Culver Posted February 2, 2013 Share #651 Posted February 2, 2013 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. Or maybe more people are switching from driving to the express now that they know they have a reliable 24/7 bus route. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted February 2, 2013 Share #652 Posted February 2, 2013 Or maybe more people are switching from driving to the express now that they know they have a reliable 24/7 bus route.which means that eventually at least one of the X1's variants would need to become full-time at least mon-sat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted February 2, 2013 Share #653 Posted February 2, 2013 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. Alright, now I see.... His plan is to: - divert S66's emanating from the pt. richmond side towards brooklyn via clove rd, etc. & extended to 59th st subway.... (for starters, who along Jewett is going to want access to Brooklyn... Who up on the north shore period would take his 66 over the 53 (which would be a backtrack btw) to get to brooklyn? Having buses directly serve 59th st. subway will not make that much difference, compared to the ppl that already take the 53 up in that part of SI, to Brooklyn).... - have an Av. P route (I was trying to understand why he mentioned Av. P in all this) extended to St. George via grymes hill & victory blvd, coming off the bridge.... ------------------------------------ The problem is obvious here; he doesn't know how to effectively serve grymes hill.... This is where connecting the dots in this case doesn't make sense... I mean, you want to have a St. George (ferry) - Brooklyn route, fine.... But there are simpler ways to try to serve that market (and draw in more riders) than having buses run from brooklyn, up a hilly community & back down to victory blvd itself, towards the ferry..... What I'm questioning (outside of serving grymes hill to/from brooklyn) is the running of buses along victory towards the ferry to/from brooklyn..... * If you want to appeal to (more) SI riders heading towards Brooklyn up from the area around the ferry, you're better off serving the areas along/around st. paul's/van duzer between beach st & the ferry itself.... The question would then be, which path would such a route serve b/w beach st & narrows rd N/S...... * If you want to quickly link Brooklyn to the SI ferry, you'd have buses take the lily pond exit towards school rd, then run em up bay to get to the ferry.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted February 2, 2013 Share #654 Posted February 2, 2013 Alright, now I see.... His plan is to: - divert S66's emanating from the pt. richmond side towards brooklyn via clove rd, etc. & extended to 59th st subway.... (for starters, who along Jewett is going to want access to Brooklyn... Who up on the north shore period would take his 66 over the 53 (which would be a backtrack btw) to get to brooklyn? Having buses directly serve 59th st. subway will not make that much difference, compared to the ppl that already take the 53 up in that part of SI, to Brooklyn).... - have an Av. P route (I was trying to understand why he mentioned Av. P in all this) extended to St. George via grymes hill & victory blvd, coming off the bridge.... ------------------------------------ The problem is obvious here; he doesn't know how to effectively serve grymes hill.... This is where connecting the dots in this case doesn't make sense... I mean, you want to have a St. George (ferry) - Brooklyn route, fine.... But there are simpler ways to try to serve that market (and draw in more riders) than having buses run from brooklyn, up a hilly community & back down to victory blvd itself, towards the ferry..... What I'm questioning (outside of serving grymes hill to/from brooklyn) is the running of buses along victory towards the ferry to/from brooklyn..... * If you want to appeal to (more) SI riders heading towards Brooklyn up from the area around the ferry, you're better off serving the areas along/around st. paul's/van duzer between beach st & the ferry itself.... The question would then be, which path would such a route serve b/w beach st & narrows rd N/S...... * If you want to quickly link Brooklyn to the SI ferry, you'd have buses take the lily pond exit towards school rd, then run em up bay to get to the ferry.... See, this is why my S58 goes via Bay to Fingerboard, turns on Fingerboard, then onto the bridge. Alternate was having it follow the S78 route b/w St. George and Hylan/SIE/Bridge. Question is which of the two routes b/w the bridge and St. George would get more riders. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted February 2, 2013 Share #655 Posted February 2, 2013 See, this is why my S58 goes via Bay to Fingerboard, turns on Fingerboard, then onto the bridge. Alternate was having it follow the S78 route b/w St. George and Hylan/SIE/Bridge. Question is which of the two routes b/w the bridge and St. George would get more riders. That's the problem I have w/ utilizing Bay st; the usage in SI would be questionable.... IMO, the S78 between SI Ferry & Narrows rd. would easily draw in more riders (than having buses run along Bay)... But yeah, running buses all the way to victory blvd towards the ferry from brooklyn is rather pointless.... It's taking the long way to the ferry for no real reason.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted February 2, 2013 Share #656 Posted February 2, 2013 That's the problem I have w/ utilizing Bay st; the usage in SI would be questionable....IMO, the S78 between SI Ferry & Narrows rd. would easily draw in more riders (than having buses run along Bay)... But yeah, running buses all the way to victory blvd towards the ferry from brooklyn is rather pointless.... It's taking the long way to the ferry for no real reason.... want to know why there is no reason why anyone in brooklyn would need the ferry. To transfer to other lines yes but other than that st george and brooklyn have nothing in common just a place to turn around buses that's it. More lines from SI to bay ridge other than faster lines or S53 LTD seem like overkill. X27/28 or even the subway win hands down over local to the ferry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted February 2, 2013 Share #657 Posted February 2, 2013 Never Alright, now I see.... His plan is to: - divert S66's emanating from the pt. richmond side towards brooklyn via clove rd, etc. & extended to 59th st subway.... (for starters, who along Jewett is going to want access to Brooklyn... Who up on the north shore period would take his 66 over the 53 (which would be a backtrack btw) to get to brooklyn? Having buses directly serve 59th st. subway will not make that much difference, compared to the ppl that already take the 53 up in that part of SI, to Brooklyn).... - have an Av. P route (I was trying to understand why he mentioned Av. P in all this) extended to St. George via grymes hill & victory blvd, coming off the bridge.... ------------------------------------ The problem is obvious here; he doesn't know how to effectively serve grymes hill.... This is where connecting the dots in this case doesn't make sense... I mean, you want to have a St. George (ferry) - Brooklyn route, fine.... But there are simpler ways to try to serve that market (and draw in more riders) than having buses run from brooklyn, up a hilly community & back down to victory blvd itself, towards the ferry..... What I'm questioning (outside of serving grymes hill to/from brooklyn) is the running of buses along victory towards the ferry to/from brooklyn..... * If you want to appeal to (more) SI riders heading towards Brooklyn up from the area around the ferry, you're better off serving the areas along/around st. paul's/van duzer between beach st & the ferry itself.... The question would then be, which path would such a route serve b/w beach st & narrows rd N/S...... * If you want to quickly link Brooklyn to the SI ferry, you'd have buses take the lily pond exit towards school rd, then run em up bay to get to the ferry.... Interesting I am starting to understand your stance looks like you truly found the fault in that plan you were the first to effectively exploit it well done. I am curious about such a routing now st paul and van duzzer? Ok I will come out with it the real weakness in having ave P route absorb S66's grymes hill segment is more than simple numbers it is the market for a st george to brooklyn route replacing S78 or S76 that can invalidate that plan cause then grymes hill can be served by a diverted SI local bus invalidating that stance. However the victory blvd routing links to S48 faster but one can also argue S78 routing to be better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 3, 2013 Share #658 Posted February 3, 2013 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? I'm sorry, but I don't see this new S66 becoming more frequent than the S53 (because basically, that's how frequent the route would have to be in order to be leaps and bounds more reliable than the ). My point about Stapleton was the fact that it's way more transit-oriented than Grymes Hill, and you're likely to get more actual ridership. With your route, you're dependant on riders using it at St. George itself, and the stops along the SIE service road, with little usage in between (aside from maybe some riders in those apartments using it as an alternative to the S61/62, but only to/from St. George) 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. First of all, you don't think any S79 riders would like direct service to the ? Second of all, stand at the corner of 92nd & FHP and tell me if you don't see any buses that are "crushed bad". 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. I think you're being overly optimistic. It's at least a good 20 minutes from 59th Street to Canal. In any case, I would agree that some people are switching to the S79. How many exactly, I'm not sure. 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. C'mon, that one connection isn't that unreliable. With both connections combined (both the AND S79), you could waste 20-30 minutes. But you're not going to waste it on the alone. Alright, now I see.... His plan is to: - divert S66's emanating from the pt. richmond side towards brooklyn via clove rd, etc. & extended to 59th st subway.... (for starters, who along Jewett is going to want access to Brooklyn... Who up on the north shore period would take his 66 over the 53 (which would be a backtrack btw) to get to brooklyn? Having buses directly serve 59th st. subway will not make that much difference, compared to the ppl that already take the 53 up in that part of SI, to Brooklyn).... - have an Av. P route (I was trying to understand why he mentioned Av. P in all this) extended to St. George via grymes hill & victory blvd, coming off the bridge.... ------------------------------------ The problem is obvious here; he doesn't know how to effectively serve grymes hill.... This is where connecting the dots in this case doesn't make sense... I mean, you want to have a St. George (ferry) - Brooklyn route, fine.... But there are simpler ways to try to serve that market (and draw in more riders) than having buses run from brooklyn, up a hilly community & back down to victory blvd itself, towards the ferry..... What I'm questioning (outside of serving grymes hill to/from brooklyn) is the running of buses along victory towards the ferry to/from brooklyn..... * If you want to appeal to (more) SI riders heading towards Brooklyn up from the area around the ferry, you're better off serving the areas along/around st. paul's/van duzer between beach st & the ferry itself.... The question would then be, which path would such a route serve b/w beach st & narrows rd N/S...... * If you want to quickly link Brooklyn to the SI ferry, you'd have buses take the lily pond exit towards school rd, then run em up bay to get to the ferry.... Well, he's mentioned that since it serves the same general area as the S53, it'll take some riders off that. But the thing that he doesn't realize is that Port Richmond doesn't account for that large a percentage of S53 ridership. And for the part about serving Victory Blvd vs. the Stapleton area, agreed. want to know why there is no reason why anyone in brooklyn would need the ferry. To transfer to other lines yes but other than that st george and brooklyn have nothing in common just a place to turn around buses that's it. More lines from SI to bay ridge other than faster lines or S53 LTD seem like overkill. X27/28 or even the subway win hands down over local to the ferry. You're missing the point. The reason the buses terminate in Bay Ridge is because it's the closest point to Staten Island. Nothing is saying that the existing SI-Brooklyn routes can't be extended to 59th Street, over forcing everybody to transfer to some new route, which likely wouldn't be noticeably more reliable than the . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted February 3, 2013 Share #659 Posted February 3, 2013 I'm sorry, but I don't see this new S66 becoming more frequent than the S53 (because basically, that's how frequent the route would have to be in order to be leaps and bounds more reliable than the ). My point about Stapleton was the fact that it's way more transit-oriented than Grymes Hill, and you're likely to get more actual ridership. With your route, you're dependant on riders using it at St. George itself, and the stops along the SIE service road, with little usage in between (aside from maybe some riders in those apartments using it as an alternative to the S61/62, but only to/from St. George) First of all, you don't think any S79 riders would like direct service to the ? Second of all, stand at the corner of 92nd & FHP and tell me if you don't see any buses that are "crushed bad". I think you're being overly optimistic. It's at least a good 20 minutes from 59th Street to Canal. In any case, I would agree that some people are switching to the S79. How many exactly, I'm not sure. C'mon, that one connection isn't that unreliable. With both connections combined (both the AND S79), you could waste 20-30 minutes. But you're not going to waste it on the alone. Well, he's mentioned that since it serves the same general area as the S53, it'll take some riders off that. But the thing that he doesn't realize is that Port Richmond doesn't account for that large a percentage of S53 ridership. And for the part about serving Victory Blvd vs. the Stapleton area, agreed. You're missing the point. The reason the buses terminate in Bay Ridge is because it's the closest point to Staten Island. Nothing is saying that the existing SI-Brooklyn routes can't be extended to 59th Street, over forcing everybody to transfer to some new route, which likely wouldn't be noticeably more reliable than the . You miss the point the original grymes hill replacement route doesn't go to the it is an extension of the B2 via ave P as a LTD and the belt parkway via bay parkway direct to SI. Folks would simply use the already frequent S76/74 or S78 ect then transfer to this brooklyn B2 on narrows road. They will also transfer to the S66 to 59th street instead of the S79 and S53 somewhat relieving transfer loads your simply shifting those pax to the S66 that's all. Now look closely at my other plans then connect them there is more to them than you think. Hint: S57 can draw even more riders with the extension from more areas some brooklyn folks now have a 2 seat ride to 2 NJ destinations. But there is more than even that. 59th will be served by the new S66/67 and another route yet to be determined. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbo19 Posted February 3, 2013 Share #660 Posted February 3, 2013 (edited) You miss the point the original grymes hill replacement route doesn't go to the it is an extension of the B2 via ave P as a LTD and the belt parkway via bay parkway direct to SI. Folks would simply use the already frequent S76/74 or S78 ect then transfer to this brooklyn B2 on narrows road. They will also transfer to the S66 to 59th street instead of the S79 and S53 somewhat relieving transfer loads your simply shifting those pax to the S66 that's all. Now look closely at my other plans then connect them there is more to them than you think. Hint: S57 can draw even more riders with the extension from more areas some brooklyn folks now have a 2 seat ride to 2 NJ destinations. But there is more than even that. 59th will be served by the new S66/67 and another route yet to be determined. Let's get things straight. The B2 isn't the type of route that would be capable to operate as a regional connector nor should it have ever have to provide a regional connection.The same applies for the S66. Other than possibly raising ridership, what is the objective of extending these local/residential bus routes? Edited February 3, 2013 by Turbo19 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted February 3, 2013 Share #661 Posted February 3, 2013 You miss the point the original grymes hill replacement route doesn't go to the it is an extension of the B2 via ave P as a LTD and the belt parkway via bay parkway direct to SI. Folks would simply use the already frequent S76/74 or S78 ect then transfer to this brooklyn B2 on narrows road. They will also transfer to the S66 to 59th street instead of the S79 and S53 somewhat relieving transfer loads your simply shifting those pax to the S66 that's all. Now look closely at my other plans then connect them there is more to them than you think. Hint: S57 can draw even more riders with the extension from more areas some brooklyn folks now have a 2 seat ride to 2 NJ destinations. But there is more than even that. 59th will be served by the new S66/67 and another route yet to be determined. You might be able to tell where I'm from based on my name. I also travel to Staten Island a few days a week. I'll tell you right now you couldn't pay me to take an extended B2 to Staten Island from near the F train. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted February 3, 2013 Share #662 Posted February 3, 2013 Never Interesting I am starting to understand your stance looks like you truly found the fault in that plan you were the first to effectively exploit it well done. I am curious about such a routing now st paul and van duzzer? Ok I will come out with it the real weakness in having ave P route absorb S66's grymes hill segment is more than simple numbers it is the market for a st george to brooklyn route replacing S78 or S76 that can invalidate that plan cause then grymes hill can be served by a diverted SI local bus invalidating that stance. However the victory blvd routing links to S48 faster but one can also argue S78 routing to be better. Yes... that "diverted SI local bus" is called the S66 that was diverted due to the discontinuation of the old S60 - Which is 1 reason why it makes no sense to have that route (66) run to Brooklyn.... ...and don't even think about diverting S61's or S62's (victory blvd routes) up grymes hill to take the place of the S66 (of which you want to send to brooklyn).... You would greatly screw up victory blvd. service by doing that..... The main problem here as I see it, is the way you're choosing to run a Brooklyn - St George route.... You miss the point the original grymes hill replacement route doesn't go to the it is an extension of the B2 via ave P as a LTD and the belt parkway via bay parkway direct to SI. Folks would simply use the already frequent S76/74 or S78 ect then transfer to this brooklyn B2 on narrows road. They will also transfer to the S66 to 59th street instead of the S79 and S53 somewhat relieving transfer loads your simply shifting those pax to the S66 that's all. Now look closely at my other plans then connect them there is more to them than you think. Hint: S57 can draw even more riders with the extension from more areas some brooklyn folks now have a 2 seat ride to 2 NJ destinations. But there is more than even that. 59th will be served by the new S66/67 and another route yet to be determined. You seldom convey your other plans for people to "connect them".... Aint Nobody goin sit here & guess what covert master plan you have cookin up your sleeve.... As for this notion that your S66 plan would flourish over the S53 (which is basically what you're implicating) b/c it would go to 59th st subway, I think you're flat out delusional in actually believing that.... You are not gonna take riders off the S53 with a route that goes down jewett & across victory to clove road - even if your 66 avoids arrochar.... Let's get things straight. The B2 isn't the type of route that would be capable to operate as a regional connector nor should it have ever have to provide a regional connection. The same applies for the S66. Other than possibly raising ridership, what is the objective of extending these local/residential bus routes? Have him tell it, you just answered your own question.... He's all about "regional connections"..... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted February 3, 2013 Share #663 Posted February 3, 2013 Yes... that "diverted SI local bus" is called the S66 that was diverted due to the discontinuation of the old S60 - Which is 1 reason why it makes no sense to have that route (66) run to Brooklyn.... ...and don't even think about diverting S61's or S62's (victory blvd routes) up grymes hill to take the place of the S66 (of which you want to send to brooklyn).... You would greatly screw up victory blvd. service by doing that..... The main problem here as I see it, is the way you're choosing to run a Brooklyn - St George route.... You seldom convey your other plans for people to "connect them".... Aint Nobody goin sit here & guess what covert master plan you have cookin up your sleeve.... As for this notion that your S66 plan would flourish over the S53 (which is basically what you're implicating) b/c it would go to 59th st subway, I think you're flat out delusional in actually believing that.... You are not gonna take riders off the S53 with a route that goes down jewett & across victory to clove road - even if your 66 avoids arrochar.... Have him tell it, you just answered your own question.... He's all about "regional connections"..... @turbo19 B35 answered your question and killed your stance yes it is to increase ridership. S66 to brooklyn will do well BUT I don't expect it to do S53 well. For connections I will post that in a new thread called interborough plans and proposals specializing only in express buses and interborough bus routes as some of my plans can't be understood merely from just one borough they go by corridor series. Or region origin/destination pairs and involve more than 1 line that way I can be more clear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 3, 2013 Share #664 Posted February 3, 2013 You miss the point the original grymes hill replacement route doesn't go to the it is an extension of the B2 via ave P as a LTD and the belt parkway via bay parkway direct to SI. Folks would simply use the already frequent S76/74 or S78 ect then transfer to this brooklyn B2 on narrows road. They will also transfer to the S66 to 59th street instead of the S79 and S53 somewhat relieving transfer loads your simply shifting those pax to the S66 that's all. Now look closely at my other plans then connect them there is more to them than you think. Hint: S57 can draw even more riders with the extension from more areas some brooklyn folks now have a 2 seat ride to 2 NJ destinations. But there is more than even that. 59th will be served by the new S66/67 and another route yet to be determined. The S74/76 & S78 aren't that frequent. And isn't it favorable to serve those neighborhoods directly, rather than forcing them to transfer? What the hell are you talking about "relieving transfer loads"? If some people transfer to this new S66, but they end up transferring back to the S53/79, then what did you accomplish? You might as well have extended the S53/79 directly there. That's my whole point. You keep on talking about how "Bay Ridge has enough buses", as if the routes that end at Bay Ridge are somehow forced to end there. Let's get things straight. The B2 isn't the type of route that would be capable to operate as a regional connector nor should it have ever have to provide a regional connection.The same applies for the S66. Other than possibly raising ridership, what is the objective of extending these local/residential bus routes? Well, it would boost ridership, only because the route is so long, and serves so many areas, but the question is: At what cost? (Both in terms of money and reliability) If you spend a million dollars, and only attract 200 new riders to the system while making the route more unreliable, well, that wasn't worth it then. You seldom convey your other plans for people to "connect them".... Aint Nobody goin sit here & guess what covert master plan you have cookin up your sleeve.... As for this notion that your S66 plan would flourish over the S53 (which is basically what you're implicating) b/c it would go to 59th st subway, I think you're flat out delusional in actually believing that.... You are not gonna take riders off the S53 with a route that goes down jewett & across victory to clove road - even if your 66 avoids arrochar.... Well, I recall him mentioning sending the S57 to EWR via Bayonne, so I assume that's what he's referring to. @turbo19 B35 answered your question and killed your stance yes it is to increase ridership. S66 to brooklyn will do well BUT I don't expect it to do S53 well. For connections I will post that in a new thread called interborough plans and proposals specializing only in express buses and interborough bus routes as some of my plans can't be understood merely from just one borough they go by corridor series. Or region origin/destination pairs and involve more than 1 line that way I can be more clear. Well, in order to be a reliable alternative to the , it would have to do "S53 well", or else you're not going to get the ridership to be able to run more frequent service. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted February 3, 2013 Share #665 Posted February 3, 2013 (edited) The S74/76 & S78 aren't that frequent. And isn't it favorable to serve those neighborhoods directly, rather than forcing them to transfer? What the hell are you talking about "relieving transfer loads"? If some people transfer to this new S66, but they end up transferring back to the S53/79, then what did you accomplish? You might as well have extended the S53/79 directly there. That's my whole point. You keep on talking about how "Bay Ridge has enough buses", as if the routes that end at Bay Ridge are somehow forced to end there. Well, it would boost ridership, only because the route is so long, and serves so many areas, but the question is: At what cost? (Both in terms of money and reliability) If you spend a million dollars, and only attract 200 new riders to the system while making the route more unreliable, well, that wasn't worth it then. Well, I recall him mentioning sending the S57 to EWR via Bayonne, so I assume that's what he's referring to. Well, in order to be a reliable alternative to the , it would have to do "S53 well", or else you're not going to get the ridership to be able to run more frequent service. S66 would get folks from several lines at once NOT just S53/79 other lines will feed into it as well thus increasing it's ridership indefinately. HOWEVER If I decide to make that and your S67 then I'd have the S67 follow the faster S93's SIE routing while the S66 either goes via grasmere to 59th directly OR gets canned and S57 reroutes to jewett. With S51 being absorbed by culver's S58 and southern path going to 59th station BUT it will be much faster than S53 to 59th via bay ridge vs enhanced S51 to 59th directly. However I am leaning towards S66 via grasmere and your S67 via SIE service road to 59th street . The B2 routing via grymes hill was chosen cause it may be less delay prone than via van duzzer and targee due to lack of grymes hill ridership itself. Meaning it's just coverage. Or via S74's routing and select S74s via grymes hill but with LTD victory blvd stops. You raise interesting arguments I will think about this more. In response to bold what do you mean? your saying it must go through grasmere to get the ridership? What I meant by transfer loads is people who normally transfer to the S53/79 at fingerboard or along narrows road locations would use this S66 instead. Edited February 3, 2013 by qjtransitmaster 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted February 3, 2013 Share #666 Posted February 3, 2013 S66 would get folks from several lines at once NOT just S53/79 other lines will feed into it as well thus increasing it's ridership indefinately. HOWEVER If I decide to make that and your S67 then I'd have the S67 follow the faster S93's SIE routing while the S66 either goes via grasmere to 59th directly OR gets canned and S57 reroutes to jewett. With S51 being absorbed by culver's S58 and southern path going to 59th station BUT it will be much faster than S53 to 59th via bay ridge vs enhanced S51 to 59th directly. However I am leaning towards S66 via grasmere and your S67 via SIE service road to 59th street . The B2 routing via grymes hill was chosen cause it may be less delay prone than via van duzzer and targee due to lack of grymes hill ridership itself. Meaning it's just coverage. Or via S74's routing and select S74s via grymes hill but with LTD victory blvd stops. You raise interesting arguments I will think about this more. In response to bold what do you mean? your saying it must go through grasmere to get the ridership? What I meant by transfer loads is people who normally transfer to the S53/79 at fingerboard or along narrows road locations would use this S66 instead. Look, Grymes Hill needs to be served by a Victory Blvd route. Point-blank, period. Not the S74. Not a line from Brooklyn (doesn't matter where in Brooklyn). Not anything else. A Victory Blvd route. And like B35 said, it can't be the S61 or S62. In general, the Stapleton area doesn't see that much traffic. Maybe a little on Bay Street near Broad, Canal, etc, and maybe some on Richmond Road just north of the SIE (that's more Concord, but you get the idea), but that's about it. As far as the S66 goes, well, that was based on before, when you said that you'd have people connecting to this new route rather than connecting to the . But if you plan on extending the other routes to 59th Street, it's a moot point, because it wouldn't be required to run that frequently. Unless you purposely keep S53 service crappy (the main issue being the fact that there's nothing bypassing Grasmere/South Beach), people are going to choose that, over the S66 you're proposing. The S66 would just be used as a backup, if it happens to come before the S53/83. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted February 3, 2013 Share #667 Posted February 3, 2013 Well, I recall him mentioning sending the S57 to EWR via Bayonne, so I assume that's what he's referring to. I suppose.... But this guy changes his ideas like the weather, so.... S66 would get folks from several lines at once NOT just S53/79 other lines will feed into it as well thus increasing it's ridership indefinately. HOWEVER If I decide to make that and your S67 then I'd have the S67 follow the faster S93's SIE routing while the S66 either goes via grasmere to 59th directly OR gets canned and S57 reroutes to jewett. With S51 being absorbed by culver's S58 and southern path going to 59th station BUT it will be much faster than S53 to 59th via bay ridge vs enhanced S51 to 59th directly. However I am leaning towards S66 via grasmere and your S67 via SIE service road to 59th street . The B2 routing via grymes hill was chosen cause it may be less delay prone than via van duzzer and targee due to lack of grymes hill ridership itself. Meaning it's just coverage. Or via S74's routing and select S74s via grymes hill but with LTD victory blvd stops. You raise interesting arguments I will think about this more. In response to bold what do you mean? your saying it must go through grasmere to get the ridership? checkmate's "S67".... culver's "S58"..... Do you even have a plan of your own? aye, Let's bottomline this because this discussion is monotonous & annoying now.... Either go back to the drawing board because you're all over the place with the indecisiveness, or flat out list each change you would make to whatever SI routes [and/or list whatever new routes you already have created] & stick to one plan..... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q43LTD Posted February 3, 2013 Share #668 Posted February 3, 2013 Do we really need anymore Brooklyn-SI routes? Are the 53 and 79 that bad? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted February 3, 2013 Share #669 Posted February 3, 2013 Do we really need anymore Brooklyn-SI routes? Are the 53 and 79 that bad? No... it's the bafoon thinking Grymes Hill residents want to go to Bay Ridge.... they have their little community for a reason... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 3, 2013 Share #670 Posted February 3, 2013 aye, Let's bottomline this because this discussion is monotonous & annoying now.... Either go back to the drawing board because you're all over the place with the indecisiveness, or flat out list each change you would make to whatever SI routes [and/or list whatever new routes you already have created] & stick to one plan..... He doesn't have a plan... The guy is anti-bus #1 and #2 most of his plans don't make any sense. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted February 3, 2013 Share #671 Posted February 3, 2013 He doesn't have a plan... The guy is anti-bus #1 and #2 most of his plans don't make any sense. The guy is anti-car & wants to try to put everyone on local buses that travel on highways..... I'm all for improving interborough travel too, but the suggestions he posts on here when it comes to the boroughs come across as detrimental service changes, as opposed to improvements.... The stubbornness long exuded by this guy doesn't help matters either..... Him not having full-fledged plans & his ideas lacking sense & logic, is evident...... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 3, 2013 Share #672 Posted February 3, 2013 The guy is anti-car & wants to try to put everyone on local buses that travel on highways..... I'm all for improving interborough travel too, but the suggestions he posts on here when it comes to the boroughs come across as detrimental service changes, as opposed to improvements.... The stubbornness long exuded by this guy doesn't help matters either..... Him not having full-fledged plans & his ideas lacking sense & logic, is evident...... lol... I'd go further and say that his stance is based on pure ignorance and rhetoric... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted February 3, 2013 Share #673 Posted February 3, 2013 When I read the B2 idea, I was thinking: wth? I don't mind extending the B2 (to the Rockaways, Queens), but to SI? Who's demanding a line like that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metro CSW Posted February 3, 2013 Share #674 Posted February 3, 2013 When I read the B2 idea, I was thinking: wth? I don't mind extending the B2 (to the Rockaways, Queens), but to SI? Who's demanding a line like that? Yeah..... The B/Os on the site would of said, NO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbo19 Posted February 3, 2013 Share #675 Posted February 3, 2013 When I read the B2 idea, I was thinking: wth? I don't mind extending the B2 (to the Rockaways, Queens), but to SI? Who's demanding a line like that? Yeah..... The B/Os on the site would of said, NO. I have a great idea guys. If the B2 is extended, we should extend the B100 as well. The routes are basically the same for 90% and this would be a better use of current resources! I hope you guys saw the huge amount of scarcasm in this post. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.