Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

[checkmatechamp13]

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

 

 

Except that the existing lines don't always serve the needs of the riders. You said yourself a while back "Why does Port Richmond get so much damn transportation?". Because the MTA is slow to adjust to the changing needs of the riders. The SI Mall opened in 1973, and the only route serving it was the S59 (which was the R4 back then). They didn't start sending other routes there until the 1980s, which means for a good 10 years, you had a whole mall with one measley route serving it. Hell, look at the South Shore. They were a few years late in sending a route to Bricktown, and a good decade late in sending the S55 up Bloomingdale Road.

 

I should've said "expand into new areas", instead of "add new routes", because technically this is just rerouting the S66, but in any case, that's my point. If a route could be removed from Port Richmond and sent to an area with fewer alternatives, that would be making progress. You could improve service on the existing routes, but sometimes the people would rather ride a different route. If you offered somebody who lived near in this area more frequent service on the S46 or a quicker alternative to the S46 (that saved them a lot of walking to boot), they would rather take the quicker alternative. The same thing along Watchogue. The S67 would bring them to "better" (for lack of a better term) destinations then the S57 would.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Except that the existing lines don't always serve the needs of the riders. You said yourself a while back "Why does Port Richmond get so much damn transportation?". Because the MTA is slow to adjust to the changing needs of the riders. The SI Mall opened in 1973, and the only route serving it was the S59 (which was the R4 back then). They didn't start sending other routes there until the 1980s, which means for a good 10 years, you had a whole mall with one measley route serving it. Hell, look at the South Shore. They were a few years late in sending a route to Bricktown, and a good decade late in sending the S55 up Bloomingdale Road.

 

I should've said "expand into new areas", instead of "add new routes", because technically this is just rerouting the S66, but in any case, that's my point. If a route could be removed from Port Richmond and sent to an area with fewer alternatives, that would be making progress. You could improve service on the existing routes, but sometimes the people would rather ride a different route. If you offered somebody who lived near in this area more frequent service on the S46 or a quicker alternative to the S46 (that saved them a lot of walking to boot), they would rather take the quicker alternative. The same thing along Watchogue. The S67 would bring them to "better" (for lack of a better term) destinations then the S57 would.

 

Well you also have to consider that there are two things at play on Staten Island... #1 The 's attitude has been that Staten Island doesn't need XY and Z... The general population on the one hand has argued that they've been treated unfairly by the , but on the other hand there's a backlash to a degree with public transportation, especially local bus service. I was amazed at the amount of complaints folks had about the S79. Some folks literally see the S79 as an attack on folks who want to drive on Hylan Blvd.

 

The anti-bus mentality IMO was more on the Mid Island and South Shore which is more suburban than parts of the North Shore, so I'm not shocked that the transportation wasn't that great when the SI Mall came about. A lot of folks still curse the Verrazano... Understand that more public transit means more people and the old timers liked the island when it was isolated and not so heavy with transit...

Edited November 4, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[checkmatechamp13]

Well you also have to consider that there are two things at play on Staten Island... #1 The 's attitude has been that Staten Island doesn't need XY and Z... The general population on the one hand has argued that they've been treated unfairly by the , but on the other hand there's a backlash to a degree with public transportation, especially local bus service. I was amazed at the amount of complaints folks had about the S79. Some folks literally see the S79 as an attack on folks who want to drive on Hylan Blvd.

 

The anti-bus mentality IMO was more on the Mid Island and South Shore which is more suburban than parts of the North Shore, so I'm not shocked that the transportation wasn't that great when the SI Mall came about. A lot of folks still curse the Verrazano... Understand that more public transit means more people and the old timers liked the island when it was isolated and not so heavy with transit...

 

 

Yeah, well they forget that there are also a ton of express bus routes that use Hylan Blvd. I mean, during rush hour, between the local & express buses, that lane moves a lot more people than a car lane (especially considering how crowded some of these routes can get)

 

As for the whole anti-bus mentality, well this is a different neighborhood in a different era. The development is already there, so it's just a matter of handling it. I mean, I really can't see many NIMBYs trying to block the route. If you're a NIMBY, the last place you move to is alongside the SIE. It's just a matter of trying to organize the potential riders and make sure the politicians are trying to get it passed. Hey, if the S55 was extended deep in car country on the South Shore, there's hope anywhere. It's just a matter of whether you can put in the work to get it done.

[qjtransitmaster]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

Dude please read thank you I said hubs to link to NJ transit and major regional NJ services in central NJ. Like cheesequake P&R for academy which has 2 full time lines there LB via coastal communities and asbury park via ocean ave as well as several peak services and AC service. In addition old bridge P&R for NJT 64/63/67& 139 and M7 and way too many variants of 139. Another hub is metropark links to NEC and since you have people with money in the areas S55/56 serve amtrak and acela express and rush hr shuttles to work.

 

SI mall and ETC are hubs that select NJT lines will use to transfer people to MTA services from NJ Elizabeth it will be a direct service to that region of SI. While S55/56 will go direct to NJ hubs to reach areas deeper into NJ. MTA has no non st george lines that are near or in the direction towards the Goethals bridge. NO st george line or any MTA line in brooklyn line shall be allowed into NJ. NJT will not approve of it and will block it anyway.

[qjtransitmaster]

Well you also have to consider that there are two things at play on Staten Island... #1 The 's attitude has been that Staten Island doesn't need XY and Z... The general population on the one hand has argued that they've been treated unfairly by the , but on the other hand there's a backlash to a degree with public transportation, especially local bus service. I was amazed at the amount of complaints folks had about the S79. Some folks literally see the S79 as an attack on folks who want to drive on Hylan Blvd.

 

The anti-bus mentality IMO was more on the Mid Island and South Shore which is more suburban than parts of the North Shore, so I'm not shocked that the transportation wasn't that great when the SI Mall came about. A lot of folks still curse the Verrazano... Understand that more public transit means more people and the old timers liked the island when it was isolated and not so heavy with transit...

 

old timers are obsolete their logic is no longer valid or even relevant and should not be taken seriously.

[checkmatechamp13]

Dude please read thank you I said hubs to link to NJ transit and major regional NJ services in central NJ. Like cheesequake P&R for academy which has 2 full time lines there LB via coastal communities and asbury park via ocean ave as well as several peak services and AC service. In addition old bridge P&R for NJT 64/63/67& 139 and M7 and way too many variants of 139. Another hub is metropark links to NEC and since you have people with money in the areas S55/56 serve amtrak and acela express and rush hr shuttles to work.

 

SI mall and ETC are hubs that select NJT lines will use to transfer people to MTA services from NJ Elizabeth it will be a direct service to that region of SI. While S55/56 will go direct to NJ hubs to reach areas deeper into NJ. MTA has no non st george lines that are near or in the direction towards the Goethals bridge. NO st george line or any MTA line in brooklyn line shall be allowed into NJ. NJT will not approve of it and will block it anyway.

 

 

I really don't think you're going to get "People with money" taking a bus to reach Amtrak. They're still going to drive over to Metropark if they need Amtrak service.

 

I dunno. The more I look at that map, the more I realize that some of these hubs (Woodbridge, Cheesequake, Metropark) are closer than I thought. The Perth Amboy station is about 1.5 miles south of 440, but Woodbridge is 2 miles north, and Metropark is about 4.5 miles away, but it's all expressway driving. I mean, at first I was ademant about the S55 going to Perth Amboy (because it's a dense area so you could get a lot of walk-up riders), but now I'm not so sure. And I wonder if NJ or SI riders would use the S55 more if it went to Perth Amboy.

 

I don't see why NJT would block a St. George line from going into NJ. I mean, yeah a passenger could save a few dollars by taking the bus to the ferry, but I doubt you're going to see tons of people switching off NJT services like that. (Especially off-peak when the ferry's headways are crappy).

 

As for my earlier post, my point was that you can't just say "Improve the existing lines before you add new ones", because if we followed that logic, we'd have no S61, and the S44 would still be terminating in Port Richmond.

Edited November 4, 2012 by checkmatechamp13

[161 New York]

I really don't think you're going to get "People with money" taking a bus to reach Amtrak. They're still going to drive over to Metropark if they need Amtrak service.

 

I dunno. The more I look at that map, the more I realize that some of these hubs (Woodbridge, Cheesequake, Metropark) are closer than I thought. The Perth Amboy station is about 1.5 miles south of 440, but Woodbridge is 2 miles north, and Metropark is about 4.5 miles away, but it's all expressway driving. I mean, at first I was ademant about the S55 going to Perth Amboy (because it's a dense area so you could get a lot of walk-up riders), but now I'm not so sure. And I wonder if NJ or SI riders would use the S55 more if it went to Perth Amboy.

 

I don't see why NJT would block a St. George line from going into NJ. I mean, yeah a passenger could save a few dollars by taking the bus to the ferry, but I doubt you're going to see tons of people switching off NJT services like that. (Especially off-peak when the ferry's headways are crappy).

 

As for my earlier post, my point was that you can't just say "Improve the existing lines before you add new ones", because if we followed that logic, we'd have no S61, and the S44 would still be terminating in Port Richmond.

 

 

CMC, IMO, the s55 or any bus should not go into Perth Amboy downtown or to the rail station, it should stop along Route 35, at the QuickCheck (in Perth Amboy), stop at Main Street (Woodbridge) (5 minute walk to Woodbrige NJCL station) then go to Woodbridge Center (major shopping and office parks) and then end at Metropark (NEC, Amtrak, officeparks). Cheesequake should not be considered.

 

Secondly, not many folks from NJ are going to take transportation to the Staten Island ferry. Off-peak and weekend service on the NEC and NJCL isn't that bad. Bus service on the 116 which duplicates the NJCL is pretty consistent. Personally, with the availability of express buses, I wont consider the SIRT/SI Ferry unless it is very late at night.

 

Also, there is no way for a hypothetical North Shore SIR to connect with the NEC/NJCL lines. First there would have to be some massive eminent domain seizures in Elizabeth and the rail bridge going over the AR Kill connects with freight railroads, none to my knowledge connects with the Amtrak-owned lines which NJ Transit use for NEC and NJCL service, with a possible exception that there could a cross over in Kearny then onto Newark (essentially they would have to go east and then back west and east again at Newark Penn. Additionally, unless the MTA runs DMU, Diesel multiple unit rolling stock (the equipment used on River Line) OR they purchase or use hybrid diesel/electric trains that is compatible with the Amtrak/NJT/freight systems then along with the resolution of the logistical issues above then we could connect to the North Shore SIR system.

[161 New York]

SI mall and ETC are hubs that select NJT lines will use to transfer people to MTA services from NJ Elizabeth it will be a direct service to that region of SI. While S55/56 will go direct to NJ hubs to reach areas deeper into NJ. MTA has no non st george lines that are near or in the direction towards the Goethals bridge. NO st george line or any MTA line in brooklyn line shall be allowed into NJ. NJT will not approve of it and will block it anyway.

 

 

NJT is powerless to stop anyone from running buses. The minibuses between NY and Paterson/JSQ/Bergeline are the best examples. The municipalities would have some power to regulate them ala strict enforcement of no parking/standing, blocking traffic laws.

 

Additionally, their inability to "enroach" on Decamp's "territory" is evident of their prowess in control of state public transportation.

 

Rail is a different story, as we know Amtrak owns the ROW between Metropark and NY Penn on the NEC/NJCL lines.

Edited November 4, 2012 by 161passenger

[checkmatechamp13]

CMC, IMO, the s55 or any bus should not go into Perth Amboy downtown or to the rail station, it should stop along Route 35, at the QuickCheck (in Perth Amboy), stop at Main Street (Woodbridge) (5 minute walk to Woodbrige NJCL station) then go to Woodbridge Center (major shopping and office parks) and then end at Metropark (NEC, Amtrak, officeparks). Cheesequake should not be considered.

 

Secondly, not many folks from NJ are going to take transportation to the Staten Island ferry. Off-peak and weekend service on the NEC and NJCL isn't that bad. Bus service on the 116 which duplicates the NJCL is pretty consistent. Personally, with the availability of express buses, I wont consider the SIRT/SI Ferry unless it is very late at night.

 

 

Yeah, that sounds like a good route. For the hell of it, I mapped it out (with the slightly modified route by the SI Mall I mentioned earlier).

 

Well, I think he was saying some people might take the bus to the ferry to save money, rather than because of bad service in NJ. If they live in say, Elizabeth and take a bus to Newark for the PATH, it's $1.50 for the bus, and $1.50 for the PATH (if they use a Smartlink card), which adds up to $3, whereas the bus-ferry is only $2.25. And because NJT would lose a passenger (and the revenue) to the MTA, they would try to block it. But like you said, if NJ can't block the dollar vans or Decamp, they wouldn't be able to block the MTA.

[161 New York]

 

Yeah, that sounds like a good route. For the hell of it, I mapped it out (with the slightly modified route by the SI Mall I mentioned earlier).

 

Well, I think he was saying some people might take the bus to the ferry to save money, rather than because of bad service in NJ. If they live in say, Elizabeth and take a bus to Newark for the PATH, it's $1.50 for the bus, and $1.50 for the PATH (if they use a Smartlink card), which adds up to $3, whereas the bus-ferry is only $2.25. And because NJT would lose a passenger (and the revenue) to the MTA, they would try to block it. But like you said, if NJ can't block the dollar vans or Decamp, they wouldn't be able to block the MTA.

 

 

CMC, that is a good map! I hadn't really thought about the route from Woodbridge Mall to Metropark.

 

As for Elizabeth service. I don't know if anyone would want to take a bus to the ferry, ferry ride and subway unless cash is low and their destination is downtown or northern Brooklyn. This route would be good for folks living on the North Shore of SI to catch a bus to EWR. In Elizabeth train to NYC is available in two stations, the 115 and any bus to Newark for the 107/108. Fare is about $6 for the bus and $7 for the train . If the PA extends the PATH to Elizabeth via Newark Airport then it will be good.

[qjtransitmaster]

Yeah, that sounds like a good route. For the hell of it, I mapped it out (with the slightly modified route by the SI Mall I mentioned earlier).

 

Well, I think he was saying some people might take the bus to the ferry to save money, rather than because of bad service in NJ. If they live in say, Elizabeth and take a bus to Newark for the PATH, it's $1.50 for the bus, and $1.50 for the PATH (if they use a Smartlink card), which adds up to $3, whereas the bus-ferry is only $2.25. And because NJT would lose a passenger (and the revenue) to the MTA, they would try to block it. But like you said, if NJ can't block the dollar vans or Decamp, they wouldn't be able to block the MTA.

 

MTA is a NY agency that's why plus NJT has more lines in elizabeth they can extend than MTA does in SI they can extend so that market will be better served by NJT as NJT can have lines go to different hubs in SI some can go to forest ave others to south brooklyn via CSI some to ETC via rte 440 and teleport(rush hour only shift times) and MTA's new transit center would make it easier for NJT to just link to many lines in different regions. Let NJT deal with traffic cause it's shorter for em and MTA lines can link to NJT for service to go there. S55 extension would be non stop to metropark station then to woodbridge mall then back express to SI The S55 has to connect but also get in and out of NJ fast no MTA bus should deal with NJ local road traffic. Cause people can only wait so long. The NJT ones mostly stay on highways and use back roads in SI to see very few lights making it a bit easier. Plus more details on what NJT lines and how they do it to come.

CMC, that is a good map! I hadn't really thought about the route from Woodbridge Mall to Metropark. Also the S55 needs a fast connection to a major transfer point it's purpose will be defeated if it makes stops before reaching the station. Get to metropark via GSP non stop first then worry about other places on the way back like a loop. Only 2 stops are needed in NJ the purpose it to reach NJT. However to speed up the trip S55 would go via rte 184 W pond rd to GSP en rte to metropark with some intermediate stops. Metropark has employment the mall is closed till 9 am so mall goers can wait get to the train first. That is my routing in NJ for S55.

S56 only 2 stops cheesequake and old bridge. Academy will be encouraged to run reverse service to get SI folk and other people then instead of DH go to lucent and some business parks. An NJT line will go to SI linking to S55/56 from perth amboy giving people service to perth amboy rail service wasn't so frequent which was why I chose this for S56.

 

As for Elizabeth service. I don't know if anyone would want to take a bus to the ferry, ferry ride and subway unless cash is low and their destination is downtown or northern Brooklyn. This route would be good for folks living on the North Shore of SI to catch a bus to EWR. In Elizabeth train to NYC is available in two stations, the 115 and any bus to Newark for the 107/108. Fare is about $6 for the bus and $7 for the train . If the PA extends the PATH to Elizabeth via Newark Airport then it will be good.

 

You have a point but you can't just have one part of SI have access to Elizabeth you would need several parts in mid and north shore to have direct access from hubs for MTA to adequately serve that part of NJ from SI would require too many new lines so it's much easier for NJT to run service over I-278 than MTA as NJT already has the routes just extend em.

 

Buses 62 and 40 are good candidates but due to 40's business parks and length it will skip Elizabeth and just hit I-95 to I-278 to reach SI for those from elizabeth other lines will do just fine.

 

I addressed your concern in color as well. I learned many SIers go to places along rte 9 which was why I think S56 will do well with those stops.

Edited November 5, 2012 by qjtransitmaster

[Santa Fe via Willow]

Simple initial proposals:

 

Restoration of weekend service on the S54 & 76, and overnight S59 service.

[qjtransitmaster]

Simple initial proposals:

 

Restoration of weekend service on the S54 & 76, and overnight S59 service.

 

MTA is already implementing it as we speak.

[checkmatechamp13]

Simple initial proposals:

 

Restoration of weekend service on the S54 & 76, and overnight S59 service.

 

 

Well, as I've said before, restoring the weekend S54 & S76 would be better off as part of one proposal. Reroute the S54 to New Dorp Lane on the southern end, extend it to St. George on the northern end, and you'll have a more efficient route that covers all the areas that really need the service (New Dorp Lane and Manor Road). Giffords Lane should be covered by an S79A.

 

MTA is already implementing it as we speak.

 

 

No, they're just restoring the S76 service. IIRC, the S54 was the third most-expensive route in the system behind the S60 & Q79, so I highly doubt they'll bring it back, at least under the current form. How open they'll be to restructuring routes like I mentioned before I don't know. I mean, FWIW, they did have the X17 cover the X28, which was "creative" for lack of a better term, so I guess there's hope in that regard.

[qjtransitmaster]

how about rerouting S54 via grymes hill via ocean terrance to St george. Then let extended S42 replace manor la service. S54 is more expensive to run than S55/56?

[S78 via Hylan]

No, that won't work. You already have the S66 serving Grymes Hill. Why send another low ridership bus there?

[qjtransitmaster]

No, that won't work. You already have the S66 serving Grymes Hill. Why send another low ridership bus there?

 

Simple S66 gets axed from there.So S66 in grymes hill is swapped with S54. S66 replaces S57 north of victory blvd and S57 reroutes to jewett. Then S66 serves SI expressway service rd or victory blvd then stops at fingerboard skips bay ridge en rte to 59th street retains S66 designation and gains weekend service.

 

In a nutshell S42 replaces manor rd part of S54 then S54 replaces S66 grymes hill en rte to St george via reroute. S66 eats S57 northern part and will not serve grymes hill via SI expressway S66 goes to brooklyn instead.

 

Now it will work.

Edited November 11, 2012 by qjtransitmaster

[checkmatechamp13]

how about rerouting S54 via grymes hill via ocean terrance to St george. Then let extended S42 replace manor la service. S54 is more expensive to run than S55/56?

 

 

The S55/56 are more expensive. I think the cost per passenger was was $4.46 for the S54 & $6.58 for the S55/56.

 

In any case, no bus needs to runs through Todt Hill. There are some areas where a route would get low ridership, but the residents probably wouldn't oppose it (like some areas on the South Shore), and then there's some routes where the residents actually would oppose it. Todt Hill is one of those areas where they would oppose it.

 

I still stand by my position that the best route to serve the area is a Victory Blvd route. Yeah, it slows down passengers heading to St. George (to serve a small number of people at that. It isn't uncommon for an S66 trip to pick up absolutely nobody along Howard Avenue), but if you were to do a survey of people who use transit to reach Grymes Hill (whether they live there or if they're traveling there by bus from another area), most of them are going to/from other points on the North Shore.

 

A Victory Blvd route (whether it's the S66 or my modified S67) makes it easier to connect to the North Shore routes. With this rerouted S54, you only connect to the S53 & S57. Sure, you could backtrack if you need a route like the S48 or something, but what's the point in inconveniencing those few riders for no reason.

 

And think about it: 90% of the route would be through sparsly populated areas. You'd start in Eltingville (or Oakwood Beach if you were to use my reroute), go through Great Kills & Richmondtown, and then you'd go through the Greenbelt, Todt Hill, & Grymes Hill. So basically, it would end up being one long, useless route. The current S54 gets low ridership, but at least it spends a decent amount of time serving (somewhat) densely populated areas and also providing a link from the North Shore to the South Shore.

 

No, that won't work. You already have the S66 serving Grymes Hill. Why send another low ridership bus there?

 

 

This.

[qjtransitmaster]

The S55/56 are more expensive. I think the cost per passenger was was $4.46 for the S54 & $6.58 for the S55/56.

 

In any case, no bus needs to runs through Todt Hill. There are some areas where a route would get low ridership, but the residents probably wouldn't oppose it (like some areas on the South Shore), and then there's some routes where the residents actually would oppose it. Todt Hill is one of those areas where they would oppose it.

 

I still stand by my position that the best route to serve the area is a Victory Blvd route. Yeah, it slows down passengers heading to St. George (to serve a small number of people at that. It isn't uncommon for an S66 trip to pick up absolutely nobody along Howard Avenue), but if you were to do a survey of people who use transit to reach Grymes Hill (whether they live there or if they're traveling there by bus from another area), most of them are going to/from other points on the North Shore.

 

A Victory Blvd route (whether it's the S66 or my modified S67) makes it easier to connect to the North Shore routes. With this rerouted S54, you only connect to the S53 & S57. Sure, you could backtrack if you need a route like the S48 or something, but what's the point in inconveniencing those few riders for no reason.

 

And think about it: 90% of the route would be through sparsly populated areas. You'd start in Eltingville (or Oakwood Beach if you were to use my reroute), go through Great Kills & Richmondtown, and then you'd go through the Greenbelt, Todt Hill, & Grymes Hill. So basically, it would end up being one long, useless route. The current S54 gets low ridership, but at least it spends a decent amount of time serving (somewhat) densely populated areas and also providing a link from the North Shore to the South Shore.

 

 

 

This.

 

But it will still reach victory blvd and link that area with St george. Also people will still get to the north shore easily. With this S54 anyone on victory will transfer to this S54. You connect to the S53 and S57 and X10 as well as rerouted brooklyn bound S66 which would be faster than S53. Also it links to S62 and all St george lines. The catch is that the manor rd segment gets transferred to either a NJ bound S crosstown line or merged with S42 to SI mall via rockland ave. Either would add ridership to the line on manor rd. Plus on manor rd you don't even see cars!!!!!!!!!!!

[checkmatechamp13]

But it will still reach victory blvd and link that area with St george. Also people will still get to the north shore easily. With this S54 anyone on victory will transfer to this S54. You connect to the S53 and S57 and X10 as well as rerouted brooklyn bound S66 which would be faster than S53. Also it links to S62 and all St george lines. The catch is that the manor rd segment gets transferred to either a NJ bound S crosstown line or merged with S42 to SI mall via rockland ave. Either would add ridership to the line on manor rd. Plus on manor rd you don't even see cars!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

First of all, if you're on Victory between Jewett & Clove, your one-seat ride just got turned into a two-seat ride.

 

Second of all, like I said before, it would still involve backtracking. It's just that it wouldn't be as much if you're coming from a Victory Blvd line.

 

Third of all, it doesn't connect to the X10. There's no stop in the vicinity of Clove Road. The X10 goes straight from Richmond Road to Slosson Avenue. There's no good place to put a stop either, but I guess if you had to, you could find somewhere to squeeze it in, so I'll let it slide.

 

A route from St. George - SI Mall via Manor road isn't a bad idea, but it isn't necessary to send the S54 through Grymes Hill in order to accomplish that. If you're going to do that, you might as well eliminate the route (and have something else cover the southern part) because that route would basically be empty once it goes off Arthur Kill Road.

[qjtransitmaster]

First of all, if you're on Victory between Jewett & Clove, your one-seat ride just got turned into a two-seat ride.

 

Second of all, like I said before, it would still involve backtracking. It's just that it wouldn't be as much if you're coming from a Victory Blvd line.

 

Third of all, it doesn't connect to the X10. There's no stop in the vicinity of Clove Road. The X10 goes straight from Richmond Road to Slosson Avenue. There's no good place to put a stop either, but I guess if you had to, you could find somewhere to squeeze it in, so I'll let it slide.

 

A route from St. George - SI Mall via Manor road isn't a bad idea, but it isn't necessary to send the S54 through Grymes Hill in order to accomplish that. If you're going to do that, you might as well eliminate the route (and have something else cover the southern part) because that route would basically be empty once it goes off Arthur Kill Road.

 

Interesting like S54 southern part added to rerouted S56? Or an express line from south brooklyn.

[checkmatechamp13]

Interesting like S54 southern part added to rerouted S56? Or an express line from south brooklyn.

 

 

Remember my S79A plan? That's what I was thinking of. (Because I would send the S54 to Oakwood Beach rather than Eltingville, but whether it's sent to the SI Mall or Oakwood Beach, the point is that Giffords Lane still loses service) They get access to the SI Mall, ETC, Brooklyn, and shopping on Hylan Blvd. The S56 really wouldn't give them access to anything except the ETC (and riders west of the ETC would lose access to the SI Mall).

Edited November 11, 2012 by checkmatechamp13

[qjtransitmaster]

S54 over S76 routing is a nogo too roundabout. I would axe S54 rockland ave and richmond rd service in favor of SI mall which would draw out ridership from an area that would normally not use a bus then after SI mall next stop ETC then back to giffords LA via richmond rd. S56 won't be a problem after extension to cheesequake and old bridge for NJT 139/131 and academy rte 36 and shore points lines increasing ridership on those lines also there is an AC express service there. Along with other bus lines on the GSP corridor if NJT lets academy open door on parkway express.

[checkmatechamp13]

S54 over S76 routing is a nogo too roundabout. I would axe S54 rockland ave and richmond rd service in favor of SI mall which would draw out ridership from an area that would normally not use a bus then after SI mall next stop ETC then back to giffords LA via richmond rd. S56 won't be a problem after extension to cheesequake and old bridge for NJT 139/131 and academy rte 36 and shore points lines increasing ridership on those lines also there is an AC express service there. Along with other bus lines on the GSP corridor if NJT lets academy open door on parkway express.

 

 

I'm not intending for people to ride the route from Oakwood Beach to St. George. In fact, when I thought of this reroute, I forgot that I also wanted the S54 sent to St. George (I thought the route would run from Oakwood Beach to West Brighton). But actually, if somebody did want to ride it to St. George, it wouldn't be that much slower than the S76.

 

Basically, the S57 gets decent ridership at the New Dorp SIR station (both from the station itself and the surrounding commercial area). I figured that if the S54 served that same area, it would also get a ridership boost. But then I realized that it could continue down New Dorp Lane and replace the S76 (which would either be reduced or eliminated). Then riders to St. George would be able to take the S54 to the SIR, and they would also get a cross-island option (basically another route that brings them to the other side of the Greenbelt).

 

If you sent it to the SI Mall, that would mean the only route connecting both sides of the Greenbelt would be the S57, which means it's that much harder to get access to the other side of the Greenbelt.

[qjtransitmaster]

I'm not intending for people to ride the route from Oakwood Beach to St. George. In fact, when I thought of this reroute, I forgot that I also wanted the S54 sent to St. George (I thought the route would run from Oakwood Beach to West Brighton). But actually, if somebody did want to ride it to St. George, it wouldn't be that much slower than the S76.

 

Basically, the S57 gets decent ridership at the New Dorp SIR station (both from the station itself and the surrounding commercial area). I figured that if the S54 served that same area, it would also get a ridership boost. But then I realized that it could continue down New Dorp Lane and replace the S76 (which would either be reduced or eliminated). Then riders to St. George would be able to take the S54 to the SIR, and they would also get a cross-island option (basically another route that brings them to the other side of the Greenbelt).

 

If you sent it to the SI Mall, that would mean the only route connecting both sides of the Greenbelt would be the S57, which means it's that much harder to get access to the other side of the Greenbelt.

 

Nope it means S57 gets more ridership thus service as a result. Get creative buddy.