Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

[checkmatechamp13]

It might just be me but I'm pretty sure an LFSA. D60HF, or even an XD60 for this matter can do better on the bridge than an NG 

 

You mean in terms of handling crowds, or in terms of acceleration/speed?

 

If it's crowding, don't underestimate the crowding on the other end of the route either. There's a reason there's practically no short-turns on the route (outside of some school trippers).

 

If it's acceleration/speed, I think they put a governor on the bus to prevent it from traveling beyond a certain speed, which is annoying anything when the B/O is putting the pedal to the metal and cars and express buses are passing us with ease.

[IAlam]

The bridge is ~2-3% of the route, while Hylan Blvd is probably about ~70%. What section of the route do you think would more likely determine what stock to use on the route?

 

Doesn't matter if inclines are only 2-3% of a route. If a bus can't make it up the incline regardless of how tiny that portion of the line is, it shouldn't be running on that line period. That's one of the reasons why the EcoSavers failed.

If it's acceleration/speed, I think they put a governor on the bus to prevent it from traveling beyond a certain speed, which is annoying anything when the B/O is putting the pedal to the metal and cars and express buses are passing us with ease.

Is that supposed to mean something like a speed cap?

[checkmatechamp13]

Doesn't matter if inclines are only 2-3% of a route. If a bus can't make it up the incline regardless of how tiny that portion of the line is, it shouldn't be running on that line period. That's one of the reasons why the EcoSavers failed.

 

I mean, they make it up over the bridge. As far as I know, none of them ever stalled out or anything like that.

 

Is that supposed to mean something like a speed cap?

 

Yes.

[IAlam]

I mean, they make it up over the bridge. As far as I know, none of them ever stalled out or anything like that.

barely tho 

[checkmatechamp13]

barely tho 

 

Alright, so what's the most powerful non-articulated buses that you can put on those routes to go over the bridge? (I'm terrible with the details of bus types, honestly)

 

My preference is to focus on the structure of the routes themselves. I mean, little things like which buses don't have those annoying safety features that force them to slow down (for example, taking a long time to close the back door), I care about to an extent, but if the route is designed well, the equipment is secondary.

 

Any other proposals or comments (route-related or otherwise)?

 

Here's one I've been struggling with: With the SIE HOV lane complete (from Victory down to the Verrazanno Narrows Bridge), I think there should be a local route using it for at least some of the time. The express buses aren't really time-competitive with driving to Southern Brooklyn. The problem is that I can't think of a good area to start it. The ETC is too far south, and even though I think it would be quicker than the S79 (especially to points besides Bay Ridge), it would duplicate the S59/89 for too long a distance. On top of that, I can't think of where to end it on the Brooklyn end.

 

I could see the case being made for a few S93X trips (that make the two CSI stops, and then run down the SIE nonstop to Bay Ridge, and vice versa in the morning). But that's mostly reverse-peak. 

 

Any ideas?

Edited April 19, 2016 by checkmatechamp13

[IAlam]

Alright, so what's the most powerful non-articulated buses that you can put on those routes to go over the bridge? (I'm terrible with the details of bus types, honestly)

TBH the best way they can go about it is to remove hybrids from the S79. Although hybrids have pretty good take offs, they don't have much power. Additionally hybrids are better for routes that make a lot of stops, not routes with long gaps between stops. The LFS and 3G are both diesel buses which have more power and preform better on the bridge.

 

My preference is to focus on the structure of the routes themselves. I mean, little things like which buses don't have those annoying safety features that force them to slow down (for example, taking a long time to close the back door), I care about to an extent, but if the route is designed well, the equipment is secondary.

The issue with the S79 is that the bridge is unavoidable and most people who ride the S79 want to go to Brooklyn (usually for the subway) rather than the ferry. So it is important the the equipment can easily go over the bridge without an issue.

I could see the case being made for a few S93X trips (that make the two CSI stops, and then run down the SIE nonstop to Bay Ridge, and vice versa in the morning). But that's mostly reverse-peak. 

I can't really vouch much for S93 nor north shore because I rarely travel there. 

Edited April 19, 2016 by IAlam

[checkmatechamp13]

TBH the best way they can go about it is to remove hybrids from the S79. Although hybrids have pretty good take offs, they don't have much power. Additionally hybrids are better for routes that make a lot of stops, not routes with long gaps between stops. The LFS and 3G are both diesel buses which have more power and preform better on the bridge.

 

Makes sense to me. 

 

The issue with the S79 is that the bridge is unavoidable and most people who ride the S79 want to go to Brooklyn (usually for the subway) rather than the ferry. So it is important the the equipment can easily go over the bridge without an issue.

I can't really vouch much for S93 nor north shore because I rarely travel there. 

 

Eh, the S79 sees a decent amount of intra-island ridership (certainly no less than any of the ferry-bound routes), but I get your point.

 

As for the S93, no problem.

[checkmatechamp13]

A couple of other ideas:

 

Not directly related to the bus system, but relevant since the SIR and bus system complement each other for intra-island travel: I think local trains during rush hour should start/terminate at Richmond Avenue instead of Great Kills. They already have to crossover between Great Kills and Eltingville, and Eltingville obviously offers a lot more in terms of bus connections than Great Kills (even under my proposal, there would still only be one local route serving it during rush hours)

 

On a bus-related note, I think there should be a route on Amboy between New Dorp Lane & Richmond Avenue, but I'm not sure of an effective way to do it. You could extend the S51 down to Richmond Avenue, but then you have the problem of the more efficient portion from Midland Beach to St. George being bogged down by the less efficient portion west of Hylan Blvd. 

 

The S57 needs to have some sort of connection to Hylan Blvd (so have that continue down Amboy is out). You could swap the S57 & S76, but then removing New Dorp Lane takes out a good chunk of S76 ridership and basically leaves it as a super-local version of the SIR. And having it go down to Oakwood Beach and then come out on Guyon Avenue to Amboy is way too circuitous.

[sssick]

As someone who drives the S79 everyday, I can tell you that the hybrids struggle to get over the bridge. It has nothing to do with the governor, as that is set at 45mph. Some hybrids can barely maintain 30mph over the bridge when loaded.

 

I've actually had the entire bus shut off while I was climbing the bridge and had to coast it down to the Brooklyn side and wait for a tow.  

 

If I were in charge of Yukon, I would put the hybrids on straight local, and take some Novas and put them on the SBS.

[GojiMet86]

How were the Orion V?

[B22viaAtlanticAv]

Logic is not so simple with the TA I guess...

Personally I thought they would have given the SBS diesels long before the Novas started to come in but here we are and still hybrids are on the S79 SbS.

Edited April 29, 2016 by B22viaAtlanticAv

[MysteriousBtrain]

Funny I just rode the S79 yesterday over on the verazano..... shit was so show an S53 was able to easily pass it and reach Brooklyn before my bus......

 

Quick question: would it be any different if the S89 went to Tottenville instead of the S59? (S59 should end at Eltingville full time if such a switch occurred)

[checkmatechamp13]

Logic is not so simple with the TA I guess...

Personally I thought they would have given the SBS diesels long before the Novas started to come in but here we are and still hybrids are on the S79 SbS.

 

They probably didn't want the "old" diesel buses to ruin the perception of SBS or something.

 

Funny I just rode the S79 yesterday over on the verazano..... shit was so show an S53 was able to easily pass it and reach Brooklyn before my bus......

 

Quick question: would it be any different if the S89 went to Tottenville instead of the S59? (S59 should end at Eltingville full time if such a switch occurred)

 

I used to think that it should follow the convention of the limited taking the longer route while the local short-turns, but now I'm inclined to just leave it as is. The S89 has some really long gaps between stops, and considering that its mostly schoolkids taking it along Hylan Blvd during rush hour (as well as workers who live further up towards the North Shore), I'd be inclined to leave it as is. From that part of Hylan Blvd, you'll benefit more people looking to go to [Port Richmond + Richmond Avenue local stops] vs. [Bayonne + Walker Street]. Richmond Avenue is a pretty quick corridor in general, so the limited doesn't save too much time anyway.

 

As I've said before, though, I don't think you need both the S59 & S78 running to Tottenville even during rush hours. Not when there's corridors on the South Shore that are essentially a transit desert (local bus-wise anyway).

[B22viaAtlanticAv]

They probably didn't want the "old" diesel buses to ruin the perception of SBS or something.

 

 

I used to think that it should follow the convention of the limited taking the longer route while the local short-turns, but now I'm inclined to just leave it as is. The S89 has some really long gaps between stops, and considering that its mostly schoolkids taking it along Hylan Blvd during rush hour (as well as workers who live further up towards the North Shore), I'd be inclined to leave it as is. From that part of Hylan Blvd, you'll benefit more people looking to go to [Port Richmond + Richmond Avenue local stops] vs. [Bayonne + Walker Street]. Richmond Avenue is a pretty quick corridor in general, so the limited doesn't save too much time anyway.

 

As I've said before, though, I don't think you need both the S59 & S78 running to Tottenville even during rush hours. Not when there's corridors on the South Shore that are essentially a transit desert (local bus-wise anyway).

Besides the Orion V, the 3Gs could have been used instead of the hybrids. And now the Nova order for Staten Island is finished, they could easily use the LFS instead of the hybrids...

[Q43LTD]

And this is why I miss RTS on the S79. Man those things hauled ass on the Verrazano

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

The reason why they prefer the NGs over the LFS on the S79 is because the NGs have more capacity. They should've done a 45/45 split with the Orion VII 3Gs. 7000-7044 (S79), and 7045-7089 (S53/S93). And have the NGs and LFS run the island.

 

But, it looks like all the NGs will be leaving Staten Island. So they can either wait for the next batch of LFS to come in, and put those on the S79, or do the 45/45 split with the Orion VII 3Gs and have the LFS just be on the in-borough routes.

[IAlam]

The reason why they prefer the NGs over the LFS on the S79 is because the NGs have more capacity. They should've done a 45/45 split with the Orion VII 3Gs. 7000-7044 (S79), and 7045-7089 (S53/S93). And have the NGs and LFS run the island.

 

But, it looks like all the NGs will be leaving Staten Island. So they can either wait for the next batch of LFS to come in, and put those on the S79, or do the 45/45 split with the Orion VII 3Gs and have the LFS just be on the in-borough routes.

I'm pretty sure most people would be ok with 3 less seats for a bus that can actually make it over the bridge, also they are newer so to a common person the probably wouldn't notice the lack of seats because they would be more gazed on the fact that the bus is new. 

[S78 via Hylan]

I'm pretty sure most people would be ok with 3 less seats for a bus that can actually make it over the bridge, also they are newer so to a common person the probably wouldn't notice the lack of seats because they would be more gazed on the fact that the bus is new.

Most passengers care that the bus shows up and reach their destinations more than the type of bus. Edited April 30, 2016 by S78 via Hylan

[IAlam]

Most passengers care that the bus shows up and reach their destinations more than the type of bus.

Then there shouldn't be an issue with the using the LFS over the NG then especially when it's noticeable that every other bus is passing them on the bridge. 

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

I'm pretty sure most people would be ok with 3 less seats for a bus that can actually make it over the bridge, also they are newer so to a common person the probably wouldn't notice the lack of seats because they would be more gazed on the fact that the bus is new.

I agree, but that's what I was told. I'm all for LFS on the S79. Also, they haven't programmed the signs on the NGs for SBS, but every other SBS route has the flashing blue sign.

[checkmatechamp13]

Most passengers care that the bus shows up and reach their destinations more than the type of bus.

 

Then it should be no issue to assign buses capable of climbing the bridge. It gets the passengers over the bridge a minute or two quicker, has a lower chance of stalling out (which could pose a safety issue), and all it requires is shifting around the bus assigned to the routes within a particular depot.

[checkmatechamp13]

A quick breakdown of the depots the (local) routes would be based out of:

 

CA = Castleton

YU = Yukon

CH = Charleston

 

S40/90: CA

S42: CA

S44/94: YU (some CA trippers)

S46/96: CA

S48/98: CA

S51/81: CA

S52: CA

S53/83: CA

S55: YU

S56: YU

S57: CA

S58: CA

S59: CH (some YU trippers)

S61/91: YU

S62/92: YU

S66: CA

S72: CH

S73: CH

S74/84: YU (CH overnights)

S75: YU

S76/86: CA

S78: CH (I decided to have the S78 run as a continuous route from St. George to Arden Heights) 

S79: YU

S89: YU

S93: CA

S95: CA

 

Here's an idea I'm putting up for debate (in other words, I'm not wild about the idea, but I'm putting it up for debate)

 

Since under my plan, the S83/93 basically handle all the Brooklyn-bound riders coming from the North Shore, how about taking the S53 and making it into a crosstown route?

 

So basically, instead of running from West New Brighton to Bay Ridge, it would run from West New Brighton to Arden Heights (via Broadway/Clove Road, and then via Hylan Blvd & Huguenot Avenue). The S78 would be truncated to Hylan & Clove (Kermit Avenue is an industrial street it could turn around on. Worse comes to worse, it could turn around near the South Beach Houses). That would allow it to avoid the traffic along Hylan Blvd, and just be a quick link to the ferry for Rosebank/Park Hill/Stapleton residents.

 

The S53 would be the supplementary route to the S75/S79 along Hylan, and the S83 along Broadway/Clove. The S75 would cover McClean Avenue residents heading towards Brooklyn.

 

The way I see it, a lot of people take the S53 to either the Grasmere SIR station or Hylan Blvd to catch the SIR or S78/79 towards the South Shore, so it could give them a one-seat ride. With the S79 being as popular as it is, Brooklyn-bound usage at the Grasmere SIR station is decreasing (since a lot of those people are just taking the S79 directly instead of the SIR to the S53), and it's still possible to catch the S79 at Old Town (the S75 can be routed to take Hylan-Quintard-Reid instead of Hylan-Reid, so people have an alternative to piling onto the S79).

 

Of course, evenings/overnight when the S83 doesn't run, the S53 would operate its current route.

 

The problem I see (besides forcing people to walk a block and cross Hylan Blvd for Brooklyn-bound bus service) is that the MTA would be forced to beef up service on the S75 local (SI Mall-Bay Ridge), which is a longer route to operate compared to the S53 under my other scenario (West New Brighton-Bay Ridge). But at the same time, it does go a long way towards solving the problem of "crosstown" bus service.

Edited May 1, 2016 by checkmatechamp13

[B35 via Church]

Funny I just rode the S79 yesterday over on the verazano..... shit was so show an S53 was able to easily pass it and reach Brooklyn before my bus......

 

Quick question: would it be any different if the S89 went to Tottenville instead of the S59? (S59 should end at Eltingville full time if such a switch occurred)

Any different in reference to what?

 

If you're talking about sheer & utter waste, then yes.... The S59 shouldn't even be running to Tottenville.....

 

I used to think that it should follow the convention of the limited taking the longer route while the local short-turns, but now I'm inclined to just leave it as is. The S89 has some really long gaps between stops, and considering that its mostly schoolkids taking it along Hylan Blvd during rush hour (as well as workers who live further up towards the North Shore), I'd be inclined to leave it as is. From that part of Hylan Blvd, you'll benefit more people looking to go to [Port Richmond + Richmond Avenue local stops] vs. [Bayonne + Walker Street]. Richmond Avenue is a pretty quick corridor in general, so the limited doesn't save too much time anyway.

 

As I've said before, though, I don't think you need both the S59 & S78 running to Tottenville even during rush hours. Not when there's corridors on the South Shore that are essentially a transit desert (local bus-wise anyway).

I'm not all that fond of the S89 running all the way down to Hylan to begin with.... Hell, I wouldn't even run them down to ETC....  I would rather increase service on the S59 (not just during the hours the S89 runs, but within the span of the S59 itself) & turn the S89 into a shuttle over the bridge from *somewhere* within the north shore.... I was thinking having them terminate with the S46 short turns, then doing Grandview > Brabant > South > back to Forest, then turn up Morningstar, etc. en route to Bayonne.... Also, with the increased service the S59 would get, I'd also split the route north of Forest.... Meaning, some buses run the current route & some buses run via Morningstar.....

 

As for the S44 (which also serves Morningstar), that route exemplifies what's wrong w/ the SI bus network.....That route should not be running to SI mall; too sluggish within the north shore to have it be that much of a supplement to the S59.... Instead, I'd run it to CSI (via Willowbrook rd) & call it a day.....

 

As for the S78 (which you've asked me about recently), I do think it's necessary to split it.... The additional mileage it gained from the MTA cutting back on the mileage of the S74 isn't worth having the S78 run from St. George to Bricktown.... Putting this another way, there's a whole lot of nothing in b/w Amboy & Bricktowne.... To be fair, I don't think the S74 should have ran along that course either....

 

As for the S59, as I said above, I don't think the route should be running to Tottenville, period...

[Around the Horn]

-Capacity. Do any of these routes actually need artics at all? The only route I would even remotely consider is the S79, and that's only due to its SBS status (it also doesn't enter any deep residential neighborhoods at any point).

Certain routes from the ferry terminal have two buses leave within a minute of each other during peak periods. You could run one artic instead but other than that I see no use for them.

[checkmatechamp13]

I'm not all that fond of the S89 running all the way down to Hylan to begin with.... Hell, I wouldn't even run them down to ETC....  I would rather increase service on the S59 (not just during the hours the S89 runs, but within the span of the S59 itself) & turn the S89 into a shuttle over the bridge from *somewhere* within the north shore.... I was thinking having them terminate with the S46 short turns, then doing Grandview > Brabant > South > back to Forest, then turn up Morningstar, etc. en route to Bayonne.... Also, with the increased service the S59 would get, I'd also split the route north of Forest.... Meaning, some buses run the current route & some buses run via Morningstar.....

 

That is a good point about (basically) concentrating all the Richmond Avenue service onto one frequent route. It's quick enough that it doesn't really need a limited, and it solves the issue of bunching (with S44s & S59s scheduled to run together....which makes it worse if a third S44 bunches together with those two).

 

And you do bring up a good point about the S89. While the S89 does see a decent amount of ridership by the SI Mall and ETC, it's questionable as to whether it's worth running all that long distance. 

 

With running some S59s via Morningstar, are you referring to running them via the current S44 route (Morningstar-Walker), or running the full length of Morningstar and heading back over to "Port Richmond Terminal"?

 

How about this: The S44 runs via Post-Port Richmond-Willowbrook, and all S59s run via Morningstar-Walker? I think ridership is stronger on Morningstar south of Walker, compared to Port Richmond Avenue south of Walker (with much of that being attributable to Mariners Harbor residents taking the S46 to Morningstar to catch a bus towards the SI Mall). 

 

As for the S78 (which you've asked me about recently), I do think it's necessary to split it.... The additional mileage it gained from the MTA cutting back on the mileage of the S74 isn't worth having the S78 run from St. George to Bricktown.... Putting this another way, there's a whole lot of nothing in b/w Amboy & Bricktowne.... To be fair, I don't think the S74 should have ran along that course either....

 

As for the S59, as I said above, I don't think the route should be running to Tottenville, period...

 

So how exactly would you go about doing splitting the S78? 

 

Certain routes from the ferry terminal have two buses leave within a minute of each other during peak periods. You could run one artic instead but other than that I see no use for them.

 

....with most of that being due to the poor structure of the routes themselves. A couple of well-placed supplementary routes could resolve that issue right off the bat.

Edited May 2, 2016 by checkmatechamp13