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

I'm a bit late to this discussion but a Staten Island-Elizabeth (Jersey Gardens) route starting at St. George is exactly what the North Shore ROW BRT should be, with another route to the SI Mall and maybe a third route to Newark or something.

SI to Perth Amboy service should be handled by a 7 day S55, rather than ending in the middle of nowhere.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

SI to Perth Amboy service should be handled by a 7 day S55, rather than ending in the middle of nowhere.

If it means not almost riding the full #116 to get out there, or putting up with NJT rail, I'd honestly take a SCOOT/minibus service running b/w Bricktowne & Amboy av (1st exit off 440)....

IDK, I would split the S74 & try my hand at running the resultant western split of it (some trips) along 440 (still serving Bricktowne before the fact) on in to Perth, before considering the S55.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Narrows Road service:

The SIM3C and SIM33 currently both serve Narrows Road. However, the SIM33C is a significantly longer route than the SIM3C, although the SIM33C has a longer span of service. Why can't the SIM33C be sped up so that the first dropoff/last pickup is at Slosson, at least until the early evening inbound when SIM3C service drops to hourly (that is, starting with the 5:15 PM departure from Mariners' Harbor until the last inbound departure of the service day)? The idea is to give each route a unique market.

Also, what about a SIM4J that would replicate the old Red and Tan Route 144 that used to run between Jersey City and Staten Island, albeit with MC-9s and later RTS buses? The S89 would have its frequency reduced, but its hours of service could be expanded as a result, not unlike how the S93 has gone to a veritable shuttle service (headways no worse than 12 minutes), making the S89 a full-time weekday service. I'd propose 4 trips each way operated by Academy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I know this thread is old but i'm not sure if I should make a new thread on SI routes so i'll post it here.

After hearing your criticism on my proposals last year, I've decide to make a whole new redesign for Staten Island. I'll love to hear your opinion on this redesign proposal.

SI Route Map

SI Bus Service Guide and Comments

Edited by Lil 57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2019 at 9:18 PM, Lil 57 said:

I know this thread is old but i'm not sure if I should make a new thread on SI routes so i'll post it here.

After hearing your criticism on my proposals last year, I've decide to make a whole new redesign for Staten Island. I'll love to hear your opinion on this redesign proposal.

SI Route Map

SI Bus Service Guide and Comments

A few comments (keep in mind I have my own proposal available as well. Obviously it was before the Amazon warehouse was the big thing that it is now).

While I do agree with extending the Forest Avenue buses across the Goethals Bridge, I don't agree with extending every single one over there. It isn't like the S53/79/93 where the peak load point is traveling over the bridge. In other words, you can send the S98 to one destination in NJ (either Elizabeth, Newark Airport, or Jersey Gardens), and send half of the S48 buses to the other one, but half of the S48 buses should remain going to Arlington. A lot of those residents need that connection to Forest Avenue (and all the major transfer points like Forest & Richmond and Forest & Broadway). If you want to cover the third destination, then perhaps a route from the Mid-Island/South Shore (e.g. Richmond Avenue corridor) can be created.

Generally speaking, you still leave too many coverage gaps on the South Shore. I like that you filled the gap on Huguenot Avenue, but it came at the expense of service along Arden and Foster/Seguine. I've always thought that the northern part of Arden should be covered by the S55 (thereby connecting those residents to the Annadale SIR station). There's no need for a local bus along the northern part of Annadale Road, since it's fairly close to either Woodrow Road or Richmond Avenue, depending on where exactly you are. 

Anything that passes through Tottenville should be ending there. Most of the S78 riders who take it to Bricktown are from Tottenville itself, and running the Arthur Kill Road bus down to Tottenville would give residents access to both Hylan Blvd and Arthur Kill Road.

The portion of the S42 that needs the service is up around Arnold Street. To bypass that area to place the S42 on Jersey Street so that the S52 can run straight up Victory does a disservice to those living in the hills west of Jersey Street. At a minimum, the S42 should run up Lafayette Avenue while the S52 covers Jersey Street and St. Marks Place (to go up Franklin Avenue and go a little higher into the hills is optional, but to at least go up Lafayette Avenue is a must).

I like that you included a route along Goethals Road North/Fahy Avenue, but it should be a 7 day route. Having Jewett Avenue and Fahy/Goethals receiving weekday-only/rush hour-only service while Willowbrook Road & Decker Avenue receive 7 day service doesn't make sense (even if that is the way it is today)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

While I do agree with extending the Forest Avenue buses across the Goethals Bridge, I don't agree with extending every single one over there. It isn't like the S53/79/93 where the peak load point is traveling over the bridge. In other words, you can send the S98 to one destination in NJ (either Elizabeth, Newark Airport, or Jersey Gardens), and send half of the S48 buses to the other one, but half of the S48 buses should remain going to Arlington. A lot of those residents need that connection to Forest Avenue (and all the major transfer points like Forest & Richmond and Forest & Broadway). If you want to cover the third destination, then perhaps a route from the Mid-Island/South Shore (e.g. Richmond Avenue corridor) can be created.

Generally speaking, you still leave too many coverage gaps on the South Shore. I like that you filled the gap on Huguenot Avenue, but it came at the expense of service along Arden and Foster/Seguine. I've always thought that the northern part of Arden should be covered by the S55 (thereby connecting those residents to the Annadale SIR station). There's no need for a local bus along the northern part of Annadale Road, since it's fairly close to either Woodrow Road or Richmond Avenue, depending on where exactly you are. 

I'm not sure how much ridership the S48 gets along South Ave since the S40 is also there and is much quicker, ferry wise, if ridership is low in that area people can always transfer form the S40/S46 to the S48.

For the south shore, I attempted to make the routes straighter and more direct, which attracts ridership. The S56 could take Arthur Kill - Arden - Woodrow  like it does today instead of going straight down Woodrow if needed. Thinking of what you said early, a new route could go from the south shore via. Arden to Jersey Gardens but i'm not sure if that would be overdoing it for the south shore (since most people drive down there).

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Anything that passes through Tottenville should be ending there. Most of the S78 riders who take it to Bricktown are from Tottenville itself, and running the Arthur Kill Road bus down to Tottenville would give residents access to both Hylan Blvd and Arthur Kill Road.

The S77 runs from New Dorp to Bricktown so Tottenville riders still have access to Bricktown. You could extend the S73 to Tottenville if money permits though but I wouldn't terminate the S77 in Tottenville since other south shore riders along Hylan use the route to go to the Bricktown Mall as well.

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The portion of the S42 that needs the service is up around Arnold Street. To bypass that area to place the S42 on Jersey Street so that the S52 can run straight up Victory does a disservice to those living in the hills west of Jersey Street. At a minimum, the S42 should run up Lafayette Avenue while the S52 covers Jersey Street and St. Marks Place (to go up Franklin Avenue and go a little higher into the hills is optional, but to at least go up Lafayette Avenue is a must).

The S52 is one of the most meandering routes in the City, so shortening it and making it more direct would attract more ridership. The Area around Arnold street are less than a 5 minute walk from the S44 and the redesigned S42 as well. Maybe some short turn trips to Arnold Street can do during peak hours.

4 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I like that you included a route along Goethals Road North/Fahy Avenue, but it should be a 7 day route. Having Jewett Avenue and Fahy/Goethals receiving weekday-only/rush hour-only service while Willowbrook Road & Decker Avenue receive 7 day service doesn't make sense (even if that is the way it is today)

The S67 would be made by converting existing peak S61/62 trips, so that's why it operates rush hours only. The reason why I disagree with moving the S57 to Jewett is because the S57 gets a lot of ridership along Decker and Willowbrook/Watchouge. Especially from school kids using the route to get to the Schools in the New Dorp area. In fact, the bus is usually SRO on the early morning trips to New Dorp by the time it gets to Willowbrook/Forest.

I'll comment on your proposal later.

Edited by Lil 57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lil 57 said:

I'm not sure how much ridership the S48 gets along South Ave since the S40 is also there and is much quicker, ferry wise, if ridership is low in that area people can always transfer form the S40/S46 to the S48.

I agree with checkmatechamp. It isn't just just about the ferry connection. Forest Avenue is commercial corridor.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made some edits to the proposal:

Map

Service Guide

Key Changes:

The S40/90 has an Elizabeth branch, which can give People in Elizabeth a cheaper ride to Manhattan for just $2.75 via. the S40/90 and the ferry.

The S48 Elizabeth branch was eliminated and those trips now go to Arlington.

The S44 terminates at 8th Street instead of 34th Street in Bayonne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@checkmatechamp13 Sorry it took a while but here is my commentary on your proposal.

The ridership south of Forest Ave on South Ave is light so I don't think there needs to be an route going to WSP via Richmond Terrace. Unless if you want to switch the S40/90 terminal with the S46/96 terminal, which can improve reliability on the S46/96. 

See my comment for the S57/66 switch above.

I liked how you made different "school routes" and instead of having trippers on one roue, you made a 'school system" that operates during school days.

I'm not sure about the S58. I'm not sure how much demand is from Elm Park to CSI. You could run it as a trial route running weekdays only at first and go from there.

I liked how you gave the S79 overnight service but it shouldn't be at the expense of the S77/78. The southern portion of Hylan can be a 25-30 minute walk from the SIR at some points and people should be able to retain their overnight service. The S77 and S78 can be combined overnight since there isn't much traffic during that time.

The rest seems pretty fine.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2019 at 11:28 PM, aemoreira81 said:

Narrows Road service:

The SIM3C and SIM33 currently both serve Narrows Road. However, the SIM33C is a significantly longer route than the SIM3C, although the SIM33C has a longer span of service. Why can't the SIM33C be sped up so that the first dropoff/last pickup is at Slosson, at least until the early evening inbound when SIM3C service drops to hourly (that is, starting with the 5:15 PM departure from Mariners' Harbor until the last inbound departure of the service day)? The idea is to give each route a unique market.

Also, what about a SIM4J that would replicate the old Red and Tan Route 144 that used to run between Jersey City and Staten Island, albeit with MC-9s and later RTS buses? The S89 would have its frequency reduced, but its hours of service could be expanded as a result, not unlike how the S93 has gone to a veritable shuttle service (headways no worse than 12 minutes), making the S89 a full-time weekday service. I'd propose 4 trips each way operated by Academy.

That was the original plan for the SIM33C and then at the last minute they added back the Narrows Road stops. I would tend to agree with having it bypass Narrows.

On 7/7/2019 at 11:35 AM, Lil 57 said:

I'm not sure how much ridership the S48 gets along South Ave since the S40 is also there and is much quicker, ferry wise, if ridership is low in that area people can always transfer form the S40/S46 to the S48.

The next time you're on the SIM3 (or any bus that passes through the Forest & Richmond intersection) take a look at the crowd of people waiting for S48/98 buses heading westbound or getting off eastbound buses. I'd say ridership in Arlington is evenly split between the S40/90 and S48/98 (the S40/90 may get more people boarding each bus in that area, but that's because they run less frequently). Between the commercial areas along Forest Avenue (Arlington really doesn't have much besides a couple of delis...it's not like say Port Richmond or West Brighton) and the local bus connections (e.g. the S44/89/94 being available instead of just the S59 heading towards the mall), a lot of people in Arlington depend on the S48/98. 

Not to mention at night, I wouldn't want to walk from South Avenue to Holland Avenue...

On 7/7/2019 at 11:35 AM, Lil 57 said:

For the south shore, I attempted to make the routes straighter and more direct, which attracts ridership. The S56 could take Arthur Kill - Arden - Woodrow  like it does today instead of going straight down Woodrow if needed. Thinking of what you said early, a new route could go from the south shore via. Arden to Jersey Gardens but i'm not sure if that would be overdoing it for the south shore (since most people drive down there).

And yeah, making the routes straight and more direct attracts ridership if they go directly to the places where people actually want to go. The S55 runs straight down Annadale Road and is one of the least-efficient and lowest-ridership routes in the whole system. It only really gets riders during school times, and even with how straight it is, even some of the Tottenville HS kids take the SIR to the S59/79/89 if they're trying to reach the SI Mall. 

Running the S55 up Arden Avenue would provide residents with a direct connection to the Annadale SIR station (circuitous routes aren't too good right? Taking the S56 to Princes Bay to catch an eastbound train to St. George is pretty circuitous, isn't it? ;) Giving them a direct route to Annadale should boot ridership, and if anybody is going to Princes Bay to catch a westbound train, the Annadale station is still a pretty direct shot). Also, for people working in that shopping center along Arden Avenue, that connection to/from the SIR would help them a lot. As you can see in my proposal, I do believe the SIR should be leveraged better than it is: If you don't live directly on the SIR, and the express bus system screws up (because of highway traffic or an incident in Manhattan), you're basically screwed. It is a long walk from the SIR up to Arthur Kill Road (a shorter walk to Hylan Blvd, but even then it's pretty long). Getting people to the SIR would at least provide some sort of redundancy in the event of express bus delays.

On 7/7/2019 at 11:35 AM, Lil 57 said:

The S77 runs from New Dorp to Bricktown so Tottenville riders still have access to Bricktown. You could extend the S73 to Tottenville if money permits though but I wouldn't terminate the S77 in Tottenville since other south shore riders along Hylan use the route to go to the Bricktown Mall as well.

That is what I take issue with....not in significant enough numbers to run the service past Tottenville.

On 7/7/2019 at 11:35 AM, Lil 57 said:

The S52 is one of the most meandering routes in the City, so shortening it and making it more direct would attract more ridership. The Area around Arnold street are less than a 5 minute walk from the S44 and the redesigned S42 as well. Maybe some short turn trips to Arnold Street can do during peak hours.

Again, the assumption that direct = higher ridership is not always true. Those who want a (relatively) quick ride to the ferry are already on the S78. You're literally changing the whole route just to essentially give one stop at the top of Ward Hill/Stapleton Heights a quicker route to the ferry (and even then, if they're in a hurry they can walk down the hill to Victory & Cebra Avenue where there are a ton of local buses along Victory Blvd going towards the ferry.

You're also taking away the direct connection from the Jersey Street corridor to points south...so now if anybody on Jersey Street wants to catch the S61/62, they have to ride all the way down to Victory & Manor instead of going to Cebra & Victory and taking the S61/62 diagonally across. Not to mention those heading south (for example, to Stapleton to catch the S74/78) have to backtrack to the ferry. Again, more direct for whom exactly?

As for the S42, have you ever been to the area by the last stop? It's one of the hilliest areas on Staten Island. The next time you take the S44/94 coming home from the ferry, look straight ahead at Lafayette & Henderson. There is a long, steep hill that stretches all the way up to Prospect Avenue, and then as you go up Prospect (or especially up Arnold) you go up even more hills until you get to the last stop. If anything, the area along Brighton Avenue (between Lafayette & Jersey) is where you can remove service. That area is downhill from Castleton, but it's on (fairly) level ground with the Brighton & Lafayette & Brighton & Jersey stops.

On 7/7/2019 at 11:35 AM, Lil 57 said:

The S67 would be made by converting existing peak S61/62 trips, so that's why it operates rush hours only. The reason why I disagree with moving the S57 to Jewett is because the S57 gets a lot of ridership along Decker and Willowbrook/Watchouge. Especially from school kids using the route to get to the Schools in the New Dorp area. In fact, the bus is usually SRO on the early morning trips to New Dorp by the time it gets to Willowbrook/Forest.

I don't know if I told you this, but I live near the SIE, and I proposed exactly that (send some S61/62 trips up Watchogue and up Goethals/Fahy/Lamberts) during rush hour as a temporary measure to at least get us some local service without having to do a major restructuring just yet. However, that should not be a permanent solution. This area needs a full-time bus route. I started a petition back in high school (I have about 1500 signatures sitting in a desk at home) and have the backing of some local community groups, and we intend to push until we receive full-time service.

That being said, one of the things to consider is that people may be boarding a bus at a particular stop because it just so happens that that is where the stop is located (if that makes sense). As an example, back when the old system was in place, I would board the X30 at Goethals Road North, and then take that to Bryant Park for the (7) train to get to Queens. Now that the SIM system is operating, I take the SIM8, but I don't board at South Avenue, I board along Richmond Avenue because I live closer to Richmond Avenue. But under the old system, I took the longer walk to the X30 because that bus went directly to 42nd Street (which saved me a little bit of traffic and also saved me from having to take another subway line to reach the (7) )

Now that the SIM4X/8X stop at Lamberts Lane, I sometimes board the bus at Lamberts Lane. There's other stops that are closer to me, but I walk the extra distance to give myself the option of the SIM4X/8X instead of just the regular SIM4/8.

So what I'm saying is that those riders that board the S57 in that area may be able to just as easily catch it if it ran along Jewett Avenue. When I presented the idea, there were some people who lived in the Westerleigh area who had that exact issue (either they caught the S66 along Jewett to reach the ferry, or they caught the S57 along Watchogue to reach the New Dorp area, and I basically told them that they would just catch the bus on the opposite street). So yes, if somebody lived directly by Port Richmond Avenue (if they were walking to Decker) or Willowbrook Road, then yes they would have to transfer to reach the S57, but most of the riders would be able to catch the S57 at a different stop. (For riders transferring to/from the S48/98, they would just make the transfer at Jewett instead of Willowbrook. Matter of fact, Jewett is a little bit easier because the S98 stops there in both directions, instead of having to backtrack to Decker if you just missed the S48 and want to try for the S98 in the PM). 

21 hours ago, Lil 57 said:

I've made some edits to the proposal:

Map

Service Guide

Key Changes:

The S40/90 has an Elizabeth branch, which can give People in Elizabeth a cheaper ride to Manhattan for just $2.75 via. the S40/90 and the ferry.

The S48 Elizabeth branch was eliminated and those trips now go to Arlington.

The S44 terminates at 8th Street instead of 34th Street in Bayonne.

To be honest, I think the S89 is enough for Bayonne-bound service. The S44 should focus on getting North Shore residents down towards the Mid-Island (it doesn't necessarily have to be the current route to the SI Mall via Richmond Avenue. It could be to CSI via Willowbrook Road/Woolley Avenue for example)

6 minutes ago, Lil 57 said:

@checkmatechamp13 Sorry it took a while but here is my commentary on your proposal.

The ridership south of Forest Ave on South Ave is light so I don't think there needs to be an route going to WSP via Richmond Terrace. Unless if you want to switch the S40/90 terminal with the S46/96 terminal, which can improve reliability on the S46/96. 

See my comment for the S57/66 switch above.

I liked how you made different "school routes" and instead of having trippers on one roue, you made a 'school system" that operates during school days.

I'm not sure about the S58. I'm not sure how much demand is from Elm Park to CSI. You could run it as a trial route running weekdays only at first and go from there.

I liked how you gave the S79 overnight service but it shouldn't be at the expense of the S77/78. The southern portion of Hylan can be a 25-30 minute walk from the SIR at some points and people should be able to retain their overnight service. The S77 and S78 can be combined overnight since there isn't much traffic during that time.

The rest seems pretty fine.

No problem. 

With the S45/95, notice that under that proposal, I have the S46/96 ending at Port Richmond High School. That part of the proposal needs work (keep in mind I made this over 3 years ago, so I needed to refresh my memory. I forgot I made that proposal TBH). But basically, what I was thinking with this is that the western part of Mariners Harbor needed a quicker route to St. George for those who weren't near Richmond Terrace. So I cut back the S46/96 to Port Richmond High School (for reliability purposes and also to save resources) and created a route that served Mariners Harbor and then went straight to Richmond Terrace. I also know a lot of people take the S46/96 (or S48/98) to connect with the S53, so I extended the limited-stop version of the S53 into Mariners Harbor/Arlington to provide that direct service. So most of the present-day S46/96 riders still have a one-seat ride.

There is definitely demand for better connectivity to CSI from both the North Shore and South Shore. Both of us agree that the S56 should be extended to CSI to provide the South Shore connectivity, but there is still a need for better North Shore connectivity. Even if there aren't too many riders using it along the residential portions of the route (Willowbrook Road/Woolley Avenue), I can definitely see a lot of riders taking it to connect to the North Shore routes.

Think of it this way, there's actually a lot of people taking the S93 for trips in a roundabout way. For example, I've met people who live in Port Richmond and take the S53 to Clove & Victory for the S93 (and make that annoying transfer that involves walking a few blocks because of how the bus stops are placed). But what's the alternative? Take the S59 to Christopher Lane and then walk down to CSI from there (because the S62 is too infrequent and traffic is too heavy along Victory during certain times of day)? Take the S57/66 to Jewett...for the S93...that's part of the reason the route is so crowded, we have one public college on Staten Island and that's the only bus that directly enters the campus (the S62 is only good for reaching the northern end, and even then, CSI has a ferry shuttle, so even most of those riders use the S62 and S93 interchangeably). 

So yeah, weekdays there should definitely be a route (doesn't necessarily have to be my S58. You can have the S44 run to CSI and then instead run the S89 on weekends to the ETC).

The S59 would provide the overnight service along the southern part of Hylan Blvd under that proposal. So riders would either take the S52, S79, or S59, depending on where they live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The next time you're on the SIM3 (or any bus that passes through the Forest & Richmond intersection) take a look at the crowd of people waiting for S48/98 buses heading westbound or getting off eastbound buses. I'd say ridership in Arlington is evenly split between the S40/90 and S48/98 (the S40/90 may get more people boarding each bus in that area, but that's because they run less frequently). Between the commercial areas along Forest Avenue (Arlington really doesn't have much besides a couple of delis...it's not like say Port Richmond or West Brighton) and the local bus connections (e.g. the S44/89/94 being available instead of just the S59 heading towards the mall), a lot of people in Arlington depend on the S48/98. 

Not to mention at night, I wouldn't want to walk from South Avenue to Holland Avenue...

Fair enough, in my revisions the Elizabeth S48 trips are now rerouted to Arlington and Elizabeth is covered by an S40 branch and all S90 trips go to Elizabeth. People can now get from Elizabeth to Manhattan for $2.75 if they don't want to pay for NJT and deal with their "zoned pricing".

22 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Again, the assumption that direct = higher ridership is not always true. Those who want a (relatively) quick ride to the ferry are already on the S78. You're literally changing the whole route just to essentially give one stop at the top of Ward Hill/Stapleton Heights a quicker route to the ferry (and even then, if they're in a hurry they can walk down the hill to Victory & Cebra Avenue where there are a ton of local buses along Victory Blvd going towards the ferry.

You're also taking away the direct connection from the Jersey Street corridor to points south...so now if anybody on Jersey Street wants to catch the S61/62, they have to ride all the way down to Victory & Manor instead of going to Cebra & Victory and taking the S61/62 diagonally across. Not to mention those heading south (for example, to Stapleton to catch the S74/78) have to backtrack to the ferry. Again, more direct for whom exactly?

Fair enough, I revised the S52 to go on Jersey Street, the pre 2010 routing.

22 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

I don't know if I told you this, but I live near the SIE, and I proposed exactly that (send some S61/62 trips up Watchogue and up Goethals/Fahy/Lamberts) during rush hour as a temporary measure to at least get us some local service without having to do a major restructuring just yet. However, that should not be a permanent solution. This area needs a full-time bus route. I started a petition back in high school (I have about 1500 signatures sitting in a desk at home) and have the backing of some local community groups, and we intend to push until we receive full-time service.

That being said, one of the things to consider is that people may be boarding a bus at a particular stop because it just so happens that that is where the stop is located (if that makes sense). As an example, back when the old system was in place, I would board the X30 at Goethals Road North, and then take that to Bryant Park for the (7) train to get to Queens. Now that the SIM system is operating, I take the SIM8, but I don't board at South Avenue, I board along Richmond Avenue because I live closer to Richmond Avenue. But under the old system, I took the longer walk to the X30 because that bus went directly to 42nd Street (which saved me a little bit of traffic and also saved me from having to take another subway line to reach the (7) )

Now that the SIM4X/8X stop at Lamberts Lane, I sometimes board the bus at Lamberts Lane. There's other stops that are closer to me, but I walk the extra distance to give myself the option of the SIM4X/8X instead of just the regular SIM4/8.

So what I'm saying is that those riders that board the S57 in that area may be able to just as easily catch it if it ran along Jewett Avenue. When I presented the idea, there were some people who lived in the Westerleigh area who had that exact issue (either they caught the S66 along Jewett to reach the ferry, or they caught the S57 along Watchogue to reach the New Dorp area, and I basically told them that they would just catch the bus on the opposite street). So yes, if somebody lived directly by Port Richmond Avenue (if they were walking to Decker) or Willowbrook Road, then yes they would have to transfer to reach the S57, but most of the riders would be able to catch the S57 at a different stop. (For riders transferring to/from the S48/98, they would just make the transfer at Jewett instead of Willowbrook. Matter of fact, Jewett is a little bit easier because the S98 stops there in both directions, instead of having to backtrack to Decker if you just missed the S48 and want to try for the S98 in the PM). 

That might work, however a school route should be made using the current S57 route to Brielle Ave, after Wagner HS, Manor-Rockland, S57 route to the New Dorp SIR station, 10th-Tysens and terminates at Tysens and Amboy. Also your plan has service eliminated along Decker Ave which will leave people with a longer walk.

22 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

To be honest, I think the S89 is enough for Bayonne-bound service. The S44 should focus on getting North Shore residents down towards the Mid-Island (it doesn't necessarily have to be the current route to the SI Mall via Richmond Avenue. It could be to CSI via Willowbrook Road/Woolley Avenue for example)

There is definitely demand for better connectivity to CSI from both the North Shore and South Shore. Both of us agree that the S56 should be extended to CSI to provide the South Shore connectivity, but there is still a need for better North Shore connectivity. Even if there aren't too many riders using it along the residential portions of the route (Willowbrook Road/Woolley Avenue), I can definitely see a lot of riders taking it to connect to the North Shore routes.

In my plan, the S89 doesn't serve Bayonne. After Morningstar/Walker, it runs nonstop to Christopher Columbus Drive, which is in Jersey City. I would of made this route express but doing that would kill the intraborough ridership along the S89 and eliminate limited stop service along Richmond Ave. The S44 would be the only route to Bayonne in my plan. 

For a North Shore-CSI route, I was thinking of a local route that runs from Arlington to Bay Ridge, taking the same route as the SIM33C in Staten Island. This route would also serve CSI along Victory.

22 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The S59 would provide the overnight service along the southern part of Hylan Blvd under that proposal. So riders would either take the S52, S79, or S59, depending on where they live.

However the S59 should be extended to the ferry at least overnights so Richmond Ave riders can have a direct ride to/from the ferry overnight. One of the reasons why the overnight S59 had low ridership before 1995 was because of the transfer people had to make. People don't like making transfers between two routes with 60 minute headway. If the first bus was late, oh well you missed your connection and had to wait a whole hour to get the next bus. The headway would probably be 30 now but that's still a long time to wait at night if you missed your connection. Also, I wouldn't want to be waiting for a bus at night in Port Richmond. That area can be seedy at night.

Edited by Lil 57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@checkmatechamp13 I forgot to add, the S77 would most likey be out of Charleston, which means that the route would have to dehead up Arthur Kill Road anyway to get to the depot so sending it to Bricktown would cost nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/9/2019 at 8:12 PM, Lil 57 said:

Fair enough, in my revisions the Elizabeth S48 trips are now rerouted to Arlington and Elizabeth is covered by an S40 branch and all S90 trips go to Elizabeth. People can now get from Elizabeth to Manhattan for $2.75 if they don't want to pay for NJT and deal with their "zoned pricing".

Seems reasonable. Only thing is, you might want to run a few S90 trips to/from Matrix Park around shift change times (The S90 used to be pretty crowded, but ever since Amazon opened up and it was extended to serve it, some of those trips have gotten jam-packed, for example the 5:30pm out of the ferry).

On 7/9/2019 at 8:12 PM, Lil 57 said:

Fair enough, I revised the S52 to go on Jersey Street, the pre 2010 routing.

On your map, it shows the bus going up Westervelt to St. Marks Place and then using Hamilton Avenue/Wall Street to get down to Richmond Terrace to reach the ferry, with the S42 using Jersey Street to Brighton Avenue to Castleton Avenue. If that's the plan, then it is unacceptable because it doesn't restore full-time service to the Cottage Hill neighborhood. That area is just as hilly as the areas on the other side of Jersey Street (Westervelt Avenue, St. Marks Place, etc) and should have a full-time route.

The S42 as it is (with all of its twists and turns) gets decent ridership in that area...and I'll put it to you this way: I was on an S44 that was rerouted through that area and 5 people got off along that portion of Lafayette Avenue (think about it, 5 people on a midday bus that was unexpectedly sent through that area...now imagine how many people that would be on a rush hour bus where the service was planned to go through, and then you have the people getting on heading towards the ferry that wouldn't have to walk down the hill to the S44). 

On 7/9/2019 at 8:12 PM, Lil 57 said:

That might work, however a school route should be made using the current S57 route to Brielle Ave, after Wagner HS, Manor-Rockland, S57 route to the New Dorp SIR station, 10th-Tysens and terminates at Tysens and Amboy. Also your plan has service eliminated along Decker Ave which will leave people with a longer walk.

As a school route....fair enough...but that's all Decker Avenue should get is a school route. You can't tell me that it's OK to leave Foster/Seguine with no bus route, leave the southern end of Lafayette Avenue with no bus route, leave Jewett Avenue and Grymes Hill with weekday-only service, leave my neighborhood with a rush hour route, and then say Decker Avenue needs a full-time bus route.

On 7/9/2019 at 8:12 PM, Lil 57 said:

In my plan, the S89 doesn't serve Bayonne. After Morningstar/Walker, it runs nonstop to Christopher Columbus Drive, which is in Jersey City. I would of made this route express but doing that would kill the intraborough ridership along the S89 and eliminate limited stop service along Richmond Ave. The S44 would be the only route to Bayonne in my plan. 

That's going way too far into NJT territory, especially considering it will be a local fare. For what you're trying to accomplish, it would be better to just offer a free transfer to the HBLR and call it a day.

If you do want to send the S89 deeper into NJ, Newark Airport would be a better bet. It could be open-door (remember, NJT doesn't have a route from Bayonne to Newark Airport either. The whole point of closed-door service is so you don't compete with the other carrier...for example the S40/90 competing with the NJT #58 if they were to go to Elizabeth. That's why the Bee Line #60/61/62 operate open-door along Boston Road). Since you have a Staten Island route serving Newark Airport, you can just have the S98 serve Elizabeth, and alternate S48s serve Jersey Gardens, and call it a day.

As I said, I disagree with the need for a route linking Bayonne to the eastern part of the North Shore. 

On 7/9/2019 at 8:12 PM, Lil 57 said:

For a North Shore-CSI route, I was thinking of a local route that runs from Arlington to Bay Ridge, taking the same route as the SIM33C in Staten Island. This route would also serve CSI along Victory.

For CSI, students living on the North Shore, that would be better than nothing. For starters, it only directly serves the northern side of the campus...for the southern end you still have to transfer to the shuttle bus (after possibly having already made a transfer coming off another North Shore route). Also, it only really serves students living on the western end of the North Shore...if you live around Port Richmond/West Brighton, you're still basically packing onto the same overcrowded S93).

That being said, that route really wouldn't be ideal from a traffic perspective: When I used to work in Grasmere, there would be days where instead of walking to the S93 and taking that to Targee Street (to either catch the S53 or walk) I would see the traffic backed up so much on the SIE that I would take a local bus to Forest Avenue, take the S98 to Tompkinsville, and then the SIR to Grasmere just to avoid all of that traffic (Forest Avenue got backed up in a couple of spots, but not nearly as bad as some of the areas near the SIE)

My personal plan for the S93 would be to have 3 branches (I haven't updated my plan on CartoDB, but it's something I thought of after the fact)

Travis - Bay Ridge (via Victory/via Narrows, 24/7 service)

CSI - Bay Ridge (via Victory/via Narrows, runs weekdays/Saturdays)

CSI - Bay Ridge (via Staten Island Expressway, AM westbound, PM eastbound). Stops at Building 1A, then the front gate, then nonstop to Brooklyn and vice versa in the morning)

The S61 would run overnight to provide service along the eastern portion of Victory (and also the Meiers Corners/Heartland Village/New Springville area). The S62 would be eliminated (I'm debating as to whether or not the S92 should run some rush hour service, because there are a lot of days where traffic near the SIE makes it quicker to take the S92 to the ferry as opposed to the S93 to the (R) train for those seeking service to Manhattan, or if a 3-legged transfer to the S91 would be sufficient).

On 7/9/2019 at 8:12 PM, Lil 57 said:

However the S59 should be extended to the ferry at least overnights so Richmond Ave riders can have a direct ride to/from the ferry overnight. One of the reasons why the overnight S59 had low ridership before 1995 was because of the transfer people had to make. People don't like making transfers between two routes with 60 minute headway. If the first bus was late, oh well you missed your connection and had to wait a whole hour to get the next bus. The headway would probably be 30 now but that's still a long time to wait at night if you missed your connection. Also, I wouldn't want to be waiting for a bus at night in Port Richmond. That area can be seedy at night.

The S44 has low ridership in the evenings in this area and it goes to/from the ferry. There's been times I've been the last one off the bus (and I get off around the SIE). Honestly most people in this area take the express bus if they're coming home late at night. It's a lot faster than the ferry and then a local bus (even though the local bus is pretty fast, the ferry always takes that same slow 23-25 minutes to get across)

The S61 would serve the Heartland Village area, and both it and the S79 would serve the New Springville area (with the S79 providing a connection to/from the (R) train). So most people south of say, Rockland Avenue are still fairly close to an overnight route that connects to either the ferry or subway, and then people between say, Signs Road and the SIE are fairly close to the S93 (which again I would have replace the S62 at night). So it's a relatively small area (the area around Deppe Place, and the area between Signs Road and Rockland Avenue) that is a bit far from a direct route to the ferry (and also keep in mind, I would also have a SIM4N that would run via Richmond Avenue & Gannon Avenue to Downtown Manhattan).

Also, keep in mind that the overnight S59 did not run all the way to Richmond Terrace. It ended at Forest & Willowbrook (which is where anybody coming from the ferry would transfer, and is definitely safer than waiting by Richmond Terrace or Castleton Avenue). I have a second job near there and often get out late (and sometimes walk back if I miss the bus...or if it's after 1:30am and the bus stopped running). 

On 7/9/2019 at 8:44 PM, Lil 57 said:

@checkmatechamp13 I forgot to add, the S77 would most likey be out of Charleston, which means that the route would have to dehead up Arthur Kill Road anyway to get to the depot so sending it to Bricktown would cost nothing.

You're making the assumption that every single trip would pull in/out of the depot. What if the driver has to do 2 round-trips, then gets a meal in the field, and does another 2 round-trips before they clear? Then they're only pulling in/out of the depot once to make those 4 round-trips.

Also, Bricktown is close to Charleston, but it's not like the Yukon Depot which is literally right at the S44/61/91/94 terminal so there is still extra mileage involved (since the drivers have to turn up Veterans Road to get to/from Bricktown as opposed to running straight down Arthur Kill to reach Tottenville)

Edited by checkmatechamp13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎7‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 11:35 AM, Lil 57 said:

The S52 is one of the most meandering routes in the City, so shortening it and making it more direct would attract more ridership.

And as for your meandrous S73?

============================

Aside from the point of straighter isn't always better, just what are you trying to accomplish with that S75?? Forget about the whole Metropark bit; SI-ers aren't going to take local buses to get to that station.... Immense waste of mileage.

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

And as for your meandrous S73?

============================

Aside from the point of straighter isn't always better, just what are you trying to accomplish with that S75?? Forget about the whole Metropark bit; SI-ers aren't going to take local buses to get to that station.... Immense waste of mileage.

The S73 isn't really that meandrous, other than the routing in Roseville to attract ridership in that area, it's pretty straightforward.

The S75 also serves the business parks in the Metropark area and the Woodbridge center mall.

I'm constantly making edits to this plan. So this isn't final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lil 57 said:

The S73 isn't really that meandrous, other than the routing in Roseville to attract ridership in that area, it's pretty straightforward.

The S75 also serves the business parks in the Metropark area and the Woodbridge center mall.

I'm constantly making edits to this plan. So this isn't final.

No need to double down on this.... A route running from Bricktown to Hylan/Richmond (even if you ignore said routing in Rossville) having significant north-south portions on Arthur Kill rd. and on Richmond av. is not pretty straight-forward.... So much so that it renders your concern about the indirectness of a route like the S52 null & void (or highly hypocritical)......

Alright, your plan isn't final, but you still wanted opinions on what you've showcased here, no? Anyway, your S89 I have less of a problem with, compared to your S75.... The demand is just not there to have a bus route acting as a point to point route in Central NJ for Woodbridge Mall & Metropark (business parks and/or the RR station itself)... I mean, you can do what you want with your proposals, but I'm commenting, considering what I know about these areas in question.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Okay I've made some edits.

21 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Seems reasonable. Only thing is, you might want to run a few S90 trips to/from Matrix Park around shift change times (The S90 used to be pretty crowded, but ever since Amazon opened up and it was extended to serve it, some of those trips have gotten jam-packed, for example the 5:30pm out of the ferry).

Maybe if there is any boat with 2 S90s, have one of them run down to Matrix Park and the other go to Elizabeth.

21 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

For CSI, students living on the North Shore, that would be better than nothing. For starters, it only directly serves the northern side of the campus...for the southern end you still have to transfer to the shuttle bus (after possibly having already made a transfer coming off another North Shore route). Also, it only really serves students living on the western end of the North Shore...if you live around Port Richmond/West Brighton, you're still basically packing onto the same overcrowded S93).

That being said, that route really wouldn't be ideal from a traffic perspective: When I used to work in Grasmere, there would be days where instead of walking to the S93 and taking that to Targee Street (to either catch the S53 or walk) I would see the traffic backed up so much on the SIE that I would take a local bus to Forest Avenue, take the S98 to Tompkinsville, and then the SIR to Grasmere just to avoid all of that traffic (Forest Avenue got backed up in a couple of spots, but not nearly as bad as some of the areas near the SIE)

My personal plan for the S93 would be to have 3 branches (I haven't updated my plan on CartoDB, but it's something I thought of after the fact)

Travis - Bay Ridge (via Victory/via Narrows, 24/7 service)

CSI - Bay Ridge (via Victory/via Narrows, runs weekdays/Saturdays)

CSI - Bay Ridge (via Staten Island Expressway, AM westbound, PM eastbound). Stops at Building 1A, then the front gate, then nonstop to Brooklyn and vice versa in the morning)

The S61 would run overnight to provide service along the eastern portion of Victory (and also the Meiers Corners/Heartland Village/New Springville area). The S62 would be eliminated (I'm debating as to whether or not the S92 should run some rush hour service, because there are a lot of days where traffic near the SIE makes it quicker to take the S92 to the ferry as opposed to the S93 to the (R) train for those seeking service to Manhattan, or if a 3-legged transfer to the S91 would be sufficient).

21 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

On your map, it shows the bus going up Westervelt to St. Marks Place and then using Hamilton Avenue/Wall Street to get down to Richmond Terrace to reach the ferry, with the S42 using Jersey Street to Brighton Avenue to Castleton Avenue. If that's the plan, then it is unacceptable because it doesn't restore full-time service to the Cottage Hill neighborhood. That area is just as hilly as the areas on the other side of Jersey Street (Westervelt Avenue, St. Marks Place, etc) and should have a full-time route.

The S42 as it is (with all of its twists and turns) gets decent ridership in that area...and I'll put it to you this way: I was on an S44 that was rerouted through that area and 5 people got off along that portion of Lafayette Avenue (think about it, 5 people on a midday bus that was unexpectedly sent through that area...now imagine how many people that would be on a rush hour bus where the service was planned to go through, and then you have the people getting on heading towards the ferry that wouldn't have to walk down the hill to the S44). 

 

I've introduced a Weekday route called the S49, which runs from St. George to CSI and serves Cottage Hill. With your S42 Proposal, you also eliminate service off Brighton.

21 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

The S44 has low ridership in the evenings in this area and it goes to/from the ferry. There's been times I've been the last one off the bus (and I get off around the SIE). Honestly most people in this area take the express bus if they're coming home late at night. It's a lot faster than the ferry and then a local bus (even though the local bus is pretty fast, the ferry always takes that same slow 23-25 minutes to get across)

The S61 would serve the Heartland Village area, and both it and the S79 would serve the New Springville area (with the S79 providing a connection to/from the (R) train). So most people south of say, Rockland Avenue are still fairly close to an overnight route that connects to either the ferry or subway, and then people between say, Signs Road and the SIE are fairly close to the S93 (which again I would have replace the S62 at night). So it's a relatively small area (the area around Deppe Place, and the area between Signs Road and Rockland Avenue) that is a bit far from a direct route to the ferry (and also keep in mind, I would also have a SIM4N that would run via Richmond Avenue & Gannon Avenue to Downtown Manhattan).

Also, keep in mind that the overnight S59 did not run all the way to Richmond Terrace. It ended at Forest & Willowbrook (which is where anybody coming from the ferry would transfer, and is definitely safer than waiting by Richmond Terrace or Castleton Avenue). I have a second job near there and often get out late (and sometimes walk back if I miss the bus...or if it's after 1:30am and the bus stopped running). 

If the SIM4N is created, that would be a better option. The S61 running overnights is a good idea as long as there is demand for it. However, the only street with a 24/7 bus route to the ferry between Forest and the SI mall is at Victory. If anything under your plan, people could take the S59 and transfer if needed.

21 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

You're making the assumption that every single trip would pull in/out of the depot. What if the driver has to do 2 round-trips, then gets a meal in the field, and does another 2 round-trips before they clear? Then they're only pulling in/out of the depot once to make those 4 round-trips.

Also, Bricktown is close to Charleston, but it's not like the Yukon Depot which is literally right at the S44/61/91/94 terminal so there is still extra mileage involved (since the drivers have to turn up Veterans Road to get to/from Bricktown as opposed to running straight down Arthur Kill to reach Tottenville)

Maybe have some short-turns at Tottenville on the S77.

21 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

As a school route....fair enough...but that's all Decker Avenue should get is a school route. You can't tell me that it's OK to leave Foster/Seguine with no bus route, leave the southern end of Lafayette Avenue with no bus route, leave Jewett Avenue and Grymes Hill with weekday-only service, leave my neighborhood with a rush hour route, and then say Decker Avenue needs a full-time bus route.

Makes scene, in my new plan, the S66 and S67 switch terminals, (The S66 is given full time service), the S57 is via Jewett and the S56 goes via Foster/Seguine as well to the Bricktown Mall.

21 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

That's going way too far into NJT territory, especially considering it will be a local fare. For what you're trying to accomplish, it would be better to just offer a free transfer to the HBLR and call it a day.

If you do want to send the S89 deeper into NJ, Newark Airport would be a better bet. It could be open-door (remember, NJT doesn't have a route from Bayonne to Newark Airport either. The whole point of closed-door service is so you don't compete with the other carrier...for example the S40/90 competing with the NJT #58 if they were to go to Elizabeth. That's why the Bee Line #60/61/62 operate open-door along Boston Road). Since you have a Staten Island route serving Newark Airport, you can just have the S98 serve Elizabeth, and alternate S48s serve Jersey Gardens, and call it a day.

As I said, I disagree with the need for a route linking Bayonne to the eastern part of the North Shore. 

NJT uses a different fare system that the (MTA), so unless OMNY is offered on NJT as well, a free transfer will be very hard to do. The S44 will be basically used as a connector from Bayonne to SI and people can transfer to other routes in SI so that Bayonne can have 7-day service. One of the first things I suggested when I came to this forum was to have the S89 go to EWR, however people, including you said that the S98 was better.

12 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Alright, your plan isn't final, but you still wanted opinions on what you've showcased here, no? Anyway, your S89 I have less of a problem with, compared to your S75.... The demand is just not there to have a bus route acting as a point to point route in Central NJ for Woodbridge Mall & Metropark (business parks and/or the RR station itself)... I mean, you can do what you want with your proposals, but I'm commenting, considering what I know about these areas in question.....

Where else could I end the S75 that would attract more ridership? Maybe the teleport and WSP?

Edited by Lil 57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 10:02 PM, Lil 57 said:

Maybe if there is any boat with 2 S90s, have one of them run down to Matrix Park and the other go to Elizabeth.

The only one where that is the case is the 5:10pm departure from St. George (but of course, keep in mind that if you're eliminating the S94, that may impact crowding on the S90 a bit (though I would expect it to impact the S96/S98 more), which would make more trips warrant a second bus.

But I disagree with the primary purpose of the S94 being to provide a quicker route for Richmond Avenue riders (keeping in mind that I live off Richmond Avenue. As I said, most Manhattan-bound riders in this area take the express bus....I'm a cheapskate and would love it if the local bus-ferry was a better alternative, but it simply isn't). Most of the ferry-bound ridership comes from north of Forest Avenue. So there would still be a lot of people along the rest of the route (Post/Cary, Henderson, etc) who would be negatively impacted by having to take the all-local S44 to the ferry during rush hour (not to mention, a lot of those S94 trips would have to be converted to S44 local trips anyway, which costs money because of the increased runtime of a local vs. limited trip).

On 7/11/2019 at 10:02 PM, Lil 57 said:

I've introduced a Weekday route called the S49, which runs from St. George to CSI and serves Cottage Hill. With your S42 Proposal, you also eliminate service off Brighton.

As I mentioned before, it only impacts one single stop along Brighton Avenue (the one at Webster Avenue), and that is on relatively level ground with the two stops in either direction (either Brighton/Lafayette for my proposed S42, or Jersey/Brighton for the S52). The topography of the surrounding area is important to consider (for example, Cottage Hill is uphill from both the S44/94 and S52, so that is why I was so adamant about a route serving that area).

Think of it as similar to your S74 routing in Stapleton (which I agree with 100%). The Broad/Gordon stop loses service, but riders can either walk to the Tompkins/Broad stop, or Targee/Broad (or Van Duzer/Broad for southbound service) stops to catch an alternate route.

In any case, look at the routing of your proposed S49 vs. sending the S44 to CSI...the concept is very similar (CSI-St. George via the North Shore). In order for it to be worth it, you'd have to be really confident that there is a market for North Shore-Bayonne service, to warrant sending the S44 over there as opposed to CSI. And then if you take into consideration what I said (Cottage Hill needing service moreso than that small stretch of Brighton Avenue), I think it would be better to have the S42 run up Cottage Hill full-time, and leave the S52 covering Jersey Street.

On 7/11/2019 at 10:02 PM, Lil 57 said:

If the SIM4N is created, that would be a better option. The S61 running overnights is a good idea as long as there is demand for it. However, the only street with a 24/7 bus route to the ferry between Forest and the SI mall is at Victory. If anything under your plan, people could take the S59 and transfer if needed.

Again, keep in mind that the S93 would replace the S62 overnight (so the S93 would run to Brooklyn, not to the ferry). So between Clove & Bradley the S61 would serve those who prefer taking the ferry, while the S93 would serve those who prefer taking the (R) train. I think the S61 would get similar overnight ridership to the present-day S62 (considering their ridership numbers during the day are comparable).  

On 7/11/2019 at 10:02 PM, Lil 57 said:

Maybe have some short-turns at Tottenville on the S77.

I don't think the S77 would have enough ridership to run frequently enough to warrant short-turns (the other thing is, as big as the Bricktown/South Shore Commons area is commercial-wise, I don't think it's quite that big that it warrants a one-seat ride from every single area near it). 

On 7/11/2019 at 10:02 PM, Lil 57 said:

Makes scene, in my new plan, the S66 and S67 switch terminals, (The S66 is given full time service), the S57 is via Jewett

I think it would be better to have the resources used for your proposed S67 (St. George-Port Richmond via Jewett) used to provide limited-stop service along the S66 (Arlington-St. George via Watchogue). That Grymes Hill detour can add a lot of time on days when there's an issue on the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge and traffic gets backed up along Clove Road, and while it's better than having no ferry-bound service (the current situation with the S57 along Watchogue), that situation can still be made better.

The way I see it, with travel patterns in and out of Port Richmond being different, I don't think a "Port Richmond-St. George via Victory" route is necessary anymore.

On 7/11/2019 at 10:02 PM, Lil 57 said:

The S56 goes via Foster/Seguine as well to the Bricktown Mall.

That's good in that it restores service along Foster/Seguine, but I think the whole South Shore portion of your plan still needs some work. I do think there is merit to a bus route running the length of Woodrow Road (if you think about it, it's one of the bigger residential corridors down on the South Shore, unlike along Arthur Kill or Hylan, where development is more spotty/clustered and you'll see townhouse developments, followed by empty land, followed by single-family homes and then more empty land, etc)

If you think about it, where are some major destinations that people in Rossville are trying to get to? The ETC, Bricktown, the SIR, Tottenville High School, etc The S74 (your proposed S73) brings them to the ETC, and (via a circuitous route) to Bricktown, but it doesn't bring them to the SIR or Tottenville High School.

If you had the S56 run straight across Woodrow, it would still get them to the ETC and Bricktown. Then you need something running north-south to get them to/from the SIR and Tottenville High School (And logically, that north-south route can continue down Foster/Seguine). The question is, is there enough demand to sustain north-south routes along both Bloomingdale and Rossville, or might it be necessary to run a sort of "compromise route" (e.g. Seguine/Foster-Woodrow-Rossville-Correll)

The industrial part of Arthur Kill Road should just have service that connects to the ETC and to Tottenville. No need to divert to Bricktown or via Rossville. 

On 7/11/2019 at 10:02 PM, Lil 57 said:

NJT uses a different fare system that the (MTA), so unless OMNY is offered on NJT as well, a free transfer will be very hard to do. The S44 will be basically used as a connector from Bayonne to SI and people can transfer to other routes in SI so that Bayonne can have 7-day service. One of the first things I suggested when I came to this forum was to have the S89 go to EWR, however people, including you said that the S98 was better.

Actually, my comment was directed towards Orion6025, which suggested having it run over the Goethals Bridge (for your proposal, you didn't mention whether the S89 would take the Goethals Bridge, or whether it would be extended from Bayonne).

But yes, my stance is that if a bus route is created over the Goethals Bridge, the first corridor that it connects with on Staten Island should be Forest Avenue. Once Forest Avenue is connected with, then we can discuss having other routes over the Goethals Bridge to corridors like Richmond Avenue.

On 7/11/2019 at 10:02 PM, Lil 57 said:

Where else could I end the S75 that would attract more ridership? Maybe the teleport and WSP?

Yeah, I definitely agree with having a local route run the length of Huguenot Avenue, but the question is, where to terminate it? To go up to Arthur Kill Road only to come back down (even if it's highway mileage) is too circuitous.

I'm not super-wild about having a local bus route along the West Shore Expressway, because of the dead mileage and variable traffic conditions involved (to be honest, I'd rather have the SIM2 and SIM26 run off-peak and call it a day (and if anybody needs to travel, they pay the express bus fare). The off-peak SIM26 would be rerouted to operate via South Avenue-Forest Avenue to serve the Graniteville area, as well as any reverse-peak commuters heading to/from the Teleport). 

But in any case, I'm still not wild about ending service at the Teleport coming from the south, but perhaps if it ran up to Arlington (and if the S46 were truncated to Forest & Grandview), that could provide enough ridership for it. (I also think that the S66 should run to the Teleport instead of Arlington. The Teleport is still missing connections heading to the east, and right now people have to backtrack all the way up to the North Shore for any connections they may be trying to make). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of those ideas are terrible! Too much going on!

The current SI routes are fine just need some very minor alterations and/or extensions short-turns. The Bronx and SI express re-designs show that the MTA are not looking to change EVERYTHING just a few obvious necessities here and there.

As an immediate stop-gap measure, how about implementing TSP on all major Staten Island routes, especially the S40, S44, S46 and S74, S76 and S78 as those three from looking at BusTime seem to miss the ferry by 1-3 minutes the most. The buses should have the ability to turn the lights green and put signs wherever it is in operation to let drivers know.

On another note, after buses reach a certain point they should be able to operate slightly early if need be to connect with the SI FERRY. The Staten Island buses since BUSTIME already do not operate on any type of schedule regardless. So look "REALISTICALLY" at how the routes should be changed and not drawing a bunch of lines on a map because you think it needs run somewhere.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/11/2019 at 10:02 PM, Lil 57 said:

Where else could I end the S75 that would attract more ridership? Maybe the teleport and WSP?

I'll say this much.... Central NJ in & of itself as a ridership gen for Huguenot av, aint it.

It's difficult to even give an answer to the question you pose, since I wouldn't concoct a route like your "S75".... But to keep conversation flowing I guess, if you're dead set on having a route run the length of Huguenot av (considering other ideas you've portrayed here), I would simply append the SI service area portion of your "S75" to your quote-unquote daytime S78 (I'm not getting into that whole night time network thing again) & have it be called a day....

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, North Shore Line said:

All of those ideas are terrible! Too much going on!

The current SI routes are fine just need some very minor alterations and/or extensions short-turns. The Bronx and SI express re-designs show that the MTA are not looking to change EVERYTHING just a few obvious necessities here and there.

As an immediate stop-gap measure, how about implementing TSP on all major Staten Island routes, especially the S40, S44, S46 and S74, S76 and S78 as those three from looking at BusTime seem to miss the ferry by 1-3 minutes the most. The buses should have the ability to turn the lights green and put signs wherever it is in operation to let drivers know.

On another note, after buses reach a certain point they should be able to operate slightly early if need be to connect with the SI FERRY. The Staten Island buses since BUSTIME already do not operate on any type of schedule regardless. So look "REALISTICALLY" at how the routes should be changed and not drawing a bunch of lines on a map because you think it needs run somewhere.

So the Jewett Avenue, Howard Avenue, Arden Avenue, Foster/Seguine, and Manor Road corridors lack weekend local bus service, Mosel Avenue, Huguenot Avenue, Fahy/Lamberts/Goethals corridors lack a local route entirely, we have one measly rush hour route to NJ, but we need only "minor" changes.....

Yeah I'd like to have some of what you're smoking...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes a lot for me to post anything on the forum now especially when it comes to propsals to change the routes on staten Island. 

What got me started  is the sudden interest in the s/42 and the s/52 and the need for a history lesson for those who have not had the pleasure of reading Bernard Linder's excellent work on the history of the bus routes on Staten Island which is so unfortunately out of date.

Before the bus route renumbering a long time ago, there were two sets of numbers for Staten Island. Of interest are the 5 (Jersey Street), 101 (Brighton Avenue) and 104 Tompkins Avenue.The 5 after the ferry followed Richmond Terrace to Jersey Street and then went south on Jersey Street and Cebra Avenue to  Stapleton  at Bay Street. The 101 followed the existing route with a rush hour service to Forest Avenue (Havenwood Road).. For many years these two routes were interconnected as during the non-rush hours when each route ran on a 30 minue headway  and when a 5 arrived at the ferry, this bus would become a 101 and  the 101 that arrived would become a 5. The weekend headway on the 101 was 60 minutes.

The 104 went south from the ferry following the S/103 Hylan boulevard Line as it does now but instead of turning unto McClean Avenue it went straight on Sand Lane to South Beach Terminal. It had a 30 minute headway except during peak periods. All three routes (5, 101 & 104) were at the bottom when it came to passenger counts. In addition the Jersey Street area chnaged and no longer was a shopping destination in the late 1960's which as CheckmateChamp alluded to concenring his comments in reference to the S/66 and Port Richmond posted here (same reason). St. Vincent's hospital which was located on the 5 moved to the south shore so there was a need for direct service from Jersey Street to the hospital's new location. The 5 therefore became redundant as the 104 (now the 52) was  changed to follow the 42 (formerly 101). The prolblem is the 5/42  combination was broken and now the s/42 becane a target based on its short route and its passenger loads. It became the paper pushers vs. the residents and the "dreaded" Staten Island hills with the 42 riders during the non-rush hours losing out. It is a shame as the hills on that part of the island are very steep and my sympathies to anyone who have to walk down Lafayette Avenue in.either direction.

 The S/66 (formerly the s/6) is a relic from the days when the S/106 Watchogue Road (now part S/57), S/111 Bradley Avenue (now S/61) and the S/112 (Travis) were extended to St. George Ferry only diuring rush hours as the S/6 was the Victory Boulevard Bus . When the S/111 and S/112 hours were changed to proivde more serivce to the ferry, the S/6 (now S/66) irdership dropped for the same reason as  the  S/5. The MTA's desire to get rid of all shuttle service in a way helped the S/66 survive except that again it is the paper pushers vs the residents.  Weekend service is needed as anyone who has tried to walk up HowardAvenue from Clove Road prays for someone to offer a lift up the hill.

The S/42 should have its non-rus hour service restored and S/66 should have weekend service via Grymes Hill.

 That's my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made some edits.

Map

Service Guide

On 7/13/2019 at 1:00 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

But I disagree with the primary purpose of the S94 being to provide a quicker route for Richmond Avenue riders (keeping in mind that I live off Richmond Avenue. As I said, most Manhattan-bound riders in this area take the express bus....I'm a cheapskate and would love it if the local bus-ferry was a better alternative, but it simply isn't). Most of the ferry-bound ridership comes from north of Forest Avenue. So there would still be a lot of people along the rest of the route (Post/Cary, Henderson, etc) who would be negatively impacted by having to take the all-local S44 to the ferry during rush hour (not to mention, a lot of those S94 trips would have to be converted to S44 local trips anyway, which costs money because of the increased runtime of a local vs. limited trip).

In any case, look at the routing of your proposed S49 vs. sending the S44 to CSI...the concept is very similar (CSI-St. George via the North Shore). In order for it to be worth it, you'd have to be really confident that there is a market for North Shore-Bayonne service, to warrant sending the S44 over there as opposed to CSI. And then if you take into consideration what I said (Cottage Hill needing service moreso than that small stretch of Brighton Avenue), I think it would be better to have the S42 run up Cottage Hill full-time, and leave the S52 covering Jersey Street.

In my edits the S94 is the route going to CSI. It would run weekdays, providing limited service along the S44 route and eliminating the need for the S49. The S44 goes to Bayonne to provide 7-day service to Bayonne from SI since the S89 only runs on weekdays (and doesn't even go to Bayonne). I remember someone saying in the past that the S89 should be a shuttle off-peak from Bayonne to the North Sore, but the S44 has more coverage and will have more ridership than a shuttle route. The S44/52 routings has also been changed.

On 7/13/2019 at 1:00 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

I don't think the S77 would have enough ridership to run frequently enough to warrant short-turns (the other thing is, as big as the Bricktown/South Shore Commons area is commercial-wise, I don't think it's quite that big that it warrants a one-seat ride from every single area near it). 

Remember that the S77 would also serve the Arthur Kill Train Station as well. Also with your set-up, riders from eastern Tottenville don't have a one-seat ride to the Bricktown Mall and those people do make up a portion of the ridership to the Bricktown Mall.

On 7/13/2019 at 1:00 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

I think it would be better to have the resources used for your proposed S67 (St. George-Port Richmond via Jewett) used to provide limited-stop service along the S66 (Arlington-St. George via Watchogue). That Grymes Hill detour can add a lot of time on days when there's an issue on the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge and traffic gets backed up along Clove Road, and while it's better than having no ferry-bound service (the current situation with the S57 along Watchogue), that situation can still be made better.

The way I see it, with travel patterns in and out of Port Richmond being different, I don't think a "Port Richmond-St. George via Victory" route is necessary anymore.

I also think that the S66 should run to the Teleport instead of Arlington.

Fair enough., However, the S67 should just be local and bypass the Grymes Hill area during peak-hours. The reason to this is because neither the S61 or 62 would be running during peak hours so in order to keep local service along Victory from Forest to Clove and to have an equal amount of local and limited routes, the S67 should become local. Maybe some weekday S66 trips could go to the teleport.

On 7/13/2019 at 1:00 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

That's good in that it restores service along Foster/Seguine, but I think the whole South Shore portion of your plan still needs some work. I do think there is merit to a bus route running the length of Woodrow Road (if you think about it, it's one of the bigger residential corridors down on the South Shore, unlike along Arthur Kill or Hylan, where development is more spotty/clustered and you'll see townhouse developments, followed by empty land, followed by single-family homes and then more empty land, etc)

If you think about it, where are some major destinations that people in Rossville are trying to get to? The ETC, Bricktown, the SIR, Tottenville High School, etc The S74 (your proposed S73) brings them to the ETC, and (via a circuitous route) to Bricktown, but it doesn't bring them to the SIR or Tottenville High School.

If you had the S56 run straight across Woodrow, it would still get them to the ETC and Bricktown. Then you need something running north-south to get them to/from the SIR and Tottenville High School (And logically, that north-south route can continue down Foster/Seguine). The question is, is there enough demand to sustain north-south routes along both Bloomingdale and Rossville, or might it be necessary to run a sort of "compromise route" (e.g. Seguine/Foster-Woodrow-Rossville-Correll)

The industrial part of Arthur Kill Road should just have service that connects to the ETC and to Tottenville. No need to divert to Bricktown or via Rossville. 

On 7/13/2019 at 1:00 PM, checkmatechamp13 said:

Yeah, I definitely agree with having a local route run the length of Huguenot Avenue, but the question is, where to terminate it? To go up to Arthur Kill Road only to come back down (even if it's highway mileage) is too circuitous.

I've edited the whole south shore for better connectivity. Here are some highlights.

1. Some S78 trips during the day would be extended to Rossville via Huguenot Ave, replacing the S75, @B35 via Church's idea. 

2. The S56 terminates at SI Hospital South and runs via Arthur Kill Road - Rossville Ave instead of Woodrow road to get to Foster Road. Runs 7-days a week now.

3. S73/74 runs down Woodrow Road instead of Arthur Kill Road.

4. S72 runs in-between The Bricktown Mall and the ETC via Arthur Kill Road. Runs weekdays every 30-60 minutes.

 

 

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.