Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

[B35 via Church]

To intentionally break this back & forth chain you two got goin on here.....

 

Checkmate, it's simple.... He goes in on you more than he might someone else b/c the comfortability level b/w you two is there.....

I'm not justifying any of it, but it is what it is.... Everyone has their little circle of people they chat with on a forum, just like they would (offline) at work or at school.....

 

(I) personally don't care who brings up an idea I don't agree with, my focus is always attacking the idea I don't agree with.... The idea doesn't become more agreeable b/c someone I'm chill with or whatever, brought it up..... Nor do I dislike a person b/c they brought up something I don't agree with (annoyed with though, is another story)......

 

I like to ponder what ideas ppl. scribe/type on the forums here... I'm too old, too lazy, and too disinterested to be playin favorites on a message board..... That is another thing I like about this forum, it's not cliquish here - At all.....

(if you're not in my circle, it's f*** you.... that's what I mean by cliquish btw)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That and the fact that he (checkmate) is just flat out wrong at times. It's not that I favor SIR North's proposals oh so much. It's that he and I have similar traveling experiences on Staten Island that checkmate simply can't relate to because he isn't out and about on certain lines at the times that me and SIR North travel. I mean he refuses to accept certain things the way that they are. I mean what exactly does he want the to do about the S62? It is needed along Victory Blvd for network coverage but he isn't happy with that because the bus isn't always packed with passengers. As far as I'm concerned, I would add service at certain times to the S62, particularly on the weekends. It runs like crap on Saturdays and Sundays and also at rather odd times, so when you miss one be prepared to usually wait another 30 minutes.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[checkmatechamp13]

To intentionally break this back & forth chain you two got goin on here.....

 

Checkmate, it's simple.... He goes in on you more than he might someone else b/c the comfortability level b/w you two is there.....

I'm not justifying any of it, but it is what it is.... Everyone has their little circle of people they chat with on a forum, just like they would (offline) at work or at school.....

 

(I) personally don't care who brings up an idea I don't agree with, my focus is always attacking the idea I don't agree with.... The idea doesn't become more agreeable b/c someone I'm chill with or whatever, brought it up..... Nor do I dislike a person b/c they brought up something I don't agree with (annoyed with though, is another story)......

 

I like to ponder what ideas ppl. scribe/type on the forums here... I'm too old, too lazy, and too disinterested to be playin favorites on a message board..... That is another thing I like about this forum, it's not cliquish here - At all.....

(if you're not in my circle, it's f*** you.... that's what I mean by cliquish btw)

 

 

But that's the thing, though. It seemed to me as if he was attacking the idea just because it was me who proposed it. I mean, I brought up examples of ideas of mine he used to agree with and now he's sitting there calling them "ridiculous". I mean, of course we've always had disagreements, but at least it seemed as if he was disagreeing with me based on principle (Basically, he didn't want anything cut, so if I would propose a cut, he would oppose it.) Obviously I don't agree with that, but at least there was some sort of reasoning behind his thoughts. But now, it almost seems as if he's coming up with reasons to oppose any proposals I make.

 

I mean, had I made that S67 proposal a year ago, he would've probably wholeheartedly agreed with it. He says that we should always try to strengthen routes before we cut them, and we shouldn't be taking so much service away from "affluent" areas, and we shouldn't have a ton of service on one street while other streets only have a little bit of service. Here, this proposal combines all 3: It provides a direct route to St. George from the Graniteville area (instead of having it compete with a bunch of routes in Port Richmond that are faster), it gives Westerleigh a little bit of extra service, and instead of having 3 routes on one street with one route on another street, it's 2 & 2, while the busier street (Victory Blvd) still has a little bit of extra service.

 

That and the fact that he (checkmate) is just flat out wrong at times. It's not that I favor SIR North's proposals oh so much. It's that he and I have similar traveling experiences on Staten Island that checkmate simply can't relate to because he isn't out and about on certain lines at the times that me and SIR North travel. I mean he refuses to accept certain things the way that they are. I mean what exactly does he want the to do about the S62? It is needed along Victory Blvd for network coverage but he isn't happy with that because the bus isn't always packed with passengers. As far as I'm concerned, I would add service at certain times to the S62, particularly on the weekends. It runs like crap on Saturdays and Sundays and also at rather odd times, so when you miss one be prepared to usually wait another 30 minutes.

 

 

Please read this before you respond:

 

* I have rode the S62 during the time in question. We're only talking about rush hour, peak-direction service in the PM rush. I'm not talking about midday service or weekend service or whatever. I'm talking about rush hour, peak direction service in the PM rush, which I am very familiar with.

 

* The S62 is NOT needed for network coverage if there's already 2 routes running along that same stretch. And I already said what EXACTLY I want the MTA to do with the S62. Just look at the map I made.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

But that's the thing, though. It seemed to me as if he was attacking the idea just because it was me who proposed it. I mean, I brought up examples of ideas of mine he used to agree with and now he's sitting there calling them "ridiculous". I mean, of course we've always had disagreements, but at least it seemed as if he was disagreeing with me based on principle (Basically, he didn't want anything cut, so if I would propose a cut, he would oppose it.) Obviously I don't agree with that, but at least there was some sort of reasoning behind his thoughts. But now, it almost seems as if he's coming up with reasons to oppose any proposals I make.

 

Oh please... My principals haven't changed one bit.

 

Please read this before you respond:

 

* I have rode the S62 during the time in question. We're only talking about rush hour, peak-direction service in the PM rush. I'm not talking about midday service or weekend service or whatever. I'm talking about rush hour, peak direction service in the PM rush, which I am very familiar with.

 

* The S62 is NOT needed for network coverage if there's already 2 routes running along that same stretch. And I already said what EXACTLY I want the MTA to do with the S62. Just look at the map I made.

 

 

And I'm saying that they're not going to do it for the very reason I brought up. I'm telling you they'll argue network coverage. Regardless of how many buses serve Victory Blvd, the S62 is supposed to be the main show on Victory Blvd, as it serves Victory from one end to the other. Aside from that you'd be making the commutes for other riders more difficult by cutting it. Those are two reasons right there that they'd argue and you'd be hard pressed to refute them, though I sure would try to.

[B35 via Church]

- Checkmate, I get you.... Loud & Clear.

 

- Via... I'll say this much, man.....

 

I've gotten into lenghty disagreements w/ checkmate also; I don't go any more harder on him than I would someone else.... With your disagreements w/ him though, I do see where Checkmate is comin from.... I'm not accusing you of sack riding SIR North Shore (or anyone else for that matter).... and I don't know about you necessarily making up BS just to disagree w/ the guy (checkmate), but you do tend to go harder in the paint when checkmate poses something you may not agree with..... That's all I'm sayin.... I aint tryna get you two to come to an agreement on anything...... I think I may be the only person on this forum that gets a kick out of reading you two's spats....

Edited June 8, 2012 by B35 via Church

[Via Garibaldi 8]

- Checkmate, I get you.... Loud & Clear.

 

- Via... I'll say this much, man.....

 

I've gotten into lenghty disagreements w/ checkmate also; I don't go any more harder on him than I would someone else.... With your disagreements w/ him though, I do see where Checkmate is comin from.... I'm not accusing you of sack riding SIR North Shore (or anyone else for that matter).... and I don't know about you necessarily making up BS just to disagree w/ the guy (checkmate), but you do tend to go harder in the paint when checkmate poses something you may not agree with..... That's all I'm sayin.... I aint tryna get you two to come to an agreement on anything...... I think I may be the only person on this forum that gets a kick out of reading you two's spats....

 

 

My issue is that he assures himself on certain things when he can't possibly know about certain things. His proposal for example to add just hourly service on the X1 after the current time that it ends... Bad idea... The last buses of the night are often times SRO which indicates that if service ran later hourly service would not suffice. Now I'm sure he'll say well I ride the X1, but there is no way that he rides it as often as I or SIR North have at those times.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Oh please... My principals haven't changed one bit.

 

2) And I'm saying that they're not going to do it for the very reason I brought up. I'm telling you they'll argue network coverage. Regardless of how many buses serve Victory Blvd, the S62 is supposed to be the main show on Victory Blvd, as it serves Victory from one end to the other. Aside from that you'd be making the commutes for other riders more difficult by cutting it. Those are two reasons right there that they'd argue and you'd be hard pressed to refute them, though I sure would try to.

 

 

1) Oh really? I thought you kept on saying that routes should be strengthened before they were cut. And I also thought you said you shouldn't be cutting so many routes through "affluent" areas. And I also thought you said that there shouldn't be so much service on one corridor while another one gets a minimal amount of service (and yes, you brought that up when we were talking about the S79A)

 

2) How does it serve Victory Blvd from one end to the other if it ends at CSI? And in the AM rush, it starts at Jewett Avenue, so you're literally not hurting anybody.

 

Second of all, I'm telling you that more riders used the S67 in Westerleigh than those who used (and still use) the S62 in Willowbrook. Why? Because all the riders in Willowbrook take the S92. I ride the route often enough to know what I'm talking about.

 

My issue is that he assures himself on certain things when he can't possibly know about certain things. His proposal for example to add just hourly service on the X1 after the current time that it ends... Bad idea... The last buses of the night are often times SRO which indicates that if service ran later hourly service would not suffice. Now I'm sure he'll say well I ride the X1, but there is no way that he rides it as often as I or SIR North have at those times.

 

 

First of all, I said to start it every hour, and then if there's additional demand, then run it every half hour. I never said that it should be kept at 1 hour headways point-blank period.

 

Second of all, you make comments about routes you couldn't possibly know about either. You were sitting there acting like you know all about the S89 ridership when I'm a daily rider and you've never even used it to reach Bayonne (I'm sorry, but "considering" using a route doesn't count). I don't think I'd be able to give that detailed explanation of S89 ridership habits if I wasn't a daily rider. Hell, even right now, you're acting like you know more about S62/92 ridership when I live along the route and you don't. And you even admitted that we need better coverage without any ideas as to how to provide it.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) Oh really? I thought you kept on saying that routes should be strengthened before they were cut. And I also thought you said you shouldn't be cutting so many routes through "affluent" areas. And I also thought you said that there shouldn't be so much service on one corridor while another one gets a minimal amount of service (and yes, you brought that up when we were talking about the S79A)

 

Well I mean hey what do you want me to say?? My stance still stands about routes not being cut, but the S67 was one of those routes that got the axe. Me personally I would keep it around, but perhaps the consensus was that it could be cut since folks still had the S57 even though it doesn't run to the ferry.

 

2) How does it serve Victory Blvd from one end to the other if it ends at CSI? And in the AM rush, it starts at Jewett Avenue, so you're literally not hurting anybody.

 

I was discussing the 's stance in GENERAL about the S62. If you seriously believe that they're going to address your specific point about AM and PM rush on the line, you're sadly mistaken.

 

Second of all, I'm telling you that more riders used the S67 in Westerleigh than those who used (and still use) the S62 in Willowbrook. Why? Because all the riders in Willowbrook take the S92. I ride the route often enough to know what I'm talking about.

 

That's all fine and good, but let's look at the big picture here instead of focusing on these small things like you're doing now. Okay, so even if they did agree with your proposal, how much would it actually save?? Enough to restore the S67??

 

 

First of all, I said to start it every hour, and then if there's additional demand, then run it every half hour. I never said that it should be kept at 1 hour headways point-blank period.

And I'm saying that the demand would be there for half hour service...

 

Second of all, you make comments about routes you couldn't possibly know about either. You were sitting there acting like you know all about the S89 ridership when I'm a daily rider and you've never even used it to reach Bayonne (I'm sorry, but "considering" using a route doesn't count). I don't think I'd be able to give that detailed explanation of S89 ridership habits if I wasn't a daily rider. Hell, even right now, you're acting like you know more about S62/92 ridership when I live along the route and you don't. And you even admitted that we need better coverage without any ideas as to how to provide it.

 

 

That's because I get around far more than you think. Quite frankly the way I used the buses on Victory Blvd sometimes I wondered if I lived on Victory or by Forest. I've used the S62 enough to know what I'm talking about at times that I know you don't use it (i.e. late nights, weekends and times that you should be in school unless you're cutting ). As for the S89, my stance is simple. Two other buses serve the friggin' mall that run along Richmond and that's good enough. The S89 needs to be faster for its main purpose, which is to serve suburban commuters and that's why I didn't use it and stuck with the express bus.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Well I mean hey what do you want me to say?? My stance still stands about routes not being cut, but the S67 was one of those routes that got the axe. Me personally I would keep it around, but perhaps the consensus was that it could be cut since folks still had the S57 even though it doesn't run to the ferry.

 

2) I was discussing the 's stance in GENERAL about the S62. If you seriously believe that they're going to address your specific point about AM and PM rush on the line, you're sadly mistaken.

 

3) That's all fine and good, but let's look at the big picture here instead of focusing on these small things like you're doing now. Okay, so even if they did agree with your proposal, how much would it actually save?? Enough to restore the S67??

 

4) And I'm saying that the demand would be there for half hour service...

 

5) That's because I get around far more than you think. Quite frankly the way I used the buses on Victory Blvd sometimes I wondered if I lived on Victory or by Forest. I've used the S62 enough to know what I'm talking about at times that I know you don't use it (i.e. late nights, weekends and times that you should be in school unless you're cutting ). As for the S89, my stance is simple. Two other buses serve the friggin' mall that run along Richmond and that's good enough. The S89 needs to be faster for its main purpose, which is to serve suburban commuters and that's why I didn't use it and stuck with the express bus.

 

 

1) Yeah, and which agency came to this consensus? Oh, right. The one who thought it was a good idea to cut the B64 from Coney Island.

 

Just because they did something doesn't make it a good idea. The reason we're even having these "SI Proposals" or "Brooklyn Proposals" threads is because there are plenty of issues with the system.

 

2) Yes because that's the only time when it applies. I'm not saying to bring back the S67 full-time or anything (Yes, I know it only ran during rush hours, but you know what I mean). I'm saying to slap an S67 sign on those S62s and send them up Watchogue Road.

 

3) The whole point is to try and save some money to restore the S67. Now, would it be the full amount? No, but it would be a good part of the amount. And in any case, this whole "cost-neutrality" deal is what's keeping our system from moving forward in the first place. I mean, those buses would get good ridership if they were rerouted the way I suggested. I mean, my neighborhood has a ton of townhouses (not just condo complexes, but regular townhouses on the street) so I think there's a lot of untapped demand in this area (especially if it terminated in Arlington, but even terminating at South Avenue/Goethals Road North, it would probably still get good ridership. And aside from that, it's not like S67 ridership wasterrible or anything in the first place.

 

4) Alright. I'm glad to see its there.

 

5) Because most of the time when you mentioned it, you talked about using it from Slosson Avenue to Clove Road or things like that. And yes, I have used it on weekends. If nothing else, I see the buses when they pull in and out of CSI and everything (my home away from home. )

 

As for the S89, the riders that would be affected wouldn't be suburban commuters (i.e. People who live in SI and work in Jersey City). They would be reverse-peak commuters (they live in NJ). Trust me, I've been on those reverse-peak buses and the handful of people on those buses didn't look like they were working in finance or anything. Either way, like I said, the speed would be no slower than it currently is along Marsh Avenue. In fact, it would actually serve those "suburban commuters" a little bit better because they don't have to cross Marsh Avenue to get from the Park & Ride to the bus stop.

 

And like I said, it's the attitude of "It's good enough" that's the reason why ridership is declining.

 

And aside from that, I don't see how it would be so slow for you. I mean, you get the S48 to Morningstar Road, cross the street, and then it's 2 more stops to Bayonne. That's as fast as it's going to get.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) Yeah, and which agency came to this consensus? Oh, right. The one who thought it was a good idea to cut the B64 from Coney Island.

 

Yeah well even without the 2010 cuts, my personal thinking is that some lines would've gotten the axe anyway because the wanted to get rid of them with the hopes that they'll cut them and either no one will make a stink or they'll get away with forcing folks to take other alternatives.

 

Just because they did something doesn't make it a good idea. The reason we're even having these "SI Proposals" or "Brooklyn Proposals" threads is because there are plenty of issues with the system.

 

And I never said it was a good idea. I just simply stated that perhaps they cut it because folks still had the S57 even though it doesn't serve the ferry.

 

2) Yes because that's the only time when it applies. I'm not saying to bring back the S67 full-time or anything (Yes, I know it only ran during rush hours, but you know what I mean). I'm saying to slap an S67 sign on those S62s and send them up Watchogue Road.

 

lol... So how many of these converted S67s would actually run then??

 

 

5) Because most of the time when you mentioned it, you talked about using it from Slosson Avenue to Clove Road or things like that. And yes, I have used it on weekends. If nothing else, I see the buses when they pull in and out of CSI and everything (my home away from home. )

 

While that is true, one of my first rides on Staten Island was on the S62 to CSI. I had my study abroad orientation there and had to get there to be briefed before planning my trip to Italy and let me tell you this was during the middle of the day and that bus was PACKED. SRO to and from the ferry...

 

As for the S89, the riders that would be affected wouldn't be suburban commuters (i.e. People who live in SI and work in Jersey City). They would be reverse-peak commuters (they live in NJ). Trust me, I've been on those reverse-peak buses and the handful of people on those buses didn't look like they were working in finance or anything. Either way, like I said, the speed would be no slower than it currently is along Marsh Avenue. In fact, it would actually serve those "suburban commuters" a little bit better because they don't have to cross Marsh Avenue to get from the Park & Ride to the bus stop.

 

And like I said, it's the attitude of "It's good enough" that's the reason why ridership is declining.

 

And aside from that, I don't see how it would be so slow for you. I mean, you get the S48 to Morningstar Road, cross the street, and then it's 2 more stops to Bayonne. That's as fast as it's going to get.

 

 

Yeah well too much transfers in my case... Three to four transfers for me versus X30 or X14.... That made my choice rather easy and unless that bus was somehow significantly faster I don't tons of other folks flocking to the S89 either.

 

The attitude should be that it's good enough along Richmond Avenue because there are already enough buses running on Richmond Avenue. I said it before and I'll say it again... Bump up service on the S44 and S59 and that's it. Hell maybe even run a few more S94s and throw them into the mix. There is no need to bring the S89 into it.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) Yeah well even without the 2010 cuts, my personal thinking is that some lines would've gotten the axe anyway because the wanted to get rid of them with the hopes that they'll cut them and either no one will make a stink or they'll get away with forcing folks to take other alternatives.

 

2) And I never said it was a good idea. I just simply stated that perhaps they cut it because folks still had the S57 even though it doesn't serve the ferry.

 

3) lol... So how many of these converted S67s would actually run then??

 

4) Yeah well too much transfers in my case... Three to four transfers for me versus X30 or X14.... That made my choice rather easy and unless that bus was somehow significantly faster I don't tons of other folks flocking to the S89 either.

 

The attitude should be that it's good enough along Richmond Avenue because there are already enough buses running on Richmond Avenue. I said it before and I'll say it again... Bump up service on the S44 and S59 and that's it. Hell maybe even run a few more S94s and throw them into the mix. There is no need to bring the S89 into it.

 

 

1) Well, I guess it worked. I mean, I do remember one guy specifically speaking out against the S67 (well actually, he was just talking about bus service in the Westerleigh area, so he said not to cut anything on the S54, S57, S66, & S67), but other than that, there weren't a whole lot of people speaking out against it. But of course, it doesn't make it any better a cut just because nobody protested against it.

 

2) Well, that is the reason. They also said some people could use the S66, but obviously we know that's not going to work.

 

3) I can't open PDF files, so I can't look at the current S62 schedule, but it would be about 8 buses in each direction, which isn't going to break the bank. Like I said, I would really prefer a full-time route because it is a large gap (west of Willowbrook Road), but at least a rush hour route is better than nothing.

 

4) Well, like I said, the primary ridership base is people going into NJ. Some people can use it as an alternative to the express bus, but for most, they're just better off with the express bus. Even if it's faster, you get to sit back on the express bus and not worry about transfers. I mean, I checked the travel time from Walker Street (the last stop on SI) to the World Trade Center, and it would take 49 minutes, compared to 61 minutes by walking down to the X12. I mean, if you know there's going to be a ton of traffic, then yeah, it works, but your primary option is likely the express bus.

 

As for the S89, the reason was because it's cheaper than doing all that. I mean, the bus is running practically empty. You might as well get some passengers on it. (And the S94 doesn't run northbound in the PM and aside from that it doesn't make a difference because its all local down Richmond Avenue anyway). It's not going to add any extra time to the trip, so I don't see the problem. That extra minute or two you spend picking up the passengers you'll save by avoiding 2 traffic lights, so it would actually be faster while benefitting more people.

 

At the very least, the S44 & S59 should be rerouted to run along the back part of Ring Road. If those people living by Marsh Avenue want access to Richmond Avenue, they have to drag across the whole parking lot for no reason. (Sometimes early in the morning or late at night when its dark and empty)

[checkmatechamp13]

I just thought of a way my S67 could be made full-time (well, 7-day anyway). Since (if the S66 had weekend service brought back) there would be 4 routes running down Victory Blvd, the S67 could go to Bay Ridge and supplement the S53 south of Victory Blvd. This would allow the S83 to bypass the Grasmere area (It sucks for those who want access to the SIR and everything, but what can you do?) and just take the service road. At least it would provide more capacity along the southern part of Clove Road without having to slow down the S83.

 

The S57 could be made into a more defined north-south route by taking Bradley-Victory-Woolley-Watchogue, since the S67 would already be providing east-west service in the area.

[qjtransitmaster]

you do realize if a cut goes unopposed then obviously noone cares.

[checkmatechamp13]

you do realize if a cut goes unopposed then obviously noone cares.

 

 

Well, there were two people who specifically mentioned the S67, so that's not exactly "unopposed" (and then of course, there's all those chanting "No service cuts", but obviously I'm not counting them).

 

In any case, you don't exactly see a ton of people clamoring for your extensions either, big shot. I'm not going to say whether they are or aren't needed, but by your logic, since nobody asked to travel along these corridor, there is no need for it.

 

In any case, I guess it's alright to have S62s running down Victory Blvd once they pass Jewett Avenue because the S92 picked up all the passengers going west of there. Geez, you're one of the first to scream about buses "carrying air", and yet you think it's a bad idea to reroute a bus so it gets more ridership and provides the people in that area with access to a major hub (either St. George or Bay Ridge). Yeah, maybe there won't be a whole lot of ridership, but it'll be better than what the S62 gets (again, only during rush hour when the S92 is running)

 

And in either case, why did the S67 get low ridership in the first place? Because once it got near Forest Avenue (and north of it), it was competing with faster and more frequent options to St. George. Nobody in their right mind is going to ride from Richmond Terrace & Park Avenue to St. George on the S67 when the S40/90 get you there in less than half the time. Even from Forest Avenue & Willowbrook Road, the S48/98 get you there much faster.

 

By contrast, if you sent it alongside the SIE, you'd be serving a whole new area that's currently unserved, and you'd either be giving it an easy route to Brooklyn or a faster option to St. George compared to the S44 & S46 (Like I said, I once heard an old woman talk about how "it took me an hour to get from the ferry to The Harbor". And if you've already walked 1/2 mile to reach the S46, you're not going to want to walk another 1/2 mile to reach the S40. The S44 is a little faster than the S46, but it still takes a long time.). For this reason, I'd prefer it serve St. George, but since Victory Blvd would have 4 routes running on it 7 days a week (since I'd also restore the S66), that would be overkill, so it would be better off going to Brooklyn and helping out the S53.

 

If the only option was to restore the S67 back the way it was or keep the S62 at CSI in the PM rush, then I wouldn't be insisting on this as much (though back then, the S62 was based out of Castleton, so it wouldn't have cost that much to have those buses take the small detour and end closer to the Castleton Depot, rather than having to deadhead from CSI).

 

In any case, back to proposals: I think the S98 should continue its limited-stop segment up to South Avenue, the way the S90 does. It could just have a stop at Richmond Avenue, a stop at Maple Parkway (and either Van Pelt Avenue or Union Avenue westbound), and then a stop at South Avenue, and then continue local to Arlington. If the S98 were sent to Elizabeth, this would obviously solve itself, but even right now, it could still be done. The only thing is that a couple of S48 trips in the AM rush would have to start at Arlington instead of Richmond Avenue.

[qjtransitmaster]

rerouting S67 to brooklyn is borderline BRILLIANT that actually makes it useful

[qjtransitmaster]

you said it beautifully couldn't say it better myself I use that same logic to create my rte changes and ideas. making the line unique and different that is the same logic I use to comeup with my plans. Similar to you making S67 useful very good point checkmate QJT salutes you.

[checkmatechamp13]

rerouting S67 to brooklyn is borderline BRILLIANT that actually makes it useful

 

 

Only borderline brilliant?

 

you said it beautifully couldn't say it better myself I use that same logic to create my rte changes and ideas. making the line unique and different that is the same logic I use to comeup with my plans. Similar to you making S67 useful very good point checkmate QJT salutes you.

 

 

Well, like I said, the original plan would've still involved rerouting it alongside the SIE service road, which doesn't have service (except for the X17J, but obviously that doesn't help anybody traveling within SI), so it still would've had a "unique" segment to it. But that relatively short segment wouldn't have been enough to justify running it full-time.

 

By the way, I updated the map to include the S67 to Brooklyn and streamlined S83: https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=214504384267441423605.0004beeb0b935338cf80d&msa=0. I'd have the S67 run say, 7AM - 9PM all day, every 30 minutes off-peak and 15-20 minutes rush hours.

[B35 via Church]

Only borderline brilliant?

 

Notice the adjective in caps when he said it.... It's only "borderline" because you beat him to it.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

I'm planning to fan SI during several days after my return in the summer, and I probably make several analysis on several buses. This will be varied on different periods of the day and different buses at different times to really understand the SI bus system. Just letting' you know. For now I have no proposals.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

 

 

Only borderline brilliant?

 

 

 

Well, like I said, the original plan would've still involved rerouting it alongside the SIE service road, which doesn't have service (except for the X17J, but obviously that doesn't help anybody traveling within SI), so it still would've had a "unique" segment to it. But that relatively short segment wouldn't have been enough to justify running it full-time.

 

By the way, I updated the map to include the S67 to Brooklyn and streamlined S83: https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=214504384267441423605.0004beeb0b935338cf80d&msa=0. I'd have the S67 run say, 7AM - 9PM all day, every 30 minutes off-peak and 15-20 minutes rush hours.

 

Okay, all I saw was S67 to Brooklyn, and that plan is so-so. One thing I've learned from these proposals is not too overserve and underserve routes, and that the current layout is made for a reason. The only time I see it working is probably during rush and evening, no midday. Surprisingly, there are more evening riders and midday. Strange

Edited June 16, 2012 by Q23 Central Term

[checkmatechamp13]

Okay, all I saw was S67 to Brooklyn, and that plan is so-so. One thing I've learned from these proposals is not too overserve and underserve routes, and that the current layout is made for a reason. The only time I see it working is probably during rush and evening, no midday. Surprisingly, there are more evening riders and midday. Strange

 

 

That could be because the buses run more frequently middays compared to evenings. Many routes run every 15 minutes middays and 30 minutes evenings, so they're more crowded evenings.

 

As far as the S67 goes, that's why reading is fundamental. I didn't say I would just reroute it to Brooklyn. I said I would reroute it on the western end too. You say an area shouldn't be underserved? Well, people living near the SIE often have to walk 1/2 mile just to access any bus, and if they want an east-west bus, it's even further. If that isn't underserved, I don't know what is.

 

The only area you could realistically say is being overserved is Victory Blvd between Jewett Avenue and Clove Road, but there's not much you could do about that because there's no other good route to take. The S53 is a busy route, so it wouldn't really be overserved if you had another bus going to Brooklyn with it.

[Threxx]

I think I may be the only person on this forum that gets a kick out of reading you two's spats....

 

 

Don't worry, you aren't the only one...

[checkmatechamp13]

Don't worry, you aren't the only one...

 

 

So why were you asking us to stop originally?

[Roadcruiser1]

My proposal is to take two car lanes off the Verrazano Narrows Bridge and transform them into pure BRT lanes for Staten Island buses.

[Threxx]

So why were you asking us to stop originally?

 

 

I've learned to accept it as part of life here on the forums...