Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I sincerely believe it is only a matter of time before the MTA introduces a true and much needed S53 limited route but let's hope they do it right. The original S83 plan had limited buses only in the peak rush hour direction and the most recent S53 busway plan does not mention a limited S53 at all, only that it will be extended to a "Mariner's Harbor Transit Center" of some sort. The best S53 limited would run at least 6 days a week and in both directions for the better half of the day.

 

Extending any of the staten island routes to 59th street would be nice but it would only make the lines more unreliable. I say instead maybe the MTA can introduce a 24/7 bus, preferably express between Atlantic Avenue-Barclay's Center and Staten Island.

I don't see how... Running up 4th from 86th to 59th there isn't much traffic #1 and #2 I would make those buses make no stops between 86th and 59th, with the primary purpose being to serve the 59th street station for the express.

[B35 via Church]

Extending any of the staten island routes to 59th street would be nice but it would only make the lines more unreliable. I say instead maybe the MTA can introduce a 24/7 bus, preferably express between Atlantic Avenue-Barclay's Center and Staten Island.

Basically, this is the suggesting of a SI-downtown route all over again...

[Culver]

Basically, this is the suggesting of a SI-downtown route all over again...

Exactly. Such a route isn't needed. At best you can maybe have one line go to 59 St, that's far enough. The ride to Downtown Brooklyn on the N from there is 10 minutes.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Exactly. Such a route isn't needed. At best you can maybe have one line go to 59 St, that's far enough. The ride to Downtown Brooklyn on the N from there is 10 minutes.

There was a Downtown Brooklyn route years ago though from Staten Island, so at some point there must've been demand....

[Culver]

There was a Downtown Brooklyn route years ago though from Staten Island, so at some point there must've been demand....

Just have one of the fifteen X17 branches make a stop downtown.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just have one of the fifteen X17 branches make a stop downtown.

lol... Very funny... The X17 already makes a ton of stops as it is...  Any Manhattan bound bus making Downtown stops in Brooklyn would just make matters worse.

[checkmatechamp13]

Or we can have a SI route that skips bay ridge to 59th street directly!!! S66 to lutheran medical via 59th street. It can just reroute via S93's routing en rte to brooklyn but skip bay ridge S79 folks can transfer to it. Due to enhanced ridership service upgrades as well. S66 to the no more baby. Of course grymes hill S66 segment will be transferred to a brooklyn based line either B2 via ave P and bay to belt or new route to coney island via cropsey with LTD stops. 

 

Oy vey.

 

Lutheran Medical Center isn't that big a ridership generator that it would justify any SI route serving it. Just reroute the B11 to serve the 59th Street station the way B35 suggested, and riders can transfer from there. The main crowds would be transferring from the subway, so it's best to just have the buses terminate there.

 

For Grymes Hill, what is with the insistance of having it served by a Brooklyn-based line? If any route were to connect St. George to Brooklyn (and I don't even know how much demand there is for such a route), having it go down the S51 or S76 route would yield much more ridership (both Brooklyn-bound riders and intra-SI riders) than anything going through Grymes Hill. Grymes Hill should be served by a Victory Blvd route. Point-blank period.

 

If you're that insistant on having a route connect with the , just extend the existing routes (S53/79/93) down to 59th Street and call it a day.

 

There was a Downtown Brooklyn route years ago though from Staten Island, so at some point there must've been demand....

 

It had two trips each way, and most of the riders were MTA employees.

[qjtransitmaster]

Oy vey.

 

Lutheran Medical Center isn't that big a ridership generator that it would justify any SI route serving it. Just reroute the B11 to serve the 59th Street station the way B35 suggested, and riders can transfer from there. The main crowds would be transferring from the subway, so it's best to just have the buses terminate there.

 

For Grymes Hill, what is with the insistance of having it served by a Brooklyn-based line? If any route were to connect St. George to Brooklyn (and I don't even know how much demand there is for such a route), having it go down the S51 or S76 route would yield much more ridership (both Brooklyn-bound riders and intra-SI riders) than anything going through Grymes Hill. Grymes Hill should be served by a Victory Blvd route. Point-blank period.

 

If you're that insistant on having a route connect with the , just extend the existing routes (S53/79/93) down to 59th Street and call it a day.

 

 

It had two trips each way, and most of the riders were MTA employees.

Err nah the S66 would connect to the and generate more riders than it ever did. Plus that SI to brooklyn route uses it via victory blvd to St george to avoid duplicating other lines that it can connect with. This would skip bay ridge providing a direct fast link to the 59th station from SI allowing those to skip the bay ridge nonsense. Let em use existing service for that. This addresses a new market nuff said. Let those transfer between those lines and the brooklyn route killing off your stance completely. S66 gets inferior ridership compared to other victory lines. This gyrmes hill link will still exist just transfer. If coming from the north no transfer needed. This may force S66 to be 7-day a week. Some people may opt for S66 for the rather than the S53. Unlike S53 it won't make such a wasteful detour through grasmere and S79 is useless for those heading to victory blvd. Ohh look at my S57 comment it is related to S66. and others connect the dots kid. Those 3 lines aren't adequate for serving SI to brooklyn market.

 

The fact that the line goes to SI alone would attract ridership to the brooklyn route anyway.

Edited February 1, 2013 by qjtransitmaster

[checkmatechamp13]

Err nah the S66 would connect to the and generate more riders than it ever did. Plus that SI to brooklyn route uses it via victory blvd to St george to avoid duplicating other lines that it can connect with. This would skip bay ridge providing a direct fast link to the 59th station from SI allowing those to skip the bay ridge nonsense. Let em use existing service for that. This addresses a new market nuff said. Let those transfer between those lines and the brooklyn route killing off your stance completely. S66 gets inferior ridership compared to other victory lines. This gyrmes hill link will still exist just transfer. If coming from the north no transfer needed. This may force S66 to be 7-day a week. Some people may opt for S66 for the rather than the S53. Unlike S53 it won't make such a wasteful detour through grasmere and S79 is useless for those heading to victory blvd. Ohh look at my S57 comment it is related to S66. and others connect the dots kid. Those 3 lines aren't adequate for serving SI to brooklyn market.

 

The fact that the line goes to SI alone would attract ridership to the brooklyn route anyway.

 

Do I really have to explain what I meant by "Victory Blvd route"? I obviously wasn't referring to the route it takes east of Grymes Hill.....

 

And if people have to transfer from the S53/79/93 to your Brooklyn route in order to reach the , they might as well transfer to the . And don't sit there and tell me that you're going to "time" it with the routes, because there's 3 different routes you have to time it with, and I really don't see your route getting ridership to justify frequent service. (Not to mention that you have it running clear across Brooklyn. You really think you'll be able to consistantly make the connections like that?) Plus, there's the fact that you're using up your transfer.

 

Yes, your proposal might force the S66 to become 7 days a week, while my simpler proposal would accomplish the same thing.

 

As for the S66 bypassing Grasmere, wouldn't an S83 accomplish the same thing? And I hope by "wasteful", you're referring to the fact that it wastes time for riders coming from the north, and not implying that there's low ridership in Grasmere/South Beach.

 

And I'll say it again, it would be a waste of milage to have the Brooklyn route serve Grymes Hill, when it could be serving denser neighborhoods instead. Therefore, it should be served by a Victory Blvd route because it provides a simpler routing.

[qjtransitmaster]

Do I really have to explain what I meant by "Victory Blvd route"? I obviously wasn't referring to the route it takes east of Grymes Hill.....

 

And if people have to transfer from the S53/79/93 to your Brooklyn route in order to reach the , they might as well transfer to the . And don't sit there and tell me that you're going to "time" it with the routes, because there's 3 different routes you have to time it with, and I really don't see your route getting ridership to justify frequent service. (Not to mention that you have it running clear across Brooklyn. You really think you'll be able to consistantly make the connections like that?) Plus, there's the fact that you're using up your transfer.

 

Yes, your proposal might force the S66 to become 7 days a week, while my simpler proposal would accomplish the same thing.

 

As for the S66 bypassing Grasmere, wouldn't an S83 accomplish the same thing? And I hope by "wasteful", you're referring to the fact that it wastes time for riders coming from the north, and not implying that there's low ridership in Grasmere/South Beach.

 

And I'll say it again, it would be a waste of milage to have the Brooklyn route serve Grymes Hill, when it could be serving denser neighborhoods instead. Therefore, it should be served by a Victory Blvd route because it provides a simpler routing.

This will actually take some riders off the S53 since this route is in the immediate area. Plus Ridership will be strong enough to justify this line. And boost service to the point where this is a non issue. Many will try this route or even connect from S76/74 ect to this at narrows road to reach the not just for downtown brooklyn either. New riders would use it to areas the serves as well. Plus the ave P ltd route will also get connecting riders. I expect people to use it much more than they did before. As for grasmere yes it is too time consuming for this route. So Some S53s can extend to the but that is the only other route that needs to link to the . With S79 the connections to S66 would be more reliable than the . I expect S66 to link to many lines it's purpose it to get the grasmere would drag it down and S66 serves jewett. So S83 is for S53 folks looking for a faster ride. S66 is for those going to 59th street the only reason for serving lutheran medical was simple turnaround. Those in grasmere can just have modified S53s which is good enough to link the with that area.

 

The brooklyn ave P line is an extension of the B2 it's route is very simple non stop from bay parkway at cropsey to fingerboard at narrows road. Then via narrows road then clove road to howard road then easy ride to St george via grymes hill it is not that complicated. Along narrows road it links to several other lines S78/74/76. Those lines are frequent enough to facilitate transfers between them. Ohh easier access to that area from richmond road due to only needing 1 transfer to reach grymes hill and victory blvd south of bay street cutting travel time. Due to the Bk route being a bit more frequent access will still be easy

[checkmatechamp13]

This will actually take some riders off the S53 since this route is in the immediate area. Plus Ridership will be strong enough to justify this line. And boost service to the point where this is a non issue. Many will try this route or even connect from S76/74 ect to this at narrows road to reach the not just for downtown brooklyn either. New riders would use it to areas the serves as well. Plus the ave P ltd route will also get connecting riders. I expect people to use it much more than they did before. As for grasmere yes it is too time consuming for this route. So Some S53s can extend to the but that is the only other route that needs to link to the . With S79 the connections to S66 would be more reliable than the . I expect S66 to link to many lines it's purpose it to get the grasmere would drag it down and S66 serves jewett. So S83 is for S53 folks looking for a faster ride. S66 is for those going to 59th street the only reason for serving lutheran medical was simple turnaround. Those in grasmere can just have modified S53s which is good enough to link the with that area.

 

The brooklyn ave P line is an extension of the B2 it's route is very simple non stop from bay parkway at cropsey to fingerboard at narrows road. Then via narrows road then clove road to howard road then easy ride to St george via grymes hill it is not that complicated. Along narrows road it links to several other lines S78/74/76. Those lines are frequent enough to facilitate transfers between them. Ohh easier access to that area from richmond road due to only needing 1 transfer to reach grymes hill and victory blvd south of bay street cutting travel time. Due to the Bk route being a bit more frequent access will still be easy

 

That's exactly the point: I don't think ridership will be strong enough to justify that line.

 

A route from St. George to Bay Ridge, replacing the northern part of the S76, maybe I could see, on coverage-level headways. Or if you routed it along the S51 route, maybe it would get enough ridership to justify its existance.

 

And with the S79, that's the whole damn point. Instead of having everybody transfer a bus to reach the , just bring them to the  directly.

 

And I hope you realize I wasn't advocating for (your proposed) S66 to serve Grasmere. I was just saying that "wasteful" is the wrong adjective to describe the S53 in that area.

 

And what's wrong with turning around in the vicinity of 59th & 4th? There's space over there on 4th Avenue.

 

And you keep on ignoring what I said. Who uses transit more? Stapleton residents or Grymes Hill residents? Which neighborhood is likely to generate more ridership for a Brooklyn-St. George route?

 

Yes, I know what route you plan for it to take. Where's the damn facepalm when you need one? And my comment about being simple referred to the way it serves the riders, not the physical route. Sending a Victory Blvd route up Grymes Hill means that the general orientation is still east-west, and it fits in with the network better, compared to this where you're having it backtrack through a lower-density area for no good reson.

 

And people along Richmond Road (or the East Shore in general) aren't trying to get to that part of Victory Blvd/Howard Avenue in mass numbers like that. For those who do need to make such a trip, they can just keep transferring at Victory & Bay like they do now. (Or they could walk up to Grymes Hill from Richmond Road if they can handle it).

 

And like I said, neither Brooklyn route is going to end up becoming super-frequent like that.

Edited February 2, 2013 by checkmatechamp13

[Culver]

Because why the hell not:

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=202807188220210378870.0004d48e11746ef3900f0&msa=0&ll=40.622683,-74.050598&spn=0.078567,0.154324

Modified S97, now with more Bay Street goodness.

[checkmatechamp13]

Just so everybody knows, the first version went up Tompkins (basically, taking the S78 route north of the SIE).

 

BTW, if it's a limited, what stops would it make (both the Tompkins version and the Bay Street version)?

[Culver]

Just so everybody knows, the first version went up Tompkins (basically, taking the S78 route north of the SIE).

 

BTW, if it's a limited, what stops would it make (both the Tompkins version and the Bay Street version)?

Didn't think about making it a limited since the run between the bridge and St. George isn't particularly long. For the Tompkins route I thought of having it follow the S78, for this one follow the S51 once it gets to Bay Street.

[checkmatechamp13]

Didn't think about making it a limited since the run between the bridge and St. George isn't particularly long. For the Tompkins route I thought of having it follow the S78, for this one follow the S51 once it gets to Bay Street.

 

If it's not a limited, it shouldn't be numbered S97 (any SI route with an 80 or 90 is a limited). It should be numbered S5X (because it's not a North Shore crosstown, Victory Blvd route, or South Shore route).

[Culver]

If it's not a limited, it shouldn't be numbered S97 (any SI route with an 80 or 90 is a limited). It should be numbered S5X (because it's not a North Shore crosstown, Victory Blvd route, or South Shore route).

So S50 or S58 then. Yeah, S58, since one of the two variants I had follows the S78 anyways.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Culver

[B35 via Church]

That's exactly the point: I don't think ridership will be strong enough to justify that line.

 

A route from St. George to Bay Ridge, replacing the northern part of the S76, maybe I could see, on coverage-level headways. Or if you routed it along the S51 route, maybe it would get enough ridership to justify its existance.

 

And with the S79, that's the whole damn point. Instead of having everybody transfer to the , just bring them to the directly.

 

And I hope you realize I wasn't advocating for (your proposed) S66 to serve Grasmere. I was just saying that "wasteful" is the wrong adjective to describe the S53 in that area.

 

And what's wrong with turning around in the vicinity of 59th & 4th? There's space over there on 4th Avenue.

 

And you keep on ignoring what I said. Who uses transit more? Stapleton residents or Grymes Hill residents? Which neighborhood is likely to generate more ridership for a Brooklyn-St. George route?

 

Yes, I know what route you plan for it to take. Where's the damn facepalm when you need one? And my comment about being simple referred to the way it serves the riders, not the physical route. Sending a Victory Blvd route up Grymes Hill means that the general orientation is still east-west, and it fits in with the network better, compared to this where you're having it backtrack through a lower-density area for no good reson.

 

And people along Richmond Road (or the East Shore in general) aren't trying to get to that part of Victory Blvd/Howard Avenue in mass numbers like that. For those who do need to make such a trip, they can just keep transferring at Victory & Bay like they do now. (Or they could walk up to Grymes Hill from Richmond Road if they can handle it).

 

And like I said, neither Brooklyn route is going to end up becoming super-frequent like that.

 

I haven't been following this particular discussion, and asking him to clarify himself is like pulling teeth, so I'll appeal to you.....

 

The first time he brought up having S66's run out to Brooklyn late last year, I ignored it because I saw it for what it was...

Since you say you know what route he's planning on having it taking, what is he proposing this rendition of a S66 brooklyn-SI route do now?

From what I'm gathering here, he's ignoring how indirect the route's gonna end up being - thinking that such a route would garner whatever ridership levels he thinks it'll get, due to it serving multiple markets.....

 

The way I see it (and I've said this before), he tries too hard to be different w/ his ideas to the point they're nonsensical....

Sometimes you gotta keep it simple.

[checkmatechamp13]

I haven't been following this particular discussion, and asking him to clarify himself is like pulling teeth, so I'll appeal to you.....

 

The first time he brought up having S66's run out to Brooklyn late last year, I ignored it because I saw it for what it was...

Since you say you know what route he's planning on having it taking, what is he proposing this rendition of a S66 brooklyn-SI route do now?

From what I'm gathering here, he's ignoring how indirect the route's gonna end up being - thinking that such a route would garner whatever ridership levels he thinks it'll get, due to it serving multiple markets.....

 

The way I see it (and I've said this before), he tries too hard to be different w/ his ideas to the point they're nonsensical....

Sometimes you gotta keep it simple.

 

He would have the S66 go down Jewett & Victory, and then take the S93 route, but instead of terminating at 86th Street, he would send it up to 59th Street (well, he really wanted Lutheran Medical Center, but that's just plain ridiculous).

 

He thinks that this new route is going to generate a ton of ridership and be super-frequent, and so people will opt for transferring from the S53/79/93-S66- instead of S53/79/93- - . We both know that route isn't going to justify super-frequent service, and especially in bad weather, people aren't going to want to wait (15-20 minutes or whatever headways the route would realistically run on) outside for a bus when they could wait inside for a subway. If the goal is to connect riders to 59th Street, then just send the current Brooklyn routes there, instead of trying to create one route for everybody to transfer to. 

 

And then to cover Grymes Hill (since the S66 would no longer go there), he wants a route from Brooklyn to go up alongside the SIE, and then backtrack up Howard Avenue and continue to St. George. Where's the damn facepalm when you need one?

 

I understand the desire to expand access to Brooklyn from SI, but this isn't the way to do it.

Edited February 2, 2013 by checkmatechamp13

[qjtransitmaster]

He would have the S66 go down Jewett & Victory, and then take the S93 route, but instead of terminating at 86th Street, he would send it up to 59th Street (well, he really wanted Lutheran Medical Center, but that's just plain ridiculous).

 

He thinks that this new route is going to generate a ton of ridership and be super-frequent, and so people will opt for transferring from the S53/79/93-S66- instead of S53/79/93- - . We both know that route isn't going to justify super-frequent service, and especially in bad weather, people aren't going to want to wait (15-20 minutes or whatever headways the route would realistically run on) outside for a bus when they could wait inside for a subway. If the goal is to connect riders to 59th Street, then just send the current Brooklyn routes there, instead of trying to create one route for everybody to transfer to. 

 

And then to cover Grymes Hill (since the S66 would no longer go there), he wants a route from Brooklyn to go up alongside the SIE, and then backtrack up Howard Avenue and continue to St. George. Where's the damn facepalm when you need one?

 

I understand the desire to expand access to Brooklyn from SI, but this isn't the way to do it.

The ridership initially would outgrow it's current headways forcing it to become frequent OR it would take the routing of your proposed S67 While rerouting S57 to jewett. In the first 3 months your concerns are valid and it's frequency would be a problem but it will catch on and when it does it's service levels would increase as well Or based on the areas riders come from it may have 2 variants BUT I am not sure if that would be the case this is a wait and see type of implementation ridership habits may force the route to change anyway based on demand to the .  However you did peak my interest a little with a St george to brooklyn replacing S76 north of narrows road though earlier I stated that the  line from 59th street may have 2 variants if what you say is true then it may be called S66/67 S67 replaces S76 northern part then to 59th street subway S66 jewett crosstown Or via your proposed S67 routing also to 59th street subway station. Both lines would have high ridership but the service levels warranted will be a wait and see. You made an interesting idea and I will look into it later.  How many people from stapleton actually go to brooklyn I am curious?

Edited February 2, 2013 by qjtransitmaster

[qjtransitmaster]

Didn't think about making it a limited since the run between the bridge and St. George isn't particularly long. For the Tompkins route I thought of having it follow the S78, for this one follow the S51 once it gets to Bay Street.

Since there is already the S79 going to bay ridge I think this S58 should skip and just go to the 59th station for the . Current riders transfer to S79 so with that said I doubt bay ridge needs a route from st george from deeper in SI maybe but there are enough locals to bay ridge for now. Unless the S79 and 53 get CRUSHED BAD I don't see the need for a new route. But this new route can bring more people to transit connecting to the directly would help alot.

[Culver]

Since there is already the S79 going to bay ridge I think this S58 should skip and just go to the 59th station for the . Current riders transfer to S79 so with that said I doubt bay ridge needs a route from st george from deeper in SI maybe but there are enough locals to bay ridge for now. Unless the S79 and 53 get CRUSHED BAD I don't see the need for a new route. But this new route can bring more people to transit connecting to the directly would help alot.

You can bet your ass they get packed in peak direction. The S79 SBS is pretty damn quick in Staten Island. It has (and I'm betting numbers will show this) now become a decent alternative to express buses since SI folks can now save $5.50 a day by taking S79 SBS to the R to the N. The transfer from the S79 SBS to the N can take 5 minutes during rush hours since the actual ride from 86 St to 59 St on the R is about that long. From 59 St it's another 5-10 minutes to downtown Brooklyn and 5 more to Canal. It adds up, but for the savings in MetroCard or single fare, it seems enough people are willing to take the extra 20 minutes and avoid the express bus. I reverse-peak commute this way on some days, and am met with a stampede of people making that transfer in peak direction. An S83 LTD would be very welcome by S53 riders, I can guess that much based on how packed I've seen those buses.

[qjtransitmaster]

You can bet your ass they get packed in peak direction. The S79 SBS is pretty damn quick in Staten Island. It has (and I'm betting numbers will show this) now become a decent alternative to express buses since SI folks can now save $5.50 a day by taking S79 SBS to the R to the N. The transfer from the S79 SBS to the N can take 5 minutes during rush hours since the actual ride from 86 St to 59 St on the R is about that long. From 59 St it's another 5-10 minutes to downtown Brooklyn and 5 more to Canal. It adds up, but for the savings in MetroCard or single fare, it seems enough people are willing to take the extra 20 minutes and avoid the express bus. I reverse-peak commute this way on some days, and am met with a stampede of people making that transfer in peak direction. An S83 LTD would be very welcome by S53 riders, I can guess that much based on how packed I've seen those buses.

R does not connect to the N very well X1 will always win especially since it is now 24/7 $5.50 is nothing compared to those tolls!! Not enough people will take the extra 20 mins as proven by how packed the X1 always is. I do agree S83 would be very welcome I never made a case against it and I think no proper case against it can be made anyway. X10 and X1 X17 have all kinds of people slamming those lines. If you want to reduce X10 ridership run X14 full-time. Then again most of X10's ridership is on the SIE service road anyway. Only time the S79 will be a good alternative to the express bus is if the X1 is late or the gowanus is jammed hard. I would suggest only S83 NOT S53 trips can extend to 59th station. The rest would be best with new or rerouted other SI lines to brooklyn.

Edited February 2, 2013 by qjtransitmaster

[Culver]

R does not connect to the N very well X1 will always win especially since it is now 24/7 $5.50 is nothing compared to those tolls!! Not enough people will take the extra 20 mins as proven by how packed the X1 always is. I do agree S83 would be very welcome I never made a case against it and I think no proper case against it can be made anyway. X10 and X1 X17 have all kinds of people slamming those lines. If you want to reduce X10 ridership run X14 full-time. Then again most of X10's ridership is on the SIE service road anyway. 

The R connects to the N well enough for myself and all the people that now use the S79 SBS; and all the people that get off R trains in PM rush hour and pack every last inch of S79s and S53s.

 

EDIT: On tolls. I think what will end up happening is people who previously used express buses are moving to the S79 and S53, and people who drove are now packing into the express buses. We'll see how it goes, but if the MTA adds an S83 LTD (seriously, just do it for the April pick), they'll give a lot of good options for folks. The tolls might end up pushing more people onto buses than they anticipated.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Culver

[Metro CSW]

R does not connect to the N very well X1 will always win especially since it is now 24/7 $5.50 is nothing compared to those tolls!! Not enough people will take the extra 20 mins as proven by how packed the X1 always is. I do agree S83 would be very welcome I never made a case against it and I think no proper case against it can be made anyway. X10 and X1 X17 have all kinds of people slamming those lines. If you want to reduce X10 ridership run X14 full-time. Then again most of X10's ridership is on the SIE service road anyway. Only time the S79 will be a good alternative to the express bus is if the X1 is late or the gowanus is jammed hard. I would suggest only S83 NOT S53 trips can extend to 59th station. The rest would be best with new or rerouted other SI lines to brooklyn.

Then again, connection of the and saves $3.00 a day......

[qjtransitmaster]

Then again, connection of the and saves $3.00 a day......

for 20 to 30 extra mins wasted waiting for a very unreliable connection. You underestimate how hard people try to avoid that. To most that $3 isn't worth it. Otherwise X1 wouldn't be so packed so that stance is null and void.