An idea: Should the "S93' serve the Brooklyn VA Medical center when it runs?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Given the MTA's criteria/stipulation, there's gonna end up being reductions elsewhere, have that happen....

 

Sometimes I feel like it's a waste of time coming up with proposals anymore... I do not believe in the philosophy of taking away from others to benefit another group of people... and that looks to be the message the MTA's (indirectly) giving....

 

I'm aware of the S93's purpose, thanks....

 

I myself don't see much of a point to sending it past CSI and worrying about its resulting reliability on top of it.... one or the other is gonna have to be fully considered...

(A similar POV is why I was always against that B35 proposal out to New Lots ; buses aren't gonna become anymore reliable, and we over here definitely don't have ridership issues)....

 

Now if the S93 were hard pressed for riders, then I would throw out the reliability argument & fully support that particular extension... To anyone that wanna bring up network coverage, it can be done for those purposes, but I just don't think it'd be worth it....

 

I think I'm on the brink of giving up "fighting the good fight"..... bus service (in general) is gonna start dwindling as time progresses anyway.....

 

I only brought up the purpose of the S93 because a certain someone doesn't seem to understand its main purpose. As for the Richmond Avenue extension, I only suggested it because it would connect folks to another main artery on the island and wouldn't be too far of an extension.

[qjtransitmaster]

Given the MTA's criteria/stipulation, there's gonna end up being reductions elsewhere, have that happen....

 

Sometimes I feel like it's a waste of time coming up with proposals anymore... I do not believe in the philosophy of taking away from others to benefit another group of people... and that looks to be the message the MTA's (indirectly) giving....

 

I'm aware of the S93's purpose, thanks....

I myself don't see much of a point to sending it past CSI and worrying about its resulting reliability on top of it.... one or the other is gonna have to be fully considered...

(A similar POV is why I was always against that B35 proposal out to New Lots ; buses aren't gonna become anymore reliable, and we over here definitely don't have ridership issues)....

 

Now if the S93 were hard pressed for riders, then I would throw out the reliability argument & fully support that particular extension... To anyone that wanna bring up network coverage, it can be done for those purposes, but I just don't think it'd be worth it....

 

I think I'm on the brink of giving up "fighting the good fight"..... bus service (in general) is gonna start dwindling as time progresses anyway.....

 

If short range planning was my specialty I would have submitted plans to MTA but all I have is adding trip generators to rtes and re configuring queens express to improve mid range travel within queens and make them more efficient(indirectly improving service and travel time) which is one of MTA's weaknesses. However I am more long range as I used long distance buses more than MTA ones can't help with what I don't even know.

 

You have to know how they think then find common ground with their attitude and your proposals instead of just saying improve here and there due to need say it indirectly like reroute adjust extend to area with high ridership and terminal with many other rtes cost savings due to reduced DH miles and improvement in service(indirectly) You have to manipulate characteristics of the rte you want to improve in a way that fools the MTA. Then look at others in the area. My LI plan is mergers in suffolk via sunrise hwy but in nassau it's manipulation of trip generators and transferring rte segments between lines to make them more efficient. Giving up is for the weak you simply have to change your strategy. cmon you know better than that:cool:

[Santa Fe via Willow]

It's amazing how it's pretty much in the middle of nowhere, and yet it can get so much traffic. The same for Rockland Avenue in the Greenbelt.

 

 

 

1) The last time I checked, you said you barely use the local buses on SI.

 

As far as where the S61 and S66 could go, the answer is nowhere, but that doesn't mean Victory Blvd doesn't have service that could be trimmed a bit. (I mean, you could combine the S61 and S66 into one route that goes down Bradley Avenue and Jewett Avenue, but that's never going to happen. They'd probably lose a ton of ridership if that happened)

 

2) It is on the subway.

 

And you're not going to sit there and tell me that 14:00 is rush hour, are you?

 

3) I would if I had already missed the S61 and S62. I'd have nothing to lose.

 

4) Well then let's agree to disagree.

 

5) Eh, my family's been shopping there since we moved here 7 years ago. At some point, the low prices stopped impressing us and we took them for granted.

 

Rockland Ave becomes clogged due to it being a way to/from the Mall &/or New Dorp for alot of folks. Forest Hill Rd becomes clogged due to it being a Mall feeding road, & due to its connections with Rockland Ave & Snake Hill {Richmond Hill Rd}, as well as CSI during the school year.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Aside from that, I don't see how that is even possible. The S61 goes south and the S66 goes north after Victory...

 

2) Wiseguy... You know what I mean... And to answer your question, what does rush hour have to do with it? If a bus gets good usage it gets good usage. The obviously looked at the ridership numbers in order to conclude that the service that they were providing was necessary. You cannot cut from an artery like the S62 just to give another line that happens to run down Victory for part of its route more service. :tdown: That's like cutting back on S48 service to give the S59 a boost in service along the small portion of Forest Avenue that it serves. That's just completely irrational. The S62 IS the Victory Blvd bus, as it serves all of Victory Blvd. Meanwhile the S93 on serves a small portion of Victory Blvd, especially since it makes limited stops. Like I said, if you want to have the line extended, get the savings from elsewhere. :tdown:

 

3) Yeah, but you more than likely wouldn't know if you had missed them anyway so that's inmaterial.

 

4) Well if you're that adamant about it then make suggestions for less service on Richmond Avenue... Those buses run in packs on Richmond like I can't believe... Last night I observed while waiting for my cab to pick me up with my Perrier and such. Two X10s back to back (but those are needed because I know that those buses are about 8 minutes apart from the city around 20:00 - 20:10 when the next wave of folks leaving work start to get on), then 2 S44s... One packed one and one with a handful of folks on it and then a S59 with a few people on it just minutes after that second S44 came. I still think those buses need to be better spaced. It's almost like they have buses running along there to control overflow or something, which is just dumb. Space the buses properly and have them hold their schedule and there is no need for all of that. :mad:

 

5) Yeah, I'm starting to do the same. If certain items aren't on sale there, I just don't buy them until they go back on sale. I could've bought Bounty the last time I went, but none were on sale, so yesterday they had the 8 pack on sale and I got that. They've got a good strategy though... The more items that are on sale, the more I tend to buy because I'm saving in other places, but I'm nipping that in the bud. I only got things that I needed basically aside from the cereal, but I treated myself to an extra box because of the savings I got with the other items. :cool:

 

1) Simple. Just have the new route run via the S61 route from the SI Mall to Victory Blvd, and then have it run via the S66 route north of Victory Blvd. But like I said, it would probably hurt ridership pretty badly along Bradley Avenue.

 

2) No I don't know what you mean. What is 14:00 if not midday? It's definitely not PM rush hour.

 

And the S59 vs. S48 has nothing to do with this. The S59 spends like 3 blocks along Forest Avenue, whereas the S93 spends a few miles along Victory Blvd.

 

And what part didn't you understand of the costs will be recovered by the extra ridership according to my calculations???? I'm only suggesting the S62 service reduction (which need I remind you is very slight) if they come up with new calculations and decide that they need savings from another source.

 

3) It's called looking at a schedule.

 

4) Where have you been? I've been saying for months that there is excess service (then again, that's by my standards. ). I mean, throughout the day, you'll see on average a little less than a seated load (assuming the buses are spaced right). Make of that information what you will.

 

5) Well, ultimately they end up losing money on customers like myself. I buy the stuff that's on sale and stock up (occasionally I go to other stores and get the sales from there as well, but ShopRite's my main supermarket). So on my purchases, I save around 50% off the regular price, give or take.

 

1) dude on subchat got the S93 panning east of richmond (av), to turn around on local streets.... The whole (service to) richmond av proposal isn't limited to him, but would it be really worth it to extend it westward.... this is what I meant in another thread about not understanding the purpose of certain routes.....

 

 

1) The reason for that would be to expand the connection opportunities and hopefully boost ridership.

 

I think it could be extended westward on Staten Island, BUT not if that means reductions in service to other lines. I would have it extended to Richmond Avenue perhaps, but any further than that and I would want to see some sort of study that shows that there would be enough ridership to sustain the extension, otherwise it is a waste of resources. I would also contend that extending it further could make the line less reliable and its real purpose serves more as a shuttle from CSI to Brooklyn.

 

See #2 above.

 

In any case, it would be more efficient than some routes that currently run, like the S54. It's easier to bring back an old service (in this case weekend service) than to start a new one, but the new one could benefit more riders for the same cost (which in this case would be practically nothing). You refuse to acknowledge that because you live near the S54 but not the S93.

 

I'm aware of the S93's purpose, thanks....

I myself don't see much of a point to sending it past CSI and worrying about its resulting reliability on top of it.... one or the other is gonna have to be fully considered...

 

 

If the purpose was for Brooklyn-CSI riders, why was reverse-peak service added then?

 

And the purpose for my extension is to provide network coverage in the area around the SIE. The fact that it goes to Arlington is just to get extra ridership.

[Shortline Bus]

Returning to the original topic, I would say no, and instead suggest that the B63 have a branch that serves SUNY Downstate-Bay Ridge (to where service is currently horrible, only serviced by the B70) and the VA Hospital. Alternating B63 trips (which would carry the B53 designation) would be sent that way.

 

 

While employees/staff at the Va Hosp. work all over Brooklyn, SI and beyond, mass transit wise i doubt many of them will use the bus going towards Park Slope/Red Hook and Downtown Brooklyn.

 

Thus the best option is to restore at least partial 95th Street(B8) service (every 2nd-3rd bus)during daytime hours. Or in worst case loop the (S93) in/out the VA Hosp. before terminating at the 86th/4th Ave station.

 

And if the (S93) was ever extended westbound it should be no further IMO than Richmond Ave/Victory.

[B35 via Church]

You have to know how they think then find common ground with their attitude and your proposals instead of just saying improve here and there due to need say it indirectly like reroute adjust extend to area with high ridership and terminal with many other rtes cost savings due to reduced DH miles and improvement in service(indirectly) You have to manipulate characteristics of the rte you want to improve in a way that fools the MTA. Then look at others in the area. My LI plan is mergers in suffolk via sunrise hwy but in nassau it's manipulation of trip generators and transferring rte segments between lines to make them more efficient. Giving up is for the weak you simply have to change your strategy. cmon you know better than that

There's no common ground to come to, and there's no strategy that can trump irrationality......

 

 

If the purpose was for Brooklyn-CSI riders, why was reverse-peak service added then?

 

And the purpose for my extension is to provide network coverage in the area around the SIE. The fact that it goes to Arlington is just to get extra ridership.

There's a difference between the purpose of something, and what else can benefitted from it....

 

i.e.... If I had money like that & went out and got an S-class mercedes, the purpose of gettin that car is for transportation purposes.... If I end up attracting (and nailing) pretty women as a result, so be it..... You don't walk up to a car dealer(ship) askin for a car to attract prettier women.....

 

Case you don't get it (or act like you don't wanna get it), the fact that reverse peak ridership was added, does nothin to detract from the route's purpose....

 

 

as for that second point, my comment had absolutely nothin to do with whatever extension of yours you're talkin about......

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) Simple. Just have the new route run via the S61 route from the SI Mall to Victory Blvd, and then have it run via the S66 route north of Victory Blvd. But like I said, it would probably hurt ridership pretty badly along Bradley Avenue.

 

Yes, it would...

 

2) No I don't know what you mean. What is 14:00 if not midday? It's definitely not PM rush hour.

 

14:00 is NOT midday... 12:00 is...

 

And the S59 vs. S48 has nothing to do with this. The S59 spends like 3 blocks along Forest Avenue, whereas the S93 spends a few miles along Victory Blvd.

 

Ay yay yay... Who is measuring how long the S59 spends on Forest Avenue? The point is the S93 is NOT a main route along Victory Blvd. It spends sometime along Victory but since it makes limited stops, the time spent actually making STOPS is not that long.

 

And what part didn't you understand of the costs will be recovered by the extra ridership according to my calculations???? I'm only suggesting the S62 service reduction (which need I remind you is very slight) if they come up with new calculations and decide that they need savings from another source.

 

You still have no hard figures to show that this extension will be utilized... Where exactly is the S93 supposed to be extended to again and what route??

 

3) It's called looking at a schedule.

 

Oh please... Schedules are useless on Staten Island and you know that. Rarely do buses show up at the times they are scheduled, so they're early late or early, so no, you couldn't know for sure if the bus came unless you arrived early enough.

 

4) Where have you been? I've been saying for months that there is excess service (then again, that's by my standards. ). I mean, throughout the day, you'll see on average a little less than a seated load (assuming the buses are spaced right). Make of that information what you will.

 

I didn't say excess. I said spacing needed to be better. Two very different things and if spacing was done right you could probably make those lines more efficient and get savings that way.

 

5) Well, ultimately they end up losing money on customers like myself. I buy the stuff that's on sale and stock up (occasionally I go to other stores and get the sales from there as well, but ShopRite's my main supermarket). So on my purchases, I save around 50% off the regular price, give or take.

 

Cheapskate...

 

 

 

If the purpose was for Brooklyn-CSI riders, why was reverse-peak service added then?

 

What a ridiculous question... Simple because college students have classes at all times of the day and ALL of them need to get from Brooklyn to CSI quickly. Quite frankly the S93 should run all day in both directions, but they probably can't afford the service like that. Sure it gets other folks but it's the CSI students that the S93 is really for.

 

And the purpose for my extension is to provide network coverage in the area around the SIE. The fact that it goes to Arlington is just to get extra ridership.

 

Talk about overkill... I want to know where this bus is supposed to after CSI...

[checkmatechamp13]

There's a difference between the purpose of something, and what else can benefitted from it....

 

i.e.... If I had money like that & went out and got an S-class mercedes, the purpose of gettin that car is for transportation purposes.... If I end up attracting (and nailing) pretty women as a result, so be it..... You don't walk up to a car dealer(ship) askin for a car to attract prettier women.....

 

Case you don't get it (or act like you don't wanna get it), the fact that reverse peak ridership was added, does nothin to detract from the route's purpose....

 

as for that second point, my comment had absolutely nothin to do with whatever extension of yours you're talkin about......

 

True, but if something else can be gained besides its original purpose, why not go for that gain?

 

So if the dealer said that you can attract pretty women by adding a certain feature to the car, why wouldn't you do it? Its the same case here.

 

And I swear I'm seeing things. I could've sworn one of your posts mentioned extending a route for the purposes of network coverage.

 

1) 14:00 is NOT midday... 12:00 is...

 

2) Ay yay yay... Who is measuring how long the S59 spends on Forest Avenue? The point is the S93 is NOT a main route along Victory Blvd. It spends sometime along Victory but since it makes limited stops, the time spent actually making STOPS is not that long.

 

3) You still have no hard figures to show that this extension will be utilized... Where exactly is the S93 supposed to be extended to again and what route??

 

4) I didn't say excess. I said spacing needed to be better. Two very different things and if spacing was done right you could probably make those lines more efficient and get savings that way.

 

5) What a ridiculous question... Simple because college students have classes at all times of the day and ALL of them need to get from Brooklyn to CSI quickly. Quite frankly the S93 should run all day in both directions, but they probably can't afford the service like that. Sure it gets other folks but it's the CSI students that the S93 is really for.

 

6) Talk about overkill... I want to know where this bus is supposed to after CSI...

 

1) You're kidding. When used to refer to transit, it refers to a time period, not a specific time.

 

On the subway, PM rush hour is 15:30-20:00, and midday is 09:30-15:30. With the buses, they have midday listed as 11:00-13:00 and PM rush hour listed as 16:00-19:00, but that's just a representative time period. Rush hour definitely doesn't start at 14:00 regardless of which way you look at it.

 

2) It's long enough to be considered significant. On Forest Avenue, nobody is saying "I can take the S48 or the S59, whichever comes first". On Victory Blvd, there are plenty of people saying that about the S62 and S93.

 

3) I do. You just keep ignoring them.

 

And the route is on my signature (Ya know, the one I've had up for well over a month). It would go via Richmond Avenue to the SIE service road (and provide network coverage in the area), and then go up South Avenue to Arlington to get extra riders to cover the cost.

 

4) Well, they definitely need to space them better, but like I said, you're not going to get that much more ridership by doing that.

 

I mean, they're definitely not empty by any means (on average), but the buses should be more full.

 

5) What college student has a class that ends at 06:00 (that's not a typo. I'm talking about the morning time)???? Clearly, they realized that people were traveling to Brooklyn at that time. And coming back around 17:30, there were zero students walking into CSI from the S93 at that time.

 

6) See #2.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) You're kidding. When used to refer to transit, it refers to a time period, not a specific time.

 

On the subway, PM rush hour is 15:30-20:00, and midday is 09:30-15:30. With the buses, they have midday listed as 11:00-13:00 and PM rush hour listed as 16:00-19:00, but that's just a representative time period. Rush hour definitely doesn't start at 14:00 regardless of which way you look at it.

 

Well it wasn't clear that you were referring to transit since you gave a specific time. Even so, specific time or not, 14:00 is still not listed as midday when referring to transit... You have plenty of express bus service starting at 14:00 with folks coming home from work. I was surprised at how many people get on those 05:30 and 05:50 buses and those folks take those 14:00 and 15:00 and 16:00 buses. They're usually pretty crowded, so like I said there is nothing to cut at that time, including the S62. :mad: :tdown:

 

2) It's long enough to be considered significant. On Forest Avenue, nobody is saying "I can take the S48 or the S59, whichever comes first". On Victory Blvd, there are plenty of people saying that about the S62 and S93.

 

Oh please... That's because you can get to Manhattan using both of them and you know it.

 

3) I do. You just keep ignoring them.

 

Uh huh and you just keep substituting hard stats with gibberish.

 

And the route is on my signature (Ya know, the one I've had up for well over a month). It would go via Richmond Avenue to the SIE service road (and provide network coverage in the area), and then go up South Avenue to Arlington to get extra riders to cover the cost.

 

Where would it go once it reached the SIE service road to get to South Avenue?? :confused:

 

4) Well, they definitely need to space them better, but like I said, you're not going to get that much more ridership by doing that.

 

I mean, they're definitely not empty by any means (on average), but the buses should be more full.

 

That's the point though. Spacing them better would make the crowding better spaced on the buses, thus you wouldn't have a crushloaded bus and then a bus with 5 people on it.

 

5) What college student has a class that ends at 06:00 (that's not a typo. I'm talking about the morning time)???? Clearly, they realized that people were traveling to Brooklyn at that time. And coming back around 17:30, there were zero students walking into CSI from the S93 at that time.

 

Ay yay yay... You clearly don't realize that college students travel TO colleges in the city too from Staten Island! I see plenty of them on my express bus in the morning (X12, X14, X30 and X2) and there are plenty on the S93 going to Brooklyn in the morning when I've used it. Sure, not all of them are college students, but the majority of them are. There are also high school students that go to the city to school too, as I've seen some on the X12.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Well it wasn't clear that you were referring to transit since you gave a specific time. Even so, specific time or not, 14:00 is still not listed as midday when referring to transit... You have plenty of express bus service starting at 14:00 with folks coming home from work. I was surprised at how many people get on those 05:30 and 05:50 buses and those folks take those 14:00 and 15:00 and 16:00 buses. They're usually pretty crowded, so like I said there is nothing to cut at that time, including the S62. :mad: :tdown:

 

2) Oh please... That's because you can get to Manhattan using both of them and you know it.

 

3) Uh huh and you just keep substituting hard stats with gibberish.

 

4) Where would it go once it reached the SIE service road to get to South Avenue?? :confused:

 

5) That's the point though. Spacing them better would make the crowding better spaced on the buses, thus you wouldn't have a crushloaded bus and then a bus with 5 people on it.

 

6) Ay yay yay... You clearly don't realize that college students travel TO colleges in the city too from Staten Island! I see plenty of them on my express bus in the morning (X12, X14, X30 and X2) and there are plenty on the S93 going to Brooklyn in the morning when I've used it. Sure, not all of them are college students, but the majority of them are. There are also high school students that go to the city to school too, as I've seen some on the X12.

 

1) There still aren't a whole lot of express buses running at 14:00. The frequency starts to increase on the X1/10/17, but most of the rush hour-only express routes don't start running until around 16:00.

 

Plus, on the subway, 14:00 is midday. On the buses, it's the same thing, but throughout the midday, some buses run on different headways, so on the back of the map, it says "11AM-1PM" (for instance, around noon, they might run every 10 minutes, and then around 13:00, they might run every 8 minutes, but during rush hour, they run every 4 minutes).

 

So basically, I'm saying that 11:00-13:00 isn't the whole midday.

 

And the S62 has 12 minute headways going to the ferry, so I stand my my case that it's excess service. Whether it should be cut is a different story.

 

And like I said, even if it was excess service, the resources are being used to help an area with no service.

 

2) Most people don't think like that. The only time that they would think like that is if they think they'll miss the ferry. I'm referring to people using the bus within SI and you know it.

 

3) What are you talking about? Everything I said is true.

 

* It needs only 8 extra riders generated to the system to break even. That's a fact because it's based on calculations using the costs for the other services in the system.

* It serves an area that would otherwise be beyond the planning guidelines for service (you shouldn't be more than 1/2 mile from a bus if you're in the suburbs. If this were an urban area, the distance would be 1/4 mile). The MTA even admitted that in the letter, so you can't deny the service isn't needed because the MTA themselves said so.

* It would serve some dense residential areas, a school, 2 subsidized housing complexes (Mariners' Harbor and Arlington Terrace), and some shopping.

 

4) Do I have to spell everything out for you?

 

Westbound: Victory Blvd->Richmond Avenue->Goethals Road North->South Avenue->Arlington Place->Holland Avenue.

Eastbound: Richmond Terrace->South Avenue->Fahy Avenue->Lamberts Lane->Richmond Avenue->Victory Blvd.

 

5) I know it would spread out the crowding, but I'd still feel there's excess service, especially around school arrival/dismissal times. The least they can do is cut those extra buses.

 

6) So let me get this straight: All college students going to Manhattan live east of CSI. None of them live in Bulls Head, Graniteville, Mariners' Harbor, or Arlington. Is that correct?

 

You were implying that the route's purpose was to serve CSI students. When I came up with the reverse-peak service argument, you changed it to include all college students. I wonder what argument you're going to come up with now? That my above statement is true?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) There still aren't a whole lot of express buses running at 14:00. The frequency starts to increase on the X1/10/17, but most of the rush hour-only express routes don't start running until around 16:00.

 

Yeah of course not because it's not rush hour, BUT you do have X12s running at that time and the X1 basically covers all of the variations along Hylan so the frequencies do get higher.

 

Plus, on the subway, 14:00 is midday. On the buses, it's the same thing, but throughout the midday, some buses run on different headways, so on the back of the map, it says "11AM-1PM" (for instance, around noon, they might run every 10 minutes, and then around 13:00, they might run every 8 minutes, but during rush hour, they run every 4 minutes).

 

So basically, I'm saying that 11:00-13:00 isn't the whole midday.

 

Yeah well either way, we're not talking about the subway. This is about BUS service...

 

And the S62 has 12 minute headways going to the ferry, so I stand my my case that it's excess service. Whether it should be cut is a different story.

 

Excess service based on what??? I was along Victory today and the S61 was SRO going to the ferry at around 18:00. As stingy as the is, there is no way that they're just running buses along Victory just because. The service is warranted and you just don't want to admit it.

 

And like I said, even if it was excess service, the resources are being used to help an area with no service.

 

Talk about a hypocrite. It isn't okay for one area to have "excess" service, but it's okay for another area to have it though because you want service along that corridor. And no the S62 doesn't have excess service. :mad:

 

2) Most people don't think like that. The only time that they would think like that is if they think they'll miss the ferry. I'm referring to people using the bus within SI and you know it.

 

Oh please... They're only saying that if they aren't going past Clove Rd going towards the ferry and the S93 doesn't run all day like the S62 does so that's a moot point.

 

3) What are you talking about? Everything I said is true.

 

* It needs only 8 extra riders generated to the system to break even. That's a fact because it's based on calculations using the costs for the other services in the system.

* It serves an area that would otherwise be beyond the planning guidelines for service (you shouldn't be more than 1/2 mile from a bus if you're in the suburbs. If this were an urban area, the distance would be 1/4 mile). The MTA even admitted that in the letter, so you can't deny the service isn't needed because the MTA themselves said so.

* It would serve some dense residential areas, a school, 2 subsidized housing complexes (Mariners' Harbor and Arlington Terrace), and some shopping.

 

Oh really? So now they said that service is needed?? This is first time I'm hearing this. But yet they said that this is also a new untested market too... Those two things don't seem to make any sense. If the service was needed that badly then they'd find a way to provide it. They also said that the "excess" service that you keep complaining about was needed based on RIDERSHIP numbers along the corridor, but you refuse to accept that though...

 

4) Do I have to spell everything out for you?

 

Westbound: Victory Blvd->Richmond Avenue->Goethals Road North->South Avenue->Arlington Place->Holland Avenue.

Eastbound: Richmond Terrace->South Avenue->Fahy Avenue->Lamberts Lane->Richmond Avenue->Victory Blvd.

 

Yeah, you should spell it out. And you want to talk about excess service?? South Avenue already has the S46, which you said doesn't need to run all the way down South Ave. Then Arlington Place/Holland Avenue has the S48, so all you're doing is stealing riders from other routes. Where are the new riders!!??? :mad::mad::tdown::tdown:

 

6) So let me get this straight: All college students going to Manhattan live east of CSI. None of them live in Bulls Head, Graniteville, Mariners' Harbor, or Arlington. Is that correct?

 

You were implying that the route's purpose was to serve CSI students. When I came up with the reverse-peak service argument, you changed it to include all college students. I wonder what argument you're going to come up with now? That my above statement is true?

 

Yeah and that's still true. The route's overall purpose is for CSI students. Of course other folks use the line and I'm a prime example of it. How do you know that these reverse peak buses aren't serving CSI students? College students have to go places you know. They don't just go to college and back. LRG can attest for the reverse service.

[B35 via Church]

True, but if something else can be gained besides its original purpose, why not go for that gain?

 

So if the dealer said that you can attract pretty women by adding a certain feature to the car, why wouldn't you do it? Its the same case here.

 

And I swear I'm seeing things. I could've sworn one of your posts mentioned extending a route for the purposes of network coverage.

 

whoa, whoa, wait a second....

You asked me, if the purpose of the route is what it is, then why was reverse peak service added.....

 

Don't try to spin it as if I'm implying the S93 should only exist for the purpose with which that route started out as..... If I actually believed that the S93 should only go b/w CSI & Brooklyn w/o serving w/e SI-ers (meaning, non CSI students) it does in between, I would've been rather adamant about any increase in reverse peak service....

 

Case I have to spell it out, I don't think the S93 should only exist for CSI students...

You'll never hear me say & believe the contrary to that statement, especially w/ how I felt about the old x32 (a school shuttle, basically)....

 

If I'm on here askin what's with this fixation w/ wantin to change the S93 route, that must mean at the very least, I think it should be left alone..... If sending it westward (or wherever) is the way you, Via, or whoever else feel should happen w/ the route, fine....

 

What I will say is, Via actually gave his reason, and a stipulation to it (which is why I never bothered to reply back to him)... You OTOH gave a reason as to what benefit a S93 extension to Richmond av would yield; I understand the possible benefit of it (which is why I never bothered to reply to that comment, either)... it's not like I think the proposal/suggestion is outlandish; it does make sense... I just don't think it should be done....

 

as for my analogy, it's absolutely not the same thing....

I'm going to the dealer to buy a car... bottom line... I'm not goin there to try to get a hot piece of tail from the car I end up buyin... could give a damn what the dealer suggests I add to the car; regardless if it comes at zero cost...

 

as for that last snippy comment, yeh, you must be seein things.... b/c in my questioning [post #59], I clearly mentioned shortline's suggestion, and the one of the guy on subchat..... nothin about yours....

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Yeah of course not because it's not rush hour, BUT you do have X12s running at that time and the X1 basically covers all of the variations along Hylan so the frequencies do get higher.

 

2) Yeah well either way, we're not talking about the subway. This is about BUS service...

 

3) Excess service based on what??? I was along Victory today and the S61 was SRO going to the ferry at around 18:00. As stingy as the is, there is no way that they're just running buses along Victory just because. The service is warranted and you just don't want to admit it.

 

4) Talk about a hypocrite. It isn't okay for one area to have "excess" service, but it's okay for another area to have it though because you want service along that corridor. And no the S62 doesn't have excess service. :mad:

 

5) Oh please... They're only saying that if they aren't going past Clove Rd going towards the ferry and the S93 doesn't run all day like the S62 does so that's a moot point.

 

6) Oh really? So now they said that service is needed?? This is first time I'm hearing this. But yet they said that this is also a new untested market too... Those two things don't seem to make any sense. If the service was needed that badly then they'd find a way to provide it. They also said that the "excess" service that you keep complaining about was needed based on RIDERSHIP numbers along the corridor, but you refuse to accept that though... B)

 

7) Yeah, you should spell it out. And you want to talk about excess service?? South Avenue already has the S46, which you said doesn't need to run all the way down South Ave. Then Arlington Place/Holland Avenue has the S48, so all you're doing is stealing riders from other routes. Where are the new riders!!??? :mad::mad::tdown::tdown:

 

8) Yeah and that's still true. The route's overall purpose is for CSI students. Of course other folks use the line and I'm a prime example of it. How do you know that these reverse peak buses aren't serving CSI students? College students have to go places you know. They don't just go to college and back. LRG can attest for the reverse service.

 

1) I know, but it's not full blown rush hour service. You can call it some type of transition period between midday and rush hour, but it's not rush hour.

 

2) You missed the comment above. I said that just because it's not listed as midday doesn't mean it isn't.

 

Think about it: The X12 runs from 14:25 to 19:50, but when they show the frequencies, it's shown as 11 minutes. However, if you include the entire span, the frequency would decrease. Those numbers are for the heart of rush hour, the heart of midday, etc.

 

They don't mean that 11AM-1PM is the whole midday. That's the point I'm trying to make. 14:00 is still midday, even on the buses.

 

3) And I guarantee you that there was an S62 a couple of minutes behind that was carrying less than a seated load. Like I said, it's the same thing with Richmond Avenue: You may see a few buses that are crowded, and then some that aren't.

 

4) "Excess service" doesn't just mean that there aren't any standees. It means that there's more service than what is required to serve the area effectively.

 

* If the S55/S56 were reduced to 60 minute headways, it wouldn't be excess service even though there would be a handful of people on the bus simply because that bus is needed to effectively serve the area.

* The S62 running at 12 minute headways is excess service because the area would still be effectively served if the headways were reduced to every 15 minutes. You wouldn't see crushloaded buses (or at least a significant number of them), and the people in the neighborhood would still have a transit access within walking distance.

 

In this case, it would fall into the first category: The buses aren't SRO, but they are still needed to serve the area.

 

5) Fine, then narrow that statement down to apply to rush hours only. It's still not analagous to the S59 vs. S48.

 

There are plenty of students who live in SI who go to CSI. If you live, say along the S53 route, you can get off at Victory Blvd, and take either the S62 or S93. The reverse applies in the PM rush.

 

6) If you thoroughly read all the letters I forwarded to you, you'd find out that it is the case. They said that "we understand your desire to provide network coverage between Victory Blvd and Forest Avenue". If they felt it wasn't needed, they would've said "We feel that the riders in that area are within walking distance of alternate transit along Victory Blvd and Forest Avenue".

 

And when they said that service couldn't be reduced, they specifically mentioned the S53 and S93 (because they purposely misunderstood my proposal). They never mentioned the S62.

 

7) I've been spelling it out on my signature for over a month. It's not my fault you can't be bothered to look at a map.

 

And the purpose of going up to Arlington was to attract new riders. Not only would it provide a one-seat ride to destinations along Victory Blvd, but it would also provide people along the SIE service road with access to more shopping on Forest Avenue.

 

If they don't want to extend it to Arlington and just want to leave it at South Avenue/Goethals Road North, that's fine by me.

 

8) LRG is traveling with the peak: To school in the morning and from it in the afternoon. How do I know they're not serving reverse-peak CSI students? Simple. What student ends class at 6AM?

 

If I'm on here askin what's with this fixation w/ wantin to change the S93 route, that must mean at the very least, I think it should be left alone..... If sending it westward (or wherever) is the way you, Via, or whoever else feel should happen w/ the route, fine....

 

as for that last snippy comment, yeh, you must be seein things.... b/c in my questioning [post #59], I clearly mentioned shortline's suggestion, and the one of the guy on subchat..... nothin about yours....

 

It doesn't have to do with the S93 per se: It has to do with the fact that a corridor is lacking network coverage, and the S93 is the only nearby route that can provide it. I came up with another proposal (an S82) that would serve the area, but the S93 is cheaper and easier to provide.

 

And that wasn't a snippy comment. I'm tired and I thought I saw a comment about network coverage. It turns out I did:

 

Now if the S93 were hard pressed for riders, then I would throw out the reliability argument & fully support that particular extension... To anyone that wanna bring up network coverage, it can be done for those purposes, but I just don't think it'd be worth it....

 

 

So my argument is entirely based on network coverage. It could get a ridership boost by extending to Richmond Avenue (buses don't come into CSI totally empty reverse-peak), but it isn't starved for ridership. Beyond that is for network coverage.

[B35 via Church]

It doesn't have to do with the S93 per se: It has to do with the fact that a corridor is lacking network coverage, and the S93 is the only nearby route that can provide it. I came up with another proposal (an S82) that would serve the area, but the S93 is cheaper and easier to provide.

 

And that wasn't a snippy comment. I'm tired and I thought I saw a comment about network coverage. It turns out I did:

 

**quote within a quote**

 

So my argument is entirely based on network coverage. It could get a ridership boost by extending to Richmond Avenue (buses don't come into CSI totally empty reverse-peak), but it isn't starved for ridership. Beyond that is for network coverage.

I see, so you took offense to that quote about network coverage... oh well, I actually wasn't thinkin about you when I said that.... guess if the shoe fits....

 

You can continue arguing with Via about network coverage, b/c you're not gonna brow beat me into believing that the S93 (which IS what I'm talkin about here) should get extended to Richmond av for that (or any other solitary) reason; since that's what your argument is "entirely based on"....

 

Routing wise, I think the S93 should be left alone, and that's the last time I'm gonna say that in this thread.... That's really why I bothered to participate in this thread in the first place.....

 

Outside of that, you keep reiterating & tryna drive home a point I'm not refuting; regarding anything pertaining to the ridership of the S93.....

 

- Yes, a ridership increase (I think) would result from such an extension...

- Where did I say anything about empty S93's...

- Just b/c I'm sayin the orig. purpose of the S93 deals with Brooklyn-CSI transport, doesn't mean I was tryna make a point against any time period where the ridership of the S93 isn't filled w/ college students; which is why you got defensive in bringing up reverse peak service to me in the first place....

[checkmatechamp13]

I see, so you took offense to that quote about network coverage... oh well, I actually wasn't thinkin about you when I said that.... guess if the shoe fits....

 

You can continue arguing with Via about network coverage, b/c you're not gonna brow beat me into believing that the S93 (which IS what I'm talkin about here) should get extended to Richmond av for that (or any other solitary) reason; since that's what your argument is "entirely based on"....

 

Routing wise, I think the S93 should be left alone, and that's the last time I'm gonna say that in this thread.... That's really why I bothered to participate in this thread in the first place.....

 

Outside of that, you keep reiterating & tryna drive home a point I'm not refuting; regarding anything pertaining to the ridership of the S93.....

 

- Yes, a ridership increase (I think) would result from such an extension...

- Where did I say anything about empty S93's...

- Just b/c I'm sayin the orig. purpose of the S93 deals with Brooklyn-CSI transport, doesn't mean I was tryna make a point against any time period where the ridership of the S93 isn't filled w/ college students; which is why you got defensive in bringing up reverse peak service to me in the first place....

 

Well, I didn't take offense to the comment about network coverage, but I was just trying to explain that it was the reason for the extension (to Arlington, not Richmond Avenue). It really didn't have anything to do with the ridership of the route.

 

As far as Richmond Avenue goes, that would be for additional ridership. It wouldn't be for network coverage because the S92 already serves that area. For that matter, I think those S62 short-turns (the PM rush ones, not the weekend ones) should be extended to Richmond Avenue as well, because they're going to deadhead to the Yukon Depot anyway. They could attract a few extra riders to the system and help the existing riders at the same time. :tup:

 

And the reason I brought up empty reverse-peak buses is because they could definitely get more use out of them. When I went over the summer, the reverse-peak buses usually had around 6 riders pulling into CSI. If the bus were extended to at least Richmond Avenue, you'd have another few riders on top of that.

 

...and I wasn't talking about your "S83".

 

I know that.

[B35 via Church]

I know that.

 

Then what are you on here refuting then.....

What are you bringing up Arlington to me for (as opposed to S93's to Richmond av)?

You seem to think that I'm targeting w/e ideas/extensions of yours you're talkin about... For what reason, I do not know.

 

 

As far as Richmond Avenue goes, that would be for additional ridership. It wouldn't be for network coverage because the S92 already serves that area. For that matter, I think those S62 short-turns (the PM rush ones, not the weekend ones) should be extended to Richmond Avenue as well, because they're going to deadhead to the Yukon Depot anyway. They could attract a few extra riders to the system and help the existing riders at the same time.

aye, you're the one that came at me with the network coverage is the basis of my argument bit....

 

And the reason I brought up empty reverse-peak buses is because they could definitely get more use out of them. When I went over the summer, the reverse-peak buses usually had around 6 riders pulling into CSI. If the bus were extended to at least Richmond Avenue, you'd have another few riders on top of that.

 

You brought up that reverse peak service thing to me, as a retort to my comment about the purpose of the S93....

Now you're talkin about the usage of those reverse peak buses....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

3) And I guarantee you that there was an S62 a couple of minutes behind that was carrying less than a seated load. Like I said, it's the same thing with Richmond Avenue: You may see a few buses that are crowded, and then some that aren't.

 

Even so it's not like you've got S62s running back to back like I see with the Richmond Avenue buses, so there isn't excess service running. The service is needed, as each of those buses serve different needs along Victory Blvd. The only bus that I see running half empty along Victory usually is the S66 and any further service reductions could really hurt the route even further.

 

4) "Excess service" doesn't just mean that there aren't any standees. It means that there's more service than what is required to serve the area effectively.

 

Yeah well your definition of excess service is clearly distorted especially based on your comparison of excess service along the S62.

 

* If the S55/S56 were reduced to 60 minute headways, it wouldn't be excess service even though there would be a handful of people on the bus simply because that bus is needed to effectively serve the area.

* The S62 running at 12 minute headways is excess service because the area would still be effectively served if the headways were reduced to every 15 minutes. You wouldn't see crushloaded buses (or at least a significant number of them), and the people in the neighborhood would still have a transit access within walking distance.

 

In this case, it would fall into the first category: The buses aren't SRO, but they are still needed to serve the area.

 

Having a bus run on 60 minute headways is just ridiculous. If people aren't going to wait 30 minutes for a bus if it's unreliable, than I don't see many folks waiting an hour for a bus.

 

5) There are plenty of students who live in SI who go to CSI. If you live, say along the S53 route, you can get off at Victory Blvd, and take either the S62 or S93. The reverse applies in the PM rush.

 

Either way the S93 reverse peak service is used and mainly used by college students. No one said that they have classes at 06:00 and that has NOTHING to do with providing the service. The point is that CSI students NEED the service and they don't just need it to go to school and back. They have other responsibilities such as work and so on.

 

6) If you thoroughly read all the letters I forwarded to you, you'd find out that it is the case. They said that "we understand your desire to provide network coverage between Victory Blvd and Forest Avenue". If they felt it wasn't needed, they would've said "We feel that the riders in that area are within walking distance of alternate transit along Victory Blvd and Forest Avenue".

 

And when they said that service couldn't be reduced, they specifically mentioned the S53 and S93 (because they purposely misunderstood my proposal). They never mentioned the S62.

 

Yeah and they also said that it was an untested market too, which means that they don't feel comfortable providing service to an area where they have no stats to show that service would be utilized and is needed. At some point you have to say how many buses are going to run along Richmond Avenue and along South Avenue????? It's a bit of overkill to say the least. You yourself say that there's excess service along Richmond Avenue AND South Avenue, yet you want to extend the S93 along these corridors that have excess service according to you to attract ridership. That makes no sense at all.

 

7) I've been spelling it out on my signature for over a month. It's not my fault you can't be bothered to look at a map.

 

And the purpose of going up to Arlington was to attract new riders. Not only would it provide a one-seat ride to destinations along Victory Blvd, but it would also provide people along the SIE service road with access to more shopping on Forest Avenue.

 

If they don't want to extend it to Arlington and just want to leave it at South Avenue/Goethals Road North, that's fine by me.

 

The thing is the S93 is doing just fine as it is. You don't extend a route that is already going well to boost ridership. You talk as if the line needs to be extended. It doesn't and the main reason is because the line would lose focus on the core ridership that it is meant to serve which is CSI students. The extension can also mean buses being less reliable and delayed, which could actually erode ridership rather than boost it and I could see CSI now throwing a fit that the S93 extension is hurting their enrollment base.

 

8) LRG is traveling with the peak: To school in the morning and from it in the afternoon. How do I know they're not serving reverse-peak CSI students? Simple. What student ends class at 6AM?

 

I already answered this question earlier and in the previous post. You don't get it, which is really sad. You DO NOT attract students to a college like CSI with terrible service. CSI students don't just use the S93 in the peak direction. The understands that these students have transportation needs for other purposes and the main point is that the service is used. Like I said other folks use it too, but it is mainly college students.

[B35 via Church]

The thing is the S93 is doing just fine as it is.

 

You don't extend a route that is already going well to boost ridership. You talk as if the line needs to be extended. It doesn't and the main reason is because the line would lose focus on the core ridership that it is meant to serve which is CSI students. The extension can also mean buses being less reliable and delayed, which could actually erode ridership rather than boost it and I could see CSI now throwing a fit that the S93 extension is hurting their enrollment base.

That's what I thought (about the route doing fine as is)...

 

....and that's a good point about enrollment - I can see that argument arising also....

I forget which school out in nassau made that same point, as it pertains to the potential tampering of bus service (although that deals w/ a loss of service, when veolia takes over operations post 2012)... I think it was NCC.....

[Santa Fe via Willow]

IF the MTA were to run the (93) all day, what if some 93s were checkmatechamp13`s 93s, while others just did what the (93) does now/normally route wise? From a depot POV, if you based a certain percentage of 93s out of diminutive Meredith, yes I know she's a small garage/yard, but if some % of 93s were Meredith based, those 93s could run cc13's 93 route.

 

IF the MTA were to use artics on SI & use them on some (93) runs, those (93)s could be Charleston based & run the cc13 93 route. This is reminding me of the 62. There are the (62)s which end/start from CSI, & the rest of the 62s {& (92)s} going the full route both ways. Analogously the S93 2.0 could be cc13's 93 route at maximum, & the present 93 route at minimum. Almost like tides. "High tide" nu93 would cc13's, & "low tide" nu93 would be the presently existing route.

 

 

The & other transit PTB should give everybody's transit ideas here a shot in the real world, & award/reward those transit ideas' creator(s) fully & appropriately for it.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Then what are you on here refuting then.....

What are you bringing up Arlington to me for (as opposed to S93's to Richmond av)?

You seem to think that I'm targeting w/e ideas/extensions of yours you're talkin about... For what reason, I do not know.

 

2) aye, you're the one that came at me with the network coverage is the basis of my argument bit....

 

3) You brought up that reverse peak service thing to me, as a retort to my comment about the purpose of the S93....

Now you're talkin about the usage of those reverse peak buses....

 

1) Because my extension deals with sending it to Arlington, for the purpose of network coverage, not just going to Richmond Avenue. And that's what Via Garibaldi is refuting.

 

I see your point that there's nothing really wrong with the S93. Ridership is pretty decent, but the point is that there is a need for network coverage in the areas further west, by the SIE. The MTA even admitted it in the letter they sent.

 

2) See #1. The network coverage argument applies to the area around the SIE service road, not to Victory Blvd.

 

3) Well, I'm saying that the reverse-peak ridership is alright, but could be better.

 

1) Even so it's not like you've got S62s running back to back like I see with the Richmond Avenue buses, so there isn't excess service running. The service is needed, as each of those buses serve different needs along Victory Blvd. The only bus that I see running half empty along Victory usually is the S66 and any further service reductions could really hurt the route even further.

 

2) Yeah well your definition of excess service is clearly distorted especially based on your comparison of excess service along the S62.

 

3) Having a bus run on 60 minute headways is just ridiculous. If people aren't going to wait 30 minutes for a bus if it's unreliable, than I don't see many folks waiting an hour for a bus.

 

4) Either way the S93 reverse peak service is used and mainly used by college students. No one said that they have classes at 06:00 and that has NOTHING to do with providing the service. The point is that CSI students NEED the service and they don't just need it to go to school and back. They have other responsibilities such as work and so on.

 

5) Yeah and they also said that it was an untested market too, which means that they don't feel comfortable providing service to an area where they have no stats to show that service would be utilized and is needed. At some point you have to say how many buses are going to run along Richmond Avenue and along South Avenue????? It's a bit of overkill to say the least. You yourself say that there's excess service along Richmond Avenue AND South Avenue, yet you want to extend the S93 along these corridors that have excess service according to you to attract ridership. That makes no sense at all.

 

6) The thing is the S93 is doing just fine as it is. You don't extend a route that is already going well to boost ridership. You talk as if the line needs to be extended. It doesn't and the main reason is because the line would lose focus on the core ridership that it is meant to serve which is CSI students. The extension can also mean buses being less reliable and delayed, which could actually erode ridership rather than boost it and I could see CSI now throwing a fit that the S93 extension is hurting their enrollment base.

 

7) I already answered this question earlier and in the previous post. You don't get it, which is really sad. You DO NOT attract students to a college like CSI with terrible service. CSI students don't just use the S93 in the peak direction. The understands that these students have transportation needs for other purposes and the main point is that the service is used. Like I said other folks use it too, but it is mainly college students.

 

1) Actually, I have seen S62 buses run within a few minutes of each other, though I have yet to see them back-to-back. In any case, you do see S61s and S62s running back-to-back. Think about it: They both have to meet the same ferry.

 

If the S62 became overcrowded, chances are it's because it's the first bus to show up. By the time that happens, the S61 is likely to pull up behind it and take the remaining passengers.

 

2) I don't see how.

 

3) Fine, then apply it to S55/S56 service at the current levels. It doesn't change the validity of my argument.

 

4) But that's my point: A CSI student would be nowhere near the school at 6AM. Those reverse-peak trips (at least in the AM) are used by people along the route.

 

5) (Bolded part): There is a difference between being utilized and being needed. The S55/S56 are needed, but aren't utilized.

 

And you're kidding me if you're bring Richmond Avenue into this. It would parallel the other routes for 4 measly stops (about 1/2 mile), and that's just because there's no alternate route.

 

As for South Avenue, the reason the S46 doesn't get that high usage in the area (like I said, around 15 people per bus south of Forest Avenue and 10 people south of the SIE) is because it doesn't go anywhere anybody wants. The only draw down there is the West Shore Plaza, where the S93 would provide access to shopping, CSI, Brooklyn, and more destinations in general.

 

Not to mention it would only parallel the S46 for 4 stops.

 

6) Just so we're clear, the extension to Arlington is not to boost ridership: It's for network coverage. The extension to Richmond Avenue is for ridership.

 

Since we're clear on that, I'd like to point out that Victory Blvd traffic isn't that bad in the area. I mean, you're talking about 1/2 mile where the traffic clears up, not some 10 mile long extension on a congested highway.

 

And this is where the S83 comes in: If there's a significant problem, students have the option of taking the S62 to the S83, rather than having to wait for the S93 because the S53 takes too long.

 

7) And you keep ignoring the fact that the percentage of "other folks" using the service is significant. Like I said, at 6AM, you're not going to get college students (or at least CSI students), you're getting regular people.

 

IF the MTA were to run the (93) all day, what if some 93s were checkmatechamp13`s 93s, while others just did what the (93) does now/normally route wise? From a depot POV, if you based a certain percentage of 93s out of diminutive Meredith, yes I know she's a small garage/yard, but if some % of 93s were Meredith based, those 93s could run cc13's 93 route.

 

 

That would work. Since the main purpose of the route is for network coverage, then the extension should receive "coverage-level" service. It would also stop the arguments about traffic.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's what I thought (about the route doing fine as is)...

 

....and that's a good point about enrollment - I can see that argument arising also....

I forget which school out in nassau made that same point, as it pertains to the potential tampering of bus service (although that deals w/ a loss of service, when veolia takes over operations post 2012)... I think it was NCC.....

 

On a side note, I was watching Channel 4 this morning and some community out in NJ is going crazy (mainly the businesses along a main strip) where a bus company has said that they're going to pull out because the jitneys are taking away the passengers leaving them with the crumbs which is nothing and the businesses are crying foul saying that the 24 hour bus service which brings customers along the corridor would hurt businesses, so they put up a banner asking folks to use the route and not use the jitneys if they want to keep their service.

 

Slightly different case with the S93 but in this case you would make a route potentially less reliable and more delay proned and students would say, why am I bothering to come here if it's such a hassle for me to get to my classes with unreliable service? Everyone is going to point to the S93 extension as the culprit and the pressure would force the to do something.

 

IF the MTA were to run the (93) all day, what if some 93s were checkmatechamp13`s 93s, while others just did what the (93) does now/normally route wise? From a depot POV, if you based a certain percentage of 93s out of diminutive Meredith, yes I know she's a small garage/yard, but if some % of 93s were Meredith based, those 93s could run cc13's 93 route.

 

IF the MTA were to use artics on SI & use them on some (93) runs, those (93)s could be Charleston based & run the cc13 93 route. This is reminding me of the 62. There are the (62)s which end/start from CSI, & the rest of the 62s {& (92)s} going the full route both ways. Analogously the S93 2.0 could be cc13's 93 route at maximum, & the present 93 route at minimum. Almost like tides. "High tide" nu93 would cc13's, & "low tide" nu93 would be the presently existing route.

 

 

The & other transit PTB should give everybody's transit ideas here a shot in the real world, & award/reward those transit ideas' creator(s) fully & appropriately for it.

 

 

The problem is that Meredith is already at capacity and there is not enough space to put more buses there. It only has 75 or so buses, all of which are express buses, used for rush hour service only, as the "depot" (more like a parking arage) does not operate on the weekends. I for one would be pissed because overall, the X12 and X30 have become reliable since the move to Meredith, although at first, service was a mess on the X30. The X12 is much more reliable now than what it was out of Castleton, both in the morning and the evening, and the same can be said about the X30 overall. The X30 has improved so much that I have reduced my usage of the X14 which is more erratic (surprise surprise... another bus out of Castleton that runs as it pleases :mad:), although getting home at night on the X30 of late has taken forever. Friday night was insane, but that has nothing to do with the depot and more of a traffic issue with the Lincoln Tunnel.

 

Furthermore, the already stated that due to the financial difficulty that they find themselves in that they don't have the money to support what they consider to be a LONG extension for an area with an untested market. They see it as too much of a gamble and I agree and I also strongly oppose any reduction of the S62 OR any other route to extend a route to an untested area. If they've got the money for it from some other source then fine, but we cannot afford any more service reductions on Staten Island when we've lost so much already on local bus service alone.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) On a side note, I was watching Channel 4 this morning and some community out in NJ is going crazy (mainly the businesses along a main strip) where a bus company has said that they're going to pull out because the gitneys are taking away the passengers leaving them with the crumbs which is nothing and the businesses are crying foul saying that the 24 hour bus service which brings customers along the corridor would hurt businesses, so they put up a banner asking folks to use the route and not use the gitneys if they want to keep their service.

 

2) Slightly different case with the S93 but in this case you would make a route potentially less reliable and more delay proned and students would say, why am I bothering to come here if it's such a hassle for me to get to my classes with unreliable service? Everyone is going to point to the S93 extension as the culprit and the pressure would force the to do something.

 

3) Furthermore, the already stated that due to the financial difficulty that they find themselves in that they don't have the money to support what they consider to be a LONG extension for an area with an untested market. They see it as too much of a gamble and I agree and I also strongly oppose any reduction of the S62 OR any other route to extend a route to an untested area. If they've got the money for it from some other source then fine, but we cannot afford any more service reductions on Staten Island when we've lost so much already on local bus service alone.

 

1) That's probably the 99S that's going to be dropped by Red & Tan. I think they ended up saving that, but in any case, riders are going to use whatever gives them more value for their money: The jitneys are cheaper and faster than the regular bus, so it's no surprise ridership is dwindling.

 

2) Like I said above, it's why I put the S83 and S93 proposals together.

 

Not to mention that students were surviving before the S93 was introduced. It would be interesting to see enrollment before and after the S93's creation. I doubt there is that much of a difference.

 

3) So if it's untested, then why don't they go out and test it? They have the manpower to do it.

 

Anything new is going to be "untested". The S55 extension back in 2007 wasn't tested. Why'd they do that? To this day, they're losing money on it.

 

The reason was for network coverage. The same way the riders can walk to the S56 or S74 is the same way the riders can walk to the S48 or S62 (depending on which side of the SIE they are on). The MTA saw that it was a long, inconvenient walk and extended the route.

 

And like I said, you'd prefer that an area have no service so that another area can have excess service. Even if it isn't excess, you're still ignoring the fact that people are being left stranded. If the S62 were reduced slightly that wouldn't be the case for those riders.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) Because my extension deals with sending it to Arlington, for the purpose of network coverage, not just going to Richmond Avenue. And that's what Via Garibaldi is refuting.

 

Network coverage in Arlington???? Give me a break. The S48 goes to Arlington, plus the S46 can be used as an alternative. And here you are complaining about excess service along Victory Blvd????

 

I see your point that there's nothing really wrong with the S93. Ridership is pretty decent, but the point is that there is a need for network coverage in the areas further west, by the SIE. The MTA even admitted it in the letter they sent.

 

I don't think they admitted anything. I think you're reading more into what they said if anything. I think their message was that they appreciate your idea, but at the same time it is an UNTESTED market, which they clearly don't feel comfortable extending. I mean they would be shooting themselves in the foot to extend a perfectly healthy route with the potential of it losing ridership and becoming less profitable just to provide "service" to a corridor that already has options. If they need such quick service in that corridor, they've got the X12, X42, X30 and X17 to use to some extent to get to Manhattan.

 

2) See #1. The network coverage argument applies to the area around the SIE service road, not to Victory Blvd.

 

The service road is served by the X17J (Goethals Road North). You're the one that said that folks in the suburbs should tolerate less service and now you're asking for service where there's already enough service.

 

3) Well, I'm saying that the reverse-peak ridership is alright, but could be better.

 

Give me a break. It's reverse-peak ridership for crying out loud. Don't be ridiculous.

 

 

1) Actually, I have seen S62 buses run within a few minutes of each other, though I have yet to see them back-to-back. In any case, you do see S61s and S62s running back-to-back. Think about it: They both have to meet the same ferry.

 

If the S62 became overcrowded, chances are it's because it's the first bus to show up. By the time that happens, the S61 is likely to pull up behind it and take the remaining passengers.

 

Well that I have seen and that is yet another reason why the S93 shouldn't be extended because traffic can be a problem along the narrower parts of Victory Blvd.

 

4) But that's my point: A CSI student would be nowhere near the school at 6AM. Those reverse-peak trips (at least in the AM) are used by people along the route.

 

You're telling me and I've used the reverse peak buses and have seen students on them... Uh, okay... Right... B) You've got it all figured out and you don't even ride the reverse peak buses.

 

5) And you're kidding me if you're bring Richmond Avenue into this. It would parallel the other routes for 4 measly stops (about 1/2 mile), and that's just because there's no alternate route.

 

As for South Avenue, the reason the S46 doesn't get that high usage in the area (like I said, around 15 people per bus south of Forest Avenue and 10 people south of the SIE) is because it doesn't go anywhere anybody wants. The only draw down there is the West Shore Plaza, where the S93 would provide access to shopping, CSI, Brooklyn, and more destinations in general.

 

Not to mention it would only parallel the S46 for 4 stops.

 

 

Well, you're the one that said that there's excess service along Richmond Avenue, and 4 stops or not, it is still service to part of Richmond Avenue, which means 4 LOCAL buses along Richmond Avenue (S44, S59, S89, excluding the S94), which is just overkill. Then you say that the S46 doesn't draw that much, but what makes you so sure that the S93 would? My feeling is that most folks either take the express bus or drive, especially over by South Avenue where those condos are, that's why they re-routed the X30 specifically for them, which I must say us regular X30 riders weren't that thrilled about. :mad:

 

They're already used to that set up over there along South Avenue and I don't see the S93 bringing folks out in droves suddenly. The commute to Brooklyn would still be a good 40 minutes from Arlington, excluding any delays, so they would still either drive or use the express bus.

 

6) Just so we're clear, the extension to Arlington is not to boost ridership: It's for network coverage. The extension to Richmond Avenue is for ridership.

 

I'm sorry but Arlington already has enough service and Richmond Avenue for ridership?? Give me a break... X10, X17C AND X17 and you're saying that there's excess service on Richmond so where are all of these new riders coming from suddenly when there's the S89, S44 and S59???

 

Since we're clear on that, I'd like to point out that Victory Blvd traffic isn't that bad in the area. I mean, you're talking about 1/2 mile where the traffic clears up, not some 10 mile long extension on a congested highway.

 

Right, but you see S62s running minutes apart (even though they are spaced apart well) because traffic along Victory isn't a problem... LOL

 

And this is where the S83 comes in: If there's a significant problem, students have the option of taking the S62 to the S83, rather than having to wait for the S93 because the S53 takes too long.

 

You just don't get it at all. Students will NOT want to make more transfers when they have additional transfers in Brooklyn. Try convincing CSI about extending the S93 and see what they say about it.

 

7) And you keep ignoring the fact that the percentage of "other folks" using the service is significant. Like I said, at 6AM, you're not going to get college students (or at least CSI students), you're getting regular people.

 

Yeah and what about at 08:30 when I see college students using the S93 in the reverse direction? I never disputed that other people use the S93 as obviously I use it and I'm not a college student. That still doesn't dismiss the main point of the S93 and without the students, the S93 reverse peak service would NOT be warranted.

[B35 via Church]

1) Because my extension deals with sending it to Arlington, for the purpose of network coverage, not just going to Richmond Avenue. And that's what Via Garibaldi is refuting.

 

I see your point that there's nothing really wrong with the S93. Ridership is pretty decent, but the point is that there is a need for network coverage in the areas further west, by the SIE. The MTA even admitted it in the letter they sent.

 

2) See #1. The network coverage argument applies to the area around the SIE service road, not to Victory Blvd.

 

3) Well, I'm saying that the reverse-peak ridership is alright, but could be better.

 

1) You say you see my point.... but at the same time, you're goin back & forth with ME, arguing a point HE's refuting on that note...

 

2) May as well be, but in my commentary about the S93, I'm referring to any type of network coverage.....

 

3) Nah, that's not what I'm gettin at... I think you know that, too....

 

your original quote to me read:

 

If the purpose was for Brooklyn-CSI riders, why was reverse-peak service added then?

 

You brought up the addition of reverse peak service in that original context, to try to convey to me, that there is no benefit of the S93 outside of its original purpose..... Conveying a point which I never posed any opposition to in the first place....

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Network coverage in Arlington???? Give me a break. The S48 goes to Arlington, plus the S46 can be used as an alternative. And here you are complaining about excess service along Victory Blvd????

 

2) I don't think they admitted anything. I think you're reading more into what they said if anything. I think their message was that they appreciate your idea, but at the same time it is an UNTESTED market, which they clearly don't feel comfortable extending. I mean they would be shooting themselves in the foot to extend a perfectly healthy route with the potential of it losing ridership and becoming less profitable just to provide "service" to a corridor that already has options. If they need such quick service in that corridor, they've got the X12, X42, X30 and X17 to use to some extent to get to Manhattan.

 

3) The service road is served by the X17J (Goethals Road North). You're the one that said that folks in the suburbs should tolerate less service and now you're asking for service where there's already enough service.

 

4) Give me a break. It's reverse-peak ridership for crying out loud. Don't be ridiculous.

 

5) Well that I have seen and that is yet another reason why the S93 shouldn't be extended because traffic can be a problem along the narrower parts of Victory Blvd.

 

6) You're telling me and I've used the reverse peak buses and have seen students on them... Uh, okay... Right... B) You've got it all figured out and you don't even ride the reverse peak buses.

 

7) Well, you're the one that said that there's excess service along Richmond Avenue, and 4 stops or not, it is still service to part of Richmond Avenue, which means 4 LOCAL buses along Richmond Avenue (S44, S59, S89, excluding the S94), which is just overkill. Then you say that the S46 doesn't draw that much, but what makes you so sure that the S93 would? My feeling is that most folks either take the express bus or drive, especially over by South Avenue where those condos are, that's why they re-routed the X30 specifically for them, which I must say us regular X30 riders weren't that thrilled about. :mad:

 

They're already used to that set up over there along South Avenue and I don't see the S93 bringing folks out in droves suddenly. The commute to Brooklyn would still be a good 40 minutes from Arlington, excluding any delays, so they would still either drive or use the express bus.

 

8) I'm sorry but Arlington already has enough service and Richmond Avenue for ridership?? Give me a break... X10, X17C AND X17 and you're saying that there's excess service on Richmond so where are all of these new riders coming from suddenly when there's the S89, S44 and S59???

 

9) Right, but you see S62s running minutes apart (even though they are spaced apart well) because traffic along Victory isn't a problem... LOL

 

10) You just don't get it at all. Students will NOT want to make more transfers when they have additional transfers in Brooklyn. Try convincing CSI about extending the S93 and see what they say about it.

 

11) Yeah and what about at 08:30 when I see college students using the S93 in the reverse direction? I never disputed that other people use the S93 as obviously I use it and I'm not a college student. That still doesn't dismiss the main point of the S93 and without the students, the S93 reverse peak service would NOT be warranted.

 

1) Is Arlington between Victory Blvd and Forest Avenue? I think you need to look at a map because the last time I checked, that's Graniteville, not Arlington.

 

I clearly said that the network coverage would be for the areas near the SIE. Arlington would be to get additional ridership.

 

Let me break it down:

* CSI-Richmond Avenue: Ridership

* Richmond Avenue between Victory Blvd and the SIE: Transition road because there's no alternate route

* Goethals Road North/Fahy Avenue between South Avenue & Richmond Avenue: Coverage

* South Avenue between the SIE and Arlington: Ridership (because for the mile or so between those two areas, the ridership would outweigh the costs)

 

2) My point is that there are no options (unless you want to count the X17J on Goethals Road North, but that doesn't help anybody on the southern side of the SIE and is an express bus anyway)

 

3) Yeah, I said less service, not no service.

 

And you're kidding me. First of all, the express bus is pick-up only. Second of all, it doesn't help people south of the SIE. Third of all, who the hell is going to pay $5.50 to travel for a few miles

 

4) I'm not being ridiculous. You can serve extra people for a minimal cost and possibly turn a profit off it. What's wrong with that?

 

5) That's the widest part of Victory Blvd.

 

And in any case, it's mostly because the Travis buses leave late because they know they'll catch up to the schedule, so eventually they spread themselves out.

 

6) First off, what have I been doing all summer if not riding the reverse-peak buses?

Second of all, I have College Now classes at CSI, so I see S93 buses when they pull into the college.

Third of all, those aren't CSI students, which further proves my point.

 

7) That's ridiculous. That's like saying that there's excess service along Bay Street near St. George: There's no other way for the buses to reach the ferry. Or it's like saying the S48 and S59 are interchangable for their short stint on Forest Avenue: How else is the S59 supposed to get to Richmond Avenue?

 

8) See #1.

 

9) See #5.

 

10) They aren't going to be doing it on a regular basis, just when service is delayed.

 

11) See #6.