Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Shortline Bus

After Doomsday: Staten Island Bus service 1 month after the cuts

Recommended Posts

Lets not forget Staten Island. Just wondering on how is Staten Island Bus service been other than more crowding since the cuts began on June 27? I also was very curious to see how is SI-Manhattan express service doing since a major revisions occured?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, Staten Island, my borough! :P

 

The S54 and S76 are goners, that's obvious. But I've heard reports about people waiting for the S76 in Oakwood on the weekends. Boy do they have an exercise regimen in for them...they have to walk to Hylan Boulevard for a bus. As for the S54, those who live along Manor Road have to walk for a bus as well. But what I would do is have the S61 rerouted along Manor Road and turn off at Harold Street and then it could resume its regular route after Bradley Avenue; riders along Bradley have the S57 anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, Staten Island, my borough! :P

 

The S54 and S76 are goners, that's obvious. But I've heard reports about people waiting for the S76 in Oakwood on the weekends. Boy do they have an exercise regimen in for them...they have to walk to Hylan Boulevard for a bus. As for the S54, those who live along Manor Road have to walk for a bus as well. But what I would do is have the S61 rerouted along Manor Road and turn off at Harold Street and then it could resume its regular route after Bradley Avenue; riders along Bradley have the S57 anyway.

 

That was one of my suggestions to the MTA. Maybe what the MTA could do is run the S61 to Manor Road at all times and reroute the S54 to run Brielle Avenue-Bradley Avenue-Victory Boulevard-Manor Road. That way, customers along Bradley Avenue don't complain that their service is being reduced that much (weekend service would still be reduced from 6 buses per hour to 2). Bradley Avenue gets 4 buses per hour weekdays and Manor Road gets 4 buses per hour weekdays under this plan. If anything, this actually benefits people going to SeaView Hospital, coming from points along Victory Blvd, as now they have the choice of either the S54 or S57 at the same bus stop, instead of having to make a choice between transferring at Manor Road or Bradley Avenue.

While I don't like the large gap in service coverage caused by the elimination of the S54 on weekends, at $7.57 per passenger, you can't really blame the MTA.

As far as the S76, I came up with 2 ways of solving that problem:

-Run the S76 as a shuttle south of New Dorp Lane/Richmond Road so passengers can still connect with the S78, S79 and X1 along Hylan Blvd, the SIR at South Railroad Avenue and the S74 along Richmond Road.

- Extend the S57 to Cedar Grove Avenue/New Dorp Lane to connect with those same transit options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was one of my suggestions to the MTA. Maybe what the MTA could do is run the S61 to Manor Road at all times and reroute the S54 to run Brielle Avenue-Bradley Avenue-Victory Boulevard-Manor Road. That way, customers along Bradley Avenue don't complain that their service is being reduced that much (weekend service would still be reduced from 6 buses per hour to 2). Bradley Avenue gets 4 buses per hour weekdays and Manor Road gets 4 buses per hour weekdays under this plan. If anything, this actually benefits people going to SeaView Hospital, coming from points along Victory Blvd, as now they have the choice of either the S54 or S57 at the same bus stop, instead of having to make a choice between transferring at Manor Road or Bradley Avenue.

While I don't like the large gap in service coverage caused by the elimination of the S54 on weekends, at $7.57 per passenger, you can't really blame the MTA.

As far as the S76, I came up with 2 ways of solving that problem:

-Run the S76 as a shuttle south of New Dorp Lane/Richmond Road so passengers can still connect with the S78, S79 and X1 along Hylan Blvd, the SIR at South Railroad Avenue and the S74 along Richmond Road.

- Extend the S57 to Cedar Grove Avenue/New Dorp Lane to connect with those same transit options.

 

That seems like the best option. Heading towards New Dorp, S57 would continue to Hylan Boulevard and New Dorp Lane and have it discharge there. When it picks up, it uses New Dorp Lane and continues south, makes a right turn on Cedar Grove Avenue, right again on Ebbitts Street, and it meets Hylan Boulevard again and resumes its regular route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That seems like the best option. Heading towards New Dorp, S57 would continue to Hylan Boulevard and New Dorp Lane and have it discharge there. When it picks up, it uses New Dorp Lane and continues south, makes a right turn on Cedar Grove Avenue, right again on Ebbitts Street, and it meets Hylan Boulevard again and resumes its regular route.

 

That seems like a good idea. I think a better idea would be to have the S57 take Ebbitts Street both ways and take the following route:

SB: Ebbitts Street-Mill Road-New Dorp Lane-Cedar Grove Avenue (terminal)

NB: Cedar Grove Avenue-Ebbitts Street-Hylan Blvd

 

I think a whole lot of people would along New Dorp Lane would walk to Ebbitts Street for the S57 if your plan were to be implemented, as they wouldn't want to go all around New Dorp Beach. If it came down on New Dorp Lane and up on Ebbitts Street, it would better serve New Dorp Beach in both directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was debating on whether or not this was a good idea to "save" the S54:

 

Reroute the S79 from Richmond Avenue to Giffords Lane/Nelson Avenue. I figured that this would improve the efficiency of the S59/S89, as they wouldn't have the S79 competing with them for passengers to the SI Mall. However, the S79 probably gets a lot more passengers on Richmond Avenue than it would on Giffords Lane.

 

By the way,how's the "new" S66 doing? Is it getting a lot more passengers on Grymes Hill than the S60 did, since it is more than jut a shuttle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was debating on whether or not this was a good idea to "save" the S54:

 

Reroute the S79 from Richmond Avenue to Giffords Lane/Nelson Avenue. I figured that this would improve the efficiency of the S59/S89, as they wouldn't have the S79 competing with them for passengers to the SI Mall. However, the S79 probably gets a lot more passengers on Richmond Avenue than it would on Giffords Lane.

 

Hmmm, I see where you're getting at but with +SBS for the S79 still on the table then it would be a pointless reroute. It's best to leave the 79 on Richmond Avenue, trust me.

 

Also, in response to your S57 proposal, something else hit me as well...why not have two branches for the S57, a Guyon Avenue Branch and a New Dorp Lane branch? Since the S57 operates every half hour during the weekends, rerouting every other bus via New Dorp Lane, while it's a little longer which would equal to shorter layover time, it's virtually costless. The headways for the S57 would stay the same, meaning every bus that operates via Guyon Avenue would operate every hour, the same as via New Dorp Lane. The times New Dorp Lane could be served between the hours of 6 a.m. and 7 p.m., similar to that of the S51 when one bus an hour serves Fort Wadsworth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm, I see where you're getting at but with +SBS for the S79 still on the table then it would be a pointless reroute. It's best to leave the 79 on Richmond Avenue, trust me.

 

Also, in response to your S57 proposal, something else hit me as well...why not have two branches for the S57, a Guyon Avenue Branch and a New Dorp Lane branch? Since the S57 operates every half hour during the weekends, rerouting every other bus via New Dorp Lane, while it's a little longer which would equal to shorter layover time, it's virtually costless. The headways for the S57 would stay the same, meaning every bus that operates via Guyon Avenue would operate every hour, the same as via New Dorp Lane. The times New Dorp Lane could be served between the hours of 6 a.m. and 7 p.m., similar to that of the S51 when one bus an hour serves Fort Wadsworth.

 

Not a bad, idea, except that the neighborhood where the S51 splits is a lot smaller than the neighborhood where the S57 splits. For Fort Wadsworth, all you have to do is walk a few blocks and you'll get back to the mainline, where the buses are twice as frequent. For New Dorp Beach, in the distance you walk to get to the "mainline" S57, you'll might as well walk to Hylan Blvd. It's a 15 minute walk, meaning that an hourly bus would be virtually useless, considering that the purpose of the extension would be to get New Dorp Beach residents to a transit route to the ferry.

 

By the way, I just realized that this extension would serve New Dorp High School, so if it were to be implemented on weekdays, it would help people going to New Dorp High School coming from the North Shore of Staten Island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really have any complaints at all.

 

Nobody rode or even cared about the weekend S54 until it was gone. The only people that got shafted there, are residents from the Todt Hill Buildings. I would recommend a shuttle of some kind but it's only a 10 minute walk to/from the buildings and Victory Blvd.

 

The new S66 is a major improvement over the S60 because now Grymes Hill and Wagner College is more accessible from the ferry.

 

The new S52 routing is a good change but they also cut a lot of service. It doesn't make sense why the S52 and S42 are scheduled where you'll be waiting 30 minutes and both show up at the same time. I also think the S42, being a part time route now, should run via the S52's old routing to help out the S40 and S44 during rush hours. The S42 is currently useless except for the it's final segment to Clyde Place.

 

Now I would like to know, when we will see a full-time route between SI and Elizabeth NJT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really have any complaints at all.

 

Nobody rode or even cared about the weekend S54 until it was gone. The only people that got shafted there, are residents from the Todt Hill Buildings. I would recommend a shuttle of some kind but it's only a 10 minute walk to/from the buildings and Victory Blvd.

 

The new S66 is a major improvement over the S60 because now Grymes Hill and Wagner College is more accessible from the ferry.

 

The new S52 routing is a good change but they also cut a lot of service. It doesn't make sense why the S52 and S42 are scheduled where you'll be waiting 30 minutes and both show up at the same time. I also think the S42, being a part time route now, should run via the S52's old routing to help out the S40 and S44 during rush hours. The S42 is currently useless except for the it's final segment to Clyde Place.

 

Now I would like to know, when we will see a full-time route between SI and Elizabeth NJT.

 

I don't think making the S42 going along Richmond Terrace would do that much considering it only goes to Clyde Pl and the S40 and S44 are more frequent than the S42.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really have any complaints at all.

 

Nobody rode or even cared about the weekend S54 until it was gone. The only people that got shafted there, are residents from the Todt Hill Buildings. I would recommend a shuttle of some kind but it's only a 10 minute walk to/from the buildings and Victory Blvd.

 

The new S66 is a major improvement over the S60 because now Grymes Hill and Wagner College is more accessible from the ferry.

 

The new S52 routing is a good change but they also cut a lot of service. It doesn't make sense why the S52 and S42 are scheduled where you'll be waiting 30 minutes and both show up at the same time. I also think the S42, being a part time route now, should run via the S52's old routing to help out the S40 and S44 during rush hours. The S42 is currently useless except for the it's final segment to Clyde Place.

 

Now I would like to know, when we will see a full-time route between SI and Elizabeth NJT.

 

As far as the Todt Hill Houses go, that's why I recommended the S61/S91 go dwn there. The Todt Hill Houses are currently the only projects on Staten Island that I can think of that don't have a direct line to the ferry. All of the other projects (Mariners' Harbor, West Brighton, etc) have at least 1 direct line to the SI Ferry and usually, another line. Todt Hill only has the 2 buses per hour S54.

As far as the S42 goes, the S42 would help serve the back of the Richmond Terrace Houses if it were sent to Jersey Street, though it wouldn't help so much going to the fery, as the S40 and S44 run much more frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody at the SI public hearing came up with a decent idea to make the S42 more useful. Her idea was to send the S42 down Westervelt Avenue, out to Brook Street, over to Jersey Street and up Brighton Avenue to the current route.

 

Obviously the S42 is being reduced to a part-time line, so the S52 would have to stay on the hill on St Marks Place to cover the S42 during off-peak hours, but I think the plan is feasable.

 

To be honest, I think the MTA is scheduling the S42 and S52 together as a way of killing off the rest of the S42 schedule. They'll say that the only portion where it can't be covered by the S52 is the western section, which was their original argument. If they really intended to keep the S42 around, they would've thought of a way of reducing duplication. They would've used the above plan or maybe some variation of it (send the S52 down Westervelt Avenue to Brook Street to Castleton Avenue to Cebra Avenue and let the S42 run down Richmond Terrace to Jersey Street and over to the current route). I honestly think that in the next round of cuts, this will be right up there with the B64 being cut back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, since the (S93) already uses the Martin Luther King Expressway to go up to the Castleton Depot, does anybody think it should make that same run in service? It could run like this:

 

NB: Martin Luther King Expressway-Trantor Place-Innis Street-Nicholas Avenue-Castleton Avenue to terminate at Jewett Avenue.

 

SB: Castleton Avenue-Nicholas Avenue-Innis Street-Morningstar Road-Forest Avenue-Willow Road West-Martin Luther King Expressway.

 

All of these runs end up going back through Port Richmond anyway. For an extra 5 minutes, it can actually serve people. Most notably, it would serve Port Richmond High School in the AM rush hour, which might be enough to discourage some parents from driving their children to school. In any case, it would be able to provide an alternative to the (S53) to get to Brooklyn.

 

I originally suggested a more ambitious plan that would expand more network coverage. The (S93) would take Victory Blvd-Richmond Avenue-Goethals Road North-South Avenue and either terminate where the (X12)/(X42) or the (S48)/(S98) terminate. Either that or it would supplement the (S62)/(S92) by going to Travis Avenue and up South Avenue.

 

As far as the (S66) goes, should the route go straight up Howard Avenue-Louis Street-Victory Blvd? It is less of a travel distance and would provide the (S61)/(S62) with more riders in that area. In addition, it would be less of a grade for the buses to go up/down than Highland Avenue and would serve more of Grymes Hill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, just a minor thing:

On Google Maps, it shows a westbound S66 stop at Victory Blvd/Silver Lake Park Road and the next westbound S66 stop near Howard Avenue/Hillside Avenue. Does the westbound S66 make additional stops between those 2 stops? Eastbound, I see some near St John's College, but not westbound.

I think there should be an additional bus stop at Arlo Road/Highland Avenue, as it is still on a slope (wasn't the whole point of sending the S66 along Howard Avenue to serve Grymes Hill?)

 

By the way, does anybody else here suspect that the reason the S66 didn't continue down Howard Avenue was because of NIMBY opposition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.