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

1) They have MULTIPLE options already along Richmond Avenue which you refuse to accept. I've stated what the S89 is for. If you don't want to accept that that's your problem not mine. I'm satisfied with the S89 routing the way that it is. All I stated was that the buses could be more spread apart in terms of how they run down Richmond Avenue.

 

2) I clarified myself already in previous posts. You're clearly hard of reading. <_<

 

3) Well suite yourself then. Just stop going on an on about it already if you're not going to move forward with it. Waste of time... And big deal if you do find the post... Last time I checked I'm allowed to change my point of view...

 

4) Of course they don't because I disagree with them, so they automatically don't make any sense. How dare anyone disagree with checkmate... <_<

 

5) Well I guess you don't plan on proposing this idea then... In that case there is no point in discussing this any further.

 

 

1) You do realize that the original plan was to keep it on Marsh Avenue and reroute the S44 & S59 there? The reason I moved all the buses is because there is less potential for traffic on Ring Road, which benefits current S89 riders as well.

 

2) Yeah, and it still makes no sense whatsoever.

 

3) I will move forward with it. Just not now.

 

4) Oh really, so you don't think Hylan Blvd should have bus lanes, and TSP. Because that's what Molinaro thinks. I guess you like keeping buses slow for no reason...

 

5) I will, just not now. James Oddo seems open to new ideas (because he's the only one who responded to my S93 extension, which need I remind you also included your S83 limited), and this one is completely cost-neutral, so it might be easier to pass.

 

In any case, I'm done arguing with you. I posted it a while on Subchat, and most people thought it was a good idea, and B35 (because he's the only one really involved with this thread besides me and you) admitted that I defended my argument well. What do I care if you think my idea is ridiculous? There are plenty of people who don't.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3) I will move forward with it. Just not now.

 

Good. For now there is no point in discussing this further.

 

4) Oh really, so you don't think Hylan Blvd should have bus lanes, and TSP. Because that's what Molinaro thinks. I guess you like keeping buses slow for no reason...

I don't know what you're talking about. In any event I'm done having this discussion.

 

5) I will, just not now. James Oddo seems open to new ideas (because he's the only one who responded to my S93 extension, which need I remind you also included your S83 limited), and this one is completely cost-neutral, so it might be easier to pass.

Good, so you can propose it to him then.

 

In any case, I'm done arguing with you. I posted it a while on Subchat, and most people thought it was a good idea, and B35 (because he's the only one really involved with this thread besides me and you) admitted that I defended my argument well. What do I care if you think my idea is ridiculous? There are plenty of people who don't.

 

Good, now let's move on already.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what you're talking about. In any event I'm done having this discussion.

 

 

You said yourself the borough president is an idiot. Somehow he has to approve of my idea in order for it to be considered good?

 

In any case, I'm not even going to bother with you, but for anybody else who needs more reasons, here's a guy who thinks my idea is a good one: http://www.subchat.com/buschat/read.asp?Id=235225

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said yourself the borough president is an idiot. Somehow he has to approve of my idea in order for it to be considered good?

 

 

Unless you really think the (MTA) will approve of it with you presenting on your own... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you really think the (MTA) will approve of it with you presenting on your own... :lol:

 

 

That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing whether the idea is good, not whether the MTA will approve it.

 

In any case, who says it has to be Molinaro presenting it? I would probably ask for Cusick's help since at least he gave me the courtesy of a response and at least a sign that he attempted something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But still, what the hell do express buses have to go with anything? Whether we're discussing all the Richmond Avenue routes, or just the SI Mall area, or just the S59, there was no point in him bringing it up.

With the discussion the both of us were having earlier... Nothing.

 

But what does this have to do with me exactly......

I mean, you post this as if I'm defending his bringing up of express buses....

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the discussion the both of us were having earlier... Nothing.

 

But what does this have to do with me exactly......

I mean, you post this as if I'm defending his bringing up of express buses....

 

 

This has nothing to do with you. I'm just saying that you were the one who originally brought up the S59, and we're discussing it and how it relates to the SI Mall (well, I was bringing up the SI Mall), and then he comes in out of nowhere acting like somehow an express bus helps the people going up Richmond Avenue. It was just an explanation of how it's irrelevant to anything you and I were talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing whether the idea is good, not whether the MTA will approve it.

 

In any case, who says it has to be Molinaro presenting it? I would probably ask for Cusick's help since at least he gave me the courtesy of a response and at least a sign that he attempted something.

 

 

Not to play down the fact that SI has been screwed when it comes to bus service for years, I believe that you really don't need to go as far as to try and get your ideas implemented. Are you sure the (MTA) would like them? Are they "cost-neutral"? There are so many variables that play into that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing whether the idea is good, not whether the MTA will approve it.

 

In any case, who says it has to be Molinaro presenting it? I would probably ask for Cusick's help since at least he gave me the courtesy of a response and at least a sign that he attempted something.

 

 

Well I don't discuss bus routes to see if they're good ideas or not. I discuss them for them to be implemented. I'm not one of those that just makes up a bunch of routes just because. I am a passenger first and foremost and I am always thinking about how the system can be better for the passengers. This ongoing discussion about the S89 I will not budge on because I am a daily commuter who pays a premium to get to work quickly. Before I continue don't go telling me about how the S89 isn't a premium fare. This is very similar to your S93 proposal which I also didn't support. Both routes have a core group which is being marketed to and THEY COME FIRST BEFORE any other group, period. You can cry about the routes serving others and all of that which is true, but that's what it comes down to and when you start catering to everyone else but your core group of riders on certain lines you're just creating unnecessary problems. If for whatever reason the S93 and S89 started to have problems arriving or bunching you'd have that core group of riders in a uproar and don't go telling me about oh well it's only a few minutes, etc. etc. That is not the point.

 

As for Cusick you can send it to him, but realize that some representatives have more pull than others. Cusick may want to help but may not have the pull to get it pushed through like Molinaro has. That's the point.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to play down the fact that SI has been screwed when it comes to bus service for years, I believe that you really don't need to go as far as to try and get your ideas implemented. Are you sure the (MTA) would like them? Are they "cost-neutral"? There are so many variables that play into that.

 

 

Well, the one above is (with the rerouting of the buses by the SI Mall), so I'll have to see what I want to focus on. The S83 would probably cost a little bit of money, all-day weekday service on the S98 would probably be more-or-less cost-neutral (and if it were to run for a couple of hours on Saturday, I think I can make it cost-neutral). Expanded S96 service would probably cost a little bit of money. I have to decide which one I want serving my area: The S93 or a new route called the S82 that I mentioned before. The S93 is probably easier to pass, but the problem is that it only provides part-time service.

 

And in any case, they're willing to spend $300,000 improving service along the S79 route (yes, I know those improvements are warranted), so we'll have to see.

 

Well I don't discuss bus routes to see if they're good ideas or not. I discuss them for them to be implemented. I'm not one of those that just makes up a bunch of routes just because. I am a passenger first and foremost and I am always thinking about how the system can be better for the passengers. This ongoing discussion about the S89 I will not budge on because I am a daily commuter who pays a premium to get to work quickly. Before I continue don't go telling me about how the S89 isn't a premium fare. This is very similar to your S93 proposal which I also didn't support. Both routes have a core group which is being marketed to and THEY COME FIRST BEFORE any other group, period. You can cry about the routes serving others and all of that which is true, but that's what it comes down to and when you start catering to everyone else but your core group of riders on certain lines you're just creating unnecessary problems. If for whatever reason the S93 and S89 started to have problems arriving or bunching you'd have that core group of riders in a uproar and don't go telling me about oh well it's only a few minutes, etc. etc. That is not the point.

 

As for Cusick you can send it to him, but realize that some representatives have more pull than others. Cusick may want to help but may not have the pull to get it pushed through like Molinaro has. That's the point.

 

 

That's what I mean by a good idea. That it will benefit the passengers. But the problem is that the MTA doesn't like major changes, and some areas need a major overhaul of the routes. I think the B7 to Canarsie is a great idea and will benefit more passengers overall. Just add a little service on the B82 for Midwood riders and you're good to go. But it's a major change and I doubt the MTA would go for it. But just because they wouldn't go for it doesn't make it a good idea. (Remember that this is the same agency that cut the B64 back from Coney Island. They're not going for re-extending it even though obviously it's a good idea) And even if it's cost-neutral, you're talking about an agency that took 4 months to mail me back a $2.05 MetroCard. You honestly think they're going to do things quickly and do them right?

 

And for the S89, you have no valid argument. I want you to read this very carefully before you respond, or else don't even bother.

 

The buses would not get hit with any extra traffic, and you act like there are going to be a whole mob of people boarding. In fact, moving it to that road gets it away from whatever traffic is on Marsh Avenue. And aside from that, the only time when it would see any sort of significant increase in ridership is PM rush northbound (but keep in mind that the buses will not become "crushloaded" unless your definition of crushloaded is only having 5 empty seats instead of 20). There will be no problems because buses will not have any source of significant delays. I can assure you because I'm a daily rider of the S89.

 

All the other times (AM rush both northbound and southbound, and PM rush southbound), there will be no difference at all in the levels of crowding or anything, because of the reasons I mentioned a few posts up. I wrote a friggin' essay explaining why I feel this would work and how the ridership habits are on the S89. If I take the time to give my logic, the very least you can do is read it and understand where I'm coming from.

 

For the S93, you know where all the traffic it hits is? East of CSI. That's right. The worst part of the route as far as reliability is concerned is where it gets backed up making the left turn to get into CSI. You're not going to sit there and tell me about the traffic patterns in my own (general) neighborhood, and on a route I've used many times. Traffic west of CSI isn't that bad. This is after hundreds of times riding the S62/S92 (hell, even toss the X10/X11 in for that matter), I have yet to encounter a serious traffic jam. It can get a little bit jammed eastbound at that light by Christopher Lane, but because the "relief point" (South Gannon Avenue) is only a short distance away, that jam only lasts for a couple of minutes. Once you make it past that CSI light, you're good to go, so I'm telling you traffic isn't bad.

 

If it makes you feel better (and it would be unnecessary IMO), just do what the S62s do eastbound in the PM. Have half of them start at CSI. But at least some S93 trip should go further west. And like I said, if college students are the primary ridership, why did it get reverse-peak service (because what student starts class at 6AM?). If you're talking about SI college students going to school in Manhattan or Brooklyn, what makes you think they only live east of CSI?

 

As for Cusick and Molinaro, Cusick may have better contacts to the other politicians than I do. Molinaro may not listen to me if I contact him directly, but he may listen if Cusick speaks to him. A letter from another politician is probably higher on his list of priorities than a letter from a private citizen.

Edited by checkmatechamp13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a little extra time, so I decided to map out the route the different routes would take behind the mall. I tried to put the stops at places that were convenient for the mall riders and didn't interfere with traffic. Hopefully, they'd be able to just throw down some concrete to put a bus stop there.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=214504384267441423605.0004c10a7d48ceb207b87&msa=0&ll=40.580585,-74.160118&spn=0.015906,0.042272

 

I decided to keep the S61/S91 along Marsh Avenue, so there wouldn't be too much traffic along Ring Road (and the X17/X31 would remain on Marsh Avenue as well, though I never intended to move them in the first place)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well enhancing B17 and better dispaching would eliminate the need to send B7 to canarsie

 

 

But the point is to make the B7 more efficient in addition to better-serving Canarsie residents. If there isn't that much demand for travel between the Ocean Hill/Remsen Village area and Midwood, you might as well try to better-serve the riders in Canarsie. It's probably a similar cost as enhancing the B17.

 

Anyway, I re-read the committee meeting materials and they say that they're trying to get a bus facility on the northern side of Macy's for the S79 +SBS+, so if they can do that, they can probably build a second stop on the southern side of Sear's for the routes I'd reroute to the other side of the SI Mall, but I'll have to work quick to make sure they don't improve the stops on the western side of the mall and then have to tear them out because the buses are rerouted.

 

On a side note, I wonder how it'll take 6 months just do do a couple of improvements? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well enhancing B17 and better dispaching would eliminate the need to send B7 to canarsie

 

....Which remedies nothing for the B7.

 

Not gonna say anything further about this in the SI thread....

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well try B7 to broadway jct or if one has ballz to Jfk via linden the traffic east of kings hwy isnt that bad. With broadway jct you get LIRR and the (J) & (A) to queens improving regional travel. Northern part transfered to another rte I will elaborate later in brooklyn forum. I rather strengthen B17 than leave its problems ignored then distrupt the structure of another line like B7 there are other ways to save it. Besides making folk transfer from (4) to (3) just to reach this B7 is more work and waiting for customers than simply enhancing and regulating B17 properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the point is to make the B7 more efficient in addition to better-serving Canarsie residents. If there isn't that much demand for travel between the Ocean Hill/Remsen Village area and Midwood, you might as well try to better-serve the riders in Canarsie. It's probably a similar cost as enhancing the B17.

 

Anyway, I re-read the committee meeting materials and they say that they're trying to get a bus facility on the northern side of Macy's for the S79 +SBS+, so if they can do that, they can probably build a second stop on the southern side of Sear's for the routes I'd reroute to the other side of the SI Mall, but I'll have to work quick to make sure they don't improve the stops on the western side of the mall and then have to tear them out because the buses are rerouted.

 

On a side note, I wonder how it'll take 6 months just do do a couple of improvements? :wacko:

 

 

With the way that the city works it could take 6 months or more for a couple of improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the way that the city works it could take 6 months or more for a couple of improvements.

 

And it'll probably only be a couple of days to do the actual construction.

 

Anyway, does anybody recommend any online petition sites? I'll try to see if I can get one of my proposals passed (I'll probably either try the S82 or just the streamlining of the buses behind the mall), but I want to see if there's one where I could attach a link to my Google Maps route to make everything clearer (instead of listing out the turn-by-turn directions)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(IMO, the S89 & 93 should be full time, the other 90's weekdays & Saturdays, and the 80's weekdays only, with the exception of the S84...)

 

 

* If the S89 runs off-peak, it should be from Forest Avenue to Bayonne, because there's no point in having all those extra buses going down Richmond Avenue when there's already the S44 & S59 (or S59 & S79 south of the SI Mall). I mean, you do benefit riders at the Eltingville Transit Center (ETC), which is a major stop for riders going to Bayonne, but it's just too much wasted milage IMO.

 

But I did come up with a proposal to send it to the South Shore and have it fill in some service gaps along the way. It was the S82 proposal I mentioned earlier. B35 brings up a good point that the West Shore Expressway is unreliable, but hopefully there would be some way to work around it.

 

* Saturday service on the S93, I can see because they could just convert the S62 short-turns to S93s at little to no cost. (Plus, it would benefit riders in Travis by having the buses connect to the ferry better). Sunday service I can't see happening, though.

 

But for the other S90s, the only ones that really have the demand for more service are the S96 & S98. Both of them should run weekdays, all day in both directions, with headways of 15-20 minutes reverse-peak, and 30 minutes during middays. The S98 should run middays and PM rush on Saturdays. It wouldn't cost a whole lot because it would simply be a matter of converting some local buses to limiteds (and then maybe adding a couple of more buses to maintain those headways).

 

For the S80s, the only thing I can see would be having AM limited-stop service. There's no need to run them all day because there isn't too much demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* If the S89 runs off-peak, it should be from Forest Avenue to Bayonne, because there's no point in having all those extra buses going down Richmond Avenue when there's already the S44 & S59 (or S59 & S79 south of the SI Mall). I mean, you do benefit riders at the Eltingville Transit Center (ETC), which is a major stop for riders going to Bayonne, but it's just too much wasted milage IMO.

 

But I did come up with a proposal to send it to the South Shore and have it fill in some service gaps along the way. It was the S82 proposal I mentioned earlier. B35 brings up a good point that the West Shore Expressway is unreliable, but hopefully there would be some way to work around it.

 

* Saturday service on the S93, I can see because they could just convert the S62 short-turns to S93s at little to no cost. (Plus, it would benefit riders in Travis by having the buses connect to the ferry better). Sunday service I can't see happening, though.

 

But for the other S90s, the only ones that really have the demand for more service are the S96 & S98. Both of them should run weekdays, all day in both directions, with headways of 15-20 minutes reverse-peak, and 30 minutes during middays. The S98 should run middays and PM rush on Saturdays. It wouldn't cost a whole lot because it would simply be a matter of converting some local buses to limiteds (and then maybe adding a couple of more buses to maintain those headways).

 

For the S80s, the only thing I can see would be having AM limited-stop service. There's no need to run them all day because there isn't too much demand.

 

 

I would also have the S96 run the same way as the S96.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean? :wacko: You mean the same way as the S46? It already takes the same route.

 

 

Ah, bad post...

 

I meant that the S96 should run the same way as you proposed the S98 should run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, bad post...

 

I meant that the S96 should run the same way as you proposed the S98 should run.

 

 

No problem.

 

In any case, my reasoning was that the S48 has 12-minute headways on Saturday, whereas the S46 has 15-minute headways. My proposal would have the limited running every 30 minutes and the local running every 15 minutes (so all the limiteds would meet the ferry). Since the S98 has a shorter runtime because it's faster, it shouldn't basically cost the same as today.

 

But for the S46, that would require adding buses to get that same level of service. And aside from that, S48 ridership is higher than S46 ridership, since the S48 travels through more commercial areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New proposals

S40: Retain

S42: Retain

S44 Retain

S46 Extra Service to the Teleport

S48 Retain

S51 Discontinue Sunday Ft Wadsworth Service and end Satirday Service to Fort Wadsworth at 5 PM Saturdays and start at 10 AM. Make weekend service every 20 minutes per branch

S52: Make it a limited weekday rush hours from St George to Jersey/ Castleton and along Tompkins Avenue

S53: Retain

S54: Retain

S55/56: Retain

S57: Rerouted in New Dorp

S59: Maybe extra service from 9 Am to 3 PM every 30 minutes weekdays only

S61: Retain

S62: Retain

S66: More frequent service rush hours to 7 minutes

 

S74: Run to New Dorp weekdays when S84 runs to Bricktown. S84 will run weekdays

S76: Disontinued

S78: Retain

S79: Make it a limited only

S81: Run Sundays as well. Fort Wadsworth Trips will be called S81 and make limited stops in Bay Street. Make it bi directional

 

S86: Discontinued

S84: Bi directional Service and local west of New Dorp Lane Off peak hours weekdays

S90: Retain

S91: Discontinued

S92: Disontinued

S93; Extend to SI Mall via Weekday Limited at 10 minute rush, 20 minute off peak from 7 Am to 10 PM

 

 

New proposals

S40: Retain

S42: Retain

S44 Retain

S46 Extra Service to the Teleport

S48 Retain

S51 Discontinue Sunday Ft Wadsworth Service and end Satirday Service to Fort Wadsworth at 5 PM Saturdays and start at 10 AM. Make weekend service every 20 minutes per branch

S52: Make it a limited weekday rush hours from St George to Jersey/ Castleton and along Tompkins Avenue

S53: Retain

S54: Retain

S55/56: Retain

S57: Rerouted in New Dorp

S59: Maybe extra service from 9 Am to 3 PM every 30 minutes weekdays only

S61: Retain

S62: Retain

S66: More frequent service rush hours to 7 minutes

 

S74: Run to New Dorp weekdays when S84 runs to Bricktown. S84 will run weekdays

S76: Disontinued

S78: Retain

S79: Make it a limited only

S81: Run Sundays as well. Fort Wadsworth Trips will be called S81 and make limited stops in Bay Street. Make it bi directional

 

S86: Discontinued

S84: Bi directional Service and local west of New Dorp Lane Off peak hours weekdays

S90: Retain

S91: Discontinued

S92: Disontinued

S93; Extend to SI Mall via Weekday Limited at 10 minute rush, 20 minute off peak from 7 Am to 10 PM

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S46 Extra Service to the Teleport

S51 Discontinue Sunday Ft Wadsworth Service and end Satirday Service to Fort Wadsworth at 5 PM Saturdays and start at 10 AM. Make weekend service every 20 minutes per branch

S52: Make it a limited weekday rush hours from St George to Jersey/ Castleton and along Tompkins Avenue

S57: Rerouted in New Dorp

S59: Maybe extra service from 9 Am to 3 PM every 30 minutes weekdays only

S66: More frequent service rush hours to 7 minutes

S74: Run to New Dorp weekdays when S84 runs to Bricktown. S84 will run weekdays

S76: Disontinued

S79: Make it a limited only

S81: Run Sundays as well. Fort Wadsworth Trips will be called S81 and make limited stops in Bay Street. Make it bi directional

S84: Bi directional Service and local west of New Dorp Lane Off peak hours weekdays

S91: Discontinued

S92: Disontinued

S93; Extend to SI Mall via Weekday Limited at 10 minute rush, 20 minute off peak from 7 Am to 10 PM

 

 

S46: I don't think there's any need for any more service to the Teleport. I still think the West Shore Plaza buses get (slightly) more riders.

 

S51: No comment.

 

S52: I could sort of see the logic (have the S42 & S78 serve as locals), but I don't think you'd save a whole lot of time, considering all the turns and narrow streets the route has to deal with.

 

S57: Elaborate.

 

S59: What do you mean? It runs every 20 minutes middays.

 

S66: There's not enough demand for that. Aside from that, the S66 is the least used out of the Victory Blvd routes.

 

S74: I think the ETC is still a better terminal. You get better connections to other routes.

 

S76: I assume that's what you meant by rerouting the S57. In that case, I'd still keep the S76, but just run it less frequently.

 

S79: Agree.

 

S81: No point. Just keep the current S51 trips via Fort Wadsworth. I don't think the S51 warrants much more than 30 minute headways.

 

S84: Like I said, I don't see the point in off-peak service. As for the New Dorp Lane comment, see above.

 

S91 & S92: Just keep them as is. If you really want to, send those S62 short-turns along the old S67 route instead of having them end at CSI. (Maybe along my proposed route for the S67. ;) )

 

S93: There's no point in sending it to the SI Mall. Others barely want it extended to Richmond Avenue (I'm not one of them), but in any case, once it gets to Richmond Avenue, the S44 & S59 are frequent enough that you don't need another route to the SI Mall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Q23:

 

S46: Has enough service to the Teleport as was mentioned.

 

S52: Are you serious? The S52 has NO where near enough ridership for a limited.

 

S59: Your idea doesn't make sense. You're saying extra service, yet you want 30 minute headways.....

 

S74: Hell no. It's reroute to Bricktown saved a lot of money.

 

S76: It's still needed to serve New Dorp and SI Tech, so don't even think of getting rid of that

 

S79: That, I agree with. Maybe rush hours.

 

S91 and S92 are both heavily used limiteds. If you eliminate them, you'd have to have more local service.

 

S93: No. As I keep stating, it's terminal at CSI is fine. It was not created to go west of there and as Checkmate said, there is enough service on Richmond Avenue to go to the SI Mall.

Edited by S78 via Hylan

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.