The sad story of Staten Island bus service. How would you cheer the borough up?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

But if the reason why they can't run is because the streets are narrow, then that disproves your point.

 

In any case, there aren't a whole bunch of routes that actually need artics. Some are crowded at certain times, but there are only a few routes that are crowded for much of the day (and we all know they're the S48, S53, and S79)

 

Dude, please read my posts. I specifically said that artics can run on some routes but not all SI routes... One reason is the streets but that's not the only reason. Just because some artics can run on some narrow streets doesn't mean they can run on all narrow streets. Manor Rd is extremely narrow and is a street that would have a really hard time running artics on it and making turns esp. You still didn't answer my question as to where these artics are supposed to be stopping at???

 

one problem on victory blvd you have S61 and S62 there is no excuse. The S98 needs to run all day enhancing reliability done don't complicate things by sending another route to st george.

 

Who is talking about Victory Blvd though??? :confused:

[qjtransitmaster]

1) If it's an extension of the S42, it's not "complicating things" by going to St. George.

 

2) And do you know how well they connect to the ferry? Sometimes, they're scheduled to miss it by a few minutes so there is an excuse. And sometimes they run hot and you'll miss the connection.

 

Yes, the S98 needs to run all day (and if it ran to Newark Airport, it would have the ridership to do so), but that's a seperate issue.

 

And some people will take a route if it offers a one-seat ride, even if it is circuitous. The S54 has a high percentage of seniors and even if it were combined with the S42, a lot of the riders along Manor Road would still be seniors. It's harder for them to go up and down the steps on the buses and they might be willing to take a longer ride if it is a one-seat ride. Plus, I'm sure there's people who come after a long day of work and they' rather sit back and relax rather than having to run to make a transfer.

 

 

 

Read the second part of the post. It's like 2 30-foot buses making the turn, which is actually easier than 1 40-foot bus making the turn, or at least that's what everybody says.

 

I think the Bx36 and Bx40/42 have artics and some of the streets are pretty narrow.

 

My S54 idea lets other routes handle manor road like S42 or S56. The S54 itself gets rerouted to replace S66 on jewett en route to newark airport S98 ppl will transfer at jewett for S54 to airport via bayonne. Plus other rtes like X17 via holland and S57 and some NJT lines in my NJ plan which creates a bayonne perth amboy route sort of with links to various SI parts and one or 2 stops in SI since they are NJ based would feed into the S54 sort of.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

My S54 idea lets other routes handle manor road like S42 or S56. The S54 itself gets rerouted to replace S66 on jewett en route to newark airport S98 ppl will transfer at jewett for S54 to airport via bayonne. Plus other rtes like X17 via holland and S57 and some NJT lines in my NJ plan which creates a bayonne perth amboy route sort of with links to various SI parts and one or 2 stops in SI since they are NJ based would feed into the S54 sort of.

 

 

Oh boy... Can't you for once focus on the topic at hand?? We don't need a thousand route changes with all of these buses crossing state lines. We can't even get buses to show up on time so how in the world are we talking about buses running through NJ?

[qjtransitmaster]

Dude, please read my posts. I specifically said that artics can run on some routes but not all SI routes... One reason is the streets but that's not the only reason. Just because some artics can run on some narrow streets doesn't mean they can run on all narrow streets. Manor Rd is extremely narrow and is a street that would have a really hard time running artics on it and making turns esp. You still didn't answer my question as to where these artics are supposed to be stopping at???

 

 

 

Who is talking about Victory Blvd though??? :confused:

 

victory blvd connects to manor rd. So there is an increased chance of a transfer working out properly due to S61/62 and at rush there is no excuse. Besides which SI routes warrent artics???

 

The manor rd segment in my plan either becomes S56 or S42 but It would be better off as S42 based on checkmate's points. With removal of S66 the S42 will have the off-peak service available and S54 will gain service as well as S55/56 should NJ prove to boost ridership enough to force the line to keep more service.

[qjtransitmaster]

 

Oh boy... Can't you for once focus on the topic at hand?? We don't need a thousand route changes with all of these buses crossing state lines. We can't even get buses to show up on time so how in the world are we talking about buses running through NJ?

After buses improve on-time performance. Step 1 reliability improvements step 2 once ppl get used to reliable service new service to NJ can be introduced now you understand.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

victory blvd connects to manor rd. So there is an increased chance of a transfer working out properly due to S61/62 and at rush there is no excuse. Besides which SI routes warrent artics???

 

The manor rd segment in my plan either becomes S56 or S42 but It would be better off as S42 based on checkmate's points. With removal of S66 the S42 will have the off-peak service available and S54 will gain service as well as S55/56 should NJ prove to boost ridership enough to force the line to keep more service.

 

 

I still don't see your point. The buses are already timed to connect to make transfers between the Victory Blvd buses and the S54.

[qjtransitmaster]

I still don't see your point. The buses are already timed to connect to make transfers between the Victory Blvd buses and the S54.

 

I was referring as to why S54 doesn't need to go to st george and you just explained exactly why. So you killed checkmate's point rather than my point cause the S42 extension was his idea not mine. My idea was modify S56's schedule to operate at the same times as S54 along manor rd thus allowing S54 to be rerouted. His idea was waste the S54 on st george.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I was referring as to why S54 doesn't need to go to st george and you just explained exactly why. So you killed checkmate's point rather than my point cause the S42 extension was his idea not mine. My idea was modify S56's schedule to operate at the same times as S54 along manor rd thus allowing S54 to be rerouted. His idea was waste the S54 on st george.

 

Not really... The S42 could work out actually and give folks along Manor Rd direct access to St. George. Currently the S54 terminates in the middle of no where as it is not a major terminal.

[B35 via Church]

man, this goin turn into a SI-NJ thread..... and then we goin have roadcruiser eventually swoopin through postin that dam lightrail image again...... then it's goin turn into a *t'hell w/ the buses, LRT is more suitable for SI* discussion.... a bunch of counterarguments to that are gonna ensue.... almost always happens whenever we start talkin about addressing BUS service in SI.....gets frustruating at times....

 

 

Oh boy... Can't you for once focus on the topic at hand?? We don't need a thousand route changes with all of these buses crossing state lines. We can't even get buses to show up on time so how in the world are we talking about buses running through NJ?

Thank you.... that's the overall point I was makin to QJT....

 

All the route extensions in the world aint goin enhance bus service in Staten island..... that's the general logic he uses in like 99.999999% of his points; if you wanna make service better, then extend it somewhere.... You have to address service levels, timeliness-ness (lol) first before any of that.... which for whatever (which is the new black ) reason, he either refuses to understand, or flat out ignores....

 

 

 

.....as a side note, I know JW just threw it out there, but we shouldn't have to focus on tryna get route(s) to reach the 10k (or any other) marker...... goes back to a point I made about riders not equaling numbers.....

[qjtransitmaster]

man, this goin turn into a SI-NJ thread..... and then we goin have roadcruiser eventually swoopin through postin that dam lightrail image again...... then it's goin turn into a *t'hell w/ the buses, LRT is more suitable for SI* discussion.... a bunch of counterarguments to that are gonna ensue.... almost always happens whenever we start talkin about addressing BUS service in SI.....gets frustruating at times....

 

 

 

Thank you.... that's the overall point I was makin to QJT....

 

All the route extensions in the world aint goin enhance bus service in Staten island..... that's the general logic he uses in like 99.999999% of his points; if you wanna make service better, then extend it somewhere.... You have to address service levels, timeliness-ness (lol) first before any of that.... which for whatever (which is the new black ) reason, he either refuses to understand, or flat out ignores....

 

 

 

.....as a side note, I know JW just threw it out there, but we shouldn't have to focus on tryna get route(s) to reach the 10k (or any other) marker...... goes back to a point I made about riders not equaling numbers.....

 

yup you got it exactly when routes become reliable then service to NJ can be introduced using the S57,S54,S55 and S56 then extend S42 to replace S54's manor rd segment and we have winners. You did notice that the lines I proposed for NJ NONE of them go to st george there is a reason why those lines were selected. S54-S57 are the only routes capable of heading to NJ. Plus NJ service is to enhance ridership on transit some I admit will spill over on NJT as well. I understand your point clearly reliability is the first step then addressing service gaps to NJ is the second step. Those points I fully understand the NJ part of my plan is actually NOT short term or immediate. The timeliness of the routes and lines will be improved via tracking and schedule adjustments. In addition the S54-S57 lines will be improved to have good reliability. Then After that is done test run buses to NJ with a few DHs. Then after a restructuring of a few NJT lines to prepare the service area then S54-S57 can be extended to different parts of NJ. However with it will come S42's extension to SI mall via manor rd. Then S66's elimination due to rerouting S55 and S54 thus rendering S66 useless.

[qjtransitmaster]

Not really... The S42 could work out actually and give folks along Manor Rd direct access to St. George. Currently the S54 terminates in the middle of no where as it is not a major terminal.

 

out of curiousity how many ppl travel from manor rd to st george??? vs to other places?? Including ppl with cars

[Via Garibaldi 8]

man, this goin turn into a SI-NJ thread..... and then we goin have roadcruiser eventually swoopin through postin that dam lightrail image again...... then it's goin turn into a *t'hell w/ the buses, LRT is more suitable for SI* discussion.... a bunch of counterarguments to that are gonna ensue.... almost always happens whenever we start talkin about addressing BUS service in SI.....gets frustruating at times....

 

You're telling me... This and the thousand maps of light rail service cutting through golf courses and God knows what else because they're going solely off of maps. And of course we NEED artics all over the damn place because we have such terrible overcrowding issues when in reality only a few local buses could use artics on Staten Island. Oh and artics DO NOT belong on express buses, but everytime Staten Island comes up and express bus service is discussed, somehow artics is thrown into the convo.

 

 

Thank you.... that's the overall point I was makin to QJT....

 

All the route extensions in the world aint goin enhance bus service in Staten island..... that's the general logic he uses in like 99.999999% of his points; if you wanna make service better, then extend it somewhere.... You have to address service levels, timeliness-ness (lol) first before any of that.... which for whatever (which is the new black ) reason, he either refuses to understand, or flat out ignores....

 

He is just hell bent on combining a thousand routes regardless to what borough is being discussed. Not sure where this is coming from either.

 

.....as a side note, I know JW just threw it out there, but we shouldn't have to focus on tryna get route(s) to reach the 10k (or any other) marker...... goes back to a point I made about riders not equaling numbers.....

 

I agree. If you run the system properly, make transferring easier and make the commutes overall quicker, the ridership will eventually come. Of course it isn't going to grow overnight and those people who are car lovers aren't going to ditch their cars, but you'll get some folks that are on the fence to use it.

 

out of curiousity how many ppl travel from manor rd to st george??? vs to other places??

 

Manor Rd and Victory is a pretty decent stop for transferring and such. The S54 would see increased usage if it went to St. George because people wouldn't have to transfer to the Victory Blvd buses.

[qjtransitmaster]

You're telling me... This and the thousand maps of light rail service cutting through golf courses and God knows what else because they're going solely off of maps. And of course we NEED artics all over the damn place because we have such terrible overcrowding issues when in reality only a few local buses could use artics on Staten Island. Oh and artics DO NOT belong on express buses, but everytime Staten Island comes up and express bus service is discussed, somehow artics is thrown into the convo.

 

 

 

 

He is just hell bent on combining a thousand routes regardless to what borough is being discussed. Not sure where this is coming from either.

 

 

 

I agree. If you run the system properly, make transferring easier and make the commutes overall quicker, the ridership will eventually come. Of course it isn't going to grow overnight and those people who are car lovers aren't going to ditch their cars, but you'll get some folks that are on the fence to use it.

 

 

 

Manor Rd and Victory is a pretty decent stop for transferring and such. The S54 would see increased usage if it went to St. George because people wouldn't have to transfer to the Victory Blvd buses.

 

BUT transferring to victory blvd buses reduce travel time. One is more likely to miss the ferry if they took S54 all the way making those meandering turns and such to get to the ferry so the one seat ride is basically an illusion which will increase travel time

[B35 via Church]

yup you got it exactly when routes become reliable then service to NJ can be introduced using the S57,S54,S55 and S56 then extend S42 to replace S54's manor rd segment and we have winners. You did notice that the lines I proposed for NJ NONE of them go to st george there is a reason why those lines were selected. S54-S57 are the only routes capable of heading to NJ. Plus NJ service is to enhance ridership on transit some I admit will spill over on NJT as well. I understand your point clearly reliability is the first step then addressing service gaps to NJ is the second step. Those points I fully understand the NJ part of my plan is actually NOT short term or immediate. The timeliness of the routes and lines will be improved via tracking and schedule adjustments. In addition the S54-S57 lines will be improved to have good reliability. Then After that is done test run buses to NJ with a few DHs. Then after a restructuring of a few NJT lines to prepare the service area then S54-S57 can be extended to different parts of NJ. However with it will come S42's extension to SI mall via manor rd. Then S66's elimination due to rerouting S55 and S54 thus rendering S66 useless.

 

I rest my case.

 

 

If you run the system properly, make transferring easier and make the commutes overall quicker, the ridership will eventually come.

For as long as those of us that's been posting in this, or any other forums' bus section, You would think this is a simple concept.....

 

 

He is just hell bent on combining a thousand routes regardless to what borough is being discussed. Not sure where this is coming from either.

 

I'll take data mining for 1000, alex !

(does jeopardy still come on btw....)

 

 

You're telling me... This and the thousand maps of light rail service cutting through golf courses and God knows what else because they're going solely off of maps. And of course we NEED artics all over the damn place because we have such terrible overcrowding issues when in reality only a few local buses could use artics on Staten Island. Oh and artics DO NOT belong on express buses, but everytime Staten Island comes up and express bus service is discussed, somehow artics is thrown into the convo.

 

The artic part I never understood.... Going under the notion of people thinkin that SI doesn't get much ridership with the current service it gets.... why would you opt to bring up artics, if the belief is that there aren't many riders.... doesn't make sense....

 

having buses that hold a larger capacity sent out somewhere where buses have poor headways, and on top that, damn near never on time.... *shrugs*

 

Maybe it's just me.....

[checkmatechamp13]

Dude, please read my posts. I specifically said that artics can run on some routes but not all SI routes... One reason is the streets but that's not the only reason. Just because some artics can run on some narrow streets doesn't mean they can run on all narrow streets. Manor Rd is extremely narrow and is a street that would have a really hard time running artics on it and making turns esp. You still didn't answer my question as to where these artics are supposed to be stopping at???

 

Who is talking about Victory Blvd though??? :confused:

 

But the 3 routes I mentioned don't really run on narrow streets (except for maybe the S48's stint in Arlington). But the S48 might not even need it if the S98 were expanded to run all day.

 

As far as the bus stops go, they'll just have to take up extra space. There's nothing that can really be done. It's about an extra 2 parking spaces per stop.

 

My S54 idea lets other routes handle manor road like S42 or S56. The S54 itself gets rerouted to replace S66 on jewett en route to newark airport S98 ppl will transfer at jewett for S54 to airport via bayonne. Plus other rtes like X17 via holland and S57 and some NJT lines in my NJ plan which creates a bayonne perth amboy route sort of with links to various SI parts and one or 2 stops in SI since they are NJ based would feed into the S54 sort of.

 

Where does the S56 come into play? Unless you're talking about Perth Amboy.

 

As far as the S54 goes, just remember that, being the only route on Jewett Avenue (under your plan), you have to take reliability into account.

 

victory blvd connects to manor rd. So there is an increased chance of a transfer working out properly due to S61/62 and at rush there is no excuse. Besides which SI routes warrent artics???

 

The manor rd segment in my plan either becomes S56 or S42 but It would be better off as S42 based on checkmate's points. With removal of S66 the S42 will have the off-peak service available and S54 will gain service as well as S55/56 should NJ prove to boost ridership enough to force the line to keep more service.

 

Like I said, the S48, S53, and S79. Expand S98 service and you can probably remove the S48 from that list.

 

And going to the S61/S62 involves backtracking, which many people may be unwilling to do.

 

.....as a side note, I know JW just threw it out there, but we shouldn't have to focus on tryna get route(s) to reach the 10k (or any other) marker...... goes back to a point I made about riders not equaling numbers.....

 

Agreed. There are routes like the B42 and B74 that get a few thousand riders per day, but are very successful.

 

Plus, like I said, the S53 and S79 already hit the 10,000 mark when you factor in students.

 

In addition the S54-S57 lines will be improved to have good reliability. Then After that is done test run buses to NJ with a few DHs. Then after a restructuring of a few NJT lines to prepare the service area then S54-S57 can be extended to different parts of NJ. However with it will come S42's extension to SI mall via manor rd. Then S66's elimination due to rerouting S55 and S54 thus rendering S66 useless.

 

I don't see how you can extend the S55 to the North Shore.

 

out of curiousity how many ppl travel from manor rd to st george??? vs to other places??

 

It's hard to say. Ridership is fairly low, and because the frequencies are low, you don't see a whole lot of people making transfers. You do have some people getting off at Victory Blvd and Forest Avenue, but a lot of them are either going shopping (or something else in the area) or live in the area.

 

Aside from that, you have Susan Wagner High School students and people from the Todt Hill Houses (not so much the West Brighton Houses because there are other routes that pass by).

 

But I'm sure there are people who would be attracted to the route if it served St. George (whether it is called the S42 or S54 is immaterial). The one thing I like about your ideas is that you assume latent ridership (a little too much, but the MTA is the opposite and assumes little to none). All routes serving St. George have decent ridership, so logic would dictate that it would be the case with the S54 as well.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

BUT transferring to victory blvd buses reduce travel time. One is more likely to miss the ferry if they took S54 all the way making those meandering turns and such to get to the ferry so the one seat ride is basically an illusion which will increase travel time

 

What meandering turns??? :confused: It would only be faster perhaps if the transfer was made successfully but not by much.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

But the 3 routes I mentioned don't really run on narrow streets (except for maybe the S48's stint in Arlington). But the S48 might not even need it if the S98 were expanded to run all day.

 

As far as the bus stops go, they'll just have to take up extra space. There's nothing that can really be done. It's about an extra 2 parking spaces per stop.

 

Yeah, but the people who proposed artics weren't referring to just a few routes...

 

If it were so easy to just run artics on Staten Island, artics would already be on the S79. You can't just run artics just because as if the community is going to say, Oh it's okay. We have narrow streets with parking problems, but that's okay because the wants to run articulated buses and take up all of the parking spots. LOL Let's be realistic here.

[checkmatechamp13]

What meandering turns??? :confused: It would only be faster perhaps if the transfer was made successfully but not by much.

 

He has a point in that the S54 would make a lot of turns in the New Brighton area, but I can't picture it being that much slower.

 

Yeah, but the people who proposed artics weren't referring to just a few routes...

 

If it were so easy to just run artics on Staten Island, artics would already be on the S79. You can't just run artics just because as if the community is going to say, Oh it's okay. We have narrow streets with parking problems, but that's okay because the wants to run articulated buses and take up all of the parking spots. LOL Let's be realistic here.

 

Well, that would be nice. I mean, for the S79, the argument could be made that a lot of space is already being taken up. With all of the express buses and such, there are plenty of times when 2 buses need to pull into the stop at the same time.

 

And I don't see how how artics would help if the overall problem we're discussing is low ridership.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

He has a point in that the S54 would make a lot of turns in the New Brighton area, but I can't picture it being that much slower.

 

That's what I'm saying.

 

 

And I don't see how how artics would help if the overall problem we're discussing is low ridership.

 

 

My point exactly. Some folks want artics on the express bus, but that's a stupid idea. Just about all companies across the country use coach buses for express service and those are the best for that situation. Artics belong on local routes that have a need for them. :mad:

[qjtransitmaster]

What meandering turns??? :confused: It would only be faster perhaps if the transfer was made successfully but not by much.

but the new route will have to go north to go east while victory blvd is a straight shot.

 

But the 3 routes I mentioned don't really run on narrow streets (except for maybe the S48's stint in Arlington). But the S48 might not even need it if the S98 were expanded to run all day.

 

As far as the bus stops go, they'll just have to take up extra space. There's nothing that can really be done. It's about an extra 2 parking spaces per stop.

 

 

 

Where does the S56 come into play? Unless you're talking about Perth Amboy.

EXACTLY that is what I am talking aboutAs far as the S54 goes, just remember that, being the only route on Jewett Avenue (under your plan), you have to take reliability into account.

 

 

 

Like I said, the S48, S53, and S79. Expand S98 service and you can probably remove the S48 from that list.

 

And going to the S61/S62 involves backtracking, which many people may be unwilling to do.

 

 

 

Agreed. There are routes like the B42 and B74 that get a few thousand riders per day, but are very successful.

 

Plus, like I said, the S53 and S79 already hit the 10,000 mark when you factor in students.

 

 

 

I don't see how you can extend the S55 to the North Shore.

 

 

 

It's hard to say. Ridership is fairly low, and because the frequencies are low, you don't see a whole lot of people making transfers. You do have some people getting off at Victory Blvd and Forest Avenue, but a lot of them are either going shopping (or something else in the area) or live in the area.

 

Aside from that, you have Susan Wagner High School students and people from the Todt Hill Houses (not so much the West Brighton Houses because there are other routes that pass by).

 

But I'm sure there are people who would be attracted to the route if it served St. George (whether it is called the S42 or S54 is immaterial). The one thing I like about your ideas is that you assume latent ridership (a little too much, but the MTA is the opposite and assumes little to none). All routes serving St. George have decent ridership, so logic would dictate that it would be the case with the S54 as well.

Also S54 will be a quick line even after absorbing S66's jewett ave segment en route to Newark airport or secaucus I admit secaucus is a huge gamble and would only work with timed connections to NJT trains. But with S57 getting newark and NJT 2 extending to bayonne via rte 440. The S54 can be unique with secaucus. While ppl bound for journal sq will use NJT 2 at bayonne or HBLR to PATH which is not very practical. However NJT can make a long distance line for SI based on their history I found NJT 304 under my plan it absorbs several 700 based lines before heading to SI after the airport via rte 439 and NJTP or extend NJT's 37 line. Or have X22 gain 7 day service but off-peak trips stop at newark airport closed door service. Another way is take S76's new dorp segment and create a new line called S73 it goes via richmond hill to SI mall before heading via travis ave then heads to newark airport via elizbeth should it garner more ridership than S76 then S76 will get axed as well and S73 will replace it partially.

 

S55 will absorb S66's former segment that used to be the S60 via ocean terrance and rockland ave. The S56 would have eaten S54's route or S42 would have. The S54 has to cross chasleton and still S46/96 would have a head start with S42 over manor rd the chances of missing the ferry are very high. If the S54-57 go to NJ their ridership would skyrocket forcing their frequencies to improve which means ppl will use them and their frequencies will be high eliminating their weaknesses.:cool:

[qjtransitmaster]

That's what I'm saying.

 

 

 

 

 

My point exactly. Some folks want artics on the express bus, but that's a stupid idea. Just about all companies across the country use coach buses for express service and those are the best for that situation. Artics belong on local routes that have a need for them. :mad:

 

Artics can sometimes be good for express runs just look at seattle's sound transit whose express buses sometimes make X10 look empty. But it is a case by case basis you never know one day they may be needed. I have to disagree about all companies across the country having coaches be best for express service many seattle ppl complain and WANT ARTICS ON THEIR EXPRESS RUNS!!!!!! The coaches in seattle get BUTTRAPED WITH OVERCROWDING!!!!!! Sometimes coaches are not enough for express runs cause the ridership is just too high sometimes that is the case with SI. The artics would only work if they have suburban seating just like the ones NJT uses on their 159 and 154 and 158 lines. Buses like those will eventually be needed. To say coaches are the only way for express service is just nonsense it is a case by case basis.

[SIR North Shore]

I think the plan of sending the S57 to Newark Penn Station is probably the best one I've heard lately. The S57 would become one of the most important lines on Staten Island. The S54 OTOH, should be running to St. George.

[engineerboy6561]

I read it and you still didn't answer any of my questions... I'm not saying artics can't run on some routes, but they certainly CANNOT run on all SI local routes.

 

I never said that artics belonged on all or even very many SI local routes; my point was that suburban-style artics would do very well making peak-direction trips on certain chronically overcrowded express bus lines (of which I only listed three; the X1, the X10, and the X17) so we no longer had people standing in MCI stairwells, which as a side effect would also deal with the problem of half-dead 1998-9 D4500s and DL3s (50 suburban artics could be used to displace 50 of the worst MCIs and still gain seating space), and then that these artics could run on perennially crowded local lines (the S53/93 and S79, for the most part) when not in use on express bus runs.

 

As far as QJTransitmaster's posts are concerned, SI-NJ service would be nice, but he needs to remember that every bridge/tunnel/highway you add to a route adds another opportunity for it to get bogged down and potentially shoots its reliability to hell. Given that most of the local bus service complaints I've heard about SI involve reliability (running hot, running late, bunching) sending existing routes to NJ is a fast way to empty them out.

 

Quite frankly, if we want to improve bus service on SI, step one would be to do a comprehensive overhaul of the schedules. This first adjustment would be more about reliability than headway adjustments; if you have bus operators chronically running hot in certain spots (as many have complained) take a look at why this is happening. In some cases the schedule may be unnecessarily "fluffy" and half your problem could be solved by tightening it up by a few minutes. 30-minute headways correspond quite nicely to ferry arrival and departure times, but then you need minimum ten-minute layovers (arrive five minutes before, leave five minutes after) and perhaps a little asymmetrical fluff (leave a bit of slack leaving St. George so that the driver can wait if a ferry is late) to ensure good connections.

 

Second, I'd advise headway adjustments on routes that connect to the ferry (try 15-minute headways on some of the more problematic routes middays) to provide riders a buffer against traffic, operator error, etc. The reason I suggest this is this: If there is a bus to St. George every thirty minutes and a ferry departure every thirty minutes, then if it's early and you miss it or if it's all of five minutes late you now have half an hour's delay at the minimum. Now, if there's a bus to St. George every fifteen minutes and the ferry departs every thirty minutes, half the buses are offset. If you go to catch an offset bus and everything goes according to plan you arrive 15-20 minutes before the ferry leaves. If the offset bus is 10-15 minutes late you still make your ferry. If the offset bus runs hot, you catch the synchronized bus and you're none the worse for wear. If both buses run hot, you still make your ferry because you're in position to catch the "hot" synchronized bus. Thus, even if reliability of individual buses doesn't improve much the built-in cushion of the extra buses makes the whole thing reliable.

 

Third, I'd advise more comprehensive connections between Staten Island and both Brooklyn and New Jersey. From what I can tell most of the reliability issues on SI local buses are in some way tied to the ferry because the thirty-minute headways create a tremendous bottleneck and a great deal of potential for problems. LRT has its place in SI, but I figure it only needs to go as far as Port Richmond with a possible extension along the north shore to St. George. Also, any buses leaving SI should be new runs where feasible; I have a couple of proposals for new lines here. The Brooklyn ideas I've discussed at length a couple of other times so I won't take up space here with them. The green line represents a new line from the mall to the Perth Amboy commuter rail station via Amboy Rd/Annadale Rd, serving the medical center in Perth Amboy. During rush hour service would run to/from South Amboy instead (more frequent rail service there, ergo better connections), while the yellow line represents an extension of the S40/90 to the Elizabeth railway station in NJ. When the S90 is running S40s would terminate at Gulf/Western Avs, while S90s would serve the railway station. The S90s would also make one additional LTD stop at South Av/Forest Av before getting on the bridge. Also, try providing some S89 service (not shown here) middays and sometomes on weekends. The map's in Post#75 because I couldn't get it to show here.

[checkmatechamp13]

but the new route will have to go north to go east while victory blvd is a straight shot.

 

Also S54 will be a quick line even after absorbing S66's jewett ave segment en route to Newark airport or secaucus I admit secaucus is a huge gamble and would only work with timed connections to NJT trains. But with S57 getting newark and NJT 2 extending to bayonne via rte 440. The S54 can be unique with secaucus. While ppl bound for journal sq will use NJT 2 at bayonne or HBLR to PATH which is not very practical. However NJT can make a long distance line for SI based on their history I found NJT 304 under my plan it absorbs several 700 based lines before heading to SI after the airport via rte 439 and NJTP or extend NJT's 37 line. Or have X22 gain 7 day service but off-peak trips stop at newark airport closed door service. Another way is take S76's new dorp segment and create a new line called S73 it goes via richmond hill to SI mall before heading via travis ave then heads to newark airport via elizbeth should it garner more ridership than S76 then S76 will get axed as well and S73 will replace it partially.

 

S55 will absorb S66's former segment that used to be the S60 via ocean terrance and rockland ave. The S56 would have eaten S54's route or S42 would have. The S54 has to cross chasleton and still S46/96 would have a head start with S42 over manor rd the chances of missing the ferry are very high. If the S54-57 go to NJ their ridership would skyrocket forcing their frequencies to improve which means ppl will use them and their frequencies will be high eliminating their weaknesses.:cool:

 

Newark Airport is much more realistic than Secaucus. There's much less potential for traffic to delay the route. People can transfer to the HBLR and take an NJT train if they really need Secaucus, and if they need Journal Square, they can takethe 10/99 up JFK Blvd. Sure, it's more inconvenient, but they are relatively frequent and it's not worth messing up the S54 to make it unique.

 

And any line cutting through the Greenbelt will fail, even if it connects to NJ, so no to the S73.

 

As far as the X22 getting 7-day service, that should happen, but I don't think it should stop at Newark Airport. That should be for a seperate route (besides the local routes, you can have a route coming from the ETC, down Richmond Avenue, and over the Goethals Bridge to Newark Airport)

 

And no, nothing should cut through Todt Hill either. The Grymes Hill portion should be served by something else. I'd hate to mess up the S61 and S62 because they have decent ridership (and a lot of people would be pissed having to make the detour). Maybe the S66 can still be kept, or the S67 can return or something.

[engineerboy6561]

[GMAPS]:cool:<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=200421088698928261912.0004a7bc39814bad87e52&ie=UTF8&vpsrc=0&ll=40.588188,-74.102823&spn=0.159317,0.362726&output=embed"></iframe><br /><small>View <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=200421088698928261912.0004a7bc39814bad87e52&ie=UTF8&vpsrc=0&ll=40.588188,-74.102823&spn=0.159317,0.362726&source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">SI to Brooklyn</a> in a larger map</small>[/GMAPS]

 

Sorry for the double post but the map wasn't showing.