Making the S93 to Brooklyn More Accessible
Right now, there's only 3 routes from Staten Island to Brooklyn: The S53, S79, and S93. (The S93 is technically a limited-stop variant of the S53, but most of its path is different from that of the S93, so I'm going to count it as a separate route)
Before last year, the S93 ended just outside the gate to CSI, in a cul-de-sac shown here. I have always thought that it should be extended a half mile further down, to end at Richmond Avenue. The reason being that it would provide a direct connection to the bus lines along Richmond Avenue, which opens up a whole swath of Staten Island for easier access to Brooklyn. For instance, if you live by Rockland Avenue & Richmond Avenue, you simply take the S44/94 or S59/89 up to Victory and transfer right there, instead of having to walk all the way to CSI.
In addition, it would also help some people in the neighborhood as well. For instance, a decent amount of people walk from the area by Morani Street (so all those streets like Parkview Loop, Debbie Street, etc) down to CSI to catch the S93. People walk from points west of Richmond Avenue, albiet in smaller numbers (I've done it myself from time to time, even though it's almost a mile) Unfortunately, they can't do this in the westbound direction anymore, and I'll explain why in a minute. But in any case, those people would have the S93 stop a little bit closer to them.
Now, as you've probably read in my post about the S57/S66 restructuring I proposed, at one point, I wanted the S93 to be the route to cover the area alongside the Staten Island Expressway. The extension would've been down Victory Blvd, make a right on Richmond Avenue, a left on Goethals Road North, and either end by South Avenue, or continue further up South Avenue to hit more ridership generators. (Ending by the Mariners' Harbor Houses would provide easier access to the shopping along Forest Avenue, as well as provide additional riders from the housing projects to support the route. Ending along Holland Avenue where the S48/98 end would provide that, plus riders in Arlington to support the route). And by "support", I mean they would provide ridership so the buses aren't running empty or near-empty. As part of the proposal, the S93 would be expanded to a full-time route.
So basically, it would provide the connection to Richmond Avenue, plus serve an additional neighborhood, where people are walking excessive distances to reach the existing routes.
However, in July of 2012, the MTA announced that it was going to be extending the S93 into the CSI campus, and so I had to come up with a new plan to provide service down alongside the expressway. (Which is how I came up with the S57/S66 restructuring plan). It also meant that the S93 wouldn't even be able to extend to Richmond Avenue, because people wouldn't want to go all the way into the college and all the way back out on their way to Brooklyn.
I have mixed feelings about the extension itself. On one hand, there's a decent number of CSI students who take the S93 to get to Brooklyn, from within the campus itself. On the other hand, the S93 only serves a portion of the campus, and there's already a loop bus that serves the entire campus, and provides a connection to the S93 at the Victory Blvd gate. (So if your class is in a part of the campus that's too far from the S93 stop, you still have to take the shuttle anyway)
So I can accept the extension into CSI. However, what I cannot accept is the fact that in the process, they also removed the westbound S93 stop outside the college, screwing over my neighborhood without telling anybody, and brushing off complaints as if those riders don't exist.
As I've mentioned before, a decent amount of riders use the S93, who live west of CSI. Before, they had direct access both going to Brooklyn and coming back to Staten Island. Now, with the extension, Brooklyn-bound service remains the same, but coming back from Brooklyn requires those riders to walk an extra 1/4 mile along a portion of Victory Blvd with an extremely narrow sidewalk, with cars flying by (not to mention walking under the expressway underpass with all the bird crap and who-knows-what else on the ground). This portion to be exact. Yeah, that looks like a really pedestrian-friendly place over there. (**sarcasm**)
A few of my neighbors and myself wrote some emails to both the MTA and CSI officials. The CSI officials made up a response that was inaccurate (for instance, the S93 has two endpoints, and unless the driver is being nice, you're not allowed to stay on the bus while he sits through his layover. The CSI officials thought otherwise). However, when we explained the situation, they understood where we were coming from, but said that it was ultimately up to the MTA (I don't like that they were acting like they had absolutely nothing to do with this, because they did, but whatever). The MTA didn't even respond back to us (not even a form letter stating that this is being looked into)
Keep in mind that this also negatively impacts some CSI students. Before, they were able to get off at the gate and transfer to the shuttle bus to get them to virtually any part of the campus. Now that there's no stop there, they're forced to walk from the 1A building to their class, which can be up to a half mile.
Just to be clear, I'm not even asking them to change the route. I'm asking them to stick a damn pole in the ground so buses are authorized to stop there, so people don't have to walk an additional 1/4 mile on a narrow sidewalk alongside speeding cars.
There's three locations where the bus could stop (which are the blue point, the green point, or the bus icon on this map). The blue point would be where the bus stop would be placed if it were to stop outside the gate. It's far enough in so that it doesn't block cars turning, yet it is close enough that riders heading to the residential neighborhood don't have to walk too far. A lot of S93 drivers actually used to discharge people at this location, so that those riders getting off wouldn't walk into a crowd of Brooklyn-bound riders looking to get on. Some people say that it would block traffic, but I don't think so, because it's pretty far in. The only issue might be if an S62/S92 pulls in behind them, it might be tight making that turn if they have to squeeze around a bus making that stop. I don't recall if that scenario ever occurred.
In any case, the next alternative would be to have the S93 stop inside the gate, at the green point. This would have absolutely no impact on S62/S92 buses making the turn. Either the MTA or CSI might have to put in a concrete pad for the bus stop.
The third alternative is to have the buses stop at the stop behind the shuttle buses, which is the bus icon on the map. I've seen drivers do this as well (and they would sometimes take their layover there as well, so they wouldn't be blocking other buses at the stop at the main gate). The buses would have to enter the gate, make the next available U-turn, and then drop passengers off at the shuttle bus stop. The buses would then make the same U-turn that the shuttle buses make, and then continue south towards the 1P building.
Now, I would start a petition about this, except that I've already got my hands full with the S57/S66 restructuring. It's not necessarily that it would be too much work: It's that the MTA likes to twist things around, so I'm sure they'd find some way of justifying how having bus service on Lamberts Lane, going towards St. George somehow justifies not having a bus stop outside the gate at CSI. So unfortunately, I have to wait until I make more progress with my S57/S66 proposal, even though both issues direly need to be resolved.
As always, questions & comments are welcome.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Friday, December 20, 2013
My Proposed S57/S66 Restructuring
Alright, so my top priority is to get the S57 & S66 restructured, as shown in this petition. You may be wondering why it mentions the S67. Well, I'll get to that in a little bit.
To give you a little background, this is how I came up with the proposal.
So in high school, I often decided to take the scenic route
going home, and take the S46 home instead of the S44 (the S44 is more direct, and about 1/2 mile away, instead of 3/4 away like the S46. After
doing this walk for about a year, I noticed that the street I was
walking along was wide enough to accommodate a bus route, so I thought
"it would be nice if there was a bus route here". And as I did the walk more and
more, I thought "It wouldn't just be nice to have a bus route. This area
needs a bus route", and so I came up with a plan to get a bus route running along that corridor.
My original plan involved an extension of the S93
bus (so instead of ending at the College of Staten Island, it would end
in my neighborhood). So I went to the MTA board and told them that
there's a gap in service in my neighborhood, and extending the S93 would
be one way to fill it. So after a bunch of nagging, I finally got a
response, but it was a bunch of nonsense about "Oh, we don't have money"
and yadda yadda yadda. I also made the mistake of combining my proposal
with another proposal I have, which would've added limited-stop service
to the S53. (The S53 and S93 are kind of related to each other, so if I
could improve service on both lines at the same time, I figured maybe it
would be easier to present). Well, that was a mistake because the
people played dumb and started twisting the proposal around, and then
ignored my emails when I tried to point that out.
So I was advocating for an S93 extension back in June 2011.
Fast-forward to around June 2012, when the MTA suddenly came into $40
million from unexpected increased real estate tax revenue.
They were using it to add new routes across the city (some of which I
guarantee you are getting no riders because they were designed very
poorly. For instance, they have a little shuttle (the Bx46) running within Hunts Point, and meanwhile, there's another route (the Bx6) which runs far more frequently and connects to many more destinations. The MTA may argue that the Bx6 serves a different part of Hunts Point, but the fact of the matter is that if the route is infrequent and inconvenient to access, people are going to continue using the Bx6, regardless of whether it's a longer walk.
If they extended it to Yankee Stadium (161st Street & River Avenue), or at least The Hub (149th Street & 3rd Avenue), it would get significantly more riders, and actually help improve access to Hunts Point. You'd have a direct connection to the 4 & D trains, as well as that Bx41 +SBS+ that the MTA likes to brag about, opening up access to whole swaths of the central Bronx. But no, they'd rather just leave it ending at Prospect Avenue, with only a handful of connections.
In any case, the, they were also using some of that money to extend existing routes into new markets. So they extended the S93 into the College of Staten Island, instead of ending by the front gate (which screwed over my neighborhood, as well as some CSI students but I'll get into that in another post).
If they extended it to Yankee Stadium (161st Street & River Avenue), or at least The Hub (149th Street & 3rd Avenue), it would get significantly more riders, and actually help improve access to Hunts Point. You'd have a direct connection to the 4 & D trains, as well as that Bx41 +SBS+ that the MTA likes to brag about, opening up access to whole swaths of the central Bronx. But no, they'd rather just leave it ending at Prospect Avenue, with only a handful of connections.
In any case, the, they were also using some of that money to extend existing routes into new markets. So they extended the S93 into the College of Staten Island, instead of ending by the front gate (which screwed over my neighborhood, as well as some CSI students but I'll get into that in another post).
So I decided to come up with another proposal that
would also benefit some neighborhoods that were hit hard by the 2010
service cuts. My first plan was to restore the S67, but modify it so that it went west into Bulls Head & Graniteville, instead of going north to Port Richmond. Part of the reason that the S67 had relatively low ridership was because it had a very small area where it was actually useful to riders. Along Victory Blvd, it just supplemented the other routes. People weren't dependent on that route specifically: They just happened to use it because it came first. Then in the portion north of Forest Avenue, there's alternate routes that are much more frequent and direct to bring riders to the ferry. (Depending on where exactly you are, there's the S48/98 on Forest, the S44/94 on Post, the S46/96 on Castleton, and the S40/90 on Richmond Terrace, which all connect to the ferry)
So really, the main ridership base which was dependent on the S67 specifically were the people in Westerleigh. (The S57 also ran/runs the same exact route in Westerleigh, but it doesn't go to the ferry. You can take it down to Victory and transfer to a route to the ferry, but that's time- and energy-consuming, so the S57 & S67 really had separate ridership bases in that neighborhood)
So I decided to reroute the S67 to make it more useful to people besides those in the Westerleigh area, by sending it alongside the SIE service road, to end by Goethals Road North & South Avenue. So instead of turning onto Willowbrook Road to head towards Port Richmond, it would continue straight along Watchogue Road (which becomes Deppe Place), make a left on Richmond, a right on Goethals Road North, and then end by South Avenue. Eastbound buses would take South Avenue to Fahy Avenue to Lamberts Lane, make a left on Richmond, a right on Deppe Place, and then continue onto Watchogue Road to pick up the old S67 route.
And to make it even more palatable for the MTA, I decided to extend the S62 short-turns from CSI. (In the AM rush, they start at Jewett Avenue). Right now, buses in the PM rush are basically empty once they pass Jewett Avenue (east of Jewett, they have to drop off the riders at the local stops, because the S91 & S92 bypass them). It's not uncommon to see an S92 leave an S62 in the dust after leaving the ferry terminal, but then the S62 catches up at CSI because it skipped all the stops west of Jewett because nobody was getting off. Riders in Willowbrook are all taking the S92, because it gets them home quicker, and there's no use in having a slower bus that nobody's going to use.
So in the PM rush, those S62 buses would be labeled as S67s instead. In the AM rush, those buses start at Jewett Avenue, so it would be an extension and not a reroute, but the same point still applies.
Now, that isn't the plan that I'm promoting in the petition. I was still convinced that my neighborhood needed full-time service, and not just rush hour service. In addition, I noticed that Grymes Hill was still lacking weekend service, and a whole section of Westerleigh was lacking weekend service (that whole area between Willowbrook Road & Broadway). So I decided to find a way to restore service to those neighborhoods, while adding service to my own, and I came up with the plan on the petition.
By the way, by full-time, I don't necessarily mean 24/7, but I do mean that it operates 7 days a week for most of the day. The MTA's definition is from about 7AM to 10PM, so that's basically what I mean.
My thought process was as follows: The issue with having that S67 running full-time to my neighborhood is that it duplicates too many routes. It duplicates the S57 along most of Watchogue (as I said before, the ridership bases are different, but it still runs along the same street), and the S61/62/66 on Victory Blvd. So I have to find a way to send the S57 to a different corridor so that it doesn't duplicate the S67, and I also have to find a way to eliminate a route from Victory Blvd, so I can have the S67 take its place.
The answer then became clear to me: If I could send the S57 up along Jewett Avenue, it would help fill in the gap in weekend service in that part of Westerleigh. So instead of a huge gap from Willowbrook Road to Broadway, the gap would only extend from Jewett Avenue to Broadway. (I have a different plan to restructure the S54 to fill in the remainder of that gap, but that's for another post). And then if I could have the S67 cover the S66 portion on Grymes Hill, then the S66 can be eliminated, and the result is more neighborhoods covered with roughly the same number of buses.
The more I thought about it, the more it made sense. The S66 suffered from the same issue that the S67 did, pertaining to its usage. Up in Port Richmond, there are many alternatives to the S66 which are more direct and more frequent, which meant that the S66 ridership was low. However, in my neighborhood, the alternatives to get to the ferry (and to points further east in general), are all slower than the S66 would be. And in addition, there are portions of my neighborhood for which the S66 would be the only route within a half-mile, so it's basically getting all those riders to itself (and remember that the population density in my neighborhood is about 15,000 people per square mile, so we're not just talking about a handful of people. We're talking about a few hundred riders that would be attracted to the system, generating more revenue for the MTA). Not to mention that it would have that whole stretch along Watchogue Road entirely to itself, with all those riders. And then on top of that, it has Grymes Hill to itself, which, while it's not too busy an area, does get its share of riders. (And again, in those areas, it would be preventing riders from having to walk excessive distances to access alternate routes)
On a side note, let me give you a little background about their standards for where routes should be located. For most neighborhoods in the city, they plan out the routes so that people are within a quarter mile of a bus route (0.25 miles). However, for lower density areas, they expand it to half a mile (0.50 miles). Note I said lower density areas, because neighborhoods with densities of over 15,000 people per square mile definitely aren't low-density areas. It's just that they're lower density than many other parts of the city. So already, there's an entire swath of my neighborhood beyond the quarter-mile standard, and there's even some portions beyond the half-mile standard. For instance, look at the walking distances from the area over by Graham & Fieldstone. To get to Richmond Avenue, it's 0.60 miles and to get to Victory Blvd, it's 0.60 miles. Sure, it's a relatively small area, but keep in mind that they already modified the standard for lower-density areas. So if you're using the lowest possible standard, there is no excuse for not meeting that standard. I don't care how small the margin is: The fact is that the standard was not met. And by the higher standard, they failed big time. The majority of neighborhoods in this city have both a north-south and east-west route within 0.25 miles of all of their residents, and I'm asking for them to provide a route in any direction within 0.50 miles of all of the residents.
Similarly to the S93 extension I proposed, I also gave the MTA the option of sending it further up South Avenue towards Mariners' Harbor, if they feel it would improve ridership. However, I have decided that it's not such a good idea, due to the fact that it would probably be better to have it run as a sort of "loop", in order to serve both the northern and southern sides of the Staten Island Expressway. I'll get more into that at the end of the post.
So with all those "unique" riders (meaning that they can't easily access an alternate route), that's more than enough justification to run the S66 on the weekends. The cost per passenger would likely be comparable to that of the S61 & S62 along Victory. According to some MTA stats released back in 2009, the S61 cost $2.44 per passenger, and the S62 cost $2.23 per passenger on the weekends [for the MTA to operate]. I'd estimate that the S66 would be in the $2.75 range, which is still less than the cost for routes like the S74 & S78. Keep in mind that costs have probably increased slightly since 2009, but the same general point still stands.
You may have noticed that I switched between talking about the S66 & S67. That's because the new route would be a combination of the pre-2010 versions of the current S66, with the pre-2010 S67. It really wouldn't bear much resemblance to the pre-2010 S66 (that went straight down Victory and up Jewett. This route would loop through Grymes Hill and go down Watchogue.) The old S67 went straight down Victory and then up Watchogue, so it would bear more of a resemblance to that. But really, they can call it S60, S66, S67, or make up some new number if they like. As long as those neighborhoods get service, and the route is relatively efficient, I really don't care what the number is on the sign.
Alright, so with this new route (I'll just call it the S66 for consistency's sake), you have weekend service on Grymes Hill, brand-new service in Bulls Head & Graniteville, and a full-time connection from Watchogue Road to St. George and other points east (such as Clove Road for the S53/93 to Brooklyn). Now to talk about Jewett Avenue. Well, as I said before, the S57 runs on weekends, so Jewett Avenue would get its weekend service back with the S57. It's sort-of within walking distance of Manor Road, so it provides somewhat of an alternative for S54 riders (especially since they both serve Seaview Hospital and cut through the Greenbelt to get to the South & East Shores). Like I said, I have a separate plan to provide weekend service for the S54, but having the S57 along Jewett is much better than the current situation.
You may have noticed that with all this, a portion of the current S57 route loses some service. (The areas along Decker Avenue & Willowbrook Road). Well, Decker Avenue is a couple of blocks from both Jewett Avenue & Port Richmond Avenue. So riders can make their way to Jewett if they want the S57 specifically. If they just want a general north-south route, they also have the option of walking over to Port Richmond Avenue and catching the S59.
Along Willowbrook Road, a lot of the people who use transit are schoolkids going to/from I.S.51. But the thing is that most of them aren't using the S57. They're using other routes like the S48/98 & S59, which stop at Forest & Willowbrook. Those living further south in Westerleigh use the S57, but that can be solved by running a few "trippers" starting at I.S.51 and heading south along Willowbrook Road & Watchogue Road.
For those living further south along Willowbrook Road, the walk to the S48 & S59 is longer, but remember that we now have my S66 running straight down Watchogue. So they trade a north-south route for an east-west route, and remember that my S66 would provide direct access to the ferry and S53 to Brooklyn, whereas the S57 does not. Not to mention that some of those riders would actually be closer to a bus route than they are now. Say you live over by Home Place & Echo Place. Instead of walking 0.30 miles to Willowbrook Road to catch your bus, you walk 0.15 miles to Watchogue Road to catch your bus.
If it does turn out to be an issue, I have other proposals that would compensate. The S59 can be rerouted down Deppe Place to Willowbrook Road, providing direct north-south service on both sides of the MLK Expressway. (The S44 on the west side and the S59 on the east side). This would also allow the S59 to circumvent the traffic along Forest Avenue (between Richmond Avenue & Willowbrook Road).
The problem with that is that this would likely cause people to shift to the S44, making it more crowded. The reason being that the S44 would end up providing a quicker connection to the S48 on Forest Avenue (and on top of that, it provides a quicker connection to the S46 on Walker Street). So with that, plus a few other factors that already make the S44 the more popular route (for instance, closer walk to Port Richmond High School, direct access to points east of Port Richmond, etc), there's no need to cause an additional shift of ridership onto the S44. Of course, my S66 would take some riders off the S44, but at the same time, that's no reason to add those riders back through a different method.
Another issue is that the stop at Forest & Richmond heading southbound is a busy stop, and the S44 can be somewhat unreliable at times. Having both the S44 & S59 stop over there allows the riders to have more frequent service, especially in the event that the S44 is delayed coming from the ferry. Without the S59, everybody would pile onto a delayed S44, delaying it even further and causing problems further down the line.
An alternative to that is to provide a new route along College Avenue, heading toward St. George. It wouldn't cover that exact street (Willowbrook Road), but it would provide an alternative that's closer than the S48/S59 or S66 (and it would provide access to more popular destinations than the S57 currently does). I'll write more about that in another post.
Another alternative is to create a new route along Willowbrook Road, that would continue down Woolley Avenue and fill in a gap in north-south service. The problem is that I don't see too much ridership potential for the route. You could end it at CSI, but that's a fairly weak anchor (an anchor basically meaning, a popular destination). Though the advantage would be that riders have a direct north-south route heading into Port Richmond.
You could end it at the mall, but that's sort of a long distance, paralleling another route (the S61/91). And the thing is that the S61/91 would still be much more popular than the new route (let's call it S58 for now), because they go to the ferry, connect to the S53, and connect to the shopping district around Victory & Manor.
What you could do is extend it to Bayonne on the northern end, and extend it to the Eltingville Transit Center (ETC) on the southern end. That way, you provide full-time service (assuming this route runs full-time) to Bayonne. From observations, I'd say the busiest stops on the S89 (for Bayonne-bound riders anyway) are the ETC, Westport Street (behind the mall), Victory Blvd, Forest Avenue, and Walker Street, and this S58 would serve 4 out of the 5 of them. I'm still iffy about this, and I don't think the corridor (note I said corridor, not neighborhood, because that area would still have service along Forest Avenue & Watchogue Road) direly needs service, but if it turns out it does, and the only thing standing in the way of the S57/S66 restructuring was the lack of service along Willowbrook Road, I'd say this would be the best option.
Another issue (which isn't really an issue, and I'll explain why) with this restructuring is that the Staten Island Expressway would separate eastbound service from westbound service. In other words, if you live on the south side of the expressway, you would only have easy access to an eastbound bus, and if you live on the north side of the expressway, you would only have easy access to a westbound bus. For service in the opposite direction, you would have to walk to either Richmond Avenue or South Avenue and cross under the expressway. The MTA actually tried to use this as an excuse to not implement the restructuring, because in MTA logic, having no service is better than having service in one direction. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.
Well, for starters, it's not like you necessarily have to walk the longer distance to access the route in the opposite direction. Let's say you had to get to Port Richmond. If you live on the south side of the expressway, you'd be able to take the S66 to Richmond Avenue for the S44, and then returning home, you'd be able to take the S46 to Goethals Road North for the S66. For the north side of the expressway, you'd have to do the reverse. (S66 to the S46 going to, and S44 to the S66 going back)
Second of all, there is a way to provide service in both directions. What you can do is simply allow passengers to stay on board the bus while the driver takes his break. So let's say you live on Fahy Avenue and you want to use the S66. Well, going to St. George, you simply walk to the bus stop and catch the bus. Going back, you would take the S66 to Goethals Road North & South Avenue, and then stay on the bus while the driver takes a 3-5 minute break. Then the driver will change his sign to indicate that he's going towards St. George, and you get off at the same stop along Fahy that you caught the bus at, going towards St. George.
They do this on the QM express buses from Queens to Manhattan. Keep in mind that normally, Manhattan-bound express buses do pick-ups only in the outer borough (in this case Queens), and then drop-offs only in Manhattan. Queens-bound buses do pick-ups only in Manhattan, and drop-offs only in Queens.
However, in this particular case, the buses pick up passengers in Queens, and then as soon as they hit Manhattan, they simultaneously pick up and drop-off passengers. (Dropping off passengers who originally boarded in Queens, while picking up passengers going back into Queens). Note that this only applies if the bus is, indeed going back into Queens. If the bus is going back to the depot, the driver runs the full loop in Manhattan, but doing drop-offs the whole time. Then the driver goes back to the depot. The reverse applies if the bus is starting its trip in Manhattan: The bus comes into Manhattan empty, and then does the full loop, doing pick-ups only.
For the buses that came from Queens and are heading back towards Queens, the driver usually takes a short break at a certain point in Manhattan, with the passengers on board. I haven't looked at the schedules, but I assume the break in Manhattan is relatively short (so that passengers on board aren't kept waiting too long), while the primary break is in Queens.
So in this case, the drivers' short break would be by Goethals Road North & South Avenue, and the primary break would be at St. George.
Another alternative is to simply have no break at one end, and have double the break at the other end. This is done at LaGuardia Airport on the M60, Q48, Q70, and Q72. What the drivers do is enter the airport, serve the first 2 terminals, and then when they get to the 3rd terminal (Central Terminal), they let the passengers off who want to get off, and then they briefly close the doors and count how many passengers are still left (because those passengers would be those who got on at the first two terminals and want to get out of the airport). Then they let everybody board at Central Terminal, and have their full break at the other end of the line. That way, passengers traveling through the loop don't have to wait too long.
Unfortunately, having the entire break at one end can have an impact on reliability (because if the driver has a break, or a layover, it's a chance for him to catch up to schedule). In this case, if the driver gets delayed coming from St. George (which would be a westbound bus), passengers going eastbound are going to feel the effects. So it's definitely not an ideal situation, but at the same time, the MTA manages to do it in Midtown Manhattan of all places, with all of its traffic, so they could definitely pull this off on Staten Island. And the M60 runs along 125th Street in Manhattan, which is another corridor that can get pretty congested, and yet the MTA manages to do it. So the MTA can make it work if it wants to.
Hope you enjoyed reading a description of my first proposal. If you have any questions to ask or comments to make, feel free to do so.
So really, the main ridership base which was dependent on the S67 specifically were the people in Westerleigh. (The S57 also ran/runs the same exact route in Westerleigh, but it doesn't go to the ferry. You can take it down to Victory and transfer to a route to the ferry, but that's time- and energy-consuming, so the S57 & S67 really had separate ridership bases in that neighborhood)
So I decided to reroute the S67 to make it more useful to people besides those in the Westerleigh area, by sending it alongside the SIE service road, to end by Goethals Road North & South Avenue. So instead of turning onto Willowbrook Road to head towards Port Richmond, it would continue straight along Watchogue Road (which becomes Deppe Place), make a left on Richmond, a right on Goethals Road North, and then end by South Avenue. Eastbound buses would take South Avenue to Fahy Avenue to Lamberts Lane, make a left on Richmond, a right on Deppe Place, and then continue onto Watchogue Road to pick up the old S67 route.
And to make it even more palatable for the MTA, I decided to extend the S62 short-turns from CSI. (In the AM rush, they start at Jewett Avenue). Right now, buses in the PM rush are basically empty once they pass Jewett Avenue (east of Jewett, they have to drop off the riders at the local stops, because the S91 & S92 bypass them). It's not uncommon to see an S92 leave an S62 in the dust after leaving the ferry terminal, but then the S62 catches up at CSI because it skipped all the stops west of Jewett because nobody was getting off. Riders in Willowbrook are all taking the S92, because it gets them home quicker, and there's no use in having a slower bus that nobody's going to use.
So in the PM rush, those S62 buses would be labeled as S67s instead. In the AM rush, those buses start at Jewett Avenue, so it would be an extension and not a reroute, but the same point still applies.
Now, that isn't the plan that I'm promoting in the petition. I was still convinced that my neighborhood needed full-time service, and not just rush hour service. In addition, I noticed that Grymes Hill was still lacking weekend service, and a whole section of Westerleigh was lacking weekend service (that whole area between Willowbrook Road & Broadway). So I decided to find a way to restore service to those neighborhoods, while adding service to my own, and I came up with the plan on the petition.
By the way, by full-time, I don't necessarily mean 24/7, but I do mean that it operates 7 days a week for most of the day. The MTA's definition is from about 7AM to 10PM, so that's basically what I mean.
My thought process was as follows: The issue with having that S67 running full-time to my neighborhood is that it duplicates too many routes. It duplicates the S57 along most of Watchogue (as I said before, the ridership bases are different, but it still runs along the same street), and the S61/62/66 on Victory Blvd. So I have to find a way to send the S57 to a different corridor so that it doesn't duplicate the S67, and I also have to find a way to eliminate a route from Victory Blvd, so I can have the S67 take its place.
The answer then became clear to me: If I could send the S57 up along Jewett Avenue, it would help fill in the gap in weekend service in that part of Westerleigh. So instead of a huge gap from Willowbrook Road to Broadway, the gap would only extend from Jewett Avenue to Broadway. (I have a different plan to restructure the S54 to fill in the remainder of that gap, but that's for another post). And then if I could have the S67 cover the S66 portion on Grymes Hill, then the S66 can be eliminated, and the result is more neighborhoods covered with roughly the same number of buses.
The more I thought about it, the more it made sense. The S66 suffered from the same issue that the S67 did, pertaining to its usage. Up in Port Richmond, there are many alternatives to the S66 which are more direct and more frequent, which meant that the S66 ridership was low. However, in my neighborhood, the alternatives to get to the ferry (and to points further east in general), are all slower than the S66 would be. And in addition, there are portions of my neighborhood for which the S66 would be the only route within a half-mile, so it's basically getting all those riders to itself (and remember that the population density in my neighborhood is about 15,000 people per square mile, so we're not just talking about a handful of people. We're talking about a few hundred riders that would be attracted to the system, generating more revenue for the MTA). Not to mention that it would have that whole stretch along Watchogue Road entirely to itself, with all those riders. And then on top of that, it has Grymes Hill to itself, which, while it's not too busy an area, does get its share of riders. (And again, in those areas, it would be preventing riders from having to walk excessive distances to access alternate routes)
On a side note, let me give you a little background about their standards for where routes should be located. For most neighborhoods in the city, they plan out the routes so that people are within a quarter mile of a bus route (0.25 miles). However, for lower density areas, they expand it to half a mile (0.50 miles). Note I said lower density areas, because neighborhoods with densities of over 15,000 people per square mile definitely aren't low-density areas. It's just that they're lower density than many other parts of the city. So already, there's an entire swath of my neighborhood beyond the quarter-mile standard, and there's even some portions beyond the half-mile standard. For instance, look at the walking distances from the area over by Graham & Fieldstone. To get to Richmond Avenue, it's 0.60 miles and to get to Victory Blvd, it's 0.60 miles. Sure, it's a relatively small area, but keep in mind that they already modified the standard for lower-density areas. So if you're using the lowest possible standard, there is no excuse for not meeting that standard. I don't care how small the margin is: The fact is that the standard was not met. And by the higher standard, they failed big time. The majority of neighborhoods in this city have both a north-south and east-west route within 0.25 miles of all of their residents, and I'm asking for them to provide a route in any direction within 0.50 miles of all of the residents.
Similarly to the S93 extension I proposed, I also gave the MTA the option of sending it further up South Avenue towards Mariners' Harbor, if they feel it would improve ridership. However, I have decided that it's not such a good idea, due to the fact that it would probably be better to have it run as a sort of "loop", in order to serve both the northern and southern sides of the Staten Island Expressway. I'll get more into that at the end of the post.
So with all those "unique" riders (meaning that they can't easily access an alternate route), that's more than enough justification to run the S66 on the weekends. The cost per passenger would likely be comparable to that of the S61 & S62 along Victory. According to some MTA stats released back in 2009, the S61 cost $2.44 per passenger, and the S62 cost $2.23 per passenger on the weekends [for the MTA to operate]. I'd estimate that the S66 would be in the $2.75 range, which is still less than the cost for routes like the S74 & S78. Keep in mind that costs have probably increased slightly since 2009, but the same general point still stands.
You may have noticed that I switched between talking about the S66 & S67. That's because the new route would be a combination of the pre-2010 versions of the current S66, with the pre-2010 S67. It really wouldn't bear much resemblance to the pre-2010 S66 (that went straight down Victory and up Jewett. This route would loop through Grymes Hill and go down Watchogue.) The old S67 went straight down Victory and then up Watchogue, so it would bear more of a resemblance to that. But really, they can call it S60, S66, S67, or make up some new number if they like. As long as those neighborhoods get service, and the route is relatively efficient, I really don't care what the number is on the sign.
Alright, so with this new route (I'll just call it the S66 for consistency's sake), you have weekend service on Grymes Hill, brand-new service in Bulls Head & Graniteville, and a full-time connection from Watchogue Road to St. George and other points east (such as Clove Road for the S53/93 to Brooklyn). Now to talk about Jewett Avenue. Well, as I said before, the S57 runs on weekends, so Jewett Avenue would get its weekend service back with the S57. It's sort-of within walking distance of Manor Road, so it provides somewhat of an alternative for S54 riders (especially since they both serve Seaview Hospital and cut through the Greenbelt to get to the South & East Shores). Like I said, I have a separate plan to provide weekend service for the S54, but having the S57 along Jewett is much better than the current situation.
You may have noticed that with all this, a portion of the current S57 route loses some service. (The areas along Decker Avenue & Willowbrook Road). Well, Decker Avenue is a couple of blocks from both Jewett Avenue & Port Richmond Avenue. So riders can make their way to Jewett if they want the S57 specifically. If they just want a general north-south route, they also have the option of walking over to Port Richmond Avenue and catching the S59.
Along Willowbrook Road, a lot of the people who use transit are schoolkids going to/from I.S.51. But the thing is that most of them aren't using the S57. They're using other routes like the S48/98 & S59, which stop at Forest & Willowbrook. Those living further south in Westerleigh use the S57, but that can be solved by running a few "trippers" starting at I.S.51 and heading south along Willowbrook Road & Watchogue Road.
For those living further south along Willowbrook Road, the walk to the S48 & S59 is longer, but remember that we now have my S66 running straight down Watchogue. So they trade a north-south route for an east-west route, and remember that my S66 would provide direct access to the ferry and S53 to Brooklyn, whereas the S57 does not. Not to mention that some of those riders would actually be closer to a bus route than they are now. Say you live over by Home Place & Echo Place. Instead of walking 0.30 miles to Willowbrook Road to catch your bus, you walk 0.15 miles to Watchogue Road to catch your bus.
If it does turn out to be an issue, I have other proposals that would compensate. The S59 can be rerouted down Deppe Place to Willowbrook Road, providing direct north-south service on both sides of the MLK Expressway. (The S44 on the west side and the S59 on the east side). This would also allow the S59 to circumvent the traffic along Forest Avenue (between Richmond Avenue & Willowbrook Road).
The problem with that is that this would likely cause people to shift to the S44, making it more crowded. The reason being that the S44 would end up providing a quicker connection to the S48 on Forest Avenue (and on top of that, it provides a quicker connection to the S46 on Walker Street). So with that, plus a few other factors that already make the S44 the more popular route (for instance, closer walk to Port Richmond High School, direct access to points east of Port Richmond, etc), there's no need to cause an additional shift of ridership onto the S44. Of course, my S66 would take some riders off the S44, but at the same time, that's no reason to add those riders back through a different method.
Another issue is that the stop at Forest & Richmond heading southbound is a busy stop, and the S44 can be somewhat unreliable at times. Having both the S44 & S59 stop over there allows the riders to have more frequent service, especially in the event that the S44 is delayed coming from the ferry. Without the S59, everybody would pile onto a delayed S44, delaying it even further and causing problems further down the line.
An alternative to that is to provide a new route along College Avenue, heading toward St. George. It wouldn't cover that exact street (Willowbrook Road), but it would provide an alternative that's closer than the S48/S59 or S66 (and it would provide access to more popular destinations than the S57 currently does). I'll write more about that in another post.
Another alternative is to create a new route along Willowbrook Road, that would continue down Woolley Avenue and fill in a gap in north-south service. The problem is that I don't see too much ridership potential for the route. You could end it at CSI, but that's a fairly weak anchor (an anchor basically meaning, a popular destination). Though the advantage would be that riders have a direct north-south route heading into Port Richmond.
You could end it at the mall, but that's sort of a long distance, paralleling another route (the S61/91). And the thing is that the S61/91 would still be much more popular than the new route (let's call it S58 for now), because they go to the ferry, connect to the S53, and connect to the shopping district around Victory & Manor.
What you could do is extend it to Bayonne on the northern end, and extend it to the Eltingville Transit Center (ETC) on the southern end. That way, you provide full-time service (assuming this route runs full-time) to Bayonne. From observations, I'd say the busiest stops on the S89 (for Bayonne-bound riders anyway) are the ETC, Westport Street (behind the mall), Victory Blvd, Forest Avenue, and Walker Street, and this S58 would serve 4 out of the 5 of them. I'm still iffy about this, and I don't think the corridor (note I said corridor, not neighborhood, because that area would still have service along Forest Avenue & Watchogue Road) direly needs service, but if it turns out it does, and the only thing standing in the way of the S57/S66 restructuring was the lack of service along Willowbrook Road, I'd say this would be the best option.
Another issue (which isn't really an issue, and I'll explain why) with this restructuring is that the Staten Island Expressway would separate eastbound service from westbound service. In other words, if you live on the south side of the expressway, you would only have easy access to an eastbound bus, and if you live on the north side of the expressway, you would only have easy access to a westbound bus. For service in the opposite direction, you would have to walk to either Richmond Avenue or South Avenue and cross under the expressway. The MTA actually tried to use this as an excuse to not implement the restructuring, because in MTA logic, having no service is better than having service in one direction. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.
Well, for starters, it's not like you necessarily have to walk the longer distance to access the route in the opposite direction. Let's say you had to get to Port Richmond. If you live on the south side of the expressway, you'd be able to take the S66 to Richmond Avenue for the S44, and then returning home, you'd be able to take the S46 to Goethals Road North for the S66. For the north side of the expressway, you'd have to do the reverse. (S66 to the S46 going to, and S44 to the S66 going back)
Second of all, there is a way to provide service in both directions. What you can do is simply allow passengers to stay on board the bus while the driver takes his break. So let's say you live on Fahy Avenue and you want to use the S66. Well, going to St. George, you simply walk to the bus stop and catch the bus. Going back, you would take the S66 to Goethals Road North & South Avenue, and then stay on the bus while the driver takes a 3-5 minute break. Then the driver will change his sign to indicate that he's going towards St. George, and you get off at the same stop along Fahy that you caught the bus at, going towards St. George.
They do this on the QM express buses from Queens to Manhattan. Keep in mind that normally, Manhattan-bound express buses do pick-ups only in the outer borough (in this case Queens), and then drop-offs only in Manhattan. Queens-bound buses do pick-ups only in Manhattan, and drop-offs only in Queens.
However, in this particular case, the buses pick up passengers in Queens, and then as soon as they hit Manhattan, they simultaneously pick up and drop-off passengers. (Dropping off passengers who originally boarded in Queens, while picking up passengers going back into Queens). Note that this only applies if the bus is, indeed going back into Queens. If the bus is going back to the depot, the driver runs the full loop in Manhattan, but doing drop-offs the whole time. Then the driver goes back to the depot. The reverse applies if the bus is starting its trip in Manhattan: The bus comes into Manhattan empty, and then does the full loop, doing pick-ups only.
For the buses that came from Queens and are heading back towards Queens, the driver usually takes a short break at a certain point in Manhattan, with the passengers on board. I haven't looked at the schedules, but I assume the break in Manhattan is relatively short (so that passengers on board aren't kept waiting too long), while the primary break is in Queens.
So in this case, the drivers' short break would be by Goethals Road North & South Avenue, and the primary break would be at St. George.
Another alternative is to simply have no break at one end, and have double the break at the other end. This is done at LaGuardia Airport on the M60, Q48, Q70, and Q72. What the drivers do is enter the airport, serve the first 2 terminals, and then when they get to the 3rd terminal (Central Terminal), they let the passengers off who want to get off, and then they briefly close the doors and count how many passengers are still left (because those passengers would be those who got on at the first two terminals and want to get out of the airport). Then they let everybody board at Central Terminal, and have their full break at the other end of the line. That way, passengers traveling through the loop don't have to wait too long.
Unfortunately, having the entire break at one end can have an impact on reliability (because if the driver has a break, or a layover, it's a chance for him to catch up to schedule). In this case, if the driver gets delayed coming from St. George (which would be a westbound bus), passengers going eastbound are going to feel the effects. So it's definitely not an ideal situation, but at the same time, the MTA manages to do it in Midtown Manhattan of all places, with all of its traffic, so they could definitely pull this off on Staten Island. And the M60 runs along 125th Street in Manhattan, which is another corridor that can get pretty congested, and yet the MTA manages to do it. So the MTA can make it work if it wants to.
Hope you enjoyed reading a description of my first proposal. If you have any questions to ask or comments to make, feel free to do so.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
What This Blog is About
What this blog is about
What this blog is about
As you all know, Staten Island's transit network is in dire need of improvement. There are some serious deficiencies that will require a large amount of capital investment to fix. For instance, we lack a direct subway connection to Manhattan. In order to get off the island, we either need to take a slow, infrequent ferry (which often requires transfers on both ends of the ferry trip) or take the express bus and deal with congestion on the roads (not to mention the higher fare). If you're "fortunate" enough, you may be able to take the S53/79/93 into Brooklyn, but even then, that still requires crossing the bridge into another borough.
In addition, there are whole swaths of the borough that lack any type of rail service entirely, because they aren't near the SIR. Again, another issue that would be solved with properly-designed North Shore and West Shore rail lines.
Those projects are years off into the future, and I'll likely make future posts devoted to discussing them. For now, however, I want to discuss low-cost ways to significantly improve Staten Island's transit system in the short-term (and for that matter, in the long-term), and that is by improving bus service. Now, an improvement doesn't necessarily just mean running more buses, but also restructuring bus routes to make them more efficient (both in terms of getting more people per bus, and bringing those people to destinations they actually want to go to in a faster manner).
How many times have you heard somebody complain "I'd like to take the bus more often, but it takes too long?". Well, in a lot of cases, it's because the bus routes are too indirect: They meander all over the place instead of taking people directly to where they want to go. Depending on the specific area, that may require additional transfers. Both of those things discourage ridership, which means that the MTA runs the bare minimum amount of service, because they don't like running empty buses (which further discourages ridership).
Now, I don't like seeing empty buses either. Remember that our fare dollars and tax dollars are paying for these routes, and if you're going to pay for the costs of bus service, you might as well get the most use out of it. Now, I could understand if Staten Island was some small rural town (or heck, even a small suburban town) with a low demand for transit, then you'd have to have the attitude of "Run these buses with a handful of people on them, or leave those handful of people without service". But that's not the case. We have almost 500,000 people in this borough. Our nation's capital has about 600,000. Our borough is larger and more dense than entire cities like St. Louis & Pittsburgh. There's a ton of untapped potential in our bus system as far as both serving underserved neighborhoods, and getting more people onto the system.
Why has the system not been living up to its potential? Because the MTA is a very slow agency to change. There are routes operating based on the travel patterns of 50 years ago, and haven't adapted to the new development patterns causing shifts in travel patterns. That is exactly the problem this blog sets out to highlight.
Keep in mind that I am actually trying to bring some of these proposals to fruition, starting with one in my own neighborhood. With the $58 million in additional revenue the MTA recently came into, now would be a good time for an investment in Staten Island's transit system. I've started with the one in my own neighborhood, and apparently, logic and statistics don't work on them, and apparently, all this community support (with the petition) has only got me so far, so I'm going to have to kick it up a notch by getting the media's attention, and possibly organize a rally so that the MTA can (literally) hear Staten Island residents screaming for better service.
As far as these proposals go, if you live in one of the neighborhoods that would benefit from one of them, and you want to start a push to turn that proposal into reality, go for it! If you want to start a petition, or start contacting your elected officials, or even start a rally, I'll offer whatever support I can give. Remember: We have strength in numbers, and if there's multiple people drawing their attention to multiple issues (versus just one person drawing their attention to these issues), there's a much better chance that these proposals will be implemented and service will improve.
As far as these proposals go, if you live in one of the neighborhoods that would benefit from one of them, and you want to start a push to turn that proposal into reality, go for it! If you want to start a petition, or start contacting your elected officials, or even start a rally, I'll offer whatever support I can give. Remember: We have strength in numbers, and if there's multiple people drawing their attention to multiple issues (versus just one person drawing their attention to these issues), there's a much better chance that these proposals will be implemented and service will improve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)