Jump to content

Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013


FamousNYLover

Recommended Posts

I never refuted your point in the first place. tehe. MTA's logic is it's cheaper to operate than x11 deadheads.  :D

Which is true 3 riders is better than no riders LOL. 

 

Yeah, because you couldn't..... It was only after you were pressed on how that x21 "could be done" that you finally came to the conclusion that your original assertion was baseless...

 

What 3 riders are you referencing anyway ?

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You need to pay attention I said weekday middays only not weekends. So weekend traffic is a non factor. I am not for or against x21. Err x10 reroute is middays weekdays only. Northshore residents would just use enhanced full time X30s or x14s instead. Some of x10's ridership is in the north shore cause they don't have a choice. If they did x10 would have no north shore riders as they would opt for faster x14s or 30s.

 

You need to pay attention. I said "I highly doubt it's immune to traffic jams during middays." If it gets traffic jams on the weekends, who's to say it doesn't get jams during middays?

 

hehe its midday and bidirectional rush weekdays no weekend service yet. The off-peak design makes it look like one route one giant loop counterclockwise clockwise formation. @B35 to make x21 work I'd have it serve bay ridge then non stop to CSI then via victory and travis. Then some reverse x10s that will end at teleport. No tottenville x10s that is middays only weekdays. I honestly don't know why they bother serving the teleport.

 

I like how you say "Err dude reverse peak can be done with x21", and now you're saying it can be done with X10s.

 

And like B35 said, I like how you change your plan up after he called you out on the fact that the X21 would get low ridership. If you were referring to some kind of route of Victory or whatever, you should've said that directly.

 

And if you "honestly don't know why they bother serving the Teleport", why do you have two routes ending there? The reverse-peak X10 and a reverse-peak X21.

 

@B35: He's saying that even if the bus gets a small amount of riders from going to the Teleport, it's still better than not getting any riders, because the MTA gets a few extra bucks.

Edited by checkmatechamp13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to pay attention. I said "I highly doubt it's immune to traffic jams during middays." If it gets traffic jams on the weekends, who's to say it doesn't get jams during middays?

You need to study the traffic patterns then you will get your answer cause you clearly didn't.

 

I like how you say "Err dude reverse peak can be done with x21", and now you're saying it can be done with X10s.

 

And like B35 said, I like how you change your plan up after he called you out on the fact that the X21 would get low ridership. If you were referring to some kind of route of Victory or whatever, you should've said that directly.

 

And if you "honestly don't know why they bother serving the Teleport", why do you have two routes ending there? The reverse-peak X10 and a reverse-peak X21.

 

@B35: He's saying that even if the bus gets a small amount of riders from going to the Teleport, it's still better than not getting any riders, because the MTA gets a few extra bucks.

Really but you would have a point if traffic jams actually were frequent on WSE during middays. They aren't it only really gets jams at rush hour or weekends but rarely will it backup on weekday middays plus it can use victory blvd. Again drop it what ifs are just that "what ifs" I am just trying to make a useful version of x21 get over it nothing wrong with it. Calling out without reason is immature you don't get a medal for it. I stated X10 reverse may be better than x21 cause you kill 2 birds with one stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really but you would have a point if traffic jams actually were frequent on WSE during middays. They aren't it only really gets jams at rush hour or weekends but rarely will it backup on weekday middays plus it can use victory blvd. Again drop it what ifs are just that "what ifs" I am just trying to make a useful version of x21 get over it nothing wrong with it. Calling out without reason is immature you don't get a medal for it. I stated X10 reverse may be better than x21 cause you kill 2 birds with one stone.

 

Dafuq are you talking about??

 

First you mention the X21 to the Teleport, then you mention the X10 to Tottenville, then when I talk about the X10 being delayed for North Shore riders, now "all you're trying to do is create a better version of the X21".

 

You're one to talk about proposals being based on "what ifs". You're sitting here assuming that there's demand for a bus route between all these areas just because there's cars along those corridors. You don't know for a fact that a bus route would perform well along all those corridors.

 

And if you're being inconsistant, you're going to be called out on your inconsistancy. Nothing immature about it.

 

Keep the X10 on the North Shore. I don't care if it's middays or whatever, there's no point whatsoever in having X10s run all the way down to Tottenville. Aside from that, just the sheer length of the route could result in reliability issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dafuq are you talking about??

 

First you mention the X21 to the Teleport, then you mention the X10 to Tottenville, then when I talk about the X10 being delayed for North Shore riders, now "all you're trying to do is create a better version of the X21".

 

You're one to talk about proposals being based on "what ifs". You're sitting here assuming that there's demand for a bus route between all these areas just because there's cars along those corridors. You don't know for a fact that a bus route would perform well along all those corridors.

 

And if you're being inconsistant, you're going to be called out on your inconsistancy. Nothing immature about it.

 

Keep the X10 on the North Shore. I don't care if it's middays or whatever, there's no point whatsoever in having X10s run all the way down to Tottenville. Aside from that, just the sheer length of the route could result in reliability issues.

not if scheduled properly that wont be an issue. North shore folks tolerate x10 they don't exactly want it they simply put up with it cause X12 is not running or X14. But they if given a choice would opt for those 2. What point of deserted do you not get? It would be more reliable than extended x17s.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CSI begins student dorms on campus next fall. How does &/or might this affect mass transit related to CSI, whether it's direct transit like the 62 or indirect transit like the 59?

Here's an idea I had for CSI service:

 

Split the S53 into two routes, S63 CSI to Bay Ridge via Victory, Clove and South Beach and the S53 Port Richmond to Bay Ridge via Narrows Road North and South. Weekdays S93 Limited Bay Ridge-CSI and some S53s via South Beach as well. No new S53 limited is required that way. S63/S93 would run out of Yukon so that it could interline with the S61 and S62.

 

Also, to extend that idea even further, the 63 route could run through CSI and onto the Goethals Road area that checkmate's S67 would travel to.

Edited by North Shore Line
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was gonna say run something by the VA HOSPITAL cause if im not mistaken weren't there complaints a bit after the hurricane?

 

There were complaints about people having to pay two fares to reach the hospital (there weren't complaints before the hurricane because most people went to the Manhattan VA Hospital).

 

which one where?

 

The one by Fort Hamilton where the B8 terminates.

 

Here's an idea I had for CSI service:

 

Split the S53 into two routes, S63 CSI to Bay Ridge via Victory, Clove and South Beach and the S53 Port Richmond to Bay Ridge via Narrows Road North and South. Weekdays S93 Limited Bay Ridge-CSI and some S53s via South Beach as well. No new S53 limited is required that way. S63/S93 would run out of Yukon so that it could interline with the S61 and S62.

 

Also, to extend that idea even further, the 63 route could run through CSI and onto the Goethals Road area that checkmate's S67 would travel to.

 

The only difference is that you're creating a new S63 route instead of a new S83 route. (Matter of fact, if you're still running S53s through South Beach, you're basically creating the S83, but with the added twist of sending some S62s to Brooklyn)

 

Well, I think it's a pretty good idea.

 

* On weekdays, you're realistically not going to be able to justify more frequent service than every 30 minutes on the S63, or else you'll end up overserving Victory Blvd. Obviously, you can't leave South Beach with 30 minute service, so you'll end up having to run some S53s from the North Shore (which is good because you maintain the connection to the S4X routes for people coming from South Beach). As you probably know, there's a decent amount of people getting on at Grasmere SIR headed towards the North Shore, and then you have people coming from Hylan & Clove (though with B35's plan to reroute the S52 & S78 in that area, that would be less of an issue)

 

* The same issue on the weekends (you can't get better than 30 minute headways), and you'd have to use those S62 short-turns on Saturdays (which isn't a bad thing, because then you could just time the Travis S62s to meet the ferry, and intra-SI riders can just transfer between the S63 & S61 if they want more frequent service).

 

As for covering Goethals Road North, I still think my S67 is better. Remember that I'm getting rid of the S66 as part of that plan (Grymes Hill is covered by this S67, Jewett Avenue is covered by a rerouted S57), so it's basically modernizing the S66. (That's why whether it's called S66 or S67 isn't a big deal). Especially since this S63 would still have to serve South Beach, so it wouldn't be a quick link to Brooklyn, so you might as well serve Grymes Hill on the weekends. (Then there's the general connectivity issues it would solve, plus quicker access to St. George, etc)

 

But I do think that this S63 should be extended to Richmond Avenue (rather than terminating at CSI). Unlike the S93, I can't see CSI students making up that large a percentage of its ridership, because it doesn't go directly to Brooklyn (It loops through South Beach), and during rush hour, you have the S93 anyway (I wouldn't expand it to run all day weekdays). Ideally, I'd like both to terminate at Richmond Avenue, but I can see where the people are coming from with having the buses terminate at CSI (especially now that the buses actually go into CSI). Weekends, CSI ridership isn't that strong anyway. (And of course, with the S83, you're still in a better position than before as far as getting to Brooklyn).

 

And as was mentioned in the past, it is possible to terminate in the vicinity of Victory & Richmond. You can either have buses layover on Clifton (turnaround via Victory-Richmond-Clifton-Jones-Victory), have them terminate by Moore High School (turnaround via Victory-Arlene-Merrill-Richmond-Victory), or if worse comes to worse, have them terminate at Morani & Richmond, and layover on Morani (turnaround via Victory-Richmond-Morani-Victory). Either way, you still provide the connection to Brooklyn for riders coming off the Richmond Avenue routes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't think so. You'd inconvenience too many riders (traveling between points north and south of Victory), and I can't see them just adding buses just going to/from CSI. They'll just have to continue taking the S61 (if they're going from the southern side of the campus to the mall), or making their way to Richmond Avenue (whether by walking or by bus) for the S44/59. The most I can see them doing is just improving service between CSI & Richmond/Victory (by extending S62 short-turns, or maybe this S63 if it's created), but that's about it.

 

BTW, for anybody interested in that stop outside CSI for westbound buses I've been trying to get, here's an email the people at CSI sent back to me. All I can say is, I hope more people sent emails/phone calls/whatever showing the same concerns I showed. SMH at "a few feet further", and how having to loop through the entire campus is the "only" inconvenience. (Plus, I'm pretty sure the terminal is technically inside the campus now, so this is a lie).

 

Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to voice your concerns, observations, and recommendations. The college has been lobbying the MTA to have the S93 enter the campus; we finally prevailed and on Monday January 22, 2013 the service began. The MTA is responsible for maintaining its schedule and determining the route.

 

In addressing your concerns, the S93 first or last stop is the college campus therefore a westbound stop would not be required. The loop bus only drops off by the 2A building which is close proximity to where the S93 drops off at 1A; minimal inconvenience is caused by the change. Students with classes in the North Quadrant will have to walk a few feet further from where they will be dropped off by the S93 compared to the Loop bus. We were also concerned that the S93 would become a secondary loop bus. Passengers with an unlimited MTA Metro card can board at the front gate to go to 1A. This is not what we want to happen.

 

For civilian commuters on the S93, the stop outside the front gate will remain in service. The S93 will drop off and pick up at this location as well, to accommodate any other commuters. The only inconvenience to these commuters would be to have to ride through the administration loop before they off load, rather than the previous u-turn at the front gate. The stop where they always got off will remain the same, no change.

 

The MTA is responsible for its scheduling and routes; they have determined that the current route and schedule are most cost effective.

 

Thank you for notify us about these issues. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any additional concerns, recommendations or suggestions.

 

Andrew Diaz

Director of Operational Services

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were complaints about people having to pay two fares to reach the hospital (there weren't complaints before the hurricane because most people went to the Manhattan VA Hospital).

 

Now that you mention that....

 

I remember seeing a flyer (or w/e you wanna call em) on the B8 the last time I took it, regarding a 3 legged transfer involving the B8, B70, and S53... I just glossed at it (should've read it in-depth)..... Seen em on a couple of buses as of late & I still never took a chance to read it in full.... Maybe a pdf version is on the MTA website.... I'm sure they're still posted on the insides of some of the JG buses....

 

I wish they put at least 1 notice more towards the back of the bus, instead of like 2,3,4,5 of em at the front section of the bus behind the b/o..... Not gonna hover over anyone to read a notice, and I can't stand someone hovering over me whilst looking at the subway maps on the train.... More often than not, I just switch seats if the train isn't packed enough..... If it's a packed train, I turn my head the opposite way & put the "neck" part of my hoody over my nose..... Some people be having halitosis like a mothaf****.....

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've seen those notices on SI routes too. I can't find the PDF version, but I found a couple of articles.

 

http://www.mta.info/news/stories/?story=901

http://www.mta.info/mta/news/releases/?en=121213-HQ1

 

Basically, you can take any SI bus to the S53 to the B70 (so say, S46-S53-B70, or S48-S53-B70, etc) on one fare. I don't think it includes the S79, though (unless you're coming off the S59 or S78)

 

I always thought the S53 (and S79 for that matter) had a free transfer anyway if you took it in the middle of your trip, so they should've had this anyway. (But then again, they're rescinding it when the Manhattan hospital opens, so I dunno). I remember a post a while back that said people were having issues with 3-legged transfers, so I hope the MTA didn't do away with those.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with the B8 (though they should've done that too, since the B8 used to connect with the SI routes, but doesn't anymore).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were complaints about people having to pay two fares to reach the hospital (there weren't complaints before the hurricane because most people went to the Manhattan VA Hospital).

 

 

The one by Fort Hamilton where the B8 terminates.

 

 

The only difference is that you're creating a new S63 route instead of a new S83 route. (Matter of fact, if you're still running S53s through South Beach, you're basically creating the S83, but with the added twist of sending some S62s to Brooklyn)

 

Well, I think it's a pretty good idea.

 

* On weekdays, you're realistically not going to be able to justify more frequent service than every 30 minutes on the S63, or else you'll end up overserving Victory Blvd. Obviously, you can't leave South Beach with 30 minute service, so you'll end up having to run some S53s from the North Shore (which is good because you maintain the connection to the S4X routes for people coming from South Beach). As you probably know, there's a decent amount of people getting on at Grasmere SIR headed towards the North Shore, and then you have people coming from Hylan & Clove (though with B35's plan to reroute the S52 & S78 in that area, that would be less of an issue)

 

* The same issue on the weekends (you can't get better than 30 minute headways), and you'd have to use those S62 short-turns on Saturdays (which isn't a bad thing, because then you could just time the Travis S62s to meet the ferry, and intra-SI riders can just transfer between the S63 & S61 if they want more frequent service).

 

As for covering Goethals Road North, I still think my S67 is better. Remember that I'm getting rid of the S66 as part of that plan (Grymes Hill is covered by this S67, Jewett Avenue is covered by a rerouted S57), so it's basically modernizing the S66. (That's why whether it's called S66 or S67 isn't a big deal). Especially since this S63 would still have to serve South Beach, so it wouldn't be a quick link to Brooklyn, so you might as well serve Grymes Hill on the weekends. (Then there's the general connectivity issues it would solve, plus quicker access to St. George, etc)

 

But I do think that this S63 should be extended to Richmond Avenue (rather than terminating at CSI). Unlike the S93, I can't see CSI students making up that large a percentage of its ridership, because it doesn't go directly to Brooklyn (It loops through South Beach), and during rush hour, you have the S93 anyway (I wouldn't expand it to run all day weekdays). Ideally, I'd like both to terminate at Richmond Avenue, but I can see where the people are coming from with having the buses terminate at CSI (especially now that the buses actually go into CSI). Weekends, CSI ridership isn't that strong anyway. (And of course, with the S83, you're still in a better position than before as far as getting to Brooklyn).

 

And as was mentioned in the past, it is possible to terminate in the vicinity of Victory & Richmond. You can either have buses layover on Clifton (turnaround via Victory-Richmond-Clifton-Jones-Victory), have them terminate by Moore High School (turnaround via Victory-Arlene-Merrill-Richmond-Victory), or if worse comes to worse, have them terminate at Morani & Richmond, and layover on Morani (turnaround via Victory-Richmond-Morani-Victory). Either way, you still provide the connection to Brooklyn for riders coming off the Richmond Avenue routes.

Nice, I like how you broke it down piece-by-piece. :)

 

Basically that is just a rough idea. I don't see why Grymes Hill became so important lately? The S66 is fine and the S57 is ok where it's at as well. They are basically school routes like the S54-56 with the added bonus of picking people up lol. For $2.50, you and a couple of other people get a personal driver across staten island. :lol:

 

For the S63 or S67, have it travel on Narrows Road North and South instead and make no changes to the S53. It would run from Bay Ridge via Narrows Road, Clove, Victory, via CSI, via Goethals Rd. And to Bay Ridge, via Goethals Road, via CSI, Victory, Clove, Narrows Road. Maybe for the buses sake, Goethals Road north could be turned into a two-way street and a walkway built over the expressway at some point.

 

A free 2nd transfer could be made between the S53 and S63. The ridership potential from this route would be very high, it would be a local X10 in a way like the S79 is or was a local X1.

Edited by North Shore Line
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice, I like how you broke it down piece-by-piece. :)

 

Basically that is just a rough idea. I don't see why Grymes Hill became so important lately? The S66 is fine and the S57 is ok where it's at as well. They are basically school routes like the S54-56 with the added bonus of picking people up lol. For $2.50, you and a couple of other people get a personal driver across staten island. :lol:

 

For the S63 or S67, have it travel on Narrows Road North and South instead and make no changes to the S53. It would run from Bay Ridge via Narrows Road, Clove, Victory, via CSI, via Goethals Rd. And to Bay Ridge, via Goethals Road, via CSI, Victory, Clove, Narrows Road. Maybe for the buses sake, Goethals Road north could be turned into a two-way street and a walkway built over the expressway at some point.

 

A free 2nd transfer could be made between the S53 and S63. The ridership potential from this route would be very high, it would be a local X10 in a way like the S79 is or was a local X1.

 

I like this idea, but have one question: With three bus routes already turning at 4 Ave, where would an S63 fit? And the S83 LTD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice, I like how you broke it down piece-by-piece. :)

 

Basically that is just a rough idea. I don't see why Grymes Hill became so important lately? The S66 is fine and the S57 is ok where it's at as well. They are basically school routes like the S54-56 with the added bonus of picking people up lol. For $2.50, you and a couple of other people get a personal driver across staten island. :lol:

 

For the S63 or S67, have it travel on Narrows Road North and South instead and make no changes to the S53. It would run from Bay Ridge via Narrows Road, Clove, Victory, via CSI, via Goethals Rd. And to Bay Ridge, via Goethals Road, via CSI, Victory, Clove, Narrows Road. Maybe for the buses sake, Goethals Road north could be turned into a two-way street and a walkway built over the expressway at some point.

 

A free 2nd transfer could be made between the S53 and S63. The ridership potential from this route would be very high, it would be a local X10 in a way like the S79 is or was a local X1.

 

Well, with the S66, it's outdated. Back in the day, Port Richmond was the "5th Avenue of SI", and it also had a ferry terminal by the current S53/59/57/66 terminal, so it justified the extra route going there. But nowadays, travel patterns have shifted. There's more of a need for east-west service (especially since the North Shore Line was closed), and less of a need for the connection to Victory Blvd.

 

So far on the S66 trips I've taken, people either rode it "within" Jewett, "within" Victory, or from Jewett (within a stop or two of the S46/48) to a portion of Victory that was served by the S46/48. Both of those routes should have limiteds to the ferry during the day, which would speed things up and reduce crowding (because you'd go from 5 buses per hour on Forest/Castleton to 6 BPH at virtually no cost).

 

But basically, it's an issue of coverage. Does Jewett Avenue get tons of riders? Of course not, and neither does Grymes Hill. But the bus that serves those two corridors doesn't run weekends, and I really don't like the idea of areas being left without service, even if they do have low ridership. (I mean, at the very least, you have to admit that it makes no sense to have a huge gap in north-south service between Willowbrook Road & Broadway. At least along Jewett, the S57 fills that gap better, and also provides somewhat of an alternative for S54 riders).

 

As for Goethals Road North being two-way, it would interfere with cars getting on/off the expressway, so you can't do that. But I do agree that there should be a pedestrian bridge built over the expressway. (As I've said in the past, if the streets were tweaked on both sides of the expressway, and a vehicular bridge was built, you could actually get a bus route between Richmond & South, running down Union, Amity, Arlene, etc, but of course, that's wishful thinking)

 

As for running to Brooklyn, for starters, I'd have buses go down Watchogue, rather than going straight to Victory, because that would enable you to reroute the S57 up Jewett to provide weekend service there. But as much as I'd like direct service to Brooklyn, I still don't like the idea of leaving Grymes Hill without service (in this case, on both weekends and weekdays, because you can't justify running the S66 between St. George and Clove Road). I mean, the only way would be if they did some kind of S76 reroute up Hillside, but I can't see Grymes Hill residents going for that.

 

Plus, I think you'd be going a little bit overkill on the limited service, with the S63/83/93 all on Narrows Road.

 

So basically, I think this would be the best proposal:

S53: West Brighton (current S54 terminal) to Bay Ridge via South Beach (Sundays extended to Port Richmond)

S83: Port Richmond to Bay Ridge via Narrows Road (Monday-Saturday)

S63: Richmond & Victory to Bay Ridge via South Beach (7 day service)

S93: CSI to Bay Ridge via Narrows Road (rush hours only)

 

I like this idea, but have one question: With three bus routes already turning at 4 Ave, where would an S63 fit? And the S83 LTD?

 

Well, keep in mind that S53 & S93 service would be reduced somewhat, with the introduction of those routes.

 

The S79 used to terminate on the same side of the street as the S53 (and I believe at one point, the S53/93 actually shared the same stop), it's possible. What you could do is have the S53/63 layover between 86th & 87th, and have the S83/93 layover between 87th & 88th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice, I like how you broke it down piece-by-piece. :)

 

Basically that is just a rough idea. I don't see why Grymes Hill became so important lately? The S66 is fine and the S57 is ok where it's at as well. They are basically school routes like the S54-56 with the added bonus of picking people up lol. For $2.50, you and a couple of other people get a personal driver across staten island. :lol:

 

For the S63 or S67, have it travel on Narrows Road North and South instead and make no changes to the S53. It would run from Bay Ridge via Narrows Road, Clove, Victory, via CSI, via Goethals Rd. And to Bay Ridge, via Goethals Road, via CSI, Victory, Clove, Narrows Road. Maybe for the buses sake, Goethals Road north could be turned into a two-way street and a walkway built over the expressway at some point.

 

A free 2nd transfer could be made between the S53 and S63. The ridership potential from this route would be very high, it would be a local X10 in a way like the S79 is or was a local X1.

err ok but if so what becomes of  S93? which becomes redundant before S63/83 I'd have it skip bay ridge and go to 59th bay ridge is served by the S53 and S79 no need for a new bay ridge route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

err ok but if so what becomes of  S93? which becomes redundant before S63/83 I'd have it skip bay ridge and go to 59th bay ridge is served by the S53 and S79 no need for a new bay ridge route.

The S93 wouldn't be redundant as it would run at peak hours. Very few would be affected as additional service would be provided along Victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

err ok but if so what becomes of  S93? which becomes redundant before S63/83 I'd have it skip bay ridge and go to 59th bay ridge is served by the S53 and S79 no need for a new bay ridge route.

 

(**sigh**)

 

86th Street is the closest subway station to Staten Island. That's why all the Brooklyn-SI routes terminate there: It's cheaper than running them to 59th Street. There's nothing special about the S93 as to why it should be the only SI route to get extended to 59th Street. Either they should all go there or none of them should go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(**sigh**)

 

86th Street is the closest subway station to Staten Island. That's why all the Brooklyn-SI routes terminate there: It's cheaper than running them to 59th Street. There's nothing special about the S93 as to why it should be the only SI route to get extended to 59th Street. Either they should all go there or none of them should go there.

Yeah, I don't get why some people are still confused by this. It's been made pretty clear by the MTA (and commuters) that 86 St is just fine because of the area's stores and eateries and connection to R/Brooklyn buses. Going to 59 just adds time in traffic.

 

When the S83 LTD eventually comes (MTA can only bullshit us for so long), I'm guessing it'll share space with the S53 and not the lot between 87 St and 88 St on 4 Av facing south with the S93 LTD.

 

An S63 (or St. George-Bay Ridge route, or both) would have to take the space b/w 87 St and 88 St on 4 Av facing north. The west side train station stairwell has enough crowds as is.

Edited by Culver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't get why some people are still confused by this. It's been made pretty clear by the MTA (and commuters) that 86 St is just fine because of the area's stores and eateries and connection to R/Brooklyn buses. Going to 59 just adds time in traffic.

 

When the S83 LTD eventually comes (MTA can only bullshit us for so long), I'm guessing it'll share space with the S53 and not the lot between 87 St and 88 St on 4 Av facing south with the S93 LTD.

 

An S63 (or St. George-Bay Ridge route, or both) would have to take the space b/w 87 St and 88 St on 4 Av facing north. The west side train station stairwell has enough crowds as is.

 

Well, it's one of the things where "It doesn't work, but people make it work". It's workable, but I wouldn't call it "just fine". I mean, there are a lot of people who are missing their connections between the (N) & (R), when they wouldn't have to if the buses went to 59th Street.

 

Of course, there are a decent amount of people who are either headed for Downtown Brooklyn (in which case, the (N) doesn't do them much good), other points in southern Brooklyn (along the B1, B63, etc), or Bay Ridge itself, for whom the current situation works fine. But I wouldn't call it a waste to consider extending buses to 59th Street.

 

And I think it would share space with the S93 only because the S53 is still (generally) more frequent than the S93. That, plus the S83 would have just as much in common with the S93 as the S53 (because remember that a large amount of the S53 ridership comes from South Beach/Grasmere).

 

On a side note, I wonder if the changing subway patterns had anything to do with the fact that buses terminate at 86th Street. The (N) wasn't always the express to Midtown. It's been the 4th Avenue local via Lower Manhattan, 4th Avenue express via Lower Manhattan (but then it would go local evenings and weekends), and at one point, during the Manhattan Bridge construction, it was cut back to Pacific Street on the weekends. I wonder if part of it is the MTA thinking that "in 10 years, we might have to change the pattern again, and then it won't be worth going to 59th Street". That's probably not the case, but it is a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

err ok but if so what becomes of  S93? which becomes redundant before S63/83 I'd have it skip bay ridge and go to 59th bay ridge is served by the S53 and S79 no need for a new bay ridge route.

Don't agree w/ one of the current routes running up to 59th st, nor do I really agree with a new bay ridge route.....

 

But I have the same question as you do, as it pertains to North Shore Line's post....

He's suggesting that a "63" or "67" do the same thing S93's already do, running from bay ridge via narrows rd, clove, victory, en route to CSI..... That is absolutely redundant to the 93.....

 

 

The S93 wouldn't be redundant as it would run at peak hours.....

If that's the case, then he may as well suggest running S93's during off peak hours & extending it to goethals rd. or w/e......

 

(**sigh**)

 

86th Street is the closest subway station to Staten Island. That's why all the Brooklyn-SI routes terminate there: It's cheaper than running them to 59th Street. There's nothing special about the S93 as to why it should be the only SI route to get extended to 59th Street. Either they should all go there or none of them should go there.

 

He's asking why does NSL's suggestion take on the same course as the S93.

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Back in the day, Port Richmond was the "5th Avenue of SI", and it also had a ferry terminal by the current S53/59/57/66 terminal



It'd be great if it had a ferry terminal there again in the future. Be cool to see Port Richmond experience another Golden Age:) Plus a rejuvenated North Shore SIR! PR would become like Hoboken, especially mass transit & mass transit hub wise:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's asking why does NSL's suggestion take on the same course as the S93.

 

Alright, that makes sense.

 

Yeah, that would be redundant then.

 

It'd be great if it had a ferry terminal there again in the future. Be cool to see Port Richmond experience another Golden Age:) Plus a rejuvenated North Shore SIR! PR would become like Hoboken, especially mass transit & mass transit hub wise:)

 

Well, long-term, I'd prefer that HBLR extension. At least that brings you directly to the business districts in Jersey City & Hoboken (as well as the connections available to other services like PATH, etc). There isn't much in the part of Bayonne that faces Port Richmond. It's mostly residential, with a little bit of industry further east.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.