Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

[Culver]

I think maybe in the interest of differentiation from the S93, this S63 could simply not stop at CSI. Even if it stops there, it wouldn't have to be all the way in the campus loop like the S93.

[checkmatechamp13]

Well, making that "small" loop just outside the gate is no big deal. And I think we can all agree that the only routes that should actually go into CSI (the way the S93 does now) are those that actually terminate there.

 

I think the original idea of just having the S63 make the detour via South Beach makes the most sense. Then it's simple: Locals via South Beach, limiteds via Narrows Road. If anybody wants to save some time, the MTA can maintain the 3-legged transfer so people can transfer from the subway to the S83/93, and then transfer back to another route (whether it's the S53/63, or some other SI route).

[Culver]

Well, making that "small" loop just outside the gate is no big deal. And I think we can all agree that the only routes that should actually go into CSI (the way the S93 does now) are those that actually terminate there.

 

I think the original idea of just having the S63 make the detour via South Beach makes the most sense. Then it's simple: Locals via South Beach, limiteds via Narrows Road. If anybody wants to save some time, the MTA can maintain the 3-legged transfer so people can transfer from the subway to the S83/93, and then transfer back to another route (whether it's the S53/63, or some other SI route).

I like this idea. Then basically the local/LTD pairs are S63/S93 LTD (even with 93 terminating at CSI, close enough), and S53/S83 LTD. They would then distribute lots at 4 Ave based on that pairing: 53/83 b/w 86 & 87 facing south; 63/93 b/w 87 & 88 facing south.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Culver

[qjtransitmaster]

(**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.

see B35's post and reply network structure kid. People are fed up with the

 

I like this idea. Then basically the local/LTD pairs are S63/S93 LTD (even with 93 terminating at CSI, close enough), and S53/S83 LTD. They would then distribute lots at 4 Ave based on that pairing: 53/83 b/w 86 & 87 facing south; 63/93 b/w 87 & 88 facing south.

S63 here is a better idea just add full time service to S93 and have select rush hour runs to 59th street or full-time skips directly to 59th and rush hour S93 from bay ridge left as is. It's just a service boost. S63 is basically a full time S93.

Edited February 11, 2013 by qjtransitmaster

[checkmatechamp13]

I like this idea. Then basically the local/LTD pairs are S63/S93 LTD (even with 93 terminating at CSI, close enough), and S53/S83 LTD. They would then distribute lots at 4 Ave based on that pairing: 53/83 b/w 86 & 87 facing south; 63/93 b/w 87 & 88 facing south.

 

Well, I dunno. Like I said before, I think the limiteds would have more of a common ridership base with each other than with their respective locals (The same deal with the locals). Think about it. It's less confusing for somebody going to South Beach if the S53/63 are on the same block, because then they just wait there, and whatever pulls up first, they take. If you have the S53 & S63 at seperate stops, you'll have people running back and forth if one bus pulls up before the other.

 

If the S63 & S93 are at seperate stops, I can't see that happening, because the S93 is generally much faster than the S63 (would be) if you're going to points north of the SIE (Generally, I'd say at least a good 10-15 minutes faster). So unless it's a point where S93 buses are running less frequently than every 15-20 minutes, I think most people would just wait for the next bus. The same for the S53 & S83. Assuming they do program in the extra transfer, I'd even think a decent amount of people would take the S83 to Victory and transfer, over taking the S63 (though of course, some might prefer the one-seat ride if they're not pressed for time).

 

But basically, between the sizable amount of ridership coming from the South Beach area (that could take either S53s or S63s), plus the fact that throughout the day, S83s would probably be more frequent than S93s (so you'd have the more frequent routes on the same block and the two less frequent routes on the same block, instead of "evening them out"), I think it's better to group them with the locals together and limiteds together. But that's just me.

 

Of course, this is a small issue, and the main issue would be establishing the S63 & S83 routes in the first place.

 

see B35's post and reply network structure kid. People are fed up with the

 

And? It's just S93 riders who are fed up with the ? People along Hylan Blvd aren't fed up with the ? People from South Beach aren't fed up with the ?

 

And don't say something like "Send half of the buses to 59th and half to 86th", because splitting the frequencies will just screw things up.

Edited February 11, 2013 by checkmatechamp13

[Santa Fe via Willow]

cc13 said: 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.

I'd like ALL OF THE ABOVE if possible, which would be AWESOME! Imagine a nuNorth Shore SIR, the HBLR coming into SI, MORE SI/NJ local &/or LTD routes, more ferry terminals (a nuPR ferry), ALL OF THOSE THINGS (and more hopefully ).

Edited February 11, 2013 by Santa Fe via Willow

[Culver]

 

cc13 said: 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.

 

I'd like ALL OF THE ABOVE if possible, which would be AWESOME! Imagine a nuNorth Shore SIR, the HBLR coming into SI, MORE SI/NJ local &/or LTD routes, more ferry terminals (a nuPR ferry), ALL OF THOSE THINGS (and more hopefully ).

I'd up-vote this, but I'm out for the day.

[B35 via Church]

People are fed up with the

While true, that doesn't mean you should actually have buses run up to 59th st...

 

Anyone THAT fed up with the R (that doesn't drive, that is) will make their way to the ferry... Yes it's free, but why else do you think those boats stay packed? Not only b/c they don't want to pay for some express bus, but they want to avoid the hassle of riding a subway (especially the R) through brooklyn having already came off one of the SI buses to get to brooklyn in the first place.....

 

The funny thing about that though is, there are SI-ers that take the ferry & reverse commute on the for those 1 or 2 stops from whitehall, to downtown bklyn..... That I never quite understood.....

Edited February 11, 2013 by B35 via Church

[checkmatechamp13]

The funny thing about that though is, there are SI-ers that take the ferry & reverse commute on the for those 1 or 2 stops from whitehall, to downtown bklyn..... That I never quite understood.....

 

Well, that actually doesn't sound too far-fetched to me. There are a lot of neighborhoods not served by a route to Brooklyn, so it's the same amount of transfers (either bus-bus-subway or bus-ferry-subway), and in Manhattan, you have more options (you have the in addition to the , not to mention you can walk to other lines in a worse-case scenario).

 

I've actually tried that, thinking it would save time, and most of the time, it was a break-even. (And if I could time myself for the ferry, the ferry would usually be a little faster). I don't like the ferry, but it is faster (in general) than going through Brooklyn on the . (Whether you're going to Manhattan itself or Downtown Brooklyn).

[North Shore Line]

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)

 

 

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.

Very nice post!

 

 

 

 

 

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)

 

When you state it that way, the S57 and S66 are clearly outdated and it is very possible that your plan would increase ridership on both lines and make both much more useful. The issue with the S63 is that it would be another bus on Victory and probably run out of Yukon, maybe it could absorb some of the S62 runs? The S61 and new S66/S67 could better handle St George riders somehow with less S62 St George and more S63 to Brooklyn. Hopefully they'll move to 6bph on Castleton/Forest with limiteds in the near future.

 

Goethals Road North and Richmond Avenue would require a special light to move traffic the right way if it became two-way. The expressway exit and Goethals Road would never be green at the same time. There are more important things for SI other than weekend service to Grymes Hill at the moment especially knowing how things have to be cost-effective.

 

Your proposal is a great idea overall, and Watchogue probably needs the new service more than extra service to CSI.

 

Now I have another proposal:

 

Overnight S44! The S44 replaces S59 for the night after 8pm or 9pm and runs between Eltingville/Richmond Avenue or Eltingville Transit Center and St George. Ricmond Avenue would have overnight bus service to/from St George Ferry for the first time. How do they get home now? Must be a long walk from the S48, S62, S74 or S78. This service change would be great for the future. And buses would only have to run every 30 minutes and every hour.

[B35 via Church]

.....There are a lot of neighborhoods not served by a route to Brooklyn, so it's the same amount of transfers (either bus-bus-subway or bus-ferry-subway), and in Manhattan, you have more options (you have the in addition to the , not to mention you can walk to other lines in a worse-case scenario).

 

I still couldn't see doing that for a daily commute.... If the ride on the ferry was quicker than 30 mins, then maybe....

If I made my way to brooklyn already from SI, I'd may as well yuck it up & take the 4th av line (either by staying on the R, or xfer over for the 4th av express at 59th or 36th) downtown brooklyn if that's where I'm headed....

 

Looking at it the other way, if I worked downtown, I know there's no way in hell I'd want to ride up to manhattan to take the ferry....

 

It's almost like taking the from some point in manhattan & riding it up to the bronx for one of the GWB buses back to washington heights (or taking the BxM1 from somewhere on the east side to 207th & backtrack for the Bx7, M100, or the to washington heights).... As much as I don't care for the , I'd make my way to the 42nd st. shuttle & walk that corridor from where the puts you off to the 8th av line & ride it out on the from 42nd to wherever in washington hgts. I'm tryna get to..... There's no way I'd go to the bronx, from manhattan, if I'm going somewhere in manhattan.....

Edited February 11, 2013 by B35 via Church

[qjtransitmaster]

Well, I dunno. Like I said before, I think the limiteds would have more of a common ridership base with each other than with their respective locals (The same deal with the locals). Think about it. It's less confusing for somebody going to South Beach if the S53/63 are on the same block, because then they just wait there, and whatever pulls up first, they take. If you have the S53 & S63 at seperate stops, you'll have people running back and forth if one bus pulls up before the other.

 

If the S63 & S93 are at seperate stops, I can't see that happening, because the S93 is generally much faster than the S63 (would be) if you're going to points north of the SIE (Generally, I'd say at least a good 10-15 minutes faster). So unless it's a point where S93 buses are running less frequently than every 15-20 minutes, I think most people would just wait for the next bus. The same for the S53 & S83. Assuming they do program in the extra transfer, I'd even think a decent amount of people would take the S83 to Victory and transfer, over taking the S63 (though of course, some might prefer the one-seat ride if they're not pressed for time).

 

But basically, between the sizable amount of ridership coming from the South Beach area (that could take either S53s or S63s), plus the fact that throughout the day, S83s would probably be more frequent than S93s (so you'd have the more frequent routes on the same block and the two less frequent routes on the same block, instead of "evening them out"), I think it's better to group them with the locals together and limiteds together. But that's just me.

 

Of course, this is a small issue, and the main issue would be establishing the S63 & S83 routes in the first place.

 

 

And? It's just S93 riders who are fed up with the ? People along Hylan Blvd aren't fed up with the ? People from South Beach aren't fed up with the ?

 

And don't say something like "Send half of the buses to 59th and half to 86th", because splitting the frequencies will just screw things up.

err they don't have a choice the only other option is to drive and get buttraped with tolls. Fail.

 

Very nice post!

 

When you state it that way, the S57 and S66 are clearly outdated and it is very possible that your plan would increase ridership on both lines and make both much more useful. The issue with the S63 is that it would be another bus on Victory and probably run out of Yukon, maybe it could absorb some of the S62 runs? The S61 and new S66/S67 could better handle St George riders somehow with less S62 St George and more S63 to Brooklyn. Hopefully they'll move to 6bph on Castleton/Forest with limiteds in the near future.

 

Goethals Road North and Richmond Avenue would require a special light to move traffic the right way if it became two-way. The expressway exit and Goethals Road would never be green at the same time. There are more important things for SI other than weekend service to Grymes Hill at the moment especially knowing how things have to be cost-effective.

 

Your proposal is a great idea overall, and Watchogue probably needs the new service more than extra service to CSI.

 

Now I have another proposal:

 

Overnight S44! The S44 replaces S59 for the night after 8pm or 9pm and runs between Eltingville/Richmond Avenue or Eltingville Transit Center and St George. Ricmond Avenue would have overnight bus service to/from St George Ferry for the first time. How do they get home now? Must be a long walk from the S48, S62, S74 or S78. This service change would be great for the future. And buses would only have to run every 30 minutes and every hour.

 

Lets leave S59 alone please.

Well, that actually doesn't sound too far-fetched to me. There are a lot of neighborhoods not served by a route to Brooklyn, so it's the same amount of transfers (either bus-bus-subway or bus-ferry-subway), and in Manhattan, you have more options (you have the in addition to the , not to mention you can walk to other lines in a worse-case scenario).

 

I've actually tried that, thinking it would save time, and most of the time, it was a break-even. (And if I could time myself for the ferry, the ferry would usually be a little faster). I don't like the ferry, but it is faster (in general) than going through Brooklyn on the . (Whether you're going to Manhattan itself or Downtown Brooklyn).

Me thinks there needs to be a ferry to downtown brooklyn or dumbo from st george.

[North Shore Line]

err they don't have a choice the only other option is to drive and get buttraped with tolls. Fail.

 

 

Lets leave S59 alone please.

Me thinks there needs to be a ferry to downtown brooklyn or dumbo from st george.

You believe the S59 should be left alone for what reason? Richmond Avenue actually had 24/7 service via the S59 until 1995 when service was cut. Why should Richmond Avenue not have 24/7 local bus service once again in 2013 and beyond, this time with St George access as well.

 

Cutting S59 service off at 8pm-ish would, 1. eliminate unecessary duplicate service on Richmond Avenue at a time when traffic is very calm and the S44 makes very good time, 2. free up more buses for the S44, 3. keep things cost-neutral.

 

The current S44 route has improved a great deal over the last few months, however I would chalk that up to the new S79 having only 22 stops vs 90+ stops. The new S44 would run 8pm, 8:30, 9, 9:30, 10, 10:30, 11, 11:30, 12am, 12:30, 1:00, 1:30, 2:30, 3:30, 4:30am. Very simple schedule to keep, and once again traffic is non-existant along the S44 route after 10pm. The S59 route in Port Richmond is entirely within walking distance of the S44. The S59 would cease running after 8pm every day and those costs would be diverted to extending the S44 south to Eltingville and 5 new overnight runs. Richmond Avenue and other corridors served by the S44 would have solid 30 minute service evening and overnight hourly service to/from the SI Ferry. There is no good reason why people would not use this bus!

[S78 via Hylan]

^^^ Um, no. The S59 is fine as it is. No need to cut it at 8:00 PM. It helps the S44 along Richmond Av even during those hours.

[Santa Fe via Willow]

A simple solution here would be the MTA|NYCT restoring OVERNIGHT service on the 59. Overnight 59s operated between Hylan Blvd & that little park across from the Forest Ave Burger King.

[Threxx]

Not much of an SI person, but I couldn't help but notice in my travels on the island and from what I've heard (so not much to base off of, so forgive me) but I couldn't help but notice an obvious gap in service near the center of the island.

 

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=213458373195564989412.0004d0846ed6ac303021b&msa=0

 

In this incarnation of the route, I have combined it with the S56, but it could be an independent route running from the Mall to Port Richmond. Here, I'd straighten the S57 along Jewett, and have this route run using the route depicted, filling a gap around the SI Expwy.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Not much of an SI person, but I couldn't help but notice in my travels on the island and from what I've heard (so not much to base off of, so forgive me) but I couldn't help but notice an obvious gap in service near the center of the island.

 

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=213458373195564989412.0004d0846ed6ac303021b&msa=0

 

In this incarnation of the route, I have combined it with the S56, but it could be an independent route running from the Mall to Port Richmond. Here, I'd straighten the S57 along Jewett, and have this route run using the route depicted, filling a gap around the SI Expwy.

OMG... Are you serious with that route??? Too long and not necessary.  The other routes that serve those corridors do the job just fine #1 and #2 Port Richmond isnt the destination place that it used to be years ago.

[B35 via Church]

OMG... Are you serious with that route??? Too long and not necessary.  The other routes that serve those corridors do the job just fine #1 and #2 Port Richmond isnt the destination place that it used to be years ago.

 

I was just about to say that S61 riders aren't trying to get to that part of the south shore & hardly anyone up in the pt. richmond area will take that course to get to the mall when the S59 already runs along richmond av.....

 

He did admit that he isn't an SI person.... and to me, just looking at that route, it's quite clear....

Edited February 12, 2013 by B35 via Church

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I was just about to say that S61 riders aren't trying to that part of the south shore & hardly anyone up in the pt. richmond area will take that course to get to the mall when the S59 already runs along richmond av.....

 

He did admit that he isn't an SI person.... and to me, just looking at that route, it's quite clear....

lol... Yeah and you'd have the crazies like Gorgor foaming at the mouth about how many people the route would carry and how expensive it would be to run. I could just see it now... 

[qjtransitmaster]

A simple solution here would be the MTA|NYCT restoring OVERNIGHT service on the 59. Overnight 59s operated between Hylan Blvd & that little park across from the Forest Ave Burger King.

Let overnight S44 be truncated at richmond ave its so long.

[checkmatechamp13]

Very nice post!

 

When you state it that way, the S57 and S66 are clearly outdated and it is very possible that your plan would increase ridership on both lines and make both much more useful. The issue with the S63 is that it would be another bus on Victory and probably run out of Yukon, maybe it could absorb some of the S62 runs? The S61 and new S66/S67 could better handle St George riders somehow with less S62 St George and more S63 to Brooklyn. Hopefully they'll move to 6bph on Castleton/Forest with limiteds in the near future.

 

Goethals Road North and Richmond Avenue would require a special light to move traffic the right way if it became two-way. The expressway exit and Goethals Road would never be green at the same time. There are more important things for SI other than weekend service to Grymes Hill at the moment especially knowing how things have to be cost-effective.

 

Your proposal is a great idea overall, and Watchogue probably needs the new service more than extra service to CSI.

 

Now I have another proposal:

 

Overnight S44! The S44 replaces S59 for the night after 8pm or 9pm and runs between Eltingville/Richmond Avenue or Eltingville Transit Center and St George. Ricmond Avenue would have overnight bus service to/from St George Ferry for the first time. How do they get home now? Must be a long walk from the S48, S62, S74 or S78. This service change would be great for the future. And buses would only have to run every 30 minutes and every hour.

 

Yeah, it would definitely take some service from the S62. How much exactly, I'm not sure. Ideally, midday headways would be something like 20 minutes each for the S62/63, but I really don't like the idea of buses being run on headways that don't work well with the ferry (so if the ferry runs every 30 minutes, the headways of the buses should be a factor of 30, whether it's 30, 15, 10, etc). I mean, for starters, the midday service that runs every 12 minutes (towards St. George) can be cut to every 15. I'd rather not make the leap to 30 minute headways, though.

 

Saturdays, those CSI short-turns would be used as S63s instead of S62s, and the S62 buses would be rescheduled the way they run on Sunday (so buses arrive about 10 minutes before the ferry rather than 20).

 

As for Goethals Road North, it just can't be made two-way. You have the exit ramp for South Avenue, and the entrance ramp to get onto the SIE (the one the X17J used to use before it stopped at South Avenue). Even if it were possible, It wouldn't serve a purpose. You'd bring the bus closer to people on the northern side of the expressway, but make it further from the people on the southern side.

 

As for overnight S44 service, the problem is that it's redundant once you get onto the North Shore. The areas north of Forest are basically covered by the S40, S46, and S48, depending on where exactly you are. Unless you were to route one of those three away from serving Mariners' Harbor, I don't see a good way to provide St. George - Richmond Avenue service.

 

I guess what you could do is try to time the S59 with the S48. If you ran the S59 from Forest & Willowbrook to the ETC, the trip time would be about 25 minutes (I'd have it go through the back of the mall, and also bypass the Forest Hill Road detour. I'd do those two anyway, but that's a different story). In any case, you'd be able to have hourly service with just one bus going back and forth. Of course, the problem is that it requires an extra transfer (bus-bus-ferry-subway), but I guess it's better than nothing.

 

For Hylan Blvd, I'd run the S79 between the SI Mall and Bay Ridge, all local (so that would require 2 buses for hourly headways). Right now, the S78 looks like it requires 3 buses for overnight service. If that were eliminated overnights, you'd free up two buses for the S79, and one for the S59, which works out perfectly.

 

On a side note, looking at the overnight schedules, I'm noticing that a lot of routes have really long layover times. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it looks like for instance, the S48 gets to Arlington on the :29s, but doesn't leave until :20 on the next hour. The S46 arrives at :36 and leaves at :15. That would be one issue solved by bustituting the ferries overnight, since you'd have 30 minute headways to connect to, and you wouldn't need such a long layover.

 

err they don't have a choice the only other option is to drive and get buttraped with tolls. Fail.

 

Err....neither do S93 riders. Why do they get the special treatment? (And this is coming from somebody who lives closer to the S93 than the S53/79)

 

Not much of an SI person, but I couldn't help but notice in my travels on the island and from what I've heard (so not much to base off of, so forgive me) but I couldn't help but notice an obvious gap in service near the center of the island.

 

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=213458373195564989412.0004d0846ed6ac303021b&msa=0

 

In this incarnation of the route, I have combined it with the S56, but it could be an independent route running from the Mall to Port Richmond. Here, I'd straighten the S57 along Jewett, and have this route run using the route depicted, filling a gap around the SI Expwy.

 

Well, for starters, Willowbrook & Stewart south of Victory are narrow, residential streets. Going straight down Woolley to Watchogue to Willowbrook would be best.

 

As I said earlier in the thread, the only way I could possibly see this getting ridership is if it went to Bayonne, to replace the S89 off-peak. At least then, you have the S89 riders who get on at Forest & Walker, plus the riders who get on by the mall, and the ones who get on at the ETC. (Of course, this is Bayonne-bound riders I'm talking about), all of which are major stops on the S89. I wouldn't want to run the S89 off-peak, because that would overserve Richmond Avenue, and well, I guess this is one way of doing it. It's an awkward routing, but it's not the worst idea.

 

But otherwise, I don't think it will get a lot of riders from the areas along the route. In the northern part, you can either walk or take an east-west bus over to the S44/59, and in the southern part, you have the S61. Current S57 usage in that area is pretty weak. (You have people getting on at Forest itself, but aside from schoolkids, it doesn't get a lot of usage along Willowbrook & Watchogue).

 

Let overnight S44 be truncated at richmond ave its so long.

 

From which direction? St. George to Forest & Richmond is unnecessary, so I hope you're not suggesting that.

[qjtransitmaster]

Yeah, it would definitely take some service from the S62. How much exactly, I'm not sure. Ideally, midday headways would be something like 20 minutes each for the S62/63, but I really don't like the idea of buses being run on headways that don't work well with the ferry (so if the ferry runs every 30 minutes, the headways of the buses should be a factor of 30, whether it's 30, 15, 10, etc). I mean, for starters, the midday service that runs every 12 minutes (towards St. George) can be cut to every 15. I'd rather not make the leap to 30 minute headways, though.

 

Saturdays, those CSI short-turns would be used as S63s instead of S62s, and the S62 buses would be rescheduled the way they run on Sunday (so buses arrive about 10 minutes before the ferry rather than 20).

 

As for Goethals Road North, it just can't be made two-way. You have the exit ramp for South Avenue, and the entrance ramp to get onto the SIE (the one the X17J used to use before it stopped at South Avenue). Even if it were possible, It wouldn't serve a purpose. You'd bring the bus closer to people on the northern side of the expressway, but make it further from the people on the southern side.

 

As for overnight S44 service, the problem is that it's redundant once you get onto the North Shore. The areas north of Forest are basically covered by the S40, S46, and S48, depending on where exactly you are. Unless you were to route one of those three away from serving Mariners' Harbor, I don't see a good way to provide St. George - Richmond Avenue service.

 

I guess what you could do is try to time the S59 with the S48. If you ran the S59 from Forest & Willowbrook to the ETC, the trip time would be about 25 minutes (I'd have it go through the back of the mall, and also bypass the Forest Hill Road detour. I'd do those two anyway, but that's a different story). In any case, you'd be able to have hourly service with just one bus going back and forth. Of course, the problem is that it requires an extra transfer (bus-bus-ferry-subway), but I guess it's better than nothing.

 

For Hylan Blvd, I'd run the S79 between the SI Mall and Bay Ridge, all local (so that would require 2 buses for hourly headways). Right now, the S78 looks like it requires 3 buses for overnight service. If that were eliminated overnights, you'd free up two buses for the S79, and one for the S59, which works out perfectly.

 

On a side note, looking at the overnight schedules, I'm noticing that a lot of routes have really long layover times. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it looks like for instance, the S48 gets to Arlington on the :29s, but doesn't leave until :20 on the next hour. The S46 arrives at :36 and leaves at :15. That would be one issue solved by bustituting the ferries overnight, since you'd have 30 minute headways to connect to, and you wouldn't need such a long layover.

 

 

Err....neither do S93 riders. Why do they get the special treatment? (And this is coming from somebody who lives closer to the S93 than the S53/79)

 

 

Well, for starters, Willowbrook & Stewart south of Victory are narrow, residential streets. Going straight down Woolley to Watchogue to Willowbrook would be best.

 

As I said earlier in the thread, the only way I could possibly see this getting ridership is if it went to Bayonne, to replace the S89 off-peak. At least then, you have the S89 riders who get on at Forest & Walker, plus the riders who get on by the mall, and the ones who get on at the ETC. (Of course, this is Bayonne-bound riders I'm talking about), all of which are major stops on the S89. I wouldn't want to run the S89 off-peak, because that would overserve Richmond Avenue, and well, I guess this is one way of doing it. It's an awkward routing, but it's not the worst idea.

 

But otherwise, I don't think it will get a lot of riders from the areas along the route. In the northern part, you can either walk or take an east-west bus over to the S44/59, and in the southern part, you have the S61. Current S57 usage in that area is pretty weak. (You have people getting on at Forest itself, but aside from schoolkids, it doesn't get a lot of usage along Willowbrook & Watchogue).

 

 

From which direction? St. George to Forest & Richmond is unnecessary, so I hope you're not suggesting that.

I am not suggesting that to bold I am not sure yet. Reply to red it's not about special treatment it's differentiating services that's all. A 3 legged transfer can be added for those who want to transfer to this route to skip the as long as it's frequent it will do fine. But I am understanding your stance. Want to run S89 off-peak? then eliminate it's route south of SI mall and reroute it via rockland ave then replace S57's guyon service with rerouted S89s running at 20 min frequencies basically after rockland it follows S57 route to new dorp replacing that part. Reroute S57 via S76 routing. Then restructure S76 but I am not sure how for now. Maybe leave S76 alone with S57 south given to S89 S57 can be rerouted to giffords la via ETC and SI mall via forest hill Or leave S57 alone and let it go via S76 routing in oakwood forcing S76 to change.

Edited February 12, 2013 by qjtransitmaster

[Santa Fe via Willow]

The ENTIRETY of Richmond Ave MUST be covered & served 24/7/365. THAT's the PROBLEM! Reinstating the overnight 59 would be an easy quickfix.

[checkmatechamp13]

I am not suggesting that to bold I am not sure yet. Reply to red it's not about special treatment it's differentiating services that's all. A 3 legged transfer can be added for those who want to transfer to this route to skip the as long as it's frequent it will do fine. But I am understanding your stance. Want to run S89 off-peak? then eliminate it's route south of SI mall and reroute it via rockland ave then replace S57's guyon service with rerouted S89s running at 20 min frequencies basically after rockland it follows S57 route to new dorp replacing that part. Reroute S57 via S76 routing. Then restructure S76 but I am not sure how for now. Maybe leave S76 alone with S57 south given to S89 S57 can be rerouted to giffords la via ETC and SI mall via forest hill Or leave S57 alone and let it go via S76 routing in oakwood forcing S76 to change.

 

Well, that's what I'm saying: I doubt the route would be frequent enough to become a reliable alternative to the (which is what I said before). But since you say you already understand it, then there's no point in continuing.

 

As for the S89, leave it alone. The ETC alone makes up a large percentage of its ridership, and then the SI Mall adds even more ridership. (Especially since those are the only two official park-and rides along the route). And this is only talking about Bayonne-bound riders. Never mind those who use it as an alternative to the S44/59 to reach the mall (and the schools behind it) and ETC. At least with the other idea, it serves 4 of the largest ridership generators along the route.

[qjtransitmaster]

Well, that's what I'm saying: I doubt the route would be frequent enough to become a reliable alternative to the (which is what I said before). But since you say you already understand it, then there's no point in continuing.

 

As for the S89, leave it alone. The ETC alone makes up a large percentage of its ridership, and then the SI Mall adds even more ridership. (Especially since those are the only two official park-and rides along the route). And this is only talking about Bayonne-bound riders. Never mind those who use it as an alternative to the S44/59 to reach the mall (and the schools behind it) and ETC. At least with the other idea, it serves 4 of the largest ridership generators along the route.

S79 SBS rendered S89 redundant south of the SI mall buddy. S89 is like a LTD it's northern segment that is an alternative to the S44/59 is unchanged. That routing makes it easier to reach via SIR and other buses in south shore. Meaning more connections that way and that routing may be the only way it can run outside rush hr. Sadly I admit that highway is barely used.