Staten Island Bus Proposal Thread 2012-2013

[bobtehpanda]

22 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

 

Pretty much, it's a whole lot of nothing. Let me put it to you this way....you have a busy route like the S46 ending at a little shopping plaza smaller than the ones most people can find in their own neighborhoods elsewhere on Staten Island. There's no residential activity along South Avenue (south of the SIE) and you just have a few office buildings and some hotels.

And eh, like I said, I don't disagree with some high-quality transit (BRT or rail) serving CSI, but the front entrance would be sufficient.

The only reason I routed through rather around CSI and onto Richmond is because it's a less trafficked, more direct route with less stoplights. With services like these, every minute counts, so the less diversion you can get away with the better. I'd have the BRT stop on the Loop Rd instead of turning into Administration Rd.

[checkmatechamp13]

10 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

So do I - I just don't happen to think Travis is one of them....

What I'm getting from your last two posts is that Travis folks tend to seek Richmond av before anything else.... Had it not been for the advent of Bricktowne, I would've had no problem/concern with extending the S55 or the S56 to Travis (with alterations elsewhere along the route [before it even hits the mall], which I believe we spoke about before)... For the sake of the network, I would've chosen that over a] the current S62 to Travis (to be perfectly honest) & b] having a route running out of Travis to serve West Shore Plz. & the Teleport, en-route to other areas east of Richmond av... Yes, the latter is indirect, but you showed inquisitiveness on how I would do such a thing - so I obliged....

As far as actual S46 service, while I haven't thought about how much (less) service West Shore Plz. should get, I've always thought there should be more short turns throughout the day.....

IMO, that would be too much dead mileage for those routes (between the SI Mall & Victory Blvd). It's one thing to have the S59 running through there en-route to the North Shore, but to have two routes going to both the eastern and western portions of Victory Blvd from there would be overkill IMO. It's true, that there's reasonable amount of turnover at Richmond on the S62, but not enough to have Victory east and west of there served by two separate routes.

For the S55/56, the only thing I recall is that you would restructure the S56 to run west to Bricktown (around Drumgoole IIRC) instead of going down to Hylan and back to Tottenville High School. But I don't recall any other restructuring aside from that related to Bricktown. 

5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The only reason I routed through rather around CSI and onto Richmond is because it's a less trafficked, more direct route with less stoplights. With services like these, every minute counts, so the less diversion you can get away with the better. I'd have the BRT stop on the Loop Rd instead of turning into Administration Rd.

Less stoplights, but there's a lower speed limit through CSI compared to Richmond Avenue. But I do see your point. Richmond & Victory itself is a busy intersection, but south of Victory, Richmond becomes a lot less pedestrian-friendly and more spread-out. 

[B35 via Church]

13 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

IMO, that would be too much dead mileage for those routes (between the SI Mall & Victory Blvd). It's one thing to have the S59 running through there en-route to the North Shore, but to have two routes going to both the eastern and western portions of Victory Blvd from there would be overkill IMO. It's true, that there's reasonable amount of turnover at Richmond on the S62, but not enough to have Victory east and west of there served by two separate routes.

For the S55/56, the only thing I recall is that you would restructure the S56 to run west to Bricktown (around Drumgoole IIRC) instead of going down to Hylan and back to Tottenville High School. But I don't recall any other restructuring aside from that related to Bricktown.

...to have one route serving the western portion of Victory Blvd. (S55 or S56) & one route serving the eastern portion of Victory Blvd (S62).

Anyway.... I don't exactly see it as overkill, but if that's how you see it, well I don't think it'd be any more or less overkill than the S44 & the S59 running north of Victory....

Be there as it may, I wouldn't have S44's running along Richmond... I know you're not fond of this, but I would have the S59 be "the" (main) route along Richmond (instead of the S44 & S59 running complementary along it for as long as they do - I'm not even factoring in the S89 in any of this, although I could).... Having [the S62] & [the S55 (or S56)] taking Richmond down to the mall from Victory means that there would be less supplementation distance-wise along Richmond.... Dead mileage? Likely for the S55 or S56, but I don't think that would be near as big an issue for the S62 along Richmond....

Now I'm not implicating that Victory is this point of turnover extraordinaire, but if I'm diverting the S62 down to the mall, something has to cover Travis (well, other than the x11 - even if service were to be increased on it).... I'd think running a lowly utilized route like the S55 or S56 would be more feasible than drumming up a new route, just to serve Travis (which would amount to overkill).... That's just how I see it....

What you recall (about a restructure of the S56) is what I'm talking about.... There would be nothing additional.

Edited November 24, 2017 by B35 via Church

[checkmatechamp13]

11 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

...to have one route serving the western portion of Victory Blvd. (S55 or S56) & one route serving the eastern portion of Victory Blvd (S62).

Anyway.... I don't exactly see it as overkill, but if that's how you see it, well I don't think it'd be any more or less overkill than the S44 & the S59 running north of Victory....

Be there as it may, I wouldn't have S44's running along Richmond... I know you're not fond of this, but I would have the S59 be "the" (main) route along Richmond (instead of the S44 & S59 running complementary along it for as long as they do - I'm not even factoring in the S89 in any of this, although I could).... Having [the S62] & [the S55 (or S56)] taking Richmond down to the mall from Victory means that there would be less supplementation distance-wise along Richmond.... Dead mileage? Likely for the S55 or S56, but I don't think that would be near as big an issue for the S62 along Richmond....

Now I'm not implicating that Victory is this point of turnover extraordinaire, but if I'm diverting the S62 down to the mall, something has to cover Travis (well, other than the x11 - even if service were to be increased on it).... I'd think running a lowly utilized route like the S55 or S56 would be more feasible than drumming up a new route, just to serve Travis (which would amount to overkill).... That's just how I see it....

What you recall (about a restructure of the S56) is what I'm talking about.... There would be nothing additional.

I'll put it this way: Richmond north of Victory doesn't need any more service than Richmond south of Victory IMO. I remembered that you wanted to take the S44 off Richmond and put some similar amount of service onto the S59, so either the result would be that you take some of that service off the S59 to put service into the S55/56 and S62 along that stretch (which results in northern Richmond Avenue being underserved), or you have similar levels of service along the northern part of Richmond, and add all this extra service south of Victory. At least with the S44 & S59, the overall level of service is alright (even if it's not always coordinated right, like I mention below).

I'm not saying I would necessarily support it, but if there is such a route that should be split in that manner (have one or both halves turn onto Richmond Avenue towards the SI Mall), it would be the S48. There's a lot of people getting off at Forest for the S48 (which does have the S40 & S46 in the general area for passengers seeking St. George, whereas the S46 is too far to walk for most Travis residents). But I would leave the S48 as-is. 

The other issue of course, is how many people would really benefit from the split? The S61 already covers Victory Blvd east of Bradley, and even if it's a bit slower than taking Victory straight to Richmond (which as I'll discuss below, especially eastbound that's debatable) it still provides a one-seat ride. So it's only Willowbrook riders who are really benefitting, and to me, simply running more service west of CSI would be sufficient. And for Travis, it's isolated from everywhere else, but it's still more of a Mid-Island neighborhood than a South Shore neighborhood (then there's also the western section of Bulls Head which is less isolated). I mean, the SI Mall is Mid-Island (and like we discussed, there is some turnover at Richmond, and some Travis residents do head towards the SI Mall), and you can make the argument that Castleton Corners is technically a North Shore neighborhood since it's north of the SIE, but in general, I'll say access further east is more useful for them than access further south)

My main issue with eliminating the S44 (separate from splitting the S62) is that it avoids all the traffic along Victory Blvd (most of which is ultimately related to the SIE). The main backup points are between Richmond Avenue & CSI eastbound (which has become better since they installed the smart light by CSI), the area around Slosson Avenue (usually between Slosson & Manor, but sometimes as far east as Little Clove westbound and as far west as Jewett eastbound) and the area approaching Clove Road heading eastbound (which has gotten worse over the years. The Slosson area was always bad traffic-wise). If my neighborhood were to be left with the S66 being the primary route to St. George, it would have to sit through two out of those three chokepoints. And then if it has to turn down Clove to serve Grymes Hill, that's another can of worms traffic-wise.

I'll put it to you this way: There's been times I went to Victory & Richmond, saw a major traffic jam on Victory, and just ran across the street to catch the S44, because I knew if it's that bad at Richmond, it'll be worse as you get east. (And the sad part is, this isn't just to get to the ferry. There's times I've done that just to get to Grasmere, with the S44 to the S53 or even the SIR at St. George). It's for that reason that I don't mind some service terminating at CSI (it's just that the MTA goes overkill on it), so there's some sort of reliable service for Willowbrook riders.

So basically, if there were some rush hour limited-stop service that bypassed Grymes Hill, and some bus lanes around those chokepoints to skip the traffic, I would be fine with getting rid of the S44. Off-peak isn't that much of an issue for having people in my area take my proposed S66 (or S62 if they're closer to Victory, or S93 to/from Brooklyn since that's one of the things we're discussing). I wouldn't want to have people resort to getting so pissed off with Victory Blvd traffic that they continue to resort to walking to Richmond Avenue to catch a bus over to the S40 or S48, which defeats one of the very reasons I proposed that route.

I do agree that coordination of the S44 & S59 is an issue (my brother was telling me that he had just missed an S93 from Bay Ridge, and being impatient, he jumped on the S79 to the SI Mall. He checked BusTime and saw that the S44 & S59 were having issues, and long story short, he walked from the SI Mall to around Signs Road before an S44 passed him, and apparently the S59 never did pass him). He said it's amazing how much better the service is on the southern half of Richmond with the S79, compared to the northern half of Richmond with the S44. A coworker at my retail job (who now drives) kept telling me stories of how he would walk from Nome Avenue (just north of Richmond Hill) all the way almost to Forest without a bus passing him, or maybe a single or pair of buses passing him towards the end). So that would be the advantage of just consolidating the service onto one route.

Now I guess we come to the other issue of the debate which is, if the S44 were to be taken off Richmond Avenue (to be sent to CSI via Woolley or whatever), I think some of that service should go to Bayonne and provide off-peak service (which I know your stance is that the S89 should remain a commuter route and not go any further south than the ETC). For my proposal, the primary branch would still go to Port Richmond, of course. So I would propose something like this:

* S44/94: CSI-St. George via Woolley, Watchogue, Willowbrook, Port Richmond Avenue, and then Post Avenue and the current route towards St. George.

* S59 would go to Port Richmond via Richmond Avenue, Morningstar Road, Walker Street, and Port Richmond Avenue. Not sure whether to have it continue serving Tottenville, or have something else cover it (possibly a branch of the S79). The advantage of the S59 is that it provides North Shore & Mid-Island residents with a direct ride to schools on the South Shore (and also, the S59 goes up towards the SI Mall, though I suppose if the S55/56/74 were restructured the right way, most areas would still have a direct ride to the SI Mall). 

* The S89 (which for all I care could become a local. Richmond Avenue is generally pretty quick anyway) would have off-peak service to Bayonne. Trains run every 20 minutes off-peak, so as long as it's coordinated with the trains, it could be every 20-60 minutes. The advantage is that both the S59 and S89 would have a direct connection to the S46 & S48 via Morningstar, so that's already a good chunk of riders that you're serving. The question to determine the frequency is, how much service to Port Richmond proper is it worth giving up to the "heart" of Port Richmond (say, between Walker & Castleton) to provide the service to Bayonne (north of Castleton is mostly just for coverage & connectivity). 

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by checkmatechamp13

[B35 via Church]

8 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I'll put it this way: Richmond north of Victory doesn't need any more service than Richmond south of Victory IMO. I remembered that you wanted to take the S44 off Richmond and put some similar amount of service onto the S59, so either the result would be that you take some of that service off the S59 to put service into the S55/56 and S62 along that stretch (which results in northern Richmond Avenue being underserved), or you have similar levels of service along the northern part of Richmond, and add all this extra service south of Victory. At least with the S44 & S59, the overall level of service is alright (even if it's not always coordinated right, like I mention below).

I'm not saying I would necessarily support it, but if there is such a route that should be split in that manner (have one or both halves turn onto Richmond Avenue towards the SI Mall), it would be the S48. There's a lot of people getting off at Forest for the S48 (which does have the S40 & S46 in the general area for passengers seeking St. George, whereas the S46 is too far to walk for most Travis residents). But I would leave the S48 as-is. 

The other issue of course, is how many people would really benefit from the split? The S61 already covers Victory Blvd east of Bradley, and even if it's a bit slower than taking Victory straight to Richmond (which as I'll discuss below, especially eastbound that's debatable) it still provides a one-seat ride. So it's only Willowbrook riders who are really benefitting, and to me, simply running more service west of CSI would be sufficient. And for Travis, it's isolated from everywhere else, but it's still more of a Mid-Island neighborhood than a South Shore neighborhood (then there's also the western section of Bulls Head which is less isolated). I mean, the SI Mall is Mid-Island (and like we discussed, there is some turnover at Richmond, and some Travis residents do head towards the SI Mall), and you can make the argument that Castleton Corners is technically a North Shore neighborhood since it's north of the SIE, but in general, I'll say access further east is more useful for them than access further south)....

I'm going to have to split this up....

Richmond (av) needing more service south of Victory than north of it, really has nothing to do with why I'd run the S62 down to the mall & run the (S55 or the S56) up to Travis.... That would be like arguing Victory has too much service (coming from the ferry) b/w Bay & Cebra, or something..... (The main reasons surrounding) What I don't like about the S44, is that it is the most indirect of the north shore routes that runs down to the mall & that it takes away from the S59 service-wise).... I wouldn't suggest (what you're making a talking point out of with) the S48 there happen either, but I would have less of a problem w/ the S48 running to the mall via Richmond than the S44...

Yes, I would supply more service along Richmond w/ the S59 & turn the S89 into a commuter route (emanating from ETC), with the S44 diverted elsewhere (like a CSI).... Richmond would be short-changed if it were to be left with the current service levels provided on the S59, on top of some trips stupidly (IMO) running to Tottenville.... Injecting/introducing the S62 & the S55/56 into the mix along that portion of Richmond in question wouldn't affect service levels on the S59 (with increased service levels).... So as you put it, it would result in all that extra service south of Victory.....

While I get the core of your argument, it's looking like you're making (or trying to make) it an issue of south-of-Victory vs north-of-Victory, when that's not what I'm on at all with this.... I don't necessarily have a problem with a route running directly to the mall (other than the S59/S89) from the North Shore (if that's what you might be thinking, IDK), I have a problem w/ a route like the S44 doing it..... And to be perfectly honest, such a (second) route of sorts doesn't need to run to the ferry either.... It's an example of why I'm not all that fond of a large scale bus system like SI's being that dependent on the hub & spoke model....

How many people will benefit (from the split).... I could ask you that same question with having 'x' amount of combined S62/93 trips connecting Travis to Brooklyn directly..... But more to the point I want to address, funny you bring up the S61 - because it's actually one more reason why I'd have the S62 running to the mall.... While the S61 runs to the mall, for whatever the reason, I find that too low (or, not enough) an amount of people choose to utilize it to the mall.... I can't fathom it being only Willowbrook patrons benefiting from said S62 diversion by a longshot... Having the S62 running to the mall would simply mean more access to more commercial areas (Richmond av) not including the mall itself.... IMO, this would take/attract some amt. of people off of S61's (emanating east of Willowbrook) off of it & onto said S62's.... May not be by much, but I think an S62 of sorts from end-to-end would be quicker than the S61 (even if it's making more stops along Richmond, short of the mall)..... I don't see these S62's being this straight shot b/w the mall & Victory blvd (for the most part) like you implicated w/ the dead mileage concept in the last post.... Something else that'll be more of an attractant is the fact that the S62 wouldn't serve the back end of the mall (Marsh) like the S61 does.....

You're losing me with the point surrounding Travis being a mid-island neighborhood (vs. being a south shore neighborhood) though.... Are you trying to conclude that the S55/S56 shouldn't run up to Travis because it's not a South Shore neighborhood? I don't get your ultimate point with that, unless you were simply making a general point? You don't have to tell me that Travis isn't a South shore neighborhood... lol... I start thinking South Shore when I hit areas west of ETC/west of Richmond av.... But yeah, that last sentence in that paragraph (about access out of Travis to areas further east vs. further south) I think is moot (debatable)..... It's not something I necessarily strongly agree or disagree with - as long as we're talking within the Island....

Edited November 25, 2017 by B35 via Church
oh, goddamn it with the strikethrough shit....

[B35 via Church]

8 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

...My main issue with eliminating the S44 (separate from splitting the S62) is that it avoids all the traffic along Victory Blvd (most of which is ultimately related to the SIE). The main backup points are between Richmond Avenue & CSI eastbound (which has become better since they installed the smart light by CSI), the area around Slosson Avenue (usually between Slosson & Manor, but sometimes as far east as Little Clove westbound and as far west as Jewett eastbound) and the area approaching Clove Road heading eastbound (which has gotten worse over the years. The Slosson area was always bad traffic-wise). If my neighborhood were to be left with the S66 being the primary route to St. George, it would have to sit through two out of those three chokepoints. And then if it has to turn down Clove to serve Grymes Hill, that's another can of worms traffic-wise.

I'll put it to you this way: There's been times I went to Victory & Richmond, saw a major traffic jam on Victory, and just ran across the street to catch the S44, because I knew if it's that bad at Richmond, it'll be worse as you get east. (And the sad part is, this isn't just to get to the ferry. There's times I've done that just to get to Grasmere, with the S44 to the S53 or even the SIR at St. George). It's for that reason that I don't mind some service terminating at CSI (it's just that the MTA goes overkill on it), so there's some sort of reliable service for Willowbrook riders.

So basically, if there were some rush hour limited-stop service that bypassed Grymes Hill, and some bus lanes around those chokepoints to skip the traffic, I would be fine with getting rid of the S44. Off-peak isn't that much of an issue for having people in my area take my proposed S66 (or S62 if they're closer to Victory, or S93 to/from Brooklyn since that's one of the things we're discussing). I wouldn't want to have people resort to getting so pissed off with Victory Blvd traffic that they continue to resort to walking to Richmond Avenue to catch a bus over to the S40 or S48, which defeats one of the very reasons I proposed that route.

I do agree that coordination of the S44 & S59 is an issue (my brother was telling me that he had just missed an S93 from Bay Ridge, and being impatient, he jumped on the S79 to the SI Mall. He checked BusTime and saw that the S44 & S59 were having issues, and long story short, he walked from the SI Mall to around Signs Road before an S44 passed him, and apparently the S59 never did pass him). He said it's amazing how much better the service is on the southern half of Richmond with the S79, compared to the northern half of Richmond with the S44. A coworker at my retail job (who now drives) kept telling me stories of how he would walk from Nome Avenue (just north of Richmond Hill) all the way almost to Forest without a bus passing him, or maybe a single or pair of buses passing him towards the end). So that would be the advantage of just consolidating the service onto one route.

Now I guess we come to the other issue of the debate which is, if the S44 were to be taken off Richmond Avenue (to be sent to CSI via Woolley or whatever), I think some of that service should go to Bayonne and provide off-peak service (which I know your stance is that the S89 should remain a commuter route and not go any further south than the ETC). For my proposal, the primary branch would still go to Port Richmond, of course. So I would propose something like this:

* S44/94: CSI-St. George via Woolley, Watchogue, Willowbrook, Port Richmond Avenue, and then Post Avenue and the current route towards St. George.

* S59 would go to Port Richmond via Richmond Avenue, Morningstar Road, Walker Street, and Port Richmond Avenue. Not sure whether to have it continue serving Tottenville, or have something else cover it (possibly a branch of the S79). The advantage of the S59 is that it provides North Shore & Mid-Island residents with a direct ride to schools on the South Shore (and also, the S59 goes up towards the SI Mall, though I suppose if the S55/56/74 were restructured the right way, most areas would still have a direct ride to the SI Mall). 

* The S89 (which for all I care could become a local. Richmond Avenue is generally pretty quick anyway) would have off-peak service to Bayonne. Trains run every 20 minutes off-peak, so as long as it's coordinated with the trains, it could be every 20-60 minutes. The advantage is that both the S59 and S89 would have a direct connection to the S46 & S48 via Morningstar, so that's already a good chunk of riders that you're serving. The question to determine the frequency is, how much service to Port Richmond proper is it worth giving up to the "heart" of Port Richmond (say, between Walker & Castleton) to provide the service to Bayonne (north of Castleton is mostly just for coverage & connectivity).

Slosson/exit 12 (I believe it is) we can't do much with, that's always going to be a chokepoint... Clove/Victory being a chokepoint is definitely surprising; it used to be free-flowing (for the most part)... Jewett/Victory is now a chokepoint also? wtf..... This is news to me.... What would you attribute this devolution to?

Regardless, points well taken with how Victory has devolved in certain spots, traffic-wise...

As far as how things would change (have the S44 go to CSI instead).... I can concur with said routing of yours south of Post towards CSI, but I'm a little confused as to what/how S44 off peak service would be divvied up there..... Would service be split to run from between [St. George - CSI and St. George - Bayonne] or [St. George - CSI and Bayonne - CSI]..... Or are you talking about having (that redistributed service) run as [off-peak S89's to Bayonne, with all S44's running b/w St. George & CSI]? In any case, I'm not sure if the latent demand exists for off peak Bayonne service... Maybe you know something I don't, regarding that..... While the Bayonne concept is interesting, I feel more "safe" (for lack of a better word) redistributing some of that service to the S59....

Speaking of the S59, off peak service to Tottenville IMO has got to go.... Nothing can convince me that should remain.... It's something else I hate about the current network; it's not near as close enough to being worth it (it's f***ing cheap if you ask me)..... To whosoever needs the S59 from the South shore, they're going to have to do some xferring for all I care..... The S59 in Port Richmond though, I would split to having it take on [the current S59 routing at & north of Forest] & [the current S46 routing b/w Pt. Richmond (av) & Morningstar], enroute to the rest of the current routing towards Hylan.... Your routing is not bad though....

Richmond is free-flowing for the most part, but I'd still want no part of turning the S89 into a local... I would just truncate the route & call it a day.

-----------------------------

For the TL:DR folks, So in terms of taking the S44 off Richmond, the main difference to how we would handle Richmond av, etc. with the S59 & S89 is:

B35 via Church: Increased S59 service levels from Hylan to Pt. Richmond, no S59 service along Hylan to Tottenville, S59 service in Port Richmond split to running along [Pt. Richmond av] & [Morningstar/Innis/Nicholas/Castleton], S89 truncated to run between Eltingville Transit Ctr. to Bayonne (no off peak service)....

CheckmateChamp13: Current S59 service levels from Hylan to Pt. Richmond, S59 service to Tottenville undecided, S59 service in Port Richmond rerouted to go Morningstar/Walker/Port Richmond av., Current S89 routing, S89 conversion from LTD to local, optional, Increased S89 service span...

 

side note: Is there a way to create a table in a post; is HTML allowed?

[checkmatechamp13]

17 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

How many people will benefit (from the split).... I could ask you that same question with having 'x' amount of combined S62/93 trips connecting Travis to Brooklyn directly..... But more to the point I want to address, funny you bring up the S61 - because it's actually one more reason why I'd have the S62 running to the mall.... While the S61 runs to the mall, for whatever the reason, I find that too low (or, not enough) an amount of people choose to utilize it to the mall.... I can't fathom it being only Willowbrook patrons benefiting from said S62 diversion by a longshot... Having the S62 running to the mall would simply mean more access to more commercial areas (Richmond av) not including the mall itself.... IMO, this would take/attract some amt. of people off of S61's (emanating east of Willowbrook) off of it & onto said S62's.... May not be by much, but I think an S62 of sorts from end-to-end would be quicker than the S61 (even if it's making more stops along Richmond, short of the mall)..... I don't see these S62's being this straight shot b/w the mall & Victory blvd (for the most part) like you implicated w/ the dead mileage concept in the last post.... Something else that'll be more of an attractant is the fact that the S62 wouldn't serve the back end of the mall (Marsh) like the S61 does.....

You're losing me with the point surrounding Travis being a mid-island neighborhood (vs. being a south shore neighborhood) though.... Are you trying to conclude that the S55/S56 shouldn't run up to Travis because it's not a South Shore neighborhood? I don't get your ultimate point with that, unless you were simply making a general point? You don't have to tell me that Travis isn't a South shore neighborhood... lol... I start thinking South Shore when I hit areas west of ETC/west of Richmond av.... But yeah, that last sentence in that paragraph (about access out of Travis to areas further east vs. further south) I think is moot (debatable)..... It's not something I necessarily strongly agree or disagree with - as long as we're talking within the Island....

As far as benefits go, the reason I bring that up is because I think such a proposal would screw over Travis too much in the end in terms of access to the rest of the network. For example, you lose the connection to the S54 to Wagner High School on Brielle (which is why I brought up the Mid-Island vs. South Shore issue before). Of course, there's other high schools (the area is technically zoned for Port Richmond, and I did know a few people from Travis proper back in high school) and the ones along Marsh Avenue, but that's still a good chunk of people that would either have to change schools for an easier commute or put up with extra transfers. But schoolkids aside, you're losing connections to the S53/93 to Brooklyn (and the East Shore in general), and with the S44 taken off Richmond, you're limiting their access to the North Shore (since whatever riders want to head anywhere besides Port Richmond don't have the option to stay on the bus for the S54 or S53). 

And in exchange, the riders that do benefit aren't seeing that great of a benefit (if the S59 would be beefed-up, service along Richmond would still be frequent enough that the transfer wouldn't be too bad).

To go a little more into detail on my S93 proposal, the reason I came up with it is to avoid concentrating too many routes on Victory. The S61 & S62 have full-time service, if my proposed S66 via Watchogue goes through, that should hopefully have full-time service, and seeing as the S93 as the quickest-growing local route in the city, I'm sure the MTA is looking into full-time service the way they did on the Q103, which was also in a similar situation. (By full-time, I just mean it would have midday/evening/weekend service. Obviously, the S62 is the only one with overnight service). 

Four full-time routes along Victory between Jewett & Clove is too much IMO (especially considering that there's not a major mall or anything on that stretch like the SI Mall or even Bricktown/South Shore Commons). During rush hour, like I said, with the traffic issues, I would still have a Travis-St. George route (maybe cut the S93 back to CSI at that time). So that's how I came up with the idea of eliminating one of those routes while still providing coverage to all of the areas on the "branches" (if you want to call them that) west of Jewett. I actually see a decent amount of people transfer from the S93 to the S61/91, but I still think the Brooklyn-CSI route should serve the main entrance of CSI on Victory (well, that, and you would screw over the existing S93 riders in Willowbrook if you were to send it via Bradley & Forest Hill). 

It's probably not the best example, but I see it kind of like the S53 serving the area between Forest & Victory. It's kind of isolated, since you have Clove Lake Park on one side and Silver Lake Park on the other, but there's some apartment buildings and regular houses mixed in. In any case, for those that live too far from Victory or Forest, they have to take the S53 to Bay Ridge (as opposed to a bus to the ferry) if they want to get off the island, and it seems to work well for those that use it. (Well, unless the X14 is running, but you can make the same analogy with Travis and the X11).

This is probably where we disagree, but I think in principle, every SI neighborhood should have a direct link to either Bay Ridge or St. George, unless we're talking about areas on the deep South Shore, where taking a bus to the SIR to the ferry would generally be quicker than taking a bus directly to St. George if coordinated right (well that, or areas like Todt Hill that don't want/need bus service). To me, since the main hub is all the way in the corner of the network, that means that if your bus goes to that hub, worse-case scenario, you can get to another point in the island by going to the hub (St. George) and back out. 

For the S61, I think we discussed my proposal for restructuring all local routes onto the "back" of Ring Road (basically, the part where the S79 goes between Macy's and the last stop, but then continue down to Platinum Avenue), so that residents behind the SI Mall and kids going to the schools there can have easy access to areas along Richmond Avenue (but the distance to the physical entrance is about the same). For an area that's so close to a major hub, I've always thought that area kind of got the crumbs in terms of local service. I think doing that would boost the visibility of the S61. For the commercial area of Richmond just north of Richmond Avenue, that area only really extends to around Travis Avenue (since north of Rockland, you're pretty much next to Willowbrook Park and the other side is residential). So those people do have access, they just have to walk a bit. (What my little brother used to do sometimes when he went to Wagner was take the S61 to Travis & Merrymount and then walk over to Richmond to catch the S44/59 back home). The advantage coming from the ferry is you don't have to cross Richmond Avenue to get to those shopping plazas. Of course, there's no real way for the MTA to get the word out that it's only a short walk.

Funny story, I remember a while ago, the X17 was messed up, so I was talking to a guy who lived by Marsh Avenue discussing his alternatives. I said he could take the X10 (which was coming next according to BusTime) over to Richmond Avenue and take the S44/59 to the SI Mall, or he could wait about 5-10 more minutes, and take a bus from the pack of 3 X1s (that was pretty much an hour's worth of buses coming at once. Staten Island-bound express buses are terrible on Sunday), and then hop on the S79 to get up to Marsh Avenue. Funny enough, neither of us thought of taking the X10 to Bradley for the S61 directly to Marsh Avenue (even though it was probably the quickest), so he ended up going with the X1-S79 option.

15 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Slosson/exit 12 (I believe it is) we can't do much with, that's always going to be a chokepoint... Clove/Victory being a chokepoint is definitely surprising; it used to be free-flowing (for the most part)... Jewett/Victory is now a chokepoint also? wtf..... This is news to me.... What would you attribute this devolution to?

Regardless, points well taken with how Victory has devolved in certain spots, traffic-wise...

As far as how things would change (have the S44 go to CSI instead).... I can concur with said routing of yours south of Post towards CSI, but I'm a little confused as to what/how S44 off peak service would be divvied up there..... Would service be split to run from between [St. George - CSI and St. George - Bayonne] or [St. George - CSI and Bayonne - CSI]..... Or are you talking about having (that redistributed service) run as [off-peak S89's to Bayonne, with all S44's running b/w St. George & CSI]? In any case, I'm not sure if the latent demand exists for off peak Bayonne service... Maybe you know something I don't, regarding that..... While the Bayonne concept is interesting, I feel more "safe" (for lack of a better word) redistributing some of that service to the S59....

Speaking of the S59, off peak service to Tottenville IMO has got to go.... Nothing can convince me that should remain.... It's something else I hate about the current network; it's not near as close enough to being worth it (it's f***ing cheap if you ask me)..... To whosoever needs the S59 from the South shore, they're going to have to do some xferring for all I care..... The S59 in Port Richmond though, I would split to having it take on [the current S59 routing at & north of Forest] & [the current S46 routing b/w Pt. Richmond (av) & Morningstar], enroute to the rest of the current routing towards Hylan.... Your routing is not bad though....

Richmond is free-flowing for the most part, but I'd still want no part of turning the S89 into a local... I would just truncate the route & call it a day.

-----------------------------

For the TL:DR folks, So in terms of taking the S44 off Richmond, the main difference to how we would handle Richmond av, etc. with the S59 & S89 is:

B35 via Church: Increased S59 service levels from Hylan to Pt. Richmond, no S59 service along Hylan to Tottenville, S59 service in Port Richmond split to running along [Pt. Richmond av] & [Morningstar/Innis/Nicholas/Castleton], S89 truncated to run between Eltingville Transit Ctr. to Bayonne (no off peak service)....

CheckmateChamp13: Current S59 service levels from Hylan to Pt. Richmond, S59 service to Tottenville undecided, S59 service in Port Richmond rerouted to go Morningstar/Walker/Port Richmond av., Current S89 routing, S89 conversion from LTD to local, optional, Increased S89 service span...

 

side note: Is there a way to create a table in a post; is HTML allowed?

Yeah, Slosson is Exit 12. It doesn't help that there's two schools at that intersection and one of them (P.S.29 on the northeast corner) has its schoolbuses drop kids off on the Victory side instead of the Slosson side, so once you make it through the intersection, sometimes you have to deal with those flashing red lights.

The one idea I had was to ban left turns from eastbound Victory to northbound Slosson, so traffic in the left lane would go straight, and traffic in the right lane would be isolated to the right lane (unfortunately, that would include the X12/42, but at least the local buses would be able to skip some of the traffic). There aren't really too many left turns, since the people who need to head north on Slosson during rush hour usually just turn up some side streets to avoid that Slosson & Victory intersection.

For Jewett & Victory, I'm saying the delays at Slosson sometimes get so bad they extend back to Jewett. As for why Clove has gotten worse, I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the fact that there's now an entrance ramp to the SIE at Clove heading eastbound (it used to be that the corresponding entrance to Exit 13 was after Targee Street. Now they closed that ramp and built a new one after Clove, and another one after Hylan). More likely, I think people were getting fed up of the traffic at Slosson, and so they rode Victory down to Clove and tried to get on there.

For the S44, I would have all buses run from CSI to St. George (well, rush hours, I'd probably keep the S44 short-turn and S94 full route pattern like it is now), and I would just add off-peak S89 service. Unfortunately, the MTA did (and continues to do) a pretty crappy job handling the construction detours related to the Bayonne Bridge, so it probably killed off more ridership than it should've (basically, buses are/were looping up to Walker Street and back down to Forest either Bayonne-bound or SI-bound instead of just getting on/off the MLK at Forest). In any case, I don't see tons of ridership, but I do think it's important for connectivity purposes.

For your routing through Port Richmond & Elm Park, that branch would help the schoolkids, since it passes by Port Richmond High School. But in terms of general usage, I think it would be stronger keeping everything along Port Richmond Avenue in that area.

For your comparison, I would still add some service to the S59, but probably slightly less than you would, to account for the fact that I would run the S89 off-peak. Right now, S59 service generally runs every 15 minutes rush hours, 20 minutes middays & Saturdays, and 30 minutes evenings & Sundays. So I'd probably make it every 10 minutes during rush hours, 10-15 minutes middays/weekends, and 20-30 minutes evenings. Probably some overnight service too (the old overnight S59 ran from Hylan & Richmond to Forest & Willowbrook for the sake of being able to do the whole thing with one bus. Not sure whether to do something like that, or just put two buses on and run it to Richmond Terrace every 40 minutes like the S53). 

Hmmm...now that I think about it, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the S89 ending at the ETC. From there, you can still get to most South Shore neighborhoods anyway. Plus, it acts like a short-turn S59 similar to the present-day S44 does coming from the SI Mall (not sure if short-turn is a good term to describe it, since the S44 is longer on the northern end). But basically, I'd still like to see something that corresponds to the S59 north of the SI Mall the same way the S79 corresponds to it south of the SI Mall. (If only because I don't think demand is that much greater heading south of the SI Mall compared to north of it). 

BTW, I think for inserting something in HTML, you can use that <> icon in between the quotations and the smilie faces.

Edited November 26, 2017 by checkmatechamp13

[North Shore Line]

Changes for SI Local Bus Service in 2018 Predictions :

So this is how the SI Network should be changed:

Yukon Depot would have all the hybrids and most Novas LFS replaced by USB/WIFI 2018-2019 Nova LFSA articulated buses. Charleston and Meredith/Castleton would also receive 10-15 articulated buses each.

Some LFSA will be in SBS scheme for the S71 +SBS+ and S79 +SBS+. The S57, and most S44, S61, S62, S91 and S92 would be swapped to Castleton Depot. The S53, S83, S90 and S93 would operate out of Yukon Depot. This in anticipation of the development happening all across Staten Island,

 

 

S40 - Service Reduced.

S42 - Remains the same.

S44 - Add College of SI extension. Every other S44 terminates at College of SI or SI Mall.

S46 - Services cut back to Forest Avenue. South Avenue services replaced by S90 all times except late nights. Now operates every 10 minutes.

S48 - Service Reduced.

S50 - New, St George to Bay Ridge - 86th Street via Bay Street. No local stops. Replaces the S81.

S51 - Service Reduced.

S52 - Extended to Dongan Hills train station.

S53 - Swapped to Yukon Depot. Artics Introduced. Short-turns at Victory Blvd or the S54 terminal.

S54 - Remains the same. Possible extension to ferry and short-turn at Seaview Hospital.

S55 - Add College of SI extension.

S56 - Add Teleport-West Shore Plaza extension.

S57 - Remains the same.

S59 - Remains the same. Artics Introduced.

S57, S61, S62 - swapped back to Castleton Depot.

S66 - Remains the same.

S71 +SBS+ - A variant of the S79 that uses the X7 routing to Eltingville Transit Center. SBS Artics Only.

S74, S76, S78 - More short-turns near the ferry.

S79 +SBS+ - SBS Artics Only. No more hybrids on SI.

S81 - Eliminated. Replaced by the S50.

S83 - Artics Only, Limited Stop S53 bypassing South Beach. Operates 7 days a week.

S84, S86 - Remains the same.

S88 - St George to HBLR via Forest and Morningstar, some s48 runs will now operate to HBLR every 30-60 minutes as S88. S88 operates with the same hours as the HBLR.

S89 - Remains the same.

S90 Limited operates 7 days a week 445am-130am weekdays and 5am-1am Saturdays and Sundays. Route changed to serve Teleport and West Shore Plaza. Artics Introduced.

S91, S92 - Remains the same.

S93 - Artics Introduced.

S94 - Artics Introduced. Eltingville Transit Center extension. Makes only S89 and S79 stops. Makes all stops between Jewett and Morningstar however the amount of stops in that segment are reduced. Service expanded to every 30 minutes to/from St George rush hours, middays and evenings. No weekend service.

S96 - West Shore Plaza and Teleport service replaced by S90. S96 now operates to/from Goethals Road North or Mariners Harbor instead.

S98 - Remains the same.

X6/X16 - Eltingville Transit Center to either Newark Airport or a Northeast Corridor train station.

[checkmatechamp13]

I'll say this right away, anything that involves a mass introduction of artics to Staten Island would violate the MTA's service guidelines and would never be implemented (thankfully). I mean, artics on the S59? I guess you want to run it every half hour the whole day like the Bee Line buses with artics. Heck, especially with the way you want to cut into its ridership with the S94 extension to the ETC.

That being said, you're screwing over S51/81 riders south of the VZN Bridge, both by eliminating their limited-stop service from St. George, and by reducing their overall service on the S51. You also haven't specified what routing the S55/56 would take between the SI Mall and CSI/Teleport.

And I guess people in areas like mine, and areas like the Huguenot Avenue corridor, the Mosel Avenue corridor, and all the other areas without service will continue to get screwed. Not to mention areas like the Clyde Place section of the S42 which apparently should be thankful they have some rush hour service.

[North Shore Line]

1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I'll say this right away, anything that involves a mass introduction of artics to Staten Island would violate the MTA's service guidelines and would never be implemented (thankfully). I mean, artics on the S59? I guess you want to run it every half hour the whole day like the Bee Line buses with artics. Heck, especially with the way you want to cut into its ridership with the S94 extension to the ETC.

That being said, you're screwing over S51/81 riders south of the VZN Bridge, both by eliminating their limited-stop service from St. George, and by reducing their overall service on the S51. You also haven't specified what routing the S55/56 would take between the SI Mall and CSI/Teleport.

And I guess people in areas like mine, and areas like the Huguenot Avenue corridor, the Mosel Avenue corridor, and all the other areas without service will continue to get screwed. Not to mention areas like the Clyde Place section of the S42 which apparently should be thankful they have some rush hour service.

 

Only the S79 and S83 would become 100% articulated routes. All the rest would remain 40-footer routes with the possibility of having articulated runs introduced where need be.

The S59 would be unchanged because the S94 Limited would make S89 stops using Marsh Avenue and half of the S44 runs would operate to College of SI.

The S81 can remain in this plan. The service reduction on the S51 comes from having only the S50 operate through Ft Wadsworth. The S51 would remain on School Road.

The S55/S56 can take whichever routing will get them there the fastest, using the least amount of buses possible. An S55 or S56 CSI extension should already exist. The Teleport-WSP extension is for coverage but certainly not necessary.

 

I'm towing the MTA line in that they have been only creating new super-routes lately or very short shuttles and SI does not need any more SBS routes or a bunch of short shuttles, only increased services. The North Shore needs all-day limited-stop services, the East Shore areas that the S52, S74, S76, S78 serve need short-turns, the south shore needs increased S79 services, CSI needs more coverage, S93 needs articulateds and some areas need service in general. It's going to be interesting to see the official plan for restructuring the local buses.

 

My idea is to have the South Shore receive a split S79 that operates either via the X1 routing or the X7 routing between the bridge and ETC.

The North Shore and West Shore receives two limited-stop "super-routes", the S90 serving Teleport & WSP and the S94 Limited serving Richmond Avenue, SI Mall and ETC. Meanwhile. the S46 and S96 are cut back to increase frequencies on those lines and the S48 receives a Bayonne-HBLR branch once the bridge construction is completed.

Mid-Island (Victory Blvd) runs the risk of being over-served, so the only thing I suggest is articulated buses on the S93. Maybe that area you mention often around Gothaels Road/SIE service roads could be served by a zone express S67 using Watchogue.

The other North Shore neighborhoods (Stapleton, Rosebank, etc.) would benefit from more increased short-turns rather than more limited services.

The other areas would continue to get screwed however! What do you suggest checkmate?

[P3F]

For what it's worth, the current S89 terminal allows for an easy connection to/from the SIR at Eltingville station. This would be lost if the route were to be cut back to the transit center.

[checkmatechamp13]

20 hours ago, North Shore Line said:

Only the S79 and S83 would become 100% articulated routes. All the rest would remain 40-footer routes with the possibility of having articulated runs introduced where need be.

The S59 would be unchanged because the S94 Limited would make S89 stops using Marsh Avenue and half of the S44 runs would operate to College of SI.

The S81 can remain in this plan. The service reduction on the S51 comes from having only the S50 operate through Ft Wadsworth. The S51 would remain on School Road.

The S55/S56 can take whichever routing will get them there the fastest, using the least amount of buses possible. An S55 or S56 CSI extension should already exist. The Teleport-WSP extension is for coverage but certainly not necessary.

I'm towing the MTA line in that they have been only creating new super-routes lately or very short shuttles and SI does not need any more SBS routes or a bunch of short shuttles, only increased services. The North Shore needs all-day limited-stop services, the East Shore areas that the S52, S74, S76, S78 serve need short-turns, the south shore needs increased S79 services, CSI needs more coverage, S93 needs articulateds and some areas need service in general. It's going to be interesting to see the official plan for restructuring the local buses.

My idea is to have the South Shore receive a split S79 that operates either via the X1 routing or the X7 routing between the bridge and ETC.

The North Shore and West Shore receives two limited-stop "super-routes", the S90 serving Teleport & WSP and the S94 Limited serving Richmond Avenue, SI Mall and ETC. Meanwhile. the S46 and S96 are cut back to increase frequencies on those lines and the S48 receives a Bayonne-HBLR branch once the bridge construction is completed.

Mid-Island (Victory Blvd) runs the risk of being over-served, so the only thing I suggest is articulated buses on the S93. Maybe that area you mention often around Gothaels Road/SIE service roads could be served by a zone express S67 using Watchogue.

The other North Shore neighborhoods (Stapleton, Rosebank, etc.) would benefit from more increased short-turns rather than more limited services.

The other areas would continue to get screwed however! What do you suggest checkmate?

3

Ever since the S89 was introduced, I've always felt it should be consolidated on the same side of the SI Mall as the S44 & S59. Preferably the back of the mall (it doesn't have to run up Marsh Avenue. It can run up the back part of Ring Road. That would put the Richmond Avenue routes within a convenient walking distance of the residential area behind the mall, as well as the schools over there, while still being convenient to the actual mall. I would also straighten out the S59 to bypass Forest Hill Road (the planner who was heavily involved with the S79-SBS told me that DDC is still planning to build that center island stop at Richmond Avenue & Yukon Avenue, which would save southbound bus riders from having to cross half of Richmond Avenue).

I don't agree with any sort of St. George-Bay Ridge route in any capacity. Anybody coming from points west on the island can just take an east-west route to the S83/93 if they want to reach Bay Ridge. If St. George residents want to reach Bay Ridge, they can take any north-south bus down to the S53/79/83/93. Maybe toss in a 3-legged transfer (if they need to take a Brooklyn bus) and call it a day.

 If Great Kills receives a branch of the S79, that branch should run down McClean Avenue and allow the S52 to be straightened out in that area (and also be all-local). But that should definitely not be an artic route.

For the S57 & S66, they should be restructured as I've proposed before: S57 to Port Richmond via Jewett and S66 to Graniteville via Watchogue/Goethals/Fahy (with some possible limited-stop service). The S66 is ridiculously outdated, and the S57 was recently called out in the comptroller's report as one of the most meandering routes in the city.

In any case, the S74 needs to be split in half at the ETC, and the S78 needs to be cut back from Bricktown at the very least (another South Shore route should cover the area between Bricktown & Tottenville. Most of the people who take the S78 to Bricktown are coming from Tottenville anyway). As far as how to split the S78 aside from that, I'm open to ideas.

As far as how to serve Mosel Avenue, long-term, the best solution would be to build a station for Park Hill (the east side of the station would be around Fletcher Street, and the west side would be around where Osgood turns into Mosel. In the short-term, I would just reroute the S76 to serve that area. I would straighten out the S74 to run straight up Targee to Van Duzer northbound, and straight down St. Pauls to Van Duzer southbound. That would make it the main route from western Stapleton/Park Hill/Concord to St. George (with peak direction limited-stop service on top of it). The S78 would just run down Bay Street (I'm tempted to just have it run nonstop between Canal/Wright and Bay/Victory). 

For the S54, I'd either want to see it run from Seaview Hospital to St. George via Castleton, Brighton, Lafayette, Prospect, Franklin, and Richmond Terrace, or run from West Brighton to Eltingville via the SI Mall instead of Richmondtown.  (Ideally, I'd combine them both and have it run from St. George to Eltingville via Cottage Hill, but that would be way too long). Cottage Hill is the section of New Brighton served by the S42 for those who don't know.

If the S54 runs from West Brighton to Eltingville via the SI Mall, I would have the S42 run via Richmond Terrace, Franklin, Arnold/Prospect (westbound/eastbound), Lafayette, Brighton, and Castleton, and terminate somewhere in either West Brighton or Port Richmond (not sure whether to send it to the West Brighton Houses, Castleton & Clove, or just send it to "Port Richmond Terminal" with the other buses). The idea is to give Cottage Hill access to areas besides just St. George. I remember the S44 went on a detour via Castleton, Brighton, and Lafayette because of an accident (ironically enough, caused by the S44 that was originally supposed to make that trip) and about 4-5 people got off at S42 stops on Cottage Hill coming from the west. If those people got the pleasant surprise of having the bus go right to their neighborhood, imagine how many people would use it if it were a regular route.

As for Huguenot Avenue, I have a few ideas on how to serve it. My original idea was to split the S78 at New Dorp (so there would be a route running St. George-New Dorp via Hylan, New Dorp-Arden Heights via Hylan Blvd & Huguenot Avenue, and the S59 would run to Tottenville full-time). The S55 would turn into the Arden Avenue bus (so it would run Arthur Kill-Arden-Amboy and give that section of Arden Heights direct access to the SIR), and then after Bloomingdale, it would turn onto Englewood to provide Bricktown with a direct connection to the SIR, and then continue over the Outerbridge to either Woodbridge or Perth Amboy. The S56 would run via Arthur Kill Road to Rossville Avenue/Foster Road. The S74 west of Eltingville would become a separate route called the S73 which would run via Arthur Kill-Woodrow-Rossville-Correll-Bloomingdale-Englewood-Veterans Road West-Bricktown Way-Tyrellan Avenue-Boscombe Avenue-Page Avenue-Amboy Road, and terminate in Tottenville. A route called the S72 would pick up the remaining pieces and run from the ETC to Tottenville via Arthur Kill Road (no Bricktown or anything, just straight down Arthur Kill Road).

Other possibilities for Huguenot Avenue are a loop that runs via Huguenot Avenue one way and Rossville Avenue the other way (there would be buses in both directions on both streets), and even a route up the West Shore Expressway (say, Port Richmond to Hylan & Richmond via the S46 route, then continue down the West Shore Expressway, stop in Travis, get back on the WSE, serve Huguenot Avenue, and then continue to Hylan & Richmond for a connection to the S79, which with its frequency and access to Brooklyn is on a similar level of importance as the SIR. 

Or, if the S54 runs down Giffords, that frees up the McClean Avenue branch of the S79 I mentioned before to run up Huguenot Avenue. 

1 hour ago, P3F said:

For what it's worth, the current S89 terminal allows for an easy connection to/from the SIR at Eltingville station. This would be lost if the route were to be cut back to the transit center.

 

I see your point, but pretty much all the neighborhoods east of Eltingville are covered by buses (either the S74 or S79 from the ETC). With some restructuring of the South Shore routes, pretty much all neighborhoods west of Eltingville can have direct access to the S89 as well. 

[aemoreira81]

Speaking of CSI, I would argue that it needs better service from the south. To that end, I would propose running the S61 down to ETC and having that available to students living in southern SI or New Jersey as a park-and-ride (service to CSI would be at Forest Hills and Steers).

[checkmatechamp13]

19 hours ago, aemoreira81 said:

Speaking of CSI, I would argue that it needs better service from the south. To that end, I would propose running the S61 down to ETC and having that available to students living in southern SI or New Jersey as a park-and-ride (service to CSI would be at Forest Hills and Steers).

If service is added to CSI from the South Shore it should be through an extension of the S55/56. The S61 has enough to deal with getting to and from the ferry.

[aemoreira81]

Proposal: South Shore restructuring

I would propose the following restructuring of the routes:

1. Create a new route called the S72. This route would more closely follow the SI Railway into Great Kills by using Amboy Road and Giffords Lane, Leverett Avenue, and Armstrong Avenue instead of Arthur Kill Road. This route would run primarily between Eltingville Transit Center and the SI Ferry Terminal. Between the Amboy/Richmond split and the SI Ferry Terminal, the S72/74 would provide 15-minute service middays and weekends (more frequent during peak). Service west of ETC to Bricktown would be slightly reduced to every 30 minutes. (The proposed S72 route through Great Kills is already serviced by the X7 and X8.

2. On weekdays, some S72 trips would be extended to run via Woodrow Road to Tottenvile High School, using most of the S56 route except along Seguine Avenue (instead using Amboy Road to reach Tottenville High School). This would result in the elimination of the S56 completely.

Savings there would be from right-sizing service west of ETC and eliminating the S56.

3. Restructure the S54 to a route running between the Staten Island Ferry and Seaview Hospital, and then onward to the Yukon Depot, running daily, taking over the S61 route through New Springville, via Rockland Avenue, Forest Hill Road, Merry Mount Street, and Marsh Avenue. This would provide weekend service to the Todt Hill Houses as well as reduce a sparsely-used segment in Great Kills and Eltingville. Great Kills customers could use the S72 to the S57 to reach the North Shore, which would be retained for network coverage. Customers along Nelson Avenue could walk to Great Kills for the SIR or the S72.

4. Restructure the S61 to a more direct route to Eltingville TC and bypass SI Mall altogether (that segment is being taken over by the restructured S54). It would run down Forest Hill Road to Yukon Avenue, then along Yukon and Richmond Avenue to ETC, achieving an objective in Post #1367.

Savings: the S56 is eliminated and converted into a route that is useful, giving Great Kills better and more useful service, adding service to the Todt Hill Houses, and having a route from the south to CSI via ETC. The problem is still making the S55 useful.

Operationally, the S72 would be at Charleston and the S54 would move to Yukon Depot. If Yukon is full, the S61 would move to Charleston.

Edited December 15, 2017 by aemoreira81

[checkmatechamp13]

21 hours ago, aemoreira81 said:

Proposal: South Shore restructuring

I would propose the following restructuring of the routes:

1. Create a new route called the S72. This route would more closely follow the SI Railway into Great Kills by using Amboy Road and Giffords Lane, Leverett Avenue, and Armstrong Avenue instead of Arthur Kill Road. This route would run primarily between Eltingville Transit Center and the SI Ferry Terminal. Between the Amboy/Richmond split and the SI Ferry Terminal, the S72/74 would provide 15-minute service middays and weekends (more frequent during peak). Service west of ETC to Bricktown would be slightly reduced to every 30 minutes. (The proposed S72 route through Great Kills is already serviced by the X7 and X8.

2. On weekdays, some S72 trips would be extended to run via Woodrow Road to Tottenvile High School, using most of the S56 route except along Seguine Avenue (instead using Amboy Road to reach Tottenville High School). This would result in the elimination of the S56 completely.

Savings there would be from right-sizing service west of ETC and eliminating the S56.

3. Restructure the S54 to a route running between the Staten Island Ferry and Seaview Hospital, and then onward to the Yukon Depot, running daily, taking over the S61 route through New Springville, via Rockland Avenue, Forest Hill Road, Merry Mount Street, and Marsh Avenue. This would provide weekend service to the Todt Hill Houses as well as reduce a sparsely-used segment in Great Kills and Eltingville. Great Kills customers could use the S72 to the S57 to reach the North Shore, which would be retained for network coverage. Customers along Nelson Avenue could walk to Great Kills for the SIR or the S72.

4. Restructure the S61 to a more direct route to Eltingville TC and bypass SI Mall altogether (that segment is being taken over by the restructured S54). It would run down Forest Hill Road to Yukon Avenue, then along Yukon and Richmond Avenue to ETC, achieving an objective in Post #1367.

Savings: the S56 is eliminated and converted into a route that is useful, giving Great Kills better and more useful service, adding service to the Todt Hill Houses, and having a route from the south to CSI via ETC. The problem is still making the S55 useful.

Operationally, the S72 would be at Charleston and the S54 would move to Yukon Depot. If Yukon is full, the S61 would move to Charleston.

IMO, both the S72 & S74 need to be split at the ETC.

In any case, having the S72 run through Great Kills instead of the S54 means that you lose the direct connection to Hylan Blvd, and all you gain is a little bit of coverage along Amboy Road (some of it is within walking distance of the SIR, and some is within walking distance of the S57). If you're going to apply that logic to Nelson, you might as well do it to Guyon Avenue and restructure the S57 in that area as well (either have it take New Dorp to Hylan and terminate with the express buses, or take over the S76 in that area).

If there was a route running the length of Forest Hill Road, I would have it go down Platinum rather than Yukon. That way, you at least serve some of the SI Mall, and Platinum is also wider than Yukon. 

An reroute of the S55 to Bricktown and over the Outerbridge would make it more useful. The only issue is that Rossville would once again be isolated from the SIR (unless my entire plan involving the S55/56/74 were to be implemented). Though to be fair, not too many people actually use the S55 to reach the SIR (most of those people stay on to the ETC or SI Mall). 

[aemoreira81]

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

IMO, both the S72 & S74 need to be split at the ETC.

In any case, having the S72 run through Great Kills instead of the S54 means that you lose the direct connection to Hylan Blvd, and all you gain is a little bit of coverage along Amboy Road (some of it is within walking distance of the SIR, and some is within walking distance of the S57). If you're going to apply that logic to Nelson, you might as well do it to Guyon Avenue and restructure the S57 in that area as well (either have it take New Dorp to Hylan and terminate with the express buses, or take over the S76 in that area).

If there was a route running the length of Forest Hill Road, I would have it go down Platinum rather than Yukon. That way, you at least serve some of the SI Mall, and Platinum is also wider than Yukon. 

An reroute of the S55 to Bricktown and over the Outerbridge would make it more useful. The only issue is that Rossville would once again be isolated from the SIR (unless my entire plan involving the S55/56/74 were to be implemented). Though to be fair, not too many people actually use the S55 to reach the SIR (most of those people stay on to the ETC or SI Mall). 

Could you please repost your idea with the S55/S56 as well? I do agree with somehow rerouting it to Bricktown Mall. As for the S61 running down Platinum instead of Yukon, I did think about that, but one would have the rerouted S54 serving SI Mall and Pergament Properties. Also, a driver change can be done at the Yukon Depot's front door.

As for the S54 and a direct connection to Hylan Boulevard, that section isn't frequently used and such connections could be routed through ETC. Now, for connections to destinations along Hylan during the midday not to Bricktown Mall, I would propose a different restructure: extending the weekday S59 along Hylan Boulevard, but shorten it to Prince's Bay. Instead of going all the way to Tottenville, I would propose runnnng it only to Seguine, where the S59 would then turn south along Seguine to serve Staten Island University Hospital South and then terminate at the end of Seguine Avenue. Middays, the S59 would run every 40 minutes to Prince's Bay (every other bus). The idea is to make the S54 more useful.

Operationally, the S59 would take the place of the S54 at Castleton and the S57 would also return to Castleton.

[checkmatechamp13]

Sure:

S55: SI Mall to (either Perth Amboy or Woodbridge) via Ring Road, Platinum Avenue, Richmond Avenue, Arthur Kill Road, Arden Avenue, Amboy Road, Luten Avenue, Hylan Blvd, Seguine Avenue, Amboy Road. Bloomingdale Road, Englewood Avenue, Veterans Road West, Bricktown Way, Tyrellan Avenue, and then turn back onto Veterans Road west to head to North Bridge Street to access the bridge (heading back to Staten Island, buses would take Boscombe to Tyrellan and continue from there)

S56: CSI-Tottenville High School via Forest Hill Road, Richmond Hill Road, Marsh Avenue, Ring Road, Platinum Avenue, Richmond Avenue, Arthur Kill Road, Rossville Avenue-Woodrow Road-Foster Road-Amboy Road-Luten Avenue (it's not a big deal either way to me if it dips down to Hylan Blvd).

S72: ETC-Main Street/Amboy Road via Arthur Kill Road.

S73: ETC-Main Street/Amboy Road via Arthur Kill Road, Woodrow Road, Blomingdale Road, Englewood Avenue, Veterans Road West, Bricktown Way, Tyrellan Avenue, Boscombe Avenue, Page Avenue, Amboy Road, and then loop around Johnson, Arthur Kill, and Main. (I would terminate it by Main & Arthur Kill which is near the Tottenville SIR station, but there's less space over there, and it does make sense to have all local buses terminate in the same area, for interlining purposes and whatnot).

S74/84: ETC-St. George via Arthur Kill Road, Richmond Road, and Targee/Van Duzer/St. Pauls (no Broad Street).

The S73 can be routed via Woodrow-Rossville-Correll-Bloomingdale to provide better coverage in Rossville. (The S56 would likely be weekdays-only, and the S72 should probably run 7 days a week for network coverage, but at a reduced span on weekends)

It's too time-consuming to backtrack to the ETC (or Eltingville SIR for that matter, with the crummy frequencies the SIR runs on). By that point, you might as well just wait for the S72 directly and walk from Amboy Road or Richmond Road down to Hylan Blvd.

The S54 would still serve Yukon Avenue if it were to take the S61's place. The SI Mall (and the shopping center across the street on Platinum Avenue) is still a bigger destination than the Target shopping center by the Yukon Depot. And swapping out drivers at the Yukon Depot when the ETC is such a short deadhead distance away is nothing short of cheap. Whatever savings you get will be offset by lost time along Yukon Avenue (since it's narrower than Platinum) and the resulting lower ridership (both from slowing down the bus, and avoiding all the shopping along Platinum Avenue).

And west of Luten Avenue (because of Tottenville High School, I can see justification for two routes east of there), there shouldn't be more than one route at any time. The hospital isn't that big of a ridership generator, and I'm sure the local residents wouldn't want buses running down through there. From Seguine & Melville (the southern end of the hospital) to Seguine & Hylan is a 4 minute walk, no worse than walking from RUMC to the S44 on Henderson (Yes, I know the S46 is closer on Castleton, but even then, it's still not right at the front entrance)

Edited December 16, 2017 by checkmatechamp13

[B35 via Church]

On 11/26/2017 at 2:05 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

This is probably where we disagree, but I think in principle, every SI neighborhood should have a direct link to either Bay Ridge or St. George, unless we're talking about areas on the deep South Shore, where taking a bus to the SIR to the ferry would generally be quicker than taking a bus directly to St. George if coordinated right (well that, or areas like Todt Hill that don't want/need bus service). To me, since the main hub is all the way in the corner of the network, that means that if your bus goes to that hub, worse-case scenario, you can get to another point in the island by going to the hub (St. George) and back out....

There is too much of a focus of getting the heck up off the island, instead of being bothered with trying to improve connectivity within the island.... Those are not just my sentiments, but those of which are shared by some SI-ers themselves.... In general, people tend to start opting to drive more for this reason.... So I'm not sure if it's a disagreement per se, moreso than it is me not really being on that particular wavelength (emboldened above).....

To be frank, I have always despised the fact that the entire borough's bus network operates on a hub based model...

I never got around to it, but back around the time when I first signed up to this place, I had thought up a "challenge" for myself - Which was, to re-create/re-draw the bus network on SI as if the ferry never existed..... I think I may have blurted out such a concept in a random post in the middle of a discussion, but no further comments ever materialized from it.....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

37 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

There is too much of a focus of getting the heck up off the island, instead of being bothered with trying to improve connectivity within the island.... Those are not just my sentiments, but those of which are shared by some SI-ers themselves.... In general, people tend to start opting to drive more for this reason.... So I'm not sure if it's a disagreement per se, moreso than it is me not really being on that particular wavelength (emboldened above).....

To be frank, I have always despised the fact that the entire borough's bus network operates on a hub based model...

I never got around to it, but back around the time when I first signed up to this place, I had thought up a "challenge" for myself - Which was, to re-create/re-draw the bus network on SI as if the ferry never existed..... I think I may have blurted out such a concept in a random post in the middle of a discussion, but no further comments ever materialized from it.....

Had I not left Staten Island, I would've been one of those people in their car. I seriously considered it. For the most part, I took car service more and more instead of the local buses for trips within the island. It was much easier.

[Interested Rider]

The more things change on Staten Island, the more that they stay the same. Even though I have been on the island once since I retired at the end of September 2010, the more I read here, the more nothing will change.

Anyone who proposes artics for Staten Island does not know how narrow the streets are throughout the island. For example; Broadway is a two way street with one lane in each direction. The street is far narrower as compared with other streets in other boroughs where the regular buses run so it is no good for the S/53 artics. By sending artics to the island, it destroys the flexibility that the TA has now with 40 ft. buses as in case of need, you cannot run them on almost all the streets. Try Van Duzer Street or Arthur Kill Road (s/74) or some of the streets on the north shore and Tottenville for example, then the prohibition becomes quite clear. When the TA places artics on a route,, the headways on that route increase (the B/44 is a prime example) and increasing headways on Staten island would be an unmitigated disaster.

The S/59 to Tottenville is run to provide service to the schools on Hylan Boulevard and thus the limited hours. At other times, the route operates to Hylan Boulevard as the S/78 could handle the passenger loads.

Staten Island (when I went to school out close to 50 years ago) there had the S/6 Grymes Hill shuttle and three other routes that only ran to the ferry during rush hours as the S/6 Victory Boulevard-Jewett Avenue was the all times route to and from the ferry. The routes were the 106 Watchogue Road (later became the S/67),111 Bradley Avenue (S/61) and the 112 Victory Boulevard - Travis (S/62). As the island grew, it became necessary for the routings to be changed (and thank you Brooklyn Bus), two of the three shuttles had their schedules and routings changed to the ferry to provide  service at during the day. The exception was the S/67 which retained its rush hour status until it was eliminated.

The island continues to experience growth and that is why there is a need for more buses and when I think back to my days on the S/79 right around this time, the S/79 was one big disaster with the crowds. The one hour ride from the Transit Center to Brooklyn took at least an hour and a half and it was stranding room all the way.

One last comment to all my fellow posters here on the forum: Happy Hanukkah and a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year to you and your families.

 

 

 

 

 

[checkmatechamp13]

On 12/17/2017 at 5:37 PM, B35 via Church said:

There is too much of a focus of getting the heck up off the island, instead of being bothered with trying to improve connectivity within the island.... Those are not just my sentiments, but those of which are shared by some SI-ers themselves.... In general, people tend to start opting to drive more for this reason.... So I'm not sure if it's a disagreement per se, moreso than it is me not really being on that particular wavelength (emboldened above).....

To be frank, I have always despised the fact that the entire borough's bus network operates on a hub based model...

I never got around to it, but back around the time when I first signed up to this place, I had thought up a "challenge" for myself - Which was, to re-create/re-draw the bus network on SI as if the ferry never existed..... I think I may have blurted out such a concept in a random post in the middle of a discussion, but no further comments ever materialized from it.....

6

The thing is that, from observation, middays and weekends, most routes can hold their own ridership-wise connecting to major shopping strips like Hylan Blvd, Richmond Avenue, etc, and malls like the SI Mall & Bricktown. Rush hour as well since you have school kids in the AM rush, and shoppers and so on in the PM rush, but you’d be missing out on all the riders going to/from the ferry to reach Manhattan. Then evenings and overnight, you’re pretty much 95-100% dependent on riders heading to/from the ferry for ridership (heck, I’ve been on some late evening S62s that bypassed Richmond Avenue).

The other thing is that the streets in general tend to lead to the ferry. For pretty much all the S4X routes, the only logical eastern terminal is really the ferry. You could argue that the S46 doesn’t need to go all the way down to the West Shore Plaza, the S44 could be sent elsewhere besides the SI Mall, and the S48 could possibly be split at Richmond Avenue. But for Victory Blvd, your only logical terminals are really the ferry or Brooklyn (even for intra-island riders, you need those connections to the S7X routes, and you pretty much need to send the S93 as far as Fingerboard to get all of them). Same for the S7X routes on the East Shore. If you split all those routes at the SIE (for example), that means people in areas like Stapleton/Park Hill/Clifton/Rosebank have to transfer to reach the commercial parts of Hylan Blvd and Richmond Road.

I mentioned in one of my proposals that the S53 could go to New Dorp (start at the S54 terminal, and run down Broadway, Clove, and Hylan), but that’s contingent on having the portions west of Concord covered by the Brooklyn-bound S83/93 (and the South Beach portion covered by another Brooklyn-bound route)

I could see the logic with north-south routes like the S54, S57, and the Richmond Avenue portion of the S44, where most of the route is within walking distance of a ferry-bound route, and the “natural” direction of the route (based on the corridors it’s intended to serve) doesn’t having it pointed in that direction. But in terms of making the system into any type of modified grid system, you can’t just take the ferry out of consideration (especially considering that the St. George area has a decent amount of people who need to go there for the schools, shopping, courthouses, etc)

On 12/17/2017 at 7:00 PM, Interested Rider said:

The more things change on Staten Island, the more that they stay the same. Even though I have been on the island once since I retired at the end of September 2010, the more I read here, the more nothing will change.

Anyone who proposes artics for Staten Island does not know how narrow the streets are throughout the island. For example; Broadway is a two way street with one lane in each direction. The street is far narrower as compared with other streets in other boroughs where the regular buses run so it is no good for the S/53 artics. By sending artics to the island, it destroys the flexibility that the TA has now with 40 ft. buses as in case of need, you cannot run them on almost all the streets. Try Van Duzer Street or Arthur Kill Road (s/74) or some of the streets on the north shore and Tottenville for example, then the prohibition becomes quite clear. When the TA places artics on a route,, the headways on that route increase (the B/44 is a prime example) and increasing headways on Staten island would be an unmitigated disaster.

The S/59 to Tottenville is run to provide service to the schools on Hylan Boulevard and thus the limited hours. At other times, the route operates to Hylan Boulevard as the S/78 could handle the passenger loads.

Staten Island (when I went to school out close to 50 years ago) there had the S/6 Grymes Hill shuttle and three other routes that only ran to the ferry during rush hours as the S/6 Victory Boulevard-Jewett Avenue was the all times route to and from the ferry. The routes were the 106 Watchogue Road (later became the S/67),111 Bradley Avenue (S/61) and the 112 Victory Boulevard - Travis (S/62). As the island grew, it became necessary for the routings to be changed (and thank you Brooklyn Bus), two of the three shuttles had their schedules and routings changed to the ferry to provide  service at during the day. The exception was the S/67 which retained its rush hour status until it was eliminated.

The island continues to experience growth and that is why there is a need for more buses and when I think back to my days on the S/79 right around this time, the S/79 was one big disaster with the crowds. The one hour ride from the Transit Center to Brooklyn took at least an hour and a half and it was stranding room all the way.

One last comment to all my fellow posters here on the forum: Happy Hanukkah and a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year to you and your families.

7

The R111 down Bradley was more the S57 than the S61, since it went to New Dorp instead of the SI Mall (the S61 was created in the 1980s IIRC). And the S59 to Tottenville is more for coverage and connectivity than for actual crowd handling.

And Happy Holidays to you as well. 

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

....But in terms of making the system into any type of modified grid system, you can’t just take the ferry out of consideration (especially considering that the St. George area has a decent amount of people who need to go there for the schools, shopping, courthouses, etc)

I'm going to assume that you understood that was a hypothetical....

I'm not seeing how I can't take the ferry out of the equation, considering that point you're making in parentheses..... In such a hypothetical, I'm not saying/implicating that St. George (the neighborhood) would be left with nothing.... At the same time, the current amt. of routes wouldn't have to terminate in St. George, since Richmond Terrace and Bay st. spill into each other.....

Edited December 25, 2017 by B35 via Church

[Lil 57]

I was thinking of a new bus route the other day. Tell me what you think.

S77: Local bus from New Dorp to Tottenville serving Amboy Road. Would Run Weekdays only. 

Tottenville Bound (6:35 AM - 11:05 PM) - Starts at Richmond Road/New Dorp Lane and most buses would leave New Dorp 3-5 minutes after the S57 to New Dorp is scheduled to leave that stop.  The southbound route would then make a left on Rose Ave (Serving the New Dorp Train Station) Then, it would make a right on 10th Street and turn right onto Tysens Lane. Would make a left onto Amboy Road and stay on Amboy Road the entire trip down to Tottenville. Would Make a left onto Craig Ave and then would make another left onto Hylan Blvd. The S77 would terminate at Hylan Blvd/Page Ave.

New Dorp Bound (5:30 AM - 10:30 PM) - Starts at Hylan Blvd/Page Ave and runs the reverse southbound route except that on 10th Street, the S77 would make a left on New Dorp Lane (Serving the New Dorp Train Station) then it makes a left onto Richmond Road and terminates at Richmond Road/New Dorp Lane.

I made a thread like 

[Lil 57]

Just now, Lil 57 said:

I was thinking of a new bus route the other day. Tell me what you think.

S77: Local bus from New Dorp to Tottenville serving Amboy Road. Would Run Weekdays only. 

Tottenville Bound (6:35 AM - 11:05 PM) - Starts at Richmond Road/New Dorp Lane and most buses would leave New Dorp 3-5 minutes after the S57 to New Dorp is scheduled to leave that stop.  The southbound route would then make a left on Rose Ave (Serving the New Dorp Train Station) Then, it would make a right on 10th Street and turn right onto Tysens Lane. Would make a left onto Amboy Road and stay on Amboy Road the entire trip down to Tottenville. Would Make a left onto Craig Ave and then would make another left onto Hylan Blvd. The S77 would terminate at Hylan Blvd/Page Ave.

New Dorp Bound (5:30 AM - 10:30 PM) - Starts at Hylan Blvd/Page Ave and runs the reverse southbound route except that on 10th Street, the S77 would make a left on New Dorp Lane (Serving the New Dorp Train Station) then it makes a left onto Richmond Road and terminates at Richmond Road/New Dorp Lane.