Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

I think a 10 Extention would work, but why not extend it to Port Richmond To connect to those other routes. Wait, now that I thought of it. If there is construction at PABT and People need to go to places along Newark or Journal Square, They can take the X10 to the 10. Or an alternative from wall street is the X14 to the 10

[checkmatechamp13]

I think a 10 Extention would work, but why not extend it to Port Richmond To connect to those other routes. Wait, now that I thought of it. If there is construction at PABT and People need to go to places along Newark or Journal Square, They can take the X10 to the 10. Or an alternative from wall street is the X14 to the 10

 

 

LOL. Nobody's going to go through SI just to get to Jersey City or even Bayonne.

 

The street layout isn't too great to send routes to Port Richmond. You'd have to have buses get off at Walker Street, and then take local streets to get to Richmond Terrace, and aside from that, you miss a connection with the S48, which is a major route.

[qjtransitmaster]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

well routing for my S67 SI bound would go to SIE service road via victory and slosson. S57 actually to newark broad station or airport for links to 62,go28&40. If newark broad (Select trips timed with morristown line) to reach other parts of nj as an express. Or closed door via rte 440 to sec jct for all NJT rail links mostly bergen cty line and pvl. However HBLR can link to rail but express bus may be faster I am undecided on NJ routing for S57. Funny you mention NJT 81 I already made such a suggestion to the NJT board a few months back. HINT: SI through routes hudson to middlesex via SI with 2 SI stops usually via 440 more details later. I dont propose new routes mostly when thinking about NJT.

[161 New York]

well routing for my S67 SI bound would go to SIE service road via victory and slosson. S57 actually to newark broad station or airport for links to 62,go28&40. If newark broad (Select trips timed with morristown line) to reach other parts of nj as an express. Or closed door via rte 440 to sec jct for all NJT rail links mostly bergen cty line and pvl. However HBLR can link to rail but express bus may be faster I am undecided on NJ routing for S57. Funny you mention NJT 81 I already made such a suggestion to the NJT board a few months back. HINT: SI through routes hudson to middlesex via SI with 2 SI stops usually via 440 more details later. I dont propose new routes mostly when thinking about NJT.

 

 

I honestly do not see the demand for anyone from Staten Island going to Newark Broad, much less Morristown. If anything, as I posted in the NJT proposals/ideas, I would use underutilized P&R's for service to EWR and select high-volume transit points to access EWR and NWK Penn.

 

A Staten Island to SEC going through 440 is a terrible idea in my opinion. Traffic in both directions in Jersey City as well as Routes 1 & 9 during the day-time hours is a battle. Anyone wanting to connect to the Main, Bergen, Passack Valley etc, can take the s89 to HBLR, HOB OR the x1/x10/x17 to PATH at WTC and head on over to HOB. I

 

A Bayonne/JC (Exchange Pl/ Newport/ Lincoln Harbor) to Middlesex County via Staten Island specifically Woodbridge & Menlo Park might work given all the train troubles lately. A variant of the 63 could do the trick.

[161 New York]

I think a 10 Extention would work, but why not extend it to Port Richmond To connect to those other routes. Wait, now that I thought of it. If there is construction at PABT and People need to go to places along Newark or Journal Square, They can take the X10 to the 10. Or an alternative from wall street is the X14 to the 10

 

 

The 10 goes from 1st & JFK in Bayonne to Journal Square Bergen & JFK in Jersey City, up one very long street.

 

Two NJT buses along the JFK Blvd go to PABT, the 119 and 125. One bus is rush hour only, the other is infrequent and has been a contentious topic:

 

- Passengers going to Newark have the options of the 1 and PATH

- Passengers going to New York can take the PATH

 

Today was a good example of the need to know alternatives when SHTF in the LT/PABT!!!

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

 

 

The 10 goes from 1st & JFK in Bayonne to Journal Square Bergen & JFK in Jersey City, up one very long street.

 

Two NJT buses along the JFK Blvd go to PABT, the 119 and 125. One bus is rush hour only, the other is infrequent and has been a contentious topic:

 

- Passengers going to Newark have the options of the 1 and PATH

- Passengers going to New York can take the PATH

 

Today was a good example of the need to know alternatives when SHTF in the LT/PABT!!!

 

The bus is about 30 minutes from end to end, if not shorter. I understand Path, but why not extend it to Port Richmond, at least to serve the Area and it could benefit from some direct service to those areas. The only problems would be buses running on local streets

Edited July 13, 2012 by Q23 Central Term

[161 New York]

The bus is about 30 minutes from end to end, if not shorter. I understand Path, but why not extend it to Port Richmond, at least to serve the Area and it could benefit from some direct service to those areas. The only problems would be buses running on local streets

 

 

I completely agree about extending the 10, in the NJT Thread, I suggested that a variant of the 10 terminate at Richmond Ave/ Forest Ave for connections to buses such as the s59, s44 and s48, all major cross-Island bus routes, no need to go to Port Richmond Bus Terminal.

 

Thinking about that area, I think that the s53 should start at that point as well (Richmond/Forest Avenue).

[checkmatechamp13]

well routing for my S67 SI bound would go to SIE service road via victory and slosson. S57 actually to newark broad station or airport for links to 62,go28&40. If newark broad (Select trips timed with morristown line) to reach other parts of nj as an express. Or closed door via rte 440 to sec jct for all NJT rail links mostly bergen cty line and pvl. However HBLR can link to rail but express bus may be faster I am undecided on NJ routing for S57. Funny you mention NJT 81 I already made such a suggestion to the NJT board a few months back. HINT: SI through routes hudson to middlesex via SI with 2 SI stops usually via 440 more details later. I dont propose new routes mostly when thinking about NJT.

 

 

Wait. Can you give turn-by-turn directions for the route?

 

I completely agree about extending the 10, in the NJT Thread, I suggested that a variant of the 10 terminate at Richmond Ave/ Forest Ave for connections to buses such as the s59, s44 and s48, all major cross-Island bus routes, no need to go to Port Richmond Bus Terminal.

 

 

Agree with this....

 

Thinking about that area, I think that the s53 should start at that point as well (Richmond/Forest Avenue).

 

 

.....but don't agree with this.

 

There definitely are a lot of people who transfer between the S48 & S53, but I don't see the need for the extra service along that part of Forest Avenue. I mean, you do miss the West Brighton Houses and "Downtown" Port Richmond over by Castleton & Port Richmond Avenues, which are large ridership generators.

 

There's definitely ridership along Forest Avenue, but I think it's better off running along Castleton (and aside from that, it provides connections to the S44 & S46). I would give the S53 a limited and expand the hours of the S98 (using some buses diverted from the local variants to avoid adding too much in costs), to make it easier to transfer between the lines (even though it seems as if the transfers are timed pretty well).

[JAzumah]

Overall, I think that approximately half of the bus service restorations shouldn't happen. The fare hike postponement should not happen. As much as I am not a fan of public unions, the bottom line is that the MTA should NEVER defer revenue. This economy is very weak and the point of the regular fare increases was to try and restore the MTA's financial footage.

 

Having said that, there is an opportunity to restructure the X17 into a more productive system. The Bay Ridge stop is a bad idea, but off-peak service via the X22 is an excellent idea. It provides more territory to cover in order to support the core operations on Richmond Avenue. I have always wanted to split off the southern section into a peak hour express route in order to eliminate dead miles.

 

If I had a shot at restructing the X17, I would do the following:

 

1) Add a new route called the X18 that would run from the Outerbridge to Newark Airport. X18 Schedule

 

2) Run the southern section of the X17J as the new X20 every 20 minutes. It would run from ETC and run the lower portion of the route in reverse. X20 Schedule

 

3) Add a new X17T service pattern that would alternate with the X17C. The X17T would run via the X22 to Veterans Road, then proceed to the ETC and run via the X17C. Each branch would run hourly and be coordinated.

 

I paid for the majority of this restructuring by starting/ending most X17J buses at ETC, reducing its peak AM frequency to 7.5 minutes and peak PM frequency to every 9 minutes. I staggered the departures to promote more even loading on the X17J, which usually has one packed bus and another half empty bus right behind it. Essentially, I ran a 10 minute headway with some buses spaced 5 minutes apart to minimize doubling up. Shortening the X17J and reducing the frequency frees 10 buses up. 7 go to the new X20 and 3 go to the new X18. The X17T uses existing frequencies, but I expect an incremental cost of almost one bus.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

The Bay Ridge stop isn't a bad idea, as long as they run enough buses so the bus doesn't crowd. The Current X17 proposal is a good one in all ways. Just as long as the MTA gets it right.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

 

If I had a shot at restructing the X17, I would do the following:

 

1) Add a new route called the X18 that would run from the Outerbridge to Newark Airport. X18 Schedule

 

2) Run the southern section of the X17J as the new X20 every 20 minutes. It would run from ETC and run the lower portion of the route in reverse. X20 Schedule

 

3) Add a new X17T service pattern that would alternate with the X17C. The X17T would run via the X22 to Veterans Road, then proceed to the ETC and run via the X17C. Each branch would run hourly and be coordinated.

 

I paid for the majority of this restructuring by starting/ending most X17J buses at ETC, reducing its peak AM frequency to 7.5 minutes and peak PM frequency to every 9 minutes. I staggered the departures to promote more even loading on the X17J, which usually has one packed bus and another half empty bus right behind it. Essentially, I ran a 10 minute headway with some buses spaced 5 minutes apart to minimize doubling up. Shortening the X17J and reducing the frequency frees 10 buses up. 7 go to the new X20 and 3 go to the new X18. The X17T uses existing frequencies, but I expect an incremental cost of almost one bus.

 

1)The thing is, there are people who use the X17J from the first stop. The thing is that the X18 idea sounds good, But I don't know how NJ Transit or both states agreeing to this idea, as it was a hussle with the S89 implementation sort of. Cutting it to ETC would not be a good idea

2) No comment for now.

3) Would it take Arthur Kill to ETC right?

[checkmatechamp13]

1)The thing is, there are people who use the X17J from the first stop. The thing is that the X18 idea sounds good, But I don't know how NJ Transit or both states agreeing to this idea, as it was a hussle with the S89 implementation sort of. Cutting it to ETC would not be a good idea

2) No comment for now.

3) Would it take Arthur Kill to ETC right?

 

 

Those people would be covered by his proposed X20. Instead of having to loop around Huguenot/Arden Heights and then continue down Richmond Avenue, those riders would go straight onto the WSE. I'd do it a little bit differently, basically running the Huguenot buses as a Midtown version of the X19 do reduce duplication with the X24 along Huguenot Avenue. I can see his logic in trying to provide those riders with a place to park (the ETC), but I think the fact that those riders have to loop around Arden Heights/Huguenot will be somewhat of a deterrant.

 

As far as the establishment of a new route across state lines, I can't see there being too many problems. I mean, if they managed to do it with the S89, they could do it here.

 

His X20 route looks like it would take Arthur Kill Road-Arden Avenue-Drumgoogle Road-Huguenot Avenue and then go up the WSE.

 

BTW, Joel, go to the schedule and click "Submit Changes" to get rid of the formatting error that has the first 3 AM buses listed after the PM buses on the X18.

[JAzumah]

I can see his logic in trying to provide those riders with a place to park (the ETC), but I think the fact that those riders have to loop around Arden Heights/Huguenot will be somewhat of a deterrant.

 

His X20 route looks like it would take Arthur Kill Road-Arden Avenue-Drumgoogle Road-Huguenot Avenue and then go up the WSE.

 

 

The folks on Arden Avenue would still have a faster travel time on a reversed bus and they are burning up tons of bus mileage on the X17J looping around Arden Heights. Every 20 minutes should be fine and it would get more ridership reversed than as a Midtown X19 because of the tons of townhouses on Huguenot Avenue.

[B35 via Church]

Add a new X17T service pattern that would alternate with the X17C. The X17T would run via the X22 to Veterans Road, then proceed to the ETC and run via the X17C. Each branch would run hourly and be coordinated.

 

Agree with the routing for a route that would take on that task.... Never understood why there wasn't a route that took the west shore expwy & served huguenot, annadale & arden hgts, en route to ETC..... I also think running as many 17c's/j's b/w ETC & huguenot the way it currently does is wasteful.....

[qjtransitmaster]

err doesn't X19 do that?

[qjtransitmaster]

Agree with the routing for a route that would take on that task.... Never understood why there wasn't a route that took the west shore expwy & served huguenot, annadale & arden hgts, en route to ETC..... I also think running as many 17c's/j's b/w ETC & huguenot the way it currently does is wasteful.....

 

ok then simply restructure the X19 then X24 already serves those parts

[checkmatechamp13]

I made a schedule for my proposed S54: http://scaped.net/bus/S54

 

My S57 & S67 are up next.

[B35 via Church]

err doesn't X19 do that?

 

x19 doesn't go to eltingville transit center... what are you talkin about ?

[qjtransitmaster]

 

 

x19 doesn't go to eltingville transit center... what are you talkin about ?

 

from estingville x17 is direct while others like X31 are there at arden heights there is X19&22&23/24 in different areas.

[checkmatechamp13]

Now that I think about it, should the current X19 take that route (westward from the ETC, serving Arden Heights, and then taking the WSE), or would the doubling back (Richmond Avenue to WSE, and then having to go east along the SIE) make that pointless?

[B35 via Church]

Now that I think about it, should the current X19 take that route (westward from the ETC, serving Arden Heights, and then taking the WSE), or would the doubling back (Richmond Avenue to WSE, and then having to go east along the SIE) make that pointless?

 

hmm....

 

While I don't know about its AM usage, the PM usage of the current x19 is basically 1/4th to 1/3rd of whoever's on, gets off at either of the 2 stops along arthur kill rd...... bus pretty much empties out along arden (av).... whatever few riders are left, are b/w those getting off at huguenot/drumgoole itself (for the huguenot park & ride, or wherever else ppl. parked their cars) & after the turn up huguenot av...... rest of those stops along drumgoole rd. west are seldom used.....

 

Basically what you're asking is, are those ppl. that park over there along/around ar. kill rd willing to drive out to (and park at) ETC from wherever they're driving from, to catch the 19..... Unless you're really on a tight budget & have to worry about extra mileage (gas) being used up, I don't see the problem with it..... Sometimes I think to myself, why would anyone wanna get off over here (along that part of arthur kill, esp. the suit & tie types).....

 

Not sure how bad the parking situation currently is @ ETC though..... Also not sure if AE might bitch about it (a rerouted x19 of that sort) stealing riders off the part of huguenot av the x24 serves - even though that only serves midtown.....

Edited July 27, 2012 by B35 via Church

[checkmatechamp13]

I guess the advantage is that it's just one stop and you're off to Manhattan (and you get a bunch of options, at least to Midtown). But yeah, for those couple of blocks, you basically have to walk in the street (and even on the road leading up to the bus stop, the sidewalk is kind of narrow).

 

On a side note, it says that it takes the X19 43 minutes to get from Arthur Kill Road to Downtown, but it takes the X17 40 minutes to get from Lamberts Lane to Downtown. In other words, the X19 supposedly goes across the entire WSE in less than 3 minutes.

[checkmatechamp13]

I was thinking about the S54 extension to St. George. I'm wondering whether it would be better to spend some more time along Castleton Avenue to assist the S46 more. It shouldn't add too much travel time, since that part of Castleton doesn't have a whole lot of traffic lights and while the passenger loads are decent, I don't think the bus would get hammered like it does west of Broadway (other than possibly at Bard Avenue with RUMC over there and everything). I would have it take Castleton-Bard-Richmond Terrace, and westbound buses would use Davis since Bard is a one-way street.

 

The advantage is that the bus gets more ridership and provides more assistance for the S46. (For the S40, I'd cut headways to every 15 minutes instead of every 20, regardless of which route the S54 took). It also provides riders (coming from both directions) with access to RUMC (though they'd have to walk from Davis Avenue westbound). The disadvantage is slightly longer travel time for S54 riders and Markham Gardens doesn't get the extra service.

 

BTW, the weekday part of my S67 schedule is done. Now I just have to do the weekend part (I'll probably have to add a little more cushion time at some parts of the day to meet the ferry): http://scaped.net/bus/67

Edited August 4, 2012 by checkmatechamp13

[qjtransitmaster]

I was thinking about the S54 extension to St. George. I'm wondering whether it would be better to spend some more time along Castleton Avenue to assist the S46 more. It shouldn't add too much travel time, since that part of Castleton doesn't have a whole lot of traffic lights and while the passenger loads are decent, I don't think the bus would get hammered like it does west of Broadway (other than possibly at Bard Avenue with RUMC over there and everything). I would have it take Castleton-Bard-Richmond Terrace, and westbound buses would use Davis since Bard is a one-way street.

 

The advantage is that the bus gets more ridership and provides more assistance for the S46. (For the S40, I'd cut headways to every 15 minutes instead of every 20, regardless of which route the S54 took). It also provides riders (coming from both directions) with access to RUMC (though they'd have to walk from Davis Avenue westbound). The disadvantage is slightly longer travel time for S54 riders and Markham Gardens doesn't get the extra service.

 

BTW, the weekday part of my S67 schedule is done. Now I just have to do the weekend part (I'll probably have to add a little more cushion time at some parts of the day to meet the ferry): http://scaped.net/bus/67

 

Ohh according to BRT SI MTA documents they beat ya to it they are already thinking about S54 to st george so it may happen with or without your ideas being presented as MTA is way ahead of ya According to my sources

[checkmatechamp13]

Ohh according to BRT SI MTA documents they beat ya to it they are already thinking about S54 to st george so it may happen with or without your ideas being presented as MTA is way ahead of ya According to my sources

 

 

Yeah, and they also said they were just randomly throwing ideas out there without actually analyzing them (because I asked what the deal was with this S57A & S57B stuff), and they would do the actual studies later. They also put the S57 & S59 to St. George on that map. That doesn't mean we'll be seeing those service patterns anytime soon.

 

In any case, my real concern is getting that modified S67 implemented/restored (like I said, cut the S66, send the S67 straight across Watchogue Road & the SIE service road, and send the S57 up Jewett Avenue). It's easier than sending it to Brooklyn.