Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

[checkmatechamp13]

Well At least those buses are not running in both ways on those narrow streets in Florence. Because of it did, there would be a lot of complaints now

 

 

You can't even fit two buses on those streets. There's literally only space for one bus down that street.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

 

 

You can't even fit two buses on those streets. There's literally only space for one bus down that street.

 

That's the point. Because most of the streets are One Way

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Considering how narrow the streets are in Florence, the buses did okay though and were rather punctual. Similar situation along Henry Hudson Parkway West and East in Riverdale. Buses usually can't pass each other because those service roads are narrow. That begs the question as to why Staten Island has such a problem with buses staying on time... In Florence for example yes the streets were narrow but it seemed like things moved quicker because folks knew the process. Get on the bus and stamp your ticket. Here though people wait until the very last minute to have their MetroCards out. I'm also starting to think that the MetroCard, even when folks are prepared is simply too slow. Something new needs to come in and those smartcards are taking too long to be phased in.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[VWM]

New X20/21 service

X20: Mariner's Harbor/Harbor Road

X21: New Brighton/Franklin Avenue

They would serve Richmond Terrace (to avoid the horrendous S40/90), and run Weekday rush hours

X20/21 would use Clove Ave/Broadway to get to Richmond terrace

X20/21 first stop: Broadway/Castleton Ave

 

They would both Serve midtown via 6 Av to Central Park South

[checkmatechamp13]

New X20/21 service

X20: Mariner's Harbor/Harbor Road

X21: New Brighton/Franklin Avenue

They would serve Richmond Terrace (to avoid the horrendous S40/90), and run Weekday rush hours

X20/21 would use Clove Ave/Broadway to get to Richmond terrace

X20/21 first stop: Broadway/Castleton Ave

 

They would both Serve midtown via 6 Av to Central Park South

 

 

Really, I think the only thing that needs to be done is improve the S40/90. As VG8 would say "that area isn't affluent enough for express service", and that's kind of true. Not only that, but the catchment area would be a lot smaller because the northern side of Richmond Terrace is practically all industrial.

 

I mean, if somebody really wants express service that bad, they're going to have to make their way over to another express route. They'll have to go down to Forest Avenue and catch one, or if they're within walking distance (or if it's an easy transfer) of the X10/X14 or X12/42, they'll just have to do that. I mean, the only thing you can do is try to make those routes more reliable somehow. My S54 extension would cover the part east of Broadway, so that's part of the problem that's solved...

 

EDIT: And especially for that one going west of Broadway, it's not that hard to get down to the X30 for Midtown service. For those east of Broadway, it's a PITA, but what can you do except try to improve the current service a little.

Edited July 7, 2012 by checkmatechamp13

[Threxx]

A better map of S67 (with S97 LTD) with routes to St. George & to Bay Ridge...

 

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=213458373195564989412.0004c443c381bd8309ddc&msa=0&ll=40.615712,-74.111753&spn=0.018862,0.038581

Edited July 7, 2012 by ThrexxBus

[checkmatechamp13]

A better map of S67 (with S97 LTD) with routes to St. George & to Bay Ridge...

 

https://maps.google....018862,0.038581

 

 

As much as I'd like to see a limited on that thing, I don't think the demand will be there for limited-stop service. That would basically be a "coverage" route. Then again, the areas up by Watchogue Road aren't too different from the areas by Victory Blvd, so I guess anything's possible. The thing with the S92 is that it isn't really an issue of demand, more the fact that the area's far out and people need a faster way to reach the ferry (I mean, it does get a respectable amount of riders, but still)

 

And for the route to Brooklyn, there really isn't much down by the expressway in that area. On the southern side, you have Emerson Hill, which is a very "affluent" area (It's one of the wealthiest areas on SI), and on the northern side, you have regular houses. Clove Road is more commercial, and there are some apartments by Howard Avenue.

 

Since Watchogue Road isn't really a good ridership generator, that's why I had it going along Clove Road & McClean Avenue in Grasmere. The S53 gets more ridership, so it should be the one to have some (not all) buses running as limiteds, rather than the S67. It sucks that ridership isn't high enough for both of them to have limiteds, but what can you do? I guess the S93 is sort of a limited for those people (and they can transfer to the S67 at Jewett Avenue).

 

So basically, the best route for the S67 would be to either send it to Brooklyn via Clove Road (Like I have in that map I posted earlier in the thread), or restructure the Westerleigh buses the way I described in that map further up.

[Threxx]

As much as I'd like to see a limited on that thing, I don't think the demand will be there for limited-stop service. That would basically be a "coverage" route. Then again, the areas up by Watchogue Road aren't too different from the areas by Victory Blvd, so I guess anything's possible. The thing with the S92 is that it isn't really an issue of demand, more the fact that the area's far out and people need a faster way to reach the ferry (I mean, it does get a respectable amount of riders, but still)

 

And for the route to Brooklyn, there really isn't much down by the expressway in that area. On the southern side, you have Emerson Hill, which is a very "affluent" area (It's one of the wealthiest areas on SI), and on the northern side, you have regular houses. Clove Road is more commercial, and there are some apartments by Howard Avenue.

 

Since Watchogue Road isn't really a good ridership generator, that's why I had it going along Clove Road & McClean Avenue in Grasmere. The S53 gets more ridership, so it should be the one to have some (not all) buses running as limiteds, rather than the S67. It sucks that ridership isn't high enough for both of them to have limiteds, but what can you do? I guess the S93 is sort of a limited for those people (and they can transfer to the S67 at Jewett Avenue).

 

So basically, the best route for the S67 would be to either send it to Brooklyn via Clove Road (Like I have in that map I posted earlier in the thread), or restructure the Westerleigh buses the way I described in that map further up.

 

 

The S97 would come out of the S93 frequency and go to Arlington. S67 buses would turn at Richmond Avenue.

 

EDIT: I removed it, there really isn't much room for LTD service...

Edited July 7, 2012 by ThrexxBus

[checkmatechamp13]

The S97 would come out of the S93 frequency and go to Arlington. S67 buses would turn at Richmond Avenue.

 

 

That's the thing, though: Watchogue Road would be the "weakest link" in the route, so-to-speak.

 

As VG8 would say, those areas west of the MLK Expressway are a little less "affluent" than those to the east. It's not that much of a difference, but it would impact ridership a little bit. And in any case, my point is that ridership east of the MLK wouldn't warrant that much extra service compared to ridership west of it.

 

The number of people over by Goethals Road North who would use a bus outnumber those who would use a bus by Watchogue Road. The thing is that in terms of general coverage, the people west of the MLK have better service because we have buses going down Richmond Avenue & South Avenue, but the people over in Westerleigh have better east-west coverage because they have the S57.

 

My original point was to serve the people along Goethals Road North/Fahy Avenue (I always refer to them as the SIE service road, which is what they are), since we have no east-west service. We either have to walk all the way down to Victory Blvd or up to Forest Avenue, and the layout of the streets in the area doesn't help. I tried an S93 extension and a new S82 route. But the thing about this revived S67 is the fact that it provides a more direct east-west service. The S82 would only provide east-west service in this area, but if somebody needed to go somewhere further east, there would be a whole bunch of problems. The S93 extension could potentially delay the route for CSI students, and it would have a very short "unique" section (because it would be paralleled by the S53 & S62, go along Goethals North, and then be paralleled by the S46 & S48). Aside from that, it would spend a little too much time along Richmond Avenue, which is "wasted milage" because it's not a long enough stint to provide any actual north-south service, but it's still detracting from its main purpose, which is east-west service.

 

So then I got to thinking about the old S67. I realized that Watchogue Road (which becomes Deppe Place west of the MLK) lines up pretty well with the SIE service road (at least better than Victory Blvd does). So I was thinking "maybe if it went to Goethals Road North instead of Port Richmond, it would do better". The thing about Port Richmond is that while usage is higher than most SI areas, the S67 was competing with a bunch of other routes that get to St. George much faster. Yeah, it helps reach Victory Blvd, but there's the S66 for that (and aside from that, I don't think there was that much demand to Victory Blvd anyway).

 

So then I figured "I would prefer the SIE service road get 7-day service", so I tried to make it the only route along Watchogue Road. You could have the S57 go up Jewett Avenue (replacing the S66 in that area), have the S67 serve Grymes Hill (replacing the S66 in that area), and then have the S67 cover Watchogue Road by itself (because there's no way the MTA would make it a full-time route with the S57 still there). I could have it end at South Avenue & Goethals Road North, but I figure by extending it to Richmond Terrace, it connects with the edge of a shopping district along Forest Avenue, and gives people in Arlington an alternative to the S48 if they're trying to connect to the Richmond Avenue routes. Plus, you have the Mariners' Harbor Houses & Arlington Terrace Apartments nearby to provide ridership.

 

So if you do that, you have a fairly simple system that's still efficient at moving the riders. For riders along Jewett Avenue going to St. George (which there weren't that many of. The S66 is basically one long coverage route), the S54 would get extended to St. George (yeah, I know it isn't the same as having it right on Jewett, but it does serve the neighborhood).

 

Sending it to Brooklyn was kind of for the purposes of trying to make as few changes as possible. You notice that Willowbrook Road still keeps its S57 service (with the plan to St. George, Willowbrook Road would lose service, except for a few trippers to I.S.51), and Jewett Avenue still keeps it's service to St. George. Of course, the problem is that trying to please everybody costs more money.

 

As far as the limited service goes, ideally you'd have it be a limited-only route, bypassing all the local stops east of Jewett Avenue. The proverbial "thorn in the side" is Grymes Hill, since it has to be served (and you can't just have a shuttle service like the old S60. Even if it were extended to St. George, it would still get low ridership, so unfortunately, you just have to tag it on to another low-ridership route, and I still think the S67 would get lower ridership than the S61 & S62). The S67 would still basically be a coverage route, but just not as bad as the current S66 because it's more direct.

 

I guess since it serves Grymes Hill, you could call it the S66 instead of the S67, but that's not a big deal.

[Threxx]

That's the thing, though: Watchogue Road would be the "weakest link" in the route, so-to-speak.

 

As VG8 would say, those areas west of the MLK Expressway are a little less "affluent" than those to the east. It's not that much of a difference, but it would impact ridership a little bit. And in any case, my point is that ridership east of the MLK wouldn't warrant that much extra service compared to ridership west of it.

 

The number of people over by Goethals Road North who would use a bus outnumber those who would use a bus by Watchogue Road. The thing is that in terms of general coverage, the people west of the MLK have better service because we have buses going down Richmond Avenue & South Avenue, but the people over in Westerleigh have better east-west coverage because they have the S57.

 

My original point was to serve the people along Goethals Road North/Fahy Avenue (I always refer to them as the SIE service road, which is what they are), since we have no east-west service. We either have to walk all the way down to Victory Blvd or up to Forest Avenue, and the layout of the streets in the area doesn't help. I tried an S93 extension and a new S82 route. But the thing about this revived S67 is the fact that it provides a more direct east-west service. The S82 would only provide east-west service in this area, but if somebody needed to go somewhere further east, there would be a whole bunch of problems. The S93 extension could potentially delay the route for CSI students, and it would have a very short "unique" section (because it would be paralleled by the S53 & S62, go along Goethals North, and then be paralleled by the S46 & S48). Aside from that, it would spend a little too much time along Richmond Avenue, which is "wasted milage" because it's not a long enough stint to provide any actual north-south service, but it's still detracting from its main purpose, which is east-west service.

 

So then I got to thinking about the old S67. I realized that Watchogue Road (which becomes Deppe Place west of the MLK) lines up pretty well with the SIE service road (at least better than Victory Blvd does). So I was thinking "maybe if it went to Goethals Road North instead of Port Richmond, it would do better". The thing about Port Richmond is that while usage is higher than most SI areas, the S67 was competing with a bunch of other routes that get to St. George much faster. Yeah, it helps reach Victory Blvd, but there's the S66 for that (and aside from that, I don't think there was that much demand to Victory Blvd anyway).

 

So then I figured "I would prefer the SIE service road get 7-day service", so I tried to make it the only route along Watchogue Road. You could have the S57 go up Jewett Avenue (replacing the S66 in that area), have the S67 serve Grymes Hill (replacing the S66 in that area), and then have the S67 cover Watchogue Road by itself (because there's no way the MTA would make it a full-time route with the S57 still there). I could have it end at South Avenue & Goethals Road North, but I figure by extending it to Richmond Terrace, it connects with the edge of a shopping district along Forest Avenue, and gives people in Arlington an alternative to the S48 if they're trying to connect to the Richmond Avenue routes. Plus, you have the Mariners' Harbor Houses & Arlington Terrace Apartments nearby to provide ridership.

 

So if you do that, you have a fairly simple system that's still efficient at moving the riders. For riders along Jewett Avenue going to St. George (which there weren't that many of. The S66 is basically one long coverage route), the S54 would get extended to St. George (yeah, I know it isn't the same as having it right on Jewett, but it does serve the neighborhood).

 

Sending it to Brooklyn was kind of for the purposes of trying to make as few changes as possible. You notice that Willowbrook Road still keeps its S57 service (with the plan to St. George, Willowbrook Road would lose service, except for a few trippers to I.S.51), and Jewett Avenue still keeps it's service to St. George. Of course, the problem is that trying to please everybody costs more money.

 

As far as the limited service goes, ideally you'd have it be a limited-only route, bypassing all the local stops east of Jewett Avenue. The proverbial "thorn in the side" is Grymes Hill, since it has to be served (and you can't just have a shuttle service like the old S60. Even if it were extended to St. George, it would still get low ridership, so unfortunately, you just have to tag it on to another low-ridership route, and I still think the S67 would get lower ridership than the S61 & S62). The S67 would still basically be a coverage route, but just not as bad as the current S66 because it's more direct.

 

I guess since it serves Grymes Hill, you could call it the S66 instead of the S67, but that's not a big deal.

 

 

The S66 already serves Grymes Hill though, so there's no need for this new S67 to do that. I would still have the S67 run to St. George, as many would prefer a direct commute to Manhattan rather than having to transfer to the in Brooklyn...

[checkmatechamp13]

The S66 already serves Grymes Hill though, so there's no need for this new S67 to do that. I would still have the S67 run to St. George, as many would prefer a direct commute to Manhattan rather than having to transfer to the in Brooklyn...

 

 

That's the point: Eliminate the S66 and have the S67 replace it on Grymes Hill. Every neighborhood still has coverage, but the system is a little better off as far as serving the riders go.

 

And Ideally, I'd like to send it straight to St. George, but the problem is that there's too much service along Victory Blvd. I mean, 4 routes going down Victory Blvd east of Jewett Avenue is overkill, so you have to think of a way to get rid of a route. And the only two ways I think would work are sending the S67 to Brooklyn or having it replace the S66 on Grymes Hill.

[Threxx]

That's the point: Eliminate the S66 and have the S67 replace it on Grymes Hill. Every neighborhood still has coverage, but the system is a little better off as far as serving the riders go.

 

And Ideally, I'd like to send it straight to St. George, but the problem is that there's too much service along Victory Blvd. I mean, 4 routes going down Victory Blvd east of Jewett Avenue is overkill, so you have to think of a way to get rid of a route. And the only two ways I think would work are sending the S67 to Brooklyn or having it replace the S66 on Grymes Hill.

 

 

Jewett riders use their bus lightly, so they can transfer from the S57-Victory Bl bus... that isn't good though, and they might protest that....

 

Bay Ridge dosen't need another bus, and Victory Blvd can use the service. I was on a crush-loaded S61 the other day, wasn't fun...

Edited July 8, 2012 by ThrexxBus

[checkmatechamp13]

Jewett riders use their bus lightly, so they can transfer from the S57-Victory Bl bus... that isn't good though, and they might protest that....

 

Bay Ridge dosen't need another bus, and Victory Blvd can use the service. I was on a crush-loaded S61 the other day, wasn't fun...

 

 

The issue isn't Jewett Avenue riders. They just need a bus. It doesn't really matter where it takes them because the point is just for coverage. But I'm saying it would be a better use of resources if it went straight down onto Bradley Avenue and served the areas on the other side of the Greenbelt (New Dorp, Oakwood, etc), compared to looping around to St. George. It's just to try and get more ridership for the MTA.

 

As for the crowding, I'm going to be honest: I've never seen buses that crowded along Victory Blvd. Standing-room only? Of course, but not anywhere near the point where you couldn't fit any more riders. I think it's an issue of spacing: If there's a big gap and the S61 is the first one to fill it, then it'll get hit with all the passengers (and from what I see, it's usually the S61 that shows up before the S62). I bet an S62 caught up to you by the time it reached the ferry terminal, right?

 

The S53 could use a supplementary route, and that's the point. I mean, the ridership is there, so it's not like it's a case of "too many buses" or anything.

 

But, like I said, it would be cheaper and you'd get more "bang for the buck" if you sent the S67 to St. George the way I described (cut the S66, have the S67 cover Grymes Hill).

[Threxx]

The issue isn't Jewett Avenue riders. They just need a bus. It doesn't really matter where it takes them because the point is just for coverage. But I'm saying it would be a better use of resources if it went straight down onto Bradley Avenue and served the areas on the other side of the Greenbelt (New Dorp, Oakwood, etc), compared to looping around to St. George. It's just to try and get more ridership for the MTA.

 

As for the crowding, I'm going to be honest: I've never seen buses that crowded along Victory Blvd. Standing-room only? Of course, but not anywhere near the point where you couldn't fit any more riders. I think it's an issue of spacing: If there's a big gap and the S61 is the first one to fill it, then it'll get hit with all the passengers (and from what I see, it's usually the S61 that shows up before the S62). I bet an S62 caught up to you by the time it reached the ferry terminal, right?

 

The S53 could use a supplementary route, and that's the point. I mean, the ridership is there, so it's not like it's a case of "too many buses" or anything.

 

But, like I said, it would be cheaper and you'd get more "bang for the buck" if you sent the S67 to St. George the way I described (cut the S66, have the S67 cover Grymes Hill).

 

 

I was headed towards SI Mall, and an S62 never caught us, IIRC. The bus kinda emptied out @ Clove Road, but it got crowded again. People were directly in front of the driver. It was crush loaded. I believe the ridership is there. I also see what you mean about the S66. I still think it should exist, even as a rush only route.

[checkmatechamp13]

I was headed towards SI Mall, and an S62 never caught us, IIRC. The bus kinda emptied out @ Clove Road, but it got crowded again. People were directly in front of the driver. It was crush loaded. I believe the ridership is there. I also see what you mean about the S66. I still think it should exist, even as a rush only route.

 

 

When you were at St. George, was there also an S62 over there? Because if the S61 was the only bus sitting in the stand, then that explains the crowding: It was taking on both its own passengers and those of the S62. (Sometimes the bus leaves the depot late or whatever and ends up pulling out late, or in rare cases, is missing altogether).

 

As far as the S66 goes, I don't even think it should be rush hours, but I guess I could live with it if it was. How about if instead, it ran up and served Willowbrook Road & Decker Avenue so at least it covers a different area? I mean, there's no point in 2 routes running down a low-ridership corridor unless it's absolutely necessary (i.e. they're on their way to a larger destination).

Edited July 8, 2012 by checkmatechamp13

[Threxx]

When you were at St. George, was there also an S62 over there? Because if the S61 was the only bus sitting in the stand, then that explains the crowding: It was taking on both its own passengers and those of the S62. (Sometimes the bus leaves the depot late or whatever and ends up pulling out late, or in rare cases, is missing altogether).

 

As far as the S66 goes, I don't even think it should be rush hours, but I guess I could live with it if it was.

 

 

The S62 was just pulling in as we left, never saw it again.

[checkmatechamp13]

The S62 was just pulling in as we left, never saw it again.

 

 

Well, there's your answer: The S61 was the only one sitting there, and he had to wait for the correct time so he didn't miss any passengers going along Bradley Avenue, but in the process, he caught a lot of S62 passengers as well.

[qjtransitmaster]

 

 

The issue isn't Jewett Avenue riders. They just need a bus. It doesn't really matter where it takes them because the point is just for coverage. But I'm saying it would be a better use of resources if it went straight down onto Bradley Avenue and served the areas on the other side of the Greenbelt (New Dorp, Oakwood, etc), compared to looping around to St. George. It's just to try and get more ridership for the MTA.

 

As for the crowding, I'm going to be honest: I've never seen buses that crowded along Victory Blvd. Standing-room only? Of course, but not anywhere near the point where you couldn't fit any more riders. I think it's an issue of spacing: If there's a big gap and the S61 is the first one to fill it, then it'll get hit with all the passengers (and from what I see, it's usually the S61 that shows up before the S62). I bet an S62 caught up to you by the time it reached the ferry terminal, right?

 

The S53 could use a supplementary route, and that's the point. I mean, the ridership is there, so it's not like it's a case of "too many buses" or anything.

 

But, like I said, it would be cheaper and you'd get more "bang for the buck" if you sent the S67 to St. George the way I described (cut the S66, have the S67 cover Grymes Hill).

well you can cut that s 66 bring back that S 67 have it replace S66 grymes hill then off to brooklyn 59th st then luthern hospital for B11. links with . If S67 becomes fulltime S57 replaces S66 then onward to NJ.

[Cait Sith]

well you can cut that s 66 bring back that S 67 have it replace S66 grymes hill then off to brooklyn 59th st then luthern hospital for B11. links with . If S67 becomes fulltime S57 replaces S66 then onward to NJ.

 

 

I'm curious as to what exactly is that going to accomplish....that'll leave folks along the entirety of Jewett Avenue WITHOUT bus service. Plus why would you make a route from St. George to Brooklyn?!

[checkmatechamp13]

I'm curious as to what exactly is that going to accomplish....that'll leave folks along the entirety of Jewett Avenue WITHOUT bus service. Plus why would you make a route from St. George to Brooklyn?!

 

 

Nah, I see what he's saying. Jewett Avenue would be served by the S57, and then it would somehow make its way to the MLK Expressway and go on to Bayonne (Probably Jewett-Forest-MLK or something).

 

His route isn't going from St. George to Brooklyn. It would take my S67 route (serving the SIE service road), continue via Watchogue Road & Victory Blvd, go up to Grymes Hill, and then continue on to Brooklyn. The thing is that there's a reason it's called Grymes Hill. You have a bunch of narrow, winding roads that bring you down to Park Hill, and then you still have to make your way over to the SIE and get to Brooklyn. It's just too much of a PITA.

 

I see what he's trying to accomplish, and theoretically it would work, but with the way the road system is laid out and everything, it's not going to.

[qjtransitmaster]

 

 

I'm curious as to what exactly is that going to accomplish....that'll leave folks along the entirety of Jewett Avenue WITHOUT bus service. Plus why would you make a route from St. George to Brooklyn?!

 

checkmate already explained it to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nah, I see what he's saying. Jewett Avenue would be served by the S57, and then it would somehow make its way to the MLK Expressway and go on to Bayonne (Probably Jewett-Forest-MLK or something).

 

His route isn't going from St. George to Brooklyn. It would take my S67 route (serving the SIE service road), continue via Watchogue Road & Victory Blvd, go up to Grymes Hill, and then continue on to Brooklyn. The thing is that there's a reason it's called Grymes Hill. You have a bunch of narrow, winding roads that bring you down to Park Hill, and then you still have to make your way over to the SIE and get to Brooklyn. It's just too much of a PITA.

 

I see what he's trying to accomplish, and theoretically it would work, but with the way the road system is laid out and everything, it's not going to.

 

What I am saying is S67 via grymes hill here is how it works it goes via SIE service rd then via S60's former routing then back to victory for transfer to S53 then non stop via SIE to fingerboard for S79 then to 59th . to SIE it's easy cause after grymes hill it goes to victory then clove inbound trips do this in reverse. This line will time with S79. reasoning for future express route later explained. Actually S57 to journal sq.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

 

checkmate already explained it to you.

 

 

 

 

What I am saying is S67 via grymes hill here is how it works it goes via SIE service rd then via S60's former routing then back to victory for transfer to S53 then non stop via SIE to fingerboard for S79 then to 59th . to SIE it's easy cause after grymes hill it goes to victory then clove inbound trips do this in reverse. This line will time with S79. reasoning for future express route later explained. Actually S57 to journal sq.

 

Extending to S57 would mean eliminating the NJT 10 (Which NJ Transit won't be happy because that's one of its good ridership routes) or making it closed door on The Boulevard. If anything just extend the 57 to Bayonne and Extend the NJT 10 to Port Richmond

[checkmatechamp13]

What I am saying is S67 via grymes hill here is how it works it goes via SIE service rd then via S60's former routing then back to victory for transfer to S53 then non stop via SIE to fingerboard for S79 then to 59th . to SIE it's easy cause after grymes hill it goes to victory then clove inbound trips do this in reverse. This line will time with S79. reasoning for future express route later explained. Actually S57 to journal sq.

 

 

There's no exit at Fingerboard Road.

 

And yeah, I see what you want it to do. You'd have it take Victory-Clove-Howard, and then go down to Park Hill and get on the SIE service road. Either way, I'm telling you that's not going to work. You could have it go straight up Clove, loop around Grymes Hill and then serve Victory, but what's the point in that? You're just adding time and inconveniencing the people west of Clove Road. I mean, yeah, sending it to St. George via Grymes Hill does that as well, but at least you're still moving in the same general direction.

 

Extending to S57 would mean eliminating the NJT 10 (Which NJ Transit won't be happy because that's one of its good ridership routes) or making it closed door on The Boulevard. If anything just extend the 57 to Bayonne and Extend the NJT 10 to Port Richmond

 

 

Actually, the S57 would likely be the closed-door one.

 

In any case, there's not that much demand between SI & Hudson County where you need two whole routes serving the corridor. I'd just do either-or, and I think it would be best if an NJ route did it, not the S57. The #81 is fairly infrequent, which makes it a good candidate for the job. You could extend a couple of #10 trips to serve that part of Bergen Point (**I think that's the name of that neighborhood**). The problem is that the #81 parallels the HBLR, whereas the #10 goes to a different part of Jersey City, so it doesn't give SI riders as many options. I mean, I would rather not screw with the frequencies on the #10 down in Bergen Point.

[161 New York]

Actually, the S57 would likely be the closed-door one.

 

In any case, there's not that much demand between SI & Hudson County where you need two whole routes serving the corridor. I'd just do either-or, and I think it would be best if an NJ route did it, not the S57. The #81 is fairly infrequent, which makes it a good candidate for the job. You could extend a couple of #10 trips to serve that part of Bergen Point (**I think that's the name of that neighborhood**). The problem is that the #81 parallels the HBLR, whereas the #10 goes to a different part of Jersey City, so it doesn't give SI riders as many options. I mean, I would rather not screw with the frequencies on the #10 down in Bergen Point.

 

 

In my opinion extending the s57 to Journal Square is not a good idea. I honestly cannot see that benefiting many Staten Islanders and a closed door route would exacerbate the traffic on the Boulevard.

 

Having a few 10's start and end on Staten Island on Richmond Ave/Forest & Morningstar would be ideal.

 

Thinking about it some more from a previous post, my proposal would not degrade service. The 10 would not have to bypass its southern terminus at 1st & JFK, it could make that stop, make a right turn on 1st, a right turn on Avenue A and access the bridge from there.

 

As you may recall, my suggestion would be one stop on Staten Island where riders can transfer to many popular cross-Island routes.

 

Additionally, I think its worth discussing the roles HBLR & existing local buses which serve two completely different ridership demographics:

 

a) HBLR is, partially a way to connect Hudson County to each other, but particularly Downtown Jersey City as that area is a hub for most private businesses (finance, technology, retail) and as a way to revitalize downtown Jersey City.

 

B) Most buses in Hudson County begin/end at Journal Square because that area is the municipal (and formerly a major commercial hub before downtown) for residents of Jersey City and the county. The justice complex (Superior Court, Municipal Court) is located on Newark Avenue and Summit Ave respectively, Hudson Community College. Also, given the buses (10) route through residential areas I think it would link more folks with transportation options than the HBLR

 

I think extending the 10 would be the best idea because again it would benefit more people.

Edited July 10, 2012 by 161passenger

[checkmatechamp13]

Yeah, I definitely don't think the S57 should go up to Journal Square.

 

And yeah, that makes perfect sense to just go right up Avenue A. But what about northbound service? (That would bypass Bergen Point)

 

I dunno. I mean, if Journal Square is more of a destination for Hudson County riders, that's nice, but I'd think SIers would be more interested in getting to those office jobs by Exchange Place, and would want the HBLR. So I think at least the buses to SI should make the little diversion to 8th Street for the HBLR.

 

And yeah, I definitely agree that Forest & Richmond would be a good area to end the route. I assume the S89 would still run rush hours, right?