Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
FamousNYLover

Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

Recommended Posts

Well, basically, the West Shore Light Rail Line is supposed to follow the same path (at least south of Bayonne). So I figured that if a rail line would get decent ridership, a bus line would as well.

 

Also, the main idea was to fill in a few gaps. I've been complaining for a while about the gap in east-west service along the SIE service road, and I came up with that idea to fill it (and it would provide another connection between the North Shore and South Shore, saving people from having to backtrack all the way to Richmond Avenue). And then it would fill a gap on the South Shore (well, not really fill a gap, but it would free up the S55 to go out to Perth Amboy, instead of serving Bloomingdale Road). I figured that Bayonne would be a logical place to terminate the route, and it would also provide 7-day service to Bayonne (I don't think the S89 should run 7-day service because it would provide excess service along Richmond Avenue)

 

And then I realized there was no connection between Bayonne and Newark Airport. And whatever workers (or the occasional traveler trying to save money) would have to go all the way up to the PATH, take the PATH to Newark, and then take the #62 bus to Newark Airport, when a bus line could just jump right onto I-78 and get them there in half the time. So the main idea was to benefit Bayonne residents, but SI residents also get an easy ride to Newark Airport. If NJT ran that service on its own, I'd just say to leave the S82 at Bayonne.

 

But basically, my main concern was my immediate area, and that was the only way I could think of to provide 7-day east-west service in the area. I could extend the S93, but that would only cover rush hours (or at best, if those S62 short-turns were converted, we'd have some Saturday service), and then I thought of maybe bringing back the S67, but rerouting it to run along the service road, but again, that would only give us rush hour service.

 

So it was one route then.... What happened was, some of the image "squares" on the map either didn't load, partially loaded, or was too blurry, so I couldn't tell if it was all one route last night while looking at the map.... This is the main problem I'm having w/ google's maps..... anyway, everything to the right of pt richmond wouldn't load (even after a few refreshes), and I just said t'hell with it, and came back here & replied....

 

Regardless, Good explanation & critique of your own idea..... I'll try to keep par.

 

I was gonna say that, connecting Bayonne to Newark directly (the airport and/or the city itself) is NJT's problem (assuming there's even demand for such travel).... if so, let them deal with that....

 

Filling in a gap is what I concluded was the basis of having a route do all that.... I'll be honest, upon viewing the portion of the map I could see, I said "this is some QJT shit right here, checkmate should know better than this"....

 

That part about what you figured [comparing how well a proposed rail line might do, to how well a bus route paralleling (for the most part) said rail line would do].... Upon reading that, I immediately thought of the NJT 409... it's a route that parallels RiverLine for a good portion of its route.... RiverLine itself has the usage/ridership; but as much as I like the 409, it's not really used all that well....

 

^^ Same basic idea applies here IMO.... While I think a rail line connecting the south shore to the north shore (and Bayonne/HBLR) could flourish, I don't think having a bus route (having to) use the west shore expwy as a connector to the two areas/regions is all too good an idea..... It's one of those highways that can be absolutely dormant in one instance, and ending up having vehicles bottlenecked for miles in another instance.... it's one reason I stopped fanning the x19 (my fav. exp. route) /22/23/24.... Matter fact, last time I took the 22, I got off at the victory blvd stop (a stop I don't really care for... long story) & eventually ending up waiting about 40 mins for a S62 towards clove so I could catch the S53.... that was a couple mos. back......

 

 

In any event, If google maps lets me (lol), I'll get to the rest of your ideas later...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) That part about what you figured [comparing how well a proposed rail line might do, to how well a bus route paralleling (for the most part) said rail line would do].... Upon reading that, I immediately thought of the NJT 409... it's a route that parallels RiverLine for a good portion of its route.... RiverLine itself has the usage/ridership; but as much as I like the 409, it's not really used all that well....

 

2) ^^ Same basic idea applies here IMO.... While I think a rail line connecting the south shore to the north shore (and Bayonne/HBLR) could flourish, I don't think having a bus route (having to) use the west shore expwy as a connector to the two areas/regions is all too good an idea..... It's one of those highways that can be absolutely dormant in one instance, and ending up having vehicles bottlenecked for miles in another instance.... it's one reason I stopped fanning the x19 (my fav. exp. route) /22/23/24.... Matter fact, last time I took the 22, I got off at the victory blvd stop (a stop I don't really care for... long story) & eventually ending up waiting about 40 mins for a S62 towards clove so I could catch the S53.... that was a couple mos. back......

 

 

1) But the thing is that the RiverLine takes a lot of the #409's riders. I mean, obviously, if that light rail extension ever came to fruition, the S82 would go bye-bye. A better comparison would be to the #409 before RiverLine was built.

 

2) Well, yeah, that definitely is a problem, and I can't really think of any way around that. I mean, there isn't any sort of park-and-ride in the area, and I can't see South Shore riders driving to the West Shore Plaza, even if you were allowed to park there. The Teleport is basically dead outside of rush hour (and I doubt commuters could park there anyway), so I don't know where a good terminal would be. I mean, buses could detour (say, Victory Blvd-Travis Avenue-Richmond Avenue-Arthur Kill Road), but obviously that would still result in delays.

 

I mean, I would like to see a 7-day connection to Bayonne, and I did come up with a different plan (have one S89 bus going back and forth between Bayonne and Forest Avenue on 40 minute headways off-peak). But I doubt you're going to see a lot of people from the South Shore willing to take the S59 all the way up there to transfer. So that's also part of how I came up with it (I figured I might as well extend it somewhere where it serves another purpose, in addition to going to Bayonne, and preferably, the route would also serve South Shore riders in the process).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) But the thing is that the RiverLine takes a lot of the #409's riders. I mean, obviously, if that light rail extension ever came to fruition, the S82 would go bye-bye. A better comparison would be to the #409 before RiverLine was built.

 

2) Well, yeah, that definitely is a problem, and I can't really think of any way around that. I mean, there isn't any sort of park-and-ride in the area, and I can't see South Shore riders driving to the West Shore Plaza, even if you were allowed to park there. The Teleport is basically dead outside of rush hour (and I doubt commuters could park there anyway), so I don't know where a good terminal would be. I mean, buses could detour (say, Victory Blvd-Travis Avenue-Richmond Avenue-Arthur Kill Road), but obviously that would still result in delays.

 

I mean, I would like to see a 7-day connection to Bayonne, and I did come up with a different plan (have one S89 bus going back and forth between Bayonne and Forest Avenue on 40 minute headways off-peak). But I doubt you're going to see a lot of people from the South Shore willing to take the S59 all the way up there to transfer. So that's also part of how I came up with it (I figured I might as well extend it somewhere where it serves another purpose, in addition to going to Bayonne, and preferably, the route would also serve South Shore riders in the process).

 

1) Well now wait a minute.... You are portraying to me that since the West shore line doesn't exist, a bus route would do well..... so I made a comparison to the 409 (a currently existing bus route, which existed before riverline) & Riverline (an existing mode of travel via rail)...... I'm telling you, usage on that bus route is sufficient, but not well (IMO) - and that is the case whether RiverLine is running or not.... It's a coverage route more than anything....

 

What you're telling me about what would be a better comparison there, doesn't really make much of a difference, b/c of what I'm about to explain... Pre-Riverline, I can bet you had more people driving than even bothering w/ the bus.... Since its inception around 2004 onward, you had folks that were willing to abandon their personal vehicles for the new rail system..... Judging by the areas it travels through from end-to-end & having used the route (409) on numerous occasions, I have to say Riverline greatly influenced the ppl. that do take it, to even consider mass transit period...

 

Whereas you are of the belief that Riverline took a lot of riders off the 409 (which implicates that route had a lot of riders, pre-Riverline).... The amt. of people (or even a %-tage) that abandoned the bus for Riverline is what I'm questioning...... Has it happened, yeah of course... Is/Was it significant to the 409's ridership? Me, I just don't think that number is as big to make a point out of, a better comparison being to the 409 pre-Riverline... As opposed to the comparison I brought up....

 

The funny thing is.... whether considering my original comparison, or your rendition of what would constitute a better comparison (lol), neither of em does anything to support your justification of what was being compared to it in the first place - Which is your South Shore/North Shore/Bayonne/Newark Airport bus route.....

 

Hell, even you conceded to the point I brought up in the latter part of my last post !

 

 

2) Everything you said in the 1st paragraph are reasons why I wouldn't have a bus route take on the task you want it to; it's what makes rail a far more suitable mode.....

 

As far as connecting Bayonne/HBLR with SI on a 7 day a week basis... Yes, I would advocate for that....

However, it shouldn't be by way of a bus route coming from the South Shore..... even if it were a mid-island - Bayonne/HBLR route, I think that alone would suffice.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) What you're telling me about what would be a better comparison there, doesn't really make much of a difference, b/c of what I'm about to explain... Pre-Riverline, I can bet you had more people driving than even bothering w/ the bus.... Since its inception around 2004 onward, you had folks that were willing to abandon their personal vehicles for the new rail system..... Judging by the areas it travels through from end-to-end & having used the route (409) on numerous occasions, I have to say Riverline greatly influenced the ppl. that do take it, to even consider mass transit period...

 

2) Everything you said in the 1st paragraph are reasons why I wouldn't have a bus route take on the task you want it to; it's what makes rail a far more suitable mode.....

 

As far as connecting Bayonne/HBLR with SI on a 7 day a week basis... Yes, I would advocate for that....

However, it shouldn't be by way of a bus route coming from the South Shore..... even if it were a mid-island - Bayonne/HBLR route, I think that alone would suffice.....

 

 

1) I would think that a bus connecting Trenton, Burlington, Camden, and Philadelphia would get good ridership. But I guess since there isn't much in between those towns, that brings down the ridership.

 

2) Alright. Well, that answers the question about service along the WSE, but what do you think should serve the area I described alongside the SIE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) I would think that a bus connecting Trenton, Burlington, Camden, and Philadelphia would get good ridership. But I guess since there isn't much in between those towns, that brings down the ridership.

 

2) Alright. Well, that answers the question about service along the WSE, but what do you think should serve the area I described alongside the SIE?

 

1) Sans Burlington, I was under the same exact initial impression before I fanned it... until I then came to realize how unpopular the route is by the patrons out there.....

 

2) Not sure, I have to sit & think more about it..... But I will say, I wouldn't send the S93 (which is what that brownish colored route resembles) past the college....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) Not sure, I have to sit & think more about it..... But I will say, I wouldn't send the S93 (which is what that brownish colored route resembles) past the college....

 

 

Care to elaborate on why??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Care to elaborate on why??

 

Anymore than I already have in an older S93 thread, not really....

Guess I'll just re-post my stance.....

 

Given the main purpose of the S93 & the usage the route gets, I think the route is fine as is..... It really is that simple to me.

 

I wouldn't even bother with sending it to Richmond av (minimally) {although not the worst idea in the world, I don't think it'd be worth it}, and for sure I wouldn't send it to no Arlington (as checkmate seemingly wants to do).....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anymore than I already have in an older S93 thread, not really....

Guess I'll just re-post my stance.....

 

Given the main purpose of the S93 & the usage the route gets, I think the route is fine as is..... It really is that simple to me.

 

I wouldn't even bother with sending it to Richmond av (minimally) {although not the worst idea in the world, I don't think it'd be worth it}, and for sure I wouldn't send it to no Arlington (as checkmate seemingly wants to do).....

 

 

lol... I only asked because this S93 discussion I've had before with checkmate and he is adamant on extending it to Arlington or even further to New Jersey. I pointed out the same arguments you raised. It is nice to see that others have the same sort of level-headiness that I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anymore than I already have in an older S93 thread, not really....

Guess I'll just re-post my stance.....

 

Given the main purpose of the S93 & the usage the route gets, I think the route is fine as is..... It really is that simple to me.

 

I wouldn't even bother with sending it to Richmond av (minimally) {although not the worst idea in the world, I don't think it'd be worth it}, and for sure I wouldn't send it to no Arlington (as checkmate seemingly wants to do).....

 

one way would be to send it to new dorp via S57 routing by extending it via the inside of the college. Then reroute S57 to oakwood to absorb S76 segment there. A restructured S76 I will elaborate later on when I figure it out better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol... I only asked because this S93 discussion I've had before with checkmate and he is adamant on extending it to Arlington or even further to New Jersey. I pointed out the same arguments you raised. It is nice to see that others have the same sort of level-headiness that I do.

 

 

When the hell did I want it extended to New Jersey? I never wanted it extended to NJ and you could look through that entire thread if you want (and here. I saved you the trouble of looking for it. Thank you Search function: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/index.php/topic/30635-an-idea-should-the-s93-serve-the-brooklyn-va-medical-center-when-it-runs/page__hl__%2Bs93+%2Bva+%2Bmedical+%2Bcenter__fromsearch__1)

 

You know exactly who would make that type of proposal and it sure as hell isn't me, so cut the crap.

 

As for my reasoning, I want you to come up with a better idea for serving the area by the SIE, since you're so smart. And don't give me that crap that "Oh, well, if you could get that extension then I want the S54 back" because I already proved why it would be more efficient than the S54 and showed where the ridership would come from (and aside from that I already mentioned a plan to save the S54 anyway.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the hell did I want it extended to New Jersey? I never wanted it extended to NJ and you could look through that entire thread if you want (and here. I saved you the trouble of looking for it. Thank you Search function: http://www.nyctransi...__fromsearch__1)

 

You know exactly who would make that type of proposal and it sure as hell isn't me, so cut the crap.

 

As for my reasoning, I want you to come up with a better idea for serving the area by the SIE, since you're so smart. And don't give me that crap that "Oh, well, if you could get that extension then I want the S54 back" because I already proved why it would be more efficient than the S54 and showed where the ridership would come from (and aside from that I already mentioned a plan to save the S54 anyway.)

 

or me either my SI plan does NOT extend S93 to NJ period. It is however linked to my NJT proposal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one way would be to send it to new dorp via S57 routing by extending it via the inside of the college. Then reroute S57 to oakwood to absorb S76 segment there. A restructured S76 I will elaborate later on when I figure it out better

 

Leave the S93 where it is. Do you know how many people use the S93 to reach CSI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol... I only asked because this S93 discussion I've had before with checkmate and he is adamant on extending it to Arlington or even further to New Jersey. I pointed out the same arguments you raised. It is nice to see that others have the same sort of level-headiness that I do.

 

Leave the S93 where it is. Do you know how many people use the S93 to reach CSI?

 

 

well Via.... That makes 3 of us so far mega22.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave the S93 where it is. Do you know how many people use the S93 to reach CSI?

I meant after it reaches the college however that is simply a hunch rather than a thought out change based on observation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant after it reaches the college however that is simply a hunch rather than a thought out change based on observation

 

Everyone needs to stop with the S93 extensions. It was created specifically for the purpose that it surves now. Nothing more, nothing less. The only thing that should happen is the route becoming expanded to a full weekday route rather than just a bi-direction rush hour route.

 

I'm not saying this because I don't care about service improvements, I'm just stating that there are buses (yes, even in SI) that are fine the way they are do not need extensions, reductions, or any kind of alteration and the S93 fits that.

Edited by S78 via Hylan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the hell did I want it extended to New Jersey? I never wanted it extended to NJ and you could look through that entire thread if you want (and here. I saved you the trouble of looking for it. Thank you Search function: http://www.nyctransi...__fromsearch__1)

 

You know exactly who would make that type of proposal and it sure as hell isn't me, so cut the crap.

 

As for my reasoning, I want you to come up with a better idea for serving the area by the SIE, since you're so smart. And don't give me that crap that "Oh, well, if you could get that extension then I want the S54 back" because I already proved why it would be more efficient than the S54 and showed where the ridership would come from (and aside from that I already mentioned a plan to save the S54 anyway.)

 

 

I'm not the one who is saying that service is needed there, YOU are, so I don't need to come up with a better anything. I find it funny that for South Brooklyn and parts of SI that lost bus service, you claim that you can't have bus service everywhere, but this area of SI is in such need of service. Meanwhile you're perfectly fine slashing other people's service and perhaps worsening their commutes by extending other bus routes.

 

As for extending the S93 to New Jersey, even if you didn't say it, perhaps the reason I mixed it up with another of your brilliant "extensions" is because this extension is just as ridiculous as the SI-NJ extensions you proposed.

 

And no you haven't proved anything. I asked you the last time you brought this proposal up how you knew where the riders would come from and what studies you did, and you said that's what the (MTA) should be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone needs to stop with the S93 extensions. It was created specifically for the purpose that it surves now. Nothing more, nothing less. The only thing that should happen is the route becoming expanded to a full weekday route rather than just a bi-direction rush hour route.

 

I'm not saying this because I don't care about service improvements, I'm just stating that there are buses (yes, even in SI) that are fine the way they are do not need extensions, reductions, or any kind of alteration and the S93 fits that.

 

 

Alright then. What would you suggest to serve that area then?

 

1) I'm not the one who is saying that service is needed there, YOU are, so I don't need to come up with a better anything. I find it funny that for South Brooklyn and parts of SI that lost bus service, you claim that you can't have bus service everywhere, but this area of SI is in such need of service. Meanwhile you're perfectly fine slashing other people's service and perhaps worsening their commutes by extending other bus routes.

 

2) As for extending the S93 to New Jersey, even if you didn't say it, perhaps the reason I mixed it up with another of your brilliant "extensions" is because this extension is just as ridiculous as the SI-NJ extensions you proposed.

 

3) And no you haven't proved anything. I asked you the last time you brought this proposal up how you knew where the riders would come from and what studies you did, and you said that's what the (MTA) should be doing.

 

 

1) Yeah, and I guarantee you I can find a good reason for whatever service reductions I supported. B4 cut? I've always said it should go back to Sheepshead Bay. B64 cut? I said that was just about the stupidest cut the MTA came up with. Don't give me any crap about "Oh, well you only want service in your area at the expense of others" because that is completely false. If you mention the stuff about the S57, you act like I was vehemently pushing for it to be reduced to every hour. I mean, my god. Amtrak said it should be reduced and I agreed with him. It doesn't make much of a difference to me either way. And aside from that, if the service only runs once an hour along the corridor I described, then that's better than nothing.

 

2) So let me get this straight. If SIR North Shore wants a bus extended to NJ, that's perfectly fine, but if I want a bus extended to NJ, that's suddenly a "ridiculous idea"???? I'm not asking for the routes to be extended hundreds of miles into NJ. I'm asking for a simple extension over to the nearest train station in NJ.

 

3) First of all, I said the MTA should be the one trying to disprove what I'm saying because everything I'm about to say is 100% true and you could look it up for yourself (most of it is census data)

* There are 2,200 people living in the Mariners' Harbor Houses, which is a block away from the route.

* There are about 1,000 people living in the Arlington Terrace Apartments, which would be at the end of the route.

* The average population density of the areas the extension would pass through is roughly 20,000 people per square mile

* A trip from Arlington to CSI would be cut from 40 minutes to 20 minutes (basically, a trip to anywhere along the Victory Blvd corridor would see over 20 minutes shaved off)

* Roughly 55-60% of the households living along South Avenue (north of Forest Avenue) do not have access to a car.

* (Not that it makes much of a difference), but the zip code of 10303 has the longest commute time of any zip code in SI, at 50 minutes (compared to the average SI commute which is about 41 minutes).

* The S48/98 carry a lot of students who live in Arlington and go to school in New Springville, and the S93 extension would take some passengers off those routes (since it's an alternate way to connect to Richmond Avenue).

* You only need 6-8 passengers per bus for it to break even (and don't give me any crap of "Oh, well it will only carry 6-8 passengers" because that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it only needs 6-8 paying passengers per bus to break even. The buses will probably carry more considering the people transferring, and seniors and students and all that,)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Yeah, and I guarantee you I can find a good reason for whatever service reductions I supported. B4 cut? I've always said it should go back to Sheepshead Bay. B64 cut? I said that was just about the stupidest cut the MTA came up with. Don't give me any crap about "Oh, well you only want service in your area at the expense of others" because that is completely false. If you mention the stuff about the S57, you act like I was vehemently pushing for it to be reduced to every hour. I mean, my god. Amtrak said it should be reduced and I agreed with him. It doesn't make much of a difference to me either way. And aside from that, if the service only runs once an hour along the corridor I described, then that's better than nothing.

 

All I'm saying is don't use that you can't have service in every area line and then complain that a small area near you doesn't have service when it never had service to begin with. The areas that I've generally mentioned had their service reduced or eliminated. Two very different things. There should be no talk of extensions until neighborhoods that lost their service have it restored. The idea of giving new service to a community that never had any while leaving others who had service without makes no sense. You're basically saying let's supply an area with "potential" ridership over those areas who already had proven ridership and lost it. The (MTA)'s policy has been to restore lost service to the areas that already ridership, and for now that's where their focus should be at.

 

2) So let me get this straight. If SIR North Shore wants a bus extended to NJ, that's perfectly fine, but if I want a bus extended to NJ, that's suddenly a "ridiculous idea"???? I'm not asking for the routes to be extended hundreds of miles into NJ. I'm asking for a simple extension over to the nearest train station in NJ.

 

I thought you said you never asked for the S93 to be extended to NJ which was what we were currently discussing... <_< Furthermore, SIR North's proposal and your proposal if I recall correctly were quite different. I think he asked for bus service to Newark Airport which is more than feasible because there IS a known demand there.

 

3) First of all, I said the MTA should be the one trying to disprove what I'm saying because everything I'm about to say is 100% true and you could look it up for yourself (most of it is census data)

* There are 2,200 people living in the Mariners' Harbor Houses, which is a block away from the route.

* There are about 1,000 people living in the Arlington Terrace Apartments, which would be at the end of the route.

* The average population density of the areas the extension would pass through is roughly 20,000 people per square mile

* A trip from Arlington to CSI would be cut from 40 minutes to 20 minutes (basically, a trip to anywhere along the Victory Blvd corridor would see over 20 minutes shaved off)

* Roughly 55-60% of the households living along South Avenue (north of Forest Avenue) do not have access to a car.

* (Not that it makes much of a difference), but the zip code of 10303 has the longest commute time of any zip code in SI, at 50 minutes (compared to the average SI commute which is about 41 minutes).

* The S48/98 carry a lot of students who live in Arlington and go to school in New Springville, and the S93 extension would take some passengers off those routes (since it's an alternate way to connect to Richmond Avenue).

* You only need 6-8 passengers per bus for it to break even (and don't give me any crap of "Oh, well it will only carry 6-8 passengers" because that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it only needs 6-8 paying passengers per bus to break even. The buses will probably carry more considering the people transferring, and seniors and students and all that,)

 

 

Hmm, so now seniors, students and all of that matter so much that we need to extend the S93, but we can't restore the S54 for seniors students and all of that on weekends and we can cut the S57 back on weekends and leave the B4 routing along Ave Z as is... Hmm... Interesting... <_<

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) All I'm saying is don't use that you can't have service in every area line and then complain that a small area near you doesn't have service when it never had service to begin with. The areas that I've generally mentioned had their service reduced or eliminated. Two very different things. There should be no talk of extensions until neighborhoods that lost their service have it restored. The idea of giving new service to a community that never had any while leaving others who had service without makes no sense. You're basically saying let's supply an area with "potential" ridership over those areas who already had proven ridership and lost it. The (MTA)'s policy has been to restore lost service to the areas that already ridership, and for now that's where their focus should be at.

 

2) I thought you said you never asked for the S93 to be extended to NJ which was what we were currently discussing... <_< Furthermore, SIR North's proposal and your proposal if I recall correctly were quite different. I think he asked for bus service to Newark Airport which is more than feasible because there IS a known demand there.

 

3) Hmm, so now seniors, students and all of that matter so much that we need to extend the S93, but we can't restore the S54 for seniors students and all of that on weekends and we can cut the S57 back on weekends and leave the B4 routing along Ave Z as is... Hmm... Interesting... <_<

 

 

1) Just because an area used to have service doesn't mean it should have service nowadays (and no, I don't support having an area have no service whatsoever unless ridership is extremely low). The entire routing system is outdated. Some areas used to have the demand for 2 or 3 routes, and now there might only a demand for 1 route. The routing system on Staten Island simply evolved, but service never really expanded into new areas. You had some restructuring back in the 1980s, but that simply combined different routes, without really expanding service into new areas (For instance, the S59 used to go from Eltingville and then go up Giffords Lane, but instead they decided to give Great Kills a more direct route and just send the S54 over there, but they didn't extend any lines down new streets). Of course, that restructuring was warranted, but it didn't go far enough.

 

And no, a lot of these areas proved that they didn't have ridership anymore. Yeah, at one time the S54 probably had good ridership at all times, since SI was less car-dependant and there were shipyards and everything along Richmond Terrace, so it did fine. When the MTA eliminated weekend service, buses were carrying less than 8 passengers per bus throughout the entire route (all the way from Eltingville to West Brighton). Now, obviously like I said, I'd try to boost the ridership by extending it to St. George somehow, but the point is that the area no longer has the ridership.

 

2) No, I never said the S93 needed to be extended to NJ. You just love twisting my words around, don't you? You said you confused it with my "other ridiculous extensions" and I said that these "ridiculous extensions" were the same ones made by SIR North Shore. He wanted the S40 extended to Newark Airport, and I suggested the S98 because it becomes easier if there's a delay (if the S40 gets delayed, everybody on Richmond Terrace is screwed. If the S98 gets delayed, at least people have the S48, which would basically run at the same frequencies it does now, so there's really no difference). In that thread about "The Joy of Living on Staten Island", he mentions that extending one of the South Shore routes (either the S55 or S56) to Perth Amboy would be a good idea. I decided to cut the S98 back to Elizabeth instead of going all the way to Newark Airport in order to minimize delays.

 

So yes, basically our plans were the same.

 

3) First of all, very few students have classes on a weekend.

 

Second of all, I already said to restore the S54 and extend it to the ferry to increase ridership. Haven't you been paying attention at all????? Aside from the fact that it's on the map, I've mentioned it a million times in other threads.

 

Third of all, I already said it doesn't matter to me either way whether the S57 runs every 30 minutes or 60 minutes. Just drop it already.

 

Fourth of all, the distance from Neptune Avenue to Brighton Beach Avenue is a lot less than the distance from Goethals Road North to either Forest Avenue or Victory Blvd, and there are a lot fewer alternatives (and aside from that, I agree with BrooklynIRT's idea to streamline the route by having it just go straight across Neptune Avenue. Passengers going to Sheepshead Bay could use that footbridge to get to the station from Emmons Avenue, so I hope you're happy that there won't be 2 routes along Avenue Z. Like it's the end of the world if that happened, right?)

 

And in any case, you're missing the point, which is that I have proof that this extension would succeed. It's up to the MTA to bring up proof to refute it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Just because an area used to have service doesn't mean it should have service nowadays (and no, I don't support having an area have no service whatsoever unless ridership is extremely low). The entire routing system is outdated. Some areas used to have the demand for 2 or 3 routes, and now there might only a demand for 1 route. The routing system on Staten Island simply evolved, but service never really expanded into new areas. You had some restructuring back in the 1980s, but that simply combined different routes, without really expanding service into new areas (For instance, the S59 used to go from Eltingville and then go up Giffords Lane, but instead they decided to give Great Kills a more direct route and just send the S54 over there, but they didn't extend any lines down new streets). Of course, that restructuring was warranted, but it didn't go far enough.

 

And no, a lot of these areas proved that they didn't have ridership anymore. Yeah, at one time the S54 probably had good ridership at all times, since SI was less car-dependant and there were shipyards and everything along Richmond Terrace, so it did fine. When the MTA eliminated weekend service, buses were carrying less than 8 passengers per bus throughout the entire route (all the way from Eltingville to West Brighton). Now, obviously like I said, I'd try to boost the ridership by extending it to St. George somehow, but the point is that the area no longer has the ridership.

 

2) No, I never said the S93 needed to be extended to NJ. You just love twisting my words around, don't you? You said you confused it with my "other ridiculous extensions" and I said that these "ridiculous extensions" were the same ones made by SIR North Shore. He wanted the S40 extended to Newark Airport, and I suggested the S98 because it becomes easier if there's a delay (if the S40 gets delayed, everybody on Richmond Terrace is screwed. If the S98 gets delayed, at least people have the S48, which would basically run at the same frequencies it does now, so there's really no difference). In that thread about "The Joy of Living on Staten Island", he mentions that extending one of the South Shore routes (either the S55 or S56) to Perth Amboy would be a good idea. I decided to cut the S98 back to Elizabeth instead of going all the way to Newark Airport in order to minimize delays.

 

So yes, basically our plans were the same.

 

3) First of all, very few students have classes on a weekend.

 

Second of all, I already said to restore the S54 and extend it to the ferry to increase ridership. Haven't you been paying attention at all????? Aside from the fact that it's on the map, I've mentioned it a million times in other threads.

 

Third of all, I already said it doesn't matter to me either way whether the S57 runs every 30 minutes or 60 minutes. Just drop it already.

 

Fourth of all, the distance from Neptune Avenue to Brighton Beach Avenue is a lot less than the distance from Goethals Road North to either Forest Avenue or Victory Blvd, and there are a lot fewer alternatives (and aside from that, I agree with BrooklynIRT's idea to streamline the route by having it just go straight across Neptune Avenue. Passengers going to Sheepshead Bay could use that footbridge to get to the station from Emmons Avenue, so I hope you're happy that there won't be 2 routes along Avenue Z. Like it's the end of the world if that happened, right?)

 

And in any case, you're missing the point, which is that I have proof that this extension would succeed. It's up to the MTA to bring up proof to refute it.

 

 

1) Well just because an area had low ridership doesn't mean that there were no more riders. If the (MTA) runs crappy service then fewer folks use the service.

 

2) Well I say no on both ideas... If anything have a shuttle serve Newark airport from Staten Island. Done.

 

First of all... You don't know how many students used the S54 on the weekends since you don't use the S54 and with the amount of farebeating on that line (ahem <_< ) you can't just even justify looking solely at the numbers to determine how many folks actually used the service.

 

Second of all... Well like I said, bring it back first and the other routes too and then we can discuss your extensions.

Third of all... Dropped....

 

Fourth of all, that footbridge does nothing for seniors and folks who have trouble walking and there was a large segment of elderly folks on the B4.

 

Uh not really. Who says they can afford that extension?? Just because you say they can doesn't make it gold. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree w/ the express shuttle from SI to Newark Airport, preferrably St. George-Port Richmond-EWR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Well just because an area had low ridership doesn't mean that there were no more riders. If the (MTA) runs crappy service then fewer folks use the service.

 

2) Well I say no on both ideas... If anything have a shuttle serve Newark airport from Staten Island. Done.

 

First of all... You don't know how many students used the S54 on the weekends since you don't use the S54 and with the amount of farebeating on that line (ahem <_< ) you can't just even justify looking solely at the numbers to determine how many folks actually used the service.

 

Second of all... Well like I said, bring it back first and the other routes too and then we can discuss your extensions.

Third of all... Dropped....

 

Fourth of all, that footbridge does nothing for seniors and folks who have trouble walking and there was a large segment of elderly folks on the B4.

 

Uh not really. Who says they can afford that extension?? Just because you say they can doesn't make it gold. <_<

 

 

1) Alright, but then that doesn't prove that there was any ridership there, now does it? You don't know whether there was low ridership because of crappy service or low ridership because there just weren't a lot of people who would've used that route.

 

2) If the S98 goes to Newark Airport, that's extra service down Forest Avenue. It might be unreliable at times, but you're no worse off than you are now. Aside from that, you better serve the people going to the airport. If you're going over to NJ, would you want to drag yourself all the way to St. George or Port Richmond or whatever, or would you rather have the bus stop right along a main street on the North Shore.

 

As for the S54, I'm just saying that most students don't have class on the weekends. Yeah, there's tutoring sometimes and some people have track practice or Saturday school or something like that, but let's not pretend like there are a ton of students going to school on the weekends. In any case, you see the crowds of students waiting at Richmond Avenue & Monsey Place in the morning. There's a reason why the S44 and S59 have so many trippers going southbound in the morning. (It would be nice if service was like that northbound too, but whatever), and of course, some live in the area around Forest & Richmond and just walk to the bus stop, but a lot of them live by South Avenue and take the S48/98 there, and having the S93 would give them a better option.

 

As for bringing back the routes, that's the point: Some routes simply don't have the ridership, and this would have a lot more ridership than some of the routes that were cut back in 2010.

 

As for the B4, if they have that much trouble with the stairs, they wouldn't be able to use the subway anyway, because Sheepshead Bay isn't ADA accessable (unless they did changed that during the last construction project)

 

And as for the logic behind "Oh, well they have to bring back old cuts before they create a new extension", how come it was alright for them to extend the S55 back in 2007 when the S66 was reduced to running weekdays only instead of running 24/7 like it used to? How about overnight S59 service? Somehow it's alright for them to extend a route like that, but it's not alright for me to want my extension? And aside from that, the areas I'm talking about would definitely use the bus service more than the Rossville area where the S55 was extended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Alright, but then that doesn't prove that there was any ridership there, now does it? You don't know whether there was low ridership because of crappy service or low ridership because there just weren't a lot of people who would've used that route.

 

2) If the S98 goes to Newark Airport, that's extra service down Forest Avenue. It might be unreliable at times, but you're no worse off than you are now. Aside from that, you better serve the people going to the airport. If you're going over to NJ, would you want to drag yourself all the way to St. George or Port Richmond or whatever, or would you rather have the bus stop right along a main street on the North Shore.

 

As for the S54, I'm just saying that most students don't have class on the weekends. Yeah, there's tutoring sometimes and some people have track practice or Saturday school or something like that, but let's not pretend like there are a ton of students going to school on the weekends. In any case, you see the crowds of students waiting at Richmond Avenue & Monsey Place in the morning. There's a reason why the S44 and S59 have so many trippers going southbound in the morning. (It would be nice if service was like that northbound too, but whatever), and of course, some live in the area around Forest & Richmond and just walk to the bus stop, but a lot of them live by South Avenue and take the S48/98 there, and having the S93 would give them a better option.

 

By students you must mean high school students. Even then you'd be surprised by how many of them used the S54, not to mention folks going to work. Then you have college students with classes on Saturday which is why the S93 for example should run 7 days a week. Those S53s get very crowded on Saturdays at Victory Blvd. Sundays too to a degree. I mean students don't stop studying because it is the weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By students you must mean high school students. Even then you'd be surprised by how many of them used the S54, not to mention folks going to work. Then you have college students with classes on Saturday which is why the S93 for example should run 7 days a week. Those S53s get very crowded on Saturdays at Victory Blvd. Sundays too to a degree. I mean students don't stop studying because it is the weekend.

 

 

Well, middle and high school students, since they have a ton of schools over by the SI Mall vs. just Wagner High School for the S54. Along the S93 route itself, there's a middle school by Goethals Road North.

 

And the last time I checked, college students don't all live east of CSI. I do know a couple of college kids who live west of CSI (technically, me being one of them thanks to College Now. ;) ), and of course, there are more where that came from (I remember some kind of map showing where all the students live, and there were dots all over SI)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what? Now that I think about it, you support them expanding the QM20 to Lower Manhattan at the same time there are huge gaps in network coverage in Queens. That's alright, but wanting my extension isn't?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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