Jump to content

BUS - Random Thoughts Thread


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

To also add, 8x limiteds were one way limiteds, and 9x limiteds are two way limiteds. The S89 broke that rule. 

Not really, the S96 and I believe the S90 were also PM only until they gained ridership to have then run in the AM.

Edited by Lil 57
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 38.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Look, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a bus route having multiple purposes.... You basically support unnecessary layering/redundancy.... Talk about fiscal irresponsibility; ridiculous waste of money to create another route running along Forest av so that it can run out to EWR & have luggage racks in em....

Either way you still have to spend money. Since the S98 operates rush hours only, any difference in budgeting between an S98 extension to EWR and a new bus route would be minimal; if both routes operated 7 days a week it's a different story. If such a plan goes ahead, it's likely the MTA would look to a third party to help with funding for Staten Island-EWR service (possibly the Port Authority).

Edited by lara8710
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, lara8710 said:

Either way you still have to spend money. Since the S98 operates rush hours only, any difference in budgeting between an S98 extension to EWR and a new bus route would be minimal; if both routes operated 7 days a week it's a different story. If such a plan goes ahead, it's likely the MTA would look to a third party to help with funding for Staten Island-EWR service (possibly the Port Authority).

There is no need to spend any money, just drop that whole ridiculous idea.

Edited by trife86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Just think about all of the OT as you guys are stuck in traffic.  Ca ching ca ching ca ching ching.... 

Lol that's just more runs that are going to have missing trips when they can't make it back.

But nah no OT for me I'm a "8 and skate" guy.

Finish my shift and bolt the hell outta there.

Some of us want to get on and off that bus as quick as you do 😂

Edited by trife86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, trife86 said:

Lol that's just more runs that are going to have missing trips when they can't make it back.

But nah no OT for me I'm a "8 and skate" guy.

Finish my shift and bolt the hell outta there.

Some of us want to get on and off that bus as quick as you do 😂

I hear ya... One of my buddies is like that. He will NOT do OT... No way no how... He knows which runs to pick too... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lara8710 said:

Either way you still have to spend money. Since the S98 operates rush hours only, any difference in budgeting between an S98 extension to EWR and a new bus route would be minimal; if both routes operated 7 days a week it's a different story.

If such a plan goes ahead, it's likely the MTA would look to a third party to help with funding for Staten Island-EWR service (possibly the Port Authority).

Do you know what marbles are? Have you lost them?

It's scary that you want to pursue a career in law enforcement, when you come on a message forum & seriously convey & believe that a bus route that would operate 7 days a week under these "revised" headways of yours:

AM: every 10 minutes, Noon: every 15 minutes, PM: every 10 minutes, Eve: every 20 minutes, Nite: every 60 minutes, Weekend: every 20 minutes

....would yield a minimal damn difference in operating costs of a route whose service span is 2 whole days less, only operates during peak hours, and has less service during the PM peak on top of it.....

 

1 hour ago, lara8710 said:

 If such a plan goes ahead, it's likely the MTA would look to a third party to help with funding for Staten Island-EWR service (possibly the Port Authority).

smh.... Alright dude, you have a good night... This has gotten stupid at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Do you know what marbles are? Have you lost them?

It's scary that you want to pursue a career in law enforcement, when you come on a message forum & seriously convey & believe that a bus route that would operate 7 days a week under these "revised" headways of yours:

AM: every 10 minutes, Noon: every 15 minutes, PM: every 10 minutes, Eve: every 20 minutes, Nite: every 60 minutes, Weekend: every 20 minutes

....would yield a minimal damn difference in operating costs of a route whose service span is 2 whole days less, only operates during peak hours, and has less service during the PM peak on top of it.....

If this plan ever did come into action, there would be serious cuts to the S48 and maybe some of the surrounding routes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lil 57 said:

If this plan ever did come into action, there would be serious cuts to the S48 and maybe some of the surrounding routes.

Which brings me into the MTA's old idea of cutting service on one end to help the other--like the (V) train forcing the (G) to be cut to Court Square on weekdays after the 63rd Street Connector opened in December 2001.

Edited by lara8710
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, lara8710 said:

Which brings me into the MTA's old idea of cutting service on one end to help the other--like the (V) train forcing the (G) to be cut to Court Square on weekdays.

That's a completely different animal altogether. The (G) was just not useful for where QBL residents wanted to go, whereas the (V) was (more) useful, among other things like track capacity. The MTA just likes cutting bus service regardless of ridership in some way.

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

That's a completely different animal altogether. The (G) was just not useful for where QBL residents wanted to go, whereas the (V) was (more) useful. The MTA just likes cutting bus service regardless of ridership in some way, shape, or form.

I know, it's a vicious cycle that seems to have no end in sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lara8710 said:

If such a plan goes ahead, it's likely the MTA would look to a third party to help with funding for Staten Island-EWR service (possibly the Port Authority).

Just like PA pays for the 300 route of NJT. Oh wait.....

Separate note this is just like reviving the Eltingville-Newark Penn station route cut sometime in the 2000's. You think the ridership is there but having connections to major hubs dosen't mean people will use it. I see this route not being too popular and I don't see PA funding it which is why I think this "S99" should run 30 min headways everyday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

It's scary that you want to pursue a career in law enforcement, when you come on a message forum & seriously convey & believe that a bus route that would operate 7 days a week under these "revised" headways of yours:

AM: every 10 minutes, Noon: every 15 minutes, PM: every 10 minutes, Eve: every 20 minutes, Nite: every 60 minutes, Weekend: every 20 minutes

....would yield a minimal damn difference in operating costs of a route whose service span is 2 whole days less, only operates during peak hours, and has less service during the PM peak on top of it.....

Not really, I'm only volunteering with the police force to move out of my comfort zones by being a more active contributor to the city we live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rode a couple of the green sign hybrids out of QV today, to me, they aren't really that bad for buses on the verge of being retired IMO. One of them was a rocket!

 

Also QV buses in general were looking clean af today, love when a Depot maintains a bus well cosmetically. QV buses were looking like Flatbush aka GOATbush Depot buses today😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2019 at 8:49 AM, B35 via Church said:

No it isn't, not remotely.... This isn't an issue of absolvement....

There's a stark difference between a public transportation provider (PTP from here on in) improving current services & a PTP starting up a bunch of new services to try to appease everybody that utilizes public transit.... That's not supporting stagnation.... Sure, you don't have to get a car for a few (plural) temp assignments or whatever, but at the same token, it isn't a PTP's job to make your (as in, singular) life easier.... That may come across as being insensitive, but that's not supporting status quo.....

A line has to be drawn somewhere....

Public transportation is a great resource, but it can't be all things to all people.... How is it the MTA's or NJT's fault or responsibility that, for example, a blue collar worker that lives in, say, Travis, decides to work in Port Newark? Or someone in Bay Ridge that landed that high salaried job out there in Exchange Place? Should new services be started up for those blokes? Nobody's saying that they shouldn't decide to work where they do, but full on knowing there's no direct (or feasible) service that currently exists to facilitate such a commute, how in the world can these same people put the lion's share of the blame on a PTP for that - full knowing that they don't have their own transportation..... You have people (plenty in fact) that have that mindset & AFAIC, it's irresponsible.... Nobody ever likes to take accountability for shit.

I agree with you, but I'm not sure what is being argued exactly. I believe that, there is sufficient demand to justify some sort of fixed transit service across the Goethals Bridge (aside from Joel Azumah's fly-by-night Route 100 lol). And from what I recall, you agree with me as well (but you'd send it to Jersey Gardens instead of EWR, from a previous thread). So it's not like we're talking about something that would only benefit a few random airport workers who happened to get stuck at that job for whatever reasons.

And my original post was referring to latent demand. Sure there might not be too many workers making that trip now, but if it were easier they would reconsider making that trip.

On 1/28/2019 at 10:08 AM, lara8710 said:

The S98 already serves a purpose--to provide commuters living in Mariners Harbor and along Forest Avenue fast rush-hour service to and from the ferry at St. George, as I discussed with Lil 57. Could you clarify what you meant by what I highlighted in bold?

Heh, a fast ride on Forest Avenue during rush hour.... 😂 And on top of that, there's plenty of intermediate riders. There's plenty of turnover at Richmond Avenue, Broadway, and Victory & Bay just to name a few non-ferry stops. I mean, "as you discussed with Lil 57" I hate to bring up that argument but the both of us live out here and you clearly have no idea of ridership patterns are like along the North Shore routes.

But that being said, the S98 runs about 6 buses per hour during the height of rush hour. So if you extend 2 of them to NJ you still have 4 buses per hour remaining on Staten Island, running the current S98 route.

On 1/28/2019 at 5:22 PM, Lil 57 said:

Not really, the S96 and I believe the S90 were also PM only until they gained ridership to have then run in the AM.

Correct. Both of them received AM rush hour service in September 2006.

On 1/28/2019 at 7:02 PM, lara8710 said:

Either way you still have to spend money. Since the S98 operates rush hours only, any difference in budgeting between an S98 extension to EWR and a new bus route would be minimal; if both routes operated 7 days a week it's a different story. If such a plan goes ahead, it's likely the MTA would look to a third party to help with funding for Staten Island-EWR service (possibly the Port Authority).

That makes no sense. Yeah, the off-peak service gets added either way, but you're advocating for a whole extra layer of peak service. Peak service is the most expensive service for a transit agency to run because they're buying buses that will only be used for a few hours a day, and the split shifts are expensive to cover because they pay drivers half-pay for the time in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I agree with you, but I'm not sure what is being argued exactly. I believe that, there is sufficient demand to justify some sort of fixed transit service across the Goethals Bridge (aside from Joel Azumah's fly-by-night Route 100 lol). And from what I recall, you agree with me as well (but you'd send it to Jersey Gardens instead of EWR, from a previous thread). So it's not like we're talking about something that would only benefit a few random airport workers who happened to get stuck at that job for whatever reasons.

And my original post was referring to latent demand. Sure there might not be too many workers making that trip now, but if it were easier they would reconsider making that trip.

The essence of what I was arguing against had less to do with an extension of the S98 into NJ (which I still concur with) & more to do with the argument (or at the very least, the implication of it) you decided to use to counter (or avert) trife86's point regarding personal responsibility.... To make the point using the adage (along with the supporting commentary you made in the post afterwards) that you did is dangerous, because it leads credence to supporting ANY new route someone would drum up to make their commute easier.... It didn't help that you brought up stagnation & maintaining status quo (of subpar service) as a retort to my initial post to you, which I found rather surprising coming from you....

side note: Whatever happened to that dude anyway (Azumah)?

10 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

That makes no sense. Yeah, the off-peak service gets added either way, but you're advocating for a whole extra layer of peak service. Peak service is the most expensive service for a transit agency to run because they're buying buses that will only be used for a few hours a day, and the split shifts are expensive to cover because they pay drivers half-pay for the time in the middle.

That snarky remark about having to spend money either way was nothing more than a lazy defense to support his "S99".... His reasoning for keeping the S98 in-house was just as lazy....

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got off the 5:45 PM S54 at Clove/Cary and other than me there were only 2 other people that took the bus a short distance (I got on at Nelson/Hylan). I highly doubt a lot of people got on past Castleton so the bus had less than 10 (more like 5 or less) people for the entire route with only me North of Arthur Kill/Giffords until I got off.

Edited by Lil 57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lil 57 said:

Just got off the 5:45 PM S54 at Clove/Cary and other than me there were only 2 other people that took the bus a short distance (I got on at Nelson/Hylan). I highly doubt a lot of people got on past Castleton so the bus had less than 10 (more like 5 or less) people for the entire route with only me North of Arthur Kill/Giffords until I got off.

The S54 doesn't see that much usage at certain times. It's mainly only crowded with the school kids, otherwise, plenty of seats most of the time.  It doesn't help that the buses tend to come whenever (usually too early).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Been seeing more Sunnyside - 33rd st. short trips on the Q60 as of late..... Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing....

If you're in Queens it's a great thing because less buses get stuck in traffic. If you're waiting in Manhattan, not so much because every bus that turns at Sunnyside is one less bus that crosses the bridge into Manhattan, and that 10 minute wait becomes 20 or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, paulrivera said:

If you're in Queens it's a great thing because less buses get stuck in traffic. If you're waiting in Manhattan, not so much because every bus that turns at Sunnyside is one less bus that crosses the bridge into Manhattan, and that 10 minute wait becomes 20 or more.

Oh, I get the benefits of short turns in general & are an advocate for them.... I'm more questioning where buses are being short turned, than anything......

While I get that it avoids the mess at & west of Van Dam (one thing I don't miss, was the 2 years I had to cross that junction over there during my college years), I don't think buses should be skipping QBP..... To me, that's like the Q60 on the opposite end of the route stopping dead at QB/Jamaica (av) or something (which I believe buses actually used to do a long time ago IINM).....

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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