Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 5, 2012 Share #201 Posted June 5, 2012 I'm just trying to understand where Q23 got these ideas from?? I mean why in the world you eliminate the S91 and S92? Riders would be pissed #1 and #2 as S78 said you would have to add limited stop service anyway, so might as well keep them as the cost would be higher perhaps to add locals. And the S66... More frequent service?? LOL Not needed. It meanders too much so it gets little usage along Victory Blvd. It's more like supplementary service. Ferry riders don't even bother with it. They just pass it up. I've used it to get to the S53 and it isn't all that crowded at all. Quite frankly they need to re-route that bus elsewhere to make it more useful. I mean why does it go to Port Richmond for??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 5, 2012 Share #202 Posted June 5, 2012 New proposals 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: Discontinued 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: Discontinued S93: Extend to SI Mall via Weekday Limited at 10 minute rush, 20 minute off peak from 7 Am to 10 PM 46- not necessary 51- agree w/ trimming weekend service to/from wadsworth... just have more buses skipping the fort; no need to alter headways.... 52- don't agree.... that's the last route that should have a LTD on it... 57- yeah, how would you reroute buses.... bear in mind SIR New Dorp is a popular stop on the route, so you can't skip that.... 59- are you trying to say you'd add two extra bph b/w 9am & 3pm..... In other words, boosting the headways from 20 mins (3 bph) to 12 mins (5 bph) during those hours? - If not, then I don't have a clue as to what you're trying to say there..... 66- total waste of resources; not necessary to double the rush hour frequency on this route.... it's a supplementary route on victory that sees low usage on Jewett..... 74- In other words, cut the short turn terminal from ETC to New Dorp (& go on to send it to the SIR, I'm assuming) when the 84 runs, and have the 84 run local from New Dorp, onwards.... I can kinda-sorta agree to that.... 76- lemme guess, you want to run the 57 to take on the 76 routing south of the SIR New Dorp station ? 79- You would have to space out stops to where making buses LTD's would be worthwhile along hylan - Meaning, greater distances b/w LTD stops..... distances where you aint goin get people willing to walk to/from (local to LTD stop), nevermind how proximate their residences are from hylan itself..... This is why I don't really agree w/ making it a LTD only route.... it forces ppl. to have to take the 78 to the 79 along hylan if they need to get to Brooklyn if they're not near a LTD stop..... 81- none of this is necessary... 84- simply put, you basically wanna add more LTD service along the 74/84 corridor throughout the day.... LTD service along the 74/84 corridor during off peak hours, I don't agree with...... 91 & 92- peak hour LTD service along those respective corridors are very much necessary.... 93- don't agree with any extension of that route.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 5, 2012 Share #203 Posted June 5, 2012 And the S66... More frequent service?? LOL Not needed. It meanders too much so it gets little usage along Victory Blvd. It's more like supplementary service. Ferry riders don't even bother with it. They just pass it up. I've used it to get to the S53 and it isn't all that crowded at all. Quite frankly they need to re-route that bus elsewhere to make it more useful. I mean why does it go to Port Richmond for??? Actually, believe it or not, it does get decent usage east of Highland Avenue. You have all the apartment buildings and everything, so it doesn't matter what route it takes west of there because those riders are just going to St. George. (But of course, it doesn't warrant 7 minute headways) As far as terminating at Port Richmond, you need a route along Jewett Avenue for coverage purposes, and there's really nowhere else to send it to. And you can't make it meander less because you still have to serve Grymes Hill. I think it just serves its purpose, which is for coverage and connectivity. I mean, I do see a handful of people waiting for it at Howard & Clove (sometimes I pass by on the S53/93 or whatever) to go towards St. George, and they didn't have that access before. And plus, it offers direct access to a bunch of other routes (because before, the S60 only connected to the Victory Blvd routes and S53/93) 52- don't agree.... that's the last route that should have a LTD on it... 74- In other words, cut the short turn terminal from ETC to New Dorp (& go on to send it to the SIR, I'm assuming) when the 84 runs, and have the 84 run local from New Dorp, onwards.... I can kinda-sorta agree to that.... 79- You would have to space out stops to where making buses LTD's would be worthwhile along hylan - Meaning, greater distances b/w LTD stops..... distances where you aint goin get people willing to walk to/from (local to LTD stop), nevermind how proximate their residences are from hylan itself..... This is why I don't really agree w/ making it a LTD only route.... it forces ppl. to have to take the 78 to the 79 along hylan if they need to get to Brooklyn if they're not near a LTD stop..... S52: Like I said, it sounds like he was trying to make it a limited-only route, but I guess I'll wait for him to confirm that. S79: Well, they're already planning on doing that. The limited stops don't look spaced too far apart, so I don't really see the problem. S76: It's still needed to serve New Dorp and SI Tech, so don't even think of getting rid of that As B35 and myself were guessing, maybe he intended to have the S57 cover the southern part of the S76. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 5, 2012 Share #204 Posted June 5, 2012 Actually, believe it or not, it does get decent usage east of Highland Avenue. You have all the apartment buildings and everything, so it doesn't matter what route it takes west of there because those riders are just going to St. George. (But of course, it doesn't warrant 7 minute headways) As far as terminating at Port Richmond, you need a route along Jewett Avenue for coverage purposes, and there's really nowhere else to send it to. And you can't make it meander less because you still have to serve Grymes Hill. I think it just serves its purpose, which is for coverage and connectivity. I mean, I do see a handful of people waiting for it at Howard & Clove (sometimes I pass by on the S53/93 or whatever) to go towards St. George, and they didn't have that access before. And plus, it offers direct access to a bunch of other routes (because before, the S60 only connected to the Victory Blvd routes and S53/93) Yeah, well at night that bus is DEAD and I mean DEAD... Worse than the S54. But yes I see your point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 5, 2012 Share #205 Posted June 5, 2012 S52: Like I said, it sounds like he was trying to make it a limited-only route, but I guess I'll wait for him to confirm that. S79: Well, they're already planning on doing that. The limited stops don't look spaced too far apart, so I don't really see the problem. 52- He implicitly states he wants to make it a LTD during the weekday rush..... I'm replying to his idea, not what it sounds like to you what he was trying to do.... 79- Well let them plan on doing that.... That has no bearing on my opinion.... I didn't ask if you saw any problem anyway..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 5, 2012 Share #206 Posted June 5, 2012 ^ ^ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 5, 2012 Share #207 Posted June 5, 2012 ^ ^ What is so funny? It's a free country and he can say whatever he wants. I was just offering my take on it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 5, 2012 Share #208 Posted June 5, 2012 What is so funny? It's a free country and he can say whatever he wants. I was just offering my take on it. That's right... Like you said... It's a free country and I can respond however I want... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 5, 2012 Share #209 Posted June 5, 2012 51- agree w/ trimming weekend service to/from wadsworth... just have more buses skipping the fort; no need to alter headways.... 52- don't agree.... that's the last route that should have a LTD on it... 57- yeah, how would you reroute buses.... bear in mind SIR New Dorp is a popular stop on the route, so you can't skip that.... 66- total waste of resources; not necessary to double the rush hour frequency on this route.... it's a supplementary route on victory that sees low usage on Jewett..... 74- In other words, cut the short turn terminal from ETC to New Dorp (& go on to send it to the SIR, I'm assuming) when the 84 runs, and have the 84 run local from New Dorp, onwards.... I can kinda-sorta agree to that.... 76- lemme guess, you want to run the 57 to take on the 76 routing south of the SIR New Dorp station ? 79- You would have to space out stops to where making buses LTD's would be worthwhile along hylan - Meaning, greater distances b/w LTD stops..... distances where you aint goin get people willing to walk to/from (local to LTD stop), nevermind how proximate their residences are from hylan itself..... This is why I don't really agree w/ making it a LTD only route.... it forces ppl. to have to take the 78 to the 79 along hylan if they need to get to Brooklyn if they're not near a LTD stop..... 84- simply put, you basically wanna add more LTD service along the 74/84 corridor throughout the day.... LTD service along the 74/84 corridor during off peak hours, I don't agree with...... 91 & 92- peak hour LTD service along those respective corridors are very much necessary.... 93- don't agree with any extension of that route.... The bus would operate rush hours limited along Tompkins and the S42 route. It would be local elsewhere S57- I actually trashed that proposal, so ignore the S57 proposal S59 Well if that case then it would be every 40 minutes S66 I forgot to mention this but it would be a Limited on Victory Blvd Rush hours. It would replace the S61/S62 at an average frequency that both buses would operate at S74: Weekdays the S84 would operate as the local west of New Dorp Lane And Limited on Richmond Road when the S74 runs on New Dorp Lane to replace the S76/86. The S84 would operate at the S74 off peak frequencies while the S76 would operate at the S76 off peak frequencies The S74 short turns will be extended to Bricktown S93 would replace the S91 to SI Mall sort of Comments/Suggestions? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted June 5, 2012 Share #210 Posted June 5, 2012 The bus would operate rush hours limited along Tompkins and the S42 route. It would be local elsewhere S57- I actually trashed that proposal, so ignore the S57 proposal S59 Well if that case then it would be every 40 minutes S66 I forgot to mention this but it would be a Limited on Victory Blvd Rush hours. It would replace the S61/S62 at an average frequency that both buses would operate at S74: Weekdays the S84 would operate as the local west of New Dorp Lane And Limited on Richmond Road when the S74 runs on New Dorp Lane to replace the S76/86. The S84 would operate at the S74 off peak frequencies while the S76 would operate at the S76 off peak frequencies The S74 short turns will be extended to Bricktown S93 would replace the S91 to SI Mall sort of Comments/Suggestions? See, this is what you get when people who don't know anything about the borough make proposals. The S91 & 92 aren't going anywhere, period. Of all routes, the S66 should be the last route you think of think of to replace it... The S93 isn't being extended, it runs into too much traffic and is long enough already. So you want to reduce service on the S59? With S79 SBS coming? Man, what are you smoking... Doing that to the S74/84 really changes nothing. Just leave everything there alone... and extending the S74 shorturrns along the full route contradicts this plan! Some of these proposals are hold less water than my S50/80/100 proposal... that's saying something... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 5, 2012 Share #211 Posted June 5, 2012 As for the S79, it would stop at every S89 stop, along Hylan Blvd, the following Stop would be made Richmond Avenue William Avenue Nelson Avenue Great Kills Road Bay Terrance Fairbanks Avenue Guyon Avenue Cannon Blvd New DorpLane Lincoln Avenue Midland Avenue Jefferson Avenur Slayer Avenue Seaview Avenue Raritan Avenue Old Town SIR station Clove Road Stueben Street/Hylan Blvd SIE Expressway/ Hylan Blvd, local stops to Brooklyn S52 Limited Stop All stops to Hylan Blvd/ Tompkins Avenue Chestnut Street/Tompkins Vanderbuilt Avenue/ Tompkins Avenue Broad Street/ Tompkins Avenue Beach Street/ St.Pauls Avenue Local stops to Jersey Street/ Brighton Avenue Jersey/ Brighton Crescent/ Jersey Westervelt/Crescent Hamilton/St Marks Place Hyatt/ St Marks Place Richmond Terrance and Bay Street St George Ferry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 5, 2012 Share #212 Posted June 5, 2012 That's right... Like you said... It's a free country and I can respond however I want... Go ahead. And I have that right as well. I don't see what's so funny about that, though. The bus would operate rush hours limited along Tompkins and the S42 route. It would be local elsewhere ....and that's exactly how I said your idea was. S59 Well if that case then it would be every 40 minutes S66 I forgot to mention this but it would be a Limited on Victory Blvd Rush hours. It would replace the S61/S62 at an average frequency that both buses would operate at S74: Weekdays the S84 would operate as the local west of New Dorp Lane And Limited on Richmond Road when the S74 runs on New Dorp Lane to replace the S76/86. The S84 would operate at the S74 off peak frequencies while the S76 would operate at the S76 off peak frequencies The S74 short turns will be extended to Bricktown S93 would replace the S91 to SI Mall sort of Comments/Suggestions? S59: That still doesn't make any sense. If it's an increase, why is it every 40 minutes instead of every 20 like it is today? In either case, if you want it running every 40 minutes, then that's not a good idea. S66: First of all, keep in mind that the "average frequency" doesn't matter because the buses are timed to meet the ferry. Second of all, having an S66 limited doesn't do anything for the riders living west of Jewett Avenue along the S91 & S92 routes. They'd take the limited to Jewett Avenue and then have to wait for the local that left at the same time the S66 originally did. And aside from that, it makes no sense to have the one limited route detour to Grymes Hill. The limiteds are supposed to be obviously faster than the locals (I mean, you'd have it get ahead of the locals, and then slow down along Grymes Hill) S74: If that's the case, you might as well keep the current S74/S76 pattern. And aside from that, the short-turns don't need to go to Bricktown. There isn't enough ridership there to support all the buses going there. S93: No because first of all, it doesn't go to St. George and second of all, it doesn't go along Bradley Avenue/Forest Hill Road. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 5, 2012 Share #213 Posted June 5, 2012 See, this is what you get when people who don't know anything about the borough make proposals. The S91 & 92 aren't going anywhere, period. Of all routes, the S66 should be the last route you think of think of to replace it... The S93 isn't being extended, it runs into too much traffic and is long enough already. So you want to reduce service on the S59? With S79 SBS coming? Man, what are you smoking.... As for the S59, I'm talking about make the S59 run every 40 minutes to Tottenville. The S59 from Richmond/Hylan and PRT will continue To be every 20 minutes 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 5, 2012 Share #214 Posted June 5, 2012 As for the S59, I'm talking about make the S59 run every 40 minutes to Tottenville. The S59 from Richmond/Hylan and PRT will continue To be every 20 minutes I see. So what would you do with the S78? Keep it the same or cut back every other bus to Richmond Avenue? (So Tottenville riders would have the S59 every 40 minutes and S78 every 30 minutes) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 5, 2012 Share #215 Posted June 5, 2012 No wonder folks don't use the local buses on the South Shore... Population is growing down there, yet nothing but cuts proposed for the South Shore. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 5, 2012 Share #216 Posted June 5, 2012 The bus would operate rush hours limited along Tompkins and the S42 route. It would be local elsewhere S57- I actually trashed that proposal, so ignore the S57 proposal S59 Well if that case then it would be every 40 minutes S66 I forgot to mention this but it would be a Limited on Victory Blvd Rush hours. It would replace the S61/S62 at an average frequency that both buses would operate at S74: Weekdays the S84 would operate as the local west of New Dorp Lane And Limited on Richmond Road when the S74 runs on New Dorp Lane to replace the S76/86. The S84 would operate at the S74 off peak frequencies while the S76 would operate at the S76 off peak frequencies The S74 short turns will be extended to Bricktown S93 would replace the S91 to SI Mall sort of Comments/Suggestions? 52- Ok, but you would still have LTD service operating on it.... and forget about picking two separate/different stints along the route to operate LTD service on... No current LTD does that, and none should resort to doing that..... Pick two (not four) endpoints where you want LTD to run along & be done with it..... 57- no problem. 59- That's what I was kinda asking you actually - What was the case? Was my guess in my last reply to you right or wrong..... In other words, What exactly did you mean when you said: "Maybe extra service from 9 Am to 3 PM every 30 minutes weekdays only" ?? 66- whoa, No way, fam..... the 61 & the 62 are far more utilized than the 66..... wait a second..... Was this really the reason behind wanting to get rid of the 91 & the 92 ?? 74/84- So you scrapped the 57 re-route (whatever it was) & instead now suggesting that the 74 parallel the 76 south of SIR new dorp.... Is this your way of giving Oakwood weekend service? In either case, you're botching up & further complicating 74/84 service.... Guaranteed that would confuse riders..... S93- how? the route is coming from Brooklyn.... the S91 is coming from the ferry..... Just b/c they both share a stint on victory doesn't necessarily mean they have the same core riderbase..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted June 5, 2012 Share #217 Posted June 5, 2012 52- Ok, but you would still have LTD service operating on it.... and forget about picking two separate/different stints along the route to operate LTD service on... No current LTD does that, and none should resort to doing that..... Pick two (not four) endpoints where you want LTD to run along & be done with it..... *coughM5cough* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 5, 2012 Share #218 Posted June 5, 2012 *coughM5cough* What about it? The whole route is still LTD..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 5, 2012 Share #219 Posted June 5, 2012 I see. So what would you do with the S78? Keep it the same or cut back every other bus to Richmond Avenue? (So Tottenville riders would have the S59 every 40 minutes and S78 every 30 minutes) I would keep the service the same on the S78 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 5, 2012 Share #220 Posted June 5, 2012 No wonder folks don't use the local buses on the South Shore... Population is growing down there, yet nothing but cuts proposed for the South Shore. I guess service expansions to Perth Amboy and better coverage in the area (along Arden Avenue & Huguenot Avenue) don't count. And aside from that, there would be more buses running along that stretch of Hylan Blvd (7 buses every 2 hours instead of 6 buses every 2 hours) 74/84- So you scrapped the 57 re-route (whatever it was) & instead now suggesting that the 74 parallel the 76 south of SIR new dorp.... Is this your way of giving Oakwood weekend service? In either case, you're botching up & further complicating 74/84 service.... Guaranteed that would confuse riders..... He mentioned before that he'd eliminate the S76 and have the S74 run to Oakwood weekdays. But yeah, like you said, it wouldn't be worth it. What about it? The whole route is still LTD..... He's saying that there are 4 endpoints to LTD service. You have it in Upper Manhattan (I think it's 157th Street to 135th Street) and then in Midtown (South of 72nd Street). So it would be the same concept. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 5, 2012 Share #221 Posted June 5, 2012 66- whoa, No way, fam..... the 61 & the 62 are far more utilized than the 66..... wait a second..... Was this really the reason behind wanting to get rid of the 91 & the 92 ?? 74/84- So you scrapped the 57 re-route (whatever it was) & instead now suggesting that the 74 parallel the 76 south of SIR new dorp.... Is this your way of giving Oakwood weekend service? In either case, you're botching up & further complicating 74/84 service.... Guaranteed that would confuse riders..... S93- how? the route is coming from Brooklyn.... the S91 is coming from the ferry..... Just b/c they both share a stint on victory doesn't necessarily mean they have the same core riderbase..... S66: That would be the reason in a way. Also, any trip that would go to Grymes Hill will not be limited stopped Since the Limiteds would have to meet the ferry , then these trips would be coordinated to meet the limited S74/84 That diversion to Oakwood would not occur weekdays, and meanwhile the S74 would operate double 15 minutes Along New Dorp, the S84 would operate from Bricktown and local to New Dorp Lane, then Limited to the Ferry, with several short-turns at ETC to maintain reliability from Bunching S93: Those riders from SI Mall to Jewlett would take a revised and modified S93 which would go toCSI then Back to Berry Mount and go to SI Mall with with the S61 The S93 would be modified in scheduling to connect to the S66 limited 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 5, 2012 Share #222 Posted June 5, 2012 S66: That would be the reason in a way. Also, any trip that would go to Grymes Hill will not be limited stopped Since the Limiteds would have to meet the ferry , then these trips would be coordinated to meet the limited S74/84 That diversion to Oakwood would not occur weekdays, and meanwhile the S74 would operate double 15 minutes Along New Dorp, the S84 would operate from Bricktown and local to New Dorp Lane, then Limited to the Ferry, with several short-turns at ETC to maintain reliability from Bunching S93: Those riders from SI Mall to Jewlett would take a revised and modified S93 which would go toCSI then Back to Berry Mount and go to SI Mall with with the S61 The S93 would be modified in scheduling to connect to the S66 limited The S66 shouldn't be touched. Whether all the buses are limited, or some of the buses are limited, or whether the limiteds don't serve Grymes Hill or whatever. The S61 & S62 get way more usage along Victory Blvd, and so it makes no sense to cut their limiteds to give the S66 a limited. For the S74, what do you mean by "double 15 minutes"? And if it's going down New Dorp Lane, where would it terminate if not Oakwood? Well, sending the S93 to the SI Mall via the back of CSI is a little better than having it duplicate the Richmond Avenue routes, but it's still not necessary. And aside from that, it's still no benefit to those along the S91 & S92 routes. First of all, you don't help the people living west of CSI on the S92, and you don't help the people living along Bradley Avenue/Harold Street on the S61. And even if it's a timed transfer (and you presumably offer a free second transfer, so they don't have to pay again on the subway in Manhattan), there's just no point. You're not helping the riders who the limiteds are supposed to help. I mean, if I had to do something to save money, I'd have the S92s converted into S62s, so even if that's the intention of your proposal, there are better ways of doing that (again, not that I would advocate actually doing this). But having the S66 as a limited helps nobody. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 5, 2012 Share #223 Posted June 5, 2012 I'd like to add a proposal: Since the S46 has to deal with the traffic involved with 2 turns going northbound (right on Forest Avenue, left on Grandview Avenue), I think the northbound route should be changed a bit. Going northbound, I think the bus should go straight up South Avenue, stop alongside the S40 & S48, and then make a right on Continental Place and a left on Grandview Avenue (to avoid that light at South & Brabant). The buses that start at Grandview & Forest would layover on Grandview Avenue (alongside Western Beef), and then when it comes time to start their run, they would just go around the corner, pick up the passengers, and get out of there. For those trips that end at Forest Avenue, it doesn't matter since the B/Os generally do what they want, but I guess you could leave the "official" terminal as the stop at Grandview & Forest. But a lot of them just let you off at the S48/98 stop by the gas station, or occasionally just drop you off while they're waiting to turn at South & Forest (and I remember once, there was traffic along South Avenue, so the B/O just took Netherland to Grandview and let us off in the area where I'd have the buses layover, alongside Western Beef) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B35 via Church Posted June 5, 2012 Share #224 Posted June 5, 2012 S66: That would be the reason in a way. Also, any trip that would go to Grymes Hill will not be limited stopped Since the Limiteds would have to meet the ferry , then these trips would be coordinated to meet the limited S74/84 That diversion to Oakwood would not occur weekdays, and meanwhile the S74 would operate double 15 minutes Along New Dorp, the S84 would operate from Bricktown and local to New Dorp Lane, then Limited to the Ferry, with several short-turns at ETC to maintain reliability from Bunching S93: Those riders from SI Mall to Jewlett would take a revised and modified S93 which would go to CSI then Back to Berry Mount and go to SI Mall with with the S61 The S93 would be modified in scheduling to connect to the S66 limited S66: Grymes Hill has nothin to do with why I think wasting resources on the 66 isn't too great an idea.... S74: You would still confuse riders b/c they'd get accustomed to the bare/sole concept on an S74 running to Oakwood.... S93: Exactly... this plan involves riders (that would normally take the 91) disembarking to catch a LTD (your 66) route to the ferry.... There is no point or benefit in doing that when the 91 already exists..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S78 via Hylan Posted June 6, 2012 Share #225 Posted June 6, 2012 I'd like to add a proposal: Since the S46 has to deal with the traffic involved with 2 turns going northbound (right on Forest Avenue, left on Grandview Avenue), I think the northbound route should be changed a bit. Going northbound, I think the bus should go straight up South Avenue, stop alongside the S40 & S48, and then make a right on Continental Place and a left on Grandview Avenue (to avoid that light at South & Brabant). The buses that start at Grandview & Forest would layover on Grandview Avenue (alongside Western Beef), and then when it comes time to start their run, they would just go around the corner, pick up the passengers, and get out of there. For those trips that end at Forest Avenue, it doesn't matter since the B/Os generally do what they want, but I guess you could leave the "official" terminal as the stop at Grandview & Forest. But a lot of them just let you off at the S48/98 stop by the gas station, or occasionally just drop you off while they're waiting to turn at South & Forest (and I remember once, there was traffic along South Avenue, so the B/O just took Netherland to Grandview and let us off in the area where I'd have the buses layover, alongside Western Beef) That's actually not a bad idea, but the stop on Grandview and Forest does get a lot of people from what I've seen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.