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

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

 

 

Express bus service in Queens is abysmal. The QM20 serves a community that NEEDS Lower Manhattan service badly and they should have it. There is clearly a demand there. Your S93 proposal is another can of worms though. If you really support it then go get petitions to show that there is a need for it. That's all. No need to go back and forth with me on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Express bus service in Queens is abysmal. The QM20 serves a community that NEEDS Lower Manhattan service badly and they should have it. There is clearly a demand there. Your S93 proposal is another can of worms though. If you really support it then go get petitions to show that there is a need for it. That's all. No need to go back and forth with me on it.

 

 

Well if we go by your logic, they should restore the Q76, Q79, and Q31 service that was reduced/eliminated before they extend the QM20. Hell, they should even bring back a low-ridership route like the Q75 first.

 

In any case, you realize what a PITA it is to make a petition, right? The best I can hope for is to get some students at school to sign it, because I sure as hell am not going around ringing doorbells along the route to try and get support. Besides, I already proved there is a need for it with the numbers I brought up earlier.

 

In any case, whatever I'm going to have to do, I'm going to have to wait until after AP tests are done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if we go by your logic, they should restore the Q76, Q79, and Q31 service that was reduced/eliminated before they extend the QM20. Hell, they should even bring back a low-ridership route like the Q75 first.

 

In any case, you realize what a PITA it is to make a petition, right? The best I can hope for is to get some students at school to sign it, because I sure as hell am not going around ringing doorbells along the route to try and get support. Besides, I already proved there is a need for it with the numbers I brought up earlier.

 

In any case, whatever I'm going to have to do, I'm going to have to wait until after AP tests are done.

 

 

Yeah well like I said, if you feel so strongly, you know what to do. No need to debate with me about other routes that should be restored before extending the QM20 because that won't do anything to get the S93 extended.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an SI'er, so don't murder me if it's a bad idea...

 

S50/80/100:

Port Richmond-SI Mall via Todt Hill Road & Willowbrook Road.

 

S50:

Local, all times except late nights.

 

S80:

LTD, bi-directional, weekdays.

 

S100:

LTD, bi-directional, weekdays & saturdays. (Via Manor Road)

 

Link to map of proposed route: http://maps.google.c...075482,0.154324

 

(There may be glitches where there are strange loops, or the S100 goes down Brielle Avenue instead of Manor Road, ignore those...)

Edited by ThrexxBus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an SI'er, so don't murder me if it's a bad idea...

 

S50/80/100:

Port Richmond-SI Mall via Todt Hill Road & Willowbrook Road.

 

S50:

Local, all times except late nights.

 

S80:

LTD, bi-directional, weekdays.

 

S100:

LTD, bi-directional, weekdays & saturdays. (Via Manor Road)

 

Link to map of proposed route: http://maps.google.c...075482,0.154324

 

(There may be glitches where there are strange loops, or the S100 goes down Brielle Avenue instead of Manor Road, ignore those...)

 

I'm sorry but I don't get any of these proposals.... Don't see the need for any of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an SI'er, so don't murder me if it's a bad idea...

 

S50/80/100:

Port Richmond-SI Mall via Todt Hill Road & Willowbrook Road.

 

S50:

Local, all times except late nights.

 

S80:

LTD, bi-directional, weekdays.

 

S100:

LTD, bi-directional, weekdays & saturdays. (Via Manor Road)

 

Link to map of proposed route: http://maps.google.c...075482,0.154324

 

(There may be glitches where there are strange loops, or the S100 goes down Brielle Avenue instead of Manor Road, ignore those...)

 

 

I'm surprised VG8 didn't mention that those areas are too "affluent" to need bus service.

 

Well, basically, neither of those routes are necessary. A bus service to Todt Hill would do very poorly. You saw how poorly the S60 performed, and it had 2 colleges up there, and aside from that, Grymes Hill is a little more middle class than Todt Hill. Even connecting it to the SI Mall won't fly. Aside from that, Todt Hill might actually oppose bus service in the area.

 

For Willowbrook Road, it would be nice if it had east-west bus service, but there's nothing you could really link it to (Willowbrook is basically middle class, so I doubt they'd oppose having bus service there, but I doubt they'd use it. I mean, the S57 and S61 basically cover their needs. I was actually surprised that the S57 got decent ridership along Bradley Avenue).

 

If I had to come up with a way to give them bus service, I'd probably have the route go up Slosson, and then go up Broadway and end at Richmond Terrace with the S54. But even then, it doesn't really go anywhere of interest, so even the West Brighton Houses wouldn't be enough to give it decent ridership. I have a friend who lives near there, and he says it's annoying how there can sometimes be 2 S54s with practically nobody on them before an S46 or S53 comes. But in any case, a CSI-West Brighton route (sipping down to serve Wagner High School) would be the best possible routing, but even then ridership would still be low.

 

The part north of Victory Blvd where you'd have it run (BTW, you have to keep in mind that Willowbrook Road doesn't go through the SIE, so northbound, it would have to go along Woolley Avenue) is very narrow, and north of Watchogue Road already has the S57. The best route in that area would probably be Woolley Avenue, since it's wider, but again, you run into the problem of not having any source of ridership nearby.

 

There's nothing of interest along Manor Road (except a JCC, but that's within walking distance of Brielle anyway). And Lighthouse Hill doesn't need bus service (and aside from that, the streets are kind of narrow down there). As for service along Richmond Hill Road, that street is pretty narrow, and you have a long stretch of no possible ridership for no reason (the S54 and S57 go through the Greenbelt because it's the easiest way to go north-south in that area, but if you're trying to go to the mall, you'll just have to take the S74 to the ETC and then transfer)

 

If you wanted to connect that area (near Wagner High School) to the mall, the best way would be to reroute the S54 to the SI Mall. I was actually thinking of doing that, but I figured New Dorp would be better (like I said, I'd have the S79A cover Great Kills either way).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised VG8 didn't mention that those areas are too "affluent" to need bus service.

 

Well, basically, neither of those routes are necessary. A bus service to Todt Hill would do very poorly. You saw how poorly the S60 performed, and it had 2 colleges up there, and aside from that, Grymes Hill is a little more middle class than Todt Hill. Even connecting it to the SI Mall won't fly. Aside from that, Todt Hill might actually oppose bus service in the area.

 

For Willowbrook Road, it would be nice if it had east-west bus service, but there's nothing you could really link it to (Willowbrook is basically middle class, so I doubt they'd oppose having bus service there, but I doubt they'd use it. I mean, the S57 and S61 basically cover their needs. I was actually surprised that the S57 got decent ridership along Bradley Avenue).

 

If I had to come up with a way to give them bus service, I'd probably have the route go up Slosson, and then go up Broadway and end at Richmond Terrace with the S54. But even then, it doesn't really go anywhere of interest, so even the West Brighton Houses wouldn't be enough to give it decent ridership. I have a friend who lives near there, and he says it's annoying how there can sometimes be 2 S54s with practically nobody on them before an S46 or S53 comes. But in any case, a CSI-West Brighton route (sipping down to serve Wagner High School) would be the best possible routing, but even then ridership would still be low.

 

The part north of Victory Blvd where you'd have it run (BTW, you have to keep in mind that Willowbrook Road doesn't go through the SIE, so northbound, it would have to go along Woolley Avenue) is very narrow, and north of Watchogue Road already has the S57. The best route in that area would probably be Woolley Avenue, since it's wider, but again, you run into the problem of not having any source of ridership nearby.

 

There's nothing of interest along Manor Road (except a JCC, but that's within walking distance of Brielle anyway). And Lighthouse Hill doesn't need bus service (and aside from that, the streets are kind of narrow down there). As for service along Richmond Hill Road, that street is pretty narrow, and you have a long stretch of no possible ridership for no reason (the S54 and S57 go through the Greenbelt because it's the easiest way to go north-south in that area, but if you're trying to go to the mall, you'll just have to take the S74 to the ETC and then transfer)

 

If you wanted to connect that area (near Wagner High School) to the mall, the best way would be to reroute the S54 to the SI Mall. I was actually thinking of doing that, but I figured New Dorp would be better (like I said, I'd have the S79A cover Great Kills either way).

 

 

LOL... Well on Staten Island it is pretty well known that most neighborhoods up in the hills are very wealthy... Emerson Hill, Todt Hill, and Lighthouse Hill are certainly three of them and those folks want nothing to do with bus service. They're up in the hills for a reason... Because they want to be left alone, much like us folks up in the hills in Riverdale as opposed to downstairs Riverdale. The difference is that Riverdale (upstairs) while remote, it isn't nearly as remote as these areas on Staten Island. We also don't have a lot of traffic up here but at the same time there is a different mindset. Those areas would complain about the neighborhood being ruined with bus routes, similar to the folks in Country Club. Even here in Riverdale, our express buses and local buses are on main arteries that really don't destroy the quality of life (Henry Hudson Parkway & Riverdale Av. Then you have MetroNorth, but that is right along the Hudson away from everything. Them complaining about bus service up there would be like us complaining about a subway in Riverdale (upstairs).

 

As for Grymes Hill, like checkmate said, it is more "middle class" if you will when compared to the big boys mentioned earlier, but very few folks would move up there without a car. I actually considered Grymes Hill but thought it would be too much of a schlepp to get to and from the express bus without a car.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL... Well on Staten Island it is pretty well known that most neighborhoods up in the hills are very wealthy... Emerson Hill, Todt Hill, and Lighthouse Hill are certainly three of them and those folks want nothing to do with bus service. They're up in the hills for a reason... Because they want to be left alone, much like us folks up in the hills in Riverdale as opposed to downstairs Riverdale. The difference is that Riverdale (upstairs) while remote, it isn't nearly as remote as these areas on Staten Island. We also don't have a lot of traffic up here but at the same time there is a different mindset. Those areas would complain about the neighborhood being ruined with bus routes, similar to the folks in Country Club. Even here in Riverdale, our express buses and local buses are on main arteries that really don't destroy the quality of life (Henry Hudson Parkway & Riverdale Av. Then you have MetroNorth, but that is right along the Hudson away from everything. Them complaining about bus service up there would be like us complaining about a subway in Riverdale (upstairs).

 

As for Grymes Hill, like checkmate said, it is more "middle class" if you will when compared to the big boys mentioned earlier, but very few folks would move up there without a car. I actually considered Grymes Hill but thought it would be too much of a schlepp to get to and from the express bus without a car.

 

 

What about Park Hill? ;) Yeah, I know you said "most" (and it's not even on a hill anyway)

 

As far as Country Club, they weren't protesting against bus service. They just wanted it "just so". It had to be a perfect shuttle just for them, that connected to only the places they wanted. But the areas he would run the buses through wouldn't want bus service no matter where it went (I don't even know if they would want express service. Even if it doesn't bring "riff-raff", it would still bring noise into the area)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Park Hill? ;) Yeah, I know you said "most" (and it's not even on a hill anyway)

 

As far as Country Club, they weren't protesting against bus service. They just wanted it "just so". It had to be a perfect shuttle just for them, that connected to only the places they wanted. But the areas he would run the buses through wouldn't want bus service no matter where it went (I don't even know if they would want express service. Even if it doesn't bring "riff-raff", it would still bring noise into the area)

 

 

Park Hill... Very funny... Maybe it is all of the projects they're thinking about...

 

Country Club... They were so to a degree... The issue wasn't just riff raff but also too much noise. The area is rather isolated, which means that they don't want too much traffic, very much live Riverdale. Riverdale (upstairs) reminds me a lot of Staten Island in that neither follow an actual street grid. The difference is that Riverdale is obviously smaller, so the transportation services that we have are perfect in terms of their location and allow for us to walk or drive to them if we want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, NIMBY's...

 

They get on my nerves SO much...

 

 

Well they have a point... There are some places that just don't need public transportation. If you saw Todt Hill, you would understand why it doesn't need public transportation. It is like a gated community up in the hills. The streets are winding and small for the most part and really not for buses. It is basically large houses, some of which are like mansions, so who in the world is going to be taking a bus up there when they've got a Porsche and maybe a few other high end cars in their drive way? I mean you have folks like John Franco (former Mets pitcher) living up there in their multi-million dollar homes. They are not taking public transportation. LOL

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Park Hill... Very funny... Maybe it is all of the projects they're thinking about...

 

Country Club... They were so to a degree... The issue wasn't just riff raff but also too much noise. The area is rather isolated, which means that they don't want too much traffic, very much live Riverdale. Riverdale (upstairs) reminds me a lot of Staten Island in that neither follow an actual street grid. The difference is that Riverdale is obviously smaller, so the transportation services that we have are perfect in terms of their location and allow for us to walk or drive to them if we want.

 

 

I know. But the point is that they did want bus service. It's not like the areas on SI we're talking about where the people would actually protest having bus service run through there (no matter how frequent/infrequent it is)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one checkmate's S93 idea is cost neutral and increases revenue And creates more interline opportunities creating more service with less buses. Ohh when tied to my NJT proposal this S93 idea would be way more useful than it looks hehe. More regional links. Ohh via8 you know why queens express service is abysmal the LIRR runs!!!!!!!!!! that is why get it.

 

Ppl will always choose LIRR over express bus anyday their queens bound routing is just pathetic NOT worth the 5.50 asking price especially on weekends when LIRR is cheaper you can completely forget Qm21 and X63,64,68 those lines even if they had weekend service would be non factors cause NO ONE WILL USE THEM. Qm5/6 &2 have good service and QM15 has no offpeak ridership whatsoever heck its ridership is abysmal. queens express service is good enough all that is needed is QM20 wall street.

Edited by qjtransitmaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh, NIMBY's...

 

They get on my nerves SO much...

 

 

For some reason, I didn't see this.

 

Anyway, if NIMBYs are protesting against having bus service in their neighborhood, chances are that route would've never gotten high ridership anyway.

 

In some cases, it's a matter of NIMBYs being more vocal than the people who would actually use the service (for instance back when the S74 was first rerouted through Rossville, I heard that somebody actually drove through the neighborhood and ripped out all the bus stop poles, so I would imagine there were some pretty vocal NIMBYs before the route was changed). Now that it's been rerouted, it doesn't get much ridership, but it's shown that the service was needed down there, because at least some people use it and they'd have really crappy alternatives without the S74 (and I guess times have changed since then, since nobody protested against the S55 being extended down there).

 

Of course, in cases such as rail service where it would clearly get good ridership and benefit a ton of people, then the NIMBYs are annoying (and in some cases, their arguments make no sense.) I remember at the NSRR meeting, people were complaining about "pristine land" by Richmond Terrace (if old factories are pristine land, then yes, that land was very pristine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some cases, it's a matter of NIMBYs being more vocal than the people who would actually use the service (for instance back when the S74 was first rerouted through Rossville, I heard that somebody actually drove through the neighborhood and ripped out all the bus stop poles, so I would imagine there were some pretty vocal NIMBYs before the route was changed). Now that it's been rerouted, it doesn't get much ridership, but it's shown that the service was needed down there, because at least some people use it and they'd have really crappy alternatives without the S74 (and I guess times have changed since then, since nobody protested against the S55 being extended down there).

 

NIMBY's getting down and dirty, huh? Not something you see every day... Probably a prank by some stupid teenager...

 

Of course, in cases such as rail service where it would clearly get good ridership and benefit a ton of people, then the NIMBYs are annoying (and in some cases, their arguments make no sense.) I remember at the NSRR meeting, people were complaining about "pristine land" by Richmond Terrace (if old factories are pristine land, then yes, that land was very pristine)

 

 

LOL, factories = pristine land... that's new!

 

But really, even in the Rockaway Branch discussion, residents in Forest Hills/Rego Park are protesting the reactivation plan! And the line will benefit them as well. Hypocrites....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason, I didn't see this.

 

Anyway, if NIMBYs are protesting against having bus service in their neighborhood, chances are that route would've never gotten high ridership anyway.

 

In some cases, it's a matter of NIMBYs being more vocal than the people who would actually use the service (for instance back when the S74 was first rerouted through Rossville, I heard that somebody actually drove through the neighborhood and ripped out all the bus stop poles, so I would imagine there were some pretty vocal NIMBYs before the route was changed). Now that it's been rerouted, it doesn't get much ridership, but it's shown that the service was needed down there, because at least some people use it and they'd have really crappy alternatives without the S74 (and I guess times have changed since then, since nobody protested against the S55 being extended down there).

 

Of course, in cases such as rail service where it would clearly get good ridership and benefit a ton of people, then the NIMBYs are annoying (and in some cases, their arguments make no sense.) I remember at the NSRR meeting, people were complaining about "pristine land" by Richmond Terrace (if old factories are pristine land, then yes, that land was very pristine)

 

 

LMAO... I can't believe anyone would use the word "pristine" and Richmond Terrace together in a sentence. The only area IMO that is decent is around the courthouse by the ferry and Snug Harbor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO... I can't believe anyone would use the word "pristine" and Richmond Terrace together in a sentence. The only area IMO that is decent is around the courthouse by the ferry and Snug Harbor.

 

 

It doesn't matter what the neighborhood is like. Even in the parts by Snug Harbor where it's in a "good" area, the land along the waterfront is still run-down, industrial land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what the neighborhood is like. Even in the parts by Snug Harbor where it's in a "good" area, the land along the waterfront is still run-down, industrial land.

 

 

Yeah, that was the point... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richmond terrace... pristine? ....I needed a good laugh.

 

did webster suddenly change the definition of that word.... because pristine it is not.

No industrial area ever is.....

 

That show on the discovery channel isn't called "clean jobs"....

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIMBY's getting down and dirty, huh? Not something you see every day... Probably a prank by some stupid teenager...

 

 

 

LOL, factories = pristine land... that's new!

 

But really, even in the Rockaway Branch discussion, residents in Forest Hills/Rego Park are protesting the reactivation plan! And the line will benefit them as well. Hypocrites....

 

The wonderful power of drugs man those idiots have no say MTA will just say FU!!! and do it anyway. The cheapest way to reactivate it is extend MNRR trains to howard beach and electrify with MN technology so LIRR trains won't be wasted on it heck they won't even need to order new ones as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a map of some of my proposals. I excluded a few like the S52 extension to Richmond Road, but these are the most important proposals IMO: http://www.google.co...5338cf80d&msa=0

 

I'd like to comment on all of these, but google maps is loading unbelievably slow.... I'll have to get to these some other time.

 

again, thanks for the reminder.

 

 

alright, let's see here....

 

- I like that 42/54 combination, including having it serve oakwood & new dorp.... I always found having the 76 supplementing the 74 along richmond rd., etc. to be somewhat strange/pointless.... Same deal w/ the current 54's two end terminals.....

 

- I would keep 98's "in-house", so to speak....

But for the sake of discussion/increasing coverage, is there any specific reason you have them going to downtown elizabeth, instead of jersey gardens ?

 

- I agree with having the 52 coming back up to serve hylan blvd & richmond rd (instead of the 51).... The S51 should go no further north than hylan, IMO.... I would also change the S52 around arrochar & rosebank....

 

S52 (ferry bound): mcclean > lily pond > school rd > bay st > fingerboard > tompkins > regular route....

S52 (richmond rd bound): fingerboard > tompkins > lily pond > mcclean > regular route...

 

- I can agree w/ sending the 55 to perth.... except I think it should run down new brunswick rd & then swing back on smith st, towards NJT Perth amboy - Picking up/Dropping off pax w/i downtown perth amboy, while running non-stop on amboy av...

 

- S74/84 routing w/i Rossville & points south.... yup, agreed.

 

- S78/S59... I guess the 78 move would make sense for the tottenville HS kids, but in general, I don't agree with these two ideas.... don't see too many ppl. using local buses along huguenot av no more than they do along the part of hylan the 78 currently does.... may as well cut the S78 to SIR Huguenot if you want to cut down on the S78's mileage or w/e....

 

.....and as slow as the S59 is, that needs to remain the only north-south route within SI that "works"... not having all 59's run down to tottenville.... On that route, I would increase the span, but decrease the frequency towards tottenville... In other words, more buses ending at hylan/richmond (av) & more service to/from tottenville on the 59 throughout the day....

 

- an S79 via great kills ("S79a"), I doubt it'd be worth it (yes, I realize you'd need something to cover that portion w/ no 54 there)....

Curious though.... how often would 79's take on this routing?

 

- your S82, S83, and S93 I already spoke on.... Well, the 83 in threads in the past anyway, which I agree with.... but no way do I agree with any northward extension of the SI-brooklyn routes - especially having them use anymore of the gowanus then they have to......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh. Friggin' kid next to me felt the need to stare at me while I was typing a response at school, so I had to X it out. Anyway...

 

again, thanks for the reminder.

 

alright, let's see here....

 

- I like that 42/54 combination, including having it serve oakwood & new dorp.... I always found having the 76 supplementing the 74 along richmond rd., etc. to be somewhat strange/pointless.... Same deal w/ the current 54's two end terminals.....

 

- I would keep 98's "in-house", so to speak....

But for the sake of discussion/increasing coverage, is there any specific reason you have them going to downtown elizabeth, instead of jersey gardens ?

 

- I agree with having the 52 coming back up to serve hylan blvd & richmond rd (instead of the 51).... The S51 should go no further north than hylan, IMO.... I would also change the S52 around arrochar & rosebank....

 

S52 (ferry bound): mcclean > lily pond > school rd > bay st > fingerboard > tompkins > regular route....

S52 (richmond rd bound): fingerboard > tompkins > lily pond > mcclean > regular route...

 

- I can agree w/ sending the 55 to perth.... except I think it should run down new brunswick rd & then swing back on smith st, towards NJT Perth amboy - Picking up/Dropping off pax w/i downtown perth amboy, while running non-stop on amboy av...

 

- S74/84 routing w/i Rossville & points south.... yup, agreed.

 

- S78/S59... I guess the 78 move would make sense for the tottenville HS kids, but in general, I don't agree with these two ideas.... don't see too many ppl. using local buses along huguenot av no more than they do along the part of hylan the 78 currently does.... may as well cut the S78 to SIR Huguenot if you want to cut down on the S78's mileage or w/e....

 

.....and as slow as the S59 is, that needs to remain the only north-south route within SI that "works"... not having all 59's run down to tottenville.... On that route, I would increase the span, but decrease the frequency towards tottenville... In other words, more buses ending at hylan/richmond (av) & more service to/from tottenville on the 59 throughout the day....

 

- an S79 via great kills ("S79a"), I doubt it'd be worth it (yes, I realize you'd need something to cover that portion w/ no 54 there)....

Curious though.... how often would 79's take on this routing?

 

- your S82, S83, and S93 I already spoke on.... Well, the 83 in threads in the past anyway, which I agree with.... but no way do I agree with any northward extension of the SI-brooklyn routes - especially having them use anymore of the gowanus then they have to......

 

 

No problem.

 

* For the S76, I originally was planning on having the S54 only go to New Dorp during the week, and during on weekends, it would be extended to Oakwood Beach (to compensate for the loss of S76 service there). But now that you mention it, I doubt a whole lot of people are riding all the way from Oakwood to St. George, since they could transfer to the SIR at New Dorp, and for the people who use it in Park Hill, they could just use the S78 (or the S74 if they're along Richmond Road). New Dorp Lane is probably better off with access to somewhere not on the East Shore.

 

I guess if the residents in that area complain about the loss in frequency (right now, the S76 runs every 15 minutes and the S54 runs every 30), then the S76 could just be reduced to run every 30 minutes, and then the MTA would try to spread the buses out as much as possible (to get the headways as close to 15 minutes as they can)

 

* For the S98, I sent it to Downtown Elizabeth because it offers more connections. Obviously the NJT rail lines and then all the buses as a bonus (though I doubt many S98 riders would transfer to the buses). Plus, I forgot that the #40 also served Newark Airport (I thought the only Elizabeth-EWR route was the #62). But I also figured there might be some SI riders who'd appreciate a quick connection to Newark Penn Station, rather than having to take a slow bus ride.

 

* I wasn't really looking at it as an either-or situation. My point was to provide some sort of east-west service by the Berry Houses, but it wouldn't be at the expense of riders in Grant City. I decided to revise the route so that it passes through the hospital instead of staying straight on Seaview Avenue, since it would add less time than I originally thought.

 

For the reroute in Arrochar, I don't really have an opinion.

 

* I'd prefer it take a more direct route to reach the train station, and then if you want it to serve Downtown Perth Amboy, it could do so (It could just take the #813 route within Downtown Perth Amboy). As for the nonstop portion along Amboy Avenue, I think you could just have a couple of stops (say Amboy & New Brunswick, Amboy & Hall, and Amboy & Keene) just for convenience purposes, to save whatever riders there are from having to backtrack to Downtown PA just to catch the bus.

 

* The S78 down Huguenot Avenue was for network coverage purposes. I figured that with the S59 covering Tottenville, the S78 might as well cover some other part of the South Shore instead of just ending at Hylan & Richmond. It would only be every other bus (a bus every 30 minutes) or maybe even every third bus (a bus every 45 minutes) just for basic network coverage (Ideally, it would be a bus every hour, but with the long route of the S78, it would be unreliable for the riders along Huguenot Avenue)

 

Of course, the problem is that there's no real ridership generator in the area (unless Huguenot riders want to go shopping in New Dorp), so it might not be worth extending the S78 to that area.

 

For the S59, what would you have them do? Run every 15 minutes to Hylan & Richmond and every 30 minutes to Tottenville? And where would the S78 end? (Main & Amboy, Hylan & Richmond, or Tottenville HS?)

 

* It would just be coverage headways. Probably every 30 minutes all day and maybe every 20 minutes during rush hours. I figure there's more demand to reach the ETC, SI Mall, and the shopping in New Dorp, compared to the areas where the S54 served.

 

* You probably already know this, but this was to give riders an easier transfer to the (N), since a lot of times they don't connect (and of course, it's especially annoying when the (R) closes the doors just as the (N) pulls in)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh. Friggin' kid next to me felt the need to stare at me while I was typing a response at school, so I had to X it out. Anyway...

 

 

No problem.

 

* For the S76, I originally was planning on having the S54 only go to New Dorp during the week, and during on weekends, it would be extended to Oakwood Beach (to compensate for the loss of S76 service there). But now that you mention it, I doubt a whole lot of people are riding all the way from Oakwood to St. George, since they could transfer to the SIR at New Dorp, and for the people who use it in Park Hill, they could just use the S78 (or the S74 if they're along Richmond Road). New Dorp Lane is probably better off with access to somewhere not on the East Shore.

 

I guess if the residents in that area complain about the loss in frequency (right now, the S76 runs every 15 minutes and the S54 runs every 30), then the S76 could just be reduced to run every 30 minutes, and then the MTA would try to spread the buses out as much as possible (to get the headways as close to 15 minutes as they can)

 

* For the S98, I sent it to Downtown Elizabeth because it offers more connections. Obviously the NJT rail lines and then all the buses as a bonus (though I doubt many S98 riders would transfer to the buses). Plus, I forgot that the #40 also served Newark Airport (I thought the only Elizabeth-EWR route was the #62). But I also figured there might be some SI riders who'd appreciate a quick connection to Newark Penn Station, rather than having to take a slow bus ride.

 

* I wasn't really looking at it as an either-or situation. My point was to provide some sort of east-west service by the Berry Houses, but it wouldn't be at the expense of riders in Grant City. I decided to revise the route so that it passes through the hospital instead of staying straight on Seaview Avenue, since it would add less time than I originally thought.

 

For the reroute in Arrochar, I don't really have an opinion.

 

* I'd prefer it take a more direct route to reach the train station, and then if you want it to serve Downtown Perth Amboy, it could do so (It could just take the #813 route within Downtown Perth Amboy). As for the nonstop portion along Amboy Avenue, I think you could just have a couple of stops (say Amboy & New Brunswick, Amboy & Hall, and Amboy & Keene) just for convenience purposes, to save whatever riders there are from having to backtrack to Downtown PA just to catch the bus.

 

* The S78 down Huguenot Avenue was for network coverage purposes. I figured that with the S59 covering Tottenville, the S78 might as well cover some other part of the South Shore instead of just ending at Hylan & Richmond. It would only be every other bus (a bus every 30 minutes) or maybe even every third bus (a bus every 45 minutes) just for basic network coverage (Ideally, it would be a bus every hour, but with the long route of the S78, it would be unreliable for the riders along Huguenot Avenue)

 

Of course, the problem is that there's no real ridership generator in the area (unless Huguenot riders want to go shopping in New Dorp), so it might not be worth extending the S78 to that area.

 

For the S59, what would you have them do? Run every 15 minutes to Hylan & Richmond and every 30 minutes to Tottenville? And where would the S78 end? (Main & Amboy, Hylan & Richmond, or Tottenville HS?)

 

* It would just be coverage headways. Probably every 30 minutes all day and maybe every 20 minutes during rush hours. I figure there's more demand to reach the ETC, SI Mall, and the shopping in New Dorp, compared to the areas where the S54 served.

 

* You probably already know this, but this was to give riders an easier transfer to the (N), since a lot of times they don't connect (and of course, it's especially annoying when the (R) closes the doors just as the (N) pulls in)

I get that all the time while on the exp. bus coming home; you'd think no one ever saw a brotha w/ a laptop... Anyway:

 

 

S98: (Not sayin it necessarily has to be the 98, but in general)

I'm still of the belief that if a SI route were to ever be sent to Jersey Gardens, you can have people from as far out as Queens willing to take such a route, instead of heading out to PABT & paying that 6.50 on the NJT111.... if it's newark or elizabeth they need, the NJT 40 & 62 are also in the area..... I'm not sure how much demand there is to downtown elizabeth itself, from any of the boroughs, incl. SI.....

 

S52: Oh, I got that you were tryna improve the network.... What I said about the 51 had to do w/ my observations..... plus, quite frankly, the S52 serves more areas w/i SI (and that would improve w/ your 52 extension).... on the 51, all you have is fr. cap & bay st (and ft. wadsworth, if that's where you need to get to, but that hardly defines the majority of riders).... and of course, a quicker ride to the ferry over the 52..... but you'd think folks would take the 74 if that were the case...

 

In conjunction w/ that 52 re-route in Arrochar, etc... I forgot to mention.... from hylan/service rd N&S, I would have the S78 use service rd. N & S to fingerboard rd, then run em down fingerboard rd to hylan blvd, to regular route...... The whole point of re-routing the 52 around there is to increase awareness of the route; b/c I get the sense that if it paralleled the 53, you may get more riders coming from brooklyn off the 53, willing to xfer to the 52 if it's "right there" with the 53......

 

S78: Also figured that much (regarding coverage)... That's why I pointed out the lack of (probable) usage along Huguenot av.... I think an express route that's routed to run up/down huguenot av might catch on though, but that's another discussion....

 

....as for that last question, originally in regards to what I commenting on regarding your idea, I was thinking it could/would end at SIR huguenot... laying over on drumgoole rd E & using the parking lot to turnaround.... but now that I think about it, buses won't be able to maneuver inside that parking lot if it's full.....

 

S59: Service to Hylan/Richmond would be unaffected (well, actually I would increase the headways to every like, 12 mins during the rush... an extra bus/hour might make a difference on that route), but to go on w/ your question..... Service to tottenville would run every 30-45 mins (depending on time of day).... I always thought S59 service every 15 mins to tottenville was excessive, even if it is during the rush..... But I do think 59's could/should be sent out there outside of rush hrs, as well....

 

S79a & Brooklyn extensions to 59th st subway: (respectively)

Gotcha..... and yep, I figured the notion was to eliminate having riders xferring from the R to the N....

 

I never disclosed this in the Brooklyn thread, but that's one of the main reasons I would run the B11 down to 60th st, en route towards the hosp. (folks can just ride the N out to 59th coming from the north & board the B11 there, en route to Lutheran....instead of having to worry with the R).... b/c what's actually done over there is folks taking the R to 53rd, and if there's no bus in sight, they walk to the hospital.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing was I'm afraid he'd start reading what I was typing out loud (he was a classmate). Obviously, what I'm typing here is nothing to be embarrassed of, but I'm technically not supposed to be on this site in school, and I was afraid the librarian would hear him. I mean, this kid was literally staring into my screen trying to read what I was typing.

 

But anyway, for the bus route over the Goethals Bridge, I would have it go to Downtown Elizabeth for all the connections available. I mean, it's a faster route to take the NEC to Newark Penn Station instead of taking a bus (from either Elizabeth or the JG Mall), and plus you have connections available to everywhere else along the train lines (and plus, you have all the buses as well, if somebody's going a relatively short distance to Newark or Roselle or something. Besides, the route could always continue on to the JG Mall after having served Downtown Elizabeth.

 

* S52: Well, I'd think the SIR would beat any of those routes to the ferry. ;)

 

In any case, the thing is that for the riders coming off the S74, the S52 might serve more areas, but for the people in Grant City, taking away the S51 would make it harder to reach the whole South Beach area. I mean, they could take the S74 to the S52, or they could walk back to Hylan Blvd, but what's the point when you could just bring the S51 right to them, since it's a fairly short distance?

 

And for the Arrochar reroute, the S52/S53 already share a short stint along Sand Lane. I've seen passengers transfer from St. George-bound S52s to Port Richmond-bound S53s where the buses were at the same stop (I think it was Sand Lane & McClean Avenue). I'm not sure if a same-stop transfers exists the other way, though.

 

S59/S78: The thing is that it's going to be an adjustment to go from having both the S59 & S78 at 15 minute headways each to having just the S59 every 30 minutes. And the same for off-peak (the S78 every 15 minutes to the S59 every 45 minutes). I mean, I guess it's just tailoring service levels to ridership (since it's mostly empty down along Hylan Blvd. The only real "urban" area would be Tottenville itself), but I do think service should run a bit more frequently (more like 15 minutes peak & 30 minutes off-peak).

 

And I don't think the extra S59 bus per hour should be added. Generally, the buses don't get too crowded except for once in a blue moon, or certain particular runs (around say, 7AM going southbound). Personally, what I'd do is have all of the bus routes stop on the same side of the mall (since Marsh Avenue is a fairly wide street to cross and can sometimes be congested with the schools there, I'd have all of the buses use the "back" part of Ring Road). That would give passengers the full range of options depending on where they're going (You want the ETC? You have the S55/56/59/79/89 all at your fingertips. You want Richmond Avenue? You have the S44/59/94/89 all right there).

 

I mean, as of right now, everybody flocks to the S44/S59 because they're more frequent than the S89, and you see the result in the levels of crowding. Generally, none of the buses are crushloaded, but you'll see an S44 (more often than an S59) with a decent number of standees and then behind it you'll see an S89 with less than 10 people, and it's not like the ridership is all concentrated at the local stops.

 

S53/79/93: What's your take then? I mean, the only other thing would be to try to ensure better connections between the (N) & (R), but that's just not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for the S89, it really wasn't made to get much ridership along Richmond Av, but overally I've seen it get more people in the reverse peak direction even if it's just a few extra riders. I know by using it myself during the afternoons when I'm traveling in SI.

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.