Staten Island Division: 2010 and beyond

[engineerboy6561]

I haven't thought much about this, but I'll throw it out there.... This idea's been floating around for quite some time now....

 

 

Do any of you think there's a need for a bus route that travels from St. George's Ferry, to Brooklyn?

 

* If you think such a route should exist, where in Brooklyn would you send it?

and how would you route it ?

 

* If you think such a route should not exist, tell us how preposterous you think such an idea is....

 

 

Discuss.

 

I'd say it would be a great idea, namely because SI could use better connections to the other boroughs, and since the ferry terminal doubles as the last stop for most routes on the island as well as the SIR it would allow almost everyone on the island a one-fare ride into another borough should they choose to take it. I came up with two different ideas to serve different areas:

 

[GMAPS]:cool:<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=200421088698928261912.0004a7bc39814bad87e52&ie=UTF8&ll=40.61661,-74.011352&spn=0.052887,0.179772&vpsrc=6&output=embed"></iframe><br /><small>View <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=200421088698928261912.0004a7bc39814bad87e52&ie=UTF8&ll=40.61661,-74.011352&spn=0.052887,0.179772&vpsrc=6&source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">SI to Brooklyn</a> in a larger map</small>[/GMAPS]

 

The blue line would be a LTD service running from St. George to Kings Plaza via Bay St/Vanderbilt Av in Staten Island and via 86 St/Av X in Brooklyn, making the following stops:

 

All S86 stops between St. George and Narrows Rd/Richmond Rd/Targee St

All S93 stops on Narrows Rd between Richmond Rd and Fingerboard Rd

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / 92 St

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / 86 St

86 St / 7 Av

86 St / 13 Av

86 St / 18 Av

86 St / 25 Av

86 St / Stillwell Av

86 St station

86 St / Av X

Av X / Ocean Pkwy

Av X / Coney Island Av

Av Y / Ocean Av

Av Y / Nostrand Av

Nostrand Av / Av U

Kings Plaza

 

The red line would also be a LTD service starting from St. George, but running via Bay St in Staten Island and via Ft. Hamilton Pkwy in Brooklyn and terminating at the 15 St/Prospect Pk station. This line would make the following stops:

 

St. George Bus Terminal

Bay St / Victory Blvd

Bay St / Canal St

Bay St / Vanderbilt Av

Bay St / St. John's Av

Bay St / School Rd

 

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / 92 St

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / 86 St

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / Bay Ridge Pkwy

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / Bay Ridge Av

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy station

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / 60 St

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / 49-50 Sts

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy station

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / 39 St

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / Caton Av / McDonald Av

Coney Island Av / Parkside Av

Prospect Pk SW / 16 St

Prospect Park station

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I'd say it would be a great idea, namely because SI could use better connections to the other boroughs, and since the ferry terminal doubles as the last stop for most routes on the island as well as the SIR it would allow almost everyone on the island a one-fare ride into another borough should they choose to take it. I came up with two different ideas to serve different areas:

 

[GMAPS]:cool:<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=200421088698928261912.0004a7bc39814bad87e52&ie=UTF8&ll=40.61661,-74.011352&spn=0.052887,0.179772&vpsrc=6&output=embed"></iframe><br /><small>View <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=200421088698928261912.0004a7bc39814bad87e52&ie=UTF8&ll=40.61661,-74.011352&spn=0.052887,0.179772&vpsrc=6&source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">SI to Brooklyn</a> in a larger map</small>[/GMAPS]

 

The blue line would be a LTD service running from St. George to Kings Plaza via Bay St/Vanderbilt Av in Staten Island and via 86 St/Av X in Brooklyn, making the following stops:

 

All S86 stops between St. George and Narrows Rd/Richmond Rd/Targee St

All S93 stops on Narrows Rd between Richmond Rd and Fingerboard Rd

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / 92 St

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / 86 St

86 St / 7 Av

86 St / 13 Av

86 St / 18 Av

86 St / 25 Av

86 St / Stillwell Av

86 St station

86 St / Av X

Av X / Ocean Pkwy

Av X / Coney Island Av

Av Y / Ocean Av

Av Y / Nostrand Av

Nostrand Av / Av U

Kings Plaza

 

The red line would also be a LTD service starting from St. George, but running via Bay St in Staten Island and via Ft. Hamilton Pkwy in Brooklyn and terminating at the 15 St/Prospect Pk station. This line would make the following stops:

 

St. George Bus Terminal

Bay St / Victory Blvd

Bay St / Canal St

Bay St / Vanderbilt Av

Bay St / St. John's Av

Bay St / School Rd

 

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / 92 St

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / 86 St

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / Bay Ridge Pkwy

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / Bay Ridge Av

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy station

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / 60 St

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / 49-50 Sts

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy station

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / 39 St

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy / Caton Av / McDonald Av

Coney Island Av / Parkside Av

Prospect Pk SW / 16 St

Prospect Park station

 

Your ideas have been thrown around already in some capacity and one of them included having a SI LTD stop bus going from Staten Island to Kings Plaza.

[engineerboy6561]

Your ideas have been thrown around already in some capacity and one of them included having a SI LTD stop bus going from Staten Island to Kings Plaza.

 

Yep; sorry about the repost but I figured that this might be a more appropriate location to put them out.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yep; sorry about the repost but I figured that this might be a more appropriate location to put them out.

 

It's cool beans. In case you're interested, checkmate and I have been discussing extending the S53 and S79 up to 59th st and Brooklyn to give Staten Islanders direct access to the train, but there is no way that will happen now because the seems to be only considering ideas that are cost neutral. What we're trying to get right now is limited stop service on the S83 and are selling it as something that would be cost neutral. We've been in talks with a few folks at the and they are studying our proposals. :cool:

[LRG]

It's cool beans. In case you're interested, checkmate and I have been discussing extending the S53 and S79 up to 59th st and Brooklyn to give Staten Islanders direct access to the train, but there is no way that will happen now because the seems to be only considering ideas that are cost neutral. What we're trying to get right now is limited stop service on the S83 and are selling it as something that would be cost neutral. We've been in talks with a few folks at the and they are studying our proposals. :cool:

 

That's the main gripe everyone has with the MTA because they're so bent up on keeping things cost neutral that they don't realize they're taking service away from one area and adding it to another, which isn't always bad, but it still leaves some sort of damage.

 

When the cuts came, the MTA didn't really do a good job with providing cost-neutral alternatives, specifically in Staten Island. They didn't get hit hard as the other boroughs, but having no weekend service along Manor Road or New Doro Lane isn't cutting it. I've brought this up already; the S54 route could have been truncated so Manor Road would have weekend service still, and the S57 could have been rerouted along New Dorp Lane so that sector would still have weekend service. To this day the only sensible thing the MTA has done in terms of providing an alternative is the S66 reroute via Grymes Hill, although it would be nice to have weekend service along that area restored.

 

However, I'll give the MTA SOME form of credit. The S61 is the only Staten Island bus route that was created from scratch and it does a good job but that route is only 20 years old, whereas there are older routes that really haven't had anything done to them, and this goes for the entire city. Year by year bus ridership is dropping, and that causes less service. People won't really see this until they realize their once-12 minute midday service is now half-hourly (just an example).

 

The bus network really needs to be reworked, no denying that at all.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's the main gripe everyone has with the MTA because they're so bent up on keeping things cost neutral that they don't realize they're taking service away from one area and adding it to another, which isn't always bad, but it still leaves some sort of damage.

 

When the cuts came, the MTA didn't really do a good job with providing cost-neutral alternatives, specifically in Staten Island. They didn't get hit hard as the other boroughs, but having no weekend service along Manor Road or New Doro Lane isn't cutting it. I've brought this up already; the S54 route could have been truncated so Manor Road would have weekend service still, and the S57 could have been rerouted along New Dorp Lane so that sector would still have weekend service. To this day the only sensible thing the MTA has done in terms of providing an alternative is the S66 reroute via Grymes Hill, although it would be nice to have weekend service along that area restored.

 

However, I'll give the MTA SOME form of credit. The S61 is the only Staten Island bus route that was created from scratch and it does a good job but that route is only 20 years old, whereas there are older routes that really haven't had anything done to them, and this goes for the entire city. Year by year bus ridership is dropping, and that causes less service. People won't really see this until they realize their once-12 minute midday service is now half-hourly (just an example).

 

The bus network really needs to be reworked, no denying that at all.

 

lol... Checkmate proposed extending the S93 further westward citing a lack of service there and the shot it down almost instantly, using cost neutrality is their main reason, despite the fact that the route could be cost effective and generate revenue and a new ridership base.

 

They're in love with numbers, so when I spoke before the at the hearing I made a point to use their own stats to emphasize my points and also kept drilling home the idea of cost neutrality because I don't want to give them an easy exit, which of course would be cost neutrality. I find them to be rather lazy overall and they just are not creative when it comes to bus service anyway. Now, Allen Cappelli is the one guy we have in our corner and he has stated on numerous occasions that he is against the cuts that we've had for example on the S79 and strongly believes that expanded service is needed, so I was certain to address him as well when making my push for service improvements at the hearing in July.

 

It's almost as if they try to cap certain routes to stop them from growing. They could very well extend service on the X1, X10 and X17 by cutting a few runs that aren't as heavily used going to Manhattan later on in the evening and add those runs later on at night where the X1 and X10 in particular are crush loaded, which would probably bring them additional revenue, and I pointed out that those three express bus routes have the highest ridership in the system (the express bus system that is) and also noted that I have seen and appreciate the increased frequencies on those lines. However, it wasn't like they were giving us those frequencies just because. The X10 was running every 45 minutes most of the day on Sunday with no X17 and we had buses that were consistently SRO, so they added service because they were forced to. Now I'm going to keep on their @sses about adding service later at night because I know that they know the overcrowding that the X1 and X10 are having late on the weekends, especially on Sunday nights and late at night during the week, but they're trying to skimp on service and also they don't want to extend service further, but I'm going to keep reminding them of the promise they made to us when we had Charleston built, which was that they stated that we would see expanded service and now Meredith and Charleston are open so there are no more excuses. :mad:

[checkmatechamp13]

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.

 

Well, considering the fact that I ride some of the heaviest-used routes in the borough, I think I can say whether or not they're overcrowded (and keep in mind that, again, I'm taking schoolkids out of the equation). Yeah, I'm not traveling to St. George daily (where I assume most of the routes are at their peak in terms of crowding), and most of my travels are in northwestern Staten Island, but I think I have enough experience in traveling to make an assessment of the crowding.

 

As far as indirect travel, the problem is that some routes are infrequent because there is low demand, and there is no way to get demand up to warrant more service. That's the ultimate problem. There isn't much that can be done with the routings themselves to fix the problem.

 

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.

 

Well, I don't really use the less popular lines (at least on a regular basis). But since I only use the popular lines, I think I'm in a position to say that many of them aren't overcrowded.

 

I'm not denying that the S53 needs limited-stop service (or else I wouldn't have spent all that time submitting the proposal to them). Nor am I denying that the S79 needs to become an all-limited route. But I think he's being way too extreme in suggesting the improvements he did. All major lines should have limited service for the whole day???? Seeing the way a lot of the lines are reverse-peak (and this past summer, I've seen a lot of them as they left the ferry), there is not enough ridership to warrant the reverse-peak service.

 

Probably the S48 (especially if the S46 was split like I wanted it), but that's the only line that I've seen that could use the reverse-peak limited service.

 

That's the main gripe everyone has with the MTA because they're so bent up on keeping things cost neutral that they don't realize they're taking service away from one area and adding it to another, which isn't always bad, but it still leaves some sort of damage.

 

When the cuts came, the MTA didn't really do a good job with providing cost-neutral alternatives, specifically in Staten Island. They didn't get hit hard as the other boroughs, but having no weekend service along Manor Road or New Doro Lane isn't cutting it. I've brought this up already; the S54 route could have been truncated so Manor Road would have weekend service still, and the S57 could have been rerouted along New Dorp Lane so that sector would still have weekend service. To this day the only sensible thing the MTA has done in terms of providing an alternative is the S66 reroute via Grymes Hill, although it would be nice to have weekend service along that area restored.

 

However, I'll give the MTA SOME form of credit. The S61 is the only Staten Island bus route that was created from scratch and it does a good job but that route is only 20 years old, whereas there are older routes that really haven't had anything done to them, and this goes for the entire city. Year by year bus ridership is dropping, and that causes less service. People won't really see this until they realize their once-12 minute midday service is now half-hourly (just an example).

 

The bus network really needs to be reworked, no denying that at all.

 

Well, the problem is that I'm sure there are people like you who have ideas on how to rework the routes so that they are stronger and the people in the area still have service. The problem is that they don't know about those monthly meetings, or if they do, they don't have time to go there.

 

I'm sure if more people did what Via Garibaldi and myself did last month, they would actually look at ways to strengthen the routes and improve service in the process. Remember the saying: The squeaky wheel gets the oil!

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well, I don't really use the less popular lines (at least on a regular basis). But since I only use the popular lines, I think I'm in a position to say that many of them aren't overcrowded.

 

I'm not denying that the S53 needs limited-stop service (or else I wouldn't have spent all that time submitting the proposal to them). Nor am I denying that the S79 needs to become an all-limited route. But I think he's being way too extreme in suggesting the improvements he did. All major lines should have limited service for the whole day???? Seeing the way a lot of the lines are reverse-peak (and this past summer, I've seen a lot of them as they left the ferry), there is not enough ridership to warrant the reverse-peak service.

 

Probably the S48 (especially if the S46 was split like I wanted it), but that's the only line that I've seen that could use the reverse-peak limited service.

 

 

Yeah, but I think you're also basing your conclusion based solely on the times that you ride the routes. I understand where SINorth is coming from because I have used many of the routes that he discusses at various times of the day and night. Now maybe he is a bit off with calling for limited stop service on all routes, but I think his point is that all routes can have things implemented so that they can move quicker. Signal priority for example can be implemented on more routes and more routes can be interlined to make transferring between local buses easier. These two things alone would work wonders in terms of speeding up commuting within Staten Island.

[checkmatechamp13]

Yeah, but I think you're also basing your conclusion based solely on the times that you ride the routes. I understand where SINorth is coming from because I have used many of the routes that he discusses at various times of the day and night. Now maybe he is a bit off with calling for limited stop service on all routes, but I think his point is that all routes can have things implemented so that they can move quicker. Signal priority for example can be implemented on more routes and more routes can be interlined to make transferring between local buses easier. These two things alone would work wonders in terms of speeding up commuting within Staten Island.

 

Well yeah, but I've ridden routes at various times as well. And it makes logical sense that rush hour is when the routes are at their most crowded point, and if the route isn't seeing heavy ridership during rush hour, I doubt it's seeing it during the day.

 

But the problem is that some routes really fluctuate in their ridership. Last summer, I was taking the S46, and it was usually pretty crowded by the time it hit West Brighton. And yet, I took it recently during the school year and it barely had a seated load. I know the headway was reduced from 15 minutes to 12 minutes, but I doubt it explained the lack of ridership on the bus.

 

The only thing I can think of is that the bus I was on would show up late and get crowded, and now the extra bus per hour helped keep the loads distributed evenly.

 

That's why I said that the only routes that can truly get crowded (even without bunching and the schoolkids) are the S48 and S53. Yeah, the S46 often shows up close to crushloaded (if people moved to the back, that wouldn't be a problem. :mad: ), but you see the huge difference in crowding before and after it hits Port Richmond High School.

 

Now of course, I'll agree that TSP and better communications between drivers can really help out the situation.

[SIR North Shore]

I fully disagree with any statements that all-day limited service is not necessary. I strongly believe that if limited service tied to the ferry schedule (running every 30 minutes or 20 minutes), were provided on most SI lines it would pay for itself eventually through existing ridership but more so from new ridership. :tup:

[S78 via Hylan]

I will say this:

 

I grew up in Staten Island and have ridden almost every route. I am also aware that the borough's population is growing, however that does not mean that every route that goes to St. George needs limited stop service all day. What I notice about many SI bus routes, is that they can be crowded leaving the ferry, but then quickly empty before even half the route.

 

Sometimes, the buses can be crowding for any reason. Whether it's late, or the previous bus before didn't show up. In other words, just because you see a bus crowded, that does not always mean that particular route has high ridership.

 

Here's an example: I used the ride the S86 in the afternoons to pick up my younger sister. There were times when the S86 only had a few people even when leaving the ferry and the bus basically carried air from Vanderbilt and Targee all the way to New Dorp Plaza.

 

The only SI routes that should have expanded limited stop service are the S48/S98 and S93.

[LRG]

I fully disagree with any statements that all-day limited service is not necessary. I strongly believe that if limited service tied to the ferry schedule (running every 30 minutes or 20 minutes), were provided on most SI lines it would pay for itself eventually through existing ridership but more so from new ridership. :tup:

 

I disagree...as per what S78 said not every route that serves Saint George needs all-day limited service. If you're going to add midday service on some lines then it should be one line per sector (e.g. don't give the S40, S46 and S48 Limited service, but just one of the routes)

 

In the North Shore I'd give the S48 midday limited service as it gets more riders than the S40, S44 and S46; along Victory Boulevard I'd give the S61 all-day limited service because the section the S91 runs limited is along Victory Boulevard and limited service ends at Bradley Avenue, and the S62 could be local; I'd leave the S74 alone as it's Limited version only operates during p.m. rush hours and evenings and riders who want faster service can take the SIR.

 

Otherwise S78 hit the nail on the head. The S48 should be a candidate for all-day limited service and it shouldn't even be an option for the S93 to get expanded service either.

[checkmatechamp13]

I fully disagree with any statements that all-day limited service is not necessary. I strongly believe that if limited service tied to the ferry schedule (running every 30 minutes or 20 minutes), were provided on most SI lines it would pay for itself eventually through existing ridership but more so from new ridership. :tup:

 

You're overestimating the potential ridership that would be generated. The S40 and S44 are already pretty fast, the S51, S74, S76, and S78 have the SIR for long-distance passengers, and the S52 doesn't have enough ridership.

 

So the only routes that could use a limited (besides the S53 and S79) are the S46 and S48. However, there isn't enough ridership for both routes to successfully have a limited, so it should be the S48 getting the limited (maybe even every 15 minutes all day), and the S46 being split up.

 

And the S61 could become a limited-only route only because the S62 can be used for local service.

 

I disagree...as per what S78 said not every route that serves Saint George needs all-day limited service. If you're going to add midday service on some lines then it should be one line per sector (e.g. don't give the S40, S46 and S48 Limited service, but just one of the routes)

 

In the North Shore I'd give the S48 midday limited service as it gets more riders than the S40, S44 and S46; along Victory Boulevard I'd give the S61 all-day limited service because the section the S91 runs limited is along Victory Boulevard and limited service ends at Bradley Avenue, and the S62 could be local; I'd leave the S74 alone as it's Limited version only operates during p.m. rush hours and evenings and riders who want faster service can take the SIR.

 

Otherwise S78 hit the nail on the head. The S48 should be a candidate for all-day limited service and it shouldn't even be an option for the S93 to get expanded service either.

 

Well, I'll agree with you about only one route per service area: If the MTA can find a way to shift some ridership to the route that's getting limited-stop service, there'll be one very strong corridor with both local and limited service.

 

But I disagree about the S93. If nothing else, it saves riders from having to make that transfer between the S53 and S62 (even with the S83, the S93 would still be faster), and would provide network coverage on the western end if my plan were implemented. Just running every 30 minutes (with a slight decrease in S62 service) would be sufficient.

 

I mean, you could make the argument that the S93 parallels existing routes, but by that logic, you could eliminate the S79, and we all know how high the ridership is on that route.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

But I disagree about the S93. If nothing else, it saves riders from having to make that transfer between the S53 and S62 (even with the S83, the S93 would still be faster), and would provide network coverage on the western end if my plan were implemented. Just running every 30 minutes (with a slight decrease in S62 service) would be sufficient.

 

I mean, you could make the argument that the S93 parallels existing routes, but by that logic, you could eliminate the S79, and we all know how high the ridership is on that route.

 

 

Well now isn't that a surprise...

 

The S48 should be a candidate for all-day limited service and it shouldn't even be an option for the S93 to get expanded service either.

 

 

LOL... I would've never thought that two S93 riders would be at odds about the line getting expanded service. :confused:

[checkmatechamp13]

Well now isn't that a surprise...

 

LOL... I would've never thought that two S93 riders would be at odds about the line getting expanded service. :confused:

 

In all seriousness, I wouldn't be suggesting it if I didn't feel it was needed. You know my stance about excess service down Richmond Avenue, and I use those routes far more than the S93.

[LRG]

Well now isn't that a surprise...

 

 

 

 

LOL... I would've never thought that two S93 riders would be at odds about the line getting expanded service. :confused:

 

Well by expanded service, I mean outside of rush hours. I REALLY need to be convinced about the S93 extended from CSI....

 

As far as Limited service is concerned, here's my list for Limited service expansion in the borough:

 

S48: All day weekdays (a.m. rush hours towards the ferry only, middays both direction, p.m. rush hours both directions, evenings from the ferry only). I don't know the route well enough to see if it needs weekend limited service.

S53: No questions asked, all day weekdays limited service, open to weekend limited service but that would kill hopes for weekend S93 service.

S61: Limited service all-day on weekdays, local service other times. Local riders can use the S62.

S79: No questions asked, daily limited-only service. The S79 has local alternatives that it operates in tandem with between Grasmere and New Springville.

S93: All-day weekday limited service, but if the S53 Limited gets weekend service first that would kill the S93's hope for weekend service.

[checkmatechamp13]

Well by expanded service, I mean outside of rush hours. I REALLY need to be convinced about the S93 extended from CSI....

 

As far as Limited service is concerned, here's my list for Limited service expansion in the borough:

 

S48: All day weekdays (a.m. rush hours towards the ferry only, middays both direction, p.m. rush hours both directions, evenings from the ferry only). I don't know the route well enough to see if it needs weekend limited service.

S53: No questions asked, all day weekdays limited service, open to weekend limited service but that would kill hopes for weekend S93 service.

S61: Limited service all-day on weekdays, local service other times. Local riders can use the S62.

S79: No questions asked, daily limited-only service. The S79 has local alternatives that it operates in tandem with between Grasmere and New Springville.

S93: All-day weekday limited service, but if the S53 Limited gets weekend service first that would kill the S93's hope for weekend service.

 

The S93 could get weekend service for no extra cost if those S62 short-turns were converted to S93 runs. Sure, the span would be short, but it would be better than nothing.

 

I wrote this letter to Sarah Wyss, Director Short Range Bus Planning.

 

I would like you to reconsider my proposal to extend the S93 to Arlington and add Saturday service. Although costs will increase, I feel that they can be covered by additional ridership, as this would make trips a lot easier for a significant amount of riders. For instance, a trip from Arlington to the College of Staten Island would be reduced from roughly 40 minutes to 20 minutes.

 

Part I: S93 Expansion

In order to reduce costs, I recommend that 4 westbound trips be eliminated from the S93: 2 in the morning and 2 in the afternoon. This would be accomplished by reducing the frequencies in the height of rush hour from 10 minutes to 15 minutes. I am making the assumption that the S83 would exist, as the S93 would be less crowded, as a result of fast alternative being available. See part II of this proposal for more information.

 

The elimination of those 4 trips would save roughly $37,000 according to my calculations. These savings could be applied to extending the S93 to Arlington, which would cost roughly $190,000, resulting in a net cost of $153,000. This would require roughly 6 additional passengers per trip to break even, which I feel is achievable. The reason I believe so is that the northern section of the route would serve 2 low-income housing developments (the Mariners’ Harbor Houses and Arlington Terrace Apartments) with a total of over 3,200 residents, as well as residents in the surrounding neighborhoods and residents in the neighborhoods bordering the Staten Island Expressway.

 

I would also like to request that Saturday service be added to the S93. Although you may feel that too many riders use the S62 to have those buses used as S93 buses, I would like to point out that a lot of those riders are transferring from the S53, and would benefit from the direct connection to Brooklyn. Also, you need to take into consideration that those S62 short-turns don’t travel west of the College of Staten Island, so the only portion of Victory Blvd that would see a reduction in service would be the portion east of Clove Road.

 

However, that portion of the route has the S61. As the S61 and S62 often run back-to-back, there is effectively no frequency reduction. In addition, overcrowding shouldn’t be a concern, as the S61 buses don’t meet the ferry.

If the Saturday service on the S93 ran at the current span as the S62 short-turns, this would effectively be cost-neutral, and most likely attract additional ridership and revenue.

 

I feel that the S93 should run from 07:00 - 19:00, and doing so would allow some early-morning S62 runs to be eliminated, saving $6,000 that should be applied to this expansion. The cost of this expansion should be about $39,000 (assuming the midday S62 short-turns are eliminated), and subtracting the cost of the early morning short turns ($6,000), leaves a final cost of $33,000, which requires only 6 additional passengers per trip. Considering the fact that the S93 saves 15-20 minutes over the taking the S53 to Clove Road/Victory Blvd, plus the transfer penalty of transferring to the S62, I think that this is easily achievable. Although the S83 would be faster than the S53, cutting the relative time savings by 10 minutes, the S93 would be even faster than the S83.

 

The cost of the extension to Arlington on the weekends is $42,000 if you are going with the longer span (07:00 - 19:00), or $21,000 if you are going with the shorter span (the current span of the S62 short-turns)

 

So in conclusion, we have:

* Cost of rush hour extension to Arlington = $190,000 - $37,000 = $153,000 (6 riders per trip to break even)

* Cost of Saturday service (short span, without extension) = $0 (potential for profit)

* Cost of Saturday service (long span, without extension) = $78,000 - $39,000 - $5,000 = $34,000 (6-7 riders per trip to break even)

* Cost of Saturday service (short span with extension) = $19,500 (7-8 riders per trip to break even)

* Cost of Saturday service (long span with extension) = $34,000 + $39,000 = $73,000 (14 riders per trip to break even)

 

Part II: S83 Proposal

I'm going to calculate the headways for the S83 now. The formula I'm going to use is as follows:

* When the local runs every 6-8 minutes, the local/limited will run every 12 minutes each

* When the local runs every 10-12 minutes, the local/limited will run every 15 minutes each

 

Although this is a net increase in cost, the S53 is a route that is prone to overcrowding. People are routinely being left behind and forced to wait for 1 or 2 buses to pass by before there is room to get on, especially during peak periods (rush hours, and also Saturday afternoons). If a traffic check in conducted, you'll most likely see that additional service is required anyway, and this would be accomplished most cost-efficiently through the implementation of the S83.

 

So I figured that this would be the span for the S83:

Eastbound Westbound

Weekdays 05:10 - 21:00 06:00 - 21:45

Saturdays 06:22 - 19:00 07:14 - 20:05

Sundays 09:40 - 18:54 10:45 - 19:59

　

Overall, I feel that the S83 proposal will be cost-neutral. At the times when the buses run every 6-8 minutes, it is actually on the shoulder of rush hour, when the service isn't too crowded, so the MTA actually saves some money by doing this. Then, they you can spend that money to add the service in the heart of rush hour (the buses currently come every 10 minutes, so the limited would reduce that to a limited and local running every 15 minutes each, or 7.5 minutes combined, which increases capacity.

 

In addition, there might also be additional savings that can be obtained by cutting into the layover times of the S53 and S79 in Brooklyn. I have often seen buses layover for 15-20 minutes while crowds pile up, which causes delays and results in even more money being spent on overtime costs.

I have made a map of both my S93 extension, and the S83 proposal: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=

214504384267441423605.0004aa69770f4a219c520, in case anything was unclear.

 

I thank you for taking the time to read my proposal and look forward to a response.

[SIR North Shore]

My plan involved short-turning and reducing service on the locals and adding in a few more limited stops if necessary to fill any large gaps of limited service. The limited routes would become Staten Island's "subway routes" in a way, in that you can at least rely on it to get you to the ferry on time unlike any of the local routes. The problem I notice with some you guys is that you have to look at the future and how people will change their ridership patterns and commutes if service is improved and not base everything exclusively off of how things are now.

 

And I've sent emails to the MTA as well.

[checkmatechamp13]

My plan involved short-turning and reducing service on the locals and adding in a few more limited stops if necessary to fill any large gaps of limited service. The limited routes would become Staten Island's "subway routes" in a way, in that you can at least rely on it to get you to the ferry on time unlike any of the local routes. The problem I notice with some you guys is that you have to look at the future and how people will change their ridership patterns and commutes if service is improved and not base everything exclusively off of how things are now.

 

And I've sent emails to the MTA as well.

 

But did you send them to any specific people? I've tried those "Contact Us" emails, and if I managed to get a response, it was a generic "We'll forward your response to Operations Planning". You have to send it to the people I mentioned or else you'll never get anywhere.

 

As far as the limited routes go, I still think you're overestimating the potential ridership, but whatever. Let's try to get it on the S48 and we'll go from there. :cool:

[Via Garibaldi 8]

As far as the limited routes go, I still think you're overestimating the potential ridership, but whatever. Let's try to get it on the S48 and we'll go from there. :cool:

 

I agree with you to a point in that we can't just stick limited stop service all over the place, BUT I also think that SIR North raises a good point. Ridership on several of the Staten Island lines has continued to increase since I first came to Staten Island in 1999 and then permanently in 2004. In 1999 I spent my summer here going back and forth to work on my college break and service back then was significantly better, which would make sense because the buses were newer for starters.

 

Now the has increased service, but several of the projects that they've promised to put through they haven't yet. You cannot overlook that because that shows that they know that need to thinking ahead and have some idea of what the borough needs. I think you're underestimating the population growth that the borough is having, so that is not a "whatever" in any shape or form.

 

While I won't call for outright limited stop service on every route, they could at least implement a few features that they've talked about over and over. I think SIR North's point is that since we don't have subways, the should be going the extra mile to speed up bus service and make them run as if they were like trains. Of course they'll never be as fast as trains, BUT the is more than likely not going to be building any subways here anytime soon, so something needs to be done. In short I think what he is saying is hey let's find ways to speed up the buses to make them more attractive.

 

My question would be how quickly could the local buses on Staten Island shake the stigma of being notorously slow, late and unreliable? At the next hearing, these are the things that we should talk about:

 

-The need to accelerate the implementation of countdown clocks on Staten Island

If passengers know when they can expect the bus they may be more likely to take it.

 

-The need to interline more buses with each other to make connections more efficient

This is done in some cases, but not enough.

 

-The need to also make local bus and ferry connections more reliable and in sink

 

-The need for more enforcement on farebeating

Whether you want to admit it or not, local buses suffer from the stigma of not being safe. Many parents refuse to put their kids on the local bus for fear that they'll be robbed or beaten up and it is my belief that a lot of the riff raff stems from the punks that get on and don't pay. :mad: If the local buses on Staten Island were made safer, more folks would ride them the way that they flock to the express buses.

[checkmatechamp13]

Replies in red

 

-The need to accelerate the implementation of countdown clocks on Staten Island

Makes sense.

 

-The need to interline more buses with each other to make connections more efficient

Makes sense.

 

-The need to also make local bus and ferry connections more reliable and in sink

That could be done by making the headways a little bit uneven so that buses don't miss the ferry by a minute or two.

 

-The need for more enforcement on farebeating

You're on your own pal. From the revenue point of view, I doubt many of those people would've paid a fare to ride anyway (on the weekends, I walk a mile or two because my Student MetroCard doesn't work, and most farebeaters don't travel very far). I'm not going to debate that any further.

 

I think you're overestimating parents' willingness to send their child on a local bus. I remember in middle school, there was this girl who thought she was so tough taking the bus, and don't think there aren't plenty of people like her, and people with parents who think like that.

 

I wouldn't want to ride with any of those spoiled kids anyway.

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I think you're overestimating parents' willingness to send their child on a local bus. I remember in middle school, there was this girl who thought she was so tough taking the bus, and don't think there aren't plenty of people like her, and people with parents who think like that.

 

I wouldn't want to ride with any of those spoiled kids anyway.

 

Is that right?? Well I was a spoiled kid growing up... :mad: Look at me now... :cool: :tup:

[checkmatechamp13]

Is that right?? Well I was a spoiled kid growing up... :mad: Look at me now... :cool: :tup:

 

So your parents drove you everywhere so you didn't have to use buses and trains?

 

If you grew up as "middle class", then by definition, your parents couldn't have spoiled you too much.

 

At my school, there are kids who come from New Springville, as well as from the North Shore, and to be honest, living in the middle (geographically at least. Maybe a tad bit closer to the North Shore), I like the North Shore kids better.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So your parents drove you everywhere so you didn't have to use buses and trains?

 

If you grew up as "middle class", then by definition, your parents couldn't have spoiled you too much.

 

At my school, there are kids who come from New Springville, as well as from the North Shore, and to be honest, living in the middle, I like the North Shore kids better.

 

Well you have to remember that I grew up in Brooklyn so in Brooklyn folks use public transportation more. My mom would usually take car service here and there but public transportation was never a real issue. My father liked to walk a lot for the hell of it and I guess that's where I got my yearning to go for walks at from time to time when the weather is nice when getting off of the express bus. :cool:

 

To answer your question, no I wasn't driven everywhere, BUT I was an only child and my mom and dad did spoil me as a result. Quite frankly I wasn't one of those I want this and I want that types, BUT I didn't like cheesy sh*t either, so whenever I did ask for something, my parents knew that it needed to be of quality. For example, my mom would often times not bother to buy me anything because she knew how picky I was (I got from her since were born two days apart :cool:) and she would let me pick out what I wanted instead unless she was absolutely sure that I would like what she bought. Being Libras we were both picky and if we didn't like something believe me you would know it. She was the type of mom that would tell me if she thought my drawing that I made at school was sh*t or not and I think that's awesome when you have parents that don't sugarcoat things. :cool:

 

So no I wasn't a spoiled brat, but yes I was spoiled. However, I also believed in working for what I wanted anyway, so by the time I was 14 or 15 I worked during the summers and had my own money so I rarely bothered my mom for money or anything. My trip to Italy was paid for with my own money and the rest I go through student loans or grants. :cool:

[checkmatechamp13]

 

1) Well you have to remember that I grew up in Brooklyn so in Brooklyn folks use public transportation more.

 

2) So no I wasn't a spoiled brat, but yes I was spoiled. However, I also believed in working for what I wanted anyway, so by the time I was 14 or 15 I worked during the summers and had my own money so I rarely bothered my mom for money or anything. My trip to Italy was paid for with my own money and the rest I go through student loans or grants. :cool:

 

1) But that's not the point. I'm sure there are people in Sheepshead Bay who fear public transportation, and obviously, you weren't one of them.

 

2) But that's my point. Yeah, you liked (and still like) nice things and were a little bit spoiled, but believe me, the person I'm referring to is the definition of a spoiled brat (I mean, just be hearing her talk, you could tell). She's not the type to work her way through college or attend a basic CUNY/SUNY college (though admittedly, her grades are high enough that she'd probably get some sort of scholarship).

 

I remember she was complaining about how there was no Student MetroCard for express buses (her brother goes to Stuyvesant). It's like, if you were really concerned about the cost, you would've asked that before your brother got accepted to the school. The principal suggested the local bus->ferry and you should've seen the look on her face. She made up an excuse that it takes too long (which it does), but you could tell that the real reason is that she doesn't want to spend all of that time on a bus with "those people".