Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

[Threxx]

That money would be better spent adding more service to the S61 then running a bus that won't see much usage...

 

 

However, without the S50, Decker and Willowbrook loses service.

[qjtransitmaster]

thats why keep S57 or transfer segment to S66 rerouted done.

[Threxx]

thats why keep S57 or transfer segment to S66 rerouted done.

 

 

lolwut?

[checkmatechamp13]

Well throw out whatever routes you want. The point is they already have alternatives and you're stealing alternatives from one neighborhood and giving it to another. You still haven't stated how you'd explain to those communities how it is okay for them to lose their service so that another neighborhood can take it... I'm waiting... It's not me that you have to convince. It's the communities that would lose their service that you have to convince as well as the and if you think that you're going to steal service from one community to please another and get away with it you've got to be dreaming. I can see the right now arguing network coverage...

 

 

I already did. If you can't comprehend that, oh well.

 

It's the last 2 paragraphs of this post.

 

I already sent the proposal to the MTA and several politicians. None of them mentioned anything about "network coverage" being an issue. Why? Because I already proved that it isn't.

 

Chill out guys... at least the base insults haven't come out yet...

 

https://maps.google....075457,0.154324

 

Here's my plan, which adds a new route to the mix, which adresses the coverage concerns that VG8 has.

 

 

Well, first of all, if you were to do that, you'd be better off using Woolley between Watchogue & Victory because Willowbrook Road is very narrow. And then once you get onto Forest Hill Road, you'd be better off paralleling the S61 instead of having it branch off to Rockland and then serve a different part of the mall. My feeling has always been that if you're going to run the routes a couple of blocks apart, you might as well run them on

 

Second of all, I don't really see it getting much ridership. I was actually thinking of the loss of service along Willowbrook Road (Decker Avenue I wasn't really worried about) when I originally made that plan (and actually came up with the route I described above), but I figured that the gap wasn't too big and the ridership on the new route wouldn't be too high.

 

The problem is that there really isn't a heavy ridership generator on the route. In order for a route to really get good ridership, it either has to serve St. George or Bay Ridge. If you serve an area like the SI Mall, CSI, or Port Richmond, you might get some ridership, but it won't be a whole lot. Look at the S54. It starts near some low-income townhouses (a former housing project. I don't know what it technically is now, but whatever), serves the West Brighton Houses, serves a commercial strip on Castleton, serves the Todt Hill Houses, and yet it has one of the highest costs per passenger in the system. Why? Because it doesn't serve St. George or Bay Ridge. You look at the S54 buses on Castleton and they're mostly empty, whereas the S46 & S53 get decent ridership on Castleton. And where do they terminate? That's right, St. George & Bay Ridge.

 

A while back, I made a post about the North Shore Rail Line, and how it would be nice if it were a heavy rail line because then it would be able to go directly to Manhattan and basically be another subway line. If that were the case, the North Shore Rail Line stations would end up being large ridership generators like Bay Ridge, and so the route would do alright. In fact, I made a proposal for a similar route up Woolley Avenue in this thread. But the key thing is that it would hit a major ridership generator.

 

Now, I don't disagree that the Woolley Avenue area could use a route, but there's the issue of a lack of ridership.

 

If there was a ton of backlash from NIMBYs along Willowbrook Road (which, like I said I highly doubt would happen because the negative impacts would be minimal), then yes, I would throw this new route into the plan, but as of now I don't see it.

 

But I guess now that we're on the subject, I've always thought that there should be some kind of off-peak connection between SI & Bayonne (and my recent trip walking across the Bayonne Bridge only solidified that belief). IMO, the S89 doesn't have the ridership to go all the way down to Eltingville (not even to the ETC), considering the fact that you already have the S44 & S59 over there. So I suggested a shuttle between Bayonne and Forest & Richmond.

 

Maybe, the off-peak S89 shuttle could be combined with this route. That way, you still have the connection to the ETC (you get a lot of riders boarding the S89 at that park-and-ride over there), but you're not paralleling the S44 & S59. Instead, you're filling in a gap in the network. During rush hour when the S89 runs, you could send it up to Port Richmond (maybe have it travel via Decker Avenue)

 

So you could have this pattern:

 

Rush hour:

S50: Port Richmond - ETC via Willowbrook Road, Woolley Avenue, Forest Hill Road

S89: Bayonne-Eltingville via Richmond Avenue

 

Off-peak:

S50: Bayonne-ETC via Willowbrook Road, Woolley Avenue, Forest Hill Road

 

Or if it's too confusing, just send the S50 to Bayonne all times. Off-peak service would likely be every hour. The HBLR runs every 20 minutes, so it would have to be a multiple of 20.

 

We're not arguing at all... There is no need for insults. I'm just raising legitimate concerns that communities would raise. When you make a proposal you have to be able to defend both sides of it, the good and the bad and be ready to be able to defend it which is what I'm asking him to do. Like I said it doesn't affect me so I don't care, but I'm playing the devil's advocate.

 

I'm not getting the changes you made either... Why is does the S67 end at Victory and Royal Oak Rd??

 

 

And I already defended it. If you can't be bothered to read my defense, that's not my problem. I'm familiar with the areas and I'm saying there's basically no loss of coverage. It's a matter of a couple of extra blocks (for only a small amount of people at that) and it's made up for by the fact that the new route goes to more popular destinations. Not to mention that within that neighborhood it would bring bus service closer to some people. If you're west of Willowbrook Road, you have a bus, whereas before you didn't. That's still Westerleigh because it's still east of the MLK.

 

And if that S53A plan goes through, forget it. That's the end of any possible opposition because then pretty much everybody would be better off as far as walking distance to transit goes.

 

As for the S67, he didn't feel like drawing out the full route, because the eastern portion would be exactly the same as the S66. It wouldn't actually end at Royal Oak. The same with the S57, because the southern portion would be the same as it is now.

 

That's just wayy too much service... You already have the S61 which gives coverage to some of what the S50 would do....

Your S67 route is almost a replica of the X12 minus the Richmond Avenue part....

The real issue is why isn't ridership that strong on Jewett Ave??? It could be that folks prefer to drive. I see no need to ram service down Jewett Ave if it isn't needed like that.

 

 

The X12 runs rush hours only, whereas the S67 would run 7 days a week. Aside from that, it doesn't matter that they duplicate each other. The X30 duplicates the S48, the X1 duplicates the S79, and so on, so it doesn't matter.

 

As for Jewett Avenue, nothing's being "rammed" down anybody's throat. The S57 replaces the S66. What's the problem? They get weekend service back, but nobody's going to complain about that, especially since they had weekend service 17 years ago. I'm not expecting tons of riders along Jewett, but you might be able to get a few additional ones on the S57 rather than the S66.

[checkmatechamp13]

For the hell of it, I made a map of the S50 route.

 

A while back, I had the plan to run all the Richmond Avenue buses on the back part of Ring Road, rather than Marsh Avenue, so I figured I'd have the S50 take the same route so it would share the stop with the S89. But it could take Marsh Avenue as well.

 

It's mostly a coverage route, but some people could use it to transfer to the S67/S62. The S61 gets crowded.

 

 

TBH, I don't really see that happening. If you need to reach Manhattan, that would mean you used up the transfer and won't have it to use on the subway in Manhattan. And you don't necessarily know if you'd be better off with the S62 instead of waiting for the S61. As for the S61 getting crowded, TBH, I'm not really seeing it. That time when you caught it and the S62 came in just as the S61 pulled out, that probably means the S62 was MIA. (Because if it was scheduled to leave at the same time as the S61, it would've caught up to you further down the line. It was probably the one scheduled to leave 15 minutes after your S61). When everything's running normally, I've seen S61s get SRO, but never crushloaded to the point where you're flagging people or anything.

 

Anyway, it's a moot point because I've figured out a way to strengthen the Woolley Avenue route above.

[aemoreira81]

It may have been mentioned before, but I'd like to see the S89 have midday service added to it, running hourly between ETC and 34th Street-Bayonne for better connections. I would also like to see a route that ran from ETC to Jersey Gardens, operating via SI Mall and New Springville's local streets before returning to Richmond Avenue (preferably Kelly Boulevard and Rockland Avenue). After New Springville, the route would use Richmond Avenue and Forest Avenue before going over the Goethals Bridge and express to Jersey Gardens Mall and IKEA Elizabeth. I would propose 30 minute headways every day.

Edited November 2, 2012 by aemoreira81

[qjtransitmaster]

It may have been mentioned before, but I'd like to see the S89 have midday service added to it, running hourly between ETC and 34th Street-Bayonne for better connections. I would also like to see a route that ran from ETC to Jersey Gardens, operating via SI Mall and New Springville's local streets before returning to Richmond Avenue (preferably Kelly Boulevard and Rockland Avenue). After New Springville, the route would use Richmond Avenue and Forest Avenue before going over the Goethals Bridge and express to Jersey Gardens Mall and IKEA Elizabeth. I would propose 30 minute headways every day.

 

your better off extending an NJT route namely the 40 renumber it 104 it will have 3 stops in SI off peak west shore plaza and @ rush hr teleport then next stop SI mall last stop ETC. NJT 104 will be closed door in SI. Nobody uses a bus that is hourly especially if it's a LTD stop line it must have similar service levels to the S59 or it will fail. S89 should run at least every 20 mins to match local bus frequency. Technically buses physically can use richmond parkway is this correct? If so then it can go to tottenville via bricktown mall if not ETC is good enough.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I already did. If you can't comprehend that, oh well.

 

It's the last 2 paragraphs of this post.

If you call defending it telling the riders that would lose their service to take a hike (indirectly) by dismissing their legitimate concerns about having to walk further to their route, then that isn't exactly defending your plan. You yourself said that you aren't concerned about some corridors like Decker Av which shows your disregard for those passengers because apparently they're not important. You're just trying to sell them on the idea that the folks that would have the service closer to them need it more than they do which is quite arrogant to say the least.

 

I already sent the proposal to the MTA and several politicians. None of them mentioned anything about "network coverage" being an issue. Why? Because I already proved that it isn't.

Why? Because they probably just blew you off. Oh what happened to that S93 extension you were soooo adamant about???

 

 

 

If there was a ton of backlash from NIMBYs along Willowbrook Road (which, like I said I highly doubt would happen because the negative impacts would be minimal), then yes, I would throw this new route into the plan, but as of now I don't see it.

Just because you don't it see doesn't mean there wouldn't be. You clearly don't comprehend the notion of a car centric borough. The amount of b*tching about the S79 bus lane has been incredible. They do nothing but complain about how these PITA buses are slowing down their commutes in their cars down Hylan Blvd. They'd rather see more car lanes than bus lanes even on Hylan Blvd and you think they'd welcome a local bus down Willowbrook Rd? What a joke. Usually if they don't mind more buses it is express buses to get to the city but the local buses... Pfft... Please.

 

 

 

 

And I already defended it. If you can't be bothered to read my defense, that's not my problem. I'm familiar with the areas and I'm saying there's basically no loss of coverage. It's a matter of a couple of extra blocks (for only a small amount of people at that) and it's made up for by the fact that the new route goes to more popular destinations. Not to mention that within that neighborhood it would bring bus service closer to some people. If you're west of Willowbrook Road, you have a bus, whereas before you didn't. That's still Westerleigh because it's still east of the MLK.

It's interesting how you're so concerned about those few folks when it suits your agenda but otherwise those "few people" don't matter...

The X12 runs rush hours only, whereas the S67 would run 7 days a week. Aside from that, it doesn't matter that they duplicate each other. The X30 duplicates the S48, the X1 duplicates the S79, and so on, so it doesn't matter.

I mentioned the X12 because those folks are looking for express bus service NOT local bus service, so it does matter that the bus duplicates it because it would be worthless to run it.

 

As for Jewett Avenue, nothing's being "rammed" down anybody's throat. The S57 replaces the S66. What's the problem? They get weekend service back, but nobody's going to complain about that, especially since they had weekend service 17 years ago. I'm not expecting tons of riders along Jewett, but you might be able to get a few additional ones on the S57 rather than the S66.

 

If it hasn't run in 17 years on the weekend, I'm not understanding what's supposed to be so different now than before... Edited November 2, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[qjtransitmaster]

If you call defending it telling the riders that would lose their service to take a hike (indirectly) by dismissing their legitimate concerns about having to walk further to their route, then that isn't exactly defending your plan. You yourself said that you aren't concerned about some corridors like Decker Av which shows your disregard for those passengers because apparently they're not important. You're just trying to sell them on the idea that the folks that would have the service closer to them need it more than they do which is quite arrogant to say the least.

 

Why? Because they probably just blew you off. Oh what happened to that S93 extension you were soooo adamant about???

 

 

 

 

Just because you don't see doesn't it mean there wouldn't be. You clearly don't comprehend the notion of a car centric borough. The amount of b*tching about the S79 bus lane has been incredible. They do nothing but complain about how these PITA buses are slowing down their commutes in their cars down Hylan Blvd. They'd rather see more car lanes than bus lanes even on Hylan Blvd and you think they'd welcome a local bus down Willowbrook Rd? What a joke. Usually if they don't mind more buses it is express buses to get to the city but the local buses... Pfft... Please.

 

 

 

 

 

It's interesting how you're so concerned about those few folks when it suits your agenda but otherwise those "few people" don't matter...

 

I mentioned the X12 because those folks are looking for express bus service NOT local bus service, so it does matter that the bus duplicates it because it would be worthless to run it.

 

If it hasn't run in 17 years on the weekend, I'm not understand what's supposed to be so different now than before...

 

Let those people learn to use the S79/78 like the rest of the city. This car centric nature can be partially blamed on MTA's inability to work together with NJT to close service gaps between SI and NJ. Plus the utter lack of fast service between brooklyn and SI also isn't helping either. I spoke with many that would benefit from my proposed S55/56 extensions as it would enable them to use NJT to get to their destination currently they must drive. But I understand what you are saying here. To be honest I didn't think hylan blvd was so slow that it needed a bus lane SIE I can understand but hylan? I am pretty sure MTA just wanted to force people onto buses.

[S79 Select bus servi]

S40: 15 15 15 20 60 30 15 15 30 60 30 20 20 30 60. 10 10

S42: 10 30 15 30. 15. 15

S44: 10 15 15 20 20 10 10 30. 30 15 15 30 10 10

S46: 10 15 15 20 15 15 15 30. 20 10 10 30. 10 7.5(2 per 15mts)

S96: 15 15 30 30. 20 20. 15 15

S48: 15 10 20 20. 30 15 15 20. 20 15 15 20. 5 5

S98: 15 15 30 30. 30 15 15. 20 20. 5 5

S51/S76: 15 15 15 15 (30 20 20 30 wkends) 7.5 10

 

 

[S79 Select bus servi]

S46/S48 nite= 40. S53= 30, All other nites (+s59, x1) run at 60 mts

S52: 10 15 15 20 30 15 15 30. 30 20 20 30. 15 15

S53: 8 10 7 15. 10 7 8 12 12 9 9 15

S93: 6 10 7 20. 15 15. 15 15(timed to meet S60's)

S59. 12 15 12 20. 30 20 20 30 30 30 30 30

S89. 20 40 20 40 40 40. 40 40

S89 timed to meet HBLR

 

 

[S79 Select bus servi]

S55/S56: 40 40 40 40 (Wkend only: 40 40) timed to meet eachother and the S89 at the ETC

S55 ext via marsh, richmond hill, forest hill, rockland, brielle

S55 ends at ETC outside of rush hours

For service to the mall, transfer to the S56 at ETC(timed)

Neither of the 3 buses will leave the center until all transfers are made.

S56 will be extended via rich hill, richmond, travis, south.

 

 

[S79 Select bus servi]

S54: 30 30 30 30, (wkend 30 30)

S57: 15 30 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

S74: 15 10 15 30 30 15* 15* 30(all weekend)

*short turn runs extended down giffords via the S54

S54 weekends service ends at Seaview hosp

S57 timed to meet SIR at new dorp

S54 timed to meet the S57 at seaview hosp.

Buses are only timed in the same direction.

Ex. S54 northbound is not timed with S57 southbound,

S57 northbound is not timed with SIR to tottenville

 

[S79 Select bus servi]

S60's stay the same. Rush hours peak direction the S61-2 runs every 10 while the S66 ruus every 15

I like the S66 at grymes hill because it provides a link between grymes hill and jewelett av and the ferry and a good view of the island for the riders.

If the S60 was brought back, people wood need to transfer at sunnyside bus station(clove rd/victory)

[S79 Select bus servi]

S78: 15 10 15 20 20 10 10 20 20 10 10 15. 10 10

+SBS79+: 6 8 6 10. 12 8 7 12. 12 9 8 15

X1: 10 10 10 15. 60 20 15 15 20. 60 30 15 15 15 30 60. 4 4

Bus route: AM NOON PM EVE. Sat- AM Noon PM Eve

Sun- AM Noon Eve Nite. Peak AM. peak Pm

Routes that dont go to the ferry or manhattan dont nessesarily have a peak direction

If weekend only has 2, suppose its Noon/PM

[S79 Select bus servi]

All other express routes may stay the same.

Limiteds stay the same unless frequencies are shown for them.

The Ferry arrives 3 minutes earlier to help buses leave the terminal on time.

 

 

[checkmatechamp13]

your better off extending an NJT route namely the 40 renumber it 104 it will have 3 stops in SI off peak west shore plaza and @ rush hr teleport then next stop SI mall last stop ETC. NJT 104 will be closed door in SI. Nobody uses a bus that is hourly especially if it's a LTD stop line it must have similar service levels to the S59 or it will fail. S89 should run at least every 20 mins to match local bus frequency. Technically buses physically can use richmond parkway is this correct? If so then it can go to tottenville via bricktown mall if not ETC is good enough.

 

 

There isn't that much demand to the Teleport or West Shore Plaza from within SI. What makes you think there's demand from NJ?

 

In any case, if you're going to send it to the SI Mall, you might as well send it down Richmond Avenue. You'll get more ridership than going to the Teleport or West Shore Plaza.

 

As for buses on the Richmond Parkway, I'm pretty sure you can do it if you get a permit (I know certain trucks are allowed on it)

 

In any case, I know he's just doing it to be a PITA (he thinks I'm actually going to believe his whole "devil's advocate" BS), but I'm bored, so I might as well respond.

 

1) If you call defending it telling the riders that would lose their service to take a hike (indirectly) by dismissing their legitimate concerns about having to walk further to their route, then that isn't exactly defending your plan. You yourself said that you aren't concerned about some corridors like Decker Av which shows your disregard for those passengers because apparently they're not important. You're just trying to sell them on the idea that the folks that would have the service closer to them need it more than they do which is quite arrogant to say the least.

 

2) Why? Because they probably just blew you off. Oh what happened to that S93 extension you were soooo adamant about???

 

3) Just because you don't it see doesn't mean there wouldn't be. You clearly don't comprehend the notion of a car centric borough. The amount of b*tching about the S79 bus lane has been incredible. They do nothing but complain about how these PITA buses are slowing down their commutes in their cars down Hylan Blvd. They'd rather see more car lanes than bus lanes even on Hylan Blvd and you think they'd welcome a local bus down Willowbrook Rd? What a joke. Usually if they don't mind more buses it is express buses to get to the city but the local buses... Pfft... Please.

 

4) It's interesting how you're so concerned about those few folks when it suits your agenda but otherwise those "few people" don't matter...

 

5) I mentioned the X12 because those folks are looking for express bus service NOT local bus service, so it does matter that the bus duplicates it because it would be worthless to run it.

 

6) If it hasn't run in 17 years on the weekend, I'm not understanding what's supposed to be so different now than before...

 

 

1) Yeah, I'm not concerned with Decker Avenue because it's a couple of blocks away from Port Richmond Avenue. You're telling me it's alright for some people to walk up to 20 minutes for east-west service, but it's not alright for other people to walk less than 5 minutes for north-south service.

 

2) I have a contact with a higher-up in the MTA (thank you, BrooklynBus). He made sure I wasn't "blown off".

 

As for the politicians, funny how the ones I sent it to all contacted me back. So much for being blown off, right?

 

Yeah, I figured this would be better than the S93 extension because it serves the same area I'm concerned about, with greater benefits.

 

3) Oh, alright, they don't welcome a bus down Willowbrook Road? That's great because I would be removing a bus. There should be no backlash, and in fact, the residents would be thanking me if this plan were to go through. That's even better.

 

I love the way you change your logic. And you're the one accusing me of "arguing for the sake of arguing".

 

4) Those "few people" would have a bus that brings them to more popular destinations. I'd rather walk a couple of blocks further for a bus that's more useful to me.

 

5) Oh, good then let's cut every single local bus in the borough.

 

And I'm still loving the way you change up your logic. First you say "Oh, the people [on Willowbrook Road] would complain because you're taking a bus away from them", and then you say "Oh, there's no point in running it [on Watchogue Road] because they're not looking for local service".

 

Again, arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

6) The difference is the route goes somewhere different than it did before.

 

Let those people learn to use the S79/78 like the rest of the city. This car centric nature can be partially blamed on MTA's inability to work together with NJT to close service gaps between SI and NJ. Plus the utter lack of fast service between brooklyn and SI also isn't helping either. I spoke with many that would benefit from my proposed S55/56 extensions as it would enable them to use NJT to get to their destination currently they must drive. But I understand what you are saying here. To be honest I didn't think hylan blvd was so slow that it needed a bus lane SIE I can understand but hylan? I am pretty sure MTA just wanted to force people onto buses.

 

 

During rush hour, it can be pretty slow at times. I mean, you have a ton of express & local buses in that area, so it makes travel through that area more efficient in general.

 

All other express routes may stay the same.

Limiteds stay the same unless frequencies are shown for them.

The Ferry arrives 3 minutes earlier to help buses leave the terminal on time.

 

 

I think that would just confuse people. That would mean it would leave Manhattan 3 minutes earlier, and you have ferry's leaving at 8:27, 8:57, etc, instead of 8:30, 9:00, etc.

 

I think the setup is good as is.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) Yeah, I'm not concerned with Decker Avenue because it's a couple of blocks away from Port Richmond Avenue. You're telling me it's alright for some people to walk up to 20 minutes for east-west service, but it's not alright for other people to walk less than 5 minutes for north-south service.

Uh no, what I'm saying is you're taking from one to give to the other and justifying it by saying that one group of people have it worse than the other group and therefore they should get the service. I think the people that you're taking the service from would disagree with you even if they only have to walk a bit further than before.

 

2) I have a contact with a higher-up in the MTA (thank you, BrooklynBus). He made sure I wasn't "blown off".

That's a start but you'll need more than that.

 

As for the politicians, funny how the ones I sent it to all contacted me back. So much for being blown off, right?

Big deal... Just about all of them reply back, but the question is if you're actually getting anything implemented.

 

3) Oh, alright, they don't welcome a bus down Willowbrook Road? That's great because I would be removing a bus. There should be no backlash, and in fact, the residents would be thanking me if this plan were to go through. That's even better.

 

I love the way you change your logic. And you're the one accusing me of "arguing for the sake of arguing".

I'm being realistic about Staten Island residents and how car centric they are. The fact that James Oddo wants the S79SBS service shut down in December if it isn't "successful" shows the mentality of the majority of the folks in the borough and he wouldn't make statements like that unless he felt like he had the backing of his constituents. What's even more scary is he's supposedly running for Borough President, so good look seeing serious improvements to local bus service. Smh

 

4) Those "few people" would have a bus that brings them to more popular destinations. I'd rather walk a couple of blocks further for a bus that's more useful to me.

Okay, fine, but like I said the issues I've raised would be the same ones raised by other folks. Folks are starved for the meager local bus service that is here, so giving up anything will be a big deal to the ones that use it, even if it requires them to walk only a tad further.

 

5) Oh, good then let's cut every single local bus in the borough.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm just being realistic to how folks are on the island and your naitivity on the issue is the real problem. I applaud you for giving it a shot, but your real enemies are your so called "representatives". The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll understand what I'm saying.

 

And I'm still loving the way you change up your logic. First you say "Oh, the people [on Willowbrook Road] would complain because you're taking a bus away from them", and then you say "Oh, there's no point in running it [on Watchogue Road] because they're not looking for local service".

 

Uh, that's not what I said at all. What I said was a general statement which was that you're taking service away from the folks on Decker and other areas served by the S57 and my point with the X12 was that some areas served by the X12 don't need local bus service because those people are looking for the express bus. Edited November 2, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[qjtransitmaster]

 

 

There isn't that much demand to the Teleport or West Shore Plaza from within SI. What makes you think there's demand from NJ?

 

In any case, if you're going to send it to the SI Mall, you might as well send it down Richmond Avenue. You'll get more ridership than going to the Teleport or West Shore Plaza.

 

As for buses on the Richmond Parkway, I'm pretty sure you can do it if you get a permit (I know certain trucks are allowed on it)

 

In any case, I know he's just doing it to be a PITA (he thinks I'm actually going to believe his whole "devil's advocate" BS), but I'm bored, so I might as well respond.

 

 

 

1) Yeah, I'm not concerned with Decker Avenue because it's a couple of blocks away from Port Richmond Avenue. You're telling me it's alright for some people to walk up to 20 minutes for east-west service, but it's not alright for other people to walk less than 5 minutes for north-south service.

 

2) I have a contact with a higher-up in the MTA (thank you, BrooklynBus). He made sure I wasn't "blown off".

 

As for the politicians, funny how the ones I sent it to all contacted me back. So much for being blown off, right?

 

Yeah, I figured this would be better than the S93 extension because it serves the same area I'm concerned about, with greater benefits.

 

3) Oh, alright, they don't welcome a bus down Willowbrook Road? That's great because I would be removing a bus. There should be no backlash, and in fact, the residents would be thanking me if this plan were to go through. That's even better.

 

I love the way you change your logic. And you're the one accusing me of "arguing for the sake of arguing".

 

4) Those "few people" would have a bus that brings them to more popular destinations. I'd rather walk a couple of blocks further for a bus that's more useful to me.

 

5) Oh, good then let's cut every single local bus in the borough.

 

And I'm still loving the way you change up your logic. First you say "Oh, the people [on Willowbrook Road] would complain because you're taking a bus away from them", and then you say "Oh, there's no point in running it [on Watchogue Road] because they're not looking for local service".

 

Again, arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

6) The difference is the route goes somewhere different than it did before.

 

 

 

During rush hour, it can be pretty slow at times. I mean, you have a ton of express & local buses in that area, so it makes travel through that area more efficient in general.

 

 

 

I think that would just confuse people. That would mean it would leave Manhattan 3 minutes earlier, and you have ferry's leaving at 8:27, 8:57, etc, instead of 8:30, 9:00, etc.

 

I think the setup is good as is.

 

Hmm let me answer that look at rte 440 @ rush hr nuff said. The purpose of NJT here is to serve transfer points in SI and take you to NJ FAST!!!! From the 3 stops transfer to MTA for other stops. err wanna know why teleport and west shore plaza have low ridership simple reaching those places via current SI bus network is a PITA!!!! You have to go to mariners harbor and backtrack on S46 duh in SI people have less tolerance for indirect transit lines and having to use multiple buses they will NOT consider backtracking on S96/46 if they have cars buddy. But if a bus is direct they may use it. Currently no NJ bus goes to SI via I-278 so you can't say anything about demand. I know alot more about NJ than you do I can tell. Plus only so many places can have NJT ticket machines.

[Turbo19]

Hmm let me answer that look at rte 440 @ rush hr nuff said. The purpose of NJT here is to serve transfer points in SI and take you to NJ FAST!!!! From the 3 stops transfer to MTA for other stops. err wanna know why teleport and west shore plaza have low ridership simple reaching those places via current SI bus network is a PITA!!!! You have to go to mariners harbor and backtrack on S46 duh in SI people have less tolerance for indirect transit lines and having to use multiple buses they will NOT consider backtracking on S96/46 if they have cars buddy. But if a bus is direct they may use it. Currently no NJ bus goes to SI via I-278 so you can't say anything about demand. I know alot more about NJ than you do I can tell. Plus only so many places can have NJT ticket machines.

 

Both Teleport and West Shore have low ridership, due to West Shore being a few (isolated) homes, along with an aging retail center, and the Teleport being relativly inactive. Combine that with the isolation of the area in S.I. and you'll see why hardly anyone (even in cars) in S.I. travel in that direction.

[checkmatechamp13]

You know, I'm surprised I still haven't gotten bored with this.

 

Uh no, what I'm saying is you're taking from one to give to the other and justifying it by saying that one group of people have it worse than the other group and therefore they should get the service. I think the people that you're taking the service from would disagree with you even if they only have to walk a bit further than before.

 

 

The MTA managed to discontinue routes in areas with far fewer alternatives. Yeah, there's always going to be people who complain when you make any kind of change. So what? If we listened to every single one of them, we'd never get anything done. There was a crazy lady complaining about how the North Shore Rail Line would impact pristine land on Richmond Terrace. Should we cancel the whole project because of her?

 

My point is that the negative impacts will be minimal, and the positive impacts would be far greater. Both Jewett Avenue & Howard Avenue (Grymes Hill basically) would get back weekend service. Decker Avenue residents can complain all they want, but they're going to be arguing with Grymes Hill residents, Graniteville residents, and Jewett Avenue residents who both outnumber them and would see a far greater impact than they would.

 

That's a start but you'll need more than that.

 

 

Oh, believe me, from the response they gave me, you could tell they're not going to take this lightly (and BrooklynBus can back me on this because I forwarded the letter to him). It's a very big start if you ask me.

 

Big deal... Just about all of them reply back, but the question is if you're actually getting anything implemented.

 

 

I'm sorry, but if they're repeatedly calling me and sending me emails, I wouldn't exactly call that getting blown off.

 

Now you're changing it up to say "Oh, it hasn't actually been implemented". Well, tell me about that S83 plan that you presented to the MTA. I guess you were "blown off" too.

 

I'm being realistic about Staten Island residents and how car centric they are. The fact that James Oddo wants the S79SBS service shut down in December if it isn't "successful" shows the mentality of the majority of the folks in the borough and he wouldn't make statements like that unless he felt like he had the backing of his constituents. What's even more scary is he's supposedly running for Borough President, so good look seeing serious improvements to local bus service. Smh

 

 

There are more politicians in this borough than Oddo.

 

Notice how quickly you change your argument. You mentioned Willowbrook Road specifically, which would lose a bus (under my original plan). So if you want to start bringing that up, then you just defeated your own argument.

 

Okay, fine, but like I said the issues I've raised would be the same ones raised by other folks. Folks are starved for the meager local bus service that is here, so giving up anything will be a big deal to the ones that use it, even if it requires them to walk only a tad further.

 

 

See my first response.

 

Aside from that, I wouldn't exactly call that area "starved" for local service. They have buses down Forest, Post, Jewett, and Port Richmond Avenues. If anything, it's one of the better-served areas of SI.

 

Don't be ridiculous. I'm just being realistic to how folks are on the island and your naitivity on the issue is the real problem. I applaud you for giving it a shot, but your real enemies are your so called "representatives". The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll understand what I'm saying.

 

 

The S55 was extended in an area that is way more car-centric than the area I'm talking about.

 

I'm not saying that SI overall isn't a car-centric borough. 81% of the households here own a car, but having a car doesn't automatically mean that you're anti-transit. There are times you need it when your car breaks down, or maybe you only have 1 car, but 2 people need to get places at different times, or maybe you have kids that use transit, and so on. You figure it's not the end of the world if you don't have transit, but you wouldn't mind having some extra bus service.

 

The car-centric attitude has slowly changed over the years. Back when the S61 was created in the 1980s, there were complaints about "people from St. George are going to come and ruin the neighborhood". Back when the S74 was first routed down Rossville Avenue, somebody ripped out all the bus stops on the route (I mean, at least according to Subchat). Nowadays, the buses are used by people from the neighborhood, and I don't think you have tons of people actually complaining about the buses running through there. If there was really any significant opposition to running buses through there, they wouldn't have been able to get the S55 extended through there, on top of having the S74.

 

Yeah, there are some politicians who favor car owners over transit users (and like I said, the two aren't mutually exclusive). So what? In this particular instance, it's not hurting car owners. It's not like Hylan Blvd where you're taking away lane space from cars. You're running a bus on coverage-level headways. Aside from that, there are some politicians who want to make improvements in transit. Look at the S79 SBS. It got pushed through, didn't it? If SI were really anti-transit, it would've been like the Q5 SBS, where it was blocked.

 

Aside from the fact that if the MTA really wants to do it, it can do it (Look at the service reductions. Most of them were pushed through), there are politicians who want to see transit improvements. There were those who opposed the S79 SBS, but there were also those who supported it. And Nicole Malliotakis held some kind of Transit Town Hall meeting a while back, which you obviously don't do if you're anti-transit.

 

Yeah, it's harder to get transit improvements out here than in say, Brooklyn, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. What do you want me to do? Stop trying? It's not like I'm spending every waking moment trying to get this plan passed.

 

Uh, that's not what I said at all. What I said was a general statement which was that you're taking service away from the folks on Decker and other areas served by the S57 and my point with the X12 was that some areas served by the X12 don't need local bus service because those people are looking for the express bus.

 

 

Re-read your posts. You specifically said Willowbrook Road wouldn't welcome a local bus, which works out perfectly because I would be removing a local bus from that street.

 

In any case, by your logic, there shouldn't be any S57 service along Watchogue Road because they're all seeking X12 service. Yeah, the X12 gets higher ridership than the S57 in that area. That doesn't mean that there isn't the need for some kind of local service. You need it for basic coverage. (Not to mention the fact that the X12 runs rush hours only)

 

Aside from that, you're ignoring the fact that that the bus isn't only serving Watchogue Road. It's also serving the areas along the SIE service road. And I can assure you that there would be ridership coming from that area, given the population density and existing ridership patterns in that area.

 

Both Teleport and West Shore have low ridership, due to West Shore being a few (isolated) homes, along with an aging retail center, and the Teleport being relativly inactive. Combine that with the isolation of the area in S.I. and you'll see why hardly anyone (even in cars) in S.I. travel in that direction.

 

 

Exactly.

 

The West Shore Plaza is basically a strip mall that's out in the middle of nowhere. You have a Burlington Coat Factory, DMV, Chuck E. Cheeses, a Chinese supermarket, and maybe one or two small stores. It's not anything you're going to get tons of people to travel to.

 

As I've said before, the Teleport is something like 50% vacant, and again. I think those hotels on South Avenue are technically part of the Teleport (even though they're not along that loop), and then you have a few businesses and a charter school that was relocated there. It's not an area that people are generally looking to head out to.

 

And technically, if you wanted to, you could walk to the Teleport & West Shore Plaza from Victory Blvd (Walk down Meredith for the WSP, walk down Travis for the Teleport). Of course, there aren't any sidewalks so it isn't really a pedestrian-friendly walk. (Meredith sees very little traffic, though. I'm not sure about Travis).

 

Hmm let me answer that look at rte 440 @ rush hr nuff said. The purpose of NJT here is to serve transfer points in SI and take you to NJ FAST!!!! From the 3 stops transfer to MTA for other stops. err wanna know why teleport and west shore plaza have low ridership simple reaching those places via current SI bus network is a PITA!!!! You have to go to mariners harbor and backtrack on S46 duh in SI people have less tolerance for indirect transit lines and having to use multiple buses they will NOT consider backtracking on S96/46 if they have cars buddy. But if a bus is direct they may use it. Currently no NJ bus goes to SI via I-278 so you can't say anything about demand. I know alot more about NJ than you do I can tell. Plus only so many places can have NJT ticket machines.

 

 

Yeah, and I have no problem with a route that goes over the Goethals Bridge (in fact, I suggested one myself: The S98 extension) - But there are way better corridors to run it down than South Avenue.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You know, I'm surprised I still haven't gotten bored with this.

 

 

 

The MTA managed to discontinue routes in areas with far fewer alternatives. Yeah, there's always going to be people who complain when you make any kind of change. So what? If we listened to every single one of them, we'd never get anything done. There was a crazy lady complaining about how the North Shore Rail Line would impact pristine land on Richmond Terrace. Should we cancel the whole project because of her?

 

My point is that the negative impacts will be minimal, and the positive impacts would be far greater. Both Jewett Avenue & Howard Avenue (Grymes Hill basically) would get back weekend service. Decker Avenue residents can complain all they want, but they're going to be arguing with Grymes Hill residents, Graniteville residents, and Jewett Avenue residents who both outnumber them and would see a far greater impact than they would.

 

 

 

Oh, believe me, from the response they gave me, you could tell they're not going to take this lightly (and BrooklynBus can back me on this because I forwarded the letter to him). It's a very big start if you ask me.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but if they're repeatedly calling me and sending me emails, I wouldn't exactly call that getting blown off.

 

Now you're changing it up to say "Oh, it hasn't actually been implemented". Well, tell me about that S83 plan that you presented to the MTA. I guess you were "blown off" too.

 

 

 

There are more politicians in this borough than Oddo.

 

Notice how quickly you change your argument. You mentioned Willowbrook Road specifically, which would lose a bus (under my original plan). So if you want to start bringing that up, then you just defeated your own argument.

 

 

 

See my first response.

 

Aside from that, I wouldn't exactly call that area "starved" for local service. They have buses down Forest, Post, Jewett, and Port Richmond Avenues. If anything, it's one of the better-served areas of SI.

 

 

 

The S55 was extended in an area that is way more car-centric than the area I'm talking about.

 

I'm not saying that SI overall isn't a car-centric borough. 81% of the households here own a car, but having a car doesn't automatically mean that you're anti-transit. There are times you need it when your car breaks down, or maybe you only have 1 car, but 2 people need to get places at different times, or maybe you have kids that use transit, and so on. You figure it's not the end of the world if you don't have transit, but you wouldn't mind having some extra bus service.

 

The car-centric attitude has slowly changed over the years. Back when the S61 was created in the 1980s, there were complaints about "people from St. George are going to come and ruin the neighborhood". Back when the S74 was first routed down Rossville Avenue, somebody ripped out all the bus stops on the route (I mean, at least according to Subchat). Nowadays, the buses are used by people from the neighborhood, and I don't think you have tons of people actually complaining about the buses running through there. If there was really any significant opposition to running buses through there, they wouldn't have been able to get the S55 extended through there, on top of having the S74.

 

Yeah, there are some politicians who favor car owners over transit users (and like I said, the two aren't mutually exclusive). So what? In this particular instance, it's not hurting car owners. It's not like Hylan Blvd where you're taking away lane space from cars. You're running a bus on coverage-level headways. Aside from that, there are some politicians who want to make improvements in transit. Look at the S79 SBS. It got pushed through, didn't it? If SI were really anti-transit, it would've been like the Q5 SBS, where it was blocked.

 

Aside from the fact that if the MTA really wants to do it, it can do it (Look at the service reductions. Most of them were pushed through), there are politicians who want to see transit improvements. There were those who opposed the S79 SBS, but there were also those who supported it. And Nicole Malliotakis held some kind of Transit Town Hall meeting a while back, which you obviously don't do if you're anti-transit.

 

Yeah, it's harder to get transit improvements out here than in say, Brooklyn, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. What do you want me to do? Stop trying? It's not like I'm spending every waking moment trying to get this plan passed.

 

 

 

Re-read your posts. You specifically said Willowbrook Road wouldn't welcome a local bus, which works out perfectly because I would be removing a local bus from that street.

 

In any case, by your logic, there shouldn't be any S57 service along Watchogue Road because they're all seeking X12 service. Yeah, the X12 gets higher ridership than the S57 in that area. That doesn't mean that there isn't the need for some kind of local service. You need it for basic coverage. (Not to mention the fact that the X12 runs rush hours only)

 

Aside from that, you're ignoring the fact that that the bus isn't only serving Watchogue Road. It's also serving the areas along the SIE service road. And I can assure you that there would be ridership coming from that area, given the population density and existing ridership patterns in that area.

Listen I don't need any stats to tell me that Staten Island is a car centric borough. From the responses I would get when talking about transportation with average people on the borough, cars are still considered the norm. I'm not saying don't try... I'm saying I hope that you know what you're in for... With that said, it's your plan... Do as you please. It doesn't affect me one way or another since I just use car service and the express bus these days on Staten Island, so have fun.

 

As for my S83 proposal, I didn't pursue that at all. I mean yes I proposed it but quite frankly it wouldn't be the end of the world as far as I'm concerned, since I can simply take car service or get a ride or whatever as I usually did. I just thought it was a good idea to throw out and a reasonable change to make, but realistically from an perspective and a political perspective, the Mid Island and South Shore are getting the attention these days because the North Shore is seen as well served in comparison to the entire island over all. Aside from that I think they don't view the route as being long enough to really be worthy of limited stop service even though it is plagued with bunching and delays. Furthermore, from a political perspective, the Mid Island and South Shore have far more political power than the North Shore and when I spoke about express bus service that's why I lumped the X1, X10 and X17 together, not only because they're three biggest express bus routes, but also because two of the three routes serve the Mid Island and South Shore. It's election year so yeah everybody is interested in hearing what folks have to say but like I said I want to see how much will be implemented.

 

To further explain myself, I'm an express bus rider first and my real focus was on improvements to express bus service, which have been implemented with 24/7 X1 service, expanded X17 service and improved X10 service. I never wrote to any politician on Staten Island about anything else BUT express bus service. I also supported and followed up with Vito Fossella on the HOV lane for SI and Southern Brooklyn express buses which was eventually implemented but Vito Fossella and I were in contact over months about those sorts of improvements.

 

The other project that I rallied for was service restorations to Southern Brooklyn because I'm from there and I feel like the thought that they could push those communities around and get away with it, so that project was and still is quite personal to me. I worked with Martin Golden's office for over a year and went to meetings and so on to see that the B2, B4, B31, B64, X27, X28 and BM3 were restored, and so far we got 4 out of the 7 routes restored fully so I'd say I'm not doing too bad. I've gotten results where as so far all you've gotten is interest.

 

If I felt like the S83 really had a chance of passing AND actually had some political clout, I would've proceeded with it, but neither is the case IMO. The North Shore politicans not only have no clout, but they're completely worthless and lazy. I'm glad I left when I did. Debbie Rose and Matthew Titone are two of the most worthless politicians on Staten Island. Interesting that they're both Democrats too. Go figure.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[qjtransitmaster]

You know, I'm surprised I still haven't gotten bored with this.

 

 

 

The MTA managed to discontinue routes in areas with far fewer alternatives. Yeah, there's always going to be people who complain when you make any kind of change. So what? If we listened to every single one of them, we'd never get anything done. There was a crazy lady complaining about how the North Shore Rail Line would impact pristine land on Richmond Terrace. Should we cancel the whole project because of her?

 

My point is that the negative impacts will be minimal, and the positive impacts would be far greater. Both Jewett Avenue & Howard Avenue (Grymes Hill basically) would get back weekend service. Decker Avenue residents can complain all they want, but they're going to be arguing with Grymes Hill residents, Graniteville residents, and Jewett Avenue residents who both outnumber them and would see a far greater impact than they would.

 

 

 

Oh, believe me, from the response they gave me, you could tell they're not going to take this lightly (and BrooklynBus can back me on this because I forwarded the letter to him). It's a very big start if you ask me.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but if they're repeatedly calling me and sending me emails, I wouldn't exactly call that getting blown off.

 

Now you're changing it up to say "Oh, it hasn't actually been implemented". Well, tell me about that S83 plan that you presented to the MTA. I guess you were "blown off" too.

 

 

 

There are more politicians in this borough than Oddo.

 

Notice how quickly you change your argument. You mentioned Willowbrook Road specifically, which would lose a bus (under my original plan). So if you want to start bringing that up, then you just defeated your own argument.

 

 

 

See my first response.

 

Aside from that, I wouldn't exactly call that area "starved" for local service. They have buses down Forest, Post, Jewett, and Port Richmond Avenues. If anything, it's one of the better-served areas of SI.

 

 

 

The S55 was extended in an area that is way more car-centric than the area I'm talking about.

 

I'm not saying that SI overall isn't a car-centric borough. 81% of the households here own a car, but having a car doesn't automatically mean that you're anti-transit. There are times you need it when your car breaks down, or maybe you only have 1 car, but 2 people need to get places at different times, or maybe you have kids that use transit, and so on. You figure it's not the end of the world if you don't have transit, but you wouldn't mind having some extra bus service.

 

The car-centric attitude has slowly changed over the years. Back when the S61 was created in the 1980s, there were complaints about "people from St. George are going to come and ruin the neighborhood". Back when the S74 was first routed down Rossville Avenue, somebody ripped out all the bus stops on the route (I mean, at least according to Subchat). Nowadays, the buses are used by people from the neighborhood, and I don't think you have tons of people actually complaining about the buses running through there. If there was really any significant opposition to running buses through there, they wouldn't have been able to get the S55 extended through there, on top of having the S74.

 

Yeah, there are some politicians who favor car owners over transit users (and like I said, the two aren't mutually exclusive). So what? In this particular instance, it's not hurting car owners. It's not like Hylan Blvd where you're taking away lane space from cars. You're running a bus on coverage-level headways. Aside from that, there are some politicians who want to make improvements in transit. Look at the S79 SBS. It got pushed through, didn't it? If SI were really anti-transit, it would've been like the Q5 SBS, where it was blocked.

 

Aside from the fact that if the MTA really wants to do it, it can do it (Look at the service reductions. Most of them were pushed through), there are politicians who want to see transit improvements. There were those who opposed the S79 SBS, but there were also those who supported it. And Nicole Malliotakis held some kind of Transit Town Hall meeting a while back, which you obviously don't do if you're anti-transit.

 

Yeah, it's harder to get transit improvements out here than in say, Brooklyn, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. What do you want me to do? Stop trying? It's not like I'm spending every waking moment trying to get this plan passed.

 

 

 

Re-read your posts. You specifically said Willowbrook Road wouldn't welcome a local bus, which works out perfectly because I would be removing a local bus from that street.

 

In any case, by your logic, there shouldn't be any S57 service along Watchogue Road because they're all seeking X12 service. Yeah, the X12 gets higher ridership than the S57 in that area. That doesn't mean that there isn't the need for some kind of local service. You need it for basic coverage. (Not to mention the fact that the X12 runs rush hours only)

 

Aside from that, you're ignoring the fact that that the bus isn't only serving Watchogue Road. It's also serving the areas along the SIE service road. And I can assure you that there would be ridership coming from that area, given the population density and existing ridership patterns in that area.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

The West Shore Plaza is basically a strip mall that's out in the middle of nowhere. You have a Burlington Coat Factory, DMV, Chuck E. Cheeses, a Chinese supermarket, and maybe one or two small stores. It's not anything you're going to get tons of people to travel to.

 

As I've said before, the Teleport is something like 50% vacant, and again. I think those hotels on South Avenue are technically part of the Teleport (even though they're not along that loop), and then you have a few businesses and a charter school that was relocated there. It's not an area that people are generally looking to head out to.

 

And technically, if you wanted to, you could walk to the Teleport & West Shore Plaza from Victory Blvd (Walk down Meredith for the WSP, walk down Travis for the Teleport). Of course, there aren't any sidewalks so it isn't really a pedestrian-friendly walk. (Meredith sees very little traffic, though. I'm not sure about Travis).

 

 

 

Yeah, and I have no problem with a route that goes over the Goethals Bridge (in fact, I suggested one myself: The S98 extension) - But there are way better corridors to run it down than South Avenue.

 

I know which is why some of my NJT lines from elizabeth will go to CSI or forest ave on some of em the CSI goes to south brooklyn via belt. They get renumbered in 100 series lines the reason why they will only stop at select locations is cause they are NJT lines with the purpose of linking to MTA from hubs to reach places. However ending in SI can work if there are brooklyn to SI express lines more on that later. Only so many places you can have an NJT ticket machine which is why the few stops at transit hubs. Meant to just get you there not make tons of stops. My S55/56 is for NJ people heading to SI from central NJ. It's easier for SI folks heading out as at the transit hubs they can switch to NJT & Academy or NEC/Amtrak for other points. It will be hard for NJT as they don't have lines there to extend it would help S55/56 more. As for I-278 several NJTs can extend past elizabeth and no MTA non st george or brooklyn lines even close. It would benefit NJT more than it would MTA to run such a line. As NJT will be able to serve several major hubs and reach more people with several new 100 series lines via renumberings. This avoids unfair cheating against NJT. You'd be shocked how far one will go to save a buck. S55/56 just need a hub no nonsense. Same for heading out from other places NJT just needs hubs.

 

Listen I don't need any stats to tell me that Staten Island is a car centric borough. From the responses I would get when talking about transportation with average people on the borough, cars are still considered the norm. I'm not saying don't try... I'm saying I hope that you know what you're in for... With that said, it's your plan... Do as you please. It doesn't affect me one way or another since I just use car service and the express bus these days on Staten Island, so have fun.

 

As for my S83 proposal, I didn't pursue that at all. I mean yes I proposed it but quite frankly it wouldn't be the end of the world as far as I'm concerned, since I can simply take car service or get a ride or whatever as I usually did. I just thought it was a good idea to throw out and a reasonable change to make, but realistically from an perspective and a political perspective, the Mid Island and South Shore are getting the attention these days because the North Shore is seen as well served in comparison to the entire island over all. Aside from that I think they don't view the route as being long enough to really be worthy of limited stop service even though it is plagued with bunching and delays. Furthermore, from a political perspective, the Mid Island and South Shore have far more political power than the North Shore and when I spoke about express bus service that's why I lumped the X1, X10 and X17 together, not only because they're three biggest express bus routes, but also because two of the three routes serve the Mid Island and South Shore. It's election year so yeah everybody is interested in hearing what folks have to say but like I said I want to see how much will be implemented.

 

To further explain myself, I'm an express bus rider first and my real focus was on improvements to express bus service, which have been implemented with 24/7 X1 service, expanded X17 service and improved X10 service. I never wrote to any politician on Staten Island about anything else BUT express bus service. I also supported and followed up with Vito Fossella on the HOV lane for SI and Southern Brooklyn express buses which was eventually implemented but Vito Fossella and I were in contact over months about those sorts of improvements.

 

The other project that I rallied for was service restorations to Southern Brooklyn because I'm from there and I feel like the thought that they could push those communities around and get away with it, so that project was and still is quite personal to me. I worked with Martin Golden's office for over a year and went to meetings and so on to see that the B2, B4, B31, B64, X27, X28 and BM3 were restored, and so far we got 4 out of the 7 routes restored fully so I'd say I'm not doing too bad. I've gotten results where as so far all you've gotten is interest.

 

If I felt like the S83 really had a chance of passing AND actually had some political clout, I would've proceeded with it, but neither is the case IMO. The North Shore politicans not only have no clout, but they're completely worthless and lazy. I'm glad I left when I did. Debbie Rose and Matthew Titone are two of the most worthless politicians on Staten Island. Interesting that they're both Democrats too. Go figure.

 

Err does demand warrent restoration of BM3 off peak? I am not sure please some insight into it's ridership levels throughout the day (South of ave x mostly batchelder & emmons riders alone) Edited November 3, 2012 by qjtransitmaster

[checkmatechamp13]

Listen I don't need any stats to tell me that Staten Island is a car centric borough. From the responses I would get when talking about transportation with average people on the borough, cars are still considered the norm. I'm not saying don't try... I'm saying I hope that you know what you're in for... With that said, it's your plan... Do as you please. It doesn't affect me one way or another since I just use car service and the express bus these days on Staten Island, so have fun.

 

As for my S83 proposal, I didn't pursue that at all. I mean yes I proposed it but quite frankly it wouldn't be the end of the world as far as I'm concerned, since I can simply take car service or get a ride or whatever as I usually did. I just thought it was a good idea to throw out and a reasonable change to make, but realistically from an perspective and a political perspective, the Mid Island and South Shore are getting the attention these days because the North Shore is seen as well served in comparison to the entire island over all. Aside from that I think they don't view the route as being long enough to really be worthy of limited stop service even though it is plagued with bunching and delays. Furthermore, from a political perspective, the Mid Island and South Shore have far more political power than the North Shore and when I spoke about express bus service that's why I lumped the X1, X10 and X17 together, not only because they're three biggest express bus routes, but also because two of the three routes serve the Mid Island and South Shore. It's election year so yeah everybody is interested in hearing what folks have to say but like I said I want to see how much will be implemented.

 

To further explain myself, I'm an express bus rider first and my real focus was on improvements to express bus service, which have been implemented with 24/7 X1 service, expanded X17 service and improved X10 service. I never wrote to any politician on Staten Island about anything else BUT express bus service. I also supported and followed up with Vito Fossella on the HOV lane for SI and Southern Brooklyn express buses which was eventually implemented but Vito Fossella and I were in contact over months about those sorts of improvements.

 

The other project that I rallied for was service restorations to Southern Brooklyn because I'm from there and I feel like the thought that they could push those communities around and get away with it, so that project was and still is quite personal to me. I worked with Martin Golden's office for over a year and went to meetings and so on to see that the B2, B4, B31, B64, X27, X28 and BM3 were restored, and so far we got 4 out of the 7 routes restored fully so I'd say I'm not doing too bad. I've gotten results where as so far all you've gotten is interest.

 

 

Well I never expected it to be easy, so you wasted all your time trying to tell me that. Yeah, SI is a car-centric borough and that makes it harder to get transit improvements. I already knew that.

 

As for all those service restorations, it's a lot easier to bring back service than it is to get a new service started up. The MTA publicizes that they're going to cut the route, then they have public hearings, the politicians all show up, the transit riders show up, and then when they actually cut the route, everybody realizes how much harder their commute is, and they get together with the politicians and the other riders and try to get it back.

 

If you're trying to get a new route implemented, it's a lot more work. First, you have to go through the trouble of contacting the politicians and the people within the MTA to present your plan to them. Then you have to find a way to spread the word so you have the support of the riders. Sure, it's possible, but it's a hell of a lot harder than when you already have the riders backing you up. Yeah, eventually I'll probably start standing at a few bus stops along the route trying to get signatures (e.g. South & Brabant, South & Goethals, maybe a few express stops while I'm at it) and maybe I'll ask some riders along lines I ride like the S44 & S46 to sign it as well, but don't sit there comparing apples and oranges talking about how you got results. The amount of effort required is a lot more to get a new service started up than to get a service restored.

 

As for the S83, well, the problem is that it wouldn't save that much time the way it was originally proposed. As long as the limited has to serve Grasmere/South Beach, it's going to be slowed down. If the plan had involved moving the limited onto the service road rather than Clove Road & McClean Avenue, maybe it would've been easier to justify. But anyway....

 

As for the X1, X10, & X17, it's the same thing. It's easier to improve on an existing line than it is to expand service into a new area. Aside from that, service on these lines has been improving for years. The X17 started out with weekday service, and then eventually got Saturday service (I think back in 2002), and now Sunday service. The X1 is the busiest line on Staten Island, and the last runs of the night get decent ridership (and they've gradually expanded the service over the years anyway). People have complained about how the ferry runs every hour at night, and they have to cut outings short because otherwise they won't be able to get home in a reasonable amount of time. You working with the politicians may have been the thing that pushed them over the edge and finally got them to implement 24/7 service, but you already had the momentum. The X10 service, they probably saw how unreliable the route was and figured adding service would kill two birds with one stone. (Make the service more reliable while cutting the wait times too) The X10 is a well-used line. I'm sure there have been plenty of complaints about unreliable service. (Aside from that, they do the routine traffic checks anyway)

 

My point is that you're comparing apples to oranges, and then saying "Oh, you haven't gotten any results yet". You had a lot more momentum behind you. Maybe if I had come up with the idea back in 2010 (back when the "iron was hot" so to speak), it would be a different story, because then it would've been easier to rally up the support. Who knows? Maybe in addition to being rerouted to serve Grymes Hill, the S66 would've been rerouted to Watchogue Road and the SIE service road (with the S57 covering Jewett Avenue). Then we'd already have weekday service, and it would be easier to get support for weekend service. Instead, we're starting from point zero, after Lhota has already announced which improvements would be made. Hopefully, there will be another round of improvements in the future and I'll be able to get this plan added on.

 

S55/56 just need a hub no nonsense. Same for heading out from other places NJT just needs hubs.

 

 

They already have 2 hubs: The SI Mall & ETC.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well I never expected it to be easy, so you wasted all your time trying to tell me that. Yeah, SI is a car-centric borough and that makes it harder to get transit improvements. I already knew that.

 

As for all those service restorations, it's a lot easier to bring back service than it is to get a new service started up. The MTA publicizes that they're going to cut the route, then they have public hearings, the politicians all show up, the transit riders show up, and then when they actually cut the route, everybody realizes how much harder their commute is, and they get together with the politicians and the other riders and try to get it back.

 

If you're trying to get a new route implemented, it's a lot more work. First, you have to go through the trouble of contacting the politicians and the people within the MTA to present your plan to them. Then you have to find a way to spread the word so you have the support of the riders. Sure, it's possible, but it's a hell of a lot harder than when you already have the riders backing you up. Yeah, eventually I'll probably start standing at a few bus stops along the route trying to get signatures (e.g. South & Brabant, South & Goethals, maybe a few express stops while I'm at it) and maybe I'll ask some riders along lines I ride like the S44 & S46 to sign it as well, but don't sit there comparing apples and oranges talking about how you got results. The amount of effort required is a lot more to get a new service started up than to get a service restored.

 

As for the S83, well, the problem is that it wouldn't save that much time the way it was originally proposed. As long as the limited has to serve Grasmere/South Beach, it's going to be slowed down. If the plan had involved moving the limited onto the service road rather than Clove Road & McClean Avenue, maybe it would've been easier to justify. But anyway....

 

As for the X1, X10, & X17, it's the same thing. It's easier to improve on an existing line than it is to expand service into a new area. Aside from that, service on these lines has been improving for years. The X17 started out with weekday service, and then eventually got Saturday service (I think back in 2002), and now Sunday service. The X1 is the busiest line on Staten Island, and the last runs of the night get decent ridership (and they've gradually expanded the service over the years anyway). People have complained about how the ferry runs every hour at night, and they have to cut outings short because otherwise they won't be able to get home in a reasonable amount of time. You working with the politicians may have been the thing that pushed them over the edge and finally got them to implement 24/7 service, but you already had the momentum. The X10 service, they probably saw how unreliable the route was and figured adding service would kill two birds with one stone. (Make the service more reliable while cutting the wait times too) The X10 is a well-used line. I'm sure there have been plenty of complaints about unreliable service. (Aside from that, they do the routine traffic checks anyway)

 

My point is that you're comparing apples to oranges, and then saying "Oh, you haven't gotten any results yet". You had a lot more momentum behind you. Maybe if I had come up with the idea back in 2010 (back when the "iron was hot" so to speak), it would be a different story, because then it would've been easier to rally up the support. Who knows? Maybe in addition to being rerouted to serve Grymes Hill, the S66 would've been rerouted to Watchogue Road and the SIE service road (with the S57 covering Jewett Avenue). Then we'd already have weekday service, and it would be easier to get support for weekend service. Instead, we're starting from point zero, after Lhota has already announced which improvements would be made. Hopefully, there will be another round of improvements in the future and I'll be able to get this plan added on.

 

Well of course it's a lot of hard work... I mean the S89 took years and years to get implemented, but my point is if I really felt like the S83 had a chance I would've proceeded with it. I don't do things half @ss... I either go with them or I don't. As far as Staten Island is concerned, I believe that service should be improved first before looking to add new ones.