Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

[MattTrain]

I think the S93 limited should run all day (at least on weekdays) as opposed to rush hours. That would take a load off the S53 and S62 to a certain extent.

 

I personally would like the S51 to have more frequent service during weekdays too.

[qjtransitmaster]

I think the S93 limited should run all day (at least on weekdays) as opposed to rush hours. That would take a load off the S53 and S62 to a certain extent.

 

I personally would like the S51 to have more frequent service during weekdays too.

 

HUH? Are you sure S93 needs full-time service? S51? REALLY? Tell me more about the S51 what justifies a service boost?

 

What justifies more S93s?

[aemoreira81]

I know that it may sound insensitive for now, but should the S81 and S86 be discontinued for the winter pick, with only regular S51 and S76 run until most of the South Shore is rebuilt?

[checkmatechamp13]

HUH? Are you sure S93 needs full-time service? S51? REALLY? Tell me more about the S51 what justifies a service boost?

 

What justifies more S93s?

 

 

He said at least on weekdays, not necessarily that it needs 7-day service.

 

In any case, with the S93, I think you'd just be better off using those resources to create the S83, and just have people transfer from the S62 to the S83. (Hopefully, they still have that 3-legged transfer when they implement the S83)

 

In any case, there are a lot of people transferring from the S53 to the S62, even off-peak, so I can see where he's coming from with that.

 

As for the S51, it runs every 20 minutes off-peak, while the ferry runs every 30 minutes, which makes it harder to connect with the ferry. One bus connects with the ferry, and the one that connects with the next ferry leaves 20 minutes later, when the ferry runs every 30 minutes.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

How about bus services to/from that new Great Kills ferry?

[checkmatechamp13]

How about bus services to/from that new Great Kills ferry?

 

 

That's only a temporary ferry. Aside from that, "Additionally, a shuttle bus provided by New York City Transit will link the ferry landing with the S78 and SBS S79 bus stop at Buffalo Street and Hylan Boulevard and parking areas."

 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/ferrybus/greatkills.shtml

 

Under my plan, the S79A would cover Great Kills, and connect them to the shuttle service to the ferry. The S78 & S79 cover most other parts of the South Shore. Maybe you could extend the shuttle to Bay Terrace for the SIR, but even that's probably unnecessary. If Mill Road were extended a little bit, you could theoretically extend that to the ferry, but there's no point in damaging the wetlands more than they've already been damaged.

 

I gotta say, 50 minutes to Downtown and 65 minutes to Midtown for $2 isn't too shabby.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

For $2.00, that'$ a $teal, considering what some ferry operators charge.

[Threxx]

I know that it may sound insensitive for now, but should the S81 and S86 be discontinued for the winter pick, with only regular S51 and S76 run until most of the South Shore is rebuilt?

 

 

We need to make the commute for them easier, not worse...

[MattTrain]

He said at least on weekdays, not necessarily that it needs 7-day service.

 

In any case, with the S93, I think you'd just be better off using those resources to create the S83, and just have people transfer from the S62 to the S83. (Hopefully, they still have that 3-legged transfer when they implement the S83)

 

In any case, there are a lot of people transferring from the S53 to the S62, even off-peak, so I can see where he's coming from with that.

 

As for the S51, it runs every 20 minutes off-peak, while the ferry runs every 30 minutes, which makes it harder to connect with the ferry. One bus connects with the ferry, and the one that connects with the next ferry leaves 20 minutes later, when the ferry runs every 30 minutes.

 

 

The S83, you mean the limited stop along the entire S53 route between Port Richmond and Bay Ridge, if I'm not mistaken.

 

You do have a point about the S51 connecting to the ferry.

[checkmatechamp13]

The S83, you mean the limited stop along the entire S53 route between Port Richmond and Bay Ridge, if I'm not mistaken.

 

You do have a point about the S51 connecting to the ferry.

 

 

Yup.

 

I think more people would benefit from off-peak S83 service than off-peak S93 service, the more I think about it. When you look at the connections you make with the S83, you hit all of the North Shore crosstowns (S40, S44, S46, S48), whereas the S93 doesn't hit any of them. It hits the S54 & S57, but those routes don't see that much ridership, and I highly doubt there are a lot of riders bound for Brooklyn.

 

With the S93, you serve the CSI students, and S62 riders along Victory, but keep in mind that you're only serving Victory east of CSI (Of course, you're serving the CSI students as well). If somebody's coming from Travis, it doesn't make a big difference whether they make the transfer at CSI or at Clove Road (I mean, I know the S93 is limited between Jewett & Clove, but you're not going to save that much time, and it definitely isn't worth inconveniencing riders on the North Shore for that). I mean, not only do you miss the crosstowns, but you also miss S53 riders themselves. (Somebody who lives along say, Broadway doesn't have direct access to the limited).

 

On a side note, if you ask me about the popularity of transfers between the S53 and the S4X routes, I'd say it's the S48, S46, S44, and then the S40 (from most popular transfer to least popular). Believe it or not, I've actually seen people transfer from the northbound S53 to the eastbound S44. A small amount, of course, but still unexpected.

 

Basically, the original plan we had with the S83 would've had it take the same exact route as the S53, but just make fewer stops (I don't feel like listing them all out, but basically all the transfer points). Then I figured that it would be better to have the S83 bypass McClean Avenue and take Steuben Street to Narrows Road instead. Then eventually I figured out that it would be better to just have the S83 take Narrows Road the same way the S93 does. Sure, you miss the easy connections to the SIR & S78/79, but the faster trip to Brooklyn outweighs that. Then you could just beef up the S53 to handle those riders.

 

The S83 would primarily serve those riders north of the SIE, while the S53 serves those riders south of the SIE. Some people have suggested cutting the local back to Victory Blvd and having the limited handle the areas north of Victory by itself (So essentially, they'd be two seperate routes), with the logic being that buses are more crowded south of Victory than north of it.

 

But I think you'd be better off having the S53 run all the way up to the S54 terminal over by Broadway & Richmond Terrace, because you still maintain that direct connection to the SIR & S78/79 for those on the North Shore. I think you could still have the S83 run local north of Victory (instead of only making stops at Victory, Bard, and Forest), because it's normally a quick run anyway.

 

But if it came down to it, I would accept the locals terminating at Victory.

 

We've also discussed having a branch of the S53 serve College Avenue instead of West Brighton (with the idea being to provide coverage on College Avenue, and also because there are a lot of people transferring from the S53 to the S48, and a decent amount walk south). But now that I think about it, I'm not sure how popular that transfer would be (from the S83 to the S53A), because the S48 is more frequent, so you might continue to get people transferring to the S48 and walking south.

[qjtransitmaster]

I may consider changing the x33 route completely to reduce redundancy

[checkmatechamp13]

I was thinking of something while I was on the S42 yesterday. Since the areas on the northern part of the S52 are hilly, and there's no overnight service, maybe the S78 could be rerouted on the northern portion of the route. It would go up Tompkins Avenue, and then take over the S52 route along Cebra Avenue, Westervelt Avenue, and so on.

 

Keep in mind that this would apply to overnight service only. (And maybe a special designation could be applied at night, like S78N or something)

 

Though now that I think about it, I like another plan mentioned earlier. You could cut the S78 overnight, add overnight service to the S59 & S79 (run it local, of course), and extend the S59 to Tottenville. Or if you really wanted to be a cheapskate, you could cut the S59 back to Hylan & Richmond and reroute the S79 to Tottenville. But I think that would be too complicated, and plus, I think you'd benefit more riders by connecting to the ETC and the residential area behind the SI Mall, rather than running mostly dead milage to Tottenville.

 

Then for the northern portion of the S78 along Tompkins Avenue, you could run overnight service on the S52. You could have a bus running back and forth between the SIE and St. George, and it would serve the hilly areas on the northern end. (Only 1 bus would be required for hourly headways). The S52 could turn around via Tompkins Avenue-Fingerboard Road-Narrows Road North-Hylan Blvd-Tompkins Avenue.

 

As part of a seperate plan (that I mentioned earlier, but I might as well repeat it), I'd reroute the S74 to bypass that whole area by the Arthur Kill Correctional Facility (because there's basically nothing there), and instead have it take Bloomingdale Road-Englewood Avenue-Veterans Road West-Arthur Kill Road, and then terminate at its old terminal in Tottenville. A lot of the riders taking the S78 to Bricktown seem to be coming from Tottenville itself, so it doesn't matter whether they're taking the S74 or S78. And then of course, riders coming from points along the S74 benefit from a faster ride. The S78 (or S59 if you go with my plan to swap the southern terminals of the routes) would be cut back to Tottenville.

 

In any case, I was just flipping through some old posts, and I just wanted clarification on something:

 

S59: Service to Hylan/Richmond would be unaffected (well, actually I would increase the headways to every like, 12 mins during the rush... an extra bus/hour might make a difference on that route), but to go on w/ your question..... Service to tottenville would run every 30-45 mins (depending on time of day).... I always thought S59 service every 15 mins to tottenville was excessive, even if it is during the rush..... But I do think 59's could/should be sent out there outside of rush hrs, as well....

 

 

When you say that, do you mean that you'd still have the S78 running to Tottenville? (Because when I originally responded, I thought that the area west of Richmond Avenue would just be left with the S59 running every 30-45 minutes, rather than have the S59 supplement the S78 or whatever, at 30-45 minute headways).

 

And I realized something else with the S52 proposal you had (in the same post I'm quoting). With the way the S78 would be rerouted, that would solve one of the issues with the S83, which is that you would (basically) lose a transfer to the S78 if you were to route it along Narrows Road. Not that it would've been a large enough flaw to say that the S83 should remain on Clove Road, but this way, the S78 connection is actually easier than before, since it would be at the same stop as the S83 would be (and the S93 as well for that matter). You could transfer right at Narrows & Fingerboard (north/westbound), and Narrows & Hylan (south/eastbound), which is great.

[B35 via Church]

In any case, I was just flipping through some old posts, and I just wanted clarification on something:

 

**[old quoted post of mine]**

 

When you say that, do you mean that you'd still have the S78 running to Tottenville? (Because when I originally responded, I thought that the area west of Richmond Avenue would just be left with the S59 running every 30-45 minutes, rather than have the S59 supplement the S78 or whatever, at 30-45 minute headways).

 

And I realized something else with the S52 proposal you had (in the same post I'm quoting). With the way the S78 would be rerouted, that would solve one of the issues with the S83, which is that you would (basically) lose a transfer to the S78 if you were to route it along Narrows Road. Not that it would've been a large enough flaw to say that the S83 should remain on Clove Road, but this way, the S78 connection is actually easier than before, since it would be at the same stop as the S83 would be (and the S93 as well for that matter). You could transfer right at Narrows & Fingerboard (north/westbound), and Narrows & Hylan (south/eastbound), which is great.

 

...and there you go; making things work together :: thumbsup.gif :: if one existed....

 

 

But yeh, to answer your question though - Yup (I would still have 78's running to Tottenville).....

I wouldn't suggest cutting 78's back to richmond av, and there's nowhere b/w richmond av & Tottenville (not inclusive) I would have buses terminating at....

 

It wouldn't make sense to cut the 78 back for a span expansion of 59 service - When 78's already run to Tottenville (well Bricktown now) & the span of the current S59 not being as widespread as I'd suggest it be..... Either case would involve pax having to xfer to get to Tottenville....

[qjtransitmaster]

Do any of you know if CSI's roads are closed after a certain time?

[checkmatechamp13]

I'm pretty sure the Forest Hill Road entrance closes after a certain time, but the Victory Blvd entrance is open 24/7.

[qjtransitmaster]

I'm pretty sure the Forest Hill Road entrance closes after a certain time, but the Victory Blvd entrance is open 24/7.

 

but your not sure when right?

[North Shore Line]

Improving Staten Island Bus 2013-2014

 

Staten Island's bus network has improved greatly in 2012, although much of that is a direct effect of MTA BusTime. The buses run on-time, are spaced apart and there are very rarely missing runs these days. One thing that has not improved and actually got worse is travel times on Staten Island's buses. Traffic is getting consistently worse on the island and ridership is growing each year as basic bus service levels remain the same more or less for a decade. There are certainly ways for the MTA to cheaply improve travel times on Staten Island and leave an impressive and lasting impact for riders. MTA BusTime forces buses to be held at stop or drive very slowly, and due to Staten Island's ridership patterns, higher frequency is not the end-all-be-all solution if the buses are not allowed to pass and also due to the ferry schedule.

 

1 - New Weekday Service to St George for S54, S57 or S59

The North Shore Busway plan calls for all three routes listed above to be extended to St George when the busway is completed. However, until the busway is open, one of the three routes should be extended to St George running no more often than the ferry itself. Will be most beneficial during the morning rush hour period.

 

2 - New Full-Time Limited Service on the S96 and/or s98

Short-turn locals and full-length limiteds would allow for faster travel across the north shore. Also running no more often than the ferry. 7 day service would be most ideal.

 

3 - New S53 Service via Staten Island Expressway Service Road

The MTA teased a new s53 limited service in 2009 as an alternative to the North Shore Busway although this plan should be implemented right away. The route could be named s43, s53 limited, s53a, s83, etc.. this is a huge necessity for 2013 Staten Island. I am deeply considering starting a petition for this plan when warmer weather arrives. This would save a significant amount of time by avoiding South Beach. There are a number of ways that the MTA can implement this without any major costs whether it be short turning South Beach S53s, splitting the s53 into two routes, limited via Steuben Street or even just hoping that ridership revenue increases with new service improvements.

 

I would have weekdays s53 clove/victory to bay ridge 10 minutes. New s43 port Richmond to bay ridge via service road every 10, 12 or 15 minutes. Weekends, post-MTA BusTime s53 is very speedy and may not require any changes.

 

4 - New Limited Service on Hylan Blvd

Oh wait.... Fantastic job although sandy may have impacted ridership somewhat on the select 79.

[qjtransitmaster]

Improving Staten Island Bus 2013-2014

 

Staten Island's bus network has improved greatly in 2012, although much of that is a direct effect of MTA BusTime. The buses run on-time, are spaced apart and there are very rarely missing runs these days. One thing that has not improved and actually got worse is travel times on Staten Island's buses. Traffic is getting consistently worse on the island and ridership is growing each year as basic bus service levels remain the same more or less for a decade. There are certainly ways for the MTA to cheaply improve travel times on Staten Island and leave an impressive and lasting impact for riders. MTA BusTime forces buses to be held at stop or drive very slowly, and due to Staten Island's ridership patterns, higher frequency is not the end-all-be-all solution if the buses are not allowed to pass and also due to the ferry schedule.

 

1 - New Weekday Service to St George for S54, S57 or S59

The North Shore Busway plan calls for all three routes listed above to be extended to St George when the busway is completed. However, until the busway is open, one of the three routes should be extended to St George running no more often than the ferry itself. Will be most beneficial during the morning rush hour period.

 

2 - New Full-Time Limited Service on the S96 and/or s98

Short-turn locals and full-length limiteds would allow for faster travel across the north shore. Also running no more often than the ferry. 7 day service would be most ideal.

 

3 - New S53 Service via Staten Island Expressway Service Road

The MTA teased a new s53 limited service in 2009 as an alternative to the North Shore Busway although this plan should be implemented right away. The route could be named s43, s53 limited, s53a, s83, etc.. this is a huge necessity for 2013 Staten Island. I am deeply considering starting a petition for this plan when warmer weather arrives. This would save a significant amount of time by avoiding South Beach. There are a number of ways that the MTA can implement this without any major costs whether it be short turning South Beach S53s, splitting the s53 into two routes, limited via Steuben Street or even just hoping that ridership revenue increases with new service improvements.

 

I would have weekdays s53 clove/victory to bay ridge 10 minutes. New s43 port Richmond to bay ridge via service road every 10, 12 or 15 minutes. Weekends, post-MTA BusTime s53 is very speedy and may not require any changes.

 

4 - New Limited Service on Hylan Blvd

Oh wait.... Fantastic job although sandy may have impacted ridership somewhat on the select 79.

 

S54 to st george yes S59 and 57 nope. S57 should go to NJ newark airport with S59 left alone. NJ will actually draw in new riders to the S57 actually.

[checkmatechamp13]

Here's my new petition for the S67 restructuring. I sent it out to more people, so hopefully it'll get more signatures. http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/restore-restructure-the-s67.html

[qjtransitmaster]

Here's my new petition for the S67 restructuring. I sent it out to more people, so hopefully it'll get more signatures. http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/restore-restructure-the-s67.html

want an instafix boost service on S57 done. Make it every 20 mins or 15. Want to know how to get the ridership to warrant it simple send it to NJ EWR DONE. Enough of this.

[S78 via Hylan]

I just don't see the need for the S67 to return. If people on Watchouge Rd really can't stand waiting for the S57 to transfer to the Victory Blvd routes, they can walk. It really isn't that far. The S66 is used pretty well on Jewett Av, so I don't think the proposal of rerouting it would really do much.

 

@ QJT: Ridership doesn't warrant 15 minute headways, maybe 20 at the slightest.

Edited January 13, 2013 by S78 via Hylan

[qjtransitmaster]

I just don't see the need for the S67 to return. If people on Watchouge Rd really can't stand waiting for the S57 to transfer to the Victory Blvd routes, they can walk. It really isn't that far. The S66 is used pretty well on Jewett Av, so I don't think the proposal of rerouting would really do much.

you have a point there since you put it that way never thought of it like that.

[S78 via Hylan]

you have a point there since you put it that way never thought of it like that.

I mean, I understand he's trying to make better service for SI, but I just don't see how some of his proposals will work and I mean, not just him.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

@ QJT: Ridership doesn't warrant 15 minute headways, maybe 20 at the slightest.

Not only that but higher headways don't necessarily mean that the route will become better...

[S78 via Hylan]

Not only that but higher headways don't necessarily mean that the route will become better...

Exactly........