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

The MTA can make this cost-neutral if they try hard enough:

 

-S83 created by turning some S53s into limited-stop buses (the stops would be spaced roughly 1/2 mile apart, giving the buses time to gain speed, yet making it easy to access the limited-stop bus, and the increased headways that come with it)

 

-S83s extended from Port Richmond Avenue/Richmond Terrace to Goethals Homes, covering the western portion of the S40, and giving Mariners' Harbor a one-seat ride to Brooklyn for the first time (rather than having 3 routes to St. George)

 

-S59 extended to St. George from Port Richmond Avenue/Richmond Terrace. This would cover the eastern portion of the S40 route and also increase overall ridership in the Richmond Avenue corridor by providing two routes that offer a one-seat ride to St. George (the S44 and S59), and the ridership between the S44 and S59 would be balanced (right now, S44s tend to be more crowded than S59s).

 

-The S59 and S89 would swap southern terminals, to avoid issues with route length and reliability (and give Tottenville riders limited-stop service, as well as direct access to Bayonne). This should've been done anyway, and this would provide the excuse to do it.

 

-S54 buses would be extended to St. George since, they spend so much time laying over at Richmond Terrace, they might as well send them to St. George so they can get additional ridership.

 

-Any additional revenue brought in by this plan can be reinvested into the routes in the corridor by adding limited-stop service to the S96 every 30 minutes during middays on weekdays (timed to meet the departing/arriving ferries). I don't think ridership in the Castleton Avenue corridor would be quite high enough to warrant 15 minute limited-stop service, even with some former S40 riders walking down to Brabant Street/Walker Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

How about no, no, and no?

 

Did I mention no?

 

Anyone that wants to spend $400M to build a light rail line to replace the S40 (essentially) is on cocaine. Now, if they wanted to build a commuter rail line to central NJ or Newark, that is a whole different story. Service every 30-60 minutes to Newark or to New Brunswick makes substantially more sense than a short line to Mariners Harbor. Staten Island's issue continues to be regional access and that problem is not being fixed in a hurry.

 

The places where jobs are growing happens not to be in Brooklyn or Manhattan. It is central NJ (New Brunswick & Princeton), Jersey City, Parsippany, Newark/Elizabeth, and Secaucus. NYC is getting to be a hassle for big business and they are moving non-core activities to suburban campuses and office parks. The goal should be to move people to places where they can pick up the corporate shuttles to these locations. More and more Staten Islanders are commuting to NJ than ever.

 

In order to make this work, they have to kill off "competing" service and that means the S40 must die to make this rail line work. To pay for HBLR operations, NJT destroyed the 181 and reduced service on numerous bus lines to pipeline passengers onto the HBLR's northern section. It is inevitable that light rail operations bury nearby bus services that parallel the rail line. The same thing happened in NJ to some of Red & Tan's services. Light rail makes parallel bus service difficult to support. The dynamics are not necessarily the same with heavy rail/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The North Shore Rail Line would get 15,000 riders per day, meaning that, if you divide the cost of the rail line by the number of daily customers, you get a capital cost about $26,000 per passenger. By comparison, the SAS costs $17 billion and would get 500,000 customers, at a capital cost of $34,000 per passenger.

 

You also have to consider how much more marketable a rail line is than a bus line. No company is going to want to locate themselves near the S40, but they would want to locate there if it were near a rail line. Not to mention, park-and-rides are easier to build when they are based around rail lines than bus lines, as people aren't going to park at a place just to take a local bus to St. George-they'll just drive there, so you get increased ridership that way as well.

 

Also, the parallel bus lines are only hard to support if they completely parallel the rail line. If you eliminated the S40, but had it replaced by the S53 extended westward and the S59 extended eastward, they won't compete with the rail line as much, as they'll go somewhere that the rail line doesn't go to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MTA can make this cost-neutral if they try hard enough:

 

-S83 created by turning some S53s into limited-stop buses (the stops would be spaced roughly 1/2 mile apart, giving the buses time to gain speed, yet making it easy to access the limited-stop bus, and the increased headways that come with it)

 

-S83s extended from Port Richmond Avenue/Richmond Terrace to Goethals Homes, covering the western portion of the S40, and giving Mariners' Harbor a one-seat ride to Brooklyn for the first time (rather than having 3 routes to St. George)

 

-S59 extended to St. George from Port Richmond Avenue/Richmond Terrace. This would cover the eastern portion of the S40 route and also increase overall ridership in the Richmond Avenue corridor by providing two routes that offer a one-seat ride to St. George (the S44 and S59), and the ridership between the S44 and S59 would be balanced (right now, S44s tend to be more crowded than S59s).

 

-The S59 and S89 would swap southern terminals, to avoid issues with route length and reliability (and give Tottenville riders limited-stop service, as well as direct access to Bayonne). This should've been done anyway, and this would provide the excuse to do it.

 

-S54 buses would be extended to St. George since, they spend so much time laying over at Richmond Terrace, they might as well send them to St. George so they can get additional ridership.

 

-Any additional revenue brought in by this plan can be reinvested into the routes in the corridor by adding limited-stop service to the S96 every 30 minutes during middays on weekdays (timed to meet the departing/arriving ferries). I don't think ridership in the Castleton Avenue corridor would be quite high enough to warrant 15 minute limited-stop service, even with some former S40 riders walking down to Brabant Street/Walker Street.

 

 

Would the S83 really be warranted to run to Mariners' Harbor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd basically have to. The idea would be to split the S40 into 2 sections: The eastern portion would be covered by the S59 and the western section would be covered by the S53. The route from Goethals Homes to St. George would be eliminated.

 

Why go through all of that when you can just keep the S40??

 

If anything, keep the S40 and if the service warranted it, you could extend the S53 to Mariners' Harbor. I don't like the idea of them trying to force folks to have no other option but the rail. I mean if folks want to use it fine, but to basically force them off of the bus and onto the rail is quite annoying to me. I mean if people really find the rail service attractive then they'll use it, but for those who prefer the bus like the elderly, etc., bus service should be kept rather than having it all split up unnecessarily. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, if you just left service on the North Shore as is, and just added the North Shore Rail Line, the S40 would see very low ridership, as it would run the entire length of the rail line.

 

The way to ensure that ridership on the buses in the area remains high is to split the route. That way, riders can take the bus if they are going somewhere that the rail line doesn't go (in this case, Brooklyn). Local riders (seniors, students, etc) can still use that bus to go short distances.

 

You can argue that it would be even better than it is now, as riders would have a choice of going to St. George (via the S46) or Brooklyn (via the S83), rather than having two routes to St. George. Virtually nobody is going to want to take the S40 all the way from Mariners' Harbor to St. George, when the train gets them there faster, anyway. Just because somebody is a senior doesn't mean they are incapable of making a transfer (and currently, they have to transfer anyway if they want to go somewhere along the S53 route)

 

It would be nice if the S40 could still run, but money doesn't grow on trees, so you have to figure out what is the best way to serve the riders by using the resources you have.

 

By the way, SIR North Shore actually agrees with the idea of splitting the S40, and he lives right near it, so he knows what he is talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, if you just left service on the North Shore as is, and just added the North Shore Rail Line, the S40 would see very low ridership, as it would run the entire length of the rail line.

 

The way to ensure that ridership on the buses in the area remains high is to split the route. That way, riders can take the bus if they are going somewhere that the rail line doesn't go (in this case, Brooklyn). Local riders (seniors, students, etc) can still use that bus to go short distances.

 

You can argue that it would be even better than it is now, as riders would have a choice of going to St. George (via the S46) or Brooklyn (via the S83), rather than having two routes to St. George. Virtually nobody is going to want to take the S40 all the way from Mariners' Harbor to St. George, when the train gets them there faster, anyway. Just because somebody is a senior doesn't mean they are incapable of making a transfer (and currently, they have to transfer anyway if they want to go somewhere along the S53 route)

 

It would be nice if the S40 could still run, but money doesn't grow on trees, so you have to figure out what is the best way to serve the riders by using the resources you have.

 

By the way, SIR North Shore actually agrees with the idea of splitting the S40, and he lives right near it, so he knows what he is talking about.

 

 

He said he'd like to keep the S90...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The North Shore Rail Line would get 15,000 riders per day, meaning that, if you divide the cost of the rail line by the number of daily customers, you get a capital cost about $26,000 per passenger. By comparison, the SAS costs $17 billion and would get 500,000 customers, at a capital cost of $34,000 per passenger.

 

Irrelevant. Our subway lines cover 67% of their operating costs, while light rail struggles to crack 40%. HBLR covers 33% of its operating cost. By comparison, local buses cover 41% of their operating costs in NYC. You build infrastructure in a manner that makes it cheap to maintain, not because the Feds pay 60%. This is why the Feds want to reduce their share to 50% or less of new projects. Too many crackheads are taking their money and building monuments to stupidity.

 

In addition, Second Avenue has been zoned with the assumption of subway service. Ridership will be instant and the diversion from bus to rail will occur without the use of force.

 

You can't build more subway lines without a trunk line someplace. Second Avenue can be extended to the Bronx or Brooklyn at a future date.

 

 

You also have to consider how much more marketable a rail line is than a bus line. No company is going to want to locate themselves near the S40, but they would want to locate there if it were near a rail line. Not to mention, park-and-rides are easier to build when they are based around rail lines than bus lines, as people aren't going to park at a place just to take a local bus to St. George-they'll just drive there, so you get increased ridership that way as well.

 

Those companies don't want their taxes increasing to support a light rail service that is replacing a perfectly good bus.

 

 

Also, the parallel bus lines are only hard to support if they completely parallel the rail line. If you eliminated the S40, but had it replaced by the S53 extended westward and the S59 extended eastward, they won't compete with the rail line as much, as they'll go somewhere that the rail line doesn't go to.

 

The S53 is an erratic bus line because of bridge traffic. In addition, I don't find it worthwhile to run the S40 like garbage to justify the implementation of light rail. Not to mention that the SIR is the single most underappreciated MTA asset in the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone that wants to spend $400M to build a light rail line to replace the S40 (essentially) is on cocaine. Now, if they wanted to build a commuter rail line to central NJ or Newark, that is a whole different story.

 

In order to make this work, they have to kill off "competing" service and that means the S40 must die to make this rail line work.

 

It is inevitable that light rail operations bury nearby bus services that parallel the rail line. The same thing happened in NJ to some of Red & Tan's services. Light rail makes parallel bus service difficult to support. The dynamics are not necessarily the same with heavy rail

 

Keep in mind that the thing built on the North Shore may not be a train at all or in any form. The possibility if not probability of the North Shore SIR's ROW infrastructure becoming a BusWay seems high.

 

So, ironically perhaps, SI's Resurrected North Shore SIR may not be a train at all in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He said he'd like to keep the S90...

 

No he didn't. He said that he'd like expanded S96 service if that happened.

 

Keep in mind that the thing built on the North Shore may not be a train at all or in any form. The possibility if not probability of the North Shore SIR's ROW infrastructure becoming a BusWay seems high.

 

So, ironically perhaps, SI's Resurrected North Shore SIR may not be a train at all in the end.

 

There is a possibility, but I don't think it is a good idea.

 

Think about it: If Staten Island's population continues to grow, there will be an increase in traffic as long as the transit system remains bus-dependant. Eventually, that "Busway" could become an HOV lane, and then eventually become a regular road. It doesn't necessarily have to happen, but that is the risk you encounter when building a busway rather than a rail line.

 

Think about it: The South Shore Line has the same ridership as the North Shore Line would get (roughly 15,000 riders per day), and it is spread out over 14 miles rather than 5 miles. Yet for some reason, that line warrants heavy rail.

 

The North Shore Rail Line is similar to the (M) along Myrtle Avenue. Both routes are roughly 5 miles and get about 15,000 riders per day, and are the only rail line for a large corridor. That line probably would probably get higher ridership than some lines, such as the Dyre Avenue Line and the Rockaway Line.

 

Irrelevant. Our subway lines cover 67% of their operating costs, while light rail struggles to crack 40%. HBLR covers 33% of its operating cost. By comparison, local buses cover 41% of their operating costs in NYC. You build infrastructure in a manner that makes it cheap to maintain, not because the Feds pay 60%. This is why the Feds want to reduce their share to 50% or less of new projects. Too many crackheads are taking their money and building monuments to stupidity.

 

In addition, Second Avenue has been zoned with the assumption of subway service. Ridership will be instant and the diversion from bus to rail will occur without the use of force.

 

You can't build more subway lines without a trunk line someplace. Second Avenue can be extended to the Bronx or Brooklyn at a future date.

 

 

 

 

Those companies don't want their taxes increasing to support a light rail service that is replacing a perfectly good bus.

 

 

 

 

The S53 is an erratic bus line because of bridge traffic. In addition, I don't find it worthwhile to run the S40 like garbage to justify the implementation of light rail. Not to mention that the SIR is the single most underappreciated MTA asset in the region.

 

1) It doesn't have to be light rail (and it probably won't be, considering the fact that the equipment and infrastructure would be incompatible with the infrastructure we already have). It can be heavy rail.

 

2) There is nothing saying that you can't change the zoning around the North Shore Rail Line as well. There are a bunch of apartment buildings in St. George, so I'm sure the NSRR can attract that type of density as far out as West New Brighton at least.

 

3) How many major businesses or tourist attractions are located out here because of a bus line? Even if the rail line is just as good as a bus line, it at least gives the impression of being better, and more attractive to businesses.

 

4) That S40 split should happen right now, regardless of whether the North Shore Rail Line is built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF the BusWay option were implemented AND the 59 extended to/from the Ferry, then you could have "aphelion" 59s that might operate between the Ferry & Bricktown. I can easily see the 59 being extended to/from Bricktown ala the 78's extension. As well it should be.

 

Such 59 runs would be LONG, VERY LONG. But so what?

 

The BusWay option certainly has some interesting applications & uses.

 

PS: I hope the 59 would run 24/7/365 were it to be extended to the Ferry, & operate between Hylan Blvd & St George during the overnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long routes tend to be very unreliable, especially if they operate in mixed traffic. If the North Shore Busway connected to some type of Richmond Avenue Busway, it would be alright, but otherwise, it wouldn't work.

 

Like I said, the S89 should be the one to serve Tottenville and Bricktowne, not the S59, even under the current circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a possibility, but I don't think it is a good idea.

 

Think about it:

If Staten Island's population continues to grow, there will be an increase in traffic as long as the transit system remains bus-dependant. Eventually, that "Busway" could become an HOV lane, and then eventually become a regular road. It doesn't necessarily have to happen, but that is the risk you encounter when building a busway rather than a rail line.

 

 

Excellent point:tup: That would BLOW bigtime:mad:

 

IF the BusWay were chosen there would have to be major well thought out legislation preventing the BusWay from EVER becoming an HOV lane &/or regular road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long routes tend to be very unreliable, especially if they operate in mixed traffic. If the North Shore Busway connected to some type of Richmond Avenue Busway, it would be alright, but otherwise, it wouldn't work.

 

Like I said, the S89 should be the one to serve Tottenville and Bricktowne, not the S59, even under the current circumstances.

 

It wouldn't be that many 59s running the whole gauntlet between Bricktown & the Ferry. Maybe every 3-4 hours there'd be "aphelion" 59s.

 

Imagine such hyper59s ALSO going down to/from CSI's Victory Blvd gate IN ADDITION to the ALREADY longhaul between the Ferry & Bricktown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have to change my username to North Shore Busway lol. To be honest though, those plans checkmate posted changes everything. It really doesn't make sense to build this expensive shuttle train to replace the S40 that's probably going to run every 30 minutes most of the day anyway. The only way it would be worthwhile is if it ran into New Jersey which isn't the plan.

 

When it comes to the expanded service plan, the S40 and S46 are close enough between Port Richmond & Mariner's Harbor that ex-S40 riders could easily walk up the street to the S46/S96 for St. George. It would make perfect sense for them to keep the S90 around meeting every ferry, but the S96 would capture more ridership I would think. OTOH, for the S96 to work out it would have to be limited all the way to Mariner's Harbor like the S90 because the S90 only takes 20-25 minutes end-to-end.

 

And Azumah, I think the S53 is the exact opposite of erratic. I don't think those that would have the S40 replaced with the S53 will be complaining. They'll have access to the most frequently run bus on Staten Island and the loss of the S40 could mean more buses for the S46/S96. The S46 used to run every 10 minutes in the 1990s and early 2000s.

 

Where I live though, I'll still have the S44, S46, S53, S57 or S59. That's better than having 1 rail line and a lot less local bus service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent point:tup: That would BLOW bigtime:mad:

 

IF the BusWay were chosen there would have to be major well thought out legislation preventing the BusWay from EVER becoming an HOV lane &/or regular road.

 

Just one question about the SIE Bus Lane (since that is the only thing on SI that is comparable to a North Shore Busway): Are carpools still allowed in the bus lane during rush hours? Because if they are, I think it defeats the whole purpose of a bus lane. It doesn't make any sense to fill the bus lane with cars at the time when the buses run most frequently.

 

Common sense dictates that, whenever there is a bus lane, entrance should be most regulated when the buses run most frequently. Think about it: On Victory Blvd, the lane is in effect from 7AM-9AM and 4PM-7PM, when all of the limited-stop buses run.

 

It wouldn't be that many 59s running the whole gauntlet between Bricktown & the Ferry. Maybe every 3-4 hours there'd be "aphelion" 59s.

 

Imagine such hyper59s ALSO going down to/from CSI's Victory Blvd gate IN ADDITION to the ALREADY longhaul between the Ferry & Bricktown.

 

If you feel the S59 must go to Tottenville, then it should be the CSI short-turns, not the buses going to St. George. Nobody's going to want to take the S59 from St. George to Tottenville when they have the SIR and S78.

 

I just don't think any local route should have any buses that run that length. Those St. George-Tottenville buses would probably bunch up with the regular S59s, so what is the point in having them?

 

I may have to change my username to North Shore Busway lol. To be honest though, those plans checkmate posted changes everything. It really doesn't make sense to build this expensive shuttle train to replace the S40 that's probably going to run every 30 minutes most of the day anyway. The only way it would be worthwhile is if it ran into New Jersey which isn't the plan.

 

When it comes to the expanded service plan, the S40 and S46 are close enough between Port Richmond & Mariner's Harbor that ex-S40 riders could easily walk up the street to the S46/S96 for St. George. It would make perfect sense for them to keep the S90 around meeting every ferry, but the S96 would capture more ridership I would think. OTOH, for the S96 to work out it would have to be limited all the way to Mariner's Harbor like the S90 because the S90 only takes 20-25 minutes end-to-end.

 

And Azumah, I think the S53 is the exact opposite of erratic. I don't think those that would have the S40 replaced with the S53 will be complaining. They'll have access to the most frequently run bus on Staten Island and the loss of the S40 could mean more buses for the S46/S96. The S46 used to run every 10 minutes in the 1990s and early 2000s.

 

Where I live though, I'll still have the S44, S46, S53, S57 or S59. That's better than having 1 rail line and a lot less local bus service.

 

Since the Goethals Bridge is being replaced, there probably will be provisions for a rail line to go on the bridge, so we could potentially have a St. George-Elizabeth (or whatever the western terminal of the line would be) rail line.

 

Like I said, rail lines are much more marketable than any sort of bus service. Even if the S40 were run perfectly, people just don't trust that a bus will show up, whereas a rail line shows a physical presence: If the MTA spent all of that money building a rail line, both riders and businesses that decide to locate near there know that a train will eventually show up.

 

As far as the short-term bus service improvements, I wasn't even thinking of S40/S90 riders walking over to the S46/S96. I was thinking that they would take the S83 over to Port Richmond Avenue and then transfer to the S59, since the frequency would be pretty good.

 

I think the S96 would be a better idea to implement than the S90. Even though the S46 is slower than the S40, ridership is about 70% higher (8,600 weekday riders vs. 5,020). Not to mention, you'll have a more cut-and-dry route for riders in Mariners' Harbor-if you want Brooklyn, go to Richmond Terrace, and if you want St. George, go to Brabant Street/Walker Street.

 

By the way, under my plan, the S83 would be created by turning some S53s into limited-stop buses, so the frequency would still remain at 15 minutes for customers in Mariners' Harbor (the same for customers east of Port Richmond, as the S59 would run every 15 minutes)

 

But as far as where you live, I don't think any of those routes would be cut if the North Shore Rail Line were built. The only route that would be cut in your neighborhood would be the S40, and even then, if there was enough public outcry, there would be a replacement (probably the S59 would be extended to St. George)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is unlikely that a busway gets built there.

 

Rapid Transit works best in a corridor with lots of on and off traffic. Proposing HBLR for Richmond Avenue is sensible. Proposing BRT or LRT for Richmond Terrace is DUMB. Sorry, there is just no way around it. Frankly, the best place for that technology is Hylan Boulevard, but the geometric constraints are formidable. Forest Avenue and Victory Boulevard could benefit from a variant of BRT, but geometry is again a problem. These roads where the most traffic exists are pretty tight.

 

The S40 can be fixed for less than $400M. If this was $400M in NYS money, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Businesses are not going to pay extra to service light rail. I don't see businesses on SI locating near the new transitway in enough bulk to make it worthwhile. The areas zoned for business growth (the Teleport) have private bus service because the MTA stopped serving it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't think any local route should have any buses that run that length. Those St. George-Tottenville buses would probably bunch up with the regular S59s, so what is the point in having them?

 

 

 

Since the Goethals Bridge is being replaced, there probably will be provisions for a rail line to go on the bridge, so we could potentially have a St. George-Elizabeth (or whatever the western terminal of the line would be) rail line.

 

Like I said, rail lines are much more marketable than any sort of bus service. Even if the S40 were run perfectly, people just don't trust that a bus will show up, whereas a rail line shows a physical presence: If the MTA spent all of that money building a rail line, both riders and businesses that decide to locate near there know that a train will eventually show up.

 

As far as the short-term bus service improvements, I wasn't even thinking of S40/S90 riders walking over to the S46/S96. I was thinking that they would take the S83 over to Port Richmond Avenue and then transfer to the S59, since the frequency would be pretty good.

 

I think the S96 would be a better idea to implement than the S90. Even though the S46 is slower than the S40, ridership is about 70% higher (8,600 weekday riders vs. 5,020). Not to mention, you'll have a more cut-and-dry route for riders in Mariners' Harbor-if you want Brooklyn, go to Richmond Terrace, and if you want St. George, go to Brabant Street/Walker Street.

 

By the way, under my plan, the S83 would be created by turning some S53s into limited-stop buses, so the frequency would still remain at 15 minutes for customers in Mariners' Harbor (the same for customers east of Port Richmond, as the S59 would run every 15 minutes)

 

But as far as where you live, I don't think any of those routes would be cut if the North Shore Rail Line were built. The only route that would be cut in your neighborhood would be the S40, and even then, if there was enough public outcry, there would be a replacement (probably the S59 would be extended to St. George)

 

The S59 should be cut back to Hylan Blvd permanently and the S89 should continue to Tottenville. There's really no need for two local bus lines on Hylan Blvd at that point. If extra service is needed they could always just have all the S78s run to Tottenville instead of every other S78.

 

You really have to look at it this way though. When the buses run frequently in the AM rush hour, it's almost flawless trying to get anywhere you need to go on SI, but it's when the limited service ends, and the headways and wait times get longer that it all goes downhill. There is A LOT of extra capacity for some of these SI routes. In other boros, middays you have buses showing up in 2s and 3s every 5 minutes or so, while the S40 runs every 20 minutes if your lucky! They could fix that problem easy just like Azumah said by adding some buses and be more flexible with the scheduling. The train line will just be a glorified S90 on rails!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The S59 should be cut back to Hylan Blvd permanently and the S89 should continue to Tottenville. There's really no need for two local bus lines on Hylan Blvd at that point. If extra service is needed they could always just have all the S78s run to Tottenville instead of every other S78.

 

You really have to look at it this way though. When the buses run frequently in the AM rush hour, it's almost flawless trying to get anywhere you need to go on SI, but it's when the limited service ends, and the headways and wait times get longer that it all goes downhill. There is A LOT of extra capacity for some of these SI routes. In other boros, middays you have buses showing up in 2s and 3s every 5 minutes or so, while the S40 runs every 20 minutes if your lucky! They could fix that problem easy just like Azumah said by adding some buses and be more flexible with the scheduling. The train line will just be a glorified S90 on rails!

 

During rush hours, all S78s terminate at Tottenville, so there is no other way to provide additional service (other than extending the S89, which, as we agree, should be done)

 

When the limited-stop buses run, I wouldn't say it is flawless getting around, but that is as good as it is going to get.

 

Like I said, the fact that the MTA has made a capital investment in the corridor means that people will be more likely to ride it, since, if they build an expensive busway or rail line, they'll try to get as much value out of it by running as much service as warranted on that line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, if anybody has comments they want to send in, email them to Patrick Jordan, who is the supervisor of Planning and Studies. His email address is: PJordan@zetlin.com

 

Or, if you want to send them in by regular mail, send them to:

Zetlin Strategic Communications, Inc

314 West 71st Street

New York, NY, 10023

Phone: (212)-799-8803

Fax: (212)-799-2206

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, if anybody has comments they want to send in, email them to Patrick Jordan, who is the supervisor of Planning and Studies. His email address is: PJordan@zetlin.com

 

Or, if you want to send them in by regular mail, send them to:

Zetlin Strategic Communications, Inc

314 West 71st Street

New York, NY, 10023

Phone: (212)-799-8803

Fax: (212)-799-2206

 

:cool:Thanks!:tup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, the fact that the MTA has made a capital investment in the corridor means that people will be more likely to ride it, since, if they build an expensive busway or rail line, they'll try to get as much value out of it by running as much service as warranted on that line.

 

At a substantially higher operating cost.

 

The age old debate between buses and rail continues. People prefer rail because rail is often run better than buses. That is why they carry more people. The investments that agencies make with rail are not usually replicated in local bus service. Sometimes, they are made in express bus services.

 

How about the MTA allowing everyone to reload their MetroCards via the internet? The biggest problem on Staten Island is refilling your MetroCard while there. Turn every computer and smartphone into an MVM. That will cut down on cash handling. Then, you can allow people to get those SBS style receipts online from their computer and take them on the S40. That would allow double door boarding on the route and improve reliability. Considering that the MTA probably uses some sort of internet processing already for MVMs, creating a home interface to move transactions off the buses is not a big leap. That could be as much as 40% of the time savings right there.

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.