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.

North Shore Rail Discussion


checkmatechamp13

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

See this is the BS that I'm talking about... :mad: They would never propose eliminating local bus service in Manhattan because a rail system was put in, so why propose that crap for Staten Island??? Why can't we have both? I'm interested in understanding how they would contend with seniors that feel safer on the local bus or normal abled folks even... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See this is the BS that I'm talking about... :mad: They would never propose eliminating local bus service in Manhattan because a rail system was put in, so why propose that crap for Staten Island??? Why can't we have both? I'm interested in understanding how they would contend with seniors that feel safer on the local bus or normal abled folks even... :P

 

There ain't enough moolah for both. That's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there's enough moolah for both in Manhattan though... :P

 

There is much higher ridership in Manhattan, though. Almost every north-south route in Manhattan carries more people than any route on Staten Island (even when the S53 and S93 are combined).

 

You can’t compare the North Shore Line to anything in Manhattan. You have to compare it to a more suburban-type area. Some parts of Queens and The Bronx (near the (J) on Jamaica Avenue, the (A) in Ozone Park, and near the (2) on White Plains Road) have somewhat similar characteristics as the North Shore, so those would be a more accurate comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys - there's one point that really has to be stressed when one talks about Staten Island, or the Bronx, or Brooklyn, etc.

 

All of these places are URBAN - they are not SUB-urban, they are URBAN. Under every definition of URBAN, ALL of these places are all URBAN.

 

It does not matter if some sections or particular streets seem "suburban" or "country" - they actually are not, they are all URBAN places.

 

Second - Staten Island is a part of New York City, just like the other boroughs. When folks say, "I'm going to the city" when coming from Brooklyn, Queens or Staten - what they mean is Manhattan. However Manhattan is not the whole of New York City, if it was - just what would be Brooklyn, Queens, or Staten Island - cause they are not their own cities?

 

Manhattan can be called - SUPER-URBAN, and definitely URBAN, but that does not make the other boroughs less URBAN.

 

Stepping down off soap-box.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the population density is close to 8 times higher in Manhattan. (8,408/sq mi vs. 70,951/sq mi) Its logical to have both there.

 

It's yet another example of all services being focused squarely on Manhattan as if it's the center of the universe. The way I see it, the other four boroughs pay taxes just like Manhattan, yet as usual we in the outer boroughs get the short end of the stick. Staten Island is the fastest growing borough yet we are getting the bare minimum in transportation services. Considering the fact that our infrastructure is horrendous in comparison to the rate of our population growth here, both the train and the bus should be considered because we suffer from enough congestion as it is.

 

Narrow, meandering roads to no where but dead ends... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is much higher ridership in Manhattan, though. Almost every north-south route in Manhattan carries more people than any route on Staten Island (even when the S53 and S93 are combined).

 

You can’t compare the North Shore Line to anything in Manhattan. You have to compare it to a more suburban-type area. Some parts of Queens and The Bronx (near the (J) on Jamaica Avenue, the (A) in Ozone Park, and near the (2) on White Plains Road) have somewhat similar characteristics as the North Shore, so those would be a more accurate comparison.

 

What I find funny is your defense of keeping bus service in Mariners' Harbor if the train service was implemented... I'm not saying you shouldn't be defensive about it either, but clearly your defense of it is more than just about stats. You understand the ramnifications of eliminating those bus lines, with or without the train service. What happens in the next 20 to 30 years? Do we just continue to keep trying to skate by with the bare minimum or do we plan for the future? This sort of attitude is exactly why the MTA finds itself in its current predicament... Lack of planning and foresight...

 

I'll tell you one thing... I don't know about you, but I do absolutely NOTHING on Staten Island. Maybe I'll go to the occasional supermarket or store, but it's such a pain in the ass to get around using public transportation because the MTA has convinced itself that Staten Islanders only need transportation for the ferry and nothing else. It makes no sense to me that it can take 30 - 60 minutes just to take a 5 minute bus ride. There is something wrong w/that and implementing the train service just to eliminate transportation that people have relied on for years is a step backwards. We need to focus on expanding transportation options here not contracting them. This is a big reason why Staten Island has such a representation of being isolated because people view Staten Island as this island with shitty transportation and being a real pain in the ass to get around.

 

It's no wonder why Molinaro can't attract tourists here (not that I want to see tons of tourists here anyway). Who in their right mind would come to Staten Island when they can't even have buses connected in sink with each other?? It's ridiculous and a disgrace. :mad: Many Staten Islanders have commented that transportation here is so poor here that they limit family visits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the population density is close to 8 times higher in Manhattan. (8,408/sq mi vs. 70,951/sq mi) Its logical to have both there.

 

Staten Island is bigger than Manhattan... Most people would be surprised to know that. Manhattan is 22 square miles. Staten Island is 58.8 square miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just returned from the meeting.

 

In the beginning, there was a period where the people could ask questions that everybody could hear. They limited the people to one question, but one woman spent a good 10 minutes talking about how the Alaska Street Bridge (if the busway alternative were chosen) would negatively impact residents of the surrounding neighborhood, and another person started talking about how it would impact "pristine land" in the area.

 

And that woman only got crazier after the meeting broke to the back of the room. She all but flipped out on one of the presenters and then went nuts talking to me. She was very certain that she didn't like the proposals, but when I asked her what she did want (multiple times), she couldn't tell me.

 

Then there was the guy who wanted to build an elevated structure in the area of Atlantic Salt, with stores and artist's housing on the lower level.

 

Public meetings on Staten Island = free entertainment.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the population density is close to 8 times higher in Manhattan. (8,408/sq mi vs. 70,951/sq mi) Its logical to have both there.

 

Population density for SI compared to Manhattan can be misleading. Much of Staten Island is undeveloped forests, wetlands, a few golf courses, and of course, the landfill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just returned from the meeting.

 

In the beginning, there was a period where the people could ask questions that everybody could hear. They limited the people to one question, but one woman spent a good 10 minutes talking about how the Alaska Street Bridge (if the busway alternative were chosen) would negatively impact residents of the surrounding neighborhood, and another person started talking about how it would impact "pristine land" in the area.

 

But as far as the alternatives being discussed, the items I remember were as follows:

 

Simple expanded bus service:

 

* Extending the S53 westward to Arlington (and creating a new S83 route)

 

* Extending the S57 and S59 to St. George (there were S57A/S57B and S59A/S59B plans that I found confusing). The S40/S90 would be eliminated and replaced by these alternatives.

 

* Creating an S99 that would run from St. George to the West Shore Plaza via Forest Avenue and South Avenue.

 

* Creating a "new" express route called the X21 (I know it used to be a short-turn variant of the X22, but this is different) that would run via the SIE and go down South Avenue to the West Shore Plaza (Personally, I think that route would get extremely low ridership. They are better off adding South Avenue to the X19 and X22 routes)

 

* A North Shore Transit Center at South Avenue/Brabant Street

 

For all plans below this, the North Shore buses would be restructured as follows:

 

* S40/(90) eliminated

 

* S46/S96 cut back to Walker Street/Morningstar Road

 

* S48/S98 rerouted to Goethals Homes

 

A busway along the current ROW:

 

* The S54, S57, and S59 would be extended to St. George via the busway

 

* The S53 would be rerouted down Broadway to access the busway, and terminate at South Avenue/Brabant Street

 

* Two new routes called the S1 and S2 would be created. The S1 would run from St. George to the West Shore Plaza via the busway and South Avenue. The S2 would run to Holland Avenue/Benjamin Place via the busway and the current S48 route

 

Light Rail Transit on the current ROW:

 

* The route would follow the current ROW, loop around onto South Avenue and continue to the Teleport, with intermediate stops.

 

* Heavy Rail Transit on the current ROW:

The same thing as the light rail transit option, except that it could only run to Arlington.

 

I'm too tired to comment any further. The only thing I can say is that, to avoid losing all local service in Mariners' Harbor, the S46/(S96) should retain its current route on Walker Street (or be rerouted to Richmond Terrace to cover the S40/(S90) route)

 

Interesting stuff.

 

The S1 would be the nuS1 & the S2 would be the s2.0 .

 

There seems to be a logical fallacy regarding the 40/(90) & the ROW BusWay. Why couldn`t the 40/(90) be cut & pasted over to the BusWay ROW instead of cutting it?

 

I like the 54, 57 & 59 going to/from the Ferry via the BusWay ROW. If this happens I hope the 59 would run 24/7/365. The 54 & 57 too.

 

North Shore Transit Center? I had that same idea, but in a different spot. Mine was a Bayonne Bridge Transit Center & Park'n'Ride.

 

Each SI bridge should have a Transit Center/Park'n'Ride. The Outerbridge already does.

 

S83 & S99? I had ideas for an (s83) & (s99) that would be LTD "isotopes" of the 53 & 79.

 

More commentary later:)

 

PS: What about the HBLR coming into SI? Did they touch on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff.

 

The S1 would be the nuS1 & the S2 would be the s2.0 .

 

There seems to be a logical fallacy regarding the 40/(90) & the ROW BusWay. Why couldn`t the 40/(90) be cut & pasted over to the BusWay ROW instead of cutting it?

 

I like the 54, 57 & 59 going to/from the Ferry via the BusWay ROW. If this happens I hope the 59 would run 24/7/365. The 54 & 57 too.

 

North Shore Transit Center? I had that same idea, but in a different spot. Mine was a Bayonne Bridge Transit Center & Park'n'Ride.

 

Each SI bridge should have a Transit Center/Park'n'Ride. The Outerbridge already does.

 

S83 & S99? I had ideas for an (s83) & (s99) that would be LTD "isotopes" of the 53 & 79.

 

More commentary later:)

 

PS: What about the HBLR coming into SI? Did they touch on that?

 

Basically, you can think of the S1 and S2 as having the S40/S90 moved over onto the busway. The problem is that there is nothing for local service. If you live over by say, Richmond Terrace/Harbor Road, you basically have no bus service. You would have to walk over to either the Mariners' Harbor or Arlington stations, which is approximately a 0.5 mile walk. It isn't horrible (the closest bus route is about 0.35 miles away, and I walk a little further so I have the option of the S89), but that is going to be a big transition for the people in that area.

 

If the busway option were chosen, I would assume the S59 would run 24/7. The S54 and S57 run through less-traveled corridors, so I don't know how good an idea that is.

 

The Port Authority has been talking about building a park-and-ride over a park right near the Richmond Terrace exit of the MLK Expressway. However residents have opposed this plan. As a compromise, they can limit the park-and-ride to one section of the park (it is a pretty big piece of land).

 

If that park-and-ride were built today, it would be really helpful in getting me to school. I would be able to get off of the S89 at the park-and-ride and walk one short block to school (rather than transfer at Walker Street/Morningstar Road to the S46/S96. I could walk, but at that hour in the morning, I'm half-asleep and would rather not walk)

 

At the meeting, they didn't discuss any HBLR extensions, but they did say that they are coordinating these studies with other studies affecting the area (HBLR, Fresh Kills Park, zoning changes, etc)

 

Guys - there's one point that really has to be stressed when one talks about Staten Island, or the Bronx, or Brooklyn, etc.

 

All of these places are URBAN - they are not SUB-urban, they are URBAN. Under every definition of URBAN, ALL of these places are all URBAN.

 

It does not matter if some sections or particular streets seem "suburban" or "country" - they actually are not, they are all URBAN places.

 

Second - Staten Island is a part of New York City, just like the other boroughs. When folks say, "I'm going to the city" when coming from Brooklyn, Queens or Staten - what they mean is Manhattan. However Manhattan is not the whole of New York City, if it was - just what would be Brooklyn, Queens, or Staten Island - cause they are not their own cities?

 

Manhattan can be called - SUPER-URBAN, and definitely URBAN, but that does not make the other boroughs less URBAN.

 

Stepping down off soap-box.

Mike

 

The reason we're bringing up population density is because people complain that Manhattan gets all of the transit expansions. Manhattan is the borough most capable of getting the ridership to maintain these expansions. Of course, I'm not saying that the other boroughs don't need expanded service.

 

What I find funny is your defense of keeping bus service in Mariners' Harbor if the train service was implemented... I'm not saying you shouldn't be defensive about it either, but clearly your defense of it is more than just about stats. You understand the ramnifications of eliminating those bus lines, with or without the train service. What happens in the next 20 to 30 years? Do we just continue to keep trying to skate by with the bare minimum or do we plan for the future? This sort of attitude is exactly why the MTA finds itself in its current predicament... Lack of planning and foresight...

 

I'll tell you one thing... I don't know about you, but I do absolutely NOTHING on Staten Island. Maybe I'll go to the occasional supermarket or store, but it's such a pain in the ass to get around using public transportation because the MTA has convinced itself that Staten Islanders only need transportation for the ferry and nothing else. It makes no sense to me that it can take 30 - 60 minutes just to take a 5 minute bus ride. There is something wrong w/that and implementing the train service just to eliminate transportation that people have relied on for years is a step backwards. We need to focus on expanding transportation options here not contracting them. This is a big reason why Staten Island has such a representation of being isolated because people view Staten Island as this island with shitty transportation and being a real pain in the ass to get around.

 

It's no wonder why Molinaro can't attract tourists here (not that I want to see tons of tourists here anyway). Who in their right mind would come to Staten Island when they can't even have buses connected in sink with each other?? It's ridiculous and a disgrace. :mad: Many Staten Islanders have commented that transportation here is so poor here that they limit family visits.

 

I'm just saying that I see their logic in eliminating those bus lines. I'm not saying I agree with it. If you have a busway with frequent service, you'll see a massive ridership decline in the less-frequent bus lines surrounding it.

 

Also, I'm still using stats in my argument for maintaining service in Mariners' Harbor: Simply put, those people would be beyond a reasonable walking distance of a local bus line. This isn't a "that's my bus, and you can't eliminate it" argument or anything like that, this is making sure they apply the standards that they set themselves. If there was a bus line that provided that local service, I would have absolutely no problem.

 

Also, we can't oppose the creation of a rail line because of a bus line being eliminated. Remember: bus lines are very flexible. If the MTA finds out that, after they started the service people had long walks to a bus stop, they could always add/reroute/extend a bus route to serve the area.

 

Staten Island is bigger than Manhattan... Most people would be surprised to know that. Manhattan is 22 square miles. Staten Island is 58.8 square miles.

 

He's saying that Manhattan is much more compact than Staten Island. Staten Island has 500,000 people in 58.8 square miles, whereas Manhattan has 1.3 million people in 22 square miles.

 

Population density for SI compared to Manhattan can be misleading. Much of Staten Island is undeveloped forests, wetlands, a few golf courses, and of course, the landfill.

 

True, but the average neighborhood in Staten Island consists of 2-story houses, whereas the average neighborhood in Manhattan consists of tall apartment buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, you can think of the S1 and S2 as having the S40/S90 moved over onto the busway. The problem is that there is nothing for local service. If you live over by say, Richmond Terrace/Harbor Road, you basically have no bus service. You would have to walk over to either the Mariners' Harbor or Arlington stations, which is approximately a 0.5 mile walk. It isn't horrible (the closest bus route is about 0.35 miles away, and I walk a little further so I have the option of the S89), but that is going to be a big transition for the people in that area.

 

If the busway option were chosen, I would assume the S59 would run 24/7. The S54 and S57 run through less-traveled corridors, so I don't know how good an idea that is.

 

The Port Authority has been talking about building a park-and-ride over a park right near the Richmond Terrace exit of the MLK Expressway. However residents have opposed this plan. As a compromise, they can limit the park-and-ride to one section of the park (it is a pretty big piece of land).

 

If that park-and-ride were built today, it would be really helpful in getting me to school. I would be able to get off of the S89 at the park-and-ride and walk one short block to school (rather than transfer at Walker Street/Morningstar Road to the S46/S96. I could walk, but at that hour in the morning, I'm half-asleep and would rather not walk)

 

At the meeting, they didn't discuss any HBLR extensions, but they did say that they are coordinating these studies with other studies affecting the area (HBLR, Fresh Kills Park, zoning changes, etc)

 

 

 

The reason we're bringing up population density is because people complain that Manhattan gets all of the transit expansions. Manhattan is the borough most capable of getting the ridership to maintain these expansions. Of course, I'm not saying that the other boroughs don't need expanded service.

 

 

 

I'm just saying that I see their logic in eliminating those bus lines. I'm not saying I agree with it. If you have a busway with frequent service, you'll see a massive ridership decline in the less-frequent bus lines surrounding it.

 

Also, I'm still using stats in my argument for maintaining service in Mariners' Harbor: Simply put, those people would be beyond a reasonable walking distance of a local bus line. This isn't a "that's my bus, and you can't eliminate it" argument or anything like that, this is making sure they apply the standards that they set themselves. If there was a bus line that provided that local service, I would have absolutely no problem.

 

Also, we can't oppose the creation of a rail line because of a bus line being eliminated. Remember: bus lines are very flexible. If the MTA finds out that, after they started the service people had long walks to a bus stop, they could always add/reroute/extend a bus route to serve the area.

 

 

 

He's saying that Manhattan is much more compact than Staten Island. Staten Island has 500,000 people in 58.8 square miles, whereas Manhattan has 1.3 million people in 22 square miles.

 

 

 

 

Answers below...:

 

-Yes, I understand exactly what Tokkemon is saying and I'm just pointing out that Staten Island is larger than Manhattan in terms of its size.

 

Regarding the rail line, I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying why does it have to be one or the other after having suffered from anemic transportation options for years? And as you have said some folks will have a long walk to the train, so we'd be better off having both. We are missing out on economic opportunities that could bring good paying jobs to Staten Island because of lack of transportation. We need to be competitive against the other boroughs as well as NJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand the proposals that have been promoted by the NSAA, the bus-way proposal like all of the other proposals would have the transit lines stop at various "stations" along their route, in all cases along a dedicated right of way.

 

The bus-way would not use the regular city streets is the point, stopping only at designated stations. For some folks the issue is not only the elimination of some bus lines, but the substitution of a transit system that could be MORE difficult to get to, due to the distances of the stations.

 

At the meeting i also brought up the fact that all of the transit proposals (except one) removes the direct pathway to the UA Movie Theater that the #40 bus provides. I'm sorry, but I like having the direct path to the movies from my home on Staten Island. There are only 3 movie theaters on Staten Island, and this one is the only one on the North Shore. Previously to this theater one had to travel 45-60 minutes to Travis or Hylan Blvd just to see a movie. The #40 bus makes that trip often in 20-25 minutes at a good speed, and without any transfers.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S83 & S99? I had ideas for an (s83) & (s99) that would be LTD "isotopes" of the 53 & 79.

 

 

I just realized-rather than creating a new route called the S99, why can’t they have the S98 run to the West Shore Plaza? Currently, there isn’t much ridership on the S40/S90 west of South Avenue, so I don’t see the harm in leaving it with one route (even right now, there is only one bus during rush hours).

The only way I can see it is if they were trying to find a way to increase headways along Forest Avenue.

But, considering these are changes to the bus system, you can always change them if they don’t work out. It isn’t like a rail line or busway, where you have to make a large capital investment.

 

Answers below...:

 

-Yes, I understand exactly what Tokkemon is saying and I'm just pointing out that Staten Island is larger than Manhattan in terms of its size.

 

Regarding the rail line, I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying why does it have to be one or the other after having suffered from anemic transportation options for years? And as you have said some folks will have a long walk to the train, so we'd be better off having both. We are missing out on economic opportunities that could bring good paying jobs to Staten Island because of lack of transportation. We need to be competitive against the other boroughs as well as NJ.

 

As I understand the proposals that have been promoted by the NSAA, the bus-way proposal like all of the other proposals would have the transit lines stop at various "stations" along their route, in all cases along a dedicated right of way.

 

The bus-way would not use the regular city streets is the point, stopping only at designated stations. For some folks the issue is not only the elimination of some bus lines, but the substitution of a transit system that could be MORE difficult to get to, due to the distances of the stations.

 

At the meeting i also brought up the fact that all of the transit proposals (except one) removes the direct pathway to the UA Movie Theater that the #40 bus provides. I'm sorry, but I like having the direct path to the movies from my home on Staten Island. There are only 3 movie theaters on Staten Island, and this one is the only one on the North Shore. Previously to this theater one had to travel 45-60 minutes to Travis or Hylan Blvd just to see a movie. The #40 bus makes that trip often in 20-25 minutes at a good speed, and without any transfers.

 

Mike

 

All of the options would have the S48 going to Goethals Homes, so people by Forest Avenue would still have their direct access to the movies.

But like I said, the bus system is flexible-if they see that people are faced with long walks, they could move a route from the busway onto Richmond Terrace, or create a new route to serve the area.

 

When I asked about their logic for some of the routes, they said that they didn't study it thoroughly, so they'll revise the routes before the busway is built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the speed of some of the buses in the North Shore corridor can be demonstrated by the following story:

 

Yesterday, I was waiting at a bus stop by my school, and the S46 drove by it. I was able to run to the next stop and actually beat it there without even breaking a sweat (everybody on the bus was cheering and making Forrest Gump jokes)

 

This morning, I saw the S96 pulling out of the stop at Walker Street/Morningstar Road. I was able to run all the way to Innis Street and catch up with it.

 

This is a compliment about my physical health, but it is a shame that the buses are that slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just realized-rather than creating a new route called the S99, why can’t they have the S98 run to the West Shore Plaza? Currently, there isn’t much ridership on the S40/S90 west of South Avenue, so I don’t see the harm in leaving it with one route (even right now, there is only one bus during rush hours).

The only way I can see it is if they were trying to find a way to increase headways along Forest Avenue.

But, considering these are changes to the bus system, you can always change them if they don’t work out. It isn’t like a rail line or busway, where you have to make a large capital investment.

 

 

 

 

 

All of the options would have the S48 going to Goethals Homes, so people by Forest Avenue would still have their direct access to the movies.

But like I said, the bus system is flexible-if they see that people are faced with long walks, they could move a route from the busway onto Richmond Terrace, or create a new route to serve the area.

 

When I asked about their logic for some of the routes, they said that they didn't study it thoroughly, so they'll revise the routes before the busway is built.

 

LOL... At least they're honest, but are they serious!!???! I mean how could they propose this and not thoroughly study the impact this would have on bus riders!???? For that reason alone people should be up in arms. I'm sure they've already spent millions with this ridiculous study... :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember: We're at least 3-4 years away from anything being built. That's plenty of time to revise the bus routes in the area. I'm sure they'll take the public comments into consideration before moving any of the current routes.

 

That's exactly why I like the simple expanded bus service. No local stops are lost, the S53/S83 runs to Arlington, & the S57 & S59 run to St George. Anyone who uses the S40 now would benefit x2 with that plan. They could implement that by Sept 2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the problem is that the busway would basically force the MTA to expand bus service, whereas the MTA is very unlikely to just expand bus service in the area, considering the reductions we had last year. (Especially considering that they came up with these routes on the spur of the moment)

 

By the way, wouldn't the S40/S90 be eliminated even if there was simply expanded bus service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember: We're at least 3-4 years away from anything being built. That's plenty of time to revise the bus routes in the area. I'm sure they'll take the public comments into consideration before moving any of the current routes.

 

I hope their "consideration" isn't anything like what the MTA exercises or we're in serious trouble. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the problem is that the busway would basically force the MTA to expand bus service, whereas the MTA is very unlikely to just expand bus service in the area, considering the reductions we had last year. (Especially considering that they came up with these routes on the spur of the moment)

 

By the way, wouldn't the S40/S90 be eliminated even if there was simply expanded bus service?

 

There's actually some sort of obligation that the MTA has with the Staten Island transportation task force set up by the city and Bloomberg to bring better service over here. So there's no reason to consider the service reductions last year. The only cut that "really" effected the North Shore was the loss of the X16 but they added S98 service so it balanced out in a way.

 

The way I see it, the S40 is gone in any plan and I'm happy about that. It barely shows up most of the day anyway. The S57 & S59 would run to the ferry, which is extremely beneficial and those that live west of Port Richmond would have to rely more on the S46/S96 because the S53/S83 would be running down Richmond Terrace, which is good too because it gives more people the option of traveling to the (R). And there's absolutely no traffic lights on Richmond Terrace after a certain point, so it wouldn't hold things up. The only thing I would like to seem them do is implement all day limited service on the S96 if they go through with that plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lance unpinned this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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