Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
FamousNYLover

Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

Recommended Posts

The S89 has gotten busy since It's first day of service.

 

As for ideas... many were said in the old Staten Island bus idea thread, but I'll still list something I got:

 

S79

 

I personally don't think it needs SBS. It should just run limited only during rush hours. The S59 and S78 would be local supplements.

The S79 Limited stops would be:

  • 86 St/ 4 Av (R) Station
  • 86 St/ 5 Av
  • 92 St/ Fort Hamilton Pkwy
  • Narrows Rd/ Fingerboard Rd
  • Narrows Rd/ Hylan Blvd
  • Hylan Blvd/ Clove Rd
  • Hylan Blvd/ Seaview Av
  • Hylan Blvd/ Midland Av
  • Hylan Blvd/ New Dorp Lane
  • Hylan Blvd/ Tysens Lane
  • Hylan Blvd/ Nelson Av
  • Richmond Av/ Hylan Blvd
  • Richmond Av/ Eltingville SIR station
  • Eltingville Transit Center

 

Then all stops to the Staten Island Mall

 

 

My only other idea is for the S93

I would have it expanded to a full weekday route. It starts and ends the same hours. Midday headways would 30 minutes.

The route would also stay the same. I felt a few members asked for a little too much with all those S93 extensions and S83 this and that.

 

If the S93 ran all day, it would kill two birds with one stone:

  • Take some crowding off the S53 and S62
  • Also give SI it's first Limited route to run during midday hours

 

Edited by S78 via Hylan
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High (5). that exactly the well i feel about your comments below. I agree 1,000%(other than i would run the S79 all day weekdays until 8pm though). The only reason IMO the (MTA) created SBS for the S79 was political and thus SI political leaders wont scream and moan about not having SBS service.

 

Also the "S93" has enough ridership IMO right now to run 30-minute headways middays as well. However no need for weekend S93 service.

 

 

The S89 has gotten busy since It's first day of service.

 

As for ideas... many were said in the old Staten Island bus idea thread, but I'll still list something I got

 

S79

 

I personally don't think it needs SBS. I would just have it run Limited only during rush hours. The S59 and S78 would be local supplements.

The S79 Limited stops would be:

  • 86 St/ 4 Av (R) Station
  • 86 St/ 5 Av
  • 92 St/ Fort Hamilton Pkwy
  • Narrows Rd/ Fingerboard Rd
  • Narrows Rd/ Hylan Blvd
  • Hylan Blvd/ Clove Rd
  • Hylan Blvd/ Seaview Av
  • Hylan Blvd/ Midland Av
  • Hylan Blvd/ New Dorp Lane
  • Hylan Blvd/ Tysens Lane
  • Hylan Blvd/ Nelson Av
  • Richmond Av/ Hylan Blvd
  • Richmond Av/ Eltingville SIR station
  • Eltingville Transit Center

Then all stops to the Staten Island Mall

 

 

My only other idea is for the S93

I would have it expanded to a full weekday route. It starts and ends the same hours. Midday headways would 30 minutes.

The route would also stay the same. I felt Aafew members asked for a little too much with all those S93 extensions and S83 this and that.

 

If the S93 ran all day, it would kill two birds with one stone:

  • Take some crowding off the S53 and S62
  • Also give SI it's first Limited route to run during midday hours

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stupid thing just deleted my work. I'll just list the changes I would make and provide the explanations later.

 

S40/S90: Unchanged

 

S42: Weekend service restored. Route combined with S54 via Lafayette-Henderson-Broadway, providing Westerleigh with easier access to St. George.

 

On southern end, Giffords Lane service replaced by S79A. Service is rerouted to New Dorp SIR station (more commercial area could lead to higher ridership). On the weekends, service is extended to cover the S76 route.

 

S44/S94: If buses are deadheading to the Yukon Depot anyway (I don't know whether they go back to St. George, or if they're based out of Castleton), the S44 short-turns in the PM rush would be extended to the SI Mall via Post Avenue-Port Richmond Avenue-Walker Street-Morningstar Road-MLK Expressway (stop at CSI), and then take Victory Blvd to Richmond Avenue. Provides faster service for CSI students/

 

S46/S96: S96 service expanded to run all day (6:00AM - 7:00PM eastbound and 7:00AM - 10:00PM westbound). Accomplished by reducing S46 service to 15 minute headways and having the S96 run every 30 minutes off-peak (20 minutes reverse-peak).

 

S48/S98: S98 service expanded to run 24/7 to Newark Airport (local stops overnight). Service would run every 30 minutes to Arlington and 30 minutes to Newark Airport off-peak and reverse-peak on weekdays and possibly Saturdays. During rush hour, service runs more frequently to Arlington than Newark Airport.

 

S51: No change.

 

S52: Extended to Richmond Road via Seaview Avenue to provide South Beach riders for another way to make connections besides the S51.

 

S53: S83 limited added, running limited all the way to Port Richmond. Service on the S53 is reduced to provide resources for this. S83 buses would bypass McClean Avenue and instead take the S79 route after Hylan & Clove. No Sunday service.

 

S54: See S42.

 

S55: Rerouted to take Bloomingdale Road-Englewood Avenue-Bricktown Mall and then serve the Perth Amboy train station. S82 covers Bloomingdale Road.

 

S56: No change. Maybe in a desperate attempt to get more riders, it could be extended to Seaview Hospital to provide riders from the SI Mall area with an easier ride.

 

S57: No change.

 

S59: No change.

 

S61: No change.

 

S62: Saturday short-turns to CSI converted to S93 runs. Midday service runs every 15 minutes consistently, and midday S93 service is added.

 

Rush hour service eliminated and replaced with S67 service. Victory Blvd has the S92 and S93, but Westerleigh only has the S57, which doesn't go to St. George or Brooklyn, S92s might be marginally more crowded, but not by much. The S62 is really for riders east of Jewett Avenue anyway.

 

S66: Weekend service restored, but the hours are the same as the former S60.

 

S67: Restored. See S62.

 

S74/S84: I'm debating on what to do with the route on the South Shore. Without the Arthur Kill Correctional Facility, there's really nothing to serve in that area, but there are some houses south of Sharrotts Road, plus the Tides development, so I don't know. Maybe it could take Bloomingdale Road-Englewood Avenue and serve the Bricktown Mall, and then go out and take Arthur Kill Road to Sharrotts Road, but then the problem becomes finding a place to turn around. If the community doesn't want buses running down the side streets, then there's no choice but to just have it terminate at the Bricktown Mall.

 

S76: No change.

 

S78: No change.

 

S79: Would become a full-time limited (Except maybe during the evening hours, when the locals don't run too frequently). A new S79A is introduced, which would run as a local every 30 minutes, 7 days a week (I guess from 6AM to 10PM, or whatever sounds good). It would serve Giffords Lane instead of Richmond Avenue, providing Great Kills with access to both the SI Mall, and shopping along Hylan Blvd.

 

S82: New route created from Tottenville to Newark Airport via Bayonne. It would take the path I outlined (pretty much following the proposed path of the proposed West Shore Light Rail Line, though it would usually take the service road where possible. It would provide 7-day access to Bayonne (running every 40 minutes off-peak), and from there, it would take JFK Blvd to I-78 and then go to Newark Airport, providing both SI and Bayonne residents with a one-seat ride to Newark Airport (if you want, it could run limited down JFK Blvd). It would fill in a few service gaps on SI in the process.

 

S93: Midday and Saturday service added. See S62.

 

Also, buses near the SI Mall would be rerouted to all use the same street, whether it's Marsh Avenue, or the "back part" of Ring Road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the S44's that terminate at Post/Jewett Avs during PM rush hour turn right onto Jewett and then deadhead back to the ferry and repeat again. And during this time everything is from Yukon. I would not have the S44 locals stop at CSI even by taking the MLK. The S92 is faster from St. George.

 

I don't see the need to restore the S67. The S57 does fine by itself north of Victory Blvd.

 

Eliminating the S62 during rush hours isn't a smart idea because it does get a good amount of people coming from Travis. Sometimes, when I go to the Showplace Bowling Alley, I see some Ferry bound S62's get SRO.

 

The S74, just keep it as it is.

 

As I already suggested, the S59 and S78 would do fine as supplemental locals for the S79 limited.

Edited by S78 via Hylan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) As far as I know, the S44's that terminate at Post/Jewett Avs during PM rush hour turn right onto Jewett and then deadhead back to the ferry and repeat again. And during this time everything is from Yukon. I would not have the S44 locals stop at CSI even by taking the MLK. The S92 is faster from St. George.

 

2) I don't see the need to restore the S67. The S57 does fine by itself north of Victory Blvd.

 

3) Eliminating the S62 during rush hours isn't a smart idea because it does get a good amount of people coming from Travis. Sometimes, when I go to the Showplace Bowling Alley, I see some Ferry bound S62's get SRO.

 

4) The S74, just keep it as it is.

 

5) As I already suggested, the S59 and S78 would do fine as supplemental locals for the S79 limited.

 

1) All I needed to know was whether they deadhead or not.

 

As far as competing with the S92 (which doesn't really have a purpose because at least for now they have that shuttle bus from St. George), that's not its purpose. The purpose is for people in the Port Richmond/West Brighton area to have an easy trip to CSI (plus, it's faster than taking Morningstar Road and Richmond Avenue). Again, it's not really a glaring problem but I'm just saying that the opportunity is there.

 

2) Yeah, but the S57 doesn't serve the ferry. Yeah, I'm sure most of the people in that area take the X12/X42 anyway to reach Manhattan, but having the option of being able to go to St. George would be very useful.

 

3) Yeah, OK. I would eliminate the S62 completely and leave one direction of Victory Blvd (west of CSI) entirely without service. :rolleyes:

 

C'mon, you know what I meant. I meant in the peak direction. Did the S67 run in both directions? Didn't think so. Use a little common sense, man.

 

4) Except that it takes a more circuitous route and bypasses a more dense area to serve a less dense one.

 

5) Yeah, except that this would be an opportunity to make it even better by giving Giffords Lane residents access to more places people actually want to go. That's why it's only running every 30 minutes: If a local rider takes it because it came before the S78, great. That's one of the goals, but not the only one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologoze if I misunderstood your ideas., but I do have common sense. No offense, but sometimes I have difficulty understanding your ideas.

 

It's cool that you want to fill in the gaps of the Island that don't have service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologoze if I misunderstood your ideas., but I do have common sense. No offense, but sometimes I have difficulty understanding your ideas.

 

It's cool that you want to fill in the gaps of the Island that don't have service.

 

No problem. I did kind of overreact to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stupid thing just deleted my work. I'll just list the changes I would make and provide the explanations later.

 

S40/S90: Unchanged

 

S42: Weekend service restored. Route combined with S54 via Lafayette-Henderson-Broadway, providing Westerleigh with easier access to St. George.

 

On southern end, Giffords Lane service replaced by S79A. Service is rerouted to New Dorp SIR station (more commercial area could lead to higher ridership). On the weekends, service is extended to cover the S76 route.

 

S44/S94: If buses are deadheading to the Yukon Depot anyway (I don't know whether they go back to St. George, or if they're based out of Castleton), the S44 short-turns in the PM rush would be extended to the SI Mall via Post Avenue-Port Richmond Avenue-Walker Street-Morningstar Road-MLK Expressway (stop at CSI), and then take Victory Blvd to Richmond Avenue. Provides faster service for CSI students/

 

S46/S96: S96 service expanded to run all day (6:00AM - 7:00PM eastbound and 7:00AM - 10:00PM westbound). Accomplished by reducing S46 service to 15 minute headways and having the S96 run every 30 minutes off-peak (20 minutes reverse-peak).

 

S48/S98: S98 service expanded to run 24/7 to Newark Airport (local stops overnight). Service would run every 30 minutes to Arlington and 30 minutes to Newark Airport off-peak and reverse-peak on weekdays and possibly Saturdays. During rush hour, service runs more frequently to Arlington than Newark Airport.

 

S51: No change.

 

S52: Extended to Richmond Road via Seaview Avenue to provide South Beach riders for another way to make connections besides the S51.

 

S53: S83 limited added, running limited all the way to Port Richmond. Service on the S53 is reduced to provide resources for this. S83 buses would bypass McClean Avenue and instead take the S79 route after Hylan & Clove. No Sunday service.

 

S54: See S42.

 

S55: Rerouted to take Bloomingdale Road-Englewood Avenue-Bricktown Mall and then serve the Perth Amboy train station. S82 covers Bloomingdale Road.

 

S56: No change. Maybe in a desperate attempt to get more riders, it could be extended to Seaview Hospital to provide riders from the SI Mall area with an easier ride.

 

S57: No change.

 

S59: No change.

 

S61: No change.

 

S62: Saturday short-turns to CSI converted to S93 runs. Midday service runs every 15 minutes consistently, and midday S93 service is added.

 

Rush hour service eliminated and replaced with S67 service. Victory Blvd has the S92 and S93, but Westerleigh only has the S57, which doesn't go to St. George or Brooklyn, S92s might be marginally more crowded, but not by much. The S62 is really for riders east of Jewett Avenue anyway.

 

S66: Weekend service restored, but the hours are the same as the former S60.

 

S67: Restored. See S62.

 

S74/S84: I'm debating on what to do with the route on the South Shore. Without the Arthur Kill Correctional Facility, there's really nothing to serve in that area, but there are some houses south of Sharrotts Road, plus the Tides development, so I don't know. Maybe it could take Bloomingdale Road-Englewood Avenue and serve the Bricktown Mall, and then go out and take Arthur Kill Road to Sharrotts Road, but then the problem becomes finding a place to turn around. If the community doesn't want buses running down the side streets, then there's no choice but to just have it terminate at the Bricktown Mall.

 

S76: No change.

 

S78: No change.

 

S79: Would become a full-time limited (Except maybe during the evening hours, when the locals don't run too frequently). A new S79A is introduced, which would run as a local every 30 minutes, 7 days a week (I guess from 6AM to 10PM, or whatever sounds good). It would serve Giffords Lane instead of Richmond Avenue, providing Great Kills with access to both the SI Mall, and shopping along Hylan Blvd.

 

S82: New route created from Tottenville to Newark Airport via Bayonne. It would take the path I outlined (pretty much following the proposed path of the proposed West Shore Light Rail Line, though it would usually take the service road where possible. It would provide 7-day access to Bayonne (running every 40 minutes off-peak), and from there, it would take JFK Blvd to I-78 and then go to Newark Airport, providing both SI and Bayonne residents with a one-seat ride to Newark Airport (if you want, it could run limited down JFK Blvd). It would fill in a few service gaps on SI in the process.

 

S93: Midday and Saturday service added. See S62.

 

Also, buses near the SI Mall would be rerouted to all use the same street, whether it's Marsh Avenue, or the "back part" of Ring Road.

try mine on for size like we discussed.

 

 

S54 northern manor rd merged with S42 I support and agree with.

 

S54 the route I suggest extending it to NJ secaucus UPS via jct and journal sq the line is closed door in NJ. The line remains on bradley and replaces S66's jewett ave segment en route to NJ before getting on rte 440.

 

S57 extends to newark broad via penn station closed door in NJ. The ridership increase forces S54 to run 7 days a week. jewett gains weekend service as a result.

 

S66 eliminated see S54 and S92

 

S92 becomes full time replaces former S60 routing then shortcuts to harold st via ocean terrance then resumes service to SI mall. LTD and faster routing now.At rush hour leave local service to S62 let S61 go LTD on victory after arlo.

 

S82 no comment where will the money come from boy I am curious.

 

S55/56 extend to NJ S55 abandons bloomingdale road to bricktown mall Then express to old bridge P&R via cheesequake P&R for connections to academy and NJT's139/64/63/variants and academy has many routes to other places. For perth amboy however an NJT route will pass through SI and do just that see my NJ ideas for that one.

OR NJT 63 will gain 7 day service and stop at SI college and bricktown mall and go to old bridge via cheesequake P&R off peak and rush MTA S55 to perth amboy except rush hour. NJT 63 would continue LTD to lakewood via rte 9 as usual.

 

S56 to metropark rail station ask for NJT ideas to see the complete reasoning behind this move it involves several senarios being unlocked.

 

S74/78 revert to original routing.

 

S83 clove rd broadway LTD will bypass grasmere via S93 routing to bay ridge then express via belt to sheepshead bay absorbing parts of former B4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realized I left out the S89, which would have no change.

 

This probabaly belongs in the Brooklyn thread, but since it connects to SI routes it applies here as well: A new route would be created from Bay Ridge to JFK, roughly following the Belt Parkway. BrooklynBus had a similar idea (the B22), and it would more or less follow the same path as his route. It would make it a lot easier for SI riders to reach southern Brooklyn, but it shouldn't be an extension of an SI route because it would be subject to too much traffic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not reall NJT would LOVE it it would add more riders to 139/64/63 & academy lines making em more profitable. And it would make a stronger case for unleashing the 60! also it would fix gaps due to SI outlay it's easier for S54/57 to do it cause it has more reach in SI to draw riders so it would increase NJT ridership on their rail lines and maybe even their buses too it would allow NJT to limit stops in SI only to hubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Checkmate I agree with most of your ideas above. Just couple of quick points.

 

1)There no need for a 24/7 "S89" Newark Airport-SI Bus. IMO it should operated by either (NJT) or one of the private carriers i.e Academy Bus taking Metrocards. IMO it should run every 30 minutes rush hours and every hour all other times appx. 5am-12:30am.

Plus IMO a Newark Airport-SI should be a separte route and use the Gothehals Bridge to not only serve Elizbeth. It should also and provide connections to (NJT) NE Coordior and Jersey Coast line trains.

Leave the "S89" Bayonne-SI line alone(it should be expanded to run at least all day weekdays with 30-minute headways.)

 

 

2)IMO running both the S93 and S83 Saturdays as it is 'excessive." I agree with expanding the S93 to all day weekdays (i.e 30 minute headways weekdays)but on Saturdays '1' Bay Ridge-Clove Road limited is enough.

 

3)If you going to create a "S79A" might as rename IMO the "S77" to avoid confusion.

 

I got couple of more comments but i am typing this at work so i reply later during the week checkmate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) S54 the route I suggest extending it to NJ secaucus UPS via jct and journal sq the line is closed door in NJ. The line remains on bradley and replaces S66's jewett ave segment en route to NJ before getting on rte 440.

 

2) S57 extends to newark broad via penn station closed door in NJ. The ridership increase forces S54 to run 7 days a week. jewett gains weekend service as a result.

 

3) S92 becomes full time replaces former S60 routing then shortcuts to harold st via ocean terrance then resumes service to SI mall. LTD and faster routing now.At rush hour leave local service to S62 let S61 go LTD on victory after arlo.

 

4) S82 no comment where will the money come from boy I am curious.

 

5) S74/78 revert to original routing.

 

6) S83 clove rd broadway LTD will bypass grasmere via S93 routing to bay ridge then express via belt to sheepshead bay absorbing parts of former B4.

 

 

1) There's no point. You already have the S42 covering the northern part and the S79A covering the southern part.

 

2) Or you could keep it simple and have buses run as they do now.

 

3) I assume you mean the S91. In any case, there's no point in sending it up there if you already have the S66 (and yes, I know you would eliminate it and replace it with the S54, but I disagree with that too)

 

4) The point of this thread is to discuss ideas that would give good bang-for-the-buck in terms of improving service. They don't necessarily have to be cost-neutral.

 

5) It's fine the way it is now. I think Bricktown is a more solid anchor than "Downtown" Tottenville. However, late nights, I think the S74 and S78 should revert to the old pattern. Nobody's going to Bricktown at 3AM because it probably isn't even open, and those few riders along the S74 route trying to get to Tottenville would benefit from the direct service.

 

6) Leave it at Bay Ridge. As for bypassing Grasmere, a lot of turnover occurs at both the Grasmere SIR station and Hylan & Clove. Yes, it cuts into the time savings, but it's a necessary evil.

 

Checkmate I agree with most of your ideas above. Just couple of quick points.

 

1)There no need for a 24/7 "S89" Newark Airport-SI Bus. IMO it should operated by either (NJT) or one of the private carriers i.e Academy Bus taking Metrocards. IMO it should run every 30 minutes rush hours and every hour all other times appx. 5am-12:30am.

Plus IMO a Newark Airport-SI should be a separte route and use the Gothehals Bridge to not only serve Elizbeth. It should also and provide connections to (NJT) NE Coordior and Jersey Coast line trains.

Leave the "S89" Bayonne-SI line alone(it should be expanded to run at least all day weekdays with 30-minute headways.)

 

2)IMO running both the S93 and S83 Saturdays as it is 'excessive." I agree with expanding the S93 to all day weekdays (i.e 30 minute headways weekdays)but on Saturdays '1' Bay Ridge-Clove Road limited is enough.

 

3)If you going to create a "S79A" might as rename IMO the "S77" to avoid confusion.

 

I got couple of more comments but i am typing this at work so i reply later during the week checkmate.

 

 

1) The main purpose is actually to provide easy access from Bayonne to Newark Airport. I mean, it's a lot easier and faster to get on one bus that goes straight onto the expressway than to take a bus to the PATH to the #62, which spend more time local streets. The fact that it's an SI route would allow SI riders another option to reach Newark Airport (the S98 would serve the North Shore and the S82/S89 would serve the Mid-Island and South Shore, and of course a small section of the North Shore)

 

And like I said, that's what my S82 is for. There's no point in adding another route to Richmond Avenue when there are corridors with poor connectivity and little to no service. During rush hours, of course the S89 would run, but off-peak, the S82 would handle Bayonne-SI riders.

 

2) If the S62 ran at 30 minute headways the whole day on Saturdays, then I wouldn't be suggesting this. However, those extra buses are running anyway, so you might as well put them to better use. There's no point in running buses that don't meet the ferry, if the regular demand (from non-ferry riders) doesn't warrant it. You might as well use those buses to make the trips easier for CSI students going out to Brooklyn. Even with the S83, you still have to transfer to reach CSI, which takes time. For riders going from points west of Jewett Avenue to points east of Clove Road, they'll be able to take the S61 to the S93. The number of riders inconvenienced would be less than the number you'd inconvenience by forcing people to transfer at Victory & Clove, and aside from that, it's an easier transfer (because you simply change at the same stop)

 

Besides, you're only thinking in terms of the number of routes. The S53 would run every 12 minutes (5 buses per hour), and the S83 would run every 20 minutes (3 buses per hour). The S93 would run every 30 minutes (2 buses per hour). So 3 + 2 = 5. Most limiteds across the city run at 12 minute headways, and you have to consider that those headways aren't even throughout the entire route: Only east of Victory & Clove, and even then people in the Grasmere area don't get the full amount of service.

 

3) There's no point. It pretty much follows the regular S79 path, enough to just call it the S79A. The M34A deviates from the M34 path (in fact, moreso than the S79A would deviate from the S79 path), and the B38 has local buses serving both branches with no problem (when the limited isn't running of course)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

try mine on for size like we discussed.

 

 

S54 northern manor rd merged with S42 I support and agree with.

 

S54 the route I suggest extending it to NJ secaucus UPS via jct and journal sq the line is closed door in NJ. The line remains on bradley and replaces S66's jewett ave segment en route to NJ before getting on rte 440.

 

S57 extends to newark broad via penn station closed door in NJ. The ridership increase forces S54 to run 7 days a week. jewett gains weekend service as a result.

 

S66 eliminated see S54 and S92

 

S92 becomes full time replaces former S60 routing then shortcuts to harold st via ocean terrance then resumes service to SI mall. LTD and faster routing now.At rush hour leave local service to S62 let S61 go LTD on victory after arlo.

 

S82 no comment where will the money come from boy I am curious.

 

S55/56 extend to NJ S55 abandons bloomingdale road to bricktown mall Then express to old bridge P&R via cheesequake P&R for connections to academy and NJT's139/64/63/variants and academy has many routes to other places. For perth amboy however an NJT route will pass through SI and do just that see my NJ ideas for that one.

OR NJT 63 will gain 7 day service and stop at SI college and bricktown mall and go to old bridge via cheesequake P&R off peak and rush MTA S55 to perth amboy except rush hour. NJT 63 would continue LTD to lakewood via rte 9 as usual.

 

S56 to metropark rail station ask for NJT ideas to see the complete reasoning behind this move it involves several senarios being unlocked.

 

S74/78 revert to original routing.

 

S83 clove rd broadway LTD will bypass grasmere via S93 routing to bay ridge then express via belt to sheepshead bay absorbing parts of former B4.

 

 

????????????????????????

 

 

not reall NJT would LOVE it it would add more riders to 139/64/63 & academy lines making em more profitable. And it would make a stronger case for unleashing the 60! also it would fix gaps due to SI outlay it's easier for S54/57 to do it cause it has more reach in SI to draw riders so it would increase NJT ridership on their rail lines and maybe even their buses too it would allow NJT to limit stops in SI only to hubs.

 

 

Um, this is about Staten Island, not New Jersey Transit. Stay on topic.

And also, do you even have any logical reasoning as to how many people from NJ actually want to reach S.I and vice-versa? These extensions make no sense at all because they are way too long. There is no chance in hell that these proposals would actually go through the front door....

 

Get this through your head, New York City Bus / MTA Bus is NOT New Jersey Transit NOR does the MTA want to operate that way....

Edited by Cait Sith
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S40: Revert trips back to holland whatever it's called once to St.George and Once to to Holland.

S42: Weekday Service from 6 Am to 8 PM

S44:Unchanged

S46: Terminate more buses at Teleport when S96 is running

S48: Mariners Harbor Service Discontinued, use S40

S51: Unchanged

S52: Limited Stop from 6am-8pm weekdays, Stopping at

St. George

Westervelt/Hamilton

Crescent/Jersey

Brighton/Jersey, then local stops to SI Shore

S53: Unxhanged

S54: Unchanged

S55/S56: Unchanged

S57: Unchanged

S59:Service to Tottebville discontinued, use S89

S61:Unchanged

S62: Unchanged

S66: Unchanged

S74:Unchanged

S78: Unchanged

S79: Fully SBS

S81: Unchanged

S76/S86: Unchanged

S89: Service Extended to Tottenville making the following stops after Richmond/Hylan:

Arden Ave

Huguenot Avenue

Seguine Avenue

Page Avenue

Tottenville

S90: Unchanged

S91: Unchanged

S92: Eliminated, use S91/S93

S93: Extended period of time from 7AM-10PM Weekdays

S96: Unchanged

S98: Douth Avenue Service Eliminated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realized: We forgot to add the express buses. Here's what I'd do.

 

X1 and X10 become 24/7 routes running at 60 minute headways overnight.

 

X17 gets Sunday service. It could start off running once an hour from say, 7AM to 7PM inbound and 9AM to 9PM outbound.

 

X22 gets off-peak service weekdays. I doubt there's much demand for weekend service. The people can drive over to the X17 or X1.

 

X16 restored. Select X14 trips bypass Lower Manhattan.

 

I'm not sure if the X18 should be restored. It did get decent ridership, but the thing is that riders had much more frequent service available nearby if they could hop down on a local bus to Narrows Road South, but then again, sometimes reverse-peak service can screw up. I've heard of people getting off say, an X8 and trying to catch the S51, and they end up waiting there for 35 minutes. I've heard that in the morning, it got decent loads, but in the afternoon, most buses were empty. It ran less frequently in the afternoon, but I don't know if that was the cause or effect (Did the low ridership cause the poor frequencies or the other way around?)

 

I would assume there are a lot of buses deadheading to St. George. In that case, maybe rather than restoring the X18, some buses can operate in service so riders have more frequent service when transferring. This brings up another issue: Some of the service changes (like reverse-peak limited-stop service) could be done at little to no cost if some of them were converted deadheads. Also, since BusTime should allow dispatchers to keep better track of buses, if they see a large gap, they should be allowed to convert a deadhead into

 

This is more of a signage issue, but outbound X10s should emphasize what street in Staten Island they operate on, not the street in Manhattan. If I'm waiting at Union Square , going to a stop along Narrows Road North, and an X10 pulls up and says "Port Richmond via Broadway", well that's great, but will it stop at my stop? There are a couple of X10Cs that bypass Narrows Road North, and it would also allow for more flexibility when bunching occurs (at least it gives you the option of sending one of them via Narrows Road North, though you might not necessarily want to because then they can't do skip-stop while they're in Manhattan)

 

I think service on the X17J should be split up into two parts, similar to the way Downtown service is split up. You'd have buses that go directly from Huguenot to Midtown without serving Richmond Avenue (pretty much follow the X19 path), and then you'd have buses starting from the Eltingvile Transit Center (or Annadale if it's preferred) going to Midtown. During the heart of rush hour, instead of running every 8 minutes in Huguenot and 4 minutes north of Eltingville, buses would run roughly every 15 minutes in Huguenot and every 6-8 minutes north of Eltingville. That pattern would only run at the heart of rush hour. During the "edges" of rush hour, the current pattern would remain the same. I mean, it might make things a little bit more confusing (since you'd have 3 X17 services, plus the X19 and X(whatever number you want for Huguenot. Maybe call it the X18 so you can have the X17/18/19 and if the X18 is restored, you can call it something else), but if the service pattern works, that's all that matters.

 

Then again, the X17J is within a 10-15 minute walk of the X23/X24 for all of its time in the South Shore, so maybe it's best to leave the service pattern as is. But in that case, why bother sending the X17J past Eltingville at all? Maybe it has something to do with them not trusting Atlantic Express as the only option to Midtown from that area. :wacko:

 

For the X19, the West Shore Expressway can sometimes get backed up, but there is usually very little traffic along South Avenue. What I'd do is have the X19s exit the SIE at South Avenue, make a stop, and then continue down South Avenue until it meets the West Shore Expressway again (While you're at it, it can't hurt to add a few stops along South Avenue in case hotel workers or guests need it for whatever reason). Also, once in Huguenot, I'd have the buses run down Woodrow Road-Bloomingdale Road-Englewood Avenue and terminate at the Bricktown Mall. Since the buses are going down that way anyway on their way to the depot, why not give riders easy access to Downtown as well as Midtown?

 

The MTA may worry about increasing costs (since the additional stops could attract more riders and increase the peak:base ratio) , but if that's the case, maybe they can use artics with suburban seating, like we discussed before (and like we said, they'd have all the amenities that the MCIs and Prevosts have). I think the capacity is only slightly higher, but if the routes often have standees, they might as well be standing in a more comfortable manner.

 

I know I said I'd only discuss express buses in this post, but I'd like to add a few things about the local buses:

 

* If two buses leave at the exact same time (for instance, I think there's two S44s leaving at 16:00), one of them should be a limited. Maybe even if it's late at night, it could be a limited (the reason I say maybe is because there is the chance you could have somebody at a local stop who wants to go further out, like say a person in Dongan Hills who wants to go to Rossville, and the S74 wouldn't be able to catch up to the S84 that left in front of it an they'd be left waiting another 30 minutes for a bus). But if two buses go to the exact same destination, there's no harm in making one a limited

 

* The S51 trips from Grant City in the morning could be converted to S81 trips to help speed up the commutes of people from the Rosebank/Stapleton area (especially if the X18 isn't brought back).

 

S40: Revert trips back to holland whatever it's called once to St.George and Once to to Holland.

S42: Weekday Service from 6 Am to 8 PM

S46: Terminate more buses at Teleport when S96 is running

S48: Mariners Harbor Service Discontinued, use S40

S52: Limited Stop from 6am-8pm weekdays, Stopping at

St. George

Westervelt/Hamilton

Crescent/Jersey

Brighton/Jersey, then local stops to SI Shore

S59:Service to Tottebville discontinued, use S89

S89: Service Extended to Tottenville making the following stops after Richmond/Hylan:

Arden Ave

Huguenot Avenue

Seguine Avenue

Page Avenue

Tottenville

 

 

S40: What do you mean "Holland whatever it's called"? Do you mean to have more short-turns to Arlington?

 

S42: Like I said, I'd do it differently, but I don't disaagree with keeping weekday service.

 

S46: You mean instead of terminating them at Forest Avenue, you'd terminate them at the Teleport? Just so you know, demand south of Forest Avenue is pretty light, but hey, if you want to give us some more service, I'm not complaining. ;)

 

S48: Not going to work. If you leave Arlington with only the S40, they've pretty much lost the connection to the Richmond Avenue routes (And don't say that they could go to Port Richmond Avenue for the S59 because that's much harder than going to Forest & Richmond). Aside from that, the S48 is more frequent than the S40, so keep in mind how much of an additional burden you'd be placing on the S40. Along the S40 route, I'd already say the Arlington stops are among the heaviest-used stops. This isn't to say that there isn't demand for the S48. Being a dense (by SI standards anyway) neighborhood, there is definitely enough demand to sustain both routes. Maybe at times S48 service runs slightly in excess (I'd say there's more ridership east of Richmond Avenue), but I wouldn't even say S48 service needs to be reduced.

 

S52: Ridership really isn't too great, but I guess since you already have the S42, it can't hurt to have the S52 skip some stops (I mean, you could argue that the hilly terrain would make it harder to reach the S52 for riders at the local stops, but then again, that was the case when the S52 ran on Richmond Terrace anyway).

 

I don't ride that route much, but the thing is that I've noticed buses can get pretty crowded at times. I remember I had to go to Stapleton, and instead of taking the S46 to the S51/74/76, I decided to take the S52. When it reached Victory Blvd, it had a nice load (it wasn't packed, but there were a lot of standees). But the thing is that I don't know where those people were going to or where they were coming from. There weren't a whole lot of people getting off in Ward's Hill, so I assume a lot of them were going to Tompkins Avenue, but then wouldn't they take the S78? Maybe they were, indeed coming from the residential areas on the hills, in which case it would be better to leave things as is.

 

S59/S89: The reason I didn't change it in my plan was because the S82 would provide service to Tottenville, so there would be no point in having the S89 there as well. But yeah, if they're not going to create a new route, I'd switch the S59 and S89. I'd have the S89 make all local stops, though (they don't get much use there anyway, so it's not like it'll add a lot of time to the trip)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buses I use on a regular basis:

 

s55/s56: No changes.

 

s89: Increased weekday service outside of rush hour (at least one every 1.5 hour) and last bus back to Staten Island at 8pm.

 

x1 : Should be 24 hour line, after 11pm, 12am, 1am, 3am and then regular.

 

x17c: Weekdays, last bus to SI should be at least 1am on weekdays. Weekends, last bus to SI should be midnight on Saturday, service on Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S40: Rerouted to West Shore Plaza after Forest Avenue.

S42: Can't think of anything right now.

S44: Same, can't think of anything.

S46: Rerouted to the S48's current terminal at Holland Avenue. Night service discontinued.

S48: Rerouted to the S40s terminal at Goethals Road.

S51: No change to physical route, but service via Fort Wadsworth becomes S51A.

S52: No changes.

S53: Service reduced during midday and evening hours to compensate for 30 minute S93 Limited midday and evening service. Service extended to 59th Street in Brooklyn.

S54: Weekend service reinstated. During off-peak hours, service operates only between West New Brighton and Seaview Hospital. Service extended to Huguenot - Luten Avenue/Eylandt Street during rush hours.

S55: Service between the Transit Center and Staten Island Mall starts at 8:00; service between Rossville and the Transit Center begins at 6:45, service ends at around 8:15

S56: Rerouted to Charleston; weekend service instated.

S57: Service rerouted via New Dorp Lane to give the corridor weekend service.

S59: Service extended to Tottenville at all times. Overnight service reinstated.

S61: No changes.

S62: Service reduced outside of rush hours for S93 Limited service. Weekend service cut from 15 minutes to 20 minutes. All service to Travis on Saturdays, no CSI short turns.

S66: No changes.

S74: Service re-instated to Tottenville, via the Bricktown Mall.; S74 and S78 swaps routing between Saint George and Broad/Canal Streets

S76: Service rerouted to Amboy Road and Guyon Avenue.

S78: Service rerouted to Huguenot - Luten Avenue/Eylandt Street during off-peak hours; service runs to Tottenville during rush hours only. Overnight service discontinued, replaced by the S79 and S54; routing between Saint George and Broad/Canal Streets swapped with S74.

S79: Rush hour weekday limited service, all day limited service on weekends, local S79 service doesn't run during rush hours. Late night service operates between the Transit Center and Brooklyn. Service extended to 59th Street in Brooklyn. S79A operates via Giffords Lane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seen a couple of you suggest the S53/79/93 and a possible S53 limited(my proposed name for now)be extended to 59th/4th? I understand the main purpose is to provide a direct connection to the (N) subway express.

 

However playing devil advocate some issues to be raised.

 

1)Should the S53/79/93 use the BQE/Gowanus direct to 59th/4th and bypass the busy and important 92nd and 86th St bus connections?

 

2)if the SI buses uses 4th Ave, should a SBS lane be created? 4th Avenue especially during the rush hour can be very busy and add at least 20 minutes to the trip?

 

3)Do you elimante the (R) late night shuttle if the S53/79/93 is created?

 

Please address those issues guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S40: Rerouted to West Shore Plaza after Forest Avenue.

S42: Can't think of anything right now.

S44: Same, can't think of anything.

S46: Rerouted to the S48's current terminal at Holland Avenue. Night service discontinued.

S48: Rerouted to the S40s terminal at Goethals Road.

S51: No change to physical route, but service via Fort Wadsworth becomes S51A.

S52: No changes.

S53: Service reduced during midday and evening hours to compensate for 30 minute S93 Limited midday and evening service. Service extended to 59th Street in Brooklyn.

S54: Weekend service reinstated. During off-peak hours, service operates only between West New Brighton and Seaview Hospital. Service extended to Huguenot - Luten Avenue/Eylandt Street during rush hours.

S55: Service between the Transit Center and Staten Island Mall starts at 8:00; service between Rossville and the Transit Center begins at 6:45, service ends at around 8:15

S56: Rerouted to Charleston; weekend service instated.

S57: Service rerouted via New Dorp Lane to give the corridor weekend service.

S59: Service extended to Tottenville at all times. Overnight service reinstated.

S61: No changes.

S62: Service reduced outside of rush hours for S93 Limited service. Weekend service cut from 15 minutes to 20 minutes. All service to Travis on Saturdays, no CSI short turns.

S66: No changes.

S74: Service re-instated to Tottenville, via the Bricktown Mall.; S74 and S78 swaps routing between Saint George and Broad/Canal Streets

S76: Service rerouted to Amboy Road and Guyon Avenue.

S78: Service rerouted to Huguenot - Luten Avenue/Eylandt Street during off-peak hours; service runs to Tottenville during rush hours only. Overnight service discontinued, replaced by the S79 and S54; routing between Saint George and Broad/Canal Streets swapped with S74.

S79: Rush hour weekday limited service, all day limited service on weekends, local S79 service doesn't run during rush hours. Late night service operates between the Transit Center and Brooklyn. Service extended to 59th Street in Brooklyn. S79A operates via Giffords Lane.

 

I disagree with your S53 proposal... Yes, extending it 59th street is good, but reducing service levels to give the S93 more service is not. Quite frankly I don't think the S53 and S93 should be considered to be connected and also, folks continue to dismiss the ridership on the S53 north of Victory Blvd. That is the one thing that has pissed me with the (MTA). They've made getting below Victory Blvd a real PITA be it via the local bus or the express bus with their reductions in service since 2010. They really need to re-think that, as they are shortchanging Forest Avenue in particular. Now having reduced S53 service for a dedicated S83 service I do agree with...

 

I would also have the S66 run on the weekends every 30 minutes because the S61 and S62 have become more crowded. Aside from that it would give the folks in Grymes Hill the service that they should have on the weekends.

 

As for the S54, I would re-instate weekend service, but extend that line to the ferry. I would keep service down to Eltingville to give riders the option of a North South route, which the (MTA) has steadily cut over the years as well...

 

I also disagree with cutting overnight service on the S46. That would force riders to go to Forest Avenue for the S48 which does get good usage overnight. Buses serving the ferry should be kept when possible.

 

I also disagree with your S40 and S48 swaps as well. The areas that the S48 serve in the western part of SI would be negatively affected.

 

If the S79 would not have local service at certain times, then the S78 would have to be improved that bus runs like absolute sh*t and folks would be pissed.

 

I seen a couple of you suggest the S53/79/93 and a possible S53 limited(my proposed name for now)be extended to 59th/4th? I understand the main purpose is to provide a direct connection to the (N) subway express.

 

However playing devil advocate some issues to be raised.

 

1)Should the S53/79/93 use the BQE/Gowanus direct to 59th/4th and bypass the busy and important 92nd and 86th St bus connections?

 

2)if the SI buses uses 4th Ave, should a SBS lane be created? 4th Avenue especially during the rush hour can be very busy and add at least 20 minutes to the trip?

 

3)Do you elimante the (R) late night shuttle if the S53/79/93 is created?

 

Please address those issues guys.

 

No on all three questions... I don't see 4th Avenue being that busy quite frankly to create a SBS lane. Also, regarding the (R) shuttle, if anything it should be increased. That train is one of the slowest if not the slowest in the city!! <_<

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with your S53 proposal... Yes, extending it 59th street is good, but reducing service levels to give the S93 more service is not. Quite frankly I don't think the S53 and S93 should be considered to be connected and also, folks continue to dismiss the ridership on the S53 north of Victory Blvd. That is the one thing that has pissed me with the (MTA). They've made getting below Victory Blvd a real PITA be it via the local bus or the express bus with their reductions in service since 2010. They really need to re-think that, as they are shortchanging Forest Avenue in particular. Now having reduced S53 service for a dedicated S83 service I do agree with...

 

I would also have the S66 run on the weekends every 30 minutes because the S61 and S62 have become more crowded. Aside from that it would give the folks in Grymes Hill the service that they should have on the weekends.

 

As for the S54, I would re-instate weekend service, but extend that line to the ferry. I would keep service down to Eltingville to give riders the option of a North South route, which the (MTA) has steadily cut over the years as well...

 

I also disagree with cutting overnight service on the S46. That would force riders to go to Forest Avenue for the S48 which does get good usage overnight. Buses serving the ferry should be kept when possible.

 

I also disagree with your S40 and S48 swaps as well. The areas that the S48 serve in the western part of SI would be negatively affected.

 

If the S79 would not have local service at certain times, then the S78 would have to be improved that bus runs like absolute sh*t and folks would be pissed.

 

 

 

No on all three questions... I don't see 4th Avenue being that busy quite frankly to create a SBS lane. Also, regarding the (R) shuttle, if anything it should be increased. That train is one of the slowest if not the slowest in the city!! <_<

 

 

If anything the (R) should be running at least until 1am(last train leaving Midtown Manhattan)or even ideally running 24/7 the full route between Bay Ridge and Queens via Manhattan.

 

That why the S53/79/93 could(and should stay at 86th and 4th). I also agree with LRG though on creating hourly-headways(buses running every hour overnights)on both the S79 and S59. Especially with so many new homes/condos being bulit along Richmond Ave in last 10-15 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S40: Rerouted to West Shore Plaza after Forest Avenue.

S46: Rerouted to the S48's current terminal at Holland Avenue. Night service discontinued.

S48: Rerouted to the S40s terminal at Goethals Road.

S59: Service extended to Tottenville at all times. Overnight service reinstated.

S62: Service reduced outside of rush hours for S93 Limited service. Weekend service cut from 15 minutes to 20 minutes. All service to Travis on Saturdays, no CSI short turns.

S74: Service re-instated to Tottenville, via the Bricktown Mall.; S74 and S78 swaps routing between Saint George and Broad/Canal Streets

S76: Service rerouted to Amboy Road and Guyon Avenue.

S78: Service rerouted to Huguenot - Luten Avenue/Eylandt Street during off-peak hours; service runs to Tottenville during rush hours only. Overnight service discontinued, replaced by the S79 and S54; routing between Saint George and Broad/Canal Streets swapped with S74.

S79: Rush hour weekday limited service, all day limited service on weekends, local S79 service doesn't run during rush hours. Late night service operates between the Transit Center and Brooklyn. Service extended to 59th Street in Brooklyn. S79A operates via Giffords Lane.

 

S40: I originally supported it, but looking back, I don't think it would work. The reason is because a lot of the riders on South Avenue aren't looking to go to St. George. Most of them are off by the Port Richmond/West Brighton area. Keep in mind that almost nobody lives south of the SIE (I mean, there's census data that says there are a few people. Maybe they permenantly live in the hotels or something. :wacko: ), and most people in the residential area north of the SIE (or south of the SIE, but a couple of blocks east of South Avenue, but not on South Avenue itself) can walk to either the S40 or S44 for a fast ride to St. George. Besides, I think some of those hotels have shuttles to St. George anyway.

 

S46: Since the S40 should remain where it is, the S46 pretty much has to serve South Avenue, but you gave me an idea: A lot of people get off at South Avenue/Brabant Street and either walk to Arlington or catch the S40 or S48 if they see it. So maybe instead of terminating at Forest Avenue, the rush hour short-turns could end in Arlington.

 

S48: Well, at least you kept their connection to Richmond Avenue by giving them the S46, but like I said, there's more shopping and everything on Forest Avenue.

 

S59: Makes sense. I'd assume most people going to St. George from the South Shore are taking the SIR anyway. (But I'd still keep service to Bricktown)

 

S62: If all service is going to Travis, that kind of negates the cost savings of running every 20 minutes instead of every 30.

 

In any case, I don't like the idea of buses running every 20 minutes, since it's not a factor of 30 (the ferry's headways), but then again, riders on a few routes on the East Shore manage to deal with it.

 

S74: I'm not sure about this. I guess I'd support it, but only if the S74 is rerouted to run via the southern part of Bloomingdale Road and then go in through Englewood Avenue. Otherwise, it's too circuitous. Even if my S82 plan weren't implemented, the northern part of Bloomingdale Road would have a maximum 10 minute walk to reach the S74.

 

As for switching it with the S78, I personally wouldn't do it, but I could see the logic (the S78 is a longer route, so it should take a more direct path, and it gives Tompkins Avenue a faster route to the ferry. At least on weekdays, Targee Street/Richmond Road has the S76 on the southern part.

 

S78: Makes sense. I'd actually reroute it to run via Arden Avenue (or Huguenot Avenue) to fill in a service gap, and then terminate at Arthur Kill Road/Huguenot Avenue.

 

S79: Makes sense.

 

I seen a couple of you suggest the S53/79/93 and a possible S53 limited(my proposed name for now)be extended to 59th/4th? I understand the main purpose is to provide a direct connection to the (N) subway express.

 

However playing devil advocate some issues to be raised.

 

1)Should the S53/79/93 use the BQE/Gowanus direct to 59th/4th and bypass the busy and important 92nd and 86th St bus connections?

 

2)if the SI buses uses 4th Ave, should a SBS lane be created? 4th Avenue especially during the rush hour can be very busy and add at least 20 minutes to the trip?

 

3)Do you elimante the (R) late night shuttle if the S53/79/93 is created?

 

Please address those issues guys.

 

1) What they could do is have it use the service road between 92nd Street and 86th Street, so you still have the connections to the B70 and B1 (and B16 if you don't mind a short walk), and then get on the BQE, get off at 65th Street and then go over to the 59th Street station. You'd still have most of your connections (you'd only miss the B63, but I doubt most riders want it), and you'd add a connection to the B9 for those who want it.

 

You do have some people who live in Bay Ridge and use those routes, but it wouldn't be that far of a walk to access the SI routes (or they could use the B1)

 

2) It's a moot point because there wouldn't be a reason to.

 

3) See above.

 

1) I would also have the S66 run on the weekends every 30 minutes because the S61 and S62 have become more crowded. Aside from that it would give the folks in Grymes Hill the service that they should have on the weekends.

 

2) As for the S54, I would re-instate weekend service, but extend that line to the ferry. I would keep service down to Eltingville to give riders the option of a North South route, which the (MTA) has steadily cut over the years as well...

 

3) I also disagree with cutting overnight service on the S46. That would force riders to go to Forest Avenue for the S48 which does get good usage overnight. Buses serving the ferry should be kept when possible.

 

4) I also disagree with your S40 and S48 swaps as well. The areas that the S48 serve in the western part of SI would be negatively affected.

 

5) If the S79 would not have local service at certain times, then the S78 would have to be improved that bus runs like absolute sh*t and folks would be pissed.

 

1) I don't see any huge difference in the crowding on the S61/S62. I'm not saying that shouldn't happen (I do agree that the S66 should have some sort of weekend service), but just that crowding isn't a reason.

 

2) The thing is that the S79A would give them access to a more popular destination. Like I said, you have access to the SI Mall, Eltingville Transit Center, and shopping along Hylan Blvd (as well as Brooklyn for whoever wants it). I think you'd benefit a lot more passengers with this route than the S54.

 

3) Actually, the S46 gets more overnight riders than any other route on SI (in second place, you have the S74, probably because of its length). While it's not that far of a distance to the S48, and it's probably not exactly the cheapest route in the world to operate overnight, I'd just keep service as is.

 

4) To be fair, they do get the S46, which is more than Q23 would've given them, but yeah, they're better off with the S48. You do see a decent crowd at Forest & Richmond, and while some may live along Forest Avenue, there probably are a lot of people who live in Arlington.

 

That whole S40/46/48 swap is something that looks good on paper, but doesn't really work realistically. It's not a terrible idea, but the current service pattern works better.

 

5) Agree. The S59 should probably see a little improvement as well (It's not too unreliable, but you are leaving local riders with 20 minute headways for most of the day).

 

That why the S53/79/93 could(and should stay at 86th and 4th). I also agree with LRG though on creating hourly-headways(buses running every hour overnights)on both the S79 and S59. Especially with so many new homes/condos being bulit along Richmond Ave in last 10-15 years.

 

Eh, there wasn't that much growth along Richmond Avenue. Actually, most of the growth happened around the time the S59 had its overnight service cut, ironically enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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