with the train.

 

- I agree with the X1, but not sure about the S79.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

IMO, it's been an awful month for the SI Division. The Hybrids are breaking down at an alarming rate, the maintenance is deteriorating especially over at Charleston and service is going downhill as well. I'm beyond happy that I go for my road test next month because as soon as that comes around I think I'll be done with the MTA like most Staten Islanders provided the tolls don't go up to $15.

 

There's so many things the MTA can do with the SI Division that it should make anyone question what is going on in their offices as it is taxpayer money going to waste. Staten Island has the most cars per houses out of all the 5 boroughs and traffic is rather heavy out here so there is a lot of potential transit ridership on Staten Island. It's just that it takes entirely too long to travel anywhere. A simple trip to Pathmark or the SI Mall for example by bus could take up to 45 minutes but by car it's only 10-15 minutes. To reach Bay Ridge from West Brighton by the S53 is about 50 minutes to an hour while by car it's only 15-20 minutes even with traffic.

 

What Staten Island needs is more Q58 and B46-type routes where you can just go to the bus stop and there are no indefinite wait times or buses so crowded that they have to pass you up and wait another 15-20 minutes for the next one. The S53 is the only route that has this sort of model and it's apparent that it works because it's ridership continues to rise by a considerable amount every year. If routes such as the S44, S46, S48, S62, & S74 were run this way as well I believe that the ridership levels would rise dramatically. Unfortunately, the MTA has never experimented with this and kept service levels at the same level since the 1990s more or less.

 

Another problem is that MTA is not dynamic with the way they run local/limited services on Staten Island.

 

-There should be a limited bus meeting every ferry during weekdays between 5am & 10pm on all the busier routes.

 

-The S40 should have short-turns from Richmond Terrace/Clove Rd by placing some deadheading buses into service.

 

-The S44/S94 should be extended to the Eltingville Transit Center and run hourly overnight.

 

-The S46 should run half-hourly overnight as there is plenty of intra-boro ridership on that line.

 

-When the S42 is running, have the S52 run limited along that portion of the line.

 

-S53 should end at the S54s terminal in West Brighton and have S83s extend down to Port Richmond and/or Mariner's Harbor. When the S83 is not running, have the S53 run it's normal route. Also the S53 should run every 30 minutes overnight.

 

-S79 and X1 run every 40-60 minutes overnight weekdays & weekends.

 

 

Speaking of beat up hybrids, I saw a 41XX hybrid out of Yukon yesterday morning over on Victory Blvd and Manor pass by while I was waiting for an X12. The back part of the bus towards the top had a huge gash/hole in it. Really annoys me how terrible of a job SI Division does with their buses. They just don't maintain them the way they should.

 

As far as local bus service goes, this whole week I've been leaving later than usual and I have been using car service to and from work. I'm just not up for dealing with the local bus unless I'm waiting at an express bus stop and one happens to be there and it would take longer for me to get a cab. I'm sure that the same problems are happening on the local routes even with the new buses because you still have a lack of supervision on these lines. The other day on the X30 (maybe last week) there was a dispatcher there, which I haven't seen in months on any line that I've been on. It's like you may see one maybe 3 times a year and out of those three times, maybe one or two of those times are actually on Staten Island, otherwise they are in the city.

 

Express bus service has been decent overall, although the X30 has been MIA here and there, but I leave early enough and have enough backup plans that isn't a big deal, but my back up plans certainly don't involve relying on the local buses to get anywhere that's for sure.

 

I keep saying that this tracking system needs to be implemented ASAP because there is no accountability on these lines and then we could have proof that buses are showing up extremely early. I think this is one thing I would like to address in the next hearing that I speak at. We need to understand why we can't get more accountability in terms of the service that we have being reliable. You and I know what I mean when I say that too. I'm not talking about the occasion late bus. We're talking about repeated lateness or really late buses, esp. with the local lines. The only express bus with this problem is the X10. The X17 and X1 don't seem to have this problem where buses consistently come whenever.

 

 

I also agree that more limited stop service is needed where possible. I'm not saying run limiteds all day long, but they can make some slight adjustments to give folks faster service in some cases.

 

Checkmate and I were talking about the S83 yesterday and we don't know yet what is going to happen, but the proposal is being looked at, so there could be hope down the line if it can be made cost neutral.

[S78 via Hylan]

-Disagree on the S52 comment. The S42 and S52 help each other out during rush hours and prevent overcrowding. Plus, those routes have low ridership in general.

 

- S44 doesn't need to go to the Eltingville Transit Center. It's already long. If you need serice from the ferry to the TC, the S74/84 is slighty more effective.

[SIR North Shore]

Just a couple of points:

 

- There are other areas where the service is frequent enough that you can just walk up to the stop and only have to wait a few minutes for a bus. Most notably Hylan Blvd and Richmond Avenue (and to a lesser extent Richmond Road). Ridership is increasing on Hylan Blvd (mostly on the S79), but not really on Richmond Avenue. So this model doesn't always work because you need the base ridership to be high.

 

Unfortunately, most of Staten Island doesn't have it that way. More service is greatly needed in most areas.

 

- Disagree on having it on all of the busier routes. Just start out on the S48 and see how it goes. As of now, ridership isn't too high reverse-peak on any of those lines.

 

All of the busy lines should have limited service to/from St George every 30 minutes most of the day and every 15 during rush hours, not just the S48. The locals would have slightly less service. There's absolutely no reason why Staten Island shouldn't have more service.

 

- Agreed on the S40 comment.

 

Those deadheading buses being placed into S40 service would only take a minute or two longer to travel between Rector & the ferry, but it would improve service greatly.

 

- Disagree on the S44/S94 comment. I'd rather just see overnight S59 service. If you extend the S44/S94 to the ETC, you'll have overcrowded S44/S94 buses, and S59s with room to spare, which will result in bunching and all sorts of other problems.

 

Well I would actually like for the S44/S94 to be extended down to Bricktown Mall using the S74 route and split it between CAS, Yukon & Charleston. They would just have to run the S44 more frequently.

 

My S46 split plan would work much better.

 

The S46 only needs way more S96 service for ferry riders, it makes too many stops.

 

- Which stops would the S52 skip?

 

I was thinking only in the PM rush towards Seaview, stopping at only Hamilton Av & Saint Marks and then making all stops after Jersey St & Crescent.

 

- My S53/S83 plan would do that, except that the locals will go to Port Richmond. If the MTA gets back to me and says that I have to find a way to cut costs, I'll suggest cutting the locals back to West Brighton (I was torn between West Brighton and Port Richmond for the locals, but I think Port Richmond would be cost-neutral)

 

A West Brighton terminal would better for the S53 to keep the run times down and not to have even more bunching on Castleton. If you need Brooklyn or the major stops then you take the S83 along Castleton and if need a local stop off the S53 then you're not taking another bus and can transfer from the S46 or S83 at Broadway.

 

- The problem with running the S53 every 30 minutes is that it wouldn't be able to meet up with the train.

 

The is not coordinated with the S53 at night or vice versa, so have the S53s run every 30 minutes and whoever is at the 86th st bus stop gets taken to Staten Island. If your train missed the bus then you have to wait for the next one, just like how it is now except that wait won't be as miserable with 30 minute headways.

 

- I agree with the X1, but not sure about the S79.

 

The S79 has never ran 24/7 so who is to say that the ridership wouldn't be there. Also an overnight S59 wouldn't be necessary because the S44 and S79 would overlap between the ETC and SI Mall.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Unfortunately, most of Staten Island doesn't have it that way. More service is greatly needed in most areas.

 

2) All of the busy lines should have limited service to/from St George every 30 minutes most of the day and every 15 during rush hours, not just the S48. The locals would have slightly less service. There's absolutely no reason why Staten Island shouldn't have more service.

 

3) Those deadheading buses being placed into S40 service would only take a minute or two longer to travel between Rector & the ferry, but it would improve service greatly.

 

4) Well I would actually like for the S44/S94 to be extended down to Bricktown Mall using the S74 route and split it between CAS, Yukon & Charleston. They would just have to run the S44 more frequently.

 

5) The S46 only needs way more S96 service for ferry riders, it makes too many stops.

 

6) I was thinking only in the PM rush towards Seaview, stopping at only Hamilton Av & Saint Marks and then making all stops after Jersey St & Crescent.

 

7) A West Brighton terminal would better for the S53 to keep the run times down and not to have even more bunching on Castleton. If you need Brooklyn or the major stops then you take the S83 along Castleton and if need a local stop off the S53 then you're not taking another bus and can transfer from the S46 or S83 at Broadway.

 

8) The is not coordinated with the S53 at night or vice versa, so have the S53s run every 30 minutes and whoever is at the 86th st bus stop gets taken to Staten Island. If your train missed the bus then you have to wait for the next one, just like how it is now except that wait won't be as miserable with 30 minute headways.

 

9) The S79 has never ran 24/7 so who is to say that the ridership wouldn't be there. Also an overnight S59 wouldn't be necessary because the S44 and S79 would overlap between the ETC and SI Mall.

 

1) I don't think there is a whole lot of overcrowding in most areas. Yes, on certain routes at certain times, there is overcrowding, but "most lines" is an exaggeration.

 

2) If there's ridership to back it up, then yes, but otherwise no. None of the lines have exceptionally great reverse-peak ridership. The S46 has schoolkids who take it reverse-peak, so it gets pretty good usage, but that isn't really the case with the other lines.

 

3) Agreed (it would probably be more like 4-5 minutes, but still)

 

4) Absolutely not. The S44 was listed as one of the most unreliable lines in Staten Island, and making it longer would make it worse. The number of people who would benefit is minimal compared to the number of people who would get less reliable service, and you especially should know that considering the fact that you don't have the S59/S89 as a backup like I do.

 

5) My plan to split it would shift the riders to the S40 and S48, so the improvements would be made on those lines rather than the S46 (or whatever you want to call it, since it would be reduced to rush hours only)

 

6) I don't know too much about S42/S52 ridership to comment, but all I can say is that those S42 buses get decently filled. I'm not sure if having the S52 skip most of the stops on the hill would cause the S42 to become overcrowded with local riders.

 

I'd stick with the current pattern. Limited-stop services don't do too well when you're dealing with all of the turns (hence why the S96 would be useless bypassing stops in Mariners' Harbor)

 

7) But then the problem is that the S83 could become overcrowded. My plan would be to have the S83 every 15 minutes during rush hour, which is too much for it to handle by itself. People who need local stops can take another route to Broadway, but you're not going to have people going there just to avoid overcrowding.

 

8) Check the schedule. The S53 is scheduled to arrive about 5-6 minutes before the , and is scheduled to leave about 5-6 minutes after the . Whether or not it sticks to the schedules I don't know.

 

9) I wouldn't have the overnight S44 or S79 service: Just the S59 service and have it sent to St. George via Castleton (again, S46 split)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) I don't think there is a whole lot of overcrowding in most areas. Yes, on certain routes at certain times, there is overcrowding, but "most lines" is an exaggeration.

 

I certainly think so, especially on the main local lines and the fact that the buses f*ck so often only helps to exacerbate that situation.

 

2) If there's ridership to back it up, then yes, but otherwise no. None of the lines have exceptionally great reverse-peak ridership. The S46 has schoolkids who take it reverse-peak, so it gets pretty good usage, but that isn't really the case with the other lines.

 

The S48 could certainly use reverse peak ridership.

 

4) Absolutely not. The S44 was listed as one of the most unreliable lines in Staten Island, and making it longer would make it worse. The number of people who would benefit is minimal compared to the number of people who would get less reliable service, and you especially should know that considering the fact that you don't have the S59/S89 as a backup like I do.

 

I think the question is why is the S44 so unreliable??? Before we start talking about limited stop service, we need to first get local stop service in order. Limited stop service will do nothing if the buses continue to show up whenever. I learned that very well with the S98. Nice to have it but it does no good if the buses are still 20 minutes late. :mad:

 

5) My plan to split it would shift the riders to the S40 and S48, so the improvements would be made on those lines rather than the S46 (or whatever you want to call it, since it would be reduced to rush hours only)

 

Why are you trying to push riders off of the S46? From my personal observations, that line has good ridership and I'm sure that it has continued to grow with other lines like the S48.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) I certainly think so, especially on the main local lines and the fact that the buses f*ck so often only helps to exacerbate that situation.

 

2) The S48 could certainly use reverse peak ridership.

 

3) I think the question is why is the S44 so unreliable??? Before we start talking about limited stop service, we need to first get local stop service in order. Limited stop service will do nothing if the buses continue to show up whenever. I learned that very well with the S98. Nice to have it but it does no good if the buses are still 20 minutes late. :mad:

 

4) Why are you trying to push riders off of the S46? From my personal observations, that line has good ridership and I'm sure that it has continued to grow with other lines like the S48.

 

1) Well I don't. I've ridden pretty much all of the routes (except for the S56, but that's obviously not a crushloaded route), and taking out the schoolkids, the only ones getting crushloaded (regularly) are the S48, S53, and to a lesser extent, the S46. Add the schoolkids back in, and you can add the S46 to that list.

 

And I've lower my definition of crushloaded. A crushloaded bus is now a bus where I have to keep on shouting "Move back. There's more space"

 

2) Well, we'll just have to see if the S98 causes that reverse-peak ridership growth.

 

3) From experience, the S44 isn't too unreliable, but I can see how bunching can occur. It's simple: Different drivers have different habits. There are drivers who floor it at every single light, and they end up catching up to a driver who stops whenever there's a yellow light.

 

4) Because it's the slowest route to St. George. Why would somebody crushload onto the bus that makes a million stops when the S40 is a few blocks away (and then when it gets to West Brighton, the S44 is pretty close).

 

All of the times I used it coming eastbound from Mariners' Harbor, I was going to a location on the S53 route, and there are a decent number of people making that transfer at Broadway for the S53 as well.

 

Splitting it would give Mariners' Harbor direct access to Brooklyn and points south, and the increase in ridership on the adjacent lines would be enough to justify service increases like off-peak/reverse-peak limited-stop service.

 

Yes, its 5 year growth was close to 10%, but if it were split up, ridership growth would probably be more.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) Well I don't. I've ridden pretty much all of the routes (except for the S56, but that's obviously not a crushloaded route), and taking out the schoolkids, the only ones getting crushloaded (regularly) are the S48, S53, and to a lesser extent, the S46. Add the schoolkids back in, and you can add the S46 to that list.

 

Yeah, well the ones with the lowest ridership more than likey have the highest rates of unreliability...

 

2) Well, we'll just have to see if the S98 causes that reverse-peak ridership growth.

 

Oh please. The reverse-peak ridership is already there. They need to stop BSing and add S98s already. :mad:

 

3) From experience, the S44 isn't too unreliable, but I can see how bunching can occur. It's simple: Different drivers have different habits. There are drivers who floor it at every single light, and they end up catching up to a driver who stops whenever there's a yellow light.

 

Well that happens on just about every line in the city and that's no excuse for them to bunch. The problem is that B/Os aren't being instructed as to how they should be adhering to the schedules. What's happening is one guy is adhering to the schedule and another guy is saying f*ck it, I want to get done as fast as possible, so I'm going to floor this b*tch even if I'm running hot. Of course the dispatchers allow it to happen so even if they're around the bunching continues. That's certainly the case with the S79.

 

4) Because it's the slowest route to St. George. Why would somebody crushload onto the bus that makes a million stops when the S40 is a few blocks away (and then when it gets to West Brighton, the S44 is pretty close).

Well if that's the case then explain where the ridership comes from on the S46? You can't have two S96s late at night at the ferry if it is all school kids as you claim.

 

All of the times I used it coming eastbound from Mariners' Harbor, I was going to a location on the S53 route, and there are a decent number of people making that transfer at Broadway for the S53 as well.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Yeah, well the ones with the lowest ridership more than likey have the highest rates of unreliability...

 

2) Oh please. The reverse-peak ridership is already there. They need to stop BSing and add S98s already. :mad:

 

3) Well that happens on just about every line in the city and that's no excuse for them to bunch. The problem is that B/Os aren't being instructed as to how they should be adhering to the schedules. What's happening is one guy is adhering to the schedule and another guy is saying f*ck it, I want to get done as fast as possible, so I'm going to floor this b*tch even if I'm running hot. Of course the dispatchers allow it to happen so even if they're around the bunching continues. That's certainly the case with the S79.

 

4) Well if that's the case then explain where the ridership comes from on the S46? You can't have two S96s late at night at the ferry if it is all school kids as you claim.

 

 

1) Not necessarily. It's just that the unreliability is felt more because if the bus doesn't show up, that's 30 minutes added to your trip.

 

2) Eh. When I'm going to school and I see a reverse-peak S48 pass by, it doesn't have a whole lot of people. Maybe the buses I see regularly bunch up and it makes them look emptier regularly.

 

In any case, if some riders shift from the S46, that will be all the more reason to get the reverse-peak limited.

 

3) Well, they need to take a good look at the schedule and see if there are a lot of drivers running hot. Then, they need to revise the times and have more dispatchers on the line.

 

Admittedly, you have some drivers who floor it for the benefit of the passengers if they have to catch a ferry.

 

4) I never said it's all schoolkids. I just said that there's a lot of schoolkids.

 

In any case, I don't think those 2 buses are necessary. I know at 16:30, there are 2 S96s and an S46 going to the West Shore Plaza and let me tell you that ridership south of Forest Avenue definitely doesn't warrant 3 buses.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) Not necessarily. It's just that the unreliability is felt more because if the bus doesn't show up, that's 30 minutes added to your trip.

 

Yeah well I can tell you right now that a line that the S54 would have more ridership if it was reliable. A lot of folks wait for it but then when they don't see anything they start walking or going to other alternatives, which is annoying.

 

2) Eh. When I'm going to school and I see a reverse-peak S48 pass by, it doesn't have a whole lot of people. Maybe the buses I see regularly bunch up and it makes them look emptier regularly.

 

In any case, if some riders shift from the S46, that will be all the more reason to get the reverse-peak limited.

 

 

That's exactly the reason... When they're early or bunched up they tend to be emptier...

 

3) Well, they need to take a good look at the schedule and see if there are a lot of drivers running hot. Then, they need to revise the times and have more dispatchers on the line.

 

Admittedly, you have some drivers who floor it for the benefit of the passengers if they have to catch a ferry.

 

True, but they're not doing any favors to the folks that they miss when they're flooring it and coming early and forcing those folks to have longer commutes are more crowded buses.

 

As for the looking at the schedule, that's been the story on Staten Island since I can remember.

 

 

4) I never said it's all schoolkids. I just said that there's a lot of schoolkids.

 

In any case, I don't think those 2 buses are necessary. I know at 16:30, there are 2 S96s and an S46 going to the West Shore Plaza and let me tell you that ridership south of Forest Avenue definitely doesn't warrant 3 buses.

 

 

Well from what I saw those S96s filled up nicely at the ferry, so they must warranted for enough of the trip to have two of them.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) True, but they're not doing any favors to the folks that they miss when they're flooring it and coming early and forcing those folks to have longer commutes are more crowded buses.

 

2) As for the looking at the schedule, that's been the story on Staten Island since I can remember.

 

3) Well from what I saw those S96s filled up nicely at the ferry, so they must warranted for enough of the trip to have two of them.

 

1) But they are doing a favor to the people already on the bus, so at least somebody benefits from that.

 

They usually start flooring it when they're close to the ferry terminal, so they don't pass a whole bunch of passengers. I remember on the S44, he was driving fairly slowly through Port Richmond (he wasn't purposely missing lights or anything), he drive at normal speed through West Brighton, and around Henderson Avenue/Bement Avenue, he checked his watch and saw that he had 15 minutes to make the ferry, so that's when he started speeding up.

 

2) Well, maybe they're not doing it because nobody brought it up.

 

3) But you don't know how many of them were actually traveling west of Port Richmond Avenue (plus, I'm not sure what you consider "filling up nicely". If it's a seated load, that's pretty bad considering the fact that it's rush hour)

 

Plus, I'm sure there was spare capacity on the S90 and S98. If the S96 is running double buses, I'm sure the S98 is as well.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) But they are doing a favor to the people already on the bus, so at least somebody benefits from that.

 

They usually start flooring it when they're close to the ferry terminal, so they don't pass a whole bunch of passengers. I remember on the S44, he was driving fairly slowly through Port Richmond (he wasn't purposely missing lights or anything), he drive at normal speed through West Brighton, and around Henderson Avenue/Bement Avenue, he checked his watch and saw that he had 15 minutes to make the ferry, so that's when he started speeding up.

 

 

I suppose...

 

 

3) But you don't know how many of them were actually traveling west of Port Richmond Avenue (plus, I'm not sure what you consider "filling up nicely". If it's a seated load, that's pretty bad considering the fact that it's rush hour)

 

Plus, I'm sure there was spare capacity on the S90 and S98. If the S96 is running double buses, I'm sure the S98 is as well.

 

Back in the day when the S96s were running later on at night, we didn't get S98s. Now they have them, but I used to be pissed because I would say to another working professional... You see that... Those project folks get better service than we do along Forest Avenue. :mad:

 

We're talking 21:30 at night when there would be 2 S96s, not a heat of rush hour and of course they wouldn't be sardine cans, but they were both nicely filled.

[checkmatechamp13]

I suppose...

 

Back in the day when the S96s were running later on at night, we didn't get S98s. Now they have them, but I used to be pissed because I would say to another working professional... You see that... Those project folks get better service than we do along Forest Avenue. :mad:

 

We're talking 21:30 at night when there would be 2 S96s, not a heat of rush hour and of course they wouldn't be sardine cans, but they were both nicely filled.

 

So how filled was the S46? A lot of the ridership is at the limited stops, so most people will just take the S96 if it arrives first. (Sometimes they don't have the S46 show up until a few minutes later)

 

And now, of course, they don't have the double buses in the evening, at least according to the schedule.

[qjtransitmaster]

So how filled was the S46? A lot of the ridership is at the limited stops, so most people will just take the S96 if it arrives first. (Sometimes they don't have the S46 show up until a few minutes later)

 

And now, of course, they don't have the double buses in the evening, at least according to the schedule.

 

If that's the case just make S96 run all day even at the S46's expense put the service at the stops that have the most ridership then cut out the lightly used stops or reduce service to them to reflect demand

[SIR North Shore]

Checkmate, really what are you.. some kind of nimby? You're saying no to desperately needed improvements to Staten Island's transportation network. :tdown:

 

I used to ride the buses everyday to school since 2002 and service used to be good at one point. Then after 2005 it all went downhill and by 2007 service was at it's lowest peak and they're still trying to improve from that low point to this day. Many reports have been released asking the MTA to bring more limited (and local) service to Staten Island and the Staten Island Advance used to cover the many failures of the MTA & SI Division pretty heavily back in the day. Staten Island's population blew up in the 2000s with all the townhouses but the only change we had was the new buses & the S89 but everything else is more or less the same these days when it comes to trying to get around because they added a lot of service over the years and then cut it all back in June 2010.

 

Buses are overcrowded all over Staten Island, you just don't get around enough. Not everyone are schoolkids and not everyone is traveling to Brooklyn or the ferry. People should be able to get around within Staten Island quickly just like in the other boroughs but it's not easy as it should be and unnecessarily time-consuming. They got it down in the other boros, especially the Bronx, so there's no excuse why the SI Division can't be run in a similar manner.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Checkmate, really what are you.. some kind of nimby? You're saying no to desperately needed improvements to Staten Island's transportation network. :tdown:

 

I used to ride the buses everyday to school since 2002 and service used to be good at one point. Then after 2005 it all went downhill and by 2007 service was at it's lowest peak and they're still trying to improve from that low point to this day. Many reports have been released asking the MTA to bring more limited (and local) service to Staten Island and the Staten Island Advance used to cover the many failures of the MTA & SI Division pretty heavily back in the day. Staten Island's population blew up in the 2000s with all the townhouses but the only change we had was the new buses & the S89 but everything else is more or less the same these days when it comes to trying to get around because they added a lot of service over the years and then cut it all back in June 2010.

 

Buses are overcrowded all over Staten Island, you just don't get around enough. Not everyone are schoolkids and not everyone is traveling to Brooklyn or the ferry. People should be able to get around within Staten Island quickly just like in the other boroughs but it's not easy as it should be and unnecessarily time-consuming. They got it down in the other boros, especially the Bronx, so there's no excuse why the SI Division can't be run in a similar manner.

 

I have to agree. I've been on Staten Island off and on since 1999 and I can certainly remember when the local bus service was good AND you can rely on the local bus to get you to the ferry on time. It has certainly gone downhill over the years. I think checkmate is living in this fantasy world. He generally uses the most popular lines on the island and doesn't really have long waits to connect to the other less popular lines, so for that reason he thinks that service is fine on Staten Island, but I disgaree. He keeps pointing to a few small examples where perhaps there is a small "abundance" of excess service, but overall most of the lines are crowded. The S48 line is crowded and could use more limited service. The S53 needs more service and desperatetly needs limited stop service. The S79 could use limited stop service. The list goes on and on.