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

[checkmatechamp13]

I found some data regarding commute patterns for SI residents (keep in mind that this is from 2000, and I'm sure there have been some changes. For example, Hudson County has grown significantly as businesses shifted from Lower Manhattan after 9/11). See here: http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting/index.html

 

By the way, QJT, you might want to take some of these numbers into consideration when you make any plans for regional routes (I think they have every county in the U.S listed, so I'm not just talking about NY).

 

I listed Bergen, Hudson, NY, Kings, and Richmond County as comparisons.

 

Bergen Co. NJ 1,081

Essex Co. NJ 1,621

Hudson Co. NJ 3,017

Hunterdon Co. NJ 73

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

 

So a route over the Goethals and Outerbridge should see decent ridership. Back in 2000, Middlesex County had almost as many commuters from SI as Hudson County. And Essex and Union County together had a comparable amount as Hudson County. Obviously, Hudson is the most transit-centric of all of the counties, but it shows that there is a market for basic transit service over the other 2 spans.

[B35 via Church]

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

 

So then why are you asking me about my thoughts of Staten Islanders not wanting service to Elizabeth & Perth Amboy ?

 

you're still pushing this NJ BS.....

 

 

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)

 

p1 - Not disputing any of this.... However, think about where riders are emanating from, before they even get to a hub....

 

hint: Their Homes B)

 

...and I don't need you to further attempt to prove to me that SI is car centric.... that much is well known.

 

 

p2 - again w/ the jumping to the extremes....

 

west of richmond av, no where... I wouldn't have a plethora of local buses out there anyway.... express bus country !

 

east of richmond av, end them at hylan blvd itself....

(similar to what LIB's do at Merrick rd; there's nothin of interest really along Merrick that draws huge ridership (outside of the LIRR at certain stations).... but buses end there b/c there's really no need to go further south)

 

 

p3 - Checkmate, that's the point... why the hell would you encourage transferring if buses are running on high headways? That's like encouraging xfers, NOW out in SI... The idea is to do so on lower headways.... You have to get riders wanting to ride their primary routes first...

 

So I have to disagree with that general statement... The Bronx, Brooklyn, and yes, even subway centric manhattan does well w/ riders xferring b/w buses.... riders don't mind xferring if the routes are frequent, reliable, & timely (enough)....

 

 

p4 - That's not what I mean by connectivity.... you're goin back to the whole service area argument again..... I'm actually talkin about bus-to-bus travel; in other words, a transfer.... QJT even picked up on that point.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

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.

 

No, by my logic, there would be something put into place to avoid buses being delayed, which is what you keep dismissing. If the goal is attract ridership then you need to make sure that the service will be reliable and quick, and there is really no benefit of buses sitting in traffic if you're looking to attract certain riders that would generally not be using the buses. Let's fact it, if you want the service to be used, some sort of new ridership base is probably going to be needed to some extent. Your proposal is the equivalent of sending express buses over the Gowanus with no HOV lane. You repeatedly keep overlooking and dismissing how to address the fact that these delays would cause problems and turn off riders. ANY service that faces a ton of delays will be shunned. There was a huge drop off in express bus ridership when the Verrazano bridge work started and quite frankly, I strongly believe that some of that ridership was never recovered and helped lead to some routes being killed during the June 2010 cuts.

 

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)

 

That's easier said then done. Those re-routed buses then would lose time being re-routed. I'm sorry, but people are not going to just say Oh okay, I'll use this service even though it meanders all over the place with re-routes, etc., etc.

 

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

 

No, we're not talking about the S89, but rather more routes going to NJ. At least the S89 connects to a light rail and doesn't suffer heavily from being delayed, so the line has a purpose.

 

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.

 

The S98 is fine just the way it is. It suffers enough delays just going to Mariners' Harbor because of the traffic along the narrow parts of Forest Avenue. If anything should be extended, it would be the S90. That's a quick enough route that it could move quickly down Richmond Terrace and then with service improvements along whateve bridge it would travel across could be successful and provide service to both the SI corridor and the NJ corridor with minimal delays.

 

 

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

 

Correction, they could want to forget, but that doesn't mean that they will 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.

 

That was my point. lol

 

And I can't even reach him (Cusick) to follow up. B) 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.

 

Yeah, I bet they are. It's called playing gate keeper. I do the same thing when I have annoying translators calling my office. "Yeah, just tell them I'm not here, or yeah just take a message". You need to be creative if you want to get in contact w/him. B) The thing with me is, if I get annoyed and they keep calling trying to force their way through, I'll have them switch the call and then proceed to chew their @sses out, esp. if I'm the middle of an important project w/a tight deadline.

 

This translator called my office once, and I told my colleague to just take a message and the guy called back trying to roughhouse his way through, so I got on pissed of course and asked him what his problem was and why he felt the need to be difficult when I was in the middle of trying to finish a project and basically made him feel like sh*t in the process. Suffice it to say that he never called back, since he knew he had rubbed me the wrong way. B)

 

 

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.

 

Well then how can you conclude how well the service would be used if you don't even go to NJ that often? Plenty of people have a need to go to NJ from Staten Island and they do so via car. My point is that some sort of studies should be done before implementing any sort of service to NJ because you could argue that a ton of routes could run from SI to NJ simply because of the proximity of both places, but the question is will the service be used since most folks going to NJ from SI drive? The S89 took years to implement and clearly has a specific purpose.

 

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.

 

That's true, but you can't just go throwing out a bunch of routes and thinking that suddenly now because you have all of these routes going to NJ that suddenly now bus service on SI will be fixed.

 

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

 

What makes you so sure that it would be used???????

 

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.

 

I don't either, but there is something called overkill. You can only go so far with that because you keep trying to extend the route to increase ridership and you may end up with nothing more than a longer, more expensive and unreliable route, with no improvements in terms of ridership.

 

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)

 

 

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.

 

 

Well it's true. That part of West Brighton is very affluent (:tup:) even though it is well below Forest Avenue. It is in the heart of West Brighton by Bard Ave, heading towards the affluent Randall Manor and they're not using the local bus like that. If anything they'll drive over to an express bus. They're not going to bother with that local bus nonsense. That whole area over there is very well kept. :cool:

 

 

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.

 

Are you kidding me? They all basically meander like crazy and Forest Avenue runs into a dead end at Victory Blvd which forces one to side streets that continue to meander about. The borough president even admits that most of the streets on Staten Island meander to nowhere and that is the main problem on Staten Island. He is supposedly trying to address this by opening up access to streets that run into dead ends and widening intersections where possible (i.e. parts of Clove Rd), which would then help the flow of traffic to become better in some areas.

 

Of course it takes money to make these sorts of changes.

[qjtransitmaster]

No, by my logic, there would be something put into place to avoid buses being delayed, which is what you keep dismissing. If the goal is attract ridership then you need to make sure that the service will be reliable and quick, and there is really no benefit of buses sitting in traffic if you're looking to attract certain riders that would generally not be using the buses. Let's fact it, if you want the service to be used, some sort of new ridership base is probably going to be needed to some extent. Your proposal is the equivalent of sending express buses over the Gowanus with no HOV lane. You repeatedly keep overlooking and dismissing how to address the fact that these delays would cause problems and turn off riders. ANY service that faces a ton of delays will be shunned. There was a huge drop off in express bus ridership when the Verrazano bridge work started and quite frankly, I strongly believe that some of that ridership was never recovered and helped lead to some routes being killed during the June 2010 cuts.

 

 

 

That's easier said then done. Those re-routed buses then would lose time being re-routed. I'm sorry, but people are not going to just say Oh okay, I'll use this service even though it meanders all over the place with re-routes, etc., etc.

 

 

 

No, we're not talking about the S89, but rather more routes going to NJ. At least the S89 connects to a light rail and doesn't suffer heavily from being delayed, so the line has a purpose.

 

 

 

The S98 is fine just the way it is. It suffers enough delays just going to Mariners' Harbor because of the traffic along the narrow parts of Forest Avenue. If anything should be extended, it would be the S90. That's a quick enough route that it could move quickly down Richmond Terrace and then with service improvements along whateve bridge it would travel across could be successful and provide service to both the SI corridor and the NJ corridor with minimal delays.

 

 

 

 

Correction, they could want to forget, but that doesn't mean that they will forget.

 

 

 

That was my point. lol

 

 

 

Yeah, I bet they are. It's called playing gate keeper. I do the same thing when I have annoying translators calling my office. "Yeah, just tell them I'm not here, or yeah just take a message". You need to be creative if you want to get in contact w/him. B) The thing with me is, if I get annoyed and they keep calling trying to force their way through, I'll have them switch the call and then proceed to chew their @sses out, esp. if I'm the middle of an important project w/a tight deadline.

 

This translator called my office once, and I told my colleague to just take a message and the guy called back trying to roughhouse his way through, so I got on pissed of course and asked him what his problem was and why he felt the need to be difficult when I was in the middle of trying to finish a project and basically made him feel like sh*t in the process. Suffice it to say that he never called back, since he knew he had rubbed me the wrong way. B)

 

 

 

 

Well then how can you conclude how well the service would be used if you don't even go to NJ that often? Plenty of people have a need to go to NJ from Staten Island and they do so via car. My point is that some sort of studies should be done before implementing any sort of service to NJ because you could argue that a ton of routes could run from SI to NJ simply because of the proximity of both places, but the question is will the service be used since most folks going to NJ from SI drive? The S89 took years to implement and clearly has a specific purpose.That's true, but you can't just go throwing out a bunch of routes and thinking that suddenly now because you have all of these routes going to NJ that suddenly now bus service on SI will be fixed.

 

 

 

What makes you so sure that it would be used???????

 

 

I don't either, but there is something called overkill. You can only go so far with that because you keep trying to extend the route to increase ridership and you may end up with nothing more than a longer, more expensive and unreliable route, with no improvements in terms of ridership.

 

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)

 

 

 

 

Well it's true. That part of West Brighton is very affluent (:tup:) even though it is well below Forest Avenue. It is in the heart of West Brighton by Bard Ave, heading towards the affluent Randall Manor and they're not using the local bus like that. If anything they'll drive over to an express bus. They're not going to bother with that local bus nonsense. That whole area over there is very well kept. :cool:

 

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? They all basically meander like crazy and Forest Avenue runs into a dead end at Victory Blvd which forces one to side streets that continue to meander about. The borough president even admits that most of the streets on Staten Island meander to nowhere and that is the main problem on Staten Island. He is supposedly trying to address this by opening up access to streets that run into dead ends and widening intersections where possible (i.e. parts of Clove Rd), which would then help the flow of traffic to become better in some areas.

 

I greatly understand ur position BUT I am very familiar with traffic on 440 and rte 9 and GSP the parts of those highways that would be used by the SI routes are rarely jammed. Plus the s54-57 will be fine as none head towards manhattan. Rte 9 is a free for all raceway. GSP the stretch is so short the bus will use express lanes yes they already have HOV!!!!!!!. The only issue is x17 reroute through rte 440 and I-78 I agree a bus lane would do wonders for it and many lower manhattan routes but even without the HOV it's still faster than the gowanus. Obviously you don't know those highways very well. The majority of ppl who use NJtransit ALREADY DRIVE!!!!!!!!!!

So with that fact once these routes to NJ get implemented they WILL BE USED!!!! However one of them is reliant on NJT for assistance. Especially for service to central NJ on GSP corridor hint: NJT's new route and one line if extended will capture a new market.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I greatly understand ur position BUT I am very familiar with traffic on 440 and rte 9 and GSP the parts of those highways that would be used by the SI routes are rarely jammed. Plus the s54-57 will be fine as none head towards manhattan. Rte 9 is a free for all raceway. GSP the stretch is so short the bus will use express lanes yes they already have HOV!!!!!!!. The only issue is x17 reroute through rte 440 and I-78 I agree a bus lane would do wonders for it and many lower manhattan routes but even without the HOV it's still faster than the gowanus. Obviously you don't know those highways very well

 

You clearly don't understand my position because I've been talking about the traffic to and on the bridges, and less so in NJ. And what is this about re-routing the X17??? The X17 is fine just the way it is! :mad: :tdown:

[checkmatechamp13]

1) So then why are you asking me about my thoughts of Staten Islanders not wanting service to Elizabeth & Perth Amboy ?

 

you're still pushing this NJ BS.....

 

p1 - Not disputing any of this.... However, think about where riders are emanating from, before they even get to a hub....

 

hint: Their Homes B)

 

...and I don't need you to further attempt to prove to me that SI is car centric.... that much is well known.

 

p2 - again w/ the jumping to the extremes....

 

west of richmond av, no where... I wouldn't have a plethora of local buses out there anyway.... express bus country !

 

east of richmond av, end them at hylan blvd itself....

(similar to what LIB's do at Merrick rd; there's nothin of interest really along Merrick that draws huge ridership (outside of the LIRR at certain stations).... but buses end there b/c there's really no need to go further south)

 

p3 - Checkmate, that's the point... why the hell would you encourage transferring if buses are running on high headways? That's like encouraging xfers, NOW out in SI... The idea is to do so on lower headways.... You have to get riders wanting to ride their primary routes first...

 

So I have to disagree with that general statement... The Bronx, Brooklyn, and yes, even subway centric manhattan does well w/ riders xferring b/w buses.... riders don't mind xferring if the routes are frequent, reliable, & timely (enough)....

 

p4 - That's not what I mean by connectivity.... you're goin back to the whole service area argument again..... I'm actually talkin about bus-to-bus travel; in other words, a transfer.... QJT even picked up on that point.....

 

1) Because it is an issue, just not the primary one.

 

p1: Alright.

 

p2: But isn't that the system now? You have the S54, S57, and S59 ending at Hylan Blvd, and the S51 ending at Richmond Road. Give me an example of how you would reroute the service.

 

p3: But you could do that by simply increasing the frequencies there. I mean, the "hubs" buses pass by are already as major as they're going to get. On the South Shore, everything except the S78 serves the ETC, and on the North Shore, the routes are close enough to the ferry that it just makes sense to route them there.

 

p4: Alright.

 

1) No, by my logic, there would be something put into place to avoid buses being delayed, which is what you keep dismissing. If the goal is attract ridership then you need to make sure that the service will be reliable and quick, and there is really no benefit of buses sitting in traffic if you're looking to attract certain riders that would generally not be using the buses. Let's fact it, if you want the service to be used, some sort of new ridership base is probably going to be needed to some extent. Your proposal is the equivalent of sending express buses over the Gowanus with no HOV lane. You repeatedly keep overlooking and dismissing how to address the fact that these delays would cause problems and turn off riders. ANY service that faces a ton of delays will be shunned. There was a huge drop off in express bus ridership when the Verrazano bridge work started and quite frankly, I strongly believe that some of that ridership was never recovered and helped lead to some routes being killed during the June 2010 cuts.

 

2) That's easier said then done. Those re-routed buses then would lose time being re-routed. I'm sorry, but people are not going to just say Oh okay, I'll use this service even though it meanders all over the place with re-routes, etc., etc.

 

3) No, we're not talking about the S89, but rather more routes going to NJ. At least the S89 connects to a light rail and doesn't suffer heavily from being delayed, so the line has a purpose.

 

4) The S98 is fine just the way it is. It suffers enough delays just going to Mariners' Harbor because of the traffic along the narrow parts of Forest Avenue. If anything should be extended, it would be the S90. That's a quick enough route that it could move quickly down Richmond Terrace and then with service improvements along whateve bridge it would travel across could be successful and provide service to both the SI corridor and the NJ corridor with minimal delays.

 

5) Correction, they could want to forget, but that doesn't mean that they will forget.

 

6) That was my point. lol B)

 

7) Yeah, I bet they are. It's called playing gate keeper. I do the same thing when I have annoying translators calling my office. "Yeah, just tell them I'm not here, or yeah just take a message". You need to be creative if you want to get in contact w/him. B) The thing with me is, if I get annoyed and they keep calling trying to force their way through, I'll have them switch the call and then proceed to chew their @sses out, esp. if I'm the middle of an important project w/a tight deadline.

 

This translator called my office once, and I told my colleague to just take a message and the guy called back trying to roughhouse his way through, so I got on pissed of course and asked him what his problem was and why he felt the need to be difficult when I was in the middle of trying to finish a project and basically made him feel like sh*t in the process. Suffice it to say that he never called back, since he knew he had rubbed me the wrong way.

 

8) Well then how can you conclude how well the service would be used if you don't even go to NJ that often? Plenty of people have a need to go to NJ from Staten Island and they do so via car. My point is that some sort of studies should be done before implementing any sort of service to NJ because you could argue that a ton of routes could run from SI to NJ simply because of the proximity of both places, but the question is will the service be used since most folks going to NJ from SI drive? The S89 took years to implement and clearly has a specific purpose.

 

9) That's true, but you can't just go throwing out a bunch of routes and thinking that suddenly now because you have all of these routes going to NJ that suddenly now bus service on SI will be fixed.

 

10) What makes you so sure that it would be used???????

 

11) I don't either, but there is something called overkill. You can only go so far with that because you keep trying to extend the route to increase ridership and you may end up with nothing more than a longer, more expensive and unreliable route, with no improvements in terms of ridership.

 

12) Well it's true. That part of West Brighton is very affluent (:tup:) even though it is well below Forest Avenue. It is in the heart of West Brighton by Bard Ave, heading towards the affluent Randall Manor and they're not using the local bus like that. If anything they'll drive over to an express bus. They're not going to bother with that local bus nonsense. That whole area over there is very well kept. :cool:

 

13) Are you kidding me? They all basically meander like crazy and Forest Avenue runs into a dead end at Victory Blvd which forces one to side streets that continue to meander about. The borough president even admits that most of the streets on Staten Island meander to nowhere and that is the main problem on Staten Island. He is supposedly trying to address this by opening up access to streets that run into dead ends and widening intersections where possible (i.e. parts of Clove Rd), which would then help the flow of traffic to become better in some areas.

 

1) Except that the express buses over the Verrazanno Bridge had an alternative: The ferry. That's why ridership dropped. Here, there's no alternative (other than a circuitous route through Manhattan and/or Jersey City)

 

The ridership drop wasn't from people switching to their cars (in significant numbers anyway), because there wasn't an alternative (except for maybe going through NJ).

 

2) See #1. Plus, people use the express buses via NJ even though the service occasionally gets delayed.

 

3) And the Goethals and Outerbridge routes connect with a heavy rail and numerous buses, so there is a "purpose". Look at the Census data I posted: There are a significant number of people working in the counties on the other side of the bridges.

 

4) The point of the S98 was to provide more service along a corridor that needs it. The S40 is pretty much fine as far as crowding goes. Not so much the S48.

 

And if the main reason you're opposed to having the route over the Goethals is because of the traffic on the Goethals, the routing within Staten Island won't make a big difference. There are ways around the traffic in Staten Island if it's that bad (say, have the buses come from NJ, drop off the passengers at say, Richmond Avenue, and deadhead back to St. George via Richmond Terrace to make another trip to NJ)

 

5) Alright.

 

6) Unfortunately, yes, you're correct.

 

7) It's impossible to make me feel like sh*t. If they try that, I'll turn the tables and ask why they didn't give me the courtesy of a response, even an acknowledgement that they received my revisions.

 

8) The S89 took years to implement, but there was already a market for it. Plus, a private company (TransportAzumah) already ran a bus service in that corridor a few years prior, and before that, Red & Tan ran some buses over the Bayonne Bridge.

 

Clearly, there's demand for service over the Goethals because Joel Azumah said he's working on 2 new routes (really one route with a variation of it) over the Goethals Bridge to Newark Airport.

 

And the times that I did have to go to NJ, a route over the Goethals would've made it a lot easier (or cheaper). Plus, we've heard SIR North Shore mention his trips to NJ and how long they take via transit.

 

And like I said, just because I don't use it doesn't mean others don't. I don't go to Bayonne or Jersey City by transit, but obviously the S89 sees decent ridership over the bridge.

 

9) I'm not saying that service is going to suddenly be fixed, but it will help. It isn't the biggest issue, but it is a significant one.

 

10) The Census data I posted.

 

11) But my point is that people still have alternatives to that route if they aren't going to NJ.

 

12) That is Randall Manor we're talking about. The Bard Avenue stop itself does see decent ridership.

 

13) What do you mean? Forest Avenue is pretty much a straight shot across the North Shore. It doesn't "dead-end" if it ends at a major street (Victory Blvd). They aren't forced to side streets if they can just take Victory Blvd. Traffic isn't too bad there.

 

I greatly understand ur position BUT I am very familiar with traffic on 440 and rte 9 and GSP the parts of those highways that would be used by the SI routes are rarely jammed. Plus the s54-57 will be fine as none head towards manhattan. Rte 9 is a free for all raceway. GSP the stretch is so short the bus will use express lanes yes they already have HOV!!!!!!!. The only issue is x17 reroute through rte 440 and I-78 I agree a bus lane would do wonders for it and many lower manhattan routes but even without the HOV it's still faster than the gowanus. Obviously you don't know those highways very well. The majority of ppl who use NJtransit ALREADY DRIVE!!!!!!!!!!

So with that fact once these routes to NJ get implemented they WILL BE USED!!!! However one of them is reliant on NJT for assistance. Especially for service to central NJ on GSP corridor hint: NJT's new route and one line if extended will capture a new market.

 

Obviously, Elizabeth and Perth Amboy can't generate enough ridership on their own (they aren't big employment centers, though you may have a few people in those areas that want to go to SI for whatever reason, as they are fairly dense), but I think a lot of people will be transferring to the trains, not the buses, unless that's what you meant by "reliant on NJT for assistance"

 

You clearly don't understand my position because I've been talking about the traffic to and on the bridges, and less so in NJ. And what is this about re-routing the X17??? The X17 is fine just the way it is! :mad: :tdown:

 

He thinks it'll be faster through NJ than through the Gowanus. I can't really comment on that, but I don't think they should stop in Bayonne: Just expand local service (the S89 or a new route like my S82) for that.

[qjtransitmaster]

You clearly don't understand my position because I've been talking about the traffic to and on the bridges, and less so in NJ. And what is this about re-routing the X17??? The X17 is fine just the way it is! :mad: :tdown:

 

I am talking about x17's express portion instead of going through brooklyn it would use a direct routing via holland tunnell. Plus the bayonne bridge isn't a problem as that bridge is not bad that would be used by s57 and s54.

 

The S55/56 will use the outerbridge crossing. Plus via my NJT plan will recieve some NJT support over outerbridge via P&R or bricktown.

 

I do agree with gabaldi about the S98 the S93 is much better suited or even an NJT route would benefit more than S98 focus S98 on WSE. Then let NJT take care of elizbeth to SI and newark to BK via SI. Regional lines are NJT's specialty NOT MTA's hence why MTA failed in LI and to a lesser extent in SI. But off-topic Dutchess LOOP is so badly run even the MTA would do a better job!!!!!!!

[Joel Up Front]

You clearly don't understand my position because I've been talking about the traffic to and on the bridges, and less so in NJ. And what is this about re-routing the X17??? The X17 is fine just the way it is! :mad: :tdown:

 

He doesn't understand much of anything.

[B35 via Church]

* Because it is an issue, just not the primary one.

 

1: But isn't that the system now? You have the S54, S57, and S59 ending at Hylan Blvd, and the S51 ending at Richmond Road. Give me an example of how you would reroute the service.

 

2: But you could do that by simply increasing the frequencies there. I mean, the "hubs" buses pass by are already as major as they're going to get. On the South Shore, everything except the S78 serves the ETC, and on the North Shore, the routes are close enough to the ferry that it just makes sense to route them there.

 

* It simply being an issue doesn't answer the question.... Full knowing I wasn't entertaining any type of NJ extension, it was pointless to have even asked me that....

 

 

1) The point I'm conveying to you? No, it isn't... I don't know how you can't see that SI's network/system is one huge hub & spoke out of the ferry....

But then again, you seem to believe the north shore resembles a grid "to an extent"....

There is NO part of SI's bus network that resembles a grid; not even in the slightest....

 

far as an example; ehh, I would have to come up with an actual plan to restructure the whole SI network before I could answer that.... I'm not giving spur of the moment examples....

 

....and to be frank w/ you, out of those 4 options I mentioned back in [post #143], the option we're discussing right now (which is option 4, regarding reconfiguring) would be part of a last ditch effort.... which would have to include route manipulations (or extensions) or w/e.....

 

this isn't the primary option I would consider in makin service better for SI....

 

 

2) I don't see how this correlates to anything I mentioned in that part of my reply.... I'm talkin about improving connectivity, borough-wide, and you're talkin about increasing frequencies (no one's doubting freq's shouldn't be increased)....

 

If your point is simply one that, you think the current hub & spoke system is sufficient, as opposed to reconstructing the network, then just say that... I wouldn't even disagree w/ that stance....

[qjtransitmaster]

 

He doesn't understand much of anything.

butt out fool. I understand alot more than you give me credit for just beacause I misread one post doesn't make me foolish now shoo

[qjtransitmaster]

1) Because it is an issue, just not the primary one.

 

p1: Alright.

 

p2: But isn't that the system now? You have the S54, S57, and S59 ending at Hylan Blvd, and the S51 ending at Richmond Road. Give me an example of how you would reroute the service.

 

p3: But you could do that by simply increasing the frequencies there. I mean, the "hubs" buses pass by are already as major as they're going to get. On the South Shore, everything except the S78 serves the ETC, and on the North Shore, the routes are close enough to the ferry that it just makes sense to route them there.

 

p4: Alright.

 

 

 

1) Except that the express buses over the Verrazanno Bridge had an alternative: The ferry. That's why ridership dropped. Here, there's no alternative (other than a circuitous route through Manhattan and/or Jersey City)

 

The ridership drop wasn't from people switching to their cars (in significant numbers anyway), because there wasn't an alternative (except for maybe going through NJ).

 

2) See #1. Plus, people use the express buses via NJ even though the service occasionally gets delayed.

 

3) And the Goethals and Outerbridge routes connect with a heavy rail and numerous buses, so there is a "purpose". Look at the Census data I posted: There are a significant number of people working in the counties on the other side of the bridges.

 

4) The point of the S98 was to provide more service along a corridor that needs it. The S40 is pretty much fine as far as crowding goes. Not so much the S48.

 

And if the main reason you're opposed to having the route over the Goethals is because of the traffic on the Goethals, the routing within Staten Island won't make a big difference. There are ways around the traffic in Staten Island if it's that bad (say, have the buses come from NJ, drop off the passengers at say, Richmond Avenue, and deadhead back to St. George via Richmond Terrace to make another trip to NJ)

 

5) Alright.

 

6) Unfortunately, yes, you're correct.

 

7) It's impossible to make me feel like sh*t. If they try that, I'll turn the tables and ask why they didn't give me the courtesy of a response, even an acknowledgement that they received my revisions.

 

8) The S89 took years to implement, but there was already a market for it. Plus, a private company (TransportAzumah) already ran a bus service in that corridor a few years prior, and before that, Red & Tan ran some buses over the Bayonne Bridge.

 

Clearly, there's demand for service over the Goethals because Joel Azumah said he's working on 2 new routes (really one route with a variation of it) over the Goethals Bridge to Newark Airport.

 

And the times that I did have to go to NJ, a route over the Goethals would've made it a lot easier (or cheaper). Plus, we've heard SIR North Shore mention his trips to NJ and how long they take via transit.

 

And like I said, just because I don't use it doesn't mean others don't. I don't go to Bayonne or Jersey City by transit, but obviously the S89 sees decent ridership over the bridge.

 

9) I'm not saying that service is going to suddenly be fixed, but it will help. It isn't the biggest issue, but it is a significant one.

 

10) The Census data I posted.

 

11) But my point is that people still have alternatives to that route if they aren't going to NJ.

 

12) That is Randall Manor we're talking about. The Bard Avenue stop itself does see decent ridership.

 

13) What do you mean? Forest Avenue is pretty much a straight shot across the North Shore. It doesn't "dead-end" if it ends at a major street (Victory Blvd). They aren't forced to side streets if they can just take Victory Blvd. Traffic isn't too bad there.

 

 

 

Obviously, Elizabeth and Perth Amboy can't generate enough ridership on their own (they aren't big employment centers, though you may have a few people in those areas that want to go to SI for whatever reason, as they are fairly dense), but I think a lot of people will be transferring to the trains, not the buses, unless that's what you meant by "reliant on NJT for assistance"

 

 

 

He thinks it'll be faster through NJ than through the Gowanus. I can't really comment on that, but I don't think they should stop in Bayonne: Just expand local service (the S89 or a new route like my S82) for that.

 

DUDE I know but my plan is cost neutral!!!!!!!!!!! meaning no extra S89 trips needed just use X17 when S89 is not running. Plus S59 is not slow enough to need a LTD running 7 days a week with 15 min service at off-peak. But u should know what is the speed of S59??? My plans are either cost neutral or generate enough extra ridership to generate revenue to off-set the added cost or actually reduce operating cost of the route!!!!! Most ppl who use NJT buses already have cars they just choose not to use them much!!!!!!!! With X17 no need to expand local service unless X17 gets BUTTf**kED with bayonne passengers outside rush hour exposing the true demand for S89 service thus warrenting expansion the X17 is only to test demand as an intermidiate step. Plus Elizbeth and perth amboy to SI would be done by NJT routes 26 and 81 via extension. The 81 would have one stop at bricktown mall and another at victory blvd. 81X makes no stops in SI and goes stright to perth amboy before replacing 815 en rte to new brunswick. 26 however I admit I haven't thought that far yet

[qjtransitmaster]

:tup::tup:

* It simply being an issue doesn't answer the question.... Full knowing I wasn't entertaining any type of NJ extension, it was pointless to have even asked me that....

 

 

1) The point I'm conveying to you? No, it isn't... I don't know how you can't see that SI's network/system is one huge hub & spoke out of the ferry....

But then again, you seem to believe the north shore resembles a grid "to an extent"....

There is NO part of SI's bus network that resembles a grid; not even in the slightest....

 

far as an example; ehh, I would have to come up with an actual plan to restructure the whole SI network before I could answer that.... I'm not giving spur of the moment examples....

 

....and to be frank w/ you, out of those 4 options I mentioned back in [post #143], the option we're discussing right now (which is option 4, regarding reconfiguring) would be part of a last ditch effort.... which would have to include route manipulations (or extensions) or w/e.....

 

this isn't the primary option I would consider in makin service better for SI....

 

 

2) I don't see how this correlates to anything I mentioned in that part of my reply.... I'm talkin about improving connectivity, borough-wide, and you're talkin about increasing frequencies (no one's doubting freq's shouldn't be increased)....

 

If your point is simply one that, you think the current hub & spoke system is sufficient, as opposed to reconstructing the network, then just say that... I wouldn't even disagree w/ that stance....

 

:tup::tup::tup: I agree that the network needs restructuring but the NJ-SI lines would bring the network closer to a grid format. Plus there are other manipulations that can be done like with S76 and 52 but I don't know what. Maybe you would be better suited for that. I admit S54-57 to NJ brings the focus away from spoke and hub via some route manipulations to their routes so they can be more compatible with NJ. I guess we agree greatly on this issue howeven NJT would have to step in at some point.

[checkmatechamp13]

* It simply being an issue doesn't answer the question.... Full knowing I wasn't entertaining any type of NJ extension, it was pointless to have even asked me that....

 

1) The point I'm conveying to you? No, it isn't... I don't know how you can't see that SI's network/system is one huge hub & spoke out of the ferry....

But then again, you seem to believe the north shore resembles a grid "to an extent"....

There is NO part of SI's bus network that resembles a grid; not even in the slightest....

 

far as an example; ehh, I would have to come up with an actual plan to restructure the whole SI network before I could answer that.... I'm not giving spur of the moment examples....

 

....and to be frank w/ you, out of those 4 options I mentioned back in [post #143], the option we're discussing right now (which is option 4, regarding reconfiguring) would be part of a last ditch effort.... which would have to include route manipulations (or extensions) or w/e.....

 

this isn't the primary option I would consider in makin service better for SI....

 

2) I don't see how this correlates to anything I mentioned in that part of my reply.... I'm talkin about improving connectivity, borough-wide, and you're talkin about increasing frequencies (no one's doubting freq's shouldn't be increased)....

 

If your point is simply one that, you think the current hub & spoke system is sufficient, as opposed to reconstructing the network, then just say that... I wouldn't even disagree w/ that stance....

 

1) I was thinking in the West New Brighton area: You have the S40, S44, S46, and S48 paralleling each other, and intersecting with the S53, S54, S66, S57, and the Richmond Avenue routes. That's pretty much a grid right there: A series of parallel intersecting other parallel lines at right angles.

 

2) Alright then, that's my stance.

 

DUDE I know but my plan is cost neutral!!!!!!!!!!! meaning no extra S89 trips needed just use X17 when S89 is not running. Plus S59 is not slow enough to need a LTD running 7 days a week with 15 min service at off-peak. But u should know what is the speed of S59??? My plans are either cost neutral or generate enough extra ridership to generate revenue to off-set the added cost or actually reduce operating cost of the route!!!!! Most ppl who use NJT buses already have cars they just choose not to use them much!!!!!!!! With X17 no need to expand local service unless X17 gets BUTTf**kED with bayonne passengers outside rush hour exposing the true demand for S89 service thus warrenting expansion the X17 is only to test demand as an intermidiate step. Plus Elizbeth and perth amboy to SI would be done by NJT routes 26 and 81 via extension. The 81 would have one stop at bricktown mall and another at victory blvd. 81X makes no stops in SI and goes stright to perth amboy before replacing 815 en rte to new brunswick. 26 however I admit I haven't thought that far yet

 

The point isn't to provide limited-stop service down Richmond Avenue: The point is to have local service to Bayonne. My S82 route would do the same thing (in case you forgot, it would be like your 81 extension with a few more stops)

 

And I think it should be MTA routes going to NJ, not the other way around.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I am talking about x17's express portion instead of going through brooklyn it would use a direct routing via holland tunnell. Plus the bayonne bridge isn't a problem as that bridge is not bad that would be used by s57 and s54.

You are clearly smoking something. We have been detoured on several occasions via New Jersey and then via the Holland Tunnel when the Verrazano was closed and it was a nightmare getting through that tunnel. Aside from that, how is the X17C supposed to make stops Downtown without looping around and coming back on to West St. to get over to the Holland Tunnel?? :confused:

 

1) I was thinking in the West New Brighton area: You have the S40, S44, S46, and S48 paralleling each other, and intersecting with the S53, S54, S66, S57, and the Richmond Avenue routes. That's pretty much a grid right there: A series of parallel intersecting other parallel lines at right angles.

Oh, just leave the science out of this!! :mad: Staten Island does NOT have a grid. Maybe you should do a Google search or something because you’re sounding really ridiculous now! Since you insist on aruging something that is NOT true, here is proof taken from the City's website, which clearly states that Staten Island does NOT have a street grid, although they are discussing another issue:

 

"Because Staten Island lacks the regular street grid that characterizes other parts of the city..."

 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/sigrowth/sigrowth1.shtml

 

1) Except that the express buses over the Verrazanno Bridge had an alternative: The ferry. That's why ridership dropped. Here, there's no alternative (other than a circuitous route through Manhattan and/or Jersey City)

So what exactly is your point?? :confused:

 

2) See #1. Plus, people use the express buses via NJ even though the service occasionally gets delayed.

Actually express buses are usually delayed, but folks tolerate it because it is just one bus. In your case you’re asking people to make multiple connections. Big difference. I can tolerate a 20 minute delay if that means I don’t have to make additional connections, so I build in an additional 30 minutes into my commute each way, but I would not be willing to do that with the bus-ferry-subway set up because a 20 minute delay in one of the connections can mean additional delays elsewhere.

 

3) And the Goethals and Outerbridge routes connect with a heavy rail and numerous buses, so there is a "purpose". Look at the Census data I posted: There are a significant number of people working in the counties on the other side of the bridges.

The census data means nothing. I want to see some hard evidence of people that would be using this. Just about most folks that I know that commute to NJ from the outer boroughs drive.

 

4) The point of the S98 was to provide more service along a corridor that needs it. The S40 is pretty much fine as far as crowding goes. Not so much the S48.

If that’s the case then that can be done WITHOUT it going to NJ! :mad: I see no need to extend the S98 to NJ. You keep flip flopping here. On one end you say that the S98 is needed along a corridor (that corridor being Forest Avenue), but then you say if the S98 is delayed, folks can just use the S48, so which is it? You can’t say it is NEEDED along Forest Avenue and then say folks can use the S48 as if they don’t need the S98 to reduce their commuting time.

 

And if the main reason you're opposed to having the route over the Goethals is because of the traffic on the Goethals, the routing within Staten Island won't make a big difference. There are ways around the traffic in Staten Island if it's that bad (say, have the buses come from NJ, drop off the passengers at say, Richmond Avenue, and deadhead back to St. George via Richmond Terrace to make another trip to NJ)

Wait a minute… Now you’re proposing that it deadheads to make trips?? This proposal is more and more ridiculous and hypocritical. You’re the first one to talk about how wasteful express buses are because they have to deadhead, so how can you suddenly propose having local buses do the exact same thing???

 

7) It's impossible to make me feel like sh*t. If they try that, I'll turn the tables and ask why they didn't give me the courtesy of a response, even an acknowledgement that they received my revisions.

That wasn’t my point. My point was that they’re playing gatekeeper.

 

8) The S89 took years to implement, but there was already a market for it. Plus, a private company (TransportAzumah) already ran a bus service in that corridor a few years prior, and before that, Red & Tan ran some buses over the Bayonne Bridge.

That’s exactly right and you have yet to demonstrate a true market for this service.

 

Clearly, there's demand for service over the Goethals because Joel Azumah said he's working on 2 new routes (really one route with a variation of it) over the Goethals Bridge to Newark Airport.

Yes, but how much? I mean demand could be 5 people, but that’s not enough to say that the should be running buses. Well they could of course and the line would just die.

 

And the times that I did have to go to NJ, a route over the Goethals would've made it a lot easier (or cheaper). Plus, we've heard SIR North Shore mention his trips to NJ and how long they take via transit.

And like I said, just because I don't use it doesn't mean others don't. I don't go to Bayonne or Jersey City by transit, but obviously the S89 sees decent ridership over the bridge.

So what? One route that sees decent ridership doesn’t mean that we suddenly need more buses going to NJ.

 

9) I'm not saying that service is going to suddenly be fixed, but it will help. It isn't the biggest issue, but it is a significant one.

Well that was the purpose of the thread to FIX service, not make a bunch of extensions! If they improve reliability AND provide service to other areas, then great, but I don’t see that happening here. You have yet to convince me as to why the S98 would be any more reliable going via NJ than it is now.

 

10) The Census data I posted.

See my response to #3…

 

11) But my point is that people still have alternatives to that route if they aren't going to NJ.

Well my point is that the S98 already serves a purpose. There’s a reason why the S89 has its own route… Staten Island is NOT Manhattan, so you need to stop trying to create these insane extensions to ramp up ridership because it is not going to happen. If there is another route going to NJ, it needs to be its own separate route and not part of some extension. I thought about the S90 only because it ends right there by the Goethals Bridge so I could see it perhaps being extended to say Elizabeth, provided that it had its own bus lane in the future, but not now though. I simply don’t see enough demand for it.

 

12) That is Randall Manor we're talking about. The Bard Avenue stop itself does see decent ridership.

Well if we want to be “technical”, we can call that Randall Manor, though some consider it to be West Brighton as well.

 

13) What do you mean? Forest Avenue is pretty much a straight shot across the North Shore. It doesn't "dead-end" if it ends at a major street (Victory Blvd). They aren't forced to side streets if they can just take Victory Blvd. Traffic isn't too bad there.

 

What are you talking about????? They ARE forced to side streets if they want to continue east. Forest Avenue is not a straight shot across the North Shore. It meanders like crazy.

 

He thinks it'll be faster through NJ than through the Gowanus. I can't really comment on that, but I don't think they should stop in Bayonne: Just expand local service (the S89 or a new route like my S82) for that.

 

Terrible idea period. I already addressed him in this post.

 

But then again, you seem to believe the north shore resembles a grid "to an extent"....

There is NO part of SI's bus network that resembles a grid; not even in the slightest....

 

That's exactly what I was trying to tell him. Our own Borough President even admits that we don't have a grid and he's one of the dumbest folks that we have in office. :eek:

[qjtransitmaster]

1) I was thinking in the West New Brighton area: You have the S40, S44, S46, and S48 paralleling each other, and intersecting with the S53, S54, S66, S57, and the Richmond Avenue routes. That's pretty much a grid right there: A series of parallel intersecting other parallel lines at right angles.

 

2) Alright then, that's my stance.

 

 

 

The point isn't to provide limited-stop service down Richmond Avenue: The point is to have local service to Bayonne. My S82 route would do the same thing (in case you forgot, it would be like your 81 extension with a few more stops)

 

And I think it should be MTA routes going to NJ, not the other way around.

nope sometimes NJT is best suited for certain tasks as the 81 is going through SI the fact that it links to local buses eliminates the need to stop often. S82 if anything like 81 extension isn't needed unless ridership on 81 dumps hell on local routes. local service not needed the S89 is reachable from most local buses it needs no local variant. ppl won't use a bus with too many stops en rte to nj hence why I chose S54-57 the rest is up to NJT. Elizbeth is already served by NJT on morris ave there is 26 and 52. either one can go to brooklyn via SI question is which one if 26 does then iit's renumbered 110 if 52 does it it becomes 118. In my njt plan 52 extends via rte 527 then livingston mall to rte 10 becoming a long distance route.

 

True s98 doesn't need NJ and is uncompatible if it has a ferry connection then it SHOULD NOT TOUCH NJ that is better left to NJT. The x17 was slower over holland ONLY BEACAUSE varrazano was closed!!!!!! If varrazano was open then that extra traffic won't exist. Most hours nowadays the holland rivals the gowanus. The thing is the extra downtown stops get canned and x19 would serve them. But at off peak the 10 is there. I agree with s98 not going to NJ. But s54-57 don't really have much of a choice it's NJ or suffer more cuts!!!!!!! They need to break the spoke and hub structure NJ is the only major hub that can increase s54-57 use. Of course parts of their routes will be restructured and transfered to other routes. Similar to what NJT is doing in morris but unlike morris this is on a larger scale.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) You are clearly smoking something. We have been detoured on several occasions via New Jersey and then via the Holland Tunnel when the Verrazano was closed and it was a nightmare getting through that tunnel. Aside from that, how is the X17C supposed to make stops Downtown without looping around and coming back on to West St. to get over to the Holland Tunnel?? :confused:

 

2) Oh, just leave the science out of this!! :mad: Staten Island does NOT have a grid. Maybe you should do a Google search or something because you’re sounding really ridiculous now!

 

3) So what exactly is your point?? :confused:

 

4) Actually express buses are usually delayed, but folks tolerate it because it is just one bus. In your case you’re asking people to make multiple connections. Big difference. I can tolerate a 20 minute delay if that means I don’t have to make additional connections, so I build in an additional 30 minutes into my commute each way, but I would not be willing to do that with the bus-ferry-subway set up because a 20 minute delay in one of the connections can mean additional delays elsewhere.

 

5) The census data means nothing. I want to see some hard evidence of people that would be using this. Just about most folks that I know that commute to NJ from the outer boroughs drive.

 

6) If that’s the case then that can be done WITHOUT it going to NJ! :mad: I see no need to extend the S98 to NJ. You keep flip flopping here. On one end you say that the S98 is needed along a corridor (that corridor being Forest Avenue), but then you say if the S98 is delayed, folks can just use the S48, so which is it? You can’t say it is NEEDED along Forest Avenue and then say folks can use the S48 as if they don’t need the S98 to reduce their commuting time.

 

7) Wait a minute… Now you’re proposing that it deadheads to make trips?? This proposal is more and more ridiculous and hypocritical. You’re the first one to talk about how wasteful express buses are because they have to deadhead, so how can you suddenly propose having local buses do the exact same thing???

 

8) That wasn’t my point. My point was that they’re playing gatekeeper.

 

9) That’s exactly right and you have yet to demonstrate a true market for this service.

 

10) Yes, but how much? I mean demand could be 5 people, but that’s not enough to say that the should be running buses. Well they could of course and the line would just die.

 

11) So what? One route that sees decent ridership doesn’t mean that we suddenly need more buses going to NJ.

 

12) Well that was the purpose of the thread to FIX service, not make a bunch of extensions! If they improve reliability AND provide service to other areas, then great, but I don’t see that happening here. You have yet to convince me as to why the S98 would be any more reliable going via NJ than it is now.

 

13) Well my point is that the S98 already serves a purpose. There’s a reason why the S89 has its own route… Staten Island is NOT Manhattan, so you need to stop trying to create these insane extensions to ramp up ridership because it is not going to happen. If there is another route going to NJ, it needs to be its own separate route and not part of some extension. I thought about the S90 only because it ends right there by the Goethals Bridge so I could see it perhaps being extended to say Elizabeth, provided that it had its own bus lane in the future, but not now though. I simply don’t see enough demand for it.

 

14) Well if we want to be “technical”, we can call that Randall Manor, though some consider it to be West Brighton as well.

 

15) What are you talking about????? They ARE forced to side streets if they want to continue east. Forest Avenue is not a straight shot across the North Shore. It meanders like crazy.

 

16) Terrible idea period. I already addressed him in this post.

 

17) That's exactly what I was trying to tell him. Our own Borough President even admits that we don't have a grid and he's one of the dumbest folks that we have in office. :eek:

 

1) Good point. Plus Canal Street does have a tendancy to get backed up, so the delays you save on the Gowanus would be eaten up by the Holland Tunnel itself.

 

2) Well, if by definition, it's a grid, then it's a grid.

 

In a grid system, you theoretically have two ways to make a trip that involves a transfer. For example, when I went to the Broadway YMCA, there were two ways to make the trip: S44/S59/S89->S48 or S62/S93->S53 (or the S44, which makes a turn on the grid and still gets there)

 

3) I don't think I can make it any clearer. You're saying ridership dropped because service was unreliable. I'm saying that if there was no alternative, ridership wouldn't have dropped. To go to Elizabeth, there is no alternative: Driving gets caught in the same traffic that the bus does.

 

4) If the connections run frequently enough, then the delay doesn't make a big difference either. The Northeast Corridor Line is the most frequent line in the NJT commuter rail system. If you miss a train, it's not that big a deal (during rush hour at least)

 

5) And where was the hard evidence for the S89?

 

6) Let me rephrase that: Forest Avenue would benefit more from the additional service than Richmond Terrace. The S48 isn't super-crowded (for long distances anyway) under the current system.

 

I don't think there is enough demand for service running every 15 minutes each (for the local and limited) along Forest Avenue, because at the western end, it tends to empty out. Having it serve Elizabeth would ensure that ridership remains high at the western end.

 

7) It would deadhead if there's a significant delay. That would defeat the purpose of providing more service along Forest Avenue if it were to deadhead all of the time.

 

If traffic is really bad down Forest Avenue in say, Westerleigh, maybe it can travel via Decker Avenue->Post Avenue->Broadway to get back on schedule. Yeah, you're bypassing people along Forest Avenue, but at least it helps people further down the line from having overcrowded buses pass them.

 

8) I know. I'm just saying...

 

9) OK, but as a regular person, there is a limit to how much information I can access.

 

10) Reread my post. A private company (who's long term goal is to make money) is planning a route over the Goethals Bridge.

 

11) But there's no proof that it isn't needed either. I've shown that there are a significant number of people who commute between the two counties, which shows that there is at least potential.

 

12) If service overall is increased along Forest Avenue, then the reduced reliability is made up for by the increased service, so you're not going to have passengers being overly delayed.

 

13) The S98 doesn't end too far from the Goethals Bridge either.

 

Plus, I thought you were tired of the people further north supposedly getting better service than the people by Forest Avenue. That's exactly what the S90 would do.

 

14) I don't know. It seems too far east to even be considered West Brighton.

 

15) What do you mean "Meanders like crazy"? The only place where it turns is in the Westerleigh area. It doesn't meander as much as say, Richmond Terrace. And if they want to continue east, they don't have to "meander": They can just go straight down Victory Blvd.

 

16) Alright.

 

17) LMAO. And yes, Staten Island overall lacks a grid system, but the North Shore does have a grid system, being more urban than the South Shore. Hell, when you look within specific neighborhoods in most SI neighborhoods, you do see a grid system.

[B35 via Church]

1) I was thinking in the West New Brighton area: You have the S40, S44, S46, and S48 paralleling each other, and intersecting with the S53, S54, S66, S57, and the Richmond Avenue routes. That's pretty much a grid right there: A series of parallel intersecting other parallel lines at right angles.

Naming specific neighborhoods now? yeah, you are reaching hard with this one.....

 

2) Well, if by definition, it's a grid, then it's a grid.

 

In a grid system, you theoretically have two ways to make a trip that involves a transfer. For example, when I went to the Broadway YMCA, there were two ways to make the trip: S44/S59/S89->S48 or S62/S93->S53 (or the S44, which makes a turn on the grid and still gets there)

 

15) What do you mean "Meanders like crazy"? The only place where it turns is in the Westerleigh area. It doesn't meander as much as say, Richmond Terrace. And if they want to continue east, they don't have to "meander": They can just go straight down Victory Blvd.

 

17) LMAO. And yes, Staten Island overall lacks a grid system, but the North Shore does have a grid system, being more urban than the South Shore. Hell, when you look within specific neighborhoods in most SI neighborhoods, you do see a grid system.

 

CC, what hurts your argument is that all the north shore routes emanate from a hub & spoke... just b/c you have routes that intersect with them along the way, doesn't make it part of a grid.... Outside of a grid route's terminals (which would be non-revenue service anyway), they generally do not turn, or make too many diversions... forget the routes for a second, staten island's street layout in itself isn't a grid....

 

You can continue to be stubborn about it, or defend a flat out incorrect point of view if you want... but for the sake of not sounding as ridiculous as you are right now, you may want to engage in a tiny bit of research.... There is no grid system of any kind w/i Staten Island.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Naming specific neighborhoods now? yeah, you are reaching hard with this one.....

 

2) CC, what hurts your argument is that all the north shore routes emanate from a hub & spoke... just b/c you have routes that intersect with them along the way, doesn't make it part of a grid.... Outside of a grid route's terminals (which would be non-revenue service anyway), they generally do not turn, or make too many diversions... forget the routes for a second, staten island's street layout in itself isn't a grid....

 

You can continue to be stubborn about it, or defend a flat out incorrect point of view if you want... but for the sake of not sounding as ridiculous as you are right now, you may want to engage in a tiny bit of research.... There is no grid system of any kind w/i Staten Island.

 

1) Well, I could've said "North Shore" from Forest Avenue to Richmond Terrace. I mean, the S4_ routes travel pretty much clear across the North Shore (especially the S40 and S48)

 

2) Well, you have a point there.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

CC, what hurts your argument is that all the north shore routes emanate from a hub & spoke... just b/c you have routes that intersect with them along the way, doesn't make it part of a grid.... Outside of a grid route's terminals (which would be non-revenue service anyway), they generally do not turn, or make too many diversions... forget the routes for a second, staten island's street layout in itself isn't a grid....

 

You can continue to be stubborn about it, or defend a flat out incorrect point of view if you want... but for the sake of not sounding as ridiculous as you are right now, you may want to engage in a tiny bit of research.... There is no grid system of any kind w/i Staten Island.

 

I'm starting to think that it isn't even worth trying to explain to him anymore because he takes everything TOO literally. I can't believe that he's trying to explain why Staten Island has a grid system when everyone knows that it does NOT have a grid system. That is something that has been stated and is well known by many Staten Islanders AND politicians. It is one of the reasons why the island has such traffic problems. This isn't even me or you giving our "opinions". This is a FACT that he refuses to accept, and I'm not going to even bother anymore. I don't know what to call it but he is completely wrong.

 

It's just like his refusal to admit that Forest Avenue meanders. Take a f*cking map out and look where Forest Avenue is and tell me that it doesn't meander. I mean really what is with this dude?? :confused:

[checkmatechamp13]

I'm starting to think that it isn't even worth trying to explain to him anymore because he takes everything TOO literally. I can't believe that he's trying to explain why Staten Island has a grid system when everyone knows that it does NOT have a grid system. That is something that has been stated and is well known by many Staten Islanders AND politicians. It is one of the reasons why the island has such traffic problems. This isn't even me or you giving our "opinions". This is a FACT that he refuses to accept, and I'm not going to even bother anymore. I don't know what to call it but he is completely wrong.

 

It's just like his refusal to admit that Forest Avenue meanders. Take a f*cking map out and look where Forest Avenue is and tell me that it doesn't meander. I mean really what is with this dude?? :confused:

 

What do you mean "meanders"? It makes like one turn by Decker Avenue and then a couple of small turns throughout the route. It's not like Richmond Terrace where there's a big turn every few blocks.

 

Alright, whatever. I already conceeded to his point about the fact that they emanate from a hub-and-spoke system as being why it can't be a grid system. Happy?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What do you mean "meanders"? It makes like one turn by Decker Avenue and then a couple of small turns throughout the route. It's not like Richmond Terrace where there's a big turn every few blocks.

 

Alright, whatever. I already conceeded to his point about the fact that they emanate from a hub-and-spoke system as being why it can't be a grid system. Happy?

 

It isn't even about conceding. You're just dead WRONG and since you don't believe us, go do the research yourself.

 

1) Good point. Plus Canal Street does have a tendancy to get backed up, so the delays you save on the Gowanus would be eaten up by the Holland Tunnel itself.

 

The Gowanus is usually a 20 minute delay when it is backed up. Canal St can be 20 minutes by itself, let alone the Holland Tunnel.

 

2) Well, if by definition, it's a grid, then it's a grid.

 

 

In a grid system, you theoretically have two ways to make a trip that involves a transfer. For example, when I went to the Broadway YMCA, there were two ways to make the trip: S44/S59/S89->S48 or S62/S93->S53 (or the S44, which makes a turn on the grid and still gets there)

 

Dude, this has NOTHING to do with this! Staten Island does NOT have a grid!! B35 and I wouldn't insist on it if this weren't the case. Why don't do some research and stop giving us a definition? We know what a grid is, and Staten Island doesn't have one.

 

3) I don't think I can make it any clearer. You're saying ridership dropped because service was unreliable. I'm saying that if there was no alternative, ridership wouldn't have dropped. To go to Elizabeth, there is no alternative: Driving gets caught in the same traffic that the bus does.

 

There is always an alternative, just that some alternatives may not be as convenient as others, so that is a moot point.

 

4) If the connections run frequently enough, then the delay doesn't make a big difference either. The Northeast Corridor Line is the most frequent line in the NJT commuter rail system. If you miss a train, it's not that big a deal (during rush hour at least)

 

5) And where was the hard evidence for the S89?

 

Ay yay yay... You just said that the ridership was already there...

 

 

6) Let me rephrase that: Forest Avenue would benefit more from the additional service than Richmond Terrace. The S48 isn't super-crowded (for long distances anyway) under the current system.

 

I don't think there is enough demand for service running every 15 minutes each (for the local and limited) along Forest Avenue, because at the western end, it tends to empty out. Having it serve Elizabeth would ensure that ridership remains high at the western end.

 

Where do you keep getting this that ridership is going to be so high??? You have NO evidence to support this and that census crappola means nothing.

 

7) It would deadhead if there's a significant delay. That would defeat the purpose of providing more service along Forest Avenue if it were to deadhead all of the time.

 

Even so just where in the world is all of this money supposed to come from to run this "extension"?

 

If traffic is really bad down Forest Avenue in say, Westerleigh, maybe it can travel via Decker Avenue->Post Avenue->Broadway to get back on schedule. Yeah, you're bypassing people along Forest Avenue, but at least it helps people further down the line from having overcrowded buses pass them.

 

Okay, this proposal is becoming more and more ridiculous by the minute. The point of bus service is to serve people, not bypass them.

 

9) OK, but as a regular person, there is a limit to how much information I can access.

 

Well then that debunks your whole argument. :cool: :tup:

 

10) Reread my post. A private company (who's long term goal is to make money) is planning a route over the Goethals Bridge.

 

LOL... Oh so because their goal is to make money, that means that the ridership is there? What a load of BS. I won't go on mentioning names, but a certain private company has tried to run plenty of lines on Staten Island with the goal being to make money and FAILED miserably.

 

11) But there's no proof that it isn't needed either. I've shown that there are a significant number of people who commute between the two counties, which shows that there is at least potential.

 

No it doesn't. All it does is show that a bunch of people commute between the two counties. That does NOT mean that you'll be able to get folks to use buses just because a bunch of people drive there. You need to really KNOW what the needs are of folks that are commuting there before you can conclude that a bus route is needed there.

 

12) If service overall is increased along Forest Avenue, then the reduced reliability is made up for by the increased service, so you're not going to have passengers being overly delayed.

 

Oh please!! :mad: How in the hell is reliability made up for when you would have buses bypassing passengers??!!?

 

13) The S98 doesn't end too far from the Goethals Bridge either.

 

That was the point, but okay.

 

Plus, I thought you were tired of the people further north supposedly getting better service than the people by Forest Avenue. That's exactly what the S90 would do.

 

I am and this would be the same thing. I don't see how the S98 being extended would better serve people by Forest Avenue and at the same time, now that I think about it, the S90 wouldn't need it either for the reason of a lack of ridership that you mentioned along Richmond Terrace, so like I said, IF there is really a need, then the line should be its own line.

 

14) I don't know. It seems too far east to even be considered West Brighton.

 

Parts of Henderson Avenue is certainly West Brighton.

 

15) What do you mean "Meanders like crazy"? The only place where it turns is in the Westerleigh area. It doesn't meander as much as say, Richmond Terrace. And if they want to continue east, they don't have to "meander": They can just go straight down Victory Blvd.

 

Oh God. Just stop already. Take out a damn map and tell me what Forest Avenue does if it isn't meandering. :mad:

 

17) LMAO. And yes, Staten Island overall lacks a grid system, but the North Shore does have a grid system, being more urban than the South Shore. Hell, when you look within specific neighborhoods in most SI neighborhoods, you do see a grid system.

 

Well, B35 and I have already explained this until we're blue in the face. I'm not even bothering anymore. You can look at it all you want. It is NOT a grid.

[qjtransitmaster]

Naming specific neighborhoods now? yeah, you are reaching hard with this one.....

 

 

CC, what hurts your argument is that all the north shore routes emanate from a hub & spoke... just b/c you have routes that intersect with them along the way, doesn't make it part of a grid.... Outside of a grid route's terminals (which would be non-revenue service anyway), they generally do not turn, or make too many diversions... forget the routes for a second, staten island's street layout in itself isn't a grid....

 

You can continue to be stubborn about it, or defend a flat out incorrect point of view if you want... but for the sake of not sounding as ridiculous as you are right now, you may want to engage in a tiny bit of research.... There is no grid system of any kind w/i Staten Island.

can you do the victory pose cause this is the best post of the thread. I think he already knows that SI is spoke and hub. But the hub part of the S98 is what prevents it from going to NJ!!!!!!!!!!! That is why only NJT is suitable for the elizbeth service. Plus for other routes like 26 or 99 to an extent are able to do it via extension.

[qjtransitmaster]

It isn't even about conceding. You're just dead WRONG and since you don't believe us, go do the research yourself.

 

 

 

The Gowanus is usually a 20 minute delay when it is backed up. Canal St can be 20 minutes by itself, let alone the Holland Tunnel.

 

 

 

Dude, this has NOTHING to do with this! Staten Island does NOT have a grid!! B35 and I wouldn't insist on it if this weren't the case. Why don't do some research and stop giving us a definition? We know what a grid is, and Staten Island doesn't have one.

 

 

 

There is always an alternative, just that some alternatives may not be as convenient as others, so that is a moot point.

 

4) If the connections run frequently enough, then the delay doesn't make a big difference either. The Northeast Corridor Line is the most frequent line in the NJT commuter rail system. If you miss a train, it's not that big a deal (during rush hour at least)

 

 

 

Ay yay yay... You just said that the ridership was already there...

 

 

 

Where do you keep getting this that ridership is going to be so high??? You have NO evidence to support this and that census crappola means nothing.

 

 

 

Even so just where in the world is all of this money supposed to come from to run this "extension"?

 

 

 

Okay, this proposal is becoming more and more ridiculous by the minute. The point of bus service is to serve people, not bypass them.

 

 

 

Well then that debunks your whole argument. :cool: :tup:

 

 

 

LOL... Oh so because their goal is to make money, that means that the ridership is there? What a load of BS. I won't go on mentioning names, but a certain private company has tried to run plenty of lines on Staten Island with the goal being to make money and FAILED miserably.

 

 

 

No it doesn't. All it does is show that a bunch of people commute between the two counties. That does NOT mean that you'll be able to get folks to use buses just because a bunch of people drive there. You need to really KNOW what the needs are of folks that are commuting there before you can conclude that a bus route is needed there.

 

 

 

Oh please!! :mad: How in the hell is reliability made up for when you would have buses bypassing passengers??!!?

 

 

 

That was the point, but okay.

 

 

 

I am and this would be the same thing. I don't see how the S98 being extended would better serve people by Forest Avenue and at the same time, now that I think about it, the S90 wouldn't need it either for the reason of a lack of ridership that you mentioned along Richmond Terrace, so like I said, IF there is really a need, then the line should be its own line.

 

 

 

Parts of Henderson Avenue is certainly West Brighton.

 

 

 

Oh God. Just stop already. Take out a damn map and tell me what Forest Avenue does if it isn't meandering. :mad:

 

 

 

Well, B35 and I have already explained this until we're blue in the face. I'm not even bothering anymore. You can look at it all you want. It is NOT a grid.

I think you won this round but checkmate is the persistant type similar to me. I already know that S98 can't go to NJ however I probably set him off in the first place with my ideas for S54-57 which are unrelated. The best route for that is NJT either 52 or 26 preferably 26 to boost ridership. The x22 can gain full time service with an added off peak stop at newark airport. Then an NJT route from union can go there but again that is risky. There are too many variables to determine a suitable route

[checkmatechamp13]

1) It isn't even about conceding. You're just dead WRONG and since you don't believe us, go do the research yourself.

 

2) The Gowanus is usually a 20 minute delay when it is backed up. Canal St can be 20 minutes by itself, let alone the Holland Tunnel.

 

3) Dude, this has NOTHING to do with this! Staten Island does NOT have a grid!! B35 and I wouldn't insist on it if this weren't the case. Why don't do some research and stop giving us a definition? We know what a grid is, and Staten Island doesn't have one.

 

4) There is always an alternative, just that some alternatives may not be as convenient as others, so that is a moot point.

 

5) Ay yay yay... You just said that the ridership was already there...

 

6) Where do you keep getting this that ridership is going to be so high??? You have NO evidence to support this and that census crappola means nothing.

 

7) Even so just where in the world is all of this money supposed to come from to run this "extension"?

 

8) Okay, this proposal is becoming more and more ridiculous by the minute. The point of bus service is to serve people, not bypass them.

 

9) Well then that debunks your whole argument. :cool: :tup:

 

10) LOL... Oh so because their goal is to make money, that means that the ridership is there? What a load of BS. I won't go on mentioning names, but a certain private company has tried to run plenty of lines on Staten Island with the goal being to make money and FAILED miserably.

 

11) No it doesn't. All it does is show that a bunch of people commute between the two counties. That does NOT mean that you'll be able to get folks to use buses just because a bunch of people drive there. You need to really KNOW what the needs are of folks that are commuting there before you can conclude that a bus route is needed there.

 

12) Oh please!! :mad: How in the hell is reliability made up for when you would have buses bypassing passengers??!!?

 

13) That was the point, but okay.

 

14) I am and this would be the same thing. I don't see how the S98 being extended would better serve people by Forest Avenue and at the same time, now that I think about it, the S90 wouldn't need it either for the reason of a lack of ridership that you mentioned along Richmond Terrace, so like I said, IF there is really a need, then the line should be its own line.

 

15) Parts of Henderson Avenue is certainly West Brighton.

 

16) Oh God. Just stop already. Take out a damn map and tell me what Forest Avenue does if it isn't meandering. :mad:

 

17) Well, B35 and I have already explained this until we're blue in the face. I'm not even bothering anymore. You can look at it all you want. It is NOT a grid.

 

1) OK. So I'm wrong.

 

2) Alright.

 

3) Whatever...

 

4) I don't see what you're saying. If the alternative (driving or going through Jersey City) isn't that convenient, then that proves that there could be potential for this route.

 

5) And where was the ridership when they originally started up the route?

 

6) You're connecting a fairly dense residential area with a large transfer point in NJ (which also has a high population density). I don't know what more evidence you need. If that and the Census data can't convince you, nothing will.

 

7) Some would be made up by the fares. And for the rest, I have two words for you: Richmond Avenue.

 

8) So let me get this straight: You were trying to use the "They're not serving anybody if they're stuck in traffic" argument against me before, and now you're saying that they shouldn't find an alternate route around the traffic. If traffic comes to a complete standstill, then they will try to find an alternate route, leaving the people in the bypassed section with the S48. They're no worse off (waiting time-wise) than they are now, but at least the bus will show up less crowded and they'll have less crowds further down the line.

 

9) Yeah, but for a private citizen, I did manage to get a decent amount of information. :cool:

 

10) And do you know why they failed? It's because the MTA ran a bus line that was more reliable, faster, and cheaper and forced it out of business. They were doing alright before that.

 

I'm not going to say the MTA was right or wrong in taking over the market, but they were a large factor (if not the reason) why he pulled out.

 

By the way, it's the same company planning to run the service.

 

11) With tolls and the price of gas going up, I think you'll find people a bit more willing to get out of their cars.

 

12) See #8.

 

13) I don't see what you're saying. If the S98 ends by the Goethals Bridge, that at least makes it a candidate for extension.

 

14) It would add service to Forest Avenue (Off-peak. During rush hour, maybe a little service would be added). I don't see how that can hurt.

 

15) So you stand on the corner of Henderson Avenue/Broadway and tell me that's "affluent", with a housing project on one side and Section 8 townhouses on the other. You know full well which part of the S44 I was talking about: The part east of Bard Avenue. The rest isn't "flanked by Snug Harbor and big houses", and that's not West Brighton.

 

16) A couple of little turns isn't meandering. In any case, that's not the reason why B35 said it's not a grid. Re-read his post.

 

17) And I'm not denying that SI is hub-and-spoke. But I was saying that the street layout is a little bit of a grid. You have east-west streets and north-south streets. Just because they're not perfectly straight doesn't make it a non-grid pattern.

[qjtransitmaster]

1) OK. So I'm wrong.

 

2) Alright.

 

3) Whatever...

 

4) I don't see what you're saying. If the alternative (driving or going through Jersey City) isn't that convenient, then that proves that there could be potential for this route.

 

5) And where was the ridership when they originally started up the route?

 

6) You're connecting a fairly dense residential area with a large transfer point in NJ (which also has a high population density). I don't know what more evidence you need. If that and the Census data can't convince you, nothing will.

 

7) Some would be made up by the fares. And for the rest, I have two words for you: Richmond Avenue.

 

8) So let me get this straight: You were trying to use the "They're not serving anybody if they're stuck in traffic" argument against me before, and now you're saying that they shouldn't find an alternate route around the traffic. If traffic comes to a complete standstill, then they will try to find an alternate route, leaving the people in the bypassed section with the S48. They're no worse off (waiting time-wise) than they are now, but at least the bus will show up less crowded and they'll have less crowds further down the line.

 

You are right as a route is needed BUT you are wrong in implementation!!!!!! That service is better done by NJT via 26 extension or 37 from airport after renumbering of course. 26 =106; 37=110 done end of story move on. MTA routes just aren't cut out for that multipurpose routing they aren't NJT. The only reason why S54-57 would work is cause they are like crosstowns in SI and are in desparate need of a major destination where none in SI exists!!!!!!

 

NJT is the master of getting ppl out of cars basically where MTA is spoiled with transit dependant folk!!!!!!!! NJT has to work twice as hard to get transit ridership than MTA. MOST NJT users HAVE CARS but still use NJT