North Shore BRT Final EIS released

[LTA1992]

https://new.mta.info/project/staten-island-north-shore-bus-rapid-transit

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I have NO issues. They addressed every concern I had and even surpassed my expectations in certain areas. Namely, the access ramp near St. George and Arlington station. As much as I would have preferred LRT, the report is right in saying yard placement would make that difficult.

Buses are transit too and this is a good plan.

I'm most impressed by the service. As we know, long routes can be an issue. Busways and minimal stops balance that out. So I have no issues with the S53 getting extended to Arlington via the Busway. That would have saved at least 40 minutes off my trip to YABC when I lived in Graniteville.

We may never actually see it, but at least they impressed me. 

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, LTA1992 said:

https://new.mta.info/project/staten-island-north-shore-bus-rapid-transit

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I have NO issues. They addressed every concern I had and even surpassed my expectations in certain areas. Namely, the access ramp near St. George and Arlington station. As much as I would have preferred LRT, the report is right in saying yard placement would make that difficult.

Buses are transit too and this is a good plan.

I'm most impressed by the service. As we know, long routes can be an issue. Busways and minimal stops balance that out. So I have no issues with the S53 getting extended to Arlington via the Busway. That would have saved at least 40 minutes off my trip to YABC when I lived in Graniteville.

We may never actually see it, but at least they impressed me. 

Sorry, I’m against this. Most of the infrastructure is STILL there for HEAVY duty transit. Why waste all this money for bus conversion when you can just rehab the stations still standing and build new ones that got torn down?

[LTA1992]

31 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Sorry, I’m against this. Most of the infrastructure is STILL there for HEAVY duty transit. Why waste all this money for bus conversion when you can just rehab the stations still standing and build new ones that got torn down?

Did you READ the thing?

They perfectly explained it. Broke it down. This is why I have no problems. Especially as someone who used to live in the service area and still travel there.

The issue is primarily cost and yard space. We can't just build in the green spaces. That's a no-no after Moses.

Similarly with LRT. Yard space is an issue and not even St. George has the room. I was wary a few years ago and knew they'd pick BRT.

But after reading 600 pages, I'm satisfied with what we have. I wanted heavy rail, but always knew there'd be issues that made it difficult. Caddell Dockyard being the main as the ROW is an access road for them. The industries are ready and willing to work with the MTA and have even agreed where needed to have buildings razed and relocated to move the ROW closer to Richmond Terrace.

More importantly, you can't "just rehab" them for service. You're ignoring all the other things in the ROW. Literally industries bisected by it and there are plenty of places new viaducts have to be built. Then the parts that aren't on a viaduct are sinking into the Kill. They are also going for a route that impacts parks and businesses MINIMALLY.

There's a restaurant where the tracks pass right through the parking lot. I thought that business would be gone. Nope! As far as I've seen, aside from major industrial buildings that have to move for new viaducts, there are only two business I can recall that are going bye-bye. A gas station and a kitchen and supermarket supply store.

Please. Read the EIS. I am genuinely surprised at the fact I have no complaints. Please remember too, there are service expansions in here that would not be possible with the rail options.

S1 between West Shore Plaza and St. George (25 minute run)

S2 Arlington to St. George (about 18 minutes)

S53 extended to Arlington via the Busway. The very nature of the Busway would mitigate any issues caused by the extension. However, the Narrows Bridge will always be the decider for how well it runs.

S54 and S57 extended to St. George via Busway. That would be a boon for cross Island travel and the increased headways will be welcome. I used to hate going to my friend's house all the way on the South Shore because half the time, going via St. George would be quicker.

The headways on the S1 and S2 combined would equal 5 minutes headways all day between Arlington and the Ferry. Portions East of Bard Avenue would get even better service. More than what rail would have provided. 

(However, the lack of complaints come from years of learning that just because we WANT rail transit, doesn't make it possible. And buses, when treated with the same respect as Metro, can do the job and do it greatly). 

Edited February 5 by LTA1992

[Lawrence St]

14 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

Did you READ the thing?

They perfectly explained it. Broke it down. This is why I have no problems. Especially as someone who used to live in the service area and still travel there.

The issue is primarily cost and yard space. We can't just build in the green spaces. That's a no-no after Moses.

Similarly with LRT. Yard space is an issue and not even St. George has the room. I was wary a few years ago and knew they'd pick BRT.

But after reading 600 pages, I'm satisfied with what we have. I wanted heavy rail, but always knew there'd be issues that made it difficult. Caddell Dockyard being the main as the ROW is an access road for them. The industries are ready and willing to work with the MTA and have even agreed where needed to have buildings razed and relocated to move the ROW closer to Richmond Terrace.

More importantly, you can't "just rehab" them for service. You're ignoring all the other things in the ROW. Literally industries bisected by it and there are plenty of places new viaducts have to be built. Then the parts that aren't on a viaduct are sinking into the Kill. They are also going for a route that impacts parks and businesses MINIMALLY.

There's a restaurant where the tracks pass right through the parking lot. I thought that business would be gone. Nope! As far as I've seen, aside from major industrial buildings that have to move for new viaducts, there are only two business I can recall that are going bye-bye. A gas station and a kitchen and supermarket supply store.

Please. Read the EIS. I am genuinely surprised at the fact I have no complaints. Please remember too, there are service expansions in here that would not be possible with the rail options.

S1 between West Shore Plaza and St. George (25 minute run)

S2 Arlington to St. George (about 18 minutes)

S53 extended to Arlington via the Busway. The very nature of the Busway would mitigate any issues caused by the extension. However, the Narrows Bridge will always be the decider for how well it runs.

S54 and S57 extended to St. George via Busway. That would be a boon for cross Island travel and the increased headways will be welcome. I used to hate going to my friend's house all the way on the South Shore because half the time, going via St. George would be quicker.

The headways on the S1 and S2 combined would equal 5 minutes headways all day between Arlington and the Ferry. Portions East of Bard Avenue would get even better service. More than what rail would have provided. 

(However, the lack of complaints come from years of learning that just because we WANT rail transit, doesn't make it possible. And buses, when treated with the same respect as Metro, can do the job and do it greatly). 

Lack of yard space? What???

Clifton is right down the road and you have all of the unused platform space at St. George for more storage.

[Lex]

44 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Lack of yard space? What???

Clifton is right down the road and you have all of the unused platform space at St. George for more storage.

Ah, yes, a bayside yard with relatively little storage space (if any exists), a maintenance facility that would likely need an expansion to handle the demands of North Shore service in addition to the existing service, and no real room to expand (because it's a bayside yard).

Do you plan to demolish all but two platforms for this? For that matter, how are you so certain that was never a consideration for current operations, to say nothing of what you're suggesting?

[Lawrence St]

3 hours ago, Lex said:

Ah, yes, a bayside yard with relatively little storage space (if any exists), a maintenance facility that would likely need an expansion to handle the demands of North Shore service in addition to the existing service, and no real room to expand (because it's a bayside yard).

Do you plan to demolish all but two platforms for this? For that matter, how are you so certain that was never a consideration for current operations, to say nothing of what you're suggesting?

For as often as the mainline SIR runs, I see no issue why the North Shore can’t also run the same frequency and have no problem with storage space.

[MysteriousBtrain]

5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Lack of yard space? What???

Clifton is right down the road and you have all of the unused platform space at St. George for more storage.

Idk how you manage to propose some of the most absurd things, but I doubt we can squeeze LRT onto a small mainline rail yard (by FRA regulations).

 

Another thing I also failed to see you note is how would there be access to Clifton if the only way to access it is by street operations (where traffic is beyond flooded with buses) or sharing track with SIR (which you gotta figure out how to connect HRV with LRV safely, not even mentioning the power source we plan on using, as third rail is almost impossible for LRV use).

Edited February 5 by MysteriousBtrain

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Idk how you manage to propose some of the most absurd things, but I doubt we can squeeze LRT onto a small mainline rail yard (by FRA regulations).

 

Another thing I also failed to see you note is how would there be access to Clifton if the only way to access it is by street operations (where traffic is beyond flooded with buses) or sharing track with SIR (which you gotta figure out how to connect HRV with LRV safely, not even mentioning the power source we plan on using, as third rail is almost impossible for LRV use).

Where did you see me mention anything about light rail in my paragraph?

[LTA1992]

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

For as often as the mainline SIR runs, I see no issue why the North Shore can’t also run the same frequency and have no problem with storage space.

See, the frequency is also what makes BRT the better option. A train every 30 minutes, or a bus every 5 (plus extra intervals from the S53, 54, and 57 thought the line).

It opens up the option for more than just ferry goers and makes crossing the island far easier.

From a cost-to-benefit view, and again I can't believe I'm saying this, BRT is the best option and has far more reaching benefits.

Please don't remind me how much of an echo chamber this place can be. Enlightenment is a book or three away

(The me from about 10 years ago would have been pissed at this plan. I've definitely grown lol)

When treated with the same respect as a Metro, from service to its vehicles, Buses can do the job exceptionally where needed. They are transit too. Which is why I hate the phrase "transit desert"

Edited February 5 by LTA1992

[MysteriousBtrain]

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Where did you see me mention anything about light rail in my paragraph?

Point still stands, even with HRV use, it's still impossible to make yard space

I mentioned LRV bc the study never mentioned anything about HRV usage to my knowledge; HRV between Port Richmond and St George is nearly impossible or will be extremely expensive.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

Of course, Staten Island politicians will demand that it be paid exclusively with non-S.I. tax dollars.

[MysteriousBtrain]

If possible I would like to see the BRT connect to a Staten Island bus local redesign.

 

Combining the proposed 2012 plans and the (more recent) S40/40A plans, I could see something like this take place:

S40 cut back from Amazon, a new S5x route is created between Amazon and Arlington via teleport

A branch of the S44 (maybe S94) via the busway/S59 extension to St George 

S53 westward extension to Arlington

S54 Eastward extension to St George

A revamped S66 via the busway instead of Victory Blvd

Slight modifications of the S90 to operate between Amazon and St George via the busway, possibly operating a similar pattern to the S93 (running during peak hours and during scheduled shifts)

[Brillant93]

10 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

If possible I would like to see the BRT connect to a Staten Island bus local redesign.

 

Combining the proposed 2012 plans and the (more recent) S40/40A plans, I could see something like this take place:

S40 cut back from Amazon, a new S5x route is created between Amazon and Arlington via teleport

A branch of the S44 (maybe S94) via the busway/S59 extension to St George 

S53 westward extension to Arlington

S54 Eastward extension to St George

A revamped S66 via the busway instead of Victory Blvd

Slight modifications of the S90 to operate between Amazon and St George via the busway, possibly operating a similar pattern to the S93 (running during peak hours and during scheduled shifts)

I thought the SI redesign was just for the express bus routes and not local? The BRT was always a separate project from it. 

[checkmatechamp13]

On 2/10/2024 at 1:22 PM, MysteriousBtrain said:

A revamped S66 via the busway instead of Victory Blvd

What serves Grymes Hill in your proposal?

On 2/11/2024 at 12:03 AM, Brillant93 said:

I thought the SI redesign was just for the express bus routes and not local? The BRT was always a separate project from it. 

That would literally make the Staten Island local network the forgotten section of the city bus network...

Staten Island local will be the last section of the redesign (after Queens & Brooklyn will be Manhattan), but it will be done.

But yes, you're right that practically speaking they should be basing their busway routes off a revised/redesigned local network, not the existing one. 

[Gotham Bus Co.]

10 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

What serves Grymes Hill in your proposal?

 

Maybe the S62 (or an "S63" variant of it)?

[MysteriousBtrain]

19 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

What serves Grymes Hill in your proposal?

 

8 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Maybe the S62 (or an "S63" variant of it)?

I was thinking something like that; the S62 short turn to CSI would be incorporated into the new route.

[N6 Limited]

How about using the ROW to extend the IBX from Brooklyn? Or, if keeping the BRT, extending IBX to St. George to connect to BRT services?

Edited February 19 by N6 Limited

[Gotham Bus Co.]

18 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

How about using the ROW to extend the IBX from Brooklyn? Or, if keeping the BRT, extending IBX to St. George to connect to BRT services?

 

Staten Island probably doesn't want direct rail access to the rest of the city (because then the rest of the city would have direct rail access to Staten Island).

[checkmatechamp13]

On 2/18/2024 at 8:29 PM, MysteriousBtrain said:

I was thinking something like that; the S62 short turn to CSI would be incorporated into the new route.

 

On 2/18/2024 at 11:51 AM, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Maybe the S62 (or an "S63" variant of it)?

The S62 short-turns to CSI shouldn't exist in any fashion whatsoever. They are a relic of the old days before the S93 and CSI - St. George shuttle existed. Those resources would be better invested in either more full S62 trips (Travis - St. George), or S93 trips. (Arguably, it should be a branch of the S93 running to Travis in lieu of the S62 but that's a story for a different time)

Jewett Avenue should be served by the S57. If it gets extended to St. George via the busway I'm alright with that.

For Watchogue Road, the S66 should be rerouted off Jewett and onto Watchogue Road, but instead of turning up Willowbrook Road to Port Richmond, it should continue down to Richmond Avenue, make a left, and then turn right at the next light (Goethals Road North). It should take Goethals Road North to South Avenue. Eastbound buses should take Fahy Avenue/Lamberts Lane back to Richmond Avenue, and then follow the same route in reverse. Possible other terminals would be the Amazon warehouse, and some school trippers to that school at the Teleport. 

For Willowbrook Road and Decker Avenue (especially Decker Avenue) those are within walking distance of other routes, but if you wanted to further restructure the network in that area, you could run the S44/94 to CSI via Willowbrook Road and Woolley Avenue (thus providing a direct connection to the North Shore from within the campus). The S59 would be rerouted up Morningstar Road and Walker Street, and the S89 would become a full-time branch. (Separately, I'd also extend it to Newark Airport via I-78). 

For the S54, I think it would be better to combine it with the S42 to reach the ferry (buses would take Castleton Avenue to Brighton Avenue to Lafayette Avenue...not sure whether to run it straight down Lafayette or to have it go further up the hill to cover Franklin Street) and on the southern end I'd route it to the SI Mall (via Rockland Avenue, Forest Hill Road, and Richmond Hill Road).

Great Kills should be covered by a local route to Bay Ridge (basically the SIM5/6 route, but to Bay Ridge). 

The S53 should be broken into an S53/83 dynamic (Current S53 routed to terminate by Markham Gardens, and S83 uses Narrows Road similar to the S93). That would make the Brooklyn - Arlington route more manageable. 

And for the S1, the West Shore Plaza is a dead-end terminal. At least some trips should run down the West Shore Expressway and down Huguenot Avenue, improving north-south connections in that section of the island. 

And this is why the busway routes need to be evaluated in the context of an overall Staten Island local bus redesign. (Of course, there's other aspects of the local network and gaps in service that don't tie into the North Shore Busway, and those changes mentioned above should at least have their non-busway aspects implemented)