Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

[North Shore Line]

The S67 to Mariner's Harbor is a solid plan and I hope it goes through. The only minor issue would be some of the S57 buses would still have to run via Willowbrook Road to serve the schools unless those become S67 school runs.

 

 

Now there's still two known markets left semi-untapped.

 

College of SI Loop to Bay Ridge via Victory Blvd on Middays, Evenings and Saturday.

Port Richmond to Bay Ridge LIMITED via Narrows Road North/South, 7 days a week.

 

These are two potential service additions that would save time for riders between Staten Island and the Brooklyn local train at 86th Street. The services would probably pay for themselves eventually like the Q52 has for example. Maybe a petition can be started for these two as well?

[checkmatechamp13]

The S67 to Mariner's Harbor is a solid plan and I hope it goes through. The only minor issue would be some of the S57 buses would still have to run via Willowbrook Road to serve the schools unless those become S67 school runs.

 

The only school along Willowbrook Road is I.S.51. I'd just serve it with an S67 tripper in each direction (The school zone doesn't go south of Victory, and well, it's reputation isn't that good, so it's not the type of school where kids are coming from all over the place to attend in any noticeable numbers). The tripper can go all the way to St. George, or start/end at Clove Road, or Jewett Avenue, or whatever they think is best.

 

These are two potential service additions that would save time for riders between Staten Island and the Brooklyn local train at 86th Street. The services would probably pay for themselves eventually like the Q52 has for example. Maybe a petition can be started for these two as well?

 

If you can start a petition for them, I'll be more than glad to sign it. But I can't start a petition for either of them until more progress is made with the S67 restructuring, because the MTA's probably going to twist it around and find some crazy reason why an S83 would preclude my S57/66 restructuring from happening. As for the S93 expansion, I'm still undecided as to whether it's a good idea.

[qjtransitmaster]

The only school along Willowbrook Road is I.S.51. I'd just serve it with an S67 tripper in each direction (The school zone doesn't go south of Victory, and well, it's reputation isn't that good, so it's not the type of school where kids are coming from all over the place to attend in any noticeable numbers). The tripper can go all the way to St. George, or start/end at Clove Road, or Jewett Avenue, or whatever they think is best.

 

 

If you can start a petition for them, I'll be more than glad to sign it. But I can't start a petition for either of them until more progress is made with the S67 restructuring, because the MTA's probably going to twist it around and find some crazy reason why an S83 would preclude my S57/66 restructuring from happening. As for the S93 expansion, I'm still undecided as to whether it's a good idea.

S83 would if it is routed to mariner's harbor and made full time. S93 should lose all victory blvd atops as they are barely used.

[S78 via Hylan]

S83 would if it is routed to mariner's harbor and made full time. S93 should lose all victory blvd atops as they are barely used.

Not true. Manor Rd is a heavily used stop for the S93. Most non-CSI bound riders tend to get off/on between CSI and Jewett Av. I would know since I used the S93 when I had classes at CSI.

Edited June 2, 2013 by S78 via Hylan

[checkmatechamp13]

S83 would if it is routed to mariner's harbor and made full time. S93 should lose all victory blvd atops as they are barely used.

 

The S83 would do what? Preclude the S57/66 restructuring from happening?

 

At best, it would prevent the need for the rerouted S66 to go up South Avenue (which wasn't the primary purpose/concern anyway). But it does absolutely nothing for people by the expressway who need direct east-west service. You can't connect directly to the Richmond Avenue buses, you can't connect to the commercial part of Victory (between Jewett & Slosson), and you can't connect to the ferry (unless you want to spend a million years on the S46). Even getting to Brooklyn, you're still taking a roundabout route through the far North Shore when you could take it straight to Clove Road and catch an earlier bus. (Not to mention that unless you extend it down to the Teleport or something, people will have to walk a half mile or more, or transfer from the S46 to reach it).

 

As for the Victory Blvd stops, that is not true at all. Most of the local stops between CSI & Jewett (noninclusive) see a good 2-3 riders consistently. Jewett Avenue and Manor Road, maybe 3-5 riders consistently.

[qjtransitmaster]

The S83 would do what? Preclude the S57/66 restructuring from happening?

 

At best, it would prevent the need for the rerouted S66 to go up South Avenue (which wasn't the primary purpose/concern anyway). But it does absolutely nothing for people by the expressway who need direct east-west service. You can't connect directly to the Richmond Avenue buses, you can't connect to the commercial part of Victory (between Jewett & Slosson), and you can't connect to the ferry (unless you want to spend a million years on the S46). Even getting to Brooklyn, you're still taking a roundabout route through the far North Shore when you could take it straight to Clove Road and catch an earlier bus. (Not to mention that unless you extend it down to the Teleport or something, people will have to walk a half mile or more, or transfer from the S46 to reach it).

 

As for the Victory Blvd stops, that is not true at all. Most of the local stops between CSI & Jewett (noninclusive) see a good 2-3 riders consistently. Jewett Avenue and Manor Road, maybe 3-5 riders consistently.

3 riders ain't much I'd let them use the S83 to S62/92 instead. The students from Brooklyn alone fill up the bus they don't need to ride through stops they don't use. More than 90% of S93 riders go from bay ridge direct to CSI MTA may counter saying why not use S93 for mariners harbor along with full time service.

[checkmatechamp13]

3 riders ain't much I'd let them use the S83 to S62/92 instead. The students from Brooklyn alone fill up the bus they don't need to ride through stops they don't use. More than 90% of S93 riders go from bay ridge direct to CSI MTA may counter saying why not use S93 for mariners harbor along with full time service.

 

I swear, where's the damn facepalm when you need one.

 

It's 2-3 riders at each stop. What part of that do you not understand? And aside from that, what about the reverse-peak buses (to Brooklyn in the AM, to SI in the PM)? It's not about filling up the bus. It's about making it convenient for the residents of Willowbrook & Castleton Corners to get to Brooklyn.

 

So now you'd extend the S93 to Mariners' Harbor? (And before, you're sitting there talking about the S83. Make up your mind already) Well, how are they (meaning people down by the expressway) supposed to go shopping on Victory if you're taking away all the stops? Aside from that, it doesn't solve the problem of no direct route to St. George from that area (and don't mention the S44 & S46 because I said direct). Not to mention that it doesn't solve the issue of no Watchogue Road-St. George route, and leaves the S66 as an outdated route.

[qjtransitmaster]

I swear, where's the damn facepalm when you need one.

 

It's 2-3 riders at each stop. What part of that do you not understand? And aside from that, what about the reverse-peak buses (to Brooklyn in the AM, to SI in the PM)? It's not about filling up the bus. It's about making it convenient for the residents of Willowbrook & Castleton Corners to get to Brooklyn.

 

So now you'd extend the S93 to Mariners' Harbor? (And before, you're sitting there talking about the S83. Make up your mind already) Well, how are they (meaning people down by the expressway) supposed to go shopping on Victory if you're taking away all the stops? Aside from that, it doesn't solve the problem of no direct route to St. George from that area (and don't mention the S44 & S46 because I said direct). Not to mention that it doesn't solve the issue of no Watchogue Road-St. George route, and leaves the S66 as an outdated route.

reverse peak will keep the stops. S93 would follow that S67 routing by the expressway. Woah now I get it I saw that plan ok ok. Well why not have S57 follow that routing en rte to NJ and send S66 elsewhere? S93 idea I wasn't thinking. Edited June 2, 2013 by qjtransitmaster

[checkmatechamp13]

reverse peak will keep the stops. S93 would follow that S67 routing by the expressway. Woah now I get it I saw that plan ok ok. Well why not have S57 follow that routing en rte to NJ and send S66 elsewhere? S93 idea I wasn't thinking.

 

And therein lies the problem: It's to confusing when you have a bus skipping the stops in one direction, but stopping at them in the other direction.

 

As for the S66, the whole point is to provide easier connections to Brooklyn and/or St. George. The S66 would do that (quicker route to St. George, quicker connection to the S53/93 to Brooklyn), whereas the S57 wouldn't. Aside from that, sending the S57 up Jewett makes it easier to connect to the east-west routes on the North Shore. (Particularly the S48/98).

[qjtransitmaster]

And therein lies the problem: It's to confusing when you have a bus skipping the stops in one direction, but stopping at them in the other direction.

 

As for the S66, the whole point is to provide easier connections to Brooklyn and/or St. George. The S66 would do that (quicker route to St. George, quicker connection to the S53/93 to Brooklyn), whereas the S57 wouldn't. Aside from that, sending the S57 up Jewett makes it easier to connect to the east-west routes on the North Shore. (Particularly the S48/98).

I'd still send that s67 to brooklyn instead maybe a different part. No it is not consusing as other direction would have S83 to 62/92. Would the S61 be too slow ifvit stayed on jewett then used Richmond terrance only making ltd stops on richmond terr towards SI ferry or would it be too slow? Edited June 5, 2013 by qjtransitmaster

[checkmatechamp13]

I'd still send that s67 to brooklyn instead maybe a different part. No it is not consusing as other direction would have S83 to 62/92. Would the S61 be too slow ifvit stayed on jewett then used Richmond terrance only making ltd stops on richmond terr towards SI ferry or would it be too slow?

 

It definitely would be slow. No question about it. I'm willing to bet it would be even slower than the S44, because at least that has a long stretch on Richmond Avenue, which is a wide street. Not to mention the consequences it would have on the S62, handling Victory all by itself.

 

As for the S93, it's still too confusing. People want consistency. If they see the bus stops there in the AM rush, they're going to assume it stops there in the PM rush as well. I mean, the sign is still the same (S93 LIMITED). What are you going to do, call it a super-limited or something? It's not worth the confusion and inconvenience (because you're making an additional transfer and neither the S62/92 nor the S83 would be particularly frequent, so to have to transfer first to the S83 and again to the train can be a real turn off). Of course, considering the S83 would only serve a limited section of the North Shore, a lot of people are going to have to do it, but if you have a direct route to Brooklyn in that area, why should people have to transfer?

 

I'm telling you this from the perspective of somebody who's used the S93 from CSI to Brooklyn on a regular basis. The confusion and inconvenience further down the line isn't worth it.

[qjtransitmaster]

It definitely would be slow. No question about it. I'm willing to bet it would be even slower than the S44, because at least that has a long stretch on Richmond Avenue, which is a wide street. Not to mention the consequences it would have on the S62, handling Victory all by itself.

 

As for the S93, it's still too confusing. People want consistency. If they see the bus stops there in the AM rush, they're going to assume it stops there in the PM rush as well. I mean, the sign is still the same (S93 LIMITED). What are you going to do, call it a super-limited or something? It's not worth the confusion and inconvenience (because you're making an additional transfer and neither the S62/92 nor the S83 would be particularly frequent, so to have to transfer first to the S83 and again to the train can be a real turn off). Of course, considering the S83 would only serve a limited section of the North Shore, a lot of people are going to have to do it, but if you have a direct route to Brooklyn in that area, why should people have to transfer?

 

I'm telling you this from the perspective of somebody who's used the S93 from CSI to Brooklyn on a regular basis. The confusion and inconvenience further down the line isn't worth it.

Then eliminate confusion eliminate all victory blvd stops from S93 next stop is bradley then narrows rd stops. Victory blvd survived without S93 off peak it can survive any time. They would simply use S83 instead. Victory blvd stops are few on the 93 anyway. I used S93 a few times and very few boarded on victory en rte to Brooklyn I say speed up the trip for those who just want to get to CSI they shouldn't be bogged down by a few on victory blvd. I have seen very few get off at even the narrows rd stops but si expressway can suck so narrows is good enough. Even if S61 were to make just 3 stops on Richmond Terrance jewett would slow it down by that much?

[checkmatechamp13]

Then eliminate confusion eliminate all victory blvd stops from S93 next stop is bradley then narrows rd stops. Victory blvd survived without S93 off peak it can survive any time. They would simply use S83 instead. Victory blvd stops are few on the 93 anyway. I used S93 a few times and very few boarded on victory en rte to Brooklyn I say speed up the trip for those who just want to get to CSI they shouldn't be bogged down by a few on victory blvd. I have seen very few get off at even the narrows rd stops but si expressway can suck so narrows is good enough. Even if S61 were to make just 3 stops on Richmond Terrance jewett would slow it down by that much?

 

So tell me: What student is going to be leaving CSI in the AM rush? PM rush, you have some students taking it into CSI, but you also have a large number of regular commuters who get off along Victory. Not to mention that even peak direction, you have kids getting off routes like the S53 & S54 coming from points on the North Shore who could use another option to get to CSI (versus just having the S62). Not tons, but they are there. 

 

Victory Blvd west of Bradley has very few traffic lights, so people get on and off pretty quickly. At best, maybe you'll catch one or two traffic lights that you would've missed otherwise. It's not worth the added inconvenience considering that you're taking away options from the regular riders. Yeah, people manage off-peak without the S93 (but even then, you don't know how well they're actually managing. After all, people seem to "manage" without an S83 either don't they?), but that doesn't mean they should have to do so during rush hours as well.

 

As for the S61, Jewett doesn't have a lot of traffic, but it is fairly narrow, and whichever way you slice it, it's still more indirect than Victory. (I mean, think of the S44 route, but instead of going down Richmond Avenue, which is wider, you're going down narrow streets. (The stint south of Victory doesn't see much passenger activity in terms of ons/offs). The problem is that there's a stronger connection between the areas along the current S61, compared to the areas along your proposed S61. Aside from the issues with the overall network that you'd be creating (now there'd be two routes from the far North Shore down to the SI Mall, and nothing going from the Victory Blvd area), you're making it harder to get between neighborhoods that have a pretty strong connection between them. (A lot of people by Harold Street, Travis Avenue, etc go shopping in Castleton Corners, and a lot of people in Castleton Corners go shopping at the SI Mall).

[qjtransitmaster]

So tell me: What student is going to be leaving CSI in the AM rush? PM rush, you have some students taking it into CSI, but you also have a large number of regular commuters who get off along Victory. Not to mention that even peak direction, you have kids getting off routes like the S53 & S54 coming from points on the North Shore who could use another option to get to CSI (versus just having the S62). Not tons, but they are there. 

 

Victory Blvd west of Bradley has very few traffic lights, so people get on and off pretty quickly. At best, maybe you'll catch one or two traffic lights that you would've missed otherwise. It's not worth the added inconvenience considering that you're taking away options from the regular riders. Yeah, people manage off-peak without the S93 (but even then, you don't know how well they're actually managing. After all, people seem to "manage" without an S83 either don't they?), but that doesn't mean they should have to do so during rush hours as well.

 

As for the S61, Jewett doesn't have a lot of traffic, but it is fairly narrow, and whichever way you slice it, it's still more indirect than Victory. (I mean, think of the S44 route, but instead of going down Richmond Avenue, which is wider, you're going down narrow streets. (The stint south of Victory doesn't see much passenger activity in terms of ons/offs). The problem is that there's a stronger connection between the areas along the current S61, compared to the areas along your proposed S61. Aside from the issues with the overall network that you'd be creating (now there'd be two routes from the far North Shore down to the SI Mall, and nothing going from the Victory Blvd area), you're making it harder to get between neighborhoods that have a pretty strong connection between them. (A lot of people by Harold Street, Travis Avenue, etc go shopping in Castleton Corners, and a lot of people in Castleton Corners go shopping at the SI Mall).

   still why slow down S93 for a select few who can simply use other buses. The S61 jewett can be every other trip retaining service levels at victory blvd eliminating having 2 buses at once. Last I checked richmond ave service is frequent.

Has there been any consideration of adding a bus route between Newark Liberty International Airport and Staten Island using the money as part of a service enhancement?

Simple S57 extension it will pay for it self.

[checkmatechamp13]

still why slow down S93 for a select few who can simply use other buses. The S61 jewett can be every other trip retaining service levels at victory blvd eliminating having 2 buses at once. Last I checked richmond ave service is frequent. Simple S57 extension it will pay for it self.

 

On any service, there's always going to be lower-use stops where you're slowing down the bus for "a select few who can simply use other buses". It's just a matter of how much time you're saving for the individuals at those stops (by not having to wait for a different bus and possibly make a transfer), compared to how much additional time is spent by the people already on the bus. If the S62 and S53 both ran every 5 minutes, then you might have an argument (though you're still dealing with 2 transfers if you're taking the ).

 

The fact is that with the reverse-peak buses, there's more commuters/riders than actual students. So you're making the trip harder for those people for the "select few" who get on/off at CSI. With the peak direction buses, yeah, those are primarily students, but aside from the fact that it's confusing to have two seperate patterns for a rush hour route, you're still brushing off the additional waiting time and transferring as no big deal. If these stops were in busy commercial areas with constant traffic lights, where you miss a light for every passenger you pick up, that's one thing. But for the most part, that's not the case.

 

That's the whole point: The two buses at once help each other by doing skip-stop at the lightly used stops on Victory. 

 

And explain to me what the hell the frequency of service on Richmond Avenue has to do with this discussion. I'm saying Richmond Avenue is a wide street with less overall passenger activity than all those streets the S61 runs on. That has nothing to do with the frequency of service on the street. Don't turn into VG8 where you see one phrase and use it to purposely misinterpret what I'm saying.

 

As for the S57, he asked whether the MTA had any plans to serve Newark Airport, not whether anybody on this forum had any plans to serve Newark Airport. By now, this forum has had a million different proposals for serving EWR, but it's irrelevant because the MTA didn't list it down as part of the 2012-2013 service enhancements plan. We need better connections to NJ, so hopefully they'll implement it in the near future, and maybe they have some kind of secret plan, but so far it's not part of the 2012-2013 service enhancements plan.

[qjtransitmaster]

On any service, there's always going to be lower-use stops where you're slowing down the bus for "a select few who can simply use other buses". It's just a matter of how much time you're saving for the individuals at those stops (by not having to wait for a different bus and possibly make a transfer), compared to how much additional time is spent by the people already on the bus. If the S62 and S53 both ran every 5 minutes, then you might have an argument (though you're still dealing with 2 transfers if you're taking the ).

 

The fact is that with the reverse-peak buses, there's more commuters/riders than actual students. So you're making the trip harder for those people for the "select few" who get on/off at CSI. With the peak direction buses, yeah, those are primarily students, but aside from the fact that it's confusing to have two seperate patterns for a rush hour route, you're still brushing off the additional waiting time and transferring as no big deal. If these stops were in busy commercial areas with constant traffic lights, where you miss a light for every passenger you pick up, that's one thing. But for the most part, that's not the case.

 

That's the whole point: The two buses at once help each other by doing skip-stop at the lightly used stops on Victory.

 

And explain to me what the hell the frequency of service on Richmond Avenue has to do with this discussion. I'm saying Richmond Avenue is a wide street with less overall passenger activity than all those streets the S61 runs on. That has nothing to do with the frequency of service on the street. Don't turn into VG8 where you see one phrase and use it to purposely misinterpret what I'm saying.

 

As for the S57, he asked whether the MTA had any plans to serve Newark Airport, not whether anybody on this forum had any plans to serve Newark Airport. By now, this forum has had a million different proposals for serving EWR, but it's irrelevant because the MTA didn't list it down as part of the 2012-2013 service enhancements plan. We need better connections to NJ, so hopefully they'll implement it in the near future, and maybe they have some kind of secret plan, but so far it's not part of the 2012-2013 service enhancements plan.

S93 is not that frequent compared to the S62 anyway just time it better with S53/83. As for S93 well simple have it split into S93/95 S93 is the sped up version peak while S95 is the reversed original S93. S93 peak direction only S95 reverse-peak only. There goes your confusion argument.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It's amazing but not exactly shocking how my name comes up in discussions that have nothing to do with me... I haven't said jack squat about whatever proposals are being discussed here so keep my name out of it.  That goes for anyone including me in these proposals because I'm not interested in joining the discussion.

Edited June 6, 2013 by Via Garibaldi 8

[qjtransitmaster]

It's amazing but not exactly shocking how my name comes up in discussions that have nothing to do with me... I haven't said jack squat about whatever proposals are being discussed here so keep my name out of it.  That goes for anyone including me in these proposals because I'm not interested in joining the discussion.

LOL

[Metro CSW]

It's amazing but not exactly shocking how my name comes up in discussions that have nothing to do with me... I haven't said jack squat about whatever proposals are being discussed here so keep my name out of it.  That goes for anyone including me in these proposals because I'm not interested in joining the discussion.

I didn't see any reason for that either, but whatevs.... moving on.

[checkmatechamp13]

 

S93 is not that frequent compared to the S62 anyway just time it better with S53/83. As for S93 well simple have it split into S93/95 S93 is the sped up version peak while S95 is the reversed original S93. S93 peak direction only S95 reverse-peak only. There goes your confusion argument.

 

As for the S95, that's still confusing. Look, if you're really so obsessed with providing a direct connection from CSI to Brooklyn, just have a couple of super-express buses that leave from CSI, get right on the SIE and go straight into Brooklyn. But the primary pattern should remain serving the stops on Victory.

 

It's amazing but not exactly shocking how my name comes up in discussions that have nothing to do with me... I haven't said jack squat about whatever proposals are being discussed here so keep my name out of it.  That goes for anyone including me in these proposals because I'm not interested in joining the discussion.

 

Well, actually you have, with all that nonsense about "Oh, the community would complain" (even though they didn't complain when I spoke to them), and your constant flip-flopping about "Willowbrook Road needs their service", but at the same time "Willowbrook Road doesn't need a bus running down it".  One day, Port Richmond has too much service, but how dare I take a route away from Decker Avenue. Oh, there's huge gaps in service on Grymes Hill and Jewett Avenue. We need the S66 back on the weekends. Oh, but now it's not needed.

 

but I digress......

 

In any case, I'm criticizing the tactic, and you happen to be the one who uses it most often. 

Edited June 7, 2013 by checkmatechamp13

[B35 via Church]

Simple S57 extension it will pay for it self.

Why the S57 in particular to run to NJ to "pay for itself'?

Because you say so......

 

Has there been any consideration of adding a bus route between Newark Liberty International Airport and Staten Island using the money as part of a service enhancement?

Nope, none......

 

They're using/They've used said funds to restore previously cut portions of services (ex. B4 to sheepshead, Q36 along little neck pkwy ) & have dinky routes serve particular/smaller markets (ex. B84, B32)....

[qjtransitmaster]

Why the S57 in particular to run to NJ to "pay for itself'?

Because you say so......

 

Nope, none......

 

They're using/They've used said funds to restore previously cut portions of services (ex. B4 to sheepshead, Q36 along little neck pkwy ) & have dinky routes serve particular/smaller markets (ex. B84, B32)....

ok but the s57 stands to benefit the most but I am sure it may or may be close to paying for itself as it would be very useful to many SI residents.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

 

 

 

 

As for the S95, that's still confusing. Look, if you're really so obsessed with providing a direct connection from CSI to Brooklyn, just have a couple of super-express buses that leave from CSI, get right on the SIE and go straight into Brooklyn. But the primary pattern should remain serving the stops on Victory.

 

 

Well, actually you have, with all that nonsense about "Oh, the community would complain" (even though they didn't complain when I spoke to them), and your constant flip-flopping about "Willowbrook Road needs their service", but at the same time "Willowbrook Road doesn't need a bus running down it".  One day, Port Richmond has too much service, but how dare I take a route away from Decker Avenue. Oh, there's huge gaps in service on Grymes Hill and Jewett Avenue. We need the S66 back on the weekends. Oh, but now it's not needed.

 

but I digress......

 

In any case, I'm criticizing the tactic, and you happen to be the one who uses it most often. 

 

That was MONTHS ago, not now, so just cut the BS already and stop bringing me up in this discussion.  

Edited June 7, 2013 by Via Garibaldi 8

[B35 via Church]

ok but the s57 stands to benefit the most but I am sure it may or may be close to paying for itself as it would be very useful to many SI residents.

I'm not questioning the usefulness of some route to NJ, I'm questioning the S57 doing so in particular....

 

You make it sound like the S57 in particular is the best bet.....

[bobtehpanda]

Simple S57 extension it will pay for it self.

 

The S89 to New Jersey doesn't pay for itself, and is in the bottom 10 of bus routes in terms of ridership.

 

No one wants to take a bus to the light rail.