Expanding The Hours of the S98
The S48/98 is the most cost-efficient route on Staten Island, as well as the third-busiest. It makes sense if you think about it: Forest Avenue is a large commercial street, but the businesses are relatively transit-oriented (by Staten Island standards anyway), so a lot of people use transit to reach those businesses. While you do have a lot of people who travel all the way from Mariners' Harbor to the ferry, you also have a lot of turnover, which contributes to the cost-efficiency, because you're selling the same seat multiple times. Buses leave the ferry with a good-sized load (sometimes completely packed. Usually, it's moderately crowded from what I've seen), and then people start getting off as it makes its way through Silver Lake, but then more people get on coming from the S53. Then people start getting off further down, with a large crowd getting off at Richmond Avenue (many of them transferring to other buses there), but then at the same time, you have another large crowd getting on, going towards Mariners' Harbor and Arlington. And while all this is happening, you have all the people traveling to and from the stores along Forest as well.
As a result of all these people getting on and off at every stop, it can be a pretty slow route at times, and the longer the distance you're traveling, the more you feel the effects. During rush hour, the S48 has a limited-stop variant (the S98), which only stops at major stops east of Richmond Avenue (west of Richmond, it makes every stop). This helps greatly, but the problem is that it only runs for a few hours in the morning, and a few hours in the afternoon, and it only runs in the primary direction of rush hour. (Eastbound in the morning, westbound in the afternoon).
My proposal entails expanding the hours of the S98 to run as follows. Ferry-bound buses would run from roughly 6AM - 6PM weekdays, and 12PM - 5PM Saturdays. Arlington-bound buses would run from roughly 10AM - 10PM weekdays, and 1PM - 6PM Saturdays. Service would be expanded further under another one of my plans to extend it over the Goethals Bridge, but that's a separate plan.
I'd probably start off running it every 20 minutes, and reducing the S48's frequencies to every 15 minutes, instead of every 12, in order to make an effort to minimize the funds spent on adding the service. So looking at the current S48/S98 schedule, I would add an 8:15AM departure from Arlington, and then run it every 20 minutes thereafter until the last departure at 6:15PM. With the S48, I would have the next departure after the 8:08 bus be a bus at 8:23, and then every 15 minutes thereafter. The S48 would run this pattern until 6:08, after which the next departure would be at 6:30, before continuing the current schedule from that point on.
Going back from St. George, buses would run the current schedule until 10AM. Then at 10AM, I would have both an S48 and S98 depart going towards Arlington. The S48 would run every 15 minutes until 4:00PM, when it would resume its current schedule. The S98 would run every 20 minutes until 3PM, then every 15 minutes until 4PM, when it would resume its current schedule.
Saturdays, S98 buses would leave Arlington starting at 12:10PM, and then run every 20 minutes until the last departure at 5:10PM. The S48 would have its 11:55PM departure, and then a 12:05PM departure, and then run every 15 minutes until 5:05PM, after which the next bus would depart at 5:24PM, and then continue the regular schedule from there.
Going back from St. George, buses would run the current schedule until 1PM, at which time there would be both an S48 and S98 leaving towards Arlington. The S98 would run every 20 minutes until the last departure at 6PM, while the S48 would run every 15 minutes until 6PM, after which it would resume its current schedule.
I'll see if I can put together an actual schedule when I get the chance.
Now, generally, it is better when buses meeting the ferry run at a headway that works well with the ferry's headway. So if the ferry is running every 30 minutes, buses should be running every 10, 15, or 30 minutes, rather than every 20. However, Forest Avenue has a significant amount of people who aren't going towards the ferry, and so it isn't quite as necessary to have those even headways as it is for say, the S40. In addition, the S48 is already running every 15 minutes, so the S98 is more of a supplement, and the idea is that, with Forest Avenue being as busy as it is, hopefully, the additional buses will give people a better chance of connecting with the ferry they intended to.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Restructuring Routes Near The SI Mall
Restructuring Routes Near The SI Mall
One of the major problems with service near the Staten Island Mall is that the needs of those who need to travel to the area by Marsh Avenue are ignored. This includes not only residents, but also students going to that educational complex along Marsh Avenue. (I forget exactly what it includes, but I know it includes at least one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school, and I know that elementary school is P.S.58, and there's McGowan High School and CSI High School). Riders looking to go up the Richmond Avenue corridor have to walk across the mall parking lot to get to the other side, which can be desolate early in the morning, and is a long walk at any time of the day. At certain times, the S44 & S59 have trippers running down to the school, but it would be nice if there was service available all day (and it could possibly save the MTA a little bit of money by allowing them to cut a few trippers, since the regular trips would be passing by the schools).
The other major problem is that riders aren't able to take advantage of all of the options available to them, due to the fact that different routes stop on opposite sides of the mall. For example, if somebody wanted to go to the Eltingville Transit Center (ETC), they could take the S55, S56, S59, S79, or S89. However, the S59/S79 stop at the "front" of the mall, and the S55/S56/S89 stop at the "back" of the mall. Since the S59/S79 run more frequently, most people opt to go to the front, meaning the S55/S56/S89 have wasted capacity and potential. Likewise, for those going up the Richmond Avenue corridor, the S44/S59 stop at the "front" of the mall, and the S89 stops at the "back". Again, since the S44/S59 are more frequent, most people opt to go to the front of the mall, leaving the S89 with wasted capacity and potential. (Northbound in the PM rush, I've seen packed S44s and S59s, with an empty S89 right behind them)
In order to solve these issues. I have a plan that would involve restructuring the S44/S59/S94, S55/S56, S79, and S89. Keep in mind that if the S79A were to be implemented, it would follow the same path as the S79. The portions in red are all the portions that would be discontinued (for that particular route). The portions in blue are the new routing that would be used instead. For the S44/S59/S94, there's an alternate new routing that I'll discuss below.
By doing so, the MTA would be using each route to its full potential as far as serving riders traveling from the mall, meaning buses would be more evenly loaded. So instead of packed S44s and S59s followed by near-empty S89s, you'd have moderately crowded buses on all three routes. And instead of packed S79s pulling into the ETC, followed by a near-empty S55 or S56, you'd have a more reasonably crowded S79, followed by an S55 or S56 with a decent-sized load (of course, once it leaves the ETC, the S55 or S56 would likely be close to empty as it is now, although my proposal to extend one or both to New Jersey should fix that. I'll get to that another time).
By the way, I just want to give a little background about S89 ridership. Northbound in the AM rush, it gets a decent amount of people, because it has all the commuters going to Bayonne to catch the HBLR, as well as schoolkids (the largest group being Port Richmond High School students). Southbound in the AM rush, the mall isn't open, and there aren't too many reverse commuters from Bayonne, but it gets a lot of students, and then adding that onto the people who use it as an alternative to the S59 to go towards the South Shore, nets it a decent amount of ridership. Southbound in the PM, it has the Bayonne commuters, plus people heading to the mall, plus people going home to the South Shore. However, northbound in the PM, buses are usually pretty empty because there's little to no students, and a handful of reverse-commuters. So unless it happens to come before a northbound S59 at the Eltingville SIR station or the ETC, that bus is going to have a handful of people going all the way up to Bayonne. There's been trips where I've been the only one on the bus, or maybe with 3-6 other people on board. The most crowded S89 I've been on that was traveling northbound in the PM rush had about 25 people, but the S89 in front had gone missing, and there was a long gap between it and the previous S59, with no S79s passing by in the interim, so it was a complete abnormality. (This was on the day before Thanksgiving last year, so all the buses were screwed up. My S84 got to the ETC 50 minutes late because of all the traffic, and I figured the S89 was supposed to come in a few minutes, so I passed up two S59s that came right behind each other, and ended up waiting another 20 minutes for the S89. In the meantime, no S79s were coming towards the mall, so I imagine Hylan Blvd traffic must've been a nightmare). But other than that, northbound S89 buses carry very few people at that time, and there's unused potential for those trips.
Additionally, riders would have more frequent service due to the fact that they would have all of their options on one street. With the S55/S56/S59/S79/S89 all at the same stop, riders going to the ETC would have a bus every 2-5 minutes during rush hours. Is it really necessary to have service that frequently? No, but if it can be done at little to no cost, why not? Along Richmond Avenue, the S89 would also add a little bit of frequency for those going up the corridor.
Keep in mind that 4 new stops behind the mall (serving Sears & Macys) would have to be constructed. And the reason I say "constructed" (because most of the time, adding a stop is as simple as drilling a hole, sticking a pole in it, and then pouring concrete in to stabilize it) is because they would have to expand the sidewalk a bit, and add a shelter (which would probably involve taking over a few parking spaces, which shouldn't be too much of an issue. Aside from the holiday season, the mall doesn't have a shortage of parking, and if that's such a big concern, they can add back spots on the other side of the mall, since there would no longer be buses stopping there)
Also, another issue is that the portion of Ring Road between the park-and-ride and TGIF (the restaurant) is only one lane in each direction. Well, you can either widen it in that portion, or just label it a transit mall (meaning, only allow buses in that portion). Here is where I would propose the transit mall. It's only in the portion where the street is one lane in each direction, so that people don't get stuck behind buses and get tempted to pass in the opposite lane, risking an accident. For the cars along that portion, they would have to make their way to Marsh Avenue. A barricade would be put up here (a simple guardrail or some Jersey barriers would do). It's at most, a minute of inconvenience for those drivers, and the bus riders get a huge benefit from this. And it would cost close to nothing, because it would just involve some signage, a single barricade for that one little street, and maybe some red paint on the ground if they want to demarcate it.
Now, to explain the exact restructuring, my plan for the S55/S56 is simple. Instead of having northbound buses turn left onto Marsh Avenue, they would make a left at the light before (which is Ring Road). They would go up Ring Road, serve those two stops by Sears & Macys, and then terminate where they normally do. Going back towards the South Shore, they would pull out of their terminal, make the next right, then make a left onto Ring Road, take that down to Platinum Avenue, make a right, and continue their normal route.
With the S79, it's the same idea: Turn left onto the eastern portion of Ring Road (right now, it turns left onto the western portion. The road makes a "ring" around the mall, hence the name "Ring Road"), serve the two stops by Sears & Macys, and then terminate where it normally does. The routing would be exactly the same as the routing the S55/S56 would take.
Now, with the S44/S59/S94, it gets a little more complicated, because you have a couple of options on what to do. Buses would definitely be turning down the eastern portion of Ring Road, instead of the western portion. The question becomes what to do once you pass Macy's. Buses can either make their way to Marsh Avenue, make a left onto Richmond Hill Road, and then a right on Richmond Avenue, or continue up Ring Road, pass by those apartment buildings near the mall, and then make a left onto Richmond Hill Road, and a right onto Richmond Avenue.
The advantage of running down Marsh Avenue is that you provide more service to the more residential portion of Richmond Hill Road. For instance, the people living in those townhouses off Lamped Loop would have easy access to the Richmond Avenue buses, compared to having them pass by the back of the complex without stopping because there's a fence separating Ring Road from the complex. People living on all those side streets off Richmond Hill Road would benefit as well. The only problem is that it would take a couple of minutes longer to reach the mall, and that extra distance might also make the S44/S94 a bit more unreliable for riders further up the route. (It's 4 more traffic lights to pass through, and 3 more stops to make). The S59 might also have the same issue, but north of the mall, it is supplemented by the S44/S94, whereas the reverse is only true west of Port Richmond).
So that's why my alternate plan is to have the S44/S59/S94 pass continue up Ring Road, and pass by those apartment buildings. (That's the green line in the S44/S59/S94 plan). It still serves the commercial part of Richmond Hill Road (west of approximately Ring Road) while providing a faster ride for those going to and from the mall. (The travel time would be more or less what it is today). That's another issue: If you want to get to or from say, Wendy's or one of those stores along Richmond Hill Road, you have to cross Richmond Avenue to access the southbound buses. It's not a regular street, where you're only crossing a few lanes. You're crossing nine lanes of traffic, plus the two parking lanes (which people sometimes use to make turns). The only business on the western side of Richmond Avenue is Fedex/Kinko's, whereas the eastern side has Radioshack, Marshall's, Wendy's, and many more businesses.
With the S89, we have those same two options: Have it go back to Marsh Avenue, which is slightly longer, or have it take the more direct route straight up Ring Road. The thing is that, being a limited, the only additional stop the S89 would make by serving Marsh Avenue would be the stop at Westport Street, so you're going out of the way to serve an additional stop worth of people. The more I think about it, the more I don't think it's worth it (especially since the nearest S89 stop would be 0.20 miles away), but it's just something to think about. (Keep in mind that the S89 can always take a slightly different route than the S44/S59/S94 if necessary. You could have the S89 serve Marsh Avenue, while the S44/S59/S94 take Ring Road straight down, or vice versa).
Part of the proposal entails constructing a little walkway right around here to allow residents living around Elmwood Park Drive to access the bus stops by Macy's. It would simply entail cutting out a little path (it doesn't even look like you'd have to remove any trees) and pouring some asphalt on it. Then you just remove a portion of that guardrail and you're done. (That would allow the riders to access the southbound stop. For the northbound stop, you can just extend the pathway a little further up)
Questions? Comments? As always, leave 'em below in the comments section.
One of the major problems with service near the Staten Island Mall is that the needs of those who need to travel to the area by Marsh Avenue are ignored. This includes not only residents, but also students going to that educational complex along Marsh Avenue. (I forget exactly what it includes, but I know it includes at least one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school, and I know that elementary school is P.S.58, and there's McGowan High School and CSI High School). Riders looking to go up the Richmond Avenue corridor have to walk across the mall parking lot to get to the other side, which can be desolate early in the morning, and is a long walk at any time of the day. At certain times, the S44 & S59 have trippers running down to the school, but it would be nice if there was service available all day (and it could possibly save the MTA a little bit of money by allowing them to cut a few trippers, since the regular trips would be passing by the schools).
The other major problem is that riders aren't able to take advantage of all of the options available to them, due to the fact that different routes stop on opposite sides of the mall. For example, if somebody wanted to go to the Eltingville Transit Center (ETC), they could take the S55, S56, S59, S79, or S89. However, the S59/S79 stop at the "front" of the mall, and the S55/S56/S89 stop at the "back" of the mall. Since the S59/S79 run more frequently, most people opt to go to the front, meaning the S55/S56/S89 have wasted capacity and potential. Likewise, for those going up the Richmond Avenue corridor, the S44/S59 stop at the "front" of the mall, and the S89 stops at the "back". Again, since the S44/S59 are more frequent, most people opt to go to the front of the mall, leaving the S89 with wasted capacity and potential. (Northbound in the PM rush, I've seen packed S44s and S59s, with an empty S89 right behind them)
In order to solve these issues. I have a plan that would involve restructuring the S44/S59/S94, S55/S56, S79, and S89. Keep in mind that if the S79A were to be implemented, it would follow the same path as the S79. The portions in red are all the portions that would be discontinued (for that particular route). The portions in blue are the new routing that would be used instead. For the S44/S59/S94, there's an alternate new routing that I'll discuss below.
By doing so, the MTA would be using each route to its full potential as far as serving riders traveling from the mall, meaning buses would be more evenly loaded. So instead of packed S44s and S59s followed by near-empty S89s, you'd have moderately crowded buses on all three routes. And instead of packed S79s pulling into the ETC, followed by a near-empty S55 or S56, you'd have a more reasonably crowded S79, followed by an S55 or S56 with a decent-sized load (of course, once it leaves the ETC, the S55 or S56 would likely be close to empty as it is now, although my proposal to extend one or both to New Jersey should fix that. I'll get to that another time).
By the way, I just want to give a little background about S89 ridership. Northbound in the AM rush, it gets a decent amount of people, because it has all the commuters going to Bayonne to catch the HBLR, as well as schoolkids (the largest group being Port Richmond High School students). Southbound in the AM rush, the mall isn't open, and there aren't too many reverse commuters from Bayonne, but it gets a lot of students, and then adding that onto the people who use it as an alternative to the S59 to go towards the South Shore, nets it a decent amount of ridership. Southbound in the PM, it has the Bayonne commuters, plus people heading to the mall, plus people going home to the South Shore. However, northbound in the PM, buses are usually pretty empty because there's little to no students, and a handful of reverse-commuters. So unless it happens to come before a northbound S59 at the Eltingville SIR station or the ETC, that bus is going to have a handful of people going all the way up to Bayonne. There's been trips where I've been the only one on the bus, or maybe with 3-6 other people on board. The most crowded S89 I've been on that was traveling northbound in the PM rush had about 25 people, but the S89 in front had gone missing, and there was a long gap between it and the previous S59, with no S79s passing by in the interim, so it was a complete abnormality. (This was on the day before Thanksgiving last year, so all the buses were screwed up. My S84 got to the ETC 50 minutes late because of all the traffic, and I figured the S89 was supposed to come in a few minutes, so I passed up two S59s that came right behind each other, and ended up waiting another 20 minutes for the S89. In the meantime, no S79s were coming towards the mall, so I imagine Hylan Blvd traffic must've been a nightmare). But other than that, northbound S89 buses carry very few people at that time, and there's unused potential for those trips.
Additionally, riders would have more frequent service due to the fact that they would have all of their options on one street. With the S55/S56/S59/S79/S89 all at the same stop, riders going to the ETC would have a bus every 2-5 minutes during rush hours. Is it really necessary to have service that frequently? No, but if it can be done at little to no cost, why not? Along Richmond Avenue, the S89 would also add a little bit of frequency for those going up the corridor.
Keep in mind that 4 new stops behind the mall (serving Sears & Macys) would have to be constructed. And the reason I say "constructed" (because most of the time, adding a stop is as simple as drilling a hole, sticking a pole in it, and then pouring concrete in to stabilize it) is because they would have to expand the sidewalk a bit, and add a shelter (which would probably involve taking over a few parking spaces, which shouldn't be too much of an issue. Aside from the holiday season, the mall doesn't have a shortage of parking, and if that's such a big concern, they can add back spots on the other side of the mall, since there would no longer be buses stopping there)
Also, another issue is that the portion of Ring Road between the park-and-ride and TGIF (the restaurant) is only one lane in each direction. Well, you can either widen it in that portion, or just label it a transit mall (meaning, only allow buses in that portion). Here is where I would propose the transit mall. It's only in the portion where the street is one lane in each direction, so that people don't get stuck behind buses and get tempted to pass in the opposite lane, risking an accident. For the cars along that portion, they would have to make their way to Marsh Avenue. A barricade would be put up here (a simple guardrail or some Jersey barriers would do). It's at most, a minute of inconvenience for those drivers, and the bus riders get a huge benefit from this. And it would cost close to nothing, because it would just involve some signage, a single barricade for that one little street, and maybe some red paint on the ground if they want to demarcate it.
Now, to explain the exact restructuring, my plan for the S55/S56 is simple. Instead of having northbound buses turn left onto Marsh Avenue, they would make a left at the light before (which is Ring Road). They would go up Ring Road, serve those two stops by Sears & Macys, and then terminate where they normally do. Going back towards the South Shore, they would pull out of their terminal, make the next right, then make a left onto Ring Road, take that down to Platinum Avenue, make a right, and continue their normal route.
With the S79, it's the same idea: Turn left onto the eastern portion of Ring Road (right now, it turns left onto the western portion. The road makes a "ring" around the mall, hence the name "Ring Road"), serve the two stops by Sears & Macys, and then terminate where it normally does. The routing would be exactly the same as the routing the S55/S56 would take.
Now, with the S44/S59/S94, it gets a little more complicated, because you have a couple of options on what to do. Buses would definitely be turning down the eastern portion of Ring Road, instead of the western portion. The question becomes what to do once you pass Macy's. Buses can either make their way to Marsh Avenue, make a left onto Richmond Hill Road, and then a right on Richmond Avenue, or continue up Ring Road, pass by those apartment buildings near the mall, and then make a left onto Richmond Hill Road, and a right onto Richmond Avenue.
The advantage of running down Marsh Avenue is that you provide more service to the more residential portion of Richmond Hill Road. For instance, the people living in those townhouses off Lamped Loop would have easy access to the Richmond Avenue buses, compared to having them pass by the back of the complex without stopping because there's a fence separating Ring Road from the complex. People living on all those side streets off Richmond Hill Road would benefit as well. The only problem is that it would take a couple of minutes longer to reach the mall, and that extra distance might also make the S44/S94 a bit more unreliable for riders further up the route. (It's 4 more traffic lights to pass through, and 3 more stops to make). The S59 might also have the same issue, but north of the mall, it is supplemented by the S44/S94, whereas the reverse is only true west of Port Richmond).
So that's why my alternate plan is to have the S44/S59/S94 pass continue up Ring Road, and pass by those apartment buildings. (That's the green line in the S44/S59/S94 plan). It still serves the commercial part of Richmond Hill Road (west of approximately Ring Road) while providing a faster ride for those going to and from the mall. (The travel time would be more or less what it is today). That's another issue: If you want to get to or from say, Wendy's or one of those stores along Richmond Hill Road, you have to cross Richmond Avenue to access the southbound buses. It's not a regular street, where you're only crossing a few lanes. You're crossing nine lanes of traffic, plus the two parking lanes (which people sometimes use to make turns). The only business on the western side of Richmond Avenue is Fedex/Kinko's, whereas the eastern side has Radioshack, Marshall's, Wendy's, and many more businesses.
With the S89, we have those same two options: Have it go back to Marsh Avenue, which is slightly longer, or have it take the more direct route straight up Ring Road. The thing is that, being a limited, the only additional stop the S89 would make by serving Marsh Avenue would be the stop at Westport Street, so you're going out of the way to serve an additional stop worth of people. The more I think about it, the more I don't think it's worth it (especially since the nearest S89 stop would be 0.20 miles away), but it's just something to think about. (Keep in mind that the S89 can always take a slightly different route than the S44/S59/S94 if necessary. You could have the S89 serve Marsh Avenue, while the S44/S59/S94 take Ring Road straight down, or vice versa).
Part of the proposal entails constructing a little walkway right around here to allow residents living around Elmwood Park Drive to access the bus stops by Macy's. It would simply entail cutting out a little path (it doesn't even look like you'd have to remove any trees) and pouring some asphalt on it. Then you just remove a portion of that guardrail and you're done. (That would allow the riders to access the southbound stop. For the northbound stop, you can just extend the pathway a little further up)
Questions? Comments? As always, leave 'em below in the comments section.
Adding Limited-Stop Service to the S53
Adding Limited-Stop Service to the S53
As of now, the MTA considers the S93 to be the S53's limited-stop version. Well, to me, that's nonsense, because the S93 has a completely different ridership base than the S53. The S93 doesn't go up to Port Richmond, and doesn't connect to routes like the S48/98 & S46/96, which provide a large portion of the S53's ridership (in other words, a good portion of the S53's ridership is riders transferring from the buses along Forest and Castleton Avenues)
So what I'm proposing is a limited-stop version of the S53 that actually goes up to Port Richmond. It would take on the route shown in this map. It would basically take the S53 route north of Victory Blvd, and the S93 route south of Victory Blvd. It would make local stops north of Victory, and limited stops south of Victory (and the limited stops would be the same ones the S93 currently makes). I would call it the S83 (limited-stop routes are numbered in the 80s & 90s, and S93 was already taken, so I'd call it the S83).
In order to make it more cost-efficient, I would slightly reduce service on the S53, and use it to add service to the S83. So there would be a little less local service, but more overall service in the corridor. So basically, at the times of day when the S53 currently runs every 6 minutes, I'd run the S53 every 8 minutes and S83 every 10 minutes. At the times of day when the S53 runs every 7-8 minutes, I'd run the S53 every 10 minutes and S83 every 12 minutes. At the times of day when the S53 runs every 10 minutes, I'd run the S53 every 12 minutes and the S83 every 15 minutes. At the times of day when the S53 runs at headways greater than 10 minutes, the S83 would not run. Keep in mind that this is going to be the initial headway, and I expect it to result in increased ridership and decreased headways (or in other words, more frequent service along both portions of the route)
I would also restructure the S53 so that, at the times of day when the S83 is running, the S53 would be sent up to the current S54 terminal at Broadway & Richmond Terrace (because keep in mind that I would combine the S42 & S54 as part of a separate proposal, though of course, these proposals don't necessarily have to be implemented simultaneously). I think the S53 would get more usage in that area than the S54 currently does, because it provides a quick connection to the S74/76 (mostly people going towards Park Hill, though people do take it going southbound), the S78/79, as well as the SIR. By contrast, the S54 sees weak usage outside of school hours (well, the route in general is like that, but I'm referring specifically to the portion along Broadway).
Keep in mind that (initially) this would result in slightly reduced frequencies to both Port Richmond (the areas west of Castleton & Broadway. I know technically it includes part of West Brighton, but I'll just refer to it as Port Richmond for simplicity's sake), as well as Grasmere and South Beach. However, keep in mind that there's a difference between what is scheduled and what actually comes. Right now, the fact that the S53 is making every single stop from Richmond Terrace & Park Avenue all the way down to Lily Pond Avenue & McClean Avenue causes serious delays at certain times of the day (and this applies every day). If a Brooklyn-bound bus gets hit with an unusually large load of passengers along Castleton Avenue, it'll likely end up delayed, which means that more passengers pile up further down the line, delaying the bus even further until another bus ends up catching up to it, because it has fewer passengers as a result of the first bus picking most of them up. Then, instead of say, a 10 minute frequency, you have a 20 minute gap, and then 2 buses come simultaneously. Or worse, you have a 20 minute gap, and then a packed bus comes by and passes the stop, and you still have to wait another 5-10 minutes for a bus that has room.
By separating the passengers into different ridership bases, you reduce the probability of such a delay occurring. Instead of every single person (those heading to Bay Ridge, those heading to Park Hill, those heading to Grasmere for the SIR, etc) piling onto the first bus they see, people will wait for the bus that heads to their specific destination. So that way, a delay on the S53 doesn't affect S83 riders, and vice versa. (Well, due to the fact that they basically share the same route between Castleton & Broadway and Targee Street, there might be a little bit of an impact, but either way, it is spread out). Will it eliminate bunching entirely? Unfortunately, no, but it will reduce it greatly.
Keep in mind that there is also the other major benefit is the quicker travel times for those heading from Port Richmond/West Brighton/Sunnyside to Brooklyn. Instead of looping around from Grasmere & South Beach, those riders will have a straight shot to/from Brooklyn along Narrows Road South/North.
A few riders may have to make an additional transfer. Riders traveling between Port Richmond and Grasmere/South Beach will have to make a transfer anywhere between Castleton & Broadway and Targee Street. Keep in mind that riders along Castleton Avenue can take either the S46/S96 or S83 (and that the S96 would see expanded hours under a different proposal of mine).
As always, questions and comments are welcome.
In order to make it more cost-efficient, I would slightly reduce service on the S53, and use it to add service to the S83. So there would be a little less local service, but more overall service in the corridor. So basically, at the times of day when the S53 currently runs every 6 minutes, I'd run the S53 every 8 minutes and S83 every 10 minutes. At the times of day when the S53 runs every 7-8 minutes, I'd run the S53 every 10 minutes and S83 every 12 minutes. At the times of day when the S53 runs every 10 minutes, I'd run the S53 every 12 minutes and the S83 every 15 minutes. At the times of day when the S53 runs at headways greater than 10 minutes, the S83 would not run. Keep in mind that this is going to be the initial headway, and I expect it to result in increased ridership and decreased headways (or in other words, more frequent service along both portions of the route)
I would also restructure the S53 so that, at the times of day when the S83 is running, the S53 would be sent up to the current S54 terminal at Broadway & Richmond Terrace (because keep in mind that I would combine the S42 & S54 as part of a separate proposal, though of course, these proposals don't necessarily have to be implemented simultaneously). I think the S53 would get more usage in that area than the S54 currently does, because it provides a quick connection to the S74/76 (mostly people going towards Park Hill, though people do take it going southbound), the S78/79, as well as the SIR. By contrast, the S54 sees weak usage outside of school hours (well, the route in general is like that, but I'm referring specifically to the portion along Broadway).
Keep in mind that (initially) this would result in slightly reduced frequencies to both Port Richmond (the areas west of Castleton & Broadway. I know technically it includes part of West Brighton, but I'll just refer to it as Port Richmond for simplicity's sake), as well as Grasmere and South Beach. However, keep in mind that there's a difference between what is scheduled and what actually comes. Right now, the fact that the S53 is making every single stop from Richmond Terrace & Park Avenue all the way down to Lily Pond Avenue & McClean Avenue causes serious delays at certain times of the day (and this applies every day). If a Brooklyn-bound bus gets hit with an unusually large load of passengers along Castleton Avenue, it'll likely end up delayed, which means that more passengers pile up further down the line, delaying the bus even further until another bus ends up catching up to it, because it has fewer passengers as a result of the first bus picking most of them up. Then, instead of say, a 10 minute frequency, you have a 20 minute gap, and then 2 buses come simultaneously. Or worse, you have a 20 minute gap, and then a packed bus comes by and passes the stop, and you still have to wait another 5-10 minutes for a bus that has room.
By separating the passengers into different ridership bases, you reduce the probability of such a delay occurring. Instead of every single person (those heading to Bay Ridge, those heading to Park Hill, those heading to Grasmere for the SIR, etc) piling onto the first bus they see, people will wait for the bus that heads to their specific destination. So that way, a delay on the S53 doesn't affect S83 riders, and vice versa. (Well, due to the fact that they basically share the same route between Castleton & Broadway and Targee Street, there might be a little bit of an impact, but either way, it is spread out). Will it eliminate bunching entirely? Unfortunately, no, but it will reduce it greatly.
Keep in mind that there is also the other major benefit is the quicker travel times for those heading from Port Richmond/West Brighton/Sunnyside to Brooklyn. Instead of looping around from Grasmere & South Beach, those riders will have a straight shot to/from Brooklyn along Narrows Road South/North.
A few riders may have to make an additional transfer. Riders traveling between Port Richmond and Grasmere/South Beach will have to make a transfer anywhere between Castleton & Broadway and Targee Street. Keep in mind that riders along Castleton Avenue can take either the S46/S96 or S83 (and that the S96 would see expanded hours under a different proposal of mine).
As always, questions and comments are welcome.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Providing More Direct, Full-Time Service For Neighborhoods Along the S42 & S54 Routes
Providing More Direct, Full-Time Service For Neighborhoods Along the S42 & S54 Routes
As most of you know, the areas along the S42 & S54 routes were hit hard by the 2010 service reductions. The cuts to the S54 left entire swaths of Westerleigh, Castleton Corners, Meiers Corners, and Great Kills without any weekend service. Meanwhile, the cuts to the S42 left a section of New Brighton without any midday or weekend service.
The problem with the S54 is that ridership is very low, and the cost per passenger is high, but at the same time, for those few people that used it, it was their only transit option. The MTA likes to say "Our guidelines call for riders to be within a half mile of a bus route. It doesn't necessarily have to be a north-south or east-west route". Well, that's easy for them to say. While it may theoretically be possible to make the trip, it's still a heck of a lot easier when you don't have to go all the way out of the way to do it. For instance, say if you're going from the south end of the Todt Hill Houses (Manor & Westwood) over to Forest & Jewett. With the S54, you simply take the bus straight down Manor Road and get off at Forest.
Without the S54, you have to take the S48 to Broadway, take the S53 to Victory Blvd, take the S61/S62 to Manor Road, and then walk almost a half mile down to Westwood Avenue. Let's compare the trip times when the S54 is running to when it's not running. When the S54 isn't running, it doesn't even give you any transit options, because it actually takes longer to use transit than it does to just walk it. (It would be understandable if we were just talking about a 5-10 minute walk, but when Google Transit is telling us to walk over a mile and a quarter, because transit would take longer, that's a serious problem)
Just on a side note, this is an issue in my own neighborhood too (which is one of the issues I'm trying to remedy with the S57/S66 restructuring). For instance, let's look at a trip to Susan Wagner High School. Google Transit gives you the option to take the S44 or S59 going northbound, and then take the S54 or S57 going southbound. So in order to go south, first you have to go north. You could make the trip a little more direct by walking all the way down to Victory Blvd (which is nearly 3/4 of a mile away), but the time saved by the more direct trip is lost with the extra walking. (Note that even taking the S44 or S59, you're still walking almost a half mile, and as I've said before, depending on where exactly in the neighborhood you are, you might even be walking over a half mile)
Now let's forget about the how much more indirect and time-consuming trips are as a result. And let's also forget about the fact that they use a lower-standard for lower-density neighborhoods. (For most neighborhoods, you're supposed to be within a quarter mile of a bus route, but for lower-density neighborhoods, they raise the standard to a half mile). Even using the lowest standards, there are areas where the only available route is the S54.
For instance, the walking distance from Manor Road to Bradley Avenue is 0.60 miles. The cutoff for being within a half-mile of Victory Blvd is Westwood Avenue, so basically, everybody south of Westwood and east of about Fanning Street is left completely without service.
Over in Great Kills, we see that the eastern portion of the neighborhood is left without service on the weekends. They're too far from the SIR, too far from the S74, and definitely too far from the S59. Even in the western portion of the neighborhood, there's still portions further than a half mile from a transit route. And remember that we're using the most basic standard.
If you look at the ridership and cost-efficiency numbers for the Staten Island routes, you'll notice that the most cost-efficient routes go to one of two places: Either St. George, or Brooklyn. And it makes sense when you think about it: St. George is basically Downtown Staten Island. There's a lot of government offices and businesses, but parking is very difficult to find, so a lot of people use mass transit to get there. Then there's the ferry, which brings people to Manhattan. Mass transit is cheaper than paying for parking at the terminal (I think parking is $7 or $8, whereas taking the bus or SIR costs $2.50 and you get a free transfer to use in Manhattan). Not to mention that even for intra-island travel, St. George is a major hub, because you can get to almost any neighborhood on Staten Island with a transfer at St. George. You often see a lot of people making transfers at stops like Victory & Bay, or Bay Street & Borough Place.
For Brooklyn, it's a similar situation: The toll is $6, and parking is probably going to be difficult and/or expensive to find at your destination. (Whether it's Bay Ridge itself, or an area like Downtown Brooklyn)
So logically, if the routes that run to the ferry or Brooklyn are the most cost-efficient (and there's a logical reason why), then the best way to improve ridership on a route is to send it to one of those two destinations. And that's why I came up with the idea to extend the S54 to St. George. By doing so, it would give all of those areas along Manor Road direct access to St. George, while also taking some pressure off the S46 along Castleton Avenue. Most of the time, the S46 is crowded from all the people from points further west, and it could use a supplementary route. My original proposal would've just been to extend it straight down Richmond Terrace (which would also help out the S40 & S44 a little bit), until I later came up with the idea to combine it with the S42 (which I'll get to in a minute). But by doing so, it would improve ridership, and it would be efficient enough to run on the weekends.
Now, with the S42, the issue isn't really that the people are too far from the nearest transit route. The issue is that the area is up a steep hill coming from Jersey Street. (This is coming from York Avenue. There's a slight hill coming up from Jersey Street to York Avenue that you have to climb in addition to the one along Prospect). Coming up from the S44 at Lafayette & Henderson isn't too much better.
So now, how are the S42 & S54 related to each other? They have entirely different ridership bases (I'm sure there's plenty of people on the S54 that don't even know the S42 exists, and vice versa). Well, at first, I didn't see any connection either. I was half-joking around with a friend, and said "The S42 & S54 are kind of close to each other. They should just combine the two and maybe that will save them", in the meantime thinking "This will never work out. Those routes serve entirely different neighborhoods and have entirely different purposes".
Well, remember how I said that extending the S54 to St. George would result in a definite boost in its ridership and efficiency? While doing so, I figured I might as well see if I can benefit additional neighborhoods while doing so. So that's how I came up with the plan to combine the S42 & S54 like so.
The S54 would supplement the S46 along Castleton Avenue between Clove Road and Brighton Avenue, and would also provide direct access to Richmond University Medical Center and I.S.61. Then it would go up Brighton Avenue & Lafayette and serve the neighborhood currently served by the S42. You may also notice that the route goes down Franklin Avenue, which means that people in that area have an alternative to walking all the way down to Richmond Terrace to catch the S40 or S44 (it's not too far distance-wise, and the hill isn't quite as steep as the ones by the S42, but if you can make it easier for people, why not?)
You may have noticed that that stint along Broadway between Castleton Avenue & Richmond Terrace loses service. Well, they'd get it back with my plan to add limited-stop service to the S53 (more on that later). In addition, very few people actually use the S54 in that area, and most of them are/were walking over to Castleton Avenue or Richmond Terrace anyway, because those routes connect to more popular destinations. (The S40/90 & S46/96 go to the ferry, the S53 goes to Brooklyn, and those routes are much more frequent than the S54. In addition, they also offer connections to other major corridors such as the S74/76 on Richmond Road, and the S78/79 on Hylan Blvd). There's also more of a demand to go to areas like Park Hill, Port Richmond & Mariners' Harbor (served by the S53 & S46/96), compared to areas like Westerleigh & Castleton Corners along the S54. And for that matter, the S54 would be going to St. George as well, and the increased ridership will likely lead to improved frequencies at certain times of the day. So even riders going to areas like Westerleigh & Castleton Corners benefit, because now they have more frequent service, not to mention weekend service as I've said before. (And for the schoolkids from Wagner, you can still keep Richmond Terrace & Broadway around as a terminal for the trippers to and from school. Yes, "trippers" is an official term. It basically means "special trips" in MTA jargon)
You may have also noticed that Brighton Avenue between Lafayette Avenue & Jersey Street loses all service. Well, the good thing is that that portion of Brighton Avenue is fairly flat, so riders can still walk over to Jersey Street for the S52, or Lafayette Avenue for the (new and improved) S54 (the distance between the two is 0.30 miles, which means that if you live right in the middle, you're walking 0.15 miles, which is reasonable. Even adding in the block or two that you need to walk to Brighton Avenue, it's still under a quarter mile). In addition, I have a plan that I'm sort of iffy on, which would provide service to Brighton Avenue, in addition to College Avenue in Westerleigh. But that's for another post.
Now, you may have noticed that in my map, I have the S54 terminating at New Dorp instead of Eltingville. The reason for that is because the S57 gets a decent crowd at the New Dorp SIR station, whereas the S54 doesn't get a comparable crowd at the Great Kills SIR station. So by sending it to New Dorp instead of Great Kills, you improve ridership while decreasing milage.
You're probably wondering "What about Great Kills? Didn't he just show that they're more than a half-mile away from service on the weekend, and now he wants to remove service completely?" Well, I've got them covered as well, and similarly to S54 riders on the northern end, they're going to have improved access to destinations they actually want to get to. My plan entails creating a branch of the S79 (let's call it S79A) that serves Great Kills. I've drawn a map of it here.
Remember how I said that the most efficient routes go to St. George or Brooklyn? Well, Great Kills is now served by a route that goes to Brooklyn (which of course, would run 7 days a week). In addition, the S79A would provide a direct connection to the Staten Island Mall, Eltingville Transit Center, and shopping along Hylan Blvd, especially in the New Dorp area. As of now, the S54 doesn't really provide access to any area that would be of interest to most Great Kills residents. Yeah, it provides access to Seaview Hospital, and access to shopping in Castleton Corners and West Brighton, but most people in Great Kills aren't looking to go there. Most of them do their shopping along Hylan Blvd, and at the SI Mall, and I'm sure some would take advantage of the direct connection to Brooklyn. Not to mention that at the SI Mall, you not only have shopping, but you also have connections to other bus routes, which opens up easier access to other parts of Staten Island (even if there's relatively few people looking to go there)
And as an added bonus, local riders along Hylan Blvd get additional service. One of the major issues with the +Select Bus Service+ on the S79 was that the local stops along Hylan Blvd only have the S78 serving them. The S78 generally runs every 15 minutes for most of the day, which wouldn't be a huge issue, except for the fact that it can be unreliable at times. You have traffic on certain portions of Hylan Blvd (especially in the New Dorp area, but the whole stretch from New Dorp up to Arrochar can be a mess at times), and on top of that, if there's any problems in the Stapleton/Clifton/Rosebank area, you're basically screwed. So now, at least they'd have a little bit of a backup. (The S79A would run every 20-30 minutes most of the day, which isn't the greatest, but combine that with the S78's headways, and it becomes more reasonable).
Keep in mind that I plan on changing the routings of the routes around the Staten Island Mall (again, for another post), but for now, I have the S79A taking the current S79 route by the SI Mall.
As always, questions and comments are welcome.
As most of you know, the areas along the S42 & S54 routes were hit hard by the 2010 service reductions. The cuts to the S54 left entire swaths of Westerleigh, Castleton Corners, Meiers Corners, and Great Kills without any weekend service. Meanwhile, the cuts to the S42 left a section of New Brighton without any midday or weekend service.
The problem with the S54 is that ridership is very low, and the cost per passenger is high, but at the same time, for those few people that used it, it was their only transit option. The MTA likes to say "Our guidelines call for riders to be within a half mile of a bus route. It doesn't necessarily have to be a north-south or east-west route". Well, that's easy for them to say. While it may theoretically be possible to make the trip, it's still a heck of a lot easier when you don't have to go all the way out of the way to do it. For instance, say if you're going from the south end of the Todt Hill Houses (Manor & Westwood) over to Forest & Jewett. With the S54, you simply take the bus straight down Manor Road and get off at Forest.
Without the S54, you have to take the S48 to Broadway, take the S53 to Victory Blvd, take the S61/S62 to Manor Road, and then walk almost a half mile down to Westwood Avenue. Let's compare the trip times when the S54 is running to when it's not running. When the S54 isn't running, it doesn't even give you any transit options, because it actually takes longer to use transit than it does to just walk it. (It would be understandable if we were just talking about a 5-10 minute walk, but when Google Transit is telling us to walk over a mile and a quarter, because transit would take longer, that's a serious problem)
Just on a side note, this is an issue in my own neighborhood too (which is one of the issues I'm trying to remedy with the S57/S66 restructuring). For instance, let's look at a trip to Susan Wagner High School. Google Transit gives you the option to take the S44 or S59 going northbound, and then take the S54 or S57 going southbound. So in order to go south, first you have to go north. You could make the trip a little more direct by walking all the way down to Victory Blvd (which is nearly 3/4 of a mile away), but the time saved by the more direct trip is lost with the extra walking. (Note that even taking the S44 or S59, you're still walking almost a half mile, and as I've said before, depending on where exactly in the neighborhood you are, you might even be walking over a half mile)
Now let's forget about the how much more indirect and time-consuming trips are as a result. And let's also forget about the fact that they use a lower-standard for lower-density neighborhoods. (For most neighborhoods, you're supposed to be within a quarter mile of a bus route, but for lower-density neighborhoods, they raise the standard to a half mile). Even using the lowest standards, there are areas where the only available route is the S54.
For instance, the walking distance from Manor Road to Bradley Avenue is 0.60 miles. The cutoff for being within a half-mile of Victory Blvd is Westwood Avenue, so basically, everybody south of Westwood and east of about Fanning Street is left completely without service.
Over in Great Kills, we see that the eastern portion of the neighborhood is left without service on the weekends. They're too far from the SIR, too far from the S74, and definitely too far from the S59. Even in the western portion of the neighborhood, there's still portions further than a half mile from a transit route. And remember that we're using the most basic standard.
If you look at the ridership and cost-efficiency numbers for the Staten Island routes, you'll notice that the most cost-efficient routes go to one of two places: Either St. George, or Brooklyn. And it makes sense when you think about it: St. George is basically Downtown Staten Island. There's a lot of government offices and businesses, but parking is very difficult to find, so a lot of people use mass transit to get there. Then there's the ferry, which brings people to Manhattan. Mass transit is cheaper than paying for parking at the terminal (I think parking is $7 or $8, whereas taking the bus or SIR costs $2.50 and you get a free transfer to use in Manhattan). Not to mention that even for intra-island travel, St. George is a major hub, because you can get to almost any neighborhood on Staten Island with a transfer at St. George. You often see a lot of people making transfers at stops like Victory & Bay, or Bay Street & Borough Place.
For Brooklyn, it's a similar situation: The toll is $6, and parking is probably going to be difficult and/or expensive to find at your destination. (Whether it's Bay Ridge itself, or an area like Downtown Brooklyn)
So logically, if the routes that run to the ferry or Brooklyn are the most cost-efficient (and there's a logical reason why), then the best way to improve ridership on a route is to send it to one of those two destinations. And that's why I came up with the idea to extend the S54 to St. George. By doing so, it would give all of those areas along Manor Road direct access to St. George, while also taking some pressure off the S46 along Castleton Avenue. Most of the time, the S46 is crowded from all the people from points further west, and it could use a supplementary route. My original proposal would've just been to extend it straight down Richmond Terrace (which would also help out the S40 & S44 a little bit), until I later came up with the idea to combine it with the S42 (which I'll get to in a minute). But by doing so, it would improve ridership, and it would be efficient enough to run on the weekends.
Now, with the S42, the issue isn't really that the people are too far from the nearest transit route. The issue is that the area is up a steep hill coming from Jersey Street. (This is coming from York Avenue. There's a slight hill coming up from Jersey Street to York Avenue that you have to climb in addition to the one along Prospect). Coming up from the S44 at Lafayette & Henderson isn't too much better.
So now, how are the S42 & S54 related to each other? They have entirely different ridership bases (I'm sure there's plenty of people on the S54 that don't even know the S42 exists, and vice versa). Well, at first, I didn't see any connection either. I was half-joking around with a friend, and said "The S42 & S54 are kind of close to each other. They should just combine the two and maybe that will save them", in the meantime thinking "This will never work out. Those routes serve entirely different neighborhoods and have entirely different purposes".
Well, remember how I said that extending the S54 to St. George would result in a definite boost in its ridership and efficiency? While doing so, I figured I might as well see if I can benefit additional neighborhoods while doing so. So that's how I came up with the plan to combine the S42 & S54 like so.
The S54 would supplement the S46 along Castleton Avenue between Clove Road and Brighton Avenue, and would also provide direct access to Richmond University Medical Center and I.S.61. Then it would go up Brighton Avenue & Lafayette and serve the neighborhood currently served by the S42. You may also notice that the route goes down Franklin Avenue, which means that people in that area have an alternative to walking all the way down to Richmond Terrace to catch the S40 or S44 (it's not too far distance-wise, and the hill isn't quite as steep as the ones by the S42, but if you can make it easier for people, why not?)
You may have noticed that that stint along Broadway between Castleton Avenue & Richmond Terrace loses service. Well, they'd get it back with my plan to add limited-stop service to the S53 (more on that later). In addition, very few people actually use the S54 in that area, and most of them are/were walking over to Castleton Avenue or Richmond Terrace anyway, because those routes connect to more popular destinations. (The S40/90 & S46/96 go to the ferry, the S53 goes to Brooklyn, and those routes are much more frequent than the S54. In addition, they also offer connections to other major corridors such as the S74/76 on Richmond Road, and the S78/79 on Hylan Blvd). There's also more of a demand to go to areas like Park Hill, Port Richmond & Mariners' Harbor (served by the S53 & S46/96), compared to areas like Westerleigh & Castleton Corners along the S54. And for that matter, the S54 would be going to St. George as well, and the increased ridership will likely lead to improved frequencies at certain times of the day. So even riders going to areas like Westerleigh & Castleton Corners benefit, because now they have more frequent service, not to mention weekend service as I've said before. (And for the schoolkids from Wagner, you can still keep Richmond Terrace & Broadway around as a terminal for the trippers to and from school. Yes, "trippers" is an official term. It basically means "special trips" in MTA jargon)
You may have also noticed that Brighton Avenue between Lafayette Avenue & Jersey Street loses all service. Well, the good thing is that that portion of Brighton Avenue is fairly flat, so riders can still walk over to Jersey Street for the S52, or Lafayette Avenue for the (new and improved) S54 (the distance between the two is 0.30 miles, which means that if you live right in the middle, you're walking 0.15 miles, which is reasonable. Even adding in the block or two that you need to walk to Brighton Avenue, it's still under a quarter mile). In addition, I have a plan that I'm sort of iffy on, which would provide service to Brighton Avenue, in addition to College Avenue in Westerleigh. But that's for another post.
Now, you may have noticed that in my map, I have the S54 terminating at New Dorp instead of Eltingville. The reason for that is because the S57 gets a decent crowd at the New Dorp SIR station, whereas the S54 doesn't get a comparable crowd at the Great Kills SIR station. So by sending it to New Dorp instead of Great Kills, you improve ridership while decreasing milage.
You're probably wondering "What about Great Kills? Didn't he just show that they're more than a half-mile away from service on the weekend, and now he wants to remove service completely?" Well, I've got them covered as well, and similarly to S54 riders on the northern end, they're going to have improved access to destinations they actually want to get to. My plan entails creating a branch of the S79 (let's call it S79A) that serves Great Kills. I've drawn a map of it here.
Remember how I said that the most efficient routes go to St. George or Brooklyn? Well, Great Kills is now served by a route that goes to Brooklyn (which of course, would run 7 days a week). In addition, the S79A would provide a direct connection to the Staten Island Mall, Eltingville Transit Center, and shopping along Hylan Blvd, especially in the New Dorp area. As of now, the S54 doesn't really provide access to any area that would be of interest to most Great Kills residents. Yeah, it provides access to Seaview Hospital, and access to shopping in Castleton Corners and West Brighton, but most people in Great Kills aren't looking to go there. Most of them do their shopping along Hylan Blvd, and at the SI Mall, and I'm sure some would take advantage of the direct connection to Brooklyn. Not to mention that at the SI Mall, you not only have shopping, but you also have connections to other bus routes, which opens up easier access to other parts of Staten Island (even if there's relatively few people looking to go there)
And as an added bonus, local riders along Hylan Blvd get additional service. One of the major issues with the +Select Bus Service+ on the S79 was that the local stops along Hylan Blvd only have the S78 serving them. The S78 generally runs every 15 minutes for most of the day, which wouldn't be a huge issue, except for the fact that it can be unreliable at times. You have traffic on certain portions of Hylan Blvd (especially in the New Dorp area, but the whole stretch from New Dorp up to Arrochar can be a mess at times), and on top of that, if there's any problems in the Stapleton/Clifton/Rosebank area, you're basically screwed. So now, at least they'd have a little bit of a backup. (The S79A would run every 20-30 minutes most of the day, which isn't the greatest, but combine that with the S78's headways, and it becomes more reasonable).
Keep in mind that I plan on changing the routings of the routes around the Staten Island Mall (again, for another post), but for now, I have the S79A taking the current S79 route by the SI Mall.
As always, questions and comments are welcome.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Extending S62 short-turns from CSI to Richmond Avenue
As most of you probably know, the S62 (and its limited-stop counterpart, the S92) run the full length of Victory Blvd, from St. George to Travis. However, not all buses go as far as Travis. A good portion only go as far as the College of Staten Island.
What I want is for the CSI short-turns to continue down to Richmond Avenue. This would provide more frequent service for those looking to connect to the bus routes along Richmond Avenue, as well as take some pressure off of the S62s going to and from Travis. (Because currently, those are the only S62s that make that connection).
The S62 was transferred to the Yukon bus depot a couple of years ago, which is where the S44/94 and S61/91 terminate, just south of the SI Mall. So in the afternoon rush hour, you have a lot of buses that end at CSI, and then continue down Victory Blvd to Richmond Avenue, make a left on Richmond, and continue down to the depot. Now, along Richmond Avenue, the service is generally frequent heading towards the mall, so while it would be nice if the buses operated in service all the way down to the mall, it's not really necessary. However, what is necessary is for those buses to at least continue to make all stops until Richmond Avenue. Buses could drop passengers off at the southbound stop at Richmond & Victory (in front of Dunkin' Donuts), and then go out of service and make their way to the depot.
There are some S62s that terminate at CSI, and then start another trip towards St. George. I propose to simply extend those buses to Richmond Avenue. Buses would make a left from Victory onto Richmond, drop off their passengers, then make a right onto Clifton Street and take their break. (Conveniently, it's right by Dunkin' Donuts, so drivers can actually get a coffee on their break. Both the drivers and the passengers benefit from this!) And there's also other stores like McDonald's across the street, and a bunch of stores at the Coral Lane Shopping Center.
Now, obviously, the main purpose of any extension should always to benefit the passengers. But you have to admit that it's nice when it benefits the drivers as well.
So anyway, when the driver is finished with his break, he (or she) would go down Clifton Street, make a right on Jones, and then another right on Victory, making the first stop at the current eastbound S62/S92/X11 stop at Victory & Richmond (because Richmond Avenue is so wide, there's actually one stop by Dunkin' Donuts, and one on the other side of Richmond by the HSBC bank).
An alternative is to have the buses continue to Arlene Street, make a right, then make a right on Merrill and end by Moore Catholic High School (there's currently one trip per day that starts there, school days only). Then buses can start up, go down Merrill, make a right on Richmond, a left on Victory, and then continue their normal route. This would have the buses using wider streets, compared to Clifton & Jones, which are narrower. However, it would probably cost a little bit more money, and the amount of ridership generated from the additional distance traveled would be fairly low, so it would probably be better just having them end right at Victory & Richmond. (Keep in mind that this alternative would benefit me personally, by cutting a quarter mile off my walk down to Victory, so I'm being not at all callous when I say this).
The one disadvantage of this extension is that Victory Blvd between Richmond Avenue & CSI can get backed up in the eastbound direction, which delays the buses for people further down the line. However, during rush hour, there's the S93, which starts at CSI, so if the S62 is backed up, they have the S93 (which they can take into Brooklyn, or transfer to the S61 if they're heading east of Clove Road). For ferry-bound riders, there's a special shuttle from CSI to St. George, which runs nonstop, so most of those ferry-bound CSI students are taking that shuttle anyway.
Keep in mind that the S93 also serves all of the areas between CSI & Clove Road (and is set to get midday service next year), and then east of Jewett, you have the S61 & S66 to get to the ferry. So between all of those alternatives, you have some leeway to handle any possible delays on the S62.
On the weekends (Saturdays in particular, since there's no short-turns on Sundays), traffic along that portion of Victory is generally pretty light, and in addition, there aren't too many CSI kids (I used to take College Now classes at CSI on Saturdays). So the extension wouldn't have too much of an impact on reliability. In addition, if they tinkered with the schedule a little bit, it wouldn't require additional buses or drivers, and would cost very little.
However, while this is going on, there should be an increase in the number of runs going out to Travis. For starters, I believe that all runs leaving St. George from about 3:00PM to 4:30PM should be running to Travis. A lot of times, these buses run late because they have to deal with the loads from the ferry, plus everybody who wants to go to Travis. I've seen buses get to Richmond Avenue 15-20 minutes late because of delays due to crowding (well, traffic can get bad too in the area between Slosson & Jewett, but that's only part of the reason for the delay). At least by having more buses running to Travis, the crowds are spread out more evenly.
Then, apparently somebody thinks it's a good idea to have the buses coming from Travis arrive at St. George at 10:02AM, 10:32AM, and 11:02AM. The schedule should either be redone so that the Travis buses arrive 10-15 minutes before the ferry, or more buses need to come from Travis at that time. There's also a long gap between the 7:55AM S92 (which arrives at 8:37, catching the 8:45 ferry), and the 8:20AM S62 (which misses the 9:00AM ferry by about 5 minutes) Either the 8:23 S62 from CSI should start from Travis, or the 8:20 S62 should start a few minutes earlier, and run as an S92 to allow riders to catch the ferry. Actually, that might be a good idea for the 9:20, 9:50, and 10:20 buses (leave a few minutes earlier and run as an S92).
What I want is for the CSI short-turns to continue down to Richmond Avenue. This would provide more frequent service for those looking to connect to the bus routes along Richmond Avenue, as well as take some pressure off of the S62s going to and from Travis. (Because currently, those are the only S62s that make that connection).
The S62 was transferred to the Yukon bus depot a couple of years ago, which is where the S44/94 and S61/91 terminate, just south of the SI Mall. So in the afternoon rush hour, you have a lot of buses that end at CSI, and then continue down Victory Blvd to Richmond Avenue, make a left on Richmond, and continue down to the depot. Now, along Richmond Avenue, the service is generally frequent heading towards the mall, so while it would be nice if the buses operated in service all the way down to the mall, it's not really necessary. However, what is necessary is for those buses to at least continue to make all stops until Richmond Avenue. Buses could drop passengers off at the southbound stop at Richmond & Victory (in front of Dunkin' Donuts), and then go out of service and make their way to the depot.
There are some S62s that terminate at CSI, and then start another trip towards St. George. I propose to simply extend those buses to Richmond Avenue. Buses would make a left from Victory onto Richmond, drop off their passengers, then make a right onto Clifton Street and take their break. (Conveniently, it's right by Dunkin' Donuts, so drivers can actually get a coffee on their break. Both the drivers and the passengers benefit from this!) And there's also other stores like McDonald's across the street, and a bunch of stores at the Coral Lane Shopping Center.
Now, obviously, the main purpose of any extension should always to benefit the passengers. But you have to admit that it's nice when it benefits the drivers as well.
So anyway, when the driver is finished with his break, he (or she) would go down Clifton Street, make a right on Jones, and then another right on Victory, making the first stop at the current eastbound S62/S92/X11 stop at Victory & Richmond (because Richmond Avenue is so wide, there's actually one stop by Dunkin' Donuts, and one on the other side of Richmond by the HSBC bank).
An alternative is to have the buses continue to Arlene Street, make a right, then make a right on Merrill and end by Moore Catholic High School (there's currently one trip per day that starts there, school days only). Then buses can start up, go down Merrill, make a right on Richmond, a left on Victory, and then continue their normal route. This would have the buses using wider streets, compared to Clifton & Jones, which are narrower. However, it would probably cost a little bit more money, and the amount of ridership generated from the additional distance traveled would be fairly low, so it would probably be better just having them end right at Victory & Richmond. (Keep in mind that this alternative would benefit me personally, by cutting a quarter mile off my walk down to Victory, so I'm being not at all callous when I say this).
The one disadvantage of this extension is that Victory Blvd between Richmond Avenue & CSI can get backed up in the eastbound direction, which delays the buses for people further down the line. However, during rush hour, there's the S93, which starts at CSI, so if the S62 is backed up, they have the S93 (which they can take into Brooklyn, or transfer to the S61 if they're heading east of Clove Road). For ferry-bound riders, there's a special shuttle from CSI to St. George, which runs nonstop, so most of those ferry-bound CSI students are taking that shuttle anyway.
Keep in mind that the S93 also serves all of the areas between CSI & Clove Road (and is set to get midday service next year), and then east of Jewett, you have the S61 & S66 to get to the ferry. So between all of those alternatives, you have some leeway to handle any possible delays on the S62.
On the weekends (Saturdays in particular, since there's no short-turns on Sundays), traffic along that portion of Victory is generally pretty light, and in addition, there aren't too many CSI kids (I used to take College Now classes at CSI on Saturdays). So the extension wouldn't have too much of an impact on reliability. In addition, if they tinkered with the schedule a little bit, it wouldn't require additional buses or drivers, and would cost very little.
However, while this is going on, there should be an increase in the number of runs going out to Travis. For starters, I believe that all runs leaving St. George from about 3:00PM to 4:30PM should be running to Travis. A lot of times, these buses run late because they have to deal with the loads from the ferry, plus everybody who wants to go to Travis. I've seen buses get to Richmond Avenue 15-20 minutes late because of delays due to crowding (well, traffic can get bad too in the area between Slosson & Jewett, but that's only part of the reason for the delay). At least by having more buses running to Travis, the crowds are spread out more evenly.
Then, apparently somebody thinks it's a good idea to have the buses coming from Travis arrive at St. George at 10:02AM, 10:32AM, and 11:02AM. The schedule should either be redone so that the Travis buses arrive 10-15 minutes before the ferry, or more buses need to come from Travis at that time. There's also a long gap between the 7:55AM S92 (which arrives at 8:37, catching the 8:45 ferry), and the 8:20AM S62 (which misses the 9:00AM ferry by about 5 minutes) Either the 8:23 S62 from CSI should start from Travis, or the 8:20 S62 should start a few minutes earlier, and run as an S92 to allow riders to catch the ferry. Actually, that might be a good idea for the 9:20, 9:50, and 10:20 buses (leave a few minutes earlier and run as an S92).
Making the S93 to Brooklyn More Accessible
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.
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.
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)