Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

[checkmatechamp13]

Even so the S57 still serves Watchogue Rd so cut the BS already. The S66 and S54 have completely different service needs and you know that. I mean you're going overkill with these damn proposals. There are only so many streets that need service on Staten Island. Let's first STRENGHTEN the routes that EXIST....

 

 

So let me get this straight. It's alright for the S92 & S93 to pick up 95% of the Victory Blvd passengers going to CSI, leaving the S62 virtually empty, while in the meantime, Watchogue Road has no service to St. George?

 

And you say the S66 & S54 have different service needs, and yet the S57 and the S62/92 don't. The same way S54 & S66 riders generally aren't interchangable is the same way S57 and S62/92 riders aren't interchangable.

 

Besides, you act like I'm going to add a ton of service. This is rush hours, peak-direction only and is the same way the old S67 used to run, and if it makes you feel any better, the hours are going to be shorter than the old S67. The only difference is the fact that instead of going towards Port Richmond where there are faster routes towards St. George, the route would continue westward to serve unserved areas.

 

You say we should strengthen the routes that already exist? If this proposal were being made back before June 2010, that's exactly what we would be doing. I guess the weekend S54 should've been strengthened, but the S67 doesn't have to be?

 

Geez, for adding a little bit of service to an "affluent" area, you sure seem to be fighting back hard on this one. I guess we'll just make it harder for people living along Watchogue Road while empty S62s continue sailing down Victory Blvd....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So let me get this straight. It's alright for the S92 & S93 to pick up 95% of the Victory Blvd passengers going to CSI, leaving the S62 virtually empty, while in the meantime, Watchogue Road has no service to St. George?

 

And you say the S66 & S54 have different service needs, and yet the S57 and the S62/92 don't. The same way S54 & S66 riders generally aren't interchangable is the same way S57 and S62/92 riders aren't interchangable.

 

Besides, you act like I'm going to add a ton of service. This is rush hours, peak-direction only and is the same way the old S67 used to run, and if it makes you feel any better, the hours are going to be shorter than the old S67. The only difference is the fact that instead of going towards Port Richmond where there are faster routes towards St. George, the route would continue westward to serve unserved areas.

 

You say we should strengthen the routes that already exist? If this proposal were being made back before June 2010, that's exactly what we would be doing. I guess the weekend S54 should've been strengthened, but the S67 doesn't have to be?

 

Geez, for adding a little bit of service to an "affluent" area, you sure seem to be fighting back hard on this one. I guess we'll just make it harder for people living along Watchogue Road while empty S62s continue sailing down Victory Blvd....

 

 

Oh please... People on Watchogue use the X12. If they were flocking to the S67 like that it would've been kept in the first place. Folks in Westerleigh are affluent and either drive or use the express bus for the most part. And the S62 is NEEDED... I don't know where you keep getting this crappola about empty S62s...

[checkmatechamp13]

Oh please... People on Watchogue use the X12. If they were flocking to the S67 like that it would've been kept in the first place. Folks in Westerleigh are affluent and either drive or use the express bus for the most part. And the S62 is NEEDED... I don't know where you keep getting this crappola about empty S62s...

 

 

Uh, maybe because I live near the S62. There have been times when I was literally the only one on the bus, and I was just using it to try and catch up to the S92. There have been times when the S62 came right behind or sometimes even in front of the S92 at the CSI stop. You know why the S62s are so empty? Because everybody going to Willowbrook is already on the S92 (and sometimes the S93 even comes and takes whatever passengers missed the S92).

 

Yeah, the S62 is fairly well-used further down along Victory Blvd by local riders who want to avoid the S66 because it loops around Grymes Hill, but all the riders going to Willowbrook are on the S92.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Uh, maybe because I live near the S62. There have been times when I was literally the only one on the bus, and I was just using it to try and catch up to the S92. There have been times when the S62 came right behind or sometimes even in front of the S92 at the CSI stop. You know why the S62s are so empty? Because everybody going to Willowbrook is already on the S92 (and sometimes the S93 even comes and takes whatever passengers missed the S92).

 

Yeah, the S62 is fairly well-used further down along Victory Blvd by local riders who want to avoid the S66 because it loops around Grymes Hill, but all the riders going to Willowbrook are on the S92.

 

 

You act like the S92 runs 24/7 or something. Give it a rest already. The S62 is FINE and gets good usage. If anything I would increase the service on the line. The problem may be the times at which the bus comes, which I always found to be rather odd.

[checkmatechamp13]

You act like the S92 runs 24/7 or something. Give it a rest already. The S62 is FINE and gets good usage. If anything I would increase the service on the line. The problem may be the times at which the bus comes, which I always found to be rather odd.

 

Are you hard of reading? I said rush hours, peak-direction only, and in fact, I even specifically said that this would only occur during the hours the S92 runs. Obviously I'm not going to give Watchogue Road more service than Victory Blvd. Off-peak would still remain the same with the S62.

 

And aside from that, as I mentioned all the way earlier in the thread, it would give an alternative to the S44 & S46 for those who aren't within walking distance of the S62 in my area.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Are you hard of reading? I said rush hours, peak-direction only, and in fact, I even specifically said that this would only occur during the hours the S92 runs. Obviously I'm not going to give Watchogue Road more service than Victory Blvd. Off-peak would still remain the same with the S62.

 

And aside from that, as I mentioned all the way earlier in the thread, it would give an alternative to the S44 & S46 for those who aren't within walking distance of the S62 in my area.

 

No, I'm not so there is no need to repeat yourself a thousand times as usual just because I disagree with your proposal. Sorry, but the world doesn't see everything the way checkmate sees it. Watchogue Road will have to live with the S57 for now. Like I said, Victory Blvd is NOT that far from Watchogue and having the S67 run down Victory would be overkill. If Westerleigh residents needed the S67 so badly they would've protested the cut. And like I said if the S67 had such good usage it wouldn't have been cut in the first place so give it a rest already. The route is gone. If anything more X12 service is needed on Watchogue. I would have the X12 run on weekends.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[checkmatechamp13]

No, I'm not so there is no need to repeat yourself a thousand times as usual just because I disagree with your proposal. Sorry, but the world doesn't see everything the way checkmate sees it. Watchogue Road will have to live with the S57 for now. Like I said, Victory Blvd is NOT that far from Watchogue and having the S67 run down Victory would be overkill.

 

Because none of your arguments make any sense. You say Watchogue Road isn't that far from Victory Blvd and I disproved that (Do you want me to use a Google Maps link to prove it?) You say the S62 gets good usage, and I'm saying that doesn't apply when the S92 is running. Do you want me to stand at CSI and film a mostly empty S62 bus to prove it? And you still haven't answered the question about those who live near the expressway: Are they supposed to continue dealing with the S44 & S46?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Because none of your arguments make any sense. You say Watchogue Road isn't that far from Victory Blvd and I disproved that (Do you want me to use a Google Maps link to prove it?) You say the S62 gets good usage, and I'm saying that doesn't apply when the S92 is running. Do you want me to stand at CSI and film a mostly empty S62 bus to prove it? And you still haven't answered the question about those who live near the expressway: Are they supposed to continue dealing with the S44 & S46?

 

LOL... I'm not the one arguing about having the S67 YOU are. Why don't you pull the rider stats for the S67 since you insist on it so much?? As for the S62... Big friggin' deal... I mean are you serious??? Of course the S62 doesn't get great usage when the S92 is around. Neither do most local buses on Staten Island when the limited stop buses run. What do you want!!?? The bus is needed for network coverage and you keep going on and on about how it doesn't get usage when the S92 is in service. This isn't the first time that you've moaned and complained about the line. It WON'T be cut so you can just quit it now while you're ahead.

 

Shall we pamper Richmond Avenue some more since they're so underserved??? You make me sick... Always complaining about service on Richmond Avenue... If anything you guys have too much friggin' service and are ungrateful at that. You don't see us in Riverdale constantly complaining about our express bus service because we're grateful for what we have and yet you guys get good service and are never satisfied. Oh the S89 should stop at the mall, even though you already have the S44 AND S59... Oh the S89 is too empty. Ugh enough already!! Constantly complaining about Richmond Avenue. There are other communities on Staten Island that would love the service that you have...

Edited June 7, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[checkmatechamp13]

Friggin' computer deleted my reply. I've got to start saving these things before I post them.

 

LOL... I'm not the one arguing about having the S67 YOU are. Why don't you pull the rider stats for the S67 since you insist on it so much?? As for the S62... Big friggin' deal... I mean are you serious??? Of course the S62 doesn't get great usage when the S92 is around. Neither do most local buses on Staten Island when the limited stop buses run. What do you want!!?? The bus is needed for network coverage and you keep going on and on about how it doesn't get usage when the S92 is in service. This isn't the first time that you've moaned and complained about the line. It WON'T be cut so you can just quit it now while you're ahead.

 

Shall we pamper Richmond Avenue some more since they're so underserved??? You make me sick... Always complaining about service on Richmond Avenue... If anything you guys have too much friggin' service and are ungrateful at that. You don't see us in Riverdale constantly complaining about our express bus service because we're grateful for what we have and yet you guys get good service and are never satisfied. Oh the S89 should stop at the mall, even though you already have the S44 AND S59... Oh the S89 is too empty. Ugh enough already!! Constantly complaining about Richmond Avenue. There are other communities on Staten Island that would love the service that you have...

 

The S67 got 700 riders a day. I can guarantee you those S62 short-turns don't get near that number.

 

And yeah, with the S92 & S93 right there, they're in such need of network coverage. I already specifically mentioned that this would apply only when those routes are running so you could cut that crap.

 

And you know what happens with the bus routes where the local doesn't get that much ridership? The locals end early. Have you wondered why the S51 doesn't go all the way to Midland Beach, or the S76 doesn't go all the way to Oakwood Beach? It's because all the riders going south of the expressway are already on the S81 & S86, so there's no point. Meanwhile on the S46 & S48, where ridership is still high after the limited-stop portion ends, the local continues further. I shudder to think of the crowds in Mariners' Harbor in the AM rush if the S46 started at Port Richmond Avenue (PM rush isn't as bad, but those buses would still be pretty damn crowded). And then when ridership drops south of Forest Avenue, then the local terminates.

 

And aside from the fact that I've specifically mentioned that there is excess service along Richmond Avenue (multiple times), and made specific suggestions as to where service could be cut (such as reducing the S59 to every 20 minutes during rush hour and not running a ton of trippers southbound in the AM), I never mentioned anything about being ungrateful for the service. I barely even go to the SI Mall, so I guess I shouldn't care how those passengers are served, is that right????? And don't act like you people up in Riverdale don't complain. We've heard plenty of times about the unreliability of the local buses there (and don't give me any crap about how you all use the express bus up there), so yes you do complain. Are they reasonable complaints? Probably (I'm going to assume those problems happen regularly), but they're still complaints. Geez, with 3 buses up there, service should be nice & peachy.

 

And aside from that, what's wrong with wanting to improve service when it costs practically nothing? And we wonder why ridership is going down and you see a ton of dollar vans along Flatbush Avenue and Church Avenue. Yeah, maybe it would cost extra money to add service, and it wouldn't be made up in additional revenue, but that general attitude is what's causing ridership to decline. You kept on complaining about the S54 running unreliably. It wouldn't have cost much more to run it reliably, but they didn't do it and ridership probably could've been higher if they did it.

 

And on a final note, what the hell does east-west service have to do with north-south service? The last time I checked, the S62/92 & S67 all run/ran east-west, and I'd be expanding service into another east-west corridor (which you already admitted needed the service. It was either here or in the Brooklyn thread, and don't ask me to look it up because you'll only embarrass yourself). I guess we don't need to bring back the B4 because the B44 already provides good north-south service, is that right?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Friggin' computer deleted my reply. I've got to start saving these things before I post them.

 

 

 

The S67 got 700 riders a day. I can guarantee you those S62 short-turns don't get near that number.

 

And yeah, with the S92 & S93 right there, they're in such need of network coverage. I already specifically mentioned that this would apply only when those routes are running so you could cut that crap.

 

And you know what happens with the bus routes where the local doesn't get that much ridership? The locals end early. Have you wondered why the S51 doesn't go all the way to Midland Beach, or the S76 doesn't go all the way to Oakwood Beach? It's because all the riders going south of the expressway are already on the S81 & S86, so there's no point. Meanwhile on the S46 & S48, where ridership is still high after the limited-stop portion ends, the local continues further. I shudder to think of the crowds in Mariners' Harbor in the AM rush if the S46 started at Port Richmond Avenue (PM rush isn't as bad, but those buses would still be pretty damn crowded). And then when ridership drops south of Forest Avenue, then the local terminates.

 

And aside from the fact that I've specifically mentioned that there is excess service along Richmond Avenue (multiple times), and made specific suggestions as to where service could be cut (such as reducing the S59 to every 20 minutes during rush hour and not running a ton of trippers southbound in the AM), I never mentioned anything about being ungrateful for the service. I barely even go to the SI Mall, so I guess I shouldn't care how those passengers are served, is that right????? And don't act like you people up in Riverdale don't complain. We've heard plenty of times about the unreliability of the local buses there (and don't give me any crap about how you all use the express bus up there), so yes you do complain. Are they reasonable complaints? Probably (I'm going to assume those problems happen regularly), but they're still complaints. Geez, with 3 buses up there, service should be nice & peachy.

 

And aside from that, what's wrong with wanting to improve service when it costs practically nothing? And we wonder why ridership is going down and you see a ton of dollar vans along Flatbush Avenue and Church Avenue. Yeah, maybe it would cost extra money to add service, and it wouldn't be made up in additional revenue, but that general attitude is what's causing ridership to decline. You kept on complaining about the S54 running unreliably. It wouldn't have cost much more to run it reliably, but they didn't do it and ridership probably could've been higher if they did it.

 

And on a final note, what the hell does east-west service have to do with north-south service? The last time I checked, the S62/92 & S67 all run/ran east-west, and I'd be expanding service into another east-west corridor (which you already admitted needed the service. It was either here or in the Brooklyn thread, and don't ask me to look it up because you'll only embarrass yourself). I guess we don't need to bring back the B4 because the B44 already provides good north-south service, is that right?

 

The local buses in Riverdale... I could care less about them since I don't use them, but I will admit that they run like garbage... Wayyy too much bunching on the Bx7 and Bx10, but then again why would someone move to an affluent place like Riverdale and rely on local bus service?? I mean seriously. I moved to Riverdale specifically because of the WONDERFUL express bus service and MetroNorth. The commute otherwise is a schlepp on the local bus.

 

Well then why don't you write the and ask them why they run the S62s like they do? You already know what you're going to say... NETWORK COVERAGE.... The fact of the matter is that Victory Blvd is a main artery and the S62 must be there for network coverage, whether you like it or not and that's all I'm going to say about that.

 

Complaining about a route being unreliable is far different from your gripe...

 

As for me complaining, I only complain about my express bus stopping at the right stop, particularly the BxM18 at 44th & Madison, NOT about service, so spare me with that.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[checkmatechamp13]

The local buses in Riverdale... I could care less about them since I don't use them, but I will admit that they run like garbage... Wayyy too much bunching on the Bx7 and Bx10, but then again why would someone move to an affluent place like Riverdale and rely on local bus service?? I mean seriously. I moved to Riverdale specifically because of the WONDERFUL express bus service and MetroNorth. The commute otherwise is a schlepp on the local bus.

 

Well then why don't you write the and ask them why they run the S62s like they do? You already know what you're going to say... NETWORK COVERAGE.... The fact of the matter is that Victory Blvd is a main artery and the S62 must be there for network coverage, whether you like it or not and that's all I'm going to say about that.

 

Complaining about a route being unreliable is far different from your gripe...

 

As for me complaining, I only complain about my express bus stopping at the right stop, particularly the BxM18 at 44th & Madison, NOT about service, so spare me with that.

 

Well apparently a lot of people do that schlepp on the local buses or else those routes wouldn't have any ridership, now would they?

 

And how is it network coverage if there are already 2 other routes along the same street? Answer me that question. Yeah, Victory Blvd is a major artery and it would still have good service even if the S62 were removed, especially since it bunches up with the S92. Actually, since you want to bring up network coverage, that's exactly what this area is lacking.

 

And like I said, what's wrong with wanting to make service better even if it's already alright? It wouldn't cost anything and would speed up people's trips overall. And actually, service isn't alright because the people who live behind the SI Mall have to walk across huge parking lots all the way to the other side of the mall if they want service up Richmond Avenue. Yeah, some great service, right? I guess maybe I shouldn't care about them because service is fine where I am, right? Alright, so my service is fine. What's wrong with wanting another neighborhood to receive the same level of service that I do? I've said a million times that the S89 proposal wasn't for myself, since I already have all the routes at the same stop.

 

So since you already admitted that we need east-west service (and don't say you didn't because I have the proof right here: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/34965-town-hall-meeting-on-may-17th-to-restore-the-b4/page__st__140?do=findComment&comment=541118), what's your solution then? You don't want us to have the S67 (which would only fill in the gap rush hours peak-direction). You don't want us to have the S93 (which you actually thought was a good idea when I first proposed it: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/15135-staten-island-division-2010-and-beyond/page__st__440?do=findComment&comment=357948), so what bus can we have?

 

And aside from that, it's not just a matter of network coverage, it's a matter if the routes in the area being slow. If you want to get to St. George, you have to sit on the S44 or S46 while they travel across the entire North Shore. (To quote an elderly lady on the S46, "It took me an hour to get from the ferry to the Harbor"). And if you want to get to Brooklyn, you have to go all the way up to Broadway and take the S53 all the way down. Extending the S93 would provide easy access to Brooklyn, and extending the S67 would provide easy access to St. George while providing easier access to Brooklyn by having an easier transfer to the S53 & S93.

 

Plus, both those routes pass through all those "scary projects" on the North Shore. You wouldn't want those "prima-donnas" having to do that, would you? (And before you bring up the express bus, I have seen well-dressed women on the S46 get on at South Avenue & Goethals Road North, so they're not all taking the express bus). Aside from that, it's just important for better connectivity in general. If you want to get to the SI Mall, it's easier to take a bus to Richmond Avenue then to walk 15-20 minutes. And the same thing if you want to get to the Victory Blvd corridor.

 

And when did I say anything about you complaining about service? But now that I think about it, you have complained about the BxM18 not running late enough in the morning and also about the BxM1 having to make stops in Inwood.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well apparently a lot of people do that schlepp on the local buses or else those routes wouldn't have any ridership, now would they?

 

And how is it network coverage if there are already 2 other routes along the same street? Answer me that question. Yeah, Victory Blvd is a major artery and it would still have good service even if the S62 were removed, especially since it bunches up with the S92. Actually, since you want to bring up network coverage, that's exactly what this area is lacking.

 

And like I said, what's wrong with wanting to make service better even if it's already alright? It wouldn't cost anything and would speed up people's trips overall. And actually, service isn't alright because the people who live behind the SI Mall have to walk across huge parking lots all the way to the other side of the mall if they want service up Richmond Avenue. Yeah, some great service, right? I guess maybe I shouldn't care about them because service is fine where I am, right? Alright, so my service is fine. What's wrong with wanting another neighborhood to receive the same level of service that I do? I've said a million times that the S89 proposal wasn't for myself, since I already have all the routes at the same stop.

 

So since you already admitted that we need east-west service (and don't say you didn't because I have the proof right here: http://www.nyctransi...140#entry541118), what's your solution then? You don't want us to have the S67 (which would only fill in the gap rush hours peak-direction). You don't want us to have the S93 (which you actually thought was a good idea when I first proposed it: http://www.nyctransi...440#entry357948), so what bus can we have?

 

And aside from that, it's not just a matter of network coverage, it's a matter if the routes in the area being slow. If you want to get to St. George, you have to sit on the S44 or S46 while they travel across the entire North Shore. (To quote an elderly lady on the S46, "It took me an hour to get from the ferry to the Harbor"). And if you want to get to Brooklyn, you have to go all the way up to Broadway and take the S53 all the way down. Extending the S93 would provide easy access to Brooklyn, and extending the S67 would provide easy access to St. George while providing easier access to Brooklyn by having an easier transfer to the S53 & S93.

 

Plus, both those routes pass through all those "scary projects" on the North Shore. You wouldn't want those "prima-donnas" having to do that, would you? (And before you bring up the express bus, I have seen well-dressed women on the S46 get on at South Avenue & Goethals Road North, so they're not all taking the express bus). Aside from that, it's just important for better connectivity in general. If you want to get to the SI Mall, it's easier to take a bus to Richmond Avenue then to walk 15-20 minutes. And the same thing if you want to get to the Victory Blvd corridor.

 

And when did I say anything about you complaining about service? But now that I think about it, you have complained about the BxM18 not running late enough in the morning and also about the BxM1 having to make stops in Inwood.

 

Yeah and guess what?? I'm happy just the same... If I want super fast service, I just take the Rail Link over to MetroNorth which I've started doing a few times a week anyway to avoid traffic, plus I have the BxM1 super express that I use in the morning when I don't take MetroNorth. If I don't want to stop in Inwood I can just use the BxM2... Done...

 

As for the S62 that you keep harping on you really think that S62 riders would allow their local bus service to chopped like that huh? lol... Not a chance in hell.

[checkmatechamp13]

Yeah and guess what?? I'm happy just the same... If I want super fast service, I just take the Rail Link over to MetroNorth which I've started doing a few times a week anyway to avoid traffic, plus I have the BxM1 super express that I use in the morning when I don't take MetroNorth. If I don't want to stop in Inwood I can just use the BxM2... Done...

 

As for the S62 that you keep harping on you really think that S62 riders would allow their local bus service to chopped like that huh? lol... Not a chance in hell.

 

 

Well maybe if they (including myself) weren't so busy using the S92, they'd care more about what happens to the S62 during the time period we're talking about.

 

Keep in mind that riders east of Jewett Avenue would be unaffected, and we're only talking about PM rush S62s. If Willowbrook riders can deal with a lack of S62 service in the AM rush, they can deal with it in the PM rush. (Actually, they can especially deal with it in the PM rush because they don't have to worry about catching a ferry)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well maybe if they (including myself) weren't so busy using the S92, they'd care more about what happens to the S62 during the time period we're talking about.

 

Keep in mind that riders east of Jewett Avenue would be unaffected, and we're only talking about PM rush S62s. If Willowbrook riders can deal with a lack of S62 service in the AM rush, they can deal with it in the PM rush. (Actually, they can especially deal with it in the PM rush because they don't have to worry about catching a ferry)

 

 

So you think...

[checkmatechamp13]

So you think...

 

 

No. So I know. I've waited at that stop at CSI often enough to know what I'm talking about (not to mention that stop at Victory Blvd & Willow Road East).

 

By the way, I notice you were never that hard on SIR North Shore when he made his proposals. Here, he's suggesting to reduce the S89 to every hour during rush hour and we don't hear a peep out of you. http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/26999-when-will-the-mta-finally-expand-staten-island-local-service-it-has-so-much-potential/?do=findComment&comment=399320

 

And here I am saying that service should be reduced along Richmond Avenue: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/15135-staten-island-division-2010-and-beyond/page__st__560?do=findComment&comment=390931

[Via Garibaldi 8]

No. So I know. I've waited at that stop at CSI often enough to know what I'm talking about (not to mention that stop at Victory Blvd & Willow Road East).

 

By the way, I notice you were never that hard on SIR North Shore when he made his proposals. Here, he's suggesting to reduce the S89 to every hour during rush hour and we don't hear a peep out of you. http://www.nyctransi...al/#entry399320

 

And here I am saying that service should be reduced along Richmond Avenue: http://www.nyctransi...560#entry390931

 

 

Yeah well it doesn't warrant service all day... I agree with his X1 and X10 proposal, though the X1 would do just fine with half hour service even during late nights. Believe me, those folks down in Eltingville love their X1. I mean everyone flocks to that bus because of the good service and the key stops that it makes. The X10 meanwhile would be fine with hourly service after say 01:15, but I'm starting to wonder. Usage of the X10 has steadily increased since Bus Time and I wouldn't be too shocked if it could use 30 minute headways over night too. Remember that there is X17 so it takes in those passengers too as does the X1 to a degree if folks want the ETC.

 

I mean we have a 01:15 BxM2 which is great and is used for us folks coming back from the city on Saturday nights. Even the BxM2 00:15 on Sunday nights gets decent usage. I use it a lot on Sundays.... Really nice to have that bus back to Riverdale.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[checkmatechamp13]

Like I said, he wanted it to be reduced to every hour during rush hour because "15-30 minute headways are too much" and not a peep out of you.

 

As for off-peak service, like I said, it should just run between Forest Avenue & the HBLR station. One bus going back and forth every 40 minutes.

 

As for the express bus service, like I said, they could start it off every 60 minutes and work their way up from there.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Like I said, he wanted it to be reduced to every hour during rush hour because "15-30 minute headways are too much" and not a peep out of you.

 

As for off-peak service, like I said, it should just run between Forest Avenue & the HBLR station. One bus going back and forth every 40 minutes.

 

As for the express bus service, like I said, they could start it off every 60 minutes and work their way up from there.

 

 

Well yeah it could be reduced... I thought he said something about running it all day... A no-no in my book... Express bus service would be cheaper... More X1 and X10 service is needed.

[checkmatechamp13]

Well yeah it could be reduced... I thought he said something about running it all day... A no-no in my book... Express bus service would be cheaper... More X1 and X10 service is needed.

 

 

So let me get this straight. I propose to reroute it by one measley block and that raises a brouhah, and yet he wants to get rid of 75% of the service during rush hour and you're completely silent. Right now it runs every 15 minutes and he wants it every hour.

 

And like I said, running it all the way from Eltingville to Bayonne is a waste, but a shuttle from Forest Avenue to Bayonne would work just fine. It might increase ridership during rush hour, since people know that if they want to leave a little bit later in the morning, they have an option.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So let me get this straight. I propose to reroute it by one measley block and that raises a brouhah, and yet he wants to get rid of 75% of the service during rush hour and you're completely silent. Right now it runs every 15 minutes and he wants it every hour.

 

And like I said, running it all the way from Eltingville to Bayonne is a waste, but a shuttle from Forest Avenue to Bayonne would work just fine. It might increase ridership during rush hour, since people know that if they want to leave a little bit later in the morning, they have an option.

 

 

Ugh... I just commented on it above... Re-read the bloody post!!

[checkmatechamp13]

Ugh... I just commented on it above... Re-read the bloody post!!

 

 

I did read it. I still think that double standard is ridiculous. My ideas are "completely absurd" and yet his ideas are even more detrimental and yet you're fine with them. Somehow you "overlook" that fact, but with me, you take the time to make up a bunch of BS facts.

 

And yeah, how would express bus be cheaper? Running one bus back and forth for a couple of miles is that much more expensive than adding a bunch of express buses to run 24/7. In order to get hourly headways, you need about 3 buses on both the X1 & X10, and they're running back and forth between Manhattan and SI.

Edited June 8, 2012 by checkmatechamp13

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I did read it. I still think that double standard is ridiculous. My ideas are completely absurd and yet his ideas are even more detrimental and yet you're fine with them. Somehow you "overlook" that fact, but with me, you take the time to make up a bunch of BS facts.

 

And yeah, how would express bus be cheaper? Running one bus back and forth for a couple of miles is that much more expensive than adding a bunch of express buses to run 24/7. In order to get hourly headways, you need about 3 buses on both the X1 & X10, and they're running back and forth between Manhattan and SI.

 

 

In case you realized it I DISAGREED with his S89 comments, so knock off the crappola already.

[checkmatechamp13]

In case you realized it I DISAGREED with his S89 comments, so knock off the crappola already.

 

 

Apparently you didn't disagree enough to bring it up in the thread....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Apparently you didn't disagree enough to bring it up in the thread....

 

 

Like I said, I don't agree with the proposal. Now can we move on already??? Talk about immature...

[checkmatechamp13]

Like I said, I don't agree with the proposal. Now can we move on already??? Talk about immature...

 

 

Good, then don't agree with it, but the next time anybody brings up a proposal that you don't agree with, I want you to get into a long-winded argument about why it won't work. Either that, or don't comment on any of my proposals, but stop with these double standards.