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

[B35 via Church]

err NO I never said it's the ONLY way to improve service in SI but it is one way that forces headways to improve. The rest is schedule changes and better monitoring of bus routes. The rerouting of X17 will decrease travel time to manhattan while yeilding more ridership which means more service to help X10 and X1. Plus the NJ extensions only apply to S54-57. Along with other improvements. NJ service is just part of the puzzle that would force MTA to relook SI service which will lead to steps to improve SI service in general. Plus the extensions are aimed at getting ppl out of their cars rather than existing commuters who use service within SI to brooklyn and manhattan. Remember there is no NJ bound service to central NJ or major transfer points in NJ. So these extensions have nothing to do with current riders that point I agree with. But the NJ lines would put strain on other routes which will lead to action to help make buses more reliable. Once reliability issues are resolved then NJ bound service is the next step. The effect = more ppl using NJT buses from the transfer points thanks to SI S54-57 connecting SI with NJ. For NJ based problems I have another plan just for that. But unlike my SI ideas it's not as extension heavy more like merger style rather than outright extension. NJ extension alone won't decrease headyways the extra ridership generated from NJ will eventually force the route's headways to decrease resulting in more frequent service.

 

You're implicating it with your actions/posts in this thread......

Again, look at how many times you bring up New Jersey in this post.....

 

Shows where your mindstate & focus is at.....

[qjtransitmaster]

You're implicating it with your actions/posts in this thread......

Again, look at how many times you bring up New Jersey in this post.....

 

Shows where your mindstate & focus is at.....

 

sorry if I mislead you!!!!!!!!!! The S89 only takes you to bayonne. Bayonne alone only links to HBLR therefore producing some demand but that alone will only generate so much ridership since there isn't much in bayonne let alone many connecting routes. But with my X17 plan this will be rectified without adding any S89s. But rush hour is the ideal time to run S89 cause other lines are too full to handle bayonne ppl. Therefore X17 OFF-PEAK trips only those outside rush hour in both directions will stop at bayonne otherwise they simply run non-stop on I-78 and 440. My NJ/SI plan is to evolve S55/56 beyond network coverage linking them to major transfer points in NJ at old bridge means access to rte 9 corridor towards ocean and other paces from SI. Cheesquake gives access to AC and other destinations in monmouth and ocean counties. Using academy highway based routes to reach destinations from SI via transfer. Now the lines are manipulated by the NJT routes. :cool: That is the goal for S55/56. S54/57 is to make em unique sending then to newark opens up too many transfer opportunities to list here. Journal square or secaucus would create many more travel opportunities. NJT will have to help out on a limited scale to complete this. Thus S57/54 become very important and bayonne becomes a transfer point now the lines can serve different purposes other than their final destination. I admit my focus is at completeing the network and eliminating the need to drive. I would leave the other problems to you short haul guys obviously you have ideas to improve service quality. That isn't my strength or focus. Quality is of service improvements I leave to you. I deal solely with service gaps.:cool:

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

One poster made a very good point about Staten Island following a hub to spoke system of transportation. If you look at the routes in the other boroughs that generate high ridership they don't follow the hub and spoke model. Routes like the M15, Bx12 and B46 follow a hub to hub model where both terminals get heavy usage in addition to the busy areas in between. If ridership is to be better utilized in Staten Island some routes will need to be rerouted to follow that hub to hub model. It works with the S53 and 79. Bay Ridge-86th St is a hub and so is SI Mall and Port Richmond Terminal. Hub to hub routes are forced to have low headways because riders will be waiting for pickup at both terminals therefore pressuring B/O's to move quickly. Instead of proposing ridiculous extensions into NJ, I would reroute some existing routes so that the hub to hub model is followed.

[qjtransitmaster]

One poster made a very good point about Staten Island following a hub to spoke system of transportation. If you look at the routes in the other boroughs that generate high ridership they don't follow the hub and spoke model. Routes like the M15, Bx12 and B46 follow a hub to hub model where both terminals get heavy usage in addition to the busy areas in between. If ridership is to be better utilized in Staten Island some routes will need to be rerouted to follow that hub to hub model. It works with the S53 and 79. Bay Ridge-86th St is a hub and so is SI Mall and Port Richmond Terminal. Hub to hub routes are forced to have low headways because riders will be waiting for pickup at both terminals therefore pressuring B/O's to move quickly. Instead of proposing ridiculous extensions into NJ, I would reroute some existing routes so that the hub to hub model is followed.

 

DUDE you just made my position stronger thanks. Extending those select lines to NJ will give them the hub they need to generate high ridership forcing headways to decrease. That was what my proposal is force S54-57 to follow the hub to hub model letting S57 get newark broad st via penn station and 440 the route turns into a hub to hub line. Same with those other routes all the parts of NJ that I plan to have routes go to are MAJOR TRANSFER HUBS!!!!!!!!! You actually strengthened my point even further thanks. Obviously this isn't about extending to some random part of NJ. It's about connecting NJ with SI via MAJOR hubs. The extensions are to major hubs!!!!! meaning travel possibilities skyrocket thus increasing ridership and then headways plummet that is the reasoning behind all my ideas

[B35 via Church]

I would leave the other problems to you short haul guys obviously you have ideas to improve service quality. That isn't my strength or focus. Quality is of service improvements I leave to you. I deal solely with service gaps.

Pretty big of you to admit that.... It's just about addressing service gaps with you...

 

Although I know where the routes go, and have a fairly good idea of where & where not to send routes (more or less)..... for me, it's more than simply addressing the physical routings when we're talkin about bettering service overall.... If the thread didn't deal with overall SI bus service, then I would entertain the individual ideas you & others have came up with.....

 

Considering what you just said in this post, I'll leave your name out of this secondary discussion then.....

 

 

One poster made a very good point about Staten Island following a hub to spoke system of transportation. If you look at the routes in the other boroughs that generate high ridership they don't follow the hub and spoke model. Routes like the M15, Bx12 and B46 follow a hub to hub model where both terminals get heavy usage in addition to the busy areas in between. If ridership is to be better utilized in Staten Island some routes will need to be rerouted to follow that hub to hub model. It works with the S53 and 79. Bay Ridge-86th St is a hub and so is SI Mall and Port Richmond Terminal. Hub to hub routes are forced to have low headways because riders will be waiting for pickup at both terminals therefore pressuring B/O's to move quickly. Instead of proposing ridiculous extensions into NJ, I would reroute some existing routes so that the hub to hub model is followed.

there's no such thing as a hub to hub model/system.... The M15 is part of a grid system, the Bx12 is a part of a modified grid, the B46 is part of a hub & spoke...... I guess the best example of what you're tryna portray, is something like the Q17 that goes from flushing to jamaica; a route that happens to serve 2 major hubs.... but still, I get the overall point you're makin.....

 

the whole hub & spoke thing.... SI's bus system is modeled like that b/c it's centralized around the ferry.... when there's no subways that serve the island, you have to find another measure with which to implement a (bus) network around.... planners back then chose the hub & spoke method....

 

....but I can agree that the hub & spoke the buses are running under, is a factor.... If we're talking about reconfiguring the entire bus system (or even, as engineerboy mentioned, looking at reconfiguring/altering the schedules of the routes), I would be interested in those discussions... far more than this current discussion of extending w/e individual buses all over the place....

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

 

 

 

 

there's no such thing as a hub to hub model/system.... The M15 is part of a grid system, the Bx12 is a part of a modified grid, the B46 is part of a hub & spoke...... I guess the best example of what you're tryna portray, is something like the Q17 that goes from flushing to jamaica; a route that happens to serve 2 major hubs.... but still, I get the overall point you're makin.....

 

the whole hub & spoke thing.... SI's bus system is modeled like that b/c it's centralized around the ferry.... when there's no subways that serve the island, you have to find another measure with which to implement a (bus) network around.... planners back then chose the hub & spoke method....

 

....but I can agree that the hub & spoke the buses are running under, is a factor.... If we're talking about reconfiguring the entire bus system (or even, as engineerboy mentioned, looking at reconfiguring/altering the schedules of the routes), I would be interested in those discussions... far more than this current discussion of extending w/e individual buses all over the place....

There may be no hub to hub system but it's no accident that the routes with high ridership have 2 busy terminals instead of one. SI's hub and spoke doesn't work for me because most routes have only one busy terminal. Instead of calling busy routes hub to hub, I would say they serve good terminals and have favorable street patterns. What we need in SI is more routes like the S53 and S79 where both terminals are in "busy areas" instead of St. George to the boondocks. I would like the help of Via Garibaldi and other SI folks on here in figuring out which routes to look at first.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

There may be no hub to hub system but it's no accident that the routes with high ridership have 2 busy terminals instead of one. SI's hub and spoke doesn't work for me because most routes have only one busy terminal. Instead of calling busy routes hub to hub, I would say they serve good terminals and have favorable street patterns. What we need in SI is more routes like the S53 and S79 where both terminals are in "busy areas" instead of St. George to the boondocks. I would like the help of Via Garibaldi and other SI folks on here in figuring out which routes to look at first.

 

Well I already put in my two cents. Checkmate and I have been in contact w/the about putting limited stop service on the S53 and supposedly our proposals are currently being reviewed. You have to keep in mind that any proposal needs to be sold as cost neutral in these times in order for the to even consider it and that is how I proposed giving the S53 limited stop service.

 

The one extension that I do support is the S54 extension to St. George. I would just extend it to run down Richmond Terrace to give folks another option besides the S40/S90. I however would not combine it with any other line.

 

I'm open to other re-routes, BUT only if they address how service will be improved, INCLUDING reliability.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Then you don't need 3 routes going to NJ if that's the case, and regardless if buses are stuck in traffic then that's not exactly "network coverage".

 

2) Uh actually there are plenty of empty X5s because they run in packs.

 

3) Yeah, well we know what your idea of reasonably crowded is.... :eek: lol

 

4) Brooklyn and Manhattan share far more in common in that they are more transit centric than they are car centric and that's what you're forgetting. NJ meanwhile is far more car centric and less so transit centric. The only ridership that I see NJ attracting is folks who want to go to NJ and can't afford to drive or don't have a car, or can't afford car service and I just don't see the ridership there to support local buses going there like that from Staten Island. Parking is far easier in NJ and it is quicker to drive than to use mass transit there or to get there.

 

5) I don't see how, esp. if it is constantly MIA or late. By the time it shows up the S48s will be packed and people will be late. All it would be doing is picking up folks that couldn't fit on the S48, but wouldn't really be serving as a route that is supposed to cut down commuters' travel times.

 

1) What do you mean "It's not network coverage"? I mean, if the buses are stuck in traffic, they're still serving the people on them.

 

2) Alright.

 

3) If, on average, the buses have less than a seated load during rush hour, that's not good. Obviously, my standards for crowded buses are higher than yours, but I think you'll agree that local buses should have some standees in the middle of rush hour.

 

4) Well, you have to consider 2 things:

 

a) The areas along Forest Avenue have more of an autoless population than the average SI neighborhood. It varies based on which neighborhood you're talking about, but it is a reasonable amount.

 

With the tolls going up for the bridges, I'm sure there will be people looking for cheaper alternatives to driving. Like I said, Newark and New Brunswick are reasonably sized employment centers, and the rail service there is reasonably frequent (plus, parking isn't as easy to find as in other areas)

 

5) I'm not going to resort to the "it would've happened anyway" argument, but if the S98 runs, say every 20 minutes to New Jersey (off-peak), and it shows up late, there aren't going to be a whole bunch of S48s that will be overcrowded. Just 1 or 2 buses, but not a long term delay.

 

1) I'm not questioning demand... and quite frankly, I'm not addressing each, or any of those actual route suggestions.... in regards to the thread, physical route manipulations are secondary

 

2) What I am sayin, for like the umpteenth time is..... The poor local service within Staten Island is far more important an issue than the (not as extensive) service area of SI's local bus network.... If you deny that, especially as a Staten Islander yourself, I gotta pull out the BS card on you...

 

3) lol @ that's not the only issue facing SI bus service.... Don't sit there & honestly tell me you'd rather have buses goin to NJ, over more reliable bus service w/i the borough.....

 

4) Furthermore, It aint that damn hard to get off staten island; you act like it's damn near impossible... like extending buses across state lines is gonna make ppl's commutes SO much easier.....

 

5) Feel free to keep pushing extensions though.... it's not gonna make them anymore important... don't have to take my word for it, just post this thread on a site like SIlive or something, or go to one of those hearings or w/e talkin about:

 

*I have an idea to improve bus service - send the ___, the ____, and the ____ to New Jersey !!!*

 

6) No it is not the only realistic way.... Utterly ridiculous for you to even say that....

 

You can improve service on a route by adjusting the schedule & headways WITHOUT even having to touch where the routes go.... and again, increases in ridership does not automatically equal higher headways.... the change in ridership would have to be almost exponential to even consider a headway decrease out in SI.... This is how I can tell you think there's a grandiose amt. of riders that would end up embarking on intrastate locals.....

 

7) Yeah, but you're bringing up a corridor that has TWO (three if you count the 89) routes running along it - of course each bus on each route aren't gonna be high.... of course you're gonna attempt to look for exceptions b/c you know how ridiculous you're sounding in this discussion so far.... Indicative of someone who knows their argument isn't "sound" enough to stand on its own merit......

 

 

1) Alright.

 

2) Alright.

 

3) Well, obviously, considering the fact that I don't travel to New Jersey myself (outside of a handful of times)

 

4) Like I said, I'm sure there are people out there looking to avoid the tolls, and I'm sure there are at least some people going to places like Newark by transit (which is doable, but would be a lot easier via the Goethals Bridge.)

 

5) Well, 90% of those people don't have a clue about transit, but even so, I can't picture them opposing some sort of extension, especially when it would help bus service within SI (the S98 extension would add some buses along Forest Avenue). (

 

Plus, if I went to a hearing, they'd probably support me because I'm only 16, but that' something else.

 

6) But they are going to be a lot more hesitant to add service when there's a handful of riders on the buses. I mean, you could run the S56 every 5 minutes to provide "good service", but that's just not going to happen if there's no ridership to back it up.

 

Even if there's only 15-20 riders per bus after the extension, at least it's more of an incentive to lower the headways, or at least monitor the buses more carefully.

 

7) But they could reduce the frequency, so even with the combined headway, the buses don't run that frequently. I haven't checked a schedule lately, but the last I checked, the S44 ran every 5 minutes in the AM rush. Add in the S59/S89, and that's a ton of excess service.

 

If the S44 ran every 15 minutes, that would still be excess service, but not that much of it.

 

And that wasn't really an attempt to look for an exception, considering the fact that they're the routes I use the most frequently, but I see your point there.

 

err NO I never said it's the ONLY way to improve service in SI but it is one way that forces headways to improve. The rest is schedule changes and better monitoring of bus routes. The rerouting of X17 will decrease travel time to manhattan while yeilding more ridership which means more service to help X10 and X1. Plus the NJ extensions only apply to S54-57. Along with other improvements. NJ service is just part of the puzzle that would force MTA to relook SI service which will lead to steps to improve SI service in general. Plus the extensions are aimed at getting ppl out of their cars rather than existing commuters who use service within SI to brooklyn and manhattan. Remember there is no NJ bound service to central NJ or major transfer points in NJ. So these extensions have nothing to do with current riders that point I agree with. But the NJ lines would put strain on other routes which will lead to action to help make buses more reliable. Once reliability issues are resolved then NJ bound service is the next step. The effect = more ppl using NJT buses from the transfer points thanks to SI S54-57 connecting SI with NJ. For NJ based problems I have another plan just for that. But unlike my SI ideas it's not as extension heavy more like merger style rather than outright extension. NJ extension alone won't decrease headyways the extra ridership generated from NJ will eventually force the route's headways to decrease resulting in more frequent service.

 

The problem with the X17 reroute is that, unless it's open-door in Bayonne (riders from SI can get off in Bayonne, and riders from Bayonne can get on to replace them to get to Manhattan), you could end up running excess service for no reason.

 

Now that I've caught up w/ the rest of the discussion.....

You're flip flopping here, CheckmateChamp.....

 

^^ which was in response to via's concern/question:

I just don't see how sending a bunch of routes to NJ is supposed to improve reliability and why is there this obsession with increasing ridership by forcing them to go to NJ?? The whole point of the thread was to discuss how bus service could be improved. That doesn't mean that we need to send routes to NJ. It means discussing ways in actually improving the current service we already have FIRST

 

^^ which was in response to via's question:

How can you suddenly suggest that ridership would be so high to NJ that an additional two lines are needed when you're saying that S89 service should be cut back?

==============

....and don't rely on semantics to refute what I just brought up either

 

Well, you've got me there. I should've just stuck to my original point about having high ridership.

 

One poster made a very good point about Staten Island following a hub to spoke system of transportation. If you look at the routes in the other boroughs that generate high ridership they don't follow the hub and spoke model. Routes like the M15, Bx12 and B46 follow a hub to hub model where both terminals get heavy usage in addition to the busy areas in between. If ridership is to be better utilized in Staten Island some routes will need to be rerouted to follow that hub to hub model. It works with the S53 and 79. Bay Ridge-86th St is a hub and so is SI Mall and Port Richmond Terminal. Hub to hub routes are forced to have low headways because riders will be waiting for pickup at both terminals therefore pressuring B/O's to move quickly. Instead of proposing ridiculous extensions into NJ, I would reroute some existing routes so that the hub to hub model is followed.

 

The S79 doesn't have too high ridership when you consider it's length. Plus, ridership is heavier near the Brooklyn end than near the SI Mall end (hardly anybody goes all the way from Brooklyn to the SI Mall)

 

The problem is that there are some routes that barely have one hub, because it's so far away. So they have to settle for sending them to the SI Mall, or Port Richmond, or West Brighton, in a desperate attempt to increase ridership.

 

Well I already put in my two cents. Checkmate and I have been in contact w/the about putting limited stop service on the S53 and supposedly our proposals are currently being reviewed. You have to keep in mind that any proposal needs to be sold as cost neutral in these times in order for the to even consider it and that is how I proposed giving the S53 limited stop service.

 

The one extension that I do support is the S54 extension to St. George. I would just extend it to run down Richmond Terrace to give folks another option besides the S40/S90. I however would not combine it with any other line.

 

I'm open to other re-routes, BUT only if they address how service will be improved, INCLUDING reliability.

 

Unfortunately, the key word is "supposedly". The clock is ticking and they haven't gotten back to me. When I call back in September, it's not going to be a pleasant encounter, I'll tell you that.

 

And I was torn between an extension via Richmond Terrace and a combination with the S42. Obviously, going down Richmond Terrace would be faster and more direct.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) What do you mean "It's not network coverage"? I mean, if the buses are stuck in traffic, they're still serving the people on them.

 

Really? I don't know how they're serving anybody if they're stuck in traffic... I guess you consider MIA X10s as providing network coverage as well.

 

3) If, on average, the buses have less than a seated load during rush hour, that's not good. Obviously, my standards for crowded buses are higher than yours, but I think you'll agree that local buses should have some standees in the middle of rush hour.

 

Says who? You think that all of the buses in Manhattan have more than a seated load during rush hour???

 

4) Well, you have to consider 2 things:

 

a) The areas along Forest Avenue have more of an autoless population than the average SI neighborhood. It varies based on which neighborhood you're talking about, but it is a reasonable amount.

 

With the tolls going up for the bridges, I'm sure there will be people looking for cheaper alternatives to driving. Like I said, Newark and New Brunswick are reasonably sized employment centers, and the rail service there is reasonably frequent (plus, parking isn't as easy to find as in other areas)

 

Yeah? So what? They may be looking for cheaper alternatives, but that doesn't mean that they're going to flock to the buses. You still haven't given me a reason as to what make you so sure of that.

 

5) I'm not going to resort to the "it would've happened anyway" argument, but if the S98 runs, say every 20 minutes to New Jersey (off-peak), and it shows up late, there aren't going to be a whole bunch of S48s that will be overcrowded. Just 1 or 2 buses, but not a long term delay.

 

Based on what information????? It seems to me that you're indirectly saying that on one hand, there's supposed to such a demand for bus service, but on the other hand the demand will be so low that very few buses will be crowded because of delays, so then that proves my point that all of this service to NJ isn't needed to begin with.

 

 

5) Well, 90% of those people don't have a clue about transit, but even so, I can't picture them opposing some sort of extension, especially when it would help bus service within SI (the S98 extension would add some buses along Forest Avenue).

 

What makes you so sure of that??? Adding buses that will be caught in traffic. Who is that supposed to benefit???

 

 

Unfortunately, the key word is "supposedly". The clock is ticking and they haven't gotten back to me. When I call back in September, it's not going to be a pleasant encounter, I'll tell you that.

 

So what are you going to do?? Demand that they implement your proposals? LOL

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Really? I don't know how they're serving anybody if they're stuck in traffic... I guess you consider MIA X10s as providing network coverage as well.

 

2) Says who? You think that all of the buses in Manhattan have more than a seated load during rush hour???

 

3) Yeah? So what? They may be looking for cheaper alternatives, but that doesn't mean that they're going to flock to the buses. You still haven't given me a reason as to what make you so sure of that.

 

4) Based on what information????? It seems to me that you're indirectly saying that on one hand, there's supposed to such a demand for bus service, but on the other hand the demand will be so low that very few buses will be crowded because of delays, so then that proves my point that all of this service to NJ isn't needed to begin with.

 

5) What makes you so sure of that??? Adding buses that will be caught in traffic. Who is that supposed to benefit???

 

6) So what are you going to do?? Demand that they implement your proposals? LOL

 

1) They're serving the people on the buses, aren't they? If they're MIA, that's a different story.

 

2) They have much higher turnover than the SI routes.

 

3) So what's cheaper than taking a bus then? Walking? I mean, considering the relatively low costs of running the service (You're not talking about creating a whole new route), it wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't high ridership to NJ.

 

4) Who said anything about being crowded? It isn't like the S48 where the number of people waiting varies based on time. People going to NJ are going to time themselves for say the 11:00 bus, and if the bus comes at say 11:15, there are still going to pretty much be the same number of people waiting.

 

I mean, when I take the S89, it's pretty much the same riders at each interval. If the bus comes a bit late, it's not going to really be more crowded.

 

Plus, we're talking about S48s being crowded, not S98s being crowded. I'm not denying that the S48 would be crowded, but think about it: The crowds on the S48 vary based on time, right? So the S98 would still help out, but it would help a different interval out.

 

5) See #1.

 

6) You got any better ideas? And no, I'll probably start shouting about how I've waited like a month to get a response. It won't do anything, but it'll let me vent.

 

And none of the politicians have given me any further indication that they were looking at my proposal.

[qjtransitmaster]

1) What do you mean "It's not network coverage"? I mean, if the buses are stuck in traffic, they're still serving the people on them.

 

2) Alright.

 

3) If, on average, the buses have less than a seated load during rush hour, that's not good. Obviously, my standards for crowded buses are higher than yours, but I think you'll agree that local buses should have some standees in the middle of rush hour.

 

4) Well, you have to consider 2 things:

 

a) The areas along Forest Avenue have more of an autoless population than the average SI neighborhood. It varies based on which neighborhood you're talking about, but it is a reasonable amount.

 

With the tolls going up for the bridges, I'm sure there will be people looking for cheaper alternatives to driving. Like I said, Newark and New Brunswick are reasonably sized employment centers, and the rail service there is reasonably frequent (plus, parking isn't as easy to find as in other areas)

 

5) I'm not going to resort to the "it would've happened anyway" argument, but if the S98 runs, say every 20 minutes to New Jersey (off-peak), and it shows up late, there aren't going to be a whole bunch of S48s that will be overcrowded. Just 1 or 2 buses, but not a long term delay.

 

 

 

1) Alright.

 

2) Alright.

 

3) Well, obviously, considering the fact that I don't travel to New Jersey myself (outside of a handful of times)

 

4) Like I said, I'm sure there are people out there looking to avoid the tolls, and I'm sure there are at least some people going to places like Newark by transit (which is doable, but would be a lot easier via the Goethals Bridge.)

 

5) Well, 90% of those people don't have a clue about transit, but even so, I can't picture them opposing some sort of extension, especially when it would help bus service within SI (the S98 extension would add some buses along Forest Avenue). (

 

Plus, if I went to a hearing, they'd probably support me because I'm only 16, but that' something else.

 

6) But they are going to be a lot more hesitant to add service when there's a handful of riders on the buses. I mean, you could run the S56 every 5 minutes to provide "good service", but that's just not going to happen if there's no ridership to back it up.

 

Even if there's only 15-20 riders per bus after the extension, at least it's more of an incentive to lower the headways, or at least monitor the buses more carefully.

 

7) But they could reduce the frequency, so even with the combined headway, the buses don't run that frequently. I haven't checked a schedule lately, but the last I checked, the S44 ran every 5 minutes in the AM rush. Add in the S59/S89, and that's a ton of excess service.

 

If the S44 ran every 15 minutes, that would still be excess service, but not that much of it.

 

And that wasn't really an attempt to look for an exception, considering the fact that they're the routes I use the most frequently, but I see your point there.

 

 

 

The problem with the X17 reroute is that, unless it's open-door in Bayonne (riders from SI can get off in Bayonne, and riders from Bayonne can get on to replace them to get to Manhattan), you could end up running excess service for no reason.

Well, you've got me there. I should've just stuck to my original point about having high ridership.

 

 

 

The S79 doesn't have too high ridership when you consider it's length. Plus, ridership is heavier near the Brooklyn end than near the SI Mall end (hardly anybody goes all the way from Brooklyn to the SI Mall)

 

The problem is that there are some routes that barely have one hub, because it's so far away. So they have to settle for sending them to the SI Mall, or Port Richmond, or West Brighton, in a desperate attempt to increase ridership.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the key word is "supposedly". The clock is ticking and they haven't gotten back to me. When I call back in September, it's not going to be a pleasant encounter, I'll tell you that.

 

And I was torn between an extension via Richmond Terrace and a combination with the S42. Obviously, going down Richmond Terrace would be faster and more direct.

 

The real reason behind the x17 reroute is to decrease travel time between SI and manhattan that excess service is just a side effect an unintended consequence. Yes it will be open door at off-peak hours only and weekends but during rush hour it will NOT stop in bayonne but would pass through bayonne and nothing more there would be some drop offs in hoboken though. I admit some of my plans create excess service but that is just an accident a side effect thats secondary.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) They're serving the people on the buses, aren't they? If they're MIA, that's a different story.

 

Yeah, but they're not serving anybody else that they should be serving if they're stuck in traffic, including the people on the bus.

 

2) They have much higher turnover than the SI routes.

 

So what?

 

3) So what's cheaper than taking a bus then? Walking? I mean, considering the relatively low costs of running the service (You're not talking about creating a whole new route), it wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't high ridership to NJ.

 

Carpooling for one.

 

4) Who said anything about being crowded? It isn't like the S48 where the number of people waiting varies based on time. People going to NJ are going to time themselves for say the 11:00 bus, and if the bus comes at say 11:15, there are still going to pretty much be the same number of people waiting.

 

I mean, when I take the S89, it's pretty much the same riders at each interval. If the bus comes a bit late, it's not going to really be more crowded.

 

Plus, we're talking about S48s being crowded, not S98s being crowded. I'm not denying that the S48 would be crowded, but think about it: The crowds on the S48 vary based on time, right? So the S98 would still help out, but it would help a different interval out.

 

And you don't think that folks will be looking for alternatives if the S98 f*cks up?

 

6) You got any better ideas? And no, I'll probably start shouting about how I've waited like a month to get a response. It won't do anything, but it'll let me vent.

 

Yeah, be patient and wait.

 

And none of the politicians have given me any further indication that they were looking at my proposal.

 

Well what about Cusick? You said he estatic when replying to you... The others I wouldn't expect to hear anything from because there aren't a ton of folks writing in like they did in Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights and so on wanting their X37 and X38 back. In that case it was clear that a whole bunch of folks were pissed and wanted action, which forced Golden to act even if he was hesitant, especially since he had the communities behind him. :cool: Now we just gotta fight to get weekend express bus service back, which is an ongoing process.

[checkmatechamp13]

The real reason behind the x17 reroute is to decrease travel time between SI and manhattan that excess service is just a side effect an unintended consequence. Yes it will be open door at off-peak hours only and weekends but during rush hour it will NOT stop in bayonne but would pass through bayonne and nothing more there would be some drop offs in hoboken though. I admit some of my plans create excess service but that is just an accident a side effect thats secondary.

 

Hoboken is unnecessary. That's what the S89->HBLR is for. Plus, it could get caught in a lot of traffic while it's in Hoboken.

[qjtransitmaster]

Hoboken is unnecessary. That's what the S89->HBLR is for. Plus, it could get caught in a lot of traffic while it's in Hoboken.

 

again off-peak only. So MTA won't have to add to S89 but instead use existing buses. It's a side effect of the rerouting. Plus the hoboken traffic is still not bad enough to make X17 slower than using the gowanus nightmare. Using I-78 is quicker no matter which way you look at it period. Besides the hoboken stops are in different parts of hoboken much different from where hblr goes. Besides the transfer is tedious. except rush hr when all x17 can carry is manhattan ppl anyway. again it's unintended consequence.

[B35 via Church]

JW72093, I'll get to your post later.....

 

 

 

1) Well, obviously, considering the fact that I don't travel to New Jersey myself (outside of a handful of times)

 

2) Like I said, I'm sure there are people out there looking to avoid the tolls, and I'm sure there are at least some people going to places like Newark by transit (which is doable, but would be a lot easier via the Goethals Bridge.)

 

3 Well, 90% of those people don't have a clue about transit, but even so, I can't picture them opposing some sort of extension, especially when it would help bus service within SI (the S98 extension would add some buses along Forest Avenue). (

 

Plus, if I went to a hearing, they'd probably support me because I'm only 16, but that' something else.

 

4) But they are going to be a lot more hesitant to add service when there's a handful of riders on the buses. I mean, you could run the S56 every 5 minutes to provide "good service", but that's just not going to happen if there's no ridership to back it up.

 

Even if there's only 15-20 riders per bus after the extension, at least it's more of an incentive to lower the headways, or at least monitor the buses more carefully.

 

5) But they could reduce the frequency, so even with the combined headway, the buses don't run that frequently. I haven't checked a schedule lately, but the last I checked, the S44 ran every 5 minutes in the AM rush. Add in the S59/S89, and that's a ton of excess service.

 

If the S44 ran every 15 minutes, that would still be excess service, but not that much of it.

 

And that wasn't really an attempt to look for an exception, considering the fact that they're the routes I use the most frequently, but I see your point there.

 

1) Wait a second....

So what are you using as a basis to all this supposed latent ridership b/w SI & NJ then....

 

2) Sure, but none of that has anything to do w/ intra SI service....

 

3) They wouldn't support you because of your age (that's like implying, you can conjure up any idea & ppl. will side w/ you b/c you're underage).... some may not be as hard on you b/c you're underage; not exactly the same thing..... and FYI, adults these days are talkin to kids, as they would to other adults... times have changed....

 

Anyway, 90% of those people may not have a clue about transit, but I bet you 100% of those people know what they need & want when it comes to transit....

 

4) You're doing the same thing w/ this that FG used to do in his arguments.... The exception does not swallow the rule... I'm not advocating that drastic an increase in service on that low a ridership route; from 30 min headways to 5 min headways.... Like I said before, every route isn't designed to carry heavy; well aware of that... I'm sure you heard of what some ppl. like to refer to as "coverage" routes....

 

5) Reducing service is one way of doing it.... Altering the schedules of one (most likely the 59, since that doesn't go to the ferry) of the routes so that buses arrive a little more uniformly, is another way of doing it.....

[qjtransitmaster]

JW72093, I'll get to your post later.....

 

 

 

 

 

1) Wait a second....

So what are you using as a basis to all this supposed latent ridership b/w SI & NJ then....

 

2) Sure, but none of that has anything to do w/ intra SI service....

 

3) They wouldn't support you because of your age (that's like implying, you can conjure up any idea & ppl. will side w/ you b/c you're underage).... some may not be as hard on you b/c you're underage; not exactly the same thing..... and FYI, adults these days are talkin to kids, as they would to other adults... times have changed....

 

Anyway, 90% of those people may not have a clue about transit, but I bet you 100% of those people know what they need & want when it comes to transit....

 

4) You're doing the same thing w/ this that FG used to do in his arguments.... The exception does not swallow the rule... I'm not advocating that drastic an increase in service on that low a ridership route; from 30 min headways to 5 min headways.... Like I said before, every route isn't designed to carry heavy; well aware of that... I'm sure you heard of what some ppl. like to refer to as "coverage" routes....

 

5) Reducing service is one way of doing it.... Altering the schedules of one (most likely the 59, since that doesn't go to the ferry) of the routes so that buses arrive a little more uniformly, is another way of doing it.....

 

good I know the chance of making s55/56 5 min headways is slim or completely unpredictable. That was why My idea suggested they extend to major transfer points in NJ. This way we can see it's true potential and its ridership would increase but the increase in ridership would determine the headways that are really needed as a result service would be adjusted. If ridership increase warrents 10 min service then so be it. But if the ridership warrents 20 min service then that is what would be offered as a routine service adjustment. The extensions would basically create a wait and see senario. The extensions would expose the S54-57 routes' true selves and reveal the demand for SI-NJ service plus it would reduce the headway problems that exist with S57 and S54 but for S55/56 its more of a ok now that ridership has increased how much service is really needed??? Plus the schedule of S56 or 55 the one that goes to cheesequake would be timed with several NJ bound academy trips to different parts of NJ.

However NJT's 60 would have helped with speed to parts of NJ but sadly it never came about.:cry: Owell it is what it is I had huge trouble figuring out NJ till now.

[qjtransitmaster]

JW72093, I'll get to your post later.....

 

 

 

 

 

1) Wait a second....

So what are you using as a basis to all this supposed latent ridership b/w SI & NJ then....

 

2) Sure, but none of that has anything to do w/ intra SI service....

 

3) They wouldn't support you because of your age (that's like implying, you can conjure up any idea & ppl. will side w/ you b/c you're underage).... some may not be as hard on you b/c you're underage; not exactly the same thing..... and FYI, adults these days are talkin to kids, as they would to other adults... times have changed....

 

Anyway, 90% of those people may not have a clue about transit, but I bet you 100% of those people know what they need & want when it comes to transit....

 

4) You're doing the same thing w/ this that FG used to do in his arguments.... The exception does not swallow the rule... I'm not advocating that drastic an increase in service on that low a ridership route; from 30 min headways to 5 min headways.... Like I said before, every route isn't designed to carry heavy; well aware of that... I'm sure you heard of what some ppl. like to refer to as "coverage" routes....

 

5) Reducing service is one way of doing it.... Altering the schedules of one (most likely the 59, since that doesn't go to the ferry) of the routes so that buses arrive a little more uniformly, is another way of doing it.....

 

ok but don't the cary and henderson ave segments warrent 5 min service or at least from S94???

[B35 via Church]

There may be no hub to hub system but it's no accident that the routes with high ridership have 2 busy terminals instead of one. SI's hub and spoke doesn't work for me because most routes have only one busy terminal. Instead of calling busy routes hub to hub, I would say they serve good terminals and have favorable street patterns. What we need in SI is more routes like the S53 and S79 where both terminals are in "busy areas" instead of St. George to the boondocks. I would like the help of Via Garibaldi and other SI folks on here in figuring out which routes to look at first.

 

I said I got the point.... no one's sayin anything about an "accident"....

All I was tryna get across there was, routes aren't constructed that way.... You have grid routes, modified grids, hub & spokes.... Our bus system is an eclectic mix of all 3 (although manhattan routes run under a grid system)......

 

We don't have any point to point local routes in the 5 boroughs (IINM, the x80 & the x81 are the only point to point routes we have), so each and every route we have, are what they call "fixed" routes...

-----

 

 

as far as where do we start....

 

1) well, a good place to start is finding a way to mix in midday LTD service for the routes that have LTD service... I understand the LTD's out there were instantiated to quicken riders' commutes to/from the ferry during the rush.... but it doesn't (or shouldn't) mean that LTD's have to be only for ferry riders....

 

(this is pretty much why I despise the B49 LTD... it was created to make kingsborough students rides quicker... and worse, these only run in the AM)

 

1b?) designating at least ONE point to point route on SI, that either goes straight from ETC to the Ferry, or from SI mall to the Ferry..... something like a hybrid commuter route (I guess you can call it).... these would mainly be for the commuters that (for w/e reason) don't want to put up w/ the SIR, and/or want to exercise another option outside of taking the lower manhattan expresses.... of course, the pt. to pt. route would run rush hrs only...

 

2) rescheduling routes as to where people aren't just missing the ferry, or just missing their bus, having came off the ferry.... that's another big problem on Staten Island.....

 

3) I understand it's a borough-wide problem but.... addressing the worst of, the least reliable routes first.... and what specific reasons (i.e road conditions, traffic conditions, bunching, etc) they are as such.... this is where I'm gonna need via's, checkmate's, LRG's, and the rest of the SI crew here's knowledge & help....

 

4) this is probably the most drastic (and least realistic) option, but reconfiguring the entire SI network.... pretty much meaning (outside of all the north shore routes), deciding which mid-island routes & south shore routes should serve the ferry, and which should run to some other destination (terminal) w/i SI, with a link to the ferry coming by way of an xfer to the SIR, or a north shore route......

 

as opposed to the current St. George hub & spoke configuration....

 

note: this may involve altering physical routes

 

 

can't think of anymore options right now....

whichever option any one of you want to entertain (speak on), I'm all for it....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I said I got the point.... no one's sayin anything about an "accident"....

All I was tryna get across there was, routes aren't constructed that way.... You have grid routes, modified grids, hub & spokes.... Our bus system is an eclectic mix of all 3 (although manhattan routes run under a grid system)......

 

We don't have any point to point local routes in the 5 boroughs (IINM, the x80 & the x81 are the only point to point routes we have), so each and every route we have, are what they call "fixed" routes...

-----

 

 

as far as where do we start....

 

1) well, a good place to start is finding a way to mix in midday LTD service for the routes that have LTD service... I understand the LTD's out there were instantiated to quicken riders' commutes to/from the ferry during the rush.... but it doesn't (or shouldn't) mean that LTD's have to be only for ferry riders....

 

(this is pretty much why I despise the B49 LTD... it was created to make kingsborough students rides quicker... and worse, these only run in the AM)

 

1b?) designating at least ONE point to point route on SI, that either goes straight from ETC to the Ferry, or from SI mall to the Ferry..... something like a hybrid commuter route (I guess you can call it).... these would mainly be for the commuters that (for w/e reason) don't want to put up w/ the SIR, and/or want to exercise another option outside of taking the lower manhattan expresses.... of course, the pt. to pt. route would run rush hrs only...

 

Agreed.

 

2) rescheduling routes as to where people aren't just missing the ferry, or just missing their bus, having came off the ferry.... that's another big problem on Staten Island.....

 

I agree and with the traffic conditions it doesn't help matters. This is one thing that I feel that the has gotten worse at because I can remember on the S48 when we had buses that you could take that would allow you to make the ferry if say there was a delay, but then they started cutting buses and making the travel times to the ferry extremely tight. :mad:

 

3) I understand it's a borough-wide problem but.... addressing the worst of, the least reliable routes first.... and what specific reasons (i.e road conditions, traffic conditions, bunching, etc) they are as such.... this is where I'm gonna need via's, checkmate's, LRG's, and the rest of the SI crew here's knowledge & help....

 

Well one of the main problems that make improving service difficult is the narrow and meandering roads on Staten Island. Manhattan has more of a grid, but Staten Island doesn't so that means buses generally have to meander even on streets like Forest Avenue and traffic and bottle necking is a problem as well, particularly since the streets are so narrow in most sections.

 

Even a street like Hylan Blvd which is somewhat wide suffers from terrible traffic because it is THE main corridor in that area of Staten Island, so alternate routes would require going on to meandering narrow streets and these things also worsen the bunching problems on lines like the S78 and S79.

 

4) this is probably the most drastic (and least realistic) option, but reconfiguring the entire SI network.... pretty much meaning (outside of all the north shore routes), deciding which mid-island routes & south shore routes should serve the ferry, and which should run to some other destination (terminal) w/i SI, with a link to the ferry coming by way of an xfer to the SIR, or a north shore route......

 

as opposed to the current St. George hub & spoke configuration....

 

note: this may involve altering physical routes

 

 

can't think of anymore options right now....

whichever option any one of you want to entertain (speak on), I'm all for it....

 

You can alter some routes, but again, because there are so many narrow streets and streets that basically lead to dead ends, you can't alter too much.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Yeah, but they're not serving anybody else that they should be serving if they're stuck in traffic, including the people on the bus.

 

2) So what?

 

3) Carpooling for one.

 

4) And you don't think that folks will be looking for alternatives if the S98 f*cks up?

 

5) Yeah, be patient and wait. B)

 

6) Well what about Cusick? You said he estatic when replying to you... The others I wouldn't expect to hear anything from because there aren't a ton of folks writing in like they did in Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights and so on wanting their X37 and X38 back. In that case it was clear that a whole bunch of folks were pissed and wanted action, which forced Golden to act even if he was hesitant, especially since he had the communities behind him. :cool: Now we just gotta fight to get weekend express bus service back, which is an ongoing process. B)

 

For some reason, your post didn't appear last night when I typed my response at 19:10. :confused: Anyway...

 

1) By your logic, there shouldn't be any routes crossing bridges because they could get stuck in traffic. In any case, on the days when they aren't stuck in traffic, they're definitely helping riders.

 

And that's why overall, better dispatching techniques need to be applied. If buses are getting stuck in a ton of traffic, maybe they shouldn't send so many buses out there on that day. Or maybe if say the Goethals is backed up, send any of the other buses via the Bayonne Bridge (it very rarely gets backed up)

 

2) So the ridership is higher per mile. It costs more money per passenger to run the SI routes partially because of the lower turnover. The S59/S89 cost almost $4 per person, and overall, they are roughly as crowded as the 5th Avenue routes. However, because of the higher turnover, they only cost about $1.50 per person.

 

3) By your logic, the S89 should get very little ridership because people can carpool.

 

4) Like I said, better dispatching techniques should be implemented (and if buses are rerouted, passengers should be informed of that. For example, if the S98 is rerouted via the Bayonne Bridge, riders in Mariners' Harbor should be informed). Plus, the S48 is a built-in alternative.

 

5) Well, I am being patient, but I don't want to wait too long because they could forget.

 

6) Well, I'm not a community: I'm one person and the only other people who are truly backing me up are you and Santa Fe via Willow.

 

And I can't even reach him (Cusick) to follow up. I can't find the time to visit his office, and I don't even know if he'll be there. His assistants are completely useless.

 

1) Wait a second....

So what are you using as a basis to all this supposed latent ridership b/w SI & NJ then....

 

2) Sure, but none of that has anything to do w/ intra SI service....

 

3) They wouldn't support you because of your age (that's like implying, you can conjure up any idea & ppl. will side w/ you b/c you're underage).... some may not be as hard on you b/c you're underage; not exactly the same thing..... and FYI, adults these days are talkin to kids, as they would to other adults... times have changed....

 

Anyway, 90% of those people may not have a clue about transit, but I bet you 100% of those people know what they need & want when it comes to transit....

 

4) You're doing the same thing w/ this that FG used to do in his arguments.... The exception does not swallow the rule... I'm not advocating that drastic an increase in service on that low a ridership route; from 30 min headways to 5 min headways.... Like I said before, every route isn't designed to carry heavy; well aware of that... I'm sure you heard of what some ppl. like to refer to as "coverage" routes....

 

5) Reducing service is one way of doing it.... Altering the schedules of one (most likely the 59, since that doesn't go to the ferry) of the routes so that buses arrive a little more uniformly, is another way of doing it.....

 

1) Just because I don't go to NJ often doesn't mean that other people don't. And the few times when I did have to go to NJ (usually Newark and/or Newark Airport), going through Elizabeth would've been faster than going through Bayonne.

 

2) But like I said, that's not the only issue. Intra-SI service (as well as connecting to the ferry) is the biggest issue, but there are other issues.

 

3) Alright, but what makes you think that they wouldn't want service to Elizabeth and Perth Amboy?

 

4) Well, I obviously wasn't suggesting to run the S56 on 5 minute headways, but yeah I see what you're saying. But even if the route wasn't meant to have high ridership, I see nothing wrong with trying to increase the ridership to a reasonable level.

 

5) That's more of an issue in the middays and PM rush, not really in the AM rush. I mean, the buses pretty much arrive every 3-4 minutes evenly, and the only one with significant loads at that time is the S89. (Later, around 07:30, you start seeing buses that are more crowded)

 

ok but don't the cary and henderson ave segments warrent 5 min service or at least from S94???

 

No way. Henderson Avenue is flanked by Snug Harbor on one side and a bunch of nice big houses on the other. As Via Garibaldi likes to say, "affluent people don't like local buses". There are plenty of times when the S44 is pretty much like the S94 in that area (as in, the buses only stop at Bement Avenue, Bard Avenue, Lafayette Avenue, and occassionally Clinton Street)

 

Now Cary Avenue is a different story. The local stops usually only see 1-2 people per stop, but the limited stops see higher ridership.

 

Still, Richmond Avenue doesn't need all of that service, and even if Cary Avenue needs it (I doubt it needs that much service from my experiences there), you could short-turn some buses at Jewett Avenue.

 

1) well, a good place to start is finding a way to mix in midday LTD service for the routes that have LTD service... I understand the LTD's out there were instantiated to quicken riders' commutes to/from the ferry during the rush.... but it doesn't (or shouldn't) mean that LTD's have to be only for ferry riders....

 

(this is pretty much why I despise the B49 LTD... it was created to make kingsborough students rides quicker... and worse, these only run in the AM)

 

1b?) designating at least ONE point to point route on SI, that either goes straight from ETC to the Ferry, or from SI mall to the Ferry..... something like a hybrid commuter route (I guess you can call it).... these would mainly be for the commuters that (for w/e reason) don't want to put up w/ the SIR, and/or want to exercise another option outside of taking the lower manhattan expresses.... of course, the pt. to pt. route would run rush hrs only...

 

2) rescheduling routes as to where people aren't just missing the ferry, or just missing their bus, having came off the ferry.... that's another big problem on Staten Island.....

 

3) I understand it's a borough-wide problem but.... addressing the worst of, the least reliable routes first.... and what specific reasons (i.e road conditions, traffic conditions, bunching, etc) they are as such.... this is where I'm gonna need via's, checkmate's, LRG's, and the rest of the SI crew here's knowledge & help....

 

4) this is probably the most drastic (and least realistic) option, but reconfiguring the entire SI network.... pretty much meaning (outside of all the north shore routes), deciding which mid-island routes & south shore routes should serve the ferry, and which should run to some other destination (terminal) w/i SI, with a link to the ferry coming by way of an xfer to the SIR, or a north shore route......

 

as opposed to the current St. George hub & spoke configuration....

 

 

1) Agreed. That was what my S98 plan (Elizabeth-St. George) would've done as well, but they should at least have regular (Arlington-St. George) S98 service off-peak, just to see how it works out and to see if there are a few more routes that could use it.

 

1b) Alright. Maybe, since there would be a lot of (what I like to call) park-and-ride-type commuters riding, there should be a slightly higher fare (maybe 50 cents higher than the regular buses)

 

2) Agreed.

 

3) It's pretty comes down to better dispatching, so yeah, agreed.

 

4) Disagree. That's pretty much how it works now, and the routes that don't serve St. George or Brooklyn are all low-ridership routes. I know you feel that not all routes are meant to have high ridership, but if you want to look at it from a passenger's perspective, they aren't being taken to where they want to go.

 

1) Well one of the main problems that make improving service difficult is the narrow and meandering roads on Staten Island. Manhattan has more of a grid, but Staten Island doesn't so that means buses generally have to meander even on streets like Forest Avenue and traffic and bottle necking is a problem as well, particularly since the streets are so narrow in most sections.

 

2) Even a street like Hylan Blvd which is somewhat wide suffers from terrible traffic because it is THE main corridor in that area of Staten Island, so alternate routes would require going on to meandering narrow streets and these things also worsen the bunching problems on lines like the S78 and S79.

 

3) You can alter some routes, but again, because there are so many narrow streets and streets that basically lead to deadends, you can't alter too much.

 

1) The North Shore does, to an extent. Forest Avenue is pretty straightforward, as are Richmond Terrace and Castleton Avenue. It isn't a perfect grid, but it's a grid.

 

The South Shore obviously just has routes on the biggest street the MTA can find in the neighborhood.

 

2) On streets like that, there's not much that can be done except for putting bus lanes down.

 

3) Off the top of my head, there's no way to really alter some routes (in terms of moving them a few blocks in either direction to avoid traffic). The only one I can think of would be to move the S57 from Decker Avenue to Port Richmond Avenue.

[B35 via Church]

1) Just because I don't go to NJ often doesn't mean that other people don't. And the few times when I did have to go to NJ (usually Newark and/or Newark Airport), going through Elizabeth would've been faster than going through Bayonne.

 

2) But like I said, that's not the only issue. Intra-SI service (as well as connecting to the ferry) is the biggest issue, but there are other issues.

 

3) Alright, but what makes you think that they wouldn't want service to Elizabeth and Perth Amboy?

 

4) Well, I obviously wasn't suggesting to run the S56 on 5 minute headways, but yeah I see what you're saying. But even if the route wasn't meant to have high ridership, I see nothing wrong with trying to increase the ridership to a reasonable level.

 

5) That's more of an issue in the middays and PM rush, not really in the AM rush. I mean, the buses pretty much arrive every 3-4 minutes evenly, and the only one with significant loads at that time is the S89. (Later, around 07:30, you start seeing buses that are more crowded)

 

1) That was kinda like a trick question... you were supposed to say, you don't believe there is that much latent ridership b/w SI-NJ......

 

Mentioning the obvious statement about, just b/c you don't go to NJ doesn't mean that other people don't, tells me that you really don't have an answer to the question.... It's ok though, I figured goin in that you wouldn't... just wanted to see where your mind was at here.....

 

 

2) Yes, I Know that's not the only issue.....

 

 

3) What's funny about this is, I never disagreed with any specific SI-NJ route extension in here.... So I don't know how you came to the conclusion enough to even bother askin this question....

 

I don't think SI-ers don't want service to those areas in question.....

 

I mean, you bring this up after you already conceded to my point earlier, where I said:

"I'm not questioning demand... and quite frankly, I'm not addressing each, or any of those actual route suggestions.... in regards to the thread, physical route manipulations are secondary"

 

 

4) Not implying that ridership on the lower riddden routes should be left as is.... Yeah you can (you should) attempt to boost ridership - that's ultimately the aim of this entire thread, so why would I see anything wrong with attempting to boost ridership.... lol....

 

My gripe with you in this entire discussion is that the gist of your commentary is regarding extensions.... You seem to think that's (the whole infeasibility of gettin out of SI thing) the primary solution/issue, whereas I don't..... That's what I'm seeing as wrong....

 

I honestly think you blurted out short turns a while back just to try to shut me up... For someone that's as intelligent as you come across, for the life of me, I don't know why you refuse to see the forest for the trees, so to speak..... as via repeatedly tried to get you to understand, extending routes all over the place in an attempt to boost ridership means nothin if the routes themselves are underperforming for the reasons that they are.... You'd simply be causing more problems than you are solving.....

 

 

5) cool beans.....

 

 

 

I know you feel that not all routes are meant to have high ridership, but if you want to look at it from a passenger's perspective, they aren't being taken to where they want to go.

umm, ok ?

 

you didn't refute my statement in sayin that..... to be honest, I don't know what you were tryna prove there....

 

That's like me tellin you, water does contain oxygen.... you come along & say, well water contains hydrogen too !!

[B35 via Church]

.....That's pretty much how it works now, and the routes that don't serve St. George or Brooklyn are all low-ridership routes.

 

Just want to clarify somethin here, in case there's a misunderstanding....

 

the notion would be to have less buses serving the ferry.... instead of the SI bus network being one ultimate hub & spoke system, it would be a (smaller) hub & spoke system, with (more) modified grid routes w/i the network...

 

connectivity b/w buses is also a problem (Queens, to an extent.... and suburban routes in general also tend to fall victim to this.... right QJT... lol...) ; reconfiguring the network would be an attempt to increase (and encourage) bus ridership throughout the borough, instead of simply providing a plethora of one seat rides to/from the ferry.....

 

That is far from the way it works now.....

[checkmatechamp13]

1) That was kinda like a trick question... you were supposed to say, you don't believe there is that much latent ridership b/w SI-NJ......

 

Mentioning the obvious statement about, just b/c you don't go to NJ doesn't mean that other people don't, tells me that you really don't have an answer to the question.... It's ok though, I figured goin in that you wouldn't... just wanted to see where your mind was at here.....

 

2) Yes, I Know that's not the only issue.....

 

3) What's funny about this is, I never disagreed with any specific SI-NJ route extension in here.... So I don't know how you came to the conclusion enough to even bother askin this question....

 

I don't think SI-ers don't want service to those areas in question.....

 

I mean, you bring this up after you already conceded to my point earlier, where I said:

"I'm not questioning demand... and quite frankly, I'm not addressing each, or any of those actual route suggestions.... in regards to the thread, physical route manipulations are secondary"

 

4) Not implying that ridership on the lower riddden routes should be left as is.... Yeah you can (you should) attempt to boost ridership - that's ultimately the aim of this entire thread, so why would I see anything wrong with attempting to boost ridership.... lol....

 

My gripe with you in this entire discussion is that the gist of your commentary is regarding extensions.... You seem to think that's (the whole infeasibility of gettin out of SI thing) the primary solution/issue, whereas I don't..... That's what I'm seeing as wrong....

 

I honestly think you blurted out short turns a while back just to try to shut me up... For someone that's as intelligent as you come across, for the life of me, I don't know why you refuse to see the forest for the trees, so to speak..... as via repeatedly tried to get you to understand, extending routes all over the place in an attempt to boost ridership means nothin if the routes themselves are underperforming for the reasons that they are.... You'd simply be causing more problems than you are solving.....

 

 

1) Well, I'm not good in reading between the lines, or anything, and even if there isn't latent ridership between SI and NJ, the buses are still providing service to people.

 

I remember reading a website that shows where a lot of SI residents work. I think it was the West Shore Light Rail Phase II Study, but I'll have to check. It isn't an insignificant number. Obviously, not everybody would take transit, but I'm sure some people would.

 

2) Alright.

 

3) So then what are we debating here? The fact that it's not the primary issue? In that case, we've both agreed.

 

4) Alright.

 

Just want to clarify somethin here, in case there's a misunderstanding....

 

the notion would be to have less buses serving the ferry.... instead of the SI bus network being one ultimate hub & spoke system, it would be a (smaller) hub & spoke system, with (more) modified grid routes w/i the network...

 

connectivity b/w buses is also a problem (Queens, to an extent.... and suburban routes in general also tend to fall victim to this.... right QJT... lol...) ; reconfiguring the network would be an attempt to increase (and encourage) bus ridership throughout the borough, instead of simply providing a plethora of one seat rides to/from the ferry.....

 

That is far from the way it works now.....

 

But that's the problem: There aren't any real "hubs" besides St. George and Bay Ridge that can attract enough riders. Think about it: 81% of SI households own cars (and I have stats to back that up B)). In order to attract significant ridership, transit needs to be able to compete with the car.

 

Now where in the South Shore can you realistically route a bus to? The SI Mall has a bunch of parking lots with free parking, as do the ETC and Bricktown. The same thing in the Mid-Island: You have CSI and a few shopping districts, but people aren't going to be bothered waiting for a bus (and paying for it to boot) when there's free and easy parking available.

 

And transferring is a big deterrant to ridership, especially on high headways. Even if the MTA tried to guarantee those connections, people would still be wary of having to transfer, knowing that they risk a 15-20 minute wait if something goes wrong. It would create a mini-St. George scenario, where you have people looking at their watches and hoping they didn't miss the connection.

 

Now connectivity in the other sense (having wide gaps in service) is an issue that I agree needs to be resolved. For example, something should run down the WSE to better connect the North and South Shores (and it shouldn't be a route like the S46: It should be designed for that purpose, which would be something like my S82 proposal)

[qjtransitmaster]

Just want to clarify somethin here, in case there's a misunderstanding....

 

the notion would be to have less buses serving the ferry.... instead of the SI bus network being one ultimate hub & spoke system, it would be a (smaller) hub & spoke system, with (more) modified grid routes w/i the network...

 

connectivity b/w buses is also a problem (Queens, to an extent.... and suburban routes in general also tend to fall victim to this.... right QJT... lol...) ; reconfiguring the network would be an attempt to increase (and encourage) bus ridership throughout the borough, instead of simply providing a plethora of one seat rides to/from the ferry.....

 

That is far from the way it works now.....

 

well said lack of connectivity kills ridership as suburban ppl have less tolerance for unreliable service than urbanites. SI needs a modified grid system that my plans create the reason I chose S54-57 was not exactly to desparately add ridership but was beacause they are the closest to NJ and don't serve brooklyn or St george therefore are the most suitable to head out to NJ ridership increases that lead to increased service is merly just side effects. That is what all my plans try to solve LACK OF CONNECTIVITY!!!!!!!!!!! That was why I suggested the Q31 and Q79 extensions was to increase connectivity between adjacent neighborhoods and regional connectivity for long distance ppl to an extent as a side effect. It's why I came up with minor adjustments and few reroutes

[checkmatechamp13]

well said lack of connectivity kills ridership as suburban ppl have less tolerance for unreliable service than urbanites. SI needs a modified grid system that my plans create the reason I chose S54-57 was not exactly to desparately add ridership but was beacause they are the closest to NJ and don't serve brooklyn or St george therefore are the most suitable to head out to NJ ridership increases that lead to increased service is merly just side effects. That is what all my plans try to solve LACK OF CONNECTIVITY!!!!!!!!!!! That was why I suggested the Q31 and Q79 extensions was to increase connectivity between adjacent neighborhoods and regional connectivity for long distance ppl to an extent as a side effect. It's why I came up with minor adjustments and few reroutes

 

It's not just less tolerance: With lower frequencies, missing a connection is much worse in the suburbs.

 

I found this chart showing Census data regarding commutation patterns for 2000: http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting/index.html

 

For people who live in Staten Island, the number of people who commute to the following counties are as follows (I threw in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Hudson Co, and Staten Island in as a comparison, since we know they're relatively large employment centers):

Essex Co. NJ 1,621

Hudson Co. NJ 3,017

Mercer Co. NJ 251

Middlesex Co. NJ 2,929

Monmouth Co. NJ 586

Somerset Co. NJ 582

Union Co. NJ 1,486

New York Co. NY 53,249

Kings Co. NY 29,425

Richmond Co. NY 86,197

 

And, since Bergen County can be accessed by transferring at Hoboken, I'll add that in:

Bergen Co. NJ 1,081

 

Obviously, these numbers have probably grown, as SI's population has increased by 5.6% since 2000, but the thing to take away is that the number of people working in Essex and Union Counties is roughly the same as the number of people working in Bergen County, meaning that a route to Elizabeth could see decent ridership.

 

Middlesex County also has a lot of commuters from SI (almost as much as Hudson), so again, a route over there should do decently.

 

By the way, QJT, that map might help you with any regional route changes you plan in other areas.