Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

[checkmatechamp13]

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

 

 

.....and the S57 is that much harder to get to.....

 

Aside from that, the S57 isn't going to see a service increase if you were to cut the S54 because for the most part, if you were to combine S54 & S57 riders, they would still fit on one bus.

 

And aside from that, you're not going to sit there and tell me it's efficient to run the S76 all the way from St. George to Oakwood Beach when the only part where it's needed for coverage is on New Dorp Lane. As BrooklynBus once said, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. In this case, the two "pieces" that need service are Manor Road & New Dorp Lane. You might as well tie them together.

 

Yeah, going to the SI Mall would likely increase ridership, but it's more necessary to cover New Dorp Lane. I've tried a few proposals to cover that corridor (extending the S57 to Cedar Grove Avenue or swapping the S57 & S76 like LRG suggested), but this one seems like the best because it doesn't remove service from any corridor. Now sure, the S54 to the SI Mall has its merits, but it shouldn't be done while another corridor is lacking service that it needs.

 

If you really want to provide some sort of connection from Manor Road to the SI Mall, (and not that I'm necessarily advocating for this, but) the best solution would be to extend the S55/56 to Seaview Hospital and try to time it for the S54. Those who need the mall can transfer there.

[qjtransitmaster]

 

 

.....and the S57 is that much harder to get to.....

 

Aside from that, the S57 isn't going to see a service increase if you were to cut the S54 because for the most part, if you were to combine S54 & S57 riders, they would still fit on one bus.

 

And aside from that, you're not going to sit there and tell me it's efficient to run the S76 all the way from St. George to Oakwood Beach when the only part where it's needed for coverage is on New Dorp Lane. As BrooklynBus once said, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. In this case, the two "pieces" that need service are Manor Road & New Dorp Lane. You might as well tie them together.

 

Yeah, going to the SI Mall would likely increase ridership, but it's more necessary to cover New Dorp Lane. I've tried a few proposals to cover that corridor (extending the S57 to Cedar Grove Avenue or swapping the S57 & S76 like LRG suggested), but this one seems like the best because it doesn't remove service from any corridor. Now sure, the S54 to the SI Mall has its merits, but it shouldn't be done while another corridor is lacking service that it needs.

 

If you really want to provide some sort of connection from Manor Road to the SI Mall, (and not that I'm necessarily advocating for this, but) the best solution would be to extend the S55/56 to Seaview Hospital and try to time it for the S54. Those who need the mall can transfer there.

 

Reroute S57 to absorb S76. Let Some brooklyn regional rte do former S57 don't say much I will specify later.

[checkmatechamp13]

Reroute S57 to absorb S76. Let Some brooklyn regional rte do former S57 don't say much I will specify later.

 

 

There's no need for another Brooklyn regional route to cover that small portion.

[qjtransitmaster]

There's no need for another Brooklyn regional route to cover that small portion.

 

I know I came up with a better idea actually What is wrong with S76 as is? it's very frequent for a St george route.

[checkmatechamp13]

I know I came up with a better idea actually What is wrong with S76 as is? it's very frequent for a St george route.

 

 

What do you mean? Most St. George routes run at a similar frequency (15 minutes for most of the day). And just do you know, it operated every 30 minutes on the weekends back when it ran.

 

The problem is that it's duplicative for most of the route (which is why it was eliminated). I'd probably still keep some service around on the weekdays (probably a bus every 30 minutes), so that you maintain (roughly) 15 minute headways along New Dorp Lane (and also, you still have the extra capacity when you meet the ferry). But I don't think there needs to be 2 full routes along Richmond Road on the weekends.

[qjtransitmaster]

What do you mean? Most St. George routes run at a similar frequency (15 minutes for most of the day). And just do you know, it operated every 30 minutes on the weekends back when it ran.

 

The problem is that it's duplicative for most of the route (which is why it was eliminated). I'd probably still keep some service around on the weekdays (probably a bus every 30 minutes), so that you maintain (roughly) 15 minute headways along New Dorp Lane (and also, you still have the extra capacity when you meet the ferry). But I don't think there needs to be 2 full routes along Richmond Road on the weekends.

 

Tell that to people using the bus there.

[checkmatechamp13]

Tell that to people using the bus there.

 

 

I LOVE it when people resort to that argument, when they can't come up with anything better. Do you think anybody who uses a bus actually wants reduced service?? I want you to get together all the riders of routes you want to cut and tell them about your plan to eliminate service. I want you to go up to riders of the BM4, QM3, and all those other routes where you want to reduce/eliminate the service and tell me what their reaction is. (Do it in front of all of them at once).

 

I'm not taking anybody seriously who uses that argument. It's the same thing with anybody who brings up the elderly. You want to talk to me about ridership, connectivity, and network coverage as reasons for why a certain change should or shouldn't be implemented? I'm all ears, but don't bring up the elderly, and don't bring up "Tell that to the people who use it then".

 

You know what? How about I tell weekend riders along Manor Road that they can't get their S54 service back because the MTA spent the money restoring the weekend S76 instead? Or how about I tell S53 riders that they can't get a limited (and by that, I mean their own limited that runs off-peak) because the MTA restored the weekend S76?

 

You want to use that argument, I'll toss it right back in your face. Is the S76 a complete waste of resources? No, it does get decent ridership, but the resources used to run it would be better-used for other purposes. You're the first person to complain about buses duplicating trains, and what does the S76 do for most of its route? That's right, duplicate the SIR. If you need to get to New Dorp Beach/Oakwood Beach, it's quicker to take the SIR to New Dorp and transfer than it is to sit through the entire S76 route. And if you really wanted the direct ride to St. George, you'd still have that option, but it would just take longer.

 

Now, in Park Hill, it's kind of hard to reach the SIR (and admittedly, it does get a decent amount of ridership from that area), but there are alternatives that they can spread themselves around on (S74, S52/78, S51).

Edited November 13, 2012 by checkmatechamp13

[qjtransitmaster]

I LOVE it when people resort to that argument, when they can't come up with anything better. Do you think anybody who uses a bus actually wants reduced service?? I want you to get together all the riders of routes you want to cut and tell them about your plan to eliminate service. I want you to go up to riders of the BM4, QM3, and all those other routes where you want to reduce/eliminate the service and tell me what their reaction is. (Do it in front of all of them at once).

 

I'm not taking anybody seriously who uses that argument. It's the same thing with anybody who brings up the elderly. You want to talk to me about ridership, connectivity, and network coverage as reasons for why a certain change should or shouldn't be implemented? I'm all ears, but don't bring up the elderly, and don't bring up "Tell that to the people who use it then".

 

You know what? How about I tell weekend riders along Manor Road that they can't get their S54 service back because the MTA spent the money restoring the weekend S76 instead? Or how about I tell S53 riders that they can't get a limited (and by that, I mean their own limited that runs off-peak) because the MTA restored the weekend S76?

 

You want to use that argument, I'll toss it right back in your face. Is the S76 a complete waste of resources? No, it does get decent ridership, but the resources used to run it would be better-used for other purposes. You're the first person to complain about buses duplicating trains, and what does the S76 do for most of its route? That's right, duplicate the SIR. If you need to get to New Dorp Beach/Oakwood Beach, it's quicker to take the SIR to New Dorp and transfer than it is to sit through the entire S76 route. And if you really wanted the direct ride to St. George, you'd still have that option, but it would just take longer.

 

Now, in Park Hill, it's kind of hard to reach the SIR (and admittedly, it does get a decent amount of ridership from that area), but there are alternatives that they can spread themselves around on (S74, S52/78, S51).

 

Well done I fully agree with you the elderly argument is TOTAL BULL I agree 100% well said. You have a point. Ok in my brooklyn/SI proposal after B2 extends to ceasars bay it goes on belt skipping bay ridge to replace S76 to St george with stop at fingerboard. And S57 can get 76's part but with more rush trips to replace S76's frequency a bit. Going to NJ will add ridership to S57. S42 may absorb manor rd gaining service then turn via todt hill rd to absorb S57's southern part. Or express line to CI or bay pkway via absorbed line to mclean ave then reid to 4 corners via dongan hills SIR towards manor la. Or S52 crosstown doing that while Northern ferry bound part transffered to brooklyn line which I am not sure on. Or restore S42 and let S42 have that part of manor LA giving em st george service. S42 in one direction from the ferry runs till 1AM yet it can't reverse that is messed up.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

 

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.

 

 

This.

[qjtransitmaster]

I would have tried S54 over S57 southern part then reroute to St george. Increasing core service to every 15 mins one branch via SI mall and giffords LA another via S57's routing S57 replaces S76 on new dorp lane.

[qjtransitmaster]

how many people use S56 from the SIR?

[checkmatechamp13]

Well done I fully agree with you the elderly argument is TOTAL BULL I agree 100% well said. You have a point. Ok in my brooklyn/SI proposal after B2 extends to ceasars bay it goes on belt skipping bay ridge to replace S76 to St george with stop at fingerboard. And S57 can get 76's part but with more rush trips to replace S76's frequency a bit. Going to NJ will add ridership to S57. S42 may absorb manor rd gaining service then turn via todt hill rd to absorb S57's southern part. Or express line to CI or bay pkway via absorbed line to mclean ave then reid to 4 corners via dongan hills SIR towards manor la. Or S52 crosstown doing that while Northern ferry bound part transffered to brooklyn line which I am not sure on. Or restore S42 and let S42 have that part of manor LA giving em st george service. S42 in one direction from the ferry runs till 1AM yet it can't reverse that is messed up.

 

 

Nothing needs to serve any part of Todt Hill. Not Ocean Terrace, not Todt Hill Road, not 4 Corners Road. Nothing.

 

how many people use S56 from the SIR?

 

 

I doubt it's a whole lot. The S56 is infrequent, the area is car-centric, and I'm pretty sure Princes Bay has a Park & Ride.

 

I've seen totally empty (southbound) S56s by the SI Mall. While they might pick up a few people at the ETC, I highly doubt you're going to get a lot of people at the SIR.

[qjtransitmaster]

Nothing needs to serve any part of Todt Hill. Not Ocean Terrace, not Todt Hill Road, not 4 Corners Road. Nothing.

 

 

 

I doubt it's a whole lot. The S56 is infrequent, the area is car-centric, and I'm pretty sure Princes Bay has a Park & Ride.

 

I've seen totally empty (southbound) S56s by the SI Mall. While they might pick up a few people at the ETC, I highly doubt you're going to get a lot of people at the SIR.

 

I see only NJ extension can save S55/56 from becoming irrelevant.

 

As for 4 corners there is a reason why I have a bus through there to speed up travel time towards victory blvd and put pressure on crossed lines so nope you failed that part.

 

Ocean terrance is only served to take a shortcut to reach S53 and brooklyn routes quicker and eat former S60. A short cut to the SI mall.

 

S42 restoration gets S52 booted from there and absorbs Manor rd S54 giving em St george service while going through 4 corners as a shortcut to new dorp. To me ridership generators are a little more important than coverage. However coverage can be achieved as a side effect of speeding up a line and adding new riders to the system as a whole.

Edited November 13, 2012 by qjtransitmaster

[Threxx]

Any route that goes through Todt Hill, express or local, will be heavily protested.

[qjtransitmaster]

Any route that goes through Todt Hill, express or local, will be heavily protested.

 

Interesting I will look into that I have a NIMBY-anti stance meaning if you don't like transit don't live in NYC.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

There is no need for any public transit in Todt Hill, Emerson Hill, Lighthouse Hill or any of those areas. That's like having buses go through Fieldston. They're exclusive for a reason. The folks there like their privacy. If they truly need express bus service they'd simply drive to it. Hell most of Todt Hill and Lighthouse Hill don't even have sidewalks as they've kept their old school charm going back to the old days when most of Staten Island was like small towns... They're made for driving and taking strolls, but certainly not for folks with transit interests. Having transit up there in these fairly affluent neighborhoods would be a waste since no one would use it and with the narrow streets up there in some areas it would just clog things up.

 

It's not a question of NIMBY's but a question of these communities being almost like private communities if you will much like Fieldston (a private community). You're not going to find some guy in Todt Hill or Lighthouse Hill wanting local bus service living in a multi-million dollar home.

 

FYI John Franco (retired Mets pitcher) used to live in Todt Hill and that area is full of well-to-do doctors and other professionals that earn big bucks.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[checkmatechamp13]

I see only NJ extension can save S55/56 from becoming irrelevant.

 

As for 4 corners there is a reason why I have a bus through there to speed up travel time towards victory blvd and put pressure on crossed lines so nope you failed that part.

 

Ocean terrance is only served to take a shortcut to reach S53 and brooklyn routes quicker and eat former S60. A short cut to the SI mall.

 

S42 restoration gets S52 booted from there and absorbs Manor rd S54 giving em St george service while going through 4 corners as a shortcut to new dorp. To me ridership generators are a little more important than coverage. However coverage can be achieved as a side effect of speeding up a line and adding new riders to the system as a whole.

 

 

Well, first of all, I doubt there is that much demand for travel between both sides of Todt Hill (the Dongan Hills side and Castleton Corners side), that the route would get decent ridership.

 

Second of all, if somebody wanted to make a trip like that, they could take a north-south bus to the S53, then take the S53 to Victory Blvd for a Victory Blvd route (Or if it's rush hour, they could take the S93 and save themselves a transfer at Victory & Clove, depending on where they're going). It's not the easiest trip to make, but it's not the hardest either.

 

For Ocean Terrace, like I said that's completely pointless. A route going through both Grymes Hill & Todt Hill is going to have very low ridership. Aside from that, if you're trying to reach the SI Mall, I doubt it would be much faster than the S61/91. (I mean, even if you had it go down Harold Street or something once it got out of Todt Hill, that's a long stretch with no ridership)

 

As for 4 Corners Road, that goes to Dongan Hills, not New Dorp.

 

Interesting I will look into that I have a NIMBY-anti stance meaning if you don't like transit don't live in NYC.

 

 

Well, just because it's within the city limits doesn't mean that it necessarily has to have transit running through it. I could understand if it's an area on the South Shore where at least a few people depend on transit, but nobody in those areas depends on transit. And all that to create a route that likely wouldn't have much ridership.

 

Those hills basically form the boundary between the East & West Shore. A lot of times (at least IMO), people do their shopping/school/errands/whatever on their side of the hills (whether it's the East Shore or West Shore). Of course, there is demand for travel between the two "halves" of SI, which is why we have the S53/93 and S54/57, but that's basically sufficient for travel across that "boundary". You're not going to get tons of demand from Dongan Hills to Castleton Corners or anything.

[qjtransitmaster]

Well, first of all, I doubt there is that much demand for travel between both sides of Todt Hill (the Dongan Hills side and Castleton Corners side), that the route would get decent ridership.

 

Second of all, if somebody wanted to make a trip like that, they could take a north-south bus to the S53, then take the S53 to Victory Blvd for a Victory Blvd route (Or if it's rush hour, they could take the S93 and save themselves a transfer at Victory & Clove, depending on where they're going). It's not the easiest trip to make, but it's not the hardest either.

 

For Ocean Terrace, like I said that's completely pointless. A route going through both Grymes Hill & Todt Hill is going to have very low ridership. Aside from that, if you're trying to reach the SI Mall, I doubt it would be much faster than the S61/91. (I mean, even if you had it go down Harold Street or something once it got out of Todt Hill, that's a long stretch with no ridership)

 

As for 4 Corners Road, that goes to Dongan Hills, not New Dorp.

 

 

 

Well, just because it's within the city limits doesn't mean that it necessarily has to have transit running through it. I could understand if it's an area on the South Shore where at least a few people depend on transit, but nobody in those areas depends on transit. And all that to create a route that likely wouldn't have much ridership.

 

Those hills basically form the boundary between the East & West Shore. A lot of times (at least IMO), people do their shopping/school/errands/whatever on their side of the hills (whether it's the East Shore or West Shore). Of course, there is demand for travel between the two "halves" of SI, which is why we have the S53/93 and S54/57, but that's basically sufficient for travel across that "boundary". You're not going to get tons of demand from Dongan Hills to Castleton Corners or anything.

 

It's meant as a shortcut to reach it's destination as fast as possible. I am not looking to get people in those areas just cutting through to get to major corridors faster without putting up with routes like S53. Example S54 times with S42 and allows for a faster trip to Parts of SI. Faster trip to victory blvd and other north shore areas. S54 would be a quicker alternative to get to SI mall should S57 after reroute and S42 revived time properly the S54 would be a great benefit to them. This helps with my hub strategy more on it later. But it's a step by step configuration to make using transit as easy as possible. And prepare for other links and travel opportunities it doesn't just involve one area. You even admitted that SI mall would increase it's ridership while retaining giffords la service. S42 revival keeps new dorp la to S57 and replaces S57's segment creating more travel opportunities and creating a more complete network. For me it's like a chess game. I am beginning to know why you guys mistake or misread my intentions. Or assume something that is a half truth. I will try to simplify my posts or get a translator. But it's obvious you can't pace together what I am getting at in reality it has nothing to do with ocean terr or todt alone it's much bigger than that.

 

 

S54 reroute will still go through seaview hospital and rockland ave and forest hill through southern part of the mall to ETC then back to giffords la without messing up S79. Trust me when I say it will be much faster than S61.

Edited November 14, 2012 by qjtransitmaster

[checkmatechamp13]

It's meant as a shortcut to reach it's destination as fast as possible. I am not looking to get people in those areas just cutting through to get to major corridors faster without putting up with routes like S53. Example S54 times with S42 and allows for a faster trip to Parts of SI. Faster trip to victory blvd and other north shore areas. S54 would be a quicker alternative to get to SI mall should S57 after reroute and S42 revived time properly the S54 would be a great benefit to them. This helps with my hub strategy more on it later. But it's a step by step configuration to make using transit as easy as possible. And prepare for other links and travel opportunities it doesn't just involve one area. You even admitted that SI mall would increase it's ridership while retaining giffords la service. S42 revival keeps new dorp la to S57 and replaces S57's segment creating more travel opportunities and creating a more complete network. For me it's like a chess game. I am beginning to know why you guys mistake or misread my intentions. Or assume something that is a half truth. I will try to simplify my posts or get a translator. But it's obvious you can't pace together what I am getting at in reality it has nothing to do with ocean terr or todt alone it's much bigger than that.

 

 

Reread my second paragraph. I know you're just cutting through to connect the two halves of SI, and don't intend to actually serve those areas, but I'm telling you that you're connecting areas that really don't need to be connected.

 

Aside from that, even if it's running nonstop through Todt Hill, I'm sure residents will still protest it.

 

If you're really that set on providing better cross-island service, you'd be better off with a second branch of the S57 (one on New Dorp Lane, and one on Guyon). There's no need for a route cutting through Todt Hill, even as a shortcut.

 

S54 reroute will still go through seaview hospital and rockland ave and forest hill through southern part of the mall to ETC then back to giffords la without messing up S79. Trust me when I say it will be much faster than S61.

 

 

It's not going to be faster than the S61. The S61 takes about 45 minutes end-to-end. The S54 would take about 10-12 minutes from St. George to Broadway, then 24 minutes to Seaview Hospital, then 5 minutes to Forest Hill Road, and 15 minutes to the SI Mall. That's around 55 minutes, which is 10 minutes slower than the S61 (and if you have it cover the S42 route, it would be even longer).

Edited November 14, 2012 by checkmatechamp13

[qjtransitmaster]

 

 

Reread my second paragraph. I know you're just cutting through to connect the two halves of SI, and don't intend to actually serve those areas, but I'm telling you that you're connecting areas that really don't need to be connected.

 

Aside from that, even if it's running nonstop through Todt Hill, I'm sure residents will still protest it.

 

If you're really that set on providing better cross-island service, you'd be better off with a second branch of the S57 (one on New Dorp Lane, and one on Guyon). There's no need for a route cutting through Todt Hill, even as a shortcut.

 

 

 

It's not going to be faster than the S61. The S61 takes about 45 minutes end-to-end. The S54 would take about 10-12 minutes from St. George to Broadway, then 24 minutes to Seaview Hospital, then 5 minutes to Forest Hill Road, and 15 minutes to the SI Mall. That's around 55 minutes, which is 10 minutes slower than the S61 (and if you have it cover the S42 route, it would be even longer).

 

err you did not read I said S54 via S66 grymes hill to ocean terr thenseaview hospital to SI mall read it will NOT cover S42 read carefully S61 aint that fast

[B35 via Church]

Bus service in Todt Hill & Emerson Hill ?

 

Yeah, I guess I didn't miss anything much around these parts.......

[checkmatechamp13]

err you did not read I said S54 via S66 grymes hill to ocean terr thenseaview hospital to SI mall read it will NOT cover S42 read carefully S61 aint that fast

 

 

Where's that facepalm?

 

I already said that a route running along Ocean Terrace and then Grymes Hill would get very low ridership. It doesn't matter what's on the other end, whether it's the SI Mall, or Seaview Hospital, or whatever you want. There is absolutely no ridership in Todt Hill, and minimal ridership in Grymes Hill.

 

And that route wouldn't be any faster than the S61. You have to go up Grymes Hill, loop around and make your way to Ocean Terrace, and then eventually, you'll make your way onto the same streets the S61 takes. The time savings would be basically be nothing. And you'd have this huge portion where basically no boarding is going on (no matter whether you route it to Seaview Hospital or on Harold Street or whatever), which would make the route one big waste.

 

The S61 ain't that fast, but neither is this new route. Even if it was faster, what's the point in running a whole new route to save a few riders a few minutes?

[qjtransitmaster]

There is no need for any public transit in Todt Hill, Emerson Hill, Lighthouse Hill or any of those areas. That's like having buses go through Fieldston. They're exclusive for a reason. The folks there like their privacy. If they truly need express bus service they'd simply drive to it. Hell most of Todt Hill and Lighthouse Hill don't even have sidewalks as they've kept their old school charm going back to the old days when most of Staten Island was like small towns... They're made for driving and taking strolls, but certainly not for folks with transit interests. Having transit up there in these fairly affluent neighborhoods would be a waste since no one would use it and with the narrow streets up there in some areas it would just clog things up.

 

It's not a question of NIMBY's but a question of these communities being almost like private communities if you will much like Fieldston (a private community). You're not going to find some guy in Todt Hill or Lighthouse Hill wanting local bus service living in a multi-million dollar home.

 

FYI John Franco (retired Mets pitcher) used to live in Todt Hill and that area is full of well-to-do doctors and other professionals that earn big bucks.

Interesting but there is a saying "A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." by Mayor of Bogota try following that model.

Where's that facepalm?

 

I already said that a route running along Ocean Terrace and then Grymes Hill would get very low ridership. It doesn't matter what's on the other end, whether it's the SI Mall, or Seaview Hospital, or whatever you want. There is absolutely no ridership in Todt Hill, and minimal ridership in Grymes Hill.

 

And that route wouldn't be any faster than the S61. You have to go up Grymes Hill, loop around and make your way to Ocean Terrace, and then eventually, you'll make your way onto the same streets the S61 takes. The time savings would be basically be nothing. And you'd have this huge portion where basically no boarding is going on (no matter whether you route it to Seaview Hospital or on Harold Street or whatever), which would make the route one big waste.

 

The S61 ain't that fast, but neither is this new route. Even if it was faster, what's the point in running a whole new route to save a few riders a few minutes?

You missed something involving the and a certain SI route. Victory blvd skips lights. read this quote "A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation." Mayor of Bogota Edited November 14, 2012 by qjtransitmaster

[Threxx]

What is the desperate need to extend the S79 to 59th? So you miss your connection? Wait for the next train... it's not worth whining about.

[qjtransitmaster]

What is the desperate need to extend the S79 to 59th? So you miss your connection? Wait for the next train... it's not worth whining about.

NOPE I never made such a suggestion read again. Hint read previous posts Edited November 14, 2012 by qjtransitmaster